Hey, everybody! The feminist stuff is still rolling- much more of it, in fact- only I’ve moved to a new site. This site will definitely still be open for your comments and such.
-Women are called “sensitive” by men because men don’t want to admit their horrific behavior towards women causes women to be unhappy.
-Many men want to liberate women for the same reason monkeys want to liberate bananas from trees.
– Racism suddenly becomes unfashionable when men find out they can bond with men of other races to the detriment of women.
-The “right” to have sex means an underclass of people is obligated to provide it.
-If prostitution is liberating, why aren’t half of prostitutes men? You get money for having sex. Men are supposed to like sex and they’re supposed to like money. Come on, guys! Deal breaker!
-Men trade their humanity for acceptance into the boys’ club. If turned away, they demand-still soulless and soiled with the mud they chose to roll in- that women let them back into the Eden they cast themselves out of. When women shut the door, they are called the Devil and Eden Hell.
-Marriage and pregnancy are the ball and chain patriarchy uses to keep women imprisoned. Men are drafted to act as the jailers. Men who refuse are traitors.
-The unwillingness to subjugate women gets a man kicked out of the boys’ club. This includes unwillingness to lie to women about men and men’s abilities, especially their genitals and their genitals’ abilities.
-The Rock and Roll movement, especially the late 60s and early 70s genres, promoted bestial sexuality, dark and esoteric occultism, and lack of structure, responsibility, and safety in favor of Dionysian “values,” which overwhelmingly benefit rapists and not women.
-Why are a surprising amount of gay men misogynistic? It’s obvious. Gay men are still men. It’s patriarchy, not hetero-archy.
-Many men don’t really like PIV- or any type of sex, for that matter. They like the feeling of phallically conquering something, perhaps including, as secondary benefit, exotic physical sensations to flavor the process.
-Emmett Till was the black victim of a ghastly beating and unjust murder which were undertaken against him because he whistled in a sexual manner at a white woman…but has anyone stopped to think why it took the murder of a sexual harasser to stir white men’s anger?
-At least men used to be cultured. Then women gained access to literature, philosophy, and the arts, and men suddenly didn’t want to play with those anymore.
-The male dominated libertarian revolutions care about freedom all right: the freedom to do whatever they want…which coincidentally happens to be problematic and oppressive toward women, black people, gays, Native Americans, etc.
-Do men ever get pressured to go to the doctor’s for erection check ups, or ejaculation control, or napkins for semen “protection”? Why aren’t men hounded to visit an andrologist from age 16 on? Is it, perchance, that the penis is considered perfect?
-The lesbian and gay movements have a vastly different underlying motive. Lesbians are fighting to end social oppression and intolerance; the gay movement is fighting a cock block.
-The great catch-22: Are masculized men homoerotic because they love men or because they hate women?
-In the French Revolution the theme was “Liberty, equality, and fraternity,” and the word fraternity is very heavily one of male bonding. Liberty for men from feminine like responsibilities and ties, equality (to predicate bonding) among all males, and fraternity meaning loyalty to men of all creeds and classes and to the cause of above said virtues, which included smashing anything “feminine” that (oppressive or not) at least promoted responsibility and sociality.
-Male dominated societies always call menstrual blood “dirty”. But notice their attitude towards other bodily fluids- diarrhea, vomit, semen, spit, bile, earwax, pimple pus- they never consider those substances uniquely disgusting. Only the things men cannot produce are considered inhumanly dirty.
-Marriage is a trap.
Babies and giving birth is a trap.
Monogamy is a trap.
Heterosexuality is a trap.
Religion is a trap.
“Love” is a trap.
Patriarchy is a trap.
Obedience is a trap.
Tradition is a trap.
Capitalism is a trap.
Society and culture are a trap.
Women in all cultures are trapped by patriarchy.
-The act of classifying sexuality as hetero or homo is based on a frame that appeals to masculine ideals (as defined by patriarchy): you love or are attracted to people based on their genitals. It’s a very genital-oriented view of attraction. “Do you like cock or cunt?”
