Orwell’s Nightmare: Coming to Fruition?


Just to show the Orwellian state of things, and how much more like that epic 1984 Feminists are attempting to make western society: I will be responding to an article from mademan.com. Specifically “How to Compliment Women Without Being a Skeeze or Catcaller“.

For this response I will be using stopstreetharassment.org and ihollaback.org, the two largest groups working to end “street harassment”. I will analyze this article compared to the statements found on “ihollaback.org” and “stopstreetharassment.org” and see if this articles’ supposed examples are permitted.

I will do this in order to PROVE that feminist propaganda organizations actually set rules which make any and all communication from males to females illegal. They -literally- want to go BEYOND Orwell’s nightmare and make it so that men only speak when spoken to. No exaggeration – I’m being quite sincere and making an accurate statement. As you shall see.

“How to Compliment Women Without Being a Skeeze or Catcaller”

“There is, however, a way to speak to a woman of any age and still be a gentleman. This is important to teach and be taught because guys who do not have any idea how to talk to women are the idiots in the video.  Here is the method:

~~ #1 “Body language.  I mean yours. A woman’s first thought when approached by a guy is, “What does he want, and when is he going to go away?”  Your first instinct is going to be to approach with both shoulders and chest facing her. Your first instinct is wrong. Point your body (especially your hips) in another direction. Look over your shoulder, even.”

Approach a woman by pretending you’re not approaching her…. *rubs head* I can see this is going to be very agitating. This is literally submissive behavior, and it’s impolite. If you approach while pretending you’re not – than when you do finally say something to her, within physical range: she’s likely to be startled. You have literally ambushed her… Yeah – that’s going to go over well. What could *possibly* go wrong?

Furthermore, according to stopstreetharassment.org’s “what is street harassment” section:

“Street harassment is any action or comment between strangers in public places that is disrespectful, unwelcome, threatening and/or harassing and is motivated by gender or sexual orientation or gender expression”

So simply stated, it does not matter -how- you make your approach: approaching the woman is an action which may in fact be unwelcome and will still therefore be “street harassment” no matter what the METHOD of approach is. Therefore rule #1 is incorrect. This is Harassment. You may not approach a woman you do not know: only the woman may approach you. You are a man: speak when spoken to – or not at all.

~~ #2 “The compliment. It should never be remotely sexual. Compliment a woman the way you would compliment a woman of any age. Are you going to go up to somebody’s grandmother and tell her you like how her dress fits?  No. “That’s a great color,” however, works. If you find the need to look both ways in case someone overhears you: shut your mouth.”

Actually going by ihollaback.org “What is Street Harassment?” , and I quote:

“Street harassment can be sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, sizeist and/or classist.  It is an expression of the interlocking and overlapping oppressions we face and it functions as a means to silence our voices and “keep us in our place.” At Hollaback!, we believe that what specifically counts as street harassment is determined by those who experience it.”

If the woman in question determines your comment “That’s an great color” to be a sexist show of approval of her choice of attire – than this is still street harassment. You are a man: speak when spoken to – or not at all.

Also, in the stopstreetharassment.org’s “what is street harassment” section:

“Types: It ranges from leers, whistles, honks, kissing noises, gender-policing, and non-sexually explicit evaluative comments, to more insulting and threatening behavior like vulgar gestures, sexually charged comments, flashing, and stalking, to illegal actions like public masturbation, sexual touching, assault, and murder.”

“that’s a great color” qualifies as a non-sexually explicit evaluative comment, and is therefore street harassment. You are a man: speak when spoken to – or not at all.

~~ #3 “The exit. Now be off with you. If you stand around looking like a bellboy waiting for a tip, you will undo everything you just did.”

If you leave as quickly as possible – than there is no possibility for interaction: what exactly was the POINT of making contact to begin with? And oh by the way…. ihollaback.org “What is Street Harassment?” ,

“Street harassment is a form of sexual harassment that takes place in public spaces. At its core is a power dynamic that constantly reminds historically subordinated groups (women and LGBTQ folks, for example) of their vulnerability to assault in public spaces.”

