Posts Tagged With: culture

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

Les femmes qui aiment d’autres femmes

J’ai écrit ce pamphlet en 2012 avec l’intention de le remettre aux enfants des écoles 10-18 ans. Je m’excuse pour le mauvais français.

Les femmes qui aiment d’autres femmes

Pourquoi faut-il les femmes tomber en amour avec les hommes? La plupart des hommes sont égoïstes, sexiste, et abusive. Les hommes bons sont difficiles à trouver. Peut-être que nous devrions tomber en amour avec les femmes. Les femmes ne vous déteste pour être une femme, les femmes sont beaucoup moins susceptibles d’verbalement et sexuellement abuser de vous, les femmes ne vous imprégner contre votre volonté. Peut-être que vous avez les attractions à des amis ou des célébrités féminines, mais vous n’avez jamais réalisé que vous pourriez aimer une autre femme. Société cherche à rendre les femmes tomber en amour avec les hommes parce que les hommes à utiliser les femmes pour le sexe. La société veut aussi à maintenir les femmes en dehors de chacune des femmes d’autres ne peuvent donc pas se casser ou échapper au contrôle des hommes. Alors, pourquoi ne pas essayer quelque chose de nouveau?

Les mythes, les faits, et questions:


Les lesbiennes sont laides et masculin.
Pas toutes les lesbiennes sont masculines. Beaucoup sont très “féminine” (ce que notre société appelle «féminin»). Certaines relations lesbiennes se composent de partenaires féminines, dont certaines se composent de partenaires masculins, et certains couples d’avoir un partenaire hommasse et un partenaire féminin.Chacun est différent.


Les lesbiennes sont toujours en colère parce qu’ils ne savent pas combien il est merveilleux d’avoir des rapports sexuels avec des hommes.
Une lesbienne est une femme qui est attirée par les femmes, non attirés par les hommes. Avoir des relations sexuelles avec des hommes ne serait pas merveilleux pour elle. Pas toutes les lesbiennes sont en colère. Certains sont très heureux. Ils sont tous les individus comme tout le monde. La petite quantité de personnes gays et lesbiennes qui sont souvent en colère sont en colère parce qu’ils sont maltraités par des préjugés les personnes hétérosexuelles.


Accepter les lesbiennes dans la société va considérablement changer les structures des relations normales.
Oui. C’est notre intention. Nous voulons du changement. Le monde est horrible en ce moment. Les femmes sont le seul groupe démographique dans le monde qui ont bien voulu vivre avec le groupe qui opprime les hommes eux-. La plupart des hommes dans le monde sont dangereux et égoïste. Société oblige la femme à épouser un homme et vivre à l’écart de sa famille et d’autres femmes. Cette causent un grave préjudice aux femmes. La structure du mariage (un homme, une femme, vivant seule dans une maison), il est plus facile pour les maris à abuser des femmes et des enfants sans familles des femmes les empêchent. Pour les femmes dans les pays pauvres, le lesbianisme est la liberté.L’hétérosexualité signifie être contraint à l’esclavage sexuel à un mari et faire maison épuisante ou travail sur le terrain. Au lieu de vivre avec les hommes, les femmes devraient vivre dans tous les groupes de femmes-avec quelques hommes de bien (la minorité d’hommes). La plupart des hommes doivent vivre à l’extérieur de cette société. C’est ainsi que les éléphants et les lions vivent, de sorte qu’il n’est pas anormal. Les hommes bons doivent être les pères et les AMOUT grand nombre d’hommes mauvais (les violeurs, les tueurs en série, femme-agresseurs, misogynes) disparaîtront. La monogamie ne sera plus nécessaire, mais les gens seront libres de le choisir. Depuis les hommes méchants seront éteintes, les hommes de ne pas utiliser les femmes pour le sexe. Ils ne avoir des relations sexuelles avec quelqu’un à cause de l’amour. Notre politique actuelle du mariage one-man/one-woman est le mal. Il ya très peu de bons hommes et les femmes ne sont pas en mesure de partager eux-femmes doivent accepter les hommes horribles ou abusif.


