Feminists want to be treated like men
Feminism, or Third Wave Feminism anyway, is just a form of social engineering. They want to change people’s attitudes and behaviour in a way that the government passing laws cannot. For feminists to get what they want, they must control the media, the schools, the news, the advertising, the justice system, social networks, forums and more.
There is a concept that feminists use called objectification. Most people don’t know what it means, as it is ambiguous and not easy to define. Feminists define it as when someone is treat as if they are not a person in the basis of one’s sexual desire or display of sexual attraction. Finally Feminism 101 uses this definiton.
Sexual objectification is the viewing of people solely as de-personalised objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities and desires/plans of their own. This is done by speaking/thinking of women especially as only their bodies, either the whole body, or as fetishised body parts.
Sexual attraction is not the same as sexual objectification: objectification only occurs when the individuality of the desired person is not acknowledged. Pornography, prostitution, sexual harassment and the representation of women in mass media and art are all examples of common sexual objectification.https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/faq-what-is-sexual-objectification
I’ve previously written an article about #metoo, which gained into popularity in 2018, but much before that, there was this feminist concept of objectification, of which feminism wanted to ban Page 3, grid girls, beauty pageants. My opinion is that glamour modelling is empowering, their opinion is that it’s demeaning.
Men’s sexuality and women’s sexuality is expressed differently in society, and has a different role.
Feminists wish that they were valued the way that men are valued.
How feminists think: If men can not have to shave their legs, women shouldn’t have to either. If men can be promiscuous without being shamed, women shouldn’t have to either. If men can influence society by working in STEM or politics, women should be able to as well. If men can have a career in their 20s or have a career and and be a parent at the same time, then women should be able to as well. The list goes on.
The same concept applies sexually too. A woman’s sexuality is like a “fast fluctuating asset” like Facebook shares. And a man’s sexuality is like a “stable asset” like Michelin tyres, of which the company only sells one product, tires.
- Everyone wants facebook shares and everyone wants sex
- The value of facebook shares can go up or down rapidly overnight for predictable and unpredictable reasons, like a woman’s sexuality
- Good people increase the value of facebook shares (coca cola) and bad people decrease the value of facebook shares (cambridge analytica), just like how a good bartender or friend can protect a woman or a bad person can rape, sexually assault or sexually harrass a woman.
- Facebook is subject to what economics call “market distortion”, where a group of private individuals or the governmentm can artificially inflate or deflate the value of something through regulation (force or oppression) (government regulation) or shaming (pressure or repression) (the media and petitions), that restrict how much profit facebook can make, women are restricted in how much they can exhibit and capitalise on their sexuality. Women have to deal with slut shaming, body shaming, fat shaming, skinny shaming, plus size shaming, physical and verbal abuse from male entitlement, policing clothing, the concept of virginity which harms women by repressing their right to have multiple sex partners consensually or consensual casual sex, and arranged marriage. All these things and more, hurts women and strips them of their autonomy.
Men (like me) don’t have to be affected by these things, or even be conscious about them in their day to day life or even think about these four things from time to time. A man’s sexuality is like Michelin stock.
If I walk down the street, I know that regardless of how attractive I am, whether I am ugly or attractive, I won’t be catcalled (by women). And if I am, it is rare. As far as abuse is concerned, I won’t have creepy people following me, shouting at me on the street, in what is sadly deemed as acceptable behaviour or even acceptable catcalling by lots of men. On the flip side, I won’t get as much sexual choice, positive attention (or a certain type of positive attention) that a woman gets in a shop or on a social network.
As far as society’s perception of the genders are, the woman’s social role is that she is primarily valued for her appearance (or sex), and the man is primarily valued for what he earns and contributes to society and his peers (or even his character or personality). The man is the actor imprinting upon the world to gain value, and the woman is acted upon, with her value being determined by other people, independently of her behaviour.
Feminists want to do a complete 180 degrees of how society views women and be valued the way men are valued, even the way men are valued sexually.
We could get into that topic, but that would be changing the subject derailing what this article is supposed to be about.
