jump to navigation

“Having Children” Is a Euphemism May 28, 2010

Posted by FCM in gender roles, health, kids, PIV, pop culture, radical concepts, rape, WTF?.
Tags: , , , ,
trackback

my mother never wanted children. she married young, was forced into it by her own mother to hear her tell it, and she was on the pill 5 years when she started having side effects from it. so she quit taking it. and my dad, the privileged, entitled fuck of a man he was (and still is) refused to wear a condom, and continued to fuck her anyway i mean they continued to have sex, regardless. and she ended up pregnant with me. (happy times! yay!)

i was 2 months old when she got knocked up again. she went in for a post-natal checkup, and got the good news. did i say good news? i meant soul-crushingly awful news, horrible news, wish you could travel back in time and do everything different news. my sister was on the way. (blessed be! oh beautiful motherhood!)

my brother was conceived under similar circumstances, but his conception wasnt really discussed, as it paled in comparison to the drama that was his birth: as soon as he came out, he turned blue. he was terminally ill, had a congenital heart defect which was supposed to have killed him within the first few weeks of his life. (oh the joy! i am welling up, seriously). but my mom was a nurse, or more specifically, a woman who wanted to be a doctor but never went any further because she got knocked up a bunch of times and got stuck with all the childcare and domestic duties and put my dad through medical school instead. but i digress. she literally saved my brothers life, many times, until the last time, when she didnt. he died when he was 21.  my mom had been divorced from my dad for 10 years by then. he was rich. she was poor.

my mom tells me that people her age all talk about their kids. “how many kids do you have?” is a common icebreaker. she didnt mention whether this is prefaced by “do you have kids?” or not, but i think i know the answer to that. anyway, this kind of piqued my interest, since my brother was no longer around. i asked her whether she says she has 2 kids, or 3. she said she always responds “i have three.”

i love my mother, and i loved my brother. i love my sister, and i am sure they all love me. but “having children” is a sick and inadequate euphemism for what happened to my mother, for what my father did to her, in the context of her marriage, and in the grand scheme of her life. it renders so much of her suffering, and so much inequity in so many het relationships completely and utterly invisible. it all disappears, behind a romantic smokescreen we know as “marriage,” wrapped up in a fanciful and improbable lie regarding womens “true natures” as mothers and caregivers. so many women dont choose this, and would never choose this, to hear them tell it. but they live it, regardless.

“having children” is a euphemism for what men do to women, one of many, the almost inevitable result of mandatory PIV and compulsory heterosex.  “sex” is a euphemism too.  people dont tell the truth, do they, when they are talking about things that affect women, and the reality of womens lives?

About these ads

Comments

1. Miska - May 29, 2010

Great post FCM. It sounds like your mother had a really rough time in her marriage.

Motherhood is supposed to be the absolutely best part of a woman’s life, no matter the circumstances. I saw a thing on oprah years ago where a woman was interviewed – she had been raped by a stranger, and ended up having the baby. She said that ultimately if she could go back in time, she wouldnt have changed anything because otherwise she never would have had her son. And that is like, the only acceptable response from a woman when it comes to motherhood. We must be thankful, no matter how we become mothers.

It is completely taboo for a woman to admit that her life might have been better if she never had children. And it is still mostly unacceptable for a woman to maintain that she doesnt want children, or that she doesnt like children in general.

2. delphyne - May 29, 2010

I do like what you write FactCheckMe. You tell the truth.

I’m sorry about your mother and about your brother.

3. delphyne - May 29, 2010

And jesus, how soon was your dad insisting on penetrating your mother again, just after she’d given birth? That is shocking she was pregnant again in the space of two months.

Men = fucked in the head.

factcheckme - May 29, 2010

Thanks delphyne and miska. The thing is though that this isn’t uncommon, at all. And what’s shocking about it is how normal it really is. The reason we don’t hear about it more is that women aren’t allowed to talk about it, and men are completely invested in pretending that they aren’t doing this to women every fucking day. My mom was one of the more fortunate ones actually, being divorced from a doctor. She could’ve been divorced from a chronically unemployed handyman or a criminal. At least my dad could afford his child support, and valued his reputation in the community enough that going to prison for failing to pay it was a deterrent. Nothing could stop him from paying it late every month though, just to fuck with her, which is exactly what he did.

And miska, thats such a loaded question isn’t it? Its so disingenuous and unfair, and it should never be asked. Most women love their children, but saying you wouldn’t change being impregnated by a rape must kill your spirit a little, every time you are forced to say it. And its thw only acceptable response, as you say. It’s so sick, it really is.

4. SheilaG - May 29, 2010

Thanks FCM for telling this story. It was horrifying to read. We really don’t know what women think about “having children” because this reality is never discussed. The woman who was raped repeating how she wouldn’t change the past if she could was chilling.

Another aspect of child raising, is that it cuts into the intellectual development of women. If you are doing the childcare, you won’t have the time to do the reading. Something is going to give.

Men do so little of this work, and care so little about children, that it’s all pretty shocking.

Even from the age of four, I announced that I would never marry and never have children. It was such a horrifying thing to me, even at that young age. Must have been early lesbian insight.

The propaganda of heteronormative families is so thick, it’s like a 19th century London fog. This blunt portrayal of family life could be a real wake up call to women everywhere. I hope it saves some women’s lives from drudgery.

Loved the part where you described women who become nurses as a system that keeps them from getting the top jobs as doctors. Nurses are the slaves of doctors, and in many work spaces, it is polygamy– male doctor overseeing nurses, insurance agencies with the one male agent attended to by four fashion model like young women. So predictable and sick.

5. polly - May 30, 2010

Oh but factcheckme, do you hate children? Cos that’s what it means apparently, if you suggest that it may not do women good to get the crappy end of child bearing/rearing. I read it on the internetz, so it must be true.

Apparently other things that mean you hate children include occasionally wanting to be in a restaurant that doesn’t have loads of kids running around shouting. Because to even suggest that people should bother to teach their children that in a society we have to think of other people’s needs, not just our own, and that actually socialisation in the form of learning consideration for others is a GOOD thing, is the most child hating thing you can come out with. And all those parents who insist their children develop basic politeness are just fascists who are repressing them.

6. Monique Louicellier - May 30, 2010

When I go on dating sites for lesbians, yes I know, I am single but I am doing feminist propaganda and looking for friendship, no more love at the moment, sigh, they are too stupid.

Almost all lesbians there want to have babies.. Mini-me’s (I read it somewhere on a post, it made me smile).

If they were straight before, their children are the accomplishment of their lives and they hammer it out to anyone who wants to listen, sigh again.. They would do anything to get a partner I guess and a useful help with the kids.

Well they are helped in that propaganda, there is already a loud governemental and commercial campaign in all media, TV shows, all turning around how motherhood, conformism, babies, baby food, pampers, pushers are beautiful, meaning an easy life while staying at home (while we suppose a man somewhere is earning a living), romantical, sweet, desirable and an accomplishment for women.
PIV is mandatory as well, when you look at any advertising, say coffee, it is often suggested, we guess the man stabbing the woman and so ends the advert in this glorious desirable copulation enhanced by the coffee flavors in the air..
When you watch any movie, serie, same story, as soon as a man and a woman meet, it seems that there is a mandatory sexual attraction between them and that they do PIV the same day and at the first moment they can, even between 2 doors.
All the campaign stories and strategy looks like porn stories and strategy in fact.

French women are since a few years the more fertile women in Europe, a little miracle as they call it (very organized one).

But sure that a woman’s life with a child is very difficult (that is not really said anywhere in the campaign) and people naively think that as
France is one of the top ranked countries where to receive children allowance and all kind of social benefits, no need to care of what will happen next, big mistake because a single woman’s life in France is extremely difficult, with children, even only one, it is a nightmare and often means living under poverty standards!

Oh I forgot, for a secular country, there is a loud religious campaign as well in the media, the advertising and the movies or series, in name of freedom of expression I believe(in God-), praying, miracles, God here and there, a French cult serie is when a very sympathical actress stages a kind of savior sent by God to help French families to cope with arguings, it is called Josephine guardian angel (http://www.tf1.fr/josephine-ange-gardien/) passed on the major French channel TF1, we have the big return of The Little House in the Prairie, of course (2 hours at lunch time, every day!! passed on the third most viewed French channel France3)..
Not speaking how recommended it is to look and behave like a stupid Barbie doll.

If you are feminist, it is better to throw your TV by the window.

Some lesbians push the perversion by telling they will conceive their Mini-me’s by the natural way (this in their imagination being PIV, of course), with the blessing of their female partner, like if it was more ecological and are ready to sacrifice their protected (so far) lesbian body and all you can imagine to a gay guy who would convert as well for the occasion and stabb their vagina until they get pregnant, but this with no emotional, sensual or affective implications, do they say, moreover they will share the parenthood with the guy, as it is more convenient for the balance of the child who could then have the traditional representation of a male and a female parent.

Lesbians are even more in a hurry to get pregnant that they never slept with a man before, so did not have the chance to be feared of getting pregnant, and when they see the clock is ticking, it is a real rush!

Lesbians = straight converts, old-fashioned style!

Men: 1 – Lesbians: 0

Do you have a better scoring in your country?

7. SheilaG - May 30, 2010

Polly, I don’t want to be in a fine restaurant with children in it. I’m an adult centered person, and the only kids I truely love are dogs and cats. Less expensive to care for, the dog is far better behaved than the cretanous six year old boy across the street. One time, we had to ask the owner of a very expensive restaurant in Beverly Hills to kick out a family with a screaming kid. Nobody was going to do anything, and the kid kept screaming and running around. The parents were not going to do a thing about this. Leave it to the lesbians to get tough, and we made our point solidly. The people got kicked out, the wimpy heteros in the place then clapped when they all left. A lesbian’s job is never done!

Women, given their economic servitude must be crazy to have kids with men these days. It must be super brainwashing, even in the age of birth control. I’ve never understood the attraction to double shift (paid job, child rearing, housework) that women seem to so blissfully jump into. They must actually believe men when they say they will “help out” with the child care and household responsibilities.
Geez, give me my dog, cat, and intellectual lesbian companion any day of the week!

factcheckme - May 30, 2010

you uppity lesbians. i have never eaten in a “fine” restaurant in my life. but no, i dont like children. every once in awhile one will surprise me, and say something intelligent or courteous or whatever. but mostly i find them moody, and loud. when i was a child i remember a few adults actually talking to me like i was a human being, and i appreciated it very much. what i dont remember is whether or not i deserved it. i do like babies though. if it were just a matter of caring for an infant, i might not mind the idea of having one, but they grow up! again, people never say what they really mean, in this regard. everyone says “they grow up so fast!” when what they really mean is “i liked the idea of having a baby in the beginning, but i clearly didnt think this through.” because children and teenagers cause your quality of life to plummet. coming off the breastfeeding happy-hormones must be quite a shock as well, that this is what your life has become, minus the rose-colored glasses.

8. SheilaG - May 30, 2010

Uppity indeed, I had to LOL at that FCM. LOL FCM, love those Internet initials… What, the stereotype that lesbians are impoverished and not deserving of the very finest meals in the land! Rumor had it that we were as poor as church mice, lived on granola in communes and drove broken down cars from the late 1980s, that and still wore glasses from the 80s (that last part was actually true at a party I attended in the late 90s :-) Maybe they’ve updated glasses since then :-)

But really, the “disposable” (that word cracks me up) income skyrockets without child care costs. Women who waste the very most key productive moments of their lives in child rearing, not a pretty sight. So the whole system of child birth, child care etc. is one giant plan to keep women, well barefoot and pregnant and out of the career competition.
If men can knock one half of the human race out of the mix in terms of intellectual development, scientific training, or just sheer amounts of free time to plot revolution against patriarchy, well, they’ve come up with the perfect thing.

Con women into having kids. Con women into PIV, and fool women into believing PIV is actually sexually valuable for straight women. Then pay peanuts for all jobs related to children, and then claim that men love children! Gee Mom, I wanna be a child social worker when I grow up… social work being one of THE worst paid women’s jobs in America. Gee Mom, I wanna have a bayyy-beee.

It is considered one of THE most socially unacceptable things for a lesbian to do: to NOT want to deal with children in any way, shape or form. We can bash men now and then, that’s ok, because mostly straight women bash men IRL. Lesbian groups rarely even talk about men socially. They are not on our radar screen unless a straight woman comes to the party, then the subject comes up, naturally.

My boredom with children actually arrived when I was a child. I always prefered the company of adults, and listening to adult conversation. I don’t think this was typical of most children. Ask a 10 year old child in America about the political situation in Iraq, for example, and they’ll give you a blank look.

Maybe straight women feel they need children to keep men around.
Or maybe they think men want their egos gratified in “reproducing” themselves. Men do like to do this.

I’m not sure if women are in denial about all of this, or about the things FCM wrote about her own family in the original post. With straight women (outside of feminist blogs naturally), one never knows what they really think. They have at least progressed out of the baby babbling stage, and can talk about their professions in non-mixed company… that is with radical lesbian feminist me. But venture into these other touchy subjects and they get nervous.

