Besides the fact that it's fragile as fuck.
It's no surprise that a movement like #MeToo has garnered its share of detractors. And those detractors all seem to have one thing in common: they really really want men to be able to rape who they please.
The single biggest thread I've seen running through the criticisms of #MeToo is that it's punishing men for their sexuality, and punishing men for having a sex drive. And this honestly reveals something utterly horrifying about men and how they think; "rapist" is their sexuality. At least according to 1) themselves and 2) women they've brainwashed with the fear of getting raped.
Because that is the only thing that explains the conflation of punishing people who rape and abuse others with punishing men "for being men." The only way that makes any sense at all is if you think men raping people is the natural order of things. And if you think that, you only reinforce why #MeToo is both necessary and long overdue.
But that's always been the story of men. It's how men first seized the power they have. They took it out of others' hands through sexual violence, and have kept it out of others' hands by shifting the responsibility for preventing rape onto their victims. They hold onto power by being simultaneously brutal and infantile. Adult enough to rape, immature enough to not be responsible when they do it.
If you think this is nuts? Congratulations, you're a decent human being.
The backlash to #MeToo is rooted in exactly one thing, and that thing is the fear of being outed as someone who has committed sexual assault or abuse (or has shielded someone who has). And not even the fear of having done it, and thus irreparably harmed another person, but the fear of getting caught and exposed. The fear of consequences.
Because that is the only thing that men in power have ever been afraid of. Consequences.
People who aren't drunk on power, when confronted with the fact they might have done a terrible thing, examine and self-reflect and soul-search and try to ensure they don't do the horrible thing again. Because they actually fear causing pain to others. People who wish to keep a grasp on their power instead lash out and try to discredit the accusations. Because they don't give a shit about hurting others. They just want to minimize potential consequences by making the victims harder to believe.
All of the articles and tweets and Facebook posts trying to discredit #MeToo? That is their goal. To avoid retribution for what they know they've done, or what they know they don't have a problem with. They want to flip the conversation to scare victims back into silence, so that they don't have to alter their behavior and give up the power they've enjoyed.
Because that's what consequences do. They erode power. And to people who have been steeped in their own power for their whole lives, losing any measure of it frightens them most of all.
This is why you see lament after increasingly ridiculous lament about consent "destroying spontaneity" or "ruining the mood." Because it's not even the person that these men are attracted to. It's the forceful seizure and exertion of power.
Sex is a sport to them. And when the other team lets you win, the game isn't fun anymore. They get aroused by the challenge of beating their opponent into submission. #MeToo is the opponent that will not submit, and who they forgot is at perfect groin-kneeing height.
Winter is coming. And they're scared to fucking death of it.
Statcounter
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
Thursday, January 25, 2018
Your Minority Status Is Not a Get-Out-of-Being-a-Nazi-Free Card
Chelsea Manning is nobody's ally.
She is a trans woman, she's running for Senate as a Democrat, but that does not automatically make her part of the Resistance. She was, in fact, never on our side. And by "our" I mean "the United States, period." Not only is she a convicted traitor, but the entity she fed our cables to, WikiLeaks, is the very same one that later ratfucked the 2016 election.
Chelsea Manning should, by rights, be rotting in Leavenworth until middle age, but Obama is a better man than literally everyone and gave her an early release. Her idea of repayment? Running against a perfectly fine Democratic Senator and cozying up to white supremacists.
While most have rightly dragged her for it, there is an utterly infuriating trend among her supporters to rationalize her behavior in a variety of ways. From actually buying her ridiculous "gathering intel" excuse to making her out to be a victim of alt-right grooming tactics. It's both alarming and sad that the far-left is so enamored with her status as a trans woman that they refuse to call her out for being in league with neo-Nazis.
The two are not mutually exclusive. It's possible to be both part of a marginalized group and a horrible fucking person.
