jump to navigation

The Patriarchal Intent and Effect (i.e. The Purpose) of Transgenderism January 25, 2013

Posted by FCM in international, meta, politics, pop culture, rape, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

the video the transactivists are apparently trying to censor/silence:

like all man-made social processes and systems, we must assume that trannyism — and the social, legal and medical implications of trannyism — serves a patriarchal purpose.  that is, that the intent and effect of trannyism as a social phenomenon is to ultimately benefit men at womens expense.  intent can be proven circumstantially of course — even in the case of unanticipated side effects, once the previously-unknown or unknowable result becomes known, if one doesnt like the outcome, one is free to stop reproducing it.  and obviously if one continues to produce the now-known, now-anticipated result, its because one likes it, needs it, wants it, benefits from it.

in other words, the intent can be deduced from the result — to understand what was intended, you need only examine the end effect, especially when that end-effect is reproduced again and again and again and again.  and such is the case with transgender.  and i think enough time has gone by, from the beginning of modern trannyism until now, that we can identify and examine its patriarchal intent and effect.  what has been the point of all this?

for the sake of expediency, and because they are related, lets review the effect of liberal feminist equality-activating while we are at it — and this includes allegedly radical feminists who build theory and practice around the equation women = men and men = women in the various ways they do, whether purposely or accidentally.  for example, the oft-repeated “womens sex role under patriarchy as fuckholes and slaves isnt our natural state, therefore mens sex role as rapists and slaveowners isnt natural to men either.”  srsly, please stop saying that.

thanks to equality-activating, feminist consciousness-raising — whereby feminists have met for decades in women-only space to discuss our “personal” and understand that our personal is political — is now illegal in many places.  because it is discriminatory against men.  mkay?  its illegal.  the tool that women have reported was the single most effective in our feminist toolshed for understanding sexual politics, and the mechanisms of male interpersonal and institutional power and therefore of womens oppression by men, and meeting and be-friending women for that matter, and be-ing able to be together, unshaven if we wanted to, and for once in our fucking lives not having to worry about dick-pleasing the dick-people — this could land us in jail (as rape-fodder) or leave us open to civil liability stripping us of financial security, where financially destitute women under patriarchy are — you guessed it — rape fodder.

in short, our previously female-only safe space functions as the queue to a raperoom now — rape via jail or poverty — because of equality-activating which has made it illegal to discriminate against men based on sex.  i understand that we might notve seen that one coming — its breathtakingly dastardly afterall.  but it happened.

in fact, the only way to do this “right” is to let men in — especially predatory men who wont hear our “no” and who invoke the misogynist legal system to bypass our consent.  our newly defiled female-only-safe-space-which-includes-men-now is the raperoom proper — because predatory men are there, and they have complete power and we dont.  the threat of rape is real and imminent — if we do it right, following mens rules to the letter, the rape-threat is not symbolic, or even attenuated at all.  the rapists are really, actually there, in the flesh as it were.  get it?

and thanks in particular to trannyism, in certain places in the world, women can no longer publicly discuss female biology because its transphobic.  we can no longer publicly say that females are uniquely oppressed by males, and that womens oppression globally is directly related to males exploiting female reproductive biology through mandatory intercourse and rape — even though that is true.  this is radfem 101 — it is the essence of sexual politics, and the only truly rigorous, honest and revolutionary discourse that has ever existed anywhere at any time, because it isolates and examines the mechanisms of male power and of womens oppression by men.  discussing sexual politics is illegal now.

we can still mention fucking and rape of course, as long as we cast them in a depoliticized (favorable) light.

and because of legal protections for transgendered males, we can no longer publicly organize in women-only spaces that exclude transgendered males; and when seeking public services such as shelters and rape-crisis services, in some places, women have no choice but to submit to cohabitating with and being thought-policed and reprogrammed (therapized) by men who have everything to gain from thought-policing and reprogramming women.  all of this due to laws designed to protect transgendered persons — or so they say.

and as often happens around the same time legal changes take hold, like oh say civil rights protections for american blacks (black males) making black males more or less ethically equal to white males now, (and where racism against black males is unethical) our ethics around “sex-discrimination” have changed too, and the result is that we cant “ethically” discriminate against men in private either, in our private spaces and even in the privacy of our own minds.  we are expected to thought-police ourselves, censor ourselves.  this is the worst kind of totalitarian oppression — the extreme controls on persons in public and private is the thrust of a totalitarian regime so well-described by orwell in 1984.

