Why I am an anti-feminist. AKA The sheer hypocracy of feminist comic bloggers and the Mary Jane Maquette "controversey"

Hello everybody.
I know I know, I was supposed to have several new installments weeks ago.
Unfortuately somethings came up and I had little time or opportunity for blogging. (more on this next post)
However as busy as I was I did get sucked into the whole Mary jane staue thing.
You may have seen some of my posts deriding the hypocritical and quite frankly overemotional response of many prominant feminist bloggers.

Many many examples can be seen here.
http://womenincomics.blogspot.com/


Some of you may be wondering if this will be trend.
The answer is yes.
You see I enjoy hoisting those who are self righteous, hypocritical, and irrational up on their own petard.
And few fit the bill as well as feminists. Militant homosexuals come pretty close, but even militant Blacks have settled down and become fairly rational over the last few decades.
Hmm women and homsexuals theres a thread there, maybe even tomorrows post.

But I digress.

I am a strident anti-feminist.

However this does not, as all the bra burning, man hating, vagina monologues reading, protest leading, hariy legged, sexually frustrated, gloria steinham wannabes will say, mean I am anti-woman.

Confused?

Good its a great place to start.

Truth is I love women.
I love everything about them.
I love thier bodies, I love their minds.

I dont love feminists.
I dont love the crackpot theory that men and women are the same. By 4 most of us have figured out thats bullshit.
I dont love the idea that anything feminine is good and anything masculine is bad.
I dont love the inherant assumption that any form of male sexual desire is demeaning.
I dont love the inherant belief that women who take a traditonal sex role are "betraying the sisterhood"
I dont love the idea that any women who would "serve" her husband by doing the laundry, cooking, or otherwise being domestic, is either being "exploited" or "lacks self respect".

I dont love these ideas because they are inherantly anti-woman.

Lets make one thing clear. If you love someone you will serve them gladly.
It doesnt matter whether you're a man in love with a woman, a woman in love with a man, a man in love with a man, or a woman in love with a purple alien from rigel 7.
When you love someone you want to serve them.
When you love someone serving them is a joy.

I love waking up in the moring on saturday and making my wife breakfast. 5 days a week she wakes up and gets my coffee ready as I grudgingly return to life for the same reason.

We love each other, we love doing for each other, and we love making each other happy. That is what marriage is supposed to be about.

For both sexes.
But feminists would have you believe that doing laundry for your husband demeans you.

How can willing service done gladly in the name of love demean?


You'd have to ask a feminist.


Reread though the many posts of indignent women howling to the gods about the inherant sexism in the staue and 90% mention thats shes *gasp* "doing laundry".
More than that most cite it as one of the statues chief offenses and examples of sexism.

In other words any woman who does anything remotely resembling "service" for a man is being "exploited"

Of course a man who does his wifes laundry is just "being enlightened"

Yeah I know it makes no sense to me either but then, Im not hopelessly dedicated to an irrational and illogical ideology.


Feminists are.

Lets be brutally honest with each other for a minute.
Despite feminist propaganda men and women are very different.
We choose different types of jobs, place different value on work as opposed to family, take different types of risks professionally, engage in different passtimes, and have different interests in sports, movies and literature. We enjoy different types of sexual stimulation, have different errogenous zones, and consume different types of erotica (porn to men). Yes there are those exceptions that dont fall into the norms. They are few and far between. Most women like shoe shopping. Most men do not. This is not a sexist statement, its a statement of fact.
However femninists by and large dont want women in comics to share these "gender" traits that the vast majority of woemn do show, becasue to do so would be sexist. Rather they want to see characterisations of women which fit thier ideology but which would be unrecognisable to the vast majority of actual women.

A woman in comics for example, at least according to feminists, can't be a "passive" (in other words a woman who responds to a mans advances)conquest of a male hero sexually without being labeled as an "accessory item at best, a living testament to the male heros sexual prowess at worst", but if shes sexually agressive shell be labeled as a "fan boys wet dream"

If she engages in "girly" activities like ohhhh lets say laundry shes "a demeaned and exploited domestic and sexual servant" but if shes works a full time job, is unmarried, and refuses to engage in "domestic" activities shes a "ball busting caricarture of feminsits designed to discredit them"


Hmmm, seems as if any portrayl of women is disatisfactiory.


The second problem is that wrapped up into all the feminsit beliefs is the idea that soemhow, male sexual interest itself is somehow damaging.

This can be seen by the fact despite the fact that the MJ staues was actually fully clothed, its "suggestive pose was designed to titilate".

Yeah so?

So was the shot of Kevin Costner's butt in Robin hood. So what?

The point is, any image designed to titlate men is inherantly sexist, ergo all male sexual desire is inherantly sexist.



Understand, men are not, as feminsit and most modernist literature would suggest, idiots only capable of keeping one thought in thier mind at a time.

