The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Power is not uni-directional, but forms a more complex structure than a straight line.  Femen make use of their assets and the tittilation of the media to draw attention to issues affecting women.  Roman feminists thanked Femen for drawing attention to sexism in Italy.  At first when I heard of Femen, I thought "they need to take their fight to islam, but they probaby won't".  The very next interview I heard with them, they said that that was near the top of their list, but that it is going to be very dangerous.

If you don't watch Russia Today, then you will have missed them.  And if they can get me jumping out of my seat and shouting "go, girls", then I think the rest of you will appreciate their efforts too.

I love this image on their home page: http://femen.org/

Here are images from many of their other confrontations. 

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=femen&hl=en&client=opera&a...

Our history in the west could have been so different in the past 30 years if we'd had these kinds of feminists, instead of Germaine Greer and Maryam Namazie.  Our feminists were in fact the direct ideological descendants of the suffragettes, who were only interested in the vote for middle class (property-owning women) rather than democracy and universal suffrage (and a host of other issues affecting women). 

 

Tags: Articles, Collected, Femen, feminism, zwomen

Views: 13261

Replies to This Discussion

Indo, 4F's mission statement says that every member supports Freedom of Speech. By saying you do not support Femen's freedom of speech in this matter, you are the one who rejects freedom.  It is up to you to explain your "higher" concept of freedom, where you removing the freedoms of others is some superior form of freedom.

You have attempted to justify this censoriousness by claiming that a) what they are doing is pornographic (and therefore assume it to be automatically bad).  You then go on to equate all pornography with sado-masochism. Having this dispute focus on sexuality is taking things much further into irrelevance (for this discussion).

You wish to impose your morality upon them, disguised as some "higher freedom".  In that way, you are no different from the Salafists - Hizb ut Tahrir means "party of freedom".  They see enslavement to an ideology where people have lost all freedom of choice as being a "higher" form of freedom (people are freed from making decisions and freed from [true] moral responsibility).  You see a scenario where people have been "re-educated" to no longer desire things as leading them to freedom.  You have no means to provide this re-education without force, so I cannot see how your plan differs from Stalinism.

Freedom means "without constraint", and in the political sphere that comes down to what I have been arguing for in terms of personal freedom (which has to have limits where the exercise of my personal freedom runs up against the exercise of someone else's freedom).  You confuse the debate (again) by introducing an irrelevant and contentious subject concerning mind/body interaction.  When it comes down to the most basic living creatures (unicellular animals, for example), freedom means motility.

I wouldn't care if Femen was simply using their movement in order to agitate for better protection and better wages for women who work in the sex industry in Ukraine. That is a good start, and deserves support.  I introduced this discussion as a way to talk about "means" not "ends", but your narrow-minded view with regard to the concept of freedom meant that you instantly reacted against that discussion (and I still think you have barely moved from that position).  

I already pointed out that Femen had used their tactics against the Italian government, and had said that they had islam on their agenda, but that they had to be careful how they go about doing that, so clearly they seem themselves as focusing on issues that are not just local to Ukraine. Yet you think that their tactics are only valid in Ukraine and Molodova, and only valid for a specific project.  Once the sex industry in Ukraine was destroyed, you would then seek to ban Femen's form of protest.

If Femen were to only focus on that one project and one locality I would say that it was far less interesting.  What is interesting is that Femen see that the cause of women's rights is global (unlike the British suffragettes who were only interested in the rights of middle-class women, a model so clearly followed by our white, middle-class western feminists who are not interested in the rights of non-white muslim women).

But fundamentally it is the general issue of the means rather than the ends that interests me more.  Femen is an example of working within the existing power relations, but using those power relationships to one's own end.  They show that understanding and using those power relationships is far more powerful than doing things in the accepted ways (writing a letter of complaint, standing with a placard on a demonstration).

And they show that with the leverage acquired by this understanding, a very small number of individuals can grab the attention of the media.  Another group who have done this are Fathers for Justice, but as their campaign is confined to Britain and a particular British issue, I doubt you have heard of them. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fathers+for+justice

That the Italian feminists thanked Femen for what they did in Italy shows just how disgustingly cowardly, complacent, narrow-minded and self-serving western feminists are.  Nothing at all stopped Italian feminists for doing what Femen did.  Apart from the their cowardly, complacent, narrow self-interest.

Indoeuropean said:

Dearest Joe,

there are still several things we have to discuss about, and by the way the concept of Freedom is basically included in every philosophical economical political mouvement: Capitalism is for the Freedom of capitalists; Collectivism is for the Freedom of workers.

Not to forget that there are NATURAL limitation to our Freedom(s), and that a very common principle for every legal System (at least any System coming from the people and not from any "divine" revelation) is that one's Freedom must have limits, not only because there are other people/beings around any one of us, but even because the two pushes (Expanding/Freedom and Restricting/Limits) are fundamental for our lives [one sees it within the context of children's Rearing - and children is us -, and within any chemical/scientific context.

Since we introduced the discussion about Science, and Chemistry is undoubtely Science - I think you do agree -, one has - I have - to point out that since most ancient times there are two kinds of chemical processes: the outer, matterial one, and the inner, psychological one. That the two are, eventually somehow tied, this belong to the concept of the Body-Mind Unity. The Body influences the Mind, and the Mind influences the Body.

Now: by Mind and Body, not everything gets explained. There are actually more than two levels, and I guess that Thoughts, Feelings/Emotions, and Phisicity already is a preciser explaination of the Unity].

Therefore: what does Freedom means, and/or what's Freedom, the discussion is still open.

