Posts Tagged ‘feminism’

(No doubt) in response to my SCATHING criticism of Richard Dawkins’ sexist remarks, he recently made a speech not only openly supporting Feminism (likely intended as a direct apology to me) but also hilariously dismissing the entire Men’s Rights Movement and its overbearing misogyny.
BEHOLD!!!

This is a video blog. In other words, instead of ranting in writing I just did it at the camera.
Not sure why I had such trouble with my English today, but perhaps this is coherent enough.
This is on the Abrahamic God, Rape, Sexism, Feminism, Darwinism, and Atheism. Specifically, addressing the religious argument that without gawd, rape is permissible. I argue to the contrary from a secular humanist perspective.

femfatale,female,feminism,feminist,fight,movement-8736bed24c128f6ce450693f50716e90_h                                                                 “Give me back my Midol!!!”

Fight Club is a Feminist film.
Hear me out. These are not my words, but of another feminist. Apparently, because the real thing the men in Fight Club rile against is the established patriarchal order, it is in fact, a feminist film (for dude-bros).
“Huh”, said I.
Bob, (testicle-less though he may be) is clearly very in touch with his emotions, and this is not seen as a bad thing, but surely that alone does not make it a ‘feminist’ film. In the same way the overt flirtation the film has with the homoerotic aspects of male sexuality does not really make it pro-LBGT, right?
(Okay so that was a crap joke…in the same way that 300 was TOTALLY not homoerotic).

film-300_005                                                        Soak in the manliness!

Even as I enjoyed the nuances of the film’s dichotomy, the way the sole female character was treated by the males in the film always troubled me.
They clearly resented being “a generation raised by women”.
Fight Club itself is exclusionary to women (as a combat instructor, that’s some serious — no sarcasmBULLSHIT right there).
Further, the male ‘protagonists’ state that they, “don’t think another woman is what [they] need”.

300: Rise of an Empire Eva Green as Artemisia             Everything Eva Green touches, no matter how shitty, turns into Gold. No discussion.

Fight Club is usually seen as a schizophrenic thriller — a single tear-drop away from an MRA manifesto — especially since for the majority of the film, the main character fixates on openly hating the sole female lead of the movie (while simultaneously sexually fixating on her).
However, misogynistic as the male characters may be, the point of the film clearly illustrates the hatred/obsession with women as the focal point of the film; and when you think about it, that is some surprisingly honest shit from such a popular piece of cinema.
That view alone, intentional or not, makes this a film worth taking a second look at — difficult though it may be to wade through the sexism — in order to see the misguided angst of the men under the patriarchal system they, themselves erected from their own twisted and confused, perspective.

I leave you with a kiss:

I see myself as a skeptic, but I hesitate to associate myself with atheist groups. There are reasons for this.

563768_342904879141739_1630566303_nFor one, taking advice from musing velociraptors is questionable at the best of times.

I was a fan of Christopher Hitchens despite his faults, and still enjoy prominent atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. I recognize that organized religions are detrimental to us as a species, yet it seems as though a great many vocal atheists take a sexist page from the religious handbook (arguably the very worst of religion).
I have no problem with offending people with the truth — to jar people into reality.
I think it is fantastic when Harris and Dawkins openly challenge religious doctrine and its defenders and I do not begrudge them their insistence to call into question people’s personal ‘anecdotal’ experiences (one cannot debate against such perspectives). It is important to be ‘militant’ about challenging people to communicate in a logical fashion, as worthwhile debates simply cannot exist otherwise.
That is why the seemingly inherent misogyny of the online atheist is so especially troubling.

558119_418315591586115_1109174470_n“God told me we should be together!”

