I’d Rather Be Called “Boy” Than “Girl”: OJ Simpson, Women’s Rights, And Race

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.

Categories: Africans and African Americans, Articles In English, Conservatism/Liberalism, Famous, Murder, Race and Ethnicity, Radical Feminism, Rape and Harrassment, Violence and Abuse | Tags: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

About the deculturization of men



We’ve all noticed the fact that most modern men are uncultured: they don’t care about art, music, languages, history, etc.  They have to ask what a “duvet” is, they don’t like scented candles, and they are not able (or willing) to distinguish between colors.  Women then have to settle with having partners who have no class and no imagination.



I’m wondering if this is how it played out in history: Women in the, say, 1800s, were told that art, and science, and music, and literature, and such were masculine things- things only men were allowed to do.  They resented the fact that only men were allowed to do these things, because, well, they were normal humans, and normal humans don’t like being denied the liberty to do things they enjoy.


When liberal men came along, they promised to tear men down, take them away from so-called “snobby” culture and intelligence which they were entitled to, and to make them more “real”.  This appealed to the women, who welcomed the idea of equality.

But what happened was this: these decultured men were LESS appealing to women, because they acted like ANIMALS.  What the women didn’t realize, or didn’t admit to these liberal social revolutionaries, was that it wasn’t culture they hated- it was the idea that men were allowed culture and they weren’t.  It was equality they originally wanted, but instead of asking to be allowed to practice culture in addition to men, and since men wouldn’t let them, they were so desperate for fairness that they were content to take culture away from men…which had consequences.

That culture that men had was at least in some ways a benefit to women.  A woman back then could more likely count on a man to be civilized and knowledgeable and art-loving and sensitive.  Now, all she can count on is a man who might like watching the Wizard of Oz only if there’s a kid around, and who doesn’t know the difference between turquoise and indigo.  Peachy.


What women have benefited from in regards to this liberal social revolution, is knowledge about the true nature of most men.  Now, at least women can be sure which men to avoid, since they are allowed to be their animalistic selves.  Their freedom actually had some benefits to society.


The “men shouldn’t have to be cultured” revolution was a revolution to free men from culture, not for women’s benefit, but for men’s benefit, by giving them the option to ignore the responsibility of civilization and intelligence and altruism, and allowing their subhuman side to show through, their culture hating, morality-ignoring animal nature.

Perhaps this is what “freedom”, to these social revolutionaries, means: freedom of MEN to get back in touch with what they see as MEN’S nature, to the detriment of women.  Women have to deal with the mess these men’s “freedom” has left them.

These revolutionary “dudes” tricked women into believing that intelligent, cultured, protective, moral men were their enemies, by painting them as oppressors, and leaving women with Mr. Hyde in the place of a kindly, though patronizing, Dr. Jekyll.  (of course, not all men were nice, and many were abusive, but there was at least the pretense of better behavior then, and at least the hypothetical male, the male model that men were supposed to imitate, was more likeable than today’s).

It’s just like what they did with monogamy.  They highlighted the bad aspects of the old system, only to replace them with a worse, more unpredictable system.  While no women would enjoy being under the “protection” of a male patriarch a la The Victorian Era, I’m sure a good portion of them prefer that sometimes-responsible adult patriarch to the porn-watching, Xbox playing, culture-hating dood who doesn’t know Shakespeare from Mark Twain, and who doesn’t have a moral system- even a skewed one- to prevent him from abusing females even MORE than his 19th century counterpart.


I think the whole reason today’s historians, especially the male “feminists”, want to convince us that the old days were so horrible, is because they want us to feel like we’re totally safe nowadays.  “Those old days were terrible and patriarchal!  You’re much happier now!” they say.  They are really just trying to get rid of any inkling of responsibility and personality men were once supposed to have.


Many women tend to prefer the god Apollo’s virtues- logic, reason, predictability- and are intimidated by Dionysus- the god symbolizing disorder, drunkenness, orgies, and destruction.  BOTH, however, are gods, not goddesses, and as such are attempts to keep women under the palm of men, no matter what form that palm may take, right palm or left palm.



As for me, I prefer not having to choose between shit and crap, and I think that women should have the choice to marry and date other women, who are more likely to love and respect them.  If there are good men, then forced monogamy should be abolished so we can share them.





Categories: Articles In English, Conservatism/Liberalism, Liberty Doods, Radical Feminism, Uncultured Men | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What is Radical Feminism?

