Latest Posts
Showing posts with label femininity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label femininity. Show all posts

We need a closer look..

It has always been the case that Feminism(slut) has promoted the "Female" as the supreme being, the purest form of perfection and that everything else was just a derivative of this god-like apparition. A form that not only wallowed in perfection but deserved reverence and worship, as it was and is the epitome of all things imagined, seen and unseen. It was perfection enshrined in human form and everything else was just, well, second hand. A mere facsimile, an imitation of the real thing..

The had forgotten to inform everyone that they do fluctuate every month and bleed and stuff but that was apparently not really important as it muddied up the image they wanted to build.

They even stated that every form in the womb started off as female and by some error or quirk of nature, or in the DNA, a male was produced, as if by accident. Yep, we are all "women" until we were injected with testosterone and the girls received, somehow, as if by magic, an additional squirt of estrogen in order to grow bumps and stuff. They dreamt that, they felt it, so it must be true. Feminism(slut) have been trying to psychoanalyze that into existence by corrupting previous knowledge and re-inventing, reconstructing it to suit their own interpretations..

We are already well versed with that level of illogic.

The majority of gloating that the slut-feminists have been indulging in of late, especially over the past five years or so, was the hope that the male DNA was deteriorating and would thereby be extinct, so life on Earth would be a sole event, for and run by women alone. The Lesbian/Radical slut-feminists have been worshiping, offering sage leaves and orchid petals to Earth Mother Gaia, in the hope that it would be fulfilled in their lifetime. They were chortling and gloating at the possibility when some incompetent, misanthrope scientist stated that it may well be the case, that the male DNA will kill itself off in due course..

Much to their greater disappointment it has been proven to be just another farcical lie. Apparently the male DNA is a copy of itself and works in both directions, an extensive sequence of Pallindromes. Which basically means it can also be read in reverse as well and that stunned the drones into silence at least for the time being. Gaia only got goat weed and smelt from the local pond after that..

So we have the next eye opener..

 Throwing another spanner into slut-feminist theories and lies, just makes my day..

"Woman Does Not Exist"

Femininity and Masculinity

Masculinity is taken by Freud as the paradigm; he asserts that there is only one libido, which is masculine, and that the psychical development of the girl is at first identical to that of the boy, only diverging at a later moment. Femininity is thus that which diverges from the masculine paradigm, and Freud regards it as a mysterious, unexplored region, a "dark continent."Freud, Sigmund. The Question of Lay-Analysis, 1926e. SE XX, 212 The "riddle of the nature of femininity" comes to preoccupy Freud in his later writings, and drives him to ask the famous question, "What does woman want?"Freud, Sigmund. New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, 1933a. SE XXII, 113 Masculinity is a self-evident given, femininity is a zone of mystery:
Psychoanalysis does not try to describe what a woman is -- that would be a task it could scarcely perform -- but sets about enquiring how she comes into being, how a woman develops out of a child with a bisexual disposition.Freud, Sigmund. New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, 1933a. SE XXII, 116

Jacques Lacan

Hysteria

In 1956, Lacan takes up the traditional association of hysteria with femininity, arguing that hysteria is in fact nothing other than the question of femininity itself, the question which may be phrased "What is a woman?". This is true for both male and female hysterics.Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p. 178 The term "woman" here refers not to some biological essence but to a position in the symbolic order; it is synonymous with the term "feminine position".
Lacan also argues that "there is no symbolization of woman's sex as such", since there is no feminine equivalent to the "highly prevalent symbol" provided by the phallus.Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p.176 This symbolic dissymmetry forces the woman to take the same route through the Oedipus complex as the boy, i.e. to identify with the father. However, this is more complex for the woman, since she is required to take the image of a member of the other sex as the basis for her identification.Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p. 176

Feminine Jouissance

Lacan's most important contributions to the debate on femininity come, like Freud's, late in his work. In the seminar of 1972-3, Lacan advances the concept of a specifically feminine jouissance which goes "beyond the phallus";Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 69 this jouissance is "of the order of the infinite," like mystical ecstasy.Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 44 Women may experience this jouissance, but they know nothing about it.Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 71

"Woman Does Not Exist"

It is also in this seminar that Lacan takes up his controversial formula, first advanced in the seminar of 1970-1, "Woman does not exist" (la femme n'existe pas),Lacan, Jacques. (1973a) Télévision, Paris: Seuil, 1973 [Television: A Challenge to the Psychoanalytic Establishment, ed. Joan Copjec, trans. Denis Hollier, Rosalind Krauss and Annette Michelson, New York: Norton, 1990]. p.60 which he here rephrases as "there is no such thing as Woman" (il n'y a pas La femme).Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 68 As is clear in the original French, what Lacan puts into question is not the noun "woman", but the definite article which precedes it. In French the definite article indicates universality, and this is precisely the characteristic that women lack; women "do not lend themselves to generalisation, even to phallocentric generalisation."Lacan, Jacques. "Conférence à Genève sur le symptôme", 1975b. Les Block-Notes de la psychanalyse, Brussels.

Not-All

Hence Lacan strikes through the definite article whenever it precedes the term femme in much the same way as he strikes through the A to produce the symbol for the barred Other, for like woman, the Other does not exist. To press home the point, Lacan speaks of woman as "not-all" (pas-toute);Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 13 unlike masculinity, which is a universal function founded upon the phallic exception (castration), woman is a non-universal which admits of no exception.

"Woman is a Symptom of Man"

Lacan goes on in 1975 to state that a "woman is a symptom."Lacan, Jacques. (1974-5) Le Séminaire. Livre XXII. RSI, 1974-75, published in Ornicar?, nos. 2-5, 1975. Seminar of 21 January 1975. More precisely, a woman is a symptom of a man, in the sense that a woman can only ever enter the psychic economy of men as a fantasy object (a), the cause of their desire.

