Posts Tagged ‘women who sexually abuse children’

One of my all time favorite movies is Midnight Cowboy, for reasons that go beyond being a mere devotee of the acting of Dustin Hoffman, or  the music of Henry Nilsson, a fan of the young Jon Voight, or practitioner of  deconstructionism. Or the fact that  it only got a showing at the seedy theaters in my town when it came out.

It is one of the best, most insightful scripts I have ever read too, and in fact the background guys–like song writer Fred Neil, and script writer Waldo Salt, who survived and thrived after being blacklisted during the red scare of McCarthy–are more incredible than the actors .

Here’s the intro clip:

Midnight Cowboy is the only X rated film in history to ever receive an Oscar. Maybe it was the “gay theme” or maybe it was because it was one of the rare films in all of history to examine the issue of women who sexually abuse young boys; and how women are complicit, if not instrumental  in shaping the sexuality of children (no pun intended–but you will see what I mean). Here is a bit of Joe Bucks nightmare:

Zoom close-up -- Anastasia screaming soundlessly...
... thermometer under Little Joe's tongue... 
... Sally Buck shoves chocolate in her mouth... 
... bewigged poodle licks her fingers... 
... Sally Buck hangs enema can on bedpost... 
... Ratso leads ratpack chasing naked Anastasia... 
... corona of flashlights...

I still remember the run-down, dirty white theater fronts that had it up on the marquee in blue letters, or red; and everything about cowboys fascinated me in that era.Certainly everything about the forbidden letter X fascinated me too.

Being stoic, self reliant, silently suffering  cowboys was what they taught boys to be back then, and to think about being when we got older–little men running around with guns that go *BANG!*,  fighting the bad Indians, and the ‘bad men’ who were-apparently-everywhere. And certainly, we were taught to always tip our hats for the ladies–even if they were sticking enemas in our asses.

But by the time I was old enough to watch it myself, some fifteen or years later, it showed me some things about cowboys that John Wayne and the other cowboy as uber-man posturing of that era never did, and I liked that too.

But I like Midnight Cowboy because it’s just plain old, incredibly good film, full of stunningly complex images that are explained to us with remarkable simplicity.

Midnight Cowboy

Original Movie Poster

Very few films address sex and gender imbalances in ways that are inclusive of the recognition that men are engendered in certain ways that women cannot, or will not understand, even when they see it in action. Women as a rule are either not equipped to understand the male experience, or because of the nature of woman is equipped only to stare at herself, and issues that reflect herself constantly–or something like that…;-)

In the case of Joe Buck, the intrepid male prostitute, our character learns that the world is not equal, and we, as an audience, learn a bit about what creates false constructs of sexuality in the mind of a young boy. And how those constructs lead to poor choices.

In one scene we have the gang rape of a woman who could aptly be called “the town pump”, and Joe Bucks inability to stop that rape–of the woman who he thinks he loves; in another scene, aptly a nightmare, we have Joe Buck being anally raped by his grandmother; and the all too obvious conclusion that male sexuality is undervalued, or disposable to women.

It’s a film about the awakening of America to issues of  the human body as a commodious object, and the reality of under-valued male love. It’s a gay film in as much as it has a theme of men, loving each other, or men who are used by other men, but it’s a human story beyond that.

If you haven’t seen it, rent it, and if you have seen it, rent it again. Or just have a good read tonight--here’s the script.

 

Have you heard of the battle between Jan Kruska and Petra Luna? Call me late to the game, but then again, the effects of women’s violence didn’t affect me until recently. Their story is old news, but it fits my thesis. I bumped into it when I was researching cyber-bullying and slander.

Jan and Petra are both caught up in the resurgence of the sex-negative/ sex positive movement, although they might not know it yet. As far as I can tell, they are the working class version of the academic porn wars that are waged today across the blogosphere.  They are also part of the problem in allowing women’s dialogues to go unheard–or put another way–we need to listen closer to women’s dialogues.

This battle gives us a glimpse of the sort of violence that women wage against each other, against children, and the sexual nature of those battles.

Jan was convicted some years ago of having sex with a teen-aged boy, so she became an advocate for her own causesex-offender registration. Petra is a vigilante who has declared a sort of mission to combat Jan’s mission . She is a Men’s Rights advocate with an organization devoted to helping men escape relationship, and women’s violence. I am no fan of MRA’s in general,  but I am an ardent advocate for the prosecution of female pedophiles at every single opportunity.

I can smell them a mile away--I have the same magical powers sniffing out female pedophiles that gender fems have sniffing out rapists— I also believe in equality, and so, I believe that men should have resources devoted to stopping violence against men and boys. But not devoted to religious vigilantes like Petra.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Petra has threatened, bullied, and harassed Jan online . And here is Jan’s response to the harrassment.(be careful not to get your eye poked out by that wild 80’s up-do).

I am by default, solidly against bullying, and I will not be bullied either. Who did what first? Always them: I keep records.

Patada

That's NOT a hacky sack!

But still, some feminists, and some in the LGBT/TS communities are often surprisingly silent about such harassment of women by women, much less men–they are first and foremost sworn to keep secrets, apparently. I also suspect that being vocal or truthful on the wider issues jeopardizes their identity somehow…

You can watch for yourself, and call your own shots in the battle. It’s been going on forever. When the issue is the abuse of children by women, most of the allied pro-woman community are dead silent. This reveals the extent of some women’s self righteousness in harassing and labeling others, at the expense of truth, or justice, as well as where such dialogues are headed–the sliding scale–the filtering–of women’s truth to the wider audience, about women’s violence against each other, and children.

I suspect that at the root of such dialogues there are many secrets, one woman to the next, that have nothing to do with men or patriarchy, and these secrets shared between women are what create rapists and other ‘criminals.’

But no one wants to look at that yet–there’s just too much money to be made kicking straw-men in the balls all the time, and forming organizations and getting ‘funding’ by keeping that dialogue quiet right now.

Related articles

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

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:

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/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:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=f:25923.pdf

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.

End Child Sexual Abuse Foundation

Image via Wikipedia

We know that there are definitional biases and gender discrepancies when it comes to recognizing,and diagnosing child abuse. But emerging research and cohort studies are lifting a twenty year embargo against discussing gender and race in re-examining both gender of perpetrators, and redefining ‘what is sexual abuse.’

For instance, it is common to examine girls for every range of possibility of sexual abuse, but no special procedures that differentiate sexual abuse of boys that was perpetrated by specifically women– like saliva analysis, or  bruising caused by objects, or a child’s exposure to other forms of female behavior that would qualify as sexual abuse.

And boys are less likely to be asked if women, girls, mothers, aunts, and/or female caretakers physically or sexually abused them.

It is also certain more often than not, that any boy who has been sexually abused by a female is less likely to self-report that fact, and by inference of all data, it is  more likely that any hospital visit will have a female caretaker present, which can intimidate self reporting of sexual and physical abuse.

It is well known that abuse victims cannot and will not expose their abuser if the abuser is standing next to them. And most abusers of children have primary custodial control of the child, meaning the child is wholly stifled at knowing how to express the abuse they have endured.

But some are asking another question: does race get in the way of boys reporting their sexual abuse at large, and specifically their sexual abuse by women? I think it does, and I am not alone–anymore..

“Child maltreatment is a significant problem within US society, and minority children have higher rates of substantiated maltreatment than do white children. However, it is unclear whether minority children are abused more frequently than whites or whether their cases are more likely to be reported. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there are racial differences in the evaluation and Child Protective Services (CPS) reporting of young children hospitalized for fractures.”

While it is likely that historic institutionalized racism is a factor that can explain higher diagnostic success of detecting abuse in black children, it is also a possibility that observer bias ( nurses, doctors, emergency room personell) gets in the way, because white women are seldom if ever suspects–ever–in crime.

Other minority groups have their own profile issues to contend with, but beyond the biased definitional basis for ‘what is abuse,’ beyond the stereotype of male, race is a factor.

It’s not necessarily that black people abuse their children at any higher rates than white people, but rather that suspects, and suspicions of child abuse perpetrated by white people are often downplayed because of racial profiling. Whites are always “less suspect”–and white women in particular–who are the primary caretakers of children–are almost never suspected of any crimes, much less child abuse.

Yet men of all races are constantly primary suspects. They even have a gendered epithet that applies to this profile: the boogieMAN.

I suspect that it’s time to re-visit the race and child abuse question, and redefine ‘what is a suspect,’ for the sake of the children, and the future.

Note to self: put this on the white female privilege checklist.

Did you ever have a secret you couldn’t tell anyone? Men and boys often do, and it is imperative that we learn to listen, rather than chiding, or mocking them, or making light of problems that men and boys face.

12 year old boy faces prison–and it’s all his fault. He should man up or somethin… [Especially watch the womans comment at the end of the video, about how he should rot or get raped in prison]

I probably ask some of the same questions—and come up with the same answers as you do when it comes to trying to understand why a young boy would take a shotgun, and blow a person’s head off. But for some, the  likely the answer is because “that’s just what boys do,” or some derivative of ‘ boys and violence.”

And I am not a psychiatrist; I don’t know for certain why he did what he did, but I do know a bit about being a boy, and how that can hurt in weird ways. Especially when they tell you that girls don’t do bad things.

This idea is perpetuated by academics who believe that boys are harmful to society. However, actual scientists believe that there is massive gender bias against  boys in mental health diagnoses.

Boys are four times less likely to be diagnosed with autism, and autism might even be a factor in whether or not boys become murderers.

Boys also suffer from the under diagnoses of ADHD, and a host of other mental health issues.

Homicide is an extreme example of course, but an example of ‘male ascribed behavior’ that is perpetuated through gender stereotypes and under diagnoses like the above links. In fact, most violence is described as male behavior, part of a cycle of socially ascribed male status, until a boy “becomes a man” and achieves the status of violentoffender.

Most societies still encourage violence in males, despite the primitive nature of such a sexist belief system. Even the San people, who call themselves the  !Kung- who are reportedly one of the most gentle groups of people around the world,  believe that a boy is not a man until he kills.

Violence is socially constructed, and engendered  as male in discussions of domestic violence, and in the enumeration of the symptoms of mental disorders as well–which could be viewed as a form of violence directed at men, and in the least is sexist. Ascribing violence to males perpetuates violence, and is an inaccurate and misleading characterization, because women’s violence accounts for at least half of all domestic violence, and also takes many different forms, especially when they are drinking, and sometimes takes the extreme forms that this boy exhibits as well.

And some of those forms are well hidden in the family structure, and under discussed in mainstream dialogues. Even as I wrote this, a woman said to me (and I hear this quite a bit) “but you don’t know if the woman hurt him; how do you know the father didn’t do something to him?”

There is little doubt the father ‘did something’ but also he likely didn’t do enough, or could have. And the thing the father shouldn’t have done is to bring a strange woman with two strange kids into the center of a young boys life without some professional dialogue, or a counselor to oversee the transition.

But the dialogue with western women never progresses that far.The ‘it’s mens fault’  speaker is set to high volume, playing that old record every time you bring it up.

I have learned that this primary western female responsibility-negation response is to be expected when discussing causation of violence. Most if not all women reflexively deflect issues of violence onto men, and ascribe the results to male initiation—no matter how gross and evil acts of women’s violence are, or what different forms women’s violence takes. I have even come to the conclusion that this behavior—deflecting issues of violence onto men—is in fact a form of female violence.

But violence is every bodies problem. For an example: the bear comes to the mouth of the cave!! Do the man and woman each stand up and fight the bear? Do the children who have legs stand up and fight the bear?? Of course they do, if nuclear family has any meaning at all. It takes more than one woman kicking a man’s ass out of the comfort of the bearskin rugs to kick the ass of the next bear.

Anywhere except in America, the nuclear weapons capital of the world, land of the replaceable Uber-man, the ever fertile cannon fodder producing woman, and initiator of more than five current wars! And except for domestic violence issues and rape, violence is apparently wholesome, and socially acceptable.

Never mind statistics that prove that women’s sexual violence against boys leads to aberrant male behaviors—like rape and domestic violence.

From The Invisible Boy Report: Re-imagining the Victimization of Male Children and Teens

Statistics from The Invisible Boy Report, Health Canada

So I have learned the importance of ignoring this type of diffusion by women, because it only and forever leads to blaming boys for how they were raised, rather than examining women’s direct and indirect violence against boys which makes them “men” who fight bears all alone.

