I've really wanted to talk about this for some time now, given recent events. I think now would be a good time to look into my inbox and answer a burning question.
The question is: "ArcRoyale, you're championing for some form of equality, yet your pics are mostly of nude girls. How do you still call yourself a feminist?"
Of course I'm a feminist. Just one closer to the original agreement.
See, there's a story I heard from a really good episode of The Powerpuff Girls. There was a female villain who insisted the Girls let her go because she was a girl, and there aren't many female villains out there. With some help from the wise women of Townsville like Ms. Bellum (who basically runs Townsville) and Ms. Keane (who educates the kindergarten to help prepare kids for the world), they taught the female villain a lesson about Susan B. Anthony. She broke the law to make a point, but the judges wanted to go easy on her because she was a woman. She refused to go along with it, saying she should be put in jail like any man would, so the Girls dealt that same hand to the female villain.
It's a lesson that taught me so much about feminism. And it's a lesson feminists these days tend to forget.
Often times, the subject of why we need feminism comes from displays of sexualization, and why it's bad to sexualize females because it's exploiting them. But a common feminist and I would give different reasons for why it's bad. They would say it's because women shouldn't be sexualized since any form of it demeans women. I would argue that it's bad because there isn't an equivalent guy in the movie/TV show that gets it just as bad.
The ultimate irony is that modern feminism isn't actually feminism; it's misandry pretending to be feminism. Feminism is supposed to be about making men and women equal, but it's being used here to make women superior. There's an often cited quote about women only being paid 75% of what men are paid, but those figures don't take into account stuff like hours worked, difficulty of the job for each person, and availability. It's like this: The men tend to become surgeons who work 10 hours a day every day of the week, while the women become nurses and assistants at that same hospital who only work 6 hours a day with a few days they don't work on, both so they can take care of the kids. If the hospital made that pay equal, women who took the same hours and jobs as men would actually be paid 25% more, or in other words, it would be men who would only receive 75% of what women are paid.
But that probably doesn't bat the lashes of a modern feminist. Like I said, it's all about making the girls the ruling class. It's straight up revenge.
Consider this: Many people talk about Donald Trump using a statement saying he wants to "grab [women] by the pussy" and use it to say Trump hates women. In context, however, it was used in the same way we often say we've "got someone by the balls" as a way to say we completely dominate over them, and Trump wasn't talking about women if you listen to the full context. So then, why is it that "grab by the balls", the male phrase, is okay, but "grab by the pussy", the female equivalent, is not? Are they not located in the same place? Does it not hurt equally if both are grabbed? Is it not humiliating for both genders to have such injury dealt to them?
That's all I'm trying to say with this blog: that the situation is unbalanced. If one gender is sexualized, the other should be, too. If one gender's nudity is used for humor, the other should be, too. And if you don't want it, than neither should be okay. Either you're allowed to say you've grabbed someone by the balls or pussy when you want to say you've got them at your beck and call, or you can't grab anything but the arm. Either men and women are used for sexual purposes, or no sexual ads can be released at all. Either men and women can be nude for the sake of humor, or neither can be nude at all except for art. Really, inviting the other side is a kindness, since life without it would be pretty much, well, a dystopia.
Now I'm sure some of you are looking to justify women being given special treatment because they've suffered more historically. While they have, and I'm not denying that, and we certainly have some relics of that older era, we've done things to raise them up, like the Equal Pay Act that makes paychecks identical for equal time and effort. My best argument against given women special treatment based on historical disadvantage is... if women have suffered for 100 years, 100 years of men suffering is not bringing equality or justice. It's just revenge, reversing the situation to make the guy you don't like the victim, hurting because you were hurt. After 100 years of men being made minorities, suddenly they'll start to go through the same kind of movement you guys made. Masculism, if you will. Who's to say they won't bar you from showings of male action heroes just because you're female, the same way you barred them from your showing of Wonder Women just because they're male?
An Eye For An Eye never justified revenge or paying evil unto evil. An Eye For An Eye was made because people kept on paying back stolen eyes by stealing both eyes, and more than likely a few teeth, too. If you truly want equality, you gotta start letting girls go through things like slapstick, combat holds, or, yes, nudity as humor. If all your want from your "feminist" movement are action stars and protagonists who aren't allowed to lose because "they're girls, what other reason do I need?", then you lose the right to call yourself a feminist. If you want equality, then you gotta get both sides of that coin. Otherwise, you're just a misandrist championing "equality" that's a little more like reverse sexism.
Aaaand this stuff got too heavy. Better mark NSFW.