Men Hate Women…

Subject, Verb, Object…

Men Hate Women…

Seriously, men as a class hate women…  Women who do not grasp that are willfully ignorant.

Almost all religions are means of enforcing female inferiority.

The Desert Three: Islam, Christianity and Judaism place the blame for all of humanity’s ills upon women.

Men consider women to be stupid, good only as sperm receptacles/fuck toilets. Toys for them to cum in.

Porn objects to arouse them and as a means for making more males.

In Non-Western cultures where they haven’t quite learned to cover the raw naked hatred for women as well as they have in the West, they practice abortion for sex selection to kill female fetuses, or infanticide to kill girl babies.

In some non-western cultures females have their genitals mutilated, not circumcised but mutilated. Their clitorises cut out, their labia cut off and the bloody remains sewn together.

Perhaps we are fortunate here in the west where women are only expected to have the hair ripped from their pubes and have a plastic surgeon sculpt their labia to porn star standards.

Men Fuck Women…

Subject, Verb, Object…

Subject: “Men”: Noun Plural Gender Masculine…

Object: “Women”: Noun Plural Gender Feminine…

I was fortunate enough to be a Second Wave Feminist, to live through a time when Feminist militantly attacked the endemic misogyny that has turned women around the world into lesser humans than men.

I have also lived through the thirty years and more of ultra right wing backlash, not that Feminism was ever accepted and embraced by the patriarchy.

From the start Feminists were ridiculed and verbally abused.

The only reason the pill was as widely embraced by men as it was in the years after its introduction was due to how it freed men to act even more piggish in their expectations of being able to use women as fuck toys.

The war on contraception is being waged with the goal of removing women from the work place, saddling them with children and therefore keeping them dependent upon men, whom they must please in every way.

Removing women’s ability to control their fertility and terminate any unwanted pregnancies for any reason what so ever undermines any idea that women are full human beings, reducing them to fuck objects existing only for the purpose of reproducing.

As far as the Patriarchy is concerned there are two types of women, both of which are subhuman.  There is the good woman: Subservient, submissive, willing to be abused and controlled by her owner, the man who feeds, shelters, clothes and impregnates her and for whom she cleans, cooks, raises his children.  It is her duty to be his sex object, his pretty toy and the instrument that gives him orgasms.

Then there is the bad woman:  Bad women are: Scolds, Feminists, bitches, lesbians, dykes, whores, ballbreakers, feminazis, ugly, commies, sluts.  The list goes on and on.  To fall in this category all a woman has to do is think herself the equal of men.  Want control over her own body.  Choose who to fuck and when, while choosing to be the property of no one. Say what she means and mean what she says.

The worst women don’t choose a man out of need but out of mutual shared attractions and interests. Bad women are in your face with their sexuality while still being the ones in control of it.  Bad women don’t give a shit if you find them attractive or not, after all we are not in this world to please a man or make his dick hard unless we want to.

Bad women don’t do gender because gender is a lie, propaganda to keep women the second sex.

Bad women strike back when Junkie Pricks like Rush Limpdick try to slut shame.

The way for women to stop being the Objects is to make themselves the subject instead of the pretty in pink object.  Subjects take control of their lives.  Gender makes us objects.  Gender is sex roles in new drag.

Gender is nothing but a con game that keeps women as objects.

Being an independent woman doesn’t mean being transgender, being an independent woman means smashing gender and its designation of women as objects.

Smashing gender means asking, “How come, contraception is a moral issue but hard-on pills are not?”

Being a woman and an equal human being means rejecting gender that keeps us as objects and fuck toilets.

Why Extreme Right-Wing Views on Contraception Will Backfire if Progressives Fight

From Alternet:

By June Carbone and Naomi Cahn
March 4, 2012

Access to Birth Control Coming Under Fire.”
Rep. Darrell Issa Bars Minority Witness, a Woman, on Contraception.”
States slash birth control subsidies as federal debate rages.”

Headlines like these were unimaginable to many people two years ago. Not to us. In our 2010 book, Red Families v. Blue Families, we argued for changing the discussion of family values from an obsessive focus on abortion to one focused more squarely on contraception. When we presented the recommendation, people yawned, explaining that “no one cares about contraception.” No one cares, they emphasized, because politically influential women already have it and conservatives do not oppose it. What was there to worry about?

We insisted they were wrong. We pointed out that the United States has the highest rates of unplanned pregnancy in the industrialized world in large part because conservatives have blocked access to comprehensive sex education and birth control, particularly for poor women. We also predicted that if we did focus on birth control, conservatives would in fact oppose measures to expand contraceptive access and their opposition would serve as a wedge issue dividing the right and finally making visible their long-standing efforts to undermine women’s reproductive autonomy. Now that contraception has erupted as an issue that dominates the airwaves we cannot resist the temptation to say we were right – and to explain why the furor is all too predictable.

