I didn’t say that, imply it, nor agree with it, but a feminist writer came out and expressed that in more ways than one in an opinion piece for NBC News titled, “Miley Cyrus’ split with Liam Hemsworth isn’t just celebrity gossip – it’s a blow to the patriarchy”.
I’m not going to counter every point brought up in this nonsensical work of journalism, but just the ones I think are common feminist talking points that keep going uncriticized on a massive scale in the mainstream.
“Over the past week, an assortment of trending stories — from Jeffrey Epstein to the Dayton and El Paso mass shooters, to Miley Cyrus’s separation and Julianne Hough’s declaration that she’s “not straight” — together have laid bare the strictures of an American patriarchy on the edge of a nervous breakdown. As the status quo, heterosexuality is just not working.”
Off the bat, the author’s misandry is immediately exposed when she groups all straight men together as suicidal child-molesting mass murderers. The reason I can confidently type that is because, according to feminism, patriarchy is something that all men benefit from. So, just by being born a man (i.e., original sin) you’ll be a part of the same diabolical sexist system that Epstein and mass murderers are a part of.
Damn. I was having a good life until I found that out. Now I feel bad for things that I didn’t do and have no moral responsibility to fix.
Not surprisingly, the stupidity of her point goes to a new level. The author now states that heterosexuality is a faulty made up conformist trend perpetuated by the patriarchy. All this time, I thought it was an evolutionary mechanism used to fulfill two primary goals – reproduction and survival.
I could put billions of links here of heterosexuality working because there seems to be a lot of examples among 7 billion humans, chickens, ducks, kangaroos, dinosaurs, birds, camels, giraffes, insects, and every other species to exist in the animal kingdom then and now. I don’t think a washed up Disney has-been is going to be able to end – even for a millisecond – hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, however I think she will lead young women into an abyss of confusion and misandry for hundreds of thousands of years to come.
For the most part, there isn’t much evidence of homosexuality existing in nature. Since that’s the case, that doesn’t imply it’s a sin or something to be shunned and banned anymore than driving cars (something also not included in the evolutionary package).
Fellow WordPress blogger, Evolutionary Biologist, Jerry Coyne recently wrote a great post on two supposedly “gay” penguins that recently emerged. Usually, instances of same-sex relationships in nature have nothing to do with what we humans would call being “gay”. If you’re to immediately assume a same-sex relationship of some sort makes you gay than you should feel comfortable in claiming that prison makes you gay.
“As a snapshot of 2019 America, these stories present a startling picture: Men continue to coerce, harass, rape and kill girls and women — and go to extreme lengths to avoid responsibility for their actions. On the other side of the issue, girls and women are challenging heterosexuality, and even absconding from it altogether.”
As a snapshot of 2019 America, these stories present a startling picture: Men continue to save women, that may be feminists who hate them, from drowning in submerged cars. Some even go to extreme lengths to apologize for something that they may have or may not have done. On the other side of the issue, girls and women are living in one of the safest best times in human history for girls and women especially for crimes concerning rape.
“Framed differently, the picture is this: Men need heterosexuality to maintain their societal dominance over women. Women, on the other hand, are increasingly realizing not only that they don’t need heterosexuality, but that it also is often the bedrock of their global oppression.”
Heterosexuality is common because it’s what helps the human race survive and reproduce. This includes helping, ironically, create more gay people. And what happened to free choice? Aren’t there any women that love being in heterosexual relationships?
“Patriarchy is at its most potent when oppression doesn’t feel like oppression, or when it is packaged in terms of biology, religion or basic social needs like security comfort, acceptance and success. Heterosexuality offers women all these things as selling points to their consensual subjection.”
Essentially the argument is this:
When there’s evidence of patriarchy there’s patriarchy. When there isn’t evidence of patriarchy there’s patriarchy.
This point correlates to a feminist theory known as Internalized Misogyny. What this concept plainly states is that it’s easy for women to not be able to think for themselves and be manipulated by men thus making them, in one way or another, inferior. This can include things like not being smart or brave enough to fight against “oppressors”.
I didn’t say it. The author did.
“Historically, women have been conditioned to believe that heterosexuality is natural or innate…”
Go to a zoo and watch bizarre creatures who are merely guided by their percepts, and not free will, engage in heterosexual activities.
“In the “Women’s Health” September cover story, [Julianne] Hough, an actress and “Dancing With the Stars” champion, describes her personal transformation, which included “de-layering all the survival tactics I’ve built up my whole life.” One of these survival tactics, she says, meant “connecting to the woman inside that doesn’t need anything, versus the little girl that looked to [my husband] to protect me.” She voices concern that her husband will respond negatively to this newfound self-sufficiency: “I was like, ‘Is he going to love this version of me?’ But the more I dropped into my most authentic self, the more attracted he was to me. Now we have a more intimate relationship.”
This paragraph expresses a recently in-vogue feminist misandrist perception that involves a butchered definition of the word, “independence”.
In order, to get women away from men they try to paint romantic relationships as sacrificial, dependent, and subordinative. They then go on to claim that whenever a man wants to offer “protection” he really has intentions of enslavement. This is why a lot of young women today refuse to date men or get married as they think it will end up with them having to give up all of their enjoyment of life.
Who said you have to give up anything in the first place?
It’s laughable to hear an obscure Hollywood minion offer up advice on, ironically, what makes a relationship stable. A relationship is not two completely spiritually isolated human beings living together. Intimacy doesn’t arise from civility alone. A relationship is when you trade value for value to mutual benefit – not set up a trade barrier.
“Part of the intimacy entailed telling her husband that she was “not straight” but had chosen to be with him. This is an inspirational statement, because it offers a new model for women to enter into heterosexual relationships with men that redefines the power dynamic.”
That must be nice for him to hear. “Hi, honey I’m not straight so therefore it’s impossible for me to romantically love you. I also think that if I was straight I’d be your slave.”
According to Intersectional Feminism, (the idea that different social forces like privilege, skin color, and sex organ play a role in privilege, domination and enslavement) the man – by birthright – will always be the natural slave master as they are more “privileged” and “powerful” in society.
Of course, all of this nonsense flies out the window if you’re a lesbian.
“She [Cyrus] added that her goal for 2019 was to “live carefree but not careless” — a brilliant distinction that could serve as a mantra for anyone in a marriage, straight or gay. The difference between carefree and careless in a way represents the ideological division in the definition of “freedom.”
Again, “carefree” in the newest feminist definition essentially states that this will only be possible when distancing yourself from men and only men. Straight men.
“To be free is not to have the power to do anything you like,” Simone de Beauvoir writes in “The Ethics of Ambiguity.” Indeed, Friedrich Nietzsche asserted that “freedom is the will to be responsible for ourselves.”
Great. Now the author is quoting the serial killer, Nietzsche. Freedom, in and of itself, doesn’t denote “responsibility”. That’s more proper of a term for independence. Freedom, instead, is the right to consent or revoke consent.
I’ll only give the ideological respect I never had for the author back when she quotes Ted Bundy.
“And this responsibility carries over from the self to society, which is why, according to Toni Morrison, “The function of freedom is to free someone else.” For Audre Lorde this definition of freedom is a social contract: “I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.”
No it’s not. If you’re chained to others constantly working for them as a collectivist societal duty you’re not free. Moreover, by this atrocious philosophical abomination of a quote, you’re not “free” as long as someone else who shares your sex organ isn’t “free”. You’re not a slave or siamese twin by proxy – you’re an individual.
“Cyrus’s and Hough’s respective declarations does more than raise visibility for the queer community at large — it is a powerful assertion of their bodily autonomy and control over their sexuality.”
What law in the west states that you don’t have control over your sexuality? What credible study shows that, on a mass scale, people in the west don’t support freedom of sexual orientation?
“And this notion — that an adult is responsible for their own sex life (how they have sex, who they have sex with, when, where, and why they have sex) — portrays a sharp contrast in our culture. Where men seem to never to have to take responsibility for their actions, women always must take responsibility for not only their own actions but the actions of men.”
Men never take responsibility for their own actions? Really? Most prisoners in the U.S. are male. And how many do you want to bet are innocent or have committed a “crime” that shouldn’t be a crime?
“While men stew in their mess, women are rising. They are taking back control of their lives and their bodies and they are questioning the foundation of the patriarchy — heterosexuality — that has kept them blindly subordinate for centuries.”
For once, she is right. Men are in a tidal wave of a mess right now. They’re close to becoming a minority in colleges across the nation. They’re killing themselves, overdosing on drugs, getting diagnosed with mental illnesses left and right, and as a result have declined in their average lifespan.
Way to go men. You bastard pushovers.
Women, on the other side, aren’t doing that much better since they’re told to be paranoid of men and then advised to go out into the world with this false Mad Max “chip-on-their-shoulder” sense of bravery in a society where they really don’t need it.
Godspeed for men and women. The future isn’t good and – especially men – don’t care.
Rest in final peace.
Footnote –
As a budding SJW-ologist, I noticed that the author made a slip up. The proper term she should’ve used was, heteronormativity. Heteronormativity is a word that means heterosexuality is the oppressive societally-constructed norm. If you’re not careful, you may come across sounding like you hate heterosexuality in and of itself. Either way, I don’t think the author made too much of a mistake in not using the term because she seems to genuinely hate straight people.
Then again, there isn’t much difference in heteronormativity and hating heterosexuality in the first place.
First Amendment Safe Space 