jump to navigation

On Credibility August 27, 2010

Posted by FCM in feminisms, liberal dickwads, meta, MRAs, PIV, politics, pop culture, porn, rape, self-identified feminist men, thats mean, WTF?.
Tags: , , ,

in the real world, meaning in the world occupied by men, where womens issues are a nonissue really, and we are only talking about trite, privileged bullshit that doesnt matter anyway…credibility matters.  journalists have to disclose any possible conflicts of interest when they are reporting on a story, so that any possible bias on their part is vetted.  and if the politician they are covering turns out to be their third cousin or something, the story might be given to someone else entirely.  you know, to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  to avoid the stench of fish.  or to, most importantly, maintain the value of some rich white mans stock in publicly traded media outlets

in court, judges arent allowed to rule on cases in which it could even appear as if there were something fishy going on.  if the judge is scheduled to hear the testimony of a doctor that once treated him, he must, absolutely must recuse himself, lest the outcome of the case be tainted by judgement that was impaired.  in this context, the rule against the appearance of impropriety

must cover not just the clear and obvious improprieties but indirect, disguised, or careless conduct that looks like an impropriety to an observer who is neither overly suspicious nor unusually gullible…[in other words] conduct that “would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.”

not that these rules are not sometimes broken; all rules are sometimes broken, which is why we have the need for punishment, and sequestering offenders from the public, lest the damage be repeated.  but my point is that there are rules, governing the issue of credibility, and bias, in some situations.  but apparently, there are no such rules within third-wave feminist circles.

behold the third-wave feminist man.  when mens access to womens and feminist spaces is challenged, self-identified feminist men respond with rage.  absolute rage, and unabashed mansplanations that should make any reasonably feminist or feminist-identified human blush (or change the channel).  but they never do.  and importantly, the credibility of the speaker isnt seen as an issue, at all.  for example, when i commented on feministe regarding the problem of allowing men access to on-campus feminist groups: 

sorry, but you are going to have this problem constantly, and consistently be wasting your time with aggressive, entitled men and mansplanations, as long as you let men into womens and feminist spaces. full stop. there is no remedy for this problem, except to not allow them access. and unfortunately, theres really no way to limit membership and privatize groups when you are in a public school setting, even when its to deny men access to womens spaces DUE TO WOMEN NEEDING PRIVATE WOMEN-ONLY SPACE, DUE TO AGGRESSIVE, ENTITLED MEN. 

the completely unoriginal, trite and banal response from one male reader, who felt the need to write an entire post of his own refuting my suggestion mansplaining why i was wrong, was this: 

I sympathize. But as a man who is committed to doing feminist work, I respectfully reject the commenter’s suggestion. 

well isnt that just the shock of a lifetime, from which none of us might recover. 

the fact of the matter is, and its the entire fucking point of radical feminist theory in fact, is that men have everything to gain from maintaining the status quo when it comes to the systematic oppression of women by men.  they have PIV to gain.  they have free domestic labor to gain.  they have less competition, more freedom, and nothing but eye candy and women trying to sex themselves up for the male gaze, as far as the eye can see.  and its all so sexxxay, man!  it really is.  you know, if you are a man. 

so regarding mens credibility to comment on feminist issues, to criticise feminist work, and to access womens and feminist spaces, men (including transwomen) have none. nil.  nada.  the question we must therefore ask ourselves, since they are never just going to shut the fuck up, is “is any of what this assclown doodbro is saying actually TRUE?”  and sometimes it may be.  the video above addressing prostitution and the logical fallacies men tell themselves and each other about prostitution and prostituted women might have some truth to it.  patrick stewart might have something valuable to say about domestic violence against women.  but they have NO CREDIBILITY ON THESE ISSUES, AT ALL. 

so for our part as thinking humans and feminists, we have to analyze every word of every goddamned thing that self-identified feminist men, and indeed all men say, on all topics, in every situation.  its like picking through dog shit for the keys to your vespa…when you really really suspect you actually left them at the grocery store, and they probably arent even in this pile of stinking feces you are picking through, at all. 

the other option of course would be to JUST NOT.  and if we chose that route, there would be nothing anyone could say about it to legitimately criticize our response to JUST.  NOT.  BOTHER.


1. kristina - August 27, 2010

It sure seems like a hard pill to swallow here… I would like, no LOVE to believe that men are “getting it”, but how can they REALLY get it? This is evidenced in their inconsistencies as they struggle to see what it’s like in a woman’s perspective, while they may be able to see the injustices, they will never be able to FEEL them, the absolute MOST they can do is sympathize, and even that is hard enough for most men.
Speaking in terms of emotion is alien to men, anything that will appeal to the emotions to even the most sensitive man still won’t make sense, but is that to say they can’t have their own spaces in which they support feminism? Are you asserting that men shouldn’t be allowed to discuss feminism at all, even if it’s with other guys, or is it the way they are speaking like they “get it” that you have the problem with? Perhaps if men had their own groups in which they don’t pretend to sympathize (because a man can never really truly sympathize with the woman’s plight)but rather discuss the logical inconsistencies in gender roles as they pertain to men’s VIEW OF women?

factcheckme - August 27, 2010

Far be it for me or any woman or any feminist, anywhere, to tell men what they can and cannot discuss, amongst themselves. We can’t even get them to stop RAPING us, ffs. Nice what about teh menz derail though. What I would like to explore is why is credibility a nonissue in the context of self-identified feminist men, when we – and they! -claim its so important in other contexts.

2. Loretta Kemsley - August 27, 2010

Women only spaces are very important. Even having one really great man in the mix changes the entire dynamic of how women talk to each other. They become more careful in what they say lest they offend.

The only way women are going to find their own way is to step outside the patriarchal paradigm completely. They need to stop accepting any male definitions of the world. As long as they are wrestling around within the male way of thinking, they cannopt reach a true feminine way of thinking. The best they can do is tack on a few relevant points that counteract male thought.

We need male feminists, but we don’t need to cater to their thought process. They need to cater to ours if they want to be included in the inner sanctum. But that doesn’t happen. It is hard for anyone to adopt a new viewpoint and even harder to completely reject the one that is arriving via the thought process of your own sex.

3. DarthVelma - August 27, 2010

I think one of the things that annoys me most is the assertion by most fumfems that it’s important for men to speak out about feminist issues because other men will listen to them when they won’t listen to women.

Argh. It’s only partly about the messenger. Sure, men don’t listen to women. But they don’t listen to men either when IT’S. THE. MESSAGE. that they don’t want to hear.

One or two or fifty or a thousand men can talk until they are blue in the face about sexism and women-hating and rape and prostitution and how they’re badbadbad. (Not that they do…but I suppose they could.) The vast majority of men will not listen and will not care.

It makes no difference and it does nothing but make men the center of feminist discourse…again.

factcheckme - August 27, 2010

men need to STOP ENGAGING IN PIV, and they need to tell other men to stop engaging in it too. fuck this anti-porn anti-prostitution and even this anti-rape campaign by pro-feminist men, which is the ONLY good work that pro-feminist men are really doing. fuck even that. they need to stop sticking THEIR OWN dicks into women, PERIOD. particularly when they want to appear “credible” and say they “get” or want to get why the current system is so harmful to women. ITS BECAUSE MEN KEEP STICKING THIER DICKS INTO US. full stop.

any pro-feminist men care to take on this particular challenge? no? i didnt think so. AND THAT SAYS IT ALL. it really does. fuck them.

factcheckme - August 27, 2010

and in the case of transactivists, miskas latest post addresses the point i made earlier: we have to scrutinize the shit they come up with, to see if its even true. and it never fucking is. heres a link:


but so many fun fems and third wave men even are just eating this shit up with a spoon. in the case of third-wave men buying into transpolitics, well DUH! its a mens rights movement! of COOOUUURRRRSE they are going to think its just fucking great. as for WOMEN eating this shit instead of analyzing it…well that is just so unfortunate, and so horrifying, that dont even know where to start. i think transwomen should be fucking ashamed of themselves, ASHAMED, for pulling this shit on women, who legitimately care about them as human beings. they cant even be fucking HONEST with women who care about them. and if thats not just a dead fucking giveaway that transwomen are still men, then i dont know what is.

4. kristina - August 27, 2010

Hey, I’m still getting my feelers in the feminist world, it was an honest question and not one by the assumption that men SHOULD be involved, but one rather of why do I feel men should be involved, key word feel…does that mean I won’t change my mind? Absolutely NOT!!! I think you’re getting so used to everyone railing against you that it almost seems impossible to believe that anyone is coming into a conversation with the willingness to change their views…I assure you that I am NOT one of those women. It’s not about what about teh menz, it’s what will make our movement affective, does it or does it not involve men, with no decided assumptions on the matter…I’m clearing my mind and starting from scratch, that being said I take no offense to anything you have written in your reply, however excuse me if I’m willing to rationalize my own thoughts and not be spoon-fed, by your very response you have made me feel like the typical man (having to be spoon fed thoughts and ideas)in order to come to someone else’s rational conclusion.
You are working under the assumption that because I questioned your view that I disagree, when I made clear that I don’t….I personally blame it on teh menz and even pro-feminist men that you are reacting in this manner, so perhaps it is rational to keep men out of our spaces, as it seems in general they are causing discourse from within the movement…see that wasn’t so hard was it?

factcheckme - August 27, 2010

Kristina, this post was about credibility. And you are derailing. Again.

5. kristina - August 27, 2010

I’m sorry, but I really don’t think it was about derailing. If men don’t have a place in the movement there’s no reason to question their credibility, bottom line is if they are going to be there causing discourse because of how they make women feel in and out of the movement (which is what I was pointing out with your reaction: keep in mind I’m working under the assumption that emotions ARE rational (depending on the context and previous assumptions)… opposite of the worldview you’re used to)then they have no reason to be there, or discuss issues that you yourself said they know NOTHING about. Credibility isn’t an issue unless they are going to be included, convincing others that credibility isn’t an issue however is a completely different matter…most women look at the suffrage movement and compare it to feminism, and while it has it’s parallels it has ONE major difference…it was involving MEN, and their equality, women were just along for the brief ride and got dumped off once black men were “equal” (and I use that term lightly). Feminism is a movement all of its own, and people still treat it like it’s emancipation all over again, except for the ONE GLARING issue…MEN
So to answer your question, credibility isn’t an issue to a feminist who can spot these parallels, it’s an issue to those that you must convince that this is not emancipation of african americans, but emancipation of WOMEN.

factcheckme - August 27, 2010

Sorry people, but only advanced feminists should generally feel free to go off on tangents. Seriously. If you are still grappling with feminism 101 stuff, just stick to the topic of the post, and try to figure out what it adds to the conversation here, and how its based on radfem philosophy. I am writing this shit for a reason, and its not for my health. And I generally don’t mince, or waste, words. That is all.

factcheckme - August 27, 2010

If you can’t figure out the topic of the post, read the title. This isn’t a joke. Sometimes when reading new or extremely dense material, you need a map. In books, the table of contents is your map, and should be consulted regularly, if your mind wanders, or if you get confused. That’s free advice. Do with it what you will.

6. Level Best - August 27, 2010

I have only to read Loretta Kemsley’s comment to once again be grateful for her presence on feminist sites. Every sentence of what she said I agree with, and I only wish I could express myself as clearly and well. Yes, just yes.

fcm, the PIV is the acid test that probably even 99.9% of avowedly feminist men will fail. PIV’s like oxygen to straight males, never questioned. Some draw the line at forcing it, and a small percentage restrict PIV to women they have feelings for, but PIV itself is considered an inevitability and “right” by men who relate to women. If they notice you and do even the tiniest smidgen of kindness for you, PIV’s lurking in their mind as the end result.

And all of the above is not to be interpreted as my saying, don’t even try PIV dissuasive arguments, because a moratorium on it is not a possibility. No, no, KEEP DRAWING THIS LINE. And I hope other radfems will put this on the table in their writings, until it’s a “meme” that may be overwhelmingly ridiculed but can’t be “un-thought,” because it’s out there.

You know, I don’t think even a fraction of a percent of straight WOMEN have considered it’s not inevitable in a relationship, either. No one presents it as a possibility to them, or even as THEIR right to abstain from in a relationship. The closest we’ve gotten to for a woman’s right in a relationship with a man is “enthusiastic consent”–total PIV dissension is NEVER considered as the woman’s right. That deal-breaker would just be a signal to the men to try elsewhere for PIV.

Credibility? I give zero credibility to any professed straight male feminist until he is openly anti-PIV in order to spare women pregnancy, disease, injury, harm from taking birth control, discomfort, low percentages of orgasm, and all of PIV’s other delights. Don’t talk to me, male feminist, until you do this, because I won’t credit anything you say.

7. SheilaG - August 27, 2010

The issue of full disclosure and credibility is key, and the reason it is key, is that if you think about it, you don’t KNOW the men you are dealing with.

Men could be beating their wives, they could be raping girlfriends, they could be cheating on wives, they could be on the down low…. you don’t want men in women’s spaces because men aren’t going to fully disclose the danger of PIV, and then practice what they preach. They have no credibility. Think Elliot Spitzer and his “prostitution crime ring busting” attorney general self. Elliot Spitzer could be the champion of anti-prostitution, and then secretly be buying women, making them do PIV without condoms… wow. No credibility.

