misogyny as the only logical response to misogyny

As I continue to wrap up my blog, I’ve realized that my recent posts might be hard to follow and/or make contradictory statements.  My first reaction is to edit them, clean them up into a more concise format, or present them in some other way that is easier to follow.  On the other hand, I’m getting tired of saying the same things over and over again.  I’m tired of constantly explaining myself and clarifying myself to everyone else.  Not only does the subject matter of this blog require examination from different viewpoints, I’m not in the business of spoon feeding people anymore.  I think women who reject misogyny will understand perfectly what I’m saying and why I might have conflicting feelings/viewpoints about it.  Not that the subject of misogyny is just about my personal feelings, indeed misogynists don’t care how any woman feels about their abusive attitude.  All they care about is what they can get out of women, whether we’ll serve their needs or make them feel better about the general shittiness of everyday Patriarchy.  Misogyny is a one way street where women are expected to give and give and give while everyone else takes without conscience.

This became even more clear to me some months ago when I finally got around to reading some very old feminist tracts that inspired me to do my own analysis of biological sex.  In the end, I reached a similar conclusion Shulamith Firestone reached that misogyny is a product of biology as much as it is a product of society.  However unlike Shulamith Firestone, I don’t think it’s just the division of labor that did us all in, but the experience of reproductive biology itself.

Consider this:  every person’s first experience with the female body is 100% parasitic beginning in the womb where our most basic understanding of “woman” is a resource of nourishment and warmth.  This experience of taking from our mother’s bodies for our own benefit is visceral, involuntary, and absolutely universal to every person that ever existed.  Our development in early infancy reinforces this perspective, and our growing brains continue to associate the idea of our mothers as a resource for our personal benefit.  This is repeated every time we are fed, washed, changed, held, and interacted with by our mothers.  Human beings also have an extended childhood compared to other animals, and this prolongs the time we “feed” off of our mothers, reinforcing the attitude that it’s women who should solve all our problems and make hunger, pain, and discomfort go away.

“We” as a species are literally unable to experience women as complex people with their own problems and their own issues until later in life when our brains are developed enough to understand.  Even then, there’s a large segment of people who go around like the walking wounded who spend their entire lives hating their own mothers because their mothers didn’t give them what they felt entitled to at some point in their lives.  Such angry entitlement is then extended to all women, whether they are mothers or not, since our mothers are our default experience with femaleness.

Is it then not logical to conclude that all people are misogynists, by fault of both basic biology and a male dominated society that enables our deepest infantile attitudes towards women?  Since neither men nor women can be trusted to view women as human beings, then no one is ever truly safe for women to be around.  Therefore, a decreased proximity to absolutely everyone is necessary to reduce the amount of misogyny in everyday life.  Misanthropy is a logical response to being treated like a host for parasites, in fact it might be the only logical response to it.  If feminism/separatism is a logical response, then why are women still expected to put up with misogyny from other women to achieve those ends?  Feminists have a vetting process to weed out racists, homophobes and other personalities deemed not compatible with the social justice format, but they will not weed out misogynist women from their own movement.

I don’t think most people – feminists included – understand the full scope of what it means to reject misogyny.  If you reject misogyny then you reject the assumption that it’s women’s job to meet your personal needs and make everything right for you.  Rejecting misogyny means growing up and putting away the childish notion that women exist for your personal benefit.  Most people can’t move past this infantile belief system and continue to treat women like nameless, faceless human resources that exist purely for their own benefit.  This is particularly true on the Left where women are not allowed to focus on their own oppression and instead we are expected to solve social problems that affect men first.  The Left isn’t much different than the Right with regard to women’s gynergy being up for grabs and exploited for men’s gains, and women being expected to sit down and STFU about men’s abuse, misogyny, and male supremacy.

This is even more evident when we compare the gynergy expenditure of women and non-human females of other species.  Non-human females of other species are allowed to conserve their gynergy and only invest in offspring that will be able to fend for itself and be genetically successful.  This also ensures that natural resources like food and water are not wasted on offspring that can’t fully participate in the ecosystem.  Non-human animals also have an instinctual “cut off” point limiting the amount of time mothers spend on providing for their offspring and teaching them how to survive.

On the other hand, adult human females (women!) are expected to waste their gynergy convincing men not to harm us (something we shouldn’t have to do in the first place), on offspring that we are expected to provide for long after they reach adulthood, and picking up the slack where men can’t be bothered.  I’ve blogged about how women have an inclination to keep trying to improve society.  While I don’t think this is an entire waste of gynergy, it is a waste of gynergy to have to keep doing it over and over again, and long after men should have learned better by now.  All of these problems appear to be human-specific since no other species on Earth is as cruel and wasteful as people are.