No wonder feminism was so uncomplicated and energizing to me. It was just plain liberating that I could find hundreds of women who loved other women, and who did not have children at all. Guess I was born at the right time in herstory or something :-)

9. SheilaG - May 30, 2010

LOL Monique. Thank the goddess my group is beyond childbearing age. Must be clueless young lesbians doing this stupid stuff… ugh!
Throw the T.V. out the window, good advice for Americans :-)

10. polly - May 30, 2010

Oh I do know heterosexual people who teach their children manners though Sheila. They’re the ones whose kids don’t grow up to ill mannered boors at best, serial killers at worst.

Monique I don’t know ANY lesbians who want to have babies. The only ones I know who do have children were formerly heterosexual.

11. polly - May 30, 2010

Oh I tell a lie I know ONE couple. But they haven’t actually got a baby, and are in no way planning to have one straight away – it’s all very theoretical.

factcheckme - May 30, 2010

regarding the OP, women are in denial even about basic childcare duties and what “having children” is going to do to thier lives. they always assume that the kids are going to be healthy too, and many times thats just not the case. have a disabled kid, and your life is literally over. it can destroy you financially as well. as a nurse, my mother would have been fine on her own. divorced with 3 kids and one disabled kid…not so much.

12. SheilaG - May 31, 2010

I don’t know any lesbians having kids either Polly, nor do I know any lesbians who have kids at home. The only lesbians I know who have kids have been formerly married to men… decades ago, and the “kids” are all grown up.

And that is a good point FCM, people assume their kids will be healthy, and that’s not the case. The hetero women I meet in the most dire straights these days are single mothers (divorced), have kids with developmental illnesses (Downs Syndrome etc.), and the thing that gets to me the most… they have kids, and the husband died young (53 or 57 years old), the family did not have decent life insurance coverage, and whamoo, the mother now lives hand to mouth with late teen kids. I don’t know how hetero families can still screw up on the life insurance coverage, but they do.

Maybe if you have too much hetero privilege, you have this rather clueless attitude that life is going to be perfect, and you need do no planning at all. I don’t know what the deal is half the time. Women inherit stocks too, which they then want to hold onto as heirlooms, rather than investments… oy…

In this day and age, you’d think women would finally get all of this. Denial is thicker than a London fog. But again, I’m outside this whole insane childbearing system, marriage system, female labor ownership system, so just about all of hetero life seems like insanity to me most of the time. Maybe women really do have some natural desire to have children, or addiction to penis based sex that really is beyond my understanding, or male hetero seasoning of women is just too clever for words. Don’t know, but I do know that parents need to be teaching their really wild children some manners, and that I see deteriorating to a degree that would have been crazy 30 years ago.
Heck, they let the kids use video games, and texting at dinner tables, never really teaching them how to communicate with others at a restaurant. I kid you not, my in-laws have an eight year old boy who was doing this at the dinner table. His mother, self absorbed and seemingly unable to even ask about my partner’s and my lives… we politely ask heteros questions, but they seem incapable of returning the favor. Blah…

Should I feel sorry for all the women who have these kids? Should I resent my tax money supporting this monstrosity known as child production without adequate means of support? I don’t know an answer, it is a wearing thing.

13. polly - May 31, 2010

Most pregnancies aren’t planned though – most women I know who have kids got pregnant when they weren’t planning to at least once. And quite a few of them were using contraception of one sort or another, usually the pill. A relative of mine after having one (completely unplanned) baby told the docs she wanted to be sterilised then and there. And they said “Oh no, you’ll change your mind”. She didn’t, and she didn’t have any more kids either. She had a hysterectomy at 28 and said it was the best thing that ever happened because she KNEW for definite she couldn’t possibly get pregnant again.

This is why there are so few lesbians with children about. Because they have to actively plan to have children.

factcheckme - May 31, 2010

absolutely true polly. if there were no such thing as unintended/unwanted pregnancies, the birth rate would plummet. whether the parents make peace with the pregnancy or not later on notwithstanding of course. many “happy families” are generated this way. its completely and utterly normal.

14. SheilaG - May 31, 2010

So that means that most pregnancies might possibly be unplanned, and the idea of “planned” for straight women is mostly a myth. A good way to tell the difference, is the rarity of pregnancies in lesbians.
So lesbian mothers DO have to plan, and straight women might only be “pretending” to plan, just like they have to “pretend” to love the stupid abusive men they are married to, or pretend they love PIV sex or whatever pretense they have to maintain to get food, clothing and shelter from the oppressors.

15. berryblade - June 1, 2010

@SheilaG “Another aspect of child raising, is that it cuts into the intellectual development of women. If you are doing the childcare, you won’t have the time to do the reading. Something is going to give.”

This is so true. I think one of the reasons why men like to keep womyn as enslaved baby-factories is for the fact it cuts into time that could be spent learning about how fucked up everything is, therefore, stopping them from getting angry and fighting back.

@polly
“A relative of mine after having one (completely unplanned) baby told the docs she wanted to be sterilised then and there. And they said “Oh no, you’ll change your mind”. She didn’t, and she didn’t have any more kids either. She had a hysterectomy at 28 and said it was the best thing that ever happened because she KNEW for definite she couldn’t possibly get pregnant again.”

Sorry to hear about your friends fucked up medical experience polly, it’s really annoying, because at 21 apparently no doctor will help me get my tubes tied (I’ve asked my doctor about it several times since I was about 13,) but they’d be more than happy to get me IVF. It’s ridiculous.

@FactCheckMe

” i dont like children. every once in awhile one will surprise me, and say something intelligent or courteous or whatever. but mostly i find them moody, and loud”

Totally and utterly. I really adore this post because it’s so true. I have people telling me all the time I’ll change my minds about having children one day, but it’s not going to happen and it’s not ever been a part of my plans.

16. polly - June 1, 2010

Women who say they don’t want children are treated like crap- take a look at this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-495495/Meet-women-wont-babies–theyre-eco-friendly.html

I discovered that despite taking the Pill, I’d accidentally fallen pregnant by my boyfriend.
“I was horrified. I knew straight away there was no option of having the baby.
“I went to my doctor about having a termination, and asked if I could be sterilised at the same time.
“This time it was a male doctor. I remember saying to him: ‘I want to make sure this never happens again.’
“He said: ‘You may not want a child, but one day you may meet a man who does’. He refused to consider it.

(emphasis added).

factcheckme - June 1, 2010

Omg Polly. That’s horrifying.

17. Monique Louicellier - June 1, 2010

Arrrggg, Polly, I swear telling the truth, and that’s not new, lesbian magazines, lesbian blogs, all turning around becoming pregnant, I am registred on this dating site: lpourl.com
If you want to register and understand what I am speaking about, you need to phone them in French to register (that they recognize a female voice) then read the profiles and questionnaires of the lesbians there, and you will see that almost all WANT babies, dream of romantical love, and accept that they have babies is a pre-requisite to become their lovers!!!!!!!
Moreover as you said, if I express I don’t want children and they they should think twice before to want, they insult me, I have all the chats kept to proove it, I could pass you on my password that you had a look on my site, with a good French dictionnary and you would agree with me. I could pass you on emails of lesbians I was in friendship terms with (I had their phones as well) and who broke up because of my mind about babies, I know some who speak fluent English.

18. Monique Louicellier - June 1, 2010

I am registred on lpourl.com, there you need to phone them to register, in French, that they recognize you have a female voice, then you will see I am telling the truth, by reading the profiles of the lesbians there, and their questionnaire, almost all want babies and it is a pre-requisite to be their lovers, when I tell them they should think twice, most insult me or I could just pass you my ID and password and you would see all the chats we exchanged..
No I am stunned it is not the same in other countries, because here everybody knows that since 20 years, it is a rush for lesbians to get pregnant, it is fashionable, there are dozen of lesbian (and gay) parenthood associations, for parents-to-be, in LGBT or on the net or alone, I paste you a few example below if the posts allows it (my last post did not pass, grr)

19. Monique Louicellier - June 1, 2010

blog.jiulia.fr/category/Mes-mamans

blogs.tetu.com/gaybyboom/

alipeg.over-blog.com/categorie-10369010.html

operationcigogne.canalblog.com/

petilutin.canalblog.com/

apasdelou.monbebeblog.com/

homoparentalite.forumactif.net

homoparentalite.free.fr/

20. Monique Louicellier - June 1, 2010

Look especially at that one (and don’t forget to add the 3 w and a dot before):
blog.jiulia.fr/category/Mes-mamans

The 2 lesbians there are so cute and attractive.
Are you sure Sheila and Polly that you still know a lot of lesbians?

Now the must is to have children and not only one..

After some years it is likely they can split and now you find a lot of lesbians available (single again), who have never slept with men, but with 1 or 3 children accompanying the offer..

Well, it is a good deal, no need to do them..

21. Monique Louicellier - June 1, 2010

I meant no need to make them, produce them, although it frustrates some who wants to know how it feels to be pregnant..

22. Eve's Daughter - June 1, 2010

Males have always been jealous of females’ ability to reproduce. So, one aspect of the patriarchy works towards devaluing the ability by associating it with a lack of intelligence (a la breeding cattle), and erasing any knowledge or experiential wisdom which can come from the experience.

There are special forms of knowledge about one’s own body and mind and femaleness which are available only during pregnancy, birth, and lactation. Most in our society probably don’t pursue them (the same way that most don’t really pursue the female knowledge and knowledge of oppression that can come with being single, or with being a lesbian), but they are experiential knowledge and are not available to those who have not been through the process. As a consequence, females who have never been pregnant or birthed children, who have been raised their entire lives in a patriarchal society which sees mothers as foolishly self-sacrificing idiots at best, usually don’t think there is any knowledge or awareness which can be gained in birthing a child. Females with children may not have as much free time, but I disagree that they as a class are less aware of oppression by males, or that they spend less time in intellectual feminist pursuits (how much of your typical unpartnered/childfree person’s life do you think is really taken up in reading feminist literature?).

It also shouldn’t be surprising that so many problems are associated with having children in a patriarchal society, since one of the aspects of a patriarchy is keeping women separate from each other. Pregnancy, birth, and care of children only is this problematic for females when they have few other people to rely on, and women in our society are often alone during those years. At least in the United States, there are no communities of women who will accept mothers, other than a few groups which mothers themselves have formed to help each other (and which are usually mocked by men and, unfortunately, many women). Most women will, if they’re lucky, have their own mother. But for the bulk of women, the only assistance they can get is from males who want to use them for sexual purposes. This creates a chicken-and-egg question for children and heterosexuality in the US; are heterosexual women more likely to want children, or are women who want children more likely to end up forced into heterosexual relationships?

Still, not considering those who are forced into having children (which I think would account for most pregnancies in the world), many women do choose to have children. Is that an idiotic choice? Well, for generations, women in Europe who were single or learned healing arts faced the possibility of being murdered as a witch. Was that an idiotic choice? Lesbians face discrimination, “corrective” rape, and other forms of violence; is that an idiotic choice?

These choices are considered foolish because patriarchy makes them foolish. But does that make the people who choose that way fools?

The idea that children are a separate, individual burden of the parents (read: mother) has caused a great deal of female oppression. As a consequence disdaining children, or looking down on them, or wanting to exclude them, is in line with the patriarchy. It separates females with children, makes them unable to fully participate, and makes them unable to rely on other women because other women judge them; that all ensures that females who have children and the next generation will all be dependant on males. It’s another divide-and-conquer tactic.

Forced childbearing is a terrible, terrible thing; but I hope some of the participants on this thread will reconsider how they seem to think about voluntary childbearing and the consequences of having “childfree” places and communities.

23. Monique Louicellier - June 1, 2010

Well, Eve’s daughter, this children topic is like asking: you have the power to create new human beings as biological parent or you can still have a special responsibility towards these new human beings by being an adoptive parent.. Would you like to use this power whatever the risks and consequences?
Usually people who have babies just do not ask themselves so many questions, or they would just give up quickly.
We are on this earth, thanks to them or because of them..
I agree with you and disagree with the others about one or two things. It is true that women with children can be aware of oppression by males. It is true that it is not because the actual state of the societies in the wolrd is not positive that we can’t decide to be a good friend of a human being, a child, or children, future adults, this feeling going so far as possibly giving birth and caring for them, or adopt them, including adoption of adult human beings, why not?
But even exciting, it is a blind creation game, with parameters you might be able to control (it is the part of the game people enjoy most, being able to create and offer the child an environment they would dream to have themselves) and other parameters never.
I do not hate children myself (and I do not love them either). I hate the way we force women to reproduce, to have children, this including the pressure put on lesbians, only to copy the dominant model. Little humans, children, are usually nicer, less sneaky than grown-ups and are as intelligent as adults, so if they were not considered as inferior and as a useful tool to maintain women in dependence to heterosociety, to a couple, a man or a family. If children were not brought up in nuclear families, and if we could easily adopt children that others have made but do not want, or do not want to treat fairly, I would not have anything against having children, at the condition everybody around could help me to raise them and that their life and development would be as best as possible for them and not subjected to the patriarchal society pressures or to any economic or racist pressures, etc..
But it must remain a personal and existential choice than take the decision to play the creation game with other human beings and now I think I would not like to have children (that was not always true in the past).
No pets as well.