Think of Tiger Woods and what his wife is now saying about him. Yeah, nice guy, real nice.

I see men behaving very very badly in my office, and then we have the company christmas party, and their wives LOVE these HUBBIES… but somehow, when the wives show up at the office (rarely but they do now and then) they fail to notice the complete lack of non-white people, the fact that almost no women are hired at my position, and the fact that the male only golf club persists… their husbands are sustaining a completely woman unfriendly environment.

Those men are an inherent conflict of interest, even if they said they were feminists, or at least NOT womanhating, which about all men will say they are most of the time. “Hey I love my grandma and my Mom, hey I love my wife…” (they think they are feminists if they say this BTW) sure they say they love women all the time, but look at the work places they create. It’s so blatantly obvious that they intend to NOT change in any way.

Every man who says anything about women is in a conflict of interest/credibility gap, and will stay there forever. It’s why they should never be allowed in women only groups, and have no place in feminism when young women need so much of our attention!

For every stupid man who comes into feminist space or women’s space, that’s one less woman who gets 100% of the attention. As half the human race, our attention and resources are stolen on a scale that would rival hedge fund managers — patriarchy steals women’s everything, so how could a man not be a distruptive force to women’s freedom?

Men need to put a stop to womanhating sexual entitlement, they need to stop stealing a wife’s energy, or forcing her to have sex she really doesn’t want to have.

Men need to stop reporting on women’s issues period, because a male newscaster could be a wife beater as he reports on domestic violence.

In my field, there are clear rules of conflict of interest that are very strictly enforced. With men, everything they say about women is a giant conflict of interest, a giant move to co-opt women’s liberation.

So let’s see the men change each other, and educate each other. But I want a world where women decide radical feminism and the power of women on our own, without their conflict of interest selves invading our spaces. Fun fems and third wave women, we’re trying to save you a lot of trouble here– get a clue!

factcheckme - August 27, 2010

men in positions of power over women are having PIV with women. thats the sickening truth of it. whether its rape, prostitution, cheating, or just good old fashioned placing girls and women in harms way by sticking their dicks into them. men are doing it. ALL men are doing it. even gay men are having PIV with women. its fucking sick, it really is.

and men who are sitting in positions to judge women as bad women, bad mothers, bad patients, or as hookers, or as rape victims, all think that womens vaginas are fuckholes, for men. they think they are entitled to stick their dicks into girls and women, and that theres nothing wrong with it, at all. and a judge being an abusive, PIV-entitled prick isnt anything that he would be required to recuse himself for either, in presiding over the trial of your rapist, or date rapist, or husband or doctor who sexually assaulted you. it makes me want to curl up into a ball on the floor. it really fucking does.

8. Loretta Kemsley - August 27, 2010

Kristina wrote:

Credibility isn’t an issue unless they are going to be included, convincing others that credibility isn’t an issue however is a completely different matter

Creditibility matters whether or not a man is included in women only spaces. He inherently has a conflict of interest every time he speaks to or about women. When his entire paradigm is built around male privilege and when he has been steeped in it since birth, he cannot make an unbiased decision about women.

Let’s move away from the one man/one woman relationship and look at the broader scope. How does a male journalist cover a womens issue without bias? It’s impossible because womens advocates are figthting against everything he was raised to believe is true. Even if he has some understanding of the unfairness, he can’t have explored every avenue of bias in his psyche.

By the same token, neither can women. As a journalist, I don’t report on men’s issues because, as a feminist, I have an inherent bias. That doesn’t mean I am not a good journalist. It means I should avoid reporting on any subject where complete impartiality to the subject is impossible. Of course, I can still write opinion pieces about it, but that is far different than the impartiality required of a reporter.

Men cannot have complete impartiality to the subject of feminism because feminism is a movement to change the power dynamics between men and women with the ultimate goal to reduce the power of the average man over the average women. Even men who support feminism cannot be indifferent to the thought of losing personal power. A honest feminist man will acknowledge that openly. Most men think they are being supportive while they continue guarding their own masculine power base — and quite often they aren’t even aware they are doing it.

And then there are the men who claim they are supportive but know they are only there as a fox in the hen house. They think claiming feminism is an easy way to get laid and/or be the center of attention. Some feminists buy into that nonsense because they are not yet to the point of being able to see the strategies clearly. It takes all of us a bit of time and experience to get to that point.

There are few men who can do as you suggested and work for feminist causes strictly among men. That would take an extraordinary man for two reasons. Other men don’t want to hear about feminism and will exclude him from their presence. And he will lack the attention of the women he seeks to impress. How can he impress women if women aren’t present or influence men if men aren’t present?

9. thebewilderness - August 27, 2010

Are you aware of who this d00d is?
He happens to be an enormous mendacious disembodied anus. He is one of the many anti feminist men who teach women’s studies in order to substitute men’s views of women’s history for women’s historical reality.

I don’t think most people in the feminist movement ever expected men to get away with creating this sex positive male centric so called feminism. It could never have happened if men like hugo had not taken over womens studies departments all over the country and turned them into part of the backlash.

10. Loretta Kemsley - August 27, 2010

Level Best wrote:

I have only to read Loretta Kemsley’s comment to once again be grateful for her presence on feminist sites. Every sentence of what she said I agree with, and I only wish I could express myself as clearly and well. Yes, just yes.

Thank you. What a kind compliment. It is appreciated.

I hope other radfems will put this on the table in their writings, until it’s a “meme” that may be overwhelmingly ridiculed but can’t be “un-thought,” because it’s out there.

I love that phrase “can’t be un-thought.” That’s one of the strengths of writing. Once someone has read and/or discussed an idea, it cannot be un-thought even if they reject it. It becomes part of their paradigm no matter how hard they resist acknowledging it.

People will usually reject an idea the first time they hear it. The more times they hear the same idea, the less they fight against it. Finally, they are no longer shocked by it and cease resisting it even if they don’t embrace it. That’s how car salespeople get their customer over sticker shock. They keep repeating the price every few minutes until it no longer seems shocking. Once they are beyond sticker shock, then they can close the sale.

Feminists need to know that and to keep plugging their ideas even when people around them are experiencing sticker shock. Keep saying it. They might not agree but, as you said, they can’t “unthink” it and eventually they’ll cease struggling against it because they no longer view it as shocking. I repeat the same concepts quite often when I write. It always pleases me to see someone else begin to use it, especially if they experienced sticker shock the first time I discussed it.

There are some who will fight back against any rights for women just because their misogyny runs so deep. I ignore those. They aren’t worth my time and attention. I prefer to focus on those who are struggling with a new idea because they are the group we can impact if we continue to talk to them.

11. Social Worker - August 27, 2010

Ow ow, feminist brain struggling for oxygen in man’s world…SO,
would you propose that in the legal realm (for one, cause I could see this proposed for every area where men have some agency over women, e.g. medicine), that lawyers, judges, etc, NOT be allowed to practice in cases of dv, sexual assault, rape, female child abuse, sexual harassment, etc.?
To set up women-only spaces for the legal system as a whole when it is a case affecting women or a woman.
Of course, one effect of that would be to set up the accusation of discrimination against the accused male in the given case. How do we counter that?

Easier to do in my own healthcare where I have some choice over who treats me.

12. delphyne - August 27, 2010

I’m not so hot on the theorising but I’ve been thinking this for ages now, that any man who really is supportive of feminism/women and wants to defeat the patriarchy needs to stop having or wanting penetrative sex and also needs to be challenging other men to stop having it as well. Like that’s going to happen of course, but it would really help us see which men were sincere. Speaking of which – that Hugo Schwyzer chappie who had to write paragraphs disagreeing with you because you thought men should stay out of women’s spaces FCM apparently slept with some of his female students back in the day (have we talked about men becoming feminists so they can get access to women to fuck?)

factcheckme - August 27, 2010

Sorry social worker, but that’s a derail. See my comments on that, and on newbie feminists going on tangents. And instead of you taking this personally, even though you probably will, take it as an opportunity: why don’t you tell me why you think anything you just said, reflects on men’s credibility to practice in these areas. If you really address that, you will have to realize that it doesn’t reflect on their credibility, at all. And that they are still practicing, and will continue, and there’s nothing any of us can do about it. Then, and only then will you understand this post, and radfem reality in general.

13. kristina - August 27, 2010

“And he will lack the attention of the women he seeks to impress. How can he impress women if women aren’t present or influence men if men aren’t present?”
If the man is there to impress women, he shouldn’t be there and is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, no matter WHAT he desires sexual or otherwise.

It’s obvious to see the problems with men in feminist spaces, but now that the problems have THOROUGHLY been pointed out to me on numerous occasions, how would one go about “fixing” the issue? I hear suggestions of eliminating PIV but would that stop the whole concept of domination one of which is characterized by PIV? How so?

factcheckme - August 27, 2010

Kristina, i absolutely insist at this point that you answer some of your own questions. Look at how, specifically, piv causes and perpetuates male dominance over women. Then you will have the beginnings of an answer to the question you seem to be asking, which is what else would change, if piv ended?

Think about this shit, Ffs. Your entire fucking life, and the quality and length of it, are literally at stake.

14. Loretta Kemsley - August 27, 2010

Kristina wrote:

If the man is there to impress women, he shouldn’t be there and is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, no matter WHAT he desires sexual or otherwise.

We all seek to impress. Should we all be considered a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

I hear suggestions of eliminating PIV but would that stop the whole concept of domination one of which is characterized by PIV? How so?

We’ll never eliminate PIV without eliminating the human species. However, we can eliminate the expectation of PIV as a male right. That would go a long way toward removing the idea of male domination as a right.

15. kristina - August 27, 2010

Ahhh..thank you Loretta, for clearing up the PIV issue..I don’t have a problem with this at home with my husband, so I didn’t recognize it as much of an issue..If I say no, he doesn’t pout, no temper tantrums, no passive aggressive punishment techniques… I do still engage in PIV but it is on my terms, I am often the “aggressor” if you want to call it that.

No, I was more referring to a man seeking to impress in feminist spaces… I don’t know about you, but as a feminist I sure in hell don’t expect to impress men.

factcheckme - August 27, 2010

Piv is NEVER on your terms. Sorry. That little pill you take every day is the tangible proof of that fact: you are mitigating damage only, to varying degrees of success I might add. Which means you are adapting only, under someone else’s terms. That’s what it means. I am really, really sorry about that, but its true.

factcheckme - August 27, 2010

I never expect people to watch the videos since they can be time consuming…but did anyone watch them? I thought the sandwiches bit was pretty good. I really love shooting down doodbro logic, as a rule. I think that’s an area in which male “feminists” might actually be useful, that and doing grunt work and/or research projects we don’t have time to do.

16. kristina - August 27, 2010

I’m willing to accept that PIV isn’t on my terms, but will it theoretically EVER be on women’s terms, and if not wouldn’t that be passive eugenics (which I’m sure you aren’t advocating either.)? Are you suggesting we refrain from PIV and replace it with artificial insemination or other means of reproduction and or adoption? I surely hope you aren’t talking about eliminating propagating the species all together, and no I know PIV is not the only means to propagate the species. If we do propagate the species in artificial means and bring children into a world that is still misogynistic, what point is that? Almost everything I heard you talk about sounds a lot like nobody should have children, and if that perfect world existed (one in which men are not dominant, and nobody having children)it certainly wouldn’t last long, that is unless you can give me some further insight on your long term goals.

17. FemmeForever - August 27, 2010

Loretta, I hate tattoos but I think I just might get this paragraph tattooed on my forehead or maybe across my whole face:

The only way women are going to find their own way is to step outside the patriarchal paradigm completely. They need to stop accepting any male definitions of the world. As long as they are wrestling around within the male way of thinking, they cannot reach a true feminine way of thinking.

18. FemmeForever - August 27, 2010

I agree that men have no credibility. None. NONE. There is no such thing as a feminist man. Or a pro-feminist man. All men hate women and actively seek to do us harm in any way they can.

Case in point. If this mythical feminist male existed, this is what his life would look like. He would be either be a life long virgin because he couldn’t bring himself to physically dominate women in any way. Or he would be a virgin until he married which would be a mating for life. There would be none of this using women’s bodies along the way to practice on or force into sexual or any other kind of submission. He would never once have mounted a sleeping woman. As a rule and without fail, he would come to the aid of all the women he encounters in daily life and defend them against each instance of misogyny he witnesses. He would be an utter social outcast. Not capable of getting or holding a job and quite certainly he wouldn’t even make it to adulthood because probably he would be murdered by other boys in high school.

factcheckme - August 27, 2010

Wow! Yes, if that man existed, he might have the beginnings of feminist cred. Although I’m not buying the “mating for life” thing. Piv is always dangerous for women, whether its within the context of an otherwise healthy relationship, or not. And as you mention, he probably would never even survive his own childhood, due to other boys and men having it out for him. That’s an excellent point actually. Well done.

