why

The bulk of my conversations with other women is always the question of why.  Why do men hate women.  Why do men treat us like a joke.  Why do men enjoy harming us.  Why is it even the nicest of guys seem incapable of having a relationship with women based on equal footing.  Why are men so goddamned determined to have everything their way even when it’s clearly harmful for themselves as well as women and children.  Many women turn to feminism to find answers to these questions, and feminism offers the answer of socialization.

On the surface this appears to be correct:  there are no significant differences between men and women with regards to intelligence and there is no such thing as a “male” or “female” brain.  Socialization is also skewed in men’s favor:  society enables men to do whatever they want (even when they are doing their worst) while demanding women’s 100% submission in all things.  Most people exhibit a clear preference for males in all things from managerial work to political representation despite the fact that males have abused power since forever and are more likely to commit crimes.  This makes the case that male privilege is the product of socialization that enables male power to continue to run rampant and unchecked.  There is no question that socialization is a very real problem.

However if socialization were end-all and be-all of problematic male behavior, then why do developmentally disabled males (or any male that is unable to be fully socialized for whatever reason) still commit rape?  Why is Patriarchy a worldwide problem without respect for geographical and cultural differences?  Why is it that no matter what language people speak, men seem to universally agree that words for vagina are always a contemptuous slur whereas words for dick are almost always associated with domination and anal rape?  People preach about respect for cultural differences then turn around proclaim that all cultures socialize the same things.  This makes no sense to me.

It does, however, make sense to me in context of reproductive biology:  males and females experience two different realities with regards to sexual experience.  By having a penis and how a penis functions, men’s perceptions of sex and sexuality are far different than women’s.  Males experience “sex” as penetrative act.  The act of penetrating requires exertion and force in varying degrees.  A woman fingering another woman is not the same thing!  No it is not.  It is not the same thing as having a sensitive appendage that evolved for the sole reason to enter other people’s bodies, which results in stimulating reward centers of the brain when doing so whether it’s rape or “consensual” sex.  There is simply no equivalence in women’s biology.  None.

Not only are males rewarded with pleasure for thrusting their penises in anyone they want – the act of exerting physical force for penetrative purposes (rape or otherwise) – it gives them incentive to keep doing it.  On the other side of the situation, being penetrated is experienced as pain and subjugation, and being on the losing side in the struggle of male domination.  An obvious example is the prison system – what do males do to one another when left to their own devices?  How do males establish hierarchies and settle scores with other males who wrong them?  Don’t tell me you don’t know the answer to this question.  In case it isn’t obvious, aside from forming gangs, engaging in skirmishes over territory, and pounding one another with regular beat downs, males will rape one another and establish dominance over other males as they always have since before recorded history.  When you take away the differences of geography and culture this is universally and historically true.  People often talk about male-on-male rape in terms of prison culture or during times of war when victors would rape the losers on bloody battlefields, but they do not talk about male-on-male rape in the context of everyday life.  Male on male rape is severely underreported, and I suspect the men aren’t telling because admitting defeat to another man would compound the pain and agony of the rape.  Male on male rape isn’t like losing a fight where a man can claim the other guy did something unfair, or puff out his chest and say that he gave as good as he got and “you should see the other guy.”  In male-on-male rape, the winners is clear:  the one who did the penetrating.

In the high stakes situation of male domination, penetration is a matter of brutality and winning where men must win or else and women, by simply existing without a penis, are considered the default losers.  Are you beginning to understand why men hate you now?  Do you now understand why men view female sexuality with contempt (hint:  when you show interest in sex with them, they think you are “asking for it” to be humiliated, since penetration to them means being humiliated.  Get it)?  Not only do men view recipients of a penis as a loser, they also view castrated men as inferior men.  Then what do you think they think about women?  The vagina to them is more than just the absence of a penis – it is also a gash, a wound that bleeds once a month – the word for vagina itself comes from the word for “sheath” where a sword is put (the sword being analogous to the penis as a weapon of penetration).

Since males who are penetrated and castrated are considered defeated males, men likely subconsciously interpret women’s anatomy as evidence of our collective defeat.  They interpret women’s desire for intercourse as a desire for pain and humiliation.  Worse than that, most men cannot tolerate sex acts with women without elements of pain and humiliation.  Pornography is saturated with women being brutalized and humiliated because that’s what men like to look at.  Penis+penetration=pain=power.