---

About Femen: maybe I got (bad) influenced by the fact that the pictures you forwarded here remembered me of a woman nick named Cicciolina, here few pictures of her http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q=cicciolina&rlz=1I7SKPB_... 

I must also ask you whether you understand Cyrillic and or Ukranian, since I can't get more information about the Mouvement, most of the news are in Ukranian (or Russian?!) only. Can you tell me better what do the banners of these women say? Thank you.

From a picture that I found (Twitter?) I think that they fight against ugliest richest (Russian - or generally - white men) that exploit them sexually [note: Russian and/or similar women are considered among the most beautiful women on Earth.

And as I said in a previous comment, Ukraina and Moldova are known as the poorest countries within Europe, where (beautiful) women get exploited and TRAFFICKED all around the (Western, or even Middle Eastern - !!! -) world.

As is typical by someone drawn to the explanatory power of psychobabble, you pick and choose your facts to fit your prejudices.  You now move from science to personal experience in order to justify this.  You have seen different treatment of children within your own family, and you assume that such idiosyncrasies are then the explanation for all behaviour.  As a gay man, I haven't spent much time with children. But I have observed that the personality of some children was evident when they were as young as 6 months old.  Other children's personality (and even physical appearance) can transform dramatically as they grow.  You seem to believe that everything is malleable (and with enough physical force that can seem almost true - that's why islam and other authoritarian forces are able to shape society they way they can).

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice or is biologically fixed is irrelevant. The question is one of personal freedom.  I defend it, you are opposed to it.  But just for the sake of showing how ignorant you are about science (despite your repeated claims to be interested in science, and your use of it), let's look at behaviour that is genetically determined.

When some animals are born, the first living thing they see they will take to be their mother.  It's called "imprinting" by biologists.  That some animals can be imprinted in this way, and others cannot, shows that some behaviour is genetically determined.  If a species does not have the biological determination to be imprinted, animals of that species will not exhibit this behaviour.  http://www.thegoosesmother.com/id6.html  This is the most basic science of all - observation of the natural behaviour of animals.  Farmers knew of this imprinting in some animals and not in others centuries before the concept of genetics was formed.

This is not even to say that all homosexuality is biologically determined.  But there is certainly an argument that for some people this is the case.

To me it doesn't matter if homosexuality is biologically determined or not.  Those who want to wipe out homosexuals will do so regardless of their belief in the causes of desire.

But I think now with your remark that homosexuals are "bestial", whilst other forms of sexual expression are not, you have demonstrated that you truly are an authoritarian bigot. You think that those who make or enjoy pornography are "insane".  Whether or not you are as demented as Melanie Phillips I don't know.  Do you share her view that homosexuals are responsible for the importation of islam into Europe?

I cannot see any reason why you are opposed to islam.  Since you have so much in common with these fascists, what is it that you are opposed to in islam?  Please explain in what way you differ from the Salafists?  


Indoeuropean said:

Thank you dearest Alan for your reply.

Now, all in all I'd say: NO, I don't believe in Genetics, which means, I do not believe that one is genetically homo, or bi, or superior or inferior, I do not believe in Race and Racism, which means, I believe not that the behaviour of one is determined by his/her cells,

which should be (according to Geneticism - let's call it this way -) completely dissociate from education, prenatal experience, in other words, from Mind and/or Mentality.

 I do believe (and I talk out of personal experience) that brothers and sisters ARE NOT grown up in the same way: every child is treated in slightly or massively different manner: this produces different effects (on one child or the other).

I do think that Sexuality can be directed to different object, above all when it is not "sexualized": children, for instance, do feel that their genitalias produce some kind of feeling, enjoyment. And they are on the way to understand "what is this". This is a game to them, and it is not to be considered a mature fertile Sexuality, as the adult one.

Most Pedophiles though, commit the "sin" to think that children "Sexuality" is the same as adult one. I don't know what do homo sexuals, or bi sexuals think.

About Homo sexuality, I think not that it is natural, WHEN IT COMES TO ADULTHOOD. I don't even think that animals (if one really wants to believe that humans are animals/beasts, undependantly of the fact that animals are animals, and humans are humans, otherwise there won't be any status' difference between them) are homo sexual only.

Most of the time, if this happens, they are bi sexual: which means, they act their "feeling in the genitalias" against anything which is "touchable". I refuse to believe that it is a natural HUMAN way to behave. An animal or bestial way, might be indeed. Sorry if I believe that humans are a bit more than mere animals/beasts.

You (two) told me about the twins: what does it mean? Do twins behave the same way, have the same thoughts, and get treated the same way? Do they choose the same partner, the same job, whatever?

No, they are two different HUMAN BEINGS, with two different lives, undependantly on the fact that they were in the womb at the same time. Outside it, they weren't anymore.

The question is, what does a homo sexual think of the other sex/gender? I think that ... by thinking/reasoning ... one understand the human ground(s) for his/her Homo sexuality.

Of course, if one doesn't think/reason, everythis is "natural" (in other words: mindless?). I think that good parents can rear healthier children,

though I do believe in the DIFFICULT human condition, which often makes so, that parents can't be as good as they wish, (in case they wish. There are also parents that do not care at all about their parenthood. They make kids, like animals do, dot. I think this comes from Ignorance only. It's not a fault per se, but it does cause problems to the kids,

who, as HUMAN BEINGS, need more than animals/beasts need).

Sorry, I really must go now. I'll be back later. Good and beautiful day.

I totally missed these P.S.s by Alan. Thank you for pointing them out.

