Posts Tagged With: radical feminism

Trump Wants Abuse Program Fund Cut- Valentine’s March Planned

Donald Trump’s latest stunt is planning on cutting funding for domestic violence victims.

Low blow, Mr. President.

This article lists a few programs that will lose out if he gets his way.

Domestic violence programs are already very underfunded, and often shelters do not have enough beds to house survivors who flee.

Some feminists and internet users are planning a widespread protest calling on Donald Trump to buck up and support women for a change, and to spread awareness about woman abuse, how to spot it, and where to get help.

The weekend before Valentine’s Day is a great date because women who attend and get educated about warning signs, hotlines, and shelter facilities can bring what they know to a Valentine’s Day date they go on.

Help us spread the word about the march, especially if you can’t attend!
Also, please check out these eye opening quotes on abuse.

 

Categories: Articles In English, Politics and Current Events, Radical Feminism, Violence and Abuse | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

The “Born This Way” Theory is Patent Bullshit

From my newer site:

https://feministvalkyrie.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/the-born-this-way-theory-is-patent-bullshit/

Categories: Articles In English, Homosexuality/LGBT, Lesbianism, PIV, Radical Feminism, Sex | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Some Great Feminist Links

Some are mine (from my new blog). (I decided to keep posting on this blog because I realize a lot of people are still following it. 🙂

*****

*****

https://feministvalkyrie.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/radical-feminism-101-simplified/
http://radfem.org/category/various-authors/

The Complete Works of Andrea Dworkin

https://feministvalkyrie.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/why-do-we-keep-calling-piv-sex/

https://allecto.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/abortion-and-contraception-a-radical-lesbian-perspective/

https://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/guest-post-betty-mclellan/

https://mscitrus.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/women-shouldnt-have-boundaries-agency-is-sacred-unless-youre-a-prude-and-other-things-i-learned-from-men/

http://noanodyne.com/

https://mscitrus.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/women-holes/

https://factcheckme.wordpress.com/the-intercourse-series/

https://allecto.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/reclaim-the-night-speech/

https://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/why-did-sasha-grey-exit-pornography/

https://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/rape-is-worse-when-it-happens-to-men-reports-the-new-york-times/

https://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/polish-government-proposal-submit-to-compulsory-gynecological-examinations-or-be-fired/

https://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/killing-our-mothers-our-daughters-fairytales/

https://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/how-to-take-the-threat-out-of-threatening-women-make-them-fuckable/

https://allecto.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/football-players-are-gang-rapists/

Categories: Articles In English, Radical Feminism | 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

How 9/11 Masculinized the US

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

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

.

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

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me start with her ending:

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

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

Here is the book, in outline form.

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

2. Society at all levels responded to this event.

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

4. This will have further impacts on society.

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

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

Here’s what Faludi says:

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

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

I knew it was my fault.

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

And you know how we treat witches.

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

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

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

Wait till Limbaugh gets a summary of this book.

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Surprise, Surprise. NAMBLA Supports Masculinity

Aha! I knew it. Male bonding, including many instances of homosexuality and pedophilia, are, in fact, anti-woman.

http://www.nambla.org/warvboys.html

The War Against Boys was written by a HOtP (Handmaiden of the Patriarchy) to justify the idea that boys should be allowed to be masculine (unruly brats). We can see here that NAMBLA- North American Man Boy Love Association- condones this attitude. (Now why could that be)?

Is it because patriarchy thrives on male bonding (men bonding with each other for the sake of being men), and that, to accomplish that, a boy must be brainwashed into that from an early age? “Sex before 8, or it’s too late!”

This is similar to what I was talking about in my article “Some Controversial Thoughts On Male Homosexuality”. It’s this idea that men must bond mentally and sexually, because women aren’t even good enough to fuck.

Many gay men were likely bothered by the article, thought I hope they were not and I said at the end that I am aware of the difference between healthy homosexuality in which two men love each other, and unhealthy “male bonding.” I’m not saying that most homosexual men are misogynists. I’m saying that most misogynists are homosexuals. Or at least some potentially twisted form of “homosexual.” And what makes more sense? If you are judging a human’s worth based on its genitalia, then naturally this will figure in to your choices of partnership- sexually and otherwise- at some point.

The fact that NAMBLA supports this “male bonding” along with also supporting pederasty proves my point: that, among “properly masculine” men, there exists a correlation between tendency to hate women, prize traditional masculinity, and desire sexual contact with males, preferably of a rape or unconsensual nature.

Perhaps, among most men, and even among many boys, there is a wish to be involved in a dangerous sexual relationship. Not to say that most boys want to be sexually molested (most don’t). But maybe among the ranks of those boys and men who have that pure “masculine” instinct, it remains possible that they merely identify with sexual activity that borders on the non consensual.

