Archive for March, 2015

Ah, rape. I did a count a few months ago of how many articles on this blog had been about rape or rape culture. At last count it was something like 15. I haven’t written an article about rape in quite a while, despite the fact it still rates highly on the feminist Oppression-ometer. Why? Well, to be completely honest it gets really boring. Not that I don’t think rape is a suitable topic to be talking about, just that constantly talking about the hyperbolic attitude of feminists towards ‘rape culture’ becomes a chore after a while.

I’ve said, numerous times, how horrific I think rape is and how it’s absolutely something we need to talk about, but I’ve also made my frustrations with ‘rape culture’ known. It’s no secret I think rape culture is bullshit, it’s no secret I think feminists are the worst perpetuators of rape culture simply by their re-defining of rape as a crime. When you loosen a definition so much that inconsequential physical contact can somehow be some form of rape, it becomes fairly obvious why people might trivialise it.

Not only that but feminist’s constant refusal to acknowledge the damage false rape accusations have on men is symptomatic of how they view rape as a crime – it’s a woman’s problem.

I despise that aspect of modern feminism, and it’s one that I see so many people buy into. The mythical 1-in-4 statistic (which is, at this point in time, altered to fit whatever agenda is being served), the idea of ‘affirmative consent’, not a bad idea in theory but totally not suitable for politicking and the idea that a woman should be absolved of all responsibility when consuming even a small amount of alcohol just make me angry. What feminism has done in regard to rape has actually damaged women far beyond anything men could do. Now, women are babied, they’re mollycoddled and wrapped in cotton wool, told they are nothing but poor little victims who are incapable of facing the consequences of their actions when drunk. They trivialise real rape victims because they now make us question everything we read, and not in a good way. It is the scummiest, most pathetic aspect of a movement that claims to be about empowering women.

The worst thing about all of this is that Feminism holds the monopoly when it comes to discussions of rape. If you aren’t a feminist and you try to discuss rape then you can just forget it, if you even slightly disagree with the feminist narrative then you are, by default, a misogynistic, rape-apologising, probably-straight-white-male piece of scum. To borrow a symbol from William Golding – Feminism holds the conch and they are not willing to let it go.

So what does this mean? It means that, not only are false statistics and rape hysteria peddled to everyone as fact, but Feminism gets to decide who are and who are not victims. In the feminist-driven narrative on rape, women are perpetual victims, men are perpetual criminals. That discourse has become so prevalent that even trying to say male victims need consideration, or even trying to dispute the 1-in-4 statistic immediately gets you shut down. Even trying to talk about the whole ‘drunken women can’t consent’ thing, even trying to talk about grey areas and personal responsibility will get you hounded and abused. Rape has now become a feminist issue and only feminists are allowed to talk about it.

So what’s the answer? How do we break down this barrier, how do we approach the discussion on rape from a completely neutral viewpoint? The MRM? In a word, no. If the feminist discourse is myopic in its focus on female victims then the MRM is equally as myopic in its focus on males. Both viewpoints have validity, both come from what, I believe, is a good place; a place that means well but, ultimately, still has an agenda.

Let’s get this straight – I am a flawed man. I do not have the answers. I judge, I make snap decisions about things, I am jealous and insecure and prone to saying shit I later regret. I don’t claim to have the answers, I never have done, I only write what I feel, what I genuinely feel, at the time. I can’t do any more than that. If I’m wrong well then that’s just something I’ll deal with but, ultimately, I have a set of beliefs that I stand by and this is why I’m writing this entry.

All of that aside, the one thing that constantly bugs me, that eats away whenever I do write an article about rape, one thing I’ve never admitted and that I’m always hoping someone else doesn’t bring up is rather serious – I trivialise rape.

It’s true, whenever I write about rape or whenever I try to dismiss feminist writings on rape I am doing the very thing I claim to hate. Why? Simply because I don’t admit that rape is a problem, I play it off as an exaggeration, a piece of hyperbole, something that we shouldn’t be worried about. Truth is, rape is a disgusting crime, it’s a crime that people should be punished for, it’s a crime I can’t bear to read about, whether it happens to men or women or children, and one that, quite successfully, I manage to compartmentalise in my brain.

But, the horror of rape is real, the fact is that a lot of rapists don’t get punished for their crime. It is incredibly difficult to prosecute a rapist, again whether that’s a man or a woman, and there is still so much stigma attached to rape victims. The thing is, everyone trivialises rape. Feminists trivialise rape when they perpetuate false statistics to push their victimhood status; the MRM trivialises rape when its main focus is on the shaky statistics of false rape allegations. False rape allegations are a scourge of our time and are a lot more prevalent than Feminism will admit, but rape itself is a scourge of our time and I sometimes feel we lose the focus whilst fighting this pathetic one-upmanship game of ‘who has it worse’.

Caught between a rock and a hard place. Caught in that place between not wanting to throw falsely accused male victims under the bus but also not wanting to deny the tragedy of rapes that actually do happen and do go unpunished.

Why this perspective all of a sudden? Well, this:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/08/23/i-am-a-false-rape-allegation-statistic/

A harrowing account of what a real rape victim goes through. Or at least, what a real rape victim shouldn’t go through but sometimes does. The harsh reality of how our society still sees rape victims. I first saw this quite a while ago when a discussion came up about false rape accusations, particularly the slew of accusations against male celebrities here in the UK.

It’s a stark reminder that, yes, false rape allegations exist but that sometimes, and this is worth remembering, sometimes those false rape statistics are simply women, and men, who were truly raped but were convinced to drop their charges. I think we need to remember that, some people truly are raped and there’s nothing done about it. If that doesn’t make you sick then there’s something wrong with you.

The point of this blog, and that story, is just a reminder that we need to be humble, without prejudice, without agenda when it comes to discussion of rape. God knows I’ve been guilty of that in the past.

Don’t take this as a retraction, I still stand by pretty much everything I’ve ever said in this blog. But standing by everything you’ve ever written doesn’t mean you aren’t willing to open yourself up to new perspectives, doesn’t mean you aren’t willing to say ‘my focus was perhaps too narrow.’

The discussion on rape, the horrors of it, what does and doesn’t constitute it, the false accusations, the punishments, the prevalence, the cover ups, the effects, the heartache, the damage, the utter blight it is on our society cannot, cannot, be held by one group and one group only, especially if that group has a clear agenda! Rape is not a gendered crime, it is a crime that affects the lives of not just those who suffer it but all those around it. We cannot, must not, allow one group of people to define the crime and then choose when it does and doesn’t apply.

We cannot let an opposing group take one aspect of rape and use it to try and dismiss other aspects of it. We cannot allow agenda and bias fuel our discussion. We need to be open and honest and utterly blunt with the discussions on rape. Yes, it will be painful, yes it will be uncomfortable and yes, it will mean having to let go of a lot of long-held beliefs but, ultimately, we must go through that process in order to be able to combat it in any real way.

Feminism’s insistence of defining and redefining rape and deciding who can and who cannot be a victim is bordering on laughable and only results in trivialising what is an absolutely detestable crime. In contrast, the MRM’s insistence of using any statistic they can find to prove the prevalence of false rape allegations borders on cherry picking. False rape allegations happen, that’s something we absolutely need to communicate and there have been studies in India that show the high rate of false rape allegations, somewhere around 50%. But we need to be careful that that statistic doesn’t become the new 1-in-4 that has persevered for so long, we need to make sure we don’t allow that statistic to cloud the fact that rapes do go unpunished.

There is no easy answer, no easy solution. The only thing we can do is dispense with sides, dispense with whatever preconceived notions we have, or had, and just accept that the world is fucked up and we can’t do a damn thing to change it if we aren’t willing to look at the bigger picture.

I have written in the past, and I will continue to write in the future, about rape and the impact feminists have on ‘rape culture’. All I’m trying to say is that we run the risk of creating an ‘invisible’ class of victims, more invisible than men currently are, that are simply forgotten about in this chest-beating posturing to try and show how much we care about rape.

