Feminist Fiction: Vapid and Empty

This business with the X-Men billboard proves that the Sad Puppies are right. What does a comic book movie have to do with a movement in Science Fiction? Everything.

You see, when the billboard featured a villain choking another character, you are seeing an important feature of any story: characters must face challenges. I mean, imagine a story in which the hero showed up, said “I’m here now, you should just give up,” and presto, the hero wins, the villain is defeated and everyone lived happily ever after.

Pretty lame story, right?

x-men_billboard_h_2016

Villain hurts woman. Isn’t that what villains do? What should he do instead? “I respect you as a woman, so I will let you kill me. Only the Feminists will survive.”

So when RadFems and SJWs (but I repeat myself) complain that a billboard features a villain attacking another character, I’m very confused. If women are to be the central characters in Feminist fiction, as the likes of Anita Sarkeesian and her ilk frequently demand, then they must face challenges, right? A woman character must fight, must be beaten down just as a male character might be, and rise to defeat her enemy.

Being a central part of the character’s journey, we would expect this to be a meaty part of the story right? Worthy of advertising it?

Except this is “violence against women.” Like the cover of a Batgirl comic which also triggered Feminist rage, wherein the Joker has clearly overpowered the titular character, any indication that the woman might lose, might suffer at the hands of the villain, cannot be allowed.

So what is allowed then? Must Batgirl walk up to the Joker and say “I’m a woman!” Joker then lays down, puts his hands behind his back, and the story ends. No struggle. No fight. The woman gets whatever she wants by virtue of being a woman.

BG-Cv41-Joker-variant-solicitation-88c4e-31e8d

The joker is doing bad things to the hero. Can’t have that, right?

This is what the Sad Puppies have been talking about for years, and why they are understandably worried about the blatant politicization of fiction. They want to read and write stories where the protagonist must complete a journey, must face challenges and villains. Where the protagonist must find friends and allies, where struggle and suffering are part of that journey.

This goes for both male and female protagonists.

How can you have a story where the protagonist cannot suffer injury? Where the hero can suffer no physical attack, no setback, no violence? Imagine James Bond as a woman (as feminists are demanding currently) in this sort of scenario. Where James Bond was tied to a chair and tortured via the clubbing of his genitals in Casino Royale, feminists would scream were a Jane Bond subjected to the same torture.

What should the villainous banker to the world’s terrorists do, then, to get the money from Bond? Shall he say “I respect you as a woman, and I would never do anything without your consent. So I didn’t tie you up, and I won’t torture you. I didn’t take your gun either, since that would be a violation of your body. But I would like to know the password to the bank account, if that is not asking too much of m’lady.”

Then Jane Bond shoots the banker in the face, and the story is over. Some story, right?

This is the sort of executive meddling on behalf of Social Justice that Sad Puppies rightly fear. They don’t want their stories hung up by some misguided notion that certain demographics can never suffer fictional injury, that they can never face challenges. How can you write an entertaining (much less believable) story, hamstrung like that?

If you want to get technical, the billboard did indeed feature “violence against women.” But in the real world, violence against women happens. And in the fictional world you create, it may also happen. Indeed, a central part of the story may be a woman overcoming such violence to kill her tormentor. How is any of that bad?

And more importantly, why is any of it worthy of de facto censorship?

Feminism: Women Shouldn’t be Punished for Anything

Coming straight on the heels of yesterday’s post, wherein two lesbians tortured and killed a little boy (one of the lesbians was the boy’s mother) is this little gem from the Guardian telling us that all women’s prisons should be closed, and the inmates released.

Why we should close women’s prisons and treat their crimes more fairly

Yes. The author is seriously advocating eliminating prison sentences for all women. This man, with his apparently worthless Ph.D., explains for us:

Women do of course commit homicide offences, but nearly always the victim is a relative and the crime was committed against the backdrop of an abusive relationship or depressive mindset. All homicides are heinous crimes but the types of homicides committed by women rarely involve random victims and hence do not engender community fear.

This comes, quite literally, the day after the guilty verdict came out for the horrendous case above. This man is thus telling us that “nearly always” the murdered person was somehow abusing the woman.

I wonder what two-year-old Liam Fee did to abuse his mother, such that his murder was justified?

The lunacy of modern feminism has grown to staggering proportions, wherein it continually asserts that men and women ought to be given the same treatment while simultaneously arguing that no woman should be punished for crimes she is convicted of.

Murderers of innocent toddlers should go free!

Murderers of innocent toddlers should go free!

A friend of mine asserted the other day that Rachel and Nyomi, the women who murdered Liam Fee, may have received the “Rotherham treatment.” In other words, he wondered if, perhaps, the status of the two women as lesbian partners hindered any attempt to prevent the torture and murder of this little boy.

