Through the Portal of Shame: A Path Toward Self-Love for Fatherless Daughters Living in Patriarchy

There are pearls among this filth. “This thesis is a personal journey of lived self-analysis that perhaps may have universal significance that may serve other fatherless daughters in finding their authentic voices.”
Indeed. One hopes authenticity results.



This thesis is a heuristic exploration, from a depth psychological perspective, of the relationship between shame and authentic voice for fatherless daughters living in a patriarchal culture. Literature is reviewed related to a definition of shame and understanding its etiology and psychological effects. Through a depth psychological analysis of the author’s personal experience of abandonment by her father, the path toward healing shame is revealed as the capacity to be vulnerable enough to tell one’s whole story in the presence of a loving and compassionate witness. This profoundly courageous act is what leads a fatherless daughter from a place of a silenced voice in the face of shame to a place of empowerment through sharing her authentic voice and moving toward psychological liberation.


My Grouses! Our flock’s spiraling journey to the Self allowed me to have the strength and courage to love myself again. My therapist, mentor…

View original post 2,911 more words

Hollywood celebrates promiscuity in order to trick losers into embracing the cuckoldry fetish

“It IS hard to reconcile my love of fantasy and my love of realistic fiction. Realistic dramas have to deal with the banality of human evil and weakness. A realistic adventure story might have the incredibly depressing character-driven drama of Berserk, the depressing totalitarian surveillance of Gattaca, and the depressing violence of Platoon. No one would want to watch it.”

That’s called a Russian novel, e.g.: War and Peace or Dr. Zhivago.



TVTropes seems to have a very low opinion of the “Defiled Forever” trope, and seems to promote Author Tracts that proudly preach “My Girl Is A Slut.”

I had previously said that most of the fiction I notice seems to revolve around virgin romance
. That reflects a certain narrowness of vision on my part. I’m not willing to sit through bad art such as Sex and the City just to get a well-rounded notion of what sort of popular entertainment promotes promiscuity.

In some cases, the “My Girl is a Slut” trope is a celebration of sluttiness. In other cases, it can be used to criticize men who buy into the “sexual liberation” propaganda.

View original post 557 more words

Fairy tales for privileged kids: “the anti-white racist”

The Patriarchy approves this message for study of fallacious logic.

days like crazy paving

A disclaimer before we begin: what I’m about to talk about here are facts. This means they are not up for debate. There are not multiple sides to this story. You are not owed a “reasonable discussion” about this, nor will I “agree to disagree” with you. I’m talking about things that are abjectly, incontrovertibly true. Okay? Okay.

Let’s start things off with a little mathematical proof:

(A) RACISM = [racial prejudice] * [institutional power]

(B) SUM OF [institutional power] held by black people =…

sub (B) into (A)

RACISM against white people = [racial prejudice] *…

therefore RACISM against white people =…

As you can see, because multiplying by zero will always give you an answer of zero, racism against white people equals zero for any and all values of “racial prejudice”.

See, racism isn’t just about prejudice. Is it possible for non-white people to be prejudiced against white people?…

View original post 935 more words

Why Do You Drug Your Child?

Free Northerner commented regarding drugged children – vis-à-vis attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

We went bowling with another couple and their three kids this past Saturday; we brought our two children along as well. The experience was less than perfect, as are all experiences with five children in tow, but it went about as well as could be expected. Among things discussed was their decision to place their eldest child, a girl, on Adderall to combat the effects of her behavior attributed to attention deficit disorder. My thoughts were exactly those of Free Northerner, plus one more: the parents chose to ease their lives rather than ease the life of their child.

Explanations: The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers: Abortion-on-Demand

Some months ago, I broke ties with the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers (ASF). I suppose it would be convenient for some among that group to conclude that I returned to belief in deity (I haven’t), but my motivation for parting with the only significant gathering of atheists within hundreds of miles isn’t about assertions regarding heaven and how one might arrive there upon death. I am concerned, instead, with how we all together might make hell upon earth. I’ll begin with the most egregious example: ASF’s advocacy for abortion-on-demand.

