stfusexists:

Alexander Ryking: You Might Be A “Feminazi” If…

Mirkwood, this is so beautiful that I am in danger of weeping. 

mirkwood:

Allow me to deconstruct this bullshittery.

ryking:

…you discount a man’s opinion/case on an issue solely because of his gender, without even dealing with the merits (or deficits) of his argument.

When you are a member of a privileged group, your experience of the world is different than a person who is a member of a marginalised group. As someone who is misgendered as a woman (I identify as genderqueer, but I am assumed “woman” by society) I have first hand experience of sexism and misogyny that you as someone who is society assigned male will not understand. You cannot understand it. When you are a member of a privileged group, your identity as that privileged group is not pointed out to you, you are not made aware of it, it does not become who you are.

Therefore, if you are going to talk about sexism, misogyny, or the experience of being marginalised — your opinion as a privileged person is not as well informed  (or even informed at all) than someone who is marginalised. Your arguments can be as logical and as sound as you’d like - you still have privilege and therefore you still do not have the experience of marginalisation enough to speak on the issue. Now, stop complaining that no one automatically listens and cares what you think on every issue and sit the fuck down. If you really do give a shit about any form of privilege and marginalisation - you will respect the fact that you have privilege when you do and you will not try and talk over marginalised people, you will sit the fuck down and listen.

…you constantly accuse a man of “derailing” or “mansplaining” (a gender-specific and therefore sexist insult, by the way) when he’s trying to explain why he disagrees with you about a gender issue. Or any issue.

Oh, and let me guess who’s going to get to identify “constantly”? Hrm. What is “constantly” then? Are you around every single person who condemns you for “mansplaining” enough to know if they are constantly doing it? If multiple people do it do you think that maybe YOU are the constant there, not the marginalised person.


Do you have any idea how difficult it is to confront privilege? How tiring it is? How annoying it is? Do you have any idea what people risk when they say, “That’s misogynistic” or “That’s racist” or “That’s heterosexist”? Sometimes it’s not even worth it. If I had to confront every issue of bigotry I ever saw, I’d never have time for anything else. So your “constant” bullshit here - unless you’re around one person 24/7 and you know how often they say it, you don’t get to define constant. And you know what? After years and years of misogyny and oppression… do you really think it’d be okay if maybe once in awhile you had to shut your ego down and listen? Even if you didn’t think you were derailing or mansplaining? Even if you didn’t think you were in the wrong? Do you think maybe we could have a bit of an inch here? 

At the end of the day, you’re the one here with privilege. Again, you do not have the experience of being marginalised in this instance and therefore you do not have the same ability to assess the situation as a marginalised person. Stop tripping up and winging about your own ego  and listen. Even if you think you haven’t done what you’ve been accused of — does it really take all that much to listen?

…you’re incapable of understanding that doing something sexist doesn’t automatically make that person a misogynist.

And you’re incapable of getting that it doesn’t matter whether they’re a misogynist or not.

Do you think, when I heard “faggot” and “that’s so gay” constantly at my high school, that my feelings of fear and hurt were any less because - oh they’re not really homophobes? Do you think that if I went on a tirade using racial slurs that those slurs would hurt any less if I wasn’t really a racist?

It doesn’t matter if you’re a real misogynist. If you do something sexist, you’re helping “real” misogynists. You’re part of the system as a privileged person. You benefit from the system as a privileged person. Your intent is irrelevant. It is not magical. It does not save you from the system. It does not make you a special snowflake. If you do something sexist, you are contributing to that system, regardless of your intent.

…you constantly accuse men and women who disagree with you of being misogynists.

Oh look, here’s another “constant”. And who gets to define that “constant”? Let me guess. You.

…you mistakenly believe that “misogyny,” which is a hatred of all women simply because they’re women, somehow applies to a man who just hates you for your sexist behavior.

You mistakenly believe here that a member of a marginalised group is identical to the system that marginalises them. As much as I’m sure you’d hate to hear this, but members of marginalised groups cannot be identical to the system that oppresses them. This means that “sexism” and “misogyny” isn’t just really nasty men who make horrible comments - it’s a system which consistently benefits those who society identifies as male at the detriment of those society identifies as female. The “ism” behind it means that it is not just about discrimination, but also about power and about creating an environment where one is benefited over the other. By definition, those who that system discriminates against, cannot be that system. Hence, those who society identifies as female cannot be sexist because sexism is a system which inherently harms them. The same goes for racism. People of colour cannot be racist because racism is a system that inherently harms them. Now, can people be discriminatory? Absolutely. Anyone can discriminate or be hateful. But there is a difference between discrimination and a system which creates a privileged and a marginalised sector of society. And you should learn the difference.

…you refuse to acknowledge that false rape allegations do, sometimes, occur, and accuse anyone of pointing out that false rape allegations sometimes occur of being a “rape apologist” or proponent of “rape culture.”

