It’s time to ban white male Trump supporters from entering the U.S.

27-year-old white French Canadian, Alexandre Bissonnette, identified as shooting suspect in Quebec mosque attack. (Image: Facebook)

Contrary to the claims of Donald Trump and his supporters, the real “threat to safety and security” has, once again, turned out to be white men.

Shortly after the shooting that killed six people and injured 19 at a Quebec City mosque on Sunday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer attempted to use the attack to justify Trump’s irrational, racist ban on immigrants. Glenn Greenwald reports that at this afternoon’s briefing, Spicer said:

“It’s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the President is taking steps to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to our nation’s safety and security.”

The right wing press jumped on board, claiming the suspect was Muslim, “of Moroccan origin,” and shouted “Allahu akbar!”

But it turns out that keeping innocent people from returning to their homes and reuniting with their families in the United States simply because they come from certain Muslim-majority nations, doesn’t prevent terrorist violence. Contrary to the fear-mongering, racist propaganda pushed by the right, the shooting suspect in the Quebec attack is actually a young white man named Alexandre Bissonnette — a right wing, anti-immigrant, Trump supporter who hates feminists.

Observing the 27-year-old’s Facebook activity, Quebec media has reported that Bissonnette is a fan of Richard Dawkins, the Israeli Defense Forces, and was a known troll in a Facebook group called, “Bienvenue aux réfugiés — Welcome to Refugees,” who routinely posted comments attacking immigrants and feminists, who he called “feminazis.”

Bissonnette sounds remarkably like the many other young white men who commit mass shootings but are, oddly, never banned from the U.S.

The Globe and Mail reports that those who knew the young man at Les Compagnons-de-Cartier high school in Quebec City “say he was introverted, socially awkward, and frequently bullied.” Bissonnette was reportedly teased “for his slight, pallid appearance, and his unfashionable clothing.”

Far from uncommon, the men responsible for not only violence against women, but mass shootings, often have a history of misogyny — yet hating women never seems to constitute a red flag until its too late. If we did take men’s racism and misogyny seriously as warning signs of violence, we would, of course, have to ban Trump himself from the country he now presides over.

Many of you will recall white supremacist Dylann Roof, who killed nine black people in a Charleston church; and Elliot Rodger, who killed seven people in California; and Adam Lanza, who killed 20 school children at Sandy Hook Elementary School; and Robert Lewis Dear, who killed three people and injured nine at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic; and of course Marc Lépine, who murdered 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal… Do you remember what they all had in common? They were white and they hated women. Now, this isn’t to say that only white men commit violence, but it is true that white American men kill more people in the U.S. than anyone else. Indeed, white, American, right-wing men are responsible for killing far more Americans in terrorist attacks than anyone else.

Just to be safe, Trump should probably make sure not to let anymore white men into the country. Specifically, he should focus on keeping out racists, anti-feminists, men with histories of domestic abuse, and his own supporters.

Meghan Murphy
Meghan Murphy

Founder & Editor

Meghan Murphy is a freelance writer and journalist. She has been podcasting and writing about feminism since 2010 and has published work in numerous national and international publications, including New Statesman, Vice, Al Jazeera, The Globe and Mail, I-D, Truthdig, and more. Meghan completed a Masters degree in the department of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies at Simon Fraser University in 2012 and lives in Vancouver, B.C. with her dog.

Like this article? Tip Feminist Current!

Personal Info

Donation Total: $1

  • Gaiauchis

    I love how american men use muslim women as Token while they go to places like Thailand and Philippines to sexually explore poor women and even children!

    • FierceMild

      Did you mean sexually exploit? It sounds like you probably did.

      • Cassandra

        In the mens’ minds it’s exploration. Just the exlporation they’re entitled to!

        • Virginia Howard

          “Exploring” as in: colonizing Thai & Philippina women & girls.

    • Rachael

      Absolutely. Those are the “right” kind of foreigner to them.

  • Cassandra

    Excellent! Keep underscoring the painfully obvious reality. White American males kill more Americans than anybody else. Male entitlement thwarted is the biggest killer of all.

  • calabasa

    So, is the only recent picture of him one of those sad Tinder selfies you so often see men putting up as their sole photographs on dating sites? It’s no wonder men like this turn to some evo-psych alpha/beta/hypergamy type of argument to explain why women won’t fuck them…they have literally nothing to offer women who have something to offer (whether it’s looks, intelligence, or kindness) and they wonder why they lose out. Kindness and integrity are arguably the MOST important qualities in a mate, so they can be not-so-attractive and even not the brightest bulbs if they treat women really, really well, and really get the whole respect thing and know how to do it. However, they’ve been raised in patriarchy, which gives them a massive sense of entitlement and overestimation of their own worth similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect in the not-too-bright (whom I am not putting down or trying to compare to the bigoted, just that it’s a similar phenomenon of lack of self-awareness); and the more that the world (read: women) fails to live up their expectations, the more they cultivate this kind of simmering hatred. And then it explodes.

  • Liesl Broke My Camera

    Not far enough away.

  • Novo

    The irony is they are always making fun of so-called social justice warriors for ‘safe spaces’ but they are the ones actually trying to make America into the most horrifyingly bland safe space ever…like a sociopath’s version of Leave it to Beaver. Is this actually appealling to them? Somehow I doubt it..These guys are so pathetic! Yet also terrifying. How sad.

