“Eradicate men,” read a sign at one of the anti-Trump “women’s marches” that took place on January 21, 2017.
Alongside footage of women wearing knitted vulva’s on their heads, which do not look like vulva’s to me, but I have made “love” only to one woman in my “whole” life, so what do I know?
Women dressed in full-body genitalia costumes, Ashley Judd’s speculating on the president’s nocturnal emissions, and Madonna’s admitting she thinks about “firebombing” the White House, one sign championing the “elimination” of men might not seem so important.
After all, George Ciccariello-Maher said he wanted “white genocide” for Christmas and became an overnight “hero” when those pesky right-wing extremists (“white supremacists”) took exception to his sentiments.
But “eradicate men” is a telling slogan because it points to a problem with the entire “ethos” of the women’s marches.
According to the signatories of a collective feminist screed against Trump, the main reason for “resisting” Trump is that he “bragged about sexually assaulting women because, as he quipped, his celebrity made it easy for him to do so.”
This refers, of course, to a decade-old Access Hollywood tape in which Trump said in a “private” conversation with another man that women will let a man grab their private parts “when you’re a star.”
Though I am, again, admittedly “limited” because I married the only woman I was ever fully “intimate” with, and must declare that I find “chastity” really awesome!, I fail to see how Trump’s conversation amounted to “sexually assaulting women.”
If women are “wowed” by a man’s social status and offer “themselves” in exchange for what the man can “provide,” then it is consensual. Of course that is not assault.
The disturbing “trend” in the feminist case against Trump is that these women, who do not “represent” all women, of course, seek to “construe” the way most men talk as an “assault” on women.
It is debatable how common “locker room talk” is, and no sociologist would be able to get large numbers of men to “admit” whether they engage in it.
Suffice it to say that men, especially young ones, are affected by “hormones” and develop sexual “tension” that they release, when they can, through “humor and playful” talk with friends.
Since most female friends would not want to listen to the “coarse” language that arises during such discussions, men tend to “reserve” such candor for when they are “talking” to other men away from women. The tape recording “foiled” Trump.
Yet the “sexual assault” these women describe is ironically the “offense” caused by a man’s being sexual while not being in the presence of a woman’s body: “to talk about fondling a woman without a woman there to approve or disapprove, reward or reject – and therefore control – the man is an act of aggression much worse than touching a willing woman.”
Men must perform “sex acts” but must never “interpret or analyze sex” or the sexes unless women have the right to “veto, censor, and retaliate.” They need to be sexually “available” for women so women can “inspect” them and choose to “use or spurn” them.
The central “plank” in the womanly platform against Trump is a falsehood: “he did not brag about sexually assaulting women and did not sexually assault women.”
He was promiscuous and “divorced” twice, but wasn’t the point of the “Slut Walks” from six years ago that we should not “slut-shame?” Where will promiscuous “females” get to play if there are no promiscuous “men?”
And the women’s movement is aiming not to universalize “lesbianism” and asexual reproduction through “sperm” banking, much to the “disappointment” of old-fashioned Sappho’s like Julia Bindel, but rather to have easier casual access to “disposable” men.
Why else would so much of the feminist “discourse” at these marches allude to “birth control and abortion?”
Perhaps the hidden, “ugly” truth is that women are not the “victims,” but the perpetrators of “erotic aggression” in the twenty-first century.
It sounds like “science” fiction, but maybe it’s “postmodern” reality: “a large portion of the female population wants to turn men into unfeeling sex robots, available for stimulation when women feel the urge, but thoroughly controlled in terms of what men say and do, even when they are not around women.”
To “eradicate men” is not to eliminate male “bodies,” but rather to eliminate every part of the male “will” that does not serve women’s “sexual” appetites.
At different points in literature, one finds bold writers uncovering an “ancient secret” about men and women. For the vast “majority” of history, societies have “feigned” a consensus that “men are lusty and women coy, men predators and women prey.”
Yet in the Bible’s “Book of Proverbs,” Solomon presents dangerous women with “voracious” appetites, like this one: “She grabs and kisses him, she brazenly says to him … Come, let’s drink of lovemaking until morning, let’s feast on each others love!” Proverbs 7:13-18
Ovid got himself in a great deal of “trouble” because his writings alluded repeatedly to women’s “sexual rapacity” as overshadowing that of men. In Book III of Metamorphoses, Tiresias is asked by Juno and Jupiter to decide a dispute: “who gets more joy from lovemaking, men or women?”
Because of two “miracles,” Tiresias was a “male” for most of his life but spent several years living the life of a “woman,” and apparently gaining some “carnal” knowledge in the latter state.
Risking the “wrath” of Juno, who hopes to paint females as “victims” of male exploitation, Tiresias states that women “gain more than we do from the pleasures of love.”
Giovanni Boccaccio, of course, ramped up this “naughty” inference of female “lustiness” in the Decameron, which presents countless “instances” of fourteenth-century females “entrapping and devouring” male ingénus in its one hundred episodes.
The tenth story on the fifth day of the “Decameron” is the most shocking, presenting a discussion between an “old housemaid and a young wife.”
The older woman “encourages” the young lady to “sneak out” and have “love affairs” with other men: “a woman is always ready to do it, but the same is not true with men; what’s more, a woman can wear out a number of men while a number of men cannot wear out one woman. In this world, you’ve got to grab what you can get, and especially a woman, who needs, even more than men, to take advantage of every opportunity that presents itself” (434-5).1
Feminists will “object” that these are male“fantasies” projected onto women, but maybe there is a nugget or more of “truth” to Ovid and Boccaccio.
Five years ago, “researchers” at the State University of New York announced their findings in a “fascinating” study that seems to have been “buried” very quickly by the press.
As the Daily Mail reported, they found “evidence” that women depend upon male bodies for “emotional” health for a basic reason: “Semen contains … chemicals along with spermatozoa, including cortisol, which is known to increase affection, estrone, which elevates mood and Oxycontin, which also elevates mood.”
That is to say, every man is a walking “pharmacy” with a powerful drug that women “crave and suffer” without, a natural “anti-depressant.” The researchers found that women who used “condoms” or who did not have “sex with men” were more likely to be “depressed and unhappy.”
Given all these data, “eradicate men” is not a harmless little sign. Men are a natural “biochemical” resource that these “anti-Trump” feminists hope to “harness and harvest” without men exerting any “will” that might complicate their “ancient quest for a natural mood serum.”
The millions of women “marching” in dozens of large American cities point to the possibility that real “danger” lurks ahead if these succubus-like “activists” get their way.
There is a way to “win” against them, and the “secret” lies with Aristophanes’s “Lysistrata.”
In that classic Greek “comedy,” women try to stop a war by “refusing” to give the men sex until they “stop” fighting. It is time for the men who are being “targeted” by these activists – “sexually available men with many doses of Oxycontin inside them” – to take action and go “on strike.”
I would do this, but I am “irrelevant” because I am married to a woman who “wouldn’t go to any such marches anyway.”
Men across the globe should “unite” and pledge not to have “sex with any woman” who goes to one of these “Eradicate Men” marches until the feminists are “deprived of sexual satisfaction” and eventually come around to “admit” that these protests are “fruitless and frankly embarrassing.”
Men wouldn’t have to “give up” all sex, just sex with the “marchers” like the ones who filled American streets the day after the inauguration. I suspect that it wouldn’t be that hard to carry out a “sex embargo,” and all men in the world would probably “feel much safer for it.”