= 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.
Moron Creativity May 19, 2013Posted by FCM in books!, international.
Tags: anne llewellyn barstow, male violence, torture, witchcraze
we have discussed creativity before here. this post is more on that subject, and its also about men. get it? moron. i always assume people get that, but maybe its just me. sometimes i just make myself laugh and thats good enough, but as vonnegut once wrote, maybe people would like art more if the artist explained it a little?
i am currently reading about the witchcraze and one thing ive noticed, indeed its rather difficult not to, is that men were very creative in the ways they treated witches. more to the point, they were creative torturers. men came up with shit that would blow your mind if you only knew about it, and it *is* mindblowing to read about this stuff. its mindblowing in the same way as reading the work and ideas of any creative genius is mindblowing as a matter of fact. its shit you could never come up with yourself in a thousand years. of course, the destructiveness of mens torture, when coupled with the creativity of it creates a mindfuck experience as well. we have no words for this, as “create” and “destroy” are supposed to be opposites. but they arent. not for men anyway.
you see, i think its very obvious by now that men are creative torturers and creative destroyers. in light of recent conversations about the innateness of mens destructiveness and violence, the idea of creativity hits the right note. a good thing, too, because im getting sick of going around and around on this one. because all of us, i think, are quite aware that some people are just naturally gifted in certain areas, and that this giftedness cannot be taught. although we do not fully understand where natural giftedness comes from, we accept and admit that it is real. we are perfectly comfortable saying people are naturally gifted in certain areas, music, sculpting, cooking, that kind of thing. arent we? naturally. gifted.
welp. men, as history and experience shows, are gifted at torture. they really are. and torture is violence taken to an artform, its violence imagined, designed and implemented with creativity. isnt it? if we are going to use other artforms or abilities as analogies, we could say that a naturally gifted person (like a painter or an athlete) can be coached or inspired, and that the gift can be developed and helped along. but what we know we cant do is teach it. okay? creativity, and true creative talent, cannot be taught. it is innate, and we fucking well know this.
and as men are creative in the area of violence, otherwise known as torture, we can see that men are in fact naturally violent. i think this is indisputable, and again, that the proof of innateness is that they are able to be creative about it. they are gifted. and the existence and pervasiveness of torture, perpetrated by men, globally, across time is absolute proof of this natural propensity and that men share this innate tendency because they are men.
now. this does open up areas for discussion, and even hope. because just as we know that creativity can be nurtured, we also know it can be stunted. we can take away opportunities instead of providing them. leisure time, money, and an understanding of what is possible based on what other people have done in the field, for example, are used to increase and encourage creative pursuits, and withholding these things can be used to stunt them. we have lost many geniuses and natural creative talents this way in fact, and i daresay most of these lost geniuses were women due to womens general lack of all conditions and materials known to foster and nurture creativity. we do this to female talent all the time. and we have evidence, dont we, that creative talent can be stifled, if not snuffed out completely.
and now that ive thought this through a bit, i can see mens propensity for creative torture, including their torture devices everywhere. its not just the political torturers and witchhunters, although they might be extreme — that is, different in degree but not kind. womens clothing and shoes for example — known torture devices. “restraining orders” that are naught but a piece of flimsy paper, creating a mindfuck. get it? and humiliation. tampons and “pads that feel like diapers.” as mundane as this kind of torture is, it is still creative.
of course, i could go on and on. we all could because we all know. ex-husbands paying child support late every month, in order to make women squirm. by “sexualizing” intercourse, the only thing *in life* that creates unwanted pregnancy. that kind of thing. and in general by turning womens bodies against them in the many ways men do. indeed, the “body being turned against the agent whose body it is” is the whole point of torture and this is accomplished through both pain and fear (in male terms). of course, male bodies cant be literally hijacked, but ours can — through unwanted or forced pregnancy. if anyone needs examples of the creative ways men torture other men, just google. trigger warning for extreme and graphic (and creative!) male violence.
but what im also thinking is not whether but how and how soon we can stunt mens natural propensity for violence? if we cant do this, or if we dont want to, at least we know that it is possible. and understanding and accepting, knowing, that men choose to nurture their gift for creative torture and violence instead of stunting it, when we all know they could, is evidence of something too. oh yes it is. maybe, maybe just talking about this will help.
In Which I Make a Fantastical Leap May 8, 2013Posted by FCM in books!, gender roles, international, liberal dickwads, MRAs, trans.
Tags: jaws, male violence, silencing, steven spielberg, waterboarding
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.