  • Independent Radical

    I don’t think you have to feel depressed to complete brutal acts of violence. We who aren’t violent assume that because we would never do such things except in desperate situations, but our culture has convinced men and boys that cold-blooded violence is fun and cool and makes you a “real man”. The view that violence always comes from inner turmoil is sadly outdated in my opinion (which is not to say that it never comes from inner turmoil, but there are other causes) and based on the assumption that positive emotions can’t ever be psychologically or socially damaging. The unfortunately truth is that this mass murder could easily have been a victory celebration.

  • Independent Radical

    I’m waiting for someone to come along and blame his acts on a lack of sex (i.e. on a lack of women sexually submitting to him). I bet somebody’s thinking that and that person could very easily be a so called “feminist” who believes that sex is a right and that an insufficient amount of it will drive men and women crazy. That is unfortunately a very mainstream view nowadays.

    Then there will be the people who blame it on the atheist movement or him not believing in god, because supposedly the only way to stop a power hungry, violent male from committing mass murder is to make him submit to another (thankfully imaginary) power hungry violent male. If we just taught men to be decent people, who wouldn’t need to threaten them into behaving. This is why Trump’s “law and order” approach (which probably drew in many white, economically privileged women justifiably afraid of male violence) isn’t the solution either. It saddens me that there’s so much hostility between the atheist movement and feminism, because they could be allies given their common opposition to religion and unjustified hierarchical structures in general. I blame the masculine liberalism of the atheist movement and the anti-science attitudes that, while common to both liberal and radical feminism, have reached a new level of absurdity with modern day identity politics and its insistence that applying labels to things is the most evil thing you can do (while inventing a long string of ridiculous and unnecessary labels).

    Someone will probably also try to blame feminists critical of Islam, even though I don’t know of a single mass murder committed by feminists, yet they somehow get blamed for the evil things men do. There is a difference between being critical of an ideology (religions are ideologies) and personally hating those indoctrinated into it. There are people raised to be Muslims who end rejecting the religion and have nowhere to go except to the political right, because so called progressives equate race with religion and culture to the point where they don’t understand that someone of Arabic background can be non-Muslim. By targeting immigrants (and ignoring the possibility of whites being converted to Islam), reactionaries like Trump are making the same mistake. We can’t assume that all immigrants from Muslim countries are religious nuts.

    • FierceMild

      The idea that atheism and feminism could unite seems so logical but atheists really don’t object to unjust hierarchies structures when the hierarchy favours men over women. Mainstream Atheism is still very religious in that it is male-centric and dogmatic while the majority of women I know who are atheists have an antipathy to dogma and an a-religious attitude.

      Men turn science into religion when they call themselves atheists and still demand that the current scientific ideas recieve kowtow and that women submit their bodies to scientific overlords. Even when the scientific discoveries being used are incomplete and harmful to us (i.e. Drugs tested on only male subjects right down to the lab rat level).

      Even when the ‘scientific knowledge’ is obviously incorrect or incomplete (neuro-Sexism) these atheists will base dogma on it. Women know better. Various ‘discoveries’ of ‘science’ have been used to fuck us, literally and figuratively, since Aristotle declared us too watery to house souls.

      If that makes me anti-science then I’m anti-science. I’m still an atheist though and I surely did not become one so that I could continue to listen to a bunch of self righteous stubble-cheeked blowhards like Richard Dawkins tell me how to live.

      Aaaaaaaand stepping off the soapbox now.

      I agree it would be nice if atheism and feminsim could make common cause, but men simply do not make common cause with women. They never have.

    • lk

      “I’m waiting for someone to come along and blame his acts on a lack of sex (i.e. on a lack of women sexually submitting to him). I bet somebody’s thinking that and that person could very easily be a so called “feminist” who believes that sex is a right and that an insufficient amount of it will drive men and women crazy. ”

      I bet my last dollar that someone will use this shooting as a way to argue for the legalization of prostitution.

      Obviously, granting men unfettered access to women’s genitals is the key to ending male violence!!!

  • Cassandra

    The scary part is that everybody on down from him, anyone who would take his place if something were to happen to him, is 10x worse.

  • Cassandra

    Yes, I’ve been sticking my head in the sand and I need to stop. We indeed have a fascist in the white house who is going to do irreparable damage, or at least so much damage that it will take years to undo. I wish I had a brighter view of things but I cry for young women’s futures. We’re headed for an outright plutocracy, not that we’re not already there, but really, that’s what this is all about.

  • FierceMild

    You are one hundred percent correct that Entitlement Terrorism is a male thing not a white male thing. They’re all liable to go on killing rampages when crossed not just the white ones.

  • Meghan Murphy

    lol. I guess you don’t see how your sarcasm contradicts its own aims.

  • Meghan Murphy

    Yes, WE are the ones who should make you sick. NOT the dude who is ruining innocent people’s lives and promoting hate, racism, and misogyny.

    • Virginia Howard

      I’m not sure what Sivalingham finds sickening, is it the revolting sight of street protests? Is he implying that leftie riffraff are making trouble, and that the authoritarianism of the Alt-Right is a good thing? Keep your head down and “let him (which him?) rule”!

  • Meghan Murphy

    How so?

    • DRBoring

      Maybe he set it up as a provocation. Maybe the CIA set it up to get back at him. Don’t know exactly but it’s very fishy.

  • FierceMild

    Wait, isn’t that what he’s promised to do?

  • FierceMild

    Good good, I like to be clear on what people are communicating. I think Cassandra is dead on as well.

  • Independent Radical

    This idea makes a lot of sense, but some people may use it to argue that a lack of masculinity is the problem and that if these men were masculine in a “healthy” way they would get to feel like “real men” and then everything would be fine. We need to make it clear that being a “real man” isn’t something to aspire to. Sadly men and boys are indoctrinated into basing their sense of self worth on their power, while women and girls are indoctrinated into basing their sense of self worth on being attractive and pleasing to others. Instead of criticising this situation, liberals just want to reassure everyone that they are in fact fulfilling one role or another (even if they have to radically alter their bodies to “match” their role). “All men are manly”, “all women are beautiful and feminine”. *Sigh* *Eye roll*

  • Independent Radical

    “And what must make it even worse for them is America. Because if you
    live in America, it just looks like everyone is getting laid all the

    While Maher is an MRA jerk, he’s probably right about this point (though it isn’t just America). A culture filled with depictions of sex makes people feel as though their life is incomplete if they don’t have it and all the bullshit about men needing sex to be psychological stable is ubiquitous.

    Conservatives and liberals agree that sex is a need for men. Instead of contradicting this liberal feminists (and some radical feminists) just insist that sex is also a need for women and if you don’t feel like sex is a need then you’re considered to be somewhere on the asexuality spectrum. Why don’t we have a hyper-sexed spectrum instead and stick everyone who feels that lives and romantic relationships would be incomplete or even worthless without it on that spectrum? I support the right of people to identify as “asexual” and not have sex, but I feel like the concept is being used to de-politicise criticisms of a sex obsessed culture.

  • Witch

    “I don’t think men’s and women’s bodies are so radically different that a drug which works in men will somehow kill women.”

    I mean, they kind of are. Sex is not just hormones, every human cells has a “sex”. We have different metabolisms and thus can have very different reactions to drugs. Women and men also differ in symptoms in many ills, from heart attacks to STDs. The lack of women in clinical trials is seriously hurting women’s health.

  • Independent Radical

    I generally agree with you, but I am proudly for monogamy and question the idea that sex is inherently a “powerful bonding experience”. I think this is another way to inflate the importance of sex by implying that you can’t have a complete romantic relationship without it and anyone not having sex is going to be lonely and sad. Despite my criticisms of asexuality as a movement, I defend the right of people to be in romantic love and not have sex, the same way I believe that people can be in love and never give flowers to each other.

    I don’t believe sex has the magical ability to bond you to the other person. People who believe this (and aren’t conservatives) tend to pursue risky forms of sex, such as intercourse (which isn’t the same thing as sex in my view) without a condom, because these risks create rushes of emotion and an opportunity (for women mostly) to prove their love for their partners by putting themselves in danger. It sounds an awful lot like trauma bonding to me and I wouldn’t be surprised if this is very the belief that sex is a source of love comes from.

    I see sex as an expression of pre-existing love (like flowers), not a magic bond creator. People should be secure in their believe that they love each other before they have sex. Then they will not feel the need to make it so damn dramatic and neglect safety for the sake of “intimacy” (a word that is up there with “agency” in terms of works I’m sick of hearing that are used to justify horrible shit). Sex doesn’t have to be this way (I totally agree that the way people approach sex is a product of socialisation) and it doesn’t create love any more than any other expression of love (such as saying “I love you”) creates love. People love other people because they get to know them and recognise positive (inner) traits in that person, without the need for death defying proofs of love and trust.

  • Jokuvaan

    Well no wonder with over 62 million Trump supporters and the number of muslim refugees the US is taking.
    For a example in 2015 just tiny Finland with a bit over 5 million population took more muslim refugees than US. And I don’t speak about per capita.

  • DRBoring

    This is wrong on so many levels. Attributing some magical significance to sex is the province of religious bigotry. After all, if sex is some mystical experience then we should regulated it so that people don’t go off the rails and do it wrong. Sex is a reproductive instinct and need that gives physical pleasure. That is it. And that is all it needs to be. When two people willingon consent to engage in it the details of it are no one else’s business.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Feminists do not assign ‘magical’ or ‘mystical’ attributes to sex, they understand that it is a vulnerable experience, wherein women in particular are in a position to be hurt, exploited, or traumatized. They understand that power is at play when men and women have sex. Also, sex IS ‘regulated’ in order to ensure people don’t ‘do it wrong.’ That’s why it is illegal for adults to have sex with children and for people to have sex with other people who do not wish to have sex with them. Stop pretending as though sex is no different than a handshake or eating a sandwich.

      • DRBoring

        We both know you want to go further than enthusiastic consent with your proposed regulation. Women’s feelings of vulnerability about sex are partly due to christian influence that paints the woman as the weaker sex in need of protection. In cases of enthusiastic consent there is no vulnerability.

        • Meghan Murphy

          Systems of power, male violence, rape, etc. do not exist simply because of “women’s feelings.” Go away.

          • Wren

            Gee I wonder what he’s getting at…

        • calabasa

          “Enthusiastic consent” is a liberal feminist smokescreen for coercion (as is “consent” in general), often used as a defense of porn, prostitution, and BDSM. Clearly you need some philosophy 101 in order to understand this. Plenty of people “consent” to things that are not really good for them because they are desperate or because of socialization in an unequal, hierarchical system which seeks to groom them for others’ use (that is, to exploit them). This is why the sale of organs is illegal. This is why there is a minimum wage. Plenty of poor people would “consent” to selling organs and working in sweatshops if we did not have such protections (which is why multi-national mega-corporations often move their production overseas, to take advantage of the fact that other nations do not have such workers’ protections).

