Comic Blasphemy Vs. Divine Feminism

I watched a video the other day of a debate between the comedian Jim Norton and the feminist Lindy West. Here is the video. This discussion between comedians and feminists regarding "rape culture" has been raging for the past year. Type "Daniel Tosh rape joke" into a search engine to learn the backstory. Much has been said on both sides, discussions about free speech, censorship, comedy-as-catharsis, the trivialization of suffering, and the contributions made by comics to rape culture and violence against women. Those are all perfectly fine discussions and I'm glad that our society is having this discourse about such things. One thing that is not being discussed in this realm of discourse is the economic concept of "consideration."

We don't have to be economists or legal analysts to understand this. It's not some obscure jargon used only by economists and lawyers. It's an old concept that has been around for centuries and most people understand it without even knowing that they understand it. Consideration is roughly the idea of fair trade. If I give you money, you give me an equivalent value of your services or products. It's not complicated. Most people know when they have been ripped off. If somebody steals your car, they didn't provide an equitable amount of consideration to you. Most people know this and generally expect to give and receive consideration for all sorts of things in their daily lives. Well, reasonable people have this expectation.

Enter Lindy West. If we view the discourse between a comedian and the audience as a sort of economic exchange of ideas, thoughts, and feelings, Lindy West is demanding that this discourse provide consideration to her without her providing an equitable amount of consideration in return. She is demanding that the discourse between a comedian and audience provide to her a consideration in the form of sensitivity to her (and others like her) regarding what she labels offensive to her delicate sensibilities. The only consideration she offers in return is the absence of her feeling offended. That is literally nothing--the absence of something. In economic terms, she is a thief and ripping us off. Most reasonable people know this, but feminists are not typically known for being reasonable. They sometimes argue that reason is a violent assertion of patriarchal oppression. In reality, feminists like Lindy West assert a gender supremacist ideology that does violence to our reasonable sensibilities.

One example of violence-doing to our reasonable sensibilities is hypocrisy. Most reasonable people understand hypocrisy. Perhaps Ms. West understands it, but simply feels some sort of divine feminist entitlement to being hypocritical. Notice at about the 5 minute mark in the aforementioned video that Ms. West actually performs a rape joke about audience members in the club rallying to rape a girl because they aren't doing anything better and have the free time. The joke gets a laugh and Ms. West chuckles and smugly continues with her moral correction and shaming of comedians who make rape jokes.

Hypocrisy is offensive because it does violence to reason. Being morally excused from saying one thing and doing another is that which the divine Law-Giver does and this is what feminists like Lindy West often do. She is clearly an inconsiderate hypocrite. She does not give consideration in exchange for a comedian's sensitivity. She does not practice what she preaches. She gives nothing in exchange for her demands. She simply asserts a sort of divine right to demand control of the narrative in exchange for literally nothing--the absence of something, her offence. Lindy West, you are a bigot, a hypocrite, a gender supremacist, and not much different than a racial supremacists. In the words of the great comedian, Bill Burr, "go fuck yourself."

American Heroism: A Story about Doug Stanhope and Erectile Dysfunction

Doug Stanhope is one of my all time favorite comedians. He is an artist, a true master of his craft. Of course I follow him on Twitter. A few weeks back, he tweeted about a marine who threw a fit of road rage. Here is the video. There were a lot of people criticizing the marine for going bezerk. There were many wishful thoughts for the marine’s death, some comments about his flag-draped coffin and etc. I thought those comments were a fine and comical way for people to lament about the sort of men we raise these days.

No offense to the good soldiers who signed up to protect the country and slaughter other people, but where else can murderous psychopaths go for work these days? With the faltering economy, it's hard to make a living as a killer. Hard times are upon us and joining the military seems like a good choice for the aspiring killer. It's a sound career move. He's doing the right thing for his career and country, paying taxes, bills, and supporting his wife and kids. He shows up for work everyday, jazzed up on some 'Merica...Fuck Yeah tunes, ready to do some killing, some maiming, and some torture. We spent thousands of dollars training him to be "all he could be" as a killer in the military. If he got a little confused about who he is supposed to kill, it's something that society can overlook. Clearly, it's easy to confuse a traffic accident with the enemy or a terrorist threat. It's a mistake that any man could make. People should lay off the criticism of his actions. Minus his confusion, his actions were a perfectly acceptable way to resolve conflict. As such, he is good man, a protagonist, a hero in the American story.