-Men, in general at least, have underlying homoerotic and phallophilic desires. Yet because of heterosexual edicts a man can’t come out and ask other men for sex. Men, as a class, must therefore wordlessly agree to establish a situation in which homosexual behavior or at least titillation is unavoidable: the locker room.
Although most men have underlying homoerotic tendencies, no man may ask outright for homosexual contact. A request stems from desire; desire signifies need; need signifies weakness, since, in men’s minds, need means ability to be manipulated via that need, and said manipulation could mean the needy individual being forced, if he is desperate enough, to accept being penetrated- being made a woman.
Therefore, communal male nudity must be ritualized, normalized, ordained from above, expected, forced by circumstance or tradition, and thrust upon men, who would otherwise have to request it and risk being branded as “needy” and hence wiling to take a subordinate role.
Communal nudity also establishes generic male bonding and allows men to simultaneously perceive the differences among men (underscoring their supposed individuality) and, on a peculiar flip side of this coin, giving them false ideas about “a normal man’s body” (false due to the fact that many men, particularly those with “inadequate” genitals or abilities, do not use locker rooms). Men use this supposedly accurate knowledge about “normal men’s bodies” (and the access to knowledge about all male genitals, behaviors, and personalities the locker room supposedly gives them) to tell women what men are. This is usually lacking in any mention of male inabilities or physical/psychological/behavioral similarities to women. Women cannot know about men who eschew masculinity or who are physically not oppressor material.
Richard Wagner was born on May 22 1813. He was known as a raging narcissist, an antisemite, and an unfaithful man. He railed against Jews, failed to pay back money, cheated on his wife, and stirred up political hatred, now as then.
He is my favorite composer.
Why? I’ve tormented myself with this question for years, especially as a feminist and an anti racist. How- and why- did such a foul man create such sublime music?
I have a theory. People, at birth, are at one with goodness and Goddess/God. As we grow and are “educated” by society and experience life we are drawn away from this spirit and this state of truth and neutrality. We become alienated from it and the further alienated we are, the more “evil” (unbalanced, biased, untruthful, morally unhealthy) we are said to become. Thus, the further journey such individuals must make to reach God/dess again. But when such massively alienated individuals do make this journey, the sheer distance they must travel makes their soul and its journey all the more magnificent.
Some individuals make this journey in the most obvious sense, via religious or spiritual quests. Others make it through life pursuits such as mathematics, art, writing, inventing, philosophy, heroism, love…and music. This is especially true- this tendency to go back to Spirit via indirect or subtle means, and back doors- since society likes to hide this alienation.
Wagner, at least so it seems, was a severely alienated man, a greedy, womanizing, racist, backstabber who used people around him as fuel to feed what he thought of as his great genius (he was right on this last point).
Wagner’s music is his journey back to the God/dess.
People who are the most evil and ungodly have the longest but most grand journey to take back to the Truth. This is why we hear so often of a wicked famous person whose works we cannot help but praise and juxtapose with his or her actions. Wagner’s music was representative of this journey from the profane back to the Goddess/God. It seems the more horrible he was the more enlightening his music, and the more conscious and blatant his odiousness the more subconscious and mysterious his journey back. The most awake dream the deepest.
Material progress is often associated with alienation from God/dess. Much of the evilness of the 19th Century came from the alienation of society from eternal truths and concerns. People often associate materialism with the masculine and spirituality with the feminine.
Wagner himself made note of the importance of “the feminine in the human” and lamented the loss of what society considered female virtues. “A human being is both man and woman: it is only when the two are united that the real human being exists… But when nowadays we talk of a human being, such heartless blockheads are we that we only think of man,” he once said.
He saw the feminine as a necessary and humanizing antidote to the destructiveness of the masculine impulse of his era. Perhaps he was even describing a war going on within himself, as in all humans. Even his famous dreadful antisemitism may have had a peculiar positive element, in that he perceived materialistic and worldly (masculine) Jewish interlopers as rapists of the spirit of his nation and people (feminine).
Was Wagner a prodigal son who returned through music?
Listen and decide.
(from Bridal Chorus from Lohengrin)
Elsa’s Dream (from Lohengrin)
I’ve noticed that most “freedom” movements, in history, have been dominated by men, more so than other movements.
