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: 13246

Replies to This Discussion

Dear Indo,

please tell me what I am supposed to do.

Am I supposed to stand and say "Yes, its all terrible, we appeal to the decency of all men to reject abuse of women and treat them kindly.  We want to educate everyone in a gentle and reasonable way, so that humanity in general can improve and particularly the position of women"?  I am quite happy to do that if you like.

But you must know that I think and operate like a machine.  I am always looking for very concrete forms of action.  I want to execute the dangerous criminals and terrorists, punish those who attack women, terminate the cowards that throw acid in their faces, and ... 
remove those things (like particular types of pornography) which I see as inducing that form of behaviour.  

(I don't care whether you think it induces it or not, in the same way that Joe doesn't think it induces it; that belief is not pertinent to my point here about who represents a viewpoint).

I don't think you'll stand behind me on any of that pornography platform, so I'm not going to represent it.

Instead though, I will just give all abused women my deepest sympathies, and hope that we can educate the world to get better treatment for women.

Is that what you want me to do?  Because that's how it seems to me.  I'm ok with that, I'm just checking that you understand where you are going with this.  I'm not going to be a bulldog, going out doing what I can to protect women, unless you agree that I can 'bite' people.

I'm happy to just be a poodle, and sit on people's laps, and make sweet cooing noises.  Its always nice to have a break :-)

Light and love,

Alan

Indoeuropean said:

Dear Alan, I used the word decency and I thnk that Joe was critczing me (let's represent the perspectve ... Indo has), while writing to you.

When you say that you don't fight other people's battle, one must say that most often women get sexually treated bad by men, therefore fighting against hard pornography and Sado masochism is not only a problem of theirs (women), this is a matter concerning yourself (as a male) as well.

Same goes for anything which is not promoted by us (human beings belonging to a certain group, country, whatever), but in which we more or less directly play a role.

Either we stand with the victim(s) or we stand with the perpetrator(s), or we keep neutral (which is the most unpopular position, simply because we are living on this Earth together with everyone else, and keeping neutral is, eventually, almost impossible - and maybe not possible for a very long period of time. Unless we go for Anchoritism -).

Dearest Alan,

thank you for your (very human indeed, not mechanical at all) answer and point of view.

First of all I wanted to say that, about Pornography, the problem is not (only) that it induces (the Developement and Expression of) such behaviour,

but that Pornography itself IS THE EXPRESSION of an insane (AND unhealthy) way to think, feel AND behave.

Now, my point is: where is the point to encourage (the Expression of) pornographic images and movies (coming from a wretched, twisted, Imaginary of someone - a human being -),

since they are wether sane nor healthy, 

AND that (Insanity/Unhealthiness) concerns the very causes of their origine - usually: an abuse/exploitation that one experienced during his/her childhood, from an adult -,

and (not only) the very effect of their spreading (as well) - usually: increasingly hard/brutal/wretched forms of abuse/exploitation FROM one/several AGAINST/TOWARD another/others -?

My point is to encourage people to REASON about what they do, what they feel, and ... what they think. It is to go and seek the causes of their (?) behaviour, their (?) feelings/EMOTIONS, their (?) thoughts/IDEALS.

That's why I would NOT encourage you to go and BITE (!) a criminal, or a terrorist (which would NOT solve the problem and the very origin of it!),

but I would rather [since you ask me, I try and take profit from your mechanical obedience! ;-) (I'm jocking, I wouldn't do)] encourage you to go and (very "socratically" indeed!) ask people to THINK over their behaviour, feelings/emotions, and thoughts/ideals.

This would/will concern NOT ONLY men against/toward women, BUT women against/toward men AS WELL!

AND BETTER, and above all, this would/will concern men and women against/toward CHILDREN (boys and girls).

