the GrasS is RiZ,
I woNdeR wHeRe
the BiRdiz iz ?
oUr NeXt GiG iS at:
PuZZle Hall InN Sowerby Bridge 24th JANUARY 2006
NorVun deVoLuTiON @ Roadhouse, M/cr 27th JANUARY
Hi-Fi CLUB, LEEDS February 19th
Dry Bar – “MusIC is My sAnCtuARy” night , Oldham St., M/cr 8th of December
Life Cafe M/cr 11th December with DESCARGA great M/cr latin band for their Christmas party
-tHaNkS to MiND On FiRE for too fantastic nights – freshers night at the Music Box and 27th October @ Po Na Na —————————————————————-
GLasS BaR oN tHe CorNeR of wiLmslOw Rd. / WiLBraHaM Rd., MaNCheSter, 21st ApRiL 2005
The Rampant Lion, Anson Rd. MANCHESTER 7th JULY (Tom Barnes support)
The Roadhouse, MANCHESTER 4th AUGUST with DJ Vadim & ONESELF
GiG in LEEDS at the Hi-Fi club, 2 Central Road, on 31st JULY
just to point out that its written by John Gardiner
Now that women are a total pain in the butt.
Now that reproductive rights have been stolen from men by dishonourable politicians who sold us out while pretending to protect us in the very institutions that we created to defend ourselves against such malice and wrong doers – institutions that men defended with blood in the past and are defending right now, at this very minute.
Now that men have been enslaved by avaricious bitches who blame any man at random for their own sloppy and irresponsible, slutty and whore-like sexual conduct and mistakes, holding him paternally responsible, in scorn and ridicule while ripping out his soul along with his cash for child support.
Now that men are the brunt of slanderous sexual discrimination for just being men and having a normal healthy sex drive that women can’t accommodate or keep pace with.
It is now the time that men need a new play toy to replace women. A new sex object for men.
Women are redundant as sex objects. They’ve gone ugly. Distasteful. They’ve taken all the fun out of everything in their attempt to drag men down to their own level of biological slavery and abject misery. They’ve raped the sanctity of marriage as a meaningful and beautiful bond of love, respect and decency. Swapping it for money and self delusion.
They’ve even banned jokes and laughter and naughty cute calendar girls. They give you diseases, abuse, violence, pain, hatred and are not at all worthy of spending any time with. They murder and steal your children with the judiciary’s condonation. They force their way into employment, taking your jobs and then they fail to achieve, complaining all the while and blaming others for their lack of success.
They’re hateful, loveless and spiteful. They’re utterly disgraceful things. A blight on the face of humanity.
So men have turned to the Internet. Too complicated for women, it’s become male dominated. After all, we did invent it – and build it – and so it’s only natural that we’d enjoy playing with it. It’s only natural too, that we’d find sexual applications to experiment with in our new medium, being deprived of our normal sexual companions, women, who aren’t worth spitting on these days let alone wasting any other precious bodily fluids in.
All of this explains why international telecommunications networks have been flooded with amazing, bizarre and utterly filthy pornographic web sites displaying women who’ll apparently do absolutely anything, and I mean ANYTHING, for a buck. Shocking! Scandalous! Disgusting! Yet curiously fascinating at the same time!
Where do they find women like that!!? The mind boggles. Do these women live in my suburban neighbourhood? Are they the girl next-door? Are they the girl at the checkout counter with the dull glazed eyes seemingly gifted with an IQ somewhere in the low fifties? Who are these women and how do they enlist them? I can just imagine making such an employment offer to an attractive young girl sitting on a park bench consuming a banana for lunch…
“Er, excuse me Madam. You seem to be enjoying your banana. Would you be interested in becoming a photographic model for a men’s web site and doing assorted sexual things with several men, several women, a football team, some dogs, a donkey, a few rats, some other animals, reptiles and insects as well as a diverse collection of tools and implements, varieties of fruit and vegetables and other food stuffs, individually and in combinations whilst in various states of undress and bondage?”