If we care about rape then we will talk about all rape without fear of being called misogynists, without fear of being called rape-apologists, without fear of being labelled as some sort of degenerate scum for not buying into mainstream rhetoric. There needs to be no mainstream rhetoric, that’s the point. We need to rid ourselves of those voices who perpetuate myths and untruths, those voices who cherry-pick and dismiss, those voices who shout and scream at the slightest hint of dissent.

Rape happens to both men and women, let’s discuss why. Let’s discuss why we feel the need to dismiss and trivialise certain victims that don’t fit the narrative, the victims that don’t fit the agendas. If we need to, let’s have two sides, one that focuses on male victims and one that focuses of female victims but let’s allow them both to have their say with no fear of recrimination or accusations of ‘derailing’.

We are all humans, let’s try and make this planet a place we are all capable of acting like adults and discussing the darkest parts of our nature with some degree and maturity and compassion.

After all that, the hard part is now for me to practice what I preach. Can I do it? I don’t know, I am still human after all, but, in the words of Frank Darbo, “I can’t know that for sure…unless I try.”

Advertisements

Have I mentioned that feminists like to play the victim? I have? Oh, good, then I can dispense with the overly long intro and just get straight to the point – feminism’s victimhood is so entrenched, so ingrained into the very fabric of the entire movement that it becomes completely oblivious to anything that doesn’t directly involve women.

Maybe that’s a little unfair, I mean maybe in the past I would have just tarred every feminist with the same brush, said they were scum, told women to abandon the tag and remove themselves from the movement. I used to do that but not anymore.

Why? Well, I posted an entry a few months ago and saw it was shared by another person (this was back when I was part of the team at Exposing Feminism and more actively involved in the MRM). A comment on that shared post accused me of being sexist because I was telling women what to do and how to live their lives. A little bit of an overreaction I thought but, essentially, she was right. I have no right to tell women and what to and what not to believe.

So no, I am no longer arrogant enough to assume I can simply tell women what to do with their beliefs. However, that does not mean I am letting feminism off the hook as a movement. Whilst I don’t think every single feminist under the sun is a man hater, I do believe that pernicious and insidious thoughts permeate the feminist movement and filter down to the everyday feminist. That’s why I think NAFALT is an empty concept. Yes, feminists may not outwardly hate men but I do believe they are still subject to so much anti-male sentiment that they do start to believe it, even if they don’t think so. Not every feminist, but enough to render NAFALT redundant.

That’s why I claim that the victimhood that is so incessant in feminism is all-consuming. It makes regular, grass-roots, everyday feminists believe that they are the only sufferers of sexist injustice or that if men don’t suffer the exact same type of sexism that it doesn’t count. Men suffer different types of sexism but that doesn’t mean that the sexism men do suffer is somehow less important or less worthy of discussion.

So, victimhood. How exactly does the drip-feed of anti-male sentiment through the feminist movement create this victimhood? Well, rather than looking at instances of sexism as a human condition, as something that affects people, not just women, feminism looks solely at women. It has no concept of people, no concept of the other, it simply focuses on women. This simply create a vacuum, a wave of anti-women sentiment that is almost possible to avoid. In short – if you look for sexism against women you’ll find it. If you look for sexism, just plain old sexism, you’ll find it. The difference is that the latter option doesn’t make you look like a goddamn, self-opinionated fool.

So, what piece of feminist victimhood has got my pretty panties in a bunch this week? Another- bloody-Twitter-hashtag-that-claims-to-speak-for-all-women-without-actually-speaking-for-all-women-and-disregarding-those-women-who-say-it-doesn’t-speak-for-them-and-calling-them-all-sorts-of-names! Aaaand…breathe! This:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/04/questions-for-men-everyday-sexism-twitter_n_6612862.html

I do like the opening line:

‘Sexism can be hard to point out when it’s so engrained in our everyday lives.’

I’m going to go ahead and assume that’s code for ‘I’m going to use this line as an excuse to point out some utterly ridonkulous shit and claim it’s somehow sexist and only applies to women.’ In all seriousness, yes sexism can be hard to point out when it’s engrained in everyday lives but the point, again, is that simply looking for sexism against women is not the way to combat engrained sexism. It’s the way to make women victims over everything else. Not very empowering.

So the point of this article is to highlight 16 of the ‘best’ examples of the latest Twitter hashtag trend – #questionsformen. This trend, again, asks men if they face the exact same kind of sexism as women. Newsflash, men probably don’t experience the exact same types, but to use that as a way of saying men experience no sexism at all is rather ridiculous. That would be like me asking a woman if she’d ever had a pain in her testicles and then saying ‘see, women don’t ever experience problems with their reproductive organs.’

In fact, both men and women do suffer the same types of sexism in some areas, and different types of sexism in other areas. It’s not a hard concept to grasp, unless you’re looking for an ideological bias to use in your article.

The trend was started (or at least the article leads) with these two questions:

http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/clemtine%20fords%20first%20question_zpsrrd4pdbu.png

Apparently, this is an ‘awesome’ way to highlight ‘casual sexism’. Notice how it doesn’t say ‘casual sexism towards women’ despite that being the intention in the headline. No, the suggestion is that ‘casual sexism’ is simply something only women experience. Or, at least, something only women experience to the point that it’s worth writing about.

It’s strange because the first two questions already show the weak platform this hashtag depends on.

Now, I’m not a male writer (not in any sense that matters) so I can’t really answer the first question about being an attention seeker. However, the second question is pretty damn easy to answer:

‘When you have a hostile disagreement with someone, is it common for them to say you’re angry because no-one will fuck you?’

Er…yes. All the time actually. All the damn time. In fact, that particular insult is one that is regularly thrown around by feminists. In fact, there are constant references to men ‘not getting enough tail’ as if it’s the worst thing that could happen. When I disagree with feminists I often get the ‘lonely neck-beard virgin’ insult, along with the ‘well we don’t want to sleep with you anyway’, like my worth is tied to my desirability to women. Oh, what irony.

Come to think of it…there’s also the added bonus of ‘you must have a small penis’ thrown in somewhere as well. Even when they’re trying to insult you they’re always thinking about the penis. Bitches be loving the penis!

Anyway, before the 16 ‘best’ questions are posted, we get a couple of paragraphs explaining just exactly what the hashtag is all about. Predictably, it’s something we’ve seen all too often:

‘As smart feminist hashtags often do, #QuestionsForMen quickly picked up steam. The conversations ranged from how women need to approach their careers differently than men, to worrying about the dangers of walking home too late, and the fact that the government still has some control over women’s bodies.’

It’s funny because all three of the points raised in this paragraph apply to men. Yes, men and women have to approach their careers differently, but it’s not like men just waltz into their chosen professions and then immediately progress up the ladder of success or anything. Yes, men and women should be aware of the dangers of walking home too late, especially considering, statistically, men are victims of violence more often than women. The fact these attacks are often perpetrated by men is not a valid excuse to sideline them in the greater discussion of gender equality. Yes, the government perhaps has more control over women’s’ bodies than men’s’, but when a mother can be sent to jail because she doesn’t agree to her son’s circumcision it, again, shows that it’s not like men have it all hunky dory.

The point is, this hashtag should have been a good way to say ‘hey, look at all the shit some people have to go through, let’s see if we can sort it out, yeah?’ Instead, what it does is divide people. It divides women, the very people who it claims to help, because it lumps in all those who haven’t experienced these issues and tells them they have, or at least tells everyone else they have. At the same time it sidelines issues everyone else faces, no matter the sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc and simply places women’s victimhood above that of anyone else. You should know the agenda of feminism when they lose their collective shit over the progression from #yesallwomen to #yesallpeople, because women not being the sole focus is simply not good enough.

So, onto the questions. There’s only 16 so it shouldn’t make this blog too long.