I can see where feminists are coming from, when they talk about the way women are represented and treated in what they call an objectifying manner, in advertisements and in their personal lives (see videos below). But prohibiting compliments on a woman’s appearance, although it sounds like a good goal to achieve in society, it will not tackle the root causes of such sexually charged situations. It will not reduce the level of objectification, instead it will counter-intuitively increase the inequality of agency for both genders, and will increase male thirst which will ultimately lead to more abusive behaviours from men towards women, and not make women much happier from their newfound freedom, and not make them much happier to feel safe in the world.
To clarify about my agency remark, I am a strong believer of people’s agency, including women’s agency. A woman gas the right to excercise her autonomy by rejecting a man, and the man should respect the woman’s autonomy by not being abusive after he’s rejected. It is wrong and disgusting that men do this and don’t respect this. By autonomy earlier, I meant how much one can excercise their autonomy in relation or relatively to the other gender with equal rights being implemented, and all behaviour beng legal, proper and socially acceptable.
- 2017: A man raped me #metoo
- 2018: A man said I look good in a bathing suit #metoo
- 2019: A man stood too close to me #metoo
In my opinion, nothing will be solved unless women stop being disgusted by male desire.
Value is created by demand
What creates value? What makes something valuable?
The first response is “something being good”.
But what is good? I can identify three main ways a tangible thing can be “good”.
- It providing a utility for someone (food, clothes, smartphones)
- It having an aesthetic or refined quality to it (art, music, books)
- It has intrinsic value that cannot be replicated (the Apple brand, a woman’s virginity, the royal family)
The way a woman’s sexuality is perceived by society, it would satisfy all of those three things.
But does it have to be that way?
As feminists and women who are not feminists think…
If you are not valued as a person, you are not treated as one.
When I try to ask women what that means as a woman and what repression or underprivilege they feel compared to men in regards to that, they give some minute example that can easily be glossed over with ease, or a big example that is not representative of what society deems as acceptable behaviour, and when I query them again to elaborate, they all say that it is hard to explain, and a man (not just me) can only understand if they have lived their entire lives as a woman from birth.
There appears to be two sets of two camps.
- Sex positive feminists (They believe in porn, glamour girls, prostitution)
- Sex negative feminists (They are against porn, glamour girls and prostitution)
- Women who don’t see objectification as a problem who also objectify themselves
- Women who see objectification as a problem and wrong who might objectify themselves who say they wear and look how they do for comfort or for themselves
So who is right, the feminists or the anti-feminists? Is objectification is a bad thing, and is it bad that it only happens to women? Does it give women advantages in life and in other ways than just sex, to make women privileged?
Well feminists wish that they were valued the way men are valued, not primarily for their appearance or sex, and loads of men speak of the advantages that brings as if it’s a privilege?
I will now explain why or attempt to prove the following things
- Value added to a person due to sex or appearance, is good value
- A significant amount of human behaviour stems from gendered behaviour, whether this behaviour is gender norms, stereotypes, discrimination, harassment, or bullying
- The disparity in attention and approaches that men and women get, even though each gender gets a different type of attention, creates a society where women are privileged sexually and for other reasons besides that.
All value adds growth
When someone adds value, it adds growth to a person. The common response when someone has privilege for something they haven’t earned is
- Just because I’m privileged or am treated this way (if they admit it’s a privilege), it doesn’t mean I should suffer due to the disadvantages it brings, or that I shouldn’t complain about it
- The privilege that the other group has is far greater than mine
- Being treated in this way at the frequency and extremity that I do, is repressive, as my liberty is violated and my autonomy is repressed. I don’t have the freedom to do X like you do
- That privilege only affects me as far as X is concerned, and it doesn’t help me for the other aspects of my life that have nothing to do with X, that I am disadvantaged in
- How can being privileged in X make me more privileged than another group, when there is so much more to life than X?
- The group that is underprivileged is the group that gave us the privilege of X, as you gave us the power. So if you don’t want us to have the privilege, you should stop treating us the way you do.
- It’s not my fault I was born with my genetics into the environment I was brought up in, so I shouldn’t feel guilty about it.
