Thursday, November 5, 2009

Men's Rights Assholes Make Threats to Beat Up, Rape, and Kill Julian Real

[image is from here]

TRIGGER WARNING TO ALL WOMEN: WHAT FOLLOWS IS DISTURBING AND DISGUSTINGLY MISOGYNISTIC!

I just found this thread on "reddit" here,
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/a0yz5/male_feminist_julian_real_supports_the_idea_of/, on a discussion thread called: Male feminist Julian Real supports the idea of exterminating 90% of the world's male population

I responded and also reported their threats of violence against me to all appropriate places. My response is primarily my comments from here to those who posted at A.R.P. But I've added a message to all the MRAs at the end which also got posted to their site. We can note not only their threats of violence, but also their blatant misogyny and anti-lesbian statements, and statements that are grossly insensitive and/or hostile to mentally disabled folks, heavy women, feminists, and more. I put the threats in bold. To put the woman-hating in bold would have basically meant putting everything in bold. There's not much else going on at that place but reveling in misogyny.

From A Radical Profeminist: To Chris, You wrote: Wait, seriously Julian? You are "all for" wiping out 90% of the men on the planet? Do you expect to be among those killed?
This is where people's histeria really kicks into high gear. Chris, you get that genocide and rape-as-a-systematic-practice of subordinating and terrorising and violating women is happening RIGHT NOW, yes? So WTF difference does it make WHAT I think? What are YOU doing to END the genocides and rapes? Please answer in great detail. And, should the time come for women to take enough power that they CAN kill 90% of men, I'll answer your question at that time, ok? Check back in with me when that power shift has occurred.

Julian Real said...
To the Anonymous who wrote 90 percent. you son of a b*tch. u first.
Do you have any relation to something called REALITY? If so, you might note that MEN hold the power to kill women systematically (and do so), not the other way around. Women are raped systematically, not the other way around. Women are battered (BEATEN UP) systematically by men, not the other way around. Women are systematically sold into sexual slavery or are "just" pimped by men and procured by men, systematically, not the other way around. Misogynistic atrocities of all sorts are managed and maintained in male supremacist societies with men at the helm, with men in charge of all major institutions. There are no female supremacist societies. You know that, right? OK, so now that you're in reality... Why are your knickers all in a bunch because of a little exchange between two people on a blog? Is THAT what REALLY upsets you, of all the things to be upset about and go out of your way to comment about? What are YOU doing to END rape and genocide. I await your answer. And please give me all the details of your daily work to do so. As for "u first"... I insist: After you.
______________

To all the misogynist men who have commented on this reddit thread: let's hope the women go for your throats first. And when you start babbling on as much about what's actually happening in the world as you do about what one Anonymous woman and I say on one blog, well, that might show you actually have lives worth living. - JR
______________

And here's what the "thoughtful" MRAs have to say to one another. Warning: it's a bit like a verbal circle jerk, with extra misogyny added to the mix:

antihostile [wrote]
In that case, I bet 90% of the world's male population supports the idea of exterminating Julian Real.

Raff001 [wrote]
Good a place to start as any.

MeanMotherHubbard [wrote]
Get out of my head.

tomek77 [wrote]
There is nothing more pathetic than a pussy-whipped feminist man. In my opinion, most do this because they think it'll get them laid, but it generally backfires on them... it turns out women don't like spineless losers after all, who'd have thought? :)

AnnArchist [wrote]
They are the same guys who are deceptively nicer than they really are just so they can touch a girl. Thats why girls like assholes, because they can usually see through a creepy nice guy's act and they know all men have the same goals and prefer a guy who is at least open and honest about it

guest121 [wrote]
Yes, but if you kill 90% of men (I believe he is included in the other 10%) then they guy will have much bigger chances of getting laid.

IronKing [wrote]
step four reduce the male worldwide population to say 10%. Maybe then we'd have peace in the world
oh the hypocrisy
The only way to have peace in the world is to murder 90% of people I don't like.
How fucked up do you have to be to advocate wiping out 45% of the world's population. That's far more than what Hitler was trying to do. She claims men are deadly and in the same paragraph says women should fight men, execute rapists (we know the story with rape) and exterminate 90% of the male population.

OceansAway [wrote]
How fucked up do you have to be to advocate wiping out 45% of the world's population. That's far more than what Hitler was trying to do.
Feminism is truly evil, worse even than Nazism or even religion.

nmbr [wrote]
You forgot the quotes around "Feminism."

theguffer [wrote]
This is just more proof that most feminist are not pro-equality; they are anti-man. Apparently, it doesn't matter if you are one, either (a man, that is).

ObidiahStane [wrote]
So, is this guy volunteering to go first?

RobinReborn [wrote]
It would be cool if you were among the 10% of guys that survived.

runamok [wrote]
I think that's Julian's true motivation.
Then maybe he could get a date.

Rygarb [wrote]

Wow, this mangina is an even bigger douchebag than Hugo Schwyzer, and that's saying something. If he hates men so much he should start by offing himself.

Liverotto [wrote]

Let's find out his address and phone number and rape his brain.

Male feminists are the real reason of the mess we are in, personally I would really risk jail time to beat up such an individual.


Lord_HalfJack [wrote]
Youd be proving his point, man. The wordt thing we could do to him is IGNORE him. let him wither away in the absence of a podium.

mtaclof [wrote]
No. He's insinuating men are vile and violent for no good reason. This guy IS the kind of douchebag who deserves to get fucked up.


[...]
And on with their misogyny:

BinaryShadow [wrote]
That will leave 10% of the male population to handle all the male-dominated jobs that women don't want. Think garbage handling, risky jobs like construction, janitors, etc.
Women will be CEO's of companies that won't be able to function. Good luck with that.

vostran [wrote]
She has to kill 3 billion people, we only have to kill her..

lwrun [wrote]
It's a he.


vostran [wrote]
Gender aside, this one is definetly deserving of the pronoun 'she'.

[...]

celticson [wrote]
How great to be one of the 10%! Weeee! One could have their choice, and not have to pick a BBW or fat chick.

Inconnu2u [wrote]
BBW = fat chick.

celticson [wrote]
Not necessarily.

Inconnu2u [wrote]
Necessarily, by definition. The same with "plus-sized". Fat.

celticson [wrote]
Agreed. But, there are relatively slim chicks who have too much fat on their chest.

ignatiusloyola [wrote]
You know, I think this is an idea I can get behind... Considering that lesbians don't make up 90% of the female population, there would be more women to go around and men would have all the power of sex and relationships!=
But seriously, it is a retarded idea.

END OF POST.

33 comments:

not ya mammy said...

