>
 |
| An Imaginary Feminist in action. |
There’s a great post up on The Pervocracy inspired by, well, some of the more lovable characters who frequent the comments section on this little blog – our resident antifeminists. As Holly notes, the feminists posting here devote much of their time (naturally enough) to arguing for feminism, while the MRA types, by contrast, tend to argue against an imaginary enemy that only bears a vague passing resemblance to actual feminism. Holly sets forth the tenets of this imaginary feminism, or IF, as she’s managed to glean them from the comments by MRA types here.
IF, she notes, is monolithic:
Anything said by anyone calling themselves a feminist can be assumed to be true of anyone else calling themselves a feminist. Some random thing Andrea Dworkin said in 1973 is tattooed on all IF’s chests backward so they can read it in the mirror. All IFs simultaneously subscribe to the beliefs of Valerie Solanas, Catharine McKinnon, Betty Dodson, Phyllis Schlafly, Twisty Faster, and that person who wrote those weird articles about Firefly.
Imaginary Feminists have no real grievances, are eager to take rights away from men, love shaming men, and are simultaneously sex-hating puritans and sex-obsessed sluts.
In other words, they are dastardly creatures indeed. If they really existed, I would oppose them too.
The post is hilarious and spot-on in its critiques. Well worth reading.
EDIT: Link fixed.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
>T4T: you thought it was funny. Turns out nobody else did. 1 person told a joke, thinking it was humorous. 3 people don't agree. The most parsimonious explanation is not that 3 people are lacking a sense of humor. The most parsimonious explanation is that 1 person told a joke that wasn't funny. Like Lady Vic says, it was a cheap shot and it wasn't very respectful to your wife.
>I for one didn't miss the "joke" about you "being on top." I just thought it was so spectacularly inane and not-funny that it wasn't worth commenting on.
>You fuckin' moron, my mother was French, I speak French, and I've lived there for long periods of time, as well as other Francophone countries. Nice try, though.
>T4T, what was the point you were trying to make with that link? The feminists who post here — whether they use the term patriarchy or the term kyriarchy — are well aware that there are oppressions based on things other than gender. Historian Gerda Lerner, who has written the most comprehensive history of patriarchy, has explored in great detail how patriarchy dovetails with class and other oppressions. Indeed, understanding class is essential to understanding why so many women end up supporting and maintaining patriarchy: even in a system where they are restricted because they are women they may have advantages and power because they are part of the ruling class.
>SallyI didnt say it was funny. I know many times my jokes arent. As far as disrecting my wife, you and lady dont know her or her humour, stop projecting your biases on other people.
>Classic asshole move, too: "It was just a joke!" Most times anybody uses the word 'just' to minimize their actions they know they're full of it.
>Nothing in that link helps me understand why you are so attached to the MRA definition of "patriarchy." Remember? Men = evil, women = good, and men are to blame for everything? The question is why you find it so hard to let go of that. Kyriarchy or patriarchy, take your pick, but do use an accurate definition, whichever you prefer.
>Whichever one it is, it's going to be the one where men suffer from this mysterious oppression at the hands of women who make less money for more work, while the male power structure remains overwhelmingly male and oriented toward male concerns. Funny, that dude that whined about how hard it was to be a rich guy never took me up on my offer to trade places with him if thought he had it so bad.
>DavidMy point was that certain terms can stop dialogue and that sometimes if we want to communicate with certain individuals we need terms that will foster that. Though I am aware your blog isnt really about dialogue.
>If a joke isn't funny, it's not a joke. Jokes amuse people and make them laugh, that's pretty much the dictionary definition of humor and joking. If something you said wasn't funny, then it wasn't a joke.
>Tit for Tat, any REASONABLE individual, male or female, will be able to abandon their prejudices and biases. Even IF a reasonable person thought that 'patriarchy' meant 'all men', he or she would immediately abandon that idea when they were told, repeatedly, by people who knew what they were talking about, that they were wrong. Only an idiot hangs onto their biases and preconceptions when they've been proven wrong about them. I think feminists are kind of relying on people being smart enough to figure out what 'patriarchy' means on their own. I also suspect that feminists themselves are smart enough to know that bitching and quibbling about the word 'patriarchy' isn't really an argument made in bad faith. It's not like there are hordes of people out there who would be completely dedicated to the cause of feminism except for that pesky word which is holding them back. The only people who complain about feminists using 'patriarchy' as a term meaning 'all men' aren't feminists, and they aren't *going* to be feminists, so what's the point of catering to them? They'll just come up with another thing that feminists will have to do to prove themselves, and nothing will ever get done.
>Well, then there's people who hide behind what they claim are jokes to say something offensive. Rush Limbaugh and others like him do the same thing. Gee, look at T4T sliding a little insult in there. "But I realize your site isn't about dialogue." Yeah, you know what? You don't get to define womens' experiences for us, thanks.
>And, @Ion: Thank you. I'm sorry you don't care enough to investigate some of the other commenters here, but I know a couple of them are intelligent, humorous artists.
>T4T, that joke was eye-roll worthy at best. And now, in light of the current conversation, I feel compelled to use this quote:A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.
