I recently read a story about a woman by the name of Nancy Silberkleit. She is the CEO of Archie Comic Publications. She is being sued by employees for sexual discrimination and harassment. It is alleged that she refereed to male employees by calling them ‘penis’ rather than by their name, that she stalked employees, that she brought hells angels to the office to intimidate employees, and frequently asked about the whereabouts of a hand gun which her husband kept at the office. Other lawsuits against her have called her ‘unstable’ and alleged that she’s threatened to run the company into the ground and lead to an order for her to only contact employees through a go-between, the go-between later filed papers with the courts saying she’d become ‘unhinged’ and needed to be removed from the company.
I find this case particularly interesting due to her defense in the latest charges filed against her, a defense that her lawyer see’s as a good defense. She’s essentially claiming that it is impossible for her to have discriminated against her employees or sexually harassed them because they’re white men and therefore not a protected class. This is a legal defense presented by a lawyer, what it means is that white men (or all men in many instances) are not to be protected by law, men are not protected by equality laws, men are not protected by discrimination laws, men are not protected by sexual harassment laws.
There’s no guarantee that her defense will hold up at this point but the simple fact that it can be presented as a defense in the first place shows us how men are seen in this society, men are second class citizens who are not protected by the laws of the land but are held to them strictly, needing to walk on eggshells otherwise face an Adria Richards donglegate situation.
Feminists are the great purveyors of equality, the warriors who fight against things like sexual harassment and gender discrimination. Where are they? Where are the feminists when a case of gender discrimination and sexual harassment is being defended by the claim that a certain class of people have no right to protection from these things? Where are the feminists who we’re told care about men’s issues, where are the feminists that Charles Clymer tells us about that are apparently ‘ the greatest advocates for men’s issues’ that he has ever met? Where are they?
Feminist Literature: http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=4033
MHRA literature: http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=2492
AVfM article about jezebel: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/if-you-see-jezebel-in-the-road-run-the-bitch-down/
Reposted from: http://razorbladekandy.tumblr.com/
So this YouTube feminist makes a video(here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPTdxrAdS2E) about some guy on tumblr with a sexual fetish for putting women in their place treating them like objects, pissing on them, and places a few snippets of MRM, Traditionalism, and White Nationalism in his blog. She is outraged over this guy’s tumblr blog.
His blog here: http://femininebeauty.tumblr.com/tagged/feminism/
I said in her comments:
“So this guy may be a troll, may have a sexual fetish, but is not an MRA (though you’re quick to make manosphere references). What about acclaimed radfem Solanas’ SCUM manifesto, selling over a million copies, highly praised to this day in fem circles.
You gonna make a video about that?
Since nearly all of your videos are about women and rape, are you going to make one about men and false allegations? You know, since Feminism is totally looking out for men too.”
So this person on YouTube, DaisyPumpkin23, objects to my reference of the SCUM manifesto.
Allow me to answer her questions.
First, I have read the SCUM Manifesto. I find it less a matter of offensive, and more a matter of just pure stupid shit with grammar on par with my own illiteracy. Sure it is offensive, but mostly it’s just stupid bullshit. There is nothing really thought provoking. Her entire concept that men want to be women, is interesting, but not original. The idea that men seek out women so as to live vicariously through women, to make himself a complete human, and that women seek out men to live through him vicarious to become a complete human being. This idea has been around like forever, as long as the Yin and Yang. If you could imagine an immature girl who was stood up on a date, getting angry and writing down in her diary that men are horrible, they suck, women are great, greater then men, and men just totally suck like a bunch of doo doo head turdy turds who smell bad like turdy turds and just horny hairy animals who are afraid of women and envious of women, and women should totally reject them because boys totally suck.
Yeah, if you could imagine that… that’s pretty much the SCUM manifesto. Just a bunch of stupid shit with bits and pieces of Communism tossed in there. It’s really nothing.
I just got through reading it again just to answer your question.
As for its context, it seems to just be her writing about her thoughts and opinions. SCUM, was not claimed to be an actual organization, just a type of woman, that would collectively rise up against the patriarchy (and apparently capitalism and society).
Valerie Solanas was a radical feminists and a dumb crazy bitch who was eventually diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia after she attempted to kill Artist Andy Warhol and two others that got in her way that night. She has never claimed that book was a joke. There is nothing to make anyone believe that the book was a joke (parody/satire). It is in line with a lot of the things she has said before and after the commercial publishing of the book (comercially published after she shot Andy Warhol, though written much earlier).
Those who claim this book was satire are full of shit. They’re either liars, or the sort of bone headed idiots best depicted in that commercial where some guy is at an art museum and he is going on and on about the symbolism the artist was trying to project in this magnificent work of art that looked like a coat wrack and how it was metaphor for this and that… and then the janitor walks up to it and pulls his coat off the rack and walks away.
People have called it satire, but these people are of course fucking morons, no if’s and’s or but’s about it.
This book was no more parody and satire than was Mein Kampf or The Communist Manifesto.
Anyhow, you then ask me to cite an example of its praise by radfems.
Sure, no problem:
Ti-Grace Atkinson who was president of the New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women called Valerie Solanas, after the commercial publication of the SCUM Manifesto and shooting of Andy Warhol, “the first outstanding champion of women’s rights”.
Cell 16, a militant feminist organization founded by Roxanne Dunbar in 1968, was inspired by the book. And when I say inspired, I mean it was her primary motivation to form Cell 16.
The book gets lots of praise (oddly enough as satire) in book review sites.
Furthermore, the idiotic misandrous type ramblings of Solanas can be found in many of the feminist nuts who comment on my YouTube channel. I see so much of this mindless scatter brained paranoid misandrous sentiment in so many feminists. I won’t go as far as to say the average feminist, but many of them. I swear, feminism just looks less like a political movement, and more like a mental illness whose primary characteristics are borderline and neurotic.
YouTube feminists (specifically the anti-MRM type) like Clover Field, Felisha1717, Sael Palani, and Femitheist Divine, really show off the hateful neurotic side of Solanas. These are all people I can honestly see writing something like the SCUM Manifesto. Though to be fair I think Femitheist Divine could have written a much better version than Solanas.
I have also heard it praised many times on Radfem Hub and other similar places.
For more examples of its influence and praise (praise both when assumed to be literal, and satire) here are some resources.
Wikipedia entry on its author Valerie Solanas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas
Wikipedia entry on the book itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto
Also, here is the complete reprint of the commercial publication of the book in case anyone is curious about the book http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm
DaisyPumkin23 has responded:
So after this person finally got an answer… they’re not happy with it LOL.
Doesn’t surprise me. So lets analize why I am wrong and so on.
“It is no more than opinion only.”
Your opinion that The SCUM Manifesto is satire is only opinion.
At least I went out of my way to link to sources showing that she attempted murder, always stuck to this book being literal, was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic, and was a self proclaimed feminist. At least I am backing my opinion up with a little something. You have an opinion, based on your personal opinions. You absolutely positively truly have no point here.
You then say:
“If this is the level of argument you use (“I’m right – Everyone else is wrong. No need to explain. Fuck you !”) then heaven help us.”
That’s your argument as well. Furthermore, I was stating my opinion and then backing it up with reasons why you’d have to be mentally fucking retarded to believe it’s satire; not just saying it, but making the proclamation then delivering evidence. A bit like a lawyer saying “my client is innocent of the crime and a victim of circumstance” at the opening of a trial and then proceeding to apply evidence to his proclamation. You have your own personal private and irrelevant opinion backed by no research, no links, and no points beyond the opinion itself.
Next you say:
“You’re arguing within an over-simplified, dualistic conception of “CONTEXT”.
You seem to think that its simply a question of is it either “serious”, or is it “satire”. This dualistic model doesn’t allow for the myriad of other possible “CONTEXTS” that a work of art may have.”
Yeah lady, most of the rational thinking world goes about analyzing literature in a fiction vs non-fiction, a true or false, a serious or satire, categorization. I especially do this when “determining which one”, is the actual point (or I assumed that to be the point).
Furthermore, this is not a work of “art” in any conventional sense. You can make the argument the bill of rights, the declaration of independence, mein kampf, the communist manifesto, is a work of art. But it is most certainly not a work of art in the conventional sense. So we sure as fuck are not sitting around debating the artist’s intended symbolism in a painting, or William Shakespeare’s deeper philosophical meaning in a work of fiction.
The notion that it can be both satire and serious (non-satire) at the same time is complete and utter rubbish. It would be analogous to claiming it is both a work of fiction and a non-fiction documentary.
You could claim a passage was using creative license/being satirical. But that would still make the book a representation of her literal thoughts/intentions. If someone claims it is satirical with passages of truth; this is still satire since many (possibly all) satire involve truths.
As for any other possible use of “context”, I have provided a wikipedia page on the book explaining its creation. I have also given a wikipedia page on the author herself. If there is some all important context of the book that I am missing, it becomes your job to point out this context, not just suggest that the context might possibly be there.
Next you say:
Secondly, Feminism is vastly bigger than the thoughts of a few “feminist scholars” As always, from the English-speaking Western World, because – like most first -world English speakers, you work under the pompous delusion that YOUR world “represents” the whole world.
Madam, do show me where I make this proclamation.
This 4 part post of yours basically says this:
“I didn’t like your reply to me. There are many ways in which context has context; thus I disagree with your views. You MRA’s are such stupid small minded idiots, I am so smart and intelligent and sophisticated and my mind is capable of viewing things on a broad spectrum, thus you narrow minded retards can’t understand me and my interpretation of things nanny nanny boo boo. English speaking first worlders are self absorbed assholes because they speak in English to people that speak English about what people said in English. Feminism is really big and diverse, so all criticisms of what english speakers in the first world say and do, is null and void.”
At least to me, that’s what I get out of all your posts on this woman’s YouTube channel.
Furthermore, since you want to go on and on about context, I want you to stop and think about the context in which I brought up the SCUM Manifesto. I’ll refresh your memory and spell it out for you.
Someone made a blog on tumblr displaying pornographic images of porn actresses being degraded by porn actors for sexual gratification, the blogger adds some anti-feminist anti-woman rhetoric to these images. An feminist blogger by the name of “Eseld Bosustow” (which claimed she hopes I choke to death on my breakfast -inspite of the fact I was unaware of her, never spoke to or of her at the time, and she wants to see MRA’s put to death slow and painful Vlad Tepes style) made a blog about this guy’s blog. A YouTube feminist by the name of Extremely Boring, makes a video about how shocking this is, she makes an attempt to connect this with the mens rights movement and cites this as an example of why she needs feminism. I then bring up that the person who runs this tumblr blog does not anywhere on his blog call himself a mens rights activist, is not known by any mens rights organizations, he may just have a sexual fetish completely irrelevant to his political beliefs, he could just have a sick sense of humor not related to his political beliefs, it could be a spoof/parody of mens rights activism, just pure trolling etc.
I then mention that it is hypocritical of her (Extremely Boring) to bring this blog to our attention as a reason feminism is needed, while over looking an equally offensive book written by a self proclaimed feminists, published commercially, selling millions of copies, praised by “some” feminist in practically every radfem circle I have ever seen (not to be confused with meaning all radfems enjoy/support this book – though due to my original wording I see where that could have been interpreted.). Thus mentioning an obscure blog by a relatively anonymous person with questionable motives as an example of the misogyny that plagues our society so much that feminism is needed as a counter measure, while ignoring completely a much larger and famous work of equally misandrous writings that is a million times more famous, was written by a recognized radfem, and has support by some radical feminists, is being hypocritical.
That was the context in which I brought up the book.
Now, I really love this part of your statement:
“So what if a few s0-called “Feminist scholars” have praised Valeri Solanis. If you really knew how Large & Diverse Feminism actually IS, you would realise that the opinions of a handful of American scholars or writers is a mere drop in the bucket in the vast Ocean of Feminism.”
Oh how well that describes my point. One person, who’s name, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, nationality, affiliation, motive, are completely unknown, displays a misogynist blog, who’s traffic is not even known, has no one agreeing with/supporting him, is being held up by a few feminists as an example of the mens rights movement. It is ridiculous to even associate this with the mens rights movement, and yet, from Eseld Bosustow’s blog http://eseldbosustow.blogspot.ca/2013/10/wow-now-this-is-just-some-fucked-up-shit.html
we have one of her posters (Cinzia La Strega) say “It’s just the comments section of any number of manosphere blogs… with pictures.”
This would be analogous to me saying that the SCUM Manifesto is just the diary of your average feminist.
I know Solanas does not accurately represent the opinions of most feminists. Though she does represent the opinions of some feminists. This anonymous person on the internet does not represent the opinions of even one MRA that I know of, even he himself is not proclaiming to be an MRA.
So for you to point out that citing the SCUM Manifesto as an example of feminism (which is not the context in which I brought it up) would be foolish, is perfect, you prove my point for me so well. Now go tell the same thing to Extremely Boring, Eseld Bosustow (who runs the blog I just linked to) and the commenter “Cinzia La Strega” who made the comment that this is typical manosphere blogging.
You go tell them how one person, who’s motives and affiliation is completely unknown, does not represent the mens rights movement.
I am serious when I tell you to go let them know this.
Because if you feel the need to be vocal and defend feminism from accusations of misandry, using Solanas as an example, than it is only intellectually fair that you defend the mens rights movement from accusations of misandry when citing some anonymous blogger.
If you do not tell this to Eseld, Cinzia, and Extremely Boring, you will be proving yourself to be an intellectually dishonest hypocrite. You will have to look into the mirror and tell yourself every day that you persecute the MRM for the same shit feminism is guilty of, while defending feminism against the very things you use to attack the MRM.
And some where deep deep in your mind, you will have to ask yourself, why is it you will attack MRA’s for the same shit you know feminists are guilty of? Why would you defend Feminism in ways you refuse to defend the MRM? Why the prejudice? What could be your internal motivator… hatred against men standing up for themselves? A hatred for men in general? Maaaaybe?
Also, I want to give you the option to speak to me, challenge what I say, without YouTube’s ridiculous 500 character limit, so I am copying this entire post over to my blog, and leaving comments open, you can post as anonymous, no email address needed, no need to even sign in with a twitter, facebook, livejournal etc. http://razorbladekandy.livejournal.com/3039.html
*Note: After re-watching Extremely Boring’s video, she, herself, does not actually proclaim this guy is an MRA or that his babbling is inline with any MRA ideology. It was Eseld Bosustow and one of her commenters that made these proclamations. Though With Extremely Boring coming across Eseld’s blog to have gotten the knowledge of this person’s misogyny/porn blog, she was aware of the MRM connotation, and in the past has linked baseless studies that had nothing to do with the mens rights movement (about narcissistic heterosexual males showing hate towards heterosexual females moreso than others) and saying “this is what MRA’s look like to me”, and her entire channel is all about “rape rape rape rape women are victims and MRA’s are evil… rape-rape-rappidy-rape-rape MRA’s suck!”
One can’t help but to assume Extremely Boring supported the MRM connection to this person’s misogyny-porn blog.
We live in a world which constantly barrages us with the message that men are violent, much more violent than women. In feminist spheres including academe they refer to this as ‘toxic masculinity’, they theorize about how it’s a problem with masculinity in itself, some even going so far as to blame testosterone and say that men suffer from ‘testosterone poisoning’ causing the high rates of male violence. No one seems to really want to ask the question: is it really true that men are more violent than women?
Sure, the overt statistics pan out. Most violent crime is committed by men. However to understand why this is we must observe our culture in itself, the statistics give us a number but not a reason, while the feminist theory of toxic masculinity specifically blames masculinity for the problem and uses those same base numbers which do not offer reason to justify their theory.
The first thing we have to do is recognize different forms of violence. Males and females engage in different types of aggression. Physical aggression being more typically male and relational aggression being more typically female. Males will express their aggression with more overt physical confrontation like fist fights while females will express their aggression through social manipulation such as spreading rumors and causing social ostracization. The typical male form of aggression is illegal and obvious while the typical female form of aggression is legal and almost invisible, so we see the first cause of the statistical representation of men as violent and women as not so violent.
Now if we consider how relational aggression is used by females we can see how they use relational aggression to cause physical confrontation between males. The simple rumor is enough to achieve this, “Hey Billy, your girlfriend sucked johnny’s dick” and suddenly billy and johnny are fighting. Female relational aggression leads to male physical confrontation but what would the statistics reflect? Only the male physical confrontation. There are plenty of ways in which women can achieve using relational aggression to cause men to be violent, it’s almost like they use men as tools in a fight. If a man offends a woman all she has to do is say something along the lines of “that guy is creeping me out” or the more sinister and outwardly evil “he tried to molest me” or “he raped me” in this way women use men to essentially fight their battles for them, they simply point their finger and have a friendly man assault another man. The statistics again only reflect the male’s position in this paradigm, the female is able to stand on the side lines and feign horror at the violence and in societies eyes she remains innocent.
Relational aggression has many ways of leading to violence, especially when used by a woman. The two methods previously mentioned are cases where a woman can use relational aggression to bring violence upon a man she doesn’t like or is angry with. Relational aggression can also be used to settle spats between women where each manipulates their boyfriend or otherwise friendly man into fighting another woman’s boyfriend or otherwise friendly man as a way of ‘defending her honour’. There are endless ways in which relational aggression can be used to manipulate men into physical confrontation and the common theme between them all is that statistics will only show that males have shown aggression while females remain in a state of complete innocence.
This situation is often referred to as ‘proxy violence’ where women express violence through the proxy of men. Erin Pizzey observed the use of this method in domestic violence situations and coined the term ‘family terrorist’ to describe it, a woman will use relational aggression to push other family members to violence and will appear to the outside observer to be the reasonable one. So we have to have to ask: how much of the male violence that we see reflected in those statistics is actually female relational aggression being expressed through male physical confrontation. We as men also have to learn to recognize this and refuse to dish out violence at the whim of the women in our lives, at the end of the day we are still responsible for our own actions. Feminists call it ‘toxic masculinity’, I call it ‘toxic chivalry’.
Toxic Chivalry contributes to many issues of male violence. From a very early age we begin to teach boys that it is their ‘duty’ to protect girls. If a girl is in need it is a ‘real’ mans job to protect and aid her. If a girl is being bullied on the school yard, then you better get in there and act as shield between her and harm, if she’s being bullied by a boy this usually entails a fight, if she’s being bullied by a girl it entails becoming the target of the bullying, physical or psychological and any retaliation in that case becomes another example of male violence. As adults men are burdened with a responsibility to women, to act as unpaid body guards or meat shields to stand between women and consequences. It is the duty of the ‘real’ man to ensure that a woman never feels the wrath of consequences for her actions. Did she drink too much? It’s your job as a ‘real’ man to get her home safe, just remember to not be THAT guy and rape her when you get her there.
These attitudes lead to a great deal of violence dished out and absorbed by men on behalf of women. If a woman provokes someone a man is expected to step in a save her. If she taunts and goads someone to be a ‘REAL’ man you have to absorb the consequences. If she outright attacks someone it is your job to ensure that she feels no consequences for doing so. All these things contribute to statistics which show men as violent and women as not so violent.
Toxic chivalry is enforced even by feminists, just look at the white ribbon campaign. The white ribbon campaign asks men to PLEDGE to ‘end violence against women’, PLEDGE to ‘step in’ and prevent violence against women. The feminist inspired white ribbon campaign is ENFORCING chivalric attitudes that tell men that women are incapable of handling themselves and need a man to absorb violence and act as a meat shield to stand between her and consequences. Feminists also spearheaded the ‘make your move‘ campaign which expressed the same ideal, the same chivalric attitude that it is a mans duty to protect women, to dish out and absorb violence on womens behalf. Feminists are demanding this even as they use the statistics which result from this attitude to admonish men and masculinity as inherently toxic.
There is one last form of violence which I want to talk about, that is overt physical violence committed by women onto men. Due to predominant aggressor policies when a woman attacks her partner if the police are called he is the one arrested. Due to bias caused by decades of lies and false models like the Duluth model police are trained to see men as the aggressor and arrest him even if predominant aggressor policies aren’t in place. Outside of domestic violence if a woman attacks a man and he defends himself or retaliates in anyway other than taking it or running away then he is deemed violent while she is deemed the victim. All of these things lead to the statistics which show men as violent and women as not so violent.
So are men significantly more violent than women? Well let’s recap:
1. women use relational aggression to manipulate men into fighting their battles for them
2. women use relational aggression to manipulate men into dishing out violence against anyone she doesn’t like
3. toxic chivalric attitude which are enforced throughout society even by feminists teaches men to dish out and absorb violence on behalf of women
4. due to biases any physical confrontation between a man and woman is likely to by categorized as a violent male and an innocent female
I wonder what statistics would look like if we were able to account for these things. I think they would probably show men and women as nearly equally violent, if not women being more so due to cultural attitudes which lead to women not having negative consequences for their violence.