Why I’m Not a Feminist

Feminists who study Gender Studies and Philosophy at university, take inspiration from writers which predate 1940s Liberalism

If people have been refuting the various issues within feminism as either misconceptions, short-sighted, excessive reductionism or just plain wrong, for over 20 years, within Third Wave Feminism, then why are lots of people being convinced of being a feminist, men included? Surely if the issues are not as much big issues as they seem, then why do they keep making ever-increasing advances with their activism, campaigning and social engineering? It really makes you think, doesn’t it? The more you think about it, when supposing the issues were dumb issues, the more strange and peculiar it becomes.

For that reason, I definitely won’t be doing the following things….

  • Try to debunk each and every individual issue, theory or campaign that feminism campaigns on
  • Focus on feminists who’ve made laws and policies which are against men
  • Focus on feminists censoring, no-platforming and cancelling men

I think that a new approach is needed. Well I’ve already mentioned the various stumbling blocks and loggerheads I’ve had when debating feminists (or so I hope) within other articles in this series, so that should save me time, so I don’t have to mention it here. If you look at how scarce this article is when writing it, at just 1144 words, in predictable hindsight, I’m happy I did.

I think I was naive as a child by over-estimating how much collective understanding we had whilst under-estimating the amount of sharded understanding we have. The fact that this article is an accumulative step, that makes better sense when read after the other article in this series, it only goes to show we both have a distorted perception of what the other person sees, regardless of whether we’re in the right or not.

I think I was a conceding feminist at 16 after doing an essay about Sociological Perspectives in sixth form at 16 but I definitely stopped being one at 19, whereas before I was willing to ignore my ideological discrepancies with their assertion, reasoning, justification, proposals, policies, motions and methods, for the sake of moving the feminist cause forward, in the same way that I don’t agree with every one of Trump’s opinions and policies but there was enough common ground amongst room for co-operative discontent, for me to say nothing, keep silent and let the feminist disagreements flow, for the betterment of the feminist cause and the female pack.

I think I’ll add an infobox here of some feminist websites, ideologues and activists here, for those foreigners who know absolutely nothing about feminism.

Which feminism are we talking about here?

To avoid accusations of “That’s not real feminism” or “The minority of extremists do not define a movement, as you could practically say that about any other movement”, I think I’ll have to clarify about what I mean about feminism.

The Forth Wave doesn’t exist, we’re still on the Third Wave

That’s right! We’re still on the Third Wave. Any feminist who uses the term Forth Wave, is either misinformed, ignorant or one of those extreme kinds they call a radical feminist. I mean, the term Forth Wave is just a PR defensive or window dressing, as a way for feminists to disassociate themselves from the embarrassing and unsavoury actions that Third Wave Feminists did, whilst still campaigning and implementing Third Wave Policies in thrice the principles, beliefs and the policies.

Feminists share lots of beliefs with liberals

This is a fact but this article is long enough as it is and I’ve already published over 75,000+ words in 30 articles over 5-6 months (most of it was planning), so I don’t feel the need to provide a quick list, just yet. That’ll be later.

Well it should also be no surprise that liberal media also tends to be feminist as well.

The moral quandary of Liberty vs Choice

Choice between what exactly?

There is much talk about Choice Feminism, where if a pop singer like Miley Cyrus chooses to sexualise herself at the VMA’s while twerking with Robin Thicke on stage, it can be seen as being a bad feminist (if she is one), as well as her exhibiting “internalised misogyny” as she is objectifying herself, so as a musician who presumably would want to be valued by more than her appearance, then she shouldn’t have to resort to such actions, especially as she’s not poor and is a millionaire.

It’s Permissive vs Diktat

However to further analyse this, maybe the terminology Choice Feminism or, erm, err, anti-choice, doesn’t quite fit the terminology of what I’m looing for. Picking between the permissive society and the diktat society, is the right question

If we disregard the sex positive and sex negative feminists, there are three types of feminists?

  • Cultural Marxists: Clementine Ford, Anita Sarkeesian, Meghan Murphy, Julie Bendel
  • Diktat Feminists: Jessica Valenti, Laura Bates
  • Permissive Feminists: Amanda Marcotte, Naomi Wolf

Now about organisations

  • Cultural Marxists: Fawcette Society, Midia
  • Diktat Feminists: xx
  • Permissive Feminists: xx

What separates the Cultural Marxists from the diktat feminists, is that at least the diktat feminists have a sense of objective morality which can remain consistent within their stated and prima facie principles – whereas the Cultural Marxists have absolutely zilch as they will spontaneously change their morality on a whim based on which demographic is the majority or minority or the aggressor or victim.

Feminists define their liberation in male terms, despite the “male ideal” being an outdated concept

Feminists tend to do activities which are stereotypically male, like drinking beer, being promiscuous, playing hardcore video games, much more than women who aren’t self declared feminists do. This is not a coincidence. It’s just something to think about!

Crusty Larva In Beer Barrels

Feminist ideology which believes in male privilege, it claims that within a room, men tend to be mutedly exuberating the scene by having more privilege than them. Hence, if a man is staring at a woman, he’s not just staring at her, he’s staring at her in a world that objectifies women. If a woman in a group project at school (or university) is spoken over by the male team leader, he’s not just speaking over her, he’s speaking over her in a world that devalues women’s opinions and gives women less credit for saying suggestions that a man suggested straight after she said it.

