(Last updated March 2024)
Q1) Why do you believe that Women are the superior gender overall?
A1) Because it is largely self-evident. Ashley Montagu discussed it in detail in his 1953 bombshell of a book, The Natural Superiority of Women, which has been updated several times since then and never successfully refuted. And he is by no means the only one to have made such observations. Deep down, we all kinda know as much even if we don't want to admit it.
Q2) What kind of government do you think Women should create upon taking over?
A2) I believe that Women will make that decision themselves, and have faith that they will make the right one, but if they want my advice I would recommend social democracy, democratic socialism, or something in between to start with. From there on, I would recommend moving towards Buckminster Fuller's ideas for the future.
Q3) Do you support a female dictatorship in which only Women could vote?
A3) I personally do not support any kind of dictatorship, and that idea sounds dangerously similar to Karl Marx's idea of "dictatorship of the proletariat". We all know how that ended. The proletariat, or rather a tiny sliver of them, basically became the new bourgeoisie, and as they say the rest is history. I believe democracy, as direct as possible, is ultimately the way to go.
Furthermore, I do not believe it is necessary for men to forfeit their right to vote or any other civil rights in the Matriarchy of the future. Not like it would really be our decision, though.
Q4) What is your position on patriarchy?
A4) Patriarchy is the problem. What was the question?
Q5) What is your position on capitalism?
A5) See Question #4 above. Capitalism is an outgrowth of the demonic patriarchy, and is an inherently evil and unsustainable economic system based on GREED. Like patriarchy itself, it is a massive Ponzi scheme and protection racket, and it is KILLING the planet and its inhabitants. Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell, which eventually kills its host. Ultimately, we need to move to post-capitalism if the human race is to survive.
Q6) What is your position on feminism?
A6) As a believer in female empowerment in general, I support it. Specifically, I support intersectional feminism, since the entire kyriarchy (not just patriarchy) needs to end yesterday.
Q7) What is your position on abortion?
A7) I consider myself to be both pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. While I believe that abortion is at best a necessary evil (made necessary largely due to patriarchy and the rest of the kyriarchy), and that an ounce of prevention is worth at least a pound of cure, banning it or unduly restricting it would clearly do far more harm than good. And that would be true regardless of what kind of system we would be living under. Furthermore, I believe that no one should ever be forced, coerced, deceived, or brainwashed into having kids that they don't want or are not yet ready for--period. And it certainly should NEVER be up to men to decide what reproductive choices women can make--period. Thus, I believe that abortion should remain legal and available on demand.
If we really want to reduce the number of abortions, there are several ways of doing without reducing individual rights. For starters, birth control should be made available for free to anyone who wants it--all methods. Honest and comprehensive sexuality education should be provided in schools to every student in an age-appropriate fashion. To reduce the financial pressure to abort, the minimum wage should be raised, the social safety net must to be strengthened in general, and we should have a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all. Workers should have generous paid family leave and free or heavily-subsidized childcare. Education should also be free of charge, from pre-K through post-grad. Baby bonds that effectively make every baby a trust fund baby would also be a good idea for a number of reasons. Do all these things and abortion really would be safe, legal, and rare. And in a Matriarchal society, all of these things would be considered to be no-brainers, and would basically be a given. Such a society would see to it that all mothers and children are well-cared for. (Not like any men would actually dare to force pregnancies on women anymore if they knew what was good for them, of course.) And if any self-proclaimed "pro-life" conservatives whine about so-called "big government" or "nanny state" being "too generous to the poor" or something to that effect, remind them of their favorite platitude: "if it saves even one child, it's worth it".
Q8) What is your position on the death penalty?
A8) I am generally against it, except perhaps for particularly dangerous terrorists. Otherwise, the state becomes no better than the killers themselves, and there is too much potential for both abuse and mistakes. Besides, life imprisonment without parole is a far worse punishment in my opinion.
However, when Women finally take over, they may decide that for whatever reason the death penalty should remain or be reinstated, and us fellas would just have to accept that regardless. Until then, though, it should be abolished, or an indefinite moratorium on executions should take place. Alternatively, we could let the convicts themselves decide between life without parole or death.
But of course the biggest elephant in the room is MEN, who are responsible for over 90% of violent crime and 96-99% of mass shootings. While the TSAP does not take a position on whether men should be banned from owning guns, I personally think it is worth considering. Women, on the other hand, should be allowed to own and carry guns, as guns are "the great equalizer" and would go a long way towards keeping rogue males (who will always exist) in check.
Q10) What is your position on sex work?
A10) I believe that sex work (prostitution, pornography, etc.) should be legal--as long as it is controlled entirely by Women, that is. When it is controlled by men, well, we all know what happens. And that needs to end yesterday. The real problem is patriarchy and capitalism, and the many ways in which the two intersect. In the meantime, banning sex work only forces it underground and makes it far more dangerous for all involved, especially the sex workers themselves.
As for the much-touted Nordic Model (i.e. criminalizing the johns/punters while decriminalizing the sex workers themselves), I would say that it is a step up from the American model of full criminalization, and would very grudgingly accept it as an interim alternative, but that is a pitifully low bar to clear, and in the long run has proven to be really not all it is cracked up to be. Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, what passes for "legalization" in Nevada, Germany, The Netherlands, etc., is really NOT much better either, and literally the only difference from criminalization is that the state becomes the pimp. Thus, I and the TSAP endorse Amnesty International's official position, which is full decriminalization of consensual sex work in general, as currently is the case in New Zealand and several other countries. Human trafficking, on the other hand, needs to be cracked down upon with full force yesterday. No argument from me there.
And of course the major "push factors" of poverty and desperation that drive so many Women and youth into both prostitution and infomal "survival sex"
(via a form of economic coercion) need to be addressed yesterday. A Universal Basic Income (UBI) Guarantee for all, and guaranteed housing of some sort as a human right, are a MUST if we wish to end sexual exploitation. In fact, we can even eradicate poverty overnight, if we really wanted to.
It is worth noting that in a Matriarchal society, there would be far less demand for sex workers since it would be a much more sexually free society than is currently the case, and the financial pressure on Women to sell their bodies would be practically nonexistent. That's not to say that there won't be any sex work, though. For example, in the Matriarchal societies of the ancient world, there was plenty of sacred prostitution done by the Goddess temple priestesses. And in fact as Ellen Brown notes in her book Web of Debt, these priestesses had the power to print their own money for that very purpose. That has got to be far more empowering than the kind of sex work that happens now with men in charge. The difference is basically like day and night.
As for porn, I believe that the majority of the stuff out there now is far too androcentric and inaccurate, even when it is not overtly degrading or violent as is too often the case. By and large, most of today's porn portrays and glorifies patriarchy's negative version of sex. But the solution is NOT censorship. If anything, censorship is actually a huge part of the problem itself--censorship of Women and their own perspectives. If they ran the industry, it would be very different indeed. Just Google "feminist porn" to see what I mean. Another part of the problem is the profit motive, as occurs under capitalism. Just Google "freedom porn" to see what happens when the profit is taken out of it.
I should also note that I am 100% against the shaming of any sex workers themselves. Ditto for the inherently patriarchal and misogynistic practice of slut-shaming in general. It needs to end yesterday.
Q11) What is your position on war and the military?
A11) My position (and the TSAP's) on foreign policy is one of "first, do no harm" overall. While I believe that we should not go looking for trouble and engage in unnecessary wars of choice (like the USA has unfortunately been doing for the past 75 years), I am not a pacifist but rather a realist. I see the need to maintain a strong enough military for self-defense. But currently we spend way, way too much on our overly-bloated military, and if we were to cut such spending in half we would still have the strongest fighting force in the world by far. And our incessant warmongering has clearly done more harm than good overall. That said, even after Women finally take over, they will still have to maintain a strong enough military for self-defense as long as any patriarchal societies exist anywhere in the world. The Minoans, for example, unfortunately learned that lesson the hard way.
For the record, the only wars I and the TSAP would ever support are ones that meet all of the criteria of Just War Theory as originally written by St. Augustine and later refined by others. And to date, virtually no wars in history have ever met all of those criteria except of course for purely defensive ones.