OH GODDESS!!! Seriously, what the FUCK is WRONG with these animals? Don't they get that RAPE is WRONG and that RAPE is what men do to women (and sometimes boys and men) to assert power and to submit their victims to their sick and disgustingly twisted need to dominate EVERYTHING? There is no getting through to them... somehow these assholes are under the impression that MEN are under attack... their primary concern is hetero white men, and anyone who isn't a "manly" hetero white dude isn't worth much to them.

This was disturbing, it's frightening, it's triggering. Julian please edit this with a warning about how triggering the language is... that way we know for sure upon reading it.

Well actually on second thought EVERYTHING those MRA assholes write is triggering and disgusting. They're completely incapable of writing anything that is truthful or respectful, I should've just expected it.

v said...

See how they reveal themselves. They never ever question why women would want men erased from the earth do they?

Women just read the words of these men, this is who they truly are!

Julian Real said...

To not ya mammy,

I think it's a case of uberprivileged men not having anyone around them to keep them in check about reality. And them needing, for various reasons, to wallow in what they think are human woes. Because, let's face it, they sure as hell don't know how most of the world lives, how women of color live, and with what forms of oppression and socially protected degradations. Or white women. Or men of color. Or gay men of any color. They are so damned clueless.

And I will put a trigger warning up, and thank you for noting the need for it!!!

Julian Real said...

Hi V,

See how they reveal themselves. They never ever question why women would want men erased from the earth do they?

No, they are far too self-absorbed and self-centered for that. And their lens is so clouded with antifeminism, misogyny, whatever hurts they are carrying around, pretending they are the worst hurts humans can feel.

Women just read the words of these men, this is who they truly are!

I think, on rare occasions, it is important to show (on this blog) what these MRAssholes are actually saying to themselves, to one another. Because it's so delusional, so misogynistic, so vile, so utterly without humanity.

AND, I certainly don't want this blog to be a place where women have to worry about being triggered.

So I'm not going to put up much here that is misogynistic, that spills from the frothy mouths of those complete jerks.

I just wanted that batch of comments on the record, in case they remove them on their end.

So that's done.

On with the strategising, eh? And finding a filmmaker!

v said...

Not ya mammy, I wanted to reveal who men actually are. It works like a charm, because one thing men believe about themselves is that they are nice guys. They show no real interest in anyone but themselves.

So they don't get that when a people decide they want to fight a war against terrorists, and that's what men truly are, they are sexist woman hating terrorists, well suddenly the jig is up.

No you cannot communicate with men. We've moved beyond talk I think. They've had 40 years of feminist activism to change, to get rid of pornography, to stop raping women.

But they never intend to change, and that's what women have to get.
Once women get out of this deep denial, then we can really change the world, and it will be whether men like it or not.

Thank goddess I never had to live with these pigs as an adult! Wow, I can't imagine any woman who had intelligence and income ever wanting men in the house to begin with.

Anyway, it's good for these horrifying posts to go up, so that women can read how men really think of women.

I want men to know what I really think of them too. I view them as meaningless animals at best, or dangerous rapists at worst, but compared to women, men really are quite inferior in every socially sophisticted way imaginable.

v said...

And something else that occured to me--- awhile ago, I bumped into yet another phoney liberal man. Phoney Liberal Man (or PLM for short) mentioned how he agreed that women deserve to be men's equals.

Something rang slightly off in his comment, and suddenly a light bulb went on... I decided in my inimitable lesbian feminist way to say, "You think that you are equal to me?" "You're not equal to me, I outrank you in every way imaginable-- in educational qualifications, in income, in world travel, in books read, in subjects mastered, in contributions to society." He had this shocked look, it had never occured to him that a woman would ever view herself as superior.

So I challenged him on his credentials, I challenged him on his linguistic ability, income, how well read he was, how many poems he could quote, if he could define standard deviation, and if he spoke any languages besides English. It was a shocking moment for that man.

No, men are not my equals, by and large, tbey are my intellectual inferiors. They are so far behind now that it isn't funny. You see, I took them up on their challenge that I had to be twice as good as a man to get half as far.... after 40 years of this, I now feel confident that most men are inferior to me, and to a lot of other highly educated women I know.

Now, I simply have to report to them just how inferior they are. The income bit.... love to see them cringe. The language part, love to see them flounder, but my favorite weapon of choice against men who are liberal is the memory test... they don't stand a chance anymore in the income or intellectual department, so therefore it is time for accomplished women to start putting these entitled clueless cretans in their place I think.

v said...

Well I can appreciate your desire Julian not to have scary stuff on here, for fear of terrorizing women who comment here or gay men for that matter.

However, I do like to see what men have to say at their worst, because most of my straight women friends don't believe me when I talk about this stuff, unless they get divorced, and are dumped for a younger woman, then they tend to get it. But by then they are in their early 50s, have sole responsibility for the kids, and then have to go on the dating scene where jerky men are legion it seems. Too late, they wasted their youth on a man.

I wish we could have preventive medicine for younger women--just stay away from these guys to begin with, because this is who tbey really are.

It is a sad thing, because lesbians love older women, and love it when women have gray hair. Our lucky radical feminist generation really honored women and age and life experience. Straight men and gay men don't like older women or older men. Men just don't like older people period.

I think having a sense of humanity is not that great a thing. I really believe that women are naieve in wanting to be humane to terrorists, rapists and porn makers. You can't be humane to men, you have to be very aggressively violent to them-- direct simple phrases, the threat of stomping them if they can't shut up, lawsuits to make them pay women fair wages, lawsuits to get them to stop sexually harassing women at work... men understand lawsuits, money confiscation, and a gun to their heads. So women need not be humane toward men ever.
We can be as rude as necessary to scare them away. Being nice to men never got me anywhere! The tougher I was, the better off I became, and now I am passionate in my show of complete scary contempt toward men in public places. From kicking their legs on buses, to stealing parking spaces and watching them scream, to spitting in their direction at a nice restaurant. Love to see their shock at that. It's pretty cool.
Since all men are guilty it is open season! You need not worry about that silly concept known as an "innocent man" because all men are guilty and deserve to be attacked for their past history. You can assume that all men view porn, so spit at them at least.

One of my friends was a police officer, and she loved slamming the heads of violent men on car hoods as she took them into custody. They almost always tried something with her, only to have their heads smashed. Some guys on the street were very fearful of her patrol car. We all loved her stories back in the day.

But a lot of women can't summon this level of contempt or hatred, and that's a shame. I think women could really get into pushing weak men around, kicking them, spitting at them, shoving them out of the way. Good practice, because again, men don't respect women, they hate women, and we need to hate them back. Fear works with men, because ultimately they fear the day women wake up. They fear feminists for this reason.

I know most feminists are pretty nice women, but I think being angry is great! An angry feminist is great, but most feminists are way too nice to men. Women's nice training should be revealed only to other women, and we need to show 24 hour hostility towards men.

Julian Real said...