The American revolution. The French Revolution. The sixties. Etc.
This is because the male dominated Ron Paul robot “freeeeeeduuuummmmbbbbbbb!!!” crowd cares about freedom all right. The freedom to do “whatever they want,” which always coincidentally happens to be problematic and oppressive toward women, blacks, gays, Native Americans, etc.
In the American Revolution (which I’m still in favor of), the Iroquois (coincidentally a matriarchal) tribe, I believe sided with the British, not because they were filthy traitors, but because the Americans were going to swallow up their land with their newfound Freeeeeduummmbbb!!1!1!1!11!
Men could now be capitalistically free and financially oppress other men. They were socially free so now they could oppress women and behave in abhorrent manner via twisted use of “free speech” laws (remember: freedom for the wolf is tyranny for the sheep!) which they now use to defend problematic porn and hate speech. They were politically free so no one was stopping them from marching, in all their glorious self centered dood-hood, over the Natives’ land and people.
I read a book for a college history course- I forget what it’s called- but it was all about how men during the American revolution era were rediscovering the values of male bonding and same sex attachments.
In the French Revolution the theme was “Liberty, equality, and fraternity,” and the word fraternity is very heavily one of male bonding. Liberty for men from feminine like responsibilities and ties, equality (to predicate bonding) among all males, and fraternity meaning loyalty to men of all creeds and classes and to the cause of above said virtues, which included smashing anything feminine and smothering that (oppressive or not) at least promoted responsibility and sociality.
That book I talked about before ended off with a chapter about how great Freemasonry was (shocker!) and how it promoted this wonderful male bonding and that it helped glue American society together.
Same thing in France. Instead of the warm sticky effeminate familial form of the monarchy, people were “free” to “do what they wilt” and to act on individualist and selfish and detached (“masculine”) pursuits, free from the bonds of mother country, sister earth, and fellow society. Logic, finance, and intellect were the new gods, not faith, feelings, home, and love.
In the 1960s, in America, the sexual revolution struck. Although the 1950s wasn’t a picnic for women, now that the pill made it easy to prevent pregnancy, women had “no excuse” to refuse sex and several “great thinkers” of the era wanted to “liberate” women for the same reason a monkey wants to “liberate” a banana from a tree or a hound wants to “liberate” a fox from his den.
Once again, it was freedom of, by, and for men.
The Rock and Roll movement, especially the late 60s/early 70s genre, promoted bestial sexuality, dark and esoteric occultism, and the longing for lack of structure and responsibility and safety in favor of Dionysian “values,” which overwhelmingly benefit rapists and not women.
Women who weren’t interested were “prudes,” “uncool,” “unliberated,” and spiritually unenlightened.
Because enlightenment and freedom and advancement and logic is letting a man stick his dick in you.
Now as it was then.
When A Man Says You Nag:
We’ve all heard the bullshit- men ignore because women nag. Men “don’t know” how to have a conversation and women should pity them and leave them alone. Women want a “talking” relationship in which they change the man into a conversation obsessed woman and don’t allow him to be himself. The poor dear.
What is really happening is this: the woman is talking not because she is nagging, but because the man is shutting off and not answering questions. He is not answering questions because he is trying to keep something secret. He is trying to keep it secret because he is doing something wrong.
One partner’s stonewalling forces the other person to ask more and more questions to address necessary issues. The stonewalling partner labels this “nagging”, even though in context it is really not, and the questioner begins to have low self esteem and becomes ashamed every time she feels the need to get info or clarification, no matter how normal or average or common her level of questioning is, nor how necessary it is in context of the particular conversation or situation.
Since more men than women behave in a nasty way, they are more likely to become secretive in order to hide responsibilty for that nastiness. Since they become secretive, they become allergic to questions, even normal and necessary levels of questioning. They label their wife a nag to shut her up, and label all women as nags, even though the women are not asking any greater level of questioning than a man would.
(Similarly, whites often call blacks nags, or “troublemakers”, as a whole, because since white people harm black people with their behavior, naturally the blacks are the ones who complain! Same with Jews- ever hear of the “complaining Jew” stereotype? This is because Jews were pushed around in Christian Europe and it was in their interest to discuss it, while is was in Christians’ interest to ignore them. The abuser is benefited by silence while the victim is benefited by openness and discussion).
