Posts Tagged With: sexism

Arrest Sean Connery



I have just come across this video in which Sean Connery admits that he believes women should be slapped in some cases, and that they use stereotypical behaviors he believes women perform in order to justify the abuse.  I suggest a human rights organization take a look at the issue. 





Since Connery is exhibiting behaviors and statements that mark him as a likely abuser and this warrants further attention.  Also, his lashing out against a protected group is in itself a crime in many countries and should therefore be dealt with. 




Sorry, no excuses for calling for violence on women.  Until we live in a post-patriarchal world, we will NEVER be able to determine if a particular slap was “deserved” or not or if it was laid on the woman because she is a woman.  It’s just too hard at this time to tell, so we must assume all violence against women is done because of bias. 



Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Fun Game


Lots of times, men do mean things to me. They laugh at what I have to say, they interrupt me, they accuse me of having a bias, they call me stupid. Then I complain. I tell them to shut their mouths. So they get irritated and say that women must be awfully sensitive. Or that women must not like being interrupted, laughed at, and such.
Well, here’s a fun game I made up!:

Next time a man does something mean to me and says I’m only bothered by it because I’m a woman, I’m going to assume that men are NOT bothered by it, and then start doing it to them!


For example:

[Bob: “The movie Titanic wasn’t very good.”

Me: “Actually it was made very well. It had great special effects, superb music, and a solid plot.”

Bob: “You don’t know what your talking about. You’re stupid. You don’t know anything about film. You’re only saying that because you’re a girl. Your mother’s a hog.”

Me: “Hey, you asshole, you can’t talk that way to me! I don’t like being accused of stupidity or bias.”

Bob: “Humph! Girls! How did I guess?”

Me: “You mean only girls hate being talked to that way? Only women hate being accused of stupidity and bias? I guess men like being talked to that way, then. I’ll start doing it to men. Thanks for clueing me in!”

Bob: “YOUR a fucking psycho bicth!!!!!11!1!11!” (shouted at fucking psycho decibel level). ]


Ladies, who’s with me?


Categories: Articles In English, Funny, Radical Feminism, Silencing Women | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why women are called “too sensitive”

Women are called “too sensitive” by men because men don’t want to admit that their horrific behavior towards women causes women to be more often unhappy and irritable.

Men know this is true.  It’s not a question of  “teaching” them, or of men simply having a different viewpoint and “not realizing” they are saying something untrue.  It’s done totally on purpose by men, for the benefit of men.  It is because men do not want to take responsibility for hurting women.

The whole schtick about women’s periods making them irrational was invented only as an excuse to shut women up when there is no logical reason to prove them wrong. (Oftentimes, it is a complete mystery as to why the man disagrees with the woman in the first place, regardless of what excuse he makes to “prove” her wrong).  Even if some women have problems with PMS, it still doesn’t prove that all women do, nor does it prove that this is the only thing that can possibly upset them.

It still doesn’t excuse you from asking the person why they are upset, and certainly doesn’t mean you can pretend they are upset from PMS when you definitely do know the reason you have upset them, which is usually something you have done to them yourself, out of meanness.

It’s no different than when they said Negroes were always hysterical.  They knew it wasn’t true.   They just didn’t want to admit that they had some hand in making the person upset and in ruining the person’s life.  It’s not a matter of “oh, whites/men/etc just need to be educated…”  They are doing it on purpose.  They can’t not realize what is upsetting a woman/black person if it would upset them too.  It’s not something they can possibly ignore even if they tried.  It’s physically impossible.   You can’t make something up on the spot that you never believed before without realizing yuor’e doing it.

You also can’t go from knowing 100% of people hate something to magically thinking that only some of them hate it.  And that doesn’t explain why you would magically think any one specific group of people hated it with absolutely no prompting whatsoever.  No man just happens to start thinking “Gee, only women hate [bad thing],” for no reason if he’s never thought that before, especially not COINCIDENTALLY five seconds after he chooses to do [bad thing] to a woman.  (what’s the likelihood he would start believing it just then?) He’s OBVIOUSLY just trying to pretend it only bothers women for the same reason bullies pretend only kids are bothered by their behavior- to make it look like the victim is over sensitive.

It’s a lie.  Not a “mistake”.  Not an “accident”.  A lie.  You can’t lie by accident, and you can’t subconsciously, accidentally begin believing something that you never have before, unless you had some kind of external prompting.  It was done on purpose.  Things don’t just pop into the mind like that, especially not at such a coincidental time.