It certainly worked for Ernst Röhm, who managed to be both gay and Hitler's BFF and seemed particularly okay with slaughtering 10,000 gay men in the death camps alongside the Jews and Romani. In fact? It's shockingly common for gay white men to take up the cause of fascism and genocide.
It's the most basic response to a loss of power; the drive to reclaim it in other ways. Often horrible ones. It's like when the kid who gets slapped around by his dad for being "homo" finds out it feels really good to slap around the brown kids at school for being brown. And when you're denied power in every other way, discovering a source of it you can easily exploit is a hell of a drug.
So it's not a surprise at all that Chelsea Manning, who would have grown up steeped in white male privilege before figuring out she was trans, and who ultimately lost that privilege when she decided to betray both her country and her uniform, would seek to regain power any way she could. Being white is all she's really got, so who better to join forces with than Prosobiec and Cernovich?
The LGBT community doesn't have to protect her, nor should it. She has new friends now. And they hate all of you.
The Germans have a word for people like Chelsea. Who joined the Nazi Party not necessarily because they hated Jews, but because they desperately wanted to feel like they had control of something in their lives for once. That word is...
...Nazis.
She is a trans woman, she's running for Senate as a Democrat, but that does not automatically make her part of the Resistance. She was, in fact, never on our side. And by "our" I mean "the United States, period." Not only is she a convicted traitor, but the entity she fed our cables to, WikiLeaks, is the very same one that later ratfucked the 2016 election.
Chelsea Manning should, by rights, be rotting in Leavenworth until middle age, but Obama is a better man than literally everyone and gave her an early release. Her idea of repayment? Running against a perfectly fine Democratic Senator and cozying up to white supremacists.
While most have rightly dragged her for it, there is an utterly infuriating trend among her supporters to rationalize her behavior in a variety of ways. From actually buying her ridiculous "gathering intel" excuse to making her out to be a victim of alt-right grooming tactics. It's both alarming and sad that the far-left is so enamored with her status as a trans woman that they refuse to call her out for being in league with neo-Nazis.
The two are not mutually exclusive. It's possible to be both part of a marginalized group and a horrible fucking person.
It certainly worked for Ernst Röhm, who managed to be both gay and Hitler's BFF and seemed particularly okay with slaughtering 10,000 gay men in the death camps alongside the Jews and Romani. In fact? It's shockingly common for gay white men to take up the cause of fascism and genocide.
It's the most basic response to a loss of power; the drive to reclaim it in other ways. Often horrible ones. It's like when the kid who gets slapped around by his dad for being "homo" finds out it feels really good to slap around the brown kids at school for being brown. And when you're denied power in every other way, discovering a source of it you can easily exploit is a hell of a drug.
So it's not a surprise at all that Chelsea Manning, who would have grown up steeped in white male privilege before figuring out she was trans, and who ultimately lost that privilege when she decided to betray both her country and her uniform, would seek to regain power any way she could. Being white is all she's really got, so who better to join forces with than Prosobiec and Cernovich?
The LGBT community doesn't have to protect her, nor should it. She has new friends now. And they hate all of you.
The Germans have a word for people like Chelsea. Who joined the Nazi Party not necessarily because they hated Jews, but because they desperately wanted to feel like they had control of something in their lives for once. That word is...
...Nazis.
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
You Keep Using That Word
In light of the torrent of women finally coming forward with their stories of rape and sexual assault by powerful men -- and being believed --I wanted to take a moment to broach the topic of consent, and why men -- not just heterosexual, as we've seen with Kevin Spacey, but I'm going to focus on straight cis men because let's face it, that's the demo that can't keep their hands and dicks to themselves -- seem to have such a difficult time both recognizing "no" and taking it for an answer.
The problem is that men are socially conditioned to view sex not as a mutual expression of affection between two (or more) people, but as a thing they do to someone else. And perhaps more disgustingly, a "deal" they have to "close." They must overcome the objections of their target and turn that "no" into a "yes." You can see this ridiculous mindset at play in David Wong's Ayn-Randian manifestos on Cracked, particularly this one (which I've torn apart here).