Talking, furthermore, is not a female thing. It is a necessary human tool- how can information be conveyed without talking? Nor is it even true that females talk more than males. Studies show that men talk MORE than women- it’s just that men are more ANNOYED at women’s talking than they are at other men’s and more than women are annoyed at either men’s or women’s talking.
The husband feels more annoyed at his wife’s speaking…so he twists reality and labels her behavior as more annoying (nagging)…because his REACTION to it or FEELING about it is different. This is lying. Your feelings about something do not change what the thing is. If you start to feel annoyed at me speaking, this does not mean I have started speaking more or in a different way, It is you who have changed, not me or my behaviour.
Of course, the man can be the one being gaslighted by the woman, too, and there are men who are the victims. But mostly, it is a greater number of men who stonewall than women, because a greater amount of men behave in ways that cause the person living with them to have to complain. So this is why I titled this piece “When A Man Says You Nag.”
Victim blaming (of Miley- victim of stardom), teaching sons not to respect women, and general idiocy. Where to start?
OK, I’ve been a little lazy with regard to posting recently, but I still took time to author these comments I wrote in response to the commenters on that post, even if I didnt write them first in the context of a blog post here.
As someone with relatives who work in the Hollywood and music industry who can attest to a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes, and as someone who studied film and cinema in college. and is looking to finally finish a degree and keep up regularly with film and art news, often from the most obscure sources, I can attest to the very true fact that Hollywood and the similar industries are swarming with pedophiles.
The “casting couch” can and does apply to children, and as Corey Feldmann (whose acting-partner Corey Haim committed suicide after a life of psychological torment comparable only to the torment suffered by those afflicted by sexual trauma) said, it’s Hollywood’s best kept secret. Look at Roman Polanski and how he outright raped a 14 year old girl after plugging her with Quaaludes in Jack Nicholsons’ swimming pool. Look at the odd behavior of former childhood stars with regard to romantic and sexual relations and behavior in particular. It becomes obvious.
Is anyone really surprised when these young attractive former children, likely put through the same torture, break down?
Who can blame them? Let’s not judge these kids, especially not in light of the fact they potentially have been abused in such a way. If a non-famous child reacted this way to being the victim of rape, we would not judge him at all.
What’s the problem? Fans and industry workers wanting more output from moviemakers and other figures who engage in this filth, and turning a blind eye to the (literal) crimes perpetrated by them because they’re “artists, mannn!”
To some of the commenters on this thread talking as poorly as you talk about Miley Cyrus. You scold her and say she deserves no respect. No respect, why? Who has she really hurt by dressing stupidly? Has she lit a fire, has she robbed someone, raped someone, murdered someone, defrauded?
I was taught to feel sorry for people who debase themselves, not deny them the respect they deserve, as all people deserve it. Now, mind you, respect doesn’t mean admiration- you don’t have to admire her- but you have no right to tell your sons to treat a human being as lower than they are because of something they did that while, yes, is somewhat offensive, does not outright hurt anyone. You wouldn’t talk that way about a thief, the way you talk about Cyrus.
Perhaps a lack of respect (human respect, not admiration) is what caused her behavior in the first place. In that case, whether or not you think she deserves respect, if it’s something that caused her behavior, you still shouldn’t be complaining if she dresses that way if you want to disrespect her. Disrespect her, fine, but don’t complain about the result.
Fine people your sons are going to turn out to be.
Oh, yeah, and by the way, how many actors and singer do you think are in control of their own image? Even though outright slavery is illegal, do you really think directors and show producers don’t have almost dictatorial control over their “products”? You don’t need to be an actual slave driver or circumvent the 14th Amendment to be the primary controller in someone else’s life. Just ask any person working for a large corporation.
I’ve heard people say Barbra Streisand is outspoken and annoying. Well, perhaps this is why, People who are outspoken about unfair things are annoying, all right. Annoying to the ones doing them! Keep going, Barbra!
