Male Chauvinist

After Women Took off Their Aprons, Advertisers Began Taking Off the Rest!

fem 17Once we won our equal liberty to choose our personal “place” in the world, the male ego swiftly began to make sure that women would never forget their universal “purpose” in the world.

By T.L.Dayen

They say “a picture paints a thousand words.” Imagery has the power to elicit emotion and provoke thought. It can also be used to subconsciously persuade or manipulate. Imagery has also historically been used to disseminate propaganda such as the iconic “Rosie the Riveter;” an animated image of a strong-armed woman in a factory uniform intended to convey that it was acceptable to see women; the majority of the domestic work force during the war effort of WWII, as strong and capable. Images can also portray social behavioral norms like iconic Norman Rockwell fem 15paintings depicting ‘normal’ life in middle and working class America from the early to mid 20th century. Culturally, our social norms are reflected through imagery in our media; movies (entertainment mostly) and advertising (expressly to persuade).

Imagery in advertising works to convince, confirm or inform viewers about what they should want, think, identify with or accept as good for them. When advertisers use sexually implicit images to sell a product, it is reaffirming stereotypes that objectify women’s bodies and marginalize their humanity.

Selling Sex

Exploiting sexuality to sell a product is, unfortunately, effective. The ‘sex kitten’ eating Doritos on T.V. prompts the dorritosman to buy the chips because he wants to “get the girl” in the ad, and the woman buys the chips because she wants to “be the girl” in the ad; “We’re a visually explicit culture that’s become comfortable with selling domain names and winter coats on the backs of pretty, naked people” (Thompson, 2011).

Using sex in advertising subliminally links our most primal motive of procreation to the impulse desire for that product/service. In other words, buy the product, get (feel) the sex.

Sell Sex; Buy Sexism

The problem with ‘selling sex’ is that it takes the elemental human drive to procreate (which requires dominant and pliant roles), and attaches it to everything in our lives from food to cars to clothing to cleaning products to insurance. fem 14The dominant/ pliant roles of our sex organs become the roles we identify with as represented subliminally by the products and services we need and use every day. By ascribing the yielding female sex organ to her overall nature and character (as subordinate), advertisers can use sexually explicit imagery to not only potently objectify women’s bodies, but also marginalize female humanity by transforming “actual women into [sexual] objects, devoid of individual will or subjectivity” (Benshoff and Griffin 238-256).

The female body, pliant in sex, becomes the objectified woman, subordinate in life.

Even while women have made stellar strides in education and work force parity since the blatantly sexist advertising of the 1950’s; “an era when women’s roles were confined to the corridor between the bedroom and the kitchen” (Thompson, 2011);

the ‘new sexism’ is simply explicitly sexist imagery without the explicitly sexist messaging. In the 21st century, the message of sexual servitude is “implied.”

“Having lost the argument that women are incompetent, American advertising has had to settle on the argument that fem 18women are [still] attractive” (Thompson, 2011). In other words the iconic domestic dependent ‘June Cleaver’ telling viewers something like, “Your husband will never complain about undercooked eggs again with this new and improved egg timer!” has been replaced with the sexually implicit ‘cleavage and stilettoes’ seductively and silently stepping out of a Lincoln Continental. I call this “objectified female imagery.” This more modern version of sexism has only fed new life into age old social constructs of female subordination, because “American women still develop a sense of self-worth based primarily on how they look, rather than how talented or intelligent they are” (Benshoff and Griffin 238-256).

Domestic dependent submissiveness has simply been replaced by sexual objectification; both are demeaning and subordinate positions of “service.”

What’s even more poignant is that some of worst offenders of this type of sexist advertising are ‘women on women.’ fem 19Women who appeared on a Phil Donahue Show “fashion segment,” un-apologetically defended their unusual preoccupation with ‘perfecting’ their hair, skin, eyes, clothing and bodies. Susan Bordo took note of their naiveté and that “putting on makeup, styling hair, and so forth are conceived of only as free play, fun, a matter of creative expression,” but in reality is, “also experienced by many women as ‘necessary’ before they show themselves to the world, even a quick trip to the corner mailbox.” Bordo expresses her concern that the true messages being sent by ‘fashion statements’ are merely “whimsical and politically neutral vicissitudes [that] supply endless amusement for women’s [apparent] eternally superficial values.” Bordo goes on to say in the context of the fashion and beauty industry, “the specific ideals that women are drawn to embody…are seen as arbitrary, without meaning [by society].”

