jump to navigation

Not Chattel July 29, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, liberal dickwads, logic, meta, race, rape.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

its hard and painful enough to get your head around the idea that under patriarchy, women are “chattel,” meaning that we are not human and are only a partial (or no) step above mens personal property in the grand (male) scheme of things.  this “chattel” concept was useful to me once or it felt like it, in the same way perhaps as other “feminist” concepts like the male gaze, enthusiastic consent and other things that move the emphasis a little, or shift your everyday perspective/perceptions a bit and give you an inkling that there is something more/else (inequality, men, rape) there than what you thought.

but chattel?  really?  this reminds me of liberal dickwad and white anti-racism activist tim wise waxing idiotic about american black slavery, and how his great-great-great (or whatever) “grandparents” owned slaves exactly as one would own a table or a lamp.  those are his words, not mine.  of course, when talking about personal property like tables and lamps one is talking about chattel.  for this to be the truth of american black slavery (or any slavery) however, his “grandparents” including his grandmothers wouldve had to have been able to own property to begin with, which may or may not have been the case and tim wise doesnt address the legal status of his grandmothers at all or indicate any feminist awareness at all when analyzing an institution that implicated both women and men (as all institutions do).

and importantly, for the chattel designation/analogy to work, the “grandparents” wouldve had to stick their dicks into their tables and lamps and create shared children with them.  get it?  either something is just like something else, or its not.  and “like tables and lamps” does not describe the reality of slavery at all, either for female slaves or for the “people” who own/ed them.  it just doesnt.

beyond that, there is evidence that “chattel” is not just an analogy badly drawn; as a concept applied to women and mens relationship to women, its actually impossible because of time.  and this is because men owning women likely predated the concept of personal property and personal ownership — women were the first property (mens), its where the idea and concept of “ownership” of anything actually came from.*  so in reality, men own tables and lamps like they own women.  saying it the other way is like saying that wal-mart predated (and perhaps caused) moms and pops opening the first stores on main street.  isnt it?  its a time-thing.

so besides revealing the truth of the matter, what does examining and then using/refusing the “chattel” analogy mean for us?

well, for one thing, discarding the flawed “chattel” analogy opens up the concepts of ownership and property beyond just “personal property” like tables and lamps — real estate is not counted as chattel for example, even though men “own” it.  and natural resources arent chattel either, but men own those too — rather like they own women as a matter of fact.  taking complete dominion over something they know nothing about and are actually powerless to control in any meaningful or absolute way, or in a way existing outside mens own delusions.  im not saying they dont try of course, or that they dont really believe this is their “right” and that its even possible, or that they arent abusive and threaten to use it all up and kill us all (and themselves!) in the process because they obviously do.  the point there i guess would be to consider that women function as natural resources to them (and not chattel), or more to the point women were/are the first/original “natural resource” which helps us isolate the root of our oppression (and explains why mens abuse of us is mostly sexual.  duh).

the women-as-chattel analogy also reverses the the timing and causation elements, where something that comes after something cannot cause it, or provide the model for it (among other things).  again we see the “time” element is important to our thinking about it — men have “owned” (or whatever, exploited, used and used-up) women for a very long time.  this brings up other issues/questions, including questions of ownership in general, and (perhaps?) whether increasing/creating female wealth including ownership of property is likely to free us, or whether “womens land” is something we want or if its even possible seeing as how its basically a contradiction in terms (womens (male ownership of women)) or where “female ownership” like “land ownership” can only mean women being owned by men and cannot mean anything else.

or where the relationship of “women” to “ownership” considering origin and historical meaning is dependent to such a degree that the very words/concepts cancel each other out (and where “womens land” would mean, essentially, womens women and/or lands land)?  i dont know, im still working on that.

anyway, its a time-thing, and a word-thing.  its a concept-thing, where we are dealing in ideas and concepts and, using words, getting to the root of our oppression so that we can liberate ourselves from male dominance.  and chattel as a concept does not describe womens reality, or how men relate to us, or anything really — even more than that, it obscures our most basic truth(s) and this is probably deliberate.  so we might as well get rid of it.  women arent chattel to men, this is a wrongheaded concept, and this is obvious.  we are something else.

*for more on the idea that women were the first “property” see gerda lerner, the creation of patriarchy.  its worth the read.

In Which I Make a Fantastical Leap May 8, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, gender roles, international, liberal dickwads, MRAs, trans.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

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.   :D  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.

The Manketplace of Broideas! February 18, 2013

Posted by FCM in international, liberal dickwads, MRAs, politics, porn, prostitution, radical concepts, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

i think we have all seen recently (and forever) that mens alleged “marketplace of ideas” really isnt.  men wax idiotic about their beloved “marketplace” which is interesting terminology in itself — if there is no “market” for it, it has no place.  and obviously they mean this literally — if men cant make money (or some other benefit) from it, its worthless.  they like to think this isnt true, and cite as evidence their made-up assertion that but but but their marketplace includes anti-capitalist dood-volutionary type material too!

in reality, mens “marketplace” includes allegedly subversive material, as long as its porny enough, and exploits women.  hello.  orwell himself once marveled about his own career as a writer that he had “somehow” convinced capitalism (or like, the establishment, or something) for a short time to pay him for work that was directly oppositional to its own interests.  a close reading of “1984″ of course reveals that, whatever else it mightve been, orwells doodvolutionary work was also valuable PIV-positive, woman-hating propaganda.  mystery solved.

we have seen rampant censorship of womens ideas recently — funny that, since women have only recently been granted a voice in public, and been allowed to read and write for that matter.  the lucky ones of us anyway.  and despite a global policy and practice of silencing women, often via rape and threats of rape, we see men waxing asshole about “free speech” and how it doesnt count as censorship if its hate speech!  or, its not really silencing unless the government does it.  it doesnt count, when its done to us, by men, because this that and the other.  but specifically women dont need the government to silence us if we are shut down immediately by your average, male-privileged joe via domestic terrorism, including terroristic rape and death threats and men stalking us and promising to harm our children.  or if we manage to speak for a couple of months anyway, and later, when a major blogging platform shuts us down for alleged TOS violations (while leaving up all manners of woman hatred, including porn AND RAPE AND DEATH THREATS).

this isnt technically censorship they say, quite ironically, since they are saying it with the deliberate intention of shutting us down and preventing us from developing a theory about whats really going on — we are specifically prevented from conceding ok, this is not technically censorship AND YET we are being effectively silenced anyway, and then speculating on why and how that is.

so the average joe shuts us down, because it *is* in fact (largely) the average joe that oppresses women globally, every day, because patriarchy.  they do this with their dicks, and with the express and implied threat of using their dicks against us.  and, you know, their vicious murderous violence and threats of violence.  it works.  and they go right on believing (or pretending to believe) that their “marketplace of ideas” really includes a diversity of human thought, or that it should, and even that it could.  their idiotic assertions are laughable, making one question the veracity of certain “common knowledge” regarding what men really fear — legend has it, men fear women laughing at them more than they fear anything else in the world.  but they dont bother hiding their ludicrous hypocrisy, which tends to invoke a hiccup and half-concealed snort at least.  so while i believe that men hate (not fear) women laughing at them, their solution is to silence womens laughter.  notably, they dont try to not be funnySILENCE.

with this in mind, i would like to acknowledge that the program and registration materials for radfem 2013 have been posted.  here, there and elsewhere, women are bringing *our* ideas to the marketplace.  men arent proving to like it, but mens response certainly does not detract from or negate the value of those ideas, or speak (in any direct way) to the value of our ideas to and for women, as a sexual class, around the world.  in reality, radical feminism is the only idea and the only policy and practice that has any value at all.  its the only honest, rigorous discourse on the planet at this time, because its the only one that centers or even acknowledges the lives and the reality of 3.5 billion oppressed people globally — women.

for thinking, intellectually honest women, for women who acknowledge our own humanity and who want to be fully free, radical feminism — including female separatism, and organizing and gathering in female-only space — is all there is.  because women are a sex class, the rapeable class, sexual politics is the only political platform that holds any promise to free us, including liberating our female bodies and our minds from male dominance, and that is why we continue to do it.  historically, it seems that human beings want to be, and activate towards being free, and if it surprises (or enrages) men that we persevere in the face of their threatened and actualized violence, its only because they do not think we are human at all — but they are wrong about that.  in reality, everything men do and everything men think is wrong.

Moron Patriarchal Purpose (Or, The Intent and Effect of Transgender, Pt. 2) January 26, 2013

Posted by FCM in liberal dickwads, meta, pop culture, porn, rape, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

well that was fast!  i have more to say already.  part one is here — i remember posting it like it was yesterday!  which it was.

now that we know that wordpress has shut down “mansplainin’ and transplainin’” for a TOS violation, and in the wake of recent internet witchhunts and burnings of women who dare express a fucking opinion which is incompatible with womens sex role as fuckholes and slaves, i think it would behoove us to step back and look at the internet as a whole.  what has been the internets patriarchal purpose — what has been its end effect, from which we can deduce mens intent in creating and implementing it?  we know that women with an internet presence have been targeted for elimination since day one — women who were around “back then” remember vividly being told to “get off my internet” or face dire consequences at mens hands.  but why?

like the patriarchal intent and effect of transgender, which i believe ultimately was to increase womens vulnerability to rape as well as erasing the political implications of men raping women across time and place, it seems that the effect of the internet as a whole has been to widely disseminate and distribute the photographic evidence of men raping women and children with impunity.  otherwise known as porn, including “kiddie porn.”  thanks to the widespread availability of internet pornography, porn has seeped into every nook, cranny and crevice of much of the world — practically anywhere that has electricity is now fully saturated with 24/7/365 porn.  men, who already created the entire world in their own image — to wit, shit and filth — now get to live in filth and shit, more, and force us to live there too, thanks to pornographic imagery which you literally cannot get away from even if you tried.

relatedly, the internet has also been very useful in disseminating patriarchal propaganda equating sex and rape — anywhere there is “news reporting” on rape, we see the words sex-crime, sex-offender, sex-trafficking, sex-slavery.  but we are not talking about sex mkay — we are talking about rape.  rape-crime.  rape-offense.  rape-trafficking.  rape-slavery.  and “kiddie porn” is not porn (and much of your standard-issue adult porn isnt porn either) if what is meant by “porn” is documentary evidence of consensual fucking.  this is not what porn is — insofar as intercourse is coerced or forced, and insofar as “rape” is the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders, most porn isnt even “porn” — it is documentary evidence of rape and it is everywhere.  thanks largely to the internet which disseminates it (rape) and frames it (rape) in a way that politically benefits men at womens expense.

so are we really going to be surprised when men want women off their internet — women who arent literally in the process of being raped by men, that is?  is it any surprise that we will be attacked and graphically threatened by men, and not-supported by other men who read mens threats against us and become erect because the threats include graphic depictions of rape, and sexualized woman-murder (necrophilia)?  this is *all* porn to them.  every bit of it.  and when i say porn, i mean rape.  and when i say rape, i mean “the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders.”

im not surprised that this is happening to us at all, and no one would be, if they were to understand that the entire purpose of the internet was not “communication” or dissemination of information per se, but the communication of a certain idea, and a certain image, with a very specific intent in mind — the whole point being to threaten 3.5 billion women globally with rape, and to violently enforce all womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders.  and fuckholes and breeders do not speak about being fuckholes and breeders.  fuckholes and breeders do not speak at all, unless it is to ask for more of the same — and even then, men dont necessarily want to hear it.  they put things in those womens mouths to shut them up too, when the sound of the raped womens voices becomes tiresome, or interferes with mens ability to rape, or to rape to maximum political effectiveness — which requires ejaculation.  doesnt it?

in the end, wordpress can shut down all our blogs, and i will not be surprised at all.  none of us should be, and really i dont think we would be anyway.  outraged, yes.  surprised?  no.  in a way, im surprised we have lasted this long, but mens obfuscating yet tenuous adherence to their own fake principles of “free speech” and the “marketplace of ideas” seems to have confused even them for a minute.  soon the facade will fall away, and they will shut us all down, because what we are doing and saying is the antithesis of what the internet is for.  we are speaking, when the entire purpose of the internet has been to shut us up, via rape, and threats of rape.

like the purpose of transgenderism, the purpose of the internet has been rape, and disseminating, normalizing and perpetuating men raping women across time and place.  thats all.  its been nothing more, and nothing less than that.

Hate Song December 3, 2012

Posted by FCM in entertainment, liberal dickwads, PIV, pop culture, thats random.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

when you talk, i basically tell you to shut up, or wish you would.  youre young and beautiful now, but you wont always be.  fortunately for me, you cannot move through the world anonymously even if you wanted to, and thinking about other men threatening your safety gives me a boner.

i want you to consent to PIV with me, when PIV is a hateful act which others you and pathologizes your female reproductive biology.  to help me fulfill my agenda, i am trying to confuse you with hateful reversals.  is it working?  also, its probably better (for me) if you dont think about what will happen if you say no.

look, something shiny!

more on PIV here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 341 other followers