"Twilight" An Allegory For The Bloodsucking Nature of White Hetero Males

Just when I thought I was done talking about the fruit cake known as Julian Real, a stumble across this latest blog entry. In it he takes a crack at being an amateur film critic, and watches the vampire flick "Twilight" through his radical profeminist lens. And the results are expected and hilariously stupid.

"Twilight": another tale of the awful plight of the troubled white serial killer

Where the vampire's otherness posed a terrifying threat for the original readers of Dracula, [...] today that same alien quality is often perceived as an attraction. As rebellious outsider, as persecuted minority, as endangered species, and as member of a different "race" that legend portrays as sexually omnicompetent, the vampire makes a fitting hero for late twentieth-century popular fiction. --"The Vampire as Alien in Contemporary Fiction", by Margaret L. Carter, p. 29 of Blood Read.

The white, dark-haired, not-so-badboy is back. His name is Edward Cullen and he's "sexier", and paler, than ever. Edward is keeping his damsel-in-distress, Bella Swan, out of trouble with the enemies of true white love--you know, those with the "longest incisors". Keep in mind the story of The Ugly Duckling--with feathers all stubby and brown--the first three and a half minutes of this YouTube video tells the tale. Only when it becomes a white swan does it become bella, or beautiful. So of course he's desired by and desires a young thin pale white woman--duh! ("Out" gay men and butch lesbians of any color are not likely to make the cut as "the romantic love interest" anytime soon in a major motion picture.) And of course he desires to BE WITH HER ALWAYS (creepy!), never letting him out of his sight, or, well, to be her soulmate. (Too often in real life: same diff.) This is where this story lures us in: is he a bad "irresistable" pale guy who wants to be good, or a good guy whose passions will lead him to be bad? Even without long incisors, we are aware he carries danger somewhere inside himself... perhaps in his molars.

It sometimes gets confusing as to who exactly is evil in racist Western patriarchal cultural mythology. But generally speaking, in cinema, all that is white, including good-whiteguy cowboy hats, represents good. All that is dark or black, including bad whiteguy cowboy hats, as well as anyone with unpale or "black" skin and allegedly "black" eye color, is ominous, dangerous, and just plain evil. The 1960s campy TV vampire soap opera was called "Dark Shadows" not "Sunny Days" for a reason. More on Twilight's racism a bit later.

This story draws on themes that go all the way back to the Old Testament (with that original irresistible white temptress who only makes the weak white man feel badly about himself for giving into temptation). Is this another telling of male supremacy's Adam and Eve'l or Romeo and Juliet? Well, the woman in such myths is a threat to a man's well-being or she's dead; or, in vampire films, perhaps a combination of both.

This is the dilemma our newest pale male vampire faces in Twilight: to love Bella, be with her, as an abnormal human doing his best to assimilate, or to steel himself away from her, for her own good. Edward isn't your common cannibal, after all. He only goes after non-human animals for snacks, unlike the other more overtly predatory heteromale vampires in this film, such as James--a common cannibal who really hates vampires who won't suck the life out of people who are (only) human. (Figuring out what to serve such a lot at a U.S. holiday supper must get so problematic. I don't get the sense anyone would be all that happy with tofurkey.)

In Edward and James we have the eternal inner struggle of the perrenially tormented pale vampire: To bite/penetrate/kill or not to bite/penetrate/kill? For Edward, a diet of pets may suffice. But not so for James, whose specific tastes might be termed Bellatarian. Good vampire vs. bad vampire. Each battling for the love, or blood, of Bella. The subtitle to this film could just as well be "It's Hard Out Here for a Vampire". Poor fellas. Poor Bella--drawn to a man who cannot love her without the risk of her being destroyed. Here is the painful passion found in many abusive relationships: she wants him, but he's not good for her; he wants her, but his love might result in her death. But back to fiction.

Vampire movies are, historically, a Hollywood film genre known for eroticising pale male violence against [traditionally] young thin white women, in that "oh-so-sexy-while-creepy" way. Sure, there was that 1994 ECD oh-so-controversial Brad Pitt-Tom Cruise homoeroticism pervading some scenes in Anne Rice's best-seller brought to the screen, Interview with the Vampire". (And, the blogger noted sarcastically, they really pushed the envelope regarding who is seen as handsome in Hollywood with that film, eh?)

We might note the number of women involved in the maintenance of this genre. I suspect because these stories are, on the surface, more romance and passion than ugly predation and woman-killing. (Male writers and directors still hold the market on the bloodier, "terrify, fuck, and kill the woman" films. But given the racist-sexist pornographication of Western society, it matters not if the story is written by a woman or a man. All these lines between love, romance, danger, and death have been blurring for some time. Terror and horror can be themes in a dominant society that won't own the real horrific and terrible things that it does, like, say, keeping a genocide going on this soil.

In fact, the blending of racism (not just symbolically), heterosexism, the potential and impending death of a woman or women, spiced with turn-on or terror, is something that U.S. films and many top rated TV shows just can't exist without. For Hollywood, leaving the violence out of sexist and racist themes, and the sexism and racism out of violence, would, well, be like depriving a predatory heteromale vampire of fresh female blood. Well, the female blood that comes from the neck area*.

[*There are plenty of tired, misogynist jokes about male vampires being drawn to women who are having their periods. The idea with this humor is that it is "gross" (hence funny) because, you must understand, menstruating women are really gross, so men say. Menstruation = gross = funny. Yes, this does mean dominant male society's emotional maturity level is perpetually in elementary school. Perhaps because of being raised in the company of plenty of girls and women, I've never understood the aversion to menstrual blood. Women friends and I have discussed using it in political work. For me, the more it is in men's faces the better. Why is it "in vogue" to cover women's faces in men's semen? Because it shows who is degrading whom, and that semen is gross, not hot, when it touches female flesh. (In gay male pornography, it's only hot, because it never touches female flesh.)