What is that CJ Mouvement? And my question is: why do Jews must be always mentioned, when it comes to fight a fight? Even Islamic people use the Jewish cause to fight for theirs.

I see no ground to mix Jewishness with Gayness, or even Jewishness with Femininity, or Jewishness (does it mean a Race or a religious/political Ideology?) with Arabo islamcity or Rightism or Leftism or whatever else.

I keep supporting the works of mentioned Scientists (they interviewed and healed so many patients, and took the very great disturb to make researches upon them, IN ORDER TO HELP EVERYONE, Jews included ..., which is very disgraceful to consider them of no value!),

and I wish people to exerce MUCH MORE Self criticism, before engaging in the (exclusive) fight against (Arabo islamicity, or Arabs, or Islamics, or anything which is not Jewishness or Gayness - ? -).

I would like someone fighting for Decency and Ethics: that Mouvement would engage in such a fight. But no: appearently people (...) prefer to engage in Exibitionism or in wearing unnatural and weirdest piece of clothing.

We are constantly taking distance from our Selves: this is human Sickness (and am I not the first one who states such a thing, and/or who discovered such a Truth/Reality).

Kindest regards.

Joe said:  Fair enough.

Alan Lake said:

P.P.S.  This has been a useful discussion, because I think that without realising it, Indo has defended a position similar to Melanie Philips, and we all need to prepare to better demolish Melanie Philips's position.  And the latter is important for the CJ movement, because Gays, like Jews, are one of the first lines in the battle to preserve equal human rights from the onslaught of Islam.

Hallo Joe, frst of all I never said that I deny Femens' Freedom of Thought and Speech. How comes you say the opposite?

Secondly, the way they dress s lke prostitutes, and the boots are those typically used n Sado masochism.

Again,  do consider that as a female myself, I know better what does to be a female mean, (undependantly of your Gayness).

What do you have against Western Feminists? Or do you have a problem with Westerners? Or with W. females?

I see no ground to expose feminine bodies any further, within Western societies, since they are already excessively exposed and turned into objects: increasing aesthetic surgeries show that  females do not accept (anymore) themselves for who they are, but that they feel that they have to be eternally young and beautiful in order to be accepted (accepted? By whom, by the way? Males, or Gays, or other women? Or by Mom and Dad? You tell me).

I see no ground and I think that it is dangerous to keep exposing females in such a way: now, since I don't understand Ukranian, most probably I did not understand that Femens are prostitutes asking for higher wages? Is that what they are? [I thought that they were trying to protest against human Traffiking and sexual Exploitation of such Victims, and therefore I considered that they dresscode was inadequate. If you think that it is the way that protestors against Traffiking and Exploitation - which is actually based on hard Nudity - must dress, well, WE DO THINK VERY DIFFERENT, SEE THE OPPOSITE.

Now: why should I be wrong, and you be right? What do you know about feminine bodies? What do you know about  being a female? Very clearly asked.]

Again: what is your problem with Western Feminism? What do you know about Feminsm? Are you a female? By Feminism, and Western Feminism, we understand a Mouvement, made of women/females, asking for human Rights to be recognized (to) them.

It is women, who during French Revolution asked for a feminine version of the Declaration of the Rights of the Citizen. It is women, who got exploited after industrial Revolution, and that eventually decided to protest against such an inhuman life. It is women, who get married, have no financial independence, who get pregnant, have their kids, and have to care about them, about the husband, about the house, who have no time to develop their professional skill and/or to study.

Education, you say, and Freedom: damn, about Education, have you read any of Alice Miller's texts? She does condemn Education, a.k.a. dark Pedagogy. I do the same. About Freedom: what do you know about feminine Freedom? Do you really know better than me about females' condition? To know where are the problems and where the potential? Just because you see few nacked breasts and you see half nacked people or females, then you decide that it is the way, and that the Message is - or must be - the right one?

Why do you hate Western women. Or the concept of Decency? Why?

Do you throw lapidary "you are anti Freedom! You are a Salafi! You are a Stalinist!" in order to ... shut me down ... and forbid me to be WHAT I AM: a Western woman, and yes, a Feminist (wishing human Rights to be recognized to women as well), and - definitely - a woman/female.

What do you have against me, being myself? Do you know better, how should I be, how should women be?

Thank you.

Light and Love, and Beauty.

Joe said:

Indo, 4F's mission statement says that every member supports Freedom of Speech. By saying you do not support Femen's freedom of speech in this matter, you are the one who rejects freedom.  It is up to you to explain your "higher" concept of freedom, where you removing the freedoms of others is some superior form of freedom.

You have attempted to justify this censoriousness by claiming that a) what they are doing is pornographic (and therefore assume it to be automatically bad).  You then go on to equate all pornography with sado-masochism. Having this dispute focus on sexuality is taking things much further into irrelevance (for this discussion).

You wish to impose your morality upon them, disguised as some "higher freedom".  In that way, you are no different from the Salafists - Hizb ut Tahrir means "party of freedom".  They see enslavement to an ideology where people have lost all freedom of choice as being a "higher" form of freedom (people are freed from making decisions and freed from [true] moral responsibility).  You see a scenario where people have been "re-educated" to no longer desire things as leading them to freedom.  You have no means to provide this re-education without force, so I cannot see how your plan differs from Stalinism.

Freedom means "without constraint", and in the political sphere that comes down to what I have been arguing for in terms of personal freedom (which has to have limits where the exercise of my personal freedom runs up against the exercise of someone else's freedom).  You confuse the debate (again) by introducing an irrelevant and contentious subject concerning mind/body interaction.  When it comes down to the most basic living creatures (unicellular animals, for example), freedom means motility.