Anyone looking in on such a story, without proper social context, would conclude one of two things: the boy was angry and controlling, or the boy was homicidal—perhaps a sociopath. Maybe both, and maybe neither. Nobody can disagree on those two things, based on what we know about violence, except perhaps psychologists, and well- funded, well organized (invested) , biased social observers who define certain behaviors as “male behaviors” and certain other behaviors as ‘female behaviors.’

It isthis gendered schema which is the root of the problem of domestic violence, and those who parade such ideas don’t just define, or perpetuate the behaviors: they create them.

But I will suggest the bizarre, and the extreme: maybe the boy was neither angry, nor homicidal. Because boys respond to threats and challenges differently than women do because they are enculturated to do so. And boys who respond to challenges with extreme violence often are over-reacting to remembered violence that they have experienced. Fight or flight responses gone mad, escalated to a point where there is no turning back.

Maybe the boy was being preemptive in protecting ‘his home.’

Boys re-experience past violence when they are challenged or threatened. The sensitivity that is cultivated in girls is discouraged in boys. So instead of resorting to tears, and tantrums, or being encouraged to discuss his feelings, or even incorporated into a body politic that ascribes them validation through ‘victim status,’ boys can become isolated to the point of making irrational statements of protectiveness, or independence.

O.K., GAME TIME!

Let’s play a game—whether you want to or not, but if you’ve read this far–you will play. I will give you an example, you will follow it: rock, paper, and scissors. You will pick one of the three.

You picked one of the three, right? Even if you didn’t want to, or you chose not to play along, there was one of them in your head—I would bet it was rock. But playing, or not playing–either one is normal behavior.

But I know you picked one of the three even if you didn’t admit it. I told you to pick one of the three. You had to pick one of the three, and whether you wanted to or not, you did. Didn’t you?

DIDN”T YOU?

I personally would have picked option two—I wouldn’t have played the game, because I didn’t like the language that was used to get me to play. It sounds authoritarian, manipulative, and un-inclusive of my feelings.

And I cannot imagine what a boy might be feeling or thinking as he blasts someone in the back of the head with a shotgun, but I suspect he was remembering, feeling, or re-experiencing similar word games, and scars they had left on him, and possibly other more physical memories–after all, hitting boys is still common in American households.

But this kid is the kid who doesn’t understand normal, and his choice was “shotgun.” Shotgun wins every time over people who play games with your sense of safety (your rock), and your sense of expressing fairness ( paper), or your ability to separate the two (scissors). When grown-ups fail you on all three levels, there can be extreme consequences.

Sexual Abuse Against Males.

When little boys are murdered, I wonder: are there procedural differences in how they are autopsied? Is sexual abuse by women even suspected in cases where a femal;e caregiver reports that a boy has died in her care?

Are female caregiver to male sexual victim abuse symptoms different than the model for girl victims ?My research question is as follows:

Are little boys treated differently than little girls in the forensic assessments for child sexual abuse? Are the young male victims examined as rigorously, or is abuse sexual abuse specifically suspected when the murderer is a woman; and if so, is the fact that women abuse children in different ways than men taken into account?

For instance, are saliva samples taken, and do female to male sexual abuse victim bruise patterns in certain areas take different forms?If so, are saliva specifically samples sought from the genital or other regions?

Survivors of female perpetrated sexual abuse tell us that women sexually abuse children, and their methods are different, and often hard to detect, or talk about.

I have had the good fortune of having a series of questions posed at the  Forensic Nursing Chronicles © 2009-2011 Forensic Nursing Chronicles. All rights reserved. Email: admin@healthcare-online-education.com

No, F#$*># & really: What is in your heads? This what happens when the Vagina Monologue becomes a monolithic voice with no checks or balances.

“Kids bikini pageant,” or the theft of a child’s mind? Maybe it’s just a harmless future coochie snortcher parade.

Geez. Who gave women permission to create this shit? Can you imagine the subtext? I can: little girls who, by the time men meet them, they think their bodies are painted commodities with marketable vaginas.

Then after the divorce, blaming men for how unattractive and used that they feel.

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.