          To say that we cannot criticize sex, for some reason–that anything sexual which happens is somehow off-limits for critical thinking or systemic analysis–is ludicrous. It’s even more ludicrous given that sex–sexual and reproductive access–is THE reason for women’s oppression. Extremes tend to cancel each other out (that is, they are both as bad as the other). Hedonists were not liberals (they believed in moderation to enjoy life’s pleasures; most “liberals” think anything goes as long as “consent”). Ironically, “liberalism” is really no different than libertarian values on this point; there should be NO RULES surrounding what we do at all (for liberals, this is particularly about sex). The fact that in such a society what people will be “liberated” to “choose” will be a perpetuation of a regressive dominance/submission hierarchy more aligned with conservative than radical values is a point which so-called “leftists” REALLY fail to catch. Personal identity without structural critique of systemic oppression has no place in critical thinking or in politics. Liberalism left to its own devices results in more hierarchical divisions and greater tyranny–more racism, more violence, more classism, more misogyny. Unconscious bias is THE biggest hurdle otherwise reasonable people face when it comes to changing unfair systems (yes, we should all be “liberated” to keep doing exactly what we’re doing). I think I am being generous in presuming most of the bias on the left is unconscious, though. In my experience misogyny on the left is no less virulent than on the right, only its purveyors are far less honest about it.

          Men do not NEED sex. The fact is, in the animal world in many species most males do not mate. Men have set up a system in which they can all get access to females, whether one each or multiple (depending on whether you’re conservative or liberal). Human beings are different than animals in that socialization can change our practices, from mating habits to anything else. That we all ought to be KINDER to each other, and that if we restructured society it would result in real freedom–sexual and otherwise–for men and women seems patently obvious, but it’s not to leftist idiots who want to continue oppressing women under the guise of “consent” (which really means nothing more than “I have extorted acquiescence from you, now I have carte blanche” or “I am taking advantage of your life problems resulting from your female oppression in order to fulfill my own selfish needs”).

          Example of difference between well-being and enthusiastic consent: a woman with a history of child sexual abuse and torture enthusiastically consents to being whipped within an inch of her life, beaten, choked, and “play” raped. This is what she “likes” and incessantly seeks out in a kind of Freudian repetition compulsion. Is the person who does this to her acting in her best interests, or might he be a better friend and human being by recommending she get therapy (or at the very least abstaining from faux-raping her and nearly beating her to death)? FYI, the Supreme Court does not consider “consent” a justification for assault causing bodily harm or death, because they are not fools. Neither, apparently, does the German justice system, who retried Armin Meiwes for killing and cannibalizing a mentally ill victim with his “consent.”

          Thinking about well-being is simple enough. If you had a friend who was a crackhead, would you be a good friend if you went out and scored rock for him when he enthusiastically asked (nay, begged) you to? If you had a friend who was morbidly obese, would you be a good friend if you baked five Red Velvet cakes and three “four seasons” pizzas for him a day with his “enthusiastic consent?”

          No. You would be called an “enabler,” and rightly so. So what, exactly, is the difference, when it comes to taking advantage of someone with their “enthusiastic consent?” What is WRONG with thinking of your own and your partner’s well-being when it comes to sex? (And if you think sex ISN’T at all important and doesn’t come with anything attached, it’s likely because you’ve both ignored all of human history and also been taught the worst ideals of masculinity and raised on porn, desensitized to your feelings, and taught to view women as objects. How wonderful!)

          Of COURSE women are vulnerable under patriarchy–we are programmed to see ourselves as fuck toys rather than people. Of COURSE you can use critical thinking skills to think about the oppressor-oppressed relationship of “consent” (rather than “desire”) itself. No one here wants to criminalize consenting sex, just a little bit of freaking consideration might be nice. We are simply encouraging people to THINK and to care about how they treat women (and men).

          And men do not NEED sex. No one NEEDS sex to survive. The idea that “men get more sex by grooming women through sex-positivity and porn and the acceptance of prostitution” is the abuser’s idea (abusers abuse because it works, but if they could respect their partners and treat them lovingly that would probably work too, you know, without any of the horrible abuse or unequal power dynamics). Men would get just as much sex if they treated their partners well, and it would be BETTER sex.

          And Christianity has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. That is in YOUR head only. Not all critiques of sexuality come from a religious place.

          • DRBoring

            On the societal level yes we need to eat better and find alternatives for addictive substances. But on the individual level I have no right to body-shame or drug-shame you. Always remember “first they cane for the jews.” Tirany will always start out by targetting fringe groups like kink. Then before you know it we are living in a Christian theocracy.

          • Meghan Murphy

            Oh PLEASE. “Kink” is not a marginalized group of people. Getting a boner at sexualized violence does not make you a persecuted minority.

          • Tired feminist

            Blah blah blah. Between a Christian theocracy and a porn theocracy, I choose feminism.

