A Theory on Why Feminists Won't Be Criticizing the Film "Nymphomaniac"

  • Posted on: 17 December 2013
  • By: stephanie

I used to be a feminist when I was younger. This was the early 90s. I needed a cause, and at the time I was concerned about issues such as abortion, the glass ceiling, and sexual harassment. The mid-90s brought us "post-feminism," which was all about being so-called "sex positive." It was supposedly "empowering" to be pro-sex, and this was a distinct turn from the more "puritanical" feminism of days yore. No longer was Andrea Dworkin, who called all male/female sex rape, a leading voice. Camille Paglia was.

I resisted some elements of this (that included women glorifying things like stiletto heels and fishnet stockings) but stupidly bought into some of it. I used to give "sex toy parties" to "educate" women on various ways to have more fun in bed. I myself became a bit promiscuous. I justified it in my New Agey way of saying that I was connecting spiritually with every man I met. Maybe that's true on some level, but it was a bit of self-denial over self-destructive behavior.

By the 2000s, "sex positive" feminism had turned into total Stockholm Syndrome as women picked up the tools of the oppressors and started outwardly objectifying themselves through the popularity of pole dancing classes. In Los Angeles, where I used to live, mainstream bars suddenly started sprouting stripper poles in the middle of the room, to have pole dancing "contests." Why not throw in a wet t-shirt while you're at it?

How far we've come, baby.

All of this is a bit of history to help us understand where we've come to today. And we've now been led down a path that has ended up in a world where the mainsteam media has no problem pushing the twerking Miley Cyrus as a headliner for Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year's Eve. The sex-positive feminism of the 90s has turned into self-objectification.

Meanwhile, feminism has become entirely focused on one issue: controlling the results of sex through birth control and abortion. Feminists no longer analyze whether it's good for women to be objectified in the media...they don't seem to care, or they revel in it and call it "empowerment." And yet, then they complain that we need more birth control and abortion. Well, when you constantly objectify yourself, and then end up having sex because of it, you can expect to need more birth control.

Is it any wonder, then, that a 4-hour film is being released that focuses entirely on the sordid sex life of one woman, and Hollywood is salivating to promote this as the next big "provocative" art house film? The pornographic film "Nymphomaniac" is not woman-positive - even the pretentious reviews trying to analyze it as "art" can't help but comment about how the depiction of the main character is a bit flat and monochromatic. You can get a good sense from the reviews and ridiculously sordid film posters (with faces of the actors contorted because of sexual pleasure) that the director is not trying to offer deep characterizations here, but push the envelope.

This is the same director that did the film "Antichrist," which, if the Wikipedia entry on it is any indication, is something I never hope to see. The film is about a couple who has lost their child. They go into the woods where the wife becomes a sadomasochistic insane person. One scene with the husband is as described as follows (warning, graphic description):

She disrobes, mounts him, and then unexpectedly crushes his testicles with a block of wood. While he is unconscious from the pain, she goes on to masturbate him until he orgasms, ejaculating blood. Then, to prevent him from leaving, she drills a hole through his leg and bolts a heavy grindstone through the wound.

Wow. And the actors in this film won awards! I can't even believe this director is taken seriously - he's clearly a psycho along the lines of Jeffrey Dahlmer. Who on earth films something like that in the name of art? Oh, that's right, someone who is "pushing the envelope" and helping us get over our "puritanical" values.

Hey, I'd like some puritanical values right now in our culture. Sounds better than where we're going.

So where are the cries from feminists over this?

Oh wait - they are too busy assaulting men and trying to vandalize churches in the name of "abortion rights" - all while being topless And if you think that sounds outrageous, go take a moment to watch the video of this event (note: this is a pro-life website, since you won't find this story in the mainstream media).

When I saw the video of the topless women spray painting devout Christian men who are simply trying to defend their church from destructive vandals, I felt ashamed I had ever been involved in any vestige of "sex positive" feminism. This is what it has turned into - women acting like possessed harpies - purposefully offensive, mean, and sexually harassing men. How does this make us better? Forget the merits of the pro-choice vs. the pro-life position - since when did feminism champion such hateful tactics?

This may seem like it's a digression, but it's not. Young women have lost their way. Their idols are extremely negative - Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus. Many older feminists are too busy clinging to the abortion issue and railing against the "patriarchal" church to open their eyes and see what constant sexual objectification is doing to our teenage girls.

They have bought into the lie that pornography can be empowering to women. And they don't want to be labeled a "prude." This is why they won't be critical of "Nymphomaniac." They have been so saturated in porn themselves that they can no longer see it objectively for the misogyny that it is. They have been desensitized.

I remember how shocked I was when a female friend of mine once told me to "relax" after being upset about something, I should get a glass of wine and curl up in bed with some porn. What??!! Uhh no. My idea of relaxing by myself would be to watch a marathon of some old sci-fi show like Babylon 5. When on earth did our culture change that a woman would just tell another woman to watch porn by herself? I could not enjoy watching porn knowing that most of the women who turn to the sex industry are themselves victims of rape and sexual abuse. And I'd rather watch a non-explicit TV show or movie with a good story anyway!

I was always skeptical of conservatives who claimed that feminism was being used to destroy the family. I also take issue with the idea that feminism has been all bad or that we should go back to the days of yore when women could either be a housewife or a secretary. But today's feminism, ala Sandra Fluke, speaks nothing to real empowerment of women. It simply demands free birth control and abortion with no limits. It is simply about having sex with no consequences.

It's at this point that I do have to wonder if feminism isn't actually a tool of the so-called "Illuminati." It's no longer grass-roots - it's been hijacked - by powerful interests that want young women focused on their own bodies and personal vanity, and not on bigger issues like the growing police state.

Rumor has it that Gloria Steinem herself is part of the Illuminati - she brought this on by flashing the pyramid hand signal for a photo shoot for Planned Parenthood. The ever-colorful Alex Jones (who is very anti-abortion) covered this on his radio show:

Pyramid hand symbol? Coincidence? Maybe.

But do we hear Gloria Steinem actually speaking out against the behavior of Miley Cyrus? If she has, the media surely isn't covering it. No, instead, all of the film rags are waxing poetical about a new film that spends four hours showing sex scenes of a female "nympho."

The whole point of feminism now seems to be about pushing young women to dress and act like strippers and then abort the consequences of their promiscuity. Yeah, that sounds empowering.

It's also a good way to destroy the soul.

And if you complain about it, you are just a "prude" and a "puritan."