Golden Girls Marathon. I Have My Period. February 3, 2013Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, MRAs, news you can use, PIV, rape.
Tags: genetic decay, male violence, Y chromosome
these arent my favorite episodes or anything, they are just free, full episodes on youtube. you can find more here. really, this post isnt about the golden girls at all, im just engaging in a bit of misdirection. if i wanted to buy myself a few extra minutes, i might even add a page break, or use a couple of big words. and if the MRAs want to link to this post, their link *will* say “golden girls marathon” and “i have my period.” ha!
also, my stools are a bit soft, even though i took probiotics. can anyone recommend something for loose stools due to menstrual-related hormonal fluctuations?
are we alone now? good.
there is something very wrong with men — we know this. feminism is not about fixing men, or curing them of their repulsiveness — it would be a better use of our time to try to cure tangerines of their tangerine-ness. and pointless experimenting on citrus fruit would surely smell better, and we could eat our mistakes! yum!
i made a jello mold today but it didnt set up right — does anyone know why? i think i added too much pineapple, but i thought i had compensated for that by adding a bigger box of jello than what the recipe called for. i dont normally care for jello-based desserts but i have found that using exotic fruits and nuts keeps the focus off the jello.
thanks to mandatory PIV and rape, and mens global policy of female infanticide (but not male), there are too many men worldwide. men exist in unnatural numbers globally and we know this. we also know that genetically, the Y chromosome is defective and decaying over time — generation after generation, human males are becoming even more incomplete, even more lacking and they are indeed barrelling toward their own extinction. google it.
my TiVo crashed and i lost my entire collection of ghost whisperer! does anyone know how season 4 ended — the last episode i saw, jim had died and his spirit jumped into the body of some other dood, but does this mean that jim is still on the show and the actor that plays jim is leaving or what?
the human male is on its way out. we know this. however, on their way out the door, thanks to male genetic decay and the fact that they exist in unnatural numbers globally, they seem to have reached a critical mass of pure evil, and this might not have been the case 20 or even 10 years ago but it absolutely *is* the case now — things are getting worse. we need to understand this, and take this into account in our theory and our actions. what we thought was going to work before might not work now, or if it was working, it might not have any further usefulness because the game has changed. we have to adapt to changing circumstances and use what we know, but some seem very invested in their own status or in the work itself rather than the truth, and liberating ourselves and other girls and women from male dominance — this is a mistake.
im having a cocktail party next week and i need some good ideas for appetizers. i am really sick of the standard fare and would like to serve something with some “wow” factor — does anyone have any ideas?
women have known there is something fundamentally wrong with men for a long time, and they talk about it like its the common knowledge it is. i am BEYOND sick of feminists (and feminism) which denies reality and the reality of womens lives and what men do to us AND WHY THEY DO IT, AND WHETHER THEY ARE LIKELY TO EVER STOP. they arent.
i have an itchy anus, its especially bothersome at night — when i googled this, i found that this is a warning sign of intestinal parasites! i do eat a lot of raw fish so i am afraid that perhaps i have picked up a parasite. god that fucking sucks, as if i didnt have enough to deal with.
the increasing decay and incompleteness of the Y chromosome over time + unnatural numbers of men globally due to mandatory PIV and rape and female infanticide = critical mass of male evil. this appears to be the truth of it. this problem is real, and it is urgent.
read between the lines mkay. men are showing and telling us everything we need to know about their intentions, and what they want to do to us and to the world, whether they can be reformed, and whether they will stop. they are telling us the truth about themselves hourly, daily, weekly, yearly. believe it.
On The “Sexual Double Standard” and Slut-Shaming December 9, 2012Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, PIV, pop culture, rape.
Tags: double standard, PIV, slut shaming, slutwalk
this will make sense in a minute hopefully? i wanted to talk a bit about “slut shaming” and what has been framed as the “sexual double standard” since long before any of us was born — i think i first heard of it in the context of first-wave feminists who noticed that prostituted women were being singled out for oppressive state controls like mandatory screenings for venereal disease while male johns werent. while i think the “double standard” concept was initially useful because it drew attention to a misogynistic phenomenon, so that we could isolate, identify and examine something that was really happening in real life, the concept itself is thinly (or not at all)-disguised equality-rhetoric isnt it? it means that, assuming we are all the same, or “all things being equal” there should be one standard that applies universally.
the problem with identifying sex-based “double standards” however is that there are actual, meaningful sex-based differences between women and men — the “assuming we are all the same” part poses a problem for radical feminists, who understand that men do not equal women and women do not equal men. for us, once we have identified the relevant issues as being reproductively-based, or having literally to do with “sex” (either biological sex or sexual intercourse, which implicates biological sex-based difference) an analysis based on the sexual double standard is a nonstarter. radical feminists can and must do better, and our analyses do in fact shed meaningful light on issues affecting women as a sexual class, including
social patriarchal structures and mechanisms which are designed by men to benefit themselves and support male power at womens expense.
in the case of the so-called sexual double standard of oppressive state controls being placed on prostituted women but not on male johns, the problem is not that its a double standard (which is an unhelpful liberal, rather than a feminist, concept), but that its actually a patriarchal reversal — policy and practice has assumed that prostituted women were largely infecting men, when the truth is that its the male johns who are infecting prostituted women, and not so much the other way around.
furthermore, a truth-based policy and practice would also have to acknowledge that, as a general matter, male johns are becoming infected themselves primarily through engaging in penetrative sex with other men (and intravenous drug use) — again, due to biological differences between women and men which make it relatively difficult for women to infect men with disease, as a general matter, men are not becoming infected by women, prostituted or not. men are also known to engage in risky sexual and other behavior more than women are, which complicates the matter — what that “social” difference does not do, however, is make women more likely to infect men with sexually transmitted disease. ruminate about “nature versus nurture” on that difference all you like, but for our purposes its largely irrelevant.
to clarify, whats “unfair” about the historical treatment of prostituted women is not that they are treated differently than men — the “double standard.” no. in reality, these policies and practices are “unfair” because they are objectively damaging to women and are misogynistic and patriarchal, designed to benefit men at womens expense (and in the case of the reversal, its an inversion of reality, to boot).
savvy? now, for any of you who are still awake, i will attempt to draw a parallel between slut-shaming and the chest-burster scene from alien.
regarding “slut-shaming”. slut-shaming, apparently, refers to the “sexual double standard” whereby women who engage in (primarily) intercourse with men are cast in a negative light, while males who engage in (primarily) intercourse with women arent. yes? so dismissing the equality-framework of the double-standard as inadequate on its face (we are talking about intercourse, where there are in fact meaningful sex-based differences between women and men) we must go deeper. what is really going on here, when women who fuck men “consensually” are regarded as “more promiscuous, less intelligent, less mentally healthy, less competent, and more risky” than are the men they are fucking?
first, its obvious that this is a male-centric viewpoint — everything is, and will continue to be, unless and until women develop our own female-centric discourse, and create language and concepts and definitions that center female reality, and that address and communicate what *we* mean when we say what we say. interestingly, when viewing the world through mens eyes, the reasoning behind “slut-shaming” instantly snaps into focus doesnt it? to wit, considering that men know that intercourse is harmful to women, including the risks of disease and pregnancy; and understanding that female-specific reproductive harm is central and critical to male political and interpersonal power; and considering that intercourse-as-sex is therefore the very foundation of patriarchy itself — men tend to view women who “have sex” in a negative light because no sane, healthy, competent etc. person would voluntarily engage in it, considering the risks. get it?
so sane person. no human person. no man.
you see, there is not a man in the entire world, if the risks of intercourse applied to men, who would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER choose to engage in it for pleasures sake. never, ever, ever, ever, ever would a man voluntarily place himself in harms way like that, and that includes the most submissive, masochistic and self-hating man. NO man would EVER do this. so if the question is, “why do men treat women who voluntarily engage in intercourse as if those women are retarded, damaged, or crazy?” the answer, im sorry to say, is “because thats what they think you are.”
historical note: nymphomania. this is not abstract theorizing mkay. men have long thought that women who desired intercourse with men were crazy, as in mentally ill. because no sane person would voluntarily engage in it, considering the risks. note that historically and today, this diagnosis applies only to women, although that history (and, uh, present) has been obscured of late with bullshit equality rhetoric: wiki now redirects to “hypersexuality” despite the female-specific context and connotations of nymphomania.
its not difficult to see how and in what context “slut shaming” makes perfect sense, actually. note that *i* am not saying that women who voluntarily engage in intercourse are retarded, insane, or particularly damaged. i know better, and that its more akin to making a deal with the devil, where men are the devil.
interestingly, and very much related, this is what men appear to think of pregnancy: (remakes of) the chestbursting-alien scene from alien! i couldnt find the real one, but these will do.
which is even more reason for men to think women are LITERALLY RETARDED, literally insane, to voluntarily place themselves at risk by having intercourse with men. it also demonstrates what they think of people who are insane, when sane = man = human. as in, no sane person. no human person. no man. listening to men tell it, they seem to think pregnancy and aliens are very much related.
and while *i* accept that some women might desire pregnancy under some conditions, men seem to think that NO sane person would EVER voluntarily submit to it under ANY conditions, although they are assuming the continuation of patriarchy including patriarchal medicine and how it is deliberately used to support male power and to harm and damage pregnant, birthing and mothering women. of course they are.
tl;dr. slut shaming: its what men really think of women who voluntarily have sex with men, because men know that intercourse is damaging to women. also, the sexual “double standard” cannot be applied to radical analyses of policies and practices implicating “sex” and sex-based difference. in the context of “slut shaming”, a double-standard analysis is unhelpful liberal equality-rhetoric, nothing more.