between equality-activism and trannyism, the effect has been to render radical feminism — and only radical feminism, which includes both consciousness-raising in female-only space and discussing sexual politics including the politics of reproductive biology — both illegal and unethical, in certain places of the world.  more importantly, its made it increasingly dangerous to *be* or to practice radical feminism, putting women who do it at increased risk of being raped by men.  raped, in particular, see?  this was deliberate of course.

in short, legal protections for males — and in particular, criminalizing or penalizing women for discriminating against men — puts women at increased risk of being raped by men.  savvy?  it really couldnt be more obvious.  thats what trannyism does, and therefore we can (must) conclude that thats what trannyism is for.  its also why equality-activating has been allowed for as long and to the extent it has been.

it is in this context too that we must examine the overtly rapey behavior of transgendered persons individually.  it is all connected, where the patriarchal purpose and effect of trannyism as a whole and in its individual parts *is* rape, and womens increased vulnerability to being raped by men — and being forbidden to talk *or think* about what rape means politically.

as a political strategy, to maintain the historical record of our work, our understanding and our resistance via our archives, i agree with the vidder above that “mirroring” trans-critical videos and distributing them widely is probably a good idea.  that is all.

Moron Issue Framing. Or, Why Male Violence Against Women and Children Survives a Cost-Benefit Analysis December 19, 2012

Posted by FCM in logic, politics, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

the responses to recent calls for banning firearms in the wake of the sandy hook elementary school annihilation are stupefying.  heres one now, from some allegedly pro-feminist dood equating male violence against other men with male violence against women and children.  stupefying!  or the even more stupefying “what about the pens!” argument: men will use any object as a weapon, (link within to a “school massacre” where the man used a hammer against children — and all the children survived their injuries, get it?) therefore we are obligated to make mens job of annihilating large numbers of women and children easier by giving them access to guns.  what?

now, obviously, gun control is a harm-reduction strategy only.  lets be clear about that: women generally are not so stupid as to ever believe that we can eliminate the problem of violent men, and reducing or eliminating mens access to guns will not cure or even reduce the problem of violent men.  we have been in mens crosshairs since before there was such a thing as crosshairs mkay?  we know guns arent really the problem, but to suggest a real solution (eliminating or reducing the number of men, or female separatism) garners us rape and death threats and worse.  some of us do it anyway, because the problem of male violence against women is so ghastly and so penetrating and so real that it makes very little difference whether the threats against us are made more-overt.  they are overt already.

and i am about as disinterested in harm-reduction strategies as anyone could possibly reasonably be: which means that i am very interested in them, and i do think about them, but i dont like to waste my time writing or talking about them.  other people can and do perform that function better than i ever could, and i am happy to let them — i invest my time and talent elsewhere, because thats what *i* do best.  mkay?  but look.  even *i* cannot stand by whilst people make the same idiotic remarks on this issue, making false equivalences, stinking the place up with equality-rhetoric and worse.  this is maddening.  maddening!  so allow me to try to help, if i may.

the problem, i think, is that in mainstream and even “feminist” discussions of male violence, there are several issues being discussed as if they are one issue, or different issues being discussed as if they are the same.  when they arent the same at all.  firstly, male violence against women is a different animal than male violence against other men.  mkay?  because women do not equal men and men do not equal women.  women are the oppressed class, men are the oppressors.  women are impregnated while men impregnate.  get it?  different, not the same.  we have to assume meaningful sex-based difference, i think, and work from there, lest we fall into obfuscating and male-centric equality-rhetoric accidentally.  if there are no meaningful sex-based differences implicated, thats one thing, but there frequently are.

secondly, from womens perspective, male violence against other men is bad too, but our reasons for thinking so are not mens reasons, or they cannot be assumed to be the same or even similar.  okay?  because women are not men and men arent women.  clearly, if the issue of male violence against either women or men was the same issue for us as it is for them, women and feminists would probably care about it as much as men seem to care about solving the problem of male violence, including the problem of male violence against other men, which is to say we wouldnt care about it much at all.  except to use it to derail, obfuscate and negate womens calls to reduce or eliminate male violence against women perhaps, like old tremblay did there with his “what about the pens?”  its pretty useful for that.

to wit, i think we need to realize and accept that everything man-made that currently exists, exists because it has been found by men to survive a cost-benefit analysis.  male violence against other men survives a cost-benefit analysis, and male violence against women survives a cost benefit analysis.  to men.  if it didnt, they would stop doing it.  can we agree on that much at least?  if not, please detail any reasonable disagreements below.  i dont think there are any.

