Lesbian Feminist Norah Vincent lives as a man for 18 months, goes nuts and is happy to get back to life as a woman.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, activist and author, joins Dave Rubin to talk about her story of surviving genital mutilation and death threats, the difference between Islam the religion and political Islam, and about the Regressive Left.
Ostensibly formed as a global peacekeeping organisation in the wake of World War II, the United Nations, or U.N., has, over time, made it clear that the peace it means to impose on the world resembles the pax Romana (or pax Islama), mandated and managed by way of a top-down global hegemon.
For all the criticisms levelled at desert pirates Daesh, their M.O. seems to resemble the U.N.’s in several key ways, with its fatwa-friendliness, universalist aspredations*, and a heralded, hypocritical hard-on for pious prohibition and penile predation. If one didn’t know any better, it’d be easy to suspect the Muslim Männerbund of taking more than a few notes.
By Kitty Stryker
While the plight of the survivors of trafficking are brought up in modern discourse around whether or not sex work should be legal or good for women, little actual space is given for survivors to come forward and share their stories.
Mercedes is a survivor of trafficking who approached us to present her experiences of being a survivor of trafficking so that she and other survivors can be heard in a debate that so often pointedly excludes them.
How did you end up in the sex industry?
Because gender equality means that everyone must be obligated to serve the empire. The latest in totalitarian humanism.
The top officers in the Army and Marine Corps testified on Tuesday that they believe it is time for women to register for future military drafts, following the Pentagon’s recent decision to open all jobs in combat units to female service members.
Gen. Mark A. Milley, chief of staff of the Army, and Gen. Robert B. Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, both said they were in favor of the change during an occasionally contentious Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the full integration of women in the military. The generals, both infantry officers, offered their opinions in response to a question from Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who said that she also is in favor of the change.
“Senator, I think that all eligible and qualified men and women should register for the draft,” said Milley, echoing the remarks of Neller.
Great interview with Augustus by Lana Lokteff. Listen here.
Augustus Invictus is an attorney and community leader in Orlando, Florida who is a candidate in the 2016 US Senate election. Best known as a radical philosopher and infamous social critic, he is Managing Partner of Imperium, P.A., the law firm he founded in 2013. As an attorney, Augustus has worked to defend those who have become collateral damage of America’s two longest-running wars: the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.
Augustus begins with an explanation of the name he has chosen to identify with, along with the mystical path that led him to study law and eventually pursue politics. He talks about his affiliation with the Libertarian Party (LP) and the problems he sees with its watered down, mainstream message. Augustus describes the main issues he aspires to tackle as Senator: the drug war, foreign policy, and the financial crisis. We get into the customary LP stances on open borders, immigration and equality, and we look at how these key concerns have been muddled with leftist contention. Augustus shares his view on the problems that will ensue for Libertarian ideals if non-Westerners continue to flood into America, and he also speaks to the Marxist degeneracy that has infected pop culture and the educational system. Then, we discuss the absence of natural law and hierarchy in the current US government system, along with the tyrannical forces pushing oppressive mandatory regulations, censorship and hate speech laws. At the end, Augustus sums up the actions he is taking to tackle the looney left’s war on White men and inspire a resurrection of the American front.
More than you might wanna inhale!
How to deal with the sexual assaults in Cologne and Hamburg by Musa Okwonga
Why We Can’t Stay Silent on Germany’s Mass Sex Assaults by Maajid Nawaz
The solution to Germany’s migrant problem is simple. But not easy. by Janet Bloomfield a.k.a JudgyBitch
We need to talk about Cologne by Greek Forum of Refugees (et al)
The false dilemma of the rapacious Muslim narrative by Hannah Wallen
Cologne and the ‘sexism of the other’: Why tougher migration policies won’t solve sexual abuse by Anne Jenichen
A reply to Anne Jenichen on the link between immigration and sexual violence by Daniel Falkiner
Is Europe Choosing to Self-Destruct? by Judith Bergman
After Cologne, Feminism is Dead by Phillip Mark McGough
Europa: When Feminism is Silent by NM Phoenix
Lie Back and Think of Brussels by Ann Sterzinger and Jamie Mason
International Business Times: Cologne sex attacks: Syrian refugees take to streets to condemn mass assaults by migrants on New Year’s Eve
By Kathy Caprino
Last month, I had the honor of speaking with Sheryl WuDunn, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, author, and investment banker. Co-author of the national bestselling book Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide with her husband, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, Sheryl and her husband helped catalyze the Half the Sky Movement, which includes television, film, social media and mobile gaming components promoting global equality and support for women’s rights. Half the Sky raises awareness of the critical issues that affect women without a voice, including violence, maternal mortality, human trafficking, and domestic abuse. Sheryl spoke this summer at the 2013 Global Women’s Executive Summit sponsored by Hogan Lovells, an international legal practice firm.
Sheryl shared with me her views that the oppression of women across the globe is the most critical moral challenge of our time, just as slavery was in the 19th century. “While women here in the U.S. are far better off than those in other countries, and by and large don’t experience what women face in the developing world, we simply can’t turn our backs on the struggles women face elsewhere. It’s a critical challenge that the entire world must work together to address.”
Even in the U.S., prejudice against women remains a significant problem. In our workplaces, there is unequal pay for equal work. Women are battered, raped, and trafficked. And there’s simply no defensible reason why women should continue to be grossly underrepresented in government (women represent less than 20% in the Senate and the House.)
Sheryl shared her thoughts on the challenges women continue to face in ascending to leadership in both corporate America and the government.
Successful political and social agitation by the progressive movement has cemented such gains that men can now be considered institutionally oppressed in America, even according to feminist definitions of oppression. Here are three definitions:
Institutional oppression is the systematic mistreatment of people within a social identity group, supported and enforced by the society and its institutions, solely based on the person’s membership in the social identity group.
Institutional Oppression occurs when established laws, customs, and practices systematically reflect and produce inequities based on one’s membership in targeted social identity groups. If oppressive consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the institution is oppressive whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have oppressive intentions.
Oppression is the inequitable use of authority, law, or physical force to prevent others from being free and equal.
Before I make the argument that men are oppressed, I want to first ask if you can document or describe any oppression that women are facing today. Is there a place or environment in America where capable and qualified women are actively discriminated against while men are not? I can’t think of a single example. We have completely solved female oppression, because as I’ve documented in the past, women are coddled at every stage of their lives and given more opportunities and leeway to fail than men while having the full backing and support from every single institution in America (besides the manosphere).
t truly is amazing how things have “progressed” in this day and age.
For all of the advancements in science, technology, medicine, and various other things, it seems when it comes to the social foray, things have degenerated quite significantly. There is more hypersensitivity about…well…pretty much everything. For instance, bullying when I was younger was just a part of life, and we were always taught to stand up to bullies. Nowadays “don’t bully people” is plastered everywhere. I don’t know how much headway it is making, but I know that I think it is more effective to try to build someone up as opposed to trying to convince one particular mean-spirited person to discontinue their behavior, especially because there will potentially be another to take that person’s place…and another…and another.
The new methodology is to hide people from reality as oppose to letting them face it.
This brings me to my topic at hand. It has become painfully obvious that the men of society have made it so that women are hidden from many of the realities of the world. Men will often censor/belittle themselves, or avoid topics altogether so as to walk on eggshells around the women they come across. If a woman feels slighted in the most insignificant way, society has people (mostly men) falling over themselves to defend her honor. It’s so distracting that it can often become the new focal point during a discussion, and all other points become invalidated because one particular thing was offensive.
1 . We associate rape with accidents
Barbara Listing, an anti-abortion leader, argued that Michigan women should be forced to pay extra for health insurance to cover the cost of rape. According to Barbara, no one plans to get into a car accident or to be flooded, but they still pay insurance in case of these events, and therefore women should pay extra just in case a man accidentally roofies her drink and violates her. Oops!
2 . We allow a woman or girl to be forced into marriage every two minutes
A recent study by Plan UK revealed that every single day, across the world, 38,461 women and girls are being forced into marriages against their will. Many of these lives are exchanged for money or to settle an unrelated debt. This number doesn’t even include the unbelievably young girls that are forced into prostitution on a daily basis.
What is the Islamic State?
Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.
The group seized Mosul, Iraq, last June, and already rules an area larger than the United Kingdom. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been its leader since May 2010, but until last summer, his most recent known appearance on film was a grainy mug shot from a stay in U.S. captivity at Camp Bucca during the occupation of Iraq. Then, on July 5 of last year, he stepped into the pulpit of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, to deliver a Ramadan sermon as the first caliph in generations—upgrading his resolution from grainy to high-definition, and his position from hunted guerrilla to commander of all Muslims. The inflow of jihadists that followed, from around the world, was unprecedented in its pace and volume, and is continuing.
Our ignorance of the Islamic State is in some ways understandable: It is a hermit kingdom; few have gone there and returned. Baghdadi has spoken on camera only once. But his address, and the Islamic State’s countless other propaganda videos and encyclicals, are online, and the caliphate’s supporters have toiled mightily to make their project knowable. We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of—and headline player in—the imminent end of the world.
There’s a lot of raspberrying and dismissiveness in the debate over whether to let the wave of “Syrian” “refugees” wash up on U.S. shores. In the partisan sandbox-fights to which we tend to reduce even the most serious questions, it’s easy to forget that in a case like this, there is probably a strong moral argument to be made on either side.
A few months back, publisher Chip Smith asked me to write a new intro for the upcoming second edition of my 2011 novel NVSQVAM. To write the essay I had to rethink my protagonist, Lester Reichartsen, whose youth and dreams came to a screeching halt when his girlfriend slyly quit taking her birth control pills.
Reviewers’ response to Lester’s depressive and unenthusiastic assumption of the role of family man surprised me. Many a columnist—both liberal and conservative, those who loved the book and those who hated it—declared him a disgusting human being.
Pushing aside the fact that the phrase “disgusting human being” may be redundant, I was forced to confront the contrast between reader responses and my own underlying assumption: that Lester is no more horrible than anyone else.
Is present-day Paris more puritanical than it was under the Nazis?
I’d love to simply dwell on the jaunty visual attractiveness—not to mention the entertainment and historical value—of author Mel Gordon’s recent coffee table book from Feral House press, Horizontal Collaboration: The Erotic World of Paris 1920-1946. It’s by turns a joyful and critical account of the legal sex industry in Paris before, during, and after the two world wars.
I’d also prefer to avoid painting myself into a corner as “That one lady who spends weeks at a time wondering aloud about what the French are going to do with all their enthused new Muslims.”
But as the EU brass continue prying national borders open to everyone who can fit on a boat, it’s almost impossible to read an account of Paris, sex, and the Nazi occupation without one’s mind wandering to Paris, sex, and the new theocrappation.
…Although the extent of said theocrappation depends on how you interpret some viscerally shocking poll data. For instance: does 3 percent of a sample of the French population responding “very favorably” to ISIS while 13 percent respond “rather favorably” add up to 15 percent of the electorate backing ISIS? You parse the adverbs.
But in any case, as my dear departed friend Lisa Falour used to say: Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke. (An influx of radical Muslims is comedy gold, in fact; just as France was running out of humorless Catholics, here comes the new boss…)
I am, however, aware that reductio ad Hitlerum is a running gag with all the kids these days; therefore, I shall drive straight on to reductio praeter Hitlerum.
Because if the research in this book is anything like accurate—and Feral House’s longtime reputation might imply that it is—it sounds like the Nazis were more tolerant of, if not titillated by, Parisian sexual culture than our new friends the jihadis.
Then again, the Nazis were also more fun, sexually speaking, than the native French feminists in all apparent likelihood, so there’s that to chew on as well… Not to mention the fact that the Nazi stormtroopers supposedly acted less rapey in gay Paree than the heroic American GIs who came to chase them away.
A discussion with Ian Mayes, Nexus X Humectress, and Keith Preston about how social justice activism has led anarchist movements astray and lots of other stuff.
- Intentional communities
- Beyond Social Justice: how historical opposition to valid injustices has now evolved into something absurd.
- How totalitarian humanism’s focus on privilege and microaggressions forestalls social revolution.
- Is feminism necessary in the West?
- Radical gender equality.
- How the men’s rights movement fits the dictionary definition of feminism.
- MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way, the new subculture of anti-marriage relationship nihilists.
- No “hope” for revolution.
- “Anarchist” as an identity.
Ann Sterzinger asks the question at RightOn, spotlighting how the clash in the feminist worldview between “Enlightenment Person” and “Mommy Goddess” curtails any meaningful criticism of the more predatory and illiberal residents of Dar al-Islam. I notice the bifurcation a lot in abortion debates, where feminists talk about personal autonomy with one breath only to endorse the subjugation of unwilling fathers to the wombocracy with the next; and let’s not get into the decidedly maternalist bent of feminist anti-sex-industry campaigns.
Of course, the mistake made here is taking the feminist “equality” spiel at face value, instead of simply acknowledging the special pleading that forms the backbone of the ideology. On a related note, I’m somewhat wary of the reports of a “rape epidemic” in Scandinavia, given not only the prevalence of feminist dogma, but also expanded definitions of “rape”, the possibility of false/mistaken reports, and questionable reporting procedures (particularly in Sweden); it certainly raises the question of how embellished the “epidemic” is by such factors.
Why do radical feminists remain silent on the issue of mass immigration into Europe, in spite of the fact that the statistics show that European women are among its primary victims?
I’m not the first to ask this, but the more times it gets asked, the better.
During this debate on just how we’re going to get millions of Muslim migrants settled in Europe—since Europe’s politicians apparently have never seriously considered the option of actually securing their borders—where the hell are the feminists?
Because rape is bad, right?
Have they read the rape statistics regarding the millions of devout Muslims who are already ensconced in the Land of the Unbeliever?
