Posts Tagged With: men

When A Man Says You Nag…

When A Man Says You Nag:

We’ve all heard the bullshit- men ignore because women nag. Men “don’t know” how to have a conversation and women should pity them and leave them alone. Women want a “talking” relationship in which they change the man into a conversation obsessed woman and don’t allow him to be himself. The poor dear.

What is really happening is this: the woman is talking not because she is nagging, but because the man is shutting off and not answering questions. He is not answering questions because he is trying to keep something secret. He is trying to keep it secret because he is doing something wrong.

One partner’s stonewalling forces the other person to ask more and more questions to address necessary issues. The stonewalling partner labels this “nagging”, even though in context it is really not, and the questioner begins to have low self esteem and becomes ashamed every time she feels the need to get info or clarification, no matter how normal or average or common her level of questioning is, nor how necessary it is in context of the particular conversation or situation.

Since more men than women behave in a nasty way, they are more likely to become secretive in order to hide responsibilty for that nastiness. Since they become secretive, they become allergic to questions, even normal and necessary levels of questioning. They label their wife a nag to shut her up, and label all women as nags, even though the women are not asking any greater level of questioning than a man would.

(Similarly, whites often call blacks nags, or “troublemakers”, as a whole, because since white people harm black people with their behavior, naturally the blacks are the ones who complain! Same with Jews- ever hear of the “complaining Jew” stereotype? This is because Jews were pushed around in Christian Europe and it was in their interest to discuss it, while is was in Christians’ interest to ignore them. The abuser is benefited by silence while the victim is benefited by openness and discussion).

Talking, furthermore, is not a female thing. It is a necessary human tool- how can information be conveyed without talking? Nor is it even true that females talk more than males. Studies show that men talk MORE than women- it’s just that men are more ANNOYED at women’s talking than they are at other men’s and more than women are annoyed at either men’s or women’s talking.

The husband feels more annoyed at his wife’s speaking…so he twists reality and labels her behavior as more annoying (nagging)…because his REACTION to it or FEELING about it is different. This is lying. Your feelings about something do not change what the thing is. If you start to feel annoyed at me speaking, this does not mean I have started speaking more or in a different way, It is you who have changed, not me or my behaviour.

Of course, the man can be the one being gaslighted by the woman, too, and there are men who are the victims. But mostly, it is a greater number of men who stonewall than women, because a greater amount of men behave in ways that cause the person living with them to have to complain. So this is why I titled this piece “When A Man Says You Nag.”

See more:

Categories: Articles In English, emotional, Marriage/Monogamy, Silencing Women | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Men Don’t Know Any Better! Boo Hoo!


I am not one to blame women- especially feminists- for the troubles misogyny has brought, but I am far from being the type of “feminist” who is not at all critical of the actions of any woman simply because she is a woman.


I take it very seriously when people hold women to the same standards as men, while they know women must deal with more oppression and mental skewering.  However, I do know an Uncle Tom, or an Auntie Tom, when I see them.  That is to say, I know how to spot the difference between a woman who truly is brainwashed or emotionally beaten into supporting men, male-defending, and patriarchy……and a woman who supports these things because she is a dishonest bully-defender, a female Quisling.

Feminism means siding with women.  All women.  But it does not mean pretending that if a woman does something wrong- like supporting a bully consciously and of her own will- that we support the action and choose to hold her on the same moral plane as every other woman in this battle.

For example, women who claim: “Men are taught by the media to rape and beat and harass women, so they can’t help it”/ “It’s social conditioning!  Their widdle brains can’t fight back against it!” should be scrutinized, if not given a much more marginal place in our movement.  As much as I think the feminist movement is in place to help all women, this does not mean that I do not judge women whom I know are siding with the enemy without having been brainwashed to do so.  Unfortunately, the majority of  “college feminists” support this outlook: “they can’t help it”.  Bullshit.  These traitors need to be reminded that they are not helping our movement.


But let us not forget that the enemies in this case are not the Auntie Toms, but the men who are choosing to conform to a patriarchal edict so they can rape and oppress us!  May we fight them until the day we die!

Categories: Articles In English, As Opposed to Liberal Feminism, Excuses for Misogyny, Radical Feminism, Silencing Women | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

To Answer a Question about girls and periods…



“why do girls get upset when we talk about there periods”


This was a keyword which was searched for on my site. 

