jump to navigation

= Necrophilia June 6, 2013

Posted by FCM in logic, pop culture, porn, radical concepts, rape, trans.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

one week into it, i can report that the new mens search terms blog has been eye opening.  specifically, in preparing the first hundred or so posts to go live, having a lot of data to review at the same time made it very easy to categorize mens search terms into their general themes, and to realize that there are indeed parameters within which men seem to be operating when they go online.  mens depravity is not random, in other words, and its not individualized, despite what everyone else seems think or at least say.  there are patterns and constants, and as creative as men are when it comes to envisioning and perpetrating violence and abuse, its all very much the same if you can just get your head around it.

their deviance doesnt deviate.  get it?  which means that we arent dealing in deviant behavior (or thought) at all, but rather we are observing males operating within male norms. from what i can tell from the data i have, the norms are as follows, and these are the “categories” of the search terms on the new blog:

autogynephilia; bestiality; castration/SRS; excrement; holocaust; inanimate objects; incoherent (but within sexual or violent contexts or both); men hate trannies; men will stick their dicks into anything; necrophilia; pedophilia; porn actress injuries; rape; sexualized racism; terrorism; things that don’t exist; torture; trafficking/slavery.

thats 18 general categories of “porny” search terms, and these 18 represent the gist of very nearly all the porny search terms we came across.  the ones we left out as not falling into any of the 18 categories were very generic such as “fucking porn” or “violent porn” for example which had no relevance to this project, where all the search terms were pornographic and/or referred to sexualized violence (male violence against women, specifically womens breasts and genitals).

and some of these do overlap such as “rape” which can and does constitute “torture”.  this overlap is especially obvious if it includes torture directed at female genitals above and beyond “mere” unwanted penetration (which is also torture).  for example, when men rape girl children and babies, this counts as both rape and torture due to the extreme size differential and the problem of putting a large object into an especially small opening/organ.  and filming a rape or other sexual offense would also constitute terrorism, as it is meant to terrorize women as a sexual class as well as producing a terrorizing effect on the victim who can never escape the predatory men who will use the images of her rape/torture forever, and even search for or recognize her in real life.

anyway, this is how the categories are being used, but what one also notices when viewing the extreme depravity of these search terms — and when considering the 18 categories and the ways they overlap — is that necrophilia seems to be the common denominator, or the one category that encompasses most if not all the rest.

for example, extreme violence is not compatible with life; therefore extreme violence could be said to be necrophilic.  references to disembodied body parts, including sexualized body parts such as vaginas and anuses, are references to necrophilia because living beings cannot be separated from their parts without it killing them, or without being placed at extreme risk of death.  raping babies — pedophilia — is incompatible with the babies life, and indeed often kills them.  castration and “nullification” of genitals is incompatible with life, or at least it is incompatible with creating life.

and on that note, i actually dont have much of a problem with men who castrate themselves — more of them probably should — but one cannot escape the fact that castration has necrophilic connotations.  thats the point really.  castration can also constitute torture, or medical torture, and torture is incompatible with life.  and infertile/castrated (or simply unable to gestate) males taking the place of females — nullification of class female, in other words — is obviously incompatible with life, womens lives and indeed all life everywhere.  we end up there, no matter how we look at it.

and in reality, what is the “porn” context itself if not a necrophilic context?  porn itself is not compatible with life, or more specifically with female life.  we see this incompatibility play out where the average “life” of a female porn actor is months only, before she is forced to leave the industry forever.  and thats assuming she survives at all.

of course, we also know that PIV itself is necrophilic the way men do it.  it is incompatible with life — incompatible with womens lives, childrens lives, and indeed the entire world has been polluted and violated to its breaking point by men, sticking their dicks into women, and “creating” literally billions of unwanted or ambivalent children across time and place.  pro-creation is actually destructive when men are allowed to do it the way *they* want it done, and when control over reproduction is taken out of womens hands and placed into mens.  men use absolutely everything (including procreation) towards one ends — to destroy.

and in case anyone thinks this sounds familiar (“i cant do anything right!”) it does, doesnt it?  (poor men — i can see how this could hurt their feelings.  we cut off our dicks — necrophilia!  if we keep our dicks (and use them) its necrophilia too!)  but the fact of the matter is, yes, everything men do is necrophilic.  literally.  everything.  perhaps especially when what they are doing is porn, or within a pornographic context, including PIV, rape, pedophilia, castration, bestiality, torture, terrorism, trafficking/slavery etc.

tangentially, the revelation of one partners “inability to do right” is often what happens at the end of a relationship, isnt it?  im just saying.

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.

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.

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.

