Pussy Riot: whose freedom, whose riot?

Recently there has been lots of noise around the arrest of three members of Pussy Riot, a Russian anarchist female punk band. The media almost unequivocally represented them as the modern heroines of our time, fighting for freedom, democracy, sexual liberation and peace against a dark and ruthless dictatorship (articles are to be found in the NYT, Le Monde. The Guardian, etc.) Feminist groups all over the Western world are sending links and petitions to “free pussy riot”, and demonstrations have even been organised in support of the group by big institutionalised organisations such as “Osez le féminisme” (dare to be a feminist).

Now while I support without ambiguity the liberation of Pussy Riot’s members, it’s worth pausing for a minute to ask ourselves, as radical feminists, what the political dynamics are here. Why would Western media denounce so passionately the repression of feminists in Russia, when it usually only diffuses information that supports male supremacy and patriarchy? Feminism has long disappeared from any malestream media, except when journalists can turn it into male masturbation material, that is pornify either our suffering or our resistance to it. What’s going on here?

Before learning more about the case, the first thing that made me frown was the fact progressives were hailing Pussy Riot as the “new feminists”, despite that their name is fairly insulting to women. It is certainly not apolitical, since we are in a context in which pornography has deeply colonised our movement and the only groups that the media presents as feminist are those that either insult us or reclaim the very instruments of our subordination, that is, male sexual violence, PIV, pornified femininity and all the associated harmful cultural practices. These tactics of destroying the meaning of feminism form part of a general worldwide backlash against women.

I found it suspicious that Pussy Riot was getting so much media attention, even for pseudo feminist standards. You can measure the degree of feminism of an action by how men react to it, and if men collectively cheer and celebrate it, then you can be pretty sure there’s something wrong about it, or that it doesn’t somehow support our liberation from men. And as far as I can recall, even the slutwalks didn’t get as much coverage or public appraisal. What was it that men liked so much about Pussy Riot?

Well, under closer inspection I discovered that the high level of coverage was related to – though indirectly – promoting men’s right to women’s sexual subordination and the pornification of our movement. The arrested women actually form part (and are victims of) a mixed anarchist group called “Voina” (meaning “war”), founded in 2007 by two men called Oleg Vorotnikov and Leonid Nikolaïev, who regularly engage the women in extreme and degrading women-hating pornography as part of their public “political stunts”. Some of Voina’s men have actually already been incarcerated in 2011 for hooliganism – which is punished for 7 years of prison in Russia, but their bail was paid for by an artist named “Banksy” four months after their imprisonment. (More information can be found here and here)

Included in their anti-government actions are a “public orgy” in the national museum of biology in a room full of stuffed bears, where several men anally penetrated their female partners in a position of submission, including one heavily pregnant women, as a metaphor to “bugger/fuck Medvedev”. “Medved” means “bear”, hence all the stuffed bears – this was meant to be symbolic, artistic and revolutionary according to the activists. Here the male anarchists literally used women as dead bodies or receptacles through which to make a political point to other men. Violating women as a means to offend other men is nothing else but an age-old patriarchal mechanism – behind which the intended target are us, for men to bond over our annihilation.

Another planned stunt in the name of “sexual freedom”, inspired by extreme forms of pornography such as zoophilia/ necrophilia, includes a member of Pussy Riot masturbating with a dead chicken in a supermarket under the watch and camera of the anarchist males, after which she inserts the dead chicken entirely into her vagina and hobbles with the chicken inside her out of the supermarket. This is how the male members themselves describe their act of “liberation”:

“How to Snatch a Chicken: A Tale of How One Cunt fed the Whole of the Group Voina… in honor of their hero, a 19th century political philosopher/prisoner, Voina’s president’s wife dubbed “Vacuous Cunt With Inconceivably Huge Tits,” smuggled a chicken out of a grocery store in said “Vacuous Cunt…” [the journalist comments] : First, the troupe searched for a large and fresh enough chicken. Then, the store isles and CCTV cameras were blocked by the members of the group holding up banners with “FUCK WHORING YOURSELF!” smeared on them in I-don’t-want-to-know-what. The blockade allowed Vacuous Cunt to promptly stuff and smuggle the poultry out of the store, which was then presumably cooked and eaten.[1]

The president is presumably Oleg, and the woman in question, apparently his wife – a situation which would qualify as domestic abuse and sexual slavery given the level of violence, women-hatred and humiliation directed at the women involved. The woman is reduced to a corpse to be ‘stuffed’ in the most degrading and insulting way. No woman would desire such things as inserting a dead chicken in her vagina in public were she not under heavy control and terror. Also of note is the fact that one of their children was brought to this stunt, visibly no older than four. Sexual exhibitionism in the presence of children may also qualify as child sexual abuse. How deeply has women-hatred sunk into men’s minds, that they are incapable of imagining a riot without it being a by-the-book copy of a gonzo porn film? Here again, we see men instrumentalising women and using sexual torture of women as a means to communicate a political message (which if not totally vacuous, communicates nothing other than their hatred of women).

Perhaps the most saddening action of all consisted in filming one of the women naked, covered in cockroaches, meant to be understood as “sexy”. The association of women to filth and parasites to be eliminated couldn’t be clearer. This is women-hating, genocidal propaganda at its most dangerous form. Voina’s men give the world to see where women’s place must be, even when fighting against authoritarian regimes: head down, underneath men and fucked by them.

Now what does this mean for us, what can be understood from the media’s silence about Voina’s pornographic exploitation of women, when all the attention is focused on promoting Pussy Riot as our modern heroines? The effect and intent is political. While all the public eyes are set on the Russian representatives of the state and religion as the ultimate fascists, dictators and machos, we are made to forget that the primary oppressors and tyrants of these particular women are the men closest to them, that is, Voina’s men and their use of pornography to demean, oppress and enslave their female comrades. They are their everyday police, the fascists and colonisers breaking the women’s resistance, occupying their souls, sentencing them to public humiliation and subordinating them through sexual abuse. We are made to forget that these women are doubly victimised: first victims of the violence by the men of their own group, they are then punished and held responsible for the abuse committed against them.

By holding Pussy Riot as examples of resistance, being silent about the pornographic violence and denouncing the state and religious authority as the only oppressor, it follows that the media is complicit with the men from Voina. It protects the anarchist’s individual impunity, and more generally, furthers all men’s interest in promoting rape and women-hating propaganda. It also prevents women in general from identifying men’s sexual violence and the harms of the penis as the primary agents of our oppression. It distracts and disgusts women away from feminism. What kind of dignity and respect for our movement can women have if the only models of resistance given to us by the media are those to be seen by millions of men as humiliated, soiled and degraded in this way? Even the most brave and valiant women, who fight bare handed and alone against Putin and the religious authority, must be shown by men to the world as surrendering and conquered.

If we want justice for the women imprisoned and to show true solidarity, we need to not only denounce the injustice by the Russian state, but also denounce the violence by the men from Voina. We need to recognise and openly denounce the pandemic levels of sexual violence present in most male-centric leftist or anarchist activist groups, whereby women are often pimped by the men of the group for pornography or expected to submit to extremely violent or degrading acts in the name of “sexual freedom”. What counts for these men is to fight for men’s total public access to women, especially militant women, because it really serves to put all women back in line. The weapon of mass destruction against women is the penis and this is why all men are focusing on making Putin look bad while they say nothing about the bastards of Voina.

For our sisters, for all women, we need to say out loud that this is not feminism.

— republished with permission from Radfem HUB

[1]http://www.animalnewyork.com/2010/voinas-latest-action-is-fowl/ (Warning! Pornographic still image included in this link.)

French feminists protest abrogation of anti-sexual harassment law

Men usually make the law for themselves, and apply it at their whim. They especially decide not to apply them when it comes to the laws that were written at feminists’ demand to protect us from male violence.  And when they find out that they can’t skip the law so easily after all, well, one of the guys only has to lift a finger to change it or get rid of it, so to reestablish unconditional impunity.

Since a French law against sexual harassment was passed in 1992 (modeled on the US law that was pushed through by Catharine MacKinnon) the European association against sexual violence against women at work (AVFT)[1], based in Paris, has been relentlessly fighting for the past 20 years to get the law redefined because it didn’t do justice to victims and was almost useless in punishing the abusers. Cases were almost systematically dropped, the law was generally used as a way to downgrade greater crimes or offenses such as rapes or sexual assaults and the imprecision of the law allowed its application to be very restrictive, which made it difficult if not impossible to recognize most of what constituted sexual harassment in the first place (in particular verbal “propositions”, comments on body, demeaning sexualized language, non-verbal actions such as mimicking sexual acts, imposing pornographic images and physical gestures such as touching the hair, legs, waist, or imposing massages, etc.)[2]

Now, former secretary of the state and former MP, Gérard Ducray, after being condemned for sexual harassment in 2011 (in fact a sexual assault downgraded into sexual harassment by the court), unhappy about being punished for what he called “attitudes of seduction”, has appealed the decision of the court and showed up to some of his pals at the constitutional council (C.C.)[3] to demand an immediate abrogation, on the grounds that the imprecision gave way to unjustly condemning “admissible flirting”[4].  His demand was judged serious enough to be transmitted to the C.C. in February 2012.

The AVFT, which intervenes as civil party for hundreds of victims of sexual harassment every year, knows for a fact that the exact opposite is true: the law has been more helpful in protecting the harassers than the victims. Also, Marilyn Baldec, delegate for the AVFT, warned that “the immediate abrogation would result in the nullification of all procedures in course while creating a judicial void for the victims and guaranteeing total impunity for the harassers”.[5]

So, what did the constitutional council decide to do? Well, abrogate the law! The decision took force last Friday, May the 4th.

The clique (er , C.C., aka the “sages”) who stood up like one single man to support their poor persecuted pal: not many women in there.

What a highly specialized, competent judicial European-level organization never achieved in twenty years of lobbying and in the name of thousands if not millions of women, one single man, in less than a year and after being condemned for sexual harassment – managed to abrogate the law, just because he said so. No years of lobbying, no endless demonstrations needed!

Now, although this outcome may have been predictable, you can bet that many of us feminists were furious. This meant a backlash in 20 years in terms of protection of women from male violence at work and also meant sending a grand message of impunity to all harassers and abusers of France.

This is what the news represented for some of the victims who now face an abysmal judicial void: (testimonies collected by the AVFT)[6]:

“We talk about license to kill, well – this is a real license to hunt”

“What’s sage about them apart from the title?”

“What am I going to do now, I’ve lost everything. My harasser is strutting about since this morning, I’ve just understood why, it’s horrible”

“This is revolting”

“I feel emptied; I came to France because I thought women were protected here”

“I’m not revolted, I feel sick, I’ve been fighting 5 years for nothing”.

“I think there are no words to define what this judicial void means to me, we think things evolve at least a bit but then we get a massive slap in the face with this violent backlash, long live France, I’m sorry for myself and for all women”

“This judicial void makes me feel dizzy”

“I’m ashamed of my country”

“It’s as if nothing existed, everything is nullified”

“It can’t be possible!! So then what? Are we clearly saying to men, to bosses etc, come on guys grope me it’s allowed by the law”

“I have a feeling of hate and revolt, it hurts, it’s a whole part of my life that’s going to vanish, I might as well do justice by myself, I had to put up my own business and work for myself so to avoid men, I’m shocked, I don’t know what to say anymore, it really hurts”

“I’m not well, I’m panicking; he must be having fun with his friends right now”

“I was on the verge of suicide”

“All my money has gone in this trial which will be cancelled”

“I imagined him jubilating, it was unbearable”

“It was the end of one hell and the beginning of another”

Immediately after the abrogation, the AVFT and other organizations (World March of Women, Femmes Solidaires and the National Collective for Women’s Rights (CNDF)) called for a demonstration the following day, Saturday March the 5th in Paris at 11 am. Around 300 feminists gathered that morning. Just before the end of the demonstration though, the group was still so full of anger that they decided to march off to the nearest police station to file a complaint against the president of the constitutional council, Jean-Louis Debré, for the motive of deliberately putting victims in danger and disrupting public order. Four women representatives of the organizations went in the police office and meanwhile they could hear the others waiting outside, shouting slogans against rape at the entrance of the police station.

Here’s a video of the women coming out of the police station brandishing a copy of the complaint: it was all very moving (video in French):

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

While as a radical feminist, one can debate as to whether asking men to ‘please stop raping and please write laws so you could stop raping’ is an efficient way to bring down men’s dominance over women, collective acts of revolt that directly attack a powerful man in a powerful institution in the name of thousands of women and against men’s sexual violence are inspiring and invigorating.  It sends the hopeful message that feminism hasn’t completely been requisitioned by men and their slutified, perverse repackaging of patriarchal ideologies they relentlessly promote to women through their media.

Perhaps more importantly, and this is where radical feminism can and should be used to inform any pro-woman political platform, the use of explicit language detailing the horrors men perpetrate on women and the consequences of this to girls and women — and eschewing euphemisms and male-centric issue framing that fail to name the agent of harm — is known to create mutual knowledge, which leads to collective power to challenge dominance.

Together we can confront male power and make it fun, and using the principles of radical feminism, specifically explicit language, we might actually be successful in challenging male supremacy.

[1] http://avft.org/index.php: Association Européenne contre les Violences faites aux Femmes dans le Travail.

[2] http://avft.org/article.php?id_article=627, “Sexual harassment, the law will change”, press release by the AVFT, May 2012

[4] http://www.avft.org/article.php?id_article=623: “sexual harassment: 20 years after the law, the offense could be abrogated”, April 2012, a press release by Marilyn Baldec, delegate for the AVFT.

[5] http://www.avft.org/article.php?id_article=623: “sexual harassment: 20 years after the law, the offense could be abrogated”, April 2012, a press release by Marilyn Baldec, delegate for the AVFT.

[6] http://avft.org/article.php?id_article=631 « the judicial void makes me dizzy: reactions addressed to the AVFT », May the 5th, 2012.

Baltimore Sun repeatedly misleads in reporting on child-rape

Today, the Baltimore Sun reports that a 31-year old Washington man has been arrested in Maryland after “pimping out” a 15-year old girl.  The girl had apparently gone missing from her Virginia home last September, and had been used as a “prostitute” between September 2011 and February 2012.  However, because the girl was a minor under the age of consent in Maryland, which is generally 16, even if he wasn’t pimping her out, anyone having intercourse with her (unless the perpetrator was less than 4 years older than she was) would still be guilty of a sexual offense.  In effect, regardless of any additional crime related to prostituting or soliciting prostituted women, intercourse in this context would be rape, not sex.

So, what the Baltimore Sun is really saying here is that in its estimation, prostitution is prostitution is prostitution, whether it is the commodification of “sex” or the commodification of rape, or child-rape.  Which implies, doesn’t it, that there is also no difference between (uncommodified, regular) sex and rape, and between sex and child-rape.  Implicit in their treatment of the issue, the Baltimore Sun and its employees reveal their belief that sex and rape are the same thing.  Which would lead one to question, does the Sun think that both sex and rape are bad?  Or does it think that sex and rape, being indistinguishable from each other, are both good?

And throughout the publication, the Sun repeatedly makes its belief that sex and rape are the same thing clear.  Recently, the Sun reported that a 26-year old man was arrested for attempting to solicit a 14-year old girl for “sex.”  What the facts seem to indicate, however, is that the man was attempting to lure the girl via Facebook so that he could rape her, because a girl of 14 cannot legally consent to “sex” with a 26-year old man in the state of Maryland.  The man wanted rape, not sex.  But again, the Sun uses the headline “Police charge Parkton man for soliciting underage girl for sex” when they could’ve just as easily used the legal term for what this man attempted to do: he was charged with sexual solicitation of a minor and an attempted sex offense.  Of course, even the legal terms here are essentially weasel words meaning sexualized violence, including degrees of rape, but the Sun wasn’t satisfied with mere legal weaseling; it needed to weasel more.  Why, one might wonder, does the Baltimore Sun seem so intent on minimizing men’s sexual violence against young girls?

And again, just today, the Sun uses the headline “Baltimore jury convicts child sex offender,” referring to a man who “repeatedly attacked” a 10-year old girl.  Sex?  Really?  Interestingly, according to the Sun article, that jury actually convicted the man of child sexual abuse, another euphemism for sexualized violence of course, but the Sun decided to report that the man was an “offender” instead of an “abuser.”  Why?  If it was going to choose a descriptor that differed from the official legal one, why did it choose “sex offender” instead of something else, like violent offender, violent criminal, sexual predator, danger to the community, pedophile, pervert, or something else?  Utilizing a derivative of “sexual offense” here makes it sound like the man farted in bed, when in reality, it appears as if he repeatedly sexually assaulted a 10-year old girl.  Why not just say it?  It’s not that hard.

Or it shouldn’t be that hard, unless the Sun has a written or unwritten editorial policy or corporate culture which makes it impossible for reporters and editors to accurately report on men’s sexual violence against young girls.  So what’s the deal with your biased reporting on child sexual abuse, Baltimore Sun?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Kim Kardashian attacked by animal rights extremist after ‘asking nicely’ didn’t work

Animal rights extremists call it “flour bombing” and gender extremists call it “glitter bombing” but really it’s all the same thing: violent misogynists attacking women who refuse to do what they’re told when first asked nicely by violent misogynists.  Just in case there was ever any question that there are violence and threats of violence backing up the pretend “niceness” of violent misogynists, well, now there’s not.

The Washington Post reports:

Kardashian was celebrating the launch of her new perfume True Reflection at an event to benefit the charity Dress for Success.

As video from E! News shows, a woman walked up to Kardashian, yelled what sounded like “Lousy fur hag” and “flour bombed” the reality star.

Kardashian has been photographed wearing fur at public events many times, most recently at Kanye West’s Paris fashion show. In November, PETA placed a billboard in West Hollywood showing Kardashian in a fur vest next to a picture of live foxes with the words, “The babies miss their mother. Is she on your back?”

There is always, always violence backing up misogynist extremists’ — and their handmaidens’ — demands on women, and women know this.  “Asking nicely” is just a thin cover for abusers who, in reality, are coercing and intimidating women to bend to the abusers’ wills, and when they don’t do what they are told, violence ensues.  This happens all the damn time.  And in the wake of the violence, the abusers get to frame the issues and call it whatever they like, including minimizing it and justifying it — they are abusers afterall, and this is straight out of the abusers’ handbook.  It’s even more of a spectacle when organizations don’t formally orchestrate the violence, but then roll around in it afterwards like pigs rolling — gleefully — in shit:

A rep for PETA told [news outlet] TMZ the organization was not involved in the flour attack: “We were given the video by an anti-fur activist on the scene.”

The rep continued, “PETA has tried everything from polite letters to public protests, but Kim Kardashian has not been moved by the news that animals are beaten, electrocuted, and even skinned alive for real fur garments. Whoever threw that flour may reach her when our polite appeals did not.”

Yes, you attempted to merely intimidate and coerce her, whilst maintaining your false image as nonviolent non-abusers, and when the intimidation and coercion didn’t work, out comes the violence.  And piggish shit-rolling!  We get it.

What would the world look like if women stopped bending to abusers’ wills in fear of the ever-present threats of violence that back these assholes up?  One shudders to think, but it would be a lot more honest than what we have now, if also a lot more bloody.  Interestingly, unlike now, the blood would run in both directions — self-defense anyone?

But one thing’s for certain: if women consistently stood their ground in the face of pretend “niceness” from violent thugs, some things that are currently lurking just below the surface, in the realm of lies, obfuscations, denial, and half-truths would quickly become very clear.  And men and misogynist extremists would (perhaps?) end up looking like the shit they are, to everyone, when right now they just look, sound, smell, taste, and feel like shit to everyone who is both paying attention, and cares.

Violence makes sense if you look closely enough at the perpetrator, says expert

Accused mass-murderer Sgt. Robert Bales’s lawyer says the U.S. soldier may have been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or a traumatic brain injury when he killed 16 civilians, including 9 children and 3 women, in Kandahar while they slept, but CNN’s mental health expert says that’s unlikely.  Apparently, in reality, there is rarely a medical or psychiatric explanation for bad behavior, including male violence and extreme male violence, and indeed, when the perpetrator in the current case is examined closely, things start to fall into place.

From the article:

In the case of Bales, if he is guilty of the massacre, his actions may eventually be found to be related to a clearly causative organic factor. But my clinical experience tells me not to bet on this. It happens, but pretty rarely.

When people behave in unexpected ways for no good reason, it often turns out that when the full story of their lives is understood, the behavior no longer appears as unexpected. That which is neither clearly linked to either a medical or psychiatric illness is very likely intertwined in a person’s longstanding personality.

So, I suspect that if 100 psychiatrists were told that a previously normal service person massacred 16 civilians and was neither medically impaired nor psychotic, the majority of them would immediately suspect that the person in question might not have been as normal across his life as initial reports suggested.

So even though the majority of psychiatrists would automatically suspect that the perpetrator was not sick and would recommend that the details of his life and previous behavior be examined for predictive indicators, we are always confronted with the montage of confused neighbors who say how great a guy he was and how all of this atrocious male violence came as such a shock.  Why does this meme persist in the face of evidence that it is simply not reality-based, and people who study this for a living know this?  Unsurprisingly, this case is no different, although weirdly, the doctor seems to buy into it himself:

It now appears that he was involved in fraudulent business dealings. What makes the case so strange, however, are the multiple contrasting reports of his remarkably caring and selfless behavior on numerous occasions and his status as something of a small town hero.

