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.
LOL. Nothing says hip to me like euphemisms that wouldn’t be out of place on an elementary school playground.
How did it go over with the readership, do you know?
@Wirewood
I don’t equate being a women with bearing children. But if you like it or not, most women do bear cildren.
Penis envy must manifest itself somehow, but it doesn’t, so there is no proof for it’s existence.
@Scildfreja and also @wirewood, the control over women’s wombs (envy) manifests itself throughout history and still today across the globe.
And feminine misogynists are a perfect example of that, people that devalue the feminine assiciations in women, but not in themselves.
@Steampunked, oh god, I sympathize so much. I am basically considered The Wet Blanket With No Humour by half of my social circles because I don’t make terrible jokes about minorities and get grumpy when they tell sexist jokes. “Lol, guys, lookit this meme! It’s got a ‘#justgirlythings’ poster on the top, and then some military doods bein’ awesome on the bottom! Womz are so girly and foolish, right? lawl, why don’t they like serious awesome things like guns and tanks and stuff instead of their stupid frou-frou cocktails and walks on the beach?” Makes my eyes cross!
(The sexist jokes are usually followed by self-bashing pity parties about how they can’t keep girlfriends, so that’s a thing.)
Jesus Christ, how do you type both of these sentences and not realize how not-compatible they are?
I do an image search for that. Because why not?
This is what I found
I’m very confused.
@Schnookums, of course we discuss personal beliefs here, that are based on some literature and personal experience.
That is not proof. But guess what, neither is the literature posted above by wirewood proof to the contrary.
What a silly reason that you attack me.
Right. I’m out. I value good epistemology–and openness to honest disagreement–over whatever is going on here.
See you on another thread.
@Kafkanomore,
That’s the theory, yes! I’m looking through the literature, though, and it seems like the actual evidence for it is very sparse. Kinda like Freud’s penis envy, there’s not much evidence that people actually work in the way that the womb envy theory describes. White paper searches are pulling up more hits about the behaviour of bees than they are about anything else. (Okay, a touch of hyperbole there, but still! Not far from!)
I don’t generally work with these sorts of psychosexual theories, my work’s more on cognition and knowledge than this area of psychology, but I know enough to get a bad taste in my mouth while reading this stuff over. It feels wrong, it feels like a just-so story in the same way Freud’s theories were. They imply unconscious behaviours without actually proving that those unconscious motivations exist – they assume far too much without providing justification for those assumptions. It feels like bad science.
Again, still reading. Maybe I’ll find something! I’ll point out that the current champion of the theory, Brian Luke, was formerly an assistant professor of philosophy (not psychology, gender studies, or something related to womb envy theory), and is currently a student at Trinity Lutheran Seminary, according to this “Brutal” book you’ve linked. I’m not sure if I’d consider him to be a stellar source. But again, we’ll see!
EDIT for correctness: Mr Luke is not a Doctor.
Thus Spake ZaraNequam:
I’m aware, but thank you. I just got my forum and blog wires crossed. (^_^);;
@Policy
Don’t troll me
Different people have different definitions of what a woman is and does. The Feminist/Queer theory differs a lot from the conservative one. There is no global conensus on that.
So (I personaly don’t equate women with bearing children) but others do, and others may be envious on that specific function.
Or they could be envious on cis-women, not for bearing children, but for getting the men they want to have etc. etc.
Or they could be envious that men they want to have rather choose a cis-woman because she can give birth to offspring.
With they I mean feminine misogynists
Don’t troll me and don’t take things out of context
Bye bye now, I will not be replying on your trolling
If I hide behind the lettuce, no one will know I’m a manatee…”
I believe it to be a perfectly good reason to attack you, since you want to just hand-wave proving your “belief”.
But I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
@KafkaNoMore
Because saying “women” when you mean “cis women” is trans erasure, so cut it out.
(Like, on top of that you’re wrong, but others are doing well enough addressing that part)
@Scilfreja
We agree to disagree then. Not everything that Freud wrote about is bullcrap and not everything that the womb envy theory suggests can be discarded.
But psychology is like that, it is not something that can be easily proven or disproven.
Good luck with your research, no matter what kind of conclusions you arrive at the end.
