Baldovin Concept censured on Facebook

(ro- for English scroll down) Baldovin Concept a fost pentru o perioada in imposibilitate de a fi publicat pe Facebook. Probabil ca unii dusmani ai sigurantei femeilor au fost deranjati de articolele scrse aici in ultimul an, si l-au raportat masiv ca spam, desi continutul sau nu contine reclame si nu vinde nimic. La rugamintile mele, dvs. cititorii ati contraraportat ca spatiu sigur care nu incalca standarderele comunitatii, pentru care va multumesc.

Eng- Baldovin Concept was for some time banned to be published on Facebook. Probably some women's security enemies were disturbed by the last year's articles I wrote here and received multiple negative spam reports to Facebook, although its content doesn’t contain advertising or any kind of commerce. But due to my asking for help, you the readers counter-reported this space as safe, not going against the Facebook Community Standards, so I thank you for that.

20 decembrie 2020

5.4. The radical feminism sadism and its reversed sexism

5. The Feminism as a reaction to crimes and emotional abuse against women

5.4. The radical feminism sadism and its reversed sexism

The profile of 3 types of women who adhere to radical feminism

The exclusive female courtship initiation proposal is popular among most women because it gives the impression that can counter the sexual abuses and crimes against women. As I have already mentioned in the previous articles, they support it after being emotional or sexual abused (harassment or rape). But, as usual, the victim is a bad judge, in the sense that it tends to give an exaggerated punishment and thus lead to the spiral of violence between the parties, instead of bringing back the initial state before the abuse. We have shown in previous articles that changing the courtship policies are either unjustified to what most women want  , or inapplicable  , according to the principles of the society.

As I have shown in this article , the common women generally respond to contrary arguments and give up arguing like this of ideas. (1) There are some advantages in these proposals for certain common women such as they would have an easier life and a better partner if society generally recognizes that a woman is superior to a man in all areas, just because she has female sexual organs. Such a thing is an inverted sexism that actually turns against them because men avoid them and they remain outside a stable love affair. I will return to this idea in a later article.

(2) Beyond that there are quite a few women who live in routine marriages  and so they adopt a feminist-radical mentality out of this personal status frustration. I have shown above that, basically, a man has a higher sexual appetite than a woman, which affects the couple's long-term relationship. Such women constantly feel abused and even raped by husbands who offer them a sex life on the verge of physiological needs. As I mentioned in above linked article, the exclusive female courtship initiation theory comes as a glove to these women, as well as some radical-feminist ideas.

There are indeed many women who have a problem with coordination with their over-libidinal husband. There is a need for an honest public debate on all the social levels on this lack of concordance problem between the male and female sexual appetite. And solutions must be found before there will be a general splitting between the two sexes. Women should not have "marital debts". It is not fair to be blackmailed into accepting a more intense sex life than they feel. From this point of view, blaming all men as rapists by radical feminism has some justification. But however this is not entirely justified. Firstly, not all men have a higher sexual appetite than their partners. There are also cases in which women are greedier. Here is how, in these cases, there exist no "rapists" men percentage even under the feminist-radical vision of rape. Then, the pressure on partners for a more intense sex life cannot be called rape in the sense of the unknown person who pursues and forces through threats and violence a woman to have sex with him. So, in this moment of civilization a husband cannot be convicted of rape, even if he has an unnatural approach to his wife, unnatural for the couple's relationship harmony.

Most women accept such a thing because of the superior material comfort offered by such an abusive husband. Somehow, they also lack verticality in making a firm decision about their own lives through divorce. I will return in a later article to this topic. And, thirdly (3), those disguised prostitutes and histrionic women that represent the radical feminism’s core  (I point out once again that not all the disguised prostitutes, histrionic women and lesbians are radical feminists) have no satisfaction in their sexual activities and accept them out of the various material gains interests. They feel constantly violated in a heterosexual relationship. This feeling of the pan-rapist man is a "professional bad habit" or a histrionic symptom and not a social reality. Their vehement militancy for these new rules implementation in social norms has in particular a psychopathological interest for such a thing and less a social prophylaxis one on the crime against women stopping.

