Posts Tagged ‘Crime’

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:

Academic culture is the etic rapist of emic meaning by classification, co-option, and preemption and re-definition of the language of laypeople.

If you are not a book smart person, go here[.], down below the double line under all this talk below. This is written for college people, but I am trying to talk to you about how aggressive women commit violence in relationships, and how other women don’t talk about it, and how men don’t have the words to describe it.

——————————————————————————————————————–

Aggression has multiple definitions in the daily use and paralanguage of lay people, however, in discussions about rape, domestic violence, and pornography, it is the language of the lay person that suffers, and the very duty of linguistics is betrayed, as politically motivated and grant-funded groups and individuals wage war on words that have common understandings to non-academics.

Choose your weapon. I choose the freeware dictionary “The Sage,” by Sequence Publishing* for the purpose of discussing the battles waged against words and people who use them. You can download a copy of the freeware Sage dictionary here.

Violence is clearly, by anyone’s definition, a sock in the eye, a kick in the groin, or a gut punch. But in defining aggression, the jury is still out, denating whether men or women are more aggressive.

It is a slap in the face of anyone who seeks a broader understanding of truth, or issues that confront them, to have to deal with the inherent sexism of such debate. It is indisputable that physical aggression is violence–if one accepts the standard Merriam-Websters definition.

It seems it isn’t as clear in academic minds that aggression takes many forms against all persons before physical aggression takes place, with males being the most prone to being victims of that aggression, and one cause of this opacity of the academic mind is the rhetoric of the body, and feminist discourse about patriarchal violence.

According to Sage, aggression, definition number one is “violent action that is hostile, and usually unprovoked.” I don’t think anybody can dispute that, and many of us have experienced it. However, definitions get a bit fuzzy when we look at words like “usually,” within the definition–even in a linguistic sense. It is a landmine of a word that threatens to throw the whole definition into the toilet. And using a prescriptive dictionary like Websters only exacerbates the problems inherent in the discourse.

Why? Because in this case, ‘usually’ is an ambiguous, an indefinite article of speech. What is ‘usually,’ exactly? Ask your own dictionary, but it basically means ‘commonly occurring,’ and based on Sage, it would be an artifact of presumptive meaning, modal behavior for those who enjoy the modality of ordinary life.

But what about the rest of us? We employ other means by necessity of survival to arrive at meaning–and the means are holistic, not atomistic, as is the case of political, academic intention.

And to that purpose–sans academic politics, and in reference to domestic violence, both sexes commit aggressive acts within relationships almost equally, with women ‘usually’ initiating more violence than men, and more likely to commit physical violence, according to a three decades long bibliography of domestic violence statistics compiled by Martin Fiebert, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach.**

Martin Fiebert, Ph.

Martin Fiebert Ph.D. California State University, Long Beach (562) 985-5027 e-mail: mfiebert@csulb.edu

The combined studies in Fiebert’s not-so-easily-dismissed sampling have an aggregate sample size of 369,800 people, and demonstrate that women commit an equal, or greater amount of violence against male partners.

So, the problem inherent in the academic war against facts is one of subjectivity versus objectivity. Or, in layman’s terms, academics have whored themselves for funding at the expense of truth.

In fact, in acts of war upon language, academia employs the tool of a laypersons possible or theoretical, subjective reality—using imagery of abused women at the expense of using imagery of abused men– at the expense of objectivity. Who can’t feel sorry for an abused woman? And why don’t men just ‘protect themselves?”

These questions have obvious answers, except in the mind of academics, who still deny that women are more likely to sexually abuse children than they are to sexually abuse men. If inquiry were actually a goal of academics, rather than grant writing for popular causes, or politicking, I would imagine that fact would beg a huge research question–yet there is still no hypothesis on the effect of women’s abuse of children on men’s aggression.

Objectivity is a requirement of most standard sciences(never mind gender and culture studies), yet falls by the wayside when political objectives are mixed with propagandists intentions—or, as I discuss briefly in my mission statement, academia has sacrificed truth and scholarship at the expense of objectivity, which for academics is a lucrative industry. This is what I call academic porn.

The net effect of rhetorical ploys over objective reality is that, in the time such rhetoric has been employed against objective truth, the American prison system has nearly tripled incarceration rates of males, with over half of them imprisoned for crimes that ARE NOT VIOLENT CRIMES, nor are the crimes for which they are imprisoned violent crimes against women, or against persons. In fact, more than 50% of imprisoned men are in prison for what they did to their own bodies by using drugs.

Addiction (a side issue here) is almost exclusively anti-social, in that addicts live lives that are solitary, isolated, and incapable of interacting with social norms to the level where domestic violence would even be an issue. Equally, many addicts in prison are victims of violent crimes perpetrated on them y mothers, and of actual rapists, we have known for decades that they are often the victims of domestic violence when they were children.

But back to Sage for a minute, and a reality check. Sage (and I am sure whatever dictionary you are using) has several definitions of aggression—so why stop at definition one?

Definition two is merely the initiation of unfriendly behavior; definitions three onward are really a discussion about initiating aggression, to feelings that arouse thoughts of attacks.

Let’s look at two for a minute. What initiates behavior—what is unfriendly? I will show you one of the thousands and thousands of examples of women’s aggression in action on the web. This example comes in the form of aggressively ‘baiting’ men for aggressive responses to women’s behavior. And mind you—there are no men present in the discussion except perhaps in the imagination of the author:

Typical aggreesion baiting by typical female blogger--the lowest common denominator in the discussion of domestic violence

On the surface, the article seems to appeal to all people, in an almost egalitarian manner, despite the fact that it just a snapshot in time, from one locality. And of course, it is a selective example wherein not only do women appear to be greater in ‘victimhood’ but also it compares the existing notions and false presumption (women are victims of DV at greater rates than men) against the facts of DV ( Fiebert’s careful three decade study of DV on initiation and follow through of women’s aggression and violence directed at men.)

In simple terms, homicide is a statistical outlier—an extreme that is almost not worth noting–which would indeed go unnoticed if only men died from DV.

Now, the facts: in this one study of deaths caused by DV, men lose, clearly, in the common imagination of the layperson, because obviously, more women died in this example. The author then goes on to break down the examples and we find that—surprise!—the men who killed women were abusers, and the women who killed men were no doubt driven to it, by being egregiously abused, while many men also killed themselves ( hot topic in feminist rhetoric ‘ men kill themselves to hurt women’—new lows in the debate…).

What is missing in this particular snapshot is that we have to imagine what could drive a man to murder—and we do not impute males with the same propensity to kill a mate with long term abuse suffered by those males. But enough about this snapshot- one of millions out there that attempt to circumvent the issue of aggression with extreme examples—where are the facts in practice as documented by Fiebert? Based on th definition of aggression, the facts are everywhere, every day, and I will demonstrate that some women use verbal aggression with the explicit intention of provoking male anger.

et, al: Inspiring White Female Privilege.

A critique of an introduction, which functions as a rationalization of late-term post-partum white female privilege, abjection,* separatism cloaked in rape anxiety,and feminist cowardice.

This article is written for academic, “school educated” people, but I think it is important to write for non-academic people who should come first. For anyone reading this, who has never been to college, go here ** below the second line down.

For Nell, from Brooklyn–and feminist men: here below, is Nikki Crafts phallic totem.

———————————————————————————————————

Nikki Craft deserves more of the ear than most of her white female, feminist peers.

Why? Because Nikki Craft has ovaries ( I just thought I would see how that sounds–like if I said, “she has balls”-doesn’t carry the same ooomph, does it?).

No: Nikki Craft had balls–no, the gonads, in the sense of the phallus as a metaphorical and transferable human-family totem to actually take on the system. That is, before she located, and centered herself squarely, and interestingly in the middle of groups of naked children–but then changed her course– in order to argue against pedophilic sexual voyeurism of males, a curious position to be in indeed.

Nikki Craft was a warrior, not a whiner.

And Nikki Craft wasn’t a coward in her early activism, sniping from academic turrets of police and state mechanisms of pure power, like Russell[.], or from behind fire-walled, lap-dog guarded pseudo-feminist blogs like Skepchick.com which has recently had quite a discussion about Richard Dawkins, atheist, and sexism.

Most feminist men and women can’t help themselves, stuck as they are in Julia Kristeva‘s “borderline,” structured over a ‘lack’ of something rather than a possession of something, or cowering in the binary disconnect of self and other, like most modern entitled, privileged white feminists who lack the gonads to truly protest, or risk shattering the prolonged period of privileged female abjection.

Ms. Craft once took REAL risks–the same kind of risks that men face every day, and in doing so, was inherently believable, understandable, and respectable in her protests, unlike those who employ themselves merely as female ‘minds’ but inhabiting primarily, female bodies enmeshed in post-structural feminist narratology; and she transcended fear, and ‘her’ self.

She literally risked going to jail ( with all of it’s implied, potential, egalitarianism enhancing potential violence, and potential rape), and was actually jailed 17 times during her protests against misogyny.

