Tags: amanda bynes, judge trudy, rape, reformism
many of us know by now that if you play mens games (voluntarily or involuntarily) you are bound to lose, if you are a female-bodied person. this might seem “unfair” or discriminatory or even like blatant insanity, and indeed some of us have been acting like this has all been just one big misunderstanding this whole time. that if we could only articulate the unfairness (or insanity) it would be magically remedied. as if the point of the game was equity, and the whole point was definitely NOT to benefit men at womens expense. interestingly, the “accidental unfairness” principle seems to be both the premise and the conclusion of equality activating. in other words, we work from the assumption that its all just a big mistake, and then no matter what evidence is forthcoming (including evidence that its all very deliberate indeed) we conclude that it mustve been an accident.
note that there is no room here for evidence, or reality, or changing course or anything except heading in the same direction forever. a notably circular direction. judge trudy — a skit from a childrens television program — illustrates the concept of bias and circular reasoning (and victim blaming!) perfectly. the premise of judge trudy is that the judge always sides with the children no matter what. the premise of the grown-up (patriarchal) legal system is not that different. get it?
so i was thinking about the alleged “logistical problem” we have in our prison system where there simply is not enough room for all the men who commit crimes. often times, violent offenders are released because there isnt enough room to house them all — one proposed remedy to this problem of overcrowding (of mens prisons by criminal men) has been to legalize drugs. okay, thats not a bad idea — if men dont have legal remedies backing up their property rights to their drugs, they resort to violence. give them ownership rights over their drugs and they might not kill each other over disputes of ownership, creating additional violent offenders “we” dont have room for. and, like, the fact that using drugs is a “victimless crime” or whatever, so users wouldnt go to jail just for using or buying drugs. but im more interested in the property ownership aspects of it at the moment.
we are all the time working with the understanding that men will kill each other and everyone if they are given even the slightest impetus to do so. no one ever says this directly, but this is the reality of it, isnt it? we wonder why men dont take rape seriously, and feminists speculate that its because a great number of men rape, and that they all benefit from it which is clearly true. but you know what else is probably true? the people who work in (patriarchal) law enforcement and the judicial system know for a fact that if he *only* raped you, you got off fucking easy. you are lucky he didnt kill you on top of it because thats what men do. and we dont have room for all the men who murder, attempt murder, or viciously assault, let alone those who “merely” rape, which is almost all of them depending on the definition you use (including the “legal” one, not incidentally). there isnt enough room for all of them. if men were punished for rape almost all of them would be in jail and practically none of them would be free and thats just no way to run a “society” is it? (or is it?)
but what would happen if there was no more property ownership at all? what if no one owned anything anymore, including drugs? there would be more violent offenders, as men took it upon themselves to protect something that doesnt legally exist — ownership rights over property. honestly, this outcome is quite terrifying, the upside being that suddenly there wouldnt be any more property offenses either. so presumably we would have all that extra space in our prisons currently being taken up by the perpetrators of property crimes, including the only crime besides being prostituted that women commit more frequently than men — shoplifting. we would finally have room for all the violent men who commit crimes of violence against actual people. one might initially assume that this would include violent offenses men commit against women, but not so fast.
rape is still a property crime, see. rape is not defined or discussed as other violent offenses are, as something harmful or reasonably likely to result in serious harm or death — it is defined and discussed in terms of “consent” which is the language of trespass, not violence. as in trespassing, on someones property, get it? we have discussed this before. if we did away with property crimes, opening up all that extra space in jail for violent offenders, the number of violent offenders would skyrocket as they killed each other over property disputes (because men are more or less inherently violent and there is no way to stop this or change it — ask anyone except a reformist-oriented feminist!) but notably, rape wouldnt be a crime anymore at all. men would kill each other for raping each others women so the murderers would be in jail but the rapists would be dead.
see what i did there? it is suspiciously as if men cannot be jailed for committing rape under any circumstances, using any reasoning. this quirk of reality could theoretically be “reformed” if it was an accident, but i dont think it is — if left to “chance” the statistical probability of any outcome (out of two) is about 50/50 but what we see is that men win all the time and women always lose, perhaps particularly in the area of criminalizing rape, and providing meaningful punishments/deterrents to men raping women. so can you reform a system that is actually working perfectly, and exactly as it was intended?
