![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mis_creationThis was sparked by this batshit fucking insane womanwomyn.
To sum up for those that don't want to read it (I don't recommend it unless you want your eyes to bleed and your blood pressure to skyrocket):
This woman sat down and watched Firefly, and was absolutely enraged. According to her breakdown of the pilot episode, Firefly is not only not feminist, but Joss Whedon is anti-feminist in the extreme, racist, sexist, and supports rape of women. Oh, and she's sure he rapes his wife on a regular basis. Because that crazy batshit woman classifies all heterosexual sex as rape, whether the female consents or not, because all heterosexual sex is men dominating women.**
To this woman and all the other militant feminists who make Real Feminists look bad:
Please stop talking. Please get off "my side". Please get out of my gender. You're making my gender and chosen social beliefs look unbelievably crazy.***
Seriously.
I'm not even going to touch the shit she spewed about one of my favorite shows ever. She's entitled to her opinion, no matter how crazy and completely missing-of-the-point I think it is.
But this woman seriously gives all feminists an extremely bad name. The same way that those hate-preaching bigots who claim to be "Christians" give real Christians a bad name, by not only linking them all together in one nutso package, but making it seem like they're all like that.
My mother and aunts are feminists. They grew up in the 50s and 60s, lived through the 70s, raised kids in the 80s, 90s and into the new century. Moreso, they raised girls and one boy in that time. And they raised them to believe that people are people, not their gender. That if you choose to be a stay-at-home mom, that's because it's what you want to do, (hopefully) not because you belive it's what you "should" do as a woman, or even because you're a woman. Is the world the way the feminists wanted it to be? Not by a long shot. But that's why we/they're still fighting.
What these batshit insane feminazis* don't realize is that our mothers and grandmothers fought so women would have choice. Get that? Fucking choice to decide what they want, as individuals, as people, as part of a couple if they so wish. If they want to never get married, have their tubes tied at the age of 23, and go off to live in Antarctica to study penguins in the wild, that's their fucking choice. If they want to play housewife and raise a passel of kids in suburbia, I wouldn't choose that, but it's their life, not yours. If they're lesbians and want to live on a commune, raise organic produce, and take in troubled foster children, more power to them. If they want to get a fucking sex change and live as men and marry a woman or a man or whoever, it's their choice.
Real Feminists fought for stay-at-home-dads to lose their stigma and paternity leave just as hard as they fought for women in the workplace, equal pay for equal work, and maternity leave.
They fought--and still fight--for women and men to be seen as people, their decisions not defined by their fucking gender or who they love or who they fuck. Those are small elements of who we are as people, and while they help make up the whole, those elements are not the whole themselves, and to treat them as such is ridiculous.
So really, it's none of your fucking damn business if a stay-at-home mom wants to be who she is, raise her kids. You know what? Maybe she's trading stocks on the computer while the kids are down for a nap and making a fucking mint, which she'll then use to better the lives of her children, and hopefully make sure they don't come out as batshit crazy and hateful as you.
And you know what? As long as you continue to spew your hate instead of trying to make a real difference, you're just perpetuating the problem. By saying what you've said about women in general, you're basically saying that we're too weak to stand up for ourselves, that we need men to cowtow to us because we're not strong enough to make our opinions known and clear. What you're saying is that women are less than men, but that now men need to make themselves less to make themselves even with women.
Fuck that. I say, people are people. Their choices are their own.
Stop spewing hatred and mind your own fucking business. Unfortunately, they also fought so you nutjobs could be heard. Be thankful for that, and don't call yourself a feminist. Please, you're making real feminists look bad.
Notes:
* I use this term to differentiate the batshit fucking insane "feminists" from the real feminsts. Yes, it's offensive, because this woman is offensive to me. It's also pretty accurate and I believe she uses this term to describe herself. So, much like calling myself a bitch, I'm going to use it.
** Many rape victims responded to the post at![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
_the_firefly_ where I first heard of the post. All of them said that this definition of rape is 1) crazy and 2) insulting to rape victims. Not being a rape victim myself, I will not speak on something I don't know. But it sounds stupid, doesn't it?
*** And for the bi/lesbian women I know, I would also like to point out that she gives lesbians a bad, bad, bad name. She's the quintessential man-hating lesbian, a bad caricature from a bad 50's scare-movie about what "lesbians" are.
