Quantum Superstate Feminism: A phenomenon observed when feminist activism exists as both victim and aggressor when eliciting or exploiting preferential treatment from Big Government.
The term was coined by journalist and ‘internet supervillan’ Milo Yiannopoulos to describe a modern strand of feminism, often championed or empowered by the state, ‘whose figureheads are at once aggressor and victim; trolling, provoking and ridiculing their ideological opponents while at the same time crying foul when their provocative language is returned in kind’.
Milo cites the United Nation’s recent call for urgent action to combat ‘cyber VAWG’ (violence against women and girls) as one of the finest examples of this phenomenon.
In his article the UN Wants To Censor The Entire Internet To Save Feminists’ Feelings, he observes that the two highest-profile feminists invited to speak at the event are considered by many to be ‘professional wind-up merchants’ who have prospered in an environment where they can say what they like about men (no matter how preposterous or offensive) and then generate column inches, popularity and profit, by claiming to experience brutal online harassment simply for speaking their truth.
UN Ambassadors Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn
Research data indicates that “severe” online harassment (i.e., sexual harassment, stalking, physical threats, harassment over a sustained period of time) is experienced by both sexes in relatively equal numbers. Meanwhile quantum superstate feminism reframes the concept of ‘violence’ to include disobliging tweets and basic criticism which in turn encourages unelected bureaucrats to call for rigorous enforcement and oversight of the internet to make it ‘a safe, respectful and empowering space for women and girls, and, by extension, for boys and men’.
The message from the UN seems to be: “cyber-violence” against women, at least according to their invited guests, is somehow equivalent to getting thumped, or bullied, or abused in real life, and it’s worth clamping down on basic free speech provisions to insulate these delicate first-world feminist wallflowers from the consequences of their own purposefully provocative statements. Milo Yiannopoulos
Another example of the phenomenon can be drawn from recent media coverage concerning the British Member of Parliament and self identifying equalities campaigner Jess Phillips.
Whilst considering an application to hold a parliamentary debate on issues particularly affecting men for International Men’s Day, Phillips was unable to hide her contempt, openly laughing at the notion, flippantly proposing that every day is International Men’s Day and concluding that she would only allow such a discussion when at least 50% of MP’s are female.
Her outburst received virtually no media coverage but one article prompted a significant level of criticism. Phillips then claimed she was being targeted by trolls which quickly lead to dramatically exaggerated headlines claiming that she had received a ‘huge torrent of abuse’ and ‘barrage of rape threats’.
Anyone following her twitter feed will have mostly witnessed polite, constructive and contextualized criticism. When one tweeter foolishly asked her for evidence to support her claim Phillips existed as both victim and aggressor by tweeting a screenshot of two offensive lines from a lengthy discussion thread and calling him a prick.
“I suffered a huge torrent of very noisy abuse from men’s rights activists, which, very unfortunately, led to a very dark bit of the internet calling for me to be raped, bound and raped publicly.
“When I published that on Twitter then there was a torrent of people saying that I asked for it, that it was my own fault. The truth of the matter is that if any of these people were actually faced with me, they wouldn’t dare, they wouldn’t dare say these things. That’s why I’m not sitting, cowering in my home thinking that anyone who talks about raping me is actually going to do it.” Jess Phillips
Phillips responded to any critics she didn’t perceive to be potential rapists by pledging to launch a campaign to reduce the rate of male suicide. Once the fuss had died down she then published an opinion piece on the day that the Parliamentary debate she had attempted to veto went ahead. In it she explained that she wouldn’t be attending because she wasn’t feeling very well, had to look after the kids and, as far as she was concerned, ‘we need International Men’s Day about as much as white history month, or able body action day’.