A 10,000-Year War? Not Likely. July 16, 2013Posted by FCM in feminisms, meta, radical concepts, rape, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: language, metaphors, natural disasters, rape, war
the global subjugation of women throughout historical time (and probably since before even that) is kind of its own thing, is it not? the worldwide oppression of women as a sexual class by men as a sexual class — 3.5 billion of each by now — is simply unprecedented, and unsurprisingly we find ourselves mostly without the words to describe this. we do the best we can, invoking metaphors. in the case of the global oppression of women by men that transcends time, we have used “war” as a metaphor (and had it pushed on us) but is this apt? im thinking its probably not.
women are a non-entity in the war-model or are its sexy-funtime/spoils. we are “collateral damage” even where we are more maimed and more killed than the men fighting it, by the men fighting it — besides, women get it with both barrels whether “our side” has won or lost. peace, war — these concepts are largely meaningless to us, where both war and peace are (traditionally) political, and follow mens laws. all mens laws, including the one that says that men have a right to oppress women globally, that they can rape and murder us for any reason or no reason, and do so with impunity, and that they need never stop. in war, even if we’ve won, we’ve lost. is this where we want to begin thinking about liberating ourselves from male dominance? i think not.
also, a 10,000-year war? really?
since we (i guess?) need a metaphor to describe/conceptualize/realize womens oppression by men, since there are no words, can we at least pick a better one? lets try. firstly, anything evoking/invoking mens laws is right out, where mens overarching law is that women shall not be free of men ever, and we shall always be subjugated and oppressed no matter what. so what else is there? natural law i guess — this is where there is no distinction made between “power” and “founded claim of right to exercise it.” cause and natural, necessary effect. like when its raining so hard you literally cant see, so you *cant* go outside, if only for a few minutes at a time; or *if* you do go, your decision is adjudicated by a natural authority to have been poor, or even very poor. this is the best example i can come up with at the moment, although there are most certainly others.
so does nature offer us a model/metaphor that makes more sense than the war-one, and where we actually have a shot at surviving/thriving? note that i did not say winning — thats war-talk. as some of you probably know, ive been working with the “natural disaster” model for a while now. and i think it fits. now, im not saying anything about whether mens global oppression of women is natural, like a hurricane is natural, although if i did address it i would suggest that its more or less “natural” for them, but wholly unnatural for us. or, maybe its “natural” in the exact same way that natural disasters are natural actually — because over time, through exercising known male propensities which transcend time and place (and therefore, social conditioning) such as shameless greed, outrageous arrogance, and constant attempts to overpower and outsmart nature mens infrastructure, isnt. the inevitable occurs (a tsunami; semen exposure causing pregnancy) and women, children and indeed everything dies (homes built too close to the sea; global overpopulation/maternal mortality). yes that sounds about right!
anyhoo, the thing about using metaphors for womens global oppression by men is that they are being used to describe a political reality, and therefore implicate political strategy. dont they? if we use “war” this implicates allies, winning/losing and importantly, fighting/mortal combat where numerous casualties are expected; in the case of mens (10,000 year!!! at least!!!) war on women, women are also expected to continue to engage with men apparently indefinitely, and voluntarily place ourselves in harms way apparently forever. even as we know that men feed off womens attention and gynergy, and that they would likely (or absolutely, in the case of male children) die without it. that cant be good.
whereas in the case of natural disasters (or man-made disasters due to mens necrophilia and foreseeable failures of man-made infrastructure) and surviving natural disasters, the strategy implicated is notably and demonstrably different. among other things, the immediate response to natural disasters by people who are actually there (not the government obviously) are necessarily swift; they are regional, localized or even hyper-localized/individualized out of necessity and reasonableness (and instinct); and narrowly-tailored to fit the circumstances. importantly, in the midst of a natural disaster, no one can tell you what to do, and you would be a fool to wait around for it anyway because emergency, and because they arent there to even know whats happening to you — you are.
only you know exactly what is going down on the ground wherever you are, and what you need to do to
fix survive it, including getting the hell out of the way, and the wise and natural thing and indeed the only thing to do in this situation is to “save yourself” and those physically close to you/within arms reach. and these are not individual solutions in a pomo or choosy-choice way. under a natural disaster model, there are very few choices actually, and little individualism for that matter — it is you responding to the collective reality in the place you are. here, instinct, imminence, necessity and survival carry the day. and anyone suggesting *that* is pomo garbage is selling something.
of course, i am aware that for women, the biggest problem in the aftermath of a natural disaster/failure of mens infrastructure is men, and male violence and sexualized violence. its the same problem with the war-model actually, only the war-model offers no solution and no hope to that particular problem, being that rape is built-in to the war-model as mens recreation and reward, and as a male strategy and indeed a male objective of war as a matter of fact. whereas getting the hell out of the way, and utilizing instinct and survival (not combat) skills offers the possibility of another outcome.