Trigger Warnings

Some of my posts deal with rape and that means that bits of this blog may be triggering.

Friday, 28 February 2014

Forgetting the humanity of non-males

Poor old Harriet Harman, all her adult life she has worked for the rights of women and children and has actually been fairly effective in her own way, in promoting their interests.  And yet the Daily Mail has managed to run a smear campaign consisting of the ludicrous implication that she spent the seventies supporting and promoting the interests of child-rapists.

It’s clearly absurd, like the allegation that Marxist Milliband hated Britain and the implied conclusion that on the basis of the sin of the father, we shouldn’t vote for the son.  But the reason it was possible, is because of their wishy-washy liberal feminist outlook, rather than a more radical approach. 

The reason the National Council for Civil Liberties allowed the Paedophile Information Exchange to infiltrate them, is the same reason Amnesty International has allowed pimps to infiltrate them: both organisations have solid liberal values and of course most liberalism, like every other political idea except feminism, is dominated by male values and assumptions which see men as default humans and consign women and children to the almost but not quite human, so human rights relevant only to women (or women and children), are simply not relevant or indeed, necessarily recognised as basic human rights.  When liberals talk about human and civil rights, they don’t mean women or children’s rights, they only mean rights that affect adult men.  If those rights affect women too, then that’s fine and of course they agree that women should have access to those rights; but rights which affect only women (such as safe and legal abortion) do not have the sacrosanct position held by rights which also affect men.

Organisations which know that women and children are as human as men are not vulnerable to falling into the trap of allowing men who directly threaten the rights of women and children, to infiltrate them.  If the NCCL or Amnesty had been run by people who had a proper, radical feminist perspective on human rights and civil liberties, they would never have made the mistake of forgetting that women and children are human too and that their civil and human rights are as important as those of men. They would have instantly seen the arguments of the child rapists and pimps for what they are: the elevation of men’s right to sexual gratification no matter the cost to people other than men, at the expense of everyone else.

If you have never challenged the idea that the sexual expression of men at the expense of other people is a basic human right, then it is easy to become bamboozled by the libertarian arguments put forward by pimps and rapists. So much of the discourse about sex is about the right to sexual expression, but only within the confines of the sexual expression approved of by men.  Inevitably, where men set the parameters of sexual expression, it will evolve around their boners and their ejaculations.  In our society, many of them see women as useful applications to enable them to have a harder boner, or a longer one or a more intense one and a useful receptor for their sexual emissions. And of course the rest of us, if we haven’t developed a radical feminist consciousness regarding this, will accept those parameters so when men start talking about their rights to have consensual sex with children, we might actually countenance the concept because they are using the language we have been taught is liberating, forgetting that it’s not women and children who are being liberated.  As with human and civil rights, when men talk about sexual liberation, they tend not to mean that of women.

It is because they don’t recognise this dynamic, that they failed to spot it when it turned up on their committees and in their workshops and in their debating chambers.  Radical feminists would never have made that mistake.  An awful lot of embarrassment would have been avoided.  But of course, Harriet Harman would never have made it into government.

4 comments:

  1. Spot on Herbs and Hags, because Harriet Harman is a liberal feminist this is why she didn't recognise what was really happening when the male libertarians infiltrated and took control of National Council for Civil Liberties. NCCL is of course a male centric organisation which has always proclaimed 'mens' rights are the only real human rights!'

    Radical Feminists knew exactly what that pseudo male libertarian organisation PIE was attempting to do and as usual malestream media dismissed Radical Feminist analysis as 'rubbish!'

    Anticlimax by Sheila Jeffreys has a section on PIE and how this organisation successfully fooled innumerable left wing liberal males by claiming 'childrens' rights means children (meaning girls of course) should have right to express their sexuality!

    We see the same situation now with that other mens' rights organisation Amnesty International (or rather Mens' Rights International) whereby mens' pimp industry have infiltrated and are successfully claiming 'prostitution is womens' human rights!'

    The same language is being used by mens' pimp industry advocates as PIE and the central aim is always the same mens' sacrosanct right of sexual access/sexual exploitation of women and girls.

    Malestream media always scapegoats women because it is so much easier than focusing on the men who were the ones advocating male sex right to female children. PIE was widely viewed for a time as a radical organisation which was promoting childrens' rights. Not so strange that men continue to have long-term memory loss when the issue is one of male accountability.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The backlash around these already known allegations that rail against the hypocrisy of the Mail is interesting. The Mail online site regularly sexualises children or young women under the age of 16, saying how grown up they are for their years etc. Not until the law changed in 2003 did the Sun stop using 16 year old models. The human right for sexual gratification at the expense of children remains alive and well in male dominated British culture.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was married to a sexual addict for 30 years (got married at 20 years old and very naive). His addiction was porn. Not to go into the long horrible details which included my children being exposed; but this is what I wanted to say. When ever my children found his trash we would have a huge fight about all the porn in our house. His comment: "it is my 1st amendment right to both have this stuff and also to watch it whenever I want to." When I told him his children were being exposed to it, his comment: "Well, they have to learn not to touch my stuff; this that is for adults, which I have a right to have...IN MY OWN HOME!". What I did not realize that it was just like living with an alcoholic and I was the wife desperately trapped in a co-dependent relationship (even tho' I was a social and feminist outside of the marriage walls). Finally after 30 years I packed my bags and walked out. On top of all of this there were many times he blamed me for him needing to watch all the porn. Early in the marriage I tried to watch all the videos but found them horribly women abusive and demeaning. As I spoke about it, I was called frigid, and then when I started refusing to "reenact" all that he was watching in his deviant films I was frigid and now not doing my wifely duties which meant he had to watch more porn cause I wouldn't....you get the picture. Just wanted to say! Thank you for your words! Healing comes with each word spoken out loud! Blessed be!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd never actually seen that video, it's really disturbing. This idea that consent is seen as without end, it's a horrific idea which shows exactly how high a regard these men hold for women.

    ReplyDelete