In other word we can look at a woman and fantasize about having dirty, kinky, animal sex, and still respect and even admire her for other traits.

I am in total lust with jenna jameson, but I respect her abillity to take that popularity and build an Adult Empire based on it far more than I lust for her. Truth is my "fantasy encouter with her would start with us having animalistic sex, but once our ardor had cooled it invloves an hours long discussion of the trends and opportunities shes sees in the adult industry and the specific business startegies she is enacting in order to take advantage of them.

Just as I think jessica simpsons public image is that of a dumb blonde bimbo, yet despite that and my obvious attraction to her I respect her abillity to successfully marketing her branded items immensely.


My point is theres nothing stopping a woman from being a(willing)object of intense sexual desire one minute and a competant intelligent lady the next or even the same moment.

Theres no earthly reason a woman cant wear a pantsuit in the boardroom and a bustier in the bed (or laundry) room.


Except of course that feminsits say so.

And theres nothing, and I mean nothing inherantly more "valuable, self respectful, or pro-woman" about a woman who has a career than a woman who voluntarily decides that her contribution to society via her child rearing skills is more important to her than the contribution she can make to society as a worker.

Female CEO's are no more important, and no more "pro-woman" Than stay at homes moms, or wives.

No matter what the screaming mimi's might screech.

The idea that a woman who chooses to split the work down "traditional sex lines" as opposed to working is somehow a "self hating volutary slave of the patriarchy" is so unbelivably wrong headed that it drops my jaw to the floor.

Its sad to see that the ones who are taking away the vast majority of womens choices, and devalueing a vast percentage of womens contributions are the so called feminsits isn't it?

Want to stay home and raise your children to be strong men and women?
Sorry your betraying the sisterhood.
Aren't interested in corporate politics or working the 60-70 hour weeks necessary to becoem a top level executive?
Sorry your betraying the sisterhood.
Want to shopw you husband that you love him and support him in his life choices after he comes back form a hard night fighting supervillians by washing his stinky uniform?
Sorry MJ you're betraying the sisterhood, or rather the artist who sculpted you is.

Was this staue desingned to appeal to men?
Yeah so what?
The "guy butt" shot early in heroes was desinged to appeal to women, does that mean its sexist?

The fact is if you look at the hysteria and the resonses to this controversy around the net, what it boils down to is this. Any depiction of a woman which doesnt exactly conform to feminsit orthodoxy is automatically sexist, regardelss of whether it is or not when women do the same thing.

When women write "slash" fanfics designed for women, which are in fact far more hypersexualised than any comic published today, its just "women writing what women want to read" When Frank Cho does a version of ultron that appears as a naked women, its sexist.

Even more bizarrely, when Homosexuals write "alt" fan fics which portray male characters in a hypersxualised way for the enjoyment of men or when gay women write female characters in a hypersexualised way for the enjoyment of women (which is exactly the carges being lkevelled against comics) it isn't considered sexist, yet when men write women in a hypersexualised way for the enjoyemnt of men it is.
Why isn't it sexist when men do it to men, or women do it to women,for the exact same reasons or for that matter when women do it to men, but only when men do it to women?
Isn't that in itself sexism?



But what really gets me, is that even when "feminists" have to go so far to make
thier point, that thier own efforts show the extreme double standard by which they live, they dont clue in.

For example, as a form of "come uppance" many feminist sites posted this image seen on the right.



The one on the left of course is the Statue that caused all the fuss.

Yet if you look close, or hell even glance at either you'll see a major difference.

While MJ is fully Clothed, Peter is dressed in only a thong.
And yet somehow to feminsits, these two images are "the same"


How?!?!?!?

MJ while dressed somehwat provacotively (and yet no more so than half of all the women walking outside my office window) is wearing jeans and a shirt which together cover at least 75% of her skin. Spiderman on the otherhand has less than 10% covered.

See the thing is this image, better than any argument I could marshall proves the inherant hypocracy of the feminist movement.


It shows in full color just how big the disconnect between reality and ideology is and more to the point how blatently they market a double standard as equality.

Think about this. If the pose and clothing of MJ was so obviously offensive and sexist, why is the peter image shown nearly naked?

I belive its because the original artist knew that if she created an image of peter wearing the exact same clothes in the exact same position, noone would raise and eyebrow.
Even going as far beyond the orginal image as she did, she got nowhere near the response the original did.

But my point is, why feel the need to take the "rebuttal" image to such an extreme unless you KNOW THAT THE ORIGANL IMAGE WOULD OFFEND NONE IF ACCURATELY TRANSFERRED?


See the thing is If MJ were wearing Lingerie or a bathing suit, or her bra and panties, while in that pose I might see an issue, and that would be analogous to the peter image.
But it wasn't, and it isn't.

What it was, was a sad and rather pathetic attempt to "give men a taste of their own medicine" which failed miserably because even as extreme as the image created was, no one really cared.

