Archive for the ‘Sexual Commodities’ Category

Rainbow flag flapping in the wind with blue sk...

Who cares about ACTUAL police brutality, that kills defames,and rapes actual people, when words are so mean hurtful, and harmful!--and way easier to get all worked up about!

But isn’t it a bit early for Halloween? Oh, that’s right: Modern feminism is really clown feminism anyways. And EVERY day is Halloween for a clown!! Yaaaayyyy, time to play dress up, says Mommy Dearest

———————————————

Sluts Need Money–only you can fill the sick, hungry, starving vaginas of the world–with HOPE!

Donations needed for SlutWalk Minneapolis- ALMOST THERE! 🙂

We really need your help.
We have $1,742 in donations right now, and that means we have paid the permit for the Park Board. YES!
We have an additional invoice of $402 for the rentals for the road barriers for the Walk. The total is $2,137. We are only $395 away from paying for the Walk. So close, we can hardly stand it!!

Slutwalk’s started when a Toronto police officer said that the way women dress contributes to their chances of being sexually assaulted. The rationale goes: “If you don’t dress like a slut, your chances of being victimized or raped goes down.”

Why, that kicked off a worldwide movement for women to be able to dress any way they want ever, all the time! A war against the word SLUT!!

Only bad icky creepy menz would be against that! Because all men are potential rapists, they say, and all women potential victims.

Never mind actual victims of horrendous, and systemic rape, or actual police assault, like Kelly Thomas. These Sluts don’t speak for them, or devote their time to actual issues of violence.

While the girls and the gays were getting all frothed up at the bad policeman’s use of words, an actual victim of Toronto’s police violence, Dorian Barton, a photographer, was fighting through the actual system for his right to be heard after the police broke his shoulder in a vicious assault–because he was taking pictures of actual police brutality.

And police are killing, maiming, mauling and defaming people everywhere, without a peep out of the PeePee panderers–but the Sluts could care less–too busy getting gussied up; buying fishnets and painting their faces and painting signs with ‘bad werdz’ like “SLUTT” on them–and parading around as the clowns of civil rights, rather than activists for change.

It’s only a violation of civil rights if it makes my own PeePee hurt, right?

Clown feminism at it’s best–all costume, no substance, and always a diversion from the real show.

And, meanwhile, I bet you never heard of Dorian the photographer, or Kelly, the homeless mentally ill man, because of all the hoopla about vaginas, and clown feminist causes.

OH! the fun that can be had by walking around with the breeze blowing between your thighs, or your mangina’s! No need to worry about those man-pigs whjen you are on the same team!

Police Officer Manuel Ramos, one of the officers who beat Kelly Thomas to death: why do so many pigs actually LOOK like pigs?

Or you will you be too busy hanging out with these other Minneapolis sluts, feeding the poor ( in which case you are absolved of having to read any further vitriol, here)

The net cause –the goal–of the Slutwalkers? Reclaiming the word SLUT–or so they tell us. But if I were Joseph Goebbels?  I couldn’t possibly dream up a better job of covering up real issues of police violence, and actual police brutality, any better than women’s groups, and  women’s clown feminism causes actually do.

They work so hard to subvert true protest and dissent in their war against words, that the net effect is civil rights have taken the biggest hit in the history of America on the watch of feminism, than they ever did during the civil rights era.

It’s almost as if they work together–Toronto police were busy covering-up and actual case of gross violence–police brutality, and clown feminism was running diversionary tactics away from actual brutality.

We already know that women everywhere, much less in Minnesota are coming in ever greater numbers, and Slutwalks are just the right showcase for that phenomenon. After all, Nordic and European-descended mothers have a historic pattern of empowering their daughters, as per the paradigm discussed in  this post here. [supporting evidence here, and here as well.]