and when analyzing both sides of the equation of male violence against both women and men — the cost-side and the benefits-side — things like hierarchies, and power, and misogyny, and sadism, or the political usefulness of paralyzing fear might be too abstract to plug into a mathematical equation.  for the purposes of understanding the cost-benefit analysis men are obviously applying toward male violence, i keep coming back to the issue of “gynergy” which isnt abstract at all — where women consistently put their time, resources and literally our life-energies into the survival and growth of ourselves and our children, this can be measured.  when men kill *anyone* they are killing womens gynergy, and each child and indeed every adult is the embodiment of a real womans gynergy: a 6 year old child represents 6 years (and 9 months) of its mothers time, resources and her very self.   a 50-year old, for that matter, represents 18 years (ok who are we kidding — the full 50…plus 9 months) of its mothers — and other womens! — gynergy.  when a man kills someone, to the killer and to all men, the victim may be no more valuable within mens value system than any other 200- (or 50-) pound meatbag, (whats even the most expensive meat worth? not much) but that is not the value of a human life to women, as a sexual class, around the world, now is it?

and thats just the beginning of the discussion, i think.  and the conclusions we will be forced to draw, when we analyze mens value system and compare it to ours, including the reasons for obvious difference will likely be devastating.  but we have to do it dont we?  at the very least we should probably shut the hell up if we cant make a decent observation about male violence so we dont confuse everyone.  but that is kind of the point of doing it, when you are a man.  right, tremblay?

male violence against women, and male violence against men, consistently survives a cost-benefit analysis to men and male supremacy — if it didnt, men would stop doing it.  its time we look at the equation they are using, to figure out how they keep getting the result they are getting.  and why we get a different result when we do the math.  and if it seems cold and calculated to think of it in these terms, blame men mkay?  if they werent all the time killing people, and obviously finding a net-gain to themselves in doing so, we wouldnt have to examine why that is, and whats in it for them, or to examine anyones values or the nature of our investments so closely.  but they are, so we do.  that is all.

Rock This Town November 13, 2012

Posted by FCM in feminisms, gender roles, health, logic, politics, pop culture.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

does anyone notice a difference when female vocalists cover this song, as compared to the original version where a man-band performs the exact same thing?  heres the original manly version:

maybe its just me, but im pretty sure that the women are actually talking about rocking. this town.  and that the man isnt, and therefore — since its his song — this song isnt a song about rocking.  this town.  its a song about something else entirely.

we have text, and subtext, you see.  text, and context.  text, and pretext.  the women are saying the words, but it just doesnt mean the same thing when they say it, because women arent rapey bastards swinging their male privilege — to rape and impregnate females — around and making rape culture and calling it culture.  women are something else entirely.

being that this is the case — and it is — i am just not going to get that excited about a woman who stumps for right-wing men by “covering” mens anti-abortion platform.  in fact, i am willing to give right-wing women the benefit of the doubt that when they say it, even when they parrot mens words exactly, the womens meaning is somewhat different.  i am willing to believe that unlike right-wing men, anti-abortion right-wing women really are talking about babies, and normalizing womens reproductive function rather than pathologizing it, and generally take into consideration a female perspective, including what it takes to reduce the harm to women of misogynistic and male-centric policies and practices under patriarchy.

the fact that it will not be womens intent, meaning, or interpretation of the words that carries the day and informs the political policy and practice — it will be mens — is not womens fault.  when men say “rock this town” it is mens meaning and interpretation that will carry the day, and impact the culture, even if that meaning is so misogynistic and offensive that most women would never even conceive of it.  and it often is.  which is the danger to women of covering male bands, and stumping for male-centric politics too.

ps.  sandra fluke is a handmaiden too, for stumping for leftist politics and for not telling the world exactly *why* women as a class so desperately need birth control.  and im not that excited about that, either, although the inconsistent policy and logic-fail of calling out palin but not fluke (or any number of left-wing dickpleasers like oh say gloria steinem) is a bit obvious.  that is all.

