Friday, February 11, 2005

Douchebag Gone Wild

The so-called advice goddess, Amy Alkon, has written an essay entitled Victims Gone Wild: How Feminism Has Messed Up Relationships. Here's an excerpt:

Unfortunately, in the late '70s and early '80s, feminism got hijacked by a small but vocal gang of Victims Gone Wild. Leading the band with Dworkin was anti-porn harpy and law professor Catherine MacKinnon....

Dworkin, MacKinnon and their hairy-armpitted underbosses gave the order to the "victimized"—women, largely privileged and white, on campuses across America—to crawl out from under the boot of "male oppression." In reality, what they were fighting wasn't male oppression, but maleness of any kind—based on the erroneous feminist notion that equality means sameness.

In their eyes, male sexuality isn't just different. It's WRONG. Penetration is a form of rape, don'tcha know? Ultimately, these femi-fascists sought to re-create men in their own image and to reshape sexual expression into something kinder, gentler and more "egalitarian." (Personally, I have no idea what more "egalitarian" sex is—and I hope I never find out.)

According to their Stalinist-feminist party line, every man is a criminal—a rapist until proven otherwise. In 1992, a small mob of "wymyn" bullied Antioch College into passing the "Antioch Rules," a written code mandating that one obtain "clear verbal consent" from one's partner in any sexual act. At Antioch, from then on, raging desire was expected to play out as if accompanied by the small print on an airline ticket: "Pardon me, but would you mind giving me your unqualified verbal permission to tongue your left nipple?"

Men, as a group, were expected to feel ashamed—although the individual man was generally unclear as to what, he, personally, had done wrong, just by virtue of being born with a penis. Relations between men and women got very confusing. Opening the door for a girl didn't mean you were polite; it meant you found her inferior.
Um... who is this douchebag?

I don't remember the 70's or early 80's. But, according to this goddess, this is the state of the modern workplace:

Whatever you do, don't compliment that female co-worker on her hair—a compliment is no longer just a compliment but a full-on patriarchal assault, surely intended to send a woman running, screaming, out of a "hostile workplace." It got to the point, in many quarters, where just about anything a guy could say or do, short of silently rolling over like a stuffed pink bunny, was seen as a capital offense upon the Sisterhood.
Really? Where is the evidence to back that up? Even if she can find a few isolated cases, I seriously doubt this is the norm. I have yet to witness, or even hear about, a work environment like the one she describes. Every place I have worked, men have had no problem feeling free to comment on my hair, clothes, tits, and ass. I've even had guys proposition me. (No, I never once complained to the company. I just politely offered to introduce those crass idiots to my AK-47, up close and personal.) I'll believe Ms. Alkon's story when I see it.

And in college, it's exactly the opposite. It's more like you better be looking at a woman, or she'll bend over and lift her skirt in front of your face. If you still don't look, she'll run back to her dorm bawling because she thinks she's fat or ugly. Hell, why not blame the feminists for all these insecure weenie-girl princess wannabe's who pass for college students these days?

But Alkon gets even better here:

Just look around at young women and what they wear. Sure, there is that subset of preteen streetwalker chic. But, there are also a lot of lonely women in their 30s and 40s who dress like men trying to attract work picking lettuce. Refusing to pander to "the male gaze" is what it used to be called.
Yep, absolutely. Women everywhere are refusing to wear mini-skirts and tube tops. Oh wait... never mind.

These women can't, for the life of them, figure out why they're unable to get a date. After all, men "shouldn't" care about what's on the outside, right? They "should" only lust after that beautiful person within ... right? Yes, perhaps they "should." But they don't, and they won't, and the sooner women admit that, the sooner they'll have a date with more than their cat on Saturday nights...
Is she sure that's what these make believe women are thinking? Because I can't find anywhere on her website where it says she's telepathic.

I will say, though, that people generally have preferences based on looks. I mean, I would prefer not to sleep with some fattie with a tuna-can penis. But there are times when young hottie boys are in short supply. Of course, I don't have this problem now, since I'm engaged. But have I dated a few slobs with back hair? You bet. But this woman doesn't seem to acknowledge that women might actually have preferences too. If the hotties are in short supply, we go for the inferior goods (or remain happily alone).

Okay, this one takes the cake:

It's time all women junked the big ugly boots, shelved the perpetually dour faces and worked up a seductive smile or two. Maybe, once they do, they'll inspire a guy to glue a little hair on his chest and ask them for a date...
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it's time for "all women" to do anything. Why does this douchebag think we all have to be the same? Even if we did want our lives to revolve around men, does she think men all have the same preferences? Believe it or not, Ms. Telepathic Goddess, there is actually a "market" for women who wear big ugly boots. There's also a market for guys with purple hawks. Perhaps people who purposely look "different" are trying to attract a similarly-different mate (if that makes sense).

