jump to navigation

Vagina-As-Fuckhole Hurts Men Toooo!!!11!1! July 23, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, gender roles, health, kids, MRAs, PIV, trans.
Tags: , , , ,

so what about teh poor menz.  right?  raise your hand if you feel sorry for men, or have ever felt sorry for them, either before, during or after these discussions of PIV, dangerous male-centric sexuality, and vagina-as-fuckhole-for-men.  i dont.   

but i also cant help but notice a correlation here, between mens perception that womens vaginas are fuckholes, and an old MRA favorite: boo freaking hoo, i have to pay child support!!!!111!1!  yes, the old deadbeat dad schtick.  and i dont just mean that regarding vaginas as fuckholes causes men to make babies and run, although this is frequently the case.    

no, i actually think that mens (OBVIOUSLY INCORRECT) perception of vagina-as-fuckhole causes men to hate their own children, at least among the poor-me set.  and that this is a fucking epidemic, among men, because they pretty much all believe the same thing, when it comes to women and our vaginas.  in a frame:   

i've got wesson-ality!

men think that born-women are really just castrated men, with fuckholes between our legs.  aka.  transwomen.  yes, they do.  they literally (LITERALLY) dont get that vaginas are organs, attached to other organs.  part of a functional organ-system that, you know, does stuff.  they dont get it!  

if men understood that vaginas were organs, that do stuff, they would never regard a neo-vagina as a vagina.  born-men would never want a neo-vagina as a part of their transition into “women”, because they would know that real vaginas are not fuckholes, for men, and that having a sheath between your legs has nothing whatsoever to do with being a woman.  and doctors (DOCTORS!  WHO HAVE STUDIED ANATOMY!  HELLO!) would have never even come up with this insane (as in delusional) idea that a hollowed-out dickskin is the same as a babymaker.  because its not.   

but this is not the world we live in. so imagine (IMAGINE!) their surprise, no their horror, no their RAGE when they find out for sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt (by knocking someone up) that everything they ever thought about women was a lie.  

and imagine them projecting this rage onto the products of conception, aka. their own fucking kids (and even the pregnant belly itself many times).  boo-fucking-hoo indeed.  how terrible.  we now have incontrovertible proof that vaginas are NOT just fuckholes, for men.  but instead of confronting the truth of it, and confronting womens, you know, HUMANITY for what would likely be the first time, they would rather abuse, neglect, abandon, deny, and rage over the existence of their own children

the existence of children fucks up the narrative, you see, that vaginas are just fuckholes, for men.  your sperm traveled BEYOND the fuckhole, see?  into the fallopian tubes, into the uterus, AND BACK OUT AGAIN.  and now its sitting at your goddamned kitchen table and it wants a sammy, with the crusts cut off. 

WTF?  vaginas, like, do stuff??  why, yes.  as a matter of fact.  they do.   

so there you have it: i admit that vagina-as-fuckhole hurts men too!!!!11!!1!  it makes them fucked up assholes who deny the existence of their own children in order to perpetuate an anatomical untruth a misogynist lie.  so heres the solution for the “what about teh menz” crowd: no, teh menz, you cant wear pink, sparkly shirts to work, sorry.  but you can (and should) stop engaging in PIV.  because womens vaginas are not fuckholes, for men, and you are delusional if you think otherwise.  see, i care about your mental health.  (insofar as mens delusions are the direct cause of immense and horrible suffering of women and children, around the world).  

but they arent going to do that, are they?  so it must not hurt that bad.  or…the payoff for men of vagina-as-fuckhole is just exponentially greater (DUH) than the alleged “sacrifice” of men being abusive, PIV-entitled pricks, who believe that women are really just castrated men, and for whom the existence of their own children cannot be reconciled with their worldview.   

what about teh menz, indeed.


1. kristina - July 24, 2010

I’m actually starting to see the point to the whole PIV thing, if I refuse it I will be hated, if I use it for it’s intended use (procreation) I’m still hated. I feel like a lightbulb in my head went on… I finally started to question, why do I like PIV… my conclusion, it provides the closeness I crave that can come from other activities un sex-related that COULD be fulfilled with a partner on the same page as me (as in not culturally brainwashed). The only option on the table for women to feel close to men is PIV, so they take what they can get because it’s considered “normal”, and unquestioned by the overall majority…BRILLIANT!

factcheckme - July 24, 2010

Progress! Thanks.

factcheckme - July 24, 2010

ok i think i am done editing this one now. enjoy.

factcheckme - July 24, 2010

hmmm. i wanted to say something about how even married men who allegedly want children end up doing the rage/denial dance once the woman decides she wants to leave. that most men only even support their kids and are good fathers when getting PIV from the childrens mother is part of the deal. but i couldnt figure out where it fit. maybe it fits here, in the comments. its been a long day.

2. joy - July 24, 2010

This is another thinky one for me.

I remember what someone (a funfem I disagreed with on many other fronts) once said: men get pissed when women get pregnant because now they have to SHARE THE VAGINA!! (aka, fuckhole)

That made so much sense to me, and this naturally comes a whole lot closer to the sickening reality of it all.

It also explains why so many men think using birth control is unnecessary. Because women can’t get pregnant! Oh … wait. Well, now it is HER fault, isn’t it? The stupid bitch. Her fault for not being a man.

Fuck men. Fuck them all with a gun.

“the existance of children fucks up the narrative, you see, that vaginas are just fuckholes, for men. your sperm traveled BEYOND the fuckhole, see? into the fallopian tubes, into the uterus, AND BACK OUT AGAIN. and now its sitting at your goddamned kitchen table and it wants a sammy, with the crusts cut off.”

is one of the most fucking brilliant things I have ever read. No shit.

factcheckme - July 24, 2010

joy, it might not be as thinky now that i have finished it. LOL try it again if you want, and see what you think. somewhere around here, we have had the discussion about men who cry about having to pay child support, even when they were wanted children, born within the context of a once-functioning relationship. that the good-father bit is all an act, and all about controlling women anyway, and maintaining access to her cunt. BUT as i was writing it, the policy implications started becoming very clear. that its not just about men and their children, its how children as a class are viewed, i think, by men. children in general, not just one mans kids. “welfare queen” has a decidedly sick connotation to it too, when you think of what women on welfare represent. how much men just fucking loathe children in general, and how they would (and have, and do) let them die in the street, rather than support children, and women who have children.

i dont like kids either, but come on. i think they represent something very different to men, than they do to women. to me, kids represent healthcare problems, poverty, and shitcanning my career. to men…something very different.

3. joy - July 24, 2010

“the good-father bit is all an act, and all about controlling women anyway, and maintaining access to her cunt.”

YES, this exactly. And that, and what you wrote, are still things I’m thinking about.

Not because I didn’t believe it or see it before, but because I’d never seen it articulated this way before.

Children represent, to men … what? Proof of their “virility”, maybe, and proof that they’ve “fucked” a “chick” (or more than one, for the serial impregnators).

But the reality of a child’s needs (I have to spend all my money on the care and keeping of this thing? and it talks back instead of worshiping me and taking all my shit?!) sends them into spasms of rage.

Just like the first time a man realizes a woman isn’t just an adoring Realdoll with a fuckhole who will serve him and do his bidding (even women who DO live like this have their own pesky little needs and lives too).

So child = symbol just like woman = symbol. But we’re not symbols. We’re humans. And that freaks men out, because … women aren’t human! No, they can’t be. That’s unfathomable. They must just be cruel, heartless bitches, and children must just be fucking brats (and the fault of women entirely), because they all fail to live up to the expectations of the almighty peen.

I don’t like kids either, they represent the same things to me as they do to you (plus a lifetime of indentured servitude/slavery) but shit off. The way men think of them is absurd.

4. joy - July 24, 2010

“the good-father bit is all an act, and all about controlling women anyway, and maintaining access to her cunt.”

And men act all like they’re Father of the Year and should get fucking accolades when they change a diaper or stand in the driveway while a kid learns how to ride a bicycle. Women are just supposed to fawn all over them because at least they aren’t raping it, beating it, starving it, or refusing to look at it!

And the thing is, women DO. Even I do, to some degree. When I see a man carrying a baby or pushing a stroller, when I see a male person paying even marginal positive attention to a child, I think, “That’s refreshing, at least he’s not beating it or abandoning it!”

I am not even an apologist for men. So this says something about the behaviors, the reprehensible subhuman behaviors, of men.

5. kristina - July 24, 2010

what about this gem of an article… I would like to see it torn to shreds, but don’t much have the will to myself… anyone want to take a crack at it?

6. Laurel - July 24, 2010

I’ve always found it interesting that men can relate to a zygote, but not a child, and certainly not a woman. Anti-choice men imagine being the poor blob because it’s easier for them to imagine they are a tiny thing without a brain than that they are a real, grown woman.

