Intersectionality is not just a word

Old_books

On December 23rd, Eleanor Robertson made a passionate plea in The GuardianIn defence of intersectionality – one of feminism’s most important tools”. She laments that many feminists revile intersectionality as meaningless and appeals to us to recognize the internal importance of the issue.

I agree. There is much to be learned.

Intersectionality is not just a word, it is a word with many letters. Some of those letters are privileged. They are over-represented not only in this word but within language as a general body. While the letters C and Y are acknowledged as oppressed members of the alphabet, as evidenced by their enhanced point value in Scrabble, there are many letters with only a singular occurrence in this word which struggle to be seen as uniquely disadvantaged.

The letters A and I share the distinct privilege of being, in and of themselves, an entire word. Yet we can see with intersectionality that the letter I occurs a whopping three times whilst the letter A struggles to be seen only once and, even then, doesn’t appear until the the word is over half finished… almost as if an afterthought. Obviously the situation is more complex than we thought. Just as white feminists are deemed by some to be advantaged they, like the letter A in this word, have their own unique battles that they fight to expose.

We all know that the letter Y is marginalized. Quite often it only appears tacked on to the end of words and not only does Y suffer from being consistently last, it has the multiple oppression factor of being placed in a suffix.

While we might feel sympathy for the Y at this point, intersectionality reveals more. C and Y’s oppression is alphabetically surpassed by letters such as J, K, Q, X and Z which, as you’ll note, are not even acknowledged in this word at all.
Scrabble has done a wonderful job recognizing the privilege that some letters have over others and, though it tries to counterbalance this injustice by increasing the point value of the most oppressed members of the alphabet, it hasn’t yet been able to address the source of the problem. Where these letters struggle to appear they are inevitably surrounded by the privileged which overshadow them. Consonants can often be seen ganging up in clusters and vowels diphthong, constantly drawing attention to themselves.

The dictionary, obviously, was written by men.

When we look at the segments of intersectionality we can begin to realize how each section is both burdened and dismissed. The root “sectional” must carry the weight that gives meaning to the word but it is nearly smothered by the prefix and suffix placement. “Inter” bears the unique responsibility of introducing the root and yet it is considered to be only a variation of the root and not a word unto itself. While “ity” is only given three letters, it has the onerous task of of transforming the entire word from an adjective into a noun and, as we have discussed, is treated very poorly in return.

The entire class of letters employed in suffixes experience a specific kind of exclusion that other letters will never understand. When “isms” started to proliferate and enjoy a certain kind of notoriety, pop culture struck it down in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

“Ism’s, in my opinion, are not good. A person should not believe in an ‘ism,’ he should believe in himself.”

I’m sure it is no coincidence that film was also written by a man.

The opponents of intersectionality argue that the theory is unproductive and reduces a whole being down to isolated parts. What those people fail to realize is that by breaking down the sectional pieces of identity we create an appreciation for the parts of the sum and increase the individual value of those multiple identities. While men are content to walk about acting like whole people, feminism has recognized that it is only in dissecting the whole and reducing it to miniscule components that can we appreciate the value of what has been lost.

While male-dominated psychiatry has labelled multiple personality as a problematic disorder, feminism is fighting a slow but winning battle to recognize the value of compartmentalizing one’s personality. On a sheer pragmatic level, when you allow sisters of the feminist movement to expand their identities the number of supporters increases exponentially. Where there was previously only one feminist we now have four or five distinct personalities to contend with. While quantity doesn’t trump quality, it’s a good start.

While adapting to non-offensive language that acknowledges this explosion of split-personality rights has complicated communication at the moment, we should recognize that feminism is fixing that. It is obvious that the entire dictionary needs to be overhauled. This is just a difficult time of transition. When the marginalized letters like X, C, and K do stick together the results can be “exciting,” and ass can be “kicked.”

Some feel this vision to be quixotic. Feminists could argue that the word “quioxotic” proves their point. The word employs many oppressed letters and society giving a dismissive meaning to that noble word is both insensitive and, ultimately, corrosive to Social Justice.

Until the letter Q can be used on a daily basis without requiring the accompaniment of a vowel, language, and civilization itself, will continue to be ruled by Patriarchal control.

Eleanor Robertson concludes her article with a warning to the wise. “Far from being some bizarre esoteric theory, intersectionality is alive and kicking all around us, and not just in exclusive ivory tower gender studies clubs. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but there must be some reason pop feminism puts so much effort into repressing a concept that has huge theoretical explanatory power and enormous utility as an organising strategy.”

Intersectionality is gaining ground and the only choice is whether you are on the bus or off the bus. Let’s face it, language has been around for a very long time and the moment has arrived to try something new. Where men have dominated the formation, use, and privileging of some words over others, the elevation of some letters over their companions, and allowed oppressive conjugations, feminists ask us to take a bold but simple step to the side.