The thing about violence (in general) is that it can be compared to antibiotics. After all, the word "antibiotic" literally means "anti-life", just like violence inherently is. While violence can indeed be necessary at times as a very short-term solution, it is hardly a panacea, and when it is overused, inappropriately used, and/or done in half-measures, it all too often does far more harm than good in the long run. Nonviolence should always be the first choice, violence should always be the absolute last resort, lest karma kick your ass sooner or later. Remember, you break it, you bought it. And if you absolutely must, you should break 'em completely the first time.
And above all, DO NOT abuse, violate, or desecrate children in any way, shape or form! That has got to be one of the very few absolutes in that regard, and must be taken very seriously.
Q19) What is your position on (non-)monogamy?
A19) I believe that monogamy (or non-monogamy or polyamory) falls on a spectrum much like sexual orientation does. And I see nothing inherently wrong with ethical non-monogamy or any degrees thereof, regardless of whether one is married or not. This is different from cheating in that the latter implies dishonesty, betrayal, and perfidy--and that is the real problem with cheating, not the sex per se. Wherever one may fall on the (non-)monogamy spectrum, the rules discussed in the answer Question 18 apply just as much, in addition to any mutually agreed upon rules for a particular relationship.
And no, sexual liberation is NOT a zero-sum game. Liberty is like love, the more you give the more you get. And those who make the perfect the enemy of the good, ultimately end up with neither.
Q1) Why do you believe that Women are the superior gender overall?
A1) Because it is largely self-evident. Ashley Montagu discussed it in detail in his 1953 bombshell of a book, The Natural Superiority of Women, which has been updated several times since then and never successfully refuted. And he is by no means the only one to have made such observations. Deep down, we all kinda know as much even if we don't want to admit it.
Q2) What kind of government do you think Women should create upon taking over?
A2) I believe that Women will make that decision themselves, and have faith that they will make the right one, but if they want my advice I would recommend social democracy, democratic socialism, or something in between to start with. From there on, I would recommend moving towards Buckminster Fuller's ideas for the future.
Q3) Do you support a female dictatorship in which only Women could vote?
A3) I personally do not support any kind of dictatorship, and that idea sounds dangerously similar to Karl Marx's idea of "dictatorship of the proletariat". We all know how that ended. The proletariat, or rather a tiny sliver of them, basically became the new bourgeoisie, and as they say the rest is history. I believe democracy, as direct as possible, is ultimately the way to go.
Furthermore, I do not believe it is necessary for men to forfeit their right to vote or any other civil rights in the Matriarchy of the future. Not like it would really be our decision, though.
Q4) What is your position on patriarchy?
A4) Patriarchy is the problem. What was the question?
Q5) What is your position on capitalism?
A5) See Question #4 above. Capitalism is an outgrowth of the demonic patriarchy, and is an inherently evil and unsustainable economic system based on GREED. Like patriarchy itself, it is a massive Ponzi scheme and protection racket, and it is KILLING the planet and its inhabitants. Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell, which eventually kills its host. Ultimately, we need to move to post-capitalism if the human race is to survive.
Q6) What is your position on feminism?
A6) As a believer in female empowerment in general, I support it. Specifically, I support intersectional feminism, since the entire kyriarchy (not just patriarchy) needs to end yesterday.
Q7) What is your position on abortion?
A7) I consider myself to be both pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. While I believe that abortion is at best a necessary evil (made necessary largely due to patriarchy and the rest of the kyriarchy), and that an ounce of prevention is worth at least a pound of cure, banning it or unduly restricting it would clearly do far more harm than good. And that would be true regardless of what kind of system we would be living under. Furthermore, I believe that no one should ever be forced, coerced, deceived, or brainwashed into having kids that they don't want or are not yet ready for--period. And it certainly should NEVER be up to men to decide what reproductive choices women can make--period. Thus, I believe that abortion should remain legal and available on demand.
If we really want to reduce the number of abortions, there are several ways of doing without reducing individual rights. For starters, birth control should be made available for free to anyone who wants it--all methods. Honest and comprehensive sexuality education should be provided in schools to every student in an age-appropriate fashion. To reduce the financial pressure to abort, the minimum wage should be raised, the social safety net must to be strengthened in general, and we should have a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all. Workers should have generous paid family leave and free or heavily-subsidized childcare. Education should also be free of charge, from pre-K through post-grad. Baby bonds that effectively make every baby a trust fund baby would also be a good idea for a number of reasons. Do all these things and abortion really would be safe, legal, and rare. And in a Matriarchal society, all of these things would be considered to be no-brainers, and would basically be a given. Such a society would see to it that all mothers and children are well-cared for. (Not like any men would actually dare to force pregnancies on women anymore if they knew what was good for them, of course.) And if any self-proclaimed "pro-life" conservatives whine about so-called "big government" or "nanny state" being "too generous to the poor" or something to that effect, remind them of their favorite platitude: "if it saves even one child, it's worth it".
Q8) What is your position on the death penalty?
A8) I am generally against it, except perhaps for particularly dangerous terrorists. Otherwise, the state becomes no better than the killers themselves, and there is too much potential for both abuse and mistakes. Besides, life imprisonment without parole is a far worse punishment in my opinion.
However, when Women finally take over, they may decide that for whatever reason the death penalty should remain or be reinstated, and us fellas would just have to accept that regardless. Until then, though, it should be abolished, or an indefinite moratorium on executions should take place. Alternatively, we could let the convicts themselves decide between life without parole or death.
Women may very well decide to adopt Indigenous-style restorative justice as a third way instead, for example. That said, that is not something that men should EVER feel entitled to, and would be the height of chutzpah to ever demand that of Women, except perhaps for very low-level offenders.
Q9) What is your position on gun control?
A9) My position on the gun issue has evolved dramatically over the years. At one time, I was actually to the right of the NRA in many ways, and often took the Second Amendment a bit too literally. Or rather, I took the second half of the sentence literally, while glossing over the first half. Currently, my views are more moderate than in the past. While I don't believe that guns should be banned, I believe that loopholes in the current law need to be closed, and that assault weapons and high-capacity magazines need to be banned once again, this time with more teeth. There also needs to be a bullet tax (a la Chris Rock), as well as better regulations of the gun industry overall. We need to be very careful about NOT letting today's dangerous killing machines fall into the wrong hands, and both universal background checks as well as requiring a license to purchase or own such weapons would be very prudent in that regard. As for concealed-carry, I believe that anyone who is legally allowed to own a gun (which is the real issue here) should also by default be allowed to carry it in most (but not all!) public places, within reason. Open-carry, on the other hand, is a bit too extreme and intimidating, I think.
Q9) What is your position on gun control?
A9) My position on the gun issue has evolved dramatically over the years. At one time, I was actually to the right of the NRA in many ways, and often took the Second Amendment a bit too literally. Or rather, I took the second half of the sentence literally, while glossing over the first half. Currently, my views are more moderate than in the past. While I don't believe that guns should be banned, I believe that loopholes in the current law need to be closed, and that assault weapons and high-capacity magazines need to be banned once again, this time with more teeth. There also needs to be a bullet tax (a la Chris Rock), as well as better regulations of the gun industry overall. We need to be very careful about NOT letting today's dangerous killing machines fall into the wrong hands, and both universal background checks as well as requiring a license to purchase or own such weapons would be very prudent in that regard. As for concealed-carry, I believe that anyone who is legally allowed to own a gun (which is the real issue here) should also by default be allowed to carry it in most (but not all!) public places, within reason. Open-carry, on the other hand, is a bit too extreme and intimidating, I think.
Truly the best part of the Second Amendment is where it says, "well-regulated".
But of course the biggest elephant in the room is MEN, who are responsible for over 90% of violent crime and 96-99% of mass shootings. While the TSAP does not take a position on whether men should be banned from owning guns, I personally think it is worth considering. Women, on the other hand, should be allowed to own and carry guns, as guns are "the great equalizer" and would go a long way towards keeping rogue males (who will always exist) in check.
Q10) What is your position on sex work?
A10) I believe that sex work (prostitution, pornography, etc.) should be legal--as long as it is controlled entirely by Women, that is. When it is controlled by men, well, we all know what happens. And that needs to end yesterday. The real problem is patriarchy and capitalism, and the many ways in which the two intersect. In the meantime, banning sex work only forces it underground and makes it far more dangerous for all involved, especially the sex workers themselves.
As for the much-touted Nordic Model (i.e. criminalizing the johns/punters while decriminalizing the sex workers themselves), I would say that it is a step up from the American model of full criminalization, and would very grudgingly accept it as an interim alternative, but that is a pitifully low bar to clear, and in the long run has proven to be really not all it is cracked up to be. Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, what passes for "legalization" in Nevada, Germany, The Netherlands, etc., is really NOT much better either, and literally the only difference from criminalization is that the state becomes the pimp. Thus, I and the TSAP endorse Amnesty International's official position, which is full decriminalization of consensual sex work in general, as currently is the case in New Zealand and several other countries. Human trafficking, on the other hand, needs to be cracked down upon with full force yesterday. No argument from me there.
And of course the major "push factors" of poverty and desperation that drive so many Women and youth into both prostitution and infomal "survival sex"
(via a form of economic coercion) need to be addressed yesterday. A Universal Basic Income (UBI) Guarantee for all, and guaranteed housing of some sort as a human right, are a MUST if we wish to end sexual exploitation. In fact, we can even eradicate poverty overnight, if we really wanted to.
It is worth noting that in a Matriarchal society, there would be far less demand for sex workers since it would be a much more sexually free society than is currently the case, and the financial pressure on Women to sell their bodies would be practically nonexistent. That's not to say that there won't be any sex work, though. For example, in the Matriarchal societies of the ancient world, there was plenty of sacred prostitution done by the Goddess temple priestesses. And in fact as Ellen Brown notes in her book Web of Debt, these priestesses had the power to print their own money for that very purpose. That has got to be far more empowering than the kind of sex work that happens now with men in charge. The difference is basically like day and night.
As for porn, I believe that the majority of the stuff out there now is far too androcentric and inaccurate, even when it is not overtly degrading or violent as is too often the case. By and large, most of today's porn portrays and glorifies patriarchy's negative version of sex. But the solution is NOT censorship. If anything, censorship is actually a huge part of the problem itself--censorship of Women and their own perspectives. If they ran the industry, it would be very different indeed. Just Google "feminist porn" to see what I mean. Another part of the problem is the profit motive, as occurs under capitalism. Just Google "freedom porn" to see what happens when the profit is taken out of it.
I should also note that I am 100% against the shaming of any sex workers themselves. Ditto for the inherently patriarchal and misogynistic practice of slut-shaming in general. It needs to end yesterday.
Q11) What is your position on war and the military?
A11) My position (and the TSAP's) on foreign policy is one of "first, do no harm" overall. While I believe that we should not go looking for trouble and engage in unnecessary wars of choice (like the USA has unfortunately been doing for the past 75 years), I am not a pacifist but rather a realist. I see the need to maintain a strong enough military for self-defense. But currently we spend way, way too much on our overly-bloated military, and if we were to cut such spending in half we would still have the strongest fighting force in the world by far. And our incessant warmongering has clearly done more harm than good overall. That said, even after Women finally take over, they will still have to maintain a strong enough military for self-defense as long as any patriarchal societies exist anywhere in the world. The Minoans, for example, unfortunately learned that lesson the hard way.
For the record, the only wars I and the TSAP would ever support are ones that meet all of the criteria of Just War Theory as originally written by St. Augustine and later refined by others. And to date, virtually no wars in history have ever met all of those criteria except of course for purely defensive ones.
The thing about violence (in general) is that it can be compared to antibiotics. After all, the word "antibiotic" literally means "anti-life", just like violence inherently is. While violence can indeed be necessary at times as a very short-term solution, it is hardly a panacea, and when it is overused, inappropriately used, and/or done in half-measures, it all too often does far more harm than good in the long run. Nonviolence should always be the first choice, violence should always be the absolute last resort, lest karma kick your ass sooner or later. Remember, you break it, you bought it. And if you absolutely must, you should break 'em completely the first time.
But we must always remember that war is always inherently a negative-sum game.
Q12) What is your position on the draft? Should Women be drafted?
A12) I and the TSAP are 100% against bringing back the draft, period. A country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose. And if there was such a thing as a truly just war, conscription would be unnecessary since volunteers would be plentiful. Furthermore, with today's technology it would be highly unlikely that a draft would ever be necessary. And an all-volunteer professional military has proven time and again to be superior to a military consisting largely of grudging conscripts.
That said, if there ever was a need to bring back the draft, I do believe that women should participate as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. But before the very first woman is drafted, they should first draft men in their 40s and 50s, since they are the age group and gender that starts nearly all of the wars in the first place. And instead of having women register for the draft now, we should suspend all draft registration until there is an actual draft.
I would also not be opposed to what I like to call "consensual conscription", which would be a system in which all wars lasting longer than a specific time interval (say, 90 days) would be put up to vote via a limited plebiscite of those eligible for military service. Those who vote "yes" would be drafted in the event it is necessary (i.e. not enough volunteers), followed by those who abstained from voting, while those who voted "no" would be exempt. The plebiscite would have to be taken each year in order to continue fighting the war, and if a majority vote "no", then the war would have to cease within 90 days of the day the vote was taken, full stop.
Q13) What is your position on gay marriage and homosexuality in general?
A13) Neither I nor the TSAP see anything wrong with either, and we believe that LGBT folks should have fully equal rights in all areas of life. I am straight as an arrow, but NOT narrow.
Q14) How do you feel about the whole transgender thing? Are you transgender yourself?
A14) I am not transgender myself, but I nonetheless believe in full equal rights for transgender people, and believe that those who hate them and/or would deny them their civil and human rights are hopelessly stuck in the 1980s or earlier.
There is some nuance to this, of course. I personally do not consider trans women (assigned male at birth) to be exactly the same as cis women (assigned female at birth), and I personally believe that the only way a person who is assigned male at birth can truly become a full-fledged Woman in all her glory is to die and be reincarnated as one. And it appears that neoliberalism is attempting to hijack the trans activist movement for their own nefarious ends. That said, as a cisgender man, who am I to judge? Liberty is not a zero-sum game, after all. Liberty is like love--the more you give, the more you get.
Q15) What is your position on drug policy (and other vices)?
A15) As a progressive libertarian who believes in a free and open society, both I and the TSAP endorse most if not all of the ideas given by the late, great Peter McWilliams, author of Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Society. To wit, I believe as a rule that victimless crime laws do more harm than good and should be stricken from the books wherever possible. For example, I and the TSAP believe that, at the very least, cannabis should be fully legalized, taxed and regulated no more stringently than alcohol or tobacco, and that for all or most other substances the Portuguese model (if not full legalization) would work far better overall than our current failed War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs. The latter has done far more harm than good, and more harm than the drugs themselves have ever done. Drug abuse is bad, but the Drug War is far worse. Just like alcohol Prohibition proved to be far worse than alcohol abuse itself. And I also believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 in the USA. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
Q12) What is your position on the draft? Should Women be drafted?
A12) I and the TSAP are 100% against bringing back the draft, period. A country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose. And if there was such a thing as a truly just war, conscription would be unnecessary since volunteers would be plentiful. Furthermore, with today's technology it would be highly unlikely that a draft would ever be necessary. And an all-volunteer professional military has proven time and again to be superior to a military consisting largely of grudging conscripts.
That said, if there ever was a need to bring back the draft, I do believe that women should participate as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. But before the very first woman is drafted, they should first draft men in their 40s and 50s, since they are the age group and gender that starts nearly all of the wars in the first place. And instead of having women register for the draft now, we should suspend all draft registration until there is an actual draft.
I would also not be opposed to what I like to call "consensual conscription", which would be a system in which all wars lasting longer than a specific time interval (say, 90 days) would be put up to vote via a limited plebiscite of those eligible for military service. Those who vote "yes" would be drafted in the event it is necessary (i.e. not enough volunteers), followed by those who abstained from voting, while those who voted "no" would be exempt. The plebiscite would have to be taken each year in order to continue fighting the war, and if a majority vote "no", then the war would have to cease within 90 days of the day the vote was taken, full stop.
Q13) What is your position on gay marriage and homosexuality in general?
A13) Neither I nor the TSAP see anything wrong with either, and we believe that LGBT folks should have fully equal rights in all areas of life. I am straight as an arrow, but NOT narrow.
Q14) How do you feel about the whole transgender thing? Are you transgender yourself?
A14) I am not transgender myself, but I nonetheless believe in full equal rights for transgender people, and believe that those who hate them and/or would deny them their civil and human rights are hopelessly stuck in the 1980s or earlier.
There is some nuance to this, of course. I personally do not consider trans women (assigned male at birth) to be exactly the same as cis women (assigned female at birth), and I personally believe that the only way a person who is assigned male at birth can truly become a full-fledged Woman in all her glory is to die and be reincarnated as one. And it appears that neoliberalism is attempting to hijack the trans activist movement for their own nefarious ends. That said, as a cisgender man, who am I to judge? Liberty is not a zero-sum game, after all. Liberty is like love--the more you give, the more you get.
Q15) What is your position on drug policy (and other vices)?
A15) As a progressive libertarian who believes in a free and open society, both I and the TSAP endorse most if not all of the ideas given by the late, great Peter McWilliams, author of Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Society. To wit, I believe as a rule that victimless crime laws do more harm than good and should be stricken from the books wherever possible. For example, I and the TSAP believe that, at the very least, cannabis should be fully legalized, taxed and regulated no more stringently than alcohol or tobacco, and that for all or most other substances the Portuguese model (if not full legalization) would work far better overall than our current failed War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs. The latter has done far more harm than good, and more harm than the drugs themselves have ever done. Drug abuse is bad, but the Drug War is far worse. Just like alcohol Prohibition proved to be far worse than alcohol abuse itself. And I also believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 in the USA. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
As Lysander Spooner's famous maxim goes, vices are not crimes. It is crucial to NOT ignore that distinction.
And as per the Law of Eristic Escalation, imposition of order = escalation of chaos. At least when the order in question is imposed arbitrarily and coercively, that is. That is what I like to call "politics in one lesson" right there.
That's not to say that everyone in the Matriarchy movement would agree with me on such issues, and it would ultimately be up to the Women of the future to decide what policy to implement. But until then, that's my theory and I'm stickin' to it.
Q16) What is your position on overpopulation?
A16) I believe that overpopulation (along with overconsumption) is a very real and urgent problem, especially ecologically. We are literally cooking and destroying the planet as we speak. And the number one cause of overpopulation is--wait for it--patriarchy. Such a thing would never have occurred if it weren't for MEN forcing, coercing, deceiving, and/or brainwashing Women to have kids that they didn't really want or were not ready for. Thus, the two most effective (and ethical) way of reducing overpopulation are 1) female empowerment and 2) poverty reduction. Both of which have been proven to work wonders wherever they have been implemented.
I believe that we should all have fewer kids yesterday to get this problem under control, albeit voluntarily and without coercion. If everyone were to "stop at two" or less, the population would eventually stop growing and start shrinking, since the total fertility rate (TFR) would drop below replacement level. Birth control and reproductive health services in general need to be made free and readily available to all. And the antiquated and archaic idea that everyone has a "duty" to procreate needs to be jettisoned at once. In fact, as one can see every night on the evening news and on various disturbing true-crime websites, one can argue that some folks actually have a duty NOT to procreate.
And truly the birthrate would plummet after Women finally reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world. Though with Women in charge it would only drop so far (say, to 1.5 or so) before gradually rising back to replacement (2.1) or near-replacement (1.8-2.0) again, which is good since dropping too low (i.e. below 1.5) would potentially result in society hitting a "pothole" on the road to sustainability if it remains that low for too long, such as in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, Italy, Greece, and Spain. If Women were to take over in those countries, the TFR would likely go up.
Q17) What is your theory of the social contract?
A17) My theory is more Lockean than Hobbesian, with a bit of Rousseau thrown in for good measure. I believe in both individual rights and horizontal collectivism, while eschewing vertical collectivism.
Q18) What is your position on sex in general?
A18) Like most in the Matriarchy movement, I believe in a sexually free society overall as far as consenting adults are concerned. Sexual repression has been proven to do more harm than good, and essentially all of patriarchy's archaic and repressive rules about sex were designed to control Women. That was originally done so men could be at least somewhat certain of paternity, as descent was reckoned (and inheritances were passed) through the male bloodline, though with the advent of modern birth control and paternity testing such a reason has basically become obsolete. Note the double standard of patriarchy in which Women are far more likely to be punished for sexual transgressions, and how men who sleep around are considered "studs" and "legends" while women who do so are considered "sluts" and "whores". In contrast, Matriarchal societies have historically been far more sexually free in general, since knowledge of paternity was basically a non-issue as descent was reckoned through the female bloodline. And when Women finally reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world, I believe that our society will become sexually free once again, albeit with some concessions to modern times of course. In the meantime, we all need to stop slut-shaming Women yesterday.
Additionally, patriarchy's rules against masturbation, homosexuality, non-penetrative or non-PIV sex, and birth control are really a result of the fact that patriarchy is one big Ponzi scheme (and protection racket) that requires very high birth rates to keep it afloat. Thus, anything that frustrates that goal is deemed sinful. Patriarchy considers Women to be the brood mares, while men are the work horses. And in today's overpopulated world, such rules are also obsolete as well. In Matriarchal societies, on the other hand, overpopulation would never even have occurred in the first place as Women would have complete sexual and reproductive freedom, and thus not have pregnancies forced upon them by men. And there would also be far fewer abortions as well.
Of course, such outmoded rules also have the purpose and effect of indirectly controlling (non-alpha and non-elite) males as well, by keeping the "cost" of sex artificially and arbitrarily high as well. But on balance, the effects are far worse for Women, making patriarchy a negative-sum overall even if a few come out ahead. The "commodity model" needs to end. Ditto for "PIV-centrism" as well, since plenty of Women prefer other activities in addtion or even instead of PIV intercourse. The feminine (i.e. female-defined) paradigm of sexuality is far too big to fit merely into the narrow, male-defined keyhole of PIV-centric sex.
That's not to say that everyone in the Matriarchy movement would agree with me on such issues, and it would ultimately be up to the Women of the future to decide what policy to implement. But until then, that's my theory and I'm stickin' to it.
Q16) What is your position on overpopulation?
A16) I believe that overpopulation (along with overconsumption) is a very real and urgent problem, especially ecologically. We are literally cooking and destroying the planet as we speak. And the number one cause of overpopulation is--wait for it--patriarchy. Such a thing would never have occurred if it weren't for MEN forcing, coercing, deceiving, and/or brainwashing Women to have kids that they didn't really want or were not ready for. Thus, the two most effective (and ethical) way of reducing overpopulation are 1) female empowerment and 2) poverty reduction. Both of which have been proven to work wonders wherever they have been implemented.
I believe that we should all have fewer kids yesterday to get this problem under control, albeit voluntarily and without coercion. If everyone were to "stop at two" or less, the population would eventually stop growing and start shrinking, since the total fertility rate (TFR) would drop below replacement level. Birth control and reproductive health services in general need to be made free and readily available to all. And the antiquated and archaic idea that everyone has a "duty" to procreate needs to be jettisoned at once. In fact, as one can see every night on the evening news and on various disturbing true-crime websites, one can argue that some folks actually have a duty NOT to procreate.
And truly the birthrate would plummet after Women finally reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world. Though with Women in charge it would only drop so far (say, to 1.5 or so) before gradually rising back to replacement (2.1) or near-replacement (1.8-2.0) again, which is good since dropping too low (i.e. below 1.5) would potentially result in society hitting a "pothole" on the road to sustainability if it remains that low for too long, such as in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, Italy, Greece, and Spain. If Women were to take over in those countries, the TFR would likely go up.
Q17) What is your theory of the social contract?
A17) My theory is more Lockean than Hobbesian, with a bit of Rousseau thrown in for good measure. I believe in both individual rights and horizontal collectivism, while eschewing vertical collectivism.
Q18) What is your position on sex in general?
A18) Like most in the Matriarchy movement, I believe in a sexually free society overall as far as consenting adults are concerned. Sexual repression has been proven to do more harm than good, and essentially all of patriarchy's archaic and repressive rules about sex were designed to control Women. That was originally done so men could be at least somewhat certain of paternity, as descent was reckoned (and inheritances were passed) through the male bloodline, though with the advent of modern birth control and paternity testing such a reason has basically become obsolete. Note the double standard of patriarchy in which Women are far more likely to be punished for sexual transgressions, and how men who sleep around are considered "studs" and "legends" while women who do so are considered "sluts" and "whores". In contrast, Matriarchal societies have historically been far more sexually free in general, since knowledge of paternity was basically a non-issue as descent was reckoned through the female bloodline. And when Women finally reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world, I believe that our society will become sexually free once again, albeit with some concessions to modern times of course. In the meantime, we all need to stop slut-shaming Women yesterday.
Additionally, patriarchy's rules against masturbation, homosexuality, non-penetrative or non-PIV sex, and birth control are really a result of the fact that patriarchy is one big Ponzi scheme (and protection racket) that requires very high birth rates to keep it afloat. Thus, anything that frustrates that goal is deemed sinful. Patriarchy considers Women to be the brood mares, while men are the work horses. And in today's overpopulated world, such rules are also obsolete as well. In Matriarchal societies, on the other hand, overpopulation would never even have occurred in the first place as Women would have complete sexual and reproductive freedom, and thus not have pregnancies forced upon them by men. And there would also be far fewer abortions as well.
Of course, such outmoded rules also have the purpose and effect of indirectly controlling (non-alpha and non-elite) males as well, by keeping the "cost" of sex artificially and arbitrarily high as well. But on balance, the effects are far worse for Women, making patriarchy a negative-sum overall even if a few come out ahead. The "commodity model" needs to end. Ditto for "PIV-centrism" as well, since plenty of Women prefer other activities in addtion or even instead of PIV intercourse. The feminine (i.e. female-defined) paradigm of sexuality is far too big to fit merely into the narrow, male-defined keyhole of PIV-centric sex.
The Hobbesian-style argument from Paulianity (namely that in the absence of rigid sexual strictures, the strong inevitably lord it over the weak) really misses the mark, in that it fundamentally uses one patriarchal construct to justify another.
And the modern-day moral panic over so-called "hookup culture" also misses the mark as well relative to honest research, regardless of how some people spin it.
What really needs to be dismantled is rape culture. And yes, it is a real thing.
I believe that there are three important rules for ethical sexual behavior in general. The first one is enthusiastic consent (not mere grudging or reluctant "consent") for all parties involved, regardless of gender. Otherwise there is a name for it, and it is called RAPE, so don't do it. In other words, if it's not a "HELL YEAH!", it's a NO. The second one is, "whoever has the yoni makes the rules", as the primary goal for the man should be to please the Woman rather than merely pleasing himself (if he just wants to please himself and get a release, then he should simply masturbate solo instead). And third, as the New Age Lord Maitreya once supposedly said, "be ye honest, sincere, and detached". (Here, the "detachment" is in a spiritual sense, not in a sociopathic sense. And one also needs to know the crucial difference between healthy attachment versus unhealthy attachment.) And aside from general ethical principles such as the Golden Rule and "do not harm others" and refraining from cruelty, abuse, and violence that also are true for non-sexual matters, those are basically the only rules for sex (between consenting adults, that is) that we really need.
I believe that there are three important rules for ethical sexual behavior in general. The first one is enthusiastic consent (not mere grudging or reluctant "consent") for all parties involved, regardless of gender. Otherwise there is a name for it, and it is called RAPE, so don't do it. In other words, if it's not a "HELL YEAH!", it's a NO. The second one is, "whoever has the yoni makes the rules", as the primary goal for the man should be to please the Woman rather than merely pleasing himself (if he just wants to please himself and get a release, then he should simply masturbate solo instead). And third, as the New Age Lord Maitreya once supposedly said, "be ye honest, sincere, and detached". (Here, the "detachment" is in a spiritual sense, not in a sociopathic sense. And one also needs to know the crucial difference between healthy attachment versus unhealthy attachment.) And aside from general ethical principles such as the Golden Rule and "do not harm others" and refraining from cruelty, abuse, and violence that also are true for non-sexual matters, those are basically the only rules for sex (between consenting adults, that is) that we really need.
Fellas, remember, even if it's a totally casual one night stand (or half-night stand), don't be selfish in bed. It is very bad karma. And ladies, if a guy displays any red flags of such, avoid him like the plague.
Dispense with toxic, tired old messed up myths about male sexuality as well.
(Contrary to popular opinion, "catching feelings" is really not a problem in itself. Rather, cultivating those feelings, if those feelings are unwanted and/or not mutual, is the problem.)
And above all, DO NOT abuse, violate, or desecrate children in any way, shape or form! That has got to be one of the very few absolutes in that regard, and must be taken very seriously.
It is true that consent needs to be the FLOOR, not the ceiling, of sexual ethics. Mutuality, respect, empathy, honesty, and human dignity are also important as well. But those are all basically covered by the Golden Rule, as well as the more subtle Silver Rule (the converse of the Golden Rule) as well.
And thus, contrary to what some believe, it is entirely possible to have sex (whether it is casual or otherwise), that still respects and honors the dignity of the human person, regardless of gender. That is, always treat humanity as an end in itself, never solely as a means to an end. (It is unfortunate that Immanuel Kant had such a massive and glaring blind spot about sexuality.)
Oscar Wilde famously quipped, "Everything is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power". And while that may very well be true to one degree or another, let's make it about "power within" and "power with and through" rather than "power over".
As Guru Rasa Von Werder notes, sex is sacred, not sinful. It's long past time we started treating it that way.
As Guru Rasa Von Werder notes, sex is sacred, not sinful. It's long past time we started treating it that way.
Q18A) Thoughts on the sexual revolution?
A18A) The sexual revolution, as it were, was a mixed bag overall. Contrary to what some believe, it was neither an unalloyed good nor an unmitigated evil. But overall, it was on balance a good thing I think. Yes, even for Women too. If anything, it is still unfinished.
As for the idea that there should be some sort of counterrevolution, as author Louise Perry advocates, well, some good rebuttals from many different angles can be found here, here, and here. Even Christine Emba's new book can be criticized here, here, and here as well. And how about Mary Harrington? Well, res ipsa loquitur comes to mind, as all of the criticisms of Perry and Emba apply a fortiori to Harrington, plus additional ones as well.
In any case, there was not only one sexual revolution, but actually several, even several different ones going on at the same time in the 1960s and 1970s, and into the early 1980s. The "classic" male-dominated one that many people have in mind when they hear the phrase "sexual revolution" clearly had its obvious flaws, to put it mildly, and its de facto leader, the late Hugh Hefner, did have quite a dark side apparently. But that was only one part of a much larger story, a story that also frequently dovetailed and overlapped with feminism and LGBT rights as well. Hence the mixed bag. And attempting to roll it all back would do far more harm than good.
Q19) What is your position on (non-)monogamy?
A19) I believe that monogamy (or non-monogamy or polyamory) falls on a spectrum much like sexual orientation does. And I see nothing inherently wrong with ethical non-monogamy or any degrees thereof, regardless of whether one is married or not. This is different from cheating in that the latter implies dishonesty, betrayal, and perfidy--and that is the real problem with cheating, not the sex per se. Wherever one may fall on the (non-)monogamy spectrum, the rules discussed in the answer Question 18 apply just as much, in addition to any mutually agreed upon rules for a particular relationship.
And no, sexual liberation is NOT a zero-sum game. Liberty is like love, the more you give the more you get. And those who make the perfect the enemy of the good, ultimately end up with neither.
(As for love, the masterpiece of Nature, see here. Love does not bind, it frees.)
Historically, for adultery, usually only Women were punished or condemned, as well as the male interlopers, as it was seen as a violation of the husband's "property rights". Meanwhile, husbands who cheated on their wives were generally tolerated, reflecting the double standard designed to control Women and guarantee the purity of the male bloodline under patriarchy. And the concept of consent was completely irrelevant under these outmoded rules. Unfortunately, some Women now seem to want a "reverse double standard", i.e. the same thing but with the genders reversed, and I believe that is just as toxic as the original one. It should be equally condemned (or not) regardless of who is cheating on whom.
And yes, it is entirely possible (though less common) for Women to rape and sexually assault men as well. And I condemn that as well, as that is just as evil and demonic. Sex without consent is always rape or sexual assault, regardless of gender, period.
To illustrate the difference types of legal standards regarding sexual assault:
Force standard (archaic): "No Means Yes"
Consent standard (current): "No Means No"
Affirmative consent standard (emerging): "Yes Means Yes"
The fact remains that Women above the age of majority are adults despite being treated as second-class citizens. And I do not go anywhere near arguments that infantilize Women.
Also, keep in mind that many of the same specious and often Machiavellian arguments used to justify hitting children can also just as likely be used to justify elder abuse as well. Or any other vulnerable person as well for that matter. So be very careful what you wish for, since we all know what they say about karma. (By the way, the Law of Karma is really the "Law of Cause and Effect", not the "Law of the Carrot and Stick".)
And ultimately, any religion or ideology that has to be literally beaten into a child is inherently a fatally flawed one.
Historically, for adultery, usually only Women were punished or condemned, as well as the male interlopers, as it was seen as a violation of the husband's "property rights". Meanwhile, husbands who cheated on their wives were generally tolerated, reflecting the double standard designed to control Women and guarantee the purity of the male bloodline under patriarchy. And the concept of consent was completely irrelevant under these outmoded rules. Unfortunately, some Women now seem to want a "reverse double standard", i.e. the same thing but with the genders reversed, and I believe that is just as toxic as the original one. It should be equally condemned (or not) regardless of who is cheating on whom.
And lest anyone think that Jordan Peterson's idea of "enforced monogamy" is somehow a good idea, or that it was designed to protect Women, that can be readily debunked here.
Forced monogamy is just as bad as forced promiscuity, as both are two sides of the same ugly patriarchal and androcratic coin. To paraphrase Andrea Dworkin about right wing men vs left wing men (two wings, same bird), treating Women as private property vs treating Women as public property is still treating Women as property all the same.
As for whether monogamy is natural for our species, I think the answer to that question is very nuanced. All of the historical and anthropological evidence shows that monogamy in any culture can either be strict, universal, OR lifelong--pick at most two out of three. If it is strict and universal, it will not be lifelong. If it is strict and lifelong, it will not be universal. And if it is lifelong and universal, it will not be very strict. No wonder the patriarchy has had to use such oppressive measures to forcibly prop up their illusion of monogamy, albeit with the usual loopholes for men.
One reason why strict monogamy seems to fail so much in practice is precisely because Women are NOT interchangeable, and neither are men. We are all unique individuals, after all, and variety is the spice of life. Attemtping to ration partners to "one to a customer" only makes sense if people are interchangeable, thus it does not make sense. Ditto for the specious argument that enforcement monogamy is somehow needed to prevent a "tragedy of the commons" or "collective action problem" as well.
And while men are statistically more likely than Women to initiate open relationships, partcularly for relationships that started out as monogamous, it is actually Women who are more likely to choose to continue them. This observation dovetails nicely with Daniel Bergner's book What Women Want, as well as with author Wednesday Martin's book Untrue as well. And nowadays, emerging evidence suggests that Women are even less suited for monogamy than men.
As for the specious and cynical overgeneralizing claims that "there is no such thing as free love", "there is no such thing as casual sex", "friends with benefits is really friends with penalties", "everyone has a jealousy gene", or whatever, tell that to the millions of couples who happily swing every month, as renowned sex therapist Dr. Marty Klein famously quips.
While humanity may very well have some evolutionary baggage that gives a kernel of truth to those specious claims, it is nonetheless imperative to sublimate that baggage into compersion whenever possible. That is, "be zealous, not jealous", and certainly not both at the same time!
To put it in the lingua franca of the 2020s, monogamy does indeed perhaps "flatten the curve" of jealousy. Granted. But that green-eyed monster will still be there regardless, and in the long run, the area under the curve will remain about the same (if not more so) either way. In other words, at best, it's a choice between jealousy now or jealousy later. Take your pick. Better to deal with it head-on and sublimate it rather than than attempt to repress it, regardless of the type of relationship. And those who argue that it is somehow a collective action problem are ignoring that the perception of a collective action problem is an entirely constructed narrative.
The Hobbesian-style argument from Paulianity (namely that in the absence of rigid sexual strictures, the strong inevitably lord it over the weak) really misses the mark, in that it fundamentally uses one patriarchal construct to justify another.
Additionally, monogamy should NOT be seen as the default state. It should always be a conscious and active choice. That is, never automatically assume a person you are (casually) dating, talking to, or hooking up with is being exclusive to you unless you both explicitly agreed to be. Assuming so by default is probably the most effective way to get one's heart broken, regardless of gender.
Hey, if conscious monogamy is your thing, that is perfectly fine. More power to you. But don't try to force it on others because you are so weak of character (or ambivalent) that you feel threatened by those who don't practice it. That says a LOT more about you than it does about those you criticize.
Q20) But don't Women lack the capacity to consent to anything with men under patriarchy, due to the power imbalance?
A20) That specious and agency-denying idea, which basically implies that "all heterosexual sex is rape", is far too simplistic and stripped of nuance to be valid in the 21st century, at least in Western societies. There are indeed degrees of oppression, degrees of power imbalance, and degrees of consent (and agency). The mere existence of a power imbalance on a societal level (men as a class vs. Women as a class) does NOT automatically vitiate consent the way it can among individuals, but it can make things a bit more complicated in that regard. And there is a difference between the mere existence of a power imbalance versus deliberately leveraging and using it for one's own advantage against the less powerful--though there does come a point beyond which any apparent "consent" becomes inherently suspect if the power imbalance is extreme (i.e. supervisor/subordinate, teacher/student, guardian/ward, etc.). And the onus always falls on the overall more powerful person in terms of the "duty to refuse" the other's advances (and it is NOT always the male that is more powerful).
Under patriarchy, Women have historically been socialized from birth to please and appease men. And while it occurs to a lesser degree today, such socialization unfortunately still exists, and has proven very difficult to eradicate. But we must remember that it's not the 19th century anymore, nor is the USA the same as Saudi Arabia either in that regard, and we should not pretend that it is. Authentic female-defined sexuality (which varies for each individual) may be quite elusive under patriarchy, but the only way it can be discovered is for Women to be completely free to explore their own sexuality without any guilt, shame, or coercion from anyone, period. In other words, AGENCY--and thus denying Women agency over their sexuality is counterproductive.
That is why enthusiastic consent is important for all sexual activities, and men need to respect Women's boundaries and take "no" for an answer, whether it is a hard or soft "no", also realize that silence or a coerced "yes" is really a NO. At the same time, Women should not expect men to be mind-readers or paternalistic gatekeepers either. And the onus to obtain consent should always fall on the initiator of a particular sexual activity, and it needs to be clear and mutual.
A20) That specious and agency-denying idea, which basically implies that "all heterosexual sex is rape", is far too simplistic and stripped of nuance to be valid in the 21st century, at least in Western societies. There are indeed degrees of oppression, degrees of power imbalance, and degrees of consent (and agency). The mere existence of a power imbalance on a societal level (men as a class vs. Women as a class) does NOT automatically vitiate consent the way it can among individuals, but it can make things a bit more complicated in that regard. And there is a difference between the mere existence of a power imbalance versus deliberately leveraging and using it for one's own advantage against the less powerful--though there does come a point beyond which any apparent "consent" becomes inherently suspect if the power imbalance is extreme (i.e. supervisor/subordinate, teacher/student, guardian/ward, etc.). And the onus always falls on the overall more powerful person in terms of the "duty to refuse" the other's advances (and it is NOT always the male that is more powerful).
Under patriarchy, Women have historically been socialized from birth to please and appease men. And while it occurs to a lesser degree today, such socialization unfortunately still exists, and has proven very difficult to eradicate. But we must remember that it's not the 19th century anymore, nor is the USA the same as Saudi Arabia either in that regard, and we should not pretend that it is. Authentic female-defined sexuality (which varies for each individual) may be quite elusive under patriarchy, but the only way it can be discovered is for Women to be completely free to explore their own sexuality without any guilt, shame, or coercion from anyone, period. In other words, AGENCY--and thus denying Women agency over their sexuality is counterproductive.
That is why enthusiastic consent is important for all sexual activities, and men need to respect Women's boundaries and take "no" for an answer, whether it is a hard or soft "no", also realize that silence or a coerced "yes" is really a NO. At the same time, Women should not expect men to be mind-readers or paternalistic gatekeepers either. And the onus to obtain consent should always fall on the initiator of a particular sexual activity, and it needs to be clear and mutual.
In other words, if it's not a "HELL YEAH!", it's a NO, and should be treated as such until and unless clearly confirmed otherwise. Regardless of gender.
And yes, it is entirely possible (though less common) for Women to rape and sexually assault men as well. And I condemn that as well, as that is just as evil and demonic. Sex without consent is always rape or sexual assault, regardless of gender, period.
To illustrate the difference types of legal standards regarding sexual assault:
Force standard (archaic): "No Means Yes"
Consent standard (current): "No Means No"
Affirmative consent standard (emerging): "Yes Means Yes"
Utopian standard: "Yes Means No"
The third item on the list, the affirmative consent standard, is the one that I support. The archaic force standard is problematic for obvious reasons, while "No Means No" is necessary and important but NOT sufficient. The essential difference between the "No Means No" and "(Only) Yes Means Yes" is that in the former, the default answer is "yes", and in the latter, the default answer is "no". That's it. And the "utopian" (or MacDworkinist)* standard is, to put it mildly, a logistical nightmare at best and a dystopian kettle of fish at worst, not to mention infantilizing and agency-denying to Women. I would never support that.
The third item on the list, the affirmative consent standard, is the one that I support. The archaic force standard is problematic for obvious reasons, while "No Means No" is necessary and important but NOT sufficient. The essential difference between the "No Means No" and "(Only) Yes Means Yes" is that in the former, the default answer is "yes", and in the latter, the default answer is "no". That's it. And the "utopian" (or MacDworkinist)* standard is, to put it mildly, a logistical nightmare at best and a dystopian kettle of fish at worst, not to mention infantilizing and agency-denying to Women. I would never support that.
The MacDworkinist* standard (or even its milder version, the "desire" standard) creates a catch-22 in the original Joseph Heller sense, based on two dubious and specious premises. On the one hand, any sexual activity that is not entirely initiated by the Woman is automatically considered rape, period. On the other hand, per the very same theory, a Woman would have to be insane to initiate sexual activity with any man, that is, not in her right mind and thus incapable of consent, period. Therefore, in practice, all heterosexual sex would be considered rape, period (or at least unless proven otherwise--good luck, fellas!). This is even more infantilizing and utterly demeaning to Women as a class than the very worst of the patriarchy is! (Not to mention, legalized entrapment for men as well.) And carving out any exceptions to this catch-22, such as for married couples, only reifies and reinforces marriage as a patriarchal institution, and with it inherently invalidates the concept of marital rape as real rape.
Frankly, forcing men to be the gatekeepers of sex is just as wrong as forcing Women to be the gatekeepers. Forcing either gender to be the gatekeepers inherently puts an undue burden on that gender while also infantilizing the other gender. And in the case of men, it is also like expecting the fox to guard the henhouse as well.
Furthermore, as Dr. Marty Klein notes, "consent is crucial to healthy sex, but trying to remove all ambiguity, ambivalence, & regret from dating is unrealistic & unwise".
As per Horseshoe Theory, "Yes Means No" easily becomes dangerously close to coming full circle back to....you guessed it...."No Means Yes". After all, why would a man bother to make sure to have consent at all before proceeding, aside from the altruism and goodwill of his better nature (which he may not have), if even the most enthusiastic consent (in fact) is legally void or suspect, or at least no longer a viable defense against a rape charge? Talk about perverse incentives!
And yes, there is such a thing as bad sex. And it's not a trivial issue either. But equating or conflating it with rape ultimately trivializes both and solves neither.
It is true that consent needs to be the FLOOR, not the ceiling, of sexual ethics. Mutuality, respect, empathy, honesty, and human dignity are also important as well. But in terms of legal standards, affirmative consent is clearly the least-worst one of all. And while it does not solve all problems (no law can really be expected to do so), it is certainly a great start.
(And while there are in fact some gray areas when it comes to sexual ethics in general, there are really NO gray areas as for what constitutes rape. Instead of asking oneself, "does that really count as rape?", which is a pitifully low bar to clear, one should really ask, "is that ethical?" instead.)
(*MacDworkinist is a portmanteau of the surnames of radical feminists Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin.)
Q21) What is your position on motherhood?
A21) I believe that Women are complete human beings in their own right, and that motherhood (wonderful as it is) is simply an option to be chosen freely (or not) as they see fit. Period. While society has a duty to ensure that mothers and children receive the help and support that they need, the idea that every individual has a duty to procreate (and/or adopt) needs to end yesterday.
The "cult of motherhood" is part and parcel of patriarchy, in which the ideal of motherhood is vaunted and worshipped even, while actual mothers themselves get about as much respect as Rodney Dangerfield. Ditto for the "mommy wars" in which mothers are pitted against each other, in addition to how mothers and non-mothers are pitted against each other as well. All of this needs to end yesterday as well.
Q22) What is your position on corporal punishment of children?
A22) I for one vehemently oppose the use of corporal punishment on children and teens. There are literally reams and reams of social science research from over half a century now that conclusively show this outmoded practice to do far more harm than good on balance. Seriously. It is true that "edge" cases and outlier studies exist, of course, but these are essentially the very rare exceptions that only prove the rule. The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data", after all. And besides, hitting is an inherently patriarchal and violent method of power and control, regardless of which gender practices it on whom, and I personally view it as immoral and incompatible with human rights. And in order to be effective long-term, corporal punishment would generally have to exceed the bounds of what is currently considered humane for anyone (even POWs!) in the 21st century. Again, not everyone in the movement agrees with me in that regard, but this is a hill that I will die on. Case closed, at least until the next meditation that (hypothetically) tells me otherwise.
A21) I believe that Women are complete human beings in their own right, and that motherhood (wonderful as it is) is simply an option to be chosen freely (or not) as they see fit. Period. While society has a duty to ensure that mothers and children receive the help and support that they need, the idea that every individual has a duty to procreate (and/or adopt) needs to end yesterday.
The "cult of motherhood" is part and parcel of patriarchy, in which the ideal of motherhood is vaunted and worshipped even, while actual mothers themselves get about as much respect as Rodney Dangerfield. Ditto for the "mommy wars" in which mothers are pitted against each other, in addition to how mothers and non-mothers are pitted against each other as well. All of this needs to end yesterday as well.
Q22) What is your position on corporal punishment of children?
A22) I for one vehemently oppose the use of corporal punishment on children and teens. There are literally reams and reams of social science research from over half a century now that conclusively show this outmoded practice to do far more harm than good on balance. Seriously. It is true that "edge" cases and outlier studies exist, of course, but these are essentially the very rare exceptions that only prove the rule. The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data", after all. And besides, hitting is an inherently patriarchal and violent method of power and control, regardless of which gender practices it on whom, and I personally view it as immoral and incompatible with human rights. And in order to be effective long-term, corporal punishment would generally have to exceed the bounds of what is currently considered humane for anyone (even POWs!) in the 21st century. Again, not everyone in the movement agrees with me in that regard, but this is a hill that I will die on. Case closed, at least until the next meditation that (hypothetically) tells me otherwise.
The late Jordan Riak (RIP) was right all along. As is Elizabeth Gershoff, and Murray Straus as well.
Of note, the late, great anthropologist Ashley Montagu, who wrote The Natural Superiority of Women, also strongly opposed corporal punishment of children.
Clearly, there is nothing Matriarchal about it, and it is fundamentally rooted in both patriarchy and adulto-patriarchy.
Frankly, all that hitting really teaches a child is 1) don't get caught, and 2) "do what you're told, or else!" It does NOT actually teach right and wrong, let alone empathy. And even when it does superficially appear to "work", when the kids grow up, they become "Good Germans" in a society where 1/3 of the population is willing to kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches. Or at best, at least half of the population is happy on their knees.
Also, keep in mind that many of the same specious and often Machiavellian arguments used to justify hitting children can also just as likely be used to justify elder abuse as well. Or any other vulnerable person as well for that matter. So be very careful what you wish for, since we all know what they say about karma. (By the way, the Law of Karma is really the "Law of Cause and Effect", not the "Law of the Carrot and Stick".)
Perhaps even the whole concept of relying on extrinsic motivation needs rethinking?
And that's before one even scratches the surface of the sexual aspect of spanking. Disturbing as it sounds, that right there is most likely by far the number one cause of S&M behavior, both real and simulated, in the adults that those same kids eventually become.
So yes, there is a science to it. And that science does NOT support it. Perhaps one should learn nonviolent communication (NVC) instead.
And ultimately, any religion or ideology that has to be literally beaten into a child is inherently a fatally flawed one.
Q23) Is suffering good for the soul?
A23) I don't believe that age-old, vexing question has a simple "yes" or "no" answer, but rather it is very, very nuanced. One can argue that suffering is "the teacher of last resort", perhaps, and can indeed have utility at times, but it is not automatically or inherently good per se. To argue that it is, is a very slippery slope, whose logic led to horrible atrocities like the Inquisition and the Burning Times, and ultimately by extension other atrocities like the Holocaust.
If it truly is God's Will for a particular individual to suffer in some way, it will happen regardless, without another person deliberately forcing it to happen to them.
Q24) What is your position on youth rights?
A24) I personally am a (moderate) youth rights activist. Not everyone in the Matriarchy movement is, of course, but I personally do not see why the two must be mutually exclusive. After all, patriarchy should really be called adulto-patriarchy, to emphasize the essential intersection of adultism/ageism and patriarchy. And no one is truly free while others are oppressed, whether young, old, or in-between.
A24) I personally am a (moderate) youth rights activist. Not everyone in the Matriarchy movement is, of course, but I personally do not see why the two must be mutually exclusive. After all, patriarchy should really be called adulto-patriarchy, to emphasize the essential intersection of adultism/ageism and patriarchy. And no one is truly free while others are oppressed, whether young, old, or in-between.
I also, to some extent, support the "Free Range Kids" movement per Lenore Skenazy and Jonathan Haidt, albeit with some nuances and reservations of course. Helicopter parenting clearly does more harm than good in the long run. See Peter Gray's work as well.
Q25) What is your position on safety in general?
A25) I generally believe in "Safety Third" as a general rule. Not that safety is not important, of course, it certainly is, but rather that it is NOT the end-all-be-all of priorities. So what is first and second then? Liberty and justice for all, not necessarily in that order. And we all know what Benjamin Franklin famously said about the apparent conflict between liberty vs safety.
There is of course very much nuance here as well. There is an inherent tradeoff between liberty and safety, since perfect solutions do not and cannot exist. So where does one find the right balance? Aim for increasing liberty with the sky being the limit until the trade-off becomes truly unacceptable, then take one step back. If still unacceptable, then repeat as needed.
Q26) What is your position on censorship?
A26) I loathe it. Not only does it have no place in a free society and it is a very slippery slope, but it also has a tendency to backfire in the long run, even when well intentioned. It paradoxically can make the censored ideas, especially toxic ones, that much MORE powerful in practice. Carl Jung would sure have a field day with that!
Q27) What religion or spiritual path do you personally follow?
A27) Personally, I would say that I am relatively unclassifiable in that regard, but I am probably best described as "spiritual but not religious" (SBNR). And even that may not fully describe me either. I was originally Catholic to some degree, but have not been such for a long while now due to my numerous disagreements with official Church doctrine. Much like a Deist, I tend to prefer reason over revelation for the most part, given how notoriously inaccurate so many supposed revelations have been throughout history (including, but not limited to, the Book of Revelation). That said, I could never be an atheist though, as I know in my heart of hearts that there HAS to be some sort of Higher Power, i.e. "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", as St. Anselm would say. As for the gender of the Higher Power which I believe in, which some may say is beyond gender, if there must be a gender, She would have to be Female. And I personally believe that there are indeed many paths to God(dess), however one understands Her.
A27) Personally, I would say that I am relatively unclassifiable in that regard, but I am probably best described as "spiritual but not religious" (SBNR). And even that may not fully describe me either. I was originally Catholic to some degree, but have not been such for a long while now due to my numerous disagreements with official Church doctrine. Much like a Deist, I tend to prefer reason over revelation for the most part, given how notoriously inaccurate so many supposed revelations have been throughout history (including, but not limited to, the Book of Revelation). That said, I could never be an atheist though, as I know in my heart of hearts that there HAS to be some sort of Higher Power, i.e. "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", as St. Anselm would say. As for the gender of the Higher Power which I believe in, which some may say is beyond gender, if there must be a gender, She would have to be Female. And I personally believe that there are indeed many paths to God(dess), however one understands Her.
That said, it is not all "love and light". The "shadow" is just as important as well. Light is more powerful than darkness, of course, but darkness is in fact where the light derives its power in the first place. Artificially separating the two (i.e. denying the shadow) thus inadvertently makes the light less powerful, and only causes the darkness to triumph over the light, much like the phenomenon of black holes.
Q28) Do you believe in Heaven and Hell?
A28) Yes, at least in a general sense, I do. I believe that we all ultimately go back to where we belong, wherever that may be. And some people apparently belong in a much darker place.
Now for Purgatory, or something like it, I am generally a bit on the fence about, as there are some very good and strong arguments on both sides of the debate, and a wide variety of perspectives on that topic. But I do try to keep an open mind, and I am indeed open to its possibility.
I am also at least open to the possibility of reincarnation as well. Same with ghosts.
And there is much I am still trying to figure out on my spiritual journey.
Q29) What is your vision of utopia?
A29) First of all, I prefer not to call it "utopia", as that literally means "no place" in Greek (a pun on the homophonic word "eutopia", meaning "good place"). Rather, "protopia" is what I prefer to call it, noting how it is best to let it develop organically and gradually on the margin.
My own still-developing vision of protopia, in a nutshell, is basically like moving towards a cross between something like the Tamera ecovillage and perhaps some flavor of Peter Kropotkin's idea of a semi-urban, semi-rural free commune, except of course that it would be governed by Women. It may perhaps start out largely egalitarian and then gradually become more and more Matriarchal over time as it develops organically. As for the larger society, it would also be similar to Claudio Naranjo's idea of a "tri-une society", albeit one with Women in charge, and also influenced by many classic and contemporary thinkers as well, including, but not limited to, futurist Buckminster Fuller and his vision of what can best be called "post-capitalism".
I am of course well aware that Matriarchy is NOT egalitarian in terms of gender. In terms of moral equality of basic human rights and dignity, yes it could be called "egalitarian". In terms of power, however, that would be a HARD NO. Academics luuurrrve to confuse that issue in the "equality of what?" debate. As I like to put it, Women would need to be, at the very least, the "Guardians of Liberty" to prevent men from taking over once again and keep any remaining rogue or psychopathic males in check. But yes, with Women in charge and a generous enough welfare state, most crime and violence can indeed be eliminated, and yet both genders can still have plenty of individual liberty and sovereignty of body and mind, God willing.
My own vision may be significantly different in some ways than that of Rasa and that of William, of course. But at the end of the day, I am not them, and they are not me.
(When in doubt about anything, please take my worldliness as a warning, not an example.)
Q30) What is your position on separation of church and state?
A30) I believe in strict separation of church and state, period. Mixing the two ultimately corrupts, defiles, and desecrates both, as history has so painfully shown. Some things just do NOT mix very well at all. That is true whether the religion is patriarchal, Matriarchal, or otherwise, but a fortiori when patriarchal.
Q31) What is your real agenda, Ajax?
A31) I have but one, and only one, agenda, and that is liberty and justice for all. Not liberty for "just us", not all. Period. My liberty protects you, and your liberty protects me. And no one is free when others are oppressed, and no one is truly happy for very long when others are miserable.
(Mic drop)
A31) I have but one, and only one, agenda, and that is liberty and justice for all. Not liberty for "just us", not all. Period. My liberty protects you, and your liberty protects me. And no one is free when others are oppressed, and no one is truly happy for very long when others are miserable.
(Mic drop)
Comments are temporarily open on this page.
ReplyDelete