As it turns out, the father did indeed protest several times to the authorities that his son was in danger in their care. And nurses and social workers were shocked by the level of fear the child displayed of both his mother and her partner. Earlier incidents of abuse were cataloged and documented, and no action was taken. It was, in the words of the nurses, unprecedented.

So it is very likely that the Rotherham treatment was given, insofar as incidents of abuse that would have been acted upon immediately were the perpetrators straight white men, were ignored by the authorities because the women were “minority victims.”

It certainly didn’t do the real victim, a little boy, any good, mind you. But then, the girls raped by Pakistanis in Rotherham were similarly ignored. The Progressive stack, in which some victims are more equal than others, becomes apparent here.

So these women already received preferential treatment, and Mirko Bagaric wants them to receive no punishment for the horrific crime.

This, of course, is somehow “equality.”

Nearly every one of these incarcerated women is the victim of a perverse and lazy policy disfigurement that fails to acknowledge the marked differences between female and male offenders. The differences are so stark that not only should women be treated more leniently because they commit less serious crime but they should also be treated more leniently when they commit the same crime as a man.

But feminism is about equality! If men and women are 100% equal, and genders are meaningless social constructs how could there be “marked differences” between female and male offenders in the first place? Here he is outright arguing for women to be treated more leniently (read: not punished at all) for the same crime.

Third, society suffers more when we remove a female from it and place her behind a prison wall. More than 50% of incarcerated women are single parents and even in two-parent households, female prisoners typically assume the main child nurturing role. In relation to non-parental dependency, the majority of carers (60%) are females.

Like the murderous lesbians were such great parents. But one might say that I’m harping overly much on one particular incident. Okay… but if you have a woman who is convicted of, say, dealing crack cocaine out of her house, how is that good for her child? What about one who burglarizes, steals, or attempts to murder someone? No, these are precisely the women you do not want to have raising children, because they will do an exceptionally poor job of it. Locking them up is better for any children involved, not worse.

The sentencing system should be reformed radically to deal more fairly with female offending. The starting position is that no female offender should be imprisoned. In relation to most forms of crime, they should be dealt with by way of intermediate sanctions including the greater use of electronic monitoring.

In other words, no punishment at all. Here’s your ankle bracelet. It even comes in pink! Totes matches your shoes!

The approach would save the community billions of dollars annually and go a long way to correcting the unfathomable public policy misstep which has resulted in 10 American states spending more on prisons than higher education. Best of all, it would not cause the slightest reduction to community safety.

If you want to improve community safety, I suggest my Aussie friends should chuck this guy off a bridge. Okay, I’m not going to incite violence… just run him out of the country then (preferably to a hospitable place like Antarctica), and tell him to never come back.

For an exceptional level of undiluted idiocy, I award Mirko Bagaric the heretofore never-awarded perfect idiot score of four golden turds. Display your unprecedented level of ignorance proudly, sir!

 

turds

The Changing Face of Evil

Some things are so horrific, they are beyond my ability to contemplate rationally. My only reaction is visceral horror and a corresponding desire to erase the perpetrators from the face of the Earth. Here is one such event:

Liam Fee’s mother Rachel and her partner Nyomi found GUILTY of his murder

A mother murdered her own son after a pattern of torture and abuse:

Toddler Liam Fee was found dead at his home near Glenrothes in Fife in March 2014, having suffered a ruptured heart as a result of severe blunt force trauma to his body.

His mother, Rachel Fee, 31, and her partner Nyomi Fee, 29, denied killing him but were convicted of murder following a seven-week trial at the High Court in Livingston.

The jury had heard that after the youngster’s leg was broken, the Fees went online and Googled ‘can wives be in prison together?’

The court heard that Liam later suffered heart injuries similar to those found on road crash victims after receiving blows to his chest and abdomen.

The pathologist who examined his body also found more than 30 external injuries on the toddler’s body and fractures to the boy’s upper arm and thigh.

And it that wasn’t enough, a second child was only saved in the nick of time, most likely because of the attention brought on by the first child’s death. But worse is the reaction the father had to the entire affair:

The women showed little emotion as the two verdicts were returned. Liam’s father Joseph Johnson was in tears as he left the court.

Anybody who argues that women should be given automatic custody of children should refer back to this case. The level of hatred and contempt these women had for the boys in their care is beyond horrific. The pictures of torture implements, cages, and chains tell the story well enough. These lesbian women hated the boys. They had no regard for them whatsoever. Whether or not this was driven by general man-hating misandry, or a more specific form of hatred, I can’t say — though misandry seems very likely.

Radical Lesbian Feminists often say that lesbians are a superior moral and intellectual breed of human — this ought to disabuse anyone of that foolish notion.

The ShirtStorm Social Experiment

Back in 2014, Matt Taylor was condemned by the media for wearing a shirt depicting scantily clad pinup girls with guns, cars, and helicopters during a press conference about his achievements surrounding the ESA’s Rosetta mission. The man landed a probe onto a comet, but had to deal with such accusations as “one small step for man, three steps back for women,” and other radical feminist nonsense.