You approached the woman by pretending you were not, ambushed her with a comment and left as quickly as possible. A woman prone to misandry or androphobia (fear of men) is likely to take this as having been an intentional show of dominance and therefore a sexist verbal drive by. This is wrong. You are a man: speak when spoken to – or not at all.

Conclusion – the featured article is wrong, according to both of the major street harassment organizations. ihollaback.org and stopstreetharassment.org. Not only that: but because they’ve set the definition of “street harassment” so loose, even mademan.com INTENTIONALLY ATTEMPTING to determine an acceptable way for a man to approach a woman, in an open or public setting has FAILED. Simply stated: according to Feminists – there IS NO ACCEPTABLE WAY for a man to approach a woman in a public space to say –anything-, at all.

The trick, is that no one looks at the definitions they set: because everyone focuses on the EXAMPLES PROVIDED such as a guy yelling at a woman “nice ass.” It is this bait and switch maneuver which will allow them, if not resisted, to enact laws which make it illegal, or legally punishable for a man to speak to a woman in a public place. No matter how polite or well intentioned. You are a man: speak when spoken to – or not at all.

Point of interest, youtube feminist Laci Green, ALSO attempted to make a small cartoon providing instruction to men on what is an acceptable way to approach a woman, verses what is harassment. What she does not know: is that HER example is ALSO street harassment, according to BOTH ihollaback.org and stopstreetharassment.org.

Quoting stopstreetharassment.org’s “what is street harassment” section:

“Types: It ranges from leers, whistles, honks, kissing noises, gender-policing, and non-sexually explicit evaluative comments”

Laci Green’s example would be a “non-sexually explicit evaluative comment.”

Well that’s one down, lets check the other! ihollaback.org “What is Street Harassment?” , specifically states:

“Street harassment is a form of sexual harassment that takes place in public spaces. At its core is a power dynamic that constantly reminds historically subordinated groups (women and LGBTQ folks, for example) of their vulnerability to assault in public spaces. Further, it reinforces the ubiquitous sexual objectification of these groups in everyday life.”

If the woman in question were in fact to interpret your comment “you look nice today” as sexual objectification because you commented on her appearance, it would still be street harassment. Plus, don’t forget, ihollaback.org DOES include the following statement at the end of “what is street harassment“, quote “At Hollaback!, we believe that what specifically counts as street harassment is determined by those who experience it.”

So, Ms. Green. “Know the Difference”, well apparently, Laci – you don’t know the difference. Simply stated, according to the two largest authorities on street harassment, ihollaback.org and stopstreetharassment.org, your “friendly reminder” is STILL “street harassment.” So you see, even when ANOTHER FEMINIST specifically attempts to discern an appropriate way for a man to approach a woman: it is still street harassment.

Speaking of which: the devil – is always – in the details.

Quoting from the stopstreetharassment.org “what is street harassment” section

“Types: It ranges from leers, whistles, honks, kissing noises, gender-policing, and non-sexually explicit evaluative comments, to more insulting and threatening behavior like vulgar gestures, sexually charged comments, flashing, and stalking, to illegal actions like public masturbation, sexual touching, assault, and murder.”

Pay close attention: Leers and non-sexually explicit evaluative comments. If you LOOK at a woman, and she doesn’t like it or doesn’t like you – it’s magically street harassment. Men apparently should avoid making visual contact with women in case their “male gaze” or what feminists have termed “stare rape” (yes, it’s a thing, an imaginary thing, but a thing).

I remind you ihollaback.org stated

“At Hollaback!, we believe that what specifically counts as street harassment is determined by those who experience it”

Which again, means if you look at a woman and she doesn’t want you to or doesn’t like you – you’re guilty of street harassment. Men should look down at the ground at all times to avoid offending a woman in public. You are a man: look away – and know your place.