Also, they were the blob once and mommy might have GASP–! They hate that we ever had power over them. But once the kid is born, they don’t seem to sympathize with it nearly as much. I think a lot of the man-rage that comes with children is at not getting all of Fuckable-Mommy’s attention anymore. It’s almost a sick form of sibling rivalry.

Because if women don’t exist to pick up men’s socks and provide 24/7 fuckhole access, what good are they? It’s not FAIR!

factcheckme - July 24, 2010

kristina, i read about an eighth of that article and became enraged. LOL i dont think i will be taking a crack at it, although i will say that it reads like a fucking MRA manifesto. he honestly believes that “society uses men for the most dangerous jobs” for example. mmkay. how about men VOLUNTEER for and confer on each other through sex-based criteria SOME dangerous jobs because they are glorious and pay well, while they give women the shitty dangeorus jobs that pay like shit and dont come with any respect. like nursing assistants for example, who throw their backs out all the time and handle infectious blood, shit and puke all day, and dont even earn sustinence-level wages. or, you know, PROSTITUTES.

and he also says that society throws men to the dogs and sheilds women from harm (HAHAHAHAHAHA!!) so men deserve to be showered with gold coins (LITERALLY) and women dont. HELLO ASSHOLE. to most women who are injured or killed, MEN ARE THE DOGS THAT INJURE AND KILL THEM. and we get no reward for doing it either. if we survive, our “reward” is getting to live another day with dangerous animals who want to kill us, and often do.

ok i kind of went off there, but seriously, i didnt even read probably an eighth of this article, and these were the steaming turds at the very top of the page. i dont even want to know what was towards the bottom.

factcheckme - July 24, 2010

I’ve always found it interesting that men can relate to a zygote, but not a child, and certainly not a woman.

yes, the anti-abortion rhetoric is interesting when viewed in this light isnt it? are they punishing women who get pregnant for fucking up the narrative that women are fuckdolls? or are they really relating to the zygote? can men actually “relate” to anything?? or are they lying about that too? they obviously dont WANT their children, or any children, to actually be born, becuase as you note, they dont care about born-babies, just gestating ones. again, using the word “care” extremely loosely here.

i dont know, but this whole neo-vag thing really throws a wrench into all previous theorizing about what men think, do, and hold dear. i think vagina-as-fuckhole kind of lays the foundation for alot actually, as it predates so many of the other things we talk about, like birth-control for example. the literal meaning of vagina as a “sheath for a sword” is based in latin for christs sake. its THAT OLD. i would like to know just HOW OLD the concept of vagina-as-fucksheath acutally is, and i would like to know what vaginas were called, BEFORE THAT.

any pro-feminist men up for a research project? this is a serious question.

7. kristina - July 24, 2010

Yeah that article had my head spinning too… I skipped parts, and then it got to some history, and I just gave up…I mean history is recorded about men, very little about women. He went on to mansplain the benefits of how the social structure worked back then, and how it evolved into now based on skill sets… what I want to know is how did we create a social structure that seems to have carried on throughout the ages. It always seemed that men decided to take on the “chivalrous” role of protecting women, did women actually get a say in it at all…did we get to say, did we want to say, fuck you I’ll do it myself? Did women ever have a say? He also said that there are men at the bottom tier, more so than women…so I’m assuming he thinks there are less homeless women than men, which may be true…but why? Then something about biology and how it’s more beneficial to have more women than men because of the thought it takes less penis and more uterus to continue the species, but even that is disturbing…it’s not penis and uterus…it’s sperm and egg… I think this was in response to a recent study done by a genealogist that basically stated men are becoming extinct or will be due to the degradation of the y chromosome…it has people in an outrage because they view the article as saying men should be extinct as opposed to a warning that men MAY BECOME extinct…too bad I won’t see that in my lifetime

factcheckme - July 24, 2010

The thing that really set me off though was how banal it all was. Like we haven’t heard every single one of those points before. It’s like every single mra argument is laid out and given an official stamp, just because some asshat at Harvard believes all this shit is true. Which isnt really a surprise, since everyone believes its true! It’s the fucking narrative we all live with, every single say. It’s the fabric of society. Duh. Yet they all think they are so clever for pointing it out…and that they are RESPONDING TO FEMINISM when they do. Rather than realizing that feminists already know this is happening, and feminist theory was created in response TO IT.


8. kristina - July 24, 2010

Here’s something interesting from a study done on first impressions and seeking a mate…

“Men and women are biologically different in the kind of traits they find desirable when choosing a mate or a friend. For example, Buss (1989; as cited by Taylor, et. al) predicted that men should prefer partners with traits that signify their reproductive value, such as youth and good looks. Women should prefer partners with traits that signify their \”potential for resource acquisition\”, such as status and ambition. It can be assumed that both men and women select specific partners in order to \”enhance their reproductive success\” (Sprecher et. Al., 1994). The preceding biological facts about gender differences could also refer to sociocultural factors. In other words, men prefer partners who are young and attractive while women prefer a partner who can provide financial stability. This rationalization can be supported by the \”traditional sex role socialization and poorer equal opportunities for women\” (Sprecher et. Al., 1994). Men are known as the providers who determine the family`s economic and social status and women have been cast homemakers who care for home and children. The reason for this is that women have typically had poorer economic and educational opportunities than men have. Women will seek husbands who will be resourceful providers and for men to seek youthful wives who will devote themselves to domestic activities. ”

To me this says, there are no biological reasons, only biological reasoning to an unfair social structure, which is basically what feminists have been saying.

9. Laurel - July 24, 2010

“are they punishing women who get pregnant for fucking up the narrative that women are fuckdolls? or are they really relating to the zygote?”

Dunno/depends. (Either way, same results is the hell of it.) But I was once in a conversation during which, when the subject came up, two men yelped out “Don’t kill it!” so immediately and so viscerally that what I heard was “Don’t kill me!”

Re: Having heard it all before, I wish I could remember where I first read the phrase “Fresh! manly! wisdom!”

10. Mary Sunshine - July 24, 2010

After all, the choice to kill is an exclusively male privilege, and a choice which always proceeds from a desire for power-over. How dare women even to think about it.

factcheckme - July 24, 2010

its also possible that as old as “vagina as fucksheath” really is, (many thousands of years old) that the implications of it have changed somewhat over time. specifically, now we have somewhat reliable birth control (abortion is one of them) and 24/7 porn. its probably not a coincidence, then, that the neovagina has been “birthed” relatively recently. we have the technology to do it now of course, but it could also be that the neovag is the pinnacle of this pile of shit thats been built on the foundation of vagina = sheath for millenia. freud believed very famously that women were just castrated men, but he wasnt able to do anything about it except to *believe* it. but “believe it to acheive it” as the saying goes.

how has mens perception of children changed over time? i dont know. but over the last 50-100 years, we have improved social services and family court processes that protect women and children to some degree, that force men (as fathers and as taxpayers) to take responsibility for children in ways they never have had to before. between that, and the birth control/porn thats become widely available during the same time, it seems as if men believe even more strongly that vaginas are fuckholes (because its even more true now than it ever was before). and men seem to hate their own kids even more now than they ever did.

just my thoughts at the moment. but read any internet discussion about child support, and you will see the “spasms of rage” that joy so accurately described. its unbelievable, and its a deep, deep resentment that is more sick, unreasonable, and rageful than anything you will ever see. its as if their entitlement has been challenged somehow, in point of fact. its exactly like that.

11. joy - July 25, 2010

Anecdote relating all this information:

I was not a wanted child. My father screwed me and my mother over for child support until I was fifteen and first met him. Then he started sending -me- small sums of money here and there.

I see it this way: he owes me fifteen years of back child support. In other words, the dude should expect to pay me until I’m 30. He’s got money now, he can handle 400 bucks a month.

He doesn’t see it that way. He complains that, see, he got my mom pregnant when he was my age (23), and aren’t I financially unstable at age 23? Won’t I probably be so until I’m at least 30? So how can I judge him for not paying us?!

I say, two huge flaws in this fucking argument. For one, I’m not saying my mom wouldn’t have used the money for booze (she had a breakdown after I was born, three guesses why), but I might not be as poor as I am now if I’d had the support of two parental incomes when I was a child.

Also, FAIL. Guess ya should’ve thought of THAT before you fucked my mom without a condom, huh Dad?

The amount of disdain he STILL shows me (and my mother, when he deems to speak of her in my presence) is disgusting. The amount of idiot thinking (yes, my mom could have and, I argue, should have, had an abortion, but guess what, for some reason she decided to keep me) he puts into FIGURING OUT WHERE I FUCKING -CAME FROM- is staggering.

