Sunday, February 28, 2010

A Sexual Liberal Reconsiders Devaluing Andrea Dworkin, after reading Dworkin's writing

[image is from here]

I have often noted that when people actually READ Andrea Dworkin's work--you know, like a whole essay, or a whole collection of essays, or--gasp--a whole book or even three or four of her books, and don't assume what her writing already means they might actually value it. But usually the reader arrives at her work having taken in what significantly biased, anything-but-objective, anything-but-logical, anything-but-rational, anything-but-intellectual, anything-but-reasonable white male supremacist, antifeminist, dick-whipped men tell us Andrea Dworkin means so we don't have to figure it out for ourselves, or be open to it, or take what is valuable from it and leave the rest. You know--they way we are trained to do with white men's writings. We assume there's some value in there and if we can't find it we assume we're not reading it right. Not so with women's writings. We assume it has no value unless it has demonstrated an allegiance and alliance with white male supremacist values and practices. So the woman writer who extols the virtues of pornography--we like her. But the anti-pornography feminist? Naaah.

But what if it's the case that those dick-whipped doods are wrong? OMG, did I just type that OUT LOUD???

Consider, for a moment, how much more visibilised male supremacist harm to women is now that "obscenity" was radically redefined in Canada due to Andrea Dworkin's work. She doesn't use the term in her work (obscenity), except to critique it as you'll see below, but Canadian officials wanted to hold onto it. Unfortunately.

What follows is from the blog, The Bradlington Post. Bradley's interests are listed below.

All of the rest of this post is from *here*.

The Bradlington Post

- Interests to me including the political situation of the times and the CULTURE WAR raging in the U.S. - Religion and especially how and why Christianity is being forced over the people of the U.S. - CULTURE WAR issues such as pornography, extreme and 'deviant' sex practices - And how all these things are relative.

- An area of especial interest to me regarding extreme and 'deviant' sex practices and the phenomena by where the prevalence both in practice and acceptance, occurs highest in the most advanced and highest egalitarian standard of living, lowest crime rate and societies and cultures in the world, not to mention least religious.

Canada's Ruling on Obscenity Constitution

The below quoted information comes from:

“In February 1992 Canada's Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that obscenity is to be defined by the harm it does to women and not by what offends our values.”

"In the United States, the obscenity laws are all about not liking to see naked bodies, or homosexual activity, in public," commented University of Michigan law professor Catharine MacKinnon, who helped write the law brief and along with author Andrea Dworkin has pioneered the "harm to women" approach to antipornography legislation. "Our laws in the United States don't consider the harm to women. But in Canada it will now be materials that subordinate, degrade or dehumanize women that are obscene."


This is an excellent article which I happened to stumble upon. I was always a bit frightened of Andrea Dworkin as a kid. This is the best thing I've ever read regarding her, and it has changed my opinion a fair amount. I wonder if she was still living she'd eventually gotten similar legislation passed in the U.S.

This all really resonates with me personally, nearly everything in the article and theories behind the ruling.
I personally have never had any inkling for bondage or humiliation, not in any art I output or that I enjoy, nor ever will that I can imagine. It’s not only of disinterest, it has unpleasant connotations to me as well as a variety of other unpleasantries.

I am fascinated that gays/lesbians have such a tolerance and at times seeming obsession with and for bondage/humiliation imagery and sex. It’s basically obligatory any more that ‘edgy’ gay sex include some kind of bondage. [This person is speaking for all of lesbian and gay people's interests, and believe me, no gay or lesbian person I know, and no gay man I have dated, was ever into--let alone obsessed with--bondage and humiliation. Sorry to disappoint the homophobic writer. -- Julian]

I think in actuality, heterosexuals have probably almost as large an interest in it (especially males) however heterosexuals are much more closeted in their sexual variances when off the considered norm.

The obsession with this realm of sexuality is I'm assuming based very deep in our fairly early developmental days and thus ingrained in our genetic inheritance even still actively, like so much else. I need to investigate some on any origin theories which may exist regarding the matter.