perhaps more importantly, why would anyone want to? dont you ever get sick of trying to teach men how to be good people (and then taking the blame when you almost inevitably fail)? the fact appears to be that men want things more or less the way they are — if they didnt, they would change it themselves. men, as a class, are violent, nasty and they oppress women voluntarily because they like oppressing women. they oppress us no matter what — if there is such a thing as “meaningful brain difference” they will oppress us based on that. if there is no evidence (or no accepted or “scientific” evidence) to be found (by themselves usually, as they are the ones in the position to look) of meaningful sex-based brain difference (or of whatever) they will oppress us anyway. somehow they will find a way to do it.
this rather notable “quirk” — that men oppress women no matter what — doesnt seem to mean much to reformist feminists, but it ought to. doing this work because you are scared to death of what men will continue to do (and what they will come up with next) if you dont is a bit short-sighted, and reactive at best. and its definitely no reason to conclude that theres any hope for men. honestly, i dont know where we come up with some of this stuff. feminists using bad reasoning and then maintaining perpetual support for their reformist position using coercive tactics including thought-termination is what it looks like to me. see the discussion here for more on that.
What Logistical Problem? January 9, 2013Posted by FCM in pop culture, rape, thats mean.
Tags: ohio, prison, rape, steubenville, women's culture
imagine with me. whenever a woman is raped, every man within 20 miles of where the rape occurred is presumed to be a rapist, an accomplice, an egger-onner, an enabler, or completely disinterested (in protecting women from rape). they are all rounded up and jailed.
because it would be stressful for all women involved if there were any uncertainty regarding whether the men would be released or not — if the men were “coming home” or if they would ever again be “walking the streets to rape again” — to relieve womens stress, the answer would be NO, none of them will be released, ever. all the women would go on with their lives and never look back. there wouldnt be any prison-visits either. (feel the relief wash over you like a warm bath?)
if there was a problem of prison overcrowding (can you imagine the logistical problems we would encounter if we actually started punishing men for rape?) well thats easy — let all the newbies i mean “new fish” sleep in the recreational areas until a spot opens up. start a “communication initiative” whereby all prisoners would be given a new mont blanc pen and a letter opener and instructed to write letters to other prisoners around the country, like a pen-pal kind of thing. watch them all kill each other with the pens and letter openers. overcrowding? no longer an issue.
keep doing this for a few months, a few years. what is “society” like now? how many men would there be left in free society — im thinking a negligible amount if any. so under these new circumstances, what happens when we go out at night (or stay in?) what happens to us if we dont know how to run the factories, or universities, or the coal mines (because we were never taught, or not enough of us were)? what happens if we *do* know?
in this new, free society, what would we throw away? what would we keep? what would we invent, or implement, or revive? understanding of course that we could learn *any* of mens values, systems and machines (if not their machinations) if we were willing to put the time and effort into it — if men did it, it cant be that hard. i mean really. but we dont *have* to — thats my point. we would start anew.
if we actually punished men for raping girls and women, without regard for fairness to men, and *only* caring about fairness to women and relieving womens stress, and centering womens survival as a sexual class, including the complete eradication of rapey males and rape culture, female separatism would no longer present the logistical problem it once did — “mens culture” would become prison culture. it already is, you see. under conditions of zero tolerance for men raping women, we would have “womens culture” and female separatism by default. it probably wouldnt take but a year at most for (nearly?) every single man to be rounded up and imprisoned for raping or contributing to the rape of a woman, if we actually punished men for rape, and contributing to rape.
thats literally all it would take to create female separatism: justice. thats all.
More Framing Rape. Also, Zomg I H8 Tumblr So Much I Can’t Even, I’m Completely Unable To Even, I Have Lost The Ability To Even. November 20, 2012Posted by FCM in feminisms, logic, rape.
