jump to navigation

Let’s Recap October 5, 2012

Posted by FCM in feminisms, gender roles, logic, meta, radical concepts.

women do not equal men and men do not equal women.

any theorizing, including logical proofs, which contains or assumes the equation women = men or men = women is fundamentally flawed.  that includes the following: male and female “gender roles” are learned and unnatural (variation: femininity and masculinity are equally oppressive to women and men).  sexual harassment and discrimination and rape are just as bad the same when they happen to men as when they happen to women.  women can be violent (therefore) men can be nonviolent, or any variation on this theme…women can be bad, therefore men can be good…women can be bad mothers therefore men can competently take care of children.  intercourse is sexual.

srsly, you dont even know how deeply this one is ingrained until you attempt to locate and discard all the flawed conclusions based on men = women or women = men.  this particular false equivalence is used a lot.

to recap, feminism — the real kind, radical feminism — is about women.  not men.  somehow we have gone off the rails into extensive theorizing jerking of knees about men, HOWEVER this theorizing seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding (or intentional derail, whevs) of radical feminist philosophy, which is that men oppress WOMEN.  WOMENS toxic “femininity” and sex-role as fuckholes and breeders and slaves is not WOMENS natural state.

womens.  we were talking about WOMEN mkay.  not men.

it is in fact more likely than not (isnt it?) that men are “naturally” exactly or mostly as we see them today.  specifically, there is no compelling evidence that men have created a world — including various overlapping systems which are oppressive to WOMEN — that goes against mens own natures, and/or that patriarchy — including all violence and sexual violence against women — is not exactly what men want and need to function and survive and thrive.  in fact, the opposite seems to be true.  the actual evidence — that men have the power to create whatever they want and this is what they decided on — suggests that men created this shithole we call “thats life deal with it” because they like it this way, and its comfortable and congruent to themselves.  to them.  them, not us.

the reality appears to be that men might just be like this.  we have to accept that this is not only possible, but likely, considering the evidence, and discarding wishful thinking and theorizing “against all evidence.”

by the by, this “against all evidence” stuff — thats not actually how theorizing works.  “against all evidence” is the primary ingredient of a religion, or a cult.  it is the essence of both gaslighting, and brainwashing.

lets recapture the plot, people.  women, not men.  thank you.

About these ads


1. liberationislife - October 5, 2012

So the variations in expressions of violence amongst men, from culture to culture/ country to country – is that caused by (changeable) culture, or by biology?
Since we’re talking about men, while caring about women.

FCM - October 5, 2012

i do not understand this question. also, what do you think?

2. karmarad - October 5, 2012

In response to the question above, I’d like to point out that there’s no black vs white here. There’s a lot of intertwining. Also, because the question hasn’t been studied sufficiently, we can currently only make educated guesses about why a few small cultures worldwide may seem a tad less violent. Environment may play a part and affect both culture (in the broad sense that includes politics and economics) and biology, for instance in Inuit lands, where survival needs and depopulation may affect the levels, though not the types, of male violence. Third, I question whether there are in fact any significant differences in the types of violence “expressed” by men worldwide, or in frequency, if one studies any particular culture over its history, and not in the current moment. Perhaps you could give some examples?

It’s true that culture is changeable in almost all other ways, but as Social Dominance Theory has found, two hierarchical structures are universal: hierarchies based on age, and hierarchies based on sex. Hierarchy is maintained, ultimately, by the threat of violence, so I think this is relevant.

FCM - October 5, 2012

yes thats what i was wondering too — where are these alleged “differences in expression”? like rape? woman-murder? mutilation and necrophilia? these things appear more or less globally. “crime” rates might be slightly different in some places or at some times, but what we always see is that men are doing it more than women, and that sexualized violence against women never goes away. i have heard about “rape being essentially nonexistant” in one tribe or another, but dont have any links handy, its probably googleable. if thats what we are talking about, i would think that heavy social controls on men coupled with not allowing them to have any or much real power in society (giving that power to women instead) would make the difference there. also, the “essentially” part of “essentially nonexistant” is not devoid of meaning. essentially nonexistant means that it happens there too.