On Profundity and Zap-Actions. Or, ‘1984’ and the Stonewall Riots Were Just Bitching and Consciousness-Raising? Really? October 25, 2012

Posted by FCM in feminisms, meta, politics, pop culture.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

the importance of thinking and writing to any political movement goes without saying, and applies to all political movements except radical feminists activating towards the end of male supremacy.  when we do it, our most profound thinking and writing are dismissed as bitch-sessions, coffee-clatches, or even (mere) consciousness-raising, and the political potential of our work is dismissed out of hand.

now, regarding consciousness-raising, apparently, early radical feminists coined the term themselves, and they defined what they meant by that and the point for doing it: first, because of male supremacy and misogyny, all accepted knowledge including “scientific” studies of women are fundamentally flawed, so to understand women and our plight, we must study the original sources — us — ourselves.  for their part, early radical feminist activists decided to do both private “consciousness-raising sessions” and public consciousness-raising actions.  being experienced politickers themselves, they knew at the time that it was actually politically effective to do this, and that other (past, male) revolutions had done this too:

The purpose of consciousness-raising was to get to the most radical truths about the situation of women in order to take radical action; but the call for “action” can sometimes be a way of preventing understanding — and preventing radical action.  Action comes when our experience is finally verified and clarified.  There is tremendous energy in consciousness-raising, an enthusiasm generated for getting to the truth of things, finding out what’s really going on.  Learning the truth can lead to all kinds of action and this action will lead to further truths.[...]  In the end the group decided to raise its consciousness by studying women’s lives by topics like childhood, jobs, motherhood, etc.  We’d do any outside reading we wanted to and thought was important.  But our starting point for discussion, as well as our test of the accuracy of what any of the books said, would be the actual experience we had in these areas.  One of the questions…we would bring at all times to our studies would be — who and what has an interest in maintaining the oppression in our lives.

The kind of actions the groups should engage in, at this point, we decided…would be consciousness-raising actions — actions brought to the public for the specific purpose of challenging old ideas and raising new ones, the very same issues of feminism we were studying ourselves.  Our role was not to be a “service organization,” … nor a large “membership organization.”  What we were talking about being was, in effect…a “zap” action, political agitation and education group something like what the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (S.N.C.C.) had been.  We would be the first to dare to say and do the undareable, what women really felt and wanted.

a zap-action, or political agitation and education group.  i like the sound of that, dont you?  heres what old diki has to say about the tried-and-true zap-action:

Zaps typically included sudden onset against vulnerable targets, noisiness, verbal assaults and media attention. Tactics included sit-ins, disruptive actions and street confrontations.  [Quoting gay journalist and activist Arthur Bell] “Gays who have as yet no sense of gay pride see a zap on television or read about it in the press. First they are vaguely disturbed at the demonstrators for “rocking the boat”; eventually, when they see how the straight establishment responds, they feel anger. This anger gradually focuses on the heterosexual oppressors, and the gays develop a sense of class-consciousness. And the no-longer-closeted gays realize that assimilation into the heterosexual mainstream is no answer: gays must unite among themselves, organize their common resources for collective action, and resist.”

isnt that interesting.  rocking the boat, leads to attracting negative attention from the oppressor class, leads to righteous anger and a sense of class-consciousness among the oppressed, leads to political organization and resistance, and change.  how political!  how profound!  you know, when men do it.

note that the “tactics” of the zap-action can and do differ, and that sit-ins and street confrontations (for example) might work more or less well depending on the political and physical realities of the oppressed.  in 1968, it was decided that picketing the miss america pageant would be a good use of one feminist groups time, so they did this.  what was the effect in the short or long term of that particular action?  i dont know, but the image of “bra-burning” harpies is forever etched in the collective consciousness, for better or worse.  im sure it had more effects than that, and anyone who knows what those are is free to elucidate in the comments…

for our purposes, it should be noted that writing and naming the agent — in publicly-accessible forums — seems to fulfill the requirements of the zap-action nicely, and the response of the oppressor class would seem to be the proof of that one (isnt it?).  indeed, any and all women having the audacity to exist in online (public) spaces are attracting the ire of their male oppressors — this needs to be contextualized, and the political implications seen and known.  for women, speaking publically is “rocking the boat.”  mens response to it *is* the response of the oppressor class.

for radical feminist writers, perhaps particularly today, we dont even need to leave our homes to accomplish what is obviously an effective political action — this a good thing, considering what men the world over would love to do to us, should they ever get their hands on us.  and considering that they would do much of this violence to us in private, and no one would ever see or know about it, so there would be no political effect of their response at all.  we would just be silenced (or dead) like so many uppity women before us.

to clarify, sitting in your living room (or on facebook) privately, with other women, is consciousness-raising and is important, but actually writing stuff for public consumption is exactly the kind of radical action that is known to be politically effective, inciting actual change.  what we are doing here might feel like bitching in someones living room, and there are indeed some similarities, and there is indeed an individual or local-feeling consciousness-raising effect to writing radical feminist material and presenting it for public consumption.  but that is not all it is.

anyone who knows more about the import of political writing is invited to discuss this in the comments.  thank you.

