Does feminism naturally attract the insane?

When I published the last article, “You should be more careful” is not victim blaming, I expected feminist extremists to go nuts on me like a chicken with its head chopped off. I fully anticipated something laughably retarded like, “If you don’t condemn the perpetrators and cover every possible aspect of this social ill along with what you said all in one single breath, you’re victim blaming!”

After the first few gushed in like the tsunami on Fukushima, I decided to post the article around several dozens of online feminist forums to get a better sense of the balance between those who are like Malala Yousafzai and those who are closer to clinically insane.

After over two weeks of posting and reading the responses, I have no choice but to ask the question: Does feminism naturally attract the insane? The vast majority of the responses were no better than knee jerking reactions akin to how cockroaches respond when the kitchen light suddenly comes on. No comprehension. No logic. Completely primal fight or flight.

So, I took out my notebook and started jogging down the most outrageous rebuttals (if you can even call them that) I have received. However, after writing down nearly a hundred unique ones, I found my efforts rather pointless in view of the single “best” response I have received and have seen being resonated across literally every forum I engaged in:

Women who protect themselves are endangering other women!

WTF.

I am trying very hard to find the right words to describe my shock and disgust, and failing spectacularly at it.

I once thought we, as a society, have hit a new low when the common sensical act of suggesting someone to be careful is considered wrong. And yet, here I am, staring at the reality that there is a good slice of people who believe that even self-defense is wrong.

What must have happened to their brains to produce this kind of stupidity?!

One response I have received “eloquently” captured and embodied this stupidity:

[W]hen a woman protects herself against [sexual] assault, she is making herself less visible and other women more visible to predators. She is advertising to the predators, “See that girl over there? Go rape her, not me!” . . . As women, we need to make ourselves equally vulnerable to carry the threat equally.

This sounds shockingly similar to that famous scene in Spartacus, where everyone proclaimed they were Spartacus, doesn’t it? Except the two scenarios are completely different.

The gamble in Spartacus was that if those who were asking for Spartacus cannot identify who the real Spartacus was, then they would be faced with the difficult choice of killing everyone or killing no one.

Does that same logic apply in our case of women all being “equally vulnerable”? No, the perpetrators now have even more opportunities to commit sexual assault. Instead of having to seek out the vulnerable ones, the entire female population has become a buffet line.

A more on-point analogy for this nonsense would be trying to combat burglary by not locking doors. Instead of advocating for home security systems and making it simply not worthwhile for the burglars to comb through hundreds of houses just to find the one house that doesn’t have home security, the community is urging everyone to keep their doors unlocked and “carry the threat equally.”

This is beyond ordinary stupidity; yet, its adoption is prevalent across these online feminist forums I engaged. Literally every single one of those forums had this position brought up and with overwhelming support.

Every special interest group has extremists within their ranks, usually restricted to the fringes. But this case here is far from the fringes. Such overwhelming support shows these “extreme elements” are not just the most vocal, but also representative of their special interest.

So, are online feminist forums the “fringes”? Or is today’s Western feminism a natural magnet for people who are living so comfortably that the only way for them to find meaning in life is to indulge in their insanity and imaginary realities, in order to find something to “fight against”?

Whatever the answer may be, these nutjobs should not be colored as activists; instead, they should be committed and given psychiatric help.

They make feminism look like a mental institute just gave every patient broadband internet.


Enjoyed this post? Fuming with rage? Follow us on Facebook or Twitter and tell us how you feel!

3 thoughts on “Does feminism naturally attract the insane?

  1. I agree that there are lots of crazy feminists (just like I agree that there are tons of nut jobs for every one particular ideology) but using a single anecdotal piece of evidence is stupid and does not support your argument that feminist ideology itself necessarily attracts crazies.

    Be more scientific than that yo. All of this is just conjecture.

    Like

    1. It was clearly stated that this position was supported by every single forum he engaged and, more important, received overwhelming support. Hardly as much conjecture as an informed opinion. Your grammar aside, placing such non words as “yo” and conjecture in such close proximity seems to support the feminism and insanity causal connection. Non?
      Further, just for clarity, suggesting that every group has a contingent of crazy members (conjecture, methinks) is not effective in deflecting Retortik’s position.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s