So if feminists tend to define their liberation in male terms, even if they pick and choose what stereotypical activities they want to do or not do, then if men by default take up most of the space in the room for men being privileged, then if the room and the world is a beer canister, then if women don’t speak, then the volcanic larva will simply cool down, harden then become crusty. A woman objectifying herself is making crusty larva in a male dominated environment but a woman speaking up and being assertive, is letting her unrealised potential roam free to redress a power imbalance in a vacuum of female credit and female regard.

What are we going to do with the top shelf, provided we still have one?

So if we exclude those cultural marxists, let’s just say for the sake of argument, that most feminists are diktat feminists, which they are, then what are we going to do with the top shelf? Let’s imagine that it’s full of tobacco and alcohol, if not then lads mags that have sexualised, ahem, objectified women on the front cover, like Nuts and Zoo. Well FHM isn’t technically a lads mag but they still did it, along with technology magazines like T3 and Stuff.

Are we going to….

  • Ban it
  • Shadowban it
  • Demote it by burying it further down the page (or room)
  • Cover it with black plastic wrapping (like what Co-op supermarket did with lads mags)
  • Or something else
  • Or something else

Well you tell me? Because they’re definitely not going to let it exist in a way that parades it around or has it dangling under their nose or at a stone’s throw away.

If we remove the extremists, how do you reconcile the two?

That’s a good point. How do we reconcile the diktat feminism with the choice feminism? Someone help me figure that one out. Well the diktat faction of feminism is winning, with the choice feminism, losing, if you’ve been watching what’s been happening for the past 15 years.

Feminism is PRIMARILY more about enforcing a social contract, than it is about reducing crime, sex crime, sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying

I’ve covered my opinion on laws that regulate the social contract, earlier on in this blog. If you read those articles, you’ll see what I mean. In my opinion, we do not need laws that regulate a social contract.

If you think about it, a social contract is an oxymoron, as how can you have a contract for something that merely has a verbal agreement with no expectation of punishment, collateral, commitment or emotional labour?

You can’t use laws to regulate a social contract, as social ties surpass law.

tynamite

I know what you’re thinking! They’ve been doing that for over 20 years like with #metoo.

Never let a good tragedy go to waste!

some politician hundreds of years ago, who would use tragic events that shook the nation, to push an agenda

Back when Allysa Milano’s #metoo tweet went viral with 15 million replies which led to an interview in The Guardian, you can probably predict what my opinion was on #metoo back in 2014.

  • This has nothing to do with preventing rape, groping and sexual harassment and everything to do with expanding the definition of sexual harassment.
  • It’s very hard to predict the future but the extent of which they expand the definition of sexual harassment, is going to get a bit crazy, creating further confusion from women’s contradictions, not women’s preaching.
  • #metoo is going to be used for a basis or underlying premise, for things that have nothing to do with sex crime or sexual harassment, like banning violence (against women) in video games (Target Australia banned GTA a few years later), or banning gendered stereotypes (I predicted that in 2011 or 2012 and I was right in that one lol)

Women said I was absolutely crazy and jumping to conclusions and being paranoid. If you fast forward a few years, you’ll see that I was right anyway. Now nothing about that is victim blaming or excusing/trivialising/invalidating anything or “laying the groundwork” for any such abuse against women.

However ALL of my predictions came true!

Feminists were trying to regulate the social contract, through social engineering, before #metoo went viral

I’ll give a few examples.

  • Banning gendered stereotypes in shops (eg. Toys R Us, Argos) and the toy box packaging
  • Banning airbrushed (photoshopped) images and Size Zero in France
  • add example here
  • add example here
  • add example here

If I liked watching Caroline Flack as a presenter on ITV2 then I trolled her on twitter, I might have an affinity to her but I definitely wouldn’t have any ties to her, as we’ve never spoken to each other in my entire life. A man in Japan on the train (that’s notorious for women being groped so women have single sex carriages) could be groping women and like women (well that’s debatable) but he definitely wouldn’t have any ties to that woman, as she’s a complete stranger.

The way I see it, the vast majority of what feminism is trying to do, is trying to regulate the personal interactions between people who have a presumed personal relationship with each other, either as a friend, acquaintance, classmate or colleague. This is why I see that feminism is trying to regulate social ties between people, hence the social contract. When feminism campaigns against the abuse of women, although it’s a good cause, the point of such causes being embedded inside feminism, is as it’s a useful transitionary vehicle to further feminism’s true and initial goals of regulating the social ties within personal relationships, hence regulating the social contract, not the macro scale interactions or the abusive micro-scale interactions.

So with that said, when diktat feminists complain about Choice Feminism, they claim that the toxic behaviour stems from the fact that the woman didn’t consent to being treated that way. The irony here, is that when pressed upon what values indicate what makes a certain behaviour toxic in one instance and permissible in another instance, they are unable to answer that question. It just cannot be passed down the tin can telephone, as the string it should travel down, is beyond frayed.

If you take abuse out of the equation (including eliminating catcalling), they’ll still be trying to regulate the social contract, even if all the abusive behaviour was completely eradicated from society with a magic wand. This is where quoting statistics about crime and antisocial behaviour, fails to clarify why people always ask if we even need feminism if women already have equality.

To jump from pervasive attitudes, to crime, to a victim blaming person, to a sexist attitude from a second person, then to jump to an idea to rectify the first person grossly problematic attitude, it just evades the issue as to what morality for what purpose for what harm and for whom? As by being someone who switches fidelity, intentionally or not, this is further enabled by people who view a distressed woman as a way to be diplomatic, by avoiding discussing the underlying issue of a higher scope, as to be diplomatic (and maybe politically correct), serves to completely avoid asking such questions, for fear of prolonging upset, offence and uneasiness.