There's something fishy about clown feminism

Naughty Nurses, stripper pole clowns,dirty doctors, and stinkie Little Nemo over here:

Lizzy Brice says “Somewhere along the way we seem to have gotten confused. Author and columnist Ariel Levy puts it likes this in her 2006 book Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture: “Only thirty years (my lifetime) ago, our mothers were “burning their bras” and picketing Playboy, and suddenly we were getting implants and wearing the bunny logo as supposed symbols of our liberation.”

And, women in Minneapolis are maddeningly, overwhelmingly and historically white as well, so it is the natural place for this sort of organizing.

It is also overwhelmingly gay, in every sense of the word, so SlutWalks are a crucial way for the LGBT and feminist movements to continue to subvert the real issue of police brutality. After all, Sluts can set their own prices in such an economy–and theiy’re way better to look at!

But ACTUAL police brutality? More icky dead men on death row?? Killing the mentally ill???

Priceless!

Clown Feminists call for the death of more white men, like formerly white male Kelly Thomas

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

One Million Moms, an organization affiliated with the American Family Association, announced a boycott of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream over a new flavor called “Schweddy Balls.” The group said Friday on its website:

“The vulgar new flavor has turned something as innocent as ice cream into something repulsive. Not exactly what you want a child asking for at the supermarket.” read more about offensive Schweddy balls here.

Original Schwetty balls skit on Saturday Night Live.


Apparently, mom’s everywhere are united in their stance against rum-flavored ice cream, and sex-negative feminists and conservative mothers remain united against testicles as well. They are protecting their children from Schweddy Balls ice cream because the name “Schweddy Balls,” makes boys and girls giggle.

“Heeheeheehee,” said one fifth grader interviewed for this article, when asked “what are you laughing at?”

“Nothing….heeheeheehee…and I can’t tell you anyways in front of her,” he said, pointing to a clench-fisted, dowager-faced, plump, red-headed girl across the sandbox.

“She will make fun of me and beat me up,” he said, turning red between chuckles.

In their statement One Million Moms ask that current and future supplies of Schweddy Balls be cut off:

TAKE ACTION

Please send Ben & Jerry’s Public Relations Manager, Sean Greenwood, an email letter requesting that no additional Schweddy Balls ice cream be distributed. Also, highly recommend they refrain from producing another batch with this name or any other offensive names or you will no longer be able to purchase their products.”

They are calling for a boycott of the “Playboy Club” television show as well, united in their stance against adorable widdle kewt bunnies everywhere, and joining in the modern war on words and language with Gloria Steinem, who is currently seeking ownership of the Playboy franchise

I can’t wait to see how this turns out–because we all know American Moms can’t resist Ben and Jerry’s ice cream.

Just imagine if we could get all of that female energy focused on topics that really matter…but who ever said any or all of the feminisisms cared about what really matters? There’s just so much false activism out there, and so many kinds of free market feminisms to choose from these days. Plus, real activism is scary compared to arguing over ice cream cones.

Ben and Jerry’s Promo here

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Cover of "Pornified: How Pornography Is T...

Cover via Amazon

Sex negative feminism is a fascist element that plays upon fear and preys upon weakness, conflating national interest with individual choice,  and it works against the United States Constitution.

Equally, it attempts to destroy  healthy individual sexuality or sexual choice by minimizing women’s responsibility for their own sexual choices and decisions(with appeals to fear), by shaming girls and women ( in attempts to assert ownership), and by conflating, or creating phony statistics in order to sell books and social policies.

And it does that with women and men disguised as social and moral crusaders who act in the self-appointed role as ‘everybodies mother’–emphasis on bodies[appeal to idealized images of women and mothers].

Fascism demands that individual choices are usurped for the larger ‘society.’ This form of feminism demands similar things, as well as playing upon youthful naivete, stereotyping, and appeals to ignorance disguised as concern over rights and sexism.

One good example is Pamela Paul, a sex negative feminist, and ur-fascist, would be yenta, and author of “Pornifiedwhich was named one of the best books of 2005 by The San Francisco Chronicle, according to Pauls bio.