There are men who might be reading this going “whoa!  Not me!  I certainly don’t think this way!  I want my partner to have pleasure in bed,” and I’m sure that might be true.  I even found a story about a man who would rather castrate himself before being expected to have intercourse with more women.  Am I having a #NotAllMen moment here?  Ha.  However many men have not been forced to confront the darker side of male sexuality because we live in a Patriarchy where women are designated as the primary rape targets (they think we “want it,” remember?).  Think back to the story of Lot and how he wanted to throw his virgin daughters at an army of would-be angel rapers.

While I have no doubt that males are capable of overriding their basic instincts for domination and submission with self-awareness and evolved understanding of what is good for society (after all, it’s men who have written the laws for thousands of years, the least they can do is follow them), however it does not change the fundamental reality that men’s sexual realities predispose them to perceive sex in diametrically opposing terms of penetration vs being penetrated.  Penetration=winning, dominating.  Being penetrated=losing, submitting.  Women aren’t predisposed to think this way because we simply aren’t built for it.  Women’s pain and self-blame is caused part and parcel because of the assumption that men and women perceive and experience sexuality the same way and we don’t.  Clearly, we don’t.  Unfortunately men seem content to allow women to blame themselves for everything since they consider women losers in the first place.

With all this said, this does not mean that men are helpless victims of their biology.  Because men have chosen to dominate all fields of higher thinking with regards to law, ethics, morality, philosophy, ect they have also demonstrated that they are capable of rising above their animal instincts.  “He can’t help it” disintegrates in the wash of human history where males sat around like lumps thinking their thoughts and waxing poetic about the meaning of existence while women did the wash and cooked the meals.  Clearly men can help themselves, if they want to.  It’s not like they are bereft of the opportunity to do so and that opportunity was created at the expense of women’s lives and women’s potential over the course of at least 22,000 years.

I think it is safe to say that if a male hasn’t improved himself, it’s likely because he simply doesn’t want to.  He has decided that risking certain death and rape in Patriarchy survives a cost/benefit analysis.  After all, male-on-male rape is being done to some other guy so it’s all worth it right?  And they call me a misandrist?  Oh please.

Update 9/19/2017:  Literally one day after this post published, this happened.  I don’t think this needs any extra commentary – the story speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

Advertisements
Posted in misanthropy

language

There seems to be some confusion about the word “equality.”  It is my experience that when I use it, and when women around me use it in real life, what we are saying is this:

“We are also American citizens.  We also live in this nation, contribute to society, pay taxes, and follow it’s laws and regulations.  Since we make up half the population, we should also have a say in how things are done and where we are going as a people.”

Instead, this is what people (including some feminists) hear:

“We want to be just like men.  We want to be masculine.  We want to seek power and exploit it for our own selfish interests.”

I have yet to see anyone challenge what is clearly a projection of men’s behavior onto women who have never been given the opportunity to act at all.  I have yet to see people reject the notion that having self-respect, rational self-interest, establishing boundaries, and speaking without apology are somehow “male” qualities.  The talk of feminism “masculinizing women” is a well known tactic of misogynists who characterize any ounce of power wielded by women as a matter of moral panic rather than an opportunity to fully participate in society.

They are able to do this part and parcel because language itself is male dominated.  Language is weaponized with misogyny and used against us from the moment we are born.  All natural languages are products of Patriarchy and as such, have sexism deeply embedded and explicitly supportive of men and male interests.  Even the vast majority of constructed languages are created by men, and what few conlangs that have been created by women are endlessly criticized, devalued, and dragged through the mud by males who dominate the field.  Men know that language creation is first and foremost an exercise of power – it involves establishing a set of rules pertaining to sounds, grammar, alphabet, spelling, context, and punctuation among other things.  Men don’t think women should exercise power or be in any position to create rules or be an authority on anything, so they ignore, attack, and ridicule women’s work unless the language they are working in is safely dominated by males.

There was once a time when I wanted to create a feminist language so that women could have female space even if it were just a matter of mental and discursive space.  Language can change your brain, how we think, and how we see the world.  A feminist language has the potential to be a psychological shortcut to undoing Patriarchal socialization.  A part of me would still like to see a widely used feminist language, though the male war on it would be fucking unbearable.  First of all, making it a public language would only ensure that males would learn it just to spy on what women are talking about.  If kept private, men would find a way to get their hands on it for the purposes of infiltrating feminist discourse to re-frame words and discussions to fit their own agenda.  If women cannot talk about rape without being expected to center their conversation around men, what do you suppose the outcome of a feminist language would look like?