In other words, obsession with fashion culturally indicates frivolous and superficial priorities.

Bordo’s trepidation with the multi-million dollar fashion and beauty industry is shared by Benshoff and Griffen who assert that this advertising strives to persuade women to “buy their [own] femininity;” be re-made into “some ideal fem 20form” as an “object of the male gaze (objectification).” This, alleges Benshoff and Griffen, actually convinces women “to be complicit in their own objectification.” A massive and still growing fashion and beauty industry in America may be evidence that many women have indeed “internalized the ideology that their self-worth is based upon their public image… that achieving total objectified desirability is the only thing that will give them happiness and fulfillment” and that, “this mythical ideal keeps patriarchal (male) domination in place” (Benshoff and Griffin 238-256). If women are buying sexism, then apparently sexist advertising is working.

Hijacked Sexuality

Full disclosure: as a woman myself, I am frustrated that an industry has “hijacked” my God given sexuality for their profits! Can a woman in the 21st century fully express her innate sexuality without the implication that she is consenting to, even encouraging the sexist messages sent by the objectified female imagery in media advertising? And what of those who feed into the ‘cultural messages’ that are fabricated from objectified female imagery in the media; that a woman’s sexuality is by its very nature literally “there for the taking?”fem 5

Can a woman in the 21st century fully express her innate sexuality personally without the implication that she is “asking for it” publically? I fear that the answer to these questions today is “no.”

Sharon Marcus writes of the misleading dialogue used when legislating rape laws or hearing rape cases; “The rape script describes female bodies as vulnerable, violable, penetrable, and wounded.” A website called “Controltonight.com” ran an ad showing a young woman’s legs with her panties around her ankles lying on what looks like a bathroom floor. The ad reads, “2:19 a.m. She didn’t want to do it, but she couldn’t say NO.” The ad intends to warn against drinking and date rape, but the ‘message’ is that women’s bodies are simply up for grabs by anyone who may gain the advantage to take it – and that’s somehow a woman’s fault. Marcus purports, “the adherents of rape culture see female sexuality as a property which only men can truly own, which women often hoard, which can thus justifiably be wrested from us, which women themselves merely hold in trust for a lawful owner. Rape thus becomes the theft or violation of one man’s property rights by another.”

fem 8If women’s sexuality is not even seen in our law as our own rightful possession, it is no wonder it could be unabashedly exploited personally or commercially by whomever and however it serves to benefit.

Audrey Lorde writes of the uses and power of the ‘erotic’ – in this context, ones ‘passions;’ sexual or otherwise; “We have been taught to suspect this resource, vilified, abused and devalued within western society… the erotic has been encouraged as a sign of female inferiority.” So a woman’s capacity to “feel deeply” has been equated with weakness, and that “only by the suppression of the erotic within our lives and consciousness can women truly be strong. But this strength is illusory, for it is fashioned within the context of male models of power” (Lorde 188-192).

If we follow Lordes’ premise, then a woman’s capacity to feel her own sexuality is considered “suspect” and therefore only passably expressed within and through our patriarchal society’s consent and capacity to control it.

Conclusion

What came first, female objectification or female objectified imagery? The truth is not what you might think. While media imagery only began in the early 1900’s, female objectification is just one arm of female subordination that has fem 12stigmatized the male/female dynamic for thousands of years. However, in the 21st century human kind is capable of growing beyond our prejudices; capable of a much broader perspective of the male/female dynamic.

In the 21st century human kind is capable of recognizing our two species as ‘different in measure but equal in value.’

This is where the media continues to culturally perpetuate female objectification even as we are collectively capable of moving beyond it. Advertising media imagery is especially harmful because it is scrupulously knitted within the fabric of our consumer based culture. Every decade that passes, fem 4human kind becomes more familiar with women in leadership positions of authority in politics, more acceding to our dependability as an equal successful womanpartner within the home, and more reliant on our equally competent skills in the work place and industry. While this reality of the male/female dynamic may smack of truth, the false postulation of our disparity and subordination continues to be culturally projected before us as sexually objectified minions of the patriarchal social construct.

Women’s sexuality; our very autonomy is reduced to a collective cultural commodity, and only valid through its collective cultural usefulness to the patriarchal bedroom, boardroom or billboard.

If sex is selling, it’s only selling women out.

fem 16

 

References

Benshoff, Harry, and Sean Griffin. America On Film. 2nd. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

238-256. Print.

Bordo, Susan. “Material Girl: The Effacements of Post Modern Culture.” Trans. Array

Theorizing Feminisms. N.Y., New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 385-404. Print.

Lorde, Audre. “Uses of the Erotic: The Erotic as Power.” Trans. Array Theorizing Feminisms.

N.Y., New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 188-192. Print.

Marcus, Sharon. “Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words: A Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention.”

Trans. Array Theorizing Feminism. N.Y., New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 369-

  1. Print. (Marcus, 369-381)

Thompson, Derek. “Are T.V. Ads Getting More Sexist?.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly

Group, 31 Oct 2011. Web. 16 Oct 2013. <theatlantic.com>.

Save

Implanting the “Attitude” of Female Oppression

Male/Female “Stereotype” Behavior

dads pic

February 9, 2015

By Shane Stewart

Do you ever wonder why men and women play such different “roles” in society? Does it ever disturb you to think that almost everyone on Earth is “acting out” stereotype male/female behavior roles they were taught? Why is it that men and women are “expected” to act in certain ways? Why are women expected to act “subordinate” around men, and men expected to act “dominant” around women? And why do we seem to “act like men and women are supposed to act” without even giving it a second thought? Do you ever think about how you act when you are around the “opposite” sex, and why you act that way? We are so conditioned to “act” like girls and boys, men and women, males and females, that we may never be able to change it. And our stereotype male/female behavior is the very thing that maintains the injustice of female oppression. Women especially are deeply “implanted” with female, subservient behavior patterns, conditioned perhaps to the point of not even knowing that their behavior is designed to maintain – and is maintaining – their own female oppression. The world-wide social construct of male/female behavior patterns strongly supports male domination of the female. So men of course, do not want to see changed. Here is a common claim out of the mouth of the male: “Well that’s how men and women are ‘supposed’ to act. It’s natural. We’ve always acted that way and you can’t change it.” It appears that men really have it wrapped up for themselves.

-The following is an excerpt from The Female Imperative-

“The interaction between men and women in every culture on earth is an open exhibition of superior male and inferior female stereotype behavior patterns. Children learn how they are expected to behave by watching the men and women around them as they go about their daily business performing appropriate, authoritative male and subordinate female roles of behavior. These everyday displays of gender-specific male/female behavior patterns are deeply absorbed into the child’s mind; imprinting the attitude that the male is most certainly superior to the female. Children automatically accept, adopt, and mimic the human behavior they observe around them as being normal, and will continue to display such “normal” human behavior as they journey throughout their lives. The exhibition of dominant male and subordinate female behavior is essential to the process of planting and nurturing the seeds of the image of male superiority and female inferiority in the minds of young children.”

“Seeing that each new generation of males is properly conditioned to maintaining female oppression is paramount in the lives of most men. Throughout the world men find their importance in the ego image of being “superior” to women. Indeed, manhood is defined by a man’s ability to dominate and control the inferior females around him. Conditioning young boys to believe they are superior to girls must begin at an early age. Men form boys unto their own negative image by planting the seeds of violence, aggression, and superiority into their young minds. Men insist that boys be physically aggressive and dominant. They teach them that they are superior to, and vastly more important than, weak and inferior girls. Men fully understand that male dominant programming cannot be put off until later in life. This programming must be completed before a boy reaches the “age of reason” or he may find it very difficult to accept the primitive notion that one human being has an inherent right to dominate another. If boys were allowed to develop naturally, without being saturated with the attitude of male superiority, they would develop not as oppressors of women, but as human beings, existing in a gender equitable world.”

“Contrary to what the male ego wants us to believe, humans are not predisposed to gender-specific behavior. We are not born with a “gender behavior road map” that leads us to act as stereotype males and females. Behaving as a boy or girl is not a genetically inherent human trait, but comes out of an applied process that indoctrinates children with appropriate images that represent superior male and inferior female behavior patterns. Gender specific behavior is a learned process. We are designated male or female dependent upon the shape of our bodies. The male body has the shape of the penis. The female body has the shape of the vagina. The type of behavior programming children receive is simply determined by whether they were born with a penis or vagina. Children born with a body in the shape of a penis are programmed for dominant and aggressive behavior. Children born with a body in the shape of a vagina are programmed for subservient and submissive behavior. This is easily accomplished because children constantly observe men displaying dominant and superior behavior over women, and women constantly displaying submissive and subservient behavior under men in everyday life.”

“Programming the child’s mind for gender specific, male/female, stereotype behavior is critical to the foundation that supports the perpetual image of male “superiority.” Infant boys and girls are born onto this earth with no concept or preconceived idea of proper gender behavior. They are open and receptive to learning. They cannot act like a ‘superior’ boy or an ‘inferior’ girl unless they are conditioned to do so.” (Stewart and Dayen, 2014, Ch. 22, p.120-121).

* * *

Learning how to “act” as a boy or girl by watching men and women is the process I call “observation imprinting,” the most subtle of all types of behavioral conditioning, but yet the most effective. It depends upon the minds of children being implanted with the seed of the image of male superiority and it will grow just as surely as a seed planted in fertile soil.

We are all born as human beings with open minds. The fact that we are physically born as “male or female” has nothing to do with our “social” position or character as “dominant or subservient.” Our male/female “body shape” merely determines our “role” in physical human reproduction. THAT IS ALL! There is no “built in” dominant or subordinate behavior patterns between males and females. Those patterns are falsely assigned to us and maintained by the negative male ego.

Children are born “innocent” of the negative effects of prejudice and hate that are brought about through ethnicity, race, culture, nationality, religion, and gender-ism; all divisive factors that the male ego has established to maintain conflict within humanity and perpetuate the oppression of the female. Children are simply open and curious about life. They want to learn, but instead they are “implanted” with the negativity and hate of the divisive attitudes of “pride” in their particular culture, nationality, race, ethnicity, and religion; and for boys, their gender! We do not give children a chance to become a unified human species, to develop “pride” in being human. Boys are strongly molded by the male ego to be aggressive in preparation for their time in war and domination of women. Girls are strongly molded by the male ego to be subservient and subordinate to the male in preparation for their time in having “his” children and taking care of “his” house.He” will boss, “she” will obey.

Such is the sad state of our species of which I am working very hard to change. I am a male human being. I understand that like all men, I am “infected” with the male ego which definitely effects my judgment. However, although every man is infected with the male ego, the male ego is not the same “strength” in every man. Some men have a very “thick” male ego. Some have a “thin” male ego. Men can change by “peeling away” layers of their negative male ego through understanding that they are not here to be dominant over women, but cooperative. That they are not here to be superior to women, but to stand as equal partners as two halves of one human whole. I know it is possible for men to change because I am doing it! I have peeled away layer upon layer of my male ego to the point of being able to co-write the The Female Imperative with my partner T.L. Dayen, and participate with her in this blog site dedicated to female emancipation. I can only write these words because I have “thinned out” my male ego to the point that I can now see the truth through it. It’s a “liberating” feeling. It is comforting to me when men respond to my blogs and comment that “it’s a good read,” or they “understand,” and they, like me, know they can change.

The Male Ego and Female Oppression

The Destructive Image of Male “Superiority”

dads pic

By Shane Stewart

Excerpt from; “The Female Imperative” – Shane Stewart – T. L. Dayen – Confessions of a Male Chauvinist Pig – Pg 17.

“Realizing that the images of male superiority and female inferiority had absolutely no foundation in truth, was an epiphany for me. Male superiority had nothing to do with nature, evolution, or universal law. The image of male superiority was just a charade, a fallacy, a hoax, intentionally concocted by the lowly male ego for the sole purpose of gaining domination and control over women. But sadly this hoax, of gigantic proportions, has unjustly and erroneously defined and molded the lives and character of every man and woman on earth since time immemorial. The very foundation of what humans believe to be true is actually a core of negative falsehood, built by men to control women. Humanity is living a lie! I began to question the very core of human social structure and examine everything I had ever been taught about the ‘relationship’ between men and women.”

* * * *

The Negative male ego is the most violent, destructive, oppressive and sadistic beast to ever have walked the Earth. The core motivation of men driven by their male ego, is the destruction of female creational consciousness.  The false image of male “superiority” is the very tool the male ego uses to maintain control over our species and perpetuate the domination, oppression, and servitude of women. For untold thousands of generations men have been able to successfully continue their campaign of “brainwashing, imprinting, training, and programming” every human being in every nation, society, religion, culture, and cult on Earth in the fallacy of male superiority and female “inferiority.” Men dominate and oppress women, plain and simple. We see it in everyday life; in our homes, our governments, businesses, schools, restaurants, work places, and while just walking down the street. Women are the oppressed of our species, molded for purposes of sexual, domestic, economic, and social servitude as a matter of course, while the false image of male superiority nurtures a negative atmosphere that leads to women being ridiculed, belittled, mocked, beaten, raped, and murdered by men in every society on Earth. The degree of female oppression women experience is simply determined by where on this planet they live. The more “civilized and social” nations have a lesser degree of female oppression than the more “uncivilized and barbaric” ones. I’m not going to get into which nations these are because we all know which ones they are. That subject is for another blog all its own.

