Can one satirise women?

[Kelly Jones]

I was browsing the Guardian's current 100 most useful websites list and found The Onion, described as "the web's leading satire magazine, though with an American bias". The list changes, so I didn't post the actual story link.

Since the current issue is a Woman's Special, I thought there might be a satire or two about women. You would expect some flowery odes to women, solemn praise of every mother's intuitive sense of compassion, or even surveys of how volunteers are mostly female --- that end up pointing to exact opposite truths.

Would that not be in the spirit of the magazine? Or even the spirit of satire?

Yet, in the web's leading satire magazine (according to the Guardian, anyway), it seems impossible to conceptualise satire in relation to women.

It got me thinking. There are only two reasons I can think of for this case:

- that it's forbidden to satirise women, or
- that it is logically not possible.

The latter would be the case if women are not genuinely something, for only a generalisation has an opposite. So if women are nothing at all, or everything, then one can't very well satirise them.

But either way, both reasons are worrisome - that "women" aren't anything at all, or are forbidden to satirise.

-

[Kelly Jones]

I should add, though I think the two opinion pieces are interesting, they're not satires.

"How can I use feminism to my advantage" and "Who's a girl to fuck to get some closure on her relationship with her father?" are the two opinion pieces.

They do use irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, to expose, denounce, or deride the vice and folly of women - but don't go far enough.

Really, to be satire, the first piece would have to show that a feminist who is power-mongering never actually gains any power, since she's trapped into co-manipulation. As it is, it looks as though the message is: "This is what feminism is all about - celebrate it!"

The second would need to expose marriage and the "Perfect Spouse" delusions, as well, as the folly of never growing up out of unmet childhood needs.

-

[Shardrol]

Hmmm. What about 'Women Now Empowered By Everything A Woman Does'? Or 'Area Woman's Entire Day Ruined By Bangs'? These articles (& others) certainly satirized women, though perhaps not as heavy-handedly as you might have liked.

You do realize that the whole thing is satire, including 'factual' articles & 'studies'?
.

[Jamesh]

I've been watching an Oz show called Difference of Opinion

The topic last night was "What Are We Looking For In A Leader?"
Are we happy with our current crop of politicians? Are they the type of leaders we want? Integrity, humility, compassion and courage are some of the attributes said to be essential to good leadership. At a time when our Prime Minister proudly declares himself to be “an average Aussie bloke”, are the days of the more flamboyant “big-picture” leaders over? To inspire the public with a strong vision is seen as a quality by some, but for others it’s more about setting achievable goals and sticking to them.

"Do we trust them? Do we expect honesty or have we become cynical? How important are qualities such as vision and integrity? Is it enough to manage the economy? What about the ability to grapple with unprecedented problems such as global warming and the water shortage? What can our political leaders learn from business leadership? Do women bring something different to political leadership? Would a female prime minister bring a new perspective to the way the country is led?"

Most unfortunately, it was an all woman panel. So the vast bulk of the conversation was about how to get women more power without the women having to do anything or any requirement for them to be "special" (as in unlike women are presently).

A complete waste of time and ever so boring.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/differenceofop ... 916347.htm

The topic was compeltely hijacked

[Kevin Solway]

Hmmm. What about 'Women Now Empowered By Everything A Woman Does'? Or 'Area Woman's Entire Day Ruined By Bangs'?

Nothing wrong with those, so far as satire goes. I liked 'em!

[Kelly Jones]

Hmmm. What about 'Women Now Empowered By Everything A Woman Does'? Or 'Area Woman's Entire Day Ruined By Bangs'? These articles (& others) certainly satirized women, though perhaps not as heavy-handedly as you might have liked.

They're certainly funny, especially: "Only by lauding every single thing a woman does, no matter how ordinary, can you truly go, girls."

You do realize that the whole thing is satire, including 'factual' articles & 'studies'?
.

I think it mocks women mocking themselves, but doesn't actually mock women. It actually just goes along with the typical female complaint, "Oh, I'm such a hopeless mess, I need someone to help me make sense of the world --- but if anyone tries, I'll fuck them over, because everyone loves me going so off the rails".

Do you really think it is a satire of women, in the strict sense of the word, of pointing out vices and folly?

Or is it fatalistic?

-

[Shardrol]

Okay, fair enough. Your analysis seems overcomplicated to me, though. I thought the piece about the 'bad hair day' was satirizing what they saw as women's vanity, triviality & emotional instability by reporting on this situation as if it really were as terrible as the female protagonist made it out to be.