However, if you’re a woman who rejects misogyny then you probably already know that by now.  I instinctively developed a dislike for people after years and years of misogyny from both men and women alike including my own female family members.  Finding feminism gave me hope, but it made it all that much harder to come to accept that women use and discard other women just as much as men do.  In fact it comes naturally to people since all they know about women is what they can get from us.  Sadly, that’s all most people ever want to know, and misogynists cannot be cured no matter who they are.  I used to keep making excuses for women in the back of my mind, because women do not ask for misogyny nor do they ask to internalize misogyny.  As true as that is, I’m also at a point in my life where I literally cannot stomach misogyny anymore no matter who it comes from.  It is disgusting to assume I should choose between my health and well being and the well being of other women knowing damn well they don’t give a fuck about me.  I literally cannot do this anymore.

Posted in misanthropy

no.

I’ve been trying to figure out a way to wrap up this blog without making a goodbye post, since I am notoriously bad at goodbye posts since they only become new angles to write about and criticize Patriarchy.  At least ten new posts virtually write themselves in my head, and all I have to do is go online and type them down like an inspired stenographer.

It doesn’t change the fact that I need a break from all this (and the Internet altogether) and continuing to do this work poses it’s own problems, including sapping my gynergy that I need for other things IRL.  It doesn’t help that there are many “feminists” who don’t take the oppression of women seriously at all, and to add insult to injury they believe they are entitled to demand other feminists do extra free work for them so they can have more time to devote to their Nigels or talk shit about women online.

For anyone who isn’t new around the feminist blogosphere, you’ve probably noticed as I have that new buzzwords are circulating around as men and male identified women seek out feminists as a social resource to do their heavy lifting for them.  The three words capitalism, neoliberalism, and classism are new ways of saying “STFU about misogyny and sexism” the same way racism, transphobia, and privilege were thrown up in women’s collective faces as an effective silencing technique to shut down any discussion about misogyny and male supremacy.  If the past eight years is any indicator, it is only a matter of time until feminist discourse is once again completely taken over by male dominated dialogue that distracts women from their own oppression.

While feminism itself has always been compatible with anti-classism efforts (Dialectic of Sex, etc) what these activists fail to grock is that nothing will change as long as men are allowed to continue oppressing women.  White imperialism will continue as long as white men dominate white women, and capitalism will continue as long as women are used as breeders to create more workers and soldiers for the Patriarchy.  It’s not that fucking hard to understand.

What then, is the point of activism if you aren’t willing to free class:female from the clutches of class:male, unless you don’t really don’t want anything to change in the first place?  I’ve blogged about this before, and how activists have no real incentive to change anything since it would render them obsolete and end their relatively lucrative careers.  As far as I’m concerned this criticism still stands.  The only point of activism, then, is to reinforce male power and give misogynists new excuses to brutalize women who step out of line.

Consider this:  if first world white men cannot condescend to stop abusing their own female relatives, what makes anyone think they can stop racism or capitalism?  This is a serious question.  Even the most feminist-friendly dudes busy themselves with scouring the web to find and promote statements made by misogynist “feminists” and male identified women in an effort to coerce women into feeling guilty for existing and/or pointless politicking that they know won’t work.  And of course they know it won’t work – the Patriarchy is men’s creation and men were the ones who decided how it works.  The only question is, why?  Why do men expect women to “fight” for even the most basic of human rights, and expect women to keep “fighting” for gains that will never be realized (and if they are realized, won’t be allowed to last very long)?  Why do men consistently, throughout time and place, create complex hierarchies that they know are inhumane, unsustainable, and doomed to fail (see: white imperialism)?  Why do men do this knowing that people will suffer and die in the event they want to dismantle said social hierarchy break a part their Legos and take their toys home (see: civil war, social unrest, rioting, ect)?

While it’s true that men probably find some sadistic glee in watching women struggle to keep society from falling a part, I also think it’s because men require chronic instability to maintain male domination.  Ensuring that “civilization” is fragile and hanging on by a thread (or that we’re only a power outage away from nuclear meltdown) is a good way to coerce women into using their gynergy to keep it all from falling a part at the seams.  If you’re a woman whose had a friend in an abusive relationship, you’ll know what I’m talking about.  Women who are abused are typically subject to regular “blow ups,” and various “emergencies” by men who then sit back and enjoy watching women struggle to keep it together for whatever reason (kids, love for their abuser, ect).  When that fails, and when women seek outside support and assistance from other women, men are then able to project their abusive behavior outside their home to women-as-helpers through women-as-victims.  It’s misogyny by proxy.  The end result is that women (regardless of who they are and what choices they have made for themselves) are kept busy dealing with men’s immediate abuse and is a distraction from the Bigger Picture of things.