99.9% of the time- possibly 100% of the time- when a man claims a woman is being “womanly” or “hysterical”, he has seen what has caused her to be upset and knows full well that men would be upset by this as well- i.e., that is it not something that would upset people only of one gender; that it is not a gender issue.

However, since he hates women, he decides to make it a gender issue.  He decides to tell her she’s acting “womanly” or to say that “girls are always crying”, not because he didn’t know that the thing doesn’t only upset women, but because he doesn’t care.

It’s not that men don’t know that women will be upset by the things they do, it’s that they don’t care.

After all, most of the things men accuse women of being “feminine” for disliking, are things which they would dislike themselves, and which they never considered to be things which women in specific disliked up until the moment they chose to do it to a woman.

For example, Man A decides to interrupt Jessica.  Man A already knows ALL people don’t like being interrupted, and he has never heard of not liking being interrupted being a gender issue before.  Yet, when he says to Jessica, “Gee, I guess women don’t like being interrupted,” we’re all supposed to believe he suddenly started associating it with gender.  Even though it’s quite clear he is just pretending it’s a gender issue in order to:

A:  pretend it’s something only women dislike (so he can pretend he wouldn’t dislike it himself, and that therefore he didn’t realize she wouldn’t like it)

B: pretend the person who was the victim of his behavior is only upset because they are uber-sensitive, not because what he did was wrong

C: turn the situation into a gender argument, because he knows he will be able to count on any men nearby to support him- even if they know full well it isn’t a gender question

This is because when he makes a comment about gender, the other men take it as a cue-word, a cue-word meaning “support me, the male, no matter what, even if it means gaslighting and lying to his victim/s)”.  The men nearby hear him talk about gender, and they immediately offer opposition to the female, even if they were listening to the whole argument and know that she wasn’t doing anything feminine OR doing anything wrong, and that he is only pretending the issue is about gender to get their support and make it easier to push his opponent down.

The female or other victim is then confused because when she sees them all turn their support towards him, and claim he is in the right, she cannot figure out why, and is left wondering why they would support him.  She wonders if she is missing something, if they all see something she doesn’t see- something proving her wrong.  She desperately tries to figure out what this proof is, why they all think she is wrong, and why she doesn’t see it herself.  Until she realizes- it’s like the Emperor’s New Clothes.  They are only pretending they think she’s wrong.  Such cruelty is never rivalled in any other type of torture but gaslighting.

Men need to absolutely be arrested and possibly jailed for this type of behavior.  Free speech is no longer an issue here.  Free speech is a male thing, since it allows males to verbally abuse females without punishment.  That’s why rednecks and Teabaggers always go crazy when free speech is threatened.  They are patriarchal.  (Recall a hundred or so years ago when they also wanted the freedom to beat their wives- just reminding you in case they try to make the point that free speech is somehow “different” than the freedom of action- they are only saying it’s different so they won’t get the privilege taken away).

There are some men who don’t act like this, but, like I always say, those are the men who are beaten, stuffed in lockers, called pussies or fags or girls or homos or sissies and are brutalized on a daily basis.  They might as well not even be called “male”.

However, I usually don’t like to spend too much time discussing whether or not there are good males, because that would be like a black rights blog wasting all its time talking about whether or not there are good whites; it’s like saying that being fair to whites is more important than fighting for black rights, and that proving whites- even some whites- are good is just as important as proving blacks are good.  It’s also like saying that a black rights blog should be judged solely on its fairness to whites, even though we know white establishments are never judged solely on how they portray blacks (and also that a black rights blog is the proper place to do it- as if a bicycle shop is the proper place to fix a computer)!

Categories: Articles In English, Patriarchy, Radical Feminism, Silencing Women | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Men, Monarchy, and Political Science

We’re all taught (at least in the US) that the American Revolution and the Enlightenment (the rediscovery of Classical/ancient Roman culture and science) were the most important and wonderful thing ever to happen in history and that we were all a bunch of savages before they occurred.

Monarchy, to our American mindset, is an irrational evil, a trip back to the old barbaric days when kings and queens could do whatever they wanted and squash the population and take all their money.  I definitely disagree with those kind of monarchs, and I don’t necessarily agree with monarchy itself.  But I’ve been wondering why men tend to hate it so much, specifically the Ron Paul libertarian, America robots that are gaining ground in the political scene.

