32 (Yes, they're sharing a drink they call loneliness But it's better than drinkin' alone)

IF I MEET YOU AND YOURE SEXIST ILL BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU UNTIL I KNOCK SOME SENSE IN THERE.

NO EXCEPTIONS.

So today I found a website that was in full support of chauvinism and talked openly and freely about how "men are better than women." Now, I'm not posting the url because I don't feel like the person who put it up deserves any more attention specifically. However the reason I bring this up is because of the recent popularity of books and movies about men, and their superiority over women. Take for example the movie "I hope the serve beer in hell"; that movie, though not as direct in its mission is still clearly promoting an agenda. To make men feel as though they may use women and treat them differently than they do men. American media (ie movies, books, websites) is perpetuating the notion that men generally have control over women, that women are easily subjugated and more importantly that men who have little or nothing to offer to society at large are still capable of "getting" women that our society deems attractive.

There are a few things I want to say about this point. First, some people (usually men who subscribe to these ideas) say that women base themselves on how attractive they are to men and how well they can please people. However no one seems to be interested in the fact that a patriarchal society -where women have Never (in all of this country's history) been given equal power as men- teaches women the values they should have and what is "normal." And what is normal in a patriarchal society? In the narrow sense the 50's idea of a housewife where the man controls the family and holds power over the wife and children, and in the larger more broad sense men hold power over women and children in society at large. In 2009, we have shed the narrow style of patriarchy and gone for the more broad and loose kind. This shift has somehow convinced people that we no longer live in a patriarchy, and that women are equal. This however is Not true. To state facts, women make less money than men do with equal education, there are social stigmas attatched to women of all kinds.

If you are attractive and sexually active, you are a slut.

If you are attractive and don't "put out", you are a bitch.

If you are unyielding and you don't try to please men, you are a bitch, ice queen.

If you are ugly, you have little worth.

If you have kids, you're just doing what "women should do"

and if you don't, you have some sort of issue.

If you are a feminist, you are a lesbian and hate men.

And finally the conundrum that somehow if you are getting ahead as a woman, other women dislike you.

Whoever you are, if you are a woman, you face a double bind. No matter what you do, you will fall on the double edged sword. Because the patriarchy is not overtly accepted as it used to be, people deny that it exists. But if you take the entertainment and media geared towards women, what does it consist of in America? Who are the people that young women look up to? Why?

Young women are shown models, unusually skinny and "beautiful" ideals that it is unlikely they will "live up to." Now, I could go into the speech of how it isn't natural and self-esteem and whatever else, but that is not the point. The point is that these are men's ideal women. Yes, they have become women's role models, because females have been force-fed an image that they need to succeed in the hetero-sexual patriarchal system. If you have large breasts, a small waist and a tight ass, men will like to look at you; they will want you around. And of course, hetero-women who desire men and who want it to be reciprocated are all the more willing to conform to the ideals. Now this is not to say that women cannot think for themselves. This is to say that the people in power are able to call the shots, which is exactly how things have been. Men, the "hunter-gather" sex, has been the powerful one solely because the intrinsic instinct to act violently is stronger with higher testosterone. And so, with the disposition to hurt other things in order to establish order and control has consistently put women in a subjugated position. Rather than respect, it has been out of fear of pain and the quest to avoid misfortune that women have allowed men the power they have.

This has clearly worked to the detriment of humankind though, because men and women have both allowed the female sex to become a caricature of what it should be. Women are sold on hair removal, breast augmentation, diets of all kinds, etc, while men are sold on muscle-milk and the like. How could "the fairer sex" not become even "fairer"? And how then if we accept what has been said to be true, can we not understand that perhaps women who do not subscribe to the heterosexual lifestyle also do not subscribe to the same standards of beauty?

So to understand the acceptance of patriarchy we can examine the issue of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) within some places including Egypt and Sudan. These places generally have a narrow as well as broad style of patriarchy being practiced there. FGM is where either the clitoris or the entire external genitalia of a girl is cut off (usually by a daya or family member) at a young age to ensure purity. Sometimes the vagina is sewn partially or completely shut to ensure virginity as well. The procedure does nothing for the sex drive of the girl, but it is dangerous and sometimes fatal. Women have come to accept this as a normal process and carry it out on their own children. Why? Because men have demanded it of them and what awaits a woman if she does not comply is physical punishment. There is the mental and existential unrest. So in order to avoid that and save their children from other mutilation or harm, women have accepted this as a "good" thing to do; it is a preventative measure. Now then the argument of the strength of men may come into play- however when you look at the power of not only one man, but stones, or acid, or a mob, or perhaps the power of the courts or the state, it is no longer about individual or even average physical strength. It is about the SYSTEM in place. And the system in place sides with men.

Now, a further question; Why do women accept this then? Why is there not a revolution? Can equality be reached? Save the last question, the answer is not actually that complicated. It is complex, but certainly the concept is easy to grasp- in fact we have already touched upon it. People believe that we are equal, because of the non-narrow style, and because violence towards women is not openly accepted like it used to be when it was legal to beat women. Many people regard the word feminism as a bad thing, an insult. Why is this? Because the feminist movement has become a joke. The splintering of the movement and the loss of momentum and mainstream support has been a large cause in making it an unattractive thing to be associated with. Feminism is sometimes correlated with either homosexuality, the hatred of men, and/or the rejection of societal norms: bra-burning, acceptance of body hair, etc. All of these things that do not apply to the main point of the movement have become its defining factors. So women are afraid to belong to a group that furthers their own equality, and instead return to the sidelines where they are accepted in the hetero-structure. Simultaneously, the youth in America learn about inequality as a thing of the past. They learn from the public schools that racism, sexism, prejudice of all kinds have been dealt with. Regardless of the fact that the Civil Rights movement was passed less than 60 years ago. They learn that saying words like "bitch" or "cunt" or whatever else is not only acceptable (because of course it means nothing even though the tone and manner is consistently unfriendly and not well-meaning), but expected. If you do not conform to the patterns of speech practiced by your peers, you appear to be snobby, and uninformed. You will not fit in if you don't act the way everyone else does. People are overly optimistic about the way children and young adults think. Though peer pressure may not consist of "do it do do it or you aren't cool," it certainly does exist and is ubiquitous in the attitudes of youth- not to mention another major issue: Jokes.

It is always an attractive trait to make people laugh. It naturally makes people want to spend time with someone and hear what they have to say. Lots of sexist, racist, whatever-ist jokes come from people who agreed on something and told jokes at another groups expense. However, certainly from what I have seen, sexist jokes are commonly told to girls and by girls. This becomes an issue because while women are taught that they are not oppressed they are taught to laugh at their own plight. They are taught that the acceptable response to someone making light of injustice is to laugh it off- not only perpetuating the acceptance of being subjugated (and the continuance of the caricature of "femininity") but also making it exponentially more difficult for anyone trying to fight for equality, because no one takes them seriously. When people joke about issues that are current, they undermine the inertia of the movement. They make it impossible to get into the mainstream, because the dominant ideology is against them.

Another problem women face when it comes to inequality is the judgement and categorical way in which they are seen by men based on their sexuality and how much they "put out." It seems to me that since the invention of birth control, men in the patriarchy have been attempting to take that power away from women. Women, once impregnated cannot do nearly as much as before they were- and in wedlock they then depend completely on their husbands in many situations for support. They become the ultimate damsel-in-distress. Not only are they carrying the future lineage of the man (the child who will most likely take the man's last name as well) but the woman is also defenseless. She will become maternal and hormonal, irrational and at the mercy of the manipulative husband. I do not mean this in a negative way, in a lot of cases it can be perfectly fine (ex. when a pregnant woman is emotional because of hormones her husband can perhaps manipulate her mood into a more positive one).

Regardless, without birth control, the woman cannot be fully in control of her destiny. Women who use birth control are sometimes viewed as loose or promiscuous. In American public schools abstinence has been the go to educational curricula, and of course kids who decide to have sex will go ahead and do so. However women are at a disadvantage when it comes to a lack of knowledge. Men, though just as susceptible to STDs, can never become pregnant. Though pregnancy implies a financial burden on the male, it also does for the woman. She must then go through pre-natal care, child-birth, and everything that follows. Her pregnancy will undoubtedly gain her a reputation, be that in school or wherever else. Even grown married women face this in the workplace. Once pregnant they are assumed to either be done working, and if they do not then the quality of their work is assumed to go down and their movement upwards will be stunted because of the shift in priorities. And woe is upon the woman who choses to have an abortion! Even in this representative republic, the freedoms granted to those who wish only to harass others based on their beliefs is free to do so at their discretion. Women who reside in areas where abortion services are few and far between are likely to find one of the many "front" anti-choice organizations.

