‘Feminism is not a stick to beat men with’ — because it isn’t a stick

A MAN SAID
I saw someone post a thing, “Feminism is not a stick for women to beat other women with.”

I super like and agree.

I also wanted to comment but decided to post my own thing, so I’m not just appropriating someone’s message to women. Feminism is also not a stick to beat men with. Laughing at and demeaning (individual) men in the name of feminism is not feminism. Don’t get me wrong, I do it all the time, but it’s not feminism, it’s just mean.

To your first point: sure. To the second: Maybe? But patriarchy is a gigantic club that beats people up even when left to fall with its own weight, and in most contexts, feminism is more like a ruler.

Continue reading ‘Feminism is not a stick to beat men with’ — because it isn’t a stick

‘Anita Sarkeesian did nothing wrong’, or ‘Violence against women in media, cont.’

Part One: ‘Where does the idea that “women have impossible standards for violence” come from?’

Human 4

I didn’t really want to get into this to be honest, but quickly since there’s a real contribution here, I think what’s being understated is hyperviolence against women in edgy videogames or other media generally isn’t just an incidental product of trying to titillate, it’s a natural result of the cultural ideas the work is reproducing.

Continue reading ‘Anita Sarkeesian did nothing wrong’, or ‘Violence against women in media, cont.’

‘Where does the idea that “women have impossible standards for violence” come from?’

Human 1:

I’m watching Angel and women get brutalized exactly like men do all the time.

It’s the same with Buffy, and, going back in time a little bit, same with Battlestar Galactica, Kill Bill, Spartacus.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone claim “no violence should befall fictional women”, and yet redhats and gamergaters routinely claim that women want all the benefits and none of the disadvantages.

How did this claim come to be?

Continue reading ‘Where does the idea that “women have impossible standards for violence” come from?’

50 Shades of Week: Feb. 12 – 19, 2017

If you feel the need to demonstrate how much you own another person, you probably don’t own them as much as you think.

And if your attraction to another person is the same as showing you can provide them a nice vehicle, you’re really more attracted to the status those things give you than anything particular to them.

  1. Holy shit.
  2. ‘There’s a very fine line between pleasure and pain, Anastasia.’
  3. ‘Would you now, Miss Steele?’
  4. ‘It’s taking all my self-control not to fuck you on the hood of this car right now, just to show you that you are mine, and if I want to buy you a fucking car, I’ll buy you a fucking car,’ he growls.
  5. I smile.
  6. Some Boy Scout he must have been to learn this knot.
  7. Crap … some unguarded remark while dreaming about him, I bet.

‘Why is “Lolita” considered a literary classic?’

I wouldn’t consider Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita a classic or say there’s more value to it than in a Michael Bay film.

It’s an impressive technical achievement, and it’s formally beautiful; if that justifies its existence, I don’t see how that’s enough to justify its study.

I once read an essay arguing that if there were a story about someone obsessed with chopping off dicks, it wouldn’t matter how gorgeous the prose was: no one would assign it. Instead, this is about lusting after and raping a young girl, so we can call it literature. If hedged, ‘provocative literature’.

There’s a lot of literature that’s beautifully written. This one in particular is studied because it allows people to lust after a teenage girl under the pretense of art, from within the gaze a sexual predator they’re allowed to empathize with without feeling guilty of it themselves.

Continue reading ‘Why is “Lolita” considered a literary classic?’

50 Shades of Week: Feb. 5 – 11, 2017

‘It’s OK for something just to be beautiful, to look nice & feel nice or sound nice & for that to make you feel good. It can be frivolous or silly & not be less for that.

‘Beauty is its own sort of utility.’

  1. And he’s inside me, quickly filling me.
  2. All pale blue lace and finery.
  3. ‘Why did you want to know if he was gay?’
  4. I stand immobilized at the entrance of the room, paralyzed by his beauty and the sweet anticipation of what’s to come.
  5. How can he have this effect on me, even in this crowded tent?
  6. What does he mean by that?
  7. ‘I understand that you’re a keen fisherman.’

‘Civilization Does Not Civilize’ – or barbarize, either

If we pretend that culture and art are the hammers they were never meant to be, very soon we will arrive at a point which says other ideas and the people who hold them are wrong, then inferior, then dangerous, and finally as subhuman or not fit to live—or at least unfit to live around us, some illusory sense of social or culture “purity” now the goal.

Tim Miller at word and silence

I disagree with your premise. In a 2001: A Space Odyssey’ sense, we’re always trying to rid ourselves of the tribe the next hill over. Baboons and chimpanzees don’t need art criticism to break open the bones of rivals and suck out marrow in victory.

Continue reading ‘Civilization Does Not Civilize’ – or barbarize, either