You definitely can’t say that about any of the modern, entitled white women who talk, blog, and march in SlutWalks, and cry wolf at the mere possibility of male attention–who equate being spoken to in an elevator with rape , like white young feminist and religious skeptic Rebecca Watson, or joust at penises who have heretical gametes instead of right wing or power structure males.

However, the history of women’s protest in modern times is the history of differential and lesser-charged treatment by authorities in comparison to criminal offenses charged against men, and women of color.

The slap on the wrist is the norm in prosecuting white female criminal acts, and has been throughout the millennium–not the exception–which is not to minimize the effect of not being taken seriously by authority, but to point out the nature of second, third, and 17 th chances for those embodied white and female.

Craft was mad about men looking at pictures of naked women, which took their attention off of her, and other women she knew. She marauded in book and magazine stores, destroying magazines which portrayed naked women, which she felt threatened women’s safety–she took actual as opposed to imagined risks:

Unprivileged men don’t get 17th chances,stomping into stores and shops and wreaking havoc on merchandise; non-white women do not get second guesses, and second chances are rare, even for privileged men.

Black and brown or non-privileged white women are being locked in American prisons at an increasing rate[..], and all of them have historically faced harm that white women have NEVER faced.

However, white women have never faced prison, or the primary violation of their bodies as mere orthographic descriptions denoting criminality, unfathomably above and beyond the cold descriptors of ordinary humanity.

Further: imagine the absolutely unimaginable: that any man who acts in the agency of male, protesting the violence against the male body not just from authority, but from its constant companion of white female privilege that negotiates each male and other identity against racial and sexual pardigms of white female engendered or upholding power–should ever be nominated for an award by his arresting officer!

It could NEVER happen. Male protest, and other bodies for whom male protest attempts to speak, has been co-opted, essentially, at the site of a white woman’s womb.

To even attempt to create a list of men who have been imprisoned, beaten, jailed, and ruined by criminal records compiled by cops would be an exhausting project that would require a multi-billion dollar endowment, because the male body–regardless of race– is and has always been the center of the primary battles of discrimination between privileged men, and privileged women who compete for a voice in their ranks ( those ranks birthed, and upheld by mothers who birthed such men).

The use, control and abuse of male bodies is an agreement between the privileged of both genders; and male embodiment for most men is in and of itself ‘potentially harmful’ to society–men are punished merely for being male, because definitions of crime itself is proscribed male.

The male body that the privileged woman reaches into for phallic energy, and sperm donations is not the same male body that privileged females squeal to, or appeal to in their quest for justice.

In Russel’s introduction, she goes on to state what has become the driving mantra and the essential position of white female privilege-and by using the term white female, I by no means preclude brown, or black contenders for the white female influenced voice of privilege.

Russell admits her cowardice to some degree when says:

And likely, the lesson she speaks of brings her closer to comprehending what it is that keeps white female privilege arguing up the asses of male politicians, police, professors, and feminist lap-dog men, while purporting to care about brown and black women around the world– because jail is a very real possibility for all men, every day, and actual rape, death and harm a fact of life for non-white women.

But white women? C’mon…they are way too scared to take risks like talking to someone in an elevator, much less go to jail for insurrection.Fear of crossing from ‘abject’ reality to “actual reality”*** is what motivates the modern white feminist–fear of losing their entitlement, not fear of actual rape.

Unlike Craft, a primary cowardice that stops white women at the door of actual risk, and perpetuates their privilege, while minimizing the effects of their abject fear projections on men, and leaning on the backs of ‘other and othered’ men and women for actual stories of suffering and inequality.

Or, in the words of Russell:

This dialectic of “fancy” preemptive dialogue is “limned with the abject loss” of white female privilege–a murderous impulse against growing up, being truly equal, or at least facing the violence of ‘reality’ that most men, and non-white women face. It eludes reality, and eludes the presumptions of ‘othered’ male innocence in every discussion, and merely tokenizes actual violence that non-white women face.

Unimaginable, utopian, unavailable, and unattainable as white female perceptions of abject reality is, it is seductive in the least, for privileged, and compliant males, but it borders no reality known by the rest of men, or non white women.

White female abjection is so fetishized, and so normalized that egalitarian options are demonized and co-opted by the collaboration of cowards; the white female abject is a tool to diffuse and disorganize ‘other’ and ‘othered’ male protest, diminished as much by the actual arrests and subsequent brutality that non-white women and othered men face, without letters of recommendation, or commendation from police authorities.

* abjection in Julia Kristeva’s conception: “On the level of archaic memory, refers to the primitive effort to separate ourselves from the animal: “by way of abjection, primitive societies have marked out a precise area of their culture in order to remove it from the threatening world of animals or animalism, which were imagined as representatives of sex and murder” (Powers 12-13). On the level of our individual psycho sexual development, the abject marks the moment when we separated ourselves from the mother, when we began to recognize a boundary between “me” and other, between “me” and “(m)other.”[ needs citation]

But instead of art, or literature, white feminism gives us regurgitation’s of Plato, a structuralist, and Socrates, a pedophile, and always posits her place as an innocent, vulnerable, and unaware of conflict, holding her place at the mirror image abject, never quite seeing, or admitting to seeing, but always looking at herself, and projecting upon others whatthey, not she, sees there, in HER unbroken mirror.

____________________________________________________________

**What I am saying up there above the line where the book-smart but street-dumb paper-people live.

But for everybody else: Don’t white women act like they are a threatened species, and claim they have not enjoyed freedom because white men were in the way? White women have imprisoned white men and black men for generations, with social morality campaigns, and social scares, claiming black men “looked at them, ” assaulted them, ” raped them,” etc., while making black women nurse, and watch their babies while they ran around.

White women negotiate from a perspective of entitlement, but once, some white women, who kicked ass, did cool things that helped all women, like what Nikki Craft did, before she became incredibly fascinated and obsessed being near nudist children.

Yet sadly, modern white women are cowards,who want you to keep them in the position of power that they are used to (listen to them, pay for them, enable them, believe in them, and at all times spoil them like little girls, but never talk about it): and, unlike most people, and most women, especially black, brown, or non-white women, they want you to think that they have a hard time in life, despite the fact that white women have been the primary living, breathing, financial beneficiaries of all of histories wealth, all of histories dead men, and all of histories power.

In fact, white women want you to help ensure their breeding success, against your own, and want you to believe that mixing with them will help protect your childrens future–it won’t. The problem is, you cannot protect your children from them–look at American laws, look at ‘modern’ history–everywhere there is a white woman, there is child rape, slavery, death of fathers, subservience of ‘colored women’, and kidnapping or “adoption” of your non-white children]

*** actual reality is what non-white women, and unprivileged men everywhere face due to the un-modulated voice of white women and their fears, as opposed to the rest of people and their realities.

Porn KeyWords: eight year old girl sucking, eight year old girl tits, prepubescent girl likes mothers tits, under ten year old sexual training, seven year old girl and breasts, eight year old sucks hard, seven year old wants it, eight year old needs training, seven year old needs some cream, young girl needs some cream, eight-year-old girl wants screams for cream, pre-pubescent girl eats cream in moms lap, eight year old girl eats cream while mother looks on.

Mother breastfeeding an eight-year-old girl. Is this child being used by the mother for pleasure? After all, women experience orgasm during breastfeeding.  And I don’t call this an educational video, I call it radical feminist child pornography.

I wonder why any woman would encourage her grown child to suck on her when the kid is eight years old. And I say encourage, because if you notice in the video, the ‘home’ is a virtual cult of mothers orgasmic breasts.

An unplanned orgasm during breastfeeding is one thing- quite normal, healthy, and expected for up to three years of life or so. But eight? How about eleven?

And setting boundaries between adults and children is fundamental to raising healthy children–I won’t even cite that. Boundaries are good, at least, according to ‘society’. As if society is to be believed….”It’s for the children,” they say.

Hmmmmm. According to the video,  “Veronica believes children should decide for themselves…”

Veronica, the mother coos to the child “little monkey…”

I have known a woman who called her vagina ‘her little monkey’; I have known another woman to call her vibrator a little monkey, and called my genitals little monkey as well.

Then to the viewer, Mother Veronica says “She has a soft…strong attachment to it”, speaking about her breastfeeding, near-pubescent daughter. Then she rationalizes the behavior by stating that children who breastfeed longer have higher IQ.

The mother exhibits two rationalizations similar that pedophiles who abuse their children often use: she has a special coded language of cuteness and objectification calling the child her “little monkey,” and also the rationalization that she acts out of love. I am sure somewhere in the literature, you can even find the claim that sex with children makes them smarter, too.

“They may blame the children for being too attractive or sexually provocative. They may also maintain that they are “teaching” the child about “the facts of life” or “love”; this rationalization is frequently offered by pedophiles who have molested children related to them”

Read more: Pedophilia – children, causes, DSM, functioning, therapy, adults, person, people http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html#ixzz1RQg4PcuO

Yukki, sexually abusive, and inappropriate, says I. And how can the child possibly ‘decide for ‘herself? The mother wields ultimate decision making, power, and influence over the girls mind.

