Home

Advertisement

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Furious Fights with Feminazis, A Rant

  • May. 12th, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Wonder Girl

So, I got into another online argument. (When you’re as obstinate as I sometimes tend to get, it happens an awful lot.) This time, I went head-to-head with a regular opponent of mine, a breed of creature that I tend to dub the ‘Fandom Feminazi.” I’m sure everybody has met at least one - the kind of female ‘fan’ who seems to read comics or watch anime for no other reason than to find excuses, however small and obscure they may be, to rant about how today’s archaic patriarchal society is demeaning woman to keep them in roles of servitude.

 

Now, I want to make it real clear, this term is not one that I use to describe a feminist - someone who supports women’s rights, fights for equal rights between the sexes and enjoys the portrayal of strong female characters. I like feminists. I like to think I’m one them, and I’m proud to say that there’s more than one on my F-list.

Feminazis, on the other hand, are the bane of the feminist movement. They’re the stereotype that gets feminists so much bad press, the minority that makes the majority look bad. They claim to support equal rights for women, but what they really want is special treatment. They believe that the only way for a woman to truly be strong is to take on an excessively dominate role that forces the men in her life to be subordinate to her. They will deny these claims, but their actions speak otherwise.

I have a long list of complaints against feminzis, not the least of which being that they seem to take delight in ruining other peoples’ enjoyment of comic books. (If you find an entire fandom so offensive, why the hell are you in it? Nobody’s forcing you to read these books. I know that people hear this argument all the time and that just because you’re against sexism doesn’t mean you’re against superheroes, but feminazis are different - they don’t like anything about superhero comics because they’re so horrid, and yet they still buy them. WTF?)

But what’s got me riled this time is more a matter of semantics than anything else: I cannot tell you how sick I am of feminazis throwing all variations of the word ‘misogynous’ around. Feminazis love the term because it sounds political and it has such a damnable definition, ‘The hatred of women.’

So let me take a moment to make my point damn clear: Mainstream comic books are NOT misogynistic! Sexist, yes, while I don’t think that is near as bad as it has been in the past, but not misogynistic.

There is a huge difference.

Sexism
is when a man looks at a woman and thinks, “Oh boy, is she hot! I bet that babe would look awesome in a bikini!” without thinking of her personality or the person behind it. Alternatively, it’s when the man thinks, “Well, she’s going to be useless in this fight. Women should stay in the kitchen.”

Misogynism is when a man looks at a woman and thinks, “Fuck that bitch. Anything that happens to her is ‘cause she’s got it coming. I bet she’d scream real nice when I torture her in my basement.”

Admittedly, there is still sexism in comics, though I believe it’s slowly-but-surely being eradicated. (That’s a lecture for another day) But, in mainstream comics at least, misgyonism is basically extinct. When it does rear it’s ugly head, once every decade or so, it is, without exception, a trait of antagonists. The villains. The ‘bad guys.’ If anything, their misgyonism is used as a way to vilify them in the eyes of the reader. That means it’s being used as an obviously bad thing - if the read doesn’t already realize that it’s bad, they will quickly associate it as such by the other characters’ reactions.

If you never realized this, then congratulations, you just utterly failed in a basic aspect of your average elementary-school level literature course.

Also, just so I don‘t have to put it in another rant: when a female character dies, it is not automatically misogynistic. I hear all these stupid arguments about how female deaths are overly-sexualized and gory. In this day and age, most deaths are gory, because it adds the shock factor - if you want blood and gore, look at the deaths of Kon-el, Bart Allen, Jack Drake, Alexander Luthor, Ted Kord and several dozen Green Lanterns (whom I cannot name on sight or whom were never really named.) during the Sinestro Corps storyline, not to mention the recent capture and torture of Kid Devil in Teen Titans. All of them bloody, all of them horrible, and all of them with male victims. Those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

As for the deaths seeming sexual, let me tell you something - anything that any woman does will look more sexual than a man doing the same thing. Why? Because we evolved to have more obviously sexual physical traits than men, ie, hips and boobs. If I reach over from my computer desk to grab a pen, it will look more sexual than if my brother - who is the same relative size and build that I am - were to do the same, because my hips would shift and my boobs would jiggle.

