Samus Aran was never a strong female character.

In the first Metroid game, the player controls the character of Samas Aran. Only at the end is it revealed that the character is female.

"We were partway through the development process when one of the staff members said 'Hey, wouldn't that be kind of cool if it turned out that this person inside the suit was a woman?'" Link1

Let's sidestep the pink bikini for just a moment, I'll tackle that a bit later. Samus' sex was irrelevant. An important distinction, and one that I think was indeed kinda cool. But over the years this aspect of the game has grown to ludicrous proportions.

Which brings us to Other M. Where overwrought and possibly sexist storytelling portray Samus as a weak woman who seeks the approval of a man. And the argument has been made that Samus' relationship with Adam is dysfunctional. Link2

What's the nature of that dysfunction? Is it... Sexist? Is it... Misogynist?

I'll give you my take on it. It's a fantasy based on fanboy perceptions of what a strong female character should be... male.

Yes. Our perceptions of agency are male-centric. In order to be percieved as being strong, a female character acts in ways typically viewed as masculine. "Kicking ass and taking names."

But.

This clashes with our real world experiences of the feminine. Most women act through others, and avoid direct conflict. Those that do stand out because of their rarity. (Please lay your opinions on Thatcher's politics aside for a moment.)

So we have this odd clash of typical feminine behavior, and fantasy female behavior. And it implodes spectacularly in the story of Other M. Where Samus defers to Adam's authority with little reason and no sense of self-agency. This is a story by men for men about the "strong" woman fantasy. Samus kicks ass at the direction of a man.

Remember the pink bikini? 

The Zero Suit is Other M's pink bikini. Again, it's an appeal to the male fantasy of a sexy woman, acting like a man so the fan can feel better about ogling her butt. The mishmash of feminist guilt versus male sexuality. Just ogle her goddamn butt and get over your societal induced shame of your sexuality. 

Man Bad, Woman Good.

I read a blog post today that I wanted to comment on.

http://www.danielleparadis.com/2014/01/26/but-prove-to-me-that-patriarchy-exists/
"It seems wholly doubtful to deny that individual acts of sexual discrimination exist, and I think most people would agree. Really then to say that patriarchy exists is only to claim that these acts of discrimination are not simply random acts of individual prejudice or individual bad behaviour, but a more generalized social prejudice that favors males as a demographic and/or masculinity as an ideology."

The problem is that the tone and message has been "Man Bad, Woman Good" for a very long time. Since 2nd wave feminism definitley, and possibly for a lot longer than that.
Take the Redstockings Manifesto.

"All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women. "

This kind of rhetoric erases men's oppression and suffering and elevates women's condition to the level of martyr, and only and solely oppressed class. Saying that "Patriarchy hurts men too" is a mischaracterization of the human condition though history. Men AND women particpated in a patriarchal system because it was the most effective system for survival of the species.

"4. Violence: women are more prone to being abused

• 7 sobering facts about violence against women
• Violence against women in Canada
• Amnesty Internationals facts on violence against women"

The disinformation campaign continues. Women and men are equally prone to violence against each other. And there is some evidence that women are more prone to initiate violence against their partners.

http://fermat.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41-PR41-Dominance-symmetry%20-%20corrected-pg255.pdf

But feminism and their Patriarchy Theory has long asserted that domestic violence is an issue of patriarchal dominance, and not a pattern of learned behavior, and poor conflict resolution skills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model

This kind of misinformation continues to portray men as the villains, and women as the victims. This does not match up to facts and the lived experiences of men and women, but it's the kind of thing, created by feminist thinkers to keep the threat narrative going.

"5. Paid work: women are likely to be paid less

The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics describes the gap between wages, something that economists have been tracking since 1890. Worth noting that although a pay gap exists between men and women in general, it is dramatically more pronounced among women of color especially migrant workers."

Another debunked assertaion, which I have blogged about before. There is no pay gap. Women are paid the same amount as men. Women EARN less because of their choices, not because of some patriarchal system that undervalues the work of women. If anything, perhaps men should consider if working themselves into an early grave is worth the tradeoffs.

http://chadnine.blogspot.com/2014/02/obama-misogynist.html

So yes, patriarchal systems did exist, and feminists like Gloria Steinem cast those patriarchal systems as "The bad guy" in order to gain political clout via sympathy from the public. The victim narrative is strong, and when it's used to portray women as victims, logic and facts get thrown out the window.

"It is worth noting that many people prefer to use kyriachy to describe interlocking systems of oppression because patriarchy alone does not cover the entire scope of oppression. Patriarchy sometimes misses queer, class, and racial oppressions. Patricia Hill Collins in Black Feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination moves us closer to an inclusive definition of understanding oppression,"

The retreat of the argument from Patriarchy to Kyriarchy kinda sorta aknowledges that patriarchy theory does not describe human history very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_B%C3%A1thory

Women have held power, and used it just as oppressivley and for great evil as men have. Oppression is oppression, it is done by both men and women, and gender roles are not a source of oppression, but a factor in how that oppression plays out.

Patriarchy doesn't hurt men too. Feminism hurts men by portraying them as the villians of the feminist Patriarchy threat narrative. And until feminists can let go of blaming men, the problems with their ideology will continue to harm men.

I should give a shout out to Justicar, who made a video response to this blog post, where I got the link.

ABC Afterschool Specials

Discussions about the media made me remember these afterschool specials that were popular in the 70's and 80's. I have a dim memory of the content of these specials, and so I reviewed the list of episodes on wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Afterschool_Special

The first few seasons seem innoccuous enough, though the liberal bias is pretty apparent even early on. The very first ABC special dealt with an endangered species.