          • calabasa

            “Fringe groups like kink” are groups that equate preferred sexual practices with sexual orientations (a sexual practice is not inborn, it is a result of social programming–i.e., societal influence). And not NOT buying my friend drugs is not the same as “drug shaming.” Saying to a friend of mine who is a heroin user, “here is some literature about free drug rehab programs,” is not the same as “drug-shaming.” Telling him, “I know places you can go to get free therapy,” or, “I am here for you to talk about this” is NOT drug-shaming (unless he has made it absolutely clear that he is just fine with his addiction and does not desire help, in which case I should just not talk to him about it). However, buying my friend drugs IS enabling his habit, and is NOT helping him; if he doesn’t want help, I can just not offer help–although I am entitled to tell him my opinion as a friend (“I think your habit has gotten a bit out of hand if it is interfering with your life,” or to ask him “why do you think you keep using?,” and if I am not pestering him, this is simply being a friend and is not “drug-shaming”)–but I certainly should not ENABLE him: “Hey! Your heroin habit is great! In no way does it affect any other members of society! In no way is it affecting the quality of your life! Keep up the good work! In fact, let me score you some smack!”

            None of this has ANYTHING to do with Christianity! I doubt very many–if any–of the people on this forum identify as religious at all.

            Tyranny (check spelling) does NOT always start out targeting fringe groups (those are scapegoats). It can start in many other ways: targeting the educated or the privileged (the reeducation in Cambodia and Communist China), or by lulling the masses into apathy while pretending democracy (inverted totalitarianism). Women, for example, are not a “fringe group,” and yet we have always been targeted by the greatest tyranny of all (patriarchy); pretending that men who like to abuse women (i.e., male doms in BDSM) are somehow more oppressed than women is gas lighting at its finest.

            You seem to be confused. “On a societal level we should find better alternatives but on an individual level I should not shame you.” We cannot make social critiques without critiquing the behavior of individuals, as individuals make up society. And challenging the ethics or reasons for individuals’ behavior is not “shaming” (hey, you’re “shame-shaming” me, man!) Not actively helping someone harm him or herself is not the same as “shaming,” which is all I am proposing when I say we should “care about others’ well-being, as well as our own” (for women, I would flip that statement, as we tend to put it in that order anyway).

            Your obsession with Christianity is odd. It’s as if you believe that the only possible criticism of hierarchical and oppressive systems that are also perpetuated by the left could be a conservative Christian one. That is bizarre and says more about you than it does about anyone on here.

        • will

          Dr. Boring:

          1) there is no “proposed regulation” here. Try harder to keep up.

          2) If you think that penetrative sex is not inherently more risky for the human who can become pregnant, then you really are not smart enough to be conversing here.

    • FierceMild

      Sex is not a need. It is not. No it isn’t. Instinct, certainly. Need? Nope. No one ever died from lack of sex. Not one person ever.

    • Wren

      I have a feeling you’re a prostitution supporter, huh?

  • FierceMild

    Of course there isn’t. I oppose religion as well.

  • FierceMild

    I was stunned when I learned that from a (male ally) friend in the diabetes research field. He had serious concerns about it.

  • Jocelyn Crawley

    I feel your pain. i just finished the chapter in Gloria Steinem’s Outrageous Acts And Everyday Rebellions entitled “The Real Linda Lovelace.” The chapter is graphic and depicts the humiliation and pain that Linda Boreman endured in pornography. I actually wrote a lengthy paragraph detailing what really happened with hopes to challenge the framework of “pornography is sexy and fun” that constitutes dominant discourse. (It is this ideology that oftentimes metabolizes the rape culture that makes gang rape seem desirable and acceptable.) But then I reread the last part of your post and erased it. Anyway, I feel your pain. However, I am always encouraged to know that there are passionate radical feminists all over the world creating space for women to discuss these issues and establish alternative communities where consciousness-raising and lifestyle transformation can take place.

    • Just Passing Through

      The whole “sex positive” movement was engineered by lefty men for their benefit so they could push porn and prostitution to be normalized (which it pretty much is now) … with plenty of handmaiden women’s help. I really sincerely hope more women wake up to the hoodwinkery that has been foisted upon them by the liberal-feminist-trans-pomo-male-centered-neoliberal-queer brigade. Let’s bring back female centered feminism and not feel even one ounce of guilt that we exclude men for cryin out loud- that’s the point. Do we ask Black Lives Matter to center white people? I don’t see how that comparison is any different to saying Feminism should center men (which is what transactivists are trying to do)

  • Independent Radical

    I think people who insist that monogamy doesn’t work for them are once again assuming that sex is a need and that if they can’t get sexual satisfaction from one person, they’re entitled to have multiple partners. The odds that humans will end up living in small groups is pretty low. We have to consider what effects polygamy/polyamory would have in a large scale modern day society and I think it would be a disaster mess if it became common. Not to mention the fact that monogamists would be made to feel as though they were missing out and so would anyone who had less partners than whatever was the norm. Seeking more and more of someone is a recipe for constant, large scale dissatisfaction.

    “….allowing a man to ejaculate inside you is either the riskiest thing you can do or a great indicator of trust…”

    It is considered a great indicator of trust specifically because it has the potential to be risky. This create a mentality where the riskier the sex act is the better and more loving it supposedly is, which leads to unprotected sex and sadomasochism. I think we need to be critical of the whole idea that love is an elaborate trust exercise. I should point out that I’m imaging a scenario in which neither person wants to have kids so there’s no justification for having it in an unprotected way except the “love-creating” thrills involved.

    “In any case, although of course I am fully in support of romantic
    nonsexual relationships, having sex is a whole lot more than “giving
    flowers,” or rape would just be receiving flowers against your will (or
    being forced to gift them), and prostitution would just be nonconsensual
    romantic gestures.”

    I didn’t mean to imply that the experiences were exactly alike. I was speaking in terms of their level of important within relationships. Sex isn’t something you need to be in love, it’s just a way for two people to celebration and express their pre-existing love. At least that’s what it should be like. Men see it as something they need so they turn it into a brutal act of conquest and women (in consensual situations) agree to expose themselves to danger to show how much they trust the man they’re with, instead of the man just accepting that the women trusts them, with no need for elaborate, dangerous proofs.

    “Clearly they are different, and what I am tired of is the liberal pretense that sex is “no big deal.””

    That’s a contradictory phrase since they clearly see it as the most important god damn thing in the world. They think it defines their identity and that they can’t live without it. I do believe it’s politically important in the sense that it creates danger and is a space in which men dominate women, but I would like to live in a world where that wasn’t the case. In such a society there would be less reason to obsess over it.

    “It IS bonding, and we ought to be more discerning about whom we bond with in this way….”

    I think we need to distinguish between the feeling of being bonded and a true romantic bond. A rush of oxytocin isn’t a human bond, it’s just a temporary rush of chemicals, which is why the friend you described ended up disliking the men she was with. She wasn’t bonded to them (in the sense of truly knowing what they were like as people and loving them for those traits). She just felt like they had formed a bond (probably because she trusted him to do something that could harm her, which strikes me as an incentive to make sex risky). That feeling can be very dangerous (I’m not denying it’s power, only the idea that it equals love), because it’s hard for people to realise that it’s just temporary hormone rush, but that’s all it is and we don’t need to chase it to be in love.

    • calabasa

      I think we agree, Independent Radical (I am referring to “the greatest indicator of trust” in the case of wanting to have children, but otherwise I agree that yes, it’s risky, and that we are trained as women that “love should conquer all” and to assume these kinds of risks for men, and men either don’t think about it at all–entitled, privileged ignorance–or see it as a gesture of power–ejaculating inside of women).

      I think we are speaking in circles about the same idea. My point is that because the rush of oxytocin ISN’T real love, but IS really bonding, I think my friend is right that we ought to have other indicators of affection/trust first before we have sex (the liberal view right now is “sex on the first date,” and that’s pretty common, which is why, I think, the novelty wears off for so many couples; they find they don’t have much in common after that first bonding rush of attraction/oxytocin, and can’t develop a deeper romantic relationship). Sex should not at all be the focal point of a relationship–I wish it had been far LESS so in my last relationship, and maybe then he would not have raped me when he was feeling disempowered (if he had seen me as a person, and as a friend, first and foremost, and not someone he needed to conquer and control sexually); although sex with different people can be fun, in my experience ultimately it ends up feeling rather hollow. I agree with you that it should not be the REASON for love, and that in large-scale societies it’s hard to maintain multiple loving, sexual relationships, so most of the time you’ll be having sex with people you don’t have a real love-relationship with, which can lead to exploitation, yes (although others would argue that there are different levels of friendship and similarly, different levels of sexual relationships).

      Most lasting relationships start as friendships rather than dating relationships, IMO (at least, among people I know; I’m sure studies have been done of this as well).

      Sex, however, is a pretty central way of expressing trust (and I get your point that relationships should not be all about expressing trust, but being vulnerable is so hard in this society that a relationship feels like an outlet, in that sense; one of the few places you can–or should be able to be–your true self). This is also why rape is so devastating, particularly by a trusted individual; it is not only shocking, humiliating, and dehumanizing, but an immense betrayal of trust by someone who is supposed to care more about your well-being than others do. The fact that we hurt the people we love the most–and that we often use sex (and men often use sexual violence) to do it–shows that so many people still view love with a great degree of distrust, as a game of dominance/submission, with a winner and a loser, which is exactly the wrong way to view any kind of relationship, romantic or otherwise (which is why I think it’s important to develop “relationship skills” including thinking about how in what ways we bond with others, and how to keep balance within our relationships with others).

      I, for one, certainly wish I had not been pressured into sex (and given into the pressure) on my first date with my ex-boyfriend (I wanted to wait until I knew him, and he claimed to, but didn’t really want to; he knows that once he “gets” sex from a woman it makes it easier to “get” it again, rather than going to arduous lengths to actually be her friend first; even in studies of animals females are likely to prefer to mate with a male they’ve mated with before, and I think this is where some of this sexual pressure is coming from, a feeling of inadequacy or wanting to take shortcuts in relationships and not really get to know women). After that, I felt like I “might as well” have sex with him again, and I felt increasingly bonded with/attracted to him as we slept together more; this turned into a nightmare when I realized I had bonded to someone with a dangerous personality disorder, someone who then abused me. Nevertheless, I did feel deeply bonded to him (part of this was trauma-bonding), and I did “love” things about him, completely nonsexual things. However, if we had been friends first I would have seen the red flags and avoided a sexual relationship with him (or, if I’d had a better sense of self-worth and boundaries, I would have kicked him out when he kept pressing me for sex when I said “no” three or four times on our first date, and never talked to him again; that was really all the red flag I needed, and it says a lot about my own lack of self-esteem and self-worth–due to a history of trauma–that I could not do that. Of course, that is one of the reasons he singled me out, and it’s not my fault; but yes, I wish I had not bonded with him, as I ended up bonding with a rapist, a not uncommon situation, I know).

      I would rather make friends, really get to know someone, and find other ways to love them before having sex. In fact, this is why I have at times considered myself “homoromantic,” because it’s ONLY in my close relationships with women that this nonsexual romantic love has happened (not in all of them, only in some). I don’t feel like this same romantic love has happened for me with men, probably because we slept together too soon and/or were not really compatible with each other.

      Liberals DO claim sex is “no big deal,” even though it is the most important thing to them ever (cognitive dissonance, yes); look at the idiot who commented on my comment (“sex is just a reproductive act that causes pleasure” or some such nonsense, along with the requisite “what happens behind closed doors is nobody’s business”) and yet is all up on here arguing with everybody right and left, even when they’re not arguing with HIM. The liberal claim that sex is “no big deal” is what allows their justification of BDSM and the sex industry (what they mean, of course, is “it’s a big deal but we want to do it this way and not have to think about anything but our orgasms and how we might be hurting others or society, and also MONEY MONEY MONEY”). But of course, they say it’s “no big deal.” I find this incredibly offensive, as if it weren’t a big deal than the sexual oppression of women wouldn’t be a big deal and neither would rape (or survival prostitution). It’s also either a willfully clueless (in the case of women) or entitled and privileged (in the case of men) position to take.

      My problem w/r/t monogamy is the kind of enforced monogamy of the marriage contract, and the tendency in any romantic relationship toward ownership. Really, this is a thorny issue that could be argued from many sides (I see your point that if we didn’t place so much emphasis on sex at all costs, and acting on our passionate sexual urges, we’d see no reason for infidelity or other partners…why risk a stable relationship for a sexual fling if we didn’t place a primary emphasis on sexual pleasure?) The issue of ownership within monogamous relationships, whether hetero- or homosexual, is a problem, though, one that’s difficult to resolve.

      In any case, I think we are pretty much in agreement. It’s taken a lot of at best forgettable and at worst regrettable sex to get to the point where I realized I need to get to know people first (for fear of being “puritanical” if I believed such a thing–notice resident idiot saying caring about your partner’s well-being rather than simply their “enthusiastic consent” has shades of “religious bigotry”). I’ve been shamed into thinking that waiting is wrong, or wanting to be friends first is wrong, for fear of being painted with the “Puritanical values” brush; but it has nothing to do with that. I simply don’t want to hormonally bond with someone I have little in common with or who could, in fact, be dangerous; I want to get to know someone first. There ARE some values worth conserving, and maybe caring about people as people and not just about bodies and instant gratification is one of them.

      P.s. I was thinking about making a jokey t-shirt for women only that reads on the front “your unforgettable is my regrettable” and on the back “my regret is your best yet,” but I think dudes would be a little unhappy with the implications of this.

  • Tired feminist

    Get the US back on is feet? Is this the new codespeak for Trumps’ fascist slogan to make it sound less fascist?

  • lk

    “….think that sex work should be decriminalised, and this might allow a socially sanctioned means for the frustrated male to consummate his male identity without stigma.”

    I love how this sentence sound so sciency and concerned about males…it doesn’t even mention women and girls. Who wants to volunteer to do this sex work to decrease male violence?!

    Why do men act like sexual frustration is the worst thing in the world?Not getting sex when you are horny really is not the damaging psychological wound that people make it out to be.

    We need to stop making excuses for men’s violent behavior and start holding them accountable for the harm they inflict on others. We don’t need to help men “consummate their male identity” through sexual conquests with need to start getting their sense of worth from being decent human beings.

    I’m kind of over how much some scientific fields seems invested in this idea that male desire to conquer women is something inevitable, innate that we just need to deal with. No, the concept of masculinity is something that we need to dismantle not soothe through institutions like prostitution.

  • Meghan Murphy

    HAHAHAAHAHAH. Ok, enough of this trolling. Be gone, or I’ll ban ya.

  • Georgia95Luciana Todesco

    From my understanding this measure is three pronged: first, the temporary suspension of immigration from countries with a history of exporting terrorism; secondly, identifying those countries where adequate screening cannot take place; and, thirdly, a questionnaire. The USA has done this before; this is not the first time. Considering the times we live in, I don’t think these measures are unreasonable.

    As to your question whether I am against the US accepting refugees. It’s not about what I want. First, I am not a US citizen so I can’t speak to the issue from the US perspective. I think American citizens should have the wherewithal to determine under which conditions they will accept those refugees they are required to accept under international obligations. The silent majority want extreme vetting, and so they voted in Trump. Let him do the job he was elected to do.

    I am in Australia. My personal opinion is that the people who make the decisions to bring in any and all refugees are living in their middle-class, comfortable suburbs. They and their daughters don’t have to live next door to men who think that all western women are ‘dogs’ and ‘pieces of meat’ who deserved to be raped; they don’t have to teach a classroom of teenagers who shout hurray and fist-pump when there is news of a terrorist attack (that actually happened in Sydney with 9/11). If extreme vetting weeds out those people, I support it.

    Where’s all the protesting of Israel, Japan and other countries who decide, for themselves, who and how they will allow into their countries?

    • Meghan Murphy

      If the U.S. were only keeping out misogynist men, that’d be one thing, but that is most certainly not the case. Trump’s ‘vetting’ hurts innocent people will do fucking NOTHING to stop terrorism/violence.