Also take note: “non-sexually explicit evaluative comments“, … “Nice weather we’re having” is a “non-sexually explicit evaluative comment”. They have literally added so many non-harassment acts and actions to the list of what should be considered “street harassment” as to eliminate the possibility of a man being able to say ANYTHING to a woman, without it being harassment. You are a man: speak when spoken to – or not at all.

These two feminist organizations are quite literally trying to, in their definitions and what they seek to enact: create a world where men may not look or women or speak to women in a public place. Men are to look away and say nothing unless directly addressed by a woman. I said it previously: I will say it again – they are LITERALLY attempting to create a society which ventures BEYOND Orwell’s nightmare. This extends PAST the literary fascism of the novel 1984. This extends PAST the Allegory of “Animal farm.”

If these two massive feminist groups are able to push legislation using their bait and switch tactics… Exclaiming “hey nice ass” but defining “non-sexually explicit evaluative comments” and “leers” as street harassment…. They will make it legally punishable for a man to look at a woman, or say –anything– to her.

After that: I would ask, how long before men are no longer permitted to walk on the sidewalk? Instead, men would have to walk through the gutter on the side of the street? How long, I would ask – before men are forced to wear symbols…. on armbands… in public? I assure you, I am not being facetious… I am posing you the question. If they can make it illegal for a man to look at a woman in public or even speak to her without her addressing the man first – where does it go from there?

Observing Libertarian
Latest posts by Observing Libertarian (see all)
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Observing Libertarian

I am a Humanist small L libertarian Minarchist. In that order - As a result of this philosophy: I cannot in good conscience condone the actions of any group, movement or organization which seeks to oppress another individuals human rights. By education I have an Associates of Occupational Studies in Gunsmithing, and am qualified to testify in Open Court on the State's behalf as a Firearms expert. I am also an NRA Certified Firearm Instructor. I am currently in the Process of writing two books on Philosophy, and have only recently joined the MHRM.

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="121132 https://www.honeybadgerbrigade.com/?p=121132">19 comments</span>

  • “While women also may harass men in public, gender inequality means that the power dynamics at play, frequency of the harassment, the underlying threat of rape, and the impact on the harassed person’s life is rarely comparable.”

    Somehow this annoys me the most – double standard based on nothing.

  • If you want to imagine the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever, and the face being stepped on apologizing to the boot for what it’s going through.

  • Feminist Hypocrisy, a topic so vast and terrifying in its scope, that I’m going to have to pivot a bit and look at it from another angle.

    You see, I could spend the entirety of this video listing bullet point after bullet point of specific examples of how modern Third Wave Feminism, informed by the triple threat of Postmodern bullshit, Identity Politics bafflegab and selective Fashion Victim rationalizations is all about claiming to do one thing and consistently doing another.

    In fact, why don’t I list a few of my favorites to start things off.

    First, the idea that Feminism represents a movement of equality for women that also, in some magical betterment through vilification, benefits men. Which is like saying the benefits of Kristallnacht was that Jews no longer had to do windows.

    The name itself. If one is for equity and egalitarianism, then why the name “Feminism”? Odd that a movement that seeks to render everything gender neutral, when and if convenient and where men are involved, ddoesn’textend the same neutering to its own name. Also, although they may fight to change the term “fireman” to “fire fighter”, the term “gunman” is pretty safe from revision.

    Although Feminists strive for parity in sought after careers and in communities that they did not build or sacrifice for, they are notoriously uninterested in achieving parity in dirty, dangerous occupations, general shit-work or, for example, in making women’s federal student loans dependent on signing up for Selective Service cannon fodder at the age of 18 just like everyone with a penis had to do.

    It’s an odd and completely self-serving parity whereby if Feminists are unrepresented in communities that they had no hand in creating, parity must be established. What others build must be handed over to Feminists and Social Justice Warriors once they stick their foot in the door. And that parity comes at no price because Feminists feel no obligation, on arrival, to do any real work except for taking a managerial position, telling everyone else what to do, and deriding those who do real work as shitlords. The Feminist ideal seems to be that women just are, and are valued for converting oxygen into carbon dioxide and generally taking up space. It’s not like they actually have to do anything. Except call you a misogynist should you get the least bit uppity.