Radical feminism is a form of feminism which believes patriarchy needs to be dismantled, and that women cannot work inside its system to be free.  Patriarchy is the system some men have put in place for the benefit of all men, and it includes the legal system, medical system, media, and religions.


Radical feminism does not believe patriarchy hurts men as much as it hurts women, just as racism didn’t hurt whites as much as blacks.  That’s why it’s called bigotry- because it’s unfair.  That’s the point.  It’s not about achieving equality with men under the current system (which is patriarchy and is SET UP so men win).  It’s about dismantling it and preserving the happiness of innocent people.   This is why “equality” never works, because misogynistic men’s intent is not to rig the game to get more money, power, etc, and then they’ll be happy, but to attack women; the system is just a tool of that intent.  “Equality” never works because it’s a war, not a race.


I want to suggest to you that a commitment to sexual equality with males, that is, to uniform character as of motion or surface, is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered.  I want to ask you to make a different commitment – a commitment to the abolition of poverty, rape and murder; that is, a commitment to ending the system of oppression called patriarchy; to ending the male sexual model itself.”
-Andrea Dworkin “Our Blood”.

In other words, neither men nor women should obey the system.




Radical feminism doesn’t believe bad men “don’t know better”, “suffer under” their own bigotry, or “need to be educated”.  It believes misogynists know exactly what they’re doing when they hurt or discriminate against women and that they use our idiocy (our willingness to think they don’t know any better) to get away with it.   Does a man who kicks his wife because she won’t have sex with him really need to be “educated”, or do you think he already knows kicking ANY person is wrong?  Bullies in any corner of society know exactly what harm they’re doing, and this is why they do it.   The point is to hurt.



Radical feminism doesn’t believe PIV (penis-inside-vagina) sex is the only way to have sex, or that it should be the default definition of “sex”.  PIV sex is male centric, since during PIV the penis often gets more pleasure than the clitoris (though everyone is an individual and we all have differences among our bodies).  PIV is not necessary for pregnancy, which can be caused by sperm swimming up the vagina from being deposited on the outside (and pregnancy is not the only reason for sex).  The media, doctors, gynecologists, and art portray PIV as the most natural and normal type of sex because it is usually more pleasurable for men, and try to “fix” women who don’t like it (“vaginismus”, etc).
PIV can cause cervical cancer, dryness, soreness, and pain.  It’s the kind of activity that is best done in moderation, if at all.  PIV- the act itself- is more likely to cause pain for the woman than for the man.  Patriarchy, therefore, supports PIV as the “normal” way to have sex, and theorizes that women are the “weaker” and more vulnerable sex because they can be more easily hurt by intercourse than men.  But suppose a woman slammed her clitoris and labia against a man’s testicles- that would hurt.  Yet we don’t hear society calling that act “normal” sex, because the man would be getting hurt in that case.
PIV is often used by domineering or misogynistic men to get women to bond with them- such close contact creates feelings, and if the intercourse is harsh enough, she may have a mild sort of “trauma bond” with the male.  Since society and the media tell women giving men PIV is something that should “liberate” them, or that they should get used to if they want a “normal sex life”, society/the media acts like a sexual predator, coercing women into doing things they might otherwise not want to.


Sex-positivism is the idea that having more sex and more kinds of sex is the key to liberation, especially having more sex with men.  It’s not.  What’s liberating about having sex with men?  We’re already expected to do that!  What’s revolutionary about BDSM or sadomasochism?  There’s always been an undercurrent of that in society (sometimes it becomes more mainstream than at other times), and isn’t sex the way masculinity and patriarchy conceive of it already painful and violent?  “Liberating” events like SlutWalk make good points, such as women who are sexually active should not be judged more than men.  But the movements fail to address whether sexual liberation is good for women or not.  For example, surely a woman has as much right to cut herself on the arm as men do, and not be judged for it…but is it good for her to do so?  No.


