If Marilyn Monroe Were Alive Today, She Would Be An Antifeminist

The Blonde Bombshell...

One of my biggest interests is Hollywood actresses from the silver era. I think of the time as very glamorous, full of the American dream, and the "good ol' days." That's what it means to me and how it inspires me. I'd like to live a lifestyle close to that, strive to be like many of the women from the time. One of the women I find not only gorgeous, but very misunderstood is Marilyn Monroe. Marilyn Monroe, the woman perceived to be a dumb blonde and only remembered for her looks, but she was much more than that. There was more to her and I know this, because I used to be one of the people who thought she was only a dumb blonde and I never thought she was pretty because I thought only girls who knew nothing about her thought she was pretty. Well, that much is still true. I don't think I've ever met a girl who says they "adore" Marilyn Monroe but has actually seen one of her movies. That's why I never wanted to like Marilyn Monroe. I thought only fakers liked her, but I became interested in who she was and her life and now I can easily say I love her for more than just her beauty.

Another one of my biggest interests is the stupidity that is feminism. I want to deconstruct every wrong thing about feminism that I see, because searching for something that isn't there aggravates me and that's exactly what feminists do. The thing is, there are people who think Marilyn Monroe is a feminist. That confused the heck out of me. So many of her quotes indicate she is anything but a feminist, yet people think she is one. Quotes go unseen and any historical woman, especially one whose fame is global like Marilyn Monroe's, is given this title of feminist, because of the empowerment they give woman. Sure, Marilyn Monroe can give women empowerment, but I guarantee you if she were alive today she wouldn't say it was in the name of feminism. I'm glad to say she'd totally be a #WomanAgainstFeminism based off of the quotes I'll be addressing.  

Even Gloria Steinem, the super feminist, wrote a book about Marilyn Monroe, which I'm considering reading, but even without reading it, I know she had to have referenced feminism and its role in Marilyn's life. And recently, thanks to it being Marilyn's 90th birthday, people have been making articles about Marilyn Monroe: the feminist Well, sorry to burst your bubble everyone, but Marilyn wouldn't be a feminist!

MARILYN'S ANTIFEMINIST QUOTES:

Marilyn's quotes can be found here.

QUOTE #1: "Beauty and femininity are ageless and can't be contrived, and glamour, although the manufacturers won't like this, cannot be manufactured. Not real glamour; it's based on femininity."

On the surface, this seems really uplifting, right, beauty, femininity, and glamour can't be manufactured, but if you reread it you have to think about who she is. She's beautiful, really glamorous, and the absolute embodiment of femininity. She's the perfect woman and as her quote states, ageless. That isn't just any woman, not every woman is going to reach the level of beauty that not even just Marilyn Monroe, but other women from the silver screen like Audrey Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor, and Grace Kelly had. Today's beauty standards are different from those of the past, but even so, there is that timeless beauty that these women possess. To say every woman has a timeless beauty in the looks factor is a lie. Everyone may have an aspect of them that makes them beautiful and as the saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," but I don't think that's what Marilyn was trying to convey in this quote. She is saying beauty, femininity, and glamour--real glamour-- is something very few people truly have. When we apply this to our society today where everyone is beautiful, someone would say this isn't good for women, because we're all supposed to be thought of as beautiful regardless of the fact that everyone has different tastes. This is very antifeminist in the fact that it isn't something that would uplift women, but can be seen as bringing them down, because it doesn't make every woman feel pretty. Marilyn was pretty much keeping it real. Beauty and femininity are special and can't be contrived. In our society, we try to force it down everyone's throats that beauty is in everyone, but that's simply not true, when beauty is subjective and depends on personal taste. The same way Marilyn says glamour can't be manufactured. It's not something people just have because you say they have it. That would only take away it's significance.

Quote #2: "The working men, I'll go by and they'll whistle because they think, 'Oh, it's a girl. She's got blonde hair and she's not out of shape,' and then they say, 'Gosh, it's Marilyn Monroe!'"

Lol, this made me laugh a bit. Any crazy feminist now would be yelling and screaming about catcalling and whining about how Marilyn was perpetuating the objectification of women or some other bullshit excuse. Then when she started talking about blonde hair and not being out of shape I laughed even more, because feminists hate beauty standards as a whole. They don't care whose standards it might be, they fucking hate them. You have to remember it was a different time, though, and I think women were very different and actually thought of it as flattery. I wouldn't know how to react to that seeing as the only people who've ever come close to what would be considered "catcalling" at me would be girls. Aside from that though, Marilyn obviously has no problem with men telling her things, whistling at her, enjoying her beauty. Feminists might view this as what I said earlier, perpetuating objectification as well as submitting to "the patriarchy." Not every woman should hate what men do though. Some women are flattered by the gestures men make, and that's what Marilyn reminds us here.

Quote #3: "A strong man doesn't have to be dominant toward a woman. He doesn't match his strength against a woman weak with love for him. He matches it against the world."

Feminists were rejoicing at the first sentence just to be disappointed by Marilyn calling women weak with love for a man. These are actually very wise words for men. You're already dominant to your wife, so what need is it to prove it, when she is already submitting to you with her love. In order to show your true worth as a man, you must match your strength in the real world, where it counts. In a way, this quote even promotes traditional femininity and masculinity, as I mentioned before women are submitting to the man they love which is traditional of femininity. In regards to masculinity, this quote promotes showcasing male strength which would now be regarded as too toxic.

Quote #4: "A woman can bring a new love to each man she loves, providing there are not too many."

This is where morals come into play. Nowadays, people reject your standard tradition of love and there's nothing wrong with that, it's your choice, but if Marilyn Monroe who people consider to be some sort of whore or slut says that you shouldn't give love to every man and I think she meant this not only emotionally and mentally, but also physically, because sex is very special. It's not just something you have with anyone, but our culture these days can be mirrored to that of the 60's in a sense. Lots of free love and no judgment at all for having that love, but is it even special if you're doing it with everyone. You're no longer providing anyone with something new. This isn't a new connection you make with a person you want to share yourself to. It's just something you constantly do, because you think it's okay to go and have sex with loads of people. Again, not saying it's wrong, it's your own personal choice, but as Marilyn is presenting to us here, should you really be doing it with just anybody?

Quote #5: "What good am I? I can't cook. I can't have kids. I've been divorced three times. Who would want me?"

Now feminists, here is where even I would probably agree with what you have to say about this. This really showcases a lot of self-deprecation Marilyn had for herself, because she felt men valued those things and I'm sure men generally do even now. Men want to pass on there genes and the whole "make me a sandwich" thing although a joke, is generally true that men like having a woman cook for them. I'd say for different reasons than what a feminist would believe, but I'm not going to go into that. So dear feminists who think Marilyn herself is one, do you really think  a feminist would preach this stuff? Although people don't know it, she was very misunderstood and had this connection with herself that was much deeper than people could ever think, so when she said things about herself, which were usually very depressing, you need to know that was exactly what she meant. This isn't joke or sarcasm, she actually means what she says. She is disappointed in herself here and I don't agree she should be disappointed, but how can you keep saying she's a feminist icon, when she clearly isn't.

Quote #6: "A man makes you feel important--makes you glad you are a woman."

Haha, this is absolutely great. All the feminists ripping their hair out now because of this, is she still your feminist icon? I'm so glad Marilyn says this, too. While feminism is trying to destroy these relationships where men are dominant and women are submissive, she is preaching the exact opposite. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with not wanting that type of relationship, but saying other people are wrong for wanting that type of relationship isn't right. She isn't saying only men can make you feel important, she's just saying they are one of many factors that make you feel important. Women and men are each others counterparts and the point Marilyn is making is that it's great to be a woman, because you can help out men, be there for them, love them. Personally, and please look at this from a heterosexual lens without being triggered, I wouldn't want to be a guy, and that's because I love guys so much. That's what I feel she is saying. She is saying it is great to be a woman, because you can't have the same interaction with a man that women have with men, if you were a man. That is how she feels important to a man, because she is able to do something for them and they can do something for her and the fact that they are having this mutual respect and interaction for each other won't just make her feel important, but also the man.

