Unsade the world!!
A Study on the Emotional Abuse and the Sexual Crimes and the Reactions towards them
Introduction
This text was learning in progress and evolution mainly for me, an opening to social situations that we do not usually meet in everyday life. I wrote this text based on a simple online dispute with some buddies, based on the theme of the idea of exclusive female initiating courting. The dispute quickly hit up and even led to irritation and hominem slippage despite my opponents’ level of intelligence and culture far above the media. So this debate with close people, or for whom I of respect, has turned into antipathy and even a fight. I have written this text, however, out of this respect for them. We have a lot more common ideas than divergent. I marched come of them together on the street protests against the police state and the camouflaged dictatorship in which we live, for freedom and dignity. But here is this debate on feminism has taken me away from them. After some time I felt that my arguments were not strong enough and I tried to look for new evidence for what I said, with the help of friends who were born or live in the Wester countries, where the feminism already has an important tradition.
Initial am dorit o sistematizare a acestor idei si o detaliere a lor altfel decat in cadrul restrans al unei dezbateri. Eram convins ca in cateva articole voi termina acest proiect. Pe masura ce cautam dovezi si surse acest studiu s-a diversificat ajungand la un numar de peste 150 de pagini. Probabil ca unele date mi-au scapat ala ca voi modifica acest text pe masura ce voi afla altele noi. Asa ca ii rog pe cei ce dispun sa-mi trimita noi date, idei, materiale de orice fel care imi poate imbogati orizontul legat de tema feminismului. Trebuie sa recunosc ca acest studiu nu cred ca e terminat nici acum. Sunt convins ca voi reveni la el peste ani si ani. E un proces in continua schimbare. Schimbarile decurg din modul in care compromisurile facute de societatea actuala se modifica.
Initially, I wanted a systematization of these ideas and getting into more detailed level, other than in the narrower context of a debate. I was convinced that this project will take only some articles. As I looked for new evidences and sources, this study has diversified to more than 150 pages. Probably there are plenty of data that I have not reached yet, so that I will modify this text as I get in contact with new information. So I kindly ask those who have this opportunity to send me new data, ideas, materials of any kind that can enrich my horizons related to the theme of feminism. So, from the very beginning I have to admit that this study still does not seem to be done yet. I'm sure I will return to it over in the future. It is a constantly working in process. Its changes directly arise from the way in which the compromises made by the current society are changing.
So the chapters numbering of the English translated text does not coincide with that of the original text written in Romanian. Probably the non-Romanian readers were already bored with the "English version soon" with which I began this series of articles, a promise that I didn’t m meet for over a year. But the advantage of translating a post-scriptum text is that it can finally get all these things together and organize it more efficiently.
The feminism as humanism
Until I wrote this study, I had indirectly known the feminism, through several mentions written by various theoreticians. It is not enough to understand the extent of such a vast and popular ideology. Just as the poetry that loses its accuracy through translation, or just like the copy that loses the original details, in the same way the theories known through intermediaries also lose their authenticity. Especially with the feminism, as there are many interests of its defamation. So I have intensely documented for more than a year with facts and opinions on the subject. And here I am finally able to say that I can make a documented and reasoned opinion on feminism directly from studying it.
I wrote this study first for myself. The feminism is needed in order to decrease the sexual crimes and emotional abuses against women. Men are less likely to face this, so it is not a big problem for them. So I wanted to see through this study what is the limit between what is socially justified and what is unjustified in the feminists’ demands. The victims do not always choose the best political solutions to solve their problems. Therefore, over time, within the feminism, there emerged an extremist, psychopathological faction. Some feminists’ political demands hide psychopathological elements that require rather psychotherapy than political solutions. That is why I felt the need to put a spot on all the feminism in general in order to establish a boundary with safe, scientific criteria between what is politically and sociologically justifiable, and what is rather psychopathological in its demands. The first case is the subject of the, as I called moderate feminism , and the second case is the subject of the radical, extremist feminism.
Initially, I was a virulent opponent of this radical feminism, especially where I found aggression in language and behavior towards people who had done nothing bad, but which they considered aggressors. I have often responded ironically to ad hominem arguments from those who adopt radical positions. But, writing this study, and observing the sadistic conspiracy against women, I tempered this position. Through this study I’ve got closer to my opponents’ position. So I have come to create unbeatable arguments myself for the theoretical position of my opponents that I had previously fought against. And that's how I got closer to them than I was before.
Everyone who has concrete information and has the freedom and dignity as moral values reaches this point. The moment I tried to bring evidence about feminist exaggerations on the statistics of women rapes and murders, I found a dubious secrecy from the authorities. So I have deduced from here and from other social realities that there is indeed a conspiracy against weak women made by the social system, as detailed in this article . As I kept informing I saw that many of the fears that these women showed are actually well-founded. So I later came to appreciate as objectively justified some fears that I previously considered as neurotic phobias.
The feminism as a reaction towards the crimes against women
The sadistic criminality is mainly hidden from public eye. The authorities’ refusal to make public the statistics for killing without a clear reason, such as robbery or inter-marital conflicts, demonstrates this. From time to time, the press yells on the discovery of a mutilated woman body. The author of the crime is usually unknown, even after the victim is identified. In most of these cases nobody had any typical interest in killing those women. So there is a serious suspicion that the luxury sadists are discreetly protected by their world governing partners, namely the social sadists. The refusal to place the serial killers in the most objective instrument of statistical and diagnosis of mental disorders, the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), published by the American Psychiatric Association, reinforces this suspicion. Virtually the authorities want to truly blind us and convince us that the serial major crimes on women are rare phenomenon, that nobody should bother on to study.
From my experience with how the behind curtain governors create social engineers , I can say that the lack of clear efforts and concrete results for the prevention of domestic criminality has exactly the same role to camouflage the murderous sadism towards which the maximum profit society is headed for. The serial killers cause public outrage and keep the news headlines for months; but this collective memory is transformed into banality and camouflaged by the numerous domestic crimes, whose mob is the marital conflict. The more such domestic crimes, the more so is straightened the social illusion that the murder sadism actually would not exist or would only exceptionally happen.
The feminism (whether moderate or extremist) asks for more clear actions from the society. The equality of rights between men and women, as demanded more than a century ago (the first wave feminism), and which the anti-feminists often refer to, is no longer enough. It is ineffective as the women face unjustified dangers to their sexual role. The crimes against women will be found in the future in the psychopathological background of our children and grandchildren. The women and the men are not separate entities. Each of us are different variants of the same species: the human species. Tolerating these crimes is equivalent to tolerating the crimes against ourselves. So it is a task for all of us to try to heal the future society. Even those that have such morbid sexual tendencies must disagreeably mobilize against their malicious passions and try together to cleanse the human species from the sadism. We all have to be feminists! To counteract these disadvantages, women need positive discrimination and that is more social protection according to their specific needs and dangers that are facing.
The dictatorial risk of radical feminism
The general feminism is not limited to fears but it also involves the political measures to eliminate these fears. And here come the troubles. These social solutions will never be enough for those who have lived or inherited such traumas. If the dangers against women would suddenly disappear, and society would be fair, these women would still not feel safe. The crimes against them for centuries have left traces that can not be erased by any general social measures, but by an individual revolution.
So I did not go that far as to totally agree with my debate opponents from whom I started this study. The radical feminism has some neurotic, paranoid or sadistic manifestations itself so that they have to be resolved differently than changing the rest of society according to these psychopathological symptoms. Therefore, as far as the political justification of certain measures proposed by radical feminism , is concerned, I still remain its opponent. I do not do this for a radical antagonism with those who adopt such position, but for strengthening the general feminism itself. In fact, the whole general feminism sometimes is seduced by some radical attitudes and ideas, although, as I will point out in the text, between the moderate and the radical sides, there conflicts often arise.