As with any good story, a protagonist needs an antagonist. Enter the degenerate pacifist lovers of peace who sat in their seats recording the actions of this good man. Notice how the villain sits in his car. He remains calm, only to enrage our heroic marine even further, deliberately pointing out to the marine that his silly monkey-taunts were not effective. This only magnifies the marine's experience of impotence. Heroes who experience this lack of power must act out with ever more aggression. Violence is the hero's only power and this power is an expression of the hero's lack of power. America's hero is impotent. He has no power, only violence. He is just a pawn. His life is practically meaningless. The totality of his identity is his impotent power--his violence.

Feminists will typically point to our hero's behavior as a shining example of male privilege, domination, and power--the patriarchy in all its glory. Feminists may point to our hero's behavior as proof that men are vile monkeys who will abuse each other and women to compete in some patriarchal hierarchy of dominance. Feminists and his critics will say that our hero's behavior is evidence of his power, when in fact, our hero's behavior is evidence of his weakness.

If this society gave a damn about men, we would give men options other than violence. We wouldn't sell them false ideas of heroics. If this society gave a damn about men, we wouldn't create murderous psychopaths and call them heroes. We wouldn't call the peaceful guy who sat calmly in the car a faggot or a coward. If this society gave a damn about men, we wouldn't teach men that their value is derived from their ability to slaughter other people. If this society gave a damn about men, we wouldn't teach men to be some sort of heroic pawns, willing to sacrifice their lives in a blaze of violent glory for pride, for money, for woman, for some corporate entity--America. If this society gave a damn about men, compassion for men wouldn't be a revolutionary action. If this society gave a damn about men, Doug Stanhope and others would have no reason to lament about the sort of men we raise these days.

Feminists are pissed. Jose Canseco outed his accuser. I grew up watching Canseco and his "Bash Brother," Mark McGwire. They hit the long-ball a lot and they struck out...a lot. Canseco's nickname was "Jose Can-strikeout." He was as bad at striking out as he was good at hitting home-runs. Even though his career was plagued with injuries, I remained a fan throughout the 90s and was glad when he outed his story of steroids in baseball. Everybody knew that steroids were rampant among baseball players, but nobody said anything. So long as the fans were happy, so long as records were being broken, so long as attendance soared, the media, the owners, and the trainers all looked the other way. Baseball players had the relative freedom of anonymity to juice their bodies as they pleased. Long-ball was in. Small-ball was out. Even the drunken fans knew that something was wrong, but we didn't care.

In an age of slut-walks and post women's sexual liberation, why do we care about anonymity for the rape accuser? The whole point of granting the privilege of anonymity to an accuser is to minimize the shame of the accuser. Do we still need to grant the protection of anonymity to rape accusers? Do women really need a white knight to ride in and protect them from shame? Are women such delicate flowers of moral purity that they cannot be strong enough to endure the publicity of their sex life? I think not. Anonymity is a special privilege granted to women and denied to the accused men. Strong women shouldn't have to suffer alone and anonymously. Anonymity is for the weak. Strong women should come forward and be public about their sexual history. Strong women should have no shame about their sexuality, being raped, or talking publicly about their victimization. Taking refuge in anonymity perpetuates their victimization indefinitely. 

The occurrence of steroid abuse in baseball was perpetuated by the refuge of anonymity. Countless players were made victims by this anonymity. Home runs were not the only things to soar during the steroid era. The rates of ligament, tendon and other steroid-specific and related injuries to professional baseball players also soared throughout the steroid era. Had there been transparency about the abuse of these performance enhancing drugs, steps could have been taken to ameliorate the problems. Instead, we cared more about the long-ball than we cared about the bodies and spirits of these men. The anonymity perpetuated the disposable nature of these men, making them victims to the whims of society. These men are valuable only insofar as they perform and so long as their performance can be enhanced by the anonymous abuse of these drugs, nobody cared. Enter Jose Canseco. He came forward, from the refuge of anonymity, to shed light on and make transparent the abuse of these drugs. He deserves much credit and respect for coming forward to make the story public. He also deserves credit for coming forward to make public the name of his accuser. 

This is the 21st century. Although remnants of sexual shame may still exist in some areas within the bible-belt of America, I doubt they ever existed in Las Vegas. Given the location and the state of women's sexual liberation, there is no good reason for rape-accuser anonymity today. As the anonymity of steroid abuse made men into victims, so too does the anonymity of the rape-accuser make men into victims, destroying their reputations, livelihoods, and lives. It's time to end the special privileges granted to women. Rape-accuser anonymity is a special privilege rooted in the antiquated idea that women are morally pure and that sex and sexuality is base and immoral. Again, this is the 21st century. Jose Canseco is still a hero and he has hit another homerun, but this time he did it on Twitter. 

Moral Turpitude: An Open Letter to Facebook

Feminists are pissed. According to WAM, Facebook has completely failed to produce an adequate response to feminist's demands regarding censorship of "hate-speech" against women. WAM's contention is that Facebook's "inadequate" response contributes to violence against women, catering to a culture where violence against women is normalized. How could Facebook be so callous to the plight of women? What are the demands of these feminists?

1. Recognize speech that trivializes or glorifies violence against girls and women as hate speech and make a commitment that you will not tolerate this content.
2. Effectively train moderators to recognize and remove gender-based hate speech.
3. Effectively train moderators to understand how online harassment differently affects women and men, in part due to the real-world pandemic of violence against women.

On the surface, such demands seem reasonable. No moral person would deliberately support speech that trivializes and glorifies violence. No moral person acting as a moderator would deliberately tolerate gender-based hate-speech. No moral person would deliberately misunderstand how violence affects women and men. Any failure to comply with these demands is proof of Facebook's callous attitude and contribution to the normalization of violence. In fact, failure to acquiesce to these demands is proof of Facebook's moral depravity. As such, corporate businesses should pull sponsorship from Facebook on the grounds of moral turpitude.

As a moral lesson for Facebook and as an attempt to instill at least a bit of virtue into this vile corporation, let us walk the grounds of moral turpitude for a moment. Let us deliberately support speech that trivializes violence, tolerates gender-based hate-speech and misunderstands how violence affects men and women. What would that speech be? Who would support that speech? What would be misunderstood about the effects of violence?

As we walk the grounds of moral turpitude for a moment, try typing into a search engine the phrase "violence against men." You will get scores of pages linking to articles and information regarding violence against women. That's right. Searching for violence against men leads to information about violence against women. Try it. Even though the overwhelming amount of violence in this world is violence against men, feminists have monopolized the narrative of violence as violence against women. The normalization of violence against men permeates society. We don't even notice it. However, violence against women receives special status and notice. So much so, that search engines don't even link to violence against men. This elevation of violence against women is de facto discrimination against men. This focus on violence against women minimizes and trivializes the savage violence that men experience everyday in this world. It is men who are overwhelmingly brutalized by a "justice" system that throws them into cages for non-violent drug crimes. It is men who are overwhelmingly slaughtered on battlefields and glorified for being great at slaughtering other men. It is men who are overwhelming homeless. It is men who are glorified for their brutality against other men in the ring as "sportsmen." It is men who suffer overwhelmingly from sports related head trauma. It is men who juice their bodies in order to be glorified as objects of utility for a sports team. It is men who suffer the trivialization of violence done to them by society, by women, and by other men. Nobody notices. Nobody cares. We are too busy elevating the violence against women to some sort of superior status, some sort of slight against the divine, in some ridiculous feminist pissing-match about which gender is the longest suffering long-sufferer in the history of long-suffering. That is a walk along the grounds of moral turpitude.

Those are the grounds of moral turpitude and along those grounds we see the lack of care, understanding, and compassion for the lived experiences of men. If feminists gave a damn about equality, they would be screaming about violence against men. They remain silent. The more they scream about violence against women, the louder is their silence about violence against men. This silence is hate. This silence is ignorance. This silence is bigotry. This silence trivializes and glorifies violence against men. This silence distorts the "real-world pandemic" of violence against men. This silence is violence. Nobody notices. Nobody cares. Feminists are pissed.

Drinking & Fucking

If drunk-fucking is rape, then my girlfriend and I have probably raped the shit out of each other.

Objects of Utility Vs. Objects of Sexuality

So, if it's wrong to pay money for sex, then why isn't it wrong to receive money for sex? That's an excellent point made by a good friend of mine and it's a point rarely ever discussed by feminists. Feminists typically focus on the dehumanization of the prostitute and her exploitation by men who pay her for her services and who view her as an object of sexuality. Rarely is the inverse discussed. Is not the john exploited? Is he not dehumanized and seen only as an object of utility? Whether a person is viewed as an object of utility or as an object of sexuality, it makes no difference. Both persons are made objects and the fullness of their humanity is not realized and experienced. 

I recall a discussion with an anarcha-feminist who was also a high-class hooker. She said there is no objective difference between a back massage and a penis massage. The only difference was one of subjective social stigma. That's a fine and valid point. However, when the boyfriend buys the engagement ring, several months worth of dinner and drinks, flowers, and all that other romantic bullshit, the underlying business transaction is obfuscated from the relationship by psychological dependency, self-deception, tradition, and other sorts of social constructs that prevent both parties involved from ever acting in "Good Faith," as Sartre would call it.

For Sartre, it's all about the responsibility to strike a balance between the oscillations of the facticity of the underlying transactional nature and the transcendental nature of love. If the woman focuses on the transcendental nature of love in order to obfuscate the facticity of the transactional nature of the relationship, she is without moral balance between facticity and transcendence. She is deceived, self-deceived, acting in "Bad Faith," as Sartre would say. How is it that she gets a moral pass? Feminists, traditionalists, and society-in-general give her a moral pass for her moral purity, for focusing on the transcendental notions of romance in order to obfuscate her dehumanization of men as objects of utility. However, the man who focuses on the facticity of transactional sex...he is a pig, a moral pervert and generally despised, shamed, and ridiculed as an exploiter--a degenerate, a predator, a man who reduces women to objects of sexuality. The man and woman are both neglecting their responsibilities to strike a balance between the oscillations of facticity and transcendence. It's not morally better to be unbalanced one way or the other. This is why I respect the hooker far more than I respect the traditional woman. The hooker acts in "Good Faith." There is no deception regarding the transaction. Balance is maintained and she does not obfuscate the underlying facticity with some transcendental romantic bullshit.

Why do women get this moral pass? Men. It is because men do not speak up. Men have been conditioned to deny their emotions. Men have been trained to focus on the logical analysis of facticity. Men are trained to "suck it up, Buttercup." It is women and society-in-general that exploits men as objects of utility, but it is men who allow this to continue. It is men who need to focus on developing their emotional intelligence and become better equipped to balance the facticity of their sexual drives with transcendence of their emotional lives. 

Men need to tell their stories. The story of man's exploitation is muffled by our shame. For men, it is better to be dead than useless. We hide in the facticity of sex to obfuscate the fact that mother/woman only values us insofar as we are useful to her. We are manipulated by the shame of our utility. Our entire identity and meaning is bestowed upon us by mother/woman. We await her approval or disapproval, like a dog awaiting its treat or scolding. For men, this is angst. We are afraid to confront the reality that she doesn't love us, that she doesn't value us, that she only values our utility to her. We are afraid of her for what she makes us--her toy, her object of utility. It is men who are dehumanized by women. It is men who are made objects, reduced to things that have done something for her lately. It is her "moral purity" that perpetuates our enslavement to her whims. The depths of her cruelty is matched only by the depths of his cowardice. This is our story. This is our oppression. It is not our privilege. 

Listen to a passionate speech by Andrea Dworkin on prostitution. Listen to the passion as she talks about the women who work in prostitution. Put aside logical analysis of the bullshit for a moment and gauge what she says based on her passion. Those kinds of stories are the passionate stories that men must learn to tell about their lived experiences as objects of utility to a woman, to women, and to society-in-general. It's difficult for men to gain a moral high-ground from statistics alone. Even though 80% of the homeless are men, the statistic doesn't matter. The statistic makes men a caricature of a number, not a full human being with a lived experience, desperate for love, desperate for dignity, desperate for a meaningful existence that is callously denied to them by women who bestow upon them the title of loser, creep, hobo, scum, and whatever other demeaning and dehumanizing language can be used to shame men for failing to climb the dominance hierarchy, for failing to become satisfactory providers/protectors, for being men. It is time for men to speak, to find their voice, to find their self, their identity and their own meaning. 

As men find this voice it is important to remember that one cannot develop a deep understanding of men without simultaneously developing an even deeper compassion for men. Compassion for each other precludes competition against each other and entails cooperation with each other. In the old narrative told about men there is much misunderstanding, callousness, and competition. The new narrative that we must develop is one of understanding, compassion, and cooperation. We are no longer like the brothers, Cain and Abel, fighting for divine approval, proving our worth with sacrifices and offerings. We don't need to sacrifice ourselves as offerings to the divine. We don't need to prove ourselves worthy. In fact, we don't need her God Damn approval at all.

Boot-licking Punctuality.

Fuck punctuality. If I had a time machine, I'd annihilate the inventor of the wrist-watch and the alarm clock. It's not a matter of moral rectitude--being on time. Can you imagine a time when people weren't enslaved by the minute positions of the sun relative to the earth? Those were the good old days. We only had 3 times--breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Punctuality is boot-licking. Love your enslavement. All you punctual people, isn't that right? If your boots are not licked, if you have to wait for just one moment, your fetish is not satiated. Fuck punctuality. Fuck the wrist-watch. Fuck the alarm clock. Fuck punctual people. I just hope the clock on the time machine works well.