Forget the grammar in the picture–focus on the message. It isn’t enough that society bends over backwards in order to accommodate women. Third-wave feminism is about acknowledging women’s subordination, both in terms of agency and intellectual/physical ability. The acknowledgment isn’t explicit. They’ll deny it endlessly. Rather, it’s implicit, and the way it comes out is through constant over-compensation.
Women have their rights. They have the right to vote, they have the right murder your child, and they have the right to hold office, etc.–basically, they got what they wanted. That’s what the previous waves were about. But aside from views on those issues, it should have been obvious from the get-go that those concessions would never have been enough.
I blame the Enlightenment. The autistic philosophers, being overly consistent, gave in to the reductio of women’s rights. And that makes sense–that is, if you accept the original premise. If men and women are fundamentally indistinguishable in every meaningful and relevant sense, then it’s arbitrary to exclude women from the exact same rights and responsibilities that men have, as well. Fair enough, but of course, the original premise is absolute bollocks.
If you accept the original premise, then a blocking out of the IBE (Inference to the Best Explanation) will go on. The rose-tinted glasses of ideology permit you only to see oppression where there is genuine difference. As a result feminists want to move far beyond the legal realm of negative rights and even most positive rights too. Procedural rights, which are a subset of positive rights, are possessed in their entirety by women. They also, of course, have negative rights. But in addition, they want to be immune from social criticism. They’re stepping away from the legal domain and into the social domain, but they want the coercive arm of the law to follow their every move.
“Feminism is being free to decide who I want to be and how to act.”
Note the operative definition of the word “free.” They already are free. There’s nothing described in the above picture that they cannot do. Rather, they’ve redefined the word “free” to mean “the ability to do anything I want to do without any negative consequences or negative social feedback.” This is what they hilariously redefine as “respect.” This is the definition of third-wave feminism, and it takes a while for most newcomers to sex realism to understand it.
Most average people begrudgingly admit that women should have voting rights and so on, but they tend to be perplexed at third-wave feminism because they don’t understand what third-wave feminism is really all about. They don’t yet understand cultural Marxism. But armed with the above definition, all that’s needed is to show the utility of shaming certain behaviors which have negative externalities.
Unfortunately, most settle with saying: “Well, I guess it isn’t hurting anyone…” This happened to me yesterday. I was talking with a self-styled conservative who might as well have been quoting straight from the Book of Liberalism™: The harm principle, an obsession with ill-defined “liberty” and “equality,” and a complete lack of understanding regarding externalities and the utility of traditional norms.
Is feminism an attempt to imitate men? Of course. They see sexual double standards (which are justified, by the way) and find them to be patently unjustified because of the Original Enlightenment Premise of Sameness, and so they embrace an aesthetic that makes them look like man-dykes, with an accompanying masculine set of behaviors and attitudes.
Only women would complain this incessantly about social criticism in the first place. They don’t understand the difference between justified and unjustified shaming. They think it’s all bad, and so what do they do? They shame the shamers for shaming. The contradiction and irony of it all is lost on them, unfortunately. And debate is only fun if your opponents know that you’ve scored a point.
Feminism: the ultimate get-out-of-criticism-free card.