I’d like to think myself a child-loving man, but the truth belies such claims. I’ve previously stated my position that what one does with one’s own children is one’s own business, and for an extreme example, I suppose that, if pressed, I’ll have to admit that killing one’s own children falls within my general outline of parental child-ownership rights. [There’s much more to be said about so-called rights and when one becomes free from parental child-ownership, but we’ll save that for another post.] That darkly enlightened insight exposed, my opinion of exercising such Darwinian dead-end parenting skills is irreducibly small. If you kill your own children, you are more likely to be mentally ill than mentally fit. Exceptions apply, that’s why we recognize exceptions, but the basic premise is still valid: you have a right to kill your children, but killing your children is a sign of mental instability. If you kill your children, keep the fuck away from me and my kids.

With that established, I’d like to repost, for your consideration, the monofilament-thin justification ASF provided for its participation in a pro-choice rally back in January.

“The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers does not officially take any stance on the issue of abortion. One of our main principles is the defense of the separation of church and state. Many anti-abortion lawmakers cite or imply faith-based reasons as the primary or sole rationale for their legislative actions. ASF promotes and defends logical discussion and secular, evidence-based reasoning on the issue of abortion or any other topic.

“Our goal in having a table at this rally is two-fold – to promote ASF to this prime target audience, and to distribute copies of the FFRF [Freedom from Religion Foundation] non-tract [better described as an atheist anti-Christian tract], “What Does the Bible Say About Abortion?” (with ASF website and email contact info affixed). We want to educate Arkansans and our legislators that their holy book indeed has nothing to say on the issue of abortion, and instead contains numerous commandments of graphic violence towards women, children, and the unborn. 

“We welcome any ASF members, pro-choice or pro-life, to attend in support or in peaceful protest of this rally.

“See the Arkansas Coalition for Reproductive Justice Facebook Page [Link omitted.]
“See Photos from last years rally [Link to photographs of ASF members and officers at 2013 rally omitted.]”

I won’t belabor ASF’s event description, but I’ll make a few brief points.

1. ASF does not take an official stance on abortion. Perhaps I’m quibbling, but one of the event organizers is a lawyer, so I assume the adjective isn’t accidental.
2. ASF purports to participate in the rally in defense of evidence-based decision-making in government by distributing copies of a document arguing that a religious text does not prohibit abortion.
3. ASF invites pro-choice and pro-life members to attend the rally where the official action of ASF is distributing pro-choice literature.

Here’s one last bit of information from the Wikipedia user page for one Anne Nicol Gaylor, regarding the FFRF, its founding, and its founder, the aforementioned user.

“While working on abortion rights issues, Gaylor felt the need to address what she saw as the root cause of women’s oppression: religion. She felt that the existing women’s rights organizations were not confronting this issue, so she founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) in 1976, along with her daughter Annie Laurie Gaylor and the late John Sontarck. [Sontarck was once treasurer of American Atheists. One wonders how he knew the Gaylors, and where Mr. Gaylor was when all this was happening around the kitchen table of the home he shared with Mrs. Gaylor.] She served as the president and executive director until her retirement in 2005. The group is currently headed by her daughter, Annie Laurie Gaylor, and son-in-law, Dan Barker. She currently works as a consultant for the FFRF and holds the position of president emerita. While she was president the group grew from three [duh, the founders] to over 19,000 members in all 50 U.S. states and Canada.”

So, let’s be clear about this one thing in particular: ASF officially participated in a pro-choice rally and distributed literature from a conspicuously pro-choice organization founded by a woman that felt she couldn’t effectively advocate for abortion without addressing “the root cause of women’s oppression: religion.”

So, here’s my message for the leadership of ASF. You aren’t fooling anybody. You’re advocating for abortion. Own it.

For my part, I oppose abortion-on-demand and support laws regulating state-licensed medical professionals’ participation in terminating pregnancies. I’m willing to discuss compromise and adjustment of the legal code through a democratically-elected state legislature. Parental responsibility begins with copulation, life begins at conception, not birth, and arguments citing worst-case gestation scenarios are reasons to establish exceptions to laws preserving life, not norms for killing.