But if others want to have children or care for them, in spite of the oppression and if they are ready to take all the risks when they seldom know what to do with their own lives, why not. I suppose these people would do it in order to perpetuate the human species, it means they believe they have a duty towards the human species and that this species is good or will be better soon, so they are optimistic people, or they are motivated by narcissism and Mini-Me’s, so narcissic type, or they are motivated by a pure will to sacrifice one’s life in order to receive gratifications, comfort, etc.., so we have the traumatised type who became an emotional addict and finally they can be motivated by the oppression itself, by being able to manage the kids their way, giving them orders, formatting them and not treating them as equal, making them submissive and dependent..

A lot of people who own a dog or a cat, especially when they are bought rather than found in the streets, have the same parental motivations and much more power and narcissism placed on these animals, much less risks to change the society or that your pet would be resentful to you and would express her anger at all the mess and slavery you put her into..

24. Polly - June 1, 2010

Well maybe it’s a French thing Monique (there are cultural differences) I mostly know a lot of English (northern English moreover) lesbians. And out of them the only ones I know who have children have all been in straight relationships which is how they got the kids. Lesbians who’ve never been in relationships with men having children by sperm donor isn’t unknown over here, but it’s not exactly the norm.

25. Polly - June 1, 2010

And one thing I’d say re dating sites – women there may not be representative of all lesbians. Why? Because you’re obviously more likely to be on a dating site if you’re finding it hard to meet prospective partners through your everyday social life, so women on dating sites are less likely to be part of the lesbian scene (I’m not saying that’s true of every single person on a dating site, just an overall thing).

Anyway I had a scout round the internet (ie put ‘how many lesbians have children’) into google and came up with this (admittedly from 1989).

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/30/us/lesbian-partners-find-the-means-to-be-parents.html?pagewanted=1?pagewanted=1

R. James Fagelson, a director of the Gay and Lesbian Parents Coalition International, based in Washington, said a recent survey of the group’s 30,000 American members revealed that 5 percent of the lesbians had babies by artificial insemination. Three years ago, the figure was 1 to 2 percent. The group’s membership continues to be made up mostly of homosexuals who had children in previous heterosexual relationships.

26. Polly - June 1, 2010

Sorry with the correct formatting this time.

Eve’s daughter: Women who DO NOT have children are disdained by society. Want proof? Read this.

Much as I like to trumpet the importance of a woman’s right to choose all things at all times, there’s one choice I simply cannot understand: the choice of an otherwise sane and healthy woman not to have children.
If a would-be mother is a singleton of 40 who decides to have a baby without a partner, I might wish she’d thought of it sooner and prepared for it better – but I understand.
If she’s half of a lesbian couple who ‘borrows’ the wherewithal, I might cross my fingers that the child is not teased at school – but I understand. Even if she’s a 66-year- old pregnant pensioner, threatening to turn motherhood into a freak show, I might (indeed, I do) think she’s monstrously selfish and dangerously wrong – but again, more or less, I understand.

Yet if she says she hasn’t a shred of maternal feeling in her, moreover, if she says she would prefer to concentrate on her career and that a child would only get in the way of it, then my head might acknowledge her right to do so. But my heart whispers: ‘Lady, you’re weird.’

It was welcome news, therefore, to discover this week that I am not alone. Research conducted over six years shows that far from bosses and colleagues always being suspicious of a working mother, the opposite is becoming true: it is the childless woman who is regarded as cold and odd.

As a result, it is these single-track careerists who are increasingly likely to be vilified, refused jobs and denied promotion because many employers believe them to lack what the study calls ‘an essential humanity’. And I know exactly what they mean.
In the little hothouse of my own trade as a hack, I play a game with myself. Reading all the other female scribblers, sometimes with grudging admiration and sometimes none at all, I try to guess from their expression of their world view whether or not they are mothers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1185128/Why-bosses-right-distrust-women-dont-want-children–VERY-outspoken-mother-ex-boss.html#ixzz0pcmDX2xr

This was on the back of a study showing that child free women are likely to face difficulties at work.

When you say ‘forced childbearing is a terrible thing’ you ignore just how much childbearing IS forced. And as for the special knowledge of your body you get being pregnant or lactating – please, spare me the hippy shit. The special knowledge you get is what it feels like to give birth (painful, I believe) and to have your breasts produce milk. Something I’ve lived perfectly well without, being the cold unnatural creature I am. Maybe you need to consider whether you’re doing the patriarchy’s dirty work for them by telling women who haven’t had children that they are monstrous unnatural beings who are not in touch with their essential femininity?

And until men suddenly transform themselves (something I’m not holding my breath for personally), childrearing WILL continue to be seen as the responsibility of women, which is what the piece is pointing out if you bother to read it properly. I’m not making men behave like arseholes, they’re doing it all by themselves

factcheckme - June 1, 2010

women are pretty much vilified no matter what they do though. if they dont have kids, they are a perversion. if they do, and they have too many, or cant afford the ones they have, or even if they can afford it, they are a perversion. men arent vilified at all if they have none; if they have too many…well good on him, his shit can swim. like its a fucking talent or something. right?

that said, i object strongly to anyones hesitation or resentment around using “taxpayer dollars” to support women and children. society needs children to survive, and so the state itself is completely invested in maintaining PIV as the norm, and motherhood the norm for women. so they better cough up, when the women need it, cause they do need it, and badly, and often, because men go around impregnating women (whether wanted or unwanted at the time) and then cant be bothered to even support THEIR OWN WANTED CHILDREN if and when the partnership fails. its not womens fault.

27. SheilaG - June 1, 2010

Polly, what a horrifying story, but somehow it doesn’t surprise me.
Monique, believe it or not, I don’t know lesbians who have children at home. Friends of mine were once married to men ages ago, and have grown children but that’s it. It’s just the social circles I’m in, because I have almost no straight female friends with kids either; I just find women with children dull and overworked. They don’t have the time to do the reading. I’m pretty fussy about women in my life, and most women I meet somehow know I get impatient with baby babble.

I have heard that there is a supposed lesbian baby boom out there, but again, I’m just not in those social/political circles. I do meet young 20-something lesbians, but they don’t have kids and don’t want them either.

There is way too much pressure on women about the issue of children.
I’m pretty hard line about this, so most women I meet know I’m not interested in talking about children and don’t care about them. I like adults and adult conversation. Childbearing is forced on women worldwide, and it’s been rammed down women’s throats. So I have a violent objection to it, and I don’t want to be forced to say things I don’t believe. Children are the route to poverty for women worldwide.
Have kids and you derail a lot of very good careers, and you can’t keep up with the reading and studying if you’re doing child care.

In fact, mothers with children are rather ADD in that department.
I don’t believe the purpose of lesbian existence is to have anything to do with this world, but again, I’m a hard liner on this. No baby babble!

factcheckme - June 1, 2010

Visit any thread in the msm discussing child support if you are unsure what I mean. Sheila has noted this before. Even mens wanted children aren’t supported, or are nothing but a burden on teh poor menz, just as soon as the woman leaves, or as soon as he leaves her. It makes it pretty clear what the menz intent was the whole time doesn’t it?

factcheckme - June 2, 2010

Just as an fyi to the allegedly pro-feminist man or men who is or are attempting to post here: linking to your own blog is poor form. And posting under multiple user names implies that you think I am an idiot: I’m not. Thanks.

28. SheilaG - June 2, 2010

Bottom line, men control women, woman must be housekeeper, childcare person, cook, cleaner etc. — sex slave to PIV, don’t forget that. Children have nothing to do with it. No PIV and slave services, woman breaks free, man refuses to pay child support, because it’s all about his PIV sex slave free housekeeping servives entitlement. Men don’t love children, but they do LOVE to own women. And that’s the bottom line. Straight women, I weap for you sometimes…

29. | anti social butterfly (IMHO) - June 2, 2010

[...] Reading Femonade’s fantastic entry about teh babehs and recalling I had a conversation with a partner in crimes’s girlfriend recently. She asked me what it was that I wanted out of life. And so I told her – change the world in some respect, earn my degree, get the fuck out of shit-hole city, financial stability, self-discipline, self-enlightenment and live on a magical feminist island where dope is the economy and Two and a Half Men does not exist (may contain trace elements of Aileen’s fantasies.) [...]

30. Polly - June 2, 2010

The bias against ‘taxpayer dollars’ supporting children only applies of course to the WRONG sort of children. If the mother of child(ren) had the ‘proper’ sort of husband who was then removed from the scene for a suitable reason (death by natural causes or even better as a ‘hero’ in war) there will be a huge clamour that she should be supported. But if a woman is a teenage single parent, or a lesbian having a baby by artificial insemination, or ANY woman choosing to become a single parent, more or less, she will be vilified.

Oh and Eve’s daughter. Restaurants are not the entire world, nor are railway carriages. The fact that some of us may wish occasionally to be in a childfree environment doesn’t mean children are going to be cast out of society. The fact is children find grown up places boring. It’s because they’re kids. Kids do not want to sit quietly and eat a meal mostly – they want to be running around using their excess energy. So why force them into an environment – like a restaurant – where consideration to others means that you can’t run around and make a noise? I am utterly sick of this ‘you hate children’ cant just because I don’t want to spend every walking moment of my life in a environment that’s full of them. Most parents I know are extremely grateful to have time to themselves in a child free environment actually.

31. Polly - June 2, 2010

And you seem to assume that those of us who are childfree don’t have relatives. I’ve probably changed more dirty nappies than a lot of people have had hot dinners actually. And I’ve lost count of how many kids I’m aunt to.

32. rainsinger - June 2, 2010

@26. Polly “Maybe you need to consider whether you’re doing the patriarchy’s dirty work for them by telling women who haven’t had children that they are monstrous unnatural beings who are not in touch with their essential femininity?”

Polly *hugs* – no need to be so fucking defensive, Eve’s daughter was not attacking you in that post, just putting forward another point of view. If its anyone attacking around here, it is the childless women, blaming other women, mothers. Mothers aren’t oppressing you. I wasn’t going to add to this thread, because I thought it was just another childess women’s pity-party and whine-fest attacking other women again – until I saw Eve’s Daughter’s post get attacked for no good reason.

Its the patriarchy that speaks all that shit about childless women, and femininity, not mothers or other women FFS. It’s the patriarchy, it’s the *system* that makes “motherhood” (and “childhood” for that matter) so incredibly oppressive as “institutions”. There are fembots, or women collaborators in every group of women – they are tokenised and put up in the media spotlight as tools of male propaganda. If you can see that amongst the fun-fems, and even recognise them in some anti-feminist lesbian tools, within lesbianism etc – why can’t you see these women you quote, in the same light? Whatever status mothers get under patriarchy, it is lip-service only, its fake, they are the most controlled and powerless of all women.
Besides which, there is a sleight-of-hand in the reality of childless single women and careers you mention. I totally agree with you, about the facts and figures – but its NOT the kids, Polly – Thorry Polly –you have been sucked in by the propaganda, the men want you to believe its the women/kids – but it isn’t.
Its the “marriage” or “partner” status – and/or having “caring responsibilities” (eg even older childless women, or with kids long gone, but are caring for elderly parents or in-laws) that gives those women status. Single mothers without a partner?? No better off than a childless lesbian without a partner.
Childless married women? There are more than you think. My elder sister and her husband never had kids, by choice – he had a vasectomy at 24 years of age. Never affected her career, why? Because she was always “married”. I work with plenty of women, married-with-no-kids who don’t suffer that.
Motherhood without a partner is the worst sin – from experience, motherhood without a male controller, or patriarchal institutions, like schools, neighbours, religion, doctors, welfare ‘do-gooders’, teachers, the “welfare state” (etc etc etc the list is endless, of institutions which control, dictate, threaten and oppress mothers and their children) is a fantastic experience, but rarely attainable under patriarchy. A little like lesbian separatism, its rare and only available as an option for a small percentage of women.

33. rainsinger - June 2, 2010

Sheila – no baby babble, (I promise!) but I have a different experience to you, on this point – but thats the *personal* — and not all that relevant — I disagree more strongly on the *political*.

Under patriarchy, women’s condition and even capacity to *choose* is so very limited and constrained. Like FCM mentioned – only MEN “Have the Right to Choose”. The law supports them whichever they choose. If they choose to desert their kids, the law supports them. If they choose to take the kids off their mother and deny all her rights, the law still supports the MALE’s Right to Choose.

Women are damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don’t. It might be a different experience of damning. Choosing to be an “out” lesbian is not an easy road in life. Choosing to have kids, with no male name or ‘owner’ on the birth certificate, is also not an easy road – but like lesbian life – despite the hardships, there is the paradox, an irony, of a certain amount of “freedom”, and joy to be found in it. And vicey-versa for the woman who chooses not to have kids or male partner.

Now, (just because I enjoy sometimes being a PITA) I have a reverse whine….

