Monthly Archives: October 2016

“It IS All Men”: Misandry With The Masks Off

In case you were against stigmatising an entire category of people due to the actions of some (which is the foundation of what feminists abhor, such as racism, xenophobia, religious discrimination – unless it’s against Christians  – etc), rest assured it is legitimate when it comes to one category – men.

Not a big deal or a massive generalisation; after all, men only amount to half of the people on this planet. It’s only fair to assume that regardless of their culture, upbringing, level of intelligence, genetic tendencies and personal values, deep down they all pose the same level of threat.

We know what you mean by “not all men” – because on a basic level, we agree with you.

But the socialization of men is such that even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through patriarchy.

And as such, we know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism.

“These behaviours are normalised through patriarchy…”

Like, you know, rape, assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence – which are all illegal in the west, as opposed to other parts of the world, but never mind. It’s not like by passing laws against violence the patriarchy is trying to make these behaviours seem abnormal and is discouraging them, as opposed to normalising them.

“In a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors…” 

No mental health issues here… none whatsoever. And needless to say, none can result from teaching young people where nature has positioned them through birth – into one category or another. No persecution of innocent people will arise from this black and white thinking, by assuming there is no middle ground and whoever doesn’t automatically side with leftist radicals is by default an “oppressor”, even if they mind their own business and don’t bother anybody’s life. You are with or against the revolution, comrades.

So when you enter a space – any space – as a man, you carry with yourself the threat of harm.

Again, no mental issues, nothing to see here. It’s perfectly normal for a group of women to feel threatened in the presence of any man, ranging from their family members to strangers encountered in a public place. All men, at all times, have the potential to harm them, by default. The men they sleep with, as they share a bed. The men they grow up with (who are by nature usually very protective of their sisters, as are fathers of daughters, in civilised countries anyway, unless a rotten character is involved). The men they give birth to and raise.

At this point, one should differentiate between potential and likelihood. A car has the potential to get you killed, but you still get behind the wheel. What feminists are doing is pushing potential towards likelihood where men are concerned, which is why they feel they must take action.

Make no mistake: When you use the phrase “not all men” – or otherwise buy into the myth of it – you’re giving yourself and others a pass to continue performing the socially sanctioned violence of “masculinity” without consequence, whether or not that’s your intention.

The link is to an article in which – no kidding – the author blames even Islamic terrorism not on religion but on masculinity.

This makes me boil, perhaps because without intending to, in an alternative news report, I came across very disturbing material today, about a rise in public floggings in Indonesia, including of women, for “crimes” such as standing too close to men or being in a room with a man they were not married or related to, which might lead to adultery, just like these feminists say a man’s presence might lead to violence. All I see is paranoia and fanaticism, to the point of insanity, in both cases.

It made me sick in more ways than one. But what is relevant to this article is that in those countries men and women think this is normal. Women gather by the dozen to watch their fellow “sisters” being tortured in public and being put in the hospital, not a trace of empathy on their faces or outcry that this is in fact unnatural and abnormal, an utter abomination. They have been desensitised to cruelty.

This is a cultural issue, not one related to sexism. Brainwashing can make men and women capable of the worst kind of violence. Those who perform FGM, by the way, are traditionally female.

I remember Thomas Sheridan making a video on this subject – that even though not all people identifying with a sick religion are extremist and capable of committing acts of violence, many will passively – or even gladly – stand by and watch. Never mind the power-drunk system and its enforcers – to see a crowd stand by and watch that with no reaction is shocking. It’s medieval.

They live in an absolutely sick culture.

Here’s the truth: Most of the time, when we generalize and use the word men, what we’re actually referring to is the effects of patriarchy. What we’re actually intending to communicate when we say “men are horrible,” for instance, is “the ways in which men are socialized under patriarchy, as well as how that benefits them and disadvantages everyone else, sometimes in violent ways, is horrible.”

But that’s kind of a mouthful, isn’t it? So we use men as a linguistic shortcut to express that.

Forgetting for a second about all of the above, so that I don’t actually vomit when comparing these grievances to actual oppression (because the sight of that is still fresh in my mind), am I reading this correctly?