Number 1

1 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%201_zpsuwzy4f6r.png

No, not in as many words. I have, however, had my ideas dismissed because I’m young, or because they ‘simply wouldn’t work’ despite the fact they had actually been working for me previously, hence me bringing them up as ideas. I’m a teacher, not a businessman so maybe it’s different but, more than being male, it’s my age that is the barrier here. I may have been teaching for a long time, but, comparatively, I’m still a noobie. I’m still only 28 which, in the grand scheme of things, is still young enough to have the metaphorical milk of my teacher training on my top lip. The fact my youth is one of the biggest advantages I have in connecting with the people I teach is, apparently, not something worth considering.

2 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%202_zpsj3m2979y.png

Government and religion holding decision making powers? I’m not going to dwell on circumcision but the point is that circumcision is still readily furthered by many medical professionals and religious leaders. The fact that its merits are continuously discussed and debunked seems to be lost on these people. So yeah, I don’t think the government has as much control over my body as a woman but to try and politik your way into saying ‘men are free from government control’ is pretty ridiculous.

Also, let’s look at this from another angle, an apples to oranges comparison – the government has control over women’s bodies, but it also has control over men’s wallets. Child support, alimony, taxes, etc etc. Yeah, men have it really easy when they’re being financially raped (is that triggering anyone?!) for child support with the threat of prison for missed payments hanging over their heads!

3 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%203_zps685kuoxh.png

Yes. I’ve spoken about this one before, what man walks down the street at night like Steamboat Willie? Seriously, I always make sure I’m aware of my surroundings, always make sure I have some kind of plan in my head just in case something happens. Even if that plan is ‘hide in a bush and cry’ it’s still something. Being aware of your surroundings at night is a gender-free thing, trying to say ‘look how bad women have it’ in this context is absurd and dishonest.

4 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%204_zps2gvffmzw.png

Is this a general thing or just in one specific environment? Because, either way, God yes I fake a laugh when women say creepy shit! I have long hair, I wore it down to a local park recently and, as it was blowing in the wind like a goddamn Pantene advert, my mum was all ‘women would kill to have hair like yours!’ I thought she was exaggerating but then I thought back to all the times I’d been on a night out and how many entitled women have either touched it or said something really creepy to me about it. And that’s just my hair. “Ooh, if I was 10 years younger…” Yeah, and the rest, love!

Luckily, that doesn’t happen as much anymore. One reason is because I don’t go out as much as I used to but the main reason is because I’m fat. Bitches aren’t interested when you’re fat!

5 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%205_zpsokb5vuc3.png

No. is this a serious example? Because, like, what kind of place does this woman walk where there are 5 different ways of getting there. Horrendous really but, no, I can honestly say this one hasn’t happened to me. Chalk one up to the feminists. Men, if you’re making a woman feel like she has to change direction 5 times then you’re being a cunt. Stop being a cunt, no-one likes a cunt.

6 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%206_zpspnay4ab5.png

Fat and ugly? Yes, most definitely. Telling me I should get raped? No, I tend to find I get told to kill myself, or they try and shame me by claiming I’m a virgin and am bitter because I never get any sex (oops, there’s that ‘virgin’ insult being thrown round again!)

What I do tend to find is that women who actively reject feminism have the whole ‘I hope you get raped’ shit thrown at them. Often it’s from other feminists so, yeah, way to be completely oblivious to the horrible shit thrown at everyone.

7 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%207_zpscnjdazph.png

Yes, refer back to the previous comment about my hair. And that’s just a small part. Need I direct you to the blog entry I wrote about 18 months ago about a female colleague’s attitude towards me at a staff Christmas party?

Again, doesn’t happen as much anymore because I’m fat. Bitches don’t be looking for fat!

8 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%208_zpscmj0bfvy.png

No, because the assumption is that, as a man, I will be thoroughly committed to my work and place my family a distant second. Apples to oranges. Men don’t get asked that kind of question because, traditionally, they haven’t fulfilled that role.

Want to see how we view the family unit these days? Men get two weeks paternity leave here in the UK. Two weeks. That’s why we don’t get asked that question, because there simply is no juggling between family and work. The amount of time men will be off work to look after their children is negligible, nothing, barely worth worrying about. Work comes first, that’s it. End of conversation. Sexist in an entirely different way, but still sexist.

9 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%209_zpshp7geoqe.png

Yes, but probably to a lesser degree than women. Instead, I get the old ‘isn’t it about time you got yourself a girlfriend’ adage. Like my life is incomplete unless I have a woman in my life. First of all, I don’t need a woman to feel complete, second of all see previous comments about bitches and fat men!

I think the concept of women not wanting children is still seen as a strange one because, in the grand scheme of things, were are not very progressive as a society. We claim we are but, in reality, we’re probably 50-100 years out of the ‘traditional’ mindset in lots of ways. It always amazes me when people say shit like ‘I can’t believe it’s 2015 and [insert issue here] is still going on!’ Yeah, it may be 2015 but that doesn’t mean shit. Hell, Luther King Jr’s ‘I have a dream’ speech is only 50 years old, we aren’t that progressive.

Yeah, if a woman doesn’t want kids then that’s her choice but, seriously, being offended that someone says ‘you’ll probably change your mind’ and claiming it as casual sexism is a bit far-fetched.

“Why are you upset?”

“Someone threw acid in my face, now I can barely breathe.”

“Oh shit. Why are you upset?”

“Someone keeps asking me why I don’t want children!”

“……..get fucked!”

10 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%2010_zpso8rb9lgt.png

No, see aforementioned comment on family and priorities. The fact is, men are seen as workhorses first and family men second. Not all the time, obviously, but the fact that men don’t get asked that question is one part ‘we might hire this woman and then lose her shortly for a year for her to have a kid’ and one part ‘he’s a man, he’ll put his work first and that’s the end of it.’ Different situation, still sexist.

11 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%2011_zpsjmjul39p.png

Yes. Every single time. Again, is this a genuine question?

“Hi mate, just got home, cracking night, really enjoyed myself.” Seriously, how hard is that?

12 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%2012_zpsxuzqbqbj.png

Don’t have the ambition to take a leadership position. In my line of work I want to be at the coalface teaching students, I don’t want an office somewhere so, no, I’ve never been called bossy. Actually, quite the opposite, I’ve been criticised for being too quiet and not getting involved. How strange.

13 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%2013_zpswz0jpomr.png

No, but there is always a chance I’d get criticised for my not-so-perfect-appearance:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1167902/BBC-presenter-Clare-Balding-humiliates-Grand-National-winning-jockey-jibe-crooked-teeth.html

Journalists say shit things, it’s not like it’s something limited to women. Also, that interviewer had already asked a shit load of tennis questions, it’s not like he came on and went ‘Hello [insert star’s name here] give us a twirl, bitch, no-one cares about your tennis.’

So, journalists are morons. Shocker!

14 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%2014_zpsko7ho7xy.png

This is a difficult one. Technically, the law here in England states that a woman, legally, cannot rape a man. The law is written in a way that outrightly genderises it – only men can rape. Of course, there’s also the insidious notion, woven through society, that men simply do not refuse sex, which means that, even if men don’t want sex, they will often have it anyway to perceive the entitled bitch who often resorts to insults in order to shame the man into doing it. In fact, I wrote an article in this very blog where I came across the phrase ‘the mercy lay’. This is, in essence, where a man just has sex to shut his girlfriend up. Not necessarily rape in the way this question means it, but still applicable. Men simply do not refuse sex, even when they refuse it, so must just put up and shut up to appease their girlfriends. Women not taking no for an answer? How ironic.

As for the serious implications of this question – that a drunk women going home with a man is ‘fair game’ for sex…well despite the rather hyperbolic notion that the man is some animal whose single-minded intention is simply to rape and nothing else, this raises far too many questions for me to answer here. It brings up the whole ‘how drunk is too drunk’ argument which we could argue about until we’re blue in the face! A 140 character tweet designed to cause maximum outrage is not necessarily the best place to discuss it.