As it is, women cannot use their native languages without trouble from men.  We cannot speak without men shouting over us and demanding we think of them first.  Men would never tolerate the existence of a woman’s language because the rules of said language would establish semantic boundaries that men would have no say in.  Men don’t want women to have boundaries, because boundaries curtail male entitlement and male power.  That’s the real issue of language, isn’t it?  Men create the words, establish the definitions, and force women to live within the confines of male thought patterns and thought processes – meanwhile, women are not allowed to establish boundaries of their own.  Women are not allowed to say NO, and people refuse to listen when we do.  We might be legally allowed to have our own living space, but we are not allowed to have our own psychological and discursive space away from males.

Of course I cannot write this post without mentioning that there is already a feminist language out there – it’s called Láadan and it still maintains an Internet presence.  If you are a feminist and interested in a feminist language that’s already been created, there is a place to start.  I personally did not take to it but if I see other feminists learning it and using it, it would probably motivate me to do the same.  However this shouldn’t discourage feminists from creating their own language if they want to, even if it’s just a personal one only they and a few trusted associates know.  I have considered this option myself, since I am a loner misanthropist who wants to learn another language but doesn’t like the idea of actually talking to anyone (or having my life stolen by misogynists who insist everything needs to be a goddamn debate).  Languages aren’t just for speaking, they are also for thinking and I don’t think men would keep dominating them if that wasn’t the case.

Posted in domination/submission

the facts of life

For the record, the title is a reference to the euphemism, not the television show.  It is sad that in the year 2017 I have to clarify this point.  Feminism is first and foremost sexual politics, as in politics relating to biological sex, equality between the sexessexuality, and sexual matters like rape, STIs, pregnancy, birth control, and access to abortion.  How feminism became synonymous with everything but women isn’t much of a mystery – people simply don’t take women’s oppression seriously.  People view women as “floating heads” and fail to understand how women’s oppression is firmly rooted in biology.  People would rather assume that oppression is a matter that’s all in our collective heads, neatly divorced from biology, and just a matter of having an attitude adjustment.  One would think that if it were that easy, that decades of feminist politics and theory would have solved the problem by now.

Well, I’m done with politics and theory and have been for a long time now.  The only thing that has ever gotten me close to understanding what is happening and why it is happening is biology, history, and statistics.  I reject faith based misogynist bullshit masquerading as serious debate as well as reject having my life stolen by sadists who want to argue in circles over and over again until they get confused and can we start over please.  There are some things that are just not up for debate because they are objective facts that are independently verifiable and directly related to cause and effect.

Something I have always appreciated about radical politickers is their unapologetic acceptance of biological reality.  I may not agree with them on anything else but that much they have going for them.  That much I have never had to debate with them about, whereas most everyone else still thinks science a matter of feeling or opinion.  In fact part of the reason I named this post “the facts of life” was for the radicals, because I know out of everyone on planet Earth they are the only ones who are going to understand what I’m going to be talking about in this post and why I want to talk about it.  But I also want to ask them why they aren’t already talking about the topic I have in mind: the anti-depressant effects of semen.  I have only found one so far:  Trust Your Perceptions has written an entire blog series about this already.  Here’s the links to the No-Skip Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Appendix and References.  For the record I do not agree with all of her analysis, but then I rarely agree with anyone’s analysis on anything.  So anyway, there’s the links if you need them, and your welcome.

Going back to my question, I’m asking why radical politickers aren’t talking about this because radical politickers are the only ones spearheading the discussion with regards to biological sex, but this particular topic seems to have flown right over the rad-o-sphere without a blink.  I find this odd, especially since radical politickers are also the only ones with a functional understanding of feminism, and understand that this includes women’s right to say NO, which includes NO to psychiatric abuse and exposure to mind altering substances, which women have been historically subjected to when committed to mental asylums and butchered with lobotomies for various “woman troubles.”

Perhaps radical politickers don’t take antidepressants seriously, or perhaps they view antidepressants as a separate issue related to profit seeking pharmaceutical companies.  Maybe they are unaware that antidepressants can rapidly change the structure of the brain after one dose, or they are unaware that antidepressants are stifling women’s instincts.  Maybe they don’t know that women are more sensitive to antidepressants than men, and don’t need as much of a “dose” to achieve desired effects.   Perhaps they haven’t given much thought to the basic math that women who are exposed to antidepressants semen over the course of their reproductive lives may have neurochemical and brain structural differences with women of the same age who weren’t.  Cause and effect.