If I am, let me put it this way. If I think the effects of feminism are horrible, I am therefore free to go up to any feminist, indiscriminately, and say “you’re horrible” to their face, without them having to take it personally. Because what I’m trying to communicate by calling a human being horrible is that I disagree with their politics and impact on society. And apparently, that makes it OK to insult them.

The thing about privilege is that it’s often invisible from the inside. It’s hard to see the scale and scope of a system designed to benefit you when it’s as all-encompassing as patriarchy. And that might lead you to buy into the idea of “not all men.”

What if it was “female privilege”? Would feminists be able to see that from the inside, if this applied to human nature in general? If “privilege” was comparable to sin and sometimes went unacknowledged by the one sinning?

Privilege is not invisible from the inside. People in the western world know they are privileged compared to others who were born in less fortunate circumstances and are subjected to trauma daily, through wars, extreme poverty or religious oppression and violence, either directly or by witnessing it. Wealthy people are also aware they are privileged compared to others who are less fortunate.

These are logical observations anyone can make, not the result of some Freudian analysis or some revelation. They only involve a minimum of intelligence and realism, which most people have. It is impossible to be genuinely privileged and not aware of one’s advantages in life.

To those on the outside, however, the margins are painfully visible. That’s why men who really want to aid in leveling the playing field have a responsibility to listen to people who can see the things they can’t.

Again, assuming complete idiocy on the part of these men, some of whom have propelled our species forward through their intelligence.

Religious fanatics do the same, claiming to see the evil and the sin others cannot even understand or recognise in themselves. What all these fanatics (feminists included) want is for everyone to hand over their mental faculties, their very perception of reality, to their brainwashing.

When gender minorities tell you that you’re harming them, listen. Listen even when you don’t understand. Listen especially when you don’t understand.

People can listen and understand, open-mindedly, to the other side of the debate. But they can still choose to disagree in the end. That’s what leftists don’t get.

Picture this: A well-meaning man offers a woman a compliment at a bar. He has no sinister motive, and he is – after all – in an appropriate setting for flirting.

When the woman rebuffs him for whatever reason (she’s in a relationship, she’s not into men, she’s just not interested), the man feels snubbed – because he was polite and respectful, but not rewarded for it. (…)

Such a man isn’t an outright abuser. But his learned entitlement makes him potentially unsafe for women to be around. And it’s hard to see that sense of entitlement from the inside, let alone question it or start to break it down.

The man in question might be disappointed for a minute, if he’s not the stalker or general weirdo type. And I imagine that happens all the time in that sort of environment.

But rest assured that a lot of men do not expect (and in some cases want) all women to be available to just everyone. Do you think men would by default jump right into intimacy with someone who was married or in a relationship? Unless they were into cheating, would they expect their own prospective wives and girlfriends to behave like that at a bar? Would they think women should naturally be like that? Would fathers expect their daughters to reward any complimenting man because it should be female nature according to patriarchy?

To use one of feminists’ favourite expressions, men do not exist in a vacuum.

They don’t just have wives, girlfriends or fuck buddies, or whatever you call them. Their approach to the female nature is complex and complicated. They have mothers, sisters, daughters and granddaughters as well.

And “patriarchy” plus “male entitlement” aside, they would not expect all women, especially the aforementioned, to cave in to just any creature sporting a dick, due to a compliment in a bar.

As such, when we generalize and say, “Men feel entitled to our bodies,” this man would be wrong if he said, “Not all men are like that – I’m not.” He just doesn’t connect the bitterness of rejection with the broader sense of entitlement he’s learned and internalized. Furthermore, he may not realize how this sense of entitlement is symptomatic of a larger patriarchal culture in which men are taught that they’re owed romantic and sexual interest from women.

Logic, dear logic, where are you. The same point as above.

And here’s a quote about “mansplaining”:

Here’s the thing about opinions, though: They’re actually not all equally valid or worth sharing, no matter what you were taught in grade school. You’re actually not automatically entitled to share your opinion; in fact, your opinion might be pointless or even harmful in some conversations.