I have come to the conclusion that being a bitter adversary even against the radical feminism means having some general anti-feminist tendency. I subscribe to moderate feminism (as I have described it below) since I can remember, without yet knowing that it exists, as a global movement. I support the political over-advantaging women (positive discrimination) to counteract the disadvantages that usually lead them to become victims. And, as long as I will be fighting for a better world, I will remain a feminist. That’s why I will try to adopt a slightly more neutral attitude towards its radical variant. But I can’t ignore the fact that the reality is that the excesses of radical feminism negatively affect the moderate one image, despite the fact that it draws better the attention towards the awareness of the problems women face. But these manifestations can only be sustained only on a provisional basis.
There is a disguised trap that the women's safety luxury criminals lure the radical feminism militancy into. As looking to hide the real horrible crimes produced by the sadists they protect, they are willing to accept the exaggerated demands of radical feminists. Because many of these demands actually do not affect much their moderate or murderous sadistic plans. Instead of dealing with finding those who govern and orchestrate the society from the shadow, those extremist feminists waste their time in unnecessary wars with ordinary conservatives, against more or less harmless men whom they see as sexual harassers and rapists.
By accepting such radical demands, the real criminals who rule the world give them the impression that they would support them in women's achieving more protection rights. But if, hypothetically, the rule of the exclusively female initiation of courtship proposal would be admitted as a law, still that would not prevent at all the biggest enemies of women, namely the sadistic ones, to satisfy their vices further on. This norm was originally proposed by radical feminism, and then accepted by the moderate and by a large part of the society precisely for the reason mentioned above.
From the theory of exclusively female courting initiation, there have been a few extreme things unjustifiably hidden under the veil of "political correctness." The practice of "political correctness" is justified for certain categories of socio-cultural disadvantaged people. It is a form of elegance towards these people to improve their state of marginalization or social suffering due to persecution by a privileged group. It can become a mandatory rule there where the pain caused by the historical reality to a minority is very big. For example, a provoking action on the members of the Jewish community with ostentatious use of a spray, or on the black community to justify the slavery to which their parents have been subjected, is offensive. The laws of the different countries punish the offense. But there is nothing offensive about being a woman and that statistically speaking most of the women have a disability in assimilating the traditional masculine specializations like the technology or the physical exercise. The fact that the women catch cold more easily than men, or that they do worse in driving cars or sports performances does not and should not be subject to "political correctness". No woman died or suffered from the fact that the men went hunting and used these tools more. On the contrary, women could specialize on less risky activities during the history. This is a socio-cultural specialization of gender. If the women specialize in shopping, decorating, and emotional relationships, that does not mean there is any disability.
Of course, some women can break the statistics. Those who try to limit their access to resources to assimilate specific male domains must be held accountable. But if you do not manage to compete with men in these specific male specializations, it's not because of the social oppression by which the man would generally exploit the woman and would not recognize her merits. It is not your husband’s fault that you as a woman scratch the car trying to park it where he can without scratching it and you don’t. There is no masculine conspiracy here, but just a paranoid symptom without any evidence. The "political correctness" should not support psychopathological symptoms of imagined victimizations, but only real victims. If it would become a mandatory rule in order to cover up some psychopathological symptoms, we are already in the realm of dubious exaggerations.
I was reading at some point, I do not remember where, how a man was sued by a radical feminist (in a Western country, perhaps the US) for giving her the seat on a public transportation. She interpreted even the "political correctness" gesture as an offensive, namely that women would be perceived as a disabled person. Who has experience with obsessional psychopathology can recognize this gesture in the strange actions with which the obsessional persons torture their relatives. That's what radical feminists want to do with society. The family can accept this endless game of its member's obsessions mobility. But not the society. However, eventually, the family gets enough of so many rituals and rules imposed by its obsessional member and sends it to the psychotherapy.
The society does not have to wait until that point. It should draw the radical feminism attention to the fact that the rules they want to impose are not at all "political correctness." Their requirements are far too political. There are some women who do not feel like women, and that offends them before they offended by someone who offers them its seat. The problem is their own self-perception. There are women who manage to defeat many men in specific male jobs, such as lifting up the heavy weights or screwdriving. But that does not necessarily mean that all women must be like this. The claim that a woman can compete with men in the traditional-male activities must first be individually demonstrated and not given as a gift.
In this case, the "political correctness" risks becoming a dictatorial attitude of evidence denial. These exaggerations are not yet a danger. The radical feminists have no power to impose a dictatorship. But they can remain entangled in such dictatorial militancy. And the signs are more and more visible. If you work in a state-funded or in many private companies institution in the US, and say that women perform worse than men in certain domains, you risk losing your job. Women's safety does not increase if we accept ideas that the woman would be as effective as men or even more effective in specific male jobs. Most women do not want to confront or compete with men in such fields. If there are some women who want to prove the opposite, it does not mean that all women feel represented by them. So their demands are based on the playing skills equality are not important for the main issue.
Unfortunately, for fear of repercussions, the most visible views in the public space against these ideas are those of comedians, misogynists and dissidents who choose an alternative life than the official one. The comedians can not be taken seriously because they change their rhetoric depending on the comical force of arguments. The misogynists are anti-feminists in general, rejecting all the feminist militancy. It is worth mentioning here Karen Straughan, perhaps the most vertical critique of feminism, paradoxically as she is a woman. But she also exaggerates when sometimes sees the feminism in somewhat gloomy colors, and fails to point out some real weaknesses of radical feminism.
The autoanalysis
The psychopathological descriptions I have made throughout this study of radical feminism must not be taken as a war declaration, even if we are often in divergent positions. As a psychopathology passionate, I’ve got long time ago over the common mentality that for thousands of years uses the ad hominem argument "you are crazy!" for the debate opponents. For me, the "madness" is not automatically equivalent to ideological error. The fact that a person has a mental disorder does not mean that its judgment is false. On the contrary, the most prolific ideas appear on a certain psychopathological background. I wanted in this text to attract especially the hysteroids to self-analysis. Solving their own conflicts and anxieties should not be outward, political, but inner, psychotherapeutic, self-analytical.
Women who feel close to radical feminism are particularly in need for psychotherapy. We all need a psychoanalyst or a supervisor to give us a different perspective on our own minds than it can offer itself. But some need this more than others, as their main purpose of life risks to become wrong way militancy. And, I have shown throughout the text why some of their demands are impossible to put into practice. Without a balanced judgment, with psychopathological issues involved in, the political demands may be inappropriate. Their social activism for a better world can only bring them the satisfaction of being taken accountable and leaving a better social inheritance to the future generations of women. But after the euphoria of applying some more effective political measures to protect women, the marginalization state will be back into their souls. That's why I believe it needs first of all psychotherapy and only then the viable political solutions.
That is why, with this text, I proposed a general and discreet psychoanalytic incursion into their own minds to excite their appetite for self-analysis (and eventual attraction of them to the second noble profession in the world, the psychotherapy) rather than a marginal militancy, to which the whole feminist movement itself does not adhere. I tried to be the initiator of their own individual self-analysis that each of us must do, namely a partner of spiritual evolution. For both the feminists and antifeminists, I have psychologically broken a millenary classical society psychical resistance that has been structured and crystallized in the modern mentality. Their availability for interpretation is exceptional. They only need popperian self-censorship of interpretations (the theory of resistance truth to the falsifying test), as well as a better familiarization with the dynamics of the psychic.
Well, this is the introduction. Now let’s get into details about the major sexual crimes in this article!
Although baldovinconcept is literally censored on Facebook, still this post can be shared on it under this shell.
Postări
Niciun comentariu:
Write comments