Karen Straughan: Feminist Shaming Tactics

What do the shaming and silencing tactics commonly used by feminists have to say about feminist ideologies?
Quinn Norton: www.bbc.co.uk...
"I'm too pretty to do homework" fiasco: www.washingtonpost.com...
Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them: www.davidandgoliathtees.com...
SCUM conference: allecto.wordpress.com...
www.thestar.com...

She makes a very strong argument.

She is a legit woman. Good on her. Always enjoy her videos.


a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

a reply to: Psykotik

Indeed.
I disagree with MGTOW so I am iffy about her support of it.
But otherwise, I like how she tries to take a holistic view *evolution and etc* of the issues she talks about.
It's quite the breath of fresh air imho.

And in contrast, we have things like Ms. Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency strawman argument construction aid flow chart.

The points she brings up are largely illustrative of why I feel that the feminist movement has pushed the pendalum too far in the US. From what I can tell, it was needed at a certain point in our history- there was a time when there was no shame in being accused of misogyny, rape was largely condoned, or excused, by the community, wife beating was considered a mans duty as part of taming the animal lunatic nature of woman, and laws did not give women the same rights as men.

But they were able to change that, and now, they just seem to have trouble perceiving that. The most extreme feminists I have met seemed to be externalizing an internal conflict, fighting inner demons of their own through projecting them outwards- thus you get some hypocritical behaviors.

Another thing I notice is that the US has had a traditional value upon individualism - which nurtures oppositional behavior.
In that, I mean the habit of taking the opposite view or position of whatever the collective seems to hold. A person feels that they are "different" then everyone else, with a liberated mind, when they do this.

What results is extremism- especially as extreme opinions give rise to equally extreme opinions, and because our social instincts are still intact (no matter how much we try to deny and reject them) people end up grouping together. But either they remain small (so that they can say we are just a few "free thinking individuals" against the majority) or the groups they identify with are linked mostly by ideology, but not physical presence and effort. (being someone who makes videos alone at home versus someone who is physically involved in a community of like thinkers that gather to move their ideas into the concrete world with action).

You find an extreme split on almost every issue in that country, virtually no moderates, because that is too closely linked to uniformity- our biggest foe. Individuals are traditionally recognized by their non-conformism.

I have put out questions on forums, asking what people felt on the idea of "moderation" or "mediocrity", and ALL of the Americans that participated felt a strong repulsion to the terms. The worst thing in the world to be is mediocre, or moderate. Either one is the best, or the worst (for one can even be the best at being the worst!) .

(just following my stream of thought and where it goes, I just looked up the definition of mediocrity, and saw a comment under it someone had posted- "Mediocrity: to be led by the majority, incapacity to soar...".

To be balanced, to be moderate, intermediate, fair is "bad" in our values upon individualism.



What I find so supremely ironic in the current state of our culture is that,
That value has set us up such that,
To truly be "different" from the herd, a stance of moderation, and not of extremism is probably the most clear sign of a free thinker! To resist the pull of being pushed to one extreme or another in reaction to others around you, takes a great force of individual will!


I think I got carried away with my train of thought and missed my stop (no regrets or apologies, I enjoyed every minute of it and discovered new terrain). What I started out wanting to say on the topic is that the extreme opinions she refers to are not any more important than their extreme opposants. If a culture is outwardly paternalistic, it will be covertly maternalistic, and vice versa. Here in France the term macho is used to refer to misogynist- and it carries that suggestion in it- the macho is full of strutting claims of dominance- until he gets home to momma who is the real covert power who pulls his strings.

The extreme feminists, I see the same way. Despite their overtly proclaimed positions, they show a covert masculine/paternal power.
We got our animas and animus's, push 'em down they just get more subversive and powerful.

a reply to: Bluesma

I think I got carried away with my train of thought and missed my stop (no regrets or apologies, I enjoyed every minute of it and discovered new terrain).

By all means get carried away whenever you wish.
At least in my threads.
I value a view from another's viewpoint.
Whether or not I agree with it.

Please note, I'm not trying to be confrontational this time around.

But they were able to change that, and now, they just seem to have trouble perceiving that. The most extreme feminists I have met seemed to be externalizing an internal conflict, fighting inner demons of their own through projecting them outwards- thus you get some hypocritical behaviors.

I think they truly believe they are victims.
And are acting accordingly.

Another thing I notice is that the US has had a traditional value upon individualism - which nurtures oppositional behavior.

I wouldn't say individualism nurtures oppositional behavior.
In fact quite the opposite.
I would say that when we start engaging in collectivism that oppositional behaviors arise.
Individuals tend to be able to get along from what I've seen.
Hell, me, an avowed atheist have had many interesting talks on the subject of religion with an old fundie Christian Cowboy *we was one literally once*.
It's when we let our labels and group identities clash that problems start I think.
In my opinion, given the way we had been living because we had to until fairly recently in our history, we have always charactorized ourselves by a us verus them paradigm.
The us, even if it's a "tribe" of one, is good.
Them, they, are potential threats because they are not us.

Would love to hear your response.

And to bring it back into relevence to the OP.
That is what I think is the problem with feminism and feminists.
They view woman and feminism as interchangable and "us".
Thus why anyone who criticisizes it is called a misogynist or when a woman does it "internalized misogyny".

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Bluesma

I think they truly believe they are victims.
And are acting accordingly.

Often victims of their own self. Of their super ego, of their internalized paternal image and expectations.

I wouldn't say individualism nurtures oppositional behavior.
In fact quite the opposite.
I would say that when we start engaging in collectivism that oppositional behaviors arise.
Individuals tend to be able to get along from what I've seen.

We can agree to disagree on that. There- I have been oppositional. I take the opposite stance.
The sense of being individual would even be enhanced if you had a buddy here right now, starring each other, and backing each other up- then I'd be the unconventional, non-conformist one. I don't necessarily mean physical violence or anything, just having ones thoughts and ideas opposing those around you.

But yeah, as those confrontations get more intense, they become groups against groups- I would eventually welcome some back up to help defend myself against you and your buddy.

The relevance to this topic is how being non-conformist (which feminists once thought they were) can lead to being part of a large body, which then spurs the need for a opposing large body- the rights for men extremists.
Like theism spurs the emergence of atheism......

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Wow, she's my hero. Seriously, she makes a lot of sense that I think many ATS members really need to listen to. But I'm sure she makes points that don't adhere to many of them, so she'll naturally be avoided.

Either way, star and flag from me.