No Silicone, No Veil


I recollect an online discussion several years prior where the topic eventually evolved to misogyny. I get a lot of hate mail, much of it from women who say I hate women and assert I have a problem with women. It’s not true, of course. I don’t have a problem with women per se. I have a problem with people — some of whom happen to be “women.” I put “women” in quotes because that term means different things to different people and this post is an attempt to provoke thought about what women were historically, what they are now and what they could be in a new & different world. But before we proceed, let’s document the official definition of misogyny in case there’s any confusion.

Screen Shot 2016-04-08 at 9.06.16 AM


Per that definition, I do hold contempt and dislike for various roles women have been indoctrinated to perform and zealously defend even though those roles are their shackles that prevent True Freedom, if there is such a thing. But aside from the roles women perform, no, I don’t dislike women or have contempt for them. I love women and what they could be — if only. I’ll let the following story explain. It was a response to an individual who asserted the following per the aforementioned online discussion.


Yes, there will be misogyny, however, I wonder how much of that is women’s fault?

I understand the commentator’s sentiment. An excellent Lars von Trier film, Antichrist, dives deep into this thought thread. Lars has been labeled a misogynist as a reward for his efforts. Watch the clip below. Watch the movie — not once, but instead many times until it sinks in. I want you to melt into the green — with me. We need to get back to nature.

Below is my response to the commentator per the aforementioned conversation/discussion about women, women’s rights & roles and misogyny. I wonder what THE MMM MEN think and feel about the topic, or if they have any thoughts & feelings about it at all? Actually, no I don’t. I think it’s obvious if you look at the faces, especially the eyes, what they think and feel, which ranges from close to nothing on one end of the spectrum to nightmarish on the other end if you’re a woman who digs the point of this blog post.


That’s an excellent point. It takes two to tango, so to speak. Lars von Trier tackles this in his movie Antichrist, by the way. Well, Lars grapples with many things in that movie, but this is certainly one of them. An excellent movie, but one you may have to watch several times to get all of it. Rich and dense like a decadent layer cake is an understatement. It helps to see it in Natural High Definition, as well, or at least it helped for me. I couldn’t get it out of my head for days….or maybe even weeks. There are so many thought threads, as soon as you’ve exhausted one, another is there to take its place.

I understand your point, but not everyone needs to be Stieg Larsson. I loved his trilogy, and I love the character Lisbeth Salander. Women need more of this. They need more stories of women who forge their own paths, and not the paths laid out for them by men or the paths of men; the former path being traditional homemakers and the latter being feminist corporatism.

At a family reunion last year, my sister-in-law (S-I-L) spoke about her hero, Billy Jean King. This S-I-L had been ruled over by a tyrant, her husand and my brother, for quite some time before she basically said “fuck-off” and pursued her own interests. She attended college and received a degree in education and is now a teacher. She and my brother have three grown children.

The conversation continued along the lines of women and their current and historical roles in society and women’s rights in general. My brother did not care to discuss any of this so he remained in the other room and scowled. My S-I-L, obviously, supports equal rights but only in the sense that females get to do everything males do, hence her worship of Billy Jean King. I told her that this outcome was disappointing for me. She became immediately defensive because she assumed my statement was motivated by conservatism. I clarified that my wish was that women could chart their own course and create their world, or a New World in collaboration and cooperation with men, not assume predefined roles in the current world crafted and ruled by men.

She’s not the brightest bulb, so she lashed out at me and said “what other world are you talking about? We’re on planet Earth. It’s not like we can go to Mars.” Her response made me realize just how seemingly impossible a truly New World is. Look how far you’d have to go. You’d have to wipe the slate clean and start fresh with a new generation for there to be any chance. A global societal collapse could do that, but the collateral damage will be immense with no guarantee of the ultimate outcome for women, let alone men.

So, what do you think? Is this New World possible? Or do you prefer things as they are and how they’ve been? Or, do you not care either way and don ‘t give such trivial matters much thought and instead prefer to obsess over and exploit the murders and disappearances of young female coeds?



12 thoughts on “No Silicone, No Veil

  1. “no silicon, no veil”


    Did you mean silicon as in the stuff they make chips from in Silicon Valley or did you mean silicone as in the stuff they make breast implants from?

    • Come to think of it, either would do. The former in a Stepford Wives type of way and the latter in a Stepford Wives type of way. But I cannot tell a lie even though It’s All Lies. I meant the material used to craft breast implants. Thanks for catching that. The correction has been made. What would I ever do without you?

