Madonna syndrome: I should have ditched feminism

[shenoma]

Madonna syndrome: I should have ditched feminism for love, children and baking
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article5662099.ece

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00480/suffrage385_480802a.jpg
A playwright who embraced the feminism espoused by her mother and flaunted by Madonna now feels betrayed
I never thought I would be saying this, but being a free woman isn't all it's cracked up to be. Is that the rustle of taffeta I hear as the suffragettes turn in their graves? Possibly. My mother was a hippy who kept a pile of (dusty) books by Germaine Greer and Erica Jong by her bed (like every good feminist, she didn't see why she should do all the cleaning). She imbued me with the great values of choice, equality and sexual liberation. I fought with my older brother and won; at university I beat the rugby lads at drinking games. I was not to be messed with.

Now, nearly 37, those same values leave me feeling cold. I want love and children but they are nowhere to be seen. I feel like a UN inspector sent in to Iraq only to find that there never were any weapons of mass destruction. I was led to believe that women could “have it all” and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dreams - to be a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no.













I argue that women's libbers of the Sixties and Seventies put careerism at the forefront, trampling the traditional role of women underneath their Doc Martens. I wish a more balanced view of womanhood had been available to me. I wish that being a housewife or a mother wasn't such a toxic idea to middle-class liberals of yesteryear.










As women we should accept each other rather than just appreciating “success”. I have always felt a huge pressure to be successful to show men that I am their equal. What a waste of time. Wife and mother should be given parity with the careerist role in the minds of feminists.








The thing that has made me feel best in life was being in love with my ex-boyfriend and the thing that makes me feel the most centred is being in the country with kids and dogs, and yes, maybe in the kitchen.

[white horse]

Hi there,

I sympathise, you must feel disappointed, exasperated, let down and just a little bit betrayed!

Girl Power just turned into a con, all it came to mean was that girls were now 'allowed' to behave as badly as boys.

Girls have been empowered to out-binge drink the boys. The portrayal of women in the media is a sham and a farce; young girls are confronted with continuos images of celeb vanity and face value 'beauty', and it's incredibly ugly. The worst of it is that there aren't many alternative visions for today's youth.

Those like you who helped to spearhead this feminine revolution and bring it into the mainstream and total respectability must be terribly disappointed ot see it hijacked and run off the road into Slutsville, twinned with Dicktown.

You have my sympathies, and my apologies from my half of the species for ballsing thjings up for you all so bad!

[particlezen]

to me, all feminism really achieved was the doubling of the amount of shite woman have to do.

[lightgiver]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/190806Russo.htm

To make even more money,these elites do not give a damn about women and children or even men come to think of it,these elites are just obsessed with power and money,and turning everyone who they beleive to be lower than them into SLAVES,a lot like the Pharaohs,because they(Pharaohs) are still running the show.

[coco]

We baby boomer's children got left behind in the dust of feminism and now our mothers are in their sixties and suddenly are struck with maternal instinct. TOO LITTLE TOO LATE!

Oddly, they also still hold to some of the old feminism tripe while busying themselves with their housewife careers living off their husbands' pensions, and they still seem to have an answer for everything.

I write off the generation as a whole. Now when I see an elderly person, I give them respect as I should give to elders but I remember that the old, stooped over dear soul standing before me used to have long hair, do drugs, not bathe, party it up and live in the now, not worrying about tomorrow and spouting about how much superior they were to their parents. Ah, we have waited a long time for this day.

[light_dark]

Madonna syndrome: I should have ditched feminism for love, children and baking
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article5662099.ece

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00480/suffrage385_480802a.jpg
A playwright who embraced the feminism espoused by her mother and flaunted by Madonna now feels betrayed
I never thought I would be saying this, but being a free woman isn't all it's cracked up to be. Is that the rustle of taffeta I hear as the suffragettes turn in their graves? Possibly. My mother was a hippy who kept a pile of (dusty) books by Germaine Greer and Erica Jong by her bed (like every good feminist, she didn't see why she should do all the cleaning). She imbued me with the great values of choice, equality and sexual liberation. I fought with my older brother and won; at university I beat the rugby lads at drinking games. I was not to be messed with.
Now, nearly 37, those same values leave me feeling cold. I want love and children but they are nowhere to be seen. I feel like a UN inspector sent in to Iraq only to find that there never were any weapons of mass destruction. I was led to believe that women could “have it all” and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dreams - to be a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no.
I argue that women's libbers of the Sixties and Seventies put careerism at the forefront, trampling the traditional role of women underneath their Doc Martens. I wish a more balanced view of womanhood had been available to me. I wish that being a housewife or a mother wasn't such a toxic idea to middle-class liberals of yesteryear.
As women we should accept each other rather than just appreciating “success”. I have always felt a huge pressure to be successful to show men that I am their equal. What a waste of time. Wife and mother should be given parity with the careerist role in the minds of feminists.
The thing that has made me feel best in life was being in love with my ex-boyfriend and the thing that makes me feel the most centred is being in the country with kids and dogs, and yes, maybe in the kitchen.


I rarely see so much shit in just one post. Well done !!!
Not all women are the same, if you don't have any ambitions in your life and any charismas and the only thing you can do to validate your existance is to breed then do so and lay off our backs.
A career isn't just money or fame. Everyone has the right and the obligation to society if i might say to take full advantage of his/hers potential. If you did what you did just to prove a point to someone else then you are an idiot and you should live with it.
Even as a wife and mother you are not entitled to live of someone else like a leech. Female animals give birth and still go out hunting to feed their youngs, this is nature's way, like it or not.
Many MANY women have succesfull careers and families, if you don't know what balance is then this is your problem. Don't blame feminists for your own mistakes. Women have come a long way, now rapists are prosecuted, abusers, paedophiles etc. None of all this would have happened if women have stayed behind a kitchen.

[vakenmark]

Its sad, thogh however enlightening to see such posts on THIS forum regarding FEMINISM here. A bit of a cut and paste here, i did a word search on the forum and was surprised at what I read and how apparently there is alot of work to do fundamentaly with ourselves, and I also see how successful the elite have been.


Most would be more at home on some red-neck conservative forum catering to a neanderthal headspace than on a David Icke forum!

Maybe David would do well himself to include the subjugation of women, historically through thousands of years to help a few here to see the bigger truths.

But he fails to mention the obvious as I have realised in his talks and books.

WHY?

Why the hatred, the digusting comments here?

Well, its FEAR isnt it?

And IGNORANCE of the real issues.

The ELITE used the womens movements to twist into their own agenda... the rest has been cointelpro for the most part and many here have fallen for it, sadly.

So it has worked.

Feminism has always strived for equality for all humanity. The mass media demonised it and of course used fake or compromised leaders like Freidman and MS magazine in the 60s to patiently further their agenda.

50% of the population in ALL countries suffer. Our daughters, sisters and mothers. This is an apparent fact for all women if we listen and look.

But in a MALE dominated society the debate isnt there.

The elite HATE women, they are again male dominated and fear the intuitive femine power we all have.

The church demonised women in Europe for hundreds of years, stole their wisdom and criminalised that knowledge and twisted it for their own means.

Women go through shit everyday that men do not realise, whether CONSTANT leering, jeering, sexualizing, idiot men trying to pick them up ALWAYS in the simplest of ways.

The biological issue is one important factor as is families, though the truth is larger than that. Are you willing, as men (and maybe a few women here) to face the fact that WE have also been manipulated and enslved in the the same matrix.

When the oppressed try to stand up their is massive resistance from the powers that be, and they are aware of this.

