The Worst Corporate Conglomerate of all: “Big Pussy”

Many are familiar with “Big Business”, “Big Tobacco”, and the slightly less-known “Big Medicine” and “Big Prison”. There are many ‘watchdog’ factions keeping eyes on those kinds of social-engineering tyrants. And yet…no watchdog organization in our society monitors specifically “BIG PUSSY”. Well, I do. Of course I’m more like a person than an organization. Until now, I’ve just been referring to BIG PUSSY as “pussy marketing”. I like them both; but I think “BIG PUSSY” more clearly conveys the incredible depth of how our culture implements women as pawns and has a very real interest in seeing that women never develop as people, and, instead, stay…well… worthless, beyond the sum of their holes.

The tactics of BIG PUSSY are like any other powerful, evil sect

Subtle and Ruthless: BIG PUSSY is unyielding and maniacal – it’s thirst, unquenchable. BIG PUSSY cares not for a single individual, and only for a single entity: Itself.

• BIG PUSSY is the entity responsible for the mindset of women who,
  immediately after getting up each morning, reach for their paints and brushes.
• BIG PUSSY is the entity which encourages women to lie, cheat, and
  steal…while at the same time honoring women as the very definition of honesty and fairness.
• BIG PUSSY is responsible for these women’s daily-habit of
  meticulously masking who they are, what they feel, and what they think (the
  little thinking which remains – usually amounting to only survival-oriented compulsion);
• BIG PUSSY is also responsible for those women running
  their mouths about their ‘Independence’ and ‘Uniqueness’…even as they are
  NOTHING more than cloned caricatures of our society’s fleeting conceptions of,
  both, sexuality and indulgence…

BIG PUSSY’s ultimate goal

BIG PUSSY’s aim is to have every expendable woman commit suicide from self-disgust, and have every man and women learn from those suicides that women are intrinsically weak-minded, physically-feeble cowards. By convincing the remaining women of this fact, BIG PUSSY predicts that there will be, in those women, a heightened sense of urgency and fear.

Creating urgency and fear in the women who haven’t yet committed suicide from self-disgust will help actuate the final stages of a long-sought-after pipe-dream: THE PERFECT ECONOMY.

THE PERFECT ECONOMY

Through meticulous social-engineering, a great number of women predictably, senselessly “buy stuff” when they feel urgency and fear. And the women who do not buy things when they feel urgency and fear…they were mentioned earlier: They are expendable; They are already dead.

Men in the perfect economy

All men must sublimate every bit of their creative energy – every bit of their soul – into seeing that nothing as horrific as “The Mass Suicides” of yester-year ever happens to the social-veal which are his responsibility. He has the responsibility of doing all he is able to do, to make sure that women stay chained to a moral-spiritual post, so that their sensibilities atrophy to the point of rendering them cartoonishly self-centered.

Tactics

For maximum efficiency, it will be necessary to create thorough confusion and intense reservations between men and women. No member of the lower classes should ever be thinking clearly within the perfect economy. There is no room for individuality.

Men

Men will not be even remotely sexually intelligent – they will be continually misdirected and mislead. From their earliest learning, they will be taught that sex is dirty; that it is required that they initiate the dirt, to even qualify as a man; and that their sexual value is zero.

Women
Neither will women, within the perfect economy, have any individuality: Women, likewise, will be taught that sex is dirty; and, further, that men are dirty for wanting sex. Women will be taught that the sexual-authority that they hold over men is a kind of “divine right”, rather than the meticulous calculations of social-engineering elites.

P.S. (somewhat related, somewhat not):

Homosexuality
~ Faggots are to be SHOT, on site.~
~ Lesbians…are to be worshipped.~

The Appeal of Giant Cocks, in Porn

There are a handful of reasons to explain those instances wherein giant cocks are hugely sought-after.

A couple examples of huge-cock worship:

Violence-Themed Pornography
In violence-themed pornography (rape scenarios, aggressive slapping and punching), the giant cocks are usually to portray “hurting her with your dick”. *This kind of pornography usually appeals to men who think they would achieve the ultimate control of a women if they damage her. *It also appeals to female misogynists and people in general who have – through social engineering or otherwise – been totally desensitized to others’ pain (Note: Being taught to enjoy seeing men in pain and humiliated is only ever a gateway to this total desensitization).