  2. This appears at the end of your blog post…….

    Catcher In The Lie | March 27, 2016 at 10:00 am | Tags: Audre Lorde, Bell hooks, Camille Paglia, Carol Hanisch, Chela Sandoval, Cherríe Moraga, Christina Hoff Sommers, CIA, Daphne Pata, Difference Feminists, Egalitarianism, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Feminism, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Gloria Anzaldúa, Gloria Steinem, Islam, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Judy Chicago, Lawrence Summers, Le Deuxième Sexe, Lipstick Feminism, Lisa Lucile Owens, Pamela Abbott, Post Feminism, Second-Wave Radical Feminism, Simone de Beauvoir, State Feminism, Susan Haack, The Dinner Party, The Personal is Political, The Women’s Suffrage Movement, Virginia Woolf, Women’s Liberation, Women’s Right | Categories: Miscellaneous | URL:

    What’s the story on all these “tags” and why is there a reference to March 27, 2016? Did you write something previously on this subject that I missed?

    • The tags are for reference. All of those tags relate to the topic. It’s up to you if you want to Google the tags and research it further. Also, tags lead people to the post when they’re doing a Google search, so it works both ways in a self-reinforcing cycle — a positive feedback loop.

      The date is when I first started the draft for this post but other projects, blog-related and otherwise, precluded me from completing it until today.

      As an example of the relevance of a tag, the last pic in the blog post is art created by a famous Feminist named Judy Chicago. Vulvas are prominent in her art (Vulva-esque Form). You like vulva art, don’t you? She even created artful dinnerware with a vulva theme called The Dinner Party which is also a tag.

  3. I love that line: Because we can. It’s describes the mentality that’s led to all this incessant technological innovation and evolution. And yet, we’ve hardly evolved socially. Such a disparity can’t end well. Children don’t play well with fire and knives, and that’s the state of Humanity with all this technology — we’re Toddlers playing with very lethal weapons and I’m not just talking about nukes. Plastics are killing us and the planet — killing us softly and everything’s increasingly plastic these days Because we can.

    Things That Should Have Been Done Yesterday, #1

    Ban of all consumer goods, worldwide, that are made with non-bio-degradable or otherwise non-naturally break-downable materials. Phase in period with increasing taxes, 20 percent per year for five years, at which point ban is in place.

    Companies with life-saving or critical infrastructure items may apply for temporary exemptions.

    All plastic packaging. Phase in, one year. It’s not necessary, it’s killing the oceans and overflowing landfills.

    If it won’t biodegrade, it shouldn’t be in widespread use.

    Fat chance of succeeding in forcing the end of The Age of Plastic. Plastic is so ubiquitous — it can be found everywhere, especially in our blood stream and tissues and organs — that we, as in our behavior and attitudes, emulate the qualities of plastic. We are becoming one with the petroleum byproduct that dutifully serves us shit every day — shit that is killing us and the planet and will one day be responsible for our extinction if the nukes don’t get us first. All, Because we can. And Because we can means, obviously, we should and we must. And, so, we do.

  4. Cheer up, Sweetheart! You’re liberated!! You don’t have to do laundry down by the river any longer — and yet, the Laundry Ladies seem happier. From one cell to another, that’s been the effect of liberation. It’s what happens when you don’t own it.

  5. I notice the wan blond is in a poolroom. Maybe I’ve played there. What caption goes with that pic?

  6. In the tags to this blog post, I listed Gamal Abdel Nasser and State Feminism. If you don’t know, Gamel Abdel Nasser was the leader of Egypt from 1952 until 1970 when he was assassinated. He was what was referred to as a Nationalist and I surmise that The West, in affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, was responsible for his assassination because he couldn’t be “controlled.” I believe his support of Feminism and Women’s Rights was certainly political, but it also stemmed from the influence of Communism. I’m not saying Nasser was a Communist. I think his thinking was influenced by a great many factors, and Communism was one of those factors.

    Nasser, to me at least, was the Egyptian version of Malcolm X. He refused to be what the Superpowers wanted him to be, and instead wanted the Egyptian people to evolve into being their own unique Nationality rather than some maladapted bastard child groveling for favor with the two leading benefactors of the day who sought to rule the world.