Regardless of the reason, I think the official position of throwing birth control and abortions at women to reduce reproductive oppression is falling short given this new (or not so new) information.  While birth control and abortion are important and should always be defended, neither one protects women from being regularly exposed to mind-altering semen (particularly through the vectors of anal sex and blow jobs).  From Popular Science:  The Psychology of Semen, Part Two: Your Questions Answered

So is rape supposed to be mood-boosting?

Obviously not. Mood isn’t simply a result of our biochemistry, and the depression-alleviating benefits of semen would likely be trumped by the trauma of the rape, and the possible negative consequences, such as unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases, Gallup says. Plus, he adds, “It may very well be the case that the anti-depressant properties of semen are dose dependent, and that repeated insemination may be necessary to get the effects.”

Bold mine.  In case the context isn’t clear:  we live in a heteronormative society where women are expected to sexually submit to men and be regularly “dosed” with semen.  The mental “boost” from regular exposure to semen can condition women to perceive their own sexual subjugation as normal and desirable.  I can’t speak to being regularly “dosed” with semen, but I can speak to this:  that in the short time I took anti-depressants, I tolerated misogyny much more than I do today plus I put up with a lot more abuse from both men and women.  If semen is an antidepressant then it only makes sense why so many women tolerate or minimize their oppression.  They’ve learned to associate feel-good hormones and mood boosters with maleness, which only reinforces Patriarchal socialization.

So, if we’re are going to talk about women’s biology with regard to women’s oppression, we should be talking about this too.  Biology is what women’s oppression is based on, and biology exists regardless of what anyone thinks and feels about it.  This is the bare minimum “we” all agree on, is it not?  Then it should not be too difficult to conclude that male biology at the very least contributes to women’s oppression, and this also includes advantages of physical strength, more muscle mass, more weight, longer legs, and greater upper body strength.  Let’s also not forget that male biological imperative to outbreed other males plays a significant role in white supremacy and systematic discrimination against other out-group people.

But these are just the “facts of life” which just so happen to go much further than how babies are made.  This is part of the objective reality that exists regardless of how we feel about it and moves ever forward on it’s own trajectory regardless of our own opinion about it.  The human brain is not a brain-in-a-vat hermetically sealed from outside influences, and the world is not a sterile petri dish.  This is why the “floating head” syndrome of political rhetoric doesn’t work.  Not only is it unhealthy, antiquated, faith based bullshit, it is also myopic and unempathetic to the limits of the human mind.

This is also, incidentally, just one more reason for me to think that the human species is ultimately doomed.  There’s seven and a half billion people on Earth, which means there’s about three and three quarters billion men “dosing” about three and three quarters billion women with Patriarchy-normalizing serum.  Excuse me if I remain unconvinced that there’s actually a solution to this, including the “solution” to topple civilization when history shows us newer more violent societies almost always emerge out of old ones.  It is on par with the course of evolution where the most violent males inevitably outnumber, overpower, and outbreed the less violent ones – making humanity just as much of a nightmare situation as any other disturbing species.

Posted in domination/submission, misanthropy

female derangement syndrome

When I was growing up, I read all kinds of stuff.  When my mother was at work, I would lay on her bed and read whatever reading material she had on her headboard.  She would bring home a rotating mash up of true crime novels, women’s magazines, romance novels, self-help books and diet books.  One day I had a choice between a romance book and a diet book, so I read the diet book.  I wish I could remember who it was written by, because I wanted to quote the author directly for this blog post.  I remember her talking about her experiences as an overweight woman.  She talked about how she felt like she was a “floating head” wandering around detached from her body.  The hatred and loathing she felt for her own body made her literally disassociate herself from it.

I think many women can relate to this “floating head” phenomenon because intolerance for femaleness is so deeply ingrained in our culture.  Women with anorexia talk about how they want their bodies to wither away and disappear.  I talked with a woman about actresses on television and how they were so thin their heads looked too big for their body.  She called it “the lollipop head thing.”  When I have conversations with other women about beauty standards of extreme thinness, it it almost always goes around to the question of whether we’re supposed to strip our bodies of any indications of femaleness.  Women have told me outright that men want women to starve so we stop being women and look like adolescent boys, completely with ceasing menstruation all together.  While American beauty standards are based on white beauty standards, they are also so extreme and artificial that even most white women do not fit into them without torturing themselves with starvation, surgery, and exposure to toxic chemicals in cosmetics and hair products.