Isn’t that equality. Surely there are times when opinions should be reconsidered, such as the time when someone knows they have insufficient information and said opinions might be superficial. But harmful? Let’s be serious for a minute.

Propagandising a superficial opinion might be harmful. Expressing it in a certain circle, or even less, to one person – definitely not.

This well-meaning man thinks he’s contributing to a discussion, which he feels entitled to do, because he has a right to his opinion. He doesn’t see the pattern of being talked over, belittled, or dismissed that his female friend daily, to which he’s just contributed.

Which basically means do not contradict a woman even if you know she is wrong. And there I was thinking conversations were meant to lead to intellectual progress for all involved, and not some masturbatory gratification of being listened to. I’m now starting to understand why these people are routinely called regressives.


Fair enough, no one tried to contradict Elena Ceausecu when she spoke. Though she was obviously a half-wit and deranged in all sorts of ways. But still, she had gained the privilege of being able to speak uninterrupted and unchallenged.

According to feminists, all women should have that right, regardless of the bullshit they might be spouting.

To a gender minority, there’s very little difference between the impact of inadvertent and intentional harm. A man who makes you feel unsafe by accident is as harmful to you as one who does it on purpose.

Women are not a gender minority. They represent half of the population of this planet. I can’t believe I even have to write this.

So no matter how well-intentioned you are, you’re not off the hook when you hurt people. And because of everything we’ve discussed above, you are likely (yes, all men) to hurt and violate. And you need to be willing to take responsibility for that.

Apparently, you need to take responsibility for someone else’s feelings, which you never meant to cause. Any hysterical harpy can jump out of the woodwork and drag you into her imagined drama for a simple comment.

My best response to that consists of two words: Hugh Mungus.

The deplorable scene which unfolded when a shrieking SJW accused an innocent man of sexual harassment over a joke proves just how far this subjectivity can go. No harm had been done to her and yet she went as far as trying to press charges because she felt offended. No, people’s feelings are not absolutes. There’s this little thing called reality, one that we all share and need to acknowledge, otherwise we will have to indulge all the Caesars and Napoleons of the world as well.

Being a “safe” man – hell, being a feminist man – is more than just believing yourself to be and collecting accolades from others about the minimal work that you’re doing not to be an asshole.

Doing the work means really doing the work – getting your hands dirty (and potentially having an existential crisis in the process).

Boy, you’re not asking for much, are you?

The average feminist must be imagining that men would be so desperate to be accepted by her crowd, as if there were no women left in the world, that they would humiliate themselves to the back of beyond in order to be considered “safer”.

Because here’s the truth: Even when it’s not conscious, male entitlement is a choice – a choice to be uncritical, a choice to continue to passively benefit. And attempting to fight that entitlement is also a choice ­– one that has to be both conscious and ongoing. You’ve got to choose it every day, in every instance.

That’s the first I’ve ever heard of an unconscious choice. Because there is no such thing. A choice entails analysis, weighing different options, using one’s judgement, making a decision.

Hint: You are “like that” – especially if you’re not actively fighting patriarchy. And claiming that you’re “not like that” doesn’t negate patriarchy – it enforces it.

Right. Just like denying that you’re a racist makes you more of a racist than if you actually admitted to being one. That’s the type of reasoning we seem to be employing nowadays.

Fighting learned male entitlement means assuming the burden of vigilance – watching not just yourself, but other men. It means being open to having your motives questioned, even when they’re pure. It means knowing you’re not always as pure as you think.

It means assessing the harm you’re capable of causing, and then being proactive in mitigating it.

Most of all, it’s a conscious decision to view every individual’s humanity as something exactly as valuable and inviolable as your own.

Let me get this straight. His humanity is valuable and inviolable, after you’ve called him a threat to all women for possessing a penis, denied him the right to assess his own judgement and personality and told him you’ll police his head for mental impurities 24/7? What’s “inviolable” about that?

And it means doing it every single moment of your life. Point blank, period.

Again, not asking for much. Just complete control over his mind, every single moment of his life.

We don’t want to fear or distrust men. We don’t want to have to perform risk assessments on every man that we meet. Trust us – it’s a miserable life! We’d gladly abandon this work if it wasn’t absolutely necessary to our survival.

And since they will not feel safe until every last man adopts this way of thinking, which will never ever happen, this is basically a declaration of perpetual misery.

To recap, what these men would gain by selling their souls and dignity to feminism would be the company of permanently miserable women who will always see them as a threat, regardless of their intentions, words or actions.

Totally worth it, right?

The Role Model Complex – “I Was Once Like You”

A good way of differentiating between assholes and decent people is their use of their life experience – whilst decent folks, after going through a string of successes but also failures, tend to become more tempered and humble, assholes who manage to improve their condition develop an arrogance which escalates into bigotry.

Despising those who live in poverty after having risen out of it yourself is generally frowned upon, and for good reason. The same principle applies to any disadvantage one can think of, from lacking resources to being duped by a political ideology out of naivety.

In other words, the I used to be you and now I’m much better mentality.

In my view, a decent person is likely to regard anyone in their previous situation with more understanding and compassion, as they have an insight into where the person is at that point in time, in that particular aspect of their life. An asshole, on the other hand, will gloat, claiming the other is weak and should just follow their example in order to get out of their pathetic state (which might only be that bad in the eye of the beholder).

Recently, I stumbled upon a blog post which got me thinking about the times we live in.

Having been fat himself in the past, a blogger took the time to observe an unknown woman’s food preferences in public, to then shame her on the internet. Appalled by the overweight stranger he spotted in a restaurant, he took note of what she and her friends were eating, later writing he regretted his camera hadn’t been up to the job, to capture the food on the table, apparently enough for an entire battalion. By sheer coincidence, the next day he spotted her again on the subway, showing photos of her night out to a friend (including of what she’d stuffed her face with, which was noted by our amateur detective as incriminating evidence).

He then followed her around; to his outrage, the bitch decided to get a sandwich (which was to be used as further proof of her unbelievable depravity). He then proceeded to photograph her in the street, as she was casually walking with her mates, unaware of being stalked or the public embarrassment this gentleman was preparing. It’s beside the point to mention she was only a bit bigger than average, which wouldn’t have warranted the words he wrote there.

The psychological aspect is truly disturbing. Focusing his attention on a complete stranger who was enjoying a night out, scrutinising her, following and photographing her with the precise intention of online shaming. He even mentions “I managed to get a picture when…” which means he was bent on doing this; it wasn’t just a spur-of-the-moment idea. Because, in his own words, he’s obsessed with overweight people due to his past, which apparently gives him the right to use innocent, unsuspecting folks in such ways in order to feel better about his achievement.

For some, I guess the hatred of their former selves is enough for them to project it onto everyone else, joining the ranks of bullies, and proudly so. Some people do it on a lower scale; I’ve seen formerly fat people tease others with the pretext of being well-meaning. I’ve even seen them lash out at others on this subject. But this is just too much; the entitlement is baffling.

It’s comparable to the SJW mentality of wanting every individual to perfectly fit into the mould they have designed, or else (the “else” being scorn and vitriol by the bucket). Although this guy is definitely anti-SJW, the drive is the same – an unhealthy obsession with negative feelings, past or present, whether they were caused by others or not, which generates universal mandates for them to formulate and spread with evangelical devotion.

To be honest, I don’t think these people are in a good place with their self-esteem, or they wouldn’t feel the need to do this.

This drive seems so deeply rooted it overshadows any concerns of inappropriateness, of behaviour that borders on illegal (in this case, chasing strangers to take their picture) or the lack of positive consequences their actions are likely to have.





“Intersecting Identities” And Public Representation

One little, two little, three little hipsters
Four little, five little, six little hipsters…

Actually, there’s just one and he/ she/ ze seems convinced to have multiple personality disorder.

Much is being written today about intersecting identities; apparently, each of us have them, based on race, sex, gender (different from sex as they say), sexual orientation, country of origin, social status, financial situation, physical ability, physical aspect etc. Each of them comes with its little label; when listed, labels enable others to judge us in a second as one would evaluate a product according to its factory description.

They help a progressive determine whether you are, overall, marginalised or privileged, depending on how many oppression points you can score for each identity. In other words, whether you have the right to speak about social issues or you should just shut up, because the voice of your ilk has been heard for far too long on this planet.

It seems in 2016, no different than two hundred or a thousand years ago, people can still be shut up based on inherent traits, which they have no control over.

This, of course, leads to a problem, as individuals tend to collect privileged and marginalised labels, according to their particular circumstances. After assessing that those who only have privileged identities are not entitled to opinions at all regarding minority-related issues (unless they’re some kind of allies treading on thin ice to make amends for their existence), what’s left to do is dispute this right among themselves, censoring each other constantly; one could joke that the Earth’s surface could melt under their feet and they’d still fight over a microphone, on who should make the announcement.

The truth is there are no intersecting identities. Every person has one identity encompassing many traits, traits which they have the full right to prioritise or ignore. 

One does not owe allegiance to any group claiming to represent them and most certainly does not have a duty to engage in activism with said group, due to “sharing an identity”.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, “identity” means:

The characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is.

Plurality is unnecessary in order to emphasise the complexity of human beings; an identity is presumed to be complex from the start. Your “identities” do not switch on and off according to your environment; you can still be perceived as a full human being, an individual, regardless of where you are and what you are doing.

This is however useful to cultural Marxists as it divides people into strict categories, determining when they should speak and what their claims should be. Putting them in their presumed place, that is, by forcibly bringing a trait or another to the forefront as if the holder were defined by it at that particular moment.

For instance, progressive groups organise events for people sharing specific traits, events which are becoming exclusive to them, everyone else being barred from attending, as they would be violating the “safe space” of said “community”. Obviously, for those participating in multiple events due to multiple oppressed identities, a clash of interests and priorities arises.

The label collection is without doubt divisive, emphasising WHAT someone is instead of WHO they are as a person, how they think and how they could meet these activists halfway. For instance, one is likely to be shunned by them simply for being male, white and middle class, regardless of their beliefs and intentions.

Instead of disputing the claim that their movement is increasingly fragmented, this article actually proves it:

Glossing over the issues faced by specific groups of women for the sake of unity centers the feminist movement on those who have the most privilege and visibility. It allows those who already take up a disproportionate amount of space in the movement to look as if they’re making room for others without giving up any themselves.

It departs from a standpoint of some taking up a disproportionate amount of space due to having the most privilege and visibility, which does not show a desire for collaboration but adversity from the very beginning.

So make an effort to avoid centering feminism around yourself or people of privilege. Because society is more likely to listen to a White woman talk about racism than a person of color, for example, White feminists need to be mindful that they’re not talking over or for people of color.

No matter what work you do or what your privileges are, take care to step back when things aren’t about you, educate yourself on things that don’t affect you, and pay attention when people speak to their experiences.

Aside from claiming that society is more likely to listen to a white woman (which I’d like some actual evidence on), this is a clear call for others to shut up, and a line drawn between groups to establish what they are allowed to discuss in their activism.

The funny thing is leftists do a very poor job of paying attention when people speak to their experiences, if  they are not suitable for leftist exploitation. Let’s take gay conservatives such as Milo Yiannopoulos, who are open about their lives and dispute the rhetoric of current activists in the field.

So when you inevitably mess up or are called out for something, how you respond matters.

When people call each other out in social justice work, it can be an act of love. It’s about holding people accountable and making sure that the work they do is actually of value to those it’s meant to serve.

When cult leaders and religious extremists in general hold people accountable for every trifle, they also refer to it as an act of love. In Jonestown, as I recall, the act of love involved some wooden planks and public beatings. Although this comparison might seem out of place, it isn’t. It’s a matter of establishing oneself as the holder of absolute truth and moral authority over others. 

The resulting atmosphere is not one which is conducive to ant kind of progress, but one of tension, passive aggressiveness, lack of real bonding and stifled resentment, which is so characteristic of militant groups with a fixed doctrine (and ultimately ends in their dissolution).


To conclude, here is a true-to-life account from Gavin McInnes, describing the effects of “sensitivity training” on the work environment, amounting to members of any minority being feared and avoided, which is the exact opposite of harmonious integration.