Humiliation-Themed Pornography
In humiliation-themed pornography (making a woman brush her teeth with her shit, paedophilia etc.) Huge cocks are used similarly as in violence themed pornography: To appeal to those who like to see the ultimate scapegoat (a random guy) using what they have been led to believe is the ultimate weapon (a giant, too-big cock), stripping away what they see as ill-begotten idol status of the ultimate false-idols: Women and/or Children.

***The greater the chasm built between scapegoats and false-idols by bullshit social-engineering, the more those on the shit-end of the deal (including disenfranchised, unattractive women) turn to “Violence Against Women (and children)”; because the moral contrast is matchless; and these whipping-posts are only looking for escape.

Of course, there are lesser reasons:
A guy who is, from day one, lied to about women regarding nearly EVERYTHING will certainly be misled as to just how imperative a huge cock is in “making a women cum”. So watching men with giant cocks having their way with women is a vicarious, often masochistic thrill for the porn watcher.

Women who have never learned to use their pussy also think that a big cock is imperative to their sexual fulfillment. So huge-cock porn appeals all sexual-retards regardless of gender (or sexual orientation).

Sincerely,
Nicodaemos

Black Bastards vs. White Adulterers

70% of black children born in the U.S. are bastards. There… I said it for you.

Many people in the U.S. are hypocrites; therefore, many people in the U.S. would respond to my calling 70% of the black population bastards just the same way they would respond, when I mention that I, personally, have 4 bastards, and that a 5th bastard is on his way. It makes them uncomfortable, when I give voice to their thoughts; so they respond something like this: “Don’t call them that”, or, “Hey! How dare you?”. Well, this is how I dare: I don’t give a shit. And I’m not meaning, “I don’t give a shit – I’m recklessly willing to say that my 5 children and most black children bastards”. No. When I say, “I don’t give a shit”, I’m saying, “I don’t give a shit – United States marriage laws don’t mean shit to me!”.

Black Americans might be mostly Bastards…but, with all the DIVORCE going on in “White America”…White Americans are mostly Adulterers. (MATTHEW 5:32)

You see, these hypocrites (the ones who value our bullshit marriage laws, WHEN IT COMES TO “ILLEGITIMACY”) do not value “marriage” as an institution, when it comes to commitment: They love that divorce is completely legal, and readily available. Hell – they’ve had several themselves! And, even more to the point of them being hypocrites: They are the ones who, whether they say it or not, think of my children and most black children in the U.S. as bastards, and loathsome, and despicable. They are the ones who disparage people, such as me, who have “bastard children”. They say, “Children born out of wedlock are bastards”. I say, “What about children whose parents only marry because of the children that are coming along – who only marry because they don’t want to be socially tortured for having bastard children?” What about the divorce rate? How can anyone from a country with a divorce rate such as ours act so ignorantly – insisting that marriage is anything more than a farce, sheepishly used to play up the idea of a “respectable citizen”? What about abortion?

This “Freest Nation on Earth” socializes its women to be social-veal.

“Kill the child, if you need to; or Enlist the man into indentured servitude, if you’d prefer.” – United States Law.

Interestingly, these hypocrites, instead of saying 70% of black U.S. citizens are “bastards”, could easily say 70% of black families are, “Too smart to get caught up in the farce, the evil that is The United States Family Law/Divorce racket”.

“Marriage”? – you’ve got to be crazy! What black man in the U.S. do you know, who wants to be registered in yet another way, by our corrupt system?

Black people have, throughout the course of our nation’s schizophrenic history, been denied nearly all participation in the pseudo-justice dispenser called The United States Judicial System.

(Besides their obvious historic involvement: Regularly tasting the Shit end of the shit-covered, U.S. judiciary’s stick.) And any time black U.S. citizens have been “helped out” by the United States courts (or any another United States institution): IT WAS A CONCESSION. It was not a “hey let’s make our nation more free” stint – it was a concession to prevent Total Revolution.

Concession:

• “Affirmative Action” in Employment and Education.
• (“Affirmative Action” is a underhanded concession that actually does more harm to “The Black Community” than good)

Concession:

• O.J. Simpson – Acquitted of Murders he Obviously Committed.
• Acquitting the clearly-guilty O.J. Simpson was a concession; and such a concession will, obviously, not help any other black person, when combating our thoroughly racist and class-ist judicial system.

And still so many idiots scoff Michael Jackson, for trying to use the “Race Card”. Go ahead idiots – get your laughs. Meanwhile, guilty RICH black people will go free…as a concession, that is employed to confuse the issue of immense racism and class-ism in the United States.

Concession:

• U.S. Government offers “Black Americans” A “Public Apology” for Slavery.
• Concurrently, slavery reparations, or any other type of actual retribution, is nowhere to be found.

And, my personal favorite:

Concession:

• Racism by blacks is called “Reverse Racism”; and is widely believed to be, to at least some extent, Justifiable.
• But the only racism that blacks are allowed to doll out, is racism against poor white people. *A message to those black people who are openly racist to white people: Just try to flex those ill-begotten social muscles against RICH white people. You’ll find out, quick, just how much you really are just the house negro; and that your racism against the field negro (poor white people) is exactly what ‘massuh’ wants – it keeps massuh in charge, of both the house and the field.

Ayn Rand

Note: This is not light reading; and I would bet the farm that you are not going to just “happen to enjoy it”.
This post is not for the “casual reader of Blogs”. And, no offense, but that probably means you

And this has nothing to do with any type of literary elitism;
still, the only people who I would recommend to read any further are those who
are familiar with and/or interested in the philosophy of “Objectivism” as
pooped out by Ayn Rand…
Everyone else gone?
Alright.

Okay, now to the Ayn-Lovers:
Ayn Rand is shit.

Her line of reason, though it has some remarkably straight segments, is no less-crooked, when taken as a whole, than Hitlerism, Marxism, and Platonism all in a stew. If you are a professed “Randian”, then you purport to deal in reason.  More specifically – Logic.

Well, take an hour or so out of your life, if you dare, and you’ll be compelled to rethink this worthless broad, Ayn.

We begin:
Have you read The Virtue of Selfishness?

Well, you sure as hell ought to have. It is the cornerstone of her entire pseudo-science. If it’s been a while, you may want to re-read the “The Objectivist Ethics”

Objections to Objectivism

Is Stealing Selfish?

Copyright © 2001 by John Ku

Ayn Rand as Confused Kantian
One thing to note about prisoners’ dilemmas is that the impermissible, or at least disfavorable, action is always parasitic upon the more favorable one. That is, one only benefits from engaging in it on condition that others generally refrain from doing so. This naturally seems to suggest that this be the very grounds by which we condemn such actions. Anyone who has taken so much as an intro to ethics class should recognize by now that this is the basis of Kant’s deontology. According to his first formulation of the categorical imperative, one ought always “act only according to that maxim whereby one can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” The maxim, “I shall steal in order to gain more property,” however, cannot be universalized without running into a practical contradiction since if everyone were to steal, one would not be able to gain more property. Thus, an action such as stealing involves willing oneself to do some action while at the same time willing that others not do so. Yet, from a reflective standpoint, there is no morally relevant difference between oneself and others so this is inconsistent. If we were to put this explanation in terms of rights we might expect it to sound something like this:

Since the only rational base of individualism as an ethical principle is the requirements of man’s survival qua man, one man cannot claim the moral right to violate the rights of another. If he denies inviolate rights to other men, he cannot claim such rights for himself; he has rejected the base of rights. No one can claim the moral right to a contradiction. (Virtue of Selfishness, p. 135)

Lo and behold! This is exactly the line of reasoning Ayn Rand endorses! Again let me stress that she is not arguing that violating the rights of others will in fact, have a significant impact on the extent to which others violate one’s own rights. This is implausible. She is not appealing to consequences – or if she is, then they are hypothetical rather than actual. But for precisely this reason, she is no longer an egoist. The egoist is a consequentialist seeking to maximize his self-interest. Given that whether or not others are likely to steal from him is not significantly affected by whether he steals from others when he can get away with it, it is in his interests to do so. Appealing to universalizability and rights will do no good since rights are a moral concept and so, for him, no one can have a right that it is not in his self-interest to respect. And why should he care what would be in his self-interest in a world where everyone acted as he did? Maybe if he actually lived in such a world he would have a reason not to steal, but he can observe reality and note that this is not so. Of course, some of his actions effect how others treat him in return so you may end up with some pretense of decency, but surely this is not the case in such instances that he can get away with it.

As Eric Mack points out in The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, Rand uses this type of argument quite often in more subtle forms. Her entire defense of rights seem to rest on such general statements as “everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort.” (Virtue of Selfishness, p. 23) The only reading that will make such a statement true is to take “man” as meaning man the collective or man the species. Since, much of this criticism is taken directly from Mack’s essay, I may as well allow him to speak for himself:

By focusing on man in general when considering the aptness of some mode of behavior for survival, Rand in effect is asking whether the general practice of this mode of behavior would be beneficial to the members of a community of such practitioners. . . If some mode of behavior works for some individuals only if other individuals shun that way of acting, e.g., if, like predation, it is parasitic upon nonpredatory production, then its general adoption would not enhance survival prospects. Hence, it is judged to be bad in any individual who practices it. Ironically, in this argument Rand implicitly adopts the Kantian stand that for an action to be morally right it must be of a sort in which any rational being can engage. A given individual is not to wonder whether his predation might be advantageous because, in fact, others are engaged in nonpredatory production. (The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, p. 141)

And so, once again, in order to defend a plausible morality, Rand had to resort to borrowing arguments from altruist moralities, in this case, Kant’s criterion of universalizability, which I contend not only goes beyond the scope of self-interested reasons but is actually incompatible with egoism by leading to a contradiction similar if not identical to the one G. E. Moore points out in section 59 of his Principia Ethica. The ethical egoist must hold first that his own interests are the sole good while also endorsing others to hold their own interests as the sole good. There may yet be ways to avoid the contradiction that seemingly results from multiple values all being endorsed as the sole good although Moore would probably beg to differ, but if we add in there the criterion of universalizability then it seems that it commits the egoist to this contradiction. That is, if by acting on or stating some maxim, “I shall do x,” I must also will that everyone else do x in order to be consistent then it seems that as an egoist pursuing my self-interest as the ultimate value, I must will that everyone else pursue my self-interest as the ultimate value as well while as an ethical egoist, I must at the same time will that everyone else pursue their self-interest as the ultimate value. Surely, then, it must be inconsistent for an ethical egoist to also be an adherent to Kant’s requirement of universalizability. Unfortunately for Rand, this denies her one of the primary ways by which she argued that such actions as theft and murder are not in one’s self-interest.

Apathy vs. Sanity

Apathy and Sanity cannot co-exist in consciousness.
The apathist must disavow the apathy, to stay sane.
The apathist cannot live forthright, but lives a spiritually self-sheltered life.
The apathist is led – gladly, proudly – led by spiritual-chains, by capricious social-conjecture.
And the apathist is shamelessly quelled, until death, by a poisonously compartmentalized mind.

An apathist must be a narcissist.
By the state of their own day-to-day, they judge the state of the world.
Until a problem is intolerable to the apathist, personally – there is no problem.
And so little as a parking-ticket,
thrust upon the apathist-narcissist -
it is enough to invoke forebodings of “NEW WORLD ORDER”.

Another Victory for “Gun-Control” Laws

circa summer 2006

Well, late last night at a liquor store a few blocks from my house, two workers were found bound-up and shot in the back of their respective heads. And so it seems that whoever murdered that man and that woman were able to pass the California requirements (which are pretty stringent) for owning a gun.

I mean…what else could it be?

Andrea Dworkin: A Truly Equality-Minded Feminist

What follows is the transcription of a speech by Andrea Dworkin, regarding the prevalence of chauvinistic biological-determinism, in feminist circles, ideology.

Biological Superiority: The World’s Most Dangerous, Deadly Idea – by Andrea Dworkin.

One of the slurs constantly used against me by women writing in behalf of pornography under the flag of feminism in misogynist media is that I endorse a primitive biological determinism.

Woman Hating (1974) clearly repudiates any biological determinism; so does Our Blood (1976), especially “The Root Cause.” So does this piece, published twice, in 1978 in Heresies and in 1979 in Broadsheet. Heresies was widely read in the Women’s Movement in 1978. The event described in this piece, which occurred in 1977, was fairly notorious, and so my position on biological determinism–I am against it–is generally known in the Women’s Movement. One problem is that this essay, like others in this book, has no cultural presence: no one has to know about it or take it into account to appear less than ignorant; no one will be held accountable for ignoring it. Usually critics and political adversaries have to reckon with the published work of male writers whom they wish to malign.

No such rules protect girls.

One pro-pornography “feminist” published an article in which she said I was anti-abortion, this in the face of decades of work for abortion rights and membership in many pro-choice groups. No one even checked her allegation; the periodical would not publish a retraction. One’s published work counts as nothing, and so do years of one’s political life.