I can't seem to get through to my gay and heterosexual brothers on this topic. They'll shriek and cringe like, well, the misogynistic mensesphobic grown men they are, when I bring up the subject of menstrual blood. They share stories of personal "horror" such as when a young or older man finds external evidence lying around of a woman having her period, such as when a woman doesn't waste water by not flushing the toilet when there's drops of blood in it as well as urine, or when the disposal of a tampon or pad is shamelessly left atop a bathroom wastebin "insufficiently" cocooned in toilet paper. The key to understanding misogynist men's attitudes about women and blood is this: blood from the uterus--not sexy. Blood from any other area of a woman--sexy. Menstrual blood is not the kind of blood men eroticise in (or on) women because it is a sign of pre-menopausal women's health, and life. Women bleeding is, in the misogynistic imagination, supposed to be fused only to the possibility of female death. Of course this still allows men the pornographic option of being the violent cause of women's internal bleeding, anywhere in her body, including down there.]

But where were we? Ah yes: misogyny and racism.

Pale white is the dominant U.S./U.K. new (oh, and not-so-new, and olden days) "beautiful", according to fables, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and corporate pimps. Surely you remember: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest one of all?" and all that other racist-hetero/sexist children's story horseshit. But the claims of the vampire as another race gets tricky in a film like this one. For there are, [SPOILER ALERT!!] actual people of color depicted in this movie. In typical Hollywood racist fashion, American Indians have "a role" to play in this film, and, unfortunately, it's not solely to remind the pale-faced leeches to go back to Transylvania... or wherever in Europe we came from. Here, they can be werewolves. (Wait: isn't that basically how Hollywood has ALWAYS presented American Indians?) As such, they become "animals" for white-night-crawling vampires to drain. (Sarcasm alert:) Humans as animals: nothing sexist or racist about that!

As for the hidden and not-so-hidden misogynist violence within this genre, one need only note that in the 2008 ECD vampire TV show True Blood, there was reference to a "fang-banging". (The dots are all connected, it's just that we're trained to see only dots, no lines.) Curiously, this time it's the TV show that could "go there" while this movie, rated [SPOILER ALERT!!] PG-13, doesn't quite. Ah, the allure of the long period of longing in heterosexual seduction. The endless wait for consummation, a word which means to bring to fruition, to fuck if newly married, and to terminate. (How quaint of the English language to offer up such a term.)

Twilight, according to reports, handles this topic of consummation in an way that shouldn't upset too many folks who are into the whole white Christian conservative spawned (and miserably failing) phenomena of the "virginity pledge" and the "Purity Ring".

There will be no "sex" (meaning, OF COURSE, genital-to-genital male-with-female intercourse) in this new film! Sparing the audience of predominantly white, middle class adolescent girls and their moms of scenes of consummation means you have a Disney-tame plot line with enough sexual tension to take us through several sequels, or centuries: whichever comes first. It also means that grown men are not so likely to go see this one. (We're virtually all addicted to Internet porn anyway, so "Bye, ladies, have fun at the movies!" This is not to say one need leave home to see fangy-toothed men portrayed graphically.

For example, you may have seen this vampiric theme on CSI:

">

In overtly sexually violent
Vogue magazine photos, and in this more "tame" Vogue image in which such thin white young women seem to walk the line, visually, between life and death.

And in the news, men serially murdering women is also nothing new. To modify a famous quote by C. A. MacKinnon: Man kills women; subject verb objects. There has even been a real life vampire serial killer.

Academics, too, have tackled this theme. For an especially good analytic piece on the subject, see this.

I can only wonder about the on-going jokes of the dashing draculesque dude having blue-balls, and not just because he's so damned cold all the time. All I can say is: Edward Cullen, take matters into your own hands. If you don't get to that nubile female human blood in time, what's the worst thing that can happen? Oh, right: you die, for good.

To Edward, James, and any readers of this blog who happen to be vampires, I recommend that you leave white women, men and women of color, and non-human animals alone and go crawl into a coffin.

Male pale-faces, go home to Transylvania!

Hey, Edward--what do you think of that idea?

I thought so.

Get ready for the sequels, folks.

For a whole book on this subject, see Blood Read: The Vampire as Metaphor in Contemporary Society, edited by Joan Gordon and Veronica Hollinger.

If interested in more plot details, see here.

For discussion and analysis of the racism in the book (which spills over into the film), click here.

For a wonderfully transgressive fictional spin on the same ole plot, see Jewelle Gomez's The Gilda Stories. A review of her book is here.

(Revised on Nov. 25)

I posted a comment on this blog, I don't expect any sort of response, nor do I expect it to be shown. Julian has control over what comments can or cannot be shown on his page. The ones he keeps, though, are usually copied and pasted and used in his rants.

I feel disgusted right now. Not because Julian Real is a fucking idiot (and he is). But because after all that, he turned out to be a pretty weak opponent. Here is a guy who would go out of his way to smear those whose ideologies conflicted with his, only to be a quitter. Now has half-baked movie reviews, in the guise of social commentary? Bullshit!

The comment I submitted went something like this.

"Twilight," an allegory of the bloodsucking nature of White Hetero Men? You truly are a fucking idiot. Does ANYONE besides you take you seriously?

Julian Real Is A Quitter

This is the latest posting from Julian Real's "Radical Profeminist" blog.

A Radical Profeminist: Bye-bye Men's Rights Brethren

To John Dias, cybro, Kapt Krunch, Fidelbogen, MadShangi, Frostyboy, Anti Misandry, and all the other Father's Rights/Men's Rights/Antifeminist Activists out there:

It has been brought to my attention by a colleague that all the arguments you put forth have already been answered sufficiently (see below). Therefore, I decided it would be an utter waste of cyberspace to further engage you on those subjects here.

Since you don't seem to know it, I'll inform you that you are a group of very privileged human beings who are utterly clueless about the living conditions and lack of privileges most people in the world--who aren't you--live with, endure, and often don't survive.

When you are, from your points of view, unfairly treated, or falsely accused--sometimes by one woman in your past--this "affront" generates in far too many of you the most self-righteous, scathing, and scornful written assaults on women, especially feminists, with a particularly foolish level of deranged irrationality focused on radical feminists.

These sorts of ego-bruises--assuming the occasional personal injustice done to some of you--to which you are apparently not at all accustomed, is but one indication of the enormous amount of privilege you carry day to day. (Most women I know are treated unfairly every day of their lives.

You give humanity a bad name. So much for the myth of white men being western civilisation's standard of sanity, honesty, and integrity.

Let the record show that, to date, my questions to antimisandrists have never been answered. I gave John Dias his requested two days to reply here, and he did not choose to do so.

I apologise to the anti-misogynist visitors here for giving those men as much attention as I have.