Male activists know this, in fact many male activists come from abusive backgrounds themselves and they know how it works.  Since men are emboldened from day one to prevent women from ever feeling safe or comfortable, they keep women “busy” tending to emergencies and/or sending women on fools errands to do something about problems that are largely created by men in the first place.  From a quick cursory glance over the feminist blogosophere, it would appear that many women have bought into men’s language of “dismantling” and “overthrowing” XYZ for it’s own reason, despite the fact that chronic instability is partly the reason why abusive males have so much power in the first place.

It’s worth thinking about that entire civilizations have risen and fallen in different parts of the world for reasons that had nothing to do with white imperialism, which illustrates the instability of civilization itself.  Such civilizations were not necessarily Earth-friendly either.  Entire areas of land were destroyed for farming purposes, and it took centuries for the land to replenish itself.  Unfortunately “we” are not in the lucky position of being able to go quietly into the night as these civilizations did, thanks to 400+ nuclear reactors threatening to melt down if “we” fail to keep the grid online.  “We” cannot let the grid fall “or else.”  You see?  “We” cannot afford to dismantle overthrow take a part unpack destroy civilization yet again.  There is no “do over” this time.

And here’s the thing:  women have always struggled and tried with every ounce in our collective being to keep men’s shit from falling into the ground.  Women have always picked up the slack where men couldn’t be bothered, which means that our collective fate depends on women’s investment.  Since it’s women that are going to save us all, then men really need to engage in pro-social behavior “stop being abusive dicks” to women and stop getting in women’s way for once.

There is nothing anyone needs to say or do to motivate women to keep society from falling a part at the seams.  This inclination seems to exist whether we want it to or not, and it transcends time, place, and politics.  Women do this whether we are asked or not and whether it’s socialized or not.  We are always trying, in our own way, to improve things.  Over the years, several feminists have shared their own theories as to why women shy away from feminism, and I think it’s because women know organizing doesn’t work.  Women are highly independent and almost always end up doing their own thing anyway.  Men are the ones prone to organization and they organize all the time.  Men form armies, fall into lockstep with each other, wear the same uniforms, form complex hierarchies and are willing to die for “the cause” even if it’s just some guy’s selfish dreams.  Since women are the ones who are expected to clean up men’s messes and shoulder the consequences of men’s organizing (including picking up the pieces when civilizations fall), women instinctively reject political organizing on principle that it’s just not worth it.  I myself reject activism on the grounds that I’m got tired of being used by misogynists who hate me (this includes female misogynists).  I think each woman has her reasons, and the reasons are universally tied to exploitation of our gynergy.  Regardless of what the case may be, when women say NO we should probably respect it and think about the reasons she has for saying so.  Right?

Posted in misanthropy

at an impasse

I’m running out of things to write about again, and that’s probably a good thing since I don’t know for how much longer I can keep this up, this being a continuing analysis of humanity’s odds for survival in an Internet full of misogynist claptrap.  Not only do I have enough to keep me busy in the real world, I question the idea that’s my job to save people from themselves and I question the assumption that anyone would listen if I tried.

In any case, I’ve been talking a lot about pro-social behavior lately (that’s “stop being an abusive dick” to those who are confused by two dollar words) and I realized that I left out some very important sex based analysis.  While it’s true that the world would be an immediately better place if everyone stopped “being an abusive dick” right away; it presents another issue:  men and women view do-gooding and pro-social behavior in totally different ways.

I have no doubt that women who read this blog will get exactly what I’m saying when I say “we all need to do our part” to make the world a nice place to live.  That’s because women already do far more than their fair share contributing to society even though society hates women and devalues absolutely everything we do.  Women get it because women want a humane quality of life and be able to live to tell about it.  Even though women are constantly denied the financial and political power to solve society’s problems, women still go out of their way to volunteer, donate, and otherwise try to improve things anyway.

Men, on the other hand, do not view things the same way.  Not even close.  Men don’t have to care.  Men do not live under the mandatory giving-a-fuck the same way women do.  All men are required to do is the bare minimum which is simply refrain from being offensive and hold down a job.  Then he is a “good guy” with permanent good guy status until such time he does something particularly egregious and wrong, and even then his good guy status is nigh impenetrable and used to discredit women who are his victims behind closed doors.  Men don’t have to go out of their way to make society “work” the way women do, nor do they have to bend over backwards to prove their value.