    It’s not for nothing that the much cited “game developer” Zoe Quinn of ‪#‎gamergate‬ fame didn’t develop anything like what is usually recognized as a video game requiring talent, technical skill and the outlay of time and effort and instead takes her place as a “developer” based on a boring, puerile text-based “choose your own adventure” boilerplate. That, and having, well-traveled as it may be, a vagina.

    Of course, parity need not be maintained in areas where women are over-represented and increasing unequal representation of women in college enrollment, for instance, doesn’t mean that anything should be done to help men, rather, that inequity is equality and more should be done for women.

    To Feminists, the sexuality of women is to be celebrated, regardless of how tawdry and careless it may be, ever on the lookout for the merest hint of “slut shaming” while engaging in the dissection and micromanaging of every sexual thought, word or deed a man might potentially have.

    Feminists decry “fat shaming” and feel it is their right to determine what men, in general, may or may not find attractive. Men who do not find overweight women attractive are denied the excluded middle of actually preferring fit and healthy women and it’s claimed they want boyish, anorexic girls. At the same time, men who do find overweight women attractive are derided as fetishistic “chubby chasers” seeking women with low self-esteem despite previous bullshit claims that Healthy at Any Size women love themselves.

    And on and on it goes. Untangling the constant “giving it with one hand and taking it away with another” that Feminists engage in can be a full time job. As is having to issue the walking-on-eggshells disclaimers at every step.

    You know, like that by criticizing Feminism, which is a political and social ideology, not a gender, one is not criticizing women as a whole. Mostly that confusion is cultivated by Feminists every chance they get in the same way that some right-wing Fox News nutjobs in the United States will answer every critique of their self-serving programs with the question “Why do you hate freedom?”.

    This “woman as victim” feminism promotes an idea of women as people forever acted upon, not acting on things and so, to be against this view of women is not to be anti-woman, but rather, promoting the idea of women as fully formed adult human beings able to take the knocks, setbacks, and yes, injustices that are part of the human experience.

    Feminism – this view promoting the outrage and foot stamping of the perpetually dissatisfied woman-child– benefits only a small subset of mostly white, middle-class educated, white collar women and is otherwise perfectly happy to have “This is What a Feminist Looks Like” T-shirts made by underpaid and exploited women in the Third World. A prominent feminist women can advocate for women in the workforce, while mistreating her own help and paying them pennies.

    Feminism is, in the narrowest political sense, simply pork. Which doesn’t make it unique, it just makes it one more obsessive special interest group looking for the best way to AstroTurf its demands.

    This hypocrisy is bad enough when it’s limited to some cranks on the internet but the real potential for harm comes when the hypocrisy is made manifest and legislated. Take, for example, the “Violence Against Women Act” which codifies the idea that, in domestic violence, men are the perpetrators and women are the victims when it’s been known since the 1970s, based on numerous studies, that there is, in fact, parity in domestic violence. Women are just as much perpetrators of domestic violence as men, initiate it more often, and not in self-defense and where a weapon is used it is more often women wielding it.

    From almost the moment that Feminists claimed the existence of a “wage gap” it’s been proven time and again that once you allow from the different choices men and woman make, including investment of time and effort, no such wage gap actually exists. That Feminists persist in repeating a canard that has been rigorously disproven shows that they are all for the equality of women getting paid more for doing less on the job. And the proposed “equal pay” acts are attempts to ensure, despite all the variables, that forced outcome.

    Or demanding the full protection for women under the law, and even adding to the protection with “rape shield laws” while at the same time supporting the complete evisceration of due process rights for college men accused of rape until the mere accusation is enough. The rights delineated in the American Bill of Rights are considered to be innate and inalienable and the Bill of Rights exists not to bestow them but simply to prohibit government from infringing on them. And so there is not greater hypocrisy than doing an end-run in academia and treating those innate and inalienable due process rights as inconvenient and optional.