I'll close this post with the following quotes, correspondence, and this important link (a website from which all of what follows was found). What is blockquoted below, in addition to the other information found at the link just above, thoroughly exposes many of the distortions and lies Fathers' Rights and Men's Rights Groups are organised to promote and promulgate.

Robert Okun, a specialist in men's issues and domestic violence, pointed out that many of today’s dads, whether married, never-married or divorced, are doing their best to stay actively involved in their children’s lives. But of men in the organized father’s rights movement, who typically represent themselves as the innocent victims of gender discrimination and manipulative ex-wives, Okun writes: "Some may very well be getting a raw deal. If so, it is essential that divorce lawyers, psychotherapists, family service court officers, mediators, guardians ad litem and judges educate themselves about those circumstances and take steps to intervene when a man has been erroneously targeted as part of a strategy in a contentious custody complaint. However, in a dangerously high number of cases, many of these fathers have a documented history of abuse."

[C]oncerned citizens who've taken the time to investigate the activities of father's rights groups in greater depth -- notably Trish Wilson, a freelance writer who considers exposing the shady underside of the father's custody movement her part-time job. Ms. Wilson first became curious about the movement when she stumbled into a father's rights message board on AOL ten years ago. When she questioned the accuracy of child support statistics posted on the board, Ms. Wilson reports she was "attacked by the regulars there. The woman who had posted the original out-of-context quotes told me that I believed all women should have custody of their children because they had uteruses, which is nonsense. There were similar, ugly flames thrown at me by others. I was taken aback at how nasty they were." Since then, Ms. Wilson has conducted extensive research reviews and produced a series of articles disputing the studies and data father's rights advocates use to justify their intention to overhaul child custody and support laws.

Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 06:12:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: enclosed@mo.net
To: liz
Subject: Re: SMH

Liz,

One evening I was sitting at dinner with a man who stated "Women don't understand abstract justice." I said, "What do you mean by that?"

He said, "They can only see the world through relationships, and that is all that matters to them."

Thanks for proving his point.

Look for this man's book coming out this year, "The Case for Father Custody." [5]

Liz, a man is very interested in raising his progeny, not somebody elses.

"Organisms have evolved to expend their very lives enhancing the fitness prospects of their descendants. Parental investment is a precious resource, and selection must favor those parental psyches that do not squander it on nonrelatives." --Daly and Wilson, 1988.

Nick

LIZ'S RESPONSE:

I see you've run out of arguments and now have descended into thinly veiled insults, i.e. telling me (a lawyer), that (being a woman) I do not understand "justice," as well as resorting to sloganism, and the "authoritative fallacy," i.e. quoting others, who are to be given extra credence because their words have been published.

You go on to say: "A man is very interested in raising his progeny not somebody elses."

I have a question back. It's "why?" Why do you think so? Are you sure it's RAISING that progeny and not merely passing on genes?

My response to you is this: catering to an adult's ego is just not a priority consideration. It has nothing whatever to do with the interests of a child. If you believe a parental DNA connection is a motivating thing, well that speaks volumes.

We're talking "possession" here, as in property, as in "mine." And "molding" here as in "indoctrination into my beliefs." Not caregiving. Not a child perspective. But self-adoration and replication. If the biological connection alone was so motivating, how is it we have the numbers of nonmarital unions and bad marriages we have? what about adoptive parents? what about sperm donors? I'll agree with you that some men think this way. I just don't buy it as some naturally arising drive, and even as a result of social indoctrination, I don't buy it as a given.

But let's accept your theory for the sake of argument. If a biological father's ostensible natural interest is in raising his own progeny, that interest nevertheless still is unlikely to compare favorably with the gestating mother's interest. She's got the very same biological connection, PLUS the biological relationship in fact with the child! And how is the father's interest later on demonstrated? Who is more likely to be the primary caregiver?

"The Case For Father Custody?" Nonsense. By your own measure, natural mothers' parenting generally would come out on top on both counts: your "abstract justice" theory, as well as my real life relationship preservation.

In one breath you've pretended (that male superiority thing?) that "women don't understand abstract justice," and then implicitly called upon nature, quoting talk about about organism evolution. Evolutionarily, the male reproductive drive in species the world over is merely to pass on the genes, not to raise the children. Most organisms also have evolved such that mothers raise their young.

And what about your "abstract justice?" Life is not lived in the abstract, and some men's egos are just not the sum total of what counts.

This is really what the FR movement is about, isn't it. Children and women as men's possessions. The ideology of property rights. Patriarchy. It has nothing whatever to do with the well-being of children.

By the way. Clarence Darrow, a famous man lawyer well known for his righting of wrongs, had this to say about "abstract justice": there is no such thing, in or out of court.

liz

I just got a call from my mother a few minutes ago. She had just been reading my blog, and decided to give me a call late at night. I was glad, I was worried it would have been someone I didn't want to talk to: like a bill collector, Tele-Marketer, or my employers.

"I just want to say 'kudos' to you for holding your own against that Julian Real guy," she said, "I'm so proud of you. He surfs around policing other people's opinions and threatening to call the cops. He's insane! I was writing you an e-mail and said 'fuck it," I'll just give you a call. Oh, and I noticed on one of your videos that your tower was maiking like a... siren sound... and I think I know how to fix it..."

Thanks, mom. And I just got your e-mail. I'll check it out. ;)

Oh, and for those of you liked my posted gangsta rap lyrics. You'll love this.