Why is it, that all my lesbian friends thought it wonderful, and fantastic and awesome, if I went off for a weekend away down the beach with my lover…

but when I said I was going away for a weekend with my kids camping down the beach…. they all gave me shit, and put-downs, and turned away…

As for restaurants and stuff like that – sipping imported chardonnay and talking about crap and abstract artsy-fartsy bullshit, comparing class status indicators – BOOOOOOORING… I never took my kids, because I didn’t like such adult company myself !?! — with their pretentiousness and superficiality. Even when I didn’t have kids, I would rather go home and watch Star-Trek re-runs…

I often loved having kids, to have a good excuse not to go, ahahahahahaha … and, because I actually enjoyed my kids company AND that of other women — no male around to tell me, or my kids, what to do…. no women around to police me either (with kids or without, women just love to tell other women what they are doing wrong) – I laughed more, I had more fun – and one of the few times in life, where I felt true, genuine, sincere, ‘sisterhood” was amongst single mothers – we only had each other at our backs – no men around, and few women either – we were shunned from lesbian feminists to the career women I worked with – women in our own families, right down to “married-at-homes” and Soccer Mums in the neighbourhood, or at the school gates (who hated me both for having a ‘career’, and having kids, with no husband)

34. Monique Louicellier - June 2, 2010

Just a supportive message to FCM after she wrote that:
*Just as an fyi to the allegedly pro-feminist man or men who is or are attempting to post here: linking to your own blog is poor form. And posting under multiple user names implies that you think I am an idiot: I’m not. Thanks.*

Sorry, I did not try to have a look first on who posted (lol..), I agree 100% with you FCM. I have discussed with this hog too and now I understand even more what you mean.

35. SheilaG - June 2, 2010

rainsinger,

I get all your points. However, I do not want to interact with children, and really want to be around adult women. In big cities, children are a constant annoyance, and our neighborhood is surrounded by extemely badly behaved children.

Children are forced on women, and women are forced to like them.
My conversations with adult women are serious, detailed and nuanced.
I assure you, you can’t have focused adult conversations when children are running around. Lesbians often get dragged into the child worlds, and we deeply resent this. It’s as if women with children expect those of us who don’t have children to be forced to be interested in that life. We find it very oppressive and boring. Most families in America are of no interest to me.

It is far rarer to find women who have carved out independent lives outside that child oppressive system, and in the west, there is a lot of choice. All I ask is that I not be subject to the “choices” of others, and certainly no baby babble. I think most women with children don’t even know that they are going on and on and on about children. Get a stop watch out, and they’ll be at it for well over 45 minutes. This rude self-absorbed assumption, that I as a lesbian would be interested in that, maybe one reason the lesbians around you did not want to hear about the kids at the beach. Just guessing here.

So the thing is, it is best for the women with children to support each other, and the business women and lesbian child free women to support each other, and we’ll all live happily ever after. But to force kids on me… wow, grrrrr.

36. Polly - June 2, 2010

No, I’m not having this. I “attacked” Eve’s daughter’s post mainly because of THIS:

There are special forms of knowledge about one’s own body and mind and femaleness which are available only during pregnancy, birth, and lactation. Most in our society probably don’t pursue them (the same way that most don’t really pursue the female knowledge and knowledge of oppression that can come with being single, or with being a lesbian), but they are experiential knowledge and are not available to those who have not been through the process. As a consequence, females who have never been pregnant or birthed children, who have been raised their entire lives in a patriarchal society which sees mothers as foolishly self-sacrificing idiots at best, usually don’t think there is any knowledge or awareness which can be gained in birthing a child.

Now I’m sure there is knowledge that can be gained by giving birth. Knowledge of what it’s like to give birth. Knowledge I don’t have.

I don’t have any knowledge of what it’s like to run a marathon either. Does that make me an inferior human being? Well Eve’s daughter seems to think my nulliparous status makes me an inferior female to her with all her special knowledge and all.

For lesbians who haven’t had sex with men, children don’t just happen, even if they want them to. They have to go out and actively seek artificial insemination. Which was until recently wasn’t that easy as clinics were obliged to consider ‘the need for a father’ (this will probably be reinstated soon now we have a right wing government).

Childbearing is largely a thing that women who’ve had heterosexual sex do – for the reasons we’ve already discussed. I’ve had this argument before, and I’m going to say the same thing I did then. Attacking women who don’t have children is all too often concealed homophobia. Because lesbians are a hell of a lot less likely to have children than straight women.

Women who’ve given birth need to stop flaunting what they see as their superior status.

37. SheilaG - June 2, 2010

A-woman Polly, you hit the ball out of the park, the nail on the head, the logic on the lodestar. Baby babble and the “secret knowledge” of women who have had children, is nothing more than hetero superiority raising it’s ugly head. Of course, hetero women always assume that their world is the most woman centered, or their children come before all other concerns.

I think this underlying arrogant superiority is what really gets me angry at baby babble and the secret knowledge of true womanhood… hey, sounds like the patriarchs putting childbearing women on the throne of ‘secret” knowledge, or special knowledge or hetero goddesshood. Flaunting is what hetero women do around lesbians, most of my gang is going to fight back pretty hard. It’s either the “my husband” this or that after every other sentence out of their mouths or “my children”… but all of it is about the superiority of heteronormative ways of life.

Concealed homophobia, heck, it’s not all that concealed in my world Polly, they’re pretty much in your face about this. I’ve never run a marathon either, so I guess that doesn’t give me “special knowledge” of the human body in action.

I think a lot of this is just bull fed to women by the patriarchs to prevent women from rebelling. Hey, con the women into birthing bay-bees and you have them nicely under patriarchal control. Pretty neat trick, and they fall for the bait every time! If men said this about women — pregnant women have special knowledge of true womanhood, this blog would be up in arms.

I have always thought that women who have had sex with men then lack a certain kind of knowledge or freedom, but that patriarchal reversal gets me into hot water around blogland :-)

38. rainsinger - June 2, 2010

There are special forms of knowledge about one’s own body and mind and femaleness which are available only during pregnancy, birth, and lactation. Most in our society probably don’t pursue them (the same way that most don’t really pursue the female knowledge and knowledge of oppression that can come with being single, or with being a lesbian), but they are experiential knowledge and are not available to those who have not been through the process. As a consequence, females who have never been pregnant or birthed children, who have been raised their entire lives in a patriarchal society which sees mothers as foolishly self-sacrificing idiots at best, usually don’t think there is any knowledge or awareness which can be gained in birthing a child.

I’m not getting it. The “superior” thing. Or the “true womanhood”?? Where is the superiority? I read it as remarking on *difference*, just as with “….the female knowledge and knowledge of oppression that can come with being single, or with being a lesbian…”

and I would add to that list, the experience and knowledge of being Black, or a woc, or being disabled…. the personal *experience* of these things overlaid on our oppression as females, may be different, or special, or unique – doesn’t mean any one group is *superior*.

What I read, is you are taking it *personally*, (and missing the *political*) and if anyone is pushing “superiority”, its the childfree. You don’t know, you don’t want to know other women’s experiences, as you think its all inferior to yours. Its patriarchal propaganda that you have fed on, that motherhood is so superior. But then again, I didn’t read that post as saying anything of the kind!!!! Eve’s Daughter wasn’t saying that, you were putting words in her mouth that arent there.

Thats just how I read it, anyway.

And men like it that way – its called Divide and Conquer. Its like you say Sheila “Pretty neat trick”. The propaganda works best at making women do it to each other.

It’s either the “my husband” this or that after every other sentence out of their mouths or “my children”… but all of it is about the superiority of heteronormative ways of life.

*sigh* – and plenty of lesbians do the exact, same, thing. Preaching, proselytysing and lecturing ad infinitum, and ad nauseum , about the Joys of Lesbian Existence. All.Of.It.About. Superiority. .. and playing Oppression Olympics or Privilege-Pissing Contests, and superiority in not being like those *Other* Women – and believing all the lies, myths, and propaganda about those *Other* women — just the *same* as hets often do in mouthing propaganda and myths, when they don’t want to hear about lesbian lives.

….As a consequence, females who have never been pregnant or birthed children, who have been raised their entire lives in a patriarchal society which sees mothers as foolishly self-sacrificing idiots at best, usually don’t think there is any knowledge or awareness which can be gained in birthing a child.

And I would add to that list, about women having been raised in a patriarchal society which sees “lesbians as…..”, or “Black women as….”, ( <—– insert preferred patriarchal propaganda).

As for my personal experience Sheila, no, I didn't go on and on, was just explaining to my friends, why I couldn't go to some event on the weekend after they invited me out. One weekend it was just one line about being away with my lesbian lover, and I received a lot of warmth, affection, good wishes, tell us all about it when you get back etc…. Just one line about my kids on a different weekend invitation, and it was the reverse.

Just saying…

factcheckme - June 2, 2010

There’s definitely something weird about asserting that brainwashed handmaidens of the patriarchy are displaying any kind of privilege at all, by internalizing misogynist propaganda about womens worth being tied to motherhood. I sometimes wonder whether you peeps hear yourselves talk? Same with looking down on superior attitudes of others…and from the bottom of a bottle of fine wine at a Beverly hills restaurant no less.

I think rainsinger is onto something here regarding divide and conquor. Absolutely.

factcheckme - June 3, 2010

so now i have this piece of shit pro-feminist man contacting me privately. heres what he apparently believed was SO IMPORTANT THAT IT ABSOLUTELY MUST BE HEARD. BY ME.

I only posted once, under [my] username. I don’t see how I could be accused of linking to my own blog, unless you mean that I commented while logged in under that account, so that my username links to the blog. In which case, if that’s a problem, then I think you ought to make that clear to *everyone* via commenting guidelines.

For future reference, do you treat the comments as a women-only area?

HAHAHAHAHAHHA look. dont you fucking dare tell me what i “ought” to be doing, you fucking entitled prick. is it too much for your entitled prickbrain to imagine that, regardless of whether i was even referring to you, some things do not require a response from you? THINK ABOUT IT. WITHOUT ANSWERING.

next, i would like to point out that pro-feminist men linking to their own blogs is unacceptable, and there are different rules for you because you are a man. get it? good. read your own blog for fucking christs sake. you know, the part where you pretend that you get this shit? where you pretend that you understand that men are incapable of engaging with women without swinging their dicks around. where you pretend to understand that female-only spaces are reasonable and necessary (BECAUSE OF DICK-SWINGING MEN) and that men should LEAVE WOMEN ALONE, and educate YOURSELVES, AND OTHER MEN.

see…you are just pretending. but this isnt a fucking game. its not the land of make-believe, this is real life. and you are an aggressive, entitled asshole. bye.

factcheckme - June 3, 2010

and thats a little something i like to call “shake the tree and see what falls out.” this guy is no friend to women. and it only took one repsonse from him, to show us what he was made of. if anyone wants to know who it was, i might post his initial comment, complete with his blog addy. so you can see for yourself the kinds of shit he writes, and how it does or does not match up with what he has shown us here.

in case anyone is wondering, i found one multiple-account user this past week whom i have been suspicious of literally since the first day she popped onto the scene. and now i know why. “her” posts are going directly into spam now, so its nobody thats been around in the last few days. multiple user names, one IP addy. pretty basic stuff. i am not sherlock holmes, but luckily i dont need to be.

39. SheilaG - June 3, 2010

Oy, why do men bother with radical feminist sites?

And on a side note, it must have been my ranting about the boring nature of het women and their ever present baby babble… had a drink at a favorite British style pub… good cigar, good book, looking out at late summer sunlight. A large group of older straight women were at another table… lesbian me wondering if they will actually say something amazing… one can hope occasionally.

Anyway, one of the women spoke up about being a labor expert, and said she never had children ever… I just felt charmed… at last a straight woman speaking up against the motherhood mafia… “Here here” I said and raised my merlot to her, she smiled back. A moment of solidarity between childhating lesbian me, and careerist straight woman of a certain age… a lovely smile at dyke cigar smoking me…
now I am wondering, was she a closeted sister afterall? Complicated…

My sympathies for you having to deal with the idiot men who email you FCM. Why do they bother?

And rainsinger, lesbian life is far more interesting than kids at the beach. Why would most self-respecting lesbians want to hear about kids? Straight women bore us 24/7 IRL, sure we want to draw the line somewhere or baby babble would take over the world. We’re the last great objectors to baby babble, only we’re honest enough to say enough about the damn kids and future rapists of America (boy children).

factcheckme - June 3, 2010

oh and speaking of shaking the tree, i tested my nigel this way when we first met. it was largely unconscious on my part back then of course, and was (and is) just my way of moving through the world. i used to feel guilty afterwards too for being a bitch, but guess what? you can get some very valuable information this way. anyway, he had a part time job at the school, and i went to the office he worked at specifically to get some school-related information i needed (this is before we knew each other at all). and he didnt know the answer. and i said “dont you have to know that in order to work here?” and waited for his response. he didnt get mad. he thought about it for a second, and said “well now i am curious too. lets figure it out together.” or something. heh. we laugh about it now. but i basically opened the door for him to show me his true self, and more specifically his true temperment, and how he treated a strange woman who challenged him. he passed the test, or pretty near to it. and i still feel a little guilty for being mean, but fuck it. i know what i know, and i do what i need to do to get the information i need. in this case, i got the answer to my original question, by being persistant, and got some info about him too.

