Radical Cults vs Radical Truth

In men’s minds radicalism is associated with violence and control of others.  Their minds jump to cult leaders and religious fundamentalists and terrorist groups – this is what radical means to them as they can only perceive of radicalism through their own male lens.

With cult leaders the most notorious and deadly have been men who had/have an extreme need for domination.  Many use ‘sex’ (and the prohibition of it) to enforce dominance and control over their followers.  Male followers are denied the ‘right’ to ‘their’ women for their own sexual use, mothers are required to relinquish their daughters to the leader for his (or his favored male followers’) sexual use, individual women are expected to offer themselves up to the leader for the same purposes.  Men are robbed of their ownership of ’their’ females, thus emasculating them, and females are denied ownership of themselves.

Often religious fundamentalists operate in the form of a cult, or mini-cult. Warren Jeffs and his polygamist sect come to mind – virtually no different than many other cults in terms of ’sex’ used as a weapon of dominance and control. On a smaller scale, individual polygamist ’families’ operate in the same fashion. In a different, but not at all unrelated way, Quiverful families (like the Duggars) are headed by one man with complete control over the woman’s reproductive system and those of their many female children, this in the sense that he is the one to decide which man will be awarded their sexual servitude.

Although terrorist groups often have sexual-reward components, they are primarily driven by socio-political agendas that have little to do with the ’leader’ actively and directly imposing his dominance over women and girls in a systematically sexualized way as part of the overall group control toolkit.  Yet terrorist leaders are often lumped in with the two other types.

It is clear that these ‘radical’ cults are simply smaller specialized subsets of the global patriarchal culture – violence and sexualized domination used as weapons to wield control over others – although this connection is rarely made by men and most women.  ‘Radical’ cults are wrong and bad in the minds of men because one man has too much control over too many others; they go too far with their demands on other men and keep too many women and girls for themselves – they are too transparent, they give away the secrets of male domination because they are too greedy, too violent and too crazy to care about the need of all the other men in the world to be believed to be generous, kind and sane by the women and girls they have a ‘right’ to dominate and control with violence and ’sex’.

Enter the concept of radical feminism – there is a leap of non-thought and non-logic to male defined ’radical’ groups or cults when radical feminism is brought up.  Because radicals are focused on domination and control of others, are violent and often use ’sex’ as a weapon, radical feminists must be out to dominate and control others by means of ideology, ’sex’ and violence.  Just like male cult leaders only in reverse.

Historically there have been very, very few female ’cult’ leaders.  Many of the few were women who took patriarchal religions in an offshoot direction, who expected ‘sexual’ abstinence/restraint (no/little PIV – which benefits females) for various reasons, but who were adamantly against violence of any kind; one can suppose that at least some of these female leaders considered PIV violence.  An even smaller number of female ’leaders’ who did commit acts of violence (human sacrifice, for example) were self-proclaimed and were joined by men in the group or by male family members in those crimes, however sexualized control of the group in those cases does not appear to have been a factor.

Radical feminists bear no hallmarks of ‘radical cults’ – there are not hundreds of women gathered together in compounds supporting a sole leader’s need for domination.  No children (or women or men for that matter) are being demanded for ‘sexual’ access.  There is no violence against anyone.  Yet we, as individuals, are held up as the same as the most murderous, ‘sexually deviant‘, greedy, ‘crazy’ men who have been, and are, the leaders of ‘radical cults‘ and only because we tell the truth about men.

And that truth is that men use violence and ‘sex’ (PIV) to dominate and control every aspect of life on the planet.  When a handful of radical feminists state that truth clearly and unequivocally they are held up as dangerous and crazy by men and women alike as though we are ’radical’ and have no business claiming to be feminists, or even radical feminists of the male-acceptable (PIV positive, boyfriend and husband keeping) pabulum variety – we serve as a cautionary tale:  to accept the logic of the inherent violence of ’sex’, the purpose it serves in domination and control of all women and girls on a global scale, is to be a monster akin to… men.