And finally, anyone who argues that men aren’t being drawn to show off their chest, ass or crotch areas obviously don’t read very many comics - I quite enjoy the vast number of times we get really good looks at Nightwing’s ass or Robin decides to sit around without his shirt, thank-you-very-much.

I suppose, in conclusion, I should try to wrap up all my main points, which is simple enough: There is a vast difference between misgyonism and sexism and, while both are bad things, misgyonism is definitely the worse of the two and throwing the word around is borderline libel against the comic book industry. While said industry does have its sexist leanings, it is not by any means supporting any kind of misogynistic cause.

Tags:

Comments

[info]angel_gidget wrote:
May. 12th, 2008 09:13 pm (UTC)
*hugs you...*

I quite enjoy the vast number of times we get really good looks at Nightwing’s ass or Robin decides to sit around without his shirt, thank-you-very-much.

*... and seconds you*
[info]geministar01 wrote:
May. 12th, 2008 10:41 pm (UTC)
*hugs back* Where have you beeeeen?
[info]angel_gidget wrote:
May. 13th, 2008 02:21 am (UTC)
I've been buuuussyyyy. I made a really stupid assumption that since school was over and summer begun that I would have free time. I was wrong. I'm generally doing something 24/7. I have a lot of online stuff left undone. I have lots of friends journals to read, lots of fanfic to review (including yours), two drabbles due, and general fandom to update myself on. Though at most, I take a few minutes to read some stuff before going to sleep. I haven't managed to do half the typing I've intended. Kinda sad.
(Anonymous) wrote:
May. 13th, 2008 04:37 am (UTC)
I quite enjoy the vast number of times we get really good looks at Nightwing’s ass or Robin decides to sit around without his shirt, thank-you-very-much.

Which comics are these?
(no subject) - [info]geministar01 - May. 13th, 2008 04:47 am (UTC)
[info]zenithjolt wrote:
May. 12th, 2008 09:35 pm (UTC)
Yes, very agreeable points.
I especially agree to 'anything that any woman does will look more sexual than a man doing the same thing' this might mistakenly be taken for exploiting women, most possibly by, feminazis you described.
What about 'Girl Power'? would you label that as Feminazi or just normal feminist, i ask because i would gladly support feminists but girl power to me sounds like the 'dominant role' that you were talking about.
[info]geministar01 wrote:
May. 12th, 2008 10:39 pm (UTC)
To tell the truth, I'm not really sure because I'm not very familiar with the Girl Power movement. I'm all for things that encourage girls to become strong and take charge; but only to the point that it coincides with common courtasy.

What I meant by the 'dominant role' is that feminazis encourage women to follow role models who are excessively rude, egotistical, selfish and/or violent, as though these traits are admirable things that make one an independant. They're not - they just make you a jerk.
[info]anthraciteowl wrote:
May. 13th, 2008 12:40 am (UTC)
You have a point. Comics sexualize everything. Sure, the ladies fight crime in skin-tight leather with plunging neck-lines, but the guys wear just as much spandex and just as little fabric. *points to icon* hyper-sexualized male.

Just one detail: I think the noun form of mysogynistic is mysogyny, not misgyonism.
[info]geministar01 wrote:
May. 13th, 2008 01:07 am (UTC)
Ah-ha. That would explain why my spellchecker didn't like it. ^.^' Well, from now on I know.
[info]anthraciteowl wrote:
May. 13th, 2008 01:49 am (UTC)
Oops. I spelled it wrong too. Misogyny Sorry. I hurt my finger this afternoon, and my typing has been terrible ever since.
[info]shidoikarji26 wrote:
May. 13th, 2008 02:18 am (UTC)
So I guess it's a difference of what people find offensive, Of course some could argue that in the matter of art styltes & deaths (2 main gipes) it could been seen as ethier misgoyist or sexist (which they could back up in an arguement) Its more about playing up a woman's sexuality to point where it seems so in-their-face, the female reader gets turned off and views it as something horrible. That's their main gripe. I thought you were more pro-feminist, not as a knock agianst you of course, it just what the indivisual sees as offensive.
[info]geministar01 wrote:
May. 13th, 2008 03:11 am (UTC)
I actually consider myself to be moderately feminist. Thing is, I'm also a liberal and a writer, so I care more about the creators being able to create without fear of getting smacked with a horrible label like 'misgyonist' because they dare to put women characters into dangerous situations. (Feminazis, on the other hand, would be happy to establish a censorship board to force comic book comics to adhere to their standards)

