image/poster is from here

Historically in the White West, Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are three political-economic solutions for arriving at an equal, fair, and moral society. Just one problem: none of them accomplish this, especially with regard to women. None of them, as theorised and practiced by white men--regardless of the white men's ideological identities and affiliations, factor women as anything other than beings that exist to serve men, or workers who exist to serve the State. While Capitalism typically exploits women's sexuality, encouraging sex to be paid work; Communism typically exploits women's labor, pretending her gender-class isn't subordinated to men through sex and work. Engels tried to theorise on the matter of women in society, and failed miserably. Catharine A. MacKinnon analyses what is missing from Marxist theory in her book Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. 

Ward Churchill, a white man and batterer who is seen by some as an American Indian, discusses how Marxism fails to centralise the political and social well-being and survival of Indigenous people.

I have yet to encounter white men's theories and practices that set as a priority the liberation of women of all colors from male supremacy, economic exploitation, and men's sexual terrorism. I am not pro-Capitalism, pro-Socialism, or pro-Communism for these reasons and more. I don't believe money economies will free anyone or bring about sustainable living predicated on the value of spirit, not the worth of money.

What you will read below are the mental offerings of a WHM who goes by two names on Yahoo Answers: Unisom and Die Hard PC Parrot. He either makes up or finds a made up quote [not] by Catharine MacKinnon, and believes she is a Communist. Once he makes this inaccurate statement, using a quote she never wrote or said, others weigh in on the matter of whether feminism and communism are one and the same political phenomenon.

This post examines the logical phallusy presented by Unisom, and, with supporting quotes from him, make the case that what many anti-feminism, "anti-misandrist" men claim radical feminists think and feel is, rather, what many men who are both woman-hating and man-hating think and feel.

As you can observe below and from many other posts on A.R.P., there is an abundance of actively anti-feminist men online who project their own hatreds onto radical feminists, and pretend those women are "the enemy" because they carry such awful assumptions about men. That men carry these same assumptions, and have, for centuries, well before "radical feminism" existed as we know it in the last forty or so years, appears not to matter to these men.

Below, you'll notice that it is an anti-feminist and otherwise bigoted man who carries precisely those assumptions attributed to radical feminists, except here he reveals them as his own. Whether it's being pro-rape in some circumstances, or pro-murder of women by men, or pro-murder of men by women, he reveals what most men have learned to not so overtly display in many-gender social environments that pretend to value being humane. Many of his views are as vile as they are obnoxious. They reveal a person who seems to have little grounding in reality, little understanding of feminism, and a gross contempt for most for humanity generally. The only group of humans he seems to show repeated compassion for is heterosexual men who are under six feet tall. (I'm not kidding.)

When this particular anti-feminist does get around to quoting a radical feminist, he gets the quote very wrong, and shows that he hasn't even read the one page of text he's quoting from (and he cites the misquote!). We begin with a series of comments from this woman-hating and man-hating person called Unisom, also known as Die Hard PC Parrot, on Yahoo Answers.

Unisom asked a question "Gender difference: Most educated women live on the cloud while their male counterpart live on the ground?"

"Some men (over 6 feet or rich) get much more than average man share of women. Or some women are serial polyandry by being hookers" -- Die Hard PC Parrot, aka Unisom

Toto is once again engaging with silly if determined-to-make-all-men-look-bad men on Yahoo Answers. Thank you Toto for alerting me to the latest clear case of "a misinformation campaign" designed to discredit feminists who are, in fact and in practice, human rights activists trying to alleviate the suffering of women who are oppressed by men in grossly and abusively male supremacist societies.

The answer to "Who in the world is Die Hard PC Parrot?", with many examples of his racist, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, misogynist, and anti-feminist questions, answers, and colleagues on Yahoo Answers, appear below. But first, let's get right on with his recent question, which Toto answers in a way that makes the questioner look like a Die Hard Patriarchally Correct Parrot.

• 
  
  by In With a Meh

  why does you always say one IN the same? it used to be AND. that makes more sense. think about it.

  • 15 hours ago

  
  
• 
  
  by peterdou...

  Well, obviously she is/was a Marxist Feminist, and can't be taken to be speaking for all Feminists, most of whom do not link Feminism with Socialism or Communism.
  
  Even so, she got it wrong: Socialism, according to Marxist theory, is just a stage on the road to Communism, which you don't get until the State "withers away." With Socialism, you still have a State.
  
  Marx and Engels worked together on the Communist Manifesto, and Engels was a Feminist. So it is not surprising that some modern Feminists are Marxists.
  
  Any social structure in preexisting society (such as marriage or the family) is likely to be seen by revolutionaries (such as Marxists or radical Feminists) as an obstacle that needs to be abolished, so that new structures can be set up.

  
  
• 
  
  by Rio Madeira

  That's what she thinks. I can combine feminism and libertarianism.

  
  
• 
  
  by Toto Gotawa

  Below I describe exactly how your entire argument is built on a house of cards, cards loaded with great inaccuracies, at the most basic level, including the spelling of her name.
  
  First of all, the top quote above is not on page 10 or any other page of Catharine MacKinnon's book Towards A Feminist Theory of the State. Instead, in that very book, MacKinnon harshly critiques Marxism, including how it devalues women's work in the home as not actual work. (Quotes provided below in this reply.) Have you read the book? Because that's so clear it puzzles me how you could miss that. Anyone can do a phrase and word search of the entire text at the URL provided below. You may also read all of page ten there. I'll offer quotes to support my argument, from page 10:
  
  "Feminist observations of women's situation in socialist countries, though not conclusive of the contribution of marxist theory to understanding women's situation, have supported the feminist theoretical critique. [If you read the whole chapter, or even the entire page, it is extremely clear she is saying that marxism is inadequate to remedy the oppression of women by men: marxism, in practice in Communist or in Socialist countries, fails to accomplish this. She goes on:] In the feminist view, socialist countries have solved many social problems--women's subordination not included. The criticism is not that socialism has not automatically liberated women in the process of transforming production (assuming that this transformation is occurring)."
  
  [Also on page 10:]
  "The basic feminist criticism is that these countries do not make a priority of working to change women's status relative to men that distinguishes them from nonsocialist societies in the way that their pursuit of other goals distinguishes them. Capitalist countries value women in terms of their "merit" by male [supremacist] standards; in socialist countries women seem invisible except in their capacity as "workers." This term seldom includes the work that remains distinctive service to men, regardless of the politics of those men: housework, prostitution and other sexual servicing, childbearing, childrearing. Sexual violence is typically barely mentioned."
  
  [Also from page 10:]
  "When women's labor or militancy suits the needs of emergency [of men's military emergencies, such as in the U.S. during and following WWII], she is suddenly man's equal, only to regress when the urgency recedes. Feminists do not argue that it means the same to women to be on the bottom in a feudal system, a capitalist regime, and a socialist regime. the commonality is that, despite real changes [and real differences in each] bottom is bottom." [The point is that in societies that are or have been feudal, capitalist, or communist, none have ever valued women as equals to men and have all treated women as inferior.]
  
  [Also from page 10:]
  "Where such attitudes and practices come to be criticized, as in Cuba or China, changes appear gradual and precarious, as they do in capitalist countries, even where the effort looks major." [End of quotation of C. A. MacKinnon's writing on page 10.]
  
  Second, Catharine MacKinnon was never a president of N.O.W. Where did you get your very easily verified information, and can you get back to the person or website to tell them it's grossly inaccurate? Here is a list of all the presidents of NOW from start to present, from NOW's own website. (URL provided below)
  
  Betty Friedan, Aileen Hernandez, Wilma Scott Heide, Karen DeCrow, Eleanor Smeal, Judy Goldsmith, Molly Yard, Patricia Ireland, Kim Gandy, and currently Terry O'Neill.
  
  Third, taking quotes out of context, and including misquotes--making up things that someone never wrote or said--is a poor way to build a case that what you're discussing has any validity, merit, or is worth engaging with in any serious manner. Arguments prepared this way make someone appear to be very ignorant rather than knowledgeable on the subject at hand.
  
  Fourth, Lenin ruled a very large country. Catharine MacKinnon rules no country, state, or organisation--including NOW. She commands no military or police forces, governs no land, and has no authority to do anything that State commanders can do. To compare a past totalitarian Communist leader of Russia to a contemporary U.S. feminist writer, lecturer, Constitutional law professor and attorney, and human rights activist, is to not understand the meaning of the term "fair comparison."

  Source(s):

  http://books.google.com/books?id=Shn5xHywtHIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mackinnon,+toward+a+feminist+theory+of+the+state&hl=en&ei=GuxvTKC1AsKC8gb6yNTxDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
  
  http://www.now.org/history/past_presidents.html

Here is some information about the Parrot of Patriarchal Correctness, only using information he himself provides on Yahoo Answers. Absolutely no "digging around in the dirt" was required to unearth what was found. Just click on his name on Yahoo Answers: it's all there.

• 45 - Male - Montreal, Quebec
  
  
  2 months ago

And here are many more of his questions and answers to life. Some of what follows has been copied and pasted above, to highlight some of his preposterous views.

• 
  

  Unisom answered a question "what is some of the feminist biggest fear?"

  
  

  Masculist Revolution.
  Posted at 7 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Are women tamed by the type of beeting and ownership you give them in bed.?"

  
  

  Yes, esp. Masochistic women like you.
  Posted at 8 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Are mesomorphic women least desired?"

  
  

  It's the Misandristomorphic type that is. (a.k.a. Andrea-Dworkinomorphic type)
  Posted at 10 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Why is it that when two drunk adults have?"

  
  

  Brilliant, yet I think it's more than Kafkaesque nighmare, rather, it's feministed Stalinism comes to United Soviet of Anti-Men (USA), where at anytime a man can be thrown to jail. Few years ago, I've heard a black man on TV rant that "…
  Posted at 10 hrs ago Posted to
• 
  
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Okay fella's, don't you think that's enough?"

  
  

  No, it never enough, manginas as you have been one of the main culprits of Draconian Oppression of Men . Wait till the Masculist Revolution, baby! The reason you get laid easy because you are 6 feet tall or more, please admit it! You have more than your …
  Posted at 10 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom asked a question "Men wear Bras so women can go topless: Can you be more feministed than these men?"

  
  

  http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/men-wear-bras-so-women-can-go-topless/19590056 Excerpt: ".... male supporters of the cause will show their support by wearing bras and bikinis...........…
  Posted at 12 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Opinions... Are women by nature monogamous while men are polygamous?"

  
  

  Since ratio of men/ women are 49/51, mathematically it is impossible for such conjecture to happen, except that : Some men (over 6 feet or rich) get much more than average man share of women. Or some women are serial polyandry by being hookers or have m…
  Posted at 12 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Ladies, do you enjoy showing cleavage?"

  
  

  Ha ha ha, the fervent Jewish feminist Rio now have a change of heart & confess to being dependent on Patriarchy Approval! Ha Ha Rio, get back to the Synagogue & be a good Orthodox Judaist Ashkenazim woman! Now march!...Thy shall pray G_d for being the C…
  Posted at 12 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Which Women Do You Find To Be The Most Gold Digging? Asian? White? Black? Hispanic?"

  
  

  Depend on her morality & the depth of her swallowing of Misandry Propagandas.
  Posted at 12 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom asked a question "Feminist: do you know who pay for the US war in Iraq?"

  
  

  Guess what? The hated "Patriarchy China", to the tune of 1 TRILLIONS DOLLARS! Uncle Sam , after years of Anti-Male Laws & Policy, now no longer capable of funding its own war, even its side effect is to liberate Oppress Muslim Sisters! In the …
  Posted at 13 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom asked a question "Viagra or Meat protein, which one is more effective?"

  
  

  Ladies, don't feed your spouse too much meat, lobsters or shrimps...after a good night sleep, in the morning, his gun would be at 3' o'clock position all day long. That's my experience. Viagra, IMO, is only for men who suffered from Heart…
  Posted at 13 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "is PMS a mental illness?"

  
  

  It's a temporary insanity for some women. It produce 2 problems: -If a women on PMS get hallucinated, she may claim Sexual Harassment, Rape, Violence against any Man unlucky enough to be near by, most likely her spouse. The guy AT LEAST would spend a…
  Posted at 13 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom answered a question "Which man is more likely to win in a fight?"

  
  

  Gays would generally win, since Aspergers is a debilitating disease, further more there are many kinds of Gays, some of them have as good Coordination as straight. Some even have very high Visual-Spacial Intelligence (though in a much smaller population…
  Posted at 13 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom asked a question "Gender difference: Most educated women live on the cloud while their male counterpart live on the ground?"

  
  

  At least, that's true for readers nowadays (keep in mind that most readers have good education, fools rarely read ): Excerpt: "...If it's even metaphorically true that men and women hail from different planets, it seems safe to assume that …
  Posted at 14 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom asked a question "Men: Don't you dare walking alone with your daughter in Gynocratic Republic of Canada?"

  
  

  You may end up in the Slammer! , because the Public Witch Hunt for "all Male are pedophiles" has reached a climax: http://www.thestar.com/article/223150 or here: http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com/2007/06/don-go-walking-with-your-daughter.html
  Posted at 15 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom asked a question "Is this the future of our Western Anti-male educational system?"

  
  

  “Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. EVERYTHING MUST GO – even the allegedly universal disciplines of log…
  Posted at 15 hrs ago Posted to
  
  
• 
  
  
  

  Unisom asked a question "Dear GS members, what do you think about this former N.O.W President Catherine MacKinnon's claim?"

  
  

  “Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10 ============================…
  Posted at 15 hrs ago Posted to

photo of Dr. Mehmet Oz is from here

photo of Dr. Phil McGraw is from here

These are two white het male doctors who owe their fame and great financial success to Oprah Winfrey: Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz. (We get to Dr. Laura shortly.)

The first man, who has a PhD in Clinical Psychology, supported her during a trial the commercial/atrocity-protecting meat industry put her through for simply stating her own point of view on the subject of burgers. The second is am M.D. who is a heart surgeon and is a proponent of complimentary medicine, to promote several less invasive methods of treating heart disease. He's also more infamously known for showing Oprah's audiences deceased humans' diseased organs and talking about healthy pooping. He's got some very good things to say--generally I like him and his style, and he's got a good bed-side manner, unless you're a battered woman in a hospital bed, that is. I also sometimes like Dr. Phil, when he isn't using his television series to exploit conditions and people and instead sincerely tries to alleviate human suffering, usually in the context of personal relationships. While I've seen Dr. Phil hold men accountable for the violence they do to women, I've never seen Dr. Oz do this.

I realise he didn't study sociology, social psychology, or the sexual politics of psychopathology, but Dr. Oz couldn't be more clueless about the reality and dynamics of men's war against women. He actually discusses inner brain structure to explain why it may be that some women kill their terrorist husbands or battering boyfriends. He doesn't seem to get that women who are terrorised and sadistically abused do not usually kill anyone, while the terrorists often kill a whole lot of people: most commonly the women in their lives, the women who leave them, and their children, in disgustingly horrid ways. But Dr. Oz's brain structure discussion isn't about THE TERRORISTS. He's concerned about the brain structures of the TERRORISED WOMEN who [usually don't] kill. What are the sexual politics of THAT?

In a case linked to below, he tries to explain to the audience why a woman guest may have killed the male terrorist in her life. He is wrong at every turn, and fortunately he has another "expert" guest on to set the audience clear on what is really going on. Unfortunately, it is yet another white man. (To be clear: Dr. Oz's family's background is Eastern European and Turkish. Dr. Phil is all white.) How it is that white and light-skinned het men have become the people women should turn to for expert advice on anything and everything, is a trick of the trades called WHM supremacist media and education. What undermines feminist knowledge and activists, scholars and doctors, is the owners and producers of mass media talk shows refusing to make women of any color the experts in matters that impact women--and men.

Well, there IS Dr. Laura, who has a PhD in physiology--which is not at all why she's on the air. At least Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil are discussing matters that usually fall within their own educational areas of study. She gives anti-woman, overtly racist, anti-gay relationship advice. She's way more WHM supremacist than Dr. Phil or Dr. Oz in her public advice. She should be removed from the airwaves. Immediately, as she should have been years ago for calling "homosexuals" deviant.

photo of Dr. Laura Schlessinger is from here

She is in the news this week for her arrogantly privileged racist-misogynist assault against a Black woman caller who wanted wise counsel on how to deal with a white husband who, along with his friends, makes racist remarks in front of her. He obviously enjoys trying to humiliate her. Would Dr. Laura pick up on that? Well...

Dr. Laura used the question--while berating and abusing the questioner--as an opportunity to pretend that THE ISSUE is African Americans who are the problem population who uses the n-word and COMPLAIN when whites do the same. Dr. Laura managed to work the word into her radio show eleven times in way fewer minutes than that. The caller, understandably, was totally taken aback and very respectfully attempted to call Dr. Laura's attention to the problem of turning this problem back on a Black woman, which only led Dr. Laura to intensify her own vitriolic volume, utterly silencing the woman seeking wise counsel. Dr. Laura understood the caller's predicament about as well as Dr. Oz understands why [very few] women kill terroristic men. NOT. AT. ALL.

While I think Dr. Phil makes mistakes many times with regard to appropriate forms of advocacy for women-in-patriarchy, too often presuming a kind of level playing field that patriarchal societies will never let exist, I'll say this: he's way ahead of where Dr. Oz and Dr. Laura will probably ever be on the matter of understanding that far too many men terrorise and grotesquely abuse women--and that men's use of physical violence is NEVER the women's fault! Proof of this difference between the two male doctors is in very intense (and potentially very triggering) programs each recently did about the subject of domestic violence leading to murder.

Dr. Oz's show wasn't about patriarchal abuse. It was about how the brain sometimes doesn't work right so some people cannot moderate their violent impulses. And he means women's violent impusles, not men's!

Dr. Phil's program was a VERY good program, if also deeply disturbing and triggering, about the FAILURE of FAMILY COURTS across the U.S. when it comes to adequately protecting children and women from adult male terrorists. His show centered around one case, in which a woman's baby was murdered by her ex- and the baby's father, after she repeatedly went to the court for orders of protection for herself and the baby--each time she was told by the white het male misogynistic judge that she was lying and had no evidence, even when she brought evidence. But there was another interview he did with a teenaged young woman who is a survivor of incest and witnessed a court give custody of her little sister to the incest perpetrator, after she testified about his abuse of her. Yes. It happened. The audience was also filled with women who had similar stories to tell, which appeared to have a VERY supportive effect on anyone who spoke out on this horrendous issue of VIRULENT PATRIARCHAL PREDATION PROTECTIONISM in family courts across the country.

What gets revealed is that the terrorists and their attorneys, along with generally misogynistic society, have effectively convinced the courts to not believe mothers if they raise "domestic violence" as a factor in why those mothers should get custody of their children, not the fathers. Even the women's attorneys are counseling women to not bring up the fact that the ex-husband is a batterer or incest perpetrator because too many judges hear that as a big ol' lie--an allegedly sure sign that the woman is trying to manipulate the court against the interests of the fathers' "right" to have more access to their children. When it comes to court manipulation, however, look no further than the battering, raping, incesting men and their attorneys, who convince the courts that the lack of evidence presented means they aren't sadistic brutes. In this case, the rule "presumed innocent until proven guilty" cannot apply, because no one's attorney will let the proof into the courtroom to begin with.

This is the case across the white het male supremacist globe, from the U.S., to the UK, to Australia. That there are WHM organising to undermine women's credibility in the courtroom even more is despicable and evil. There's nothing loving or just about such efforts by these misogynazis (fascistic, terrorising woman-haters) at all.

To note how this impacts U.S. women, compare these two episodes of programs that, one would hope, are supporting both physical/emotional health and human rights:

Dr. Oz: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/tuesday-dr-oz

vs.

Dr. Phil: http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1442/ 

But I cannot write about Dr. Phil without noting this CLEAR FORM OF MISOGYNY he regularly engages in. HE REFUSES TO STOP SAYING THE B WORD WHEN REFERRING TO WOMEN, and as an adjective (b-word with a y at the end). He a conservative guy, socially-politically, in many ways, and doesn't welcome cursing on his show, generally. I'm not sure you can get away with saying ASS on his show without it being bleeped! But he says the b word like it's going out of style, which of course it won't while he and other major media personalities keep legitimising it on TV. Please write to him and ask him why that's the only derogatory curse term he allows on his show.

And visit *here* for more on the Dr. Laura story of the week. TRIGGER WARNING for OVERTLY RACIST LANGUAGE AND GROSS MISTREATMENT OF A BLACK WOMAN BY A WHITE WOMAN.

image is from here

Some days my profeminist work days are easier (and more hilarious) than others. This one is in the Top Ten Most Hilarious. And it would be even more funny if men didn't actually think using the Logical Phallusy employed here by Ross-the-Teacher.

If you think, for one millionth of one second that I believe this is a serious comment sent in earnestness by Ross to my blog, well, you must think I was born late this morning.

But, just for kicks, let's pretend HETERO/SEXIST Ross's question is COMPLETELY SERIOUS, because the truth is that LOTS of het men (AN ASTOUNDING NUMBER, ACTUALLY) do talk about themselves in relation to women in precisely this way: het men blame women for men's behaviors, so men don't have to be responsible for their own behavior and actions. The comment was submitted to an A.R.P. post that makes his question somewhat spurious. Click on the title for the post. It is titled:

"When Men Are Dickheads, They REALLY are Dickheads! See the kind of thinking dickheads do: Read these comments by AllenS and Jason, for example, and "Hoosier Daddy" (get it?), "Trooper York", and "Moose"..."

I've added a bit to my response since posting it to Ross on that other blog page.


WHAT FOLLOWS is a CLASSIC CASE of LOGICAL PHALLUSY, on the part of Ross:

Ross said...
Well I’m teaching a class of adult students and one of the female students who has a beautiful figure and very nice boobs comes into class wearing tight skimpy tops -very sexy looking. Does she not realize that it distracts me from my work. I don’t know why she dresses like that in my class. She seems like a nice girl. I want her to get her exams so she can get into university. I want to focus on her brains rather than her boobs but shes making it difficult for me to concentrate with those boobs in my face. I tried hard not to look at them - but I don’t want to ignore her either - shes a student in my class. What am I to do?
Ross
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:40:00 AM EDT

Julian Real said...
Hi Ross, I'll take it slow and sure here in responding to you.

I'd like you to examine your own language in what you wrote to me, because, as a teacher I'm sure you realise how important accurate communication is. So, let's have a look at what you attribute to her and to you--what you see as "her actions" and "your actions" and from there, what are "your responsibilities" and what are "her responsibilities", okay?

Your action/responsibility:
I’m teaching a class of adult students

You are the teacher, the most responsible person in your classroom regarding class conduct. Presumably, if you are teaching young people, you are also the most "mature" person in the room.

Your action/responsibility:  
one of the female students who has a beautiful figure and very nice boobs comes into class wearing tight skimpy tops -very sexy looking. 

This is about YOU determining the value of a female person's body who is a student, and your response to it. You are not owning that however. Instead you are describing what's going on as if she's "doing something to you"--arousing you, distracting you, making it difficult for you to concentrate, etc.

Ross, you're a big boy--in fact, a grown man. You can control your responses to other human beings and behave responsibly, can't you? If you cannot, you have no business being a teacher. Right?

You go on:
Does she not realize that it distracts me from my work.

So there you explicitly state YOUR action--being distracted--as HER full responsibility, not yours. That's a pretty serious error of judgment for a teacher to make. That's what we call "blaming the innocent party".

Your distractions are YOURS. You know there is meditation that can teach you how to be less distracted, right? Are you engaging in that practice? If not, why not?

Do you look at internet pornography off-hours? If so, do you realise how much more prone that makes you to sexistly objectifying women's bodies, regardless of what they are wearing? This has been demonstrated "scientifically" but all you need to do is stop looking at pornography for two weeks and you'll notice how much less prone you are to being "distracted" by women regardless of what they wear.

You then write:
I don’t know why she dresses like that in my class. She seems like a nice girl.

So now your making value judgments about her character based on her attire? That's called blatant sexism, sir. That, again, is your action and your responsibility to deal with, not hers. You wrote: I want her to get her exams so she can get into university.

Nothing you've described tells me she isn't an excellent student. In fact, you've curiously neglected to tell me anything about her except what you are inappropriately preoccupied by.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:44:00 PM EDT

Julian Real said...

Part two of two, Ross.

You wrote:
I want to focus on her brains rather than her boobs but shes making it difficult for me to concentrate with those boobs in my face. 

Ross, she isn't putting her breasts in your face, by your own account.

She comes into class, sits, listens, takes notes, and leaves. Right?

So at no point does she rise up out of her seat, walk over to you, and place your face into her chest, right? So, she's not "putting" her "boobs" anywhere they don't belong, is she? (I mean, they stay in the vicinity of her own chest at all times, right?) I hope you can see how you, once again, are not holding yourself accountable for YOUR actions, and are trying to put responsibility on her for things she isn't doing, that you describe her to be doing.

You wrote:  
I tried hard not to look at them - but I don’t want to ignore her either - shes a student in my class. What am I to do? 

Ross, I really don't think you're being particularly serious here. But just because other people will read this, I'm going to pretend you are asking a sincere question, based on your misperception of there even being a problem here.

There's no problem here other than your unchallenged objectification of a female students' body, and your proclivity to discuss what's happening in VERY irresponsible and sexist ways.

What are you to do? Don't stare at her breasts, stop using pornography and other media that fuse into your brain that women's bodies exist for your eyes and "enjoyment", because that's not what women's bodies exist to do: they exist as the physical part of women's beings. Just like your body doesn't exist FOR women to objectify, be distracted by, etc.

You are speaking in a predatory way, Ross, as if you really don't have control over your own actions. You are using the "logical phallusies" of work-place sexual harassers and serial rapists. As if you "cannot concentrate" enough to teach properly because there's a woman in your class who you choose to objectify in ways that are distracting for you. YOUR behavior, not hers, is inappropriate.

Please do speak to your supervisor about YOUR problem, and also the school or university counselor, immediately and I guarantee, if they are responsible adults, they will be clear with you that this is YOUR problem to resolve without involving your student AT ALL.

And I hope you know that if you approached the student and asked her to dress differently because "your boobs are distracting me too much in my classroom" that YOU would or should be served up a charge of sexual harassment, because that, too, would be inappropriate and irresponsible of YOU to do.

Are you seriously telling me that in the era of the early seventies when males wore VERY tight pants, that heterosexual female teachers should have all complained to administrators that they couldn't teach due to being so distracted? Seriously? Yes, her breasts are above the desk, not below. But she's one student among at least a dozen, yes? So how about this:

Look at her face, and look at the faces of your other students too. That's the only part of them you should be looking at anyway.

If you can't control your own eyes, and where they look, that's a self-control problem that YOU need to get help with.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:46:00 PM EDT

12 hours ago · Comment ·

• 6 people like this.
  
  
  • Rita D'Alvarez Turn away and mind our own business, eh? After all it's someone else's suffering, not yours?
    
    11 hours ago · 
  • April Rosendahl Ignoring an issue is in effect accepting~ Should we just ignore a person getting attacked on the streets? Afterall, its NONE OF MY BUSINESS and why should I CARE~ WOW Insensitive and ignorant a great combination~
    
    9 hours ago · 
    
  • 
    
    
    

    Shadoe Sundown Price If you're actually confusing the real act of rape with a joke page, you are the one who is ignorant and insensitive. So should every joke that you don't find funny or appropriate be erased from the internet? How about I add smug and condescending to the list as well.
    

    8 hours ago ·
  • Chris Steyn what the hell is humorous about rape...have u ever treated a rape victim...and no there i s NO way that a NORMAL person would find anything funny about rape...
    
    8 hours ago ·
    
  • 
    
    
    

    Shadoe Sundown Price There are plenty of normal functioning people who enjoy dark humor. I'm not the one trying to place a joke on the same level as the true, physical act of rape. All I'm saying is that it is beyond smug to say that because another person's sense of humor doesn't line up with yours that 1) they aren't normal, and 2) that they are promoting violence toward women. That is absurd.
    

    8 hours ago ·
    
  • 
    
    Julian Real
    

    Promoting rape as "surprise sex" isn't primarily an act of humor. It's an act of hostility, aggression, and misogyny. And as we live in a rape culture where men find just about everything to do with rape hilarious, I don't see how qualifyin...g it as "humor" means it isn't harmful and ought not be opposed by humane people. Racist humor is a laugh- riot to white supremacists and racist liberals, and shall we just "not visit" the pages where whites call for Black men to be hanged, and Mexican migrant workers to be sent home, and Black, Brown, and Indigenous women being called "hos"? And, plenty of normal men rape. In fact, most of the rapists are normal men. So where does that analysis get us?

    8 hours ago ·
  • Yasmin Rebelle People can be hurt both physically and verbally. Verbal scars usually are longer lasting and sometimes life long. What you think is a joke is very hurtful to women in general and specifically survivors of sexual assault. Dark humour can be used constructively and all types of jokes or words can do just the opposite. It is not about being offended; it is about the fact that 1 in 3 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime and this rape culture is one of the major factors in that.
    
    8 hours ago ·
    
  • 
    
    
    

    Jane Ensell Shadoe, if you're not a rape victim yourself, you probably don't understand how awful these pages make people feel. The existence of the pages encourages more and more people to laugh at the suffering and debasement of survivors of a violent act. Why is this acceptable to you?
    

    6 hours ago · 
  • P. W.
    
    I am a victim of what he called "suprise sex" and it is NOT A JOKE. You take responsibility for your words. You tell me shadoe, what do you say to a woman who is a victim? You ought to explain why you think its ok for this sick "humor" to b...e tolerated by victims of rape. But then again, you are obviously not a victim or you wouldnt be so nonchalant about something that causes women around the world to commit suicide because they have been so violated their minds cannot take the soul shattering nature of the crime. And to all the women and men on here who wont stand for this, thank you. Your actions are heartwarming.Thank you so much , its wonderful to know that in this culture, there is still people who wont take jokes like these.

    4 hours ago ·

12 hours ago · Comment ·

• 6 people like this.
  
  
  
  • Rita D'Alvarez Turn away and mind our own business, eh? After all it's someone else's suffering, not yours?
    
    
    11 hours ago · 
  • April Rosendahl Ignoring an issue is in effect accepting~ Should we just ignore a person getting attacked on the streets? Afterall, its NONE OF MY BUSINESS and why should I CARE~ WOW Insensitive and ignorant a great combination~
    
    
    9 hours ago · 
  • 
    
    
    
    

    Shadoe Sundown Price If you're actually confusing the real act of rape with a joke page, you are the one who is ignorant and insensitive. So should every joke that you don't find funny or appropriate be erased from the internet? How about I add smug and condescending to the list as well.
    

    8 hours ago ·
  • Chris Steyn what the hell is humorous about rape...have u ever treated a rape victim...and no there i s NO way that a NORMAL person would find anything funny about rape...
    
    
    8 hours ago ·
  • 
    
    
    
    

    Shadoe Sundown Price There are plenty of normal functioning people who enjoy dark humor. I'm not the one trying to place a joke on the same level as the true, physical act of rape. All I'm saying is that it is beyond smug to say that because another person's sense of humor doesn't line up with yours that 1) they aren't normal, and 2) that they are promoting violence toward women. That is absurd.
    

    8 hours ago ·
  • 
    
    
    Julian Real
    

    Promoting rape as "surprise sex" isn't primarily an act of humor. It's an act of hostility, aggression, and misogyny. And as we live in a rape culture where men find just about everything to do with rape hilarious, I don't see how qualifyin...g it as "humor" means it isn't harmful and ought not be opposed by humane people. Racist humor is a laugh- riot to white supremacists and racist liberals, and shall we just "not visit" the pages where whites call for Black men to be hanged, and Mexican migrant workers to be sent home, and Black, Brown, and Indigenous women being called "hos"? And, plenty of normal men rape. In fact, most of the rapists are normal men. So where does that analysis get us?

    8 hours ago ·
  • Yasmin Rebelle People can be hurt both physically and verbally. Verbal scars usually are longer lasting and sometimes life long. What you think is a joke is very hurtful to women in general and specifically survivors of sexual assault. Dark humour can be used constructively and all types of jokes or words can do just the opposite. It is not about being offended; it is about the fact that 1 in 3 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime and this rape culture is one of the major factors in that.
    
    
    8 hours ago ·
  • 
    
    
    
    

    Jane Ensell Shadoe, if you're not a rape victim yourself, you probably don't understand how awful these pages make people feel. The existence of the pages encourages more and more people to laugh at the suffering and debasement of survivors of a violent act. Why is this acceptable to you?
    

    6 hours ago · 
  • P. W.
    
    
    I am a victim of what he called "suprise sex" and it is NOT A JOKE. You take responsibility for your words. You tell me shadoe, what do you say to a woman who is a victim? You ought to explain why you think its ok for this sick "humor" to b...e tolerated by victims of rape. But then again, you are obviously not a victim or you wouldnt be so nonchalant about something that causes women around the world to commit suicide because they have been so violated their minds cannot take the soul shattering nature of the crime. And to all the women and men on here who wont stand for this, thank you. Your actions are heartwarming.Thank you so much , its wonderful to know that in this culture, there is still people who wont take jokes like these.

    4 hours ago ·

Please watch this utterly condescending, patronising video made by some white guy named "freedom0f5peech". He's super annoying. But please try and get through his little lesson for all us numb-heads on the realities of all forms of genital cutting and surgery, to infants and children, primarily:



At issue, as is so often the case, is the way "educated" "literate" men misuse a highly cultural and political concept called "logic" to argue "rationally" how some phenomena are injurious to both females and males in some kind of "equal" or "mutually harmful" fashion, as if it were true because information without knowledge is used to present "logical arguments". This is a CLASSIC Western euro-white male supremacist example.

We want to focus our logical attention on this guy: freedom0f5peech who posted on this forum--http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=28460.10;wap2
about the logic problems in how so many people discuss the matter of what he terms FGM vs. MGM, terms which, for reasons stated below, I refuse to use on this blog, other than to note it here, above.

He's not satisfied to have his rational logical argumentation presented in text. He made all of us stupid idiots that video above, so we can "get it" because, you know, if only we'd just listen to these "logical" white men, the world's suffering would all become understandable as JUST AS DANGEROUS to white males as it is for males of color and females--of all colors. (Because these white guys just never want to own publicly that they have it EASY compared to other groups of people--groups of people that white men systematically and globally oppress and mass murder.) And, as you'll note here, the white guys always kind of want to subtly--or not--suggest that the WORST of what happens is: surprise! really to THEM!

After watching the video, please see my reply to him below, published here only, thus far.

Hello Mr. Logician, aka freedom0f5peech,

What you fail to take into account in your conveniently manipulative video are a few things that humane beings who care about human cruelty might argue are important and relevant to the discussion. Things such as:

1. Just so you know, many women of color do not support the term "female genital mutilation" as they prefer not to consider their genitals "mutilated" for the rest of their lives--and out of compassion for their feelings, I don't use that term. And the term "male genital mutilation" is overtly dishonest, as the genitals aren't "mutilated" at all. The word isn't helpful in any case.

2. Compare to the number of males who experience the worst form of male genital surgery or cutting to the number of females. Personally, I've never even heard of this "top/worst" category of "MGM" you have listed wherein all the skin is removed, including the scrotum. So you're saying somewhere in the world male babies have the whole of their genitals removed? Their penises cut off at the base and their testicles cut off and their scrotal skin removed? Where does that occur and to how many male babies worldwide annually? I'd argue that since you place that form of "MGM"--which you argue shouldn't be understood as happening to males at all, isn't socially real as a human rights problem but I welcome you educating me on this as an endemic cross-cultural problem impacting millions of male babies that, thus far, seems to be going under everyone's social justice radar. (I know of NO males to whom this has happened. Not one.)

3. You very conveniently neglect to frame the discussion in the social context in which these phenomena happen. Do they happen in societies in which male are dominant over women and female sexuality and in which females are not only genitally cut but are controlled in other ways, sexually and physically, oppressively, as a group, by men? Are these cuttings and surgeries occurring in societies which also promote marital rape of girls and women and other physical and psychic traumatic violations of female bodies as natural, God-ordained and ordered, or evolutionarily inevitable?

Or, do they happen in societies in which females are dominant over men and male sexuality and in which males are not only genitally cut but are controlled in other ways sexually and physically, oppressively, as a group, by women? Are these cuttings and surgeries occurring in societies which also promote marital rape of boys and men and other physical and psychic traumatic violations of male bodies as natural, God-ordained and ordered, or evolutionarily inevitable?