THE ACTION (!) must be taken at three levels:

1) (most difficult) INNER ACTION (everyone should ask himself/herself why he/she does/feels/thinks this or that),

2) OUTER MUTUAL ACTION (everyone should enquire the other - or another - about his/her behaviour/feelings - or emotions -/thoughts),

3) OUTER ETHICAL ACTION (in case of unquestionable partner - an animal, a plant, a child, whoever has no words to say/write, or not power to engage in a discussion/enquiry - , everyone, male or female, should ethically behave/feel/think against these unquestionables, and/or protect them - since they cannot protect themselves, they have not the means to do so themselves).

Well, now I am very late I must go.

I'll be back later.

Light, Love and Beauty to you and to everyone. Nice after noon.

Alan Lake said:

Dear Indo,

please tell me what I am supposed to do. ...

Dear Indo.  It is perfectly clear that you are insane.  

 

See, two can play that game.  It is an entirely useless way to conduct a debate.  Hearing you make these outrageous claims makes me wish that Thomas Szasz was better known.  People like you confuse sanity and morality.  And it is as worrying to me as stalinism.  I have had friends who in the 1960s and 1970s were given electic shock treatment because they said they were gay (one was a 15 year old girl, sent for this torture by the nuns in her school).  That is where it leads when you label "insanity" something that is just behaviour of which you do not approve (and which is usually none of your business).  

Atheists such as myself could just as easily claim that anyone who believes in god is clearly insane.  But it is not only offensive and arrogant and disrespectful to make such statements, it is also unproductive to debate and dialogue.

It was only about 10 years ago that the American Psychiatric Association took homosexuality off its list of mental diseases.  And feminists have often pointed out how the "unreasonable" demands of women were a sign that they were insane.  Perhaps you'd like to see unsubmissive women branded insane. How about those "unnatural" homosexuals?

None of the people I know who enjoy pornography agree that they were abused as children.  But from your lofty height and with your telepathy, you can see inside their brains and their past, and you know more than they do.  Do you believe in democracy, or do you also think that a dictator knows better than the electorate?  

I wish you good mental health. 

Indoeuropean said:

First of all I wanted to say that, about Pornography, the problem is not (only) that it induces (the Developement and Expression of) such behaviour,

but that Pornography itself IS THE EXPRESSION of an insane (AND unhealthy) way to think, feel AND behave.

Now, my point is: where is the point to encourage (the Expression of) pornographic images and movies (coming from a wretched, twisted, Imaginary of someone - a human being -),

since they are wether sane nor healthy, 

AND that (Insanity/Unhealthiness) concerns the very causes of their origine - usually: an abuse/exploitation that one experienced during his/her childhood, from an adult 

Indo, you like to attribute views to me that I did not state.

The very first line with which I introduced this discussion was to talk about power relationships not being one-way.  Some women choose to wear burkas to be different, to be religious, to be shielded from violence.  Others may be forced very directly to wear them.  Yet when I've had this discussion with my socialist feminist friends, they refuse to even engage with the idea that many muslim women are being forced into wearing burkas.

I am against people being forced to do what they do not want to do.

You assume that all pornography is sado-masochistic.  I would think that SM porn is but a small portion of the output of the industry and the amateurs.  No-one I know likes SM or SM pornography.  Yet you keep trying to represent that pornography = violence. You are welcome yourself to go and search the internet and see how many porn websites are predominantly SM sites.

Nevertheless, if people wish to engage in SM that is up to them.  They should be free to do so.  Do you equally object to all forms of violence?  

There was an infamous case in Britain about 15 years ago, called "Operation Spanner".  A police force (run by a chief of police who claimed god spoke to him) raided a gay SM club, where the people involved were involved in their fetishistic activities (I have once visited such a club because the owner invited me for free - I personally found it extremely distasteful).  In Operation Spanner something like 30 adult men were prosecuted for consensually assaulting eachother, and some were sent to prison for it. At the court case, their barrister rightly argued that what they did was actually no different from boxing - indeed, since there was a ritualised theatrical element to their actions there was considerably less pain involved than for boxers, and furthermore, none of them suffered death or brain damage.