I have already described above in this text the fact that androphobic neurotic women or the rape victims will perceive as anguishing threat the unknown man street courtship initiation. But those who have not experienced such a thing or do not have a phobic type neurotic psychopathological constitution and feel aggression towards men in general have a big problem in relationship and positioning within the couple. A histrionic woman with an exclusive exhibitionist libidinal satisfaction, a frigid or a lesbian woman perceives as rapist any kind of man who tries to initiate a love affair, no matter how discreetly he approaches her.

Radical feminism and competition with men

It goes without saying that those lesbians or transsexuals who vehemently express a radical feminist militancy do not accept the female position in a heterosexual couple. They do not feel exactly feminine, as are attracted to women and want to pose a sort of masculine attitude. These women have a personal problem with the female sexual instinct biological role, which they do not feel exactly like a normal woman does because of the psychopathological distortions that overlap to it. (Beware of the risks of falling into the opposite extreme sin that condemns these women, following the model of the Inquisition, which remained in the common mentality!). The lesbians marry and have children only to escape public disgrace over their sexual orientation. Like histrionic women, they do it only to gain access to a higher social class, without devoting body and soul to the family, rather tending to leave it for a better game. The disguised prostitutes do not fall in love and do not want a stable relationship, but rather to make as much profit as possible from their mimicked love.

Under these conditions, the sexuality is a burden for them, an instrument. Being practiced more for material interests (secondary benefit) and not out of an intrinsic need to have sex (a kind of primary benefit), these women feel constantly used within the relationships they are involved in. From here, they later develop the prejudice that all men are abusive (androphobia), only because the man tries to approach them emotionally, which will eventually lead to the interest in having sex. Some of these women resignedly accept their "fate" as unhappy in a heterosexual relationship. But the others become militant radical feminists.

The exclusively female courtship initiation feminist proposal or the over-amplified irascibility towards the initiators, both discreet and explicit, comes from the background of this very feminine condition non-acceptance. The most vehement radical feminists who emphatically support and practice it are lesbians (not all the lesbians support it), to which histrionic women also adhere. The radical feminists aggressiveness towards the men who opens the doors in front of them or offers them a seat in the public transportation are explained precisely by the paradoxical non-acceptance of this normal femininity biological role for the human species and for the vast majority of mammals to be protected by men and males.

It is difficult to explain from a political point of view such an attitude given that in general the radical feminism actually wants more rights from society for women. But still such a thing is very easy to psychologically decrypt: such a revolt against these courtesy gestures is explained by the self-perception that the radical feminists have towards men; receiving such a favor gives them the impression that they are inferior, morally and physically handicapped, and that means they cannot compete with men. On the contrary, for the normal woman, receiving these little favors is a sign of social respect and love. The radical feminists do not appreciate this because they are not interested in this type of heterosexual love from men.

Thus, they found a loophole to get rid of their inferiority complex caused by the more or less drastic superego that manifests itself through the psychological discordance with what they enjoy. And, as usual, this inferiority complex turns into superiority one on favorable environment. The radical feminism has often been equated with men hating. There is often hate in debates or certain moments like these but these women often show only arrogance and contempt for other ideas than theirs. In fact, the lesbians are direct competitors with men in attracting women in love; accepting the traditional advantages of courtesy would mean recognizing inferiority in the struggle with men to impress potential partners. The "love" of these feminists for women and their rights has a sexual interest, which is exactly what they rightly reproach to the "patriarchy."

Radical feminism and the sadistic libido sublimation

Mimicking the real abused women dramas by the radical feminists makes sense to justify their predisposition to aggression against physically and mentally weak men, who are basically non-abusive, in order to actually abuse them in counter parting. If they are lesbians, such behavior actually sublimates a male sadism type. If they are hysterical, they want to show their emotional dominance. The "toxic masculinity," which they have fairly accurately described, is a projection of their own abusive tendencies. By accepting domination, some of their followers even go so far as to adopt their theories, becoming appendages of their abusive libido.