Comment les gens vont avoir des enfants?
Les femmes ont des rapports sexuels avec des hommes pour amener les enfants, et parfois pour le plaisir, mais le lesbianisme sera plus répandue qu’elle ne l’est aujourd’hui. Les femmes, surtout les mères, devraient faire l’objet de la société, et les hommes ou les femmes d’autres devraient les aider. Les enfants doivent être enseignés par toute la communauté, pas à l’intérieur d’une famille, dans laquelle la mère doit faire tout le travail. Les femmes n’auront pas à associer à un seul homme parce qu’il est le père de son enfant. Lorsque les femmes épousent des hommes et vivent à l’intérieur d’une famille hétérosexuelle, ils travaillent à l’intérieur de la maison et ne sont pas payés, mais les hommes sont payés pour travailler à l’extérieur de la maison. Les femmes ne devraient pas avoir à être dans une relation avec un homme simplement parce qu’il est le père de son enfant e. Les femmes devraient avoir des relations avec d’autres femmes et d’élever des enfants ensemble, et de l’hétérosexualité sera moins fréquente. Les hommes qui aiment les organes sexuels des femmes au lieu de leur personnalité ne seront pas autorisés à avoir des relations sexuelles avec les femmes.


Lesbianisme et les femmes qui séparent des hommes est une idée très nouvelle et différente.
Ce n’est pas vrai. Des milliers d’années auparavant, avant que les hommes ont commencé haïr les femmes, et avant ils ont inventé le patriarcat, les femmes étaient les dirigeants de la société. Société aimé et respecté des hommes, mais les hommes ne sont pas supérieurs aux femmes et les hommes n’ont pas été au centre de la société.


Lesbiennes devez utiliser godes ou autres objets en forme de pénis à avoir des relations sexuelles.
Pas toutes les lesbiennes profiter d’une pénétration du pénis et des objets de forme. Le assumtion que toutes les lesbiennes ont besoin pénis ou pénis-objets en forme de se contenter est offensant.Toutes les femmes ont besoin des hommes pour être heureux.Certaines lesbiennes n’aiment pas être pénétré. C’est une préférence personnelle. «Sexe» ne signifie pas nécessairement mettre un pénis dans un vagin. Le sexe peut aussi inclure le sexe oral, de toucher le clitoris, ou de stimuler les mamelons. Une personne n’a pas besoin de pénétrer ou être pénétré à-dire qu’ils ont eu des rapports sexuels. Il est également offensante pour penser que les femmes n’ont pas les organes génitaux externes.Les femmes ont le clitoris, les lèvres, et un mont de Vénus, et parfois ils peuvent être utilisés pour la pénétration, si les partenaires profiter d’une pénétration. Il n’est pas vrai que tous les hommes ont des pénis de gros et que toutes les femmes ont des clitoris de petites ou grandes lèvres. Tous les pénis sont plus grandes que le clitoris des femmes et des lèvres. Certains pénis sont grandes, et certains sont de petite taille. Certains clitoris et des lèvres sont grosses, d’autres sont de petite taille. La taille n’a rien à voir avec un homme ou une femme. Mâle et femelle ont été créés pour la reproduction, et la taille n’a rien à voir avec le sperme et les œufs.


Devrais-je devenir lesbienne?
Vous pouvez faire ce que vous voulez. Il est bon d’ouvrir vos options. Il est difficile pour la plupart des gens à changer leur sexualité, mais il peut être utile à la difficulté, puisque la plupart des hommes ne sont pas adaptés pour une relation amoureuse. Si vous ne pouvez pas devenir lesbienne, vous n’avez pas besoin de se forcer. Si vous êtes dans une relation avec un homme, assurez-vous qu’il est doux et bon.


Suis-je lesbienne?
Peut-être. Vous pouvez avoir les attractions à amies, camarades de classe, des gens avec qui vous travaillez, des actrices, ou personnages de dessins animés même. Vous pourriez être complètement indifférent chez les hommes ou les détester.


