One hears quite a lot about male trannies being excluded from the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, but you never really hear much public discussion about the fact that males as old as TEN are allowed.
Girls four and under don’t even have childcare facilities separate from males in their age-group, but are instead lumped together with them as “Sprouts.”
Males as old as four are allowed free reign of the grounds, meaning that all attendees are at all times in the presence of males, including, of course, at the outdoor showers. It’s outrageous that girls would be expected to bathe with these males roaming around.
I should say that I’ve never been to MWMF, but my girlfriend and I have discussed perhaps going in the future. The one thing that causes us hesitation is the fact that boys 4 and under would be running around. In our day-to-day lives the only males we really have any contact with are the bratty 2- and 3-year-old sons of friends of ours. And we hate being subjected to the sight of their penises and just their overall male presence in general.
It is not ... feminist to subject daughters, one’s own or others, to males of any age given the frequency with which boys harass and abuse girls. One would also have to consider the male-supremacist implications of the general lumping of children of both sexes in with women as an inevitable grouping, even if those boys weren’t disruptive or abusive – but of course I haven’t seen any little boys refraining from misogynist abuse of little girls.
Sheesh! These "womyn" are scared of being oppressed by four-year-old patriarchalists. Imagine having to inhabit the head space of these lesbian separatist feminist womyn. Now that would be truly oppressive.
10 comments:
LOL, thanks for a much needed laugh! Some of these "womyn" really need a good dose of reality.
p.s. and the comments to that post are hilarious too!
The outward farce aside, this story isn't so funny when you ponder the horrid mental abuse to which Wimin feminist mothers subject their sons.
It's also evident in the multiple incidents, both anecdote and report, I have read or heard of young or middle-aged females openly reviling the chracteristics of boys, their great vivacity, activity and love of both making and destroying things (in their charming boyish way).
Little boys behaving as little boys enrages these harpies, and they aim their pent-up misandry at little innocents.
bh, yes the comments continue along the same theme, e.g. not wanting to be "tainted" by the presence of a young boy.
Hesper, my first reaction was to burst out laughing when I read the post but I did have the same afterthought as you, that some poor boys must be growing up sharing the same environment as womyn like these.
You put it very well when you wrote:
they aim their pent-up misandry at little innocents.
You can actually read those websites without vomiting?
Good discussion of single moms emasculating their sons here:
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2010/08/emasculated-by-mom/
Sounds well deserved to my way of thinking. It is the man-haters who have justified every evil done to men with the mantra, "Women and children."
Having taken ownership of boys, they now are stuck with them. Seems fair to me.
Anonymous age 68
Reading between the lines, it should be obvious why so few lesbians actually attempt to raise children. A woman can't hate men and boys with this intensity without also hating key parts of her own, womanly, nature. So the good news, such as it is, is that women/wimmen/womyn/whatever they call themselves are mules in the reproductive sense.
The bad news is they can, and shall, do a lot of damage to the children around them and any men they encounter in the mean time..."mean" in multiple senses of the word. The best thing that can be done for the son of a feminist is to keep him off of the ADD/ADHD drugs, because if he's clean of such things he can escape his matriarch to the Marines as soon as he's old enough.
It's also exquisite how they openly endorse their own naked biases by excluding transsexuals. Not that I'm a big supporter of transsexuals, but it's pretty odd for a bunch of feminists to be against transsexuals, given the whole "genderqueer" schtick and all that. As a result, this particular Womyn-born-Womyn gathering has a pretty noted reputation for being way, way out there, even for feminists, because the hatred for men is so naked, bare, obvious and embarassing for them.
One more thing, it is kind of interesting to see the feministas essentially rejecting any child that is male. It used to be a kind of "no dogs and males over 12" mindset, now they just don't want any boy cooties around at all. Including, as Novaseeker points out so well, even those men who have decided to be mutilated with surgery so they can play-act at being women.
IMO this is just showing the true colors of feminism: total rejection and hatred of anyone with a Y chromosome, full stop. This really is something more like Communism in outlook. We can't reason with such people. But we can make fun of them, and show their true nature to others, thereby working to marginalize feminists.
"Not that I'm a big supporter of transsexuals, but it's pretty odd for a bunch of feminists to be against transsexuals, given the whole "genderqueer" schtick and all that."
That's a good point, Novaseeker.
How does Autonomy Theory explain that? Their exclusion of male transsexuals amounts to an admission that the body has an essential (in this case, male) nature that cannot be altered by even an autonomous human will (e.g. mutilating your genitalia).
This means that they cannot really be liberals, i.e. Autonomists.
They must be true leftists. That is, their most basic goal isn't Individual Autonomy (equality of all wills), but Reversal. They want men (especially white, Christian straight ones, but also anyone else with the "wrong" equipment) at the bottom, not equal with themselves, like liberals. They don't want men to be equally autonomous with themselves; they want men to be inferior to themselves.
There's a good discussion on reversal at VFR here http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/017131.html
Post a Comment