40. Eve's Daughter - June 3, 2010

Polly, all I was ever saying is this:

(1) Males have created the frame around which most people view pregnancy, birth, lactation, and child-rearing – as worthless experiences in and of themselves, the sole value of which is to produce a child (for men)

(2) Consequently, the way that most people discuss the experiences is framed in that way (for example, the use of the word “painful” when that is a wholly inadequate descriptor of the sensations of labor and occasionally doesn’t even apply at all; since men don’t experience labor sensations, we don’t have a word for what it feels like)

(3) When you dismiss pregnancy, birth, lactation, and child-rearing as valueless or inherently oppressive, you are adopting a male framework for those experiences

(4) When people state or imply that being childless is an -inherently- superior, more desirable, more intelligent, or more educated state than being a mother (as opposed to motherhood often being a state of oppression because of forced motherhood, or because society devalues motherhood), they are helping the patriarchy, because it sets males (incapable of reproduction) up as superior to females (having to fear reproduction, if reproduction stigmatizes) even if those females NEVER reproduce

There is nothing in there which should be read as saying that having children is in any way superior to NOT having children. Whether you have children or not is completely irrelevant to me, except in so far as you don’t have experiences in this arena of your own, yet you’re dismissing other women’s experiences (“hippy shit”) and telling us what we have or have not experienced or can or cannot know based on the MALE MODEL which has been given to you on a silver platter. Don’t lick the spoon and ask for seconds.

And finally (5) I do question why people would say that they do not like being around children or want to be away from children when they eat or so forth, and I strongly suspect that there are cultural factors and patriarchal forces at play. We don’t have “disabled-free” restaurants, after all; it’s one thing to be -annoyed- by another person’s behavior, and it’s quite another to ban an entire class of people from a public venue because some people find some members of the class annoying. Do you see how the idea that it’s okay to do that reinforces the concept of reproduction and motherhood as a “less than” state? Besides which, it’s not just restaurants that are at issue – children either are banned or face efforts to ban them from office buildings, airplanes, concert venues, gyms, certain shopping centers, and a number of other public places. Doing that means that someone (the mother or another woman, almost always) must be home with the children in order for the mother to fully participate in society; if she’s breastfeeding, she can’t go out at all for any length of time until the child is weaned.

And what I often tend to hear (echoes of it in some comments here, more explicitly in other places) is that mothers deserve that, almost as a punishment for some unstated sin (past heterosexual activities?). Mothers are seen as people who made their bed and now have to sleep in it, so to speak. The whole reason why motherhood or children are considered less-than in the first place is because of the patriarchy, but THAT fact is left unexamined and unaddressed.

41. Eve's Daughter - June 3, 2010

And BTW, thank you, Rain. I think you probably expanded on my points better than I have. I just didn’t want people to think I’d posted and run. :)

factcheckme - June 3, 2010

I think there is definitely something to be said about female experience with pregnancy et al, if for no other reason than it would help women medically if the docs had the slightest fucking clue about, AND CARED, about the health and wellbeing of the woman gestating and giving birth. But they don’t. Maybe women are the only ones that can care about and for other women in this instance, I don’t know. Particularly when the medical standard of care is scripted, and cannot be deviated from. Male docs used to dunk their arms in industrial strength lysol for example, before plunging their entire still dripping with lysol forearm into the birth canal during the birth. And i don’t think it was any mystical knowledge on my part that caused a deep, silent scream to well up inside me when i read that. It’s fucking compassion, and knowing that would be so fucking painful and emotionally traumatising that it just should never, ever be done. I don’t think most men have much of a clue at all about what its like to be victimized in any real way, or what emotional Or even physical trauma is really like. But I do, and it has nothing to do with my ever giving birth or being pregnant, because I haven’t. I think just about anyone with a vagina would know AND CARE better than to do that.

factcheckme - June 3, 2010

BTW, I don’t think anyone was saying that childbirth is inherently oppressive. I mean, I think its pretty clearly not. But the fact that it is oppressive nonetheless is key, as is the fact that its not going to change anytime soon, if ever.

42. polly - June 4, 2010

When I was a kid Eve, about 5, I was a bridesmaid for my sister. Big posh do at a fancy restaurant/hotel, cost my parents a fortune. I had pink satin shoes. Which were black at the end of the day, because I went and played outside in them. I was a child, I didn’t want to sit nicely and eat posh food. It’s mostly a thing grown ups like to do.

Now if kids really like fancy restaurants and want to do what you do – sit quietly, enjoy the food and make conversation in a modulated voice, in fancy restaurants, good on them. But mostly they don’t. I have been a child you know. People with disabilities are not the same as children. Because they are also grown ups. Your analogy is crap. I’d be equally as annoyed if there was a group of adults being rowdy and throwing food in a fancy restaurant by the way.

If childbirth and child rearing are valueless, why are women without children so despised by patriarchy generally? Because they aren’t playing the patriarchal game. Women who have children are privileged by the patriarchy, and all you are doing is flaunting your privilege with your talk of ‘special knowledge’ and ‘giving birth is such a mystical experience stuff’. Maybe it was for you. A lot of people find taking drugs a mystical experience, does that mean we should all do it?

However I do know women who’ve given birth and a lot of them say it is painful and not some out of body spiritual experience at all. You’re dismissing THEIR experiences. Some even had pain relief, boy were they taken in by the patriarchy! You seem to think that your experiences are more valid than theirs – because you of course gave birth the proper goddessy way. Maybe it IS just painful? There are as many women I know who’ve given birth who think this woo woo goddessy stuff is hippy shit as ones who haven’t.

Of course the children’s fathers/grandfathers/uncles could always stay at home and look after them while the mothers go out to fancy restaurants. I’ve even known it to happen!

Nice try with the ‘punishment for past heterosexual activities’ by the way. Your lesbophobia is showing again.

43. polly - June 4, 2010

Besides which, it’s not just restaurants that are at issue – children either are banned or face efforts to ban them from office buildings, airplanes, concert venues, gyms, certain shopping centers, and a number of other public places. Doing that means that someone (the mother or another woman, almost always) must be home with the children in order for the mother to fully participate in society; if she’s breastfeeding, she can’t go out at all for any length of time until the child is weaned.

In which fucking parallel universe does this take place? I’ve never been in a shopping centre, airplane, concert venue or gym from which children are banned. A woman in my gym had an extremely small baby with her in the changing room. They do a parent and baby class in the pool. I’ve seen one of my colleagues breastfeed her baby in the middle of the office. And a law has just been passed here which says that it is illegal to discriminate against a breastfeeding woman by stopping her breastfeeding in any public place. Nice try though!

44. polly - June 4, 2010

sigh* – and plenty of lesbians do the exact, same, thing. Preaching, proselytysing and lecturing ad infinitum, and ad nauseum , about the Joys of Lesbian Existence. All.Of.It.About. Superiority. .. and playing Oppression Olympics or Privilege-Pissing Contests, and superiority in not being like those *Other* Women – and believing all the lies, myths, and propaganda about those *Other* women — just the *same* as hets often do in mouthing propaganda and myths, when they don’t want to hear about lesbian lives.

Yes, but fortunately there’s always a straight woman (with the full force of the patriarchy behind her natch) to slap them down when they do it.

45. polly - June 4, 2010

So what do you think of women who bottle feed their children Eve’s daughter. Do you think they are failing?

factcheckme - June 4, 2010

gave the golden girls post a bump, on account of rue mcclanahans death. heres the link with lots of vids within:

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/golden-girls-houseparty

46. polly - June 4, 2010

I just went and looked up the statistics for maternal mortality in the UK. Here.

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Maternal-Mortality.htm

In the last reported triennium 295 women died from causes directly or indirectly related to their pregnancy.2 More than two million mothers gave birth in the United Kingdom (UK) between the years 2003-05..

•132 died of conditions that could only occur in relation to pregnancy (Direct deaths)
•163 died of underlying medical or psychiatric causes e.g. heart disease or severe depression that were worsened by their pregnancy (Indirect deaths)

So that’s 100 women a year dying of pregnancy related causes in a developed country. With a state funded health service that is free at the point of delivery.

Natural childbirth advocates – like Eve’s daughter – always like to make out that pregnancy is a completely risk free activity. It isn’t. When my mother was the age I am now, she was a complete physical wreck. Why? She’d had quite a few children. When my older brother was born, my sister recalls her having to go off to hospital (all the rest of us were born at home). My sister told me she sat down and was quite convinced it was the last time she’d ever see my mother. Because she was very seriously ill with extremely high blood pressure. Which she never got rid of, despite being a slim woman, never bigger than a size 12. I’m a clinically obese person who is older than my mother was when she had her first devastating major stroke. She was never the same person after that. I’ve never had high blood pressure. Having children destroyed my mother’s health. She was never recorded as a maternal mortality statistic, but I’m pretty sure she would have had a longer, healthier, HAPPIER life if she had never had any children.

Yet still Eve’s daughter, you want me to believe that childbirth is a risk free activity which gives you invaluable knowledge of your body. Well I don’t, and that’s why.

factcheckme - June 4, 2010

If theres anyone posting here who belives that childbirth and pregnancy are risk free, they have serious problems indeed. Because either they can’t read, or they havent read anything I’ve been saying, this whole time, which means they are trolls, or they just refuse to accept what is clearly and demonstrably true. But, I don’t think anyone was saying that Polly. For my part, I will say again that theres nothing mystical about having a vagina, or about anything that goes in or comes out of one. And it has nothing to do with femininity. Vaginas have to do with being female, and frankly childbirth is something that some 70% of all women experience at one time. Any knowledge that women possess by experiencing this for themselves could and should be used to help other women. Full stop. It definitely should not be used to hurt women, childfree or not. But again, I am not sure thats what’s happened here.

47. Polly - June 4, 2010

Oh come on, that’s EXACTLY what Eve’s daughter was saying with this:

Males have created the frame around which most people view pregnancy, birth, lactation, and child-rearing – as worthless experiences in and of themselves, the sole value of which is to produce a child (for men)

(2) Consequently, the way that most people discuss the experiences is framed in that way (for example, the use of the word “painful” when that is a wholly inadequate descriptor of the sensations of labor and occasionally doesn’t even apply at all; since men don’t experience labor sensations, we don’t have a word for what it feels like)

(3) When you dismiss pregnancy, birth, lactation, and child-rearing as valueless or inherently oppressive, you are adopting a male framework for those experiences

(4) When people state or imply that being childless is an -inherently- superior, more desirable, more intelligent, or more educated state than being a mother (as opposed to motherhood often being a state of oppression because of forced motherhood, or because society devalues motherhood), they are helping the patriarchy, because it sets males (incapable of reproduction) up as superior to females (having to fear reproduction, if reproduction stigmatizes) even if those females NEVER reproduce

She is saying that any, ANY objections that women may have to childbirth are just the result of patriarchal brainwashing. In so many words.

Nobody has said childbirth is ‘valueless’. None of us would be having this debate FFS if we hadn’t been BORN. I do think childbirth is dangerous though. And I stand by it.

There is also a very, very serious problem with point No 4 there. Can you spot what it is?

Well I can – males are NOT the only people who are incapable of reproduction.

I have not AT ANY point said that child free (not child LESS please note, if you want a patriarchal framing how much more bloody patriarchal can you get) women are superior to women who have children. Yet Eve’s daughter persists with her ‘having children is the natural state of women’ shtick. Which couldn’t get much more patriarchally endorsed if you she was saying while hanging off a stripper pole.

Because women like Eve’s daughter dress up their advocacy of child bearing in the type of language she does, it fools everyone. It ignores the fact that the patriarchy is biased ONE way and one way only – towards women who bear children.

Males are NOT the only people who find child rearing inherently oppressive, plenty of women do too, that’s why they don’t have children. Yet Eve’s daughter insists that any woman who is – or wants to be child FREE is acting like a man!

You don’t have MY experiences eve’s daughter so don’t tell me how to think m’kay. I’m as female as you are.

48. Polly - June 4, 2010

And if anyone is STILL wondering why saying ‘childbirth is an inherent part of female existence and give women a special knowledge of their own bodies’ is a problem….

Imagine a right wing man saying it.

49. Polly - June 4, 2010

And your heterosexism is showing YET again Eve’s daughter. I don’t ‘fear reproduction’, For two reasons. One I cannot conceive, being, post menopausal, don’t know if I ever could, but I can’t now. Two I’ve avoided sperm, being a lesbian. Fairly vital to reproduction last time I looked.

50. Polly - June 4, 2010

And I’m not dismissing your experiences. I freely acknowledged that giving birth gives you knowledge of giving birth. What I am arguing with is the implied assertion that that is inherently superior to not giving birth.

And if you are NOT saying it is inherently superior, then why do you think it is so preferable that women have this knowledge. Because you obviously do, or you wouldn’t have cited it as ‘valuable’. Which you did.

I probably have knowledge you don’t of lots of things. The difference is that I don’t go around suggesting that everyone else would benefit from acquiring this knowledge. You did.

Something is either valuable or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways.

51. tinfoil hattie - June 4, 2010

Yet Eve’s daughter persists with her ‘having children is the natural state of women’ shtick.

You’re projecting. Totally. She has never said this. Clearly this is a hot button for you. Eve did not say that “everyone else” would benefit from acquiring knowledge about pregnancy and childbirth.

And if you think motherhood “privileges” women under patriarchy, you’re not paying attention.

It’s not a contest: who has it worse, childfree or mothers? It’s simply two different types of oppression under patriarchy. All the better if women can attack one another for whichever state they’re in.

factcheckme - June 4, 2010

I think if we are going to discuss privilege then we should really discuss it, instead of beating around the bush. I mean really. The so-called het privilege that straight women enjoy…what does that mean, and what does it not mean? I agree that there are some benefits to being straight, namely that we tend to partner with men, and benefit from mens male privilege. If we are white, we tend to partner with white men, and benefit from white male privilege. But what does that mean really? That we are subjected to a lifetime of servitude, mandatory piv, economic dependence, and every other slice of the shit pie that women suffer when they are partnered with men?

Whereas the alleged discrimination faced by lesbians is that they arent included in the most oppressive patriarchal institutions available to women, marriage and motherhood. You get shit on in the workplace for not being fuckable enough, yes you do, no doubt about it. And in other situations too. But being fuckable is its own path to destruction isn’t it?

I think we need to ask ourselves who among us, or in what circumstances is any one of us likely to become homeless? In other words, is this a discussion about vulnerability and oppression, or isn’t it? Who will most likely have to prostitute to get by? AND WHY? Who is most affected by domestic violence, rape, maternal morbidity, poor healthcare? And its not white, educated, middle class childless/childfree lesbians, that’s for damn sure. It’s also not white middle class educated childless straight women. You know, except when it is. The scenarios in which any of this is likely to happen underscore where we are vulnerable, and how we are oppressed.

So my question is, and its not a rhetorical question: what’s the fucking point of this discussion, again? Really, I would like to know. Anyone?

factcheckme - June 4, 2010

Omg I just had so many editing fails in the above, I believe ive just topped myself. It’s done now.

52. SheilaG - June 4, 2010

Polly said: “Nice try with the ‘punishment for past heterosexual activities’ by the way. Your lesbophobia is showing again.”

Punishment for past heterosexual activities… this had me LOLing today. I don’t think straight women have any idea how they sound to lesbians most of the time. Get in a roomfull of straight women, and they have a very hard time not going on and on about the kids.

Comparing disabled adults to children is rather a nonsequitor. Last I’ve noticed, I don’t see any restaurants, airplanes, or most public spaces ever banning children. I don’t know where this mythology comes into play. Disabled adults are everywhere, and they don’t scream and cry in restaurants or act like brats in the grocery store.

I’m just not going to give straight women cookies for having kids, nor will I have much sympathy for straight women who complain endlessly, or even SHOCK expect lesbians to get involved with childcare.

We all deserve the worlds we want, and even most straight women who come to social events are very happy to have a kid free night out with other adult, and highly educated women. They get overwhelmed by baby babble too it seems.

53. rainsinger - June 5, 2010

FCM: So my question is, and its not a rhetorical question: what’s the fucking point of this discussion, again? Really, I would like to know. Anyone?

Methinx another “Personal” trumping the “Political”. The Privilege-Pissing-Contest. Its also, the idea that some women are stuck in the post-modernist ideology that women can POLITICALLY oppress each other.

@ 51. TF:
You’re projecting. Totally. She has never said this. Clearly this is a hot button for you. Eve did not say that “everyone else” would benefit from acquiring knowledge about pregnancy and childbirth.
And if you think motherhood “privileges” women under patriarchy, you’re not paying attention.
It’s not a contest: who has it worse, childfree or mothers? It’s simply two different types of oppression under patriarchy. All the better if women can attack one another for whichever state they’re in.

THIS.

54. rainsinger - June 5, 2010

I’m just not going to give straight women cookies for having kids, nor will I have much sympathy for straight women who complain endlessly, or even SHOCK expect lesbians to get involved with childcare.

Apart from the fact that nobody here is asking or expecting you to, I’m not going to give lesbian women cookies for not having kids either.

Stalemate.

We all deserve the worlds we want, and even most straight women who come to social events are very happy to have a kid free night out with other adult, and highly educated women. They get overwhelmed by baby babble too it seems.

And some women prefer a world that includes the company of children, and/or adult companionship without children, that is totally different to yours, and might think your social life would not make them happy.

And are more likely to tell you to shove your condescending, patronising invitation somewhere where the sun don’t shine, sister.

STALEMATE again.

Stalemate generally means, nobody wins.

This stalemate also underscores the idea, that women can’t actually oppress each other, because neither side in these conflicts has the *POWER* to affect, impact or otherwise seriously hurt the other. For the enemy of both remains the men/male supremacy.

But po-mo versions of male supremacist ideology, prefer to have women constantly tearing each other to shreds with their verbal claws, so they will never unite against the real enemy.

factcheckme - June 5, 2010

i never thought of that ideology as po-mo rainsinger. care to elaborate? or is it just shorthand for fun-fem third wave cock-sucking male pleasing bullshit? cause thats the net effect isnt it? to take the focus off of men, and the ways that men are actually responsible for all of this.

factcheckme - June 5, 2010

i have been about this close to doing a privilege-post. maybe its time for that now. i like the idea that even radfems have internalized this pomo doublethink shit. i mean, i hate that its happened, but i think its pretty obviously the case isnt it? instead of thinking of women as a sexual class around the world, we are lining each other up and comparing how fuckable we are to men, and the winners and losers (which one is which??) are accusing each other of being better off. what the fuck? and before anyone “disagrees” with that assessment, i absolutely require that you think it through. even womens alleged racial privilege over other raced-women is about who is seen as fuckable to whom, and how much privilege we can or cannot sap off of which men.

in the case of white women…at least the men who abuse us have jobs. right? fucking shit. why dont we really have this discussion, if we are going to have it?

55. rainsinger - June 5, 2010

i never thought of that ideology as po-mo rainsinger. care to elaborate? or is it just shorthand for fun-fem third wave cock-sucking male pleasing bullshit? cause thats the net effect isnt it? to take the focus off of men, and the ways that men are actually responsible for all of this.

Yeah, it is po-mo as taught in the academentia. Its about the theory (and practice) of social heirarchy and ‘intersectionality’ and ‘individualism”.

The logic-fails are often easier to see with “gender” and trans-politics aguments – (presumably most of us *here* can all see *that* part of it, at least! :)) — but that is just one part of po-mo logic-fails – and the po-mo logic fails are then completely invisibilised on all the other intersectionalities, and far more successfuly adopted in the mainstream, even pop-culture. And the one intersectionality, that is the second most rarest to be identified and talked about is class.

Interesting, if you read “Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed”, about the number of radical feminist academics that were purged across the world from universities and colleges across the world, during the 1990s. A second related purge was on Marxist academics.

On my blog, there’s an older post called “Divide and Conquer” where I go on about it at more length, but got trolled by just about every feminist, and every non-feminist you could think of, so blocked comments on that one, and just let it go! *chuckle*

56. Polly - June 5, 2010

I am going to say one more thing on this and then shut up.

If Eve’s daughter had said “I personally gained knowledge of my body from childbirth” or “some women gain knowledge of their body from childbirth” I would have had no problem with that.

BUT she presents her statements as universal and applying to all women. ALL women fear pregnancy. (heterosexism) ALL women who find labour painful are dupes of patriarchy. Etc, etc, etc. If you’re not like Eve’s daughter, you’re not a proper woman! THAT’s what I’m objecting to.

I think we need to ask ourselves who among us, or in what circumstances is any one of us likely to become homeless? In other words, is this a discussion about vulnerability and oppression, or isn’t it? Who will most likely have to prostitute to get by? AND WHY? Who is most affected by domestic violence, rape, maternal morbidity, poor healthcare? And its not white, educated, middle class childless/childfree lesbians, that’s for damn sure. It’s also not white middle class educated childless straight women. You know, except when it is. The scenarios in which any of this is likely to happen underscore where we are vulnerable, and how we are oppressed

FCM there are lesbian sex workers. Women with money of ANY stripe are obviously less likely to become sex workers than women without money, doh! This is a completely straw argument. READ some lesbian herstory and you’ll see that quite often lesbians WERE sex workers in the past because they couldn’t get legitimate employment, and they didn’t want to be married to men. Yes they’re novels, but try reading ‘Tipping the velvet’ or ‘Stone butch blues’. And you know what a lot still are today. Until 2003, (that recently) I could legally have been sacked for being a lesbian. I know people it’s happened to.

Of course I’m privileged, I’m white, I’m employed, I’m don’t have a disability etc etc. But women with children are not AFAIK inherently more likely to be sex workers than women without children. If you’re using that as an argument that lesbians have ‘privilege’ it’s pretty bloody weak.

As are your other arguments. Yes lesbians are less likely to suffer the ill effects of relationships with men. Doh! That’s an advantage. It’s not a PRIVILEGE in a political sense though. As I’ve said about a zillion times now. Lesbians are not ‘privileged’ because the advantages we have are not conferred by mainstream society as a result of our being lesbians. And we pay for them. Every day. Now unless people shout ‘smelly lesbian’ at you in the street can I respectfully suggest you’re talking heterosexist nonsense?

57. Polly - June 5, 2010

Aileen Wournos.

58. SheilaG - June 5, 2010

One of the most radical things a woman can say is, I choose to live in a childfree world. That children are the means that most women are oppressed, and that children are men’s ways of keeping women under control.

In the 19th century, it was no accident that suffrage radical groups were comprised of about 65% single women; a huge demongraphic shift at that time. It’s not accidental, single being a coded word for lesbian.

I’m not dividing and conquering about anything, I am simply pointing out that as long as women continue to be the baby manufacturers, they are colluding in male supremacy. A large enough baby strike might change everything, but as long as this continues, radical lesbians I know will shrug our shoulders and say “oh well” we tried to tell them endlessly.

it is socially unacceptable to stand up to this baby babble, one of THE most socially unacceptable things a lesbian can do is look a straight woman in the eye and say “no thank you” to this heteronormativity, and the assumption that we would want anything to do with that world.

And as for the academic purge of radical feminists in academentia, I think we were headed down the wrong road by having feminism so isolated in the academy to begin with. By the time it got to “gender” studies it was all over. We had power in the streets and in our collectives, bookstores, and music festivals, we lost power playing the academy game. Ever try to talk to those academics? It really is mindboggling the erasure they do to non-academic feminists who were doing just fine before “liberal” universities started co-opting the movement. It’s been going on a long time. Nothing new there. Just like the baby propaganda and turning lesbian couples into hetero breeding machines is about co-optation of a culture too. I have no patience for either, and I can see where it is all leading.

59. Monique - June 5, 2010

To Polly: Can I get an invitation to view your blog or not yet? If yes, I give you my email.. When the comments will reach the number 100, I shall come back to read and comment. I am taking a break and enjoying the sun.. Lack of D vitamin you know, with my poor health of almost homeless and poor under-class childfree and fortunately now dog-free lesbian, vital for me : )! No, I am joking, I am paying this sunlight a very expensive price that I can afford, I live at the best beach in a top-notch resort, can pay for internet of course and have adopted a lot of children, girls only, all future lesbians already, all kind and intelligent, and I had no choice there was no more males on this earth, and my health is fantastic as well.. Well I give you news back when my tan will be done.

factcheckme - June 5, 2010

but polly you are making my fucking points for me, JUST LIKE ANYONE WOULD, IF THEY ACUTALLY ASKED THE QUESTIONS I SUGGESTED THAT ALL OF US ASK. i am not a fucking idiot, you see. i make words say what i want them to, and here, i wanted to know WHY, AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD ANY ONE OF US BECOME HOMELESS. any. one. of. us. because that highlights the places in which we are vulnerable. it wasnt a contest. it was an appeal to every fucking one of us to be honest about where were are vulnerable, as women, and where other women are vulnerable. AND WHERE WE ARE NOT.

and you hit the nail on the head (and repeated my own point that i made a few posts up) that lesbians are shit on in the workplace. thats not a small thing, i never said it was. its a big thing. its where lesbians are vulnerable. its the thing thats likely to make a lesbian homeless, or a sex worker. and not having access to male privilege is another front on which lesbians are vulnerable. absolutely. also a point made by me, if you had bothered to read what i wrote.

and straight women are vulnerable when they have children, and when they are unattached to the labor market, and economically dependant on men. and straight black women have access to black mens male privilege, but what exactly is that worth, when so many black men cant even get jobs?

as rainsinger very aptly observed, its a stalemate, when ANY woman starts pissing on about their relative privilege to other women. because we are all vulnerable in different ways. whats always the same is that ALL OF US are vulnerable because women are expected to be fuckable, to men. and there are consquences to being fucked, and there are consequences to not being fuckable enough. and the only reason that being homeless is a problem for women is because of rape. if it werent for that, the threat of being homeless wouldnt be as great. it would be…unfortunate. thats all. not the absolutely worst thing imaginable, for a woman. not worse than death, and not likely to result in her death either.

even a relatively well-off educated childless SINGLE straight white woman is vulnerable to becoming homeless, at least in this country, if she becomes sick or injured, or is mentally ill. or a similarly-situated lesbian in fact, IF that lesbian didnt have a community of other lesbians to take care of her, and was as isolated as most straight women are. because we dont have adequate healthcare here, and because we are still in the stone ages when it comes to treating mental illness, or womens ANYTHING. older women who are very well off are swindled by men, and left broke. we hear about this with some frequency. the moral of that story, i guess, is is you are lucky enough to have gotten somewhere in life, and find yourself older, well-off and without a man, well, STAY SINGLE. bow out of the game, because you are as close to winning as any one of us will ever get. untill you get too old to care for yourself, that is. then you are vulnerable again.

it wasnt a contest. it was an appeal for every fucking one of us to be HONEST for a change, when discussing womens relative privilege to other women. i am sick of this shit. if we are going to talk about it here, then i expect some critical thinking, and some intellecual honesty. and i said dont even bother to reply to me, unless you have thought it through. which you clearly hadnt polly, with your bullshit emotionally charged pissing contest about the poor lesbian sex workers. you clearly hadnt thought it through. have you now?

60. tinfoil hattie - June 5, 2010

ALL OF US are vulnerable because women are expected to be fuckable, to men. and there are consquences to being fucked, and there are consequences to not being fuckable enough.

Absolutely. Not only does no woman win under patriarchy, the stone cold fact is that every woman loses. And I’m not interested in playing, “Yes, but my way of losing is WORSE THAN YOURS!” And I’m not either interested in playing “I TOLD YOU SO, WHY DIDN’T YOU LISTEN TO ME?” because that way leads to women isolating and punishing other women for having different lives. I would not turn my back on my lesbian or childfree friends should misfortune befall them, and I’m sure my friends would help me out too, children or no.

61. rainsinger - June 5, 2010

Not only does no woman win under patriarchy, the stone cold fact is that every woman loses.

Presactly.

But, methinx it goes beyond fuckable/unfuckable- although that is the cornerstone of the whole system of male supremacy. But it is not the whole story.

Its more about ‘Male Approval’, or as Mary Daly put it M.A.D. (Male Approval Desire). Women are forced to compete with each other for male approval – its just that its most obvious in the sexuality domain.

Taking Juliet Mitchell’s concept of the ‘Four Estates of Womanhood’ – there are four main sectors (or social domains) in which ALL female humans are kept in a state of social and political oppression as a class, to provide a service for male needs – and only male needs.

If any group of women receive benefits or advantages, its an accidental by-product, and also a very temporary and fragile status. Here today, gone tomorrow. And, more importantly none of those benefits ever confer any real structural or social or POLITICAL power over other women in other sectors. As individuals, yes of course some women can exert such power, as *individuals* – but only with the permission of males – but as a class, group or sub-class? No. Because males will only give that permission to individual Tokens.

Each sector, has its patriarchal propaganda and social conditioning tools to reinforce, force and coerce women into it.

The four Estates, Domains or Sectors are:

* Sexuality
Obvious one. Most women see this, are frightened of male power in the sexuality domain. Need to appease men, or negotiate if possible. It spans the whole spectrum of female life from rape culture, to porn/pros… you know the picture. Men have needs you know, voluntary or involuntary, makes no difference to them – its just less hassle if its voluntary. Hence, compulsory heterosexuality.

* Reproduction.

Men have needs, and reproduction of babies, is necessary to them too – hence they must control both the babies and the birthing machines. Ideally men would prefer truly mechanised growth chambers, because then no woman would be able to take the power and control of reproduction away from men. Thats why its called patriarchy, children belong to fathers. Full Stop. End of story. It is Father-Right in all shapes and forms. Mothers have always had little or no rights over children, and as reproductive technology progresses they have less and less legal rights over their bodies than ever before.

* Production/Workplace

Someone has to do the shit-work. Women are used as factory-fodder and all sorts of “pink ghetto” workplace fodder to do the shit-work that men don’t want to do. We serve male supremacy in the workplace, if we want to get paid. Ranges from everything from sexual harrassment, to lower pay and poor conditions. Also, when male supremacist economies are in high-production mode – women must be coerced into the paid workforce in large numbers – hence abortion/contraception and childcare become affordable, accessible and easily available. Single women/lesbians are the most vulnerable here – because it is in reverse – the workplace prefers married women. Married women are more likely to be satisfied with shorter hours, lower pay, as they are just “supplementary” or “second” incomes. Like any heirarchy, there are not enough high-paid “brilliant careers” to go around.

* Caring Sector

This is the one that is the least visible, but is predominantly female and a site of oppression – particularly for middle-aged and elder women. Even when unfuckable, you must make yourself “useful” to male supremacy. Caring for elderly parents, or in-laws. These women are the nurses and teachers, the carers, the ones who look after male needs when they are sick, injured, in need of teaching their a,b.c’s – providing service for all the non-sexual needs of men – of course mothers often fall into this domain with caring for children – but then there is “caring” for the sick, the injured, the disabled, the elderly – the meals-on-wheels, the volunteer community workers, the charities, the NGOs, the social workers and domestic servants, and armies of women making meals in kitchens, domestic and industrial, even in times of natural disasters the armies of women cutting sandwiches.

All women are oppressed by at least one domain, some women find themselves in several domains at the one time, or go through several over a course of a lifetime.

62. Mary Sunshine - June 6, 2010

Tinfoil Hattie,

You’ve nailed it. :-)

63. Monique Louicellier - June 6, 2010

Clearly a lot of lesbians are thrown out of their home by their parents because of that and when they are still young (15 to 20..), in my case it was 19, which damages their chance to get or to continue a proper education with proper advice, etc.. and to receive support while looking for jobs or in any bad time in life.

They are on their own for everything and for ever.

And beginnings are important for not being homeless.

If they are not directly thrown out, most endure terrible psychological pressures which often lead to addictive behavior, failure in studies or to their own hasty decision to leave home.

I have been homeless in a big number of times in my life, even if I was trying to study again, all by myself, to get jobs, to get a room.
I know all about the homeless shelters in France and in Switzerland, Red Cross, Salvation Army, State, just ak and I give you the address, type of food, number of nights, type of people there. If I except migrants, who are males or a family, there are a lot of young girls who are on their own and who are not alcoholic or with mental disorders like men who are generally older in these structures !!..
I passed some nights or months there from age 19 to even age 38.
I even pushed the irony to prepare a dissertation in human ecology at university about the utility and organization of such shelters.
I slept for weeks in my car and in winter, another time in a hut lost in a field for months. At a job I had in a big pharma industry (only 8 h a week, not enough to..) whilst in studies (in studies back), my collegues called me the homeless student.

Do you think it helps when you are even more afraid of rape as a lesbian because any sexual encounter with a man would be totally against your true self ?
Rape is horrible for any women or any person, but just think of what it means for a lesbian, a virgin who is lesbian and don’t want to ever know the straight sexual encounter.

Do you think think this instablity helps with social, affective and love life?
It helps nobody being homeless or at risk to be but it helps lesbians even less, as the chance to meet a lover, a real lover are already limited, we are fewer than straight, we have to hide, nobody presents us spontaneously another woman (like they try all the time with men), we have no more free meeting places and a lot of us are traumatised and neurotic, which can only spoil the hope of a balanced relationship, of finding love and spreading pain, it is a kind of vicious circle. Only the stronger or the more in the closet or the more bisexual stay alive. There are a lot of suicides.

A lot of lesbians have been so traumatised in life indeed (speaking of real lesbians, the ones you call butches, the ones that don’t try to pass for straights and can’t hide who they are), that they behave a lot like homeless people, there is a lot of fragility! But it is another debate.

Then, there is not or very seldom a support from a stable lover, some desperately try to help in fact, in solidarity, but very often the partner is in the same shitty situation and lesbian couples are not stable because society and family do not help us to be comfident in ourselves. I don’t know where you had the info that lesbians were better off, it is false. Generally speaking of course.

Nowadays they are some slight improvements, lesbians are better accepted by parents and friends, young lesbians just follow the pressure to look feminine and they easily pass for straights in their looks (submitted to men laws).
It is not the same case on the planet.

Regarding sexual work, I would not be stunned that some lesbians would have tried that possibility, if they have been destroyed by incest and rape before and when still young.

But sincerely speaking a lesbian who will come and tell me that she is lesbian and sexual worker, fine, sorry but when we are lesbians and not bisexuals, this unless to be totally destroyed in our heads (and it exists of course, even outside prostitution like in compulsive heterosex) we do not want to fuck with men, that it be in any situation you could imagine, and the last job we would take would be a sex job with men (with girls I am not sure..), then better look towards queer pro-sexual workers propaganda who is responsible to pretend this non-sense.
I have read very stupid things too, stories like Stonewall reaction and all the feminist lesbian movement was financed by lesbians streetworkers.
Not in France at least and I was there!
What a bullshit!
Stonewall maybe but the rest is pure propaganda and bullshit.

Ok say that now when I will speak about lesbians, I will mean real lesbians, not destroyed in their heads, which can happen to victims of any kind of sexual orientation, but of the ones you call butches in the US, even if I do not like this shortcut and stereotype.
I don’t know if you know a lot of butches, a lot of average lesbians, assumed ones, masculine looking (queers and porn stars like this strange Buck Angel excepted), lesbians since ever, who are sex workers with men or have ever been, I have big doubts about it.

Now what happens to average lesbians, I mean real lesbians, can very well happen to young straight girls in a mistreating family, to straight girls who want to remain single or who have masculine looks or habits in oppressive communites, and to any woman any age who has been left at the totale merci of who was caring for her living before the clash or the accident happened : family, husband, state wellfare.

And in any case straight women left alone to care for kids, this even with the support of parents and state wellfare are often close to become homeless.
(I know some lesbians who are really poor now with a kid they chose to have while they were with a lover and who succeeded in artificial insemination at a low cost.That’s 20 years it is fashionable for lesbians to have kids. Not speaking of former bi married women who became lesbians and who have kids).

Now what about women with slight mental and social (!!) disorders?

Anyone who is slightly disabled, fragile, weak and/or who rebels is at risk to become homeless. Fact.

Lesbians are weakened and are rebels or seen as such.
Beaten-raped-bored-mistreaten-discriminated-abandoned women/girls/old ladies are weakened and when they prefer to rely on themselves they are rebels.

Home is a luxury, home is not given to poor, single, too young, too old, too weak, too sincere and destroyed, to people without money just thrown in the street or fighting in part-time shit jobs, to women not accompanied by a man, not covered by family at least.

Home, rest and chance is not given to anyone who just looks rejected by or who does not seem to comply to the formal rules and pillars of our societies, wich are to be protected/rescued at all times and stay submissive at all times to the dominant traditional couple (= male as the other part of the couple is the submissive part) and to the dominant traditional family, or to administration.

Obedient and used are given a dogshelter in the castle of the Powerfuls, repudiated and dissidents are given homelessness.

I hope I answered the question.

factcheckme - June 6, 2010

I never fucking said that lesbians were better off. Read what I wrote, and respond to it, or don’t respond at all. Or, rather, don’t pretend you are being responsive, when really you are just talking. There’s a big difference. Thanks.

64. Monique Louicellier - June 6, 2010

Funny, Femonade, ok, It will take me a week to read all the comments, and I will not just talk anymore, which I like to, sorry again and especially for the length but now I will try to answer your question.
: )

factcheckme - June 6, 2010

Again, I never said I don’t enjoy hearing people talk, or that tangents aren’t allowed, or anything of the sort. I said there’s a big difference between posting, and responding to something someone has said. If you don’t even understand what someone has said, you cannot respond to it, by definition. There’s quite a lot of reading comprehension problems on quite a lot of blogs, and I know you peeps aren’t dumb. So please. Either respond to other posters, or talk about whats on your mind. Just know the fucking difference, is all I am saying.

65. tinfoil hattie - June 6, 2010

Wow, so now you want to have a “rape-off”? “My type of rape was worse than your rape because …?” REALLY? I am less afraid of rape because I have het sex with my husband? So you’re conflating sex with rape. Nice one.

factcheckme - June 7, 2010

yeah i thought the same thing tinfoil hattie. thanks for posting.

factcheckme - June 7, 2010

heh. loretta x-posted this to newsvine. the comments there are typical of the critical thinking skills displayed by that community. makes me so glad i left, and reminds me not to even bother x-posting my own stuff there, cause then i would have to moderate the comments! fucking idiots. IDIOTS. exceptionalism, individualism, and pro-MRA/anti-misandry propaganda, that they all spout so proudly as if they made it up themselves. i am also getting a bunch of trolls, trying to post the same shit here. not happening.

http://an-uncommon-scold.newsvine.com/_news/2010/06/06/4471892-having-children-is-a-euphemism-?last=1275859818&threadId=975059&sp=0&pc=25

factcheckme - June 7, 2010

a very standard response: my mom shouldnt have told me the truth about her experience, because it distorted my perception of childbearing and motherhood. mm-kay. sure it did. and not telling me would have distorted it the other way, and thats what the majority of women do to their own daughters in fact. what my mom did was wrong in a worse way…how?

66. SheilaG - June 7, 2010

Why is having a truthful mother a bad thing? Mothers need to tell their daughters the absolute truth about childbearing and its risks– what was good about it, what was bad about it. Kids can’t make informed adult choices without this information.

Keeping girls in the dark about life is not helpful at all, and now that we have a whole generation of feminist mothers out there, well girls deserve better.

I was always happy to know my mother’s truth, and it really helped me in so many ways, because it was, well, the truth.

And rape… it is about violence not sex. Wow. Are we at 101 again? Where is Susan Brownmiller when you need her?

factcheckme - June 7, 2010

It definitely was always weird to hear my mom talk that way, and I am sure I took it personally. It hurt to hear that none of us were wanted, yes it did. But at least it made sense. None of her misery and depression would have made any sense at all, if she had lied to us and told us she loved her life, and everything was fine. But frankly even if she had lied, none of her kids was stupid. We wouldve figured a lot of it out on our own, like that kids are sometimes born with birth defects, and require constant care. I have done more caretaking than any other childless/childfree person I know, and had been since I was 4. And when you don’t have a job or your own money, you get fucked when the marriage ends. Duh.

67. Level Best - June 7, 2010

“a very standard response: my mom shouldnt have told me the truth about her experience, because it distorted my perception of childbearing and motherhood. mm-kay. sure it did. and not telling me would have distorted it the other way, and thats what the majority of women do to their own daughters in fact. what my mom did was wrong in a worse way…how?”–fcm

Wow, my mom told me the truth, too, and it certainly DID make me unfit for the usual sort of participation in patriarchal, heteronormative society (i.e., the world), but it also saved me from the opposite sort of indoctrination (good catch there, fcm!) which probably would have resulted in my suiciding eventually. I am not cut out for mandatory PIV and childbearing, just not. It would have unsettled my mind, I’m sure.

What my mom said, repeatedly, to me, since I was quite small, was “Never get married, and never have children; it’ll ruin your life.” She was a child of the Great Depression, and her parents had pulled her out of school after Grade 8, because “women just get married, anyway.” Yeah, not having been allowed more than a middle-school education in the 1930’s fulfilled that marital prophecy, because how else could she keep a roof over her head? Her skills were playing softball well, singing and playing the guitar very well (she was on a couple of radio shows), and running a sewing machine in a Levis factory. When someone who was eminently employable in blue-collar jobs proposed, she accepted and remained miserably with and economically dependent on him until she died (in her 50’s from cancer).

My feelings were hurt by her intimation that having children was a bad thing for women, because I was a child, her child, after all! But, I knew she loved me, and her advice made me aspire to find a way to make a living on my own. My sister and I got college scholarships through dad’s blue-collar employer (woot for the days before factories cut all or most of their benefits; I can’t imagine any of them offering something like this now, and his old company screws all the workers over now just like all the rest of them do) and state jobs that have kept us afloat for decades (hers prestigious, mine pitiful but steady). She married a couple of times and had quite a few abortions (I know of four; I’m sure there were more). I played the chameleon in a backwards, Bible-belty state by wearing the Duggar line of clothing and looking as if I WOULD have been an obedient little help-mate had I just had the immense good fortune to have been proposed to. Now that I’m a decade or so from retirement I don’t have to wear jumpers any more to be left the hell alone. :)

I think my mother did me the biggest favor that it was in her position to do for me. Like you, knowing my mom’s truth helped me. I think this conversation going on here will help some female people, too, because you can’t unring that bell once it’s been heard.

Tinfoil Hattie, I love your contributions every where you comment. You really can cut to the chase.

68. Eve's Daughter - June 7, 2010

FCM, if I have your point right, even the most ostensibly “pampered” house slave is still a slave, right? It remains the Old Master in the big house who needs to be brought down.

Still, someone enslaved in the Big House laundry faces different things than somebody who works in the field and lives in the slave quarters; people experience their oppression in different ways. In answering the issue of privilege, and the purpose of bringing up these contentious issues, I think the rape example pretty well demonstrates how this stuff can fall out.

As a lesbian, part of the fear of rape for Monique was an aversion to men to begin with, and an active desire to never sexually engage with men in any way.

For women who do desire to be sexual with men, part of rape manifests as destruction or harm of that sexual expression – it can be very, very difficult for many straight women who have been raped to enjoy a relationship with a man without triggering reminders of the assault. That severely limits the woman’s ability to enjoy her sexuality with the people she’s attracted to.

Rape affects some women who are attracted to men and some women who have no desire to engage with men in different ways.

Pointing out those differences can be useful, since it’s difficult to see aspects of patriarchal socialization which don’t directly impact our own lives. Most women I know who are or have been sexually attracted to men DON’T consider sex and rape to be the same thing, because for them the experience of sex and the experience of rape are very different; on the other hand, for Monique (apologies if I’m misphrasing your point), part of the aversion to rape is that it IS “sex” with a man. Both of these perspectives, I’d wager, are a result of a patriarchal structure which defines “sex” in certain ways and conceives of female sexuality and female fuckability in those ways. So how do those differences help reveal that structure?

Similarly, rape is not precisely the same experience for women who are disabled who are raped by caregivers, or women of color who are raped by white men, or women who are raped by their employers, or women who are in prison who are raped by guards, or women who are raped by their husbands.

Unless we’re willing to truly listen to each other, the experiences and perspectives of other women won’t make sense, because we’re all hearing and seeing things through the veil of the patriarchy. It’s like the story of the blind men and the elephant, in which each is touching a different part of the elephant and so thinks of the animal differently. We’ve been told how to think about other women and their experiences, and we have to consciously put that aside so that we can grasp the bigger picture.

I think it’s possible to point out those differences in a way which doesn’t dismiss (or seem to dismiss) others’ own experiences, but it’s difficult and I’m no doubt not the best at it.

This would be much easier if we were talking about something on which the patriarchy is more neutral (and which, because of that, we wouldn’t be forced to adopt as part of our “identity”). Does anybody here do spelunking? I’ve tried doing a guided cave exploration once, but I ended up having a panic attack. I should’ve known better; I don’t even like being in cellars. Underground, in confined spaces…definitely not for me. I have a friend who loves it, and is good at it, and she’s brought back incredible pictures. Sometimes she waxes poetic about the experience. She values those hours spent in tight crevasses and mucking through underground streams very highly. I don’t get the attraction, personally, but she has a passion, and I can understand that.

Spelunking, anyone?

factcheckme - June 7, 2010

Actually I object very strongly to equating sexual and racial oppressions, or trying to make parallels between the two. I think that while we all experience sexual oppression as women, we also have certain benefits compared to other women that, as you say, cause us to experience our sexual oppression differently. And these things are malleable many times, in that timing means a lot. For example, women who have children are more poor, more likely to be abused or to stay in an abusive relationship, and are economically enslaved to men. But older women who have adult children have someone to look after them if they get sick, or become disabled and unable to take care of themselves. We can all benefit from seeing where and how we are vulnerable, now, and where we thankfully aren’t, or aren’t yet.

And I have no problem discussing any of this, in fact I encourage it. As long as its not framed as a contest.

factcheckme - June 7, 2010

And level best, theres something called THE TRUTH isn’t there? My mom could’ve lied to me, with the result being that I would’ve been swayed the other way. But it would’ve been based on bullshit, on lies. She told the truth and that’s worse than lying apparently, since the outcome was to sway me in the direction of indepedence. Interesting, that.

factcheckme - June 7, 2010

Level best, i lolled re your duggar-family clothing line. That’s such a brilliant move, and a lovely and hilarious description. well played!

Thanks.

69. Monique Louicellier - June 7, 2010

To Tinfoil Hattie:
Sorry that you understood what I did not really want to mean.
To Eve’s Daughter:
Yes Eve’s Daughter, you resumed my point. Thank you about that.
Congratulations for making us notice about various rapes, how they could affect us differently because hitting something different on top of the rape itself, and with the feeling of having been doubled damaged by rape. It is exactly that.
I like your analysis about that.

factcheckme - June 10, 2010

I wanted to mention that monique has asked permission to translate some of these articles into French. Her first one went live today, judging by my stats.

Femonade.canalblog.com

70. Monique Louicellier - June 11, 2010

Hum, yes, thank you so much because I feel the urge to make your texts available in French, with all the intelligence, passion and punch you put in them. A lot of French women don’t speak English, you know, that’s a handicap nowadays.

In fact Femonade you know how impulsive I am.. I am just thinking that I was steeling your name Femonade for this translation blog that will be so beneficial for French-speaking readers.. Maybe I should destroy it (but rebuild it under another name) in order that you can keep the possibility to register your own name on a blog on Canalblog ???

In addition, I am sure that you will become famous in the next revolution to come, well if it happens.. No offense, no irony there, because I mean it.

In fact I should have named the blog Femonade and Co, to be closer from the truth, because I just discovered a lot of other wonderful blogs like yours (hem, say a little bit less wonderful, most found in your blogroll and where you commented) that I want to translate too, but only some bits in them.

I don’t want to create a blog for each of them, especially if I translate few texts for each, because it will be a hassle and worse, nobody will read them all.

And it is you who inspired me, I am a fan of you Femonade, I love you and I like orange juice, next revolution will be hot, refreshments are needed, not speaking about the climate change, so, hum, maybe we could leave the beautiful Femonade French blog like it is now or (big lazzy woman speaking there..) ?
Just tell me.

And thank you again.

Your obliged, Monique

factcheckme - June 11, 2010

Why don’t we discuss it over email.

71. katie - June 22, 2010

this post is totally sick and wrong! If your mother and yourself don’t want children then why put yourself in that position, why get married in the first place. You cannot blame a man for all your issues. Women having children is part f nature. I really think you need to re-consider your views on this and start to be a bit more open and grown up abut t all. Quite frankly this post and whole blog disgusts me! And before you ask, I’m not a man I’m a woman, studying at uni and I plan to have children- my decision n one else’s!!

factcheckme - June 22, 2010

HAHAHAHAHAHHA then don’t post here. Duh.

factcheckme - June 22, 2010

Someone facebooked this post, and with a tinyurl no less. Guess that means they are young, hip, and with it. And stuff, and things. Piv-addicted too, im sure.

72. SheilaG - June 23, 2010

PIV addicted pretty much describes most women on the planet. I see no sign of this changing anytime soon. Unless women in massive number start reading this site :-) Hey, nothing like hetero women who are older and wiser trying to get through to the young women who just don’t believe any of this until it is too late.

factcheckme - June 23, 2010

actually, i disagree with the characterization of it as a cock addiction sheila. i was just being lazy, and i took a shot. in reality, i think its trauma-bonding, as we have discussed elsewhere. for anyone who is new to the discussion, search “trauma-bonding” in the sidebar.

and i think there is something to being older and wiser, absolutely. for me, the whole sex-pozzie line was so attractive to me in my 20s, because i had spent my childhood and teens being told that sex was bad. “sex is good!” was a nice alternative. but the thing is, its a complete fucking lie, is what it is, because “sex!!!1!” is defined as mandatory PIV, and centered around the cock, and male pleasure. its risky and dangerous to women. thats what nobody fucking tells you, whether they are saying that “sex” is good, or that its “bad.” its all wrapped up in moral judgements and telling women what to fucking do. and nothing about telling us what we need to know, or telling the fucking truth.

73. polly - June 23, 2010

Quite frankly this post and whole blog disgusts me!

Well why are you reading it when there’s the rest of the internet?

factcheckme - June 23, 2010

God really. It’s the policing aspect of teh patriarchy that keeps the fun fems, mras and transwomen flocking to this blog. We tell the truth, and we discuss the subject matter. We don’t go over to the fun fem/mra/transwoman blogs, and start telling them what to do. It’s clear as fucking day what they are doing, isn’t it? Although I am sure they would protest vigorously at the characterization, its exactly what they are doing. They are the brute squad of the patriarchy. And we are minding our own fucking business, on our own fucking turf.

74. SheilaG - June 26, 2010

Yeah, they just never get it that radfems are off in their own ideological truth telling area… they ALWAYS have to invade and comment, even though they know they are NOT radical feminists, don’t understand our ideology, and don’t care to listen to strong women critique patriarchy.

And for the trans-people, they attack all radfem and women only spaces; it’s what former men do! So trans-people aren’t radical feminists, don’t want us to have our own space, or our own ideology.
Trans want to erase radical feminism, because we are the only ones out there seriously trying to put a stop to their colonizing selves in women’s spaces. MRAs, they’re just same old same old, but the men who change their bodies into fettish females… another story women…

factcheckme - June 26, 2010

Yup. Valerie keefe is trying to post here again. And i have spammed his I mean her ass, again. Bye.

factcheckme - June 26, 2010

Srsly, what does that remind you of ladies? For me, it instantly brings back memories of teh doodbros and their attempting to elicit “consent” to piv by asking a million times, and not taking no for an answer. These assholes just don’t fucking get it. They are men, and we can spot them and their doodly mannerisms and utter crappola from a mile away. No, I don’t want your crusty, diseased cock in me, mmkay? Go fuck yourself.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 346 other followers