Hi v,

And something else that occured to me--- awhile ago, I bumped into yet another phoney liberal man. Phoney Liberal Man (or PLM for short) mentioned how he agreed that women deserve to be men's equals.

I surely hope he was white and middle class, because otherwise some of that challenging would be MAJORLY racist and classist.

I mean using "academic education" as a measure of intelligence? I think, by far, the most intelligent people are not those who ever set foot in an Academy.

I think many Indigenous people, throughout the centuries, have been far wiser, far more intelligent, in how to live life sustainable, or more sustainably that we are, for example.

But as for calling out white men with class privilege, go for it!

v said...

I always debate white men, and fight them on the grounds of their imagined superiority to women. All men believe they are superior to women, regardless of race or national origin. Remember, I have yet to visit a culture where men weren't arrogant jerks everywhere.

Name me one place where any man has ever honored women on their own terms without defining what that honor would be? Not one female dominant culture exists today that we know of, not one.

So I think that all women who think they are smarter or better than men should let them know this, to prove the myth of male superiority. Remember, whether a man is black or white or Asian, he will believe himself to be god's gift to the world. He can't stop.

Only women can liberate each other by waking up, and fighting the war that is going on against us 24/7 anyway. Every woman should feel the triumph of defeating men in arguments, in battle, and using this power to drive them to the sea.

You have to push back hard, because for every man that I defeat in the world, that is one less man who might take advantage of another woman. Just one woman killing, beating up, or cutting off a penis terrorizes men.

When lesbians threw gay men out of our bars in the 70s, I still hear the fear in those men's voices of lesbian warriors. Just one act of fighting back, and they never forgot it, and always feared the violence of lesbians forever after.

I don't believe in any argument that would cause me to accept second best in the world. Ever.

Shaukat said...

Hi Julian,

I'm terribly sorry that you've become a target for those idiots, but it's not even worth responding to anything they say. I would, however, like to say a few things about some of V's (formerly anonymous?) posts, as I find them to be deeply troubling and counter productive (and yes, I'm aware it doesn't come close to what men have done to women and are still doing, but these posts appear to be receiving the endorsement of a blog that generally does a good job of mapping gender power in a non-essentialist manner, which is what makes these posts so troubling).

Arguing for a 90% reduction of the male sex on the grounds that it will enhance the chances of world peace is a highly simplistic statement, and is void of any real political content. First, it completely glosses over the fact that patriarchy is a system of power that cannot be isolated except analytically, since it interlocks with other systems of power and domination such as capitalism and white supremacy. Secondly, it ignores the reality that masculinity as an ideology and institution has a material basis irrespective of its staunchest advocates or detractors, and so any solution that seeks to simply eliminate those who personify masculinity rather than attacking the ideology and institution would be bound to fail. The power dynamic would simply reproduce itself. To draw a parralel: eliminating the CEOs who sit on the boards of the fortune 500 companies would do nothing to slow or stop the expansion of metropolitan capitalism. And lastly, even if such a solution were to work, it would likely give rise to a highly chauvinist society-the structure and principles of any community are often shaped by the historical events that precede its formation.

Politics is about power, and reducing the struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, which is often a complex and dialectical interaction, to these kind of personalized polemics does nothing, in my opinion, to further the cause of feminism.

nmbr said...

Hi!

The internet is full of overreaction. Lets focus on that for a second.

You supported the idea of ending the lives of 90% of the male human population. This is an obvious overreaction.

Some other people on the internet took it seriously, and threatened to e-beat you. This is a counter-overreaction.

Seriously, people. Both sides here are talking about murder. There is no higher moral ground to be fought over. You respond to them with "So WTF difference does it make WHAT I think?" Do you think your opinions have no value? If that is the case, why do you write this blog? You owe it to your readers to at least feign maturity.

Some of the comments on this blog are extreme to the point of being cartoonish (same for the reddit thread). Not all men are rapists, in the same way that all women arn't trying to trick men into paying for unwanted babies. Casually throwing around such god damn useless insults only bury the real issues with our society ever deeper. Both sides of this are hurting their causes (which in reality, is the exact same goal: equality)

How about we all discuss this like adults?

Julian Real said...

Thanks for all your great comments, V!

I just HAVE to respond to this, and I think you'll agree with me on this:

"[...] I do like to see what men have to say at their worst [...]"

I have seen far more vile stuff from men, from MRAs, on the internet. I know what's in pornography from workshops. I can't look at any of it anymore, not even "analytically": to me it's like looking at pictures of any other war atrocity, of those harmed by war.

But I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that what I put on this post even comes CLOSE to misogynists behaving at their worst"!!! I probably wouldn't ever considering posting the vilest stuff (how men make the death of Andrea Dworkin into an opportunity to insult her in every conceivable way; to men using all those terms, beginning with letters practically from A to Z to put women down, to reduce women to their genitals, to make women into sexxx things, to humiliate and degrade women of all ages; to the particular forms of misogynist speech aimed squarely at women of color, at poor women, at rich women, at white women; to simply what men say every day to women to their face at the time of the last beating--so both the physical aggression and the hostile language becomes so deeply injurious as to instantly create post-traumatic stress; to what men say while raping women and girls. There are so many deeper, more awful levels of misogyny that makes these MRA fools seem like PG-13 cartoon caricatures of actual woman-haters. To me, the MRAassholes are the boys in the war against women. Children, adolescents. Some of them are man enough to actually organise against women, but most just gather and gab away about how terrible feminism is (of all things!), how mean some feminists seem to these fools to be--as if men's virulent hate speech towards women, spoken every moment somewhere on the Earth isn't something to be "concerned" or "upset" about. As if a woman writing without deference, without apology, about men's crimes against women is somehow (they can never explain this part, because they are so stupid and delusional) JUST AS AWFUL as men systematically raping women.

These MRAssholes are, of course, misogynists and antifeminists. Their level of disdain for feminism is proof of their hatred of all women. As Andrea Dworkin said: "Feminism is hated because women are hated. Anti-feminism is a direct expression of misogyny; it is the political defense of women hating." (If memory serves, I am fairly sure this is from her book Right-wing Women in the chapter called "Antifeminism".)

Julian Real said...

Hi Shaukat,

I'm terribly sorry that you've become a target for those idiots, but it's not even worth responding to anything they say.

I think there's only limited function to revealing what they say, but as v notes, so many people are in complete denial that men spend their whole days going on and on like that. So I think it helps to reveal their CRAP from time to time, to make sure we know what they're saying. And as Christina (in the UK) has pointed out, the MRAssholes are far more politically active, not just suffering from verbal diarrhea.

I would, however, like to say a few things about some of V's (formerly anonymous?) posts, as I find them to be deeply troubling and counter productive [...] [folks, please read the whole comment above]

In your statement I'm hearing some assumptions underlying what you are saying here, and please let me know where I'm not even close to the mark, Shaukat.