Quelles sont les conséquences de devenir une lesbienne ou dire aux gens que je suis un?
Il dépend de la quantité au niveau de votre société de tolérance pour l’homosexualité. Souvent, dans l’hémisphère occidental, vous serez respecté. Malheureusement, les lesbiennes sont mal traités par certaines personnes, en particulier les religieux conservateurs, et les gens qui soutiennent le patriarcat. Si vous pensez que vous serez blessé, gardez vos sentiments pour vous, mais ne pas essayer de changer qui vous êtes, parce que vous finirez par misérable. Essayez de trouver des groupes internet ou les organisations qui vous acceptent.

Où puis-je obtenir de l’aide si je décide de sortir en tant que lesbienne ou devient-on?
Une organisation française gay est nommé SOS Homophobie et son site Web est Si vous ne voulez pas que vos parents ou frères et sœurs de savoir que vous contacté l’organisation, vous pouvez utiliser votre téléphone cellulaire ou par courriel sur un ordinateur commun.


Sont des sociétés plus heureux s’ils acceptent les lesbiennes et si elles changer les structures injustes de mariage?
Oui. Dans une relation lesbienne, il n’y a pas d’influence masculine, le patriarcat donc est affaibli par toutes les relations lesbiennes.Les hommes qui font le mal n’auront pas la possibilité d’enseigner à leurs fils d’être le mal. Il ya 7 milliards de personnes dans le monde et il est surpeuplé. Il n’y a pas assez de recources pour tout le monde. Les lesbiennes sont plus susceptibles d’adopter des enfants que de donner naissance. L’autre option pour les femmes est d’épouser des hommes et leurs ventres réglementé comme matrices des animaux de la ferme. (Sociétés jamais réguler les organes de reproduction des hommes).


Est-il impossible de changer votre sexualité?
Pour certaines personnes, il est impossible. Pour d’autres, il n’est pas. La plupart des gens ne peuvent pas perdre une attraction sexuelle une fois qu’ils l’ont, mais la plupart des gens peuvent acquérir une attraction supplémentaire s’ils essaient. Il est plus difficile d’ignorer une attraction que vous avez déjà que d’en acquérir un nouveau. Parfois, les hommes hétérosexuels dire aux femmes l’hétérosexualité est naturelle et qu’il est impossible de changer parce qu’ils veulent tromper les lesbiennes à avoir des relations sexuelles avec eux. “Il est naturel. Viens dans mon lit! ”


Est-ce la sexualité causée par la génétique ou de l’ADN ou de la nature ou de quelque chose de semblable?
Attractions n ° sont des choses abstraites et de la génétique est une chose physique. Les choses physiques ne peuvent pas provoquer des choses abstraites. Pulsions sexuelles pourraient être causés par des procédés physiques, mais qui vous êtes attiré par ce qui est causé par l’intérieur dans votre esprit. Parfois, l’esprit ne peut pas être changé. Parfois, il peut.


Pourquoi la société remarquerez lesbiennes inférieure à ce qu’elle remarque les hommes gais?
La plupart des sociétés ne respectent pas les femmes et ne veulent pas croire qu’ils apprécient le sexe autant que les hommes apprécient le sexe. Ils disent que tout le monde que les lesbiennes ne sont pas naturels. Une autre raison peut être que les hommes pensent que les hommes, même les autres hommes gais-sont plus importants que les femmes et les hommes depuis de contrôler la plupart des médias et des nouvelles, ils paient plus d’attention aux gays que des lesbiennes.

Pourquoi la plupart des hommes détestent les lesbiennes?
Si une femme n’a de relations sexuelles avec d’autres femmes, les hommes perdent la possibilité de l’utiliser pour le sexe. Certains hommes accusent les lesbiennes de haïr les hommes, parce que les lesbiennes n’ont pas des rapports sexuels avec des hommes.C’est immature, ils disent: «Vous me haïssez parce que vous ne me donner ce que je veux!” Ils haïssent aussi les lesbiennes parce que les lesbiennes ne sont pas contrôlées par un mari ou leur partenaire masculin.

Pourquoi la plupart des hommes détestent les hommes homosexuels?
Les hommes homophobes ont peur que s’ils ont des rapports sexuels avec des hommes, ils vont être lésés de la même manière qu’ils nuire aux femmes. Peut-être qu’ils le méritent!