Binary thinking about sense and nonsense, right and wrong, meaning and gibberish, has forced linear limits on the accomplishments of large portions of the population. Feminists are determined to give those marginalized segments a voice and they aren’t about to let the dictionary stop them.

I think Reggie Watts summarized the issue best when he said

It’s not so much as so little as to do with what everything is. But it is within our self-interest to understand the topography of our lives unto ourselves. The future states that there is no time other than the collapsation of that sensation of the mirror of the memories in which we are living. Common knowledge, but important nonetheless.

As we face fear in these times – and fear is all around us – we also have anti-fear. It’s hard to imagine, or measure. The background radiation is simply too static to be able to be seen under the normal spectral analysis.

feature image by William Hoiles

Advertisements

Women Don’t Own Sex

passion
Hardly a week goes by without the public being told how rape culture and victim blaming are being perpetrated by ‘the patriarchy’. Monday, September 23, 2013 offered us the mother lode of mythical feminist thinking in the form of Una Mullally in The Irish Times.

It’s not that Una said something unique, it’s that she managed to fit so many fallacies into one article that really makes her applause worthy.

Una begins with criticizing police for advising people to “protect yourself from violence” by exercising caution when meeting people online. The reason for this advisory is that a woman’s bones were discovered and the missing woman seems to have met someone via a dating site on the internet before turning up dead. Apparently this is ‘victim blaming’.

I used to get emails all the time from female friends who wanted to forward me the latest warning on how a man might kidnap me by hiding in the back seat of my parked car at the mall. The warnings always came from female friends and they always had my best interests in mind. I never once emailed them back “how dare you blame me for parking my car!” I did start sending all emails to spam if they had “fw:” in the message line but the proper, civilized response is “Thank you. I’ll pass the message along to everyone I know.”

Una, and her ilk, also need some basic lessons in Crime Solving For Dummies. If you watch television at all you might have come across shows like CSI or Criminal Minds in which they portray rather likable, well-meaning detectives who investigate crimes. The first thing they do is ask apparently bizarre questions like “Who, what, where, when, why… and how?”

The answers to these questions help solve crimes.

When a police force investigates someone’s online dating habits it can lead to information, like the identity of the killer. They can also help divulge the method of death, which can help police link one murder to other murders. While they do this investigative work they sometimes have microphones shoved in their faces asking for a public statement in order to inform the people who write and read the news.

The reason police offer warnings to the public are because the public wants to know how they can avoid showing up as a set of bones on the next news report. They get scared. This information is intended to help them feel safer.

“Societies are in a crisis over how men treat women,” Una claims. Now, this is news to me. Society is in a crisis over international wars, terrorism, bank fraud, the resulting economic collapse, and a general lack of faith in either the press, politicians or ‘God’. Most of the women I know are far more concerned with having a bad hair day and failing to look attractive than in having a day where too many men show them unwanted attention.

She claims “potential attackers are rarely instructed to exercise vigilance.” Yes, Una, they are reminded every day by the fucking law. It’s as illegal to commit a crime today as it was yesterday. They are told to not be violent by being faced with jail if they break the law. If we were to instruct them to “be vigilant” we’d be telling them to not get caught. Yelling at him “that’s illegal, you know!” will not solve the problem. You moron.

“Men, don’t rape” is Una’s next solution. This is part of the whole rape culture myth. For some reason, women, like Una, think that other men are in a unique position to give each other rules about sex. They aren’t. If men want sex from women, women are in the unique position to tell them how to go about achieving their goals. What feminists are doing when they tell men that only they can stop rape is basically like a teacher telling a class of inferiors that she will punish the whole class if they don’t tell her who put tacks on her seat.

According to international law, collective punishment is wrong.

The sentiment embedded in the demand for men to fix women’s problems is the idea that men are the problem. The error of this idea, and it’s not Una’s fault for believing this because feminism has ingrained it into her mind, is that men do not live in this world within a cocoon. Boys are born as helpless babies, just as girls are, and we are mostly raised by women.

Though men appear to rule the world, that is because women treat them like gophers: Go get me stuff.

A man’s worth in our world is not assessed on how much wealth he possesses, it is based on the level of happiness of his woman. Every politician knows he’ll do better if he has a happy wife at his side. Don’t be shallow, ask better questions. Why do men commit crimes? I’ll posit this: because they need more stuff to make a woman happy or because they have been rejected by a woman shaming them for not being good enough and feel they have nothing left to lose. Committing a crime has a penalty. They need a reason to risk that penalty. It’s going to be primal. Think… think… are you with me?

The man is the head of the house but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wants.