The demonization, ridicule of women is so prevalent and infected in society that many no longer see it.And yet it is still there, and as bad as it may be for us MEN, women have it far worse.

That agenda, the fundamental seperation between the sexes is artificial and well planned out and very insidious.

It is supported by all mass media and illuminati run media and culture, it is fundamental in most moral beliefs (if even in the AVOIDANCE of the issues) and it goes on and on... one of the original WARS still being fought.

And men arrogantly parrot the propaganda as spelled out by the mass media, on a David Icke forum no less.

Whats next?

Towing the party line on Building 7, Global Warming? Signing up for the War on Terror?

That is what it is tantamount to.

Take some time to look at the real issues (and yes it will take time).

Women are 50% of the population of humanity STILL seen as sex objects, under MALE domination.

Real feminism strives for equality for all, NOT dominance.

But the issue has been cloded over, the dissenters demonised, the organisers have ONLY had an uphill battle on so many fronts for so long that it is no wonder there is still so much more to do.

The issue is FUNDAMENTAL to becoming aware and awake to the injustices we face.

Rockefellers created a new tax income for their scams as Russo showed us, they assasintated the family structure, and cleverly created the BLAME on women.

Blame away, the elite LOVE it.

But dont look inside at yourself to see how the sick twisted values created by the Churches, the elite are present in your own heads and hearts.

No, that would be too hard right? ; )

Kinda like a taste of what women go through every day.

Ask them... talk to them for real, then grow up and be REAL men as opposed to manipulated boys with their heads perverted to serve the Elite party line:

Divide and Rule.

Women need real support, in fact I would estimate 80% of any social change needs to be towards helping women becoming more empowered, improved life conditions and this will serve as an improvement in all ways.

Support women, listen to them, talk, and shut up for awhile ( we MEN just love to talk and SOLVE things doent we? ; ) )

We need to listen.

One more thing:
The masons and other elite groups are by and large MEN????

Exactly!!!!

[infinitequestions]

I really don't understand the problem that most men and most worryingly quite allot of women seem to have against feminism. The whole notion that women should be equal with men is hardly unfair. I've seen people who view feminism as some kind of war on the family unit, with feminism being seen as some kind of evil which warps family roles but I really don't understand why people feel we need to stick with the idea of a man as a hunter/gatherer and women as looking after the children.

[luciferhorus]

Balancing the Tao

http://www.dur.ac.uk/4schools/slavery/images/slavesale1sml.jpg

Feminism is simply a essentially a natural and dialectical response to Paternalism (male supremacy).

Many Feminists in the world often use the term "post-feminist (after Feminism)" to describe themselves; this term simply implies that rather than living in a society where they have to fight for their "rights" and for "gender equality" that such rights are presupposed and that the Feminist ideals have been victorious; this may apply to a certain degree in most First World nations, but it is certainly not universal.

One has to also consider the situation of women in the Islamic world, India, Africa and indeed most of the "Third World" where women are often still considered the genetic "inferiors" of males in a male dominated society; probably the most "extreme" examples would in Islamic and Hindu cultures.
Probably very few females in post feminist societies would volunteer to live as a male's domestic slave and sex slave in an Islamic or Hindu society.

http://libcom.org/files/imagecache/article/images/library/Dominatrix%5B2%5D.jpg


The Dominatrix Archetype.

The emergence of "Fem-dom (female domination)" culture which is a subculture of the BDSM world seems to me to represent the turning of Paternalism on it's head; in this case however, all of the male participants are "willing" participants who by their own free will place themselves in situations where they are totally dominated and subservient to women. It is not at all unusual in the commercial "Fem-Dom" culture (where Dominatrixes / Mistresses are actually "paid" to dominate males) for the males to be themselves rather dominant in their professional lives, but who pay to be dominated; it seems to me to be a rather natural attempt to balance their professional domination of others.

http://eschatonic.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/baphomet2.png

The Creator as the Archetypal Hermaphrodite

If the universe is a product of "singularity" or a "monotheistic Creator," and the Universe is an expression of Her nature, since Creation seems to be divided into "male and female" in the human and animal world (or positive and negative in the micro-universe), it would seem to be a natural rational conclusion that the Creator would be the "Summa" of all these elements (i.e. of neither the male or female gender).

It seems to me that generally a "Master" will usually seek to defend the system of slavery, while is it is the enslaved who tends to want to rebel, to be free, to be liberated. In a slave revolution it is quite natural for the slave to further seek to "reverse" such roles and in fact to have dominion over the master, to kill the master, or to imprison, confine or punish the master in some way. This seem to me to be simply a natural dialectical and karmic response; similarly with Feminism; women have been considered little more than slaves or at least "inferiors" to males throughout most of history; Feminism is simply a natural attempt to redress this imbalance.

It is common for a Paternalistic male to seek a female who is totally submissive, a domestic slave, a sex slave and child breeder; typically this gives rise to a society where domestic violence against women is common, just as violence against slaves by a slave master is common in a slave society. Similarly in the extremes of Fem-Dom culture, it is common for the Dominatrix female to discipline and punish the male into a state of total submission, including financial domination; in such a culture the male is simply a sex slave and domestic servant of the female who exists to provide her with pleasure and with financial support.

It seems to me that male and female human beings are the two halves of a divine Creator; they are separate Creations who often spend their lives searching for their lost "other halves;" in this view, the divine image of a Creator is not a paternalistic male or a dominatrix female, but rather the image of two lovers entwined in love and lust.

Lux

[ufochick]

I rarely see so much shit in just one post. Well done !!!
Not all women are the same, if you don't have any ambitions in your life and any charismas and the only thing you can do to validate your existance is to breed then do so and lay off our backs.
A career isn't just money or fame. Everyone has the right and the obligation to society if i might say to take full advantage of his/hers potential. If you did what you did just to prove a point to someone else then you are an idiot and you should live with it.
Even as a wife and mother you are not entitled to live of someone else like a leech. Female animals give birth and still go out hunting to feed their youngs, this is nature's way, like it or not.
Many MANY women have succesfull careers and families, if you don't know what balance is then this is your problem. Don't blame feminists for your own mistakes. Women have come a long way, now rapists are prosecuted, abusers, paedophiles etc. None of all this would have happened if women have stayed behind a kitchen.

Wow you sound really angry.. I'm sorry for it. I have pretty much never worked outside the home and I'm not a leech. I take care of the home and took care of the children as they grew. I was responsible for a great many things while my husband worked on his career. It's simply a different division of labor. He does not want me to work although if I insisted he would not argue it.
I see some women who think they have it all and yep they do, they have all the work... it's disgusting. Between career, children and their activities, keeping a home in order and trying to maintain a marriage there is no time for anything else.
I take care of the home all my husband does is come home to a hot dinner, a clean organized efficient home and a loving wife. It takes a LOT of stress off of him. As far as I'm concerned I have it all. A wonderful relationship with my husband and grown kids and friends, a well run home and time for myself. Why would I want to go be a slave for money?
I see women who have children and say they can't wait to get back to work to get away from them and I think then why did you have them? Children should be a priority. Allowing other people to condition their minds from 6 weeks on is not right if there is an alternative. We lived in a little house with used furniture and had one car (unusual where I am) but we raised our own kids.
This is in no means an insult to those women who must work to support their families I get that, but to call women who are at home (or men for that matter) leeches shows a lot of displaced anger.