    Blah-blah-fucking-blah. I can literally go on doing this forever.

    The question is not where Feminist and Feminism are exercises in hypocrisy, but the why and how of the hypocrisy. That is, like being evil, no one consciously thinks of themselves as a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is made possible by a world view coupled with some particular mental gymnastics.

    Let me explain by means of what might seem to be a digression.

    Feminism, as it is practiced now, coming out of academia and online discourse, all too used to browbeating people into compliance, is a totalizing, dogmatic system.

    Like Marxism, Freudianism and Randian Objectivism, feminism is not only an ideology, but represents an all encompassing way of looking at the world that is insular and dogmatic as any religious doctrine. The simplest way to think of a totalizing system is to think of it as a construct that not only serves to explain everything, and there is literally nothing that does not come under the rubric of its ready-made explanation but, more importantly it comes equipped with a series of ad hoc rationalizations. These rationalizations guarantee that it explains everything and where it seemingly doesn’t, well, that’s just more evidence that it explains everything.

    The most overt example of this kind of thinking comes from Freudian Psychoanalysis where it relates to the psycho-sexual development of children, Freud, being a deranged, coke-fueled nutjob, figured that young boys are sexually attracted to their mothers, which causes much conflict and confusion. Freud referred to this as the Oedipal Complex. Carl Jung named the same phenomena occurring between young girls and their fathers The Elektra complex, but that was mainly to piss Freud off.

    Now, fun fact about the Oepidal Complex, at least the way Freud constructed it: There’s no escape. You see, if a guy marries someone who looks like or in some other way has characteristics of his mother, that’s a clear manifestation of unresolved Oedipal Complex. Of course, if the same guy marries someone who in no way resembles his mother, that’s “reaction formation” and like a two headed coin with Freud’s cigar fellating face on both sides, that’s still a manifestation of the Oedipal Complex. That’s also what’s called an ad hoc rationalization.

    And that’s the neat thing about totalizing systems with their ad hoc rationalization neatly lined up in case of emergency: They explain so much everything that in practice, they explain absolutely nothing. And that phenomena was what Carl Popper called “nonfalsifiability”, which is in no way a compliment or something that anything but sheer bullshit should aspire to.

    Thing about totalizing systems is they are kind of like a virus. They don’t care about killing the host, or generally making no sense whatsoever, provided they propagate themselves. The purpose of ad hoc rationalizations is not to really explain anything about the world, but to protect the a priori assumptions of the totalizing system and save it from refutation. The conclusions of these systems are not dependent on the premises, in fact premises can come and go, or be flipped on their heads, but the conclusion, at all costs, must be maintained.

    Think of how utterly immune from refutation concepts such as the wage gap, or rape culture, or that disagreement constitutes harassment are to those who have chugged the victim narrative Kool-Aid. Think how easily Feminist dodge and weave with “Not All Feminists Are Like That” Not only can’t you refute any claim of feminism — as far as the Feminist is concerned — but when push comes to shove, they will deny that they make those claims at all, or rather, those claims are made by some other feminists, which is like, to paraphrase Karen Staughan, foil fencing flatulence.

    Then, there’s the big one. The thing that explains everything: The Patriarchy. Otherwise known as The Man, the All Male Hegemony of Control and Oppression, the birthright to awesome cosmic power that Feminists attribute to all men. Which isn’t at all inexplicable considering the Feminist selectivity in that if you are not a man with power, that is, one they can get something out of, you are practically invisible. The one thing Feminists really hate to talk about, even think about, is class. Mostly because the middle and lower portions of it are just filled with men for whom they have no use.

    The Patriarchy is the big guns of a non-falsifiable, observation-laden construct preserved by ad hoc rationalizations. Something hurts Feminists? That’s the Patriarchy. Feminists hurt other women? That’s the Patriarchy too. Men get hurt by Feminism? That’s also the Patriarchy. There is, quite literally, nothing The Patriarchy can’t do. Or, at least, get blamed for.