These liberty-bots scream about how AWESOME “diim-moooocckk-rrraaa-sseeeeeeee!!!” is and it would seem to make sense, that people should live in freedom, but there is a darker side to their cries.  They seem to hate monarchy and want democracy or republic or whichever they want for the wrong reasons.

Look at what monarchy is: a system in which a family or person governs a country, often with special respect for local cultural beliefs and “subjective” opinions.  It is not a disembodied “system”, but is a structure in which a ruler has a close emotional and familial relationship with her or his subjects, as the parent of a country rather than an emotionally distant “just business” leader.  To men, it’s “illogical” to have monarchy, and the succession method of choosing the child of a ruler as the next ruler.

Yes, it would be illogical to claim the child of a ruler would necessarily be able to govern as well as its parent.  But maybe the goal of a monarchy isn’t merely to govern, but to establish a familial or culturally cherished entity as the top of a nation or group of people.

If someone has a different goal than you, that doesn’t mean they’re being illogical.  Men like to argue this way: if you are trying to reach goal B, and they are trying to reach goal A, they call your strategies and attempts to reach your goal “illogical”, because  you wouldn’t be able to reach their goal, goal A, that way.

For example, if you are trying to reach Goal B, which is to establish a monarchy in order to establish a relationship with your people and put some culture in your government and keep up a beloved tradition, they say this is illogical……because you wouldn’t be able to reach their goal, goal A, which is to dispassionately govern the dry economic and military systems of the nation.

When they say, therefore, that you’re being “illogical”, what they really mean is that they don’t want to admit that maybe you have a different goal than they do, because they are too selfish to admit that someone doesn’t share theirs.  They purposely don’t want to admit that you even HAVE a different goal or opinion than they do, so they just say, “Humph!  That’s not the way to reach MY goal properly!”  Assholes.

Anyway, this is what men do in response to the monarchy question.  They refuse to admit that the cold, hard, mechanized job a government can do might not be the ONLY job it can do.  And they would NEVER admit that a governing body can do something integrated and complex like fulfill TWO functions at once, such as the economic/mechanical function AND the emotional/familial/cultural one!

(perhaps this is why little girls are so preoccupied with princesses- they like beauty, rules, culture, family, monarchy, protection, etc)


Ayn Rand’s Objectivism espouses individualism and enshrines capitalism and liberty as proper societal and governmental virtues.  She routinely used the word “savage” and mocked such “irrational” and small-town things as folk music, religion, spiritualism, tribal art, and naturalism.  She preferred to look at the skyscrapers instead of the stars.  She highly praised individualism and stressed that charity should NOT be seen as a moral necessity, but rather as a personal choice.

Ayn Rand, a woman, was born in the Soviet Union, a repressive totalitarian state, so we can forgive her for obsessing over these particular values since they were the opposite of the values she was oppressed under, and since her philosophy does have some rather good points.  But we cannot excuse the purposeful ignorance of the young, upstart white male crowd who use her philosophy to justify their selfish and anti-community behavior.

The Objectivists, the Ron Paul freaks, and the dimmocccraceeee loons are often in conflict with each other on nonessential issues, but they all subconsciously agree on one thing: the subjugation or ignoring of women.  Obstetrician Ron Paul is anti-abortion, and 89% of his donors were men.  The democracy loons are annoyed that Mommy government won’t let them do whatever they want.  Objectivism, though it believes in equality, isn’t able to integrate what women truly  need with its philosophy, which has holes in it that prevent the understanding of how oppression works.

Men, Ron Paul bots, and Objectivism support capitalism and anti-monarchist beliefs and all such “logical” masculine ideas.  Our Founding Fathers, whom they adore, were obsessed with instituting “freedom” from the “tyranny” of a “monster” that taxed his colony about %3.  What did they do once they won that “freedom”?  Because the people didn’t want to pay taxes, Washington squashed the Whiskey Rebellion with more troops than were used in the entire Revolutionary War!  “The King is dead; long live the King!” is always their battle cry.  It wasn’t about freedom for everyone.  It was about their freedom to dominate women, beat slaves, and indoctrinate children.

