Posts Tagged ‘the maternal gaze’

Notice the word “little” in this woman’s video commentary about Asian women, and her thoughts on men. That is “objectification in action.” Diminishing the identity of a race class or group begins with diminutive terminology.

And notice how she subtly turns a discussion about robots into a discussion about sex robots that challenge her concept of intimacy.

Ana Kasparian from the Examiner, and  Cenk Uygur, from the Huffington Post)

Then, notice how, after she turns the discussion about robots into a discussion about men’s lack of intimacy ( one of the primary complaint’s that women have about men), she turns the commentary over to a man, her co-host–who then proceeds to blather as if her hand was stuck up his ass like a puppet.

This is how projection works. This is how women use men as tools to voice things that they are too insecure to say about sexuality.

Who needs a robot when you have men around who act like them–and are controlled by them–and speak the words that they are too afraid, to say?

Men are tools, which is demonstrated by the fact that men represent 92% of all workplace fatalities, and machinery related job tragedies.[ 2010 stats here]

This is how some women use men, and those women will use you, too,  as a sock puppet,  parading their insecurities for them, instead of being accountable for what they say and do, or conflating a false sense of morality or imperative  into statements about sex.

Notice how Kasparian subtly ( the commentator, not the robot) infers that men prefer sex with inanimate objects, and in motherly concern-tones notes that it is a “problem” with men in Japan and elsewhere?

Why is it that western women are afraid of Asian women, and robots?

Actroid-DER, developed by KOKORO Inc for custo...

Most American women own vibrators, but fear robots--why is that? Image via Wikipedia

I mean, after all, women have been using vibrators since the fifties at least. Sex toys for women are du jour, poke, prod and click me for fun, and profitable, but for men? A whole ‘nother dialogue of shame.

I bet Ana Kasparian–if she is truly a western woman– has a drawer full of dildos, and a 10-speed vibrator–one she got from her mother for Christmas; and she snuggles with her poodle all night.

And Uygur–well, as above, a male tool.

This is where objectification begins, and projection takes its form–in the minds of women who compare, and compete for personal power. Who aren’t accountable for their own sexual impulses; and the tools who uphold them.

The white, western woman is blatantly co-opting an Asian  dialogue, or subtly race baiting to minimize our insight into her own racism, and sexual anxiety. Never mind that an It begins and ends with women who compete to breed, as they market themselves to you, or compete to control men in general through sex shaming rhetoric.

The real objective of some women is control of other women’s choices, and bodies in the disguise of “all women are this and all women are that” dialogues about feminism, using male bodies as tools of conquest. The  sock puppet of ‘collective women’  is actually a mask to cover in-group female anxiety over the  ‘othered group’ sexuality–an attempt to own the other through dialogue.

Western women are at the very core, afraid of being outsourced, or of having to  face the same fears that men have every time women’s rhetoric ‘others’ people and thins as objects.

Oh, that and maintaining the western woman’s right to parade in SlutWalks, and buy bigger, better, sweat-shop made vibrators. Imagine, comparing yourself to a robot…says a lot for where these women are at in their heads.

Martin Van Maele - La Grande Danse macabre des...

Moral Campaigns always have wide-legged white women at the center.

“Organized walks are usually meant to promote a charity, but that’s not the plan for a walk this weekend in the Twin Cities, James Schugel reports (2:06).”

MORE HERE: Twin Cities ‘SlutWalk’ Protests Sexual Violence Against Women.

SlutWalks, in case you haven’t heard, are a tool of police state feminism . They are controlled opposition that focuses women and girls on a war against words, rather than focusing them on a war against war.

While eradicating the world of “slut shaming” sounds like a good idea, it consumes the resource pool of dialogue to the point where this type of mis-directed sexist rhetoric effectively killed the abnti-war movement.

And none of it–none of it–will stop them from sending men–potential allies– to prison because men are framed in the dialogue as threats to the privileged white female social order. That order seeks alliance with police and state mechanisms of power, while demonizing men who do not venerate such an order. This challenges white female privilege in discussions of constructionist social intervention.

Their reply to the challenge? Sluts shouldn’t feel objectified! It appears that sexism is a two way street, and this sort of dialogue drives on both sides.

Yet prison serves only one purpose: it serves as a rapist’s training ground, and incarceration of male voices does little to end global violence against women and men of color by white people.

SLUTWALKS ARE  A DISTRACTION BY DESIGN, AS WHITE FEMALES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE FOCAL POINT OF CENTRALIZED WHITE POWER AND DIFFERENTIAL POLICE PROTECTION.

This march will host more angry white women than you will ever want to lay eyes on again. If you want to end rape, forever, don’t have white children–but also, don’t  leave children in the care of child molesters, and angry violators of social norms that affect children.

White women have the ugliest hearts you will ever see–and no matter how you dress up the piggy, put apples in it’s mouth, fishnets on its legs, or barbeque it, it is still pork.

Pigs of a feather, fly togetheR, when it comes to the Motherland. This version of feminism is just more of the same: white women running diversionary plays against society at large ever witnessing  the real picture of police brutality–and more feminist rapeflation, and proto-fascism in action, attacking straw men, instead of real people, institutions, and organizations that  make the wortld a less pleasant place to live.

Original caption states: "Nobel Laureate ...

Wangari Maathai, the first Central Kenyan woman to ever get a doctorate, author of Unbowed, asked to be remembered as a person who was very concerned about the environment.

NAIROBI, Kenya, Sep 26 – Prof Wangari Muta Maathai, the 2004 Nobel Peace Laureate who died of cancer on Sunday night would want to be remembered as an environmental icon.

I will be reading more about the life, and death of Dr. Wangairi Maathai in the next few days, considering she is one of a very rare breed of women who actually was willing to suffer for her beliefs, rather than to market herself, or sell out to the military industrial complex.

In her book, Unbowed--available on Amazon.com for Kindle–she remembers her life as a child sharecropper–a child worker within a family of male AND female workers, who existed in  unfair economic disparity within the kyriarchical pyramid. Unlike western feminists, and their causes, she knew that resources are limited, and that to each his or her own is a mantra of the past.

But she also recalled her place in the human family, and the human tribe as one that requires evolution from ideas about divisive conquests for power and the oppression of others, to ideas of a world safe for every person in it.

She spoke truth to power, for which she was beaten, abused, and whipped like a slave, or a man–because she spoke out against the horrors of environmental degradation, patriarchal violence, and western feminism’s ever present matriarchal hunger, which demands more, and ever more of the resources of others.

She refused to “know her place,” or adopt the diffusive, self and body centered politics and the inherently flawed paradigm of western white feminism. She was always just to busy to waste time in American white feminist paradigms to engage herself with  “for-me-and-mineism,” speaking instead to everyone, and everything living thing about environmental issues that affect us all.

But I should just shut up, before I appear too much like a western feminist–overlaying every issue with divisive constructs of power, and selfish, sexualizing dialogue; and just honor her in the way she asked  be remembered.

This way, from Al Jazeera and Capitalfm, Kenya:

The Tree Mother of Africa and the founder of the Green Belt Movement, asks us to-

” record her as a person who was very concerned about the environment, “very concerned about what we do with the species we cohabit this planet with and one person who really felt that the humans ought to have a greater respect for other species than we do at the moment because in respecting other species, in respecting members of the human species we are more likely to survive on this planet earth.”

The Kenyan environmentalist, womanist, first centralKenyan fermale doctorate, and daughter of hard working sharecroppers died on Sunday night while undergoing treatment at the Nairobi Hospital where she had been admitted for a couple of weeks.

Her Personal Assistant Lucy Wanjohi said Maathai succumbed to ovarian cancer, for which she was being treated. She was diagnosed with the cancer last year.

Related articles

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

Catharine MacKinnon

Today I declare the Save the Vagina's Before it's Too Late initiative in honor of Catharine MacKinnon, feminist legal scholar, and author of the Vagina Monolith's, and the Soccermom Diatribes. Now make sure you get home before midnight, Cindy!

Let’s get the the dull, academically fraudulent, sex negative, sexist stuff from two notoriously angry, manipulative, controlling women, out of the way right from the start.

But first! A public service message: Do you sit awake nights, worrying about hungry, sick, starving vaginas all over the world?  You CAN make a difference in the life and health of vaginas.  SAVE A VAGINA TODAY!  by donating to women’s cervical cancer research.

Now back to the porn wars: Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon got an anti-pornography statute passed  that is still lurking on the books in the City of Minneapolis:

Pornography and Civil Rights
A NEW DAY FOR WOMEN’S EQUALITY by ANDREA DWORKIN and CATHARINE A. MacKINNON
Copyright © 1988 by Catharine A. MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin
“Pornography is central in creating and maintaining the civil inequality of the sexes. Pornography is a systematic practice of exploitation and subordination based on sex which differentially harms women. . . .”  Their completely new legal approach–in which pornography is defined as sex discrimination and therefore a violation of civil rights–would allow anyone injured by pornography to fight back by filing a civil lawsuit against pornographers.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Wheeew, smells like a cat box up there–reeks like the turds of  little captive animals that claw furniture and ask you for food all day long, and then snuggle all night. MeeeEEEow till I get what I want, claw furniture if I don’t….

So dualistic–so negative–so typically feminist, but indeed, undeniably, pornography IS differential in the treatment of the subjects involved. Civil rights? Meh.

I better go to the dictionary on that one. Not Civil rights, silly–we know how hard feminists work against those!

But Pornography–wha tis it? The free download of the Sage Dictionary , a dictionary for linguists, gives me a common working definition of pornography: Creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.

Pornography depicting coitus, cunnilingus, felatio, sodomy, BDSM, and the many other etcetera’s of sexual action is everywhere you look–three mouse clicks or less  from every man, woman and child in the ‘civilized’ world of cyberspace.

 [warning: you are three clicks away from free, virus- free, relatively harmless adult sexual material here ]

That may or may not be a bad thing, but the dialogue about porn is important, and definitely headed in the wrong direction–because it is actually a dialogue about speech. You can decide for yourself. I will wait as you peruse the hundreds of various links–after all, their actually is something for every-BODY.

Straight, LGBT, TS, hard and softcore bodies everywhere you look–we are all different.

But the more important dialogue about pornography has yet to take place, and that dialogue has its roots in the same definition of pornography that is in common use, a dialogue that is the most important dialogue of our next decade; one that hasn’t taken place yet because it has been constrained, AND restrained.

War pornography. War pornography is how we bully young males into submission, and objectify them, via images of men as tools, objects, and perpetrators of violence. Good men, bad men: soft-core, and hard-core males. Either way, men are more disposable than used condoms, and always presented in dualistic terms.

It begins with shame. Male shame. Shaming males into submission.

Pornography, by the definition, involves ‘creative activity’; that portion of the definition is not really in dispute by anyone. Porn is a created product, and is often quite creative as well. The big bone of contention seems to be the next part “other than to stimulate sexual desire.”

What does THAT mean? We are all different–stimulation begins in the brain.

But I have a bone to pick with such a vapid generalization [Sage… dictionary, definition 1, not 2, because definition 2 at least uses the words ‘flavor’, and ‘tang’ to describe ‘vapid’? The use of the letter V anywhere can arouse me, by design of the current feminist propaganda [V-day and the Vagina Monologues are sooo in your face every year, whether I want it or not].

But ‘flavorful tang???’  I am blowing my top…Even the propagandists missed that shameful naughtiness in the word ‘vapid,’ while they were hyper-focused on ‘vaginas’ [ Sage, vagina: definition 2 a moist canal in female mammals]. Western propagandists make their money from pandering to vaginas.

Flavorful tang…I am going full bore boner!  My penis is suddenly a weapon of thought! An underwear-agent in a propaganda war!! Tang, is like ‘poontang’; and then,  by a stretch, the coochie is tangy??  I am dick-dog rape crazy, according to the feminist literature.  I gotta run out, and rape all of the holes in Coochie right now! Holes, plural, IN coochie?

 Poontang and coochie  are words that likely have Chinese or Korean origins, as their form mirrors Korean and Vietnamese language structures. But the popularity and use of these words directly mirrors American imperialism in Asia. Cu Chi, a city in Viet Nam, is most likely where we get the word coochie. Ouch–look out for the booby traps, and holes full of bamboo spikes…but I digress.

No wonder all the boys, and radical feminists, are lost on Asian porn..

I apparently can’t help myself, according to the rhetoric of the current crop of feminist propagandists. I am a natural born rapist. Engendered male, porn is only one of ‘my tools’  for oppressing ‘all’ women, and especially gender feminist, lesbian academics–both male and female– who feed off of them. These people actually, physically,  wage war on me with the rhetoric of ‘men and porn’, by making me a sexual suspect in their rhetoric, and then, an actual suspect under the law.

Then, they invest in Hillary Clinton’s war chest, so she can save America from the Libyans. Either way, it wasn’t, and it won’t be anytime soon, me raping women overseas, for male or female warlords, or anywhere else to feed American women’s children with a soldiers pay.

But full-bore boner-words, phrases, ideas, and pictures that make me horny–even if no one is around!? I might make my own money off of that–and I will fight to be able to use words, images, pictures and text to understand my world.

Me–all by myself, drowning in the Onanist impulses of symbols and language, I can conjur fantasies of sex–without those ‘real’ women like Kate and Dre!  I really don’t need pictures–they are just nice accessories to remind me exactly why I prefer my own company over the company of weirdo’s who want to interpret what I feel for me, and extrapolate what it ‘could’ mean–or try to  tell me what ‘my’ mind is thinking, before they sweep out their own heads.

Nurse Ratched: Aren’t you ashamed?
Billy: No, I’m not.
[Applause from friends]
Nurse Ratched: You know Billy, what worries me is how your mother is going to take this.
Billy: Um, um, well, y-y-y-you d-d-d-don’t have to t-t-t-tell her, Miss Ratched.
Nurse Ratched: I don’t have to tell her? Your mother and I are old friends. You know that.
Billy: P-p-p-please d-d-don’t tell my m-m-m-mother.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/quotes

Shame on me. More shame on me….guilt, guilt, guilded male–and then more shame on me. They did all the thinking for me, and porn is killing, and oppressing everybody, most of all, women, children,  and vaginas. Shit–what do I do now to assauge my guilt?? Do I combat the capitalists who drop depleted uranium on children? Do I just vote for Hillary in the next election, because Dick Cheney supports her?

No! I should run out and save a vagina today! Blame it on da pornz! War is all about oppressin’ da wiminz.

Dear Woman: Here’s some free or low cost sperm–hell, you can have my nuts–but please raise a cop or a soldier who will protect the vaginas, and your vagina! Here’s a pedestal–keep your vagina up there! I will even cross the street if it helps you to trust me again, and makes you feel less scared of my weiner!

There’s some stainkin’ thankin’…

Think for yourself, and everything turns out o.k. I promise; but let them inside your sexuality? Let them define you? They will wage war.  You become the deviant in their construct–because you let them inside!

And they will tell you more about themselves in one sentence about their own construct of a purely hypothetical construction of ‘you’ than you could ever learn about them by torturing them to death in a snuff porn film. Just don’t tell them that even idiots know the CIA is the only American talent agency that actually makes snuff porn.[Nick Berg: poor dead guy; and here, too.]

What is striking in every way is how narrowly focused the gatekeepers of knowlege are in attempting to limit my full-bore brain-boner: academics, militarists, feminists,  and anti-feminists have been  limiting the discussion to thoughts about ‘womens bodies’ for centuries, instead of the vagizillions of other forms of pornography that don’t seem to ruffle their feathers.

My first full-bore boy-boner was the dictionary.

We should regulate the sale of dictionaries to children–because if even words can make us horny, what is next?  ‘It’s for the children‘, they always say–then they shut them up early, and keep the kids illiterate.  Besides, they rage, one of them damned Webster’s dictionary people supported the Fugitive Slave Act a hundred and fifty years ago!(1)

What next?? The children?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, in the feminist paradigms, language is the true oppressor. It’s high time to outlaw dictionaries. And apparently, boners kill women and children, and are big enough to intrude on civil rights.Never mind the inherent contradiction when they tell you men have tiny dicks…

How easy it is  to obliterate, or ‘snuff’  from the definition of pornography the portion of the definition that talks about “creative,” and focus instead on “stimulation of sexual desire,” and in so doing, to create the appearance that everything, and every image with a woman is potentially pornographic, and thus, every image without a woman is somehow NOT pornographic, or that images that lack women are nearly snuff porn.

So what ARE those type of images, devoid of patriarchy? Oh, yeah–empty headed Fabio…or Pat Califia’s dick…

What is commonly called "girl porn",--romance novels-- aren't even close to the 'meat' of the issue of women's actual objectification of men.

What is commonly called "girl porn",--romance novels-- aren't even close to the 'meat' of the issue of women's actual objectification of men..

Just try to imagine, an image without women. Next thing you know, imagination is imagery, according to them, time to clean your mind of it’s filth–your mind, I remind you, not their projections.

These folks are counter-productive in the least, snuffing themselves out like that. Counter-productively snuffing me, too, with their preemptive, eternal rhetoric of objectification.

It leaves  the nasal impression–the stench– that images of men ‘with’ women have a lurking and deviant sexual intent; images of women with women is ‘slavery’ performed before patriarchy–despite kyriarchal advancement; images of BDSM,or leather boys and girls  in Hitler gear, schtupping each other; ‘ one  is re-enacting ones own subjugation,’  but mostly, the actual stench is the carcases of dead heterosexual men, and ‘othered’ men and women not worthy of eroticism, mere bodies, filthy, and pornographic in or of ourselves, tossed into a dumpster, or a heap of fire in yet another war zone that was created to feed hungry western capitalists, both male and female.

Men have been denied the truly erotic–they tell us that images of women and ‘others’ are objectifying and pornographic, and images of men are not. You don’t have to be gay to figure out that cuntnundrum*

But simple analysis of any and all images tell’s us with certainty–that you must ask yourself, or ask the image,  not those who tell you that the moon is made of Swiss cheese, and poke holes in you for impact. Images provoke thought, and thought can produce desire. Words do that too–ALL WORDS. Humans have evolved to communicate with each other.

Hence, communication in any form is the essence of the erotic; the seeds of desire, regardless of the method of transmittal.

But what IS that desire?  Is it exclusively physical and sexual, a thought that leads only to action related to that thought, as they try to force us to believe? Each and every word, image or filmic representation spoken or shared one person to another is a symbol, a communication of some form of desire, a piece of the bigger desire. Yet a desire to talk about the meaning of words does not equate with any action other than to talk to someone about desire, or it’s opposite.

Add images and films? They are just word enhancers.

And words that we say only to ourselves about actions, or non-actions are certainly meaningful as well; if not the singular most important thing, they are the second. Our inter-persona, intra-psychic communication doesn’t necessarily equate with a desire for actual ‘sex,’ at all, any more than a desire for ‘communication’ of our ideas, some of which are about sex, but some of which are about other things too.

Does looking at the expensive dress in the window equate with buying the dress? Sure–for the rich, the hedonistic, the bored, the selfish, or the foolish. Those who are bought, buy as well. But what if you can’t be bought?

So, if anything IS or can be pornographic, it isn’t the ‘creative’ portion of the definition. We are all producers of creative impulses, and many enjoy the intellectual processes caused by viewing  porn . But definitions of porn are in fact the relational, superimposed and interpretatational, relative, objectification of intentions  by others with whom we interact, and communication which takes place, or could take place from those objectifiers have the explicit intention of preemptively circumventing your personal interpretation of your own intentions.

It is not a concrete, monolithic absolute that porn hurts viewers at all, or even most actors involved.

Porn is fantasy communication, like thoughts one could have for a conversation with Gandhi, Dworkin, or Freud. Porn creates a psychic space that is an intellectually, or emotionally safe distance from which to have a fantasy dialogue with others–and with yourself. THAT is where you stand the largest chance to begin fulfilling the ‘desire’ that images can create–in defining for yourself what you are perceiving, and then communicating that desire–in words to others, if it all works out.

And viewing idealized body images increases personal satisfaction for some people.It’s no stretch to imagine similar things about naked bodies and sex.

Adding the gross misrepresentations and anecdotes of abuses that have taken place in some forms of sex pornography is akin to adding hot-pepper to your morning oatmeal, and telling you that’s what oatmeal is.

Viewing images of dogs can invoke feelings of affection, security, comfort, and a thus, a whole host of other feelings potentially related to sexual expression that could take place in a home  (and which I suspect can also stir up the oxytocin releasing, orgasm producing mechanism in the brain). Emotions are, at their base in the lymbic system,  related to those that produce sexual feelings; images of families, or images of children ( see dogs and families), are no stretch if one wished to conflate images and political agendas.

If we accept the paradigm that viewing pornography does NOT equate with having actual sex any more or less than images of dogs equate with family, home or security, we cannot say that images and video’s of nude people are pornographic any more than the word ‘vapid,’ snapshots of Fido, or militaristic  propaganda pictures of flags waving.

Those who are in porn enter the psychic space by our own consent–whether they are ‘victims’ or not is a separate issue entirely.

Yet if we accept the feminist and militarist, and by rote and association, the judicial definitions of pornography as a tool facilitating ‘rape, power, or sexual violence, that enslaves, or steals from women and children’ ( a common pro-war feminist trope*),  we must also then say also that sexualy stimulating pornography for them are the body counts in the news, the stories of conquest of ‘othered’ men, images of ‘othered’ men cleaning up dead male bodies,  images of men at Abu Ghraib, or images of dead babies who have been exposed to uranium, because these images stir up feelings of ‘power,’  whose only relation is to ‘desire’.

Patriarchy and modern feminism are inseparable mates in the creation of pornography.

Images of power relationships cause arousal, according to the definition, and MacKinnon- Dworkin, and all other sex negative feminists. So, the  images of disemboweled, oppressed, enslaved, or dead men, women and babies, whether written or photographed or filmed, are not merely ‘vacant’ images [vacant, ala Sage: definition 1 , cancel officially; definition 2 ‘leave behind, empty], but also images that cause dialogue;  leads to creative impulses, and hence, as per the puppy= security paradigm, can cause female arousal which can be termed sexual.

The debate has been constrained thusly: it is most always limited to discussing women’s bodies, women’s sexuality or women’s perspectives about sex; it is always spoken from one monolithic feminist to another; and it has in recent years engaged the gay community, and sex positive feminists in other dialogues about other forms and perceptions of sexual stimulation through pornography; it has informed the discussion that there are many perspectives of what is sexually stimulating.

But it is the actual communication that has provably opened the doors to sexual liberation–talking to each other makes us horny.

