Posts Tagged With: history

Some controversial thoughts on male homosexuality

Some thoughts on the issue, in no particular order.

 

.

 

I’m not quite sure how it happened, the current opposition to gays and homosexuality that many men feel.  Why do they hate gays so much?  What caused this all?  When?  There are a few theories I have about why men have hated gays, supported gays, hated lesbians, and why they sometimes hate one more than another:
1. They seemed to hate lesbians more than gays a few hundred years ago, during the early witch hunt eras, like when the prospect of a woman resisting marriage to a man was very dangerous to them, and there was no sexual liberation that allowed them to fuck and chuck any woman.
2. They seemed to somewhat ignore or try to block out the knowledge of gays or lesbians during the Victorian Era, since sex in general was immoral, and so was sexual deviance.  Gays were hated when discussed, but lesbians were invisible since women didn’t have sexual desires, they said.  Perhaps this was…better?…for the lesbians?  I don’t know.
3. Today being gay is severely punished, while being lesbian is called evil but is a little more ignored, or just considered butch, or lesbians get eyerolls or such.  This isn’t because these men hate women less, it’s because they are more focused on the horrifying prospect that men are being dominated by other men, and that they are being turned into women.  So, it is actually because they hate women so much they hate gays.   They still hate Lesbians, it’s just that the topic doesn’t always come up as much.

.

 

I’ve noticed that a lot of the people opposed to homosexuality are women, especially religious women.  I wondered why this was, since women are oppressed as well as gays and since the oppression was along similar lines- sex and gender.  Then I started to feel like it might have something to do with this whole nervousness about sex and the body, especially the male body (since anti-homosexuality campaigns usually refer to male homosexuals).  Maybe women were offended by male bodies and male sexuality, so male homosexuality made them afraid.  Therefore they became conservative on the matter.

 

Then I figured that some instances of homosexuality on the part of men might be fueled by female hatred.  Homosexuals in the Victorian Era, like Oscar Wilde, often disliked women, eve though the popular stereotype is of homosexuals being effeminate.  A key reason may have been because they attracted to their own sex precisely because they disliked the other, much like the rugged cowboy, sick and tired of silly women, bonded in a sexual way with his own rugged brothers.

For example, the 2005 film Brokeback Mountain documents the fictional life of two cowboys who struggle with their homosexual attraction to each other, and the men seem to somewhat see the wives and children as a bit of a burden, annoying and frustrating their desires. These two men long to get away from their wives and kids and go out in the mountains and have an all-male homosexual relationship.

 

.

 

When the masculinity supporting homosexuals use phrases like “you’re homophobic”, they really mean to mock people’s fear- their fear of sex and heterosexuals’ fear of differing sexualities.  It’s just like what men do to women who are afraid to have sex- they like to mock the “effeminate” fear of sex.

For these types of homosexual men, being against homophobia is not about tolerance and justice; it’s about the unacceptability of having a fear of sex, the unacceptability of having a fear of maleness and the male body, or fear of frightening and unknown sexual behavior.  It’s also about, not tolerance for justice’s sake, but about tolerance in the sense that they want to be able to perform any kinds of sexual activities they want and with any kind of partner.

Objectively, there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, either male or female.  But to a woman who is frightened enough already about the whole topic of sex, frightened because of the behavior of men…do you think she’s going to react with logic and acceptance and tolerance, and without any fear when you introduce a whole foreign concept of sexuality and behavior to her, especially a totally male-centric one as male homosexuality?

Many women are opposed to both homosexuality and to lesbianism in theory, but are able to harbor and accept attractions to other women.  This may be because they see homosexuality and other forms of sexuality which include one or more male partners to be threatening.  It may also be because since the word “homosexuality” implies an attraction based upon physical body parts- i.e., it is an attraction towards a person’s physical, sexual body parts- and women see it as unemotional and are put off by the purely physical aspect of it.  They are put off by the idea that one’s sexual attractions should be determined by the body parts of the partner.  That’s what the average man is attracted by, they think.  Someone’s body parts.

Also, because they live in a male-run society, women define “sex” solely as a physical thing…but, being women (who have to bear the painful role in sexual activity) they think they don’t like sex.  Since any woman-woman relationships are going to include more love, and have less sex (or at least tie sex in with romantic love), they fail to recognize the relationship as a sexual one, and hence, a homosexual one, and therefore do not consider themselves lesbians.  After all, they figure, they can’t be homosexual if they aren’t having sex.

To sum it up, many women consider the subject of homosexuality frightening because it seems sexually exotic (and therefore dangerous), and because they believe that male homosexuality is too full of masculinity (two men) to be non-threatening.

.

I’m wondering if this whole idea that most gays are effeminate is not an attempt to trick women into supporting the typical homosexual- the uber male who loves other males because they are male.  “It’s okay, we’re all into shopping and clothes and scented candles and puppies and purple!”  But are most homosexual not like that?  Do the masculine homosexuals push around the feminine ones? It seems so.

 

.

 

Here’s what a lot of anti-gay women, or women who think they’re anti-gay, are thinking about the gay rights movement:

you guys have been allowed to fuck each other for god knows how long, in every society, even if it’s just in dark corners or secret clubs.  We have been begging to have the kind of sex we want without getting murdered as witches or mutilated by doctors to cure our lesbianism.  Not to mention the other abuses we suffer from being forced to accept your heterosexuality into our lives.  And now you have the nerve to come out and complain that you aren’t exactly being treated like how human beings are supposed to be treated, that you aren’t getting your assed pleasured as many times as you want, that your behavior is subject to a few penalties which you have to power to at least protest properly, while we don’t?