What bothers me is that feminazis pick the *stupidest* things to complain about - like the Green Lantern cover where the woman was the only one who *didn't* have a Black Mercy sucking on her chest. Or Supergirl's costume. Or other just...stupid stuff like that. And then they act like *they're* the victims when people mention that these are pretty dumb things to be so obsessed over.
[info]shidoikarji26 wrote:
May. 13th, 2008 03:22 am (UTC)
Yes but that's the way you see it. There will always be an outcry, which can be good and bad. When you can differenate between the two, it makes life easier but everyone will have a gripe aboutt, and its very hard to ignore it. Writer's fears are stepping on everyone's toes but they will some part of the fanbase, it's the territory.
[info]misterthursday wrote:
May. 24th, 2008 11:47 am (UTC)
Erm, so yeah you've officially made it into my list of feminist heros.

And while I agree whole heartedly with pretty much everything you've said (to the point where I plan to ripp off some of your points here in my next "debate" with one of these people. With your permission, ofcourse) I have to argue with 1 of your definitions of sexism.

“Oh boy, is she hot! I bet that babe would look awesome in a bikini!” thinking of her personality or the person behind it

I've always beleived thats just basic human biology. I agree that it would be sexist to make assumptions on her personality based on how hot she is, but to focus entirly on how somone stimulates you sexually, on a purly physical level, I've always found that to be just par for the course of being human. yanno?

Like your example of shirtless robin. How much of his personality goes into his chiseled abs? or Nightwing. Personality wise he's a DICK. you still enjoy looking at his but regardless of his personality flaws. sexy is sexy, is what im getting at.

Also:
If I reach over from my computer desk to grab a pen, it will look more sexual than if my brother - who is the same relative size and build that I am - were to do the same

That entirly depends on the angle your being veiwed at. If im not carful, and I lean forward for any reason in the company of my GF, I run the risk of feeling a WII remote heading for my butthole to the sound of heavy breathing, and the most obscene dirty talk. My GF has a weird sence of humour, tho.

Anyway, that one point aside, I agree with you entirly.
sorry for butting in.
*disappeares back to read more of WFA*

[info]geministar01 wrote:
May. 24th, 2008 07:15 pm (UTC)
*blink* Um...thanks. I can see your point about the first feminism definition, but I think I'm going to leave it in. I probably

And, uh, I have to ask - what WFA? Why are they pointing people to my journal? And why have I never heard of them before?
[info]misterthursday wrote:
May. 24th, 2008 07:39 pm (UTC)
Thats cool, I'm just one of those people that HAVE to argue any point that occures to me.

When Fangirls Attck: http://womenincomics.blogspot.com/

They sometimes link to the more... fringe elements of modern feminism, but by and large they show healthy variety. I find it to be quite encouraging and comforting in the face of the more dramatic or even potentially harmful comic-feminist groups (read "girl-wonder")

Anyway, unless your David Sim it tends to be a pretty good thing to be linked on their site.

Anywhoo, sorry to have invaded yout journal in this way. I just enjoy... well arguing, clearly, but its always nice to talk to feminists who share my ideals.
(no subject) - [info]geministar01 - May. 24th, 2008 07:46 pm (UTC)
[info]quietprofanity wrote:
May. 24th, 2008 02:09 pm (UTC)
I came here from WFA. I don't agree with some parts of this rant, but that's immaterial at this point. I have one big question.

Do you honestly believe that women who disagree with you on sexism in comic books deserve to be called Nazis? Really? The fact that they think, say, that Mary Jane statue was objectifying, means that they are equivalent to a genocidal, totalitarian military regime?