First, I am picking up an assumption that a blog that holds a radical feminist viewpoint, militantly so, can ever find "acceptance" from the mainstream. From the start, I knew this blog wasn't for the mainstream. I knew and know most men, for example, don't even know what feminists mean when they say the simplest things, the most obvious things about male supremacist society.

Julian Real said...

Arguing for a 90% reduction of the male sex on the grounds that it will enhance the chances of world peace is a highly simplistic statement, and is void of any real political content. [...] [again, readers, please check out all of what Shaukat says above]

You raise some intriguing concerns, and ones which I register as legitimate to be sure. We must remember that most other radical movements have been "single issue" movements, in terms of what you are saying here. So for many Marxists over decades, issues like heterosexism, homophobia, misogyny, and racism, especially with regard to Indigenous people, were just not seen as "critically important".

And as one of my feminist friends has pointed out to me many times, because women are expected to be accommodating, it is assumed feminism MUST embrace all social justice issues, all structural oppression issues, in order to have legitimacy, or in order to be effective.

I've always held the view that there need to be many things happening at once. Militant actions against patriarchs, building alliances and allegiances with other social justice/radical social change movements, as well as liberal efforts, such as working for the ERA.

I think men's blogs I link to here, and the work of activists like Byron Hurt and Robert Jensen, and Derrick Jensen, can speak to men differently than this blog can. I think the website xyonline.net is very valuable for many men to begin to get it. And move even beyond "getting it" let's hope.

I have often sent newbie antisexist men there, rather than here, to read up and learn in a context where they will feel supported to learn.

This site is not for men. It does not exist to take care of men, to help men get it. Not that I am unhappy if men come here and do "get it" of course! I was also very clear about that from the start. This site is so that women know that radical feminism can be understood and argued by men, with the hope that enough men will study it, read it, learn it, so they can argue with other men, so women don't have to always be the ones to do it.

Julian Real said...

I have little to no doubt that people who consider themselves progressive might come here, read something V has said, and think "WHOA! This places is WAAAAAY to extreme." But the reality is this: we must "go there" intellectually and in imagination. Also in action, of course. We must, because all that has happened to date has not worked, and pornography and male supremacist cultures, generally, are more vicious than they have been in the last forty years.

If women did to men what men do to women, men would slaughter women in a heartbeat, and the law would protect their murders of women fighting men.

With women being the oppressed, the terrorised, the subordinated, lacking the resources like institutional power resources and structural positioning, women are left, generally on their own, to strategise how to make liberation happen.

I am very comfortable letting this be a "breeding ground" for women's militant ideas, imagination, passion, and outrage. What men do to women is so fucking outrageous...

I cannot type what I feel: my mother is both an incest survivor and a rape survivor. My female cousins were incested by their great uncle, and a neighbor man molested many kids in one section of town before his landlord kicked him (and his wife) out. Every woman I know has experienced multiple forms of misogynistic insult and degradation, often violating, always damaging.

Why do these bastards get our collective respect? Why aren't they shot on their way into the courtroom, if they even are made to face one? Why do we speak about them as if they aren't lethally harming women and girls, and getting off while doing it, no less? Not ALL men. But virtually ALL men do nothing to stop this. Virtually all. This is also an outrage to me. Beyond an outrage. It is a form of criminality not known except in times when the genocides happen with bystanders claiming "we didn't know" which usually means they never bothered to follow the ground -shaking screams or streams of sky ash to see where they were coming from, to see, up close, who was doing what to whom.

I am a Jew. I live in a country that will not admit there is genocide happening against American Indians to this day. Do I support American Indian activists taking militant actions against their oppressors? Damn right I do. It cannot be different for the group "women". There's no ethic that would argue for militancy in some situations, such as against the Nazis, and not against men who commit the same atrocities, but only on women and girls. And the crimes against women of color worldwide are so stifled out of the media, so made invisible, that if any one of us wants to, who is not such a person, we can forget; it is so easy to forget that racist-classist-heterosexist-misogynist horror and terror is happening. Too easy. And when I say classist, I mean the particular crimes against poor women. And when I say racist I mean the kinds of harm that only visit women of color. And when I say heterosexism, I'm speaking of the specialised forms of violence targeting lesbian women.

Julian Real said...

I accept that many visitors here will be turned off or turned away, and simultaneously I hope that people will come here and pick through the offerings, finding bits that are useful to their struggles. V's comments are but one part of this blog. She should certainly have her own blog, that's for sure! (Why don't you V? Or do you??) But I posted on blogs for years before creating my own. Perhaps, in time, V will have her own blog and we can comment there, if she let's males post comments. (Woman-only spaces are so hard to find and create!)

I have often read V's comments and wondered "Wow. How are people going to respond to THAT?" And I end up saying "fuck it" to myself, because her militancy, her groundedness in a position no other woman I know takes with men is inspirational to more people (women) that we can possibly know. And her writings may come off as "outlandish" or absurd at first, but they will simmer in the minds of women who know they have buried their rage and put up with far too much from men, interpersonally. And if women can find validation, support, and feel less alone with their rage when coming here, that's a good thing indeed.

We can note that without Malcolm, Martin would not have been as effective. Whites needed to know there was the potential for violence from the oppressed. That "the pacifist approach" would be but one approach, the most public approach, with the message woven into it that whites better let go of some of that power now, or else... by any means necessary.

Why can't women fight "by any means necessary" and in the process speak what is of course beyond "doable"?

Politics is about power, and reducing the struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, which is often a complex and dialectical interaction, to these kind of personalized polemics does nothing, in my opinion, to further the cause of feminism.

What I do agree with you about is the need to remind the readers that sexism, male supremacy, patriarchy are bound up with white supremacy and capitalism, capitalism exists. And that institutional power does great harm--it kills, it maims, it causes enormous suffering that isn't seen, doesn't make the news, and is hardly visible, because it is like air. And I do want this blog to make that air visible. And for the screams in it be registered as the sound of atrocity.

Shaukat, if you are male, and I think you are, neither you nor I are in a position to know what will help liberate women from patriarchal societies.

Do you have a blog? Stan Goff did, and argued intellectually, in measured ways, not using curse words too much, with white men for years. And those white men, in the presence of ONE Black women showed that all that intellectualising had done nothing to teach them how to be respectful to a woman. Nothing.

That blog taught me a lot about what I didn't want my blog to be. And my thanks to Stan. May G-d bless him.

Please respond, Shaukat. I didn't write all this to overwhelm you, but rather to try and more deeply engage you in the struggle.

Julian Real said...

Hi nmbr,

Sorry your comment got buried in there!

The internet is full of overreaction. Lets focus on that for a second.

You supported the idea of ending the lives of 90% of the male human population. This is an obvious overreaction.