[purplepebble]

I rarely see so much shit in just one post. Well done !!!
Not all women are the same, if you don't have any ambitions in your life and any charismas and the only thing you can do to validate your existance is to breed then do so and lay off our backs.
A career isn't just money or fame. Everyone has the right and the obligation to society if i might say to take full advantage of his/hers potential. If you did what you did just to prove a point to someone else then you are an idiot and you should live with it.
Even as a wife and mother you are not entitled to live of someone else like a leech. Female animals give birth and still go out hunting to feed their youngs, this is nature's way, like it or not.
Many MANY women have succesfull careers and families, if you don't know what balance is then this is your problem. Don't blame feminists for your own mistakes. Women have come a long way, now rapists are prosecuted, abusers, paedophiles etc. None of all this would have happened if women have stayed behind a kitchen.





Obligations to society? What about obligations to children? Accusing women who have children and choose not to fulfill their "obligation to society" by having some career as being leeches? So what if a woman wants to stay at home to raise her children? THAT seems more natural to me than chasing a career and money, ultimately chasing a LIFESTYLE.

You can't compare animals to people, Tigers do not sit around and discuss who is going to work and who is going to take care of the cubs,
it is a matter of survival and continuation of the species for them.

People however can discuss, make compromises, work as a team etc to raise their children. As for women who HAVE to go to work as a matter of survival in today's world to pay the bills and get by, most of them would probably prefer to stay at home with their children.

If you decide that a career is more important than raising your children, why have them in the first place? Why have children to then hire a nanny or au pair to do your dirty work? Seeing as most au pairs etc ARE women? I suppose someones gotta do it right? Just not you.

You have higher ambitions and more charisma I take it than some "schlep" that actually has the fortitude to stay at home and take care of their own children over some career, ultimately money.
That schlep, who actually is more of a real woman than you will ever be. Despite your warped views on what it means to be a woman.

Who is the real slave here?

[energi]

Great to see that you brought up FemDom, since my reaction to it was similar once I found out about it - it's one sex dominating the other (albeit sexually) in reverse! :eek:

I wonder if it's a product of the politics or just people's own sexual nature expressing itself regardless of what politics are being driven atm?

[rapunzel]

Wow you sound really angry.. I'm sorry for it. I have pretty much never worked outside the home and I'm not a leech. I take care of the home and took care of the children as they grew. I was responsible for a great many things while my husband worked on his career. It's simply a different division of labor. He does not want me to work although if I insisted he would not argue it.
I see some women who think they have it all and yep they do, they have all the work... it's disgusting. Between career, children and their activities, keeping a home in order and trying to maintain a marriage there is no time for anything else.
I take care of the home all my husband does is come home to a hot dinner, a clean organized efficient home and a loving wife. It takes a LOT of stress off of him. As far as I'm concerned I have it all. A wonderful relationship with my husband and grown kids and friends, a well run home and time for myself. Why would I want to go be a slave for money?
I see women who have children and say they can't wait to get back to work to get away from them and I think then why did you have them? Children should be a priority. Allowing other people to condition their minds from 6 weeks on is not right if there is an alternative. We lived in a little house with used furniture and had one car (unusual where I am) but we raised our own kids.
This is in no means an insult to those women who must work to support their families I get that, but to call women who are at home (or men for that matter) leeches shows a lot of displaced anger.

Excellent post ufochick. Man and woman living together with children is indeed a division of labour and how that labour is divided up is up to the individuals concerned. I knew a woman who is a solicitor who was back in work 2 weeks after having her baby. To me that is saying to the child that she finds work more fulfilling and interesting than she finds the child, which is a very sad situation.

As for light-dark trying to justify women with children going out to work by saying that some animals go out and hunt whilst leaving their babies, that's true, but then the same animal sometimes comes back to find that her baby has been eaten or killed by another predator.

[song of the earth]

I think know is a good opportunity for women to just be themselves according to their nature & inclination. The pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other & the past is a lesson for all.
Of course there's going to be opposition no matter what but if there isn't any fear or oppression keeping a woman down then the skies the limit as to how a woman can express herself to her full potential, & if someone else doesn't approve or dislikes it then that's their problem.
If the women in this world who still struggle with dominating men had the freedom to be themselves without the ridiculous constraints & expectations enforced on them through oppressive belief systems & certain archaic unreasonable cultures, the world would be a more harmonious place, also, the men would most probably be pleasantly suprised to discover another side of a woman that is actually loved & treated with respect & not bullied into submission, that would be a positive example to their children as well, having a happy mother.

[superstate]

I can't help but notice that femdom relationships are far more extreme master/slave relationships than even the most patriarchal systems. Men are literally legal property of their women, with total renunciation of rights to anything. I'm not aware of any patriarchal regime where women were actually, formally "legal property" of men, where the relationship was explicitly based on an absolute "master-slave" dynamic.

The much-derided patriarchal Christian and Islamic systems didn't define woman as a subhuman worthless slave. Consult the texts and we find hesitant affirmation of woman, definitely not degradation of her to the point that she is not human. Even though there is an unequal power division, it is not total, it does not degrade woman to the point of expressly denying her humanity - whereas the femdom text declares that males are subhuman. Man is expressly reduced to animal and object, in an absolute, uneqivocal sense that did not occur in patriarchal regimes.

Needless to say I haven't heard the feminists say anything critical about femdom, even though it fundamentally contradicts their supposed agenda of "gender equality" where men and women don't have distinct "sex roles" with one dominating the other.

Not that I'm sure they'd trivially justify it as okay, as "justice" anyway. Feminists were never much interested in "equality" to begin with. That's been demonstrated time and time again.

I guess feminists are cool with "rigid gender roles" characterized by vast power differentials, as long as females are the dominant party.

[superstate]

The emergence of "Fem-dom (female domination)" culture which is a subculture of the BDSM world seems to me to represent the turning of Paternalism on it's head; in this case however, all of the male participants are "willing" participants who by their own free will place themselves in situations where they are totally dominated and subservient to women. It is not at all unusual in the commercial "Fem-Dom" culture (where Dominatrixes / Mistresses are actually "paid" to dominate males) for the males to be themselves rather dominant in their professional lives, but who pay to be dominated; it seems to me to be a rather natural attempt to balance their professional domination of others.

Doubtful explanation.

(Bear in mind in so-called lifestyle femdom, the male becomes domesticated and does not have a role in the public sphere. He does not have a professional life.)

It seems to me that generally a "Master" will usually seek to defend the system of slavery, while is it is the enslaved who tends to want to rebel, to be free, to be liberated. In a slave revolution it is quite natural for the slave to further seek to "reverse" such roles and in fact to have dominion over the master, to kill the master, or to imprison, confine or punish the master in some way. This seem to me to be simply a natural dialectical and karmic response; similarly with Feminism; women have been considered little more than slaves or at least "inferiors" to males throughout most of history; Feminism is simply a natural attempt to redress this imbalance.

So therefore infinite enslavement of men is okay?

Hmmm...

How is it that other master-slave dynamics (e.g. black slavery, workers-business owners) broke down without a femdom style systematic total degradation of the former oppressors humanity?

Seems to me you are doing a lot of apologism. I think you are using dialectical explanations to excuse a group’s extreme lust for power.

It is common for a Paternalistic male to seek a female who is totally submissive, a domestic slave, a sex slave and child breeder; typically this gives rise to a society where domestic violence against women is common, just as violence against slaves by a slave master is common in a slave society. Similarly in the extremes of Fem-Dom culture, it is common for the Dominatrix female to discipline and punish the male into a state of total submission, including financial domination; in such a culture the male is simply a sex slave and domestic servant of the female who exists to provide her with pleasure and with financial support.

