jump to navigation

Moron Creativity May 19, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, international.
Tags: , , ,

we have discussed creativity before here.  this post is more on that subject, and its also about men.  get it?  moron.  i always assume people get that, but maybe its just me.  sometimes i just make myself laugh and thats good enough, but as vonnegut once wrote, maybe people would like art more if the artist explained it a little?

i am currently reading about the witchcraze and one thing ive noticed, indeed its rather difficult not to, is that men were very creative in the ways they treated witches.  more to the point, they were creative torturers.  men came up with shit that would blow your mind if you only knew about it, and it *is* mindblowing to read about this stuff.  its mindblowing in the same way as reading the work and ideas of any creative genius is mindblowing as a matter of fact.  its shit you could never come up with yourself in a thousand years.  of course, the destructiveness of mens torture, when coupled with the creativity of it creates a mindfuck experience as well.  we have no words for this, as “create” and “destroy” are supposed to be opposites.  but they arent.  not for men anyway.

you see, i think its very obvious by now that men are creative torturers and creative destroyers.  in light of recent conversations about the innateness of mens destructiveness and violence, the idea of creativity hits the right note.  a good thing, too, because im getting sick of going around and around on this one.  because all of us, i think, are quite aware that some people are just naturally gifted in certain areas, and that this giftedness cannot be taught.  although we do not fully understand where natural giftedness comes from, we accept and admit that it is real.  we are perfectly comfortable saying people are naturally gifted in certain areas, music, sculpting, cooking, that kind of thing.  arent we?  naturally.  gifted.

welp.  men, as history and experience shows, are gifted at torture.  they really are.  and torture is violence taken to an artform, its violence imagined, designed and implemented with creativity.  isnt it?  if we are going to use other artforms or abilities as analogies, we could say that a naturally gifted person (like a painter or an athlete) can be coached or inspired, and that the gift can be developed and helped along.  but what we know we cant do is teach it.  okay?  creativity, and true creative talent, cannot be taught.  it is innate, and we fucking well know this.

and as men are creative in the area of violence, otherwise known as torture, we can see that men are in fact naturally violent.  i think this is indisputable, and again, that the proof of innateness is that they are able to be creative about it.  they are gifted.  and the existence and pervasiveness of torture, perpetrated by men, globally, across time is absolute proof of this natural propensity and that men share this innate tendency because they are men.

now.  this does open up areas for discussion, and even hope.  because just as we know that creativity can be nurtured, we also know it can be stunted.  we can take away opportunities instead of providing them.  leisure time, money, and an understanding of what is possible based on what other people have done in the field, for example, are used to increase and encourage creative pursuits, and withholding these things can be used to stunt them.  we have lost many geniuses and natural creative talents this way in fact, and i daresay most of these lost geniuses were women due to womens general lack of all conditions and materials known to foster and nurture creativity.  we do this to female talent all the time.  and we have evidence, dont we, that creative talent can be stifled, if not snuffed out completely.

and now that ive thought this through a bit, i can see mens propensity for creative torture, including their torture devices everywhere.  its not just the political torturers and witchhunters, although they might be extreme — that is, different in degree but not kind.  womens clothing and shoes for example — known torture devices.  “restraining orders” that are naught but a piece of flimsy paper, creating a mindfuck.  get it?  and humiliation.  tampons and “pads that feel like diapers.”  as mundane as this kind of torture is, it is still creative.

of course, i could go on and on.  we all could because we all know.  ex-husbands paying child support late every month, in order to make women squirm.  by “sexualizing” intercourse, the only thing *in life* that creates unwanted pregnancy.  that kind of thing.  and in general by turning womens bodies against them in the many ways men do.  indeed, the “body being turned against the agent whose body it is” is the whole point of torture and this is accomplished through both pain and fear (in male terms).  of course, male bodies cant be literally hijacked, but ours can — through unwanted or forced pregnancy.  if anyone needs examples of the creative ways men torture other men, just google. trigger warning for extreme and graphic (and creative!) male violence.

but what im also thinking is not whether but how and how soon we can stunt mens natural propensity for violence?  if we cant do this, or if we dont want to, at least we know that it is possible.  and understanding and accepting, knowing, that men choose to nurture their gift for creative torture and violence instead of stunting it, when we all know they could, is evidence of something too.  oh yes it is.  maybe, maybe just talking about this will help.


1. WordWoman - May 19, 2013

We can all think of innumerable examples of torture but I like that you are not asking for more examples. You are asking how to stunt this. I think this is a great question! I don’t have any ideas yet, but will think about it.

FCM - May 19, 2013

i hate torture and cant watch it on TV etc. i definitely dont want too many graphic examples sullying up my pretty blog (although “the bull” example in the comments to the previous post was eye-opening!) completely normalized things that function as torture but dont register as such might be worth enumerating and discussing — PIV for example and HOW it fits the definition and function of torture (turning ones body against oneself). but the thing about mens creativity in this area is that it would literally be impossible to document or even know about all instances and manifestations of it bc they are all the time coming up with something new. thats the whole point and the problem, as well as the PROOF we have been looking for all this time that mens propensity for violence is innate. i really think we have managed to do the impossible here, and that is to prove that men are naturally predisposed to violence.

i mostly wrote this post to document this development/proof, and to make it available if anyone wants to use it/link to it. but yes, it also opens avenues that can be explored and discussed, the stunting part. its absurd that innateness is always taken to mean that something cannot be stunted or changed. we KNOW it can be, but there is denial here on this issue in particular. this is very interesting to me. it literally begs for examination.

2. WordWoman - May 19, 2013

The first thing that comes to mind is the ways boys are taught to torment girls when they are young. A bunch of boy bullies bully girls in various ways. It’s not the horrific stuff you alluded to here, but it sets the stage for it. Really coming down hard on this type of behavior in young boys could be part of managing it. Instead of chuckling, and boys will be boys shit, for instance. Even though very young kids are egocentric, they see this demonstrated over and over. Get rid of one-upmanship in them, too.

Keeping adult males away from boys (pedophiles make the problem worse obv) and also bad modeling. But then, that means GROUPS of women need to raise them and that does not seem to be a popular idea amongst separatists. 🙂 It’s one of those knotty problems, really.

I’m not saying we don’t need to stunt it in adult males now, but the younger you start, the better it is. Your idea of putting em in prison and letting em duke it out seems a solution, but not one likely to happen anytime soon. If you put all those who have a proven history of torture together (life sentence, no chance of parole) it would be kill or cure, I guess.

3. silverside58 - May 19, 2013

Here’s another example of male creativity for you. When child support orders were finally made enforceable on the federal level (U.S.), men suddenly decided they wanted custody of their kids because they missed them sooo sooo much. The fathers rights movement pushed all kinds of propaganda that fathers were just as important as mothers–if not more so. Blah blah. The result: Fathers increasingly were able to punish the b***** for leaving his deadbeat/abusive @$$, steal her children, and get her to pay child support to him (on her diminished salary). A very creative win-win for men.