I wouldn't care if Femen was simply using their movement in order to agitate for better protection and better wages for women who work in the sex industry in Ukraine. That is a good start, and deserves support.  I introduced this discussion as a way to talk about "means" not "ends", but your narrow-minded view with regard to the concept of freedom meant that you instantly reacted against that discussion (and I still think you have barely moved from that position).  

I already pointed out that Femen had used their tactics against the Italian government, and had said that they had islam on their agenda, but that they had to be careful how they go about doing that, so clearly they seem themselves as focusing on issues that are not just local to Ukraine. Yet you think that their tactics are only valid in Ukraine and Molodova, and only valid for a specific project.  Once the sex industry in Ukraine was destroyed, you would then seek to ban Femen's form of protest.

If Femen were to only focus on that one project and one locality I would say that it was far less interesting.  What is interesting is that Femen see that the cause of women's rights is global (unlike the British suffragettes who were only interested in the rights of middle-class women, a model so clearly followed by our white, middle-class western feminists who are not interested in the rights of non-white muslim women).

But fundamentally it is the general issue of the means rather than the ends that interests me more.  Femen is an example of working within the existing power relations, but using those power relationships to one's own end.  They show that understanding and using those power relationships is far more powerful than doing things in the accepted ways (writing a letter of complaint, standing with a placard on a demonstration).

And they show that with the leverage acquired by this understanding, a very small number of individuals can grab the attention of the media.  Another group who have done this are Fathers for Justice, but as their campaign is confined to Britain and a particular British issue, I doubt you have heard of them. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fathers+for+justice

That the Italian feminists thanked Femen for what they did in Italy shows just how disgustingly cowardly, complacent, narrow-minded and self-serving western feminists are.  Nothing at all stopped Italian feminists for doing what Femen did.  Apart from the their cowardly, complacent, narrow self-interest.

1) You told me that humans are (like) animals: it was me who said that humans are different from animals. Then, you told me that animals are often homosexual. You said that, not me. Therefore I repeated that Homosexuality it probably is an animal behaviour. In my opinion, humans ARE NOT ANIMALS, and therefore the behaviour of the former cannot be simplistically compared to the behaviour of the latters.

2) I am not a Salafist. Neither I do follow an Ideology. And I do believe that the psychologists that I mentioned worked hard, WITH PEOPLE (not with mere ideas or theories); and eventually found out few rules that COULD/SHOULD HELP parents to be better parents, and above all, rules that CAN PROTECT DEFENSELESS CHILDREN FROM PSYCHOLOGICAL AND/OR PHISICAL (AB)USES.

3) It has been proven (by the mentioned SCIENTISTS) that kids can develop twisted behaviours and psychological illnesses, after beind unadquately treated by their parents and so called educators: that you want to deny this, and that you want to (in perfect dark Pedagogy's style) affirm that behaviours and illnesses are simply genetically preordered,

then be sure about the fact that I AM AGAINST YOU, and notably, AGAINST YOUR POINT OF VIEW, that I see as very dangerous and - most of all - completely irresponsible.

Not only I experienced being a child, but I also experienced did the opposite experience. And believe me, FAR BEFORE DISCOVERING the mentioned SCIENTISTS, I experience the impact that a parent can have, and has, upon a kid, a child, a baby. Therefore, when I discovered Lowen and Miller, I could do nothing else but feeling amazed about their very trustful (and demanding and restless) work: they are really enlightening.

Now, I also know, that their findings sound very uncomfortable for most of the Self criticismless parents, and for most of the adults, former children, who would kill themselves rather than debunk Fourth Commandment "honour thy father and thy mother" [the biblical God is simply a projection of these]. By the way: why the Almighty did not commanded to "honour thy son and thy daughter"? [This are maybe unimportant matters to you: to me they are utmost important ones].

By the way, there is a Daniel Mackler fighting for children Rights: you might find him more reliable than me, a Western Feminist female. http://iraresoul.com/ .

By the way: who is Melanie Phillip? Why should I be, listed: a Salafi, a Stalinist, a Melanie Phillip, whatever else. Hallo Joe, might you represent yourself, that I am myself, and I am not another? Thank you.

Reasoning means DO NOT STICK TO slogans: Reasoning means Freedom. Or: Freedom means Reasoning. Let's practice this. This is my opinon and my point of view. Waiting for yours (any further opinion of yours).

Good and beautiful evening.

Joe said:

As is typical by someone drawn to the explanatory power of psychobabble, you pick and choose your facts to fit your prejudices.  You now move from science to personal experience in order to justify this.  You have seen different treatment of children within your own family, and you assume that such idiosyncrasies are then the explanation for all behaviour.  As a gay man, I haven't spent much time with children. But I have observed that the personality of some children was evident when they were as young as 6 months old.  Other children's personality (and even physical appearance) can transform dramatically as they grow.  You seem to believe that everything is malleable (and with enough physical force that can seem almost true - that's why islam and other authoritarian forces are able to shape society they way they can).

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice or is biologically fixed is irrelevant. The question is one of personal freedom.  I defend it, you are opposed to it.  But just for the sake of showing how ignorant you are about science (despite your repeated claims to be interested in science, and your use of it), let's look at behaviour that is genetically determined.

When some animals are born, the first living thing they see they will take to be their mother.  It's called "imprinting" by biologists.  That some animals can be imprinted in this way, and others cannot, shows that some behaviour is genetically determined.  If a species does not have the biological determination to be imprinted, animals of that species will not exhibit this behaviour.  http://www.thegoosesmother.com/id6.html  This is the most basic science of all - observation of the natural behaviour of animals.  Farmers knew of this imprinting in some animals and not in others centuries before the concept of genetics was formed.