A great many well-subscribed atheist Youtube personalities are very fervently anti-feminist. I realize that the only binding principle that actually unites atheists is a lack of belief in gods and that all other topics including gender, ethnic and political issues are fair game to break ranks on. However, one would think that atheists would want to distinguish ourselves from the many negative elements of religion, foremost of which are undoubtedly regarding women and gender-roles. Not so, says The Youtubes, as popular atheist uploaders such as Thunderf00t and self-titled ‘The Amazing Atheist’ demonstrate with their anti-feminist rants. They object to the idea that women (majority of the world’s population) could possibly have a unique perspective. To them, it is sexism itself to allot ‘special treatment’ to this historically (and modernly) enslaved and oppressed half of humanity. They enjoy using their magnified voice to take statements out of the context of centuries of oppression and generally projecting themselves (fat, balding white-men) as victimized BY women. Even mainstream atheist icon Richard Dawkins himself got into hot water not only dismissing but actively mocking the concerns of female atheists at a skeptic convention some years ago (as if women in ‘first-world’ countries should just shut up because women elsewhere have it worse).
Evidently, sentiments of sexism or racism are just as alive in the atheist community as they are doctrine in their religious counterparts. I could never find common-ground on the subject of dismissing basic human liberties. It is precisely because I would not that I find myself an atheist today.

391087_440066362751771_1805497146_n                                                    Is there an atheist on the recliner to the left?

But fear not, for not all is lost. Male-atheist ‘Cult of Dusty’ recently decried sexist statements on his videos in defense of fellow outspoken atheist Jaclyn Glenn. Of course, both of them share a ‘fashionable’ knee-jerk reaction against feminism while in the same breath praising equal rights. Perhaps they should take some notes from the seemingly sole shining online example: atheist Rebecca Watson?  It is clear, that even among the most open-minded (popular) atheists, there needs to be a reconciling of values between the non-believers and the rights-activists if there is to be any future of common-goal within either group.

 

“The abuse of women and girls is the most pervasive and unaddressed human rights violation on earth.”                     – Jimmy Carter

I consider myself a feminist.

1794583_1411270042456098_24096862_n                                                                  “Any day now…”

As such, it is blatantly obvious that I depart rather starkly with others of my associations due to my degree of perception of feminist issue.
For one, I do not — as some feminists do — shy away from openly naming the institutions and groups directly responsible for the many layers of woman-hatred that are prevalent in even the most progressive of nations worldwide. Whereas many feminists are quite content to react to single individuals’ sexism, I find myself among others (particularly atheists, be they associated with feminism or no) as having no qualms about calling out religious groups and specifically patriarchal (predominantly monotheistic) religions in general as the leading causes for misogynistic social axioms that have been indoctrinated into the human populous over the course of history. This far-reaching pervasiveness seems to inexorably seep into the fabric of all nations – to varying degrees.
Further, and much more radically, while all but the most fringe feminists dream of gender equality, I feel that such a goal aims not nearly far enough.

29542_593199634029363_415837869_n                                                                             “Ta-Da!”

Females are not just part of an arbitrarily ostracized religious group, or members of a perpetually beleaguered nation, nor even part of a brutalized ethnic group. No, women are ALL of these and constitute 51% of the TOTAL human population (and that is not taking into account the rampage of femicides in some of the most populous countries on earth). Considering that throughout the course of our entire species, females have been the targets of atrocities due to either accidental membership in an outlying group/ethnicity/nation, or targeted specifically because of their gender, it should be easy to persuade even the most staunch Men’s Rights Activists that women have been the single most oppressed group of humanity in all of time. (Unfortunately, such convictions are late in the coming)
Being that 99% of all the truly horrifying violence in this world since time immemorial has been initiated, perpetrated and continued by males, I feel that women asking ‘equality’ with us men is in itself a great inequity.

zzzzzzzzzzzfdd
Please do not mistake my position for insecurity or self-loathing. I am quite satisfied with my existence as is. In fact, sharing the trope of my gender, I consider myself to be an unflinchingly vain individual. While I’ve always surfed the edges of poverty, indeed in some cases diving right in, I have nevertheless been immeasurably privileged in my life, enjoying such experiences as earning the status of veteran, becoming a well-traveled linguist, and being the owner of a small business. No doubt, all this is due in large part to the accident of birth that is my male sex, heterosexual orientation, and Russian ethnicity. While I feel no particular personal guilt, I find it appalling on the most innate depths of both reason and morality that more men not merely do not share my view, but are actively working against even the most basic progress of women’s right to exist. Surely given all of history, if one cannot stand to concede my admittedly extreme views, one can at the very least take the time to listen and sympathize with the vast number of regular, reasonable, and rightly troubled feminists – women and men.