Liberal feminism thinks the way to free women is to teach them to act the way patriarchal or “masculine” men act.  For example, to dominate others, to give up everyday life in search of happiness in the business world, to be less in tune with their bodies and minds, etc.  It’s the equivalent of telling black people in 1840 that the key to being free is to enslave others and start their own plantation.  We don’t want expedient, materialistic success; we want to be treated and thought of as human beings.  Liberal feminism also has a “pick your battles” attitude about the women’s movement, often calling some issue “too small” or “non-issues”, which is a tactic the patriarchy uses to silence complaints.  Who’s to decide which issues are “too small”?  If someone’s bothered by something, it needs to be addressed!
Liberal feminism believes men who hate women truly don’t know what they’re doing and if we just pick up a textbook and a dictionary and educate them, they’ll say, “Oh, okay.  I never realized that before!  I’ll stop using women as sperm dumpsters.”  Men already know women don’t like to be treated like shit, and that it’s wrong to treat someone a certain way because of something other than their personal characteristics.  The horrible things they do to women are things they know are wrong to do to everybody, like lying, insulting, victim-blaming, and assaulting. We’re supposed to believe men know it’s wrong to do those things to 100% of people, then suddenly forget that it’s wrong to do them to some people five minutes later.  Sorry.  Not buying it.
The solution liberal feminists have to the patriarchy problem is for women to find individual happiness or escape from it as individuals- i.e., if a woman happens to be lucky enough to become a big CEO, then feminism is a success, even though her sisters are still suffering.  “Individualism” is prized, instead of group politics, even though it is a group, as a group, that is suffering, not random individuals who just happen to be female.

We believe women should try to be as independent from men as possible, emotionally, financially, and otherwise.  Though there are definitely some good men, the majority of men on the planet (counting third world countries and places like Saudi Arabia) are bigoted and even dangerous.  Women should try to build up friendships and even romantic partnerships with other women as a precautionary measure, since men are taught to lie to and emotionally manipulate women to get what they want.  Women should partner with men only if the particular man is suitable, and should not search specifically for a male partner, because bad men prey on this automatic assurance that women will bond with men as a group, because they’re men.  We need to stop feeding the “a girl for every boy!” machine.

Forced monogamy is part of the problem.  If heterosexual women had the choice of sharing the few good men instead of settling for the bad ones (so each and every man, no matter how horrible, got a wife) a lot of our problems would be solved.  Why breed a bad man’s child?  It would also be better if women were not expected to marry to get societal benefits.

We oppose the “who am I to judge” attitude about bad male behavior such as objectifying women and watching pornography, and we have put forth the radical idea that prostitution and pornography are not ways to liberate women.  Current pornography, since it is 99% comprised of violence or domination against women, and since it is used as a manual to train young boys to hate and rape women, should be banned.  Pornography is not “just a choice” for either the viewer or the person in the photos.  Often, the girls used in the photos were coerced or were spied on, and the fact that they’re smiling means nothing, since they are only acting.  Often, actual rapes are filmed, and passed off as “acting”.  The user does not deserve any respect since they are viewing the other’s body as an object, and since they’re getting off from hatred and domination.  Only in a healthy society can erotica (NOT pornography) or other sexualized arts exist, a society free from misogyny and domination as a mainstream form of sex.
Prostitution must be criminalized for customers and decriminalized for prostituted women.  Prostitution is not just a job like any other.  Most people in the profession want to leave, but are forced to stay because their pimps threaten them with violence, because they are poor and hungry, or because they were kidnapped and placed in the business against their will.  The only difference between prostitution and rape is that the coercion part of it was done by the pimp or the woman’s circumstances, instead of by the man himself.  Sweden has criminalized prostitution for customers (johns) instead of the prostitutes themselves and has had great success.

The cowardly “all-inclusiveness” in the feminist movement must end immediately. We include those who support our goals. We do not include those who oppose our goals. Such would be including a Hitler Youth organizer in a Jewish rights march.  The reason we have a name for our movement is because we disagree with some beliefs and support others.  We also are not obligated to respect views opposing ours.  We do not respect Wahabbi Islam, religious right-wing nutjobs, the guy at the local Macy’s who calls women “bitches”, rapists who also happen to be good filmmakers, or the Pope.


Radical feminism is not afraid to fight the good fight, break some rules, and ruffle some feathers, because a few offended misogynists are worth our rights.  We are not “good girls” and we’re not dedicated to wasting our time “talking it out” and “educating” people who are opposed to us anymore than we would try to reason with the aggressor in any other war.  We will establish a world in which women are equal to men, in which men don’t prey on women, in which the media doesn’t make women feel ugly and inferior, and in which marriage and monogamy no longer trap women into men’s lives.




In other words, we will establish a world in which women are free from patriarchy and control by men.