The judge refused to accept the comparison with boxing saying the latter "was a manly activity".  So, these gay sado-masochists were sent to prison for consensually inflicting minor pain on each other.  Whilst boxers who destroy each others brains are considered "heroes", "stars", "admirable" and are given large financial rewards.

Why pick on sado-masochism, when boxing is infinitely more common as both an activity and as a spectator sport?

I could go on to make analogies about horror movies, police movies, sci-fi movies, war movies.  They all represent violence.  Are they as bad as SM porn?  Are they as bad as plain old vanilla porn?

Make love, not war.  Peace, man.

Indoeuropean said:

Feminist Mouvements, and Mouvements about human Rights must be critical about "cultural Habits", be it burking women, be it wearing them sado masochistically (now you'll tell me that it is a free choice of them. All right then, be consistent and allow Salafis to live and act their Culture ...; DO YOU SEE what I mean, where is the point?).

I rather wonder why most of you are particpating to a site about Freedom, while you seem to apply such a Freedom to yourselves, while denying it to others.

Why do you participate to a site which appearently rightously apply free critcal Thinking to Salafi Habits, while you go totally CRITICLESS when it comes to Sado masochism, Pedopornography, and worst?

Tell me.

By the way, you asked me about sexy or weird underwears within domestic walls: if the couple is happy with them, let them use them. Why not.

Good morning Joe,

thank you for your reply.

Anyway: if you think that I am insane,

and you see no Insanity and lack of Ethics (I do talk about Ethics; Morality looks almost bigot to me) in Sado masochism (which means: in Sadism and in Masochism),

well, I guess I am happy to be considered insane (by one - who thinks - like you - do -).

On the other hand, I keep suggesting (you and anybody else, who might sincerely be interested in Humanity and in a - brightening - Future for it)

to read the works of two authors:

Alexander Lowen, the founder of Bioenergetics (who, by the way, does not treat the subject of mistreatement during one's childhood only, but he treats the subject of Hetero/Homo sexuality as well), 

and Alice Miller who undercovered the Roots of Violence, both in religious Education/Dogmas and in laic Education/Principles (and she treats sexual ab/use(s) against children as well).

I think these scientists were SANE, and try to scientifically and objectively expose (human) Nature

and a functional behaviour (seasoned with feelings/emotions and thoughts - which differentiate Humans from Animals/Beasts -), IN FAVOUR OF LIFE/LIVING, for everyone of us.

I think that a deep(er) inside ourselves, inside our public and private lives, getting inspired by the works of the above mentoined scientists,

ight help us, and our offsprings, might help present and future Generations, to live better lives - better for themselves and for others -.

[One might discuss here about what does "better" means: what refers this to? (Quality, ...)].

I do feel (or fear) that such analysis and their consequences are not among your priorities: let me say that they are among those of mine.

I see no ground to compare my point of view to Stalinism, Persecution(s) against Homo sexuals, double Standard Feminism, or any kind of political/ideological Fanaticism:

I wish you could rather compare it to the concept of Humanity and to (basic) Humanism.

I am interested in the Body-Mind Unity,

AND treating another sadistically, or sadistic Self treatment, or Masochism, is clearly unhealthy

(and comes from Insanity, which means, this comes past unsolved traumas,

which caused the Erotization of Violence: since Violence is Violence and Erotism is Erotism,

switching the two concepts IS INSANE).

Usually the traumas were experienced during one's time in the mother's womb, and/or when one was between 0 and three years old, and/or when one was between three and six years old:

inadequate behaviour(s) (towad the female, the male, the kid) made so, that one develops a twisted imaginery of kids and adults of both sexes/genders.

Sadism and Masochism are the expression of VIOLENCE against someone (...), which often DOES NOT DESERVE it: I see no ground to appreciate the Enjoyment/Erotization of Violence, for very obvious reasons.

Eventually, please, may I ask you something? You have not to answer me here publically, but let me at least know whether you took your time to think over my questions and to reason about them:

1) what do you think about your mother? Would you she to be treated sadistically? Or she to be a masochist?

