It's amazing to think that so many of today’s "feminist thinkers", such as Laurie Penny and Sally Hines, would tell nine-year-old me that my fear was my own fault, and all I had to do was not look. In fact, that if a man did expose himself, and I saw it, that this was somehow my fault.

submitted by Chipit from grahamlinehan.substack.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

They took their time putting the legos together on this one. I can't tell if the MRA blame is some level of subversion or if people are desperately grasping for the collars of who to call out because they're finally realizing what's going on now. It's pitiful because I'm betting the majority of people out there that were on board with this were thinking this was going to be fully transitioned, no dick and balls to deal with, honest people that just wanted to potty and be accepted. Now kids are going to be caught up in all of this very much adult bullshit. How did society become so trusting and just start ignoring better judgment altogether?

[–]Chipit[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Being feminists, it's the bogeyman they blame first, despite the trans people being the furthest thing from MRA you can imagine. If they did place the blame correctly, it would be on their own movement as they created this monster. They can't, not without crippling cognitive dissonance and changing what they think according to facts. So instead blame the bogeyman. It works, they don't have to change anything.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think all feminists were suddenly like "Ah, shit you guys-- know what would absolve us from the perceived patriarchy? Cluster B dudes wearing wigs with their dicks out". This is multi-level shit here, Chip, like braindead levels of dismissing red flags. I think it's just a convenient front for something more sinister and has been for decades now. Somehow a chunk of those movements managed to turn an attempt at liberation into objectifying themselves for dick.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What part of 3rd and 4th Wave feminism was not replete with cognitive dissonance from the get-go, and fails to continue that tradition? From 'The Scum Manifesto' of whacko Solanas, to embracing the leftist love of the islamaholics, with their penchant for sawing bitches heads off with a dull butcher knife (or stoning them) for nearly any excuse, and treating them like slaves while alive...where is cognitive dissonance not to be found?

[–]Trajan 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Many feminists, the type now labelled 'TERFs', are in complete denial as to how we got to this point. They can't accept that the ideology they fed for so many years pushed the social constructionism, identiarianism, and post modernist thought that underpins the transgender movement. Rather than accept complicity they instead reach for feminism's tried and trusted cause of everything bad: patriarchy!

I've seen them blame the right, which is bizarre. The right isn't known for its fondness for gender bending and child molesters. Blaming MRAs is equally nonsensical. While there's some humour in seeing feminists ejected from the clubhouse they helped build, I see no evidence that MRAs want children to be exposed to this degeneracy - quite the opposite. We'd have common ground in opposing this ideology if only they weren't deranged by their need to be oppressed by mysterious patriarchal forces.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

You've got several different subsects of belief systems with both feminism and with MRAs. People start their own areas of movements when they believe in some of the core concepts but don't agree with other concepts or perhaps even the type of people attracted to the movements. The best example that I can use that's similar would be how Christianity broke off into a blue bazillion different religious movements based on interpretation. You have these movements and they start out as one thing, but evolve to contain a whole lot of other things and the original points end up blurred in translation. I don't want to blame feminism overall for something that ended up being bastardized along the way by those that were louder, or maybe had more influence or power.

I would like to think that there are a large number of MRAs that don't want this for children, their own or in general. Same for feminists. The reality is that we're all being shit on, both sexes, all of us. We're being kicked and distracted too much to know when to punch upwards instead of outwards and things are coated in so many layers of fine print that it's hard to discern where to point fingers.

[–]Trajan 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I don't see it as being bastardised. The core ideology has been there since at least second wave. While you're right that there have been and remain many different sects of feminism, mainstream feminism as well as practically all of its prominent thought-leaders and organisations have pushed the ideas of social constructionism and the oppressed/oppressor dichotomy. There's a reason why all major inter sectionalist thought arises from feminists, even if not all feminists are inter sectionalists.

Even if not every feminist has culpability, they are part of the problem when denying the role of feminism in driving us to this point. The problem for them is that it's very difficult to hold onto core tenets of second wave feminism while still being able to criticise third wave/intersectionality.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

No one criticizes third wave/intersectionality because they don't want to be seen as a racist or whateverphobe. Women criticizing Islam during the Bush era went South real fast, and you'll probably notice there was a rapid change in attitude. Saving face is stupidly important within women's spaces, and feminism is largely performative in the Western world.

I don't think it's smart to dismiss the possibility of subversion of movements. Let's look deeper. When exactly did it change? (You addressed part of this with second wave). When did all of these things start hitting an apex? Who ultimately benefits from all of this? Who is profiting from all of this? How did many of these laws come to be that got us here? Were they openly voted for by all? Or were they just sort of stuffed within the fine print within a bill? I don't think any of this would have gotten as far as it has if there wasn't money to be made.

[–]Trajan 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

No one criticizes third wave/intersectionality because they don't want to be seen as a racist or whateverphobe. Women criticizing Islam during the Bush era went South real fast, and you'll probably notice there was a rapid change in attitude. Saving face is stupidly important within women's spaces, and feminism is largely performative in the Western world.

Agreed on the performative aspect. Feminism in the West is a mixture of applied post modernism and narcissism. Both encourage performative acts, the former to remain in good standing with the tribe and the latter because they want everything to be about them and their identity.

I don't think it's smart to dismiss the possibility of subversion of movements. Let's look deeper. When exactly did it change? (You addressed part of this with second wave). When did all of these things start hitting an apex? Who ultimately benefits from all of this? Who is profiting from all of this? How did many of these laws come to be that got us here? Were they openly voted for by all? Or were they just sort of stuffed within the fine print within a bill? I don't think any of this would have gotten as far as it has if there wasn't money to be made.

Sure. there's money to be made. There's also the ideological motivation. I'll assume good faith in the sense that most of these people actually believe what they say. It's a political cult, and they've been pushed in to this by academics, the media, and government convincing them that they are somehow oppressed. While there's some money to be made from bedroom feminists and similar types, such as through selling feminist books, cats, and dildos, I don't see that as a particularly lucrative market. The ideology is the thing being pushed. That many make a good living as priests of this cult is more a side benefit than the ultimate purpose. They actually believe this nonsense.