I’ve been mentioned on the Why Women blog three times, so the general consensus among people, ahem, feminists here, is that I’m a misogynist. Although I would prefer people to have the backbone to say things to my face and not be a pussy, I can assure you that do not hate women in any way. I feel like I’ve unlocked an Xbox Achievement here for my accomplishment of controversy. When do I get my reward?
I received this comment today.
To my knowledge, I’ve been blocked by 20 people. In my opinion, controversy happens when people aren’t open to hearing new ideas or open minded, so much so that their blood fuels with rage about it. I’ll give you some examples.
- The first music video with lesbians kissing in it (tATu All The Things She Said), was controversial, as people hadn’t seen lesbians kissing on tv before.
- The storyline of a gay relationship in EastEnders was controversial, because gay relationships hadn’t been on tv before.
- The American Apparel adverts are controversial, because people hadn’t been confronted with raw sexuality so strong before.
- Kim Kardashian being on the cover of Vogue was controversial, as she is slated for having no talent.
- Axelle Despiegelaere posting a photo of her with a gun next to a lion killed is controversial, as people expect humans to behave of a higher standard than animals.
- Richard Dawkins saying on Twitter that muslims hadn’t received a Nobel Prize is controversial.
- PETA glamourising domestic violence against women in advertising is controversial, as people don’t like to see violence fetishised.
- The assisted suicide storyline that Coronation Street decided to cancel.
- M.I.A.’s Born Free music video is controversial because it shows
Here are some things which are not controversial.
- The Iraq War.
- The War on Drugs
- North Korea
- Sexual harassment
- Jimmy Saville engaging in paedophilia
- Mental illness
- The Holocaust
So given that the most horrific of things are not controversial, and much tamer things are controversial, a rational person would therefore conclude, that just because someone is controversial, does not necessarily mean that they are wrong, evil, reprehensible or engaging in hate speech.
This is why, I really could not give two shits about being controversial, because in 100 years time, we will look back at the things we thought were controversial, and realise that we were being silly all along. If we were to abandon all ideas which are controversial, gay marriage would not exist. The key is to not censor or look down upon ideas and actions which are controversial, but to instead do that for ideas and actions that do so for society.
Take objectification for instance, you could say it’s bad, but Lucy Pinder happily objectifies herself in Page 3 and Zoo magazine and enjoys it, and nobody has held a gun to her head forcing her to do it. On the one hand, she’s a sexual object enforcing an unrealistic standard of beauty and teaching that women’s bodies exist for the purpose of men, and on the other hand, she is using her looks and traits she was blessed with to her advantage and gaining social utility from her peers which increases her social status by doing so. Take sexist advertising for instance in the 1960s for instance. On the one hand, it teaches that women are inferior and that their place is in the kitchen, and on the other hand it promotes chivalry and traditional sex roles. There are advantages to objectification and there are advantages to sexism, both enforced by women, but feminists slate on women who promote traditional sex roles. This is bad because it infringes on choice.
The key is not to censor or disapprove ideas based on controversy or raw emotion, but instead on how much choice they provide people in society and if they protect people’s rights. You can say sexist advertising limits women’s choices when it comes to whether they drive a car or not, but boobs in the newspaper don’t stop women from getting degrees or cause rape (like feminists say it does). The idea that we should hamper on ideas based on controversy is silly at best.
I refuse to feel guilty for causing controversy on this site or in any aspect of life, because controversial ideas are timid and crimes are not.
Google defines a misogynist as
a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.
Be careful how easily you apply that label to a person. If you think that simply holding a prejudice makes one a misogynist, you’d be surprised.
If you believe that men only care about one thing, does that make you a misandrist?
If you believe that men aren’t good at multitasking, does that make you a misandrist?
The thing is, everyone has prejudices, everyone pre-judges someone before they get to know them. It is human nature to put people into categories and label them. If someone says they’re not prejudiced, they are lying to you.
We supposedly live under freedom of speech, and freedom of speech guarantees us two things.
- We are allowed to report what is going on around us.
- We are allowed to criticise people, things, concepts and arguments.
What freedom of speech does not cover, is hate speech.
to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
Since when does criticising a behaviour someone engages in, or an viewpoint someone argues for, qualify as hate speech? Isn’t it possible to say anything negative about women’s behaviour or arguments that isn’t misogyny. If I said that women suck for having periods, it would clearly be the case, as that’s not a behaviour or argument, but really though, the words ablelist, misogynist and troll are being thrown around, in order to silence debate and create chilling effects to others who would wish to share their views. It’s easier to brand someone off as a hater, than it is to refute their arguments that are backed up with evidence and rational thought.
According to the Spiral of Silence media theory, people tend to remain silent when they feel that their views are in the minority. The model is based on three premises: 1) people have a “quasi-statistical organ,” which allows them to know the prevailing public opinion, even without access to polls; 2) people have a fear of isolation and know what behaviors will increase their likelihood of being socially isolated; and 3) people are reticent to express their minority views, primarily due to fear of being isolated.
The closer a person believes that his or her opinion is similar to the prevailing public opinion, the more they are willing to disclose that opinion publicly. As the perceived distance between public opinion and a person’s personal opinion grows, the more unlikely the person is to express their opinion.
So I take it that Ayush is a misogynist too then?
I’m all very happy to engage in an open debate, but the fact of the matter is, people don’t want to engage with me. When I replied to people with the quote, “Name one thing I’ve said that’s misogynist”, to various people on a comment thread, they all delete my comments, making it clear, that having their views challenged was never their goal in any point in time. My answer got over 100 upvotes, does that mean the upvoters are all women hating misogynists? Of course not! Think about this shit harder!
