This is actually an interesting read. While obviously quite a feminist perspective, it isn't blind man-hating either. Men definitely are generally violent, and like violence. However, I still think it is a stretch to imagine that women aren't violent in their own ways and that a society run by women would have it's own horrors. Also, I think evolution favors predatory behavior (sadly); it is a classic case of meta-stability meaning that if you had a peaceful society and even one person happens to be violent that the whole society ultimately has to become violent to combat it or otherwise the original violent person "wins". To put it another way, I'm sure there have been lots of happy little societies, but they always got overrun by the Huns, Mongols, Romans, British, Americans, etc. A good example is a crowd trying to view a stage -- if everyone says seated then everyone can see, but as soon as someone in the front stands up then everyone has to stand up. Anyway, my point is that if there were no men, then predatory women would take control because that's just the bias of evolution.

Also, it is a mistake for women to equate it with the penis. It is really the testicles and more specifically testosterone. And some women have a fair bit of testosterone without having a penis. How would women then define being "female"? Would they have to get rid of all tough women as well? All butch lesbians and female bodybuilders? All dominatrixes?

http://tucsonopenmic.com/?p=425

Penis Oppression, by Tara Carreon

by ADMIN on JULY 17, 2011

Penis oppression.

But not from my husband. We’re never allowed to criticize the source of our income. Even if it was true I wouldn’t be allowed to say it. Jordan’s penis, Berni’s penis, Jay Jay’s penis. Every guy in the world’s penis. There are penises everywhere. Our whole world is filled with penises.

I actually like my husband’s penis. It’s extremely sensitive and non-threatening. Very beautiful, in fact. But it has a disembodied spirit that dominates and controls. All the penises in the world, aggregated together as they are, all men united in their penishood, create a unity of penises that amounts to one big penis worship. The true monotheism. The phallus. The only thing men worship. Women are whipped by penises everywhere we go.

Men think it’s cool, but I’m about to vomit on penises.

Men and their wars.

Meaty men in big trucks drive up next to me and shake their heads with sadness and pity at my bumperstickers. “Poor woman. So misguided. How sad that women are so stupid. They think war is bad. They don’t understand the necessity of defense, of protecting our country from evil people, of protecting our freedoms.”

Um … what freedom? The freedom to go after the wrong guys, kill innocent people, pay for our own destruction, and establish our own slavery? God forbid we should ask questions and find true answers before we go on our never-ending killing sprees.

We simply believe. If Fox News tells us it’s so, it’s so. If ABC, NBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, India Times, Associated Press, all the embedded, sold-out, non-reporter reporters tell us it is so, that’s the word of the One Great God Penis, fuck him to everlasting hell! May he die in his own fiery furnace.

In Tibetan Buddhism, before you visualize the pure land of the deity, you first establish the wheel of protection, an incredibly neurotic exercise of surrounding yourself with all these terrifying, incredibly powerful weapons and natural forces, including howling winds and tsunami waters, in order to keep the bad guys out. At the innermost perimeter is a fence made of vajras: big ones, little ones, fill all the spaces, and create an impenetrable wall of vajras. Of course, vajras are penises.

I’m telling you, guys are absolutely nuts, completely bonkers, obsessed and obsessing over their goddamned penises to the point where they even put them into their spiritual visualizations.

All they see is penises.

Penises of the sun.

Penises of the moon.

Penises manifest as every goddamned object from the steamer on our coffeemaker to rockets.

I’m thinking up ways to torture penises.

In Federico Fellini’s City of Women there’s a scene where some women are getting judo lessons, and there’s an anatomically correct male dummy hanging from a hook on the ceiling. The judo teacher is berating her female students for not having sufficient concentration upon their objective, which is to ju-jitsu the dummy’s penis as hard as they can. A girl demonstrates what is called the Mackarij kick: with extreme ferocity, screaming at the top of her lungs, she delivers all her force and might to kick the male’s genitalia. The teacher approves her good focus.

Guys think it’s funny that penises are everywhere, until you yourself buy a male dummy, make it anatomically correct with an inflatable dildo, and start kicking the hell out of it.

[Kick]

Remember when Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband’s penis in 1993 and threw it in a field after he raped her after a night of partying and drinking? It wasn’t the first time, and remembering his past abuse drove her to this desperate act. He got off the rape charge, and she was found not guilty due to insanity which caused an irresistable urge to cut off her husband’s penis. Her husband had his penis sewed back on, and in 1996 he starred in a film called Frankenpenis. Not even cutting off his penis could stop a guy like this. Later, he was arrested seven times for assault, grand larceny, sexual abuse against another woman, theft of $140,000 of clothing, and he stood trial twice for domestic abuse against his third wife. Lorena Bobbitt went on to found an organization that fights domestic violence. On Oprah, John Bobbitt apologized to Lorena for mistreating her all those years, and said he still loves her. He still sends her Valentines day cards and flowers. He’s just completely psycho because of his penis.

Well, the other day another woman cut off her husband’s penis: a Vietnamese woman named Catherine Kien Becker. She drugged her husband then cut off his penis with a ten inch knife, and to prevent it from being sewed back on, she put it down the garbage disposal.

I wonder where she learned that technique from? Maybe from our very own “Phoenix Program” operators in Vietnam during the 60s, more guys with very violent penises. They were very fond of cutting off Vietnamese body parts. I read a book called “The Phoenix Program” by Douglas Valentine. CIA officer Pat McGarvey told Seymour Hersh how a psychological warfare guy in Washington thought up ways to scare the hell out of Vietnamese villagers. When they killed a so-called “Viet-Cong” — and to say “Viet Cong” was to simply say “Vietnamese,” because everyone was a “Viet Cong” — they would spread-eagle the guy, take out his eye, then cut a hole in the back of his head and put the eye in there. They cut the ears off the Viet Cong and nailed them to houses to let people know the U.S. had ears everywhere. And they definitely cut off men’s penises.

In the movie “Sir! No Sir!,” by Jane Fonda, Joe Bangert, a U.S. Marine, tells the story of how his friend, who worked with USAID and the CIA, invited him into a village so he could see how they terrorize the villagers. They didn’t find an enemy, but they found an injured woman in bandages. So they shot her 20 times. Then his friend ripped off her clothes, took a knife and cut her open from her vagina all the way up to her breasts, pulled her organs out of her cavity and threw them aside, then peeled every bit of skin off her body, and left her there as a “sign of something or other” to the villagers.

But Joe Bangert had been previously prepared for this horror. At Camp Pendleton in California, before going to Vietnam, he had gotten the rabbit lesson. The staff NCO came in with a rabbit, showed it around, let everyone touch it, and fall in love with the rabbit, then he cracked its neck, skinned it, disemboweled it, turned the skin of the rabbit inside out and made a little bootie for his foot saying: “You might have to do this in case your helicopter crashes in Vietnam, or you’re separated from your unit.” But what he was really saying was you have to do this even to people you love.

But the United States’ torture of the Vietnamese people in complete violation of the Geneva Convention is too big for this rant. Just think of vampires, mutilation, decapitation, throwing people out of airplanes, napalm, laser-guided smart bombs, rape, gang rape, rape using eels, snakes and hard objects, rape followed by murder, electric shock to the genitals, water torture, beatings, police dogs, etc., etc., etc — all the sadistic, cannibalistic means at Penis’s disposal.

And the article about Mrs. Becker cutting off her husband’s pecker had the nerve to begin with “People all over North America cringed when they heard the news this week of a woman cutting off her husband’s penis.” That’s psychological warfare for you. “Be sure and cringe when Penis is hurt,” say the Penis worshipers. But did they cringe when we tortured the Vietnamese? Maybe some of them, but not enough to prevent Abu Ghraib and extraordinary renditions. The Phoenix Program was brought to the attention of Congress, and a few senators and congresspersons wrung their hands in public then did nothing. So we got the torture of recent years. But the fact is, torture has never stopped. It’s as bad today as it was in the middle ages and the Inquisition.

Penis is out of control.

Maybe every woman should pick up a ten inch knife and cut off a woman-hating man’s violent penis. Then we can all be judged not guilty by reason of insanity because we felt compelled to cut off a sadist’s penis.

It might be the sanist thing we could ever do.

I am reminded of the truism that the sexes, men and women, are the way they are because of a million year breeding program run by the opposite sex. Men have evolved the way they have because that is the type of men women have chosen to bear children with. If women decided they thought walking on the hands was sexy, within a few generation most men would be walking on their hands. And the reverse is true. The character of women reflects who men have chosen to have sex with over the past few hundred thousand years. (Google sexual selection for more on this)

And while I am willing to conceed the fact that ceteris paribus the average man is more violent than the average woman, the historical record, from Boudica to Catherine the Great to Golda Meir to Indira Gandhi to Margaret Thatcher shows that woman can be as vicious as men.

And I have to point out that the last few lines of the article show the female author as blood crazed as the men she berates.

Transward

I can tell you first hand what a "world" ran by women is like: Take a look at the Education Industry... I worked in Education for years. The overwhelimng majority of the "people in high places" were women.

Let me tell you -- you can't not even begin to imagine the amount of favoritism and politics that went on in there. What a dysfunctional mess. Talk to the Admin, once, when she's in a bad mood and you are an enemy for life. Good luck getting any money/resources for your department in the future. Ever.

Most of the female Admins all had pre-concieved notions towards people (ie: many people were hated without a cause). In other words certain teachers would never get the money/resources they needed just because the Admin didn't like them. Then there were other teachers, who were as incompetant as the day is long, who would get anything they asked for, anytime, because the Admin liked them.

These Admins would have the gaul to talk badly behind closed doors about the teachers who didn't get the resources. How they couldn't effectively do thier job, how poor of a teacher they are, etc. No mention of the fact that the teacher didn't even get so much as a stapler or box of pencils unless they bought it themselves out of thier own paycheck. Just that the teacher sucked. Oh and nothing but glorious praise for the incompetent teachers who got anything they needed for free (ie: paid for by the school or district).

If you ever asked these female Admins for something, it was always either "what will you give me in return?" or sometime weeks later she would say "I need you to do such-and-such" (something you really didn't want to be involved with) and then she's always be sure to mention "remember how I got you so-and-so?" (some money, or some resource/item/etc you needed which the school was supposed to buy anyway).

Later we got a few male Admins. The favoritism stopped almost immediately. Oh sure there were people the male Admins didn't like very much... But the one difference between the male Admins and the female Admins is the males judged solely on NEED. The females judged primarily on FEELING, needs only played a small role. In other words if a male Admin couldn't stand some teacher, that teacher would still get teaching supplies because all teachers need these supplies. Compare that to the female Admin who got the supplies (and more) for the teachers she liked, and got nothing for the teachers she hated -- needs be damned.

Now it is entirely possible that female Admins I describe above were the scum of the school district... And I know for sure that not all Women are the way I described. In fact I had two female Admins who were every bit as good, and fair (ie: judging on teachers needs, not on how they felt towards the teacher) as the later male Admins... But the fact is, a good number of the female Admins actually were like I described. Power hungry feminists, "ladder climbing", determined to break the "glass ceiling", who just knew that they could do a better job than any man. None of the male Admins -- not even the asshole ones -- were ever even close to as bad as these female Admins.

My point is, if the world were ran by Women, you would see a dramatic and incredible rise in the levels of ruthless inequality, "social favoritism", cronyism, political infighting, backstabbing, misappropriation of funds, "secret behind closed-door deals", and judgements/decisions based on "feelings" rather than the facts and needs.