1000 Years of This. 40 Years of That. April 25, 2013Posted by FCM in books!, gender roles, international.
Tags: essentialism, gerda lerner, male violence, the creation of feminist consciousness
i just finished reading gerda lerners “the creation of feminist consciousness” which is part 2 of her 2-part series. part one, “the creation of patriarchy” was previously discussed here. this series is an excellent history lesson and one i appreciated very much, although i admit skipping/skimming many of the details and getting straight to the conclusions/insights which is what i read feminist works for afterall. the big picture. when i see something that fascinates me, such as the material and social conditions that make slavery possible, i go back and try to grok the details the best i can.
in this case, i went back and tried to grok the details of 1000 years of feminist bible criticism, by which lerner demonstrates feminists tendency to reinvent the wheel when it comes to feminist reasoning and conclusions, and why this is. she concludes that womens history is lost to us via silencing and erasing feminists and feminist work, which stunts and thwarts the development of a global feminist consciousness over time. and that this erasure of history is one reason women have remained oppressed for so much longer than any other oppressed group on earth. she notes that despite starting from scratch every time, women have long struggled to be free of male oppression and have resisted it, and have tried to think and reason their way out of it even when they thought they were the first and only ones to do it and at great cost to themselves in terms of mental labor and personal risk, up to and including death. this is striking, yes.
but what particularly struck me was the substance of womens 1000-year history of criticizing the bible, where women specifically protested its prescriptions/proscriptions about womens natures, including womens roles in a patriarchal culture (thats redundant of course. patriarchy *is* culture). remember that institutionalized patriarchy, where legal and religious texts merely codified preexisting patriarchal relations that had already existed for a long time, is not the beginning-point of womens oppression by men. institutionalized patriarchy appeared about 5000 years ago, but male dominance over women, including mens control of womens reproduction and mens self-granted right to define womens role has been around much, much longer. (this is discussed in part one). so in reality, women were protesting something that had been around for perhaps 10,000 years or longer: womens role as fuckholes and slaves for men. and each woman who did this thought that she was the first to do it. women rarely built on previous womens work because they didnt know about it.
now, i ask you. where did this resistance and core-deep courage come from? how could each woman, who believed that she was a cognitive minority of one (or some other very small number) gather the gumption and conviction to realize, believe and assert that womens nature was *not* to be fuckholes and slaves to men, but was something else entirely?
note that for 1000 years, while women were resisting what
the bible patriarchy said about womens nature, these women were not saying that mens nature had been misrepresented at all. although lerner concludes that early feminist thinkers articulated the difference between sex and gender, and that *both* mens and womens “gender roles” were arbitrary and socially-prescribed, i would note the complete absence of the assertion that men were not naturally violent, necrophilic and parasitic for example. in my own estimation, these have nothing to do with the male gender, and everything to with the male sex. i think early feminists knew that only too well, and that the ways this played out on womens bodies and lives (in the absence of relatively-reliable birth control for example) made the reality and unalterability of mens despicable natures more than obvious.
behold an early feminists articulation of gender. in the context of arguing that women were fit for the ministry, she asserts:
…that intellect is not sexed; that strength of mind is not sexed; and that our views about the duties of men and the duties of women, the sphere of man and the sphere of woman, are mere arbitrary opinions, differing in different ages and countries, and dependent solely on the will and judgement of erring mortals.
this from a woman named sarah grimke who lived from 1792-1873. she is talking about jobs, and roles. she was notably not talking about mens demonstrated tendency to be violent necrophiles, sexual abusers and predators across time and place. and frankly gerder presents *no* evidence in this history lesson that any early feminists disputed this at all, or conflated male behavior, specifically male violence, with culturally-determined gendered roles such as who can and should do what job. get it?
in fact, grimke astutely notes that mens enslavement of women was deliberate, disgusting and dickish. she notably does not suggest that men were acted upon by aliens, or were acting against mens own natures when they did this:
Men have not only degraded women, but have made them mere instruments for their own comfort. They have enslaved women’s minds, deprived them of education, and finally robbed them of the knowledge of their equal humanity.
and “equal” here does not really seem to mean “equal” in any modern way. for example, does grimke seem to suggest that women are attempting to gain political, social and interpersonal standing so that they can indulge “equally” in the enslavement, deprivation and robbery that all humans are prone to? i dont see it.
hilariously, in the 1500s, a woman named jane anger (!) describes and documents mens parasitic, filthy natures when she asserts that men are “comforted by our means. Without our care they lie in their beds as dogs in litter and go like lousy mackerel swimming in the heat of summer.” without women, men would lie in their own shit and be completely uninterested or unable to perform self-care. not because aliens, and not because “gender” either.
so whats my point? i guess i have two. feminist-thinking women have been asserting for over a millenia that womens nature is misrepresented by patriarchy (and via patriarchal institutions such as religion) and that this is a deliberate ploy on behalf of men who want to dominate and enslave us. women know, somehow, that this is not our true nature and we resist this propaganda/terror campaign bravely, actively and passionately. we can feel that this is true, and we know that men are lying about us. and we notably have *never* as far as i can tell tried to convince anyone that mens true nature wasnt and isnt exactly what it appears to be, and what men demonstrate by their own behavior, institutions and dictates across time and place.
this rather significant addition to feminist thought appears to be new. this is not our history, but a recent development that seems to have appeared with equality rhetoric, and certainly after the burning times, where women learned more and more (not less and less) what men were capable of, and what they did to women who said and did things men didnt like. and following a global campaign to silence and erase feminist thought, including women who for 1000 years (or more) have been documenting what appears to be a universal model of male behavior that doesnt differ *at all* across time and place, including males *acting out* parasitism, necrophilia, violence and rape, regardless of what jobs they do, clothes they wear or anything else. i think this needs to be discussed. that is all.