This is not even to say that all homosexuality is biologically determined.  But there is certainly an argument that for some people this is the case.

To me it doesn't matter if homosexuality is biologically determined or not.  Those who want to wipe out homosexuals will do so regardless of their belief in the causes of desire.

But I think now with your remark that homosexuals are "bestial", whilst other forms of sexual expression are not, you have demonstrated that you truly are an authoritarian bigot. You think that those who make or enjoy pornography are "insane".  Whether or not you are as demented as Melanie Phillips I don't know.  Do you share her view that homosexuals are responsible for the importation of islam into Europe?

I cannot see any reason why you are opposed to islam.  Since you have so much in common with these fascists, what is it that you are opposed to in islam?  Please explain in what way you differ from the Salafists?

Dearest Indo,

To be fair to Joe, I don't think he brought Melanie Philips into this.  It was me :-)

Melanie Philips is a British Jewish conservative, who is (I think) against seeing homosexuals as natural and 'normal'. You seem to have some ideas in common with her.  In the absence of Melanie Philips coming here to debate that point of view, it was helpful to have you perform that role.

Have a lovely star-lit evening again,
Alan 

Indo, either you have quite severe problems of comprehension, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said.  I consider all humans to fall under the category "animal" (no human truly falls under the category "vegetable").  But you assign homosexuals to the category "bestial", leaving the category "human" to be reserved for people like yourself.  And you claim that I am dangerous??  I presume like the Salafists and the Nazis, you will have no problem depriving me of human rights.

Since you consider homosexuals "bestial" I suppose you consider even celibate lesbians to be bestial.  Whilst the Salafists would kill me, I don't think even they would think I was "bestial".  You are really not doing well here if you hope to be representing yourself as someone concerned about freedom.

You allege I am without self-criticism, and you go on and on about the books you think I should read.  And you think you have no ideology?  Your ideology is psychoanalysis and feminism.  One of those ideologies is positive, and it isn't psychoanalysis.

At least I told you my views of Alice Miller, who I read in the early 1980s (and I dismissed her then because of her appeal to the pseudo-science of psychoanalysis).  Have you read Karl Popper and Thomas Szasz, to whom I referred?   If not, then please come back and talk to me about self-criticism when you have read them.

Again, you make the false claim that I believe that children cannot be negatively affected by their upbringing.  I never said that, and it would be stupid to think such things. I do, however, think that not even you are Nostradamus, and the series of events will lead to a positive adulthood is not predictable.  Unlike chemistry, rearing children is not a physical science, with controls and repeatable experiments.

Your views on feminism are no more valid than those of a man. Your views on the experience of being a woman are of course entirely different from a man's experience of being a woman (he basically has no such experience, unless of course, he has managed to pass himself off as a woman for some time, then he might have some experience of how women are treated).  But feminism is more than just a generalized stream of female consciousness.  And in case you don't realise, for at least 20 years now western feminists have been calling themselves "post-feminist".  I'm really looking forward to when one of these post-feminists ends up in a sharia court, being judged as half a man.

Whilst I am very critical of the failings of feminists, and whilst I don't personally get a frisson from seeing a naked woman's breasts, I do not consider women to be "bestial".  They are just different, and I do not judge them negatively for being different.  I dare say they can't help being women - it's probably biological.

And for your information, I consider homosexuality to be a positive character trait, and whether or not I am this way because of biology or culture, I'm grateful to my genes or my parents.  It means I can experience much of my own society as an outsider (I'm able to be far, far more critical of my society through seeing it as an outsider). And I relish that experience, rather than having lived a life of dull conformity.  Whilst I have no interest in SM, I have at least experienced such cultures for myself, rather than through a series of prudish and sensationalist books.

You have ended up portraying yourself very badly in this discussion.  And I will attribute all of that to you functioning in a foreign language.  I expect in reality you are a very nice person.

I wish you good mental health.  As Karl Krauss said: "psychoanalysis is the disease of which it considers itself the cure".


Indoeuropean said:

1) You told me that humans are (like) animals: it was me who said that humans are different from animals. Then, you told me that animals are often homosexual. You said that, not me. Therefore I repeated that Homosexuality it probably is an animal behaviour. In my opinion, humans ARE NOT ANIMALS, and therefore the behaviour of the former cannot be simplistically compared to the behaviour of the latters.

2) I am not a Salafist. Neither I do follow an Ideology. And I do believe that the psychologists that I mentioned worked hard, WITH PEOPLE (not with mere ideas or theories); and eventually found out few rules that COULD/SHOULD HELP parents to be better parents, and above all, rules that CAN PROTECT DEFENSELESS CHILDREN FROM PSYCHOLOGICAL AND/OR PHISICAL (AB)USES.

3) It has been proven (by the mentioned SCIENTISTS) that kids can develop twisted behaviours and psychological illnesses, after beind unadquately treated by their parents and so called educators: that you want to deny this, and that you want to (in perfect dark Pedagogy's style) affirm that behaviours and illnesses are simply genetically preordered,

then be sure about the fact that I AM AGAINST YOU, and notably, AGAINST YOUR POINT OF VIEW, that I see as very dangerous and - most of all - completely irresponsible.

Not only I experienced being a child, but I also experienced did the opposite experience. And believe me, FAR BEFORE DISCOVERING the mentioned SCIENTISTS, I experience the impact that a parent can have, and has, upon a kid, a child, a baby. Therefore, when I discovered Lowen and Miller, I could do nothing else but feeling amazed about their very trustful (and demanding and restless) work: they are really enlightening.

Now, I also know, that their findings sound very uncomfortable for most of the Self criticismless parents, and for most of the adults, former children, who would kill themselves rather than debunk Fourth Commandment "honour thy father and thy mother" [the biblical God is simply a projection of these]. By the way: why the Almighty did not commanded to "honour thy son and thy daughter"? [This are maybe unimportant matters to you: to me they are utmost important ones].

By the way, there is a Daniel Mackler fighting for children Rights: you might find him more reliable than me, a Western Feminist female. http://iraresoul.com/ .

By the way: who is Melanie Phillip? Why should I be, listed: a Salafi, a Stalinist, a Melanie Phillip, whatever else. Hallo Joe, might you represent yourself, that I am myself, and I am not another? Thank you.

Reasoning means DO NOT STICK TO slogans: Reasoning means Freedom. Or: Freedom means Reasoning. Let's practice this. This is my opinon and my point of view. Waiting for yours (any further opinion of yours).

Good and beautiful evening.

Good morning Joe.

Appearently it is you who misrepresents what I say. But projection is part of it.

For your information, Alice Miller died in 2010, and I guess your book is 20 years older. Though, her first book was marvellous anyway.

You most probalby missed out that SHE CRITICIZES PYCHOANALISIS. Sorry that she is not Karl or whoever esle, that she is not a male, but just a woman/female, considering what she does (very scientifically and objectively, seasoned with much Sensitivity, which is what a human being, most certainly a woman and a mother, needs) consider.

You keep telling me Salafist and Nazi, and of course this portays you, TO ME, in a very bad manner: you belong to those who before Criticism react by stoning another with very heavy and insulting words and terms. You are a big huge ingnorant, in my opinion.

The fact that it already the second time that you come out with a comment that should portray you as superior than others, shows me (makes me think that) you suffer of void Proudness: usually "proud" people are supremacist and notably irrespectful of others.

That you state that men know about Feminism, about females, as much as females do, makes me believe that you really do not reason, and/or refuse to do so, and that you try to force your position (your original gender, your sexual orientation, whatever else) upon others (females, non homo sexuals, ...), even if it is blatantly wrong.

You say that I think that homo sexuals are beasts? I used the term beast associating it to the term animal, because YOU SAID that humans are animals (in your latest comment you repointed out that - Blaise Pascal said, if you might care about another male's point of view, that "humans are neither animals/beasts nor angels ..." -), and I wanted to show you that aninals are beasts, therefore when you say that humans are animals, you are saying that they are beasts. THINK TWICE before stating such a think, and rather than wrongly criticizing (notably: insulting) me, use your heart and brain and resee your position about human nature!

Contrary to what you try to constantly reaffirm, I have nothing against homo sexuals, and you might tell me where did I said the opposite: you (very cowardly) called me (labeled me as) a Salafi, a Stalinist and a Nazi (very disgusting indeed), just because I said that parents' behaviour can negatively affect the perception of the child toward his/her own gender and toward the other gender, and about (Love, not only sexual) relations in general.

Most worrying, you keep stating that everything in your life was practically perfect, and that Psychology is a shit, and that the works of Lowen and Miller are Fascism: you COMPLETELY IGNORE the suffering of the people who they effectively helped and the great important essential hand that they gave to their patients (humans), and to other humans - you apparently forgot (or seem to ignore) that their works get somehow censored and banned from the public bigot sphere.

Wilhelm Reich, teacher of Lowen, died in prison; Miller's work got ignored by the Church and since she goes crtically toward Religions, and toward adults' Supremacism (against children), she has been kept away from the medias. And you want to teach me, or them (now both died) about Freedom, and Freedom of Thought and Speech? Make me a favour, please, shut up at least about them!

I am against Sadism and Masochism: it is one of the essential point why I am against Arabo islamicity, that I (since quite long time ago) find sadist and masochist. It damages people (humans): Sadism and Masochism damage people (humans). I am not certainly here to debunk Arabo islamic Sadism and Masochism, and to support gays and lesbians' Sadism and Masochism! I am against Sadism and Masochism: is that clear enough to you (too), now? Or my English is still be as bad as to be completely misunderstood?

If you enjoy your Homo sexuality, I am happy for you. By the way, for me Sexuality itself is not a/the main "problem". And when it comes to human Rights AND DUTIES, my first thought goes not to Sexuality itself: with whom one can do or cannot do Sex. There are many other problems concerning HUMAN LIFE, which come before Sexuality (and mature Sexuality) itself. When it comes to children (that you seem to ignore, but whose importance is a priority to me, sorry if my priority is not gays and lesbians), it is quite clear (is it, isn't it?) that Sexuality is not (must not be) a/the main need [unless we talk about protecting children from adult Sexuality or sexual Abuses/Exploitation]. Right (or Left)?

Psychology IS NOT an Ideology: it is Science, and everyone, yourself include, is free to take part to the process of discovering the most possible about our HUMAN psychism, psychological world. How comes that you say Psychology to be an Ideology? It is absurd? What do you have in your mind, honestly?

I UNDERSTAND: your ONLY problem is how to grant homo sexuals, bi sexuals and trans(fers - jocking - sexuals) the FREE practice of their sexual wishes and needs. Undependantly on how insane these are (notably referring to Sadism and Masochism): AND, of course, your other problem is to apply Zero Tolerance to Salafism, Stalinism, Nazism (and Psychology?!), because they are supposed to be sadist and masochist.