15 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%2015_zpsesgypoja.png

Ah, refer to aforementioned comment about ‘why don’t you have a girlfriend’. Whilst I have no doubt the constant defense needed when persistently asked why you haven’t changed your name is tiring, it is also tiring having to defend your intent not to marry at all, even as a man.

I can’t say it’s happened very often, and I definitely don’t get asked by everyone, but I do get asked questions on a regular basis that I’m pretty sick of answering.

16 http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y472/johnsalmonworld/question%2016_zpszesghgpa.png

Seriously? This is the final tweet in the ‘best of’ list? Like, yeah, every single day. Multiple times. Along with ‘darling’, ‘sugar’, ‘sweetie’, ‘love’ and any other number of endearing little colloquialisms that people use to greet each other. Like, I can’t believe that this wasn’t laughed off the planet let alone made it into a ‘best of’ list.

Unless…possibly being said in a condescending tone? In which case yeah sure get angry about it but at least make that clear and obvious, otherwise you sound like a dunce.

Look, I’m not trying to disregard the experiences of these women, I’m not saying they didn’t experience these things or that casual sexism doesn’t exist. In fact, casual sexism is a very real and very pervasive thing. I’m not trying to say that at all. I’m just saying that these 16 questions apply to others too, whether that’s men, gays, lesbians, trans, blacks, latinos, hispanics or whatever.

This is why women are turning away from feminism, it’s the constant barrage of ‘look how much you are a victim, look how much you’re hated and oppressed and squashed and hated and despised. Look how all the men want to rape you, look how all the man want to subjugate you and control you and keep you chained up!’ Not only is that an insane level of hyperbole it completely dismisses the notion that other facets of society suffer this casual sexism.

Not only is it dismissive of other’s problems, it’s trivialising to actual, real problems that people face! When you claim it an exam of ‘casual sexism’ to be called ‘sweetheart’ by a colleague you make yourself out to be an out-of-touch simpleton who cannot consider the fact that simple niceties stem from a good place, not a desire to see you banished or a mindset that sees you as inferior.

Sexism affects everyone in some way, to constantly place this victim bubble around women at the expense of everyone else does not come across as empowering, it comes across as a bunch of whinge merchants who not only can’t see past the end of their own nose but also put their own minute problems above the very large problems of others.

Someone calls you sweetheart? Boo fucking hoo, put on your big girl pants and join the real world!

The real world, what a concept. How about you put down the Insanity Kool Aid and come join us. To quote everyone’s favourite Autobot leader: “we are here; we are waiting!”

I’m 28 years old, I’m 29 this year, yet I still refer to people as boys and girls, rather than men and women. Is that strange? I also use the word lad, dude, mate, guy, duck and any number of other local dialectical pleasantries. I refer to a night out with my friends as a ‘night out with the boys’, or a gig with my band as ‘a gig with the boys’. When I talk to students in my group, I often call them boys, lads or guys. Why? I have absolutely no idea, they are simply words I’ve grown up using.

When it comes to girls, I have a comparable number of jovial pleasantries with which to address them. There are even certain words that have versions for both genders: lad and lass, dude and dudette, duck and ducky, etc etc.

The funny thing is, the word ‘boy’ seems to defy age, I mean, technically, the word ‘boy’ refers to a child, but then I use it in contexts that refer quite clearly to grown men. In the same way, ‘a night out with the girls’ or ‘a girlie night in’ seems to defy age boundaries for women who get together.

Yet, there’s a phrase that is applied to men, or more particularly males, that seems to have no female equivalent: boys will be boys. I’ve heard it a lot in my nearly-29-years of life. I’ve heard it used in reference to me, several times in fact, throughout my life.

So what does it mean? Generally, I find it’s a way to explain away the absolutely indescribable stupidity of the male species. I don’t mean that in a nasty way or a demeaning way or in any way that would imply all men are stupid. I simply mean that, for some reason that even I, as a boy, cannot explain, we men like to do daft shit. And this isn’t just harmless stuff, men tend to do shit that is actually painful, for no other reason than ‘why not?’ When I was younger, I used to love wrestling, especially The Undertaker and Kane. They’re finishing move was called the Tombstone Piledriver, which consisted of falling to their knees, driving an opponent’s head into the canvas.

I used to love that move, so much so that I would instinctively drop to my knees, even without an unlucky victim to tombstone. It hurt like shit, especially on harder floors, but I still did it. Why? I have absolutely no idea, because I was a moron most likely.

See, there are moronic and idiotic behaviours and then there are moronic and idiotic people. I didn’t realise, until recently, that the words ‘moron’ and ‘idiot’ were actually used to classify mental retardation. I can’t remember which was worse, but if you had a low IQ you were classed as an idiot, a moron or something else that escapes me. See, you can do something moronic without being a moron.

I’m not an unintelligent man, I have 2 degrees and am a good teacher, yet I still do moronic stuff. Why? Because I’m a boy and boys do moronic stuff. It’s stuff that even we don’t understand and can’t explain, so how on earth anyone else is supposed to try I don’t know. We jump around in mud, we hurt ourselves on purpose, we build stuff with the sole purpose of destroying it afterwards (hello Lego!), we get hero action figures and use them to beat the shit out of villain action figures(hello Thundercats), we play games like ‘Ro Sham Bo’ (thanks South Park for allowing us to name it) where we try and inflict pain on each other by throwing stuff, usually a football, at each other’s privates, we find immature stuff funny, we laugh at our own jokes, we go out of our way to humiliate our friends, we make jokes about stuff that you shouldn’t joke about, we take tender, loving moments and make them awkward, etc. Why? Fucked if I know.

I’m not saying the above list is full of behaviours that women don’t exhibit, or that girls aren’t allowed to join in with boys that do behave in that way, it’s simply a way of explaining what ‘boys will be boys’ means. Having been a boy and now being a man, I can tell you that you never really lose that boyish spirit. Yes, maturity and responsibility comes and we get jobs, we get houses and cars and, some of us, get families to look after. But, through all that, we find humour in unfunny things, we do stuff that annoys people without even realising it. We do daft shit that even we struggle to explain. Why? Because we’re boys and, after all, boys will be boys!

But, recently I’ve seen something of a backlash against the phrase ‘boys will be boys’. There seems to be a movement of sorts that wants to ban its use, wants to stop it being used to describe the inane and stupid things the male of the species gets up to. I’ve seen something of a demonization of the phrase, a way to take the innocence away from what is essentially an exasperated cry at the frustrations of boyhood and instead apply a rather sinister, darkened meaning to it.

Some people are now saying that ‘boys will be boys’ is a way to normalise male violence against women, it teaches men from a young age that violence is an accepted and inevitable part of growing up, it tells men that being dominant is the norm and the best way to sustain dominance is to do so through outwardly aggressive behaviours.

I thought it was just the odd person, but it seems to be a rapidly growing sentiment – boys will be boys is a way of excusing violent behaviour and, apparently, teaches boys to be violent towards girls even when they are young.

I often think crazes like this, things that deal with banning words and trying to tell us what we are and aren’t allowed to say, disappear. Then I saw this article, it’s from Australia but it’s the bottom half of the article where my criticisms really lie:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/boys-will-be-boys-does-violence-against-women-start-in-childhood/story-fnet08ui-1227237623130

The thing that immediately raises my suspicion is the opening anecdote. Sounds pretty terrible, right? A young girl simply wants to build something but the big, nasty bully of a boy tears it down, not once but twice. The, apparently, uncaring mother seems to nonchalantly brush off this display of destruction with a simple ‘boys will be boys’. So the demonization begins. One anecdote that, funnily enough, I’ve seen many times in numerous different formats. An apocryphal story that’s used as a basis to introduce a demonised view of male activity, how surprising.

