Two kinds of feminists

There are two kinds of feminists: the crazy ones, and the ignorant ones.

The crazy ones include women who are literally insane (“Intercourse is always rape!” aka “I fail mammalian biology forever!”) and women who are rabid Marxists. I’m not entirely sure that the latter category isn’t 100% overlapping with the former, but I’m willing to postulate the existence of feminists who are merely evil power-mongers, not actually insane. The kind of high-functioning sociopaths who use mentally ill and/or emotionally damaged women for their own nefarious purposes, that kind of thing.

Then there are the ignorant ones. These include the useful idiots (“Feminism is a fight for equal rights!!!”), the brainwashed (“I’m a feminist because the herd is feminist, and not declaring myself a feminist would cause me to be shunned as an unperson for doubleplus ungood badthink. I parrot everything my feminist teachers taught me with absolute certainty that it’s the Gospel truth.”), and the morons who think that anything after first-wave “feminism,” i.e. the suffragettes, can actually be made into a humanist crusade for equal rights (“I’m a conservative feminist.”).

If you’d like to learn more about crazy Marxist feminists, go read Stacy McCain’s excellent research, linked above, and buy the book when it comes out – I’m certainly planning to. What follows, rather than being the result of scholarly journalistic investigation (in the original sense of both adjectives), is merely the result of my own observations.

The “useful idiot” class of ignorant feminists might actually be able to learn the truth about feminism and come to discover that what they mean by “feminist” does not actually represent what the leaders of feminism actually mean by “feminist.” These people, once educated, would stop describing themselves as feminists and choose a more accurate label, like “libertarian.”

The brainwashed ignorant feminists are more-or-less a lost cause unless they migrate to a social circle not infested by feminism. Challenging them as to facts is useless; they believe what they believe, gosh darn it, and no pesky facts are ever going to shake their faith in woman’s natural goodness or the inherent evil of The White Male Patriarchy. And it always is the white male patriarchy with this class, because they simultaneously ignore all the actually oppressive patriarchies that are committing horrific crimes against women every day in places filled with “minorities.” But they’ll be willing to crucify Ray Rice, because as a rich black man in America he should know better than to transgress white bourgeois culture. Their ability to hold mutually contradictory ideas like these at the same time is characteristic of this class. Logic is not their strong suit; it’s more like garlic to a vampire. Basically, they think whatever is fashionable to think at the time, no matter what it is. Put them in a different circumstance, and like a chameleon, they’ll change to match.

There is a certain class of moron, however, that can face part of the truth of feminism – that they’re mere tools of Democrat politicians, or that the deck is stacked in favor of vicious women and against fathers – and bury her head in the sand and refuse to look evil in the face and call it out for what it is. These are the people who see what happens in the bailey, but cling desperately to the motte’s sheltering walls rather than face the truth. Given that “what happens in the bailey” resembles the worship ceremonies of the ancient Aztecs minus the publicity, I’m not real impressed with this kind of person. WTF, ladies? It’s okay to not be a self-identified feminist! You can even post selfies (or text) explaining why you don’t need feminism on the internet and your life will not end!

This distinction between the two types of feminists makes life difficult, as well, because someone who self-identifies as a feminist might be merely a deluded person of honestly good intentions, instead of literally Voldemort. Therefore I propose a way to identify these people of good will whose personal belief systems do not actually line up with official feminism: “lapsed feminists.” Kind of like how people will self-identify as “Christian” or “Catholic” etc. and yet not actually observe the rituals of the belief system, lapsed feminists still identify as feminists but, upon closer examination of their beliefs, do not actually qualify as female supremacists demanding that women simultaneously be granted all possible privileges in life while suffering none of the consequences of their chosen behavior. In this manner, those of us who are not feminists can identify people who are not literally Voldemort and therefore might be amenable to sweet reason.

But don’t link them to my blog, because my reason definitely doesn’t come in “sweet” and I’m really, really bad at getting along with airheaded females. I’m more likely to want to say something like, “Oh, you’re a feminist? Which kind, evil or stupid? Although I guess you could always be both!” (I’m working on it, I’m working on it… NOT proud to be a bitch. Could mainstream culture stop promoting Cluster B behaviors in women, kthxbye?)