Why do you think it is that when rape happens, people trip over themselves to talk about false rape allegations, even though rape is not any more falsely reported than any other crime? Have you ever noticed that when someone’s house is burgled or when someone’s car gets stolen.. people don’t really seem to care about all the false claims of car robbery or house theft? It seems funny how rape is the only crime which we feel the need to talk about all the false allegations - as if those allegations happen more than any other crime.

And fuck you for putting rape culture in scare quotes as if it doesn’t exist. This is what rape culture is. It’s the constant tripping of people to try and sweep rape under the rug. To blame the victim. To make it seem like rape doesn’t happen at the alarming rate it DOES happen in. Read the fuck up about it. Maybe if you spent more time shaming rapists and talking about disgusting the crime is and how more rapists get set free rather than convicted, people wouldn’t “accuse” you of being a rape apologist - seeing as how false allegations for rape happen just about as much as any other crime and I’m about 90% sure that if a friend came up to you and said they’d just been mugged, you wouldn’t talk about all the false allegations of mugging.

…you think that a woman claiming to be raped is entitled to anonymity while the man she has accused should be tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion, because any man accused of rape must be guilty.

 I love how you assume what people must be thinking. I’d love to see where anyone has blatantly said “tarred and feathered” to you. 

Another thing you’re vapidly assuming - that everyone believes women when they come forward with an admission of rape. That she gets an incredible amount of assistance from the police. That she isn’t put on the stand and asked what she was wearing, why she was out at night, her sexual history examined — as if any of that has anything to do with being raped. You’re also assuming that every woman who comes forward with a rape allegation has nothing to lose or doesn’t think about the reputation of her rapist - even though most women are raped by people they know. You’re assuming a shit ton here. Most rapists aren’t convicted and even if they are found guilty they’re given slaps on the wrists. So your “tarred and feathered” bullshit. It’d be nice if that actually did happen. If people DID actually support rape victims when they came forward with their crimes. Women aren’t supported. Shit, when men come forward with rape claims, people still have the bogus idea that men can’t be raped. How many jokes have you heard cracked at Macaulay Culkin’s expense. It’s hilarious to us when men are sexually violated - and when women are sexually violated it’s because they somehow were responsible. If you think it’s as easy as cake and coming through with a rape claim is like pointing out a witch in Salem Witch Trials - you are sorely, sorely mistaken.

…you mock the idea that men can be raped anywhere other than prison, and shrug-off prison rape except in cases of a male guard raping a female inmate.

That doesn’t make you a feminazi - that just makes you a rape apologist asshole. And I’m pretty sure that LOADS of people mock the idea that men can’t be raped who would never describe themselves as feminists. Our culture practically trips over itself to make fun of men being sexually violated and despite the fact that most people are in prison for non-violent crime, see prison rape as deserved. If you think that has anything to do with feminism, you’re, again, sorely mistaken.

…you believe “rape” includes consensual sex that a woman later regrets, or that a woman who had a sip of wine or half a beer before engaging in consensual sex was actually under the influence of alcohol and thereforeunable to give consent.

Again, you get to define everything don’t you? You get to define “rape”. You get to define “constantly”, you get to define what it means to be “tarred and feathered”. You’re the expert here, aren’t you.

I’m not going to split hairs about consent with you, because honestly I feel like these two are scenarios where there are a lot of issues at hand. But I do see something incredibly problematic with what I like to call “The Point of No Return”, which is what you’re intentionally or not propagating - the idea that once consent is given, there’s no turning back and you can’t ever change your mind. That’s a very, very slipperly slope you’ve got there. And personally, I believe that someone can change their mind about consent. And if it means there’s a little bit of gray area, if it means that there might be occasions like this where it’s difficult to define and hazy — to me, as a sexual assault survivor, it’s way more fucking worth it to have this gray area than the frightening idea that once I give consent for sex, I can’t take it back again. 

Not to mention, society encourages women to be the moral gatekeepers of sex while at the same time telling men that their identity as males comes through being a sexual conquistador. We encourage women to be sexy, but not sexual, and take away their sexual agency and understanding by encouraging them to hate their bodies through media, see themselves as attractive only by who they can attract, and fail to give them adequate sex education that could allow them to seek pleasure for themselves and even begin to understand how their anatomy works. This creates an environment where men are encouraged to pressure women into having sex and where women are judged as human beings by how early they have sex and how many people they have sex with. It’s a toxic fucking environment of screwed up, heterosexist, destructive, and ignorant tripe. We give men, women, and anyone in between little to no decent sex advice, give them mixed messages, discourage them from healthy communication, feed them gendered stereotypes of what they should do and how they should behave, and let them loose on each other. Now, with that in mind, do you REALLY think that the Point of No Return with consent is a good fucking idea? No. It’s not.

…you think including a female body part or the word “slut” in your nom de plume is somehow empowering.