The dynamics in femdom are actually a lot more extreme such that I'm not sure they are comparable. And anyway once again, even if they are equivalent, why does one justify the other?

You know maybe the reference point shouldn't be the marginalization of women in patriarchal systems, but rather than men are in a weak position, and femdom women take advantage of this in a Darwinistic manner.

If we went by your logic there would be a hell of a lot of killing and enslavement any time a master-slave bond is broken. But that's not what we see: we see a relative return to normality. I think the difference in this case is the extent to which feminist "reforms" (called "equality") have left men exposed to abuses as in femdom.

Normally the "master" group do not experience such a complete elimination of their powers (and then some) as has happened to men with feminism.

When a group is totally disempowered only one thing is going to happen: they will be totally enslaved. Simple cause and effect. It's the human instinct, it seems.

Indeed, one could do this to any group, even if it were outside of a master-slave relationship. Totally disempower them, and they are vulnerable to total enslavement: you can engineer such a scenario outside of a master-slave historical dialectic.

Power corrupts. A group’s total absence of power – engineered or occurring via dialectic [I’m dubious about the latter] – invites abuses of power. I.e. total subjugation of that group.

Another question too, if it's all simply dialectics and natural responses: why isn't history the absolute oppression of one group, followed by the absolute oppression of another, and so on ad infinitum.

If we follow the femdom "model" as you argue, then that's the way things should be. But again, that's not what we observe. We do not observe series of total enslavement/slavery as occurs in femdom.

Clearly femdom is an exception to the rule, your historical dialectical model is wrong, or both.

[superstate]

It’s noteworthy that what you call “extremes of femdom” is actually advocated and practiced as “the norm”. Whereas extreme paternalism is likely to be a more rarefied occurrence, and is not recommend as “the norm”.

I expect dialectics to be used as a justification for femdom in pop culture and elsewhere - payback time, we're just reversing things. But of course it is not as simple as that as I outlined. There are key distinctions.

[superstate]

I think know is a good opportunity for women to just be themselves according to their nature & inclination. The pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other & the past is a lesson for all.

So... It's okay for women to enslave and domesticate men, but not okay for men to enslave and domesticate women?

Just to clarify here.

One doesn't have much of a moral justification for opposing enslavement/domestication of women, if one is then going to proceed to enslave/domesticate men.

(Not that morals have anything to do with it: it's all down to Darwinism. Where lack of power exists, enslavement and abuse occurs spontaneously, regardless of moral arguments.)

[luciferhorus]

Doubtful explanation.

(Bear in mind in so-called lifestyle femdom, the male becomes domesticated and does not have a role in the public sphere. He does not have a professional life.)
.

Generally the Dominatrix will seek financial domination, and the wealthier the male the better; there is usually no question of the Dominatrix female working to provide an income for a submissive male who is kept at home as a pampered pet. There is a rather thin line between "professional" femdom and "lifestyle" femdom. A personal friend of mine runs a BDSM dungeon in London and I can assure you that since prices for a personal "session" start at £200, there is no question of such males being domesticated persons who have no professional life; on the contrary, they tend to be of the higher echelons of the professional world, and in Capitalist / economic / professional terms they tend to be "dominants" who are merely sexually submissive with sexually dominant females.

With regards to "lifestyle" Femdom where a mistress will take on a submissive male, again it is extremely uncommon and practically unknown for a dominant female to take on a personal whom she will have to financially "keep" and who has no professional life or is without economic substance; in fact "financial domination" is usually a major aspect of lifestyle femdom. I do actually work on the fringes of the BDSM industry so I do speak with some experience on the matter as I know a great many people in that lifestyle.


So therefore infinite enslavement of men is okay?
How is it that other master-slave dynamics (e.g. black slavery, workers-business owners) broke down without a femdom style systematic total degradation of the former oppressors humanity?


There is a great deal of difference between "real" economic and sex slavery in Capitalism where the sex slave or labour slave often either has no choice or has a choice between slavery and impoverishment; throughout India and the Third world many sex slaves are virtual slaves who are held in captivity by a master; they do not have the freedom to say no. I should point out that by "sex slavery" I refer not only to "prostitution" but also to the institution of enforced marraige, particularly in Islamic and Hindu cultures.

Domination and Submission are entirely natural erotic experiences; there is a great deal of difference between even the extremes of these experiences in consensual BDSM relationships and actual slavery; it is not in our nature to wish to be enslaved against our will.

Seems to me you are doing a lot of apologism. I think you are using dialectical explanations to excuse a group’s extreme lust for power.

The sexual revolution which has been occurring in the last century in the First World, mostly is something which I consider to be entirely progressive and in accord with Anarchist and Thelemic revolution; it is a necessary revolt against slave morality (religious morality); frankly the rise of the Femdom phenomenon is an entirely dialectical and natural phenomenon; it is a natural response to Aeons of paternalism and the actual enslavement of women by Paternalists (male supremacists) and religionists.


The dynamics in femdom are actually a lot more extreme such that I'm not sure they are comparable. And anyway once again, even if they are equivalent, why does one justify the other?

The enslavement of women does not justify the enslavement of men; however in modern BDSM and Femdom it is generally considered politically and morally repugnant to do "anything" which is non consensual and thus it is not real "slavery;" it is simply a consensual erotic lifestyle.

..... I think the difference in this case is the extent to which feminist "reforms" (called "equality") have left men exposed to abuses as in femdom.


Again there is no real "abuse" occurring in consensual BDSM in the legal or moral sense; many people who are involved in BDSM lifestyles are medical professionals, lawyers etc., in fact they are a rather intelligent, philosophical and educated lot in my experience; it is not really predominately a working class phenomenon; you will rarely every find anyone involved in consensual BDSM who ever claims in court that they were "abused;" further the BDSM industry is entirely legal; in fact one of my personal Femdom friends in the UK whose partner is a male submissive, is a police woman.

Abuse

Where you will find the vast majority of abuse in societies is almost always in monogamous paternalistic male - female domestic relationships; indeed in the UK, it is alleged that 25% of all women will experience domestic violence and usually always from a violent - aggressive paternalist male.


Power corrupts. A group’s total absence of power – engineered or occurring via dialectic [I’m dubious about the latter] – invites abuses of power. I.e. total subjugation of that group.

There is a difference between the "power" of a tyranny (government) and the "power" that a BDSM dominant exerts over a submissive; one is entirely non consensual and the other is entirely a consensual erotic experience; people generally are either sexual dominants, sexual submissives, or they are what is defined as "switches" who are able to assume either role; generally there are only these three erotic roles and this is entirely human nature.

Consent

Personally I would define myself as "Sapiosexual (one who choses their lovers by their intelligence and mental / spiritual qualities rather than merely physical attraction)" and I am a rather gentle soul with those I love, however for those whom I consider morally inferior (by a Communist judgement) and are abusers of others (genocidal psychopaths such as Bush, Blair and other Anglo-American state terrorist collaborators) and who have no compassion for their victims (i.e., they are truly sadistic, as opposed to people who are simply erotic dominants) I personally would have no problem whatsover in placing them in positions where they would be subjected to unimaginable non consensual abuse (as I have no doubt they will be in the future Aeons of eternity), just as such armchair warriors have to their victims; again this is entirely a dialectical response, just as the liberated slave will often kill the slavemaster, or the revolutionary will wage war against the tyrant; further in consensual BDSM it seems to me that many dominant females are actually philosophically evangelical feminists who actually discipline and humiliate males in order to extract every last ounce of paternalism from them; again this is an entirely natural phenomenon and a reaction to Aeons of paternalism and a world which is still predominately paternalistic.