Feminists claim that men objectify women but it’s women who think that men are just walking, magical penises and that the penis has the mystical quality of getting them stuff. We’re less concerned with how they get us our stuff than in making sure we get the shit we’re after. One of those things is security so the problem for women is not in how to get men to stop being aggressive, it’s in how to get them to be aggressive but stay out of jail so they can keep providing the stuff that makes us happy.

The problem is not men. Men just want to be loved and respected. What women make them do for that respect is what drives some of them crazy.

“Men, stop hanging your threat of rape over dark streets.” This is Una’s impassioned plea. The streets are only dark if you decide that you have no agency, no power, to affect the world around you. The threat in walking out your door every day exists for both men and women. I’m sorry to inform you, Una, but you could die at any moment. Men face a much greater risk of physical assault every day than women do but they still keep walking out that door.

Being that women are equal, I think we should meet that threat on an equal basis.

What Una claims makes men more culpable is that they all know someone who is “dubious” and goes to strip clubs or pays for sex. Strip clubs are not illegal and I know quite a few women who married for money, so buying sex is apparently quite legal, too, as long as you get the proper paperwork. Una, you and I both know someone who had a baby to avoid having to get a job. You and I both know someone who married a man they didn’t love. Isn’t that just a little bit shady? ‘Dubious behaviour’, perhaps?

Saying that men can stop rape is like telling a driver they can stop all car accidents or investors that they can stop all fraud. Just because men enjoy sex or do it from time to time doesn’t place them in a unique position to police all other participants. Just like Una can’t stop other writers from saying things she disagrees with.

Una claims that “women should be free to talk to whomever they choose and go wherever they want without threat of assault.” That’s bullshit. No one is free to do that. A person is free to leave their home every day and enter the world of the unknown and they should be assured that if something bad happens society will come to their aid to help them heal. Unfortunately, women are not given this freedom because feminists are hell bent on maximizing the pain and trauma of every female experience.

They are busy convincing women who don’t even know if they’ve been raped to call it rape. If you aren’t sure: it didn’t happen. If the woman doesn’t know, how the hell is the guy supposed to have known? They tell women it’s a terrible thing and that they should go to support groups where they relive the pain over and over and over again until all they are is a rape victim. Some of these girls didn’t even know they were raped and could have moved on but now it’s their lifelong identity and they’ll never get over it. What kind of sick fucks are you?

We have become indoctrinated to believe that rape is the worst crime that can be committed. How the hell did that happen? I can think of a bunch of things that are worse: Murder, having my fingers cut off one at a time while I watch, having my limbs disconnected, waking up in an abandoned house with a tape recorder saying “Hello, Diana, I want you to make a choice…” The list can go on. I’ve seen a lot of films. I’ve been raped so that’s not fiction, but my mind (perhaps more creative than that of feminists) can imagine worse scenarios.

Some rapes are extremely violent, leaving women beaten and in hospital with damage to their reproductive organs. These crimes are not just rapes, they are brutal physical assaults that never go unreported and no one laughs. A man can end up with lifelong damage from getting kicked in the groin yet this is comedy to women. While feminists claim that a woman who is drunk can’t consent, they don’t want to address the problem that drunk women can become so sexually aggressive they assault men. I have a friend who has serious problems after a fall-down drunk friend he was trying to keep safe by taking her home grabbed his testicles in a sexual advance, squeezing so hard he had to go to the hospital. This guy wasn’t trying to rape her, he was trying to keep her from having sex.

Drunk girls are not fun and they are not weak.

Drunk women are responsible if they decide to drive themselves home and get in an accident while doing so. They are equally responsible if they make the decision to have sex. I hear Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is a crazy ass bunch of sisters if you try to challenge them on that.

While feminists claim that a rape culture exists which ‘normalizes’ rape, I insist that a feminist culture exists that ‘rape-ifies’ normal sex. The definition of rape has now been expanded to include when a woman doesn’t say no but thinks it, when a woman decides that sex didn’t go the way she wanted, when a woman has had a few drinks, when a woman is woken up with sex after falling asleep next to a man she has previously had sex with and decided to stay in the bed… The list will continue to grow until we stop it.

Perhaps this is too much information but, for me, sex is my favorite way to wake up. Men have every right to believe that a woman sleeping in the bed next to them is going to be happily awoken. If you don’t want sex, don’t sleep in their fucking bed. We are not children here.

Women don’t own sex, it’s something people do together. It requires communication. Women don’t like it when men lie to them to get sex and men don’t like it when women lie either. It happens both ways. “Yes, I’ll use a condom” or “Yes, I’m on birth control.” There is no one-sided game, it can happen to either gender. If a woman lies with her body language and her actions she is raping the man. Sex is not a written contract. It is something that only the people present can attest to, it happens organically, intuitively and it is something over which people can make mistakes. Men don’t need need an ’emphatic yes’ to avoid rape, you need to give them an emphatic ‘no’. If you think you didn’t have the option to say ‘stop’, you are wrong.

The original case in discussion with Una Mallally’s article (before she made it a rape culture issue) was a woman who decided to go to a fetish site (note that a woman ‘normalized’ SM fetishes with her book Fifty Shades of Grey, probably influencing the dead woman’s choices) and met with someone who ended up killing her. What we don’t know, and don’t need to know, is whether or not the murder was the prime objective or whether the fetish scene accidentally led to her death and the partner tried to cover it up. That’s a job for the police. What we do know is that meeting people in real life whom you only know from online is a dangerous prospect and that the police warnings are extremely good advice.

Women are not free to exit their doors and expect to return safely any more than men are. Every day you wake up and exit the house be happy that you are alive and be happy when you return safely. In the meantime, there are many things you can do to reduce your anxiety: choose to be fearless, choose to be cautious, choose to not leave your house… or the fifty shades of grey in between. The choice is yours and no one is taking that away from you. Women and men both face this risk but, for some reason, only women seem intent on blaming men for all their problems.

Also posted on A Voice For Men

Victim Nation

I’m a little bit late reposting this as I was on vacation in a place with poor internet but will follow up shortly with this week’s new instalment. Two for the price of one. Almost.

Victim concept.

Author’s note: This article is based on the work of Dr. Ofer Zur and his attempt to draw attention to the need of studying victim-hood in order to help both victims and perpetrators. All quotes are from his paper on the subject, linked both above and at the end of the article. His work on the subject is available on his website and offers an excellent list of suggested further reading.

Culture has always tried to define its advancement on scales of morality. Superior morality has an unfortunate need for inferiors against which to measure and so we love to both judge and condemn in the personal pursuit of happiness. Such games have reached the status of entertainment in the modern world.

With each generation’s goal of raising the ‘quality’ of society by removing identified immoral elements the Western world in particular has ‘advanced’ to a point where more than 100% of society are deemed victims and we all want justice. We have become a Victim Nation scouring under rocks to find more people to blame.

Everybody wants to be a victim because if you’re not the victim you’re the bad guy.

Social justice organizations pop up daily like rodents in a carnival Whac-A-Mole. Every right they fight for assumes that right was denied through oppression and, invariably, requires a cloak of victimhood to gain sympathy. The inequality that victimhood claims to fight becomes an essential element of the movement to the point of embrace.

“Ironically, the rights movement often victimizes one group while liberating another. What seems to be a noble, justified, long overdue act of protecting a victim can easily turn to blame and warfare. When this happens, conflict, injustice, and victimization are perpetuated, and the possibility of resolution and healing is destroyed.”

Equality has become the focus of social justice for the last two decades. We are no longer content to accept that people are born with different characteristics and skill sets which make some stand out as leaders and others remain followers. While leadership is a desired quality, anything that makes someone different is no longer seen as good, it has become a source of evil. “In this Western worldview, inequalities and differences are often associated with injustice and victimization.”

It doesn’t require an act of injustice to make some people more or less fortunate. All it takes is birth. Inequality has always existed in many forms and will continue to exist. The social justice presumption is that inequality can be eliminated by somehow training or forcing people to become blind to nature. By removing some words from the dictionary we can make the concepts they represent disappear along with the descriptive tool.

We all know quality when we see it but we can’t say what causes quality to exist or exactly what makes one thing better than another. But we do know it when we see it. We also know that some ice cream is better than others but we haven’t asked Häagen-Dazs® to cease and desist.

If you carry the social justice principles to their conclusion we end up with some hilarious and disturbing results.

As long as someone in the world can’t read no one should write books. As long as there is someone without footwear none of us should go shoe shopping. As long as there is someone who can’t get a $200 haircut we should all use a Flowbee® or, as long as there is a bald man, we should all shave our heads.

When feminism fought against victim blaming they had some things right but they got the solution wrong. Dr. Zur describes this second approach as one which “also concentrates on blame; however it lays all blame entirely on men. This approach has been promoted by a brand of feminism, which holds the male dominated patriarchal system responsible for all the evils in the world. Whether the issue is wars and politics, domestic violence and sexual abuse, toxic dumps and the corporations, or nuclear weapons and the military industrial complex, the finger is pointed at men as the culprits. At the heart of this approach is the split between men’s aggressive and violent nature and women’s inherent goodness.”

Where there is good there must be evil. To feminists, women are good and men are the only convenient target to label as the evil enemy. The characterization of men as inherently violent and beastly is essential to maintaining the victim class of all women. While they insist that it’s not men they are fighting it’s the “patriarchy,” their plight is reduced unless the perpetrator is tangible. Patriarchy can’t be put in jail.

The insubstantial nature of the feminist foe makes feminism weak so every male crime with a female victim is hauled into the public media court to make the enemy flesh and blood. Patriarchy is the name but individual men are the bodies to be held accountable. To feminists, every man who commits a crime is an example of male oppression of women, while female criminals are called bizzarities and declarations ensue that “that never happens.”

“These two approaches of blame have not only failed to resolve the violence and suffering but in fact, as Zur’s paper explains, have tended to perpetuate and exacerbate them.”

If victimhood mentality doesn’t help women or society, why does it continue?

Personal benefit. Aside from the sense of moral superiority that they glean by being victims, feminists need resolution for a bigger problem: they have no justification to exist unless they have victims to save, a foe to blame, and a cause to write about. Feminists want to exist. They may be obnoxious but their stupidity is calculated.

“The culture of victimization is closely tied to what Amitai Etzioni (1987), a sociologist at Georgetown University, called the ‘rights industry.’” Among other service industries, psychotherapists and lawyers also stand to benefit from perpetual victimhood. They are the cheerleaders in an un-winnable game and as long as the game goes on they keep getting paid.

“In claiming the status of victim and by assigning all blame to others, a person can achieve moral superiority while simultaneously disowning any responsibility for one’s behavior and its outcome. The victims ‘merely’ seek justice and fairness. If they become violent, it is only as a last resort, in self-defense. The victim stance is a powerful one. The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy.”

Responsibility takes a lot of hard work and strength of character. It is not an innate skill, it’s learned… but not in Women’s Studies classes. Women are not born in a glass box, it is built around them by misguided ideology. Where feminists claim to liberate women by convincing them they are oppressed, all they’ve done is to teach women how to blame their personal failures on external sources. While it sells many books, blame has never built a house.

As unhelpful as feminism has been with their obsession over externalizing personal failure and inadequacy, they have successfully intimidated others into supporting their ill-conceived ideas. They’ve turned it into a fad. It’s the new black.

“The blame-victim approach is not confined to the rights or recovery movement. It is also at the heart of the legal system’s approach, which attempts to respond to injustice and violations by identifying and prosecuting the perpetrators and compensating the victims (Sykes, 1992; Hughes, 1993). The faulty part of this legal approach is the focus on simplistic, linear, short term, and face-value justice.”

Dr. Ofer Zur took a chance with his research. He notes that “[v]ery few writers have warned against the unrealistic and ultimately patronizing portrayal of victims of crime as total innocents” and admonishes that is it is a grave error to continue down the road that’s being paved.

“We have become a nation of victims, where everyone is leapfrogging over each other, publicly competing for the status of victim, and where everyone is defined as some sort of survivor.”

When victimhood is rewarded there will be no incentive for people to heal. While victims do exist and victimizers should be punished, the definition of what constitutes a crime expands exponentially to keep up with the number of self-identified victims. We now measure our status by how oppressed we are and can take a test to find out if our “privilege” is low enough to give us a voice.

The reason people only hear men’s anger and not their pain is that men’s pain competes with the pain of women. It’s harder to be taken seriously as a victim when your supposed victimizer is crying. Meanwhile, anger sounds oppressive and violent which lends to the promise of reinforcing the victim status of women as long as people only listen to the “tone” and not the content. That’s why A Voice For Men is constantly being criticized for tone instead of content.

As Zur says, “To understand better the dynamics of violent systems, we must first free ourselves from the binds of politically correct thinking.” Violence exists in both male and female form and as long as women continue their role in the cycle immune from criticism the entire system will endure. It’s not the tone that is the problem.

The MHRM is not engaged in a battle for victimhood champion, we are fighting to eliminate that victimhood mentality which is blocking true, positive social change. The MHRM is seeking to end the proliferation of false victimhood so that people can go about living truly empowered and healthy lives.

“An individual or group can win the battle, become the victim of the year, yet lose the war.”

Men have traditionally fought all the wars and taken on the main burdens of survival. They have built structured societies and put the very systems of government and justice in place to which feminists have turned to play their victim cards. Men have shouldered the responsibility of doing all those things and been so gracious about their possible mistakes they’ve allowed themselves to be turned into the enemy. Until now.

Feminism made a mistake when they picked a war with men. If someone saves you from a burning building you don’t accuse him of grabbing your ass while he carried you over his shoulder. What you might do is to hope you can save him right back if he ever needs your assistance.

But the victims of the world are all too busy feeling sorry for themselves to have thought of that.

Source: Rethinking ‘Don’t Blame the Victim’: The Psychology of Victimhood, by Ofer Zur, Ph.D.

Also posted on A Voice For Men

Cult-ivating Feminism

Cult-tivating

The concept of Women’s Studies for the benefit of women has always amused me. I don’t need to research what it means to be a woman. I’ve got a pretty good grip on that subject and I’ve always been completely content defining it for myself.

When I was nine my mother brought home two books by an author named Judy Blume. I got the story about girls on the cusp of puberty and my brother got the one for boys. Gee, Mom, thanks. Half an hour after lights out I heard “pssst” and saw my brother at the other end of the hall.

“When you’re done with your book can we swap?”

Fucking right dude. We both powered our way to a trade off by the end of the next day. I’ve always been more keenly interested in what it’s like to be a man for the simple reason that I’m not one. It’s a more natural curiosity.

To grasp what men experience I would actually need lessons. If I’d been offered Men’s Studies as an option I would have camped out all night so I could be the first to sign up. What kind of a racket is this to offer courses on how to be your own gender? Anyone with  a strong sense of personality who would choose to specialize in the curriculum of themselves should be tested for narcissism. It’s a matter of having true interest in the world around you or being trapped in the universe of yourself, so let’s drop the ruse.

Women’s Studies is a cult developed by feminism and as such is not a legitimate academic field. Women who can’t pass by a mirror without looking at their reflection soon find themselves in a classroom full of other self absorbed recruits ready to be brainwashed into vile and angry advocates of victimhood.

Let the lessons begin.

Students straggle slowly into the lecture hall milling about long enough to assess each others wardrobes. They show off their designer pumps and waggle their backsides before perching on a seat.

Two hundred dollars of luscious hair is flipped over a shoulder and fluorescent teeth smugly flash in contrast to a spray-on tan. Across the aisle from Barbie Girl, Hippy Nature Chick plops down with her make-up free face and thrift store threads. They smile at each other and both think “Bitch.”

As rumours circulate within idle brains the murmuring of loose lips is silenced by metallic caster wheels scraping against the hardwood floor at the front of the room. The professor arrives and directs her assistants as they roll in a large tarp-covered curiosity. There are strange, frightfully feral sounds coming from under the canvas and the wheels grind to a halt at centre stage. Dramatic entrance accomplished. The curtains quiver. Our master of ceremonies launches into her prologue.

“Today marks a new phase in your life. Never again will you see the world in the same way. Unlike the typical platform of the Patriarchal educational system, this course interactively breaks from tradition by encouraging women to become active knowers instead of passive recipients of knowledge.” Her heels click confidently as she strides from one side of the hidden display to the other. The students shift uncomfortably as a guttural growl emanates from beneath the cover.

“Behold!” With great flourish and bravado the professor whisks away the tarp to reveal a naked, snarling woman in a cage. The students gasp. The she-beast rattles the bars and with ferocious untamed eyes issues a primal roar.

Even Nature Girl is afraid.

“This, my innocent and naive friends, is Woman as the male Patriarchy would have us. Caged and oppressed without a shred of dignity or refinement. If not for the efforts of our Feminist foremothers, all of us would be this degraded thing you see before you.”

Spray tan girl starts to cry.

The professor breaks the teacher/student boundaries, reaching out to solidify the sisterhood. She pats the poor child’s shoulder and acknowledges their shared trauma. Instructions follow to gather in fours and conduct a healing group hug. The wild thing in the cage skitters from side to side and tilts her head with bewilderment.

“Men have put this woman in her cage!” The professor proclaims, drawing attention back to the problem at hand as the class returns to their chairs. Her converts nod, damp eyed and supple from their group touch experience. “Thankfully we, as mirrors for each other, can regain our self-respect and choose a better life.” A hand-mirror is produced from inner lab coat pocket and presented to the now whimpering creature behind the bars. Tears roll silently down cheeks as the she-beast screams at the sight of herself and she retreats to the far corner of her cage to shiver in shame. The professor sighs and beckons reassuringly with an outstretched palm. The creature sidles back to the bars and nuzzles against the loving hand that strokes her mussed-up hair into a semblance of order.

As the cooing and petting proceeds a singular penis burdened student who’d been hiding in a dark corner of the classroom tentatively raises his hand. The tender eyes of the professor turn to ice as she whips her gaze around as a spotlight until it settles on his vile imperfection. His hand trembles mid-air and he clears his throat awkwardly.

“Um, excuse me but, didn’t you…”

He falters at the sights of daggers shooting from her eyes but presses on, “…didn’t youput her in the cage?”

Jaws drop as the entire class turns in his direction. The professor raises a finger in case anyone wasn’t sure where they were supposed to be looking and points it directly at the boy’s forehead in a laser beam of loathing.

