How We Got Here

The misapplication, distortion, and clumsy/careless use of social justice concepts is one of the most pressing issues facing women and racial and sexual minorities. People have taken insane, disrespectful liberties with the language and justice tools invented by oppressed groups to name and explain their realities. The result is that once effective justice tools - such as anti racism, anti-homophobia and anti-misogyny- has now lost all credibility and has been rendered a joke. The constant appropriation and careless abuse of these justice tools, (largely by inherently privileged people) has devastated liberation movements to such an extent that one could imagine it's being intentionally done as a form of sabotage. Once useful, powerful ideas and concepts have been watered down and misapplied to the point of absurd parody. Most notably, the concept of "gender". The word "gender", once understood to refer to the system of sexist oppression inflicted on women- is now used to refer to personality traits, fashion sense, mental and psychiatric symptoms, aesthetic preferences and one's degree of conformity to social and cultural stereotypes. This has devastated the coherence, clarity, and intellectual respect of feminist theory. What's worse, this total abuse and disrespect of justice language is now being used to justify an "anti-woke" movement, where people suggest that genuine justice concerns be dismissed along with the nonsense meanings and misapplications created by careless, privileged individuals who greedily appropriated justice tools and borrowed from their legitmacy for selfish, nefarious purposes. This must end. Grassroots justice movements must reclaim their language, ideas, and concepts and rebuild. We must resist the psychological and intellectual theft.

More Posts from Monsteradarling and Others

monsteradarling

1 month ago

"But some women fantasise about sexy priests!"

Those women imagine attractive men wearing ordinary priest clothes. There isn't some obvious and acceptable g-string with a priest's collar around it swapped in. The fantasised priests are just... attractive, romanticised priests.

The whole point of nuns being sexualised, as far as I understand it, is the transgressing of boundaries (as above), the male obsession with owning and touching and fucking an underlined-capitalised-bolded virgin, and/or their need to fantasise that those pious nuns will take one look at that one specific man and suddenly turn into a nymphomaniac for him.

Maybe the message was "Ha, I'm not straight like religion tells me I should be! This is me being sexy and breaking free!" but it just underlines what men want anyway and upholds that the likes of nuns are some minor, sexy taboo for men.

Nothing is or can be subverted when it's sexualised, because the only message that men understand is I can jerk off to this.

Re: Chappell Roan’s nun stuff and the sexualization of nuns

I do not think a religion itself is owed any kindness or respect. I don’t think the misogynistic practices of these religions are sacred or deserve to be treated as though they’re immune from criticism and mockery.

However, I also do understand that nuns and similar religious roles are held by women who don the outfit and play the role because they have a commitment to their religion that includes sexual purity (whether brainwashed or not… though probably brainwashed a bit). I think the sexual mockery of a woman or a group of women who indicate their desire to not be seen sexually is weird. I believe even religious women are owed respect for their sexual boundaries. And the main fetish surrounding sexualizing nuns is that it is a clear violation of sexual boundaries and consent. That is the part that needs to be understood. The sexualization of nuns is because it is enticing to cross the set sexual boundaries of a woman. And the woman being religious can either add to the fetish (in the eyes of men) or it can be a defense against criticism, i.e. “I thought we hated Christianity but nuns are somehow off-limits?” (‘Religion-critical’ leftists).

I just don’t agree with the premise. I truly do think it’d be a whole different scenario if it were a religious role being sexualized that wasn’t about sexual purity. If that makes sense. Like the issue with the nun sexualization is that the whole fetish surrounding sexy nuns is that it is sexualizing a woman who doesn’t want to be sexualized. If it wasn’t a nun, but it was a random female celebrity who was being highly sexualized after she made it clear she didn’t want to be sexualized, I’d say the same thing.

Does this make sense? I’m at urgent care rn and im struggling to focus