Below is a reference for the .pdf file of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, “Why the Government Should Care about Pornography: the state interest in protecting children and families”, where Paul spoke against sexual choice, and pornography.”

She said, in part:

“While some polls show that up to half of all women go online for sexual reasons, the percentage of women who say they do are likely exaggerated by the inclusion of erotica, dating, and informational sites in the definition of “adult” Internet content, areas to which women are disproportionately drawn compared with men. Many women who are tracked through filtering sites are linked to pornography by accident, visit out of curiosity, or are tracking down their male partner’s usage.” [Pamela Paul, Testimony and transcript .pdf here. ]

And that flies in the face of reality. While writing this article I was sitting next to a group of young, college age women, who were talking about the start of a new semester, boyfriends, and dicks.

Here are the snippets of conversation that I overheard:

“There are no real men left.” “I’m not doing porn again tonight.” ” How come all the hot guys are gay?” “Every time you see some tall sexy boy he’s gay.” ” Young guys don’t know how to ask for it.” and the real kicker “I would never date a guy who wears more jewelry than me. Unless he was, like, LeBron James…”

Regarding stereotypes and ignorance, it is important to note that these were attractive (by porn standards) white females, who were of the generation where fear of rape takes a precedence over sexual liberty.

They at times directed their conversation at me with phrases like “We’re not bothering you are we?” through wafts of unknown but delicious high end fragrances, and occasional curious stares at me when they thought I wasn’t looking, and so forth.

“No, of course not” I said, and kept my arousal to myself.

And I had a secret laugh, knowing that the pendant around my neck, tucked secretly underneath my nerdy sweater, and the chain it hangs from is worth at least five times what it would take to get into the
curious and horny pants of any of them, open as they said they were, to “a good fuck, like, some one night sex” and just kept writing.

Oh, and I had another secret laugh about Kobe Bryants encounter with young horny white women too.[ Really–insert the name of your favorite sexually objectified black basketball player here]

These weren’t your average girls: they were all there because they are part of some AA or NA after-group, and likely had been the victims of sex negative feminism along the way, which led to their stereotypes, objectification, and confusions about sexuality.

They had full  possession of half the tools to activate any wonderful toy, except one: any sense of whaty men actually are, or actually want from women. And plenty of confusion about how they should proceed to get to point B with their sex drive, before the sex-negative, shaming face of ‘the mother’ pokes itself into the discussion going on in their pants.

The single-most dangerous and predatory person, entity, or organized oppressor of young women or sexuality isn’t men ‘who get it’, and also know what to do with ‘it’–but it is in fact sex-negative feminism–separatist and gender feminists ( is there really a difference? PLO/Hamas?), conservative feminists, and ecofeminists who for whatever reason, cannot help themselves from
inserting into young women the idea that sex is bad, and men are pigs.

“Get to them early” is the mantra of public school educators and feminists who work in sex education–but what kind of feminists are they?

I question the motives, and the agendas of sex negative feminists, as these same panderers usurp the idea of individual sexual accountability with lies, and half truths that are designed (as if in a laboratory) to stick themselves neatly and unnaccountably into the
meat of young female sexual desire. A sort of ideological rapist isn’t much better than a real one.
Umberto Eco‘s 14 point list of recognizing Ur-Fascism:

Click to access eco_ur-fascism.pdf

Clearing House for conservative and sex-negative anti-pornography links:  http://www.antipornography.org/statistics.html

Get them early links:

www.avert.org/sexeducation.htm www.mayoclinic.com/health/sexeducation/

http://educhatter.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/sex-education-in-the-early-grades-whats-the-real-purpose-of-explicit-sex-ed

Sub-committee transcript:

Click to access getdoc.cgi

Have you heard of the Dear Woman campaign, which stems from the Manifesto for Conscious Men? The idiocy of a generation of middle class white people who are suffering from gynorhea after consorting with the feminist monolith, is palpable only when I watch this crap.