19. Loretta Kemsley - August 28, 2010

Kristina wrote”

I’m willing to accept that PIV isn’t on my terms, but will it theoretically EVER be on women’s terms,

Why shouldn’t PIV be on women’s terms. It is their bodies that are being used. Should they not be able to say no and have it be respected? I’m not willing to cede control of my body to anyone else for any reason. If I have PIV, it is going to be on my terms. I’m not alone in this. There are millions of single women in our nation and they all have the right to control their own body. Some don’t recognize it. But most do. Have you seen the recent articles about how terrible it is that more and more women are saying they just aren’t interested in sex, that its too much bother for what they get out of it? That’s women deciding PIV isn’t for them or if they do want it, then it is on their terms.

and if not wouldn’t that be passive eugenics (which I’m sure you aren’t advocating either.)?

How can a woman deciding not to have PIV constitute eugenics? That makes no sense to me on any level. Here is the definition of eugenics: “the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating).” Now please explain how that relates to a woman’s decision to not engage in PIV.

If we do propagate the species in artificial means and bring children into a world that is still misogynistic, what point is that?

What point is there in bringing children into the world that is still misogynistic by PIV? How does the method change the point of having children?

When women control their own bodies, the world will automatically be less misogynistic because men who hate women won’t be able to get laid or have any children to teach their misogyny.

I don’t have a problem with this at home with my husband, so I didn’t recognize it as much of an issue..If I say no, he doesn’t pout, no temper tantrums, no passive aggressive punishment techniques… I do still engage in PIV but it is on my terms

If you were to tell him, “I’ve decided I will never have PIV again.” would he stay with you or leave? Would he pressure you to change your mind? Would be become angry enough to rape you as a way of showing you that option isn’t yours? If he would not stay without complaint, then no, you aren’t the one in control of deciding if you have PIV or not, unless you are willing to lose him over your decision.

factcheckme - August 28, 2010

Again, there is all kinds of evidence that piv is never on women’s terms, and that it in fact cannot be on womens terms, ever. This is obvious when we see birth control, monistat, peeing afterwards, etc for what they really are for us, and that’s DAMAGE CONTROL, in response to dangerous male-centric sexuality, where there are no comparable risks for men, and there never will be.

It’s only the realization of all or any of this, that would ever compel a woman to tell her partner that shes no longer going to do it. So NOT doing it could be on her terms. But DOING it never will be. Sorry, ladies. I really, really am. But its the truth, and its beyond time we see it for what it really is.

20. delphyne - August 28, 2010

I don’t know if I can shoehorn this into men’s lack of credibility, but apparently men can now learn empathy with women by using their virtual reality computer toys:


factcheckme - August 28, 2010

And I agree that the reference to eugenics made absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

21. kristina - August 28, 2010

Yeah…I totally misused my terms there…that was stupid and dense… I meant gender cleansing…I had a massive brain fart I’m sorry. I guess what I’m asking bottom-line is what would you describe to be a Utopian society factcheckme? It almost seems as though this Utopian society doesn’t include men at all.

22. Loretta Kemsley - August 28, 2010

where there are no comparable risks for men, and there never will be.

Let’s no confuse choice with risk. I have worked with horses all my life. My choice. It is still risky and can lead to serious injury or even death. I still choose to be with them.

Same for sex. If women know the risks, they can still choose to have PIV. The problem arises when women don’t have a choice, as is usually the case in a relationship or marriage. Even if he temporarily accepts her decision (as in “not tonight”), he still has the expectation that she will have PIV at some point. Until that expectation is absent, then she really cannot say “I will not have PIV ever.”

factcheckme - August 28, 2010

Kristina, you are getting on my last fucking nerve. I have been partnered with a man for 8 years. So think long and hard before you call me a man-hater why don’t you, which is clearly where you are headed with this gender-cleansing utopia bs. And…enough with the questions. I think you need to sit quietly with the material, and figure some of these things out on your own. Does anyone else want to chime in here? God.

factcheckme - August 28, 2010

Loretta, a horse cannot choose *not* to harm you. A horse is just a horse. They are dangerous but they aren’t malicious are they? If you get hurt by a horse, its because you got in the way of the horse being a horse. Whereas men can choose not to place women in harms way, but instead they actively choose the opposite. Men should disavow piv independently, because of how dangerous it is, to women. But they never do.

My problem has never been with women who “choose” it. It’s with men who shouldn’t fuck us, even if we fucking beg them to, because IT’S WRONG. Not that women begging for it is even the context in which these transactions are taking place, 99.99% of the time. Pretty much the opposite, actually.

23. sonia - August 28, 2010

The ONLY reason that teh menz are addressing these issues is because of the degree of freedom women have achieved (by fighting them for it). They wouldn’t even address this stuff if it didn’t behoove them socially. Men running their mouths on third wave feminist issues is FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT.

Women already know the degree of conscience and compassion and care men have for us when their power is unchecked. You know, like they say- what you’re doing when no one else is watching is who you really are? What men did when no one was over their shoulder is them. All the rest, imo, is just yakety shmakety, dudes trying to stay relevant, involved and yup, in control of the scenario.

Great post.

24. sonia - August 28, 2010

p.s. btw, Patrick Stewart, there is huge fucking difference between not being able to control your emotions and not feeling like controlling your emotions.

MOST MALE ABUSERS are highly adept at controlling not only their personal emotions but social perceptions of them, coming off exactly as they choose unless no one is indeed watching, except the woman they’re beating. Then they relax their control, consciously and on time and beat the shit out of her. It’s not lack of control, dude, it’s fucking evil.

25. SheilaG - August 28, 2010

Women think a lot of things as “choice” when this is obviously NOT the choice at all. I think this is a defense mechanism a lot of women use to justify something. So women believe they are “choosing” PIV, or they believe they are “choosing heteronormative lives.” They aren’t, this is the default setting for women.

You have real choice when you have real power, and as long as women are so dependent on men economically, and the system is so rigged to get women to give in and have kids and have PIV and stop advancing in careers or education, it is NOT a choice at all.

factcheckme - August 28, 2010

Violence isn’t even an emotion is it? You are right to notice that sonia, absolutely. He fucks up a few times in that vid, if I recall. I haven’t watched it since I used it for the mra pwns dv post.

It perfectly illustrates the point that men need to be constantly monitored and corrected, when speaking about issues that don’t affect them except as the perpetrators. Ie. Women’s issues. And its a fucking time-suck, is what it is. And that’s even for the ones who “mean well.” Many of them dont.

26. kristina - August 28, 2010

“You have real choice when you have real power, and as long as women are so dependent on men economically, and the system is so rigged to get women to give in and have kids and have PIV and stop advancing in careers or education, it is NOT a choice at all.”

I can definitely agree with this, which is why I was questioning if PIV would EVER be acceptable…if true equality was achieved would PIV be a choice, or a “choice”?

27. Loretta Kemsley - August 28, 2010

Loretta, a horse cannot choose *not* to harm you. A horse is just a horse. They are dangerous but they aren’t malicious are they? If you get hurt by a horse, its because you got in the way of the horse being a horse.

Of course, a horse can choose. Most choose not to do harm, but some do. However, most of the harm comes from my own choice. I choose to engage in a dangerous event with the horse and one of us gets hurts — or not. But the choice was mine, not theirs.

Men can choose not to place women in harms way, but instead they actively choose the opposite

That’s true, but by placing their choice first, over and above mine, then I would be living within their paradigm. I don’t. My life choices are made independent of anything they can do or not do. It is my paradigm. What good does it do to live an independent life, in all ways, and then give them that much power in this one portion of my life? I might as well be living under the same roof.

As long as we think of “our choice” only in relation to “their choice” or “their action,” then we are living within the male paradigm. I don’t live there. I live in my paradigm, where all choices are mine irrespective of their desires. Why should I frame my life as a mirror image instead of the authentic me?

That’s what I was talking about before when I said we must move out of the male paradigm before we can live, think and react as authentically feminine. If I have PIV, I do it because I, as a woman, want it. If I don’t, it is because I, as a woman, don’t want it. It has nothing to do with his “choice.” His “choice” is nonexistent in my life.

As long as we hand him the choice, then he holds the power. Everything is then defined around his choice. Why do that? Why not move out of that paradigm?

By the same token, saying women don’t have a choice is to once again hand him the power. Why do that? Why not simply slice that option out of our language and proceed as if the only choice is ours — because in actuality we own the only choice (all patriarchal illusions aside)?We simply need to claim that reality and it is ours. To do anything less is to remain living within the male paradigm trying to glue a few rights onto the prison walls and hope they stick.

28. berryblade - August 28, 2010

Brilliantly articulated.

I can’t believe this guy actually made an entire post mansplaining to you why you were wrong for saying men have no right to be in womyn’s only spaces. Reading that thread + post over at feministe certainly made the blood boil, was going to comment but found it too taxing to try and even think about explaining.

any pro-feminist men care to take on this particular challenge? no? i didnt think so. AND THAT SAYS IT ALL. it really does. fuck them.

Ex-fucking-actly. As I read over at GB and as delphyne mentioned he fucked his female students. Some pro-feminist male he is – he’s no different to the other entitled & selfish males anywhere.

But they don’t listen to men either when IT’S. THE. MESSAGE. that they don’t want to hear.

Exactly! Oh my, as if most people (men and womyn seeing as most Westerns are programmed towards ignorance) would even consider that life outside of their little bubble could be even remotely more unfair or worse than theirs + men especially don’t want to have to confront how much privilege they have, because they’re lazy and it’s easier + works out better for them.

They’re lazy because the higher up on the scales they are, the more entitled they think they are and the less likely they are to want to talk about how seeing womyn as fuck-holes denies their humanity because that might pull out the jenga block that sends their whole precious world view tumbling.

He is one of the many anti feminist men who teach women’s studies in order to substitute men’s views of women’s history for women’s historical reality.

This doesn’t surprise me either.

They aren’t, this is the default setting for women.

Totally, also your comment further up the thread is pinpoint accurate, and as mentioned over at AROO + my new entry anyone who parades around fucking, pouting and generally pandering to male fantasy is antithetical to feminism.

29. sonia - August 28, 2010

wait THAT’S hugo? he literally almost sucked me in.

that shit is dangerous, yo.

factcheckme - August 28, 2010

I knew I was in over my head with the horse analogy. Heh. I know very little about horses, except that if you walk behind one, stay close to his ass so he cant get any momentum if he tries to kick you. Learned that one at summer camp. Anyway, some of what you were saying about paradigms started sinking in with your response. As soon as I start to get it, I lose it again though, so I will just sit with it awhile. At the moment my head is spinning with images of large animals who have the capacity to actively choose harm, but usually dont…you know way more about horses than me or anyone here probably…and choosing ones choice, and “choice feminism” which I don’t think you were talking about, but its stuck in my craw anyway.

factcheckme - August 28, 2010

What do you know about Hugo sonia? And how did he almost suck you in? As an aside, if you visit his mansplanation I mean article, feministing gives him a pingback, and its an article on how NOT to mansplain, and on how to distinguish good third wave men from posers. In feministings view, Hugo is one of the good ones, and he DOESN’T mansplain. Face. Palm. Shake head disapprovingly. Repeat.

factcheckme - August 28, 2010

Note to the newbies: this is how its done. If you trust the speaker, and know that shes smart and tells the truth to women, its ok to just sit with the material and mull it over, without reflexively flapping your gums. If you don’t trust the speaker, then all bets are kind of off, but remember this: women are NEVER talking to you because they want to stick their dicks into you, and ejaculate as they place you in harms way. Unless they are transwomen of course. We are just talking here. That is all.

factcheckme - August 28, 2010

damn, i have like NO PATIENCE for fun-fem trolls. does that make me a bad person? oh well. guess im a bad person then.

factcheckme - August 28, 2010

trolling = posting argumentative or irrelevant comments on a post you havent read, or dont understand.

30. Loretta Kemsley - August 28, 2010

FCM wrote:

Anyway, some of what you were saying about paradigms started sinking in with your response. As soon as I start to get it, I lose it again though, so I will just sit with it awhile

Okay, while you’re thinking, think about this:

Who benefits if the slave believes she cannot escape?
Who benefits if the employee believes she cannot get another job?
Who benefits if the lover believes she cannot say no to PIV?

Part of the problem is that women don’t have another frame of reference other than the Judeo/Christian patriarchal concept of sex and marriage. But there are other concepts. Do you remember my seed on the Mosuo? Those women control their own sexuality. It is the men who have no choice. The Mosuo do not have the concept of marriage or fathers:

No Father’s Day: Remote Group Has No Dads, And Never Did

Still a third concept is that of the Native Americans. NA marriages had nothing to do with sex in many tribes. Marriage was for the management of assets. Men slept in one area, women slept in another whether or not they were married. Both men and women were free to have sex with anyone even if they were married. Children in a marriage were not necessarily the children of the husband — and that was fine.

Keep in mind that the word “bastard” has no meaning outside of patriarchal marriage where the man gets to enslave the woman, isolate and rape her. The importance of patriarchal marriage is to provide the husband with DNA heirs to his estate. It is in context to this Judaic/Christian marriage that Dworkin was speaking.

In NA societies, homosexuals were considered specially blessed. They had twin souls or two spirits. They were especially enlightened. Going even further, anyone could choose to live the role of the opposite sex. Sometimes families would assign the role of the opposite sex to one of their children. For instance, if a family had no sons, they might assign the role of the son to one of the daughters. Or a man might choose the woman’s role. Or the woman might choose the man’s role. So their society could be very fluid when it came to gender roles and sexuality.