So even if everyone decided to listen to me (yeah right), this is what would probably happen:  men would sit around like inoffensive blobs while women continued doing the dirty work keeping society from falling a part at the seams.  Nothing would really change in that regard, since men don’t feel obligated to do their part to make the world a nice place to live, and even if men somehow miraculously stopped being violent and women were finally relieved of the constant threat of rape, women would still be doing everything with no recognition and no appreciation.  Misogyny would still continue in the background even if men were smart enough to keep it from the foreground.

Now I’ve come to the entire reason why this blog exists in the first place:  I’m tired of misogynists believing it’s women’s job to clean up men’s messes, and/or think it’s women’s job to keep society from falling a part while men get to do whatever they want (even if it’s just sitting around like inoffensive blobs).  This doesn’t mean I’m thrilled with the idea of women having to go out of their way to tell men to pick up their own fucking socks and do their own goddamn dishes as well as cleaning up the political system since women shouldn’t have to do that.

However I also think it’s important I make it clear that women don’t owe men a goddamn thing, and it doesn’t matter why men are the way they are, men need to fix themselves and do their part to make society work.  Period.  This puts me at an impasse with feminists who want to sit around and argue essentialism vs socialization (a false dichotomy if I ever saw one) or otherwise make statements that allude to the idea that we can’t hold men 100% responsible for their behavior because they either can’t help themselves or that they were socialized to do it and therefore, shut the fuck up and never criticize men to the lengths women have been criticized.  Right?  It’s a false dichotomy for a reason:  it demands women’s gynergy be attached to men for the purposes of saving men from themselves and attaching our gynergy to men is one of the reasons we all got to this point in the first place.

If we’re to consider encouraging pro-social behavior, then we have to decide how we define it based on what we know historically and presently about how society operates.  Depending on psychological definitions when the entire field of psychology was built on misogynistic beliefs isn’t an option.  There are over a hundred thousand licensed psychologists practicing in America, and their definitions of anti-social behavior and pro-social behavior have yet to stop male violence and/or produce effective preventable measures.  Or else it would have already.

If we can logical conclude that the Patriarchy revolves around men, and that investing our gynergy into men is making it worse and not better, then continuing to do so isn’t pro-social.  If we can logically conclude that doing everything for men is only enabling them to continue doing their worst (or at best, sitting around doing nothing at all), then continuing to do so isn’t pro-social.  If we can logically conclude that civilization is not stable, and that civilizations historically rise and fall and men just rebuild whatever is torn down, then continuing to “tear down” things isn’t pro-social especially in the face of worldwide nuclear fallout.  Cause–>Effect.

Lest anyone assume they can pin the blame on women for men’s continued failure to behave like bona fide adults, I don’t see men lining up to volunteer or pick up the slack to give women a break.  I don’t see anti-capitalist brogressives competing to share the burdens of domestic labor, child rearing, and caring for the sick and elderly.  Yes, it’s a problem when women act against their own interests, but it’s even more a problem when men make women act in the absence of men giving a fuck.  Although I’m sure some feminists would debate if men can even give a fuck, but since we live in a society where they don’t have to, we’ll never really know, will we?

Posted in misanthropy

banana dose bs pt 2

hahn

A 2007 mugshot of David Hahn. The sores on his face are presumed to be caused by radiation poisoning.

David Hahn, also known as the “Radioactive Boy Scout,” passed away last year at the age of 39.  Although it’s been over four months since he died, the media has yet to report an official cause of death.  Most people would reasonably deduce that his apparent lifelong hobby of dabbling in nuclear science was probably the reason he died so young (I’m guessing he bought into the whole “banana dose” of radiation nonsense).  His mug shot and the accompanying charges of larceny from stealing numerous smoke detectors for the purpose of acquiring americium, a radioactive material, appear to support this presumption.  When MailOnline interviewed in him in 2013 regarding the 1996 incident where he attempted to build a breeder reactor in his mother’s shed, he responded:

Look, there may have been a few safety issues.  But the whole $60,000 Superfund clear up was a total over-reaction. I was just building a model nuclear reactor and I never saw the shed glowing.

“I never the saw the shed glowing.”  Really?  Does this not sound like every guy who ever said “I never saw bruises” therefore a woman is not abused or the victim of rape?

Looking at the world as it is today, the entirety of human history and how we collective got to where we are today, it would appear that the “banana dose” attitude has been applied to sexism and misogyny, too.  Sexism has long been treated like the “banana dose” of oppression; and just like radiation, people will do everything they can to deny it, cover it up, and minimize the effects of it even when said consequences are right in our collective faces.  Someone like David Hahn is perfect to illustrate this point, as he minimized the effects of radiation as well as any male supremacist or brogressive minimizes and dismisses the effects of sexism.  If people refuse to take misogyny seriously, even though it effects 50% of the human population, then what makes them think they know what’s best for society?  They’ve got to be kidding themselves.

