Learning about how our culture operates is critical for enlightenment and understanding. Jill from I Blame the Patriarchy shares her view on consent within the culture. In this case, a simple link would not do, as I want to copy/paste this concise definition in another spot on the internet, maybe pissing off some MRA’s in the process.
“For it is the stated position of the Savage Death Island Chapter of Spinster Aunts International that, in a patriarchy, “consensual sex” (between women and dudes) doesn’t even exist. This is because, in a patriarchy, agency is not conferred equally upon women and dudes. This untoward circumstance creates a contingency wherein the notion of consent is, for women, entirely non-substantive, a figment, a desperate fantasy invented to obscure the true nature of women’s status as the sex class. The true nature of our status as the sex class is, by the way, that we are imprisoned in a rape continuum. This continuum ranges from the “voluntary” performance of femininity (which quantifies women’s usefulness to men), to compulsory heterosexuality (which ensures availability to men), to pornography (which eroticizes inequality), to violent sexual assault (which is at the apex of the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women).
Wait. What?
The issue of consent — or, more precisely, the idea that women are considered by both custom and law to abide in a persistent state of always having given consent — is the absolute crux, nub, hub, axis, polestar, and epicenter of women’s oppression. The thing is, women can’t freely give consent because women can’t freely withhold it. “Consent” is a meaningless concept in the context of women’s reality.
In a patriarchy, women are, at essence, considered to be giant vaginas with the word “YES” stamped all over’em in red. Because of the sex-based power discrepancies inherent in our social structure, members of the sex class — that is, women — are always “yes” unless they specifically, adamantly, and in front of 3 witnesses with video cameras, say “no.” But even when “no” obtains, other (subjective and arbitrary) factors are almost always seen as mitigating it into a “yes.” Such as not saying “no” loud enough, not fighting back physically, being the dude’s girlfriend, or wearing a tight sweater.
Thus, as I have written elsewhere, “consent” in the context of bumpin’ uglies is nothing but a binding contract the terms and conditions of which exclusively describe male use of women as receptacles. As we have seen, the tactics that may be used to obtain this contract do not exclude coercion, drugs, or fraud. Once obtained, the contract is non-revocable.
Not your Nigel, though, right? It is absurd, as Jezebella suggests, to posit that all women who do it with dudes are “victims of rapey disrespect,” right?
Well, if your enlightened, feminist Nigel has never coerced you, then your Nigel, in the sweaty throes, has never said to you, when you were ready to stop, “no, wait, I’m almost there.” Or you’ve never closed your eyes and thought of England because you knew you’d hurt his feelings if you said no.
Lucky you.
But maybe you have complied in such situations, only you don’t consider those little things “coercion.” Maybe you think you were just doin’ him a solid. Letting him use you as a toilet shows how much you love him.
OK, but if one agrees that male privilege exists at all, and that this privilege is conferred upon every male person by law and custom and is his identity, and that this privilege afflicts all other aspects of human interaction, it would be nonsensical to assert that sex is the only behavior that escapes the taint. Rarely, if ever, does there saunter along a dude-paragon who never wields his privilege.
And you know one of the provisions of this privilege dictates that dudejaculation is the only natural and lawful fulfillment of the consent contract “negotiated” with a giant Yes-vagina.
The “rapey disrespect” to which Jezebella alludes may be thought of as male privilege that is brought to bear whether or not the male in question specifically intends to bring it. One aspect of this privilege is, as yttik suggests, the cavalier attitude dudes assume when it comes to pronging women. And as we have seen, privilege expressed by the privileged is experienced by the non-privileged as oppression. And often, sadly, interpreted by the non-privileged as love.
Many straight women — especially those with substantial emotional and fiscal investments in the hetero-nuclear family scenario — fling turds at this analysis because it’s so bleak they just don’t want it to be true. I feel ya, but I’m not the one asserting all this stuff. Your male supremacist culture asserts it; I’m just a lone patriarchy-blamer who happened to notice.
So if you’re bummed, let me suggest a spot of feminist revolt; it’s the only cure for patriarchy.”