First, let's get clear on what was said and what wasn't said, and the context in which it was said by looking over the discussion which can also be found here.
From that discussion:
One woman wrote,
"Right now, men know how to shut up when I walk in the room. They are just as deadly as ever, but at least the jokes stop. Step one, shut them up, step two, teach the girls to fight back hard, step three execute all rapists, step four reduce the male worldwide population to say 10%. Maybe then we'd have peace in the world."
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 12:47:00 AM EST

I replied:
"I'm all for it, as long as that 90% isn't comprised of people who are facing genocide by whites, unless agreed upon by the women of that community, society, or nation."

You might want to point that out to the "gentlemen" over at your site who are claiming I'm calling for a "racist genocide". They demonstrate, in too many ways to mention here, that they don't read much about the subjects they incessantly criticise.

So THE CONTEXT here is men's violence against women, and what it might take, in an imaginary sort of way, for women, collectively, to feel safe from threats such as rape by men. Would the male population dropping suddenly--somehow--to 10% of what it is now make women safer from rape? I dare anyone to deny it wouldn't. And so making that point means what, exactly?

Apparently over to MRA sites, that's like Hitler calling for the extermination of the Jews. Really? Not so fast. Genocides don't happen because one person talks with one other person about a "what if" scenario, or a "what would it take" scenario. Historians, and people who are paying attention at all to how atrocities unfold know that there need to be many things in place for atrocity to occur. Not talking nicely about the oppressed isn't the most important ingredient. If African Americans have wanted there to be less white people, guess what? That doesn't mean there will be less white people. If the poor want there to be less welfare for corporations, that doesn't mean there's less welfare for corporations. And women speaking their minds about men, and how angry they are, doesn't manifest IN ANY WAYS that actually harm men as a class. Men's misogyny does manifest in ways that harm women as a class. That's just social truth. I know most of your buddies close their ears to this, but their closed ears doesn't make it less true.

Julian Real said...

For rape (of women by men) to occur at the rates it does, there has to be a generalised contempt for women in society. The pornography industry alone supplies that, while making quite a profit from men, btw. Not that it wasn't around before pornography existed. But mass death occurred before the dropping of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That doesn't mean the nuclear bomb is harmless, right?

So men "invest" in the rape of women, if only to the degree that most women in pornography are raped. So men's consumption not only further exploits those women, but also makes their rape invisible as an atrocity, turning it instead into "entertainment for [heterosexual] men". This is why when I ask men whether they think it's ok to have 24/7 access to images of raped women, of women incested as girls, as women seasoned into prostitution at age fourteen by pimps, they scratch their heads and think I'm crazy.

I know you're not a jerk, nmbr. And I know YOU get that the talk on this blog here (A.R.P.) about the reduction of the male population is a discussion, nbmr. It's not a manifesto, or an order. I'm not a general, and the woman who raised this isn't a national dictator anywhere in the world.

I write on a blog. That's a difference, right? Generals in the military can give orders and watch atrocity happen as a result, but call it "working for freedom".

But if feminist and profeminist bloggers post about wanting freedom from white heterosexual patriarchal harm, we're pegged by your buddies as fascists, genocidalists, man-haters, and are somehow seen to possess powers your buddies are projecting onto us. Please tell them to stop projecting, nmbr. And please keep them in check about their rampant homophobia and other forms of bigotry.

So what we have here is a little discussion on a blog. Why your buddies and colleagues over to reddit.com have to go BALListic and get all HISterical about it is a bit beyond me, but again, maybe they have nothing better to do. You'd know better than I would.

Julian Real said...

If you peruse this blog you'll see it is fairly solidly on the side of being anti-oppression: anti-white supremacy, anti-male supremacy, anti-heterosexism, anti-genocide, and anti-ecocide. THAT'S the focus of this blog.

In case y'all haven't ever read it, this is the statement that's been up on my cover page since the blog began:

About Me
Julian Real
I am a radical profeminist who is working to promote anti-patriarchal, anti-racist, anti-colonialist, pro-Indigenist perspectives and activism. I also seek to hold profeminist and misogynist men accountable, so women don't have to do all that work all the damn time.

You might also note that under the name, "A Radical Profeminist" at the top of each page, it says:

This blog exists to challenge white heterosexual male supremacy as an institutionalized ideology and a systematized set of practices which are misogynistic, heterosexist, genocidal, and ecocidal.

Please carry that message back to your buddies, ok? (Or not.) Please do remind them there are more important things going on in the world--like ACTUAL genocide--that they seem to completely ignore. They are taking the role of "the Good German" in this case. They are the ones sitting around doing nothing to stop the genocides, including this current one in the U.S. against American Indians.

I've visited your "venue" needless to say. It's rather telling that you all post more antifeminist stuff and anti-gay stuff than you do about the current genocide in the U.S. Can you explain to me why that is and what that says about the social conscience of the members?

Julian Real said...

Some other people on the internet took it seriously, and threatened to e-beat you. This is a counter-overreaction.

No, nmbr. They didn't threaten to "e-beat" me. They said they wanted to find a way to beat me, get me "fucked up" and to kill me. There's nothing "e-" about it. And it has been reported to authorities, because in case you didn't know, that's not legal to do. It's a criminal act. And so some of them may be prosecuted. I've already screen-shotted the pages, so even if they take down their vile threats, I've sent copies to those who need to see them. You might wish to have them note they aren't allowed to make such threats. It apparently isn't in the rules and regs of reddit.com to NOT make specific death threats against specific people. Because those statements are still up.

Seriously, people. Both sides here are talking about murder. There is no higher moral ground to be fought over. You respond to them with "So WTF difference does it make WHAT I think?" Do you think your opinions have no value? If that is the case, why do you write this blog? You owe it to your readers to at least feign maturity.

There's a modicum of maturity here, I think. And I'm not talking about murder, nmbr. One woman talked about what it would take to have women on Earth feel safe and be safe from rape. We agreed reducing the male population significantly would reduce the rape rate and the rape risk. That's fairly self-evident, no?

There IS talk about sexual and racial atrocity and murder here, though. Perhaps you've read these posts: here, here, and here.

If not, I welcome you to do so now.

Some of the comments on this blog are extreme to the point of being cartoonish (same for the reddit thread).

There are extreme comments here, but not about what bad, bad people the oppressed are. There's no making fun of lesbian women here. There's no threats to kill specific gay people here, by name. There's no making fun of feminists here. There's no racism here. That's something that only happens on reddit.com and antimisandry.com. Why aren't you and those like you stopping that from happening? Why don't you set rules and regs that prevent such comments from seeing the light of day? It's called "moderating".

Julian Real said...

So as for the level of ethical integrity, I think we know which websites fall to the lowest part of the pit. At least this blog, even with extreme statements, stands on the side of liberation for the oppressed, not more oppression by the oppressors. (That so many of your buddies think feminists ARE THE OPPRESSORS is really so sad or so hilarious. I can't decide which.)


