Tags: Deep Green Resistance News Service, DGR, Owen Lloyd
nope, not done with owen lloyd yet! somethings been bothering me about that rape-article he wrote, and its the title. Steven Pinker and the Depoliticization of Rape. the depoliticization of rape. depoliticization of rape. depoliticization. of. hmm. has steven pinker attempted to or succeeded in depoliticizing rape? having not read steven pinker and only having owen lloyds cherry-picked quotes as evidence of whether he did or didnt, i have to wonder if owen lloyd even knows what “depoliticization” means. (according to google, it means “To remove the political aspect from; remove from political influence or control.”)
query: if there is a natural/innateness component to men raping girls and women across time and place, is *that* in itself enough to depoliticize it? or, if women started responding to men as a class as if men as a class were rapists, which they are, would womens response be apolitical?
lets discuss. first, rape is a politicized act, its true. there are political aspects and consequences to men raping girls and women across time and place, and yes there is a war on (woron?) in case anyone didnt get the memo. but the political aspects of rape do not start and end there. rape causes unwanted pregnancy in women, and men have set it up so that the big-3 of their patriarchal institutions — medicine, religion, and law — all attach to womens bodies and lives at the moment of conception. and make no mistake — these are political consequences mkay, where political means
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: “Calling a meeting is a political act in itself” (Daniel Goleman).3. Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.4. Interested or active in politics: I’m not a very political person.5. Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution.6. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives.
check out numbers 1 and 6 in particular. 1 is obvious, but 6 is interesting. self-serving objectives. it serves men as a class that (patriarchal) medicine, religion and law all attach to womens bodies and womens lives at the moment of conception — thats why. they. did. it. it does not have to be this way, but men have made it this way to benefit themselves; they have granted themselves the power to open the door to formal, institutional and state control of women by impregnating us.
so, if there were a biological/innateness component to men raping us, would that remove these consequences? no, it would not. men have created these consequences out of whole cloth and they intend to keep them in place forever, where men have also granted themselves the sole power to remove them or not. get it? politics. in fact, in order to depoliticize rape in this way, men would also have to agree to depoliticize intercourse at the same time. because medicine, religion and law attach to womens bodies and womens lives at the moment of conception regardless of whether we are impregnated through consensual intercourse or rape.
put another way, if the men who had the power to do this were to say “we hereby remove all mechanisms by which male institutions control pregnancy and pregnant women” and then did it, this would at least partially depoliticize rape. of course, it would also depoliticize intercourse, and we would all be forced to see (or willfully ignore, albeit a bit more obviously at that point) how the political intent and effect of intercourse and rape have actually been the same this whole time — to control women — and that men made it this way. politics.
and what if women started avoiding men like the plague they (historically and currently) are? owen lloyd says steven pinker advocates women doing this, although frankly i dont trust owen lloyd to accurately summarize anyones writing or their intent. owen lloyd also suggests that *if* women did this, it would not and indeed could not be a political move on our part — it would be us apolitically “adapting” to rape culture which we shouldnt do because victim-blaming and not only that, black (male) civil rights movement. hmm.
welp. how about this, owen lloyd. since you (or was it pinker?) suggested it, what if women did start avoiding men and we do this both individually (because its the only way we can) and collectively (a happy coincidence of the former) until men remove the political consequences to women of men raping us. would this be political enough a response for you? in practice this would mean until you remove religious, legal and medical mandates, controls and standards of care from the pregnant, laboring, lactating (and childrearing — as long as we’re at it) female body. of course this means turning over all control of these things to women, as we discussed here.
when and if you do this, we might come back. not that you ever (ever, ever, ever) would, which makes this useful primarily as a thought exercise, but if you did remove the political implications of rape to girls and women, perhaps then we could address the gnatty little issue of whether rape is *only* political, or traditionally political, or whether it would still exist if it werent so politically invasive, controlling and damaging to us. in other words if rape were just (!!!) “forced sex” (meaning forced intercourse and impregnation) and stopped being “the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders.” (yes, perhaps *then* we could discuss it — if thats okay with you? jeebus.)
this is what the partial* depoliticization of rape looks like owen lloyd, so you know what it looks like if and when you see it. considering that you will likely never see it of course, and certainly never from another male, including steven pinker BTW, from your perspective its probably a largely useless tool. and i shall end on that note because thats just funny.
