The Nightmare of Legalized Prostitution in Germany and Teenyland

wantJust in time for the increased flow of Stone Age men bent on rape coming into the country, the German government legalized the prostitution of women and girls by men in 2002. This legalization is not the “Nordic Model,” which originated in Sweden and has proven successful in decreasing sex trafficking by decriminalizing the victims of human trafficking, but penalizing the johns and pimps. Rather, it is an all out legalization of the sale and trade of women by men, in fact, the legalization of white slavery, which is the enslavement of women by men for the purpose of legalized sex abuse and rape.

The effects of this legalization of female abuse have been devastating and simply could not have come at a worse time in order to completely undermine the liberty and inherent freedoms of women and girls in Germany. This is surely no coincidence.

As I’ve been watching the German news very closely the past few months, I have noticed an uptick in sex attacks on little girls, some of them very young. The attacks often take place outside the child’s home or in a place where there are bushes – yes, quite literally, they are jumping out of bushes – to hide behind and grab a little, tiny girl. The attacks are not all perpetrated by Muzzies. Although, the Muzzie invasion has complicated matters for feminists, what has been largely hidden from the mainstream media discussion of rape and sexual assault in Germany is this background of the legalization of the male abuse of women under certain, government-regulated conditions.

Brothel owners, pimps, and johns who were once on the wrong side of the law are now entitled to legal protections under the law and things have gotten much worse for women, despite the cheery, mainstream media “documentaries” by the BBC and others, showing how nice, clean, harmless and even good and helpful highly regulated German brothels are.

One of the disturbing highlights in the massive pile of information on this subject involves a place called “Teenyland.” This is a brothel located in Cologne (the city that was the MSM focus of the mass attacks by men on women and girls on New Year’s Eve 2015), sandwiched in between some normal-looking buildings and across the street from a beautiful pasture or field. It is a place where men go to rape young women or, at least, women who appear very young. (The women must be under the age of 30.) Many of the rooms of the brothel are decorated in pink and filled with toys and stuffed animals to give the man the feeling of raping a child.

 

(Note: Right now these are all direct links to these disgusting sites. I am unable to access DoNotLink at this time. Later, I’ll try to makes these donotlinks.)

Direct link to a forum for johns: http://www.punternet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/33086-slick-willy-does-deutschland-again/

Direct link to EroticReview: https://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewAll.asp?MessageID=2769&boardID=54&page=5&view=2

In the above-linked discussion, you will see the abbreviation FKK used, which is a reference to a Frei Koerper Kultur club – this means Free Body Culture Club and is another term for an upscale bordello that has a little different business model. Teenyland is a standard brothel.

Review and discussion of a john’s visit to Teenyland if you scroll down: http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/printthread.php?t=2597&pp=15&page=42

A link to the official Website of Teenyland showing “available women” – they’re all pretty white, despite the fact that I’m hearing there are lots of Asians and Africans being imported for this purpose. Preferred meat is still white – yes, “white woman’s privilege” is on display here at this link: http://www.teenyland-koeln.de/html/?q=teenys 

You’ll notice that the above links are all in English, many of them travelling to Germany from English-speaking countries.

Here’s a link to some German men talking about the place, recommending it to other men:

http://www.bordellcommunity.com/threads/k%C3%B6ln-mit-teenyland-erstmals-nicht-zufrieden.34964/

The German reviewers I’ve read mostly complained about the cleanliness of Teenyland. They didn’t like the “dishonesty” of the women not telling their real ages because they would really like to rape some kids. They thought the women and the entire establishment was rude – yeah, must be polite to your rapists, you know.

At the above-linked discussion at Bordellcommunity, the john talks about the procedure of calling ahead to the brothel to see which of the women were available at that time. He was told seven were available and one was a woman he particularly wanted to rape from looking at her image online. He talked about the nature of the rape experience he wanted to have, which he called “Girlfriend” sex. When he got there, he was told that she was busy being raped by another john. So, he ended up with a woman from Poland. She would not allow him to do things he wanted to do. He reported his dissatisfaction to the woman at the front desk. Lots of dissatisfaction stemming from the woman not looking exactly like her picture, having shorter hair than was portrayed. Also, disappointment that the women will not allow themselves to raped exactly according to rapist’s specifications.

German legalization of prostitution and pimping has resulted in the brothel-owners having complete control over the women. The brothel owners threaten their families in order to keep them in line. The women are enslaved in every sense of that word and unable to make enough money to feed themselves. One woman from a foreign country said she would allow herself to be raped by a john for a cheeseburger. Violence is not unusual, of course. Also, the women are suffering from a startling range of internal injuries and STDs from being repeatedly raped. The country is, also, dealing with massive cases of women who have been trafficked and are now suffering from P.T.S.D. (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder) as a result.

Additional material:

Below are videos glorifying and advertising Teenyland. Amazing how this sort of thing is out in the open, these disgusting men are out in the open, and most of us are in hiding!:

 

Another ad: The 5-year Anniversary party at Teenyland –

 

 

 

 

Radical Feminist Analysis of Class and Feminism in the Television Show, “Roseanne”

cast of roseThe television show, “Roseanne,” ran in the U.S. between 1988 and 1997. Like many comedy TV series, it featured an idealized, traditional nuclear family. The biggest difference between “Roseanne,” and other shows before or since, is that it focused on a class of people in an area of the country who are not usually not well-represented in entertainment media. “Roseanne” was the first successful show to feature a poor to lower-middle class, small town, mid-western family and the first to treat the people of this huge swath of the country with respect and a sense of realism.

Many of the actors were originally from Illinois or other mid-western states. John Goodman (Dan Conner) is originally from St. Louis and attended college in Missouri. Laurie Metcalf (Jackie) and Lecy Goransen (Becky) are both originally from towns in Illinois. Goransen studied acting in Chicago and Metcalf was involved with Chicago live theater before she joined the cast of “Roseanne.” Natalie West (Crystal) is originally from Grand Forks, North Dakota and became involved in acting in Chicago. A few others involved in the show were originally from Chicago. Roseanne grew up in Utah and moved to Colorado at the age of 18, of course, neither of these locations are in the midwest, but they are all part of what is designated “fly-over country” by the liberal elite who were represented among most of the producers and writers for the show.

In the article, “And I Should Know,” New York Magazine, May 15, 2011: http://nymag.com/arts/tv/upfronts/2011/roseanne-barr-2011-5/ , Roseanne talks about both the sexism and the classism she experienced daily on the set of Roseanne. Since most of the decision-makers were from Ivy League schools and from one coast or the other, they lacked an understanding of both mid-western culture and the lives of the lower classes. If this is true, then it may mean that their other portrayals of mid-westerners in television series may be coming not from a place of mockery and disdain as much as it is simply a manifestation of their classist ignorance. (A classic example of this is the show, “Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman,” from the 1970s, which portrayed a small town in Ohio full of caricatures drawn from its class-bigoted New York City producer’s twisted vision of what working-class mid-westerners would probably look and act like.)

“Roseanne” takes place in the fictional town of Lanford, Illinois, which seems to be a few hours south of Chicago. It’s a place of limited educational and economic opportunities and it might be an amalgam of any number of small to mid-size cities in the mid-west in the late 1980s to early ’90s. Factories provide(d) the primary source of liveable income and after that the opportunities were limited to construction jobs (for men) and minimum wage jobs in fast food restaurants and banks (for women and men). In such places, blue and pink collar workers greatly outnumber white collar professionals (architects, doctors, accountants).

Roseanne Barr has commented that the Conner family represents a socioeconomic class that no longer exists as the income gap between rich and poor in the U.S. has widened. As portrayed in the television show, many factories and businesses closed in small and mid-sized mid-western towns in the 1990s with Bill Clinton’s signing of NAFTA and GATT, which saw an exodus of businesses to Mexico and overseas. Small towns like Lanford suffered very acutely as factories and businesses were lost and never replaced. The fall out of these job losses has continued for years until the present. Towns represented by “Lanford” became very depressing places to live and almost impossible to get out of. Being born and raised in such a town means a lifetime of limited opportunities and no way out – at least, no reasonable way. As you watch the television show, “Roseanne,” from one season to the next you see that the characters’ hope, especially Becky and Darlene, for achieving the feminist dream of self-realization and financial independence begins to fade more and more from one season to the next as the economy declines.

The circumstances of the Conner family’s lives are so dismal that by the last season, Roseanne as the main character begins to rewrite the story in an entire season of fantasy in which the impoverished Conner family wins the lottery, domestic-abuse survivor Jackie meets a real Prince, her mother learns to appreciate her own sexuality when she comes out as a lesbian, husband Dan has an affair instead of dying of a heart attack, Roseanne and Jackie use their lottery winnings to re-open the factory that was once the life’s blood of the town’s economy; and Roseanne single-handedly saves the world from misogynistic terrorists. The very last episode of the series revealed the truth and now we can see the nature of Roseanne’s unfulfilled dreams both as a person and a woman.

The “Roseanne” show portrays mid-westerners and their lives with sympathy and sometimes painful accuracy. It shows the limitations of people’s lives and especially on women’s lives in towns like Lanford. Roseanne’s life allows her an expression of feminism, but only within a restricted boundary. She hopes for a better life for her own daughters, but their opportunities, which once looked bright as small children, begin to dwindle and the light of hope dims as the series progresses. Becky, the academically gifted, studious daughter, is faced with the fact that because of job losses, she is unable to attend college as she had been promised by her teachers and parents as a reward for her hard academic work. This is a revelation to her that she has been lied to all along about her opportunities, which she now sees are extremely limited. Her choices are limited by her parents’ financial status, by the hopelessness of the economically depressed town she was born in and by her sex. Feeling that she has little other option, she marries a dimwitted man who, at least, can get a job that pays above minimum wage (meanwhile, her job opportunities involve being a cashier at the “Buy and Bag” where she is sexually harassed and called obscene names by her male boss) and he will take his place as her protector in place of her failed father (who just lost his bike shop to the worsening local economy and can’t afford to keep the lights on at the house).

“Roseanne” demonstrates the restrictions that being of a lower economic class place on a girl or woman’s ability to fully live her feminism. Women in working-class towns like fictional Lanford do not have the same degree of “choice” as women from more advantaged backgrounds. In fact, their opportunities to make good choices, which lead to their self-autonomy and self-actualization, are extremely limited and often non-existent, despite claims, especially among liberal feminists, that women have achieved autonomy.

“Roseanne,” also, demonstrates the limitations of women and feminist characters on television, which is a male-dominated industry that produces images of itself to a male-dominated society. As you watch the series from beginning to end, you see the greater autonomy acheived by Roseanne Barr, herself, to give a voice to working-class women. In the first season of the show, Roseanne was more submissive to Dan. She even purchases a perfume, called “Submission,” in an episoded called, “We’re in the Money.” The earliest episodes of Roseanne seemed to focus more on class than on women. But, this changes in the later seasons when Roseanne Barr wins the power struggle behind the scenes of the show.

In fiction, one way to demonstrate differences is to create characters that are mirrors of each other. In Roseanne, you see numerous mirrored pairs.

Married Roseanne’s feminism is mirrored by that of her single sister Jackie.

The tomboy Darlene is mirrored by Becky, who enjoys wearing make-up and dresses.

Darlene is, also, mirrored by the neighbor Molly, who flirts with David. This is seen especially in the episodes “Good Girls, Bad Girls” and “Pretty in Black.”

Roseanne is similarly mirrored by her snooty neighbor Cathy Bowman, as seen especially in “Trouble with the Rubbles” and “Tolerate Thy Neighbor.”

Becky’s Feminism

How her economic class effects a girl’s expression of her feminism may be seen in the episode called “Becky’s Choice (Season 1, Episode 17), in which Becky has been seeing a boy whose parents are middle class and Roseanne invites them to a fancy home-cooked meal at the house without telling Becky. The differences in lifestyle between the lower class Conners and the middle class Langs (Edgar, Bonnie and Chip) are demonstrated in this episode. The professional class Lang family is a mirror to the working-class Conners. We, also, have the chance to see how the differences in financial status between the Conners and the Langs might affect Becky’s dating choices.

It’s important to mention that in the U.S., class is not perceived as it is in other countries like, for example, England, where class has to do with circumstances of birth and is revealed through manners and speech. In the U.S., where there is a dying myth of class mobility, we usually think of class firstly as financial status.