Men really have no idea where babies come from or how they are made. Really. None.

factcheckme - July 25, 2010

Here’s another. Most women have probably heard this one before: let me just stick in the tip. Hello. The tip is the most dangerous part. If you could somehow get the shaft in without the tip, I would let you. Assholes!

You know, this stuff is very thinky isnt it? I have been ruminating over it all day. I think its tough to get my head around the idea that men don’t seem to get where babies come from, and have regarded vaginas as fucksheaths, and women as castrated men for millenia. But they kind of regard women as baby factories, at the same time.

What I have come up with is this: I think they think both things are true. And there’s nothing more likely to make you batshit loony toons than believing two or more contradictory things, at the same time. I really think they do regard women as baby factories, but at the same time they are in complete denial that men are involved in reproduction too. They see vaginas as dead ended fuckholes, but at the same time, I think they like the fact that intercourse is actually incredibly dangerous, for women, and they know its dangerous precisely because we can get pregnant from it.

In short, I think its entirely possible that men are simply insane. And that their belief systems are internally inconsistent. Theres no way to reconcile the ways they think about us, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility that they do think these things at the same time, and that it just doesn’t make a fucking lick of sense. THAT is the only way of seeing what’s clearly going on here, that does make any sense actually.

factcheckme - July 25, 2010

Guess ya should’ve thought of THAT before you fucked my mom without a condom, huh Dad?

yeah no shit. my mom didnt want kids, at all. and i think my dad didnt know where babies came from either, or didnt care…even though he was in medical school at the time, and knew better (all men know better, as of the last few hundred years or so, but fucking shit, i hold doctors to a higher standard. i mean really). he knocked up my mom 3 times and left her to deal with all the consequences…while from his perspective, undoubtedly, SHE kept getting HERSELF knocked up, while he probably just had a vague sense of being a “sexually active” male.

this whole “sexually active” thing really cracks me up, it really does. i had this thought after having the PIV talk with my partner the other day. every single time after having PIV with him for 8 fucking years, i would worry about possibly having become impregnated for the rest of the month, until my period came. i took probably a dozen pregnancy tests over the 8 years we have been together, and i think i only told him about 2 of them, well after the fact, and after i knew they were negative. while from his perspective, none of this ever happened, because he didnt know about it, and HE just had some vague sense of being “sexually active” the whole time without ever having to worry about a single fucking thing. sexually active indeed! i was the one driving to the drug store on my lunch break, pissing on a stick in the bathroom at target (once, and i really really thought that one was going to be positive which is why the urgency!) i was the one keeping the birth control stocked, i was the one being fucking “active” not him.

12. joy - July 25, 2010

“SHE kept getting HERSELF knocked up, while he probably just had a vague sense of being a “sexually active” male. …

i was the one being fucking “active” not him.”


Ejaculate in a woman’s vagina, then leave.

Just some of them come back and expect to do it again. And again, and again. Because part of them knows what can happen … but they get so puzzled and pissed if it does.

Fuck that.

13. Lillie - July 25, 2010

“What I have come up with is this: I think they think both things are true. And there’s nothing more likely to make you batshit loony toons than believing two or more contradictory things, at the same time. I really think they do regard women as baby factories, but at the same time they are in complete denial that men are involved in reproduction too.”

This is a great point. They don’t necessarily have to see them as contradictory, though: they may hold on to the belief that the fuckhole-women are mythical Whores, and the baby factories are mythical Madonnas. The filthy fuckholes aren’t supposed to have babies – or if they do, they’re supposed to give birth quietly in the gutter and disappear with their spawn. The baby factories, on the other hand… well, this is where men’s fragile sanity breaks down, isn’t it? They probably prefer to believe that ‘good’ women get pregnant via immaculate conception. Which is pretty much the point you made, I think.

Male sexuality is, to them, something that dirties and debases a woman – because the men intend it as such. Delusional married men don’t have mistresses because they’ve stopped desiring their wives, but because they can’t bring themselves to think that their own children – if they have grown fond of them – come from a debased, dirty fuckhole. Even if PIV were unproblematic in itself, these men (most men? all men?) would be incapable of the kind of partnership and marriage they themselves have held up as ideal for centuries!

History books tell us that the whole Madonna/whore paradigm was some kind of an uber-Victorian neurosis, but isn’t it just the very basis of male sexuality? I don’t know many men in real life, and those I know I don’t talk about sex with, but if the sentiments so many men of all ages broadcast all over the internet – even in most innocuous contexts – are anything to go by, men still classify women in two categories, and neither is ‘human’. I don’t know why it came as a surprise to me when I first realised it, but it did. Because it wasn’t supposed to be true anymore.

What’s new and oh-so-modern is that not all men want a saintly baby factory anymore; they can ‘accept’ a woman with a sexual history as their girlfriend. Where in the past they almost-respected the saintly non-sexual woman as almost-human (as long as she had absolutely no faults, absolutely no human qualities whatsoever), they no longer have any use for them. They haven’t learnt to respect the women they see as fuckholes; they just find a live-in fuckhole to be a useful household appliance, and have stopped having any use for any other kind.

In fact, I think the Madonna side of the Madonna/whore paradigm has been eroded to the point that most men believe all women are essentially fuckholes – because obviously, we can’t be anything in between – which leads to the kind of denial you describe. I’m not saying it’s liberating to aspire to the role of a saintly virgin mother, but the freedom to choose between being a fuckhole and being a fuckhole is certainly not the kind of liberty I had in mind.

factcheckme - July 25, 2010

yes, i dont think its required at all for men to realize that their beliefs are contradictory. thats for us to live with, and its for us to finally figure out. they will never figure it out, and when its pointed out to them i have every expectation that they will deny, deny, deny. it is very bothersome though to realize this about men. that they are literally, LITERALLY insane when it comes to thier beliefs about women, and that their beliefs cannot be reconciled. like everything else, we have every reason in the world to ignore this, to the extent we rely on men for anything at all, and most of us do. what are we supposed to do with this information? as level best pointed out, perhaps this info will help the young uns reading here. maybe they will realize that there are very good reasons to NEVER become depedant on a man, for any reason. i hope!

14. berryblade - July 25, 2010

Had conversation with male the other day, he referred to a vulva/vagina (I’m not really sure what the fuck he was talking about, seeing as so many people get the two confused) as a ‘lunch box’. Says it all really. Consumable and empty object until someone fills it.

15. SheilaG - July 25, 2010

I have said this for decades now. Women, stop being financially dependent on men. Get a trade, a career, start a business, but train yourself to get away from male control, and pay your own bills.

You don’t have to marry men, you don’t have to depend on men for money, you don’t need them to buy a house or even get a student loan. I don’t know what it is going to take for American women to get this. I’m not speaking for the whole world here, just Americans.

The sooner this one concept really sinks in, the less personal invasion you will have to deal with. Read this blog, and get what men really are and how they view women. These are straight women writing this, not radical lesbians for the most part. If you latch on to a man, and forget about your ability to earn a living on your own or in partnership with other women, you will simply be an owned piece of property, nothing more.

Learn to support yourself, or team with several women to make this happen. It’s really that simple sometimes. read this blog and really think about what FCM is trying to get at and the other straight women commentators. It’s painful for radical lesbians like me to have to read about the constant suffering of straight women. But this blog gets at more than in the past, and I really think that FCM is on to something.

You can tell by the vile male opposition on the Internet… the wasp’s nest is really angry, men are used to women putting this out there so clearly. Men expect women to be dumb robots, but this derails their entire worldview, and puts it out there for all to see.

What is self-respect and freedom worth women? Just how badly do you want freedom?

16. SheilaG - July 25, 2010

I meant “men are not used to”

factcheckme - July 25, 2010

sheila, my message to the young uns is similar to yours but not exactly the same. which makes sense, considering that you and i have lived very different lives. my point is really that if you are dependant on a man, its going to make you turn a blind eye to many things, because you literally cannot afford to see the truth. to see a man for what he really is, is against your best interests many times, when you depend on that man for anything at all. thats my point. obviously, as i have been partnered for 8 years, i think its possible to have a long term partnership with a man. BUT for example, i just had the PIV talk with him very recently, and he considered leaving over it, and i think he is still considering it. and frankly, his response isnt making him look too great in my eyes either. so i dont know where we are going to end up. but i never would have been able to broach the subject, if i couldnt afford to have him leave. if i had come to the conclusion that PIV is abusive, but i wasnt able to NOT engage in it, that would be fucking horrible! i would literally feel i was being assualted every fucking time we “did it” after that. so either i would be subjecting myself to repeated rapes, OR i would just decide to be OK with PIV inside my own mind. guess which one i would probably choose, out of those 2 options??

luckily, i am able to go to the end of my thoughts on this issue, and get real about it, and tell him about it. if he wants to leave, he can. thats all i want for any woman really. as i said, i am not a seperatist, and i am straight. i think this is the best i can personally hope for, and i think its the best any of us will be able to do, for many generations at least. because men arent going to get this. just dont depend on him for anything, if you can at all help it. it will be the best thing you ever did, and you wont have to lie to yourself, or refuse to believe the truth about your partner, when he shows you what hes all about. and he eventually will.