However when someone has value, they grow in the following ways, and this applies to all privileges in life.
- You gain traits that you can use to gain in life.
- You gain traits that makes others like you.
- You gain knowledge and wisdom that you can utilise to make better decisions.
- You get to exert your influence onto other people, so you can use your power and influence to make others bend to your will
- You gain connections so your status rises as you get to know more cool, higher status and more interesting people
- You have more tools about yourself you can use to manipulate people
- And more
Some women are offended by compliments
I was talking to a feminist, and although I am not a feminist, in fact I am against feminism because I didn’t agree with those “feminist concepts” like “pay gap, rape culture, objectification, male gaze, patriarchy” I class her as a “good feminist”, as I never saw her advocate for anything that seriously would strip men of their rights and agency – and if she did (which she kind of did), the differences would be minimal. She told me that when she was walking down the street, men told her that she looked good. She was catcalled. The abusive catcalling wasn’t happening such as her being shouted at, followed, had her personal space invaded and all that. It was the “good catcalling”, because all they did is give her a compliment as they walked past, then walk away. They respected her autonomy, and if she wanted to follow up the compliment with a conversation or giving any of the men her number, that was her choice. The men left it up to her, after they gave her the hint.
If you ask me, approaching people you don’t know, or even complimenting them, is perfectly normal social interaction. If nobody did those things, the nature of social interaction would break down. People approach people they want to get to know or find out whether they will be compatible with them. That’s perfectly normal human behaviour, right?
Back in the 90s, it would be perfectly acceptable for someone to go to the city centre, cold approach girls, and get the phone numbers written in pen on the person’s arm as there were no mobile phones at the time. However because of the continued mass approaching, harassment and bullying of women, that came to an end.
“The man who told you you look cute as you walked down the street, that’s a compliment.”
“That’s not a compliment”
“Why isn’t it a compliment?”
“It’s not a compliment if you want something in return.”
“But the men were genuine with their compliment. They never gave a false compliment. And besides, it is perfectly normal for men to appreciate a woman’s appearance or beauty. It’s funny how if I say a woman is intelligent, mature or funny, then she considers that as a compliment, but if a man compliments her beauty or looks, then that’s somehow bad. It’s not bad to be attractive or to be considered attractive. When a man compliments a woman on her personality, it is very clear that he is talking to her because she likes her personality as her personality is different to everyone else’s. If the same applies to appearance, why should women be offended and say it’s not a compliment, if it is clear that men talk to women who have good personality traits that the woman can’t control her personality and the way she thinks, so those traits when they are exhibited in conversation, give him something in return, but somehow when those traits are sex, it magically turns bad, even though the man gets something in return from positive traits from a woman’s personality, but just like sex? Especially when feminists are the ones who are fighting to legalise prostitution and end slut shaming, so women shouldn’t be demonising men who ask for women’s consent to have sex.”
“You don’t understand. You’re not a woman. You haven’t lived life as a woman from birth to know what it’s like and understand why it’s objectification. I’m going to stop talking to you now, as you won’t get it.”
I had a long think for some time, and I then came up with a good reason why a compliment is still a compliment, if the person wants something in return. It goes like this.
Imagine you go to a coffee shop, and you order a latte. However on this occassion, the barista before taking your money, asks you why you want their coffee. You then answer their question, you pay your money, then you receive your coffee.Not only did you show interest in the coffee by handing the barista money and asking for a latte, you also answered WHY you want the coffee.
The compliment you gave of the shop’s coffee is still a valid compliment, and you expressing why you like their coffee or that you want their coffee because you like what you see or had it before, in no way detracts from the value of the coffee. In fact the coffee gains value for being having qualities that make it desirable, and a positive and ethical transaction can take place where both people exchange different things in order to gain a positive experience that is ethical because it’s consensual and honest.
Why is it socially acceptable to pay money for something, but not socially acceptable for someone to say why they want something when they ask for something – in regards to sex (or even other things)? Yes, the shop sells coffee and has a menu of different coffees that they sell, but often people go to shops like supermarkets and department stores and asks the retail assistant whether they sell something that the store doesn’t sell. Is the customer wrong for asking whether the shop sells something they do not advertise or have on display? People also have something to offer others as well.
