Posts Tagged With: politics

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

Kirk Cameron Defends Todd Akin Over “Legitimate Rape” Statement

.

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/kirk-cameron-defends-todd-akin-over-legitimate-rape-183528382.html

.

Always knew he was a loser.

.

Categories: Abortion, Articles In English, Health and Medicine, Politics and Current Events, Radical Feminism, Rape and Harrassment | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

GOP Politician Thinks “Legitimate” Rapes Don’t Cause Pregnancy

.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/19/711991/gop-senate-candidate-victims-of-legitimate-rape-wont-become-pregnant/?mobile=nc

.

So I guess those 11 year old African girls who get pregnant by the 50 year old men they are forced to marry are really enjoying it, huh?

.

Call the bastard

Todd Akin (R)

Voice: (202) 225-2561

Categories: Articles In English, Birth, Politics and Current Events, Pragmatic Activism, Radical Feminism, Rape and Harrassment, Sex | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pussy Riot Jailed for Two Years

.

http://news.yahoo.com/russias-pussy-riot-trial-cathedral-protest-083039224.html

.

This is unacceptable.

Fuck the Russian government.

Fuck Putin.

Fuck the prosecutors.

Fuck the persecutors.

Fuck the church.

Fuck patriarchy.

.

Free Pussy Riot!

Now the protests are only beginning…

Categories: Articles In English, Patriarchy, Politics and Current Events, Radical Feminism, Religion and Spirituality, Silencing Women | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Paul Ryan is a Piece of Shit

.

Paul Ryan is a piece of shit.

Paul Ryan is a piece of fucking shit.

Paul Ryan is a piece of mother fucking shit.

Paul Ryan is a mother fucker.

Paul Ryan is a douchebag.

Paul Ryan is a fricking cunt.

Paul Ryan is a dick.

Paul Ryan is a cock-sucker.

Paul Ryan deserves to be ass-fucked to death with the stump end of one of his own limbs.

Did I leave anything out?  Okay, moving on.

.

…..According to Jezebel.com, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s running mate, sponsored a bill that will theoretically allow rapists to choose whether or not the woman they raped would be forced to bear the child or not.

…..I seriously cannot believe the level of dumb-fuckery involved in this whole idea.  It’s bad enough to force a woman to let her boyfriend or husband make decisions about her body, but to let her rapist make them is a hundred times worse.  It’s even more likely the rapist, rather than the husband, will make decisions which harm her or do not take into account her bodily health, as evidenced by the fact that he chose to harm her body in the first place.

…..He is a criminal, and since when do criminals get to decide what normal humans get to do with their bodies?

…..He may even abuse or rape the child after it is born.

.

…..What is Paul Ryan thinking?  Answer: nothing.  Rape supporters/minimizers do not think.  They hate.  It’s not that they can’t think, or that they don’t know how, or don’t know what’s right and wrong.  It’s that they choose not to think; they don’t care.

…..Ryan has numerous anti-choice and anti-equality stances.  (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Wisconsin/Paul_Ryan/Views/)

…..Paul Ryan’s Sanctity of Human Life Act says that,

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

.

…..This basically means that a woman is not in control.  And since pro-life bills allow fathers to force mothers to give birth, what this means is that the door is open for rapists to force women they rape to keep the baby.  And don’t tell me “but that’s such a small probability!  Paul probably never thought of that when he passed the bill!”  If our legislators and elected officials are thinking hard about the bills they pass, this issue would have come up during the discussions about this bill.

…..If you are as outraged as I am, you are free to call Paul Ryan, mother fucker, at the following numbers:

.

CONSTITUENT HOTLINE: 1-888-909-RYAN (7926)

  • Washington, DC office
    1233 Longworth HOB
    Washington, D.C. 20515
    Phone: (202) 225-3031
    Fax: (202) 225-3393
  • Janesville office
    20 South Main Street, Suite 10
    Janesville, WI 53545
    Toll-Free: 1-888-909-RYAN (7926)
    Phone: (608) 752-4050
    Fax: (608) 752-4711
  • Kenosha office
    5455 Sheridan Road, Suite 125
    Kenosha, WI 53140
    Phone: (262) 654-1901
    Fax: (262) 654-2156
  • Racine office
    216 6th Street
    Racine, WI 53403
    Phone: (262) 637-0510
    Fax: (262) 637-5689

    .

    .

    Ladies, let’s show this cock we are not fooling around about women’s rights!  And nothing says you have to be polite if you call.

Categories: Abortion, Articles In English, Patriarchy, Politics and Current Events, Pragmatic Activism, Radical Feminism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 10 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 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

What Would It Take?

.

What would it take for humanity to overthrow and transcend patriarchy?  Who must be the warriors in this battle against the patriarchs?  What must be done?  What must society be taught, in order to make this successful?  Must we break laws?  Which laws?  Do we lie to get our way?  Should we speak to children?  The religious?

.

I believe that women’s liberation from forced sex, second class status, poverty, disease, unwanted pregnancy, torture, death, psychological humiliation, and feeling of otherness is more important than obeying laws, being honest, paying taxes, or respecting the mythical parental right to influence children.