2) What do you think about your sister(s)? Would you she/they to be treated sadistically or to be a masochist?

3) What do you think about your girl friend(s)? Would you she/they to be treated sadstically or to be a masochist?

4) What do you think about your girl school comrades and or about your girl colleagues? Would you they to be treated sadistically or to be a masochist?

5) What do you think about your female relatives (aunts, grand mothers, cousins)? Would you they to be treated sadistically or to be a masochist?

6) What do you think about your daughter(s)? Would you she/they to be treated sadistically or to be a masochist?

7) Same questions from 1) to 6), but for the masculine counterparts (father, brothers, boy friends, boy school comrades/colleagues, masculine relatives, sons).

Note: Sadism and Masochism are here meant as an acted attitude during one's normal daily life and/or during one's sexual private life.

About (modern) Pornography, it is for someone who has an exceeding aggressivity inside himself/herself, seasoned with a deep Disrespect of the own sex/gender and for the sex/gender of the other(s).

Again, I must consider that you seem not to see (or care about) the connection between inner violence, Sado masochism, Pornography and sexual Exploitation of weaker people (children included and at first): how comes?

May I ask you if you care about these weaker people or if they don't matter to you?

Another question comes in my mind: why are you against niqabs (burkas)? Because of their "look" or because of the ideology (or values) that hide(s) behind them?

(Same question might be asked about the very opposite of a niqab/burka. Which means, same question might be asked about one sado masochistically fucking, maybe in front of a camera: is it their "look" or the ideology - or values - behind?)

Well. Waiting for an answer, or so, from you, I wish you (and to everyone, me included): Light/Truth, Love/Good, Beauty/Aesthetics.

Read you later, good bye.

Joe said:

Dear Indo.  It is perfectly clear that you are insane.  ...

And there are people forced into sex, and many are so submitted to this, that will state that they freely chose to do so. As well as many burkas' wearers would do.

Sadism and Masochism are attitudes. Which means, that it has not only to do with Sex, quite at the opposite. Sadism is the wish to apply Violence (onto another),

Masochism is the wish to be mistreated (by another).

I do not like Boxing. Femens on the other hand seem not to dislike it: isn't that you who posted (your) favourite picture of a Femen boxing, her chest unprotected?

Well, I wish you a lightful day so be it for everyone else as well, me included. Good bye.

Joe said:

Indo, you like to attribute views to me that I did not state.

The very first line with which I introduced this discussion was to talk about power relationships not being one-way.  Some women choose to wear burkas to be different, to be religious, to be shielded from violence.  Others may be forced very directly to wear them.  Yet when I've had this discussion with my socialist feminist friends, they refuse to even engage with the idea that many muslim women are being forced into wearing burkas.

I am against people being forced to do what they do not want to do.

You assume that all pornography is sado-masochistic.  I would think that SM porn is but a small portion of the output of the industry and the amateurs.  No-one I know likes SM or SM pornography.  Yet you keep trying to represent that pornography = violence. You are welcome yourself to go and search the internet and see how many porn websites are predominantly SM sites.

Nevertheless, if people wish to engage in SM that is up to them.  They should be free to do so.  Do you equally object to all forms of violence? ...

By the way, Joe, don't worry, masculne Homo sexuality is not going to be banned, it s very appreciated, Transfers are the most appreciated lovers at the moment by several very powerful people (VIPs),

they like one who looks like a woman but who "has it" and know what does a male likes (...).

In my opinion, this is a kind of Misogyny: women are appreciated but as long as they are not women (...).

For the males the sexual opportunities are very wide: women who behave like bitches, and/or Tranfers. Plenty of opportunity and this seems to be a very profitable business.

It s not going to decrease very soon, appearently.

I think, though, that it is very worrying.

Orwellian greetings to you.

Dearest Indo, once again you try to impute uncaring feelings to me, which flatly contradict the things I have said on here.