P.S. See, that's the difficulty in taking the stance I do. If I believe everyone should mind their own fucking business, then what right do I have to spout off about this person who I don't agree with? So, I'm a hypocrite. I don't fucking care. This has been brewing for a long time.
To sum up for those that don't want to read it (I don't recommend it unless you want your eyes to bleed and your blood pressure to skyrocket):
This woman sat down and watched Firefly, and was absolutely enraged. According to her breakdown of the pilot episode, Firefly is not only not feminist, but Joss Whedon is anti-feminist in the extreme, racist, sexist, and supports rape of women. Oh, and she's sure he rapes his wife on a regular basis. Because that crazy batshit woman classifies all heterosexual sex as rape, whether the female consents or not, because all heterosexual sex is men dominating women.**
To this woman and all the other militant feminists who make Real Feminists look bad:
Please stop talking. Please get off "my side". Please get out of my gender. You're making my gender and chosen social beliefs look unbelievably crazy.***
Seriously.
I'm not even going to touch the shit she spewed about one of my favorite shows ever. She's entitled to her opinion, no matter how crazy and completely missing-of-the-point I think it is.
But this woman seriously gives all feminists an extremely bad name. The same way that those hate-preaching bigots who claim to be "Christians" give real Christians a bad name, by not only linking them all together in one nutso package, but making it seem like they're all like that.
My mother and aunts are feminists. They grew up in the 50s and 60s, lived through the 70s, raised kids in the 80s, 90s and into the new century. Moreso, they raised girls and one boy in that time. And they raised them to believe that people are people, not their gender. That if you choose to be a stay-at-home mom, that's because it's what you want to do, (hopefully) not because you belive it's what you "should" do as a woman, or even because you're a woman. Is the world the way the feminists wanted it to be? Not by a long shot. But that's why we/they're still fighting.
What these batshit insane feminazis* don't realize is that our mothers and grandmothers fought so women would have choice. Get that? Fucking choice to decide what they want, as individuals, as people, as part of a couple if they so wish. If they want to never get married, have their tubes tied at the age of 23, and go off to live in Antarctica to study penguins in the wild, that's their fucking choice. If they want to play housewife and raise a passel of kids in suburbia, I wouldn't choose that, but it's their life, not yours. If they're lesbians and want to live on a commune, raise organic produce, and take in troubled foster children, more power to them. If they want to get a fucking sex change and live as men and marry a woman or a man or whoever, it's their choice.
Real Feminists fought for stay-at-home-dads to lose their stigma and paternity leave just as hard as they fought for women in the workplace, equal pay for equal work, and maternity leave.
They fought--and still fight--for women and men to be seen as people, their decisions not defined by their fucking gender or who they love or who they fuck. Those are small elements of who we are as people, and while they help make up the whole, those elements are not the whole themselves, and to treat them as such is ridiculous.
So really, it's none of your fucking damn business if a stay-at-home mom wants to be who she is, raise her kids. You know what? Maybe she's trading stocks on the computer while the kids are down for a nap and making a fucking mint, which she'll then use to better the lives of her children, and hopefully make sure they don't come out as batshit crazy and hateful as you.
And you know what? As long as you continue to spew your hate instead of trying to make a real difference, you're just perpetuating the problem. By saying what you've said about women in general, you're basically saying that we're too weak to stand up for ourselves, that we need men to cowtow to us because we're not strong enough to make our opinions known and clear. What you're saying is that women are less than men, but that now men need to make themselves less to make themselves even with women.
Fuck that. I say, people are people. Their choices are their own.
Stop spewing hatred and mind your own fucking business. Unfortunately, they also fought so you nutjobs could be heard. Be thankful for that, and don't call yourself a feminist. Please, you're making real feminists look bad.
Notes:
* I use this term to differentiate the batshit fucking insane "feminists" from the real feminsts. Yes, it's offensive, because this woman is offensive to me. It's also pretty accurate and I believe she uses this term to describe herself. So, much like calling myself a bitch, I'm going to use it.
** Many rape victims responded to the post at
_the_firefly_ where I first heard of the post. All of them said that this definition of rape is 1) crazy and 2) insulting to rape victims. Not being a rape victim myself, I will not speak on something I don't know. But it sounds stupid, doesn't it?*** And for the bi/lesbian women I know, I would also like to point out that she gives lesbians a bad, bad, bad name. She's the quintessential man-hating lesbian, a bad caricature from a bad 50's scare-movie about what "lesbians" are.
P.S. See, that's the difficulty in taking the stance I do. If I believe everyone should mind their own fucking business, then what right do I have to spout off about this person who I don't agree with? So, I'm a hypocrite. I don't fucking care. This has been brewing for a long time.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-04-09 06:30 am (UTC)First Wave: Right to vote.
Second Wave: Right to Work.
Third Wave: Right to Choose (whatever that means)
Many of the "feminazis" belong to the second wave because of the idea that men purposefully held them down. In some ways, that's true: the corporate fat cats DID believe that women belonged barefoot in the kitchen six months pregnant. The problem with the angry feminists is that this sort of view is dying rather rapidly. I'm not so irresponsible to say that the glass ceiling is gone, but it's become rather fragile, and opportunities are more plentiful. Unfortunately, the anger doesn't go away and the memory remains, despite the fact that some of the angry types weren't even alive during the Gloria Steinem days and so are really talking out their oh-so-pinchable asses.
I'm a bastard and I approve this message. :)
On an unrelated note, wanna play a RIFTS campaign? :D
no subject
Date: 2008-04-10 01:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 12:42 am (UTC)But, I will say this one thing:
The idea of heterosexual sex as rape may, repeat, may not be as completely crazy as you think.
Please don't tear out my throat yet. Just bear with me for a bit.
Ok, first off, to clarify: Do I think that all het sex, even consensual sex, is rape? Absolutely not. As a person who has engaged in a fair amount of het sex, I find that notion rather silly, not to mention enormously insulting to actual rape victims. Obviously we agree so far.
So why am I taking time to defend this theory? Well, the original (note: original) theory comes to us courtasy of Catherine McKinnon who, while certainly on the far, far extreme of radicalism, is not really so batshit crazy, bad press to the contrary. See, McKinnon is a legal theorist, a fact that many seem to forget, so when she wrote her various theories, they were from an (almost) entirely legal perspective. This, coupled with the fact that most of her writing was done in the '70s when thigs (particularly from a legal perspective) were much, much worse (another fact that is often blithly forgotten) means that her stands tends to be much more extreme and hardline than we are comfortable with these days. Do I always agree with her? Certainly not. Do I think she had a tendency to perhaps go too far? Absolutely. But do I still think her views are worth my time? Yes, yes I do.
And here's why: When she was writing about the concept of herterosexual sex as rape, she was considering heterosexual sex as defined by law and popular culture at the time. This was when it was a completely legal contradiction to say that a husband had raped his wife: from the legal perspective of the time, this was impossible. See, consent wasn't viewed as, "The woman/both parties want(s) to have sex, and have stated/indicated such." No, it was seen as, "This man is allowed to fuck that woman." A marriage was lifetime permission for said man to fuck said woman, so any personal feelings the woman may have had on any particular day were irrelivant. This view was extended, via popular culture, to all het. couples. Historically speaking, a woman couldn't even be considered raped unless her father (or husband or guardian) said that he had not given permission for so-and-so to have sex with her. Thus: woman is raped (by our sense of the word today), but her father likes the guy and says it's ok, ergo, it's not rape; a man and a woman have loving, consensual sex (again by today's deffinition), but the father (or guardian) says he did not give his permision, and then it's rape. We can look at all that today and say, "Well that's just ridiculous," but that was what McKinnon was dealing with and it is largely due to McKinnon and her collegues that that is not the world we are dealing with today.
(see continuation below)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 12:44 am (UTC)Furthermore, McKinnon's main point was that in a world in which whether or not a woman consents is an irrelevant question, there can be so such thing as a consenting woman because a woman can only consent to having sex if she is also allowed to withhold consent. Ergo, from a legal perspective, there is no such thing as consensual heterosexual sex, ergo, all het sex is rape.
Now, the problem with arguments over these theories is that the vast majority of people, whether they are arguing for or against them, either forget or are simply unaware 1)of the logic and argument leading to the claim that het sex is rape, and 2)that this argument only really applies in the very specific circumstances illustrated above which, while sadly not completely eradicate, are thankfully becoming increasingly more rare. See, McKinnon made her arguments in a very specific time and place, addressing a very specific set of problems. Anyone who is trying to use those theories to broad sweeping statements about something that's going on today has pretty much missed the boat. I still hold, however, that this does not completely invalidate the theories themselves, it just means that when we are discussing them, we can't be sloppy.
And just to make sure I'm covering my ass and you don't think that this makes me just completely batshit crazy (hopefully), no, of course I don't think the lady you're ranting about is right. I think that even if she isn't actually batshit crazy (but I'm thinking you're right and she is), then she is very, very mistaken and needs a few basic lessons in reading and comprehension, not to mention research and historical context.
Anyway, just felt like I had to step in for the radical-leftist feminists.
Also, I truly despise the term "feminazi." *shudders*
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 01:32 am (UTC)I concede that there may be precedent for her sentiment that all het sex is rape, in the legal sense at the time of McKinna's writing.
But it is illegal now (sadly, according to my very, very brief research, just in the 90s, but still illegal now), and therefore her stance moved from legal argument to the "real world" and towards the "crazy" angle of the spectrum. And using that false argument to slander Joss Whedon just pisses me the fuck off.
And apparently, (also found through very, very brief research) the law that marital rape wasn't actually a crime came, of course, from biblical law. But the verse of the bible it was taken from (Corinthians 7:3-5) specifically states that it goes both ways:
"For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does." [emphasis mine]
...not that it's actually relevant, as the statistics on males having unwilling sex with females are almost nonexistant due to societal programming, but I thought it was interesting. It's equality of a sort, right? *rolls eyes*
Also, I truly despise the term "feminazi." *shudders*
...Yeah. Sorry for that, but, like I said, she uses it to describe herself. I swear, I also saw her use the words "lesbian separatist" but now I can't find it again...
Mostly it was the slander and the completely back-ass-ward arguments that got to me. This was the most coherent response I could come up with. My initial responses to her post (now posts, since she's written up Our Mrs. Reynolds now) was nausea and a desperate desire to forget I ever read anything she'd ever penned. Also, her complete misandry was frankly appalling. That level of hate pointed at anyone is disgusting.
She is not a radical leftist feminist. She thinks she is, but she's not. That is why I used the term "feminazi" because it clearly separates her from any concept or incarnation of "feminism". She refuses to even admit that men can hold feminist ideals (that is that women should be equal under the law and in the eyes of society, etc), and calls male feminists "unicorns". She also says in her journal info that she welcomes debates, but doesn't even allow people who disagree with her to be "heard" on her journal.
What she is, is a hypocritical, hateful person who has a dim, dark view of anything that she doesn't agree with. She's no better than the hateful, hypocritical religious nutjobs who said that 9/11 was God's punishment on a sinful America (or whatever-the-fuck they said, I tried like hell not to listen).
No, I don't think you're batshit crazy. You're enthusiastic, and loud and gung-ho about your causes, but even when you're human and have knee-jerk reactions, you do think about them at some point. You also have some sense of logic, and scale, and that not everything is some Vast Heterosexual Conspiracy to Beat Down Females. You think for yourself. Somehow, I get the feeling that she doesn't, and is just regurgitating out-of-context something she was told. (I don't know that for sure, though, and am not interested in finding out more in-depth because she literally turns my stomach.)
Anyway, you do not equal her in any way. And I always appreciate information.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 01:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-15 05:29 pm (UTC)Yeah, I actually agree with everything that you've said, and it sounds like this woman really is just a nutjob who doesn't really know what she's talking about. I just like to point out that folks who use those arguments are typically doing it wrong, because otherwise anytime anyone brings up McKinnon, folks just sort of go,"McKinnon! Eeevil feminazi! You must be just a crazy bitch and I'm not listening to you. Lalalalala!" Not that folks don't do that anyway... Blah.
Anyhoo. Still haven't read her "arguments", but it sounds like her beef is just totally inappropriate.
Also, isn't it convenient that when those rape & adultery laws were written, they just happened to completely forget about the second half of that biblical passage? Way to go sexual double standard...
Oh, yeah, and I totally understand you getting pissed off in defense of firefly and Joss Whedon. I'm with you there. If you're gonna criticize 'im (or anyone, really), at least do it with some integrity. 'Cause that's some bullshit, yo.