4. WordWoman - May 19, 2013

Yes, saying it’s innate doesn’t mean there’s no cultural molding of behavior. It seems a better place to start, though, saying it’s here, rather than everything is culturally determined.

FCM - May 20, 2013

good example silverside. im sure there are tons of other examples from the fathers rights extremists. its the entire point of their existence, to torture women and be *creative* enough to get around the law. they have lawyers who “creatively lawyer” and make novel arguments too. the thing about “creative lawyers” though is that they have to work within SOME boundaries. a stunting on their creativity perhaps. other men have no boundaries at all. frankly i dont know which is scarier, or worse. perhaps they are both equally bad. on the upside, if *we* arent trying to find reformist solutions to these problems, *we* arent constrained in our creativity in the same way.

5. karmarad - May 20, 2013

Adrian Raine, a criminology professor and expert on the biology of violence, has just put out a well-received book called The Anatomy of Violence.I just ordered it, From the Amazon comments: “Is it time to think of violence as a disease, where rehabilitation takes precedence over punishment, and where prevention may be the only real cure?” What I expect is that the book will be very useful in gathering the studies and discussing biology of violence, but like Stephen Pinker’s book on violence, will have this enormous elephant in the room throughout that is ignored – the maleness of violence.

One thing these male scientists and professors can’t do is see without the blinders that this blog has long since dropped. As a result, this blog has a much wider scope than their work, and is full of revelations, like the relationship of the Burning Times to transgenerational PTSD of women today. But since Raines’ book is a bestseller I’m curious to see how he’ll skate around the maleness of violence, as well as reading what else he has to say. I have just read Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender, which is the ultimate expression of social constructionist theories of “gendered” violence, and would expect Raine’s book to offer some expert contradictions that I look forward to evaluating.

When it comes to figuring out what to do, and when I’m thinking about literature, I always go back to Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange. I don’t think it was Burgess’ intention to support what happens to young Alex during his “rehab”, and the book glorifies Alex’s violence, but it’s the only well-known book I know of that takes the subject of male violence and suggests a solution.

This blog is documenting the roots of male violence in another way, and I think is very advanced in pointing out over and over that male violence extends far beyond the realm of criminology, into “normal” life. Also, the evidence that male violence has a component of sexual instinct and sadism is discussed in this blog, and I don’t expect to find it being discussed by Professor Raines. Will report back on this. Thank you for keeping this discussion going.

FCM - May 20, 2013

these parenting modifications give me the creeps wordwoman. im not sure why, and its not ALL because the onus is 100% on women although thats part of it. if we are using other gifts/talents as a guide, what “parenting modifications” would you employ to quash a childs emerging talent to paint, play football, or anything else? behavior modifications, wagging fingers, grounding doesnt fit. its uncomfortable to think about it this way perhaps bc “parents” are supposed to nurture these emerging talents and are shamed terribly if they dont or cant. but in this case we are trying to do the opposite of what we are supposed to do.

taking away or not providing equipment would be one thing that would quash an emerging talent. not providing leisure time. not providing education such as the history of the sport or other notable performers in that field. these are the things that come to mind, dont they?

FCM - May 20, 2013

not allowing them to meet with others who share the same interest. not allowing conversations about it. not allowing reading about it. not allowing talking about it at all. forcing them to do other things instead. making them get jobs. you can imagine this happening accidentally very easily, imagine any movie youve ever seen thats a sad, sad story about a talent that wasnt nurtured. then do the same thing on purpose.

6. WordWoman - May 20, 2013

“taking away or not providing equipment would be one thing that would quash an emerging talent. not providing leisure time. not providing education such as the history of the sport or other notable performers in that field. these are the things that come to mind, dont they?”

Yes, take away the history of wars and any other violence or competition. But then that gets at how countries were formed (all on wars, violence)? Maybe make up myths about the Great Mother granting them charters. I can see this means a complete overhaul of the system of patriarchy. Kind of like right wing home schoolers do now with the Bible and science (the earth is 7000 years old). It’s been done and it’s being done.

No competitive sports, etc. Think about how women’s sports were before legally mandated.

It is creepy, I agree. It’s kind of like a dystopian novel. Like the handmaid’s tale but in reversal, not exactly, but you know what I mean, no? I’m not normally for this kind of thing at all. But on the other hand women being tortured is an extreme problem. And if this tendency toward violence/torture is inborn, then we need to face that.

Perhaps these kinds of implications are what makes people shy away from this. I’d rather think loving kindness, gentleness, etc. would work. Maybe for some it would, but certainly there are a number of boys who seem pretty violent from childhood without any abuse, etc. Look at the histories of some of the worst serial killers, and you won’t see anything not common to many boys.

I do know that women being nice and kind won’t solve anything. We’ve been nice and kind and mothering for eons. Nothing has changed.

FCM - May 20, 2013

actually i meant that the finger wagging and behavior modifications for “misbehaving” boys is what gave me the creeps! and its likely because of what you say — women have always done this, tried to discourage bad behavior the best they could, tried to model (or modeled, or even naturally modeled) loving, kindness etc and it didnt fucking work. i think this is because its not “bad behavior” we are seeing. its something else.

i agree that this other stuff resembles a dystopian novel, not providing equipment, not providing leisure time etc but those things arent giving me the creeps at all. i think this is a different approach, and doesnt create the same feeling of banging our heads on the same wall. call it a hunch, but it seems to me that these things might actually work. and that the model we need is not a standard-issue parenting/behavioral modification model but an emergent talent model. its not the same thing at all.

FCM - May 20, 2013

i like your idea about creating myths of the great goddess granting charters! ha! excellent.

FCM - May 20, 2013

and homeschooling isnt a bad idea either. interestingly, now we have circled back to “separatism by default.” let the girls get educated in the schools, while the boys have to be educated at home bc thats the only way to remove constant references to the HISTORY of the sport (of male violence, especially male violence against women) and its notable performers. namely, every single subject ever. especially history and government. and literature. and art. hmmm. every single subject then i guess. whats left to teach them? maybe a trade?

7. WordWoman - May 20, 2013

Knitting, sewing, etc. Remember that girls in European countries (even royalty) once were not taught to read, but were taught these practical skills. Of course, that’s still true in many places in the world. That saying, “men may work from sun to sun, but women’s work is never done.” Time for that idea in reverse. Perhaps only the least violent boys are taught to read. But the problem is what reading material would be ok. Maybe not reading until the culture evolves. Then only for some. Yanno, all the stuff they did for so long. Maybe we don’t reinvent the wheel, just reverse what was done for centuries. (I like knitting and sewing, actually, so this is no bad deal). I also think watering plants and pulling weeds would be appropriate. Some kinds of planting and gardening.

Also, the women who teach/guide them will likely command high salaries! Since it’s difficult and important for our ongoing safety. Since women won’t be having a lot of kids anymore, there will likely be some who see it as their “matriotic duty” to do this work.

8. WordWoman - May 20, 2013

Oh, and small groups only. Limit the number of males who can gather in groups to 2 or 3. Teach them this from a young age. There will be far less trouble, I’d bet. Maybe women’s groups should always outnumber males groups by some ratio. One that ensures safety for women. Make women’s safety, well being, success, etc. some kind of mantra that they get from a young age. Perhaps things like downcast eyes will help. The stuff women are expected to do now.