While I started blogging about nuclear stuff without the intention of being all doom-and-gloom, and I have done my best to see a silver lining in the whole thing, it doesn’t change the fact that most people do not comprehend Cause–>Effect.  There is no talking sense into people who can’t do the simple math of human biology and male violence, including anti-racists who refuse to see how white women’s oppression facilitated white imperialism.  They don’t even think female biology exists, therefore all those white people must have come from out of nowhere.  Right?  Like “poof!” from thin air.  Apparently they think white women got a “banana dose” of oppression despite all current and historical evidence of white men’s centuries long hate campaign against white women, including domestic and sexual slavery of white women, and subsequently the physical and sexual torture of white women during the Witch Hunts that stripped away access to birth control and abortion resulting in a population boom preceding the colonial period.

Another example:  Hillary lost one election, and people shoved racism in white women’s face even though white men’s oppression of white women made white imperialism possible in the first place.  Hillary has now lost a second election, and now people are shoving capitalism and classism in feminist faces even though it’s women’s oppression that makes capitalism possible in the first place.  They refuse to acknowledge women’s biological existence or else “transphobia,” even though it’s women’s biology that is exploited to produce more workers and soldiers for the Patriarchy at the expense of women’s rights and women’s lives.  Women have always been the means to production, and I have yet to see Bernie Bros or other brogressives getting upset about that.  Well, of course they aren’t.  They get off on brutalizing women and gloating over women’s oppression.  They think women get a “banana dose” of oppression, even though it’s women’s oppression that made poor men’s oppression possible in the first place.

It’s like people can’t fucking learn, and they won’t fucking learn because they’re too addicted to hating women to actual do any real activism (sitting around and talking shit doesn’t count).  This includes so-called “feminists” who are more focused on hating privileged women than they are actually supporting women and working towards women’s full social participation and political representation (how many of them have ever heard of the ERA?  I’m just asking).  All this is brought to you by the people who think sexism is just a “banana dose” of oppression.  Enjoy it while you can (and you will, you sick sadistic psychos), since we’re probably going to end up like David Hahn because of you.

Posted in misanthropy

inheritance – a thought exercise

In my last post, I touched on the idea that civilization might look different with women in charge.  I would like to try a thought experiment if anyone reading is willing to try.  Imagine a hypothetical scenario where 98% of the world’s males disappeared.  It doesn’t matter how they disappeared (you can make up your own version of how/why), the end result is that women are left on the Earth with only a small amount of men to continue the human species.  Women around the world have inherited “civilization” with respect to their own cultures, nationalities, ect.  How different do you think the world would be if women were in charge?  How differently would the world feel if we suddenly no longer lived under the threat of rape, and didn’t have to constantly compete with each other in a male dominated order of things?  What kind of world would we live in, and how much different would it be in comparison to what we are living in now?  Why or why not?

I have a theory, and ironically it has nothing to do with the scenario proposed above:  I don’t think most people will be able to do this thought exercise because #1 they hate women and assume the worst of women and #2 they don’t even believe women exist.  Most people view women as castrated versions of men, inferior versions of men, extensions of men, and men’s property.  To speak of women’s biological existence and how men have used our reproductive systems to oppress us is considered transphobic.  To suggest that women are different than men, because risking our lives to create other people would logically give us a different outlook on the world and how things should be done is considered essentialist.  You can’t even talk about sexism – the oppression that affects half the human planet regardless of race, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, ect – without being accused of being exclusionary.  Femaleness is perceived as a potential of usefulness rather than a unique state of being a part from maleness.

To most people, women’s existence is merely theoretical, it’s an abstract concept rather than personal experience or lived reality.  We are not allowed our own existence since we are not allowed to be separate from men.  We are not allowed our own distinct voices, our own distinct politics, our own distinct beliefs, and our own distinct philosophies since men will not allow us the space and resources to develop such things the way men have separated from women and developed male-specific politics, philosophies, beliefs, ect.  Instead, women are tasked with holding society together while men do whatever they want without fear of consequences, since it’s women who shoulder the consequences and are scapegoated for men’s choices.  The only way men acknowledge even one truth of our existence is when they demand we perform as their personal baby makers.  The only other time men are willing to admit that women are different than men is when they want an excuse to keep oppressing us and keeping us from fully participating in society.

For anyone to pretend, even for a moment, that they know what the world would look like with women making the decisions is either a liar or delusional.  All we know is men, what men do, what they think, how they feel, what their ambitions are, what they feel entitled to, and worst of all the ever constant threat of violence they pose on everyone else.  All we know is men because men are all we’re allowed to know.