As the list goes on, they delve into topics like rape and abuse. To be fair, the list does portray women as capable of wrongdoing, like Please Don't Hit Me, Mom. But a lot of them have the man as the villain, like Don't Touch, and Andrea's Story.

There's a lot of these, and quite a few are uploaded to youtube. I'll have to see if I can make the time to review some of these old videos and go further into the content.

Metamorphosis

I hope you'll forgive my indulgence in optimistic speculation here.

I wonder if all of these events are the beginnings of a transformation of our society.
Feminism may have been a necessary stage. The unbridled fury of gynocentrism made manifest in a social movement that put forth the very worst of human sexism seems to have been the faciliator of the growth of the men's rights movement, the men going their own way philosophy, and the unnamed reactions of men and women who see the injustice and bigotry that has infused our society.
People react. They accuse. They point fingers and stamp their feet. Some write books about men going on strike, and protest the unfeeling and unfair treatment of men. The traditonalists moan and weep over their imaginary "better days", and the feminists reach for ever more ludicrous examples of oppression that make the public wonder what the hell they're talking about.

Meanwhile, a few intellectually brave people are getting a glimpse of these portents for what they are. A metamorphosis of our societey from one that is a slave to our biological and social heritage, to one that is fully aware of the nature of men and women. A society that truly treats all human beings as human beings. Unfettered by our preconceptions and expectations. One that recognizes our foibles and predilections and rises above them. A world where men and women are united, perhaps for the very first time, in the wonder of seeing each other for what they are, and not what we hope or fear they may be.

Getting paid to masturbate.

There's a lot of great comment about Laci Green's latest video "SEX OBJECT BS", but I think Razor Blade Kandy knocked it out of the park.

Original video:



RBK's response video:



RBK makes long videos, and he uses a text to speech synth, but it's worth watching all the way through. He tears her video apart, and makes some good jokes along the way.

The thing I wanted to blog about, is that RBK at one point makes the observation that Laci's success is nothing more than the softcore version of masturbating on cam for money. Now, as an *ahem* watcher of porn from time to time, I have come across videos of women doing just that. They set up some kind of account and men will PAY THEM MONEY to go at it with a dildo or whatnot. I'm not the one paying, I watch these vids after they're put up on the net for free afterwards.
But doesn't that tell you something? Men will pay women to just watch them play with their genitals. It's a bit like paid phone sex lines too. For a society that's supposed to be so misogynistic, there certainly seem to be an awful lot of guys willing to throw money at women just for the most threadbare fantasies that they're in some kind of sexual intimacy with them. If they just wanted to watch women masturbate and jack off to it, I can tell you there's lots of free stuff available for that. No, they're wanting something much more. To connect with a woman intimately. And they're desperate enough to pay money to pretend that that's what they're doing.

Anyway, here's some more commentary on Laci Green's vile, hypocritical video. Just think kids, she's actually speaking on sex issues at schools. No wonder society is so fucked up.

John the Other:


Chazwold Almighty:


Honey Badger Radio:


Victor Zen:

Obama the misogynist?

In his latest State of the Union Addresss, Obama made the old, debunked argument that wages in America aren't fair because mean old men pay poor little women less than men.

 “Last night, President Obama told Congress, ‘Women deserve equal pay for equal work,’ and then he headed back to the White House where women don’t receive equal pay.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/29/216301/how-does-obama-stack-up-on-womens.html

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/29/216301/how-does-obama-stack-up-on-womens.html#storylink=cpy

When this discrepancy is pointed out, someone inevitably starts backpedalling, saying that this is example of misogyny too.

Hold on to your fucking horses there, boyo. You can't claim that women are paid less than men, and then claim that women aren't paid less than men. Get your fucking argument straight, then we can have a conversation. Start your argument from the basis of women's choices, not some mythical sexist boogeyman that Snidley Whiplash employers out there are short changing women.
Get your fucking argument straight.

But let's address that comic's "point" as well.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/06/doing-chores-makes-many-men-happiest/

We're fine with taking on that half of the domestic duties. Hell, it's easier than ever with modern conveniences. Imaginary sexism is easy to find. Go looking for some real sexism, like how women don't find domestic husbands as attractive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-467390/Househusband-backlash-high-flying-wives-ditch-men-em-em-wanted-stay-home.html

Nature or Nurture.

David Reimer was a boy whose penis was destroyed in a botched circumcision (a topic for another blog post), the doctor did gender reassignment surgery and Reimer was raised as a girl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

Prof. John Money oversaw the case, and had the theory that gender is a social construct, not a biological one.
The end result was tragic, as David grew up, rejected the gender reassignment, and commited suicide after depression. One of Money's comments is telling.

" He claimed his detractors believed "masculinity and femininity are built into the genes so women should get back to the mattress and the kitchen."

It seems that denying nature versus nurture has become an all or nothing proposition. Either you believe that gender is a social construct, and human beings are totally blank slates, waiting to be programmed, or you're a right wing misogynist.
Which of course, is a straw man attack. Just because masculinity or femininity are in the genes, doesn't mean that women have to be baby slaves. It means that biology should be considered just as much as social influences.

The excellent Norwegian documentary Hjernegask (Brainwash) looked into the roles of nature, nurture, and the current feminist dominated thought about the subject in norwegian countries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgDGqi1MbOc

During this part of the documentary, Prof. Kristian Tambs, when studying the educational levels of twins, found that 60% of their results were genetic, 10% influenced by family, and 30% influenced by peers.

It's interesting that Prof. Tambs was reluctant to be interviewed, as his conclusions were unpopular. That is a subject for yet another blog post.

So how much is nature and how much is nurture? One thing is for sure, nature is not 0%, and we're never going to find out as long as people cling to their ideologies instead of honestly investigating the matter.