In Which I Make a Fantastical Leap May 8, 2013
Posted by FCM in books!, gender roles, international, liberal dickwads, MRAs, trans.Tags: jaws, male violence, silencing, steven spielberg, waterboarding
trackback
stuff like this is why the organizers/PR machine for radfem13 publish stuff like this: as an example of the MRA/tranny anti-radfem propaganda campaign, the radfem13 organizers state that MRAs and others are guilty of
Singling out individual women who call themselves radical feminist and claiming that they represent radical feminism or all radical feminist views (In fact, the movement is diverse and many claim to be radical feminist but, of course, as a movement for social change, we’d wish to discuss those differences internally)
lol. see what they did there? more denial and erasure of non-social determinist radical feminists by social determinist/reformist radical feminists. of course, like a lot of good PR, this is partly true — non-social determinist radfems are indeed all the time being attacked by MRAs. we are teh evol, you see, and apparently, reformist radfems and MRAs/trannies are mostly in agreement on that point. d’oh!
also, we are so busy calling ourselves radical feminists, making buttons, banners and the like (i myself have a tattoo) that there is no time to do any actual work demonstrating a motivation and ability to get to the root of womens oppression by men, in order to liberate us from male dominance. we just “call ourselves” various random things all the time even though they arent true at all. on my days off — from falsely identifying as a radical feminist — i identify as a pickle. i produce no actual work demonstrating that im one of those either. i mean, what could i even do to show that i was a pickle? my various random identifications are all equally ludicrous, and completely subjective. but i digress.
really, i wanted to stop by briefly and make a fantastical leap so that the last remaining shred of my radfem credibility reformist political capital can be washed away forever. 😀 to wit, i recently learned that actress sarah jessica parkers ancestor, one esther elwell, was accused of witchcraft during the salem witch trials of 1692. there was a warrant out for her arrest and she narrowly escaped trial on a technicality — “trial” in this context being a euphemism for days and weeks of torture, sexualized violence and crazy-making by men against women under the guise of legal process. i can only imagine that this was terrifying for esther, as it was for all women who were alive during the burning times. but lets look more closely at what this means.
i am currently reading anne llewellyn barstow’s “witchcraze” for anyone who wants to follow along. in her study of the european witch hunts (to which her writing is limited — it doesnt specifically include the american witch trials) she elucidates and enumerates what women who were accused of witchcraft had in common, and it was often that they were “doting, scolds, mad, divelish; … so firme and steadfast in their opinions, as whoever shall onlie have respect to the constancie of their words uttered, would easilie beleeve they were true indeed.” barstow summarizes this as meaning “uppity women — women given to speaking out, to a bold tongue and independent spirit…quarrelsomeness, a refusal to be put down. they talked back to their neighbors, their ministers, even to their judges and executioners.” (p. 27)
i would also add, although i am not exactly fluent in ye olde english, that this seems to say that these women were not only outspoken, they actually made sense. as in, if you actually listened to them, you could tell that they were telling the truth, or making sense of things that were previously confusing or deliberately obscured. kinda like what radical feminists do, when it comes to exposing the truth about men and what they do to us, and getting to the root of womens oppression by men. get it?
notably, female heretics often received the same treatment — and defying or denying biblical dictates about womens natures counted as heresy, where the bible dictated that womens nature was to be fuckholes and slaves for men. women often did this anyway, at their peril. get it? publicly (or privately) protesting mens lies about womens “natures” could get you brutally tortured and killed. incredibly, women have been criticizing the bible anyway for 1000 years by now. both before and after the burning times. although we do see a divergence from that history in newer feminist thought which protests “stereotypes” of male behavior too. men arent naturally really the way they appear, you see, even though men created the patriarchal world and all its brutality in their own image because they like it this way. because equality. again, i digress.
a close, personal experience/association with the burning times, a time of unparalleled misogyny and widespread sexualized violence — a global terror campaign by men against women — is this womans legacy. isnt it? a legacy we now know was inherited by sarah jessica parker through her ancestral relation to esther elwell. parker reveals that she wasnt aware of this history, but heres where i make my leap: interestingly, sarah jessica parker doesnt complain. about anything, apparently. and im suggesting that her compliance/non-complaining *might be* related to her connection to the burning times, either through her lineage or collectively, as a member of the female sex class.
you see, around the same time that we learned of her ancestry and her association with the burning times, we also learned that SJP has been permanently hobbled due to years of wearing disabling footwear as a part of her job. she wore high heels on the set of “sex and the city” for 18-hours a day “and didnt complain.” this not-complaining is considered a favorable trait in women and definitely (if not particularly) in actresses, isnt it?
on that note, see the transcript from “jaws: the inside story” here, starting at 45:49 where steven spielberg is described as having poured water down the throat of a female actress while she screamed. to make it sound like the watery female screams spielberg heard in his head, and obviously enjoyed enough to want to share with the entire world. see hollywood dickwad richard dreyfuss conclude laughingly that this practice is “now” known as waterboarding, and that spielberg is therefore guilty of a war crime. but not really!!!!11!!1234 because reasons! (honestly, this could be its own post, and if i had known that the transcript was available i surely wouldve written that post by now. its not on youtube, likely because copyright violation. they obviously didnt have a problem broadcasting it on television where all the men involved were making tons of money on the advertising and whatnot, and its almost (!) as if they arent ashamed of this at all, or even trying to hide or obfuscate what this might say about themselves *as men* or even as people. hmm.)
of course, the thing about associations with the burning times is that they are passed down through families as all legacies are, but in this case, its also womens collective history — a collective history of a global terror campaign by men against women, and its no joke. its also ongoing. and while barstow concludes that women “kept a low profile” for literally centuries after the period of the “official” burning times, i would suggest to anyone who assumes or believes that this silencing effect ended at some point that we are probably still too close to it to see the whole picture. and that we consider the evidence that women are still laying low, and that we still have very good reason to.
and to those who would counter with well, thats not fair because everything any woman has done in the past 300 years, or will do into an indeterminate date in the future, she does “after the burning times” therefore causation problem…i would agree with the assertion, if not the implicit point. there *is* a causation problem, yes indeed. but the implicit point is twofold: therefore none of this matters, and we cant or at least shouldnt discuss it. anywhere. even on feminist blogs. this is what radical feminism (and radical feminists) have been reduced to, apparently? sheesh. and i just made all those buttons and everything.
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
femonade 
thats right folks! steven spielberg waterboarded a female actress. isnt that hilarious? more proof that men arent “really” like this, you see. they do it willingly, even when they are in complete control over their own actions and in fact are literally DIRECTING the entire shebang…but dont let that discourage anyone from thinking its really coerced behavior, and they really dont enjoy it at all. yeah, thats it.
Isn’t it amazing they really haven’t bred all the uppity-ness out of us completely? Well, except for the whole forced impregnation/rape as punishment for that very uppity behavior. Still, it’s miraculous that there’s any hope in any of us that yearns for personhood…
That transcript is something else. Not just the waterboarding. The way the woman was dragged back and forth, under admittedly painful and dangerous conditions, and there to be no way for her to request help or signal her need to stop that would look any different from her scene acting…reminds me of a porn scene, really. At least in BDSM scenes that are supposedly “consensual” there is the claim that safe words are honored.
Steven Spielberg. Mainstream as you can get. Women’s bodies, women’s pain, men’s art.
yes, apparently spielberg is a piece of work. i seem to recall jobeth williams having an issue with him in poltergeist, but wiki says that spielberg merely co-wrote and produced it, and didnt direct it. i wrote about that a LONG time ago. and yes, it is a lot like porn (although not identical to it). actresses are harmed in real life as a matter of routine in mainstream films. but NEVER in porn though, because porn is a fantasy! and poltergiest isnt. right?
its always interesting to me what people choose to respond to in multi-faceted posts. 😀 thanks for reading.
In the meanwhile, qualifiers of “No Animals Were Harmed During The Making of This Film” is littered across our screens. They can’t say the same about women tho, now can they? Men apparently see animals as more deserving of dignity, respect and being free from harm than women. So what are men literally saying? Answer: Men view women as being lower than animals. It’s a patriarchal reversal, of course. It is men who are the lowest and most destructive life forms on this planet and who need to be eradicated in order for this planet to survive, not women.
the woman who spielberg waterboarded was interviewed for the documentary, and before she even spoke i knew something very bad had happened to her because she had “the look”. you know the look of which i speak — the woman who recently reappeared after having left her family 11 years ago has this same look. it was striking in both cases because the “before” pictures were right there. the woman in “jaws” was obviously very fresh and pretty once, being a young actress and all, and then something obviously happened to her. i wondered what the hell it could possibly be — street prostitution was my first guess. but as soon as she told her story, i wondered if spielbergs waterboarding did this to her — if he gave her “the look”. and i wondered what it mustve been like for her to come back and talk about “jaws” and this whole process, also knowing that she likely didnt make much off this movie at all, while spielberg made a fortune. and dreyfuss went somewhere after that too, the fucking asshole who LAUGHED about spielberg waterboarding her — and meanwhile, she went nowhere. this has haunted me ever since i saw it. heres a link to the “missing mommy” case above, with before and after pics, in case anyone is unfamiliar with “the look”.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/pennsylvania-woman-reappears
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423091115.htm
A study on how goats recover from trauma shows unexpected sex-difference (but obviously they’re goats):
It was thought that the goats from the poor welfare group would be more ‘pessimistic’ and slower than the well-treated goats to explore ambiguous locations for food, where the promise of reward was not guaranteed. However, a surprising result of the study was that female goats that had been mistreated in the past were more optimistic than the other well-treated female goats.
Dr Briefer adds: “In this case, we found that female goats that had been previously neglected were the most optimistic of all the tested animals. They were more optimistic than well-treated females, but also the poorly treated males. This suggests that females may be better at recovering from neglect when released from stress, and might have implications for animal sanctuaries in how they tailor the care they provide for the different sexes.”
The only time I happened to be in the same space as Spielberg, he was in my way and wasting my (and production) time.
And we’ve had a *rendering of justice* earlier today in the case I thought of as: Everygirl v. Everyguy. Everygirl lost. Again.
“It was thought that the goats from the poor welfare group would be more ‘pessimistic’ and slower than the well-treated goats to explore ambiguous locations for food, where the promise of reward was not guaranteed.”
Wha? Of course they would – they’re the ones dying from hunger. I don’t get this. Also, he implies that since the deprived female goats were better at recovering, the poor ol’ male goats might need especially favorable treatment.
Wha?
I mean, of course the female goats would be willing to take more risks and look in ambiguous locations – they’re desperate.
thanks karma. i didnt read the link. but it would be NICE if first-time commenters would include some CONTEXT or analysis in their comments, instead of just dropping links. thank you!
Yeah, and thanks fcm regarding the story on Sarah Jessica Parker. Her ancestor almost got murdered as a witch. The legacy of fear must have gone down through the generations…to a woman whose whole career has been about selling women out, who has had no professional impact except as a panderer to men, who has mouthed so many appallingly anti-woman words put in her mouth by male writers, a woman who has harmed herself wearing torture-shoes that must have caused extreme pain for years, until she was so crippled she couldn’t wear them any more. Sorry, SJP, don’t you see, nothing you do will ever be enough. You’ll never satisfy them or be safe. Hope you figure that out someday and tell us how it really was for you, making that series. Linda Lovelace came forward. I would bet your real story has similarities.
Kim Cattrall, though, I think has figured it out long since.
i almost forgot! regarding the anti-woman (and pro-PIV) propaganda that was “sex and the city”
also, thanks for the summary of the SJP anecdote — im glad my point came through. i do feel for these actresses, and its funny that you rarely hear the truth about any of it. not HAHA funny obviously. like, roseanne has said that she nearly died on the set of “roseanne” due to the constant abuse and stress heaped on her by the writers and male cast. and i once saw uma thurman mention that she had long discussions with quentin tarantino about “male versus female rape” in the context of pulp fiction (she had a problem with the male-on-male rape scene) which must have been brutal. can you imagine the epic mansplanations quentin tarantino surely provided on the subject? omg. this is a gruesome, brutal industry for female actors. it sickens me to even think about it too much. joss whedon is likely the king of all mansplainers — hes a blatant misogynist who thinks hes a feminist.
Great post, and thanks for the book rec about the burning times. I ordered a copy. Much appreciated.
The thought that women are STILL laying low because of the burning times centuries ago had never crossed my mind. Silly me. Thank you.
fcm: “kinda like what radical feminists do, when it comes to exposing the truth about men and what they do to us, and getting to the root of womens oppression by men. get it?”
Pardon me and remove this post if it’s too far off topic. But some mainstream media has had a common-sense and truth-bearing reaction to the cleveland kidnappings. When the mainstream gets pissed off at something truly horrific in front of their faces, they do get it: http://www.theonion.com/articles/men-are-the-best,32360/
Common sense is all we are talking about.
I thought I had been noticing an elevated level of violence against women in the media as of late… I also took it as a warning.
It is not a fantastical at all to think that there is a collective memory of the burning times lingering (entrenched) in us all. I’d be surprised to learn that I did NOT have at least one female ancestor who was directly impacted and *learned* that it would be safer to lay low. My maternal grandmother was a talented healer but her work was sanctioned by god in the form of Christian Science – many women escaped the pyre by working under god’s umbrella.
Trivia – Joss Whedon’s father was a writer for the Golden Girls and his grandfather wrote for the Donna Reed show. Feminists all! lol
And, wtf is a “poor welfare” goat anyway?! Just sort of evokes the image of the Cheerful Slave, doesn’t it?
joss whedon also wrote for roseanne, if you can believe that!
also, BUT S4 CAUSATION PROBLEM!!!!!!!!111!11!12235 we CANNOT DISCUSS the POSSIBILITY and nay PROBABILITY without ironclad proof that would stand up in mens courts of law. even though we KNOW what has stood up to mens scrutiny before…just ignore that. they really really really like teh proof.
but seriously, is this MORE or LESS fantastical than suggesting that male violence *might be* innate? we cant PROVE either one of course. and we arent allowed to go THERE at all. are people more willing to accept that the burning times is a part of womens psychology now, than they are willing to consider that men are innately, unalterably violent? if so, why? if not, why not? or, is it the same thing? because i think its the same thing — the causation problem is the same. if we are more willing to accept the burning times thing, i would suggest its bc the field of psychiatry/psychology is whack to begin with and already has no standards or standards of proof, esp when applied to (used against) women.
the REAL radical feminists — as opposed to “those who call ourselves” radical feminists but really arent — need proof, BEFORE it can even be discussed. we arent even allowed to discuss it, and certainly not without being trolled. by them. the real feminists, i mean.
also, i just got your “everygirl vs everyguy” reference above. jodi arias, yes? i havent been following it except to know about the kink and mormonism. everygirl always loses doesnt she. always, always, always. its interesting timing too. we see nothing but kidnappings of women and rapes on the news these days. and literally the ONLY criminals i know the names of since jeffrey dahmer 20 years ago are casey anthony and jodi arias, and thats been in the last year. we are being given a message, for sure.
oh and terrrr’rrr. men perpetrating kidnappings, rapes and terrrrr’rrr. and the only criminals are women. what does this tell you? short of everything?
And the (not even) funny part is that the *proof* that they seem to need so badly is EVERYWHERE.
Discussing IT puts the non-real-radical-feminists in the “respect to the constancie of their words uttered, would easilie beleeve they were true indeed” crowd, the witch crowd.
Is it getting hot in here or is it just me? 😛
and sex-trafficking rings! and “kiddie porn” aka the documentary evidence of men raping babies! these things are being “busted” all over town recently. tens of girls and women are being rescued. TENS. OF. surely the propaganda effect of these reports is the main point, and not actually helping girls and women.
haha! my biscuits are burning!
And, yes, Jodi Arias. “Justice for Travis!!!” I watched a almost all of the trial via live stream… Travis (30 at the time) was indeed Everyguy – a guy who was very obviously grooming Everygirl to be his personal (and hopefully public, cash generating) porn star.
We most certainly are being handed a message.
oh and aileen wournos of course! casey anthony, jodi arias, and aileen wournos. are literally the ONLY criminals i know of in the last 20 years. and the long island lolita.
but i probably only remember wournos and the long island lolita because im OLD. and because charlize theron — that one needed a signal boost apparently. and lolita got one (or two) too didnt she? alyssa milano and drew barrymore, yes?
But then we have Andrea Yates who drowned her 5 children in the bathtub. She was originally found *guilty* of capital murder (and would no doubt have been sentenced to death except for a TECHNICALITY) and was looking at life. That conviction was overturned on appeal – by reason of INSANITY.
I followed that one very closely as well…
Ah. And I see that the creator of Desperate Housewives was partially *inspired* by the Andrea’s *story*.
Oh my 😦
Steven Spielberg and waterboarding, men laughing over this. Guess they’ve escalated because Alfred Hitchcock had them turn on the freezing cold water in the show scene to get the actress to have a “genuine” scream. So the boys just reveal themselves don’t they. Creepy that Josh Whedon worked on Roseanne and that even Roseanne had so much trouble with the male staff on her show.
The crimes, the threats, the non-stop crime TV with girls and women as rape victims, the women who get the death penalty for self-defense. The non-stop porn-like “news” that has taken over CNN. This male violence and televised terror tactics to scare women all the time 24/7 are telling us something. Patriarchy is on the move, it is getting sicker and more aggressive and men are telling women the truth. I’m thinking of how men can use these terror tactics to get a female TV audience to “bond” to yet more male heros, to trauma bond to more male police officers.
The huge increase of rape in the military as more men rape more women, just as the courts ruled women could not be discriminated against in “official” combat roles. No accident there. Does Obama suggest an all women’s military so women don’t even have to be in units with men? Nope, he is outraged, he says stop it, and the males in the military just keep it up.
Did the trauma of the witchcraze settle as a kind of cellular memories in women’s DNA over time? I often wonder this, since I see women who are so frightened we can’t even speak up in a crowded room. Radical feminists just report this stuff, we have loads of stats, we’ve been reporting this for decades, and it just keeps getting worse. Reform is not the solution, and we are only armed with telling the truth. It really doesn’t matter why men are violent–inherently or because the “choose to be” what matters is that they are, and they are escallating. Women somehow can sense this, so it is hyper-femininity as a way to placate the savage beasts, and that still doesn’t work either. You can’t negotiate with terrorists, and patriarchy is all about terrorizing women and escallating this.
I meant “shower scene”
A few loose thoughts.
Another man who worked for/wrote a lot for the Roseanne show back in the day is Chuck Lorre. He’s credited as producer/writer on 50 episodes. Now mostly known as the creator of “Two and a Half Men.”
Some of the crime shows that in the past mostly showed crime somewhat truthfully, with men as perpetrators (Criminal Minds, SVU) have recently been doing more and more plot twist reversals, with women predating on men.
