Nothing Further to Discuss

Since I got involved in the pro-male issues, I’ve faced four recurring criticisms.

1. “You’re a homo.”
2. “You make sweeping generalizations.”
3. “You have mommy issues.”
4. “You must have been in a relationship with a real bitch.”

Number 1 is irrelevant as my sexuality typically has nothing to do with the issue(s) discussed. The criticism usually comes from a traditionalist conservative man or from a woman. The man is usually attached to his gynocentric identity. The woman usually feels disempowered over the fact that she has no control over my sexuality. Either way, my sexuality is typically irrelevant to the issue(s) discussed. If you bring it up, we have nothing further to discuss.

Number 2 is simply an asshat’s misunderstanding of qualifiers. This asshat likely has some confusion about basic logic. Either way, it’s not my job to educate asshats about such things. When an asshat makes such errors, we have nothing further to discuss.

Number 3 is probably true, but most of us have “mommy issues” anyway. My mother was an abusive cunt, but most mothers are this. Most mothers beat their kids. Mothers are perpetrators of psychological and/or physical abuse. (Stop lying to yourself. Mom pulls your strings and you know it.) There is nothing new about this fact. It’s relatively boring and brings nothing new to the discussion. If you bring it up, we have nothing further to discuss.

Number 4 is true. I’ve been in relationships with “real bitches.” However, that doesn’t nullify any of my arguments. In fact, it validates many of them. So, if you bring it up, we have nothing further to discuss.

The Patriarchy™ Fetish and Marble Cake

I admit it. I have a guilty pleasure—feminist-philosophers. No, feminist-philosophers are not necessarily oxymoronic, though some of them are morons. Take, for example, Iris M. Young.

Young studied philosophy and earned a doctorate in philosophy from Pennsylvania State University. She became a professor of political science and was well known for her work in “theories of justice, democratic theory and feminist theory.” Sadly, Young lost a battle with cancer in 2006 and the world was deprived of “one of the most important feminist thinkers in the world…one of the most important political philosophers of the past quarter century.”

While researching this much respected philosopher, I discovered one of her papers, “Humanism, Gynocentrism, and Feminist Politics.” It is a brilliant and fascinating paper. It is a must read for anybody interested in The Patriarchy™, gender politics, and philosophy.

In this paper, Young presents two remarkably different versions of feminism—humanist-feminism and gynocentric-feminism. Young admits that these two types of feminisms are often contrary to and sometimes contradictory with each other. She also admits that both feminisms share the common narrative thread of male-as-antagonist. The overarching antagonist to both narratives is the male dominated culture that oppresses women—The Patriarchy™.

This antagonist represents weak and lazy writing. It’s a tired, uninspiring, and one-dimensional villain. This antagonist no longer has a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith. The Patriarchy™ is the Snidely Whiplash of feminist narratives—a cartoonish caricature of evil, the archenemy of all women, humanity, and civilization. It is not an artifact of “poetic faith.”

As such, The Patriarchy™ is not a real thing. It is only an imagined thing—a fetishized object of imagination that exists in the minds of feminists and other morons. It exists to perpetuate a shallow and one-dimensional narrative that presents women as objects-of-victimization. It is the sort of thing that feminists love to hate. It is loved because it can be blamed for everything. It is hated because it is the villain. Without The Patriarchy™, there would be no feminist narratives. Without Snidely Whiplash, there would be no Dudley Do-Right. The Patriarchy™ is one half of a shallow and one-dimensional dichotomy of good vs. evil that exists in feminist narratives. It’s not any real thing of lived-experience. It is only an imaginary thing of imagined-experience.

To better understand this shallow dichotomy and the silliness of feminist narratives, let’s look at two of the most significant and influential feminist narratives as presented by Iris M. Young. Both narratives present women as victims of The Patriarchy™. Both narratives present The Patriarchy™ as an antagonist, a villain like Snidely Whiplash who twiddles his moustache and has no human depth beyond a sadistic lust for the devaluing and disempowerment of women.

Humanist-feminism

Humanist-feminism, according to Young, is best described in the works of Simone de Beauvoir. Young refers to this sort of feminist thinking as “Beauvoirian.” At its core is a revolt against being imprisoned in femininity. For these Beauvoirians, The Patriarchy™ “has ascribed to women a distinct feminine nature by which it has justified the exclusion of women from most of the important and creative activity of society—science, politics, invention, industry, commerce, the arts.” The Patriarchy™ forces femininity upon women. As such, humanist-feminism was a revolt against femininity and, by extension, a revolt against The Patriarchy™.

What makes this Beauvoirian revolt so fascinating is the fact that it is founded theoretically on the philosophical distinction between immanence and transcendence. Immanence roughly designates being an object. Transcendence roughly designates being a free-subject that defines its own nature and “makes projects that bring new entities into the world.”

It is argued by humanist-feminists that The Patriarchy™ does not allow women to become such transcendent and free-subjects. Instead, women are relegated to being objects of domestic and sexual service to men and for the benefit of men. As such, the full humanity of women is restricted by The Patriarchy™. This is, according to humanist-feminists, a brutalization of the personhood of half the human race for benefit to the other half. The Patriarchy™ mutilates and deforms women into objects—the non-human Other. Young writes that this “distinction between transcendence and immanence ensnares Beauvoir in the very definition of woman as a non-human Other…”

By defining humanity as transcendence, as a free-subjectivity above mere life and the processes of nature that repeat in endless cycles, women can only exist as victims—“maimed, mutilated, dependent, confined to a life of immanence and forced to be an object.” In short, humanity transcends, but women are imprisoned to a life of immanence. Humanist-feminism was a revolt against this sort of immanence, reproductive biology, domestic concerns, and motherhood—the things Beauvoir found most oppressive to women.

As such, Beauvoirians devalue women…just like The Patriarchy™ devalues women. The humanist-feminist revolt against The Patriarchy™ is patriarchal. As such, humanist-feminism is The Patriarchy™. They smash The Patriarchy™ by being it.

Gynocentric-feminism

According to Young, “gynocentric feminism defines the oppression of women very differently from humanist feminism. Women’s oppression consists not of being prevented from participating in full humanity, but of the denial and devaluation of specifically feminine virtues and activities by an overly instrumentalized and authoritarian masculinist culture.” Gynocentric-feminism is not a revolt against femininity. It is a revolt against the devaluation of femininity. It is a revolt against The Patriarchy™ by embracing what The Patriarchy™ always “ascribed” to women. As such, gynocentric-feminism is The Patriarchy™.

For gynocentric-feminists, femininity is “not the problem, not the source of women’s oppression, but indeed within traditional femininity lie the values that we should promote for a better society. Women’s oppression consists of the devaluation and repression of women’s nature and female activity by the patriarchal culture.” Again, The Patriarchy™ is still to blame because it “threaten[s] the survival of the planet and the human race. [Patriarchal] values exalt death, violence, competition, selfishness, a repression of the body, sexuality, and affectivity.”

According to Young, The Patriarchy™ produces “phallogocentric categorization,” a moral rationality and language of sharp distinctions, of abstract rights and justice. However, the feminine is supposed to produce loose categories, a flowing of language that envelops and folds in on itself, reflects itself in a continuous and particularistic ethics of care—a continuous menstrual flowing of garbled gibberish. The feminine virtue is supposed to place the particular over the abstract and universal, all the while denying the “nature/culture dichotomy held by humanists… [asserting] the connection of women and nature,” rooting the feminine in the body-experience, rather than in some sort of abstract transcendence.

Gynocentric-feminism places a high value on the woman’s reproductive processes. It is supposed that these processes give women a “living continuity with their offspring that it does not give men. Women thus have a temporal consciousness that is continuous, whereas male temporal consciousness is discontinuous.” As such, males are said to be more alienated from their children, but more connected to their work and other endeavors of artifact creation. In this way, being woman is not being an object. Bringing forth life into this world is one of the most important endeavors-of-creation…and only women can do that.

Gynocentric-feminism inverts humanist-feminism—completely upending prior notions of women’s oppression. Yet, smashing The Patriarchy™ remains a goal of gynocentric-feminism. They smash The Patriarchy™ by embracing it.

Implications

Where humanist-feminism destroyed the value of the feminine, gynocentric-feminism restores it. There is dignity for women within their bodies and within their uniquely female body-experiences. Gynocentric-feminism shows that this connection with the body produces uniquely feminine virtues, language, and experiences of which men are not privy. In fact, men are not privileged at all in this way. Men are alienated from these experiences, from a “living continuity” with their children, and relegated to such experiences by proxy—through intellectual creations, hierarchal competition, and through functioning as an object-of-utility for a woman, for women, and for society-in-general.

This reality requires a reassessment of what male privilege means. Young writes, “If we claim that masculinity distorts men more than it contributes to their self-development and capacities, again, the claim that women are the victims of injustice loses considerable force.” She eventually questions, “what warrants the claim that women need liberating…of what does male privilege consist?” She has difficulty swallowing that bitter red pill. She has difficulty being straight and saying that we’ve been wrong about The Patriarchy™ and male privilege.

Although, she never disavows patriarchy theory, she does put forth a clever analogy as a way to try and change the subject, to escape responsibility, yet still fetishize and blame The Patriarchy™. In regards to gender, Young states that “we need a conception of difference that is less like the icing bordering the layers of cake and more like a marble cake, in which the flavors remain recognizably different but thoroughly insinuated in one another. [And this]… social change requires changing the subject, which in turn means developing new ways of speaking, writing, and imagining.”

Translation

Young wants her cake and eat it too. She wants to change the subject and direct attention away from the wrongheaded notions about male privilege and female oppression. She wants to create a narrative in which female oppression and privilege simultaneously exist in one menstrual flowing of garbled gibberish—a marble cake. She does not come forward to clearly say, “Oops, we were wrong about male privilege and The Patriarchy™.” She does not apologize for the decades of bashing and shaming men about their so-called privilege. She makes no apologies for the centuries of oppression men have endured as objects-of-utility for women and for society-in-general. She does not make any apologies for wanting her cake and eating it too.

Young is playing a game, essentially saying “it’s the fault of The Patriarchy™ that we were wrong…even though we weren’t really wrong. The Patriarchy™ forced feminists to make distinct icing and borders on their narrative-cake. It’s the fault of The Patriarchy™ that feminists didn’t create a marble-cake-narrative in which women could be simultaneously oppressed and liberated, thoroughly insinuated in one another. It’s the fault of The Patriarchy™ that The Patriarchy™ was allowed to be the primary antagonist of any feminist narrative.” This is Young’s elaborate game of victim-blaming.

Why did you men allow us to blame you? It’s your fault that we falsely accused you. Had you men simply valued us women, we would never have falsely accused you men of oppressing us. Never mind the countless bodies of men who sacrificed their lives for women and for society-in-general; that’s oppression of women too. Valuing us is not-valuing us. Oppressing us is not-oppressing us. No matter what men do, it’s the fault of men that women are simultaneously liberated and oppressed, valued and not-valued, empowered and not-empowered. Men and by extension, The Patriarchy™, are to blame for everything.

Conclusion

Young, like most feminists, clings to her fetish—her imagined-experience of The Patriarchy™. She refuses to develop a more comprehensive narrative. She refuses to create a narrative that gives depth to the lived-experiences of men. She refuses to relinquish her hatred of men. She prefers blaming men for everything. This is her love, her hatred, and her fetish. She clung to these until death.

Sadly, this is what makes Young’s paper so brilliant and fascinating.  It illustrates the grasp of this fetish—The Patriarchy™. A philosopher as clever as Young fails to relinquish her fetish. Even after clearly making the case that prior notions of The Patriarchy™ and male privilege were wrong, she maintains that men are still to blame. Even when she knows that it’s not the fault of men, she still blames men—The Patriarchy™.

By painting men as The Patriarchy™, men can be made a cartoonish caricature of evil. Men become as shallow and one-dimensional as Snidely Whiplash—the archenemy of women, humanity, civilization, and all things good. Men become The Patriarchy™, the non-human Other.

This is the narrative of feminisms. This is the common thread that binds together feminist narratives. This is the dehumanization of men as the antagonist. It is the fetishizing of men as The Patriarchy™–an imagined thing, a fetishized object of imagination, a villain.

This villain no longer inspires the “willing suspension of disbelief.” This villain is not an artifact of “poetic faith.” This villain represents weak and lazy writing. The Patriarchy™ is bad literature…and so are feminist narratives.

The way forward may be some sort of “marble cake,” as Young describes, where gender differences are distinct, yet thoroughly insinuated within each other. However, before that can happen, a narrative granting multi-dimensionality and depth to men is needed. A narrative consisting of compassion and consideration for the lived-experiences of men and boys is needed. That will never happen as a feminist narrative. So long as men are written as the antagonist, as The Patriarchy™, men will always be the Other–the icing on the outside, apart from the cake, apart from humanity.

Where’s My Coffee?

Starting my day on facebook without offending somebody is like trying to start my day without coffee. There must be somebody left who needs offended.

Mustache Encrusted Feminists
Liberal Douchebags
Conservative Asshats
Traditionalists Women
Religious Fundamentalists
Christian Right Zionists
Free-market Fundamentalists
Vegans
Entitled Princesses/Queens
Pretentious Bullshitters
Drum Circle Hippies
White Knight/Manginas
Beer Rednecks & their Trucks
Authority Bootlickers
Pigs-with-badges
Flag-waving ‘Mericans
Creationist Aretards
Racist Fucksticks
Homophobic White-trash
Harley Fags
Jesus-quote posters
Vapid pop-culture Fetishists
Desperately Single 30-somethings
Soccer Moms
Single Moms

Apologies to all who didn’t make the list…you probably weren’t important to me anyway, but I may consider adding you at a later date. You’re all poo-flinging monkeys. I hate you all. Go fuck yourselves. Where’s my coffee?

My Talking Wiener

To all the desperately single 30 something women who pose for sexually provocative photos on dating sites and who claim they want a “real man,” but are “not looking for sex,” I’ve uploaded a photo of my wiener as proof that I am a real man who is not looking for sex. Really. I’m actually in the process of uploading a short video of my talking wiener in which it clearly states that it isn’t looking for sex.

Token

Are you an entitled princess looking to prove your oppression? Do you need to hijack the struggles of the truly oppressed classes of others? Find your token black friend here so that you can equate being a white upper-class narcissist with being a black man in America.

http://blackfriendconnect.com/

Ms. Marcotte’s Sandy Vagina

The overall picture she offers, however, portrays woman only as victim—maimed, mutilated, dependent, confined to a life of immanence and forced to be an object…[Beauvoir]…expresses outrage at the selfishness, blindness, and ruthlessness of the men who benefit from the mutilation of the personhood of half the human race. –Iris M. Young, Humanism, Gynocentrism, and Feminist Politics

In a gynocentric world, mentioning an example of misandry is misogyny. Expressing dissatisfaction about men being used as objects-of-utility—that is radiated hatred of women. A man concerned that a woman might be more interested in his credit score, rather than his philosophy degree, obviously hates women. A man who challenges the gynocentric ideas about male privilege is a misogynist prick.  In a gynocentric world, men are human-doings; they are not humans-being. Men are maimed, mutilated, dependent, confined to a life of immanence and forced to be an object-of-utility for a woman, for women, and for society-in-general…and if a man expresses outrage at the selfishness, blindness, and ruthlessness of the women who benefit from the mutilation of the personhood of half the human race, the man can be expected to be further dehumanized with insults—troll, worthless tool, loser, dead-beat, whiner, and some form of a non-human Other.

If you think I’m exaggerating, check your privilege and consider what typically happens when a man challenges anything originating from a gynocentric point-of-view. Take, for example, what happened to me and to other men who challenged the notion of male privilege put forth by an entitled princess like Amanda Marcotte. In an article she put out on July 29th, she complained that men are not doing enough with their privilege. Men are not being quality objects-of-utility for her. As such, this irks her, like sand in her vagina, and she took to her keyboard to write an article excoriating men for doing too little and for doing romance all wrong.

Ms. Marcotte complains that she needs a giant douche nozzle to wash all the sand from her inflamed vagina.

What sort of sand seems to be inflaming the vagina of Ms. Marcotte today? Victimhood sand. Yes, the sand of victimhood is irritating the Marcotte vagina today. It seems that when men make public proposals for marriage, men are oppressing women. Yes, the evil patriarchy puts women at a disadvantage in these situations because a woman might feel like an “ungrateful” bitch for saying no.

That’s right. Options are oppression. The privilege of telling a man no isn’t really a privilege. According to Ms. Marcotte, the option of saying no actually disadvantages women. It’s oppression on par with slavery. Men have the “privilege” of making the first move, of putting their necks on the chopping block—risking public rejection and humiliation. Yes, in the twisty-straw world of Ms. Marcotte’s sandy vagina, it’s male patriarchal privilege—being expected to make the first move and take such risks.

It’s also male privilege to proposition women at bars or at night clubs. Making the first move in these settings also disadvantages women. Men who take the initiative and proposition women…those men are imposing on women the choice to say yes, no, or maybe. It’s like a big rapey “Penis O’ Freedom” that busies itself with raping women of their freedom to be free of making choices.

So, being filled with this irritating sand in her vagina, one would think that Ms. Marcotte would put forth a remedy for this oppression. Perhaps something like the importance of changing the social norms such that women are expected to proposition men—spreading out the risk equally between men and women. That way a woman gets the “privilege” of being full-on rejected by men who want nothing whatsoever to do with her.

Nope. Ms. Marcotte’s solution for this sand in her vagina is for men to do more. That’s right. Men who proposition women should do more to prove their worth. She writes.

Hitting on a woman in a public place by telling her she’s got some quality that sets her above other women, without explaining why he should be the natural recipient of all that unique goodness… [that is oppression because it is] …without nary a suggestion as to what he can do for her.

You see, if only men did more for her, then she wouldn’t have to worry about looking like an “ungrateful” bitch for rejecting a poor fool. She simply wouldn’t have any “reason” for rejecting him. If the man proves himself worthy to be up inside her, then there is no reason for her to say no…and this alleviates the oppression, effectively removing her from the slavery of choice—that big rapey “Penis O’ Freedom” that imposes itself on women via propositions.

In the comment thread to Marcotte’s piece of tripe article, I mentioned how this is one big lamentation about the quality of men who proposition Ms. Marcotte.

Moments later, a white knight who lives in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina rushes to rescue the damsel and to save her honor.

Being a black knight, I quickly agreed that panhandling is a lot like propositioning a woman. It’s called “pussy-begging.” Most men are happy to get a few strips of bacon flap, kind of like how a hobo is happy to get a few pennies. My comment didn’t go over too well…and neither did any of my other comments.

When I pointed out the blatant misandry and objectification of men as objects-of-utility, I was quickly excoriated and my comments were heavily down-voted. The problem is that “pointing” is very patriarchal and too much like a penis. Pointing is “mansplaining,” and so I was accused of “radiating hate.” Here is the “hate” that I initially wrote in the comment thread.

Instead of men expressing how they find a woman attractive, how about men simply plop down their credit report and wear a t-shirt imprinted with their credit score?

Essentially, what Marcotte is saying here is “what have you done for me lately?” That’s not very progressive, empowered, or independent, In fact, it’s very traditional in that men have to prove that they can afford her, [kind of] like a herd of sheep. She wants men to “pay” for her with reasons. That actually seems to objectify women and that’s not empowering for women.

Also, Marcotte is claiming that men dehumanize women as objects-of-sexuality that are pressured with an obligation to reciprocate interest, but at the same time, Marcotte insists that men should dehumanize themselves as objects-of-utility for a woman. Prove that you’re a good tool for the women, that there are reasons for her to bother with exploiting the fact that you’re attracted to her.

Nothing about the piece of tripe article empowers women or men. It’s more of the same old crap. Nothing about this article values humanity. It’s all degrading to humanity—to both women and men.

So, I actually argued that people are humans—that men should not be treated like tools and that women should not be treated like sex toys. Nothing controversial about that, right? Well, if you live in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina, what I wrote about human dignity is nothing more than raging hate—pure misogyny. Here is Ms. Marcotte’s moral correction of me and my reply to it.

 Ms. Marcotte never did bother to reply, but some white knight did so on her behalf.

I assume that a contractor who builds my house wants money in exchange for his time and labor. That doesn’t mean I radiate hatred for the contractor. Anyway, that was not my assumption, but it is Ms. Marcotte’s demand and main complaint about men—that they aren’t doing enough for her.

“…without nary a suggestion as to what he can do for her.” In her own words, Ms. Marcotte echoes the selfish and gynocentric idea that men exist for the purpose of doing something for her. Janet Jackson best sings about such things (men) in her song “What Have You Done for Me Lately.”

So, the white knight valiantly attacks the straw man and I simply point out that my assumption has nothing to do with money. My assumption is that these sorts of expectations are traditionalist in that men are still expected to prove their worth to a woman…and nothing about that is progressive. It is still based on the assumption that men must be objects-of-utility for a woman, for women, and for society in-general.

The valiant white knight desperately constructs another straw man to beat.

Desperate gibberish. I never made any claim that both parties shouldn’t contribute to the relationship. If the valiant white knight had actually bothered to read my words, he’d realize that I’m arguing against the objectification of men as objects-of-utility. White knights have difficulty removing themselves from their gynocentric fog. If the white knight could remove himself from this fog for a moment, he’d realize that Ms. Marcotte doesn’t value men; she values what men can “do for her.” For gynocentric gender supremacists like Ms. Marcotte, men are human-doings, not humans-being. This is traditionalist in that men are tools. There is nothing “circular” about that statement and there is nothing wrong with making the comparison between men being tools and Ms. Marcotte’s demand that men be better tools.

And so…there are other “tools” that I had to deal with in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina. Take, for example, this person—“Kesh Meshi.”

Right. There are no social expectations on men to be objects of utility. What culture is that? Or, what crazy-straw universe does she live in? I have no idea. It’s “beyond me,” if it’s not the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina. As is usual when dealing with asshats, the conversation quickly degrades into name-calling.

Yeah, I know. I stooped to her level. My bad. Apologies to all, but her insult wasn’t the worst. I was called all sorts of meanie names and accused of bad things. All for supporting the radical idea that women and men are humans and should be treated as such.

“LJC” claims that I’m arrogant for being a man who thinks of himself as a person. “How dare that uppity man not present himself as a dog! Bad doggie! No treat for you!”

And then there is this insult—the one in which I’m cast as being entitled to a woman and that I’m just “upset” because I don’t meet the standard. Apparently, showering every day is the standard…and I don’t meet it. It’s kind of like a grade-school insult—you know, “stinky-head.”

 

There is the one by “Amazing Sandwich.” It’s an attempt to say, in some sort of pseudo-intellectual way, that because I value my humanity and the humanity of others, I “project” dehumanization of myself onto women. Yeah, it’s the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina. In that world, valuing my humanity is projected dehumanization of women. Go figure.

There is the “Shohanna” insult of even more incoherent gibberish. I’ve read her tripe multiple times and, giving her the benefit of the doubt, I think she is saying that I’m a “waste” (some sort of garbage) and that rejection is the best sort of attention that I will ever get from a woman. I suppose I should accept my lot in life of being thrown away by women…because at least a woman will take the time to bother with throwing me away. I don’t know.

“Shohanna” later makes some homophobic remarks. Clearly, being trash was too good for me. Being gay is worse than trash, according to her, so she feeds me some of that gay-hate. Again, being in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina, it’s fine to hate me and make homophobic slurs and call me a “misogynist prick” because I have the radical idea that men are humans too.

It gets worse, but I’ll spare the reader. I’ve only been on the thread for a couple days and the hatred for me continues to flow. I wrote about human dignity and for that I’m called an asshole, pretentious, a dick, arrogant, accused of radiating hate, accused of hating women, and, for some reason, my sexuality is made into an issue. None of this makes sense, unless you live in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina.

Again, in that world, it is male privilege—being rejected. Rejecting men is such a burdensome and oppressive task for women. I do not know how women manage to survive with all that victimhood sand in their vaginas. Take a look at all the oppression of women in this video.

Within only a few moments, 100 women were oppressed. Women were forced by this malicious and privileged man to make decisions about rejecting his proposition. Women were enslaved by the imposing and penetrating “Penis O’ Freedom” and burdened to reject this evil patriarch. As anyone can see by watching the video, women are worried about looking like “ungrateful” bitches.

Women shouldn’t have to worry about such things, as Ms. Marcotte argues in her piece of tripe article. Being burdened with the sand of victimhood buried in her vagina, Ms. Marcotte clearly lays out the solution. Men need to be better tools. Men need to be like a giant douche nozzle that washes away the victimhood sand buried in the vagina of oppressed women. Some little emo clown won’t work.

Nope. Ms. Marcotte needs to invite a big veined throbbing cock nozzle deep inside her—one that fills the hole in her soul and reaches every last grain of victimhood sand within her, scooping it out with a circumcised tip and then a rinsing with a massive shot of anti-inflammatory jizz cream.

Ms. Marcotte and her ilk have little (if any) respect for the humanity and dignity of men. From their gynocentric point-of-view, men cannot be dehumanized, for men are not human at all; men are less-than-human. They are patriarchy. As such, men are maimed, mutilated, dependent, confined to a life of immanence and forced to be an object-of-utility for a woman, for women, and for society-in-general—douche nozzles that exist to “do for her.” Ms. Marcotte and her ilk are the selfish, blinded, and ruthless beneficiaries of the mutilated personhood of half the human race. FTSU.

[Gynocentric] culture confines…[men]…to immanence. Immanence designates being an object, a thing with an already defined nature lined up within a general category of things with the same nature. [Masculinity]…is an essence, a set of general attributes that define a class, that restricts…[men]…to immanence and to being defined as the Other. –Iris M. Young, Humanism, Gynocentrism, and Feminist Politics