And men are conditioned this way because up until very, very recently, their partners didn't exactly have a say in the matter. Particularly straight men. If you were a woman? As a member of the nobility/aristocracy, you were flat-out assigned a man to have sex with (the husband chosen for you by your father). If you were a peasant, you simply married the first man who asked because you needed his salary. Ergo men never had to worry about being worthy, so much as first. The woman wasn't ever going to turn him down. She wasn't allowed to.
Up until even more recently, sexual assault and rape were in the same category as property crimes. Raping a woman was no different than vandalizing a piece of merchandise. Rapists literally paid a fine to the husband of the victim if she was married. If she wasn't, he could either pay a fine to her father or marry her; you broke it, you bought it.
Hell, just for perspective? Ancient Greece (on which nearly all of Western society is based) had no separate word for "rape."
For men, particularly straight men, sex is viewed through the lens of a sales transaction. He offers strength, protection, and wealth, and he gets sex and children as payment for his services as a husband. His objective is to turn any potential "no" into a "yes."
Thus, to him, sex is something his partner is letting him do. And if they let him do it, whether they want him to or not, that's all that matters. He closed the sale.
On the contrary, when victims -- especially women -- talk about consent, they mean "sex that is wanted, with this particular person" rather than simply letting sex happen out of a sense of obligation or being too under-confident to refuse. And that's a concept that we can't seem to get through men's heads.
Comedienne Margaret Cho outlines the issue perfectly in this post on her site:
Why is this not consent? Okay, you remember Lumbergh from Office Space? Star of the That Would Be Great meme? Would you say Milton/Peter/Porter/Slydell consented to anything he asked for? Of course not. They did it out of unspoken obligation.
They acquiesced. They relented. They did not, in any way, consent.
Now picture being expected to have sex in the same way you're expected to go to work on Sunday. Specifically, picture being expected to have sex you derive little, if any, pleasure from because your partner does not know or care if you're enjoying yourself. Picture this and you're starting to scratch the surface of the problem with the male definition of "consent" with regard to what it means for women.
The difference between consent and acquiescence can be summed up in one word: desire. "Lie back and think of England" isn't consent. You don't "let" people do things to you out of desire; you do it with them as a willing and enthusiastic participant. Consent is having sex out of desire. Acquiescence is having sex because it's easier than refusing. Particularly when it comes to the power dynamics between women and the powerful men they work for. If they're "letting you do it" because "you're a star", that's not consent. That's a person too afraid of what might happen if they say no.
So if you could take no for an answer and keep your hands and dicks to yourselves unless you're double-damned pinky-swear sure the other person is into you (or wants you to be into them), yeah, that'd be great.
The problem is that men are socially conditioned to view sex not as a mutual expression of affection between two (or more) people, but as a thing they do to someone else. And perhaps more disgustingly, a "deal" they have to "close." They must overcome the objections of their target and turn that "no" into a "yes." You can see this ridiculous mindset at play in David Wong's Ayn-Randian manifestos on Cracked, particularly this one (which I've torn apart here).
And men are conditioned this way because up until very, very recently, their partners didn't exactly have a say in the matter. Particularly straight men. If you were a woman? As a member of the nobility/aristocracy, you were flat-out assigned a man to have sex with (the husband chosen for you by your father). If you were a peasant, you simply married the first man who asked because you needed his salary. Ergo men never had to worry about being worthy, so much as first. The woman wasn't ever going to turn him down. She wasn't allowed to.
Up until even more recently, sexual assault and rape were in the same category as property crimes. Raping a woman was no different than vandalizing a piece of merchandise. Rapists literally paid a fine to the husband of the victim if she was married. If she wasn't, he could either pay a fine to her father or marry her; you broke it, you bought it.
