Posts Tagged ‘Rape’

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

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:

You know it's an Andrea Dworkin index when ...

Image by poppet with a camera via Flickr

Here is why nice guys finish last–if at all–in the feminist discussion: women lie, men die. Got that?

And I can prove it to you!

Andrea Dworkin was a monolith indeed. She wrote Mercy as an act of revolution, and a courageous one fingered salute to patriarchs whom she felt had let women down.

She was at war with the idea that women are not believed.

Or, so she said that’s what she was at war with… but her writing is basically a long, drawn-out coming out of the closet, that is helped by her father, and discouraged by her mother.

There are feminists, and then there are CIA-backed feminists, andeven they don’t always know what the difference is, much less what sexual games go on between a daughter and a mother, which Andrea touched on for a minute.

But more often than not, they agree that dubious methods of story telling, and manipulation of data in the pre-writing of a narrative is the best way to arrive at truth.

Very much like religious people who try to disprove scientific fact by stating ” it’s not in the bible; it isn’t truth,” feminists agree that “a feminist didn’t say it; it isn’t true,” like the recent case of the Women’s Funding Network, and Craigslist, which was debunked as junk science, but funded anyways!

Dworkin betrayed her father, and threw truth out the window  for fame, money and and pussy.

The facts were irrelevant there, in that idol she was crafting. The truth is irrelevant here, now, and only the power of one lie to make it around the world in a day is the detail that becomes fact to this version of feminist thought.

So a closer examination of truth is warranted.  Here are the facts so far: Andrea Dworkin created an arguably monstrous image of men, and fictionalized, fantasized, and publicized Mercy as a tale of  incest, despite its contradiction of her own experience; and in order to be believed.

What a way to coral off the competition for the pussy supply!

Her own actual, personal story of sexual dominance games with little girls, and later, women;  and her sexual displays in front of her mother are largely  irrelevant in her tales, as compared to her drive to move men aside; and  her necessity to claim to speak for incest survivors is her imperative, and yet, in her autobiographical notes, we find her justifying her use of lies in her fiction.

Never mind that fiction is inherently a liar’s game, or that all fiction is contrived. Think instead that women actually believe the fiction, and despite never having read Dworkin, adopt her position by rote, via whatever meme is circulating about paternal incest.

And especially never mind that Dworkins largest and looming issue was her tantalizing, sexualized incestuous desire for a relationship with her mother—Andrea’s leap from the abject was to stumble bull-like through the mirror.

That is feminisms biggest non-secret so far, and difficult to grasp, because women’s ‘truths’, as Dworkin rightfully posits, are often  not believable.

So: after describing her close, productive, nurturing, and creative relationship with her father, and her  sexually frustrated relationship with her ice cold and controlling mother, she talks about Masada, the famed site of a sort of Jewish last stand, and extrapolates it into incest with fathers in general, and decides that writing about incest with fathers is more important  than writing about the great relationship she had with her father, Harry, which she describes thus:
“I trusted and honored him. I guess that I trusted him to love me more even than to take care of us. In an honors history seminar in high school, the class was asked to name great men in history. I named my father and was roundly ridiculed by advocates for Thomas Jefferson and Napoleon. But I meant it– that he had the qualities of true greatness, which I defined as strength, generosity, fairness, and a willingness to sacrifice self for principle. His principle was us: my mother, Mark, and me….”
She describes her father in glowing terms.Then, she states that her best qualities as a writer came from him as well.
“I think that he did abandon me when I was in circumstances of great suffering and danger. He was, I learned the hard way, only human. But what he gave me as a child, neither he nor anyone else could take away from me later. I learned perseverance from his example, and that endurance was a virtue. Even some of his patience rubbed off on me for some few years. I saw courage in action in ordinary life, without romance; and I learned the meaning of commitment. I could never have become a writer without him.”
Then, on her writing, and the great fiction of fathers and incest. Most importantly, I think this is the root of the meme that we should “believe women” when they talk about incest, and then it’s later version, rape, which is evident below, in highlights.

And most importantly, and in context to her need to be believed, note that she had no degree in anything but fiction. And here are her words about how she decided that crafting a story with a lie as its premise was what actually drover her writing:
“I’d like to take what I know and just hand it over. But there is always a problem, for a woman: being believed. How can I think I know something? How can I think that what I know might matter? Why would I think that anything I think might make a difference, to anyone, anywhere? My only chance to be believed is to find a way of writing bolder and stronger than woman hating itself–smarter, deeper, colder *This might mean that I would have to write a prose more terrifying than rape, more abject than torture, more insistent and destabilizing than battery, more desolate than prostitution, more invasive than incest, more filled with threat and aggression than pornography. How would the innocent bystander be able to distinguish it, tell it apart from the tales of the rapists themselves if it were so nightmarish and impolite? There are no innocent bystanders. It would have to stand up for women–stand against the rapist and the pimp–by changing women’s silence to speech. It would have to say all the unsaid words during rape and after; while prostituting and after; all the words not said. It would have to change women’s apparent submission–the consent read into the silence by the wicked and the complacent–into articulate resistance. I myself would have to give up my own cloying sentimentality toward men. I’d have to be militant; sober and austere. I would have to commit treason: against the men who rule. I would have to betray the noble, apparently humanistic premises of civilization **and civilized writing by conceptualizing each book as if it were a formidable weapon in a war. I would have to think strategically, with a militarist heart: as if my books were complex explosives, minefields set down in the culture to blow open the status quo”
So, as I dif around for the truth of whether or not Andrea was in Minneapolis in 1971, I won’t draw any conclusions. I will have to see what Preston’s people have to say about it, but for now, she herself readily acknowledges that she lied about her internalized experience with paternal incest, and in so doing, created a boogieman that indeed covers over that boogie woman inside herself.

To me, that seems worth examining.
*Her only chance to be believed was to lie, as she aptly notes, and portray it as truth. In so doing, and in creation of a monolithic woman, she justifies her position that lies carry more weight than truth itself.
** she betrayed her father specifically, not civilization. In doing so, she not only succeeded in hiding her mother’s and her secrets, but also perpetrated an ignoble lie. We will never know what sort of sex play she engaged in with her mother, and Dworkin has been evasive on that topic, merely noting that she was essentially scolded by her mother, but only then, after some period of time displaying herself toher mother in sexual play. Call it revolution, call it what you will; I call it and her, a liar by omission ( and she infers as much when discussing her relationship with her mother)

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….

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.

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.

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.