I don't know if you know the origins of that term, but it started with Rush Limbaugh. Yes, some feminists have tried to reclaim it. Others, like you now and like I once did, have used it to refer to "bad" feminists. And yes, some feminists are also misandrists. But one, I really don't think the people who state those viewpoints you mentioned hate men and two, using a term like "feminazi" is both dismissive and it charges the feminists with a position of power that they don't have. These so-called "feminiazis" aren't in charge of comics and while they may want things a certain way and want them strongly, that doesn't make them equivalent to a genocidal, totalitarian state.

And really, if you struck them with that term from the beginning, do you think anybody who holds those beliefs would want to listen to you after that? I actually agree with you on your views of sexism vs. misogyny but your use of an inflammatory and smear-painting term makes me not want to listen to you outright.

I'm not asking you to change your position on anything, but I hope you will consider what I said if you use that term in the future.
[info]geministar01 wrote:
May. 24th, 2008 07:26 pm (UTC)
Yes. Yes, they do deserve the term, and if you think that 'nazi' can only be used to refer to Hitler's military regime, you need to do more research on *them.*

Nazi groups believe in the total superioirty of the Aryan (white) race. As such, they hate Jews and all other races whom they feel to be 'infrior'. They feel that the white man is being 'kept down' and that these 'infirior' species deserve to be put in their place so that the white man can get the special treatment they deserve.

Feminazis believe in the total superiorty of the female half of the species. As such, they hate men and see them as 'infrior' and yes, I do believe that feminazis hate men while feminists do not. They believe that women are being 'kept down' by men and that the 'infrior' specimins need to be shown their place so that women can get the special treatment they deserve. Luckily, they are a minority in the feminist world, but they definitly deserve they label.

That said, the argument is actually about the word mysognism being thrown around inappropriately. I just got into the feminazi thing because I was ticked off.

On another note entirely - WTF is WFA and why are they pointing people to this rant in my journal? I have a feeling it doesn't mean the World Fighting Association...
[info]anonymousmr wrote:
May. 24th, 2008 07:32 pm (UTC)
The meaning of WFA
"On another note entirely - WTF is WFA and why are they pointing people to this rant in my journal? I have a feeling it doesn't mean the World Fighting Association..."

It stands for "When Fangirls Attack!" It is a linkblog that covers the topic of women in comics, espeically feminist-minded stuff.

Personally, though, I think it's more a watchdog post, so they can gather all those they see as "enemies" into one place to bring down the righteous fires of angry women on those whom they deem "misogynists." After all, the place does have "attack" in the name. Who are you attacking, if not who you preceive as "the enemy?"

The admins of the blog say they don't judge or take sides, but really, once you look around the place, you'll see just how untrue that is.
Re: The meaning of WFA - [info]geministar01 - May. 24th, 2008 07:38 pm (UTC)
Re: The meaning of WFA - [info]misterthursday - May. 24th, 2008 07:49 pm (UTC)
Re: The meaning of WFA - [info]anonymousmr - May. 24th, 2008 08:01 pm (UTC)
Re: The meaning of WFA - [info]misterthursday - May. 24th, 2008 08:18 pm (UTC)
[info]quietprofanity wrote:
May. 25th, 2008 12:37 am (UTC)
I wasn't referring just to their military regime. I said "genocidal", i.e. killing whole races of people.

Feminazis believe in the total superiorty of the female half of the species. As such, they hate men and see them as 'infrior' and yes, I do believe that feminazis hate men while feminists do not. They believe that women are being 'kept down' by men and that the 'infrior' specimins need to be shown their place so that women can get the special treatment they deserve. Luckily, they are a minority in the feminist world, but they definitly deserve they label.

And you think some people on the Internet saying some comics are misogynist is equivalent to man hating? Actual "men-are-inferior-and-they-should-be-gassed-in-camps" hating?

Also, having actually read some radical feminist literature, I can name one, maybe two feminists who fit THAT definition of feminist misandry, and both of them are dead.

That said, the argument is actually about the word mysognism being thrown around inappropriately. I just got into the feminazi thing because I was ticked off.

And pegging people as genocidal killers because they don't like Supergirl's skirt is so much better? Okay.
(no subject) - [info]geministar01 - May. 25th, 2008 12:57 am (UTC)
(no subject) - [info]quietprofanity - May. 25th, 2008 01:07 am (UTC)
(no subject) - [info]geministar01 - May. 25th, 2008 01:30 am (UTC)
[info]anonymousmr wrote:
May. 24th, 2008 07:28 pm (UTC)
Actually, as history shows...
"But one, I really don't think the people who state those viewpoints you mentioned hate men and two, using a term like "feminazi" is both dismissive and it charges the feminists with a position of power that they don't have. These so-called "feminiazis" aren't in charge of comics and while they may want things a certain way and want them strongly, that doesn't make them equivalent to a genocidal, totalitarian state."

In the 1920's, the true Nazis had no power either. They were justa fringe political group, whom most folks found sadly humorous (the thought being, if you wanted a good laugh in 1920's Germany, you'd tell a Hitler or Nazis joke).

But despite having no power, they still prattled on with their hateful clap-trap. Until, in 1933, Hitler attained power in Germany. And the rest, well, we know what happened after that, don't we?

My point? Just because some hateful-minded, rhetoric-spewing group doesn't have power, doesn't mean they are "harmless" or should be ignored. History has shown us that usually leads to some very bad times.

If these "feminazis" don't like being called that, then they shouldn't act out in that way. Because their every utterence only makes those who see them for what they are, as just as dangerous as the real Nazis were, even when they had no power.
Re: Actually, as history shows... - [info]geministar01 - May. 24th, 2008 07:32 pm (UTC)
Re: Actually, as history shows... - [info]misterthursday - May. 24th, 2008 07:52 pm (UTC)
Re: Actually, as history shows... - [info]anonymousmr - May. 24th, 2008 08:05 pm (UTC)
Re: Actually, as history shows... - [info]quietprofanity - May. 25th, 2008 12:53 am (UTC)
Re: Actually, as history shows... - [info]geministar01 - May. 25th, 2008 01:04 am (UTC)
Re: Actually, as history shows... - [info]quietprofanity - May. 25th, 2008 01:13 am (UTC)
Re: Actually, as history shows... - [info]anonymousmr - May. 25th, 2008 01:17 am (UTC)
Re: Actually, as history shows... - [info]quietprofanity - May. 25th, 2008 01:21 am (UTC)
Re: Actually, as history shows... - [info]geministar01 - May. 25th, 2008 01:24 am (UTC)
Re: Actually, as history shows... - [info]anonymousmr - May. 25th, 2008 01:34 am (UTC)
(Anonymous) wrote:
May. 25th, 2008 12:29 am (UTC)
Ummm...
Yeah, put me down as another person who hates the term feminazi. I see where you're coming from, and I agree with most of your points, but using that term does honestly make it a bit harder for me to read (and sympathize with) what you're saying. To compare women who hate men with a political party that managed to start a world war that killed millions, and engaged in a campaign of genocide that killed millions more, is just kinda a stretch. I have relatives who died in the concentration camps, and I just can't use the term that lightly. Sorry.
[info]geministar01 wrote:
May. 25th, 2008 12:57 am (UTC)
Re: Ummm...
It's not a stretch and I'm not using the term lightly. As I have already clarified, feminazies (not feminists, but their extremist cousins) have ideologies that are extremely similiar to Nazi groups such as the American Nazi Party and the Aryan Nations. Most are not genocidal, but they are hateful bigots.

So I will continue to use the term because it is an effective description of these people.
[info]anonymousmr wrote:
May. 25th, 2008 01:27 am (UTC)
Re: Ummm...
"To compare women who hate men with a political party that managed to start a world war that killed millions, and engaged in a campaign of genocide that killed millions more, is just kinda a stretch."

Again, as I said above, if you go by a direct comparison of what the Nazis did, against what "feminazis" have done thus far, you are right.

But in a broader sense, in the some of the tactics and arguments these "feminazis" use to coerce people to their way or thinking, or surpress those whom they cannot coerce, the comparison actually has a very eerie similarity that cannot, and should not, be overlooked or ignored.

