Because when you’ve talked about everything from movies and video games to glaciers and fluid dynamics, what left is there that hasn’t been declared sexist? Academic feminism is the rotten, deluded root from which all the “leaves,” your average young feminist college girls, get their ideas. The sad thing about it is how influential it is. University professors are rarely censored or fired for teaching ideas that are so crazy and unfounded in logic and common sense. This is the kind of thing our tax dollars are funding, apparently:
The TL;DR version: Carbon fiber technology is anti-woman. I know. I couldn’t even get through the abstract to this article without laughing the hardest I’ve laughed so far this year (and it’s late September). I mean, it’s astonishing to me how just absurd their ideas are. But amid the laughter I got from reading this stupid article, I also noticed a lot of misandry and anti-male biases in the language the author uses that I think is worth pointing out. I mean, while in an art history course on museum studies, I had to read something called “Teddy Bear Patriarchy” that claimed that museums and collections of objects, in general, were rooted in some kind of masculine psychological dominance drive, I shouldn’t be too surprised by all this. Feminist academics not only hate men, and blame all problems great and small on masculinity, but they’re quick to boldly write “sexist” (by which they mean misogynist, because women cannot be sexist against men, as we all know!) over literally everything with their proud menstrual-blood-red Sharpies.
So what is this dark patriarchal sorcery known as carbon fiber technology? Well the no-doubt misogynistic website Dragon Plate says:
Carbon fiber is composed of carbon atoms bonded together to form a long chain. The fibers are extremely stiff, strong, and light, and are used in many processes to create excellent building materials. Carbon fiber material comes in a variety of “raw” building-blocks, including yarns, uni-directional, weaves, braids, and several others, which are in turn used to create composite parts.
That’s all it is. There are many applications and uses for carbon fiber materials. They are often combined with other materials for numerous different purposes. Some of them are listed here. Recently, efforts are being made to make these fibers using renewable energy sources. Carbon fiber technology is probably going to be an important component of the future of materials science. But not if feminists have any say, apparently!
Back to that HILARIOUS article.
Her first point is that because carbon fibers are used in prosthetic devices to help people overcome disabilities, this is somehow a bad thing. Because as we all know, “disability is culturally coded as “feminine,” and remarkably, she actually has a citation for this. Attesting to the fact that Anna is not a lone wolf but in fact part of a sizeable pack of insane, terrible, dogmatic feminist academics who think everything and anything constitutes the oppression of women at the hands of men. She seems particularly irate over the fact that carbon fiber prosthetic legs helped a man, Oscar Pistorius, known by the sci-fi nickname “Blade Runner,” to compete in the Olympics (and indeed worked too well, to the point where he was considered to have an unfair advantage because of them). How FUCKING dare men use innovative technology to help people overcome disabilities? Also, do gynoids dream of electric whales?
She uses the term “hegemonic masculinity” more often than Oprah’s used pictures of herself as magazine covers. I think basically that she is using the term “hegemonic” to describe what feminists usually dub “patriarchal.” Here’s how she defines the term:
Hegemonic masculinity is a type of body and personhood, a quality of men’s power relations with others: a way of effecting subordination. Hegemonic men subordinate others through their capacity to perform intellectually and physically, a capacity to perform that carbon fibre has become famous for enhancing.
Yeah, so, basically, she’s jealous of both men and carbon fibers, because, like men, carbon fibers are valued for physical performance at certain tasks. They accomplish things. They are strong. I think she must be projecting her own insecurity here. She calls objects that have no gender “masculine” and ascribes all these patriarchal traits to inanimate things. The only basis she seems to have for the concept that carbon fibers are “masculine” is that they are good at what they do, they perform well. They help people achieve more than could be achieved with other materials in certain situations. They help disabled people become less physically challenged by their disabilities. In short, they’re wonderful. And she can’t stand it. Feminism, stemming from Marxism, has a clear prejudicial hatred of innovation, technology, and capitalism. So anything good coming from a system of economic freedom given to men to innovate must have some underlying evil behind it. Nothing made by the patriarchy can be considered good, well, maybe except for the computer she wrote and “researched” this article with. And you know, basically, everything else she probably owns and uses on a daily basis. Because I looked her up, and I don’t see her wearing too many grass skirts and animal bone accessories. Hm. That capitalism thing is working out pretty good for her it seems.
Impossibly, she then goes on to talk about how the great carbon fiber conspiracy also oppresses homosexuals. I’m not making this up! A term she often uses to make this point is “homosociality.” This is basically “male bonding” which translates in the bizarre, alien feminist language as “rape/female dominance plotting.” She defines homosociality as “… a form of intimacy between men that disavows the possibility of homosexual desire through feminized conduits such as shared sexual partners, cars, bikes, or other carbon fibre objects.” So wow. Not only are bikes and cars “carbon fibre objects” now, but apparently, men are lining up to share sexual partners? I thought men usually hated that kind of threesome. She goes on to say that “… carbon fibre surfaces mediate homosocial intimacy in ways framed by heterosexual hierarchies.” This part reveals the fevered feminist paranoia surrounding male intimacy and male friendship. In their mind, men who bond with other men are psychologically twisted, homosexuals repressing their homoerotic desires. Does she even realize how homophobic it sounds that she’s essentially saying, after the feminist revolution, men will be free to do the nasty with each other, as long as they don’t do anything suspicious, like speak or make eye contact? Although they pretend to have always been buddy-buddy, the truth is that feminists have a history of prejudice and exclusion for gay and transgender individuals, particularly men. Their suspicion and hostility towards men as a group means that they can’t truly accept males, even if they’re homosexual or transgender. History repeats itself on this issue over and over again.
She goes on to talk about how women are in an “erotic rivalry” with cars, bikes, and prostheses, and it makes zero sense. This reveals that feminists hate anything men tend to be interested in, for no other reason than that it turns the male focus away from women, robbing women of the sexual power they want to have over men. We see this with feminist attacks on video games, pornography, anime, basically any form of entertainment that tends to please men or cater to male desires. They’re afraid that the one thing women have that they can manipulate men using, male sexual desire, is being replaced by technology. And it is. They can’t handle the reality of it. What we have here is a traditionally privileged class, so used to getting special treatment because of their attractiveness, that now that this special status is threatened, many of them are livid. Bottom line; if men do something that takes their attention away from women, it is sexist. It must be done as a malicious attack against all women.
What makes homosociality, she says is competition. That male competitiveness that sent people to the moon is apparently not good at all. She goes on to discuss an absolutely innocuous image, a basic ad for a bicycle helmet. But oh no, it’s not innocuous at all; the bike represents a penis. No no, it gets better. See, the bike is situated between the man’s legs, which you make know is also the traditional resting place of the dreaded phallusaurus, Biggus Dickus. She argues that the bike represents a phallus and an object by which a man can “dominate other men”, i.e., in the pictured bicycle race, and that this concept is being used to sell the product, the bike helmet. I had to stop and facepalm pretty hard there for a second.
Anyway, this is feminist cherry-picking at its best. Similar ads selling female bicycle helmets probably show women in the same pose, in the same moment of triumph, i.e., winning a bike race. All athletic equipment is in fact sold primarily with the idea that using that brand of equipment will make you a winner. That’s why top athletes are paid big bucks to sell sporting goods. Most normal, not brain-damaged adults understand this. What she’s using here is a Freudian way of looking at images. This is a shockingly common tool feminists use, even though Freudian psychology has long since been discredited. They like to look at images in a Freudian way, to interpret everything with a sexual lens, even images having nothing whatsoever to do with sex, and then use these Freudian interpretations to back up their misandry and male conspiracy theories.
Both men and women like winning. Winning feels good. Winning is good. But if you’re a feminist, the desire to win, to be best at something, to improve, is seen as a male desire. This kind of thinking is crippling to women. First, she associates femaleness with disability and then claims that desire for actual achievement is masculine. Think about what this kind of thinking could do to girls! It’s telling them that patriarchy or “homogenous masculinity” makes them weak and that their femininity holds them back from achieving anything of value in a man’s world. This is bound to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not to mention the untold harm this kind of thinking could do to boys. Basically what I’m saying is, people like this should NOT be teaching college!
And this is exactly what Sargon of Akkad of YouTube anti-SJW fame meant by creating this petition. Freedom of speech does not mean you are entitled to be paid, at taxpayer expense, to teach young adults your anti-logical bullcrap.
I mean, unless you want a student’s assigned reading to have to contain sentences like, “Carbon fibre is a masculinized surface that is sexualized in the sense it redistributes libidinal intensities across competitive scapes of frontier masculinity.”
I’ll be back, just as soon as I’m done banging my head against some kind of nice, hard, masculine surface.
