Tag Archives: human-rights

Born that Way

1 Nov

It is imperative that we question all patriarchal ideas including the ideas of sexual orientation and gender, regardless of whether or not it is politically correct. I’ve seen this subject skirted and tip toed around, but I can’t help but imagine a world without patriarchy and if we can imagine a world without patriarchy we can also imagine a world without labels such as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bi, transgender, queer and so on.  If we begin to question these labels and where they came from, we would see that their origins are from a false biological essentialist idea that we are born sexually oriented and gendered, this idea coming from men and patriarchy itself in order to mandate the subordination and domination of females.  What is ironic and tragic is that the very same idea was adopted by the LGB community and then later the Transgender community to use politically to fight for equality with the heterosexuals and “normally” gendered people. Paradoxically the equality sought was unfortunately an equality to a very sick system of ideas.

What is ironic here is that the biological essentialist idea being used to fight for equality, rights and protections was what caused the inequality in the first place. What is tragic is that by using the B.E. agenda politically it solidified these toxic patriarchal ideas even more and has created a very unhealthy environment for all human beings.  The biological essentialist agenda is exactly the same agenda as patriarchy has always tried to sell to us; that heterosexuality is a normal state of being and anything else is deviant. That females should naturally be in relationships with men. This biological idea trumps the facts that are  staring females in the face, that men have enslaved, oppressed, brainwashed, coerced, beaten, raped and murdered them for thousands of years. That females aren’t free to choose men on their merit alone because it is biological, not a choice.  Females are born that way and must be with men regardless of the way men treat them or disrespect them as human beings.  The same goes for gender.  That females are biologically feminine (subservient) and males are biologically masculine (dominant).  These born that way ideas match very nicely the constrictive ideas that brought on the outcry in the first place, the very ideas that are causing all human beings to suffer, especially female human beings.

The born that way stance was then and continues to be used as a political platform to gain rights and protections for people who don’t fit into the patriarchal mind numbing constrictive ideas of sexual orientation and gender. This agenda however isn’t helping to get rid of these patriarchal ideas but instead solidifying them even more. In most cases however, the people who are using the agenda aren’t doing this knowingly. They aren’t questioning the ideas because the information like all other patriarchal information is standing right in front of them but is also invisible. It is just the way it is and has always been. The born that way idea is being held up as the golden receptacle of change yet it is the antitheses of change.  To legally state that human beings are born lesbian or gay (sexually orientated) we are also legally stating that human beings are born heterosexual. That somehow at birth most of us are heterosexual and that a minority of us are attracted to the same sex. How can we say that an infant is attracted sexually to the same sex or the opposite sex? This doesn’t develop in the human being until later in life. This biological idea has never been proven scientifically.

The same goes for the idea that we are born in the wrong body. That somehow at birth most of us are gendered normally, males are masculine and females are feminine and for a a minority of us, this went awry and the opposite occurred. That Infants are naturally masculine or feminine. However, this develops later in their life, the idea that they don’t fit into the gender role they are prescribed in patriarchy. It is important here to note that most children should balk at these gender roles. Children should not be coerced into behaving certain ways based on their genitals, but they are due to patriarchal coercion and we can’t ignore that factor (but we do). Again the end game is always female subordination and again this biological idea has also never been proven scientifically.

If we instead were to state that human beings are actively choosing the same sex partners or choosing to behave feminine or masculine or both out of their own individual authenticity, this would bring into question the patriarchal ideas of sexual orientation and gender.  Can females actually choose to be with women? Can males actually choose to behave feminine (subservient)? Can females actually choose to behave masculine (dominant)? If the answer is yes, then patriarchy itself doesn’t make sense. The rule of men, the domination of men over women and the second class nature of the inferior female starts to unravel. This is why it is extremely important for patriarchy to maintain the idea that this is biological. If sexual orientation and gender are biological, then patriarchy is correct. The rule of men is correct. It is biologically ordained, right as rain. This is why legally it is important to not allow the social argument and instead only allow the biological one. I don’t think this is what lawyers are thinking. I don’t think they actually understand the mechanisms of patriarchy including the ideas of sexual orientation and gender, and because of this ignorance they don’t think about fighting against them; instead they fight with the tools that they think will win the easiest. This is not surprising. This happens all the time in patriarchy. Our legal system is built on this premise. We fight with patriarchal tools instead of fighting patriarchy itself.

Even though these born that way tools did work legally to add legislation to protect the LGB community from harassment and violence and this is a good thing of course, they did so at their own and all human beings expense, especially at female expense.  By using patriarchal tools, the born that way agenda, they helped to solidify the very ideas they we are fighting against. By stating that they are born that way, they are then considered to be deviants from the normal state of affairs (heterosexuality). They are victims to their biology and because of this, they can be thrown some scraps from the patriarchal table and told to quietly go away, all the while patriarchy and it’s restrictive ideas about sexuality is never threatened. Since gayness is biological and since there is a much lower percentage rate of gay persons than heterosexual persons, we can conclude that gayness is an anomaly, a deviation to heterosexuality. That being the case, even though it is dangerous to be intimate with a man due to epidemic male violence, unless you are born a lesbian you should be with a man. The idea that being gay is a disorder and the idea that females must be feminine and men masculine stays steadfast, never questioned. People who suffer from gender dysphoria are coerced into changing their physical appearance to fit into the stereotype that patriarchy has dictated to them. To go to such lengths to physically match the patriarchal idea of how we should behave, pumping ourselves full of harmful chemicals and surgically removing parts of our bodies goes a long way as propaganda that our gender is biologically mandated and that indeed patriarchy is also biologically mandated. That is the bottom line here. That is the end game. That has always been the end game.

If we continue to fight for rights and protections by using the same bad ideas as our weapons, we will continue to solidify the very system that is causing our reasons to fight in the first place. It doesn’t make any sense to continue doing this. Instead we must fight the actual system that is dictating to human beings these toxic ideas that continue to enslave females.  We must do this so that all human beings can freely choose without constraint or brutality who they want to love and how they want to behave.  Then finally when we see that we can choose to love who we want and behave how we want, not because we are born that way and have no choice, but because we are complicated human beings who if allowed to be authentic will choose what we truly want, we will gain freedom. At the very least, we must continue to question everything that exists within patriarchy and think about what could exist without it.

Michele Braa-Heidner

Advertisements

Within the Patriarchal Toolbox

20 Apr

http://www.troubleandstrife.org/new-articles/who-owns-gender/

“In the heyday of the Women’s and Gay Liberation Movements, the view was widely held that sexuality was socially constructed, and indeed relatively plastic: lesbianism, in particular, was presented by some feminists as a political choice. But in the last 20 years this view has largely withered away. Faced with well-organized opponents denouncing their perverted ‘lifestyle choices’, some prominent gay/lesbian activists and organizations began promoting the counter-argument that homosexuals are born, not made. Of course the ‘born that way’ argument had always had its supporters, but today it has hardened into an orthodoxy which you deviate from at your peril.

Since ‘born that way’ became the orthodox line, there has been more mainstream acceptance of and sympathy for the cause of gay/lesbian equality, as we’ve seen most recently in the success of campaigns for same-sex marriage. Though it is possible this shift in public attitudes would have happened anyway, it seems likely that the shift away from social constructionism helped, by making the demand for gay rights seem less of a political threat. The essentialist argument implies that the straight majority will always be both straight and in the majority, because that’s how nature has arranged things. No one need fear that granting rights to gay people will result in thousands of new ‘converts’ to their ‘lifestyle’: straight people won’t choose to be gay, just as gay people can’t choose to be straight.

If you adopt a social constructionist view of gender and sexuality, than lesbians, gay men and gender non-conformists are a challenge to the status quo: they represent the possibility that there are other ways for everyone to live their lives, and that society does not have to be organized around our current conceptions of what is ‘natural’ and ‘normal’. By contrast, if you make the essentialist argument that some people are just ‘born different’, then all gay men, lesbians or gender non-conformists represent is the more anodyne proposition that diversity should be respected. This message does not require ‘normal’ people to question who they are, or how society is structured. It just requires them to accept that what’s natural for them may not be natural for everyone. Die-hard bigots won’t be impressed with that argument, but for anyone vaguely liberal it is persuasive, appealing to basic principles of tolerance while reassuring the majority that support for minority rights will not impinge on their own prerogatives.

For radical feminists this will never be enough. Radical feminism aspires to be, well, radical. It wants to preserve the possibility that we can not only imagine but actually create a different, better, juster world. The attack on feminist social constructionism is ultimately an attack on that possibility. And when radical feminists take issue with trans activists, I think that is what we need to emphasize. What’s at stake isn’t just what certain individuals put on their birth certificates or whether they are welcome at certain conferences. The real issue is what we think gender politics is about: identity or power, personal choice or structural change, reshuffling the same old cards or radically changing the game.”    Delilah Campbell

After reading this article, I began to question the idea and/or political agenda that people are born gay or born heterosexual.  If you believe this agenda, then you believe in the biological essentialist agenda, that people are born with a gay or a straight brain.  That somehow our sexuality is programed in our DNA, predetermined in the womb or even before that.  I understand this stance being taken within the context of patriarchy and its restrictive ideas about sexual orientation. I understand it in the context of fighting against the patriarchal idea that heterosexuality is normal and anything else is deviant but by taking this stance aren’t we actually agreeing with this idea? By adopting the biological essentialist agenda, instead of questioning our patriarchal ideas about sexual orientation, we solidify the belief that anyone that is not heterosexual is deviant.  It plays right along with the idea that heterosexuality is the norm and that some unfortunate people just happen to be born gay and that we should not discriminate against them because they have no control over this “biological condition.”

This platform has been used politically in the past with the LGB community and now it is being used by the transgender community to gain rights and protections that were not there before,  some of these rights perilous to women. The problem with this platform is that it doesn’t question the social idea that heterosexuality is normal and anything else is not. By not questioning the role our society plays in our ideas or restrictions regarding sexual orientation and by claiming it is biological instead, we completely limit the conversation and do an injustice to humanity.

Sheila Jeffreys wrote in her book, Gender Hurts:

I am very aware that new generations of feminist, lesbian and gay activists and thinkers may find the idea of social construction difficult to accept. The idea that homosexuality and transgenderism are innate has become quite dominant today, whereas at the time of the second wave feminism, the understanding that gender and sexuality were socially constructed was commonplace.

By claiming that our sexual orientation is biological, we admit and agree with the patriarchal agenda that heterosexuality is normal and anything else is deviant. In order to gain protections and rights in this socially restrictive environment, the LGB community had to go with the biological essentialist model because doing so was less of a threat to the patriarchal status quot and their adversaries could feel comfort in allowing these rights because it didn’t affect them, their world wasn’t being threatened in the least because examining the social environment that they lived in and relied on was not being discussed.  Instead, giving “those” people rights wasn’t such a bad thing because “those” people are the problem, not us, not our social ideas.

The implication here is that being gay is a condition, just like being transgender is a condition because both are abnormal. Gay people are then seen as deviants in our society and society itself and its inherent restrictive ideas are never questioned and therefore never threatened.  Nothing threatened, nothing gained, at least not really. This works for political platforms to gain rights and protections for what our society considers deviants, but it also harms them and our society by not bringing into question our restrictive patriarchal social ideas that are unhealthy to all human beings. The transgender political agenda is also based on biological essentialism.  Again, they are using a political platform that has worked within patriarchal constraints to afford them rights and protections, but again at what cost?

When a person claims that he or she is born in the wrong body or sex and that he or she has a male or female brain at birth and that for some unfortunate person this goes wrong and his or her brain doesn’t match his or her genitals, this is a very small limited viewpoint of a much larger issue.  Males may exhibit feminine behaviors and females masculine behaviors,  both seen as deviating from the socially dictated gender constructs and in both cases these people are actively ostracized.  We then instead of looking at our society and the ideas we have of gender as the problem, look at the individual and claim that they are “transgender”, a condition that they were born with; therefore, they are the problem, they are abnormal.

But what if these children aren’t the problem? What if the social constructs of gender, femininity and masculinity are?  What if masculinity and femininity aren’t biological at all but instead dominant and subservient behaviors,  patriarchal mechanisms, created by men to keep men in power and women oppressed?  For men, aggressive, dominant behaviors and for women passive, subservient behaviors? In the book, Loving to Survive, Dee L Graham argues that feminine behaviors are identical to submissive behaviors. That all human beings including men who are being dominated act “feminine”.  Do we really want to believe that females are born subservient and that males are born dominant? That this is the natural order of things? Are we really all just hair challenged apes?   I believe and so do most radical feminists, that the pressure all human beings endure to act masculine or feminine depending on their genitals needs to change.  The restrictive idea of gender has to change. Would anyone want to have sex changes if the masculine and feminine gender roles weren’t there? If it didn’t matter whether or not a person has a penis or a vagina and both were not attached to specific behaviors?

Jeffreys wrote:

The construction of transgenderism in the late twentieth century resembles, in important respects, the construction of the homosexual. The 1960s and 1970s were the glory days of social construction-ism in the social sciences. Lesbian and gay theorists and historians, educated in the values of those times, argued that the idea of the homosexual, as a particular kind of person who was destined by a congenital abnormality to be exclusively attracted to others of the same sex, was in fact a social construction (Mackintosh, 1968;
Weeks, 1977 ).

If radical feminists currently agree that gender is a patriarchal construct then why are we not questioning the idea that being gay or straight is also a patriarchal construct?  Why are we not questioning the biological essentialist agenda that some members of the LGB community believe in, like we are questioning this very same agenda in the transgender community? And further, doesn’t the very idea that there are separate communities tell us something? If we buy into the idea that we are born gay or born heterosexual, we refuse to recognize that sexual orientation much like gender orientation could be a patriarchal social construct and in so doing the enormous implications of this are lost. We then truncate the analysis and truncating any analysis is not radical feminism. I think we need to explore the subject of sexuality like we do anything else in patriarchy. We need to pick it apart and take it to the root of the problem. Is heterosexuality normal or abnormal? Is being gay normal or abnormal? How does our patriarchal environment factor into the analysis? If patriarchy dictates every belief we have about what is normal and abnormal including our ideas about gender and sexuality, how could it not?

In Gender Hurts:

The first detailed articulation within sociology of the idea that homosexuality was not a ‘condition’ but a ‘social role’ was by the lesbian sociologist Mary Mackintosh in her path-breaking article, ‘The Homosexual Role’ (1968). She applied understandings from labeling theory to homosexuality and argued that conceptualizing the homosexual as a certain kind of person who suffered from a condition operated as a form of social control, which ‘helps to provide a clear-cut, publicized, and recognizable threshold between permissible and impermissible behavior’ (Mackintosh, 1968: 183). Mackintosh explained that, in relation to homosexuality, ‘[t]he creation of a specialized, despised and punished role of homosexuality keeps the bulk of society pure’ (Mackintosh, 1968 : 184). She says that psychologists and psychiatrists take part in the labeling process in relation to homosexuality and thus in the ‘mechanisms of social control’.

This way of seeing homosexuality is useful for understanding transgenderism too. The creation of the transgender role can be seen as a way of separating off unacceptable gender behavior, which might threaten the system of male domination and female subordination, from correct gender behavior, which is seen as suitable for persons of a particular biological sex. In the case of homosexuality, the effect is to shore up the idea of exclusive and natural heterosexuality; and, in the case of transgenderism, the naturalness of sex roles.

In patriarchy, we have been socialized to believe that heterosexuality is normal and being gay is deviant and for some reason most of us don’t question this idea. So I ask you now, why not? Could heterosexuality be a patriarchal agenda created like gender for men to control women? More specifically, and more importantly, the question I want to ask is, is heterosexuality normal in patriarchy? Isn’t it counter intuitive to be heterosexual if you get into the actual semantics within patriarchy?  For example, women throughout patriarchal history have been enslaved, oppressed, victimized and murdered in epidemic proportions by men; yet, we are still being taught that we should not only love men, but also live with men.  Isn’t it more true that in reality, we should be removing ourselves from the vicinity of men; thereby, removing ourselves from the danger of violence and death?  Women live in terror on a minute by minute basis due to the threat of male violence and we are taught to deny this threat.  Male violence is so normalized that it exists as a low level anxiety for most women and an extreme danger signal for other women depending on their circumstances, yet we are being told that men aren’t the problem and that it is men who will protect us. If we lived in the land of opposites (which we do in patriarchy) then this all makes perfect sense. But if you look at it logically, rationally and reasonably, heterosexuality is dangerous for women in patriarchy.

Since the patriarchal agenda is for men to control women, heterosexuality is a social mandate that does just that, it enforces female relationships with males. It is a patriarchal mechanism that works like no other mechanism, including gender.  Gender constructs such as femininity and masculinity are detrimental but they come into play within the confines of heterosexuality.  Feminine or subservient behaviors are roles that women are forced into, the men doing the forcing through masculine pressure within the heterosexual relationship. If heterosexuality didn’t exist, gender roles would also not exist. Heterosexuality keeps women in close proximity of men and this accompanied by male violence keeps women under male control.  Women under male control ensures free domestic labor. Free sex. Free emotional support and so on.  Heterosexuality is beneficial for men but in this same society, heterosexuality is extremely detrimental for women. But we don’t ask whether or not heterosexuality is beneficial for women. In a world where women don’t matter, what is good or not good for them doesn’t matter either. We don’t question gender or sexuality within the confines of patriarchy because to do so brings females into focus, where normally they are invisible, obscured behind the default male. If we question heterosexuality, She will materialize. She will demand to be dealt with.

In patriarchy, heterosexuality for females is counter intuitive.  You might argue that heterosexuality is a biological imperative. That we need to propagate, but do we really? Aren’t we  overpopulated with people? Further, isn’t it true that women don’t need to be intimate or even in close proximity with men to get pregnant anymore?  Also, in ancient times, women weren’t isolated with one man, they lived with groups of women separate from the men and the women still had babies.  Women are being isolated from each other in nuclear families and we are told that this is normal and the only way to live. But is it?  Women living in nuclear families isolated with one man, in fact has proven to be deadly for women. Although random male violence does occur, in most cases, it is men who have sole access to women in intimate relationships that violate, rape and murder women. Let me ask you this, if women removed themselves completely from the reach of men, would there be any rapes, abuse and murders? Would women still be in danger?

Removing women from the proximity of men is the only way to keep women safe–but this idea doesn’t ever surface in our consciousness. If you look at how men treat women globally, you could even say that the idea of loving or even liking men is unnatural, that heterosexuality is unnatural.   Women are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Women are taught to believe that they need men to survive. They need men to be something in a male dominated world where otherwise they are nothing. But the opposite is actually true. It is men who use women. It is men who need women. Women in all aspects of life are better off without men.

So then I ask the question again, is heterosexuality normal for women in patriarchy?

If we begin to analyze sexual orientation within patriarchy and come to realize that like gender, sexual orientation is also a patriarchal construct that furthers the patriarchal agenda, then we must also question the born gay or straight agenda.  Radical feminists have always argued against biological essentialist agendas and have adopted the social constructionist one, patriarchy being the environment where all of these male social ideas are born and conditioned into us all.  Of course never forgetting that patriarchy itself was created by men.  I also want to distinguish here that when I talk about gender and sexuality as social constructs and not biological, I am not throwing out the idea that men are biologically different than women and vice versa. This idea is a completely different discussion for another time. Radical feminists believe that gender is a social construct created by men, one of the many tools within patriarchy to oppress the female class. In other words gender was created by men as a tool to oppress women in patriarchy.  Gender constructs are entrenched in patriarchy and in all human beings who live in the same and they are anything but superficial or trivial.  Because these gender constructs are so pervasive in our society and also deep within us all and because they are also invisible due to normalization, they are extremely difficult to eradicate because we don’t question them.

Case in point, the biological essentialist political agenda came into fruition because of this difficult fight. It was easier to fight within the patriarchal box, with patriarchal tools, then to try to destroy the box.

If we are born gay and it isn’t a choice, then patriarchy remains safe. The patriarchal agenda of making sure women are heterosexual and in the control of men is not threatened. If women weren’t coerced and brainwashed into believing that heterosexuality was normal and everything else deviant, and if women were seeing clearly through their authentic selves and not through the eyes of terror due to male violence, they would never choose to be heterosexual. they would never choose to be in relationships with other human beings who not only disrespect them but violate them. Why would they? Who chooses to not only live with but love human beings that treat them so badly? The very fact that women believe they are heterosexual is a testament to the power of patriarchal conditioning.  Against all evidence, all rationality, all sanity, women are choosing to be with men, or are they? in order to make an intelligent rational choice, you have to be provided with options, not coercion.  So then we must ask the question, are women really choosing to be heterosexual?

There has been a lot of talk in the LGB community and within the feminist community, including radical feminist, that heterosexual women have privileges that lesbian women do not.  That there are benefits afforded to straight women that are not afforded to lesbian women.  In my opinion, this idea needs further analysis.  If we come at this idea from a biological essentialist stance that lesbians are born gay and they have no choice in the matter and therefore are considered deviants and outcasts, then yes, straight women are more embraced in our society and afforded more rights, but at what cost, and whose rights are they really? If we ask the question. is it a good thing to be embraced into a society that hates, oppresses and violates women, then wouldn’t we come to another conclusion? How can being embraced by a sick society be a good thing? Instead of calling it “embraced” shouldn’t we be calling it “enslaved”?  Why would you want to be a member of a society that uses, abuses and spits you out when it has no more use for you? If you approach this issue from a social constructionist stance, women being embraced in patriarchy is like a lion giving a rabbit permission to lick his balls before he eats the rabbit.

Women are being embraced in direct correlation to serving the needs sexual and otherwise of men; the embrace is conditional and deadly. Moreover the so called rights heterosexual women are afforded in patriarchy are not their rights at all but instead rights that belong to the men they are in relationships with.  If you are a woman and a heterosexual, your identity is dependent on men. Your worth is dependent on men. Your autonomy as a human being doesn’t exist apart from men. From this point of view, it would seem that lesbian women are more liberated from male enslavement then heterosexual women.  Lesbian women for the most part do not live in close proximity to men; therefore, they are also safer.  Yes I understand that lesbians are raped, violated and murdered and persecuted by men because they refuse to have sex with men and because they are women, but because they are removed from intimate relationships with men and the nuclear family environment, they are removed from that particular danger and more removed from male violence then heterosexual women.

Lesbian women actually seem in my eyes to be the sanest human beings on the planet because it literally makes more sense to be a lesbian than to be heterosexual in patriarchy. All of the facts scream at us that women are not safe around men. That men hate women most of the time and yet we are being conditioned and coerced into dismissing these facts. Women are being coerced into heterosexuality by a male dominated system that absolutely needs them to be heterosexual.  From birth, women are groomed for this role, to be under the control of men.  This is imperative for the survival of patriarchy and the rule of men.  If women didn’t do the domestic labor or take care of men in all facets, patriarchy would crumble. If you believe that being gay is biological, that you are born gay, then the social implications of our patriarchal conditioning is dismissed and this is a good thing for patriarchy.  If we all believe that being gay is an abnormality a deviation from the norm, then patriarchy remains safe and men can continue to spew heterosexual propaganda to its female population.

If you believe you are heterosexual, I must ask you to really question this belief and where the belief came from. Women are being conditioned to go against their own intuition about men in our society to our own detriment.  I never questioned whether or not I was heterosexual, even though I had one of the most beautiful relationships with a woman, so much deeper than any man I have ever known.  I never questioned it because, much like the male gender is the default in patriarchy, it is the default sexuality as well. To be anything else is considered deviant and deviating from the norm is hard to say the least. So I ask you, what if being heterosexual in patriarchy is insane?  What if what we think is normal is not normal? If we do our fact checking and we really, really look at men, even the men we live with or love, we can begin to see behind the vale of our patriarchal conditioning.  We can begin to see that within patriarchy, heterosexuality is counter-intuitive for women. If it is in fact dangerous for women. If heterosexuality is instead socially constructed by men to benefit men and women who choose to be with men are doing so due to coercion, brainwashing and out of terror of male violence (Stockholm’s Syndrome), then heterosexual women are– to put it mildly—fucked.  If heterosexuality is ultimately the result of terrorizing women into submission and most women are not able to break free of this terror,  we have a social pandemic on our hands.

Lesbians then are the only ones who are not in denial. Who are not suffering from Stockholm’s Syndrome. If lesbians then are the sane ones and thereby the normal ones in our society and heterosexual women are not, how can we continue to claim that we are born gay or straight?  How does this benefit women in patriarchy? Ann Tagonist wrote at her blog:  http://anntagonist.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/lesbian-identity-politics/

“Political Lesbianism offers women a framework from which to view the institution of heterosexuality. It offers women choices. It tells them it doesn’t have to be that way. There is nothing whatsoever to be gained from telling women, “You were born hetero,” and there is so much to be lost. Why do it?”

If you are being ostracized from society and seen as deviants and not being afforded the same “benefits” rights or protections legally that heterosexual women appear to be given, would you even consider that these women are actually being harmed by these so called “benefits” “rights” and “protections”? Instead do you fight for the right to be able to get married and have community property with your spouse? Looking at it through these lenses, I can understand how this might be interpreted. But lets face it. These so called benefits are not benefits at all. Instead they are laws that further the patriarchal agenda–oppressing and dominating women. They are coercive laws to ensure women are in close proximity to men. Why else is it so difficult to pass laws for same sex marriage? Could it be because the institution of marriage is one of the coercive tools in patriarchy to isolate women from each other and put them in the hands of individual men and any deviation from this is a threat to patriarchy? In my opinion, same sex marriage is the only sane type of marriage for women.  When a woman marries a man, she enters into dangerous ground. She loses her last name without a thought. She becomes Mrs. John Smith. She loses her identity her self and he gains everything. He doesn’t lose his self, his identity. He keeps it and gains hers. They become one, but He is the One.

If we took the religious moral idea out of the equation that men must be with women and vice versa, there is no reason why same sex marriage legally shouldn’t already exist.  The legal financial benefits should be afforded to all people regardless of who they love.  However, because the institution of marriage was created by men in patriarchy as a tool to keep women under male control, losing this tool is a threat to patriarchy.  This is why gay people are having to fight so hard to get same sex marriage legalized. If you can get what you need, rights and protections without fighting the system itself, without fighting men, then why would you? I think this is where the LGB community has gone astray from feminism and where we we can be at odds, especially from the radical feminist community. Don’t get me wrong, there are a majority of lesbian radical feminists; however, the radical feminist women who are lesbians can be at odds with the LGB agenda specifically the biological essentialist agenda, but most of the time, this is not questioned because we walk on eggshells around it as to not stir the pot and create further division amongst feminist women.

The side effect however is that this keeps a lot of the LGB community away from feminism, which is not a good thing.  I think we need to address this division by talking about our differing ideas and trying to get to common ground.  If the radical feminist agenda is socially based, trying to abolish the constraints of gender and sexual orientation then how is this a bad thing for anyone? If there were no constraints, if all human beings were just human beings making choices from a basket of numerous choices, instead of “normal” people and “deviants” who have to fight for rights to exist outside of the norm, wouldn’t everyone win?  It is our societal restrictions that should be questioned and cast out, not the people who try to deviate from them.  After all, it is what we call deviant that is normal in this patriarchal land of opposites.

We aren’t born with male or female brains. Similarly, we aren’t born with specific brains dictating our sexuality.  We are born into a patriarchal society that has a specific male agenda to promote and uphold and instead of questioning this male agenda that is extremely unhealthy and try to change it,  we are labeling people who deviate from this agenda as abnormal and casting them out of society.  Then in order to gain access back into the fold, into this sick society, the people we consider deviants must be embraced through our compassion, because they have a disorder. The deviants must then fight for rights that the “normal” people have.  Fight for rights that are inherently unhealthy– rights that need to be abolished.

Radical feminists all the while have critically questioned gender in the social context  as well as the idea that heterosexuality is normal and have tried to change this restrictive environment so that the idea of gender can be some day eradicated which in turn would eliminate all discrimination against who we see now as deviants including women, transgenders and homosexuals.  Consequently, radical feminists have been called trans phobic and deemed the enemy by the transgender community.  Some day we will realize that the biological essentialist agenda regarding gender and sexuality due to its confines, doesn’t serve humanity as a constant evolving entity that needs space to grow but instead serves to further the patriarchal agenda in imprisoning us.  Similarly, if we can imagine eliminating the biological essentialist agenda and seriously talk about the idea that gender and sexual orientation are both patriarchal constructs, created by men as tools to dominate women, we could create positive change.

Some radical Feminists  will argue that if we throw out biological essentialist agenda, men then will claim to be victims to patriarchy too because they can’t control their biological urges to be violent. If we radical feminists are saying that gender is a social construct and not biological, we can’t then say that men are different biologically. I disagree with this.  What we are questioning is the ideas that are dictated by patriarchy; therefore, we must ask ourselves, who created patriarchy and who’s ideas are being dictated and to who’s benefit? Then we can begin to understand that men created the social system that mirrors their own behavior; consequently, the behavior was there prior to them creating patriarchy and the social constructs within patriarchy.

Therefore, males can be seen as biologically different than females with the propensity to dominate others, especially women. The chicken or the egg? Patriarchy didn’t create itself. The idea of dominating women didn’t come from women. The idea of masculinity (dominant behaviors) and femininity (subservient behaviors) didn’t come from women. All of the above came from men.  Male violence comes from nature and nurture (and men created the nurture).  Men are biologically stronger and they also have testosterone and some studies show less empathy for others, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t “choosing” to use that biological equipment for violence.  It seems to me that if you know you are physically stronger and have the propensity towards violently acting out you would try to suppress those tendencies and not use them against physically weaker human beings. This in itself tells a tale about the human male and his weaknesses.

If we were to discuss the fact that both the gender and sexual orientation constructs are part of the foundation that keeps patriarchy erect, and begin to dismantle these ideas, we could weaken its foundation. We could imagine a world where there is no such thing as transgender or homosexuals. Not because they won’t exist, but because they won’t have to label themselves as such because being either / or is not deviant but a choice out of the basket of numerous choices all human beings have access to.  We are human beings who have been socialized within a social system that dictates what is normal and what isn’t. Everything we do. Every choice we make can either be dictated by our patriarchal socialization or we can look at it, dissect it and understand on a very deep level what it truly is–conditioning.  If we are aware of it. If we know what it is and what it isn’t. If we question every idea that we have and trace it back to its origins, we can then begin to choose from a place of liberation instead of societal coercion.  We can make informed choices to oppose and resist or if we want to, choose to acquiesce, either way we choose from a place of knowledge, not ignorance, not terror.  Those are our only real choices.  If we continue to use tools from within the patriarchal tool box to fight for gay or transgender rights, patriarchy wins.

Michele Braa-Heidner

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Read all About it! Men are Victims to Pornography!

17 Nov

There have been studies that suggest that men have less empathy due to elevated testosterone. If these studies are accurate (and not just more biological essentialist BS) and our patriarchal masculine war centered society pumps up the volume on testosterone–promoting it & even worshiping it — then male empathy in said society would be lacking due to these factors. This of course is dependent on many variables. Genetics, environment, primary socialization, secondary socialization etc…. I’ve seen men who are very empathetic and young boys who show emotion and get bullied from other boys because of it–basically they are bullied right out of expressing emotions in a healthy way and promoted to only show it in angry ways. My first husband would yell at my son telling him to stop crying and he told me he did this because he didn’t want him to be bullied in school for showing emotion around other boys (because that is what happened to him).

I think our masculine patriarchal culture frowns upon men feeling any emotion except anger so when a man is hurt he is not allowed to process this hurt (by outwardly emoting) and is instead promoted to externalize it as anger and to process his hurt feelings in the only socially condoned way–by taking it out on women. And since women are seen as sex objects and are the sex class in patriarchy, not considered to be autonomous human beings, but owned by men, the development of pornography makes perfect sense in this unhealthy environment. Pornography becomes the ideal outlet for men to take their anger out on women sexually.  It is about cause and effect.  The cause is patriarchy and all of its horrific unhealthy mechanisms, including but not limited to; misogyny, gender roles & compulsory heterosexuality.  The effect is pornography.

Lately there has been a lot discussion about pornography being addictive for men. That they can’t stop viewing it because they are addicted to  to the sexual violence.  Although pornography is an obvious symptom of patriarchy, I think it is problematic if not dangerous to focus on pornography as an addiction, because by doing so, we forget about the cause of pornography and its dangers and only focus on the effect–specifically the effect on men.  Further, if we don’t eliminate the root cause, another platform for men to act out the misogyny inherit in our society will crop up.  Pornography is merely the symptom of a much larger disease.  If we claim that pornography is an addiction which then leads to claiming it is a disease (because the USA claims addiction is a disease even though this was never scientifically or medically proven and all other countries do not accept the “disease” model of addiction), then we only focus on the symptom and not on the disease itself, much like most of our medical institutions created in patriarchy focus on treating the symptoms and not the whole person or the disease, we also eliminate any conversation or analysis of the root cause.  I can imagine then that we begin to demonize the women in pornography (the actual victims). I can see the headlines now:

“Here ye!  Here ye! Read all about it!  Pornography is a disease afflicting men around the world!  Those unwholesome female porn stars are causing men pain and suffering!!  We need to save these men from those heathens!!

This type of mentality already exists regarding prostituted women. The term “prostitution” is revealing in itself because it only speaks about the act of women prostituting themselves and not the men who drive the demand due to their own misogyny and idea that they can purchase females like commodities to rape for money.  Prostituted women are demonized and blamed for tempting men to do evil things. The men aren’t looked at or blamed for their actions and most of the time, they aren’t held responsible legally either.  This is a tradition in patriarchy to blame women for male sexual perversions.  I don’t know what the answer is within the patriarchal frame, but I do know that continuing to claim that men are victims to their misogynist choices is not the answer.  This stance has never helped to solve the epidemic of prostituted, sexually trafficked (including in pornography) girls and women who are used and abused and thrown away like used condoms, but instead has only made it worse for them.  These girls and women are the patsies in the bigger scenario, a smoke screen to keep us from looking deeper at the real problem–the socially condoned inhumane treatment of females.

Perhaps we  should wake up and begin to realize that we live in a very unhealthy environment, especially for women and children, that perpetuates violence against females due to its hyper masculine, hierarchical, monetarily driven infrastructure.  That our ideals are warped and that our disrespect for women is systemic.  Perhaps we should focus on criminalizing the making of pornography and help the victims to get out by monetarily and emotionally supporting them?  We need to realize that girls and women because of limited financial choices and support and the perpetual ingrained idea that they are nothing but sex objects, that their worth is sex, nothing more, are being coerced into pornography. That especially vulnerable girls and women are being groomed by manipulative pimps into a life of sexual enslavement and despair.   They are the victims here, not the men who claim to be “addicted” to porn.  Let’s heal the real disease here—PATRIARCHY.  If we as a society really gave a shit about women we would stand up and say, enough is enough and stop it in its tracks instead of debating whether or not men are addicted to porn.

If we did not live in patriarchy and its capitalist, military environment and were all born equal regardless of our sex and allowed to be emotional human beings without being forced into gender roles and heterosexuality, both sexes could be healthy, non violent and respectful of each other. Further, the idea of prostitution, trafficking and pornography would be completely frowned upon because the entire society, all human beings would never allow such disrespect. Since we understand historically that testosterone in the peach tree dish of patriarchy can limit empathy in males then we would keep this in mind and never promote the hyper testosterone ideology that we currently do in patriarchal societies. Further, we might also ensure that all leadership has equal amounts of females and males or even better and safer, more females than males because we know that the male propensity towards domination and violence is something we must be leery of. We’ve seen it in action.

Unfortunately, our hyper masculine culture serves the elite and because one of the handy dandy symptoms of hyper masculinity is fear and because fear of violence promotes hyper consumerism this will not change until we dismantle the current leadership which are predominantly males who have all the money.  Since at least the USA is completely run by money, this will not be an easy task and further, because pornography is monetarily lucrative, eliminating it will be difficult—-but we must try.  If we focus on pornography as an addiction that is harming men, then nothing will change except more pain and suffering for females and more of the same attention on males. If we focus all of our energy on pornography as a symptom of a larger disease and work on dismantling patriarchy, we can save all of humanity.

Patriarchal Heterosexuality–Nature, Nurture or Disorder?

28 Apr

If heterosexuality was expressed in a non patriarchal, male dominated scenario, heterosexuality may have merit, but as it stands, existing within the confines of patriarchy, we must question it completely. Why do women want to be with men knowing what we know about men? Knowing that all men disrespect and hate women most of the time? Seeing the devastating results of male violence against women historically and currently? Seeing men dominate, oppress, violate and murder women? We must ask ourselves is our heterosexuality healthy or is it an adapted survival behavior in response to male violence against females? Since we don’t have any frame of reference for healthy heterosexuality where women and men are both respected free and equal human beings and similarly, we don’t have any frame of reference of a type of heterosexuality that exists without the component of male violence against women, we cannot come to the conclusion that patriarchal heterosexuality is normal, healthy or natural.

When women against all logic and evidence, continue to have relationships with men, regardless of how they treat us, we must conclude that there is another mechanism in play here. When we begin to question heterosexuality, I mean really question it and dismantle it within the patriarchal confines, we expose the insanity of women “choosing” to be with men on male merit alone because the hard truth of the matter is that men don’t deserve women on merit alone. Consequently, this insane need for women to be with men begins to reveal itself as a symptom or reaction to the conditions of female enslavement and victimization. A means for surviving male violence. This becomes even more evident when you read the symptoms of oppressive/dominant relationships and how the behaviors of subservience are exactly the same behaviors as femininity. That even men display “feminine” behaviors when they are dominated. What if women have adapted to male domination and violence by “sleeping with the enemy”? By getting close to their captors in an effort to be able to control their environment or to curtail male violence? We need to start asking ourselves these questions so that we can begin to analyze our relationships with men if we ever want to have healthy ones or further, decide not to.

If we do this, analyze our desire to be with men, we may find that there is no good reason. That our relationships are not based on reciprocal respect, but instead based on our own terror. Our individual man could be to us, a life preserver amongst a sea of potential male predators. We may find that on the surface we kid ourselves into believing that we need them or want them but underneath this surface level, we see that this is just a band-aide covering up our terror from the inherent memory, cell memory, of our violent enslavement at the hands of men. There is ample evidence that connects feminine behaviors especially in our relationships with men that mimic the behaviors of victims of Stockholm’s Syndrome.

Another factor involved here is that most male violence against women including rape is done by the men that women know or have relationships with, not by strangers. The nuclear family is the playground for male violence due to the isolation of women under the roof and control of individual men. We are constantly inundated with threats of violence from male strangers, but the truth is this compared to non stranger male violence is rare. I believe the reason for this is that patriarchy has a stake in keeping women terrified of the strange man out there, outside our safe homes, because this terror keeps women in their place, within the confines of the nuclear family, the individual man and of patriarchy on a societal level. Women then cling to their “men” in an effort to stay safe from the strange violent males–out there. Women stay in abusive relationships because they have Stockholm’s syndrome, not because they are stupid or because they like it. She is merely trying to survive violence in the best way she knows how.

Women learn to see themselves as inferior and men superior because they must put themselves in their captors shoes to be able to feel safer to be able to figure out when an if he will be violent and try to curtail his violence. This is why women tend to dislike themselves and other women because they are seeing themselves through the dominant male eyes. Women then see themselves and other women as weak, stupid, petty and deserving of male punishment, yet another reason why women tend to like men over women. And this is also why women tend to compete with other women when it comes to male attention. Patriarchy teaches women this lie, that men are important and women are not; therefore, to be important, women must be with men thereby getting attention or importance through osmosis. All of these factors play into what we know as “heterosexuality” and all of these factors also play into the reasons for why we think heterosexuality is necessary. If we take these factors and or reasons out of the equation, would we be heterosexual? Would women want to be with men?

Swimming with Sharks

1 Nov

I was thinking about the question; do women in patriarchy oppress other women? My answer would be no because women unlike men do not have the social or economic status to be able to oppress other women in patriarchy;  however, there are a lot of women who dislike women and there is a good reason for this.  Today’s females are mere surface reflections of who they could be. A female’s natural state of being was stolen by men and replaced with a male prescribed female who is by design dependent on men. Because of this theft, the theft of the authentic female, females are only fragments of who they could be — their power as autonomous females is buried underneath the male prescribed female — the false female. Because of this, females hover on the surface, like wounded sharks who wash in with the tide, too exhausted to resist. Sharks naturally swim freely in the depths of the ocean, except when they are wounded, they wash up on the shore and attack whatever or whoever they come in contact with. Females similarly are operating on the surface of who they are, attacking inwardly and outwardly themselves and other females because other females are a mirror image of their own wounds, their own imprisonment and their own surface fraudulent selves.

Females who are born into patriarchy have a constant fight within themselves. There is a voice deep within their depths that comes from their authentic selves that is being smothered by the male voices — the patriarchal voices, that comes from their fraudulent selves. This produces a feeling of suffocation and a constant level of anxiety. Most females because of all of these factors then have to differing degrees a form of self hatred that they project outwards towards other females. This self hatred comes from a deep knowing that they are harboring a fugitive, their own authentic self. In addition, females have been taught to fill the emptiness where their authentic self should be with men therefore men are not only needed but a matter of life or death. Females defend males in this atmosphere because they have learned to do this out of survival and because they have been taught and therefore are afraid that without men and the male prescribed female, they would be completely empty, without any identity, any self worth. So by defending men, they defend themselves or what they think is themselves, unknowingly, defending a false self that is the real enemy. This is a form of Stockholm’s syndrome and all females born into patriarchy suffer from this to varying degrees.

That said, of course all females are individuals bringing to the table their own experiences and baggage therefore with the above in mind, at the starting gates, females are flawed, not because they are inherently flawed, the idea that we are also force fed by patriarchal religions, but because of patriarchy and the male prescribed dependent female that all females have been force fed. Because of this, all females end up being addicts, addicted to the male gender. Then on top of this, females also have nature/nurture to contend with. They are genetically linked to their parents and they are also nurtured by their parents; therefore, depending on these variables, they become who they are and they pass this onto their young. If for example a female is born and then she is force fed the male prescribed female and then abused physically and sexually, we then have a female who has all the odds against her, a recipe’ for disaster or catharsis, depending on the female.

The norm however, the foundation for all females is the male prescribed female and this alone, the theft of the authentic female, has been and continues to be devastating.  Consequently, because of this devastation, she lashes out at her sisters. We can expect this. The only weapon we have as females is our courage and tenacity to gain buried knowledge without and within ourselves. We need to use knowledge as a beacon to light our way though the labyrinth, beyond the male prescribed female, into our own internment and to ultimately free our authentic selves. We have to dig until our fingers are bloody to get to Her. Then once She is free. Once She is whole again. Once She is in love with Herself again, She will naturally be connected in love with Her Sisters.

Michele Braa-Heidner

Let’s Play Name the Perpetrator!

7 Oct

The following list is from http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/domestic-violence-statistics/.  I am posting this list to point out a magicians trick, a slight of hand that plays out every day in patriarchy-land. It’s a game called– Never name the male perpetrator–and it’s playing near you!  Critics call it  a mind numbing brigade of  benign abstract terms to distract you from what is behind the curtain, which just happens to be the truth!

HOWEVER, because today is NO BULLSHIT day, we are going to play a different game called;  Name the perpetrator!

Instead of saying this:

  • Every 9 seconds in the US a woman is assaulted or beaten.  

Say this:

  • Every 9 seconds in the US a man assaults or beats a woman.

Instead of saying this:

  • Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. Most often, the abuser is a member of her own family.

Say this:

  • Around the world, men beat & coerce into sex and otherwise abuse one in every three women during in her lifetime, most often, the male abuser is a member of her own family.

Instead of saying this:

  • Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women—more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined.

Say this:

  • Male  domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women—more than car accidents, muggings and Male rapes combined.

Instead of saying this:

  • Studies suggest that up to 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence annually.

Say this:

  • Studies suggest that up to 10 million children witness some form of male domestic violence annually.

This one’s OK:  

  • Nearly 1 in 5 teenage girls who have been in a relationship said a boyfriend threatened violence or self-harm if presented with a breakup.

This one’s OK:

  • Every day in the US, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends.

Instead of saying this:

  • Ninety-two percent of women surveyed listed reducing domestic violence and sexual assault as their top concern.

Say this:

  • Ninety-two percent of women surveyed listed reducing male domestic violence and male sexual assault as their top concern.

Instead of saying this:

  • Domestic violence victims lose nearly 8 million days of paid work per year in the US alone—the equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs.

Say this:

  • Male domestic violence victims lose nearly 8 million days of paid work per year in the US alone—the equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs.

Instead of saying this:

  • Based on reports from 10 countries, between 55 percent and 95 percent of women who had been physically abused by their partners had never contacted non-governmental organizations, shelters, or the police for help.

Say this:

  • Based on reports from 10 countries, between 55 percent and 95 percent of women who had been physically abused by their male partners had never contacted non-governmental organizations, shelters or the police for help.

Instead of saying this:

  • The costs of intimate partner violence in the US alone exceed $5.8 billion per year: $4.1 billion are for direct medical and health care services, while productivity losses account for nearly $1.8 billion.

Say this:

  • The cost of male  intimate partner violence in the US along exceed $5.8 billion per year: $4.1 billion are for direct medical and health care services, while productivity losses account for nearly $1.8 billion.

This is OK:

  • Men who as children witnessed their parents’ domestic violence were twice as likely to abuse their own wives than sons of nonviolent parents.

The term “Domestic violence” completely denies the existence of the person who is doing the violence and makes it sound like women are getting beaten by their laundry detergent.  Instead of calling it “Domestic violence” , we should call it “Male domestic violence.”  Further, terms like “The war on women”, “Violence against women” and so on, act like smoke screens to hide what is really going on. They talk about the female victims and not the males who victimize them. They make it seem like some abstract phenomenon is killing women;  “Domestic, “the war” or “violence” hangs there detached without even a hint or suggestion that there is an arm attached to a hand that is attached to a hammer that is attached to a man that is systematically bludgeoning women.

We do this because of the false, misguided and utterly ironic idea that we need men to help us fight against the “war on women” and “violence against women”. We do this because we presume that if we never actually point the finger of blame at men for their “war on women” and their “violence against women” they will then join us in our fight against these mysterious female maladies. We don’t name the male perpetrator because we believe that if we do, we will alienate men and without men, we can’t win the fight. This of course is another patriarchal slight of hand, a lie and complete mumbo jumbo.  Continuing the denial in order to spare male feelings in an attempt to recruit them into the cause, has only harmed the cause by making it a female problem, instead of a male violence problem. This is the irony. If men continue their denial, and if we continue to walk on eggshells around the truth, this in and of itself thwarts attempts to solve it.  If we have to propagate a lie to get men to help, this is a problem in itself, because if men aren’t able to admit that it is a male problem and not just a female problem, then they continue to be the problem.

  • We can’t fix the problem by denying the problem.
  • We can’t fix the problem with the problem.

 

Michele Braa-Heidner

Patriarchy + Fear + The American way of killing + Males + Mental Illness + Testosterone = Mass Murder.

25 Jul

Michael Moore wrote this article analysing what he thinks are the reasons for the Colorado mass murders, titled “It’s the Guns–but We All Know It’s Not the Guns”,  http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10522-its-the-guns-but-we-all-know-its-not-really-the-guns#.UBBF5YII9MM.facebook

Much like the movie “Bowling for Columbine” he comes to the same conclusion, that it is the American way of fear mongering which leads to a lot of gun violence.  That our political arena and mass media pumps out fear on a constant basis and shows us very prompt ways to feel better, to not be so afraid, to not feel like a victim, to pick up a gun and blast away at what you are afraid of. I usually like Michael Moore’s analysis, and I equally liked “Bowling for Columbine” however, he is no different than other non-feminists, especially men, who will not do a thorough analysis looking at all variables such as patriarchy and eliminating variables that are not a factor such as females out of the equation of male violence. Mass murder sprees like the one at the movie theater have never been committed by women– never. Gun deaths in America are mostly committed by men, some say the statistic is as much as 97%. So if the American way is killing what you fear and using guns is just convenient, then why has this  affected men 97% of the time and women 3%?  Why aren’t we looking at this disparity and using it in our analysis instead of lumping females into male categories, deeming them guilty by association for male violence?  Predominantly, historically, it hasn’t been human nature to kill, but instead male nature. Within human nature there is also female nature and her nature has proven to be nonviolent. Even though this fact is glaringly obvious, written in all of our historical documents, we as a society do not consciously recognize it as true. Why?

I believe one of the reasons is that we don’t separate female behavior out from male behavior because in patriarchy males are the default gender representing both genders and females and their behaviors including nonviolence, are obscured behind males and their behaviors including violence. We all have this mentality and because we think this is normal, we do not question its validity. It is men who do most of the killing worldwide and yet this is never mentioned and this article is no different. How can we fix the problem if we don’t name the perpetrators? If most gun deaths are committed by men and fear + the American way of killing is to blame for this, then why are men the only ones affected by this phenomenon? Normally Michael Moore will look at all of the variables but in the case of looking at men solely as the problem, he falls short and this is the norm in our society. He writes an article about how it isn’t guns, and goes onto surmise that it is the American Way of killing out of fear that is the culprit; however, he doesn’t take his research even further. Why? Why not include and eliminate all variables? Why not get to the  bottom of the analysis, to the Naked Truth? Perhaps he too, like all of us sheeple who have been socialized in patriarchy, is brainwashed into believing that patriarchy is the only type of society and that the male gender is the only gender that matters;  therefore, he never even considers females or their behavior in his analysis at all.

If Moore did do a thorough analysis, he would add in patriarchy, a male dominated society with a dominant masculine culture, he would then need to ask the question; how does a patriarchal society that is based on masculine ideals play into this? Who is pumping the American people full of fear and images of shooting the enemy? If our government & political system & our mighty corporations are all predominantly run by men who have masculine, violent, greedy and sinister intentions to control the American people, then patriarchy and the imbalance of female energy could play a significant role in this problem. If we then take it down to an individual level, the man who committed mass murder, could it be mental illness? And if yes, why don’t females with the same mental illness go on mass murder sprees? Could it be because males are socialized to be violent outwardly and females are socialized to be violent against themselves? Therefore if men have mental illnesses, they would reach for guns and commit mass murders and females would try to harm themselves? Could testosterone play a role as well along with the mental illness? Since males have mostly testosterone and females very little, could the mental illness and the testosterone be an issue, especially at the age of both shooters (and most mass murderers) when their testosterone was at the highest (in Colorado for example, at Columbine and at the movie theater), could this have played a part? Or could it even be the fragile male ego and insecurities, lack of emotional development on top of the rest of issues? Do all of these factors add up to a perfect storm; patriarchy + fear + the American way of killing + males + mental illness + testosterone  = mass murder?

If that is true then what is the reason for male violence worldwide? Why is there an epidemic of male violence against females? Why is the male gender so violent? Because we aren’t looking at variables such as patriarchy and eliminating variables such as women in trying to figure out these mass murders and for most of the violence on planet earth, we continue to be impotent in finding a solution. By looking at patriarchy and the imbalance of female input into patriarchal societies, which would be nonviolent solution making and cooperation, we ultimately have societies like America that have an epidemic of gun shootings predominantly committed by men.