Thank you for putting it so depressingly clear Jill. IBTP.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
12 comments
August 2, 2011 at 9:22 am
Vern R. Kaine
Conceding the point that sometimes people don’t think enough, I think there’s definitely times where people think too much. This post seems to suggest that there’s some women out there micro-analyzing, second, third, and even tenth-guessing even their most basic emotional thoughts and actions. “I just kissed Hank. Was that consent or wasn’t it? Was I forced into that kiss because of the misogynistic rape culture that somehow made me feel obligated to kiss him? What does this mean for me? What does this mean for women? What does this mean for society? OMG…” How is that helpful? Too much thinking and talking leaves little room for actual action, and eventually people get tired of the dialogue and tune it out.
And “women and dudes“? If the article’s author can’t even invite and initiate a discussion without insulting men in the first five seconds, how does she (or this movement) ever expect to change anything? Through belittling and force? That would be pretty “male”.
If instead the dialogue was only meant for women, then I submit that the ultimate result from it will be no different than the closed-off, “the other side is evil” dialogue that remains just as ignorant and one-sided from some men.
Both of these reasons are why, I think, the “hard core” feminist cause has done little to nothing in the past 10 years and why it’s destined to get more of the same. Change in ANYTHING – business, relationships, life – simply does not happen when someone becomes addicted to being miserable and choosing to spend the bulk of their lives living in a place of perpetual blame and anger. I know this is a leap/assumption from a blog titled “I Blame The Patriarchy”, but take the reverse – what kind of life do you think a man leads if his blog is titled, “I Blame Feminism”? She “blames” the patriarchy? In my opinion she feeds it.
LikeLike
August 2, 2011 at 10:58 am
The Arbourist
I’m glad the post made you think Vern. Twisty (Jill) could be described as a radical feminist her points of view certainly are far from what is considered “mainstream” or “normal”. If they make one stop and ponder the institutional values that we have ingrained within our consciousness I would consider that a win.
She makes some very uncomfortable assertions Vern, I recommend you start with her FAQ and then take read the article thread on “Dear God, what about the men“.
If instead the dialogue was only meant for women, then I submit that the ultimate result from it will be no different than the closed-off, “the other side is evil” dialogue that remains just as ignorant and one-sided from some men.
From the FAQ
Q: Men experience [oppression/rape/porn/motherhood/PMS], too! What about them?
A: This blog is written for women. Its purpose is to advance radical feminism, not to empathize with male experience, or to coddle with delicate reassurances the male visitor who is threatened by a woman-centric zeitgeist.
Male experiences are not commensurate with women’s experiences because women are an oppressed class.
The first time I read IBTP I was thoroughly disquieted. It was a time when I had only the most basic of feminist theory under my belt and not much in the way of theoretical analysis. I have a little more theory now, and some of what goes on there makes sense to me now. I think much of the discomfort I felt when reading articles over there is that yes, indeed I felt very second class…kinda like how women are treated everywhere else. I’m not going to argue with you the value or the how or why IBTP works, but I would recommend reading it some more to try and get past the “oh this is such bullshite” phase because there are rewards to be had by persevering.
Change in ANYTHING – business, relationships, life – simply does not happen when someone becomes addicted to being miserable and choosing to spend the bulk of their lives living in a place of perpetual blame and anger.
The Tea Party just changed the course of the US by being willfully intransigent, miserable and steeped in perpetual blame and anger for Obama and his socialism…. just saying. ;)
LikeLike
August 2, 2011 at 4:24 pm
renetascian
I firmly see the position of imbalance in the nature of consent, sexualization, and the treatment of women in our society. I personally understand this first hand in the way that I am sexualized by others, or that the assumption is that “I put out” not only because I am a woman, but because I am “different” than the majority of women. No different than my intersexed compatriots victimized by a system that imprisons us with the heteronormativity of sexist patriarchy, who only cares what used to be between our legs. However, regardless of the express purpose of this message it is still wrong. It is an extremist view point and it’s analysis paints almost all men as rapists, and while it is right to feel that way it is wrong to present it as it does. Exclusively gay men and women have never participated in this culture in such a manner, and transgender, and intersexed people are also oppressed by the patriarchy for the above mentioned reasons and more.
It’s a harmful line of thought, and you can’t assume that people are going to realize that this is solely for women because you can’t limit the demographic viewing it as such. While the opinion is supported and right, it is inappropriate because it polarizes the issue and “In my opinion” is as dangerous because it doesn’t solve the problem. Rather it leads to a culture of demonizing others and track records of success in such extremely narrow ideologies are poor. More balanced and encompassing definition as well as more diplomatically balanced often are received better, and have more success. She could have wrote this differently, presented the same thoughts, and done so without such a hardline stance and had her point come across better. I understand her point, but her presentation makes such efforts futile. Why advocate for social change if your attitude and position facilitates opposition; which is henceforth counterproductive?