Quote #7: "I think one of the basic reasons men make good friends is that they can make up their minds quickly."

"MARILYN HOW DARE YOU PERPETUATE FEMALE STEREOTYPES YOU LITTLE MISOGYNIST," cried all the radical feminists. This was quite funny. Women do generally take longer to make up their mind. I mean if you're a girl, come on, be honest with yourself, how many times have you changed your mind multiple times in a matter of minutes or at the last second. It's funny. There's nothing wrong with it, but people do want decisions quickly and men are usually the type to already make up their mind the first time around. Again nothing wrong, it's what makes each gender unique. "BUT HOW DOES THAT MAKE MEN BETTER FRIENDS?!" asked the radical feminists.  Don't you think people want some type of stability in their friendships? Women are catty with each other and if you know anything about her, women didn't like her very much. Women probably constantly changed their minds about her as a person, which might have influenced her at the time of this quote.

Quote #8: "Sometimes I've been to a party where no one spoke to me for a whole evening. The men, frightened by their wives or sweeties, would give me a wide berth. And the ladies would gang up in a corner to discuss my dangerous character."

In both situations, Marilyn blames women. She blames them for the men's actions towards her and their own actions towards her. While feminism tries to create this fake feeling of friendship between women that simply isn't the case. Not because women can't be friends, but because not all women can be friends together. It's human nature. You have a big enough group of anybody and they will start talking about each other. Just watch game shows like Big Brother or Survivor. You will see examples of backstabber-y. It's not just women, but that's not to say the way women talk about women behind their back is the same as the way a man would talk about a woman behind her back. And the same applies for a woman talking about a man behind his back and a man talking about another man behind his back. It's all different and it all depends on you as a person and who that person is. So let's look at the quote again with that in mind. This is Marilyn fricking Monroe. An extremely sexy and desirable woman to many men. Because of these women's jealousy and lack of faith in their husbands or boyfriends they cause the men to be scared to even approach her for fear of being accused of infidelity, and that's still something we can see today. Feminists, you expect men who are your significant others to leave you alone when you are talking to other guys. If you expect guys to just stand aside while you could possibly be hitting on another dude, then you should probably stand aside when they go talk to a lady friend of theirs. I mean, that's equal, right? As for how the women themselves reacted in this situation, we can still see that today. Women gossiping about other women is still very much common and feminism acts like it wants all women to be buddy-buddy, but you know they go and do it themselves. The fact they talk about anyone who doesn't agree with them in general just goes to show their "be nice to everyone" mantra is bullshit. Marilyn exposes the thing many women do and there's nothing wrong with it. It doesn't perpetuate anything, if it's generally true. If Marilyn were alive now I guarantee she'd be calling all these feminists hypocrites, because they expect not to have generalizations placed on them, but then go ahead and generalize men themselves.

Quote #9: "What do I wear to bed? Why, Chanel No. 5, of course."

Feminists are raging about sexual objectification right now. Enough said. Sorry, she's hot. You're not.

Quote #10: "I don't know who invented high heels, but all women owe him a lot."

How dare women owe something to a man, no less something they apparently wear for themselves and not men! Whoever invented high heels owes women a lot, not the other way around! You have internalized misogyny! Too much patriarchy in your system Monroe!!!! Haha. But seriously, it's not just high heels that women, but in particular feminists, take for granted. At least normal women who aren't uber sensitive take it for granted just because they never cared to think of it, unlike feminists who take it for granted because they hate some fake invisible force called the patriarchy. So feminists, your so-called patriarchy is horrible, well, I don't think it is. If you really think there's a patriarchy then you should probably be grateful since it provides you with a lot of the things you use in your life. So go ahead, smash the patriarchy and we'll gladly take away the iPhone you do your Twitter and Tumblr social justice rants on.

Quote #11: "Naturally, there are times when every woman likes to be flattered...to feel she is the most important thing in someone's world. Only a man can paint this picture."

As Marilyn said earlier, men make women feel important. She's not being misogynistic. She's not saying women can't feel important for other things, I mean she was a celebrity after all. She was important regardless, but you have to think about her life in full context. She had no one her whole life even with the fame and fortune. It wasn't what she found fulfillment in. She wanted to be truly appreciated, but that wasn't achieved, even now to this day where most people only see a pretty face and an iconic name. But for women to feel flattered, to feel important is when a man tells them they're stunning, they're amazing, they are the world's best woman. Little things like that. Sure someone else can tell you that, but imagine a man, a man you absolutely love. Would that not make all the difference? She's not saying just because he's a man he will make you feel important. That means anyone of the male gender would make you feel important simply based on their gender. No. She means someone who means something to you. And don't tell me, "Well, not every girl is in love with a guy." I KNOW THAT. But for the sake of context and the time period she was in, just look at it through her lens. Don't try to complicate things you triggered beings of the internet. Only a man can make you feel important, because they actually mean something to you in your life. That's what she's talking about. It's special. Another way she tries to show the special bond between a woman and a man is when she says women want to feel like "the most important thing in someone's world." You can say that it can be accomplished in any other type of relationship and sure that's true, but to love someone for the rest of your life and know that they think of you as the most important thing that happened to them, makes you feel important. So this isn't just the woman feeling important, but the man actually acknowledging the fact that this woman is so amazing. The way feminism today is though downplays the special bond between a woman and a man by preaching that women don't need men or are better off without them. There's nothing wrong with that either, but if Marilyn were alive now and happened to make that statement, the media would be giving her total backlash. These type of comments aren't appreciated now and it shows a true cultural shift plus a lack of appreciation for relationships.

Quote #12: "I don't mind living in a man's world as long as I am a woman in it."

This quote is fabulous just like Marilyn. Sorry, feminists, but if this patriarchy is real, be glad to be a woman in it. In the first world, I just don't understand it at all when girls say it's horrible being their gender. Maybe I'm too privileged to understand, but being a girl is the most perfect thing I could ever think of. If someone asked me if I could choose to be born a girl or a boy, I'd say a girl. We're just so cool and feminists don't seem to realize that. They turn us into oppressed victims who have little to look forward to. Well, that's not how women are. Women are more than that and with a narrative like feminism's we're only weakening ourselves by listening to it. You can't control what gender you were born as so why not embrace it! Love yourself! Don't victimize your whole gender! Empower them! Do what feminism was initially meant for! Do you think you live in a man's world? If so, remember how fucking awesome it is to be a woman and how important your role as a woman is in this world.

Quote #13: "The trouble with censors is that they worry if a girl has cleavage. They ought to worry if she hasn't any."

HAHAHAHA. WOOOOW!!!! That quote turned down south. You were probably thinking, well, this is a nice feminist quote sticking it to the media for demonizing women! And then you see the second sentence. No, feminists, she just called out all girls without any cleavage. She didn't say there was anything wrong with it, but based on your complex with objectification, you're going to say Marilyn perpetuates unhealthy body expectations.

Quote #14: "I remember when I was in high school I didn't have a new dress for each special  occasion. The girls would bring the fact to my attention not always too delicately. The boys, however, never bothered with the subject. They were my friends, not because of the size of my wardrobe but because they liked me."

As I mentioned earlier, girls really didn't like her, so naturally Marilyn was more fond of boys. Girls will constantly judge you even when they're your friends. Boys on the other hand really aren't too critical. It's just a difference in how our brains work. Well, that's really not the point of what I'm trying to make, but essentially, feminism tries to preach that women must be friends, but at the same time calls out women who aren't feminists and is that not the cattiness observed in many females??? They also say it's wrong for women to say they like hanging out with guys more, because they are basically saying there is something wrong with women. Well, no, maybe that woman really has had shitty experiences with women. It's a personal opinion. It's not sexist or misogynistic, it's just an opinion and personal preference. Well, there you have it everyone, women didn't dislike Marilyn, Marilyn just had internalized misogyny.

Quote #15: "I have too many fantasies to be a housewife. I guess I am a fantasy."

There's nothing really antifeminist about this, but I bring it up, because there are a lot of feminists who think being a housewife is a bad thing. It's still very debatable within their community, but the fact there are some feminists who think a choice made by a woman is bad is sort of appalling. Great, you have the right to that thought, but doesn't it go against everything your movement stands for? I just wonder how Marilyn would react to knowing there were women out there fighting against this so-called "oppressing" female role.