What SJWs Call Sexual Harassment (Hilarious Though Quite Disturbing)

When a woman mentions being the victim of sexual harassment, unless she elaborates on it and her account is visibly exaggerated, one tends to believe her, out of the sheer belief that she would know how to differentiate that particular situation from others.

Nowadays, however, one has to be very cautious, as it seems some women (young in particular) are very confused about this notion.

The level of hysteria in the videos below has a hint of pathology, but it might as well be extreme entitlement, as well as the typical SJW attitude.

In the first situation, an SJW was filming an event based on people’s appraisal of how the local police were performing, looking for stories on police brutality or incompetence. There she came across a man who was appreciative of the job they had done helping his daughter, once addicted to drugs. A positive story didn’t sit well with her so she started verbally attacking this complete stranger. When aggressively asked for his name and unwilling to give it (for obvious reasons), he made one up on the spot, jokingly: Hugh Mungus (which is now an internet meme, thanks to said damsel). To that, she reacted hysterically, with shrieks, insults and accusations of sexual harassment, suspecting the man was alluding to his privates, which seems to be a traumatising crime even when said in a playful manner.

She had an absolute fit, insisting she was the victim of a sexual attack, then had a go at the security guards and police officers present for letting her “attacker” walk out the door. Amazingly, after leaving the place, she later pursued the case and attempted to make a formal complaint, as the second video shows.

Pathology might be involved of course, since she failed to realise that none of the people present (aside from a couple of fellow SJWs) interpreted the situation as she was. Perhaps it was more of an attempt to discredit the man (whom she kept referring to as a “sexual harasser” afterwards) to nullify his credibility because she didn’t like his pro-cop attitude.


The next one is a lady with an awfully SJW-ish rhetoric, accusing an innocent man of sexual harassment and racism for… saying hello to her in the street. She threatened to call the police as well because he had dared to address her, then fled when he threatened to do the same for her crazy behaviour (which anyone can see is far from normal).

Whereas one might think feminist articles referring to men approaching women as “street harassment” are just inconsequential drivel no one would take seriously, this seems to be the frightening result.

Every frustrated harpy out there can start making these serious accusations out of the blue and even follow through with her delusion.

International Hysteria Over US Elections

Every few years, the world starts boiling with hypotheses on the direction the US will take after the mascot in the White House is replaced. And unless you live in a remote part of the world, where the mainstream western media is unavailable or ignored, you’re bound to hear all about the presidential campaigns.

It’s basically like watching the X Factor with a bit more vitriol. Everything but the candidates’ underpants becomes of public interest and steals the stage from actual current events.

After the awaited elections, when the spell of the marketing campaign wears off and nothing changes for the better, Americans, just as every other nation, end up in disillusion, placing bets on the newest hope on the horizon. After all this time and a massive (though not sufficient) political awakening across the planet, people still partake, intellectually and emotionally, in this cheap spectacle, though so many know that the reins of power lie somewhere else.

Time and time again, people get drawn into politics, ending up in fits of anger against complete strangers on the other side of the globe. All this energy goes towards corporate mouthpieces who will never give a toss about them, their families, their businesses or their way of life.

They spend their time lauding the candidate of their choice to the point of nausea and demonising the other side; the gratuitous ass-kissing must be incredibly funny for candidates themselves, if they ever spare a minute to inquire about it.

It’s particulalry funny to see people who claim to be politically aware (into the alternative movement, libertarianism etc) praising Donald Trump to the high heavens, as some sort of Jesus figure, their only salvation in the face of religiously motivated terrorism and political correctness. You’d think they were a few feet above all that. The opposition, on the other hand, sees this individual as the incarnation of Satan, who will undoubtedly destroy their country and as a consequence their lives.

There are violent clashes at political manifestations; people being beaten and even killed. Crowds holding signs with two strangers’ photographs on them, cheering and shouting with religious fervour. Pardon my frankness but this is nothing short of a cult of personality, in the so-called heart of civilised democracy.