Why Can't David Read, or Shut Up and Listen: WHM Supremacist Privileges and Entitlements in Action

Or is it???
[image is from here]
What follows is a portion of a comment exchange, mostly focused on what a white South African guy with middle class and academic education privilege, has to say to a radical feminist. It pissed me off a lot, probably because I'm way too much like him. It played out *here* on a blog called Rage Against the Man-chine, and the blogger there is an awesome woman named Nine Deuce.

I've edited out all commentary by women, as I don't have their permission to relocate their words, and this post is about what white het men do, thinking they are being the reflective ally as opposed to an obnoxiously instructive asshole. And it's not like the men here are responding to what the women write anyway!]

I'm not nice, below. A woman, not the blogger, over at Rage Against the Man-chine, has commented that she recognises he's trying to be an ally. I'm less convinced.

I'm responding here more thoroughly to him than I wanted to there, on a feminist blog. And I treat him like a dick most of the time. In my experience--including of myself--we whiteboys can feel very entitled at feminist blogs to go on and on and on. I've been a dick on feminist blogs, and doubt I won't be again. Witness, this time, the male supremacist mental meanderings of David. But another fellow named Andrew weighs in also. And of course I do too. Because I'm entitled to. And because white men who are jerks on feminist blogs piss me off a lot and I choose to respond to them there, probably too much!

To David: I welcome you to respond to this here, at my blog.


Hi. I’m male, white, privileged (I went to university and have a well-paid job), I’m more right wing than left wing. [And more white het male supremacist than not.]

And I am bloody furious about how women are treated in our culture. [Good. As it should be. But he gets no bonus points for stating it.]

[Edited for irrelevancy.]

Women are different from men, just as black people are different from white (especially where I’m from: South Africa). [The Authority has spoken. Or, well, begun to speak... don't get David started!]

Differences are cool. [Unless you're cattle-carred into a gas chamber because of them. Unless you're gang raped because of them. Unless you're lynched because of them. Unless your land is stolen from you and you're poisoned by treated uranium because of them. Unless you're queer-bashed because of them. But, yeah, they're "cool".] I don’t have to “see” you as a “white male like me” to treat you with respect, to treat you as an equal. [That remains to be seen.] Of course, I do have the advantage of having grown up in a very mixed environment, having friends of both genders and many skin colours and languages. [Yeah well. It doesn't show.]

Please, don’t be so dismissive towards women who are women. [She doesn't. He's totally misunderstanding her post.] That’s actually just reinforcing male privilege. [He has the audacity to say this to a radical feminist! I'm not saying I'm incapable of doing a lot of what he does here. I'm just as annoyed with myself when I do it.]

  • If my girlfriend expects me to “act like a man,” would she be asserting “female privilege?” [The classic "hypothetical question so as not to deal with the reality of what it means to be a dood asking annoying hypothetical questions on a feminist blog.]

    If your response is that she is buying into patriarchy, the only suitable escape from such becomes perfect androgyny. [Dood Knows Best.] That is, there is no male, no female, and thus no male or female characteristics. [Dood needs to explain stuff feminists know better than dood.]
    Otherwise, I fail to see how a world of men and women could exist when neither look, nor act, like men and women. [Dood fails to see how the world of male supremacist privileges entitles him to write this. Or to comprehend anything beyond dood's perspective.]

    [Andrew is asked by a woman if he knows what male privilege is, misunderstanding this as a cue to blather on further, rather than to maybe check his male privilege at the feminist blog's gate.]

  • Privilege is power one group has that another group does not, based on an arbitrary trait. Hence, the only way to eliminate privilege (hierarchy) is to eliminate the appearance of such traits. [Dood is clueless, pretending to have a clue. He's using academic eurocentric whitehetboy 'logic'. Which explains why it makes no sense at all.] In the feminist paradigm, [which feminist paradigm?] these traits would be those that either “men” or “women” exclusively possess. Their elimination would, thus, result in an androgynous society. [The use of 'thus' is often a dead give-away that you're in the presence of academic eurocentric whiteboy [il]logic.]