“All who are not of good race in this world are chaff.” -Hitler, Mein Kampf

“It would be lunacy to try to estimate the value of man according to his race, thus declaring war on the Marxist idea that men are equal, unless we are determined to draw the ultimate consequences. And the ultimate consequence of recognizing the importance of blood – that is, of the racial foundation in general – is the transference of this estimation to the individual person.” -Hitler, Mein Kampf

Hisses. Women shouting at me: slut, bisexual, she fucks men. And before I had spoken, I had been trembling, more afraid to speak than I had ever been. And, in a room of 200 sister lesbians, as angry as I have ever been. “Are you a bisexual?” some woman screamed over the pandemonium, the hisses and shouts merging into a raging noise. “I’m a Jew,” I answered; then, a pause, “and a lesbian, and a woman.”

And a coward….

Jew was enough. In that room, Jew was what mattered. In that room, to answer the question “Do you still fuck men?” with a No…as I did, was to betray my deepest convictions: All of my life, I have hated the proscribers – those who enforce sexual conformity. By answering “No”, I had given-in to the inquisitors.

I felt ashamed.

It humiliated me to see myself then: one who resists the enforcers out there with militancy, but gives in without resistance to the enforcers among us. The event was a panel on “Lesbianism as a Personal Politic” that took place in New York City, Lesbian Pride Week 1977. A self-proclaimed lesbian separatist had spoken; and, amidst the generally accurate description of male crimes against women, came an ideological rot – one articulated of late with increasing frequency in feminist circles: women and men are distinct species or races (the words are used interchangeably); men are biologically inferior to women; male violence is a biological inevitability – to eliminate it, one must eliminate the species/race itself; in eliminating the biologically inferior species/race Man, the new Ubermensch Womon (prophetically foreshadowed by the lesbian separatist herself) will have the earthly dominion that is her true biological destiny.

We are left to infer that the society of an Ubermensch Womon creation will be only good because she is good – biologically good. In the interim, incipient SuperWomon will not do anything to ‘encourage’ women to ‘collaborate’ with men: no abortion clinics or battered woman sanctuaries will come from her. After all, she has to conserve her ‘energy’ which must not be dissipated keeping ‘weaker’ women alive through reform measures. The audience applauded the passages on female superiority/male inferiority enthusiastically. This doctrine seemed to be music to their ears.

Was there dissent, silently buried in the applause? Was some of the response the spontaneous pleasure that we all know when, at last, the tables are turned, even for a minute, even in imagination? Or has powerlessness driven us mad, so that we dream secret dreams of a final solution perfect in its simplicity, absolute in its efficacy? Will a leader someday strike that secret chord, harness those dreams, our own nightmare turned upside down?

Is there no haunting, restraining memory of the blood spilled, the bodies burned, the ovens filled, the peoples enslaved, by those who have assented throughout history to the very same demagogic logic? In the audience, I saw women I like, women I love – women not strangers to me: women who are good not because of biology but because they care about being good. These women, too, were swept along in a sea of affirmation.

I spoke out.

I spoke out because those women had applauded. I spoke out because I am a Jew who has studied Nazi Germany; so I know that many Germans followed Hitler though they, also, cared about being good, but found it easier to be good by biological definition than by act. Those Germans, wretched in what they experienced as their own unbearable powerlessness, became convinced that they were so good biologically that nothing they did could be bad.

“We have exterminated a bacterium [Jews] because we did not want in the end to be infected by the bacterium and die of it. I will not see so much as a small area of sepsis appear here or gain a hold. Wherever it may form, we will cauterize it. All in all, we can say that we have fulfilled this most difficult duty for the love of our people. And our spirit, our soul, our character has not suffered injury from it.” – Himmler (1943)

So I spoke, though afraid: I said that I would not be associated with a movement that advocated the most pernicious ideology on the face of the earth. It was this very ideology of biological determinism that had licensed the slaughter and/or enslavement of virtually any group one could name, including women by men. (“Use their own poison against them”, one woman screamed.)

Anywhere one looked, it was this philosophy that justified atrocity. This was one faith that destroyed life with a momentum all its own.Insults were hurled at me with unabated intensity as I spoke, but gradually those women I liked or loved, and others I did not know, began to question openly the philosophy they had been applauding…and also their own acquiescence. Embraced by many women on my way out, I left. Still sickened, humiliated by the insults, emotionally devastated by the abuse. Time passes, but the violence done is not undone. It never is.

“I am told that I am a sexist. I do believe that the differences between the sexes are our most precious heritage, even though they make women superior in the ways that matter most.” -George Gilder, Sexual Suicide

“Perhaps this female wisdom comes from resignation to the reality of male aggression. More likely it is a harmonic of the woman’s knowledge that ultimately she is the one who matters. As a result, while there are more brilliant men than brilliant women, there are more good women than good men.” -Steven Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy

As a class (not necessarily as individuals), women can bear children. From the above fact, according to male-supremacist ideology, do all women’s other attributes and potentialities derive. On the pedestal, immobile like waxen statues, or in the gutter, failed icons mired in shit, women are exalted or degraded because their biological traits are what they are. Citing genes, genitals, DNA, pattern-releasing smells, biograms, hormones, or whatever is in vogue, male supremacists make their case.

Their case, in essence: Women are biologically too good; or too bad; or, at least, too different to do anything other than reproduce and serve men sexually and domestically. The newest variations of this distressingly ancient theme center on hormones and DNA: Men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape. And, in women, pacifism is hormonal and addiction to birth is molecular.

Since in Darwinian terms, survival of the fittest means the triumph of the most aggressive human beings, men are and always will be superior to women in terms of their ability to protect and extend their own authority. Therefore women, being ‘weaker’ (less aggressive), will always be at the mercy of men. Must the fact that this theory of the social ascendancy of the fittest consigns women to eternal indignity and, applied to race, conjures up Hitler’s identical view of evolutionary struggle trouble us?

“By current theory,” writes Edward O. Wilson in Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, a bible of genetic justification for slaughter, “genocide or genosorption strongly favoring the aggressor need take place only once every few generations to direct evolution.”

“I have told you the very low opinion in which you [women] were held by Mr. Oscar Browning. I have indicated what Napoleon once thought of you and what Mussolini thinks now. Then, in case any of you aspire to fiction, I have copied out for your benefit the advice of the critic about courageously acknowledging the limitations of your sex. I have referred to Professor X and given prominence to his statement that women are intellectually, morally and physically inferior to men . . . and here is a final warning . . . Mr. John Langdon Davies warns women that ‘when children cease to be altogether desirable, women cease to be altogether necessary’. I hope you will make note of it.” – Virginia Woolf, A Room of One’s Own

Pulled toward an ideology based on the moral and social significance of a distinct female biology because of its emotional and philosophical familiarity; drawn to the spiritual dignity inherent in a ‘female principle’; and, of course, unable to abandon, by will or impulse, a lifelong and centuries-old commitment to childbearing as the sole female-creative-act: Feminists have increasingly tried to transform the very ideology that has enslaved us into a dynamic, religious, psychologically compelling celebration of female biological potential.

Are women to accept the historically male world-view of a moral polarity that is biologically fixed, genetically or hormonally or genitally absolute; or does women’s own historical experience of social deprivation and injustice teach us that to be free and in a just world…that we will have to destroy the power, the dignity, the efficacy of this one idea – Biological Determinism – above all others?

Recently, more and more feminists have been advocating social, spiritual, and mythological models that are female-supremacist and/or matriarchal. To me, this advocacy signifies a basic conformity to the tenets of biological determinism that underpin the most corrupt aspects of the now-male social-system. The worship of our procreative capacity as power may temporarily stay the male-supremacist hand that cradles the test tube. True enough, this attempted transformation may have survival value.

But the price we pay is that we become carriers of the disease we must cure.

It is no accident that in the ancient matriarchies’ men were castrated, sacrificially slaughtered, and excluded from public forms of power; nor is it an accident that some female supremacists now believe men to be a distinct and inferior species or race: Wherever power is accessible, or bodily integrity honored, on the basis of biological attribute, systematized cruelty permeates the society and murder and mutilation contaminate it. We will not be different.

It is shamefully easy for us to enjoy our own fantasies of biological omnipotence while despising men for enjoying the reality of theirs. And it is dangerous: Genocide begins, however improbably, in the conviction that classes of biological distinction indisputably sanction social and political discrimination. Any woman who believes Biological Determinism is worthwhile (because – for now – it benefits her), is a woman who doesn’t stop to realize that her heritage, as a women, is full of those who have been devastated by the concrete consequences of Biological Determinism.

Agree to Disregard

I get it. I see:
I am not wealthy-enough,
for you to honor my humanity.
Well, you are not sexually-desirable-enough,
for me to honor your humanity.

So, I suppose we can agree to agree:
No one deserves dignity,
unless we need them financially or sexually, respectively.

Are your lies good-enough, to earn my protection? No.
Are my lies good-enough, to earn your sex? No.
Are your breasts big-enough, to earn my respect? No.
Is my wallet big-enough, to earn your respect? No.

So we can agree to disregard…