Let's delve into the madness that is the mind of Lindy West. She just published her latest opus, and apparently she's done being Ms. Nice Feminist, there will be no more playing nice with all the angry misogynists.
Normally I wouldn't waste anyone's time with the semi-coherent rambling that typifies West's unzip-my-head approach to writing, but this article sums up the problems I have with feminism with as much (unintentional) elegance as any I've previously seen.
That problem being pure, crystalline, gynocentric solipsism.
West's work can essentially be broken down into three parts, each being a key point of feminism, and a demonstration of pure female self interest. I'll touch on them point by point.
1) Identifies a problem, denies any involvement in or responsibility for said problem.
West begins by identifying the problem as, you guessed it, pervasive misogyny online, and describes how she's a victim of it. Interesting, she's done this a number of times before as well.
Recall that this is the woman who previously wrote a piece directed at men complaining about injustice, explaining to them that the pervasive hatred of men doesn't even exist, and that men should just become feminists.
Recall that this was the women who lauded efforts to troll a masculism twitter feed with accusations of privilege/misogyny/sexual inadequacy etc.
Recall that this was the woman who accused men of being privileged even after two men were fired for a dongle joke.
These things of course, were perfectly acceptable to West, and shouldn't have upset anyone. She hypocritically writes her piece from a position of implied innocence despite her previous morally indefensible convictions. Because she doesn't even believe that misandry exists, she's blind to how unbelievably common it is.
West continues,
and
Notice how neither of these portrayals are framed in a way that might consider how these women are complaining, whether or not their complaints are reasonable, or whether they involve accusations. It's a total denial of any responsibility or ownership for said complaints.
Also, recall how West writes about men who "challenge entrenched power structures," or complain about "shit that is shitty" for men. They're met with accusations of misogyny, rape apology, sexual inadequacy, etc.
West, like most feminists, will not take ownership for any of this, and as a result her analysis is extremely biased. Feminists can do no wrong, they're completely innocent, and any negative backlash against them is inherently unjust. This insane, childish solipsism leads her to foolishly identify the trolling and backlash under examination as having a political agenda consistent with a "male supremacist power structure."
Of course the sensible explanation for it is considerably more simple, it's that most men are tired of being treated like second-class citizens, but West's solipsism prevents her from considering the male experience whatsoever. This woman doesn't care about the male experience, she's previously told men that misandry doesn't exist and that they're even privileged when they're wrongfully fired. She has no capacity to understand or feel a male's pain or frustrations, and as a result she invokes some insidious male political conspiracy to keep women subservient. This is a level of indifference that's difficult for me to wrap my mind around.
What is ironic is that this total inability to feel the male perspective is coming from the so-called empathetic sex (which I'm now utterly convinced is a lie).
2) Constructs a victim narrative
To quote West,
Notice how when feminists troll, it's "defensive." It isn't aggression, no it's defense against victimization; it's retaliatory. Nevermind that most of the manosphere is itself reactionary to feminism, none of that matters. Women aren't responsible for any male anger, so if any is expressed, that is the aggression, not the 50 years of feminism that preceded it.
West continues,
West of course, has never shut down rational discourse with puerile accusations of privilege or misogyny, she's completely innocent in all of this. What is particularly amazing about this passage is that the same could be said about men or MRA bloggers (except the part about being hounded off the earth, that's pretty ludicrous), but Lindy just doesn't see both sides to the story. She's enamored with her own vision of female victimization.
3) Falls back on militant approach to solve problem
This is basically an example of the you-go-girlism face of feminism. There is no onus to understand or communicate, it is acceptable for a woman to just do whatever she feels like in the name of empowerment.
Unfortunately for West, this is the mindset that will only result in her penning more articles about her unjust victimization at the hands of the patriarchy, and disowning any responsibility she might have in it.
These three points are good examples of why I'm critical of feminists.
Normally I wouldn't waste anyone's time with the semi-coherent rambling that typifies West's unzip-my-head approach to writing, but this article sums up the problems I have with feminism with as much (unintentional) elegance as any I've previously seen.
That problem being pure, crystalline, gynocentric solipsism.
West's work can essentially be broken down into three parts, each being a key point of feminism, and a demonstration of pure female self interest. I'll touch on them point by point.
1) Identifies a problem, denies any involvement in or responsibility for said problem.
West begins by identifying the problem as, you guessed it, pervasive misogyny online, and describes how she's a victim of it. Interesting, she's done this a number of times before as well.