“That is exactly what the Patriarchy wants you to believe! Haven’t you taken the prerequisite courses?!” Her lab coat flutters as she strides over to stand towering above the young man’s cowering body. “Let me see your transcripts.”

He pats the empty pockets of his jacket unable to comply and begins to question the line of reasoning that led him to enroll in this course. It had seemed like a good idea at the time.

“Just as I suspected. Remove yourself from my classroom this instant!” The professor spins on her heel and dismissively clacks her way back to front stage. The boy quickly fumbles books into his backpack and stumbles his way to the exit. He pauses, trying to make sense of his circumstances.

“But, I mean, how long has she been in that cage? Surely just since this morning.” The words trail from his lips as he realizes his mistake too late.

A hundred rage-filled women pull out their cell phones with a flurry of clicks and whirs. The Twitterverse thrums in anticipation. Digital death drums at his doorstep with each tapping of painted fingernails on touch screen displays. Within seconds his first day of learning about the world of women becomes his last and he slumps away in defeat.

The mood has lifted as the professor restores order to the lecture hall. “This has been an extraordinarily emotional day for us all. Let us spend the rest of the class discussing how to help this poor creature regain her natural environment. Next week I will be giving her a credit card, an IKEA catalogue, and we’ll help her do some online shopping at Macy’s.” The professor beams approvingly at the relieved sighs and uplifted spirits of her new recruits.

End class.

Cults don’t just prey on the weak. They have slick campaigns and convincing literature. They begin with generalizations and constructed scenarios which start within the range of the believable and take you somewhere you’d never have gone had you seen the end goal in advance. Each year of study takes you a heavier footstep down the pink bricked road to radicalization.

Women’s Studies is not a career path. For the same cost as a degree in something that might provide you with an income, they will sell you a point of view. It doesn’t teach you a trade, it indoctrinates you into the feminist world agenda of ensuring it’s own future existence.

You don’t need them, they need you.

These courses do not come at a reduced price for lack of usefulness and the first year of Women’s Studies is designed to ensure you will never question the high fees you are paying to learn nothing.

“The first problem for all of us, men and women, is not to learn, but to unlearn.” ~ Gloria Steinem

Brainwashing works best on an empty mind.

also posted on A Voice For Men

The Boardroom Bitches

decaying-flying-donut

There are a few things women adore quoting until it’s not convenient. “Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, backwards and in high heels.” Another favourite is the idea that “behind every great man is a great woman.” Women just love to brag about how easily they manipulate men but don’t let that concept interfere with their brutal theory of Patriarchy.

Honesty just isn’t convenient sometimes. If you consider it both briefly and in depth, it is much more pleasing to control events from the background while letting men place themselves at public risk. According to women, they have historically pulled the strings of men while men took all the responsibility for the consequences of those actions. If you look closely at a woman’s blank face when the shit hits the fan you will usually find a subtle half hidden smile behind a look of innocence while she feigns shock and disdain. Like a child with her hollow, practiced eyes asking “Who? Me?”

So, Ms. Rogers, what about your uncanny ability to do everything backwards? Women have demanded the right to enter the classic domain of men: the workplace.

Feminists insist that we are capable of doing everything a man can do and we can do it better. When we don’t do it better it’s because men had the environment rigged to our disadvantage. Where did those high heels go? Remember dear Woxan, you can do everything backwards and in your sleep. Don’t like the crude jokes? Don’t like kissing ass to get ahead? Don’t like being ordered around like a toddler? So then, at what point did you find evidence that men never navigated the same odorous oceans just to put lard in you larder and a new SIM card in your iPhone?

Alice Schwarzer debated with Esther Vilar, and made her case for the oppressive life of the housewife. If the husband comes home exhausted and drained, worried about his career not going anywhere, she then has the onerous task of having to give him courage again, saying “Oh Darling! But you are so brave!”

To Schwarzer, and her feminist posse, this expectation stands out as a subtle abuse of the female psyche. Oddly, when a woman asserts her workplace is asking too much of her, she totters back on her high heels as society grinds to a halt. With a smirk on her powdered face she claps her hands as the government raids their coffers to bail her out. Then of course, the entire workplace is forced to change to support her emotional needs.

So how have women improved our workplace? Sure, they can do it all but they can’t do it without cryinghuggingbullying each other, or suing their workmates until “sensitivity training” became an industry unto itself. Feminists have proudly developed and grown a wide range of employment sectors based solely on catering to their emotional workplace requirements while simultaneously claiming they can do everything a man can do. That is some fancy footwork indeed, and I agree it is quite backwards.