We don’t know women since we have never been given the opportunity to be separate from men, to carve out a meaningful existence away from men, and have a legitimate existence that is self-defined absent of male input, and given the basic human right to do so without threat of men’s abuse and men’s violence.  Men have shown us what they are.  They’ve had 10,000+ years dominating all conversations about absolutely everything, making all the major decisions without any thought as to how it impacts us, and the world is a goddamn mess.  To presume that women will be “just as bad” as men is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of.  You don’t even know what women are like let alone assuming anything about our abilities.  Women haven’t even been given a chance to show people what the world would be like, and if by some chance men eventually decide to allow certain women to share political power, it will only be with women who are male-identified and serve men’s needs.  Then those women will be used to judge the rest of us, and set the standard for the rest of us regardless of our opinion of it.  So you take your “Hillary would be just as bad as Trump” and put a cork in it because you know it’s bullshit.

There are, of course, the women who are just as much entrenched in all this and see misogyny as completely normal.  Their hatred for other women is just as much of an addiction as it is for men.  Like most malignant narcissists, it gives them a rush to lord over other women and presume themselves to be better than them.  However it wasn’t women who decided that this was a legitimate social practice – men did.  Male domination is much easier to establish and maintain when there’s just enough male-identified women around to enforce men’s standards and do men’s dirty work.  I still wonder how those women would fare in a female-dominated world.  I suspect that such internalized misogyny would resolve itself once they realize there aren’t many men around to impress.  Indeed if such a hypothetical scenario would occur, it would probably take women several generations to heal from men’s 10,000+ year reign of terror on Earth before we see real improvement.  Then the world would start to look much different, in ways we cannot imagine.

Posted in misanthropy

can we stop re-inventing the wheel? please? pretty please?

If people look into this nuclear stuff as much as I have, they might draw the conclusion that the only solution to all this is to immediately decommission all nuclear power plants and do away with nuclear technology completely.  It is, without a doubt, the safest course of action to take despite posing it’s own set of problems.  While it is a fact that nuclear energy and nuclear technologies are dangerous and require great care in handling, I question the assumption that doing away with it all is even an option anymore.  “We” as a species will be dealing with the problem of nuclear waste for thousands of years to come (if we manage survive that long), and nuclear test sites, exclusion zones, and decommissioned nuclear reactors won’t be safe to occupy anytime soon.  We’re already living with the long term legacy of nuclear power and will continue to do so for as long as we live.  There are also numerous uses for nuclear technology including health care and medicine.  We would have to find a way to replace those.

On the other hand, since we have already ruined thousands upon thousands of square miles of land, and since we’ve already gone through all the trouble of developing smog-free electricity, I question whether it’s a good idea to just “do away with it” so we can re-invent the wheel and ruin yet more land with some other hair brained technological failure.  You know it will only be a matter of time until someone else gets some bright idea that results in yet more pollution and yet more land loss due to experimental failure.  Maybe I’m experiencing temporary insanity, but I keep thinking that one solution to all this is to start expecting people to behave like they actually are civilized.  Yes, I’m very aware of the evils of civilization a.k.a. Patriarchy and the misery produced by all the complex hierarchies that men have created, and it deserves all the criticism it gets.  Unfortunately, in becoming aware of our collective worst case scenario if the grid falls, it would appear that nuclear energy is the gun to our collective head.  It is a hostage crises in every sense of the word, a “fail safe” where civilization must succeed or else.  “Or else” being the entire world gets saturated in radioactive fallout.

There is no simple answer to any of this.  I think the only question that remains is how long do you want to be able to survive it?  That is probably the most honest way of looking at things.  Unfortunately, if we’re to keep nuclear energy around and live long enough to tell about it, we would have to change our behavior and our priorities and I doubt that will ever happen.  Even the “good guys” in various activist groups support and participate in male violence and refuse to hold other men accountable for doing the same.  Then there are the anti-civilization types that would love nothing more than to see the grid fall even if it means worldwide nuclear fallout; and even though they present do-gooder political reasons for doing so, they still manage to resemble the average survivalist/prepper type that has no qualms about exposing women and girls to yet more male violence.

What the anti-civilization folks never consider is that humanity already had an opportunity to co-exist with Nature.  There was once a time when civilization didn’t exist, and there was plenty of time where there were no social controls to stop men from living up to their worst potential, i.e. going around setting up rape camps, kidnapping and raping women and girls, creating hierarchical caste systems, killing and torturing, ect.  Civilization didn’t happen by chance or in a vacuum – it happened because men’s violence and men’s domination ran rampant unhindered and unchecked.

venus

An example of men’s rapist violence 22,000 years ago and long before civilization came along.
drawing image credit: universe of art

And yet, the anti-civilization people want to take us all back to square one so men can re-invent the wheel and repeat the process all over again.  Because pollution.  Because industrial society.  Because feminism (allegedly).  Because something.  They are working to dismantle civilization knowing full well what will happen to women and girls once the grid falls.  In other words, anti-civs want to give violent men the opportunity to victimize women and girls all over again, only this time with the added misery of collective nuclear meltdown.  I can’t think of anything more anti-Nature, anti-feminist, and “business as usual” than sitting back while the Earth is being poisoned and giving men absolute freedom to act out their worst sadistic tendencies.