Hell, just for perspective? Ancient Greece (on which nearly all of Western society is based) had no separate word for "rape."
For men, particularly straight men, sex is viewed through the lens of a sales transaction. He offers strength, protection, and wealth, and he gets sex and children as payment for his services as a husband. His objective is to turn any potential "no" into a "yes."
Thus, to him, sex is something his partner is letting him do. And if they let him do it, whether they want him to or not, that's all that matters. He closed the sale.
On the contrary, when victims -- especially women -- talk about consent, they mean "sex that is wanted, with this particular person" rather than simply letting sex happen out of a sense of obligation or being too under-confident to refuse. And that's a concept that we can't seem to get through men's heads.
Comedienne Margaret Cho outlines the issue perfectly in this post on her site:
But the sex I am talking about having, the kind I didn’t want, is sex I initiated with people I wasn’t attracted to so that I could get finished faster, or so I didn’t have explain whytowherefor I wasn’t into it or into them, or I loved them so much, but the chemistry wasn’t there, and I felt bad for them and so I would leave my body temporarily for them to do what they wanted, like “take what you want, I’ll be over there” and then return at the end for cuddling and the nice warmth of sleeping in a bed with another person.Women have been conditioned by and large to agree to sex we don't want to have because it's presented to us as our end of the bargain. Something we let men do to us in exchange for him providing financial security and physical protection.
Why is this not consent? Okay, you remember Lumbergh from Office Space? Star of the That Would Be Great meme? Would you say Milton/Peter/Porter/Slydell consented to anything he asked for? Of course not. They did it out of unspoken obligation.
They acquiesced. They relented. They did not, in any way, consent.
Now picture being expected to have sex in the same way you're expected to go to work on Sunday. Specifically, picture being expected to have sex you derive little, if any, pleasure from because your partner does not know or care if you're enjoying yourself. Picture this and you're starting to scratch the surface of the problem with the male definition of "consent" with regard to what it means for women.
The difference between consent and acquiescence can be summed up in one word: desire. "Lie back and think of England" isn't consent. You don't "let" people do things to you out of desire; you do it with them as a willing and enthusiastic participant. Consent is having sex out of desire. Acquiescence is having sex because it's easier than refusing. Particularly when it comes to the power dynamics between women and the powerful men they work for. If they're "letting you do it" because "you're a star", that's not consent. That's a person too afraid of what might happen if they say no.
So if you could take no for an answer and keep your hands and dicks to yourselves unless you're double-damned pinky-swear sure the other person is into you (or wants you to be into them), yeah, that'd be great.
Saturday, October 7, 2017
Neon Genesis Evangelion Is the Most Misunderstood Franchise of All Time
The show that launched a thousand flamewars, because pretty much nobody knew what the hell was going on. And a show that everyone agrees was one of the darkest and most nihilistic works of fiction ever made.
Well, almost everyone.
I'm one of those weirdos that saw it as the complete opposite. As one of the most optimistic and positive views of humanity in fiction, minus the usual cheese that comes with the Humans Are Special trope. It was a visceral deconstruction of said trope, stripping away the layers to find out why. I think the reason so many folks consider it negative is because they're so focused on the visuals (which are indeed horrifying) that they ignore what's actually happening and what the characters are discussing.
The short version is that the underlying main plot of the show is to collapse the AT Fields -- the physical manifestation of the psychological wall that separates people's identities from each other, in effect the thing that makes you able to identify as the individual you are -- of everyone on earth and combine all souls into one being (referred to throughout the show as Instrumentality). The goal is that nobody will suffer any longer since they don't have an identity, and therefore no need to establish relationships with other people.
Shinji, the series' protagonist, ultimately rejects this despite his crippling fear of others, and opts to keep his identity. Hence the movie ending with him and Asuka alone on a beach in a post-apocalyptic hellscape with the "sea" in the background. That sea is the collective souls of mankind.
