|More Journal Entries|
Proponents of CRT may have something right?I am a bit surprised this morning. There may actually be something 'right,' hidden in the midst of the mindless hatred known as Critical Race Theory. Gnoll-El (say I just realized, any relation to Kal?) had this to say in my piece from yesterday:'Above all, the Democrat party is elitist. You must belong to the correct families, gone to the correct colleges, run in the correct social circles, believe in the correct ideology to be in the Democrat ruling class. Everyone else is to be cosigned to the great government plantation.'To which a neat confluence of information occurred. And my response:'Interesting bit from CNN just yesterday, which ties in nicely with what you said here: 'Critical race theorists believe that racism is an everyday experience for most people of color, and that a large part of society has no interest in doing away with it because it benefits White elites.' https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2021/05/06/cnn-talks-to-a-scholar-behind-critical-race-theory-which-seeks-to-understand-inequality-and-racism-in-the-us/ It struck me upon reading that, that perhaps there is a Smidgen - that is to say (for those you on the Left who has trouble with big words), an Immensely Miniscule- bit of truth to CRT, in that they (the Racists* who back CRT) are the very 'white elite' that they are speaking of. Which means that the 'systemic racism' proponents of CRT see in America, is A) Close to 100% on the Left, and B) supported by the very people who claim to be fighting against it. Nice, vicious circle Leftists / Dems / CNN, CBC et al have got going there.'* - 'Racist,' of course, to be quite Rightly applied to both the white supremacists of the Democrat / Leftist / Media. AS WELL AS those 'poc' who push this Marxist doctrine.Rather neat, if extremely Ugly and absolutely Accurate assessment of Leftist Racist White Supremacism.
The Democrats ARE the party of white supremacy.But then, that's been Obvious to anyone who gives a damn about history.'The Klan’s aims were “to destroy the Republican Party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the Black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life,” writes Eric Foner, the preeminent historian of Reconstruction. He characterizes the Klan as “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.”'https://dartmouthalumnimagazine.com/articles/amos-akerman-reconstruction-radical And now I better understand why they needed to Oust Trump.
Feminism, Fiction, and the Sensitivity Issue PT.3 FEMINISM AND DOUBLE STANDARDSThe biggest problem with feminism and media depictions of women is their eagerness to apply double-standards. Double-standards that, for the most part, they are very ignorant of. Many a time did we see feminists balk at things like female characters going into battle wearing skimpy clothes and armor, yet they don’t care to take a blink at male characters who do the same. Feminists will get into all sorts of moral high ground debates with other people over many different things, yet stay completely silent when men are exposed to the same treatment, which goes to show that for all their moralism and bluster, for all their complaints of excessive violence and unrealistic proportions and appearances, they only apply it to women, and they’re perfectly okay with such things being applied towards men.Like, for example, they’ll whine about female armors and costumes in fantasy shows and video games that resemble fanservice outfits or lingerie, yet they say nothing when a character like Conan the Barbarian or He-Man waddles into the battlefield with a loincloth and a longsword. Where’s the condemnation? The two of them wandering into battle wearing a bloody loincloth and nothing else makes them just as impractical as say, a female character wandering into battle wearing what amounts to be a chainmail bikini, or skimpy fur clothing. I mean, yes, Conan and He-Man look muscular and ideal for medieval combat, but let’s get real here: it only takes a few archers to put them down. They’re not necessarily like the Crusaders from the First Crusade who came back home with arrows embedded in their armor because they wore full-body chainmail or even plate armor on occasion. And yet there’s no condemnation of it despite the fact that these men have bigger body mass, and therefore, make for bigger targets for the enemy when compared to female characters with skimpy clothes and armor. In real life Medieval settings, people wear armor for a reason; knights are tall, muscular and strong, yet they still cover themselves head to toe in armor because cuts and wounds can get infected, and therefore, can prove just as fatal as a lethal injury. Yet these male characters waltz into battle without any armor at all, not caring that in a Medieval setting, even strong men covered themselves in armor. But of course, calls to realism disappear when it’s about men and not women.Similarly, when it comes to skimpy outfits to show off the physique, feminists will whine about how the bodies of said female characters are near-perfect, with waists/hips that show off an hourglass figure and a chest size to match. Even “muscular” female characters will retain an attractive shape, and the feminists howl at how unreasonably attractive these characters are, about how your average woman is nowhere this good-looking. Yet they fall completely silent whenever the male characters do the same: male body types for main heroes in similar fantasy settings like Conan the Barbarian and He-Man are buff, well-built, and muscular to the extreme; they’re practically walking tanks made of muscle and bone. And yet the feminists don’t raise a single voice in protest at these muscular beefcakes, even though like the supermodel female characters, very few men have such physiques. Either they’re heavy-duty bodybuilders like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or they’re taking steroids, or both. Your average man is nowhere near that strong or well-built. But of course, the feminists only complain about female characters in fiction who are well-built, while completely going silent on male characters who are at the same level of peak physical fitness. Maybe because feminists are sick to death of what they consider to be “fanservice”, but maybe because many females find muscular men attractive, and so while feminists bitch at female characters that serve as fanservice for men, whenever there’s toned and muscular male bodies that can serve as fanservice for women, their complaints about unrealistic battle gear or body shapes disappear.And it’s also worth noting that men don’t hate having half-naked male characters fighting in such stories. In fact, half the time, it’s a power fantasy for the boys. They love imagining themselves as Conan or as He-Man, and they see these men as examples to live up to when it comes to what kind of shape their bodies should be. More and more men are becoming obese, but even the obese men look up to these towers of muscle and fitness as people to emulate, and perhaps, when they see these men, they would get inspired to self-improve, to get back into gear and exercise, so they can be just as muscular and strong, as well as be attractive to the girls.But when the feminists see idealized fictional women, it’s not seen as a call for