There was no "outrage" or at the least, so little I didnt see any, over the Peter image.
No one that saw called it "demeaning to men"
Hell most guys said "theres nothing wrong with that and it would probably sell."

Which again exposes the hypocracy of feminists. or at least the hypersensitivity.


Truth is there isn't acountry in the world where women have it better than here in the good old U S of A.

In some respects women have it better than men, just ask any man whose ever gone through a divorce, a child custody case, or atempted to defend himself against false or malicous rape or domestic abuse charges.

See I dont have a problem with feminists becasue they are ( opr more accurately claim to be) pro-women, I have a problem because
1) they aren't.
and
2) becasue they claim to be for equality, but are only interested in inequalities which penalise them.

Alimony more than anything else puts the lie to feminist propaganda.

For those of you who aren't aware, alimoney is a monthly payment made to your exwife, from the day of your divorce, untill the day she remarries.
Its a hold over form times when women couldn't support themselves do to the lack of opportunities in the labor markets.

Yet despite the fact that alimoney is based on the asusmption that women not only still cant provide for themselves financially, but that she REQUIRES a man to support her, you would think all these "I am woman and I dont need a man" radical and outspoken feminists would be outraged. Or the idea that "children should be raised by theier mother if a divorce happens since women are more maternal" which is why better than 80% of all those granted custody in contested (where both parents want custody) cases are women.

Yet how often have we heard Feminists arguing or protesting the sexist and patriarchal assumptions of these two practises?

Never.

Becasue this is a form of sexism that benefits them.

And thats what bugs me.

See what pisses me off about "popular causes" is the lack of basic honesty.
Feminsits CLAIM they want eqauilty, yet want to be TREATED inequally if it BENFITS them.

Thats hypocracy.
If you want to be treated like an equal, Im going to treat you like an equal. I WILL TELL the exact same jokes I do in mixed comany I will in all male comany. I will say a woman looks hot, regardless of whether or not women are around If i think she looks hot. I will comliment a woman on her apppearence just as I would a male coworker who looks particularly spiffy that day.
(try this experimetn ask 20 men if they've been working out, then ask 20 women, see which group tries to send you to senistivity training.)
Feminists CLAIM they want equality, yet back Domestic Abuse laws where despite the physical evidence a man is assumed to be the agressor and automatically taken to jail.
(here in florida such is the law, a friend was stabbed by his girlfriend with a butchers knife and despite the facts the he had multiple defensive wounds and she had no inmjusries visible or otherwise he was taken to jail. Local feminists called it a "triumph of gender equality")
Feminsits CLAIM they want equality, yet never protest the inherant sexism of Custody court biases. They claim they want equality, yet you never hear them claiming that men who hit women are in fact acting in a truly gender nuetral basis. (as Booster gold once remarked "in the 30th century sexual equailty is a given, I can hit anyone I want"

In other words thier actions do not support thier statements.

My opinion, and one that was expressed better than I ever could by Carlos Mencia, is that if you want equality I will give it to you, if you want sepcial treatment all you have to do is admit you're inferior. But you cant have it both ways. You either get equality, OR special treatment the two are mutually exclusive.

You want alimoney payments? No problem admit you're not as good as a man and need me to suport you. Dont think its true? Then dont take the money. You want to automatically get the children in custody? No problem admit women are better at childcare, that they are naturally suited to it, an stop bitching when people expect you to quit working to raise your children. Dont think its true? Then dont accept a sexist verdict.
You think women are the equal of men? No problem, now you have to meet the same physical standards for jobs such as firefighter soldier or police officer. Dont want to meet the same standard? No problem just admit men are stronger, and better suited to the job and let those jobs be sexually segregated.

You can eat your cake, but when your done you wont still have a piece of cake. Or you can keep your piece of cake, but you have to forgo eating it.
You dont get it both ways.

I belive in sexual equality, and thats why I have no problems bitch slapping a feminist. Verbally or physically.




Oh and to anyone who feels offended by my remarks?

I intended to offend you. I want to offend you, and writing in my coments section that I did so will only make me happy. So go ahead, make my day. Prove what a bunch of whiney, comlaining, hypocriticalm, sexually frustrated, mommas boys and emo-girls y'all are.


Two last things.
1)as a direct result of this controversey, I will be buying several of these maquettes. One I will purchase for myself the other three as gifts. (i have already placed an order at my LCS) I have never purchased a maquette or statue or any other toys or stauettes related to comics before. I have no interest in them. I am buying this one specifically because I want to ensure more like them are made, and the best way to do that is to buy several.
2) I am looking for men and women sick of feminist hypocracy to help me create an anti-feminist web org designed to counteract every one of these flaps by writing in support of supposedly "sexist" comics, toys, posters, and statues, online, and via snail mail, to let the comic companies know that the squeeky wheels dont represent thier customer base and can be safely ingnored as the shrill manhating harpies they are.