A Final Analysis August 19, 2013Posted by FCM in feminisms, meta, radical concepts.
Tags: blogging, retirement
this might be a multi-part post, im not sure yet! recently ive become aware that there are costs to doing this kind of work, and that this should never be ignored or minimized. i have therefore been applying a cost-benefit analysis to my own involvement in this “movement” — in general, this is something women are never (ever, ever) supposed to do. in no circumstances ever, anywhere in life, are we supposed or allowed to consider what XYZ is costing us, and whether its worth it to us. we are the only actors in any economy whose work has no value, and when we are harmed it is not harmful. for my part, i have very publically utilized the cost-benefit analysis in other areas, and now im applying it to this one — whether or not to continue blogging here or anywhere.
to be clear, i consider “magic” to be a benefit, as well as creativity and change, so its not a matter of playing Economist in any obvious or obviously male ($) sense, just in a balancing sense. the cost-benefit model is a natural model that follows natural law, not mens law. or, it is if you do it right.
it seems to me that at this point, there is very little to be gained in comparison to what is being lost and what it is costing me (and “us”) in continuing down this road. to wit, modding a high-volume, priority-target blog has always been a chore whose cost is only outweighed where there are plenty of good comments coming in, inspiring new work. spinning and spiraling, in other words. where comments are down for whatever reason, modding and otherwise maintaining this space becomes very costly. thats not the only issue, but it is the final issue for anyone who is interested in analyzing cost/benefit, which i obviously am.
as additional context, and i am only repeating myself here, in my experience, and as confirmed by the writing/experiences of women who came before, once you get to a certain point in your radical consciousness, the “movement” spits you out like a bad fig. just squirts you right out, and “masticating” would not be a bad analogy for what “it” does to you right before. testing your resolve, seeing if you might be broken or broken down and whether or not you can be molded and made more palatable, or made palatable again. and probably other things. there are very few of us afterall, and some of us are interested in numbers. those of us who have lost our figginess or potential figginess or whatever are of no use to those who are making money off this, or who are doing it to win friends and influence (large numbers of) people or any other patriarchal agenda. which is not really a surprise now is it?
and in the end, if you arent a fig or a particularly palatable fig, youre a nut (or the gray, unappetizing pudding which is fun-feminism) — ask any exiled radfem/revolting ex-reformist. the nuts, apparently, are those who come to certain conclusions about men and maleness, and who reject “palatability” and politicking on feminist grounds because they hold no promise to free us.
and for reasons i am beginning to completely (even intimately) understand, the “nuts” arent generally commenting on radfem blogs, or having anything whatsoever to do with “radical feminism” or with what i am calling “figgishness” which is no more and no less than a product bought and sold. thats the bottom line really, for me, as a radfem blogger/modder and creator/co-creator of this space, which was always partially or mostly purposed by/toward conversation and advancing radical thought.
i will, of course, leave the archives intact, and will accept comments below, as long as people are discussing. and i may (or may not) write a followup post. thanks for reading and contributing (spinning and spiraling) to femonade!
Not Chattel July 29, 2013Posted by FCM in books!, liberal dickwads, logic, meta, race, rape.
Tags: chattel, gerda lerner, slavery
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.
Women Didn’t Do It. That’s the Point. July 22, 2013Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, gender roles, meta.
Tags: electricity, gender, male violence, sonia johnson, time travel
ive been so happy to see the idea going around that it hasnt been women “forcing” manly behaviors, values and thought processes on men, if indeed men have been or need to be “forced” into these things at all. radical feminists point this whole time has been that womens sex role as fuckholes, breeders and slaves has been forced on us by men, and that this role is wholly unnatural to us. our point has never been, until very recently that is, that the same force-thing is happening *somehow* to men. and in fact it makes very little sense if you think about it a bit. if anyone were forcing men to do anything, who would have the power, resources and inclination to do this? oh yes. men! not women, men.
not only that, but where did this stuff come from in the first place? who thought it would be a good idea (for example) to rape women and impregnate us against our wills, knowing how painful and dangerous childbirth is to us (and not to men)? who thought it would be a good idea to force women to do anything, to starve torture and kill us and everyone and everything else? think: global overpopulation and environmental abuse. did women first suggest this, and did women take it further at every step with creativity, leaps of thought and constant envelope-pushing? or did someone else?