Here are some middle class, sensationalist gender panderers; the Oprafied, nutless mangina’s responsible, from Franc Hoggle’s site greylining.wordpress.com

  • Gay Hendricks, Oprah Winfrey regular and founder of the Hendricks Institute, who abandoned academic life for the goldmine of the self-help industry for the feeble minded. Also a pioneer in Radiance Breathing Meditation, which has earned him a series of honourable mentions at Quackwatch.

At first pass I was fully expecting the queen of man haters, John Stoltenberg2, to have been the captain of this ship, but he is not credited.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The campaign is a bunch of men apologizing for all men for the stuff that men do–even if they didn’t do it: “I may not have done bad things to you myself, many of the men who abused you may not be living; on behalf of my gender, I apologize for what religions created a thousand years ago have done to you….I apologize to you…” blahblahblah.

*puke* puke* puke* Franc Hoggle is still wiping up his dungeon floor after this vomit soaked male-apologist B.S.

The only thing more pathetic than this kind of sabotage of reality, and real human centered activism IS MAYBE A PICTURE OF FABIO ON THE COVER OF A ROMANCE NOVEL, LAYING NEXT TO A DILDO ON OPRAH’S QUEEN SIZED JACUZZI.

But fortunately, Will Ferrell is there to give us hope.

And the reply from fake guru Ardagh to Ferrell:

I can’t add anything other than what has already been said by others. Here is a good from someone responding to the video above:

“Oh yea, anger and resentment. Let me tell you what this really is about….dollar dollar bill y’all…The next step in the strategy of the “Dear Woman” campaign would most likely be to capture as many of the audience and convince them that through a modest contribution they would be absolved of all past transgressions as an authorized “Conscious man”. for a mere 19.95 + tax and shipping….gimme a break. posted by: chameleoncass”

Below is yet another reply from Ardagh and Hendricks, milking the Will Ferrell connection for all it is worth:

Comment: “thanks Will Ferrell for your ability to recognize the humor in this con.”

And here is the actual video–try not to laugh at the asinine whining of these idiots, and have an airplane bag ready for the barf afterwards.

“Based on the “Manifesto for Conscious Men,” a collectively-written document from a number of men who feel deep appreciation for the gifts of the feminine as a balance to those of the masculine. This document acknowledges many thousands of years of dominance of masculine power, and offers an apology for the suppression of women, in the spirit of a fresh start. The authors do not advocate the domination of men by women or feminine energy, but feel that a balance and equal respect for both energies will allow for a new wave of evolution on our planet.”

First reconstruction of Neanderthal man

Guy 1: Why do women prefer cavemen? Guy 2: I don't know--ask your wife. Guy 3: Have you SEEN his wife?

Sex with cavemen gave humans an immune boost: study

AFPBy Kerry Sheridan | AFP – Thu, Aug 25, 2011

 Sexual encounters with archaic humans like the Neanderthals produced children who inherited key genes that have helped modern humans fight illness and disease, said a US study published Thursday.
“The cross-breeding wasn’t just a random event that happened, it gave something useful to the gene pool of the modern human,” said Stanford University’s Peter Parham, senior author of the study in the journal Science.
Equipped with knowledge of the genome of the Neanderthals and the Denisovans, of whom a tooth and a finger bone were discovered in a Russian cave last year, researchers scoured the data for hints of what genes crossed over.
Scientists already knew that about four percent of Neanderthal DNA and up to six percent of Denisovan DNA are present in some modern humans…

———————————————————————————————-

The latest caveman DNA story above is even more evidence that modern humans and cavemen interbred, and that women prefer sexually aggressive sex partners. That is, if you believe the caveman stereotype.

But perhaps it is the other way around, and men prefer sexually aggressive females? We may never know, because women’s groups and feminists work so hard at denying actual, physical violence and aggression perpetrated by females, despite decades of evidence demonstrating that women are at least, or more aggressive than men.

We may never know because feminism in any western country is based in logical fallacies , and false dilemas that pervade diaolgues, and deny the power of kyriarchy.