Well, Strike me puce..

TOO much Vinegar, Not enough Honey..

Amazing, there are some sane minds out there but unfortunately way too few. Fidelbogen made a statement the other day where he suggested that maybe women should get of their butts (my interpretation) and start making more positive noises about men rather than allowing the male haters to continually wax malicious every time. It never ceases to amaze me that it's women who are desperately seeking relationships but fail to even bother raising the obvious questions on the subject that needs to be answered.

Woman UP..the Private Man.

Nothing will change unless the hate laws that feminists have forced down societies throat are tossed out for the rabid jokes they really are, they were influenced and introduced by radical feminists who are right now still in the process of introducing more hate laws to ensure that the sexes continue at each others throats. Meanwhile we have crickets chirping in response..

How often does one have to read another of those millions of comments where women are claiming that they cannot find a partner, their life generally sucks because those cats are not that good a company and their clock is ticking away and there is no hope in hell of leading a more fulfilling life even though they feel it is no fault of their own..

If you have no idea what the issues are, have a read here..The Online Men's Compendium..

It is right there that reality should raise it's ugly head but it still fails to register. Obviously, if you do nothing, nothing will change. Sounds simple but apparently it's way too complicated. somehow..

Why can't women find a partner ? ..read on..


A new report by Pew Research Center shows that barely half — 51 percent — of adults in the United States are married. In place of marriage are nontraditional living arrangements — including cohabitation, single-person households, and single parenthood — that may likely continue. The share of adults who are currently married could drop to below half within several years.
While the report says it’s “beyond the scope of this analysis to explain why[emphasis mine] marriage has declined,” senior writer D’Vera Cohn adds this: “I’m struck by the fact that a large percentage of people who say that marriage is obsolete still want to get married. I think they may be having two ideas in their head at once: one about the institution of marriage and what its status is in society today, which is to say that it’s a lot less dominant, central, or important in society, [and another about] their own wishes for their future, in which they personally would very much like to be married.”
Indeed they do. But some major changes have to take place first.
For starters, parents have to stop getting divorced for less than dire reasons. Many, if not most, of today’s 20- and 30-somethings are products of these divorces and thus have no role models. They may be looking for love, but they have no idea what to look for. Susan Gregory Thomas, author of In Spite of Everything, is a great example. Her parents split when she was twelve, and in an article about her book she laments the lack of guidance available to young people. “Why would we take counsel,” she asks, “from the very people who, in our view, flubbed it all up?”
Second, we must retract the message Boomers sent young women about female empowerment. Indeed, it isn’t a coincidence that marriage rates have plummeted alongside America’s fascination with the feminist movement. Empowerment for women, as defined by feminists, neither liberates women nor brings couples together. It separates them. It focuses on women as perpetual victims of the Big Bad Male. Why would any man want to get married when he’s been branded a sexist pig at “hello”? In the span of just a few decades, women have managed to demote men from respected providers and protectors to being unnecessary, irrelevant, and downright expendable. Consider these examples:
#*# Author and journalist Natalie Angier begins an article in the New York Timesby writing, “Women may not find this surprising, but one of the most persistent and frustrating problems in evolutionary biology is the male. Specifically#…#why doesn’t he just go away?”
#*# In a CNN interview with Maureen Dowd about her 2005 book, Are Men Necessary? Dowd says, “Now that women don’t need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is, ‘You know, we need you in the way we need ice cream — you’ll be more ornamental.’”
#*# Lisa Belkin, a blogger for the New York Times wrote, “We are standing at a moment in time when the role of gender is shifting seismically. At this moment an argument can be made for two separate narrative threads — the first is the retreat of men as this becomes a woman’s world.”
#*# In an article in The Atlantic titled “Are Fathers Necessary?” author Pamela Paul wrote, “The bad news for Dad is that despite common perception, there’s nothing objectively essential about his contribution.”
Women have also been raised by their feminist mothers to “never depend on a man.” As a result, couples no longer think of themselves as one unit but as separate entities sharing space. “The confusion over roles is there, as are the legacies of a self-absorbed, me-first, feminist-do-or-die, male-backlash society,” wrote Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee in The Good Marriage: How and Why Love Lasts. Honestly, are we really surprised marriage is on the decline?
The concerns of men frequently arrive in my inbox. The latest is from Mark Trueblood, who had this to say: “From a man’s perspective, men take on an untenable risk. The culture of male disposability runs deep — some say even at the level of our DNA.” Because of this, he says, “Men are making a lifelong commitment to eschew marriage, cohabitation, and even dating in some cases. We do so for all the reasons you can guess, and more. As far as I am concerned, this is the wisest lifestyle decision for men in the United States at this point in time. And I say so as a conservative/libertarian who fully acknowledges the power of a functioning nuclear family.”
Mark Trueblood is not an anomaly. Countless men’s-rights groups have popped up across the country, and even more men happily shack up with their girlfriends with no plans to get married — which may sit well with women for a while, until their clocks begins to tick, and they become desperate for a baby. All of the sudden men look more appealing — but the men don’t want to marry them.
There may be more than one reason Americans are delaying or eschewing marriage, but almost all of them can be attributed to feminism. Feminists assured women their efforts would result in more satisfying marriages, but that has not happened. Rather, women’s search for faux equality has damaged marriage considerably (some might say irrevocably, but I’m an optimist) by eradicating the complementary nature of marriage — in which men and women work together, as equals, toward the same goal but with an appreciation for the unique qualities each gender brings to the table. Today, men and women are locked in a battle. The roles have changed too drastically, and the anger runs deep.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t call that progress.
— Suzanne Venker is co-author of the new book The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say. Her website iswww.suzannevenker.com.