Friday, June 24, 2016

Toxic masculinity, subset of male-pattern violence

Amanda Marcotte in Salon discussed a subset of male-pattern violence, i.e, "toxic masculinity". After reassuring readers she was not talking about ALL MEN, she writes:
So, to be excruciatingly clear, toxic masculinity is a specific model of manhood, geared towards dominance and control. It’s a manhood that views women and LGBT people as inferior, sees sex as an act not of affection but domination, and which valorizes violence as the way to prove one’s self to the world.  
Of course, she's for getting rid of assault weapons, which is a great idea over the long haul, starting with getting rid of the government's assault weapons in civilian law enforcement. While she's right there is the psychological pressure to prove manhood through violence, there also is a political reality: special interests and politicians want to loot us and make us slaves to their whims and needs. The people need to defend themselves against the government.

This is somewhat more true of the Democrats (and their socialist allies) who ideally would have an armed spy on every block to make sure we are all unarmed, compliant and politically correct as  they loot us. Republicans have managed to convince gun owners they are on the side of liberty, as long as you don't use guns to defend your right to abortion, psychoactive drugs, resist taxes or compete with business special interests that bribe Republicans. (Democrats at least will let us have our abortions, and a little marijuana, too!)

Amanda Marcotte somehow fails to mention getting rid of militaries and war. Which makes her look like a total shill for the Democrats.  Good try, Amanda.

One guy in the comments section complains that she doesn't put any responsibility on women or say what women should do about it.  Unfortunately, women married to the worst kinds of bastards can't easily divorce them, and doing so often really sets them off, resulting in beatings and killings of women.  Women who are single or with decent guys are smart to stay away from those types of bastards, unless it is in a professional psychiatric setting with armed guards in the hallway.

Women COULD go on strike until we get laws pass putting a quota of 51% women in every legislative body in the country as a small step forward.  Of course, our goal must be reducing violence, not using jack booted thugs to lock up anyone who doesn't want to pay 75% of their income in taxes for more social welfare programs to benefit women and some guys. If we depend on the nuclear armed patriarchal state to protect us, we are condemning ourselves to destruction.

Women could do massive civil disobedience by starting currently illegal communes, i.e., by buying up land and nearby homes and businesses, with the help of those wealthy women who will be needed to support our cause. Millions of women could take care of basic economic needs, ensure child care, protect women from abusive bastards - and have lots of free time for even more massive resistance to male violence and war.  And we even could make them all proud secessionist communities which reject all male control, non-violently of course. 

We also can stop conceiving as many male children through conception techniques available today. But that's a last resort, if men don't straighten out their minds. Between guys who want to shoot up people to prove they're men or, at the opposite extreme, guys who want to be able to freely barge into women's private spaces to prove they are women, we have a bunch of sick puppies out there (to be generous) who need a lot of therapy.  But how much more sympathy must women give them? Women's sympathy for mentally unbalanced males is our undoing.  I've pretty much given up on it my old age. It's time for tough love and swift kicks in male psychic butts.

Gee, I liked the above so much I put it in comments on the article. Minus the photos, of course.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

18% of Bernie Sanders supporters will support Gary Johnson

Now that Hillary Clinton has SQUUUEEEZED Bernie Sanders out of the running for President, what will Bernie Sanders' supporters do?? Bernie's boys can always come over to the heavily male-dominated Libertarian Party and it's candidates. (The "LP" remains pro-choice on abortion so they don't have to worry about their brand new fathers-in-law walking behind them with shotguns to the altar.)

Well according to this poll, they can vote for the LP candidates, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.  While they are too dang wishy-washy by most libertarians' standards, they're still a heck of a lot better than Hillary Trump and Donald Clinton!  Anyway, you can argue with this article about the 18% number. Just an FYI...

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Orlando Shooting: Let's admit it! Male-Pattern Violence Rides Again

Do libertarians and peaceniks have the CHUTZPAH to name who is initiating and fighting most wars, with a few female camp followers or Thatcher/Clinton types in the mix?? If we can't face naming who does 98% of aggression, we are USELESS... 

It doesn't matter if Mr. Mateen killed people because he was a homophobe or an ISIS supporter or just crazy, or all three.  What matters is he dealt with personal/political issues in the way that alpha males and those who work for them or rebel against them have been doing for thousands of years: taking up a weapon and injuring and killing people. Whether they do it alone or with a small gang or a big gang (aka an army), it's all the same dynamic.

This is the most important article I've read in a few years:  MALE-PATTERN VIOLENCE by Jennie Ruby in the Feminist publication OFF OUR BACKS.  I had heard the phrase before but never seen an explanation of WHY it is such an important differentiation from "male violence".  I'll give you a few quotes from the first half of the article:
The statement “Most violent crimes are committed by men” is often misheard as “most men are violent,” or even with a kind of gender dyslexia, as “women are never violent.”

The conversation never goes on to examine what it is about men that causes the violence, what we could do to help men stop their violence, or anything else constructive.

This reluctance to talk about men’s violence is widespread and seems to amount almost to a taboo.
Why do both men and women resist naming male violence? One reason is that we are afraid to insult, alienate, or anger male family members and loved ones—and men are often angered by discussions of male violence. ...When feeling accused, a man may lash out by raising counter-accusations, confuse the issue, deny the wrong-doing, become sullen and withdrawn, or even, dare I say it, become violent...
Another reason men resist naming male violence is that men tend to think of the male as the default human. This means they can’t see male patterns as male—they just see them as human. So male researchers and theorists often write about “human” aggression, “humanity’s” wars, and so forth. But can we stop “human” violence without acknowledging and examining the fact that it is disproportionately committed by men?...
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe data show that in the U.S. and Europe, 85%-100% of people convicted of assault are men. And 90% of murders are committed by men...
The sooner we stop denying that men are the ones who commit most violence and begin to examine what it is about men that causes this, the sooner we start to solve it.