There are other perceptions about class that have to do with race and personal appearance, but these are usually more subtle and manifest as stereotypes of blonde-haired, blue-eyed people as wealthy and advantaged and black-haired, dark-eyed people as poor and disadvantaged. These notions are based largely on ideas propagated through the media and the truth is that the largest portion of poor and working poor in the United States more closely resembles the fictional Conner family in terms of demographics. The majority are white people living in rural areas or hopeless, former-industrial towns like Lanford, Illinois, many of whom are employed, but still struggling to make ends meet. If you don’t know much about them, it is because, apart from “Roseanne,” they’ve never had a voice in the media. Roseanne Barr has said this is because “Hollywood hates labor and hates shows about labor worse than any other thing.”

Education can, also, be an indicator of class and it often is in the “Roseanne” show with the divide being between (“them”) the professional, white collar people who have attended college and the laboring classes, (“us”) who only achieved a high school diploma or maybe a G.E.D. (passed a test, usually in adulthood in order to receive a General Equivalency Diploma). Having lots of children and being over-weight are, also, subtly associated with being lower class in the U.S. The difference between Roseanne and Bonnie Lang is highlighted in this episode when the Langs talk about their strict dietary habits. In another scene, Mrs. Lang, also, comes to the door dressed in an aerobics outfit, apologizing for her appearance because she’s just come from a class.

These differences in class still have financial class basis because people who have enough money can buy higher education, high-quality food, and a gym membership, which those in the lower financial class would, of course, also like to have, but cannot afford. We, also, see that there is little or no upward mobility in “Roseanne,” and both wealth and poverty are talked about as being inter-generational.

In this episode, Becky has secretly made a date to meet another boy, Johnny Swanko, whom we’ve never heard of before. When Roseanne brings the groceries in, she announces to Dan that she invited Bonnie and Edgar for dinner that night. She’s bought dinner candles and a special marinated swordfish, which she doesn’t really know how to prepare. But, she’s trying to make a good impression on them and to thank them for taking Becky out to eat at many nice restaurants. Roseanne says to Jackie, “You never know, Sis. Bonnie and Edgar could be family someday.” This is an expression of hope for Becky’s upward mobility through marriage.

Dan jokes about the billiard table, the study and expensive liquor, which they don’t have. Darlene who has just been practicing her pitching, complains that she has to wear a dress (not just something nice, but specifically a dress) to dinner. We are reminded that gender role conformity is something prized by the middle and upper classes. In fact, all the girls and women are in dresses for dinner.

When the Langs arrive and Dan offers them a drink, they assume that the Conners have a big, wet bar stocked with plenty of liquor when Edgar requests a complex mixed drink. Bonnie says mineral water would be fine with her. Both of these are luxuries the Langs take for granted everyone has in their home, but they are not things the Conners can either afford or prioritize in their life style. Dan and Roseanne offer them domestic beer and tap water, instead. Roseanne jokes, “I’ll have some of that Muscatel in the fridge.” Muscatel is a cheap, sweet wine favored by winos.

While they’re waiting on dinner, the two families try to make small talk. But, they find there is a gap of lifestyle and experience between them, which seems to be more noticeable to the Conners than to the Langs, who seem oblivious to what the Conners lack.

Edgar jokes that he and Dan have something in common. They both do “digging” because Dan is a contractor and he is a dentist. The Langs’ friends are dentists and other white collar professionals. The only relationship the Conners have to such people is when they need their services and we see from the conversation that they, in fact, do not often visit dentists since they don’t know that theirs has moved to a new professional building. Edgar talks about the new building full of his many professional associates. Bonnie says that a friend of hers decorated it. (Interior decorating is a job associated with middle-class, suburban housewives) and, by way of contrast, Dan says that his friend, Rocko, poured the foundation for the building.

Again, seemingly oblivious to the Conner’s financial class, the Langs talk about their exciting vacation to Hawaii, a place the Conners have never visited and probably have no hope of ever seeing. The Conners have difficulty contributing to the conversation because of their limited life experiences – limitations deriving from their economic class. Meanwhile, Roseanne discovers she has burned the swordfish and Becky is nowhere to be found.

Roseanne yells for Becky, which is not something a middle-class woman would do, so this is a demonstration of her class. After yelling, “Becky,” at the top of her lungs in the living room, she goes outside where she finds her making out with a lower class boy, Johnny Swanko. “Becky, get your butt in the house now,” she says, which is also telling of her class because this is not a phrase you’d expect to hear from a middle class woman like, for instance, Mrs. Lang.

The title of this episode, “Becky’s Choice,” may not mean simply the choice between two different boys, but two different classes of associates. Since the Conners are not able to reciprocate the generosity of the Langs, this may lead to feelings of discomfort for Becky. By dating a lower class boy, one of perhaps even a lower class than her own, she is letting herself off the hook. She states at the end of the episode that her parents like Chip and she must certainly feel the pressure to go with a boy of a higher socio-econmic class, since this is one way she could realistically achieve upward mobility. Certainly, Becky must feel resentment, perhaps toward the Langs and certainly toward her own parents for trying to push her together with the boy.

middle-class-was-fun.gifThe first two episodes of Season 5 are called,”Terms of Estrangement” Parts One and Two. By this time, we see that Becky, now a high school senior preparing for college, really has had very few choices and opportunities. By this time, the Wellman factory has closed for a while and the entire town is facing a sharp economic downturn with the “trickle down” effect of the loss of stable labor jobs. Dan can’t keep his bike shop open much longer. Rodbell’s in the mall, where Roseanne was employed as a waitress, closed last season and now she is struggling to find a new job, to take care of the house and children, and to help Dan sell motorcycles at the shop, all at the same time. Since they took out a second mortgage on the house in order to open up their bike shop, the Conners are now in danger of losing their home to foreclosure. Roseanne and Jackie peruse the classified ads and Roseanne jokes about “crappy jobs” and Jackie says, quite seriously, that it’s too bad there isn’t a holiday weekend coming up, which is an expression of the very real hopelessness when there are so few jobs available that someone has to die before you have a chance.

Becky realizes that there is no money for her to attend college on. Certainly, she can’t afford tuition by working at the Buy ‘n’ Bag (where she is sexually harassed by her boss in another episode). Life at home is miserable and since the bike shop is closing, this means her boyfriend, Mark, is also out of a job. When he is offered a job as a mechanic in Minneapolis, Becky begs him to stay in Lanford. Darlene ridicules Becky for keeping him in “this hole,” Lanford, when he has an opportunity to get out.

The first episode of the season ends with a big surprise when we learn that Becky has dropped out of high school and eloped with Mark. Dan is upset because he feels his failures are the cause for Becky’s poor choices. Although, Becky’s choices aren’t stupid, if you consider what her options are. “It’s all ’cause of you,” Becky tells her father. “If you knew how to run a business, he’d still have a job and he wouldn’t be leaving. Now, I don’t have Mark, I don’t have college, I don’t have anything! You blew it, Dad. You blew it for everyone in this family.” These were her last words before storming out the door.

In the next episode, Becky and Mark return married. The Conners have never liked Mark, who they describe frequently as a “punk.” He is of a low class, similar to their their own, although possibly even a little lower. He’s drunk in a few episodes, including one in which he is drinking underage using a fake I.D. and punches the glass on a juke box at the Lobo Lounge. He pressures Becky to have sex with him. It’s not clear if he finished high school, but he was thrown out of the house by his alcoholic parents at age 16. In a later episode, he flunks out of trade school and Roseanne constantly makes jokes about how stupid he is.

If not for the financial circumstances of the Conner family, Becky probably would have made different choices. But, her opportunities are limited and she takes the only avenue out, which seems to provide a ray of hope. After all, he has a good job and maybe she can go to community college in Minnesota.

By Season 6, Mark and Becky are arguing a lot because of money and Mark’s macho ways. By the 7th season, he’s lost his good job and they end up moving in with Dan and Roseanne.

Finally, Becky’s life hits rock bottom when she and Mark move into a trailer, thus fulfilling the stereotype of white trailer trash.

To what extent is this poverty Becky’s fault? She married an idiot. But, what were her options in a town with no decent jobs and no opportunity to escape?

She had no reasonable options – only unreasonable ones. For example, many young women from places like Lanford end up working in strip clubs and this is their only way out of the trap. In fact, when I was Becky’s age, I took a look at the landscape in the nearby town, saw all the low-class men, and many people either of a much lower economic class who I had little in common with in terms of dreams and aspirations or of a much higher one than mine, who were very traditional, conventional thinkers. The strip clubs were my only way out and while it worked for me, it isn’t for everyone (like, for instance, it helps to be groomed for several years in a pedophile-run religious cult) and it was simply a matter of survival because I could not live like the people around me. I simply refused. The “Roseanne” show has ended about 15 years ago and now, even those opportunities aren’t there, since the money simply isn’t there and lots of the dancers have been replaced with prostituted women (some with pimps who beat them up and burn them with cigarettes) because of the increasingly restrictive laws against dancing in many states.

Another way out for a woman like Becky might be an upwardly mobile marriage. But, this is not a reasonable option, either. We see in the episode, “Becky’s Choice,” that she is aware of the limitations of her class and she’s not a “gold digger” who will marry for money.

These struggles of working class women and their daughters are exactly what Roseanne Barr set out to show us. Women can only express their feminism within certain limitations, based on economic class. Becky expresses her feminism mostly in her ambitions and aspirations, all of which were dashed to pieces by the economic downturn. She never has the chance to become the independent, educated, well-traveled woman she wants to be.

For me, the strip clubs were an expression of feminism within the boundaries I was permitted by the limitations of my sex and economic class and it was a means to an end, to an education and a final escape. It was something I had to do in order for my feminism – my most radical feminism, especially – to eventually be able to express itself. It is not a reasonable choice and it was not an especially free choice. It was a terrible option and a last resort, but one I am grateful for since it was all I had and it really was my ticket out of a place a lot like Lanford.

We don’t see this option presented in “Roseanne” and the closest thing we see to it is when Becky, living under Roseanne’s roof, again, takes a job as a waitress at “Buns,” which seems to be something like “Hooters.” Dan is angry that Mark would allow her to work there because he’s “seen the kind of things that go on in that place.” Roseanne is surprised that he’s been there, which alludes to the misogynistic secrets men keep from women, especially their wives and daughters. Becky is working there because she’s earning $15 an hour to support her family. So, we see that even though the Conner’s are poor, they only believe in degrading themselves so far for the sake of money, and their “dignity” is not “for sale.”

Darlene’s Feminism

darlenes-feminismDarlene is probably one of the most obviously feminist characters on the show and the real reflection of her creator’s (Roseanne Barr’s) own early feminism. She is most resistant to gender role stereotypes, especially as the show progresses and the writer and actress, Roseanne Barr, begins to gain more power over the script and other aspects of the show.

Each of the girls seems to have a moment when she realizes something is terribly wrong. For Becky it seems to be in Season 2, Episode 2, “The Little Sister,” in which she finds her father’s Playboy Magazines. Later in the episode after a big family blow-up, in which Darlene goes to stay with Aunt Jackie, we see Becky looking very sad, leaning her head on her mother’s shoulder and asking why men want to look at women in magazines? Roseanne doesn’t provide any serious answers because the truth – that men, even beloved, trusted and respected fathers, exploit women for their own twisted pleasure – is not something that could be said during prime time. Becky says she feels sorry for the women in the magazines and Roseanne quips, “Me, too,” although with an expression and intonation that leads us to believe that she actually envies them.

Becky fits the idealized image of the feminine woman more naturally than either Roseanne or Darlene. Moreover, Darlene’s interests are outside the bounds of her gender. She’s referred to as her father’s “son.” He calls her “Sport.” But, he calls Becky “Princess.”

There are numerous episodes devoted to Darlene’s either inability or unwillingness to conform to female gender stereotypes. But, the episodes that most reveal Darlene’s dilemma in trying to adjust her true self and what she wants to be to the gender and class restrictions placed upon her are the several episodes that deal with her sinking into a depression in Season 4, from which she does not recover until she befriends Karen, a woman who runs a bookstore and encourages her to write science fiction stories. (Incidentally, Sci-fi is a genre that is particularly hostile to women as writers.)

