Post: #1

From this article titled

"we sold feminism to the masses and now it means nothing "

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/w...s-nothing/
Apologies for lack of formatting but posting this from phone...

Found this a just now and while reading it couldn't stop laughing.

In this article you will find wonderful examples of special snowflake elitism,punk angst and aging marxist syndrome such as

Quote:“The problem is—the problem has always been—that feminism is not fun,” Zeisler declares. “It’s not supposed to be fun. It’s complex and hard and it pisses people off.

Or

Quote: feminists are not here to make anyone comfortable—that’s the damn point.

Anyway, I guess I should check my member of the masses previlege if I want to use a cheap label from the discontinue bin at the empty ideology market place next time...

Post: #2

So we don't contribute clicks.

Quote:We Sold Feminism to the Masses, and Now It Means Nothing

By Marcie Bianco / qz.com

These days, feminism is on fleek. Touted by everyone from Dove to Barbie to Taylor Swift, consumer capitalism has made feminism sexy, fun, cool—and remarkably easy to claim as your own. But the price tag has been the meaning of the movement itself.

Bitch magazine cofounder Andi Zeisler describes this phenomenon as “marketplace feminism.” “Marketplace feminism is in many ways about just branding feminism as an identity that everyone can and should consume,” she writes in her new book We Were Feminists Once: From Riot Grrrl to CoverGirl, the Buying and Selling of a Political Movement. Tarnished by conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s who equated feminism with misandry and bra-burning, the movement has undergone an ideological shift to make it more palatable to the mainstream. This brand of feminism lite has been called a variety of things over the years, from “pop feminism” to “white feminism,” to my personal favorite (and coinage), “cupcake feminism.” Because the ideal feminist is the image of a woman double-fisting cupcakes. “Riots not diets!”



Browse through Etsy, and you’ll find any number of items that allow you to showcase your feminism in the form of what Zeisler calls “empowertising.” But, she asserts,“Feminism has nothing to do with your underwear, and anyone telling you it does probably wants to sell you something ($45 underwear, most likely).”

Visibility filtered through capitalism does the not necessarily further the cause. It’s easy to understand the appeal of T-shirts emblazoned with images of Rosie the Riveter and slogans like “This is what a feminist looks like.” Visibility is the first step in any civil rights effort, and feminists should be able to buy clothing that they are proud to wear. But visibility filtered through capitalism does the not necessarily further the cause.

“Rather than strengthening feminism from the inside,” Zeisler explains, “a rebrand is outward-focused, a recruitment effort to make feminism appeal to as broad an audience as possible by distilling it down to an image and a few words.” Refined by the Mad Men advertising age and then mass-produced by the Digital Age, political goals have been reduced to sugary sound bites.

This is capitalist economics 101. “Feminism’s recently skyrocketing profile is a reminder that the best way to constrain the power of a social movement is to commodify it,” Zeisler wrote in an essay about her book for Time. “Just ask Dove, or Verizon or Always, brands that in the past few years have seemed to suddenly realize that flattering women with overtures to and images of female empowerment could offer a better return than classic ad tactics of appealing to feminine shame and insecurity.” Marketplace feminism, Zeisler contends, is “a way to promise potential detractors that feminism can exist in fundamentally unequal spaces without posing any foundational changes to them.”



“Feminism’s recently skyrocketing profile is a reminder that the best way to constrain the power of a social movement is to commodify it.” Feminism in this capacity has come to mean everything, and, consequently, nothing. Getting rid of the word “feminist” itself is case in point. Last month, Game of Thronesstar Maisie Williams was celebrated by the media for telling Entertainment Weekly that “we should stop calling feminists ‘feminists’ and just start calling people who aren’t feminist ‘sexist’—and then everyone else is just a human.” Everybody wins, right? “I sometimes really worry about speaking up about feminist subjects out of fear of being bashed by women on social media,” she continued.

Williams’s intention is to help ease societal tensions around feminism, which is understandable given the pervasive misunderstanding of what feminism means. Yet her comments reflect feminism’s shift from an ideological movement to a trending hashtag. We don’t even need to call ourselves feminists anymore.