The Obliterating False Equivalence August 7, 2012

Posted by FCM in liberal dickwads, logic, meta, MRAs, politics, pop culture, radical concepts, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
comments closed

there is a special place in hell for writers who utilize the false equivalence when writing about radical feminists versus misogynists.  you writers know who you are — dont you?  for readers who need examples, try here and here.

its not just the intellectual laziness or even outright lying of the false equivalence generally that sticks in my craw, although those things are like sandpaper on my brain because they are, well, intellectually lazy.  and lies.  for real writers and thinkers, these things are the scene of a crime.  coming across one or the other while reading someone elses (or even your own — oops!) work is like stumbling upon a crime scene.  its a crime against writing and thinking.  i cannot overstate how violently criminal this is, like mens poetry which uses letters and words to obscure various truths, and to contort and obfuscate information rather than convey it.

in fact, men should not be allowed to be poets.  male poetry is obfuscating on its face.  there should not be any demand for this, being that the entire world is saturated with it — with males using words to obfuscate information rather than convey it — already.  and yet it still has value.  why?  plus, male poetry and all mens writing is almost always trite.  actually, if trite and obfuscating were negative criteria, men wouldnt be allowed to write anymore at all.

clearly, men using words to obfuscate information rather than convey it serves a purpose and thats where its value lies — its not that its in short supply, its that there can literally never be enough because of the size of the demand and the purpose it serves.  in the case of the false equivalence, when used against radical feminists, the purpose appears to be to wipe radical feminist work — and womens history, and the truths about what men do to us — from the face of the earth.

note the recent use of the obliterating false equivalence where moderators of an online forum — because they put an equals-sign in between a woman protesting rapey death threats from a misogynist, and that misogynist himself — deleted cathy brennan’s tumblr account.  yes, a woman protesting disgusting, misogynistic and likely psychotic and even criminal behaviors from a misogynistic male was said to be engaging in behavior that was equally violative of the terms of service as the rapey perv who threatened rape, and who dumpster-dives surveils, trespasses, loiters and stalks women and minor children to gain access to their discarded trash so he can perv on it, and writes about his exploits on tumblr.

these things are equal.

but obviously, the thing about putting an equals-sign after anything men do is that men do criminal things, violent things, in their global campaign to increase their own power at womens expense.  these criminal behaviors have misogynistic foundations and flavors, but they are criminal, and violative of the terms of service in many public and private places because of that.  because they are anti-social, and criminal.

so, when anyone says that womens response to what men are doing to us, is not only “just as bad” as what we are responding to but equal in every way — ie. not a response at all, but an ideology — and when the mens actions are criminal and violative of terms of service, the womens behavior suddenly becomes criminal and violative too.  radical feminism becomes a “hateful ideology” too.  and as we saw in what was probably a perfect example of this dynamic playing out in real life, in the case of cathy brennan versus the rapey perv, the mods at tumblr deleted both accounts.  rapey perv’s account was (later) deleted too.  because equivalence.

so now, but for screenshots which were smartly collected beforehand, there is no evidence of what this rapey perv actually did.  that history is erased, along with the response of the victim, as well as multiple other radical and pro-radical voices on tumblr and elsewhere who were calling attention to what this man and men as a class were and are doing and saying.  its all gone.  importantly, any posts that were made about this and other rapey misogynists (not just him!) which contained links to cathy brennans tumblr as evidence that any of it ever happened now contain only dead links.  our archivists will now have to go back and painfully recreate this history, with screenshots and links to screenshots if these posts are to maintain their integrity/credibility and historical significance, at all.  note to self: screenshots and links to uploaded screenshots — rather than links to original sources — from now on.  fine.

of course, if the internet itself eventually goes *poof* and it well might, all of this history — the history of what men do to us, and the ways we respond — will be lost forever.  it will be like none of it never happened.  in the meantime, tumblr, and all mainstream internet forums and publications are doing what mainstream forums and publications always do, which is to write and rewrite history, and to erase mens misogyny and criminality and womens response to it now, in real time.

the obliterating false equivalence and putting an equals-sign in between radical feminism and misogyny and misogynistic violence is probably the best tool in the shed to use towards that specific ends, and anyone using it — and i do mean anyone — is guilty of the crime of propagandizing and falsifying history, and erasing womens history and womens work from the face of the earth.  you are in excellent company, arent you, with government censors, witchburners, and all manners of rapists and colonizers generally.  if thats not what you want, check yourself, and stop doing it.  if thats exactly what you want, then by all means.  continue.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 345 other followers