Quote #16: "I've found men are less likely to let petty things annoy them."

Tsk, tsk, Marilyn! How dare you give your opinion, especially when it pertains to gender. I mean if you said this now a bunch of 3rd-wave feminists would whine about how you are perpetuating stereotypes about how they whine while expecting people not to think they aren't whining. After that, they'd proceed to yell buzzwords at you and possibly flee to the nearest safe-space.

Quote #17: "Girls shouldn't worry about being the equal of men in the business world."

Yup, this is extremely antifeminist, right here. Now, I don't necessarily agree with this, but I will try to best explain it from what I think her thought process is. Generally, men are more interested in the field of business, so there will probably always be more men in that type of field, but why should that matter? Take this for example. If there are 100 people in the field of business and 80 are men and 20 are women, feminists will blame it on inequality, but what if women really aren't trying out for that field and don't want to be a part of it. Is that still inequality? Shouldn't it be the person who is most qualified? Feminists seem to lack the understanding that equal opportunity doesn't mean the same thing as equal outcome. They want the solution to be 50/50, but that's not how it works. Rather than looking at the fact that these women achieved something, they look at the stats and whine about that without considering why women aren't trying out for this field in larger numbers. That's basically what I think Marilyn meant. She's not saying don't try to be a businesswoman, she is saying, stop trying to be equal because if you try to be equal it just sort of causes bitterness. You seem to lose sight of the fact that you achieved getting into the field and instead complain of the lack of women when there might be a logical explanation for it that isn't sexism. I mean you don't hear feminists complaining about there not being an equal amount of female and male nurses, right? Or an equal amount of female and male construction workers? So why do they complain about equal amounts in other jobs? Just something to think about.

Quote #18: "A man has a tendency to accept you the way you are, while most women immediately start to pick flaws and want to change you."

A recurring theme, right? I already went over this twice, but see, this would be considered sexist as well as a generalization. Marilyn simply sharing her experiences with each gender would be considered sexist now because it makes women look bad. This is all a matter of personal opinion though based on experience. There are a lot of women who say men want to change you to fit their version of perfection, you know the need for a trophy wife, but others will say women are very judgmental and make you want to change yourself. Then there are people who say, men don't care about how you look and others who say women are sensitive and caring so they will accept you as you are. These are all opinions influenced by experience. In my opinion, which I mentioned earlier, I basically agree with Marilyn. I think girls are more critical then boys are, but again that's still based off of my experiences, not some sexist frame of thought.

Quote #19: "A man is more frank and sincere with his emotions than a woman. We girls, I'm afraid,  have a tendency to hide our feelings."

I just added this here, because of the fact that feminism says men aren't open with their feelings like women are. It's always nice to see people who think the opposite. =)

Quote #20: "Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition."

So if everything above didn't convince you she would be an antifeminist now, just take a look at this quote and let it sink in. As an antifeminist, of course, I agree. She's not wrong. Women will never be equal to men, not because we can't do what men do, but because women and men are different. If we were the same, don't you think our interactions with each other would be...dull??? Women and men can't be completely equal. It's impossible. Not just physically, but because we typically have different dynamics, different biological make-ups, different needs, different ambitions in life, etc. We aren't saying you aren't equal to men in other ways, but there's no way you can be equal to them in every way. In fact, it's not even just men, it's people in general. Everyone is valued differently by different people. I think I'm going to treat my friends better than someone I've just met. I'll interact differently with my friends than with this person. With that being said, I treat women differently than I do men. Everyone does. It's not because of sexism, it's because you have different interactions and feelings towards both genders. It might seem a little confusing, but look at it this way, you are equal, but not completely equal meaning there are things about everyone that are universally equal, but there are other things that cannot be treated equally such as the stuff I mentioned above as in how we work as humans, our interactions/feelings, etc. It's socio-psychological, mental, and emotional stuff that really won't be the same and that's ok. Just so this is stressed, let me reiterate, all of us being equal would be extremely boring. Think hard about it. For all of us to be equal, we'd basically be communists and do you really want to live in a communist world? Plus, equality kind of means lack of diversity in that sense. No one would be too different, because then people would notice causing divisions which would lead to segregation, thus, once again achieving nothing and leading to the inequality you don't want. Think about it. I know it's a little confusing to understand, it was even confusing for me to write down, but it makes sense if you really think about it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for reading. I'd also like to mention that although I am presenting an argument for why Marilyn would be an antifeminist, she does have quotes that can show she is a feminist, so if any feminists are reading, why not take it upon yourselves and check those out. Restore your faith in her OR even make your own article explaining why Marilyn is your darling feminist icon. For me, she'll still be my glorious antifem icon, but to each their own. Long live the Blonde Bombshell, Marilyn Monroe! ❤❤❤

7 Things Non-Feminists Wish Feminists Would Understand

It Always Seems Like A Lost Cause...

Both our sides are the type who will agree to disagree, so what's the point in making these response articles? I think it's got a lot to do with representation. Yes! Representation! That is one of the biggest issues feminists face. They feel as if women and other marginalized groups have little representation, but yet I see them getting so much of it and being called "strong" for sharing whatever it is they decided would be a good sob stor--oops, inspirational piece! But what about the other side, I ask? What about the women against feminism? Where is our representation? When celebrities come out and say they are against the movement, they get called out for it. Women, in general, get called out for not being feminists, because how could you be opposed to equality, right? I mean, feminism totally calls for equality. How couldn't it? What with bunching up all men into one group and saying they're rapists or oppressive. Sounds like equality to me! It's normal for men to be against feminism apparently, but to be a woman against feminism, you must be absolutely stupid! How could you not want equality for the very gender you were born as?! Well, as someone who is very much against feminism, here's my take on the following article.

Well, the first thing you're going to see is a picture of Lena Dunham. Such a great feminist icon.

"As a staunch feminist...I have a really difficult time understanding why so many people refuse to identify as feminists." I can only speak for myself, but the reason why I am personally against feminism is because although it's supposed to be this all-inclusive movement, it seems like men are constantly being blamed for the dumbest things. I mean just look online and you can find thousands of ridiculous feminist articles and videos. I also think a lot of it has double standards or two-sided problems where no one ends up happy. For example, virginity. Some feminists say virginity is a social construct that shouldn't matter and others say, virginity is something you need to protect. Which feminist opinion is right? Or are they both right? It doesn't seem to matter anymore, because in the end one side is unhappy and complains. I also think feminism brings up a lot of non-issue issues or tries to use surface evidence to justify the oppression of women. This next reason for me not being a feminist is more of an opinion, but feminists are delusional. If you give a feminist lemons, she'll squeeze the lemons in a man's eye, because he stare raped her. Perhaps, this is just the radical feminist, but isn't that the feminist you see more often? I wish there were more Christina Hoff Sommers type feminists, but there aren't. If they were more like Sommers, I'd probably consider myself a feminist. Might I also mention, feminists like to complain about things that occur in 3rd-world countries, but they don't actively go out there. They don't make that a bigger issue than the 1st-World feminist problems. When I heard air-conditioning was sexist I nearly gagged. What has this world come to where anything can be considered sexist?

"According to a 2013 HuffPost/ You Gov Poll, about 82 percent of Americans believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes, but only 18 percent of Americans actually identify as feminists." Ah, so being the minority and all, you guys have got to shove your feminist propaganda down our throats every second of the day. I don't know if it's because I'm so interested in this at the moment, but I can't look at anything now without thinking What Would Feminists Do (WWFD)? It's mostly because I like to be funny and act like a feminist for a day, but if only 18 percent of Americans are feminists, then why do we hear about it SO much?! Look at this situation using 100 people. 82 people agree with you. Out of these 82, only 18 percent label themselves feminists (that's about 15), but you all apparently stand for the same cause. That should still make you happy. We may not all label ourselves the same, but again, I really think it has to do with what you associate a feminist with. I think a lot of people realize that feminists have got a lot of problems within their own movement in terms of what they believe and fight for. Sure, you can use the dictionary as rationale, but that doesn't mean your movement hasn't evolved into something more. But just to make sure you don't use the dictionary as rationale again, just remember some of the words can trigger people (I'm personally triggered by the word droll), some of them aren't intersectional, and I mean come on, the patriarchy!

"1. Feminism = Gender Equality"

Umm....not quite! Again, lumping all men together and calling them rapists who can't control themselves with things like "Teach Men Not To Rape" shouldn't be considered equality. 

Apparently, teaching women precautions is bad. Look, if you're going to teach men not to rape (because they're all just born rapists. Gosh, men are the absolute scum of this earth), then likewise you teach women how to protect themselves in case they are ever in the situation of potentially getting raped. Rapists are not raping because rape is okay. Almost everyone knows rape is wrong and if you're doing such an action, at that point you are no longer sane. Rape is rarely ever about sex, it's more about control or dominance. The thought of dehumanizing another person makes rapists excited. It's not something a normal person does. So let me put this situation in front of you. Let's say there is a boy named Bobby and a girl named Melissa. Melissa is never taught how to protect herself from being raped. Now Bobby after years of being told his gender is sick and perverted and just born rapists (I'm sorry for the over-exaggeration, I truly am, but if the feminists take over I'd see that as plausible). Now Bobby is told not to rape, but he doesn't care. He sees Melissa and Melissa looks like an easy victim. Bobby rapes Melissa and because she didn't know any precautions she couldn't have helped herself except perhaps struggling by kicking or punching. Sadly, this will become all too common if we cease to teach women how to protect themselves. Bobby is obviously at fault here, but it would have been great if someone had taught Melissa a thing or two before she stepped out into the real world. No one can be in a safety bubble forever, so it's good to be cautious. It's not wrong, but I guess it's just the patriarchy sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Let's say Bobby was a very polite guy, not sick in the head like before. He was taught to not rape and understood completely what consent was. Let's say Melissa consents (verbally or nonverbally. Yes, consent can be nonverbal. I know bizarre, isn't it?!), but the next day she regrets it and says he raped her or pressured her into it. Is that rape? Apparently, yes, but in what world is that gender equality. How is that fair to Bobby? Regret rape? Give me a break? If you never told Bobby to stop what he was doing or told him you were uncomfortable, how would he have known? It just seems like men lose in the end. It needs to be fair from both sides. It's not just rape either. I'd say the fact that the following statistics are rarely addressed by feminists shows a discrepancy in this "gender equality" business:

I mean, such a patriarchal society, am I right? Definitely catering to men above women. I'd also like to mention feminists, that gender equality isn't about what you think is sexist. A lot of people see the things that you think as sexist *cough* gender roles *cough* as merely another aspect of life that they enjoy. A lot of women enjoy the idea of your typical 1950s relationship. There is nothing wrong with that, that's what you're movement is about, right? Respecting everyone's opinions and lifestyles? Well, then, why can't you accept mine?! Why can't you accept that I don't agree with you? It doesn't make sense. Sure, I don't agree with you either, but as Evelyn Beatrice Hall once said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Yet somehow, free speech is hurting feminists? And it's only if they don't agree with what you're saying. Free speech for something they stand for is great, but if you start giving opinions like mine, expect retaliation from them.

"Feminism is by definition, 'the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.' So feminism is just another word for gender equality." As I mentioned earlier, feminists love to whip out the dictionary definition of feminism, not realizing that feminism has become more than that. I mean they have different sects (and way more than the ones mentioned in here I'm sure) for crying out loud. Sure, the dictionary definition may be the foundation of your movement, but that's exactly why it's faulty. It's gone so askew from what it was originally meant to be in my eyes, that all it's become is a joke now.

"2. Feminists Don't Hate Men"

If you don't hate men, then why do you say they're oppressing you? Why do you say there is a patriarchy that won't let you get far ahead in life because it caters to men? Why is there mansplaining and manspreading? Why do you blame men for everything? I mean the list could go on. Ever heard of the SCUM Manifesto, that's misandry at it's finest. Now, I'm not saying all feminists are misandrists, because that's obviously not true, but their is definitely a common level of hatred towards men, because hey they're just that oppressing! It's not to the point where they completely hate men, but when they're classifying men as sexists for simple things like holding the door, then you have to ask yourself, "What exactly does this movement feel towards men?"

"Plus, it doesn't even make sense, many feminists are men." For context, everything she said before that particular sentence was just a way to justify how she doesn't hate men, because she's been inspired by them and she has male friends and the likes. So why is it when someone says they're a non-feminist you mark them as being misogynistic??? As for the quote I picked out, it has no logical standing. Hey, my movement is justified because people from the very group we call out for oppressing us are in our movement. You guys are for gender equality, right? I mean not having any men in your movement just because it's called FEMinism would be ironic, wouldn't it? That just sounds to me like someone was stretching a little too far. Still think feminists don't hate men in the least bit, check this out.

"3. Feminists Don't Think Women Are Better Than Men."

But by gosh, wouldn't it be great if they really were! If there was a "matriarchy" instead of a "patriarchy," I feel like feminists would stop whining. I don't think many feminists really think this and I don't think people associate feminism with women being better than men. Personally, that's not something that crosses my mind. What I think is that feminists are trying to take away what men already have. They want to call it equality, but it's really just special privileges that they're asking for. I'd like to put the gender wage gap into this context. Now, I'm sure if some feminist out there sees this, they'll think this is crazy, but read this article by Milo Yiannopoulous, get triggered because he wants a wage gap (only so you stupid people see why it's a fallacy), and then let that last two lines sink in: "There's no reason men and women should be paid the same, when they don't work the same. Food for thought." Take that into consideration with the whole women-aren't-better-than-men thing. Why do you want people who aren't working the same job at the same effort to be paid the same amount of money? That's what communists do. You know what sucks about that type of system. People become lazy. If they know they're being paid the same as everyone regardless of how hard they work, why would they even bother? The guy who works the graveyard shift should be paid the same as the girl who works the morning shift? I think not. Honestly, this should be a meritocracy, but if that were the case and this supposed wage gap actually became true (let's say women didn't work as hard as men), then what would the feminists do? Cry, systematic oppression even when this time they know it's all based on a multitude of factors??? There is no pleasing these people. If women were paid more than men would it finally make you all happy??? Probably not. To me, feminism seems to be a cycle of problems. Once one problem is resolved, they take a step back, look at the picture, and nitpick at another minuscule detail they don't like. I know it seems like I'm not talking about the problem at all with number three, but I'd like to say again, I don't think many people see this as a problem with feminists, and honestly, I see it more as you want women to have equal standing, but when they do it's suddenly "not enough." 

The author of the article goes on to say, "I mean, hello, Emma Watson definitely seems nicer than Donald Trump." Not sure, if that was added as comedic relief, but it was a bit contrived. That's also really just a matter of subjectivity. I mean, there are tons of people who like Donald Trump, so I don't see what this point here was supposed to be?

"The goal of feminism is not to advance one gender more than the other--it's about campaigning for women to have access to the rights and opportunities that the majority of men have never had to think twice about." Yeah, but like I basically said earlier, I don't think you guys would have so much of a problem if that were to occur. I couldn't imagine you guys suddenly becoming men's rights activists in order to stabilize the opportunities and make them equal once more. I can imagine a feminist article entitled "Why are men intimidated by women's opportunity?" and me face-palming myself because it infuriates me. That being said, I love what you guys are doing when you put it simply like this, but I hardly ever see you guys really campaigning for it. I am someone who seeks out feminist and social justice accounts on Twitter and from what I mostly see, the majority of what is mentioned in these accounts is slut-shaming, rape, body positivity, and gender roles.  There may be your occasional, women can do this just like men tweet, but from what I've observed it's not to often that those are posted. So it just makes me wonder, what is this movement really about and why are the little issues being brought up rather than the bigger issues that we do face in 1st-world countries? I know that I, myself, living in the 1st-world have not directly faced any problems because of my gender, but I am willing to learn from others what possible problems there are and by using logic and reasoning, I can decide for myself whether it truly is an issue or a non-issue.

She then adds at the end of this third point, "We would, however, appreciate it if more men were on our team." Feminism is about equality and I think one of the biggest things about being equal means everyone can have their own beliefs. If so many men aren't in your movement, then deal with it, everyone has different beliefs. It's not some trend people are trying to pick on, although, you guys do seem to market it that way. Let people do whatever they want. Whether they are a feminist or not isn't your problem.

"4. The Term "Feminist" Isn't Just For Women"

Yeah, we all know about male allies, but there are feminists who don't think men should be included or don't like the idea of male feminists. It actually makes sense, I mean as I mentioned earlier, there are so many different sects to your movement that it only makes sense there would be a feminist sect that is strictly all women. Now, I know you guys love to pride yourself in intersectionality, but #NotAllFeminists, right? Also, I really don't think when you're blaming the patriarchy and saying masculinity is somehow toxic, that it's really such a safe environment for a male. If women need safe spaces, then men need them, too! I feel as if a man in the movement won't be as appreciated and will be fed a bunch of lies about his gender causing him to feel guilt because of something he can't control. So sure feminism isn't just for women, but take into consideration also how it makes men feel and then apply that to why there aren't a lot of men in your movement. Maybe then it'll make sense.

"Perhaps due to the fact that the term "feminist" contains the word "fem," a lot of people seem to think it's off-limits to dudes." Sure, that's a good enough argument, but I think it has more to do with what your movement advocates rather than the movement itself. If the men in your movement are fighting your stupid "gender roles" then I don't think they'd care about it being called feminism. If guys aren't in your movement, it's just because they don't want to be.

"In fact, feminists like myself love it when men refer to themselves as feminists, because the feminist movement is not meant to encourage an 'us against them' mentality." First off, all you male allies out there, get ready to be cucked (just kidding, but watch the following video if you want a good laugh).

Aside from that, since we're talking about our feelings towards men who refer to themselves as feminists, here's my opinion on that. No. If a man referred to himself as a feminist, I wouldn't love it, I'd give them all the stuff I'm putting in my article and then some and afterwards ask them if they were still a feminist. Depending on their reaction, then I'd just have a tolerance level. There are a lot of feminists at my school, so I just tolerate them unless they are so far off, in which case I just laugh while quietly telling myself "life will be better someday." Of course, I can't stop people from believing what they believe, I can only try to convince them. Just know, if you're a male feminist...I wish you luck. 

As for feminism not teaching an "us against them" mentality, if that were really true we wouldn't be creating a division between genders. Not just boy and girl, but everything else on Tumblr, too. We create a division between girls and boys and transgenders and people who don't follow the gender binary, etc. We create division as if one group doesn't understand another and we always make sure men are the most privileged, because privilege is totally based on whether you have a dick or vagina or if you're comfortable with the gender you were born as. That is only creating division not this intersectionality that feminism is supposedly trying to encourage. How is division not creating an "us against them" mentality? If you keep telling women they're oppressed and that men are privileged, don't you think some resentment would form? What comes with resentment? Rebellion. We already see it in slut walks or protests held by feminists, so who's to say it won't get worse over time?

"5. There Are Many Types of Feminists"

Well, either she's going to talk about all the sects I was talking about or she's going to use the #NotAllFeminist logic. I mean if men say #NotAllMen they say it's a problem, but they do the same thing. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but don't be a hypocrite.

She uses a gif of a Muslim girl who says, "Some might say there's nothing inherently liberating in covering up, just as there's nothing inherently liberating in wearing next to nothing. But the liberation is in the choice." First off, the use of the Muslim girl is obviously calculated. She wants to show the intersectionality of the movement, but I always think that's so contradictory. If you've ever noticed with Islam, the whole religion is very oppressing what with veiling, the stoning of women who have been raped (and if they don't do this, these women are ostracized), underage marriage, and much more. However, feminists don't call this out because hey, that's their culture. They don't want to have to choose between the fear of becoming an "Islamaphobe" or getting rid of their intersectionality.

Anyway, besides the picture, what the girl is saying herself is once again a two-sided issue of feminism. We have feminists on one side of the spectrum saying it's better to cover yourself up from the oppressive eyes of men and we have feminists on another side yelling and shouting for the right to wear as little clothing as they please because our "patriarchal" society stops them. The last point of discussion is that choice is liberating. No one is telling you you can't dress however you want, the problem feminists face is not being able to take others opinions. I like to make it a point to tell my friend she's going to marry a man who wears chubbies--you know those short shorts for guys. She always says ew. Is that wrong? No. That is her preference. So feminists, great you now have choice, but apparently that is not enough. Yeah, I'll agree people don't want their stylistic choices questioned, but it's only human nature for others to point out what they do or do not like. If they point out what they don't like, then you have to respect that person's opinion even if it doesn't correlate with yours.

The rest of her point basically lists a bunch of different ways you can be a feminist and we totally understand that. What we want you to understand as people looking from the outside in is that feminists aren't letting their movement die down where it's no longer needed. If a problem is already solved, don't look for something else just so that it can stay inherently sexist or male-oriented or whatever other problem you want it to have. Don't do that. Again, #NotAllFeminists, but definitely plenty of you that support my argument.

"6. When You Say You're Not A Feminist, We Hear That You Believe Women Are Second-Class Citizens"

This is arguably the worst argument she has made! What she is basically telling everyone is that because feminists associate one thing with something else, it means we, too, need to call ourselves feminists as to not hurt their feelings? No. Want to know what I hear when someone tells me they're not a feminist? I immediately think they're logical and I don't have to censor myself, because of the PC Police. Feminists undeniably believe that women are second-class citizens or else they wouldn't categorize themselves as oppressed. You know who's oppressed? Second-class citizens! If you believe women are so strong, then how are they oppressed? How are they the second-class citizens you seem to claim they are because of systemic sexism? From the non-feminist perspective, when I call myself--no, when I label myself (because labels are very important to feminists)--an anti-feminist or non-feminist or whatever you want to call us, when I use that term for myself it is because I believe nobody is better than anyone else based on surface factors like gender. I base my feelings on you from what I know about you as a person. That being said, no one is second-class. They can get treated like a second-class citizen, in which case that's not good, but you should probably bring that up and fight against it depending on the context of the situation. With that being said, I'd just like to point something out that's really bothering me and is what I'm mostly getting from this thing I'm supposed to "understand." Just because someone says something that you do not like doesn't mean you get to misconstrue their words. Ask for goodness sake! It's not that hard.

"Saying 'I'm a feminist' is literally just like saying, 'I support the equality of the sexes.'" Gosh, darn it! I've been doing it wrong all this time! Shucks! See, I thought if I called myself a feminist I was basically indoctrinating myself into a cult. Hmm, funny how word and thought association works that way! You believe it's equality of the sexes and I think it's more along the lines of Jonestown. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just have a nice conversation about it so you could understand where the non-feminist community stands on this whole equality issue. Most of us are egalitarians, so we do support equality of the sexes, but that doesn't automatically make us feminists.

"When people (especially females) say they aren't feminists, it makes less than zero sense to me." Yeah, I know, it's very hard for feminists to think that women wouldn't want to engage in a movement that is directly geared towards them, but there is a little something called choice. If I and any other woman against feminism chooses to not be a feminist, that is our choice. We do not have to choose to believe in a movement we do not support just because the movement is specifically made for us. That's not how it works.

"7. Saying You're Not a Feminist Doesn't Mean You're Not Actually A Practicing Feminist"

What? Ok, the last one was pretty bad, but this one is even worse. Look, I think most people are very aware of what they are doing and what they aren't doing. When you're trying to find yourself in those very ripe teenage to early 20s years, you may not understand what exactly it is you stand for. Take me for example, I had no idea I was going to be a nonfeminist or anti-SJW (and the apparently coined term for it cultural libertarian lol). I had no idea I would be into politics or social issues. This wasn't who I thought I would turn out to be, but that's what's happened and I am still shaping myself. I don't really know who Bustle's audience is, so I can't have a clear-cut argument for this, but trust me if you say you're not a feminist, you're not a feminist. You may have a few feminist values, but that does not mean you're a feminist. It's like being liberal, but having some conservative values. That doesn't suddenly turn you into a conservative. I don't think you can really label yourself until you understand yourself. When you're all confused about your stance on something, you can't just say well I agree with most of these things so I must be a feminist. You have to explore other things when you're confused before settling for one specific label. That's something we all do and something we should do if we want to get to know ourselves better.

The accompanying picture to this is a quote by Emma Watson, the spokesperson for the HeForShe campaign: "If you stand for equality, you're a feminist. I'm sorry to tell you." Once again, they are just using the same excuse as the one up above. No, you aren't a feminist just because you believe in equality. Does that mean feminists are a part of the men's rights movement??? I would hope so, since they both believe in equality. I mean technically that means MRAs, feminists, and egalitarians are all basically the same thing, right? Why even have a fucking label anymore. Oh, wait, but that would defeat the purpose. Each of these groups has a different goal. Men's rights activists are specifically looking for the inequality faced by men (and please let's hope that they do not go the route of feminism). Feminists are specifically looking for the inequality faced by women. Egalitarians are people who look at everyone as equal and it is a movement that addresses all (REAL) gender problems. I say real in parentheses, because it seems like anything could be a problem now.

My teacher was talking about family's the other day and he said, "I believe in a very traditional family where the husband supports the wife and the wife takes care of the children. Both parents should do their fair share of work." He's basically presenting the model of the nuclear family, and of course, someone started complaining. The feminist in the front of the classroom, who is one of the students who constantly bickers with him, said, "Well, what if the mother is the one who works and the father stays at home." My teacher then says, "In my culture [he's from Cameroon], I am used to it being the other way around, but I believe that if both parents are doing their equal share of work and there is balance then it's fine. What I do not like is one parent doing all the work and the other one being lazy. That isn't fine." Yet even when he presented this one, they still kept interrogating him, making him out to be sexist. It was like they were trying to confuse him, so he would unintentionally give a sexist response. But see, this non-issue ended up taking fifteen minutes of our class time, because the feminists had a problem with his beliefs. Was what he believed a problem? No. Did it become a problem? Yes, the feminists in my class decided to make it a problem.

"If you want...any...woman in your life to experience full gender equality, then you're a feminist." I can just as easily say if you want any man in your life to experience full gender equality, then you're an MRA, but like I said earlier, that's not how it works. She keeps trying to use this argument that believing in equality immediately makes you a feminist, but there are different types of equality (and it's comparable to Animal Farm equality haha).

I think what feminists want is equality, but on such a larger level that they split it up into the so many intersectional groups they have. They want no one to be offended. That's impossible. As I said, they create issues out of nothing, so imagine trying not to offend anyone. The world would be filled with trigger warnings and safe spaces galore. Is that really the equality you want? Probably not. The equality I want is equal rights for all and equal opportunities. I briefly mentioned it in the beginning of the article, but I believe in meritocracy. I think we are heading in the right direction towards that, but with the feminist agenda we could destroy that. Here's an example of how. At my school there is an engineering program. They wanted to have a certain amount of kids and they wanted it to be exactly half girls and half boys. An overwhelming majority of the applicants were boys, but the teacher in charge put them on a waitlist, just in case more girls decided to sign up. I don't think that's fair. Why should something important like that be based off of gender? Because you want more women in STEM fields??? Obviously, if the girls at my school aren't choosing to take part in the engineering program they don't want to. You can't just force the boys onto a wait list! 

After this, the article continues to try and convince you that you're a feminist, regardless just because you believe in equality, which I already explained was wrong.

So here are 7 things I wish feminists would understand about non-feminists:

1. Being against feminism doesn't mean we aren't for equality, it just means we don't like your propaganda and social agenda.

2.We'd really appreciate it if you didn't use the same arguments over and over again to justify how great you think your movement is, thanks!

3. Non-feminists hate it when feminists make big issues out of the smallest things.

4. It is a choice to be in your movement, we do not like it when you try to shove that choice down people's throats.

5. There are many types of non-feminists.

6. We think everyone is equal, which is exactly why we are not feminists. It is not to pretend like the problem isn't there, it is to demonstrate we are above it.

7. We do not hate you because we argue with you, we just hate some of your ideologies.

Trolls Going After Feminists? Oh, the Oppression! (Clementine Ford)

Not Sure if it's Obvious By Now...

But I am not a huge supporter of feminism. I loved what it stood for in the past, but third wave feminism has definitely changed that meaning and girls now, who are trying to look up to something, are getting a misconstrued version of feminism. Of course, I don't think all feminists are bad nor do I think women shouldn't be feminists, but I am just trying to share my own personal thoughts and feelings on the subject. 

If you haven't heard about it yet, there is a feminist blogger named Clementine Ford. She was called a slut online by Michael Nolan and upon being called this, she contacted his workplace and got him fired. Now, I can see both sides of this situation, but personally I do not think this is something he deserved. Keep in mind, she has been called many things by many people, so why this person? Why did she choose him out of all the other horrible comment makers? That's not fair. We also have to keep in mind that people make stupid mistakes online. We are all different in real life vs. online vs. anywhere else. 

For example, here's an imaginary scenario all too common to many of us. Let's say we're acquainted with someone we have to work around a lot whether it be school, the workplace, volunteering, etc. Social situations! Let's say that's the case. Well, what if one particular person is mean to you and they are nice to everyone else? There are lots of things you can do in this situation. You can obviously tell a person in charge what is going on and they will be able to work out the situation, but let's say in this particular scenario you have the power to get this person fired just by saying, "I don't like that they're mean to me." Would you do that knowing that the only person they have a problem with is you? Would you do that when they are nice to everyone else? I hope not. You should always try to resolve problems differently. Getting rid of something that you find to be a problem or fighting fire with fire is not always going to help the situation. In the case of Clementine Ford, I don't think she should have done this. 

The week that this was going on (I know I'm a little late to jump this stupid bandwagon of what she's done and write about it) she had said so many things to others that were out of hand towards men. Now think about the definition of feminism very hard. Isn't it the equality of the sexes? How is this in any way equal towards men? How can she say hurtful things about men and expect that to be okay? "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself." It's funny how we want people to follow those rules, but we don't think hard about it. If you're criticizing men for criticizing women aren't you just doing what they were doing in the first place? How can you be fine with that? It's hypocritical, is it not?

Well, a member of an online website I go on sent me the link to an article regarding what has been going on with Clementine Ford and already right off the bat we see the article is so biased, "Why do trolls go after feminists?" Basically, if you do anything that's against a feminist or feminism you are a troll. I've been called a troll a few times by some twitter feminists and let me tell you, they think that by calling you a troll that everything you say is no longer credible matter how logical it may be. I don't think that's right. You should have the right to have your own opinions. Just because you are not a feminist does not mean your opinion doesn't matter and just because you reply to feminist theories with you're own rebuttal, doesn't make you a troll. Everything is so misconstrued nowadays. I thought a troll was someone who just fucked with people online. Apparently, if you fuck with people's logic and make them question themselves, it's also called being a troll and you will immediately be blocked to create a safe space for whoever it is you are "trolling." That's not to say that there aren't trolls who do go after feminists, but there's always some reason for it. They probably find them easy targets to mess around with. Feminist logic has failed us so many times, so trolls feed off of that failure. They see it as something to easily make fun of and rightfully so. This is partly the feminists fault, too, for letting things get so bad. They should really try to set a clear path for what they are doing at the moment to make things easier. I feel bad for those who are actually trying to make a change, but can't because of the feminists who have messed up what the movement is really about. Of course, though, when you're movement as a whole is somewhat faulty and a majority of the people in your movement believe it, then people are going to criticize you. At some point you have to realize that trolls are just fucking around with you, but that doesn't mean that they're opinions don't hold true and can also be significant.

"So why do many hard core internet trolls target women, and feminists in particular?" I don't even think there are any troll demogra--oh, wait there are. The article also explains more in-depth what trolls are all about. I could probably write a response to that article, too, just because the demographics of them pretty much being "privileged white males" irks me. Again, if the group trolls are targeting can easily get made fun of, of course they're going to do it. Maybe I'm too much of a troll, but yeah, I think they do it mostly for laughs. I don't understand how when someone considered a troll does it, it's bad, but if someone we all love online does it, it suddenly becomes "smooth" (or it becomes extremely controversial. Maybe they can even become the most hated human being. Who knows? There's a world of possibilities out there). Anyways, I don't think trolls target women, and feminists. I feel it's more about targeting stupidity or obviously trying to find something that you can make a controversial/mean/whatever you want to call it comment, too. So if feminists were constituted of a bunch of dudes, trolls would still target them. If you just so happen to be a woman who said something they want to disagree with that's what happened. If you happen to be a feminist, perhaps they are targeting feminists, but perhaps not. Perhaps they just didn't like your comment, so they replied to it horribly. Let's talk about Clementine Ford now. How in any way was Michael Nolan a troll? In fact, by him calling her a slut, wouldn't we want to label him a "cyberbully" instead? I think that would fit better in this situation just because he said one word. How do we know he wanted to spark controversy or get some laughs or just be plain mean just for fun? How do we know he didn't really mean it. I think with trolls, they do mean what they say, but the difference is they think it's fun/funny or they want to instigate. What if he was being serious? Would we not call him a cyberbully instead?

Here's where my problem with Ford contacting Nolan's employers and firing him starts: "It wasn't the first time Clementine Ford had been targeted on Facebook, nor was it the worst insult she had ever received." Already here it makes me wonder what it was about Nolan that just made her want to fire him? Was it the accessibility of contact that did it? She decided that the first person who had their information online would be the first person she would fire? Nolan could have as easily made another account with a fake name and fake information and never get in trouble, because whoever it was he created would not even exist. What if that had been the case? Would she have gone out of her way to fire a fake person? I highly doubt it. So if Nolan wasn't the first to do such a thing to her, why did she do it? Was she in a bad mood? Did she have nothing better to do? Did she get motivated and want to make some type of statement? What caused her to do it? That's the main question I have for her. If this wasn't the worst insult she received, why did it affect her so much? What was it about that word? Had he said another word, would she not have done anything? Surely, if he had commented, "I loathe you. You are a wanton woman," this situation would have been different (How can you not admire the use of the word wanton?). Anyhow, if she'd been called worse, why didn't she get those people fired? Did the simplicity of staring at one single word on the screen send ripples through her body that just told her she had to fire this guy. Why?

"A Sydney man named Michael Nolan called the feminist columnist and blogger a "slut" after she drew attention to threatening abuse she had been receiving elsewhere online." I think a lot of people take these kinds of posts as "cries for attention." Perhaps, she was just advocating the fact that we shouldn't be abusing others online (which is true, we shouldn't be doing such things. That's uncalled for. As I said in the beginning, "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself." If you're going to abuse someone else, think about how you would like it if you were abused online. Also, remember, there's a difference between abuse, trolling, and this so-called trolling even if you're not trolling. There's so many differences, but we can't seem to distinguish them anymore. Just remember, constant harassment after someone has made it clear to you that they do not enjoy what you are saying is abuse. Constantly, fucking with people because you think it's funny is a troll. Constantly, making your ideas clear in a way that is contradictory towards a particular group is this new so-called trolling. As I started off the paragraph, I mentioned "cries for attention." Why do you think that matters? We should be listening to people's cries for attention, right? Well, maybe because not everyone wants to see/hear these cries for attention. Maybe some people find it extremely annoying. It's not wrong to think so. Maybe Nolan was sick of it and he posted his comment irritated with reading things that he found annoying about her article. Wow, way to look at that on the flip side, am I right? We never look at the person who is getting blamed for what they're doing. We complain about victim-blaming, but we never complain about perpetrator-blaming? I'm not saying, "Side with the person who is wrong," but sometimes the person who is perceived to be wrong is not always the one who is wrong. There are many people who are falsely accused of doing things. How can we not say there isn't such a thing as perpetrator-blaming? Taking it back, let's look at Nolan a little deeper. At the start I was asking Ford, why would she do such a thing and I'm sure many people would think, "She had the right to do it and no one should be complaining about what she's done." Shouldn't the same apply to Nolan. Why would he do such a thing? "He had the right to do it and no one should be complaining about what he's done." It goes both ways...doesn't it? If it doesn't, re-evaluate what you think feminism means. This will make things a lot clearer and make it more apparent what kind of feminist you are. What if Nolan was having a bad day? Oh, but if he's having a bad day, no one would care, because he's the person who did the wrong thing. Ford is not the person in the wrong even though she got someone fired without knowing whether they needed that job. She could have literally ruined his life, but no, she's not the person who did the wrong thing in this situation. Can we all just agree that from both sides, both people in this situation did the wrong thing. Ford for getting someone fired and Nolan for being mean to someone online. Both did something they maybe shouldn't have, but it happened, and it doesn't seem like things are going to change anytime soon, so life will be life.

"Sometimes, Ford said, she blocks people who send her such messages and sometimes she shouts back at the trolls." Why does she block some people, but some people no? (She blocked me and I never made one comment to her. I just made a tweet about her, nothing horrible, but apparently I'm not who she wants to deal with.) I think she blocks the people she knows she can't win in an argument with and the people she doesn't are people she thinks she can win in an argument with. There's no reason for her to pick and choose. "Hmm, I think this abuse looks nice. Maybe I should try replying to that one and see how the conversation goes." It's pretty much as if she were trying on clothing. "I think I'll take this one and remove this one from my purchase."

"I think his choice to write that particular word - a word that is used to degrade and dehumanise women - on a post where I was sharing an example about sexualised violence and abuse was a pretty key indicator of the attitudes he took towards women." I would first like to start off with commenting on the word. I think people forget that words apply to both sexes. You can just as easily call a guy a slut as you would a girl. Since the definition of slut varies between people, you can't easily get offended. For example, my definition of a slut would be someone who sleeps with tons of people on the daily, doesn't care for commitment, and has no respect towards their body. Does that mean your definition of slut will be the same? Maybe your definition of slut is someone who allows others to use their body however they want. Maybe you think having over 10 sexual partners in your life makes you a slut. Etc. There are so many different perspectives as to what a word is. I don't think he should have used that word considering the context of the article, but again we don't really know his motive. What if he was the one trying to make a statement? Use a powerful word on a powerful article. As if he were finding the perfect moment to use the word in one of her articles. It's not sensitive, but I don't think people should be so highly affected by things like this when they're dealing with online situations. Rather than fight back by firing someone who you don't even know in real life, try to use what they said and advocate why hurting someone online is bad. So many better things could have been done and maybe then she wouldn't be getting so much shit thrown in her direction. People will see what she did and shake their heads. I definitely did. I don't think anyone should be fired over something so petty. Wouldn't it be funny if she got fired for saying something to a male? Oh, how the tables have turned! People (feminists/SJWS in particular) would be outraged. It would reach the masses, make the news, take the world by storm. How could a woman get fired over something so petty?! Oh, the oppression! Is that what it would be like? It's funny how they try to create equality, but in doing so gender distinctions have become so much more noticeable.

"Ford...noticed that Nolan's employer was mentioned on his Facebook profile." If that hadn't been in there what would she have done? Just kicked the situation to the side. Well, guys, this is exactly why you do not put information like that on your profile page. Let this be a lesson to everyone. Either don't say anything that could be mean (but these days everything is mean) or try to remain as anonymous as possible online. 

"Since the sacking, Ford said she has been subjected to hundreds of abusive messages on Facebook, Twitter and on email. She has taken screen shots of some of the messages and posted them on her blog. They include obscene sexual slurs, and death and rape threats." I'll start with the first sentence. As I mentioned at the beginning of this post towards how trolls are targeting feminists. The same thing applies to Ford's situation. She did something that can easily be made fun of or criticized, so people are definitely going to tell her something and when she's so readily available through social media, they'll leave a post for her. Is it abuse? Yes. Is it all abuse? No. She may be receiving abuse such as the sexual slurs and threats, but does that mean the stuff she isn't screen shotting is bad? No. Chances are, it's probably people pointing out what she did was wrong and trying to make her see why it was faulty. She's using what stupid people say to make her case look better. A great use of pulling at our emotions, but if some of us look deeper, we can obviously see she is also not giving us what normal, civilized people with opposite opinions are saying. Everyone in this world can't possibly be that hurtful, right? Then again, would she ever share something like this on her blog? Probably not. It doesn't support her, so she won't use it. Sure, I don't think she should be getting the abuse she is receiving, but think about it. She wanted Nolan to face the consequences of using a word she didn't like by firing him, and now she's receiving the consequences of possibly ruining someone's life. Hers is much easier to deal with. As she said, she can block them. =) For Nolan, a simple block can't do anything to help him out now.

"Ford herself has at times cursed at people online, telling them to shut up or worse. She admitted that she loses her temper but draws a distinction between uncivil language deployed in an running online argument, and threats of violence that come out of the blue." Why is she being a hypocrite then and getting mad at others for saying mean things to people online? That doesn't even make sense. That's like saying people shouldn't kill animals, but eating meat occasionally or like telling others they should love everyone for who they are, but occasionally judging the few people you're not fond of. She says that she can run a distinction. I'm sure a lot of us can so there's nothing special with that. Some people like to post past the acceptable boundaries. That's fine, too. It's just everyone's sensitivity levels are so high, it makes everything seem like a bad thing. You can't say this or that or else everyone will hate you. Sure, people can recognize and distinguish the difference between something they should and should not say online, but that doesn't mean they'll stop saying horrible things. Then she justifies herself in the paragraph after this one and I don't see why. There is no justification for this kind of stuff. She was being a hypocrite and she knew it. I don't like it when others try to justify their actions. "You shouldn't do this, and I may do it, but see this is why it's okay for me to do it." It's as if they think that everyone else is at fault except them and that shouldn't be the attitude of someone who is a "feminist." Someone who wants "equality."

The article then moves on from the topic of Clementine Ford's abuse to other abusive situations from an expert named Emmett Rensin. "Today he's a self-described "lefty feminist." Well, I don't think anything good can come after that lol. "He's also a former teenage troll who says that those hurling abuse online are 'pretending that life online is an alternative reality.'" I guess I was right. Nothing good could come after that. In regards to his definition of trolling. That actually points out something really major. Plenty of people online probably act like the other person on the other side of the screen isn't real. I'm sure that's the main appeal of online interaction, the lack of interaction that it provides with anyone really being there. You don't have to take into regard what your words may inflict onto others/how it may affect them/what they could do after seeing what you've sent to them. People don't think about that. Is trolling always that? After a while, you do become aware you are talking to someone real. So what happens when that realization is made? Do we continue to be mean, because we live in an alternative reality. Maybe. I'm sure there's more to it. I'm sure you can find people who truly support what they're saying or people who do it for other reasons. There's a wide variety of people out there. We'll never really know.

"They think they're a nice enough person in ordinary life, maybe with frustration or anger that they think the internet is a safe outlet for." That's plausible. Does it mean that they should reevaluate their attitude online? What if they're just a mean person? I think depending on your environment you will always act different. The internet is a different environment for many people. Some may see it no different than real life. Let's take me for example. I would say online I can range between many personalities. I can be nice, mean, funny, a mix of all that, or something else. I don't know. I'm aware of what I may imply with whatever it is I'm posting, but that doesn't mean anything to most people. They just take it as they want to take it. So even if I was saying the most sarcastic thing, I could be taken seriously and someone could get really offended. At home, I am generally a shut-in who does homework most of the time. I am quiet and shy and like to be left alone. That is my home life. At school, I am mostly shy, but I am quite social during lunch. So that shows even more of a distinction in environment. Depending on the situation you are put in, there can be an even bigger differentiation within the same place. To put it simply, we don't act constantly the same. We may have continuous traits in a specific environment, but that does not mean those traits will stay true to us in different situations. I think the internet is a safe outlet for releasing your frustration or anger. You can type up a storm and post it on a blog like me or you can send yourself an e-mail containing all the feelings you have or you can post a video on YouTube. The options are endless. It becomes a problem when you choose a specific person and decide to harass and harass them time after time. There's no reason for them to receive your abuse just because you feel bad about yourself. If you're having a conversation with back-and-forths that's fine, but when it becomes a thing where you pick at everything this person does obsessively, I think you should know that it's a problem. Try to use common knowledge when doing it. People might say that you should ask yourself if your comment will hurt the other person. Don't do that. It might and it might not. Are you going to keep every comment to yourself just because you want them to feel better? That's not how real life works, so why should the internet work like that.

"They think the internet is somewhere they can go and vent, and there's no real victim, the people aren't real, it doesn't really matter." Except it does and again people may not be aware of that at first, but gradually over time you would think that they do. Even so, there's a lot of people out here who don't really care. I wouldn't say it's venting, but I am looking at venting in the context of giving out your personal opinion with passion. Vent is a strong way of expressing your emotions is it not? Does that mean every time I reply to a feminist online I am being a troll, because I am venting about how I feel feminism isn't the answer to all problems? Apparently I am. If someone wants to vent, let them, because at times the other person and the person venting can learn a lot from these conversations. It's a problem when it gets to the level of abuse and harassment or when it just becomes plain petty. Both parties should know that when it just becomes petty there is no reason to reply anymore. If you have nothing more to say, then you should stop to. Make your points, finish, and be done with it. When you can't seem to do that, that's bad. That's when it's a problem.

"It's not as if in the last 150 years of feminist political action there haven't been men and women screaming at them to shut up or threatening them." That's wrong, but your movement is about equality, right? Don't they have the right to do those things. Technically, yes, because you want equality. Technically, no, because they're taking away your equality. It's a paradox. I think people should just be able to voice their opinions. Always question your beliefs, always listen to what the other party has to offer, and always listen to yourself. Do all of this without bias. Doing all three of these will give you a lot of insight and help you evolve. Feminists truly are doing a good thing, it's just gotten worse now with the third-wave. It might not get better either until they do something that significantly changes things for humanity as a whole.

"He suggests that individuals stick to the old internet adage 'don't feed the trolls' - in other words, ignore and block them - but acknowledges that it's difficult, and ignoring them won't quiet them, and won't always make them go away." You can do whatever you want. Whether you want to retaliate against the trolls or block them, do whatever you please. Always remember that your movement is about equality and if you think shutting them up is the answer than good luck with promoting equality. Is it "equality for all except people who are mean online?" No. Absolutely not. Everyone should consider what people are saying. Don't block unless you are truly affected by what these people are saying to you. If it doesn't bother you, then don't bother to block. It definitely won't quiet them and it won't make them go away. There will either be more coming or they will post their beliefs online like me or you will still somehow see what people are saying about you that you don't like. What can you do, but take it as it comes! Feminism is about being strong, isn't it? I have to admit right now. I used to lean towards feminism when I was in middle school. As I grew older, I gradually saw many flaws in it (most of all, the double standards), so I ended that phase in my life. The iconic picture of Rosie the Riveter is such a great example of how feminism has taught women to be strong. I'm not trying to twist things, but as strong women, we should be able to take the things thrown at us. Now, not everyone may have the same mental capacity for these things and that is when I would advise you to block these people, but for any feminists reading this, please try to keep that strong image in your mind. It's good to be strong. Show them your views, but as I said before, remember to evaluate their views as well. It keeps the relationship between feminists and anti-feminists (and this is a horrible word to use for people who are against feminism, b/c that definition has been misconstrued as well) healthy.

The article continues bringing it back to what Ford has told them. "You hear on the one hand 'Why don't you just block and delete?', or 'Why don't you just ignore them?' she says. 'So you block them then you are told you don't like debate or criticism and it's censorship.' It's true. Doing either is sort of iffy, but it's worse when you're a feminist. You're movement calls for equality, so you do have the right to block these people, but the fact that you're taking away their right to give you their opinion is why you're probably being criticized. Not because you don't like debate or criticism, but because your movement specifically says you fight for equality and that's not equal. Do what feels right, in the end you're the one who needs to be happy/feel engaged in whatever it is you're doing.

To everyone who has read this lengthy article, thank you very much. Overall, I hope you've learned that what I believe should be the answer to online "trolling" is a nice evaluation of everyone's opinions. I hope you've gained something from this and if you have any comments for me, post below!