The free marketplace of grievances

T

Hello, I am a latino cis gay neuroatypical middle-class 24-year-old man. When you hear someone present themselves in this way, what comes to your mind? Pretentious liberal cunt comes to mine, maybe your answer is SJW, feminist, ideologue. What I find interesting is what doesn’t come into our minds, which is what they want, they want you to assess their value, so they’re presenting their assets. I wrote in cursive the words that give me the ability to claim the world is against me, and if you’re a decent person, you should take my side.

I don’t need to say it’s all a load of bullshit, but we still have to deal with it. So where did this come from? I’ve noticed that among the traditionally ‘’oppressed’’ groups, you will find that the smaller the group, the shorter the time it has been under the scope of social justice movements. What I find interesting is the timing different groups started being merged with the progenitor, feminism.

I’ve noticed that people tend to avoid talking about feminism as an ideology and prefer to say ‘’3rd wave feminism’’ when criticizing it. I’ll accept the first wave and the suffragettes can be debated whether they were necessary, they certainly were not fair, but I am willing to concede there’s a discussion to be had for the sake of argument. The second wave is the one I find the most interesting. It tends to be correlated with women’s liberation, the sexual revolution and the idea of women in the workplace. It’s none of those.

The beginning of the second wave is widely considered to be the publication of The Feminine Mystique, by Betty Friedan in 1963. There was another event that same year, one that feminists tend to forget, The Equal Pay Act of 1963. In other words, the most radical school of feminism began the same year the last legitimate issue for women (Except abortion, but that’s a topic on its own) was resolved. This didn’t stop Dworkin, Steinem, Greer and company from putting into the written word just how terrible being a western woman was, and how it was all Patriarchy’s (Men’s) fault. There was one very important change on how this period of feminism unfolded in comparison to the suffragettes , and that was black feminism. Whether it was Alice Walker’s womanism or Bell Hooks’s “White-supremacist-capitalist-patriarchy,” it was very different from the racist tactics of Susan B. Anthony or Rebecca Ann Latimer Felton’s uncomfortable quote: “I do not want to see a negro man walk to the polls and vote on who should handle my tax money, while I myself cannot vote at all.”

So, there are two questions that arise from this, at least for me. The first and most obvious one, why did the movement’s approach to race change so radically? Well, if we consider the civil rights movement happening in the same time period, feminists had to decide on whether to double down on the idea that women were so oppressed or absorb another movement, acquire its capital and they would have a lot more to complain about. Obviously, they did the second, a trend we would see again and again. The second question that arises is, why would Alice Walker and Bell Hooks adopt an ideology with such a racist history? One may think they wanted to advocate against both racism and sexism, but if you happen to read The Color Purple, the basic conclusion after the main character travels to Africa is, even if we solve racism, even Africa is sexist. And bell hooks once said that in order to dismantle white supremacy, patriarchy had to be dismantled first. So their approach is pretty much a gynocentric orgy with a token black dude somewhere in the picture.

However, feminists have always had the tendency to be hateful. And this particular group had a strong distaste for gays and trannies, and of course men. As the popular feminist saying goes ‘’Agh, fucking men.” But times change, the 90s was an exciting time for gay rights, and after more than a decade of gay men dropping dead like flies due to AIDS, medications to treat it were finally developed. And just like with civil rights, feminism slowly crept into gay right organizations, and we saw the portrayal of gay men from awesome “I don’t give a fuck’’ type of guys to…basically women. It’s somewhat ironic; feminism has managed to feminize everything except women, almost like they hated the female identity and feminity and were set on spreading it to others like a virus, but I digress.

For me, the biggest insult was their usage of the word queer. Queer went from nihilistic bareback sex with a .357 on the bed to narcissistic teenagers trying to scale up the ladder of grievances. Again, it’s all about acquiring more capital to get sympathy. And they have been doing it for decades. Last year we saw Germaine Greer being no platformed for comments she made about trans people. The old hag didn’t get the memo (Steinem did) and she had to be shunned. A single person is simply not worth the ability to talk for all trans people and their issues, get funding and not having to actually do something helpful.

As we look at feminism now, this intersectional cluster-fuck that no one seems to fully understand, especially feminists, there’s very little resemblance to the original. But if we look what feminists do for the group they claim to represent, it’s pretty obvious that blacks, gays, trannies and now even Muslims are simply assets. They’ll jump on the first example of oppression and claim it for moral superiority, 49 dead people, mostly gay latinos and being able to proclaim it’s about them is the prize they get for pretending to give a fuck while taking over every major gay lobby. Even with a Muslim shooter from Pakistan and a Taliban worshipping father, Amanda Marcotte decided to blame it on toxic masculinity. This is the current state of affairs, even the most heartbreaking tragedy has to be molded to fit the agenda and capitalized for righteous indignation. And blame men, the gender of the majority of the victims.

Feminism gets called cancer a lot, and while I enjoy the response, it’s a rather accurate metaphor. Cancer starts on healthy tissue, tissue that had helped that single cell to stay alive and proliferate. The mutated cell then proliferates, destroying the same tissue that nurtured it, cancer is completely self-serving; its purpose is to grow, it can metastasize to other areas and grow there, but it’s the same original cancer. Going to the origins, I don’t know if feminism was there to serve women at some point, but that’s like wondering if the tumor in your brain used to be a helpful astrocyte: you’ll never know and it will never matter. The feminism we’ve seen caters only to itself. The original axiom of patriarchy was never real, women’s problems were not big enough for the grievance cult, so they made it look worse, and when that wasn’t enough, they started taking over other groups, each smaller than the next, each time with more contradictions, less actual interest and more malice.

That’s the purpose of intersectionality. It’s understandable, if Anita could only say everything is sexist, it would be lackluster, but add racist and homophobic, and you have a wide enough net to find oppression to feed the collectivist machine, and get a nice bonus if you can play the ideologues. What I wonder [now] is: who’s next? As much as Islamism and feminism have in common, it’s only a matter of time for a radical Muslim to kill a feminist, and if that happens, my guess is they would blame the feminist. That’s another commonality feminism has with cancer, it doesn’t stop growing until the host is dead, and then dies with it. But we won’t let it grow any further, we have reached a point in which feminism is out of cards, they have no more groups to take, and the ones they have are both getting equality and rejecting feminism. Personally, I can’t wait to see more gay men leaving that toxic nest, we don’t need anything from the harpies, we never fucking did, no one ever has. And it’s time to let them know, we’re on to them, we’re sick and tired of their bullshit and they can no longer use our struggles, past or present, real or imaginary, to fund their self-serving cult.

I take solace that for the people who died in Orlando, despite all the disgusting bullshit I saw from the left, despite feminists and black lives matter drones trying to use it to their benefit, millions and millions more people saw it for the tragedy that it was, and offered what they could, money, blood, tears, prayers. You reminded us what the left and the feminist lobbies tried to make us forget. We matter as much as any human being, we’re not tokens to be cashed. And as islamists, feminists and marxists try to dehumanize us, the grand majority of the world saw our pain, not as gays, but as human beings.

Feminists will never take that away from me.

Tomás Allende
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Tomás Allende

Tomás (Not Thomas shitlord!) is a gay, latino, bipolar, anti-feminist, MRA, biochemistry student and occasional writer. He dislikes being labeled more than anything and is often confused. He started seeing the world differently after a brief abusive relationship with Amnesty International. After he met Karen Straughan by providing the plutonium proof bra that delayed Iran's [Omitted]. Since then he became a massive fan of the Honey Badger Brigade and writes for the Honey Badger Site from Santiago de Chile while on the look-out for local feminist hot-spots.
WARNING: DO NOT TRUST WHEN HE SAYS NO HOMO, IT'S ALWAYS HOMO.

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="155294 http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/?p=155294">6 comments</span>

  • I’m a little confused by the first sentence, isn’t cis heterosexual, and gay homosexual. Perhaps the term cis is misrepresented/mistranslated into English?

    • Cisgender is a term to describe someone who identifies as the sex they were born. So a genetic male who identifies as a man. Opposed to a transgendered person which would be like a genetic male who identifies as a woman.

      • Okay, I got it, no oxymoron. The term cis is so new to the Engligh language. All the new terms coming out are bound to cause some confusion. Thanks

  • “I can’t wait to see more gay men leaving that toxic nest, we don’t need anything from the harpies, we never fucking did“

    Ojalá. For sundry reasons of political convenience and often simple, stupid wishful thinking, many men and gay men especially overlooked or outright excused the harpy-ness of what was going on. But the logic of feminist rhetoric drives an inexorable indifference and eventually even contempt for allies, hangers-on and anyone who might support some fuzzy, nice ideal of equality but who are not of the tribe of harpies. Despite all the BS about intersectionality, at its core whatever it is that calls itself feminism is evolving toward a paranoid cult, xenophobic and venomous. Anyway, gay men should remember the story of the frog and the scorpion.

    To end, just a Camille Paglia quote regarding feminist rhetoric: “Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters.”

    (Hope to meet you one day in Santiago.)

  • Great article. It really appears feminism was the worst thing that happened to modern civilization, especially to its women.

By Tomás Allende

Events

Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather

Support Hannah Wallen’s HBR Talk

Categories

Archives

Tags