KafkaNoMore, may I humbly suggest you stop digging?
Yeah, I’m definitely the troll here. I’m sure.
Fuck that. The only thing that you’re demonstrating is YOUR definition, which is bullshit. You directly contradicted yourself when you forgot for a second that you’re playing a character who isn’t anti-trans. That’s what happens when you lie about yourself: you wind up a 329 year old engineer.
Why the fuck do you keep harping on feminine misogynists? Why is it so fucking important to you that they be feminine and have woman-envy, with “woman” being synonymous with “people who have functional uteri” except when you are pretending to be trans-inclusive for a hot minute? Why is this the hill you’re willing to die on? I can tell you why it’s mine: I have zero tolerance for trans-intolerance. You want to say anti-trans things and still pat yourself on the back for your trans-inclusiveness, and I’m not fucking having that.
Promises, promises.
@Schnookums
I don’t. You could’ve written that you disagree with me. I don’t care.
These particular theories can neither be proven nor disproven.
@dlouwe, ok, I mean cis-women, hope this now answers your question
Funny how I didn’t see you in the Andrew Anglin thread arguing that he has womb envy. Even though he’s explicitly arguing that white women’s wombs belong to white men and should be controlled by them.
@Policy_of_Madness
Do you know, I have no real idea. The whole thing folded due to a misunderstanding of how much capital a startup requires (ie., two years total costs), and I was only part time myself. I remember being just so fucking puzzled, like…it was an alien world to me. I couldn’t speak the language. There was a cocktail bar opening and I met a few fashion editors of women’s fashion and they were almost all very flirty men. I was supposed to shmooze, and I didn’t know how, but it did become obvious that there was a specific way fashion was supposed to work. Light hearted, sexy, effortless, all of that coded stuff that makes you fun? I couldn’t do it. Besides, I’m not conventionally attractive and I’m a nerd. I suspect the article went down well, from the fashionista reaction to it, I fear.
I was used to the goth scene, also full of open queer folk and with a strong appearance aesthetic, but the goth scene has very different internalised norms on physical contact and acceptable humour. And everyone bloody well knows teasing your hair up to look like the Bride of Frankenstein takes hours. Effortless, my ass.
@Scildfreja Unnýðnes (Undertale?)
Yeah, in the swallow shit or ruin an afternoon scenario, I usually go for mutual annihilation 🙂
@wierwood
I don’t know who andrew anglin is. I now googled him and he is a nazi-right winger as far as I understood.
Don’t you think that he isn’ t envious about women baring children? Something he has no control over?
White women can sleep with different races, he has no control over it.
He can’t just by himself pump out an army of white babies, he has to control white women…
(That’s what I get about this man from your post)
Sound pretty much like womb envy, but is not manifesting itself as in feminine misogynists.
Actually glad I missed all this. Jebus.
Thank you! The research is on pause, i’m sorta on the unemployment queue as of November! Lab lost funding for the winter. Back in May at the latest, though.
As for the womb theory stuff, well, yes, we will have to agree to disagree! Do realize, though, that you disagree in the face of most people working in that field, and have pinned your hopes to someone who isn’t actually a psychologist, but someone who’s studying in a seminary. Shaky ground.
(Also, the rationalist in me is screaming at me to say that the unprovability of the womb theory is very much not a point in its favour. I could present a number of points of evidence against it if you’d like; we know a lot more about what motivates people than we did in the late 30’s when the theory was first proposed, after all…)
Anyways! You’ve sorta said that you’re gonna believe it regardless of the evidence, so I’ll stop hunting. Interesting topic, though, thank you.
Hint: look in the recent post portion of the sidebar and click on the title with the word “womb” in it.
@Scildfreja
I am sorry for the unemployment thing.
No, I haven’t said that I will believe it regardless of any evidence, I just believe that it is to not completely possible to prove or disprove psychological theories.
Especially if manifestations can be seen in everyday life. But yeah, thank you for the discussion and good luck.
@wierwood
I can’t find where this is right now, it’s 4am, my concentration is gone
If I find time I will search for it tomorrow night (actualy today night).
If not…thanx for the discussion
Good night