Hey famous dudes who are betas! Watch the heck out! If some comely lass wearing an I HEART Dworkin t-shirt starts whispering sweet nothings in your ear, she could be a SECRET RADFEM trying to seduce you into SJWism so she and her RadFem comrades can take advantage of your fame in order to spread evil SJW lies.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. You can take the word of a couple of random Redditors instead. In Kotaku in Action, the main Gamergate hangout on Reddit, azriel777 sadly reports that
But it is Earl_of_sandwiches who CONNECTS THE DOTS and somehow manages to work French Trotskyists and polyamory into the mix.
This conspiracy theory strikes me as being roughly as convincing as one of Ralph Wiggum’s tall tales on The Simpsons
Nonetheless, lets take a few moments to unpack some of the most egregious nonsense in Earl’s comment.
“Entryism” is a tactic pioneered by French Trotskyists in the 1930s, acting at the behest of Mr. T himself. The wily Trots joined a larger social democratic group en masse, hoping to sneakily nudge it towards Leninism. While the strategy “successfully raised the group’s membership to 300 activists,” as Wikipedia notes, the social dems figured out what was going on and started throwing the Trots out.
You may wonder what on earth this has to do with Earl’s little conspiracy fantasy. I do too, as I’m pretty sure that the notion of using sex to manipulate people predates Trotskyist “entryism” by many thousands of years.
Ok, but what about all that non-exclusive relationship stuff? Well, you know how obsessed these guys are with “cucking.” In their imaginary world, one of the prime life goals of women today — including the evil RadFems — is to have sex with as many cocky Alpha Males as possible, preferably while married to some hardworking beta schlub unaware that the children he’s raising aren’t really his own, spermwise.
Apparently, “It’s Raining Men” is the secret RadFem anthem.
Ok, but isn’t it true that Jim Sterling — the longtime Gamergate foe mentioned in the comment — actually is a big ol cuck? I mean, didn’t his wife ADMIT this????
Apparently she did in fact once say that she and her husband had an open marriage in which they both were allowed to see other people. I’m not sure why that would be relevant to anything, but the Gamergaters have assembled one of their famous infographics on the subject, complete with little arrows and stuff underlined in red.
I’ve now officially run out of evens for today, so while we’re on the subject of The Simpsons, which we were a little while ago, here’s 5 minutes of Homer getting horribly injured in every possible way and then some.
I had a discussion with a gator recently. (I could tell she was a gator because she said straight out “I’m not a gator, I just think they have some good arguments.” Short of actually flourishing a sock puppet, that’s the closest we’ll get to a confession.)
She said, with a straight face, that Jim Sterling and the folks at Extra Credits were deeply unpopular.
I said that going by viewership that isn’t true: Sterling is bigger right now than even Croshaw was at his height, and Extra Credits is a very profitable media concern which has diversified their brand remarkably.
She said that nobody on KiA likes them, and therefore this means that no true gamers like them, which is synonymous with being unpopular. Clearly all those fans of theirs don’t exist.
What can one say to such remorseless logic?
Grrr, double post.
@Diptych
I have talked to many radfems to try to comprehend and find a silver lining on their bulshit. So I will slip in my radfem costume and explain.
They believe that there’s 0, NONE difference between the male and female brain. If there’s no difference between them, “gender” is a made up concept. If two things are EQUAL, differentiating them is artificial and meaningless.
In a hypotetical environment where society is not, “men” and “women” would not be either. Everyone would just be humans who happen to have different genitals.
BUT the real world is not this hypotetical environment. In the real world, according to them, from the moment you are born and the doctor says “it’s a girl”, you begin being molded into the artificial and imposed role of “woman”. And from the moment you are born you are given dolls with pink dresses and taught to be a slave. Its not a role you CHOSE, because you started being molded as soon as you were born, and because self identification is a myth. You are not a woman because you feel you are one, because those feelings are non existent and artificial. No, you are a woman because from the moment people saw you have a vagina they started to mold you into a woman, by teaching you to be submissive by traumatizing you, by sexualizing and demonizing your prepubecent body, genitals and sexuality.
Therefore, gender doesn’t NATURALLY exist, it’s a socialization that is imposed based on genital differences.
Following me? I will write another comment soon.
Consistency requires honesty and intellectual effort, which they don’t have.
Is it just me or does the whole “SJW” hysteria come across as a kind of Internet Red Scare. Why not just call them “Communists” or “cultural Marxists” or just “Jews” already. It saves everyone the time and headache.
Or “Bolsheviks”.
