Quantcast
subscriber help

artisanal film reviews | by maryann johanson

the oh-no! DVD of the week: ‘Girls Gone Wild: Girls Who Crave Sex #1 – Platinum’

You know what, guys? All girls crave sex. We just don’t crave it with you.

Every man wants a GIRL WHO CRAVES SEX! That’s right, girls that want us just as much as we want them! In this collection, we’ve hand-picked the sexiest, most seductive, sex-craved college coeds we could find! You’re in for a treat with our first catch, two gorgeous hotties experimenting on each other with a passion that is unbelievable! Next up is smoking-hot brunette, in a tiny red dress that comes off with ease. Watch as she starts in bedroom and finishes in the swimming pool. Last but not least is Miss DDs! You’ll find it hard to resist this horny little girl, as she seduces you with her voluptuous body. It’s all real and raw. It’s Girls Gone Wild: Girls Who Crave Sex!

Also, guys: It’s not all real and raw. It’s sad and pathetic and all these girls are thinking about is how the paycheck is gonna help pay down their tuition bills, or buy their little kid a new pair of shoes.



Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/flick/public_html/wptest/wp-content/themes/FlickFilosopher/loop-single.php on line 106
posted in:
dvd buzz
  • Timmy

    I liked it, but then i like HOT girls, rather than porn stars.

  • tomservo

    A girl I know got fired from her high school teaching job because it was discovered she was in a Girls Gone Wild video almost ten years ago.

  • Miss DDs is my favorite!

  • Mathias

    Tomservo, that’s just sad.

    What if she was a great teacher? Her kids are gonna be denied the privilige of a passionate teacher just because of one night of indiscretion when she was 19?

    What a difference between guys and girls.
    Guys have no problem jerkin’ it to a hot chick, regardless of her personality and her worth as a person. Why can’t so many girls say the same about guys?

  • Bree

    What a difference between guys and girls. Guys have no problem jerkin’ it to a hot chick, regardless of her personality and her worth as a person. Why can’t so many girls say the same about guys?

    Mathias, would you mind explaining that last comment before I take offence, in case you don’t mean that the way it sounds.

    Dictionary definition:

    ‘girl’ n. – a female child

    Girls don’t teach high school, they go TO school.

  • tomservo

    You’re absolutely right, Mathias. There was no understanding about the indiscretions of youth. There is a happy ending; she got a higher paying job and seems to be happier.

  • JoshB

    A girl I know got fired from her high school teaching job because it was discovered she was in a Girls Gone Wild video almost ten years ago.

    Good grief. I’d bet good money that most of the outraged fathers secretly wanted a copy for themselves.

    It’s amazing how men can watch porn and still believe they’re in a position to judge the women they watch.

  • Mathias

    Bree, i don’t mean under-aged girls here.
    I meant girls as in women. I should been clearer.

  • Bree

    My ‘girl’ definition was not aimed specifically at you, Mathias, it was meant to serve as a reminder to the commenters in this thread that calling a woman a girl is at best dismissive and at worst demeaning and insulting to women as adult human beings.

    As for your comment, Mathias, I’m still wondering what it is you meant exactly.

  • Mathias

    Well Bree, an arguement could be made that regardless of your age, if you consider a good time as getting drunk and taking your top off for the titillation of men around the world without considering how this’ll affect you in the future, you’re not really a woman.

    You’re still a girl. ;)

  • tomservo

    I generally refer to females my age or younger as a girl (sometimes the term “chick” gets used) in informal situations. This isn’t done in some derogatory way, it’s just part of my vernacular. I refer to males as “guys” or, rather unfortunately I’ll admit, “dudes.” My female friends not only do not take offence, they use the same terms. Maybe it’s some kind of a refusal on all our parts to grow up, but I’ve found this to be fairly prevalent.

