I should not have to bring up your sister/mother/aunt/wife in order for you to give a fuck….

The title of this post summarizes my thoughts whenever I have a discussion with men who seem to proudly display their ignorance about the constant attacks on women and girls. One should not have to pull heart strings in order for one side to have any feelings or even care about the subject at hand. It never forces men to have empathy for women and girls, it just reinforces the idea that men’s “damaged property” (female loved ones) should be the only reason why they should be against rape.

Yet, here we are: pulling at those heart strings because it seems to be the only method but constantly backfires when men then claim that their female loved one has never been raped/harassed/laughs off the abuse, or in some cases, say that their sister is beautiful and therefore justifies their inappropriate comments about a woman’s appearance. In others, they will claim that their girlfriend doesn’t mind their porn use or hell even enjoys some of the acts that he does to her. Besides completely missing the point and lack of awareness about women’s socialization in capitalist patriarchy, if I ever brought up self-harming they would swear up and down that those things are not the same. I would argue that they are the same since, for one, people’s choices are not made in a vacuum. No one wakes up one day and decides to slice their wrists because they “wanted to”, there are many social, psychological, economic, and emotional factors that contribute to self-harming behavior similarly those are the same factors that contribute to women “wanting” to be in porn or prostitution.

The way the system is built makes it so that people often choose either the not-so-shittiest-but-still or the most-shittiest choice. Unfortunately being raped and abused for pay seems to be the shittiest but “viable” option for women in poverty. Liberals seem to believe that anything with money attached to something makes it good despite all of the protests from the victims of exploitation. This “choice” rhetoric is also, in a back-handed way, blaming the victims of said exploitation for “choosing” in the first place. After all, if your only option was to either eat the fresh or old cowshit the one who gave you that choice cannot be blamed, only the person who had no choice but to eat either pile are to blame for their suffering. Faux-freedom under capitalism is nothing more than the most vulnerable populations suffering the worst humiliation for the benefit of the rich. Those rich people then go to universities and blab on-and-on about choice. Applying that same standard to women in the third-world also seems to be a favorite among Liberals. While ignoring the fact that the third world is raped and pillaged of their sources by the First World, they will claim that anyone who objects to prostitution in third world countries is a “white savior” and say that what they are doing is not “prostitution.”

It takes a thick layer of cognitive dissonance to not see how all women deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and should not have to endure abuse in order to survive. Women would never choose such an thing if that wasn’t their only option in a desperate situation. There are too many stories of women and girls suffering horrifying acts against them to even dismiss as “lack of regulation” on the part of the industry itself. There should never be a class of women made specifically to have to endure the abuse to make sure that abuser does not harm “other women.” . This is simply the most cruel and self-defeatist position one would take in regards to sex trafficking. Rapists should not being given a slew of vulnerable women to abuse, it would be like giving large amounts of drugs to drug dealers with the belief that they will stop dealing drugs. These vulnerable women are also someone’s sister/aunt/mother/niece/cousin and yet you will never see these people realize their hypocrisy. I would suggest rapists being thrown into a tiger’s den and let the tiger have at him but that would only happen in a perfect world.

Men should care about the well-being of all women regardless of any relation to them. Men should stop with all the navel-gazing long enough to take in their surroundings, that no matter how protective they are of their female relatives they should not wave away the concerns of women just because they do not know them. Women also should not be arguing to care about said well-being because the man’s relative could be the next victim. Yet, we are still arguing that point. Men are still as un-empathetic about women’s suffering despite the emotional argument.


We Are Not Free, The Cage Just Got Bigger

Hugh Hefner recently passed away and all of my readers know how much I hate any pornographer or pimp no matter how much money they donated to “save the whales” or fed hungry African children. People seem to forget that horrible people often do good things to mask or cover-up their horrid deeds, it doesn’t matter what Hugh did while he was alive. He could be as pro-black and pro-choice all he pleases but in the end he was still a capitalist. He was still a man who made his fortune off of the dehumanization and humiliation of women and girls.

There has been many stories coming out about Hugh and his unethical practices, of course I say this ironically since pimps are already unethical, and yet with all of this information and evidence out there people will still bray about Hefner’s greatness. One would only need to do a quick Google search for themselves to find that Hugh was certainly no saint. He, knowingly, published child pornography on more than one occasion, he had no shame in calling women “dogs” and other misogynistic terms, and he only supported Roe V. Wade because he only saw it as a benefit to men. How exactly he was a “friend to women” I will never understand. One would come to the conclusion that since Hugh was a monster and was the one who popularized pornography that they (men) would immediately abandon it. That only seems to make these men defend their porn use even more strongly despite all of this evidence.

These so-called “bunnies” were there by “choice” (if by “choice” you mean that they were desperate for money and were given no job training) but apparently that “choice” resulted in their deaths. How strange, one would think that choice does not include dying from a drug overdose after suffering copious amounts of humiliation but I guess Liberals also don’t mind women being brutalized and dying as long as the woman chose it.