If pornography is actually about power relationships and control, or even if equality was a goal, I wonder what the world would think if men had eight year old girls sucking on their tits while they masturbated, or assured us that eight year old boys need their penises held every time they went to the bathroom. We know where that would go…

Breastfeeding grown children is a betrayal of the parents responsibility, and a glimpse of one of the ways that female sexuality–and female abuse of children–takes a different form than sexual abuse of children by males.

Sadly, women feminists, and the actors within the women’s movement are hesitant or dismissive of any suggestion or attempt to categorize this and other inappropriate objectifying or abusive acts that women commit against children as criminal.

Yukki and age- inappropriate, in the very least, says I. But a potential clue about the nature, and difference of sexual abuse of children by women.

Related articles

Caricature on "The great epidemic of porn...

Image via Wikipedia

Recognizing that we [exist] are trapped in a society that circumscribes, coerces, violates and exploits our bodies as obstacles or as commodities through the co-option of our consent; and recognizing the inherent corruption and co-option of human nature due to the social compact of religious, ideological and capitalist systems, we protest.

We identify two kinds of pornographic representations of the body that the human being is forced to interact within. War porn and Sex porn—although a possible third kind of pornography exists, which is the co-opted academic debate and scholarship that seeks to rationalize, capitalize, or justify its existence through argumentation in favor of one or the other types of pornography.

We refer to this type of possible porn as “Academic porn,” the kind of dialogue that incrementalizes the urgency for liberation and human rights of one person over another person in an attempt to justify grants, fellowships, and academic notoriety, while quashing of other types of dialogues.

Definitionally, we use the term pornography derived from the freeware, open source dictionary “The Sage” to mean “creative activity (writing or pictures or films) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire”. However, we suggest that all alleged pornographic imagery is literary and potentially artistic, but most importantly, discussion worthy, which is our intended act against the confines of a definitionally murderous, war based society.

In light of that definition, we believe that there is no such thing as actual sexual pornography, but rather, only debates about social control and power structures that limit the discussions about the co-option of our bodies, and the bodies of others who have been used by such a systemic, dualistic and war-pornographic culture.

We suggest a moratorium on the pursuit or prosecution of sexual pornography related crimes to limit the scope to actual perpetrators, their associates, and their accomplices, and in its place a deeper analysis of the under-explored topic of war pornography. As well we are suggesting prosecution for war crimes by nations, and leaders of individual nations that commit them, instead of shaming human beings for sexual choices, portrayals, discussions and displays.

The issues of consent, patriarchal versus matriarchal values, child versus adult sexuality, and especially homo versus hetero sexuality are constant themes that are routinely brought up in discussions of sexual pornography, and I maintain that cannot be properly analyzed in times or in places where rulers use our own and others sexual bodies and sexual shaming against us, while they and their warporn oriented minions commit the ultimate attrocities of war-pornographic murder, death, actual disease, and “otherness” perpetuation.

We rebel at complicity with their definition and adherence to the idea that human images, portrayals, and discussions of sex in all of its forms has no ‘literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire,’ because such a definition draws a false and arbitrary line between our bodies and ourselves. Sexuality is not seperable from humanity, yet neither is all sexual thought, ideology, or feeling a stimulation—it is also inseperable from our experience, imaginations, and our bodies.

So, definitionally, we take the stand that warporn is their means of primary control over our bodies, and that sexporn is merely a tool of delineating a boundary through that body—of dividing and conquering—of discerning those who will or won’t comply with the capitalist murder agenda; that defining the sexual body is in itself a primary abrogation against individual will and intention, whether sexual or not.

Additionally, we take the stand that males are primary victims of warporn, and females the primary victims of sexporn, each with their own forms of danger and suffering attached, but that warporn is the more dangerous and socially maladapted and malevolent of the two, as death, torture, rape, imprisonment, and lifelong physical and mental injury is more lasting, and acknowleging its effects is more detrimental to the health of our society.

I suggest that their war on our bodies cannot be avoided, but that we can be understood between ourselves, and eventually remove them from power. The lens which we employ is analytical from a literary sense; sociological, sexological, anthropological, psychological and evolutionary from an academic perspective.

But the war on our sexual bodies is pure propaganda, aimed at distracting us from the horror of what our nation is doing to other bodies with bombs, guns, depleted uranium, and death. I hope to help others defeat death, and live more vibrant life by recognizing how pornography affects us all.