I’ve seen people agitating against Trump in my country of origin, back in Eastern Europe, where fuck knows why, completely ordinary folks are encouraged by the media to become hysterical about another country’s elections. They are avidly consuming this spectacle they will never be involved in, or very likely, be affected by.

All in all, the spectacle will culminate in the grad day of “long live the new president”, followed by a short while of anxious hope versus unjustified panic. Then calm, then apathy, then disappointment, then back to square one.

Nothing new.

“Homonormativity” – Progressives Going After Gay People Now

The ultimate proof that progressives are only after their ultimate goal – which is a socialist revolution – without caring a straw about the people they claim to stand up for resides in their spiteful attitude towards those who achieve social reforms and settle for them.

After decades of constantly pursuing rights for gay people, progressives have suddenly turned on them, as they too have become part of the “normality” the left so despises. In a way it makes sense, as nothing currently perceived as normal is acceptable to them.

This incredibly entitled article depicts non-heterosexuals as pawns in a larger chess game, with no agency or individual choices of their own.

Homonormativity explains how certain aspects of the queer community can perpetuate assumptions, values, and behaviors that hurt and marginalize many folks within this community, as well as those with whom the community should be working in solidarity. (…)

It also describes the assumption that queer people want to be a part of the dominant, mainstream, heterosexual culture, and the way in which our society rewards those who do so, identifying them as most worthy and deserving of visibility and rights.  

The author ignores the fact that sexual minorities are not homogenous groups, somehow programmed to make the same lifestyle choices, and almost attacks those who enjoy being part of the “dominant culture” (being monogamous, getting married, raising a family etc), which becomes even more blatant in subsequent paragraphs.

It is important to note that for many years, the advancement of gay rights has been based on the very idea that non-heterosexuals seeked this exact integration, as opposed to being discriminated against, either systemically or through social disapproval.

By dismissing its validity, the author basicly affirms what certain traditionalist activists have argued all along – that the entire movement was based on some Folsom Street Fair culture (do not click if prone to vomiting), which is apparently not the case as it has given rights to regular people seeking to get on with their lives. Where progressives are concerned, however, it seems they have always interpreted this campaign as a way to open the gates for all proclivities formerly deemed unacceptable.

Their focus was not on obtaining rights and visibility for those who wanted normal lives (I’ll use normal for lack of a better word). For all progressives care, now that they have abandoned the radical bandwagon, these people can go fuck themselves, as they are contributing to the oppression of others simply by existing in the way they have chosen.

As social attitudes change around queer relationships, we’re seeing more representations of queer people in the media, though this representation is incredibly limited.

Turn on the TV or flip through a magazine – for each of the few times that you’ll see a queer person, they’ll more than likely be a cisgender, gender-normative, White, middle class, gay-identifying person.

My interaction with the mainstream media is non-existent so I don’t have a clue whether that is true or not; I can however assume, through mere logic, that exposure in certain environments depends on the context. In other words, their exposure might have nothing to do with their sexual orientation but other aspects altogether. But as expected, progressives see them not as individuals but as ambassadors, who must present a desired image (an image chosen by the so-called community). At present, this image doesn not seem to include undesirable traits such as being “cis”, white or not confused about their gender.

What is more, no group out there today, in the western world anyway, can complain of the lack of a platform to share their experiences, as they can build their own visibility on social media.

This is not some inocuous demand for diversity, but a description of how the image of real life people who happen to have these traits while being gay at the same time is hurting the community. And here’s why.

(…) the voices that are given space and visibility tend to be those of a particular class, of a particular gender expression, and of a particular race.

The kinds of queer relationships we see represented in the media are also limiting, in that they tend to mimic heteronormative binary gender expressions.

Which is, of course, wrong, as the author puts it.

Fighting for sexual liberation and equality is, of course, so much more than fighting for the right to marry, but how is the positioning of marriage equality as the major issue also promoting homonormativity?

Marriage as an issue sets up the requirement that all relationships should mimic this heteronormative standard of sexuality and family structure. It promotes the idea that all people want to emulate straight monogamous couples.

Well, some queer people must have wanted this to happen, or else they wouldn’t have campaigned for it for so long. Which means some of them genuinely embrace this type of life – spiting progressives who want it out the window to the detriment of everyone else – including them.

When we focus only on this issue, we exclude polyamorous and other non-normative relationship structures as acceptable, as well as, of course, those who don’t want to get married.

Even as marriage becomes inclusive of a particular kind of queer relationship, it perpetuates a policing of other kinds of relationships, maintaining the borderline of what is an “acceptable queer relationship.”

Perhaps because they’re not acceptable to just anybody, be they straight or not? Perhaps because there are biological reasons why monogamy is more viable and free-for-all arrangements tend to result in offspring of uncertain paternity, who might face some trouble due to their nebulous origins?

The link will take you to an expose on the ills of marriage, which is, apparently, a tool of oppression, even of those who want it.

By showing that people outside of the heterosexual norm want the same things that “traditional, straight America” wants, themarriage equality movement fights to gain access to this social institution by reproducing, rather than challenging, heterosexual dominance and normativity andusing this as a basis for who deserves rights.

Perhaps the stated goals, which were attained, had nothing to do with “challenging heterosexual normativity”? Maybe, just maybe, some people don’t want to push the envelope every time they gain a right or privilege.

Furthermore, some have committed the ultimate sin of letting their political views lean towards the right – unpardonable indeed, since progressives assume people of a different sexual orientation than the majority should all think the same way in terms of politics, through some biological determinism, probably.

The term homonationalism takes the concept of homonormativity one step further to refer to the way in which queer people — largely White, Western gay men — have aligned with nationalist ideologies of their countries.

While homonormativity describes the alignment of queer people, spaces, and struggles with heterosexual cultural norms, homonationalism describes this alignment within the nation-state, through patriotism, nationalism, and support for a nation’s military and other forms of state violence.

This is not surprising from a Marxist (internationalist) point of view; however, trying to paint patriotism (a dirty word nowadays) as a betrayal of one’s queer activism is laughable; the issues are unrelated, to anyone with half a brain.

Isn’t it strange how they try to control every facet of someone’s personality, by guilting them into thinking it’s not in line with the values they are supposed to espouse?

This is from another article on roughly the same topic:

Marriage was originally constructed to transfer property ownership across generations (especially for white people). Maintaining that married families are superior to other formations, like single parent households, has been key to demonizing low-income black people.

Actually, arguing that single parent households are just as easy to manage is belittling the difficulties single parents face on a daily basis and denying the proven reality that two parents (and ideally an extended family) provide more stability. Far from engaging in any religious puritanism, which sets fixed guidelines for how these families should be, one cannot deny this reality.

Back to the original article:

Some examples include (…) the infuriating participation of White queer people in the denial of their position of privilege and complicity in the current discourse around police violence against Black communities.

(…)And it’s important for us to remember our history: The queer right’s movement’s beginningswere based in a radical politics that consistently challenged corporate capitalism, the military, and the heteronormative structure of marriage.

It is by honoring this legacy of radical politics and prioritizing the needs and voices of those most marginalized that we can truly work toward greater sexual and gender liberation and equality.

And it’s also important to note that the success of said movement was mainly due to a diligent PR campain which detached it from the aspects and purposes progressives are pushing for now. For years, the “hidden goals” of the “gay agenda” were laughed off as conspiratorial nonsense religious fanatics were using as scare tactics. And obviously, it was wrong to paint all gay people with the same brush, just like it’s wrong now for radical leftists to question whether the rights they obtained were actually beneficial. While the right wing argued they didn’t really want marriage, the left now argues they shouldn’t have wanted it.

Instead of the wishes of individuals mattering, it was (and still is) all about political groups and their attempt to micromanage everyone, down to very personal decisions.

The first thing an outsider needs to understand about leftist groups is that they are plagued with infighting, and plenty of it. Far from collaborating peacefully towards a common goal, factions battle each other for oppression points, which leads to a dysfunctionality they are trying to inflict on the rest of society. The success of one faction can bring about not only the envy but the actual disdain of another – that’s how no matter what is achieved, an issue will never be considered resolved in the progressive camp.