But one thing is certain: it is literally in the financial interests of feminists and their allies in science to deny women’s violence, and perpetuate the sexist stereotypes of women as ‘helpless victims,’ rather than as capable people–there’s money to be made in perpetuation.

I should back up a bit: I don’t want to be accused of sexism by all of those sexists –(have you ever noticed how sexist the people who point out sexism actually are)?

So it would be more fair to point out that modern humans interbred with cavepeople, in this case the Denisovan group of ancestors.

We already knew that we are related to Neanderthals–who actually get a bad rap for violence, because of the sexist biases of modern scientists like Greg Laden,who maintain that Neanderthals were all rapists, despite evidence that they were spiritual and compassionate, and also evidence they took care of the handicapped amongst them.

Sex-biased scientists are almost as disreputable as religious ones, and  fanatics who believe the cavemen lived alongside dinosaurs, and ‘went to heaven.’ But you have to take science with a grain of salt these days, as the left/right religious and sexist wars rage through the facts.

So the stereotype prevails that cavemen were a brutal, male dominated species, and  the stereotype waxes and wanes in  currency, because some women are also financially invested in the idea of perpetuating the image of women as vulnerable, and helpless–which is anti-feminist–despite their own claims to the contrary!

Advancements of women who have at least, their own powerful identities, separate from monolithic feminism are nearly antithetical to the rape and rapeology industries that thrive and prosper in academia, government, and social services.

This type of feminist minces words or concepts like “nature versus nurture,” and act like its all one grand mystery how sexism is perpetuated (clue to feminist moms: stop treating your own daughter like a sex object), while pimping their daughters to middle class paradigms of ‘beauty’ and ‘ frailty’ in need of ‘protection’ from cavemen.

Nature and nurture are complex, and not simply explained from either a genetic, or a psychological reasoning, because social forces intervene in each. The bias of scientists selects for or against explaining this complexity–the religious doubt the genetic explanation, the sexists doubt the religious explanations, and both mangle the social implications of the discussion.

Psychological perspective: http://psychology.about.com/od/nindex/g/nature-nurture.htm

Psychological-genetic explanation: http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Nature_nurture

So how can we explain female college wrestlers Brittany and Brienna Delgado, subduing a fleeing hit and run suspect with chicken locks and chokeholds!?

“We do several moves where you stop your opponents,” said Brittany Delgado. “My sister and I are very proficient wrestlers and also played football in high school, so we know about tackling.”

My best guess is that these young ladies weren’t raised by feminists per se, or at least that kind of feminist– or scientists. I would guess they were raised by loving parents who were aware of the interplay between nature and nurture, as well as the biases in each corner.

But one thing is certain: the Delgado girls can probably handle themselves in any elevator–unlike young, white, middle class feminists raised by other middle class sex pandering feminists[see links at bottom for “elevators”] who sexualized their daughters.

As long as sexism and science are blurred with feminism, we may never know what women, or our own DNA really are made of, because like religion, there’s just way too much money to be made in arguing about it, and perpetuating false rape scenarios, and Virgin Mary complexes, rather than getting our human groove on–cave person style.

Cover of "I AND THOU (Scribner Classic)"

Cover of I AND THOU (Scribner Classic)

Ich-Du: I and it; I and Thou by Austrian philosopher Martin  “Mordechai” Buber, is a book about object relations. I think he was talking about objectification more profoundly than Freud, and more clearly and intuitively than any feminist, ever, with the possible exception of Julia Kristeva–who also ‘get’s it,” when she manages to extricate herself from the word mangler.

The major theme of Buber is that humans find meaning in relationships. As a religious person, he felt that all relations could be understood from an object, subject perspective, “I’ and “It”, whatever that it may be to the one defining or discerning the relation,  and that the final unknowable, infinitely incomprehensible relationship was one with G-d, or “I” and “Thou.”

His G-d was a patriarchal G-d, one that could easily be understood by anyone; his paradigm a simple paradigm: I understand what I can understand, and once named or understood, the I becomes an it. In I to thou, however, thou can never be understood fully, and thus never fully objectified.