*i say “partial” because we havent even addressed yet whether traditional political controls are the end-all be-all of the politicization of rape, where men rape women to serve themselves, and where men demonstrate daily that orgasm (and necrophilia) is largely its own reward.
Revisiting SCUM July 5, 2013Posted by FCM in books!, pop culture.
Tags: SCUM manifesto, valerie solanas, women's culture, women's writing
as probably everyone knows, valerie solanas shot pop-artist and celebrity andy warhol in 1968. he survived his injuries and went on being andy warhol for another 20 years. he didnt seem that upset about being shot — according to him, life was unreal anyway, he was incapable of experiencing emotion which television portrayed as strong and real but this did not match his own reality at all. his “art” was flat and commercial, revealing no inner life or imagination at all. one art critic said warhol was brilliant in his function as a mirror, reflecting our own (flat, commercial) culture back at us. culture meaning patriarchy or male culture of course, which is indeed flat and commercial. and dead. necrophilic, if you will. warhol was an inanimate object perfectly reflecting death — and this was a favorable review!
may i suggest here that andy warhol was also a walking target for other men? especially if they knew they could get away with it, how many men would’ve killed warhol themselves if given the chance? a certain segment of the (male) population would’ve happily killed him for being the son of immigrants, another would’ve killed him for being gay, another group would’ve done it while they were robbing him — he was very wealthy you know. and jealousy. or because his art sucked (the critics largely hated him). there are a million “reasons” men have for killing other men of course, but if one looks closely enough, and taking into consideration mens necrophilia generally, one might see that most (all) of these arent really reasons at all, but justifications. like, what if being gay (or whatever) isnt a reason to kill someone but a justification applied either before or after the fact to something a man simply wants to do and does? that would kind of turn things on their head wouldnt it?
so back to solanas. she shot warhol, but didnt kill him. she was incarcerated for 3 years for this and is remembered as one of the most hated women who ever lived because of what she did. or was it because of what she said? or both? note that men actually love it when women attempt to (or succeed in) maiming and killing men because that opens the door to formal, institutional and state control of us — it has nothing to do with valuing men which they clearly dont. men are simply and obviously of no value to other men, and indeed this is reflective of natural law whereby men are largely redundant, and where one woman is worth millions and even billions of men. this is the truth of the matter and men seem to understand this — whereupon they parasitically attach themselves to and leech off of women from cradle to grave (either their grave our ours).
so what could possibly be mens beef with valerie solanas and with women who dare read her and appreciate her work? (jeez, doods, thought-police much?) while the value of a man to another man (or a mans own value to himself) is approaching zero and they show us this all the time, women, since we are not men ourselves, must apply a cost-benefit analysis to determine mens worth — an objective, not a subjective valuation. for an objective valuation, the equation is benefit minus cost. isnt it? solanas named mens parasitic nature/behavior for what it is, and the concept of male parasitism falls squarely on the cost-side, and it is a devastating one. women report being life-sucked by men constantly but are mostly without words to describe this.
did valerie solanas dare identify/suggest objective criteria by which we might measure mens worth? oh dear. re-reading SCUM confirms that she did. men and mensworld are boring, fatherhood is destructive — and mens life-sucking parasitism — these things represent *costs* to women of living in mensworld and indeed of having men around at all. there is plenty of fertile radfem ground here and plenty to think about and discuss. but you know whats even more interesting to me at the moment? solanas’s SCUM manifesto was just a damn good read. it was interesting mkay? it was thought-provoking, audacious and clear.
yes thats right! valerie solanas, public enemy number one, gave women something interesting to read.