Well: let me help you to see how inconsistent your battle is?!

In my opinion, (nowaday's) Inconsistency is one of the major problems of this world, of this Humanity. This means and brings to Confusion, and Confusion is Obscurantism and Darkness. I am against these, no matter where I find them, in Religion, Laicity, Homo/Bi/Hetero/No sexuality, Feminsm, Chauvinism, Misogyny, Misandry, Misanthropy, Racialism/Ethnicism, Science, Politics, whatever, whoever, WHERever!

If you think that my Criticism to Parenthood is Confusion, Obscurantism and Darkness, well, I'd like to know which is YOUR APPROACH to Parenthood?

Karl Popper? Is he a philosopher? Of course. May I help you remembering that modern Philosophy was born in 500 BC, with Socrates, and that it actually was PSYCHOLOGY? (Science of Psyché - of the Soul -). I don't know how much DO YOU KNOW about Philosophy and the roots of it: I do not what does it mean Self criticism. Be sure about that: what about you?

I have no problem with nacked feminine breasts: it is men who decided that my problem with Femen's behaviour was about a nacked feminine breast. And I guess this has to do with the fact THAT THESE MEN ARE NOT WOMEN, at the opposite of what/who I am. My problem, FROM FEMALE TO FEMALE is that feminine bodies are ALREADY very exposed and commercialized: we (females and Feminists - human Rights/Duties for women -) need to protect our bodies better. But I feel that you (as a male) simply cannot understand that. Next life make sure to be born as a girl, then we will be rediscussing the whole matter together, mutually UNDERSTANDING ourselves better.

A Transexual is not a woman: in fact, most of the transexuals behave like bitches, while women are most often very simply human beings, involved in the very UNEXCITING daily battle for survival and life. I have nothing against transexuals: I have something against those who play the role of the/a female/woman (and or of the/a male/man), as if they were playing a role in a movie. Hello?! Being a woman (and I am pretty sure this is the same about being a man) is not a movie! This has almost nothing to do with (the) Show business: this has rather to do with (daily) Reality! Life!

Alexander Lowen wrote "Narcissism", where he approaches the problem of "images" (Deception) in our (modern) world, and how images (Deception) twisted our perception (of Reality). I don't ask you to read the book, simply because you won't. Though I suggest to get a bit more interested in the (worldwide) problem of Deception, Show business, Medias, (Marketing strategies), twisting people's Perception, [hey, this has to do with Psychology as well!].

You talk to me about Feminism and Post feminism: since I DO NOT FOLLOW ANY GROUP OR IDEOLOGY, but I am totally free to follow whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want, or nothing/never/nowhere at all, I am afraid I can't suit the label that you gave me. Me is me, and it is better for you to understand that, before discussing with me again, and before labeling me any further (Salafist, Stalinist, Nazi, Western Feminist, Post feminist - which appearently are all insults from you to me -).

By the way, I am not a nice person, and I am not even meant to be a nice person: to please whom? I am myself. And [ths is for Alan as well] I think not to be the clone of Melanie Phillips (I now know who is she): I am myself only. Sorry. [I don't think to be nicer or less nice than you are, though.]

Now: thank you for the good mental health. Health is always a precious and valuable resource. I guess that in order to make you happy I should wish you a good and enjoyable fucking time [don't worry: Wilhelm Reich and Alexander Lowen would support this wish from me to you].

Lightful and loveful day to you and to everyone.

Joe said:

Indo, either you have quite severe problems of comprehension, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said.  I consider all humans to fall under the category "animal" (no human truly falls under the category "vegetable").  But you assign homosexuals to the category "bestial", leaving the category "human" to be reserved for people like yourself.  And you claim that I am dangerous??  I presume like the Salafists and the Nazis, you will have no problem depriving me of human rights.

Since you consider homosexuals "bestial" I suppose you consider even celibate lesbians to be bestial.  Whilst the Salafists would kill me, I don't think even they would think I was "bestial".  You are really not doing well here if you hope to be representing yourself as someone concerned about freedom.

You allege I am without self-criticism, and you go on and on about the books you think I should read.  And you think you have no ideology?  Your ideology is psychoanalysis and feminism.  One of those ideologies is positive, and it isn't psychoanalysis.

At least I told you my views of Alice Miller, who I read in the early 1980s (and I dismissed her then because of her appeal to the pseudo-science of psychoanalysis).  Have you read Karl Popper and Thomas Szasz, to whom I referred?   If not, then please come back and talk to me about self-criticism when you have read them.

Again, you make the false claim that I believe that children cannot be negatively affected by their upbringing.  I never said that, and it would be stupid to think such things. I do, however, think that not even you are Nostradamus, and the series of events will lead to a positive adulthood is not predictable.  Unlike chemistry, rearing children is not a physical science, with controls and repeatable experiments.

Your views on feminism are no more valid than those of a man. Your views on the experience of being a woman are of course entirely different from a man's experience of being a woman (he basically has no such experience, unless of course, he has managed to pass himself off as a woman for some time, then he might have some experience of how women are treated).  But feminism is more than just a generalized stream of female consciousness.  And in case you don't realise, for at least 20 years now western feminists have been calling themselves "post-feminist".  I'm really looking forward to when one of these post-feminists ends up in a sharia court, being judged as half a man.

Whilst I am very critical of the failings of feminists, and whilst I don't personally get a frisson from seeing a naked woman's breasts, I do not consider women to be "bestial".  They are just different, and I do not judge them negatively for being different.  I dare say they can't help being women - it's probably biological.