So same concept applies for why a person isn’t wrong for asking another person for something that they do not advertise or do not have on display, even if it’s asking for a lighter, day ticket for a bus or cigarette. To suggest otherwise, is disingenous (intellectually dishonest) as it denies or downplays the good of sex, and portrays it as a horrible and shameful thing. Feminists and women make sex a taboo too.
Value sprouts other types of value
In movies, certain actors are typecast, so they only perform one type of role in movies. I’ll give some examples
- Adam Sandler does comedy movies as a thick klutz
- Hugh Grant only does romance movies as a quirky british guy
- Will Smith only does action movies as a fearless hero
- Morgan Freeman only does action and spiritual movies as the wise guy
- Jim Carrey only does funny movies playing a funny and zany guy
- Tom Cruise only does action movies as a bold hero
- Steve Carroll only does funny movies as the adorable eccentric person
- Jennifer Aniston only does romance movies as the love interest
- Danny Trejo is the mean chicano guy with tattoos
Let’s see how feminist websites define privilege.
Privilege refers to the granted social, cultural, financial, and other advantages (or lack of disadvantages) that a group or individual holding a measure of institutional power possesses as part of their identity. The more institutional power a group possess, the more privileged they are; for any group to be privileged, they must hold institutionally-granted advantage over some other group.
Privilege is a key concept within a sociological and social justice context. It describes the benefits and advantages held by one group relative to another, often arising through the oppression or stigmatization of minority groups. These benefits and advantages are not usually codified as legal rights and arise as secondary qualities to suppression. As such, they can be difficult to spot, and remain unseen or unrecognised. This privilege blindness sometimes leads those who ostensibly support equal rights to inadvertently marginalize the concerns of less-privileged groups.
Privilege is a concept used in anti-racist, anti-sexist, and similar anti-oppression movements.
Anti-oppressionists use “privilege” to describe a set of advantages (or lack of disadvantages) enjoyed by a majority group, who are usually unaware of the privilege they possess. It is a term of art that may not align particularly well with the general-use word “privilege” or the programming term “privilege”.
A privileged person is not necessarily prejudiced (sexist, racist, etc) as an individual, but may be part of a broader pattern of *-ism even though unaware of it.
One thing that that feminists (and women) think, is that if you are only privileged in one aspect, that that only privilege only gives them positive effects in that aspect of their lives. They fail to realise that that privilege also gives them advantages in other areas of their lives. Even if they are aware of those advantages, they will attribute it to a different privilege they have instead of the privilege you are talking about and claiming it stems from, or they will attribute it to repressive norms society has that people follow, which harm people of both sides instead of behavioural differences caused by one expressing their individuality in a way that doesn’t violate one’s liberty, lifestyle or autonomy.
Value sprouts other types of value. I will give examples of value people get, that sprouts a different type of value.
- Being seen as intelligent due to being well spoken or articulate, gives you the privilege of gaining rapport more easily as people open to you easier and more likely
- Being seen as looking youthful, gives you the privilege of being approached more by people
- Being well spoken or articulate, gives you the privilege of people opening up to you and asking you for advice
- Being seen as well connected or having status, gives you the privilege of people approaching you and giving you free stuff
High value people are excluded from society
People who have a high value, are excluded from society. If you are intelligent, you will be excluded from work opportunities, social circles and publishing opportunities. Most likely you will be bullied. If you are attractive, you will be excluded from having personal safety, autonomy, and being taken seriously. Most likely you will face constant harassment. Feminists always talk about the constant misogyny they face. That’s for them to talk about on their own blog or youtube channel. Marina Wanatabe faces constant abuse in the comments of her videos. Jessica Valenti had to move house after being doxxed and faces a flurry of hate comments and tweets, which include threats.
What I can say, is that I face constant abuse as a writer. Most people don’t respect writers. What do I experience as a writer?
What do I experience as a writer?