17. berryblade - July 26, 2010

I think Sheila and Femonade’s advice is really good. Sorry if it’s none of my business by the way FCM, but, just curious, how would you bring up a conversation about how PIV is problematic to womyn to a man?

factcheckme - July 26, 2010

well berryblade, i dont know really. do you mean just any man? like making conversation, or trying to change someones mind? if thats the case, i personally wouldnt even bother. this info is for women really, not for men. all they are going to do is fight you on it, and deny it. if you mean you want to have this conversation with your partner, then i guess it depends on your partner, and what your relationship is. if you want to know how *i* did it, it was a little weird actually. he had been poking around my blog for the last couple of months, and i didnt know why. he started asking questions about it, and i would answer his questions briefly and he would stop asking for awhile. finally i told him that i wanted to get off the pill, and i was in no position to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, so i wanted to stop having PIV. he freaked out and is still considering leaving me over it. its nothing that i would ever expect anyone else to do, but i am over 35 now and i really need to get off the pill, and i have enough health issues as it is with having all these food allergies and shit, and at the moment i am the only one of us with a fucking job. and i cant afford to be sitting under my fucking desk at work, puking into a trashcan from morning sickness, waiting for my abortion.

plus we never even did it anyway, maybe a few times a year. its always been a major issue with us, as i was a fun-fem when we first met and i wanted to do it all the time and he didnt, so it was some bullshit power struggle and a source of hurt and resentment for the first 7 years. now that i am over it, i am actually very relieved, and i actually thought he would be too. but he wasnt. that tells me alot, right there, really. this whole thing has been very eye opening, as to what it all means to him. and its pretty fucked up.

18. SheilaG - July 26, 2010

“my point is really that if you are dependant on a man, its going to make you turn a blind eye to many things, because you literally cannot afford to see the truth. to see a man for what he really is, ”

This last little bit FCM was rather enlightening, and maybe why the lives of a lot of straight women I know seem odd to me. Odd in that they don’t get that they are literally being set up by men (the patriarchy). Sometimes I’ll ask pointed questions– like, “Oh so he got the law degree and you’re running his law office? Why didn’t you get the law degree and he run YOUR office?” was one such question.
Another question was “Oh, you married him, this is his second marriage and he has a 11 year old boy with severe mental retardation, so you’re running HIS law office, and doing extra duty with HIS special needs child, and you get exactly WHAT out of this relationship?” Straight women seem oblivious to the implications of all of this early on in the marriage. To me, it seemed like she had everything going for her, but is clearly now being set up. Honestly, I often feel I am the only woman who ever asks questions like this.

So it is the blind eye thing you mentioned FCM. I have the most interesting conversations with straight women because I say I am a lesbian separatist and I don’t want to waste time dealing with men if I can possibly help it. They go into “defend the men” mode, and now I just say, “Hey, I don’t waste time on men, just don’t bring them around me ok, you go on with your life, I don’t want to deal with them, get it.” The blunt matter of factness about the whole thing usually settles things, then they can decide if they want to continue the friendship… I just can’t abide the male pleasing that I witness, so if there are no men there, no male pleasing for me to see.

That said, the whole PIV conversation… what can I say. I can’t imagine being so wedded to a particular sex act. Or perhaps men simply have no imagination when it comes to making love to women?
But what you have done FCM is a radical breakthrough for you I think.
It might be along the lines of a lesbian coming out of the closet, it’s that huge!

And, it’s good to weigh in on the economic self-sufficiency for women talk. I’ve been doing this for over 30 years, so I’ve had a chance to see what happened to a lot of women 30 years later. There was very little I could do in 1979 to get women to wake up to the need of being economically self-sufficient from men, to be entirely self-supporting. And to mean it and do it. I now tell women to stay the hell away from the low paid professions… social work, human resources… tackle the hard math and hard science. Don’t settle!
If I meet one more woman getting a masters in social work, I am going to scream!!!

factcheckme - July 26, 2010

I have gotten men jobs before, because they owed me money. I can’t believe half the things I have done, to mitigate the damage of men fucking me over. The thing is, its never worth it! It always gets worse, never better. And i have never been traditionally dependant on a partner, quite the opposite. They have been dependant on me, to bail them out, or lift them up or whatever. But then I find I am screwed, and need them to pay me back, and they can’t. Without more help from me, that is! So its like a sideways kind of dependance, where even the biggest fucking loser on the planet can end up taking you for a ride, and you find yourself dependant at the end of it all. It’s fucking ingenious actually. Even men who have absolutely nothing to offer can and do foster dependance, in women. Making babies also has the same affect.

factcheckme - July 26, 2010

My point is there that you don’t want to see those men for what they are either. Because they owe you big, and the thought of never being paid back keeps you up at night. For real.

factcheckme - July 27, 2010

i was too lazy too add a link to “the neo-vagina monologues” and just about everyone has read it by now (its TRANSPHOBIC!!!). but here it is anyway. this was the first post about vaginas doing stuff.


and as usual, while the real women have gotten all thinky…valerie keefe is STILL burning up my spam folder, railing about god knows what, allegedly in “response” to this post. as i have said elsewhere, i possess mad reading skills, where i am able to NOT read stuff, just because its there. as the men and transwomen try to shove their “counterarguments” down my throat, they obviously arent aware of my mad skills, and that i am not reading a fucking word they say. valerie is however still using multiple usernames and IP addresses, like the fucking internet stalker he is.

factcheckme - July 27, 2010

also, sheila, i must take issue with a small thing you said: that people should try to see where i am coming from, or figure out what i am trying to say or whatever. i SAY what i want to say. i dont hide the ball, at all. if its unclear, i havent done my job as a writer. thats why i do so many edits, and i use plain language and very few references. i take this very seriously actually. i fucking hate writers who hide the ball, or use words to obscure information, rather than convey it.

other than that, i took what you said as a compliment, and i know it was intended that way. so thanks! but this isnt rocket science. its really not. everyone already knows this stuff, i am just pointing it out.

factcheckme - July 27, 2010

I guess thats also why i get so frustrated with the reading comprehension fails!

19. mscitrus - July 27, 2010

FCM, I’m so sorry your nigel is being a dickweed. I think the fact that you only had it a few times a year, and he’s still freaking out says a lot. Even if a man doesn’t want to fuck you, you still need to be avaliable for it. Women are supposed to be avaliable for PIV and other fucking at a dude’s whim. I honestly find it more disturbing that he’s considering leaving because of this while y’all haven’t even had it often…so it’s not like it’s something he seems to actively enjoy or see as “making love” from what you say. Whatever you chose to do FCM, I dun blame you at all or think you’re being weak. If you’d wanna talk about it more feel free to email me or somethin (I think people can get to my email?). I hope he’s above pressuring you into it or something else, but he’s still a dude, so I’m worried. :/

factcheckme - July 27, 2010

The whole thing has been very eye opening ms.c, as I said. And yes, the frequency issue is probably the most bizarre part, and always has been. I finally became peaceful with never doing it, and I feel better about it than I ever have. And he freaked out, and wasn’t relieved at all. There’s more to it, and he seems to be doing better after a week has passed. We will just have to see what happens.

20. SheilaG - July 27, 2010

I mean my comments as a commentary on your courage FCM. I’m not trying to be obtuse. And even “the obvious” is often over my head, because I never lived with men beyond growing up and leaving home.
Never having had to deal with men in a home situation or negotiate with them in any way now, just puts me in lesbian la la land.

So it’s helpful for me to try to understand what it is that heterosexual women are trying to deal with. Most seem to be trying to escape for periods of time from all of this, hense the most women / lesbian friendly spaces these days are hetero women’s associations. Unlike lesbian worlds who allow transwomen to ruin the mix, or just a lot of collected drug addicts and crazies, hetero women’s space has a sanity to it that I appreciate.

It is the pain and suffering inevitable within patriarchy, because the enemy is in the home, and how to really deal with that reality? I don’t have an answer.

factcheckme - July 27, 2010

Well, for women who are able, not being dependant is the only thing I can imagine that’s going to help, because its the only way we can be honest about the men we are with. Once you are dependant on him for much of anything at all, forget about seeing him for what he really is, and responding accordingly, ever again. This is so obvious to me, because ive done it. You will literally believe anything, except that the man you are dependant on is a fucking piece of shit, abusive, cheating, molesting your kids, etc. And even if you do know it, you have little choice but to ignore it.