And yet, with all this talk of empowerment, women still cannot escape being objects for sale. Indeed, the cultural consumption of feminism can end up reinforcing sexist tropes of objectification. We are selling ourselves in order to sell our message.

Williams’s opinion, to note, is not unique—remember when TIME argued in 2014 that the word “feminist” had become overused and should be banned? Instead of throwing up our hands and abandoning the label, we need to restore its potency. “Quit throwing this label around like ticker tape at a Susan B. Anthony parade,” the magazine wrote. For some feminists, the gesture was an oblique attack on the political movement itself. The desire to eliminate the word is tantamount to an erasure of the movement. Instead of throwing up our hands and abandoning the label, we need to restore its potency.



“The problem is—the problem has always been—that feminism is not fun,” Zeisler declares. “It’s not supposed to be fun. It’s complex and hard and it pisses people off. It’s serious because it is about people demanding that their humanity be recognized as valuable. The root issues that feminism confronts—wage inequality, gendered divisions of labor, institutional racism and sexism, structural violence and, of course, bodily autonomy—are deeply unsexy.”

So, no, we shouldn’t stop calling feminists “feminists.” To appropriate Simone de Beauvoir, one is not born, but rather becomes, a feminist. It is a deliberate political undertaking. It is an ethics of daily living, of fighting for gender equality under the law, of fighting for women’s agency and autonomy, of fighting for political power and representation for women. To be a feminist is to fight structural inequality and upend the patriarchal power structure. In this regard, it is inherently discomforting. But feminists are not here to make anyone comfortable—that’s the damn point. And no amount of clever, screen-printed tank tops will change that.

Dr. Marcie Bianco is freelance journalist and Contributing Editor at Curve Magazine. She has contributed to AfterEllen, Feministing, The Feminist Wire, The Huffington Post, Lambda Literary, XO Jane, and The Women’s Review of Books. She writes and lectures about ethics, from feminism to race relations.

Post: #3

Translation of feminist twatspeak: Feminist battle axe academic is angry those young pretend feminists in the media are running around selling the image without understanding the dogmatic scripture or principles. Instead they want all feminists to live the monastic lifestyle and double down on militancy and misandry. Fun is apparently the patriarchy also.

In otherwords it's kind of like when ISIS accuses some other muslim sect of being haram and slits their throat in an alleyway for not being fundamentalist enough.

Post: #4

Women hating on women for being women about women.

4th wave has arrived.

Post: #5

Ever notice these shit pieces are always written by freelancers? Maybe I don't quite understand how the media world works (probably from a cost control, HR perspective it makes sense).

But none of them are good enough to be hired full time. Maybe it is because they suck.

Post: #6

(06-01-2016 02:57 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  ...they want all feminists to live the monastic lifestyle...

Regarding this point, I came across this old (2009) article on "womyn's lands" yesterday (filed laughably under "fashion", I see):
"Lesbian Communities Struggle to Stay Vital to a New Generation"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/fashio....html?_r=0

tl;dr: paranoid lesbians establish "gated communities" in secluded areas from which they exclude men, indulge their sexist delusions, gradually age out of existence.

While many young feminists would seem to want a world without men, very few appear willing to take the plunge. Even when all the work of establishing such a world has already been done for them by their older sisters. Doubtless these elderly lesbians would welcome even the "cupcake feminists" of the OP with open arms, if it meant averting the extinction of their communities.

(Since this is from 2009, before the present campus-feminist irruption began, it would be interesting to see if/how the situation for these sapphotopias have changed.)

Post: #7

I hate how feminist agitators try to act like they are fighting institutionalized racism and get women included in legislation aimed at addressing racism. I tell brothers all the time not to trust these women and to focus on our issues separately, feminists are out for themselves not us.

Post: #8

(06-01-2016 07:51 AM)Alsos Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:57 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  ...they want all feminists to live the monastic lifestyle...

Regarding this point, I came across this old (2009) article on "womyn's lands" yesterday (filed laughably under "fashion", I see):
"Lesbian Communities Struggle to Stay Vital to a New Generation"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/fashio....html?_r=0

tl;dr: paranoid lesbians establish "gated communities" in secluded areas from which they exclude men, indulge their sexist delusions, gradually age out of existence.

It's like they are living in their own post apocalypse type communities except with geriatric clam lickers.

Quote:BEHIND the gate at Alapine, about five miles from the nearest town in the southern Appalachian mountains near Georgia, the women live in simple houses or double-wide trailers on roads they have named after goddesses, like Diana Drive. They meet for potluck dinners, movie and game nights and “community full moon circles” during which they sing, read poems and share thoughts on topics like “Mercury in retrograde — how is it affecting our communication?”

The women agreed to be interviewed on the condition that the exact location of their homes not be revealed because they fear harassment from outsiders. Many in the network of womyn’s lands have avoided publicity, living a sheltered existence for decades, advertising available homes and properties through word of mouth or in small newsletters and lesbian magazines.


But the women at Alapine were willing to be interviewed because of their concern that their female-centered community would disappear if they did not reach out to younger women.

Paranoid, exclusionary, and crazed old biddies getting together to watch movies, share food, and engage in knitting gossip until they drop off one by one from either getting sick of each other or keeling over finally.

They're so lonely now they're looking to recruit fresh young clams to lick.

It's more or less like a self imposed prison. I wonder what kind of movies they watch which fits into their worldview. I bet it's limited to a small selection of current indie films and old new wave european cinema.

When they finally move or all die out I bet the feral cat population will explode overnight.

Post: #9

So a Marxist ideology off-shoot didn't foster or provide for a proverbial utopia...?

Well I am surprised!

Post: #10

And the answer is .... NO. WNB!

Post: #11

One thing y'all have to understand about these type of social justice/whatever movements is that they have self-destruction built in. Once things stop being sufficiently "pure" and 100% no-compromise, people start flapping their gums about how "the movement is watered down" and the self-destruction mechanism kicks in.

Post: #12

Thanks for the quote,snowplow!
I posted it from my phone and am notoriously clumsy for html for mobiles

Post: #13

(06-01-2016 07:51 AM)Alsos Wrote:  Regarding this point, I came across this old (2009) article on "womyn's lands" yesterday (filed laughably under "fashion", I see):
"Lesbian Communities Struggle to Stay Vital to a New Generation"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/fashio....html?_r=0

There are some pretty funny lines from that article:

Quote: Finding one another in the fever of the gay rights and women’s liberation movements, they built a matriarchal community, where no men were allowed, where even a male infant brought by visitors was cause for debate.

One woman would rather talk to a dead deer than the other carpet munchers:

Quote:Ms. Greene trims branches of oak, hickory and sassafras trees and stops by the grave of a deer she buried in the woods after it was hit by a car. She named it Miracle. “I talk to Miracle every day,” Ms. Greene said. “That is one of my joys of living here.”

Talk about whatever you want, bitch, you are still living in a double-wide.

Quote:BEHIND the gate at Alapine, about five miles from the nearest town in the southern Appalachian mountains near Georgia, the women live in simple houses or double-wide trailers on roads they have named after goddesses, like Diana Drive. They meet for potluck dinners, movie and game nights and “community full moon circles” during which they sing, read poems and share thoughts on topics like “Mercury in retrograde — how is it affecting our communication?”

So it isn't just the boys who are excluded:

Quote:Winnie Adams, 66, who describes herself as a “radical feminist separatist lesbian,” sold her house in Florida in 1999 to move to Alapine. Earlier in her life, she had been married and had two daughters (neither of whom would be permitted to live with her now because they are not lesbians).

Attention copy editor, this didn't need to be included:

Quote:There is strident debate within and across the womyn’s lands about who should be allowed to join.

These ladies have full satisfying lives in nature, and no longer need to obsess over the trivial or irrelevant:

Quote:Recently when an Alapine resident received a visit from a 6-month-old grandson, an e-mail message went out to all residents, perhaps only partly in humor: “There’s a man on the land.”

As we all know, a woman like this can't be too careful.

Quote:“I don’t have curtains,” she said. “I don’t have to worry about someone watching me dress or undress. ”

Post: #14

(06-01-2016 08:38 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  I hate how feminist agitators try to act like they are fighting institutionalized racism and get women included in legislation aimed at addressing racism. I tell brothers all the time not to trust these women and to focus on our issues separately, feminists are out for themselves not us.

If the Anglo feminazis really cared about 'fighting institutionalized racism', then they wouldn't be flocking all over third world countries abroad to legislate for harsher laws which put more marginalized groups into prison for "street harassment", just so that the Anglo feminazis can walk half-naked in a dangerous slum of Brasil without being catcalled.

The messed up thing is that whenever a crime is committed against a local in a foreign country, the international community rarely gives a damn, but when an Anglo feminazi makes fictitious allegations in a foreign country, the international community forms a lynch mob against the people of that foreign country. Overprivileged Anglo feminazis should check their privilege.

Post: #15

(06-01-2016 10:56 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 07:51 AM)Alsos Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:57 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  ...they want all feminists to live the monastic lifestyle...

Regarding this point, I came across this old (2009) article on "womyn's lands" yesterday (filed laughably under "fashion", I see):
"Lesbian Communities Struggle to Stay Vital to a New Generation"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/fashio....html?_r=0

tl;dr: paranoid lesbians establish "gated communities" in secluded areas from which they exclude men, indulge their sexist delusions, gradually age out of existence.

It's like they are living in their own post apocalypse type communities except with geriatric clam lickers.

Quote:BEHIND the gate at Alapine, about five miles from the nearest town in the southern Appalachian mountains near Georgia, the women live in simple houses or double-wide trailers on roads they have named after goddesses, like Diana Drive. They meet for potluck dinners, movie and game nights and “community full moon circles” during which they sing, read poems and share thoughts on topics like “Mercury in retrograde — how is it affecting our communication?”

The women agreed to be interviewed on the condition that the exact location of their homes not be revealed because they fear harassment from outsiders. Many in the network of womyn’s lands have avoided publicity, living a sheltered existence for decades, advertising available homes and properties through word of mouth or in small newsletters and lesbian magazines.


But the women at Alapine were willing to be interviewed because of their concern that their female-centered community would disappear if they did not reach out to younger women.

Paranoid, exclusionary, and crazed old biddies getting together to watch movies, share food, and engage in knitting gossip until they drop off one by one from either getting sick of each other or keeling over finally.

They're so lonely now they're looking to recruit fresh young clams to lick.

It's more or less like a self imposed prison. I wonder what kind of movies they watch which fits into their worldview. I bet it's limited to a small selection of current indie films and old new wave european cinema.

When they finally move or all die out I bet the feral cat population will explode overnight.

Thanks for finding that New York Times story. I noticed a few omissions and drew on my background as a reporter and occasional editor to make some corrections.

I put the "correx" (as we used to call them) in ALL CAPS:

BEHIND the gate WHICH WAS BUILT BY MEN at Alapine, about five miles from the nearest town BUILT BY MEN in the southern Appalachian mountains near Georgia, the women live in simple houses BUILT AND DESIGNED BY MEN or double-wide trailers BUILT BY MEN on roads BUILT BY MEN they have named after goddesses, like Diana Drive (WHICH IS A STREET PLOWED AND BUILT BY MEN). They meet for potluck dinners, movie and game nights and “community full moon circles” during which they sing, read poems and share thoughts on topics like “Mercury in retrograde — how is it affecting our communication?”


The women agreed to be interviewed on the condition that the exact location of their homes THAT WERE BUILT BY MEN not be revealed because they fear harassment from outsiders. Many in the network of womyn’s lands have avoided publicity, living a sheltered existence for decades, advertising available homes BUILT BY MEN and properties through word of mouth or in small newsletters and lesbian magazines.

(Not included in story: The running water they use is from a system built and maintained by men and everything that comes to town was made by a man and brought in a truck designed and built by men and driven by a man.)

Post: #16

Whomever could have predicted that if you give a Feminist the exact political and cultural power she complained for endlessly that it would only result in her feeling dissatisfaction and a deepened sense of victimisation?

You can't ever 'liberate' a segment of the population whose personal identity construct revolves around feeling unrealistically-persecuted.

Post: #17

(06-01-2016 04:54 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  ...Thanks for finding that New York Times story. I noticed a few omissions and drew on my background as a reporter and occasional editor to make some corrections.

I put the "correx" (as we used to call them) in ALL CAPS:
...

You missed possibly the most important correction of all.

"...FUNDED LARGELY IF NOT ENTIRELY BY WELFARE LEACHED OFF OF THE PRODUCTIVITY OF MEN."

Post: #18

(06-01-2016 07:51 AM)Alsos Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:57 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  ...they want all feminists to live the monastic lifestyle...

Regarding this point, I came across this old (2009) article on "womyn's lands" yesterday (filed laughably under "fashion", I see):
"Lesbian Communities Struggle to Stay Vital to a New Generation"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/fashio....html?_r=0

tl;dr: paranoid lesbians establish "gated communities" in secluded areas from which they exclude men, indulge their sexist delusions, gradually age out of existence.

While many young feminists would seem to want a world without men, very few appear willing to take the plunge. Even when all the work of establishing such a world has already been done for them by their older sisters. Doubtless these elderly lesbians would welcome even the "cupcake feminists" of the OP with open arms, if it meant averting the extinction of their communities.

(Since this is from 2009, before the present campus-feminist irruption began, it would be interesting to see if/how the situation for these sapphotopias have changed.)

Even many young feminists don't want to take the plunge of a world without men because they NEED men, both in a material and labor sense, but much more significantly in terms of emotional and mental needs.

Girls need to feel desired. Wanted. Lusted after. It's how a woman overcomes internal insecurities - which plagues many girls - my wife included.

Feeling desired gives them confidence and lets them employ the mindset I always tell my wife, "If you want to people to think you are beautiful, you must believe internally that you are beautiful. They need to see that confidence from you."

(This obviously includes self improvement, weight loss if needed, etc. Extremely obese fat chicks will need more than confidence to bag the men they desire.)

Desire from other women can make them feel superior in the pecking order, but men are crucial to that paradigm. If a girl isn't attracting men, then what are other girls jealous of her for then? Men are the primary currency.

Look at all the other issues primary feminist issues that younger feminists are always talking about and it's usually the ones that they think will somehow make the "Culture" consider them to be more attractive, desired, etc. You'll notice alot of them deal with men showing "attraction" and desire, as well as policing that behavior.

It's why they beat everyone else over the head with the "big is beautiful" nonsense because it's useless if only they believe. Everyone else must believe it too for them to "finally be sought after."

Post: #19

(06-01-2016 02:40 AM)Snowplow Wrote:  Last month, Game of Thrones star Maisie Williams was celebrated by the media for telling Entertainment Weekly that “we should stop calling feminists ‘feminists’ and just start calling people who aren’t feminist ‘sexist’—and then everyone else is just a human.”

To state it explicitly: feminists are people, and non-feminists are non-people, literally not humans.

There was a time when the social justice crowd would lecture everyone about how dehumanization was the first step towards genocide. Seems like any leftist idea or movement is cursed to mutate into its polar opposite over time.

Post: #20

This must be a feminist version of Agree & Amplify response to all those studies coming out showing how women have got a lot more miserable since they were sold feminism.

"It's never supposed to be fun anyway" is their answer.

I'm sure that will go down well with the majority of women.

Post: #21

^
They forgot that - 'YOLO', needs to be taken two ways.
It also means you only live once to get it correct the first time!

Quote:Posted by HeyPete - Yesterday 12:34 PM
And the answer is .... NO. WNB!

Hmmm....
Noting other news of late. That chick looks like Amber Heard in ten years time.
All alone, used & washed up.

Post: #22

That lesbian community is just a really lame convent.