>*Edit: "I also suspect that feminists themselves are smart enough to know that bitching and quibbling about the word 'patriarchy' isn't really an argument made in GOOD faith."
>My point was that certain terms can stop dialogueThe only person stopping dialogue here is you, T4T, through your continuous refusal to use the common definition of several words that are key to understanding the entire conversation. You are the only one here with "baggage" around the word "patriarchy" or, for that matter, "feminism." It has been explained to you over and over again. Over and over again, you decline to absorb the information, and pretend to be a newbie who has NO FECKIN' IDEA what all this COMPLIMACATED feminism stuff is! It's not cute, and it's transparent. You are not as stupid as you make yourself out to be.
>Lady VicCertain jokes make certain people laugh, you didnt laugh at mine, my wife did. I guess she's not reasonable. See ya……….
>Don't forget to stick the flounce, you lying troll.
>Is 'my wife' the new 'my best friend is black'?
>Sounds like it Ginmar.
>David: Ah, my apologies then. I assumed since my post initially showed up and then disappeared, that it'd been deleted, as per the FAQ.SallyStrange, ginmar, cynickal and the rest of the remedial class: I see you've faithfully memorized the term "flounce" as set forth in the book of feminist shaming language as a way to declare victory whenever your target decides to leave for whatever reason. Now that you've finished high-fiving each other over your cleverness at parroting this well-worn term, here's another one: Backbiting. It means taking a parting shot at someone who's leaving, or already left the discussion, safe in the knowledge that they're gone and you've got your buddies at your back. Yeah, it's pretty slimy and cowardly, but then again, no less than expected from you. Cheers.
>I hate that line so very, very much. Either you don't understand the meaning of the word 'respect', or you enjoy being an ass to strangers.If you respect someone's opinion, if you care what they think about you… yeah, sure, that should be earned.But basic respect should be free to everyone, whether you know them or not, or even whether you like them or not. Basic respect means giving someone space to do their own thing (as long as they aren't tromping on someone else's space). It means giving someone the benefit of the doubt that they're a reasonable person. It means not crowding someone on the escalator or cutting someone off in traffic. It means recognizing that someone, even someone you don't know, is still a person with dignity and deserves to be treated that way. You misunderstood what I meant to say, or maybe I didn't say it clearly enough. Of course I don't mean I'm going to act like a misanthropic asshole towards strangers because they haven't earned my respect. There should be a 'baseline' level of regard for all people, common courtesy or the benefit of the doubt, as you say. But when I said respect I meant something more than that, like approval and admiration of that person. So basically I agree with you there.
>How does this "shaming language" thing work, Ion? Are you saying that T4T is NOT a dishonest troll? Do you think he should be PROUD of making statements about himself that aren't true–for instance, his repeated claims that he doesn't understand the meaning of the word "patriarchy," and that he thinks that feminists should abandon the word due to the "baggage" associated with it mysterious, unnamed third parties? If a commenter reveals that he is not arguing in good faith, should we refrain from calling him out about it? If he truly has nothing to be ashamed about, then why should a few pixels on a screen make any difference to his emotional state? Personally, I think he is a troll–that is, he makes statements he doesn't fully agree with in order to rile people up–therefore, it's no great loss if he does leave Manboobz permanently. Of course, I'd also be quite shocked if he does stick the flounce. Also, when did "flounce" become part of the "feminist dictionary" and where can I get one of these dictionaries?
>I wasn't paying attention to T4T's posts, so no comment. All I saw was he made a little joke and everyone jumped on him like a pack of angry baboons screaming and flinging feces, your usual MO really. I was referring to the 'flounce' comments directed at myself when I said I was leaving, after mistakenly thinking David had deleted my post.As for the feminist dictionary, it's quite a phenomenon. Did you know that virtually every feminist blogger and commenter out there uses basically the same small vocabulary of slang terms, insults and put-downs? It's like there was a big meeting somewhere and everyone settled on these as "ok, these are the insults we're gonna use" (actually, more likely some feminist with half an ounce of wit made them up and the rest of the herd adopted them because it's easier than being smart or creative on your own).A man who has any complaint or issue is "whining", or "whinging" if you're Australian; also acceptable is replying "waaah!" to imply that your target is a crybaby. Someone who leaves the conversation – whether out of boredom, disgust, or any other reason – is "flouncing"; this is a reason to smugly declare victory. Someone who disagrees with the official party line is, naturally, a troll or a misogynist – or both. Also popular are variations on "douche": so far I've seen douchebag, douchenozzle, and douchecanoe, which is just weird. Then there are small penis jokes, references to bingo, the "oppression olympics", and saying "teh menz" and "teh wimminz" which honestly just makes you sound like a freaking lolcat. Smug, sarcastic tone is mandatory. Bonus points if you miss your opponent's gist entirely and just throw a few insults randomly selected from the pile above back as a reply – ginmar and yourself are quite the masters at this. And that's about it. I have just described 99% of feminist bloggers and blog-commenters out there.Further reading here: http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
>If someone flounces off, and someone else points this out, is it shaming language? Is a flounce shameful behavior to begin with?And what if someone has done something shameful? Is calling them on it shaming?