Qu’est-ce que “viol correctif”?
“Viol correctif”, c’est quand un homme ou un groupe d’hommes et de violer une femme blessée à essayer de la forcer à être hétérosexuel, ou pour la punir d’être une lesbienne. Viol correctives se produit très souvent en Afrique, et les filles sont souvent victimes de viols collectifs ou forcée à épouser des hommes adultes. Ces hommes de les violer à l’intérieur du mariage. Il arrive aussi en Amérique. Une lesbienne qui entre dans un bar ou autres lieux publics pourrait être suivie et “corrigée” par les hommes. Dans le monde entier, de nombreuses lesbiennes sont battu, torturé, violé, ont jeté l’acide au visage, désavoué, tué, ou forcée à épouser des hommes. Cependant, en Amérique et en Europe il ya beaucoup de collectivités sûres et les organisations qui ne déteste pas les lesbiennes et les femmes.

Que dois-je faire si quelqu’un essaie de me punir d’être une lesbienne?
Contacter SOS, Act Up, ou d’une autre gay ou de l’organisation des femmes, et si vous pensez que quelqu’un va commettre des violences contre vous, contactez un refuge pour femmes dans une ville voisine et d’obtenir un avocat. Assurez-vous que l’avocat ne déteste pas les lesbiennes et les femmes. Si vous ne pouvez pas faire cela, dites un bon enseignant ce qui se passe dans votre maison. Personne ne devrait essayer de changer votre sexualité ou vous abuser. Si quelqu’un essaie de te violer, lui signaler immédiatement et d’obtenir un avocat qui tente d’aider les femmes et les lesbiennes.

Categories: Foreign Language (Translations), Francais, Lesbianism, PIV, Pragmatic Activism, Radical Feminism, Separatism, Sex, Woman's Nation | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What I Wouldn’t Give For More Feminine Girls!

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of seeing “feminist” girls going around in tough boyish clothes and acting like unemotional bullies.  They’re joining the Army, getting “masculine” jobs, and beheading their Barbies.   In short, I’m tired of seeing girls act like boys.


I thought feminism meant the embettering of women’s lives.  What could be better than allowing a woman to be free to act like a human being- a cultured, loving, artistic, beauty-loving person- instead of like the subhuman ones who want to destroy beautiful things?  Is it really feminist to adopt the oppressive and life-hating characteristics of “masculine’ society?

Such things as love, romance, color, kindness, sparkles, and beauty are not feminine things.  They are human things.  But patriarchy has made them feminine, by deciding that the definition of being masculine means to hate them or leave them behind.  Rather, it’s not so much that patriarchy has made lovable things feminine, as much as it has made the hatred of them masculine.


Innocent little girls and boys are beaten up or psychologically abused because they like the “wrong” types of movies, books, music, and activities.  The liberal feminists’ solution is to make girls cold and hard and uncultured, like boys are made to be.  They want girls to join the Army, act like tough girls at the gyno and talk casually about medical topics, make crude jokes, throw away their Barbies and their pink clothes, watch ridiculous action movies, be unoffended by actual misogyny…and belittle other women.




It’s hard not to be disappointed when you meet the young daughter of a friend who is a student or whatever, and you are dying to talk about some feminine topic with her- either clothing, or movies you like, or how horrible sex and boys are…and she just doesn’t care.  Or worse, she’s a funfem.  Sometimes they simply don’t care about the damage sex and abuse does to them.  It’s like they don’t even have human nature.  Sure, you understand that they might not have analyzed the political aspects of feminism.  That’s believable.  But how can they not have instincts, feelings, wants and needs?  Don’t they dislike being called Bitch, Hoe, and being pushed around by boyfriends and their culture?


Sometimes you are longing for a young friend who will just listen to your wisdom and understand the almost simplistic truths about the gender war and the hatred of girls and humanness, called “femininity”.

Categories: Articles In English, Femininity, Radical Feminism | Tags: , , , , , | 4 Comments

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 Does Everyone Hate Justin Bieber?

Justin Bieber is hated because he makes girls happy.  Simple as that.  He is hated by the media, internet commenters, and men, because he makes girls happy.  He makes music that’s simple and love-oriented, rather than sex-oriented, and he has a charming babyface, no doubt inspiring jealousy among many teenage boys and adult men who want to bed the young girls.
Britney Spears was hated because she appealed to girls.  The Spice Girls are mocked- a joke goes, “what do you call 5 dogs with no balls? The Spice Girls.”  Lady Gaga?  She challenges gender roles.  Backstreet Boys and NSync?  “Stupid bubblegum pop”.

Young men tend to prefer indie music to “shit” like Justin Bieber.  They like avante garde crap because it’s independent, individual.  They correctly see pop music as a sort of social bonding mechanism, so they don’t like it.  They also like anime…they like it because it’s often cold.  It’s not often emotional, or wholesome.  It’s offbeat, it’s dead-behind-the-eyes…of course, depending on the particular cartoon.  (I’m actually a big fan of many animes.)   This worship of lifelessness is also why they like rock music and action movies.


I used to do this culture-loving thing with men I obsessed over- I gradually made them over in my mind to be cultured, colorful, peacocky, emotional, quirky.  I did this to literally every man I fell for.  Of course, when I saw or talked to the man again, I would find out the truth about the extent of his lack of culture and color, and I resented him for it.  He’d see this resentment, and get mad at me and call me a stupid girl.


Girls are expected to accept any stupid stereotypes boys wish to abide by, including hating reading, hating scented candles, hating intellectuality, hating history, hating colors, hating anyone who recognizes whether or not something’s Egyptian cotton…

Women who expect their men not to act like overgrown children are called bitches and masculinity-haters, and are mocked for their own interests, which are deemed feminine, whether or not they actually are feminine according to their culture.

Women are the ones who suffer from this drive to rip men away from the intellectual, the cultured, the artistic, the human. This whole deculturizing of men, this is unfair to WOMEN.


Justin Bieber is a teenager, a kid.  Of course he has feminine features. The Spice Girls and Lady Gaga are ridiculed as ugly even though neither the group nor Lady Gaga are ugly.  The Spice Girls are all classically attractive.  Lady Gaga dresses oddly, but she isn’t really ugly, and I haven’t noticed her rocking male or butch or masculine outfits any more than she rocks any other style.  So when men say “they’re ugly”, what I take it to mean is that strong, talented, liberated women are ugly.


As for Justin Bieber- heaven forbid a young kid like him steal the hearts of the 12 year old girls these men want to rape.  And heaven forbid should he get away with being cute, innocent, and unthreatening…in other words, in their dictionary…girly.  Justin Bieber is not “girly”. He’s Justin Bieber, a pubescent teenager, a child, whose face and voice haven’t matured yet due to his age, not his gender identity or sexuality.  Men don’t like him because he appeals to girls, and, I suppose, by default, that means he is girly.


When girls like Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, or whoever, boys have no right to judge that.  They also have no right to make comments about the personal life and the sexuality of a public figure for the purpose of making degrading statements.

Categories: ...and the Arts, Articles In English, Radical Feminism, Uncultured Men | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Why Titanic Is Considered a “Women’s” Film






Plot Spoiler Ahead.





Titanic is a grand-scale epic by James Cameron about the sinking of the ship and about a young woman, Rose DeWitt Bucater (Kate Winslet) who falls for a poor artist, Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) while on board, rejecting her family and her evil fiancé, Caledon Hockley (Billy Zane).  After the ship sinks, the two lovers escape together but Jack dies, leaving Rose to abandon her past life and live as he suggested, by following her heart.  It is one of my all time favorite movies.

Rose is attractive but doesn’t have the typical model figure.  She is not large, but is a healthy weight, and has a lovely face, unlike the popular actresses and “fuckable” models of today.   Her costumes are lovely and colorful, and though they are often uncomfortable looking, they are enjoyable to look at, unlike the chrome colored crap the “heroines” of mainstream action films wear.   The costumes, colors, and music in the film are vivid and romantic, a rejection of the “masculine” norm of being unemotional and uncultured.

Technology symbolizes masculinity in the film, and often in real life.  Technology is something you use to conquer nature, and something you associate with our world’s idea of masculinity.  The Titanic is all about SIZE and the male preoccupation with it, as Rose says.

The film lampoons the sexist behavior of the men by portraying them as knowing what they’re doing is wrong.  It doesn’t try to go all existentialist and avante garde and say that there are two sides to every story, you have to look at things from a different point of view, no one’s really evil, it was a different time and place blah blah blah.

Titanic portrays very strong women, like Kathy Bates’ Unsinkable Molly Brown and Rose, and portrays only the upper class men as disrespectful towards women but not poor men, since the lower class is synonymous with femininity, and therefore is the butt of the male establishment’s hatred.  (I don’t see it as a case of masking the fact that masculinity is the problem by presenting lower class men as “better” or making it an economic issue rather than a male hatred issue).

One night, Rose tries to commit suicide by jumping off the back of the ship, and Jack talks her out of it.  As she comes back over the railings, she slips and almost goes overboard.  She screams and the ship authorities come running, just as Rose falls on the ground, her dress hiked up and Jack standing over her.  Of course, they assume it’s a rape scene, because underneath, they all know many, if not most men are emotionally capable of it.  Rose says she slipped trying to see the propellers and they mock her for being womanly and such.

Jack isn’t afraid of the female body, and draws pictures of prostitutes and other women, including an elderly woman who waits for her lost lover.  He doesn’t have love affairs with the women he draws- only with some of their hands.  He’s more of a personality guy.

By falling in love with Jack, Rose makes a romantic and sexual choice of her own volition, and she chooses an acceptable, enlightened, unbigoted man, who is fun to boot.  Jack is protective, but not because he’s a man; rather, because he’s been more exposed to the world and knows the ropes.  It also speaks volumes that she chooses a man below her power level, a man who supposedly isn’t as “biologically attractive” (strong, domineering) as a rich man.  It means she chooses out of love, not out of the wish to replicate an irrational fetishized power structure.

One night, Jack invites Rose down to a third class party with wild Irish music and beer, where she shows off her toughness by standing on her toes like a ballerina (showing that the harshness of female standards is just as harsh as the toughness standards for men, even more so sometimes).  The next morning, Cal, having found out about her escapades, tells her he’s disappointed she didn’t come to bed with him that night and honor him the way a wife is required to.  She tells him he cannot command her like a foreman in his mills, so he flips over a table and storms off, leaving her upset as the maid rushes in and tries to help Rose clean up.  She tells the maid it was an accident, as many women do, since they are afraid to blame males even when speaking to other women.  This movie does something important in that it shows what really happens behind the scenes when a woman appears to be confused or upset for “no” reason.  (of course, no one should assume there is no reason, and all people have the capacity to understand there may be a reason for the emotions, so there’s no excuse- but scenes like this help us tell the truth about those causes to those who would deny it).

Jack sees Rose naked without initiating sex with her.  He is very professional when he paints her.  He is sensitive and artistic without being odd and jarring and nihilistic, as some artists are.  Jack’s different without being repulsive; he retains his innocence, which is the proper way to be different and creative.
There was a quote on Wikipedia (a male controlled site) that said a newspaper or film review claimed men liked Titanic because Jack got Rose to take her clothes off by offering to draw her.  Watch the movie.  Nowhere in that film does this happen.  She is the one who offers to do a naked drawing.  And Jack isn’t the sort of man who allows bad men to define his existence, which is why he is demeaned and abused by Rose’s misogynistic fiancé, Cal.

Cal, Rose’s fiancé, calls her a little slut when she decides to let Jack draw her naked, and later accuses her of preferring to be a whore than to be his wife, and she says she’d rather be Jack’s whore than Cal’s wife, and spits in his face.

Rose is portrayed as equal or maybe dominant in the relationship with Jack.  She initiated the sex.  She saves him from danger.  She calls all the shots because she’s rich.  Her sexual experience is happy and purpose-driven.  She has sex with Jack because she WANTS to, not because she has to.  He is not drawn to her weakness, but her strength, and also to her happiness.

The Nature Trumps Technology theme is present in the sinking.  Any oppressed group, which internally realizes God or Nature or Fate is on their side, and that the established order including technology, is not, rejoices at disasters that destroy the established icons to some extent.  Therefore, when Nature trumps Technology/Civilization by sinking the Titanic, the oppressed persons immediately sense an aura of divine justice.  Many women watching the movie internally snicker at this phallic obstacle being one-upped by Mother Nature.

As they try to balance on a door in the water, Jack keeps falling off, so he lets Rose stay on.  He dies in the freezing water, and Rose temporarily thinks about dying there with him, but remembers what he taught her about living her own life, lets him sink to the bottom of the ocean, and swims away to contact the rescue boat.  This is unheard of in most movies- a man being the agent of a woman’s happiness, and (as a plot device, at least) dying so she can be happy and live.

Rose willingly leaves behind a world of wealth and safety in order to escape the patriarchy of that world, and to follow her heart.  She takes up horseback riding, acting, and has a life of her own after the accident.

Her final rejection of the masculine world, the throwing of the diamond jewelry into the ocean, into Nature, is the last thing she does before she can die peacefully.  She rejects materialism and the male view of “logic”, which would mean not “sorting through causes and effects in order to come to a factual truth” (the PROPER definition of logic), but would mean “taking actions or making choices that lead you to an arbitrary goal [like the possession and valuing of a certain mineral] that patriarchy has deemed good”.  (there is no objective reason to assume that having a diamond, or any other particular mineral, or the money that it can be traded for, is “good”).

The movie is dedicated to emotion as well as reason.   A healthy person needs both, but part of being masculine means rejecting part of your nature.  Some men reject reason, and some reject emotion.  Some reject both.  Titanic enshrines both reason and emotion, which makes it a good film, and spits in the face of masculine ideal of dropping half your nature.

True, it is a film from the perspective of a rich white woman, but this doesn’t mean the main message doesn’t apply to all women, including women of color or Asians.  It doesn’t seem to exclude other ethnic groups’ experiences but rather seems to address a universal, that women’s lives are hard and that we must escape from them by any means necessary.

The sea is often associated with women and the feminine- it is warm and large and “unpredictable” (at least to those who want to control and therefore predict it, even though it is no more “unpredicctable” than anything you cannot mindread!).  It swallows ships and gives life.  Like the mother, it was our first home, having evolved from it, the way we evolved from woman-dominated societies.   “A woman’s heart is a deep ocean of secrets…”

Titanic is hated, as is Twilight is, because it appeals to girls.  It has superb special effects, tons of action, witty dialogue, and lots of death and destruction, and not the romanticized type, either.  So why is it attacked by men?  Not because of what it lacks, but because of what it HAS.  It has morals, including sexual morals which show sexuality as connected to love and happiness.  It is pro-working class, pro-women, pro-children.  It tells the truth about men and what they do to women.
There’s a reason men judge a movie by what it HAS, rather than by what it LACKS.  We would assume that men would only care if a movie LACKED something they liked, such as action and special effects, because we assume that men’s evaluation of films is through a lens of selfishness, i.e., what the movie gives to them.  If a movie had action and such crap, they would be fine with it, and wouldn’t care or notice what else it contained.
But their evaluation isn’t based on selfishness; it’s based on hatred.  Hence, they do not care that the movie CONTAINS what they like.  They care only that it DOESN’T contain anything that helps or pleases women.  If they were selfish, they would not notice others, but no, it is not selfishness they possess: it is hatred of women, what women like, and who women are.  THAT is why men judge movies like Titanic on what the films have, not what they lack.

It’s not about pleasing themselves; it’s about hating you, even on such an innocuous and petty issue as movie watching.   Very well, then.  Long live Titanic!
[on a last note, it’s good that a man directed and wrote this film, because it proves that men can understand and agree with women’s rights, and that there’s no more “I didn’t know you were suffering because I’m a man” excuse that can be made by any man]

Categories: ...and the Arts, Articles In English, Radical Feminism, Sex | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Create a free website or blog at