Not all men are rapists, in the same way that all women arn't trying to trick men into paying for unwanted babies.

No, and one out of three women are raped, but not one out of three men are tricked into paying for an unwanted baby. And "an unwanted baby" can only happen if a man has sexual intercourse with a woman, right? Or if a man rapes a woman or an adolescent or teenage girl.

So no man HAS to have unwanted children. If adult men know how babies "happen" there's no gun to our heads "making us" have sexual intercourse with women, right? Unlike so many of my women friends, who have had knives held to their throats by men, before raping them. THAT happens. Men being held at gunpoint to have sex with women "doesn't happen as much". Would you agree? And so there's really no comparison there, between rape and women tricking men into having babies, as if men's dicks can't stay in the trousers. I mean, really. And the irony is, if men's dicks DID stay in the trousers, there'd be less rape AND less unwanted pregnancies. So why don't your buddies advocate that as a solution to their problem?

Casually throwing around such god damn useless insults only bury the real issues with our society ever deeper.

For me rape IS a legitimate issue, nmbr. For me genocide is a compelling issue. Being homophobic and antifeminist are activities that cowards partake in to make believe they have some value, among their cowardly peers.

Both sides of this are hurting their causes (which in reality, is the exact same goal: equality)

What is their cause, nmbr? I realise you are for gender equality, but what really is THEIR cause or causes? Because from the discussion boards over there, it really seems like their causes are amplifying homophobia and misogyny. That's mostly what I'm seeing over there. Correct me if I'm wrong. And please direct me to some discussion threads that don't put down women or gay men.

How about we all discuss this like adults?

I hope that's what just happened. And thanks for taking the time to comment here.

nmbr said...

"But a lot of women can't summon this level of contempt or hatred, and that's a shame. I think women could really get into pushing weak men around, kicking them, spitting at them, shoving them out of the way. Good practice, because again, men don't respect women, they hate women, and we need to hate them back. Fear works with men, because ultimately they fear the day women wake up. They fear feminists for this reason."

The society you want is a direct mirror of the society you don't want. How does this attitude solve any problems? What is its future? Forgive me, but it all seems juvenile and detrimental to our collective health.

Julian, I won't go over your responses point-by-point due to my lack of educated confidence on the matter (my entry into this conversation was more about the tone of the conversation itself then policy arguments), but I want to say I appreciate your time.

Reddit, and specifically the Men's Rights subreddit, are forums. The forum itself is not responsible for the individual posts, much like you are not directly responsible for the comments on your blog. That said, I believe we all have to call each other out on each others nonsense. The internet is full of bluster, and some random msg board whiners are not a true threat. In a comment on this exact post here, "v" brags about her friend violently assaulting men and laughing about it. And her friend was a peace officer. That is more then a threat, that is a report of a crime. Weather these threats are serious or not (I lean towards not, on both sides), you have to take a step back and look at them for what they are: evidence of a dysfunctional viewpoint.

I am not a mod in the MR reddit, all I can do is say my peace (not that I believe in censorship anyway, usually its best to let the ugly parts show their colors in the light of day). The homophobic and misogynistic epithets thrown around are sad, but do not represent the lot of us. Most of reddit is full of tolerant, awesome people, who perhaps should speak up more when they see that kind of stupidity.

In the same way, I believe you might do well to direct the conversation here towards a more productive end. Rape is incredibly serious, something I have too much experience with. Men/boys are not excluded from such treatment, and I think bickering about who is more of a victim degrades the impact of the crimes committed. Every individual act of violence towards another is a shame, and should be addressed by society with the utmost seriousness. We owe it to the victims to focus on real solutions.

I'm just a guy who can't believe his eyes. Such extreme prejudice. If my words have no place in your world, feel free to fantasize about erasing me from it.

- nmbr

Julian Real said...

Hi nmbr,

I appreciate your reply. And I hear you.

I hope you find that almost all of the discussion here about rape takes it very, very seriously.

And I do acknowledge that boys and men are raped by men as well.

And yes, it is all horrible.

Thanks for your time.

Peace to you.

Anonymous said...

By the way, the woman I knew who was a police officer was called sexist names and acted up upon by the very men she attempted to arrest. You'll get the stick if you resist arrest, and I guess those guys didn't think women were capable officers.

As for a mirror image of the world, well just ask that girl who was raped at Richmond high by her classmates. Women have gotten absolutely nowhere by treating men well, nowhere, and it's time for women to fight for our freedom. Men are abusive animals, women get walked all over by these creeps, and I self-defense and women standing their ground as essential to making men think twice about ever harassing, raping or molesting a woman or girl. If men knew that they would be badly punished immediately for doing anything hostile to women, I think there would be a lot less harassment of women.

Men only understand one thing -- a bash on the head, a kick to the groin, or public humiliation at their expense that puts them on the spot.

Most women naievely think that men are decent, but they aren't and are incapable of being just as a group, otherwise, we wouldn't have the wars we do, the rapes we do, and the pornography. This is the male mind writ large, and it won't change, all women can do is defend ourselves and be brutal about it.

An animal is an animal, it has no soul, no humanity, no real intelligence... that basically describes men as a class of oppressors.

I know of no people anywhere who ever becamse free without a huge fight. I know the only thing that keeps men in line is guns.

Anonymous said...

When we are talking about rape, we are talking about two things: what happens to women by the hundreds of thousands, and what happens to boys and men who are raped by other boys and men.

The great tendency is to always say "oh but men get raped too" and this actually negates in some subtle way the incredible evil of men raping women, it always puts women back on the back burner as if the crimes against women aren't the most pressing problem in the entire world.

Stop the rape of women and you will stop the rape of men, but if you don't stop the rape of women, then there is no hope of ending the rape of men. It's that simple.

Since men aren't going to stop raping women ever in the forseeable future, you know what, I have ceased to give a damn about the well being of my oppressors.
I don't honor them, I have no sympathy for their suffering, and I think they get what they richly deserve for keeping this patriarchy going century after century.

The truth is, men don't care if they rape women at all, and they'll rape any human they can get their hands on. It is who men are, so how could the rapists ever change if it's in their very being!

Christina said...

Well done on putting those discussing comments made by those sexist, racist MRAs on your blog. I hope that as a result more women become aware of what white hetro males are all about and this causes them to start standing together.
What America needs is a group of radical feminists to form a political party, then if all women could stand together they could vote this all female radical feminist party into power. Once in power they would remove all white hetro males from power.
With those evil white cocks out of the way, women would finely be free and we could start making white hetro males pay for all the crimes they have committed and are committing.
Julian, I hope their attack on you only leads you to becoming even more radical in your beliefs.

Julian Real said...

Thank you so very much, Christina, for that encouragement.