I’ll provide further explanations (regarding other topics), for my departure from ASF in future posts.

Some words about surviving from “Joshua, damn It…”

Found this statement, below, after several links. Source is here. WordPress site is here. Link chain began here then here. Please click the links. I don’t know the guy, so you may want to follow him in case he doesn’t approve this gross copyright encroachment.

The difficult but important gut-check time of surviving trauma is realizing that you are the one who changed. The world didn’t. You did.

It isn’t fair. That’s life. It isn’t insensitive to state things the way they are. We all have issues and triggers and must learn to adapt.

Ex: I don’t see fireworks the same way after Iraq, but it would be irrational for me to demand others stop their festivities for my sake.Ex: I don’t see fireworks the same way after Iraq, but it would be irrational for me to demand others stop their festivities for my sake.

At no point does being a survivor of anything bestow special rights to demean and slander others for not sharing my perspective.

There are difficult choices to be made in life. This is certainly true after trauma. Some people want to make the world pay for their pain.

But just because someone uses a word that reminds you of something bad that happened to you doesn’t give you license to demand anything.

There are differences to when someone yells “I am a victim” and “I am a survivor.” One is an accomplishment. The other is not.

That’s the truth. It isn’t pretty. It isn’t excusing anything. It’s just the way it is. We are skeptics. We look the truth in the face.

We don’t flinch from the truth when it becomes painful. We don’t alter reality to suit the way we would prefer it to be. This is who we are.

You can be hurt. You can be angry that you were hurt. You can be right to be angry that you were hurt. But then what? Where do you go now?

The world isn’t stopping to wait for you to catch your breath while you process your pain. It carries on. It isn’t evil. It’s indifferent.

Life is all we have. It’s hard. It’s dirty. It’s painful. It’s unfair. It’s cold.
It’s heartless.
We provide the heart.

Yes. You’ve been hurt. No one knows how deeply. No one knows how cruelly. It happened. That was real. Now what? Between here and the grave?

You are hurtling through the void on a rock with a few other lucky beings interrupting the lifeless order of existence. What do you carry?

What do you choose to wrap your fingers around until your knuckles are aching and your hands are calloused? What does is give back to you?

We can only hold to so much. Meanwhile other things slip away beyond our grasp forever are we keep hurtling forward.

These things you carry begin to define you. These are the things you have to share with others. These are how they will come to know you.

You are here. You are alive. You are standing as the champion of your life atop the ashes of all the yesterdays which you survived.

You alone have your perspective at this very moment. You alone of all the sentient beings of all time stand to see what you see. You alone.

Is that perspective a tool in your hand? Is it a weapon? Is it an anchor around your heart?

Look into the incalculable improbability of your survival. Own it. It belongs to you and to no other. Breathe in and laugh as only can.

You are a human being.
The root of the second word is a verb.
So do that.



-Joshua, damn it…

Fred: Onward into the Night – Or Uganda, Anyway

If you think a man of Fred’s caliber hasn’t already provided measurable support for the lot of our sorry asses, you’re one of the damn Animal Farm barnyard animals he’s describing. His recollections, though accurate, relate the perspective of a genius unchallenged by the curriculum he describes. By the time I’d stumbled through the same curriculum in a stupendously ignorant southern school district, the high school math teachers had succeeded in convincing the school board to dispense with the instruction of algebra in eighth grade (Junior High) since none of the students arrived prepared for the second year of its study by the ninth grade (High School). The underlying problem, I have since discovered, was not the competence of the eighth grade instructors, but of the instructors purportedly teaching fractions, among other mathematical concepts, to the young students in grades Kindergarten through seven. It’s simply no use teaching algebra to a mind ill-prepared by parentage and previous schooling. Yet none of this warrants empathy for Fred. His lineage alone damns him: grandfather a doctor, father a mathematician, and himself a rake who admittedly married thoughtlessly to a woman who deserved better. One wonders how his daughters got so purportedly amazing, since he makes no claim of influence. Therein, friends, lies the rub. The baby-boom generation appears sufficiently lacking in self-reflection to recognize its failures amidst its successes. I am fortunate my parents took the time to educate me, whilst sorely lacking the resources and opportunities afforded Fred and his ilk, and I’ve done my best to push my own children another rung up the ladder of mental capacity and out of this muck one might kindly call the writhing masses of humanity. The gentleman writing to us from south of the border, proudly boasting of his seniorita cum seniora, ought think more regarding his contribution to the resulting disaster which is modern K-12 education in this nation north of the one in which he resides before waxing eloquent regarding its better years.