LL

Lux

Blasphemy, Hersey, War, Revolution, etc.

[superstate]

The enslavement of women does not justify the enslavement of men; however in modern BDSM and Femdom it is generally considered politically and morally repugnant to do "anything" which is non consensual and thus it is not real "slavery;" it is simply a consensual erotic lifestyle.

Femdom has strong religious, ideological and political elements. The religious elements of femdom are less clear but the ideological policy is very clearly stated in femdom communities. Yet, you dismiss feminism as “just another BDSM activity”, even though it proclaims itself to be, and is, on analysis, much more than that.

Indeed femdom is different from any other BDSM activity in that it is the only activity around which a distinct political, comprehensive political worldview coherently and consistency develops.

Alas we’ve been here before. Similar protective/defensive shell games have been used in the feminist movement.

As with feminism, we have a lot of extreme policies being formulated but conveniently these are dismissed because femdom is just “a sexual lifestyle” and feminism is only about “equality”. Both of these matriarchal movements can conveniently avoid being taken to any account on their uber-extremist ideology. Of course it is precisely the extremist memes that were “never part of the plan” that emerge as the predominant products and legacies of the movements.

The matriarchy movements (feminism and femdom) are defined by their extremist elements – again making them distinct from, and non-complement to, paternalism. The baseline of paternalism is not total enslavement and total dehumanization. They are however, the baseline of the matriarchy movements.

While the matriarchy movements can be seen as “a response” to paternalism, matriarchism can thusly not be equated to paternalism in its actual policies and functioning. The attempt at moral justification of the femdom ideology through this equivalence with patriarchy can be seen to be spurious. The value-systems are actually quite different.

Femdom is not consensual and it is not merely a BDSM activity like any other. Having established rather that femdom is a matriarchal political ideology [in addition to being a non-consensual sexual practice], I return again to my original question:

Having established that femdom is a matriarchal political ideology, not merely a “consensual BDSM activity” I have to come back to my original question.

The sexual revolution which has been occurring in the last century in the First World, mostly is something which I consider to be entirely progressive and in accord with Anarchist and Thelemic revolution; it is a necessary revolt against slave morality (religious morality); frankly the rise of the Femdom phenomenon is an entirely dialectical and natural phenomenon; it is a natural response to Aeons of paternalism and the actual enslavement of women by Paternalists (male supremacists) and religionists.

A few points.

You don’t acknowledge femdom (matriarchism) as being female supremacist. You only acknowledge male supremacism. Why is that?

Next is your point about religionism. Femdom/matriarchism has a fairly religious commitment to the idea of universal female superiority and male enslavement (total de-humanization). This has not been codified into an actual religious code and adopted by the state, but it is not inconceivable that such things might happen. Given the crucial difference between femdom and paternalism (total de-humanization and enslavement of opposite sex in former), it is likely that femdom “religionism” will be even more strictly binary than paternal religionism which you decry. It will probably enforce and programme a slave-mentality on a far more absolute scale than the patriarchal religions you decry.

You don’t pre-empt and present this, of course, because of your disingenuous limiting of what the actual nature of femdom is. According to your narrative, only a patriarchist system could enforce a slave morality (religious morality). Yet femdom’s core is extreme slave morality which will probably be enforced religiously.

Do you still reject “religionism”, when it is used to support female supremacism (femdom)?

Is it the case more likely that you have situational and selective rejection of religionism, which is yet more evidence of your myopia in spite of claims of enlightenment?

Again there is no real "abuse" occurring in consensual BDSM in the legal or moral sense

I’m not talking about “consensual BDSM” though, am I.

I am talking about femdom which is not “consensual BDSM” but a non-consensual, absolute-enslavement, absolute-disempowerment, absolute-dehumanization movement.

[superstate]

I wonder, in the next phase of the dialectical cycle, would luciferhorus endorse the total disempowerment and de-humanization of women as a dialectical and natural response to femdom/matriarchy?

It's a strange logic that self-proclaimed enlightened folk use to endorse total de-humanization as if it is of no concern when the group in question is of one biological type (males), but to express disdain when the biological sex changes (female).

Surely, one would assume moral consistency would be more appropriate (if one is wrong the other is too), or else amorality (neither is right or wrong - they just are).

Luciferhorus chooses neither, and goes for situational ethics.

There doesn't seem to be much logic. Some groups arbitrarily "deserve" to be totally disempowered, others arbitrarily do not.

[luciferhorus]

I wonder, in the next phase of the dialectical cycle, would luciferhorus endorse the total disempowerment and de-humanization of women as a dialectical and natural response to femdom/matriarchy?
.

Well firstly you are not responding to the arguments made; a person who is sexually submissive or who experiences sexual submission in a consensual BDSM environment is not truly "disempowered" in the same way that a prisioner in Guantanamo Bay is, or a sex slave or labour slave in Capitalism is; the sexual submissive enters into such an experience of their own personal volition and if they did not find pleasure in such an experience, it is doubtful they would do so; whereas the prisioner is truly disempowered; the prisioner is forced against his will, just as the sex slave or the labour slave is forced to conform to the will of their master under threat of violence, death or impoverishment.

Futher the historical "dialectic" is a karmic process which ideally produces an ultimate "synthesis," just as in a philosophical debate, observers are generally influenced by both sides in an argument and hopefully come to conclusions which represent progress.


It's a strange logic that self-proclaimed enlightened folk use to endorse total de-humanization as if it is of no concern when the group in question is of one biological type (males), but to express disdain when the biological sex changes (female).

What is occurring in BDSM lifestyles is simply erotic role play, rather than the dehumanisation, enslavement and impoverishment which we find in the Capitalist world. Asides from "Femdom" I should point out that modern Western Capitalism entirely encourages financial domination by females. I did have a personal friend, who on the eve of her wedding to a rather wealthy male, remarked that even though most marriages dont last very long, that she might at least get a "house" out of the marriage if it does not work out. Considering the price of property in the UK, this is a much more extreme form of financial domination than the dominatrix who charges £200 an hour; frankly it is a very common story to hear of a Capitalist male who has committed the sin of monogamy and sought to possess an exclusive sex slave (through marraige) to complain that he has been "ruined" by divorce and that his wife has ended up with his property and most of his income; frankly it is very common in Capitalism for woman to feign affection for older wealthier males in the knowledge that at some point they could financially ruin them; this is a form of female financial domination, encouraged by the state and the Church (the priesthood of the god of Capital), which is far beyond anything I have ever heard of in the BDSM femdom world; however it is entirely a phenomenon of the Capitalist system and a phenomenon which would not exist in a world without Capital, whereas sexual domination and submission are entirely part of human nature and I have no doubt would continue to be so in a world without Capital.


Luciferhorus chooses neither, and goes for situational ethics.

"Situationist Ethics" is a defintion of your position, particularly with regards to your arguments in defense of Capitalism. My own ethical (how we should behave towards each other in society) philosophy is entirely in accordance with virtually all other Thelemic and Anarchist philosophers and is entirely clear. For example, your arguments in defence of the Capitalist system are no different to a slavemaster who defends slavery on the basis that it rewards him with a certain lifestyle; if the slavemaster was really a person who believed in slavery as a philosophy, he would perhaps volunteer to become a slave or to sell his children into slavery; similarly your arguments in defence of Capitalism are entirely situationist; if they were not, perhaps you would volunteer to sell yourself and your family members as sex slaves in the brothels of Calucutta or as a labour slave in some Third World nation; perhaps you would be encouraging others to sell their children into slavery.


