Liberty Doods

Things I’ve Noticed About Patriarchy and its Sicknesses

-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. 

Advertisements
Categories: Articles In English, Femininity, Gender, History and Political, Homosexuality/LGBT, Liberty Doods, Male Bonding, Masculinity, Patriarchy, PIV, Porn/Prostitution, Race and Ethnicity, Radical Feminism, Sex | Tags: , , , | 6 Comments

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

Men, Monarchy, and Political Science

We’re all taught (at least in the US) that the American Revolution and the Enlightenment (the rediscovery of Classical/ancient Roman culture and science) were the most important and wonderful thing ever to happen in history and that we were all a bunch of savages before they occurred.

Monarchy, to our American mindset, is an irrational evil, a trip back to the old barbaric days when kings and queens could do whatever they wanted and squash the population and take all their money.  I definitely disagree with those kind of monarchs, and I don’t necessarily agree with monarchy itself.  But I’ve been wondering why men tend to hate it so much, specifically the Ron Paul libertarian, America robots that are gaining ground in the political scene.

These liberty-bots scream about how AWESOME “diim-moooocckk-rrraaa-sseeeeeeee!!!” is and it would seem to make sense, that people should live in freedom, but there is a darker side to their cries.  They seem to hate monarchy and want democracy or republic or whichever they want for the wrong reasons.

Look at what monarchy is: a system in which a family or person governs a country, often with special respect for local cultural beliefs and “subjective” opinions.  It is not a disembodied “system”, but is a structure in which a ruler has a close emotional and familial relationship with her or his subjects, as the parent of a country rather than an emotionally distant “just business” leader.  To men, it’s “illogical” to have monarchy, and the succession method of choosing the child of a ruler as the next ruler.

Yes, it would be illogical to claim the child of a ruler would necessarily be able to govern as well as its parent.  But maybe the goal of a monarchy isn’t merely to govern, but to establish a familial or culturally cherished entity as the top of a nation or group of people.

If someone has a different goal than you, that doesn’t mean they’re being illogical.  Men like to argue this way: if you are trying to reach goal B, and they are trying to reach goal A, they call your strategies and attempts to reach your goal “illogical”, because  you wouldn’t be able to reach their goal, goal A, that way.

For example, if you are trying to reach Goal B, which is to establish a monarchy in order to establish a relationship with your people and put some culture in your government and keep up a beloved tradition, they say this is illogical……because you wouldn’t be able to reach their goal, goal A, which is to dispassionately govern the dry economic and military systems of the nation.

When they say, therefore, that you’re being “illogical”, what they really mean is that they don’t want to admit that maybe you have a different goal than they do, because they are too selfish to admit that someone doesn’t share theirs.  They purposely don’t want to admit that you even HAVE a different goal or opinion than they do, so they just say, “Humph!  That’s not the way to reach MY goal properly!”  Assholes.

Anyway, this is what men do in response to the monarchy question.  They refuse to admit that the cold, hard, mechanized job a government can do might not be the ONLY job it can do.  And they would NEVER admit that a governing body can do something integrated and complex like fulfill TWO functions at once, such as the economic/mechanical function AND the emotional/familial/cultural one!

(perhaps this is why little girls are so preoccupied with princesses- they like beauty, rules, culture, family, monarchy, protection, etc)

.

Ayn Rand’s Objectivism espouses individualism and enshrines capitalism and liberty as proper societal and governmental virtues.  She routinely used the word “savage” and mocked such “irrational” and small-town things as folk music, religion, spiritualism, tribal art, and naturalism.  She preferred to look at the skyscrapers instead of the stars.  She highly praised individualism and stressed that charity should NOT be seen as a moral necessity, but rather as a personal choice.

Ayn Rand, a woman, was born in the Soviet Union, a repressive totalitarian state, so we can forgive her for obsessing over these particular values since they were the opposite of the values she was oppressed under, and since her philosophy does have some rather good points.  But we cannot excuse the purposeful ignorance of the young, upstart white male crowd who use her philosophy to justify their selfish and anti-community behavior.