Julian Real, you're a punk
Faking down Fake Street, fake in the funk
You're a bitch, whiny man-child little snitch
MadShangi says “Fuck what you pitch!”
You're a bitch, and you're just like a pony
giving kid's rides, 'cause you sad and lonely
You think you own me, but I own you
Grow some balls, bitch – 'cause I own two
Your life is through, 'cause you try to hang me
But, you punk: you can't fuck with MadShangi
I can say what I wanna say, 'cause it's my blog
And if you don't like it, you can go fuck the dog
Cause I know you do anyway
If the dog shits, eat it, 'cause fuck what you say
You publish my name, so I'm a publish yours
'Cause punks like you are just like cold sores
Pussy, it's time to smarten up, you little wussy
MadShangi says: “Fuck this Little Tootsie!”
I may be no Vanilla Ice, but I don't give fuck
MadShangi just showed up 'cause you suck
Call the cops, coward 'cause you're overpowered
Get devoured! 'Cause your milk has soured
I've broken no laws, and my records are clean
Julian Real is just venting his spleen
Sit down, take it like a man, Peter Pan, Neverland
'cause you've just been shit-canned
So you was touched when you were little
It's not like I'm unsympathetic...
But that's no excuse for you to be this pathetic
Stop. Now. And seek some help, get your head checked
'Cause the shit you write is mind-wrecked
Bullshit – motherfucker, pull shit – let's expose it
Gangster-fronting feminized boy, that fronts to pose it
I know what your last name is, but I'm the one that's Real
So deal! And like a pig you will squeal for your meal
That's your appeal, Julian Real

Ha! Ha! That was cathartic for me. It really was. Julian, you're a fucking quitter. You really are. Oh, and by the way... who reads your shit anyway but us? So I say goodbye to you too, and poo-poo, for you get no kiss for you boo-boo. Sucker!

"Let the record show that, to date, my questions to antimisandrists have never been answered. I gave John Dias his requested two days to reply here, and he did not choose to do so." - Julian Real

MARX - Antimisandry.com Forum Admin

I couldn't be blessed to read beyond that point, because he is undeniably lying through his teeth. John's repsonse is pasted to this thread and Julian seems to be unwilling to allow John's post (at Julian's blog) to be approved or has been deleted in order to serve as 'evidence' of his (Julian's) claim (that John did not reply).

Let's assume worst case scenario here though, and give Julian benefit of the doubt: We know, by Julian's own admission, that he misrepresented his claim to have presented questions to antimisandry.com members. Instead, he had posted questions elsewhere. They were then pasted in Kim's blog, which is mirrored here.

Now Julian presents this as him "asking antimisandry.com members a questions and they did not answer my questions".


See the difference folks?

Regardless though, Julian knew that his questions were contained in here - and he considers their very presense reason enough to justify a claim against antimisandry.com.

Fine.

So, even *if* John had not answered at Julian's blog - his answer still exists here, on antimisandry.com

If Julian can anticipate that we should 'just know' he expected us to answer his question, being as they existed here - surely the same logic works for John's response...

Or is it different this time around, because it doesn't suit the obvious agenda?


