The Miscalculation of Language Policing

One thing feminists often come under fire for is their supposed practice of language policing. You probably know what I mean. Things like "trigger warnings" and "free speech" and "censorship" get thrown around a lot when the topic is brought up. To be clear, many feminists are against this and do believe that people have the right to say things. But slowly we've kinda backed off from allowing freeze peach (say it out loud) have its own nation sans frontières because of how badly this privilege has been abused; far beyond flexibility in fact. 

So let's talk about language policing for a moment. Its origin comes from feminists wanting to change gender specific terms like calling a woman a female firefighter and instead of firewoman or simply firefighter. Now it's getting to a point where people associate the term with censorship. And to be fully honest this situation is getting ridiculous. So now I wanna take the time to destruct all the stigma that has arisen. 

The first thing I'll touch upon is trigger warnings, and why they're a thing. A trigger warning is not just simply wetting your nappy over being called a noob. No, it's more complicated than that. Trigger warnings are to accommodate for people who have either neurological issues like PTSD so they know what they're getting into. If you're being asked for trigger warnings, it'd be the best to issue them. The real irony here is how offended people get over this whole trigger warning fiasco wouldn't you say? 

The other thing worth noting is entitled white men thinking they have the right to say whatever they want because "muh first amendment rights". Let me tell you something about your first amendment rights, because apparently a British woman who hasn't even lived here long enough to be a citizen understands the US Constitution more than actual American nationals. Your first amendment rights specifically detail that no government institution reserves the authority to eliminate or control the thought processes and profession of ideologies and personal choice of words. This means you can't be arrested because you think trees are ugly. It does not mean you're free to run around saying "gas the Jews" or "all blacks leave Dixieland" or "kill the gays". Which brings me to my biggest example. One thing I've seen get thrown around is a white person's "right" to say the word "nigga", mostly when singing along with rap music. Yeah um, two words. HISTORICAL CONTEXT. A word that was used by white people to demean black people isn't typically something you'd wanna have a right to say unless you're a complete dick. Now sure it's all a matter of perspective, but I wouldn't necessarily be ok with some guy who runs up to me and constantly says things like cunt or bitch all the time like he owns the place. 

Language control, which is its working term, is not a bad thing. It simply means to watch your language when your words would otherwise be inappropriate. Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should. And that's a very important thing to go home with. It's not a tragic nightmare when you can't say shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker and tits at a wine ceremony. And instead of complaining about people getting "triggered", step back and bit and watch your mouth. 

Why 'Egalitarianism' Makes No Sense As A Movement

I think it's about time I address something that really requires some sort of analysis. When I first became a feminist a year ago, I was a bit oblivious to how many diet civil rights movements had come up. You have the ever so infamous Men's Rights Movement which basically provided an echo chambering circlejerk for traditionalist misogynist scum, and now you have these people called "equalists" or "egalitarians". And to be quite blunt they're rather obnoxious in their crusade for "equality". 

Let me tell you what egalitarianism is. The dictionary definition of the word is the idea that all people of any race, creed, gender, or sexuality deserve equal rights and opportunities. Now I'm not gonna stand here throwing the argumentum ad dictionarium fallacy around the whole time since using a dictionary definition to describe a movement is a bloody stupid idea. What I AM gonna do is talk about how this doesn't work at all as a movement and why it should stop being considered a movement. 

I'll start with the obvious. The most egalitarians you'll find are people discussing gender politics. People like Shoe0nHead, Armoured Skeptic, and Chris Ray Gun identify as egalitarians because they believe that "focusing on the rights of one gender is a stupid thing to do", but let's get real here; they're doing it to stick it to feminism because apparently that hasn't been done enough. This makes no sense since they tend to neglect the issues of women, ethnic minorities, and the LGBT community and primarily coddle the feelings of straight white men. The Amazing Atheist identifies as a "universal human self-determinist" because "you can't be for the rights of one or the other". Did you guys know that TJ blasted a female rape victim and trivialised her tragedy and mocked the Flint water crisis when a black woman spoke up about it? Yeah, some "humanitarian" he turned out to be. The vast majority of TJ's videos are him shitting his nappy over male victims of rape and abuse. I wouldn't have a problem with that if he didn't have such disgusting double standards and wasn't a complete fuckwit. 