Quoting crime and antisocial behaviour statistics, mis-represents the fact that feminism has nothing to do with preventing, detecting or prosecuting crime

Have you been reading my previous articles about feminism?

You don’t have to but it might make the following, easier to understand.

No, mere affirmation or affinity inches, is not a privilege

Feminist scholars read Foucault and are inspired by him, despite him being a historical and modern conservative

Michel Foucault is some writer who by today’s standards, he would be a conservative. However feminists took inspiration from his books for their feminist ideas. His phononenal book The Order of Things, written in 1966, definitely influenced feminism, as that’s where they got the word discursive from, his word.

Foucault was famously known for using neologisms, that’s creating a new definition for an existing word, for the sole context of his books yet not for trickery, in a way that would confuse others who overheard it passing by, in a way that wouldn’t confuse someone hearing about amplitude and currents about electrical circuits. When feminists want something banned, typically some sexualised advert, when someone (typically a man) complains about their proposal, the argument feminists use is that what they want to ban, it simply isn’t discursive as it isn’t advancing any arguments or comparative context, or whatever that means.

Feminists read Kate Millet and took her inapt-named Handicam Theory to heart

insert 1 more author here

Barbara Kruger, Betty Friedan, ______ and Fat Studies? What does it have in common? They use the same type of analytical lens that originated from Kate Millet’s 1970 feminist book, Sexual Politics. In the Love For Sale book that is written by Kate Linker with graphics by Barbara Kruger, we can see the following images.

The same type of game mechanics or analogy for the distribution model, is similar to what we see in the Fat Studies academic journal.

Observing weight stigma in the editing of UK factual welfare programming

Media representations of fat and weight play a central role in the circulation of weight stigma. However, the production practices involved have received little attention. This paper focuses on the editing techniques deployed in a UK reality television documentary series, On Benefits. Our analysis of cutaway shots suggests a quantitative and qualitative difference between an episode featuring “obese” people claiming welfare, compared to the rest in our sample. We examine the cutaways to show how weight stigma intersects with welfare stigma on the grounds of self-control. We conclude that images of bodies, food, and medical aides mobilize weight stigma to overdetermine welfare claimants as underserving while casting suspicion about the purpose of state welfare in the UK.

Our contention is that editing is under researched. There is, however, critical awareness of how fatness, and particularly, fat bodies are presented in very specific ways: production practices include deliberate camera angles, panning from foot to head, and close-ups on parts of the body that are culturally coded as problematic in fatphobic cultures (Baker et al, Citation2020; Cameron Citation2019). For example, the analysis by Puhl et al. (Citation2013) of online news videos around “obesity”-related stories, found that 65% of higher weight/”obese” adults and 77% of higher weight/”obese” youth were portrayed in unflattering, stigmatizing ways. The researchers highlighted how images of people deemed “overweight” were more likely than those regarded as not “overweight” to have a close-up of isolated body parts and engaged in activities that are culturally coded as sedentary, unhealthy, and culturally tasteless. Research conducted some seven years later reached a similar conclusion: Lisser and de Smaele (Citation2020, 5) analysis of online newspaper photos in the Netherlands and Flanders reported that larger weight people’s heads “were more likely to be cut out of the image, they were more often dressed sloppily and more frequently portrayed with only their lower body in comparison with non-overweight people.” The removal of the head is a recurring trope in visual imagery (Cooper Citation2007). Thomson (Citation2009, 8) described it as a ‘spectacular decapitation’ to argue that it is an act of symbolic violence that forces the viewers” attention to the body, often the stomach, while removing personhood, subjectivity, and individuality that is usually read from the face. This is important because there are evidenced links between stigmatizing imagery and dehumanization, a key stage in the construction of Others and their denigration (Yongwoog et al. Citation2019). Understanding how weight stigmatizing representations are constructed can help produce better representations in mainstream and fat activist visual imagery (see, for Cameron Citation2019Citation2022).

Secondly, we wish to focus on a specific editing technique: the cutaway shot. Cutaway shots can be broadly defined as shots that “interrupt the general flow of action” (Katz Citation1991, 358). They “take the spectator away from the main action or scene” (Haywood Citation2006, 96). As quick interruptions, the cutaway takes the audience to objects, other people, or views that aren’t necessarily from the filmed character’s or speaker’s point of view. This gives the cutaway an extradiegetic purpose (Rijsdijk Citation2011); a point confirmed by Paul Watson, a leading innovator of reality documentaries, who regards the cutaway as providing their own “commentary” (cited in Baker Citation2013, 59). Bricca, a filmmaker, argues that this commentary speaks to an audience “in a more visceral way” because cutaways provide stronger “evidence” than any spoken narrative (Citation2017: 59). A cutaway to an overfilled ashtray may be included to present the “truth” of someone’s desire to cease smoking. As we will describe later, cutaways to specific food types may serve to offer “evidence” of someone’s commitment to socially-defined understandings of health. The cutaway is then not a neutral or aesthetic insert, although it can be used to flesh out content. Rather, it can provide a commentary that does not rely on the character or speaker’s own narrative: they can provide extra information or help to produce specific audience reactions (Rijsdijk Citation2011). Cutaways remain under-researched as a whole (Rijsdijk Citation2011) and their role in helping produce “visceral” information about weight and fat is our focus in this article.

genius article from an academic journal that’s definitely not satire because it has loads of citations and is peer reviewed
  • Who is the one being watched and who doing the watching?
  • Who is paraded on the screens, left right and centre and who is relengated to being a prop
  • Who is the one being brought and who is doing the selling?
  • Who is watching the clocks and who is setting the clocks?
  • Who invites others to speak and who must wait their turn to speak?