There doesn't seem to be much logic. Some groups arbitrarily "deserve" to be totally disempowered, others arbitrarily do not.

In terms of sexual psychology I think that it is a fair comment to make that most women are "sexually submissive" and that most males are "sexually dominant" and that both sexual submissives and dominants find pleasure in erotic experiences and in fact seek such experiences out; however this has very little to do with slavery in the Capitalist system; a dominant feminist female may still be sexually submissive, however it does not follow that she wishes to be actually dominated, enslaved and her will controlled by a male in any way beyond the experience of eroticism.

Personally my own sexuality has much more in common with the Aleister Crowley archetype. He was polyamorous and bisexual; generally sexually dominant with females and sexually submissive with males, however he was also known to switch roles and to RP (role play) the opposite gender; he also considered human beings to be divine (godlike), and erotic experiences to be an aspect of magick (spiritualism); however wild experimentation and an exploration of the variety of human erotic experiences are not the same as the desire to be literally "enslaved" and dominated by an economic slavemaster; to be forced to do anything against our will seems to be contrary to human nature; if it were otherwise people would "volunteer" to be enslaved and imprisioned, and if Capitalism was in accord with human nature people would "volunteer" to be labour slaves and sex slaves; we would volunteer to be forced to act against our will or ruled by some tyrant or bully if it were truly our nature to be slaves and masters; on the contrary we tend to rebel and resist such circumstances.

LL

Lux

[song of the earth]

So... It's okay for women to enslave and domesticate men, but not okay for men to enslave and domesticate women?

Just to clarify here.

One doesn't have much of a moral justification for opposing enslavement/domestication of women, if one is then going to proceed to enslave/domesticate men.

(Not that morals have anything to do with it: it's all down to Darwinism. Where lack of power exists, enslavement and abuse occurs spontaneously, regardless of moral arguments.)

What's wrong with a self empowered woman who wants to express herself according to her own natural inclination & in a responsible way? is this such a threat?
That shouldn't stop a man being able to do the same,
I'm puzzled how the gender roles in society tend to be so biased in the sense that enforced codes of what's considered unreasonable & unacceptable behaviours & conduct regarding how a male & female should act are always there dictating to us. Why can't people just have the freedom to be who they are without the condemnation imposed on them, usually imposed in subtle ways but there nevertheless.
I'm not referring to obvious destructive immature social behaviour but the freedom for a woman to be herself without having to suffer the inevitable, judgemental attitude.
Probably going off track a bit but this whole subject brings to mind an example of the work place. I've seen from personal experience that generally people are not encouraged to be themselves unless they've got an understanding boss. Instead, their pussy footing around afraid to assert themselves, day after day in a repressive environment, going home at the end of the day totally frustrated & whinging about their treatment.
Where I live, It's not uncommon for people to complain of dobbers in the workforce, there watching others & reporting anyone that they consider stepping out of line, absolute control freaks . Being yourself is not encouraged. I admire my friend who has worked 30years in law & she's never compromised herself in the sense that she's always been herself & wont let anyone push her around, though this would be condemmed & looked down on in some cultures & societies & some men do find her threatening.

[elimpostor]

Well, in my old days, as far as I know, and I could be wrong, as I´m supposedly (in)human, Madonna was a First Church of Satan membership card carrying Satanist, and I never really enjoyed her alleged stardom, until I saw the new pics in her underwear to face her sin drone, again. Now I´m literally involved with the almost anorexic snowwhite beauty Lady Gaga, which implies I should never ditch feminism as the new Black Pope, carving my dark writing career for over 16 years. Can you get a piece of wisdom teeth out of this ?

[ufochick]

to me, all feminism really achieved was the doubling of the amount of shite woman have to do.

Absofuckinglutely!! I grew up in the 60's with a mother who was a bit of socialite. I grew up thinking it was the man's place to make the money and the woman's place to spend it well. I never wanted a career, never cared about it. I have been quite happy at home for 20 some years. I do enough work here at home why would I want a boss who can tell me when to come and go and rule my my life if I don't need money?
I think women fell for the idea that you are nothing if you don't have a "career". Another bullshit idea to destroy family. I hate it that people ask first thing when they meet you "So what do you DO?" I simply say "I enjoy being me". That always baffles them.
For the record I have no problem with the man being the one at home. I do think kids should have a parent around as they are growing up. Daycare sucks no matter how good it is.

[elimpostor]

Absofuckinglutely!! I grew up in the 60's with a mother who was a bit of socialite. I grew up thinking it was the man's place to make the money and the woman's place to spend it well. I never wanted a career, never cared about it. I have been quite happy at home for 20 some years. I do enough work here at home why would I want a boss who can tell me when to come and go and rule my my life if I don't need money?
I think women fell for the idea that you are nothing if you don't have a "career". Another bullshit idea to destroy family. I hate it that people ask first thing when they meet you "So what do you DO?" I simply say "I enjoy being me". That always baffles them.
For the record I have no problem with the man being the one at home. I do think kids should have a parent around as they are growing up. Daycare sucks no matter how good it is.

Yeah, the uphoneykitsch is damn straight right. I´m a stay-at-home internet-marketing-guru dad. My only heir studies at the best Christian school, bragging how his daddy sells his Satanic books like crazy on the Devil´s media, to which my beautiful beloved dark-skinned goddess wife nods only at night as a VIP criminal attorney, she works all day, killing herself in the name of blind justice. Seen, or rather unseen, I´m the one who throws Western Union or Moneygram cash from my books on the table every evening, despising the hard fact feminism doesn´t work for me. We´re so united, like the United Satanic America. However divided we stand, united we fall.

[luciferhorus]

Femdom is not consensual......I am talking about femdom which is not “consensual BDSM” but a non-consensual, absolute-enslavement, absolute-disempowerment, absolute-dehumanization movement.

Could you give some examples of "Non-consensual Femdom?"

http://bathroomstallprophets.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/iraqi_sovereignty.jpg

Most of the example I can think of have to do with Anglo-American state terrorism and the sexual abuse and torture of Islamic prisioners.

Location: The tropics of Central America - Nicaragua.

I hear that Daniel Ortega has converted to Catholicism and that his vice president is an ex contra (US state terrorist collaborator). So how is life in Nicaragua?


Lux

[elimpostor]

Could you give some examples of "Non-consensual Femdom?"

http://bathroomstallprophets.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/iraqi_sovereignty.jpg

Most of the example I can think of have to do with Anglo-American state terrorism and the sexual abuse and torture of Islamic prisioners.



I hear that Daniel Ortega has converted to Catholicism and that his vice president is an ex contra (US state terrorist collaborator). So how is life in Nicaragua?


Lux

True, his every second word is Dios (God). Though I´m a hardline communist at heart, I´ve been the Sixth Gospel preacher for over 16 years on three continents, running my Serious Entertainment as a religious enterprise my peculiar capitalistic way. Nicaragua is heaven in hell on earth, no matter it´s the title of one of my bestsellers, see my Slaughter Catalogue 1993-2010. I´m Czech. I´ve made it pretty big down here as an internet marketing guru. I could never live anywhere else, neither the United Satanic America nor the good old whore Europe, though I still like Spain.

[luciferhorus]

True, his every second word is Dios (God). Though I´m a hardline communist at heart, I´ve been the Sixth Gospel preacher for over 16 years on three continents, running my Serious Entertainment as a religious enterprise my peculiar capitalistic way. Nicaragua is heaven in hell on earth, no matter it´s the title of one of my bestsellers, see my Slaughter Catalogue 1993-2010. I´m Czech. I´ve made it pretty big down here as an internet marketing guru. I could never live anywhere else, neither the United Satanic America nor the good old whore Europe, though I still like Spain.