.

Laws are meant to protect people from being harmed or wronged in a complex society.  To break a law such as “don’t murder” would be to do wrong, it would be to harm someone.  But to break a law such as, “don’t trespass on school property or hand pamphlets to underage children” would not be bringing harm to anyone, or wronging them.  We must weigh the consequences; will the damage done by our action outweigh the damage done if we do not perform the action?  (Also, we must keep in mind that we must only perform such actions if they are the only way to achieve our goal, such as if the goal cannot be achieved in a less destructive way).

,
If we hand radical feminist pamphlets to sixth graders telling them about PIV sex and gender theories, and teaching them how to take control of their own sexual experiences, is the damage that will be done by them reading the pamphlets and getting their fragile little minds warped greater than the damage that will be done if we don’t hand them the pamphlets, and they become used and abused by men?  Is the risk of getting ourselves sued or thrown in jail (which we can avoid anyway by remaining anonymous and running off before we are caught) really worse than what will happen to those poor girls if they are not taught to be liberated?

.

If a local politician is seriously in the business of signing a bill that would criminalize accidental miscarriages, should we really refrain from physically forcing him to stop, or from interfering with the police when they try to arrest the suffering pregnant woman who is about to be put in a jail cell?  At what price must we continue to choose to obey the law?

.

     Over all, I think the necessity of the women’s liberation movement supersedes the necessity of obeying laws which prevent relatively harmless activities. 

.

What is to be done politically?  A good start would be to vote for all women, only women candidates.  Even those who are supposedly conservative will have empathy with women’s issues, because they must suffer under patriarchy as well.  Also, many conservative women have the same views as radical feminists about many things (the futility of the sexual liberation movement, the intuitive understanding of the nature of masculinity), as opposed to mainstream leftist or fun-fems.  Or, one could run for office herself, as a woman candidate, as a women’s issues supporter…or, if you would rather be a subverter, run under a lukewarm moderate campaign, while avoiding speaking about women’s issues, and then when elected, introduce women’s rights bills into the legislation.

.

Perhaps one day, if we get enough money pooled, or get enough women on board, we can set up our own nation or society, the way the Jews have done with Israel.  Someplace like Greenland would be nice.  It’s owned by Denmark, which is a relatively liberal country, at least compared to places like Greece and the United States.  And Saudi Arabia.  The cold weather would prevent intruders from wanting to stay too long, and the remoteness of the place would be good for women trying to escape abuse and depression.

,

Another great idea would be to get either a government fund or a private fund to ship abused women and children from the Middle East and Africa over to havens in Europe, Greenland, Canada, or the US (haha!) until we can clear the rats out of the Middle East and Africa and the other third world countries.  The bad men would be taken out by police force or government edict, the laws changed, and the good men transported to safe havens along with the women and children, but perhaps generally on the periphery.

All of them would be screened- politely and like human beings, please- for issues like emotional and physical abuse, and for evidence of patriarchal family structure.  Women and children would have the choice to leave any abusive husbands that were discovered during the screenings.  Money could be raised by legislating better use of government funds, or by selling baked goods, necklaces, objects on EBay, knitted scarves, collecting money from churchgoers “for a good cause”, and donating part of the income we already make.

,

We should send speakers to public schools who are supportive of radical feminism.  They can contact the school, advertising their willingness to teach the children about bullying and sexual health issues, and then when they get up to the microphone, they can add in a bunch of stuff that is crucial to our cause, such as the nature of patriarchy, and the helpfulness of lesbian communitarianism.  Of course, we should advertise our services under a different guise every time, lest the schools catch onto the our act, and start banning sexual health speakers because most of them turn out to be radfems in disguise.

.

If we do get women in office, laws should be passed that promote affirmative action for women and women of color, along with a privilege tax which men should have to pay, since patriarchy unfairly benefits them.  The proceeds from this tax may go to the havens for foreign women, or for the Greenland colony, or for sending condoms and sexual health and pro-feminism pamphlets to Africa.

The driving and voting ages should be lowered for women and lifted for men, since males on average mature much more slowly than females.  Any males entering the police or other law forces should undergo a sexual violence propensity test, and police departments should have a quota of at least 50% women. Most violent crimes committed by the police are by white male officers, who are often sophomoric and immature.  The military must unquestioningly allow gays and lesbians to serve without discrimination, either public or private, and Army rapes must go reported, with offenders being dishonorably discharged.

.

Women should try to have as many relationships with other women as possible, either lesbian, or, if one cannot change one’s heterosexuality, find a rare good male and be sure to stock up on as many female friends as possible.  The rare good men should be shared by women.

.

Books and movies as are read and watched by children, such as patriarchal, woman-mocking 1940s films, or fairy tales in which females are demonized as wicked stepmothers should be discussed in schools and only watched for the entertainment value, not as education.

.

.

As you can see, it would be difficult but not complex or confusing to free women from men’s chains.  All we need to do is make plans, band together, and keep at it. 

Categories: Abortion, Articles In English, Lesbianism, PIV, Pragmatic Activism, Radical Feminism, Separatism, Sex, Woman's Nation | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.