The reason they hate monarchy is because they are not in control.  They cannot manipulate the ruler of the country, the daddy- or, shudder, mommy- into giving them everyone else’s money and power.  In a democracy, they can trick the idiot population into voting itself into slavery, but with a monarchy, a sole figure is in charge who can stop their whims.  Worst of all, this figure might be a woman, who is going to really lord it over them and make them respect others.

Men are fine with laws against insulting Muslims and fear anyone trying to invade “the sanctity of the family” but they are allergic to laws about insulting your wife, hate speech, and sexism.  Just as they want “freedom” for George Washington to own slaves, they want “freedom” for Muslims to impose Sharia law on their families and communities, and freedom for a retarded inbred redneck to sexually molest his daughter.  They are hysterically opposed to the EU and the United Nations (unless they get to control it) because the EU (headed by a woman, I believe, Angela Merkel) is trying to control Europe “like Hitler” and impose extremely unfair rules against people pushing each other around (and they’re pro-Jewish!!!  Oh no!!)



Part of the opposition to monarchy, authority, and community is an opposition to the idea that the personal is the political.  Men don’t want the personal- women’s issues, their mothers, childhood rules, familiarity, emotion- to follow them into the political.  They don’t want to have to bother with the complaining women at home, so they set up politics as a tool to help them create their own man-spaces (the market, war, “freedom” in various issues, forcing women to stay home), and sometimes the political establishment itself isn’t only a tool for setting up these spaces, it IS those spaces!  (recall the Congressional showers, homosexual relations with male pages, baths and homosexuality in the Roman days, etc).

Men choose to see things in linear, unconnected terms.  Black and white, you might say.  This is why they refuse to admit that the personal is the political.  They refuse to understand that it’s not separate, but that the two concepts gradually blend into each other, the way white blends into black via gray.  But men choose to see things as simplistic so they can separate concepts when they want to ignore one or the other (like ignoring the personal).

Politics, to them, is NOT personal, but has to do with governing things, not people- money, military equipment, technology, legal structures.  Personal things like equality,  justice,  jobs, the arts, culture, are not considered “important”, even though they directly affect more people than dry legalistic matters do.  But even here they are hypocrites: they claim to want to focus only on these dry matters and ignore personal ones, yet they go and draft tons of laws that focus directly on the personal: laws allowing wife beating, laws about clothing and rape, laws allowing child abuse.  Not to mention the fact that when women come into politics, they act the same way towards them as they do at home, they act out their psychological hatred and fear of them, therefore THEY are the ones who are bringing their own personal feelings into politics.  Men are afraid women will enforce rules against their misbehavior, just they way they do at home.


“Masculine” men almost instinctively bristle at this mention of the word “misbehavior”- they recognize it as an admission that the personal is the political.  Words like “misbehavior”, “bad,” “deserve,”- it reminds them of home, of mother, or that umbilical leash they try to wriggle away from.  They don’t like this encroachment of the personal sphere into the political sphere.  “Oh, no!  I thought I got away from this!” they moan, when they realize their childish scheme to reject their mothers and their homes and the personal sphere predictably falls apart.

They had hoped the personal wouldn’t follow them into the political, and put up barriers- on female suffrage, birth control, working women-  to keep it at home, protected, enclosed- they are unsurprisingly upset when people, families, feelings, needs, wants, hopes, dreams, and the dreaded Feminine come to knock at the Capitol doors.  When they speak of “protection” of the family, we can conclude they can only mean their protection from the family.  Big strong men indeed.  Politics isn’t serious business for them, it’s just a boys’ club.   Not an important mechanism for ruling a society.  A boys’ club.  Repulsive.


Men oppose laws against speech because they dread the idea that the personal is the political, and vice versa. They hate the idea that the state is just an overgrown nanny who won’t let them pick on others. They see laws curtailing the exercise of speech, and they scowl “I thought I escaped that when I grew up and moved out of the house!!” because they resent the fact that “personal” rules- like rules against teasing, lying, etc- are encroaching on their “political” world, which they thought was a dood-haven protecting them from rules, fairness, and nagging mothers.



They need this dualistic, illogical, and unsustainable divide between personal and political because they don’t want their mothers creeping up into their space.




The obsession with capitalism versus communism is also due to personal psychological problems on the part of “masculine” men.  They start out as capitalists, confident in their own abilities to work and manipulate the market in their favor.  Then when they get older, maybe age 22, they realize what losers they are and become socialists or communists, because they think socialism and communism mean taking from the responsible and giving to the irresponsible.