As for the rest of the women on the world, and our neighbors and relatives too for that matter, who don’t have a choice at all, or much of one, but to be dependant on a man, well I don’t know the answer to that.

factcheckme - July 27, 2010

Also, I think that having your heart set on marriage, kids, happily ever after etc is going to blind you to seeing men as a group in any kind of negative way at all, and will definitely prevent you from making connections regarding the behaviors of men as a group. Which is very necessary if you are going to practice any kind of theory based feminism at all. Feminism is a response to aggregate male behavior, that’s what it is. Always believing that you just havent met the right one or whatever is isolating yourself from context. Thats never good.

21. FemmeForever - July 28, 2010

Always believing that you just haven’t met the right one or whatever is isolating yourself from context. That’s never good.

Ah, yes. The old needle in a haystack theory. It’s one of the most insidious lies that men sell women. You just have to hold out for the right one. It forever robs women of clarity.

I just had this conversation last week with a new potential friend. I was asked why I’m single. I answered I assumed I’d get married too in my teen years but that was before I understood what maleness was all about. Married church lady said, not all men. I said, ALL of them. She said, but you’re so pretty. I thought, why am I even bothering? How does one explain to a woman who’s been in bondage to the same dude since she was 13, nearly 50 years including courtship, that men are not her friends? I definitely need to work on my pitch.

22. SheilaG - July 28, 2010

Women seem to often get stuck in the individual, but balk at group analysis. To not look at what men do as a group on a daily basis to women is to be stuck. You have to see first, and just getting to that point with most straight women is like … (fill in the blank).

factcheckme - July 28, 2010

Well, women don’t want to be sexist. Too bad they are the only ones who are at all concerned about it. That’s how I first became aware of so-called gender issues actually. One time (one! Time!) I noticed that something appeared to confer a benefit on women that didn’t benefit men. I thought it was sexist. My friend agreed with me, and we both felt very good about ourselves for noticing. I was 17 at the time. Heh.

23. joy - July 28, 2010

“Always believing that you just haven’t met the right one or whatever is isolating yourself from context. That’s never good.

Ah, yes. The old needle in a haystack theory. It’s one of the most insidious lies that men sell women. You just have to hold out for the right one. It forever robs women of clarity.”

You see it everywhere, too. Not just in marriage circles.

I was one of the lucky ones: never thought I’d get married, NEVER thought I’d have kids, never even really held out any ideas about long-term relationships.
But (in the days before common sense kicked in and made me a separatist) I did sometimes want a male friend, serial boyfriends or whatever — and I had a hard time finding even someone I could stand for a few weeks or months.
My desires were pretty simple: somebody I could sit in parks with, go to concerts with, talk about music with, hang out on my couch with and kiss. You know, get drinks sometimes or whatever — and not have to worry about getting subjected to egregiously misogynist shit. Couldn’t even get that much. They’re all too into PIV and “ironic” bigotry. It’s less like finding the needle in a haystack and more like finding a needle in a pile of wet, gooey shit.

My mother is all about “all men are scum”, but even she’s decided to “settle” in her older age. (She’s in her mid-fifties.) My father and stepmother are big on the ‘you just haven’t met the right one’, in all areas of life.

I say college was misogynist and not worth it (especially since I couldn’t afford to pay anyway)? “You just haven’t found the right college/major yet.”
I say the places I lived in were sexist and backwards? “You just haven’t moved to the most liberal city yet.”
I say I vote third party and encourage revolution because no political candidates have our best interests at heart? “You just haven’t found the right platform yet.”

And so on.

Those of us who realize it’s all a racket, like gambling — designed to keep us playing the game and breaking our souls until we’re out of money, ie, dead — are considered “fringe” or “pessimistic” or “[insert stock insult here].”

But it is just like gambling, or a protection racket. If more people would stop buying into it and sit back, truly evaluate where they are (ESPECIALLY women, it goes without even saying), then the game would change. More people would opt out. And that is clearly against the system’s best interest. Thus, people keep encouraging each other’s delusions to keep from acknowledging their own, and thus risking every comfort they think they have.

24. joy - July 28, 2010

Also, I live in one of the most “liberal” cities in America, and as we all know, “liberal” =/= “progressive.” Especially after the 2008 election, especially never for women.

If anything, living in New York more than anything is what has made me a radical feminist (as opposed to what I was before, a radical -and a feminist-, if that makes sense). I’m supposedly surrounded by my allies, or at least people who are “on my side” …

and nope. A bunch of self-congratulatory, assholish, bigoted shitbags. The more bigoted and assholish they are, the more self-congratulatory they seem. They apparently think vocally supporting the porntastic women-as-inferior-inhuman-objects status quo is iconoclastic, as long as it’s not religious or something.

Fuck them. Fuck “finding better people/finding the Right One.” We don’t need them, in any way, at all. Other than, you know. We do need them to stop raping us and stuff …

25. sonia - July 28, 2010

I just want to throw this in response to Kristina’s question about the beginning of chivalry-

it seems to me that chivalry is a construction based on an initial social disempowerment of females across the globe. Once patriarchy destroyed woman-based cultures, which did exist at one time, they went through a period of enforced marriage, and enforced disempowerment, during which women were forced to stop doing the things we once did-fight, hunt, choose mates of our will for our time period etc etc, okay- now we’re forced to be disempowered, now we’re in the home ON PUNISHMENT OF DEATH, then they implemented chivalry as a social construct in response to that disempowerment. Just another of patriarchy’s little ironies. “I’ll force you to pretend you can’t do things, by threatening to kill you if you do, and then do them for you while you wear a forced smile and pretend to be charmed, because otherwise you’re dead.”

That’s my understanding of chivalry. I believe everything women do is on punishment of death, and it’s so widespread we don’t notice it anymore. They’ve actually done studies how women’s compliance is socially reinforced by very subtle body language by men that is comprised of subtle physical reference to physical violence. You can notice it out in the world if you look. Guys are threatening women all the time. Chivalry is a sham, and it’s based on enforced disablement of our abilities.

26. sonia - July 28, 2010

“Those of us who realize it’s all a racket, like gambling — designed to keep us playing the game and breaking our souls until we’re out of money, ie, dead — are considered “fringe” or “pessimistic” or “[insert stock insult here].”

totally true.

27. SheilaG - July 28, 2010

Any time you can step out of the group situations, and give yourself a chance to truly evaluate, to have a quiet place to think… that will give women the power to think.

Sometimes, I just sit back and watch, to see what other women will do in a given situation. I think women are often taken off guard with just how vulgar men really are, but later, when they reflect on a particular obnoxious incident, they realize what it was they were dealing with.
The more this happens, and the more women are able to discuss it in a safe place… free of men… the more chance there is that women will become feminists– that is human beings who put their own best interests first for a change.

factcheckme - July 28, 2010

Re chivalry, the argument has actually been made on this blog that its an example of “female privilege.” Yes, by a fun fem, who also thought the draft exemplified misandry. Or something. My battery is about to die, but I will respond to the chivalry bit later. What a bunch of shit, I will say in the meantime.

28. sonia - July 29, 2010

pfffft, well said. There IS no female privilege. I hate that, it rankles so hardcore. It’s just MRA hogwash designed to keep men lording it over women. I always think to myself, if chivalry were real, there would be no prostitution, and women would never have had a history of working in the home- laundry, cleaning, dishes, childcare. We historically have done ALL the shit work (I actually adore kids, but I’m talking about compulsory breeding and babysitting for 18 years+) whilst men’s only responsibility has been to bring home meat (or not), and build shit (or not, they can always opt to drink and woman-beat instead of whatever they’re supposed to be doing because after all, it’s “their” house that we’re tending). Chivalry is a brainwash tactic, total effing propaganda.

there, i went off so u don’t have to! 🙂

factcheckme - July 29, 2010

ok re chivalry, you only need to observe the MRA treatment of the issue to see what its all about: “those bitches want to be liberated? they can open their own goddamned doors/buy ME dinner, from now on.” its so clear that chivalry is about keeping women in servitude, to men. when we want out, they want out too. because they were NEVER just doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, in the first place. they were doing it to control women. DUH.

i also think its pretty clear that many men use chivalry to get women to “consent” to PIV, so the men dont have to go to jail, for raping them, when in fact the men would fuck her anyway even if she said NO. but getting her to say YES is just a lot less troublesome, for HIM. see? chivalry is also a dating ritual, which makes him her acquaintence now, instead of a stranger. it only takes a few cursory gestures, doesnt it, to make a woman specifically targeted as a rape victim, unrapeable. you know, under the current system, which was created by men, to benefit themselves. ah, teh menz. gotta love them!