And this is the main problem for their militancy; they do not fight exactly with the source of abuse against women but with those who are not generally sex offenders or abusers. I will return to this topic in the following articles. Their scandals against "oppressors" do not take place on the street in front of certain Casanova pick upers who constantly abuse women, as I described it here . They are also rarely seen in courts where murderers or rapists are tried. On the contrary, they prefer to accuse mannered educated men for the crimes committed by those that they don’t risk to fight with. These women cause terrible scandals at book launches events, conferences, concerts, literary evenings, awards, etc., which are exactly where present the harmless and a little culturally instinctual tired men show up. We saw in the previous article that, despite supporting an abusive, intrusive mentality in the woman's decision to have an abortion, that boy from the Metropolitan Cathedral of Buenos Aires is a delicate one. That made him a perfect target to be slapped and punched by the radical heroines…

We are talking here about true inverted sadism that these women unconsciously practice but very carefully directed at these emasculated men, under the false feminist militancy appearance. Just as murderous sadistic men are very careful to pursue a weak family ties woman, so are the radical feminist sadists careful to target a man that does not fight their physical aggression. It is very interesting that every time they justify their own abusive intentions with the general violence against women. During the inquisition the sadistic men justified their morbid impulses to burn at the stake or to apply unimaginable torture for women through their "devilish" character. Just in the same manner, the nowadays radical feminists justify their aggression on the manners men in "defending" against the sex offenders’ crimes.

I was very surprised that many rigid radical feminists (not temporary supporters of radical feminist ideas) that I met in Romania do not participate in anti-violence against women mass-meetings organized by various social organizations that are involved in the women rights. I watched several marches like this in the Western countries and also didn't see any radical messages. The explanation for that is that they don’t collaborate with the moderate feminists. Beyond that, they have an ambivalent reference to the very sadism practiced against women, as they themselves practice it on frail men. When it comes to protest against such behaviors, the sadistic predisposition women paradoxically tend to justify them according to their own sadistic constitution. The sexual crimes against women disappearance would no longer provide them with justification for their own sadistic impulses. So they have no interest for these crimes go away. That is why they are very rowdy in the innocent situations or minor abuses (such as the male courtship initiation), but very silent and absent in marches on violence against women.

Toxic masculinity in radical feminists

In the same way we can analyze the famous "Toxic Masculinity" feminist formula. The feminism has very well described what it calls the "toxic masculinity", namely that macho, harsh man behavior, employed in repressive institutions, which is ready at any time to beat someone. But this expression does not differentiate between this type of man and those men who do not support the same values. I personally hate them, and that shouldn't make me ashamed of my masculinity. This formula main problem is that it misses the second formula naturally correlated with the first, such as "Normal masculinity" or "Natural masculinity". It hints to the feminist-radical prejudice that all masculinity would be toxic or that there would be a toxic part in masculinity, according to the well-known slogan "all men are rapists." This formula somehow induces the idea that any man would have such a "toxic masculinity" in him unless he would, of course, cure with the radical feminist ideas…

Moreover, the words should be more carefully thought in this case where all men are widely accused of "toxicity". Perhaps, indeed, for those seductive hysteroids or those lesbians (not all) who constitute the radical feminism core, the masculinity with all its attributes causes disgust to them, like a food poisoning. Needless to say, such a reaction is exactly that of homophobes towards the homosexual orientation people. However, despite the sexual crimes committed by some men, no one died poisoned after the male substances ingestion.

So even if these women have very accurately described this dubious expression "Toxic masculinity" (or precisely because of their own projection), many radical feminists show such a perverted masculinity in their own gestures. Their rhetoric is sometimes ambivalently mixed with abusive mentality. Instead of a general militancy for the human being rights, which would implicitly bring rights also to women, some radical feminists waste their energy in the militancy for theoretically and practically affirming and demonstrating the women superiority over men. Unfortunately, many radical feminists are looking for (abusive) power, instead of demanding diminishing it for all, which would eliminate the abuses for everyone and those against women in particular.

They want to replace the abusive traditional man with the abusive modern woman. Except for the LGBT condemnation, the radical feminist does everything an abusive conservative man does. The aggressiveness and vehemence that some of them show toward ideological opponents reveals a prominent "toxic masculinity" in themselves. In the following article I will bring more details on this radical feminism predisposition towards aggression.

Niciun comentariu:
Write comments

Popular Posts