Under this sort of lens, it’s not just important to know what is going on in the scene, it’s also important to know which director is holding the camera by how they choose to setup the camera angles to choose the level of exposure and focus the subject gets – provided that however wavering it is so, that the general storyline and plot remains intact

You can see my point!

Also under Handicam Theory, so inaptly-named, women do not just enter rooms that consist of men, they also enter a male domain. So if a woman is being stared at, she’s not just being stared at, she’s also being stared at within the male domain of advertising and Hollywood that objectifies women with the male gaze. If a woman is, oh, erm, well, I think I’ve already covered this point under the earlier headers.

Not every female privilege is due to a polarising grim prescribed role

chinese fable

My experience of classism, for my analogy, should help from hereon

About classism, well unconscious bias and maybe microaggressions reall.

Setting the scene

Back when I was 18 I was studying computing at university. I would of also liked to study sociology but unfortunately I can’t study two subjects at the same time, especially as I had to rely on Student Finance for to fund my course instead of my parents, as a working class person

Some people were doing the course for the wrong reasons

Now about one programming tutor

I was doing a module for my Computing Course about [subject name redacted] by a tutor that prefers using the Microsoft Stack for the entire toolchain, the programming language, framework, compiler, layout engine and profiler, etc. Well anyway, we noticed two things that was strange about the way he taught.

  • Although he put the current week’s classwork up on Moodle for the students to look at after the lesson, it wouldn’t make much sense unless the student had actually attended the lesson, as the theoretical and short practical side of it, was embedded inside the first half of the two hour lesson.
  • He would never say which lesson the in-class multiple choice exam was happening, unlike all the other tutors in the university (who knew that students would skip some lessons), so if a student had missed that lesson which just so happened to coincidentally have that in-class exam on it, the student would have to repeat the year.

When asked by a student why he would never disclose in advance what date the in-class exam was, which he mentioned briefly in the first three lessons, his response was “This course costs £9000 a year. If you’re going to be doing something to better your future opportunities, that costs a lot of money, then you better value the opportunities and choices you have. It’s unfair that I had to pay £3290 or £9000 since 2011 a year to go to university, while working a job at the same time, to get my bachelors degree, all while some poor person on benefits just gets the course funded for free, that they won’t even pay back, all while using their £6000 a year student grant for living costs – all for them to throw away their opportunity by not going to lessons and not handing in their coursework on time, then wondering why they have to retake the year, if they’re the one who never attended all their lectures. The lectures, labs, practicals, assignments and drop-in sessions are there for a reason, so use it. It seems like some people just don’t know the value of money these days.”

I can agree that some people don’t understand the value of money and I find those people very annoying as well, as I’ve had bad experiences with him. I would give examples of people from my own life experience who were like this but this article is long enough as it is. I mean people like this….

  • Throwaway culture, just buying things to use just once or throwaway, like having stacks of shoes touching the ceiling with boxes, to be thrown away to make room for the next one, totalling thousands of pounds being spent, on something that’s only used once or mostly not at all.
  • Easy come easy go, like it’s some hosepipe like unlimited popcorn at AMC Cinema, when actually it’s more like a water well, so if you use the water supply out too soon too quickly, it’s a long wait before the next refill.

I think he has some unconscious bias that is classist, well although he’s not calling the poor “lazy and irresponsible” like some people and how he’s not using any prejudicial, stereotypical or exclusionary language against the working class, as anagoulous to how we should make STEM more inclusive for women, I’m sure that he doesn’t see himself as a classist, as he’s not doing the same things to working class people, that women in STEM complained about men for doing.

Module 1: Did they not consider that I don’t have a revolving door like they do?

When that middle class person leaves university, it’s very likely that they wouldn’t be subjected to over six months of long term unemployment like the working class people. Nowadays there is mass unemployment and a youth unemployment crisis, so people leaving university with degrees are often unemployed for longer than six months, one year or even years. If a middle class person gets fired, it’s likely that they can get a new job within two weeks.

Module 1: Also what if people like them, don’t hold up their end of the bargain?

When I was in my first year of university, everyone failed the programming exam except for one person, leaving 449 fail it out of 500 people. When we complained on Moodle about this, the lecturer said that we also had to do independent learning to gain further study on the concepts taught, in our own time. So when the response came which said “So what are we paying £9000 a year for? To buy books?” the lecturer was dumbfounded and couldn’t give a good comeback to that. In his case, good lectures, labs, coursework and classwork but bad exams.

Also some teachers are just not good at teaching in their entirety, who just do rote learning by reading off the screen like a textbook or powerpoint.

Module 1: They say I shouldn’t of been dallianting off course in my spare time and holiday season

To give a hypothetical example, imagine if I was to spend my money on online advertising for my websites instead of sensible work shoes for a job that doesn’t even require such shoes or prolonged walking. I’m a millennial but if I had someone from the older generation be asking me why I’m spending money on something that’s such a high risk that doesn’t really have much to show for it (at least not in the short term), then given how they had an easier time than me in the economy when they were in their early 20s and how our generation will never have the same opportunities that they had, then it’s easy for them to say that.

Module 2: If you couldn’t of done X, why didn’t you do Y? If you couldn’t of done Y, why didn’t you do Z? And so on….