29. Level Best - July 29, 2010

“Thus, people keep encouraging each other’s delusions to keep from acknowledging their own, and thus risking every comfort they think they have.”–joy

Joy, that is so well put! I think you’re absolutely right. It’s a combination of misery loves company and misery doesn’t want to acknowledge being miserable.

Women, all of your ideas on this thread are so interesting and so heartfelt–fascinating analysis. I’ve been staying quiet, though, because the subject of the post is one that I have little personal experience with, bobbing along gently as I do on the calm waters of asexuality. 🙂

factcheckme - July 29, 2010

Any thoughts on the original post level best? Thanks for stopping by. I might not write anything new this weekend, I haven’t decided yet. The last 2 posts were very thinky for me too. Still thinking.

factcheckme - July 29, 2010

sonia, did you delete your blog again? you are making me lol, for real. i clicked on the link just now, and it was “not found.” ?

30. sonia - July 30, 2010

I don’t want to talk about it. 😉

But seriously- no, I was telling UP this morning, I just want to do a fucking zine or something. The internet is bumming me out. I keep trying to come back strong because I know I have some shit to say, but I think the medium is wrong for me at this point. I think I am going to do a zine. Anyone who has some zinetastic shit to say, can let me know. I plan on leaving it around at random places where it could maybe influence some chick’s life. Women’s restrooms, etc. I’ve learned some major life lesson’s scrawled in Sharpie on ladies’ room walls. But I digress..

“i also think its pretty clear that many men use chivalry to get women to “consent” to PIV, ”

this is fucking brilliant, because it’s so blatant it’s invisible. Without false friendliness, all men would have to rape! There are no really good intentions. I recently went on a date just to do it, to experience it from the place I”m at in my radfem life now, and it was so weird because the whole time I kept thinking this thing. “He’s being so nice,” but I knew why and I knew it was all a front. Yeah, he might really BE nice, he might really like me, but he’s nice because he thinks I might turn out to be a dick-sheath at some point, and he likes me for what he thinks I am, which isn’t at all what i am. so I guess chivalry just enables rape culture after all.

31. sonia - July 30, 2010

I can’t believe I put an apostrophe in “lessons”. I need a fucking vacation.

32. Level Best - July 30, 2010

Yes, fcm, the original post evoked a lot of thoughts from me, but they were/are kinda disconnected, and I wasn’t sure I should muddy your blog with them, because I really respect your and many of your commenters’ powers of conciseness and deep thinkatude. But since you asked!!!…

One thought: I totally agree that on some level, even if it’s just on the lizard-brain level, (a lot of) straight men are way off base about how they think about the vagina. They do see it as THEIR sheath, something that belongs to them whenever they wish to use it, and they furiously react if denied access. It’s like the PIV-declining woman is a toaster that won’t work when they cram their bread into it. Thus thwarted, they want to hurtle the damn thing into the trash can, because damn it! it won’t for them, the owners! Its whole point is to work for them! Now they’ll have to go out and buy new toasters, or maybe to register their fury, they’ll go smash some shop windows and STEAL some toasters!

Another thought: On another level, (a lot of) straight men do know how amazing and cosmic women’s reproductive systems are, which makes them a hella resentful and inferior-feeling, so they actively campaign to reduce them to sheath status, because that’s what they want them to be. It’s a smokescreen to facilitate reduction of women not only to their parts, but to a particularly, deliberately maligned and misrepresented part. Thus all of the ancient “thinkers” who taught that women had NO ROLE in reproduction–that sperm deposited in the toaster, I mean vagina, developed itself into a fetus all on its lonesome. Women had no part in producing a human being (a male), because they themselves were only partially human, if that. The sperm was the magic! It was the baby! So thus the one thing men knew damn well they couldn’t do themselves was presented by “thinkers” such as theologians as men’s act of creation. May as well just use vaginas as sheaths and not even think about it, because men are the producers of life.

AND GET THIS: I just read on the No Longer Quivering blog (by former Quiverful women and other women who’ve found their ways out of oppressive , woman-hating religions) that there is a major line of fundamentalistic quiverful teaching (I think the guy behind it was a Rev. Branham?) that repeats the ancient lie that women have no role in reproduction–that the sperm produces the baby with no help. Now how anyone can believe this line of propaganda in this day and age after so many years of knowing about the egg and even about species that reproduce without males when need be, I don’t know, but it’s made a resurgence in Fundamentalist Christian circles. Hey, maybe that’s why they all homeschool–it filters out inconvenient truths.

factcheckme - July 30, 2010

Thanks level best! I just keep going back to the pic of the neovag, when i feel my thinking getting muddied. Where did this come from? This exists. Why? No matter how anyone thinks or feels about any of this, neovags exist. And nothing happens in a vaccuum. And…men really, really fucking despise their own kids. Why? Again, not in a vaccuum. It’s just something ive been thinking about, and I keep going back to that pic.

Re the jealousy thing…the belief that men are in awe of our reproductive capabilities…I don’t know. How many times have you heard someone say “oh they’re just jealous!” When it wasn’t even true? This is such a reflexive response often times, when really the person isn’t really jealous of you at all: in reality, they just hate you. Something to think about. Also, you can really only be jealous of someone who has something you don’t. But men are as reproductively capable as women are. Seems to me that men just dont seem to know on any level that matters, where babies actually come from. That we are magical, perhaps, but magical AND WITHOUT INTERNAL ORGANS. If they acknowledged the organs, they would have to disavow the magic. But they don’t, do they? It’s so fucked up. And…contradictory. I think its important we don’t forget that, when analyzing it. It doesn’t make an ounce of rational sense.

More on quiverfull later!

33. mscitrus - July 31, 2010

“Also, I think that having your heart set on marriage, kids, happily ever after etc is going to blind you to seeing men as a group in any kind of negative way at all, and will definitely prevent you from making connections regarding the behaviors of men as a group. ”

It is so hard to move away from that crap. Even tho I was never really set on those things, except the being happy part (of course), it took me forever to look at men as a group. When I started to put the pieces together, I was actively discouraged from doing so. I will never forget bringing this up with my ex boyfriend-“You know, I think its pretty weird that I’ve been raped several times and I’m only 17. I’m starting to think that most men are rapists.” His response, of course, was that I just had “really bad luck.” Yup, me being raped repeatedly is just bad luck. Oh and also because I have low self-esteem. (which had to have been a factor in being raped, not a result.)

“ok re chivalry, you only need to observe the MRA treatment of the issue to see what its all about: “those bitches want to be liberated? they can open their own goddamned doors/buy ME dinner, from now on.” its so clear that chivalry is about keeping women in servitude, to men. when we want out, they want out too. because they were NEVER just doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, in the first place. they were doing it to control women. DUH.”

Fuck, this exactly. Nothing to add here. Except a little thing I read on some study while I was researching for something: there is a significant correlation between dudes paying for a date (especially insisting on it) and date rape. As well as between the regular use of porn (by the male obviously). Whodda thunk?

And on your comment level best: I’m pretty sure if just the sperm made children, dudes would stop watching porn and masturbating so fucking much, because they might not have a woman around to take care of the resulting kid. (or pay child support, oh noes.)

factcheckme - July 31, 2010

ok, this stuff about the sperm being the child (and quiverfull! i dont want to forget about them) is really interesting to me. and YES, i have heard this before but i dont know a whole lot about it: that sperm was thought to be a whole human all by itself, albeit very tiny, and the woman was an incubator only, where the tiny but complete human grew into a child. i dont doubt that this is exactly what they thought back then, as they had nothing but mens misogynist assumptions about women to go on, pro-male bias, ie. already believing with all their might that men were the schnizz (or whatever) and a lack of hard evidence that this wasnt the case, and that something else *was*.

what i didnt know is that people STILL BELIEVE THIS? literally? WTF? these fundie religious groups never fail to impress me honestly with the shit they can get people to believe. WE KNOW BETTER. we can see sperm under the microscope, and they arent tiny humans. we know why women menstruate now, and that its not magical or evil (although obviously still taboo). we have fucking IVF now, where we take the cells out of BOTH men and women, put one inside the other, then put the whole thing back into the woman. everyone knows this. i am stating the obvious here because in order to ask WHY this is happening, you have to first break down whats happening to its most basic level. and here, we have just blatant lies about women, that reduce women to literally an incubator. WHY might anyone be doing this?

my guess is that its a new angle on the abortion issue, to train the next generation on the “personhood of the fetus” argument so well, that it just becomes second nature to them. i am reading mackinnons “mens laws, womens lives” right now, and this is what she gets at very plainly in the legal arguments about abortion: men only understand pregnancy in their own (male) terms so this is the way lawmakers frame it. the fetus is a “person”, the fetus is a “body part” of someone else, etc. the “fetus is a person” framework is the pro-life framework. neither are true of course, its just as close as they have ever bothered to get, in understanding what pregnancy really is, and especially what its like for the pregnant woman. that will be the day, wont it?

what level best mentions, and shes right, is that this also has the affect of reducing women to something thats not human. literally “objectifying” women, believing them to be objects to be used, ie. like a toaster, or a broom. this is standard-issue misogyny really. so where the porn-drenched liberal dickwads want to reduce women to “just” a fuckhole, for men, the fucking fundies might throw in the uterus too, because it best serves their purposes. liberal dickwads want to control women by fucking them, pornifying them, prostituting them (and doing all this out in the open of course) and the fundies want to control women by making them incubators for their spawn, and using hookers and porn in private. that each has its own position in the abortion debate isnt surprising, and NEITHER position has womens interests in mind, when they do it.

i guess my question would be: how to the fundies view their hookers? with a uterus, or without? without, is my guess. and i have no doubt that they take their mistresses and underage daughters for abortions, all the time. which means that vagina-as-fuckhole is their default position for a woman too. the rest is just politics.

factcheckme - July 31, 2010

again, if anyone is having trouble with this material, go back to the picture of the neovag. read the literal meaning of the word, vagina, which means sheath. and its meant “sheath” for literally thousands of years. if you end up somewhere different than i have, then i think thats fine. but thats where i started, and this is where i ended up. vagina meant “sheath” a long time before we had proof that it wasnt one. they can almost be excused, i guess, for believing it back then, when they really believed that menstruation and gestation happened by magic. but we have learned over time where babies come from. we are very advanced, technologically, compared to where we were 5000 years ago, in every way. and where are we now? now that we fucking KNOW BETTER, for a fact, that vaginas ARE NOT SHEATHS, and that the view that they are, cannot be supported medically? we have brand-spanking new NEO-VAGINAS! staring us right in the fucking face. we havent gotten anywhere!

what i am having trouble reconciling is the pic of the neovag/vagina as sheath, with this:

its not fucking unless someone can die from it, unless someone can become pregnant. because fucking and female subservience are the same thing.

from the intercourse series. because *thats* where i ended up, after reading dworkin. she didnt say that, exactly, but she did talk about how intercourse specifically targets the vagina, where pregnancy results, and suggested that that was purposeful. so heres where i am with that (and i can only assume this has been articulated elsewhere, but i still have a lot to read so i havent seen it):

i think these things have changed over time, with the interplay of PIV and technology. for example, we didnt know, at one time, where babies came from. and men experienced womens vaginas as a “sheath” by having PIV with women. so, we got “vagina as sheath.” eventually, we understood where babies came from, and men continued having PIV with women, and we all knew where womens servitude to men came from, (from PIV and childrearing) but nothing changed. PIV became a deliberate (or at least, a “known”) way to fuck women over, to screw them. so theres a punishment element, or a sadistic element (which women experience as masochism of course, as they are on the receiving end). as soon as we knew where babies came from, we tried to stop it from happening. sponges, oils on the cervix etc. this has been happening slowly over hundreds of years, until we ended up where we are now: hormonal contraceptives, which are 99% effective. AND PORN. ah, dont forget porn! 24/7 accessible porn, which is happening in real life, and we never see the women get pregnant (but they ARE getting pregnant, and in point of fact, anyone who has ever seen porn has probably seen and masturbated to a woman being impregnanted by a man, in real time, and just didnt know it. and didnt care either). so womens vaginas are becoming more like fuckholes again, even when we know they arent.

this is where the insanity of men comes in. because they KNOW they are fucking women over, when they fuck us. thats part of the thrill of it. and yet, theres the plausible denial there that only ever existed hundreds if not THOUSANDS of years ago, and never since, that vaginas are toys, and that they dont *do* anything, and that babies, in fact, do NOT come from “there.” there was a time in there, after we understood sexual reproduction, but before reliable birth control, where there was NO PLAUSIBLE DENIAL about that. but now there is again. and i think the contradictory beliefs there are literally making men insane.

women, of course, know better. we take a pill every day, and take a pregnancy test once a year or whatever. and we are still having unwanted pregnancies, no matter how the pregnancy ends (birth, or not).

anyway, those are my thoughts at the moment. heres the link to the intercourse series:


factcheckme - July 31, 2010

also, i would like to add that pro-feminist men SHOULD appreciate this analysis of mens insanity, and take it to heart. and not take it personally, except to the exent that THEY SUFFER FROM IT TOO. because they likely do. this is a “what about teh menz” thread afterall, and you arent likely to see many of those around here. if ANY men (or their sympathizers) want to get at the root of mens psychosis around these issues, then they will take it ot heart, and even if they dont agree with me, then they will come up with another intellectually honest analysis on their own. if they dont, and they just want to continue feeling sorry for men, and denying that theres anything wrong, then they will do that.

i have always felt that i provide people with an opportunity here. theres information here, and an opportunity for an honest analysis, and discussion of the issues that you wont find in many other places. i am not patting myself on the back, i am actually pretty pissed off that everyone else is fucking lying and issue-dodging, because frankly i am busy and i dont have time for this shit. but since we are all here, and we all know that there are many, many people claim that “patriarchy hurts men tooooo!!!!11!” then lets get fucking honest about where this comes from, and what might be causing this alleged mental distress. its because they are fucking nuts, is why. my only point of course that mens distress translates into women and children DEAD. and it always has. not that i particularly care about men. if thats not the perspective we are coming from when we are asking questions about men, then we are pandering to men, and not asking the right questions.

34. sam - July 31, 2010

A hearty thanks to all you smart women for this unusually thought-provoking blog conversation.

35. SheilaG - July 31, 2010

The idea that sperm alone create children, and that women are incubators comes from Aristotle, Thomas Acquinas and many other “early church fathers.” The so-called ‘greats” of white male civilization are still enthroned in philosophy classes– the idea of original sin was invented by Augustine, another white male great.

In the past, we can document who these men were, and what they invented, and how their patriarchal craziness helped build a world we are still dealing with today.

Yes, men are insane. They are illogical and have no respect for women or our intellectual inquiries at all. I guess reading these essays and posts made it even more clear how insane men really are, but it is less visibile to lesbians like me. I notice how evil and crazy men are in the work place, but I never see them at home or in personal lives all that much. Straight women are the most brainwashed by all of this, and Quiverfull is just the newest MANifestation on an old theme.

That people continue to believe all this despite science proves the highly suggestable state of humans; it also means we have to be very firm in getting a clear feminist message out there for young girls to find. If we don’t do this, the nut case Quiverfull men will continue to enslave women. The stakes are high– and women could turn the tide and end PIV, stop it dead in its tracks. It is a worthy goal I think of straight feminists.

factcheckme - August 1, 2010

heres an interesting lil nugget i found over at dirts place…apparently valerie keefe is posing as a transman too, as well as a non-op and post-op MTF (the last 2 he did here, claiming to be non-op AFTER he had already said he was post-op). and he has some kind of a corpse fetish, and his bio-male self is named “sean” and and and…ah well heres the link. it goes on and on. dirts message is “beware” and i concur.


36. delphyne - August 1, 2010

“So to any radical feminist who has dealt with this guy under his “valerie” guise, beware and remember he is a 6’3 340+ pound man first and foremost.”

This is the reason why we should never call MTF trans “she” because it puts women in danger from men.

I’ve seen a MTF trans be able to prey on a whole lot of young women because they thought he was female, whilst a whole lot of other feminists stood around and did nothing and allowed his predation to go unchallenged by calling him “she” and allowing other women to believe he was a woman, even though they knew what he was *and* knew his track record.

MTF trans = wolves in sheeps’ clothing.

factcheckme - August 1, 2010

yes delphyne, i will be referring to transwomen as “he” from now on. this is just fucking sick. ugh.

37. Level Best - August 2, 2010

I just went back to the No Longer Quivering blog and found the specific part in which “Rev.” Branham’s insane “sperm is the baby” teaching was discussed. Stock up on some eye bleach; you will need it:


38. SheilaG - August 2, 2010

Women need to warn other women! Geez, if we can’t police and warn each other about creepo transwomen, fake internet multiple personality men etc. etc. well…

One time, long ago, I found out that one of the lesbians at our hangout beat up women she was involved with. She also terrorized former partners, stalked them (she was a police officer). I talked to women she had beaten and stalked and approached the owner of the club and asked her if she was willing to warn patrons or ban this woman from the place. To my shock, she didn’t want to do anything about a paying customer! Needless to say, I never went back there, I warned a bunch of women…

I get sick of this. I get sick of transwomen! I’m so sick of all of this!!

factcheckme - August 2, 2010

Thanks for the link levelbest. That shit is chilling, it really is. I will poke around that site some more, when i have a chance. Do you know if the author of that piece had her own quiverful marriage? Or was she just a quiverful daughter?

factcheckme - August 2, 2010

what i would like to know is, where are all the fun-fems, clucking approvingly at this once-in-a-lifetime radfem admission that “patriarchy hurts men tooooo!!!!11!!!!” where are they? i guess they would rather boo-hoo over teh poor menz lack of clothing options, and/or lobbying for teh menz to be able to express their gender i mean be ironic by wearing pink sparkly shirts to work. meh. theres just no pleasing some people.

