London, Feminism and Anti-Feminism

Just another... well, rooster

The glorious Trafalgar Square is dominated now by a gigantic blue rooster, contrasting ridiculously with the architecture. Bright blue and bold, it is nevertheless cute, but what does it do there? Locals have informed me that it is a feminist work of art meant to treat with irony the city's obsession with masculine monuments. Men's statues, phallic monuments of all sorts... like in all other cities with old architecture, isn't it? Well, there had to be one more cock, said the feminist artist.

As I was wasting some time in Trafalgar Square while waiting for my host to arrive at home (I had no key), looking totally decent and uninterested, I had to get my share of attention, still. Some Belgian guy who was in London either for a period of time or for good, I don't remember, insisted that I go out with him. Although I had explained him that I'm out only for 30 minutes or so and that I do have someone back at home (he didn't bother to ask himself!), he was still hanging onto his plan. "You're pretty and I want to know you!" Thanks but no. That's fine if you like my appearance and want to get to know me, but after I've denied having any interest in dating or whatever, you should really back off.

The Belgian guy didn't hesitate to show his disapproval of my decision and his indignation. His mimic and words tried to made me feel like I was doing something very cruel. I went on my way to Leicester Square, which was crowded and vivid as in any summer weekend night. In less than 5 minutes I get stopped in my way by another guy. This time, a Londoner. He carries around a casserole with food he just grabbed from a pub or fastfood restaurant nearby and is consuming it around the square. Strangely, although I was irritated enough by the previous guy's behaviour, this one didn't bother me at all. He greeted me in a very casual manner, excused himself for eating, and just asked me what I am doing. Some other casual questions followed, and I must have mentioned him I'm a visitor. Judging by my look, he deduced I'm an Eastern European and mentioned he "guessed" that by my accent. WELL, I do NOT have Eastern-European accent AT ALL when speaking English, and I've been told by some native speakers that I actually have a very good English with a fine RP accent. That must have been the moment of intrigue.That was probably how he got me to stay there and talk, among the other casual and friendly things.

Leicester Square, London

Later I learned that this guy was not single and was not looking for anyone. He was the owner of a dating website and a sort of counsellor in dating matters, teaching men how to stop females in the street and talk to them. He was just practicing and testing. It worked with me, although I was angered by someone who had stopped me in the street only moments before this! I don't remember all that he said and how, but he managed to keep me there for 15-20 minutes. Really cool, decent guy.

We suddenly started talking about gender roles and the way feminism managed to ruin both men and women. He was just as surprised as myself to have found a person with similar views. I can tell I am very glad to see there are men who still recognise and believe in and support their gender identity, without overdoing it (check the retrosexual type). That is, without male terribilism.

My Tribute to Anna Notaras, Mika Waltari's Literary Character (in 'The Dark Angel')

With her name as my writing pseudonym, I pay a tribute to a most stunning female character in literature. Decidedly unique through her struggle, Anna is a Greek woman born as nobility, profoundly attracted by the values of the Orthodox Christian faith and thus having a conflicting self. In the attempt to stay true to these original values, one cannot easily and wisely reconcile such spirituality (a doctrine of humbleness) with the demands of upper class life. Moreover, when passionate love comes into the picture, the drama is deepened and choices become more tragic.

When one is used to the finer things in life, to society's ways, to the worldly logic, as it is called, to modern life actually, letting go of its safe harbour can be a terrifying experience. When people around you are used to doing things in the 'modern way', it is hard to break away and swim against the stream.

Anna ventures into a world that the noble, rich and powerful don't fully understand. Their earthly safety replaces the divine truths, the never-changing laws of the universe (and the spirit). Her family is focused on wealth and politics. Other nobles around are being corrupt and focused on earthly pleasures.

The first visible side of Anna - caprice, doubt, fear and submission

At first, Anna Notaras appears in Mika Waltari's novel as a capricious, spoiled, fearful, hesitant

noblewoman who doesn't really know what to do about all the attention she's getting from a seductive stranger she is clearly attracted to. It is her status that matters, her reputation, her family and her possibilities to survive the siege of Constantinople. Anna loves life. Ioannis Anghelos, her secret lover and a "dark angel of death", comes to challenge all that. He struggles to convince her that there is no future, no chance (or reason) for survival, and that all the rules and hopes she hangs on to are of no worth. Here is where the author begins to shine through his splendid understanding of the feminine nature...

