Why?

I've been reading a lot of feminist essays recently. I particularly look for things about feminism that are not about feminism itself. Ideally, feminism is simply about stopping oppression; and essays to that effect are easily agreeable. Essays about the modus operandi of feminism often frustrate, annoy, or anger me. I tend to agree with Post-feminist movements, rather than the so-called Second and Third Waves. I look for things like: Women in Refrigerators. This is, sort of, a discussion of what something may mean, if it means anything. It involves people's conceptions- projecting their thought processes. I find that interesting, and easier to remember as opinion.

I, also, actively seek discussion with non-professional feminists. I am, often, guilty of taunting them, which is bad manners- but nothing more. (Bad Manners is its own topic, for later). However, I run into a lot of elitism, faulty logic, basic philosophy, credulity, and ignorance.

For instance: (from WiR, linked above, Joan Hilty's Response):
You only need to have the faintest grasp of feminist or semiotic theory to know that it's not just how often [death, sexual abuse, and other heinous acts against woman-kind is] done, it's HOW it's done and TO WHOM certain things are done. The sexually violent visual language of how these women get killed is remarkably consistent. Really, the larger reality is that American mainstream comics, built by guys for guys on the crumbling foundations of superhero fantasy, remain intensely hostile to women, consciously and subconsciously. As political and cultural landscapes shift and evolve worldwide and it gets harder and harder for white guys to retain their perceived right to run the world, you can see the frustration act itself out in various forms of hideous backlash -- everything from "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" to Katma Tui.

I didn't know I had a right to run the world because I was white and a guy! Fuck, how do I get in on that right, failing though it may be? Did I get left out by being poor and raised in a highly matriarchal family? Shit! Fucked again, by circumstance and conspiracy!

Logical Fallacies, first: Loaded Words. Begging the Question. Straw Man. Others, but I'll limit myself to dealing with those.

Loaded Words: More like loaded phrases: "sexually violent" "these women" "consciously and subconsciously" "white guys" "right to run the world"

Are all deaths of female characters, in comics, sexually violent? And when they are, what percentage of those incidents are relevant to the story? (That is: When is it important that the character was killed/hurt in a sexually violent matter?) That's important because it'd be pretty hard to talk about rape, in the visual medium of comics, without using some "sexually violent visual language".

Are fictional characters really the same as "women"? Don't get me wrong, the treatment of fictional characters can reveal underlying psychological phenomena- I won't argue that. However, let us NEVER forget that "these women" are not real, have never been real, and do not resemble real individuals.

"White guys" is the favorite loaded word of the "oppressed minority" in America. Apparently, "white guys" are the only people capable of oppressing other people. Are comics dominated by "white guys" because of this "white guy" conspiracy to continue ruling the world? ("White guys" are the minority of persons in power throughout history, just so we're clear). Or is this simply inspiring our reflexive, media-reinforced, stereotype of old power hungry white oppressors from an era when people of different shading used different water fountains?

As a "white guy" I can say that neither me, nor any of my other "white guy" friends, have ever mistakenly thought we had a "right to run the world". Those times when, as I think everyone does, we discussed what we'd do if we DID run the world, reasoning for our rule wasn't often discussed. When that reasoning was discussed, it was never proposed that shading had anything to do with it. This is intended to shock and dismay the reader. "How could anyone think they have the right to run the world!?!"

Loaded words/phrases are there to play on the fears, insecurities, and stereotypes of the audience. They carry heavy emotional connotation. For instance: Who needs logic when you can just scare people into believing? The phrase "scare people into believing" sounds as if their choice was taken away from them and they were forced to believe.

The Straw Man is that this is all part of the conspiracy of "white guys" to perpetuate their "right to run the world". The other members of the "white guy" conspiracy have told me to assure you that NO such conspiracy exists.

(some of) The Begged Questions:
--"have the faintest grasp of feminist or semiotic theory"... Uhm...How does semiotics work into this? General Semantics? Semantics? Syntactics? Nevermind, I'll skip that bit. Why would we only need a faint grasp? Forget that, too, though. The biggest question is: Which type of feminist theory? (Post-, Second Wave, Third Wave, Other?)
--"it's HOW it's done and TO WHOM certain things are done"... Why only "certain things"? Do other "certain things" negate the first "certain things"? Most importantly, what is the generic algorithm for detection? What about "HOW it's done" reveals negative things about the "How"? What about "TO WHOM it's done" reveals negative things? Why? How?

This is just an example, of course. I think it illustrates the elitism- by denigrating one group to elevate the status of another. The faulty logic is often due to the ignorance of what logical fallacies are, and how to avoid them. The basic philosophy is that "feminism" is always a good thing because it promotes the "freeing" of an oppressed minority. However, I maintain that it does so at the expense of another group- technically the minority (just a technicality I think of as funny, not relevant). [This is different than the fight versus racism because everyone is of some "race" or another; while not everyone is female.] The credulity is many-fold: belief in a male-conspiracy, belief that anyone who opposes feminism is a misogynist, so on and so on.

This is why I oppose the furthering of "feminism"; because I think it's time we stop categorizing all the bullshit. It's time we stop fighting for this little thing or for that little thing. It's time we stop implying shit with labels. Feminism will never gain true equality without fighting the distinction in words like: "Mother" and "Father", "She/Her/Hers" and "He/Him/His". It's time to fight the context, not the language. Individualism is my theory of hating people based on their unique, individual, attributes. So what that he's Iraqi? Does he believe in bullshit? Who cares that she's a "she"? Is she a body-conscious, morally obligated, prude? There are better reasons to hate people than because of some bullshit "race" or they're a certain gender.

And trying to "rid the world of hate" is the dumbest fucking thing, ever!