18 Dec 2013

Jezebel Has Some Trouble Understanding Camille Paglia. Let’s help them out + Do The Sarkeesian: Everybody Jump On The Rape Train - Daily Mail’s Jennifer Smith Is The Conductor

By Camille Paglia has a written a new piece for Time Magazine, called It’s a Man’s World and it Always Will Be. Camille has the audacity to point out that if men are “obsolete”, then women will soon be extinct.
Oh dear.  Cue the shrieking harridans over at Jezebel.  They demand to know just what Camille means by that! How could that be possible? The increasingly clueless and defiantly obtuse Erin Gloria Ryan has some questions for Dr. Paglia.
Let’s help her answer those, shall we?
 A peevish, grudging rancor against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism
[Citation needed].
Men’s faults, failings and foibles [Like? Aggression? War? Rape? Dick-waving? The Jackass franchise? What?] have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment [By whom?].
By whom?  Are you kidding me?  ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!
How about by Jezebel?
Men are rapists (especially MRA men)!
Assholes who don’t know how to clean but can be trained like dogs to do so by the truly dedicated!
Boys are gross!
Jezebel hates men!
The end of white men!
Fathers are not really that important after all!
blah blah blah blah …. Basically the entire site is devoted to pointing out any flaws the ladies can find in men, all the while ignoring the fact they would have no power, clean water, communications or computer technology and would essentially be screaming messages back and forth between grass huts without men, a point Camille has made in the past.
Ideologue professors [Who?] at our leading universities [Which ones?] indoctrinate impressionable undergraduates [How? Are you implying that young people internalize ideologies simply by hearing them once? How is this indoctrination occurring] with carelessly fact-free [Odd hyperbole] theories alleging that gender is an arbitrary, oppressive fiction with no basis in biology [Bold statement. Source?].
This is almost too laughably ridiculous to warrant a response.  Has Erin never heard of the women’s studies department?  Almost every liberal arts oriented university has one, stuffed full of professors that do not study women, they study “feminism”, which is not the same thing.
Creating whole departments of ethnic, gender, and other ‘studies’ was part of the price of academic peace. All too often, these ‘studies’ are about propaganda rather than serious education.
 - Thomas Sowell
People internalize ideologies by hearing them once?  What? Show me the university degree that can be earned after one class.  Impressionable undergraduates are typically enrolled for four years.  Four years is more than sufficient for complete indoctrination.
If you want carelessly fact-free, just consider your questions at the beginning of the paragraph.  Who? Which ones?  Are you seriously patting yourself on the back for your epic take down of Camille? Really?  That’s what Camille means by “fact-free”, toots.
And now you are denying that feminism considers gender a fiction with no basis in biology?  Really?  Here we go with the “fact-free” again.  Google “gender as a social construct” and tell me what you get.  Seriously.  Go do it.  It’s not a bold claim at all.  It’s pedestrian at this point.  Feminism claims that gender is a social fiction with no basis in biology.  
There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender… identity is performatively constituted by the very ‘expressions’ that are said to be its results.
- Judith Butler
Moving along…
Is it any wonder that so many [How many?] high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success [Cite examples here, otherwise it just sounds like you're talking out of your ass], find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety [See previous note about ass-talking] about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life [See two previous notes about the origin of talking w/r/t Your Ass]?
Here we go with all the stupid facts again.  The Anxiety and Depression Association of America reports that approximately 40 million people aged 18 and over suffer from anxiety issues, which is the most common mental illness in the US, and women are twice as likely to be affected as men.
Happy talk about women succeeding academically? Oh, you missed this article?  And this one?  And this one, too? They’re all from Jezebel, you moron.
When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood [Clarification needed here to explain what your argument even is. What is manhood? What is masculinity? A John Wayne movie? Like, Iroquois manhood? Mustaches? Fatherhood? Dressing in plaid shirts? Dying of prostate cancer? Can the men be gay? Can the men be peaceful? You're assuming your audience understands dog whistle shorthand that only exists in your brain.] then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments.
Well color me fucking SHOCKED that Jezebel has no idea what masculinity or manhood means.  Here’s a starter course for you.
From my long observation [Anecdata], which predates the sexual revolution [Cut this; reminding readers that you formed your opinion before hippie-times doesn't add to your cred; it makes you seem doddering], this remains a serious problem afflicting Anglo-American society, with its Puritan residue [Sounds like a euphemism for dried ejaculate; cut].