Yet the dialogue has never sufficiently addressed every day images of men that on the surface are not  prima facie sexually stimulating; by THEIR definition.  Yet images of men, dogs, and families have the wider effect of being ultimately, sexual in their evocation of sexual possibility, sexual power, and their portrayal of the myth of home and family, where masculinity and femininity in union, and in dialogue, ‘create’.

These types of images cause dialogue–and  oxytocin levels to rise in the brain.

The soldier in uniform; the basket ball player in sweats; the  cop beating a peace protester or a mentally ill man to death is especially dear and stimulating to militarists and “radical” feminists who openly call for the exertion of power to cause male death; and images of  men conquering men certainly causes some pornographic dialog window to pop-up for these ‘domestic’ types.

And words which women use to describe men, writing what they have written about men– entire women’s studies departments at any major university that discuss, or employ images of men;  any ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ blog which employs competitive themes,  and any discussion where power is present, is a hotbed of pornographic representations of masculinity. The spaces wherein definitions of pornography or men are debated, are urgent, hormonally charged, verbose environments full of pornographic illustrations–and thus, are also pornographic by definition.

Which is why I am NOT a feminist–nor an anti-feminist, or a militarist: because according to the truth of MacKinnon and Dworkin, “exploitation and subordination based on sex which differentially harms women, “ is what porn is.

That might be true indeed, if I were a woman.  Differentially only means different. And if I could choose, and not let them continue to choose for me, or pursue me against my will? I choose NOT to have my body photographed at Abu Ghraib; photographed while being water-boarded,  have a mugshot taken, or be photographed dead.

Differential? Of course, by definition, nude representations can be sexist–differential only means different. That certain forms of pornography consume the dialectic? Preferential in the dialogue? Definitely. Men are over-represented in most imaginings of male–represented in a pornographic manner–dead, and truly voiceless–we expect that of men.

We expect that by their definition of men, and patriarchy, without ever discussing women who are pro-war in the dialectic and in their votes, whether feminist or not is subsidiary to the fact that they conceive men for war.

But I might add, theirs is a literally vapid, vacant definition, too, because male voices are missing in that discussion–prohibited from openly declaring any ideas thatrelate to themselves as exploited persons; voices missing even in their own bodies, which are conceived as war objects, while female voices, their panderers,  and their patrons just bitch about camera angles and perspectives.

It leaves ME feeling used, and counting days till I pass on into the next life–if there is one.And there isn’t.

[ cue the oompa-doom-papa porn music]

Given the choice, I would give those murderous fuckers–those voyeuristic, predatory  bitches and bastards–all the boner shots they want of me reading my dictionary–into eternity, if photos, and pornographic representations in words can live that long.

And get ready–where are those sun-glasses? But here’s the cum-shot: You can all go fuck yourselves for awhile (but in a sex positive way, of course), until you figure out if you are able to know what porn even is: as the Felix Frankfurter once said in  Butler v. State of Michigan about obscenity, and which applies to current feminist ideation in this area”you burn down the house to roast the pig.”

Or the sows who capitalize on your ignorance–your silence– in this dialogue.That perverse, feminist, domestic-war-mongering has been conflated for decades with naked, living people and pornography, and today seeks ownership of the industry–not moral high ground, but pure profit potential.

And limiting the definition of pornographic representation to women’s bodies? Now that’s obscene, even by the early definitions of pornography.

But you aren’t. I am not.

War is.

Yet no one really see’s it, ever, much less ‘get’s that’, because of all that pussy in your face. And now, I am not talking about the raging Coochie, or the Poon Tang,  either. I am talking about you. Walking talking porn of one sex or another, even if you never lifted the cover of Playboy magazine–a magazine that CIA feminist, and publisher Gloria Steinem is attempting to own and control right now.

Now go cast some stupid vote for Them or theM, a vote that kills, maims, or chemically alters the DNA of some actual babies, and  ‘othered’ men– their fathers no matter which side you are on.

But stop worrying about internet porn. It will outlive you. Your son, if you have one,  may not.

*trope: language used in a figurative or non literal sense. In this case, a myth of culture that is espoused by militarists, feminists, and so forth, which is encouraged and enhanced by the presumption that only women and children comprise a ‘literal’ family, sans males or fathers.

*cuntnundrum: the illogical logic that is employed in feminist rhetoric. Like Christian rhetoric that says “first their was G-d,then everything eklse, so, everything =G-d,”  radical feminists posit “patriarchy, thus it’s all mens’ faults.’

1) Peoples History of the United States, Zinn, Howard. pg.177 (1995 edition, chap 9, ‘Without Submission’ )

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

Cover via Amazon

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

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

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

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

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

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

She said, in part:

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

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

Here are the snippets of conversation that I overheard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to access eco_ur-fascism.pdf

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

Get them early links:

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

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

Sub-committee transcript:

Click to access getdoc.cgi

Beyond dildo‘s and rubber duckies: women fucking themselves–with sex robots!

Considering the level of rhetorical and  verbal violence that feminists direct at men, it is always tempting to be as crass and cruel as they are. But I won’t stoop to that–I will go one better: some women are so self involved that they want to fuck themselves, literally.

Woman has sex doll made in her own image: “I was thinking of her as this object upon which to act.” Oh, do tell me what you really think of yourself…

I love it. Now if she could only get a personalized dick made in her size, too. But we know how equity feminism has let women down in that battle! Equity Feminism gave the white middle class entire ‘other’ classes of men to have sex with–and they’re still not happy…

Blue silicone dildo

I don't care if a person is white, black, brown, red,, blue or green...they're still people...!!

The world really is hard for the middle class white American female, isn’t it?

cropped from :Image:Races2.jpg 1820 drawing of...

Race Paradigms are Dialectic Power--until they backfire.

Women Like Dead Men Best–according to evolutionary theories–and possibly, Roland Barthes.

“I call the discourse of power any discourse that engenders blame, hence guilt, in its recipient. ”
Roland Barthes

For every dead male of every skin color, there are more resources for privileged females, and the males that females choose as alpha’s. Which of course, leaves millions and millions of men dead every century due to wars that privilege seekers and privilege holders wage on the non-privileged.

In western society, for now, white females have chosen white males, and man, do those females devote a lot of time and attention to dethroning their own choices, and pushing for policies that lead to death–while overlooking their own precarious perch on that precipice of rhetoric.

I remember sitting in a university class room many years ago as the instructor–a white woman–was going on and on about how men objectify women, blacks, minorities ( you know, the usual schtick). Then, one click of her powerpoint clicker later, up comes a photo of a shirtless black man, some sports hero in some sport ( I don’t watch sports).

She looks at the class and says ” Black men are soooo hot. Ooooh. isn’t he hooooot!?”

That was kind of game-over for me–I mean, yakking about how white men this and that–and in her next breath objectifying a black man?

How sexist, and racist is that? I can only imagine that not being called on racism is a white female privilege.

Racialicious calls that discussion “one of the most taboo—yet most needed—conversations.”

The problem with having that conversation is best embodied by this statement: There are too many white women in conversations about white female privilege. And nobody can out talk, side-rail, deflate, or out manipulate a dialogue more than white women.

Here is one example of how difficult it is to discuss that privilege. ERV, a science blog ,written by molecular-biologist and blogger Abbie Smith, has so-far been part social experiment, and also been a rare outpost of free thought and anti-censorship by white femlae standards.

I weighed in at comment 199. If you have excess time ( a sign of privilege, I must warn you!) and lots of patience, this dialogue has me arguing for recognition of white female privilege–with white women.

[SPLASH!!!….the sound of a male victim of the Titanic rolling in his watery grave]

This particular dialogue is now a flame war between misandrist blogs and  blogs written by white men,  over privileged statements by a white female scandal engineer Rebecca Watson.

Here is a link for context in the wider discussion:  http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/rebeccapocalypse/

But the irony of all these privileged discussions and those who have them is that they mostly lead to death of non-white men, women and children all around the world. Death, and the death of men,  is actually the most non-discussed taboo of all body discussions; it is the ground at the pedestal of white female privilege. I will be writing more about that soon.

Just don’t tell that to those who discuss the rhetoric of the body–because most of them are white women, who are riddled with anxiety that their bodies might pale by comparison to other bodies.

Although the larger diaologue seldom mentions the physical body, or the much larger body politic,  it is EMBODIED white, and female, in peculiar positions of power, or with privileged viewpoints.

Roland Barthes must be rolling in his grave right now, too, -of course, likely beneath a decent upper middle class tombstone.

Living of East Slavs. In russian: «Жилье восто...

Slavs, the genetic source material for blue eyed Askenazi Jews. Image via Wikipedia

Awhile ago I posted about white female privilege, the ritual fiction of women’s oppression, and its net negative effect on other people who actually take risks for all people, like Ellen Beth Wachs.

I was breaking the second to the  last* taboo, talking about white women’s privilege…and also talking about the blonde haired Jew!

Ellen Beth Wachs is an atheist, humanist hero facing 15 years in prison for making orgasmic noises.  Most white women don’t know that, because they have never risked anything except  fear of big openings that transport human life up and down–you know, like Rebbeca Watsons now famous fear of elevators.

Nor do American white women take actual risks for truly noble and self sacrificing  dissent anymore because lying, hating, and fearing, AND getting funding for phony social morality crusades is soooo much easier! But they sure do talk a lot about it. And Talk, and Talk, and Talk some more.

White women sure can talk!! They are good at that–it’s in their jeans–their true religion descended panties.

Sisterhood is cool as long as woman-whiteys don’t take real risks, and don’t do no time! Sisterhood is even more cool if you can ride your bike with your ass to traffic, and not get called on ‘your shit.’

But where are all those verbose white women on Ellen Beth Wachs??

“A circuit judge granted bail Friday for Ellenbeth Wachs, the embattled legal coordinator for the Atheists of Florida who’s facing criminal allegations that she made sexual noises inside her home that were heard by a 10-year-old neighbor,” says the Ledger.com

I understand deconstruction, and the rhetoric of the body as concerns privilege and the imagery of the human form; i understand the whole white people deconstructing their privilege and all–what I don’t understand is white women not getting it for the long haul.

And then, I remember…I remember for for them, because their fears of lost privilege keep them negotiating for their ‘safety,’ and ‘safe passage.’

White women, especially blondes with blue eyes, were once highly prized slaves from the Khazar kingdom to the middle east, where they were seen as exotic, and alluring; wild animals that were caught and tamed; trained and sold by slavers–may of those slavers Ashkenazi Jews, other Slavs, or Arabs.

And man, did ‘inter-breeding’ piss the Sephardic Jews off to no end!

Here is a kosher link to that factoid so that I don’t get labeled an !! Anti-shemite!! as so many herd-oriented white women, liberals, and

White Female Privilege Has a Long History in a Different Kind of Slavery--their own. The Princesses in the Towers of privilege.

schmucks tend to do once you bring up Jewish history , or Jews owning slaves.

I mean, even Jews have a hard time recognizing he importance of talking about that.

I would be better off being a closet racist who could be called out, a homophobe, a pedophile or a Republican among the feminist leaning left, and liberals, because at least then, they could hate me for something specific that fits into their hate script, and is well documented; something that they could ‘change’ in me or despise. Something they could point a jaded rubber phallus a, or whack me over the head with.

A disembodied, de-humanized, theoretical entity that could be labeled white, and male, or just male –hell that’s enough with some of those people–an objectified persona that they could direct hate , and self righteous missives at. But that’s been done already, long before white females had the social power that was given to them which they now batter people with.

If i never hear another of them talk about circumcision!

…Jews bought slaves who they then circumcised and converted into ‘half’ Jews. In the event of manumission the slave became, with certain very slight reservations, a full Jew, and even while he was a slave he was for ritual purposes regarded as a Jew. He could handle the wine of his owner and do his cooking. Not so the Christian servant, to whom the restrictions of the segregative laws applied.

Man, I can hold my own damn wine–but you whiners? Get another drink, and settle down already….

If I called a spade a spade it is clearly racist, right? If I used a racial epithet, or a sexist trope, I could be called on that and duly crucified in the rhetoric; but I don’t do that. I simply maintain that white women’s privilege is far more ‘un-examined’ than most every other privileged class in our species.

And man, do they hate me for it–you can hear the rage and violent urges kick in, or the sound vacuity cheek to cheek against gravity and the walls of a conversation implode….

If only they would apply that rage to issues and revolutions that require it! Because one or two white women haven’t forgotten the feeling of chains, and have risen to the level that is required of a person in order to mobilise for any kind of equality, or solidarity, doesn’t a sisterhood make.

Running around in a skirt at a SlutWalk might feel great with the breeze between your knees, but try real dissent for awhile–hand cuffs, legal troubles, and three hots and a cot, like most men face every day in prisons across America.

But the point is, most white women do not understand their privilege, and women at large who endure hardship like men face every day are rare. Yet so many are willing to jump on any bandwagon of collective consciousness, or the traveling circus train that demeans the ‘evil white man,’ and sells them to the ‘other man’without ever knowing or caring where he comes from, too.

I think it is because they have forgotten where they come from, and yet expect others to bear the burden of remembrance for them. I am just not that chivalrous anymore; I am done babysitting Gloria Steinem/CIA-feminism inspired white female entitlement.

* the last taboo is discussing women who abuse children, and of course, the third to the last taboo is !!!anti-shemitism!!! with Jewish patriarchal fixation on shiksas of all kinds, and white women being the second to the last–for now: after all, them Asians and them Africans are sure working hard, moving ‘forwards,’ and not ass backwards to get some privileged cops, or YOUR attention…

Related articles

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