Can you imagine her response!!? Can you imagine the charges? Can you just imagine? But then again, what would you do if she said “Yes”? Perhaps there’s no harm in actually asking? Perhaps in reality, all women are secretly desperate to be offered such an opportunity. I don’t know – I’m afraid I’m not that learned or worldly and I don’t believe that I’m about to give it a go to find out. Besides, such a menagerie wouldn’t fit in my garage.
Anyway, I’ve got to tell you that I think this web-porn is only a stop gap solution. I don’t think it’s going to hold guys’ interests for long because women have only got a fixed number of orifices and there’s only a finite number of things that will fit in them. At least as far as my imagination, and women’s orifices, can stretch.
Web-porn is just not as satisfying as the real thing. But the real thing’s not readily available anymore, at least enjoyably, and prostitutes come with too many rules. Besides, they’re women too, just like the rest, taking without giving. Some new sex object is definitely required.
What’s needed is a woman who’s not a woman. Something that looks like a woman, feels like a woman, and sounds like a woman, but doesn’t have any nasty mean selfish attitudes like a real woman. A sex toy that’s fully interactive but not in virtual reality – in actual, real reality. A kind of one-to-one scale woman simulator with limited artificial intelligence – a bit more than real women have. A fluffy toy for men’s pleasure. A high tech machine who’s always obliging when required. Just think about it. Adoring love at the click of a remote with a rechargeable twelve volt gel-cell battery and a three year warranty.
She’d be pretty and all beautiful. She’d be soft and frisky. She’d be warm, wet, willing and able. She’d even swallow with a smile. She’d never gag. She’d never get fat. She’d never get ugly. She’d never spend your money. She’d never have periods. She’d never want you to go out dancing. She’d never nag you. She’d never argue with you and she’d always be available to do anything you wanted at any time. She could even orgasm saying nice things to you without a mad head full of fears.
She’d be something to be proud of. You could dress her in fine clothes and take her for a drive on weekends in your open top sports car and be the envy of every guy and a hate object for all women. Guys could even hold “Show and Shines” with them and marvel at ingenious modifications and customisations. Maybe even have burnout comps and other events – like robot sex wars, where girl robots could battle each other to orgasm using fingers and tongues.
And then you could simply switch her off when you got sick of her. If you could afford it – she wouldn’t be cheap – you could have two, and they wouldn’t mind a bit. They’d probably enjoy each other’s company.
You’d never lend her to anyone else. You’d bond with her like a car. Each one would have her own unique characteristics and you’d never want to part with her. Until you saw the newest latest updated release with realistic moving eyes, five exciting new positions and a new cheeky talk-back mode. Then you’d rush home, dress your little old darling in her nicest favourite clothes, drag her back and trade her in.
You’d cry a bit when you handed her over at the store looking at her cute blank glassy smile for the last time, remembering the good times. You’d remember when those little bite marks on her soft silicone skin happened. You’d dread the thought of ever seeing her in the arms of another man. It would be quite emotional. But then you’d think about the new one and be in a hurry to get home, get her programmed and chatting.
Too good to be true? Science fiction? Not at all! The good news is that such a woman is not only feasible but she’s genuinely technically viable and I wouldn’t mind betting that somebody doesn’t already have a prototype under construction. In fact they’re probably bed testing her right now as you read this. More than likely she’s been ready for tooling up and quantity production for years, but the guy who built her is too happy and too busy playing with her to bother getting around to it.
Very seriously, a full scale, fully sexually interactive, high quality, realistic, replica female robot with interactive artificial intelligence could easily be built today. No, she couldn’t walk or cook or clean like a real person but then real women don’t do those things anymore either so there’s no loss here. I doubt she could perform the full repertoire of positions of the Kama Sutra just yet, but later models would be fully capable and again you’re not losing out, because real women never give you that stuff either.
Anybody who manufactured such a product is guaranteed to become wealthier than Mr Gates within a decade, given the present parlous state of female lunacy and given the fact that the initial market would require at least a couple of billion units. I imagine a good quality basic robot girl sex-toy product would retail for about the same price as an average small car and give about the same service life when correctly maintained, dependent of course, on how worked up you got while interacting with the toy.
If there’s anybody out there who’s reading this and wants to invest a couple of hundred thousand to make a lot of money and help mankind live with dignity and fun into the future, then contact me. Seriously, I mean it. I already have the basic artificial intelligence engine built. A robot girl could be pleasuring you within twelve months from now. Wouldn’t that be nice?
And then, women could all go to hell. Who’d need them? Babies? Men’s technology can solve that problem too. We don’t need women anymore. They’re useless, annoying, vicious, smelly, evil creatures tainted by the same violent psychopathic corruption as Adolf Hitler, and hopefully, they’ll find the same ultimate solution for themselves that he found for himself.
Besides, having a bit of serious competition around might just shake some sense into those horrible women’s greedy little selfish heads. Won’t it be nice when they come back begging forgiveness and actually apologising for the millions of little babies they’ve murdered in abortion clinics and the global strife and misery that they’ve caused for the millions of emotionally injured single-parent children.
But I wonder, if you had a gorgeously stunning compliant and obliging mechanical partner who never complained or spent your money or would never murder, maim or mutilate you, legally and freely without fear of retribution, guilt or shame, would you forgive a real woman, forget the past and embrace such a nasty, mean, vile and immoral creature back into your life?
I don’t think so. I think we might hold trials for the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity like at Nuremberg after World War II. We could execute them while our man friendly robot girls watched on smiling with all innocence and sublime apathy.
Men take heart. Your robot girl is just around the chronological corner and when she comes, whoa, she’s going to blow old fashioned flesh and bone women off the face of the planet.
What colour eyes and hair will you choose? What size breasts will you order? Thirty-six C or forty-eight DDD? Or get the “Variable Breast Size” option. What are you going to name her? She’ll be fully programmable with a big menu of preferences. I’m excited already. When can I place my order?
Historical note – this article (second KN edition reprint above) has been the most popular article ever published on KN, mostly due to our good friends at popfiction.com – a highly recommended site for men with a good sense of fun and penchant for sexy, fantasy sci-fi.
Gender/queer/postmodern theory is not the solution to life’s problems but rather a symptom. Postmodern theory gives rise to a form of self-absorption, a self-absorption best described as decadence. “Bloggers” who write incessantly and only about themselves are one form of postmodern decadence, and while that might sound strange coming from me, what do you know about me, really?
Radical-Cultural feminist views are dramatically different from Radical-Libertarian feminists views. The Radical-Cultural feminists believe that women should encompass their femininity because it is better than masculinity. Mary Daly advocates finding the “wild female within”. This type of radical feminist sees sex and penetration as male dominated. They see a link between sex, female subordination, porn, rape and abuse. These must be eliminated, according to Cultural-Radical feminists. Yet another opposing view is that reproduction is the source of power for women. They believe that men are jealous of women, and that they try to control reproduction through means of technology.
…….”In her essay “Feminism, Criticism and Foucault’” feminist Biddy Martin explains,”His History of Sexuality states very clearly that discourses on sexuality, not sexual acts and their histories, are the essential place to grasp the working of power in modern society.” Words and texts – not acts — are the keys to how power works. Thus…the demand that feminist, lesbian and gay characters be included in children’s literature and schoolbooks. Thus…history is re-written to include the voices of women, even when those voices did not significantly contribute to events. Radical feminists want to correct the texts in order to re-define sexuality and gender.
In accepting “sex as a construct,” radical feminists reject sexual essentialism – the notion that sex is a natural force that exists prior to society. Sexual essentialism claims that there is something natural or biological, rather than cultural, about deeply felt urges such as motherhood and heterosexuality. There is something biological about gender.