39. Level Best - August 3, 2010

“Do you know if the author of that piece had her own quiverful marriage? Or was she just a quiverful daughter?”–fcm

The No Longer Quivering website/blog is pretty complicated to navigate–as one of the founders has acknowledged and is still working on alleviating. They’re had to create separate forums for discussion of blogs posts on the website, because the site itself is so “busy.” It was founded by a couple of ex-Quiverful wives who both had had many children while in the cults (there are many different kinds of Quiverful fundies; it’s a very splintered “movement” dedicated to outbreeding the heathen and imposing a top-down theocracy. Women’s role, as in Nazi Germany, is simply that of being submissive, perpetual incubators and servants to men.). Both of these women who founded the blog escaped from their marriages and churches and now are very self-aware, and they began the website by serially telling their personal stories, chapter by chapter. And then they opened up the website to yet more women to tell their personal stories of religious oppression and escape, chapter by chapter.

This particular woman who was brought up in a Rev. Branham-based cult is still in the process of publishing chapters of her story on the website. At this point she’s still talking about her childhood in the cult and how horrible it made her feel to be a girl; I am hoping that, like some of the other women who have written their stories on the website, she escaped when she grew up and legally didn’t “belong” to her nutty parents anymore.

God, it just makes me wish there could be radfem SWAT teams that could storm the Duggar compound and FLDS compounds yelling “Hut! Hut! Hut” and round up and rescue all of the daughters. This Quiverful stuff, which incidentally has been embraced by a lot of Southern Baptists (no surprise there; in my part of Appalachia the question is just what kind of Baptist you are, not what denomination. Again, my mom made sure I was an outlier by sending me to the radical Pinko Methodist church as a kid; I really owe mom my life!), is really, really bad stuff. They actively keep the girls under-educated, thanks to the legality of, ta-da!, homeschooling. Some girls aren’t even literate.

40. Level Best - August 3, 2010

“. . .where are all the fun-fems, clucking approvingly at this once-in-a-lifetime radfem admission that “patriarchy hurts men tooooo!!!!11!!!!” where are they?”–fcm

The last I looked, they were divided up in teams of mama’s and non-mama’s and tearing each other apart on Feministe. Microwave some popcorn and take a look at the two posts over there about right-on mothers vs. “F”eminists. There are hundreds and hundreds of comments, mostly irate. 😦

factcheckme - August 3, 2010

Ah yes, the white middle class girlie girls tearing each others eyes out over who’s the most empowerfulized, under the big p. Here’s a hint: youre both losing, big time. Duh! God. Wtf? Undercover punk doesn’t even want to blog anymore, because it seems like all feminists do is beat each other down. Well…for my part, I’m not really going to stop criticising them. Although there does seem to be something not quite right with feminist infighting, as a concept.

41. Level Best - August 4, 2010

Men kill each other all the time (gangs, crime, war, assassinations, bar fights, etc.), as well as OF COURSE killing women, but when it comes to serving their sex’s self-interests, they damn well stick together. And as a few 1000 years of complete dominance over women has shown, this strategy works for them.

Often feminists do well to critique whomever they have a beef with, because from real dialogue comes improvement and knowledge. When it comes to the crunch, though, (heh! now the phrase “the crunch” always reminds me of The Mighty Boosh. Indeed, I am a nerd.) they need to have one another’s backs. I would love for this to become the default mode. We can parse and parse intellectually, but women need to actually do things in the real world to help women.

Telling the truth to one another about how things really are is a help, and you do that all the time.

42. FemmeForever - August 6, 2010

it just makes me wish there could be radfem SWAT teams

I would like to volunteer for radfem SWAT. I’m not that athletic but I’m all-in-radfem.

43. berryblade - August 6, 2010

Dude, where are the radfem SWAT teams and where do I sign up? Haha, don’t worry FemmeForever, I’m not athletic and chainsmoke like a fiend so we can just be loud bad-arses ;P
I vote for a special zombpocalypse/menocide readiness squad. Haha. Had to say it, I really did.

44. FemmeForever - August 10, 2010

FCM, I just saw this documentary that I think you should see. It is here at amazon.

Here’s the synopsis in case you don’t want to watch the movie.

Boy dates girl. Boy proposes to girl. Couple proceeds to have SEVEN children. Man moves family across country and then abandons them for another woman. In 1973. The documentary is produced by the children.

factcheckme - August 11, 2010

thanks FF. berryblade has a post up with a 75-minute documentary…i guess i have some youtubing to do. what did you think about the video?

45. FemmeForever - August 11, 2010

What do I think?

Even for a person who knows wholeheartedly that men hate women and children, this story still shocked me and broke my heart.

46. skeptifem - October 5, 2010

This idea that vaginas are only real if they are a part of an organ system that “does something” is inaccurate. Mostly because lots of women have had their uterus/ovaries removed, and plenty of others didn’t have the parts develop inside of them. Sometimes the organs don’t do their job. What level of functionality does a woman need to have to be considered “real” by your definition? Some folks born with vaginas have male DNA and look completely female, some folks with vaginas lack any other feminine characteristics and otherwise appear to be men. There are many conditions that mix and match primary/secondary sexual characteristics. Intersex kids are somewhat common- they have partial expression of both sexual organs. Sex is a spectrum. The definition you picked is extremely problematic for those reasons. Unless we all line up for medical tests to see who is really female and who isn’t then the real issue behind feminism is lived experience and social reality, not biology.

factcheckme - October 5, 2010

This idea that vaginas are only real if they are a part of an organ system that “does something” is inaccurate.

NOT WHAT I SAID. sorry! try again. i said that neo-vaginas are not vaginas. and they arent. no more than a car is an apple, or a fish is a tree. in reality, a neo-vagina is as much of a “vagina” as it is a “second anus.” in fact, why dont we start calling them that, from now on? (thanks to eves daughter for that one).

and how does anything you say here, erase or negate the FACT that some 90-95% of FAABs are actually BIOLOGICALLY FEMALE? and that almost every single one of them are impregnable? thats taking in to account that 5-10% of live births are intersex, and that most of those are female-assigned-at-birth (FAAB). or that some 70% of all women world wide give birth at some point, and even more are at some point impregnated? or that ONLY biological women can be impregnated, and ONLY by biological men? and that womens oppression worldwide, as a sexual class, is directly tied to this particular physical vulnerability?

i am so sick of the fucking gender queers and pomo feminists USING 5-10% of intersex births, almost all of which are FAABs, not MAABs, as a reason to include MEN in their definition of women. so that MAABs are treated even better than they are now, if thats even possible. and thats all you are saying, and thats all you are about. and the intersex FAABs arent being served by your using them for your own ends, either. thats because your entire reason for being is to cater to MAABs.

well, if FAAB were a meaningless category, then intersex FAABs wouldnt be treated like shit i mean like GIRLS AND WOMEN, just like biological female people are. but they are. because they are presumed to be impregnable, and funnelled into an oppressive female gender role based on that assumption, unless and until its proven otherwise. then they are FAILED WOMEN. thats what gender is all about. yay gender! not.

oh, and i think what you were going for with your “biology” reference was this: RADFEMS IS ESSENTIALISTSSS!!111!! there, now you dont have to actually, you know, SAY IT. even though you, you know, SAID IT.

how original.

47. berryblade - October 7, 2010

Sex is a spectrum.


Unless we all line up for medical tests to see who is really female and who isn’t then the real issue behind feminism is lived experience and social reality, not biology.

If you’re trying castrated male inclusionary tactics here, I smell bullshit. They don’t have lived experience of womyn, they have what they THINK the lived experience of womyn is like.


i am so sick of the fucking gender queers and pomo feminists USING 5-10% of intersex births

Me too.

I couldn’t help myself, I read this comment and my jaw just dropped.

factcheckme - October 7, 2010

Me too bb. That’s why I published it. Whaa?!

48. berryblade - October 7, 2010

I can’t belive 5% of births is considered “common”

if it was 95% I might find it a bit easier to believe.

love the new entry btw.

factcheckme - October 7, 2010

yeah thats ironic isnt it? because 95% of live births ARE biologically female, and they dont consider THAT significant at all.

i fixed your italics BTW. heh.

49. berryblade - October 7, 2010

Thanks FCM, my html has been so sloppy today!

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: