Sarah Connor wasn’t try-hard. She was tough out of necessity.
I’ve detected one.
Her name is Clementine Ford, and today Daily Life published her piece, ‘How to spot a misogynist.’
Ford lists ‘five classic lies’ that should set off the sexism detector in any good feminist. She claims that if women aren’t ‘trained in the spotting of smug, self-satisfied misogynists,’ they may overlook the ‘general thrust of their shtick.’ Her totalitarian cronies are encouraged to huddle up, go forth, and mark male thought criminals.
Before dissecting her points, it is necessary to define the term misogyny. Like her cohorts Ford calls any men that don’t subscribe to feminist ideologies “misogynists.” Adherents have hijacked the term so it can be used as a tool to shame men that question the dogma they uphold with religious fervor.
Let’s get to the meat of her arguments, shall we?
1. If you want to see real oppression, go to the Middle East.
The problems here are threefold. First, it implies women in the west should be grateful for the benevolence of their natural overlords. Who cares if 1 in 3 of you will experience sexual assault in your lifetime, while also enjoying the privilege of lower pay than your male counterparts and the symbolic annihilation of yourselves in literature and film? In case you didn’t know, women in Afghanistan are being stoned to death. So why don’t you just go ahead and submit your complaint to the STFU file known as my PENIS?
Second is the accusatory tone. Now, I’m no statistician, but I’d estimate that 98.76% of people outraged over feminism’s ‘failure’ to ‘protect’ their brown sisters from the oppression of their Muslim Male Masters (because let’s not forget, this is about racism too) are doing exactly zero to agitate for women’s liberation anywhere, let alone in the Middle East. But even though they hate feminism and all who dwell therein, they still think they know how to do it better than you do. This is because misogynists see themselves as Upper Management – which is precisely why we need to get more women into executive roles.
Finally, liberation and change aren’t beholden to hierarchies of need. It’s possible to seek the liberation of oppressed groups everywhere, at the same time! Asking comparatively privileged women (many of whom also live in the Middle East – it is not a vacuum) to be satisfied with ‘good enough’ just reinforces the patriarchal hierarchy of power that needs to be dismantled.
Besides, I don’t hear anyone accusing working families of selfishness for complaining about their rising electricity bills just because some slum dwellers in India don’t even HAVE working Playstations.
Whenever an individual tells another that they have it better than millions and thus should stop moaning, a negative kneejerk reaction is soon to follow. This has more to do with human nature than it does to feminism.
She’s experiencing cognitive dissonance because feminist indoctrination has convinced her that she belongs to an oppressed class, so evidence that she is in fact “privileged” in comparison to others is compartmentalized. Although she’ll always outwardly sympathize with her sisters in the East, in another sense they are a threat to her worldview.
As long as there are others being “subjugated” to a greater degree than herself, her personal claim of victimhood is diminished. As feminist doctrine derives its power from narratives of male oppression, this lessens the relevance of her personal trials and tribulations, and lessens feminism’s monopoly on victimhood in the West.
Both the “misogynist” and Ford make the mistake of imposing their Western values on Muslims in the Middle East. To them it’s unfathomable that Muslim women themselves by enlarge support “antiquated,” traditional gender roles and reject America’s cultural influence of their own free-will. Surely the spell of mythos has dissolved their every independent thought making it impossible for them to appreciate greener pastures abroad, or has it?
The rest of her rant stems from annoyance that a man had the audacity to start a debate with her.
2. How can women expect us to respect them when they won’t respect themselves?
When Sheik Al-Hilali compared scantily clad women to uncovered meat, we were rightly outraged. In Australia, we yelled, we don’t treat women like that! Except that we do. We use clothing and behaviour to provide excuses for sexist everyday, be they rapists or simply the kind of people who think a woman’s right to be afforded a basic level of dignity is contingent upon how much of her skin she’s revealing. The fact that we criticize other cultures for it doesn’t make us champions of women – it makes us both sexist AND racist.
We’re not protecting women – we’re protecting our property. Asking women to respect themselves in order to ‘earn’ the right to be treated like a human being is total horseshit. But suggesting that you have the right to treat her exactly as you please because she didn’t adhere to your archaic views of feminine propriety is misogyny, plain and simple.
This is such an incoherent jumble of finger pointing that it’s difficult to narrow in on a suitable thread of “reasoning” to refute. She denounces those who ‘criticize other cultures’ after admitting women’s right activists basted Sheik Al-Hilali for encouraging modest dress just sentences prior. Oddly, she’s done more to marginalize her own comrades than bolster the feminist cause here.
The concept of accountability is clearly something she wrestles with, but ultimately extricates. Her own limitations are not the fault of “misogynists.”