———–

See this as an example of a liberal (feminist) woman ‘defending’ the radical feminists in their venue… 

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Radical Cults vs Radical Truth

  1. Hey YQ – thanks for popping by 🙂

    Yeah, ugh. Anyway I’m going to spam that comment soon because I’d much rather talk about the content of my post – something he was unable to do. Surprise, surprise.

  2. What an entitled prick to comment as if any of us give a shit about the mutant freak. Men are disgusting.

  3. Interesting comments on the difference between male and (the rare) female cult leaders. It reminded me of what I’d heard of the Shakers. So, I looked online and here’s a blurb from an article about them on a fundamentalist Christian website (gotquestions dot org) I’m not linking to it since I don’t especially want to generate traffic for them:

    “The most influential Shaker leader, Ann Lee, . . .claimed to have received messages from God saying that sex was evil. As a result, abstinence required in the church as preparation for heaven, where there will be no marriage. Shaker belief was uniquely gender-equal; the wife was subject to her husband, but if she had no husband, she was equal in in every way to men. This gender-neutrality was also reflected in the Shaker belief that God is both male and female.”

    But the article goes on to condemn the practice of abstinence “Theologically, the Shakers are a legalistic cult developed by a deceived, emotionally wounded woman. Their practice of communal living was not sinful, just unnecessary. Their equating of sex with sin, however, is decidedly unbiblical. ”

    This sounds like at least one woman Ann Lee, figured something out. A Shaker community would be a much safer place for women, it seems to me. Though not exactly radfem, still. . . But where ever there an idea that sex=evil there is an attempt to brush it under the rug, even though there are no more Shaker communities (and perhaps only 3 living Shakers). Is this a cult? Not in the sense the Moonies were, I believe. You made this clear and I loved your explanation of cults/coercion/PIV.

  4. Oh, I’ve received so many comments from men and women alike telling me that I’m a control freak, damaged, that I’m shutting down discussions, bullying and what not for not publishing their comments.
    Patriarchy is in itself a vast cult led by men, where we are ordered to support men’s sole need for domination, where they force us to believe myths about them and venerate them and their gods. Catholicism, hinduism, islam and all the other religious groups are only sub-sections of patriarchal cult. Any deviance from their cult and brainwashing programs is severely punished.

    It’s actually not something to be proud about in certain cases, the fact there is never any violence with radfems. In case of self defense with men I mean, there are many instances in which we have a right to kill which we don’t use, obviously for fear of retaliation by men.

  5. We can think of cults in two ways. Some people think it’s a small group of people who believe something unusual. But that really not it. Most experts think of it in terms of the processes, like brainwashing. Those cult experts would agree that Germany under Hitler was a cult in this sense.

    You are expressing the radical feminist view that this is a worldwide cult led by men. It is the logical extension of the Hitler as cult idea. But there appears to be a lot of disagreement when you do that. It shows how deep the brainwashing is, because if you look at the logic of it, extending it from the example of Germany, it’s quite clear. Worldwide extermination of women is a clear indicator, for one thing. Of course, most cults also play the victim. Like accusing you of bullying when they, of course, are the bullies. Thanks for warding off the comments that just serve to divert us from the main points, too. Much easier to have a clear conversation that way.

  6. @ Witch Wind –

    Hi 🙂 I’m glad that you bring up the fact that even in instances when women would be well within their legal rights to self defense they do not re-act with violence, or what can be perceived as violence, not only because they know that it may very well be used against them (thinking of the recent case in which a woman fired a warning shot AWAY FROM her abuser and was convicted of attempted murder and child endangerment – she’s been granted a new trial, btw, thanks in part to the outrage of the anti-DV community) but I am going to add that many women will not/can not re-act with violence for any number of reasons.

    To equate radical feminists with violent intent is pure reversal/projection. Also ignorant and reactionary.

  7. Hello to you as well Word Woman! Thanks for taking the time to read and comment 🙂

    This post was brought about by a couple of factors: 1) I had been back commenting on the Democratic Underground message boards for a while backing up a few of the more radical women there and was reminded that ‘liberals’ are all too willing to equate radical feminism with danger/violence and 2) I was watching a mini-thon on tv about cults – Manson, Jim Jones, Koresh et alii – and they melded together. Also, I’d been thinking about Witchwind’s recent posts…

    Interestingly, right while I was thinking about writing something again a person at DU linked to radical wind and that sort of made up my mind. In any case, just today, another person has linked to radical wind again and the ‘conversation’ there is typical. There are the usual ‘crazy woman’ accusations, the ‘she’s not a REAL radical feminist’ crap but then we are told that she (we) are “vile and dangerous”.

