Peak Fun March 26, 2012Posted by FCM in authors picks, feminisms, gender roles, liberal dickwads, PIV, politics, pop culture, trans.
Tags: gender, sex positive, the cotton ceiling, trans
first, a question: has the great cotton ceiling debacle of 2012 affected you wrt your feelings towards trans politics and/or liberal “fun feminism” and if so, how? if not, why not? and is there a point at which it will become more than obvious what fun-feminism really is, including who it benefits, and why? will the truth out? does it ever? if so, why? if not, why not?
while all women are socialized to be compliant dick-pleasers, and frequently acquiesce or avoid confrontations with men due to the threats of violence and actual violence backing up mens demands, including their demand that we see the entire world through mens eyes, womens socialization to be pleasing to dicks (and penises!) cannot be the variable here, where some women are buying this trans politics/fun-fem shit and others are not.
most arent, in fact. most women, i dare say, both globally and locally, simply are not on board with trans politics. the oft-repeated claims by trans and fun-ems that trans are a political minority, and are often oppressed by women, is evidence that this is true. so while the fun-fems are definitely being dick-pleasing and compliant in their acceptance of what is very obviously an anti-feminist mens rights (trans) agenda, conservative grandmas really arent, or if they are, they arent talking about it. soccer moms arent. wilting southern flowers arent. even women who are compliant or even hesitant dick-pleasers in every other way, arent necessarily buying this one. so whats the variable here?
it seems to me that the variable is sex-positivism, and liberal anti-woman sexual politics. sex-positivism requires, absolutely requires that women see the world through mens eyes, where removing “sex” — including intercourse and its attendant reproductive consequences — from its anti-woman, patriarchy-supportive historical and political context is a good thing, because men have been in the wrong for millenia and it benefits them to ignore that.
and sex-positivism, and the idea that “sex” and intercourse with men is a good thing, and that it could and should be liberatory for women, at this time and place, is the most egregious mansplanation — aka. example of forced-male-perspective — that i have literally ever heard. because in order for women or anyone to see sex with men as beneficial for women, even conditionally, but often as unconditionally beneficial, to us, we must agree that mens perspective on 4 critical points is correct and adopt their perspective as our own:
1) the political class-based oppression of women by men which is based on biological sex is a good thing and should continue; and 2) men deliberately systematically, institutionally and interpersonally harming women as a sexual class, via intercourse, is a good thing and should continue; and 3) the female-specific harms of the penis are particularly beneficial and should therefore be centered as much as possible; and 4) it further benefits us and supports our (male) power to publically deny 1-3.
viola! sex is apolitical! no more sex-based differences, no more male bodies, no more female bodies. because we said so. just potentially orgasmic bodies, just apolitical, ahistorical blobs of meat, catching friction on each other, for fun. just like men pretend to be, when they are actually deliberately harming women with their dicks, to support male power.
now, let me just say a little bit about my utter disdain for sex-positivism, and how much of an atrocious fucking lie it is.
if women are really to be made whole again after literally millenia of systemic, institutional and interpersonal sexual abuse at mens hands — a history that no one can credibly deny, and when i say sexual abuse i mean abuses that are directed at our female genitals, and which often have intended reproductive consequences — it would not be too much to ask for a couple of millenia, or even a century, or a decade or even a year or a day, for that matter, of respite from that, so that women as a class could recover from our collective and individual histories of sexual abuse at mens hands and to heal. and yet, to date, we have not been allowed to have even one day to heal from this. we are not even allowed to acknowledge it happened, or that it never stopped. even if the oppression had stopped years ago, (and it hasnt!) and even if sex with men wasnt inherently oppressive, (and i think it is inherent, or at least that PIV for pleasures sake is inherently oppressive to women) we would still deserve a chance to breathe in an environment that was substantially different from the oppressive one. but what we have is men in womens pussies 24/7 like they have always been. this is simply not a substantial, or substantial enough, change.
and to attempt to erase or deny history, including human rights violations in other contexts is a political and moral no-no, while attempting to reverse the course of oppressive histories on a dime is flatly impossible. and sex-positivism attempts to do both. when it comes to any other type of oppression, has either the oppressive or the oppressed class ever tried to reverse the course of that oppressive history on a dime, or expected it to work, or have they said “look it worked” when it obviously didnt, and had people believe them? has anyone ever taken the site/source of a group’s political oppression and claimed it was now, magically, the site/source of their power, and had that be true? its ridiculous. there are lingering, ongoing effects of systemic political and physical oppression, we know this. and this is true even when the oppressive institution is formally abolished, and ours hasnt been.
meanwhile, the part that liberal/progressive, anti-woman sexual politics plays in trans discourse is obvious: just go on the fucking pill already, and shut the fuck up. that way, you (women, and especially liberal women) can
be more easily resemble an apolitical, ahistorical, potentially-orgasmic meatbag, catching friction off of other people, for fun. it furthers the illusion that this is true for either women or men, when of course it isnt.
and while we are pretending, lets *also* pretend that contraceptives actually do that for women, when in order for them to do that they would have to be 1) 100% effective, and 2) cause no side-effects themselves. and clearly, neither applies. women arent even effectively changed into pretend male-like meatbags, they just have to pretend they are! but whats a little more pretending when you are already living in an alternate male-centric reality thats based on lies about men but also wasnt built for you? note to women: if you have to take a pill to live in mens reality, a pill that men do not have to take, it indicates that 1) there is such a thing as male reality thats different from female reality and that these differences are biologically-based and 2) men are forcing women to fit male reality. and oh what the hell, 3) there is probably a reason for that, ie. it benefits men to do this. because everything men do benefits men, because patriarchy. duh.
anyway, my point is this. while other male-centric politics are decidedly woman-hating and thrive off of mens sexually abusing women too, liberal politics in particular seems to be the one thats heavily invested in turning both male and female bodies into apolitical, ahistorical, potentially-orgasmic meatbags that catch friction off of each other for fun. where all women are collectively owned by all men, and women’s male-centric sexual activity and sexual slavery are prized over our virginity and reproductive slavery. (contrast that to conservative sexual politics. conservative and liberal men disagree with each other somewhat, on some points, regarding how to treat women, aka. liberal and conservative mens sexual, domestic and reproductive slaves). and sex-positivism is the ideology that tells women this is *not* just a slimy political deal struck with sleazebag liberal men who demanded it: its really an acontextual (apolitical, ahistorical) choice. women could not embrace trans politics without both of these things, i dont think.
and thats just (i think?) the fun-fem acceptance of the physical aspects of trans. ie. sex is a social construct, there are no meaningful physical differences between women and men. acceptance of the gender part also requires internalized misogyny, homophobia and lesbophobia, ie. a woman who likes other women or can change her own oil or doesnt want to be a disempowered, feminized rape-object for a man, even when having intercourse with men, (gay transmen!) is really a man herself, so long as she says she is. nope, no problem there.
are we having fun yet? or, is this what peak-fun feminism looks like? stay tuned…