Anecdata?  Dr. Paglia has been teaching at universities since 1972.  Her book Sexual Personae topped the bestseller lists in 1990, a rare accomplishment for a scholarly book.  She has been active in universities as an educator for over 40 years. That’s hardly “anecdata”.
Doddering”? Charming.  I’m surprised Erin didn’t pull out the fat and ugly arguments to go along with “old”.  All praise the sisterhood, huh?  What was that about critiquing other women on their thoughts and ideas again?  No?  Just call her old and be done with it?
How clever.
“Ejaculate”?  That icky boy stuff?  Ew, gross.
How mature.
In France, Italy, Spain, Latin America, and Brazil, in contrast, many ambitious professional women [How many?] seem [Ugh] to have found a formula for asserting power [Statistics? Something? Back this up please? Careful with the "Latin America, sexy feminist wonderland" stereotype; easily disprovableor at least vehemently argued againstAlso kind of in line with troublesome "sexy brown chick" trope you keep going back to; careful here] and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamor [Oy.]. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences [Girl what are you even talking about here? Get some new cultural references].
Want facts?  Probably not, but here are some anyways.  This report might help.
Quantitative research was conducted in France, Germany, US, UK, Brazil, Mexico and China.  Qualitative research was conducted in France, Germany, US, UK, Brazil, Mexico, China, Japan, South Korea, India, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines and Indonesia.
Nearly 70% of women globally think that being beautiful helps them get what they want out of life, and the same number believe that the relationship between happiness and beauty is directly proportional. 93% of women said they felt more confident overall when they knew they looked beautiful.
Careful now.  This may not be racist at all.  Rather inclusive if you ask me.  That’s kind of foreign to feminists, though, isn’t it?
After the next inevitable apocalypse [Okay. That is your argument. Men aren't over because the world is ending. Okay. Okay. Got it.], men will be desperately needed again [Again, not sure you established that men aren't needed now...]!
Not sure you established that men are needed now.
That needs to “established”, does it?  Okay, here you go.  All information taken from the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Oh, sure, there will be the odd gun-toting Amazonian survivalist gal, who can rustle game out of the bush and feed her flock [Who is this piece about? Women who have children without men around? Childless young women with academic accomplishments? Why is the subject of this piece constantly morphing?], but most women and children will be expecting men [Citation needed] to scrounge for food and water and to defend the home turf [Just to review: we're now arguing that gender roles must exist because after a theoretical apocalypse, women and children will "expect" men to fend for them? That's what's happening here? Okay.].
Most women want breadwinner husbands?  Uh, yes.  Yes they do.
‘Women with young children are going back to the very traditional division of labour in which they want the husband as the breadwinner.
‘Having tried full-time working themselves they have found the home much more interesting and want to be enabled to have that.”
Stupid facts, again!
 Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now, invisible as it is to most feminists [Citation needed], who seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own work lives possible [Who hurt you, Camille?].
Citation needed?  Go back to the top.  Men are obsolete.  The end of men.  Are men necessary?
 It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments [Who is this argument against?].
It’s not an argument against anything.  It’s pointing out the reality.  Facts.  I know, Erin, facts confuse you and make you feel all wobbly inside.  Don’t worry.  You can stick your head back in the sand very soon.
It is men who heft and weld the giant steel beams that frame our office buildings, and it is men who do the hair-raising work of insetting and sealing the finely tempered plate-glass windows of skyscrapers 50 stories tall [Ok.]. Every day along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, one can watch the passage of vast oil tankers and towering cargo ships arriving from all over the world [Don't mention that you hang out in Philadelphia; undermines credibility].
Aw, no argument left? Just an insult against Philadelphia?
How very, very clever.
These stately colossi are loaded, steered, and off-loaded by men. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author [They just made every man who ever existed inside of their bodies; nbd]. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!
Hey, looky, looky.  We actually agree!  Women’s greatest contribution to society is to be a mother to children.
They made every man who ever existed.  Erin, you do realize that human reproduction requires that icky ejaculate you were grossing out over not so long ago, right?
Women:  they made every man
Men:  they made every man AND THE WHOLE FUCKING ECONOMY, TOO.
It’s due.
Lots of love,