UPDATE: I used to have some more nasty comments here, but my guilty conscience made me delete them. That's because I ended up liking the Advice Goddess after all! It happened over at her blog.

I just love it when antifeminist folk pervert the words of Andrea Dworkin and other notable feminist women to suit their obvious agenda--bash feminism for their own failures within relationships. Pure immaturity.
Great comments. This woman mischaracterizes Katherine Mackinnon so badly it's not even funny. And you are right about her total lack of legitimacy as a beauty guru. I had no idea this was supposed to be a humor column. Comparing feminists to migrant farm workers? Ha ha, that is so funny, where does she come up with it? Apparently she started out as a crazy person on a street corner until some extremely baked publisher decided to pay her for writing.

So anyway, I am so impressed that you play the drums. I took lessons in junior high school, but I didn't stick with it. I switched to singing instead. I see you like Dream Theater. I really like them too, although I think a lot of their magic went away when Kevin Moore left.

I noticed that you have a post about racists. Do people really leave racist comments here? That seems weird since you have "feminist" in the title of your blog. Oh well, racists aren't too intelligent for the most part.

Great blog. I'll definitely be back.
Oh, the horror of Antioch's rule that you have to ask for permission to have sex!

Oh, get real.

If you can't figure out a way to sound sexy when asking your partner if they want to have sex, then you just have no imagination at all.
Hi Charone!

No, I haven't had racists post on here. I just wanted to make it clear to people that this isn't some white-woman-power thing.

Yes, every member of Dream Theater is an awesome musician. Mike Portnoy is one of my favorite drummers. I didn't know you sang-- good for you! I enjoy singing as well.

I probably won't blog a whole lot. Maybe once a week or so. I really just like to comment on everyone else's blogs. :) Other feminist blogs are so good that I will probably focus more on feminism from a market perspective. (That is, if I actually take the time to make a serious post. So far it's just been me being a smartass-- or dumbass depending on the reader's point of view.)
PA- I know what you're saying about personal responsibility in relationships. I don't see how blaming feminism is any different from blaming the patriarchy (which is what anti-feminists think feminists do). Sure, there are sexists on both sides. But I think everyone can (or should be able to) think for themselves.

Brian- no kidding! My fiancee doesn't really have to worry about it, since it's usually me attacking him. Haha!
I liked your comments on other blogs & thought I'd check out yours. Good luck with it. I like your moxie, so I'll check back once a week or so to see what percolating in that intesting brain of yours.

PS, My fiance & I are getting married in Iowa City in June. We live in Chicago but both of us have family in the state.

PPS - It took me until I was about 33 before I could gracefully ask a woman for sex. Did so several times with a spectacular lack of tact. I didn't get much ;)
Thanks for visiting, Ron. And congrats on finding such a cool fiancee. I read your comment about her on Hugo's blog. :)

Iowa City is probably the best city in Iowa. I don't live there, but I go to college there. Nice place for a wedding.

P.S. I hope this means you're a Cub's fan!
What about this though? At the panel discussion at the screening of Inside Deep Throat. Don't tell me that Mackinnon's views on heterosexual sex and oral sex in particular aren't a little whacked.

...MacKinnon did her thing, claiming that the film we had just watched was promoting the acceptance of rape. At one point, however, her righteous zeal became unhinged when she claimed that it was not possible to do deep throat safely, that it was a dangerous act that could only be done under hypnosis. "What's so funny?" she snapped as the audience rippled with mirth. Todd Graff's hand shot up - "I can do it," he said, and the room echoed with a chorus of gay men going "me too!" (Gigi Grazer - wife of Brian - later told Graff to stop bragging and that she could do it better than him and had the rocks on her fingers to prove it. Touché).

Full article here

Sad that she got owned by the gay guys...

Ahh yes, Catherine MacKinnon. Michael, I am the first to admit that I'm the wrong feminist to address your comments. I'm a Libertarian and will always be on the side of free speech (unless, of course, someone is being forced to participate in porn against his or her will). The MacKinnon debate between non-libertarians is going on over at Ampersand's blog.

My point was that MacKinnon isn't a big deal. Very few people agree with what she says, or even read her work. Therefore, I thought it was a little crazy to make the claim that feminism is ruining relationships (especially the MacKinnon-type feminism that almost no one follows). Most women aren't avoiding the male gaze. Rather, they are so insecure that they *need* it. (See my comment about college women.)

