Posts Tagged With: america

How 9/11 Masculinized the US

In Susan Faludi’s Terror Dream, she notes that after the 9/11 attacks, which were, ironically, aimed against our country because it was liberal and Westernized, the men in our country went berserk and used the attack as an excuse to force women back into the protected victim role and to turn our male leaders into cartoonized chest banging cowboy heroes.

Stories of women’s heroism in and out of the attacks were ignored and strong women, especially those who made trouble for the government, like the Jersey Girls who questioned the official story of 9/11, were marginalized and branded as outcasts, troublemakers, witches.

.

Here are some select comments from the Amazon.com listing of the book:

,

First, let’s talk about the writing. Faludi is a brilliant writer. She could write about grass growing and make it a great read. There were times, reading her book, where I just had to stop and digest how well she puts things. A number of times, thoughts that she wrote with the beauty of Rumi came to mind.

Now, to the content of the book. Faludi submits a premise which she characterizes by a concept we learn in basic biology– “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” And in her book, she calls the beginning narrative of the book Phylogeny.

The German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, suggested, in this theory, the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny means that as over the short time span of nine months, a fetus, in the womb, goes through ontogenetic phases of development, it recapitulates the stages of development we see as we go up the evolutional scale– phylogenetically, that took billions of years to develop.

So we start, in biology, with single celled, then microscopic organisms, then fish, amphibia, with tails, mammals with tails, until we reach the anthropoid stage.

Faludi suggests that as a nation, we are now recapitulating our early evolutionary stages.

She says, “Haeckel’s hypothesis retains a metaphorical power in the realm of cultural history. The ways that we act, say, in response to a crisis can recapitulate in quick time the centuries-long evolution of our character as a society and of the mythologies we live by. September 11 presented just such a crisis…”

In her beginning section, called ONTOGENY, She does a superb job documenting how, after the 9/11 terrorist attack, there were no obvious heroes. No brave surviving rescuers, no brave fighters, no people who bravely dug through the rubble to discover survivors. It happened so fast, all the rescuers who came to the site either died or got there too late.

So the nation, the media– had to come up with heroes. And they chose pregnant women who lost their mates in the attack. To make this work, the media and right wing groups massively attacked the idea of strong women. Even the fashionistas made frilly the fad.

The fact was that women had played as much a role in rescuing and dying as men. But the strong women who were there, at the WTC site were marginalized and ignored, or even put down and attacked. Their strength didn’t fit the STORY that was being told, being etched into stone by the media.

Faludi gives example after example– in the media, in the fire department, in fashion– how this attack on women relentlessly took place– all to serve to make men feel bigger and stronger.
She writes, “What mattered was restoring the illusion of a mythic America where women needed men’s protection and men succeeded in providing it. What mattered was vanquishing the myth’s dark wrin, the humiliating “terror-dream” that 9/11 forced to the surface of the national consciousness. Beginning with the demotion of independent-minded female commentators, the elevation of “manly men” at ground zero, and the adoration of widowed, pregnant homemakers– that is, a cast of characters caught up in the September 11 trauma– the myth quickly rippled out to counsel- and chastise– the nation at large. Most particularly its women.

Faludi mentions how the “Jersey Girls” strong women who took on president Bush and the congress, demanding a 9/11 inquiry and demanding that Bush and Cheney testify, were attacked as shrill. She reminds us how Rudy Giuliani chided them that they had to “trust our government.” And the Wall Street Journal and other media complained of Jersey Girl fatigue. (I had a chance to meet and later correspond with the Jersey girls. They were heroic, in the true sense of the word. )

After solidly describing the “terror dream” and the myth that was created, or, perhaps, more accurately, resurrected, Faludi takes us back, in her Phylogeny section of the book, to show how early on, strong pioneer women were marginalized, how the books and stories about brave women, the statues were re-told and re-“visioned.”

Because, back in the early days of the settling of America, when pioneers lived in log cabins, they were attacked by the terrorists of the time– the American Indians, who would raid a house, burn it, kill the men and kidnap the women. Some women bravely fought back– successfully. Others adapted, effectively and happily. But those events created stories of weak, ineffective men. That couldn’t be.

So writers actually changed the stories, making the women weak and resurrecting the men who had run away, making them the strong heroes. Back in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, American men re-wrote history to create stories of weak, helpless women.

Putting the Salem witch trials into context, she shows that the women who were accused were independent, strong women, often widows who were not dependent upon men. Strong women were treated as insane, evil, possessed…, wrong.

I’ve been writing in my op-eds, for the past four years, since before the war started, that the right wing in America is engaged in a war against the feminine– not just women, but also the feminine archetype. Jean Shinoda Bolen has written extensively about the need for women and feminine energies to make a difference (in her super book MESSAGE FROM MOTHER; Gather the Women and Save the World) Faludi brilliantly describes just how the weak, pathetic “Stupid White Men” culture that Michael Moore described in his book, of that name, how the media and the right systematically orchestrated this attack on women as strong and heroic.

