We live in a GynoPathocracy

[Anonymous No.13484880]

What was once a fringe delusion of fringe ultra-radical feminists has become standard operating procedure of post-Western culture.
Discuss.

>So rape is everywhere. The chat-up is rape, domination is rape. Man is by nature rapist and woman his eternal, innocent victim.

>Some extreme feminists claim that penetration is an act of domination, a form of humiliation to be refused. Some of them even say that violence and exploitation are the acts of males alone and that this part of humanity must therefore be neutralised or eliminated by the arrival of a world of women where, thanks to the progress in biology, reproduction will be carried out without men.

>No matter what delirium might strike feminism and the progress in biology, it is true that to claim to discourage rapists without having recourse to police and judicial repression only complicates the matter. When the conditions that give rise to rape — the fact that it expresses (even in a barbarous way) a fundamental need and that it is a response to a certain general female attitude — are not understood, or there is no desire to understand it, the only consistent answer is repression: repress the problem.

>Are rapists male conquerors chasing women through the streets, modern tarzans swinging from balcony to balcony prick in hand and a flower between their teeth? The most reliable statistics state that they are not. Immigrant worker or local family man, the typical rapist does not belong to that species. It is difficult to build them up into an expression of triumphant phallocracy, the image which so exasperates the feminists.

>Rape is basically the sad revenge of a victim, a poor man’s undertaking. It is not a result of bourgeois wealth or phallocratic arrogance, but their sub-product. If only rape could be proved to be above all the act of the privileged thirsting for proletarian flesh. How much easier it would be to latch the just struggle of women to the old class struggle... But there isn’t always a notary such as Leroy to devour, and even maoist demagogy has its limits!

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dominique-karamazov-the-poverty-of-feminism

[Anonymous No.13484887]

>>13484880
Anarchism is very problematic...

[Anonymous No.13484898]

>The predatory male, and in the extreme the rapist, is a nuisance or a danger. But embarrassment or injury are above all rooted in all the misery and solitude of the victims. They are provocations, injurious responses painfully felt because they cannot fulfill, a caricature of the hope of something else. If the rapist were Tarzan, perhaps he would be forgiven. But the kerb crawler rarely has the appearance or the manners of a Prince Charming. His “prey” sees her own misery reflected in his.

>Rape as an act, but more frequently as fantasy, is the product of the form of relations between the sexes and the contradictions therein. It is the politicisation of an old, more or less obsessional female fear, a fear which covers a desire for sexuality which cannot acknowledge or assert itself.

>Rape fantasies and dreams about housebreaking express sexual fear clothed in the fear of aggression. But this isn’t only fear, just as it is not only passivity; fantasy is also an action. Desire takes form by discharging responsibility and blame on to the aggressor. In his way the latter embodies desire itself. He is desire, but coming in from the outside. Just as the active male fantasy, and even rape itself, are products of impotence, the passive fantasy in woman is also an expression of her need for action; she acts out her desire and so deals with the reality which refuses her this right.

>In the active fantasy, the desire for and refusal of the other find an outlet in domination and aggression. It is as much a question of self-defence as it is of attack, self-protection from the risk and anguish of refusal by the other with an attitude which makes neither acceptation or refusal possible. Desires, fantasies and various forms of sado-masochistic behaviour are not the product of a primary attitude which has been superficially glossed over by civilisation, and is tending to re — emerge. The image of the pre-historic woman as a prey pulled along by the hair and who, one suspects, enjoys it. No, they are the product of man’s liberation from his real needs, which then come back to haunt him in a distorted form. Abandon, the submission which a loving relationship implies, unaccepted because it is in contradiction with a whole way of life, returns in the form of an exterior domination that is violent, imposed, feared and desired at the same time.

[Anonymous No.13484912]

>The debate to determine whether abortion is murder or not, and hence to justify or condemn it in these terms, is sadly weak on both sides. It side-steps the question and returns to the theological domain of asking when the soul enters the body.

>Some societies have practised infanticide to limit their population. A human community can come to an agreement on the right to kill. The lives of incurable patients, malformed children or foeti are not above human judgement. And the problem is not that of asking for their consensus!

>What is being sold with the liberalisation of abortion is the triumph of asepsis. The butchery which is unbearable when a baby is involved seems normal there, it is carried out in the dark and an act of killing is transformed into an “operation”. The same society which is afraid of death, blood and screams, maintains a whole industry around the suffering and death of animals and remains nonchalant about mass starvation in the third world. The same society that once wanted to transform life is now content to “transform death”; it would like things to get better but is scared of the revolution because it might be violent.

>“Free abortion on demand”, why not? But of course the time when free bread was what was dreamed of has gone. But why, amongst a whole host of things, should it be abortion and not housing, milk or meat? It is true that some leftists are also calling for free weekly transport passes. Not the underground, free transport, but free passes to get to work!

>Sexuality is par excellence the domain of abandon. It is a matter of being “ravished”, “captivated”, of delivering oneself from oneself in order to be transported by one’s own passion and abandon oneself to that of the other.

>But the claim to be able to dispose of one’s body freely which appeared concerning abortion and rape is a defensive reaction. Precisely because it no more than translates and justifies a situation which puts everyone on the defensive. The foetus, and even the capacity to have children, is not the property of the mother, or even of the mother and father between them. This vision is nothing but capitalist delirium, the defence of the property of the body and its products. At a time such as this when what is needed is the blowing up of registry offices, people are suggesting that women keep their own names instead of taking those of their husbands!!!

[Anonymous No.13484924]

>>13484887
It is. But will anyone ever discuss the stay-behind units of our time?

[Anonymous No.13485437]

>>13484880
I don't understand anon, please enlighten me.

[Anonymous No.13485449]

>>13484880
>celebrate free sex
>celebrate war
>violent sex everywhere
>bro, I don’t understand

[Anonymous No.13485538]

It's interesting to me that reactionaries dislike sex-negative feminists like Andrea Dworkin. She is very intelligently framing the ways in which desire simply functions as violence, and how liberal society poses hypocritical narratives about what is a "right" and what is a "choice."

Honestly a lot of postwar radical leftist thought still seems ahead of our time, and not, as you say, "an ultra-radical fringe that has become standard operating procedure." Dworkin's sex negativity is a great example -- if anything, the Western norm has gone in the opposite direction of her critiques. Adorno is another interesting example; he's one of the most important Frankfurt writers, who reactionaries charge as the arch-conspirators of "cultural Marxism," but his work is highly critical of the liberal capitalist society of his time, which now, 50 years later, has become even more brutally liberal and capitalistic.

But you're still caught up in some daytime television "war of the sexes" myth so you probably don't care about any of this.

[[e-mail] No.13485683]

>>13485538
>who reactionaries charge as the arch-conspirators
Jordan Peterson is not a reactionary.
Peterson is just a run of the mill quasi-Christian establishment neo-liberal intellectual. There is nothing "reactionary" about him at all, except to the kinds of people that call Ben Shapiro alt-right and that think Sam Harris is a racist. These people are so milquetoast, it almost bores me to death.

A reactionary would recognize that, ultimately, economic liberalism is the mother of social liberalism.

[Anonymous No.13485692]

Sensationalist nonsense

[Anonymous No.13485713]

>>13484880
T>C>U>N

[Anonymous No.13485719]

>>13484912
someone should create a "memecel" image. someone who can only garner knowledge from memes and Twitter posts, someone who is disconnected from meatspace entirely. then the memecels will latch onto it, destroying themselves

[Anonymous No.13485727]

>>13484880
i have gyno

[Anonymous No.13485753]

>>13485538
Reactionaries and the figures you mention critique society from opposite poles, it's not at all weird that the former wouldn't like the latter. Reactionaries view sex and sex relations as the male dominating the woman and this being a positive circumstance, completely opposed to Dworkin.

Likewise with Adorno, the only way they'd like him is if you take his critiques of society and then applied them to say Jews specifically instead of white christian capitalist whatever.

[Anonymous No.13485990]