Several days ago this site ran an article addressing the unintentionally revealing ravings of a disturbed ideologue who still manages to cling to the pretence of being a brave righter of wrongs and champion of the meek. However, Eve Ensler demonstrated in her comments that her life-long obsession with rape is not driven by some noble humanism or desire for justice. She appears to simply be jealous of the physical strength and outboard plumbing which allows men the possibility of overpowering a smaller individual, and reflected in Ensler’s distorted desires, committing rape.
This wasn’t a new consideration for me, I did wonder if Eve might consider indulging herself with fantasies of raping individuals of lesser physical prowess than herself, children for example. Then I remembered she’s already included those fantasies in her play “the Vagina Monologues”. Whoops, I guess I’m late to the party. The reality that some women sexually abuse children is unsurprising. Women aren’t special human beings, they’re not innately innocent, or pure, or magical, they’re just humans. People quite naturally put themselves into positions of access to what they’re attracted to. If it’s children, then they’ll gravitate into roles affording access to children, and the sex of a potential child abuser has no impact on that.
However, the accepted narrative in our culture is dominated by the perverse ideology well known to readers of this site which places a masculine label on all that is negative. So despite continued reportage of cases like Vanessa George, Angela Allen, Tracy Lyons and Tracey Dawber (pedophilia), Casey Anthony (child murder), Crystal Dawn Mckenzie (murder) Rachel Hicks, Abbie Swogger, Lisa Marinelli (rape) – the approved party line remains focused solely on offenders who happen to be male.
According to Author and director of the UK Charity Kidscape, Michelle Elliot, over 75% of cases of child sexual abuse by women were committed where women acted alone or without male participation, and this, according to Elliot, “messes up the narrative”. Elliot was blacklisted following her publication of “female sexual abuse of children” in 1994.
Returning to I’m-over-it-Eve and her rape fantasies, how long have ideologues used a belligerent mantra of women’s victimization to shout down more reasoned humanist voices pointing to peer reviewed research undermining the narrative of female victimhood? This goes beyond a childish inability to engage in civil debate, and beyond ideological blindness in which conforming data is selected and nonconforming data rejected. The feminist victim mantra is most understandable in recognition that it’s proponents are projecting their own unacknowledged impulses onto the sexual demographic accused of all wrong-doing in the world.
There is a simple reason why feminist ideologues who endlessly beat on the drum of female victimhood and male aggression rely so heavily on anecdotal evidence and debunked research like the infamous Koss study. Its not just that the peer reviewed data fails to support men=bad, women=good. The accepted narrative of male evil continuously promoted is projection of desire. The ideology commonly called feminism, which wraps itself in a phony blanket of pious humanism is, after all a doctrine built on the foundation of hatred and violence.
This realization is thrown into sharp focus by recent developments, including the reporting several on this site of an ongoing criminal conspiracy to engage in male-targeting eugenics. An article written by Pamela O’Shaughnessy used euphemistic language to suggest mass murder and eugenics as a solution to imagined male defect. This attracted a collection of feminist ideologues whose reactions ranged from the necessity of mass murder to reduce men to a manageable number under a female supremacist governance. For illustrative purpose, I’ve included a few of the weeks-old comments from that blog, left standing in place by the editor.
One cheerful enthusiast for mass murder and female supremacy said :
The *magic number* to bring the males under control is ~30% of the population
Believing themselves above public accountability, and above the law, other commenters also suggest eugenics and infanticide openly.
“Women need to stop raising male children. Women who raise male children are digging the graves of other females. Nobody wants to bite that bullet (except lesbian separatists) but it must be done.”
“it occurs to me that a female ob/gyn that was willing to perform sex-selective abortions on male fetuses would be giving a gift to the next generation”
Some openly lament the knowledge that sane women might refuse to join in a collective campaign of child murder.
“The danger of talking about “radical action” as being only things like killing all male babies at birth is that we know in our hearts that the vast majority of women will NEVER do that. NEVER. EVER.
So we can sit back snug in the belief that we know exactly what it will take to be free AND never have to do anything about it.”
Another commenter rebukes those who’ve preceded her for their apparent moderation and timidity.
“and so what if there is no such thing as radical action, or realistic radical action? are you honestly saying that there is danger in speaking the truth? or do you disagree that radical action is limited to things that are practically unspeakable like infanticide?
if something is true there is no harm in saying it, is there? I mean, the danger in *not* discussing things like a biological solution is…it doesn’t get talked about. we don’t go to the ends of our thoughts. “
These radical, extremist, openly murderous ideologues conducted this discussion in a publicly visible blog, which weeks after being outed by commenters on this site – remains online. The author of this blog, far from being a diagnosed mental patient is a trained lawyer, a published author, and a director of a major political organization.
This private murder club is out in the open because it’s not actually radical. These women believe they are immune from legal consequence. They may be right.
Individuals attending Occupy Wall Street protests have also provided a glimpse into increasingly open expression of murderous and violent fantasies of ideologues.
“Eradicate males” Is what one woman’s sign at an Occupy Wall Street protest rally read. She paraded this message of genocide in public, knowing that the message would be pushed, and that she’d face no consequence.
Another group of self identified feminists advocated for re-distribution of weapons from police to themselves. The picture on their banner was an outline of an assault rifle. For self protection, and not murder, right ladies?
Feminism has always been an escalation of chivalry – the normalized ideal of male disposability. As an ideology, the female favouring doctrine of violence and hate has always relied heavily on male enforcement of female privilege, and male disposability for the convenience and comfort of women, but it has progressed. Ideologues who, amazingly continue to claim they are oppressed, increasingly broadcast an open call for large scale murder. Do members of the public need to hear the gunshots outside their doors to wake up to this?
The continued narrative that feminism is anything except violent, brutish and murderous melts like wax in a blast furnace when it’s examined in the light of evidence. Eve Ensler is a frustrated rapist. Dworkin was a frustrated murderer. Mackinnon was a frustrated dictator. And feminists ideologues who continue to promote their narrative of omnipresent rape and physical abuse are themselves frustrated rapists and violent abusers.
The ongoing political push to reverse the burden of evidence in accusations of rape is wholly unrelated to any desire for justice or reduction of sexual violence. It is the manifestation of the desire of followers of a violent ideology to re-purpose the courts into a tool of sexual violence against the demographic they openly hate.
This depraved perversity was summarized in a recent letter published by Brown University’s newspaper, with apparent pride at the abandonment of decency in favour of a wholly ideological governance. Western civilization had a period of wholly ideological rule once before in history. It’s a period commonly called the dark ages. Are the ideologues pushing for this outcome so craven they seek a repeat of legal systems using dogma, torture and astrology to determine and enforce their doctrinal truth? Apparently so.
This is where stupidity of a wholly new level emerges. Let’s assume, just for a moment that somehow we arrive a few years down the road in a world of ideological feminist governance. Men are chattels, reduced to livestock – or, as ideologues like Pamela O’Shaughnessy would have it, an agricultural product.
“My own personal vision is that women will cure the sickness that ails men [...]
I’m serious about this. If we can do it with corn, men ought to be easy.”
Try to imagine this feminist utopia, men in cages, maybe raised in laboratories, lobotomized so their keepers don’t need to suffer the cries for help as their bodies are used as procreative dispensers. Does that sound like a functional society? Or does it have the character of a nightmare world.
Some men might be left intact for use operating heavy machinery, or protecting natural resources such as oil from theft by other nation states. The dirty, dangerous jobs where workers still die – men will be needed for them too.
Now try to imagine getting from here to that no-too-distant future without massive and society-wide violence. Imagine somehow creating that feminist distopia without decades of ongoing and universal bloodshed.
- Substantive Equality, a golf handicap in the law - April 22, 2014
- Women’s Legal Education & Action Fund: The first rule of LEAF is don’t talk about LEAF - April 18, 2014
- Consent: You Don’t Have It - April 17, 2014
- What the fuck is infanticide? - April 12, 2014
- Danielle D’Entremont, Bellwether? - March 30, 2014