Categories: Articles In English, Homosexuality/LGBT, Male Bonding, Masculinity, Pedophilia, Radical Feminism | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Shulamith Firestone Dies at 67

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/nyregion/shulamith-firestone-feminist-writer-dies-at-67.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share

It is a sad day for feminists everywhere.  She was a great writer and she was unfortunately too young to go, at age 67.  Though I don’t agree with her assertion that nature cursed women with birth, I do agree that this is what made men want to oppress women- they wanted to control and were jealous of women’s ability to give birth.

RIP Shulie!

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

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

Women are stupid and Crappy and so are their Bodies

 

.

How is the treatment of women any different today than it was at the end of the 19th Century?  Now, just like then, women who are pregnant are seen as mentally unreliable.  Natural childbirth advocates recall accounts of birthing women being told they need to listen to doctors’ orders, and that they are not in position to make birthing decisions themselves.  They are talked down to like children when they question the wisdom of the obstetrician, especially along the lines of medication and other expensive procedures. This isn’t to say the root of the dismissal of the patients isn’t misogyny, it just shows how shallow they are, that the value money too much.

.

Read a “Preteen Girl” or “You and Your Body” or “What’s Happening to Me?!!??!?????” pamphlet at the local doctor’s office and look at the way girls’ and women’s bodies are portrayed.

Lol! I totally love the way women’s bodies are portrayed as all broken and crappy and they’re these poor sorry wet socks that bleed and tear open and shed blood and malfunction.  Of course, men’s bodies are perfect.  Nothing wrong there.  Especially reproductively.

It’s stupid.  Do men ever go to the doctor’s for “erection check ups”, or ejaculation “control”, or prescription napkins for semen “protection”?  Women are told to give birth in hospitals.  Why don’t doctors insist that men who try to impregnate their wives need do so in a hospital environment, in case “something goes wrong!”?  Suppose he has priapism!  Suppose his sperm isn’t up to par?  Suppose they don’t swim fast enough and he needs some sort of concoction to help them go faster?

 

Of course this would never happen.  Men’s bodies are considered perfect, invincible, and in no need of doctorly help.  “In case something goes wrong”.  Well, there is so much wrong with that sentence.  Who’s to say women’s bodies are not equipped to do the job themselves?  Why wouldn’t the womb and the birth canal and the vagina be designed or evolve to do this work themselves?

 

That would be bad enough, to assume that, but the way the doctors “help” makes it even worse!  It’s like telling someone they can’t poop without help- laying them down flatbacked on the toilet, telling them they have to be done by a certain time or you’ll speed them up with laxatives, feeding them crap and junk that makes the bowel formation process not conducive to success (maybe making constipation), making them afraid of the process so they tense up and it hurts even more, telling them when to push- “good! Good! Great job!  Let’s push now! Come on! No! No- no!”

Every blog needs a poop joke, I think. Problem is, this is not a joke.  This is exactly how doctors treat birth, and it makes the experience miserable and frightening and sometimes deadly for millions of women every year.

 

They don’t allow the mother to eat foods or herbs which develop the baby naturally- sometimes not even to conceive the baby normally- they tell her how and when to push, to be afraid and tense up, the shackle her flat backed on the bed, they shout at her and threaten her with more interventions if she doesn’t birth fast enough, they refuse to accept that each birth and each mother are different and take different amounts of time…and then they say “gee, whiz? Why is birth so painful? It must be that pesky female inferiority thing!”.  If they treated bowel movements this way, people would say they were crazy!  And everyone would be afraid to poop, and to eat!  What kind of person would want to live in a world like this?

.

 

Something I’ve noticed: male dominated societies always call menstrual blood “dirty”.  Unclean, dirty, impure, contaminating, evil, etc.  But notice how they never call any other bodily fluids- diarrhea, vomit, semen, spit, bile, earwax, pimple pus- they never consider those substances disgusting, even though they smell worse than or are more dangerous than period blood, and they don’t call the mouth or the ears or the anus or the penis dirty to the extent they call the vagina dirty.  It’s only the female-specific bodily fluids or bodily function they call disgusting, perhaps because men cannot perform or produce them.

 

Maybe men consider these things disgusting because they cannot do them.  And they want to control birth because they are jealous and they cannot do it.  They want to punish women for being able to give birth, so they make it painful.  They also want to rip us away from mother nature because they know with her on our side, we are doubly powerful.  Hence, birth must be performed in a hospital and the mother be given male medicine.

 

It’s time we stop letting men control our bodies.  Let’s pass out our own pamphlets about how awesome the female body is, and how birth doesn’t have to be painful or miserable…or male controlled.

 

.

 

Categories: Articles In English, Birth, Health and Medicine, Radical Feminism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

.

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

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

 

.

 

 

Categories: Articles In English, History and Political, Radical Feminism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.