3. Stop criticizing domestic servitude! Some women are proud to look after their families.
This one’s a misogynist favourite, especially notable for the fact it’s the only time you’ll find them advocating for women’s rights in the workplace. Specifically, a woman’s right to iron her husband’s work shirts instead of her own. Misogynists who use this argument like to wax lyrical about things like choice, pride and sacrificial love. But what they’re really defending is their belief that women belong in the home, performing dull domestic tasks for the primary benefit of everyone other than themselves (and mainly their husband). Despite the fact that these dudes wouldn’t devote even an tenth of their lives to it themselves, they’re invested in outwardly maintaining the nobility of unpaid domestic work – because ascribing false honour to drudgery is how you reinforce invisible social power.
The thing is, women can choose those things if they want to. There’s nothing more tedious than the status quo trying to pit stay-at-homes against workforce broads. But the fact is, these people aren’t advocating for or defending a range of choices. How do I know that? Because if they were, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
It sounds like they’re irritated by her relentless parroting.
Praising working women is played out women’s-lib rhetoric from the 60s, and in this era largely irrelevant. It’s time for women to tireless work their lives away without receiving token back-patting like men have throughout history. Much to her chagrin, “equality” isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. Ironically, it is her that is stuck in the past, imaging she’s some freedom fighter for women’s rights when it was a more significant, more relevant cause.
Additionally, demonizing domestic tasks actually hurts women. I have not met one person, male or female, that doesn’t have to dedicate time to boring house chores they’d rather avoid, but can’t. I’d rather iron a shirt with tunes blaring and a look of contentment than throw a pity party in my head. Wouldn’t you?
4. It’s a science thing
“Look, men and women are built differently. It’s biological. Men are more visual, women are more emotional. That’s why more men are in executive roles. It’s about merit. If women were better, they wouldn’t be so crap. I didn’t make the rules.”
So goes the argument. Basically, it’s the kind of pop science spouted by the readers of such noted academic journals as NW Magazine and the Herald Sun. Whenever you hear someone say, ‘women are just better at washing up’ or ‘men are just better at being the leader of the free world’, ask yourself this: would that sentence be as benign if we replaced gender with race? Would we stand by, nodding sagely as mainstream pundits discussed how white people are just better at empathy than black folk? I sure hope not.
So why is it okay to say that women aren’t as good at stuff ‘because biology’? The biology argument is a Trojan horse that does nothing but sneak sexist propaganda into the castle. The only biological difference between a man and a woman is the difference of a Y chromosome – and even then, there’s a bit of wiggle room.
It is her that is the propagandist.
Let’s get to the essence of the matter. Men are tirelessly driven to spread their seed, while women have the ability to incubate new life. Although men and women are solely here to achieve the same goal of reproduction (biologically speaking), the strategies they use to achieve this goal couldn’t be more different. This difference in purpose affects our every inclination, desire, and every action in some regard, no matter how subtle.
At times women and men can be shockingly similar, but they can also be shockingly different. It depends on what you pay attention to, what data you chose to accept, and what you choose to reject.
Data that disturbs us is not be chucked in the can for arbitrary reasons. Seek truth not comfort. That is unless you want to take on the mentality of the mediaeval church and silence findings that conflict with your doctrine. Strange behavior indeed from a group largely composed of supposed skeptics and atheists.
5. Men are oppressed too, therefore women aren’t! Or something.
‘If feminists really cared about equality, they’d be addressing all the inequality that faces men. Like, why do feminists only care about breast cancer and not prostate cancer? Why aren’t feminists advocating for single dads? Why won’t women sleep with me when I’m a really nice guy and I’ve made a particular effort to be nice to them, particularly? Until feminism can answer that, I’m afraid I don’t really see it as being legitimate.”
This is the last bastion of the misogynist’s argument – their self fancying checkmate, if you will. What these people are basically saying is that, despite the overwhelming evidence of entrenched sexual, physical and ideological oppression of women, the only way feminism can really be fair is if it first identifies and solves all of the ways in which the patriarchy also oppresses men.
To be more specific, women who agitate for their own liberation are only allowed to do so once they’ve fixed all the things that make men sad, thus making them stronger and even more powerful.
There are probably a million ways I could tear this argument apart, but I think this says it better than I ever could.
To paraphrase the great Sarah Connor, a bitchin’ kick ass broad who saved humanity from blistering annihilation at the hands of the Terminators: if a stick figure, an animation, can reject the stupidity of misogynist rhetoric…maybe we can too.
She makes it crystal-clear that she is not an egalitarian in practice. Rather, she is motivated by self-interest.
This is not a problem in itself as people put their needs as individuals far above demographics largely made up of people they’ll never meet. One only needs to ignore rhetoric and to study actions to come to this (initially distressing) realization.
The issue is that nearly all feminists present themselves as advocates of “equal” rights. This is a flagrant deception used to disarm the delusional and less astute. George Orwell noted the same hypocrisy among Communist lawmakers when he (allegorically) wrote, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
I downed a couple glasses of MezzoMondo Negroamaro Salento mid-article and have now have decided to resume drinking rather than cutting-up the lamestream trolling of the MRM.