There is also something to be said about the developing technology of sex robots, forecasting a future where femaleness and biology are fully divorced from one another; as if women were never actually living and breathing beings at all.  As horrifying as this may be, it is the logical result of thousands of years of treating women as a mere fantasy of men, defined by what men think and feel at any given time.  Women are monsters or saints, depending on the arbitrary whims and moods of men.  In Leftist politics, women are reduced to a feeling, a nebulous idea just free floating around with no real meaning or purpose, obliviously detached from biological existence.  Female functions like periods, childbirth, and breast feeding are regarded with disgust because it proves women are biologically alive.  Women are not seen as (nor are we allowed to be) biological sentient life forms with our own discrete existence independent from men.  When femaleness is only understood in relation to maleness, women are viewed as inferior men, castrated men, or mere extensions of men themselves.  Women showing any signs of independent life or thought is viewed as the same as a robot developing sentience of it’s own free will.

To most people, the understanding of woman is scattered and fragmented, chopped up and categorized for the convenience of men.  When women aren’t “floating heads” detached from physical existence, women are “wandering bodies” detached from personal will and consciousness; reduced to basic sexual impulses as we see in pornography and prostitution.  While the Left treats women like an idea floating around without a body, the Religious Right treats women like “wandering bodies” without heads.  “Wandering bodies” that are only fit for fucking and breeding purposes and therefore not allowed to have independent thoughts or opinions.

Women are not allowed to have both heads and bodies.  Women are not allowed to be both thinkers and feelers.  Women are either one or the other, but never a whole and complex being.  Instead, women are flattened into two dimensional archetypes – the virgin or the whore, the princess or the slave.  It is all-or-nothing without anything in between.  There is no respect for women’s lives, nor the experiences that fall outside of men’s categories.  The librarian cannot enjoy sex without being ridiculed, and neither can the porn star who enjoys academic pursuits.  Both are fetishized.

This kind of split thinking of body-or-mind comes from religious concepts of the flesh and soul.  In Christianity, there is the idea that the soul mind is separate from the flesh body, and that one must hate the flesh body and set oneself against it to attain purity of the soul mind.  Maleness is considered the realm of the soul mind and femaleness is considered the realm of flesh body.  This translates into maleness being the embodiment of thinking and higher purpose while femaleness is the embodiment of sexuality, lust, impurity, and breeding.  The Witch Hunts in the Middle Ages were largely successful because men convinced each other that women literally had no souls minds, and that women were just “wandering bodies” of temptation that got in the way of men’s purity of mind.  There was, and still is, the idea that the spiritual male must override the physical female.

I named this post “female derangement syndrome” as opposed to “body derangement syndrome” because misogyny is the root cause of the body/mind split.  It comes directly from the ancient Biblical belief that men are a product of the divine and are inherently higher thinkers while women are a product of the flesh (Adam’s rib) and are inherently objects of sex and breeding.  This is also the root cause of the most ancient of all male victim complexes on Earth – that women, by simply existing, are somehow leading men astray or holding men back from realizing some higher potential.  It is also the source of the belief that the physical world in general is inferior to “man.”  Therefore the Earth, women, animals, and natural resources are subjected to ownership by “man.”  Men display a lack of boundaries part and parcel because they don’t think they have to have any.  Christian beliefs dictate they are above secular laws and natural laws, causing problems like colonization, crime, and runaway consumption of natural resources.

“But NMPT, men have body image problems too, and what about men who are disassociated from their bodies and identify as women?”  Of course this happens, but the hatred of the body is the product of misogyny and religious beliefs.  It is women, first and foremost, who are subjected to this dissociation and hatred of the body.  Hating your body is a hatred of life and the natural world.  It is the product of thousands of years of religious teachings that butcher reality into two abstract realms of which ideology is attached to one at the expense of another.  If you reject binaries, why not reject the Christian one that is the cause behind gender dysphoria in the first place?