I read a very strange article by someone named Brice Taylor who claims to have been a sex slave for a bevy of famous stars, singers, and politicians. She claims Barbra Streisand was sexually abused by men high up in the entertainment industry. I won’t shut out the possibility of this idea at all.
Gay Marriage passed in Rhode Island a month or two ago and we had a large parade downtown a few days ago. There were many pro-women, pro-queer, and pro-sexual-“deviance” things at the Pride event prior to the parade. Let’s hope this is a turning point for women’s rights! If not, you girls know what to do!
Gee, I’d hate to see what a “not joking” throat grab would look like! Saatchi is rich and perhaps that’s why he gets away with it.
I’d rather be black than a woman. I’m never going to apologize for that. Until white women go around raping black men, I’m going to take the “it’s worse to be black than a woman” with a grain of salt. The whole shaker, rather. At least when you’re black, you don’t have to love someone from the group that oppresses you, the way women (most of whom are heterosexual) do. You don’t have to be afraid of being raped, and you can at least go to “your side of the tracks” at the end of the day. You enjoy the benefits of a bigger physical strength (probably socially-induced because of greater feeding and strength training) so you can be relatively safe if you’re a male.
I have written– at length- about the (seemingly) surprising tendency of liberals to be misogynists, often to an even larger extent than conservatives. The OJ Simpson case is a sort of talking point about this matter. Liberal men seem to hate women even more than conservative men. At least, their ideologies are more destructive. For all their talk about banding together to fight oppression along racial, religious, class, and sexuality lines, the fact that women are being abused is conspicuously absent.
During the OJ Simpson trial, one could turn on the TV and hear a lot about race, since Nicole Brown Simpson, OJ’s murdered wife, was white and OJ was black. OJ was rich and famous and Nicole was not as much so, so we heard about class. But how often did we hear about sex and gender? Was not OJ a man and Nicole a woman? Doesn’t gender and hatred of women fit (one might say “like a glove!”) into the topic of wife-beating? If OJ was supposed to have beat his wife, does that not make it more likely he murdered her, too? And if he had hateful views against females, doesn’t that mean it was more likely he beat her? It doesn’t convict him, but is does shed needed light.
Andrea Dworkin speaks about the blatant evidence for OJ Simpson’s guilt:
Spectators of the trial who supported Simpson created a whole “all civilized people support Simpson because it would be racist not to” smokescreen to disguise the real reason they were supporting him: because he was being accused of harming their mortal enemy, a woman. Racism suddenly becomes unfashionable when men find out they can bond with men of other races to the detriment of women. This is not an accident, as in, “these men can’t help it, they aren’t educated about women’s rights!” It is deliberate hatred of women for the sake of being women.
I have noticed the same thing in regard to the Emmett Till case. Emmett Till was the black victim of a ghastly murder which was undertaken against him because he whistled in a sexual manner at a white woman. He was not supposed to whistle at her because he was black, and people rightly protested the fact that blacks were treated worse than whites for committing the same wrong. However, has anyone stopped to think why it took the murder of a sexual harasser to stir white men’s anger? If Till hadn’t performed the ultimate bonding mechanism- sexual taunting of a woman- that binds men together (at least, the ones most societies deem “normal” men), would so many men have come to his help?
What if it was a woman who was harmed in a gender-specific manner, such as being raped by a white man, denied the right to an abortion, etc (as opposed to Rosa Parks, whose situation wasn’t particularly gender related)? Would people be so quick to help her? It seems the white men only cared about Emmett Till because, though not deserving of death, he did perform a misogynist act. Race was just a very handy (because very subtle) smokescreen for covering up the fact that they were bonding with him over misogyny.
All the malestream media can report with regard to these two events is how racist both events were (obviously, race was much more involved in the Till case). But what they refuse to report is that in both these situations, a woman was harmed, hurt, or abused in some way. The malestream media, including history textbooks, do not side with Till and other black males because they are black and oppressed, but because they are not women. Remember that.
Do I know OJ did it? No. Not the murder. I don’t know. I have not looked over the evidence. However, I do know that there were elements other than race that influenced people’s view of the all-American “star”, whether or not people want to be honest enough to consider those.