    The Patriarchy is the high-octane fuel for the engine of the perpetual victim narrative.

    Now, the conclusion of Feminism of the Third Wave, fashionable kind is the preservation of a victim narrative. The victim narrative serves several purposes, first, it explains away the personal failures of the individual Feminist by externalizing them, it allows an emotional appeal to quash the sort of criticism that would be leveled were not the individual feminist a tender and bruised raw nerve libel to fly off the handle and go totally stabby at the first sign of resistance,

    Basically, it requires you to treat the Feminist as a strong and resilient intellectual Amazon warrior princess while, in practice, obligating you to coddle them like a teary-eyed six year old.

    Take, for an example of Feminists utter tone deafness when it comes to class. , the “Ten Hours of Walking” video, just one of several videos trying to create outrage for fun and profit by having a woman videotaped walking the streets for hours, generally in lower socio-economic class black and latino neighborhoods in order to document “street harassment”. After hours of trolling for harassment, what is actually demonstrated is not “harassment”, that is violent or threatening behavior, but ethnic guys having the audacity to say hello or otherwise seek acknowledgement from the young woman baiting them. The videos are supposed to prove something about how men and woman interact in public, but what it proves is that some women will completely overstate the case for harassment by treating any interaction as harassment. What’s more, although the videos claim just as much harassment comes from white men, the target audience for shaming, they could just as easily be used by racists to make the case of the perils faced by pretty white women at the hands of lustful black men and other minorities. However, unlike the “strange fruit” of days gone by, the goal of these sort of damsels in distress masquerading as strong women who can hold their own, is more ambitious. Rather than calling for the lynching of black men, men in general will do just fine.

    The real hypocrisy of these sorts of efforts is that they pretend to be about progress, about moving forward and redefining gender norms, while actually digging deep to mine the chivalrous psychology of a selective traditionalism and, perhaps, traditional racism.That is, traditionalism that women benefit from must be preserved, even if rebranded as something else, and that by not only demanding males behave in traditional ways, but also by plastering that over with additional and often contradictory demands. That men perform traditional roles as buffers and protectors – because the call is for men to take on men over supposed “street harassment” – while not expecting women to fulfill traditional roles, least of all respecting men for on the one hand saving the damsel in distress, while simultaneously extolling her virtues as a strong, independent woman capable of taking care of themselves.

    And that bit of hypocrisy bears repeating. Modern Third Wave Feminism is not a progressive movement, rather it is a selective rebranding of traditionalism for women, with no reciprocal rethinking of those traditional male roles that are of benefit to them.

    Now, let’s talk about how this all actually plays out.

    I’ve read somewhere that Tibetan Buddhists, and this may be coming from the Dalai Lama rather than a doctrine of Buddhism per se, that should Buddhist claims conflict with empirical fact, then the claims would be tossed out.

    Now, I don’t know whether or not that is true. At least, I haven’t seen a single instance of that being put into practice and, given the nature of dogmas, you can always count on just enough revisionist wiggle room that the jettisoning of established dogma wouldn’t actually happen.

    This is not unique to Buddhism either. I’ve heard the same claims made about Judaism and even Christians try to get in on the act that their dogma is taking part in the free flow of discourse and, therefore, open to refutation. The Catholic Church attempts to do this by claiming there’s no contradiction between Evolution and the Truth in the Bible more by opting out, claiming different magesteria rather than humbling themselves before fact.

    Now, why would otherwise dogmatic and insular religious doctrines make these sorts of claims, especially if, like me, you are cynical enough to think when such a thing was about to happen, they would find a way to weasel out of making good on the claim?

    I mean, very best thing that doomsday cults do isn’t calculating the end of the world. It’s recalculating the end of the world.

    You see, everyone wants to act like they are taking part in discourse, that they are fair salesmen in the marketplace of ideas. You want to make yourself out to be reasonable rather than, revealing that you are a bunch of close-minded, insular lunatics whose only interest in getting into the market of ideas is so you can shout people down and unload a canned speech on them.

    The problem is, that many of the sellers in the market place of ideas are exactly that. Snake oil merchants who have lied their way in to the market itself under false pretenses.

    And that is the greatest, most glaring hypocrisy of modern Feminism, and the same tendencies is on steroids for the online version: Feminists enter into spaces, intrude on them, claiming that they are there to right injustice, or raise consciousness. They are just there to talk. And what follows are blocking and shaming tactics, having people’s social media accounts suspended, people fired from their jobs, if possible, claims of abuse and harassment all direct towards one aim and only one aim: To have a monologue, to engage in the marketplace of ideas by shutting everyone else up, through harassment and proxy violence if necessary so they can run a re-education camp for a captive audience.

    That, to me, is the greatest hypocrisy of modern Feminism: It enters into spaces paying lip service to the idea of having a discussion, of having a dialogue, or being able to be persuaded by facts and common sense when, in fact, it’s just another totalizing system, another big bag of predetermined ideological nonsense, as much as any other crackpot theory or religious dogma, that can only operate in the a complete vacuum of dissenting voices and is more than willing to suck the air out of any room to accomplish this.

    And really, when it comes to that, it’s all just marketing. I wouldn’t claim that we live in an age or a culture where people are no longer coerced by violence. However, I would say that when violence is used, it can’t be used in broad daylight. Which explains why we live in a surveillance state where there are cameras literally everywhere, but cops will still crack your head for filming them.

    Because of this, we live in an age and culture of lies and fallacy and emotional appeal where the art of massive bullshit was perfected over a century of selling people shit they don’t need through marketing. And it’s no accident that Edward Bernays, the patron saint of 20th century public relations and propaganda used his Uncle Sigmund’s theories of Psychoanalysis to craft more and more refined ways to lie to people in large groups. The ad hoc hypocrisy of totalizing systems and marketing go hand in hand to the extant that, quite literally, the truth is regarded as whatever you can make people believe.

    Modern Feminism, which most of the time acts as a series of witch hunts and moral panics, hypocritically acts as if it is a fair seller in the marketplace of ideas when, in fact, it is simply marketing. Not surprisingly, some of the more successful online feminists have degrees in marketing, communication, and are selling the product of endless outrage that can only be cured by giving them your dollars. You can refute their claims on a Monday and they will be back repeating them by Wednesday. That’s because their claims, the victim narrative, isn’t something open for debate or beta testing. It’s a product that they simply intend to sell as is.

    And that is the most cynical, the most hypocritical thing of all.

  • yes its confusing ………..a compliment is a hideous thing now……..gay guy does the same thing to those women and she thx him ..wow

    • What’s funny is, if I responded to a gay guy hitting on me the same way feminist women respond to men who hit on them, I’d be called homophobic.

      • I think there is a lot in common between homophobia and feminist androphobia.

        Some people you’re not attracted to may be attracted to you. Get over it.

  • A bit of criticism, I think you make good points, but you do use the slippery slope fallacy at the end. Your comparison of various anti-harassment sites/articles/cartoons is sound, but you undo a bit of your credibility by using such a tired fallacy.

    However, I did enjoy this article, and it made me think.

    • I did sort of have the same issue myself, only because it sounds a little hysterical to go too far with the slippery slope angle. It may well be true, but it will alienate some readers. I’m guilty of the slippery slope fallacy myself but I try not to indulge in it. In fact if I was to go for the Orwellian futures angle I’d say all the components necessary to lead to Big Brother’s concept of sex crime already exist from one line of feminist thought or another – they just need to be brought together.

      For example:
      Catherine MacKinnon and Susan Estrich not only believe that mens rea needn’t be a component in definitions of rape, but they also believe that even a woman’s “yes” doesn’t count as consent because men are so powerful and blah.

      Mary Koss believes that the 75% of women in her survey that she deemed to be rape victims but who didn’t believe they’d been raped were mistaken.