Anna the woman - a worrier, a problem solver, a peace agent

Anna is, first of all, a Woman. She strives to accomplish more than one thing at once, to reconcile the conflicting parts, to solve all existing problems... and to keep on living. She wants her father's honour unharmed, and she also aims to stay next to her man. She uses feminine wisdom and slyness to escape her well-guarded home, to arrange secret rendezvous, to make influential friends and keep them close for they may be needed later (such as in the scene of her meeting and seducing Giustiniani, the Genoese captain, who will later protect the two). Anna Notaras shows great skill and cleverness as she joins the nuns, the new status granting her efficient cover and freedom to be in a city she wasn't supposed to be in. She dreams of a life when she can live next to her husband, preferring a humble existence to a glorious sacrifice. Anna does her best to change her lover's decisions and convince him to save himself from the deadly siege. She chooses life at first.

Another great example of her struggle to make things right and the adaptable (or manipulative?) feminine way to make a situation better is to be found in the following: at a certain point Anna has a burst and she argues with Ioannis about how he is never pleased with her behaviour. When she acts in conformity with her status, bears herself with pride and adorns her body with rich garments and jewellery, he treats her as a temptation, with great indignation. When she gives into the spiritual values and wears the modest garments of a nun, she is again regarded as inappropriate.

Bravery and a sense of justice

The turning point of the book - regarding Anna's character especially - is when she finds out about the treason planned by her father: to open a gate and let the Ottomans inside the fortress city, thus buying their right to be spared and live as a noble family. By this time the Byzantine lady has solidified her values. She is well aware of the unfairness of such situation. Taking her brother's armour, she goes out by herself during the siege and tries to prevent the opening of that gate, thus going against her father's cunning plan. Unfortunately, this is where she meets her death.

Anna chooses death eventually

For a while, we keep on seeing the moody Anna. After many pages about Ioannis and his struggles during the siege, we meet her again, this time changed in a totally spectacular way. She has decided to join her beloved, her husband, thus reconciling both her sense of justice and her faith in God. Anna Notaras, the woman who would do anything possible to turn her man away from the deadly battle and make him choose life, now chooses to fight next to him and die together. Not only did she mentally commit to that option, but she actually did a lot by herself: stole her brother's armour, reached the commander, went past the lustful and rude soldiers and finally met her husband to communicate him the decision and stay with him. She had all the chances to live, but she realises that a life without her love is useless. Ioannis himself is shocked by her decision. He can't understand why a life lover like her, why the most beautiful woman in Constantinople, who would surely survive, now chooses to die defending the already doomed city.

Quicker than Ioannis

The twist is surely surprising: although Anna has been the weak and hesitating one, she is very firm when the time comes to stand against treason and defend the city - or, better said, the principles. While Ioannis travelled to Constantinople to die with it, awaiting death day by day, dreaming of the supreme sacrifice in the name of all that he believes in - and it's been a long, well-thought plan for him - Anna accomplishes this briefly. She sees the danger, confronts the situation with her own values and goes to have her say. The soldiers then kill her without hesitation. The one who was supposed to survive, the one who had all the chances to do so, dies before Ioannis.

An interpretation of Anna Notaras

Facebook Not Playing Fair

Do you know those nice and sweet guidelines? No hate speech,  no discrimination based on gender, sexuality, ethnicity or religion, no threats and so on? Forget about them! These are there only to convince you that they're gentle sheep. But they're wolves in lamb skins...

Don't place those claims there, Facebook, if you're never taking such things into account!

So, the time I got into the reporting thing was when I saw animal cruelty photos in a 'friend's' photo album. He sacrificed animals at his countryside residence. Ok, people often do that for food. But is it really necessary to show the bloody stuff to the world? It's traumatising for some. It's really appalling, to say the least. So I reported him to Facebook. They do have a "violence and cruelty" reporting section.

The second time, I was reporting very obvious attacks based on one's religion. And whole pages which would mock religions in a most unfair, untruthful way. I'm no fanatic, I don't take insult with these (but some people do, and I feel it's all so unfair to them) but take a look, Facebook itself officially condemns hate speech regarding one's personal beliefs, sexual orientation, ethnicity or race. Did Facebook do anything about those posts? NO.

Did it do anything about the "I Hate Dogs" page, reported by hundreds of people? NOPE.
Not a trace of hate there, Facebook, is it?

Soon, it happened to come across a most detestable piece of writing. A Facebook employee would expose his attitude and opinion, in very dirty words, about those who report things to the site. To comments he didn't like, he relied with cuss words and blatant insults. Yeah, that kind of stuff, about sexual organs, feces, death and so on. I regret I didn't keep the link, that article just showed so well what Facebook is all about. It just wants your data, it has a "safety policy" and behavior guideline THAT IS JUST FOR DECORATION and no one actually cares about how much hate IS BEING SPILLED THERE.

As I still encountered loads of obvious hate messages on various profile and pages, I insisted on submitting reports. No matter how obvious the transgression was, Facebook did NOTHING, only replied with "We did not remove the comment/photo because we did not consider it as violating our terms".

Ok, Facebook, so you don't consider any of these to be harmful:
- animal cruelty
- discrimination based on ethnicity
- discrimination based on gender
- discrimination based on sexual orientation
- hate speech containing obvious swearwords and curses
- hate speech targeting one's personal beliefs

Then WHAT in the world do you consider worthy of a report???

I am sure that whoever received my complaints was an arrogant troll who laughed at my 'sensibility', just like the employee's article described. Go ahead and write something very nasty on a Facebook page. Be as nasty as you can. Encourage people to report you. I guarantee you that your comment will stay there and nothing will bother you.

In my email inbox, I got calls to action from a group trying to eliminate child pornography on Facebook. I didn't know it existed there. Sounds quite shocking, isn't it? I mean, with all the moral decay, most people in this world are still against such form of abuse. Then it dawned on me: why in the world are there such call to actions, repeatedly?... Well, it's because Facebook doesn't seem to be interested in taking those pages down... Draw your own conclusions...

Now hear the awesome continuation of the story. Having submitted so many reports deemed as useless by the mighty social network workers, I probably got banned. My profile is perfectly functional, but whenever I report something I don't even get the negative reply to it. I concluded they ignore my reports. And can you try to guess the things I've reported recently?

- Obvious hate speech about immigrants, instigating to hate,
- Obvious THREATS to one's life.
(come on, seriously, even if they weren't meaning it, this sort of thing should not be there)

Facebook employers are laughing in your face because you take their oh-so-nice guidelines seriously! Wow, so you actually have some common sense and don't want everyone to swim in a sea of bloody hate... You fool! Ha ha! Facebook keeps all the dirt there, encourages it, lets psychopaths roam freely and help them rule, turning the actual normality into abnormality.

Stray Dogs in Romania / Cainii maidanezi din Romania

In a country where hate dwells in too many hearts, every day feels like civil war. I have never seen such blind fury, such blindness to reality and to real arguments, such hate for a category of people towards another. The wise one talk and show, yet nothing seems to open the eyes of the brutes and psychopaths ready to spill the guts of anyone daring to protect the stray dogs.

"You accept to have dogs roaming the streets!! Uncivilised idiots!!"

This is the phrase every indoctrinated, brain-washed citizen tells to dog defenders. It's as if those were actually happy with their beloved dogs being beaten, poisoned, killed by cars and emaciated! If only they would open their eyes TO ACTUALLY READ THE COMMENTS the defenders are posting, they would understand that these would GLADLY accept euthanasia... but real euthanasia... not the Romanian type, which is done by shooting or smashing the skull with a shovel. These are no lies, but well documented truth that is to be found out there, with pictures. YES, you read that right, dog defenders want dogs to leave the streets, to grow fewer in numbers, as few as possible. But they understand that brutal killing will never solve the problem.. only will satisfy a bit the bloodthirsty brutes that never evolved to higher states reached by mankind.