self-improvement. It doesn’t inspire them to exercise and get fit. Instead, they bitch and whine about how unrealistic these women are, that they propagate “negative stereotypes” about women. They moan about how such stereotypes are bad because they enforce a body image that most women don’t have. As if the fact that these works are fictional has escaped their minds. Fictional representations are meant to be that: fictional. As in, an escape from the real world, an idealized world where things can be far better (or worse) than it is in the real world. So while feminists see nothing wrong with muscle men wandering into battle with skimpy outfits, and indeed, the men look at that as a fantasy of theirs, when female characters do the same thing and have idealized women wander into battle with similar skimpy clothing attractive to men, the feminists whine and moan because of how “unrealistic” it is, having forgotten the fact that fiction isn’t meant for realism 100% of the time.The same goes for captivity or distress situations. One easy way to anger feminists is by having a strong, empowered woman get captured and not be able to break out on her own or break out easily. Oh, sure, they’ll tolerate characters like Rey getting captured, but only because they know it’s easy for her to get away on her own. But draw a female character that has trouble getting free, or worse yet, relies on a man to get free, like in the older films in cartoons where some guy who saves a girl tied up on train tracks is a big no-no. I especially saw this with pictures of powerful female characters like Samus Aran getting captured, which, considering she’s a very curvaceous and attractive female character, there’s plenty of. Scrolling down the comments, most of them amount to praising the artist or Samus’ curves, but a few comments amount to “Samus would never get caught like this!” or “You’re all a bunch of pigs!” People who go to these “Damsel in Distress” artists to complain to them because these artists drew their favorite female character tied up like a damsel in distress character from an old Western movie. But the thing is, drawing attractive characters like that from FICTION is how these artists show affection for characters.Basically, that’s what they do to their favorite characters in fiction in the first place. And Samus herself has had more than a few traumatic events happen to her: from watching her family die, to watching her Chozo mentors die, to getting infected by an alien parasite that was eating away at her humanity, and getting PTSD from her parents’ death at the hands of a Space Pirate who can’t die no matter what she does to him. At this point, getting tied up by some horny idiots seems like a luxury vacation when compared to the monsters and freaks she has to put up with on a daily basis. At the very least, she can ask them for a good foot rub while they’re at in the business of caressing and groping her. There's more than enough foot-fetish people who would happily do that for free.In the same vein, these feminists couldn’t care less that male characters get tied up, tortured, and even killed. James Bond, Conan the Barbarian, Batman, even Mel Gibson’s William Wallace all suffered through captivity, and in the case of the last one, he was executed brutally by his enemies. And yet there’s no peep from men about such things. James Bond getting tied up is just him needing to get out of a tight spot. Whether or not he gets rescued is inconsequential to the male audience, unless of course, Bond girls and sexual innuendos were involved, which is usually a plus for the male audience. In the first Arnold Schwarzenegger Conan the Barbarian movie, Conan got crucified by a cult, then gets rescued by his companions and taken to a wizard for healing. Again, no uproar from the male fans. Batman gets tied up all the time, by villains in the animated show, and again, not a peep from his fans, male or female.Similarly, feminist responses to violence against women in fiction takes a similar approach. Whenever female characters experience violence on a large scale, feminists whine about violence against women in fiction. Yet flip the genders and suddenly, there’s barely a peep. Again, you can have a show where a guy gets tortured and castrated, and the women barely give a damn, but show women in that same position, and suddenly there’s this talk of how “problematic” violence against women is in fiction. You’d think feminists would applaud a ruthless dedication to equality between the sexes, where both male and female characters inflict and receive violence equally, but that’s not the case sometimes. Sometimes, feminists turn the other cheek, but on other instances, they get uppity over violence against women in fiction.FEMINISM VS. HOW MEDIA HANDLES SEXUAL VIOLENCELet’s not beat around the bush here. Part of the divide between regular viewers of media and feminists is how the two sides handle sexual violence. Rape, acts pertaining to rape, portrayal of perverse actions, you name it. Feminists and regular viewers would argue about how rape should be handled or used in a fictional setting, or not used at all. Some feminists are open to discussing matters such as rape and don’t give much of a damn if it happens on-screen or in the story one way or another. However, such open feminists are outnumbered, or in this case, shouted down, by the louder group of feminists that get angry whenever fictional rape becomes a main drama point. They bemoan the use of rape as drama, get angry when female characters get sexually assaulted or “stuffed in the fridge”, and they protest over the use of such tropes, saying that it makes light of rape.Other viewers just really don’t care.HOW PEOPLE HANDLED STORIES WITH SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN THE PASTI remember when I watched soap operas with adults as a kid. Soap operas are, of course, dominated by drama, and part of that drama is using the trope, “rape as drama”. Female characters come around, looking battered and bruised, complaining about what happened to them, angry at some man who laughs at their torment. Sometimes they even show the guy forcing himself on the woman, although they don’t show nudity or anything. When I was a kid, I didn't understand it, but when I grew up, I did. But what really shows me the divide between the older generation and the younger Tumblr feminists is that the former really didn’t bat an eye at rape stories. It wasn’t really that big of a deal for them. The older generation just looked at rape in fiction as “part of the story”, and had no problems with it going forward. There were no trigger warnings, no protests about the usage of such a trope, it was just another plot point for the story to move forward, and for them, they didn’t throw a hissy fit over it. They might sympathize with the character, they might hate the villain more, but that was the extent of how they felt about it.Similarly, when I was growing up, there was no shortage of stories that had “rape as drama” written all over it. Female characters in adult stories in media would get captured and tortured or raped by bad guys, and that would either trigger the hero to get angry or get said female character to shape up and become a badass to get back at her attackers. I once remembered a joke in a wiki page that made fun of that: “Sexual violence hardens female character into a killing machine: the most original idea in comics!” Take a female character who wasn’t necessarily prone to extreme forms of violence, get her strapped down and tortured or raped, and that would turn said woman into a badass killing machine seeking revenge, Kill Bill-style. There wasn’t much outrage in the internet over the loads of fanfiction, fanart, and stories of women getting tied down to get tortured or sexually assaulted, it was just there as a fact of life. Male characters tended to be more expendable and more prone to getting killed, while female characters in deep trouble would get captured and tortured or raped depending on the story, and it was just that. A story. Sometimes it was written for the sake of drama, other times, as fetish fuel. Sometimes it’s both. But such stories weren’t harming anyone, not in any real capacity. Murder is simulated all the time in fictional stories, because happens in the real world all the time. Rape is similarly all too common in the real world, so why can’t a fictional story reflect that reality?Well, that’s because the modern feminists happened. And they got pretty mad at things like the use of rape in story.HOW FEMINISTS REACT TO SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN MEDIATo be sure, sometimes these feminists do make a legitimate point. Making light of rape is never a good thing. Rape, in real life, is a horrible crime that leaves scars on a person’s psyche and can even get them to commit suicide. Rape is not a light subject, no matter how many prison rape jokes people crack. But still, the extent of the outrage that the modern crop of feminists have about rape in fiction is getting a tad bit…….ridiculous.I remember the outrage people had over the Sansa rape scene in Season 5 of Game of Thrones. Feminists all over the web bemoaned that scene, public figures even castigated the show for it. But I sat there thinking “Where was all this outrage before?” I mean, previously, the show had Khal Drogo forcing himself on Daenerys Targaryen, they had Theon Greyjoy castrated and brutally tortured, they had Ser Jaime Lannister seemingly raping his sister, Queen Cersei Lannister, right next to the corpse of their dead son King Joffrey Baratheon, and they even had mutinous Night’s Watch soldiers raping the daughters of some inbred Wildling hillbilly living North of the Wall. The latter one was depicted in gory detail, with the mutineers’ commander even yelling to his minions to “F**K ‘EM TILL THEY’RE DEAD!” while drinking wine from his former superior’s skull which he made into a drinking cup. Yet Sansa Stark’s rape scene, the scene that sparked so much outrage, was just Ramsay Bolton removing her dress and the camera panning to Theon Greyjoy, who was forced to watch Ramsay forcing himself on Sansa as the shot ends. Compared to the other rape scenes in the show, it was quite sterile and surprisingly clean, with none of the grotesque brutality that characterized previous rapes in the show. Why all the outrage now?The answer is quite obvious after taking a look as to how feminists reacted to rape stories. The feminists and their allies in the media were slowly becoming bolder. After years of tolerating rape stories left and right, they became outraged at the rape of Sansa Stark, among other things. For years, they bemoaned the use of rape in fiction as insensitive, they panned such stories as sexist, and they showed outrage over the use of rape as drama. They were already crying about it before, but when the Sansa rape scene came up, they became overly enraged over it. Granted, it was a scene that did not exist in the Song of Ice and Fire novels, but still, as far as rape scenes go, it wasn’t as grotesque or over-the-top compared to the stuff that came before. But the feminists used the fact that it wasn’t on the books to heap a lot of hate on it, even though the show was admittedly just the fanfiction of the show writers from Season 5 onwards, since they went beyond the books and were literally treading new ground. But since it wasn’t in the books, it wasn’t okay for the show writers to create new rape scenes. The feminists barely tolerated previous scenes of rape from the show on the logic of “it’s from the books and this is a show adaptation of the books” but once that excuse no longer applied, Sansa’s rape scene was attacked by feminists with furor and outrage. Feminists have been open about how rape as drama is in poor taste and shouldn’t be used. Not that they want a full ban on all rape scenes, but any such scene that they deem to be in poor taste because it’s a cheap beacon for drama or it exists for the titillation factor for audiences. Such use of rape in fiction, they decried, shouldn’t be encouraged and should be called out as insensitive, tasteless, and should not be approved of by the audience and by society at large.Meanwhile, the feminists remain almost completely mum on the side of general violence. They remained practically silent about the shocking turns of violence from cinema. Heck, in that very same Season 5 of Game of Thrones, they had Stannis Baratheon sacrificing his daughter to the Red God to clear the bad weather. Such an act of blatant violence, with the victim being an innocent little girl, and the feminists were more angry about an off-screen rape. Even though like the Sansa scene, it wasn’t in the books. Feminists were going nuts on an offscreen rape, but a little girl getting burned alive by her own father got little outrage from them. Instead, most of the outrage at that scene came from Stannis Baratheon fanboys (one of whom is yours truly) who noted how Stannis burning his own daughter is the opposite of what he did in the books, where he named his daughter his successor and told one of his men who was going out to buy mercenaries for his army that, should he die in battle, their instructions are to get the mercenaries anyway, but then have them swear allegiance to his daughter and put her on the Iron Throne of Westeros instead. In the show, he burns his daughter to clear the weather, but in the books, he leaves his daughter out of the fighting and uses her as a contingency plan in the case he dies. In the novels, Stannis planned for his daughter to outlive him and become Queen one day, one way or another. Hence why my real point of contention with Game of Thrones Season 5 was with that pointless child-killing that isn’t even part of Stannis’ strategy in the books. At the very least, Ramsay Bolton IS the kind of person who would sexually abuse his wife or any woman he’s stuck with.Violence happens all the time in American cinema; plenty of it against men. People getting gunned down, eviscerated, blown up, tortured to death, or some other creative form of killing. Movies such as the Saw franchise and the Expendables franchise basically made it into an art form, with the former inventing new and cruel ways to torture victims, and the latter being a massive boom-fiesta where people get slaughtered in droves by old action-movie stars. Very little opposition to the violence comes from the feminists unless the violence specifically targets women. Instead, most of the opposition to general violence in the media comes from the religious right and parents’ groups who justify censorship of such things with the cry of “Won’t they think of