Latin America seems to be undegoing a swing to the "Left" in recent years and "Liberation Theology (Socialist - Communist Christianity)" seems to be making advances on the evangelicals (the Capitalist Christians). It was not too long ago that almost every nation in Latin America seemed to have some fascist in power who was a US ally; now we have Ortega, Chavez, Morales, Lulu and a growing popular beleive in socialism - communism.

Marx believed that revolutions would have to occur firstly in the most developed nations on earth, but frankly I believe quite the opposite; I have much more hope for the future of Latin American than for Europe and America.

I also work in "Internet marketing" and so I could live anywhere in the world where I have a broadband connection; I am thinking of emigrating at the end of this summer; I have not decided exactly where yet; Spain is a possibility, India is another; however I have not entirely discounted Latin America; my children are half Brazilian and I do love the Latino spirit.

Since the Cuban government apparently now allows foreigners to live in Cuba (as long as they have a boat they can live on) I have even considered Cuba, but their broadband situation is probably not good enough.

It is more of a long term goal for me to start a Communist collective farming (kibbutz) project in a more socialist friendly nation, however it is virtually impossible in Europe due to Capital overheads, but certainly probably within my means in Latin America and definitely in India, particularly in the South were in certain areas there are more Maoists than Hindus.

Essentially I believe that the "failure" of Latin American revolutions has been the failure to impliment collective farming; the Sandinistas had all the right propaganda, but revolution without collectivisation just leads to a hungry population and politicians chanting empty Communist slogans.


Lux

[luciferhorus]

Well put. I settled down in Nicaragua after my disillussionment in Hollywood as a differently controversial screenwriter. By pure design, chance, or mistake, really, I´ve managed to turn my bombastic failure into a modest commercial success, selling my own 36 E book business franchise along with my innovative knowhow to become an internet marketing guru from scratch. They say I impress, intrigue, freak out. Judge for yourself. I´ve been working/chatting/promoting my books very hard - I´m a workaholic, 10 - 14 hours online,

I am also heavily involved with Internet commerce in a field which despite the global recession is rather booming; that is why I can also spend 1--14 hours a day day in front of two PC's with one screen open for Internet debates and another for commerce, going back and forward all day.


I´ve been working/chatting/promoting my books very hard - I´m a workaholic, 10 - 14 hours online, offering my Sixth Gospel showbiz. I´ve created my own little paradise here, kicking some serious ass.
I enjoy being both praised and bashed. I cannot be denied, I cannot be defied. The dubbed Czech Hollywood Warrior Priest, along with his Slaughter Catalogue 1993-2010, has touched even Lady Gaga´s huge audience, as I´ve penned the ultimate YYY Lady Gaga bestseller and its hardcore epic sequel, where I co-star. My beyond-literary involvement with Lady Gaga has disturbed even the deepest, darkest, dirtiest waters in the Satanic community as I´m head over heels with her, being a recognized underworld occultist with a 16 year plus trajectory. She´s taken me to a whole new level, I must give Lady Gaga all the credit while turning some serious buck and euro. If interested, feel free to join me freelance spreading my Sixth Gospel word anywhere you go. My 50 % deal is fair, it´s worth it, you can find out.

Oh I already have my own Internet commerce project; I also use a system which gives affiliates a 50% share; it is a very effective means of marketing.

http://www.osoblog.tv/lady-gaga-bat.jpg

With regards to Lady Gaga, I rather like her; like Madonna she is bisexual, very much a feminist archetype and rather esoteric / Neopagan, it is all part of the New Aeon revolution; it is all good.

http://www.etarot.info/wp-content/gallery/thoth-tarot/08_major_lust.jpg
"
This is the Mystery of Babylon, the Mother of Abominations, and this is the mystery of her adulteries, for she hath yielded up herself to everything that liveth, and hath become a partaker in its mystery. And because she hath made her self the servant of each, therefore is she become the mistress of all. Not as yet canst thou comprehend her glory.
Beautiful art thou, O Babylon, and desirable, for thou hast given thyself to everything that liveth, and thy weakness hath subdued their strength. For in that union thou didst understand. Therefore art thou called Understanding, O Babylon, Lady of the Night! " AC

http://cdn.thefrisky.com/images/uploads/Lady_gaga_alejandro_m.jpg

Since this thread is on the Madonna Syndrome, it seems to me that both Madonna and Lady Gaga represent many of the qualities of the Scarlet Woman (Babalon). I too sought out my Scarlet Women and have ended up with my current partner who is an evangelical anti-Christian, a Witch (Wiccanist) and feminist.

Essentially in Christianity the archetypal "divine woman" is represented by the "Virgin Mary" who is a chaste, sexually repressed, monogamous sex slave (she is married) of a male and very much an anti-sex icon; however in Thelemic philosophy the archetypal divine female is Babalon; this is an entirely different archetype of a sacred woman who combines the spirituality of High Priestess with sexual abandonment.

http://nikonizer.yfrog.com/Himg266/scaled.php?tn=0&server=266&filename=y1w.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640

"In this cup are mingled the elements of the sacrament of the Aeon” (Book of Thoth). In a more general sense, Babalon represents the liberated woman and the full expression of the sexual impulse. "

This is a much healthier and more natural female archetype who represents spiritualism, sex magick, feminism, bisexuality, polyamory and who is totally liberated from all "sins of restriction" and the "slave morality" of the priesthood of religion; she is not a sex slave and a domestic servant who is merely the personal property of one male; she represents the future of womankind; a womankind who is liberated from Aeons of Paternalism and slavery.

Thus it seems to me that both Madonna and Gaga offer a positive, progressive and sacred image of the divine female which is entirely in accord with the New Aeon.


Lux
Blasphemy, heresy, war, revolution, etc.

http://www.jacbeauty.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/lady-gaga-outfits-red-lace_0.jpg

http://dragoncourt.net/myPictures/LaylahBabalon2.jpg

"...for she hath yielded up herself to everything that liveth, and hath become a partaker in its mystery. And because she hath made her self the servant of each, therefore is she become the mistress of all. Not as yet canst thou comprehend her glory.
Beautiful art thou, O Babylon, and desirable, for thou hast given thyself to everything that liveth, and thy weakness hath subdued their strength. For in that union thou didst understand. Therefore art thou called Understanding, O Babylon, Lady of the Night! "

"And I believe in one Earth, the Mother of us all, and in one Womb wherein all men are begotten, and wherein they shall rest, Mystery of Mystery, in Her name BABALON.

"She is the physical mother of each of us, the one who provided us with material flesh to clothe our naked spirits; She is the Archetypal Mother, the Great Yoni, the Womb of all that lives through the flowing of Blood; She is the Great Sea, the Divine Blood itself which cloaks the World and which courses through our veins; and She is Mother Earth, the Womb of All Life that we know."

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_juXC_DlhA2s/Sq481De9qtI/AAAAAAAAAH0/2e9B56ZElP4/s320/Lady+Gaga+RED.jpg

[zero1]

I used to be very interested in the themes of Goddess-worship, matriarchy, feminism and all their associated mythologies and concepts; but not so much anymore.

Pop stars are just fantasy-merchants selling shoddy goods; male or female, it's only kids' stuff really. You grow out of even the slightest concern for it, if you are wise.

[elimpostor]

I used to be very interested in the themes of Goddess-worship, matriarchy, feminism and all their associated mythologies and concepts; but not so much anymore.