And if you ask the IWF, they will claim that feminism has PROMOTED sex. They say feminist brainwashing is causing women to think all "sex work" is empowering, rather than degrading. Here's just one example:
There are more similar IWF accusations, which you'll find if you choose to look through their archives (it's not a fun time, though).

Basically, feminists are getting screwed both ways. We either are prudes who hate sex, or we are immoral liberals who promote it. Me, I'm just a good ol' country grrl who wants to bang her fiancee in private.

So you are saying that MacKinnon and Dworkin are irrelevant to modern feminist discussion? Since as Pseudo-Adrienne said in her article, they are two of the main representatives of 2nd generation feminism. I would like to believe that they don't have many followers but I don't know.

As for your other point about feminists getting screwed both ways, well it is unfair but there is a grain of truth to both sides(I find there is usually a grain of truth to be found on both sides of an argument). Mackinnon and Dworkin definitely do espouse a philosophy that can be described as anti-sex, specifically anti-hetero sex. As for the other side, Camille Paglia has written about how stripping is empowering to women as a way of owning their own sexuality. Certainly conservative types can seize on that for their own agenda.

Mackinnon, Dworkin, Paglia, are all names known outside of feminist circles, so like it or not, people are going to take their writings as being representative of "feminist thought". I personally can only think of a few others such as Naomi Wolf and I don't know much about this 3rd wave of feminism that Pseudo-Adrienne speaks of(been out of college too long).

Anyways nice blog and I'll be around on occasion. I've become more "libertarian" in my old age as well.

Mike- I realize my ass could soon be in hot water with the sisterhood, so let me try to rephrase. MacKinnon and Dworkin are definitely an important part of feminist theory. Even I have gotten something from their ideas. But the feminists I know (who are college third-wavers) don't live their lives according to M&D-- especially when it comes to censorship. I also visit many other feminist sites, forums, and blogs, and read Ms. Magazine. They tend to be anti-censorship too. It seems to me that a Mac & Dworkin *movement* is almost dead.

But the real key here is that "ordinary" women don't read M&D. I could be wrong. But where I live, most people don't know who those ladies are. Keep in mind there is no NOW chapter or any other feminist group in my city. I don't even know any feminists who live here! (The ones I know are in the college town I commute to.) So my perspective could be warped due to that factor.

I also have to come clean and admit I've never taken a Women's Studies class. I'm in the College of Business studying Economics. So my knowledge of feminist theory is limited.

Thanks for commenting on my blog!
"Really? Where is the evidence to back that up?"See Cathy Young's Ceasefire for examples in case law:

[long link to the book]

[short link to the book]

[Cathy Young's articles in Reason]

And yes, I know several guys who have been called on the carpet for being excessively friendly to female coworkers.
Tex, I am planning to get that book. I often read Young's work at Reason, and I'm also a fan of some of Wendy McElroy's work.

But do you think that kind of work environment is the norm? I'm asking that sincerely, not as a douchebag. Of course, it shouldn't happen *at all*. Yes, that would be ideal. And it would also be ideal for people to not be harassed at all (I'm talking about truly inappropriate behavior, not a "nice hair" comment.)

While I do feel bad for men who feel there is a chilling effect at work, I also wonder if they too aren't playing the ol' victim ideology song and dance. Not in every case, but in some cases.
Here are some of the cases that I'm aware of. The Young book includes many more that are more salient because they have the weight of case law behind them.

1. Male gives female coworker a good natured poke in the ribs. Female goes to Human Resources. Male gets called onto the carpet. Male apologizes. Male gets sent to "sensitivity training".

2. Male and female coworkers were verbally sparing with each other. Male calls female a "redneck". Female goes to human resources. Male has spent more than a decade with the company. Male gets called onto the carpet. There may or may not have been "sensitivity training" required by HR.

3. Male invites female on a date via an e-mail, once. Female goes to Human Resources. Male gets called onto the carpet. Male leaves company soon thereafter. Not clear if this departure is strictly mutual.

I also wonder if they too aren't playing the ol' victim ideology song and dance. Not in every case, but in some cases.Not aware of many cases where males make accusations of sexual harassment, genuine or otherwise.

Guys who do so are apt to be dismissed as pussies.
OMG, sensitivity training?! To me, THAT'S the sexist part. It's suggesting that because I'm female, I'm "sensitive" and need everyone around me to be sensitive as well. Arrrrgh!

When someone pokes your ribs, you poke back. When someone calls you a redneck, you talk about your guns. When someone asks you out, it's a simple yes-or-no question. Am I really that sheltered out here in hickville?