Now, why the unholy fuck would I consider this a positive ending? Even uplifting? Besides me just being weird and disturbed?
The devil is in the details.
Up to this point, Shinji has been through the proverbial wringer. At 4 years old, he watched his mother get absorbed into Evangelion Unit 01 (and opt to stay there, effectively committing suicide, but it's not clear he was ever informed of that). Right after this, his father shipped him off to live with a teacher, and only contacted him nearly a decade later to be Evangelion Unit 01's pilot.
Then came the 13th Angel (Bardiel) battle. It had possessed Unit 03, and when Shinji refused to fight because he knew there was another pilot just like him in there, his father took control of Unit 01 away from him and had him sit in the cockpit fully conscious and aware while it brutally tore apart Unit 03 and nearly killed the other pilot (whom he learned was a friend of his).
Right after this is the battle with Zeruel, the 14th Angel. Shinji is forced to return to piloting Unit 01 after swearing he wouldn't, and in the course of that battle is absorbed into it exactly like his mother was ten years prior. Only he makes the decision to come back.
Right before the events of the movie, he fights the 17th Angel, who had shown up disguised as Kaworu, a fellow pilot. Before learning his true identity, Kaworu was literally the first person in the series to not treat Shinji like an object that exists to fulfill the needs of other people. And in the end, Shinji is forced to kill him. Something he swore in the Bardiel battle that he would rather die than do.
So by the time that the underlying plot of the show comes to fruition, Shinji is at the lowest point any human being could find themselves. More than anyone, he has every reason to go "yup, fine by me, I'm totally cool with not suffering anymore" and taking the ultimate escape from reality that is joining Instrumentality. But he doesn't.
Because as all the philosophical talk in the movie illustrates, having an identity is painful when you fear other people and when you view the world as a cruel, shitty place. Having an identity is pure torture when you hate that identity because you are under the impression that everyone else does.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
When you change your own perspective and stop viewing everything and everyone as hating you and out to hurt you, having your own identity is good. Even pleasurable. Certainly preferable to floating in a sea of nothing and not caring anymore. As Shinji himself puts it:
So despite the crucified Eva series in the background, despite the giant decapited Rei head on the horizon, despite everything else...existing is better than not existing. And that giant sea in the background? All of humanity has the chance to make the same choice as Shinji. They can all come back if they want to.
Having walked that line before? This is powerfully positive stuff. Especially in current times when so much is going wrong. When every day seems like the world is sinking into that sea inch by inch, figuratively if not literally. It's going to get ugly, but people can act to set shit right again. Things can get better. But only if we stick around long enough to take action.
That is, at its heart, the message of the entire film and the entire series. As long as you're alive, there is still hope that things can get better because you have the ability to act. As Shinji's mother says, "Anywhere can be heaven as long as you have the will to live. After all, you're alive... and you can find the chance to achieve happiness anywhere."
God's in his Heaven, all's right with the world indeed.
Well, almost everyone.
I'm one of those weirdos that saw it as the complete opposite. As one of the most optimistic and positive views of humanity in fiction, minus the usual cheese that comes with the Humans Are Special trope. It was a visceral deconstruction of said trope, stripping away the layers to find out why. I think the reason so many folks consider it negative is because they're so focused on the visuals (which are indeed horrifying) that they ignore what's actually happening and what the characters are discussing.
The short version is that the underlying main plot of the show is to collapse the AT Fields -- the physical manifestation of the psychological wall that separates people's identities from each other, in effect the thing that makes you able to identify as the individual you are -- of everyone on earth and combine all souls into one being (referred to throughout the show as Instrumentality). The goal is that nobody will suffer any longer since they don't have an identity, and therefore no need to establish relationships with other people.
Shinji, the series' protagonist, ultimately rejects this despite his crippling fear of others, and opts to keep his identity. Hence the movie ending with him and Asuka alone on a beach in a post-apocalyptic hellscape with the "sea" in the background. That sea is the collective souls of mankind.