Finally, A Use For These Graphics! January 15, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, meta, radical concepts, rape, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed


i recently read 3 books by sonia johnson completely out of order like i always do — last summer i read her most recent “sisterwitch conspiracy” and just now i read “going out of our minds: the metaphysics of liberation” and then “wildfire”.  and i still havent read her first and most well-known “from housewife to heretic” — heres another bloggers post on that.

i have reported elsewhere that i found “sisterwitch” to be exceedingly silly *and* that it changed my thinking forever.  specifically, her use of animal imagery and visions, and describing women talking to each other in the kitchen encouraging dialog by repeating “right on!” a lot — along with being self-published in a very large font made it seem too easy.  or something?  the silliness was evident immediately, and the drastic and yet *easy* changes came later.  i dont know her, but i suspect she might think my rather, uh, conflicted response to her book was funny.  :)  and indeed it is.

from “sisterwitch” came the very simple (!!!) idea that i have been riffing off for months, that women do not equal men and men do not equal women.  and indeed they do not.

the other two…well i would say they are both exceedingly silly as well, and also extremely timely.  like cutting edge, up to the second timely — more on that below.  which is also funny considering that they are old (1980s!  dinosaurs!) and i read them out of order and she implicates literal time more than once — its part of the plot, you see.  time.


in both “going out of our minds” and “wildfire”, she talks about her involvement in what americans were calling “feminism” in the 1980s — among other things, trying to get the equal rights amendment (ERA) passed.  she notes that, despite a hearty response from many women, it was bizarrely difficult to get most or all women involved in much of this politicking — it was almost as if most women knew it was pointless.  instead of assuming that womens overworkedness or paralysis or lack of gas money or whatever explained their flat refusal to drop whatever they were doing and get onboard, she trusted women, and wondered to herself if there was something wrong with the actions themselves.  in the end, she decided there was something fundamentally wrong with the actions — male-centric politicking is worse than useless for women, and will never liberate women from male dominance.

oh, and P.S.  roe v wade essentially shored up patriarchy in the US, and singlehandedly defeated the womens liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s.  wha?!  in “wildfire” she explains her take on it, which is that the deal to legalize abortion was a sedative to womens righteous anger and (therefore) a poison that killed feminism.  men are laughing at us to this day for taking this deal, in fact.  we have shown them that we can be bought.  and prostitution — and womens pain and unspeakable suffering — is terribly funny innit?  this answers some recent questions i had about how women involved back then couldve “felt” that revolution was afoot, but in the end it turned out not to have been a revolution at all.  (well it answers that for american feminists anyway — whats the rest of the worlds excuse?)

i also suspect that it was women hanging out in women-only safe space while discussing these reforms that made the possibility of a real revolution seem so real — it was real, so long as they were in the room, get it?  as soon as they left, and went back to talk with the men or bargain with the men or negotiate, debate and literally plead (their case) to men, it was all over — as with all deals, when one is dealing with the devil, the “deal” of legalized abortion was a dead-end.  it was the (dead) end of the women-only organizing that was taking place around it, and it was a political deadend too — men could take away this alleged “gain” at any time and they all knew it, and just thinking about it got the men even harder and even rapier than they were before.

to sedate womens rage and kill feminism — and to get men even harder and even rapier — was the plan, of course, and women were the only ones who didnt know it at the time.  because men lie.  and they will never do anything that undermines patriarchy or lessens male power, or that actually increases womens power, ever.


indeed, instead of taking this deal, american feminists wouldve been better off staying mad and staying focused on womens liberation, and telling men to go fuck themselves (or implying it) while we taught each other how to perform abortions on each other.  wouldnt we?  if we had done that, and conserved our energy and kept on in the direction in which we were headed we mightve been well on our way to being liberated by now.  but we didnt.  live and learn?  or…lather, rinse, repeat endlessly?  she suggests the former: that we thank the women who came before us for showing us that reformist politicking and deal-making are incompatible with womens liberation, and that we move on.


on the subject of this being very timely, besides the fact that all radical feminism is always timely because it addresses the ways that women are oppressed as women across time and place, it doesnt take much to see the ways that liberal politicking continues to not-work today, as least as much as it didnt-work back then.  for all the alleged “gains” we have made over the last 200 years, today, like earlier this week (and every minute of every day since) women are being censored and silenced, and im not talking about the goddamned first amendment mkay — i am talking about patriarchy, and men as a sexual class silencing women as a sexual class, including women who say or do anything that legitimately challenges patriarchy and mens entitlement to abuse and penetrate and harass and lord-over women.

i think this “silencing” includes mens raping and murdering us too, including the recent gang-rapes — mens constant rape and death threats against women who do speak up (or, you know, go out) kind of give that one away.  and i think that the medias treatment of these recent gang rapes is meant to silence us too.  so i have to ask dont i, what progress?  what the hell progress have we even made, and what evidence is there that things have even stayed the same, or have definitely *not* gotten worse?  this is a serious question.  i think things have gotten worse, and that this is obvious and demonstrable.  if someone disagrees, prove it.

and furthermore, thanks to equality-activating, we cant organize in women-only space anymore either.  or, we cannot legally do this in some places, and are unable to “ethically” do it anywhere else.  because poor men.  that we continue to do this anyway goes to womens spirit, womens soul, and our intuition, or something, and at any rate our seemingly unassailable desire and commitment to meeting with each other in women-only space.  we *know* how important this is and we keep activating for this.  *all* women around the world (except fun-fems apparently) know how important women-only space is, if women are to survive patriarchy.  survive in it, and survive despite it, and survive it — we plan to outlive (Out/Live?) it.  for this, we go to each other dont we?

call it “strategizing” or consciousness-raising or coordinating your upcoming congressional testimony, whatever.  what if what *felt* so revolutionary about the feminism of the past — from the perspective of the women who were there, and who felt they were on the cusp of a real revolution (sonia johnson felt it too) — was that they were in women-only space or nearly women-only space, talking about and imagining being free?  what if they had actually achieved what they were looking for…and the only mistake they made was that they left the room to resume talking and dealing with men — and stayed out?

for my part, i am starting to believe that damn near anything is possible.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 324 other followers