Posted in misanthropy

women as the giver class

I want to expand on some ideas I talked about in my last post.  I wonder if oppression would be easier to understand if it was framed as a matter of what class of people are expected to give and what class of people are expected to take.  Women have always been the giver class, the primary reason being that people’s first experience with femaleness is 100% parasitic beginning in the womb.  Every person who has ever been born experienced femaleness first and foremost as a source of nourishment and warmth.  Following birth and extended childhood, people still seek out their mothers for comfort, resources, and guidance.  This is not just biological circumstance but also socialization.  People take take take take take from women and aren’t expected to give back.  Fathers remain blissfully independent and distant from familial responsibilities, and set a part from the same expectations of child rearing.  Not much is expected of them, so if they do perform child care or perform as providers they are immediately congratulated for it.  Women who do both are “just doing their jobs.”

We can extrapolate this to understanding other forms of oppression.  Things like slavery, land grabs from Native Americans, colonization, and corporations exploiting the poor are examples we can understand as a taker class taking from giver classes.  Animal rights activists can even extrapolate this with humans exploiting non-human animals as resources and sustenance.  Since leftists already analyze these things at the exclusion of misogyny, I will continue analyzing misogyny in this post.

While women are the default giver class regardless of nationality, race, or other group identity; women can also position themselves as takers of other women depending on what status they hold in their respective societies.  More on this later.

Men are default takers.  Men, for the most part, are not expected to give to anyone else.  Men are allowed to be as selfish and ambitious as they want to be, and allowed to do whatever it takes to get what they want.  Men are entitled to take whatever they want from women, whether it’s sex, friendship, a place to crash, gas money, ect.

“But what about men who provide for their families?”  people might be asking.  “Women take from them, doesn’t that make them oppressors?”  First of all, the social arrangement of men being providers and protectors has always positioned women and children as men’s property.  This arrangement has been disastrous with problems like domestic violence, marital rape, childhood sexual abuse, and murder.  Men providing for women isn’t an act of heroism, either.  It’s the bare minimum of meeting and matching what men have already taken from women in both childhood and adulthood.  Men still have a responsibility to meet and match women’s contribution somehow – if not through providing then through social reforms like educational, housing, employment, and political opportunities.

Men, being the default taker class, are not expected to give of themselves unless under special circumstances (such as child support and war).  Women, being the default giver class, are not expected to take unless special circumstances (such as child support).  Women are expected to shoulder the responsibilities of literally everything else.  Racial epithets like “welfare queen” not only attack black women, but shame all women who receive entitlement programs even if it means just being able to feed her children.  Women, being default givers, are barred from any behavior that might be considered taking.  As such, men prevent women from attaining positions of power that would position them as takers instead of givers (politicians, CEOs, ect).  Women are considered a resource themselves, and thought of women controlling resources outside of her own is considered blasphemy.

However, when it comes to women being takers of other women, these rules do not seem to apply.  Men are more than happy to step back and allow women to treat other women however way they want, even if it’s abusive and misogynistic (especially if it’s misogynistic – it literally gets them high).  Since women are prohibited from expecting men to do anything for them, women then turn to other women (usually of lesser status) to pick up the slack where men can’t be bothered.  Women do this either because they feel they have no other alternative, or because they are misogynists and/or hold women with lesser status in contempt.  Either way, women cannibalizing other women’s gynergy is the product of misogyny.

This is a complicated situation which requires care to address since women are not the primary perpetrators of misogyny.  Critiquing women about how they treat other women has a tendency to let men off the hook for being primary perpetrators of misogyny as well as primary takers of women.  However the only way to empower women to have healthy relationships is to support when women say NO to both men and other women.  Feminist consciousness raising must be applied to ourselves as much as it is to men, and to be mindful of how we treat other women, including what we’ve been socialized to expect from other women as givers.

In fact I created this blog because I challenge the idea that it’s women’s job to fix men’s mistakes.  It must be challenged because it treats women like beasts of burden and doesn’t hold men in power responsibility for what they do.  It must be challenged because women have a right to say NO when people demand something of us.

I am also a woman who has been expected to give to everyone else my entire life.  People get downright abusive with me if I say NO to them or if I choose to not listen or help others.  People – not just men but other women – have a fucked up understanding of what feminism is if they think it means I’m obligated to suck up even more abusive misogyny than I already have.  I wish progressives would at least think about this, and think about what it means to expect other women to clean up after the messes of men, as well as the fact that women can and do expose other women to misogyny.  It doesn’t cost anyone anything to simply stop demanding women serve their personal needs, or stop punishing women when we cannot or will not submit to the demand of others.