I know I'm making light of a situation that isn't funny. I don't mean to be insensitive (no pun, really). It just seems so ridiculous to me. And I see it as moving women backward, not forward.

Yes, men are considered "pussies" if they complain about harassment. That's a double standard. But I was talking about the guys complaining that they can't talk to women because the women will run to their supervisors. I was saying maybe they too are imagining that things are worse than they really are (playing the victim). But if a company has something called sensitivity training, then it probably is a real rather than an imagined threat.

This also makes me mad because I have experienced *real* sexual comments and have kept my mouth shut. I figured I would go to my supervisor as a last resort, not a first. But now I feel that if I ever went to my supervisor, my complaint would be put on the same level as the ones you mentioned.
There are genuine cases of males mistreating females in the workplace. The first case of "sexual harassment" could have been prosecuted under the existing laws against rape, assault, or breach of contract. Young provides the details of the first case and some of it's more bizarre bastard children.

Everything good about sexual harassment law should already be covered by laws against rape, battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. Anything left over should never be enforced.

In the boxing ring of bare knuckle political exchange, Catharine MacKinnon is fair game. She entered the ring when she aided and abetted the birth of modern sexual harassment law and nurtured its illegitimate progeny .
I was saying maybe they too are imagining that things are worse than they really are (playing the victim)..

Possible in some cases. More likely, it will be assumed that the guy is guilty, so there is little incentive that the female in the equation get it right.

Just as there are genuine cases of males sexually assaulting or sexually battering females, there are also genuine cases of females making false accusations. All of the above wrongdoing should provoke a price recognized under law.
But if a company has something called sensitivity training, then it probably is a real rather than an imagined threat.

Smaller businesses tend to contract out. There is serious money to be made as a free lance "consultant".
Howdy RF, coming to this post late in the game hopefully a few comments won't be out of order.

First, I'm a man in a leadership/management position in a large company. I can't provide objective evidence one way or another about the claims Amy makes or your counter comments. I can give you some empirical observations though. I went from being a military leader (supposedly the most paternalistic and gender biased organization around) to being a civilian leader. I see much more evidence of bias against women in the civilian workplace day in and day out. Not that there is a whole lot there either.

Anywhooooo, most of the bias I see is individual, not organizational. I've seen women who scream discrimination if you mention that her new haircut looks wonderful and I've seen women who bend over your desk and spread their legs when you say that and everything in between. Like everything else in life, it varies from person to person and every one of them is different. If you treat each person you encounter, no matter their gender or ethnicity as capable, competent and professional until they show you otherwise, you can't go wrong.

The real issue for me, is the very hostile HR environment created by politically correct laws, regulations, judges, etc. It's not so much that women and feminism are causing a hostile environment for me, because they aren't, in my experience. It's that we have, in our zeal to not get sued or make sure everyone gets treated perfectly done things that make it nearly impossible to fire someone, or to hire someone based purely on their job qualifications, or promote them or give them a raise, or whatever. And this is truly the fault of a vocal PC minority and the lawyers, who are making huge bucks off this. In my company it can take up to 2 years to fire someone who doesn't perform well while we make sure all the counseling and performance plans and training and everything else is done. That's pretty damn silly.

Okay, I rambled and I'm not sure that my ideas were consistent here. But, bottom line, there is some of what Amy describes, but it's individuals. The other extreme is there too, and everything in between. Sadly, when HR and law meets that environment their only reaction is to treat it all as the extreme. And that's the real problem.
Eric, I'm glad you shared your thoughts. I am not a very PC feminist, which is probably obvious. I don't see how the PC stuff is getting women anywhere. And I think it's having a negative effect on business too. I mean, I'm not one of those "just for the rich" libertarians. But from what you say, PC law is basically messing with market incentives. That doesn't just hurt the business, but the "little guy" as well. You're probably tired of hearing me say it, but free markets are the road to freedom for everyone, including women.

"I've seen women who scream discrimination if you mention that her new haircut looks wonderful and I've seen women who bend over your desk and spread their legs when you say that and everything in between."

Still LMAO over that one!
Hey, cool, cause I'm not a very PC anything either.

I'm not sick and tired of hearing about the free market since I am an absolute free market fanatic. Free markets are absolutely the road to freedom for men and women both. By distorting the market with dumb laws, dumb HR policies and dumb judges we are creating a situation that makes things worse for women, not better.

I chuckled as I was writing it, glad it tickled your funny bone too. If we can't laugh at ourselves, then we are completely lost.
I take issue with feminist Catherine McKinnon’s comment that “most consumers of pornography are men.”

