Archive for the ‘steve moxon’ tag
(As we have seen, life in the UK of 2013 is increasingly so absurd that reality could quickly catch up with satire…)
Following the arrest of Rolf Harris, Operation Yewtree officers are set to arrest Stephen Hawking and Cliff Richard. It is also understood that Orville, David Attenborough, and Sooty have been separately interviewed under caution.
Police sources indicate that the music recording, Jake the Peg, was a clear admission by Mr Harris that he was in possession of fully arousable male genitals; and it was this which weighed heavily against him when the police/media trawl brought about yet another accusation against a celebrity; all of which police say they are duty-bound to fully investigate no matter how tenuous.
There is a formal denial tonight that Yewtree investigators had interviewed Esther Rantzen on suspicion of indirect sexual harassment in storing photographs of individuals in their late 20s taken some 40 years ago and flashing her teeth at ‘em. This follows rumours of a new Home Office working definition of childhood as extending to age 35, and a revival of the former notion of indecency of exposed ankles.
Cressida Dick, the Met’s assistant commissioner for specialist operations, commented: “Don’t be so fucking stupid. Do you think we’re just taking the piss?”
If you need any more examples of how absurd the ‘secular’ reasoning of the ‘atheist’ movement is, at least when you dare to challenge the fundamental dogmas of the wimminz mother nature pagan cult, take a look at the site of feminist philosopher and leading ‘skeptic’ blogger Ophelia Benson. She’s currently conducting a remorseless secular intellectual assault upon our friend Steve Moxon, using all the powers of logic and reasoning at her disposal..well, o.k, at least third rate infantile Manboobz style mocking, staggeringly ridiculous misrepresentations of what Moxon says, and one or two ‘hate speech’ threats to silence any hope of rational discussion.
In a nutshell, her ‘argument’ is :
There is no such thing as Political Correctness. Political Correctness is actually just a
heretic’s bigot’s name for politeness. Sometimes politeness has to be maintained by locking people up, or by sacking professors for saying impolite things or for presenting heretical impolite research findings. This is of course very different from religious societies locking people up for questioning the word of God. Of course it is. Or are you a sexist, racist, homophobic pig too? Someone call the thought police now.
Steve Moxon said nice things about Anders Breivik (condemned his actions but claimed that his thesis on the origins of PC were largely right). Therefore Steve Moxon is an ultra-right wing fascist who must be silenced. (Steve Moxon is due to speak at a sceptic’s pub meeting later this month – not if Ophelia and her secular free thinking friends have anything to do with it).
Steve Moxon and his evil men’s rights friends point to numerous studies that suggest women and men are guilty of domestic violence in roughly equal numbers. Therefore, Steve Moxon and his friends must be domestic abusers, and if you are a woman and attend the sceptics meeting you will be punched in the face repeatedly by them.
A woman was recently executed for adultory in Afghanistan in front of 150 cheering men. So what if thousands of men and boys have been routinely beheaded in the same country in front of cheering men, for ‘offences’ ranging from adultery to homosexuality? This single case proves that women are disadvantaged in the west and men have nothing at all to complain about, and if they do, they should be sent to prison for sexism. Of course, as privileged, upper middle-class western feminists, we don’t actually want to lift a finger to stop women being executed in Afghanistan, but we will devote our entire lives to stopping the more immediate and pressing problem of highly paid prostitutes and porn actresses from being exploited by teh evil menz in Europe and America, and returned to the life of glorious unexploited poverty and slave labour factory work from whence the
sluts victims came. Not unlike the Taliban….
As the philosopher John Gray points out, at least religious myths often contain kernels of truth that speak of the unchanging human condition.
Steve Moxon, author of the classic anti-feminist book ‘The Woman Racket‘, was dropped as a candidate for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in this week’s local elections over comments he made on his blog previously regarding Anders Breivik. Whilst stressing how appalling and insupportable Breivik’s actions were, Moxon had noted that his manifesto presented an accurate account of the spread of political correctness in Europe. This was picked up by a local paper in the city that Moxon was standing in (Sheffield), forcing UKIP to drop him as a candidate – despite the vast majority of UKIP supporters no doubt sharing the same anti-PC views. UKIP – an ‘alternative right’ anti-EU party – gained 14% of the vote nationally in yesterday’s vote.
The very reason – the ‘justification’ for – why Breivik behaved in the appalling way in which he did was because of the completely closed-down debate about PC. That is abundantly clear from his ‘manifesto’. To head off the possibility of more Breiviks, this has to change.
The ‘guilt by association’ usual ruse was in full swing to close down debate yet further.
The standard line on Breivik is that he is ‘beyond the pale’, and therefore any analysis of PC is also ‘beyond the pale’.
It most certainly is not.
That someone who acknowledges the researched historical analysis of the origin of PC is a mass murderer in no way makes the research into the origin of PC a doctrine itself of mass murder. It is never the case that if A is in some way coincidental with B, and B is ‘beyond the pale’; that, therefore, A is likewise ‘beyond the pale’. That would be the most elementary non-logic.
Malicious nonsense of ‘guilt by association’ as it is applied to analysis of PC requires combating. If there is no free speech even on the topic of the most deep-seated, entrenched and widespread fascism ever to afflict societies — which PC indeed is — then there is no free speech at all.
Concerns about ‘sensitivity’ are just smokescreens to cover a PC-fascist stance. Evidently, even the deepest irony is opaque to the PC-fascist.
‘You’re not fit to be a journalist, let alone a political editor’, I admonished the hapless Marsden. “I don’t think you’re fit to be a candidate”, he retorted.
But that is my point! A PC-fascist does not accept that anyone who challenges the PC hegemony can be moral; and that therefore such a challenger is ineligible to stand in any election.
That PC is itself the height of immorality — seeking to label the disadvantaged as ‘oppressors’ and the privileged as the ‘oppressed’ – completely escapes PC-fascists. They feel obliged to stick rigidly to this self-delusion rather than to admit the failure of their whole ideology. But this vehement denial inevitably cannot long survive being comprehensively found out.
Steve Moxon made a rare update of his blog today – attacking the BBC’s flagship news programme ‘Today’ over their coverage of the new domestic violence law (‘Clare’s Law’) which gives British women the right to ask the police whether their partner has a record of domestic violence :
As ever the BBC’s flagship news show, Today, totally misrepresents domestic violence (‘intimate-partner violence’ as it is properly known).The BBC reports that the Home Office is to announce plans to enable women to check up on new partners to see if they have a history of DV/IPV.No mention of the actually more serious issue of women perpetrators and their male victims.WELL RESEARCHED FACTS:1. The ‘controlling’ partner in 90% of couples is the woman, not the man.2. Serious DV/IPV is perpetrated more by women — three to six times as much.3. Injuries as a result of DV/IPV review studies show to be either parity or at most 2:1 female/male’ this despite female sex-differential body frame weakness and male sex-differential upper body strength.4. Women are more likely in DV/IPV to use a weapon, attack unilaterally, and/or to attack when the partner is disabled; eg, asleep.Nobody knows the incidence of women murdering their partners because most is hidden: either by using a third party or subterfuge.This means that most murder of husbands and boyfriends by partners is not recorded as such.By contrast, uxoricide is nearly always direct and overt — the guy nearly always kills himself straight afterwards (as, indeed, did Clare Woods’ partner); women never do so.The upshot is that it is completely false to claim that murder of partners is mainly by men.It may be roughly 50/50, and given what we know about DV/IPV it may be more by women. Nobody knows.Refuge is an extreme-feminist, separatist man-hating obscenity of an organisation, as anyone without PC blinkers readily sees.The notorious man-hating leader of Refuge, Sandra Horlick, knows all too well that men rarely seek help whereas women always do.Most accusations to police are fraudulent — even more so than rape (and that, conservatively, is 35%).If definition of DV/IPV were widened to encompass any sort of ‘abuse’ [sic] this still further plays into extreme separatist feminist hands, because although such abuse is female sex-typical, men are unlikely to complain of it — women are likely to invert their abuse to ‘project’ it on to their partner and themselves ciomplain to police!The BBC’s view of DV/IPV could not differ more from the reality.
An excellent and most interesting article entitled ‘Female Sexual Power‘ was posted on the Spearhead a few days ago. Although I disagree with a fair bit of it, and want to contrast it with my own ‘Sexual Trade Union’ theory, its author is to be greatly applauded for producing such an original and stimulating counter-feminist account of sexual power.
The article is based upon a book, as well as an academic thesis, that the author has written in his native Finnish. It has also apparently caused quite a stir in his homeland. I’ll assume that you’ll take a look at it before you read the following ‘criticisms’, so I won’t spend much time explaining the article myself. And of course, I am aware that his essay is only a short summary (written in the author’s second language) of his much longer thesis. But as the book and thesis are in Finnish, I can only critique (briefly) his Spearhead article.
Very briefly, his conclusion is that ‘men want sex much more than women’, that therefore ‘men need women more than women need men’, and indeed that the feminist dictum ‘women need men like fish need a bicycle’ is true. Or rather, these conclusions – based upon ‘evolutionary psychology, social exchange theory, economic theory of sexuality and Emerson’s power-dependency theory‘ – themselves serve as the premise from which to draw conclusions about the gender power structure in the world.
As I stated at the beginning, any well researched and considered attempt to explain the true, counter feminist, current (and historical) power structure between men and women is to be welcomed. But to be complete, any such explanation would hopefully give an account of the growth of feminism, the relationship between feminism and the radical transformations of society (including and in particular sexual morality) over the last few decades, and have some predictive power concerning the likely future course of gender relations (particularly important for the men’s rights movement).
Perhaps it is because the article is only a thousand word summary of a much larger book/thesis, but for me, this is where Lassanen’s theory is a little incomplete.
Laasanen acknowledges that an account of female sexual power is important because of its structural effects upon society :
The third important dimension of female sexual power lies in its structural effects. Have you ever wondered why…
- …female romantic sexuality is an acceptable form of sexuality, while men’s sexuality is sick and perverted?
- …women’s magazines dominate the official politically correct sexuality, but PUA guides are morally questionable?
- …men are the more disposable sex?
- …men must usually make the first move in the relationships and risk the rejection?
- …men must pay on dates?
- …laws are against men’s behavior and not against women’s behavior?
These are all excellent points, and the broad outline of Laasanen’s thesis appears very similar to that contained in Steve Moxon’s brilliant ‘The Woman Racket’. For Steve Moxon also, the starting point in accounting for the structure of gender relations in society is the fact, rooted in evolutionary biology, that ‘women choose’ who to mate with, whereas men must compete to be chosen. Laasanen points to a study consisting of the posting of fake dating profiles which prompt the fake single females to recieve hundreds of messages from prospective male suitors, whereas the fake single males receive none. Moxon expresses this reality in the phrase that ‘women are the limiting factor in reproduction’. The result of this inherent female sexual power, both Laasanen and Moxon agree, is that society inevitably prizes women above men. (It should be pointed out that both Lassanen and Moxon wrote their books independently of each other, both appearing in 2008 – highly erudite though he is, I doubt if Steve Moxon understands Finnish!).
What both of these authors appear to miss is that the growth of feminism, and the increasing disparity in overt political power between men and women, is due to the corresponding decrease in the female sexual power that industrial society, and now the globalised mass-media society, has brought about.
Laasanen himself makes clear that there is a difference between sexual market value and relationship market value :
WOMEN’S SEXUAL MARKET VALUE AND RELATIONSHIP MARKET VALUE ARE VERY DIFFERENT: Women’s sexual market value is usually much higher than her relationship market value, which means, than women can get high quality partners to short sexual relationships, but she have to lower the bar for longer relationships. For men thing are just the opposites. If a man want just sex (now, today), he must usually settle for the much lower quality partner than himself.
Unfortunately, and again I assume it is because the article is a summary of one aspect of a wider theory, Laasanen does not then go on to draw any obvious conclusions about what the relationship between short-term youthful female sexual power and declining relationship value in older women means in terms of feminism and its possible psycho-sexual motivational basis.
In the comments section below the article, Lassanen links to the following graph, which does contrast the respective difference between sexual and relationship power over the course of a man and woman’s adult life :
Although the graph confuses peak fertility with peak sexual attractiveness and has an abusrd element – are 35 year old women really as sexually desirable as 18 year old girls? – it does cover rather nicely the basic point that women’s ‘reproductive’ value decreases over time, whilst a man’s increases.
And an essential point has to be made. The distinction between ‘sexual’ and ‘relationship’ market value both really refer to ‘reproductive’ value – the difference being that for women that means relationship value (but they only have their sexual power to win it), and for men it means sexual value (but they only have relationship power to win it).
And in the words of the incomparable Tom Snark -
Men’s sexual desires are more immediately intense than women’s.
But the baby rabies are still more powerful.
For both Laasanen and Moxon, female sexual power defines gender relations in society and condemn men to being subservient to women. Unfortunately, and somewhat bizarrely seeing how it is staring them in the face, they both fail to see the significance of changes in the sexual market place that have occured in particular over the last 50 years, and that these changes have quite spectacularly brought about a huge increase in the sexual power of young women relative to the drastically diminishing relationship value (which is what women value and seek as an end in itself) of older and less sexually attractive women.
In fact, it is not just older women that have seen their relationship/reproductive value decrease with the advent of the pill, the secularisation of sexual morality, pornography, and the internet. There might still be large costs for men seeking sex – sending template messages to hundreds of women on Craigs List and the like in the hope of getting lucky with one or two – but only several generations ago and a man would expect to have to devote himself to pursuing one woman, involving time, dedication, and money, in the hope that she would eventually agree to marry him in order that he could enjoy sex. From that point on, he would be sexually bound to her for the rest of his life, as each day her body became more aged and less desirable – in fact pregnant for much of her fertile life. Today, with HD porn of any kind available for free on the Internet, the alternative to marriage for men is at the end of his wrist (as another Spearhead commentator eloquently puts it). Even stunningly attractive girls can expect their male partners to seek (and to be able to obtain) sexual outlet elsewhere, real or virtual (and to the female mind virtual is ‘cheating’).
Despite being steeped in EP theory (on a different level to myself, or any MRA that I know) Steve Moxon still largely blames Cultural Marxism for the incredible rise of second and third wave feminism, ignoring the possibility that the loss of reproductive value of, in particular older women, could be to blame for the present feminist hijacking of political power and moral and social discourse. (However, Steve Moxon does devote entire chapters of his book to explaining feminist laws restricting male sexuality on prostitution and pornography in terms of evolutionary psychology).
Claiming that ‘women have inherent sexual power over men’ seems to me simplistic if it ignores the differences in sexual power between young women and older women, between the attractive and the plain or downright ugly, as well as ignoring the difference between what women value in sex and what men value. Claiming that ‘men need women more than women need men’ seems absurd if women stress relationship value more than sexual value. Laasanen doesn’t ignore these things, but he certainly does seem to ignore their consequences and the obvious conclusions to be drawn from them in relationship to the history and current dynamics of feminism and gender power.
Why account for female power over men in society solely in terms of their inherent evolutionary based sexual power, while discounting the admitted relationship power that men have, and in fact increasingly have in a world in which new technology increasingly makes sexual outlets and alternatives for men cheaper, more varied, and more instantly available? Why admit that women want more than cheap sexual gratification from men, and then claim that women have increasing power despite social change making it increasingly harder for them to obtain what they want?
I’m more inclined to attribute the historical privileges accorded to women to the needs of group survival in relation to reproductive capacities and the consequent disposability of the male. Yes, certain women, chiefly young good looking women and girls, have sexual power over men, and it’s true that even a 45 year old slut could probably walk into a bar and find at least one male desperate enough to pump and dump her, leaving her ‘babies rabies’ mind feeling raped the next morning. But young women and girls have little political power in society and a much more convincing explanation is the relative and rapidly declining sexual power that older women – feminists and their support base – increasingly have in an inherently ever more open sexual society.
Yet, there is a sense in which Laasanen is entirely correct – men having to compete with other men for sex with young women is a key determinant in women exercising power over men in society – even older women. Take a look at a news story from this morning : Poor Turnout for Men’s Group Symposium.
An MSU men’s group says they’re disappointed but not surprised by a lack of attendance at their “Men’s Issue’s” event, Thursday night.The MSU chapter of the National Coalition for Men organized a symposium to raise awareness of problems in men’s lives.The group geared the event towards fraternity students at the college and invited speakers to talk about things like men’s rights when it comes to sexual misconduct investigations on-campus.No one showed up to the event but organizers say the lack of attendence is not due to a lack of interest.”One of the fraternity boys, I was working out at the gym, and he walked up to me, ‘Hey, hey, you’re the guy that did the presentation on the men’s group, right?’ He didn’t want anyone to hear that he was talking about this in public. He was very interested in it, but didn’t want anyone to know that he was interested in men’s rights, men’s issues. So, that kind of shows why no one turned out,” says President of the MSU chapter of the National Coalition for Men Chris Thompson.
I tried organising a men’s rights group in a similar setting some time back, and experienced exactly the same thing. The young men were reluctant to take part, not because they couldn’t see the valid point of men’s rights, but because they (rightly) feared that publicly putting their own interests as men on the same level as that of women would make them unpopular with women – in other words, women would exercise their sexual power to choose to fuck other men, the men who wouldn’t stand up for themselves. Men don’t become MRAs because they ‘can’t get laid’, they can’t get laid when they become MRAs. This is probably a large reason why most ‘public’ MRAs tend to be older and not competing in the sexual market anymore.
The co-educational university system, in a free sexual market, is a place where young women do have sexual power, and use it to maintain an ideology that they are being brainwashed into – feminism – that is chiefly about preserving the sexual interests of older women, who whilst having little or no sexual power themselves, do have political power. Any theory that fails to take all of these things into account, is incomplete.
Steve Moxon reveals on his blog that he is to give a talk on Political Correctness in a Sheffield pub next January (so long as the anonymous attempts to stop him aren’t successful). A handy summary of his forthcoming talk is listed in his blog post, which I thought I would re-publish here (to read a full exposition of his ideas, please purchase his essential ‘The Woman Racket’ from Amazon).
‘Political correctness’ – PC – can accurately be considered the new fascism (as will be fully explained).Contrary to its tenets, it’s the ordinary person, the Average Joe, we are prejudiced towards, and who indeed is disadvantaged and ‘oppressed’; not women, ethnic minorities and gays.
* Women have always been actually privileged, and if in some way some women lost out as social conditions changed, then this was amended with a speed hampered only by inertia itself caused by the very strength of the arrangements already in place to provide female advantage but now anachronistic.
* Many ethnic-minority groups fare better in education and in work than the average citizen, often in the context of the sort of community cohesion now lost to the host culture.
* ‘Gays’ likewise benefit from community cohesion, are notably over-represented in nice-jobs-if-you-can-get-them, and don’t have the costs of compromising with the opposite sex.
The hard-done-by group in any and every society is the mass of (necessarily) lower-status males.The deepest of reasons account for this: the root function of the male across biology (as will be explained). But synergistically with this, in our own culture there has been a pathological all-pervasive political development.
There is a powerful reason why we never hear talk about ‘the workers’ any more: it’s that they never ‘rose up’ as Marxist theory prescribed and predicted; leaving egg on the faces of those with a political-left mindset. Reducing this ‘cognitive-dissonance’ could be achieved in the classic way of not blaming either one’s own gullibility or the belief itself, and instead to blame others.Given that the typical worker was male and white, so it became imperative to erase this sub-group from consideration as being in need of ‘liberation’, and to substitute sub-groups that are non-male and non-white. Hence women, ethnic minorities and gays were latched on to as the superficially plausible new ‘oppressed’; not merely displacing ‘the workers’ but inverting their role in ideology to be the new ‘oppressor’ class, whilst transforming the state in political imagination from the tool of the ‘boss’ class to the supposed agent of social change. On the standard principle that a turncoat is reviled even more than an enemy, enmity transferred from the ‘boss’ class to the mass of ordinary people (less the abstracted aforesaid sub-groups).The process began long ago, in the late 1920s, when it was first realised that the Soviet experiment was failing economically, and that therefore a cultural rather than an economic theory of Marxism was required. Academics in central Europe (who took themselves and their ideas to the USA and its Ivy League universities) rationalised the failure of theory regarding the ‘proletariat’ by utilising then current (but now entirely discredited) pseudo-scientific ideas of Freud concerning repression and the family. ‘Capitalism’ was deemed to ‘repress’ the ‘worker’ through the agency of the family, which itself was falsely regarded as a ‘capitalist’ creation.These idiotic notions filtered down through the vastly expanding university systems across the West in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, through highly influential writers such as Herbert Marcuse, ready to fully ‘hit the pavement’ at the time that the political-Left collapsed first as an electoral force (circa 1980 with the end of the post-war settlement and the rise of Thatcher and Reagan), and then as a forcible imposition (in 1989 with the spectacular implosion of the Soviet empire). In the 1990s, if not before, PC became the new religion of the government-media-education elite, and then, as ever, the rest of the establishment – not least the police and the judiciary – fell into line behind the new order.It was never a question of ‘political correctness gone mad’: PC never made (any rational) sense in the first place. In pretending to be about being nice to people but actually despising us, it’s the deepest and widest, most serious political fraud in history; that may be – is clearly meant to be — the death of our culture. PC is the quintessential example of expressing pique in the time-honoured manner of ‘throwing the toys out of the pram’.
Despite many slamming size zero models – even Victoria Beckham banned them from her fashion show last year – the runway waif has now been backed by top academics.
A new report warns that getting rid of super-skinny models could worsen the nation’s obesity epidemic.
Researchers Dr Davide Dragone and Dr Luca Savorelli, from the University of Bologna, Italy claim that introducing larger models will increase unhealthy eating habits.
On the same basis as these academics, I’ve argued previously that in the midst of a child obesity epidemic, the feminist obsession with anorexia and the banning of ‘idealistic’ slim images of women is an utter obscenity and a clear form of child abuse. But what’s more, it’s clear evidence for the sexual trade union theory of what feminism is.
I’ve promised Ferdinand Bardemu I’ll write the occasional article for Inmalafide. I thought I’d start with an outline of the theory propounded on this blog that feminism is a sexual trade union for women reacting to changes in technology that continue to drive open the free sexual market (and put feminists, and the majority of women, at a sexual disadvantage).
Thinking about the article, I’ve been forced to reflect again on why I think this explanation of feminism is superior to the massively more popular ‘Cultural Marxism’ accounts. And I’ve read again the first chapter of Steve Moxon’s excellent (and essential) ‘The Woman Racket’ and also Angry Harry’s typically cogent and well argued essay ‘Cultural Marxism and Feminism’.
I don’t think sexual trade union theory, and theories that place Cultural Marxism at the center, are actually in opposition. I just think that the latter are simply incapable of providing complete explanations of the entire historical narrative of feminism, and the specific focus that feminism has always had on protecting the sexual interests of its supporters as they become increasingly threatened by a forever widening free sexual market. Cultural Marxism has been the intellectual mask, the rationalisation, that feminism has needed since the sexual market was blown open with the introduction of the contraceptive pill. That is not to deny that Cultural Marxism has, indeed, had a very concrete and leading role in the astonishing ‘success’ that feminism has enjoyed in the last few decades. But, for me, it is sexual trade union theory that best explains the underlying psychological motivations behind feminists themselves.
Feminism began with the religious and conservative social purity movements of the 19th century. The first agitators for the vote for women were often extremely and openly racist. In fact, many argued that it was necessary for white women to gain the vote as a counter to the enfranchisement of the black male. It should also be remembered that the first men’s rights activist, Ernest Belfort Bax, was a socialist thinker. Since the 60′s, feminism has certainly been predominantly left-wing. But recently, with the likes of Sarah Palin, we’ve begun to see the strong re-emergence of the ‘femiservative’ (a term coined by Ferdinand Bardemu).
Feminists have always changed their political allegiances with the wind. The only constant is that whichever intellectual or political theory their movement adopts, they do so with the rationalisation and protection of their threatened sexual interests chiefly in mind (consciously or subconsciously).
The feminist focus upon, and exploitation of, anorexia, and the campaign against size zero models, as well as laws such as the recent French ban on ‘digitally airbrushed images of women in the media’, can be explained partly by cultural marxism, but more exhaustively (and more simply) by sexual trade union theory.
Not only do feminists pursue a policy of campaigning against size zero models, as well as digitally slimmed down images of women, policies that will likely cause a rise in general obesity, (something that is a far greater problem for young girls than is anorexia). They also remain completely silent about the fast food industry, which spends millions and makes billions in persuading young people to eat their unhealthy, fattening products.
But really, why should cultural marxism, in itself, so clearly lead feminists to confront the fashion industry rather than the fast food industry? Other ‘liberal progressives’ and Michael Moore Wannabes have. The fashion industry is dominated by homosexual men who, in the words of one commentator, want their female models to be as sexless and aneroxic as possible, as a kind of substitute for the unattainable boys that they pine for. Not exactly the usual bogeymen of cultural Marxism. The food industry is dominated by buisnessmen running international corporations that make massive profits from destroying the health of children through obesity…and ruining the sexual attractiveness of teenage girls (something, which of course, feminists want). The multi-billion dollar male dominated fast food industry is a more logical and honest target for victim and opresser ideology, but attacking the fashion industry, and remaining silent upon obesity and fast food, serves the sexual interests of feminists much better.
The fact is that only sexual trade union theory can explain all feminist behaviour, from particular campaigns such as the targeting of ‘size zero models’, to the broad brush strokes of each successive wave of feminism. Feminism has always been the story of women being stirred into increasing political activism as new technology threatens their sexual power in a market that continues to open. Size zero models and digitally airbrushed images are just one of the latest manifestations of this in the history of feminism as a sexual trade union.
Are feminists really behind the French burka ban? I’m very much in favour of the French law passed this week banning women from wearing the full hijab, or burqa, in public places. Not because I think the burqa ‘oppresses women’ (it doesn’t – or only the attractive minority of women), but because it is a symbolic step against the Islamification of Europe. An Islamification whose end result is similar to feminism - male sexuality being restricted in order that the sexual interests of others can selfishly benefit. The burqa is an attempt to enslave and deny male sexuality (men are not even permitted to gaze on female beauty in the street) as much as it is to enslave or oppress women.
But what really angers me is the constant media portrayal, and general assumption, of the burqa ban being something championed and carried through by French feminists. Is this really the case? A recent opinion poll found that over 80% of French people were in favour of a ban. In fact a majority in most of the European nations surveyed were in favour of a ban in their own countries. Interestingly, there was ‘little or no variation between the genders‘ in the level of support. Now, given that we know only too well how prone women are to vote for their own selfish gender interests, it does seem a little surprising that if this is about the oppression of women that there is no variation between genders. It should also be noted that the socialist opposition party abstained from voting in favour of the ban.
Isn’t it a little more likely, given the general deafening silence of feminists towards Islam, that this is all about Sarkozy and his center-right party appealing to the ‘Islamaphobic’ fear that the white population in France have of the rapidly accelerating demographic shift between themselves and their un-integrated muslim minority? This ban is about preventing white working-class votes falling into the hands of the far right and, in itself, likely no more to do with feminists standing up against the Islamic ‘oppression of women’ than is the recent Swiss ban on building minarets.
Don’t believe me? Well why don’t you listen to the voice of third wave feminism herself?
Banning the burqa doesn’t further women’s rights – it limits them. Now, obviously there’s a difference in Islamic women’s dress from the hijab to the burqa – but legally banning any of them erases all agency from Muslim women.
Is anyone really surprised by this? Surprised by the fact that a feminist who wants men caged for having sex with love dolls is opposed to a law that increases men’s buying options in a sexual market?
Well, actually, depressingly, I think most MRA’s are still surprised by this. But thankfully, not anti-feminists with intelligence.
An adequate discussion of men-women in the Islamic and Hebraic traditions would require a whole book, so I limit myself here to one sentance : Islamic garb, like other phenomena such as foot binding and female circumcision, is as much to do with female-female competition as it is with men jealously guarding their women.
(a footnote in the forward of Steve Moxon’s ‘The Woman Racket’)
Pretty girl get’s choked and humiliated by feminist school bully
Warning – very disturbing video
Now, the supposed oppression of women under Islam is not the only thing that feminists are mysteriously silent about. Whilst feminist sexual pressure groups such as the NSPCC, posing as child protection charities, are busy organizing massive freebie conferences from Brazil to Japan, dedicated to ridding the world of the tragic scourge of 17 year old Lithuanian girls happily showing themselves on webcam, another internet phenomena has grown up in the last few years – the YouTube bitch fight. And strangely, whilst those who profess to care about ‘children’ will stop at nothing to prevent nubile 16 and 17 year old girls from freely giving sexual enjoyment to men, somehow, the existance of thousands of online videos showing children as young as 5 beating, bullying, and maiming each other has somehow slipped under their collective radar.
Slipped under their radar? WTF am I talking about? Dozens, if not hundreds of websites (mostly openly based in America – a country which locks up teenagers for ‘sexting’ each other) feature hardly anything but these horrific videos. And the sole purpose of these websites is to make money from the graphic and undeniable, but non-sexual, abuse and traumatisation of children. In fact, judging from the invariable calls of ‘this is going on YouTube’ intermingled with the screams to ‘fuck her up Ashley’, there is no doubt that if these websites didn’t exist (i.e. were shut down by the FBI after being lobbied to do so by ‘child protection’ groups) then thousands of young children wouldn’t have had their trauma viewed by millions, if not avoided altogether in the first place.
But of course feminsts and their sexual pressure groups have no interest in stopping the abuse of children. Their only desire and motivation is in limiting competition to themselves and their female supporters by preventing teenage girls from entering the free sexual market that their feminist predecessors were only too happy to proclaim back in the 60′s and 70′s.
Two girls, who appear to be no more than 10 years old, fight each other, apparently spurred on by adults, in a YouTube video that was uploaded over 6 months ago and has thus far received 7,000 viewers. 5 people have upvoted the video, 2 have downvoted it…presumably because they feel it is not violent enough.
If any feminists reading this (and I know most of my readers are feminists) can give a satisfactory explanation as to why NOT A SINGLE feminist or A SINGLE ONE of their sickening child protection charities are campaigning against these videos, and yet it has been necessary (and easy) to introduce world-wide legislation to imprison any man who looks at a picture of a 17 year old girl in a bikini, I hereby promise to abandon this website and become a committed supporter of feminism henceforth.
The silence is deafening.
The flames of hell are not good for the skin.