Not Going Far Enough

Poll: Young Men say Feminism ‘Has Gone too Far’ | Ep 218

The hominist position is not that feminists have gone too far, but that they they have never gone far enough. This has always been the position of hominism.

By not going far enough, I mean that women still want to have all the privileges of being feminine but all of the rights of being men too. Kamala Harris is as classic an example of this as one can get.

In her younger years she dated a man 31 years older than she, benefited with two political appointments, was helped to a very narrow victory of less than one percentage point in her first race for D.A. of San Francisco, and later, based on that relationship may have been helped in her senate race as well.

Keep in mind too, that she was not merely the girlfriend of a man 31 years older than she was, but his “mistress.” Pictures of the two of them together also tell a story of how important imposing a uniform dress code on the sexes is.

Photos show Harris in a strapless gown, with emphasis on her bosom, and with her lips painted red. Yet now she wears dark pants and a jacket with square shoulders.

This is what I mean by women are not going far enough. What “feminist” dates a man 31 years older? C’mon! I thought that would have gone out of style with bloomers.

It would make more sense to date someone younger, as men do. Not that I approve of that either, since logically the one involves the other. That is, so long as men date younger women, younger women will be dating older men for power.

But it is still the woman’s responsibility to say NO to such relationships. However, women like to condemn the patriarchy in the abstract but then they date Paters (older powerful men) in reality. But that is THE PATRIARCHY. Harris dated the Patriarchy and she dated INTO the patriarchy. Yet all of feminist rhetoric condemns the patriarchy as the root of women’s problems.

This is only part of the problem. Women are still not working at the low-status, labor-intensive, dirty and dangerous jobs that are almost exclusively occupied by men, with high morbidity and mortality rates. Nor is society making an effort to remedy this disparity the way they make an effort to get women into executive positions, into the STEM fields, as lawmakers, etc.

This will create a dystopian society similar to Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, with women in cushy high-status jobs at the very top of the pyramid and men at the bottom of the pyramid doing all the slave work to maintain our infrastructure so rats don’t crawl out of our bathroom drain when we take a shower, while women will be making laws for these men with no empathy for them.

The whole point of men working at the bottom before they reach the top is to create empathy for those at the bottom once they reach the top. But if women never work at the bottom, how will they ever create empathy for the problems of labor at the bottom of the pyramid?

A few days ago I saw a news clip of a long-distance truck driver who quit his job due to road hazards. The clip started with a FEMALE host introducing an even younger FEMALE co-host to report the news. Next we see the truck driver saying how he couldn’t sleep at night for worry over getting into a road accident. Then we hear from the FEMALE trucking company Spokesperson discussing the issue.

In short, women now occupy all the cushy positions while the men are in all the menial, dangerous, dirty and labor-intensive jobs. While Kamala Harris was sleeping her way to success with a man 31 years older than she, most men in her situation were probably driving taxis to make ends meet until they established themselves in their chosen profession.

Keep in mind, whereas women EARN INCOME by DATING (Harris received a BMW from her lover) men have to SPEND INCOME while dating. This increases the risk of a dystopian society of Power Couples dominated by powerful older men and ambitious younger women and POVERTY COUPLES dominated by men who date DOWN for sex, since strong women refuse to DATE DOWN for sex but prefer to DATE UP for more power.

Power Couples and Poverty Couples are aggravated even more so by a divorce. In a power couple, the woman invariably increases her wealth, often to the sum of millions of dollars, while in the Poverty Couple the man loses much of his financial standing as he pays enormous sums in alimony and child support that his salary is unable to meet.

These issues are related to the way that women dress and the sex trades, issues totally ignored, if not justified, by feminists, or at best treated as trivial issues. They are not trivial issues.

We are EMBODIED SELVES, a central tenet of a hominist phenomenology, not merely cognitive selves, or thinking selves. Thus women think the fact that they dress in high heels and slit dresses or paint their faces is irrelevant to equal rights. On the contrary for hominism, as embodied selves, the way that women dress control how men think about, and behave towards, women.

Imagine if men were allowed to rub their genitalia through their pants every time they passed a woman on the street, or in Congress, the workplace, etc. Clearly that would affect interactions between the sexes. But how is that different from passing a woman with painted lips or in stiletto heels or in a strapless gown, in nylons, a slit dress that exposes “serious” thigh, etc.?

Both examples SEXUALIZE the body and thus force a sexual reaction from the other sex. Harris clearly exploited the fact of being embodied selves in her affair with Willie Brown, from which she benefited with two political appointments. Thus the way women dress matters.

Finally the persistent ADOPTED sexual passivity of women, shocking in an age where women have virtually replaced men in all the high-status professions, is the fundamental issue and leads to all other gender binaries discussed here. And for a radical hominism, gender binaries are the roots of all sexism.

Gender binaries in turn lead to the sex trades where women earn billions of dollars annually in ADDITION TO THE MONEY THEY EARN IN THE REGULAR PROFESSIONS. Yet feminism claims a Gender Wage Gap that favors men!

This is what happens when a feminist episteme defines the issues and thus controls how we see and thus what we see. Feminists ignore all of the issues rehearsed her and focus only on the legalistic issues, thus avoiding all the sexual power that women have over men.

Yet women’s sexual power over men, if we reject biological determinism, must be a social construct no less than male intellectual superiority is now perceived to be a social construct. Thus once we change the way that women behave, in the sexist mode of femininity, they will lose their sexual power over men.

But this means abolishing all feminine attire, all the sex trades, and forcing women to sexually pursue men no less than men sexually pursue women. Until women do sexually pursue men, the male libido will never change. Thus it will seem “natural” to a man to have more need of a woman than a woman has for man.

Finally, WOMEN’S RIGHT TO VOTE MUST BE LEGALLY LINKED TO HER OBLIGATION TO DIE FOR HER COUNTRY; that is, to serve her country in the military. Until then, August 26 is not Women’s Equality Day, but Women’s Inequality Day.

The issues discussed above will result in catastrophic consequences unless we address them within a hominist critique of sexism. This includes what I have named “sexpotism,” or using sex to advance professionally or politically, as Kamala Harris did. She also dated UP in political power and influence, with a man 31 years older than she. So she covers two relevant issues. Let’s take them one at a time.

1. The way that woman date UP for political and economic power, usually with older men, while men date DOWN for sexy legs, usually with much younger women, is creating what I called above Power Couples and Poverty Couples.

Women who date UP are creating Power Couples, combining their ambition and income with the already established power of older men. Men on the other hand will date DOWN for sexy boobs or legs. These women usually have only part-time jobs, have no ambition except to live off of men, have limited education, etc. thus dragging the man down economically.

As mentioned above, it’s even worse following a divorce. When the woman in the Power Couple gets a divorce she doubles or triples her income after a divorce settlement. The man in the Poverty Couple on the other hand is totally destroyed by a divorce and is often reduced to nothing after the divorce settlement, child support, legal costs, etc.

2. The other issue is related to #1 and will present a major problem in the future, as Kamala Harris’s sexual past shows. Up until modern times a man gifting his lovers with favors did not impact other men, because women were segregated into female jobs. Thus if a male lover rewarded his inamorata 20 years younger than himself, that would mean hiring her as his receptionist or secretary, jobs that men did not compete for.

But as Harris’s history has shown, today, with women competing for the same jobs as men, this kind of what I have named “sexpotism” (advancing a woman’s career based on sexual or romantic relationships) (combing the words “sex” and “nepotism”) this directly impacts other men.

The fact is Willie Brown may have awarded those two political appointments to a man. Moreover, since he helped Harris defeat her male opponent in the election for D.A. of San Francisco by LESS THAN ONE PERCENTAGE POINT that man may have won the election if there had been no romance between Harris and Brown. The same goes for the Senate position, where apparently Brown convinced a crony to step aside to allow Harris an open field for the nomination that led to her election.

Thus issues that could be overlooked in the past have become very serious, if not critical, issues today. Men simply cannot date women for power. Therefore they will not benefit with political appointments or influence from relationships with women of power.

Hence men will earn less. But even that will not be sufficient since DATING DOWN, men will spend most of their income on women for sexy boobs or thighs while, women continue to rise up the corporate ladder dating older men with power.

I support 100% full equality for women. But the affirmation hinges on how we define equality.

No woman should be prevented from full competition with men. But at the same time, she must give up all of her sexual privileges, her sexual professions, her sexual exposure, representations of herself in sexual ways, and she must stop dating older powerful men instead of men her own age so we can truly have equality of outcome. Finally, of course, women must desire men, not desire male desire for them.

That is what I mean by equality. And this would also involve raising women like men, dressing women like men, training women in the dirty and dangerous trades like men, putting hammers in their hands instead of tubes of lipstick, and conscripting them.

But that is not what feminists mean by “equality.” Feminists have an esoteric meaning of the word. It basically means that whatever women want they should be allowed to have.

Thus if women want to dress sexy, that should be their right. If they want to date older men for power and money, that should be their right.

That’s not equality, since it’s based on gender binarism: that is, women are then allowed to do what men cannot do, while women call it sexism if men are allowed to do what women cannot do.

An important point of hominism is that we are EMBODIED SELVES. How we dress is more than 50% of the problem. I don’t mean how we dress in immaterial ways (one person prefers dark blue instead of dark green). But clearly if one sex sexualizes and paints their bodies and the other does not, as embodied selves that will be a decisive factor resulting in inequality.

It’s hardly an accident that when women seek high political office they start to dress in men’s clothes, with long pants, in jackets, and they cover up their entire bodies. But women want it both ways. When they’re younger, or even as an alternate choice, they want to be able to sexualize their bodies. See photos of Kamala Harris when she was 29 or so with Willie Brown and she has painted lips, is in a strapless gown that highlights her bosom, etc.

A woman simply cannot be both a body and a person at the same time. It’s impossible.

Nor can she change roles throughout her life, much less in a single day. Thus in Congress she wears pants and a jacket and at night she sexualizes her body by exposing her bosom and legs.

We must start challenging these myths that clothes do not matter. Even a Confederate pin can anger many people as a relic of a racist past. So why should high heels and dresses not similarly anger people as a relic of a sexist past?

Keep in mind that men are prohibited from using their natural physical assets to dominate women, so why should women be allowed to use their physical assets to dominate men sexually?

We would never allow a man to push a women out of the Speaker’s chair based on his greater strength, and today we frown upon men using their louder voices to talk over women. What’s the difference with women using their legs or boobs to control men and men using their taller bodies, greater strength, or louder and deeper voices?

This issue is related to that of the sexual objectification of women. It is INCOMPREHENSIBLE how feminism can accuse MEN of SEXUALLY OBJECTIFYING women yet totally ignore that the cosmetics industry is a billion dollar industry, while the likes of Taylor Swift, Cardi B, Ariana, Lady Gaga, and the Avatar of Twerking, Miley Cyrus have sexually objectified men far more than men could ever do.

Women must learn: the moment that they paint their face THEY ARE SEXUALLY OBJECTIFYING THEMSELVES. If a woman features her bosom sexually, that is objectification. If she sexually exposes her legs or wears nylons to sexualize them, that too is sexual objectification.

But since these hominist ideas are commonly conflated or confused with Puritanism, or worse, mere physical exposure, let us clarify how they are entirely different. As the famous court ruling on pornography said, “I’ll know it when I see it.”

Clearly a woman naked on her rooftop is not sexual. A woman in a strapless gown is sexual. A woman in cut-off jeans hemmed at the knee is not sexual. Hot pants are clearly sexual. Cleavage is sexual. A topless woman is not sexual.

But even here we are faced with distinctions. If women walk around normally topless it is not sexual. However, if a woman opens a topless venue then it is sexual: she is topless to exploit her boobs as sexual fetishes and for a price, thus resulting in the fetishization, objectification, and commodification of her body.

A woman’s thigh is not sexual. Two exposed thighs while she is swimming is not sexual. One thigh exposed through a slit dress is sexual.

How simple can one get? I know it when I see it.

But what women do is they want the best of both worlds. They want to jiggle their boobs in a sex venue to pay off their tuition but also claim that a mother publicly nursing is not sexual.

In another culture, where women do not jiggle their boobs, that would be true, but not in our culture. Thus a major goal of a radical hominism is to abolish all the sex trades and sex venues and thus to repristinate the female body as nature rather than denatured.