@Ourabouros13:
“Cultural Marxist” is very explicitly an anti-Semitic slur. The others less so, but you’re right that they’re basically a progression of synonyms that leads up to a Jew Scare.
M said at one point that it’s disappointing to read conspiracy theory literature, and realise that instead of fascinating inventiveness and amusing coincidence-watching, it all comes down to “Joooooooos!” in the end.
So yeah, SJW is IMHO just the latest term for those mysterious infiltrators who can be blamed for turning Western society away from the path desired by those who see themselves as the truest inheritors of it.
I’ve started consciously identifying as an SJW in the sorts of spaces where that term has become used as a slur. It arouses impressive amounts of hostility and bafflement, but I’m privileged enough that I can get away with it. It’s fascinating to see people’s reactions when “SJW” stops being a term that means “those evil mysterious people in black cloaks cackling in a basement” and starts meaning “EJ over there, who helped you configure your DNS settings.”
@PI
Not to pry, but what does ‘mobile’ mean? Mobile phone? Or that other thing >_>
@Chio
I’m sayin! I once had a conversation in the YouTube comments, where somebody said basically, ‘Men and Women are equal, therefore, if women can get abortions, men should be able to also’. Of note, turns out the dude didn’t actually think men and women were equal. Shocked and aghast, I know
Apparently, for some people, it’s hard to understand that ‘equal’ and ‘identical’ are not, well… identical concepts. Men, women, males, females, the inbetweeny types, etc. are different. Just don’t hate people on account of those differences, and don’t invent differences where there are none. Ain’t difficult
@EJ
http://i.imgur.com/M1szKAa.jpg
@Ouraboros13:
Oh, don’t forget “Zionist”!
That’s always a convenient one to use when you want to back-pedal and claim you don’t mean all Jews – even though they totally do…
@EJ:
Plus, the origin of that term comes from the Nazis themselves (which is why some are starting to use “Regressive Left” instead now).
Reminds me of someone I knew, who claimed P.Z. Myers was a “bad scientist” because he agreed with a lot of aspects of feminism. Apparently you can’t be both a scientist and a feminist, but you can totally be a scientist and a hardcore Libertarian like Michael Shermer – ’cause reasons.
“Remorseless logic” indeed…
He also claimed that Anita Sarkeesian had no right to complain about tropes in videogames until she made one herself, but apparently people like Jordan Owen and Warcorpse ranting about her for hours was totally okay – ’cause reasons.
It should be mentioned that he also openly admitted that he didn’t play videogames that often nor made a game of his own. But he can keep going on and on about how Sarkeesian is wrong despite his poor understanding of videogames – ’cause reasons.
Yeah, that remorseless logic bit was suppose to be at the end – dunno how it got there… :-/
Here comes chapter two, because I am bored and cant sleep:
While people with vaginas are molded to be dress wearing victims, people with penises are molded into pants wearing abusers. Which leads to the elephant in the room, the reasons why they hate trans people, especially trans women:
For them, you have been raised to be an abuser.
Further example of common arguments against trans women are as it follows:
*Cough cough, TW from now on, I will sound a LOT like them now*
You can’t just wear a skirt and call yourself a woman, because being a woman is not wearing a skirt. What makes you a woman is the socialization you received from birth. Is the way the society reads you every since birth. You can’t suddenly decide you are a woman at 20. You can’t suddenly demand me to accept you in my spaces or accept you as “one of us”. This is a place we had to earn with a lot of suffering, and you didn’t suffer. Plus, you were molded into an abuser, I don’t trust you.
If being a woman is being molded into one, and you werent, what makes you think you are a woman? The fact you like to wear skirts? The fact you would like to have boobs? Typical male, thinks being female resumes to wearing skirts, having boobs, and following female gender roles. What if refuse to follow my imposed gender roles and put on pants? It that all it takes to become a man and erase all opression i have suffered? No. That’s permanent. I was opressed into a woman and this will never change. You can’t call yourself one just because you changed name and clothes.
*End of TW. I just didnt know how to present this argument in any way other than mimicking one of them. Sorry.*
Finally, the existence of transgenderity implies there MAY be meaningful neurological differences between genders, which implies gender identity may have a biological factor, not to mention the (for them) scary concept of non binaries. The very existence of transgenderity make their objective impossible.
And what is this objective? Well, they believe gender opression will only be gone when we achieve that hypotetical environment where society abolish the concept of gender and therefore gender does not exist. If gender identity and differences in a neurological level, then this is simply impossible.