Obviously, women do have choices, just not within the Judaic/Christian concept of marriage. As long as women accept this as the only “choice,” then they have no choice. My mother carried that concept to such an extreme that she tried to convince me that a mythical husband had more right to control my body than I did.

As soon as my divorce was final, I got a tubal ligation. My mother was furious I was even considering it. Per her, I was cheating my husband. When I pointed out I did not have a husband, she became even angrier. I was cheating the husband I would have in the future. What if he wanted children? When I told her I would never marry again, she called me a liar and repeated her claim that the non-existent husband’s rights to control my body were more important than my own. She was espousing the rhetoric of centuries of Christian teachings. I did not let that deter me. I was in control of my body and my life even though all around me society said I wasn’t.

Once a woman has divorced herself from that extremely limited concept of her sexuality, she has several choices. She can continue to buy into the “she has no choice” concept which is a self-fulfilling prophecy, or she can cast that aside and say, “All the choices are mine.” That is what I chose then and still choose now. I don’t grant power over my body to anyone else for any reason. If a man can’t accept that, he has no place in my bed or my life.

Of course, this means I must be able to support myself and control my own finances. A woman that does not have those two options has no choice when it comes to sex. But too many have those and still cede their power to someone else because they still believe they have no choice.

31. SheilaG - August 28, 2010

It benefits the oppressor when alternative information is not available, and that women are stuck in default. It benefits the advertisers to convince us that we “need” something that is a complete waste of money.

Brainwashing is constant in “advanced” western societies. If women can be convinced to give up rights to their bodies, well men have it in the bag.

Watch actual male behavior out in the world. Make it clear to men that there will be no sex, no PIV etc., and they will completely ignore you. Every time I watch men conversing with women, I can almost read the “expectation” of PIV on their faces. I got to see this whole scenario play out with a bartender at an event— chatting up the 18 year old daughter. I knew the guy was married, and reported this conversation to the mother, who was horrified. Once you know that men either want PIV, or they want to sell you something, you’d pretty much got them covered.

Men always want something for free. They think they can charm and fool women. It’s why older men go after girls and young women. Cut the conversation short, pull the plug of energy… and male supremacy goes out the window.

This is so obvious to me as a lesbian watching all this male/female interaction– sticks out like a sore thumb. No matter how many women I talk to, I very rarely have the impression that they are out to use me sexually.

32. sonia - August 28, 2010

First of all, LOL, feministing. If it weren’t for their cutesy mudflap girl emblem I doubt they’d have the motivation to feminist-blog at all.

Woot! Anyway.

Yeah, dude, for me? Any time a dude explains anything, it is mansplaining. For a multitude of reasons, not the least of which being, I usually am two to seventy-nine steps ahead of him mentally and the only reason he feels he needs to elaborate is either a) I don’t agree and that doesn’t compute, or b) part of his rational process includes me being dumber than him, so even if I’m having to chicksplain a bunch of shit in a high pitched voice (so he’ll even listen,) he still can’t get that he’s lagging behind. Anyway, my point is, even though hugo sounds pretty okay most of the time, dudes need to shut up. There’s no need for them to talk as much as they do- it’s totally representative of their authoritative control over everyone’s reality.

I guess he kind of almost sucked me in by sounding so good. I think I am, as we all are, so jaded by the shit they usually say that when they start (parroting) good shit, I kind of forget for a second that I’d rather they just shut up period.

I’ve heard on the street (around the web) that that dude is a douche.

factcheckme - August 28, 2010

i didnt think he sounded good at all, and i had no idea who he was. i thought it was hilarious that i predicted i would be mansplained, right there in my comment, and lo and behold an ENTIRE POST, mansplaining to me why i was wrong. a mansplanation about why he was not a mansplainer, but one of the “good ones” TM. the irony. it tickles!

factcheckme - August 28, 2010

oh, and yeah, feministing doesnt think hes a mansplainer either. because when a man mansplains why hes not a mansplainer, its not a mansplanation. so the manplainers keep telling us!

33. sonia - August 29, 2010

Okay. Maybe I just need new friends. Because if any one of the dudes I know said anything remotely close to that I would probably have cardiac arrest right there on the ground, wherever we happened to be at. But of course, in the scope of feminism, no it’s not impressive. But that’s what I’m saying- the level of general douchery is so great that to even hear a dude mansplain that people at MckDz don’t like their job, and neither do prostituted women, it sucked me in.

I guess my point was, the real world sucks super hard and lowers your standards.

34. sonia - August 29, 2010

p.s. Nice one on the Mosuo, Loretta. Those chicks are happy as hell and so are the dudes. Their physical living arrangements keep everyone pleased.

factcheckme - August 29, 2010

Whoa, hold the phone a minute. Are you talking about the guy in the video?

35. sonia - August 29, 2010

The phone is on hold.

I thought that that dude in the 1st vid was hugo, and that even though what he is saying is pretty accurate, he was still a douche.

I’m re-reading the whole thing now to see where I stopped understanding. I’m all ‘wow, this Hugo really knows what to say to a gal.”

factcheckme - August 29, 2010

Sonia, I was apparently so distracted by my troll, and lorettas paradigm shifting, that I didn’t realize you thought the guy in the vid was Hugo! I don’t know Hugo from Adam as it were, but as far as I know, that guy in the vid is just some guy who supports anti-porn and anti-prostitution feminists on YouTube, and is some kind of logic fanatic. He is NOT Hugo. Hugo is the douchebag I link to and quote in the article, who mansplained me on his blog.

Somehow, I strongly suspect that hugo is one of those pro-porn, pro-prostitution “feminist men.”

I actually liked the sandwich bit, and thought it was pretty good. Harmless anyway, and a true statement that very much destroys the particular doodbro logic he targets. Although he’s probably a pretentious hipster, and has piv. Unfortunately, pretentious hipsters who have piv are the best of the lot calling themselves pro-feminists aren’t they? I mean look at old Hugo. He gives me the shivers. Ew.

36. Lillie - August 29, 2010

(I apologise in advance for another tl;dr ranty comment…)

Loretta said: “We’ll never eliminate PIV without eliminating the human species. However, we can eliminate the expectation of PIV as a male right. That would go a long way toward removing the idea of male domination as a right.”

But here’s where my pessimistic mind immediately went: Don’t you think a world where every woman would refuse to have PIV with men would swiftly turn into a world where well nigh every woman would be forced to have PIV? A boiling point of uppity-ness and “feminism has gone too far! too far, I say!”, if you will? “Lysistrata” was a fantasy; those ancient women, collectively, never really had the righ to say no. Have we? I mean, this is a world where even the expectation of anal sex is beginning to be seen as a male right. This is the world where we must turn to “well, it could be A LOT worse” and “we’ve come a long way” for comfort – to pat ourselves on the back for not being a third-world girl who dies in childbirth at sixteen after an arranged marriage and mandatory PIV. (“If you’re wealthy enough on a global scale, you don’t necessarily have to die in childbirth, except that you might anyway! Yay!”)

But women’s freedom so far has been a mere blip on the historical radar, and we haven’t even come that long a way yet. We ostensibly have the right to choose, but I can’t help but hear the echoes of the ruthless domination that would sweep over us if the right (wrong) circumstances were to transpire. Call me paranoid but I’m starting to feel like the world of men is only waiting for an excuse and opportunity to strip away the freedoms and human rights women have earned for themselves through hard work. (Let alone earning them by just, you know, being human beings.) Isn’t that going on already? Hasn’t it been going on all along??

Look, I’ve always known there are men who hate women in overt ways. It then took me many more years to realise that the majority of men hate women in more covert ways. What’s worse now is that I’m starting to see how this world is really structured and, from suspecting that men would like to dominate women, I’ve begun to fear that they could. The fact, as we all know, is that the world is still skewed heavily in their favour. We’ve never been free enough, yet. We’ve never been human enough, yet. And already we’re being told we’ve been given too much freedom – too much almost-humanity – and that scares the shit out of me.

I resent the sense I have that we’re living on borrowed time and our freedom isn’t real freedom, because it COULD be snatched away from us. Individually, our freedom to choose could be snatched away by a random attacker, likely someone we already think we know. Collectively, it could be snatched away if enough men fully embraced their misogyny and convinced enough women that their Stockholm Syndrome is the right way to see the world. And that scares me because that’s the way funfeminism is leading all of us, even those of us who resist all the way. And you know what scares me even more? That even if all funfems were to become radfems overnight, it probably wouldn’t change a thing. It would still be too little, too late.

Maybe I’m paranoid or maybe I have an overactive dystopic imagination – that’s more than possible. Loretta’s words were bracing – “My life choices are made independent of anything they can do or not do. It is my paradigm” – but that paradigm is possible only for a small minority of women at present, and I live in fear of a day when it won’t be possible even for us. There was a time when I thought we were going the other way: that women were becoming more and more independent, and when I was all grown-up I’d be just one fiercely independent woman not afraid to say no among an army of others like me. But there was also a time when I thought the environment might turn out okay if we put in enough collective effort. Now I just seem to wallow in all-purpose despair no matter what I think about, because every cause and principle I was always ready to fight for seems to be crumbling to pieces.

/end prolonged whine

Sorry. The last thing I want is to cast women as eternal victims, or to spread my paralysing pessimism around. I’ve been reading lots and lots of radfem blogs to buckle up and alleviate that pessimism, but lately the pessimism has taken root like a mental cancer. I don’t even know what I want, anymore. Perhaps just someone to tell me to stick to my guns and everything will be all right in the end? I don’t know.

37. kristina - August 29, 2010

I am absolutely speechless…but I can say a lot of things make sense now.

38. kristina - August 29, 2010

lillie, the only thing I can say is that dealing in black and white as an individual and pertaining to your own choices is a good thing…it asserts your independence, even if that black or white coincides with the person you are with (relationships after all are about compatibility…right?, where there’s no need for give and take because well, everything just IS)When it comes to a larger group however black and white thinking can become oppressive even though the oppressor may have good intentions, and most people…not good intentions. I think this is what loretta was talking about with paradigms, which you seemed to have gotten the point of and articulated rather well even if you don’t realize it. There will always be shades of gray because all people are individuals…thinking must be fluid, like a river, strong, adaptable, and never giving up it’s course.

39. SheilaG - August 29, 2010

Mansplaining is pretty much every man who talks AT women. I have long observed that men aren’t capable of carrying on conversations with women.
When I’m in a woman dominant situation, and say a straight woman brings her husband along, when faced with an entire room of highly intelligent accomplished woman, he just goes stone silent. They have nothing to say at all when women rule. Nothing at all. This tells me something about men.
They could ask questions and listen. They could talk to women about subjects women care about, again ask a question and then just listen.

But it’s all or nothing with mainsplain– silence resentment or blabby talk down to us. Either way, men who claim to be feminists should not be teaching women’s studies, they should not be blabbing and mainsplaining to women about our lives, they need to completely change how they interact with the world.

factcheckme - August 29, 2010

it bothers me very much that so-called “feminist men” are teaching womens studies. there is something so fundamentally wrong with that, its creepy, disgusting, its a violation and they fucking well know it. it also takes work away from women, who are going to be infinitely more qualified to teach it. and thats fucking inexcusable, it really is.

40. Lillie - August 29, 2010

The ultimate irony is that if those men truly understood and believed in what they’re supposed to be teaching, they’d never have applied for those jobs in the first place.

41. Loretta Kemsley - August 29, 2010

Lillie wrote:

But here’s where my pessimistic mind immediately went: Don’t you think a world where every woman would refuse to have PIV with men would swiftly turn into a world where well nigh every woman would be forced to have PIV?

If it were to occur all at once, yes. It takes time for attitudes to shift. Even though the passage of time galls me when it comes to obtaining equality, it is a blessing in disguise in this respect. Time slays the old guard, those who grew into adults in the era when it was perfectly fine for a man to rape his wife and if someone else raped her, it was a crime against his rights. Some of those men supported us. Those who didn’t are slowly dying off.

With every succeeding generation, more youngsters grow up being steeped in women’s rights, including the right to say no — and more of the old guard dies off. This process will take a long time, but it will happen.

In 1990, I predicted that violence against women would rise because of men who were angry that women’s rights were here to stay. I was, unfortunately, right. Whenever I hear the tea party ranting about how they want to “take my country back,” the people they want to take it back from are you and I, those who have rejected the white male dominant paradigm. It does not surprise me that they preach violence, most of it aimed at the black man who dared to be president instead of servant, but I don’t kid myself that violence against me is on the agenda too, even if they’ve never heard of me but simply as a woman who dares to speak loud against their brutality and inhumanity.

It should not surprise any of us that they are trying to wipe out the history of progress in destroying the white male dominant paradigm. They’ve already altered the textbooks in Texas, and they aim to do that in every state because they do not want the children to know there is an alternative where everyone is equal and has rights.

We cannot wait for the enemy to “give” us peace. We must take it, one by one, each of us carving our own niche while ignoring the abuse (verbal, emotional, physical, sexual) they will fling at us. Most of it will be verbal and emotional, but should we fear the physical and sexual abuse aimed at destroying progress more than the physical and sexual violence that has always been inflicted because women were regarded as slaves to husbands? Why?