Categories: Articles In English, As Opposed to Liberal Feminism, Conservatism/Liberalism, Lesbianism, Marriage/Monogamy, Patriarchy, PIV, Porn/Prostitution, Pragmatic Activism, Radical Feminism, Separatism, Sex | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why liberal and anarchist men are misogynists

It’s been bugging me lately, the question: why are liberal and anarchist groups so anti-woman?  So misogynist.  So rape culture oriented.  At first I though this was just a stereotype, or a fad among the participants, like how teenagers tend to use cell phones more often that adults.  Then I decided I’d better take a closer look.


Boys don’t like authority.  It stifles them, locks them in, controls their behavior, and (ostensibly) protects the weak. Authority reminds them of their first female rulers, their mothers, who kept them on an umbilical leash, then on an emotional one, and likely whacked them when they picked on the girls.  They associate any and all authority with the Feminine, especially since the recent push for big government has included female politicians and feminists.  Even in popular films like Psycho, the female, particularly the mother, the primal authority figure, is the real villain.


Patriarchal media likes to pretend women control and influence their men, but if this were as common as they say, would there be any marital rape or pay inequality?  No.  Besides, this “power” they say women have usually consists of sexual “power”= ability to “seduce”.

All too many of these perverts are liberal, even though a good number are conservative.  A proportionately large number are socialists, democrats, or anarchists, whom you would expect to be more respectful of women.  Nevertheless…Anthony Weiner, who sexted- sent sexual cell phone text messages to- female citizens, is a Democrat.  Dominique Strauss Kahn was a French liberal, and he raped a maid.


Is this a surprise for a liberal man to be this way?  No.  When they scream about “freedom”, they mean freedom for them, not for you.  Men want the freedom to take away your freedom through coerced sex, usually PIV.  They claim you’re not really forced to, it’s just a social expectation. Of course, this is five sentences after complaining that social distaste for porn is a fascist infringement on their freedom of speech.


Boo hoo hoo!  Heaven forbid an authority figure tell me I can’t rape whoever I want!


Politically inclined men are always screaming about “dimmm-moccckk-rraaa-cceeeeeee!!!!” against the tyranny of monarchs- singular, often female authority figures who try to keep “the people”- read: men- from misbehaving.  In fact, one could read the anti-monarchist French Revolution as a giant 1960s, a giganto rebellion against the warm, sticky, “irrational”, idea of monarchy- it’s too family like, really.  Too familiar and warm and unmechanized. It’s not pathologically rational.


For example, the French Revolution was a dood-fit thrown against limits- especially economic ones- imposed by parent figures- often females like Marie Antoinette, who was not the peasant-hater she’s accused of being.

The obsession with “logic” and “objectivity” reminds us of Objectivism, a very pro-capitalist, anti-monarchy, anti-community philosophy- a very MALE philosophy which, surprisingly, was invented by a woman, Ayn Rand.


Now I hate to sound “fascist” here, but sometimes if the majority of a country’s populace misbehaves, then democracies or republics just aren’t desirable.  Like someone once said- I think it was Mark Twain maybe, I don’t know- “Every nation gets the government it deserves.” 

If you misbehave, you bring dictatorship on yourself, because, to the rest of the population, to the minority, you are so odious AND so numerous that freedom would only work in your benefit.  It often becomes necessary for that society to choose a queen or dictator and hope his or her ethics are good and that she is strong enough to change or contain the bad behavior and the misbehavers.  Besides, the men “ask for it”: every time a revolution’s over, they scream “the king is dead! long live the king!”



Here’s a reason “masculine” men might like socialism: THEY see it as a system that rewards the undeserving, like their anti­-socialist parents may have told them…only the boys like that supposed aspect of it.  Many women are conservative and capitalist, FAR more than you would expect to see, given the anti-woman stance of many parts of the Republican party.  Perhaps many of these women support capitalism because they see it as a was to reward the responsible, the good, the mature…and weed out losers and deadbeats.  Unfortunately, like most other systems, capitalism doesn’t punish men for their crimes, but allows them to go Scot-free.

Masculine men only like which political system suits them.   It’s just like with parents- they like Daddy when Daddy’s on their side, and the hate him when he defends little sister when they try to hit her.


