More of a Law than a Trope
There is something that happens on feminist blogs, and it is such a common and reliable phenomenon, that it is more of a law than a figurative device. It happens even if it is moderated and you can’t see it as a reader. It is a phenomenon in the tradition of Godwin’s Law (the longer an online discussion becomes, the more likely a hyperbolic reference to Nazis is), but whereas Godwin’s Law can be seen operating in any discussion of any topic, this other pertains to feminist discussions or discussions where women are defending tiny patches of territory known as ‘women’s rights’. The reference that becomes likely falls into the category of “not all men…” Further, the likelihood of this reference occurring is less related to the length of the discussion, but to the strength of the ideology being expressed or the steadfastness of those expressing the dissenting opinion.
More specifically and succinctly, the purer or stronger the feminist ideology being expressed in a blog post or online discussion, the more likely it is that someone (male or female) will show up to:
- defend the ‘good’ men who somehow don’t benefit from or perpetuate Patriarchy, or
- put himself up as an example of how unlike other men he is, or
- give an example of a special, non-rapist, laundry-doing Nigel, or
- wax on poetically about how beautiful penises and male anatomy are, or
- serve up a graphic story of a sex act with a man which somehow disproves the existence of female slavery or systemic victimhood of women at the hands and dicks of men.
Although the Not-All-Men Law is common on heterosexual feminist blogs when the slightest criticisms of men may happen, it is especially true on male-critical blogs heavily populated by and possibly even run by lesbians. What typically happens is this: the topic of the post will generate some normal feminist commentary – what men and cock-identified women will call ‘male bashing’, but which is actually a statement or statements of reality/truth/facts – and as things heat up, you will inevitably get a defensive straight woman (followed immediately by a supportive pile-on of other, lurking, defensive straight women and occasionally and strangely, non-feminist lesbians) proudly announcing that she thinks “penises are beautiful things, imho”. There may be variations on that (sucking cock is awesome/cock-centred activities are feminist acts, men are just as victimized by Patriarchy as women, etc). The declaration will be seconded, thirded, etc., men might join in, and there may ensue more and more detailed, graphic descriptions of various heterosexual, dick-centric bedroom activities – unless it is shut down immediately by a lesbian moderator interested in preventing graphic derails of the original feminist topic of the post, or in preserving a hard-to-maintain woman-focus and/or lesbian interests.
I’ve seen it time and again, and this kind of stuff serves to dilute feminism, silence radicals and separatists, and divide feminists. Some women believe that you can’t put women first and willingly serve Dick/dick at the same time, so to see declarations of penis-love on a feminist blog is anti-feminist. Men don’t need defending. They run the world and every system (politics, economics, law, medicine, psychotherapy) within it. A better thing to do for those women compelled to defend men is to ask why the need to defend those who have all the power?
Oh, and by the way, with regard to Godwin’s Law and the whole braindead Nazi reference thing, there is something that he left out (he is a man, after all). It is an absolute given that if you are a feminist who dares to speak, you WILL be called a Nazi, and often a ‘feminazi’. There is no escaping that and it has nothing to do with length of discussion.
Woman speaking = Nazi takeover.
Posted on April 21, 2016, in Feminism, Misogyny and tagged feminazi, Godwin, heterosexuality, lesbian, Nazis, patriarchy, radical feminism. Bookmark the permalink. Comments Off on More of a Law than a Trope.