Posted in domination/submission

ayn rand

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.  — Ayn Rand

I’m not exactly a fan of Ayn Rand.  She was a feminism-rejecting misogynist who called herself a “male chauvinist,” and exhibited pro-colonial, pro-capitalist, and homophobic attitudes (among many others).  If you were to ask me to critique her work, it would take me at least twice as long as the seven years it took her to write Atlas Shrugged, because then I would have to explain why she was wrong about many things with annotated footnotes.  The basic math is that would take me a little bit longer than the twelve years it took her to find a publisher willing to publish it in the first place.  I don’t think it’s worth the time and effort, since I would probably be saying what other people have said already.  Instead, this post will be an analysis of people’s knee-jerk misogynist response to Ayn Rand, and other women’s writings as well.

I will start by saying Ayn Rand can be called many things.  It’s been a very long time since I read her work, and even several years since I watched the movies.  However, relying on what I remember of both, if I were to call her anything I would call her a woman of reason and a woman who didn’t put out.

To be clear, Ayn Rand being a woman of reason does not automatically mean she is correct about anything.  Being a reasonable person means being able to explain why you think something is the way it is based on what you understand it to be (plus cause and effect) as opposed to simply believing something is the way it is for it’s own sake.  It doesn’t make you right nor does it make you any smarter than anyone else.  There is a tendency for people (mostly men) to split emotion and reason and proclaim reason to be more superior – and this is exactly why a lot of people hate Ayn Rand.  Ayn Rand is female and she is unapologetically reasoning, and reasoning is assumed to be the sole territory of men and maleness.  Instead of relying on sentimentality or religion to guide her worldview and course of action, she relied on her own capacity for reasoning.  Women who do this are viewed as dangerous, because men depend on women’s sentimentality to forgive them for atrocious behavior and to perform altruism to meet men’s needs and serving men’s interests ahead of their own.

Ayn Rand is also a woman who doesn’t put out.  By not putting out, she defies the expectation that it’s women’s role to give to others and sacrifice themselves for the greater good men’s good.  I suspect much of her work is a reaction to her experiences as a female in Patriarchy – the belief that women should set aside their own needs, human rights, ambitions, and goals to serve others.  Her own books show that Ayn Rand rejects the idea that one class of people should be givers and another class of people should be takers.  One can take this logic and extrapolate it to men and women as social classes.  You can even take this logic and extrapolate it to racial and ethnic classes if you so chose to.  People know this which is why many hate Ayn Rand on principle – she rejects the idea that one person exists solely for the benefit of another.  She rejects the fundamental assumption that one person is entitled to demand another person serve their interests.  She rejects the domination/submission paradigm of Patriarchy itself.

Ayn Rand is not a feminist hero.  However, she is a woman I learned a few things from and these things gave me a renewed sense of human dignity and self-defined purpose.  Even though I disagree with her on many things, I still learned from her and her perspective.  Through her fiction, she shows how political structures are formed based on taking thoughts to their logical conclusion, and this is something people can use to understand Christianity and how white supremacy is just Christian beliefs taken to their logical conclusion.

It is very frustrating that most people do not see this or talk about this.  It is obvious why libertarians and conservatives don’t – it’s because they still rely on women as the giver class so men can keep taking from women.  They rely on women to produce the next generation of workers and soldiers, which women birth, raise, and send to the job market without acknowledgement, help, or appreciation.  They won’t talk about these things because they know freeing women would mean the end of cheap and disposable labor.

Ayn Rand shows that just because a woman is wrong about some things, or you personally disagree with her on certain points, does not mean that her work has no value, and it doesn’t mean that she is worthless and defective.  That is how people treat women, though, particularly women writers who reject the notion that their rights are somehow less important than men’s rights.  People do not treat women with the same open mindedness and forgiving standpoint that they treat men.  Like I’ve said before, they split women into two groups – women who behave the way society thinks they should behave and women who don’t.  Ayn Rand is a woman who doesn’t, and this affects people’s response to her and other female writers who reject the domination/submission paradigm.

Posted in domination/submission

white supremacy and christianity

The conversation about white supremacy on the Internet has never included Christianity.  It has only ever focused on “white people” and “white people” only.  There is the belief that “white people” just decided, out of nowhere, to start oppressing everyone else for no reason (because “white people”).  There is no critical examination of the attitudes and beliefs that led white people to assume they were entitled to occupy the lands of non-Europeans and convert them to Christianity.  There is no discussion as to how Christian missionaries were viewed as “visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery.”  (“Savagery” being a dog whistle for non-white, non-Christians, and those that are both.)

Consider the following points:

Who thought it was divinely mandated to subjugate women, outlaw masturbation, and outlaw homosexuality, thus making it possible for whites to out-populate non-whites?  White Christian men.

…who then created the Witch Hunts which outlawed abortion as witchcraft, making it even more possible for whites to out-populate non-whites?  White Christian men.

…and then thought they were entitled to occupy and colonize non-Christian lands in the name of spreading Christianity and “civilizing savages?”  White Christian men.

Male power + misogyny + heterosexism + rape + anti-abortion + xenophobia + entitlement to forcibly or coercively convert = white supremacy.

White Christian men invented white supremacy.  They invented it because they believe the Bible gives them the right to rule over women, own slaves, and subjugate non-Christian lands and non-Christian peoples.  These beliefs did not appear out of nowhere.  They did not suddenly manifest inside of a cultural vacuum.  These beliefs existed long before Christopher Columbus “discovered” America because Christianity was already established as a state power across Europe.  White Christian men believed – and many believe to this day – that anyone who isn’t them is inferior.  They don’t even believe white Christian women can live their own lives without being told what to do.  What does that tell you about how white Christian men view the rest of the planet?

Here is what the situation is right now:  we have Republicans, who are a white male Christian majority, deliberately passing laws that erode the rights of women to access abortion alongside laws that also erode minorities right to vote.  It isn’t coincidental.  It’s not an accident.  Nobody just oops writes laws that result in a white majority without knowing what the fuck they are doing.  Republicans are justifying this by hiding behind their Christianity, their “deeply held beliefs” that women are just baby factories (when they aren’t blaming the Devil for their shitty behavior, they are blaming their Cloud Father for it).  While they aren’t saying it outright, they are showing by their actions that they still believe that anyone who isn’t a white Christian male is a savage that needs the benevolent dictatorship of white Christian males for their own good.  Current political trends and the history of colonialism show that one cannot divorce Christianity from white supremacy any more than one can divorce racism from white supremacy.

Christianity is like a skeleton key to unlocking the root causes behind white supremacy, if only people were willing to see it.  While many Christians have come out to denounce white supremacy and racism, they do not denounce sexism and appear to be unaware that their own belief system was the one that created white supremacy in the first place.

Just so we’re clear:  it’s not just Christian identity extremists or the KKK.  It’s not just fundamentalist Christians.  It’s not just the conspiracy fringe groups and conservative types always yelling about guns and country.  It’s not just the alt-right and neo-Nazis.  It’s not just the economically anxious sexist whites who voted for Trump.

It’s the Christian belief system itself that makes it possible to establish white supremacy in the first place.  The belief that women are just breeders that should submit to men.  The belief that other people are morally inferior unless converted.  The belief that the Earth belongs to Christians by divine right, therefore Christians can colonize and consume resources at will.  The belief that how we treat each other and the planet doesn’t matter because the End Times will come and Jesus will magically make it all right again.  The belief that Christians can discriminate against women, gays, or religious minorities because it’s their “deeply held beliefs” to do so.

When you think about it, it’s surprising that the Left either hasn’t completely disowned Christianity or demanded it’s immediate reform for the betterment of the world.  This would probably be the most logical thing to do, since historically Christianity stands for everything they say they are against.  However the odds are high that Leftists themselves are Christian, and people don’t like challenging their own beliefs, especially when those beliefs entitle them to treat women any damn well way they please.  It would certainly explain why leftists tolerate sexism and the scapegoating of women on their blogs and web sites.  They believe it’s women’s job to shut the fuck up and put up with men’s abuse, even though they get furiously angry at anyone who treats a man the same way.

With all this said, I am not a militant atheist.  Even if I wanted to directly challenge people’s religious beliefs, they probably won’t listen to me anyway.  Atheists are only 3% of the world’s population compared to 95% that is spiritual or religious in some way.  We are sorely outnumbered.

It’s the Leftist Christians who are going to have to figure out a way to get it right.  It’s not enough to denounce white supremacy, because white supremacy is the result of Christian beliefs.  Christians must dig deeper than that and reject their own “traditional values” in favor of real values where everyone is treated well and has the opportunity to live up to their full potential.  Christians can take a page from the Quakers or this gawker article if they’re having trouble getting started.  Being a Christian doesn’t doom anyone to a life of being an asshole.  This isn’t the Dark Ages anymore.

Posted in misanthropy