FCM - May 20, 2013

jesus. its like s4 said before, the only thing men are good for is impregnation. in mens case, its really true. the evidence that they are good for nothing is that they have destroyed the entire world and everything they do is stupid, violent or wrong. so us “turning the tables” on them, which they have feared this whole time, is actually what needs to be done. knitting and sewing indeed! but our reasons for doing it to them would be completely different than the reasons they did it to us — their reason was to create a system of nonstop violence and rape and to scorch the earth bc they enjoy doing that. we intend to stop and then reverse that outcome if possible.

FCM - May 20, 2013

downcast eyes! haha. did they go and give us the entire playbook? because thats what it seems like.

9. WordWoman - May 20, 2013

Only the least violent get to breed. They never get to know who their offspring are. The others are “end of the line, buh-bye to those genes.”

Actually, a good deal for them, too. They will be way safer. Women rarely kill or torture men and usually it’s self-defense.

10. WordWoman - May 20, 2013

yes, the reversals are only in one direction. We aren’t interested in being “morons” Just free to live as we were meant to live. Whatever that means.

FCM - May 20, 2013

BTW its ok with me if we compile a list, even if it can or will never be implemented. the point would be to see exactly what we would need to do to fix the mess men have made, SO THAT we can then identify the obstacles men have placed in our way ensuring we will never be able to change anything, or anything critical or fundamental that actually matters. a lot of these things would fail based on equality laws alone. this isnt a coincidence.

11. WordWoman - May 20, 2013

I’d like, just once, to go out in public and not have to endure their rude stares and comments. Implied power plays. Yes, downcast eyes in the presence of any woman or girl. Maybe some of the daughter generations will have this kind of space. Then no need for women-only space. It will all be women’s space.

Seriously, if men want to solve the world’s problems they’d be fools not to think this is a stellar idea. Make all space women’s space. Sequester men. (not holding my breath, though)

12. WordWoman - May 20, 2013

Oh, I forgot, moron. . . (nevermind)

FCM - May 20, 2013

the men of DGR claim to be VEWY committed to fixing these pwoblems. lets ask THEM if they are interested in using downcast eyes (and homeschooling!) for all boys and men. lol. thats what we thought.

FCM - May 20, 2013

the more these turds open their mouths, the more is revealed. keep talking dawgs.


i “mistakenly” identified this DGR dood as a liberal in this post. you can see how one might make that error, as he resembles every lameass hypocritical and INSANELY misogynistic “feminist doodbro” ever. i didnt find out til later that he IDENTIFIES as a radical.

13. WordWoman - May 20, 2013

I like the list idea. Let’s see what germinates and what it can become. My internet may be sporadic while this is up. We’ll see. Perhaps each woman could list her ideas and we could put them together some way.

This discussion, so far has been, refreshing, like a nice cool sip on a hot summers day.

FCM - May 20, 2013

and delphyne is taking derrek jensen to task over on gendertrender. lol. poor teh menz, they just cant get a break!

14. SheilaG - May 20, 2013

Curfews for men and boys. No boys allowed out on streets at night.
Electronic monitoring devices placed on all boys and men. Drugs that sterilize men, and only women have the devices that can “allow” men to get off the drug. No unwanted pregnancies because women control the means of production in men. Education, no girls educated with boys, all girls schools. Boys taught manual arts, no reading, no violent history, no war study. War as a subject would be removed, and societies in peacetime would be the course of study. No men would be allowed to live with individual women ever. Men would be placed in separate quarters at all times. The population of men would gradually be reduced worldwide. 50-60% less on earth. Entire towns were no men live at all, and women and girls could be fully educated and free in those towns. Not all the towns, but this option would be available for women and girls if we wanted it.

Houses redesigned so that no individual women would have to be in charge of male childcare. Too dangerous for the individual woman. Better monitoring of boys who show no signs of cooperating. They’d be removed, imprisoned and not allowed to continue with anything. No mating with giant men or bullying type men. No men allowed firearms or any jobs involving them. No men allowed on the streets unsupervised by groups of women.

And men and boys are never to be believed no matter what they say, and they are held accountable and constantly questioned about their lies. No man would be allowed decision making powers unless they had verification from five women, all unrelated as to the character and honesty of the man. Any man or boy caught in ANY violent or threatening act to women or girls, including teasing and bullying would be removed and jailed. They would be permently sterilized and not allowed to reproduce humans at all.

Geez, this is a lot of fun!

FCM - May 20, 2013

LOL! oh sheila you made me laugh, thanks. at your enjoyment of it, not your ideas. 😀 they are good ideas i think. especially not giving men any decisionmaking power ever (and of course keeping reproduction in womens hands, that one almost goes without saying its so critical). and no guns. yes.

FCM - May 20, 2013

now that youve explained the “downcast eyes” thing wordwoman, i really like that one too. because you are right, men use eye contact to threaten and lord-over women. damn right they do. downcast eyes it is then. and if they dont like it they can stay the fuck home.

15. azahda - May 20, 2013

If I may add, what about just skipping the birthing of boys all-together (or at least, to a large extent) and opting instead for parthenogenesis? While I also believe that men’s innate violence/sadism can likely be hampered through the above mentioned methods – those more women-friendly cultures around the world do have less sexual violence after all- I can’t help but think about all the energy and surveillance this would require of women. And just as many individuals today (and in the past) have seen through religion and all other sorts of male quackery, it does leave the potential that there will be boys/men who don’t believe what they’re told and find out what happened before this new system took hold. And I seriously doubt they would take it well.

As far as the ability to do this goes- several years ago a research team in Australia was able to use a female embryo to create female sperm, and from there sought a grant from their university to allow them to make (female) sperm from female bone marrow, as they were previously successful in creating sperm from male bone marrow and fertilizing an egg:

Reading about the most recent developments, all the articles are saying that around that time they needed permission from their university to continue, but the trail seems to end there. I’m still on the lookout though!

Also, Japanese scientists were able to have a female mouse be born from the genes of two different mamas several years ago:

The procedure was by no means perfect or easy, but if instead of using all the world’s resources for war and all other useless male institutions we put even some of it on this, there’s no reason it couldn’t be done. Especially considering how intelligent women are.

But I can only imagine the male hysteria at suggesting that an all/mostly-women planet be the way-to-go though. Nevertheless, at this point, it seems like the most fair option to me. For both women, and the planet.

16. azahda - May 20, 2013

I should add though that whether or not parthenogenesis ever becomes the primary method of reproduction, as long as there are any males at all, all those ideas sound great to me and would still apply! Especially the fact that they should not be allowed to congregate with each other in groups of more than 2-3. Just can’t help feeling that if the planet did ever go all-women, how much easier it would all be.

Also, I’m so sorry for always posting such giant comments!

FCM - May 20, 2013

i think its obvious that men cant be allowed to have any money, or at least no discretionary income because of what they are known to do with it. if we are going to use the sports/artist analogy, not having discretionary income means no equipment/supplies, no uniforms, no training/lessons, no networking, no events, no supplements/stimulants/drugs/special nutritional support, no working out. and we would have to make clear analogies between sports equipment/art supplies and the equipment/supplies men acquire and use to develop their skills as naturally violent and torturers so we dont lose the plot. the point isnt deprivation for its own sake IOW.

for example, the “events” they would be deprived of if they had no money would be parties where they ply women with alcohol, or other opportunities to put their violence into action on real women such as in prostitution. nutritional supplements and working out = excess energy and physical strength/bulk that they use to wear down and overpower women. we would ensure that they would have to work 16 hours a day to just survive, leaving 8 for sleep and maintenance. more than enough time considering they dont do self care anyway. no days off and no holidays or vacations. but the point would be to deprive them of the opportunity to perform or hone their skills as natural torturers. and depriving them of income would have to be done in conjunction with other strategies.

so, if sheila wants to humor me, she might explain how her suggestions go beyond punishment and containment of men, to actually preventing them from fully or more fully developing their creative talent for violence and torture. if they do. or, were you just dreaming sheila? 😀

FCM - May 20, 2013

also, as i have said, this is mostly a thought exercise so yes, i would prefer NO MEN AT ALL, including births of all female children via 2 mothers! that would be ideal. we can talk about that too.

but as a thought exercise, i think it will be helpful to envision what we would need to do to stunt mens creative talent for violence, and to see where we end up. i suspect we will be able to see clearly how men specifically prevent us from doing exactly what we need to do. EXACTLY. this is already being somewhat revealed as “separate but equal” in terms of education has already been implicated here and is illegal in the US. its not a coincidence that we will be prevented in various ways from doing any of this. it might be bc men have already thought this out, planned for it, and we are late to the game. if thats the case, and we cant go OVER bc its blocked, perhaps we can go under, around or through instead. perhaps not. but some valuable insight may be gained in the process, not the least of which is that all of this is deliberate, and men are naturally violent, and shits.

FCM - May 20, 2013

thanks for the links azahda!

FCM - May 20, 2013

oh, and yes HOW HARD IT WOULD BE to implement this and keep it going. thats another thing that becomes very obvious when you bother thinking it all through, as in a thought exercise. the more appealing option is to just not fucking bother with them at all bc this would require an enormous expenditure on our parts and men as a class are simply not worth it. and we instinctively KNOW, dont we, that men would never do this willingly, or do it to themselves. even to solve the problem of male violence (and overpopulation, pollution etc).

also, i do not think that “because propagation of the species!” is feminist reasoning. i think we have to be ok with the idea of the entire race dying out so that we dont see *ourselves* as breeders, or any *need* for men at all. since when does the earth *need* humans at all, let alone more humans? it doesnt. propagation of the species is rapism, not feminism. parthenogenesis does add a twist.

17. citizentaqueau - May 20, 2013

One persistent idea I’ve found is that male creativity is already, consciously linked intrinsically in male-centered thought to male violence. When I was a wee, wannabe “equality” feminist, i.e. conservative, I glommed onto Paglia (this was the early 90’s) and her oft-quoted, “There is no woman Mozart because there is no woman Jack the Ripper.” Spinning this out to reading A Clockwork Orange and noting that when Alex loses his predisposition to violence (through violent conditioning), he also loses his love of Beethoven. It’s a clear statement: without his violence, he has no access to deep feeling and appreciation of what he previously appreciated with great joy as Beauty. I can’t recall who it was who commented here about men of her acquaintance saying that without the potential of PIV, they couldn’t imagine living. The connection between violence and any kind of life-force or joy in men is not only a deeply rooted mythos, it’s an acknowledged state of fact. Men make it very clear. Just like the figure of the “sensitive poet,” whose sensitivity extends only to other males, and who bonds with those males over the (often public (or publicized) or communal) use of women.

18. citizentaqueau - May 20, 2013

FCM: “also, i do not think that “because propagation of the species!” is feminist reasoning. i think we have to be ok with the idea of the entire race dying out so that we dont see *ourselves* as breeders, or any *need* for men at all. since when does the earth *need* humans at all, let alone more humans? it doesnt. propagation of the species is rapism, not feminism. parthenogenesis does add a twist.”

You’re on it ! “propagation of the species” as an imperative is in fact rape language. Just see how it figures in any male-centered dystopian or apocalyptic fantasy (and Handmaid’s Tale satires upon it of course), right on back to Genesis. How long does it take for any man to envision the global catastrophe before he gets right to the breeding camp scenario.

Parthenogenesis certainly does add a twist, and take the harm-reduction praxis of Pl@nn3d P@renth00d to its ultimate conclusion. “Every child, a wanted child,” indeed.

I feel that I am derailing, though, in that I am still attempting to imagine how the problem of boys could be mitigated.

I’m still struggling with the Nigel question, and this is a horrible sticking point. Had to get that out there. I’d have been better off without a father, and my mother would have, too. Despite any qualities of charm they had, this remains true. Any qualities of useful skill, they acquired by virtue of being male and thus admitted to the clubhouse to which no woman is admitted unless she unwomans herself sufficiently, and even then, she’s still laughed at, still fucked.

19. Bizzolizzo - May 20, 2013

Well done, sister. This post is amazing!

FCM - May 20, 2013

ok bizzo. but dont you have anything to add? you know i dont like these drive by comments!

20. midnightcache - May 20, 2013

A lurker for sometime now… This is a fantastic thought exercise!

I can honestly see a world in which women no longer ‘partner’ with men, what I have a hard time getting around is the idea of a world in which women no longer bond to the degree of protecting (in spite of harm caused to themselves or others) male children. The easiest way around this problem is to simply severally restrict the number of male children, but it still may not erase the problem. If male children are born women will bond to them, women bond to living things… when a particular male child becomes violent I can see women who have bonded to that male child becoming protective, wanting to give him ‘another chance’, hiding his violence, etc. I could see this causing a great rift between women. Someone mentioned a while back that they were bullied by boys as a child and that none of the mothers could admit for a moment that *their* male child would bully/hurt etc. even with evidence to the contrary right in front of them…

21. witchwind - May 20, 2013

this is a very good point that men’s creativity in violence is the proof of its innateness. It’s great that you made it, it makes everything more simple! I did feel we were going round and round too. And what’s very useful about this point is that it avoids twisting our heads around biological evidence, historical evidence, sociological / anthropological evidence (etc) which can be contested or twisted by anybody, and it is unlikely we’ll have full access to objective data anyway. This point is logical, simple, makes sense, and understandable by anyone (who wants to understand, that is).

However I’m not convinced by the gift argument, the analogy with the fact that people are gifted in some things and not in others. First this “gift” thing, if it is true, works across sexual differences, and if it’s a gift, then it’s a gift, it’s unique, individual, conditional of this very life at this very point in time and this very person, not something you have by nature, as a generic, genetic condition you share with all members of your species across generations.

And also, if we assume this gift system exists, creativity gifts are intentional, deliberate, something given to you to accomplish something with those capacities that are given to you. To me it is also something inherently beautiful. This doesn’t fit to male biology / innate violence, because their violence IS, it wasn’t given to them with a particular intention, or for them to accomplish something with it. It’s tautological, circular, violence produces nothing but violence which produces violence and more violence. It’s an aberration.

Finally, while you can curb or stunt creativity gifts, i don’t think this is true for nature / genetic constitution. men have tried to change our nature for millennia, with little success. We have tried to socialise them out of violence, with little success too. For that we’d have to change men’s genes (not drug them, i doubt it’d change anything), or alter men’s existence or breed them out completely, either to give a new breed or just not have them.

22. witchwind - May 20, 2013

to me the “creativity in violence > therefore innate” statement stands for itself. Whereas we as humans all have a disposition to be creative about something, you can’t build on something / be creative about actions and thoughts that are aberrant to you. If violence and rape is a life force for men, it makes sense they’d be creative about it.

So the next question you ask about stunting creativity would be stunting their possibilities to be creative about violence, but wouldn’t stunt their BE-ING violent (if i follow the logic i just outlined).

23. witchwind - May 20, 2013

Also if only the creativity of violence were a problem, and not the fact that violence is a life force for men, then that annuls or somehow ignores the very statement that violence is innate, and it doesn’t fit with the necessity to prove its innateness. As it’s currently framed, creativity of violence is a C0NSEQUENCE of innate violence, a consequence that can only exist in a condition of innate violence, which is why it is used as evidence. and i think it is correct, both as evidence and the fact it’s a consequence. but then by taking the creativity of violence away you only take the creativity of violence away (maybe!) but not the urge to violence, or the thoughts of violence, or the willingness, or whatever. This leads to men ALWAYS being a threat, on some level, even minor.

trying the thought experiment, I can’t help but think that the measures taken can only be based on fear that they will start again, because it’s a logical response to knowing that their violence is innate. If we take these measures it’s precisely because we can’t trust them, because we know we can’t just let them be and let them run around freely to be themselves, we can’t connect to them without fearing that they will distort or pervert this connection or have something else in mind. I wouldn’t trust other women either – say after a few generations, those that grew up with silent, stunted men – to not feel sorry for men’s state one fine day, believe that after all they’re not that bad and let them free again. Also this stunting thing is control and I don’t want to have to control anyone, because of the effects it would have on me, it would be terrible. I could not consider one second living in fear, or distrust, even slight, that they start again, this is daunting.

For example the downcast eyes measure: for a split second i liked that idea but when imagining this situation as of today, i know i would still feel awkward in their presence, and i know i’d still feel grateful for them doing it, or feel intense pity or confusion (trauma bonding) and then feel guilty for still having this response, and all this would make me anxious. And if it is post patriarchy, it still feels awkward or non-natural. I’d rather them not be there at all.

24. Bizzolizzo - May 20, 2013

Ok, here’s something. It’s men’s whole game to torture. They love it, the fear energy is what they’re after. Mainly they want females to be as uncomfortable as they are. It’s dominance, plain and simple. And as dominance isn’t actually real and cannot be satisfied, so males appetite for torture cannot be satisfied. How to stop it? Difficult, I do not have all the answers. I think it comes down to experience and women’s willingness and ability to squash the torture behavior when it is being done. Because it is done in the dark IE when women are not aware. I’ve had older, more experienced women stick up for me when felt uncomfortable and didn’t even know why, which brought the dynamics to light and made me more aware. Social strength is essential in combating energy drainage by these insatiable little parasites.

25. Bizzolizzo - May 20, 2013

Also I don’t know if you’ve read the texts by John stoltenberg. He talks about how every young boy gets erections when around chaotic, fear inducing events such as fires, being involved in an accident, etc. Which really explains the current state of affairs. He also talks about how individual males’ emotional connections with their mothers are severed at birth by the father. The father essentially enacts emotional violence against the baby boy in the presence of his ignorant mommy. The baby boy’s faith in his mother to protect him against all evil is shattered and he begins his inculcation into the cult of violent manhood. He is essentially disappointed and takes out his frustration on mommy for the rest of his life on women who represent mommy to him. Stoltenberg argues that te only way to break the chain is for mommy to resist all cowardly attempts of daddy to terrorize his son. My mother did this successfully, my brother is gay and will likely live with my mom until she’s gone.

FCM - May 20, 2013

you arent derailing citizen taqueau! i thought both your comments were very interesting, thanks!

26. witchwind - May 20, 2013

I would trust JS’s statement only up to the point where he says men get erections from fear inducing events. (that’s interesting! the fact that they experience things through their dick or that whatever overwhelming emotions they have are numbed off through erections might explain a lot).

As for his analysis, he ends up blaming women again! i wouldn’t listen to any interpretation he makes, he’s an MRA in disguise.

FCM - May 20, 2013

and sorry, but john stoltenberg can bite me. as far as i can tell, his entire career has been to leech off of andrea dworkins notoriety and to make the argument that good guys exist, because MASCULINITIES. with an “s”. not he, nor the doods of DGR or any man would be willing to do what it would take to ameliorate any of the actual real harm that actual real men perpetrate, including themselves as they move through the world consumed with rage and sticking their dicks into literally everything. they all think that they are the good guys but the evidence is that there no such thing, and that they are all completely destructive (and self-deluded, or liars) in the exact same way.

FCM - May 20, 2013

YES ww, thanks for that. exactly.

FCM - May 20, 2013

also, i am trying to work through your longer comments ww. i agree with you that its not womens responsibility or desire to force men to be good people, or to stunt their innate tendencies. or to use FORCE for really anything at all. and the point that after a couple of generations the threat wouldnt be as obvious is a good one. women would let them out, yes.

as for my use of “gifted” that was more as a bridge between “art” and “sport” if that makes sense? because torture is both an art and a sport i think. there are innate talents in both which cannot be taught is the point, meaning true creative talents push the boundaries of whats possible, and go places that no one has gone before. athletes are more “gifted” than they are creative but its the same idea i think. a natural ability to not only achieve but excel, to be mindblowing, and to make it easier for others to achieve by showing whats possible. and we know that men learn this way, and that their torture techniques build on the techniques of those who came before. anyway, i was using it in the same way as i was using “creative” and not in the way you seem to mean — that a “gift” is a positive force given by god or something, to achieve “good” and not evil? i suspect you didnt mean that EXACTLY and im a little surprised you went there so maybe i dont understand what you mean at all. but to clarify my intent, thats what *i* meant when i said it. perhaps if we think of natural gifts as positive, that is projection on our part because thats what OURS are. its not what mens are though. obviously.

FCM - May 20, 2013

also, WRT stunting a creative gift versus changing someones nature, yes i dont think we can change their nature. so yes, they would always be a threat. BUT. if we are using sport and art as analogous gifts, this gives room to explore. if we thought basketball was the worst thing ever, the thing to do would be to not give someone who was demonstrating an emerging talent for the sport a ball. other things are known to work here too, like keep them extremely busy and distracted doing other things. maybe he would still throw his laundry in the hamper from across the room, but remember, we decided that basketball was the problem not throwing things at other things. if we saw a person developing a talent for throwing things at other things, and we identified THAT as the problem, rather than someone who was showing an emergent talent for a known, organized sport that we deemed destructive, perhaps that would be more difficult to curb. in that case, maybe breaking his arms would fix it. just thinking out loud here. 🙂

FCM - May 20, 2013

this is where we might make the distinction between male violence, and male violence against women. see? because i dont give a fraction of a single fuck if men kill each other, i really dont. i think this should be encouraged, or at least not discouraged. the problem is not THAT, its what they do to US. and male violence against women is more organized, more focused and more purposeful than generic “violence”. more like basketball, and less like throwing things at other things as a matter of fact.

27. witchwind - May 20, 2013

Ha! I wasn’t bothered to explain all the ways in which he’s a disguised MRA, but you said it all.
I’ve been told that he’s also the literary executor of Andrea’s work and everywhere he is publishing, translating and promoting HIS books INTERNATI0NALLY, but he can’t get to publish or translate any of Dworkin’s books, as they are out of print?! So basically he’s also hijacking her work. She was dependent on him in many ways for access to health and safety, and i have no doubt that he had control over her in some way or another.

This is his latest shit (book) by the way, it’s called “gonerz” (which sounds like “bonerz”) and which is as rapey as a dude can be (he has a human BREEDING PR0GRAM!!!)


here’s the summary:

A rampaging virus has mutated from digital to biological and made human beings nearly extinct. To restock the planet with virus-free people, governments of the world have established secure breeding centers surrounded by laserfences to keep out the infected and doomed. In one of these hygienic compounds, Quaran/Clean Ararat, we meet the four heroes of GONERZ. Two are “wombers” and two are “spermers.” They are about to turn thirteen. They have grown up as best friends. They know that their government now expects them to procreate. They are constantly pressured to get pregnant. And in the next four months they will learn more about life and death and love and sex than they could ever have imagined.

Written in the form of diary entries, GONERZ is a post-apocalyptic parable—an enchanting mix of tender romance, daring adventure, erotic frolic, dark suspense, and broad comedy. From the wide-eyed viewpoint of the womber who narrates the story—in the young chums’ winsome slanguage—GONERZ takes us on a playful romp back to puberty, looks in on a plucky foursome and their polyamorous first loves, and tells a spellbinding tale of their encounters with contagion, sexual corruption, body rot, and deadly menace from outside the laserfence.

Can the four of them hold on? Will their love for one another survive?

Does our species have a future?

Or is everyone…GONERZ?

It speaks for itself. Note that both the spermers and wombers are expected to get pregnant!!!!!!!

FCM - May 20, 2013

wow, how repulsive. thanks for that. john stoltenberg himself emailed me a few months ago (or someone on his behalf and/or claiming to be him, using a personal email account) asking me to promote that book on my blogs. LOL he was giving away free kindle downloads on amazon or something. he gave a brief summary, shorter than the one you found but giving the gist. yep, post-apocalyptic. yep, breeding. and yep, PIV = sex. how radfem! yay! and he wanted me to stump for him. i didnt respond.

FCM - May 20, 2013

and how gross that he writes it from the perspective of a “wide-eyed” 13-year old womber — or girl, in other words. what is he, a fucking tranny?

28. Branjor - May 20, 2013

This discussion is fascinating. As to stunting men’s natural propensity to violence, I think we need to understand something about energy. That is, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. A law of physics. That means that the good energy, the gynergy, transmitted to boys by their mothers, can change form. It can change form from good energy into destructive energy which they then use to hurt and destroy females with. That is what I believe happens to all or much of the gynergy women transmit to their sons. It is roughly illustrated by the analogy I have made many times between men and cars. Cars can only run if you put gas (energy) into them. But once you do, you can get into the car and drive it where *you* want to go. Men are like cars in that they don’t run unless you put gynenergy (gas) into them. But once you do, unlike cars, they go where *they* want to go, not where *you* want them to go. So the solution is not to put the gynergy inot them in the first place. In other words, I think men’s destructiveness towards women is fueled by women’s energy itself, gynergy, which males convert inside themselves into a destructive form in accordance with their natural propensity. Does that make some sense?

FCM - May 20, 2013

yes branjor that makes perfect sense. and i think its true. so, in that case, it would be MEN that would have to do this to/for other men. OR what women could/would do would have to be limited to withholding energy and not giving it. not giving him a ball, but also not taking it away once he already has it perhaps? of course, we all know that men would NEVER do any of this, even if there was every reason in the world to think it would actually work. which reveals a lot about men, and also reveals a lot about what we instinctively KNOW about men. reformists deny both, but a simple thought exercise reveals its true.

FCM - May 20, 2013

oh sorry, the “wide eyed” girl is only 12. my bad.

29. witchwind - May 20, 2013

yeah he sent that to all the feminists he could think of.

wrt to the creativity discussion, i find it makes more sense to assume that creativity is something that all humans are capable of in different ways, both male and female (according to their upbringing and environment and many other things probably), but men being naturally violent against women, or violence against women defining who they are, then this is what they will be creative about, and organise around.

I don’t think men’s violence is separated from their purpose: forcibly impregnating women by PIV / rape. If they experience all strong emotions only through their dick, including fear and violence (they probably don’t make a difference), that is that all strong emotions systematically gives them erections, therefore all violence (either inflicted or being subjected to) is tied to their potential to rape and impregnate a woman. And if this fear/violence/erection is the only way they can feel emotions at adult age, then, that also give clues as to how to stunt this mechanisme too, or make sure not to make it worse.

Everything men organise is to encourage this fear/violence/erection>PIV mechanism in men, so they keep control over women always: competition, hierarchy, domination, wars, weapons, “art” (porn), torture, torture-porn, incest rape, sports etc.

So yes suppressing all the things they invented and preventing them from doing it, learning about it or reading it would be a good start.

About the gift thing, I personally don’t believe in this god-gifted thing, but if we talk about people being gifted, with these words, i think this is what it means. A gift is something given to you and it’s meant to be good. otherwise it’s something else, a capacity, potential, talent.. Sorry words come in the way of understanding.

30. witchwind - May 20, 2013

Wow branjor thanks for that energy point! It makes perfect sense to me. I don’t think anything else than to stop giving men our energy in any ways is realistically feasible at this point anyway.

31. delphyne - May 20, 2013

Yup Stoltenberg is Dworkin’s literary executor. Intercourse was reprinted a few years back but nothing else. When I asked him on Facebook recently about possible republishing of her work he pointed to a website that pirates her books. It’s difficult to imagine that Andrea Dworkin who took herself so seriously as a writer and understood the importance of valuing her own work, would be happy to be downloaded as a free pdf.

He has however managed to get Refusing to be a Man translated and published in France.

He’s one of the best examples of how social constructionism really doesn’t explain male behaviour, given that he spent years with Andrea Dworkin and supposedly signed up to her ideas, but still managed to produce a porn book once she’d gone.