Anti-civs are most definitely a male-oriented political outfit despite some of them claiming otherwise.  They haven’t bothered to consider the possibility that civilization a.k.a. Patriarchy has produced so much harm because men are the ones who created it and control it, and therefore it is a reflection on men themselves.  They refuse to consider the possibility that civilization might look different with women in charge, because they still view women as men’s property, mere extensions of men, and as castrated inferior versions of men.  Their thought processes mirror the Bernie Bros who would rather see Donald Trump destroy America than share the tiniest bit of political power with women.  This worldview is not unlike public mass shooters whose personal unhappiness is deemed more important than the basic rights of other human beings and even life itself, and this includes private mass shooters who kill their entire families before killing themselves because they lost control somewhere, somehow.  After all, what is the point in letting other people live if they can’t control everything and everyone?

The idea of “I’m not happy, therefore I get to tear it all down” is so much male privileged worldview.  Anti-civ movies like “Fight Club” are founded around the singular principle that if men are unhappy, then nobody is allowed to be happy (mass shooter mentality).  The men of Fight Club became anarchists because their hopes and dreams were denied, and apparently men’s hopes and dreams supersede everything else including the basic human right to simply live life in peace.  Anti-civs would rather take it all down than make a concentrated effort to eradicate the aspects of our society that put us most at risk for grid failure and subsequently nuclear failure – such as ending the constant threat of male violence that precipitates such things like war, social unrest, crime, financial risk taking, scientific risk taking including experimenting with dangerous viruses, and other male patterned behavior.

Naw, let’s just destroy it all because it’s not fun anymore.  Let’s rip a part the Legos and take our toys home.  Isn’t that what they’re really saying?  Forget about any potential progress we might have made, or using this situation as an opportunity to evolve the human species beyond barbaric violence.  Let’s just tear a part the Earth and build shit for the sheer glee of it, so everyone can be traumatized when it all burns to the ground.  All this brought to you by the inventors of drug dealing and rape.

Posted in misanthropy

fear of a higher power

When it comes to religion and criticism of religion, the most vocalized complaint among atheists seems to revolve around the psychological terrorism of religious beliefs.  There is no doubt that people who go around threatening other people with real torture or eternal torture if they don’t submit to their religion are terrorists of a psychological kind.  The terror they evoke exploits our natural fear of the unknown, which is tied into our basic instinct to survive.  People tend to avoid pain, and threatening people with pain to elicit a favorable response is a hostage situation, even if said (supernatural) threat doesn’t actually exist or there’s no evidence to suggest that it does.  It still requires people to operate under the assumption that pain is possible and therefore they can avoid it if only they submit to the will of another person.

There is a rapist element in this kind of thinking as well.  Ask any rapist who has used a knife or a gun to demand compliance, and they know full well that the fear of immediate pain and death supersedes fear of sexual violation.  Has anyone stopped to consider that the religions employing these methods are always male dominated?  You don’t see Dianic Wiccans doing this shit.  And that since these religions were created by men, perpetuated by men, and decided by men, it is therefore a reflection on men.  To those who demand I absolve men of responsibility for doing this because socialization, have you ever asked yourself why the vast majority of men do not repudiate these religions or the methods of psychological terrorism employed by these religions?  If you can suggest that women’s choices can be made independently of socialization and for personal gain, then so can men’s.  So why haven’t men’s choices been put under a microscope?  It stands to logically assume most men choose to participate in the culture of psychological terrorism because they benefit from it.  Why don’t men chose to reject religious terrorism and do away with it all together?  Men also have more freedom of choice than women since they go out of their way to limit women’s choices and prevent women from fully participating in society including political participation.  Why do men choose to cling to holy books and use those holy books against women knowing full well the level of sadistic violence contained within them?  If men were just as terrorized as women, then why do men use religion against women to elicit submission and as an excuse to take away our basic human rights?  Women live under constant threat of men’s violence without religion, and religion just heaping more violence upon us.

