That’s So Totes 70s! June 29, 2012Posted by FCM in feminisms, politics, pop culture, trans, WTF?.
Tags: catharine mackinnon, declaration of independence, mary daly, sheila jeffreys
1770′s to be exact!
full text of the declaration of independence below. its still relevant! celebrated, even! because men’s work isnt expected to change and evolve constantly, to accept the trends of the day or put on a pretty face, whatever that means, in whatever time or place. men’s foundational documents (declarations and yes — manifestos) are not denied, shunned, wrongly paraphrased, endlessly parsed or not parsed at all — even when they should be — watered down and ground up and obliterated to the point that they are ethereal nothingness, losing the plot. men’s foundational documents dont even have to recognize that women exist, and they are still valid, you see. it was an accident of language, it wasnt deliberate — even when it was.
when men build patriarchal foundations, the foundations are allowed to stand, and if anything, its the house that gets tinkered with and not the foundation (you know, like recognizing the existence of women — at the insistence of women). indeed, womens responses to men’s patriarchal foundations — when we are even allowed a response — is the window dressing and the furniture and the dishes and the towels. we decorate men’s patriarchal houses, literally and more literally. we attempt to make ourselves comfortable there. they allow us to do this somewhat.
when women build feminist foundations, like the works of sheila jeffreys, mary daly, and catharine mackinnon, men drop bombs on them and reduce our foundations to bombed-out, smoking craters. at least, they try to do this. some of us are resisting, but when our work has been thoroughly debunked by the people who get to determine such things, what does that mean for us? our foundations are destroyed, reduced to holes and rubble. we sit along side of them and weep, but that is not all we do. we decide that architecture itself is patriarchal, it must be. holding that truth to be self-evident, we work from there.
Biophilia vs Necrophilia November 9, 2011Posted by FCM in entertainment, international, PIV, pop culture, radical concepts, WTF?.
Tags: alcatraz ER, mary daly, PIV
mary daly envisioned a “biophilic” future where men would exist on the periphery. this is because men, in any and all observable ways, fetishize, revel in and endlessly manufacture death, disease and misery. not life, or anything compatible with life, and especially not anything compatible with life for girls and women. men simply could not be included in a biophilic future, because their very presence (and certainly their centrality) would turn it into something else. whether this is hardwired or not is irrelevant: anyone with sense(s) can see, hear, taste, touch, smell and intuit that men constantly and deliberately manufacture death. some of them literally stick their dicks into corpses, but frighteningly this isnt even the most necrophilic thing they do, is it? or is it? i dont know.
meanwhile, women get on with the endless task of preserving and improving life, such as it is. ironically, at present, in addition to attempting to just get through the day themselves and caring for children and others, womens life-affirming caretaking duties include caring for and expending resources on men, where men of “sound” mind couldnt possibly care less about such things, and in fact denigrate life-affirming practice, and actively seek out the opposite. when men become frail or wounded, largely or completely as a result of their own necrophilic values and practices of course, they become womens responsibility. not taking into consideration the extra-caretaking thats required in a world where men actively harm themselves and everyone, mens cost-benefit analysis is terminally flawed. but they continue to lie about that. one lie of many, undoubtedly, but its a big one. because it enables them to make statements like “preventative” and “beneficial” and “harmless” and “we cant afford not to” all of which are rooted in an analysis of cost.
as an illustration of biophilia versus necrophilia, consider this: recently i saw a segment on the travel channel about a tokyo restaurant called “alcatraz ER” which is designed to resemble a psychiatric hospital or prison block, depending on which review you read. judging from its name it was undoubtedly intended to resemble both. i wont include any images of the place because i dont want it fouling up my pretty blog. this “theme restaurant” pretty obviously represents a necrophilic fetish, and necrophilic practice: you cant even order a cocktail here without the possibility of it being served to you in a decapitated head, from which you are to remove the beverage with a large syringe and inject it into your mouth.
its clearly necrophilic, but look what they also do with it: its combined with food and drink. combining a love of death with stuff thats life-affirming too, but thats not the weirdest part. i cant even imagine being able to maintain an appetite for food in that place, let alone think about eating anything, or having a satisfying meal. indeed, the reviews seem unanimous that their food isnt even that great, but seriously, who would or even could eat in a place like this, and why?
of course, combining life and death this way reminds me of something. a necrophilic context from within which we are supposed to engage in pleasurable, life-affirming (or life-sustaining) activity, with the foreseeable consequence being to arrest your appetite and stunt your enjoyment of something thats supposed to be (and might otherwise be) life-sustaining and enjoyable, and social. and acting like its all in good fun, when in reality the context (of “psychiatric hospital” in this case) has particular significance to women and is politically offensive, palpably gross and death-fetishistic to anyone who is paying attention. and the food isnt even that good.
you might even consider engaging in some mental or physical exercises to increase or maintain your appetite in preparation for this sicking meal, but thats not required either. blinders might help, and they might not. you could choose to not go. i mean, its a free country right? right? right? right? right? right? right?
now imagine the above scenario, except where the food isnt that good (or maybe its even enjoyable to some people, some of the time, not really the point though) *and* it could actually make you extremely ill, or kill you. and you could choose to take a dangerous pill or wear an uncomfortable device of some kind to counteract those effects, before you sat down to the table, if you wished. or not, whatever. either way, noone really cares what happens to you. its completely and totally irrelevant.