Daughters, Not Daughter-in-laws, please.

The Patriarchy cannot endorse this message. Standards for sons-in-law are VERY HIGH. Here’s a brief list (upon which we may expound later):
1. Excellent breeding. The potential son-in-law should possess an impressive physique, as should his parents and grandparents.
2. HIs parents and grandparents should all be alive and in good health, as examples of longevity and competence (as opposed to poor genetics and foolishness).
3. A good son-in-law should demonstrate acquired wealth and ongoing income from sources he has personally established. Inherited wealth may serve in a pinch, but is not preferred.
4. A good son-in-law has several siblings upon which a daughter may reasonably resort for assistance if she is widowed. A son-in-law without siblings (which demonstrates poor fecundity for the future) ought at least have an extended tribe upon which your daughter might depend.
5. A good son-in-law is very focused on the pursuit of his life – career, art, profession, passion, duty, whatever – but retain some remaining time for wife and children that feels empty without a family. A man who is fulfilled without a family is a poor son-in law.
6. A good sone-in-law does not need your daughter – he WANTS your daughter above other options for a wife. He is willing to negotiate with you, the father of your heart’s desire, for a union of families, so that the future of his children is secured by your effort as patriarch over your daughter, in conjuction with his effort as patriarch over your grandchildren.

There is much more that might be enumerated. But you ought know this at least: the standard for men exceeds the standard for women. If you are to be a good daughter-in law, be a woman worthy of such a husband.

The World’s Fastest Patriarchy Proof: Response to AVFM Blatant Dishonesty

The Patriarchy endoreses this message. A Voice for MEn is mistaken. Women haven’t achieved shit, despite almost one full century of feminist effort. Perhaps the base material lacks something intrinsic.


AVFM writer Josh O’Brienposted another pointless, inaccurate schpeel on how Patriarchy isn’t ‘real.’ He uses four categories where he mistakenly thinks women are powerful, educational, political, social and economic.So let’s disprove him, quickly.


While women are overrepresented in the lower levels of teaching where they aren’t paid well and achieve more college degrees than men they are way behind when it comes to professorial tracks. [1] [2] [3]

Saying women have power in education is FALSE.


I have to note here that I was absolutely astounded at the ignorance of AVFM to put such blatantly inaccurate information on their website. It’s as if the managing editor, Dean Esmay, hasn’t reviewed a SINGLE word of what’s posted by the writers.

Source with link to Global Gender Gap 2013 Report

Saying women have power in the political sphere is FALSE.


Again, how can they be so…

View original post 200 more words

Is “Feminism” Just Internet Hate-Bait?

Once in a while, something feminist says something true. To whit wit:
“anyone who thinks a loon’s portrait of her own narcissistic ego economy can affect some serious change in what a “good feminist is” needs to call their parents and just sort out whatever problem it is they’re displacing in “the patriarchy.” There’s definitely a patriarchy. The problem is a lot of “feminists” aren’t actually fighting it; they’re just pissing off their personal patriarch.”

The Litost Publishing Collective

BY: Khayree Billingslea


VICE recently published an article that had the word “feminist” in it. This isn’t a new thing, obviously. We all know that if you’re running a publication and want to open up the floodgates of open discourse (read: traffic (read: hate)), include “femin-” in the title. It helps if you can frame the article as a question. If you can fit Justin Bieber in the piece, you’re killing the game. Prime example, here.

The article is basically what I’ll call hate bait, and if you ever see that word again, let me know. This means the content of the article is irrelevant, though it will pretend to matter very, very much. In the comment section, angry lemmings will even go so far as to quote passages from the text to prove their points–points they articulated with the intention of getting into a fight.

“I will not stand…

View original post 713 more words