    And I want to ask: just HOW are we vile and dangerous? I mean “vile” is just stupid (ouch, my fee fees!!1!), but “dangerous”? When has a radical feminist been violent? Okay, I’ll give you Solanas – that’s ONE. When has a group of radical feminists been violent? Never.

    Ah, but the quote is “dangerous”. Well then…

  8. Totally unsurprising that you overlook Bristol Palin’s virulent attack on the LGBT community to attack me. The separatist feminist community to which you belong has a horrific record with regard to the rights of all LGBT except for those gay women who adhere to separatist principles. Other than that, homophobic bigotry, like Bristol’s, is AOK with you and undeserving of being taken to task.

    And of course, you were too much of a coward to actually comment on this on my blog. You silently linked to it here.

  9. Hi Steve –

    I have approved your comment because I did link to your blog. It’s a shame that you seem to feel that I have done something underhanded or perhaps impolite by linking to you with no public announcement, but that’s why Al Gore created the pingback. 🙂

    Anyway, for a man who professes to be a radical feminist you sure don’t know too much about what that really means. And that’s the reason I linked to that particular post – unsurprisingly I didn’t have to dig very far to find you putting down a young woman (who is clearly heavily constrained by hetero-normativity mandates) because she says one thing and was compelled to do another. That you fault her for ‘teaching’ teen abstinence when she was forced to be a teen mother herself is one of those tell-tale signs that you are no radical feminist. Also, I pay little to no attention to BP so I had no idea that she was smearing the entire LGBT community (myself included I suppose, and btw female homosexuals are called lesbians if you please) to “attack” you personally.

    Now as to this “horrific record” we ‘other’ (bad?) radical feminists have in regards to the LGBT community – would you care to elaborate on that? This is your opportunity to hone your radical feminist chops in radical feminist space!

  10. In other words, Steve, this isn’t about BP or any other woman. It’s about you and other men claiming to be radical feminists.

    “In the hands of the liberal/progressive ’radical feminist men’, it’s sex-positivity coupled with ’gender equality’.” – from my latest post.

    You might like to have a look at it before we begin discussing that horrific record.

  11. Oh! LOL! I just re-read Steve’s comment and realized (I think?) that he meant that I was the one ‘attacking’ him, not BP.

    Wow, if linking to someone’s blog is considered an attack………

  12. Regarding violence. I must protest the implication there is anything inherently Bad about this, it is in fact a lie to to say that Radical Feminists are violent because we aren’t as you note, but the whole issue is a Red Herring and not the point. The Real issue would be, even if we were Violent, would there be anything wrong with that, and if so, what?

    The analysis that should be applied here is whether (whatever we are talking about, female violence against men in this case, real or imagined) follows Natural law, and following from that, whether it is Oppressive or used to create or maintain Oppression. That is the point really. Radical feminists really went off the rails when they started saying that Violence is Bad, using this as shorthand for Male Violence Against Females is Oppressive to Females but with the political message being entirely lost in translation. It is born of the same stuff and caused the same problems as our asserting that Doing Well In School is a feminist issue. Now every MRA on the planet is claiming oppression (and Violence!) against male children because Girls are surpassing Boys in school.