My purpose and dedication of course, is emancipation of the female from male domination. In order for this to occur we must first understand that men continue to dominate women even while knowing deep inside that their male “superiority” is just a fallacy, an image. But males continue to be strongly “programmed” in the domination and oppression women. So we must note that the negative attitude and false image of male “superiority” is devastating and destructive not only to the female of our species [as I have covered in depth in The Female Imperative] but also to the male of our species, because it blocks any possibility that male children will ever have a chance of developing a sense of individuality, a consciousness of “partnership” with the female, and a compassionate “human” identity as they grow, especially since the image of male superiority is automatically based upon the shape of the body at birth.  A male baby = penis; superior, dominant, intelligent! A female baby = vagina; inferior, subservient, obtuse! Boys are “boys”, not just people! They are not just half of humanity, they are the “important” half, the “superior” half, the “male” half, and this attitude is pounded into them from the very beginning. They are not “sissy” girls! Men have established from the moment of birth that those born with a penis will “characteristically” be superior to, more intelligent than, more decisive than, and more courageous than anyone born with a vagina! And this determination is made even before male or female children have a chance to utter their very first word! How can this be an intelligent determination? How does the penis endow a human being with these “qualities of character?” Is it a magical wand? I thought the qualities of intelligence, decisiveness, bravery, and courage had to be observed in people before we could determine if that was part of their “character.” Not so with the image of male superiority! That wailing little infant with a penis is determined to already be in possession of all that stuff, while that wailing little infant with a vagina will never be in possession of those qualities of character. I didn’t know that a physical body part had anything to do with your character as a human being. So, maybe in the future, men will actually claim to have discovered that “center of consciousness” where the “brain of the penis” dispenses “intelligence, decisiveness, and bravery,” and bestows “superiority” upon all those who possess it.

As I write this and read it back, it even sounds ridiculous and incredible to me that half the people on Earth [men] have this “thought” process (male superiority) running through their minds all the time! Many men live in a complete fantasy world about women. Because in reality, no one really believes men have any kind of “superiority” over women, except perhaps in the realm of physical, bodily, brute strength. But brute strength is not “superiority of character.” The fantasy world of male superiority that most men live in will eventually implode and collapse upon them, unless they have succeeded in wiping out our planet first.

It’s quite sad and a bit pathetic to finally come to the realization that half the population of humanity (male) is rudderless and without identity unless it can be falsely perceived as superior to the other half of humanity’s population (female). And let’s not forget that all these “superior” men were dependent upon these “inferior” women to even have a chance of getting to planet Earth in the first place! In reality women are the ones who have a rudder; women have direction; women give life. Women have a foundation of “I am” which needs no image of “superiority” in order “to be.” Men know this and that is why they are desperate to “attach to, dominate, oppress, and control” women.   And it is upon this foundation of female oppression that the image of male superiority must stand, or it will fracture and crumble into dust.   The moment males are born, they enter a life where they are encouraged to “believe, act out, and behave” as though they are superior to the very women through which bodies they came. This must cause an unresolved “conflict” in every man as he gets older, and this conflict surely results in frustration that leads to the demonstration of perpetual male violence!

Men cannot give birth. That process is strictly reserved for the female. This is a fact that does not bode well for the image of male “superiority.”  So men have come up with a way to show women that they can also give “birth.”   I am not being facetious here. Men are desperately trying to perfect the process of human cloning so as to “prove” that they too can “create life,” and this will allow them to project a still stronger image of male superiority. We will truly enter the “age of Frankenstein” when men perfect the process of cloning a complete human body, and sadly they will be proud of it! And what about the day when men stand and proclaim that a “male clone” is superior to a “human female?” Oh, look out!! And how many men do you think would gladly spend money to pay for a clone of their favorite “sexual” female for just that purpose? Do not be naive about the “sexual” motivation of the negative male ego, nor deceived by it. I am in absolute and total disagreement with the cellular cloning of a complete human body.  But I am in absolute and total agreement with the cloning of individual organs for health and medical purposes.  (I will dedicate a future blog to cloning).