- Hacking attempts
- Attempted doxxing
- Private investigator following me around by a muslim landlord
- People wasting my time
- Collective bullying on social networks
- Attempted murder by a muslim who just come out of prison
- Passive aggression
- People searching your stuff (emails, diary, bins)
- People recording themselves being abusive towards you without your permission
- Physical violence
- Verbal abuse
- Destruction of property
- People stealing your stuff
People don’t have to have the same exact emotional needs, to be in a relationship
There are people in this world who would not enter a relationship with a Trump supporter, because they believe the person that person supports, are making the world a worse place for lots of people. I would not be friends with those types of people. When I have friends, I have disagreements with them. I don’t agree with my friends opinions on everything that they say to me. Me and Jungle have debates that can last for hours, and we agree on some things, and disagree on other things. However we can still be friends.
Liberals like to preach that they want a “culture of tolerance”. However a liberal’s idea of tolerance, is not expecting “equality of opportunitity”, but instead expecting everyone to think like them. Me and Jungle believe in equality for all peoples, but we don’t get mad at each other when we disagree in debates. We have healthy debates. A liberal’s idea of tolerance, is that they expect everyone to agree with them, with no exceptions, even if all people are of equal footing. Kinda like Antifa. I could be friends with someone who has different political opinions to me. Jungle is friends with a communist, and they had a debate about that. Hillary Clinton supports Google and she believes in bombing 5 countries in 7 years.
The term liberal, used to mean someone who believes in equal rights (for women, blacks and gays when they faced institutional oppression). Now we have “rights equality”, the meaning changed. Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity and liberals believe in equality of outcome.
People only need the same end goal to be in a relationship
The only thing people need to have a good relationship, is have chemistry and have the same end goal. Sometimes women do things which make them less receptive to there being chemistry in an interaction, but that’s a different topic for a different article.
- So if a woman wants to get married, it wouldn’t make sense her being a man who doesn’t want to get married.
- If a woman wants children, it doesn’t make sense her being with someone who doesn’t want children
- If a woman wants sex on a regular basis, it makes no sense for her to be with a man who doesn’t
- If a woman wants affection like compliments, pet names, her hand held, to be told I love you, and whatever else she wants, it doesn’t make sense for her to be with a man who refuses to give her that after she specifically asks him to do so on a regular basis
So although a relationship is about love or sex, or both, if the end goal is marriage, kids and affection, and the partner refuses to give them that on a regular or constant basis after they specifically ask for that, the relationship will not work. For some things it takes the work of both people to produce an intended result, and for some things it just needs one person to exert themselves onto another person. For the former, they both need the same end goal, for the latter, the happiness of one’s partner becomes their happiness, so they get enjoyment and value to see the people they care about be happy.
There are two ways you can live your life
My friend Jimmy Thio who writes books about “game theory”, says that there’s two ways of which you can live your life. The first way is for “evolutionary biology”, so you increase your chances of reproducing, regardless of whether you want to or not. This would mean becoming more educated, more socialble, more worldly. The second way of which you can live your life, is to live for consumerism. If you see a sandwich that is £1, and another sandwich that is £3, you know that the £3 sandwich is better because it costs more money.
Popularity gives you social proof
Popularity gives you social proof. When people are popular, for most of the time, they are most likely popular because of “social proof”. They made friends with one or a few people, and then ended up gaining a few more friends after that, then a few more friends after that. Spending time with privileged people will make you well connected.
You know what they say, Birds of a feather flock together
- Interesting people know other interesting people.
- Attractive people know other attractive people
- Popular people know other popular people
- Intelligent people know other intelligent people
- Powerful people know other powerful people
- Emos know other emos
- Nerds know other nerds
- Polys (polyamorous people) know other polys
- Hippies know other hippies
As women are more privileged than men and have a larger social circle than men, being friends with women will give you connections with privileged people and will give you a larger social circle.
When you have value, that can in turn, lead you to gaining other types of value. Most people become popular from association, and birds of a feather flock together. You have to know how to navigate the social landscape if you want to succeed in life. It’s now what you know, it’s who you know.