The Objectivists, the Ron Paul freaks, and the dimmocccraceeee loons are often in conflict with each other on nonessential issues, but they all subconsciously agree on one thing: the subjugation or ignoring of women.  Obstetrician Ron Paul is anti-abortion, and 89% of his donors were men.  The democracy loons are annoyed that Mommy government won’t let them do whatever they want.  Objectivism, though it believes in equality, isn’t able to integrate what women truly  need with its philosophy, which has holes in it that prevent the understanding of how oppression works.

Men, Ron Paul bots, and Objectivism support capitalism and anti-monarchist beliefs and all such “logical” masculine ideas.  Our Founding Fathers, whom they adore, were obsessed with instituting “freedom” from the “tyranny” of a “monster” that taxed his colony about %3.  What did they do once they won that “freedom”?  Because the people didn’t want to pay taxes, Washington squashed the Whiskey Rebellion with more troops than were used in the entire Revolutionary War!  “The King is dead; long live the King!” is always their battle cry.  It wasn’t about freedom for everyone.  It was about their freedom to dominate women, beat slaves, and indoctrinate children.

The reason they hate monarchy is because they are not in control.  They cannot manipulate the ruler of the country, the daddy- or, shudder, mommy- into giving them everyone else’s money and power.  In a democracy, they can trick the idiot population into voting itself into slavery, but with a monarchy, a sole figure is in charge who can stop their whims.  Worst of all, this figure might be a woman, who is going to really lord it over them and make them respect others.

Men are fine with laws against insulting Muslims and fear anyone trying to invade “the sanctity of the family” but they are allergic to laws about insulting your wife, hate speech, and sexism.  Just as they want “freedom” for George Washington to own slaves, they want “freedom” for Muslims to impose Sharia law on their families and communities, and freedom for a retarded inbred redneck to sexually molest his daughter.  They are hysterically opposed to the EU and the United Nations (unless they get to control it) because the EU (headed by a woman, I believe, Angela Merkel) is trying to control Europe “like Hitler” and impose extremely unfair rules against people pushing each other around (and they’re pro-Jewish!!!  Oh no!!)

.

.

Part of the opposition to monarchy, authority, and community is an opposition to the idea that the personal is the political.  Men don’t want the personal- women’s issues, their mothers, childhood rules, familiarity, emotion- to follow them into the political.  They don’t want to have to bother with the complaining women at home, so they set up politics as a tool to help them create their own man-spaces (the market, war, “freedom” in various issues, forcing women to stay home), and sometimes the political establishment itself isn’t only a tool for setting up these spaces, it IS those spaces!  (recall the Congressional showers, homosexual relations with male pages, baths and homosexuality in the Roman days, etc).

Men choose to see things in linear, unconnected terms.  Black and white, you might say.  This is why they refuse to admit that the personal is the political.  They refuse to understand that it’s not separate, but that the two concepts gradually blend into each other, the way white blends into black via gray.  But men choose to see things as simplistic so they can separate concepts when they want to ignore one or the other (like ignoring the personal).

Politics, to them, is NOT personal, but has to do with governing things, not people- money, military equipment, technology, legal structures.  Personal things like equality,  justice,  jobs, the arts, culture, are not considered “important”, even though they directly affect more people than dry legalistic matters do.  But even here they are hypocrites: they claim to want to focus only on these dry matters and ignore personal ones, yet they go and draft tons of laws that focus directly on the personal: laws allowing wife beating, laws about clothing and rape, laws allowing child abuse.  Not to mention the fact that when women come into politics, they act the same way towards them as they do at home, they act out their psychological hatred and fear of them, therefore THEY are the ones who are bringing their own personal feelings into politics.  Men are afraid women will enforce rules against their misbehavior, just they way they do at home.

 

“Masculine” men almost instinctively bristle at this mention of the word “misbehavior”- they recognize it as an admission that the personal is the political.  Words like “misbehavior”, “bad,” “deserve,”- it reminds them of home, of mother, or that umbilical leash they try to wriggle away from.  They don’t like this encroachment of the personal sphere into the political sphere.  “Oh, no!  I thought I got away from this!” they moan, when they realize their childish scheme to reject their mothers and their homes and the personal sphere predictably falls apart.