I don't like violence either. But when the choice is between violence, and super-intense crazy oppresive emotion-driven politics... Well I'll take violence any day of the week. It sucks, but it is the lesser of two evils. Besides that, violence only effects a few of the people some of the time. Get a bad politician and bad laws on the books, and it effects most of the people all of the time!!

Prudence (imported) wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:57 pm Most of the female Admins all had pre-concieved notions towards people (ie: many people where hated without a cause). In other words certain teachers would never get the money/resources they needed just because the Admin didn't like them. Then there were other teachers, who were as incompetant as the day is long, who would get anything they asked for, anytime.

Yeah, while generalizations are dangerous it doesn't mean that there are statistical truth to certain general trends. I think women are much more likely to be petty. A typical example is a woman who will hold on to a grudge over a minor thing. Guys get mad about big things like stealing a girl, passing one over on a promotion, etc. But women can get mad over little things. Women are also really jealous of each other -- everyone one of them checks each other out in a judgmental way. I don't think guys do that, except maybe in college at a bar you might size up your rivals. But when a guy walks by at the mall I'm never judging the guy's clothes or shape unless it is something outrageous or extreme.

Anyway, if female-dominated societies worked then there would be a lot more evidence of them historically. It is simple evolution -- what works better will prevail statistically. The few times women are the nominal leader (queen, PM, someday president) they have to act like men, not women. None of the Palin's or Bachmann's are running on a "let's all be nice to each other" platforms.

Oh, another interesting point: is our society really male dominated? I'd argue maybe not because the men have to do all the dangerous and hard work. Sure being a housewife isn't easy, but sure beats going to war or working in construction, factory, or coal mine. It seems to me that the concept of male-dominance is sort of a passive-aggressive trick by women -- "oh you guys get to do all the hard work and never let us do it." There's a reason men's life expectancy is lower, and that is because they get the short end of the stick. I live in Los Gatos which is fairly high-end area of Silicon Valley. Sure the men here all make more money than the women, but it is the women who are lounging around the pools, getting fit at the gym, lunching with friends, and driving around in nice cars, and enjoying quality time with the children. Maybe they have to put out sexually, but is that really that bad (women DO like sex too) and they can even withhold that after establishing a marriage because the divorce laws mean they've already achieved their goal of getting a chuck of the hard-earned income of the guy who's working 16 hours days.

If our society is dominated, something I am willing to allow may be possible, is it dominated more by the sometimes-so-called masculine principle of conditional love (or, nothing is ever good enough to be deemed acceptable?), is it dominated more by the sometimes-so-called feminine principle of unconditional love (or, nothing is ever bad enough to be deemed unacceptable?), or is it dominated more by deception (psychological defenses which distort reality in the service of the socialization-process generated "ego"?) and the dishonesty regarding self, others, and milieu which just might happen to be the method and madness of deception itself?

janekane (imported) wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:17 pm If our society is dominated, something I am willing to allow may be possible, is it dominated more by the sometimes-so-called masculine principle of conditional love (or, nothing is ever good enough to be deemed acceptable?), is it dominated more by the sometimes-so-called feminine principle of unconditional love (or, nothing is ever bad enough to be deemed unacceptable?), or is it dominated more by deception (psychological defenses which distort reality in the service of the socialization-process generated "ego"?) and the dishonesty regarding self, others, and milieu which just might happen to be the method and madness of deception itself?

Good questions. Bit too deep for 1am in the morning!

I think the idea of things being one way or another is pretty subjective. Two men with similar backgrounds growing up in the same place can end up in very different situations. And there are lots of examples of both successful and unsuccessful men and women, and of both happy and unhappy men and women. My feeling is that unhappiness is pretty equally spread between the sexes, so it is hard to really make a case that the world is biased in favor of one over the other. So I guess I'm leaning towards your "deception" premise although I would not call it deception but rather just subjective perspective (i.e. we never get a full view of the reality).