  • Georgia95Luciana Todesco

    Gee, thanks for your great argument. If I’m so ‘uninformed’, why don’t you throw in a few facts instead of making an ad hom attack? I have been a socialist all my life. But the Left is losing the plot. There is NOONE and NO PARTY representing the poor, the disenfranchised, the working class. The Left has moved on it seems to other things (like identity politics, globalism and neoliberalism) and left a huge vacuum. So the forgotten voters are clinging to anybody who gives them a glimmer of hope–a small promise–to close the gap between the rich and the poor, to provide work for people on minimum incomes. That’s why Brexit and Trump. That’s why Merkel is in danger of losing the election and why La Pen is so popular in France.

    The latte-drinking lefties have no idea how real people life. If they did, they wouldn’t judge them by calling them ‘uninformed assholes’. It’s the height of arrogance but it’s unfortunately exactly what the Left has become.

  • Georgia95Luciana Todesco

    Trump got voted in. He has a mandate.

  • Georgia95Luciana Todesco

    Thanks Cassandra. It’s nice not to be called an ‘uninformed asshole’. Yes, I think Trump should simply ban all men from entering the country, and let in the women and children.

    • Helena Oliveira

      I forgot to mention that I loved Meghan’s text, it addresses the fact that the Real problem is MALE VIOLENCE!!!
      I only think differently about the acceptance of the MALE refugees! I am totally in favor of receiving women and children!!!

  • Meghan Murphy

    That is hilarious.

    • Marla

      I’m so-so on Proops. His heart is in the right place even if he does tend to immerse himself in a lot of liberal feminism propaganda. He gave you praise nonetheless. From the podcast “Bunches” @1hr 20 min in.

      You should be proud.

      • Meghan Murphy

        Just listened. Nice, Greg!

  • Georgia95Luciana Todesco

    Trump has a mandate. Whether you consider his platform ‘coherent’ is neither here nor there. You are a good example of what’s wrong with the Left–it’s not all about YOU and what YOU think. Trump campaigned on a platform of ‘extreme vetting’. People voted for him. He was democratically elected. Because you don’t like it–because you didn’t get your way. because you’ve decided to take the moral high ground–does not take away from the facts. Suck it up and woman it out.

  • Georgia95Luciana Todesco

    lol, the “Russian hacking” was debunked a while back. Whether he got in on a technicality or not, he got in legally. I don’t like Trump personally, but he’s a hell of a lot better than what the Democrats had become. I hope they take this time to re-group and re-evaluate their priorities. It’s a pity that Clinton shafted Bernie. I believe he would have won.

  • Georgia95Luciana Todesco

    You can’t insist you’re taking the high moral ground while threatening violence against people who disagree with you.

  • Georgia95Luciana Todesco

    You think you know better what’s best for poor people than the poor people themselves. That’s arrogance personified. lol, I’m ‘racist and misogynistic’ but you don’t put up any valid arguments for your asininity.

    You scurry to the high moral ground while you march alongside Soros and he eggs you on. Don’t you find that at all odd? Yes, the same Soros who funds Amnesty, HRW et all who side with pimps and punters. The same Soros who hates women. He is your ally and you are pushing the Soros agenda. Think about it. At this point in time the Left can’t differentiate between its arse and its elbow.

  • Georgia95Luciana Todesco

    lol, as opposed to the Left’s tyranny

  • Georgia95Luciana Todesco

    You give radfems a bad name. You can argue no single point. You simply throw ad homs (and not particularly clever ones). You have the same MO as MRAs. You go girl!

    If you do not like the voting system in the US, go out and campaign to change it instead of whining like a previous snowflake, thinking you’re entitled to get your own way.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Ohhhkay… this thread/convo doesn’t seem to be going anywhere good at this point… Let’s end it here eh?

  • Georgia95Luciana Todesco

    According to your argument, Bush didn’t have a mandate from the people either.

  • Cassandra

    This is true. You didn’t say anything about *protecting* religious beliefs, so I apologize for stretching it to that. I disagree, however, that barring refugees into your country based on their religion is wrong when their religion is misogynist, and all major religions are exactly that, including Christianity as it is practiced by the assholes who want to bar those who worship Allah. It’s all the same horrible thing. Hence why Trump and his followers are hypocrites. Misogyny should never be excused or tolerated under the umbrella of religious tolerance. It just sets me off something fierce that people can have and act on horrible beliefs and enjoy a get out of jail free card if they call it their “religion.”

  • Georgia95Luciana Todesco

    I have not said I condone hate speech. People have the absolute right to demonstrate and protest. What they don’t have the right to do is destroy property and assault people, which is what happened at Berkeley. You are using the same arguments used by the transcult: that words are hurtful whilst ignoring the actual, real, physical abuse of women.

  • Georgia95Luciana Todesco

    Don’t trip over yourself whilst you’re scurrying to reach the moral high ground so that you can twist yourself in knots attempting to pat yourself on the back. Your smarminess is showing. No doubt you think people in the Rust Belt struggling to eke out a living and provide for their families in the are ‘stupid assholes’ too. What’s that saying about ‘Leave no girl behind’? It seems the girls in the Rust Belt do not matter to you. No doubt you think those girls are ‘stupid assholes’ too.

  • Cassandra

    You are correct, but most of us here do not deceive ourselves about it at all.

  • Georgia95Luciana Todesco

    Yes, I agree. I wish people would think critically about what’s happening to the Left. It’s raison d’etre should be the struggles of the working class; instead, they’ve been taken over by globalist elite, George Soros, pushing his trans agenda and no borders.