The first one of these episodes is Season 4, Episode 4, “Darlene Fades to Black,” in which she is seen lying on the sofa, “watching one dumb rerun after another,” about which she quips: “And I do it as well as any man!”

This episode is partly about Dan’s resistance to Becky getting a little motor scooter because she’s his “daughter.” Becky says that it isn’t really about the scooter, but “women being exploited by men for centuries,” which is followed by audience laughter.

We don’t know exactly why Darlene is depressed and she reveals in a later episode that even she isn’t exactly certain what is wrong. She simply wants to be left alone. She stops playing basketball at school after not making first string. She begins spending a lot of time in her room, dressing in black, dying her hair black and not coming out of her room. Dan and Roseanne seem to think this is related to her quitting the basketball team. Roseanne even accuses her of using drugs.

The patriarchy and the obstacles that it erects for women are like trees in a forest. When you encounter the first few trees it’s hard to put it all together, to realize how big, deep and labyrinthine the forest is. Darlene has encountered a number of these trees: She’s “Too short to be quarterback,  too plain to be queen,” as she writes in a poem from an earlier episode (Braindead Poet’s Society). In “Darlene Fades to Black,” Roseanne confronts her directly and asks her what the problem is. Darlene responds, “It’s school. It’s my friends. It’s the way I look. It’s you. It’s Dad. It’s everything.”

Darlene’s character is a little reminiscent of George Elliot’s character, Maggie Tulliver, in her famous book, “The Mill on the Floss,” who failed to be the idealized Victorian daughter in her classic novel. Like Maggie Tulliver, Darlene’s beauty is unconventional, her hair is “uncontrollable” and she becomes “bad tempered” and “sharp tongued” when feminine gender role stereotypes are cast upon her. She expresses her feminism through wise cracks and insults, very much like her mother does, in a frustrated response to her surroundings.

Both Becky and Darlene resist patriarchy, but to different degrees and in different ways. None of the female characters in this series truly succeeds in overcoming the detrimental effects of patriarchy.

Ultimately, Darlene is the daughter with the best chance of breaking the cycle and finding even greater expression for her feminism. We see in the episode, Season 8, Episode 8, “White Sheep of the Family,” that she turned down a great job as an advertising copywriter, making $500 per week (not really a lot of money, but a lot to the working class Conners). The family is appalled that she would turn down such a lucrative opportunity. But, Darlene argues that she wants to finish college first, then she can get an even better job.

This particular episode is a lot about class and the lower classes’ envy of any class above themselves. In it we see another obstacle for Darlene to escape the traps of her sex and class, which is her own family and their working class values. Mark and Becky are living in a trailer and the Conners are struggling for money with Roseanne and Jackie doing odd jobs, like giving out samples in the grocery store.

Although, Dan and Roseanne have always hoped their daughters would “make it,” at the same time they are resentful toward the small successes that Darlene has achieved. They begin to interpret her usual sarcastic comments as a slam against their working-class family. In this episode Roseanne gives a short speech to Darlene about her failures as a feminist and acknowledges her resentment.

“First of all, I’m really glad that you’re going to school and getting an education like I never got because I got caught up in all that love and peace crap from the ’60s. Then 10 years later I realized I should have listened to all those women who said learn to support yourself or you’re going to be screwed.” She admits that she resents that she had to work in factories, salons, and restaurants to help Darlene get that far.

Darlene talks about how she’s surrounded by rich kids who don’t have to work hard because “Daddy’s there to bail them out.” This is a statement about the fact that college is a thing that usually runs in families and Darlene is an exception being from a working class family in which both she and her sister dropped out of high school.

In the background of this episode, D.J. tries to seduce a girl at school using a trombone he bought with some inheritance money. Dan approves, but Jackie and Becky try to explain to him that this is wrong, which is also met with laughter as D.J. makes a sexual gesture with the trombone before going into the other room with the girl.

In the next episode, Becky realizes that she may have made a mistake by dropping out of school and marrying Mark. She’s not sure she wants to stay married to him (and we can understand why), she wants to go back to school and dreams of becoming a doctor.

The Roseanne Show ended at Season 9, which was all a fantasy written by the character Roseanne. It highlights the various aspects of the plight of the working class Conner family, which we’ve seen coated in humor for all the preceding seasons. Not only does Roseanne become a feminist heroine, but the family becomes fabulously wealthy after winning the lottery and we do not see if Darlene graduates college or if Becky ever gets to go back to school. But, Darlene becomes pregnant and marries David, which seems to bring an end to her personal ambitions.

Roseanne’s Feminism

Roseanne’s feminism is demonstrated within the context of the patriarchal restraints of the traditional nuclear family and the limitations of her class.

cathyMy favorite episodes of “Roseanne” involve the snooty neighbor, Cathy Bowman. Cathy is blonde, slim, and married to Jerry Bowman, with whom she has a son. Cathy doesn’t have to work outside her home to support her family like Roseanne does and in the first episode introducing the Bowmans, “Troubles with the Rubbles,” we see the contrast between the parenting styles of the two women, which is a reflection of each woman’s class.

The episode opens with Roseanne complaining about the fact that she has three children and a husband and still ends up doing all the grunt work. Roseanne’s kitchen doesn’t have a dishwasher, nor does it have an inset shelf in the living room by the front door. Roseanne’s furniture is old, the sofa is worn with its iconic, acrylic, multi-colored afghan laid across the back of it and her kitchen table looks like it came from the ’60s. The kitchen walls and cabinets look aged.

By contrast Cathy’s house has neat, modern furnishings and a modern-looking, bright kitchen. At the end of this episode, a hilarious contrast is made, with corresponding musical background, to the two homes, showing the differences between the living rooms and kitchens in the otherwise identical houses.

Roseanne is a bad house keeper, while Cathy’s house is neat and orderly. Cathy speaks quietly and makes cute, small sneezes. But, Roseanne is loud with a grating voice.

Cathy is humorless. She is a Stepford Wife and Roseanne makes a contrastng joke about “the Lanford Wives,” in the episode, “Tolerate Thy Neighbor.”

In “Troubles with the Rubbles,” Roseanne enters Cathy’s home for the first time and says, “Man, this is the house I could have had if I’d married someone better.” In a later episode we learn that Cathy did not marry up, rather its her family who provided a job for her husband back in Chicago. But, until then we were left with this sexist assumption.

Cathy appears to be a traditionalist. There is nothing very feminist about her character, which seems to be drawn as a mirror of Roseanne’s class and the traditional role of wife and mother..In fact, because of her relatively privileged economic status, she is a stay-at-home mom and seems even more traditional than Roseanne who has to work to help support her family. She confronts Roseanne over the lack of supervision her son receives when he stays at Roseanne’s house. She clearly perceives Roseanne as a lower class of person and a less capable parent.

In a final episode with the Bowmans, their house is broken into in broad daylight. This is the last straw for Cathy in this low class neighborhood. She wants to move back to Chicago and we learn toward the end of the episode, “Tolerate Thy Neighbor,” that she controls her husband through sexual intercourse. He doesn’t really respect his wife and regularly disrespects her with Dan’s encouragement.

The contrast between Cathy and Roseanne is not so much about a traditionalist vs. a feminist or one type of feminist vs. another, but the contrast between two relatively traditionalist women of two slightly different classes. Roseanne’s class envy manifests as she calls Cathy “a witch” and “a bitch.”. When she sees Cathy’s house being broken into, it doesn’t occur to her that the house is being robbed, instead she believes that Cathy is just giving things away “to show off.”

A major feminist moment in the show for Roseanne occurs in Season 1, Episode 23, “Let’s Call it Quits,” when Roseanne tries to reach a compromise with an abusive supervisor at Wellman’s, but instead ends up leading a walk-out of the women workers at the factory.

Roseanne and Jackie

The biggest mirror of Roseanne’s character throughout the series is her sister, Jackie, who is single and, for most of the series, does not have children.

jackie.gifRoseanne is always trying to match-make, but the matches don’t often turn out well. In fact, Roseanne and Dan are the only successful couple in the series with the exception of “happily married” Vonda and Phil from Seasons 2 and 3. D.J. mentions in one episode that he’s the only kid in his class whose parents are still married to each other. Roseanne’s father messed around on her mom. Dan’s father messed around on his mom. Roseanne calls men pigs a number of times, but she still tries to shove her sister together with a number of men. She, also, manipulates her daughters, especially Darlene, to be with particular men.

This represents the kind of cognitive dissonance many of us have experienced at one time or another as women in relation to men when, despite all information to the contrary, we continue to hope that there is just one who is not a degenerate.

Jackie, too, bangs her head against a wall repeatedly, believing that there is something wrong with her because she can’t find a man. This is something that both Roseanne and her mother constantly harass Jackie about. Roseanne spouts Oprah-style psycho-babble at Jackie in Season 4, Episode 18, “This Old House,” when she says that their father’s abuse is why she is fat and Jackie “can’t have any decent relationship with any man.” Of course, Jackie isn’t really the problem and their father’s abuse is not happening in a vacuum – but they can’t tell us this on television! The men Jackie dates and eventually marries are representative of a variety of different types of male abusers. One of them beats her up, one is her sexually harassing boss at the factory (played by George Clooney) and in one episode she becomes the victim of date rape at the hands of Arnie, which is such a normal thing that it made a big joke of in Season 4, Episode 3, “Why Jackie Becomes a Trucker.”

Jackie frequently expresses her envy of Roseanne’s mostly happy marriage to Dan. In “An Officer and a Gentleman,” she takes Roseanne’s place while their dad is in the hospital and performs a parody performance of June Cleaver in “Leave It to Beaver.”

But, Jackie’s independent nature and her refusal to conform to certain gender role identities often stands in the way of her relationships with men who want to dominate her or who disrespect her humanity in other ways.

Perhaps one of the most repellent men Jackie is paired with is Fred who, in Season 6, Episode 17, “Don’t Make Room for Daddy,” tries to sue her for custody of her unborn child. “He’s suing me for custody of my stomach!” Jackie says. He insists on being involved in “his” child’s life. He tries to control Jackie in various ways even after their divorce. With her cognitive dissonance in relation to men, Roseanne interferes and pushes Jackie together with Fred. Jackie is very reluctant at first. She just wants to raise her child alone without interference. Eventually, Jackie succumbs to the pressure and, against her better judgement, she marries Fred who she doesn’t really know. Fred expresses a lot of sentiments that seem to come directly from “Father’s Rights” advocates. Fred says, “I’m fighting for my rights and my kid’s rights.” He even refers to himself as a “nice” guy at the end of the episode.

In “Don’t Make Room for Daddy,” we see how deeply embedded patriarchal ideas about male/female couples are in Roseanne’s mind. We see that women who rebel are always brought into line one way or another. She says to Jackie: “If you don’t snap out of this man-hating stuff of yours, you’re going to be old and alone and thinking you can stay with me!” Jackie says, “You don’t know what I went through.” Roseanne defends men, “They’re not all like Fisher. They’re not all like Dad.” So we see how traditional Roseanne is compared to Jackie. In the last scene, we see that Jackie is in bed with Fred, again, and talking about how he’s a “nice guy.” The patriarchy triumphs despite Jackie’s resistance to it.

Jackie best expresses her feminism through her pursuit of jobs that are traditionally “male only.” She becomes a Landford City police officer and she becomes an over-the-road truck driver. She, also, stands up for herself against her boyfriend, Gary, who wants her to quit the Lanford Police Department. She asserts herself for the last time against Fred when they agree to a divorce.

Some Conclusions

roseanne-powerI’m amazed that “Roseanne” is considered to be a feminist television show because, apart from the fact that Roseanne Barr is an amazing, powerful woman and a strong feminist, this show is about a very traditional nuclear family. But, the feminism of this show has to be considered in the context of what has been allowed on television in the past. It is a testimony to the fact that women have not come a long way.

For women, television is the modern-day equivalent of the Medieval European witch burnings. It’s a way to keep women in line on a mass scale. The trauma, humiliation, subjugation and violence meted out to women on television has a similar effect on the subconscious that seeing the brutal eroticized torture of women by men had on European women in the Middle Ages in that it keeps women “in their place” by mocking and reinforcing our subjugation at the hands of men. Women are not only objectified, they are seen in traditional roles or, at least, sexual roles.

I believe Roseanne Barr did the best she could to give a voice to women, especially women of the lower classes, and really to a whole bunch of people (like myself) in the middle part of the country, which is very much ignored except when it is maligned by elitists in the media situated on either coast.