Here's JD's answers to Julian, anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Dias Since he dedicated a post specifically to letting me give our side of the story, I posted the following comment on his blog today. - - - - - - - - - I did a search on AntiMisandry, and found a post in which you were quoted. The quote was taken from a comment that you left on a post at the blog of Rex Patriarch. That post on Rex Patriarch was written in response to a Washington Times article entitled, "Calling for truce in War of the Sexes," which is a book review of "Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care" by Kathleen Parker. So it seems that this is the chronology: 1. Kathleen Parker writes a pro-male book, entitled "Save the Males," in 2008. 2. Washington Times columnist Larry Thornberry writes a column on July 20, 2008, which is favorable to Parker's pro-male book. 3. Cybro, owner of the Rex Patriarch MRA-oriented blog, quotes liberally from the Washington Times article, using the quotes to illustrate how radical feminism has unjustly demonized innocent boys and men for the actions of a few. 4. Julianreal (you) comments on Cybro's blog posting on July 24, 2008, and is subsequently and summarily dismissed by Cybro as a feminist ideologue and likely women's studies graduate. 5. Kim, a pro-male female blogger who is also a member at AntiMisandry.com, creates a thread that quotes from and lambastes Julianreal's comment on the Rex Patriarch blog post. 6. Julianreal creates a post on his blog entitled, "Antimisandry.com: An Introduction," dated November 12, 2008. The post seems to be critical of the MRA-oriented site AntiMisandry.com. However, Julianreal cites no examples of objectionable content on AntiMisandry.com, and instead links to several other Web sites. Athough the title of Julianreal's article is "Antimisandry.com: An introduction," not one example is provided of writing on the site. The only links provided to the site pertain to the average age and full listing of the site's membership. What is critiqued is the general outlook of the site: AntiMisandry.com opposes misandry (the teaching of contempt for males in popular culture). The theme of Julianreal's post concedes that it's possible that wrong can be done to men, and that when it happens it's wrong. 7. I, John Dias, respond with a comment on that same day (November 12, 2008), inviting Julianreal to ask me any questions. 8. On November 19, Julianreal creates this post, offers me the opportunity to comment on the question that he believes he posed back in July to the community at AntiMisandry.com. So here I am. As you can see by the above chronology, your post was not made on AntiMisandry.com, but rather on the blog of Rex Patriarch. You made a comment in response to a blog posting that was in response to a book review that was in response to a book. None of this had anything remotely to do with AntiMisandry.com. So let's be clear on that: you were not ignored, nor mistreated. So these questions that you would now have me answer were not even directed to our site. Nevertheless, since you've given me the opportunity to represent AntiMisandry.com and our outlook, I'm happy to do so. Your comment referred to an article on the IndianCountry.com Web site, entitled, "Sexual violence against indigenous women discussed at United Nations," published May 18, 2007. The link to the article that you originally cited no longer works, but I dug up the article via Archive.org. Before I begin responding to your questions, I would like to comment on the above article which you used as their basis: I would say that the greater issue is that the well-being of any community depends on the preservation of the intact 2-parent family, preferably in a close-knit community of families, in which the natural abilities of women to nurture the members of the family are complemented by the abilities of men to nurture that family's survival. Here's a YouTube video that illustrates this perspective eloquently: Pt. 6: Introduction to Patriarchy By Elder George I believe that a community of families as described above is nurturing and healthy, because it is made safe and secure (by the men) and its members are nurtured (by the women). It is governments which disrupt this delicate and natural balance, but not just governments. Cultural decay can do it too. The intact 2-parent family can mitigate the impact of anti-family influences, but a 1-parent mother-only family cannot do it alone, at least not as effectively. Again, I point you to the video below, which extols the value of ensuring the safety of women, but emphasizes that men will be most motivated to do this when women in turn nurture the men and the family. The security provided to women by men means that such men are putting their lives on the line for those who they love. Hatred of men, and sidelining male influence in the family and culture, only breaks down the family, hence leaving women more vulnerable: Pt. 6: Introduction to Patriarchy By Elder George Oh, please. Like her culture has absolutely no concept of women being raped. Who is responsible for the raping, then, if indigenous peoples simply have no concept of it? Why of course, the Western white males! Never mind that Ghenkis Khan, a member of a Mongol tribe (indigenous, I'd say), is famous for lopping of the heads of his vanquished and stacking them in huge piles. He must not have gotten the memo on the inherent peacefulness of indigenous people who hadn't yet been subdued by the Western hordes. Now, on to your questions. I suppose that you expect me to tell you that we need a halt to Western industrial colonialism, or some such left-wing ideology. I will simply say that we need a restoration of intact 2-parent families, and from that will come both personal security as well as an increase in personal modesty. The family is the answer, and hyper-industrialization along with hyper-consumerism does tend to turn our culture in a somewhat narcissistic direction, in my view. That's why innocent people (not just indigenous peoples) are hurting -- from violence, yes, but also from loneliness, isolation, and poor substitutes for group-belonging (gangs, etc.). In schools, women comprise the vast majority of teachers. Normal behavior by boys is misinterpreted by these women as disruptive, and as a result, boys are falling behind in academic achievement. Colleges now have a major gender gap between female and male graduates, which I believe is partly due to the female-dominated education that boys have been subjected to throughout elementary and primary school. The point of your question seems to be that female domination is not possible if females are not actually making the decisions, and occupying the positions of political and financial power. You probably won't agree with this, but elected leaders place a lot of value on not offending the female electorate. The business world also recognizes the spending power of women and caters to win their business. So you can see that women are more than capable of exerting their influence via proxy. Whether it is stereotypical or not, it is a business, and to the extent that the participants are engaged voluntarily, on what basis would you limit it? Sure it's degrading, but it's degrading to humanity. If women are portrayed in pornography as sexual objects, certainly the men in such videos are unfairly "representing" men too. What demonstrates a cultural sickness is not the existence of pornography, but rather the demand for it. If men and women were able to unite outside the influence of a hyper-sexualized culture, their sexual needs would be met. Pornography exists because men, who are expected to initiate romantic relations, are mocked for their failed attempts at romance (at one extreme) or are vilified as potential rapists (on the other extreme). So, facing such suppression and demonization of male sexuality, such men turn to artificial means of getting their rocks off. In the process, they run the risk of associating women in general with the women they see portrayed in pornographic material. Here's a suggestion: let's stop painting manhood and masculinity as irrelevant at best, and threatening at worst. Let's celebrate men and manhood for a change, rather than making men out to be abject fools. If manhood is just a continuum of "affable doofus" on one extreme and "competent menace" on the other extreme, our boys won't have much positive to look forward to. Porn is a symptom of the problem of misandry. In summary, misogyny is the effect of porn, but misandry causes the demand. The family courts, family court mediators, family court psych evaluators, child protective services, divorce attorneys, trial lawyers... And those are just dealing with the legal sphere. Then there are the media mavens and their sponsors, with their misandric portrayals of men. Where do we see realistic and plausible men portrayed as heroes, providers, protectors, competent, and yes, sexual (in a positive way)? This is rare. It's the result of decision makers in powerful positions (political, judicial, cultural, financial, and commercial), all reducing human beings -- BOTH men and women -- into caricatures and commodities. Despite the fact that men compose 38 percent of all domestic violence injuries, there are no shelters devoted to men. Despite the fact that a significant body of research reveals that men suffer from domestic violence at similar rates to women, little attention is devoted to this fact (you'd think acknowledgment of male-victimization would be higher, since more men than women are elected officials). And of course, we have men being 98 percent of war dead, plus a requirement that only men must register for the draft (women are exempt, although Obama has indicated a willingness to change this). Men comprise over 90 percent of work-related injuries. But we have no "Office of Men's Health." Do you see how men's pain is being ignored, or merely acknowledged as a part of being a man? I have a son, and I'll be damned before I have to tell him that he's in for domestic violence, work-related injury, and eventually being a war casualty all because that's just what it means for a boy to become a man. Forget that! Anti-misandrists are trying to highlight the negative effects of the above phenomenon on men. That's not to say that we intend to ignore female suffering. But someone has to be a voice for the pain that men feel, and the cultural isolation that we experience. We are that voice. No, I don't know that many female victims of such crimes. I guess those atrocities must not be so widespread as you suggested, since I haven't encountered as many victims as you have. Perhaps your ideology has helped you to seek them out, or perhaps they seek you out. Or perhaps, you don't really know the whole story. Or maybe, in particular cases, there never was an atrocity. I would surmise that you woke up one morning and decided to hug the entire oppressed world, and noticing the world's ambivalence, you can't figure out why they are not joining with you in the worldwide hug- and cry-fest. You conclude that they're reinforcing the oppression. You have fallen victim to an ideology. Oh, I do! I very much do! I referred earlier to men in power placing high emphasis on pleasing the female electorate and female consumers, giving women influence-by-proxy. But let's take a much less conceptual example. See what kind of reaction you get if you talk in mixed company about a man who has been beaten by his wife. What kind of reaction will you get from your male listeners? The answer is that a significant portion of them will scoff, calling such a man either a wimp, or a tyrant who somehow deserved it. Male pain is not a politically correct subject. We must always go back to the continuum of men as either affable-yet-impotent, or potent-yet-menacing. Nowhere can male pain simply be acknowledged. Here's another short video. It's only 5 minutes, but I encourage you to watch it. Please reply with YOUR reaction to it: "Men's Issues" video Boy's and the Boy Crisis Conference, July 13-14, 2007 http://www.trueequality.com/video.html It seems that you are concluding that women don't hate men, and that if they are hostile, it's a reaction to the male-imposed victimization that they have endured. Again with the ideology. I'm not sure what you mean by "social experiences." At first I thought you wanted me to cite personal experiences, but you want the "large scale." I believe that I have provided some examples above. Especially the "Men's Issues" video. I can give you a glimpse into what catalyzed me personally to get involved in the men's movement. I have a Web site of my own, apart from AntiMisandry.com, and on that site I tell my story. Take a look at where I'm coming from. Also, if you're interested, here are some other men's stories. We are unhappy, some of us angry, about the way men have been treated in our culture and under our laws. Have the courage to acknowledge our perspective, and don't think that doing so is to invalidate women's pain. "Aren't white men the Nazis?" Are you serious? Don't ask a question like this -- especially in a rhetorical way (thinking that the obvious answer is to agree with your ideology) -- and expect me to proffer a dignifying response. Next question. More about the "feminazi" word. I don't use that word, but I know some who do, and their use of the term refers to those feminists who are ideologically hostile to men as a biological group. Well, like I linked to earlier, I was falsely accused. Then there was the year-long mind-washing program that I was required to take after accepting a plea bargain for my Ex's false allegation. But that's not all. Last year, I learned that my Ex (who shares child custody with me) was dealing drugs out of her home, and letting the drug dealer live with her and spank my son. I learned that her plan was not to report on him, but rather kidnap our son and move off to another state, on the pretext that it was all a "vacation." I brought this to the attention of Child Protective Services (CPS), the police department, the Sheriff department, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, all of whom refused to take a report (except CPS, who said that if they did take a report, they would remove my son not just from his mom's home, but also from mine). Finally I took the case to a judge in an ex-parte hearing. He told my son's mother to stay away from drugs and to keep our son in town. But that was it. He referred the case to family court, and washed his hands of it. A couple days later, my Ex falsely accused me of threatening her, and sought a restraining order. I hired an attorney for thousands of dollars, then weeks later, on the day of the hearing for the restraining order, my Ex didn't even show up. The female judge dismissed the case, shaking her head. I had spent thousands of dollars in my defense, and all of this (the false allegation) was simply a way for my Ex to deflect attention from the drug dealing that she had been involved in. All that drama was for nothing, and I was out thousands of dollars in attorney fees for it. I was trying to protect our son, and I paid dearly for it. These types of incidents are very common in divorce and child custody proceedings. Where the court steps in, the delicate bonds that exist between fathers and kids are disturbed, and often completely cut off. Mothers are connected to their kids through child birth. But fathers are connected to their kids only by their emotional commitment; they could have impregnated the mother and then vanished. But sticking around is a noble decision, and even when fathers want to remain involved with their kids after a divorce, the family court treats the father's involvement as superfluous. "Just pay that child support check," the court tells fathers, "and you can have dinner with your kids a couple times a month. Oh, and don't complain about it either." When sole child custody is contested, over 90 percent of the time the family court awards it to the mother. This is devastating to both fathers and children, in my view. And the motivation for judges to make such rulings is misandry, which we identify and combat, at AntiMisandry.com and other places. Well, I hope this answers your question. I ran down the links you provided, read through not only that article on IndianCountry.com, but also read through various other articles on the site that the article linked to, IndigenousWomensForum.org. This included declarations they submitted to the United Nations, such as this one, this one, and this one. I read them all, to get a good understanding of where you're coming from. Now I challenge you to do the same. Take a look at all the links and videos that I have referenced in this reply (especially the videos on Men's Issues and Patriarchy. Do some research on my position, as I did on yours. Look into what we opponents of misandry believe. You don't necessarily have to agree with it, but I challenge you to look.

ChristianJ - Australian Men's News

Quote:

"The Case For Father Custody?" Nonsense. By your own measure, natural mothers' parenting generally would come out on top on both counts: your "abstract justice" theory, as well as my real life relationship preservation.

Amongst that other drivel from ranting hysterical LIZ, we have another sexist lie..


Women do not do a better job at raising children as studies have already clearly demonstrated but they are just assumed they can..


Use google you sexist dimwit and get you're facts straight. Not the standard twisted hysterical femispeak response..

KIM - Antimisandry.com Forum Member

CD posted about this earlier on this thread,

Antimisandry.com: An Introduction

I noticed the same thing Marx did and, according to CD who had scanned through Julian's blog, there's no sign of John Dias's post there. So, either, through some error or glitch, John's post never made it on to the blog or (more likely) it was deleted and Mr. Real is now claiming that John never responded.

John Dias - DontMakeHerMad.com

Oh, I posted alright -- within 1 day of the comment that he allowed me to make on there. He's lying about how I never responded. He just didn't want to look like an idiot after he excoriated AntiMisandry.com, then had to admit that it wasn't AntiMisandry.com that dismissed him after all, then had to face the mockery once again when I made my post (duplicated here).

I schooled that sucker.

I Like To Fuck With People's Heads

Shangi, here! I'd just like to make another post for the hell of it. Readers of this blog will come to know, that I like to fuck with people's heads. There's a lot of sarcasm in my writings, and I think spelling out when I'm joking, and when I'm not, is rather boring. I'll let you guys figure it out for yourself.

I'd like to consider myself somewhat of an amateur anthropologist, testing the waters, seeing how people react to different things. It shows what people really are deep inside. I'd like to think of each and every being on this planet as part of my social experimentation, much like The Joker experiments with the people of Gotham City.

I seem to bring out the best of people. If I say something you don't like, you'll track me down and publish my e-mail address for all to see. Sometimes, I'm not kidding around though, and that's where confusion sets in. I like to confuse people. It keeps people on their toes, keeps them guessing, and that way... I'll never be boring.

The attacks on me by people like Juilan Real of The Radical Feminist blog, is exactly what I want out of this blog. Every time he tries to go out of his way to hurt me, it reveals just how hypocritical people like him are. And that's what I'm all about, exposing the ridiculous. Careful what actions you might choose to take, you never know when you might be playing right into my hands.

Take care, sickos. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Julian Real Gives The People What They Want... More Shangi!

Julian Real just can't get me out of his head. That's why I'm the subject of once again, another one of his blogs. To say that he isn't obsessed with me, only to have every waking thought he has to be of me, is very telling how much in denial he is. You can check out Julian's latest rant about me HERE.

To view his YouTube video, in which he speaks about himself and his opinion that he doesn't hate women, see this. A significantly less serious warning: this video is rambling and boring.

Much like your blogs? Eh, Julian? That's why you need to give the people more of they want. And that's more of me. I'm way more interesting than you, so you just give up writing your own words, and give your readers something more interesting to read. You might as well copy everything from my blogs, and keep posting my videos - 'cause they have an entertainment value of "9," while everything you do has an entertainment value of "2." You get two points for at least giving me something to riff on every time your dumb ass sits down in front of your computer.

"Fuck The Feminists" sure did as it intended to do... and that was to piss people like you off. Publish my e-mail address all you want, it only proves how obsessed with me you are.

He reportedly is from Calgary, Alberta, Canada. He is listed as 24 years old, and is white with short to medium-length brown hair. Women should regard him as a dangerous individual.

Oh, and Patrick Doran, re: your allegations of me stalking and being, um, attracted to you:

You're not my type. My type is humane, thoughtful, caring, profeminist (anti-racist, anti-misogynist, anti-homophobic) men who don't behave like the stupid, hateful asshole you repeatedly portray yourself to be.

Well, Julian. Everybody knows that women love bad boys. So ladies, thanks to Julian... you all know my e-mail address. If you're interested in hooking up with this "dangerous individual." Holla. ;)

Revealing how misogynistic, antifeminist, antiWomanist men behave is part of my political work, and reporting men who threaten to kill women is important for anyone to do. Therefore, I'm placing your threatening statement here, with your contact information, where it might be seen by someone living in your part of Canada who can report and/or arrest you.

(That's not an invitation to go out on a date, in case you are still confused.)

Your motives are very clear to me, Julian. You're a sick individual, with no sense of humor, an emotional axe to grind against men, with borderline stalkerish tendencies. If you really weren't obsessed with me, you wouldn't have spent so much time on me, like I knew you were going to do. You've opened a can of worms here, Julian. Going after me was the dumbest mistake you can ever make. I don't care what you say about me, 'cause every time you do, I have something to write about in my blog. That's part of MY political work.

So give the people what they really want. And that's more Shangi.

Julian Real Doesn't Know Shit From Chocolate Pudding

Here is an article from The Sydney Morning Herald dated May 31st, 2006:

Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals, sparking widespread outrage.

The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its web site it would be officially registered today, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"

The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.

"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad newspaper.

"We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion," he said, adding the subject had been a taboo since the 1996 Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in neighbouring Belgium.

"We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals," Van den Berg told Reuters.

The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, was shocked by the plan.

An opinion poll published today showed that 82 per cent wanted the government to do something to stop the new party, while 67 per cent said promoting pedophilia should be illegal.

"They make out as if they want more rights for children. But their position that children should be allowed sexual contact from age 12 is of course just in their own interest," anti-pedophile campaigner Ireen van Engelen told the AD daily.

Right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders said he had asked the government to investigate whether a party with such "sick ideas" could really be established, ANP news agency reported.

Kees van deer Staaij, a member of the Christian SGP party, also demanded action: "Pedophilia and child pornography should be taboo in every constitutional state. Breaking that will just create more victims and more serious ones."

The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed although it supports the ban on the trade of such materials. It also supports allowing pornography to be broadcast on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening.

Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said.

The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalising all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.

This very same article was copied and pasted on Julian Real's A Radical Profeminist blog. under the new headline: "Dutch Men's Rights Group wanted to rape children without consequence to the men."

Now this was an obvious attempt by Julian to confuse his readers into thinking the Pedophile Party was an actual Men's Rights group. A petty smear campaign tactic if you ask me. Real Mens' Rights groups have nothing to do with the rights of pedophiles. This comes as no surprise to me, that Julian Real would pull a stunt like this because, this is after all, the same guy who stalked me after I left a comment on another one of his idiotic blogs -- finding a MySpace page of mine and copying and pasting that in an effort to shame me. It didn't work, it only made him look like a bigger loser. Check out my previous blog: 'I'm Being Stalked By A Radical Profeminist.'

Men’s rights are the freedoms inherently possessed by men and boys of all ages, which may be institutionalized, ignored or suppressed by law, custom, and behavior in a particular society. The term may also refer to an activist movement advancing these rights. Supporters of men's rights aim to promote the physical, economic and emotional well-being of all men and boys, viewing this as part of human rights, civil rights, or equal rights. They are particularly concerned with issues involving family life such as family law, child custody, paternity fraud, and domestic violence. There is no single unifying manifesto or organization which can claim to speak for the entire movement and the term is used in various ways.

Related areas of the men's movement include:

Fathers' rights focus on the relationship between fathers and their children and in particular family law.

Masculism provides a counterpart to feminism and argues against legal constructs, reforms, or entitlements which deny men equal rights under the law on the basis of gender; there are conservative "traditionalist", "liberal", and libertarian strands.

Someone like Julian Real, who undoubtably suffers from a form of chemical imbalance, can't make a distinction between groups such as

a.) NAMBLA - North American Man/Boy Love Association: a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States that advocates the liberalisation of laws against sexual relations between adult and minor males - resolving to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships".

or

b.) Fathers 4 Justice: a movement whose members are primarily interested in issues related to family law, including child custody and child support that affect fathers and their children.

To put the two groups in the same leauge as each other is frankly quite insulting, further proof that Julian Real doesn't know shit from chocolate pudding.

An Interview With Canadian Rapper: Vicious 5150

Hello, Shangi Fans! I'm sitting down with my homeboy by the name of VICIOUS 5150 - who is promoting his album "V.I.C.I.O.U.S." What went down, was a pretty colourful interview with the white Canadian rapper from the little known city of Port Coquitlam, home of Terry Fox and Robert Pickton.

MADSHANGI: What's up, yo?

VICIOUS: Not much just working on tracks for my next album, "Welcome To Area 5150," which Im dropping in January.

MADSHANGI: And where can you buy this album?

VICIOUS: You can either purchase it through myself, or at Asylum Ave Recording Studio, in New Westminster, BC, located at 627 Columbia Street, plus also useful information for those who are looking for a place to record their music.

MADSHANGI: Would it also be available online, for those outside of Canada and BC?

VICIOUS: Yes, how silly of me, it's also available for purchase online at http://www.soundclick.com/asylumave

MADSHANGI: Yeah, that was silly of you. Shame on you! Shame for letting down the online fans. Well, at least I forgive you. So tell me something, V-Fitty... how would you describe your music?

VICIOUS: Please don't ever call me that again (LAUGHS)! My music to describe it, is a very versatile sound, because I basically for lack of a better term, showcase the various emotions of people, so I write whatever I'm feeling at the time.

MADSHANGI: How do you feel now?

VICIOUS: Annoyed at being called V-Fitty, I might kill you in your sleep...

MADSHANGI: How typical of a white rapper to resort to violence. And I thought I was your friend!

VICIOUS: Yea well some say that cucumbers taste better when pickled...

MADSHANGI: You come from a town called Port Coquitlam, which in the recent past came notorious for the pig farm owned by Robert Pickton. What are your two cents about those murders and the trial?

VICIOUS: Guy definitely doesn't know how to treat a woman, easily the worst first date in history.

MADSHANGI: And some people think that I have a problem with women, because of my affiliation with Antimisandry.com! I recently shared a blog with you, by a guy named Julian Real... what are your thoughts about THAT character?

VICIOUS: Well he doesn't seem like he respects a critic's opinion, and is very quick to judge just because of what he reads, but that's my opinion, maybe I'm wrong too.

MADSHANGI: You're right... he IS a fucking cocksucker. So, you once opened for Moka... or is it Moka Only? Only Moka?

VICIOUS: Yea, hes a very closeminded individual, I guess he doesn't like any other kind of coffee, and by golly he makes no bones about it. I also opened for the legendary Maestro Fresh Wes.

MADSHANGI: Who is your favorite rapper of all time?

VICIOUS: That's a tough call, I have so many favourites I couldn't choose just one

MADSHANGI: Aw, come on! Everyone's got a favorite. Are you afraid if you choose one over the others, they're going to get jealous?

VICIOUS: I'd say it's a toss up between Paris and LL Cool J.

MADSHANGI: MAMA SAID KNOCK YOU OUT!

VICIOUS: You said it, sister.

MADSHANGI: Why do you think LL's mother is so violent?

VICIOUS: Well she's not, she's clearly telling HIM to knock you out, so really, he's the violent one, she merely hands down the order.

MADSHANGI: Do you think that's typical of African-Americans?

VICIOUS: THIS INTERVIEW IS OVER!

MADSHANGI: Aw, come on. I was kidding. So what do you think is better? Kentucky Fried Chicken, or Lee's Famous Chicken?

VICIOUS: Thats a tough call, too.

MADSHANGI: Even though this is an interview about you, I'm such an egomaniac that I like to turn the conversation around to make it about me. Tell me about something that makes me sound cool.

VICIOUS: Well MadShangi is a pretty madly shangious name, wherever did you come up with it?

MADSHANGI: Hmmm, I don't know. That's a mystery even I can't solve. Out of all the tracks you recorded, do you have a personal favorite? And why?

VICIOUS: I'd have to say my song "Based On A True Story," because that song was probably the first time I really wrote something that really connected to a lot of youth everywhere in the world. The song is about a girl who was abused at home, so she had ran away from home, and ended up on the street, where she was introduced to a new lifestyle, which led her down an unfortunate path.

MADSHANGI: Of the tracks I heard... so far I like "Like This, Like That" the best.

VICIOUS: Why is that?

MADSHANGI: It's so catchy. It's got a good beat, and it sticks in my mind the most.

VICIOUS: Yea. a lot of people like that one, I frequently perform that one live at my shows.

CHECK OUT VICIOUS 5150'S MYSPACE PAGE!

Vicious 5150 and Lil Q - You Know This

I'm Being Stalked By A Radical Profeminist

Good evening, Shangi Fans!

Hi, I am MadShangi and I am a bit of a celebrity in some circles. Or at least I think I'm a celebrity, otherwise why would somebody spend their time and energy stalking me. Recently I became aware of a blog called “A Radical Profeminist” that is owned and maintained by a complete waste of skin that goes by the name Julian Real.

Julian Real's great plan is to undo the vast conspiracy known as the “Patriarchy.” And he plans on doing this by posting long-winded rants against males and spouting a lot of feminist rhetoric in a completely fascist manner. Julian's rants are reminiscent of Valerie Solanas, the radical feminist best known for shooting Andy Warhol in 1968 – only strangely Valerie comes across as much manlier.

I posted a comment one of Julian's many rants, and then went on my merry way thinking nothing of it. I got a response back from him, but I ignored it... I had better things to do after all. Until recently, when I became aware that I, yours truly, became the subject of Julian's latest blog – which can be found here:

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2008/11/more-on-myth-of-man-hating.html

A Radical Profeminist
This blog exists to challenge white heterosexual male supremacy as an institutionalized ideology and a systematized set of practices which are misogynistic, heterosexist, genocidal, and ecocidal.

(yeah, it actually says that)

I was shocked to find, that the guy had grown so obsessed with me – that he decided to do a search of my screen name and found an old MySpace page that I used to have. I hardly ever used MySpace and didn't really put much thought or energy into it, but this guy had copied and pasted things from that page, and put it into another one of his mindless rants about anti-feminists. Hey, Julian? Stalk much? I know I'm a handsome guy and all, but really, this kind of attention isn't really flattering. You kind of remind me of Kathy Bates' character from “Misery.” I wouldn't be surprised if you were a Scientologist, either.

In a way, I felt rather violated. Even though there wasn't anything on that page that was too scandalous, at least no more scandalous than what was found on Miley Cyrus' MySpace – some dream I humorously wrote about in a blog, that's about it. Oh, and you can bet your ass that this Julian Real was salivating over my dream, tapping into my subconscious, before going into a lengthy deconstruction of it. He for some reason found it worthy to note that I had “Eminem” as one of my MySpace friends. You know, 'cause Em and I are such homies. We share the same mother-hating bond, that unites us all men. It got me thinking: “How would Julian feel if some psycho happened to dig into HIS life, to fill his twisted purposes?” And so I did.

Born in 1981, Julian was an unhappy child. Tormented and teased as a child, Julian was the recipient of vicious bullying in the schoolyard for his habit of cross-dressing, and obsession with the 80's cartoon “My Pretty Pony.” His father was a baptist minister, who would sneak into his room at night to fondle him, while reading passages from the Bible about stoning disobedient children. His mother was a radical feminist, who would frequently threaten to “cut it off” if he didn't behave. Later in life, Julian was known to pace up and down the halls of his high school, rambling about a “Patriarchy” that “OPPRESSED US ALL!” which would often get Julian in trouble with the establishment. But soon, Julian found solace in hard drugs and blogging.

I truly feel sorry for the poor lad, I truly do. His obsession with me, is clearly the result of a long incubating mental illness that has plagued Julian for most of his adult life. I truly hope that he gets the help that he needs. My thoughts and prayers are with you, Julian, I hope for a speedy recovery.

God bless – MadShangi AKA Patrick Doran.