The confused-neighbors montage is “strange” now?  I thought you just implied that this kind of stuff shouldn’t confuse you because you know better?  What this doctor appears to be saying, when he says that this is “strange” even though it is actually extremely common, is that it doesn’t make any “psychiatric sense” meaning that where the perpetrator is “neither medically impaired nor psychotic,” it is simply out of his area of expertise — as a psychiatrist — to comment on.

In other words, there wasn’t anything wrong with Bales, and it was simply consistent with his history to commit mass murder .  So why all the mealy-mouth in this article?  Why not just come out and say it: that there is nothing that unusual about most men who commit extreme violence, that there is probably nothing unusual about this one either, and in fact it could’ve probably been predicted beforehand, if not just easily explained afterwards, if we only knew (or paid at attention to) how Bales and indeed all men behave every day?

The doctor himself seems apologetic for his mealy-mouthedness, and ends with a pretty revealing question:

I seem to end many of my CNNhealth pieces with some type of comment about how unsatisfying our current level of psychiatric understanding is. This pieces, [sic] alas, is no different in this regard. Frankly, at this point nothing in Bales’ actions makes psychiatric sense. On the other hand, how many highly admired, hard-working, patriotic, caring small-town heroes are embroiled in financial fraud or may have other dark behaviors in their backgrounds?

An observer who was actually invested in preventing male violence might conclude that therefore, men need to be monitored closely and punished severely or deterred by whatever means for all transgressions and “dark behaviors” because they are predictive of future violence, including extreme violence.

But yes, it is an excellent question, however it is phrased: how many allegedly “good men” really aren’t?  Taking it a step further, one might reasonably wonder whether there are any men out there who don’t have “dark behaviors” in their pasts and presents, including behaviors which average people generally regard as “dark” but also including other things that only radical feminists would see as particularly harmful, such as putting girls and women at extreme physical and psychological risk through dangerous male-centric sexuality, or doing this by-proxy by using porn?  In other words, doesn’t all male violence make perfect sense, and particularly men’s known propensity to commit violence as opposed to women’s, if we are going to use previous instances of putting people in harm’s way as a predictive indicator of future violence, where essentially all men put people in harm’s way all the time, particularly through dangerous male sexuality?

And this excellent question is coupled with a revealing point: psychiatry is simply not implicated in very many cases of male violence or extreme male violence because male violence and extreme male violence are not medically or psychiatrically abnormal (for men).  Read: it’s normal, or “typical” if you prefer; medically and psychiatrically healthy men do this.  Even though people clearly wish the reverse were true, and keep asking psychiatrists for psychiatric explanations and excuses when the facts do not warrant it.  Indeed, in reality, it seems like asking a psychiatrist to explain male violence is like getting a plumber to help you hang wallpaper.  They just aren’t that helpful.

Of course, he very obviously does not address whether banking fraud and other “dark behaviors” when women do it, would be predictive of future female violence, especially mass murder.

There is nothing wrong with these men, they just do it, and it’s completely predictable too.  This appears to be what this doctor is saying, albeit hesitantly.  Being a man himself, perhaps he is particularly compromised here to tell the truth about men and what men do and what men are, and CNN itself is a tool of the patriarchy, hence the mealiness.

But the thing is, we can all read, and we can read between the lines too.

No wonder men love their “privacy” and the separate spheres so much: because that’s where they can behave “darkly” and where no one ever knows about it except their wives and children, who very often are economically coerced into not turning their husbands and fathers in on the spot, and where no one would believe them anyway if they told the truth about what a male “upstanding citizen” acts like when he thinks that no one that matters is watching.

But also, how nice it must be for all men that almost everyone regards the most common expression of disdain for girls and women, and an obvious manifestation of men’s “darkness” where they place others in harm’s way — men, sticking their dicks into other people, particularly female-bodied people — as essentially harmless, or even an act of love?  Cue the confused-neighbors montage.  “He was such a great guy, a family man.”  When in reality, the man placed his wife in harm’s way repeatedly, and the numerous ambivalent or unwanted children are the proof.