But according to Foucault’s analysis, biology is shifting sand. Even deeply felt sexual preferences, such as heterosexuality or homosexuality, are not matters of biology but of ideology. They are determined by the texts of society. Thus, the phenomenon within radical feminism about two decades ago: many lesbians urged heterosexual feminists to stop sleeping with the enemy, men. Heterosexuality was viewed as an indoctrinated political choice, not a biological one.
Sex as a social construct is good news to radical feminists. If sex has been constructed, then it can be deconstructed and put back together correctly. How? They must control the single most powerful of those texts – pornography – because this is how a woman’s body is defined. This is what radical feminist theorists mean when they say ‘pornography defines/objectifies women,’ or ‘pornography IS rape’, or that we live in a rape culture. It is why lesbian-activists are willing to promote legislation they know will harm lesbian bookstores.
With this new perspective, read a famous passage from Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will:
“Pornography, like rape, is a male invention, designed to dehumanize women, to reduce the female to an object of sexual access, not to free sensuality from moralistic or parental inhibition. The staple of porn will always be the naked body, breasts and genitals exposed, because as man devised it, her naked body is the female’s ‘shame’, her private parts the private property of man, while his are the ancient, holy, universal, patriarchal instrument of his power, his rule by force over her. Pornography is the undiluted essence of anti-female propaganda.”
In other words, pornography is the text through which man expresses hatred of woman and socially constructs her oppression.
It took me a long time to understand that – in discussions with radical feminists – I was speaking gibberish to them. I would talk about choice and personal responsibility. By their analysis, however, I am socially constructed by male society that controls the texts and language. I can no more choose my sexuality than a concentration camp prisoner chooses the menu of her evening meal. It is no wonder that so little productive dialogue occurs between radical and individualist feminists; we are speaking different languages. Radical feminism speaks of class warfare over who will control the deconstruction and reconstruction of gender. Ifeminism speaks of a mutual respect between the sexes and of autonomy in which women celebrate their inherent biology.
June 29, 2000
Wendy McElroy is author of The Reasonable Woman. See more of her work at ifeminists.com ……..”
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Sex-positive feminism, sometimes known as pro-sex feminism, sex-radical feminism, sexually liberal feminism, or individualist feminism, is a movement that was formed in the early 1980s. Some became involved in the sex-positive feminist movement in response to efforts by anti-pornography feminists, such as Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, to put pornography at the center of a feminist explanation of women’s oppression (McElroy, 1995). Other, less academic sex-positive feminists became involved not in opposition to other feminists, but in direct response to what they saw as patriarchal control of sexuality. Authors who have advocated sex-positive feminism include Susie Bright, Betty Dodson, and Pat Califia.
Sex-positive feminism centers around the idea that sexual freedom is an essential component of women’s freedom. As such, sex-positive feminists oppose legal or social efforts to control sexual activities between consenting adults, whether these efforts are initiated by the government, other feminists, opponents of feminism, or any other institution. They embrace sexual minority groups, endorsing the value of coalition-building with members of groups targeted by sex-negativity. Sex-positive feminism is connected with the sex-positive movement.
Gayle Rubin (Rubin, 1984) summarizes the conflict over sex within feminism:
…There have been two strains of feminist thought on the subject. One tendency has criticized the restrictions on women’s sexual behavior and denounced the high costs imposed on women for being sexually active. This tradition of feminist sexual thought has called for a sexual liberation that would work for women as well as for men, The second tendency has considered sexual liberalization to be inherently a mere extension of male privilege. This tradition resonates with conservative, anti-sexual discourse.
The cause of sex-positive feminism brings together activists against censorship, queer activists, feminist scholars, sex radicals, producers of pornography and erotica, among others (though not all members of these groups are necessarily both feminists and sex-positive people). Sex-positive feminists reject the vilification of male sexuality that is often promoted by radical feminists, and instead embrace the entire range of human sexuality. They argue in favor of giving women the same sexual opportunities as men, rather than restricting male sexual expression in the form of pornography (Queen, 1996). Sex-positive feminists generally reject sexual essentialism, defined by (Rubin, 1984) as “the idea that sex is a natural force that exists prior to social life and shapes institutions”. Rather, they see sexual orientation and gender as social constructs that are heavily influenced by society.
Girls Kick Ass: A Feminist Critique of the New Action Heroine and the Male Gaze
(idea) by Bitca (8.7 mon) (print) Fri Dec 03 2004 at 15:17:27
Girls kick ass. That’s the message that’s been quite firmly reinforced in recent years by Hollywood, and on the surface, it would seem to be a good one. It’s the pseudo-feminist catch phrase of the 90s, pop empowerment that millions of girls of a generation latched onto and brandished with pride. Girl power. Girls Rule, Boys Drool.
But how much ass is a girl actually allowed to kick? That is, at what point does a powerful onscreen heroine (particularly within the action or science fiction genres) cease to be exciting or compelling and become actively threatening to the masculinity of the audience, who are likely (statistically speaking) to be male? What measures will be taken to reduce this perceived threat back to something more manageable?
When we are taught about the male gaze, it is someone like Elle Woods, protagonist of this semester’s selection, Legally Blonde, that we are encouraged to think of. For a character to fit within the bonds of the male gaze as it is popularly thought of, she will be merely an instrument of objectification. Laura Mulvey, whose 1975 article “Visual and Other Pleasures” first invented the concept of the gaze, would argue that “various features of cinema viewing conditions facilitate for the viewer both the voyeuristic process of objectification of female characters and also the narcissistic process of identification with an `ideal ego’ seen on the screen.”
And it is hard to imagine a single character who would more epitomize that ideal ego than someone like Elle Woods. Even as a character within a so-called chick flick, whose audience was primarily female, she still manages to reinforce the images of the ideal women that we are meant to picture. Perky, vacuous, tan and well-endowed, and above all else Blonde, she overcomes all obstacles in her path with seemingly no more weapons than a blindingly bright smile, all while maintaining her inner equilibrium and stunning fashion sense. Any girl watching from the audience is presumably meant to come away from the film inspired by the thought that maybe, perhaps, one day, she will be able to marry the twin virtues of style and perseverance the way that Woods does. And perhaps these goals are to be appreciated. But what other messages does Blonde send? That it’s okay to be smart, as long as you also stay true to yourself, no matter how frivolous that self might be? That serious court cases (such as a capital murder trial) can be won on the basis of no more than an impressive knowledge of hair care? That being serious and diligent is alright as long as you also know how to accessorize?
Even the images of the movie themselves, completely separate and apart from the text, serve to further a male agenda. Any mainstream heterosexual male viewer in the audience will probably be ill at ease amongst all these icons of feminine silliness and empowerment, so it is arranged that he will have plenty to look at, nothing that threatens his masculinity. All of the lingering, loving shots of Ms. Witherspoon’s impressive assets, all the outrageous and embarrassing costumes and footwear that she’s subjected to, are all tailored to the dual purposes of giving men something exciting to look at, and reinforcing the idea for women that this is what they must look like in order for men to find them exciting. It marginalizes even as it pretends to empower.
We live in a society that goes faster and faster every day. Everything must be reduced down to what can be consumed most quickly, with the least amount of fuss. The current movie-going audience (at least, the part of it which has the most disposable income and is most useful to advertisers and studios) has become accustomed to having their films tailored specifically to their attention span. A large number of films made in recent years conform to this structure, most notably the recent trend for movies made from video games and vice versa. A company that owns the rights to one of these properties makes their money twice: once when a theatre-goer forks over their money at the box office, and again when they do the same thing at their local Best Buy. This is what synergy is all about. “The way in which Hollywood blockbusters structure narrative action increasingly resembles that of video games,” Belton (p 398) tells us, and that certainly does seem to be the truth. Gone are the days where character development was taken slowly, with quiet or subtle (or surprising) revelations, and when a plot actually needed some sort of coherent flow. Now, all you need to know about a character is telegraphed within the first few moments of meeting them, and a story is made up of a series of disjointed locations and action sequences. Neil Gaiman, a popular science fiction/fantasy author, refers to this style of storytelling as “plot coupons”, where the protagonist is made through some contrivance to travel to multiple exotic locations to collect a number of somewhat arbitrary objects, and basically “collect a set and redeem them for the end of a story”.
This sort of narrative method works well for a video game, particularly one of the role-playing variety, but should it also dictate how a story is told in other media?
There’s a new breed of action heroine in the multiplex. She can be seen in any one of dozens of films released in the last 5 years. She is proficient with weapons, has sultry eyes, and is usually the love interest or rival to the hero of the piece. She displays an unusual propensity for dressing in leather. She is, thanks to the joys of trick photography, faster than lightning and can probably hold her own in a stirring fight, at least for a little while. She is no damsel in distress, we are meant to understand, does not need to be rescued, even if, in the final reel, she does. She is Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Xena, Warrior Princess, Daredevil’s Elecktra, Catwoman, X-Men’s Storm, Resident Evil’s Alice. She is a box office draw, or at least parts of her anatomy are. She is woman, hear her roar.
It is this author’s opinion that this new action heroine, so effectively epitomized by Angelina Jolie in her Tomb Raider movies, conforms just as much to the expectations levied by the male gaze as does Reese Witherspoon’s Elle Woods, if not more so. Perhaps it is because the majority of the audience for Tomb Raider is expected to be male. It’s a fine line that film-makers have to walk, how to make their heroine powerful and effective (with the maximum of sex appeal) without alienating their target audience by having her be too powerful or too effective and therefore threatening. A pretty significant portion of their demographic is of a mindset that can be cowed and threatened by a dominating woman, so they must find some way to curtail both her sexuality and her non-sexual power. This is accomplished in the most basic way possible, by objectifying her. In both movies, Tomb Raider and Tomb Raider 2: The Cradle of Life a scene is shown that depicts Ms. Croft absolutely nude, which doesn’t even begin to cover the multitude of scenes in which she is dressed in relatively scanty clothing, clothing completely inappropriate to the situations in which she finds herself (rappelling down cliffs, raiding an ancient Cambodian temple, fending off sharks and other marauders in an underwater Grecian temple), clothes that none of the male explorers would possibly even consider subjecting themselves to. How, pray tell, are Daisy Duke short-shorts practical gear for an intrepid adventurer? Or an ultra-thin skin-tight wetsuit? Or even her impractically long, but oh-so cinematic river of hair, that we are shown more than once is easily grabbed by villains in fight scenes, to be used against her? Wouldn’t it make more sense for Ms. Croft to cut her hair, tape down her boobs (which are majestic in the way that the worlds largest ball of twine is – aesthetically a feat of engineering, yet ultimately functionless), and wear clothes that cover her skin when she’s going into a knife-fight?
But that wouldn’t be attractive to the legions of slobbering fanboys. And for female audience members, she presents a standard to live up to, even one as impossible as the feat of trying to emulate someone like Angelina Jolie. A girl, watching this new action heroine, gets the message “It’s okay to kick ass, honey, just so long as you take care to jiggle.” The actresses playing these women are the cream of Hollywood, some of the most impossibly beautiful women in the world, with armies of personal trainers and stunt choreographers and costuming and makeup departments backing them. A girl can emulate these movie icons, but she can never (at least not in normal life) really come close to attaining anything like their image (or, to be fair, their adventures- unless it is revealed tomorrow that mutants, superpowers, and ancient curses walk among us).