I lived through the latter. Nothing could have been worse, not even death (which happens to three women each and every day in the US, but it is better than the seven per day of the 1970s — the first decade when the murder of wives was deemed important enough to track). I survived his viciousness and grew stronger, more dedicated, more passionate about the rights not just of me but all women.

I also go through moments of despair, but then I remember. I remember how bad it was before. I survived. I grew stronger. I am not dead (although he tried four times). He did not kill my soul. He made me stronger.

If we keep refusing the patriarchal/male dominant paradigm, if we instead adopt our own view of the world, if we talk about it where the average person will hear, it will spread. My generation did a lot to change the paradigm so that future generations do not have to live as we did. I won’t live to see the final result, but it will still come into being because women are not going to go back, not even through violence. They just had a Women’s Global Conference in Canada with the intent of forming a militant women’s network in every country to keep us moving forward.

One of the paths I take now is to hunt down obscure information showing women in a powerful light, where they do/did control their own destiny, like the Mosuo, the warrior women graves in the Ukraine and the matriarchal clans that were the norm before patriarchy. By spreading that information, more people will begin to shift their own paradigm of thinking awat from woman as helpless without man to woman in charge, free to choose her own life, which may or may not include male companionship.

We have a long way to go, but we are on the right path. Some of us will suffer from violence inflicted upon us, but the march forward will continue.

factcheckme - August 29, 2010

i have a new post up. enjoy.

42. bella shea - August 30, 2010

Thank you so much for this post, FCM. I have always believed that “feminist” and “male” were opposing terms but, somehow, analyzing credibility (the most fundamental thing) never entered my mind. Part of the patriarchal brainwashing involves tricking women into assuming that men always know better than us- even when it comes to our own experiences.

“Even men who support feminism cannot be indifferent to the thought of losing personal power. A honest feminist man will acknowledge that openly. Most men think they are being supportive while they continue guarding their own masculine power base — and quite often they aren’t even aware they are doing it.” -Loretta Kemsley

Exactly!!! All men benefit from our oppression not matter how they feel about it. To me, that’s enough proof that the movement has to start and end with women. Men could help most by simply allowing us some space.

43. FemmeForever - August 30, 2010


I will admit this view may well be a luxury of never having been physically brutalized, but for the life of me I cannot muster any fear where men are concerned. I mean, yes, the patriarchy is powerful but I can’t think of men as anything other than what they are: deluded, dimwitted buffoons; naked little aimless ids loose on the world; teeny tiny little minds that can’t exist without a constant source of fake worship and accolade and of domination, hatred, and envy; they have so little going in inside that they are in constant fear that someone will find them out or show them up. Men are much, much too weak and pathetic for me to fear (you know, assuming no weapons are involved).

Is it possible that some of your fear is coming from residual respect for men? Are you still believing the “strong man” trope? If so, I’m not judging you, at all. I’m saying try to kill whatever residual respect you may have left over by challenging the belief with real world examples to the contrary. For example, if men are so strong why do they not choose the biggest buffed out man in town to attack instead of a 90 year old defenseless grandmother? Or why would a man never consider standing up to his boss at work but he finds it a-okay to come home and attack his family? I hope that will help somewhat with your nagging fears.

factcheckme - August 30, 2010

if men are so strong why do they not choose the biggest buffed out man in town to attack instead of a 90 year old defenseless grandmother?

you know, this is an excellent point. why indeed? i have mentioned here before my suspicion that high heels are a facet of this too, because it makes women better and easier targets. of course, theres also the extra added bonus of making men who DONT rape women who are tottering around defenseless on super-high heels “chivalrous.” and they are chivalrous, for not raping women who couldnt do a fucking thing about it, if they tried. they arent afraid that a woman in high heels would beat the living shit out of them if they tried anything, thats for sure. your point that men are also cowardly little worms fits here too. thanks!

factcheckme - August 30, 2010

Men lie about knowing everything, bellashea. It’s overconfidence and arrogance that masks the truth of their incompetence in many areas, personal, professional and in all ways really. And in the case of male feminists, we are just supposed to turn off our critical minds completely, and let them in. Some of us are resisting, and we are taking some shit for it. Oh yes we are. But a conflicts of interest analysis is absolutely crucial, in the case of men and feminism especially. It’s so obvious that they would be better off if we failed. We have to understand that this is where men are coming from, always, and that if any of them claim otherwise, they are lying.

44. Loretta Kemsley - August 30, 2010

Men who are abusive are needier than women. They know they cannot survive without a woman to abuse. They expect her to hold their lives together. That’s why they are so desperate to force her back when she tries to leave.

Too many people, both male and female, do not have emotional resilience. I didn’t when I was younger, in large part because my mother was abusive. She spent my entire childhood teaching me how insignificant I was. I was fat, ugly, a liar, a thief, mean, etc, etc, etc. ad nauseum. But I wasn’t any of those things. Looking at old photos, I was thinner than my sisters and prettier too. I knew I did not steal, lie, or harm people. Her false accusations left me feeling confused and without any emotional strength. There was no way to fight back, no way to clear the air, no way to feel good about myself. Every accomplishment was ridiculed as if it was bad.

Because I’ve endured abuse from my mother and from a violent husband, I don’t assign that dysfunction to men alone. Either sex can be harmful and abusive. The difference is that men have more power than women. But abusive men are like I was: they don’t have emotional resilience. They do not know a legitimate way of fighting back and don’t have any way of feeling good about themselves. Because they do have more power, they take it out on women.

Their victims rarely know that their abusers are emotionally fragile and that they, the victim, are strong. What they hear from most everywhere is that their is something wrong with them because they stay. The truth is it takes strength to absorb that punishment day after day. And it takes even more strength to leave. But the illusion of weakness is all around them, including in their soul.

It’s all a lie, including the illusion of the abuser being the emotionally stronger of the two. He is no doubt less emotional. But that’s a weakness, not a strength. That marks him as emotionally damaged. She has a better chance of recovering emotionally than he does. When they split, he’ll usually go on to abuse another woman while she will usually refuse to be involved in the dynamics of abuse again.

We need to quit buying into the paradigm that says abusers are strong. That only feeds the abuse and the dysfunctional dynamics that surround the abuse. That tells women they are weak. Why do we allow this myth to continue?

45. SheilaG - August 30, 2010

Men are very weak and very scared all the time. They are mice who roar. The feminist movement pretty much calls them out on their stuff and they turn into whiney children.

Women are strong, men are weak. Women get stronger by uniting and telling the truth about the oppressors.

46. kristina - August 30, 2010

Absolutely Lorretta…and at the same time we must remember not to make the same mistakes as men and be emotionally overbearing…it’s just switching the paradigm, and quite frankly being hypocritical. I went through the same thing with my mom..EXACTLY the same thing…My husband wasn’t physically abusive, but I did at one point suffer emotional abuse from him…we both learned together how to communicate more efficiently, and it wasn’t by me telling him to quit being such a bitch.

47. Waxley - August 30, 2010

I’m 100% sure you moderate comments. People with shit for brains always do, because it allows them to stop people publicly calling them out on their mental retardation. This is a check to see if you have shit for brains (hint: you do.)

factcheckme - August 30, 2010

This pro-feminist man and Hugo supporter is here via hugos new post. To MEEEEEE! Can’t wait to see what additional quality (and feminist!) comments old hugos supporters find appropriate in this context. And how old Hugo responds to his fans participation here.

Or not.

factcheckme - August 30, 2010

I will post a link shortly…or just visit hugos blog, whinylittlebitchandmansplainerextraordinaire.net

48. SheilaG - August 30, 2010

It’s interesting to think of “needy” men as being abusive in a subtle way. Another of their commonly used tactics to man-ipulate women.

factcheckme - August 30, 2010

As a preview, old hugo thinks I’m “obsessed” with piv. Even though I can’t recall the last time I stuck my dick into a woman. Bet he can!

factcheckme - August 30, 2010

Relatedly, I am currenly reading Sheila jefferies “the spinster and her enemies.” It’s absolutely fascinating, and takes down the ENTIRE field of sexology, and rewrites the his-story of feminism and the so-called sexual revolution. Sounds like something that should be required reading for any credible women’s studies cirriculum. Guess male teachers who are still having piv probably wouldn’t find it that interesting though.

factcheckme - August 31, 2010

do i really want to participate in some bullshit blogwar with a skeevy mansplaining male womens studies teacher? hmmmm. yeah, i dont think i do. but in case anyone wants the link, here it is:


factcheckme - August 31, 2010

heh. and this is only his PRELIMINARY response!!! (this guy so doesnt get irony. when not a single fucking thing i have said in my entire lifetime required or even invited a response, from him).

factcheckme - August 31, 2010

for his next trick, i have every expectation that he will be threatening legal or other action against this blog for publishing disparaging user comments sullying his “character.”

factcheckme - August 31, 2010

Help! I’m being repressed! By a huge disembodied anus, no less.

factcheckme - August 31, 2010

You know…not a single thing hugo has said even addresses the topic of this post, which is credibility, and conflicts of interest. So as much as I am sure he believes otherwise, old hugos “response” wasn’t actually responsive, at all. Which is funny as hell, it really is. God. What a fucking dickwad!

Also…I am not going to publish old hugos troll posse, afterall. The comments are coming in with some regularity now, and ill be goddamed if they arent just trite, and boring as hell! One accused loretta of being a rapist, for not considering male “choice.” It’s not even a good faith interpretation of anything that’s actually been said! And I am not going to let that kind of intentional derailing and misrepresentation take over this thread. Which is pretty clearly their intent.

My readers rule, his drool. Or something. End of.

49. SheilaG - August 31, 2010

No you don’t have to post things from some dumb man who took away a women’s studies teaching post from a woman, who can’t even address the topic with a modicum of intelligenceFCM. At the very least you’d think these men would actually read and THINK about what was posted so far. THINK is the operative word, because they don’t read, the skim. That’s what men do, they can’t take women’s ideas seriously, think they know it all, and so they skim it and can’t really comment. They are lazy and don’t do the work! I give him a D minus, and I’m being kind here. I don’t think they even have the ability to converse in radical feminist spaces. And I’m not bothering to go to the link either… predictable patriarchal blather…

“The Spinster and Her Enemies” is excellent BTW.
When lesbian feminists take on the sexologists… watch out.

50. berryblade - August 31, 2010

So that turd-wrangler wrote ANOTHER post about how YOU’RE WRONG and HE’S RIGHT, dude,MANSPLAINING clearly means nothing to him.

If I had this asshat teaching me ANYTHING at university I’d get the fuck up and walk out of his class and then probably complain to the university.

Total lol @ waxleys comment

I always find it hilarious when I do comment on sites like Hugo’s, the first thing people always say is YOU USE THE NAME OF A SERIAL KILLER OMGZZ@@@!!! YOU HAVE NONE OF TEH CREDIBILITY

Without ever pondering WHY.

51. berryblade - August 31, 2010

Also FCM I love how Waxley’s accused you of being JUST AS BAD as the MRA’s. Cos you know, encouraging womyn to not let men stick their dicks in them is TOTALLY the same as telling people that womyn ask to be raped, love to be beaten and would be better off bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen. WTF

52. Loretta Kemsley - August 31, 2010

FCM wrote:

One accused loretta of being a rapist, for not considering male “choice.”

ROTFLOL. So if I take control over my body, I’m raping someone? Who? Myself? My, my, what a concept.

His response doesn’t surprise me. The idea that a woman is the only one who has the choice of what to do with her body is foreign lingo in the male paradigm, as is the idea that the male isn’t front and center. His interpretation is exactly why I said we must move out of the male paradigm and exist solely within the female paradigm if we’re ever going to make progress. It would be a waste of time to try to convince him of what I actually meant vs what he’s decided to use as a false argument. False arguments are the way men keep control of the discussion. As long as we’re discussing the male viewpoint we’re not discussing our own.

I don’t bother arguing with those who either cannot or will not understand what I write. But I have to think this is an instance of someone reading something that cannot be un-thought.

You already know my thoughts on allowing hostile comments. I don’t do it. You shouldn’t either.

53. Loretta Kemsley - August 31, 2010

BB wrote:

I always find it hilarious when I do comment on sites like Hugo’s, the first thing people always say is YOU USE THE NAME OF A SERIAL KILLER OMGZZ@@@!!! YOU HAVE NONE OF TEH CREDIBILITY

Without ever pondering WHY.

Deep subject for shallow minds. People don’t ponder before they post on most things, but when it comes to important things, they ponder less. I’ve never been able to figure that out. You’d think they’d want to explore the facets of a subject if they’re truly interested.

I too love the book, The Spinster and Her Enemies. The first thing that struck me was that she was describing the arguments from the late 19th and early 20th centuries — and they are the same arguments used against women today. A full century has passed, and the rut has not yet been repaired.

54. SheilaG - August 31, 2010

Mansplaining, but what enrages me is men being hired to teach women’s studies! Now I ask you dear sisters, there are millions of jobs with men teaching at the university level– they control engineering, law, men’s studies (oops that’s history), math, physics…. yet they still want even the few jobs and disciplines that women have painstakingly carved out for themselves.

NO, NO and more NO, I would NEVER and I MEan NEVA EVA take a women’s studies class from a man. Geez, he is probably a rapist, or one of those professors who seduce women… in Hugo’s case, the man was mentally ill. Honestly, if women can’t teach women about feminism, what is the world coming to? No feminism is not about the menz, it is about women’s revolution and our march out of male supremacy, anything less is a complete sell out of women!

55. joy - August 31, 2010

Loretta, everything you wrote at #44, especially the opening:

“Men who are abusive are needier than women. They know they cannot survive without a woman to abuse. They expect her to hold their lives together. That’s why they are so desperate to force her back when she tries to leave.”

I too had an abusive mother. So did the man who used to beat me. Somehow I managed to not beat people because of my mother, but he always used his as an excuse for his behavior. He even made me into his mother, in his mind, and would take out the rage he held towards her — on me. Because he wasn’t strong enough to deal with it otherwise.

I always saw how fucking weak he was, how pathetic. When he’d beg me not to leave because he couldn’t live without me, even after punching me in the fucking temples (what FCM wrote on the newer post about inhaling bits of your own skull really hit home for me, I was almost that woman) — I knew (although I didn’t care) that he was right.
That if it wasn’t me, it would be someone else, because it had to be SOMEONE. He was too fucking weak to make it on his own.

Except … he isn’t, really. He’s on medication right now for his insanity, is not seeing another woman, and is living with other males (who he does not abuse), and somehow (somehow!) he’s managed to survive.
Just like I’d fucking told him he would, because I’ve always seen the truth — because I’m stronger than he is and always have been.

The only reason I never left him was because he would hunt me down, and try to kill me. Every time, right up until they put him in jail.
He wasn’t stronger than me, in any way. He was just more ruthless, he just fought dirtier, and he had society and the law on his side.

(As I’ve mentioned, he attempted my murder many times in public. No one ever stopped him, and only maybe three people ever even tried to intervene. The cops always assumed, even after the last time when he tried killing me with a knife on a subway platform, that I didn’t mind the abuse and was going to bail him out.
I fucking didn’t. He did time … for assaulting a police officer, who had tried to intervene when my ex stopped attacking me long enough to attack a male bystander. My own attack didn’t even go in the report. My ex’s public defender was EXTREMELY surprised when he called to ask for my testimony, and I told him, no, I’d nearly lost my life in the incident — the cops didn’t even fucking include that itty bitty detail in the criminal report. Because I am chattel and my life is unimportant.
The law sides with men. Always. Every fucking time. The law will never be on the side of women. And that is where men get their “strength” — in numbers. Like a pack. Like the fucking undead.)

Also, fuck Hugo and his inability to fucking read. And Aileen, we’re on a roll with the creative feces-based insults lately: me with “son of a shitstain” and you with “turd wrangler” (which is a term I now love).

56. Loretta Kemsley - August 31, 2010

I’ve been thinking of the poster accusing me of being a rapist because I said I choose who I have sex with.

However, if a man said he chooses who he has sex with, I cannot imagine anyone interpretting that as being a rapist. That’s the norm, is it not?

So how does he make the leap that a person choosing how they have sex with = rape?

Nothing I wrote implies force or violence, so that had to arise via the concepts of the poster.

Only someone with a rapist mentality could make that leap, someone who thinks the person they choose is going to be forced with violence.

57. FemmeForever - August 31, 2010

Berryblade, the first time I ever saw your AW handle on the internet I knew instantly (with a broad smile) you were going to be my peeps.

58. SheilaG - August 31, 2010

Men teach women’s studies because they’re right and women are wrong. And who invented women’s studies, who created the feminist movement? Honestly, leave the inventors and discoverers to our lives, get the heck out of our classrooms, stop taking jobs away from women! Geez, men teaching women’s studies, what’s the world coming to? And they are such idiots too. I guess out to be sexual preditors to the women students…

factcheckme - August 31, 2010

so exellent to wake up to some intelligent comments! well done readers! regarding reading things that cant be unread/unthought…the really funny thing is that my traffic has doubled ever since i posted that comment on feministe. and that hugo has at least 2 decent commenters on his blog, and they are probably here now, reading everything we have been talking about for the last weeks, months, and year (its my one year anniversary this month actually, yay!) the comments are actually pretty low for the kind of traffic i am getting. which means literally hundreds of new people are reading here and not saying anything, and they arent going to be able to forget at least some of the things we are talking about over here.

maybe 2 or 3 of them will actually understand what they are reading. heh. out of that, maybe .05 of them will have a neuron fire, and learn something. one can hope, cant one?

factcheckme - August 31, 2010

oh, and one “gay pro-feminist” left a comment i mean turd sandwich behind for us all to chew on…he said hes never had PIV with a woman, therefore he took up my challenge. intriguing! anyone want to speculate on whether hes had penetrative sex? and whether he feels free to invade feminist spaces, and leave shit sandwiches behind for all teh uppity bitches to savor?

thats what i thought. he must teach in the culinary arts at hugos “school”. where is this place anyay? the seventh circle of academic hell?

factcheckme - August 31, 2010

lol @ the feces-related insults. sometimes it just feels right!

factcheckme - August 31, 2010

Watch hugo start to backpedal now. But but but! I just WANTED to RESPOND! to her POINTS! well, everybody wants something. Doesn’t mean its ever going to happen, in your lifetime. Also doesn’t mean you are QUALIFIED or CAPABLE of producing the result you want. In this case, reading comprehension skills, an actual pro-feminist orientation, and a true aversion to mansplaining would seem to be, more or less, required.

factcheckme - August 31, 2010

Also, he seems surprised that his readers would come over here and be “tactless.” Well guess what? I’m not surprised, at all. Lorettas not surprised either. Nor is probably a single radical feminist or even newbie feminist on this site. Cause guess what dickwad? It’s standard fucking issue to be treated like crap, without a modicum of “tact” or respect, and attacked, abused and harassed, when you are female. And its standard issue too for self-identified liberal doods and pro-feminist men to be abusive, entitled jackwads who cant read, and attack women they claim to support. Apparently, attacking women in this context would appear to the men as if its “for our own good.” Meaning, these doods are advancing feminism, THEIR OWN BRAND OF IT, by attacking women.

So, two questions. Who else attacks women, for the womens own good? And what does “their brand of feminism” entail, exactly? These are not rhetorical questions.

59. SheilaG - August 31, 2010

We are talking about credibility. Why would the oppressor be credible in a classroom of women who are serious about feminism? Why would a man avoid all discussion of the topic itself, and go off topic to attack FCM and us so-called “other” feminists, you know the wrong kind who stand up to men, create our own space and our own conversation for the sake of SHOCK our own liberation.

Why would said male stealer of jobs not attack the real enemies of women– other men, who want to interfer in our revolution, who are actively killing, raping and terrorizing women all over the world?

The thing is, I have yet to meet a man who can stay on topic, because he is unconsciously defending his male privilege. A liberal man: I know I am a white straight male privileged person, but I get your job anyway.
A conservative man: Hey, I’m the victim here, and I’ll steal your job anyway. Either way, the outcome is the same, men invading women’s studies departments, taking over our research, and bringing… need I say it, their ridiculous conflicts of interest with them.

An oppressor never frees the oppresses… all men who fight in “wars for freedom for men” know this.
I love the way men who claim to be feminists actually attack feminists fighting for our own liberation on our own terms, and SHOCK, controlling the space where this discussion occurs.

I love the internet because men’s stupid comments can finally be deleated! What a relief not to have to wade through their derailing comments, that they are so fond of “spouting” AT us IRL.

Thanks FCM, but if you get too fed up, don’t read their stupid junk, until perhaps they learn how to construct comments that fit the subject!! Don’t think they have the intelligence to read, however. Men can only skim, and even that might be a doubtful supposition.

60. Chel - August 31, 2010

“Somehow, I strongly suspect that hugo is one of those pro-porn, pro-prostitution “feminist men.””

I first heard of Hugo many years ago as an anti-porn feminist man. I know he has since “rethought” and taken a softer stance on the issue (a development he attributed to the influence of women who use and/or participate in porn and who like it and feel shamed by his condemnation, as I recall).

As for his credibility, I think you and your commenters are right. He’s too much in women’s space, and there’s nothing feminist about men injecting their maleness into everything. Male feminists ought to be putting their energies into male spaces, interfering with all those rites of masculinity that demand and reinforce the subjugation of women.

factcheckme - August 31, 2010

The funny thing is that this post wasn’t even about Hugo! He made it about himself. I just quoted some asshat who mansplained me. It happens daily, i couldve quoted anyone. Just so happens this particular asshat has an ego, and a following too. Not to mention an agenda that has literally everything to do with HIM. Unfortunately for me i suppose, I now get to incur his wrath, as he attempts some damage control. Cause Old Hugo uses his real name. Ostensibly, we know where he works. He is trying very hard to be credible ON PAPER bencause it benefits himself to do so. But i create these posts on my lunch break. I have absolutely nothing to gain from doing this. If feminism succeeded, I would be happy. And i would still have a job. Hugo wouldn’t.

BTW, he’s posted yet another response to me. That’s three now. And he and his insane clown posse are now talking about piv. And teh crazy straight radfems who are being so unfarrr when we list its harms, for all to see. It’s unfarrr! It’s wadical! But its also TRUE. Again, with the credibility. Is anything the fun fems or so-called feminist men saying even true? Or are they just flapping their fucking gums because they like the breeze?

factcheckme - August 31, 2010

Wait, don’t answer that. That probably WAS a rhetorical question.

factcheckme - August 31, 2010

heres the link to old hugos latest. the title alone made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. envelop??? uuugggghhhhh. shiver.


factcheckme - August 31, 2010

in case anyone is wondering, these links are showing up in my stats. i am NOT cruising old hugos blog, and i WILL NOT.

factcheckme - September 1, 2010

wow. one of hugos commenters is really handing it to him. anyone know “mandos?”

61. Mary Sunshine - September 1, 2010

Oh, yeah. Years back, Mandos was a persistent (male) troll on Twisty’s blog.

He argues for the sake of argument. He’s another Hugo.

62. Mary Sunshine - September 1, 2010
factcheckme - September 1, 2010

Omg. Thanks Mary. Guess they deserve each other then! But now I know both of them are here reading every fucking word I say. Ew.

63. AileenWuornos - September 1, 2010

FemmeForever, thanks so much for your kind words.

Ahahha, a few people over there are suggesting that I get banned, fine, ban me, sif I care. I was just bored and stoned and now I’m not bored or stoned I really so not point of expending any further of my precious energy into these foolish children who won’t even bother to read real feminist theory.

Also, kristina’s comments over there are worth a bittle of a chortle imho. PENETRATION IS FINE COS I CONSENT TO IT OKAY seems to be the mode of operation over there. Wait, it’s like that fucking EVERYWHERE cos all these asshats are doing is sucking off the status quo and saying it’s okay cos they “consent” to it.

Also, when was the last time you heard of penis-in-vagina penetrative sex described as “enveloping” outside of feminist circles? Hm, never. Funny that.

64. mscitrus - September 1, 2010

Man I drive-by commented over there. Will probably not head back because some creep is going on about how Dworkin was such a hater and hated women too. That was just so full of misunderstanding and fail I don’t see the point.

That’s really the same Mandos? I mean, I’ve read his old comments and these seem so much better. I guess he’s “evolved” or something? But omg FCM, they DO totally deserve each other. That was my first thought when I first thought it was that Mandos, haha.

factcheckme - September 1, 2010

loretta and sheila, you are absolutely right about the hostile comments. so thanks for that. the intent is not to offer another perspective, as they always bitch and moan about, because the radfem perspective IS the alternate view, thiers is the mainstream, and its the mainstream view i am RESPONDING TO, and my commenters are responding to it too. the mainstream or anti-feminist view goes without saying, and it will continue to GO WITHOUT SAYING on this blog.

and regarding the comment that loretta was a rapist…YES it was a false argument, YES absolutely. intended to derail, and keep everyone discussing these things on male terms, and from a rapists perspective. thats how men always try to frame these issues, to noramlize the male view, and to normalize the perspective of the rapist, instead of the female view (aka. FAAB view for the assholes who are going to cry bio-essentialism).

and they absolutely go batshit loony toons when you present anything from the perspective of the victim. note how the “credibility” thread (aka. hugos attempt at damage control as i threatened his professional reputation as a male womens studies teacher by MERELY MENTIONING the problem of conflicts of interest) has now taken center stage, when i posted a perfectly decent analysis of domestic violence in pop culture (eminem and julia serano) from the perspective of the victim AFTER THAT, and hardly anyone is even reading it.

this shit is deliberate, people. its so obvious.

factcheckme - September 1, 2010

Also, I thought mandos’ comments were pretty good. If that’s the same mandos, perhaps like all feminist men he will do the most good discussing this shit with other men. Cause he’s really handing Hugo his ass over there.

65. Loretta Kemsley - September 1, 2010

I did not know of Hugo until you wrote about him in this essay. I didn’t visit his blog until you posted the link last night. A few things struck me right away.

The first is the style of writing. His style, as would be expected, is that of a professor coaxing his students along while your style is a take no prisoners style. He offers his readers quite a bit of comfort, a pillow-top mattress if you will, while you offer them a bed of nails where it is impossible to find any comfort whatsoever. In some places, he even offers guard rails and lullabies so they can feel safe while you’ve deliberately built your bed of nails atop the highest, steepest crag, maximizing the danger for those who dare to venture here. It takes a hardy soul to climb into your bed of nails to seek the truth. His bed is easier because it allows them to pretend to challenge the subject matter while being coddled and feeling quite safe.