I did find the pieces I read to be pointing out vices & folly of women. I don't think fatalistic contradicts that; I mean I don't think you have to have great hope for change in order to point out vices & folly. It's humorous satire, not depth psychology, even though it may make some serious points if you look into it.
.

[Kelly Jones]

Your analysis seems overcomplicated to me

I'll simplify it:

"Women are idiots. So what's new? Who cares! It's grand entertainment!"

I thought the piece about the 'bad hair day' was satirizing what they saw as women's vanity, triviality & emotional instability by reporting on this situation as if it really were as terrible as the female protagonist made it out to be.

Yes, that's true. But did it do it seriously, or was it just another piece of fun?

That's the difference. If you read something like Juvenal's Satires of corruption in ancient Roman life, you'll sense a genuine sadness, as well as passionate statements about what is honorable and wise. I don't see anything like that in Onion's issue on women.

I did find the pieces I read to be pointing out vices & folly of women. I don't think fatalistic contradicts that; I mean I don't think you have to have great hope for change in order to point out vices & folly. It's humorous satire, not depth psychology, even though it may make some serious points if you look into it.

Yes, it's shallow. But is our situation so bad, that we can only cope with the lightest touch of teasing? I think it is better to take off the kid-gloves, myself.



-

[Kevin Solway]

I think "the onion" are probably too concerned about losing their readership to say anything too sensible.

[DHodges]

Yes, it's shallow. But is our situation so bad, that we can only cope with the lightest touch of teasing? I think it is better to take off the kid-gloves, myself.

Perhaps, but I read The Onion all the time, and the Special Women's Edition is in line with their usual level of humor.

Personally, I like Herbert Kornfeld, giving his views from the crazy, violent world of Accounts Receivable bookkeeping, where the H-Dog rolls old skool style. I guess that's more relevant to my life.

[Kelly Jones]

Perhaps, but I read The Onion all the time, and the Special Women's Edition is in line with their usual level of humor.

Oh, I forgot to see the irony in the word "leading" as in "the web's leading satire magazine in the direction of popularity".

We need a few Maori All-Blacks here. Can you imagine them sticking out their tongues and staring bug-eyed into the confused and whispering regulation-upholders? Some of those jarring reviling songs to break the sweet strains of "popularity" can really bring in some fresh air.

[Faust]

Really, to be satire, the first piece would have to show that a feminist who is power-mongering never actually gains any power, since she's trapped into co-manipulation. As it is, it looks as though the message is: "This is what feminism is all about - celebrate it!"

The second would need to expose marriage and the "Perfect Spouse" delusions, as well, as the folly of never growing up out of unmet childhood needs.

-

I liked this post alot Kelly, it was witty and scathing. However, in order to not deceive myself and stroke my male ego, I must ask you to be more specific about feminists being "trapped into co-manipulation," and "the folly of never growing up out of unmet childhood needs." Although I have a feel of what you mean here, I have a burning intellectual urge to get to the bottom of these things. I would love to have a discussion with you about these specific statements.

[Kelly Jones]

I must ask you to be more specific about feminists being "trapped into co-manipulation,"

A specific example: If a woman says that "females everywhere must be supported to do whatever they like", she falls into the trap of having to support a woman who disagrees with her.

and "the folly of never growing up out of unmet childhood needs."

All childrern have the egotistical need to believe that they are inherently special and powerful. Children also form an idea about their strengths and weaknesses, via the opinions of them that parents or others express.

My specific point is that although feminists are not the only ones who continue, as adults, to look for themselves in the opinions of others, they are probably the only ones who aggressively demand that all adult women are to be told that they are inherently special and powerful, with particular strengths and weaknesses.

-

[Faust]

I must ask you to be more specific about feminists being "trapped into co-manipulation,"

A specific example: If a woman says that "females everywhere must be supported to do whatever they like", she falls into the trap of having to support a woman who disagrees with her.

and "the folly of never growing up out of unmet childhood needs."

All childrern have the egotistical need to believe that they are inherently special and powerful. Children also form an idea about their strengths and weaknesses, via the opinions of them that parents or others express.

My specific point is that although feminists are not the only ones who continue, as adults, to look for themselves in the opinions of others, they are probably the only ones who aggressively demand that all adult women are to be told that they are inherently special and powerful, with particular strengths and weaknesses.

-

where have you seen feminists supporting each other's opposing views? Do all feminists say that women should be supported in doing whatever they want to do? Or have you seen feminists who actually have strict genuine guidelines?


where have you seen those unmet childhood needs? Also, don't some feminists demand this for men too?

[Kelly Jones]

Faust wrote:

where have you seen feminists supporting each other's opposing views?