From on outsider’s perspective I could see readers interpreting her article as calling all men rapist (or most), and failing to address the broader issues and groups effected by sexist patriarchies, sexism, cissexism, and heterosexism (briefly mentioned in compulsory heterosexuality for availability to men) and such oppression which only serves to diminish her credibility, and make the scope questionable at best, extremist at worst. I can understand anger with the patriarchy, but no good sense in writing such diatribes as they can be self-defeating by nature. If you come off sounding like a crazy person no sane person is going to consider your perspective. Likewise, I know myself that I can be as guilty of being one sided in my approaches to such sensitive social issues, but I feel it’s important to consider the broader scope, not just that which applies to me individually. I consider how something effects me as well as how it affects others, and try to consider that in my point. Our sexist patriarchy doesn’t just discriminate against women, but also men whom for whatever reason fail, or refuse to meet it’s standards. Patriarchy is an enemy to all, not just to one side; even if many are riding the coattails of it’s privilege. It is an issue requiring redress, just not in such a manner (I.E. Not disagreeing with her, just with her scope and methods)
LikeLike
August 3, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Bleatmop
Arb – “The first time I read IBTP I was thoroughly disquieted. It was a time when I had only the most basic of feminist theory under my belt and not much in the way of theoretical analysis. I have a little more theory now, and some of what goes on there makes sense to me now.”
That reminds me of the first time I read feminism 101. I had a lot of WTF moments, but I’m glad I kept reading (insomnia has its advantages). I can see where Vern would probably take offense to
some of the thingsjust about everything at IBTP without having been properly prepared for that site. Understanding that IBTP is not intended to be an entry level discussion about feminist philosophy and more importantly that radical feminists don’t particularly care if they offend us menz’s delicate sensibilities when they discuss feminism and that our viewpoints are not particularly welcome either would be a good place to start.Personally, I philosophically disagree with IBTP on many items, though being a Liberal Feminist Ally and a reformist rather than a revolutionary is likely to cause that.
LikeLike
August 3, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Vern R. Kaine
I think much of the discomfort I felt when reading articles over there is that yes, indeed I felt very second class…kinda like how women are treated everywhere else.”
It’s unfortunate that you felt second-class before, or at times. I get where that can come from (although likely not to the same depth), however I still believe that some of that misery for people comes from simply staying there. There’s men that feel like second-class citizens, women as you say that do, people of other ethnic origins, people of other political persuasions. Again, if the goal is awareness and “food for thought” then I guess it’s all good, but as a vehicle for real change I think at best it just keeps people wrapped around the axle. Our heads could spin off going around the circle of who’s all felt like “less” when compared to others sometimes and I don’t think we’d really get anything accomplished.
Either way, I find it interesting where feminism attempts to seemingly fight fire with fire and attempts to throw the name-calling, degrading, anger, etc. back the other way. Whoever does, in my opinion, knows very little about male psychology as it’s certainly not the way to gain empathy or understanding. Instead, I think just keeps people into a circular argument and a fight that can never be one by either side.
“try and get past the “oh this is such bullshite” phase”
Actually, I wasn’t trying to criticize the argument in that way. I’m not threatened by her opinions at all – they’re opinions and i can see the validity to them even if I don’t necessarily agree. Although sometimes words will garner an immediate “fight or flight” reaction from me I can tell you that it rarely if ever ends there. I have no problem making the effort to see or try and think deeper into what’s written/posted.
LikeLike
August 4, 2011 at 10:06 am
The Arbourist
but as a vehicle for real change I think at best it just keeps people wrapped around the axle. Our heads could spin off going around the circle of who’s all felt like “less” when compared to others sometimes and I don’t think we’d really get anything accomplished.
I have not found many other sites that are as unabashedly feminist as IBTP. I consider if valuable because it is good to look into the debate of actual feminists to see what is bubbling and broiling and understand some of the theory that drives the movement.
Whoever does, in my opinion, knows very little about male psychology as it’s certainly not the way to gain empathy or understanding.