  • Accounting Ninja

    Despite my feminist “cred”, I also use “girls”. I use “guys” too. Of course, I’m a rather informal girl in my day-to-day speech (who has also been known to use “dude”– sh! Don’t tell anyone! ;)). Of course, it also depends, I wouldn’t refer to an older man or woman in a respected position as a “guy” or “girl”. It’s mainly just among friends. A woman I respected or had affection for I would call a “lady” as in “She is one tough lady.” Or sometimes just “woman”. For men, it’s just men, because “gentleman” sounds too stuffy.
    How old are you, tomservo? I’m 30 and I generally find people my age use these informal terms almost exclusively. I think you’re right about not wanting to grow up. :)

    And Mathias, why can’t so many girls say what? I’m with Bree, I’m not understanding your “difference between men and women”. It’s not like it was only women who got tomservo’s friend fired.

  • tomservo

    Accounting Ninja, I’m 36, so maybe I’m running out of excuses. The key is “informal,” usually, as you said, w/ friends. Clearly, there would never be a situation in which I would refer to, say, Hillary Clinton as a “girl,” but friends I hang out with? Yes. Age plays a part as well but not always. My house was recently robbed and the cop that responded was a woman; a woman that was probably ten years younger than me. I never referred to her as a girl; it was Officer Jordan.

  • LaSargenta

    if you consider a good time as getting drunk and taking your top off for the titillation of men around the world without considering how this’ll affect you in the future, you’re not really a woman.

    I’d like to point out the double standard here. Can’t say that there is an equivalent for people with dicks. This business of

    taking top off = titillation for men
    instead of
    taking top off = woman not having to stay covered and gets to enjoy haveing a bare chest just like so many guys do at pick-up sports matches (shirts and skins, anyone?)

    and

    having proof of titillating someone = future ruined

    is totally a construct of —- get ready for it, big words are coming —- the patriarchal, consumerist model of sex and gender.

    Feh.

    And, to tomservo,

    This isn’t done in some derogatory way, it’s just part of my vernacular.

    I’m sure you intend no insult. However, although your intent is fine, and although you probably indeed have many non-male friends who don’t mind this usage, it is a derogatory and patronising description of women. We live in a male- (and hetero- and white-) centric world and this is the soup we swim in. We have a really rough time getting away from it. So, my position is that your intent does not change the nature of the word usage.

    We are used to the “traditional” language … which is also patriarchal. It frequently feels awkward to use language that isn’t patriarchal (and it often has to be invented) which is what gives rise to unintnetionally humorous usages and language that seems ready-made for an SNL skit. Still, at least in those cases, someone is trying.

  • tomservo

    LaSargenta, I wonder if gender roles have changed so much that the language we use does not have the same impact as it once did. Where I live, women are much more sexually aggressive than when I was in college. You hear terms and words usually associated w/ horn dog men being used by women towards men. “He looks like a great piece of ass!” for example. Plus, I hear complaints from women about how men are too shy and not being aggressive enough in our pursuits of them. “Why are men such pussies?” is another one I’ve heard a couple of times. Sometimes these women just want to get laid and that’s that. In my extremely limited experience w/ the one night stand, I was the one expecting more and she basically said “Have a nice life.” (He writes while sobbing)

  • LaSargenta

    tomservo, unfortunately, I only have a minute before I have to run and your post has several different points; but, my short and partial response is that sexual “aggressiveness” (personally, I prefer “assertiveness”, but that’s another discussion) in women and horn-dog comments of the type formerly (publically) made exclusively by men does not actually change the roles that much. It is, to my way of thinking, continuing to keep the “patriarchal” way front and center. It is still a consumerist model. Not that I’m looking for a “marxist” or other “-ist” model. Instead, what would be the opposite of consumerist for me would be what some have been calling “participatory”.

    For more on what this could look like, check out the very interesting essay by Thomas Macaulay Millar called “Toward a Performance Model of Sex”. It is a good read and not as dry as the title sounds.

    I found this essay in a great collection called Yes Means Yes, edited by Friedman & Valenti.

    >>tips hat

  • Paul

    Yes means yes? Ah, yes, I remember when I believed that, before getting stood up five times in a row.

    Yeah, I read the article. The idea of comparing having sex to a musical performance is interesting. One could make the argument that the more sex you have the better you get at it; what the article ignores is that you’re also more likely to catch a STD or have kids you didn’t intend.