Men are visually simulated by sex, while women are emotionally stimulated. Therefore, in order to truly evaluate which sex purchased more material related to the idea of sexual arousal, we must broaden the definition to include the types of material that is sexually stimulating to females.

Romance novels account for over 50% of all paperback book sales. The inclusion of this statistic alone clearly shows that woman are far more active as consumers of sexually simulating material than men.

McKinnon goes on to say that "Sexuality, as socially organized, is deeply misogynistic.”
Here she hits the nail right on the head. But why? The answer to that lies in the current state of world religion. The “Big Three” (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) are all based on patriarchal values. They all exalt a God with primarily male attributes, and place women in a subordinate role.

If history is to teach us anything, let us learn this:

All world religions can be placed in one of two categories. Matriarchy or patriarchy.

Matriarchies are found in agriculturally based societies that depend on the bounty of the earth and the change of seasons. They are generally peaceful, and exalt birth and new life, with a nurturing, divine mother figure.

Patriarchies are found in industrial societies that rely on trade, commerce or conquest to fuel their economies. They are generally war like nations willing to do battle for righteousness and divine good. They share the common element of forcing conquest or assimilation upon any group that does not share in their ideology.

The reason that most world religions are patriarchal is simply because they have systematically wiped out the matriarchies. This alone should tell us what lies ahead for humanity if this trend is allowed to continue.

The world will never be at peace, nor will women ever take their rightful place beside their male counterparts, until the world embraces a new form of theology that exalts the concepts of matriarchy and patriarchy as a divine parenting model of human kind, in a doctrine that embraces scientific principles and open diversity.

It is up to the women to create this change.

The key is not for women to simply embrace their sexuality, or to demand equality in the workplace, but rather, to embrace themselves as the divine expression of nurturing beauty, and bringers of new life. Only when we value ourselves, will others see the divine light within us. Then, the chain reaction will follow.

Case in point: The Tree of life
In the bible, the story of Adam, Eve, and the apple is taught as Eve’s original sin. But long before this tale was told, a much older version of the story circled the globe, in which a hero was sent on a quest. Only when he proved himself worthy, did the goddess appear before him, and grant him the reward of the fruit from the tree of life.

One story values women the other condemns them.

So plant your seeds ladies, and pass out the fruit. Our future depends on you.
Eh, sorry Kell Bell, but you're trying to prescribe a very narrow role for women... and men.

I have no desire to "embrace myself as the divine expression of nurturing beauty, and bringer of new life".


I'm not nurturing. I'm an aggressive bitch. And if I was running the show, I would go to war when needed. Might isn't always right, but it isn't always wrong either.

I'm not emotionally stimulated by sex. And romance novels suck. Bring on the boys in g-strings.
Found this site by accident, and had to reply, I am a 60 year old man, only 5'4" have worn glasses all my life small in stature and unfortunately most women and men find me UGLY compared to their Stance on Beauty and Manhood.

ever since Womens Liberation /the Feminist movement started in the late 60's. my life was affected severely by women that changed over night into MAN HATERS, women and girls being trained by Gloria Fienstein types that influenced females to become Lesbians and destroy men any way they can.

for example, I loved a girl ever since she and I were 5 years old, her personality changed over night and became a hate monster, after attending a feminist meeting in St Louis... she called me on the telephone COLLECT in California, to tell me that ALL MEN ARE SONS OF BITCHES, and a Woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle, and Women do not need a man they can do anything a man can do, she was taught to raise her daughter to take anything she can get from a man and kick him to the curb.

I have been insulted, harassed, intimidated and threatened by women for no reason at all, simply by opening a door, complementing them, or asking their age,.
A woman actually accused me of sexual harassment for asking her how old she was talking about a high school reunion......

I over heard three women that met at a party, discussing after two drinks each, how they are trying to set men up at their jobs for sexual harassment, and can not wait for their FIRST SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWSUIT., these women were actually working as a pack, one a poor poor female victim with no bra, a see through blouse, short skirt, no panties, enticing perfume, bending over for their boss rubbing against him to get him excited to make a verbal or physical pass at her, so the other two can be witnesses and share into the money won, then move on to another business another male victim, and do it over and over again..if men did this it would be called a CRIME....

I have never married, as every woman jumped on the band wagon as a male hater, and extorcionist, a man is foolish to marry a woman or even live with her, as the LAW protects women and a MAN is automatically guilty if a woman accuses him of sexual harassment, or sexual discrimination...a man actually has to prove HE did not sexually harass a woman, I have seen this and read about this many times since 1968...

Problem is when ever a woman gets into trouble she gets a man to bail her out and then turns on him and eats him alive.....
Please do not call me a liar, I have lived through this....
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?