Tags: ann-tagonist, rape, tumblr
i have been watching with interest an ongoing discussion (on tumblr!!) about rape, and what it is and isnt. tumblr isnt my natural habitat, and im not interested in even trying to figure it out at this juncture, although if someone can show me how tumblr *isnt* primarily a huge gynergy-sucking waste of time (and not coincidentally, another way for privileged males to look busy at work while not actually doing anything) im all ears. srsly, i h8 tumblr! h8 it!
anyhoo, im trying to get my head around all the issues being raised here — despite this conversation essentially being a thought-terminating mindfuck (thanks tumblr! thanks men and trans and MRAs and pomos and hopeless reformists and baby feminists talking primarily out of their asses in short-form dialog in a nonradical mixed space). jeebus i hate tumblr so much. srsly, is it just me?
earlier, i proposed my own definition — or reframing — of rape, which is: the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders. this is, i believe, the correct historical and political context (intent and effect) of men raping women, across time and place. i think this includes all the relevant elements of rape, so that even if you called rape “bananas” it would still mean the same thing. note that i generally do NOT endorse calling stuff *other stuff* for purposes of obfuscating truths and diluting meaning, including the historical truths and political meaning of womens lives and what men do to us. i do however support paring things down to their elements, in order to achieve understanding, which is the opposite of what pomos do with their obfuscating nothing means anything, “everything equals everything” rhetoric.
so call it “bananas” if you like, what do i care? so long as you understand that rape is not a fruit with a yellow peel, and a banana is not a whiffle ball. and that we are talking about the elements of rape. thats the important thing, afterall. the meaning of the word, not the word itself. this is a particularly important point, isnt it, considering that its always mens meaning and mens interpretation of all words that are going to carry the day in all male-centric discourse and all female-only space too, unless and until we get our heads around what we mean when we say it. and in the case of rape, what it means to and for *us* when men rape women across time and place.
so looking at the convo over on tumblr, where the OP states that rape is “when a male uses his penis as a weapon against a female” whereupon the shit hits the fan…i have only my own definition to look to, dont i? because the definition men use for rape — that its forced sex — is both woefully inadequate and a reversal: since sex is allegedly “consensual” sex (isnt it?), the male-centric definition of rape implicates a logical, factual and indeed a linguistic impossibility — forced-consensual-sex. the way men define it also uses the word to define the word, which you also arent allowed to do. yay! thats what we are working with, definition-wise, illustrating how and why patriarchal practices and policies surrounding rape (or sex!) will never, ever benefit women, or indeed make any kind of rational sense at all when you *really* think about it. and as far as i know, even we dont have a better definition yet. if we do, im sure someone will tell me.
in fact, i think mens framing of rape as forced-sex — and the problems that causes, including what happens when you use the word to define the word, and what men appear to think of our “consent” too — can be illustrated like this (this is assuming that “sex” means consensual sex, and “rape” means forced sex):
if i got this wrong, im sure someone will tell me. but srsly, i think its right. and until someone can come up with a definition of “rape” that makes any kind of rational sense for women and centers womens experience of being raped by men across time and place — and a definition of rape that *doesnt* literally repeat the word “consensual” literally forever, as in infinitely, this is a feedback loop, even as it unambiguously values womens consent at “zero” — ima use my own definition of it.
and i think that the OP on teh evol tumblrs definition is consistent with my definition, or at least that its not inconsistent with it. i also think this topic — when done properly, centering the experience of female-bodied persons — implicates the uncannily-similar (okay identical) female-specific harms to women of both “consensual” PIV and rape. i think *that* needs to be discussed pretty much endlessly, although endlessly repeating ourselves and covering ground thats already been covered is gynergy-sucking too…how bout all’yall who are already wasting your time and energy on tumblr donate some time and energy to that one ay? its just a suggestion…
alternatively, if my definition isnt the one we want to use, lets make a better one. so long as we identify actual reasons why any new definition benefits women and centers womens experience with men raping us across time and place, and furthers understanding by isolating and contextualizing the elements of rape, and includes the historical truths and political meaning of rape in womens lives and the historical truths and political meaning of what men do to us. i think this task is huge, and that it requires nothing less.
i also dont think its likely to happen in a tumblr format. did i mention how much i h8 tumblr? h8 h8 h8 it! that is all.