Pop stars are just fantasy-merchants selling shoddy goods; male or female, it's only kids' stuff really. You grow out of even the slightest concern for it, if you are wise.

Well, yeah, stupid kids´stuff, really. That´s why I´ve been trying to place Lady Gaga back where she belongs, deep as a funeral, dark as the Sixth Gospel, dirty as the mastermind set, not necessarily my mirrorred bed, purely adult stuff. My hypnotic new concept album for Lady Gaga entitled Voodoo takes her to a whole new level, and she´s pretty high. You must see her in the Voo Doo ClickForDetails bikinis and other smashing song hits I´ve engenius-envideo-scripted. It´s all included in the spontaneous E book "The Phoenix Stardom Of Snowwhite Lady Gaga - Or My Secret Vault Relationship With Her" The outrageous cover depicts dead serious snowwhite Lady Gaga staring in the mirror while the dubbed Czech Hollywood Warrior Priest, his dark-skinned goddess wife, and their only heir son are smiling tropically in the swimming pool. I´m nothing like Tiger Woods or Jesse James. Wait for the hardcore epic sequel "LG Versus LS - The Cosmic Mutants At It". That will blow you away. I´m already legally covered, because I suspect it´s more than just playing with fire. Breaking news headlines like "Czechwizard bewitched by Lady Gaga - where black magic meets snowwhite firewoman to be delved into!" are yet to be surpassed. The only obstacle for unleashing it upon the general public is my promise to Lady Gaga to keep of releasing it officially as the 37th volume of the Sixth Gospel when I sell 10 000 copies of "The Phoenix Stardom Of Snowwhite Lady Gaga - Or My Secret Vault Relationship With Her", considering the transcendental seriousness of the whole matter, and I´m only 36. I already take preorders, having created a pre-paid customer database, nonetheless. Obviously, I haven´t sold that many so far. The 10 000 copies sold promise, however lousy, just cannot be broken, like I cannot be denied or defied. Period. It´s tough to sell my E books personally, one on one, one by one, no matter the stunning results. Hard-won cash, trust me on this.

[93krystalmoons]

Its sad, thogh however enlightening to see such posts on THIS forum regarding FEMINISM here. A bit of a cut and paste here, i did a word search on the forum and was surprised at what I read and how apparently there is alot of work to do fundamentaly with ourselves, and I also see how successful the elite have been.


Most would be more at home on some red-neck conservative forum catering to a neanderthal headspace than on a David Icke forum!

Maybe David would do well himself to include the subjugation of women, historically through thousands of years to help a few here to see the bigger truths.

But he fails to mention the obvious as I have realised in his talks and books.

WHY?

Why the hatred, the digusting comments here?

Well, its FEAR isnt it?

And IGNORANCE of the real issues.

The ELITE used the womens movements to twist into their own agenda... the rest has been cointelpro for the most part and many here have fallen for it, sadly.

So it has worked.

Feminism has always strived for equality for all humanity. The mass media demonised it and of course used fake or compromised leaders like Freidman and MS magazine in the 60s to patiently further their agenda.

50% of the population in ALL countries suffer. Our daughters, sisters and mothers. This is an apparent fact for all women if we listen and look.

But in a MALE dominated society the debate isnt there.

The elite HATE women, they are again male dominated and fear the intuitive femine power we all have.

The church demonised women in Europe for hundreds of years, stole their wisdom and criminalised that knowledge and twisted it for their own means.

Women go through shit everyday that men do not realise, whether CONSTANT leering, jeering, sexualizing, idiot men trying to pick them up ALWAYS in the simplest of ways.

The biological issue is one important factor as is families, though the truth is larger than that. Are you willing, as men (and maybe a few women here) to face the fact that WE have also been manipulated and enslved in the the same matrix.

When the oppressed try to stand up their is massive resistance from the powers that be, and they are aware of this.

The demonization, ridicule of women is so prevalent and infected in society that many no longer see it.And yet it is still there, and as bad as it may be for us MEN, women have it far worse.

That agenda, the fundamental seperation between the sexes is artificial and well planned out and very insidious.

It is supported by all mass media and illuminati run media and culture, it is fundamental in most moral beliefs (if even in the AVOIDANCE of the issues) and it goes on and on... one of the original WARS still being fought.

And men arrogantly parrot the propaganda as spelled out by the mass media, on a David Icke forum no less.

Whats next?

Towing the party line on Building 7, Global Warming? Signing up for the War on Terror?

That is what it is tantamount to.

Take some time to look at the real issues (and yes it will take time).

Women are 50% of the population of humanity STILL seen as sex objects, under MALE domination.

Real feminism strives for equality for all, NOT dominance.

But the issue has been cloded over, the dissenters demonised, the organisers have ONLY had an uphill battle on so many fronts for so long that it is no wonder there is still so much more to do.

The issue is FUNDAMENTAL to becoming aware and awake to the injustices we face.

Rockefellers created a new tax income for their scams as Russo showed us, they assasintated the family structure, and cleverly created the BLAME on women.

Blame away, the elite LOVE it.

But dont look inside at yourself to see how the sick twisted values created by the Churches, the elite are present in your own heads and hearts.

No, that would be too hard right? ; )

Kinda like a taste of what women go through every day.

Ask them... talk to them for real, then grow up and be REAL men as opposed to manipulated boys with their heads perverted to serve the Elite party line:

Divide and Rule.

Women need real support, in fact I would estimate 80% of any social change needs to be towards helping women becoming more empowered, improved life conditions and this will serve as an improvement in all ways.

Support women, listen to them, talk, and shut up for awhile ( we MEN just love to talk and SOLVE things doent we? ; ) )

We need to listen.

One more thing:
The masons and other elite groups are by and large MEN????

Exactly!!!!

I agree with you on many things. First though I will refer back to the initial post and state, that I can understand that anger that some post second wave feminists may have. I myself consider myself part of the unrecognized 4th wave, that is more all encompassing on all levels including having families and being stay at home moms. The 1970s discourse was constructed as career minded, but I think with the women that are left in this world who consider themselves feminist this is changing a lot. I do not think we will ever see the angry seperatist feminist groups again. Or I would at least hope not because looking at the world on a macro scale smaller scale division is the last thing we need! So to the original poster, yes I can see your rage, and I will not judge you. You should be angry and it is great to have a family and children. The problem with feminism to begin with is that we all define it differently. I'm a graduate student of women's studies, and none of us in my classes ever can agree on even the must fundamental ideas on what feminism means. However, I personally do not condone misandry, as I do not condone mysogyny. The only thing I want to see globalized in respect amongst sexes, races, classes, and sexualities. It's naiive, but its my deepest wish!
As for the Rockefeller scammers, yes, exactly they took women's desire for contraception and abortion and funded it for their own depopulist and racist agenda! It's digusting, and the only way I found out about this ugly truth was through feminist lit which criticizes depopulists; even though the religious right would like everyone to believe that feminist are responsible. You're right, it's just a huge blame game to detract us all from the actual root of problems.
And yes us women do need support. Not only in terms of civil liberties such as reading, clean water, safety from rape and abuse, job equality et cetera...but certainly intellectual support! I've noticed that in most grassroots anarchist movements I've been involved in and forum discussions, there was always very little female attendance and input. I think it's due to lack of support which I think socially constructs (and of course the influence of mind control and media) women as people who care about binge drinking at campus parties/looking sexy and being huge consumers of dangerous chemicals and clothes made from poor women and children in the G77 to look the part. We all could benefit from the 50% of female pop. to defeat evil elites...UNITE! :o