So perhaps Saddam Hussein should have just had a few more heart to hearts with GWG and all would have been good? :) Just kidding Vern, but do your really think that the majority of males really identify with a empathic approach when it comes to dealing with their privileged status?
I would bet that a majority would dismiss feminist concerns without a second thought, even contempt(I won’t give any link love to the Spearhead, apologies for the indirect link). Now I’m not saying that by default every male is a MRA, because that certainly is not the case, a stronger point would be that many males are not aware of their status in our society and exercise their privilege unknowingly. Watch privilege in action, you can see it when people are told they are being told they are “too sensitive” or “can’t take a joke” in the mild cases.
Actually, I wasn’t trying to criticize the argument in that way. I’m not threatened by her opinions at all – they’re opinions and i can see the validity to them even if I don’t necessarily agree.
Well you are one step ahead of me because I had a “this is such bullshite” phase and was offended in many ways about what was said over at IBTP in the beginning. I did, wisely, decide to lurk and not post and glean information about feminist concerns and realize (back at the time) that I had not taken the time to examine my privilege and recognize that I was not the all good Nigel for my partner. I’ve come a ways in that regard and know would probably count myself with Bleat as a liberal feminist ally, with the hedge that their is still much to learn and decode about the topic.
LikeLike
August 4, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“do your really think that the majority of males really identify with a empathic approach when it comes to dealing with their privileged status?”
Honestly, I do. Here’s the thing, though – am I really trying to gauge or pretend to know the attitudes/thoughts/intentions of every male on the planet collectively? That’s such a leap that the only way I can try to do it is by projecting my own views onto them and then fill in the blanks/assume based on that.
The second part of that is I believe we create our world and the size of it. I only have certain kinds of men and women in my social circles. The Saddam’s are well out of them. :) The guys I know and associate with on a regular basis are extremely empathetic. They are tremendous leaders and they understand their role in their family, company, and/or society, as I hope I do. Do I think I’m “privileged” as a male? Yes, in some ways, and to certain degrees – absolutely. There’s other ways, however, where I know I’m not privileged, and that others have more privilege or opportunity than I do because perhaps of their race, gender, religion, upbringing, etc.. I think the real question is not whether or not this privilege exists and should exist, but rather, what do people do when they have it?
Power should ultimately be used to serve the needs of the spirit, not the self. The people I know balance their privileges well between their needs for Growth and Contribution, so the “world” I live in with people of all types is a very pleasant and rewarding one to be in. The sense I get from the people who post these “victim” kinds of posts, however, is that they lead a life that is largely in turmoil or drama of some kind. They make their world so big that change is hopeless, and yet so small and selective that the hopelessness remains 100% of what they see and therefore “know”.
“a stronger point would be that many males are not aware of their status in our society and exercise their privilege unknowingly. Watch privilege in action, you can see it when people are told they are being told they are “too sensitive” or “can’t take a joke” in the mild cases.”
Not sure I understand this. You mean when women are being told they are too sensitive by men when guys are being dicks? I think part of the disconnect is when we talk about male privilege as though its the only privilege out there, or the most evil. People shouldn’t tell people they are too anything (loving italics today!). Women tell men they should be more sensitive, and less sensitive, or that they’re too sensitive, or etc. etc. etc.. Perhaps this is simply because in that moment the guy is being a wussbag and is being unattractive, or ineffective, or whatever. If a guy is telling a joke to a group of 10 people – five women and five men – and while four laugh with tears in their eyes one of the women gets offended by the joke, is he now “too insensitive”? Perhaps this is male privilege in action, or perhaps its just one woman with a bug up her ass who’s taken her weight of the world and all its wrongs and personified it in this one guy? I think what sometimes we might be calling male privilege in action could really be just one person not finding something harmless, or funny. I think a lot of it comes down to intent.
Well you are one step ahead of me because I had a “this is such bullshite” phase and was offended in many ways about what was said over at IBTP in the beginning.”
I doubt I’m one step ahead! Just a different perspective, perhaps, and of course her words by reason of gender alone would probably hit less close to home for me.
I appreciate what you said about your journey with her blog, and admire the self-reflection and “back checking”, (if you will) that you do. I think for me when i read things or look at things it really comes down to me asking myself if am I being ignorant of something that can improve my life. I read IBTP and I say, “No”, but that being said, IBTP is a woman expressing her feelings and to at least some extent, I think we have a responsibility as guys to listen and understand it unless it’s widely determined by all walks of life that she’s an absolute quack because of those roles in our relationships, family, company, society, etc. that I mention earlier.
Others may get from her blog that they’re not doing enough for the male cause, or the female cause, or that perhaps their personal boundaries/identity are as such that “male privilege” is something that in fact takes advantage of them as a form of self-abuse and holds them back from a more fulfilled life. They’ll use it either way to make their world more certain depending on the worldview that exists there already.
Ultimately I think we get what we focus on, and that’s why seemingly anti-gender posts like that which cast such a wide net or paint such a wide brush (pick your metaphor) concern me. If I start to believe that all women are gold-diggers, I can be certain that it would affect my discourse and actions so much that all of the great women in my life would no longer want to associate with me and what would then fill the vacuum would be gold-diggers, and based on my world, I’d be “right”.
Like I said before, I think there’s a different, better, and more effective approach at changing the views of men rather than what I see as some women trying to take on a “male” role and compete with male attitudes in a very male way.
Anyways, I’m rambling… appreciate the discussion and food for thought, as always.
LikeLike
August 4, 2011 at 4:28 pm
renetascian
I think it’s important to educate oneself on the smorgasbord of ideas to understand gender equality, and any approach that is intended at that end must focus on all topics which effect it. While I agree (partially because its for my benefit) that it is useful for men to know how to treat women with respect for those so oriented, I side more with Vern on this issue. IBTP doesn’t address gender equality as a whole. It doesn’t address the men who suffer in a culture for failing to conform to the “patriarchal proxy” for male gender norms (or who lack male privilege for psychological or physiological reasons), women and men who by default don’t fit heteronormativity (homosexuals, transsexuals, intersexed persons), nor issues of gender expression. Ultimately I would say that to end patriarchal oppression, that one must seek a state of gender equilibrium where people are treated as just that, people and not treated as just “a gender”. Reversing the profiles of privilege is just has bad, though it would obviously be in my favor if it did, and will continue the cycle of oppressed to oppressor.
Patriarchy and male privilege only rewards those corresponding with male gender norms, not necessarily all males. Because it is scapegoating of femininity and women that is the problem. Femininity – The sum of all attributes that convey (or are perceived to convey) womanhood. “Girls can wear jeans and… cut their hair short… wear shirts and boots – because it’s okay to be a boy. But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading; because you think that being a girl is degrading” – Cement Garden (movie). The issue lies within the perception of what femininity means, in at least some senses. Moreover, it’s not just the patriarchy that is the problem, but widespread sexism that also needs to be addressed to solve this problem. In some cases radical feminists are also sexist, and make note of social issues but do not evaluate how to fix the problem. I am fine with remaining more neutral on blogs that are just for venting, or for ones only personal need to journal internalized conflicts, but this is not the expressed purpose of her blog, rather it is a political statement.
As such I feel it is necessary to express the dangers in that kind of thinking through debate, and presenting other positions, ideas, and concepts for discussion. I think this is something Vern points to a bit. I understand her feelings, her position, and her logic, but believe that it’s quite frankly affront to true gender equality. I too blame the patriarchy, but I have learned that not all men are bad, and labeling all men as such is stereotyping which is adversarial towards her goals. Ignorance is the enemy of change and by proxy equality. What’s needed is education, open-mindedness, and willingness to respect all people the same. Like Vern said, “painting with such a wide brush” or stereotyping should concern you, and it is self-defeating. While the point in her blog is important, it is also important to view any idea with a scrutinizing, practical and logical lens and critical of (not ad hominem obviously) what needs critique, but still be able to highlight the essential idea. The validity of a position doesn’t suspend critical thought subjectively, rather it should do the reverse.
And yes, in my opinion, it is highly possible for many men out there to be empathetic to these ideas, as many men realize the fallacy of unrealistic gender stereotypes thus giving them up and allowing themselves to embrace concepts that would otherwise be foreign to them. Being vocal about issues, and giving awareness is all some men need to “see the light” but silence and dissent hardly do it justice. Give all an equal chance to understand first. Honey attracts more than vinegar. It’s best to not make enemies of your allies with blanket prejudices and statements I say, mostly in reference to radical feminist Blogs. You can either be very single focused dividing your support and chances of success, or be more balanced and multiply your of support and your chances of success with it. Abolishing patriarchy, sexism, and social gender norms is in the best interest of all people, not just women.