  • @David & Andrew
    Please keep in mind that “difference” in white supremacist capitalist patriarchies is code for “social-political hierarchies”. As C. A. MacKinnon notes, seemingly biological difference is expressed socially dominance, conversationally masquerading in liberal societies as “not all people are alike”.

    We’re all individually different, we are culturally different, and we are regionally different. Also due to age, ability, and many other factors only some of which get statused and stigmatised.

    There’s far more difference among het white men, than there is between some men and women. So why aren’t those het white men considered categorically “different” from the het white men they are different from?

    “Difference” is deeply political. Particularly and brutally in the middle of the last century there was this idea, called an Aryan Race, that was allegedly based on physical differences. Blond hair, blue eyes, and pale-as-death skin tones do exist.

    But it’s not a different race, except when it is made to be one.

    Why aren’t people with red hair and pale skin with freckles considered to be a different race? Those are physical differences, right?


    The categories of difference are arbitrary, and they are enforced with ideologies that are infused into institutions, and ideas that manifest as social and cultural practices. I hope you got it when reading their [the women's] replies, because if you only get it by reading this, that’s another form of your male supremacist privilege at work.

  • I found that comment about blue eyes, blond hair, and pale as death skin amusing – I fit that description. [Why am I not surprised! He's a white South African, after all.] I also have my hair shaved short – because it’s comfortable. [And because he's a dood, who can shave his head and not be beat up for being misperceived as a dyke.] I’ve had some people assume I’m some sort of Nazi, as a result. [Poor dear; life is truly rough for those who choose to look like neo-Nazi skinheads.] I had a black guy kneeing me in the back on a bus recently, solely for my appearance. [Now THAT'S injustice! How outrageous! Sue him! Reverse racism!!!!] I was the only white guy there. [Code for "I lived to tell this tale. I could have been KILLED. Feel sorry for me."] I responded by getting up and moving to another seat. [Wow. Rosa Parks LIVES.]

    I’ve also had genuine white racists assume I was on “their side” (even before shaving my hair), solely for my appearance. [Well, maybe. Or perhaps an arrogant white male supremacist vibe.] When they found out that I couldn’t stomach them, I was a “race traitor”. [Get out the violins. The song "Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen" was a song clearly inspired by the plight of being a blond, blue-eyed white het dood.]

    Don’t assume that a white het male is automatically top of the pile. [Because of dood's experience on the bus?!] Or that he is the enemy. [Well, dood isn't finished yet. The jury is still out.] We are just people, too. [How many fucking times do white het doods have to say this? As if the entirety of Western Savage Civilisation isn't organised around that very principle! Doods: it's not your humanity that's being questioned--the problem is you all questioning the humanity of everyone else and making sure your entitlements to do so are protected.]

    Now, I stated where I’m from, etc., so that any bias which I may have would be obvious. [Not quite. You haven't owned your het privileges. And you clearly don't know the ways in which your statements play out in typically liberal white het male supremacist ways.] That’s all. [That's never all. Just note where we are in his 'blog comment'. As the feminist blogger notes, his reply is far longer than her initial post!]

    I’m aware of my privilege. [Well, you're aware you have some, not how you exercise it on feminist blogs.] Even though white males are heavily biased against in terms of hiring in South Africa these days [oh no he didn't... oh yes he did. We need a cello section now, and maybe some violas], I still have a chance, thanks to my university degree, that is completely denied to many of my compatriots. ["Compatriots"? Doesn't he mean "Mein Aryan Bruders"? No, he's giving a nod to the darkies--they face discrimination too... "too". Ahem. As if whiteyboy knows the first thing about systemic discrimination. A knee in the seat-back, it isn't. Affirmative action, it isn't.]