      Amanda Marcotte believes it is reasonable to incarcerate a woman to make sure she prosecutes her rapist.

      There is an attempt to make reporting a crime mandatory within the British government right now, and whilst in it’s current form that’s only in incidents of child abuse (where it is very easily argued that it should be) once that change in law has been made it would be very easily argued that that should be extended to rape since most offenders reoffend et cetera.

      Now add all that up and throw in the feminist expanded definitions of rape which includes such things as “verbal coercion”, “emotional blackmail”, “misrepresentation” (Israel and India already have these recognised by law) and you could arise at a situation where two people have what they both believe is consensual sex, the state declares it was rape, she’s imprisoned for not reporting it and to make sure she prosecutes, he’s imprisoned because he did it, and you basically arrive at Orwellian sex crime and it has crossed my mind – it is the epitome of paranoid slippery slope fallacy, and yet it’s undeniable that all the pieces of the jigsaw exist they just need to come together.

      There was even one case, I can’t find it now but I think it was on the Huff Po, where the mother of a woman (grown woman) who suffered from bipolar disorder, accused the man her daughter had been having a BDSM relationship with, of raping her daughter because her daughter was not of sound enough mind to give consent. Her daughter had committed suicide for reasons disconnected from the relationship, but possibly very connected to her bipolar disorder. Now thankfully that case was thrown out of court, but the idea of “not being of sound enough mind to give consent” being used as a category of rape is a frightening prospect. Especially if it’s for an “unsoundness of mind” as commonplace as bipolar disorder. I think this is the second time, at least, that someone has tried to use the “not being of sound enough mind to consent” argument, with the other one being a woman who suffered from multiple personality disorder (she says. Dubious diagnosis) and whilst the personality that she was during the incident may have consented, her host personality didn’t. Again that one was thrown out.

      So you’d say “yeah but the court threw it out (both times); what are you worried about?!” and I’d say “yeah, sorry, silly. Panicking unduly.” except I remember the rape case at Kings College London in 1993 (92? Something like that) where the guy was going to be expelled from the college because the girl he’d slept with was “too drunk to consent” when in fact he’d been just as drunk as she was so you could equally argue that she raped him, and then to prove his innocence he insisted the case was taken to court. Of course the court ruled against the accusation, and sanity prevailed, which is very reassuring. And then in 2007 they brought in a law that made “too drunk to consent” a real category. So what’s thrown out of court today because it’s unreasonable, could be accepted without question in fifteen years time.

      The other side – the optimistic view – if we think of culture as an organism, when there is a set of ideas that threaten to make society very sick, contrary ideas form that act as antibodies to restore balance, and we are that, and the sicker society gets the more attractive the contrary ideas become. Gradually more and more people say “but wait a minute, that’s crazy!” Society does self regulate in time – it just takes a while so throughout history we’re always veering from one potential disaster to another. The question is how close do we come to the dystopian vision before that change takes place? The thing about the boiled frogs metaphor is it’s not actually true about boiled frogs – in reality frogs do jump out of the water before they all die – it’s a myth; and if the metaphor is based on a myth, perhaps the phenomenon that it’s used to describe might be a myth too.

  • In order for a crime to be an actual crime, it can’t be subjective and there must be actual, consistent damages no matter who is perpetrating the crime. You cannot say, “Well, if he kills me it’s murder, but if HE kills me it’s not, because I wouldn’t mind HIM killing me.” Just as, if it’s only fun, flirty behavior if Hugh Jackman does or says it, then it’s still just fun, flirty behavior if Gilbert Gottfried does or says the exact same thing. Life is messy, it’s something we all have to deal with if we want to live around other people and it is ridiculous to expect every other person to adjust their behavior to exactly what you want instead you having to adjust to the fact that you might occasionally be offended by someone. To cast a “sexual harassment” net so wide that a look or a comment is given the same weight as actual threats, either verbal or physical, is a great disservice to attempts to address the actual problem at hand.

By Observing Libertarian

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather