Archive for marts 2008

Der er stadig intelligent liv på venstrefløjen i DK

marts 26, 2008

Der er åbenbart stadig nogen på venstrefløjen i Danmark der formår at tænke klart, også selvom det ikke passer med politisk korrekthed.

Informations leder 25/3/08 ‘Bedrevidende mænd’ har et nuanceret forhold til begrebet prostitution. Avisen følger ikke rutinemæssigt den feministiske dæmonisering af den mandlige seksualitet med der til hørende placering af kvindekønnet i offer-rolle.

Som nogen af os har erkendt for længe siden, så eksisterer der mange former for prostitution. Der findes tydeligvis mennesker i branchen som udnyttes og lever under dårlige forhold, hvilket også er tilfældet inden for andre brancher. Men det er åbenlyst, at der også eksisterer mange prostituerede som har truffet et frit valg om at leve af at sælge seksuelle ydelser.

Informations leder signalerer, at man stadig kan tilhøre venstrefløjen i Danmark, uden at man ubetinget af den grund behøver at støtter op om den ekstreme misandriske universitetsfeministiske ideologi: mænd er som kønsklasse undertrykkere, mandlig (hetero)seksualitet er kvindeundertrykkende (en patriarkalsk social konstruktion) og kvindekønnet skal beskyttes gennem statsforbud mod visse seksuelle praksisser – forbud der komme forbavsende tæt på tidligere tiders religiøse sexforbud i Europa.

Reklamer

One more time: American library censorship?

marts 9, 2008

I just received my a copy of the book Pinker, Steven (2002) The blank slate, Penguin Books, London, ordered second hand through amazon.com. From the stamps inside the book it appears that this book was formerly the property of the Library Services of Metropolitan Borough of Sefton. It is marked with a ‘Withdrawn for sale’. There seems to be a pattern in the US regarding books that challenge certain fashionable discourses: When I have order books second hand that attacks gender feminism, political correctness and the closed social constructivist world view, many times these books have turned out to be discarded library books. They have been removed from the catalogue for some reason.Regarding my newly bought book ‘the blank slate’, I did today make the effort to check the entire on-line library catalogue of the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton and guess what, Pinkers book does not exist anywhere!!! So this title has been removed from the library. I am sure that this book is deemed political incorrect and has been removed from the library in the Sefton because it challenges the Marxist-feminist-constructivist theory complex.Pinkers book attacks the blank slate theory, the idea that the human mind is empty when an infant is born. Through biological theory Pinker argues that indeed the human mind is more that a social construction, we are born with certain innate human nature. But Pinker goes much further than this, he discusses the philosophical and political motives behind the insistance on the constructivist world view, that humans are only shaped by culture.So far I have only browsed through the book but it seems pretty potent, I will quote from the start of the chapter 8 The fear of inequality:

“The greatest moral appeal of the doctrine of the Blank Slate comes from a simple mathematical fact: zero equals zero. This allows the Blank Slate to serve as a guarantor of political equality. Blank is blank, so if we are all blank slates, the reasoning goes, we must all be equal. But if the slate of a newborn is not blank, different babies could have different things inscribed on their slates. Individuals, sexes, classes, and races might differ innately in their talents, abilities, interests, and inclinations. And that, it is thought, could lead to three evils. The first is prejudice: if groups of people are biologically different, it could be rational to discriminate against the members of some of the groups. The second is Social Darwinism: if differences among groups in their station in life – their income, status, and crime rate, for example – come from their innate constitutions, the differences cannot be blamed on discrimination, and that makes it easy to blame the victim and tolerate inequality. The third is eugenics: if people differ biologically in ways that other people value or dislike, it would invite them to try to improve society by intervening biologically – by encouraging or discouraging people’s decisions to have children, by taking that decision out of their hands, or by killing them outright. The Nazis carried out the ‘final solution’ because they thought Jews and other ethnic groups were biologically inferior. The fear of the terrible consequences that might arise from a discovery of innate differences has thus led many intellectuals to insist that such differences do not exist – or even that human nature does not exist, because if it did, innate differences would be possibly” (141).

I have never read a more precise summary of the wishful (political) thinking that drives the fear of nature as a determinant factor of human behaviour so much favoured in the social sciences of today. Now some pages later Pinker gets juicy:

“The Nazi Holocaust was a singular event that changed attitudes towards countless political and scientific topics. But it was not the only ideologically inspired holocaust in the twentieth century, and intellectuals are only beginning to assimilate the lessons of other: the mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, and other totalitarian states carried out in the name of Marxism. The opening of Soviet archives and the release of data and memoirs on the Chinese and Cambodian revolutions are forcing a reevaluation of the consequences of ideology as wrenching as that following World War II. Historians are currently debating whether the Communists’ mass executions, forced marches, slave labour, and man-made famines led to one hundred million deaths or ‘only’ twenty-five million. They are debating whether these atrocities are morally worse than the Nazi Holocaust or ‘only’ the equivalent” (155).

And now Pinker lines up his ‘weapons’:

“And there is the remarkable fact: though both Nazi and Marxist ideologies led to industrial-scale killing, their biological and psychological theories were opposites. Marxists had no use for the concept of race, were averse to the notion of genetic inheritance, and were hostile to the very idea of a human nature rooted in biology. Marx and Engels did not explicitly embrace the doctrine of the Blank Slate in their writings, but they were adamant that human nature has no enduring properties. It consists only in the interactions of groups of people with their material environments in a historical period, and constantly changes as people change their environment and are simultaneously changed by it. The mind therefore has no innate structure but emerges from the dialectical processes of history and social interaction… Marx’s twentieth-century followers did embrace the Blank Slate, or at least the related metaphor of malleable material… We come across the metaphor of the blank slate in the writings of a man who may have been responsible for sixty-five million deaths: A blank sheet of paper has no blotches, and so the newest and most beautiful words can be written on it, the newest and most beautiful pictures can be painted on it. – Mao ZedongAnd we find it in a saying of a political movement that killed a quarter of its countrymen:

Only the newborn baby is spotless. – Khmer Rouge slogan

The new realization that government-sponsored mass murder can come from an anti-innatist belief system as easily as from an innatist one upends the postwar understanding that biological approaches to behaviour are uniquely sinister. An accurate appraisal of the cause of state genocides must look for beliefs common to Nazism and Marxism that launched them on their parallel trajectories, and for the beliefs specific to Marxism that led to the unique atrocities committed in its name” (157).

Please read the last sentence again. How painful Pinkers writing must be to academics who still lean towards a Marxist orientation.

“Nazism and Marxism shared a desire to reshape humanity. ‘The alteration of men on a mass scala is necessary’, wrote Marx; ‘the will to create mankind anew’ is the core of Nation Socialism, wrote Hitler. They also shared a revolutionary idealism and a tyrannical certainty in pursuit of this dream, with no patience for incremental reform or adjustments guided by the human consequences of their policies… The ideological connection between Marxist socialism and National Socialism is not fanciful. Hitler read Marx carefully while living in Munich in 1913, and may have picked up from him a fateful postulate that the two ideologies would share. It is the belief that history is a preordained succession of conflicts between groups of people and that improvement in the human condition can come only from the victory of one group over the others. For the Nazis the groups were races; for the Marxists they were classes…” (157).

And I would of cause add for the gender feminist the groups are men versus women!!!

“The ideology of groups-against-group struggle explains the similar outcomes of Marxism and Nazism. The ideology of the Blank Slate helps explain some of the features that were unique to the Marxist states:…” (157).

And now Pinker lists about a page of these features, aspects of Marxism’s preoccupation with the Blank Slate view that had fatal consequences for millions of people who were murdered or suppressed by Marxist regimes. I will not list these features here, as I must preserve some of the excitement for potential readers.

“None of this is meant to impugn the Blank Slate as an evil doctrine, any more than a belief in human nature is an evil doctrine. Both are separated by great many steps from the wicked acts committed under their banners, and they must be evaluated on factual grounds. But it is meant to overturn the simplistic linkage of the sciences of human nature with the moral catastrophes of the twentieth century” (158).

Those who lean to a hard line constructivist and/or relativist stance would probably deny Pinkers cry for ‘evaluations on factual ground’, because facts are just social constructions used in power games between social actors, or positivist or essentialist inclinations. But to the rest of us, Pinkers suggestions might make sense.All in all this book appears to be promising, in my experience there seems to be a connection between the political correct censorship of a potential academic book from a public American library and the vitality of the content of this same book. I start to fear that my book collection is becoming very much like the library in Umberto Eco’s novel The name of the rose.

Hopefully I will not be arrested in the future by the feminist gendermainstreaming police (most likely male workmen) who should prevent the circulation of the wrong scientific information that could compromise the power of the state (tax) sponsored post materialist regulators/bureacrats/politicians who profit immensely by the enforcement of their ideological social engineering reform project….The Blank Slate is of cause listed in my facobook library list.

Another view on the pay gap between men and women

marts 8, 2008

Another view on the pay gap between men and women

This is a book review where Wendy McElroy reviews Warren Farrell’s “Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap And What Women Can Do About It”.

I decided to bring the entire review because this subject is such an integral part of the gender feminist attack on the male – female relationship. At the moment the wage gap are being used by many political actors who call for state enforced regulation of the employment patterns in Denmark (and Europe through EU’s gender mainstreaming ideal).

Wendy McElroy: 

It has stirred vigorous and predictable debate about what causes the “wage gap” by which the average female employee is said to earn approximately 80 cents for every dollar paid to a man.

But what I view as Farrell’s most controversial point remains undiscussed. Namely, should women use affirmative action – that is, government-mandated preferences – to ‘correct’ the free market’s wage gap and make more money? Farrell, who is usually associated with male empowerment, says “yes.”

He provides detailed advice on how to do so, for example through tax-funded tuition and other programs unavailable to men.

The first part of the book revolves around refuting feminism’s explanation of the wage gap: namely that it results from rampant discrimination against women in the workplace.

Many arguments surrounding the wage gap are not addressed, however.

For example, women’s lack of access to various well-paying blue collar jobs due to union policies and attitudes. But addressing such arguments is not the book’s purpose. Refuting the specific feminist claim of discrimination is. And Farrell ably accomplishes this goal on two levels.

First, he cites research and extensive government data to demonstrate that women who compete for the same job often earn more than men, not less.

In Table 6, Farrell compares the starting salaries for women and men with Bachelor’s Degrees in 26 categories of employment, from investment banker to dietician. Women are paid equally in one category; in every other category, their starting salaries exceed men’s. A female investment banker’s starting salary is 116 percent of a man’s. A female dietician’s is 130 percent; that is, $23,160 compared to $17,680.

Second, Farrell analyzes the data that does reflect a wage gap. But rather than seeing oppression in the data, he perceives free choice.

He argues: women commonly prefer jobs with shorter and more flexible hours to accommodate the demands of family. Compared to men, they generally favor jobs that involve little danger, no travel and good social skills. Such jobs generally pay less.

Farrell rejects the conclusion of ‘discrimination’ because it does not reflect the fact that female employees express different preferences than males.

Men’s rights advocate Carey Roberts identifies one such difference. “[T]he sheer amount of work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, full-time men clock an average of 45 hours a week, while women put in 42 hours. Men are more than twice as likely as women to work at least 50 hours a week.

“Women’s lifestyle choices partly explain their absence from certain professions, especially dangerous ones. Roberts observes, “Men represent 92 percentof all occupational deaths. Why? Because if you look at a list of the most hazardous occupations – fire fighting, truck driving, construction, and mining – they have 96–98 percent male employees, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

Farrell believes that women can make the same salaries as men and enter “male professions” if they are willing to make the same employment choices. Accordingly, he offers practical advice to women, much of which is extremely useful.

Nevertheless, I balk whenever Farrell offers advice on how to maximize government privileges at the expense of men, who must compete at a disadvantage and pay taxes for programs that exclude them from benefits.

For example, under the heading “Get Hazard Pay Without the Hazards,” Farrell tells women to enter dangerous occupations. There they can reap the same salary as men while avoiding comparable risk because employers who are compelled to hire women commonly shield them from risks.

Thus, Farrell explains, women get a “‘death professions bonus’ with not much more physical risk than in everyday life.”

Using the military as an example, Farrell argues that women “comprise approximately 15 percent of active-duty military personnel, and 10 percent of those deployed in Iraq.” Yet women constitute approximately 2.6 percent of soldiers killed in Iraq; men constitute 97.4 percent. Indeed, “in the Marines and Air Force it’s a 100 percent chance of returning.” That’s because a daughter is “much more likely to choose, or be chosen for, the military’s safer fields.”

Farrell offers an explanation as to why women’s safety becomes a priority. “Whether…on an Alaskan fishing boat or in the American military, men’s protective instinct toward women, and women’s protective instinct toward themselves (and children) keeps men more disposable than women.”

In short, men will assume greater risk to protect a woman co-worker. Farrell calls this male protective instinct “touching.”

(Of course, many women don’t wish to be “shielded” from the job they signed on to do. Others find it offensive for policies to assume women can’t or shouldn’t work on an equal footing beside men. Such women do not wish to exploit those policies; they want to change them.)

But quite another factor underlies the situations that continue to make men “more disposable”: government policy. Indeed, even private industry commonly implements preference for women’s safety out of fear of lawsuits for harms such as exposure to chemicals or other stress during pregnancy.

A government that discriminates on the basis of sex or race violates a basic principle of justice. The law must apply to every human being equally.

This is the core of my disagreement: Farrell believes in affirmative action and, so, advises women to “game the system” in order to make money. I reject affirmative action and, so, seek to eliminate the system in order to make justice.

Nevertheless, “Why Men Earn More” goes on my reference shelf as a book I will quote and re-read despite disagreements.February 24, 2005Link to original review: http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy62.html

political correctness used to prevent free speech

marts 8, 2008

This is a copy of Stanley Kurtz’s article at National Review, December 5. 2001. As a firm believer of Free Speech I think this story exposes how political correctness is a threat to civilized behaviour.

Silencing Sommers by Stanley KurtzImagine that a feminist heroine like Carol Gilligan or Catherine MacKinnon had been silenced by federal officials at a government-sponsored conference, simply for airing her feminist views. Then imagine MacKinnon or Gilligan being put upon by a group of paid government consultants and told by a man to “shut the f*ck up, bitch” while the rest of the crowd laughed at her derisively. Now imagine our feminist heroine, having been publicly silenced and insulted, finally leaving the conference, while the federal officials running the show did nothing to challenge or chastise the man who had hurled the insult.Of course, none of this happened to Catherine MacKinnon or Carol Gilligan. Just imagine the media firestorm if it did. But this did happen to the famous critic of feminism, Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Sommers was delivering an invited speech at a conference on “Boy Talk” (a program sponsored by the Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention (CSAP) of the Department of Health and Human Services) when CSAP official Linda Bass summarily interrupted, and commanded Sommers to end her talk. Minutes later, as Sommers was forced by a hostile crowd to defend her claim that scientific studies ought to be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of government drug-prevention programs, Professor Jay Wade, of Fordham University’s Department of Psychology — an expert on “listening skills” — ordered Sommers to “shut the f*ck up, bitch,” to the laughter of the others in attendance. Having been muzzled by Bass and put upon by the crowd in a manner well outside the bounds of civilized discourse (and with not a move made by those running the conference to chastise Professor Wade) Sommers had little choice but to leave — effectively ejected from a government conference, simply for airing her views.

I called Professor Jay Wade for a comment on his insulting remarks to Sommers at the conference. It turns out that Wade had himself gone back to HHS and asked them to tell him, using the tape, exactly what he had said to Sommers at the conference. So Wade’s remarks to me reflected the official transcript, which does not include the word “bitch.” Wade said he remembers saying “Shut the f*ck up,” to Sommers, but was unsure about whether he said “bitch.” “I could have said ‘bitch.’ I probably thought it,” Wade told me. Sommers says that Wade did in fact say “bitch,” and careful listening to the tape reveals that the word was uttered, although almost drowned out by the derisive laughter of the crowd.

Under questioning, Wade was apologetic for his remarks, which he acknowledged to be thoroughly unprofessional — although he’s made no move to apologize to Sommers herself and spent most of our call taking potshots at her. According to Wade, Sommers roused the anger of the people in the crowd — especially minorities, many of whom, according to Wade, had no advanced degrees — by insisting that scientific research was needed to validate the effectiveness of government programs. That hardly seems a crime. But Wade also said that what was really bothering Sommers was that she had been left feeling “insulted” and “flustered” by HHS officials, who had refused to let her finish her presentation. So why exactly had Sommers been silenced by HHS officials to begin with?

I called Alvera Stern, acting director of the Division of Prevention Application and Education at HHS, for comments on what had happened to Sommers. Readers of National Review Online will know that I’m a fan of Sommers and her work, so I thought it was particularly important that I have a taped copy of the session, so as to fairly establish the truth of what happened. To her credit, Stern was kind enough to provide me with both a transcript of the session and a copy of the tape. Unfortunately, Stern’s explanation for what happened simply doesn’t hold up.

Stern told me that Sommers’s talk had been cut off because she’d run overtime. But it’s obvious from the tape that Sommers was silenced at the moment she began to raise questions about “Girl Power” — the female counterpart of the “Boy Talk” drug-prevention program that was the subject of the conference. And even Jay Wade — hardly a Sommers fan — told me that it was Sommers’s attempt to discuss Girl Power that had led to her being silenced. The tape makes it clear that Linda Bass, the HHS official who shut Sommers off, said nothing at all about Sommers’s time being up. Bass simply insisted that any discussion of “Girl Power” was out of bounds — although it would seem to be impossible to properly evaluate a proposal to create a “Boy Talk” counterpart to “Girl Power” without considering the effectiveness of the Girl Power program itself.

So what exactly is “Girl Power,” and why were HHS officials so determined to prevent anyone from raising questions about it? The Girl Power program was a cornerstone of Clinton HHS secretary Donna Shalala’s pro-androgyny feminist agenda, and a favorite of Hillary Clinton’s. It’s obvious from the transcript that the officials who run “Girl Power” were unwilling to allow any questions about the efficacy of the program to be raised. Sommers’s daring to imply that overcoming femininity in girls and masculinity in boys might not be the most effective way to fight teenage drug abuse is the real reason she was put upon and effectively ejected by this crowd of HHS consultants and administrators.

The highly questionable premise of the Girl Power program is that making girls less traditionally feminine will somehow cause them to be less likely to smoke, take drugs, or get pregnant. Of course, most people would expect the opposite effect. Isn’t it precisely because girls are nowadays less bound by traditional codes of feminine behavior that we are seeing increases in smoking, drug-taking, and premarital sex among girls? Given the exceedingly debatable assumption upon which it rests, Christina Hoff Sommers can certainly be forgiven for asking to see some empirical research confirming that the Girl Power program actually succeeds in reducing substance abuse by making girls less traditionally feminine.

But of course it would be naive to think that reducing drug abuse is the real purpose of either the Girl Power or Boy Talk programs. A careful reading of the reams of slick, expensive pamphlets put out by HHS under the heading of Girl Power makes it clear that the problem of drug abuse is just a convenient bureaucratic excuse for housing these programs in the Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention division of HHS. The obvious purpose of Girl Power and Boy Talk is feminist social engineering.

How exactly does encouraging girls to shoot, hunt, or play the drums, instead of sew and dance make them less likely to smoke or get pregnant? The Girl Power pamphlets cite statistics in which female athletes get pregnant at lower rates than non-athletes, but that could easily be a “selection effect,” rather than actually caused by going out for the team. This is obviously something that needs to be carefully researched. And doesn’t Girl Power’s own resort to statistics validate Sommers’s point that real empirical studies are needed to show that the Girl Power program actually reduces drug abuse?

The truth is, Health and Human Services’ Girl Power and Boy Talk programs are simply government-funded attempts to promote the training for sexual androgyny mandated by feminist Carol Gilligan and her followers. Studies by Gilligan, and such groups as the American Association of University women — studies that describe alleged “crises” of sexual identity among American girls and boys — are the only “evidence” that HHS officials will allow to be invoked in assessments of these programs. Of course, in a series of brilliant studies, psychologist Judith Kleinfeld — as well as Sommers herself, in her extraordinary book, The War Against Boys — have already thoroughly debunked Gilligan’s notion of a “girl crisis.” That is why Sommers was cut off by HHS officials as soon as she was about to raise questions about the shaky empirical foundations of the Girl Power and Boy Talk programs.

Do Girl Power and Boy Talk really reduce teen drug use? It doesn’t matter. Is there really a “girl crisis” or a “boy crisis?” It doesn’t matter. Ultimately, the Clinton holdovers at HHS aren’t interested in these questions, because the real rationale for their pet programs never really had anything to do with teen substance abuse — or even educational competence — to begin with. All of these rationales are simply bureaucratic window dressing for channeling literally millions of government dollars into a misguided and chimerical attempt to break American girls of their femininity and American boys of their masculinity. Christina Hoff Sommers understood this, and that is why she was silenced, insulted, and ejected from a conference before she could speak the truth. Will the Bush administration acquiesce in this outrage?

Nej tak til statsunderstøttet feministisk kønsfascisme

marts 4, 2008

Linda Kristiansen er en yderst modig radikal politiker der tør gå imod den feministiske nypuritanske propaganda der er mest markant udtrykt i det ensidige og forsimplede had mod prostitution. Hendes kampagne ‘Undersøg sagen mand’ kan ses på http://undersoegsagen.wordpress.com/Linda Kristiansen formår at kigge ud over den feministiske dikotomi: at alle prostituerede er ofre, og at mænd der begærer kvinder heteroseksuelt (uden for monogame parforhold) er undertrykkere. Lindas overordnede pointe er, at man ikke forhindrer menneskehandel og udnyttelse af prostituerede ved at forbyde sexkøb. Tværtimod gør man det endnu mere besværligt for politiet at få bugt med menneskehandel og udnyttelse.

Men forbud mod prostitution giver til gengæld de feministiske aktører mulighed for at gennemføre mere statsstøttet kontrol med menneskers seksualadfærd, et ældgammelt historisk tema. I mange historiske perioder blev dette forbud opretholdt gennem religionen.

Jeg vurderer at tidens mantra mod prostitution og kønsforskel er udsprunget af en særlig feministisk teori, der påstår at kvinder er ofre, og som ønsker at staten skal ændre mænds kønsadfærd gennem forbud og tvang. Dæmoniseringen og forsimplingen af prostitution bruges åbenlyst i en (køns)politisk dagsorden: Stærke statsstøttede feministiske aktører forsøger at rense kønsforskellen og fjerne det mandlige (heteroseksuelle) begær efter kvinder, da det i den feministiske optik er defineret som roden til alt ondskab – det truer idealet om den ensartede kønsadfærd mellem mænd og kvinder, det ukønnede menneskeideal. I dette feministiske verdenssyn er alt prostitution lig med undertrykkelse af kvinder. Der kan pr. definition ikke eksistere kvinder (eller mænd) som af egen fri vilje vælger at sælge seksuelle ydelser. Hvis sådanne kvinder står frem og fortæller en anden historie, så betragtes de som fremmedgjorte for deres eget bedste. De feministiske politikere affærdiger de stærke prostituerede som ikke eksisterende, fordi prostitution er defineret ud fra den feministiske teori: som et socialt problem, som kvindeundertrykkelse. Men for dem der tør se på prostitutionsfænomenet udenfor den dikotomiske feministiske ideologi, er det åbenlyst, at der findes mange former for prostitution. Det er lige så absurd at hævde, at alle prostituerede er ofre, som det er at hævde, at alle prostituerede er lykkelige.

Hvis det lykkes de feministiske aktører at få gennemført forbud mod salg af seksuelle ýdelser, så er der ikke noget der tyder på, at de vil kunne fjerne udnyttelsen af svage kvinder eller i praksis forhindre prostitution. Men det betyder sikkert intet for dem, da deres dagsorden tilsyneladende er langt mere moralsk end den er styret af et reelt ønske om at hjælpe de prostituerede som er udsatte.

Efter et eventuelt indført forbud mod køb af seksuelle ydelser, vil de feministiske aktører kunne forsætte deres politiske renselsesprojekt, og de vil forsat kunne modtage økonomi fra staten og EU til deres forehavende. De vil givet kaste sig over det næste punkt på deres kønsforskelshadeliste: Pornografien. Samme argumentation vil lyde, at det er kvindeundertrykkende at vise billeder, hvor kvinder har solgt deres seksuelle attraktion, thi det kønner kvinder, det skaber sexobjekter og stereotypi. De vil på lignende vis forsøge at udråbe alle (kvindelige) pornomodeller til at være undertrykt, og de vil påstå at det er statens opgave at forhindre denne undertrykkelse gennem forbud. Næste område vil sikkert blive moden, da den også skaber sexobjekter. Kønsforskel (forstået som femininitet eller seksuelle udtryk) i beklædning er kvindeundertrykkende, og der vil komme krav om forbud mod visse former for beklædning, og mod visse former for markedsføring af beklædning.

Sig nej til det feministiske formynderi som vil rense verden for kønsforskel og tvinge den rigtige seksualitet igennem, sig nej til statsunderstøttet feministisk kønsfascisme – kæmp imod Big Sister.