Friday, January 12, 2018

Feminist Misogyny Running Wild

Isn’t it strange that a movement that pretends to favor women’s rights can be so hostile and misogynistic toward any woman who appears not to be sufficiently attached to the feminist cause?

Many people have suggested that too many feminists do not like being women. And they project their self-loathing on to women who do not seem to toe the party line. They attack these women, brutally, ferociously and mindlessly.

Brendan O’Neill explains feminism’s core misogyny:

If you want to see misogyny – real, visceral, woman-shaming misogyny, the kind that views women as incapable of thinking for themselves, or as possessors of such foul thoughts that they shouldn’t think for themselves – look no further than #MeToo. Forget those tragic internet threads inhabited by men whose fury with women is one part concern about feminism and nine parts because they’ve never had sex; look, instead, at the thoroughly mainstream, celebrity-endorsed #MeToo movement whose fear of men is easily matched – outdone now, in fact – by its seething contempt for women who think for themselves.

He introduces the case of a writer named Katie Roiphe. She is a distinguished author, but recently was attacked and hunted down by a mob of feminists for… something that she was supposed to be writing, but that she did not write:

Consider what has happened to Katie Roiphe over the past 48 hours. Roiphe is one of America’s most interesting essayists and authors, having come to public prominence with her precocious 1994 book The Morning After: Sex, Fear and Feminism and going on to write everything from cultural criticism to a book on famous writers’ dying hours. She is currently the target of a most extraordinary Twitterstorm – a furious, censorious rage not over something she has said, but over something people think she is going today in a future issue of Harper’s. We’ve had precrime; this is precensorship, the violent-minded punishment of an author for what she might at some point utter….

The Twitterati heard whispers that Roiphe, in a March feature for Harper’s, will name the woman responsible for the Shitty Media Men list, a kind of informal blacklist of journalists and editors who allegedly behave badly towards women, and they went berserk. They said this would endanger the creator of the Shitty Media Men list.

It’s not what she said or wrote. It’s what they thought she was going to say or write. She was not going to do so, but that did not matter to the witch-hunters out there. (For the record, the brouhaha caused the author of the list to out herself in New York Magazine. She is Moira Donegan.)

O’Neill points out that Roiphe has been publicly maligned, defamed and attacked… in order to silence her. Feminists claim that they want women’s voices to be heard… as long as those voice toe the feminist party line:

The more pertinent thing is that Roiphe has been so publicly shamed, and ideally silenced, by women who claim they want women’s voices to be heard. But not Roiphe’s voice, it seems; not that bitch; shut her down. The outpouring of hatred for Roiphe has been astonishing, even by the low standards of Twitter debate and 21st-century virtual intolerance.  Guardian feminist Jessica Valenti swiftly did to Roiphe what she accuses men of doing to female journalists: tried to silence her. She described Roiphe’s rumoured piece as ‘profoundly shitty’ and ‘incredibly dangerous’ and tweeted out the Harper’s phone number so that people could harass the magazine into not publishing this witch’s work. Sady Doyle, a writer for Elle, branded Roiphe ‘pro-rape’, which really just means evil, witch-like. A writer for feminist mag Bustle wondered if ‘Katie Roiphe’ is a ‘pseudonym shared by a group of 65-year-old men’, because any woman who disagrees with us correct feminists must be a man really, right? Just as any black person who votes Republican or Conservative is a ‘coconut’.

The feminist insult machine was up and running:

Elsewhere Roiphe was branded an ‘Uncle Tom’ of gender, ‘trash’, a ‘bitch’ of course, a ‘demon’, and a ‘danger’ to good feminists who simply want to keep criminalising men without the benefit of such archaic things as due process or legal investigation. And all of this came from women, from women who pose as pro-women. Writer Nicole Cliff even encouraged writers to pull their pieces from Harper’s and offered to pay them to do so – an explicit attempt to heap editorial pressure on Harper’s to pull Roiphe’s piece / silence the evil witch. Five writers pulled pieces from Harper’s. Self-censorship to the end of censoring a woman who disagrees with mainstream feminists – what a degraded spectacle.

As it happened, O’Neill continues, Roiphe was not going to out the author of the list. Like the witch hunts of yore, it was all based on a rumor—one that allowed many feminists to expose the true face of their misogyny:

After all this, following all the kangaroo-trying of Roiphe, it was revealed that her piece won’t actually name the creator of the Shitty Media Men list! The rage against her, the entire witch-hunt, was built on a rumour, on fear, revealing the febrile, positively pre-modern nature of so many of today’s outbursts of fury against holders of outré opinions. Thank God it isn’t the 1500s – Roiphe would be dead already, before we discovered that she hadn’t actually uttered the sinful words the mob believed she had.

O’Neill declares that the #MeToo movement, like feminism itself, is not pro-women. It is a way for women who have enabled predatory males—women like Hillary Clinton and Oprah Winfrey—to absolve themselves of responsibility for the culture that they created:

We are now starting to see that #MeToo is not a pro-woman movement at all. It is a highly politicised campaign driven by, and benefiting, well-connected women in culture and the media, who must maintain their alleged victim status at all costs because it is leverage for them in terms both of their career and their moral authority in public discussion. This is why they respond with such unforgiving, misogynistic fury to any woman who questions them – because these women, these upstarts, these difficult creatures, threaten to unravel the victim politics that is so beneficial to a narrow but influential strata of society today. And so these women must be silenced, cast out, written off as ‘damaged’ and not worth listening to; let’s just be grateful that the asylums such free-thinking women would once have been dumped in no longer exist.


whitney said...

I read a local network in my neighborhood and occasionally there is a mob action on that. It's generally related to culling wild life or pet care. But if names were revealed these women would show up and kill the person. It's crazy. And it is always women that lead the mob on this online group.

whitney said...

My point being, maybe women are just prone to running in mobs and groupthink. I know several liberal women over 50 and all of them refer to their independence and independent thinking as being more like a man. Though they would all say that women are superior. It's very confusing for the person spouting that nonsense I would imagine

Anonymous said...

As I have stated many times before women are their own worst enemy. Feminism has become an increasing mental disorder prior to second wave feminism forward. Generally populated by women who hate being women.

Sam L. said...

Why are feminists so misogynistic? I already know why they can't stand dissent, or deviationism from the party line.

Ares Olympus said...

Surely any partially successful mass movement risks becoming an unthinking mob mentality, and after a thrilling first take down, everyone affected is anxious for the next perpetrator to keep the righteous dopamine flowing. And once you know what you're looking for, you'll expand your filters so facts are rewritten to fit the pattern, and every case carries the rage of all the other cases, or imagined cases. No case is judged in isolation, but as a part of a pattern that is now exposed, and can be purged if we just stay focused and determined.

This looks like Whitney' opinion as well. Groupthink is good word.

I've always thought every group must be prepared to moderate its own extreme members, but of course they don't look like excesses to the true believers, and you'll look like a traitor for even questioning their facts. Like "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Everything has to be black and white, or doubt might seep through and action will be spoiled.