Maybe I can’t remember the example from my own life, well I definitely can’t think of a good example. I’m not good at thinking of the best stories for analogies. Well imagine if I couldn’t hand in my coursework on Moodle, Blackboard or whatever is used for students to submit their coursework, while the lecturer won’t accept a print-out of my work after I booked an appointment to see him, for whatever university protocol reasons (I can’t remember what it was). Also imagine if I’m not allowed to submit my work using my friend’s working account as the lecturer and course manager said I’m not allowed to. Then my printing account isn’t working or something else or something else.

Now imagine if I hand my coursework in late or even if I didn’t and the conversation with the course manager goes like this

If you couldn’t do X, why couldn’t you of done Y?
If you couldn’t do Y, why couldn’t you of done Z?
If you couldn’t of done Z, why couldn’t you of done A?
If you couldn’t of done A, why couldn’t you of done B?
If you couldn’t of done B, why couldn’t you of done C?

You get the idea!

Well maybe because I’m working class and they are middle class, that I wouldn’t have the same safety net as they have, well I don’t mean money but also family and friends to rely on, or having certain equipment in my house, or money for the bus or train (despite being £8.50 or less), or maybe I don’t have the means of escaping domestic abusers (like people who can’t afford to leave their abusers). Or maybe some other reason why I wouldn’t have access to the same safety net, guardrails and whatever, that middle class people have, in the absense of money.

Based on my life experience, I now wouldn’t expect a middle class person to even consider those things, that maybe working class people wouldn’t have those things if some adverse scenario happens that is time sensitive.

Classism is caused by a superiority complex, subconsciously and unbeknownst to them

There is an overlap between classism and bigotry against those within the creative arts

Think about it for a few minutes, the negative treatment that the literati gets, even if they’re making full colour picture story books for six year olds.

Another thing to consider, well even though illustrators don’t exactly write literature, they still make it inside books and there are books that consist of only graphical artwork and I’m sure they would experience that negative treatment as well.

I know what you’re thinking!

If what you experienced isn’t a big deal and it’s hypersensitive to be getting offended or uncomfortable over microaggressions, as to use your words, considering how conservatives LOVE calling liberals snowflakes, triggered and emotionally haywire, then what does classism have to do with being against sexism and feminism?

Haven’t you heard of Intersectional Feminism, in response to right-wing or conservative women who claim they’re a feminist but are homophobic against gays?

If feminism isn’t really feminism if we are using feminist ideology to discriminate, be hostile and prejudicial against other demographics, then considering how feminism in the 21st century is Intersectional Feminism, then shouldn’t we be on both sides of the same team, as feminists are against classism and your coined palitism, just as much as you are?

[Insert the word trivialising/excusing/invalidating/(laying the ) groundwork-ing here]

So with that said, it would be hypocritical for you to be aligning yourself as being against classism and palitism, while turning a blind eye to sexism, don’t you think?

I’ll address that point, later on in the article!

Can you explain more about your, so called, palitism against the literati and why you think classism exists?

That’ll be in this article.

Women, feminists or not, both raise the moral quandary of the Choice Led Dispersal

Maybe these aren’t the best examples for this article but it’s hard for me to think of an example. Maybe I should add a better example later. This is just to illustrate about the Social Contract and a common argument that I see other people make.

Scenario 1: From the Sexual Revolution to Hookup Culture – From Liberation to Relationship Anarchy

1970: Marriage is oppressive against women for subjecting them to chattledom. We need the Sexual Revolution
2010: Hookup culture is oppressive to women as it’s causing Relationship Anarchy as the standards and quality of a relationship has been debased
All while women (alpha widows) choose to be single for over 5 years, often over 10 years.

All with 5+ books written by women complaining about it in 2010-2024

Again, social contract.
While women write books lamenting the ramifications of the sexual revolution that gave them sour grapes.

However the conservatives CORRECTLY predicted these things whereas the “gender is a social construct liberals said it wasn’t true and it was paranoia, exaggerating or jumping to conclusions.

I’ve written an article about this here, well not exactly expanding on that but instead a completely different concept.

Scenario 2: Women outpacing men in historically male institutions

Women are outpacing men in education, managorial jobs and the publishing industry

  1. Most graduates are women
  2. Most people in managorial jobs and filofax office jobs are women
  3. Most people who decide what books and tv shows get published or aired, are women
  • Taxes —-> Income distribution from men to women (single mothers) via welfare
  • iPhone —> Attention distribution from men to women
  • Investments —> Job distribution from men to women

So what does a woman need a man for, that she couldn’t get elsewhere in her life?

Now there are SOME men who are intimidated by (and abusive to) women who are more successful or popular than them

Again, social contract

You might have a law making laws against women or whatever gender thing, if they feel that the woman is having the best of both worlds, with the men relengated to just none, with none of the guardrails that women benefit from, if an adverse scenario happens to men (unlike for women)

And the social contract can be enforced by feminists by banning those sexualised adverts.

There are Choice Led Dispersals in loads of scenarios in society

If everyone isn’t abusive, then giving people more choice, doesn’t always result in more pair bonding, more customers or more vacancies filled. Weird, huh?

I’ve written before somewhat about people who create laws to regulate a social contract elsewhere.

There’s so many Social Cohesion Thinktanks popping up int he UK, that didn’t exist 15 years ago.

How we are supposed to tackle the with its declining social cohesion? I’ve covered my suggestions about that, or where the dominant culture is getting wrong, on an article here.

Feminists believe that we should be enforcing new laws, to enforce a social contract, to tackle declining Social Cohesion

toxic Behaviourharm conceptshort changed
social contract
new law
111888
222
333
444
555
666
777999

Watching youtube videos about Pretty Privilege, gave me four analogies about defining privilege

Imagine someone who’s just handed something on a plate. It’s just given to them merely for them existing. For some types of privilege regarding race/age/disability/gender, it’s just like that. Well that’s not something that I experience. Disability is a weird one as there is cognitive, developmental, chronic and mobility, if we had to classify it into four main types.

But even so, Everyday Feminism has an article on their website about “able bodied privilege” when I never see people in wheelchairs when I walk outside but I see coloured people, religious minorities, women and old people all the time. So are we talking about what is commonplace or an anomaly?

Leniency for a mea culpa, abrasive or miscreant behaviour

fill this in later

fill this in later

Imagine that there’s some sports club, games club or whatever lunchtime club that allows a person to go to lunch 30 minutes or 1 hour early. Well imagine for some people it’s like this.

  • Use the hall pass
  • Enter the canteen
  • Sit at the any table (mission accomplished)

Now imagine for some people it’s like this

  • Use the hall pass
  • Enter the canteen
  • Choose the correct table (if you choose the wrong one, you’re screwed)

Obviously the first example for a person, would make them more privileged than the second.

Wearing wellingtons or a hazmat suit, whether the other person knows it or not

Imagine a person who walks around on the muddy grass with wellingtons, who wonders why they can’t walk around in shoes or sandals, like the other person can. But what if that person isn’t wearing that but something worse, like a hazmat suit like when a murder happens and forensics has to be taken. I mean, cleaning up all the mess once all the drama has happened and everyone has left the scene.

Most of my problems when interacting with people, if you run a backtrace, it stems back to the same three root causes

I don’t see the connection, as to do rubbish courses, is a false cause, as they’ll be no viable career option or maybe not anything useful at the end of it.

fill this in later

Preposition being presumably a pre-emptive occurence

  1. People are often under-signalling what they want. People will often claim they want something, whilst actually wanting more than what they said they want.
  2. Sometimes people want and prefer the frilly mystique about something, rather than it based on its own merits.
  3. Sometimes people often interpret, when someone else speaks, that a preposition is presumably also a pre-emptive occurrence, falsely or not.

I’ve wrote an article about that here, well I’ve tried.

The time when I got explicitly or implicitly called either a classist or gatekeeping. Well I disagree there!

Someone was showing me some technology courses for programming that they’d found online and I said that they were rubbish courses as they didn’t teach real programming. In one conversation, I can’t remember exactly what their response was as they were being diplomatic but they said that “all programming is real programming” in what they implied, when for him, him and others around him wanted to study STEM at university, I mean, their parents pressured them to as there’s no welfare in their country. Well for another person, it was just a hobby. The second person claimed I was gatekeeping in the same way people commit “bi erasure” against bisexual people, by claiming they aren’t really bisexual.

Now to get to my main point

Phew! That was a stretch! Now the cultural backdrop is set, to get to my main point.

As I said before, feminists cannot answer questions about a Choice Led Dispersal under their Handicam Theory, only market theory. Well to be more specific, a Holdefex Theory under six stages.

Feminists cannot answer these Holdefex Theory questions, whatever six stages

#1 Fickle Minded, for instance, What happens if people are fickle minded, before and after the fact?

Sometimes people contradict themselves, will want something different than what they say they wanted by expressing displeasure at their declared demands and sometimes people will spontaneously switch their morality on a whim.

#2 Postulating or Teaching, for instance, What happens when the flyposting is free from sin and the teaching is free from scorn?

If there are social pressures which prevent, discourage and dissuade someone from doing something, around 20 years ago, then what if today, with those things (largely) gone, how can the arguments of yesteryear still be made today? How much scorn is there until there is scorn no more, before it becomes scornful again? What if there are different conditions for why there is scorn and why such things exist if certain people have greater agency to access certain things, or have a safety net, or have their neglectful behaviour glossed over? What if someone over-estimates the amount of times themselves as a woman does something, while under-estimating the amount of times a man does it?

Sometimes even if a person is causing their own demise indirectly (often by enforcing gender roles), the demographic that isn’t (ie. women) can often be promoting a false cause not because gender roles shouldn’t be abolished (they should) or that they aren’t harmful (they are) but because they are mis-representing what they themselves want, unintentionally or not.

#3 Bargaining Position, for instance, If we define repression by whether a person is relatively worse after an interaction, from within the long term, then what happens if an adverse scenario happens where it’s not really fair to pin the blame onto any single person?

What if a certain action isn’t just mutually beneficial, it’s a net plus. What if a certain action isn’t just socially acceptable, it’s prosocial. Would it still be always beneficial to commit, or would it not? If sometimes not, then why would that be, if the figureheads and intelligentsia are proclaiming how it’s always good and never wrong?

What if someone has to keep turning a turncrank to maintain something, while the other person doesn’t? It’s much like how in the Victorian times, prisoners had to turn a crank anti-clockwise to make 10,000 cycles, in order to open the safe it was attached to, so they could eat their day’s food. Such a thing was designed to psychology reduce the prisoner’s morale, without resorting to violence or displaying shocking images. If one person has to keep turning a turncrank to maintain something and the other doesn’t, well if there is no real fair way to pin blame on anything, if decisions aren’t made in a vacumn, then how can we use a uniform measure of privilege about any given thing, without looking at what turncranks, in frequency, severity and leinency, in order to keep something going?

What if someone has someone else pulling the drawstrings or giving them free stuff in the process, much like how a parent can have the drawstrings with their child once the child turns 18 but they might need to cut them a little bit, if they are restricting the child’s ability in a passive way to be independent and have their own schedule.

What if someone has a safety net that the other person doesn’t have to, if all negotiations go wrong, or if less negotiations go wrong or unfulfilled? How could that factor into why any of the two parties, why they wouldn’t do, or would have no time or motivation to do something, if for those who can attain things easier, with an easy come easy go attitude, or even a throwaway culture attitude, it’s easy to have your blinkers on about the things you don’t have to worry about, if things are like that for you.

#4 If market outcasts follow rules alongside market players, why would the market players continue to willingly participate if two successful parties aren’t being co-operative and self-regulating?

When someone is repressed due to their state after the fact being relatively worse than before the event occured. Well I say

Just because the worst of situations can happen in the best of circumstances, it doesn’t always mean that the worst of precautions should happen for the best of protection.

tynamite

If you were not one of the millions of viewers who have spent the summer glued to Love Island, you might think the reality TV programme is all about matters of the heart. You’d be wrong. Allow me to explain.

Each person in a relationship needs to be strategic in order to remain in the Villa and find their perfect partner. When in the villa there is the probability that your partner may leave you. You may leave your partner for someone new. Or you and your partner could remain together. Both islanders in any couple are trying to maximise their benefit from coupling up. If they break apart they risk being single and sent home. Or they risk failing to create a couple, and again being sent home. There are clear and obvious benefits to coupling with a partner, but clear individual wins from switching to increase chances to stay in the villa (and getting that £50,000 prize).

Megan, in order to increase her chances of staying in the Villa after her break up with Eyal, cracked on with Wes while he was still with Laura. Megan, aware that Wes was already considering others while he was with Laura when his head was turned for Ellie on a date, knew that he would consider leaving Laura for her.

All Islanders have the choice to either stay together in their current couple or break up when new islanders enter the villa or become single. Wes has the choice, similar to the prisoner’s dilemma in game theory, of either breaking up with Laura (knowing that she may do the same if someone more suited comes into the villa) or cracking on with Megan knowing she would choose him over all other boys in the villa. Always moving onto the next partner who fancies you reduces your risk of being left by your current partner.

At the beginning of July this year’s batch of Islanders were put to the ultimate test when the boys were forced to move to another villa, Casa Amor, filled with six new girls. And while the original boys were away another six new boys were sent into the original villa to tempt the remaining females.

All islanders face the problem that their partner might recouple and leave them single before they are reunited. Individuals end up recoupling with new partners even if neither of them actually desired it to ensure their safety and security in the villa.

This is known as the Security Dilemma. In traditional political theory it applies to countries. States increase their security by increasing military power. In this situation, both countries are unsure if the other is increasing their security. In order to combat this potential threat they increase their own. This then heightens tensions between the nations even though neither country particularly wanted it.

The Love Islanders are no different from Warsaw Pact and Nato states: each has an unclear view of the real thoughts of the others. The constant pressure to break and couple and break again leaves contestants fatigued and distrustful. They up their guards, they play minor political games and they leave us all hungry for more.

The economics of Love Island @ capx

I’m not really a Game Theory person as I feel it breaks down in open-air environments that anyone can freely enter and leave so that it only works in closed-box environments like a shoebox. But anyway, that article made a good point and had a terminology that I’ve been wanting to define for years. Security Dilemma.

I would look at this more like a social contract not being met, rather than a sinking ship of eloping allegiances or a military war. I think I’ve covered some articles about the social contract, earlier on my blog.

#5 Adverse Scenario, for instance, who has a safety net and a revolving door, if anything goes wrong, in an intermittent or prolonged manner

Going back to my classism example that I experienced when I was a young adult, if you can call it that. Yes, that. For another example or standpoint, maybe you can think of something else.

Maybe you can think of some adverse scenarios, you know, something that wasn’t predicted but was possibly thought about as a possibility (like a health contingency or construction contingency).

#6 Feral Decency, for instance,

Imagine that someone has been home schooled for five years of their life to then go to school. They would surely have feral decency, right? Lack of socialisation and being a social outcast, causes people to act feral, especially if they commit loads of mea culpa that is weird and off-key in a way that cannot clearly be patterned into a specific behaviour on the first ten occurrences.

Well even people with a good level of social skills and cultural awareness, can behave with feral decency, to some extent. So what if people do within any type of relationship, social interaction or whatever.

Feminism, by definition, is a moral authoritarian ideology

The EU is unknowingly mis-representing what feminism is actually about, at its Third Wave inception and overall goal – the social contract, not the peer civility

Feminism is not about reducing crime or even the harm committed against peers but it’s instead primarily and initially focused on the social contract for Third Wave Feminism. The other stuff can be useful and I can support their campaign but it also has a dual purpose of acting like a transitionary vehicle to allow the initial remit to continue to go ahead.

Any feminist issue, policy or strategy, all it is there for, is to follow what all deconstructionist ideologies do

There is no point in debating feminists as their policies are a “means to an end goal, not a means to a solution”

You can’t be the upstanding model citizen if the naysayers are chasing a moving target.

Especially with the 3 bullet points in the above header!!!

That reminds me of those e-scooter and e-bike drivers who think that their motorised vehicle will remain legal in the UK, as they’re wearing a fluorescent jacket with flashing lights, whilst the (manual) bike drivers aren’t.
Well there’s never a lower bound limit, of how low crime can go, before the police decide that they don’t want to reduce crime any further. It doesn’t matter how low crime gets, they’ll always want to reduce it lower and lower.

This quote is something that liberals feminists would say
But but but…Motorbikes are 100x more dangerous than e-scooters and e-bikes!

Then years later, the british government bans e-bikes, e-scooters and segways, leaving those e-bike users shocked, as they thought they would remain exempt from any further bans.

The liberals are ALWAYS going to keep expanding it and expanding it (political correctness), as it is not a “means to a solution” but instead a “means to an end”.

They have an ulterior motive and an end goal. They will always be moving the goalposts.

Add some other point here

Hello Tomica Marcotte

Let’s use an analogy of indian men learning STEM to escape poverty

Imagine if we lived in a country where there’s no welfare. If you don’t work, you starve. So an indian parent tells their male children to learn STEM, especially programming, so they can make loads of money when they’re older instead of some minimum wage dead end job that has no job security. Would it be

Let’s add a compounding factor to that.

Now imagine that employment agencies and tech companies are realising that most people with technology degrees, are incompetent and lack talent, so they cannot do programming. Also that there’s a lot of charlatans who currently have programming jobs who really shouldn’t be in those jobs, as they’re only doing the rudimental stuff and are not cut out for the big wide world if they looked at competing employers.

Now would it still be fair for the indian parent to tell their children to just “learn to code bro?”

That’s exactly what Tomica Marcotte is doing! It’s a false cause for a right concern.

If making an 18 year old spend 3 years at university studying Computing if they have no programming talent, is bad, then isn’t feminists giving men misguided advice due to flawed Handicam Theory, isn’t that also a lost cause. So even if we can agree with the issues, whether severe, major or minor – the approach they use to solve such problems, well, that.

Let’s look at these gems from Tomica Marcotte’s article

So when Elliott Rodger committed a mass shooting as an incel murderer, going viral worldwide with his manifesto, Amanda Marcotte, a permissive feminist who most men wouldn’t bat an eyelid at, she made these gems. Keep in mind that at the time, online dating wasn’t as popular as it was now in 2024. Nowadays most relationships occur due to online dating, according to Bumble’s SEC filing, unlike the previous decade, so the mass murder occurred at the middle of the transitionary period.

So look at the gems that came from Amanda Marcotte’s viral article.

Tomica Marcotte is proof that Handicam Theory fails and that Holdefex Theory prevails!

Even so, she is right about a lot of things in her article.

What’s the difference between a Tomica World train and a Hornby train? Even though Tomica is more technically advanced, it can only move in one direction

tynamite

It really makes you think, doesn’t it?

The attitudes in the above diagram, are prevalent in liberal (and feminist media)

Conservatives many times, predicted correctly what would happen, whilst liberals disagreed

When the newly available data proves feminists hypothesis wrong, rather than admit being wrong, they shift their focus by moving the goalposts

Add another point here

Feminists (alongside liberals) have expanded the definition of discrimination

There is a pattern on this blog: Me refuting their orthonagal imploring redress for their orthonagal complaints

Conclusion

So they want to do all of this

  • Censorship
  • Revisioning
  • A means to an end, not a means to a solution
  • Railroading
  • Replacing independent press regulation with state press regulation (The Independent, The Guardian, The Mirror)
  • Taking away our civil liberties in order to regulate a social contract, by putting women (and men) under self-paralysis, for something with quick and simple solutions in the absense of harm and scarcity.
  • 111 fill something in here
  • 222
  • 333
  • 444
  • 555

If feminists are going to end up biting their own tail, as Handicam Theory is outdated and redundant under the 21st century, then is Third Wave Feminism making women increasingly unhappy, for them having the wrong analytical lens to analyse human behaviour?

And for what?

When I was 16 I was willing to set aside my disagreements for the betterment of the feminist goal but at 19 no longer

Led under what theory?

The problem is with the method, not the motion.

Although feminists have valid, good, helpful and truthful opinions on male privilege, female privilege, heteronormativity, gender roles and performative masculinity – to focus on feminist theory from their Handicam Theory standpoint, is insufficient information, as Handicam Theory is inherently flawed

Add another point here

Good in principle, bad in practise, flawed by theory

Chalking all consensual performative and traditional femininity due to a patriarchal bargain, under Handicam Theory, analogous to wage slavery, is excessive reductionism

Go meta into the underlying beliefs and core tenets. Unless the Handicam Theory itself is criticised, no matter how good the policies and principles sound on paper, it’ll always make women lament the ramifications, with their sour grapes

I’m talking about the social contract part, not the other stuff.

Go meta into the underlying beliefs and core tenets. People refrain from doing that, especially men, by being diplomatic or politically correct, for the sake of not offending women by asking too many questions.

The analytical lens that feminists use to explain the rationale (not the reason) for why certain occurrences occur today (under Handicam Theory), doesn’t make sense in the modern world we live in today

You got the fax but did you get the memo?

As we would say in the UK

  • He got a taste of his own medicine
  • You make your bed, now you lie in it
  • You got outscored by your own scorecard
  • The snake ended up biting its tail
  • Having a Damascus Moment (regretting Capricornus being under capital punishment for apostacy for claiming that the earth revolves around the sun, years after the fact)

Handicam Theory is outdated and antiquated while Holdefex Theory prevails!

You can’t say we didn’t warn you?

Related Posts