here we are faced with a potentially uncomfortable truth, “we” being those of us who still hold out any hope whatsoever for men, that they will change, that this has all been a huge mistake etc. included here are those who think meaningful legal change will be forthcoming BTW, seeing as how the law is the codification and normalization of male behavior, values and thought-processes selectively enforced to support male power at womens expense. to those women and everyone, kindly note (if you havent already) that at the intersection of “who came up with this shit” and “who would be able to enforce it anyway” there are men. men and only men. no women anywhere. if male behaviors, values and thought processes were a gum, it would be men-tyne. if it were a museum, it would be the men-tropolitan museum of art.
not that i personally believe for a second that these things are forced/enforced on men — the evidence actually suggests they enjoy it and even revel in decidedly male interests/pursuits like torture and necrophilia, but lets not dwell on that insignificant detail (or fact, whatever). the point is that i know other women believe its forced, or they assume it without ever really having thought about it, so seeing it as an intersection of maleness (which it obviously is) might be useful to them. is it?
whats compelling to me about this recognition is that it implicates men as a sexual class and takes that concept and discussion further. in this case, we see that we can and indeed must take males as a whole as our “class,” meaning males throughout time and place, not just whoever happens to be alive now, and not just those special snowflakes who came up with something noteworthy/super gross or whatever at some point (i.e. helped move male behavior, values and thought-processes forward through creativity and innovation, like whoever came up with this). in other words, when analyzing how and indeed whether what is known as “masculinity” is forced on men, if we add a fourth-dimension to the class-model, which is time, we see that men have always done this. that there was never a time (that we know about) that they didnt. and importantly, there was never a time when we (females) did.
get it? women had nothing to do with this — men came up with this sickening abuse and necrophilia on their own and it is in fact a closed-circuit of maleness in which we see abusive and sexually and reproductively abusive (i.e. male) behaviors, values and thought processes working and evolving across time. there is no female “input” there are only female victims, and perhaps female collaborators and individual collaborators at that — as a class, women have been wholly excluded. its closed, you see. thats how a closed-circuit works, and this very obviously is one.
if there were *ever* a more perfect example of a closed-circuit, well, it might be one without collaborators (or without equality rhetoric, history-erasure or a fourth-dimension!) because that might make it easier to see it for what it is. but even so, this isnt rocket-science (or is it?) the concept of the closed-circuit does, however, implicate electricity, and therefore electronics, plugging-in, technology, and industry, and probably other things. even time-travel seems implicated here, or all “times” existing at once — non-linear time. we discussed that here, in the context of sonia johnson’s work including “the metaphysics of liberation.”
if that complicates the discussion, disregard. its (i think?) unnecessary to the point, which is that male behaviors, values and thought processes — and patriarchy — is a closed-system of maleness to which women have never (substantively, ideologically) “inputted” and we never will. thats the point. everything you see, hear, feel, smell, taste and intuit around you thats abusive and sick, including men and what they do and what they are, and regardless of whether its “forced” on them (meaning, same result whether it is or isnt) — thats men mkay. its men, its men, its men.
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.
Keep Talking Owen Lloyd June 28, 2013Posted by FCM in feminisms, meta, PIV, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: Deep Green Resistance News Service, DGR, Owen Lloyd
i saw the lierre keith/derrek jensen article on counterpunch in all its weird queerified gendernonsensical antiglory and was disappointed, but not quite moved to respond to it. i mean, how many times can a position be stated and restated for the record before it ceases to be helpful? this is a serious question. repetition can be a good thing, and its helpful to both readers and writers to see and think about things multiple times, or in more than one way or in more than one time or place. it probably has something to do with the brain, but thats above my pay grade. i run mostly on intuition, and my intuition is telling me that providing a breakdown of a weird queerified “radfem” text isnt going to be useful today.
enter owen lloyd. remember him? hes the fucking terrifying asshole who becomes enraged at the sight of women, existing. he also writes and does fundraising for DGR news service, which, according to himself, is responsible for “educating people on news and media related to the ongoing struggle against environmental and social injustice.”
educating them. get it? and since DGR itself is billed as being “unconditionally” feminist, we see that DGR news service and other publications and whatnot released by DGR, in addition to whatever else they do and are, are meant to educate people about feminism and in particular radical feminism. because any other kind is antithetical to environmentalism. true, that.
heres owen lloyd writing about rape for DGR news service back in march. oh goody, a self-identified feminist man talking about rape, i say to myself. chance of him implicating himself in something gross and woman-hating: approaching 100%. one immediately notes the [TW] at the top of the page — like a good (liberal?) feminist, he lets us know straight up that we are in for graphic depictions of extreme sexualized violence i mean a porny treat of male masturbation fodder and that we are to proceed at our peril. so if we disassociate for the rest of the day, its our own fault and definitely not the fault of the man who caused it. wow, how unusual ive never seen that tactic used before in other contexts i mean thanks for the warning? i guess? i was right about owen lloyd.
i continue to read, at my peril, because DGR is on my radar but almost anything would be more interesting to me today than deconstructing that counterpunch article. and in fact i dont feel much like properly deconstructing anything today, so no direct quotes will be forthcoming. let me convey my general impressions (analysis) only. you can read the original material for yourself.
owen lloyd is upset at steven pinker, a “canadian-born experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author” because pinker suggests that there is a biological component to male violence and to men raping women across time and place. rape, that thing that men do to women globally and across time which (by definition) largely transcends social conditioning and rape, that thing that women generally dont do to anyone, anywhere, ever. incidentally, owen lloyd gets “upset” at people quite a lot, but lets ignore that insignificant detail for a moment.
and although neither pinker nor lloyd could probably be expected to recognize this, and they clearly dont, lloyds cherry-picked quotes from pinker (which are supposed to show that pinker is an extraordinary asshole) and lloyds own porny examples of extreme sexualized violence actually paint a vivid picture of a necrophilic male context that transcends time and place. i say “necrophilic” because extreme violence including extreme sexualized violence is not compatible with life — necrophilia is a radfem concept coined by an actual, real feminist (mary daly) who wasnt invested in carrying water for men or pretending that men were something they arent. and once you recognize it for what it is, evidence of mens sickening necrophilia becomes obvious everywhere you look, and i do mean everywhere. we are swimming (drowning) in it.
anyhoo, owen lloyd whines that there cannot possibly be a biological/innateness component to men raping women and babies across time and place because man-bashing, and because owen lloyd wants to believe that there is such a thing as “making love” (or whatever) and that this is very different from rape and mens extreme sexualized violence against women yes it is, yes it is, yes it is infinity.
owen lloyd does not seem to be aware that intercourse, the way men do it, is just more of the same necrophilia because it creates unwanted and ambivalent pregnancies, where it is largely (completely) unwanted and ambivalent pregnancies and the resulting unwanted/ambivalent children — mens sexual and reproductive abuse of women, in other words — that are overpopulating and killing the world. an environmentalist should know this. a feminist should know this. owen lloyd and DGR do not seem to know this, and yet they are educating the public on matters of both feminism and environmentalism. oops. and as if that werent enough, some 500,000 women die every year around the world from pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications — more necrophilia, and more evidence that intercourse is a necrophilic practice.
men are killing women and the entire world with their dicks, and owen lloyd is mad at steven pinker for pointing out that men stick their dicks into women and mostly dont care about the consequences and implications of that for the women or for anything — like the environment? — even though that is demonstrably true. owen lloyd defends his own motivations i mean special snowflake status when he is joined at the reproductive organs with his “partner” as meaning and be-ing something different than the thing other men do when they are joined at the reproductive organs of other women. even though IN MANY WAYS its not different at all. enumerate the ways, environmentalist feminist.
and perhaps even more to the point, owen lloyd is mad. yet again. something rises up in him every time someone says or does something he doesnt like — he himself has described this feeling as rage. this is his involuntary, knee-jerk response which he seems completely unable/unwilling to control, and which pops up mostly regardless of context or provocation — indeed, he cant seem to help it. someday perhaps owen lloyd will learn to control both his rage and his urge to stick his dick into women and to zealously and angrily defend other mens right to stick their dicks into women too. it is *possible* that he will endeavor to and succeed in controlling these things.
the one thing owen lloyd will probably never do is to seriously consider that these involuntary physical and emotional sensations he experiences all the time which are mostly or entirely invisible to himself — in particular, rage and the need to stick his dick into women and then to fucking defend the practice (!!!) (with rage!) regardless of the consequences or implications to women or to anything, including the environment — is something he shares with other males, as a class, and that this transcends time and place (and therefore, social conditioning). that it comes from himself, in other words, and that this is the very definition of innate.
this appears to be the size of it, owen lloyd. u mad? LOL. thats what i thought.