Amusingly enough, the shirt was designed and made by a female friend of his by the name of Elly Prizeman, who now sells a line of similar clothing. Naturally, being the provocateur I am, I had to have my own. A few months ago, I ordered the same shirt from her site. For awhile it sat in my closet more or less unused, because I was waiting for just the right sort of moment to wear it.

Some time ago I decided to try a social experiment of sorts. I wore the shirt to the family-friendly Food & Wine Festival at Busch Gardens. I was hoping to get a rise out of people, to see offended scowls, muttering tones of disapproval, or even outright confrontation. I saw none of this. There wasn’t a single scowl, muttered remark, or disapproving glance. The shirt did, however, receive a number of compliments, an enthusiastic vote of approval from a few tattooed bikers, and joy from one of the park workers who actually recognized Elly Prizeman’s work for what it was and was thrilled to see the shirt that launched the shirtstorm in person.

So, while I was pleased to note that I could wear the shirt in public without a mob of angry feminists coming after me, I was disappointed that I was unable to offend anyone with the shirt. So I decided to try the same social experiment at a different venue: a local car show. Hundreds of muscle cars lined up in the hot Florida sun for this particular event, and it was likewise a family-friendly affair, so I brought along my 18-month old son and donned the shirt.

Everybody wanted to know where I bought the shirt, so that they could get one (Elly, I may have just sold a bunch of shirts for you). One of the female muscle car drivers was downcast. Not, I should note, because the shirt offended her, but because everyone was checking out the scantily clad women on the shirt instead of her (she was half-joking, mind you, but still). She asked if the shirt-maker also made dresses, to which I replied in the affirmative. I wouldn’t doubt if she patronized the seamstress in the future, also.

Again, not one unkind word or furtive glance. And, if anything, an even more enthusiastic reception for the shirt from both men and women. Forget my car and the work I’ve done to it — everybody wanted to know about the shirt.

The lesson from this little social experiment is that radical feminism, while it controls media, college campuses, and has a strong voice in government, has little impact on the sensibilities of the common man. Go to a theme park or a car show, and far from being offended by such things, they want to know where to buy one themselves.

Matt Taylor’s mistake wasn’t to wear the shirt, but rather to  do so around a hostile media establishment. I doubt his coworkers, male or female, cared one whit. In fact, if the reaction at both of the venues I mentioned was any indication, people probably admired him for wearing it. Once again, modern feminism is making mountains not just of molehills — but things that weren’t even molehills to begin with.

Innocent Until Accused

In perusing my usual pundits and bloggers today, it has occurred to me just how terrifying the presumption of guilt really is, and how effectively SJWs utilize it to their advantage.

Vox posted on the subject, as it relates to sexual assault charges against a scientist. The money quote:

The SJWs in science are setting up their favorite damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t scenario for male scientists. If you don’t bring young women along with you on your trips, you’re a damnable sexist. And if you do, you’re a sexual predator.

That’s the nature of the beast. The only way to win is not to play. SJWs count on this, because their goal is to drive white men out of positions of power whenever they get the opportunity to do so. Indeed, that is their stated mission, to dismantle what they call “white male privilege.” So your choices are to risk being tarred as a sexist, and losing your job, being accused of sexual assault, losing your job, and being thrown in prison, or leaving your field voluntarily (thus losing your job).

Danilo Libre, of course, provides the ultimate in SJW power fantasies. He just wants to fire them all:

sired

The point is to put you in between Scylla and Charybdis, where there are no options left for you to retain your livelihood. Once, you were innocent unless proven guilty. More common of late, since the Duke lacrosse case, you are guilty until proven innocent (and perhaps not even then).  Now you are guilty without even being accused. Your skin color and genitals are all the proof required to convict you.

Since the government continues to maintain the illusion of justice, they can only bend the rules in the courtroom, they cannot break them openly. But in the private sphere, they are free to apply whatever punishment they desire, with no restraint. College campuses around the country have already embraced this.

But now SJWs will come for you via other means. They will contact clients, email employers, harass family members and friends in order to apply a social punishment. Again, your skin color and genitals are all the proof required for tarring you as a racist-sexist-homophobe. Anything you say can be twisted so as to serve as “proof.” And in the event nothing can be found, it doesn’t matter anyway. Nobody needs anything as silly as proof.

Unlike in the Christian world, your Original Sin cannot be expunged or forgiven by a benevolent deity. You are guilty forever, and damned for eternity, for daring to have the temerity to be born.

So now in a scientific community, everybody is talking about the sexual assault charges, and not science. And whether or not the scientist is guilty will never truly be known, because the word “guilty” has just come to mean “defendant.” Because, didn’t you know, people only get defensive when they have something to hide.

Logical fallacies abound.

%d bloggers like this: