mr. mittens (akmed) wrote,
mr. mittens

power not truth

in the 70's when white western women were still very very angry at men, the authors and upholders of their 2nd class status, feminists wrote a great deal about serious women's issues around the globe-issues of life and death that revolved around the fact that one could do all these horrible things to women and get away with it just because of gender status. there were articles and papers and books about rape, murder, spousal abuse, female genital mutilation, sharia law, the devastating effects of poverty on it's main victims worldwide- that is women and children. white educated western women were well aware of and often somewhat guilty feeling in their understanding that outside the western wealthy democracies, women of other races in particular in 2nd and third world countries were bearing the unbearable- the brunt of socially and legally sanctioned and encoded misogyny. even in their own bourgeois world, female minorities and poor of all races and creeds were far more vulnerable to the excesses of male violence and male power.

just like slavery was morally wrong no matter whom it was inflicted on by whomever in whatever culture in whatever cubby hole around the world, the subjugation and oppression of women was also seen as wrong- a civil rights issue. god just didn't create all men free and equal, women were and had to be considered to be due the same rights. of course- this makes sense- we're all humans. we're all born with rights that are inherent in the very fact we are born. rights are not doled out by government or religious entities- they're given by a higher power and the state can't take them away. mmm. makes sense so far.

but the women fighting so hard for women's rights found themselves instantly in the back of the bus when joining up with the men in the sundry ' freedom movements' of the 60s/70s be it gay/lesbian rights or black rights or the right to personal sexual liberty. at the first gay liberation meetings, the women were reduced to making tea for the men folk. gay rights were primarily men's rights to be equal to other men- the genetic females were still all about being subservient to the males if present at all. in one of the most notorious quotes from the civil rights movement, then sncc, later black panther leader stokely carmichael ( aka kwame toure) opined that"the only position for women in sncc was prone" when confronted by a position paper by the women of the organization on their shabby treatment by the males.( michele obama was-is?- a big fan of stokely- his ideas are liberally sprinkled about her near unreadable senior thesis paper.) it was basically " bros before 'hos" in 1964 and the same sentiment propelled 'bro- bama over hillary ' ho in the democratic primary election over 40 years later .

once birth control and information concerning it became legal to distribute and abortion was legalized, instead of becoming a means to power for women over their own bodies it has rather become a cudgel wielded by liberal males particularly in the democratic party (as well as religious ' right wingers' of course) to keep women on the plantation-vis a vis "if you vote for me i won't take abortion rights away from you but they( insert name of political opponent, any political opponent) will". lord knows it was enough to keep slime ball billy bob clinton in office and to shield him from any wrath from feminists, few of whom dared to criticize his reprehensible and predatory behavior toward women and his profound abuse of power as a publically elected official, both as gov. and president.( one of the only feminists to go after clinton and hillary too was andrea dworkin- and it wasn't in an american media source. as relevant today as it was then:

she was also one of the few feminist voices that objected to the negation of nicole brown simpson through trumped up race baiting and hustling. in other words- andrea dworkin was a real feminist not a stepford feminist dedicated to the power hungry ambitions of democrat and liberal men.)

'sexual freedom' was all about keeping women sexually available to men- not freedom to one's own being and body if you happen to be female. in 8 years, george bush did nothing to stop access to abortion- as he stated-it's the law. now a supposedly liberal democrat president wants to enact a law which allows the government access to your physical body and personal information about your medical history and the right to determine how your body is or even if it is medically tended too- and , what, that's not akin to telling you whether you can have an abortion or not? so everyone can have health insurance( not care), everyone has to surrender the rights to their body to the state? where are all the ' hands off my body" t shirts now? welcome to the Borg. sure you can have an abortion but if grandma needs a hip replacement fuck her-she's not worth it even if she has the money for one. george bush who never once obstructed female access to abortions was anti female and a nazi but a democrat trying to hurriedly enact legislation that enslaves everyone's( except of course those in the white house congress and the unions) physical health and rights to the sanctity of their own bodies to the whims of the state is- what- a freedom fighter, not a fascist? where's the outrage?

where the hell are the feminists? the right to ones own physical body and the right to self determination were always the corner stones of female liberation. with the continued rise of sharia law world wide - and it's drastic brutal effect on women, even those who live in western democracies- daily we're confronted with the brutal subjugation and slaughter of women because they are women. these vicious violations of human rights are being carried out not just by loose groups of deranged fanatics and individuals but by theocratic islamic governments. apartheid exists for women in places like saudi arabia- but where are the feminists who are always clamoring about palestine and were in the forefront of decrying south africa? in iran female children are hanged for going to cafes or being raped or for the crime of lesbianism- where is the feminist outrage? in iran young women taken off the streets during the current citizen protests are being raped by the prison guards and the executioners before they're hanged-where's the feminist outrage? the president of the most powerful democratic country in the world publicly acknowledges that the burqa and veil are not tools of the oppression of the female but a religious right even outside sharia law-where's the feminist outrage?

"But more typical is the feminist blog of Deborah Kate, who acknowledges that feminists have been accused of ignoring Muslim women. Kate comes out against stoning, enforced marriage, female circumcision, etc., and wonders idly whether countries guilty of crimes against women deserve sanctions like those levelled at South Africa in its apartheid days. No, she decides, exhibiting the fondness for fashionable moral relativism that is now epidemic in feminist circles, "I realize I cannot force my version of feminism upon non-Western women.""-(

would someone ever be stupid enough to say the same thing about the enforced slavery of black men? after all, slavery was a long standing part of southern american culture and the main engine of its economy- forcing one's version of human rights that claims even black men are men with all the same god given rights on a society with different rights and standards would be cultural imperialism. apartheid was a standard portion of south african culture- wouldn't it be wrong to force western european versions of human rights on them? to this day slavery exists in africa- black skinned humans enslaved by other black skinned humans and this same ridiculous sounding immoral set of excuses is used- by black africans- " it's part of our culture and traditional", don't dare question it. the subjugation of women is part of islam- don't dare question it and western feminists are smugly happy in not saying a peep, safe and snug while other women are being degraded and destroyed en masse.

" all things are subject to interpretation. whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power, not truth."-friedrich nietzsche.

or more succinctly- the truth depends on who the daddy is at the moment. who's your daddy ,you egregious sell out feminists? as usual nietzsche's point is always proven by nazis, socialists, fascists and their supporters. if those who are free will not stand for their sisters you are part of the problem, making excuses for the slave masters and murderers. i know who my Mother is and because of it i cannot remain silent. i thought silence equaled death... what... except when it comes to the humanity of females? since when is a human right the subject of cultural approval when it applies to males? what's telling is that apparently it is when applied to females which makes of them somewhat less than human. there is no different ' version' of human rights and by insisting that there are you negate every single right we were all born with. western ' feminists' have just become another pig more equal than muslim women .

  • Midsummer's Nightmare, Unresolved

    21- morning of the 22 June 1996 Swedish national Karina Holmer is last (reliably) seen alive around the Zanzibar night club on Boylston Street in…

  • Pacific Northwest, so much to answer for

    Marie M. Malvar, 18, was picked up by Gary Ridgway on April 30, 1983 near a store of Pacific Highway South in Seattle. Her boyfriend tried to keep…

  • Viva Zapata

    The man who raped and murdered Seattle musician Mia Zapata in 1993, Jesus Mezquia, died in custody in Washington State on 21 January 2021 while…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.