The second is the posters at Hugo’s who manage to increase their comfort via the use of an academic style of writing. Academic writing is distant, impersonal, and dispassionate. It’s a perfect place to hide while pretending to embrace. It’s no wonder they cannot understand Dworkin. Her prose demands passion and commitment. It can’t be understood without fire in the belly.

I highly recommend Joanna Russ’s How to Suppress Women’s Writing.. Here’s a quote from her book:

“She didn’t write it. She wrote it but she shouldn’t have. She wrote it but look what she wrote about. She wrote it but she isn’t really an artist, and it isn’t really art. She wrote it but she had help. She wrote it but she’s an anomaly. She wrote it BUT…”

This is what they are doing to your work. They are marginalizing it by focusing on how you write rather than what you say. This too is what they have done and are doing to Dworkin. How much safer it is to say, “She didn’t say it very well. Her ideas are not original” instead of actually hearing what she said and discussing the implications. In that way, they can claim they “read” Dworkin without really investing themselves in her ideas or examining the possibility that she was talking about them.

However, you have stirred the hornets nest, so you (and Dworkin) can’t be ignored completely. Even though their instinct is to run to safety and listen to comforting lullabies, your shouting has penetrated against their will, which is why Hugo keeps posting about you. He says he’s doing it because others write to him and want answers to what you say. I don’t doubt that. He’s the obvious protector they would seek.

The last thing I noticed was their need to clump you and the rest of us into one rather than address the ideas we’re discussing. They recognize each other as individuals but cannot risk recognizing us as individuals. That’s another way of trying to marginalize the ideas presented here. It is easier to demonize one voice than many voices. One voice is less powerful than many voices. So pretending that we are basically mindless robots following you they can pretend that your ideas are less powerful and ours aren’t worth understanding at all.

That too is what was behind the “Loretta is a rapist” comment. Demonizing me instead of hearing what I have to say is their method of protecting themselves, rather like a child putting his fingers in his ears and shouting “lalalalalala” until the voice they don’t want to hear goes silent.

You should count this as a good development. It means you’re making an impact, which is the entire purpose of writing, and that anyone who wants to understand the context of his writing must read your writing, even if your ideas give them the vapors. Even as they resist and try to fight against the specters you raise, they cannot un-think them.

factcheckme - September 1, 2010

Loretta, I accept your analysis. I think its spot on. And if others accept your analysis, they are going to have to ask themselves why is a self-identified feminist man hiding and distorting feminist truths in favor of comfort? And why is this same man attempting to suppress my work? And of course, how is either of these things feminist, or pro-feminist? Don’t even get me started on the implications of having such a man teaching twenty year olds about feminism. I think academic feminism has gone septic anyway, and is in dire need of surgery if not amputation. It’s that putrid, dangerous, and I think probably hopeless.

To be clear, i didn’t know Hugo either. I hadn’t even heard that there was a male women’s studies teacher on the feminist interwebs that the radfems hated. I was that out of that particular loop. Heh. I was literally just quoting something that was completely typical of third wave men, and a blatant example of a conflict of interest. I didn’t know said asshole was HUGO!!!11!1! And now we get to see his ego and his investment in his own reputation (as a femuhnizt!!!!111!) in full swing. And its ugly, man. It really fucking is.

66. Loretta Kemsley - September 1, 2010

I’ve never taken a course in women’s studies, so I have no basis for comparison, but I can give a general observation.

DV advocates recognize that the movement was far healthier before they were able to get government grants. Now they have to kowtow to the powers that be or lose the money. This prevents innovation and being outspoken.

The same might be true in women’s studies. They have to conform in order to exist. As soon as you make something mainstream, it immediately becomes less cutting edge in order to survive. The longer this goes on, the weaker the original concepts become.

That’s one reason why I’ve never bothered with an accredited course in WS. The leading edge of thought is never found within conformity of any kind. Since I like to be on the precarious cutting edge (the bed of nails), it would be profoundly boring for me to sit through such a class.

67. thebewilderness - September 1, 2010

I didn’t know who he was either. I thought he was the pornography hugo from alas when he came to theriomorph’s blog to mansplain to her how totally wrong she was about Amanda’s book art being racist. If he didn’t see it then it simply was not there and he is an educator…so there. He went on to mansplain the history of racism, for which he received a thorough drubbing from people who actually knew what they were talking about.
Eventually he mansplained that it was all just a misunderstanding and totally not his fault, closed comments, and went on hiatus or vacation or something. Into a cave to lick his wounded pride? Who cares.
That was the only time I went to his blog. People who lie when the truth would serve them better are a mystery I have no interest in solving.

68. SheilaG - September 1, 2010

Loretta is dead on about feminism being co-opted when it is controlled. Imagine being a young radfem and having to take a women’s studies class from a transman or a straight man. Wow, they would not get Daly or Dworkin. This stuff is completely over men’s heads because… men are arguing from conflict of interest. They can’t admit that radical feminists are diverse, as are the women on this blog.

We are all strikingly different in our approaches to radical feminism, and we don’t all agree. But we have a solid desire for the liberation of women, and for exposing male media violence like Eminem’s against us.

That most men can’t even condemn this porn and male violence in the media is a telling thing.

69. Level Best - September 1, 2010

“That too is what was behind the ‘Loretta is a rapist’ comment. Demonizing me instead of hearing what I have to say is their method of protecting themselves, rather like a child putting his fingers in his ears and shouting ‘lalalalalala” until the voice they don’t want to hear goes silent.”–LK

And this happens ALL the time with these guys and their admirers. You know what it reminds me of? Squids shooting giant ink clouds out of their butts at their perceived enemies. I do not respect their squiddiness at all.

70. Level Best - September 1, 2010

Well, I respect the squiddiness of actual squids, but not the squiddiness of cephlopod emulators like Hugo and his ilk.

thebewilderness commented here! My day is now officially made. This thread is like radfem heaven.

71. SheilaG - September 1, 2010

I guess we need to identify who these male teachers are in women’s studies departments and warn young women about them. We need to expose their belief system, and how the system of male derailing of women’s freedom really works.

They might remain unchallenged as they teach young people who are not equipped to see behind their anti-feminist agendas or conflicts of interest. Men invading women’s progress is nothing new. They steal coaching jobs from women’s basketball etc. Anytime women try to do things on our own, they steal the jobs we create. Then they attack radical feminism, because THEY can’t control what we say or how we say it. They are lazy and can’t follow our arguments because they’d have to admit what they were up to… getting sex out of women students I suspect being PIV in the back of their brains.

Are men ever capable of looking at young women without thinking PIV PIV PIV? We know this is true, so would you want to be a budding women’s studies student if you had a teacher who was even thinking that EVER? Now that is true conflict of interest if there ever was one.

factcheckme - September 1, 2010

Piv is always, always, always going to be part of the equasion isn’t it? Until self-identified pro-feminist men stop fucking women, and fucking women over through piv, they are the fucking ENEMY. literally. and its not just the traditionally predatory overtones either, although thats a big fucking part of it. It’s that men who are still sticking their dicks into women either don’t get it, or they are deliberately, knowingly causing harm, and dont care. With allies like that…as the saying goes. Placing women and girls in harms way through piv is not ok, and its not feminist.

factcheckme - September 1, 2010

Mansplanation number four, to MEEEEEE!!!11!!1 has just been posted. The topic: wadfems is like conservahtibbs!!

72. SheilaG - September 1, 2010

maybe we need to administer a PIV oath… men vow never to do this. If they are caught lying about this, we take them to the town square and have a special guillitone ready.

Another sci fi plot— women invent hoses for men to put their penis’ in, and it gives them super orgasms. This goes on for years, until the hoses are changed. Then every 100th orgasm triggers a mechanism, so that a hose gets “teeth” in it, and the unfortunate man who uses the hose gets the penis bitten to death while he screams in agony, we make a video of real men screaming as they can’t get the penis out of the torture hose, make millions of dollars off this “rock video” or rap song…. millions go to FCM’s account… and she can buy several Dairy Queen franchises.

I’m up for a radfem fiction contest here sometime FCM, just tossing that one out there.

73. Social Worker - September 2, 2010

Re: Loretta’s comment @ 65:
This comment struck home for me for, I think, a different reason. I was thinking about a similar analogy the other day, that learning here often feels like being punched in the face and the learning at Hugo’s feels more like…learning (a give and take conversation with mutual respect where the goal is to expand knowledge).
I often have questions or thoughts I would like to air here, but honestly hesitate to do so, because I don’t like being punched in the face.

I want to understand more deeply some of the ideas tossed around here and I’m fairly well-read and capable of intellectual discourse, so it’s not that I don’t “think deeply” or some of the other minimizing comments that are so frequently made here. “Reading comprehension fail” is a popular one.
I can understand why someone like Kristina who likes it here and wants to learn more, feels “safer” exploring ideas and commenting on Hugo’s blog. I hope she doesn’t mind my saying so.

I appreciate the harsh realities presented here, agree with some, not with others and interested in pursuing yet others. I’m sure there are other lurkers who share this pov.
But forgive me for not wanting to be punched in the face to get there.
If the goal is to educate, steep us more deeply in the theory, then, essentially telling us to go somewhere else (which has also been said here) does not serve that goal.

I don’t want to anticipate, but can’t help but think I’m just going to get a lot of “you don’t get its.”
I hope I’m wrong.
Now, let the face-punching begin…

74. Social Worker - September 2, 2010

For clarity’s sake, I also only discovered the Hugo site through here in the past few days.

75. Loretta Kemsley - September 2, 2010

A few things bothering me about Hugo’s posts and those of his commentators.

The first is his statements about death during pregnancy and childbirth being mostly in the past. Half a million women die each year from complications due to pregnancy and childbirth. He only gives them the slightest nod, a mere phrase in his overall statement. How can a dedicated feminist ignore this massive figure? The fact that most of them do not live in the US is not an excuse. Feminism has been global for decades.

The second is his description of eros as PIV. Which leaves out millions of people who do not engage in PIV. The disabled are only one part of these people, but they are significant and their numbers are growing, in part because of those horrid extensions of machoism: the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions.

Spinal cord injuries are rising because of IEDs. They were the signature injury of Vietnam and again could be called that in these two invasions. The VA is treating new patients at the rate of 9,000 a month. They expect the VA will treat half a million Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in both 2011 and 2012. However, VA critics say that has been underestimated by 200,000 each year.

A significance portion of these patients will be paralyzed by spinal cord injuries. They will never experience PIV or orgasm again. I’m quite sure that there will be those who will tell their wives and girlfriends they must engage in other sexual activities in order to pleasure their men even if it means they won’t be sexually satisfied.

And yet, when women talk about not wanting to engage in PIV because of the dangers involved, then there is something wrong with them. After all, men want to experience that pleasure. I did not see any serious discussion about other sexual activities that are legitimate, just a general ballyhoo that women who object to PIV are the “enemy of eros.” Doesn’t matter that it isn’t eros to them. It is to the men and that’s all that counts.

One poster threw in that old Fruedian notion that women who don’t want PIV are “immature.” He framed it as they never grew up and were still suffering from the time when all their girlfriends found boys attractive. How dismissive and insulting. And yet they call themselves “feminists.”

And then there’s the word play that if they change the word “penetrating” to “enveloping” then all will be fine. That ignores the half a million who die in childbirth every year and the additional millions who have died or will die from AIDS. Africa alone has 14 million AIDS orphans. 31.3 million adults have AIDS, half of which are women. In 2008, 2.7 million additional people were infected. 2.0 million died in 2008. The overwhelming source of infection for women is PIV. I guess we should ignore them too.

Going beyond the actual numbers, if they focus on the vagina “enveloping” the penis, that too will be used against women as it has in the past.

There are the myths about Vagina dentata (toothed vagina) frequently told as warnings about sex with strange women. It also relates to men’s fears of castration. Why wouldn’t an “enveloping vagina” once again be related to castration?

In his book, The Wimp Factor, Stephen J. Ducat espoused the “threat” of sexual intercourse for men. His discussion rested upon the idea that although entering triumphantly, men always leave diminished. It doesn’t take much imagination for the “enveloping vagina” to get blamed for the “diminished” man.

That theory has weird echoes in the posts at Hugo’s as they try to disempower what we post here. Simply for daring to raise the discussion, we’re castrating men or, in my case, raping men. It is not surprising that all the arguments revolve around women being twisted if they don’t want to service men via PIV with the main argument being that there is nothing wrong with PIV because men enjoy it.

Which leaves women, once again, as non-entities, mere servants or slaves to male desires.

Does any of this make my discussion of paradigms any clearer? This is why we need to reject the male paradigm completely. There is no way to arrive at an honorable solution for women as long as we agree to argue for our rights within the male framework. Within that framework, men will always define and control women’s sexuality without regard to the danger inflicted upon women.

factcheckme - September 2, 2010

Ah yes, the old radfems punching people in the face analogy. Believe it or not, I have heard this one before. On feministe, the last thread I ever commented on there before I gave up on fun feminism for good, the writer was saying how FUN!!!!1!11 and sexxxay it was for women to hitchhike, and it wasn’t dangerous at all, because you don’t know the men, and the stats about male violence say blahdy blahdy blah. I said look, its true that you are more likely to be victmized by a man you know, but that just because because almost all women “know” a couple of men!!!! Almost every single one of us eventually partner with a man, we live with men, we date men etc. And sorry, kiddo, once you’ve gotten into his car, after you’ve been riding around with him for x number of hours, you “know” him, too. Horrifying, isn’t it?

