Jessica Valenti appears to live in a time warp from eight years ago … or could it be 18? It’s hard to tell, since nothing ever changes in the feminist universe. Said universe is an infinite loop where the same old bathwater gurgles down the memory drain and cycles through the tap again, ad infinitum, and grows murkier every time. Only the feminists themselves enjoy this monotonous reiteration, but the rest of the world is getting bloody tired of it.
Valenti’s recent Guardian opinion piece about mass-murderer Elliot Rodger is a case in point, but before I write about that I should make one thing perfectly clear: Jessica Valenti is a feminist. That’s right. I am not belabouring the obvious in order to sound silly. We should know this by now, yet it bears repeating: Jessica Valenti is a feminist.
All right, I will be the first to admit that Valenti has publicly avowed her feminism countless times. It is to her credit that she doesn’t hide her feminism as so many do, but on the other hand, she can’t back out of it now. Everything she says is spoken in the light of her feminism and cannot be understood otherwise.
Her opinion piece offers nothing but ideological talking points that we have heard again and again over the years. She says nothing new and certainly nothing illuminating but rather chooses to bore and alienate the non-feminist public. She not only insults our intelligence but also flatly ignores our very existence in the first place – and that is simply intolerable.
From this it would appear that Jessica Valenti, the feminist, suffers a delusion common among her peer group, that feminism is the world. And that is why I insist on repeating the obvious: Jessica Valenti is a feminist. The very presence of other voices, talking about you and telling you what you are, is a powerful tonic against the solipsistic fantasy that you “are the world.”
Jessica Valenti, the feminist, must believe that we are jolly thick or that we have a jolly short memory. Consider an article about the Julian Assange case that she published in theWashington Post in late 2010, from which we cite the following (emphasis mine):
“Swedish rape laws don’t ban ‘sex by surprise’ (a term used by Assange’s lawyer as a crass joke), but they do go much further than U.S. laws do, and we should look to them as a potential model for our own legislation.
In fact, some activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn’t give it.”
Did you catch that? Valenti never flatly states that she would shift the burden of proof to the accused – she’s too clever for that! What she does instead is recommend current Swedish rape law as a “potential model” for the United States. Then she adds in a sort-of-parenthetical way that “legal experts” are thinking about reversing the burden of proof in Swedish rape trials. That’s right, Valenti is obliquely hinting that the latter sounds like a nifty idea while giving herself plausible deniability because she never directly states the idea herself.
Something else here: did you notice how Valenti was careful to say “the alleged rapist” but forgot to say “the alleged victim”?
All right. Jessica Valenti, the feminist, is fine with creating an anti-male double standard in law that would destroy more innocent men. She apparently sees no problem with it, even though she is sharp enough to realize that other people would indeed see a problem with it – and she doesn’t want to get caught harbouring such a wicked idea! In other words, she wants to cover her ass.
We pro-male partisans have an iron-trap memory for things like this. That is because we too are “the world,” are keenly aware of what goes on, and can clearly see feminism for what it is even if feminism (which considers only itself “the world”) cannot see itself for what it is.
What we have shown here marks Valenti quite definitively as a feminist. She clearly doesn’t give a toot about equal rights where men are concerned, and we are entitled to wonder if that frame of mind pervades everything else she talks about. So let this inform our thinking when we consider her recent Guardian article, in which she writes about the Elliot Rodger affair.
The title of her opinion piece is “Elliot Rodger’s California shooting spree: further proof that misogyny kills.”
I do not agree that “misogyny” (hatred of women) kills. To kill is to inflict death, and the only way to make it happen is through physical agency. Since misogyny is a mental state, it cannot inflict death. I grant you that it might inspire the physical agency necessary for killing, yet by itself it generates no body count.
Furthermore, it just so happens that “misogyny” is feminism’s pet monster, although the word itself is almost never honestly used. You see, even though bona fide misogyny is not the norm, feminists brandish the mere word as a weapon to commit moral battery against anyone who holds women morally accountable or simply dares to speak harshly of feminism (as I am doing here). Actual hatred of women is not necessary. If they decide to call you a misogynist, they will, and there is nothing you can do about it.
That is why I cannot take the title of Valenti’s opinion piece seriously – both because “misogyny” doesn’t kill a damned thing and because Valenti cannot be trusted to use language honestly (she is undoubtedly a feminist). And when you combine all of this with Valenti’s underlying misandry (hatred of men or maleness), then it becomes a deadly cocktail indeed.
The title was bad enough, but it gets worse. Valenti is keen to promote an agenda, that much is evident. The thesis of her article hinges on the notion of Rodger’s “mental illness.” Valenti doesn’t like that idea, and she eagerly looks for some other way to unriddle the horrid tragedy. After all, she’s a feminist, and explaining Elliot Rodger as simply a “nut case” would not yield any political hay.
“According to his family, Rodger was seeking psychiatric treatment. But to dismiss this as a case of a lone ‘madman’ would be a mistake.
It not only stigmatizes the mentally ill – who are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it – but glosses over the role that misogyny and gun culture play (and just how foreseeable violence like this is) in a sexist society.”
There we have it. Jessica Valenti, the feminist, wants to exploit this tragedy in order to make political hay for feminism. Her passing remark about “stigmatizing the mentally ill” shouldn’t impress anybody. Not only is it questionable whether Jessica truly gives a rip about this, but, if Elliot Rodger was indeed mentally ill, it is also only proper to factor that into our search for the truth.
In her concluding phrase, Valenti spills the beans and betrays her agenda conclusively. She also uses her feminist privilege because she is plainly controlling the narrative according to a feminist ideological model. But rather than offer any proof, she merely assumes that she, being a feminist, speaks from a position of authority.
To a non-feminist, it is far from self-evident that “misogyny” and “gun culture” play the roles that Valenti describes, or that the society in which these things allegedly happen is indeed “sexist.” Nor is such violence necessarily “foreseeable” – we are free to take exception to any of these claims. Valenti is merely being presumptuous but seems oblivious that she is doing so.
“If feminism says X, then X is true.” That is the subtext that runs in the background of Valenti’s mind, and she wants us to lap it up without a word.
And that is why Jessica Valenti, the feminist, can blithely rattle off one bucket of bollocks after another with no trace of respect for the reading public and no hint that she even takes responsibility for what she is saying. She is a feminist, therefore she enjoys feminist privilege:
“Rodger, like most young American men, was taught that he was entitled to sex and female attention.”
Rot! There is no evidence that “most” young American men are taught anything of the kind! I’ve seen precious little such evidence myself, and I’ve been around. The most I’ve ever seen is scattered pockets of men who show signs of such “teaching” – mainly thugs and low-lifes. Valenti is simply pulling this story out of her ass, and she ought to slink away like a guilty dog because she is lying, poisoning the well of trust and understanding, and fomenting war between the sexes. But of course, that is what feminists do. That is what keeps feminism in business.
Yes, it is feminist privilege to pull wild statements out of your ass and expect the world to swallow them without a murmur. In the feminist universe, reality is whatever feminism says it is, and you are a “misogynist” if you think for yourself.
Remember that this is the same Jessica Valenti who feels no moral objection to railroading innocent men in the court system. So it is understandable why this particular feminist would happily paint men with the slime brush every chance she gets.
However, the plot thickens:
“Rodger was reportedly involved with the online men’s rights movement: allegedly active on one forum and said to have been following several men’s rights channels on YouTube. The language Rodger used in his videos against women – like referring to himself as an ‘alpha male’ – is common rhetoric in such circles.”
Once again, Valenti lies brazenly. There is in fact no such thing as “the online men’s rights movement.” Rather, there is a hodgepodge of groups discussing loosely related themes on various websites and forums. These sometimes overlap and other times only make a tangent, but overall they are about as monolithic as the population of New York City. Furthermore, this “movement” has no definite perimeter – it merges seamlessly into the general culture, and not all of it is “online.” Finally, the term “alpha male” is far from a universal usage among these groups – there are vast swaths in which you will never hear this expression. If Valenti had done her homework, she would know all this, and maybe she does. At any rate, she is a lousy journalist because she wants to indoctrinate her readers rather than inform them.
Jessica Valenti, the feminist, is also a “racist” – as we gather from the following, which comes after a short paragraph about the Southern Poverty Law Center (emphasis mine):
“Yet, as the artist Molly Crabapple pointed out on Twitter: ‘White terrorism is always blamed on guns, mental health – never poisonous ideology.’”
This seems to arrive out of nowhere, since “white terrorism” has no discernible bearing on the matter under discussion. But Valenti shoehorns this into her discourse because she wants to throw her opposition off balance by creating a deflection. It’s a red herring. Nothing but a red herring. And since it is juxtaposed with a reference to the SPLC, it works by induction upon the reader’s mind. Valenti wants to insinuate, without expressly stating so, that “men’s rights” is somehow “white” and possibly “racist.” That’s how she operates.
Shall we go on? Valenti says this:
“If we need to talk about this tragic shooting in terms of illness, though, let’s start with talking about our cultural sickness – a sickness that refuses to see misogyny as anything other than inevitable.”
Once more, she is pulling stuff out of her ass. We want to ask, “What cultural sickness?” for Valenti reckons that if she merely insinuates the existence of this sickness, her readers will nod along and never give her any trouble. But we don’t know that this cultural sickness is a real thing, and furthermore, given the feminist debasement of language, we don’t even know what “misogyny” means in this example. So we can wad up that whole worthless passage and throw it in the garbage.
“The family attorney said that police interviewed Rodger and thought he was a ‘perfectly polite, kind and wonderful human.’
I have to wonder how much police dismissed Rodger’s video rants because of the expectation that violent misogyny in young men is normal and expected.”
Valenti does not in the least “have to wonder” this, but she chose to do so anyway. Fine, that’s her choice. Personally, I don’t find the case wondersome at all. The police, I would say, made a poor judgment. What the hell, that happens! But Valenti wanted to make political hay for feminism, so she forced an interpretation from a scenario in the service of a narrative. By the look of it, she got what she wanted, and the article went to press.
“‘Dismissing violent misogynists as ‘crazy’ is a neat way of saying that violent misogyny is an individual problem, not a cultural one,’ feminist blogger Melissa McEwan tweeted.”
Piffle! This is a circular argument and nothing better. When feminist blogger Melissa McEwan dismissively talks of “dismissing” something, it poisons the well against the very idea that a violent misogynist might actually, truly, be crazy after all! And since I find no objection to that possibility in theory, I cannot be bullied into acquiescing to the feminist theory about violent misogyny, can I? Valenti conveniently borrowed this snippet, so you can see how the feminists take in one another’s intellectual laundry. Props to Valenti for admitting that McEwan is a feminist.
“The truth is that there is no such thing as a lone misogynist – they are created by our culture, and by communities that tell them that their hatred is both commonplace and justified.”
No, the truth is that this statement has no inherent power to command the belief of any non-feminist. Proclamation by a feminist does not make a thing true, so you can immediately flush this one down the toilet unless you have time for an intellectual audit on the spot.
And finally, this:
“So when we say that these things are unstoppable, what we are really saying is that we’re unwilling to do the work to stop them. Violence against women does not have to be inevitable, but it is almost always foreseeable: what matters is what we do about it.”
And again, this has no power to command our belief. Valenti has no idea what “we” are “really saying,” or what “we” are theoretically willing to do in situation x or y – her remarks are sheer speculation, not to say fantasy. That said, violence against women or anybody else is a factor in this world and not likely to fly away any time soon. It is sometimes foreseeable and other times not, but if we live our lives in the best way we can, we can steer clear from 99% of it.
All right, I think I have given Valenti’s opinion piece all the attention it deserves. You might wonder why I gave it any at all, and I can only reply that the blockbuster Elliot Rodger event weighed greatly in my decision. A desire to sharpen my claws a bit also entered into it. At any rate, the feminist spin machine is now going wild about Elliot Rodger and spinning the wildest web of lies you can imagine. And we can plainly see that Jessica Valenti, with her privileged position at the Guardian, is leading the charge.
I must confess that I am disappointed, but then, what was I expecting? Something more formidable? Formidable hardly describes it. If this is the best that feminist Jessica Valenti can bring to the Elliot Rodger episode, then she ought to enter another line of work as soon as possible, for the occasion requires a competence she apparently doesn’t have.
Feminist privilege means nothing if not the privilege to rattle off dogmatic twaddle and not get challenged for it. Well, Jessica Valenti must check her feminist privilege and Back The Fuck Up.