But perhaps it’s just another dood-fit, and since they see capitalism as an authority figure, and they direct their anger at that.  Who knows, maybe in Soviet Russia naughty young boys, full of angst, saw communism as an authority and capitalism as rebellious!


They may see communism as a system to help the “little guy”; in this case, it helps the little guy get women, whom they want to see as objects.   They want the same right to women, as property, as the rich robber baron capitalists have.   They may go the opposite direction when they get the woman- they are now conservative because they don’t want anyone to take her now that he’s got her, just as rich people become capitalist conservatives now that they don’t want anyone taking their money.


But there’s always a thread of freedom in there, whether they’re capitalist or communist; there’s always this fear of themselves being governed.  This selfish mistrust of government shows up in pop culture as well.   Look at all the detective or murder movies out there:


The masculine, intelligent male always senses that the neighbor or the local butcher or the school teacher or some other seemingly innocuous citizen is some horrible terrorist or enemy, and needs to be taken out.  His crying nervous hysterical wife never believes him- oh, that deadweight, mission crushing bitch!


The wife, who tries to reason with her husband, to get him to see that the neighbor or barber or whoever is just a normal person, SHE is seen as the irrational one, the one who needs to wake up.  This is how patriarchy sees things: an enemy everywhere, and the more normal they act, the craftier their conspiracy must be.  They need to be killed.


Noooo, not by the cops or by a cooperative of citizens!  Mr/Mrs Villain needs to be killed by the lone male hero, whose spoilsport wife wants to wimpishly force him to make peace for no other reason than…well…than that she hates violence because she’s a wimp.


Of course, then comes the epiphany for Mrs Hero, when she finds out the conspiracy or whatever is true, and that the suspect in fact WAS the villain.  Now crying in fear and embarrassment, she learns the husband was right, and calls him, talks to him, hugs him, gives him makeup sex.  Maybe she even gets threatened or held hostage or perhaps killed by the enemy to teach her a little lesson about letting her evil pacifist feminine side take over.


Of course, the policemen are all pathetic and don’t believe the male hero, and neither do any female nurses or psychologists (if the hero gets committed)- the government and the community are not to be trusted.  This is how the movies, collaborating with patriarchy, make citizens afraid of each other, and put down women.



As we can see, the introduction of masculine philosophy into politics is dangerous and causes childish political behavior and mistrust of important laws and authority.




How much longer is it until men institute either a fascist state, or an anarchist Dionysian rape fest?

Categories: ...and the Arts, Articles In English, Liberty Doods, Politics and Current Events, Radical Feminism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Would It Take?


What would it take for humanity to overthrow and transcend patriarchy?  Who must be the warriors in this battle against the patriarchs?  What must be done?  What must society be taught, in order to make this successful?  Must we break laws?  Which laws?  Do we lie to get our way?  Should we speak to children?  The religious?


I believe that women’s liberation from forced sex, second class status, poverty, disease, unwanted pregnancy, torture, death, psychological humiliation, and feeling of otherness is more important than obeying laws, being honest, paying taxes, or respecting the mythical parental right to influence children.


Laws are meant to protect people from being harmed or wronged in a complex society.  To break a law such as “don’t murder” would be to do wrong, it would be to harm someone.  But to break a law such as, “don’t trespass on school property or hand pamphlets to underage children” would not be bringing harm to anyone, or wronging them.  We must weigh the consequences; will the damage done by our action outweigh the damage done if we do not perform the action?  (Also, we must keep in mind that we must only perform such actions if they are the only way to achieve our goal, such as if the goal cannot be achieved in a less destructive way).

If we hand radical feminist pamphlets to sixth graders telling them about PIV sex and gender theories, and teaching them how to take control of their own sexual experiences, is the damage that will be done by them reading the pamphlets and getting their fragile little minds warped greater than the damage that will be done if we don’t hand them the pamphlets, and they become used and abused by men?  Is the risk of getting ourselves sued or thrown in jail (which we can avoid anyway by remaining anonymous and running off before we are caught) really worse than what will happen to those poor girls if they are not taught to be liberated?


If a local politician is seriously in the business of signing a bill that would criminalize accidental miscarriages, should we really refrain from physically forcing him to stop, or from interfering with the police when they try to arrest the suffering pregnant woman who is about to be put in a jail cell?  At what price must we continue to choose to obey the law?