They claim that Hefner brought the sexual revolution, I still have yet to see any material results of this claim. Women are still raped and tortured in war zones, in the home, and even out in public. Women are still suffering in poverty and often have to turn to prostitution because of lack of job opportunities. Disabled women are still sterilized, abused, and raped by the people they trust and are often trafficked by family members. Women and girls in third-world countries are still being brutalized by men from the first world through sex trafficking and war. Women still have to jump through personal and social hurdles to even have their rapist charged and convicted. Indigenous women and girls are still going missing and murdered. So, if any so called liberals can point to me where exactly Hefner’s contribution has resulted in anything that has stopped the things I have just mentioned, besides giving men an excuse to abuse women, I will still cry bullshit to those people.

Many “good” people are capable of doing evil and many “bad” people are capable of doing good. This does not mean that those horrible acts that the person has done should be cancelled out because they donated money to a cause that everyone supports in one way. Hefner still contributed to an already violent culture by normalizing the objectification of women and girls. This is why girls cannot go into a school without being blamed for arousing young boys, why no woman or girl cannot walk down a street without constantly being on guard, this is why we have violent men who rape and brutalize women and girls. Hefner did not cause it but he certainly worked his damned hardest to make it “sexy.”

I will not apologize

It seems that speaking from personal experience has upset people and set them off on a bit of a tizzy. Even when I have stated that I am formally diagnosed as Autistic, that somehow disproves my credibility because I do not take a liking to a certain individual? Here is something you should know: Do not expect your comments to be posted if you are going to be insulting. Do not go on and cry about your precious “freedom of speech”, this is not a government webpage. This is my blog. I am not arresting you.

Don’t like what I say or think? Good for you.

Want to post your super-insulting comment? Don’t bother.

I have never claimed to be a doctor who can diagnose people. My post was about how people, armchair psychologists, are so quick to diagnose individuals without a second thought or merely going by vague testimony from that individual. Autism/Asperger’s is far more than someone “behaving strangely” or having “savant qualities”, it is more than what mainstream media portrays in movies and other media. It comes in various forms and spectrums. It is incredibly strange for people to get upset over a personal opinion, calling me a “dumb whore” (for example), does not serve you or make you seem smarter.

Just remember that the next time you are going to comment on one of my posts.

My Political Views lately…

For last few years I have called myself an “Anarchist Feminist” believing that these views will be the ultimate form of liberation for women. But those last few years I have met a lot of disappointment from some Anarchists who do not seem to be interested in liberating the world. I cannot call myself an Anarchist-anything anymore.

Modern anarchism has become a “liberalised” shadow of its former self. Too busy staring at its own navel and not actually coming up with a solid plan to liberate the masses. I have also noticed that it has become too steeped in “identity politics” while I do realize the importance of recognizing multitudes of oppression but the analysis cannot end there. Analysis is a great thing to have but words really don’t mean anything when Imperialist governments are bombing third world countries left and right. There needs to be more than just discussing our identities, there needs to be more direct and organized action. Protests are fine but politicians, and the capitalists, have seen plenty of non-violent protests and they ultimately do not bring down the government, i.e. the 99% movement.

Lately, I have been looking into other political theories and Marxism seems to make much more sense to me. I do appreciate the structure that Marxism has as opposed to Liberalism which is more focused on their own class interests than liberation. I know that some of my readers will be upset with me but these revelations I have came to on my own. I do not allow people to force ideas on me, I find these answers on my own. So please, show some respect. People change their views over time. I cannot stand to be in one spot forever and neither can the working classes and other oppressed people.

We Can’t Ignore This Problem Anymore

Another man, most likely a white male*, has gone on a mass shooting in a college and it seems he was another man suffering from his own delusions of inferiority. He has killed 10, including himself, and injured 7 people and as per usual everyone will debate passionately about things like “stricter gun control”, “mental illness” and other such topics. What is missing, at least from the mainstream, is the fact that this shooter was another male who felt entitled to women.

Supposedly, this shooter frequented the disgusting pit of inhumanity the-website-that-shall-not-be-named and has posted that he was going on a school shooting. He did not state his reason or which school he was going to shoot but from reading the comments it was pretty obvious that these piles of filth on that site did not care why he would go on a shooting, they would have cheered him on no matter what the reason. I am not going to go on further into the details. The link will be here if you want more information on the shooting and here for the report on the terrorist’s victims. What I do want to say is that we can’t ignore the obvious anymore. The pattern of violence committed against women everyday is perfectly clear. How one can ignore it and say it was something else completely is beyond my comprehension. Guns, and the access to them, are only one part of the equation.

How many more people, especially women and girls, have to be killed before we can finally admit that there is a war on women and girls? How many more men have to go on shooting sprees before we name masculinity as the illness?How long until the whole world admits that it hates women and girls? No more excuses for violent men. No more “but he was a good boy.” No more coddling the psychopaths.

*Side note:It is reported by police that the shooter was of “mixed race”, this still does not detract from the fact that he murdered young women and that he felt entitled to women’s bodies.

Iowa farmer claims oil company rep offered him a trafficked woman

The original title contained the horrible phrase “sex worker” and I will not let CBC insult the young woman who had to turn to this horrible business.

Hughie Tweedy is an Iowa farmer whose land lies right in the path of a new pipeline proposal. It’s called the Dakota Access Pipeline and it would funnel crude from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa for processing in Illinois.

There’s money for landowners who sign over rights to allow the pipeline company to get to work. But Tweedy’s refusing all offers.

But when he told the pipeline representative that he’s not interested in money, Tweedy says they tried to tempt him with something else.

“He offered me women,” Tweedy tells As It Happens host Carol Off. “Not once, not twice, but three times. In the third time, a $1,200 teenage prostitute.” Tweedy was told she was 18 years of age.

He says that he recorded the third offer with a hidden digital recorder.

Energy Transfer Partners, the company responsible for the Dakota Access Pipeline, issued a statement in response: “We are aware of allegations that have been made concerning the conduct of an employee of one of our contractors . . . We take these types of matters very seriously and are investigating further.”

Tweedy says he went public with his accusation in hopes that the state will pass a bill which would make it more difficult for the pipeline to seize properties.

“I’m not for sale,” Tweedy adds. “I had told my pipeline representative that I wouldn’t sell [him] one blade of grass for a million dollars.

“This bunch from the pipeline cartel — what I call ’em — is just a bucket of snakes and you can’t tell which head belongs to which tail. Their damage control will be all deniability. They’ll say, well, that’s not our contractor . . . that’s not our this, not our that.”

Tweedy’s lawyer has asked him to not share the recording, and he’s seeking liability protection from the Iowa attorney general before he releases it.

“I was raised here, I grew up here, I’ve always lived here,” he says of his property. “This farm is not for sale to a private company for their profit. It is just not. I am not going to allow it.”


When The Cake Is Never Shared: Liberals and Their Passive Aggressive Victim-Blaming

As I have mentioned in a previous post, the hatred towards mothers always seems to go unchecked and is always the norm. Whenever a mother shows any concern of the impact of sexualization of women on her children she is immediately branded a “prude” or someone with “no life.” It’s incredibly ironic that many will accuse a mother of “having no life” because the minute she does not center her life around her children she is also branded a horrible mother.

Likewise, they will find ways to accuse her of hypocrisy, or imply hypocrisy, by asking her if she allows her children to watch any television. I am not certain about how exactly that is relevant to her concern because the difference between media consumption in the home versus public advertising is that she at least has some control over the media her children consume but out in public she does not have this power. You cannot simply “ignore” a hyper-sexualized advertisement when it is a fifty foot billboard in full view of the young impressionable children. Liberals may deny this, and most certainly will, but children do notice their outer environment, they do not live in a bubble (as much as Liberals would love to make it so) and they do take in everything that they see around them. They cannot ignore that it actually does take a village to raise a child and our mainstream media is part of our global village. The accusations of moralistic pearl-clutching against Jennifer Campbell is absurd and the other arguments against her very legitimate concern are also astoundingly ridiculous.

so i guess her kids have never been to a beach then

If they were using these posters to sell perfume, or cars, or beer, her complaint would be more relevant. But they are using images of scantily clad women wearing skimpy lingerie, in order to sell skimpy lingerie… so I don’t think the ads are inappropriate or even misplaced.

Why is this poor woman so upset? Is she for real? Does she really think that by her NOT shopping at Midtown Plaza, they are going to forced to close the doors? Come on lady, are you for real? You know, really have to pick your battles these days. And I really don’t think that this is one of them.

There are advertisements in magazines these days that show even more than what is on those elevator doors. Prime Time television, between 7:00pm and 9:00pm, there is more bare skin, showing couples in bed, no pajamas on (bare skin) suggesting there is more going on than just laying there. And the conversation they seem to have, well, it leaves very little to the imagination. So my dear, I’m pretty sure that if you were to take a step or two back, you’d see how silly you are making this whole thing out to be. I really do wish you luck with your protest. But I think you are pretty much on your own on this one.

Because how dare a mother be concerned with advertising? These people have already shown that they do not care for the well-being of children. This is not to say that children are not intelligent, of course like all human animals they are also capable of reasoning. This, however, does not leave advertising corporations or even society off the hook for their insidious use of hyper-sexualized imagery with no concern for how this might affect young girls. Advertising corporations feed off of the insecurity of the mass public while simultaneously selling them a lie. The lie that if they buy what they are selling then they will be loved and adored by all, no longer a pariah in society. You can have your cake and eat it too, they claim.

What these easily swayed people don’t understand is that the cake is poisoned and addictive, yet they still claim they are autonomous human beings. With young girls suffering from eating disorders and self-esteem issues at extremely young ages, does it seem elementary to point to the advertising industry as at least one of the main causes of this? Do these people believe that eating disorders and self-esteem issues are origin-less and fall from the sky without any explanation? How can they simply “ho-hum” at this serious issue and patronize those who raise the next generation? As an auntie to various nieces and nephews, I will say that this deeply concerns me too; call me “moralistic” all you wish, just don’t then turn and point the finger at the parents when a child becomes the product/victim of that culture.