the children?”The famous British comic book artist, Alan Moore, once complained about how critics get so obsessed over sexual violence. Facing criticisms over the fact that his work contained a lot of sexual violence, he snapped back in an interview. Moore noted that in real life, "relatively few murders in relation to the staggering number of rapes and other crimes of sexual or gender-related violence". In contrast to fiction, he notes how there is an "almost a complete reversal of the way that the world is represented in its movies, television shows, literature or comic-book material". Way more people in fiction get killed rather than raped, which is the opposite of real-life scenarios in modern society. "Why should murder be so over-represented in our popular fiction, and crimes of a sexual nature so under-represented?" he asked. "Surely it cannot be because rape is worse than murder, and is thus deserving of a special unmentionable status. Surely, the last people to suggest that rape was worse than murder were the sensitively reared classes of the Victorian era … And yet, while it is perfectly acceptable (not to say almost mandatory) to depict violent and lethal incidents in lurid and gloating high-definition detail, this is somehow regarded as healthy and perfectly normal, and it is the considered depiction of sexual crimes that will inevitably attract uproars of the current variety."And while I may not agree with everything Moore says or does, he does have a point here. Rape is far more common than murder in many real-life settings. Or, in some countries, rape and murder go hand in hand. Why should rape be considered a taboo subject for fiction while extreme violence and gore get little in the way of condemnation? Many modern feminists are the kind of people who would be easily triggered by rape in fiction, but aren’t that all shocked by killing. The feminists would be more pissed off about a story where some heroine gets captured and raped than they would a story where almost every main character ends up murdered in a grotesque manner. Unless most of those main characters are women, not much of a peep from the feminists will be heard.Is rape truly more terrifying than murder, that people have to be given trigger warnings when talking about it, let alone featuring it? Is it far worse than murder? Why would the feminists be so angry that some authors use rape as drama? Are they really that angry because some authors use it for the titillation factor? Is it really that evil for some horny teen to get turned on by a rape story? I mean, amongst audiences, there is even such a thing as a “rape fantasy”, where some members of the audience get their titillation factor from imagining themselves getting forcibly taken by a fictional character of their choice. And many of the people who have this fantasy in real life are women. Many women who are into these types of stories fantasize about getting forcibly taken by strong characters of their choosing. Some would even go so far as creating author avatar characters in fanfiction to represent themselves getting railed by their beefcake (or fellow woman) of choice.The story “50 Shades of Grey” started off as a Twilight Fanfiction, and it is a story of a young girl who has a hot young man as her charismatic boss, and said boss forces himself upon her with the use of bondage tools once they get together. That story became a national bestseller with the novels and movies being big hits, with the film trilogy earning more than $1.3 billion worldwide. Yet here we are, tripping over eggshells about consent and sex in fiction, when in reality, rape in fiction harms nobody else but the fictional characters. A cheap source of drama? Perhaps. A cheap turn on for others? Maybe. That’s their choice. But does it really cause that much harm to real people? The answer is no. Unless these stories inspire people to commit rape in real life, then no, these stories and tropes that revolve around rape aren’t that harmful to real, flesh-and-blood people. In fact, sometimes, they can act as a way to deflect pressure from real people and have horny idiots fantasize about idealized fictional characters instead of fantasizing about forcing themselves on women in real life.One major case is that of the Gor novels. The Gor novels, penned by author and philosophy professor John Norman, are about an alternate earth populated by humans that exists on the opposite side of Earth while sharing the same orbit, hence why the two planets are hidden from each other. The story centers around life in this alternate earth, where the culture developed in a very chauvinistic and highly sexualized manner, where sexual domination of women was a standard for men in society and many women there even find it pleasing. It was panned for focusing on the relationships between dominant men and submissive women. The later volumes of the series was accused by “The Encyclopedia of Fantasy” as offensive, stating that the series’ later volumes “degenerate into extremely sexist, sadomasochistic pornography involving the ritual humiliation of women, and as a result have caused widespread offence."However, the series was clear on what kind of culture existed on that planet, and with multiple volumes, people reading the later books would by then already be familiar with what they’re getting when they buy and crack open these books. If they feel disgusted by the portrayal of women in these books, then perhaps the better idea is to not touch or buy them in the first place.Yet feminists and their allies want to marginalize these books, with one prominent fantasy/sci-fi author, Michael Moorcock, proposing that these books be put on top of bookshelves, keeping them out of notice for most people, justifying his proposal by saying “I’m not for censorship but I am for strategies which marginalize stuff that works to objectify women and suggests women enjoy being beaten." Even though, again, Norman’s Gor novels are taking place in a fictional society where Stockholm Syndrome among the female populace is a thing; it wasn’t openly suggesting that real-life women on this earth love getting treated like sex objects while being smacked around. Yet feminists and feminist critiques of such works ignore the fact that the work is merely fiction and depicts a fictional setting where the culture has conditioned women to behave in a certain way, these novels aren’t openly suggesting that the world would be better off if women were treated like cattle in the morning and like sex toys at night.RAPE IN FICTION VS. REAL LIFE: WHICH SPARKS MORE OUTRAGE?What really galls me about the feminists whining about rape in fiction is how, in their quest to purge “tasteless rape stories” from the fictional universe, they’ve gone and ignored real rapes happening in the real world. Now, I’m not saying that feminists ignore all rape, far from it. In fact, if the rape or domestic abuse involves someone from the conservative side, like a priest or a minister molesting kids or some asshole father abusing his wife and offspring, then the feminists wouldn’t have problems talking about that, often citing patriarchal culture as a reason for the abuse and/or the cover-up for said abuse. Yet in recent years, the feminists have been awfully quiet about rape cases involving immigrants, gangsters, and other groups that feminists