In 2010, we wrote that the conservative base opposes contraception because at a symbolic level it represents the social changes they oppose:

“The sexual revolution began with birth control and…the connections among contraception, fertility, and sexual activity are fundamentally important, both symbolically and practically….It is the moral meaning of contraception, rather than its ubiquity, that is contested terrain in today’s polarized discourse on fertility control: is a public embrace of the importance of contraception implied approval for nonmarital sexuality or part of a renewed definition of individual responsibility?”

We realize now that we were simply channeling our inner Rush Limbaughs when we tried to describe the conservative position. Limbaugh recently called Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” because she had the effrontery to propose congressional testimony explaining why it was important to her that her university healthcare plan include birth control. He declared that “[I]f we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Escape from Hasidism

From Salon:

Deborah Feldman talks to Salon about her journey from hyper-repressed Jewish enclave to feminist single motherhood

By Amy Benfer
Saturday, Mar 3, 2012

Today Deborah Feldman is a model of modern, independent young womanhood: the 25-year-old single mother of a 6-year-old boy, Yitzy, a recent graduate of Sarah Lawrence College, and a new author, with one memoir, “Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots,” just published and a second memoir and a novel on the way.

But as a child and teenager, she lived the kind of life that would not have been out of place for a girl born a century before. Williamsburg, Brooklyn at the turn of the millennium was, for some, the epicenter of the post-punk revival, artists lofts, angular haircuts and hipster culture. But Williamsburg is also the long-time home of the Satmar community, a sect of Hasidic Jews that formed two large settlements in Brooklyn and upstate New York shortly after the end of World War II.

Feldman grew up in her grandparents’ brownstone — her father was mentally ill; her mother was estranged for reasons that don’t become clear until the end of her memoir — watched over by her grandmother, Bubby, a Holocaust survivor, and her frequently interfering aunt. In her home, there were no secular newspapers, no radios, no television. She saw her first forbidden movie at 17.

“If I had been living 200 years ago,” she says, “my story wouldn’t have been strange at all.” Books, too, were forbidden, but Feldman smuggled in 19th-century novels — “Pride and Prejudice,” “Jane Eyre,” “Little Women” — in which she saw a version of her own life. Like those heroines, Feldman grew up believing her life would be determined by her marriage plot. And at 17, her grandparents selected her husband, a young man she had never met, who was considered old at 23. They met for 30 minutes; eight months later they were married. It took them a year of humiliating tinkering — and very public interference — to figure out the mechanics of sex, but by 19, she had a son, the first of many children she was expected to bear over the course of her marriage.

But soon after her son was born, Feldman veered off the script. She secretly enrolled in the adult program at Sarah Lawrence College, telling her husband that she was taking a “business course” to help her get more copy-writing jobs within the Hasidic community. As her intellectual life burst open, and her marriage deteriorated, she eventually decided to leave her husband and her community. Inspired by a history class at her college told through first-person memoirs written by people who lived through each historical era, she began writing her own memoir the day after she left. She finished it six months later.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Oligarchy in the U.S.A.

From In These Times:

The wealth defense industry protects the richest of the rich.

BY Jeffrey A. Winters
February 28,2012

In 2005, Citigroup offered its high net-worth clients in the United States a concise statement of the threats they and their money faced.

The report told them they were the leaders of a “plutonomy,” an economy driven by the spending of its ultra-rich citizens. “At the heart of plutonomy is income inequality,” which is made possible by “capitalist-friendly governments and tax regimes.”

The danger, according to Citigroup’s analysts, is that “personal taxation rates could rise – dividends, capital gains, and inheritance taxes would hurt the plutonomy.”

But the ultra-rich already knew that. In fact, even as America’s income distribution has skewed to favor the upper classes, the very richest have successfully managed to reduce their overall tax burden. Look no further than Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, who in 2010 paid 13.9 percent of his $21.6 million income in taxes that year, the same tax rate as an individual who earned a mere $8,500 to $34,500.

How is that possible? How can a country make so much progress toward equality on other fronts – race, gender, sexual orientation and disability – but run the opposite way in its policy on taxing the rich?

In 2004, the American Political Science Association (APSA) tried to answer that very question. The explanation they came up with viewed the problem as a classic case of democratic participation: While the poor have overwhelming numbers, the wealthy have higher rates of political participation, more advanced skills and greater access to resources and information. In short, APSA said, the wealthy use their social capital to offset their minority status at the ballot box.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

How Ayn Rand became the new right’s version of Marx

From The Guardian UK:

Her psychopathic ideas made billionaires feel like victims and turned millions of followers into their doormats, Monday 5 March 2012

It has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the postwar world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by Ayn Rand, who died 30 years ago today, has never been more popular or influential.

Rand was a Russian from a prosperous family who emigrated to the United States. Through her novels (such as Atlas Shrugged) and her nonfiction (such as The Virtue of Selfishness) she explained a philosophy she called Objectivism. This holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as “refuse” and “parasites”, and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role for government: no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax.

Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, depicts a United States crippled by government intervention in which heroic millionaires struggle against a nation of spongers. The millionaires, whom she portrays as Atlas holding the world aloft, withdraw their labour, with the result that the nation collapses. It is rescued, through unregulated greed and selfishness, by one of the heroic plutocrats, John Galt.

The poor die like flies as a result of government programmes and their own sloth and fecklessness. Those who try to help them are gassed. In a notorious passage, she argues that all the passengers in a train filled with poisoned fumes deserved their fate. One, for instance, was a teacher who taught children to be team players; one was a mother married to a civil servant, who cared for her children; one was a housewife “who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing”.

Rand’s is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. Yet, as Gary Weiss shows in his new book, Ayn Rand Nation, she has become to the new right what Karl Marx once was to the left: a demigod at the head of a chiliastic cult. Almost one third of Americans, according to a recent poll, have read Atlas Shrugged, and it now sells hundreds of thousands of copies every year.

Continue reading at:

AFA Radio Show Host and Anti-Semite Sandy Rios Says Secular Jews Have Been ‘The Worst Enemies of the Country’

From Right Wing Watch:

by Brian Tashman
Mon, 03/05/2012

The American Family Association recently hired Fox News contributor and former Concerned Women for America president Sandy Rios to host her own show on American Family Radio, and here’s what we get to look forward to: attacks on Jewish Americans for supporting President Obama. Earlier today she spoke with the AFA’s Tim Wildmon and Bryan Fischer, where she suggested that secular Jews are enemies of America. Rios bemoaned that “the Jewish vote in this country is so confused, so many of the Jews in this country are atheist and their hearts are with this President.” “They’re far-left,” Wildmon said, “Most of the Jews in this country are far left, unfortunately.” Rios said that “a lot of Jewish atheists are some of the ones who have done, just like former Christians or quasi Christians, people who have some dealing with Judeo-Christian ethics, sometimes turn out to be the worst enemies of the country.”

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Imus calls Limbaugh ‘insincere pig’ after ‘slut’ apology

You really know it is time for Limpdick to do a serious gutcheck when Imus, a serious pig in his own right tells him he has crossed the line.

This is sort of like Courtney Love suggesting perhaps you should consider checking into rehab.

From Raw Story:

By David Edwards
Monday, March 5, 2012

Fox Business Network host Don Imus is calling Rush Limbaugh an “insincere pig” after the conservative icon begrudgingly apologized to a Georgetown University law student for calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

In a statement on his website over the weekend, Limbaugh said he “sincerely” apologized to Sandra Fluke, who had testified before Congress about the need for contraception coverage at colleges and universities, even if they are owned by religious institutions.

By Sunday, at least seven businesses had suspended advertising on Limbaugh’s show.

 “It was a vile personal attack on this woman and it was sustained,” Imus noted on Monday. “It was Wednesday and then come back and double down on Thursday and then come back and double down on Friday. And then, issue a lame apology on your website.”
Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

G8 Moved Out of Chicago

From Occupied Wall Street Journal:

by Jennifer Sacks
on Mar 5, 2012

In a move that makes a mockery of American democracy—but also points to the growing clout of the Occupy movement—the White House has moved the site of the upcoming G-8 economic summit from Chicago to the presidential retreat at Camp David in Maryland. Chicago’s current mayor, Rahm Emanuel, served as President Barack Obama’s first chief of staff until 2010.

Because it attracts protesters, the G8 has “been increasingly taken away from anywhere we can get near,” Mike Dolan, a principal organizer of protests at the 1999 World Trade Organization conference that spawned The Battle of Seattle, told the New York Times in 2004. That year, the G8 was held on remote Sea Island, Georgia.

From Huffington Post:

It’s an unusually late location change for such a large international summit. The White House gave no immediate reason for the shift, saying only in a statement that Obama is inviting his fellow G-8 leaders to Camp David to “facilitate a free-flowing discussion.”

The G-8 meeting will be held May 18-19. The White House says Obama still plans to host the NATO summit in Chicago on May 20-21.

The White House announced last summer that Obama would hold both summits in his hometown of Chicago.

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

States of Depression

From The New York Times:

Published: March 4, 2012

The economic news is looking better lately. But after previous false starts — remember “green shoots”? — it would be foolish to assume that all is well. And in any case, it’s still a very slow economic recovery by historical standards.

There are several reasons for this slowness, with the most important being the overhang of household debt that is a legacy of the housing bubble. But one significant factor in our continuing economic weakness is the fact that government in America is doing exactly what both theory and history say it shouldn’t: slashing spending in the face of a depressed economy.

In fact, if it weren’t for this destructive fiscal austerity, our unemployment rate would almost certainly be lower now than it was at a comparable stage of the “Morning in America” recovery during the Reagan era.

Notice that I said “government in America,” not “the federal government.” The federal government has been pursuing what amount to contractionary policies as the last vestiges of the Obama stimulus fade out, but the big cuts have come at the state and local level. These state and local cuts have led to a sharp fall in both government employment and government spending on goods and services, exerting a powerful drag on the economy as a whole.

One way to dramatize just how severe our de facto austerity has been is to compare government employment and spending during the Obama-era economic expansion, which began in June 2009, with their tracks during the Reagan-era expansion, which began in November 1982.

Start with government employment (which is mainly at the state and local level, with about half the jobs in education). By this stage in the Reagan recovery, government employment had risen by 3.1 percent; this time around, it’s down by 2.7 percent.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Challenging the Self-Made Myth

From The Nation:

Katrina vanden Heuvel
on March 2, 2012

Over the last thirty years, anti-government arguments by conservative pundits and politicians have gained prominence, and the rhetoric this 2012 campaign season seems more toxic than ever. Republicans are relentlessly pushing the notion that lower taxes, less regulation and small government (except for defense) will magically end the recession and create a better country, and “job creators” will lift all boats.

It’s BS. As Congressman Barney Frank recently said, “I’ve never seen a tax cut put out a fire. I’ve never seen a tax cut build a bridge.”

Americans benefit every day from government—from consumer protection to roads and bridges to food and safety regulation—even people who claim to hate an “activist government” are some of the prime beneficiaries of the safety net at a moment when there are still over four unemployed workers for every available job and nearly one in six Americans lives in poverty.

But the GOP has wagered its future on ruthlessly and relentlessly attacking government—it isn’t about to let reality get in the way of its crusade.

Republican presidential candidates are tripping all over one another trying to prove who will take the biggest axe to government the quickest. So Mitt Romney labels regulations “the invisible boot of government to bring us all down” and argues that “we need to get the federal government out of education.” Rick Santorum fearmongers about “the narcotic of government dependency,” and Gingrich plays to old myths and racial stereotypes as he spreads lies about food stamps—one of the bright spots of the safety net in terms of responding to the needs of the Great Recession.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Your Body Under Arrest: Police in Riot Gear Remove Peaceful Women’s Rights Protestors in Virginia

From RH Reality Check:

by Jodi Jacobson, Editor in Chief, RH Reality Check
March 5, 2012

You might think that the right wing in this country was getting the message that women will no longer stand for legal, verbal, and physical abuse and harassment, especially by elected officials.  You would especially think that would be the case in Virginia where former Vice Presidential aspirant Governor Bob McDonnell, who is contemplating signing into law a forced ultrasound bill after doing women a “favor” and taking out the forced trans-vaginal ultrasounds initially required, has been widely pilloried.  You would also think the right-wing would be cautious after a week in which the seemingly untouchable Rush Limbaugh has, as of this writing, lost seven corporate sponsors over his debasing remarks about Sandra Fluke.

But you would be wrong.

Because, you see, women in this country are so dangerous, their sense of entitlement as citizens so incredibly threatening to the peace of the republic that state police in riot gear were sent to remove peaceful protestors this past weekend. According to a news article in the Richmond independent news source Style Weekly:

“About a thousand women’s rights protestors descended on the state Capitol Saturday afternoon to protest anti-abortion legislation in the General Assembly, and then things got ugly,” reports Style Weekly’s Vernal Colman.

“About 20 State Police officers, many in swat gear with face shields and body armor, were called in to assist Capitol Police in controlling the crowd. Some of the State Police officers wore green camouflage and carried rifles and canisters of tear gas (no tear gas was used, however). After being warned to vacate the south steps of the Capitol, police officers arrested 31 people — 14 men and 17 women — on charges ranging from unlawful assembly to trespassing, according to Capitol Police.”

The rally ended a raucous two weeks in the statehouse, with anti-abortion legislation generating national headlines in a Republican-controlled General Assembly. While legislation granting unborn children “personhood” status was shelved until next year and a bill requiring invasive, transvaginal ultrasounds prior to abortions was watered down at the request of Gov. Bob McDonnell, women’s rights protestors descended onto Capitol Square nonetheless.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 160 other followers