1. Alexander Lowen is a psychotherapist.  Alice Miller has a PhD in philosophy, psychology and sociology.  These people are no more "scientific" than I am.  Please read Karl Popper on the nature of science.  Indeed, "sciences" like psychotherapy are authoritarian, and would be very amenable to stalinism/nazism.  (They can see inside people's minds, and attribute things to homunculi such as "the unconscious", whilst that opinions and reports of the autonomous individual are ignored).  Psychotherapy and psychoanalysis should be banned as dangerous charalatanism.  Real sciences sets up experiments and uses control groups.  It relies on proof, not on ghosts and spirits and homunculi.

2. My priority is freedom. Freedom for me.  Freedom for others.  And whilst I have not stated it in this discussion because it should not be relevant for the point at issue, I have a great deal of interest in buddhism, and the idea that we should not be enslaved by our cravings.  But that does not mean that I should push my beliefs onto others.  Likewise the Buddha did not go round trying to persuade people to become buddhists.  You, however seem to want to force people to be free.  And that is your definition of freedom, not theirs.  And your forcing may not (at this stage) involve labour camps but it does involve "re-education".  A future more determined version of what your position would use labour camps and torture (such as electric shock treatment) to cure people of their unapproved cravings.

3. The Nazis were also interested in callisthenics, physical fitness, and improving the nation's health through eugenics (as were the British socialists at the time).  An explicit concern for health and an authoritarian mind-set are not incompatible.  By the way, I'm sure you are not a nazi or a stalinist, and I know you would not physically force people to do things.  But that doesn't stop your ideas (and those of Alice Miller) from forming the "scientific" basis on which nasty people do force things upon others.  I'm sure you are an absolutely lovely human being.  It is your ideas I am arguing against.  And I also understand that we are conducting this argument in the only language I speak, and that that gives me an advantage over someone like you communicating in a second language.  So, I apologise if I've misunderstood you.

4. Traumas... blah blah blah.  We all have "traumas" of one kind of another.  As buddhism says "life is suffering".  I was brought up in an extremely poor and extremely violent household.  I hate violence.  I have never been involved in an act of violence.  I do not watch SM porn, I do not like SM clubs.  I suffered very poor health as a child (meaning I spent years away from school).  Meanwhile, I have friends who were brought up in non-violent, wealthy households, but who are extremely "traumatized" adults (they believe in psychotherapy), and who can barely function because (they think) their childhood was so difficult.  Bullshit. Such things have no true explanatory force, and are just part of the 20th century middle-class victimology.

5. As for all the questions about my attitudes to my mother and sisters.  Downright impertinent.  I don't ask you how you brainwashed your children to be heterosexual.  Your implication is that I am an unfeeling monster.  If my mother or my sister wanted to take part in ritualised SM activities I would not think it was any of my business.  Just like I can't understand why my sister has chosen the useless lump of a husband she has, I also cannot understand why my brother has chosen such a snobby bitch for a wife.  Even the friends I have who are interested in SM or fetishism, I do not ask them the details of what role they take.  It is none of my business.  I'm just glad they spare me the embarrassment of having to see them do this ridiculous play-acting.  Might I ask you: how often do you suck your husband's cock?  Obviously that's none of my business, just like it is none of my business whether or not my sister is involved in play-acting SM scenes. 

6. It is my business if my sister is involved in a violent relationship.  And when I've had friends who have been in relationships which are violent, I have advised them to leave. (I told one friend not to marry her fiancee when 2 weeks before the wedding she told me he'd been beating her - no-one could see the bruises because she was black.  I was prepared to be held responsible for destroying that wedding if it meant she was and potential kids were not stuck in a violent relationship for years.)  I do care about children being involved in child pornography.  I have made that very clear. We live in a society where children are not capable of making informed decisions about what they do, and where there are clear power relationships where they are weaker.  I see no grounds on which child pornography should be permitted (except perhaps the situation where the pornography is purely cartoon, and even then I see grounds for banning it as no child who has been abused should have to encounter a representation of that abuse, even when they are an adult).