I don’t feel the same way about the “democracy is the best system” idea the way most OccuProtesters do.  It was invented by males, inherent to the system of the state, born from bad monarchies and dictatorships, and a system of distribution and organization of goods- it still saw women and animals and children as goods and not as persons.  It’s a big farce designed to make us FEEL more free.  Perhaps democracy in itself isn’t bad, since it’s hard to tell what’s good or not when patriarchy is influencing everything.


The authorities males find acceptable are misogynistic- sort of like how these sorts of men only accept parents and teachers when they benefit the cause of the immature male.  They only accept authority when it’s pro-male.  Take the case of Europe, where men fight for the “freedom” of Muslims to impose Sharia law in their communities.  They’re fine with that.  But laws inEuropeabout verbally abusing your wife? Heaven forbid those stay on the books!  The EU, of course, is not popular with men, it being an all-encompassing entity designed to make European nations into more of a community.  Doesn’t help that it’s headed by many women, like Angela Merkel.  I’m not sure if the EU itself is a force for good, or for feminist good, but I know why men don’t like it- it’s too much like one big family for them, the good kind of family, not the kind of dysfunctional family that men see as analogous to the individual European governments- that is, families that have their sovereignty (read, their right to abuse their members) taken away by a big mommy figure.

The end of religion didn’t mean the end of male authority- it meant the end of the oppressive authority of sky gods and the beginning of the oppressive authority of real gods- men.  Atheists like Richard Dawkins are certainly no less authoritative or oppressive or masculinist and no less misogynist. (see his dismissal of Rebecca Watson’s ordeal) They don’t want less oppression- they want to take the emotion, the spirituality, the human side away from life and strip it naked- raw, hard, scientific, evolutionary male aggression and domination.

The women at Occupy Wall Street fear the Dionysian “freedom” element and prefer the Apollonian order and rationality.  Like conservative women, they instinctively understand that “freedom” and “anarchy” and “avante garde” mean freedom to rape, no government to punish rapists, and bizarre and painful sexual activities.


As you can imagine, many women support the state because it is defensive of them, but many others oppose it because it abuses them and they recognize it as an extension of patriarchy.  But a male anarchist state would still have patriarchy, and it would be uncontrolled, loose.  At least a state has objective rules it has to follow.

“Free speech” is a huge excuse for jerks and doods to unleash hate speech, violent porn, “art” featuring piss or pedophilia (or a combination of those two), and to delude or confuse victims into having very low self worth.

Anarchism, to men, is the freedom to have sex with 13 year olds without complaints from prudish conservative women.

Men’s idea of sex is active, so they’re the only ones who lose out when control is introduced, the way the bully or roughhouser loses out on the playground when the teacher says no hitting allowed.



The Occupy Movement quiets rape victims to protect the movement.  They keep the mic all to themselves.  They are obnoxious and loud; some expose themselves to child protestors.  Occupy dudes find feminism divisive, but not misogyny.  They only call the cops when a rapist gives the movement a bad name.  Somehow, surprisingly, when cops get involved, women still end up getting groped.  One newspaper warned men not to go to OWS in case they get arrested and raped in prison.  “It would be humiliating for her and especially for him…” the paper says.  That’s disgusting.


Men are having a hissy fit because they’re being marginalized by society- treated like girls.   They shriek about the spirit of humanity and how those awful one percenters are oppressing the other white male 14-16%!

The guy who made the video “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall St.” makes rape jokes on his page on FaceBook.  What kind of “humane” world is this?





Another sexuality and politics theory:


Conservatives only allow men to have sex with one woman, so liberal men, in order to trick women into having sex with them, bash the conservatives.  Really, it’s not about the rights of women for either of them.  They both see her as property, only, true to form, the conservative is a robber baron and wants the property in the hands of one person, and the liberal is a damn commie who wants her to belong to everyone (hence the “sexual liberation” excitement).

This is why lots of self-assured men are often conservative- they don’t need the “help” of a fuck-buddy distribution system that the geeky communistic liberals want (seriously now- how many ACTUAL real life geeks are the sexually innocent respectful pals portrayed in movies?)

Oftentimes, the opposite of this whole theory is true.  Many wimpy men are conservative, possibly because they feel like they need a system to keep their “property” from running away.   Either way, they’re masculine men, and masculinity is NOT the healthy natural state of any human being.

Categories: Articles In English, Conservatism/Liberalism, Liberty Doods, Politics and Current Events, Radical Feminism, Sex | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Blog at