Spiritual/secular misogynists part 1: Introduction

“The victim who is able to articulate the situation of the victim has ceased to be a victim: he or she has become a threat.”

― James Baldwin


Let them hate, as long as they fear.

“It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”

– Jiddu Krishnamurti

 I have been called all sorts of names, emotionally abused as well as sexually harassed simply for disagreeing with patriarchal bullshit that supports male sexual entitlement, and furthermore, for refusing to shut up about it. One of the men, Paul Joseph Rovelli, already has a past of being known for harassing women, among other things – see this page (also, this). Now what these assholes have said about me and women in general is going public. But first, I am going to illustrate a little bit of the historical revisionism and silencing of women that has occurred as historical precedence. Male privilege exists to this day.

A Feminist Version of History and Sexology

Let me first debunk the belief that “prostitution is the world’s oldest profession.” This is a sorry appeal to tradition for tradition’s sake. It’s the world’s oldest oppression (x). Women were oppressed as a whole, as a sex class, with the exception of those who men were able to have unconditional sexual access to (x) (x).
Also,  so-called ‘sacred’ prostitution, if it existed at all and according to what Herodotus wrote (x) (x) (x) (x), was not really prostitution; prostitution is transactional sex in the secular sense, and serves men. The temple priestesses, on the other hand, served the Goddess and were not called prostitutes (x) (x). To say so is ahistorical, much like saying the Greeks recognized homosexuality. (x) (x) It is also bestowing a false sense that men who use prostituted women respect them or consider them to be holy. In reality, among other men, they don’t actually believe this. It’s just rhetoric, and men will say anything they think women want to hear so they can get into their panties.
 I will be referring to all women, currently in the sex industry or exited, as prostituted women or simply women – in order to recognize it is not something they did but that it is something done to them, a crime committed against them, as well as their humanity. It is impossible to completely separate prostitution in the explicit sense and prostitution in the implicit sense (transactional sex) but I will talk about both and how they overlap.
Women have been treated as chattel since societies moved from hunter-gatherers to agriculture. As hunter-gatherers, women held the esteemed positions of gatherers, herbalists and midwives. The former was a lunar tradition which included worship of both Goddess and God while the latter was solar monotheistic. While the former “pagan” groups were conquered by the latter, their horned God (better known in some circles as Pan or Baphomet) became demonized (x) as Satan or the Devil (x) as they were assimilated by way of religion. So too were their lunar goddesses (who were sometimes “horned” with the moon) turned into demonesses.
Dowries, arranged marriages, virginity auctions, child marriages, marital rape, and prostitution (including so-called ‘comfort women’ given to military soldiers as “public service” or “civic duty”) are all examples where men believe in the virginity myth, transactional sex and sexually objectify females (both adult and children) and treat them as status symbols (x) and breeders, denying them the right to consent, to choose love, or even the ability to be physically mobile and have an identity in the world (foot binding, corsets and veils come to mind). Child labor was illegalized so that children could enjoy their childhood, but that didn’t stop the demand for prostitution under a similar premise, that women should enjoy sex, freely participate under no threat or coercion whatsoever, and actually feel attraction towards whom they’re having sex with. Furthermore, that they should be able to have boundaries and enforce them.
Instead, the claim was that there should be women always sexually available to men; if men could not find a sex partner, then women should be provided for them. They (men) have been trying to convince women for the better half of the 20th century – when women started getting the right to education, divorce, work, abortion, and recognition of marital rape – that they (women) are sexually repressed unless they have lots and lots of sex with men, had better examine their bad attitude (x) and unwillingness to have sex (x), and let men violate their boundaries by any means necessary (drugs, blackmail, manipulation, shaming/guilt-tripping, force) in order to obtain consent (x). And they managed for the most part to succeed, by encouraging financial and social dependence, the gender-wage gap, stealing women’s works to take credit for their inventions and discoveries, dominating science and academia, and out-earning women even in feminized (pink-collar) and blue-collar jobs. This is both compulsory heterosexuality (x) (x) (x) and (in both prostitution and our current Western culture) compulsory promiscuity. To go over a little history:

The Marquis de Sade was a key figure of the Enlightenment period. but his and other men’s rebellion against the Church was not because they felt everyone was oppressed; they claimed oppression for themselves. These men wanted (and men still do want) complete anonymity and protection from social consequences and the law (x); they were, after all, pillars of the community who could not afford to be scandalized or their families find out the truth. They wanted every loophole to get away with whatever they could, and abused women simply because they were in a position of power to do so. These men had reputations to uphold; reputations which were considered far more important than women (x), because they didn’t see women as people, or fully human.
As for De Sade, he was not satisfied with the guarantee of sex from marriage; he wanted multiple women, as well as the freedom to do whatever he wanted without conscience, no matter how cruel.  He thought he was God. The opposite of the Golden Rule (‘do unto others as you would have done unto you’) he philosophized about the irrational, immoral self and the will to power and enjoyed blurring mental boundaries. he sexualized violence and loved to rape women. when he was tried for rape (x), though, it wasn’t because it was seen as immoral but because it made his social class look bad. they were embarrassed that one of their own got caught red-handed. it is telling that his writings are now called “erotica” and not the torture porn that it is, and that his influence can be felt in porn (x).
Then we have Sigmund Freud and Havelock Ellis. The sexologists and psychologists were awfully concerned with putting women back in their place as perfunctory fuckholes (x) (x). Wives were supposed to either put out whenever their husbands wanted, or accept that they were going to cheat on them. A popular line was,”Lie back and think of England.” The so-called “g-spot” was discovered and it was agreed that women can and should orgasm through penis-in-vagina sex only (x) (x). This neglected women’s pleasure and the most sensitive part of their bodies, the clitoris, which is the part whose function is only pleasure.
Signund Freud said women had “penis envy,” i.e. were castrated men. He called it the Elektra complex. See also: transsexualism.
He also thought women were frigid (x) and hysterical (x) (x), the belief in female hysteria having its roots in ancient Greece (x). Any woman said to be displaying such symptoms and not enjoying sex, or being too outspoken, was easily put into the looney bin by their husbands. Some had lobotomies; some had clitoridectomies, meant to curb masturbation and lust (especially in nymphomaniacs, who couldn’t attain orgasm) and both were to make women docile and subservient. “Frigid” women were brought in to have orgasm forced upon them by sexologists. In this period – the Victorian era – women of good social breeding and high class were lacking a libido and could not show lust. Christian advice on marriage stated that women should do everything they could to avoid sex unless it was absolutely necessary (for procreation) and when they did have it, to do so as covered as possible and with indifference, thereby discouraging their husbands from demanding it of them.
There was a female psychologist, Anna Freud, his daughter, but she rode his coattails.
Havelock Ellis followed Freud and believed in sex as conquest (x) and conflated it with rape (x) using evopsych and the naturalistic fallacy. He was also a neurosexist (x) and believed that lesbians and gays were sexually inverted (x). So there is also the basis of the belief in corrective rape.
The only psychologist to debunk Freud at the time was Wilhelm Reich, who died in prison. He believed that patriarchal suppression was responsible for the neuroses that plagued both men and women, blocking the free and natural expression of their biological, electromagnetic energy or life-force. He called this energy orgone, and realized that sexually repressed people were impotent, no matter how much sex they were having. Whereas Freud believed that sadomasochism was a natural and inherent part of the personality and therefore did not need to be treated, Reich recognized that it was violence attached to the libido, violence which is a secondary drive and attached due to trauma.  Reich was ignored, misunderstood and maligned (x) and put in an insane asylum for saying that children should be allowed when they came of age to watch adults having sex (x); the experience shocked him into mental imbalance which persisted until his death.
In the 20th century came the Beatniks. John Lennon from the Beatles is praised as a peace activist, and oh-so-inspiring with his words and songs. Yet he was an abusive father and husband, racist, an antisemite and homophobe. Allen Ginsberg did not only support NAMBLA; he was a member. What happened to the women, you say? They were locked up in asylums, given electroshock therapy, lobotomies, and clitoridectomies (x). Some women who didn’t want children gave into lobotomies willingly because they wanted to be “normal women” and at the time, a normal woman wanted to have as many children as possible with a man. So the lobotomy was a way of preventing them from thinking so they couldn’t protest anymore (x). This is part and parcel of the history of psychiatric practices.
Timothy Leary, among other people, was also locked up and brainwashed for advocating the use of LSD as a therapeutic drug; after he was released, he advocated against psychedelics. (x)
Come the time of the Hippies, and social norms are already enforced by decades of Freudian thinking. The Hippies as a counter-culture almost succeeded; they were a threat to the establishment and against the military-industrial complex. In spite of this, it was a period not of “free love” but of free rape where women were coerced into sex with drugs, impregnated and left by deadbeat dads. And evopsych was used as a justification for ephebophilia (read: pedophilia). Kink also came about as an alternative lifestyle, fetishizing slavery and ‘consensual’ abuse.
By this time, pornography has already made it to television in the guise of “free speech” (x) (x) and led to the hush-hush genre of snuff films. Linda Lovelace’s “Deep Throat” is actually, per her own words, a film of her being raped. Porn and rape look an awful lot alike in the mainstream genre; not as aggressive sexuality but sexualized aggression. Both are about male power and control over women and the sexual excitement that ensues from their degradation. There is little doubt that men are not sure as to what constitutes rape since countless numbers of them tell about “having sex” with an older babysitter or teacher when they were underaged; they do not realize they were, in fact, raped. And porn is really prostitution with cameras; both are focused solely on the male orgasm and male pleasure, while women were called “sluts” and “whores” if they engaged in promiscuous sex (or sex at all) and “prudes” and “anti-sex” or “man-hating” if they didn’t. They were not allowed to choose (x); they were damned if they did, and damned if they didn’t. It was a way of scapegoating women for men’s sexual guilt (x).
It needs to be said here that the sex industry was men’s way of compartmentalizing women (x), encouraging women to compartmentalize sex (x), and praising sociopathic and narcissistic behaviors as virtues. There is a strong correlation in that many men who use porn also use prostitutes (x) and engage in sexual assault (x) (x). I am not saying all such men are sociopaths and narcissists, but they have those tendencies. They believe they are entitled to do anything they want to a prostituted woman (x) (x) (x) and that raping her is impossible (since she is subhuman) (x) (x) and giving money alleviates them of their guilt and responsibility (x). Yet there is also a cognitive dissonance in stating that prostitution is consensual while acknowledging that women are in it out of financial necessity (x).
Furthermore, prostitution had first been lauded as a way of keeping the facade of marriages intact, then again as a way of breaking up the facade of marriages (and prevent rape – x). It rose in popularity with “comfort women” and sex tourism thanks to the military (x). Yet this enforcement of male sexual entitlement (x) (x) (x) (x) with the sex industry (x) did not liberate the sexes from gender roles and racist stereotypes (x), nor improve intimacy, relationships, or bring about actual social and political change (x) (x). Additionally, the excuse of “liberating” foreign women overseas was used for imperialistic aims, colonizing the land and people to exploit for resources. (x) (x)
So much for the sexual revolution (x) (x) when the only ones who benefitted were men (x) (x). The convenience? Blaming women for what men do to them (x). That’s right – secular men still think of women, even little girls, as ‘evil’ temptresses who seduced them and ‘withheld’ sex from them (x). In actuality, the idea of ‘withholding’ sex (x) implies that sex already belongs to the partner and is something to be acquired or consumed like property (x) (x), or is owed – an absolute right (x) and need at another’s expense such that it must be made into a contract where consent cannot be withdrawn and hence, respected given women’s enthusiasm and desire (or lack thereof) (x) (x). This belief is a perfect example of male sexual entitlement (x) where the opposite of sexual harassment is just as abusive to men as sexual harassment. It is also victim-blaming (x); it’s the woman’s fault for getting raped by her actions or what she wore, and men are just uncontrollable beasts (x)  or ‘nice guys’ (x) who accidentally rape (x). And on with the role-reversals: outing a rapist is just as bad as raping; calling out bigotry is bigoted. Furthermore, empathy is derided and conflated with sympathy and compassion, while women are expected to pander to men and feel sorry for them. Can you say,”Double standards”? I knew you could.
It does not matter that some laws have changed. Although I can recognize a few worthy men here and there, men as a class still have their prejudices and hatred towards women (x). Education is not a solution in itself (x); look at the Muslim academics who still live without freedom, or the rape culture on college campuses. There needs to be a multi-pronged approach. Unfortunately, the ‘nice guys’ will never think they have done anything wrong or even questionable.
What follows are emails from Paul Rovelli and Ryan Higgins (aka Ryhan Higgins-Orshalev). I will include them in their entirety and then critique them line by line. Also included is proof of misogyny from Melissa Swaim, aka Soror Syrinx, an author who is engaged to that sexual harasser and revenge pornographer, Paul Rovelli.
You will never be able to silence those that call you out, guys. Ever. Nor do you have the right to harass women and promote hate speech with impunity in the guise of “freedom of speech.”