The last several decades have us wondering about the ‘objectification of women’ due in large part to feminist theory. My personal illusion of their ‘objectives’ was once that I envisioned feminists as human rights advocates, and companions in a struggle for equality, rather than as cold blooded murderers, collaborators with International banksters, and imprisoners of male bodies.

I was wrong, but not their fault–my own, for I trusted their cause, blindly.

Like it or not, want it or not, we have all been ‘subjected’ to the feminist ‘object’ paradigm by women who “object” to what they see as a patriarchal society. Yet their objection is/was notably silent about kyriarchal relations, and the paradigm I was presented of patriarchy is inherently–deceptively flawed.

Or, in simple terms, by co-opting, and ‘naming’ patriarchs and patriarchal concepts, feminism renders patriarchy as an “it” rather than as a “thou”, while rendering the world in reverse.

In simpler terms, objectifying men.

And in this generation, the kyriarchs were marching on your perceptions before you even knew what hit your father–your patriarchal Saint Not-Present-Enough (so they tell you-ever-wonder-why?), dearest Dad. They were all sleeping with your mother while he was away. But  patriarchs like Martin Buber, und Sigmund had been busy not long before– busy defining object relations, rather than being merely subjected to them.

And if feminism got one thing right about waging brutality, it was in that co-option of the power of naming, and in thus ‘taming’ of what they felt ‘objectified them’ and rendered them as “it’s” instead of “thou’s”. And it gave them the basis to wage war as women. And no century, ever, has seen more war or death than the last one.

So, no matter how smarmy, mid-to-late-month funky, or how finally fragrant or chastened that paradigm is to you, it is a paradigm that you have been face to face with, whether you know it, wanted it, or not. Think “Oprah Winfrey,” and discussions about the privilege of excess fatness; or the View, and the letter V, on “V-Day”. They are the matriarchy TO the patriarchy, the other half of war and death–that other V-Day.

Men as subjects to objectified women; subjective reality versus objective reality. Objectified realities, subjecting subjects to objectification. Subjectively, I object…

Shit–even I am confused. Maybe I, too, schlepped[sic] with my mother too long??

It’s in your face one way or another, and not because you asked for it. It’s there because you have been subjected to it, beyond your powers to just “turn it off,” because it’s everywhere.

It is an object lesson gone wild.

Having the big V in your face is not necessarily a bad thing, if that’s what you go in for, and Oprah–even with her billions–is kind of-?- vagiriffic- except the part where she and they all conveniently left out any mention of kyriarchy, and consent–yours; for your child’s future or present. And all that before you even know what hit you.

Now there’s a paradigm that has some teeth–and not just the kind of tooth that craves fresh chomped testicle, either, because after all, they are using your kids in wars all over the world ( I don’t have stats, or facts and figures about Oprah’s money–if anyone has that I would kiss your belly button for them).

Kyriarchy suggests that all people have relative power–some women have more power than some men; some men with massive cash have less power than women with big…big…umm, ideas, for instance.

Throw out patriarchy! Throw out oppression! Throw out…morality( a construction of patriarchy…)?!

Big ideas like waging illegal war in Libya under the foreign policy of single mother raised Barak Obama, and his foreign policy wonk, Hillary Clinton–after all, the patriarchs do it too! Never mind higher ground, or silly morals. Kyriarchy demands that we get to the top of the pyramid, using whatever tools are required to get there–power is not centered at the top.

Jennifer Lopez, and her war against sperm donor Mark Anthony, for instance, is an object lesson in kyriarchy, as the two are divorcing.  Who couldn’t have predicted that preying mantis to mantis outcome? After all, any man worth his beans wouldn’t have knocked her up except for the money–she’s worth twice as much as he is, and her sexuality is inherently more marketable.

The paradigm of patriarchy does notapply, as she likely has more power in one phone call to her sugar daddy than Anthony could ever have in a Mexican disco.