Of course, the argument goes that making the workplace a blubbering emotional roller coaster with the occasional twist of sociopathic bling has somehow improved productivity. Recently I watched a battery of these gynaecological wonders ejecting their target male out of a position of management. They were busy self-congratulating when I asked the awkward question:

“What are you going to do if they replace him with a woman?”

A sudden, fearful silence resulted. Ahhh, they hadn’t planned that far ahead.

I don’t claim to be the voice of reason here, I only pay attention to the circus because it’s highly entertaining. Despite cries of unfair stereotyping, we women are the first to admit amongst ourselves that working for men is a much easier task. Women are high maintenance, trust me.

I have no doubt that women aspire to be seen as compassionate, life giving, creative, and nurturing by virtue of their nature. We care a great deal about how we are viewed. However, there is a big difference to how you are perceived and how you really are. If you believe what Schwarzer said, then that means being supportive of others, including your life partner, is a lot of hard work for women. Thus, it’s not our nature after all is it?

Feminists thrive on presenting women as the helpless child. They cheerlead their own methods of making life easier for women by blaming it all on men because, with infantile ineptitude, they believe all of our flaws stem from an outside source.

To believe the droll quotes they are so fond of, you must forget that men are controlled by the women in their lives. Only then can we see that feminists are hiding behind their myth of “Patriarchy” to explain their own shortcomings. They can’t work in the same building with a man unless the man has completed a “sensitivity” training course on how women expect him to behave. Women don’t want to learn how to use wit and savvy to stand their ground when it’s more convenient to eliminate all social challenges. Why have a sense of humour when it’s so much easier to just get someone else fired?

Women ask for your indulgence and special attention, but indulgence usually comes at a cost. Sometimes that price tag reflects the value, but sometimes it would have been better spent in a condom dispenser. A woman claiming she can handle the workplace is often as deceiving as her assertion that she is on the pill while strategically forgetting to take her daily dose. While feminists struggle to expand ownership of their sexuality they insist on punishing those who view them sexually. While they insist they are tough enough to stand high-heel to workboot, they want the workplace to adapt to their feminine needs.

Might we dare to ask ourselves if they are serving the greater good or just fucking with us?

If women want to dance in the boardroom they don’t need high heels, they don’t need a fluffer for their crying pillows, and they don’t need a donut shaped conch to pass from bitch to bitch; they need to get a backbone and stop expecting to be treated like vulnerable children playing at being grown-ups.

In the dystopian boardroom of the Woxan world everyone joins the circle and holds hands. They take a moment to affirm the beauty of their inner spiritual selves. “Repeat after me,” their metronome leader conducts, “I am divine. People like me. I radiate perfection and bring a unique light to the world around me.” This mantra fills the room in a self-reverent chant until it reaches a crescendo and shudders to a quiet sigh.

The clock ticks, but they have learned that time robs. That clock on the wall is an evil man-device used by “the Patriarchy” to control the creative energy of the female. The circle collapses because they seat their royal behinds and whip out a tit. Those with present offspring suckle the infant served to their laps by male attendants. These men display the appropriate reverence for this basic life-giving task and acknowledge their inability to produce the required mammalian bodily fluids while averting their eyes in shame.

Before reviewing the quarterly stats the Woxen take a moment to complete any unfinished tasks that might disrupt their ability to multi-task. Once the phone calls are completed and their make-up repaired in ever-handy compact mirrors stashed within purses, it is announced that business is hovering at a happy medium somewhere between “good” and “fulfilling.” In celebration they pass around a tray full of unfertilized eggs and ceremoniously hurl them at a new male intern who dutifully steps forward to receive their blessings. The ritual is complete, the roses hit the stage and the lights dim. The meeting is proclaimed to be a success for the mere fact that it happened.

Surely I jest? I wish it were the case. While the modern Woxan waxes poetic and moans about the growing “Peter Pan” epidemic, the concern is that young men are spending their time playing video games while women buckle down and do the hard work of shopping. Men are simply slacking off with their duty to marry a woman who will strip them of their dreams and laden them with guilt for not placing her materialistic goals above his own happiness.

Feminism has staked its claim: It wants women to have greater access to more stuff. It wants to improve the purchasing power of women under the guise that owning shit makes you happy. In order to accomplish this, women didn’t tackle the job of competing for resources, they have simply demanded the resources lay themselves at their pedicured feet. Women haven’t gotten bored of pleasing men, they got bored of waiting for men to please them.

We now live in a world in which if you take the time to actually ask a man what his dreams are he will probably speak to you of his fractured sleeping pattern. He has long since forgotten what it means to have a dream.

It’s time for us to meet in a different boardroom. We need to stop being in the business of shutting down dreams for the sake of trying to dance backwards and sideways in six inch stilettos.

My dream keeps me awake at night. How well do you sleep?

Also posted on avoiceformen.com