As most people are aware, there is a little bit of controversy going on over the upcoming Ghostbusters movie/remake/reboot. This controversy revolves around whether or not criticisms of the film are valid, or if the critics are just disgruntled “man-babies” upset that evil feminists are invading their precious nostalgic franchise.
I’m not the biggest fan of the franchise in the world (Ecto Cooler doesn’t taste that damn good), but I do enjoy the original films and I can safely say that this remake looks like absolute gobshite: Even Sony seems to know that the trailer’s combination of unfunny jokes and special effects that somehow look worse than the ones from the 1984 original haven’t exactly set the world on fire. This is probably why they paraded the cast in front of sick children apropros of nothing.
But criticizing this particular movie is not really what this article is about. Rather, in looking at the reaction to this latest pop cultural Two Minutes Hate du jour, I’ve realized something: feminists embody age-old stereotypes of females to an incredible, almost embarrassing, degree.
Just to clarify: by “age old stereotypes of females”, I certainly don’t mean things like beautiful, graceful, nurturing, caring, loving, domestically skilled, gentle, and ‘down to Earth’, absolutely not. I’m referring to the flipside of that coin, the negative stereotypes of women, such as:
1) “Damsels in Distress”
This is the big one, the one that pop-culture criticizing yentas are constantly, constantly, CONSTANTLY complaining about, and yet, ironically, they themselves unwittingly portray themselves to be damsels in desperate need of a strong man to rescue them.
Don’t believe me? Observe the likes of every nerd’s favorite whipping posts, Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. Regardless of their talents and obvious penchant for telling the truth, what is it that they’ve truly done to gain their fame and fortune? Looking at Ms. Sarkeesian’s collective body of work, it seems that the bulk of it is complaining about sexism in video games and demanding that the people who make video games completely change the formulas that they have successfully used for the past few decades to make themselves rich.
Similarly, Ms. Quinn’s little accident (in which she tripped and fell and grabbed the penises of 5 journalists reviewing her video game) was lambasted by those who read video game websites, which served as fuel for the anti-Gamergate people to frame it in their terms: not as a woman “sleeping her way to the top”-which is ITSELF a negative stereotype of women, might I add-but rather a defenseless woman being set upon by “misogynists” who were just so furious that a woman would dare to enter the hyper-patriarchal world of video game development.
At no point did either of these women, or any of the other women complaining about sexism for that matter, attempt to make their own video games, at no point did they discuss the numerous women who have been involved in video game development since the beginning of the industry (like Roberta Williams, Amy Hennig, etc.) at no point did they even tell the myriads of white knights rushing to defend them that they were strong women who didn’t need men to defend them.
This is hardly a phenomenon that exists only in the world of video games: observe the “rape culture” talking point that’s basically becoming public policy throughout the west. More importantly, look at their plans to solve this “problem”-It always boils down to “Teach men not to rape” or “change masculinity”. Demand that men take the burden of changing their lifestyle rather than ask if women should take measures to protect themselves. Or to put it another way, Men Act, Women Are, the passive yin and the active yang.
But I suppose none of this is surprising considering how many “feminist” icons were, in fact, created by men seeking a quick buck, and happily used by women: To cite one very glaring example, the slogan and song “I am Woman, Hear me Roar”? Written by a man.
If “feminist badasses” are going to spend most of their time pouting, stomping their feet, and demanding that the men do something, they might as well dress like a 1950s TV housewife-they dressed a lot better than people do now. But I don’t think these women are truly helpless flowers wilting under pressure. No, I think it’s something a lot more sinister, which fits into another negative stereotype of womanhood:
The same women who will criticize fictional women being portrayed as damsels in distress will also criticize them being portrayed as “femme fatales”, manipulative villainesses that use their sexuality as a weapon. While a few of these women have managed to pull off the latter half of the “Madonna/Whore Complex”, that’s…not an option for most of these women.
Instead, they utilize their vulnerability-while some of them truly are weaklings who want men to protect them when push comes to shove, I feel that a lot of them are more ruthless than they appear, and deliberately put on an act of helplessness for their own social and fiduciary benefit.
Let us return to Anita and Zoe, the saviors of video games: From their crying about death threats (most of which didn’t actually happen) and matronly nagging (nagging being YET ANOTHER negative stereotype of women, one that didn’t get its own section due to being a bit redundant) about video games, they have: Gotten on Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People, spoken in front of the United States Congress (See above), and gotten jobs with Intel and Twitter, not to mention literally being handed money over Patreon.
But again, they are not the only two to do so: “Mattress Girl” Emma Sulkowicz somehow managed to use a lie about getting raped to get invited to the State of the Union address and make an “arthouse” sex tape. As somebody who has known women that have been raped, I can safely say the last thing they’d want to do is simulate the experience in the way Ms. Sulkowicz has. In the aftermath of this fiasco, the women and beta orbiters who propagated this lie, a few of whom are named in the above link, have received absolutely no repercussions.