We need terminology that will break through the statistical dyslexia and the resistance surrounding the term “male violence” and allow us to focus on the problem. I think we’d have more success with a phrase that could not be misinterpreted as “all men always do it.” For example, most people can understand that “male-pattern baldness” is a male problem and that when women do have thinning hair the pattern and etiology are usually different. What if we start calling male violence “male-pattern violence” as distinguished from “female-pattern violence”?

Male-Pattern Violence
“Male-pattern violence,” then, is characterized most notably by its far greater overall prevalence than female-pattern violence. A far greater proportion of men commit male-pattern violence than women commit either male-pattern or female-pattern violence. Male-pattern violence also has a different etiology than female-pattern violence. Male-pattern violence is often characterized by motivations of aggression, revenge, competition for dominance, competition with other males (for example in drug- or gang-related violence), or feelings of ownership or entitlement toward women. Male-pattern violence includes sexual violence, including sexual violence against their own children. ... Male-pattern violence ranges in scope from these individual crimes up to full-scale war and genocide.

Female-pattern violence is more often characterized by self-defense, response to long-term abuse by a husband, killing children because she cannot properly care for them, and involvement in male-initiated and male-led violence ranging from crime to war (e.g., women in the military)...
I think the term male-pattern violence side-steps the whole “some men aren’t violent” thing because it is obvious it is talking about a pattern that most often occurs in men, but can also happen in women...
See article for the complete argument... 

Monday, June 20, 2016

My Two New "Women's Pride" Videos

I've been on a minor video-making binge last two weeks and as it happens both videos stressed women's pride!  Women - especially libertarian women - being "pro-choice and proud" on abortion. And "Woman-born woman" pride against those who try to reduce half the human race to just a gender that includes men with penises.  REDICULOUS... So here they are.. (Carol's background music from a song I wrote about abortion 40 years ago! And a song I wrote back in 2015.)

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Five weeks of defending women against the state!

From my last post, you can see I am very concerned with the issue of womens' safety and freedom in private and public spaces.  Yup, I get REAL hepped up on those issues, almost as much as on nuclear war - which is the ultimate way our overwhelmingly male masters threaten the lives of women and children, as well as their own sex.

Soon after the last post I discovered that going into the 2016 Libertarian Party convention the LP platform committee had voted for removal of the plank reading since 2006:
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.  
The platform plank USED to be a lot more hard core, but the abortion prohibitionists, in league with the vote grubbing libertarian-lite types, have been relentless in watering down the plank and trying to get rid of it.  After learning that, I then noted that the LP Radical Caucus was being overly influenced by one or more anti-abortion types who want to get rid of the plank. And thus their decisions to not take a position on the plank actually looked anti-plank -- and not at all radical.

That was enough to set off the Pro-Choice Fanatic in me. I've kept a meager website for our old group for years, but in last weeks I have:
* Beefed up with Wordpress. (Yup, got much better at Wordpress with this effort. Yay!)  See the "Our History" page for Carol and others activism over almost 30 years on the issue in the LP.
* Started a Facebook page for pro-choice libertarians only.
* Started a Pro-Choice Libertarians twitter feet.
* Been making lots of fun buttons and memes. See graphics of just a few below.
* Our group got hundreds of buttons and leaflets out at the convention to make it clear we are back and we are proud and intending to kick prohibitionist butt!
* And I made lots of new contacts enthusiastic about my next project: updating

Governor Gary Johnson - who just has been named the Presidential candidate - is pro-choice. (He got 1.3 million votes in 2012 as the LP candidate.) This is his issues statement on abortion below. Libertarians would be quite angry if he started promoting some of his former positions. (SPACE TO COMMENT ON VP CANDIDATE ONCE CHOSEN A LITTLE BIT LATER).
Abortion and the Right to Life

         Gary Johnson has the utmost respect for the deeply-held convictions of those on both sides of the abortion issue. It is an intensely personal question, and one that government is ill-equipped to answer.
         As Governor, Johnson never advocated abortion or taxpayer funding of it. However, Gov. Johnson recognizes that the right of a woman to choose is the law of the land today, and has been for several decades. That right must be respected, and ultimately he believes this is a very personal and individual decision. He feels that each woman must be allowed to make decisions about her own health and well-being.
         Further, Gov. Johnson feels strongly that women seeking to exercise their legal right must not be subjected to persecution or denied access to health services by politicians in Washington or elsewhere who are insistent on politicizing such an intensely personal and serious issue. As Governor Johnson did support a ban on late term abortions.
I'll let the website and the graphics below tell a few more "thousand words" about my recent activities.

And of course, I had to give hell to those ABORTION PROHIBITIONISTS who pop up and yell baby killer, talking about their "consciences".
The only real ABORTION PROHIBITIONIST candidate was first runner-up AUSTIN PETERSEN who DOES talk a really good libertarian line on most issues, except abortion (really bad) and foreign policy (too often pro-war sounding). He has an interesting libertarian-ish resume as well as lots of appearances on (neocon) Fox News. He has lots of young followers, many of whom are pro-choice. 

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Prez campaign gets to newest oppression of women-born-women...

I start with mainstream commentary from the crude to amusing and then include more recent good FEMINIST commentary, since millions of feminists and tens of millions of woman are FURIOUS about this. Not that most political guys care, since they are too busy taking money from rich closet transvestites who like the idea of their ilk being in openly in power.
Cruz is not the Christian Messiah his father thinks he is and he may think he is. But keep it up and he at least might be the Bathroom Messiah!!!

From some right wing Xian site below, name blacked over because the commentary is correct even if the source is questionable.


MRA = "Mens rights activist"

Sunday, April 03, 2016