7. My objection to the burka/niqab is a) that it is a blatant sign of the refusal of a group to integrate in society, b) that group are murderously homophobic (so to me, it is like being confronted every day by people in Nazi uniforms), c) it is likely that many of those women are forced into wearing it, d) it is a potential danger for identifying criminals and terrorists.  If islam was not misogynistic, and if everyone in a country (male and female) were permitted to wear or not wear the burka, and it was not a sign of a murderous fascist ideology, and it was a completely homogeneous culture, I couldn't care less if men or women wore a burka.  They can deal with the problem of unidentifiable criminals.

And I wish you light and beautiful aesthetics too.  As we say in England "there's nothing as queer as folk", and "there's no accounting for taste" (although I think that latter expression comes from Latin).


Indoeuropean said:

Alexander Lowen, the founder of Bioenergetics (who, by the way, does not treat the subject of mistreatement during one's childhood only, but he treats the subject of Hetero/Homo sexuality as well), 

and Alice Miller who undercovered the Roots of Violence, both in religious Education/Dogmas and in laic Education/Principles (and she treats sexual ab/use(s) against children as well).

[...]

I do feel (or fear) that such analysis and their consequences are not among your priorities: let me say that they are among those of mine.

[...]

I see no ground to compare my point of view to Stalinism, Persecution(s) against Homo sexuals, double Standard Feminism, or any kind of political/ideological Fanaticism:

I wish you could rather compare it to the concept of Humanity and to (basic) Humanism.

I am interested in the Body-Mind Unity,

AND treating another sadistically, or sadistic Self treatment, or Masochism, is clearly unhealthy

(and comes from Insanity, which means, this comes past unsolved traumas,

[...]

Sadism and Masochism are the expression of VIOLENCE against someone (...), which often DOES NOT DESERVE it: I see no ground to appreciate the Enjoyment/Erotization of Violence, for very obvious reasons.

Eventually, please, may I ask you something? You have not to answer me here publically, but let me at least know whether you took your time to think over my questions and to reason about them:

1) what do you think about your mother? Would you she to be treated sadistically? Or she to be a masochist?

2) What do you think about your sister(s)? Would you she/they to be treated sadistically or to be a masochist?

3) What do you think about your girl friend(s)? Would you she/they to be treated sadstically or to be a masochist?

4) What do you think about your girl school comrades and or about your girl colleagues? Would you they to be treated sadistically or to be a masochist?

5) What do you think about your female relatives (aunts, grand mothers, cousins)? Would you they to be treated sadistically or to be a masochist?

6) What do you think about your daughter(s)? Would you she/they to be treated sadistically or to be a masochist?

7) Same questions from 1) to 6), but for the masculine counterparts (father, brothers, boy friends, boy school comrades/colleagues, masculine relatives, sons).

Note: Sadism and Masochism are here meant as an acted attitude during one's normal daily life and/or during one's sexual private life.

About (modern) Pornography, it is for someone who has an exceeding aggressivity inside himself/herself, seasoned with a deep Disrespect of the own sex/gender and for the sex/gender of the other(s).

Again, I must consider that you seem not to see (or care about) the connection between inner violence, Sado masochism, Pornography and sexual Exploitation of weaker people (children included and at first): how comes?

May I ask you if you care about these weaker people or if they don't matter to you?

Another question comes in my mind: why are you against niqabs (burkas)? Because of their "look" or because of the ideology (or values) that hide(s) behind them?

(Same question might be asked about the very opposite of a niqab/burka. Which means, same question might be asked about one sado masochistically fucking, maybe in front of a camera: is it their "look" or the ideology - or values - behind?)

Well. Waiting for an answer, or so, from you, I wish you (and to everyone, me included): Light/Truth, Love/Good, Beauty/Aesthetics.