It only appears to be a stretch, because these "feminazis" haven't attained a level of power they can use to abuse others with (and it certainly isn't from a lack of desire or attempt on their part). Do we really need to sit around as wait for that to happen, before we see these people for what they are? When it comes to those who use hate speech and fear mongering to make people fall into line with what they think should be concerning any given topic, it seems pretty clear to me that Nazis propoganda tactics is a pretty fair call to make.
Re: Ummm... - (Anonymous) - May. 25th, 2008 03:13 am (UTC)
Re: Ummm... - [info]geministar01 - May. 25th, 2008 03:22 am (UTC)
Re: Ummm... - (Anonymous) - May. 25th, 2008 03:45 am (UTC)
Re: Ummm... - [info]geministar01 - May. 25th, 2008 03:49 am (UTC)
Re: Ummm... - [info]anonymousmr - May. 25th, 2008 06:15 am (UTC)
[info]notonstrike.blogspot.com wrote:
May. 30th, 2008 02:46 am (UTC)
kudos
First off, props for the post. Second, I have to agree with not using the term feminazi for the most practical of reasons: Look at how easily the entirety of your very reasonable post was discarded and the entire focus was switched onto your choice of labels. I'm not saying dropping the word would eliminate people who want to bitch about everything BUT the content of your post. Those people will always be around. I just don't see any good coming from giving them that one extra excuse.

I liked your post, and I found it through WFA. I read that blog of links to other blogs regularly, and I in no way hold a radical agenda on anything but the superiority of sound and valid reasoning. So don't write them off just for their name or what it seems like their position is based on the traffic they drive to your blog. Don't get me wrong, there will be drama, but the actual 3 ladies that run the blog are cool. They can't really be held responsible for the fringe elements of their readership.

Keep up the good work because you have definitely made some great points about the distinction between (what I would consider) real feminism and the type of feminism that nitpicks and henpecks over stupid crap just to seem hip. These are the same people who would be complaining about too many overweight ladies being exploited in art during the Victorian age. It just so happens that skinny and big breasted is the modern era's Rubenesque. In 50 years if short, flat, Olympic gymnast looking women become the new model standard, they'll hate that too.

Maybe just pick ANY other label for the mere rhetorical sake of keeping the fence-sitters engaged instead of ready to go off on a tangential rant over some word they find offensive regardless of its context.

[info]geministar01 wrote:
Jun. 2nd, 2008 01:27 am (UTC)
Re: kudos
*sigh* See, here's the real issue: I don't think that the term is at all offensive. It was never meant to be offensive. It's just a word that I found to be suitably descriptive.

To be perfectly honest, the only reason I used the term at all is because I wanted to differinciate between the reasonable feminists that I support and the, as you put it, the type that henpicks over stuff just to seem hip. I don't kno what else I'm supposed to call these jerks - if I use any variation of the term "feminist" or "uber-feminist" somebody's going to bitch about how I'm misrepresenting the feminist movement; if I use anything like "Womyn" I'm going to get yelled at by that particular faction of the movement. I figured I'd just use a term that was suitably negetive but that nobody (I thought) took seriously enough to really take offense at.

And really, I've just about had it up to here with these people bitching at me because I chose a word that's not politically correct. So other people can go about using "retard" and "gay" as casual insults for anything they dislike, but I get smashed for using a term that's actually discriptive of the people I'm talking about?

I haven't made a final decision about WFA yet. Really, I'd be all for this if they're just, I don't know, dropped me an e-mail or a comment before randomly deciding to link my rant. Just randomly pulling my rant out of the mess of the internet seems somewhat rude. It would've been nice to give me a heads-up, especially since this sudden flood of people just about scared me half to death.

Thanks for the support, but I don't think there's anything in the world that I can change it to without insulting *somebody* on the fence. I figure I might as well stick with the term I started with.
Re: kudos - (Anonymous) - Jun. 4th, 2008 07:46 am (UTC)

Profile

Kouichi
[info]geministar01
Gemini Star 01

Latest Month

July 2009
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by [info]chasethestars