Timid Feminism = Timidism

While there is much in the news to discuss, much of it inter-connected; and I have certainly spent the better part of the week collecting news articles, videos and links in preparation for a post addressing said issues, instead of spending time and energy fanning the “blame Islam flames,” I’m much more strongly compelled to lash out against what I see as the undue timidity of so-called feminist women in the face of coordinated attack, especially when confronted with forces lead by other women.

Lord knows I am not alone in my outrage about the all-too-predictable capitulation to the Right by our Mighty Morphin’ Majority Democrats for no Earthly apparent reason.  Women everywhere are bitchin’ and  moanin’ about the seemingly calculated attempts at the  Stepfordization of American females.  While I see this as the inevitable result of the efforts of that faction of the country’s politics now being fronted by the insidious Bachmann Palin Overdrive, the eager surrender of females on the Left, either because of faith in the illusion of the myth of political expediency, or due to belief in fantasies of sisterhood, unattainable even in legend and fairy tale, as being necessary for success, the end result is the same; when women buy into the “helpless second, weaker, yet, inherently evil sex” patriarchal theory as their self-identity starting position, women lose.

Leaders lead.  They stake a position, articulate it, and invite others to join.  Whether anybody takes them up on their offer or not, they proceed according to their plan.  You cannot lead by consensus, or by whining about who doesn’t see things your way, thereby blaming them for your condition.   Constantly complaining about other women who don’t support your vision, and how much you wish they would for everybody’s sake, is a masochistically masturbatory waste of time.  If only “she” would think like “me,” “we” could do x, y, z, is a crackhead’s pipe dream.  To take it a step further and fantasize that Utopian Nirvana can only be reached by aligning oneself with “her” anyway, regardless of the width of the gulf between your points of view, simply on the strength of shared anatomical features, is a crackhead’s delirium.

Male And Female Made He Them

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:27, King James Version

Such a seemingly innocuous passage, known to all, but filled with mystery rarely fully considered.  God created “man” in the singular, male and female.  Are we to read “mankind,” or “humanity” for “man?”  Were “male and female” alternately created, some of each, or all at once, each possessing characteristics of both?  If “male and female” refer to God’s image, why is He referred to as “Him?”

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.  Genesis 2:7, King James Version

Of course, some will say only men were created in God’s image; “male and female created He them” refers to women being created separately as “lesser than,” and not in His image.  But, is that really the case?  Did the first humans created by God, both in the image of God, possess qualities of both genders, in what we currently call “intersex,” previously known as “hermaphroditism?”  Is that the reason for a second Biblical creation narrative where gender-specific humans were created separately?  Whether true or not, why do some Christians consider such questions regarding sexuality, gender identity, and God, to be blasphemous?

Scratch a Christian about “gender” and the conversation immediately becomes “what the Bible says about sex.”  I literally Googled “gender Christian values” and the very first hit was all about what Corinthians says about sex.  Never mind that “Corinthians” is just a long letter written by Paul to some people he couldn’t visit, or, that Paul was a Christian persecutor who admitted to being the lookout at the first Christian martyrdom, who most likely never knew Jesus in His lifetime, and who only “converted” after being “blinded by the Light” when out walking one day.  He also claimed willingness to do whatever necessary to accomplish his goals, and some say, somehow managed to usurp Jesus’ chosen successor, Peter, as the foundation of the Christian Church.  Just sayin’.

We’re All Commies

Never having studied political science, and having been a kid who started first grade in 1960, the only thing I know for sure about Communism and Communists, is that Communism is ba-a-aa-aaaddd, and, it’s their fault I know how to hide under a desk in case of nuclear attack.  In light of the fact that White House “czar,” Van Jones, was forced to resign for admitting to being a dirty Republican-(read: “real American”)hating, foul mouthed, race-baiting Commie, and, that I no longer have access to one of those nifty little bolted, bomb repelling desks, I figured some research might be in order.  What I found is that, with surprisingly little effort, we might all fit the description, one way or another.

Seems ironic that on the American holiday celebrating the proletariat, on the eve of the release of an avowed left-winger’s anti-capitalism film, in an era where the media continues to push the myth that the majority of the country is in favor of a bipartisan, single party-like approach to government, that we would be discussing one man’s “Communism.”  How many Americans really even know what “Communism” is?  According to some sources, feminists are Communists, i.e., “feminazi.”  As far as some folks are concerned, anybody on the left side of the political aisle qualifies as a “Communist,” or, at the very least, a “Socialist,” which is basically a “Communist,” as yet not fully radicalized.  From Wikipedia:

Feminism, Fanaticism, FrootLoopery, and Fantasy

They say there’s a thin line between love and hate, and, that may, or may not, be true.  However, whether or not there is indeed one, I believe that the line between sanity and sheer batshit crazy FrootLoopery is real, and much, much, thinner.

Let’s face it, at first blush, people who are totally Looney Tunes are nearly indistinguishable from normal people, or even from the only mildly deranged.  They pretty much function okay on a day-to-day basis, their madness only revealed through sustained exposure.  In fact, since the difference between lunacy and passion is “notmuch,” a case could be made that most of us with strong opinions cross the line on a semi-regular basis.  It’s only after hearing a given person’s argument over a period of time that one realizes that said person’s passion about something that seems to us to be rather trivial and inconsequential, leads them to become more than a little unhinged on their regular commute home to LaLa Land.

The Power Of Her Sex

The subject of female sexuality fascinates me, not just erotically, but, primarily as it relates to the study of it, feminism and our collective quest, as women, for equality.  The lack of control over our bodies is the bedrock of patriarchal domination; so how come we don’t make more of the common sense leap that the cornerstone of liberation is the reclamation of feminine sexual power?

Women all over the PUMAsphere have explored many of the questions relative to women and power, misogyny and sexism, patriarchy and control.  But, all too often, we tend to skip right over the bottom line and start fussing over the line by line entries.  The individual slights, insults, incidences of unspeakable violence and horror, and all other shameful examples of attempts to dominate and control women, though righteously deserving attention, scrutiny, outrage, and outcry, also have the capacity to consume us all to the point of losing sight of the proverbial forest for the trees.  The truth is, global patriarchal domination throughout the span of generations, is merely a thinly veiled attempt to attain social relevance where there genetically is none.

Let’s face it, if women did not allow men the illusion of control to the extent that we are all too often forced to do, the vast majority of men would face the specter of complete irrelevance.  When it comes to sex, the woman chooses the time, the place, and the partner, when it comes to childbearing and rearing, women are perfectly capable of doing so alone, or, in concert with other women in a communal, lioness pride-like, Amazonian matriarchal environment.  To procreate, only small numbers of adult males would be required, and to ensure Darwinian genetic diversity, who could, and should be replaced seasonally, perhaps in a male lion-like, Gladiator-esque fight to the finish for mating rights.  Have such societies ever existed?  Who the hell knows?  As long as archaeology is primarily a Western male construct we’re unlikely to find out, but, my imagination can fully wrap around the idea.

If She Ran…

Okay, let’s tackle this Sarah Palin support question that’s been bugging me for days now, head on.  I have to admit, I find the rabid “all women must be on board the Palin train” position to be unsettling.  It insults and upsets me as a woman, as if, unless I agree with it, my opinions as a woman are less valuable than that of other women who do.  What about those of us who abhor sexism/misogyny in all forms against any woman, but refuse to support women as candidates whose positions we can’t accept?  Can’t we be in the club, too?

To be clear, as far as I’m concerned, when women/feminists, left and right, agree to support any and all women candidates for political office, from Palin to Pelosi, equally and unequivocally, I will gladly jump aboard the bandwagon.  Unless, and until, that happens however, I will continue to reject the pro-Palin propaganda.

My feelings are that, based on the things she has said she stands for, she’ll never get my vote.  Until she specifically states that she would not undermine women’s reproductive rights, advocates for handgun control, supports Affirmative Action, and LGBT equality, she will continue to be unattractive as a potential candidate for any office to me.  But, that’s my position.  However, I am interested in how you feel.  In light of that, I offer two very non-scientific polls, the first of which concerns Sarah Palin for President.  Please vote, and, if you are so inclined, leave a comment explaining why, or, why not.  No holds barred, let ‘er rip.

Did Feminism Kill Macho?

On June 20, the National Organization for Women elected a new board in what has been characterized in some circles as something of a coup d’etat.   Calling it a coup is something of a mischaracterization however, since the old board was out anyway, with the former president, Kim Gandy, stepping down due to term limits.  Yet, the victors were successful in labeling their opponents as “more of the same” and continuation of the status quo, due to Gandy’s support for the slate, and endorsement of its candidate for president, Latifa Lyles, who served under Gandy as Membership VP.  The incoming slate, headed by Terry O’Neill, former VP of membership before said office became something of a black woman’s glass ceiling, has promised to take the floundering organization in a new direction by returning it to its roots.  Stay with me, now, it gets better.

On June 22, Foreign Policy posted an article entitled, The Death of Macho, discussed this morning on CNN’s AMfix, which posits that the testosterone-fueled patriarchy has so screwed the world, especially economically, that they have basically engineered their own demise as a power structure. Which means women are now poised to take the lead by stepping into the void and dutifully, and competently, and, as should be expected, clean up the boyz’ mess, thereby saving the world while effectively emasculating John Wayne.  Or, something like that.  Of course, the article’s author, Reihan Salam, doesn’t credit feminism for the demise of machismo, he blames the recession, which he terms a “he-cession,” due to its devastating effects on male employment opportunities.

However, though unspoken, one cannot escape the specter of the effects of feminism in all this, and, Salam does not, even though, he truly doesn’t seem to recognize his error:

The era of male dominance is coming to an end.

Seriously.

For years, the world has been witnessing a quiet but monumental shift of power from men to women. Today, the Great Recession has turned what was an evolutionary shift into a revolutionary one. The consequence will be not only a mortal blow to the macho men’s club called finance capitalism that got the world into the current economic catastrophe; it will be a collective crisis for millions and millions of working men around the globe.

Bitter Knitters, Spinning Wheels, And Pretzel Logic

I am not a bandwagoneer.  It takes a lot to get me to go along with anything, or anyone, at any time.  Given the way perceptions can be radically shifted by agents employing fairly subtle techniques, I have a hard time accepting things that are reported as “prevailing wisdom,” or “common knowledge,” or anything suggesting that whatever being discussed is something “everybody knows.”  Everybody knows shit.  Nobody knows squat.  However you want to say it, unless you’re under the age of 17 and trying to cajole a parent into granting permission for something you want, but know good and well you shouldn’t have, “everybody knows” has no place in anybody’s vocabulary.  Everybody knows that.

When I hear people compare the current power struggle in Iran to last year’s Democratic party primary shenanigans here in the United States, and cast the Iranian dissidents in the role of PUMAs, i.e., disgruntled voters outraged about voter fraud, I can only scratch my head.  Trying to cast Mir Hossein Mousavi into the Hillary Clinton part is way too big a stretch for me.  Although in the primaries and caucuses, the “establishment” was felt to be unfairly supporting Obama, especially in the case of Michigan and Florida, and it was Obama who bussed shitloads of people to out of state caucuses and gangstered them, not Clinton, and it was Obama who bought off the superdelegates, and strong armed any number of people in order to circumvent a true floor vote at the convention, it was Obama’s camp that threatened to riot in the streets, and, who spread their message through the social media.  It was Obama who captured the malleable passions of the latest gullible campus bound Pepsi Generation, and conscripted them into an online army.

Good Girls Never

pornography: generally, that which is designed to stimulate sexual desire.

erotica: generally, softcore porn, i.e., nude couples riding white horses through a field of heather in slow motion until the film dissolves into rough, loving sex in a hay-filled barn.

obscenity:generally, porn that pisses you off, and/or disgusts you, i.e., pedophilia, degradation, bondage, submission, etc., or, for some people, all of the above, and everything in this post.

Women do not like sex.  We do not enjoy displaying our bodies, we are only comfortable engaging in sexual activity when we are alone, in the dark, or, so in love that we would be willing to reluctantly submit to our partner’s debased requests.  We absolutely hate the idea of watching other people have sex, and would never, if left to our own devices, agree to have sex in public,  be filmed, photographed, or sculpted nude, or performing sexually for the pleasure of others.  Why, to even think about doing such things would be positively…icky, unwomanly, and blow big chunks.  And, it scares us mute.

Double Standard Two Step (NSFW?)

The unofficial dance of the feminist movement, the Double Standard Two Step, should become official.  It’s pretty much the only dance we’ve got, (I say we as a woman, not a feminist, I’m just not much of a joiner) unless you count the Plain Jane Wallflower we seem to love so much.  The dances are simple, in the DSTS, you take one step forward, two steps back, and alternate leads as much as the guy you’re dancing with will let you.  The PJW is much easier, in that one, you just take a seat and wait for somebody else to do the dancing.  Contrary to popular belief, the PJW can be oodles of fun, that’s why so many women eagerly engage in it; the opportunity to snark and bitch about the stumbling, tripping, more popular women getting their corns stepped on, is just waaay too compelling for a lot of women to pass up.  The “Plain Jane” self-designation also takes one out of competition and releases pent-up pressure women might not even know they have, so, understandably, the PJW is the far more popular feminist dance between the two.