3. silverside - October 5, 2012

There are obviously variations in (reported) AMOUNTS of male violence across time and culture. But this is the interesting thing. Where ever there are decent crime records–whether you’re talking about 18th century England, 20th century Japan, or somewhere else–the RATIO of violent crime committed by men compared to women is pretty consistent: about 9 to 1 give or take.

4. SheilaG - October 6, 2012

Brilliant and well put. And we are having to drag back the entire train and cabose from the derail of liberal feminism.

Feminism is entirely about the liberation of women, and the sex hierarchy is enforced by threats of violence, poverty, and intimidation…. men do this to women globally. And as for the so-called “tribes” where men don’t do this awful stuff, well, really….

I’d like to know more about Iroquois nation and women voting on whether men could go to war or not, for example.

But the big picture is, men created this power structure, they love it, they get off on rape and sexual degredation of women, and making women pregnant, and inventing religions to oppress women too. That’s what men do, and I’d say there is a biological component in it, and if this is somewhat true, then laws need to be made to put pretty heavy controls on men to detour them from these crimes and inclinations… and we’re talking VERY SEVERE social penalties for rape, molestation or impregnation… what those punishments and technologies could be….

Men don’t equal women at all. The whole idea of equality within a context of patriarchy is absurd…liberals at their looniest IMHO.

5. Elin - October 6, 2012

Good post. Female “gender roles” ARE learned and unnatural. But male gender roles, not really. Would, hypothetically, society stay fixed and the same at its current patriarchal level, then men (again hypothetically) without gender acting would be the same, except for an outlier (you exclude those in statistics). Women without gender acting, would be intrinsically more free human beings – but only intrinsically, in real life they’d get crap for it and die much sooner. This is because, the “gender” of women is modeled after a society which is modeled after the biology of men.

There is some statistical method called Maximum Likelihood Estimation where you already have all the data from your data set, and optimize the probability (or likelihood) of that data set being correct, by finding the unknown model that, you suppose, generated that data set. That is, you simply try to find a most plausible model that could have generated the fixed data set that you have, and then that is the explanation for the data. In this case, the data set consists of all males and their urges, and the model parameters are the rules of society. The rules of society are changed each iteration (i.e. time step in real life) to optimize the likelihood of natural male behaviour following from these societal rules. So the parameters of ociety are optimized with respect to natural male behaviour. So every male can say they did something because of society. And it will seem very plausible as such. But it’s circular reasoning, because the society was already maximized with respect to them. Not the other way around.
But for females, it is the other way around. The data set of females is not seen as “given” or fixed. It is seen as something adjustable (like society) that should be optimized *itself* given these determined society parameters. (Hardly do men directly say females should behave a certain way because of men – they say females should behave a certain way for the “greater good”/society. But it’s thus the same.) Which is insane because female is a biological category and these are fixed. But that is why men want to erase the biological reality of females, so that they never become the “fixed” variable that the any other variable is maximized with respect to.
Also therefore you get all this “not all men/women are like..” talk directed at women, but between each other, men are sure to keep an outwardly fixed behavioural policy.

6. cherryblossomlife - October 6, 2012

Men LOVE equality because it gives them another stick to beat women with, especially in the divorce courts.
During the past two decades I have seen an increase in cases of mothers going out to work shortly after giving birth to her baby in order to pay the bills because the deadbeat father didn’t have a job. He then would be come a lauded SAHD (Stay at Home Dad) .
SAHD = Hero
SAHM = Pondlife
Then when the inevitable divorce comes along, the judicial system awards HIM the children.
Beacuse apparently (according to men, and apparently many so-called feminists) risking your life to give birth to a child is EQUAL to sticking your dick into a vagina.