They had hoped the personal wouldn’t follow them into the political, and put up barriers- on female suffrage, birth control, working women-  to keep it at home, protected, enclosed- they are unsurprisingly upset when people, families, feelings, needs, wants, hopes, dreams, and the dreaded Feminine come to knock at the Capitol doors.  When they speak of “protection” of the family, we can conclude they can only mean their protection from the family.  Big strong men indeed.  Politics isn’t serious business for them, it’s just a boys’ club.   Not an important mechanism for ruling a society.  A boys’ club.  Repulsive.

 

Men oppose laws against speech because they dread the idea that the personal is the political, and vice versa. They hate the idea that the state is just an overgrown nanny who won’t let them pick on others. They see laws curtailing the exercise of speech, and they scowl “I thought I escaped that when I grew up and moved out of the house!!” because they resent the fact that “personal” rules- like rules against teasing, lying, etc- are encroaching on their “political” world, which they thought was a dood-haven protecting them from rules, fairness, and nagging mothers.

 

 

They need this dualistic, illogical, and unsustainable divide between personal and political because they don’t want their mothers creeping up into their space.

 

.

 

The obsession with capitalism versus communism is also due to personal psychological problems on the part of “masculine” men.  They start out as capitalists, confident in their own abilities to work and manipulate the market in their favor.  Then when they get older, maybe age 22, they realize what losers they are and become socialists or communists, because they think socialism and communism mean taking from the responsible and giving to the irresponsible.

 

But perhaps it’s just another dood-fit, and since they see capitalism as an authority figure, and they direct their anger at that.  Who knows, maybe in Soviet Russia naughty young boys, full of angst, saw communism as an authority and capitalism as rebellious!

 

They may see communism as a system to help the “little guy”; in this case, it helps the little guy get women, whom they want to see as objects.   They want the same right to women, as property, as the rich robber baron capitalists have.   They may go the opposite direction when they get the woman- they are now conservative because they don’t want anyone to take her now that he’s got her, just as rich people become capitalist conservatives now that they don’t want anyone taking their money.

,

But there’s always a thread of freedom in there, whether they’re capitalist or communist; there’s always this fear of themselves being governed.  This selfish mistrust of government shows up in pop culture as well.   Look at all the detective or murder movies out there:

 

The masculine, intelligent male always senses that the neighbor or the local butcher or the school teacher or some other seemingly innocuous citizen is some horrible terrorist or enemy, and needs to be taken out.  His crying nervous hysterical wife never believes him- oh, that deadweight, mission crushing bitch!

 

The wife, who tries to reason with her husband, to get him to see that the neighbor or barber or whoever is just a normal person, SHE is seen as the irrational one, the one who needs to wake up.  This is how patriarchy sees things: an enemy everywhere, and the more normal they act, the craftier their conspiracy must be.  They need to be killed.

 

Noooo, not by the cops or by a cooperative of citizens!  Mr/Mrs Villain needs to be killed by the lone male hero, whose spoilsport wife wants to wimpishly force him to make peace for no other reason than…well…than that she hates violence because she’s a wimp.

 

Of course, then comes the epiphany for Mrs Hero, when she finds out the conspiracy or whatever is true, and that the suspect in fact WAS the villain.  Now crying in fear and embarrassment, she learns the husband was right, and calls him, talks to him, hugs him, gives him makeup sex.  Maybe she even gets threatened or held hostage or perhaps killed by the enemy to teach her a little lesson about letting her evil pacifist feminine side take over.

 

Of course, the policemen are all pathetic and don’t believe the male hero, and neither do any female nurses or psychologists (if the hero gets committed)- the government and the community are not to be trusted.  This is how the movies, collaborating with patriarchy, make citizens afraid of each other, and put down women.

 

.

As we can see, the introduction of masculine philosophy into politics is dangerous and causes childish political behavior and mistrust of important laws and authority.

 

.

 

How much longer is it until men institute either a fascist state, or an anarchist Dionysian rape fest?

Categories: ...and the Arts, Articles In English, Liberty Doods, Politics and Current Events, Radical Feminism | 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 WordPress.com.