Oh, look who’s also getting to decide what’s empowering as well? Why do you get to decide what’s empowering to others? What makes you so special? Now, I accept if some people can’t find certain terms empowering. I frequently use “queer” to describe myself. I fucking love the word “queer”. But you know, if someone can’t reclaim queer, if they hate the term and don’t like using it - I don’t throw a fit and demand they agree with me about it. I accept that they can’t find it empowering. Similarly, if you don’t like the word slut, then fine. But who the fuck are you to decide what other people can call themselves if it makes them more happy about their bodies and their lives? Fuck you for thinking you, as a privileged person, can decide what marginalised people get to call themselves. 

…you constantly use the terms “cisgendered” and “privileged,” usually as epithets.

And let me guess. You get to decide when “cisgendered” and “privileged” turns from just a regular word and into an epithet? I love how when it comes to YOUR intent with your mystical ability to do sexist things but not be misogynist, we’re required to give you the benefit of good faith. You can do all manner of sexist shit, but not really be a misogynist. Where when I use these terms you get to decide when I turn from being just a well meaning person into a raging, frothing feminazi. It’s funny how that works, isn’t it?

Now tell me, if you’re unwilling to give me the benefit of the doubt, why on earth should I hand that to you?

…you dream of a Matriarchy.

And here again. Your powers of decision are so amazing, you can actually SEE into the minds of people and tell what they dream!

Now, I have met people who are anti-male. It’s been quite difficult for me to deal with as a genderqueer person, to see very anti-male attitudes among some feminists. I won’t deny that there are feminists out there who are anti-male, binarist, and erase the shit out of people like me and infuriate me.

But see, I’m capable - just as I’m capable of seeing sexist, asshole cismen who think that women are essentially pieces of meat - of not believing those people are their entire group. Similarly, anti-male, transmisogynistic feminists do not represent all feminists in the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church represents all Christians. You’re welcome to critique anti-male feminists all you’d like - but deciding that they’re “feminazis” (which is a problematic as fuck term, which I’ll get to later) and acting as if they represent any of the other bullet points on this list - that’s some bullshit my friend.

…you’re a misandrist.

 This is another issue of systems of privilege. Words like “misandrist” bug me because they parallel themselves to “misogyny” and to the system of sexism that oppresses women and privileges men (and erases the shit out of trans* and genderqueer folks). And by definition a system that oppresses one and privileges the other can only oppress one and privilege the other. Male-hate exists, definitely. But the idea that “misandry” exists - the idea that hate against men is comparable to a system which overwhelmingly has privileged men - is laughable. 

Again, here you get to decide who’s a misandrist. And I wonder if you’re giving them the same benefit of the doubt as we’re supposed to give you. Maybe all the misandrist people you’ve met aren’t real misandrists, they just do “sexist” (how you would define it) things? You’ve got quite a double standard going on here, one of where you sit as the judge, jury, and executioner of everyone’s actions and we have to sit back and trust your judgement- despite our experience as marginalised people and despite the fact that you do not have that experience.

…you ignore everything above in favor of making personal attacks on the author of this piece. Truth hurts, doesn’t it, feminazis?

Now we’ll get onto the “feminazi” term. It’s incredibly insulting. Oh, not for the reasons you think. I’m not even going to talk about the history of this term and how it’s been misused to shame feminism and give people incorrect ideas about what feminism’s aims and objectives are.

But I will talk about the Holocaust. And about the people who died there. People who were put into work camps and forced labour. People who’s families were torn apart, people who were experimented on, people who were shot, maimed, tortured, gassed, killed and their bodies were stacked in heaps. I’m pretty sure you know what The Holocaust was and I’m pretty sure you know how incredibly fucking horrible and disgusting it was. And the fact that you use the term “Nazi” so bloody fucking lightly, that you think you can just tack that term on to someone whom you don’t agree with — you are insulting every person who died or had family die in the Holocaust. You are making a mockery of one of the worst human tragedies on the face of this planet. And for that, you should be fucking ashamed. I don’t care if you don’t agree with me about “privilege” or “cisgender” or whatever other feminist issue we can discuss, what you’re doing here by parading around the term “Nazi”, by adding it to something just so you can make something extreme - what you are doing is pathetic and gross. Because I don’t care how many anti-male feminists there are — it is NOT fucking comparable to the Nazis and what they did. And for you to in any way parallel the two is completely and utterly DISGUSTING. So say what you’d like about feminism and everything - but using the term “feminazi” as some sort of throwaway bullshit for things you don’t like, whether your magical intentions are there or not, you ARE taking away the power of the word “Nazi” and what it means and making it into some light term which in light of the Holocaust is really fucking disgusting. That term should never be used lightly because every time it is, it completely disregards what happened during that time. And you should be fucking ashamed for doing so.

Now, to return to your “personal attack” line. I don’t need to personally attack you at all. Your cracked arguments clouded by your massive entitlement have given me plenty to debate about. I could care less about you personally - but frankly - your ideas are complete tosh.

So, tell me, oh learned one, what am I?

This is amazing. All of it. 

(Source: diadoumenos)