Now, let me say that I believe that the first step to equality is to believe oneself to be equal.  If all you’re doing is bitching about rights and freedoms you don’t have because other people won’t give them to you, and that you don’t even really believe you deserve, you’re not only doomed to fail, but will undoubtedly piss a lot of people off in the process.  A person who doesn’t believe herself to be already free will remain a slave no matter how many shackles are removed, locks are opened, or walls and fences torn down.  They’re not going anywhere because, in their minds, they’ve got nowhere to go.

Good Thing I’m Not A Civil Rights Activist

Good thing I’m not a Civil Rights activist, because, if I was, I’d probably be majorly pissed right now.  I mean, if I had worked my ass off trying to get a guy elected who I thought would, and should, have my best interests at heart, and he turned around and dissed me, yet again, on TV, in front of God and everybody, I’d be pretty ticked off.  The fact that my hopes would have been raised by the answer he gave to the question he got right before he gave the answer that broke my heart, would only make the “you’ll take what I give you, and like it” attitude he exuded toward me all the more intolerable.  As a Civil Rights activist, knowing full well that when it comes to government redress, all resources are finite, any consideration given to any other marginalized, disenfranchised, under-represented, “special interest group” would be considered by me to be a threat of gargantuan dimensions.  Therefore, hearing my Happy Hopey Homey Hero give a verbal smackdown to the Chicks of Choice would give me a huge hope boner, knowing that a chance for my issues to be addressed had been preserved undiluted.  I’d also be pretty sure that any fallout resulting from the perception of favored treatment at their expense could be successfully “spun,” just like it always has been, with the old stand-by, “a victory for any of us is a victory for all…blah, blah, blah.”

Good Thing I’m Not A Feminist

http://feministsforobama.org/

It’s a good thing I’m not a feminist, because, if I was, I’d probably be majorly pissed right now.  I mean, if I had worked my ass off to get a guy elected because he promised to promote my agenda, and then he turned around and dissed me on TV, in front of God and everybody, I’d be pretty ticked off.  That’s kinda like sleeping with a guy after an amazing first date when all he talked about was love, marriage, picket fences, and you, only to see him the next day with another woman, and he says, “hey, howya doin’?” as he and she walk past, hand in hand.   Talk about molded.

What do you do when Prince Charming the SuperHero turns back into a frog after you’ve stuck your tongue down his throat?  How do you show your broken face in public?  I guess we’ll see when Obama’s Cinderellas, who’ve convinced themselves, sans any evidence, that he was to be the president of their dreams, pick themselves up off the floor where they landed after he suddenly, and inexplicably, kicked the wind out of them and left them writhing and gasping for breath with a karate kick to the gut, without warning.  What’s up with that, huh?

My PUMA Rant

This is a rant.

It seems that every day that the Pretendident manages to successfully navigate through without sticking his foot in his mouth, or his finger in the eye of someone, or a group of someones, worthy of PUMA respect, the resultant paucity of headlines causes the diligent bloggers of the PUMAsphere to turn introspective and compulsively begin to contemplate the future and direction of our nascent movement via our navels.  Thus, we begin to see a spate of “Where Do We Go From Here?” What Have We Accomplished So Far?” blog posts, chronicling our genesis and calling for “focus.”

Why?

Where do we go from here?  For now, we go where Barack Obama leads us.  Not like the Lapdogs of Cheetoville, or the Sheeple of Sleepy Hollow, or the lazy, compliant Mainstream Media Mafia, all of whom have proven far too susceptible to the mindfucking and astroturfing of his devious, duplicitous minions to be trusted; but, like bloodhounds, or, what we are, PUMAs, who have caught the scent of prey and refuse to be diverted from our mission.

Barack Obama did not win fairly by being a superior candidate, he won by manipulating the media’s message, using whatever means necessary.  PUMA was born to counter that by those who not only saw through his PuppetMaster’s manipulation, but were fucking outraged by it.  We were not all of a color, religion, gender, political party or single mind, and though most of us supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries, our rejection of her rival was only minimally influenced by her.   We always rejected Obama because of Obama.

What’s In A Name?

Wanna hear something strange?  The President I love to hate, Alfred E. Urkelbama (What, me do that?) and I actually have a lot in common.  We’re both nominally “black,” (though, I didn’t grow up in Hawaii, I don’t have a white parent, and I don’t try to mute or exploit my blackness at other black people’s expense  for personal gain, but other than that…) and, like him, I don’t like labels.  Okay, so that doesn’t exactly qualify as “a lot” in common, but it is more than I thought, and “a lot” more than I really want to admit.  I really don’t like the guy, okay?

Other than a recent declaration that President Black Obama considered himself a “New Democrat,” assumedly aligning his political ideology with a faction of the same Democratic Leadership Council he once defiantly, uncategorically, denied, Oblahblah has consistently resisted being pigeon-holed.  This is understandable, given his early primary and caucus appeals to Republicans to crossover and support, vote for, and donate to him.  I mean, what do you call a guy who does that?  “Opportunist” if you’re kind, “traitor” if you’re not?

I’m not.

It also makes sense that he would reject the label, “liberal,” even if his philosophy leaned that way, (which, I’m not hardly sure of) since Republicans have made that term synonymous with “rabid Democratic champion of the shiftless and unworthy.”  Who, besides Jesus, would want to be thought of like that, huh?

Obama Defines Obama

“Ich bein ein New Democrat.”  “I am a New Democrat.”  That’s what President Black Obama said at a meeting of New Democrats.  Of course, unlike John Kennedy in Berlin, he didn’t say it in German, though, had he been at a gathering of chicken dippers, he probably would have amended his declaration to profess his unambiguous affiliation with…chicken dippers, whatever they are.  Thus, the self-proclaimed “blank screen” that is the Obamessiah assumes a Paulian characterization for himself.  From the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 9:20-22:

²⁰And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

²¹To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

²²To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Politico reports the surprising declaration with the appropriate sense of awe it deserves, given the Artful Dodger’s previous reluctance to be as labeled, be it as liberal, Socialist, centrist, whatever:

President Barack Obama firmly resists ideological labels, but at the end of a private meeting with a group of moderate Democrats Tuesday afternoon he offered a statement of solidarity.

“I am a New Democrat,” he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session.

This Story Should Not Die

This is not just harmless, innocent, frat-boy immaturity on display.  This is highly offensive behavior, indicative of the complete lack of respect towards women we as a nation seem to be okay with.  And, I’m no raging feminist.  Not because I don’t think that women get a raw deal most of the time (the whole “we’re more likely to die at the hands of lovers and husbands, and get infected with HIV while in ‘monogamous‘ relationships” thing pisses me off, royally) it’s just that I’m not much of a “joiner.”  That’s why I had no problem whatsoever leaving the Democratic party when they pissed me off.  No Party Affiliation works fine for me.  I’ve never understood why you have to adopt an “-ism” and find a bunch of other people who agree with you before you could feel comfortable having an opinion.  If I think something sucks, I’ll say so, and I don’t care how many people form how many groups to “advance my position.”

That picture sucks.

Hillary Clinton is somebody’s mother, and old enough to be Favreau’s.  Would the defenders of this misogynistic display be comfortable substituting a cutout of their own mother with hers in that photo?

Mrs. Clinton is also a former First Lady, a United States Senator, and Secretary of State-designate.  She’s a lawyer, human rights advocate and dedicated public servant.  More importantly, she’s a human being and deserves respect, especially from snot-nosed, overpaid asswipes who make their living ripping off DisneyLand Hall of Presidents animatronics speeches and using them to help create the illusion of “Great Moments With Mr. Never Accomplished Much.”

Mr. Favreau should grow up.  By rights, he should do it on the ever-growing unemployment line, but, we all know he can’t be fired, to do so would render the TelePrompTer Messiah mute.  CNN’s Campbell Brown should also be fired, just for being an idiot.  While Brown gets that Favreau is an idiot, too, she has the nerve to take Senator Clinton to task for an equally idiotic statement made on Clinton’s behalf by an aide, Phillippe Reines, who himself deserves to be fired for his flippant, “too cutesy by half”

“Sen. Clinton is pleased to learn of Jon’s obvious interest in the State Department, and is currently reviewing his application”

remark.  Clinton hasn’t said anything, and I doubt if she personally authorized that particular statement.  It’s too obviously a “guy” response, in fact, it reads like a gay guy response.  It tries too hard to be dispassionately PC about something for which there is no political correctness, while simultaneously being dismissive of the potential for female outrage and supportive of the bad male behavior.  Not that there’s anything wrong with gay guys or the remarks they make, unless they’re stupid and being attributed to Senator Clinton, who is simply not stupid, nor a gay guy.  But why should we expect hacks like Brown to investigate, or try to verify the story and risk letting the facts stop her and the rest of today’s “journalists” from making shit up and blaming people for stupid stuff as they see fit?

Like I said, I’m not much of a “joiner,” so I’m not going to ask anybody to march, or protest, or do much of anything besides ask themselves a question.  Are you comfortable with what a picture of two young men pretending to force-feed a woman alcohol while they grope her private parts says about our society?  And does knowing the identity of the people in the photo make matters better, or worse?