The Petty

Posted: December 5, 2013 in Feminism
Tags: , , , , , , ,

malefem
Outrageous!

I have written in the past about the reactions from other males regarding my chosen passion. Today I would like to briefly touch on the other side of the spectrum.

Certain feminists find it offensive that I too label myself a feminist.

I understand that some females may feel that as a male I am incapable of adequately sympathizing with or personally experiencing the kind of discrimination that feminism stands against. They prefer that I call myself an ‘Ally’.
I fully acknowledge this sentiment and have no problem with such inclinations. These people are free to make the call of whether or not they may take me seriously based on my sex and gender. This does not perturb me in the slightest, (although it does tickle a certain kind of irony at the back of the throat, doesn’t it?)
At any rate, I am vaguely disinclined to acquiesce as I find that it is my personal ideals that are what motivate my passion on the subject — not my standing or title or involvement within a group. Further, it is not for the like-minded (feminists) that I label myself as such, but rather for those others who need convincing: the apathetic, the misogynistic, the people who feel only females have cause to be feminists, or socially indoctrinated women (see internalized oppression).
And so, I am afraid I’m simply too consumed combating the actual human travesties to be able to allocate a single fuck to give toward internal clique hierarchy and social posturing.

Spongebob, I knew it!! That traitor!

But it does entitle me to a certain amount of smugness, apparently.

Whether you’re a fellow feminist or an MRA or a random passerby with an opinion, your permission or opposition of my chosen affiliations is irrelevant.
Thank you.

Marriage is the sexist, socially-accepted selling of people into male domination. I find it, and the unnatural state of monogamy it attempts to enforce to be quite abhorrent. Therefore, I greatly enjoy the idea of turning the whole twisted institution on its head and having the female take full control of the whole process. As such, if I were ever to indulge in the masochism of marriage, I would insist that it be I who loses a last name in that arrangement. All the interesting history was on my mother’s side anyway.

Now, I realize that most people do not exactly see it all that way, so allow me to address some concerns you may raise in response to the above sentiments.

First of all, this video says everything I need to say about monogamy.

Its bought and paid for, dammit!
And I’ve got the receipt to prove it too!

Second, some men act as if marriage is a trap* set for us by the conniving females – a loss of our independence, as opposed to the concept of gaining ownership over another person.
*please don’t read the entirety of that article. That entire website is rather distasteful, but alas, illustrates the mentality I am referring to perfectly.
And I’ll grant you, things aren’t exactly as barbaric as straight-up human-trading like in those wondrous biblical days certain folks pine for. You know, the good old simple times, where women were legal property to be sold off and their primary function was to produce heirs. Heirs who, by the way, would be traced by the patriarchal line – a practice about as logically backwards and intellectually absurd as insisting that women came from men, not the other way around.

whynotmatrimony
You should listen to him. After all, he’s a Doctor!

In a way, I understand the male resentment of the whole arrangement — upon entrance into this contract, we lose our sexual independence as the marriage implies a monogamous relationship. Naturally, the same is true for women but we’ll get to that in a minute. Men may feel marriage is a woman’s invention (its not) to insure they are around for the raising of children and providing for the family and so on and so forth and some men take to the ‘natural’ model of this idea and have no problem with it. Traditionally, the men are still in charge. Modern-day ‘first-world’ nations continue to have an earnings gap of in favor of men (here is a great video explaining why thats the case), so its still pretty easy to be the ‘bread-winners’.
So whats the harm, REALLY?
Speaking of people-spawn… (an oft-cited by-product of human coupling in and outside of marriage)
…it really IS pretty shitty to run around impregnating folks and then leaving them alone to deal with the psychological, physical, fiscal, familial, social, and possibly religious implications.
Like, WAY worse than jaywalking.

