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.
= Necrophilia June 6, 2013Posted by FCM in logic, pop culture, porn, radical concepts, rape, trans.
Tags: male violence, men's search terms, porn
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.