People here aren’t interested in rational debate, the exchange of ideas that criticise specific behaviours and arguments. All they care about is screaming louder than the other person and getting more attention for screaming the loudest. Quora really is turning into Facebook. When people tell me why I should question people who prefer to bitch behind my back and refuse me the option to question their ideas, why should I feel put off by the labels I’m given here and feel the need to contribute less?
About autism, I said that it should have a cure if it is seriously hindering people’s lives and they want it, not as in permanently getting rid of it, but pills you can regularly take and if you stop taking them, the effect stops, also that autism acceptance needs to be redesigned as proclaiming your differences, weaknesses, strengths and specialities AFTER you’ve harboured your acceptance, proves you want to be thought of as a special snowflake who we give extra regard, care, leniency, handicaps and love to, rather than being thought of as the same regard and stature as everyone else. About me being bigoted, a bigot is intolerant towards particular opinions or creeds, and I’m not intolerant to anyone and I am happy to see where other people are coming from when they have views and acknowledge them, and I don’t see certain groups as superior or inferior to others. I just don’t.
The people who most want to meet people are the people who the least number of people want to meet. The people who are the most desperate to date are those who the least number of people want to date. The people who are the most eager to talk are the ones who the least number of people are interested in hearing. It is the ignorance of this fundamental principle that I see at the heart of so many failed social software designs.
The most high value contributors to a community realize that the community is no longer serving their needs any more and so therefore, leave. When that happens, it drops the general quality of the community down such that the next most high value contributors now find the community underwhelming. Each layer of disappearances slowly reduces the average quality of the group until such a point that you reach the people who are so unskilled-and-unaware of it that they’re unable to tell that they’re part of a mediocre group.
Quora’s biggest problem, is that it has failed to break down into smaller groups. Look at Facebook. You have facebook pages called Women Against Feminism and Jezebel on the site. Look at Reddit. You have subreddits called Subreddit Drama and Shit Reddit Says. Quora will never succeed as long as it continues like this, as people will become disillusioned with what it has to offer. If Quora was a country, it would be run by Stalin where opposing views are censored and people disappear and get tortured for saying them. Of course I can talk about raising or not raising the minimum wage, but could I talk bad about the powers that be, feminism and autism acceptance? Do you really think people want opposing views that are against their agendas, to proliferate on this site?
Quora gets half the traffic of OKCupid, and feminists use the Why Women blog to highlight the questions trolls post in order to troll feminists and get a reaction. While this seems admirable enough, the feminists have used something that represents 0.00001% of males on this website, and have used it in order to villianise men and talk about how “misogynistic” Quora is. Women cause 70% of domestic violence. If I started a blog about women beating up men, with various cases of those crimes, wouldn’t I sound like a misogynist? “BUT IT’S EVIDENT OF THE PREVALENT MISOGYNY IN SOCIETY!!!!!” I hear you say, and the response is “NOT ALL MEN” and it repeats ad infinitum. We even had a trending hashtag on Twitter called #YesAllWomen, in response to the “Not All Men” argument, which is basically saying that all men are potential rapists and misogynist villains.
Nobody takes feminism seriously, well not most people. People recognise it as a hate movement. Just recently, a Women Against Feminism tumblr blog got coverage in feminist blogs, such as BuzzFeed, Cosmopolitan and Huffington Post.
Women have the privilege of being able to talk about sexism and be seen as the victims. Women are victims, women are damsels in distress. Nobody dare talk about the sexism men face, because that’s not important! Only women’s feelings are important. The Disposable Male.
Men nowadays are the dispensable sex, whose feelings do not matter. Only the sexism women face matters, not men’s. The Disposable Male.
Why Women is a hate group, focused on villanising men and promoting the idea that Quora is full of misogynists, when the fact is that they are mostly trolls wanting to get a reaction out of people, and that no misogynists exist on this website. Calling someone a troll or misogynist for attacking someone’s behaviour or beliefs, is not a valid reason to call someone that. If I truly hated women, I would not give them the time of day or entertain their frivolous arguments. Would any misogynist want to transfer their stature to the same realm as a woman who wants regard? No they would not.
I challenge you to argue with any of the women on that blog without getting blocked, or even the creator of that blog, and see what happens!
Men have a pack mentality, and women have a herd mentality. When Norah Vincent spent 18 months disguised as a man, she noticed that even though her male bowling team had to pay $25 in losses due to her atrocious bowling, they still welcomed and supported her, but when she was a young child on a female netball team and was the best at it, she had her looks insulted for playing too well. Men support each other, and women hate each other. Call that prejudice if you want, but it’s not misogynist. Everyone has prejudices, even yourself, people are just too scared to admit them.
Feminists do not like me because I am a “red pill” person with “red pill” beliefs. In a nutshell, The Red Pill is a philosophy (as such) exploring how feminism, modern society, and the media have radically changed intergender dynamics. I have beliefs on men and women that not many people have, which are enlightening, and people would not want those views aired. I believe that marriage is a form of prostitution for instance, and that men need to be direct with women in order to get what they want.
If people were less closed minded and ignorant, and willing to stop bitching about me behind my back and calling me to be banned from this site and instead either enter rational debate or leave me alone, I would not of had to write this post. Feminism is a hate movement and Why Women is a hate blog, and I should not have to express my mind in the presence of hate groups, as I am only going to get lynched for what I say later on, so here goes.