The gay issue is only an issue because it mainly involves men (lesbians are invisible to them) and because it involves regulations against sexual behavior.  If only lesbians existed in the universe, you can bet gay rights would never have become an issue at all.

 

 

.

The gay marriage and gay sex question, for men, is about getting to do whatever they want; for women, it’s about being fair to others.  So you can see who has the better handle on what social justice means.

 

I was reading an article on the Radical Hub site and they were talking about male homosexuality and how taboo it is, and one commenter was like, “Where is male homosexuality taboo?  Men’s institutions are cemented by it, the priesthood, the public school, the army and navy, anywhere men gather in groups without women being present.  The taboo is on admitting it to women, and that, depending on the degree of patriarchy present in any given society, can be punishable by death.  Because it is breaking the code of the boys club, which corrals women’s bodies by controlling their minds.  Women must religiously follow heterosexual edicts, men are exempt.”

 

Ask any good history student, and they’ll tell you that men have been free to fuck each other all throughout history, with a few bans occurring on and off, often from women or from “effeminate” areas in the Church and from other moral-peddlers in society.

In Ancient Greece they were allowed- no, encouraged– to do it.

Ancient Rome, I believe, frowned on it a bit more but didn’t do much about it.

Alexander the Great was gay.

The Spartans were often gay.

Roman emperors had perverse sex with little boys.  (Google “Tiberius and his minnows”)

Sodom and Gomorrah in the ancient Middle East.

Jewish mohels who suck baby boys’ newly circumcised penises.

The Turkish bath sort of places and nude swim areas the classical era men attended to escape women.

The earliest Popes, who compared boys’ naked bottoms to the texture of a peach, and later Popes who instituted orgies in their halls.

Asian sexual practices in India and China and Japan with two young males or one adult male and one younger one.

Various European kings and princes and politicians, sometimes (or often) soldiers.

Masons and other “secret societies”- yeah, we know your secret!- during the American Revolution and the European Enlightenment and other eras.

Gay princes and composers and oddball writers in the 19th Century, like Oscar Wilde.

Cowboys in the old American West, and of course, Brokeback Mountain.

Actors, singers, and other artists who dabble in gay orgies or fuckfests both on and off the screen/stage/paper.

Modern monarchs like Prince Charles, who are caught engaging in homosexual activity at various times, a counterpart to their 19th Century and older European counterparts.

Locker rooms, restrooms, bathroom troughs, and steam rooms, even public street urinals in modern Europe in which men often show off to each other.

Muslim training schools and madrassas where men learn how to praise Allah and bone little boys.

 

What these men oppose when they’re opposing restrictions against homosexuality is not the unfairness of it all, or the pain and rejection that many homosexual men (mostly the effeminate variety) suffer at the hands of patriarchal men. They oppose, instead, not being able to do whatever they want to do, especially sexually.  They oppose not being allowed to have sex with other men, and hypocritically, they cry out against the “tyranny” of the Church and Victorian Era and other establishments- which they instituted themselves!- and blame the rare good aspects of the Church and religion and morality and all that, for acting “feminine” and not allowing them to have sex or revel in their masculinity. (The good aspects being “don’t hurt the innocent”, “everything in moderation”, “don’t be sexually irresponsible”, “look out for the little guy”, etc).

 

The fact that they aren’t able to open a simple history book and look at how unrestricted male homosexual sex has been in the past attests to their refusal to be objective and logical, and not to mention their uneducated demeanor whenever they approach any and all issues.   It also proves the casualness with which they blame people who are totally innocent in regards to restricting their disgusting behavior (nagging women, disgusted churchgoers, whiny priests, etc).

 

You think women cared if they went off and fucked other men?  They were probably happy to have them out of their hands, like Marie Barone is happy to see Frank go to the lodge in Everybody Loves Raymond.  Thank God for the mother fucking lodge!

 

And lots of the authorities that opposed homosexuality, even if they had stereotypically feminine reasons for doing so, like “morality”, or “safety”, they were established by males, and it was males who banned the behavior.

 

This aspect of history, the aspect of men screaming about how they aren’t allowed to be homosexual, it reads much more like men trying to regulate other men’s behavior, or even their own behavior……and then getting angry at women who chime in on the wrong side.  If you support homosexual men, you’re a witch.  If you oppose it, you’re a bitch.  Or an old crazy broad.  If you think about it, the issue of males being allowed to be homosexual is almost exclusively an issue that concerns them.  Men regulating other men and punishing them if they step out of line.

 

The only time women are involved is when they are used as cannon fodder for the anti-homosexual side to fight the opposition, or vice versa.  And of course, for when one side wants to attack the others’ cannon fodder (women), because heaven knows they would rather attack a woman whom their opponent has brainwashed to oppose them than attack another man, even one with violently different opinions. So I guess on a certain level, men love each other so much that most of them are homosexuals.  Some are just repressed and that’s what makes the differences of political opinion.

.

 

If you’re an effeminate man, and you love another man and sexually attract to him for proper reasons, then you’re a pussy.  If you’re a woman, then you’re a cunt.  You can’t win.  It sucks.  Welcome to history class.

(I am ¾ done with a bachelors in history so I can kinda say that).

Categories: Articles In English, History and Political, Homosexuality/LGBT, Lesbianism, Patriarchy, Radical Feminism, Sex, Sexual Liberation | 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

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

Blog at WordPress.com.