32. SheilaG - May 20, 2013

Yes, preventing. I must admit my delight in containment and punishing the enemy is a delight to me. But this requires something higher on the scale. Downcast eyes always— mothers making sons always look down when in the presense of women and girls. The biggest problem is female bonding to sons. It is just horrific how they do this, and nothing I can do or say gets them to break out of this. So I’m thinking that we can’t have individual women raise boy children, and that boy children need to be taken away, isolated and trained in the new paradigm. The ideal would be to reduce the male population everywhere, and for women to begin this project now. Never marrying muscle men– Maria, what were you thinking and Awnold?

No creative outlets, just digging ditches, and brute physical labor in the fields, closely supervised by women who won’t be attracted to or care about men. And practice, we need to practice not budging. I did that just the other day. I was in a cul-du-sac then a man driving a car was coming the other way. I just sat at the wheel until he moved to the side, just came to a dead stop in the street and did not move. Nothing he could do about it. Builds up your defiance muscles.

We have to get at what makes women so protective of sons, their rotten rapist, criminal sons. We see men disowning sons who do terrible things all the time, but mothers hang in there even when the evidense of the horror of their sons is obvious. Imagine siding with a son who just brutally raped and murdered another woman? The horror of this female to female betrayal is a building blog of patriarchy.

Reduction of population of boys, and training women not to care about them at all, downcast eyes always. Severe separation from anything that could spark their evil torture fantasies. No use of guns… said that already. No access to any technology, just manual work. Exhaust them with manual work, not giving more than minimal food, no variety in diet. And criminal men can be put in jail with other criminal men, open season, no guards in the pen. Let them go at each other without intervention.

33. SheilaG - May 20, 2013

Creepy about Stoltenberg’s control over Dworkin’s work!

34. Bizzolizzo - May 20, 2013

I had a feeling FCM and JS wouldn’t get along. In any case, the man does have a few hidden gems in a pile of overly earnest BS.

I think the best way to deal with men nowadays is with no emotion, solely utility and only then when necessary.

FCM - May 20, 2013

all this mr. nice guy stuff kind of smacks of admiration by the less-awful guys toward the really really awful ones doesnt it? it *is* a kind of downcast-eyes thing, a refusal to acknowledge their own talent in the face of someone who is obviously BETTER at it than they are out of respect. or a celebrity-worship thing. the fact that they are ALL TALENTED ABUSERS OF WOMEN is obvious when they are all having PIV and intruding on womens space. the mr. nice guys are in awe of men like the cleveland kidnapper and wish they could do it too. its pretty obvious isnt it?

35. Citizen Taqueau - May 20, 2013

Yes, the “Mr. Nice Guy” faux-outrage by men over the Cleveland kidnapper is to laugh at. So many people on yahell news (yes, I know…) commenting at how great it would be if he could be thrown into genpop and receive “prison justice” just like Jeffrey Dahmer.

I pointed out that even if he were, the men there would never punish him. Cleveland d00d didn’t f*ck homeless boys and then cannibalize them. Although what he did to those girls might be considered extreme, even by a man violent enough to be in prison for assault or murder, how many of the ordinary men in prison had abused girls and women in their homes, kept them isolated and afraid to leave the house. To them, Cleve-dude would be someone they looked up to. As relatively advanced amateurs, they would see him as a pro.

36. Citizen Taqueau - May 20, 2013

This time I was “nice” and just mentioned the violent men in prison, and left out the observation that girls are more often tortured at home or school by men close to them, who never go to prison, who are “nice guys” to the rest of the community.

37. Sargasso Sea - May 20, 2013

What a lot of fun this conversation is! 🙂

And what a wonderful oxy-moron-ish title too! But leave it to the dudes to take utter opposites and make them seem perfectly *natural*…

Withholding (which is really not the right word – perhaps just not going there in the first place) energy from them is the best way I’ve found to date to insulate myself from their suck. And my ongoing experiment in managing public situations (since there are no men/boys in the personal space we maintain for ourselves) I’ve found that NOT looking them in the eye but with mindfulness has the best results. IOW I see them as useful objects. Like robots. Or Morons. 🙂

38. SheilaG - May 21, 2013

My deadpan stare usually works. No energy, strict instructions, like you are telling a dog to sit, stay, belly up… just simple orders nothing else. Walk away from blabby men, just stare at them and say nothing.
Lots of strategies, but I will say, this blog post has been one heck of a lot of fun. I love it when women get tough with these guys, see through them, and come up with perhaps a hundred ways of being anything BUT liberals!!! Good job women. Got to take a break while I spray the hose at some obnoxious boys across the street messing with my trees. They like to steal fruit, and when I catch them, wow, I just spray the hose. Chase the dogs away. Moms outraged naturally, I just stare them down tell them to keep their piggish boys off my land.

39. citizentaqueau - May 21, 2013

Reading Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood now, and there is a description of a post-apocalyptic, neoprimitive gatherer tribe of humans, with a taboo against eating animals. The men are tasked with peeing around the perimeter of the village every morning to keep quadruped predators out. It is explained that they needed some way to feel competent and useful, as they were not having babies, so they wouldn’t feel left out. “Woodworking, hunting, high finance, war, and golf [were] no longer options.”

This, of course, is the point of the clubhouse. To keep women out of all endeavors of creativity (except for the ones allotted as necessity, which then don’t count as art), so that men have something Useful to do, and dominate at doing, pissing in a circle. Because when women are allowed to do what they will, women just figure out how to do everything better. And we can make new people. It’s demoralizing for men. Reading about the history of male medicine in America, and how there had been no need whatsoever for regulation of physicians until well, well after the damage became apparent from men taking over the “care” of the sick, hurt, and birthing. When men started doing surgery, it was a practice of creative torture. They called male doctors “Sawbones” for a reason.

FCM - May 21, 2013

having the torturers in charge of health and medical care is the worst idea in the history of ideas. or (one of?) the best, depending on which side youre on. how awful.

FCM - May 21, 2013

re stoltenberg. i get it. as a good-guy “feminist male” he sees that there are too few books written from the female perspective. of course this is because there are too few female writers and female writers, when they do write, have often had to write from the male perspective for security reasons or simply to create an “interesting” enough narrative that someone would actually want to publish it, buy it, and read it. because women are so boring. and misogyny!

but stoltenberg, being a GENDERIST, thinks the female perspective has nothing to do with being female, that is, XX with a shared FEMALE history of girlhood and sexualized oppression and violence under a male dominant regime. he believes, because gender, that a female perspective can be had by anyone, regardless of SEX so he thinks HE might as well write something from the female perspective even though hes a male. complete with the porny fantasies he shares with all men, including trannies obviously, about “girlhood” and what 12-year old girls experience as fuckholes-in-waiting, and slaves-in-waiting. hes doing *us* and literature itself a favor by writing this book from “our” perspective, you see, and racking up “feminist” points for himself at the same time.

right john?

FCM - May 21, 2013

PS. fuck off!

FCM - May 21, 2013

and i LOLLED at “pissing in a circle.” indeed. digging ditches would also work! as sheila suggests. an irrigation ditch from alaska to russia perhaps? 🙂 hope they can swim.