    The article compares sex to art, which I suppose is better than the comparison of sex to money/product that the writer is against. But ultimately sex should be considered what it is: a biological act with emotional and/or physical consequences.

    I particularly objected to that article’s use of the term “Nice Guy.” In that article, “Nice Guys” use social clumsiness to excuse their use of rape. That doesn’t describe any actual nice guys I’ve ever met, but I can see how an asshole devoid of self-awareness might think of that as an excuse.

  • Accounting Ninja

    @Paul: there is a difference between a genuinely nice guy and a Nice Guy. There’s lots of reading on it if you google Nice Guy. I am too lazy to link it. Also, so you’re saying that us bitches don’t know what we talking about when we say yes? ;) I mean, either “yes” means yes or “no and/or silence” means yes, but then that might make you a rapist of opportunity.

    @LaSargenta: I do agree. Because I’ve done some feminist reading and thought very much about my place in perpetuating sexist thoughts I might not be aware of, I’ve asked myself whether “girl” is ever appropriate for an adult. I don’t use “girls” to refer to strangers. Just in casual convos. But I’m still continuing to examine this. I also try to make my informality gender-equal and not single women out.

  • LaSargenta

    Wow.

    @ Paul: I didn’t get an STD until I was married. Ditto for an unplanned pregnancy. I also was never pressured into unwanted sex until I was married. When I was (and now I am again) single, no one objected to using protection.

    You seem bitter about being stood up. I’ve been stood up. I’ve also been turned down. I can’t control other’s taste.

  • Bree

    Just to point out, the word ‘guy’ is not the opposite equivalent term for the word ‘girl’, that would be ‘boy’.

    Using tomservo’s sentence from earlier as a fitting example, if the genders were reversed and a man had been sacked from his teaching job for appearing nude in a video years earlier, would anybody ever actually say:

    “A boy I know got fired from his high school teaching job because it was discovered he was in a Dudes Gone Wild video almost ten years ago.”

    No. Men are seldom referred to as boys, because it’s emasculating and infantilizing (is that a word? whatever). But for the reasons outlined in some of the excellent comments above, referring to women as girls in our patriarchal culture is tolerated and accepted, falling under the ‘know your place’ umbrella. ;-)

  • Men are referred to as ‘boys’ all the time! In songs, in pop culture, in basic social interactions. Don’t be silly.

  • amanohyo

    Usually, when a man is referred to as ‘boy’ or ‘son’ by a male friend, it is, in part, an attempt to establish the speaker in a superior position. For example, one might say “that’s my boy!” when another man does something praiseworthy. On the surface, it seems like simple congratulations, but the statement also defines a relationship between the speaker and the person being spoken to in which the speaker is the older, more knowledegable “owner” or father figure. A similar thing happens when one uses the term “son” when giving advice to a male friend.

    While it’s true that men are referred to as ‘boys’ in pop culture, it is much more common to hear women referred to as girls, or the even more insulting “shawties” (which may be biologically accurate in some cases, but is still a means of asserting physical superiority). I can’t quote stats, but as a quick example, try to remember the number of times you’ve heard a man say “that’s my girl,” or “hey girl,” when talking to or about a woman they are romantically involved with, and compare it to the number of times you’ve heard a woman say “that’s my boy,” or “hey boy” in reference to a man.

    The causes are too complicated for me to understand; however, I’m sure that among other things, these practices have something to do with the fetishization of female youth, the lingering effects of slavery, the abundance of male voices in the media, the fear of mature female power in any patriarchy, and the simple fact that the word woman has two syllables. Too bad we can’t invent a new, single syllable word that doesn’t suggest that a woman is simply ‘that which is not a man.’ Oh well, one more thing to put on your socialist, feminist dictator to-do list.

  • All right, stop it! These comments have become entirely too silly! The whole premise is silly and it’s very badly written. I’m the senior officer here and I haven’t had a funny line yet. So I’m stopping it.

  • amanohyo

    I don’t know what premise you’re referring to, but nothing I write is ever silly or ba… well, it’s never silly at least. As the temporary assistant to the second vice senior officer in charge, I call for a month long recess followed by an eighteen month period of serious sound byte debates, town hall meetings, and television appearances before we even consider voting on your radical Comment Stoppage Plan. It has an excellent chance of passing if we can just eliminate that controversial bit about “stopping.” Perhaps if we toned it down a bit to just a strong recommendation that people comment three fourths as much with an added tax break for those who are at least 15% less silly as decided by a specially created Silliness Rating Committee? Would you still be on board for that version of your plan Newbs? The fundamental, “fewer comments and less silliness” core would still be in there.

  • LaSargenta

    Ok, ok. Newbs and amanohyo, we are going to call the next meeting of the Comment Silliness Standards Committee at the Till Eulenspeigel Society Hall and all commenters will have to attend. As Master of Ceremonies (“Master” being, in this case, genderless), I will decide who gets a safeword and who doesn’t.

    We will film it. NO ONE, under my orders, will “go wild”.

  • Shadowen

    Wait.

    Sex-craved?

  • Paul

    @Accounting Ninja

    I have trust issues. I don’t believe “yes” until she shows up, and bring a book just in case. I don’t know when no means no, but figure if she’s telling the truth I should leave her alone and if she’s lying I’m better off without her, so walk away.

    I’m much more comfortable with women in professional roles than personal ones. I choose a woman for my academic advisor in college, I’ve had a woman doctor, and worked with women editors. Their qualification meant more to me than their gender, just as their professional role in society is apparently more important to them than their gender role.

  • Accounting Ninja

    Based upon what you said, and I could be wrong because the internet is woefully deficient in conveying intent sometimes, if I were a woman dating you, I might be more than a bit insulted. You said to “bring a book” in case she doesn’t say yes. This could just be some dark humor and not meant literally, but to me it says: “If she’s not going to say yes and have sex with me, I might as well not waste my time. Better to bring a book, lest I have to endure yet more sexless moments of useless banter with this dry well of a woman.”

    I would probably tell you to get lost! After all, if you are getting antsy about the sex and letting it curtail our attempts to get to know each other, and I can sense the impatient resentment in our interactions, then man, I’m gonna have to split!! Because you’re obviously not into ME, just into sex itself. I don’t just want to be a hole.

    The whole yes means yes thing is taken too literally sometimes. It means active, mutual and willing participation. NOT: pressuring, manipulating, guilting, adhering to some weird societal time table (like the three dates thing) regardless of a partner’s readiness, too much alcohol or drugs, threats, etc. That’s all we women ask. No stupid mind fucks. None of these vague games. If we really like you, we will be ready soon enough. And, if we started liking you and willing to have sex with you, but began to find out during our conversations that you have increasingly alarming issues, we are allowed to rescind the previous willingness to have sex! It’s not always cruel wimmenz playing games and laughing at the menz. Sometimes one partner just gets soured on the other for whatever reason. Better to find out before I have sex with them.

    PS I too have trust issues, which is why I’m not the type of woman to have casual or quick sex. I have been accused of “playing games” or being a prude by a guy whose timeline is faster than my own. Of course, this lets me conveniently know that these are 100% the WRONG guys for me! :D BUT I try not to let these issues color my view of ALL men.

  • Given the number of dysfunctional relationships I’ve been in, I’m probably even less qualified to speak on gender issues than Paul but I feel compelled to say:

    Trust issues are usually a result of experience.

    It’s usually not a good idea to ignore the lessons of experience as long as you don’t take it to such extremes as “men are all evil,” “women are all liars” or even “people are just no damned good.”

    That said, I’ve found that my love life improved as soon as I:

    (1) stopped dividing my conversations with the opposite sex into “date mode” and “non-date mode.”

    (2) stopped thinking everything in my life would improve if I just had sex with the right person.

    Of course, it didn’t hurt that I actually got into the habit of talking with women at work–and thus learned to relate to women who were neither relatives nor potential girlfriends.

    Then again, my most successful relationship to date was the result of a blind date with someone I might not have thought to ask out had I met her under different circumstances so maybe it also helps to think outside the box a bit. (No misogynistic pun intended, of course.)

  • Accounting Ninja

    (1) stopped dividing my conversations with the opposite sex into “date mode” and “non-date mode.”

    (2) stopped thinking everything in my life would improve if I just had sex with the right person.

    Of course, it didn’t hurt that I actually got into the habit of talking with women at work–and thus learned to relate to women who were neither relatives nor potential girlfriends.

    In other words, you learned to treat the opposite gender as the individual human beings they are. ;)

    And yes, experience can result in trust issues (not mine: mine are born out of childhood, yadda yadda), but I’d like to think the truly mature, upon realizing they only seem to go out with fucksticks, might do some introspection and ask NOT “why are all (wo)men fucksticks?!” but “Damnit, what about ME draws me to all these fucksticks and what can I do about it?”

  • Grinebiter

    I don’t believe “yes” until she shows up, and bring a book just in case.

    @Ninja, I read Paul as talking about being prepared with a book in case the woman stood him up, but of course I may be in error here. Myself, I don’t date, but if I did, I should certainly bring something to read (e.g. in the restaurant, cinema foyer etc.) for the event that she was late or never showed at all. (Last time I tried to date, the cellphone had not yet been invented, and so it was binary — she either arrived or not.) But the idea of taking a book to read instead of conversing with a woman who wasn’t offering sex then and there, that I cannot begin to imagine; and I don’t think that should have been the default assumption.

    Should be two questions at the end: (1) what about me draws me to all these fucksticks? and (2) what about me draws all these fucksticks to me?

  • Accounting Ninja

    Well, maybe not, but now we’re talking about people who have barely been dating. Getting “stood up” really only occurs in the first couple of dates, or even before the first date. If you get stood up well into dating the person, well then buddy, you’ve been “dumped”, not stood up! :)

    Either way, it conveyed a weird, cynical impatience with the woman; almost an expectation of rejection. (Hint: reeking of lack of confidence isn’t attractive). I mean, in my mind, standing me up is a favor before we start to have sex. That’s just shitty getting dumped after the sex.

    Key to those 2 questions is not blaming others for your continued bad choices.

  • Grinebiter

    it conveyed a weird, cynical impatience with the woman; almost an expectation of rejection.

    Well, I would do the book thing if meeting a male friend or female buddy in town too. I dislike the power-language of being kept waiting on another’s imperial pleasure, whether intentional or not, and having something to do reduces the power gradient of the situation. And I’m not sure that steady dating necessarily transforms everyone into reliable timekeepers and courteous appointment-keepers. Punctuality is respect.

    I like your line on not blaming others for one’s own bad choices, but would like to see more soi-disant feminists following it, as well as more guy-type men. You know how it goes, when men say that all women are this-and-that, it’s a statement only about themselves and their sick stereotypes, whereas when women say that all men are this-and-that, it’s a statement about men, and counts as social science for grant purposes. Whenever a person says “All are fucksticks!” we should maybe organise a 100-person choir to sing under zirs bedroom window, “No, only the that you go for!” Maybe with kettledrums too.

  • Grinebiter

    Oops, formatting error there, I used chevron parentheses forgetting they are HMTL codes. Penultimate sentence should read:

    Whenever a person says “All (insert gender here) are fucksticks!” we should maybe organise a 100-person choir to sing under zirs bedroom window, “No, only the (insert gender here) that you go for!”

    In future I shall be a good entity and use Preview.

  • I’d like to think the truly mature, upon realizing they only seem to go out with fucksticks, might do some introspection and ask NOT “why are all (wo)men fucksticks?!” but “Damnit, what about ME draws me to all these fucksticks and what can I do about it?”

    Fair enough.

    But what would you then say to those feminists who would excuse the bad romantic choices of certain women on the grounds that such women weren’t necessarily dating the type of men they considered to be their romantic ideal but rather the best of the type of men who were available?

    And yes, experience can result in trust issues (not mine: mine are born out of childhood, yadda yadda)…

    Well, I could argue that childhood experiences are still experiences but I think I’ll save that point for another day and a more relevant topic…

  • Accounting Ninja

    Well, I would do the book thing if meeting a male friend or female buddy in town too. I dislike the power-language of being kept waiting on another’s imperial pleasure, whether intentional or not, and having something to do reduces the power gradient of the situation. And I’m not sure that steady dating necessarily transforms everyone into reliable timekeepers and courteous appointment-keepers. Punctuality is respect.

    The power aspect honestly doesn’t even cross my mind. These are my supposed friends! I’m not imaging them chortling haughtily at my sitting at a lonely Starbucks drumming my fingers on the table whilst sipping my cold latte. Punctuality is respect, of course, but I’m willing to give people the benefit of the doubt if they are late, or even if they don’t show up (if their excuse is really good!) If we are talking about a date interest I barely know, I’ll just cut my losses. They just did me a (painful) favor about how much they value me and my time. (Plus, when you are in the first stages of dating, there’s a giddy exictement about the person. If you were really into someone, you’d be mortified at standing them up and hurting them thus ruining your chances with this awesome person. If my date doesn’t even have that, good riddance!) But if it’s a buddy, and they don’t do it all the time, I’m willing to listen.

    Now, Tonio and grinebiter each sort of echoed the same sentiment about feminists. To everyone: please remember that feminism is NOT the Borg. Just because you read or heard something from another feminist, it doesn’t necessarliy mean I’ll agree with it. I’m Jenn, a feminist among many other things, not Feminism Hivemember #837294. Even among prominent feminists, there are many disagreements. There are first wave, second wave, etc. There’s pro-porn and anti-porn. And so on. So, from now on, if you read something by a feminist, try to think “THIS feminist believes X” rather than “ALL feminists believe X” even if there are a lot who agree with her (or him).

    Now, there ARE “basic” tenets of feminism. Feminism 101, if you will, that almost all feminists have come to accept as the truth: like that sexism exists, as does patriarchy. You’ll never see a feminist “debate” whether sexism is real or not.

    Now:

    I like your line on not blaming others for one’s own bad choices, but would like to see more soi-disant feminists following it, as well as more guy-type men. You know how it goes, when men say that all women are this-and-that, it’s a statement only about themselves and their sick stereotypes, whereas when women say that all men are this-and-that, it’s a statement about men, and counts as social science for grant purposes.

    (lol “guy-type men”.) Anyway, a mistake a lot of people make who are unfamiliar with feminism make: thinking a feminist’s attack on sexist social structures or patriarchy is an attack on all individual men.
    Example: men are overwhelmingly more likely to rape then women. A defensive man might say “Well, I’M not! Stop saying ALL men rape, okay, cuz it’s false!!” Outside of Valerie Solanas, I don’t think any feminist is calling for the sterilization of all men because almost all rapists are male. What we seek is to destroy the ancient patriarchal attitudes that breeds and excuses the prevalence of rape in our society. These are IDEAS, not individuals.

    But what would you then say to those feminists who would excuse the bad romantic choices of certain women on the grounds that such women weren’t necessarily dating the type of men they considered to be their romantic ideal but rather the best of the type of men who were available?

    *scratches head* I’ve never heard this one. To me, it doesn’t sound very feminist to repeat the same tired female gender role of “settling” for a man, ANY man! NOW! Before your ovaries become dried husks of sadness and you lose all reason for being a woman!!!
    What I said about being introspective and analyzing why we keep making bad choices absolutely applies to women too. To do otherwise is infantilizing adult women.
    I draw the line at physical abuse and rape, though. Poor choices aside, it is ALWAYS the fault of the abuser or rapist that a woman gets hit or raped! Battery and rape add a primal element of fear that makes things more difficult than “just leave, will you?” Once you are dealing with a dangerous person who has shown he can (and will) violate your bodily integrity, you need more help than just “dumping” him and examining your choices.

    This has become quite the post! Sorry about the length. :/

  • Grinebiter

    I’m not imaging them chortling haughtily at my sitting at a lonely Starbucks drumming my fingers on the table whilst sipping my cold latte.

    LOL, me neither. But if a given situation (waiting for late people) presses my buttons, it’s only rational for me (and Paul?) to deploy the technology (= books) that will make me feel better about things without harming another soul.

    Even among prominent feminists, there are many disagreements. There are first wave, second wave, etc. There’s pro-porn and anti-porn.

    I know that, although where I live that is probably rather less the case than where you live. Up to the eyebrows in female chauvinists. In consequence, many women who quite probably agree with you about many things would deny they are feminists.

    Moreover, in my personal experience, the declared feminists I have met regularly purport to speak not only for all feminists but for all women. They are continually going, “Women think X” and “Women feel Y” and “Women do Z” in a manner that would not be tolerated for a moment from a man. Those female friends who consider that other women are actually different individuals for whom they cannot speak, tend to identify themselves as not being feminists or even as anti-feminists.

    I believe in equality of the sexes: politically, socially, economically, and above all intellectually and ethically; I would say spiritually too, if I believed that that word meant anything, but I don’t so I won’t. However, the “intellectually and ethically” bit puts me on a collision course with the declared feminists I meet and read as columnists here. I believe that it is actually possible for a man to be right about something and a woman to be wrong; I do not accept the claim to across-the-board mental, emotional and ethical superiority; ergo I am a ‘misogynist’. So be it.

    What I said about being introspective and analyzing why we keep making bad choices absolutely applies to women too. To do otherwise is infantilizing adult women.

    But who does the infantilising best? Men, or the victim-feminists? It’s a funny thing, but so much of the feminism I encounter is premised on exclusive male agency. That men act but women are acted upon, hmm, sounds like the old male chauvinism to me! If women are as they because men have made them so, but men are as they are because, well, they just are, then men are like unto the Unmoved Mover in Aristotle, that affects but is not itself affected; in other words god. Which is not, I think, what the pioneers meant to say. :-)

    Cognitive attribution theory: I do the shit I do because the situation in which I find myself gives me no choice; you do the shit you do because you are innately bad.

    Whenever someone does something bad, we attribute zirs act to some characteristic of zir that we do not share: gender, race and ethnicity being the most popular. . We then say “Typical X!” and “Bloody Y!”. That way, we can fool ourselves that we, in the same situation, would not have done likewise. But we would, oh we would….. This is one of the core fuckwitteries of Homo allegedly sapiens.

  • Grinebiter

    RECTE

    When I wrote “…puts me on a collision course with the declared feminists I meet and read as columnists here”, here refers to where I live, not to MAJ or others on this website.

    Sorry about that.

  • Accounting Ninja

    @ Grinebiter: Oh I didn’t think that. :)

    Wow! Are your friends young and/or new to feminism?? Because abolishing sterotypes based on gender (All men are x, all women are y) is what being feminist is all about. I would NEVER say all men (or women) are anything! I mean, it’s just absurd anyway, because you’re talking about half the population. Half the population can’t all think the same way!

    It’s not about being a victim, but it’s also not about blaming women for being raped and beaten. “Victim-feminist” is a popular conservative slur. We (I know, Borg language) acknowledge there are women in the world and even our own country who ARE victims. Simply acknowledging that SOME women are victims and SOME men are participating in that victimization does not translate to: all men are evil and abuse women, all women are helpless victims. That’s how they attempt to discredit feminism. A feminist will point out an injustice, and the anti-feminist will accuse them of turning women into perpetual victims without agency (and the absurdity of their attacks, “feminists think every man is a definite rapist! YOU’RE not a rapist, are you?” also tries to paint the feminist as inheritely irrational). And that stings to a feminist, who balks at the thought of women thought of as without minds. Critics know this stings. It’s a silencing technique.
    (Grine, I’m not accusing you of knowingly trying to silence me. I used to say the same stuff you did. We hear it so often about feminists: that they are a victim-culture, that they “want to see” sexism everywhere, that they are quick to condemn men for every slight. Nobody wants to be seen as a belligerent, whiny victim!)
    Well, gee, if this were all true and women were brainles nits, what would even be the point of feminism? :)

  • Grinebiter

    “Wow! Are your friends young and/or new to feminism??”

    No, they’re 50-plus. One is a softy and hates any kind of gender generalisation (and jokes), the other is extremely strong and capable, is an employer, takes no bullshit and shoots whiners on sight. :-) Both have lots of life experience; and they are “new to feminism” only in the sense that John Paul II was new to communism.

    “Half the population can’t all think the same way!” Cue Monty Python, “You are all different!” (Voice from back) “I’m not different!” Sorry, couldn’t resist that…..

    Victim-feminist is not a conservative slur, at least how I use the term; it is an accurate description of one particular subset of feminism. There are, as you say, other subsets. I once asked an irritatingly self-righteous woman whether she had ever done anything of which she was ashamed, and her answer was, and I quote, “No, because my consciousness-raising has taught me to regard myself solely as a victim”. That was a real person, and presumably a real c/r group, not a conservative invention. Consider me on oath. But I expect that you would want to shake this idiot too. So I would not say “feminists are a victim culture” but rather that “there exists a victim culture within feminism, and that it pisses off other feminists as well as men”.

    And by the way, I’m not thinking of rape and battery here. What bugs me is not women complaining of real injustices, but the many women I encounter who simply cannot get their minds round the proposition that, qua human beings, they are fallible, and that it is actually possible for them to commit injustices too, even against men. One of my strongest passions is a loathing of self-righteousness; and although on most issues I’m a leftie myself, I have to avoid progressive/leftish women in my milieu because they seem to regard all interaction with any male creature as a pedagogic exercise. IMO, the subculture of victim feminism increases such self-righteousness, via the notion of the Oppressor Category. For if you are a member of an OC, you cannot at the same time be an oppressor, ergo you cannot do anything wrong. It is a recipe for the complete opposite of the examined life that you and MaSch have been talking about.

    It is an effective discrediting and silencing technique to pretend that the loonies on one’s own side are the invention of the other. That’s like saying that Stalin was just a conservative fiction designed to discredit social democracy. He is indeed used to discredit social democracy — cf your healthcare debate — but that doesn’t mean that there was no such personage.

    BTW, please don’t call me Grine. It’s a whole word in a foreign language, not a name, and just the half means something else. Humour me on this and I won’t make Ninja into the diminutive Ninny. Deal? :-)

  • Grinebiter

    RECTE: “the notion of the Oppression Category”. Sorry. Good evening, Herr Alzheimer…..

  • LaSargenta

    Umm…off-topic question, now that you mention it:

    It’s a whole word in a foreign language, not a name, and just the half means something else.

    In my, uh, [cough] youth, I learned a bit of a few dead languages. I had actually been wondering if your handle was the Old Norse equivalent of what I call grumpyguts. But, the “biter” bit is actually one-who-bites in english, right?

    On-topic, just to be a troublemaker, I want to throw in the word “womanist” which is used among many black women in the US (and other english-speaking places I think) as differentiation from the prevailing 20th C. US feminism which, on the ground, so to speak, played and plays out on a predominantly white and middle-class field. Much of what I’ve encountered in the consciousness-raising-taught-me-I-can-do-no-wrong subgroup seems to be bounded by that rather narrow line of white and richer than working class. This potentially opens up a huge can of really long wiggly worms, but, I love s**t-stirring.

    ;-)

    (Now, I’ve got popcorn and am sitting here waiting for someone to tell me I must hate people with money.)

  • Accounting Ninja

    Yeah, I didn’t realize it was in another language. Just thought it meant, erm, “one who bites…grines?” I dunno. Not that my handle makes too much sense either. ;) Sorry!

    I don’t know where you live, but here in New England there is a strong conservative current, where Democrats are communists and feminists are victim-feminists (who hate males). Plus, my Objectivist family members, and my Catholic family member, despite being ideologically opposed on religion, hold the same views about women and lefties.

    So, not really sure what to say about your friends other than I guess this illustrates more than anything about how members of a group aren’t a hive mind. We all might identify as feminists, but it seems we are all different.

    I can’t imagine being like that friend and saying that about raised consciousness. Because I’ve done many things about which I’m ashamed. I may continue to do so, and I can only hope I’m not too stuck in my own ass to realize it. :)

Pin It on Pinterest