If a woman does decide to have a child and does so out of wedlock, without family support or perhaps without substantial finances behind her, she faces the federal support system. In our society this is scarce and many people who don't understand the way things work tend to look down their nose at people who need support. The stigma for single mothers on welfare or with food stamps is one that does not include compassion or empathy, but disdain and contempt. The "pull yourself up by your boot straps" concept is another highly mysoginistic and hypocritical notion. The idea that someone should be able to work themselves into success can never be fully realized by women or "minorities," because the playing field (so to speak) has not been equal, and still is not. So expectations for success cannot be the same, yet somehow this has been interpreted into the stereotyping that said groups are incapable of success, and more than that do not desire the mainstream ideals of American success. I digress. It is clear though that women are modern lepers once they become part of this group- they become undesirable for the male population. Single mothers come with not only financial and emotional burden, but they are not able to be viewed as sexual playthings any longer. They are tainted with not just a child, but also the physical evidence of another man.

Back to the initial point though- that men are afraid of women being sexually free. This may seem like an extreme statement, but look at the systems that the patriarchy holds closest to its core values: The ability to control birth control and abortion services by the FDA, along with vaccines available (ie the HPV vaccine that was held up by the FDA because it promoted "promiscuity," though its only ability is to prevent cervical cancer), but also the system of marriage. Women are not allowed to marry other women, they are only permitted to marry men. Of course the same is true for gay men, but the discussion is not about LGBT rights currently. Again, going back to the patriarchy where men generally are the more powerful people, they are the head of the nuclear family, they come to possess the woman. Though much has changed since the 1950's, there are still gender roles that most people unconciously abide by. The sexual structure for heterosexual people in America is highly hypocritical, which is well known. The commonly argued point that women who sleep with lots of men are considered "whores" or slutty" while men who sleep with lots of women are considered "players" and thus more desirable is obviously not "fair" or "equal". Why is it that the relation between the amount of sexual partners makes a woman inversely attractive as the number goes up? Because it means that she is not abiding to the ideal men have set out for her. She is trying to gain sexual satisfaction and she considers her own pleasure more important than that of men in general. A woman who sleeps with many men makes a man feel like a woman- unimportant, another notch on the belt. The ego of the man is the most important thing protected by patriarchy, and this is how a woman damages it- especially attractive women.

Men are not objectified the way that women are; they are half as likely to have eating disorders, (save obesity which is more of an American problem rather than a gender issue) and because they are on average paid more, they may not endure the same dealings as those who must because of necessity. (As in harsher or more complex criteria because of monetary needs). This is also because men cannot be judged physically the same way as women's. The chest of a man generally cannot be seen because of shirts and jackets and whatever else. However, the chest of a woman (which has been highly sexualized in our society) is visible regardless of most anything. The size of a woman's chest is a factor when it comes to determining how pleasing she is, and because of this if the woman does not have a big enough or whatever chest she is immediately judged. Of course if she does have the right size chest it is likely that that will be the focus, rather than her face, or her self in general. Men are able to hide because women cannot see the size of a mans dick. Not to be vulgar, but there really isn't a better way to say it. Women do not have the luxury of determining how sexually viable someone is nor can they judge someone if that person is inadequate, and thus is not in the position that men are in. With the creation of Girls Gone Wild and all of these things that encourage women to present themselves solely as sex objects, what can one expect from women in general? If the ideal for a man is so slim, how can women compete? They then are siphoned off into the vanity of capitalism. Sexism and capitalism work very well together, because of the market for new and unnecessary products, like make up. Cosmetic surgery, botox, girdles, push-up bras, all of these absurd things that have become common items everywhere. How can men complain and judge women when they are vain, when if they were not and did not accentuate all of their womanly features, they would become outcasts?

But the question now is... what happens next? Where do we start and where will we go from here? How do we get there?

I have gone off topic a lot maybe one day I'll come back and edit/add.

2 Months(ish)! Im getting REALLY impatient.