All this male superiority malarkey never ceases to amaze me, because everyone (men, women, boys, girls) knows that male superiority is just an atrocious fallacy, a baseless image. But the problem is that we all maintain this facade by continuing to wear our “masks” of superior male and inferior female even while knowing they are just masks! Men wear their mask of male superiority voluntarily, but they force the mask of female inferiority over the face of women.  Men will never take off their mask of superiority and they staunchly forbid women to remove their mask of inferiority, even under threat of harm. So the negative, violent, destructive charade of male superiority and resultant female oppression will go on, and on, and on, even unto our eventual demise.

All my life I was a male chauvinist pig with a strong attitude of male superiority.  I “used” women sexually, but I was not physically violent with them. I have never, nor will I ever, strike a woman. Men who beat women are solid “cowards of character.” They are “animal mind” beasts. Sadly, many of these men consider “hitting and pushing women around” to be a “manly” activity! But I am aware that just because I didn’t beat women does not excuse the fact that I exploited them sexually. However, in my world of sexual exploitation I considered women to be “equal” to me, in that they had the same opportunity to “use” me sexually. And yes, many of them did. So in my world I was on parity with women. Plus, I came out of the 60’s generation where “free love” meant sex with whomever you wanted, if you could accomplish that! That was my “free” generation.  I considered myself to be a “normal” guy, just trying to “get laid” and to fulfill the sexual “expectations” of the women I was with. This of course “died a slow death” as I got older because women paid less and less  attention to me, and “freedom” became more than sexual. I fell behind the times.

To truly understand my past “sexual” motivation I had to understand my broken, dysfunctional childhood. My family split apart before I was even one year old. My brother and I (he was 1 1/2 years older than me) were separated and constantly being shuttled around, forced to stay for a few months at a time with different members of the extended family. Because of this when I started school I had to transfer quite often and never had a chance to lay down any kind of foundation for a “permanent” relationship with anyone. For the first few years I was okay with that and I logged in very good grades on my report cards. But that would change. As I analyzed my childhood, it was apparent why I had become a chauvinist pig.

Excerpt from; “The Female Imperative” – Shane Stewart – T. L. Dayen, Confessions of a Male Chauvinist Pig – Pg 14.

“It was during the fifth grade that my entire life would suddenly be altered forever. That was the year my hormones erupted and I was sent careening down a path that I would be locked into for decades to come. The fifth grade was the year I discovered girls! Girls! One day they weren’t there, and the next day they were everywhere! I had never even looked at girls before, and now I couldn’t keep my eyes off them. Where had they come from? How did they get here? I was mesmerized!   How could I not have known about girls? They were pretty and exciting, and they liked to giggle and flirt with me! They were way more fun than my buddies, and they smelled good too! Girls gave me a strange feeling in my gut. I never felt more alive than when I was around girls. Life was getting exciting and I loved it! I lost interest in studying and learning, and it showed in my grades. But I didn’t care. That wasn’t important any more. Now I went to school because that’s where the girls were. Every time I enrolled in a new school my purpose was to get the prettiest girl there. I did not fail. Girls let me know they liked me. They told me I was cute and treated me like I was someone special. They didn’t know that I was just an unimportant, scruffy little kid from a totally dysfunctional and fractured background. So after all this time I had finally become someone important! However, this self-importance was only measured by how many girls could assuage my young male ego – a male chauvinist pig was born!”

* * *

Men continue to oppress women in every possible way; domestically, socially, economically, sexually, physically, and violently. Ironically men consider their image of “superiority” to be their birth right. They are superior to the very beings that give them life?? This attitude is a major problem and the only solution to this is that we must change what we “teach” our children.  We must begin to place into the minds of children of all future generations the truth that “equality for all humans” [female and male] is an underlying principle in the foundation of our species. However, in this year of 2014, children are still taught the lie that “all men are created equal,” not all humans. What about women? Men do not extend the concept of equality to the realm of the female. Many women are literally social, domestic, and sexual servants. They are not independent human beings, but an appendage of men! The attitude of male superiority and female inferiority is ground into the minds of our children as they continue to grow. And if this is not changed, and soon, we face a very bleak future indeed, because our “future” will simply continue to be a replication of our violent and destructive past, dominated by the animal mind of the negative male ego and awash in female oppression and violence.  The male ego and the image of male superiority is the foundation of our social destruction and the destruction of our planet!