Some other aspects of feminism in Roseanne, which I’d like to analyze in the future, are the promotion of allopathic medicine (obstetrics and gynecology) to women and the promotion of the male protection racket.

Additional material:

Roseanne Interviews Gloria Steinem:

Roseanne Barr on Democracy Now! – Part 1 of 4:

“Mary, Roseanne and Carrie: Television and Fictionalized Feminism,” by Rachael Horowitz – http://michiganjournalhistory.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/horowitz_rachel.pdf

“Too Short to Be Quarterback, Too Plain to Be Queen,” Journal Volume XI Issue II Spring 2011, April 4th, 2011, Taylor Cole Miller: http://gnovisjournal.org/2011/04/04/too-short-to-be-quarterback-too-plain-to-be-queen/

roseanne-gun

Note: The above article is a reprint from by private blog, which was first published on November 4, 2014.

A Radical Feminist Perspective on Witchcraft Movies: Movie-makers Throw Witches and Women a Bone

This post is a re-print from my private blog. Original post dates from June of 2014.

I wanted to do something a little lighter and fun because I really feel like a dark cloud has descended ever since the May 23rd murder spree by an MRA in Santa Barbara. It seems like the menz have really been frothing at the mouth in a lot of places and more men have revealed their true natures to such an extent that it can no longer be ignored. Frankly, the fall-out from that event and some other MRA-related goings on has been downright scary. I’ve had my fill of real-life horror, but I still enjoy fictional horror, especially movies about witchcraft and magic(k).

Ever since I read about trauma-bonding and the nature of female heterosexuality, I find myself looking at a lot of things through this newly discovered lens, including some of my favorite movies about witches and witchcraft.

What I’ve noticed in a really stark way is that movie-makers (men, almost all men and the money for movie projects comes from men) occasionally throw women and witches a bone by making a movie on this subject, featuring women, however, I’ve noticed that they are very careful to channel women’s innate interest in witchcraft in certain ways that benefit men and the patriarchal system. There is almost no exception to this. In fact, I can think of only two exceptions and both of those movies were either written and directed by women or written by a man, but heavily influenced by a woman.

I can think of a few different ways to interpret the concept of women as witches in movies through the warped minds of the patriarchs who make them.  They may see portraying women as witches as a way to demonstrate their view that women are other than human beings. Or, the portrayal of women as witches by male film-makers may be a way to perpetuate the myth that women secretly run the world from the shadows. These are ideas we see clearly in many of the movies about women as witches.

But, it may be a manifestation of men’s fear of women’s very real powers, which they want to assure is always channeled into the service of men.  We see that it is usually only evil witches who use their innate powers for themselves (to be beautiful, to enslave men, to live forever, to control others, to avenge themselves against men who have harmed them) and good witches use their powers to serve men, usually a single man to whom they are married (to boost his career, to pave the way for his success in all matters, to entertain his friends, etc.).

So, we see that whenever women’s power is acknowledged, it must be channeled into the service of the patriarchal establishment. Almost all witchcraft movies revolve around men or a man. Quite a lot of them probably fail the Bechdel Test, which is a pretty low standard to begin with.

The following are some of my favorite witchcraft-themed horror movies with a description of the film and my radfem analysis. I like most of them because they portray witchcraft, whether the do it well or not, at all; this is the bone – as you will see, we rarely if ever get a full meal. These analyses do contain spoilers.

(Note: Some of these movies are available at YouTube – they may be pirated or not because some are pretty old. They’re all good movies about witches and witchcraft despite the patriarchal devices used in them.)

abc1Practical Magic (1998), starring Sandra Bullock, Diane Wiest, Stockard Channing and Nichole Kidman: Lots of women have seen this movie, so the plot is probably very familiar. There are two aunts, who dabble in people’s love lives, bringing up two young girls. There is, also, a family curse set in motion by their ancestor, Maria Owens, during the days in which men hunted women as witches far more overtly than they do today. Although, in my radical feminist analysis, this so-called curse, which decreed that any man who purported to love an Owen’s woman would meet an untimely death,  may have been more like a protective spell placed over the generations of her female descendants to keep them from falling prey to the evils of men.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the men we crossed paths with dropped dead before they got a chance to beat and rape us and make off with our money? Well, that’s what happened to Sandra Bullock’s character, Sally. Her husband was killed by a truck while crossing the street.  She should have been grateful, but instead she felt sorry for herself and wished, once again, for a  man so that she could “be seen,” as if she did not exist, as if she were invisible, without the attentions of a man – which is how women are made to feel in patriarchal society, already, and which is promoted in this film. We get the impression that “happiness” is only possible for women if they center their lives around a man. “Maybe I’ve had my happiness,” Sally writes in her sad letter to Jilly, “…there is no man.”

At the beginning of the film, the two girls had very different reactions to the horrors of heterosexual attraction.  Jilly (played by Kidman) couldn’t wait “to fall in love,” while Sally was frightened by the desperation of the woman clawing at their door in the middle of the night, begging for a spell from the aunts to “make him want me so much he can’t stand it.”

Jilly embodies the alleged wanton slut nature of witches. According to the Christian men who wrote about witches in the Miiddle Ages, we are all debased whores who just can’t get enough of a man’s penis. I suspect this was not just a device for scapegoating women for men’s desire to rape and kill us, but to plant this disgusting notion in our heads.  In fact, “sexy witches” abound in modern film and literature and even some non-fictional witches have taken on this persona to sell books.  Often, sexy witches or beautiful young witches are good, as long as they serve men’s desires, of course, while old hags who are sexually undesirable to men, are evil, jealous poisoners and diabolical schemers. But, Practical Magic is about sexy witches, who serve the ends of men. Even the aunts are very glamorous and serve as agents – “pimps,” essentially – hooking up desperate women with men for their sexual benefit.

Jilly enjoys the party life and while she has lots of male friends, there is one, in particular, to whom she appears to have trauma-bonded – Jimmy Angelov.  It turns out that Angelov is a serial killer of women, but the sisters manage to kill him first. But, they’ve got a problem because they know that the patriarchal system will not be on their side, Sally will lose her children and they will go to prison for life, for defending themselves against a man. This is the world we all know – no magic there.

So, they bring him back to life by means of witchcraft. Of course, this doesn’t go well, so they kill him a second time and bury his body in the rose bushes. Now, there may be some symbolic significance to rose bushes, since roses are traditionally a symbol for romantic love and we see that the evil spirit of Jimmy Angelov seems to be making these poisonous flowers grow, even out of season.

The best part of this movie is when all the women of the town come together, and old feelings of ill-will toward the witch family are healed, as they work together, as one, to banish the spirit of Jimmy Angelov and rescue Jilly, whom he is still trying to kill, even from the grave.

Unfortunately for Sally, the spell she cast as a child to ward of a man’s “love” backfired – as love spells so often do, especially in the movies – and she ends up attracting a special investigator from out-of-state, to whom she trauma bonds in a very obvious way. Any woman in her position given the two options – let the “nice” policeman fuck you or go to prison for life – would probably experience similar Stockholm Syndrome under these circumstances, which we, the viewing audience, are supposed to find sweetly “romantic.” I find it deeply disturbing and always did, although, previously I did not have the terms to describe why exactly that was.

By the end of the movie, all is well. Angelov’s death is ruled an accident, the town finally accepts the women as witches and everybody is okay with that, plus the policeman comes back to sweep Sally off her feet and we are to presume that they live happily ever after. We don’t know the rest of the story, but disbelief in curses does not negate them, no matter what the skeptics think.

If there were a sequel, what would it look like? Would Jilly have to rescue Sally this time? Or would Sally luck out, again, as her policeman husband, unable to find a job in this small town, blamed her and her infernal witchcraft for all his misfortunes and drank himself to death in some way before he completely re-arranged her face and put her 6-feet under. (I know how this goes because I once dated a cop.)

By the way, I read the book this movie is based on and I have no idea how they pulled this movie out of it. It’s completely different and deals very little with witchcraft. Also, the Jilly character seems much more psychologically damaged, pathetically so, in fact, and neither women are very glamorous, at all.

abc2Night of the Eagle or Burn Witch Burn (1962), starring Janet Blair:  This film is pretty closely based on the novella, called “The Conjure Wife,” by Fritz Lieber, published in the magazine, “Unknown Worlds,” in April 1943. The story demonstrates a remarkably good knowledge of the homeopathic nature of witchcraft, which is really lost in the movie. But, it’s still a very good film.

The film is, at times, a little hard to follow, especially when the action speeds up near the end.

The jist of it all is this:

Norman Saylor (Taylor, in the movie) is a skeptical professor of anthropology at a British university. His wife, Tansy, has been practicing witchcraft behind his back ever since an incident in Jamaica, in which she witnessed witchcraft being used to save someone’s life.

It is significant that the wife’s name is Tansy, since the flowering plant of the same name might be regarded as an herb of women’s power. It is an emmenagogue and has a history of use as an abortificant. Norman’s name is, also, somewhat significant, since it sounds like “normal” and this name is often used for clueless-dude characters in paranormal-themed movies. For instance, in the movie, “What Lies Beneath,” Michelle Pfeiffer’s murderous science professor husband is, also, named Norman. Characters named Norman are usually men who do not believe in witchcraft, ghosts or psychic abilities until it is proven to them in some way by the end of the movie.

Norman arrogantly believes that his rapid advancement at the university is all his own doing. This is a reflection of the world men live in, in which they take credit as their just due, even when they do not deserve it – especially when it is women who do the real work without acknowledgement, as if this is simply the natural order of things.

The sexist adage, “Behind every great man is a great woman,” is not a compliment, but a life sentence to the women in this movie.

As Norman finds out, not only is his own wife a witch, whose spells and “protections” are responsible for his quick rise to success, but all the women at the university are witches, who work their spells and magic behind the scenes to help their husbands get ahead.

True love, according to the movies, is when a woman uses all her powers to help her man, sacrificing herself, her own desires and – in the case of this film – even her life, to rescue her man from his own folly. No matter how abusive he is – and Norman is a domineering abuser who ridicules Tansy and throws her objects of witchcraft into the fire – she loves him and is willing to sacrifice her life -not just her desires and her ambitions – but her very life for his.

The message of the patriarchal establishment is clear: If women have any power – something these men must greatly fear – then, they must use it for men’s purposes. Only then can women and their infernal powers be tolerated, only then can women be allowed to live, at all.

I’ll only briefly discuss the next two films because while they are significant, they are pretty much the same theme as the previous one. Beautiful young-looking women (even if they may be centuries old), who could do anything at all with their lives and their extraordinary abilities, are powerless in the presence of an unattractive, middle-aged man. The movie-makers want to make sure that we understand that no matter how beautiful or powerful we are, we must serve men. In both instances, the women use a love spell or potion, which backfires and they fall in love with a mere, mortal man.

Bell, Book and Candle (1958), starring Kim Novak:  Gillian is an immortal witch, happily living with her cat, who falls in love with a publishing man and casts a love spell on him. Soon, she is happy to give up her witchcraft (her ambitions, powers and abilities) and her immortality (her very life) for the man.

This a beautiful movie, fun to watch for its foreshadowing of the “Bewitched” television series upon which it was obviously based.  But, the message is clear: Women, even the most powerful women who could choose anything at all in their lives, must sacrifice themselves for a man.

abc3I Married a Witch (1942), starring Veronica Lake: This movie is really cute and I love watching Veronica Lake, the wardrobes of the actors and the often luxurious settings. The special effects are, also, nifty and comically just right for this movie. There are lots of nice things about it, but the theme is the same. A beautiful witch comes back from the grave (with her father this time) to get revenge on the descendants of the man who sentenced her to death for witchcraft. Her revenge fails and she falls in love with her persecutor’s great-great-great-great-grandson – yet another unattractive, middle-aged man – we can pretty much imagine what these movie-makers must look like!

The message here seems to be that middle-aged men are irresistible – even to remarkably beautiful women, who just can’t wait to seduce them, for some unknown reason. For the men, this is a fantasy. For women, it appears to be instructional.

The Witches of Eastwick (1987), starring Cher, Michelle Pfeiffer and Susan Sarandon: I had not seen this movie in years. I’ve been scrounging around not only for movies about witchcraft, but for movies centered around women’s lives and interests. This movie is a remarkable failure in that sense.  It had the potential to do so much for women, but clearly that’s not the point of this movie. It’s another instructional for women as to how their powers, if they happen to possess any, should be channeled; women’s interests, all their thoughts, their conversations and their very lives, must be centered around a man – preferably the most hideous, balding, puffy-eyed, paunchy creepy looking fellow central casting can dig up. In this case, it’s Jack Nicholson – and this might be truly comical, except that we’ve seen it over and over, again, in movies with young women and witches since, at least, 1942.

What I remembered about this movie the first time I saw it was the witchcraft. I loved the portrayals of magic in this movie. It is visually stunning and the women are beautiful. In the beginning of the movie, they have a relationship to each other that looks like a lot of fun.

But, of course, the women are not satisfied with their girl’s nights in, during which time they learn some new skill together or share some town gossip over wine. And, of course, because it is men who write these scripts and films and try to cram their patriarchal ideas down the throats of the vulnerable viewing public, what is lacking in these beautiful, powerful, talented and educated women’s lives is – of course! – a man.

The one thing about this movie is that if you watch very closely, and read between the lines maybe just a little bit, you see a real message from the men who made this movie, in which they tell us exactly who they are.

Daryl Van Horne knows what each woman wants to hear. It’s as if he’s in each one of their heads, as if he knows everything about them from what size dick they prefer to their most vulnerable insecurities. At first he’s flattering. He’s charming and seductive, despite his paunch, his balding head and his revolting smell.

But, while Van Horne praises and flatters the women to their faces, he later goes on an insane, misogynistic tirade about women that would make an MRA (say John “head like a dick” Hembling or the Santa Barbara killer) give a standing ovation to his sexually offensive prose and villainous laughter.

Moreover, Van Horne isn’t just any old devil, he’s Beelzebub, himself – an annoyance who will never go away, especially since he manages to impregnate all three women and by the end of the movie, which is really pretty creepy and sad, they each have a son who Van Horne tries to influence. Despite Van Horne’s evil acts upon these women, in which he makes all their worst fears come to life, at least, one of them still longs for him at the end of the movie.

The message is that men are truly devils. They make women’s worst horrors, our worst nightmares real. And, like Beelzebub, Lord of the Flies, they are a disease-ridden pestilence that never, ever completely goes away. Men do to women exactly what Felicia warns about in her vision when she says, “He’s going to take their love and use it to destroy the world.”  And, of course, he does this by impregnating them and causing them to bear him sons.

We should all definitely take heed because our natural enemy is really uncloaking himself in this film.

There are a few movies I’ve run across, all of which I really like a lot, that seem much more kind to witches and women.  The Craft, for instance, is not as bad as most others, although, there are definitely some patriarchal messages for girls and witches. The last two on this list, Eve’s Bayou and Season of the Witch, were both written by or heavily influenced by women and, not surprisingly, they are the best and things go pretty well for the female characters in the end.  The Craft was written by men, so it could be better, but it could be a lot worse, too.

The Craft (1996), starring Robin Tunney, Fairuza Balk, Neve Campbell and  Rachel True: Like Practical Magic, this is another movie that is very popular with women and, chances are, you’re pretty familiar with the plot.

Three outcasts, Nancy, Rochelle and Bonnie, have been studying witchcraft, but their spells aren’t working very well until Sarah, a “natural witch” arrives, at their Catholic school. (All the fun stuff with witches and devils happens at Catholic schools, at least, in the movies.)  Despite being warned about “the bitches of Eastwick,” Sarah soon finds herself part of their little clique and she, too, is studying and practicing witchcraft.

abc4One thing really appealing about this movie is that these girls have power. They don’t seem to have much to fear. They are wonder women who can go into isolated places or go out at night, which is a dream for all girls and women. For instance, in the scene where they they get off the bus (see the still shot to the left) and a creepy bus driver warns, “Watch out for the weirdos,” Nancy (Fairuza) gives a Cheshire cat grin with the retort, “We are the weirdos, mister.”

Something interesting about the girls’ power, probably because men made this film, is that as their power grows, the girls’ hair gets bigger and fluffier and their skirts get shorter. This is commented upon in the supplemental material on the DVD for the film. The message here might be that women’s power, no matter how amazing or miraculous,  always lies in her ability to be sexually attractive to men – that certainly seems to be what they’re saying, anyway.

Each of the four girls makes witchcraft work for her. Bonnie gets rid of her scars, Rochelle gets revenge on a mean girl at school, Nancy’s abusive step-father keels over and she and her mother inherit a sum of money, and Sarah gets the boy she has a crush on to pay attention to her.

You’ll notice that when Sarah does this spell, Nancy is very sympathetic. She seems to really feel sorry for  Sarah that she has such an obsession with this boy, whose bad character she is already familiar with. It’s too bad the girls didn’t do a different kind of spell to break Sarah’s obsession and allow her to see the folly of this endeavor, but then, of course, we wouldn’t have had a patriarchal establishment-serving script and this film would probably not have been  made at all.

One major thing I didn’t like about this movie (besides the condescending, goody-goody lady who owned the metaphysical book store) was how it ended for the girls and especially for Nancy. After all, let’s look at this thing, not from the perspective of Sarah, the good girl, the good witch, who serves the patriarchal structure, who thinks that the boy who treated her pretty badly even before she put a spell on him and he turned full-blown rapist “wasn’t such a bad guy underneath it all,” but from the perspective of Nancy.  Although, Sarah is the protagonist and it is clearly her perspective that the male movie-makers want you to take.

Nancy and Sarah are both powerful witches. From the patriarchal perspective Sarah is good, but Nancy is evil because she went against the patriarchal establishment and sought revenge on Sarah’s attempted rapist, the same boy who gave her (Nancy) a sexually transmitted disease.  Sarah doesn’t appreciate Nancy’s attempts to punish the boy, which result in him falling out a window – quite accidentally, really – to his death.  Here we see that Sarah is something of a handmaiden, of course, she is an ingenue and maybe she just hasn’t been kicked around quite enough yet to be able to see things from Nancy’s perspective. Nancy is young but she knows very well what it’s like to have an abusive male in the house.

Far from being grateful for Nancy’s intervention on her behalf, Sarah works binding magic against Nancy. Nancy is understandably upset about this betrayal, not only of herself, but of the coven. Sarah has betrayed her sisters and their sisterhood in every way.  Even though this abusive boy was going to rape her, the message here is that vengeance against your abuser, your rapist or attempted rapist, your attempted murderer – whatever men have tried to do to you or have succeeded in doing – is wrong and if you desire revenge, then you are an evil witch and must be punished according to the patriarchy’s established guidelines for punishing errant women.

In the final scene we see that the patriarchs of the film have allowed the good witch to keep her powers, but Rachel and Bonnie have lost theirs, maybe because they didn’t have much ability to begin with or maybe as a punishment for their transgressions against the patriarchal establishment as they followed Nancy’s lead.

In the final horrible scene, we see that Nancy not only has lost her powers, but has been committed to an insane asylum, historically the place where unrepentant women who run up against the patriarchy are sent to assure that they never pose a threat, again, and their fate serves as a warning to all other women.

The one nice thing we do see is that there is still an apparently strong bond of friendship between Rochelle and Bonnie, who seemed close to each other throughout the story.

Fortunately, too, in this film, no one in lives “happily ever after” with a man, which is a nice departure from the usual fare in witchcraft movies. I think this is a happier ending than usual, at least, for Rochelle, Sarah and Bonnie. So, you see, as bad as it was, it could have been worse!

abc5

Eve procures a spell from the witch of the bayou: “I want him dead!”

Eve’s Bayou, (1997), starring Diahann Carroll and Debbi Morgan: This is an extraordinary movie, written and directed by two black women, although IMDB only gives one name, Kasi Lemmons, as both writer and director. It is visually stunning and features a star-studded, all black cast. As you know, overwhelmingly most movies are written and directed by men – very, very white men.  Maybe that’s why this movie delivers such a remarkably different and truly refreshing message, not only about women’s lives, but about black people’s lives, as well.

It is set in Louisiana in 1962. Eve and her sister, Cisely, are the descendants of a black slave woman and a Frenchman named Batiste and their estate on the bayou is their ancestral home and family legacy.  The Batiste women, also, seem to have some hereditary psychic abilities, referred to as “the gift of sight” or simply “the gift.”

The Batiste’s are well-to-do and Louis, the family patriarch, is an admired, successful physician.  This movie is a lot of fun for the authentic period clothing, the interiors of the homes, the exterior settings, including shots of the town and the bayous, as well as the period automobiles. The Batiste’s throw fun parties at their big manor house with two bathrooms – which is, apparently, a lot of bathrooms for 1962!

It looks like they’ve got it made, but there is one big problem: The doc is something of a ladies’ man and he likes his liquor a little bit too much, too.  One night during one of the house parties, 10-year old Eve catches her daddy doing something she doesn’t quite understand out in the carriage house with Mrs. Mattie Mereaux, who is the wife of a jealous man.

Eve tries to tell her sister, but Cisely paints another picture of the events and tries to lay Eve’s fears to rest. Cisely has a close relationship to her father and when she hears her father and mother fighting that night in the midst of a terrible storm, she goes downstairs to soothe him. What happens in those moments is in dispute throughout the film right to the very end.  In his drunken haze, Dr. Batiste may have tried to kiss his daughter and not in a fatherly way. When Cisely tried to pull away, he slapped her across the face, although why this happened is not fully understood. According to the directors, how that event in the movie is seen by viewers is often divided along lines of sex, with males seeing Ciseley as a sexual aggressor and females seeing the father as the sexual aggressor on his daughter.

Cisely is severely traumatized by something and after consulting with with some doctors, she and her parents decide it would be best if she went away from them for a while.

Eve and Cisely keep the secret of that evening between them, but Aunt Mozelle, who has the gift, is able to see what happened.

Eve seeks revenge on her father by means of voodoo. Was it really voodoo or simply the natural result of the doc not being able to keep it in his pants that leads to his demise? Eve feels responsible. In the end, even though she has the power to see what transpired between her sister and her father that night, she is as unclear as Cisely as to what really happened.

This movie ends pretty well for the sisters and their mother as the threat represented by their father is removed.

A side plot throughout the film is Aunt Mozelle’s gift and her bad luck with men – they keep dying! Again, is this really a curse – or is a it protection? She finally overcomes her reputation as a black widow when she meets, falls in love with and marries a drifter who  sought out her services.

All in all, this is a really nice movie.

abc6

Jan White, “I’m a witch.”

Jack’s Wife, Hungry Wives or Season of the Witch (1972), starring Jan White: This may be my all-time favorite movie.  It was directed and written by George A. Romero, but his ex-wife was a co-writer and clearly some woman or other had a lot of  influence on this film from beginning to end. It is a rare film for a number of reasons, but mainly because it is one of the few that comments positively on the Women’s Liberation movement of the early 1970s.

The original title, Jack’s Wife, sums up Joan Mitchell’s situation. She is the wife of a successful businessman who is very disconnected to her and her daughter.  She’s in therapy and taking happy pills.

One night at a cocktail party – I love the cocktail parties, which are reminiscent of the cocktail party in “Rosemary’s Baby,” but if you watch closely, this one tells the real story of such affairs (hands on your ass while you’re trying to have a polite conversation, men talking to you like you’re a second class citizen, etc.) – Joan learns that a friend of theirs is involved in witchcraft. She and her friend Shirley make a visit to the lady’s house and Shirley has a very accurate tarot reading in which we learn that her husband is fooling around with a younger woman, which is only a minor point – but, you can see that none of the women in this movie married to successful husbands are happy.

Intrigued, Joan begins to take up the study of witchcraft while her husband is on his long trips out of town. There’s lots of fantastic symbolism in this movie, which is one of the reasons I’ve watched it over and over, again. While Joan is worried about being stuck in her old life, she’s also worried about making a new transition, which manifests as nightmares of being chased around her house by a man wearing a Green Man mask. Of course, the Green Man is a literary and artistic  motif, which represents the return to nature, a movement from the city to the country, from  Christianity to paganism.

Joan begins undoing her patriarchal mind control programming by reciting the Our Father Prayer backwards and performing the conjuration of the spirit of virago (“virago” means a powerful woman or a warrior woman), based on the summoning of Vassago (a Goetic demon) from Paul Huson’s book, “Mastering Witchcraft.” If you’re familiar with Huson’s work, you’ll definitely recognize it in the film, although no where is credit give to Huson that I can find.

Depending on your point of view, Joan’s witchcraft seems to be working. When her abusive husband returns home from work unannounced one night, Joan mistakes him for an intruder and blasts him with a shotgun. Free at last! In the last scene, we see that she has become a fully-fledged witch and has come into her individual power.  She is greatly admired by the other women in her social circle.

The patriarchy gets the knee to the groin in this film – and shotgun blast to the head. It’s dead by the end. I love this movie!

Related material:

RawStory published an article on June 5, 2014 on the subject of men’s violence against women in classical films: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/05/sorry-ross-douthat-but-old-hollywood-icons-of-masculinity-were-violently-misogynist/

White Women Attacked by Muslim and Negro Men in Europe and USA: More “White Women’s Privilege”

Warning: Some news videos showing actual violence perpetrated against women by males are included in this post. Also, there is a lot of sarcasm.

It is such a privilege to be a white woman living in a supposedly 1st world nation where we have so much privilege that we never have to worry about being attacked, run down, raped, or murdered by Muslims and negro men, who are the “truly oppressed” among us.

Below are some examples of these poor, sad, oppressed men taking out all their sadness and feelings of oppression on white women. According to the liberals, we deserve this abuse for being “racist” (where racist means failing to suck enough black cock) and oppressing (where oppressing means existing and trying to mind our own business somewhere) negro and Muslim men; and according to the right-wing men, we deserve this because of feminism, which is, also, to blame for virtually everything men do to us.

In the video below you will see some sad negro men attacking two “oppressive white women.” Note how the white women oppress the black men by their mere existence, thus inducing the negroids to hit, kick and otherwise abuse them in this subway station in France. The attacks appear to have taken place in the last couple of months. The police are still investigating – yeah, that’ll help. Here is further commentary from Liveleaks on the video:

Now, there is a word that if you are white woman and you use it, black people become very angry and will use it as an excuse to do violence to you – even try to kill you. And, the liberals will say that’s okay because you are racist white bitch and you deserve to killed by black men. You know this word, it is “Nigger.”

Sometimes you don’t even have to actually say, “Nigger,” if you are a white woman, you are assumed to be a racist white whore, therefore, a black man can just accuse you of saying it as a pretext for punching you in the face, after he humps you in public and assaults you and follows you all over the room – because you are a white whore and he is deeply offended that you are not sucking his cock right now! An example of this happened in Florida  You see, black men can assault you and threaten you, they can call you all kinds of filthy sexually perverted and sexually threatening names, but when he physically attacks you and you say something like, “Get off me, you fucking nigger!”  which the woman being assaulted in the video below is accused by a witness of saying, then YOU are the racist. Yes, you understand, don’t you? The black man who is following you and assaulting you is a poor, innocent, sad oppressed, powerless little man. And, if you ever once in your entire life thought silently to yourself, “Nigger,” then it is you who are the racist. It doesn’t matter that you’ve never attacked a black man, woman or child in your life, or that you have never done harm to any person on account of their race or creed. It is you, the white woman, who is oppressing this sad, little, powerless black man.

See video of the nigger man assaulting the white woman below – remember, he’s not the racist, SHE is and don’t even think about calling this poor little nigger child a sex predator, that is not allowed. His blackness is his shield against such observations whenever his chosen victim is a “white whore.” Keep the focus on HER racism for not instantly getting down on her knees and sucking his dick:

http://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/witnesses-say-the-girl-fsu-qb-deandre-johnson-punched-at-the-bar-kneed-him-in-the-balls-and-called-him-a-fcking-ngger/

Also, from Florida, here is another instance of a black man harassing some white women riding horses in a park near some docks. According to the accounts, he drove his Dodge pick up truck at an estimated 60 miles an hour near the docks, frightening the horses the young women were riding. One of the riders yelled at him to “slow down.” The sad, oppressed, helpless, little black man reportedly said, “Fuck you,” to her, after which one of the women called him a “stupid nigger.” At this point, he turned his vehicle on the horses and their riders and stomped on the gas pedal, ramming them, killing one of the horses, causing another of the horses to run away and so terrifying one of the women (who had not called him “nigger,” although I can think of a few other things to call him, too, that might be very appropriate) that she crawled into the woods and hid for fear that he would continue his assault. She ended up with some broken bones. And, the liberals cheered the nigger for this attempted murder of the “racist” white women.

Here’s a link to a local article on the subject: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/deland-man-faces-35-prison-killing-horse-his-truck/nqJPm/

Here’s a link to the same story at the liberal news aggregator site, RawStory, so you can see the liberals cheering on their boy – because liberals really hate white women: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/all-i-did-was-i-called-him-a-nr-florida-man-faces-35-years-for-running-over-racist-riders-horse/

Now, how calling someone “nigger” ever came to equal being racist or how a white woman using that word becomes justification for hitting, raping or murdering her (or attempting to murder women, as in the above case), I cannot understand. A word is just a word – at least, it is when men use dehumanizing, sexually threatening language at women. But, when a woman uses a word against her oppressor – and we don’t have many of these words that we can use against them to begin with – it is grounds for violence – all justified in the minds of liberals.

Since it’s already been decided that you are a racist white whore who deserves to die, you might as well use whatever language you want to use at the people who are doing this to you.

Personally, I’ve experienced a lot of “white women’s privilege,” for example, I’ve been held at gun point by men, had a gun shoved in my face by a man, been raped by men many times, been beaten by men and the last thing I have to fear after coming back from the arms of Death is being called “racist” by liberal men and women who have already shown themselves to be the worst enemies of white women and of white feminists, in particular.

Here is a montage of attacks on white women by some manner of niggers in Europe:

Now, don’t forget it’s the women who are the racists! Maybe they called the perps “Nigger” before they were attacked. You never know about racist white bitches, they’re liable to say anything to a poor, sad, oppressed man. We oppress them by our mere existence in a public place.

In the video below an older German man is attacked after intervening in an assault by Muslims males on a German woman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEfW9dh5DZE

Remember: The white folks here are the racists – and since the white woman being attacked is German, they are, also, “Nazis.” Yes, they are evil Nazi women who have not developed an appreciation for black cock – or being assaulted and sexually harassed and threatened on public transportation.

And, here is a nigger man – should I use a nicer description? – attacking a Hungarian woman from behind as she’s walking down a public sttreet.

 

And, it isn’t just happening in Europe – it’s happening all over the U.S. The video below is from an incident in August of 2014, involving a gang of niggers attacking a white woman in Springfield, MO after they had already sexually assaulted her once and she had gone to get help from her boyfriend who was working at a night club as a D.J.:

Now, to kind of deviate slightly from this discussion, I’d like to mention something that I’ve been reading about lately in relation to the “migrants” – and these are enemy invaders, of course, not “migrants” or “refugees” – in Calais, France.

I’m not very familiar with France, but I’ve been watching what is happening in the town of Calais, which is situated near the English Chunnel (the Channel tunnel), which is the place where trucks bearing European goods go, then from there many products are transported to and from England and the European mainland.

I remember years ago when the Chunnel was just being talked about in England that many English people objected to its construction because of the possibility of exactly what is happening right now. But, in every country it seems we have people in our government who are not working in our best interest. England is no exception and neither is France.

Right now, the Chunnel is being used as a point of illegal entry into England for “migrants” who are housed in Calais, France. There are videos of the “migrants” attacking trucks, trying to hijack them, attacking the drivers, trying to break into them, as they are going in and out of Calais. There are many videos depicting these attacks on drivers. Here is an English driver talking about the routine attacks and attempts to hijack his truck:

 

Here’s an RT report on the subject with video: https://www.rt.com/news/326509-calais-migrants-attack-drivers/

Here is another video taken by a driver in Calais: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-amDKfV5Hdw

And, here’s another in which drivers are attacked- they’re pretty much the same after a while: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ESI4pTDI9g

Calais is the site of a massive tent city in which “migrants” live and from which they wreak havoc, not only on the truckers, but on the people of Calais. The following video is very interesting to me because it is one woman’s story of betrayal at the hands of the French police, at the hands of the French government. You can see the video for yourself. It is all in French with English subtitles. It is a little long, but it is very interesting and even if you do not understand French well (and I do not) you can still hear the frustration and the tragedy of this situation in this woman’s native language.

The shorthand version of this story is that she is the mother of two sons, one of whom was killed in the service of France and his ashes scattered at the sea. She cannot even go to visit her son at the site where his ashes were scattered, which she calls his grave, because of the male violence in Calais. The police are working against the citizens and on behalf of the “migrants.” She was nearly arrested at a Pegida demonstration, one of a very small number of people who gathered, to protest this invasion and its accompanying violence.

Her husband is dying of cancer and she is about to be evicted from her house – which it sounds like she owns – to make way for more “migrants.” The situation she describes at the police station trying to make a report is the same one we white women in the U.S. have found ourselves in for a long time.

Because the French are disarmed, she – like others – has to be afraid in her own home because the poor, oppressed, sad, little “migrants” think nothing of breaking into French people’s homes to steal, rape and kill them. Again, nothing unfamiliar to many of us in the U.S., where we have been living with a similar scourge for a long time – unable to speak about it, silenced for being “white whores” and “racist white bitches.” Remember: White feminists, shut the fuck up! We have to shut up so we don’t make the perpetrators uncomfortable, so we don’t cause them to be subjected to “racism” from more, privileged, racist white bitches like ourselves who object to sucking black cock.

So, here you have it, the face of white women’s privilege in France. It is the privilege to have your home stolen from you to house negroes. (Can anybody say “South Africa?!”) It is the privilege of being terrorized in your own town and in your own home. It is the privilege of being threatened with arrest and violence by the police you are taxed to pay for when you you object to these abuses. It is the privilege of being told by the cops that nothing can be done about you being attacked by some nigger men because they all look alike and, therefore, they cannot be identified. (Raise your hand if you’ve been there, done that, and got the t-shirt on that one!) It’s the privilege of having your children taken from you, recruited by the state or out-right forced by the state, to go to war and to die to serve this monstrous system. And, who will stand up for this privileged, white woman?

 

 

 

Thoughts on Women-only Societies and Covens: Elaboration on the Previous Two Posts

What follows here is just a thought exercise. These are only ideas, but maybe they are ideas that some woman or women somewhere might be able to use. At the very least, I think it is important that we change the way we think about ourselves as women, about our real power, and about how we can disengage from both males and male systems, as much as possible. By male systems I mean things like their medical and legal establishments, which are designed to directly harm us.

In the previous post, I talked about men’s secret societies, their exclusionary nature and how they use them to establish and maintain control over women and, in fact, even over some men who are not insiders. For instance, when a man gets a traffic ticket in a court in the Mormon Corridor (Utah and the entire region where there is a de facto Mormon theocracy operating), the judge, who is usually Mormon insider knows whether or not he is a member based on whether or not he is wearing special “sacred” undergarments and if he is not, he is treated with less kindness and consideration than a man who is a member in good standing. Similarly, men who are members of other masonic-based organizations recognize and give preference to their own members and little or no consideration to those who are not members. The only way for women to be “in” is to be married to a member in good standing.

I talked about these organizations because I see them as a model for how women’s organizations might be run, which is the opposite of how women usually go about things. Most women like the idea of egalitarianism and they foolishly extend it to their enemies. We saw this happen with Atheism Plus. The women were being regularly absued and sexually assaulted by male atheists, so they went off and formed their own group. I applauded until I saw that they quickly opened the door to the hen house to let in more foxes! They let in trannies and gay men and whoever else “felt” oppressed. They did not want to discriminate. The wanted to be inclusive. But, this is one of the biggest mistakes I see women making over and over, again.

Women’s Groups Must Be Exclusionary to Succeed

If any women’s group is to succeed, it must be exclusionary. It must exclude men, including men who think they are women or who think they are somehow oppressed because they like to fuck other men. Men can never be involved and it would be best if they never knew such an organization exists. The reason for this is that we know from experience where ever women gather, men will try to get in to harm us. It doesn’t matter if it’s a women’s shelter, a women’s residency hotel, or something like MichFest.

Women who are female-identified should be given preference. Preference should, also, be given to women without husbands, boyfriends or sons. Women who have allegiances to males can be detrimental to the group.

