One of the many strange things about Breitbart’s alleged “tech editor” Milo Yiannopoulos is how much he cares about convincing people he doesn’t care.
The self-described “provocateur” even dressed up as a literal clown for his recent profile in Out Magazine.
You’ve no doubt heard about the Out piece already; it’s been a teensy bit controversial. But what you probably didn’t know is that Salon sent a camera crew to his photoshoot with photographer Jill Greenberg. And that along with the camera crew they sent writer (and friend of We Hunted the Mammoth) Amanda Marcotte.
“Perhaps I got a bit caught up in his self-mythologizing,” she writes in her account of what followed, “which is why I thought he would have some fun answering provocative questions while he was getting his picture taken.”
Turns out Milo did not have much fun with her questions:
I never did get good answers to my questions, though I did learn that Yiannopoulos likes to reduce feminism to “angry lesbians” supposedly tricking naive young women into getting too fat to get boyfriends.
But I did learn one important fact: Milo Yiannopoulos is not playing around. He is utterly sincere about his far right views.
He is sincere enough that he lectured me for about 15 minutes, and got so caught up in the moment that he seemingly forgot that he was half-naked while wearing a wig and make-up. He was sincere enough to get genuinely wound up during this time.
Ultimately, he was having so little fun with her questions that he — perhaps channeling his idol Donald Trump — threw a fit and demanded she leave the premises.
He was so sincere that, when the Salon team shut off the cameras in order to move into another vantage point, he demanded that I leave the room, refused to answer any more questions, and called me a “bitch.”
The best part of all this? You can watch some of these testy exchanges on video over on Salon. There are two different versions of the video posted there; the one at the top has more Milo in it.
Turns out Milo is not so much a sad clown as a mad clown.
@Policy
I forgot to write, a person can be envious about women (that they are women) without having to be trans at all. I don’t even know why I have to explain that. I thought it’s self evident!
@dlouwe, is this above answering your question?
Yeah, see, no, because that doesn’t work. You can’t draw a connection, based on absolutely nothing, between misogyny and femininity and then claim it only exists under certain circumstances, so it’s okay. You are connecting the two concepts. You are also:
1) Ignoring that trans women experience misogyny and have way less of a reason to perpetuate it than men do
2) Misgendering trans women by referring to them as men who “want to be women.” If you want to be a woman, then you are one, full stop.
3) Misgendering many gay men, who do not “want to be women” (ie are not trans women) just because they seem feminine to you
4) Making me really angry
@Mary
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/nnnn.gif
@Ketchup No More (not that you should care, but fuckin with your name means I’ve decided you’re a complete shit)
http://www.attendly.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/kanye-west-are-you-serious-gif.gif
http://cdn.niketalk.com/b/b9/350x700px-LL-b93d524e_dwade-damn-sip-water_nr3ci8.gif
You do realize you said that last time, and we still beefin. Ain’t shit changed…
You can keep doubling down until you are at 2 to the nth power, and that doesn’t make what you’re saying any less anti-trans.
I don’t misunderstand you, fool. I am calling you out as sliming trans women. Go ahead and repeat your slurs 10 more times, they won’t become any less anti-trans with repetition.
@KafkaNoMore
No, not really. You keep saying “women” but I feel like you mean “cis women” and you haven’t clarified that at all.
@Viscaria
It is my fault as I have expressed it wrongly in my opening post.
I don’t believe that they are trans (femmy misogynists).
But they experience envy towards women and this is why they have to devalue them.
And please finaly learn, please that I don’t talk about femmy gay men. OK???
I talk about femmy misogynists! Can we get over this please…
Kafkanomore,
Given that trans women are often called men who want women or men who want to dress up like women, it’s really fucking problematic to speculate that a man wants to be woman. Especially if the reason for that speculation is because he’s an asshole.
Has Milo ever said that he wants to be a woman? No? Then shut the fuck up. Whether you intend to cause splash damage or not, you are.
Dlouwe,
Why is it important if it is cis-women?
I don’t mean trans-women (I know that trans-women are also women).
But I rather mean the bilogical functions associated with femininity (bearing children) would be one aspect, breastfeeding, etc.
@Policy
There is no need for such rudeness. I have never referred to trans-woman or femmy gay men.
I since the beginning only and only referre to feminine misogynists.
@wierwood
I agree with you (as I have written above, I have expressed it wrongly in the opening post).
Instead of “wanting to be women” I should’ve written envious of women because of the bilogical functions assosiated with women.
Yeah, there is. There is nothing civil about anti-trans bullshit, so don’t pretend you are being polite. When someone pull shit out of their ass like yours, rudeness is the correct response.
He didn’t say misogyny and femininity are connected. He said feminine men who are misogynists may envy women.
“I have seen some blue cats who wear purple but hate purple cats. I suspect they may secretly envy them.” In what sense have I “connected” purple and hatred? I have not suggested one is an inherent aspect of the other.
Some racist white men may envy black men. Envy may sometimes be a part of hatred. And nobody is exempt from envy.
@Policy
I am not pulling shit out of my as. There is literature written about it.
I have never referred to trans-women.
I have referred to femmy misogynists that are envious of women (without having to be trans, or having the desire to be trans).
But I have expressed that wrongly in the opening post. I hope that this is clear now.
If not just don’t address me anymore, because I don’t discuss with people that take everything as a insult
LOL like you get to tell me what to do.
@Lady Morgan
Thank you, that is what I tried to say.
I agree that I have expressed it wrongly in my opening post, but I have corrected it by now.
Still I don’t see how people can drag it out of context so such extreme degrees like some individuals here.
And, I am a woman btw, but it doesn’t matter 🙂
Like, no. No we cannot. What if I were to say “complete assholes who mention Kafka in their screen names are definitely assholes because of the Kafka thing. That’s definitely what makes them assholes, no question. But other people with Kafka in their screen names, that’s a whole different story.” Would you feel that the connection I’m drawing between Kafka and assholishness doesn’t apply in your particular case? That there isn’t splash damage there? And, if you ever did take a step wrong, do you think I’m going to attribute that to your screen name?
Distinguishing between Bad Gays and Good Gays doesn’t help anyone, because Good Gays are standing on a knife edge. Bad Gay is just one mistake away.
@Policy,
Whatever, if you can’t discuss with me without being extra rude, than I won’t reply to you anymore.
Bye, bye, bye
The bigger issue is that
1. You doubled down rather than apologizing. Especially because a number of the people who objected are LGBTQ.
2. This isn’t actually that much better because you’re equating being a woman with bearing children. Lot’s of women can’t, won’t or don’t want to do that. They’re still women.
3. It’s still keyboard diagnosing and it’s still pathologizing gayness (even if it’s just the bad ones) in a way that’s uncomfortably similar to the way so called “penis envy” was used against women (but just the bad ones. Don’t worry!) and kind of still is.
No problem, troll. Keep doubling-down, it will definitely convince me and everyone that you are well-meaning and not a troll at all. That’s certainly not a thing trolls ever do.
If a book was written about it, it must be true!
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/archive/2003/07/1_123125_123050_2076385_2085182_030724_treason_bookcover.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg
Oh, wait.
I’ll never not find the oppressive feeemale butt theory funny.
@All, I’m still thinking about this conversation. There’s a misfire going on here, of that I have no doubt. There’s some sort of mathematical wrongness here, a causal slip that’s fueling this argument. Still thinking about it.
In the meantime, @Kafkanomore is referencing womb envy, a feminist extension of Freudian thought suggesting that misogyny results from envy of female sexuality and the functions of the womb and/or vagina. I’d point out that there’s almost no actual empirical evidence on this, much the same as the “penis envy” nonsense. It’s baseless, much like most Freudian-esque theories. The Wikipedia article links to the theory and its critiques, for those interested.
(I do wish all the Freudian nonsense would evaporate, but it has some real cultural weight to it. It feels *good* to say “you’re rotten ’cause you’re just jealous!”, but it really, really doesn’t work that way)
Im’a think about it a bit more. In the meantime, please, don’t be too angry with one another? 🙂
Viscaria,
I can’t really understand your analogy there.
But if assholes that have Kafka in their screen name devalue/hate other people that are not assholes but have Kafka in their screen name, because of the word Kafka, we can than conclude that there maybe a correlation with the word Kafka, with the first and second group
It sound’s silly, but this is how I would construct that analogy
@Kazakhstan
Tone policing
http://65.media.tumblr.com/6b17c491fc614d94a45c56a652fa5dfb/tumblr_inline_njf9rvkM2f1t10bt3.gif
Not even a little bit
@Mondegreen
1)Purple wearing cats don’t hafta deal with people claiming they aren’t really purple, and blue cats don’t hafta deal with being called purple for not living up to the norms of blueness
2)clothing is neither gender nor orientation
Logically, you’re right. But only logically…
@Lady Mondegreen
In your example, the wearing of purple is shown as evidence that the cats wish to be purple. That, in turn, is given as the reason for the hatred. Wearing purple -> wanting purple -> hatred.
There is important context missing from your example, also. Specifically: 1) People believe trans women are inherently bad. Anything negative that they do is attributed to their transness. 2) Trans women are thought to be an extra-gay category of gay men, not real women. 3) We also think gay men who are insufficiently “manly” are inherently bad.
Hey, if you disagree with KafkaNoMore, just state that it’s your opinion! That magically absolves you from having to actually any proof or evidence of any sort!
Here, I’ll give it a try: I believe that people who choose screen names like KafkaNoMore are secretly Manatees that have managed to get internet access. If you disagree, well that’s just my opinion, which means not only do I not have to prove it, but it also somehow is just as valid as any other opinion!
Unconnected…rambling, but. Milo reminds me, a little, of an ex-boss of mine back when I was in the hellish salt mines of magazine work. This guy was NOWHERE near as bad as Milo, but we were doing a sort of hip inner city guide, and one article was on bras and where to buy nice ones. There were only two women in the office, there was my boss and his boyfriend, and some other dudes.
Boss thought it was an AWESOME idea to refer to bras with slang instead of using the word bra, you know, like women do. Tit slings, bitch covers, over the shoulder boulder holder, boob bondage. Not even the cute terms, just generally objectifying and gross ones.
The women, all two of us, were: Errrhhh, no, that feels weird and bad.
It got kind of weirder after that. The straight office guys thought it was awesome, the gay office guys informed them this was how Cool Women talked in secret – by definition, since we didn’t like it, we weren’t cool. The other woman in the office was queer too, but her view was worth less than his when it came to fashion, because queer dudes were coded fashionable and queer women unfashionable.
In the end we got marked as having no sense of humour, and the men all bonded over it. A real outlier for me, but it was my first introduction to a thankfully rare phenomenon.