It then mentions the latest tragic victim of domestic violence, somehow making a correlation between the two – if we let boys destroy things when they’re younger then we’re effectively allowing them to develop into murderers later in life. The theory goes that unchecked behaviour of males when they’re children leads to normalised violence when they’re adults.

I would be a lot more accepting of this kind of view if the article presented anyone who knew what they were talking about. Of the three people who contribute quotes to this piece, none of them appear to have had any dealings with boys themselves. One is a Sociology professor, the other two are government officials who clearly have an agenda. I’m not saying there’s nothing of merit in these views, I’m sure if you’re bought up in a violent family chances are that violence will become normalised but the contributors in this piece amount to nothing more than theorists and politicians whose basic understanding of this issue is ‘monkey see, monkey do.’

There’s some appreciation of this theory being a stereotype, but that’s only used as a springboard to promote bullshit ideas about needing to educate our young men.

The thing that pisses me off about studies like this is, and I know this is from Australia but it still applies, is the focus on men and men only. Yeah, I’m not saying it’s not tragic that 15 women have been killed this year already by partners, anyone who claims otherwise is a scummy cunt, but violence manifests itself in different ways.

When women are killed by their partners, it’s used as an excuse to demonise men and make domestic violence a male problem that only women suffer. But here’s something interesting, men commit suicide at 4 times the rate women do. What I’ve yet to see is a comprehensive study that links domestic violence to suicide. We know domestic violence towards men is prevalent, just as prevalent as towards women in some case. We also know that resources, helplines and shelters for men are absolutely non-existent, and if they do exist, they exist at a minute percentage compared to available resources for women. So, when men are abused, what option do they have? Certainly not the same options as women:

https://www.facebook.com/realawkc/photos/a.750223298367148.1073741829.750026295053515/858766820846128/?type=1&theater

We still live in a society that shuns male victims, we live in a society where male victims have very little political clout in their favour, we live in a world where men are routinely told domestic violence is their issue to solve. So why are we surprised that the suicide rate is 4x higher than that of women?

This is a case of people comparing apples to apples when it needs to be apples to oranges. Yes, women have killed their partners before, but it would appear not in the same numbers. However, why is it so difficult to make the connection between DV and suicide? Has it already been done? Have I missed something? If abused men have nowhere to go, and no-one to care for them, what other option do they have but to kill themselves?

So, ‘boys will be boys’ is used as a way to suggest that we excuse male violence from an early age, that it promotes and normalises male violence towards women, but once again there’s no consideration of the troubles and torments that men actually do go through in life. Instead, we see an everyday, well-known phrase co=opted to serve an agenda while minimising or ignoring the flip side of the coin.

As if to prove my point, we are treated to a list of ‘facts’ that are so full of biased language it’s nauseating. First of all, we get these facts with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever:

  • More than one in three women in Australia (39%) have experienced violence at the hands of a man since the age of 15
  • 32% have experienced physical violence
  • 19% have experienced sexual violence
  • One in five (22%) Australian women aged 15 to 64 have been the target of sexual harassment
  • 17% of women over 18 have been stalked by a man (ABS 2013).

 

Then, we get these statistics that come from the National Community Attitudes Towards Violence Against Women Survey:

  • The 2013 National Community Attitudes Towards Violence Against Women Survey found close to half of Australians think men rape because they can’t control their need for sex.
  • Around half believe the lie that women often make false allegations of rape or domestic violence.
  • Over three quarters say it is hard to understand why women stay.
  • More than 3 out of 5 Australians think that domestic violence is caused mainly by men being unable to manage their anger.
  • People in the 2013 survey were less likely than those in earlier surveys to recognise the reality that men are more often perpetrators, and less likely to recognise women are more likely to sustain levels of physical harm and of fear.

 

So, half of ‘Australians’ think men rape because they can’t control their need for sex, around half of ‘Australians’ believe the ‘lie’ that women make up allegations, etc, etc.

Well, I clicked the link to the 2013 survey listed and here’s what I found. There were three groups approached to collect information:

The survey comprised three components:

  • Telephone interviews with people across Australia about their attitudes towards violence against women;
  • Telephone interviews with an additional sample of people from selected culturally and linguistically diverse (SCALD) backgrounds; and
  1. Face-to-face interviews with Indigenous Australians.

That amounted to 13,001 people overall randomly sampled. Now, that’s just the sample group, not every person answered the questions (which, by the way, I can’t see listed so, for all we know, they could be utter shit). Here’s a breakdown of the estimated actual numbers:

  • 10,100 – 49.8% response rate, so in essence only about 5,050 people responded.
  • 2,501 – 33.8% response rate, so in essence about 840 people responded.
  • 400 – 37.2% response rate, so in essence about 140 people responded.

Australia had a population of roughly 23.13 million people in 2013 and roughly 6,030 people responded to this survey.

This is why you don’t believe statistics. If 6,030 responded to the survey and only half of those thought men rape because of sexual urges then that means 3,015 people out of 20 odd million think men rape due to sexual urges. They then take that number and claim it’s half of all Australians.

This is my issue with this article, it uses an apocryphal anecdote to start off the article by saying young boys are often allowed to get away with violent behaviour, which means they get used to being violent and, therefore, kill their partners. Oh, and they helpfully provide some really solid statistics to back their claims up. See why I’m beginning to get a bit annoyed at being shamed for being a boy, being shamed for having a side of my personality that, yes, is destructive but not to the point that I will kill people?

That’s not the only article that uses tedious links to try and associate the phrase with violent males:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/02/its-time-we-stop-using-the-boys-will-be-boys-line

Of course there’s the opinion-presented-as-fact opening which deals with every last goddamn female journalist on the goddam motherfucking planet whilst only linking to one of her own pieces! Actually, the tagline suggesting men are not overly violent, inherently cuntish animals is pretty good, but that’s about all that’s good about this article.

Then she links to three stories that supposedly support her claims. First, she links to a story that a police force in America mistreated women who reported rape. Of course, she treats this as fact and uses it as fodder for her ‘we say boys will be boys to excuse rape’ line of thinking. This despite the fact that, at the end of the linked article, that very same police force published a statement decrying the ‘substantial evidence’ as rubbish and nothing but derogatory slurs. Yeah, I know what you’re thinking, of course they would say that but the point is that this is obviously something that is ongoing, an investigation is in place but, as of publication, hasn’t come up with a result. As such, any treating of this story as pure, unadulterated fact is a little dishonest.

Similarly, the second link is to a story about a man who complained about other men at his male-dominated workplace sexually harassing him. The implication made by Clune is that he was fired as a result of complaining about the behaviour.

First, the court report states that the supposed harassers actually stopped making the offensive comments when told they were unappreciated:

About a year into his employment, Doe reported to his immediate supervisor that the name calling was not appreciated and must stop. In 2006, Doe then complained to his co-workers about the horseplay and comments; they apologized and stopped making off-color remarks in Doe’s presence.

Which, to me, sounds like a pretty decent thing to do. The all-male workforce obviously has different ways of working, simply because men tend to bond by insulting each other. Here, they followed that stereotype until someone told them to stop. No problem. ‘Boys will be boys’ here simply means they were probably calling each other cunts and other such moronic comments.

This is where Clune’s dishonest agenda really appears. The linked report states:

Court first concluded that Doe was not subjected to an actionable hostile work environment because the EEOC could not establish that Doe was targeted based upon sex or that the comments were of a sexual nature.

It also states that:

because Doe  was discharged as a result of a RIF over three months after complaining to HR about the horseplay and foul language, there was no evidence that Doe was terminated in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct

Which shows that this line by Clune is a total lie:

The case of a US warehouse worker, identified only as John Doe, went to court with claims of sexual harassment and abuse in an all-male warehouse. When he was then dismissed, he believed this was part of a retaliation for his complaints.

He never to court, he complained first to his immediate supervisor, then directly to the men concerned and then to HR. He was dismissed along with 11 others due to financial problems the company was in.