I await with eagerness the day in which “feminist” is properly understood to be synonymous with “Marxist lesbian.” That’s what they teach in college Womyn’s Studies classes, after all.

Advertisements

About pancakeloach

pancakeloach.wordpress.com :)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Two kinds of feminists

  1. Well, I would have to say that my grandmother, who was a bacteriologist, a hard-core conservative who grew, canned and pickled a huge vegetable garden every year, could trace around us on a paper bag and produce a beautiful wardrobe of clothing from her sewing machine from that tracing, and knitted us sweaters that have now lasted through three generations, was a strong Nineteenth Amendment supporter. I remember her preaching away at us all that it was our bounden civic duty to register to vote on our eighteenth birthdays, that never should we take for granted our right to vote. She loved quoting the quote, the fewer the voices on the side of truth, the louder and more strong must be your own. And I would have to, after studying her life objectively, call her a first wave feminist. A first wave feminist who was horrified at the Roe v. Wade decision and drummed it into us granddaughters to call our elected representatives and fight abortion, fight Communism, fight to keep our country as the Founding Fathers intended, etc., etc.

    How would you classify her and others of her stamp? I always thought of them as the first wave feminists, with the second wave (i.e, Friedan, Steinhem) as the radicals who hijacked the whole thing.

    • pancakeloach says:

      The suffragists I tend to see a little differently than the feminists who came afterwards. I’m sure it would be galling for a responsible, productive adult woman interested in the affairs of government to be denied the right to vote based on nothing more than her sex. That being said, extending the franchise in principle is not something I consider an unalloyed good. Those who vote are the “kingmakers” of society, and it behooves a free society to vet its kingmakers carefully so that they will be likely to choose what’s best for society rather than the candidate who promises the most largess from the public treasury. There are more stringent licensing provisions for driving than there are for voting, despite the fact that an individual’s vote affects more people than an individual’s driving does.

      Your grandmother sounds like the kind of woman who would be absolutely HATED by modern feminists with the burning fury of a thousand dying suns. I would never insult such a woman by labeling her “feminist” – or give modern feminists the honor of being associated with a woman of good character like your grandmother. The whole “first wave” vs “second wave” feminism phenomenon I regard as the Marxist feminists appropriating the suffragettes in order to steal the cultural valor of the first wave and use it to disguise their true intentions. In a way there was a “hijacking” – but the coup was entirely successful. Today’s “feminist” is synonymous with either “mentally unstable Marxist lesbian female supremacist” or “ignorant person who doesn’t know anything about modern feminism.” The latter are the Useful Idiots of the former, providing a smokescreen whenever somebody starts actually paying attention to what the feminists say to each other.

    • pancakeloach says:

      Welcome, by the way. Probably should have said that first, but social graces are still a work in progress on my part. 😉

  2. When I had to take U.S. Constitution in college, I was in a state of nausea at every class. The society of the ignorant aboundeth horrifically. Nobody could get through their head that money bills must originate in the House, for example, which you’d think would be pretty inocuous. I suppose you have read “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat. I had my claws out on him because of his opinion of women voting, but after dealing with that class and a few others, I had to admit he may have had a point. Our Congressional district is a complete lost cause and there are days I honestly don’t know why I bother voting.

  3. pancakeloach says:

    The society of the ignorant doth indeed abound horrifically. I’m going to have to remember that one, it’s pretty good!

    Actually, I must admit that my education is quite slapdash and that I hadn’t read it, until just now. I did not see much in “The Law” about his personal opinion of women voting, that seemed to be slightly beside the point of the piece and only peripherally touched upon. However, the point about everyone plundering everyone else has indeed come to pass with “universal” suffrage – and mostly by cloaking plundering greed with philanthropic language. (That bit about the government not being blamed for the temperature made me snicker, though.)

    As far as women voting, well, if giving up my vote meant that Life-of-Julias and Lena Dunhams and Sex in the City women couldn’t vote either, I’d give up the franchise in a heartbeat! Indeed, upon contemplating politics at the federal level, I often feel like voting is a lost cause. Especially when my Facebook feed includes young women who are still ecstatic over our esteemed oh-so-cool, utter failure of a President. /sigh

    I have to remind myself of Psalm 146:3 fairly often, which isn’t a bad thing from an eternal perspective even if it does mean politics is extremely aggravating most of the time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s