LikeLike
August 5, 2011 at 11:17 am
Vern R. Kaine
Renetacian,
“In some cases radical feminists are also sexist, and make note of social issuesbut do not evaluate how to fix the problem.”
Thank you for articulating part of my point much better than I can (something that happens often on this site!)
It’s best to not make enemies of your allies with blanket prejudices and statements I say, mostly in reference to radical feminist Blogs. You can either be very single focused dividing your support and chances of success, or be more balanced and multiply your of support and your chances of success with it.
I agree. I find it ironic that in those types of blogs men or women are screaming for “fairness” and “equality”, demanding the stereotype(s) be removed, and then they stereotype and vilify the “other side” as stupid, ignorant, and substandard to justify their pain.
LikeLike
August 5, 2011 at 11:18 am
Vern R. Kaine
*Renetascian (sorry for the misspell)
LikeLike
August 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm
The Arbourist
It’s best to not make enemies of your allies with blanket prejudices and statements I say, mostly in reference to radical feminist Blogs.
Is that not what being radical is about? Being nice and wanting to affect change society are not a very effective combination.
I find it ironic that in those types of blogs men or women are screaming for “fairness” and “equality”, demanding the stereotype(s) be removed, and then they stereotype and vilify the “other side” as stupid, ignorant, and substandard to justify their pain.
Perhaps their time would be better spent blaming themselves and working a little bit harder on their bootstraps so they can overcome their problems…
Ignorant is fair comment when it comes to fighting against systemic norms Vern, especially when said norms work in favour of a good chunk of society who have no reason to want to change the social order.
LikeLike
August 5, 2011 at 7:22 pm
renetascian
I am against political or philosophical radicalism as it lacks balance, and I can’t in good conscious agree with it considering the damaging effects of other radical doctrines. But you are right, that is what radical means, but tactics for successful social change is a matter of opinion. It’s about not alienating people who could be an asset to your cause. Many different types of people are not in favor of our current patriarchal system because of the blatant abuses of power, and inherently discriminatory nature of them. All I am saying is they should be more “inclusive, less radical” in order to better facilitate that change. No one should be forced to suffer under a tyrannical system, or be expected to be idle to their persecutors but there is a difference between advocating for change and trying to throw it into chaos.
But it’s each persons choice as to how and what they will fight for, but never forget the lesson. Radical philosophies are just as impractical as pacifistic ones because upheaval creates a redundant cycle of creation and destruction (set ’em up to knock em down). But there is a logical function for radicalism and all ideas to give insight and perspective to the more organized side of the movement with a better chance of being heard and more support. Mental fodder for the diplomats so to speak. Institution of radical philosophy is a kin to smiting an anthill with a nuclear weapon. Change is inevitable and necessary; however, too much is destructive, too little and it stagnates and stalls.
It’s important to understand that western culture has many interconnected forms of discrimination, and systems of domination and submission in which you may be oppressed in one context and privileged in another – also known as a Kyriarchy. It isn’t “male privilege” that is the problem, it’s “white, heteronormative, wealthy, US born citizen, male privilege” (in our country) to which very few are privy simultaneously. It is those privileged few that are primarily to blame, not all men or male privilege alone. A few men (I’d wager less than 20%) are to blame for more than 80% of our social issues of discrimination and oppression. However, all sides can tend to be “ignorant” of injustices respectively to others.
Fact of the matter is, that not all men are truly privileged and almost everyone has at least one privileged status. A woman could be privileged for being heterosexual, but be oppressed for being a woman; or a man could be privileged for being a man but oppressed for being an intersexed man. It’s a buffet of inequality, thus you can hardly ignore one in favor of the other. Rather we should all strive for a society that is fair for all, not just the few with the most power. Might does not equal right. If you’re a gay, interracial, intersexed, transsexual, poor, immigrant woman then you are in a truly unique and oppressed minority. Replacing our privileged patriarchy is in the best interest of more than just women, but only if we institute equality for all. Time would be better spent assessing and focusing the blame on the truly blameworthy, and putting aside personal prejudice. United we stand, divided we fall.
LikeLike