I've gotten mixed opinions on whether or not such statements should be put on this blog. So I'm glad to hear from you about it, as yours is one perspective I so need to hear.

And, yes, the radicalism only deepens, as long as I'm paying attention to what's going on.

Love to you.

Monique said...

It is funny, but I have a totally different opinion about men.
I say totally because it has big political implications.

I believe my intuition as a lesbian, and I am trying to explain it, like you do with your arguments with a logical analysis as well below:

Humans have a non-stop sexuality, in both females and males, which is not the case in other animal species. But even in animals, males are always on the look to fuck, even in those who are not sexually active outside of reproductive times it means when females are not on heat, because a female atificially put on heat and placed next to them activates them strongly and this outside of any reproductive season, furthermore males in a lot of species are trying sex on inactive females all the time and on youngsters as well, on other males too, on anything that moves and that will not fight back, even on your pants when you think of dogs or cats, but they are rejected strongly enough then by the adult females or males (except when they are gays.. :P), it is the only thing that can stop them: the non-receptivity of females and their ability to react but sometimes they can really well get to rape a youngster.

So this argument that male animals would not dare to rape youngsters that can't reproduce does not hold the way, sorry.. So it can't be a culture argument to explain child rape. Even if uggly heteroppressive rape culture plays a role of course.

Now I believe the culture plays its part but by blocking men to rape too, because men can think, they are taught not to pass to rape action and incest unless it is hidden and safe for them, as they are taught about and are afraid of the punishment, but 6 men out of 10 said in a survey that they would rape if there wasn't any sanction to fear afterwards.

Now about the education. You fail as well, most studies on boys brought up by feminist activists in closed communities have shown that a majority turned out to be real misogynist and women-haters by time they became adult. The difference in aggressivity between little boys and little girls has been proven. I personaly never met a guy, even a gay guy who was not overwhelmingly aggressive even if trying to have girlie manners.

And if you are a lesbian, you can feel this sexual agressivity and danger in any men, I would bid anything that a woman who would never show attraction to males, a lesbian for example, and who would be left on a desert island with a man, would get raped or beaten or her food stolen by the guy.

And would you explain then that men have implemented a male supremacist structure of society all over the planet, even in most remote places, in small human groups that have remained isolated from any outside influence?

If it is not by raping and using the physical strength to coerce women and then later arranging agreements with women in order to beat and rape them less if they obeyed them and gave other things that males fancy like cooking, cocooning, etc..?

It is only my point of view, but it is highly wired in me, and never had I any example to proove me the opposite.

So in my point of view radical feminist theories are much too mild with men, they leave them a chance, a big chance and are blind to the dangers, but of course a large part of radical feminists are straight women or bisexual women who turned up lesbians and it may explain this, they are used to create bonds with men and like it. It cooroborates an other finding I have which is that I believe that not all women would be born to be lesbians if men were not existing.
In that my views differ from the views of most radical lesbians and of some separatist lesbians, although I am a separatist myself.

But for some lesbians, who are really more lesbians than bisexuals, living with men in a society, this whatever changes you would succeed in inputting one day (I doubt about the success) would anyway turn out to be a very unhappy experience still.

Julian Real said...

Hi Monique,

I'm not sure I understand your comments. But I'll do my best with parts that I feel I am grasping the meaning of.

It is funny, but I have a totally different opinion about men.
I say totally because it has big political implications.


Are you making the argument that human males are hard-wired, biologically/naturally--asocially--to be rapists, to be sexually aggressive, to be aggressive generally, and to be brutes?

There's too much evidence that this is not the case. Peggy Sanday's work, for example points out the flaws of this sort of all-encompassing statements about men-as-rapists. Some societies are rape-prone, due to a variety of non-natural factors, and some are less prone to rape, to significant degrees. If "males" are just ALL anything, biologically, what explanation would you have for her very social/cultural/political findings?

Humans have a non-stop sexuality, in both females and males, which is not the case in other animal species.

I'm not even sure what that means, let alone what it has to do with endemic rape in some societies--but not others. If you're saying that some mammals have periods in which mating is more likely to occur, and periods where it happens less--or, that there are periods when mature female mammals are receptive to mature male sexual interest, and times when female mammals are not, this is largely speculative and acultural. Some mammals mating patterns differ quite significantly from others. And no non-human mammals have the social factors that human mammals do--such as legal codes, ethical standards that are passed orally or through writing, etc.

Bonobo monkeys are held up by some sociobiologists as an ideal mammalian community, because they apparently have lots of sex with one another, across age and sex, and don't appear to be aggressive--males or females.

I think there's a whole set of unasked questions and an unexamined set of assumptions in human males arriving at an "ethical" position on the bonobos that their ways of being are "good", because what the human males I've known who promote their ways of being as "good" are really tending to want, is more sexual access to female human beings of all ages. So I think these human males are really misusing cross-species studies to simply promote a Hugh Hefner sexual attitude that is highly sexist and pro-rapist.

But even in animals, males are always on the look to fuck,

That's simply untrue. Male animals that aren't human most certainly are NOT always on tthe look to fuck, and any nature studies reveal this.

even in those who are not sexually active outside of reproductive times it means when females are not on heat, because a female atificially put on heat and placed next to them activates them strongly and this outside of any reproductive season, furthermore males in a lot of species are trying sex on inactive females all the time and on youngsters as well, on other males too, on anything that moves and that will not fight back, even on your pants when you think of dogs or cats, but they are rejected strongly enough then by the adult females or males (except when they are gays.. :P), it is the only thing that can stop them: the non-receptivity of females and their ability to react but sometimes they can really well get to rape a youngster.

You're making some sweeping generalisations that I find really inaccurate--sort of blurring together assumptions, facts, and studies into a massive theory that doesn't examine, more carefully, the more complex truth of any of the generalisations

And, nothing non-human animals do is a template for our particular species, as we have other means of determining what we do than instinct. Humans, beyond the age of infancy, are mostly instinct-free beings, not instinct-ruled beings.

Julian Real said...

So this argument that male animals would not dare to rape youngsters that can't reproduce does not hold the way, sorry.. So it can't be a culture argument to explain child rape. Even if uggly heteroppressive rape culture plays a role of course.

How do you explain human societies that have a great deal of rape, relatively speaking--across ages, by males of females, and the fact that others have significantly lower rape rates, then?

Now I believe the culture plays its part but by blocking men to rape too, because men can think, they are taught not to pass to rape action and incest unless it is hidden and safe for them,

Not always. Gang rape is clearly not a hidden action, it is a social one. Rape is both videotaped and made into mass entertainment for pleasure and/or profit for men.

And I think we need to look more carefully at the assumptions in a word like "safe". It's a politically functional while ethically antisocial act, within a society that mandates male rule of females, and that this rule be seen as natural or god-ordained.

as they are taught about and are afraid of the punishment, but 6 men out of 10 said in a survey that they would rape if there wasn't any sanction to fear afterwards.

That study doesn't apply to all cultures, all societies, at all times. We happen to live in a time where human males have a great deal of access to materials that promote rape as fun-for-men. Rape isn't intrinsically "fun" for men. That some men are motivated to do it, and obtain some levels of physical pleasure from it, doesn't mean, at all, that physical sexual pleasure is their reason for committing it. Men can clearly obtain physical sexual pleasure all by themselves. I'd argue that raping, often enough, is an act that prioritises violation and/or degradation and/or humiliation and/or subordination and domination and/or terrorising female human beings over experiencing physical sexual pleasure. That it's objective is not, really, to "have fun"--however selfishly and inhumanely. And for those men who do rape girls and women primarily for their own physical pleasure, I'd argue those men are more sociopathic than others. Sociopathy, even encouraged to be normalised, isn't biological or natural, strictly speaking.

Now about the education. You fail as well, most studies on boys brought up by feminist activists in closed communities have shown that a majority turned out to be real misogynist and women-haters by time they became adult.

I'd like for you to site your sources because I think that's total bullshit. I've known many, many males raised by feminists and the rate of them being misogynistic, overtly, seems significantly less than men raised by misogynistic men who didn't harm the boys.

The difference in aggressivity between little boys and little girls has been proven.

Not as asocial or acultural or apolitical, it hasn't.

I personaly never met a guy, even a gay guy who was not overwhelmingly aggressive even if trying to have girlie manners.

And I have. And I've witnessed predatory lesbian women. So where do we go from there?

And if you are a lesbian, you can feel this sexual agressivity and danger in any men,

In societies where human males are encouraged to value being aggressive as definitional of being an appropriate male, I would imagine that everyone, across gender and sexuality, feels the effects of that socialisation and peer pressure. That learned male sexual aggression is focused onto human females, in part by fostering and encouraging heterosexism and homophobia, means that females will likely feel more at risk because they are disproportionately terrorised and degraded by male rapers, in conjunction with myriad other forms of misogyny and sexism, socially expressed and encouraged.

Julian Real said...

I would bid anything that a woman who would never show attraction to males, a lesbian for example, and who would be left on a desert island with a man, would get raped or beaten or her food stolen by the guy.

I'm not one for such hypotheticals. I'm willing to discuss real life situations.

And would you explain then that men have implemented a male supremacist structure of society all over the planet, even in most remote places, in small human groups that have remained isolated from any outside influence?

I don't make that case at all, and don't believe that's in fact the case. I believe misogyny varies both in intensity, in range of expression, and in prevalence among societies across culture and era. I don't think there's one kind of male supremacy that is "global", other than the one perpetrated by white het male colonisers who travel the world as WHM supremacist perpetrators and predators.

If it is not by raping and using the physical strength to coerce women and then later arranging agreements with women in order to beat and rape them less if they obeyed them and gave other things that males fancy like cooking, cocooning, etc..?

I don't understand that question. There are societies where the roles and rules among and between males and females is not overtly male supremacist. Those societies are mostly getting violated by a kind of globalising WHM supremacy, but the fact that there is this globalising force now, doesn't mean there's a single way of organising power among and between what the Anglo-Western world tends to call women and men.

It is only my point of view, but it is highly wired in me, and never had I any example to proove me the opposite.

You know that once a totalising point of view is settled on in one's own mind, information that is inconsistent with that operative theory is often ignored or not seen, yes?

So in my point of view radical feminist theories are much too mild with men,

I'm not sure what that means or what you're proposing. Women resist and fight male supremacy in too many ways to list. It is done interpersonally, culturally, socially, and nationally and internationally. What would you have radical feminists do that they are not doing? What is currently viable for radical feminists, in the West, let's say, to do, that they are not doing, in your view?

Julian Real said...

I would bid anything that a woman who would never show attraction to males, a lesbian for example, and who would be left on a desert island with a man, would get raped or beaten or her food stolen by the guy.

I'm not one for such hypotheticals. I'm willing to discuss real life situations.

And would you explain then that men have implemented a male supremacist structure of society all over the planet, even in most remote places, in small human groups that have remained isolated from any outside influence?

I don't make that case at all, and don't believe that's in fact the case. I believe misogyny varies both in intensity, in range of expression, and in prevalence among societies across culture and era. I don't think there's one kind of male supremacy that is "global", other than the one perpetrated by white het male colonisers who travel the world as WHM supremacist perpetrators and predators.

If it is not by raping and using the physical strength to coerce women and then later arranging agreements with women in order to beat and rape them less if they obeyed them and gave other things that males fancy like cooking, cocooning, etc..?

I don't understand that question. There are societies where the roles and rules among and between males and females is not overtly male supremacist. Those societies are mostly getting violated by a kind of globalising WHM supremacy, but the fact that there is this globalising force now, doesn't mean there's a single way of organising power among and between what the Anglo-Western world tends to call women and men.

It is only my point of view, but it is highly wired in me, and never had I any example to proove me the opposite.

You know that once a totalising point of view is settled on in one's own mind, information that is inconsistent with that operative theory is often ignored or not seen, yes?

Julian Real said...

So in my point of view radical feminist theories are much too mild with men,

I'm not sure what that means or what you're proposing. Women resist and fight male supremacy in too many ways to list. It is done interpersonally, culturally, socially, and nationally and internationally. What would you have radical feminists do that they are not doing? What is currently viable for radical feminists, in the West, let's say, to do, that they are not doing, in your view?

they leave them a chance, a big chance and are blind to the dangers,

That's not my experience of radical feminists. My experience of radical feminists is that they call out men as much as they can, day to day, year to year, organising where appropriate and possible, in various ways, depending on what the patriarchal society will tolerate without overt terroristic, subordinating force to prevent and punish such resistance and challenge.

but of course a large part of radical feminists are straight women or bisexual women who turned up lesbians and it may explain this, they are used to create bonds with men and like it.

If you're saying that being heterosexual is a strike against women's ability to fight patriarchy, I'd say that there are many factors in how and why some women become radical and pro-revolutionary, and one's own sexual relationship to men, personally, is but one of those factors. Race, class, and culture are other factors.

It cooroborates an other finding I have which is that I believe that not all women would be born to be lesbians if men were not existing.

I don't accept that anyone is born with a gender or a sexual identity. I believe both are deeply social realities that come into being through engagement in a political world.

In that my views differ from the views of most radical lesbians and of some separatist lesbians, although I am a separatist myself.

Don't you find that among your lesbian separatist and non-separatist sisters, there are many views about why and how patriarchies thrive?

But for some lesbians, who are really more lesbians than bisexuals, living with men in a society, this whatever changes you would succeed in inputting one day (I doubt about the success) would anyway turn out to be a very unhappy experience still.

I'm not following you there. Can you restate that, please?