Such as through dominate religious and secular institutions promoting woman-hating or man-hating as normal and natural? Do they happen in patriarchal societies or matriarchal ones? Whose interests are served by the procedures? What is the presumed gender of the god who is prayed to? Which gendered beings write the laws, predominantly? What gendered beings, primarily, enforce the laws? Which gendered beings, usually and most forcefully, punish those who break the laws?

This is relevant because no girl, woman, intersex person, or intergender person is served by having their genitals cut or destroyed when a child when there's absolutely no health-related reason to do so. But boys who are circumcised either due to religious custom (as in Judaism) or secular custom (as in the U.S.) DON'T have their penises removed or their scrotums either. And males and boys still end up with fully sexually functional genitals with plenty of sensation sufficient to enjoy happy sexual lives, including having orgasms easily. The most common forms of female genital cutting and surgery, globally, often leave females without most of the nerve endings necessary to experience sexual arousal. Why don't you organise your helpful chart according to which procedures prevent full sexual functioning as adults? Why not make that list in order of trauma to the person, over a lifetime? You show no stats on occurrence of each type. Why?

And, in case you've forgotten: What is this phenomenon you conveniently invent to make it seem like overall, some of what happens to males is worse than what happens to females, while some of what happens to females is worse, as if, overall, it's all kind of awful, but really--pssst: the worst thing that happens is to MALES?

And stop arguing it both ways: you can't keep identifying things in terms of gender and then ask us to ignore gender. And, you're going to have to back up your truth claims, such as this notion that there even is such a thing as all male genitalia, including scrotums, being cut off of male babies. Again, where does that happen and to how many males globally?

Your videos arguments may be "logical" but that doesn't make them knowledgeable or helpful, necessarily. "Logic" alone means nothing, sir. The question is this: in what social reality does the logic exist? Math problems can be logical. So what? What does that have to do with social justice? With ending atrocities? You won't even use math in ways that it could illuminate the practices of atrocity, such as by noting THE NUMBER OF FEMALES negatively impacted by the worst forms of female genital cutting and surgery compared THE NUMBER OF MALES who experience and survive the worst forms done to males. Produce those statistics if you want your video to be taken at all seriously.

Let me draw you a parallel to your "logical" but inaccurate video.

Let's say you were making the "logical" case that all heterosexual spousal murder is wrong. Using your socially well-restricted logic methodology, you, sir, might produce a video showing all the ways humans who are murdered by "the other" sex are accomplished, among heterosexuals who are lawfully wed. And you'd note: some women kill men in their sleep, which gives them no opportunity to fight back. And men beat up women, but those women at least have the chance to fight back, so let's put women killing men in their sleep as "worse" than men beating and killing female spouses.

And you'd display all the ways heterosexual spousal murder occurs. But what you'd fail to note is WHY those women kill those men and that the greatest reason for that happening is that the husbands are terrorists, threatening those women's lives daily, beating and torturing them, or "just" psychologically terrifying them and dominated them, controlling and manipulating them in oppressive and degrading ways designed to crush their wills for freedom. Because that little detail might muddy your "logic system". And men kill women because the women didn't have dinner on the table, didn't get the laundry done, and told a man he was wrong for the way he treats their children. Or she said not to sex. Or she complained that he's spending too much time away from home. So he pounds the shit out of her, and sometimes he breaks her bones, and sometimes he kills her. But, more often, if she leaves him because he beats her, he is then far more likely to kill her. The statistics are that death from battery--from men beating women routinely and regularly in escalating patterns of increasing danger, are more likely to be murdered if they leave than if they stay with the controlling, sadistic bully. So, some women know this and they stay. And for you, them staying wouldn't factor into your argument because she wasn't killed yet.

So you see, your "logic" doesn't equal "knowledge" and it certainly doesn't demonstrate the exercise of compassion or wisdom in the service of gender justice or human rights.

Julian Real

[image of the Homicidal Misogynistic Maniac Mel Gibson, is from here] That Mel Gibson has made, to date, four "Lethal Weapon" films seems fitting, except that they aren't about him being a lethal weapon to women. It is fitting, as well, that he's been in productions called "The Punishment", "Ransom", "Conspiracy Theory", "Payback", "Signs", "Complete Savages". That he ever made a film titled "

[image of the Homicidal Misogynistic Maniac Mel Gibson, is from here] That Mel Gibson has made, to date, four "Lethal Weapon" films seems fitting, except that they aren't about him being a lethal weapon to women. It is fitting, as well, that he's been in productions called "The Punishment", "Ransom", "Conspiracy Theory", "Payback", "Signs", and "Complete Savages". That he ever made a film titled

[image of book cover featuring white het men's misogynistic fetishes is from here] What follows is a cross post from The Independent (UK) followed by another from The Times (UK) by the same writer. With great thanks to Mary Ann Sieghart for telling it like it is is this "post-feminist" West (please insert an overtly disrespectful cough) where increasingly there are delusional, bitter, scornful

 This disturbing image is from here.  B. R. Gowani supplied me with the image, the link, the caption below, and his poem. Thank you, B. R. “An Iranian woman at a protest in Brussels highlights the barbarity of death by stoning, in which women are buried up to their necks in front of a crowd of volunteers and killed in a hail of rocks.” PHOTO/Thierry Roge/Reuters/Guardian Iran: Barbarians