About Cammy

female artist knitter bookworm 34 years old bisexual spiritual atheist 420 friendly traveler occasional poet i have 3 blogs - 1 for poetry, 1 for politics and 1 for spirituality. anything else you want to know, take the time to get to know me and ask. concern trolls need not apply.
This entry was posted in debunking and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Spiritual/secular misogynists part 1: Introduction

  1. Soror Syrinx says:

    You hate yourself and other women, and you project that onto me. You can try to defame me, but all people have to do is read me books or know me to see what I am about. I feel sorry for you and hope you get professional help.

    • Heretic says:

      “You hate yourself and other women, and you project that onto me.” Well, damn, I hope someday you get to be the victim you so desire to be, but unfortunately for you, there’s no proof of this. Do you somehow have a group or collection of women who have endorsed your view? Or anything showing I said I hated myself and other women? Or are you arrogantly presuming to speak FOR other women? That is key. Where are the women who agree with you? If you use misogynistic language, you’re a misogynist; there’s no way around that. It is also very similar to the slurs PJ hurls at women he doesn’t like, and that’s too much of a coincidence for me to not call it out. You may think you’re witty but all you’re doing is accusing me of the very thing I criticized you for doing, AND without providing any evidence. FYI, pointing out misogyny does not = misogyny. Here’s exactly what I had written: “Also included is proof of misogyny from Melissa Swaim, aka Soror Syrinx, an author who is engaged to that sexual harasser and revenge pornographer, Paul Rovelli.” … now, does that bear ANY resemblance to what you wrote? Is this a problem with reading comprehension?

      “You can try to defame me, but all people have to do is read me books or know me to see what I am about.” So I’m not praising you and telling you what you want to hear, boo-fucking-hoo. You have the wrong idea about what defamation actually means. Defamation involves untrue accusations. You’re clearly a woman-hater, so if anyone is making someone look bad it’s yourself. Even if people think you’re otherwise talented, you can’t hide that aspect. cf. http://sarahannelawless.com/2013/09/19/evaluating-our-teachers/ and http://spiritofmaat.com/magazine/january-2013-the-new-time-issue/open-compassion-can-close-down-healing-reframing-compassion-to-include-accountability/

      “I feel sorry for you and hope you get professional help.” This is gaslighting and concern trolling. You are no mental health professional, so you’re not only trying to armchair diagnose me, but deride any psychological value of spiritual paths. If you think it’s alright to accuse someone of being mentally ill just because they pissed you off, I wonder: Are women you don’t like “dykes”? You know, are there GOOD lesbians and other women, who behave in ways you approve, and then there are dykes? Are actual mentally ill people only deserving of respect until they piss you off – do they become crazies then? Hysterical lunatics who never knew anything in the first place? Reevaulate yourself.

      Nobody with an ounce of sense appreciates you using Crowley’s writing as a loophole for black magick in your book, or writing about rue, a KNOWN abortifacient without even a disclaimer. ESPECIALLY in a book proclaiming to be about a path of personal/spiritual development such as the scarlet path. Every other witch I’ve talked to at least is honest, and admits that love spells are selfish and dark, about control and manipulation. So no, I’m not a fan of violating another’s Will with “love spells” and endangering women’s health, and if you think this is defamation then fuck you, you cowardly brat.

      I also noticed a pattern that unless you can get to call people you disagree with or are (openly!) jealous about crazy, hysterically “sex-deprived” or needing professional help, you have no other way of interacting with them. I fucking talk about whatever I want. I don’t take insults nor orders from people who are obviously conditioned to give them. Servants, right? (And anyway, who keeps pictures 10 years after a relationship has ended? Fucking creepy!) I’m also a feminist, and it’s not my duty to support everything a woman does because she’s a woman, nor to affirm antifeminists. Oh, and you’re welcome to see yourself out.

    • Heretic says:

      I see you have been lurking again, so know this: Every time somebody tries to silence discussion of their heroes, it makes me mistrust their idols even more (yes, even if their idols are themselves). This is concern trolling. Remember that you were not the one pointing out misogyny among Thelemites, I was – no, you only went so far as to claim it’s a “nerdy boy’s club” and left it at that, implying “boys will boys” which does nobody any favors. I will talk about whoever or whatever I see fit, and if you cannot actually refute my claims, you are not being helpful.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s