    This is your lesson for the day. You can learn something new every day, as they say. Nasser was ahead of his time, regardless of whether he was doing it for political expediency. And to think, Rabia Chaudry tacitly supports the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, who, if they have their druthers, will circumcise every clitoris in Egypt & Palestine and beyond. And no doubt some women, those who despise their clitoris and feminine essence and mystique, are just fine with that.

    In spite of the fact that both Rabia Chaudry and Hussein Hamdani are Islamists linked with the North American Hamas support infrastructure, they are scheduled to meet with Montgomery County Police Chief Thomas Manger to present their “solutions” to the terrorist recruitment in the U.S.

    In 2007, Rabia Chaudry was identified as the Media Relations Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Connecticut. In 2012, she publicly defended CAIR almost three years after U.S. Judge Jorge Solis stated that: “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA […] with Hamas” (Section IV / United States of America v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development) and ten years after another judge concluded that the Islamic Association for Palestine, where CAIR founders came from, “has acted in support of Hamas” (Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development v. Ashcroft).

    Given the fact that the FBI severed its ties with CAIR in 2009 “amid mounting evidence that it has links to a support network for Hamas,” it is unacceptable that another police service in the U.S. associates with CAIR apologists, such as Rabia Chaudry, and leads the public into believing that those who are linked with the North American Hamas’s support network are allies against the terrorist threat in the U.S.

    Sexuality, Religion and Nationalism: A Contrapuntal Reading of the History of Female Activism and Political Change in Egypt

    After the revolution of 1952, liberal feminist ideas flourished. Since women’s support strengthened his political discourse, particularly in his open fight against Islamists, President Gamal Abdel Nasser encouraged what Mervat Hatem has called ‘state feminism’ in order to alter the image of women in Egypt. According to Hatem, state feminism was ‘a selection of policies’ that included women’s access to ‘politics through suffrage and candidacy in the 1956 constitution, women’s free access to higher education in 1957, and their integration and increase into the work force by 31.1% between 1961 and 1969. Westernized patterns of life and dress prevailed and women started to appear in public (33-4). Nevertheless, while the voting power given to women strengthens their struggles for better living conditions, they became the ‘ballot fodder for political parties, whether Islamists or secular’ (Botman 87). Despite Nasser’s support of women’s causes, his aim was more to control his citizens rather than establish a democratic and free system. This is reflected in the fact that Nasser’s policies make women depend on state support. Women have liberty in respects to work and education, but they are still controlled by patriarchal marital laws and strict male guardians. Above all, Egyptian women are marginalized in relation to the process of decision-making and political representation. In addressing Egyptian women, President Nasser was adamant to warn them of what he calls as ‘the hypocrite and sexist attitudes of Muslim Brotherhood toward women’. Nasser continues that:

    In the year 1953, I met the head of the Muslim Brotherhood and he sat with me and made his requests. The first thing he asked for was to make wearing a hijab mandatory in Egypt and demand that every woman walking in the street wear a tarha (scarf). I told him my opinion is that every person in his own house decides for himself the rules. He replied: ‘No, as the leader, you are responsible’ […] He said that ‘Women must not work’. I said: ‘if women want to work, we have to protect and support them. Women may become prostitutes out of need and poverty. Work is a protection to [women’s] honour. Preventing women from work is against her interests. Freedom for women is work. Women should work side by side with men. (1958)

    In the above quotation, Nasser establishes the Muslim Brotherhood as a ‘fascist’ group that oppresses women. Unlike Islamists, he trusts women’s sexual freedom and defends their responsibility through supporting their public participation and rights with men. Women’s economic situations improved a lot under Nasser. A textile factory in Chubra el-Kheima, on the outskirts of Cairo, is an evidence of change of working conditions of Egyptian women: Out of 20,000 workers there in 1975, there were 1,150 women: 400 engaged in the manufacturing of silk, 400 in the manufacture of wool, and 350 in cotton spinning (Botman 88). Compared with other factories, this one had many special features advantageous to workers, and especially to women: housing; transportation to and from work, daycare centers, consumer cooperatives, a clinic, a sporting club, and literacy classes. However, Nasser not only replaces the familial male guardianship over women with the state guardianship, but also establishes the political duality of the civil versus the religious state, setting them as contradictory entities. Consequently, some conservative sectors of the population sympathized with Muslim brotherhood as a religious group oppressed by a secular president, who ‘forces women to move outside the traditional roles prescribed to them by their religion’ (Ahmed 8).

Comments are closed.