I will answer the question.



Girls- at least most- don’t like when people, especially men, talk about their periods, for the same reason all people don’t like to talk about private body part issues- it’s embarrassing.

Also, girls know that men tend to use “you’re having your period” as way to hide the real reasons a woman might be angry.  For example, Bob lies to Mary, and Mary is upset.  Bob tells Mary she’s angry because she’s having her period (i.e., not because of what HE did!)

Sometimes, boys like to demean girls by pretending that their periods are weird or disgusting, so when girls hear boys talking about it, they automatically tense up and expect the worst.



Overall, I just think it’s rude to talk about other people’s bodily functions, especially if it’s not for a necessary or medical reason. 





Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Fun Game


Lots of times, men do mean things to me. They laugh at what I have to say, they interrupt me, they accuse me of having a bias, they call me stupid. Then I complain. I tell them to shut their mouths. So they get irritated and say that women must be awfully sensitive. Or that women must not like being interrupted, laughed at, and such.
Well, here’s a fun game I made up!:

Next time a man does something mean to me and says I’m only bothered by it because I’m a woman, I’m going to assume that men are NOT bothered by it, and then start doing it to them!


For example:

[Bob: “The movie Titanic wasn’t very good.”

Me: “Actually it was made very well. It had great special effects, superb music, and a solid plot.”

Bob: “You don’t know what your talking about. You’re stupid. You don’t know anything about film. You’re only saying that because you’re a girl. Your mother’s a hog.”

Me: “Hey, you asshole, you can’t talk that way to me! I don’t like being accused of stupidity or bias.”

Bob: “Humph! Girls! How did I guess?”

Me: “You mean only girls hate being talked to that way? Only women hate being accused of stupidity and bias? I guess men like being talked to that way, then. I’ll start doing it to men. Thanks for clueing me in!”

Bob: “YOUR a fucking psycho bicth!!!!!11!1!11!” (shouted at fucking psycho decibel level). ]


Ladies, who’s with me?


Categories: Articles In English, Funny, Radical Feminism, Silencing Women | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Men, Monarchy, and Political Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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


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



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




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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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




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

Categories: ...and the Arts, Articles In English, Liberty Doods, Politics and Current Events, Radical Feminism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why liberal and anarchist men are misogynists

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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



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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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


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

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





Another sexuality and politics theory:


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

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

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

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

Some Random Thoughts About Abortion



*Abortion, to conservatives, is a horrible violent crime against the most voiceless members of society, and a form of age discrimination against fetuses (not to mention, a ploy by modernists and feminists to make women reject their revered and important motherhood status).  To liberals, it is an unquestioned right, because it is only a clump of cells, which is an annoying irritant to the host and her lifestyle.  But is there a third view, a sensible take on the abortion issue?

*Throughout the ages, men could force women to have abortions and kill their live children. Abortions in the Middle Ages were illegal because they covered up the evidence of extramarital affairs and sexual “misbehavior”.  It had nothing to do with the sanctity of life.  It was about preventing women from making their own decisions without reference to a male owner.  In fact, the word “husband” is related to the phrase “animal husbandry”, which includes regulating the reproductive processes of female animals.  Apparently, this includes women.

*Men complain about the fetus feeling pain from abortion procedures, such as the one in which the fetus’s brain is pierced by a tool.  But who was it who invented these tools?  Women?  Was it not men who invented this type of abortion procedure?  Is it not male science the pro-life crowd should be blaming?  Shouldn’t they blame the patriarchs who wished science to be a violent penetration of the human body and the natural world?  When wise women and herbal medicine practitioners used to help women abort, they gave them natural herbs and non-traumatic procedures (for mother AND fetus).  The baby was gently expelled, and the mother could hold it and give it love as it passed into eternity.  Nothing was pierced, burned, ripped, torn, mutilated, or otherwise medically raped.  (Nothing was “lost”, since the fetus’s spirit was still there, just not confined to a human body).