Now, why the unholy fuck would I consider this a positive ending? Even uplifting? Besides me just being weird and disturbed?
The devil is in the details.
Up to this point, Shinji has been through the proverbial wringer. At 4 years old, he watched his mother get absorbed into Evangelion Unit 01 (and opt to stay there, effectively committing suicide, but it's not clear he was ever informed of that). Right after this, his father shipped him off to live with a teacher, and only contacted him nearly a decade later to be Evangelion Unit 01's pilot.
Then came the 13th Angel (Bardiel) battle. It had possessed Unit 03, and when Shinji refused to fight because he knew there was another pilot just like him in there, his father took control of Unit 01 away from him and had him sit in the cockpit fully conscious and aware while it brutally tore apart Unit 03 and nearly killed the other pilot (whom he learned was a friend of his).
Right after this is the battle with Zeruel, the 14th Angel. Shinji is forced to return to piloting Unit 01 after swearing he wouldn't, and in the course of that battle is absorbed into it exactly like his mother was ten years prior. Only he makes the decision to come back.
Right before the events of the movie, he fights the 17th Angel, who had shown up disguised as Kaworu, a fellow pilot. Before learning his true identity, Kaworu was literally the first person in the series to not treat Shinji like an object that exists to fulfill the needs of other people. And in the end, Shinji is forced to kill him. Something he swore in the Bardiel battle that he would rather die than do.
So by the time that the underlying plot of the show comes to fruition, Shinji is at the lowest point any human being could find themselves. More than anyone, he has every reason to go "yup, fine by me, I'm totally cool with not suffering anymore" and taking the ultimate escape from reality that is joining Instrumentality. But he doesn't.
Because as all the philosophical talk in the movie illustrates, having an identity is painful when you fear other people and when you view the world as a cruel, shitty place. Having an identity is pure torture when you hate that identity because you are under the impression that everyone else does.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
When you change your own perspective and stop viewing everything and everyone as hating you and out to hurt you, having your own identity is good. Even pleasurable. Certainly preferable to floating in a sea of nothing and not caring anymore. As Shinji himself puts it:
I feel that there were only hateful things there. So I'm sure it was okay to run away. But there was nothing good in the place I ran to, either. After all, I didn't exist there... which is the same as no one existing.But that's not all. The real punch comes in the next few lines:
Kaworu: Is it okay for AT Fields to hurt you and others once more?
Shinji: I don't mind. But, what are you two within my heart?
Rei: Hope. The hope that people might be able to understand one another.
Kaworu: And the words 'I love you'.
Shinji: But that's just pretending - a self-intoxicating belief... like a prayer. It can't possibly last forever. Sooner or later I'll be betrayed... And they'll leave me. Still... I want to meet them again, because I believe my feelings at that time were real.That is the point at which Shinji rejects Instrumentality, and his reasons for doing so. Sure, he'll be hurt sooner or later. But there's happiness there, too, and it's just as real as the pain. And that alone is worth retaining his identity for.
So despite the crucified Eva series in the background, despite the giant decapited Rei head on the horizon, despite everything else...existing is better than not existing. And that giant sea in the background? All of humanity has the chance to make the same choice as Shinji. They can all come back if they want to.
Having walked that line before? This is powerfully positive stuff. Especially in current times when so much is going wrong. When every day seems like the world is sinking into that sea inch by inch, figuratively if not literally. It's going to get ugly, but people can act to set shit right again. Things can get better. But only if we stick around long enough to take action.
That is, at its heart, the message of the entire film and the entire series. As long as you're alive, there is still hope that things can get better because you have the ability to act. As Shinji's mother says, "Anywhere can be heaven as long as you have the will to live. After all, you're alive... and you can find the chance to achieve happiness anywhere."
God's in his Heaven, all's right with the world indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)