Similarly, Jackie Coakley and Pals at the University of Virginia have used the fallout behind their false rape accusation to promote their careers. And most recently, Michelle Fields has managed to get a job at Huffpo.
And to return to the first paragraph of this article, what is the arguing over “misogyny” towards the new Ghostbusters, if not demands for the big mean men to stop bullying the poor women? The barrage of media reaction to this indicates, to me at least, that it may very well be a marketing ploy after initial reactions to the film were so dismal.
Whether or not the “powers that be” allow this perfidy because these stories promote their narrative (and spoilers: they do) is irrelevant. The point is, here are women that would likely protest a fictional woman utilizing her femininity to manipulate others…using their femininity to manipulate others.
Women have long been stereotyped as being dumber than men, and feminists certainly don’t do anything to dispel that:
I have repeatedly discussed on this website the numerous ways in which they completely fail to understand anthropology, history, and human biology, so there is no need to retread those same paths again.
Instead, let us point out how they react to our writing (which often serve as implicit or explicit criticisms of their writing)-often you’ll see them completely misinterpret the objects of their derision.
Look at the reactions towards my patron’s “legalize rape indoors” op-ed. Anybody with a basic grasp of reading comprehension would clearly see this article was deliberately written to be as outrageous as possible to generate controversy and, more importantly, conversation, ala Jonathan Swift. But apparently, the arbiters of our culture took it at face level and lost their collective minds.
Similarly, considering the fact that, until recently, feminists were the only people talking about masculinity and femininity and gender roles, they showcase a stunning ignorance of all of those things. It’s somewhat understandable that women would not understand masculinity and constantly demand that this biological fact “change”, but they seem pretty clueless about what women want-observe the constant pushing for Mad Max: Fury Road to be seen as some sort of feminist parable.
Not only did they not seem to realize that the movie is, at its core, about a man rescuing a group of women (probably being fooled by the token nods to the ideas of “toxic masculinity” that are peppered throughout the film), they also didn’t seem to realize that women may not want to watch a movie that is, essentially, a 2 hour car chase with a heavy metal soundtrack. As a result, the film was trounced in the box office by Pitch Perfect 2, a film that women (including my girlfriend, who hated Fury Road) apparently wanted to see more.
Sexuality is also something they express ignorance towards: In articles asking why college aged women have such romantic difficulties, they manage to blame everything for their romantic droughts but their own behavior.
I don’t mean to imply that all, or even most, women are ignorant, but the chattering people that appointed themselves speakers for all women have accomplished nothing, and are incapable of doing anything, beyond kvetching about pop culture to justify their worthless degrees. On that note…
“Flighty” is related to ignorance, but it’s more of the idea that women are frivolous and irresponsible and incapable of dealing with “big picture” issues. Keeping that in mind, go back and look at the past three subheadings:
The bulk of feminism today seems to be…kvetching about pop culture to justify their worthless degrees. I’m sure that there are women dealing with real issues that affect women like domestic abuse and human trafficking…in theory, since I’ve never actually seen any self-proclaimed feminists do so. But if you look at all of the strong female heroes of The Current Year, they’re all either celebrities/characters from pop culture, or people who critique pop culture, with the occasional politician who runs her country into the ground thrown in for variety.
Are these women to herald as heroes? I certainly wouldn’t, even if I were a woman. As a side note, look at how a woman with greater accomplishments then I will likely ever have (ignore the fact that her tenure at Yahoo largely involved running the company into the ground) is eviscerated by feminist writers because she dares to not refer to herself as a feminist-it appears that they even think the height of female empowerment is nagging and moralistic lecturing (this cattiness between women is another negative attribute of femininity that I felt was worth mentioning, but didn’t really have enough “meat” to it to give it its own section. Enjoy this article on the subject of feminist cattiness though).
This is quite possibly the oldest negative stereotype attributed to women, going back far beyond Snow White’s evil stepmother: “On the plot of ground at Jezreel will the dogs devour Jezebel’s flesh”, and all that. This is the root of the aforementioned femme fatale.
I could just let this glamour shot of the profoundly unattractive Lindy West speak for it self…but I’m gonna talk more.
There are many, MANY instances in which feminists demand that the rules of physical attractiveness be changed…inevitably in a way that will make them be considered more attractive. I’m sure that’s just a complete coincidence…or we can all subscribe to the Steve Sailer theory referred to in the previous sentence. And when they’re not demanding that these changes happen in the future, they write articles claiming that the Great Revolution in Female Attractiveness is already happening. If I were mean, I might call it denial.
And needless to say, vanity is quite capable of encompassing all five of the previous subheadings.
So in conclusion, feminists, the people who claim to be empowering women to move away from the bad old days of patriarchy and negative female stereotypes, are extremely manipulative, catty, vain, nagging, dependent on men, flighty, hysterical, and ignorant, all of which are negative female stereotypes.