Recall that this is the woman who previously wrote a piece directed at men complaining about injustice, explaining to them that the pervasive hatred of men doesn't even exist, and that men should just become feminists.
Recall that this was the women who lauded efforts to troll a masculism twitter feed with accusations of privilege/misogyny/sexual inadequacy etc.
Recall that this was the woman who accused men of being privileged even after two men were fired for a dongle joke.
These things of course, were perfectly acceptable to West, and shouldn't have upset anyone. She hypocritically writes her piece from a position of implied innocence despite her previous morally indefensible convictions. Because she doesn't even believe that misandry exists, she's blind to how unbelievably common it is.
West continues,
Quote:Quote:
This is about how people—particularly women—are treated on the internet when we challenge entrenched power structures. We are treated like subhuman garbage,
and
Quote:Quote:
It is not, typically, what happens to men on the internet. It is gendered. It is the consequence for women if we complain about shit that is shitty for women.
Notice how neither of these portrayals are framed in a way that might consider how these women are complaining, whether or not their complaints are reasonable, or whether they involve accusations. It's a total denial of any responsibility or ownership for said complaints.
Also, recall how West writes about men who "challenge entrenched power structures," or complain about "shit that is shitty" for men. They're met with accusations of misogyny, rape apology, sexual inadequacy, etc.
West, like most feminists, will not take ownership for any of this, and as a result her analysis is extremely biased. Feminists can do no wrong, they're completely innocent, and any negative backlash against them is inherently unjust. This insane, childish solipsism leads her to foolishly identify the trolling and backlash under examination as having a political agenda consistent with a "male supremacist power structure."
Of course the sensible explanation for it is considerably more simple, it's that most men are tired of being treated like second-class citizens, but West's solipsism prevents her from considering the male experience whatsoever. This woman doesn't care about the male experience, she's previously told men that misandry doesn't exist and that they're even privileged when they're wrongfully fired. She has no capacity to understand or feel a male's pain or frustrations, and as a result she invokes some insidious male political conspiracy to keep women subservient. This is a level of indifference that's difficult for me to wrap my mind around.
What is ironic is that this total inability to feel the male perspective is coming from the so-called empathetic sex (which I'm now utterly convinced is a lie).
2) Constructs a victim narrative
To quote West,
Quote:Quote:
I can think of instances of funny, political, retaliatory trolling—like when Twitter feminists co-opted the #INeedMasculismBecause hashtag, or when Rick Perry's Facebook page was deluged with questions about menses. But those are not examples of aggression, they are self-defense. They are not analogous to "I will rape you in an alley" or "Don't leave your phone at home, sweetie." They are reactions to misogyny—the same brand of misogyny that fuels internet trolling. They are women speaking to power—the same power structure that empowers and perpetuates anonymous trolls.
Notice how when feminists troll, it's "defensive." It isn't aggression, no it's defense against victimization; it's retaliatory. Nevermind that most of the manosphere is itself reactionary to feminism, none of that matters. Women aren't responsible for any male anger, so if any is expressed, that is the aggression, not the 50 years of feminism that preceded it.
West continues,
Quote:Quote:
Cumulatively, the sheer volume of hate that we're expected to shoulder, in silence, every day, is wearing a lot of people out and shutting down rational discourse. Female bloggers are being hounded off the internet. Teenage girls are being hounded off the earth. There's no good solution, but we have to do what we can to stop these people—unmask them, shame them, mock them, cement their status as social pariahs—for our own sanity and for those whose armor isn't so thick (upgrade yo greaves, son).
West of course, has never shut down rational discourse with puerile accusations of privilege or misogyny, she's completely innocent in all of this. What is particularly amazing about this passage is that the same could be said about men or MRA bloggers (except the part about being hounded off the earth, that's pretty ludicrous), but Lindy just doesn't see both sides to the story. She's enamored with her own vision of female victimization.
3) Falls back on militant approach to solve problem
Quote:Quote:
I know what I'm going to do. Whatever I fucking feel like doing. I'm sick of being told that I'm navigating my own abuse wrong. I am not interested in being anyone's chew toy—you can chew on me, but I am full of poison.
This is basically an example of the you-go-girlism face of feminism. There is no onus to understand or communicate, it is acceptable for a woman to just do whatever she feels like in the name of empowerment.
Unfortunately for West, this is the mindset that will only result in her penning more articles about her unjust victimization at the hands of the patriarchy, and disowning any responsibility she might have in it.
These three points are good examples of why I'm critical of feminists.