40. citizentaqueau - May 21, 2013

Hope they can swim… and “their little guys” can’t! LOL

41. femmeforever - May 22, 2013

Withholding (which is really not the right word – perhaps just not going there in the first place) energy from them is the best way I’ve found to date to insulate myself from their suck. And my ongoing experiment in managing public situations (since there are no men/boys in the personal space we maintain for ourselves) I’ve found that NOT looking them in the eye but with mindfulness has the best results. IOW I see them as useful objects. Like robots. Or Morons.

Yes. I’ve been rocking this one my whole life. It works well. They ALWAYS notice. BUT there is usually backlash like the time I simply averted my eyes when he came toward me with a giant gross birthmark on his face. This triggered a campaign of public retaliation. It was so obvious and pathetic. The other women around, not knowing the true basis of the thing, supported him. So I have never gotten social strength to work.

42. whitevalkyrie1988 - May 24, 2013

“The first thing that comes to mind is the ways boys are taught to torment girls when they are young. A bunch of boy bullies bully girls in various ways. It’s not the horrific stuff you alluded to here, but it sets the stage for it.”

Yup, know what you mean. Ever see those stupid old truck/car/super soaker (oh the phallic implications!) commercials from the 90s? Often shows a boy or bunch of boys bursting through a flock of girls with thier toys and offensively scaring/startling/grossing them out.

“Really coming down hard on this type of behavior in young boys could be part of managing it. Instead of chuckling, and boys will be boys shit, for instance.”

It’s interesting- women are always told that our best friends are the liberals/leftists/progressives, and yet when you read about the “old days” (not to say things were great for women then either), you actually find that there were at least SOME restrictions; be nice to women, women and children first, be gentlemanly, etc.

What surprises me is that those conservatives (of a type) were more freindly to women than many liberals are. Perhaps the “liberals will be nice to you” gag is to get us to fall for the WORSE male, the “liberated” grubby beard-n-glasses Ron Paul anime character ogling Occupy freak. Once again, not to say the old fashioned men were pefect, but…

it also takes me to another conclusion- that “egalitarianism” may be a ploy as well, as may be “socialism”, “communism”, “no standards”, “Equality” and such. (French Revolution values). Not to say monarchy or the unfair type of inequality is any better, but perhaps what was happening (in at least some cases) in the old days was this:

Very small minority of respectable, respectful, chivalrous men (the average knights, lords, kings, etc) saw that they were better than the average grungy misogynistic man, because they put women on a pedestal instead. They instituted inequality, meaning- minority of men who treat women good are superior to men who don’t.

Then, a bunch of angry Reds and egalitarians- who wanted all men, no matter how evil and misogynistic, to have a woman of thier own- took over and unleashed the REAL typical/average/proletarian male (the misogynist PIV obsessed monster) on the terrified female population, and neither the females nor the small minority of good males could help stop them (especially since, mostly because of the church, the misogyny was at least permeating some of the society already).

that small amount of good, civilized, art and culture loving men were “pansified” and called “sissies’, “queers” “upper class dandies” and “wig wearing effeminate pushovers” by the “revolutionaries”, and squeezed out of existence, practically. Now the “equality” principle could take root- that no one could be called “better” or “worse” than anyone else, and that uncivilized men could have a right to a wife or girlfriend just like civilized fair desirable men.

As time went on, they started to sqwawk about “liberating” women to have more PIV sex with men, get “male” jobs (because work they considered “female”- motherhood, nature, etc- grossed the poor widdle masculine idiots out), and reject the old fashioned “feminine” bonds of mother Nature, Nation, and racial/ethnic solidarity (that is, along appropriate lines- when racial/ethnic thinking suits patriarhcy, they adopt it and turn it ugly- Nazism, etc).

Nowadays, they have a vested interest in making women believe these “liberals” are their friends, so they can trick us even more into “liberation” through giving them their desires.

AND MOST OF ALL- we must NEVER question equality or egalitarianim. Egalitarianism means that EVERY man, no matter how awful, deserves a woman. It means that

Of course, this isn’t to say conservative/old fashioned/medieval men were much better, or any better. It’s just a hunch about why things unfolded this way, and why we’re always pushed to accept egalitarianism.

“Even though very young kids are egocentric, they see this demonstrated over and over. Get rid of one-upmanship in them, too.”

I agree. Lots of kids- even a few small number of boys- aren’t like this, and cannot be taught (you can’t teach good to be evil), but disallowing the behavior at least keeps the naughty ones in check.

I am one of the first people to say we need to go back to the old days where boys were punished for misbehaving.

43. whitevalkyrie1988 - May 24, 2013

For the record, I disagree that anything can be innate. You have to learn about the world and how to navigate it/create in it/react to it with EMPIRICAL evidence. I do not believe the superstitious nonsense that you can innately be creative, mathematical, homosexual, a fan of the color green, etc.

However, I do believe that you cannot teach certain things because they have to come from WITHIN. That doesn’t mean they are “innate” and they do not have a volitional/conscious way of entering the brain. It just means they do not enter from outside, from someone else’s will.

44. whitevalkyrie1988 - May 24, 2013

“One thing these male scientists and professors can’t do is see without the blinders that this blog has long since dropped.”

I disagree on that as well. They know exactly what they are doing. That’s why the laws and customs were set up in the first place- because they know, consciously, it benefits them. They all knew the Emperor had no clothes, just didn’t admit it aloud…

45. mixelleleigh - May 24, 2013

The way to stunt men’s torture “creativity” is to reject BDSM in all it’s insidious forms. Men incorporate BDSM into fashion, romance, and movies to promote female-hating and violence.

46. SheilaG - May 24, 2013

They have known all along, and intend to keep it this way. Only deluded women keep thinking that there are “a few good men.” Well, no there aren’t. Get over that, and address the issue of women’s liberation on women’s terms alone, no compromise, not bothering to negotiate with the terrorists (men). No need to, waste of time. Women are half the human race, it is our job to wake the sleeping giant worldwide, and that’s what the pigs are afraid of, that’s why radical feminism is such a threat to them. They’ve gotten away with nice guyism for so long, that when you say it is meaningless as a concept and that half the world can wake up and throw them out of the pig pens and into the pit of darkness to be eaten by giant sharp toothed eels, well they fear that. They attack us relentlessly, because they fear our global awakening.

And yes I agree, no more boys will be boys. Boys act up or bully, they should be very harshly punished, and this behavior should be dealt with in a very strict manner. No toys for these boys, no skateboards, no playtime with girls, digging ditches, keeping them laboring until they are worn out and fall into bed, leaving girls to harness creativity, art, and knowledge. We need not waste this on boys at all.

47. femmeforever - May 24, 2013

This headline made me laugh when I read it. If anyone else could use a funny here ya go. (definitely don’t read the listed links at the bottom)


48. whitevalkyrie1988 - May 25, 2013

I want to bad to be a film director. When I get famous, I want to know nothing stands in the way of my creativity, money lust or misogyny, or general love of destruction.

It is true I have found a FEW good men. But only a few. And it’s because I hang out with the right tolerant crowds. But 99.9% are dirt evil, yes, and as a group, they need to be controlled.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: