TRUTH HURTS

When I first read this post, on the blog Arooo, I had objections to it,

however, I have come to the conclusion,

especially since reading the Bible again,

this woman, is RIGHT,

its sad, but she's right.

no matter how you look at it, any compromise with patriarchy, means, perpetuating oppression,

that includes, yes, relationships with men [marriage esp].

From a Biblical perspective, I think its important to remember, man ruling over women, came AFTER the Fall,

not before, AND, in Heaven, there is neither male or female, all are one in Christ,

there is also, no marriage or given in marriage.

Lately, I've been really struggling with the Bible, patriarchy, and there is no denying it, even in the NT, there is the perpetuation, of patriarchy,

whether intended or not, its THERE.

Why?

I think, because we are under sin and this is the world, under the rule of Satan,

Satan, is the god of this world, God may be in control, Sovereign, but Satan is the god of this world,

because this world is under 'sin'.

Patriarchy, is SIN,

it is not, the ideal plan from God, IF IT WERE, THEN THE SCRIPTURES WOULD SAY, WHERE JESUS SAID,

ABOUT MARRIAGE, JESUS WOULD HAVE SAID INSTEAD, WHICH HUSBAND THE WOMAN WOULD BE MARRIED TO, OR THAT SHE WON'T ENTER HEAVEN, Jesus didn't say that, He said,

they are neither married or given in marriage. In other words,

patriarchy, won't be in Heaven, nor will there be, Male supremacy, in ANY FORM.

There also, won't be gender, as we know gender...at least, I don't think.

Because Jesus also said, we'd be like the angels...

secondly, IF patriarchy was to be Heavenly, it wouldn't say, 'there is no male or female, greek nor jew, in Christ Jesus.

It would say, there would be, males, females, in a particular order,

but the Bible doesn't say that,

so, patriarchy, is the sin, order, hierarchy of a FALLEN WORLD,

in the meantime however, are we to perpetuate it?

I've been asking myself this, a lot....plus, there is no denying, patriarchy, even the most paternalist in the kind way...still, perpetuates and abuses, women, girls,

all over globe.

so, I am posting [pasting] this article here,

while, I do think, there can be a dangerous extreme [misandry leading up to killing men], and that, yes, it excludes, I think, women who are in relationships with men,

I do have to say, on so many points, this woman, is exactly right, its Truth,

its Truth that hurts, to the core...

question is, what in the hell, do we do about it, in the meantime?

article:

This should probably have been my first post here, but you know what they say about hindsight and all that. So, just to clarify about my blogging intentions, the place I'm coming from is a radical/separatist feminist one. Radical feminism is actually not all that dynamic a philosophy, for good or for worse, so there are some givens about my perspective that are not up for debate now and never will be. Here are a few:

1. Men, as a class, have power over women, as a class. Classes are comprised of individuals. So, individual men have, as a result of being part of class-man, power over individual women. I will not debate this fact in any of my threads.
2. Heterosexual intercourse is integral to maintaining this uneven power distribution between men and women. There can be no equality so long as boys and men are encouraged to see the bodies of girls and women as tools for their own sexual enjoyment. Men using women's and girls' bodies as masturbatory meat socks falls into that "tools for their own sexual enjoyment" category. Any pleasure a woman might get out of it is secondary and therefore not anything I'm willing to devote any time or attention to. Penis-in-vagina intercourse supports male supremacy. End of story. I will not entertain trains of thought that do not start from that premise.
3. Women who do not fuck men are not in any position of power with regard to women who do fuck men. I will not tolerate (any more) comments about "forced lesbianism," "forced celibacy," "forced confiscation of tampons," or any other ridiculous caricatures of the concerns and agendas of women who do not fuck men. Any suggestion that non-heterosexual (as in, not fucking men; "bi-sexual" women are heterosexual for my intents and purposes) women are in any way "fascist" or "oppressive" will only serve to mark you as a homophobe. No one is coming to take that cock out of your cunt. No one is coming to take any of your phallic symbols away. So, stop running around like my mere conversation about this stuff is encroaching on your right to get a good penile skewering whenever you want one. Plenty of men are ready and willing to fuck you and hate you for it under the current circumstances. So you're in luck. You're on the winning team. And there are plenty of other places on the internet for you to go and celebrate your hetero-fucking victory. Go you!
4. Gender is not real. No one has a gender innately. Human personality has nothing to do with genitalia. A person can like fashion without being "female" in some way as much as a person can like tools without being "male" in some way. Comments that seek to entrench the sexual polarization of what are in actuality *human* traits will not be received gladly. These include appeals to such queer notions as "femininity," "masculinity," "butchness," "femmeness," and "androgyny" as they apply to individual human aesthetics, likes, dislikes, strengths, and weaknesses. If some made-up gender is a near and dear part of your identity, you will not enjoy what I have to say on the topic. And I don't care.
5. Sex is real, which makes it different than gender. Only a female person can give birth, for example. That doesn't mean that all female people are defined by the process of bearing children, but it does mean that anyone giving birth is necessarily female.
6. Sexism, itself, affects some women more than others (This is one of my own and isn't necessarily part of a radical feminist philosophy. Yet. :D):
-Poor women. Poor women are exploited by men of all classes. Haitian and Thai children are being chewed up and spit out by a global often-pedophilic rape trade fueled by wealthier (whiter) Western men, after all. And while it could be argued that those children would be raped anyway, by "their own" men, I feel compelled to point out that Western children have to worry about that too. And yet they remain largely free from the extra exploitation that is tourism-sanctioned trafficking of the bodies of globally poor women and girls. So, yeah, the poverty is compounding their sexual abuse beyond what it would be if there was no "third" world.
-Disabled women. Plenty of men who don't have the guts to rape fully able-bodied women will turn to nursing homes and psychiatric institutions in order to cull the weakest women for sexual abuse. A man who rapes able-bodied women might also rape disabled women, but a man who specifically targets disabled women is likely not going to take his chances on a more physically/mentally stable woman. So, again, the disability compounds that which any woman or girl in other circumstances might have to contend with.
-Racially disadvantaged women. The most racially disadvantaged woman is ALWAYS the darkest-skinned, kinkiest-haired woman available. Now, not every locale has black women available to occupy this place on the totem pole, but never fear! She doesn't actually have to be or identify as black. This is why dark-skinned, curly-haired Aino Japanese people and Fijians are so vilified in Japan, for example. It's why skin-lighteners are so popular in South Asian countries. It's why part-white people all over the globe occupy a higher place in society than fully nonwhite people. And we all know that lighter-raced men rape darker-raced women all the time while calling those women "ugly" and "undesirable" in order to deflect negative attention.
-"Ugly" and "undesirable" women. This is a little different than, but related to, race. Women who are considered "ugly" or "undesirable" by whatever culture-specific criteria reigns wherever you are - are routinely raped and sexually abused with impunity. Why, after all, wouldn't an "ugly" or "undesirable" woman be grateful for any male attention she could possibly get?
-Gender non-conforming women. Any female person not visibly and obviously marking herself as female is persecuted for it, no matter what culture you're talking about. This only serves to reify women's subordination. Imagine if the only real way to tell a person's sex was to ask directly! Why, men would have to approach female people as if they might be male, which is the same thing as having to approach them as if they are human. Now, that's *real* transgression of gender.
7. Finally, the only "agency" women can be said to have in patriarchy is to serve male interests or not serve them. And that's not much of a choice, so "agency" seems like a bit of a stretch in such a scenario. If you're intent on maintaining the delusion that you just do whatever you wanna, without any influence from the society at large and misogyny in particular, may your dope always be potent and plentiful.

I hope that this list of givens will help future conversations go smoothly and get us all started on the same page. When I said I've always been a radical feminist at heart, I meant it. And I'm not going to stop being a radical feminist just because you personally *like* sucking dick/being fucked/putting Nigel's dinner on the table/smearing colored carcinogens on your face/stripping/bleaching/waxing/shaving/burning, conking, blow-drying hair straight/boob jobs/labiaplasty/etc. Thanks.
Posted by MargaretJamison at 10:30 AM
Labels: Margaret Jamison, Radical Feminists, Radicalism, Sexism

see link-site here: http://egarooo.blogspot.com/2008/12/givens.html