have either ignored, or are counting as “oppressed refugees”. They ignore what has been a real-life “rape culture” that happens in other parts of the world like in some countries within the Middle East and Africa, where a rape victim getting stoned to death or threatened with death is a common thing. I’ve met an actual priest from Africa who did write about the sexism prevalent in the culture there.And of course, other parts of the world have their own nasty brand of sexism as well, such as female infanticide in some Asian countries. It shows that in the end, abortion is a threat to females, it is the ultimate weapon for a patriarchal society to dispose of infant daughters that they see as worthless while keeping infant sons. But that’s the exact opposite message feminists want to express about abortion. They want to portray it as a tool of women’s freedom, not wanting to face the truth that sexist societies have used it to massacre females on a record scale; far more than the 12 million people who died in the Holocaust. Some estimates even go so far as to say that 200 million infant girls have been killed through sex-selective abortion. These are real problems that real women and girls are facing in the world today, and these “women’s rights advocates” are eerily silent when it comes to things like this while they can mouth off one reason after another as to why rape in fiction is sexist and objectifying.Sexism is especially prevalent in some countries of Muslim origin, the situation there being far worse than any sex/bondage fanfiction written by a horny teenager could ever be, where rape victims have no one to turn to. If they admit to being raped, they can be stoned to death for adultery. Or they get threatened with death unless they relent in their quest for justice. It seems downright dystopian at some point, how such abuse can exist in the real world with little to no exposure by so called “human rights advocates” like feminists. Feminists, who love to gloat about how they’re making the world better for women, ignore problems that actual women face, because the perpetrators aren’t their desired choice of targets. Instead of westernized (usually Christian) men, the perpetrators are people from mostly non-western countries, or minorities from within the west, be they Muslims, gang members from minority groups, or even parents in parts of Asia who prefer male children while aborting female children because they weren’t born male. But then of course, these aren’t westernized patriarchal men, but people from “diverse cultures” whom the feminists and the other leftists are trying to get to their side.And for someone like me, who saw no harm in stories about fictional characters and stories that involved rape, it is rather sickening to watch as feminists to bitch and whine about rape in fictional settings yet turn a blind eye to a real-life dystopian rape culture existing on this very planet that executes females for the crime of adultery because they got themselves raped. Or cultures that take the right to an abortion, something feminists hold as “empowering” for women in the world, and use it to coldly kill infant girls for the horrible crime of being a daughter instead of a son. It really is a situation of the world turning upside down; feminists get angry about sexual violence in the media, calling out rape in fiction as cheap, tasteless drama fodder or sex appeal, yet they’re completely silent on sexual violence or violence against women IN REAL LIFE when it comes to certain parts of the world, parts of the world whose people the feminists don’t want to offend. Yet those parts of the world have the REAL rape culture, the REAL culture of violence against women. Yet we get nothing from the feminists about the violence against women that happens on those parts of the globe. Nothing but cricket sounds and deafening silence. Real life women and girls, getting stoned to death for being raped, being accused of adultery when they get raped, being forced to silence under the threat of death, and infant girls being killed for not being born a son.It sickens me. Although, in retrospect, I suppose it makes sense in a sick sort of way; nerds and fans of shows and stories can’t strike back as hard as radical religious extremists, so for feminists to give the appearance that they’re fighting for women’s rights, they need to pick a target that can’t strike back, while still having enough “sexism” for them to vilify. A nerd who watches raunchy anime isn’t as dangerous as someone who would stone a girl to death for getting raped. Picking on video games for having damsels in distress or raunchy anime with rape victims is easier than calling for a volatile part of the world to cease its sexism or going against female infanticide in other parts of the world. Protesting about abortion being used to wipe out infant girls would be contradictory for the feminists who have fought tooth and nail to secure the “right” for an abortion. And yet feminists would rather bitch about rape in novels and TV shows than try to call attention to the true threat for most real-world women, because it is an enemy that they can fight, an enemy that they can demonize and engage with to pretend like they’re actually doing something noble.In reality, the violent sexual fantasies of horny nerds are harmless to real-life people, with their dark fantasies being just that, fantasies. People are free to partake of them or ignore them. Whether or not one sees them as a philosophical take on a society with different views on women, or a psychological escape, or tasteless fetish fuel, they exist in a way where one can ignore or experience them as one wishes. It is the truth for fictional works that tackle sexual violence in a way that is distasteful for these feminist activists; if you don’t like it, don’t support it. You don’t need to experience these tales if you don’t like their content. The marketplace of ideas shouldn’t be censured just because a few ideas or products offend people. People should be free to express themselves, and creating or expressing an idea that puts one group in a dire or demeaning position isn’t necessarily a hate crime against said group. They just want to write a story where some people have it better or worse than others, or how a society can have different views on sex. If feminists can write shows like Steven Universe where men don’t act in a traditionally masculine way, if people can crack jokes about men getting raped in prison without any condemnation from society, why can’t other people write stories where women aren’t as empowered or protected by the law as modern women are in real life? Why can’t people explore sexual violence against women in a fictional setting? Such violence existed in the real world in the past, and it still exists now. Why should authors shy away from discussing this topic?In fact, wouldn’t it be inspiring to see a story where a woman can make it big or succeed in a society or world that treats her like garbage, that sees her as nothing more than a whore? Wouldn’t that be the personification of the feminists’ desire to remind men that women aren’t all just sex objects? That they have aspirations, dreams, and hopes, things that make them human? Wouldn’t it be empowering for a woman in a story where yes, she does get abused, or even raped, but she overcomes that horror and gets better? Where she overcomes the physical and psychological scars of abuse? Makes a life for herself? Overcomes the despair and agony that comes with said abuse? Gets back at the abuser and turns the tables on them? Wouldn’t that be the very embodiment of the “strong independent woman” character trope that feminists love to brag about all the time?Gaining instant powers and kicking ass with them isn’t empowering, it’s as cheap as using a cheat code in a video game. Defeating bad guys that the narrative literally made into morons and clowns isn’t empowering, it’s a joke. Overcoming a real obstacle that one considers scary or even psychologically frightening is empowering. Overcoming one’s fears is empowering. Overcoming something that you think you’d never overcome is empowering. As repetitive as that whole “sexual violence turns a woman into a badass killing machine” trope got, it did get one thing right: empowerment through overcoming something that one fears. Going from a victim to a victor. THAT gives more empowerment than any cheap power fantasy where the woman starts off as a special wunderkind can give.AN IDEAL EXAMPLE OF HOW TO HANDLE SEXUAL ASSAULT IN MODERN MEDIA: The Legend of Calamity JaneI remember an episode from a show that handled this matter all too well. The last episode of an animated series known as the Legend of Calamity Jane, titled “Without a Vengeance”, handled this topic in a tasteful, yet meaningful manner. In the previous twelve episodes, the eponymous heroine, Calamity Jane, was established as a badass. Quick as a whip, fierce like a bull, yet kind and gentle at heart. But the last episode begins with flashbacks of Jane getting smacked around, getting thrashed about, getting thrown here and there by some unseen attacker. It then follows with a shot of Jane tied up by her captor, left for dead on a desert after he abandons her for nature to kill. One of Jane’s friends, Joe Presto, manages to spot her in time and take her to safety, and the other characters, from Jane’s boyfriend Wild Bill to the other friends of Jane in town, all talk about how hard she’s had it and how she barely survived.Yet the way they talked left traces of another story, especially how Wild Bill was ready to find and kill whomever did this to Jane, even though Jane wouldn’t want it to be done. But while Jane was recovering, the attacker comes by to finish her off, and the way he and Jane speak to one another shows the truth: Jane calls him a “pig”, and the attacker calls himself a “close friend” of Jane, saying that “we haven’t even begun to have our fun”. He then gloats while pointing a gun to her: “Time to say bye-bye, Miss Calamity Jane. It was nice while it lasted, wasn’t it?”Then the puzzle pieces all came together for me: the man sexually assaulted Jane in their previous encounter before tying her up and leaving her to die in the desert. Which explains Bill’s unusual hostility, Jane referring to her attacker as a pig, the attacker remarking about him being a “close friend” of Jane, as well as him telling her that “It was nice while it lasted”. Still, Jane sticks to her Batman-style principle of not killing, hence why when she gears up to face her tormentor after Bill drives him out, she stops herself from killing the guy after knocking him out. “It’s not about vengeance, it’s not about blood, it’s about justice!” she yells out while beating him down. She overcomes her captor, and had the gun pointed at his head, but she doesn’t fire, knowing that she is already better than him now that she beat him. Satisfied with overcoming her foe, she then rides off with her friends off into a sunrise, awaiting the beauty of a new day.The episode handled the topic of sexual assault well. It showed Jane de-powered and vulnerable, yet still able to fight back and get a sense of closure. It showed how grave that such a threat can be to someone like her, yet it wasn’t something that she despaired at. It was still something she could overcome once she regained her strength. The episode ends with some form of closure, where Jane once again shown as a badass riding off into the distance with her friends.And I have to say: this was very brave for a kid’s cartoon. The show was already treading on hot water, tackling subjects like lynchings, racism, sexism, ethnic differences, among other things. For them to put such a mature topic like rape in a kids’ TV show, and to handle it well, showing a heroine who suffers through it without losing her moral code or her badass factor, shows how good the writers were for this show. It truly was missed by its fans for being a well-written, but sadly short-lived show, and fans like myself admire what the show’s creators have done with the character. And it also shows that stories about rape can retain a sense of maturity without falling into the trap of grotesque sexualization that feminists accuse such stories of.And I enjoyed that episode without having a trigger warning to warn myself of rape. Go figure.TO THE CENTER OF THE QUESTION: WHY ARE FEMINISTS SO OFFENDED BY RAPE IN FICTION?I suppose we have to explain as to why feminists are so offended by rape in fiction to begin with. What is it with rape in fiction that triggers feminists so much? And what does it have to do with the feminists’ love for power fantasies like Rey and Furiosa, or the female Spartans of Halos 4 and 5? Well, there is one common line that determines their actions: their idea of empowerment and de-powerment. As I have already said, their ideas on what makes a empowered female character is far different from how others perceive it. Others see it as having a woman be as strong as a man. Others see it as having a female character overcome fears and traumatic events like rape or torture and either turn the tables on her tormentors or get over the trauma and go on with enjoying her life. Yet the feminist definition seems to be quite different, at least when it comes to modern feminists.Modern feminist power fantasies, like the new Star Wars movies and other media, seem to center more around women who are untouchable, or at least, have all that they need to defeat the enemy from the start. Being as good and strong as the men, without the journey or the trauma that they had getting there. Unlike Luke Skywalker, who had to quest and train to make himself strong enough to defeat Darth Vader, Rey already had the power within her to defeat Kylo Ren; she only had to awaken to it. In fact, the feminists seem to value the idea that female characters don’t need the support of men or training from men to begin with. Hence why the new Star Wars movies that take place after the Battle of Endor seemed to go on a pattern of taking down the male heroes while elevating the female heroes. Han Solo becomes a deadbeat dad who then gets shanked by his traitorous son. Luke Skywalker is turned into a cynical old fart after betraying his character motivations in the original trilogy and nearly killing Han’s son over some perceived darkness within him. Leia Organa goes from a high-ranking officer within the Rebellion to essentially becoming the de-facto Shogun for military forces of the New Republic, while other male military leaders like General Crix Madine, General Lando Calrissian, and Admiral Gial Ackbar are shoved aside or killed. The popular male fighter pilot leader from Force Awakens, Poe Dameron, was made to look like a fool and even scolded for trying to lead a mutiny against Vice-Admiral Holdo, Leia’s appointed second-in-command in Last Jedi.The female is empowered, while the male is de-powered. The female is elevated, while the male is de-constructed and cast down. Which actually goes a long way to explaining why the feminists despise rape stories so much, and why they despised princesses who were damsels in distress: it does the opposite of what feminist power fantasies do. It de-powers the woman, takes away her agency, and leaves her as a victim. Not as someone who acts upon other things or other people, but someone acted upon. Making her a beacon for drama for a hero to use as a motivation, or making it a prelude to some predictable revenge story. The fact that rape is a sexual de-powering of the woman leaves it worse for the feminists, because they constantly protested in the past about how things like a patriarchal family and a patriarchal sexual hierarchy makes the woman a submissive actor on the stage. Rape in a fictional story reminds them of how women can still be subjugated and used as sex objects by someone in a story or by the story, and women being “objectified” or reduced to objects of sex or desire, in any kind of context, is offensive to feminists. Even if the story didn’t mean to reduce women to being objects of sex, even if the author meant for the experience to be a character-building moment (like in the Legend of Calamity Jane) or a philosophical take on the subject of sexual assault, (like in the Gor novels) a story involving rape, in the eyes of feminists, still reduces a woman into the equivalent of a sex toy, and that’s why they’re all worked up with such stories.PORTRAYING RAPE AND VIOLENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS PROMOTING RAPE AND VIOLENCEBut as I said, the authors who write such stories don’t necessarily mean for the woman to be reduced into a sex toy or a cheap motivation. As I said, some of these stories have the women as a protagonist or an ally/acquaintance of the protagonist. Rape is mostly portrayed as an outrage or a crime, similar to murder, theft, or false witness. And in other stories, as I have said, the experience is used as a character-building moment in stories like the Legend of Calamity Jane, or the story tackles rape and sexual dominance from a philosophical perspective, like the Gor novels, which were written by a professor of PHILOSOPHY. The former used the trauma caused by rape as an obstacle for the heroine to overcome, to show what kind of person she was by having her respond to her rapist in a manner befitting her moral code. The latter created a world where sexual dominance of women was the norm, and how society would be like if such behavior was tolerated and even celebrated. Neither story wanted to convey the idea that women are mere sex objects. Saying that rape stories degrade women is like saying that war stories glorify war, and although there are a healthy amount of films that do glorify war, there are many others who show the hellish side of it and try to proselytize for peace.Two examples of this are Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket, the movie, and Yoshiyuki Tomino’s Mobile Suit Gundam, the anime/toy franchise. Full Metal Jacket depicts the hellish experiences of Marines in the Vietnam War, from the hellish training that cadets have to suffer through under the watchful eye of the strict and profane Sgt. Hartman, to the bloody battlefields of Vietnam itself. It was a film showing how hellish war can be, and how even the training alone was brutal enough to make at least one cadet snap and commit suicide, let alone the actual battlefield where people died in droves. In the same vein, the Mobile Suit Gundam anime franchise shows us a future world wracked by war, mass-murder, and tragedy. It shows how bloody and terrifying war is by showing how tragic the lives of the characters within the anime shows can be during the wars. Atrocities can be committed by both sides, any character can die, and even the noble sacrifices made by people to end the war can be rendered moot when another war breaks out later on.Both of these pieces of media showed how war was terrifying, how it has negative effects on people and society, and how peace should be valued at any cost. Yet both series have been accused of GLORIFYING war. Critics complained how young boys might sign up for the military because they were inspired by “badass” things from Kubrick’s little “war movie”, and some people have complained how hypocritical it is for Gundam to proselytize about the horrors of war while pushing a toy line consisting of war machines to kids in Japan and across the world. But the perceived effects of such media does not undermine the fact that both of them were made with an intention of showing the horrors of war and the value of peace.And many rape stories can be seen in the same manner. Sure, some are written for the sake of titillation, usually cheap porn stories, but some are written with the expressed idea of tackling the topic in a fictional setting. Rape in many of these stories is portrayed as a crime, as an atrocity, as a horror to be overcome. Societies that allow the sexual domination of women in fiction are a fictional take on how society would be like if it valued female agency and sexual rights less than modern society does. Or how society would be like if men and women were conditioned to think a certain way, to act in a certain way, when it concerns females and sexuality. These fictional works do not, in fact, tell men that sexual domination of women is correct, or that what they see in fiction must be emulated in real life. More often than not, it’s the opposite. A society where women are used as sex slaves is typically portrayed as villainous, as a dystopia where the strong can make or rewrite the rules as they saw fit, and where might makes right. Where rulership is based, not in responsibility, but in domination. Where there is very little in the way of reason, hope, or sanity left in society. In other words, they portray such societies as evil. Jabba the Hutt from Return of the Jedi forcing Princess Leia to wear a metal bikini while she’s chained to him isn’t an encouragement for men to do the same to women in their lives, it’s a sign of Jabba’s lust and gluttony, a symbol of his decadence and opulent greed. In the same vein, the guy who raped Calamity Jane in her namesake cartoon is, as Jane herself called him, a “pig”, while the Gor novels aren’t calling for imposition of the sexual system of that world into the real world, it just uses such a society to show how jarringly different that world is from ours.CONCLUSION:The way modern feminists are trying to create “empowered” female characters coincides with the way that they heap hatred upon princess characters that for a while, didn’t get any real hate towards them. The feminists seem to think that cheap, powerful female characters with little appeal or thought behind them are a good replacement for princesses and other female characters who had an actual impact on the plot and were openly supportive of the male cast. The feminists especially hate princesses who need men to rescue them, seeing it as dependence on men, and said dependence is a weakness to them. Hence why they see such stories as sexist, never mind that said women are characters in a story, never mind that they’re important to the point where their capture or rescue can turn the tables on the situation at hand, never mind that they and the heroes love each other or that there are games where said princesses can rip the enemy bosses in two. It’s just a sexist depiction of women needing men to save them; hence why it is sexist.Similarly, the handling of sexual assault in fiction didn’t become publicly controversial until the more radical version of modern feminists got involved and started getting angry over things like rape scenes. Prior to them, sexual assault was just one more crime or horrible thing in the stories of fiction, similar to murder, theft, kidnapping, and the like. The feminists react harshly to such stories because in their view, it “objectifies” women and is the reverse of what they want for female characters and female empowerment in fiction. Never mind that a story about rape can explore such a dark topic in a fictional setting, as well as show how a woman can overcome such horror. Never mind that, as Alan Moore said, rape is more common in the real world than it is in fiction. Never mind that the real world has a lot of sexism and REAL rape culture that the feminists haven’t even tried to address, let alone solve, because it would get them in trouble with minorities and abortion advocates. The feminists obsess over such things despite the fact that they are eerily silent when it comes to cultures that do abuse women in a dystopian fashion in the real world. Which goes to show how hypocritical the whole movement is; going after fictional rape and digital damsels in distress, while at the same time, ignoring a heinous reality where real-world rape, sexism, and female infanticide is the norm.How the world has changed. Sometimes, I just wish we can turn the clock back two decades prior, where none of this crap was a problem.I have a confession to make: I once proudly identified as a feminist all the way to college. Then I saw what they were doing nowadays, what they were really like. Then I no longer identified with them. Women’s rights is a very important thing to fight for; now more than ever, as a greater part of the world thinks that abusing women and killing girls in the womb for being, well, girls, is a good thing. But there’s no way in hell that the modern crop of feminists are willing to fight that war for women’s rights. They’re too busy picking on nerds to bother with real threats. And that, to me, is the real reason why I don't identify with feminism anymore. There's a lot of real sexism out there that needs to be addressed, but since it's done by parties that the feminist left considers to be sacred cows, they don't do anything about it, they choose to pick on harmless crap like video games and anime instead, despite the fact that such things do not encourage real rape in the real world. If anything, they provide an alternative to the horny idiots who want sex now, so as distasteful as it is, it seems that such smut is actually doing a good job of keeping rape off the streets in real life, especially in Japan, where such smut has done such a thorough job of keeping horny idiots off the streets that the women have begun to wonder where are all the men who want to lay with them. I suppose in the end, vanquishing imaginary beasts is always easier than vanquishing real ones. And that's a shame, because real-world sexism is a beast that needs to be slain. But feminists aren't the heroes for that task. That task falls upon the real decent folk of the world, who can look at women abused by it and see themselves in those victims' shoes. Heroes who seek to help the least of their brethren because they see it as God's work on Earth. This is why organizations in the past like the Medieval/Renaissance Church and her kingdoms actually did try to ease society's burden on women didn't bother attacking fictional depictions of rape in art and literature in their day. They knew that such things harmed women in the same way that a slight breeze or an insult penned by someone harmed people. As flawed as they were, both the kingdoms and the Church in those days did fight some of the sexism women faced, with methods such as punishing rape and spousal abuse, (one Byzantine Empress by the name of Theodora even convinced her husband Emperor Justinian to punish rape with death) preaching that God saw women and men in the same light, and yes, sometimes even legalizing prostitution, because there's no way in that time where they could get rid of those horny idiots who wanted to have sex before marriage.It falls on us to battle real sexism that exists out there, while the feminists are too busy jousting with windmills against fictional threats to women's rights like fictional media that depicts rape. The latter doesn't harm women in any way, but there are those out in the world whose practices do harm women in very real, visceral fashion. And it's up to us to fight and stop such practices while the feminists busy themselves with fighting phantoms. May God help us in that task. Because we all know modern feminists won't be helping us at all in this fight.
Rinos in Georgia maybe the biggest problem.Hi there my loyal viewers. I know I haven't update anything on the 2020 election and alot had happened during these few days, so lets dive in.So on Jan 4, 2020, the Republicans(Rinos) Brad Raffensberger, who's the Georgia Secretary of State recorded the phone call with Trump, leaked it to fake news media, Raffensberger publicly on record stated that there was no election fraud that had taken place and that all the record election ballots are accurate and correct. In fact, the Washington post got hold of the story and edit the audio record and tried to claim that Trump was asking him for a favorite.Boy that sure didn't aged well for Brad Raffensberger. Not only did the American people was outraged about the election was stolen from them by the Democrat party lying Joe Biden that nobody really likes. But it seems that Brad Raffensberger are in on it with the Democrat party steal as well. ,Here The Officer Tatum explain why what the fake news media like the CNN and Washington post are trying to do is nothing more than a distraction for the American people from seeing the truth and corruption that's taking place by the Democrat party.But it seems that Rino Brad Raffensberger was in it with the Democrat party for the 2020 election steal as well. Why you asked? Well because it seems that Brad Raffensberger have just caught himself lying to the president of the United States when Brad record that phone call with President Trump. ,According the Project Veritas, they had caught Kimberly Parker, who's a Democrat and help run the election campaign while she's also the Executive Director for Central Outreach and Advocacy Center admitting that she help committing election fraud by allowing homeless people, illegal aliens, and nonresidents to vote in the state of Georgia by letting them use fake address to vote.,In this video, Dr Steve Turley also explain what the real problem is with the Georgia election laws that lead to the steal in 2020 election.That certainly was a surprise even I did not see it coming.Well, that's it for now and until then see you next time.