deadbeatdudes
Happy Father’s Day, MOM

Many women, on the other hand, are raised since childhood to look forward to The Wedding Day. In fact, it is often cited as the ‘Happiest Day of a Woman’s Life‘.
Isn’t that sad?
To think that getting hitched to some bloke is the culminating achievement of a person’s existence?
I would think not, and indeed some people want more from life.
But alas, not everyone sees the practice as backwards.
Okay.
Be that is it may, I don’t exactly see the appeal of partaking in an archaic tradition of subjugation — even if your modern variant might not actually be at all oppressive. But hey, I guess thats what happens when people let others define the idea of ‘romance’ for them. You get long-dead people’s ideals entrenched into a social psyche and you end up with people raised into gender stereotypes of pink and fluffy versus blue and gruff(y?) even if those things might not feel at all natural to you on an individual basis (and probably shouldn’t on a group basis either). Also, unlike the males, there is a certain kind of pressure for the female to be chaste — a by-product of the days (not exactly all gone) when a woman was seen as a tool for procreation (and it seems ‘used’ tools are worth less…because people are ‘things’ and a woman who know how to enjoy her gentiles is ICKY! And probably a witch).

mrs..anderson
Considering the options…

So anyway, I’m sure most people aren’t so morbid about the whole affair but I find the idea of other people’s wacky binding rituals of two lovers (lovers, provided it isn’t one of those arranged-marriage deals) to be pretty much useless to me. Whats worse, this forced, unnatural monogamous relationship (meaning it governs the sexual aspects of the marriage as well) is not only made the standard socially AND in the eyes of the Law, but all too often has religious elements tied intrinsically into the entire affair (a by-product of theocratic rule spilling over into modern-day government regulation).

And so the two people burn an effigy to the deity of fertility and dance naked around a fire on the full moon….or have the patriarch of the bride pass her off to the new penis-haver while people throw rice and stroll solemnly through a religious temple — whichever sounds less ridiculous to you — and then they are MARRIED.
Yay.
Now these two people are entitled to certain government-sanctioned privileges and have a noticeably different social standing as opposed to their unbound (unwed?) counterparts. Well jolly good for you, then!
Mazel Tov!

Now back to the important topic – myself:

526804_475130382540833_370298069_n
If I’m awesome and you know it clap your hands!

My current lover of several years and I are considering marriage. She is a practicing pagan and as such, the religious aspect of such a union are important to her.
Before we became lovers (how juvenile does ‘girlfriend/boyfriend’ sound?), we agreed that in order to avoid the rather cruel act of betrayal that is ‘cheating’ (on people, not on tests), we would inform one another if we found other people attractive BEFORE we deigned to sleep with them (sleep as in having The Sex). If the other party was not comfortable with this revelation, we would attempt to find some resolution. If no compromise could be made, we would part amicably as adults (not as Jerry Springer guests-stars).
This arrangement of genuine, beneficial-for-everyone honesty has worked quite well for us.

A year ago, the prospect of marriage was broached by me as something that made fiscal sense if she were to go into the military. This led to the revelation that marriage is something that is ultimately important to her spiritually. Nothing about our previous arrangement would have to change and since it means so very little to me, it would have been odd for me to refuse. So, I set terms for the arrangement to the effect that she would need to buy me an engagement ring and propose to me in a crowded (but fancy) restaurant. Were I to then accept (I would), we could have a ceremony with one of her Wiccan priestesses presiding as cleric and I would take her last name (which sounds more cool than mine, anyway).

pinkyoutfancy
If you like it put a ring on it

I find this to be an example of a healthy relationship and a rather fun reason to partake in the ritual of marriage. It changes literally nothing about my life, except maybe change the way I file taxes (we are already co-habitating), and grants my partner something that is important to her because of her beliefs.

I see no reason why the trust that can be established between two people cannot be extended to other people as well. Arguing to the contrary is akin to claiming you only have enough love for exactly one person. Some people have more affection to give. Others feel just peachy with one partner. I say do what makes yourself and those you care about happy and you’ll be just fine.

In short: make your own definitions. Define yourself. Do not allow others to rule you with entrenched social axioms and absurd ritualistic peer-pressure.
I think that is very basic and sound advice.