Hate Song December 3, 2012Posted by FCM in entertainment, liberal dickwads, PIV, pop culture, thats random.
Tags: bruno mars, just the way you are, love songs, music, PIV
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.
And With That, The Entire House Came Crumbling Down November 26, 2012Posted by FCM in PIV, pop culture.
Tags: mythology, PIV, rogue waves, sea monsters, witch burning
oh how i wish this would just happen already! the internets have blown up with the PIV-critical talk — and this makes me so happy i cant even. of course, i doubt this will be the final throes of the PIV-as-sex paradigm — the one that has left literally billions of damaged, dead and dying female bodies in its wake across time and place — which makes me so sad i cant even. we will have to live like this for a bit i think, but how long is a “bit” really? things change on a dime (in some cases). that one piece of the puzzle finally clicks into place and the picture becomes clear — in some cases.
and did i mention men lie? they make shit up, they create realities that arent real. this makes our job harder, but moving through mental molasses is still movement.
an illustration. what does this image conjure for any of us when we see it:
sea monsters arent real mkay. so what are these images a placeholder for? whats really going on, and what are men lying about exactly when they create these elaborate scenarios and images that attempt to explain real phenomena but with the added “twist” of building males up and increasing male power, and stumping for men and a pro-male agenda, whatever that means at the time?
in the case of the mythology of the sea monster…an entire false history complete with evocative imagery and compulsory emotionality/sentimentality seems to have been written by men to explain away entire ships — hundreds of them — being lost at sea, possibly due either to bad seamanship or to rogue waves.
according to the history channel, historically, when not-incompetent seafaring men reported seeing or being damaged by one of these “monster waves” — assuming they survived at all — the other men laughed at them, and called them drunks or worse. so the men just started making shit up. because they could, you see. men create reality; the rest of us just live in it.
in the case of the seamonster, men created an incredibly rich, vivid and yet as it turns out completely false
reality narrative that *kind of* explained what had happened, but which made them look better than the actual, real truth, and deflected the blame away from them onto something — anything! — else. only when other men found “scientific evidence” of rogue waves did anyone start believing they were real, and (happily!) this truth was exculpatory of men and mens incompetence, and knowing that, men started widely reporting the actual real truth about rogue waves and the part they play in anyones reality.
i find it particularly striking that rogue waves are known to take out the masts of ships — knowing how frequently we see images of seamonsters grabbing onto the masts of ships.
and speaking of rich, vivid and yet completely false narratives, what of this:
feel the emotion and history there? so do i. unfortunately though, just like in the case of the seamonsters, this “history” — of PIV and what it is and what it means — is not real. we are left to deal with the fact that this imagery and this history feels real, and is physically and emotionally evocative — of something made-up, that never happened. talk about a mindfuck. does it help to understand that men do this all the time? that they invent imagery and entire histories of things that feel or seem real — and that deliberately somewhat-correspond to actual events — but which never actually happened in real life? because they do.
feel that? feel the witchy history there, the evocative narrative, the sounds, the smells, the emotions and all of it? thats intentional. but its not real. srsly, how do they do that — how is emotion and history manufactured so easily and so effectively? i cant say i fully understand the mechanism, but look — “witches” were mainly women — regular women. witches cauldrons were for cooking, a cauldron is just a big pot, get it? and all women had one in their homes. brooms were for sweeping, (not for flying ffs) and all or almost all women had one in the house. just like we do today. get it?
mens ability to rewrite this and to have their lying-ass version of history just last and last is terrifying, it really is. think of these examples as mansplanations, perhaps — and then realize how malicious and malevolent mansplanations really are. men lie. and men kill women on purpose, and lie about it, including inventing evocative histories bursting with sentimentality and emotion which deflect our intellect and imagination to where men want them, instead of on the real actual truth. and this of course includes the truth about PIV and what it means for female-bodied people across time and place.
in the case of the seamonsters, the actual, real truth was exculpatory of men, so men were more than happy to report the truth when they finally knew it. but this is *not* the case with accused witches and what men did to them because they wanted to and because they could — that history has been trivialized, and all but completely erased. and it is not the case with PIV either. the truth will never be reported, by them. the picture will never finally come into focus, relying on that one critical piece of information, supplied by them. we have to do this ourselves, or it will never be done. and once the truth is out, we will probably have to work very hard to preserve it.
On Gay Transmen July 8, 2012Posted by FCM in feminisms, gender roles, health, PIV, pop culture, trans.
Tags: gay transmen, trans
anti-feminists frequently demand that radical feminists address the problem of transmen when we are addressing transgender — as if transmanism and transwomanism have very much to do with each other, even though they really dont. unsurprisingly, the transman “problem” — that is to say the concept of transmanism as well as the different problems that transgender is supposed to solve for individual FAABs — falls directly in line with addressing the problems of females as a sexual class, around the world. ie. we do address them, all the time. transmen’s problems line up with womens problems and would be solved if feminism succeeded — there would be no remaining problem that transitioning would solve. that means that for women, transitioning is a proposed solution for patriarchal problems only.
whereas transwomen’s “problems” would not be solved if feminism succeeded — that means transwomens problems are male problems, and do not implicate male power or womens oppression by men, which are the kinds of problems feminists are interested in solving. post-patriarchy, transwomen would definitely not be let into female-only space, for example. and insofar as transwomen depend on global female oppression to define and maintain their identities, and depend on subjugated females on which to model their feminine behaviors, and insofar as born-women not coddling transwomen is a “problem” for transwomen, transwomens problems will actually be made worse when and if patriarchy falls, because they would not be able to express their gender properly, the entire concept — or the parts of which are dependent on female oppression — having been abolished. and because NO ONE would put up with their shit.
honestly, how many women post-patriarchy would agree to nurse mewling, howling manbabies under any circumstance, particularly trying to do so while juggling six cans of mace and genuflecting before the mighty phallus? its exhausting, and not even the fun-fems, i daresay, would put one second or one ounce of their time or energy into that endeavor, suddenly finding themselves free to spend their time as they wished, and without the fear of male violence. i myself have already decided that if patriarchy falls, i plan to turn cartwheels down the street until my hands bleed, then sleep on the beach for a week while i decompress, and contemplate how im going to spend my days from that point forward. but i digress.
anyway, my initial point is that if your problems would be made worse — rather than solved — if patriarchy fell, you are a man.
moving on, to address the very pressing problem of “gay transmen” may i offer the following: PIV criticism. yes thats right, gay transmen — heterosexual fucking is, indeed, problematic for women — you are right about that. you absolutely arent imagining it.
just for fun — and everyone likes fun! — try this on, gay transmen, and see if any of it fits.
you hate how straight men fuck, but you still want to fuck men. right? welcome to female heterosexuality.
you hate how straight men use sex to terrorize their female-bodied partners by giving us pregnancy scares and having a deliberately contrarian libido which never, ever matches ours. perhaps, you resent how your mother and everyone always told you that “all men want is sex” but then once you started having it yourself, you realized that men really dont want to fuck that often — just enough to make you afraid you are pregnant every month, but never enough to give you any real pleasure. yes? welcome to female heterosexuality. thats pretty much the definition of it.
or, perhaps you, gay transmen, dont really want to fuck that often, but your male partner wants it all the time? welcome to female heterosexuality. (if not having intercourse that often is something that “gay transmen” even want, which i doubt — is it homophobic (or misandric) of me to observe thats not how gay male culture generally works, especially the part about trolling gay bars? oh well). seriously, im thinking these women want frequent intercourse, and they find heterosexual fucking seriously lacking in that regard, but what do i know, having been there and done that myself? its just a hunch.
at any rate, you want to fuck men, but you dont want all the baggage that comes with straight fucking, for females. i get it. but looking at the big picture (aka. context) reveals that thing you want is what all women want — to have our sexuality include sexual pleasure and to exclude reproductive pain. if you noticed that heterosexual fucking doesnt work like that, well, you arent alone. it doesnt make you a gay male though, sorry.
also, having intercourse for pleasures sake — considering the harm it does to female-bodied persons — is anti-feminist, and that cannot be remedied.
anyway, criticism of heterosexual fucking and the problems it presents for female-bodied persons is not new. radical feminists have been addressing this for decades, but the trans horde does not want transmen or anyone to know about that. in fact, transgender activism specifically demands that PIV-critical radical feminists be silenced, and their work erased from the face of the earth. it would behoove transmen — and all women — to consider why that is.