*Midwives and wise women who knew how to use herbs like rue to cause abortions were hung as witches in the medieval era.  They are being accused of witchcraft today, for the same reasons.  If such herbal abortion methods were used (one rumor is that Vitamin C with parsley works), abortion would be much less dangerous for the mother and nonpainful to the fetus, if, in fact, it is able to feel pain.  Abortion would be like a sped-up pregnancy and birth, with the baby passing away peacefully in the mother’s arms, instead of being raped with a medical tool, which is the “proper” (male) way to cause an abortion.

*Men tend to be opposed to abortion because most men are taught to fear death.  Death reminds them they are not gods, and are not in control, and it also reminds them that the physical world is NOT absolute.  When a creature “dies”, it doesn’t truly die.  The Law of Conservation of Energy tells us that no energy in the universe is ever lost, it merely is converted, or changes form.  When a human being dies, what has really happened?  Has anything really been “lost”?  The electricity and energy that makes up our brains and our consciousness does not go away, though it leaves our body.  This is why some people recall death experiences, such as seeing their body below them, entering another area, etc.  The only “death” is the connection between that spiritual matter and the arbitrary body it was inhabiting.  For many pro-lifers to ignore this fact does nothing for the claim that the pro-life crowd is always more spiritual than the pro-choice crowd.  For some of them, it’s not about morality, it’s about control.

*However, for others, it is a spiritual issue, or a moral issue at least.

*Is it feminist to abort?  It depends on why you do it.  Abortion is a moral choice, but the difference between the feminist view and the conservative view is that in the feminist view, the woman’s needs are also considered.  The fetus is not a “rambunctious little aquanaut” trapped in some silent, disembodied uterine “prison”, as if the walls around him did not constitute a part of a person’s body.  Both the fetus AND the mother are living beings.  If you abort the fetus because you don’t feel like having a baby, or for fun, or because you don’t like kids, this would be a bad choice.  However, it would not be the business of the government, because the government cannot legislate to keep one person alive at the expense of someone else’s health or pursuit of happiness.  Also, since “death” is not really such, as we’ve written, there would be nothing to mourn for, especially since the baby has not had any chance to become attached to the things of this world.  But most of all, it would be wrong to outlaw abortion because we have no way of knowing why a woman chooses to abort.  The best we can do is to encourage mothers only to abort when necessary, and to create a society in which birth is easier and all children are welcome.  However, until then, we need to have access to safe, legal abortion, both herbal and medical.

*”Why should an innocent baby be punished because of a rape?”  Why should an innocent mother be punished because of a rape?  The fetus will feel much less pain being aborted than the mother will feel having to relive her experience.

*Men should not be allowed to vote on the abortion issue, since laws derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.  Just as the right to govern one’s affairs should be expanded to include everyone the law covers, it should be contracted to exclude those it does not.  It would be absurd for a woman in Mississippi to be allowed to vote on the laws governing a person in Switzerland.  Similarly, it’s absurd for a man to vote on something that concerns only women’s bodies.

*Most people do not use abortion as birth control, since abortions are expensive, and since they are invasive and dangerous.  This is a false claim.

*A large percentage of fertilized eggs are naturally expelled by a woman’s body, which means abortion would only be helping along a potentially natural process.

*The truth is, neither the pro-life crowd nor the pro-choice crowd knows if a fetus is alive, or knows when it becomes alive if it happens at a particular time.  In fact, no one even has a real definition of what “life” or “alive” means.  Is a human alive?  An embryo?  A sperm?  A fish?  Trees?  Rocks?  The only wise thing we can conclude is that everything is alive to some extent, but some things are more or less complex than others, meaning they have a more advanced level of consciousness.  To have less thought-power or less complexity to your consciousness doesn’t mean you are less alive.  If so, stupid people and toddlers would be “less alive” than intelligent adults.
Pro-choice advocates who are convinced the baby isn’t alive until the very second it exits the mother are just as thick-headed as those who are convinced it’s alive from the second of conception.  There is no evidence either way. (And if a baby is halfway born, is its head alive but not its feet??)
What no one wants to admit is that whether or not the fetus is alive, the mother has the right to abort.  We have already established that death is not evil, and that there are worse fates than death.

*The so-called “feminist” approach to the abortion issue is to deny the life of the fetus, and to look at the issue from a lens of expedience and physical “reality”.  This is a highly UNfeminist way to view any issue, since expediency and the narrowing of one’s range of consciousness is how patriarchy wants people to think (they call this way of “thinking” masculine).

*Many of those who oppose abortion in all circumstances feel this way because they are in tune with life and believe all things are special and should be acknowledged.  They have the attitude of Dr. Seuss’s Horton, who hears a tiny creature called a Who, and refuses to ignore his instincts to notice it and help it when it is in trouble.  They feel they are betraying the baby by refusing to acknowledge that it is alive, as everything is.  They point to how both pro-life and pro-choice couples alike show people pictures of their sonograms, calling the being inside their son or daughter, and call liberal pro-choice advocates hypocrites for calling unwanted fetuses dead and wanted fetuses alive.  They are right.  But only halfway.  They are right that everything has a life and spirit and that we must be conscious of this.  They are wrong that letting something die means you are not aware of its spirit, or that you do not accord love to it.  Sometimes giving something back to the eternal is the most loving thing you can do, such as in the case of a poor minority mother who has to deal with poverty, illness, and racism, or in the case of a woman who will be traumatized by the birth.  No child would want to put his mother through that, and since death is NOT evil and is NOT a problem, one person taking death so the other may be saved from a safe worse than death is more noble an idea than avoiding death at all costs.

*The problem many pro-life advocates have with abortion is not the taking of the life, but with people refusing to be conscious of the life.

*Outlawing abortions means women will have to give birth even if it causes them blindness, as is the case of a woman in heavily Catholic Poland.  They may bleed to death, undergo severe pain if their bodies are not up to the task of birth, and may even break their tailbone in labor.  Some women are made to carry their dead fetuses to term, and to give birth to babies who are deformed and will live in agony for a few hours, instead of aborting them before they have enough nerve endings or brain structure to feel anything.

*In a society run by women, or run with women’s interests in mind, abortion would be much less necessary because birth would be less traumatic for most women, and because society would be willing to provide for families and everyday life.  Birth would not be the traumatic painful event it currently is for some women. There do exist painless births and many relatively comfortable ones. (Look up home birth advocate Laura Shanley).  However, because of patriarchal medicine and prejudice-ridden ignorance about women’s bodies and health, births are made much more painful and difficult than they already are.  Perhaps if we bring birth back to women’s hands, less abortions would need to occur.

*”The father should have some say because it’s his child, too!”  Wrong.  It’s not about whose child it is; it’s about whose body it is.  It is not the father’s body, so he should have no say.  Furthermore, no one “owns” a child; you have no right to say a child is “yours” just because your body created it.  The idea that biological parentage means you should love or be connected to your child more is egoist and patriarchal- “I love something because it has something to do with me.” This attitude is very insulting to children who were adopted or raised by non-related persons.  Many fathers use the excuse that it’s “their child, too” because they see children as property.  Some fathers see the baby as a person and don’t like the idea that it will not be given a chance to live, but this is a moot point, since the baby likely never developed into a conscious person, and since death is not the end, but just the exiting of the consciousness from the arbitrary physical body it was incarnating into.  Nothing ever “dies.”

*”You support abortion because you believe it should be legal.”  No.  I strongly oppose abortion, though I would make it legal.  I also strongly oppose vomiting; I think vomiting is unpleasant and should be avoided.  However, I would not make it illegal.  Just because something is unfortunate does not mean it should be made illegal.  Nor should something be considered an absolute evil if there are worse consequences that can be avoided by doing it.  In the case of vomiting, it is unpleasant, but being sick forever or having permanent damage to your body would be worse.  Likewise it’s unfortunate a fetus will never reach the outside world, it is a disappointment, but there are worse consequences, like the mother enduring trauma or dying, the fetus being born with severe pain, or the baby having to live in misery and poverty once it’s born.  Death is not the worst thing in the world.  Suffering is.  Apathy is.

*Since abortions are less traumatic to the fetus and the mother if done in the first trimester, it is important to let women know they have the option to abort, so they can choose as quickly as possible.

*Women should be encouraged not to abort in the same sense as they should be encouraged not to sell their home to pay their way out of poverty; it is an unfortunate choice which should be avoided, but it is not the end of the world, and it may be worse than the alternative.  It must always be allowed because we do not know the circumstances, under which the good of all those involved may prefer it.

Categories: Abortion, Articles In English, Politics and Current Events | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blog at