    I do not believe that that is right. I am simply stating the facts. [That's not all he's doing, but he can pretend it is.] I know that I have gender privilege too [Wow. Really? Get him one of them Vancouver Gold Medals... but we better make it white gold]: if I take my shirt off, no-one is going to call me slut. [And that, folks, is reasonably representative of women's subordination and lack of privileges relative to men. Not being able to show your breasts in public. Never mind that I know plenty of women who haven't worn shirts and haven't been called sl*t for it. It's usually the TYPE of top, the type of skirt; the type of dress, the type of attitude; the type of disposition; the wish to end the date early; the fact of having a male friend and a boyfriend; the lack of joyful glee expressed when strange men call out to you to have a fuck--that's the stuff that often gets women called one of those misogynist terms.] If a woman does so, many will label her. [If a woman isn't considered elderly, and simultaneously breathes and has a pulse, there will be men who call her a sl*t.] I do not believe that that is right. [No. That's not right.] I am simply stating the facts. [As if that's ever what any man EVER does!] I am aware of my privilege [no, you're not], thank you very much [I'm not praising you, so hold off on the thank yous], and I am not automatically an enemy just because of that. [No, you're positioned as the enemy structurally, and act like a non-ally by exercising your entitlements to be patronising and obnoxious on feminist blogs. You often have to "do" something, like claim you're only stating the facts.] I have no desire to maintain the status quo, okay? [Except by doing so, on a feminist blog--quite defensively too, I might add.]

    I am a zoologist by training [So what? Are we about to discuss marsupials?], and a keen amateur reader of history. ["Keen" is a strong word, not necessarily applicable here.] I state that the differences between our biological genders [a contradiction in terms, but whatever: was it a zoology book or a history book that taught him that gender is biological?] (which are pretty fixed, btw, [or not--neither hormones, genes, physiologies, nor genital formations are fixed] or there wouldn’t be billions of us running around) [more academic eurocentric whiteboy illogic], are biologically determined. [Or not. What about AIS? What gender or sex is someone with significant AIS? What about intersexed people?] The differences between our social genders [aka, gender], on the other hand, are not biologically determined. [Really? I'm sure the women at that blog didn't ever get that memo.] Doh! I was aware of that, before it was pointed out. [Would someone please fetch another medal for His Royal Master of Knowledge.]

    Women have clits. [Unless they don't. Women who have had them removed don't have them. And some intersex women don't have them. Some women have small penises. Some trans women have a full set of male genitalia.] Guys have penises. [Unless they are transwomen, post-surgically, and the ding dong is dead.] That is biology. [Thank you, sir. Is the lesson over yet? I've got social reality to get back to.] Women have better endurance, [All women? Then why wouldn't men let women run the marathon in the Olympics until the 1980s?] and guys larger VO2 max. [I don't even want to know! Dood is showing off his biology-knowledge. Too bad he's so wrong about it all, eh?] That is biology. [No, THAT is patronising.] Saying that there are no male and female characteristics is frankly ridiculous. [The Dood Has Spoken! Let know one challenge dood's truth claim! Because if you do, you're being "frankly ridiculous".] Gender dimorphism and differences in behaviour are common in the animal kingdom. [As is flying with feathered wings, having gills, having a pouch for a premature baby to hang out in, and slithering. So fucking what? He means 'sexual dimorphism', btw. And it's not as dimorphic as he'd like to believe.]

    What would be more accurate [okay, listen up ladies! He's correcting himself, so this version must be infallible truth... one of dood's versions of shit has to be, right?], is to say [in third person, as doods are so fond of stating their own fucked up ideas as if they are not their own biased ideas]: there is VERY LITTLE difference and considerable overlap between the genders in species Homo sapiens sapiens. [Ooooh. Get this boy a Nobel Prize for Science, and make that white gold too, if you can.] This is a situation characteristic of species with social equality or near equality. [Which isn't the case among humans, in case white het boy hasn't noticed. Oh, right, he hasn't, due to his privileged position that allows him to not know much about anything at all!]

    In other words [oh dear, we need to hear yet another version??], our current situation of extreme inequalities is not in accordance with our biology as a species. [More logic. I tell you: those academic whiteboys are amazing at making it look completely illogical. Our "biology" doesn't determine anything, dood. So oppression neither is, nor is not, in accordance with our biology.] Something is deeply wrong with many of our societies. [Hold on, WHAT now???? We got problems??? Fuck. And I thought this was utopia.] There is nothing wrong with our biology [well, tell that to the butchers who go at intersex babies], and any real differences between the average man and the average woman. [Dood. What the fuck ARE you talking about? The socialised differences? The "biological ones" that really aren't that dimorphic?]

    Muscle mass? Guys biologically have the potential [some guys, maybe, have more muscle mass than other guys, and more than some women: so what? Have you seen lots of vegan white guys? Are we the gender assigned to use our brute strength to carry children or buckets of water for miles? Oh, no--that's hard labor, and that's women's work] for somewhat greater muscle mass, [with all these qualifiers, he's not really saying very much, is he? But he sure is using a lot of words to say nothing much] but the present disparity is largely a result of socialisation. [For this I've read all the rest? For this??? I want my money back! Dood loves to witness himself pontificate, doesn't he?] Differences in occupations, pay structures, percentage below poverty line, clothing restrictions? Absolutely, without a doubt, socialisation. [Absolutely? Academic doods GAZZ over that word. Doods love them absolutes. Love 'em. Too bad society won't let academic doods marry 'em.] Can you lay the blame for these disparities on all males, at all times? [Only the ones that are caused by males, all the fucking time.] That would be unfair, which would make you hypocrites. [More academic boy-logic. Gotta love it. No, wait. I don't! HURRAY!]

    What I was saying earlier [meaning in the last months of 2009, when dood began this comment?] is that Nine Deuce’s page about herself gives an impression that she is a man in a woman’s body. [That's dood's absolute conclusion. I don't know how to break it to him that he's not paying attention to what she's saying.] Dangerous statement to make. [Dangerous? Doods love throwing around that term. And "attack". Doods love misusing that one too. In what sense, "dangerous"? Does writing that on a blog cause landslides? Internal bleeding? Hangnails?] She feels that the only way to be treated right is to deny her identity as a woman, and identify as a man. [Um, dood, read more carefully and pontificate less. That's how to be something that might resemble an ally.] In the present environment, there is truth to that, but it is NOT an ideal to aim at. [Dood has to set the implicitly ignorant--and dangerous--women straight! Thank whitemaleskygod for dood! Why, whatever would we do without him?] We shan’t [oh, dear: "shan't" drips with condescension. What a mess. Could someone get me one of them quicker picker upper paper towels, please?] correct our flawed societies by attempting to squash biological difference. We shall correct them by openly examining WHY men have privilege. [Is someone carving this CRAP into stone. The Dood Has Spoken!]

    If behavioural and social status differences between men and women are exclusively socially mediated, then male privilege is not determined by biological gender, but rather by social gender (which is not the same thing, please read regarding the Law of Lek in Albania or the six genders of the Balinese). See, I am aware of such issues. [And what, so you deserve an award?]

    By this very line of argument, Nine Deuce [the feminist blog's host] does possess male privilege, by acting male. [ declares the boy, in a thoroughly male supremacist way.] Before you shoot me for this comment [right, as if WOMEN shoot MEN, as if WOMEN "attack" MEN, as if WOMEN DO TO MEN ANYTHING REMOTELY AS GROTESQUELY DEGRADING AND VIOLENT TO WHAT MEN DO TO WOMEN; this is men's conceit: that women actually do these things, systematically, as much, or at all], read on. Hopefully, you’ll see what I mean by saying that male privilege has become entrenched through something other than the physical shape of our genitalia (there is a correlative link, not a causal one). [Yes, Professor David Dickhead. My pencil is sharpened and poised at the top of the page, to take copious notes from you about radical feminist theory developed before you were born.]

    I also find it instructive, the comment that says: “you have already lost this debate”. [So fucking what? You apparently don't find it instructive when a woman points out to you what a male supremacist condescending jerk you can be online. You are, apparently, utterly clueless about your own male privileges and entitlements and how they play out obnoxiously on a feminist's blog.]

    That is a typically male line. [You mean a male supremacist line? Isn't a human male line more like what some doods leave in the snow, sometimes in scrolly script, spelling their name?] It is also a typically civilised line. [Huh?] I am not debating, nor am I trying to “win”. [No, you're unintentionally trying to come off as a dick and you're succeeding--you're winning at that. Gold medal, dood.] Not against feminists, at any rate. [I believe you. You're just a jerk on a feminist's blogs.]

    My comment was simply [if nauseatingly] intended to convey this: people are different. [Wow. AP, Al Jazeera, and CNN: did you catch that?] Those differences should be acknowledged and respected. [You mean among men and among women, right? You mean about there being intersex people, and how there is nothing that all men have in common other than status and social power relative to women? NOT EVEN PENISES.] If I greet a white male friend my age and a middle-aged Xhosa lady in the same way, I am going way off (unless it’s a very neutral “hello, how are you?”). It would be more appropriate and respectful for me to address that lady as “mama”. [Thanks for that lesson in multicultural greetings.] That is a sign of respect, not denigration. [I'll be sure to note that the next time I encounter Xhosa women of a certain age. Now, tell me: do you interrupt and stop men from using terms like b*tch, c*nt, sl*t, and h*e in your presence? Because honestly, that'd be a whole lot more useful to me, here in the West. In terms of advice or counsel or education, I mean. But if I'm in southeast So. Africa soon, I will note that. Meanwhile, do you interrupt and stop me from being misogynists. I would genuinely like to know how you do that, and please do share that here on this blog. Really.] If I give food to the poor, but not to the rich, I am seeing difference, and acting differently towards different people. Is that wrong? [It depends. Are you doing it in a way that is useful to "the poor", or in a way that bolsters your own sense of being a good economically stable white guy? Do you support ending economic systems and policies that make the poor impoverished? Do you care about the poor as people when you're not handing out a sandwich? Do you get how what you're doing is designed to make you look good, and the person you're handing food too look desperate? And anyone who needs food is desperate. And anyone who is hungry will likely take food when it is offered. And that's not unique to poor people, and not all poor people, by dominant white standards, are hungry and in need of food. Some are in need of structural power, and you offering a bit of food doesn't do much to repair that problem. But if you give food to someone who is hungry... cool. I assume you'd do that for anyone who is hungry, including some rich person who is in need of food, right? Like if they were suddenly homeless and without access to their money?]

    Equality without freedom to express difference is dangerous. [You ARE FREE to express difference, including obnoxious views, practically anywhere you want. Women aren't free to express difference--such as a desire to not fuck men, a desire to not have men in their lives AT ALL, without being condemned by men. Women are not free to refuse sex from men throughout their whole lives without risking and likely being raped. That's a verbal difference between men and women. What you're talking about is libertarian CRAP. Equality without systemic protections of that equality, and without feminists and Indigenists defining what "equality" is, is dangerous, and usually white het male supremacist.] Would you forcibly comply women who wear skirts, long hair and make up to conform to your ideal? [As if that's what Nine Deuce has called for. Why don't you show yourself to be different from most men by actually reading and comprehending--or even trying to comprehend--what Nine Deuce wrote?]

    That would simply replace one form of oppression with another, one form of social privilege with another. [No, David. It wouldn't. Nine Deuce calling for that, one woman calling for anything, isn't radically restructuring society in humane or in inhumane ways. And it's not replacing one thing for another, at all, in any way, in any sense. It would be her making one comment, and it's not one she made. So what the fuck are you talking about?]

    And it would destory people’s individuality. [No. It wouldn't. Even if she said it, it wouldn't do that and what you're implying is that what one woman says is equal to cross-cultural, cross-era oppression of women by men. One woman's comment on her own blog--that she didn't even make--isn't comparable even to what you are doing on her blog, as the obnoxious, if well-intended, whiteboy teaching the women a lesson in how to be a better feminist. Do you get that?]

    I am not arguing for the validity of races as absolute categories. They are absurd. [Well, glad to hear that. You sure wouldn't want to come across as a white supremacist. Apparently you are satisfied to come across as a male supremacist, though.]

    Race as a zoological definition refers to adaptations by populations within local areas to specific conditions. Thus, the “Indian” peoples of the Himalayas, such as the Gurkha peoples, are a different race to those living in the coastal plains, such as the Biharis. [You're calling that "zoological"?? That's, um, rather racist and white supremacist of you, dood. And those aren't "RACE" differences; they are regional and ethnic ones.] These races are NOT defined by skin colour alone, nor by facial features. [Nor are they races.] In fact, one couldn’t distinguish them on either of these criteria. Nor are they exclusive categories, but rather simple descriptors of biological difference. [Not exactly. I doubt there is meaningful biological difference there, as there isn't biological difference that is significant enough to warrant any to groups of people being regarded as distinct exclusive "races". Races are determined by political necessity and desire of one group to conquor, rule, control, and destroy another. Nor are women and men exclusive categories, biologically.]

    But as socially relevant entities, races exist – because we have created them. We could easily label those with red hair and freckles as a different race. [I agree with you.] In fact, this remark exposes ignorance. People with those characteristics have faced prejudice, and still do. [Yup. But not the kind and vastness of prejudice that Black people have faced and face, that Indigenous people faced and face, that women as a group faced and face.] What’s more, English supremacists DID label Celtic peoples (where most people fitting this phenotype are found) ["Celtic" doesn't refer to phenotype. It's a reference to a cultural group, the group that speaks Celtic] as a separate race, and practised racism against them. [Even if a "whiter" group identifies itself as superior or dominant, inherently, that doesn't make white Celtic people "phenotypically" different from white Brits. You're using lingo from zoology and applying it to humans, which is kind of fucked up to do, especially when speaking about matters of race. White Jews were not "phenotypically" different than Aryan Germans.]

    The same applies to social gender. It’s also simply a construct. But one that has been used to fuel prejudice
    [Prejudice isn't the word or the issue, and to frame it up that way allows you to claim that someone making a "prejudicial statement" is the same as being genocidal, or a rapist. Systematic subordination is the issue, with race and gender.]

    But it’s not simply that those people with dicks decided to be dominant. [Actually, it kind of is.] Think about it: if it were only the reproductive organs that made men dominant, how the fuck (pardon the pun) did we get it right? [Did we get what right? Fucking? Reproduction? Believe me, many men have gotten that wrong. Men who rape young girls and the elderly get it wrong. That's why human boys and men have to be taught how to "do it". And unfortunately what too many boys and men are taught is how to "do it" using force and manipulation.]

    No, there’s more to it than that. There are patterns of aggressive behaviour in men, desires for dominance, that have led to the patriarchy. Denying those is dangerous. [Denying that those are "natural"? If that's so, why aren't all groups of men dangerous in that way? Not all Indigenous men or non-Indigenous men are sexually aggressive, right? So, again, what are you talking about?]

    Read about hyaenas, a species where females are dominant. [Please stop blurring the lines between fucked up zoological beliefs and fucked up beliefs about humans.] You’ll see that they are dominant because of higher testosterone levels – which leads to aggressive, dominating behaviour. [No. It doesn't. It doesn't at all. What it leads to is a possibility for such behavior. But men with low testosterone are serial rapists, and many high testosterone men, and women, are not.] Deny the reality of hyaenas at your peril! [Why are we even discussing hyenas! Hyenas aren't humans, phenotypically and otherwise.] Deny the reality of testosterone at your peril. [I don't deny the reality of testosterone. I strongly disagree that it causes men to be rapists, or even "aggressive" without analysing what you mean by that; I don't agree testosterone causes men to be sexually aggressive against women, specifically, or sexually aggressive, exactly. Testosterone levels don't determine the degree to which men in any society devalue women in that society; nor does it "teach" men that women ought to be treated and seen as "for men, for forced sex".]

    Also, read about the situation in late Paleolithic, as opposed to the Neolithic, to see what happened as regards gender equality. [Because that has what to do with white het male supremacy now, in South Africa and North America?]

    What you will see is that it was the beginning not only of the patriarchy, [there was just one?] but also of social hierarchies in general. [You get that there's no one theory about this, right? And that you're ignoring a whole lot about the many Indigenous societies that existed and exist to make that statement, right?] It was the beginning of civilisation: a sick and twisted form of social organisation. [That's not definitively the case. If we define civilisation as Derrick Jensen does--a society organised around and requiring the unsustainable maintenance of cities--then your theory doesn't hold much water. I recommend you read Yurugu--linked to at the right of this blog, if you haven't yet, for more on what distinguishes white societies from those they conquered.]

    Btw, labelling me a capitalist is a big mistake. I detest the system, as unfair, abusive, destructive (socially and environmentally) and unsustainable. [I'll stick with labeling you an unconsciously white male supremacist.]

    It has been said that all oppression is oppression, and that is why I wrote what I did. [Huh?]

    Please do not attack men who visit this site so viciously. [You don't get to control how women respond to you on their own blogs. Sorry. And, dood, no one is "attacking" you. So get a clue. Not even me. I may be disrespecting you, but that's not "an attack". Gross sexual assaults and genocidal invasions are "attacks". Someone critiquing you, a white guy, who isn't a guy, isn't an attack.] That we are here in the first place means that we are potential allies. ['Potential' is a strong word. And an often meaningless one.]

    The same applies to feminine women (I shied away from the term initially because I know that it is loaded). [Where does she "attack" feminine women???]

    Oppression does not only happen on gender and race bases. [No shit. You think Nine Deuce doesn't know that? Why are you even bothering to say it?] There is class oppression as well. [Derrr.] At present, the middle class (into which I fall, by definitions of social mobility), is collapsing. [Measuring how? And is this "collapse" causing the poor to be less poor? I doubt it. And even if it did collapse, you'd still have class privilege.] Soon, there will only be a lower class and an obscenely rich upper class. [And men like you, raised in a middle class way, with middle class values and status.]

    That upper class of privileged people (building on a hierarchical situation going back to the Neolithic Revolution), love it when we the oppressed are divided. When we turn on each other, instead of uniting. Divide and conquer. [That's one theory.]

    Please don’t reject anyone who identifies with the oppressed and is genuinely willing to fight oppression (the last is important, because there are plenty of fakers – search “Julius Malema” or “Helen Zille” for great examples from my country). [You haven't demonstrated that you are willing to fight oppression, and coming to a feminist blog and being obnoxiously condescending and arrogant, and white male supremacist, isn't a form of fighting oppression; it's a form of being an oppressor.]

    There is great difference between white het men. [I thought you said there wasn't, earlier?] There is also great difference amongst white het women. [Really?] Don’t reject those who aren’t androgynous enough, as not being true feminists. [And where did she say that?] That would smack of bigotry and prejudice, and loses you potential allies. [What you do here, in this long, long comment, "smacks" of arrogant condescension, and you may lose the capacity to be an ally by behaving that way. I defer to Nine Deuce to make that call.]

    And don’t say that I’m disqualified from fighting for the oppressed by virtue of being (somewhat) privileged. [Don't try and control what women say, please. Doing so is male supremacist, controlling, and dominating.]

    Those in shackles cannot on their own cast them off. [Tell that to all those in shackles who did just that.] They need assist to do so. [As they call for it, welcome it, and define it, not as you do. Did you ask Nine Deuce if she found your comment behaving like an ally to feminists? Why not?] No, that’s not patronising. Read the sentence literally, and it’s abundantly obvious. [It's presumptuous and self-aggrandising. And you're operating out of an oppressive double standard. Why do you demand she read your words so carefully when you obviously don't do the same with her own?]

    [Please reply here @ A Radical Profeminist, David.]