I think by Transfers Indo means Transvestites.  It must be difficult to argue when English is a foreign language to you :-)

Indoeuropean said:

By the way, Joe, don't worry, masculne Homo sexuality is not going to be banned, it s very appreciated, Transfers are the most appreciated lovers at the moment by several very powerful people (VIPs),

This is a very interesting discussion, and I'm trying to follow it.  I hope I don't seem a bit dim, but I'm not quite sure what the opposing factions are.

  • Is it that Indo is anti-Gay (because its not natural enough) and Joe is pro-Gay (because he's batting for his team)? 
    I don't think so.
  • Is it that Indo is anti-pornography (because it degrades women) and Joe is pro-pornography (because he's wary of any state interference in the sexual arena in case it leaks over into the legislation on homosexuality as well)?  
    I don't think so but I'm not sure.
  • Is it that Indo wants to educate people to have some kind of more 'healthy lifestyle', without any enforcement or legislation, but Joe rejects any concept of a 'healthy lifestyle', even talking about it, since people may then start to make judgements against being Gay and that may prejudice people's minds?
    Perhaps. 
  • Is it that Indo is anti-SM (because it allegedly stems from some distortion of a normal childhood) and Joe is pro-SM (because its common in the Gay scene? and he doesn't want any state leakage again) ?
    I've really no idea.
  • Is it that Indo promotes the ideas of Alexander Lowen, and Joe doesn't (or he hasn't read the book or scanned it and refuses to)?
    Now I'm completely lost. 

Help me somebody! 

I'm glad you find this interesting, but I'm sorry to have been so unclear and to have led to such confusion.  This subject has gone way off-topic (but then a discussion about what freedom means may be something we should be having, given the nature of this site).

I can't comment on what Indo believes in general.  I am only rejecting individual statements and arguments she uses, because I don't accept the premises of most of what she says, and I am fearful of where the conclusions take us (the timescale of those conclusions is not necessarily in my lifetime).

I'll answer your points to hopefully clarify my position.

1. I cannot say if Indo is pro-gay or not.  I don't require people to be pro-gay.  I want people to be pro-freedom.  There are elements in being gay that I don't like.  I don't like the herd mentality about much of the gay community (although the same herd mentality is to be found across society and may indeed be inevitable and even helpful to the species - but as a thinking being, I can still dislike it). I think that wallowing in craving is ultimately a loss of freedom (and quite often I want to tell some other gay people "can't you find something more useful to do with your time", yet I refrain. I'm very wary of people wanting to impose restrictions on others, particularly when those restrictions seem to be unthought-through and typically traditional.

2. I'm not pro-pornography, I'm pro-freedom.  As much as I believe the Holocaust happened, I don't think anyone should be criminalised for questioning it.  Equally, I think that there have to be very good reasons for banning cultural products.  Far higher on my list of things to ban than pornography, would be video games involving violence, and boxing.  But given my commitment to freedom, I don't go around agitating for those things to be banned.  I also think that the obsession with "reality television" and "celebrity culture" is more damaging than pornography.  And that's not to say that I don't think that pornography is not damaging (but the type of damage I think it causes is at a level of analysis that most people are not interested in, and at other levels, pornography may actually do more good than harm).  Rape is always wrong (proving that something was rape can be another matter).  I do not think any conclusions can be drawn about the morality of people who watch pornography, or who take part in it.  By the same token, I do not think anyone can judge a prostitute immoral.  

3. I don't reject the concept of a healthy lifestyle, but if someone chooses to lead what I consider to be an unhealthy lifestyle that is their business.  There are people who have been smokers and drinkers and lived to 90.  There are sportsmen who have died of heart attacks in their 30s.  I'm very wary of others deciding that they are going to go round admonishing people about the healthiness of their lifestyle choices.  Life is a terminal disease for all of us.  I reject things that look like they are founded in an authoritarian view, or that might lead to authoritatarian rule.

