Posts Tagged ‘Rape culture’

You might have missed this ground shattering piece of journalism about the widespread rape of men in the Congo while you were occupied with immature and divisive conversations about young white women on elevators, the death of third wave, man-beating feminist Amy Winehouse, or the Obama shuffle to the right in matters of both domestic policy, dropping the ball on both the budget, and the treatment of “terrorists”.

But remember how hard last wave feminists were wishing, hoping, and praying that men get raped?

They got their wish.

But men get raped all the time, and nobody gives a shit—except the men who are literally bleeding out of their asses. And when men get raped, it often spells doom for relationships, support networks, and medical help; much less faith in women as allies.

The rape of men

Sexual violence is one of the most horrific weapons of war, an instrument of terror used against women. Yet huge numbers of men are also victims. In this harrowing report, Will Storr travels to Uganda to meet traumatised survivors, and reveals how male rape is endemic in many of the world’s conflicts

male-rape-victim-uganda

“The organisations working on sexual violence don’t talk about it:” Chris Dolan, director of the Refugee Law Project. Photograph: Will Storr for the Observer
TESTIMONY OF MALE VICTIM OF CONGO RAPE: “Today, despite his hospital treatment, Jean Paul still bleeds when he walks. Like many victims, the wounds are such that he’s supposed to restrict his diet to soft foods such as bananas, which are expensive, and Jean Paul can only afford maize and millet.”

Statistics on the rape of men are almost non-existent in the feminized, westernized world, and even rarer in war torn regions, despite the available resources, and agencies that could help combat rape.
The Refugee Law Project, based out of Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda is one of the startlingly few agencies that have ever compiled statistics on the subject, despite the billions of dollars spent on that exact topic here in America, every year.

RLP’s gender officer Salome Atim reports that, in addition to the world wide denial of the existence of men who are rape victims—along with a host of other violence directed at them, and the incredible lengths to which western feminists have gone to suppress the data-wives who discover their husbands have been raped most often leave them.

“They ask me: ‘So now how am I going to live with him? As what? Is this still a husband? Is it a wife?’ They ask, ‘If he can be raped, who is protecting me?’ There’s one family I have been working closely with in which the husband has been raped twice. When his wife discovered this, she went home, packed her belongings, picked up their child and left. Of course that brought down this man’s heart.”
One need look no further than to Americas academic culture, science, and scientists, to note the incredibly disturbing trend in America, and the west in general to minimize or deny the pain that men endure in regards to rape is a social construct with damning effects.

The Guardian—the same paper that had the courage to publish Wikileaks documents, points out that “It’s not just in East Africa that these stories remain unheard. One of the few academics to have looked into the issue in any detail is Lara Stemple, of the University of California’s Health and Human Rights Law Project. Her study Male Rape and Human Rights notes incidents of male sexual violence as a weapon of wartime or political aggression in countries such as Chile, Greece, Croatia, Iran, Kuwait, the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia.”

Twenty-one per cent of Sri Lankan males who were seen at a London torture treatment centre [sic] reported sexual abuse while in detention. In El Salvador, 76% of male political prisoners surveyed in the 1980s described at least one incidence of sexual torture. A study of 6,000 concentration-camp inmates in Sarajevo found that 80% of men reported having been raped.”
As well, many if not all reports of rape-culture formation directed at males has been left out of the literature as pertains to American social policy, as in the case of the CIA’s projects MKULTRA and MKMONARCH.[…]

These numbers are not at all unusual, nor is evidence that men are rape victims in any way an unknown phenomenon, as Jewish and Christian culture has long been known for sexually mutilating men in war and in times of peace[biblical quote about foreskins]; but what is remarkable is how hard and how desperately American women’s groups, feminists, and liberals in general ( the same people who brought us the rape culture analysis) have worked hard to minimize this fact, and keep it out of the literature.

And unlike women who survive rape, male survivors are secondarily and summarily punished in myriad ways.

The Guardian reports that “In Uganda, survivors are at risk of arrest by police, as they are likely to assume that they’re gay – a crime in this country and in 38 of the 53 African nations. They will probably be ostracized [sic] by friends, rejected by family and turned away by the UN and the myriad international NGOs that are equipped, trained and ready to help women. They are wounded, isolated and in danger.”

Making matters worse, documentary evidence of the rape of men is always overlooked, and underfunded, “although a rare 2010 survey, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that 22% of men and 30% of women in Eastern Congo reported conflict-related sexual violence.”

Whereas second wave feminists lauded and oddly, laughed at and approved of women cutting off men’s penises[..], and adulated the original Vagina Monologues rape of a 13 year old girl by a woman, they ensured that the rape of men would continue as a social policy, and even today, work against the safety of women, and the men who know them.

Stemple says that “International human rights law leaves out men in nearly all instruments designed to address sexual violence,” she continues. “The UN Security Council Resolution 1325 in 2000 treats wartime sexual violence as something that only impacts on women and girls… Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced $44m to implement this resolution. Because of its entirely exclusive focus on female victims, it seems unlikely that any of these new funds will reach the thousands of men and boys who suffer from this kind of abuse. Ignoring male rape not only neglects men, it also harms women by reinforcing a viewpoint that equates ‘female’ with ‘victim’, thus hampering our ability to see women as strong and empowered.”

Based on Stemple’s data, the preponderance of women invested in rape prevention and social reform, one could even posit that the rape of men is a deliberate social policy in all structures of power, because whether that power is female, or male, it leads to rape.

Other indicators, like the perpetuation of the American prison system and its enormous growth have been piggy-backed onto the political success of women’s groups in generating funding for public fear campaigns that are in essence, a marriage between the police and women’s groups, like the Take Back the Night campaign, or the current round of inflated statistics on sexual exploitation .

American prisons are rape factories, by design, and either women’s groups in America have worked hard to ensure that they stay that way, women have chosen to be part of a campaign of violence against men that is so insidious it demands the suspension of belief in women’s movements.

Ironically, George W. Bush, a white male and a conservative Republican who upheld the rapes of men at Abu Ghraib—as did many Democrats–has been the only world leader to ever publicly go on record and denounce prison rape.

Here is an extreme example of how “lookism” affects men.

How does one begin to explain what has been done to men in America? The war on men is never ending. I watch in abject horror as one man after another: one son, of one mother after another; is swept, like garbage, into a bin at the rape factory.

And, sadly, I know why they become what they become.Being subjected to rape and torture can make you angry. Being denied justice, or even remaining silent can cause you to want to pay it back.

Imagine a world where mothers cared about sons, before it’s too late. Imagine a world where children, especially the boys, are protected from the police—before they feel that they have to kill the police.

It isn’t the fathers that aren’t there: IT IS THE MOTHERS WHO ARE.

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 "Mercy"

Cover of Mercy

Andrea Dworkin‘s Fiction 101: “Lie, for effect.”

The roots of the feminist ‘men are doormats’ dilemma, and why nice guys lose, finally, and always, in feminist theory. They can’t help  themselves–literally! They are dependent upon female narratives.

UPDATE: As predicted, DSK was found innocent and absolved of any wrong doing in this matter, and currently, Naffisatou Diallo is ‘seeking a confrontation’ to avoid being deported, and to vindicate her untenable position.

I am trying to track down this odd obscure detail about Andrea Dworkin, which is probably going to be harder than explaining why the wage gap between men and women is either a  clever falsehood, or a mis-representation of women’s choices.

And even harder than trying to explain why hiding the identity of Dominique Strauss-Kahn‘s rape-accuser, Nafisatou Diallo, is the western version of ‘putting a veil on women.’

Here is Naffisatou Diallo below– false rape accuser, and drug money courier. Her false accusation against Dominique Strauss Kahn could throw the French presidential election.

Tolerating One Lie, Leads to Generations of More Lies: Naffisatou Diallo, false rape accuser

But back to obscure facts for a minute. It seems that John Preston, gay activist, author, and founder of the now-defunct Gay House, Inc. in Minneapolis, remembers Andrea Dworkin being in Minneapolis sometime in 1971.

She claimed she was in Amsterdam at the time as a “battered wife.”

I haven’t the time or the resources to track down everything that feminists claim as truth, and I have learned the hard way that truth to them is not factual, or even ascertainable by standard methodology. Truth is monolithic, not individual, and collective, not personal, so collective lies become truths, and personal truth becomes a lie.

Such is the case in the genesis of Dworkin’s work Mercy, which I will address below. Mercy is also a great part of Dworkin’s belief in lying as an imperative to creating new truths, which is not necessarily ignoble when old truth constructions don’t work anymore but it IS dubious and non-factual nonetheless.

Nor do I want to waste too much time on tracking down one attention getting manipulation of facts, or conflations of statistics after another, like the latest inflation of statistics, or sketchy evidence on sex trafficking by the now soundly debunked Schapiro Group.

But I have a hunch I can find some data about this one claim. After all, Gay House was right up the block from one of my homes.

I am seeking the data because I have a theory that modern feminism is a co-option of womens voices, and a product of CIA social engineering. Sounds all hoolie boolie, huh?

But not so hoolie boolie when you think about a few things:
1) it is now well known that Gloria Steinem was a CIA operative—so much so that Betty Friedan questioned CIA involvement in the women’s movement, and

2)  Dworkin herself was a curiously mobile, though rather penniless  individual who crossed borders, and crossed gender identities so fluidly: not bad for an uneducated girl, until you take into account her affiliation with Steinem[…]; and

3) modern feminism is so deeply allied with the subversion of domestic discourse, and allied with police power that falsehoods are widely circulated as truths—subjectivity has overcome objectivity in truth telling, so much so that the latest ‘study’ of the exploitation of teen prostitutes need only base its assertions on “lookism,” rather than hard data, or what the rest of us know as “facts”.

And then, when you realize that the false rape ideology that drives them, and is popping up all over the media [Assange, DSK , etc.] became a memetic device around the same time that Steinem was sleeping with the CIA chief, and also running around with Henry Kissinger, the great war chief who brought us the severed ears fingers and  hands of Viet Nam, and the sawed off feet of Guatemalan Indians some years later.

Together, they devised perhaps the most clever plan ever of capitalist imperial conquest; and devised one of the best smokescreens against truth in history–next to the bible, of course.

Here, have a look yourself: the word rape is a very popular adword, and a cash cow for bloggers.

Rape is a popular Google Adword--bloggers make money with rape!

But the weight of just one lie can wear you out, and make you feel like nothing is worth it—that life itself is not worth living if lies are the vehicle to truth, or as truth is more commonly known in feminist circles, consensus, monolithic, collective female consensus. And that version of truth is even heavier with the agency of the state behind its telling.

Even so, I am trying to lift Andrea off of my shoulders, and get to the bottom of a simple fact.

More later….

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.

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.

Rape culture is a concept that nobly, and rightfully challenges the co-option of our bodies, and the existing social order, and attempts to describe a social condition of oppression of women by the co-option of their bodies and choices, and often rightfully asserts that American society, and western society in general, is a society based on the control of womens bodies, and women’s choices in reproduction, and sexual expression.

But this one-winged philosophy denies male experience within that same rape culture, and stifles male voice that could actually enable the tilting of the world —in one great direction–, ensuring the end, not of patriarchy, but of dominance and control models of social and sexual interactions.

That is, dominance and control is what turns these women on and gets their sexual wheels turning, which is likely why they make appeals not to common men, but rather, they constantly appeal to police and state authority for “protection from rapists.” Perhaps womens sexuality is embodied as an object for those who are into voyeurism, rather than objectified as objects of ‘sexual conquest’-an actual physical action, rather than a reaction, to female exhibitionism.

That women are upset at the disjointed reality of the potential actualized and sexual male gaze, rather than the sexualizing female gaze and its voyeuristic, tacit approval of sexual displays, becomes evident whn exploring the formative years of powerful feminists.

Feminist theory stands directly in the way of ending patriarchy, basing its argument from semi-supported, a priori evidence, and studies—endless studies—of purported male sexual behaviours, rather than a posteriori evidence of its own longings, tendencies, and desires in unison or cohesive agreement with human nature, or their own.

In doing so, they have inserted themselves very much like rapists via the vehicle of police state social mechanisms, into a dialogue that is divisive, non-inclusive of reality, and sexually harmful.

Some militarists and extremists in the feminist camp have taken an extreme posture that all sex between men and women is forced or coerced sex, and that all interactions between a man and a woman are exploitative of what women essentially are.They have also suggested that all representations of women and sex that take place in such a sytem are pornographic, and that these images of women do not represent the actual sexuality of women.

They also have implied in most cases, and stated at times that the penis is a tool of oppression, a weapon of control, and also have theorized a world where women rule, and that such a world would give women access to men’s penises for the purpose of sperm production, and conceiving children.

Their views also hold that rape of women–and by extrapolation—children, is the primary aim of men in general, and the particular and specific aim of men in power—the patriarchy. They were not all wrong, and especially as concerns that eras Feudian hypotheses that held that girls engaged in fantasizing about being raped by their fathers, when in fact girls were experiencing actual sexual molestation and abuse; yet they have yet at any length explore abuse of sexual abuse of children by mothers, or particularly by their own mothers.