"A CHILD was killed!!! What if it was YOUR child? Would you still love the dogs?!"

What an unnecessary, biased, ignorant stupid question! Yes, everyone has thought about that: what if their children died. Actually, many of the dog defenders have children of their own (no matter how much the brutes want to believe they don't have!). So should we turn berserk against dog defenders and against animals and start to lust for blood? Should we unleash our blind fury and eliminate all animals instead of looking for the cause? The cause is human ignorance - that of those who handle the money and of those who let their pets breed. I'll put that in bold for you:

The GUILTY ones: 
THOSE WHO HAVE MONEY AND DECISION POWER BUT DO NOTHING BUT STEAL
&
THOSE WHO LET THEIR PETS BREED

So, these oh-so-human citizens somehow try to make the rest seem like some cold, terrible bastards who would feel nothing at their child's death, if they were killed by dogs. What does mourning a child has to do with the cause of death here? If you are looking for someone to pay, look in the right places! But no, they're just pouring their rage out on the vulnerable ones. So mindless to hate all dogs (firstly because of your own irresponsibility!! the child's caretaker, his grandmother, left the 5 YEAR OLD  ALONE  for about AN HOUR!) and turn berserk against people who would definitely have the same human feelings at a child's death. The problem is that these haters just can't accept that others won't blindly hate the animals. Bears have killed people as well. Tigers have too. Horses. Snakes. Spiders. Many species have killed - why didn't mankind eliminate these dangerous species? If there are too many dogs in the city, spay them. Neuter. It's that simple.

But nooo... they want BLOOD, they want to see an execution, just like the crowd in the Middle Ages, when they would go to the town square as for a feast when some criminal was to be executed. Only blood pleases the stupid crowd!

What "EUTHANASIA" is all about

Even animal lovers have recently claimed that euthanasia would be the best solution. Going beyond the fact that this would never stop remaining dogs from breeding and crowding the streets again (as proven for endless times), euthanasia is NEVER done here as it should be. Instead of a lethal injection, the dog gets a most painful and barbaric death.

Of course, there will be funds assigned for euthanasia. These funds will never reach the establishments that need them. It's much cheaper to hire a hunter or some monsters to do the killing however they see fit, as it has happened before. The enormous sums are then nicely placed into the pockets of those who have arranged the whole thing. As I said, it's more comfortable to blame the weak ones instead of the politicians... After all, they are untouchable, up there on their sacred pedestals. Frustrating, isn't it?

Brother hates brother, hate and anger are in bloom. The Apocalypse starts here, in Romania. Because there is simply too much hate. 

(oh, the mindless ones would surely call me a religious fanatic after this last phrase, completely ignoring its metaphoric sense!)


Loving the West, yet hating it at the same time

Romanians have always been the slaves of the West. The occidentals are their model, their salvation. They are like sacred - after all they are rich, powerful and smart, aren't they? The West represents that sacred model every East European should aspire to. However....... When it comes to stray dogs, it all turns upside down! The foreign press has been negatively commenting the situation in Romania. The Romanians' reaction? "Stupid foreigners, how dare they criticise us?!?" Yes, the ones that are being worshiped on a regular basis for their progress and civilisation, are now insulted. The ones who lack the problem of stray dogs are complete idiots who should never comment a thing. Even the Huffington Post got the name-calling from the proud Romanians. "Who the heck is this? It's just a website, why should it matter! Bloody idiots." Yes... *ahem* The Huffington Post... just a website... Well, the true ignorants are actually proud of their ignorance!! I'm not saying the whole Western world doesn't have its sins, because it does - see the fast-food chains scandals and so on. However, they pointed out the barbaric practices in Romania and got severely discredited for that. For pointing out the truth.

Conclusion

Dog lovers love people, too. Dog hater can't love people at all and they are the worst kind of phychopats. All true statistics and all real psychologists and psychiatrists know this. Anyone who dislikes animals is a danger to society because they lack a big part of their brain. They are mentally sick. Any murderer firstly killed animals and then humans, it's a proven fact. Scientifically, animal haters are dysfunctional and ill. Morally, socially, religiously, scientifically and so on, animal haters are anomalies.