She says, near the end of the book, “When an attack on home soil causes cultural paroxysms that have nothing to do with the attack, when we respond to real threats to our nation by distracting ourselves with imagined threats to femininity and family life, when we invest our leaders with a cartoon masculinity and require of them bluster in lieu of a capacity for rational calculation, and when we blame our frailty on “fifth column” feminists– in short, when we base our security on a mythical male strength that can only measure itself against a mythical female weakness– we should know that we are exhibiting the symptoms of a lethal, albeit curable, cultural affliction. Our reflexive reaction to 9/11– fantastical, weirdly disconnected from the very real emergency at hand– exposed a counterfeit belief system. It reprised a bogus security drill that divided men from women and mobilized them to the defense of a myth instead of the defense of a country.”

Damn, she nails it. When I had a chance to meet John Kerry, I cryptically said to him, “don’t let Bush be Viagra.” I’ve said for years that Bush, his war, his cowboy idiocy, have all been props the boys in this myth, this terror dream have been projecting upon, so they could salvage their masculinity. Faludi dissects the apparition that infected America’s soul. Having cast light upon it, there is no doubt it will no longer have the power it has previously enjoyed.

She writes, “To not understand the mythic underpinnings of our response to 9/11 is, in a fundamental way, to not understand ourselves, to be so unknowing about the way we inhabit our cultural roles that we are stunned, insensible, when confronted by a moment that requires our full awareness. To fail to comprehend the historical provenance of our reaction, the phylogeny behind our ontogeny, is to find ourselves thwarted in our ability to express what we have undergone…”

The book is a brilliant exploration of aspects of American culture we don’t ordinarily think of. If you like Zinn’s People’s History of the United States, or if you are willing to see America with new eyes, this book could be for you.”

“First things first, I commend Faludi, as always, for her writing style. Faludi’s journalism background has made her books very readable and her latest is no exception. Those who fear a long-winded book full of academic jargon need not be afraid. This is vintage Faludi.

Second, a previous reviewer has dismissed the argument of this book that it’s just human nature the way people respond to such crises. Faludi goes to show us the opposite: human nature includes a survival instinct within us all, male or female but too often, other forces and the need to create heroes brings up a divide between men and women, casting the former as heroes and the latter as the victimized in need of saving. Perhaps this isn’t a new argument, but Faludi brings it new life by comparing the post-9/11 climate to earlier periods in the history of the United States. I had heard of many of the male archetypes referred to here, the Daniel Boones, the Natty Bumppos but I have never read many captivity narratives and to me, this was new ground.

I could have used a bit more in the beginning when Faludi discusses Susan Sontag and Barbara Kingsolver. What those writers said after 9/11 is never quoted in full; I admit feeling a little angry at their comments in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, not because I was bloodthirsty but because they seemed the words of apologists and ill-timed. Then again, that was my emotional response to a day that still haunts me and I’ll never be able to think rationally about it, but it would also cause me to miss Faludi’s point: it’s not so much what they said as the reaction to the women who spoke out as opposed to male commentators who said similar things yet were ignored by the press.

I recommend this book, whether you agree with it or not. As interesting as the first section of the book is, it’s the second that held my interest best. This book will undoubtedly anger some, but it’s worth reading and discussing, adding to an increasing lists of polemics about the current state of the union.”

“The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America, by Susan Faludi, is unsettling.

Let me start with her ending:

“When an attack on home soil causes cultural paroxysms that have nothing to do with the attack, when we respond to real threats to our nation by distrusting ourselves with imagined threats to femininity and family life, when we invest our leaders with a cartoon masculinity and require of them bluster in lieu of a capacity for rational calculation, and when we blame our frailty in ‘fifth column’ feminists – in short, when we base our security on a mythical male strength that can only increase itself against a mythical female weakness – we should know that we are exhibiting the symptoms of a lethal, albeit curable, cultural affliction” (p. 295).

What? And Susan Faludi can make a case for this? As it turns out, however complex this is, Faludi makes a very strong case. There is a smell somewhere in the house, and Faludi attempts to track it down.

Here is the book, in outline form.

1. There was an event we call 9/11.

2. Society at all levels responded to this event.

3. In an extraordinary reversal of the “Rosie the Riveter” phenomenon that redefined the potential for women to hold up this nation, at all levels of society and in all quarters, the post 9/11 phenomena of “manly men” and “perfect virgins” is being forced upon us in entertainment, politics, media coverage, the blogiverse, and unfortunately, journalism.

4. This will have further impacts on society.

Faludi, with the writing and analysis skills I appreciated in her book, Backlash, tackles this topic head-on. My first reaction? Guilt. I was oblivious to the broader issues here. Yet now, I wonder how I could have missed it.