    Did you hear the one where the teenaged Girl was convicted of Child Pornography because she bullied her boyfriend’s ex girlfriend by distributing naked pictures of the ex girlfriend? While the global rape trafficking industry including Child Pornography and male child pornographers and baby rapers goes on mostly unhindered by any legislative efforts to date? Does this seem Right to you? Be honest. Please note that for decades now, mostly feminists but also other activists have framed the issue as Distributing Naked Pictures of People Under the Age of Consent is Bad rather than naming the real Harms and the real agents of Child Pornography both locally and globally. The Real Harms of it is Men filming men’s real-life rapes of children and distributing the documentary evidence of their treatment of children including female children globally to other men thereby normalizing men’s propensity for Baby Rape, and the harm these men and the Culture they have created causes to women and children. I could go on and on. Everyone knows that a mother of young children posting a bathtub photo on Facebook is not the same as Child Pornography, but the way the laws are written makes this distinction invisible and not legally meaningful either. This is partially our own fault unfortunately for framing the issues in this bland way that misses the point. But we don’t have to keep repeating this mistake. Applying this analysis to the dreaded (and mostly imaginary at this point) Female Violence would be indicated, but this comment is long enough without it.

  13. Hi Tracy –

    “…framing the issues in this bland way…”

    Exactly. What’s happening is that only part of the truth is being told. Just this morning I was reading about a live-feed “child abuse” (pornography) ring that had been busted up yet the words sexual abuse were mentioned only once and far into the article. The majority of the article read as if ‘people’ were sitting around drinking beer and eating Fritos while watching children being punched in the stomach or having their hair pulled – which would be awful, of course – but the full truth is that men were (are) watching live-streamed sexualized violence acted out on children for their own ‘sexual’ gratification. THAT is the truth: men are getting off on the raping of children in real time, they are getting off on watching real live sexualized crimes.

    Yet we have men (like Mr. Leser above) characterizing a mere link to a blog as an “attack” – an aggressive and VIOLENT action against a person or place – on him. This is Female Violence. And it’s utter bullshit. When the truth can not, must not, be told about daily, global male (sexualized) violence we end up with a culture that can and will ascribe violence to almost anything. Further, if linking to a blog is a violent act what do we then call the raping-of-children-for-male-orgasms if we want to maintain a semblance of parity in the language?

  14. Yes there are Many things revealing of Mr. Leser and his ilk via his Comment here. As well as his Avatar — is he a Robot? Because he looks like one. Plastic Fantastic. Which is very much to the point. Blandy McBlanderson, muddying up the Waters with Nonsense and Disingenuous Issue Framing that makes everything seem the same and causes Nothing to stand out for any particular notice. Mr. Talking Points (all of them, they are the same head) says Radical Feminists’ “record is horrifying” on such and such a thing which sounds gruesome until you Think About It for half a second. Horrifying is a word quite applicable to Men and what Men do to women and children for example, it is a good word. Stripped of its descriptive and emotive power when used as Blanderson uses it — as an insult instead of an actual Description of anything that has actually Happened. Used his way, “The Grass has a Horrifying Record of Just Laying There and being Green!!!” and everything is equally Horrifying in its own way since he used Horrifying to mean Consistent and Predictable. As in, Radical Feminists Consistently and Predictably advocate for women’s interests and Consistently and Predictably decline to get sucked into Men’s Issues insofar as Men’s Issues are oppositional to our own. That he Personally is “Horrified” at this is really irrelevant and does not describe anyone’s reality except his own. He has brought his Special Snowflake bullshit Politicking onto a Radical Feminist blog, and he claims to be a Radical Feminist to boot. There were 2 clues that he isn’t one, even before he opened his Fool mouth. One is that he is a Man. Two, he gets paid to be on the News. Oh, and he is a Robot! So Three.

  15. Horrifying is indeed a good word to describe the violence men inflict on women and children for their own pleasure. It’s also interesting to note that a synonym for horrify is “terrorize”.

    And while men DO actually terrorize women and children every minute of every day, Mr. Radical Feminist Leser is saying that separatist feminists (which he unilaterally deems me, and those who comment here – you know, us “whack-jobs” who don’t know radical feminism from shinola) terrorize the LBGT community with our… what? Telling of the truth that men terrorize women and children?? How does our insistence on stating the obvious truth about men throw the entire LGBT ‘community’ under the bus??? What the fuck does the LGBT ‘community’ have to do with naming men’s perpetual violence????

    Clearly Mr. Leser is simply appropriating the LBGT ‘community’ (is he even a member?) to attempt a ham-fisted pseudo-gotchya unless, of course, he isn’t too much of a “coward” to actually elaborate on that point here as I invited him to do.

    Maybe I need to launch another violent link attack to remind him that he has a question to answer……..

  16. when men accuse us of being violent and oppressive it’s always a reversal: the accusations only tell about what the accuser is doing to the victim, not the victim to him. And you recognise and know what they do according to what they accuse us of. They accuse radfems of being bullies, on the radfem’s own blogs? You can be sure they specialise in bullying radfems on the net. etc, etc.

    What they’ll never say explicitly, ie instead of accusing us of being violent, is that what is really happening is that we’re potentially threatening their rule over us. that would mean openly admitting that they oppress us, which they won’t do, because it’s in their interest to hide the truth. Threatening to overthrow their rule by uncovering their lies and uncovering the truth of their system of domination and terror is indeed different from installing a system of terror and oppression ourselves. What it is, is the exact opposite, which is removing and freeing ourselves from all oppression and terror. In that sense, no female, whether radfem or not, is violent – in the way men are as oppressors. Men deliberately confuse rage at having their entitlement to rape and kill women being taken away and being actually harmed, oppressed and subject to violence.

    Part of freeing ourselves from men’s oppression may be through right to kill / cull men. Female killing and culling of men is legitimate and logical, not only because men are a constant threat to women’s lives but also because men will not change. The second factor is very important and this really distinguishes women’s right to kill/cull men from any other form of so-called legitimate violence that men put forward in case of attack. That is, our right applies at all times and is always legitimate because men never stop being a threat and never stop harming and oppressing us.
    As long as they are alive, men will continue to threaten women and find more female victims to persecute, rape and kill. The only way to stop this terror is to take the man’s life away. Nothing else will stop him.

    This legitimate violence differs from men’s violence in many ways too: it’s not seeking violence for the pleasure of it. It’s not seeking to debase or dehumanise men. We say and see no more than what they are and prove to be. We don’t want death to take control over men. We have no interest in torturing men, or in keeping them alive for torture. Killing is a very burdensome and cumbersome task. It’s risky and probably traumatising, it takes a toll on yourself, it’s a sacrifice. We could end being killed too. If it went wrong, men would go crazy, we could be tortured to death. I could go on and on about how it’s different.

  17. Thank you Witch Wind.

    Your comment is entirely accurate I think. Especially worth noting are the two latter paragraphs but I have a feeling that a number of people who keep tabs around here probably will not get to the meat/logic that you offer…….

    As you and Tracy allude (or say outright), women have a ‘natural right’ to be free of violence if for no other reason than that we are not the ones dishing it out. And to be free of violence does not mean reveling in perpetrating it, getting ‘sexual’ pleasure from it, pretending that it’s a ‘necessary evil’ or that’s ‘just the way it is’ or whatever men say (or will not allowed to be said), for women it can be seen as a matter of survival of not only ourselves – here and now – but for the planet too.

  18. Yes I forgot to mention that, survival of the planet is a very important aspect too. We’re far beyond any discussion of redundancy of too many males for the good of a species here, human males are causing the extinction of thousands of species every single day, and endangering the survival of our planet. No life on earth can remain undestroyed and unperturbed by male violence and violation.

  19. It’s an interesting train of thought, witchwind. Men are warlike. They always go to war and kill one another off. Perhaps this was for the good of the planet, since an excess of them appears to create many problems. There was even an article about this a while back, some Midwestern town with few women and wow, was it dangerous and unsavory in so many ways. A man wrote this article, I believe, not a radical feminist.

    So, perhaps it was nature’s way of keeping that in check. Of course now with the kind of ridiculous and dangerous technology they have made, they are causing all these species to go extinct. I heard 200 a day, but it’s a lot, for sure. That includes things like bacteria, fungi, algae and microscopic life forms. If a person thinks those forms are too small to worry about, think again. What happens when you take an antibiotic and it kills off all the good bacteria? Lots of other infections set in, like c-diff and this sometimes kills the person or seriously harms them. If there’s no fungi, there will be no soil, since it is fungi that breaks down leaves, etc. Algae, no oxygen. All a delicate balance.

    It is often said that “humans” or “people” are overpopulating the planet. Voila! Another argument against PIV.

Comments are closed.