I have seen more than one report being released by reformist feminists, that given the rate of progress so far, it would take such and such many 100s of years for women to be on statistical equal footing with men, for various areas of life, share child care work, media representation and such. The intent appears to be to motivate women to step up the reformist work even more. But it’s interesting that they outright say that by how it’s been going so far, reformist work won’t render equality in our lifetime, or our children’s, or grand children’s. Maybe 20 generations from now we’ll finally be equal, in the technical, statistical sense. And that’s by reformists’ own reports.
The word “witch-hunt,” and how it has come to be used metaphorically, sarcastically, humorously, for anything and everything, erasing the significance of real genocide. The reversal in the 1980s when it came to be used for people (often women) seeking to bring pedophiles to justice. How men still band together and organize campaigns to threaten women with death and female specific harm, for existing while female on the internet, in particular if they’re outspoken.
yes, i think things are definitely getting worse. this is what the reformists dont seem to get — not only are they having NO positive net impact at all on the problem of male dominance, for all their efforts things are actually getting WORSE! it seems obvious, for example 30 years ago we had “friday the 13th” and now we have torture porn. is this not demonstrably worse? we used to just want men to help with 50% (or any %) of the housework including childrearing. now, men are so pornsick (and not just on adult porn either, although that would be bad enough) only an insane idiot would want them anywhere near their children. mothers dont even want their kids to play outside anymore, and we have “helicopter moms” overmothering their kids but mothers seem to know things are really that bad out there, and are worse than theyve ever been. stranger danger is real. human trafficking rings are in every city and town now. were they always, and we just didnt know about it? thats the question everyone asks isnt it? but say things were always this bad and we just didnt know about it. about MEN. is that any reason to hold out hope for men?
It is a waste of time to hold out any hope for men at all. What is the issue is how to wake up half the population. What causes women to have courage? I think men have always been inherently violent and porn addicted or woman attacking. Freud discovered that women were actually being raped in record numbers, and that child rape was common in Vienna. He knew this, but covered it up and invented “female fantasy and hysteria.” He willfully hid the truth of what men were doing, because he didn’t want to lose his job.
Jane Addams reported early in the last century that about 25% of middle class girls were being raped by fathers, brothers and uncles, and were getting VD and gonnoreah. She had to figure a way to get the mothers to bring in the girls for treatment, and so she invented the idea that you could get these illesses from toilet seats to save face of the women who saw the girls were suffering untreated. This was in a recent biography of Addams; can’t recall the author, might be a two volume set.
So worse is a relative term, because in my lifetime, sexual harassment hadn’t even been defined as a crime. Rape in marriage had been legal in practically all 50 states when I was a kid. I recall being confused by the term even as an almost 20-something freshman in college, for example. I was very innocent and naieve about the sexual evil of men. They never got their hands on me luckily, and because I was in largely women only environments and still am to a certain degree, there was less exposure to the rapists. There was simply less exposure and since I never dated men, again, this reduced the threat to some extent.
But with the internet and new technologies, what used to be hard to get is now easy… porn online etc. So this is worse. The growth of the internet itself is largely related to men wanting porn access, brides in China, you name it.
Reform has changed nothing. So clearly, we are all trying to figure out the best liberation strategies.
What I am noticing out in the world, is more and more women circling the wagons. The irony is that the most woman friendly, woman only spaces can be found among straight women. Lesbian places are populated by the trans invaders, but straight women’s groups seem to be relatively trans free.
I notice more and more networks of women working with women, women serving women customers or women centric businesses. The straight women in these places just do it. They don’t really talk about men at all, but focus on each other. I never saw so much women only business activity in my life, and I think this is the knowlege women don’t let themselves know.
Women with boy children get the most defensive, which is interesting.
But on the bright side, men are becoming so cocky so out there so aggressive and evil, that even mainstream women are taking notice. Even mainstream women talk about ending male violence against women… the upper middle class types with their wealthy Nigels…. this is somewhat new.
So if we know reform does nothing, what haven’t we done? And to my mind, we really haven’t created enough groups and places for women to talk without the threat of males. We really haven’t gotten enough women educated about radical feminism. It should be a much larger movement than it is, but we do know the tranny freak outs over radfem conferences in London, for example, and the MRA attacks on these conferences are waking up more women.
I think the horror of male violence will reach a tipping point with women, and when it does, things could suddenly change. That is my expectation. The denial will be impossible to maintain among women.
Some of the crime shows that in the past mostly showed crime somewhat truthfully, with men as perpetrators (Criminal Minds, SVU) have recently been doing more and more plot twist reversals, with women predating on men.
Yes and yes. This drives me insane. Just this week alone:
A false rape allegation (Chicago Fire)
A female serial sniper (SVU)
A female temptress predator of men (an actual witch this time/ Grimm)
It is so obvious that women can NEVER be allowed to win. The new Tyler Perry movie, won’t be watching it for multiple reasons but the women-must-come-out-behind theme I can’t take anymore. Women pairing up with men faaaaar beneath them. As in beautiful, smart women being made to humiliate themselves with old, ugly, worthless men. I was just watching a Big C episode (by accident) where a life-long mentally ill homeless man gets to bone a LAWYER and it is she who is made to look pathetic by sex-seeking from him. The lowest of men can (has a perfect right to) have the highest of woman and she still is always made to be inferior. And don’t get me started on Scandal..fuckity fuuuck.
Also SHEILA! I have missed your voice much.
I loved this quote, FCM. “so firme and steadfast in their opinions, as whoever shall onlie have respect to the constancie of their words uttered, would easilie beleeve they were true indeed.”
The truth can be riveting. It actually comes through in this quote that they are telling the truth in a riveting way, a radical way, perhaps. Those who are accusing them can see this and don’t want a rebellion on their hands.
I’ve long thought that the burning times affected all women deeply. Just like the scars of slavery are believed to still affect later generations of the enslaved. Though in both cases the (male) oppressors still oppress, so the past is brought into the present in that way, too.
I think that the oppressors learned from those times, too. Learned what they could get away with. They are still doing that today.
I know some women who were raised without fathers/men in the home. I don’t see them as any less frightened/cautious that any other women. You would think they’d be much less frightened because they grew up in a safer home. But they are varied, just like women who were raised in homes with males.
Also, I cracked up about identifying as a pickle. Immediately, I thought, “Well I’m a turnip, then!” A maligned vegetable, but a perfectly good one. And I’m proud to own that! But, I’m torn about that identifying as a rutabaga. Perhaps on alternate days. Both are root vegetables. And radical means “root,” does it not? 🙂
Women haven’t healed from the Burning Times yet. In part because accusations of witchcraft and executions still continue in various parts of the world. But less you think you’re safe in America, in 2011 a witch hunters conference was held at Harvard (easily Googled). These pukes would also like to put to death the descendants of the witches. I guess that would include Sarah Jessica Parker?
Oh, and if you bring this up, there’s always the equaliteee thing that goes on–“men were burned as witches, too.” What BS!
That’s the thing, isn’t it? Women know how easily another witch craze could happen. In fact, the last time I saw Andrea Dworkin, she said women were being set up for another holocaust. Thus the war on women and the drive to totally dehumanize women. When a group of ppl is no longer thought of as human, it makes it easy for the oppressors to exterminate them and commit genocide. Because people get so accustomed to the ill-treatment of the targeted group, it becomes the norm. All protests made by the ill-treated are seen as uppity. These are just some of the patterns which proceed all holocausts. The current condition of women fits the pattern like a glove. In fact, if you read “The Caliban and the Witch” by Silvia Federici, you will see the same script being followed – almost to the letter.
thanks lucky. i have read that one but perhaps i should revisit it? also, what convinced me to buy “witchcraze” was all the negative reviews it got on amazon. lol. all the men were very upset that she focused on the WOMEN and one even said that some male prof uses it an example of “poor scholarship” in some history class. its “poor” bc its sexist against men, obviously. men were only 20% of the accused and 15% of the executed. and its sexist of her to focus on the women, and classify the witchcraze as femicide. because what about the men??????
also, wordwoman, wasnt that quote revealing? it did really come through, and had much more impact IMO than barstows summary of it. sometimes you really do need to look at the original data and see for yourself.
also, lucky, those final thoughts from dworkin are chilling. what else did she say, if anything?
LOL about male amazon reviews FCM. Had exactly the same impression when I read the reviews of “witchcraze.” Must be good if men are attacking it. If we aren’t causing men to feel blinding anger at our truth, we are not doing our jobs. Make them very angry, let them reveal themselves, let women see who men really are. And I think they are revealing their true intentions for women very clearly now.
It’s why radical feminism is becoming yet again.
Related to Andrea Dworkin’s final thoughts, Susan Brownmiller, awhile ago said about porn and rape—“the aggressors have won.”
indeed. and they dont bother hiding THAT either.
that is, they dont bother hiding the fact that they change DRASTICALLY when they are made “angry.” the lie is that the monster isnt the REAL them. the reality is that the mr. nice guy is the act. women have reported this forever. the man “changes” when they get back to his apartment etc. we hear this all the time. he was acting in order to lure her there. or, he might give her a chance to “consent” before he goes ahead and fucks her anyway — her refusal to consent evokes his “anger” and he changes then. this isnt anger though, not in any way women experience anger — another lie. its something else entirely. a revelation.
Re: luckynkl & FCM, concerning a holocaust against women:
I do not remember how I found it, but there is an article outlining the eight stages of genocide, detailing how men prepare for it and carry it out. (http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/8stagesofgenocide.html) It is chilling to read, but especially because I can’t help comparing it to the situation of women.
1. Classification? Our biology is already transformed into a social category, and we are separated into male/female categories at birth.
2. Symbolization? Women are distinguished by color (pink), dress (feminine clothing) and have symbols applied us. We are policed violently when we do not visually mark ourselves as members of the sex class.
3. Dehumanization? Men deny our humanity, have an infinite number of slurs for our us and our biological parts, reduce us to reproductive machines and fucktoilets through rape and legislation eliminating bodily autonomy, perpetuate hate propoganda towards us through the media and male-created depictions of fictional women, prostituted women are equated with disease, etc. It is already clear that men have no problem harming and killing us (again rape, domestic violence, male murder of female partners, etc.)
4. Organization? MRAs, the witch-hunting group mentioned above, pro-life/anti-choice and personhood movements, pimps, and sex trafficking organizations. Not to mention the entire porn industry. In addition, both state-organized militaries and ethnic militias rape and murder women in occupied territories.
Not sure about Step 5, Polarization. Maybe another commenter will have something to add in regards to that. But when the article states that “classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to the next stage, dehumanization,” isn’t it clear – by the writer’s own logic – that we are in trouble? We are already there.
The monster movie clips are just shockingly aha in this radfem context. The nice guy is the reverse, and the nice guy lures the woman to a private place and then she “consents” to avoid being violently raped. What we see out in the world are the Mr. Nice Guys in the office, sitting next to you on an airplane, or buying a woman in a bar more drinks. Jekyll and Hyde what a truth about men.
The steps towards genocide; I’d say we’ve been there already for quite sometime. The UN came up with a list of this stuff to highlight how to prevent genocide before things have gone too far. The lengthy article I a few years ago was applying the ex-gay movement to genocide, and it was one of the scariest articles I ever read.
The escallation of the violence against women, and the non-stop news reporting of it has the effect of violent propaganda, to scare women into not fighting back.
A woman I knew many years ago once asked me how you could tell a pedophile was in a room with children. I didn’t have any idea— “Oh you can tell because he is the nicest guy to the children, he has to lure them and gain their trust, that’s how they operate.” She was a social worker who knew her stuff.
Another battered woman who had managed to finally escape to another state, said battered women don’t warn other women about the man, because if he falls in love with another woman, he has a new victim and she has a chance to escape. Creepy.
The nice guy routine is about gaslighting the entire female population, and it is a brilliant diversionary tactic to divide and conquer women, and create the “not my Nigel syndrome” that is so all pervasive when I voice a little to clearly my desire for a male free space.
Good comment everyone!
You can see this massive denial within women… events I go to, fundraisers… the women want to convince themselves that they are “empowering” women or girls with whatever cause is at hand. The men placate them and give them a little space, and denial is what women live in. This is especially true within upper middle class white straight women’s groups– very rampant. So radical feminism, which had the power to awaken scares the hell out of Male to trans, to non-trans men, and to male apologists and pleasers.
Keep up the denial long enough. See the violence escalate.
“A woman I knew many years ago once asked me how you could tell a pedophile was in a room with children. I didn’t have any idea— “Oh you can tell because he is the nicest guy to the children, he has to lure them and gain their trust, that’s how they operate.” She was a social worker who knew her stuff.”
Sheila, many of the neighbors of this Ohio man (who held those 3 teens/women captive, etc) are saying that he seemed very, very, nice, especially to children. He seemed so normal, but was really a monster. It is like the videos posted by FCM about the two sides of men, but it is taken to the extreme, and the news reports seem clueless about why these two things go together.
The ex-wife and her relatives knew him to be a monster and horrible abuser. Apparently his daughter is mentally ill. Likely from the abuse she suffered as a child. No doubt there. I wonder what his family is hiding? They may have thought he was a “normal” scumbag who broke his wife’s bones only. Not a monster who kidnapped children and enslaved them.
It helps to see events like these in the light of radical feminism. It makes it so clear. I think it also helps prevent trauma bonding. For one thing, if a woman expects a man to protect her because there are “so many other bad men out there” she needs to think again, and look at the statistics for a while.
It also makes me think about women getting together for protection. Perhaps it will be hard to do that due to personality differences, etc. But, hey! What are a few personality clashes compared to Jeckyl/Hyde surprises once you’ve moved in together.
I agree, SheilaG. So many women are in denial. Even when men flat-out tell women of their contempt for them, these women still insist that he didn’t really mean it. I just don’t understand the phenomenon. Stockholm Syndrome doesn’t quite explain it because these women often aren’t in any imminent danger. The only thing I can figure is women want the fairy tale and the fantasy so desperately, they’ll risk it all in the hopes they’ll win the lottery and a prize that doesn’t exist. Men put these lies in women’s heads. Because if women knew what men really thought of of them, men’s success rates with women would be dismal. It’s nothing but a game to men.
@marisorigin – the polarization aspect is fairly easy to demonstrate. The threshold for being a man is to be “not woman.” Many folks think men are the standard. It’s actually the other way around. Women are the standard. Men take their cues from women and then act the exact opposite. If women are clean, then men are filthy. If women are peaceful, then men are violent. If women are cooperative, then men are obstinate. If women don’t want PIV, then men want it. If women want privacy, then men do the opposite. Whatever women love, men hate. Power over is the name of the game for men. I don’t know why any woman would want one. Men’s mission in life seems to be to make women’s lives miserable.
this kidnapping/slavery case is being egregiously pornified on the news. its unlike anything ive ever heard on the news before. really weird. i really think its what everyone is concluding on this thread: we are being given a message and a warning. the patriarchal propaganda machine is on overdrive. why now, is my question, and its something ive been noticing and wondering about for months, starting with the coverage of the india rapes. why now? its not as if this shit is new. but it seems like they REALLY REALLY want us to know about it this time, and the pornified version too.
speaking of denial, i cant help but notice that the reformists seem unaware of their own implicit belief in the goodness of men, and their ability and willingness to change. if they didnt believe this, they wouldnt waste their time trying to get men to change including getting men to change their own rules, also known as LAWS. they arent going to, and even if they did they would just have another of their institutions (like medicine and religion) take up the slack so that male dominance isnt challenged at all. reformists are completely optimistic when it comes to men, even the ones who claim to get it obviously dont do they? or do they simply have no respect for their own time? or what?
seriously. its not *just* the women who are still partnered with men, or living with men who are still wasting their time on men. women who have nigels might waste their time on one man but conceivably could still see men as a class for what they are and not waste their time on all men and getting men to change. while reformists waste their time on all men, and fail to see men as a class for what they are. they must. if they dont, i dont know what they hell they think they are doing.
luckynkl, you said “Stockholm Syndrome doesn’t quite explain it because these women often aren’t in any imminent danger. ”
Actually, the stockholm syndrome does not involve women being in danger in the present (Imminent). With Stockholm syndrome, the victim continues to be bonded to the victimiser for years afterwards. Like the study of the hostages in the bank robbery in that book on trauma bonding. Many, many women are traumatised by men at some point. It is designed that way. And in fact, most women are in present danger all the time, from men. It is designed that way. Then there’s the element of never knowing if you are in danger, like getting into an elevator or a public restroom, or home. Women do, in fact, live in danger (from men) 24/7. In learning to block it out (to survive in society as it is) women live in partial denial. etc etc
Men know this, and they want it. As a class, it is to their benefit. To have a frightened group to meet their whims, for instance.
I think this trauma-bonding is a key element in what we see. It is also the basis for empathizing with all women, in part, anyway. We never know what trauma a woman might have endured. I’ve known women refugees, for instance. They will never let on to what they’ve endured. But we can know it in the broad scope. We see how many are raped or attempted rapes.
So with the coverage of these horrendous things going on, part of the picture is that women’s former traumas get triggered. Makes women more scared (especially if they are partially in denial, in my opinion). More likely to seek a safe male. Like a policeman or fireman “hero.” But which ones are safe? How can we tell? It’s really a gaslighting thing, isn’t it?
Or be a radical feminist who sees it for what it is. I think this lessens the fear. Facing what’s there is less frightening, even though it’s a nasty picture.
Males are born as beings who are individually inconsequential to the existence of humanity. They are non-reproductive. They are carriers, emissaries of the DNA of humans who reproduce= Females. That is their function. This is not a matter of opinion or my personal view. Objectively, that is the function of humans who are male. They act as carriers for the DNA of those humans who reproduce= Females. Specifically, they carry the DNA of their grandmothers. Why would nature evolve a non-reproductive carrier of reproductive matter? As a defense mechanism against parasites which could otherwise attach to a direct reproductive line. Asexual lines are vulnerable to parasites. Reproduction is essentially asexual but extraneous non-reproductive carriers of DNA evolve as a stop-gap to prevent evolutionary parasites from attaching to an uninterrupted reproductive line. Nature is smart! Some species evolve 4 or 5 different non-reproductive carrier offspring to thwart parasitic invasion of a direct reproductive line.
What is the human experience of being a stop-gap between those who evolve? As an evolver, I don’t know. But I know what I see. And what I see is competition among carriers to deposit the female DNA they carry into the reproductive line. I see carriers murdering each other en masse, presumably (?) to increase the chance their “seed” – or the “seed” of those with related DNA- will be slated for reproduction. I see human carriers attempting to insert their payload into the reproductive/female line by means of force and violence. I see carriers trying to control and eliminate other carriers. I see carriers go to extraordinary means to insert themselves and influence the autonomy of those who reproduce. I see a fucking shitstorm of reproductive violence- the sort of violence carried out by those who have literally nothing to lose- among carriers.
Am I wrong?
So.
Is Gender (the ritualization of male domination and female submission) all a biggo random kooky misunderstanding? Hahahaha. Whut.
P.S. yes yes nigels, stockholm, hitchcock, speilberg, etc.
But Gallus, the Y chromosome *is* a parasite. It cannot survive on its own. It must attach itself to the host – an X – for its survival. Mother Nature intends to eliminate this parasite, so it doesn’t seem to be anything natural. In fact, the purpose of the Y parasite seems to be to reproduce more its own kind – more Y parasites – and to destroy its host (females), not to reproduce more females. Which makes the Y chromosome more of a cancerous virus.
Perhaps you’re right about asexual lines being vulnerable to parasites, which allowed the parasitic Y to attach to the X to begin with?
The steps leading up to *genocide* are quite evident. But the fact is that they do not have to continue on to the actual outright super-mass killing when it comes to women – as long as they have control of our reproduction they can kill as many of us as they like while still forcibly/coercively producing as many more victims as they please.
It’s a fully sustainable perpetual genocide machine.
gallus, im not getting your point about gender. although the stuff about parasitism and asexual reproduction is interesting (as is luckys addition).
i think gender is a scam, and its not the scam everyone thinks. its a different scam. for females, “gender” is the cheese men put on the cracker — us, we are the cracker — before men consume us. men dont have a gender — the way they act, including consuming women and dressing us up for their own enjoyment is men being men. the scam is based in equality rhetoric, which says that because WOMEN have cheese on our cracker, uh, on ourselves, THEREFORE, men have cheese on themselves. but they dont, see? men are completely cheeseless. cheese-free. naked, you might say. this might deserve its own post actually. reframing gender.
and on that note, did you all see where the cleveland kidnapper/slaveholder said in court that he didnt understand why he “went looking for another one” when he already had 2?
this statement is very revealing. it tells me that YET AGAIN we have a male acting in ways even he doesnt understand. some uncontrollable, irrational impulse that has nothing to do with using his gender to politically oppress women, and everything to do with being an uncontrollable sexual sadist who blindly follows his own inexplicable drive/desire to control and destroy women based on their sex. it also reveals that he felt entitled to have at least one if not 2 females as sexual slaves — what is inexplicable TO HIM is that two wasnt enough. two shouldve been enough for anyone, dont you see? having TWO is completely explicable TO HIMSELF. having THREE was overdoing it a bit — by anyones standards. including his own. AND YET he did it anyway. and he made a fourth by impregnating one of the three.
this is not gender. and its not mental illness either. this is men being men. call it extreme if you like. in the meantime, we have the LEGAL EAGLES on the case who are poring through tons and tons of CLUES searching for MOTIVE. WHY would this man kidnap and hold 3 (and a created 4th) women as sexual slaves? what was his MOTIVE? as if having 3 (then 4) sexual slaves isnt its own reward. as if the concept of “motive” (meaning a REASON or even an ulterior motive or a reason beyond the thing itself, a grand plan if you will) even applies here. we are supposed to watch all of this with a straight face. a motive? really? like what?
blindly might not be the right word there — happily might be better? willingly? even reluctantly might fit. the point is HE DOES IT. the point is that he has these impulses — the ones “feminists” say dont exist. they try SO HARD and dismiss self-reports of men who say otherwise. kindly note that there are ways to control various impulses, including MERCILESS social controls like medication and incarceration for example. dont pretend otherwise mkay. IMPULSES do not equal “inevitable.”
so i should also not have said “uncontrollable impulse” and “uncontrollable sexual sadist” but rather, uncontrolled. theres a difference.
FCM, remember the movie “9 to 5” which was about three women kidnapping their nasty boss? It was a comedy, because women are not seen to do this kind of thing. Not in their nature. It is some kind of reversal that everyone recognizes is not the case.
There is no motive. Men keep women as sexual slaves all over America— it’s called marriage. They can do anything they want to their sexual slaves and pretty much get away with it. Forcing women to have sex that impregnates women, forbidding women to get paid jobs, marrying women under false pretenses. So when one man gets caught with three sex slaves, this seems to be big news on T.V., but it is all about other men creating “reality TV porn” for the enjoyment of all the men who want more sex slaves besides the first wife.
Men restrain themselves all the time. They don’t bash their bosses over the head on the golf course, they act “disciplined” at work, and then go home and abuse women behind closed doors. Patriarchy is all about terrorizing women behind closed doors, then “discovering this” then using the terrorized women at TV fodder, in order to keep even more women under control. Oh, and raping girls and grooming them to be prostitutes.
And yes, liberal women who want to fix men, or conservative women who want control over THEIR individual man. Women wasting hundreds of hours, millions of hours on the fake idea that men can be reformed or controlled or can become just “once they knew….” Lesbians do this man-training thing all the time– it’s called working for social change within the patriarchal system. It’s best to be honest, don’t reform men, reach out to women. Men are beyond anything, they have doomed themselves, and lobsters that they are, they want to claw us all down into the boiling pot of water. That’s the whole point of male supremacy, and all these TV sex trials are just another tool to keep women in a constant state of PTSD terror, or to frighten the girls everywhere.
Cheese on the cracker. Men just consume women, they consume nature, the have no conscience, they are the ultimate sociopaths.
you could frame it as “men restraining themselves” and this is useful in some contexts, such as in courts of law to prove intent or sanity. as in, he wasnt INSANE enough to kill his boss, the bus driver, the doorman, the waiter, the cops…he killed his wife and hid the body. very calculated and specific, and goes against mens general argument (which they use in order to GET AWAY WITH IT) which is that they “snapped.” they held it long enough to get home though, or to go across town to their exes house.
BUT. if we werent interested in playing mens games, or tailoring our analyses to render a specific outcome in mens courts (an outcome that is very elusive at that — justice for women victimized by men), one could also explain this phenomenon thusly: men dont have the same impulses and desires to kill men or to kill randomly as they do to kill specifically women. men who kill other men also abuse and kill women, but men who kill women often dont kill other men. all men abuse women, is the point. like sheila said. often, they call it marriage, or prostitution, or dating, or cheating, or relationships. we could say of course that men have these impulses against specifically women and they dont bother controlling themselves and they dont bother controlling other men either, even though they probably could. the fact that they dont, and that they dont want to or care to, paints a very ugly picture indeed. its the truth though i think.
feminists dont want to believe that these impulses exist, but the evidence is all over the place that they do. denial of this has not gotten us “nowhere” in fact its been a part of the big picture, which is that things are getting worse. not better, and not even the same.
[…] see convo here. […]
i posted a graphic here.
related
Men pride themselves on their self control in public spaces. They pride themselves on being unemotional, objective, confident…it’s why they scream and yell at football games, run riot in the streets after a big game win, go out and buy and rape women after the big game.
Sure, they can pretend to be together when it suits them, but then they go home and beat up their wives. What men do to women is calculated and premeditated. And things are so far worse, we’ve gone into toxic porn reporting 24/7 on CNN. Toxic porn reporting of women as sex slaves, or a few years ago it was the Mormon polygamy cult, and on and on it goes. Stupidville, Ohio– just the “news(read male porn reports and terrorizing) in the past few years should be the wake up call of the century by now. But no, women still want to believe that men will reform. There was even a report on a F to male trans, who talks about the effect to testosterone compared to when there were no articifial hormones. So if this is true, and men are killing, raping and terrorizing women, perhaps we should drug them with patches to ensure no violence comes out of them.
Heck, women are expected to take drugs—the pill, so why not have drugs to keep male emotional explosive rage under control. Obviously,. they can’t do it without chemical help. Or so they want us to think.
P.S. Love the cartoons missed scum-o-rama! A sociopath by any other name… thy name is male.
ive been thinking about the sports thing too. i think its a ruse, designed to “explain” (mask/obfuscate) the normal amount of rage and aggression most men have inside all the time for no real “reason” at all, except that they are male. sports, competition, politics, the scandal of the hour — all convenient “noise” and events on which to blame mens moodiness and rage. but it would be there anyway. it *is* there anyway. mens normal state of being is to be in state of constant agitation and rage.
it always seemed so absurd to me that men get so angry at sports teams, yell at the television etc. but it makes a lot of sense really. and everyone pretends that the reason men are in a bad mood is bc their team lost, or even if they won they played badly, messed up plays or whatever. and its always something. theres always something going on, or things that men engage themselves in so that we can blame the external stimulus for their rage and never blame MEN, or even realize that this is how they really are all the time anyway. even without the external stimulus, they would still be constantly raging.
It doesn’t help that there are constant ads on TV now about starting “T” if you’re feeling low-energy or a bit down in the mouth or getting older, so you can become a steroidally poisoned hypermasculine acne’d liver-failing monster. Ask your doctor. Ordinary men need T so they can get with the rampaging and demanding constant sex after 60. No man can ever not be a sick woman-harming old man poisoned by male hormones, can he. Wotta society.
yes. if all men were “low energy” the world would be a much better place.
Low energy, low testosterone, no ability to get the peen in the air, yeah, the best men are the exhausted low energy men who can’t get it up.
Women retired, use to not have to deal with peen PIV at all, but with viagra, holy cow… I saw keep them impotent, low energy and wheel chair bound. They die the long suffering wives get all the money… and then they fall in love with women. Hey, I’ve seen this beautiful for a few decades now.
Thing is, men tell the truth about themselves all the time, even if it’s badly covered truth (they’re not very intelligent and don’t need to be, because threat of rape is enough to cover their most stupid lies) we’re the only ones not allowed to make the connection.
They know the truth about themselves, they just don’t want women to know it, because it would threaten their existence in a whoop. Women getting the facts is inherently threatening to men. Which is why men so frantically try to burn female fact-getters and truth-tellers.
and its not mental illness either. this is men being men.
Yep. The media keeps saying what a monster the Cleveland guy is. He is not a monster. He is typical, not an aberration. He is a man the same as any other. It’s just that he has been caught breaking the fake laws. Let’s face it. Nobody takes rape seriously. It’s not a real crime because everybody knows all females including children and babies crave dick so wink wink it’s just not that bad. It’s only serious if it happens to men.
Even feminists pride themselves on discounting the treatment of women. I know I’m not the only one to hear/read experienced feminists say it doesn’t matter what a politician does in the bedroom. It is irrelevant and immaterial how a husband treats his wife. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is he is a good politician. Whut. How can this be described as feminism? It isn’t.
Speaking of monsters. I was watching the 20/20 report on the Jodi Arias case. I hadn’t been following the details. It seems he was a devout Mormon whose religion mandates strict abstinence for all its young people. So he believed wholeheartedly in his right to a virgin. And he knew he was supposed to be a virgin yet he entered into a degrading sexual relationship with a woman for the purpose of making her his whore. All who knew him knew – this woman who converted to Mormonism for him – would never be anything but his whore. This sociopathy is perpetrated on billions of women everyday and has been for eons. It doesn’t hurt my feelings one bit that one in 100 million gets murdered for it. But I am sorry that she will likely lose her life for it. She should be getting a humanitarian award or at least a POW acquittal.
Oh. One more thing about the Cleveland girls. Every time I hear that 911 tape declaring “we found ’em”. It drives me batty. We didn’t find anyone. The police were useless until after the women rescued themselves.
I think you’re on to something here, FCM. There would be no need for so many social controls if men were inherently peaceful, non-violent, respectful of other’s boundaries, and didn’t steal everything that wasn’t nailed, bolted down, or red hot. Nor would we need anything in writing if men weren’t such liars, thieves and con artists. The fact that we do need so many social controls suggests that men aren’t nice guys at all and only a force greater than themselves keeps men from wrecking complete havoc on humanity. It’s hard to miss how obsessed men are with death and destruction. Which would suggest men are inherently homicidal/suicidal. I mean, men didn’t come to rule the planet because they’re the strongest, fastest or brightest. Men rule the planet because they’re the most murderous mfers in history.
Many sports are a simulation of war. War, of course, allows men to freely express their violent, destructive, homicidal/suicidal tendencies. 80% of the casualties in any war tho are women and children. Which tells us men’s violent impulses are not random or uncontrolled. Men are specifically and intentionally targeting women and children. I have long asserted that men volunteer to be soldiers for the free rape and murder of women and children. War gives them the excuse to exercise it without restraint or repercussion. It sure isn’t for the pay that men become soldiers. Plain and simple, men get off on raping and murdering women and children. Women are soldiers. Women don’t get off on these things. Which means there is something inherently wrong with men. It means this is who and what men are. They are the anti-thesis to life and all that is natural. Men = death.
Re: the recent efforts of male institutions to instill fear in women. I’ll just let Angela Davis speak here: “Well, first of all, it was a major shock to hear that Assata Shakur has become the first woman to be added to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list and then to learn that they’re adding another million dollars to the reward, the bounty. Really, it seems to me that this act incorporates or reflects the very logic of terrorism. I can’t help but think that it’s designed to frighten people who are involved in struggles today. Forty years ago seems as if it were a long time ago, four decades; however, in the 21st century, at the beginning of the 21st century, we’re still fighting around the very same issues—police violence, healthcare, education, people in prison, and so forth. So I see this as an attack not so much on Assata herself, although of course she deserves to be brought home. She deserves to be able to live out her life, and with justice and peace.” (bolding mine) http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/3/angela_davis_and_assata_shakurs_lawyer
And why now? Men socialize each other from birth for domination, control, power, war, strategizing. Men are socialized to sense and react with violence/threats of violence immediately to threats to their power, both personal and as a group. Meanwhile women are largely socialized “to see the good in everyone.” So, men often sense/react to threats to male power before women even realize they were constituting a threat. See how women who thought they were doing something “safe”, like say, blog about fashion, receive death and rape threats “out of the blue” not even aware of which patriarchal toe they stepped on.
So, what we have here, is male institutions (news, scripted tv, legal system) reacting to something we as women aren’t even seeing clearly ourselves yet. It might be women organizing, in particular online, where men can’t (literally) touch us. As Angela Davis says, there are commonalities with activism 40 years ago, but there are differences too. 40 years ago things took place in real life, which means men could shut up and shut down women easier (often just by their presence.) They were humoring feminists. The new “strong women” were a fun new challenge to seduce and subdue. (Many a “power woman” with a successful career has wondered why she ended up in such a powerless situation with such an abusive man in her personal life… maybe because he sought you out as a challenge?)
This time around, all of that is old hat. There is no entertaining novelty value for men. And on the side of activists working for liberation, optimism is dead. 40 years ago many really did believe liberation was imminent. Now everyone knows it’s not. Reformists might try to be in denial and keep up their reformist work “to do something” but really, no one is in the place of optimism that existed 40 years ago. And with that, awareness is growing that the power differences are very, very real. They’re no accident that just happened to favor white males. “Explaining the problem” to men will not make them relinquish their power. And that awareness is a real threat. (Sidenote, note the difference here: “threat” to women means threat to our own life and body integrity, sometimes our children’s too, to men it means a threat to their power and control over others.)
For decades men have kept things stable enough by humoring and placating, but they must be sensing now that women are catching on. And that’s why the male institutions are stepping it up by going back to basics, with constant reminders of men’s physical power and physical violence, “the very logic of terrorism” yes yes.
except for the part about “men are socialized to” i think you are spot on greywing. i think what we know as male “socialization” and “teaching” men to rape etc is just men helping other men organize their preexisting thoughts, for the sake of expedience and maximum efficiency and destruction. its not “teaching” in any legitimate sense, and its nothing anyone could “teach” women to do and maintain for 10,000 years. this is about men acting out their own natures and their own destinies (i say “destinies” not because “biology is destiny” FOR WOMEN, in the sense of our being naturally fuckholes and slaves, but it seems to be the case for men bc they refuse to stop themselves). we can stop giving birth to them of course.
also, YES to the “very logic of terrorism.” it literally terrified me when i heard that there was a bounty on this womans head. a wave of terror (and horror) washed over me. every man on earth now has a collective boner for her, specifically. she has been made a very specific target. and domestic terrorism for (allegedly) killing a cop in a street shootout? what? what about liberal dickwad bill ayers and the weather underground? hes a “retired university professor” and also a retired domestic terrorist. they set off bombs ffs. hes living peacefully in the united states, hobnobbing with US democratic politicians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers
did anyone see that they allegedly found “female DNA” on one of the boston marathon bombs? they added a rather ginormous caveat, which is that it couldve come from one of the women who were injured by it — 2 of the 3 fatalities were women, the third was a boy child. some 200 others (men and women) were injured and seriously injured. why did they even announce the thing about the “female DNA” when it was so obviously meaningless at the time? why didnt they wait to find out it this little tidbit was significant at all? clearly they were trying to associate women with this act of terrorism, with absolutely NO RELEVANT EVIDENCE that this was the truth and when we all know that men are the terrorists and we all assumed it was men who carried this one out too. looks like they used the “evidence” of female DNA on the bomb that ripped probably dozens of women to shreds and killed 2 — to implicate the terrorists wife and give them free reign over her and her house. as if they needed “female DNA” in order to legally or logically question her. but it wasnt hers either.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/female-dna-boston-bomb-suspects-wife-sources/story?id=19104462#.UY-mespgSW4
honestly, its as if (!) just as we and everyone are getting a handle on the STONE COLD FACT that men are murderers and terrorists, they throw everyone off balance by adding the “possibility” that women “could be” involved too. even though theres absolutely no evidence that this is true. it has a destablizing effect so that you cant quite keep your head around it, even though you see it and know it. terrorism? really? because there was female DNA on a bomb that was known to have injured and killed women standing within close proximity to it? and when we know that the clerks who sold them the parts were female too. the female DNA wasnt relevant to whether a woman was involved. but it was relevant and useful for SOMETHING. get it?
and when that doesnt work, just rewrite the definition of terrorist. allegedly killing a cop in a street shootout counts now, but only for women!!111!!112356 and oh, she was convicted of it, so we dont have to use the “allegedly” anymore. except that she says she didnt do it, and its not clear at all that she actually did, or who did. apparently, she presents a “supreme terror to the united states.” what?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/joanne-chesimard-woman-fbi-wanted-terrorists-list/story?id=19092683#.UY-rG8pgSW4
considering the circumstances, i would say that the united states presents a supreme terror to her. which is exactly your point greywing. 2 million $US for her “safe return.” yeah right.
define safe. would it be acceptable if every single man involved raped her while they held her captive, before “returning” her? 10 times each? a hundred? how long do they get to hold her — and do whatever they want to her — before they have to give her back? does she just have to be breathing when she is put back in US custody? does unconscious count, or does she have to be conscious? surely whatever small army of men (out of many small armies who try) who successfully pull this off will understand the details of the bounty intimately, and will treat her with the lowest level of care required to make sure they still get their money. that is, unless they decide that they would rather do something else.
i feel sick. and *i* havent even done anything wrong. yes indeed, this is a very strong message to women. all women. perhaps especially all politically active women, but also any women who might even *think* of rebelling or getting involved in any kind of politically active group. it is a good time to revisit the issue of NOT ORGANIZING WITH MEN though. being involved with males and violent males in the first place is what got her into this mess. isnt it? but organizing with all women isnt safe either. its also not effective, or so everyone wants us to believe. interesting, that. we have to put ourselves in this kind of danger if we want to be effective, because female-only organizing doesnt work. this smells like bait to me. blood-dough balls. organize with men SO THAT other men have jurisdiction over you. they wouldnt otherwise — because women arent usually violent when they get together with other women. the MALE violence is what gets you in trouble, the fast-track to mens prisons where they can control (and rape) you with impunity. even though female-only organizing DOES work, its just illegal in many places. because equality. the second level of the trap — to get women to organize with violent men.
AND! other female bloggers know what im talking about here. we get a glimpse into the male mind every time we view the keyword searches in our stats — what men want to see, and what they specifically seek out when they are online. some of this might not even exist, its just what some man somewhere thinks and fantasizes about and HOPES to find an actual video of it happening in real life. today i got this:
video of castrated men fucking themselves with thier own dicks.
a man thought about this and typed it into a search engine. the “creativity” of mens depravity and destructiveness is something we have discussed before. its entirely likely (evident actually) that men imagine things that are so depraved that no woman could even imagine it. and men are all the time making their own dreams come true. get it? its easy not to act on your “impulses” when you dont have any. this is the category women fall into i think, when it comes to the truly profane things that we all know only men do. like kidnapping 3 women and holding them as sex (rape) slaves for 10 years and impregnating one of them 5 times and forcing “miscarriages” by starving and punching them in the stomach. i wonder if the one child that was born survived bc she was a female actually, and female fetuses and infants are more hardy than males. we dont have any details on the other fetuses AFAIK, i was just wondering. also, yes, the mainstream evening news is reporting all the gruesome details. so all women can see, hear and know (even when they are in the kitchen not actively watching it) the depravity of all men, and the porny details of what they do to us. and they get to deal with their nigels PIV entitlement later in the evening, after the sweet dears have gotten themselves all worked up over the evening porn. i mean news. gross.
In *other* news the 12 y.o. brother of the little girl who was stabbed to death in Calfornia has been arrested. Finally. I called that one myself the moment I saw the first report.
I wonder if we will ever hear about the sexualized violence aspect (educated guess!) of it being that he’s *only* 12 and all?
interesting point s4. i wonder what details we are ever allowed to know when the perpetrator is a minor? the laws protecting underage “people” also protect underage offenders. because equality. oh goody.
also, it looks as if i have *kind of* derailed my own post! 😀 not that i havent enjoyed the ride. i usually do. but if anyone wants to say anything else about the burning times, please do. i am satisfied that the parallel between the burning times CAUSING womens psychology/behaviors and male biology CAUSING male violence — specifically that we are unable to definitively prove either one — was made.
and that its extremely likely that the burning times has indeed affected us and continues to affect us, regardless.
“…videos of castrated men fucking themselves with thier own dicks.’
I’m sorry you had to be exposed to such depravity, fcm. Even the ‘search term’ is porn. We are experiencing a constant inundation of pathologies like this as we get to know the world men have made. I admire Jeffries, Dworkin, MacKinnon, and radfem bloggers in particular who have compelled themselves to research, and who have sometimes lived with, the pornography industry.
It does make me think about historical male ‘shielding’ of women. There are so many cultural rationales regarding keeping at least one class of women shielded; this one class of Woman is innocent of male depravity and must be kept from knowing about it (though it is practiced upon the body of another class of Woman); ooh baby baby it’s a wild world/I’ll always remember you as a child girl…
I wonder if some of the attempts to keep women from entering the public sphere are grounded less on giving up of inequitable male privileges and more on shame, not wanting all women to discover what a male-run world actually looks like. “Privileged” women in this sense seem to have been squestered as repositories of men’s desire to maintain an illusion that the world they have made is a good one. Such women needed to be kept unexposed, child-like and unaware. In many countries they still are sequestered, and I don’t think it’s all about sexual jealousy and misogyny. Of course there have also always been the women who had to live in that world and always saw it clearly, but who were kept silenced in so many ways.
Women’s disgust I think may be part of what is driving the male backlash. It must be shameful for a man to see his world reflected through our eyes. He needs us to shut up about it for his own self-esteem. What I see over and over as the male response to all this is an angry cry that his world is normal and inevitable and that it’s hopeless to try to change war, wife-beating and controls, rape, sex slavery, female infanticide, homicide, pornography. He is wrong – much has changed and will continue changing as women continue to liberate themselves.
I cross-posted here and was into the “derail”. But along the lines of my comment above, it might be of use to consider the torture and slaughter of non-sequestered women in the Burning Times from the viewpoint of male shame and a violent desire to deny what such women knew and saw as midwives and healers.
its ok karma — it wasnt REALLY a derail, in reality the male violence part *was* the point, and a continuation of a discussion we have been having here for months. the burning times is its own topic and could be discussed at length on its own, but the causation problem we encounter when we suggest that the burning times has influenced women (and men) historically and today was a good illustration, i think, of the reason “causation problems” SHOULDNT be a bar to feminist thought, discussion and even assumption. we can very easily assume that its affected us, cant we? very easily. why this is so easy, and the other isnt, is interesting to me and could be discussed as well. of course, even the burning times thing would be denied by everyone except feminists. theres no way it could have any effect at all, on anyone or anything, because reasons!
The Wikipedia article on Assata Shakur is surprisingly accurate and lays it out that she was framed, basically. She was shot in the back with her arms up, in such a way that she would be physically unable to hold a gun. There was no gunpowder residue on her. The policeman who testified against her took it back. And yet she was convicted for murder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur
This documentary is also telling: http://www.eyesoftherainbow.com/
Quote Wikipedia: “According to her attorney Lennox Hinds, Shakur “understates the awfulness of the condition in which she was incarcerated,” which included vaginal and anal searches.[176] Hinds argues that “in the history of New Jersey, no woman pretrial detainee or prisoner has ever been treated as she was, continuously confined in a men’s prison, under twenty-four hour surveillance of her most intimate functions, without intellectual sustenance, adequate medical attention, and exercise, and without the company of other women for all the years she was in custody.”[126]
They really, really tried to break her. It seems what really stuck in the craw of the US legal system was her escaping. And not staying quiet. Standing up and not backing down and not going away to quietly suffer, as was their intention.
At first I wondered at their picking an innocent woman who was framed for the terrorist list, but of course it’s deliberate. No woman should feel she is safe just because she is innocent.
Also, to tie it into the burning times, it’s the same patterns of instilling fear to keep women down and silent, isn’t it?
i also think its relevant and excellent timing to discuss the burning times at the same time we are discussing the (possible) innateness of male violence, including sexual violence. and particularly the part about men targeting specifically women (and not other men) and being very “creative” about it. honestly, you really cannot read about what men did to women during the burning times without concluding that male violence is innate, especially if you think that some people are “naturally” talented at other things — which i think we all agree is the case. some people are natural musicians, painters, writers, etc. the creativity and originality of mens torture and sadism — the things they COME UP WITH, from the depths of their own imaginations and psyches is truly breathtaking. the sick games, crazy-making psychological and physical torture, the perversion of all of it — it was a perversion of “justice” just as it was a sexualized perversion men acted out on womens bodies. it reeks of maleness. it also has a very straightforward and obvious marker of innateness — i believe creativity is innate and that it cannot be taught. i think everyone knows this is true. connect the dots.
The spiraling is at work! 🙂 Burning times then, burning times now…
Excellent comments all the way around as usual. Thanks again everyone!
thats a slam dunk isnt it? creativity is innate. a natural propensity towards something, such as a sport or an art, cannot be taught. torture is kind of both, isnt it? (its both a sport and an art.) wrt creativity and natural ability in other areas, all you can do is get out of someones way, and let them achieve their full potential. you can also “coach” them, if we are using other arts and sports as an analogy. but you cannot force someone who is not musically gifted, for example, to be musically gifted, and to go even further, to be a true *creative* talent. and you cant generally take someone who is a creative talent in one area and assume or force them to be the same kind of creative talent at something else. we generally know this to be true. even if we cant explain it, we know that there is such a thing as being naturally gifted. well, men have this gift for torture. they really do. its difficult to read about the things they do because they are so mind-blowing, among other things (like disgusting and depraved). but your mind feels like its expanding every time, with every detail bc its all original and new. nothing you could ever come up with on your own if you were given 1000 years to do it. thats another way men “innovate” in the field of torture — they write it all down and share it so that other men can build on the “work” of the men who came before. like all industries, the innovators “stand on the shoulders of giants.” while womens history (of resisting it) is erased, and we build on nothing.
agreed s4 — thanks! also, your “perpetual genocide machine” is still giving me chills. i think you nailed it. and heres something interesting — with the comment about the 8-steps of genocide, and how we are already more than halfway there, my initial thought was well, if we are already there or heading that way, we may as well pull out all the stops right? why hold back ANYTHING if we are literally on our way to genocide? but then your comment made me pause. as in, we are in the *midst* of a genocide already, but a perpetual one. they havent gotten to the “mass killing” (or overkilling yet) and they arent going to. the “motivated” and courageous (or whatever) energy i had after reading the first comment was thwarted by the second. a stunting and stultifying effect. if they arent going to get to the overkilling part, we are stuck here arent we? just short of “nothing left to lose.” interesting.
So torture becomes a creative art/ oh yes, the gibbet and the rack, the screw, the fine distinctions of drawing and quartering, the hanging things that many “ordinary” men still use so creatively in their average sex practices…the “bull” was designed by a man for an Italian nobleman. People locked inside this beautiful metal “Bull” were carefully roasted alive. Their screams were converted by ingenious design into pleasant musical sounds. The designer ended up in his own bull, BTW.
Maybe this article on Transgenerational Trauma is of interest. What your discussing has been applied to not just Holocaust survivors but also the Bosnian conflict and the Armenian genocide of 1915. Here’s a summary of one presentation on that event:
“Dr. Ton Zwaan of the University of Amsterdam (Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies) explored the Transgenerational Consequences of Genocide. He argued that genocide represents an extremely vicious disruption of social processes with long term effects. The state is typically centrally, intentionally involved, leading to the victims’ deep sense of disorientation, loss of the social and political context in which their lives had meaning, loss of nearly of their property, and migration requiring building new lives. Victims may, generations later, experience a heightened awareness of vulnerability, threat, and impunity of their oppressors to punishment, as well as a breach of trust with society and the world. This breach of trust leads to weak institutions and leadership on the part of the victim group. Guilt and shame emerge as normal mourning processes are prevented by the large number of victims and small number of survivors. Healthy integration into society and coming to grips with the past can lead to recovery. The conditions for such recovery include truthful historical understanding, open public discussion, justice and compensation, and collective remembrance at the institutional level.”
I read this at: http://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2011/07/11/report-an-intergenerational-approach-to-the-study-of-genocide/
the bull?! omg. i hadnt heard of that one. as always, i kind of wish i hadnt heard about it now. utterly horrific. the part about turning the screams into pleasant music is nauseating. wow.
“More girls have been killed in the last FIFTY years, precisely because they were girls, than men were killed in ALL the battles of the 20th century. More girls are killed in this routine gendercide in any ONE decade, than people were slaughtered in ALL the genocides of the 20th century.”
from Half the Sky
The things that happen, in the background.
how many women would have to be killed — at once or over time — for this to qualify as a “legitimate” genocide? this is a serious question. with 3.5 billion of us globally, we might never reach the point where there are more victims than survivors (if we only count those who died as victims). but look. the WHO documents that 500,000 women die annually globally from childbirth and pregnancy-related complications. we can easily assume that the VAST majority of those pregnancies were unwanted (by the woman) or ambivalent, and/or the result of rape or standard-issue “coercive” PIV. a half million women a year, every year. and thats just one cause of death and doesnt count other man-ufactured causes of death like female-only infanticide, rape, murder, *other* genocides/colonizations, war, industrial accidents or environmental toxicity and cancer. if 500,000 men were dying from an identifiable agent every year, something would be done about it wouldnt it? imagine if women were causing it — look out.
“imagine if women were causing it”
Exactly. And we are NOT causing any of this horrific… pain and suffering and death.
Background, but at the same time right in all of our faces. The bottom line is that denial/reformism is deadly. But, is it MORE deadly than resistance might be??
thats a good question s4. and since men are such competent and creative sadists and torturers, death isnt the only thing we have to look forward to if we “displease” them. or do (or not do) anything really. this is largely whats so terrifying about men. its not *just* that they kill you, although thats part of it. its everything else isnt it — the days, months and years (and lifetimes) of brutal and sexualized torture they will put you through first.
notably, the patriarchal propaganda machine has taken to calling “mother nature” a serial killer. this is new i think? and does mother nature target almost exclusively women, and kidnap, rape and torture them first to boot? i dont think so.
http://www.firstshowing.net/2013/watch-mother-nature-is-a-serial-killer-in-new-world-war-z-featurette/
http://www.history.com/shows/serial-killer-earth/episodes/season-1
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/nov/27/most-serial-killing-victims-are-women-fbi/
Someone upthread mentioned that men fought tooth and nail to keep women out of businesses, because then women would be able to see what men really do day in and day out in business. There would be no ignorant wife at home with no idea what was going on in the office. Men felt shame that women were getting in on how they really acted at work.
Men are horrifying in work places, and then the wives show up at the holiday party with NO IDEA how dreadful their husband that I have to deal with are. I find their ignorance fascinating.
I get to witness first hand men publically making blatant womanhating comments at a business meeting. The other women will sit silently NEVER challenging this. I challenge it, and then I ask the other women why they remain silent. “Oh those were working class men, boys being boys…” they never answer me at to why they stay silent. Then one woman I’d known for years is getting a divorce. Her husband had hit her, and I’m sure there was abuse for years. She was one of the women at the meetings who would never speak up. So women are being brutalized in their own homes, and then they see the brutal behavior of men in public, and fear is silencing them all the time. The closer women are to men (men in the homes), the more dire the threat.
Good points on men’s talent for torture and sexual sadism, and how they share this information with other men via porn, the internet, books, movies. Men pass this information down to each other generation after generation, they go to war to rape and torture women and children.
They get away with this stuff because liberal women are so thick in denial, that trying to get through to them always brings up the defensive “but not all men are bad.” Logic fail every damn time.
What are we to Name our oppression? Looking at the general concept of genocide (or, gynocide or femicide), I can see some silmiarities with the UN definition of gendercide, specifically looking at sex selection in India, China, and other parts of the world which is resulting in, if not the annihilation of women, then the partial annihilation. The UN definition goes like this,
While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”[3]
I’m not sure what to call the oppression of women. I’m not sure one word or phrase can encompass it, whether genocide, slavery, trafficking, chattel bondage, or something completely different. One group of men may try to kill another group’s women as a type of genocide aimed at both men and women, in war. One class of women may be killed, as in the Burning Times. But enslavement/chattel status/involuntary servitude I think may be closer. But each of those words has its own historical framework and is applied to exploitative sitautions not limited to women. I sure do want to be sensitive to what African-American women whose ancestors were slaves think about use of this name. Could the problem be that we still don’t even have a name for this one gigantic oppressive system? It’s unique, isn’t it?
I
Unique in that most oppressed men do not have to live with the oppressor class and bear their children. This is why we have outrage over racist movies, but all movies would be pulled because they anti-female. Genocide is happening to women according to the UN definition cited above. Women of all races and classes live in close quarters with men, and since men wrote all these laws to begin with, of course, they have vested interest in not having this be known about what is happening to women worldwide. Taking their children away, sex selection technology that causes men to kill girls in the womb. The millions of girls aborted because they were girls. Slave labor, what is what wives do in marriage.
The whole system would be exposed for what it is. I’d say that men attempt to steal women’s emotional resources and invade our cultural places to police us. They want to keep women under control, and observed all the time. Patriarchy is the ultimate police state.
It is indeed unique, but really only in the sense that every single woman (whether she consciously realizes it or not) is subject to it.
An indicator of the truth of that is that *we* do not have a word for it.
The eleven hundred women who died in the Bangladesh factory collapse had grasped at the patriarchal dream that they could become more independent by working in “Jobs”. They had only traded one kind of dangerous oppression for another.There is no way to liberation within this system.
We need to understand that defining the issues is the key. MREs and Transactivists understand this.
Transactivists call us “TERFS”. We are not trans-exclusionary; we are male-exclusionary for certain meetings and in many situations. We are sometimes male-exclusionary radfems (uh huh Smerfs), and we had better start saying so. The oppression we are suffering from in an ongoing way is not a search for “Equality”; we do not need to be freed to operate like men in an ongoing male-dominated society. We do not want the right to act like men. We do not seek Equality, we seek Liberation.
Gender is the social roles men and women engage in based on the society they are born into. It’s from biology and social construct. Gender is close to biological reality for men because they constructed our societies, not for women. When women are liberated gender will no longer be hierarchical and gender roles for women will still exist because we have a long rich history, our own myths and rituals and culture. We’re not looking for an “end” to gender roles because we don’t want our rich history and culture erased. Androgeny is not our goal, neither is the liberal dream of women having all the rights of men so they can act like men.
There are genocidal acts going on and there always have been. There is enslavement. There is serfdom, indentured servitude, and all of it peculiar to women, not like the way men dominate each other. There’s no name as Sargasso Sea says. We must disentangle to see more clearly.
We are under attack. One of the things I love about women is our innocence, our faith in goodness, our gullibility because we believe in people. But we are going to have to adopt some of the guises of the oppressor. We simply can’t sit at tables with our radfem literature at anarchist conferences and act like we’re shocked when we get our books defaced and get assaulted. We are going to have to act like men enough to protect ourselves. We have to organize and show our power.
Thanks for listening, sisters.
S
T
this is one thing radical writing can be used for — making statements of position like you say. its beyond our ability to FORCE people to read our work though. and most people dont. how many times can we be expected to outline and then “clarify” and “further clarify” our stances on anything (and respond to misunderstandings and deliberate misunderstandings) when its clear that the intent is to silence us and to make sure no one hears? to permanently shut us down and erase our work, our words and (thereby) our very existence? “transphobia” is a brilliant political ploy by men to silence women. it really is brilliant, in an evil genius (creative torture) kind of way. its not a misunderstanding. again, this kind of stuff is where i think a term of service would be very useful so that the necessary work can be identified and done, but so that the same people dont get burned out repeating the same message forever and ever. if anyone else has a better idea, i hope they will share it. or even better, implement it. what do you propose?
FCM’s mention of search terms resonates with me. Every week, I get at least one super-sick, shudder-worthy search term that reminds me of the strong and merciless current that runs beneath the socialized surface of it all, all the time. Today it was:
“porn were women get raeped and screem for there life”
Hi, phoneaesthetica,
Ah god, I’m just fucking sick of the neverending flow of the cesspool.
hi phona, good to see you! thats a doozy alright. the typos are always a nice touch. its *as if* some of them are typing with one hand or something. heh.
and yes, i am sick of it too. and it is a cesspool. men have made a stinking reeking leaking ferocious cesspool of the internet and the entire world. i want off this crazy thing. i really do.
There’s an obsessive compulsive male response to our work that is very concerning. A ganging-up occurs, but that’s not all of it. It’s a persistence, a tenacity. It goes on and on and grinds us down. We make a statement, we speak the truth. Then a lie comes from them and it gets re-spoken a thousand times until we die from drowning in the cesspool. The rest of the observers are too frightened or too fascinated, as with people watching a cobra at work, to help. To me this sick blind obstinate persistence against all facts is a biological male response.
yes! the ganging-up and the male propensity to work in gangs to terrorize, especially to terrorize women needs to be discussed. where does this demonstrated propensity come from? and the TENACITY, yes — that too. where do they get that? its sick, its demented, and it seems not to exhaust them at all but to energize them. the opposite of the effect on us, as demonstrated by the fact that women do not persecute, we do not obsessively surveil and stalk, this is mens dominion and is something else that needs examining. how can something that uses so much time and energy actually energize them, so that they feed off it and create even more havoc? is this really whats happening? because it seems like it. its fucking terrifying, is what it is. like the terminator. “it absolutely WILL NOT STOP, EVER, until you are dead.” from the horses (asses) mouth. thanks james cameron!
Yeah, I feel that. It’s sad to know it, to understand it deeply. Any woman who has ever been the target knows what we’re talking about.
the ganging-up and the tenacity are what the “collective boner” phenomenon is all about i think. they really do get group boners over stuff, literally and figuratively. and the tenacity of the terrorism and the constant reward of it keeps them hard (interested, motivated, and focused) over time. its so fucking sick. they are sick fuckers. literally and more literally.
“yes! the ganging-up and the male propensity to work in gangs to terrorize, especially to terrorize women needs to be discussed. where does this demonstrated propensity come from?”
FCM, they do gang up even though men on average have more physical strength than women on average. Why they do this is an excellent question. it is rare to see women gang up in this way, threatening physical violence. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen it. These are fundamental questions. Male bonding appears to be related to this. It’s how they bond. Ya know, instead of throwing baby showers or something that women might do to bond.
More evidence for the main theme of these recent posts.
You posted the collective boner thing just before my post. Another kind of bonding.
i think we are collecting some pretty ironclad evidence here. about the tendency to threaten physical violence IN GROUPS, when they dont have to, reminds me of mens propensity to lie even when its completely unneccessary. they are compulsive liars, or a lot of them are. even when it would be just as or even easier to tell the truth, a compulsive liar will lie (whether male or female). thats basically the definition of a compulsive liar is my point. these do seem to be *compulsions* we are talking about here. compulsions can be medicated, which means they are physical attributes to some degree, and not just behaviors. for example, OCD can be treated with antidepressants and antipsychotics, as well as therapy. note that in the case of OCD there really is no CURE, just symptom management. its not an illness as much as a permanent state of being. although the way the male medical machine classifies things does make it hard to talk about them this way. for example the way they talk about alcoholism and schizophrenia as if they are the same as cancer. all “diseases.” and none of these is anything like a cold. i dont know, theres something weird about it.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obsessive-compulsive-disorder/DS00189/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs
without rereading this entire thread, i can list 2 pieces of evidence that seem pretty convincing that mens violence is innate. the fact that they are able to be CREATIVE about it (as in torture); and that they work in groups even when its unneccessary. i havent thought about either of these things in these terms before, as markers of innateness. thanks wordwoman for coming up with the “even when its unneccessary” part. thats brilliant. a lot of what men do is unneccessary actually. i think theres something to that.
as unneccessary as overkill. they invented the concept (as well as the word) afterall.
The tenacity is one of those things that give men away without them even knowing it, when they’re anonymous online pretending to be women. It derives from them getting sexual pleasure out of posing a threat and causing harm to women, absolutely. But there is also a mirror process going on in women, that makes us even less tenacious in contrast to men. I tried to formulate it in the comments on the previous post regarding traumatic news treading over old traumas and re-traumatizing women, but I think similar processes can be said to happen in all interactions women have with men. We’re constantly in the back of our minds aware of previous interactions with men that ended horribly and traumatically, and we’re on that knife edge balancing trying to strategize to avoid being traumatized again and old trauma being torn up. All of which of course is very draining. And all the while men pick up on it, get off on it and are energized by it.
I don’t know if this is veering too far off topic, but as far as strategizing and resistance. It goes deeper than men just getting off on dominating us. Their entire sense of humanity, self-worth, life, everything, derives from it. From being the class that is capable of causing female specific harm. Many men will explain this quite plainly, ie, they think there would be no way they could go on living if they lost their genitals. It’s not just that they enjoy dominating women (they do) but they desperately need it, as an infusion of life itself. I believe it’s from Marx/Hegel(?) – the master needs the slave, but the slave doesn’t need the master. The slave has to provide both for herself and the master. If the master goes away the slave will not only be perfectly fine, but will thrive. But the master (someone who defines his entire existence around being a master) is a meaningless husk without a slave. Realizing this much makes men’s “love songs” about needing a woman (and sometimes it really isn’t even a specific woman, but just any generic woman they sing about desperately needing) quite telling.
0CD, schizophrenia, and other such disorders are actually normal consequences of violence, especially child rape and child abuse, which causes severe dissociation and all the disorders that go with it. It can’t be cured medically because drugs and antidepressants actually reinforce the dissociation and thus make it more difficult to reconnect to the traumatic memory and thus heal. This is from a woman-centred perspective because I’m pretty sure by now that men, as opposed to women, cannot heal from traumatic memory once the violence has kicked in completely at puberty and glued to boner-factor (where they learn to associate their boners to extreme violence). It doesn’t mean that it isn’t caused by violence though wrt men, at least to some degree. Child abuse of boys certainly increases whatever deadliness they already have in them.
Pedocriminals know that raping children causes them to fragment their mind / body, and since the 19th century or so (the development of psychiatry and psychoanalysis) some pedocriminals share manuals or tips as to how to develop schizophrenia in their child victims so that the children don’t remember what happened to them and develop a double personality – to decrease the likelihood of the victims denouncing the crimes or getting away from it. Men are more prone to schizophrenia than women though, so again it might mean that naturally they can’t recover from violence or it sticks with them in ways that it doesn’t with women.
men do that in porn too. They know what it looks like when a woman splits / disembodies herself (literally goes out of her body), her eyes just switch off. Before the filmed torture begins, especially those involving several men, they degrade the women in ways to trigger the “split” and then they get the men in to film the rape/ torture. It’s likely that she won’t remember anything of what was done to her during this time of splitting.
Greyving: the master slave thing is a more generic male mode of relating to women and the world in general, but you’re definitely onto something when that men need to inflict female-specific harm to live.
In fact it completely fits their genetic condition; that for their species to survive, they need to inflict female specific harms. Their genetic condition being constitutive of who they are and how they relate to the world (to females), i don’t think it’s possible for them to relate in any other way. They can’t think and act outside of what constitutes them
Why do men continue to be so energized in their torture and hatred of women? Simple, they feed off of women, and are constanting stealing the energy of women to then attack and degrade other women. Think of mothers doting on their virilent little boys, for example. When boys attacked me, and I had to bash them back, it was amazing that not one mother of one of those boys ever believed her boy was a menace and bully, not one. I’ve always remembered that, and have been brutal in getting mothers to get their boys out of my sight. I explain that I view them as a danger and don’t want to deal with them.
This freaks mothers out, but I no longer give a damn. So the boys are stealing energy from the mothers, and then using this source to torture and stalk women. It’s a cycle that goes on endlessly within patriarchy.
And, to provide courage. Very few women will really seriously understand radical feminism, very few. But it will be an energy boost to the women who understand these things and share tactics and info with each other without male interference. The male attackers are filtered out by FCM, the blog is a free space for radical women’s ideas and insights. We then know better, we know the innate violence within men, we know they collectively attack, we know they get energy for all the evil they do in the world, and we know ALL MEN enjoy the degredation of women, whether they admit it publically or not. And there are a lot of men who tell it proudly, they produce the porn, they brag about it, they celebrate how much they hate women.
But women are re-radicalizing. We are forming new ideas, and reworking classic texts of the past, we have Dworkin, Daly and MacKinnon now. We have our foresisters of the past. We have more resources than women of 40 years ago, and the ideas are being refined, the message is getting out to all women who need it. And if we persist, we will undermine patriarchy in every way we can.
We know men are violent, we know they are rapists, we don’t have to even debate this point. We know the safest place for all women is well with all women. We know better than to even allow men on this blog, we’ve learned! Good job women, excellent thread!
Witchwind, good point about the torture and the women splitting off. You can see it right there. But, in the interest of accuracy, it’s important to say that multiple personality and schizophrenia are different things. Schizophrenia is a deterioration of the brain, like Alsheimer’s. Both sexes get it in equal amounts or nearly. Because it’s physical, drugs do help a lot. Multiple personality is very different and is caused by traumas. I think many more women have it than men. The two are often confused. I agree about not using drugs for multiple personalities.
Graywing, I was thinking about things like love songs, movies, etc., too. They are just ways to make the trauma bonding stronger. It is addictive, I think. Keeps women ensnared in the heterocracy. Also the rescuer myth. If one is traumatised, what better figure than a rescuer. The bit about the slave not needing the master but the master needing the slave is brilliant. Good thing to ponder.
Women need other women, collectively, for rescue. For freedom. To cease being traumatised. I do ponder how, even if relationships with women are difficult, they are unlikely to be traumatic. Some quote from that recent event in Cleveland where 3 women were enslaved. “Sisterhood” is what they said allowed them to get through it. This got very little press. I only saw it once, at the beginning. I wonder why? Instead, there’s some thing about the cops rescuing them, etc. You read a lot about this, though the cops were there after the fact and did not rescue them at all.
“Many men will explain this quite plainly, ie, they think there would be no way they could go on living if they lost their genitals.”
– Greywing
This stands out to me, because men have *actually said this to me* before. “Explain it quite plainly,” indeed! I was flabbergasted.
The sickly ironic part of this is that women do lose their genitals, all the time. Breasts to breast cancer, hysterectomies for a variety of reasons, and labia minora/clitorises to female genital mutilation. (!!!!) And while coping with and recovering from all these procedures is an exhausting, traumatizing process, women as a class don’t seem willing to toss away their entire lives or succumb to despair over their missing parts, even though reproduction is supposedly our role, our raison de vivre. If any woman has felt suicidal or hopeless in one of those situations, “omg no, no more lady-bonezzzz!!!11” is not the reason why. Likewise, I know infertile women who, despite feeling sadness because they cannot conceive, nonetheless keep seeking joy and meaning in life.
Men don’t get it. Most will never have to face the prospect of actually losing their genitals, yet they become the most melodramatic about it (when it comes up as a thought exercise.) Women understand that it is a possibility, steel themselves against it, and keep on going. More proof that this “reproductive role” crap is a reversal, something laid onto us by men, and that they are the ones who have deeply tied their identity to reproduction (and reproductive harm.) Gods forbid they lose their instruments of domination!
Connecting back to the topic at hand, I think the knowledge and fear of what can happen to our organs (at the hands of either nature, PIV, or the male medical establishment) are part of the legacy we inherit as women, along with understandings of male violence and “the Burning Times”/gendercide.
yes, the taking of womens ovaries, which happens all the time, is literally “castration” but its never framed as such. and yes, this happens to women far more than it happens to men. its even ROUTINE you might say. and we lose our genitals and reproductive organs too, not just our gonads. all the fucking time.
on that note, i had this as a search term today:
if i have a mtf srs and do not need a lot of surgery and lasts only 4 hours, when can i have intercourse sexualy?
dood just lost his dick 4 hours ago, and he already wants to know when he can start using his new cocksocket. i mean neovagina. because unlike an actual vagina, thats literally *all* his new hole is for. he has no gonads, reproductive organs OR GENITALS at all now, which makes him a woman. right? it doesnt even have to heal first before he offers it up to men to penetrate. surely he thinks real women should do the same thing (if they dont already — hes probably more woman than any real woman who might not be so eager. the prudes!)
If you want more evidence that this is inborn, look at the brain research being done at Princeton by Susan Fiske. Here’s a link
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090216-bikinis-women-men-objects.html?source=rss
This explains a lot about rape and the male brain. It also may explain why cross dressers think that they are becoming women when they put on women’s clothes and makeup. The part of their brain that sees women as human persons does not function when sex is in the picture. Women are objects to them. We knew that already, but here’s some evidence. Some of how objectification works for men who are heterosexual or whose sexuality involves dressing as a woman? It is not about identity, it is about their sexuality. Identity is nowhere to be found since it is about objectification. Or perhaps identity is objectification for the cross-dresser.
Might not this also be part of the explanation of why it is such a big deal for them to lose their genitals? They objectify and it makes them feel powerful. Power is their identity. They are hung up on power and control. Dehumanisation.
For most women, of course, sexuality is about connection with another person. Women don’t do this in their brains from what I can tell. In fact the person becomes more real, more intensely
a person.
I think this last bit, how women see the other in terms of intimacy (as a real person) is a clue to one way that heterosexual women get manipulated by men.
thanks for that wordwoman. as for it showing innateness (in the born-that-way sense) brain difference is tricky bc brains are malleable. im tired of going round and round about that one. what this is good for though is to show girls and women that regardless of WHY mens brains are this way, we would be well advised to stay the hell away from men and never trust them, and always know that they do not view us as human but objects. and we all know what people do with objects — they use them and then throw them away/replace them when they are no longer useful. thats what objects are for. this is another reason too for reformists to not trust men and to not organize with them, or try to get them to change their rules regarding their treatment of us. they arent going to bc they have no reason to — the way things are (that they created) suit them just fine in relation to us. but what reformists are going to do instead is the exact opposite of all that isnt it?
Would it be too simple to say that impregnation (*sex*) is really all they are for in the grand scheme of things. Yeah, reductionist/essentionalist and all that, but we do know that they are the kings of reversal so…
Yes, FCM, I agree. The evidence is there, very strongly. The seeing us as objects and especially when it comes to sex is very important. We are sex objects and pregnancy objects, S4. That becomes clear. Sex is the main area of objectification and the dangerous area for women.
Even het women should stay away from men. If I wanted a child, I’d line up a bunch of women as backup and make sure I have good female support. I mean a bunch, like a tribe or a village. It’s insane to pair bond with a male and have that be your support if you are into motherhood. And someone still needs to have children, though many fewer than we have. That will free all women to do other things.
excellent observation s4. what a mondo-reversal that is too! wow. youre right, its the exact opposite. that *is* all men are good for. exactly NOTHING else, including creating reproductive technologies that create DISPROPORTIONATELY MALE FETUSES. gee thanks doods. they are worse than useless in every *other* area arent they?
Of course I can hear the cries of: Well who would carry your heavy stuff?! and Who’s gonna fix your car?!
Lol 🙂 Women didn’t design all this heavy, cumbersome crap – we design things to be as simple and streamlined and manageable/sustainable as possible – we’re not lazy, just NOT stupid. And fixing cars? Show me the average guy who can fix a modern car anymore.
FCM: “so can you reform a system that is actually working perfectly, and exactly as it was intended?”
Take a look at a well-meaning reformist article like this, in light of fcm’s statement, : http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/cynthia-cockburn-ann-oakley/cost-of-masculine-crime
The authors are shocked, shocked, to notice that men commit almost all crime, with an increasing percentage of male domination of the statistics as the crimes become more violent.
They are shocked, shocked, that these statistics are kept carefully hidden, and wonder why nobody (but radfems) ever asks, what’s up with men’s criminality?
They figure out the backbreaking costs to society of male crime and the necessity for incarceration of so many of them.
Then they stop analyzing. They say the answer must be for the (male-serving) government to pay attention, have a look, educate, and “socially shape” criminal men some more.
In saying that, they have stopped being intellectually responsible. They have to ignore the fact that these costs are normalized costs of doing business in a male-serving society which have always been with us, to the point that most people just accept male crime as normal and say boiz will be boiz, it’s not preventable, it’s just life. They have to pretend that current efforts to “educate” and “socially shape” men are sincere and have been shown to be effective. They have to pretend that male biology and psychology are not “working perfectly and exactly as…intended” in the society men have set up for themselves, such that there is some motivation to change things. They have to disregard a most telling factor in male violence, which is the massive violence specifically directed against women qua women.
They bring out the problem, and I give them credit for bringing it out, but they still can’t analyze it, because a real analysis won’t lead to the comforting conclusion they feel they must jump to. They see What, but are too afraid to go on to Why. From Why, of course, there is still another step, to How, that is, how to really end it, and the authors of the article do a disservice to their readers when they lose the courage to finish the thought process they have rather bravely started.
it makes sense that impregnation is all what they are for, which explains in itself their destructiveness in whatever they do: if they’re programmed to rape, and that rape / impregnation is the condition for their survival as a species, then it follows that rapism is their primary mode of being.
maleness certainly is an abomination in nature because it condemns females to being raped by males, that’s a very cruel thing to do to females and to the earth in general. Some female species have managed to contain males by creating reproduction periods at certain times of the year, whereby males are programmed to reproduce with females and can’t do it outside because of instinct. other females simply keep men away from their groups. other females still make sure they choose their mate. We humans are amongst the most unlucky of females because men have no limit to the amount of times they want to rape, as there is very little instinct left in us.
Sonia Johnson says maleness is just a mistake and that there’s nothing to understand from it. It might be that the females at a given time invented maleness because they found it convenient for reproduction and then realised the mistake they’d made, but it was too late!
Lisa, I appreciated the article. Yes, I knew it but it’s always good to see the figures. I’m reminded FCM’s idea about just putting them all in jail together and letting them duke it out. Much cheaper.
But that’s not likely, so another idea would be to charge taxes by sex. XX would pay proportionally to all the costs incurred by female violence. XY would pay for male violence. Not just jail costs, lost work of women who were abused, courts, laws, etc., but also wars. This way there would be a shift of wealth to those of us who deserve it and who have earned it. Perhaps they would not be able to pay taxes and be in debtors prison. It would take them off the streets, too. And women could pay for protection against them or power to change the system, etc. Follow the money 🙂
excellent idea! death and taxes baby.
i wonder how many of them would transition to get out of paying taxes??
LOL! We’d need a special section of the tax code or you’d have people cheating on the taxes. But the surgery is expensive. Would there be a graduated tax for full transitioners, with surgery. No tax break for the surgery though. That would be double-dipping. Also if a transitioner did violence or made threats it would throw them back to the xy group. That would make it a lot easier for radfems. Make them pay taxes for any abusiveness. Give the victims of the abuse a tax bonus or something. Also pay reparations to women for any xx violence or harassment.
i think this is one of those areas where the lawmakers know better than to do the OBVIOUSLY fair thing because of the way men would surely react to it. the allegedly nonviolent men would react with violence if they had to foot the bill for violent men. and we all know how the violent men would react!
Yes, they’d likely do that. But we’d just remind them of what their mamas told them. “Life ain’t fair, now is it?” They should’ve listened to their mamas in the first place, no?
Ok, so any harassment or violent offense raises their tax rate even more. That should shut them the allegedly nonviolent men. And it would appear fairer then to them. They could just swallow the unfairness and “look at the bright side” there’s a way to keep their taxes from getting higher.
I think between these two plans (death and taxes) we have a blueprint for a new society 🙂 🙂 A sane society could begin there. . .
in that article lisa linked to, the first paragraph notes that this article is a follow-up article to a previous one which was attacked by MRAs. LOL they are very butthurt over the truth about male criminality becoming widely known and publicized. its man-hating to tell the truth about men. okay!
LOL and i applaud the authors for revisiting it and not bowing to the whining and screeching noises emitted by butthurt MRAs who dont like the truth.
actually they probably LIKE the truth, they just dont want anything to ever change, including women being naive and uninformed about what men are all about. they want that to stay the same forever.
cnn tells us how male “monsters” are made. its a 4-step process. he names the agent (men) but doest account for the cleveland-abductor type guys, or other literally millions and billions of men across time and place who are abusive toward women and children. except that he does concede that some men are just “natural monsters” aka. born that way.
if this intricate 4-step process is the ONLY way to make monsters, it seems to suggest that almost ALL “monstrous males” are born that way since theres no way the majority of them have been subjected to this process. is there? OR it could just mean that no one sees what men do to women as particularly monstrous, even when it is. see what you think.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/opinion/dawes-syria-video/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
here are the alleged 4-steps. does anyone think that women can be made monsters in the same way? note that 1-3 are, in fact, pretty close to womens reality where we are isolated in relationships and forced into male-centric (and misogynist) thinking and culture, and busyworked into exhaustion. note step 4, which ASSUMES that aggression will “naturally” occur and escalate under conditions of fear, alienation and “minimal regulation”. this does not seem to apply to women AT ALL.
There they go telling the truth again but never about women.
That fourth “most important” step would apply to women if it said: Each COMPLIANT act SHE commits while trying to survive…
Sometimes I think a book is needed to simply look in depth at “violent” crimes women have committed. Look at each case, consider the stance of the woman, where she’s coming from…one could deconstruct the notion of women as ever exhibiting illegitimate, i.e.not self-preservative, or driven to madness, or child preservative,behavior. Was she controlled by a man? Is the primary question, was it in defense of herself or a child? One could winnow down statistics to where women almost never commit illegitimate, autonomous, non-defensible crime. Men would emerge as perpetrators almost 100% of the time.
But no one will go there. No reformers, anyway.
The public-sphere government would cover this up and do nothing. Such facts are not to be known, not to be acted upon. They are brought forth by illegitimate people, women. What exactly are women doing in the public sphere anyway. How did they creep in? It’s a sign of the general degradation of society!
Women..the weeders, breeders, feeders, and bedded, depending on our age. Our roles are ancient and well-defined. We have never been part of “society”, the public sphere. When we intrude, there is much resentment. When we insist we wish to broaden our roles, the resistance grows. Our value to men (the public sphere) (society) is well-established. it is thought that we should be satisfied with our portion. When we show aptitude in the public sphere,for example by obtaining advanced degrees, it is considered a ridiculous and confrontative appropriation, and unnecessary. In our narrow shadow roles we are “protected” and even indulged. We are the Touchables, the caste available for access, but condescended to. We Touchables have our ancient place and any disturbance of our place must be met with suppression by all means.
Analogies are difficult. Our historical status as women is unique. However I offer the closest analogy I can find: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html
I also recommend that all women watch the movie, “Pather Panjali”.
This is our situation.
May I add, I share in the pain these truths reveal. Despair is our compoanion, and we make it a companion.
Well, women are raised with more trauma than men. Constant threat, too. You would think that more women than men would be violent/abusive as a result. Many, many more. But they are rarely violent and abusive in the way males are. I’ve often wondered about this when you hear abusers play the pity card.
The women who are aggressively abusive in the way men are are usually either mentally ill or conforming to what men are requiring them to do in order to survive. Trauma bonded to men like Patty Hearst. Like you say, S4, step four.
Could we use this four-step process to make men nonviolent. Do step four backwards or something? ok, nevermind 😉
there are steps for that too! consider: (from the same link)
or in womens case, each small thing she does to ingore the injustices done to her and all girls and women every day will make her male tormentors more comfortable and thus, herself more comfortable (except when it doesnt) and every time she stands up to an injustice she gets told shes perceived the situation incorrectly, gets corrective raped, or worse. give her a buttload of contradictory rules she cant possibly fulfill and make the consequences arbitrary and as much like psychological and physical torture as possible. teach her that all the worlds problems are womens fault, and simultaneously that theres nothing wrong with the world at all, its perfectly fine. teach her to tolerate constant abuse and neglect. and finally, if you are the parents of young girls, teach them that they *are* the other.
and YET, girls and women are mostly nonviolent. why?
I did read the link, but just the first half. 🙂 For mothers of young boys, it’s better than doing the “boys will be boys” bit.
sorry, but i dont think its better at all. it puts the onus on mothers to escape negative outcomes for their sons, but these “steps” are completely idiotic, especially when you see that it doesnt apply to girls and women at all. clearly theres something fundamentally wrong with boys, and this isnt womens fault. and wheres the PROOF that these moronic “steps” even work? did they interview “nonviolent” men and ask them how their mommies raised them? how did the study define nonviolence? does PIV count? did they rely on self reports? what?
and if you see the title of the article, its about a man cannibalizing another man. its possible that these “steps” are meant to steer men away from being violent towards other men only. this seems to be what they are saying, without saying it, although they still dont happen to mention HOW they know the steps are effective at all for anything. honestly, wtf is this article even about? it says nothing really.
No, I’d never put the onus on the mothers. I’m just saying that something does need to be done by someone, to modify, if possible, the thing that is fundamentally wrong. But that is only for those few women who decide to have sons. With a lot of female support. Just somewhere to start. I don’t think men are equipped to raise sons at all. If we (as a group, not individuals) are going to procreate, this will be a problem.
they havent shown that it *is* possible though. exactly WHAT behaviors do the “steps” ameliorate and how do they KNOW it works? any “childraising” modifications are going to be disproportionately burdensome on women and not on men, who dont raise kids (and shouldnt, considering how abusive they are). theres a LOT going on here, and it all stinks. this article sucks. this kind of stuff really drives me nuts…
IOW even though there is no evidence (presented) that this actually works and why, women will be the ones to implement it and they will be the ones blamed when it fails. even though WE were not the ones who DECIDED in the first place that it was likely to work, likely to be worth the time and effort expenditure, given the opportunity to tweak or improve on it based on our LIVED EXPERIENCE and/or objective evidence, etc. it will be womens fault for not implementing it early enough, not being consistent about it, stopping too soon, “allowing” other contact and influences outside “the program” etc. actually this reminds me of the gluten-free diet for celiac disease! if you read the stuff on the “specific carbohydrate diet” it explains why going gluten-free doesnt help many people with celiac and suspected celiac bc the real problem isnt gluten, but grains and starches that produce a bacterial overgrowth in the gut. so you are trying very hard to eat gluten free, which is extremely difficult and requires extreme care to the point of fanaticism in fact, and when you STILL get symptoms you figure you mustve been “glutened” somehow without your knowledge through cross-contamination, a mistake or carelessness on your part. instead of realizing that the gluten-free diet doesnt work and there are all kinds of foods that are giving you problems besides gluten. this can go on for a long time or forever, with you blaming yourself, being extremely confused and frustrated, and never figuring out the real issue. honestly, this is what this reminds me of. the common denominator is not being privy to the research, and having to use other peoples conclusions (when they may be stupid, biased or just plain wrong about what the research indicates, or problems with the research itself) or not understanding the real issue for whatever reason.
Those steps just sound like standard patriarchy. Teach him that he is above others, and that he is capable and in a position to cause horrible harm to others at any moment, but using the logic of chivalry, teach him that he can better feed his ego by refraining from doing so in overt and violent ways, ie, teach him how to dominate people while still feeling like a good man.
Well, there’s only one way they’re going to *get* equipped and that is practice, practice, practice. Women cannot and should not be raising sons forever.
Greywing at #99 – Yep.
yes! thats a good point. it smacks of “masculinities” doesnt it — with an “S”. more gender crap. theres a way to “do” masculinity thats not destructive and oppressive. we havent ever seen it of course — but it exists! for reals!
those four steps aren’t complete, and doesn’t describe half of what is done to increase violence in males.
girls are by far, very, very very far, more abused than boys. However it would be inaccurate to say that boys aren’t abused too. And by the time they reach adulthood, the abuse decreases greatly, which is not the case for women. I do think we need to take into account the way boys are treated to understand how this treatment interacts with their nature, how it may reinforce their lethality or something. If they are already violent by nature after they hit puberty, then treating them badly and indoctrinating them to be violent even before they begin to be violent by themselves, certainly increases their violence.
I think women can be violent and I do know many women who have been raped or tortured by other women (mothers, lesbian partners). This is not to say “women are violent too” but I don’t want to deny our propensity to reproduce male violence when we are severely damaged by it. However i’d contend that as opposed to men, violence, rape and hierarchy are not our natural state, we can live completely differently even under patriarchy, whereas it doesn’t seem to be the case for adult men.
Nearly all “research” is funded by competing corporate (male) interests that it’s almost entirely useless – IMO it’s nothing but propaganda anymore.
I was reading about how some evo-biologist has decided that some huge percentage of *our* DNA that was called “junk” (no one could see any use for it because no coding for proteins) is indeed junk. My take on it? The beginnings of normalizing extreme gene stripping in the public consciousness. I’m not sure WHY they want us to accept this but I’m sure it’s not any good for us.
I find it difficult to see what is the degree zero of innate male violence. Where does it begin and where does it end? Basically, what is the difference between a man (say the first human male) and a man that grows up today in a context whereby men have gained millenia of experience in raping, torturing, invading, killing and keeping women and animals captive, and pass it on to each and every male.
Basically, it’s difficult to separate out the grooming from the instinctual or natural. What if the grooming (pornography, torture, child abuse, propaganda, military training) is simply part of what they would do anyway, or learn again gradually? What continues to perplex me is the knowledge that men, even adult men, are affected negatively by violence, to a certain extent. However they’re the only ones that enjoy doing it to others, or reach a state whereby it’s the only thing they can feel.
I’d be tempted to say that the fact that they’re not life forces of themselves but merely carriers of genes that deteriorate rapidly and can’t regenerate by themselves, especially if exposed to violence at a young age, plus the fact that PIV / impregnation is necessary for their survival as a species, might be what makes violence stick to them so easily, and that they used violence against male children (to a lesser extent than for females) knowing that it would increase their power against females – power to threaten and control females, who would otherwise either get rid of them or escape if they weren’t violent enough.
yes it is *possible* that men being treated badly (usually by other men) makes them more violent than they would normally be. it is also possible that it doesnt, and there are many reasons to think this is the truth of it. for example, obviously not all men who are victimized go on to victimize others, or more specifically OTHER MEN. if we consider PIV, reproductive harm and mens standard-issue “relationship” behaviors as being abusive toward women, almost all men are abusive towards women though. SOME men are abused, SOME other number of men go on to abuse other men, and nearly ALL men go on to abuse women. so where does any of this come from? frankly, the least “macho” men i have ever known had experienced trauma (if not “violence”) at the hands of the medical establishment: they had congenital birth defects that required multiple surgeries over their lifetimes. does this have broader implications, or was it just them? or, was it the fact that they were ill in the first place that did it? or was it just a coincidence? someone here has mentioned that females “recover” from the effects of trauma (violence) easier than men. doesnt this just as easily suggest that whatever behaviors we are looking at in traumatized men ARENT a result of the trauma at all, as it suggests that they dont or “cant recover” from the effects when the traumatic stimulus is removed? there are so many assumptions in these statements. we need to look at all of this with different eyes and question all of it. and as s4 says, we are still at the mercy of the “data” which is not under our control, and is often under corporate or other influence anyway.
we also have to consider that men created patriarchy and all violence at some point FROM SCRATCH, where they WERENT building on others work or standing on the shoulders of giants as they say. they came up with this out of their own imaginations, urges, and psyches etc. this is what social constructionists flatly refuse to acknowledge or deal with at all, even though it is indisputable.
It seems to be an important ego feed for men, that sense that he could overpower a woman anytime. And then the fact that he doesn’t serves to prop up his sense of being a good man. Wouldn’t a bad man attack her first chance he gets? But he doesn’t, he continually makes the choice to be a good man and leave her alone. So, his ego is continually fed by doing nothing at all while in proximity of a woman, specifically a woman he can see as weaker than him. Hell, just by existing in her space isn’t he also protecting her from bad men who could otherwise be there and who would attack her?
And on a more systemic level the sense of chivalry is central to patriarchy. Without it, it would just be bare faced oppression (and might actually spur women to rebel.) But the idea that men need to be dominating and deadly violent to protect women and children gives it legitimacy. This still holds in modern society where the deadly violent protective role has been given to male institutions like the police and the military. Men’s protection is synonymous with deadly violence.
And of course it’s always up to strong men to decide who qualifies as a woman or child worthy of protection. The more I think about it, the more there are no good men or bad men. The same man who to one woman is a chivalrous, heroic gentleman, is to another woman a violent attacker, because he decided she failed his criteria and was deemed unworthy. And to tie things together, it seems the women men finds most worth of protection, are those they see as weaker than them. They will only protect you if the option to attack you is also on the table, all the better to feed that good man ego. This is one of those things men will say explicitly to women. As in “Oh, you are (insert anything implying strength, independence or possible dominance) well, you’re on your own then, don’t expect any help from me.”
My assumption was that all men were and are violent towards women regardless of their differences in degrees of violence, and i was trying to understand the link between how men treat boys and how that affects their behaviour later on. What I mean is that a severely abused boy is more likely to become serial torturer and murderer of women and girls (and whatever living being) on top of being a rapist / impregnator.
Men do prove to have thoughts and learning capacities so i’m trying to figure out how the one (a certain consciousness / ability to make choices) determines or reinforces the other (violent nature) and vice versa. Basically, to which extent they learn, choose to be and are violent. These are important questions to me not because i want to change men but because I need to get a clear picture and when it’s not clear to me or when there seem to be missing pieces, i need to keep looking. But maybe it’s irrelevant since we’ll probably never get to know that, as we can’t get out of this society to see how they’d behave outside of patriarchy.
The reason why i’m trying to untie this thing between male violence and how males bring boys up is there are obvious and well thought, well organised strategies that men put up to encourage male violence. Also I’m trying to figure out why they can be badly affected by violence (ie not meant to be subjected to violence themselves – they do develop PTSD for instance) and yet not be affected by inflicting violence on others.
It could be that they’re naturally violent in all the ways you describe, but that when violence is done to them it still affects them in certain ways, especially when they’re young
anyway, i’m just trying to get my head clear.
indeed. in the same vein, i have been wondering why the men of DGR didnt protect the DGR women from being attacked by fucking manarchist trannies, or why the men werent tabling there themselves. i imagine they werent bc as “good guy” males, they didnt want to appropriate feminism. they just watched as the women naively tabled themselves, and apparently were nowhere to be found when the almost inevitable occurred and the women were attacked. way to use “not appropriating feminism” to hang the actual women out to dry, and to stay safe yourselves DOODS. actually, this sounds a LOT like “you think you are so EMPOWERED ay? you are on your own.” exactly what the MRAs say about feminist women in fact — you want to be liberated, open the door yourself. they do this just to be dicks and to complain passive aggressively, but they also reveal what chivalry is really all about. if i have the facts about DGR and the tranny attack wrong, im sure someone will tell me.
it can be that whatever inner violence they have structures all their actions and thoughts: that means whichever differences there are between individual men, violence/rapism (in every possible form) will always be an outcome. So the questions I ask above would be moot.
FCM what you say about the least macho men having been heavily traumatized rings true for me too. What I see happening is most men go on to identify with the aggressor, simply, they were abused, now they get back by abusing others, or they were dominated, and now go on to dominate others. For reason I don’t understand, a small number of men instead go on to identify with the victim. Women routinely do this, but for men it’s very rare. And of that small group of men, fewer still succeed at real non-violence.
One thing that seems to be different between women and men is the sense of morality. Take a basic concept like, consider all human beings to be human, and look at the consequences of an action from their point of view. It is extraordinarily rare for men to be able to do this, while many women are capable of doing it intuitively with relatively little effort. Chicken and egg, but men’s urge to abuse, violence and dominance seem to drive them to always see some humans as less than human (and thus deserving of abuse) which in turn means it’s near impossible for them to be completely non-violent. If nothing else they end up self-destructive or suicidal.
Instead men substitute with endless lists of rules. (that the steps to create a good man posted above included clear rules as an important point..) Specific rules of actions that are sorted into good or bad. “I do this, good man points, if I did that, bad man points.” Also simply “man points” for conforming to masculinity. They go through life gathering up points for their ego by following these rules. It’s always all about the ego with men.
If you want a man to stop doing harm, never try to appeal to his sense of morality, because he has none. Trying to explain something like “when you treat this group of people this way, it does harm to them in a way that it wouldn’t do to you, because they are in a different situation” will most likely just render a blank stare. You have to appeal as directly to his ego as possible, ie “this specific action that you do is something this group of men you consider bad do.” Then he might react with an “ok, then tell me what to do instead” ie, help him modify his rules so that he can continue to feed his ego without having to actually consider anyone else’s point of view.
This I think is one reason why men are so static, inflexible and resistant to any kind of change. A humans’ point of view based sense of morality is flexible and relatively easy to adapt to new situations and contexts. A static list of rules designating discrete actions as good or bad is anything but.
ted bundy was a law student. jeffrey dahmers father was a PhD in physics or something. were they abused as children? in the documentaries ive seen, i havent seen any connection at all between childhood abuse and going on to become a serial killer? if there is a connection between abuse and serial killers, where is this documented? there is of course a connection between childhood abuse and being a VICTIM of a serial killer, where many serial killers target specifically prostitutes.
i dont think its irrelevant witchwind! i want to know the truth too, or as close to it as possible. its important, despite what everyone else says. the truth matters.
On the chivalry note: I have some MRA fellows I keep an eye on at a popular liberal site. (Of course they pretend they have no idea what an MRA is while at the same time denouncing them!) Today one of them is wanting to define masculinity by way of re-framing male aggression and violence as – among other classically *masculine* attributes – a drive to protect the community and those unable to “defend themselves”.
And he’s completely serious. He’s re-inventing the re-definition of the the same old hamster wheel of male thought. And they call US stupid.
you can read about the manarchist tranny attack at gendertrender.
Yes, saw that yesterday. Oh woe that the WOMEN of DGR were so brazen as to… exist… with some feminist books on a table. What WERE they thinking?!
shit I was replying and my comment disappeared!
Greyving, that’s a very interesting point about men only being able to relate to point scoring and rules and being unable to relate to even very basic notions of ethics or morality – anything to do with understanding and conceptualising or feeling what the other feels (empathy). That is definitely true for all men as far as i know. Maybe this is what it means when they can’t connect properly to living beings outside of themselves? they are sensory outliers? This sheds light on their alien status, because it would mean that they are truly alien to life, in the very literal sense – external to life and living beings. They are literally, living dead, which explains why they are both obsessed by living dead zombies, robots and aliens – something totally unnatural to us and we would never come up with such absurd things on our own, not in our wildest dreams. And would also explain why men are obsessed by laws and rules to contain them / their drive to destruction, when we don’t need any rules to contain ourselves, rules are anti-natural to us, they’re static, rigid, don’t make any sense and prevent us from developing ourselves.
FCM, i’d suggest you read Alice Miller “for your own good” to understand where I’m coming from with my stuff on PTSD. She’s not feminist but her work is very interesting and insightful if we apply some of her findings to a woman-centred, radfem perspective to understand the consequences the abuse on girls has on our lives as adults, how this abuse works and is deliberately transformed into PTSD so we can’t identify the source of most abuse (and therefore free ourselves from it), and how what passes as education then and now is inherently abusive.
Back to the topic of men though, she, as well as the women I know who work on PTSD and sexual violence, have found a link between the atrocious acts some men may perpetrate and the kind of abuse they were inflicted as boys – for instance one woman has occasionally worked with juvenile rapists, and others with male prisoners (convicted for child rape), and all have found evidence of a connection between the two. Alice Miller uses many examples, of men who consulted her as a psychanalyst (although she rejected psychoanalysis to focus on PTSD / somatic disorders) and real-life cases which she interprets / analyses using historical data. one example is of a boy who was severely abused and neglected a child by both his parents, then sent to a protestant boarding school at a very young age where he was raped by the priest. At age 9 or 10 he began raping and then killing boys of his school, and the form of the acts he perpetrated were similar to what was done to him. This is a form of traumatic re-enactment that women can have too, though evidently to a far lesser degree and in far less dangerous and murderous ways than men, and usually mostly through re-victimisation rather than re-enactment of violence.
I don’t know what to do with these facts: one thing is that it focuses only on some men, and it certainly doesn’t explain why some men get to identify to abusers and others, to victims (though the point scoring / rule theory might explain that) and it doesn’t explain why men do PIV if they weren’t raped themselves (there’s a false linear causality implied, or the causal model is incomplete). Also, this information is interpreted by women who, although most are feminist, are social constructionists, and most likely to have projected their own way of being on men, so it makes it more difficult to use for us.
There’s also another thing that i consider a truth, is the fact that no child under male rule escapes some kind of abuse (even considering the difference in treatment between boys and girls), because everything about male society is abusive.
but if i assume that men are naturally alien and sensory crippled, that is, incapable of connection, on the top of being dependent on raping and impregnating women for survival, then it could explain the following:
– rape and impregnation structuring their collective and individual motive for whatever they do, either literally or metaphorically
– the only things men can feel is addictive highs of hurting others or being hurt, because they can’t feel connected to other living beings
– they therefore cannot relate to anything or anyone outside of violence, because externality is inherently violent, intrusive, violating to beings that are naturally connected to all life.
– being nonetheless close to human form, they can experience pain and trauma, especially at young age, but cannot heal from it, or only with great difficulty and partially.
S4 said ” Today one of them is wanting to define masculinity by way of re-framing male aggression and violence as – among other classically *masculine* attributes – a drive to protect the community and those unable to “defend themselves”.” So here’s a little quiz for them.
Multiple choice question: Against whom would “those unable to defend themselves” need defense?
(a) Roving bands of aggressive women?
(b) Individual psycho women?
(c) Women and children?
(d) The “other” men who are “bad” and who are expressing their masculinity in a “bad” way?
Correct answer: (d)
Fill in the blanks: This is called a _______________________.
Protection racket!!!!
A key reason that women stay with men, and put up with all their crap. Once women get over the naive “falling in love” racket. Most stories and myths have these two themes. Women falling in love with men. Women needing protection from men by other men.
it smacks of “masculinities” doesnt it — with an “S”. more gender crap. LOL FCM!!
Feminisms— love those plural academic garbage words! Save me!
Men are obsessed with rules that are there for the sake of being rules. When I analyze their rules, they do not prevent the bad behavior the rule is meant to eradicate. Wall Street Banksters not going to jail. Violent porn on the Internet but radical feminists attacked at an anarchist conference. Women, of course, don’t get to create the rules at all. Even when women own the property, and host private events, men get to invade and invalidate the right to private association, because private property is only “property” when men own it. Women are male property, thus women have no rights at all in patriarchy. Men enforce all of the “rules” they create with violence or the threat of violence. That’s about all they do. Good guys pretend they gain no benefit from this and hide behind Nigelism, until they decide to kill their wives of course. “He was the nicest man,” you hear on the news. “Oh he hung out and played basketball like one of the guys…” I don’t care whether it is biological or socially constructed. What I want is an end to male violence, and end to men having women as property, and an end to all PIV unless women want the baby to begin with. Since we don’t want male preditors raising babies, and women will have to protect them, it means women should dictate 100% of the time to have kids.
sorry for that half-baked comment about dahmer and bundy! im not sure where i was going with that. ive seen documentaries on both of them, and neither of them said anything about either of them being abused as children. as i recall, on dateline, dahmers dad asked “jeff” if he had caused jeff to become what he became. jeff said no, no one had done anything to him. wiki says that bundys grandfather was abusive but that he abused girls and women and not ted. he mightve been teds father through incest. who knows what details are missing, untrue or unknowable. of course, bundy only killed women while dahmer only killed men.
anyway, i end up back at witchwinds comment about all children being abused under patriarchy. this seems to be the truth. so what does childhood abuse have to do with anything really? if it happens to all children, its not even a variable. are we going to consider the quality and quantity of it? (is this a valid distinction/variable worthy of study? if so, why? if not, why not?) or whether male and female victims deal differently? more variables making the analysis harder, and with more room to completely blow it. we end up with “females identify with the victims while males identify with the perpetrators” which leads us exactly nowhere, because this translates as “women dont end up violent but men do.” its the truth, but we assume causation here with no real reason to. it could just be that women will never be violent as a class no matter whats done to them, while men as a class will always be violent no matter whats done to them.
this conclusion is completely reasonable IMO based on the evidence.
or at the very least, MEN will be violent no matter what is done to them. dont forget that men became violent as a class when NOTHING was done to them at all! they started all this.
whereas under patriarchy we cant know for sure what women are capable of, but i think we all have a sense about that, at least the part violence would likely play in our lives without men around. IOW possibly except for procuring foodstuffs, it wouldnt.
I’ve always found “women as a class” and “men as a class” to be an important distinction. And all men benefit from patriarchy/misogyny while no women do. Violence is behind the way they benefit, even the very nicest nonviolent-seeming nigel benefits from patriarchy. And even the most violent woman does not.
You can make valid arguments for other categories that cause occasional violence in women, like there are women with schizophrenia where they are delusional and hear voices telling them to kill. Both men and women will kill if delusional in certain ways. But these exceptions are just a different category. For male schizophrenics will be different, be treated differently from female ones. Women will be more at risk for harms that all women face, like rape. Schizophrenic male murderers are seen with more sympathy, while women who kill their children because the devil was going to get them are made a public example of.
One category where there are many more men than women are psychopaths/sociopaths. There are still women in that category, but many more men. Does anyone ask how this statistic relates to the general problem of violent males? That’s too close to naming the agent and looking at the big picture, I’d guess.
And yes, some cultures are better than others when it comes to violence. I’d rather deal with a less violent culture if I’d had a choice in where to be born, for instance. But they are still patriarchal/misogynist. Men are still more violent than women in those, too. Violence/rape still benefits all men in those cultures in a way that it does not benefit women. Also, socialization makes a difference, but even with good or bad socialization we see the difference between these groups.
The question of how they got that way is unknowable since we can’t go back in time to find out. I agree with what you said earlier, that present research does not show this conclusively, either. It’s not designed to do that.
” it could just be that women will never be violent as a class no matter whats done to them, while men as a class will always be violent no matter whats done to them.”
yes that seems a reasonable conclusion to me too
“i end up back at witchwinds comment about all children being abused under patriarchy.”
Yes, I agree this is true. But the nature of abuse is diametrically opposite for females and males. The abuse of males consists of them learning they must be violent, in particular towards females. While females learn the exact opposite, that they must take male abuse. Men learn the ways of death and violence, women the ways of life. Because to learn to take abuse means learning to take it and go on living. Male are suffering it’s because they live by the ways of suffering. I’m not really saying anything about the root of it, but at this time, that is what males learn.
And I have never seen males find a way out of it. Something about the logic of “you must dominate to live” is inescepable. I think it might be that it requires they give up all true sense of goodness, morality and decency, to live by might makes right, violent domination. There is just no going back from that. They might intellectually profess to a different morality, but it is cold, ad hoc, cerebral, on top of their truly felt depth at which they resonate, which is always might makes right.
As far as “fixing” men’s violenet natures, how? An ideal case scenario where boys are raised surrounded by nothing but feminist, aware women is not workable. It would be logistically impossible because a village of women would have to raise a single male, or there would be older males around to influence him. And a village of women doting on and fawning over a single male would be laughable as feminist practice.
Best case realistic scenario might change men’s surface behavior, but completely change their inner urges? The men that I have known who have come closest to non-violence are still filled with violent impulses and impulses to dominate. They just hold them back. I have never seen a man who thrives while being non-dominant and non-violent the way women do. They still find small openings and breathers here and there to let their dominant streak out, and if they’re sincerely trying, they are scared by how satisfying they find it, how deeply it resonates to their core. I don’t think men can find anything else that resonates with them the way domination does. Women can be violent, but I don’t think it is our ultimate satisfaction the way it is for men.
Meanwhile women’s nature of living is completely alien to men. I don’t know if it can be called a reversal or what, but as far as definitions of strength goes. The way women can thrive independently, without constantly dominating someone else. That kind of strength is utterly alien to men. I don’t want to say they fear us because I don’t think they do, but there’s something about “what makes us tick” that makes them uneasy, because they know if they were in a similar situation, where they aren’t dominating, they would at the very least be deeply miserable, much less thrive the way women do. Chicken and egg again, but men who try to not dominate are usually depressed or otherwise mentally ill, while men who allow their domination to flourish are vital and thriving.
This came out long and winding and all over the place. It might read as reformism but let me be clear again, women putting in their best effort to improve males would still be patriarchy, yes? Yes. Just as you say FCM, that men came up with their violence and domination from scratch, they would themselves have to come up with a way to thrive without domination from scratch for their natures to be truly different. If they need women to keep them from “going astray” they are still feeding off us.
In men’s own words:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” – Lord Acton
I think this quote gives us some insight into men. Men made up the rules and set the system up so that men could have absolute power over women and children. Social controls were put in place to protect men from other men, not to protect women and children.
Men feel entitled to lord over all living things. The bible tells them so. Men view the world as their playground and all living things as play toys meant to serve them. Men are prone to god complexes and delusions of grandeur. Which is indicative of mental illness and/or brain damage.
I’m beginning to think the male brain is genetically flawed, damaged, impaired and developmentally arrested. I mean, I was raised and conditioned no differently than my brothers through my early developmental stages, but differences still emerged. Most notably in the empathy department. My brothers seemed devoid of empathy. Which resulted in sadistic tendencies. They thought nothing of sticking firecrackers in frogs’ mouth and delighted in tossing them up in the air to watch them explode. I was horrified and angered by it. I asked my brothers how would they like it if I did that to them? My brothers looked at me puzzled. They didn’t understand why it bothered me. I couldn’t under how it didn’t bother them.
I’m sorry, but this is on par with the brain of a two year old. A two year old is self-centered/self-absorbed. Their brains aren’t developed enough yet to have empathy for others. A two year old doesn’t see anything wrong with hitting another child over the head with a rock if he wants a toy the other child has. He then stares at the crying child with morbid fascination. An adult then usually reprimands him. The child quickly learns cause and effect. But still doesn’t understand why it’s wrong. After all, he didn’t feel a thing.
Men really aren’t much different. Which seems to suggest that this area of the male brain is flawed, damaged or developmentally arrested. Some males are able to reach a 5 year old level, which is on par with an adult chimpanzee. Some are even able to reach a 15 year old level. Few tho, seem to make it to an adult level. Whatever the case, there seems to be something terribly wrong with this area of the male brain.
Those who are brain damaged due to car accidents and such are also prone to the same behavior and are often volatile, childish, and violent. Which suggests that males might be genetically brain damaged. Or else, this area of the brain just never genetically developed in males in the first place. We already know that males are biologically incomplete mutants and a mistake. No telling how many parts are missing and/or flawed, permanently damaged, or never developed.
Greyving, the degree, intensity and form of abuse may differ between boys and girls, but it’s still abuse, it can’t be opposite otherwise it wouldn’t be the same thing (abuse). What’s diametrically opposite is how boys and girls react to it / are allowed to react to it.
And back to FCM’s conclusion: I would rephrase the first part as: “it could be that women never became violent in the way men do, no matter what’s done to them”. Because many women do adopt certain forms of violence, especially through controlling / manipulating others. Smaller numbers of women can be violent towards their children or other women, though it’s reasonable to assume that we wouldn’t be like this if men weren’t around, and that men are responsible for instilling this in us in the first place. But still, I can’t deny this reality.
Also, it is not true that infants or under two year-olds have no empathy. (at least females, can’t say for sure for males, or maybe it is up to a certain stage). This belief is classically misopedic (= hatred of children) in that it’s a male / patriarchal belief that children are egotistic manipulators and tyrans that need to be groomed (or beaten, or educated…) out of this tendency. It’s a male myth that justifies child abuse.
Children (again, i can only assume for females here) are actually extremely empathetic with a very high sensitivity (that they gradually lose through male education) and feel whatever the others feel around her. If someone cries in front of her it will make her feel unhappy, if someone’s happy she will feel it too. They are much more connected that we are.
“. But the nature of abuse is diametrically opposite for females and males. The abuse of males consists of them learning they must be violent, in particular towards females. While females learn the exact opposite, that they must take male abuse. ” (Greywing)
It is true that young boys sometimes are beaten/raped/abused by men. This is pointed to as equally bad. But here’s how it’s different. They learn that once they grow up, this will no longer happen. They see it is ONLY because they are weak and helpless and LIKE GIRLS that this happens. In fact, if they are not nasty and violent the other boys will call them “sissies” and “girls.” They see that adult men are allowed to abuse females will abuse anyone weaker than themselves. It’s what they do. That’s what war is about. Dominating the weaker. Killing off or colonizing any group that is weaker than you. Different systems do this differently. Capitalism does it in one way. Communism in another. Intertwined with wars and mass murders. All these systems are about dominance. At least as run by males. I’ll bet women without patriarchy could run any system and make it far different than it is seen to be. Maybe some systems are better than others, but debating them is a fool’s game if they are patriarchal. They all come to the same end. Women without patriarchy would likely find/develop a system that worked.
I think that human males are not like males in the animal kingdom, for instance. I can own a male dog or a female dog and either one can be a good companion if properly trained and not an aggressive/nervous animal from the start. Wolves are often seen as having an “alpha male” but this has been debunked by the guy who did the original research. Human males do this though. Is it the fact that the existing class of males killed off all the less-violent males and raped all women in wars. Pick up any history book and you will see this portrayed. I don’t know where violence in males came from, but this is one possibility.
Plus, the planet is now at tremendous risk from them. Terminal risk, soon if not now. We all will die off. Women will not get a chance to develop something better. Of course, at this critical time, they do everything they can prevent women from having our own spaces. It will make the ruin of the planet come more quickly. They are not only violent. They are also very, very, very, very stupid.
In that last post I said, “Women without patriarchy would likely find/develop a system that worked. ” I take that back. Women are capable of developing many systems any/all of which could work. It probably would not be monolithic, a “winning” system.
Women are smart. Women love life. That’s why.
the bible tells *us* so. it tells *us* whats in mens minds and what they value and what they want, and what they do to women. it doesnt tell *them* anything, or nothing they dont already know.
“Because many women do adopt certain forms of violence, especially through controlling / manipulating others. Smaller numbers of women can be violent towards their children or other women, though it’s reasonable to assume that we wouldn’t be like this if men weren’t around, and that men are responsible for instilling this in us in the first place. But still, I can’t deny this reality.” (witchwind)
No doubt some women do these things. But what about “women as a class?” From the statistics, I don’t think so.
I don’t agree that controlling/manipulating is necessarily violent. Control can be abusive, but if not backed up with violence of some sort, power iow, it’s not much. Also, women are often seen as controlling and manipulative as a stereotype. How can we separate actual behavior from this stereotype (“bitchy”)? Also, do women control or manipulate because they fear for safety? Their own and their kids. I don’t see this as violent, but rather protective. If misguided. Women are incredibly patient toward kids given the circumstances of their lives. No one is saying that women don’t do bad things. It’s just that rape/gratuitous violence, etc. don’t seem to be a characteristic. Not just bad behavior. Not just a horrible mother who is likely mentally ill, for instance. That is a different, much smaller, group than “women as a class.”
I may fear particular women like a woman boss, though most of the ones I’ve had have been fabulous, one was horrible. But imagine I’m walking down the street and all women are there for miles and miles. Or there’s a whole city or country of only women, I’d feel pretty safe. (Except perhaps for drones from malecountry, or male-caused climate change).
I say this because these could be arguments used to make us feel guilty, and to drown out radfems. (You are not doing that, it’s clear).
to follow your point wordwoman, and i thank you for making it, scarcity is a man-ufactured reality which causes women to be manipulative (and other things) to survive. without these abusive conditions, would women have any reason to be manipulative, or lie, or steal, or any other bad behaviors? no they would not. they might still act unreasonably perhaps, but its likely this would be an abberation. in the absence of patriarchy, “female violence” which would still occur too but probably about as frequently as cases of true mental illness. i agree that theres something weird about talking about it in this way, and calling nonviolent various “nastinesses” violence. or suggesting (or not being clear about whether we mean) that women-on-women physical violence, even in the absence of patriarchy, would necessarily be oppressive.
yes man-imposed scarcity between women and man-imposed competition between us certainly produces psychologically violent behaviours such as scapegoating. And also men make women torture their daughters, nieces or other women in many different ways (sexual, physical and mental mutilation) to increase women’s hatred and distrust of each other. The very condition of captivity men put women into means that pitted against each other and prevent each other from escaping men or telling the truth about them. of course the minute men disappear this would go away with them too.
Acknowledging this is not saying women are violent as a class / species. However it would be a lie to say that women never exercise any form of violence no matter what is done to them – because what men do to us is precisely so we turn their violence against ourselves. So we are capable of certain levels of violence, under male duress. It doesn’t change anything about the fact that violence is an aberration to us though
Exactly what I alluding to, FCM, after all, men made their gods-that-never-were in their own image.
indeed lucky. the idea that any of this came from ON HIGH is laughable. and i have a bridge to sell.
ive been thinking about your comment all day, thanks! 🙂 brain damaged mutants and freaks. you know, the more i understand that this is indeed the case, the more COMPLETELY OBVIOUS it is when i see men out in the world, on TV, wherever. its especially obvious when you see a man next to a woman — the man looks like a lifeless bump compared to her. and stupid as hell too. but you can also see it when men are all alone, or in groups. they *look like* theres something very wrong with them. they *look* stupid, like oafs, its a fucking miracle any of them have survived into adulthood bc they are so obviously brain damaged. frankly i dont think very many of them would survive at all if it werent for women taking care of them from cradle to grave. while mothers (and perhaps wives) are legally obligated, other women (like sisters, friends and girlfriends) arent. AT ALL. its something to think about. let nature take its course.
“My mommy hasn’t slept in 3 days so I should be quiet and let her rest,” said no two year old ever. “My mommy has been sad so I should be on my best behavior and be good to her,” said no other two year old ever. I’m sorry, Witchwind, but it is age inappropriate for a two year old to have empathy towards others. I’m a mother of 4 and all my children are female. I don’t mean to burst your bubble of wishful thinking or anything, but two-year old females are not exceptional. The reality is, two year olds act up even more if mommy is distracted. Sure, two year olds are sensitive – to their own wants and needs, not other’s wants and needs.
What best describes young children is monkey see, monkey do. Children mimic and parrot what they see and hear. However, as I said in my previous post, children do learn cause and effect rather quickly. If they put their finger in a light socket, it zaps them. They have no understanding as to why it zaps them, they only understand that it does.
One of the things which separates humans from animals is a human’s ability to manipulate their environment to suit themselves. Two year olds have some ability to manipulate their environment, but it is again age inappropriate to think they have the ability to manipulate other ppl. They have no concept of such things. Again, what they understand is cause and effect. If I cry, mommy gives me a bottle. If I stomp and my feet and yell, mommy pays attention to me. If I smile at mommy, she smiles back and gives me a lollipop. If I stick my finger in the light socket, it zaps me. It’s not like a two year old premeditates these things. They learn cause and effect through repetitious behavior. But again, a two year old would still have no comprehension of why things happen like that. They only know that it does.
Here’s a good example. When I was 4, my mother told me we were going to my grandmother’s house. I ran into the bathroom all excited to tell my father, who was in there shaving. My father turned around and whacked me and said “Get out of here now!” I had no understanding of why it was inappropriate for me to go into the bathroom when my father was in there. I certainly didn’t say “Gee, maybe I should respect my father’s privacy?” or feel any empathy towards him. I had no concept of such things. What I learned is that if my father was in the bathroom, I should not go in there or I will be hit. So even at age 4, I was not running on empathy. I was running on cause and effect. See the difference?
I contend men never get past this stage. I am saying that men in general do not feel empathy towards others. But what men do know is cause and effect.
Indeed! And let’s take care of some of the women that need care, instead. Women have little money. No homeless shelters for homeless women. (See current Lost Womyn’s Space). Single moms. Elderly women. These are groups that have little money for care or needed services. If we are going to volunteer, make damn sure it’s for women. The men (who have much more money) can pay for care. Then more women will be hired, albeit at piss poor wages.
men die way earlier than women, despite that we take in far more torture, abuse and toxic crap then they do.
quite a lot men dying in my family recently.
yeah they do look like stupid, oafish, lifeless bumps next to women! most of the time i try not to look at them
for some reason i think they are even more laughable when they are in shirt and ties (or suits). like they are trying to appear clean when in reality they are fucking filthy, disgusting pigs. porn soaked abusers and assholes. in a clean white shirt i can imagine that they reek, either drenched in cologne or they have worn the same shirt for days or both. the ONLY reason a man would put on a clean shirt is if he had a woman washing and pressing it for him. honestly, male “professionalism” is built on womens backs. its the biggest sham going. they would all prefer to wear stand-up-by-itself filthy t-shirts every day anyway, “lesbian trapped in a mans body” emblazoned on the front. we should let them. let them all get fired, let them be homeless. who cares? i saw 2 shirt-and-tie assholes coming out of a fastfood restaurant a couple of days ago and i was just disgusted at their grossness, but happy they were eating garbage. they must be single, i thought to myself. too bad they probably arent going to stay that way.
obviously once you are attached to one of them, you dont see the truth of it very easily anymore. my advice to the young uns reading here would be DONT GET ATTACHED TO ONE! EVER EVER EVER!
/rant
but srsly. its SO. OBVIOUS. it really is. its a mondo-reversal of the highest order to get anyone to see or believe the opposite, ie. that WOMEN are stupid, worthless or gross in any way compared to men. SO NOT TRUE AT ALL.
yep. That’s the best thing you can ever say to any girl.
When I see men and their grossness walking about in the street, i always imagine that some wife, mother, sister or daughter must be or have been putting up with him in his home, every day (or their home, but mostly it’s men who own the stuff, either way it’s always stealth). It disgusts me thinking of it, what kind of men women have to put up with, let alone having PIV with them or them touching / abusing them in some way. yuck.
Yeah and if it weren’t for women cleaning their shit and shirts, most of them would be homeless and living in constant filth. or dead. all women letting go of all men would really do wonders.
Interesting point, lucky. I’ll think about it.
Still, infants aren’t naturally violent: in this case lack of empathy does not lead to violent behaviour but pure survival, if we follow your theory of lack of empathy. So men not growing up past this stage doesn’t quite explain their violence to me, but i’ll have to think about it.
I know what you mean, FCM. The boys tend to wear this perpetual “Duh” look on their face (That’s what I call it. The Duh Look).. The lights are on but nobody’s home. The duh look is even present in young boys. But check out girls. Their eyes follow everything and they don’t seem to miss a trick. Boys oth, just sit there and go “duh.” It’s got to be genetic brain damage.
Last night, I decided to turn on the TV (which I rarely do) and this show was supposed to be on, but instead it was NBA highlights or something. I figured the show was just running a little late and would be on in a few minutes so I left it on the channel. Within a few minutes, I was ready to climb the walls. These 4 male commentators have absolutely nothing to say so they just talk to hear themselves talk and take up time. It basically sounds like blah, blah, blah. It’s completely random, has no connection to anything, and is just plain nonsensical. I thought they were mentally retarded or something. I can’t believe these men got paid for doing this! Paid well no less! After 5 minutes of listening to these utter bores, I couldn’t stand another minute of it and had to turn the TV off. Valerie Solanas wasn’t kidding when she said men are complete and utter bores. They will literally bore you to death. I think that’s why men always have to have a TV or other background noise on – so no one engages them in conversation and realizes how boring and stupid they are. Watching corn grow is more interesting than listening to men. Which is no doubt why married women have to have friends. Otherwise their minds and intellect would deteriorate, atrophy, and die a slow, painful death if the only ppl they had to talk to were men..
Yes, these pigs walk the earth. I have never had anything to do with them. Life long lesbians just get so frustrated watching what straight women to do iron their shirts, cook for them, clean for them,and produce more males who will grow up to be rapist pigs wearing pressed white shirts and suits. Really, radical lesbian feminists have forever been saying that heterosexuality itself is just male cult indoctrination. So women, stop going along with it. Just stop having sex with these pigs, and stop producing male children. It’s really that simple.
thanks for your comments witchwind and lucky about childrens “empathy” and violence. now that i think about it, it does seem as if very young children dont possess empathy BUT at some point specifically boys do become violent and more importantly they start getting creative about it and using torture. firecrackers in frogs noses and such — this counts doesnt it? more proof of innateness and that it appears even before puberty. at what age to boys start doing this? 8 maybe? if so, male hormones may not be implicated, or not necessary anyway for males to show their tendency to be creative violent torturers? i dont know, i never thought about it before just now. if you look at young boys and how “cute” they are, they are only cute when they are very young and then they get the DUH look. like on “roseanne” where you can see the son “DJ” aging over the years and he is extremely cute until maybe 8? then something changes. this is well before puberty, but of course after/during puberty he starts looking even more repulsive.
also, i have noticed lately that across the blogs, the same refrain is repeated again and again. and its “males are socialized to (perpetrate whatever horrible thing) by patriarchy” and this phrase seems both mechanical and mandatory. i know feminists arent robots, so what is this about? let me speculate, based on my own observations and experience. this is about stunting, shunning and silencing feminists who think this is what men are all about, and that its part and parcel to them, and they are never ever going to stop. forgive me for saying it reminds me of tranny dogma where no one is allowed to go to the ends of their thoughts and their responses are mechanical and mandatory too. fuck all of this, seriously. this is unacceptable.
heres an audio clip on creativity from NPR. its not very good but theres a little food for thought…
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6631146
“also, i have noticed lately that across the blogs, the same refrain is repeated again and again. and its “males are socialized to (perpetrate whatever horrible thing) by patriarchy” and this phrase seems both mechanical and mandatory.” (FCM)
I think it’s also that they want male allies and think women need these allies. But even if male allies were a good thing, you would think that real allies would not expect silencing/shunting in order to remain allies. Going to the end of our thoughts is the important thing, not gaining allies by avoiding certain thoughts. Because, when tshtf, those “allies” will disappear. It would be better to have fewer allies (if any) who can face the truth of the matter.
Socialization, in my opinion, plays a role. But it is not the only role, and the “forbidden” topic of men’s nature needs to be better understood. Needs to be explored. There is all this simplistic thinking out there, like it’s only one cause or the other. In thinking about what I know, I don’t see how socialisation could play the major role. As if all the stuff documents by Mary Daly in different times and cultures, for instance, did not exist. Too much evidence.
Once we understand the problem, we can strategise about it. The possibility that socialisation can influence the rape/violence, rein it in, etc. may be important for women as a group. If that is the case, we eventually need to be figuring out harm reduction strategies because the hope of some angelic good hero rescuer nigel is never going to happen. That mythic figure is a reversal. But, if radfems never talk about this/deny it, we can’t figure out what to do about it.
Also, importantly, women need to band together as a key strategy. We may not get along all the time, but we are going to be physically safer in all-women groups than with men.
Think about tap roots in plants. This is the anchor root, the primary root, the one that all the others branch off from. Without it the plant cannot grow.
You can damage the branches and capillaries, you can rip off the leaves and mutilate the stalk but if you don’t get the root – all of it – the plant can still survive.
ive actually wondered whether mens collective, rather inexplicable angst (considering they have EVERYTHING) is due to social controls on men that dont allow them to FULLY be the creative torturers they are. they feel stifled despite the fact that they literally OWN every opportunity. this male character trait is really weird considering the reality of it, that they have everything so what what do they think is missing?? but this explanation makes sense of it i think.
About the debate on young kids being self-centered, google “egocentrism in young children” or look on Wikipedia. It is normally accepted as a stage in child development and most classes in early childhood education or parenting teach this.
(Distinct from the self-entitlement that males seem to develop/retain in later stages).
i should say that social controls stop may SOME men from fully developing and expressing their true natures as creative torturers. some men develop AND EXPRESS this fully, while others live with relatively low levels of torturing other people — women and children usually. and this doesnt even register as torture even though it is.
and paying child support late or at the last minute EVERY FUCKING MONTH, when its not necessary, counts. oh yes it does.
“the refrain is repeated again and again, “males are socialized to (perpetrate whatever horrible thing) by patriarchy”” (FCM)
Is this the cause or the result? iow, is patriarchy the reflection of male nature or is patriarchy the cause of what we see. Probably it’s not that simple, because it may be a vicious circle (where it is the reflection of men’s nature, but also reinforces it that nature).
Also, they lie, lie, lie about everything. Is it that they lie to meet the requirements of society? Some of these lies are “poor me” lies, others are manipulative, entrapping lies, like the “good nigel” lies.
That guy in Cleveland who tortured those three girls and a woman for 10 years. He lived a “regular good guy” lie for years, including playing music at a benefit for one of them, going to vigils, etc. I think he got off on doing that, violating boundaries of all kinds. Now he’s claiming he was addicted somehow. Poor him, in other words. But this is not new. How many males are online right now, consuming violent porn, with actual women being harmed in the filming of the porn? Then they put on a “good nigel” face to friends and family and workmates. Yet, they are guilty of the torture of women. If there were no market for this, it wouldn’t happen. Yet it is enormously profitable. If they get caught, they say “oops, I was addicted” or rapists say “oops, I was drunk” and on and on with the lies.
i should clarify that when this phrase is uttered (repeated endlessly) its in the following context: instead of saying that men are violent, its said as “men are socialized by patriarchy to be violent.” we cant just state the obvious anymore — that men are in fact violent — without adding the explanation that its due to socialization. even though theres no conclusive evidence that this is true. also, depending on who is saying it, i imagine its being emphasized differently. men are — socialized by patriarchy to be — violent, or men are (socialized by patriarchy to be) violent. a parenthetical use. like, i dont want to be mizundastood here so ima sneak that in! dont shoot the messenger mkay? or socialized by patriarchy, men are violent. an exculpatory, poor men kind of bent (i blame the patriarchy but i dont blame men!). male-pleasing, both ways. yes. and WRONG, by the way. this has not been proven at all.
also, in both cases, it has the following effect (and therefore, intent): if i say it enough times, it becomes true!!!!11!!12346
the exculpatory use is the authoritative use. the parenthetical use is the sheep-use, they dont want to be shunned or excluded from the group so they add it in. theres a weird hierarchical/authoritative thing going on. its part of the shunning dynamic, and the result is a completely homogenous text thats based on nothing. like trannyism.
Actually, on the topic of men being filthy creatures that are only as presentable as they are because of women’s time and energy being used/stolen in taking care of their shit-
Well, like Lucky, I don’t usually watch tv but made an exception today and watched the latest episode of colbert. During his interview he was talking to an evo biologist named daniel lieberman, and the part that got my attention was when lieberman mentioned that doctor’s appointments, as they are, are pretty pointless because it’s more important to talk to your doctor in-depth about your body then it is them doing random check-ups on you once a year. In that vein, colbert said that that would require people knowing their body on a deeper level and connecting with it. Now, I was already having a chuckle in my head about men EVER being capable of that and figured neither of them would mention this, but colbert actually noted that only women really have that ability and that if it weren’t for them, heck, men wouldn’t even BATHE or go see the doctor – they’d feel a third lump down there and be happy that they are probably growing a third testicle. The dude agreed to all of this and the audience laughed throughout. Funny because it’s true, you see!
Yet somehow I don’t think anyone in that studio would find FCM’s recent comments on the matter to be quite so funny, even though she’s said basically the same thing. Because any time women take what men say and deduce a political meaning or consequence from it, it is automatically off-limits for us and becomes “hate-speech”, or some bs like that. So I have to echo the theme about women listening to what men are saying, because they really do speak the truth about themselves frequently, whilst no doubt reveling in the fact that women are so powerless that they can gloat about it whenever they want without fearing any repercussions. Hell, they probably get off on it. I wish pomo feminists would realize this especially, instead of going down the socialization route all the time when men are (in a more de-politicized context) quite eager to describe how differently they mentally process things. By itself this wouldn’t necessarily prove that men are by nature very different from us, but in combination with all the other evidence there is that that’s the case, it is incredibly damning.
yes thats exactly it — we are allowed to tell and certainly to BE TOLD the truth as long as we dont make any political connections or try to change it, avoid it, or see how these things benefit men at womens expense. thats exactly right, and its a perverse joke, is what it is. completely perverted. creative torture.
I know a woman who literally lays out the clothing for her husband each morning, and buys his clothes, because he would and was a badly dressed slob on his own. And she’s proud of this, even thought IRL she is highly educated, is a very successful businesswoman and very good at a lot of things. Yet, this is what she feels forced to do, otherwise she wouldn’t be as effective at social climbing if the slob of a husband was left to his own devices.
Taking men to doctors, etc. as Colbert mentioned, and this whole “men are socialized” nonsense. Men should be held fully morally accountable for their out of control rape and violence in the world. Men ARE violent period, they rage inwardly ALL THE TIME. Roadrage is a male illness you see it all the time here on the freeways. But, women have to qualified with that dingbat word “socialized” or be accused being called manhating etc. or essentialists… that’s worse than being called a manhater in pomo land. Or fun feminist land for that matter.
another reason for the “socialisation meme” may be how creepy this all is.
most women assume that men are like them but with some bad messages that got in there. After all, we know we got some bad messages. it’s logical to think this.
but looking at the evidence, we may begin to see something different. for one thing, the lies seem creepy in a way we are not used to. secondly, there’s a creep factor like this Ohio thing where the guy’s all smiley, smiley and mr. regular guy. but behind the scenes way not mr cheerful salsa.
it would be very hard to think that these kind of guys are lurking in a lot of places not just some really unusual person one in a million. but the guys who like torture porn and the high demand for that. what does that tell us. creepy, really creepy, that’s what. think of the statistics and how 25% of women are raped. How many men does it take to do that? Take the men you know personally and multiply that by the percentage. do the math.
it’s hard to live with this stuff. I can’t get mad at the women in denial because maybe they were tortured as kids or raped later and this is how they manage to get to work and function. denial.
but, someone has to tell it like it really is. it will help the ones in denial if others are stating it, too. it goes against the silence, the deafening silence. let’s women know they are not alone. the anti-piv stance does that, too.
what’s really amazing is that women get through this and are generally good people. given the statistics you’d think women would be much, much worse.
I know of no other creature on the planet except men who scheme and plot a million and one ways to torture and kill humans and animals in the most sadistic ways possible. I wonder if that’s where they got the saying, “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop?” Could it be they knew this is what men do with idle time? One thing’s for sure. Men have waaay too much idle time on their hands to devise ways to do harm to all living things. Women do all the human maintenance and work which frees up men’s leisure time and allows men to live in their heads, in a nightmarish fantasy land.
[…] am currently reading about the witchcraze and one thing ive noticed, indeed its rather difficult not to, is that men were very creative in […]
ive basically taken the conclusions ive made from this convo and put them in another post. i think we have managed to do the impossible, which is to show that male violence is innate. i am very happy about this. the pingback is above. thanks for reading!