Men the Problem, a Women-State

**Feckless** · 18th-June-2008

Here´s sth. I stumbled on while reading some of the blogs @ http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/

Men: The Problem

Violence and its effects are often painted as a human problem. Often we see it written as the “world’s” problem. Men are the victims of the “world’s” violence. It’s alright to put the gender of the victim, but usually the gender of the perpetrators is masked in words like “Society” and “world”, the idea being that people are not free agents of their society but act on behalf of its institutions, yet even in situations of individual crimes we see “one woman attacked” or “one woman killed”. The truth is, the perpetrators of violence, by in large, belong to 49% of the human population. They are men. Some would argue that men are the victims of violence most often, as well, and that this somehow offers a distinct advantage for females in their subordinate position. That is only if violence is necessary, and it is exactly the intent of men, of the Patriarchy (rulership of men) to make people believe that violence is necessary and human because violences makes men necessary. How does violence make men necessary? The exact position of men in relation to women outside of arbitrarily conceived societies is a marginal one at best. He is necessary only in so far as to impregnate the woman. You might say that the man is necessary to help the woman raise the child, but only if you are thinking out of your current Patriarchal mindframe. What about the women? Where are the women? It is not a man and a woman alone. It is a community, comprised of mostly women, because in the natural birth order, girls are born more often, so much more often, that in fact men probably do not, presently die often enough to actually represent what would be the natural female:male birth ratio and augment the destruction of females. This is a community of mothers, grandmothers, and sisters. So when we realize that YES women CAN actually help women (a novel idea in the female isolating Patriarchy. Think marriage) what then is the necessity of men? Men become necessary only when OTHER MEN enter the picture. If there was no such thing as violence and brute force, a man’s actual, natural position to the woman, the human species, and the human community is a marginalized one, as she carries the child, gives birth, and he does not. Men having no natural way to control their offspring/reproduction, have forever been trying to do just that, through society. Fighting is the one thing men can do that women cannot, though through institutionalized society men have come up with many things that men can do that women cannot. Fighting and violence remains the male salvation. If a man is attacking a woman, a man is necessary to save that woman. Barring advanced enough technology, if men are criminals, men must be police. So while men are lauded for their heroism, it is imperative to realize one thing:
Men are the enemies of women even when they are the heros. Most violence experienced by a woman is at the hands of a man and she carries this fear (of men) throughout her entire life. These are the faces of women who learn to smile at men when they are supposed to, because all men are possible threats to her. This is not the same as a man, who attacked by a man, is not attacked because of his gender. In that regard, men learn to respect other men, but rarely fear them, as women do. Violence is a way of men respecting men as men, and women fearing them, keeping them subordinated.
Men attack men. Men attack women. Man attacks man to save woman from man attacking her. In war men are attacking other men, on the orders of men. If war was really about one group of people with a serious problem with another group of people, there would not be rules of engagement made by men to keep war a male agenda. For instance, guerilla warfare, technology and merciless slaughter are particular things women could do and participate in effectively against men. Yet war exists because violence is necessary to keep men necessary and therefore in control. We can either try to stop violence directly, or we can try to stop it indirectly by getting men out of power. Both would solve the problem, but can we accomplish either?
If the enemy of woman is man, and the hero of woman is man, then the problem to me seems rather simple: man.
So what is the solution?
Separatism: The Solution
Feminism has gotten us pretty far in the reclaiming of fundamental human rights for women, but only as rights defined by men in a male dominated system. For instance we may have a right to use birth control and not get married but we still live in a society that denies women their grandmothers, mothers, sisters, in a female focused, female centric support system that would make bearing children not an encumbrance. Feminism in its quest for equality must realize that. It must realize that when we ask for “equal” rights we are not really achieving equality. We are achieving equality as defined by men. We may achieve the right to get paid, to hold a job and earn an independent income. But the whole system of earning incomes, holding jobs, and getting paid is one created by men with men in mind. This is not Feminism. Feminism must be about the ending of the oppression of women, which includes systems that have oppressed us for centuries, and not simply gaining equality within that system. This is where discourse about Feminist Revolution happens. According to Feminism there are two options, two solutions: Revolution or Separatism. Now we realize Separatism -is- Revolution. A violent upheaval of the Patriarchal system is not only inhumane, but it will not work. Rather, Feminists today see Separatism AS Revolution in action.
What is Separatism?
Separatism is an ideological state of total female separation from men. A woman-state. A woman-country. You will see it called this, even though “countries” and “states” are Patriarchal inventions. We can only go so far, even, in language to describe what would be the Feminist State. Separatism is expanding beyond having our own male-defined space in a male world. It’s making our own; our own female culture, and ways, away from men. Separatism does not oppress men. There are no men to oppress. Here it is useful to point out, and for Aych in particular, the difference between segregation and separatism. This is not a play on words, or a semantic difference. Segregation is the separation of another, usually oppressed group, done by the oppressing group because of the perceived differences in the oppressed group and is almost always to the benefit of the privileged group within its institutions: think Black bathrooms for Black people or Black people being forced to have Black schools instead of being able to attend White schools. An oppressed group actively choosing their own spaces away from the oppressed group for community, is not segregation. Separatism is the ultimate separating of women from men. Women leaving men. While a total female state this is the goal, the dream, efforts for women-spaces today is part of this movement as well as chosen celibacy or lesbianism. Women choosing to work with women, for women, around women, in active resistance to the Patriarchy: Revolution.

http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/...ut-separatism/

I really would like to see a Women-State. How many women will freely choose celibacy or lesbianism

?

Muhahahahaha stupid feminist....

**novaseeker** · 18th-June-2008

You have to love these self-annihilating diatribes. It seems lost on the quoted author that a universal adoption of her separatist "state" of chosen celibacy and lesbianism would result in the extermination of the species -- women as well as men. Talk about self-hatred!

The humorous thing in light of all of this misplaced anger (which we can see comes right back at women at the end of the day anyway) is the fact that the vast majority of women do not embrace it. The vast majority of women like sex with men, want to have children with men and the like. Heck, they even want to be considered sexy and attractive by -- yes, God forbid -- men. This steams feminists like this author to no end, but it is the reality of human life and will ever be thus. Most women no more want to live completely separate from men than they want to live in a cave on Mars. Perhaps that cave on Mars, though, would be a good place for the quoted author to live, together with her lesbian sisters and grandmothers and .. .oh wait ... without men there would be no sisters and mothers and grandmothers.

**Tyrael** · 18th-June-2008

I do support tube-child clinics in order to even the reproductive rights of men.

See this description of a tube child from the MMORPG Eve-Online:

Tube Child

Acutely away of the small population of the Caldari State in comparison with the sprawling Gallente Federation, the Deteis have for decades untilized artificial procreation to increase their population. These tube-children are then raises in inhospitable, State-run orphanages, making them tough and self-reliant.

That's not the idea though. It would replace natural pregnancy, lift this burden and ensure healthier offspring.

the perpetrators of violence, by in large, belong to 49% of the human population. They are men

This is due to the fact that men DO marry down and don't mind to have a girlfriend of a lower social economic level. Men offer these women shelter, food, comfort and more. This means the woman does not have to resort to crime, violence and such to make a living.

Since women in general don't marry or want a man of a lower social-economic level; many males who are in the lower tier do resort to crime and violence to survive, because the women don't offer them shelter, food etc.

A woman-state. A woman-country.

Back to the stone age? :P

Matriarchies have always been inferior to patriarchies, that's why they could not compete and faded away. Quote: When a nation goes feminine it disappears or it's destroyed by another nation that is more manly, patriarchal. Romans, Greeks etc. History proves it.

**Feckless** · 18th-June-2008

Well I guess its a win-win situation....put them away from society and they can pat themselfes on their shoulders and figure out how to build houses.

**Celtic Druid** · 19th-June-2008

Quote from Tyrael

Matriarchies have always been inferior to patriarchies, that's why they could not compete and faded away. Quote: When a nation goes feminine it disappears or it's destroyed by another nation that is more manly, patriarchal. Romans, Greeks etc. History proves it.

There's never been a single successful matriarchal society in history. It's just a fem/ale fantasy that has no correlation with reality.

Feminists are so desperate to push the matriarchy myth, they've actually engaged in historical revisionism to fabricate one.

Goddess Psuedo-History
Goddess Pseudo-History

**Captain Chunk** · 23rd-June-2008

I participated in a project in school in which we built countries. There were 24 students in the class divided into groups of three. Each nation was allowed to develop it's own way according to each team. The other 7 teams built their nations as pacifist socialist/communist wonderlands. My team ,made up of the three boys in the class, built a military powerhouse. We did all the extra credit to earn more points which we invested in military goods. We lied to the other teams about what we were doing. When the time came, we bulldozed the whole world in two class sessions, ending the game 4 weeks early in a glorious military oligarchy.
This was hardly scientific, but I challenge anyone to challenge this result. These women could build their utopic pacifist state, but in the end, someone will mow them down. Whether this comes from outside or inside, who knows? I'd vote inside. The worst fights I've ever seen are two women.

**Celtic Druid** · 23rd-June-2008

Quote from Captain Chunk

My team ,made up of the three boys in the class, built a military powerhouse. We did all the extra credit to earn more points which we invested in military goods. We lied to the other teams about what we were doing. When the time came, we bulldozed the whole world in two class sessions, ending the game 4 weeks early in a glorious military oligarchy.

Yes, it's not scientific, but it's pretty much what has happened for thousands of years throughout history.

**Celtic Druid** · 23rd-June-2008

I remember watching a documentary here in the UK on ch4 called "The day the earth died" which, through the use of computer simulations created a hypothetical scenario whereby the demise of humans came about.

It then set out to show how long everything would take to shut down, and the rate at which nature would begin to claw back it's domain. Apparently Hoover dam in the US could theoretically keep working for weeks, months, even longer without any human input. This concrete leviathan would be the last man-made mechanism on earth to utter it's last reverberating death knell.

I then thought to myself that the nightmare scenario painted, which was void of ALL humans and it's disastrous effects on the achievments of mankind - would be "exactly" the same if men disappeared and only women were left. This is the REALITY these man-hating gender supremacist fems would face.

**Aug9th-LiveOrDie** · 23rd-June-2008

those who hammer their swords into plows end up plowing for those who dont

**bachelor tom** · 23rd-June-2008

It's true that men are the majority perpetrators and victims of physical violence.

What they didn't say is that nature is violent, that's why we evolved the way we did.

**Feckless** · 23rd-June-2008

**FFFF** · 23rd-June-2008

I have heard that approximately 1/4 of females have an effectively male brain, so these are the women that will do the manly stuff when there is a male shortage.

They also tend towards lesbianism and probably I would think make up the feminazi front liners in many cases.

I dont think they are really ever going to take the world over though!!

They tend to be not that maternal and hence would rather other women breed for them!!

**Beohun72** · 24th-June-2008

Quote from Celtic Druid

I remember watching a documentary here in the UK on ch4 called "The day the earth died" . . .

That aired here in the US, it was called "After Man" if I remember correctly

**Celtic Druid** · 25th-June-2008

Quote from Beohun72

That aired here in the US, it was called "After Man" if I remember correctly

Thanks. I guess the US title is more apt "After Man."

**Incognito** · 25th-June-2008

Quote from Captain Chunk

I participated in a project in school in which we built countries. There were 24 students in the class divided into groups of three. Each nation was allowed to develop it's own way according to each team. The other 7 teams built their nations as pacifist socialist/communist wonderlands. My team ,made up of the three boys in the class, built a military powerhouse. We did all the extra credit to earn more points which we invested in military goods. We lied to the other teams about what we were doing. When the time came, we bulldozed the whole world in two class sessions, ending the game 4 weeks early in a glorious military oligarchy.
This was hardly scientific, but I challenge anyone to challenge this result. These women could build their utopic pacifist state, but in the end, someone will mow them down. Whether this comes from outside or inside, who knows? I'd vote inside. The worst fights I've ever seen are two women.

Interesting post.. seems to suggest that a peaceful state is likely to be viewed as a weak one, and is in danger of being over-run by a more militant, aggressive state. Makes logical sense. Sad, but logical.