While I could do an entire post on the inherent violence and sadistic misogyny of certain belief systems (including so many atheist men who are vicious abusers and only reject religion because it requires them to keep their dick in their pants), what I’m trying to talk about right now is fear of a higher power and how it effects people.  People have often suggested that a fear of god is required for people to behave decently, and I sadly concede for many people that is probably true.  There’s probably a lot of people who have never developed natural empathy and are incapable of pro-social behavior so they need religion to help restrain themselves for the greater good.  We live in a society that is harsh, cruel, and fractured; and it’s no wonder people are willing to turn to religion as a form of self-care.  After 10,000+ years of male domination, I would be surprised if people haven’t developed a dependency on an outside motivation to behave themselves.  There are long term consequences to men’s violence and to deny that is to deny reality.  Then there are people who don’t take religion seriously, but still fear the criminal justice system enough to abstain from breaking the law.  The uncomfortable prospect of being arrested, detained, jailed, and eventually released with a record to haunt you the rest of your life is probably enough for most people to conclude it’s not worth going out of one’s way to break the law.

However I don’t think the concept of a higher power is limited to having a belief in god or having the reasonable fear of a justice system that will chew you up and spit you out.  What if we were faced with a higher power with no human or human-like intelligence to contend with?  A higher power that would require us to conduct ourselves in a way so as to avoid self-annihilation?  What if that higher power elicited a response from people that made everyone a little kinder, gentler, humbler, more appreciative of their time on Earth, and more willing to listen to others and solve problems in peaceful ways?  What if this higher power elicited respect by simply existing and being absolutely real and scientifically measurable?  What if we already have this higher power and we’re already stuck with it’s legacy for thousands upon thousands of years?  What if this higher power made people sober up and treat life with the seriousness it deserves?

What would happen if I knocked on your door sharing the “news” that our global state is so fragile that a solar storm or an EMP could destroy the grid and subsequently life as we know it, and that this should encourage everyone to do their part to make the world a nicer place to live?  Would you slam the door in my face?  Would you project your own sadistic tendencies and accuse me of psychological terrorism even though I’m not the one who created nuclear energy nor have the power to stop it?  Would you still find reasons to scapegoat me even though nuclear reactors were built long before I was even born?  Or would you immediately join anti-nuclear campaigns because you can’t bear the thought of being forced to evolve and behave in ways that are socially responsible?  Or, would you just give me the uber-predictable psycho cool kid answer “I don’t give a fuck” and continue living life like it’s one big game with no consequences?

To be clear, I am not suggesting that we worship nuclear power.  That would be stupid since nuclear power simply IS.  It is what it is.

However, nuclear power as a higher power to be reasonably feared doesn’t require violence or people having power over other people to elicit a pro-social response.  If people need a good reason to shape up and grow up, then nuclear energy would be as good as reason as any to do so, without all the sexism, racism, genocide and homophobia that’s typically attached to religion and the justice system.  At least nuclear power is real.  You don’t have to waste years of your life debating it’s existence.  Nuclear power is socially neutral and doesn’t create caste systems like racism, sexism, colorism, classism, or discriminate based on sexuality, nationality, or ethnicity.  Nuclear power treats everyone the same, which is something no religion could ever compete with.  It is a power that cannot be anthropomorphic or symbolized by race, sex, religion, or any other human characteristic.  It simply exists whether we want it to or not and humanity continues to benefit from it by way of electricity, farming, medicine, ect.

If you think I am being absurd by suggesting that nuclear power is an adequate substitute for a higher power, then what is your opinion on 95% of the planet believing in dumb shit that doesn’t even exist?  Said dumb shit doesn’t help us with producing food or electricity.  Said dumb shit preaches a lot about love and caring for thy neighbor but has only ever translated into yet more war and bloodshed; and such beliefs are often accompanied by attitudes that are racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, genocidal, and abhorrent to any genuinely empathetic person.  How’s that religion thing working out for starving third world people who are coerced into converting so first world white people can drill them a well or distribute glorified oatmeal to their villages?

The concept of nuclear power is at least real, it is present and poses a likely threat no matter where you are in the world, it is sobering, and it has helped me see my own existence in context of the Bigger Picture of things, and not only that, it could (if we allow it) motivate people to evolve to a higher state of being.  The value of pro-social behavior would once again be seen as necessary as food and water.  The rising cult of narcissistic misogynists who think they are too good to stop being vicious abusers would be seen as the global threat that they are.

Quite frankly I am surprised nobody has thought of this before, or if anyone has, I have not run across it.  Who knows since much of the nuclear conversation happens below everyone’s collective radar and is largely ignored by the public.  One thing I can say for sure is that this debate is far more complex than being anti-nuclear or pro-nuclear.  Anyone who assumes as much isn’t seeing the Big Picture going on.

Posted in misanthropy