Posts Tagged ‘maternal incest’

A real time example of what it looks like when reason fails in discussions about sex and gender is taking place over at Greg Laden‘s blog at Scienceblogs.com. 

Or, in plain English, a battle of the sexes is taking place–gender warporn, and academic warporn.

Here is a live feed with a commentator, discussing the difference between child brains and adult brains. Notice the woman slapping the child/man at about 2:55 into the commentary.

Many of the women in the discussion are upset because men ‘just don’t get it’ when it comes to them being afraid of being raped, while many men think women just don’t get it about men dying, being killed, being incarcerated, and ALSO being raped, and assaulted as part of possibility of the every day life of being male.

In other words, white female privilege is again at war with males who are less privileged, while males who are privileged are also at war with those lesser privileged males. This is a historic pattern, as white female privilege goes hand in hand with imperialism. White female pseudo feminism is cultural imperialism.

On the other side of the debate is a woman, Abbie Smith, aka ERV,  who is a ” graduate student studying the molecular and biochemical evolution of HIV,” and she is of the opinion that women whining about being afraid to be in an elevator with a man are, well, whiners.

And lurking around the fringes of the debate is notoriously sag-titted misandrist and false rape proponent P.Z. Meyers, who is a militarist, and an apologist for the police state.

Smith’s audience is mostly younger males that have been labeled, or ostracized from the gender feminists discussion at Laden’s blog and elsewhere.

Most importantly, notice that her blog is immensely more popular. I make note of that because  all of them are making money generating web traffic at the expense of males who feel they have been deprived of a ‘seat at the table.’ In first insulting males, and secondly, by capitalizing on male anger over insult, they together wage war against men.

Or, put in laymans terms, their are two old reasonable wealthy or secure white guys, both professors of  Marxist deconstructions of reality, who are circling as best as they can to keep up with two young white girls, andpotentially any other girls who feel ‘safe’ in the discussion.

The old feminists called that patriarchy; the new ones call it feminism. Hmmm.

Same as it ever was, with a twist: these types of people, and these type of debates lead to a domestic climate of fear, feed into police state ideology, and cause men to be incarcerated at incredibly high rates; all while providing a smokescreen against the backdrop of America’s imperialistic internationalist  invasions on five fronts that are actually killing children, and causing rape.

Or, put another way, chimpanzees do the same thing. Bands of chimps are patriarchal, and they hunt ‘outgroup’ males, with the approval of females.

Or, put yet another way: I might be wrong in my hypotheses that feminists are bonobos, with so much actual violence going around out there–violence that they instigate, or perpetuate against males.

Domestic gender war masks actual international war, and causes its own collateral damage. Women, then, are integral to the causation of war and 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 violence directed at men.)

In brutally simple terms, homicide is a statistical outlier—an extreme that is almost not worth noting.

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, while other feminists take a pro-active stance acknowledging that men’s suicide rates are a serious topic…).

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?

Here is what comes next, after the article, when the comments begin:

Notice how the women first ask for a particular male; then, bait the hook—as if men are prey– female two says “wait for it…” as if men are out there somewhere, just dying to hear such dismissive rhetoric—that rhetoric inscribed upon male bodies by women’s lifelong deliberate denial of male awareness of the female voice and it’s impending violence, such as Fiebert has had all along, but which seldom get attention because they are facts, not vitriol, or passive aggressive verbal violence directed at one particular sex.

This style of communication, by definition, is aggressive.

The question the author asks is itself a cloaked threat against men, asking not ‘what can we do about violence,’ but rather, implying that men are the cause of “their own” violence, and then aggressively attempting to provoke an equally aggressive reaction, while neatly overlooking the percentage of men killed by other men that women brought into their lives in the form of boyfriends, police powers, and social workers—a form of institutionalized violence that women do not face.

The example above IS an example of aggression by definition, and an example of the typical aggressive female to male gender-baiting that occurs all over America, every day; it is also an example of the third category of porn: academic porn; semi-informed, or semi interested perspectives about serious issues that masquerade as facts, while dismissing academic empirical evidence that contests the purportedly academic positions.

But what about this one snapshot example that actually examines aggression, and death caused by the dictionary definition of aggression? Not much of it. This study examines one example of homicide—and curiously minimizes the use by women of third parties to enable homicide of males, via boyfriends, and the police. It has virtually no intent other than to victimize males with statistical snapshots, and does nothing to address female aggression against males. It is one more form of gender warporn, and its net effect is to further violence.

The academic appeal is directed in the form that is dummied down and directed at those who do not have access to the entirety of a discussion( in this case the gender based, and separatist feminist based, deconstructionist and quasi-liberal, police infrastructure, and biased opinions about what constitute acts of aggression).

In other words, an early casualty of the debate about domestic violence was the simple facts that women commit many acts of violence in relationships, as Fieberts statistics clearly show.

Acts of aggression can be anything from the person at the grocery store parking their car with its bumper touching yours, to the guy on the bus who sits down without asking, and loudly blares his Ipod; to the person who insults you or demeans you on a daily basis, or the woman who reminds you how quickly the police or her other boyfriend will come if she calls them, no matter what she did to you.

Acts of aggression can also be women depending upon men to not speak up in a relationship when women verbally, sexually, or physically threaten them; or depend on other men to perpetuate the cycle of and by the time a man wakes up in such a situation, it is usually too late.

The best part about these academic websites that prostitute objectivity? They almost always seem to end their threads on the exact note they want, like orchestrated missives to half-wits. This post ended, predictably, with some woman upholding some man who died protecting the right of women to hide their violence behind violent men who protect ‘her’ children—and I don’t have the time to unpack that baggage right now. But last time I checked, we were not chimpanzees.

Men die more often when women use other men to fight battles that women start.

*Sage is a linguistic dictionary, based on WordNet http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ It is based on how English speakers actually use the language, and is NOT to be used to determine what the “correct” or “incorrect” use of the English language is, because political and social trends are fickle, financed, and flawed, whereas the democratic use of language, and common peoples understanding of that language, is democracy in action.

** SUMMARY:  The collection is entitled REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY. This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.

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

For anyone who is not an academic, ‘school educated person’, here is what I am saying above the non-arbitrary line above you.

Book smart people use the discussion about domestic violence to put more police in your neighborhoods, while keeping you out of their neighborhoods. Academics are people who have college degrees, and write stuff and try to get paid for what they write. What they write is funded-financed—by saying the right things to the government in order to get a paycheck from the government.

These people make a ton of money by talking about how women are abused, and by not talking about how men are abused. And they all hate Jerry Springer.

Remember Jerry Springer, and all those violent women? At least he showed us the truth about women who your man goes to when you are pregnant, because talking to each other about sex isn’t something we are taught to do, and prostitution isn’t legal in America.

Women who hit men, and children; and women who cheat, and then call the police to look like victims are all on Jerry Springer, but the book smart people hate him.

Remember all those women who had babies by a bunch of men? Do you ever wonder why your man doesn’t come home? And when he does do you want to just kill him? The girl on Springer is the one who used your man to get a piece of his paycheck, just like academics get government money. All of us get used by them when they don’t tell the truth.

Do you sometimes want to smack your woman upside her head because she spent two hours talking to the guy at the Waffle House? It’s probably because you don’t have anyone to talk to, because some people like you actually work for a living, and book smart people use words that could put you in jail, where they should be.

But simply put, many women make money by accusing men of crimes, and other women don’t talk about it. Lots of people beat each other up; but only men go to jail for it—because the people who write books about violence get money when they only talk about mens violence. And the cops and academics and social workers are all off fucking each other while your local main street is eaten up by Walmart.

They don’t give a shit about you, and they use the troubles that men and women have in relationships to make money.

So, if you need help in a violent situation, here is a number you can call 1-800-EAT-SHIT, because they are not here to help you.

 

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.

Hot, sweaty, all-day-long monkey fucking. Monkey fucking, lesbian monkey fucking, mother and infant fucking, bad aunties molesting their nephews and nieces, older women and younger men. Hot African monkey fucking; maternal incest, women who have sex with children. Hot monkey butt sex, all day long.

Porn language is vulgar, but more appropriate for children than flag draped caskets, or social movements that give birth to soldiers instead of scholars.

VULGARITY is a word that upper classes use to oppress the language, speech, and bodies of the lower classes,while upper classes wage wars everywhere, and kill children, using those same peoples bodies. But not all monkey societies use flags, or flag draped caskets, which are more vulgar than language that humans use.

Porn keywords are vulgar, and necessary symbols of culture. But porn keywords don’t always tell the whole tale, and you never know what you might find when you click a link. For instance, what do you get with you cross feminists with ‘fisting’? Here is the answer.

The highly pornographic video above is about bonobos, a tribe of smaller chimpanzees that are led by women, not men. Er…led by females, not males– that fuck to solve all of their social problems. This female led group fucks everyone, all the time, even their own daughters, but never their sons–they leave that to their sisters.

Some scientists say that this adaptation–fucking instead of fighting in times of high stress–relieves social tensions, and keeps the tribe together.Violence is relatively rare in that society–so the scientists say–and we all know what they say about cultural relativism!!

The video is pornographic by definition because it has no literary, creative, or scientific merit despite generations of monkey-fucking porn watchers arguing that these type of videos teach us about ourselfs. Yeah, right, like I want to rub my pussy, my cock, or my ass against something, and then eat till I’m sleepy, and in a snuggling mood…

Bonobos, called pan paniscus, are closely related to humans and chimpanzees–called pan troglodytes (the ape you see at the zoo, or the one who tore this woman’s face off–plastic surgery is soooo NOT feminist… )

Whereas human males and females have a sliding hierarchical scale of when how and with whom to use violence, and chimpanzees use it by default, bonobo’s are a bunch of fuckers, and they solve problems with cunnilingus, pussy to pussy rubbing, blowjobs, fucking and ass rubs.

They are the only matriarchal apes in the whole world, and they have sex with each other, sex with their young, and sex sex sex all day long, especially when food is near. Food is like monkey money*, and it makes them horny.

Some people say they were named wrong, and they should have been called pan promiscuous….or feminist monkeys–which would be incorrect because most feminists believe in violence, and only have sex with people who have lots of monkey money, and chimpanzee friends.

It is scientifically quite possible that we descend in some way from this form of ape, as our DNA is 97-98.5% the same! However, you can observe differences in human behavior and decide for yourself if the people you know are more chimp like, or more bonobo like.

Groups of men and women that center themselves around violence are more likely chimps, and groups that center themselves around sex are more like bonobos.Oh, and of course, who outsource their violence to chimps.

And I am just monkeying around and playing with– examining- language and its symbolic value, but incest is a serious topic. So if you know a girl who is a victim of maternal incest or are a therapist engaged in treating victims of maternal incest, here is a good book for them or you to read, by Beverly Ogilvie that covers the topic extensively.

If you are a boy who has been sexually abused by bonobos, good luck–no one believes you exist.

End Child Sexual Abuse Foundation

Image via Wikipedia

So what are the  desires of powerful women? What is it that ‘turns them on’ beyond power? Where does their healthy urge merge with deviance, or illegal activity?

I suspect the answer is that what turns them on is what turns anyone in power on: the tools of power–rape, violence directed at the poor, child molestation, class and gender oppression, the committing of crimes withouit accountability, and social control. Profiles exist of such people, but these profiles are directed against, embodied, and engendered male.

The difference is that no one has yet questioned what these women are, or what is really beneath the surface of their desires, or how much they fit the sexual profiles of power they themselves have established.

But here below, is a clue, from a recollection of Andrea Dworkin, militant one-winged anti-male feminist, activist against rape, oppression, enslavement, and pornography. In the published recollection, she describes a “love” for her mother, Sylvia ( she does not ‘name’ her father in that same piece) that was in her own words, her “first great romance.

Andrea Dworkin, childhood sexual experience with her mother, and other children.

 I have idyllic memories of childhood in Camden: my brother, my father, and me having tickling fights, wrestling, on the living room floor; me in my cowgirl suit practicing my fast draw so I could be an American hero; a tiny sandbox on our front lawn where all the children played, boys and girls together, our Eden until a certain year when the girls had to wear tops–I may have been five but I remember screaming and crying in an inarticulate outrage. We girls played with dolls on the stoops, washed their hair, set it, combed it out, dressed the dolls, tried to make stories of glamour in which they stood for us. I remember being humiliated by some girl I didn’t like for not washing my doll’s hair right–I think the doll was probably drowning. Later, my grandfather married her mother across the street, and I had to be nice to her.

I was happier when we moved from dolls to canasta, gin rummy, poker, and strip poker. The children on the street developed a collective secret life, a half dozen games of sex and dominance that we played, half in front of our mothers’ eyes, half in a conspiracy of hiding. And we played Red Rover and Giant Steps, appropriating the whole block from traffic. And there was always ball, in formal games, or alone to pass the time, against brick walls, against the cement stoops. I liked the sex-and-dominance games, which could be overtly sadomasochistic, because I liked the risk and the intensity; and I liked ordinary games like hide-and-seek. I loved the cement, the alleys, the wires and telephone poles, the parked cars that provided sanctuary from the adults, a kind of metallic barrier against their eyes and ears; and I loved the communal life of us, the children, half Lord of the Flies, half a prelude to Marjorie Morningstar. To this day, my idea of a good time is to sit on a city stoop amid a profusion of people and noise as dark is coming on.

My question is: what exactly is she re-living on those steps, and why is she seeking her memories of children, and children’s games to re-live it?

We have a father encouraging heroism in the young Andrea; a father establishing a sexual angst based but clear boundary by stopping the play at tickling, but we have a mother who is omnipresent, omniscient, and possibly controlling a child’s deepest fears about death and harm in every situation, and yet that mother is adored.

Dominance in sexual situations; dominance in sexual situations with children; secrecy in dominance games with children. Are glimpses into Andrea Dworkin’s—one feminist among many, but what a feminist she was– inner motivations.

The key, in my opinion, to understanding the motivations, libidos, and power quests of women isn’t going to be found in asking patriarchy the same old questions about men, but from understanding the scant empirical evidence of powerful women’s self-edited, or self- suppressed, self-censored, coded, and hidden dialogues.

In Andrea’s case—and Andrea who became grossly overweight in her later years, like many child victims of maternal sexual abuse—she played out her early sexual power quests in front of her mother, as she said, and her early sexual experimentation, and its direction occurred “half in front of our mothers’ eyes, half in a conspiracy of hiding.”

That conspiracy of hiding is the biggest clue, along with the fact that it was Andrea, and other girls who had other mothers, that played such things out—in front of mothers.

I personally believe that women’s rape fears are the internalized, non-verbally cued, female embodied, and maternally engendered fear that fathers would not approve of the behaviors that mothers instill, encourage, embody, and condone, as long as those behaviors take place in front of women.

And those women, just like cops, like to mediate wider social interactions, and to see what young vaginas are up to, voyeuristically, from the outside looking in.

Andrea never had children, and I suspect it is because she knew herself well, and protected them pro-actively from herself, and her mothers female embodied, voyeuristic Lacanian gaze. Later Andrea extrapolated that gaze into her views of pornography, and projected that gaze onto men in general, rather than being a true hero, and discussing her interactions of childhood sexual dominance play that could likely have been encouraged, embodied, or manipulated by her mother, and the mothers of other girls whom she played with.

That is my pure specualtion of exactly what it is that might lay beneath the surface of feminist projections about male sexuality, after all, the evidence i so scant- but I believe that underneath women’s dialogues lurks Andrea, on the steps, still looking for kids to play with and dominate—and another mother to look at her approval seeking, dominance-based sexual displays.

Nuit Blanche - Key hole sessions - Girls.Greas...

Image via Wikipedia

Moderate feminists have taken a less extreme position and stated that although extremist feminism is a necessary evil to address social problems, primarily rape by men, they note that not all men, and not all sex is controlling of women, or womens choices, and have noted as well that some women have power, and exercise complete choice in their sexual matters. However, the stipulation, the fine print underneath this moderate feminism maintains that womens choices exist within the context of patriarchy, and that matriarchy does not exist. And so women are de facto not in full control of their bodies or choices.

Unlike most social movements, where one can discern a left and a right wing, feminist movement has only one wing, which is a moderate to extreme right social and sexual conservatism. Because militant and extremist feminism exists exclusively on the right wing of promoting violence as a means of control, and both moderate and militant feminists have a basic belief in police infrastructure and intervention in all matters and at all levels of male and female interactions. Lastly, they agree that women and sex are sexual commodities that can be capitalized on, but they disagree on who should maintain the profits that are and can be made by selling womens sexual commodity. None of them have any ideas about male sexuality, or its use and abuse as a sexual commodity.

Thus, there really is no real center, and no left wing of feminism.

There are splinter groups who seldom have a main voice in the discussion, like sex positive feminists. Then there are often times controversial women who feminists disavow as being anti-feminist, conservative, or biased against feminist objectives, even though these controversial women have attained what feminists claim is unattainable for women. Christina Hoff Summers; Ann Coulter; Nadine Strossen to name a few.

These individuals and groups are not dystopian nor Utopian as is the feminist wing. These individuals and small groups are usually more day to day, blue collar, and working class; often what could be called sexually precocious,or deviant, even in moderate terms; sexually liberated, independent minded, and feeling in control of their bodies and their choices. It is apparent what they want, and what they desire, and more often than not, they go out and get it.

Homeschoolers, hippies, church groups and midwife networks who do not necessarily identify with feminism, or agree with its foundations and philosophies are feminist in practice and principle, but not in wider social practice or activism, and with good reason. Womens shopping networks, and working nurses who earn their way to the top of their professions are feminist as well, by doing, not by preaching.

Actions speak louder than words.

BDSM women desire that; feminist prostitutes who desire safer work conditions and legalization of their craft desire that; female truck drivers who love to travel and seek sex coast to coast get that, and soldiers who want paychecks and lots of play or heirarchy based power–and understand the risks–get that.

But in all the dialogue, one thing is clearly, and consistently missing: discussion about truly deviant motivations and behaviors of women who are in power, who wish to attain power, and who commit deviant acts or crimes in order to maintain power.

What does the feminist wing want? What really turns them on? It seems they want it all, and they want a police force at their beck and call that will enable that perspective without question; they want to rule, but they don’t want to actually fight for that power, or explain its rewards—they want police inserted into the dialogue on the pretense of rape, so that they can have that dialogue safely. But what are they protecting that requires such a high degree of safety to discuss or conceal it?

The wider discussion itself did not arise out of thin air. Rape, child rape, social marginalization and gender based oppression is and was an endemic failure of the American state, and failure to prosecute rape was a horrible historical fact.

In fact, women’s groups assertions that possible harassment or rape is the number one concern facing advancement and equality of women, and these actualities have basis in fact, because after all, some men had committed rape, etc., and and we compiled data that confirmed this thesis.

But what other social dialogues and mechanisms enhance thepower of rape anxieties?

And what to do about women who have power, and the same tendencies as anyone in power to use the ‘tools of power,’ which they have made clear are rape, oppression based on gender, and false notions of biological destiny. How do such women abuse power? What deviant acts are they committing in order to mask and fuel their power?

When discussing this one winged feminism, and the endless stream of female consciousness that projects rape fear and rape anxiety upon the men of the nation has one curious side effect: it masks the sexual actions, intentions, sexual desires, and sexual fantasies of these women almost entirely, while displaying that exact power over men.

In projecting that men are rapists; murderers; pedophiles, etc., and going after the data to back those assumptions, we know what it is that they say men are, and that the data aimed at collecting such information supports that men can be what they say men are—but we never quite get a glimpse of what it is that these women actually are, or to know what it is that is at the center of their libidinal reality.

So, if men are prone to rape by nature, prone to violating the basic social compact that prohibits such behavior and in a social and physical position to actually rape–to have access to victims, what of women who have access to children? What about women who have access to children AND power?

We never get a glimpse of what it is in these womens learning process that makes them so sure what a rapist is, or a pedophile—what one looks like, as they are so sure they know; what special secret access beyond post-Freudian anecdotes of child abuse, and recent decades advances in examining male deviance that support what these women claim are mens desires, and mens fantasies, apart and apparently, separate from their own.

We see how hard they have worked to convince society what it is that men are capable of, and we have seen the statistics on crime mirror to some degree the reality that they proposed—but in alarmingly small numbers, and under questionable social circumstances.

We see the police agency act as exactly what the police act as anywhere: protectors of the middle to upper class, and oppressors of the poor; all without ever asking about, seeing, or questioning what it is that these women of power desire; what it is that they are capable of. We can easily infer that police ARE the other wing of that kind of power oriented feminism.

But we have not yet examined these women, and their power.