And for your information, I consider homosexuality to be a positive character trait, and whether or not I am this way because of biology or culture, I'm grateful to my genes or my parents.  It means I can experience much of my own society as an outsider (I'm able to be far, far more critical of my society through seeing it as an outsider). And I relish that experience, rather than having lived a life of dull conformity.  Whilst I have no interest in SM, I have at least experienced such cultures for myself, rather than through a series of prudish and sensationalist books.

You have ended up portraying yourself very badly in this discussion.  And I will attribute all of that to you functioning in a foreign language.  I expect in reality you are a very nice person.

I wish you good mental health.  As Karl Krauss said: "psychoanalysis is the disease of which it considers itself the cure".


Indoeuropean said:

1) You told me that humans are (like) animals: it was me who said that humans are different from animals. Then, you told me that animals are often homosexual. You said that, not me. Therefore I repeated that Homosexuality it probably is an animal behaviour. In my opinion, humans ARE NOT ANIMALS, and therefore the behaviour of the former cannot be simplistically compared to the behaviour of the latters.

2) I am not a Salafist. Neither I do follow an Ideology. And I do believe that the psychologists that I mentioned worked hard, WITH PEOPLE (not with mere ideas or theories); and eventually found out few rules that COULD/SHOULD HELP parents to be better parents, and above all, rules that CAN PROTECT DEFENSELESS CHILDREN FROM PSYCHOLOGICAL AND/OR PHISICAL (AB)USES.

3) It has been proven (by the mentioned SCIENTISTS) that kids can develop twisted behaviours and psychological illnesses, after beind unadquately treated by their parents and so called educators: that you want to deny this, and that you want to (in perfect dark Pedagogy's style) affirm that behaviours and illnesses are simply genetically preordered,

then be sure about the fact that I AM AGAINST YOU, and notably, AGAINST YOUR POINT OF VIEW, that I see as very dangerous and - most of all - completely irresponsible.

Not only I experienced being a child, but I also experienced did the opposite experience. And believe me, FAR BEFORE DISCOVERING the mentioned SCIENTISTS, I experience the impact that a parent can have, and has, upon a kid, a child, a baby. Therefore, when I discovered Lowen and Miller, I could do nothing else but feeling amazed about their very trustful (and demanding and restless) work: they are really enlightening.

Now, I also know, that their findings sound very uncomfortable for most of the Self criticismless parents, and for most of the adults, former children, who would kill themselves rather than debunk Fourth Commandment "honour thy father and thy mother" [the biblical God is simply a projection of these]. By the way: why the Almighty did not commanded to "honour thy son and thy daughter"? [This are maybe unimportant matters to you: to me they are utmost important ones].

By the way, there is a Daniel Mackler fighting for children Rights: you might find him more reliable than me, a Western Feminist female. http://iraresoul.com/ .

By the way: who is Melanie Phillip? Why should I be, listed: a Salafi, a Stalinist, a Melanie Phillip, whatever else. Hallo Joe, might you represent yourself, that I am myself, and I am not another? Thank you.

Reasoning means DO NOT STICK TO slogans: Reasoning means Freedom. Or: Freedom means Reasoning. Let's practice this. This is my opinon and my point of view. Waiting for yours (any further opinion of yours).

Good and beautiful evening.

Dearest Alan, I just answered to Joe, and that answer is for you as well.

Lightful and loveful day.

Alan Lake said:

Dearest Indo,

To be fair to Joe, I don't think he brought Melanie Philips into this.  It was me :-)

Melanie Philips is a British Jewish conservative, who is (I think) against seeing homosexuals as natural and 'normal'. You seem to have some ideas in common with her.  In the absence of Melanie Philips coming here to debate that point of view, it was helpful to have you perform that role.

Have a lovely star-lit evening again,
Alan 

Indo, these discussions are probably very irritating to everyone else.  If you wish to continue discussion gender, sexuality, clothing, psychology and philosophy -- I suggest you send me a message or conduct the discussion on my Wall.  If the discussion is carried out on my wall, then at least others who are interested in it can follow it.

The rest can return to the main point of 4F.

BTW, Femen were in Davos. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/weirdnewsvideo/9046442/Fe...

Hopefully, next stop: Riyadh or Mecca. 

Femen have been active again - and this time not just in domestic politics in Ukraine:

On International Women's Day, whilst the spineless communist Maryam Namazie was pushing her topless calendar, the women of Femen went to Turkey to protest there against violence against women.

http://rt.com/news/femen-domestic-violence-turkey-141/

Here are some reports in Turkish media:

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-273862-turkey-deports-femen-activis...

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/four-femen-activists-detained-in-i...

It looks like the eastern europeans are going to have to save western civilisation, just like it took the USSR to defeat the Nazis.

If there is any group I will donate money to in future, it is Femen.

FEMEN Plant a Bomb In the Kiev Metro

Posted on  by CJ

FEMEN arranged an act of sabotage and planted a bomb. The evil object was found at Kreschatik metro station in Kiev. People in pink suits surrounded the bomb and forced people to leave the dangerous zone.

One of the activists was beaten by an unknown man and hospitalized with probable brain concussion.

Thus the girls wanted to mock of the bombers who made a series of terrorist acts in Dnepropetrovsk and show the impotence of special services who could only remove trash cans to oppose the bombers…
__________________________________________________________________________________________

It looks like that woman was punched hard in the stomach then may have hit her head when she fell.  Either way, a disgraceful event.  FEMEN are definitely on the front line.

RSS

Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2022   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service