4. SM is not common on the gay scene.  I would estimate that no more than 1 in 400 venues in the UK focuses on SM.  Maybe 5 in 400 venues in the UK focus on people wearing leather or uniforms.  I do not visit any of those places for pleasure - the occasional visit has been for anthropological reasons, and so that I can talk without total ignorance on the subject.  I'm against actual violence, particularly where violence is not consensual (but in some circumstances, e.g. war, even actual violence has to be accepted as a good thing).  I'm not as opposed to ritualised representations of violence (which is what I understand SM to be).  I'm opposed to casual and pervasive representations of violence (even though I think most people are sophisticated enough cognitively to tell the difference between a TV movie or a novel and the real world). If all the people involved in SM chose to give it up I wouldn't mind. But I object to others taking away that choice from them (either by force, or by brow-beating them).  Most of the people involved in SM are (of course) not gay.

5.I don't accept the authority of most writers or researchers.  I think it is naive and/or opportunistic when people do, and particularly when they wish to use an appeal to the authority of a writer (or "scientist").  Of all the ideologies that I'm most opposed to, I'm opposed to those that rob the conscious and autonomous individual of their freedom.  I am totally against the quackery of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy.  Even when it comes down to so-called "hard science", there is a social context that leads to scientists ignoring results, faking results, making logical errors, making biased selections of topics to research.  I'm not a naive invidividualist/libertarian who thinks that people are not influenced by their social, cultural and economic environment.  Like Marx said: "men make history, but not on the grounds of their own choosing".

I'm not a robot.  I might actually fail to live up to my own principles.  I might not see contradictions in my own thinking.  But I try.

I hope that makes my positions a bit clearer.  This really shouldn't be about me.  The point is that Femen are making use of the "grounds" they did not choose (the frisson of naked breasts for many straight men), in order to bring about the change (make history) in women's rights that Femen seek.

For all I know, Femen are ideologically opposed to pornography (or maybe opposed to pornography depicting women).  But that still does not detract from their clever manipulation of the context into which they were born and within which they (and we) operate.  

Alan Lake said:

This is a very interesting discussion, and I'm trying to follow it.  I hope I don't seem a bit dim, but I'm not quite sure what the opposing factions are. ...

Hello Joe,

I'm still thinking that Lowen and Miller are scientists, and they did not work with (void or utopians) theories, but with people, with their history, and together with their Body-Mind Unity.

They force only one thing upon others: they ask people to watch inside themselves, and find out where the problem (or the joy) is, for the sake of their own well being, and for the sake of the well being of others (children and off springs at first).

They criticized totalitarianists, and they scientifically showed where the problem of these people laid.

That National socialists appreciated a fit life, this means not that one, not to be a National socialist, must drive an unhealthy life:

Alice Miller analized the lives of both (Stalin) and Hitler: definitely (her works have) to be read.

Starry night.

Joe said:

Dearest Indo, once again you try to impute uncaring feelings to me, which flatly contradict the things I have said on here.

1. Alexander Lowen is a psychotherapist.  Alice Miller has a PhD in philosophy, psychology and sociology.  These people are no more "scientific" than I am.  Please read Karl Popper on the nature of science.  Indeed, "sciences" like psychotherapy are authoritarian, and would be very amenable to stalinism/nazism.  (They can see inside people's minds, and attribute things to homunculi such as "the unconscious", whilst that opinions and reports of the autonomous individual are ignored).  Psychotherapy and psychoanalysis should be banned as dangerous charalatanism.  Real sciences sets up experiments and uses control groups.  It relies on proof, not on ghosts and spirits and homunculi.

2. My priority is freedom. Freedom for me.  Freedom for others.  And whilst I have not stated it in this discussion because it should not be relevant for the point at issue, I have a great deal of interest in buddhism, and the idea that we should not be enslaved by our cravings.  But that does not mean that I should push my beliefs onto others.  Likewise the Buddha did not go round trying to persuade people to become buddhists.  You, however seem to want to force people to be free.  And that is your definition of freedom, not theirs.  And your forcing may not (at this stage) involve labour camps but it does involve "re-education".  A future more determined version of what your position would use labour camps and torture (such as electric shock treatment) to cure people of their unapproved cravings. ...

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)"

© 2021   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service