There's really no either or situation when it comes to rights. You can be for equal rights and still focus on one side because surprise surprise, not everyone is oppressed equally. Also, how come it's wrong for feminists to do exactly what they set out to do yet a so called gender neutral movement is allowed to focus on one side? If you're an egalitarian, you'd have to incorporate everyone's rights in society without any sort of bias. A feminist egalitarian is a feminist who firmly believes in equal rights for women. A black egalitarian is a black activist who believes in equal rights for black people. I could go on, but hopefully you get where I'm coming from by now. 

You can't just apply egalitarianism to one specific topic. Sure, gender egalitarianism is a thing, but they almost always end up being MRAs trying to not reveal their toxicity. You'd have to be for the rights of ALL people. A real egalitarian is someone like Frederick Douglass, who challenged the idea that those who deserve rights are to be judged by their race or gender, a "no one gets left behind" type of thing. Egalitarianism does not mean to encourage discrimination all around like the internet would have you believe it is. So enough with the whole "I believe in equal rights for all" cop out argument against feminists and actually start acting like who you claim to be. You know, without making it sound like its about letting discrimination go every way it can but to consider the majority's feelings. 

When A Man Loves A Woman['s looks and nothing else]

You know what I like? Hot guys. I like hot guys with cut up torsos, armour abs, firm fanny, and muscular thighs. My husband's got all of that. And I love placing my hand on his hard midsection whilst I'm in his embrace. Wanna know what else he's got? A great heart and a full mind. And that's what really wins me over. 

You know what my husband likes? Hot ladies. He likes hot ladies with well groomed hair, big breasts, curvy midsection, big bum, and thick thighs. I've got all of that. And he loves grabbing my bum and breasts whilst I'm in his embrace. You know what else I've got? A great heart and full mind. And that's what really wins him over.

Now eliminate the whole great heart part. Have you noticed how superficial my husband and I sound? Calm down now, we're all like this. It's safe to assume that every adult has sexually fantasised about people who've appealed to their senses. It's totally normal to have thoughts like that. But you know what isn't normal? Completely stripping someone of their humanity and reducing them to a sexual object. Yeah, we're going there.

Sexual objectification of women is more prevalent than you might think. And in fact, you might be doing it yourself without realising it. Let's start with the obvious question, what is sexual objectification anyway? Sexual objectification, by definition, means to only admire or acknowledge the physical aesthetics of an individual. Women are the primary victims of this, and yes I say victims for reasons I'll elaborate on here. And unfortunately, nobody seems to care how much of a problem it really is. Why is this? Because it reinforces the idea that women are to be seen and not heard. Sexual objectification is actually a root for a lot of the oppression that women go through.

Here's a pretty good example of the sexual objectification of women. 

This right here is an ad for Lynx deodorant, which is what we call Axe in the UK. Axe has been the centre of bountiful criticisms from women and men alike. Not only does Axe encourage men to be macho and obnoxious alpha male garbage, they also portray women like sex objects as shown here. Let's try breaking this down a bit. First, she's pulling a turkey from an oven, reinforcing the whole "women belong in the kitchen" bullshit that stopped being funny after 5th grade. She's also bending over, her bum in clear sight and rather shapely. She has a lustful look on her face that seems to be calling you to her. Nothing about this ad has anything to do with deodorant except for its half arsed tagline "can she make you lose control?". Now let's take a look at a man's ad.

This is an ad featuring David Beckham. It's from his stint with Calvin Klein. Notice anything different here? David is in his underwear standing like a statue in a somewhat dignified manner, like he knows he's got it on lock (which he definitely does btw). He's in an appropriate setting for an underwear ad. His body is not on display, he's displaying his body. The woman in the Lynx ad was being used for a man's gaze. How many men would've actually been enticed to buy Lynx deodorant from seeing that ad? Not many I presume. Their attention would be drawn to the woman in the ad and nothing else. 