7. cherryblossomlife - October 6, 2012

I’m going to just repeat that last one, because it has been making me angry for years.
Can people get it into their thick heads that pregnancy, childbirth, lactation does not EQUAL “sticking your dick in a vagina”…

When they’ve done that I hope we never again have to listen to this ridiculous idea spouted in divorce courts that fathers have “as much stake in children as mothers”, or that because a man read his child a story a few nights a week he has therefore carried out 50% of the childcare.
If a father wants custody of his children, the judicial courts go out of their way to give it to him JUST LIKE THEY ALWAY HAVE DONE for millenia since patriarchy began, except these days they don’t do it in the name of patriarchy like they used to. They now do it in the name of EQUALITY. And women are buying it!!! I just can’t believe it!!!

8. Becky Green - October 6, 2012

Excellent post. You are right. Look what they created right here and now, not in their ideal, theoretical, perfect world, but in reality. Thanks for the wake up call.

9. Becky Green - October 6, 2012

I just remembered something Maya Angelou said which is relevant to this post. This is NOT verbatim, just the gist of it: “Believe people when they show you who they are.” Men have shown us who they are, and man oh man, are they ugly.

FCM - October 6, 2012

yes cherry, when you put it that way its obvious what theyve done: its a reversal. PIV = childbirth. pleasure = pain. or, if you want to be very conspiratorial about it, male pleasure = female pain. which is actually pretty much the complete truth of it isnt it? ive written about that before.


FCM - October 6, 2012

beckygreen, i think the point is that this *is* their ideal, perfect world. nothing else satisfactorily explains why theyve made it this way and continue harmful cultural practices globally, esp against women but also against other men, animals, and everything. they like it. this *is* perfect, for them. not for us obvs.

FCM - October 6, 2012

and yes, i find it terrible and ironic that radicals have (unwittingly?) assimilated libfem ideals over the last few decades. what the hell? i think its important to periodically go back and check your work, to see if youve gone off the rails, or if you are very far off your template. in this case, we have SOMEHOW managed to get to men = women = men (leading one of us to conclude that mary daly mustnt be a feminist, since real feminists think men = women = men!) when everything about that (both the foundation and the house) is patently, demonstrably false. these mistakes are only amplified over time, because our work is built on by others who might not bother to check to see if what they are building on is actually TRUE, in the mathematical sense. the thing is that you shouldnt have to. we should be able to trust that what we are building on is true, and correct without going all the fucking way back to square one, but i guess at this time, we cant. other disciplines dont have to do that (or at least they DONT do that, even if they should). but apparently, we have to. there are many flies in this ointment. someone left the screen door ajar.

10. karmarad - October 6, 2012

Yes, women are struggling for liberation from male control as distinguished from “equality”. Legal equality is only a significant preliminary step in that process (and has not been achieved yet either). The trap is that the System, which is actively subverting us every step of the way, takes the position that now we have “equality” (wrongly expanded in definition beyond the legal), the struggle is over, women have what we demanded, so we should stop complaining. Further, it is claimed that we are now showing our true weakness by somehow not taking our places as full operational human beings, for instance as power-mongers and billionaires, though we now have basic civil rights in developed countries. In any case, the mistruth is we have no further basis to complain. The truth is that legal equality is only a beginning. Male control of women runs much, much deeper.

We are coming to places where the System’s deepest resistances lie.

“Equality” becomes a new trap, a new constraint, is what I’m saying. It truly is amazing as you say, fcm, how these points are established over and over again, only to have a flood of disingenuous propaganda flood in, reducing feminist theory to the basics once more. It does waste our energy to have to reiterate for the billionth time that WOMEN DO NOT WANT TO BE MEN. Women do not want “equal rights” to perform the masculine paradigms of bloodlust, sexual violence, strict control of nature, hierarchy, competitiveness, territoriality, valorization of death in battle, prioritization of power over provision of food, hubris, and dominance. To the extent that society is based on such paradigms, society itself must change radically.

Thanks, Elin, for that statistical information, btw, I’m going to check that out.

FCM - October 6, 2012

also, speaking of mistakes becoming amplified over time…

this is an MRA’s interpretation of my article on intentionality. i didnt watch it, but judging from the comments, the interpretation is impure, meaning its tinged with either disingenuousness or stupidity (or something else, or multiple things). and the commenters on that vid are responding to the interpretation of what i said, rather than what i actually said — as frequently happens when people are “debating” feminism, they never read the source material. they are responding to strawmen. its like a game of telephone by the end.

read the source material, please. the radfem classics. you will not see “women = men = women”. you will see MEN OPPRESS WOMEN and WOMEN DO NOT CURRENTLY LIVE IN OUR NATURAL STATE. thats our template. if you dont want to use this as a template, you arent a radical feminist. deal with that reality however you want, but dont make claims that arent true.

FCM - October 6, 2012

“A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered.”

- Andrea Dworkin


also, spinster and her enemies explained well the POINT of early feminism — suffrage — which was to get the vote, but not so that we could “have what men have.” the point wasnt the vote or “equality” or “rights” but the recognition that men are rapists, murderers and pedophiles, and yet men were making the laws (including criminal and civil laws regarding rape, marriage and prostitution for example) and electing each other into office. they were letting themselves and other men literally get away with murdering women, and raping and abusing us. women wanted the vote so they could institute radical change, and get to the source of male power and mens oppression of women, their political and institutional power to commit violence and sexual violence against women and girls. to say that it was about the “right” to vote is a complete farce, and an erasure of the realities of institutional male violence, the systemic nature of patriarchy and the ways men have created overlapping systems — including the legal system — to harm women and increase male power, and the shared knowledge of early feminists of what men do and what men are.

11. karmarad - October 6, 2012

Germaine Greer in The Whole Woman: “Even if it had been real, equality would have been a poor substitute for liberation; fake equality is leading women into double jeopardy. The rhetoric of equality is being used in the name of political correctness to mask the hammering that women are taking.”

12. cherryblossomlife - October 7, 2012

“i think its important to periodically go back and check your work, to see if youve gone off the rails, or if you are very far off your template.”


13. DavinaSquirrel - October 7, 2012

Given that menz put themselves in charge several thousand years ago, and have been refining and refining the system to what we see today – then yes, it looks like they perfected the perfect system for them, a reflection of their true natures, or at least how they like/want things to be. Otherwise they would change it.

And what we have been seeing for the last 20-30 years is that men have been hard at work trying to undo (1st &) 2nd wave feminist gains – particularly with the ‘new kid on the block’ – transgenderism, and the stuff that comes with it – male sexual predators given a state-sanctioned invitation to prey on females in female-only spaces. See:

This is primarily why I no longer give a damn about them, why it was easy to shed off any traces of liberal feminism (aka humanism, which is generally anti-feminist, particularly now).

I see less than 5% of the male population that is ‘decent’ and worthy of saving/consideration, the rest all have ACTIVE vested interest in maintaining the status quo, even if they are lying (to the libfems) and saying they have not got a vested interest in the status quo. Lefty dudes are just lying snakes. It’s time the libfems woke up to that scam.

Oh, and that MRA youtube is totally hideous – THAT was their rebuttal? Oh FFS, MRAs come off as creepy perverts as well (that voice-disguise business, very shady at the least).

ps – are you going to turn on the post ‘likes’ again? I don’t always get a chance to comment before the new deadline.

14. Feuerwerferin - October 7, 2012

True. I think so too. It is nonsens to claim that men = women. You could just as well claim that a desert is a rainforest because it does rain in the desert sometimes and it rains in the rainforest too. Well, an exception does not prove that a rule is wrong. Exceptions exist in many kinds of rules/matters of fact (not even in all, though). But this just does not prove that the rules or definitions are false. Which is what liberal feminism is about, as you mentioned. Because: even though there is rain once a year, a desert is still a desert. And one decent man in 100 does not prove that men aren’t violent and oppressive. (Of, course, in reality it’s even less than one in 100).
Which is why gender studies is not a science but religious “education” functioning to brainwash curious young women so that they won’t become radical feminists.

FCM - October 7, 2012

ok, so it seems like we are on the same page. does this mean i wont be seeing any more bullshit out there on allegedly radfem blogs like “feminists dont believe men are innately violent” and various lamentations on how the P is a big, unfortunate obfuscating veil through which its IMPOSSIBLE to ascertain the true natures of either women or men? great!

FCM - October 7, 2012

Which is why gender studies is not a science but religious “education” functioning to brainwash curious young women so that they won’t become radical feminists.

yep. but the radicals have assimilated some of it, as you can see if you read around a bit.

15. MarySunshine - October 7, 2012

but the radicals have assimilated some of it, as you can see if you read around a bit.

I feel that that has been changing just recently. And I’m not an incredibly optimistic sort. :-)

16. aginva - October 7, 2012

While patriarchy obviously reflects male biology, men can only make the world reflect their biology through violence. Because their biology is not meant for giving and caring and being responsible for life, and because controlled paternity can only be obtained through the rape and sequestration of women: through the destruction of the entire humanity, since if women are enslaved and destroyed, so will her children. Rule by men / paternity / patriarchy is inherently violent. The world should never, never be shaped according to male biology and men.

If the world reflected (and respected) female biology it would not have to be imposed through violence because women are the natural life-givers. Any system that would be built to ensure the best possible conditions for women and our biology as life-givers and childbearers would also make it the best possible conditions for humanity.

Equality or equal treatment makes no sense when needs are antagonistic or different, and when the consequences of not attending women’s needs leads to disaster to us, to the world. Equality should not be the measure of fairness, but respect for our integrity

17. witchwind - October 7, 2012


Quote Sheila Jeffreys:

” Economic class could be eliminated in the socialist society of the future. The son of an ICI director brought up on a Lambeth council estate would resemble anyone else brought up on that estate. Colour would be eliminated as a division by turning the world into a ‘great big melting pot’. But the differences between men and women cannot be eliminated. Women’s bodies are the factories in which children are produced and who controls these factories controls the reproduction of life and the future of the human race itself.

Patriarchy, the rule of men, has existed from as far back in human history as we have evidence for (before economic class society). It is based not only on the exploitation of women as a class, but upon the ownership and control of their reproductive powers. No matter how much we ‘socialise’ childcare and how much toilet cleaning men are constrained to do, reproduction will still be a female function. I was disturbed to hear, at a socialist feminist workshop, of the desirability of the socialisation of our bodies. For whose benefit? Men already control our bodies and could cheerfully do so in the future in the name of ‘socialisation’ of our bodies and the collective ownership of children”

18. cherryblossomlife - October 8, 2012

Reading witchind’s point just now, it leads us to the second issue, which goes beyond so-called essentialism, which isthe idea that in an ideal world would women’s bodies would not give birth. In other words, we could use some sort of technology to free women from this “function”.

I get antsy when I hear women’s bodies described as “functional”, even by feminists.

Men would absolutely LOVE it if women no longer controlled birth, as much as they the love the current idea of equality.
And again, when women say that birth is a burden they are defining themselves in relation to men i.e humans who do not give birth, and holding that image up as the model for “human” . hich of course it is not. If any sex is to be held up as the “model”,it is females– meaning that males are defective by virtue of the fact their bodies do not have the potential to give birth… (some women cannot give birth, true, but all females are born with the *potential* to– while males are not)

I think it’s really important to look at where reproductive technology is going. Now women are being harvested for their eggs, which can be put in a second woman, and then when the baby is born it may be given to a third woman (or two gay men, as in the case of Elton John and his spouse– who went out of their way to make sure that the egg donor and gestational mother were not the same, so that neither woman would have any claim to the baby).
You can be sure that none of this is being done for women’s benefit, but for men to satisfy their obsession with controlling what they don’t have themselves.

BUt what about the fact that some women die in childbirth? Well, women are more likely to die in childbirth today than their mothers. An absolutely shocking statistic which has come about because of all the uneccessary intervention that modern hospitals impose upon women. When you take povery, malnutrition and too-closely spaced births out of the equation, in other words, if you look at countries where women get enough to eat, you find that those with the highest C-section rates have the highest maternal mortality rates.
Homebirth is the safest way for a woman to give birth. After reading about all of this I went for two home births myself, and they were beautiful.
Also there’s the fact that outside of a patriarchy less women would choose to give birth, and those who did would probably only do it once, and they would be feted (not put on a pedestal), and it would be understood that they had risked their life for the species, and they would be supported, and the responsibility for their children would be shared among others.
Rather than the farce we have today whereby mothers are treated like amoebas, and nobody gives a shit whether they die in childbirth or not.

19. cherryblossomlife - October 8, 2012

Again, I can’t bear the idea of women’s bodies being described as “factories where children are produced” . IT’s such male-centric language. IN fact an idiot Japanese politican actually referred to women’s bodies in exactly the same way a few years back. He called women baby-making machines.
Thankfully he lost his job!!

20. cherryblossomlife - October 8, 2012

When I say “no longer controlled birth” of course I don’t mean conception or delivery. Obviously women don’t control those two things, men do, for the most part. I mean, women’s bodies control birth. Our bodies decide whether or not they will carry a baby to term. Sometimes they don’t, and there is a miscarriage. Other times they survive the most awful conditions and give birth easily.
This is what I mean when I say women control birth. Our bodies have not yet been turned into machines, which means birth is still unpredictable.. something that patriarchy hates, because patriarchy is based on order, sterility, predictability. Birth is the antithesis of all those things.

21. witchwind - October 8, 2012

Yes I agree that “factories where children are produced” is a completely hateful and dehumanising and male-centric term. I winced at that expression, it’s good that you highlighted it. This is the very thing we’re fighting against, men treating women as baby factories, as machines for them which “productivity” is maximised by constant exposure to rape/PIV.

22. cherryblossomlife - October 8, 2012

Yes, even if it’s said tongue in cheek, it doesn’t work, because as we know the majority of women in patriarchy have already absorbed male reality as their own.
Thrown in with that expression is the idea that all those bodies without the potential to give birth (males) are the default human…. because let’s be honest, who wants to be lumped in with a group of people who are “factories for babies”.? Not a single human being on this planet, I should imagine. The only way to resist being lumped into that group is by refusing to become a member of that group the only way possible— by refusing to have a child.
Again, very male centric, and reactionary.

23. cherryblossomlife - October 8, 2012

Although this is all hypothetical because obviously women are forced to be reactionary when they live in a patriarchy.
But practicalities and theories are two different things.
In practice, it makes sense for women to react against patriarchy by protecting themselves from pregnancy. (The fact that hospitals cause deaths in birthing women is a good enough reason in itself for women to not have a child.) But when we write, or give speeches, or theorize, we have the freedom to imagine other ways of being, so we shouldn’t constrain our thoughts to practicaliites. If feminist writers had done that, the movement would never have got anywhere.

24. Not equal to men, but the antithesis of men? « Cherryblossomlife - October 8, 2012

[...] prevent myself from comment-spamming at another blog where quite an interesting discussion is taking place, I’ve decided to bring my own gripes [...]

25. luckynkl - October 8, 2012

I like to think outside the box so I think I’ll spin a bit in Marly Daly-esque manner. Let’s have some fun with biology.

Men are a lot like cancer. Cancer tricks the body into thinking it has a right to be there. The body doesn’t recognize cancer cells as foreign and harmful, so the immune system doesn’t attack it, which allows the cancer to multiply and spread until it consumes the body and causes death. Like cancer, the Y chromosome also tricks women into thinking men are human and have the right to be here. Males carry the female X – which gives males the appearance of being human. I contend that men are only half human. The other half is alien. I don’t mean from outer space, altho I guess anything is possible. What I’m saying is the Y chromosome is foreign and doesn’t belong there. It’s not human. It’s a literal parasite. Which then assimilates with the X and fools women’s bodies into thinking it has the right to be here. Female bodies are in fact very hostile to sperm and react quite violently to it. It recognizes sperm as a foreign invader and attacks it, killing off millions at a time. The body would not have that reaction if sperm was natural and belonged there. Once it attaches and assimilates with the female X, the female body no longer recognizes it as foreign and doesn’t attack it. Because it would also have to attack itself.

Here’s how it plays out in terms of X’s and Y’s. The female X is the default human. It carries 1500 characteristics, the entire structure of human DNA, and is biologically complete. So complete that a single X can stand alone and survive. Keep that in mind cuz that’s what enables the Y to survive. But typically, females are XX. She gets one X from her mother and the other X from her paternal grandmother, which her father passes along to her. Men, you see, cannot reproduce anything. They are only vehicles which transport the goods.

The Y chromosome only carries 20 characteristics. All of which have to do with male characteristics, which are completely unnecessary and irrelevant to human survival. A Y cannot stand or survive on its own. It is completely dependent on the female X and must attach itself to the X like a literal parasite and feed off the X for its survival. So when I call men gyn-energy sucking vampires, I’m actually right on the mark. The Y is a literal parasite. I contend it is an alien parasite. Because women are biologically complete and do not carry the parasite, nor can they reproduce it. Because the mutant Y is alien and foreign to the default human.

A Y chromosome can only passed from father to son. It will be a near exact copy of his father’s Y. Which in turn, will be a copy of his grandfather’s Y, his great-grandfather’s Y, etc. In fact, a Y chromosome can be traced clear back to his neanderthal ancestors and it will be a near exact copy. Men are literally running around today with neanderthal genes. But who says it started with neanderthals? The parasite probably existed long before that. But like most all copies, every time it duplicates, it degenerates. The Y parasite has been progressively degenerating for millenniums, and is currently, a fraction of the size of an X. As all scientists know, the Y parasite will eventually duplicate and degenerate itself right out of existence.

As I mentioned before, the X chromosome is biologically complete and can not only survive on its own, but reproduce on its own. Females in fact can reproduce in a number of ways, including with other females, but don’t expect the patriarchs to let that cat out of the bag any time soon. Because the only reason for sperm, PIV, and heterosexuality to exist is to reproduce more males. Period. Like I said, women do not carry the mutant Y, which is alien, and therefore cannot reproduce it. A Y can only be passed by another mutant. Which requires the female host in order for it to survive and continue.

Now we’re getting to the root , no? This is not the survival of the strongest and fittest. This is the survival of the weakest and most unfit. So much for male superiority. But what looms large is that males cannot exist or survive, much less continue, without the female host. To insure their survival, males must therefore control female reproduction. His greatest fear is that women will no longer choose to reproduce with him and his species will die out. Enter PIV. Which is rape and beastiality. PIV wrestles the control of reproduction out of women’s hands. That is its intention. To insure more male parasites will be reproduced and survive.

Again, men are like cancer. Like cancer, men will parasitically consume females until they suck all of life right out of her in order to insure his own survival. Not only human females, but out of all life. Because the Y is a parasite that feeds off of all life. It is ultimately destructive. And that is real bad news for planet earth. Because ultimately, the parasitic Y will consume and destroy all life on the planet.

We have another problem tho, Houston. Males also possess a female X which hosts him. Which makes him half human and gives the impression that he is human. From a biological stand point, the X will not attack itself. So while the parasitic Y has no problem consuming and destroying the female X. it doesn’t happen in the reverse. Once the Y has assimilated with the X, the female body will cease its hostility and attack on male sperm.

So in answer to your hypothesis, are males equal to females? Not even close. Males are only half human. The other half is alien and not human at all. So we’re not even the same species. I mean, bonobos carry 98.4% of common human DNA, chimps 98%. That doesn’t make bonobos or chimps human. By the same token, being half human doesn’t make one human if the other half is alien and consumes the other half. That makes it a parasite and therefore a different species. It must be treated and eliminated like cancer if humans are to survive. Otherwise the parasite will consume and destroy all of life.

Now wasn’t that fun to think outside the box? It’s mind-blowing, no? But the biological part is only half the equation. In the age-old question: is it due to nature or nurture, the correct answer would be: both. Because remember, males are also half human. I will work on the social aspects at another time.

FCM - October 8, 2012

woot! :P now youve gone and done it lucky. youve just put me in the extremely poor graces of the MRAs and fun fems (and the entire mainstream). tell it!

Sorry comments are closed for this entry


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 323 other followers