The group should seek out women who have some means or who, at least, are doers. No dead weight. The Masonic organizations charge membership fees that range from under a hundred to a few hundred dollars. The masonic-based Mormon org. (hereafter called the Morgue, for short) expects their members to pay 10% of their gross income and to perform services, including janitorial services, for them. And, they expect a certain amount of participation.

Secret societies and modern covens are organized as circles within circles. The biggest circle includes prospective members. The innermost circle includes the most trusted and able members of the group, who understand the group’s mission and are 100% committed. In between the inner and outer circles may be any other numbers of circles which exist for different purpose, with different levels of knowledge. Only the innermost circle knows of its own existence. Everyone is sworn to secrecy.

So, a special, exclusive group of women should be selected to be at the core of the group. They must all have the same goal in mind. They must be female-identified, living apart from males, they must be doers (no dead weight!), and they must eschew male systems, which could compromise the safety of the group.

What Women’s Groups Might Accomplish

Various groups of women may exist for only certain purposes. For instance, we see that men constantly want to control women’s bodies. They do this through rape, through mind control and grooming of young girls and women, by withholding information and medication, and withholding access to abortion (or, at least, making these things very, very difficult to obtain), which is a natural right of women and girls, of course.

We must all understand that not only do men not have the right to control our bodies this way (see the post before last about the Catholic fanatic and U.S. Prez candidate, Marco Rubio, who is a throwback from the 17th century!) but they are doing it through systems they have set up centuries ago. We must recognize those system, which include their medical system, their legal system, their courts, their police, etc. We must endeavor to live our lives without running up against any of these things, as much as possible. Of course, this is not always avoidable, which is why women teaching women in secret the things which we are not supposed to know or to know how to do, and women experimenting together with such things as birth control, abortion, and the healing of our reproductive organs from many afflictions, which the patriarchal “health” system usually have no idea how to address, anyway – for instance, endometriosis, which is not understood or really cared about by the patriarchal system, except that a woman may become infertile. Of course, she also lives in incredible pain and dies young as a result of this condition, but they couldn’t care less about that.

It is for this reason that women should fully take responsibility for our health into our own hands and agree to stay far away from the medical establishment, which imprisons women who do not comply. The medical establishment works with police and the entire legal establishment. For this reason alone, I can’t imagine why any woman ever trusts them. Maybe most do not, but feel they have no alternative. But, we women must educate each other about these things and we must do it in secrecy. This is the one thing that the men most hate and fear about us – our reproductive capacity – they covet it! They want to dominate us and when they cannot, kill us, because of it. So, the importance of secrecy in establishing a group like this cannot be over-stressed. The members must also be unwilling to go to the patriarchal medical establishment, in any case, because doing so could implicate everyone involved.

There has been some effort in this direction online, but it can only go so far in public. Back in the 1990s, there were various Yahoogroups that existed for the purpose of sharing information between women. Also, there is still a website run by Sister Zeus: http://www.sisterzeus.com/

There are other aspects to healing, which are illegal to know and use, which could be taught among a tight, exclusionary, committed, non-dead beat, female-identified, group of women. Knowing about these things could keep you out of the hands of the patriarchal medical establishment for your entire life.

Women’s groups might be established for other purposes, as well. In fact, any need that you have, you can bet there are many other women with the same needs, who are simply not able to openly communicate about it. So, if your experience is with male abuse, then a group to help women escape male abusers, might be the purpose of a group.A whole lot of this is about changing the way we think about ourselves, our worth and our rights as human beings. It’s, also, about liberating our minds from other male establishments – such as legal and religious establishments. Many women who are not religious still hold onto certain ideas, which have been placed there by the male establishment. For instance, they may believe that justice can only come from the court system and all else is “just revenge,” and, therefore, bad or wrong somehow. They may hold this idea even though they, themselves, may have experienced repeated injustice and impunity as victims when they tried to use the system. They, also, may believe that repercussions will come from above, if not from “God” then from “karma,” if they act on their own behalf to obtain justice or to bring down the perpetrators of evil against women and girls.

Covens for Women Only

witches2The above-mentioned is why I like the idea of women’s covens, which are relatively small groups of women working for the same goals, preferably in secrecy, of course. But, we women who practice witchcraft have had some success in the past bringing action against the perpetrators of well-publicized crimes against women and girls, in particular, against Boko Haram. An action was organized by a radfem blogger last year, in which we each called upon a powerful spirit(s) we work with to avenge the victims and we saw almost immediate results (within 24 hours): The death of a great many men of Boko Haram and the return of hundreds of kidnapped girls, who had been taken from a school in northern Nigeria. Some of the women who participated were scared by it – although, this is something I cannot understand. But, some others, it seems, were encouraged and have gone on to organize more such spiritual actions and it looks like some African witches have joined in, too:

In the wake of the most recent Boko Haram attacks on a group of Nigerian children, several U.S. Witches have now joined the efforts to use Witchcraft to help stop this terrorist group. Calling themselves the Social Justice Witches Working, these women are asking Witches and other magical workers from around the world to come together on Feb. 13 to stop the violence perpetrated by the Nigerian-based terrorist organization. (Reference:  http://wildhunt.org/tag/social-justice-witches-working)

(Note on the Feri tradition mentioned in this article: The Feri are a non-Wiccan establishment of witches, which was founded by a witch name Cora from the Ozark Mountain region and her partner whose name is Anderson. His name is mentioned in this article, but hers is not. It is not a fertility cult like Wicca and was founded in the U.S. in the 1940s, before Wicca, which didn’t come along until the 1950s in England. The Wikipedia article on Feri is, as usual, stupid and full of misinformation. The four directions and the seven levels (or “seven heavens”) it refers to and, also, the little people are features of American Indian culture in the southeast region (especially the Cherokee), including the color associations (black in the west, red in the east, blue to the north and white to the south), which may be similar to Wicca, but likely did not come from Europe, in this instance, since they are far older and native to this continent and, in fact, the region where Cora came from. The Feri revere a peacock goddess (a primordial spirit who is represented by this animal), which is similar to that of the Yazidis. You will remember that it is the Yazidi women who have been abducted, enslaved and in many cases raped to death by Muslims calling themselves ISIS and similar-sounding names.)

There will be another mass working of witches scheduled on February 13, 2016. See the details here: http://leanintojoy.org/2016/02/08/calling-all-magic-workers-a-global-working-against-boko-haram/ The facebook event page for the online group, Social Justice Witches Working may be found here: https://www.facebook.com/events/1746659622232596/

Your group, of course, would not have to include witchcraft or any kind of spiritual practice, but if you do include these things, you always have the luxury of calling yourself a religion and falling back on the protections given to people who claim to have religious beliefs – at least, this might work in the U.S.  Many men’s groups include some form of witchcraft or “magic with a k,” usually only at the innermost circles. Those on the outside, including wives and daughters of members (same with the Mormons), cannot participate and many do not know about it. Traditionally, the men use women as psychics and mediums for some of these activities because their own metaphysical energy is not suited to the task. (Men are energetically like holes, which is ironic since they think of us as “walking holes” – life force energy flows in and back out like water poured into a funnel, they do not retain it like women do. This is why to a psychic, many of them appear to be standing in an energetic void. It’s why they die young and why they keep trying to rape and kill us at “random,” at least, that’s the metaphysical explanation. On a subconscious level, they want our energy supply.)

Online groups can be good and helpful, but they can only go so far. Few of us have the time or resources to form groups in real life, so for many of us this may be the only option. Any groups designed to take us off the patriarchal “grid” would be a step in the right direction. Even if we only work on one aspect of it at a time, we have to free ourselves by changing our thinking about the world first, then by disengaging from damaging patriarchal systems.

Women’s groups should exist only to help women – actual women. The efforts should not be splintered to assist other groups. Anyone who suggests such a thing should be kicked out of the group, immediately. Women must learn to not fear being exclusionary and discriminatory. Our lives depend on it.

Men’s Secret Societies and Other Gangs: The Power of Men-Only Spaces Illustrates Why They Fight Against Women-Only Spaces

The following post is a reprint, from my private radfem blog, to which I’ve made a few edits and additional comments. I think a lot of what we discuss about our plans as women should be kept private, but some things, like the ideas in this post should be disseminated among women to do with whatever they might be able to do with them. Online is simply not safe for us. The more we desire freedom, the more the slave masters want to suppress us, therefore, the most radical discussions about women’s freedom are never safe discussions unless they are  done entirely privately. I suggest in this article that men’s organizations exist for the purpose of subverting female autonomy and for the object of the furtherance of our subjugation and for men to amass and participate in a power structure that has been instrumental in our near destruction. 

I think it is important to study the hierarchical structures of their secret societies and to consider the purpose of women’s covens, as they have existed in the past and may very well exist now.  It is my feeling that the only organization women can safely do must be done in secrecy, away from men, who are constantly trying to undermine our efforts to have our natural rights acknowledged – and I think it is most important that these rights are acknowledged by more and more women. What men think is of little consequence in the sense that having them as “allies” is often worse than having them as enemies.

witchesI hired a contractor to do some work at my house. One of his sometimes-helpers is a man around 30-years of age who is, also, the mayor of a small town some distance from here. Both men go to the same church, which is how they know each other and, although, the other man has other abilities, I was told he does this work from time to time because he likes working outside with his hands.

Around here everything is run by men. It is a mob mentality that prevails here, but the participants don’t see what they’re doing as mob behavior. To them, this is just how things are and are supposed to be. Men especially love top-down hierarchical structures, not only in their religious institutions, but in their military, their political systems, their corporations and inside their nuclear families where – as my contractor told me – it is the natural order that men are obedient to God and women are obedient to men. (This is actually a completely artificial, truly blasphemous, and unnatural order, which is why we have all the problems we do on this planet, please, see my previous post where I talk about this.) He told me that he and his wife have been married for 26 years (unusual these days for people in their mid-40s) and their marriage works because they abide by Christian principles – he obeys God and she obeys him. He reminded me with a slightly sheepish expression that women were little more than slaves and “help meets” to men just a few decades ago. He said it as if he thought I might not know this.

The contractor mentioned to me that the young mayor was a member of a local chapter of the freemasons. He said he tried to discourage him from this association because its values are not consistent with Christianity, but ever since he joined a lot of good, positive things have been happening for him. For instance, he became the mayor of a town and apparently some other opportunities have come his way.

I knew another man here, a “self-made” multi-millionaire with lots of property, who sits on lots of boards of banks and of a popular gated community here who told me he was a freemason. Joining them was how he networked and got opportunities and positions he would not have had a very good chance at, otherwise. You don’t have to have any morals to be a member of one of these organizations, apparently. In fact, I’d say it helps to be unethical. I soon became aware that this multi-millionaire liked to buy women as if we are objects or props. Apparently, he entertained the notion that he might be able to buy me or, at least, my “services” in some sort of informal arrangement, which is pretty typical of how most men treat women – he was just really up front about it or else my years of experience with perverts helped me understand what he was getting at faster than ever before. He told me openly about men he knew who purchased the “services” of women on Craigslist. Morality and ethics are defined differently within these organizations.

Freemasons: The Key to Success (For Men Only)

The freemasons are a club for men only. They used to be for white men only. I don’t know if this is still true, but I’ve never seen anything other than a white, male mason – ever in my life.

(Additional note: I recently met another freemason. A blood-sucking parasite of an ex-cop who has attached himself to my sick and aging aunt and is now living off of her. You see his considerable retirement pension was cut in half and is threatened with being cut in half, again, so he had to find some woman’s flesh to burrow into, some place to park his dick, a woman to suck dry. So, he has come to live with my aunt in her nice, big, warm house, where he is living rent and utility-free.

I am even less pleased about this situation than some other family members, having had the worst kinds of dealings you can imagine with the police and witnessing police corruption, which the people of the U.S. are in complete and utter denial about (if you think black, male criminals being shot by cops is the real problem with the police, then you are living in a fantasy world!), including human trafficking and extortion as a regular practice in most cities I worked in. 

As you might imagine, Thanksgiving was a little tense. But, I am a stage performer and, like a great many women, a natural actress. I had to learn to be an actress at a young age in order to survive around gigantic, violent men who wanted to hurt me simply because I lived. I noticed the freemason ring before and I began my grilling, but I did it in a way to flatter him, of course. )

According to the parasite, the freemasons were white free men (they now allow in other men, but no women, except wives and daughters of members who have their own separate group, which supports the men, of course. Black men always had their own organizations, but were simply called masons. He is a low-level member of what is called the Blue Lodge. He is a Christian and says that the the freemasons have nothing to do with the occult. (They do, but maybe not until the Scottish Rite level, as far as I can tell. Until then, maybe this is what they tell their members – those who are not deemed suitable for the upper parts of the hierarchy. This hierarchy is mentioned in this article, which talks about things only hinted of at the Blue Lodge level.) He told me this after asking me if I was familiar with Albert Pike – and, of course, I am – who wrote about the freemasons and the occult. So, if he really believes there is no connection between freemasonry and the occult, he is delusional.

This member is another example of a dudebro with a lukewarm I.Q., who only got as far as he is because he is a “joiner” of other men, he is highly corruptible, he understands the safety of allegiance to a secret, powerful group of men who’ve got his back when he has to plant a gun on someone he has shot when they were unarmed. This is how you survive to collect your pension when you are a cop. This is how you advance. It is by being a team player – one who has sworn an oath of allegiance involving the threat of your own death!) 

The masons deny that its members are allowed to use their membership in the organization to advance their business, social or religious interests. But, this is obviously a lie. In fact, it’s a simple, child-like lie, one that is told just hoping that anyone will believe it. There is no other reason for joining such an organization except the furtherance of one’s personal aims. If a man wanted to perform charity work, there are many worthy charities he could contribute to or work for without joining a secret society. I he wanted to fraternize with other men, there are plenty of night clubs and private gatherings he could attend to hang with the boys.

Like every gang, the masons exist for the mutual benefit of their members, who are involved in activities for personal profit, which they do not want other people to know about because it is either illegal or unethical – or both. Members promise their worldly goods, all they have and will ever have, and their lives, if they break the oaths and reveal secrets from the lodge.

This is very familiar to me because of my experience with the Mormon organization, which is a masonic-based religion. They have oaths, signs and tokens, secrets and hierarchies for the men (usually white only). Women can’t get anywhere in the organization on their own. Men run every aspect of the organization, including the women’s group, called Relief Society, which is akin to the Eastern Star (the masonic women’s group, run by men and established to pacify their wives and daughters). Their job is to provide support to the men in the organization – and to stay in the dark, not ask any questions and obey the men, of course.

The benefits of freemasonry are for “men-only” and their meetings are “men-only space.” If anyone questions this, they simply say that women are not permitted entry (along with “cripples, eunuchs and atheists”) because it is tradition. They will, also, point to women-only organizations like The Girls Scouts or the college sorority, P.E.O. Sisterhood, as examples of similar organizations that exclude men – although, this is obviously a false equivalency because the P.E.O., the Girl Scouts and any other women’s organization do not provide the same level of, shall we say, support to its members because they do not have that kind of hundreds-of-years-old institutionalized white male power.

Each of these individual organizations may be seen as a microcosm of the whole of our society and all its power structures. In fact, here in the U.S., our nation was founded by a lot of white men who were masons and members of masonic-style organizations. In the early 1800s, only a few decades after the nation’s founding, when Joseph Smith wanted to create his own Mormon town, he knew that he could not do it without becoming a freemason. The very construction of such a city would require him to become a member, as well as to have any authority as a mayor over the Fraternal Orders of Police and other organizations within it.

When get a glimpse of this, we see that men’s secret societies are a very big obstacle in establishing equality under the law for women. Because these organizations’ activities are secret, it is easy for many people to deny their influences and relegate them to the realm of “conspiracy theory.” But, the fact is that there are opportunities you will never have unless you are a member of an established family within one of these orders. Most opportunities are open only to men, but sometimes the daughters and wives of such men are afforded opportunities, as long as they serve the established system – which is not in our interest, as women, in the long term, of course. Many of these are “women on the right,” but there is no shortage of them “on the left,” either.

If you’ve ever wondered how so many corrupt and mediocre people manage to get into high positions in politics and in corporations, you have here, at least, a partial answer to that question. You can see why men are so anxious to preserve men-only spaces and to invade women-only spaces. They know the power they have aggregated and hoarded in their own exclusive organizations.

Secret Societies Like the Freemasons Differ Very Little from Street Gangs

Secret societies are more or less “legitimate” gangs. In effect, they are not much different from any street gang. They have initiation rites, there are certain expectations of members, there is a hierarchical structure with various ranks within the organization, service to the group is rewarded and the rules of membership may be ruthlessly enforced. Once you’re in, you don’t get to just walk away from the group without some negative consequences. When they talk about morality or ethics, their definitions are different from those of people outside such groups. The highest moral principle is loyalty to the organization – the “brotherhood” or “the family.” Members use their association with the organization to gain status – even if it is just within their own subculture – and to further their financial aims.

Gangs, like secret societies, are mostly comprised of males and whenever women are included, they are expected to serve and support the men and their goals and desires.

The following quote describing the function of women in street gangs is from the University of Hawaii website where the the document, “A Systemic Analysis of the Dynamics and Organizaton of Urban Street Gangs” may be read in its entirety (http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/A_Systemic_Analysis_of_the_Dynamics_and_Organization_of_Urban_Street_Gangs.pdf):

There may be a number of females associated with a particular gang, but they usually serve as auxiliaries or branches of male gangs. They are often expected to support the male gang completely, but they are rarely able to become official members (Moore,1991) Females associated with male gangs are typically used to carry weapons provide alibis, act as spies and lures, and provide sex for male members.

The role of women in street gangs is very similar to the role of women in men-only and male-dominated secret societies, which grudgingly allow women into their circles, but always limit their participation, either officially or unofficially

These insulated and often secret organizations are at the foundation of patriarchal society. They perpetuate it from behind the scenes. They ensure that there will never be fair representation of women in politics and public life and that there will always be inequalities in corporate hierarchies.

Because they are secret societies and there activities are not publicized, it is easy to ignore them. But, when we look at how they operate now and their historical role in the development of modern society and its inherent inequity, we see why men are unwilling to share their power within such organizations. Men know the power of these gang-like associations. It is how they have acquired and maintained their power.

What Might Be Done?

As radical feminists, we should look closer at these organizations and see how theirs can be destroyed and how we can establish our own, excluding men, of course.

Women joining the patriarchal societies will not change them. Men will not permit it. They will pull the usual bait and switch and use women as cheap labor and to satisfy their sexual appetites – just like they always do. An example of this is provided by the author of this article, “Ordo Templi Orientis Phenomenon: A Personal Account of Sexual Harassment,” in which she describes mistreatment at the hands of men within this secret society who talk one way but act another way where women are concerned and who use their authority in the organization to prey upon women.  (Note: Someone has done a video on the aforementioned article at YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Cl1yqN_Rg )

One way to slowly destroy them is to deny them our service and support. Another way is for women who have been members of such organizations to publicly expose them – anonymously, of course.

I believe that women must form our own associations, exclusive of men. These organizations should be for the support and furtherance of the aims of the women who participate. In other words, we should be selfish – like the men are – because only after we have built ourselves up will we be in a position to help other women.

What Would the Ideal Women’s Society Look Like?

While I haven’t yet fully determined what the ideal women’s society would look like, I know what I think it shouldn’t look like. An example of what it should not look like is the D.A.R. (Daughters of the American Revolution). This is an organization I once considered joining, but changed my mind once I saw what they were all about. According to their website, they “are vibrant, active women who are passionate about community service, preserving history, educating children, as well as honoring and supporting those who serve our nation.” The D.A.R. is an example of a group that primarily serves the status quo and, despite the fact it is comprised entirely of women, it honors patriarchal history and the early patriarchs who founded the nation and those (mostly men) who wage men’s wars against each other and against innocent women and children in foreign nations. Each meeting begins with a pledge of allegiance to the flag of the U.S. and a Christian prayer. This is what they call their “ritual.” Most of the members I met were snooty old ladies – mostly well-to-do widows, with a few eccentric exceptions, which is what I should have expected, I suppose.

We should pledge our allegiance to each other – not to men or their toxic institutions. I believe any organization that serves women should focus on an allegiance to ourselves, and especially the members of the group first. The history that should be honored is the true history of women, the accomplishments of women, the works of radical feminists and the furtherance of our liberation from enslavement based on that history and what we have learned so far. We should honor peace and not war while we look for solutions to the problems we face as women. We should work to dismantle – not honor – the patriarchal establishment.

Charity should be aimed first at the members of our own organization, then at other women who need help, if that’s possible. The groups should be small, comprised of women with the same goals (not sharing those goals would be cause for exclusion) and they operate largely on concensus instead of a top-down hierarchy. The organizations should not be advertised, but members should be selected.

Additional material:

The following made-for-TV movie (one of my personal favorites from the 1970s) is an entertaining and probably very accurate depiction of freemasonry:

The Brotherhood of the Bell

This (below) is an old movie about the freemasons and how they use their political influence, in original French, with English subtitles. It is called “Forces Occultes” and was made in 1943:

Why Men Should Never Govern Women and Should Never Be Granted Any Authority Over Us Whatsoever!: Rape-obsessed Republican Men Are at It Again

So, it’s another election year and the Republican men just can’t stop talking about rape, once again. You’d think they might have learned some lessons from last election when women trounced these perverts at the polls. But, no. They never learn. They are unteachable.

There is a natural order to the universe, to nature herself. When it is subverted, as it has been by men, chaos results. There is injustice, war, and destruction of all kinds, including environmental, of course, but, also, intellectual and spiritual destruction. Everything we are seeing now is occurring because men have usurped the rightful powers of their true Creator who is Woman.

They have supplanted the true Creator with a fictional character – one they can control, entirely – a perverted, male sky god fashioned in their own violent, misogynist image. And, this god hates women having any kind of freedom or rights or autonomy from the filthy males who can’t stop sticking their dicks in places they don’t belong.

Marco Rubio, a Catholic (and we all know their centuries-long inhumanly sadistic record on women’s human rights and additionally their recent record on pedophilia) who is running for U.S. Prez as a Republican, has made the following statement regarding situations in which men rape and impregnate women and girls:

“It’s a terrible situation,” Rubio replied. “I mean, a crisis pregnancy, especially as a result of something as horrifying as that, I’m not telling you it’s easy. I’m not here saying it’s an easy choice. It’s a horrifying thing that you’ve just described.”

“I get it,” he added. “I really do. And that’s why this issue is so difficult. But I believe a human being, an unborn child has a right to live, irrespective of the circumstances of which they were conceived. And I know that the majority of Americans don’t agree with me on that.”

Of course, he does not “get it,” at all. He is a man and, as such, a member of the class who rapes women and girls and, therefore, he could not even begin to imagine what rape is like or what horrors follow after it or how women and girls’ lives are forever changed by it in unspeakable ways – literally unspeakable because there are no words in our language to describe it.

He goes on to talk about legislation on this topic, which should not even exist. Women and girls’ bodies, whether our uteri, or any other part of our bodies, should never be subject to legislation by anyone, least of all MEN!

What these clueless men never seem to grasp about this subject is that it is one that should never even be discussed by men. There is no way for a man to talk about it without looking like the dirty, filthy, perverted, patriarchal asshole he is.  This is because it is men who rape women and girls. They have no moral authority, whatsoever. They have no natural authority over women. And, pretending that they do have any authority over women and our bodies – and the bodies of little girls who are the victims of rape – is, itself, a perversion.

Besides the fact that men have no natural authority over women, there is a problem with them lacking any understanding of the process of human life coming into this world – and not just the health implications for women, but they do not understand the spiritual or any other implications of this and yet they wish to play GOD. They want to be the CREATOR. They are forever trying to create artificial life (making or pretending to make golems, sexbots, mechanical slaves, and cloning sheep) because they can do nothing else.

It is Woman and Woman alone who has this power, which makes men the true blasphemers, the only true sinners against their Creator. They are evil to the core and must be brought back to their proper place in the natural order of things, which is on their knees at the feet of their Creators if there is ever to be any peace or any chance for humanity.

Related: 

Rubio, other men and Christianized-women like them, want to further punish women and girls who are victims of rape and those who cannot cope, financially, psychologically or in other ways with rearing a child: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/11/florida-adoption-bill_n_7565046.html