The directors of both ads were guys, meaning that men sexually objectify other men as well. Now some might say "but women objectify men's muscles like men objectify women's breasts". True, true. But you don't see women on the street shouting shit like "hey come at me ya fine piece of balls" or "what I wouldn't give to swing you over my head by the dick" at guys do you? When women are flirtatious, they typically offer themselves to you as a subordinate, and media capitalises on that part of our subconscious and exploits it for men's accessibilities. Also, this helps reinforce why women take up the majority of rape victims. Could that be a slippery slope? Possibly. But just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't. Remember, sexual objectification removes the character of a woman and makes her into a sex object. Rape does not involve respect either. They're cut from the same cloth. 

So what's the answer to this? Sexually objectifying more men is certainly not the way to go. What can instead be done is stop portraying women in media with their physical attributes taking the forefront. It really isn't hard to see women as something other than sexual arbitrators. And ads like the Lynx ad slipping into our everyday culture helps not. This isn't to say you can't appreciate how attractive someone is, I myself get comments on my appearance daily so it's nothing I'm not used to. But just know when to draw the line between aesthetic appreciation and sexual objectification. If you know that, then I'm sure you'll be fine. 

We'll Make Our Own Equality With Blackjack and....er, Feminists

So here's an interesting topic. Feminism vs Equality. Now I know what you're all thinking: "HERP A DERP FEMANITZ WANT SPECIAL PRIVALIJIZ". And I just want to say, no. I'm not here to beat y'all over the head with any fear mongering and propaganda. I'm here to talk about how feminism became antonymous with equality, or at least has evolved past its typical meaning. Buckle up, this may be a bumpy ride.

The philosophy that feminism has taken up nowadays is establishing and protecting women's rights and reducing male dominance. The reason for the change is because of a crazy revelation we'd come to by the turn of the modern era: why should we be equal to men when they're the ones still in power? Confusing isn't it? That's where I come in.

When you're talking equality, you realise that everything we'd been working toward is to do what men did. Think about it, equal pay to men, equal job opportunities to men, it's all gaining rights by men's standards, and as a result men have been dictating how we as feminists and women ought to be if we want to cut in on their action. Feminists never wanted to be men in order to gain access to men's rights, we want to be accepted for who we are as women and not to be held back for our gender. How was that hard to comprehend? I guess it's easy to represent something badly when you're in complete control and don't like something. 

Point being, women are not men, and it's not anti-feminist to admit that. But that doesn't mean we're useless or incompetent. With men constantly changing the playing field it's getting harder and harder for us to gain the respect we yearn for. I deem this unacceptable and many other feminists agree with me on that. So instead of playing by their rules, we're making some of our own. 

We're not gonna stand here and get fucked over day by day because men want to act like children by making some rubbish objective that's impossible to complete at the last minute when they see that they might have met their match. We're creating our own standards on how to gain rights. It's one thing to have rights, it's totally another to have those rights enforced, and that's another problem. There's this falsehood going around that women have more rights. It's only true on an abstract scale. I do plan on elaborating more on this in another blog post, possibly the next one. But I think I'll leave that on a cliffhanger. Aren't I just the worst? ;)

Feminists have taken things into their own hands because it's the only effective method we have left. Then we have the brilliance of "neutrality". Neutrality is this bogus method that employs calling people as humans rather than the group they belong to. You see people like The Amazing Atheist and Armoured Skeptic doing this shit a lot. The main problem I have with the idea of neutrality is the fact that it allows the privileged party to continue being themselves. They've really got nothing to lose. By letting the privileged party define equality how they see it, they pretty much can continue to get away with their discrimination and cry reverse racism/sexism when it happens to them. 

We shouldn't have to acquire our right to freedom by kissing arse. It's time we as feminists, blacktivists, gay rights activists, anyone who demands the rights they deserve stop appeasing to what the aggressors want. You don't gain freedom by bending to your master's will, we will break free and take what we're worth. United we stand.