Clune then suggests the courts ruled in favour of the company because they didn’t want to make ‘employers liable for “bad language” and “boorish” behaviour’.

Then, she comes out with this fucking winner of a line:

‘presumably because “boys will be boys”.’

First of all, what a huge assumption to make, especially considering the linked report contains absolutely no reference to the company being given a free pass for any abuse at all. Second of all, it’s an outright lie. The courts ruled in the favour of the employer because there was no proof that the sledging ‘John Doe’ got was of a sexual nature, plus when he complained the ‘abuse’ stopped. The court ruled in favour of the employer because they didn’t want to enact legislation that would drag companies over the coals for the, seemingly, few instances of offense caused to employees. You open the floodgates for any number of special snowflakes to complain over very little when you make that ruling.

When Doe complained, the abuse stopped. That’s it. It doesn’t need to go any further than that. This has got nothing to do with the courts not wanting employers to have to deal with harassment and abuse and everything to do with recognising that all-male workplaces generally have this kind of atmosphere. Doe didn’t like it and did the right thing, he approached the men directly and they stopped. I don’t know what else you want companies to do?

When you say ‘presumably’ as part of your article on ‘why we need to stop saying certain words’ you’re only showing that, not only do you have a massive misunderstanding of the report you have just fucking linked to, you have a complete inability to understand male behaviour and, more importantly, are undermining the entire premise of your article.

“Boys will be boys should be banned because of this really ambiguous story coming from America that I’m not sure is entirely relevant but I’ll stick it in anyway and then make a tenuous link to the phrase I want banning.” Real good journalism, well done!

The third story she links to is the ‘toxic’ culture in the Australian male swimming squad. Yeah, I’m not going to complain about this one, they do seem like cunts. That’s what happens sometimes, especially when you get young people who are very talented. I’m not saying all the time, but sometimes. However, I did do some research and, apparently, one of the female swimmers who felt threatened by the male’s cuntish behaviour was, herself, hospitalised during the 2012 Olympic games for excessive alcohol consumption:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/more-sports/swimmer-jade-neilsen-reveals-how-teammates-drank-themselves-sick/story-e6frfglf-1226584279914

In that report, she claims ‘I did the wrong thing but I’m 21 and it’s not illegal.’ So, she uses her age and the fact it’s not illegal as an excuse for her behaviour, but the men in Clune’s article are not given the same opportunity to excuse themselves. Now, from what I’ve read there are conflicting reports over what the inappropriate behaviour actually was, but that’s what happens when you simply take the first thing you read as fact and overblow it. Jade Nielsen was also part of the ‘toxic’ culture of the 2012 Australian swimming team, but Clune simply doesn’t want us to know that. Why? Well, she wouldn’t be able to demonise men if she did.

Of the four examples of ‘boys will be boys’ being used as an excuse for abusive and aggressive behaviour, one of them is simply an unquantifiable opinion on her part, the second is a link to a investigation-in-progress-that-is-being-contested-by-the-police-force-in-question, the third is to a court case where she only presumes to know why the case was won by the employers, despite it stating clearly in the report she links to and the final example is a cherry picked incident where men, indeed, were being cunts and making a nuisance of themselves. However, in this story the actual specifics of the incident are unclear and she omits the fact that other swimmers, female swimmers no less, were involved in this ‘toxic’ culture.

Then, she decides she’s given us enough ‘proof’ and opens her next paragraph with this sentence:

The harm this little line can do is clear, but another under-reported consequence is that if anger and aggression are painted as normal male behaviours, men are not inclined to find appropriate ways to channel their emotions, which can sometimes lead to self medication or alcohol abuse.

Remember what I said earlier about there being no shelters or anything for men who are abused by their partners? Yeah, this ties into that quite nicely. Men try and find appropriate ways to channel their emotions, believe me. Unfortunately, male emotions are still shamed and demeaned and dismissed and all manner of horrendous shit that Clune seems absolutely unaware of. She claims men need an out, some way of letting off steam, some way of getting help before that rage and anger and hurt and pain spills out and ends up hurting someone else.

But when men do need a shoulder to cry on, when they do finally let out all the hurt and pain that they’ve been bottling up it often goes ignored, it gets dismissed with another simple, everyday utterance that we should really be putting more focus on, definitely more focus than ‘boys will be boys’- Man Up.

Yeah, it’s funny that Clune is all ‘oh, boys will be boys is totally responsible for all that anger men have, they’re told from birth that they need to be violent and that just fucks them up later in life’ without having any understanding that, actually, men do try to get help, they do try to find an outlet for their woes. Unfortunately, no-one cares, no-one seems to actually want to know when men try to do something about it.

There was a post on Humans of New York a couple of days ago where someone recounted a story of their dad after their parents’ divorce. He came to them upset and needing an outlet for his grief. They said they ‘resented’ him as he was supposed to be their shoulder to cry on, not the other way around:

https://www.facebook.com/humansofnewyork/photos/a.102107073196735.4429.102099916530784/899757546765013/?type=1&theater

That’s what waits for men when they try to be emotional. I’m not saying that’s always the case, but if we need to change anything, it’s not the theory that ‘boys will be boys’ ‘normalises’ male violence, it’s that, when men finally do try to open up, we still don’t give a shit, we still don’t accept men can be weak and vulnerable, we tell them to ‘man up’. When your own child resents you for feeling upset at the dissolution of your marriage then what’s the next step? That’s right, all the feelings you thought you could finally let out of the bottle go straight back in, this time even angrier and even more hurt.

Clune claims that the ‘root cause’ for this abundance of male violence is because we use the phrase ‘boys will be boys’. I think it’s much, much more complex than that, and simply blaming everything on a phrase that can be applied to so many different, brilliant situations is crass and unhelpful in the ongoing drive to try and understand the male psyche.

She decides to end on this rather daft sentence:

“Boys will be boys” might seem a harmless phrase to repeat, but with it comes awful consequences for both men and women. It’s time we stopped saying it.

It’s time we stopped publishing articles that are so agenda-driven that they become self-defeating. When your ‘evidence’ is nothing more than anecdote, apocryphal stories, ambiguous court documents and cherry picked cuntish behaviour then you lose whatever foundation you thought your article was built on. The two articles I’ve looked at in this entry were just two of the many, many results on Google that were all about trying to ban ‘boys will be boys’. In typical far-left fashion, banning words actually comes before delving deep into the problem.

Male violence is caused by any number of things, by suggesting that a phrase like ‘boys will be boys’ is the ‘root cause’ of it, and not having an awareness or an understanding of other, more relevant, causes is demonstrating not only a lack of knowledge about men’s issues but also, more sinisterly, a lack of any desire to do anything about it.

‘Boys will be boys’ is a harmless phrase. It helps to explain why boys and men do batshit things, why they treat their friends like absolute garbage, why they find humour in things that others would consider taboo. It’s a phrase that we use when we simply cannot explain something using any logic or reasoning. Boys will be boys because people, even other men, simply cannot explain why we do the shit we do.

It’s not a way of ‘normalising’ male violence, and even if, in some cases, people have used it in a context to which it is not suited, can you honestly tell me, or better yet, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it adversely affects the lives of every single goddamn man on the planet? No, I didn’t think so.

This entry has become something completely different to what I intended. Initially, I wanted to prove examples, of what the phrase ‘boys will be boys’ actually means, examples of boys being idiots, doing daft shit ‘just because’. Ultimately, it was going to be a collection of stories from men and women about the boys in their lives being hilarious with the utter oddity of their behaviour. At 8 pages this is no time to do it. So, tomorrow (I promise) I will create a completely new entry with the sole purpose of providing examples of what I believe to be the true definition of ‘boys will be boys’.

I’m a boy, I do daft shit. I can’t explain it in any reasoned or understandable way. Instead, I will simply leave you with this:

Boys will be boys…and long may it continue!

Ah, it’s been a while since I wrote of feminist victimhood. It seems recently I’ve seen more about female entitlement than anything else, but you never do go long without seeing something that makes you roll your eyes when it comes to feminism.

As ever, the article I’m focusing on is fairly old, first published in July 2014, but when it comes to this kind of stuff, it never loses its relevance, so me talking about it 8 months later doesn’t make it any less applicable. It’s been 3 weeks since my last blog entry and, once again, I’ve bumped an article I was going to write in order to do this one. Why? Well, the one I was going to write requires a shit load of editing as it’ll contain numerous pictures. I just haven’t had time to sort that all out yet. It will be published eventually, just not yet. I feel this one is a more than acceptable placeholder.

So why victimhood again? Well, because it’s a side of victimhood I haven’t really looked at yet – internalised misogyny. It’s not something that I come across a lot but it is something that I’ve seen before and, boy, is it just a goddamn rainbow chest full of specialness.

I was actually directed to this article by a friend of a friend, and not on the John Salmon account either, this time it was someone on my real account. And by ‘friend of a friend’ I mean ‘friend of someone I went to secondary school with who added me on Facebook about 8 years ago and has never spoken to me since’. Why am I still friends with these people? Well, this time it’s actually worked out pretty well.

I did screenshot the status that my friend liked but, again, that will require me to piece it all together as one picture and then upload it. I don’t have time to do that at the moment. I know, pathetic isn’t it, but that’s reality, that’s what happens when you start a new job and work different hours. Real life’s a goddamn bitch.

So, rather than take the time to edit the picture and upload it, I will simply repost it here, paraphrasing of course, in order to highlight how feminism can take anything, even something simple like everyday cuntish behaviour, and somehow make women the victims:

“This is the dress I was wearing when two women behind me started making nasty comments (she uploaded a picture as well). At first they just made comments, but then one of them tried to take a picture, disguising it as a selfie. I went to remonstrate with them but ultimately nothing came of it and I went back to my seat.”

That seems fair enough. For the record she was wearing a rather colourful floral dress, nothing too out of the ordinary. However, this is where it gets really tasty:

“What these women subjected me to was a symptom of internalised misogyny. Our patriarchal society says it’s ok to humiliate a woman for what she’s wearing…”

She then finished by asking some questions about why you feel you should be allowed to criticise women’s dress before adding hashtags (on Facebook, I know!) about feminism and our patriarchal society.

Yawn. I honestly thought there was a genuine point coming at first, then I saw the magic words internalised misogyny and I cringed so hard I thought I would faint!

But that’s not the worst bit. The worst bit is that, through the use of buzzwords like ‘internalised misogyny’, feminism allows women to literally be the victim of everything and anything. What the woman in this status was not hold those two individual women to account, she did not say ‘these women are fucking cunts who should be ashamed’. No, she actually gave them an out, she gave them a way to be considered victims as well. Of the three women in this story, feminism and its focus on internalised misogyny actually made all three the victims, all three the victims of this lovely buzzword. First of all, the woman who wrote the status – she was the victim of bullying and humiliation (so she claims), while the two women who perpetrated the bullying were victims of internalised misogyny. How fucked up is that. Rather than holding them accountable for their scummy actions (though, if you’re getting upset because someone had a laugh at what you were wearing, something you actively say yourself is somewhat ‘out there’, then my sympathy meeting isn’t revving too high) she actually excuses their actions because they’ve effectively been brainwashed by big bad society to think that’s acceptable.

Basically, any time a woman does something bad, it’s not really their fault, it’s because they’ve been shaped and moulded by society to think that way. How’s that for a big ol’ slice of victimhood. Oh, and how’s that for a big slice of offensiveness to women as well. Behave like a cunt? Don’t worry your pretty little head, it’s not because you’re a nasty person, it’s just because you’re too stupid to realise society has brainwashed you. Poor little thing. Er, offensive much?

Anyway, the point of that little anecdote was that, once she mentioned the magic of internalised misogyny, she linked to this article, on that bastion of common sense and truth, Everyday Feminism:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/choice-feminism-internalized-misogyny/

You see, the notion of internalised misogyny isn’t necessarily a bad one. I mean, we all assimilate things throughout our life that might not actually be that beneficial to us. For example, being ginger means I’ve had a lot of people give me shit, treat me differently, etc simply because I’ve got a rather unusual hair colour. The whole ‘ginger people have no souls’ thing is pretty much a common saying when talking to ginger people. Point is, people are constantly bombarded with stuff as they grow up and live their lives, that doesn’t mean it’s some form of insidious oppression.

Erin McKelle, the author of the article, opens up with a doozy of a line, an opener that pretty much excuses every last goddamn thing a woman might do to another woman:

‘Have you ever criticized a woman for the way she looks? wished you could look like the models that you see in fashion magazines? gone on a diet? shaved off any of your body hair?’

Actually, I’ve done everything on that list. I have criticised a woman for her looks, I have wished I could look like a model in a fasion magazine, I have gone on a diet (currently on one now) and I have shaved off some of my body hair (my armpit hair if you must know.

But of course, these aren’t just things women choose to do on their own. She goes on to clarify her point a couple of paragraphs later:

‘But have you ever done any of these things after finding feminism? even when you knew that you were practicing sexism or giving in to the pressures of our patriarchal society?

My guess is that your answer is still yes.’

So, what McKelle is saying is that, pretty much, anything a woman does is not because she wants to do it or enjoys doing it, rather she does it because she’s been told to do it by society. A woman going on a diet is because of internalised misogyny? I mean, come on! Sure, some women might have felt pressured to go on a diet to get that ‘bikini body’, but to imply in the first sentence of your article that it’s every woman and that it’s down to some form of silent oppression is absolutely ludicrous.

This is where the victimhood comes in. See, rather than just accepting women are muppets just as often as men, excuses have to be made, it somehow cannot be the fault of a woman, it must be the fault of some outside factor. In this case, it falls back to old, reliable patriarchy. See, women aren’t simply cunts to each other because they may be cunts themselves, they are cunts to each other because they are told to be cunts to each other, they are victims, every last goddamn one.

This is why feminism is so hard for me to take seriously. And I’m going to be quite obvious here and say that, of course, I know not all women are feminists. This isn’t about those regular, sane women who realise just how batshit feminism is, this is aimed squarely at those feminists who believe this shit.

According to the article:

Internalized misogyny is the “involuntary internalization by women of the sexist messages that are present in their societies and culture.”’

Awesome, now unbelievably I do think there is a grain of truth behind this. I do think that society plays a part in what we do, I do think we are conditioned to some degree. But, here’s the main thing, it’s not just women that this applies to and it’s not a form of oppression. To think it is is victimhood. To make the rather bold claim that women attack other women because society tells them too not only absolves women of any negative behavior it also treats them like fucking children! I don’t see why this is so hard to spot. If I was to do something stupid and get caught out, I’d expect to be dragged over the fucking coals for it because I’m a responsible adult. When we treat grown human beings like goddamn children, when we excuse what they’re doing because ‘it’s not your fault, it’s society’ we effectively treat them like little fucking children who are too stupid to understand why people are pissed at them.

This is the victimhood I hate, it’s the type of shit that demeans women more than it empowers them. ‘Involuntarily’? Not only does it suggest women are brainwashed, it also suggests women aren’t mentally strong or capable enough to see past this ‘brainwashing’. It essentially tells us that every single woman on the planet is ‘affected’ by this ‘disease’ and feminism is the ‘antidote’ or some such bullshit.

‘It’s not like you pop out of the womb already thinking that women are inferior beings. It’s through observing, learning, and understanding society that you come to hold common attitudes and beliefs, including misogynistic ones.’

See, this is where feminism loses me. I agree that we learn a lot of societal ideals through osmosis, I agree that some of those views are less than stellar. But, if that process of osmosis allows misogynistic views to seep through then you could also say that it allows all sorts of views to seep through: racist views, homophobic views, classist views, any number of superiority complexes and, of course, misandric views. However, is this article about the dangers of societally accepted norms? Of course not, it’s about how poor little women are always the poor little victims!

This is the same movement that claims to be ‘for everyone’, that claims that ‘feminism helps men too’. Of course it doesn’t and shit like this doesn’t help prove otherwise. I get that feminism is about liberating and empowering women, but the way to do that is not by demeaning those same women you claim to be helping. Nor is it by claiming to help men when actively ignoring them in pretty much every discussion.

One helpful example of ‘socialisation’ offered to us by McKelle:

‘For example, think about the ways in which men and women sit differently in Western society. Just take a look around you and observe on a train, in a doctor’s office, or even a restaurant, if you can’t think of any differences.

You’ll probably notice that men tend to sit widely, with their legs open, and women tend to sit with their legs crossed or together.’

See, ‘manspreading’ has been a feminist issue for ages, it’s only recently that it’s picked up steam and become more mainstream.

Yeah, men and women sit differently, McKelle also uses the example ‘sit like a lady’ as a way of socialising women to sit with their legs closed. Well, there are lots of gendered uses of language to demonstrate socialisation. Am I saying socialisation isn’t a thing? No, of course not, I’m simply saying that to take something that affects everybody and apply it to women and then come up with a nice little buzzword to effectively complete the sense of victimhood is ludicrous and insulting.

Apparently, the result of these messages may not become clear at first:

‘And although one of these moments might not seem like it can make much of an impact, thousands of them will — and do.’

Again, I agree, but it’s not just women; that’s the problem. A far-reaching issue that feminism co-opts and turns into a form of patriarchal oppression towards women? What a surprise!

McKelle also goes on to talk about ‘choice feminism’ and how, supposedly, even when women ‘choose’ to shave their legs because ‘they enjoy it’ it’s actually not a choice at all because they’re still under the influence of that big ol’ patriarchal society. So again, another convenient little way to make women into victims; even when they choose to conform to accepted societal behaviours it’s still not really their own free choice. Man, I’m surprised women even get to leave their own houses, it’s a wonder they aren’t just smothered with the cloud of patriarchal oppression that must hang in the air!

I don’t want to focus on ‘choice feminism’ because that could lead me to ramble on for fucking ages, but I will focus on internalized misogyny.

McKelle ends her section on internalised misogyny with this quote:

Until we liberate our society from the sickness of sexism, internalized misogyny isn’t going anywhere.

Now, like I’ve said, I’m not one to simply dismiss this notion out of hand, I’m sure there are some women who have internalised misogyny, who have been put off from certain careers by socially accepted norms and ideals. But, if feminism is about empowering women and, indeed, McKelle wants to ‘liberate’ society from the ‘sickness’ of sexism then she’s doing a fucking woeful job of it. Treating women like children, excusing conformation of societally accepted behaviours as ‘influenced’ in some way by a mythical form of oppression, is pretty much the opposite of liberating. Not only do you victimize those women who do challenge the views by telling them they’ll never be accepted, you’re victimizing the women who do conform by telling them they’re too stupid to realise they’ve been brainwashed.

Not only that, but you’re placing the role of victim entirely on women. When you constantly tell women they’re victims, for all manner of reasons no matter how small, not only do you create victims when there aren’t any, you actively dismiss real victims who don’t match your agenda.

For example, one of the first things I remember my nana telling me was this little jitty:

“Slugs and snails and puppy dog’s tails, that’s what boys are made of. Sugar and spice and all things nice, that’s what girls are made of.”

My nana was 60 odd when she died 20 years ago so this isn’t a relatively new thing, it’s been around for generations. At what point do you think I’m allowed to claim internalised misandry? If society dripfeeds misogyny into women’s brains then it’s only right to assume it also does the same with men. Does that even factor into this article? Nope, not at all, because men aren’t part of the feminist discussion, because men are ‘privileged’ and never have any problems. Well, the reason the feminist movement thinks men don’t have any problems is because you fucking ignore them when they’re right in front of your goddamn, toxic, entitled, victimhood-claiming little faces!

Aside from the little jitty above, here are a few other examples of ‘internalised misandry’ I’ve personally experienced:

When I got slapped by my girlfriend – “well, I must have deserved it.”

When I tried to talk about my feelings – “man up, you crybaby”

When a colleague felt me up at the staff Christmas party – “you probably enjoyed the attention.”

When I said I’m happy being single – “there must be something wrong with you”

When I tell people I’m teetotal – “you’re probably no fun at all, we won’t invite you anywhere.”

Those first three are pretty specific to men, the last one could be for anyone who’s teetotal.

My point is not to try and say women don’t have problems, it never has been and never will be, my point is simply that you can ‘internalise’ pretty much anything and use it as a way to try and preach victimhood. The fact feminism does it should come as no surprise.

Rather than empowering women, it reinforces the idea that things are not their fault – didn’t get that job? Patriarchy. Someone made fun of you? Patriarchy. Felt the need to shave your legs before going on a date? Patriarchy. Not only does it tell women they are constantly being victimised, it doesn’t offer a solution. “Look at you, look how oppressed you are, look at how you’ve internalised your misogyny. Well, see ya!” It’s not constructive.

This article doesn’t actually offer any solutions. Well, actually that’s a lie. It does offer a solution, it says we need to ‘cure’ society of all the sexism. Awesome, that’s not simplifying things at all is it.

So why don’t men suffer constantly from internalised misandry? Simple- we aren’t constantly being told we’re victims. When we encounter problems we either chalk it up to experience or think of a way to improve. Didn’t get that job? Bad luck, maybe check your CV or re-write your personal statement. Someone made fun of you? Man, you should have fucked him up!

That’s not a bad way to see things for the most part, and I think that’s where men benefit in society. Because we aren’t told we’re victims, we don’t allow ourselves to become victims. The good thing is, there are fucking millions of women who embody those traits. It seems to be feminism that’s fixated on this idea of women being victims, a lot of women I know personally are self-aware enough to realise that sometimes, just sometimes, things don’t go your way because you’re not good enough, or people are cunts towards you because they themselves are simply cunts.

The downside is when it comes to things like rape and domestic violence. Serious, real issues that affect men in huge numbers are not discussed because feminism is too goddamned busy talking about the victimhood cloud that engulfs every woman at every turn. ‘Internalised misogyny’ focusing on things like appearance and leg shaving and diets it creates false victims and ignores real ones.

“What’s that, a man was brutally beaten by his wife for no reason? Well, he probably deserved it. Meanwhile, have you seen this, THIS POOR WOMAN SHAVED HER FUCKING LEGS FOR A DATE! WE HAVE TO HELP HER!”

Over-exaggeration? Honestly, I’m not entirely sure and that’s the scariest goddamn thing about it!

Sure, let’s focus on ‘internalised sexism’ (not just misogyny) but, for God’s sake, let’s not try and claim that every little thing that women do is because of some outside influence that they are not even aware of. Let’s not ignore and diminish real problems that other facets of society face because a woman felt like shaving her legs. Let’s not pretend that men, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, gays, lesbians and any other group of people don’t suffer the same sort of internalised hate.

I understand feminism is about women and nothing else, despite its claims otherwise, but they are dominating conversations such as this, guiding them, telling us what we can and can’t see as acceptable.

Internalised misogyny is not unique, it happens to women in the same way other forms of sexism, racism and homophobia happen to other groups. To claim things like leg shaving and criticising other women comes from a place of quiet oppression is not going to liberate or empower women, it’s going to tell them they are nothing but victims, victims who can’t do anything without feeling the hot breath of patriarchal oppression breathing down their neck.

It’s pathetic, infantilizing, demeaning and the exact opposite of liberating. Not only that, it’s dismissive to other suffering by other groups. It pushes that aside, it pushes aside real problems and, instead, invents problems and creates victims.

But then, when has feminism been about anything other than claiming victimhood. When I think of feminism, I think this quote fits perfectly:

http://youtu.be/JL7TRu7dTFQ