Do The Sarkeesian: Everybody Jump On The Rape Train - Daily Mail’s Jennifer Smith Is The Conductor
By : Someone just emailed me a link to a Daily Mail article by Jennifer Smith reporting on the torrent of death threats and sexist remarks,” (apparently one comes with the other) that was allegedly unleashed on journalist Carolina Criado-Perez after she advocated for images of women being placed on British bank notes. A man and a women have been arrested and will soon be charged. They either tweeted something offensive, or threatening, or sexist, or something else altogether. The article did not say if the woman or the man threatened to rape Criado-Perez.
It is really hard to tell what precisely is alleged given that Smith did not cite the content of any of the tweets.
That is correct. An entire article in Daily Mail about criminal proceedings against people for making illegal tweets, only it did not include, you know, the tweets. To make matters worse Smith rambled through her piece never quite making up her mind whether the tweets were actual threats, or offensive or sexist or all three. She just kind of traded the terms back and forth like she was in a creative noun contest, and to make sure readers were confused as to what actually happened. That tends to happen when you don’t tell them what actually happened. Or when you are making it up as you go along.
The article was also replete with other forms of confusion, not all of which was Smith’s fault, but which she could have clarified a little more by bothering to ask the right questions. For example, this passage:

Detectives ruled there was insufficient evidence to prosecute one suspect, while another who is accused of sending offensive messages to Stella Creasy MP will avoid sentencing as prosecution ‘would not be in the public interest’.
Hmm, what could be in the public interest here? Maybe not prosecuting people who have not committed crimes? Maybe not turning satire or internet taunting into a legitimate rape threat only to find out that things like actual criminal codes and the like will get in your way if you want to prosecute someone?
Yeah, public interest. That’s the ticket. The public isn’t interested in it because it is pure bullshit.
The story is not a new one. It goes back several months before the Crown started to showboat the latest feminist outrage with the current witchhunt. Typhon gave it a brief treatment in a video back on August 1.
It is really hard to add anything here to what Typhon just pointed out. It is just a lot of obscure allegations about tweets that can be found by the millions all over the internet, and which are aimed at everyone and their brother. It is a part of modern life in the age of the internet. If you speak up about anything, someone will tweet you badly for it.
Most of us just get over it.  Feminists play it like a cheap violin. You can bet your ass some woman will be on a £100 note now that the feminists have figured out how to damsel their way into it.
It is time to add to the lexicon, and we might as well give credit where it is due. This technique of using damseling to achieve goals that are quite likely stupid or worthless, like choosing people to be on currency because they have a vagina, or raising a cool $160,000 to make YouTube videos about video games that you don’t even play can only be called one thing. A Sarkeesian.
I know, it is awkward, and it presents challenges. Am I really going to find myself typing words like Sarkeessianed, or Sarkeesianing? Well, yes, I am, because this is how third wave feminists are going to find support for their pet projects now that governments are starting to figure out just how much they cost. And now that white knighting and woman firsting is all the social rage, it will deliver in spades.
Want to raise a quarter mil to study the incidence of sexist remarks in Quentin Tarantino movies? Just start blogging and tweeting your intentions. When the inevitable jokester tweets that Tarantino should rape you, get the screen shot and tell your tearful story to Jennifer Smith. She’ll announce your KickStarter and the next thing you know you will be taking notes on Django Unchained from your cabana in Antigua.
Do the Sarkeesian. You could laugh right in the face of your most avid supporters and blow their money on cocaine and Stoly. They won’t even know the difference.
In this day and age, this is what we call being oppressed.


No comments:

Post a Comment