Basically, they refuse to understand that wanting or not, a lot of neurological and psychiatrical research was made after the 60s, research that was not predicted back then, and their second wave feminism no longer fits reality now feminism and science finally acknowledged transgenders freaking exist, have always freaking existed, and always will.
You can jump, you can stump, you can cry all you want, but some women are just born with penises. Those women suffer a lot in all meanings for being born this way, and no one gives a shit if you can’t accept reality, they WILL be accepted, and embraced, and loved by EVERYONE with a sense of compassion.
And even if science said otherwise (it doesn’t), shit, no one CHOOSES to go through the shit they go through. Even if I was in the middle ages and never saw a transgender I would respect and KNOW it somehow is real, like “Damn, I can’t explain why or how this came to happen, if it’s magic or reincarnation gone wrong, but if you are risking so much you prove it, I freaking believe you are a woman.”. This is worth for trans men and non binaries too, of course ^^
Anyway, this is basically what they think. I hope I was able to explain what goes on in their heads. And I am sorry if I was transphobic at any moment, I am willing to (and excited to) be corrected and learn even more to be as helpful as possible.
I honestly care a lot about you people and your cause <3.
#ImWithJanis
Just adding on to this for anybody who doesn’t watch Jim’s show: He’s making/made YouTube itself budge on its unfair copyright practices (holy shit, actual ethics!).
Yeah, the group that couldn’t organise a birthday party at McDonald’s vs that level of
popcornindustry power.http://i.imgur.com/WNQKTZn.gif
@SFHC
JEEESUS THAT GIF IS TERRIFYING.
That very last frame, damn. This is exactly the kind of thing that didn’t let me sleep as a child. What is that creature even supposed to be? Is this a new meme? Anyway, ignore this.
@Chiomara
That’s the Grinch, from the animated movie How the Grinch Stole Christmas based on the children’s book of the same name.
@M:
Not to mention that the particular means by which he did it is trolltastic.
For those who aren’t watching the snarl about it at the moment, Sterling has realised that Youtube’s system is set up in such a way that a video’s ownership can be taken over by a copyright claimant, but only one copyright claimant at a time. This means that by taking a clip of Status Quo music and playing it over a scene from The Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies, it forces the two sets of lawyers to do battle. Neither of them can take control of the video unless the other relinquishes their own claim, which they will of course never do.
In other words, he’s forced major media concerns to fight to the death for his amusement.
The man is a legend.
Nope, I’m still fixated on why they called someone a “video game tastemaker.”
I don’t get it.
@Chiomara
‘You people’ is a very fraught phrasing in this type of context, FYI.
Hi there, pleased to meetcha :). Seriously, though, there’s a reason why the termTERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) exists, and it’s to separate those assholes out. The whole ‘gender is [exclusively] a social construct routine is not an essential (or desired) component of radical feminism. The fundamental element of radical feminism is the contention that patriarchal gender roles (and social structures generally) are a primary contributor to the oppression of women (and other non-male persons), and as such should be combated with every viable tool, including efforts at not just legal and/or economic reform but a fundamental transformation of society to an egalitarian model. Pretty much all of the trans women I know likewise self-identify as radical feminists. The proportion of TERFS does vary heavily by region/community, though.
Hell, if anything, Sterling’s open marriage may be in order to let him see other people. The guy’s dropped hints in the past that he’s polyamourous, and if his general persona suggests anything, it’s that he’s at the very least not rigidly defined sexually.
Damn, Redditors get me: an ugly, polyamorous SJW with a million cats who beds beta males and turns them into vegan SJWs who know the SCUM manifesto by heart and check their phones compulsively, hoping I’ve called.
Redditors, I’m kind of flattered by the attention.
And you. 🙂 I get kinda sad when I see how radical feminism is so perpetually misunderstood and associated with the very very worst (rightly or wrongly). I always thought of myself as a radfem because I wasn’t just okay with stopping marital rape, say, or allowing women to have credit in their own names, but with the bigger, structural societal issues. I don’t want to make womens’ current state more tolerable, I want to tear down the whole damn system, the whole apparatus. It all has to go — and this is completely reconcilable with intersectionality (begs for it, in fact) and trans-inclusion.
But the opportunity to explain this without me “well actually”-ing my way into the conversation doesn’t come up a lot. So… Thanks. 🙂
@EJ
Oh wow. Jim, you magnificent bastard! That’s awesome! I really hope it started a trend. I want to see Batman in the Expendables with a Taylor Swift song playing. Hell, i’ll probably make that myself.
@Dalillama
Oh, THAT’S SUPPOSED TO BE THE GRINCH? I only watched the Jim Carrey movie. He looked a tiny bit scary, but not demonic! Damn.
I initially wrote “you guys” but thought it sub-intended a masculine crowd, so I decided to go for gender neutral. Never thought it could sound bad, thanks. I can’t say I understand, but I accept. I should have just gone with “you”, probably?
Oh, no, DO believe me, the pleasure is mine! 😀 I have looked for someone like you, I really did, you (and alike thinkers) are the reason I don’t automatically run away from radfem people and communities (only to be let down every single time except this one). Very nice to meet you!
Whaaaat. This strikes me as a complete foreign concept.
Let me explain myself, please:
When I first entered feminism, I just bumped head first in a community with equal parts of intersecs and self proclaimed rads (which you would call of the terf variety). When I arrived and told my story the rads were the first to support me. I was young, confused, new to feminism and happy to please whoever offered me a hand, and rads offered they hands and feet, which means I drank A LOT of their Kool aid. I befriended them, entered important groups ( I was banned from a group for disrespectfully arguing with Wojtyla, one of the most influential radfems in brazilian internet feminism), read their literature, I almost dated one. I tried to twist the talking points for months (maybe they think socialization is important but respect their existence? Maybe they should be kept out because they lack the experience to comprehend us?), until I noticed that there was simply no silver lining. I left radical feminism feeling grateful and sympathethical for them. Since then, I have argued with countless ones. And everyone, everywhere, even didatical pages that look at radfem with good eyes, affirms that “radical” doesn’t mean “extreme”, it means “original” (because it’s based on early theories) and also “root”, since it searches to end the root of gender opression, which, for them, is the concept of gender. And a materialistic idea of gender is ESSENTIAL to it. The sentence that defines radfem for them is “We are not born women, we become women” by Simone du Beauvoir. And the difference between TERFs and non TERFs is that non TERFs accept trans men and vagina having non binaries, which, of course, is “terfy” in itself. Some consider “terf” and “cis” to be slurs, I kid you not. Even who is NOT a radfem but defends them boldly claims a materialistic idea of gender is the basis of radfem, but it’s possible to have a materialistic idea of gender and not be transphobic (something that simply contradicts itself, but I legend I am willing to believe). I am not making any of this up, I can even go gather proof if you want, I NEVER, EVER heard your definition of radfem in my life, and I was REALLY willing to listen for a REALLY good time! To my ears, “radfem” means (meant?) “she is either hugely terf or kind of terfy with false concern for trans men”.
Is it possible it’s because the concept got messed up and misunderstood here in Brazil (I don’t understand how, since they use american literature and expressions A LOT, but maybe they simply are unwilling to understand?)? Or a cultural difference? Or even freaking malice on their part? Or me and the intersecs and trans people I know just keep entering the wrong groups and talk to the wrong people all the time? I think – and I will definitely test this – that if I tell them your definition they will say “yeah, sure, we agree with that, but that’s not our core belief.” I NEVER would imagine this.
Most honestly and sincerely, you caught me COMPLETELY off guard. Those concepts are completely new to my ears, and hell, by that definition, even i am a bit Rad fem. How weird, it is to say that. I am most sincerely sorry, that DEFINITELY was not meant to you, hope you didn’t feel attacked. I am so confuse right now that I have a headache.
It was not even prejudice, you see, it was empirical data tested more times I can count. I am sorry.
@Chiomara
In the USA, “you people” or “those people” is an old-fashioned way of being racist or of “othering” people that don’t look like you. White people said it of black people to black people or about black people. But you’re not from the USA so I wouldn’t expect you would know about it. Also, I’ll bet that lots of younger people from the USA have never heard of it.
The Grinch isn’t really scary. You just caught him looking his most evilest-evil. He’s more pathetic than scary.
And as for radical feminists, I think that your definition must be the latest definition of it, possibly with a Brazilian spin. The second wave that I’m familiar with disagreed with Freud, among others, and didn’t believe that “biology is destiny.” The second wave didn’t completely discount nature — it just questioned whether everything that was claimed to be natural (for example, male aggressiveness and female subservience) was so darned natural.
I just did a search for “you people” and got 21,000,000 returns.
Maybe this term isn’t as obscure as I thought?! But still a thing only in the USA, as far as I can tell.
@Kat
Yeah, “you people” usually comes before a George Wallace inspired rant about how folks should ‘stick to their own kind’. Not pretty