     Over all, I think the necessity of the women’s liberation movement supersedes the necessity of obeying laws which prevent relatively harmless activities. 


What is to be done politically?  A good start would be to vote for all women, only women candidates.  Even those who are supposedly conservative will have empathy with women’s issues, because they must suffer under patriarchy as well.  Also, many conservative women have the same views as radical feminists about many things (the futility of the sexual liberation movement, the intuitive understanding of the nature of masculinity), as opposed to mainstream leftist or fun-fems.  Or, one could run for office herself, as a woman candidate, as a women’s issues supporter…or, if you would rather be a subverter, run under a lukewarm moderate campaign, while avoiding speaking about women’s issues, and then when elected, introduce women’s rights bills into the legislation.


Perhaps one day, if we get enough money pooled, or get enough women on board, we can set up our own nation or society, the way the Jews have done with Israel.  Someplace like Greenland would be nice.  It’s owned by Denmark, which is a relatively liberal country, at least compared to places like Greece and the United States.  And Saudi Arabia.  The cold weather would prevent intruders from wanting to stay too long, and the remoteness of the place would be good for women trying to escape abuse and depression.


Another great idea would be to get either a government fund or a private fund to ship abused women and children from the Middle East and Africa over to havens in Europe, Greenland, Canada, or the US (haha!) until we can clear the rats out of the Middle East and Africa and the other third world countries.  The bad men would be taken out by police force or government edict, the laws changed, and the good men transported to safe havens along with the women and children, but perhaps generally on the periphery.

All of them would be screened- politely and like human beings, please- for issues like emotional and physical abuse, and for evidence of patriarchal family structure.  Women and children would have the choice to leave any abusive husbands that were discovered during the screenings.  Money could be raised by legislating better use of government funds, or by selling baked goods, necklaces, objects on EBay, knitted scarves, collecting money from churchgoers “for a good cause”, and donating part of the income we already make.


We should send speakers to public schools who are supportive of radical feminism.  They can contact the school, advertising their willingness to teach the children about bullying and sexual health issues, and then when they get up to the microphone, they can add in a bunch of stuff that is crucial to our cause, such as the nature of patriarchy, and the helpfulness of lesbian communitarianism.  Of course, we should advertise our services under a different guise every time, lest the schools catch onto the our act, and start banning sexual health speakers because most of them turn out to be radfems in disguise.


If we do get women in office, laws should be passed that promote affirmative action for women and women of color, along with a privilege tax which men should have to pay, since patriarchy unfairly benefits them.  The proceeds from this tax may go to the havens for foreign women, or for the Greenland colony, or for sending condoms and sexual health and pro-feminism pamphlets to Africa.

The driving and voting ages should be lowered for women and lifted for men, since males on average mature much more slowly than females.  Any males entering the police or other law forces should undergo a sexual violence propensity test, and police departments should have a quota of at least 50% women. Most violent crimes committed by the police are by white male officers, who are often sophomoric and immature.  The military must unquestioningly allow gays and lesbians to serve without discrimination, either public or private, and Army rapes must go reported, with offenders being dishonorably discharged.


Women should try to have as many relationships with other women as possible, either lesbian, or, if one cannot change one’s heterosexuality, find a rare good male and be sure to stock up on as many female friends as possible.  The rare good men should be shared by women.


Books and movies as are read and watched by children, such as patriarchal, woman-mocking 1940s films, or fairy tales in which females are demonized as wicked stepmothers should be discussed in schools and only watched for the entertainment value, not as education.



As you can see, it would be difficult but not complex or confusing to free women from men’s chains.  All we need to do is make plans, band together, and keep at it. 

Categories: Abortion, Articles In English, Lesbianism, PIV, Pragmatic Activism, Radical Feminism, Separatism, Sex, Woman's Nation | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Titanic Is Considered a “Women’s” Film






Plot Spoiler Ahead.





Titanic is a grand-scale epic by James Cameron about the sinking of the ship and about a young woman, Rose DeWitt Bucater (Kate Winslet) who falls for a poor artist, Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) while on board, rejecting her family and her evil fiancé, Caledon Hockley (Billy Zane).  After the ship sinks, the two lovers escape together but Jack dies, leaving Rose to abandon her past life and live as he suggested, by following her heart.  It is one of my all time favorite movies.

Rose is attractive but doesn’t have the typical model figure.  She is not large, but is a healthy weight, and has a lovely face, unlike the popular actresses and “fuckable” models of today.   Her costumes are lovely and colorful, and though they are often uncomfortable looking, they are enjoyable to look at, unlike the chrome colored crap the “heroines” of mainstream action films wear.   The costumes, colors, and music in the film are vivid and romantic, a rejection of the “masculine” norm of being unemotional and uncultured.

Technology symbolizes masculinity in the film, and often in real life.  Technology is something you use to conquer nature, and something you associate with our world’s idea of masculinity.  The Titanic is all about SIZE and the male preoccupation with it, as Rose says.

The film lampoons the sexist behavior of the men by portraying them as knowing what they’re doing is wrong.  It doesn’t try to go all existentialist and avante garde and say that there are two sides to every story, you have to look at things from a different point of view, no one’s really evil, it was a different time and place blah blah blah.

Titanic portrays very strong women, like Kathy Bates’ Unsinkable Molly Brown and Rose, and portrays only the upper class men as disrespectful towards women but not poor men, since the lower class is synonymous with femininity, and therefore is the butt of the male establishment’s hatred.  (I don’t see it as a case of masking the fact that masculinity is the problem by presenting lower class men as “better” or making it an economic issue rather than a male hatred issue).

One night, Rose tries to commit suicide by jumping off the back of the ship, and Jack talks her out of it.  As she comes back over the railings, she slips and almost goes overboard.  She screams and the ship authorities come running, just as Rose falls on the ground, her dress hiked up and Jack standing over her.  Of course, they assume it’s a rape scene, because underneath, they all know many, if not most men are emotionally capable of it.  Rose says she slipped trying to see the propellers and they mock her for being womanly and such.

Jack isn’t afraid of the female body, and draws pictures of prostitutes and other women, including an elderly woman who waits for her lost lover.  He doesn’t have love affairs with the women he draws- only with some of their hands.  He’s more of a personality guy.

By falling in love with Jack, Rose makes a romantic and sexual choice of her own volition, and she chooses an acceptable, enlightened, unbigoted man, who is fun to boot.  Jack is protective, but not because he’s a man; rather, because he’s been more exposed to the world and knows the ropes.  It also speaks volumes that she chooses a man below her power level, a man who supposedly isn’t as “biologically attractive” (strong, domineering) as a rich man.  It means she chooses out of love, not out of the wish to replicate an irrational fetishized power structure.

One night, Jack invites Rose down to a third class party with wild Irish music and beer, where she shows off her toughness by standing on her toes like a ballerina (showing that the harshness of female standards is just as harsh as the toughness standards for men, even more so sometimes).  The next morning, Cal, having found out about her escapades, tells her he’s disappointed she didn’t come to bed with him that night and honor him the way a wife is required to.  She tells him he cannot command her like a foreman in his mills, so he flips over a table and storms off, leaving her upset as the maid rushes in and tries to help Rose clean up.  She tells the maid it was an accident, as many women do, since they are afraid to blame males even when speaking to other women.  This movie does something important in that it shows what really happens behind the scenes when a woman appears to be confused or upset for “no” reason.  (of course, no one should assume there is no reason, and all people have the capacity to understand there may be a reason for the emotions, so there’s no excuse- but scenes like this help us tell the truth about those causes to those who would deny it).

Jack sees Rose naked without initiating sex with her.  He is very professional when he paints her.  He is sensitive and artistic without being odd and jarring and nihilistic, as some artists are.  Jack’s different without being repulsive; he retains his innocence, which is the proper way to be different and creative.
There was a quote on Wikipedia (a male controlled site) that said a newspaper or film review claimed men liked Titanic because Jack got Rose to take her clothes off by offering to draw her.  Watch the movie.  Nowhere in that film does this happen.  She is the one who offers to do a naked drawing.  And Jack isn’t the sort of man who allows bad men to define his existence, which is why he is demeaned and abused by Rose’s misogynistic fiancé, Cal.

Cal, Rose’s fiancé, calls her a little slut when she decides to let Jack draw her naked, and later accuses her of preferring to be a whore than to be his wife, and she says she’d rather be Jack’s whore than Cal’s wife, and spits in his face.

Rose is portrayed as equal or maybe dominant in the relationship with Jack.  She initiated the sex.  She saves him from danger.  She calls all the shots because she’s rich.  Her sexual experience is happy and purpose-driven.  She has sex with Jack because she WANTS to, not because she has to.  He is not drawn to her weakness, but her strength, and also to her happiness.

The Nature Trumps Technology theme is present in the sinking.  Any oppressed group, which internally realizes God or Nature or Fate is on their side, and that the established order including technology, is not, rejoices at disasters that destroy the established icons to some extent.  Therefore, when Nature trumps Technology/Civilization by sinking the Titanic, the oppressed persons immediately sense an aura of divine justice.  Many women watching the movie internally snicker at this phallic obstacle being one-upped by Mother Nature.

As they try to balance on a door in the water, Jack keeps falling off, so he lets Rose stay on.  He dies in the freezing water, and Rose temporarily thinks about dying there with him, but remembers what he taught her about living her own life, lets him sink to the bottom of the ocean, and swims away to contact the rescue boat.  This is unheard of in most movies- a man being the agent of a woman’s happiness, and (as a plot device, at least) dying so she can be happy and live.

Rose willingly leaves behind a world of wealth and safety in order to escape the patriarchy of that world, and to follow her heart.  She takes up horseback riding, acting, and has a life of her own after the accident.

Her final rejection of the masculine world, the throwing of the diamond jewelry into the ocean, into Nature, is the last thing she does before she can die peacefully.  She rejects materialism and the male view of “logic”, which would mean not “sorting through causes and effects in order to come to a factual truth” (the PROPER definition of logic), but would mean “taking actions or making choices that lead you to an arbitrary goal [like the possession and valuing of a certain mineral] that patriarchy has deemed good”.  (there is no objective reason to assume that having a diamond, or any other particular mineral, or the money that it can be traded for, is “good”).

The movie is dedicated to emotion as well as reason.   A healthy person needs both, but part of being masculine means rejecting part of your nature.  Some men reject reason, and some reject emotion.  Some reject both.  Titanic enshrines both reason and emotion, which makes it a good film, and spits in the face of masculine ideal of dropping half your nature.

True, it is a film from the perspective of a rich white woman, but this doesn’t mean the main message doesn’t apply to all women, including women of color or Asians.  It doesn’t seem to exclude other ethnic groups’ experiences but rather seems to address a universal, that women’s lives are hard and that we must escape from them by any means necessary.

The sea is often associated with women and the feminine- it is warm and large and “unpredictable” (at least to those who want to control and therefore predict it, even though it is no more “unpredicctable” than anything you cannot mindread!).  It swallows ships and gives life.  Like the mother, it was our first home, having evolved from it, the way we evolved from woman-dominated societies.   “A woman’s heart is a deep ocean of secrets…”

Titanic is hated, as is Twilight is, because it appeals to girls.  It has superb special effects, tons of action, witty dialogue, and lots of death and destruction, and not the romanticized type, either.  So why is it attacked by men?  Not because of what it lacks, but because of what it HAS.  It has morals, including sexual morals which show sexuality as connected to love and happiness.  It is pro-working class, pro-women, pro-children.  It tells the truth about men and what they do to women.
There’s a reason men judge a movie by what it HAS, rather than by what it LACKS.  We would assume that men would only care if a movie LACKED something they liked, such as action and special effects, because we assume that men’s evaluation of films is through a lens of selfishness, i.e., what the movie gives to them.  If a movie had action and such crap, they would be fine with it, and wouldn’t care or notice what else it contained.
But their evaluation isn’t based on selfishness; it’s based on hatred.  Hence, they do not care that the movie CONTAINS what they like.  They care only that it DOESN’T contain anything that helps or pleases women.  If they were selfish, they would not notice others, but no, it is not selfishness they possess: it is hatred of women, what women like, and who women are.  THAT is why men judge movies like Titanic on what the films have, not what they lack.

It’s not about pleasing themselves; it’s about hating you, even on such an innocuous and petty issue as movie watching.   Very well, then.  Long live Titanic!
[on a last note, it’s good that a man directed and wrote this film, because it proves that men can understand and agree with women’s rights, and that there’s no more “I didn’t know you were suffering because I’m a man” excuse that can be made by any man]

Categories: ...and the Arts, Articles In English, Radical Feminism, Sex | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Create a free website or blog at