A trio of women has formed an all-female fighting force to seek revenge on ISIS for atrocities committed against Yazidi women in Iraq, and it’s reportedly been decimating the enemy recently. The women hail from Turkey where they left their ordinary lives to travel to Kurdistan, in northern Iraq, and take the fight right to ISIS. According to The Daily Mail, the three AK-47 rifle-wielding and grenade-throwing women have been killing up to 10 ISIS jihadists per day of late in what are often bloody showdowns on the battlefield. The women are not the only all-female group of warriors taking on ISIS in the region. “When we heard ISIS were coming to Sinjar and killing women, we came to stop the humanitarian crisis,” Roza, 22, told The Daily Mail. Raparin, another of the women fighters, said the three “smuggled” themselves into Iraq from Turkey, and she vowed total vengeance for the enslavement and killing of Yazidi women. “We were sometimes killing 10 of them a day,” she said. “We are one with the Yazidis and will fight ISIS to take revenge for what has happened to the women.”
The time has come for feminist separatism, a concept that I have long endorsed.
Jane says she was raped by three men wearing Gurkha uniforms. She was herding her husband’s goats and sheep, and carrying firewood, when she was attacked. “I felt so ashamed and could not talk about it to other people. They did terrible things to me,” says Jane, her eyes alive with pain.
She is 38 but looks considerably older. She shows me a deep scar on her leg where she was cut by stones when she was pushed to the ground. In a quiet, hesitant voice she continues her story. “I eventually told my husband’s mother that I was sick, because I had to explain the injuries and my depression. I was given traditional medicine, but it did not help. When she told my husband [about the rape], he beat me with a cane. So I disappeared and came here with my children.”
A good discussion of the variety of feminist thinking from an anti-state perspective.
Is feminism all about hating men? MK Lords and Carlos Morales breakdown the history of feminism, MRA’s, MGTOW’s and a host of other issues in the libertarian atheist podcast.
For some examples of MRA misogny and other fun hate check out the links below
And of course, everything at redpill
By William Schnack
Evolution of Consent
The two words, sex and economics, placed together in a sentence, are controversial by nature. Yet, the relationship of sex to money is a very interesting one, and one which has been studied by sex therapists, economists, social psychologists, sociologists, and many other specialists; one which is yet to be discussed by many anarchists, much less anarcha-feminists. The subject itself seems quite taboo, particularly in lefty anarchist circles.
In this essay, I intend to demonstrate that economics does indeed play a role in straight cissexual relationships,i that this is natural, and, aside from being distorted by capitalism, is otherwise healthy, so long as existing gender dynamics (if they exist at all) are freely ascribed to, and are not externally compelled. I will begin with a look at sex and gender, will follow with discussion on the economics behind sex, and will conclude with the cause of sexual and relational scarcity among straight cissexual couples of the working class.
Sex and Gender
This essay will naturally be offensive to some, but this is not at all my intention. I want to be clear that, although the content primarily regards straight cissexual couples, I in no way support the repression of other forms of relationships, sex-, or gender-identities. I am simply commenting on a common dynamic, among many, and the influences mutualism may have on it.
Though my mutualist economic proposals may be prescriptionist, the gender-dynamics are meant to be read in a descriptivist manner, and one which applies to that subpopulation which acts freely in favor of those gender dynamics, and to no other. My intention in writing this is to analyze the economics of freely-ascribed-to gender dynamics of straight cissexual relationships, not to argue that everyone needs to be cissexual or straight. As an anarchist, I have no intention to force my will on anyone, and, as a decent human being, I have no desire to take shots at anyone else’s lifestyle. It is perhaps possible that, in the future, gender and heterosexuality may be abandoned altogether, and this is fine so long as they go voluntarily, but so long as they exist voluntarily, I mean to comment on the economic effects which cause strife in straight cissexual relationships. If this conversation is to be made obsolete in a free society, by the voluntary abandonment of gender and/or sexual preference, so be it. In the case that it remains in a free society, this is a comment on that.
Discussions on gender generally relate in some way to the topic of essentialism and constructionism. Essentialism is a position which states that for any category there is a crucial set of intrinsic characteristics to define it. It is a structuralist position, seeing a thing as what it is. According to essentialist philosophies, people act the way they do because of their genetics, which are intrinsic to them, and are not external. An opposing position of non-essentialism, often called constructionism, states that there are no intrinsic traits that make a thing what it is. It is post-structuralist in nature, believing a thing to be defined from the outside, by what it isn’t. Hard social-constructionist philosophies of this nature are based purely in the idea of social constructs and nurture as the extrinsic determinants of a person. These views, if taken to the extreme, disregard nature and self-determination entirely.
Relating to the topic at hand (sex economy), hard essentialism would suggest that a woman, for instance, acts feminine because of her intrinsic characteristics (chromosomal arrangement). Hard constructionism would say that a woman acts feminine because of her extrinsic characteristics (social conditioning). Essentialists generally believe biological sex and gender naturally match, while constructionists allow for much more deviation, believing gender to be a social construct.