A crippled person from any American suburb on television talking about the disabled has more power than a legless boy on a push scooter who sells Chicles’ in Juarez, Mexico,or Oaxaca for example.

A woman–a white housewife in the suburbs of America has more security than say a little Latino boy whose sole caregiver is a crack-head mom.

In kyriarchy, power is flexible and situational.

Some illicit channels of communication have more direct access or control over power than other, traditional, accepted forms of communication; think Gloria Steinem licking Henry Kissinger‘s balls in her posh town-home in New York, as she prepares for another CIA-feminism funded blitzkrieg of the airwaves to convince all the young girls that she is some sort of Che Guevara, rather than a CIA operative who has lived a posh life-with Henry Kissinger as a consort.

Matriarchy in bed with patriarchy is not feminism.It is kyriarchy.

Think male drug crime convict, or prisoner has less power to speak out than any white female at a drug addicts shelter who he once ‘dated’, or anyt creature with a vagina having more credibility in a court-room in a domestic violence hearing.

She, and object of pity, and achieved victim status–an addict, an understandable “it.” But the prisonewho once dated her? A double and unspeakable “it.” Worse than an it–in fact, an “other than it.” because ‘we don’t know what he is capable of’. And certainly not a thou.

I personally give the credit to Martin Buber in this dialogue, because he was the first who ever explained to me the importance of object relations.

And I think feminists have selfishly inserted their object reality into the reality of others. They are like big dicks, raping dialogues.

“I and Thou,” he told me.* You’re an “it” they told me.

I–conceivable self-object–product of the nearly inconceivable, but approachable all powerful subject. That, pendant only upon my disbelief, or the needle in my own hand at the ballocks.

But here below are some notes attempting to point out the shifting sands of the heirarchy of kyriarchy, messed up even by Mazlows standards of order, and certainly in the feminist paradigm, it seems they missed a few details, or just skipped to the front of the line when it comes to the rank order of objects.
1)non-objects, yet to be realized.
2)manifestation of object, percieved through abject  (as per Kristeva for instance) into recognition of physical object
3)gendered/classed/racialized/sexualized object
sex object: does ex come before the staus of sex? or for that metter, the violence inherent in sex? Violence, a pendulum from genetic material/entrapment of men to rape of women?
4)status object: status can be from multiple sources, and symbolized in multiple ways
5)ritual object: objects given meaning or ascribed meaning by the hoi polloi, those objects sacred, sometimes above indivdual objects or individual relations.
6) violence object: male bodies and tools used against life
music/art/object; status symbols or internal devices mad external? Or, are these objects
7) object object [first? reverse the order?]

8)?????

=====================================================

FROM WIKIPEDIA:
Buber’s main proposition is that we may address existence in two ways:
that of the “I” towards an “It”
, towards an object that is separate in itself, which we either use or experience;
and that of the “I” towards “Thou”, in which we move into existence in a relationship without bounds.

From 1910 to 1914, Buber studied myths and published editions of mythic texts. In 1916 he moved from Berlin to Heppenheim. During World War I he helped establish the Jewish National Commission in order to improve the condition of Eastern European Jews. During that period he became the editor of Der Jude (German for “The Jew“), a Jewish monthly (until 1924). In 1921 Buber began his close relationship with Franz Rosenzweig. In 1922 Buber and Rosenzweig co-operated in Rosenzweig’s House of Jewish Learning, known in Germany as Lehrhaus.[6]

In 1923 Buber wrote his famous essay on existence, Ich und Du (later translated into English as I and Thou). Though he edited the work later in his life, he refused to make substantial changes. In 1925 he began, in conjunction with Franz Rosenzweig, translating the Hebrew Bible into German. He himself called this translation Verdeutschung (“Germanification”), since it does not always use literary German language but attempts to find new dynamic (often newly invented) equivalent phrasing in order to respect the multivalent Hebrew original. Between 1926 and 1930 Buber co-edited the quarterly Die Kreatur (“The Creature”).[7]