The late Jerry Falwell’s rant against “pagans, abortionists, and feminists” for lifting God’s “veil of protection” from the US apparently had a much wider and receptive audience than I would have guessed.

Here’s what Faludi says:

“In some murky fashion, women’s independence had become implicated in our nation’s failure to protect itself” (p. 21).

The sedition? Women’s liberation “feminized” men. And feminists have emasculated our military’s ability to defend our nation.

I knew it was my fault.

Women writers and speakers seeking to find meaning and lessons in the 9/11 attacks were raked over the coals. Women-authored opinion pieces practically disappeared from view. Author Barbara Kingsolver, crucified in the national press for a quote she never even said, lamented “The response was not the response you would expect toward a child. It was more like we were witches” (p. 32).

And you know how we treat witches.

There was the return of the “supermen” (aka Rumsfeld and Cheney). The women on Flight 93 were forgotten. Tributes to women firefighters were rare. Male victims in the Twin Towers were overshadowed by the wives of these victims [I certainly believe there were many, many victims].

“If women were ineligible for hero status, for what would they be celebrated” (p. 80)? Faludi argues that the role of women in the post-9/11 world was as “perfect virgins of grief.”

The second half of the book is Faludi’s analysis of how American society got to this point. She discusses the historical factors “predisposing” society to a world as defined by the Rush Limbaugh types.

Wait till Limbaugh gets a summary of this book.

The most surprising thing, for me, was that I needed Faludi to sharpen my eyesight. There were things going on around me that perhaps I wasn’t seeing. She gives me glasses that I can use to see for myself whether a post 9/11 world is as “culture bending” as she claims.

What was missing from this book is any kind of response from those who would disagree with her premise.

So, Susan Faludi, thank you for opening my eyes. You will make many people angry. You will make some contemplative. And you will make others active.”

.

I suggest we take a good look at the true underlying forces at work both when our country is under attack AND when it’s not, so we can perhaps move past this silly culture in which women are supposed to be ignored victims and men the heroes.

We should take this day to remember the FEMALE heroes and commentators, the mothers who fight for the truth about the attacks and about our government’s handling of the attacks and of foreign problems, and of course, the innocent women and children who are killed every day in the Middle East, both by our troops and by their own bloodthirsty men.  For all we talk about Osama and how he had his wives, there are hundreds of women being beaten every day by their husbands here in the west.

For 9/11 and the resulting era did not constitute any “new” kind of war, but the same old war we’ve all been forced to endure: men’s war against women.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Categories: Articles In English, Femininity, Gender, History and Political, Masculinity, Politics and Current Events, Radical Feminism, Silencing Women | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Are women’s rights in our society going to last?

“A backlash against women’s rights is nothing new in American history…It returns every time women begin to make some headway toward equality…” says Susan Faludi, on page 46 of Backlash.

She says people who view the feminist revolution as a straight line getting better and better over time, rather than a cycle that goes back and forth, up and down.

 

I’ve recently started to be haunted by a terrible thought…perhaps our current liberation in only a tiny peak sandwiched in the middle of a sea of oppression- one in the past, and perhaps one in the future.  Hearing about this, about how women’s liberation has been existent in the past and has come and gone, rather than progressed in a straight line, this really started to worry me: is our current liberation permanent…or is it just a tiny speck in a huge sea of darkness and oppression?

Is there really anything special about the present, compared to the rest of history? Are we really safe for good or are we going to cycle around again…into another Dark Ages?

On the next page she says these backlashes we are seeing against women’s rights are a normal historical occurrence, like the financial penalties ancient Rome gave to unmarried or childless mothers, or the charges of heresy against early women disciples of Christ, or the witch killing in the medieval era.

She guesses that maybe since American culture isn’t founded on class distinctions, maybe men clung to the idea of male supremacy to elevate themselves socially.  Who knows? Sounds like a good theory to me.  She says on page 48 that free women in America usually just used their freedom to choose to go back into dependence again, and that nearly a good half of all the anti-feminist books were written by women.

 

Recently, the driving force behind the brainwashing of women to make them willfully choose to be subservient to men has been popular culture peddled by the mass media, Faludi says.  The Victorian Era- the middle to late 19th Century- was when this all kind of started.

.

I’m getting especially worried about the very current backlash against women’s rights, from Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Rush Limp-baugh, and others.  Will they send us back to a new Dark Ages?  Don’t say “but that was a million years ago!  We are civilized now!” because if you look at history, lots of times the most uncivilized periods were preceded by periods that were highly civilized and tolerant.

I sure hope this current 20th-21st Century trend of women’s liberation isn’t just a speck among misogyny of the past…and misogyny of the future.  I hope that this time, for good, we can be liberated.

 

.

 

 

Categories: Articles In English, History and Political, Radical Feminism | 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

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.