Of course they don't. But they keep saying that they must, so they end up having these huge irrational debates, where they can never agree on anything, but say they do.

For instance, I coordinated a lesbian/feminist art exhibition in inner Sydney back in 2000, which had an email list to discuss the topic of the exhibition. It was called "Compassionate Bodies" and involved varied activism, covering social work, mental health, eco-feminism, veganism, rights of racial minorities, public school education, engineering and equal employment, professional art, lesbian coupling, lesbian coupling with children still living with husbands, lesbian youth rights, lesbian marriage to males, fag hags, bisexuality, reformist environmentalism (soft social change). The email list quickly polarised on politics, with one small camp saying all the women should support the view that all women were oppressed by men - or they'd boycott the exhibition, and the larger camp made up of moderates, saying all views should be tolerated.

The exhibition was, in my opinion, a failure, made up of the weakest common denominator, with basically no aim at all, except, "We're compassionate bodies".

I don't think this is a rare and unusual example.

Do all feminists say that women should be supported in doing whatever they want to do?

Well, they can't decide on what it means to be a woman, so they can't say that with any meaning, though they speak the words.

Or have you seen feminists who actually have strict genuine guidelines?

Since they can't agree on meanings, not having them, they usually end up with one dogmatic terrorist at the head, and a pack of lookalike parrots. That's what is manifest, even if the head isn't actually a person but a book lying on the bookshelf covered in dust.

where have you seen those unmet childhood needs?

As soon as as child realises it is not the centre of the universe, unique and special. A parent may favour a sibling, for instance.

Also, don't some feminists demand this for men too?

Not really, because they're demanding that men be equal with the level of women. That is, they're not demanding that men be told they are unique and special, but the same as women.

That's what I find disturbing about the social policy that all people are equal. It's actually saying, "All people are not to show they are intellectually superior to females, and in fact, are not to be. No one is to know this."

It's a terrible crime against humankind.

-

[Faust]

This is all very intriguing Kelly, especially that you're a woman. By all people you mean men? Because you said that not all people are to know that everyone is intellectually superior to females, so the only people that can be superior to females would be men.

Also, I'm sure you're just implying by "all people" as alot of people right? Do you actually hold the view that ALL people are intellectually superior to women? I don't know if this is the case, for example Celia Green and you and Camille Paglia.

Also, I want to know your view of why many women are apparently intellectually inferior? I'm guessing you will say their general attachments to their instincts?

[Kelly Jones]

This is all very intriguing Kelly, especially that you're a woman.

It's no big deal. If a female becomes masculine, she doesn't have feminine qualities. Hard to do though, because women are ept deceivers (being unwilling to be conscious of their motives).

By all people you mean men? Because you said that not all people are to know that everyone is intellectually superior to females, so the only people that can be superior to females would be men.

I was using the slogan. It demonstrates the feminine attitude to society: "everyone else" is the oppressor, namely, whoever is intellectually strong and highly conscious.

Also, I'm sure you're just implying by "all people" as alot of people right? Do you actually hold the view that ALL people are intellectually superior to women? I don't know if this is the case, for example Celia Green and you and Camille Paglia.

Yes, it's a figure of speech. The difficulty is that one cannot judge differences in consciousness until one is already conscious. That is why many men will not recognise that women are intellectual inferiors: the difference between them is so very slight these days.

In the future, perhaps, the words masculine and feminine will become obsolete, as well as any significant signs of differing levels of consciousness (apart from being comatose, drunk, drugged, asleep, and dead). Already the only common signs are among working-class men, who are also common drunkards --- such that the idea that they are more conscious than other people will fall flat.

Also, I want to know your view of why many women are apparently intellectually inferior? I'm guessing you will say their general attachments to their instincts?

Compared to what I experience, the majority of people are intellectually inferior to me. And I'm not all that great a thinker, I'm sloppy and inconsistent ciompared to my goals of perfect consciousness.

I'd say the most likely cause for females' poor consciousness include: a deep love of the warm feelings and flowie mindstates of infancy, when one is enclosed within the womb, or within the soft comfy embrace of a parent. There remains in the memory a stark awareness of the possibility of pain when this warmth goes away.

Because girls are encouraged to be "soft", "gentle", "nurturing", or "frivolous", "friendly", "playful", "exciting", they are not as capable of men of disliking the womb-state. They don't learn to love the power of distinguishing things, of coordinating ideas, and of really getting out there in reality and making things happen.

However, this is not to say that most people don't spend their whole lives drifting in "home-base" womb-states, and other delusions about the nature of the world.

Just looking at people's attachments shows what type of version of this womb-state they have. Could be: marengo dancing classes, building wooden boats, mind-altering styles of music, travelling to new places, meeting "different" people, you name it: it's a cage they've buried themselves in.


-

[Jason]

Seems there's probably more satyrizing of women than satirizing. (Boom tish! I'll be here all week, try the vegetarian stir fry.)

[Kelly Jones]

Apparently the word "satire" comes from the idea of a plate of mixed fruit! Mixed bunch of ideas, sort of thing.

But satyrs were probably whoever wished to kidnap a woman to mate with her. Not much subversion of civilisation there.

[Faust]

Kelly,


do you think all women remain deceivers and aren't willing to be conscious of their motives?

How do you see when a woman hates someone who is highly conscious?

So you agree that most women remain children all their lives? Why do you think it is that they don't want to grow up and get out of infancy? What caused that?


Are you against music? What is "mind-altering" music? How are wooden boats symbols of a womb-state? Surely not all boating is a desire to be in a womb?


Concerning strict guidelines, I remember I mentioned to you http://www.heartless-bitches.com once, and how apparently they all have guidelines of "independance," "responsibility," and even a section on male/female manipulators and how to avoid them, what do you think this website is missing? I know what it is missing, that is, a spiritual attempt to rid of ego and pretension, though that's not going to happen anytime soon for them, but do you think their responsibility and independance is a start?

[Kelly Jones]

do you think all women remain deceivers and aren't willing to be conscious of their motives?

So long as a biological female remains womanly and feminine, she will be anti-truth.

The Woman illusion is a bundle of character traits, that drives biological females, as well as biological males but to a slightly lesser extent.

These traits are:

- expecting that someone else will take responsibility
- leaving thoughts unclarified and vague
- melodramatic and emotional
- desiring nothing more than to flow along in a mist
- easily distracted, sense-bound, dependent on visual aids
- poor memory
- incapable of thinking abstractly
- incoherent speech, incapable of forming clear definitions
- believes love and desire are the most noble of human values
- is most satisfied when identifying as a sexual being
- loves to gossip and flirt
- loves to sing
- speaks with popular accents and tones
- uses popular words
- wears glittering and flowie things
- wears makeup and/or does fashionable things to their body
- ignores reason totally
- either interrupts frequently, or has glazed eyes while anyone else is speaking
- does not like to sweat, get dirty, develop obvious muscles
- incapable of managing much stress (e.g. submarine warfare analysts are typically male)
- smirks or pities tramps
- attracted to criminals and excited about violent behaviour
- believes mental health means looking after the body
- cannot stand unending solitude
- makes a show of uncertainty and confusion
- self-minimising, refuses to be openly arrogant
- sees conflict resolution as absence of debating or argument
- loves forms of communication rather than meaningful communication
- small-talker
- mediocre in almost all respects except for mediocrity

How do you see when a woman hates someone who is highly conscious?

They don't see them at all. Thoughts block out awareness of them completely.

Before then, they might sniff, shut off conversation, leave the room quietly and with the most amazing poise. And spray on a lot of deoderant, hairspray, etc. to leave their hostile reply.

They might say, "I can see you're a thinker," yet have absolutely no idea about the implications of this statement.

So you agree that most women remain children all their lives? Why do you think it is that they don't want to grow up and get out of infancy? What caused that?

It's easier. More comfortable. They get support from others. They live longer.

Are you against music? What is "mind-altering" music? How are wooden boats symbols of a womb-state? Surely not all boating is a desire to be in a womb?

The attachments I mentioned are nothing in themselves. I could mention puffing up to 5 times one's size and going yellow and purple, but that's not something humans do.

All music has a powerful effect on the psyche, so long as one still has an attachment to infant consciousness. I theorise it comes from a hypnotic trance from the repetitive sounds of the womb.

Concerning strict guidelines, I remember I mentioned to you http://www.heartless-bitches.com once, and how apparently they all have guidelines of "independance," "responsibility," and even a section on male/female manipulators and how to avoid them, what do you think this website is missing? I know what it is missing, that is, a spiritual attempt to rid of ego and pretension, though that's not going to happen anytime soon for them, but do you think their responsibility and independance is a start?

I recall writing that these women flaunted independence as a way of attracting men.

It is basically, "You can't touch me, because I'm this amazingly desireable thing that you can't have. Try to get me. Come hither, blah blah blah"


-

[supreme_soviet]

The greatest folly of The Onion is that it's simply not funny.


There's a...well, to an American at any rate..."Northeastern" slant to the magazine, in terms of what is considered witty.