Not to mention the fact that stranger-danger type data is also very skewed, bc women self-restrict our activities to minimize these types of encounters. If we didn’t, the numbers on stranger violence would probably look much different than they do today. But it still wouldn’t compare with intimate partner violence, but that’s ONLY BECAUSE intimate partner violence is such an epidemic. The point of calling attention to it was never to downplay the danger to women of fucking hitchhiking, or to imply that strange men aren’t dangerous! For fucks sake. The whole point was that men as a group are women’s worst danger, and that dv is REAL, and is so, so, SO common. Leave it to the fucking fun fems to twist the data, so that hitchhiking seems safe, for women. Cause its fun!!!!111!1 and men rock!

When I pointed out the REALITY of male violence in this context, and I wouldn’t back down, she said i was beating her about the head and neck. *I* was being violent, for pointing out male violence, to a fun fun. Ironic, isn’t it? And its also a common minimizing technique of abusive men! That metaphorical violence by women is the same as or worse than ACTUAL, REAL, VIOLENCE, against women, by men. See my most recent post for more on that.

And as far as “educating” here, well frankly I don’t have the fucking time. Hugo does. He also likes to think of himself as an educator. I only care about telling the truth, to women. He pretends to invite “alternate views” but he’s a lying sack of shit on that count, now isn’t he? Look at what he’s doing to my work. Whereas I have already said that mainstream views go without saying here, and I will not entertain them. I frankly have a real job, and i dont have time for this shit. The comments coming in better be good, and if my having high expectations of my readers culls the herd as it were, of people who comment, THAT’S INTENTIONAL. Duh.

I am perfectly content with this being a radfem haven, as levelbest has said. That’s the highest compliment. And its all I ever wanted.

factcheckme - September 2, 2010

i would also like to suggest, for anyone who hasnt read it, to pick up a copy of sheila jefferys’s “the spinster and her enemies” immediately, without hesitation. its fucking fantastic, and i have only read maybe a quarter of it, and i can already absolutely blow hugos bullshit posts about piv and “eros” completely out of the water. clearly, he hasnt even READ it. which isnt a surprise. right now, she is talking about the ways that early feminists stressed “purity” and deliberately induced shame in men regarding “sex.” its because early feminists saw the harm of mandatory PIV, for women, and knew that the only way to stop men from victimizing women this way would be to appeal to thier religiosity. these women knew what was up, and recognized the direct and tangible harms to women of PIV, and wanted it to end.

and history, and histories bitches, ie. hugo and men like hugo who dont want to know what really happened, refer to these women as “prudes.” but from WHOSE perspective are these women “prudish”? this is a serious question. these women were talking about ejaculate and orgasms and rape and prostitution when it wasnt even kosher for women to talk about “sex” at all. how is this “prudish”? and its only from the male perspective that we could ever arrive at “deprivation” or “abstinence” as the main theme, when what these women were talking about was improving the quality of womens lives, and ridding them of death and disease and all manners of sexual abuse at the hands of men.

read it, please. its amazing, and you will instantly be able to recognize bullshit anti-feminist “thats prudish!” arguments and publically rip them to shreds, if you are so inclined to participate in those discussions. i think many of us know that the parallel doesnt fit, but werent sure why. THIS is why. and hugo didnt even fucking read the book. hes not doing the work, and yet he is TEACHING others. god its the stuff of nightmares, it really is. and some people feel SAFE, learning from someone like him. they feel SAFE, in the arms of a man who is fucking LYING to them. its horrifying. absolutely horrifying.

factcheckme - September 2, 2010

Loretta, your analysis of what Hugo is doing and your comments here are so welcome. Thank you. And regarding minimizing the harms of piv, yes he’s being racist, hes being classist, he’s revealing his fucking privilege, on every axis. Its literally painful to read. Most of all, of course, hes showing how fucking ignorant he is, as a man, and how if it doesn’t affect him both directly and consciously, it doesn’t exist.

A woman I work with recently died from complications of pregnancy. She was married, had the same education as me, had the same job as me. And right here, in this country, she died, because she was pregnant. She was also black. Did she even receive competent medical care? We just don’t know. Oh, another pregnant black woman, who cares about her, they all breed like animals anyway don’t they, let’s move onto the next patient! Another woman I know had to have a late term abortion because her blood pressure was so high, it was going to kill her. This is called preeclampsia, and its very common.

One of the things that all my friends who have been pregnant or given birth tell me is that noone ever told them what it would be like. The changes their bodies went through, how scary it was, and how many complications there are, and the aftermath too. Noone ever told them, because the only people anyone fucking listens to are men, and they don’t know about it, don’t care, or actively minimize these things. And it directly benefits men to minimize the harms here, because they are direct harms to women, of piv.

76. Loretta Kemsley - September 2, 2010

Social Worker, I have sympathy for your position. I also have sympathy for FCM’s position. Here’s my experience on it.

I’ve taught a variety of subjects. Not as a college professor but as a person who loves to learn and thus has lots of information to share. For instance, I’ve been well-paid to writing manuals and train employees about how to use business software. I’ve also trained horses and their owners. As a writer, editor and publisher, I’ve had the opportunity to speak at writing conferences and hold online classes. I’ve also taught about goddess spirituality and how women were deliberately and wrongfully excluded in “Christian” scriptures and later dogma.

But I’m not enamored with teaching. It stalls my own learning. Too often, I hear myself repeating the exact same lessons over and over to every newcomer who wants to play catch-up. I don’t want to be bored reciting the same lesson a thousand times over. I want to cover new territory.

Here’s another part of the problem with teaching: people don’t want to learn for themselves. They want an easy answer to complex questions. Too often, the questions that are asked are really more of a challenge (to disprove what has been said). And the one that bothers me the most: taking the time to teach the slowest learner or the unprepared learner adversely affects everyone else who is present.

The latter is why I prefer to learn on my own rather than take formal classes. I already know the answers to most of the questions asked because I read, read, read. So sitting in a classroom ends up a waste of time for me. My mind wanders, thinking of other things I could have spent that time doing that would have beem more productive. Even so, I realize most people feel comfortable there.

What baffles me is why people don’t read more and learn on their own. There are slews of books on any subject. We should all be free thinkers, learning whatever we are curious about and doing it on our own so we have the right timing. Timing is very important to learning. If we aren’t ready to learn something, going to class won’t change that. Perhaps we need more groundwork before we approach that subject. Perhaps we need more sleep. The list of “not ready” is endless but very real.

When I come across something I don’t understand, I reread it several times over, often a paragraph at a time. Then I take any remaining questions to other sources. Google search is my favorite activity these days. With it, I can find most any book that is recommended and websites of the authors or their followers. I can read college coursework and find a hundred sites that add more info. Did you know that most colleges, including Harvard, Yale and MIT, have free lectures online? This is the best age to live in for someone who wants to learn.

When I post in places like this, I don’t put my teaching hat on. I’m here to learn, to hear the voices of others because I want to be inspired by new ideas. So I’m in the same boat as you, even if I know more than you do. I pay attention to key words and phrases, then do searches with them. I note the books that are recommended and then find a copy of them. In this respect, you and I are students together. Whether or not I answer someone’s question just depends on the mood I’m in and if I have the time. The same goes for picking what I reply to. I only reply to ideas that stimulate me. I don’t bother discussing those that don’t. That doesn’t mean those aren’t important, just that they didn’t seem to need further comment.

I suspect that is true for all who comment. They reply to what interests them and ignore the rest. That makes discussions like this uneven and perhaps a mystery to those who haven’t already learned at least some part of what we are discussing. I don’t think that will ever change nor do I think that people who are posting have an obligation to complete the education of others. I would advise those who are playing catch-up to do as I outlined above: take charge of your own learning based on what interests you and seek other resources to fill in the blanks. Leaving it to someone else is the same as giving your power to someone else. Why do that?

factcheckme - September 2, 2010

I was a teaching assistant in grad school, and in addition to teaching the material, I took it upon myself to show my students how to learn, and how to be successful with the material. I have done that here too, but some people didn’t appreciate it. Some people didn’t appreciate it then either, but most of my students took my advice. Next term, the professor told me that on average, the scores of the entire class had risen, and he told me that while its impossible to say for sure when things change like that, he suspected it was because of me. I took it as the highest compliment, I really did. And he didn’t have to tell me that either, or even notice it himself. But he was an honorable man, he really was, and a mentor to me, a real one, and he wanted me to be successful too. So instead of crediting himself, he told me what he thought had happened, and that i had helped people learn. And this was despite him having to field some complaints about me over the course of the term, from students who didn’t like my style. He just saw it as needless drama, and didn’t believe in general that people should be silenced, every time someone has a complaint, especially within academia. There aren’t many men out there like him. I have met maybe 3 in my lifetime, they’ve all been mentors to me, and I will never forget them, ever.

Read the table of contents, when you are reading a book, and refer to it often. This is your map, and will help you stay organized in your thoughts. Stick with one subject at a time. And focus on a small chunk, one chapter, or 50 pages or whatever. Find a delineation that makes sense. Read it once, and just think about it for the rest of the day. Then, the next day, read it again, and start making notes in the margins. When you are done reading an entire terms materials in this way, read through it again, with your comments, and make an outline. Use the table of contents and the course syllabus as a guide. Even if you don’t understand it, make sure you write it down correctly, and then read the outline again and again, until you get it.

If this sounds like a lot of work, it is. It’s tedious as hell for me to even type it out, but people need to know how to engage with the material, instead of just memorizing, and going through the motions. For blog posts, start with just reading the fucking title. Fucking Christ. It’s not that hard.

77. Mary Sunshine - September 2, 2010

Loretta: a very wise comment.

Thanks for that.

factcheckme - September 2, 2010

Note to self (via hugos blog): if you call it “enveloping” instead of “penetrating” you cant get pregnant from it. Oh goody! Let’s add that one to the list, along with you cant get pregnant while menstruating, you can’t get pregnant if its your first time, and my personal favorite: let me just stick in the tip.

Fucking assholes.

78. DarthVelma - September 2, 2010

You have GOT to be kidding. Someone really said that?

Do I need to go over there and have “the talk” with some of Hugo’s commenters?

79. Aileen Wuornos - September 2, 2010

Fact Check Me and Loretta, those valuable pieces of insight you’ve provided are so perceptive, also those study tips are invaluable. I’d never even thought of taking it to that extent, so thank you.

factcheckme - September 2, 2010

Dvelma, Hugo said that if you call it enveloping, the problems with piv are cured. Or at least, aren’t worth talking about anymore. Because, you know, women just take things the wrong way, and its all in the presentation. Or something. Which is such a classless dodge, and a deliberate mischaracterization of the real, tangible problems with piv, for women. Maybe men might feel less rapey about it if they think about it differently, sure why not? Why not spend endless time and energy exploring how men feel?

Because how men feel should not be our fucking concern, in an allegedly feminist discourse, about the real, tangible harms of piv, to women. That’s why.

80. Loretta Kemsley - September 2, 2010

No, that isn’t what they actually said.

He wrote that since death in childbirth and pregnancy is no longer to be feared that much (how much is too much? seems to me half a million is a bit more than he implied), then the objection to PIV must be from some other reason. He suggested that the reason (at least in part) was the terminology being used, like penetrating. and that it could be changed to “enveloping” or something similar which would change the entire concept of PIV.

The combo is very dismissive of real concerns. Even if you didn’t have to worry about dying during pregnancy and childbirth, there are other very real considerations concerning them. That’s why women use birth control, isn’t it? That’s why some men are willing to pay for abortions, isn’t it?

FCM just took it a step further to the illogical conclusion that can be derived from his two arguments.

I don’t know Hugo but his ramblings seem to be to be the ruminations of someone who hasn’t paid much attention to a very serious subject , so he’s making it up as he goes along.

81. DarthVelma - September 2, 2010

I’m going to have to go do some deep thinking. Mostly about how the desire to re-frame PIV as “enveloping” connects to some of your prior posts about how men really don’t get where babies come from. There’s a connection there that’s hovering just out of conscious reach of my brain to put into words.

82. DarthVelma - September 2, 2010


They really just do not get that it isn’t the terminology…it’s the behavior. If some d00d is pounding away at you it doesn’t matter what you call it…he’s still a porn-addled, entitled idjit.

Yeah, Hugo…I’m talking about your student-raping ass.

factcheckme - September 2, 2010

Yes, there are other concerns besides dying, one of them I have repeatedly articulated is sitting under your desk at work, puking into a fucking trashcan, waiting for your abortion. That’s not going to get you anywhere in your career, is it? How about having to call in sick for a month (or you know, 9) because you have such awful morning sickness you cant travel? You still get morning sick people, if you are going to get it, even if you eventually terminate the pregnancy. God. The denial and yes straight up ignorance about women’s bodies just stuns. It really fucking does.

And these are the men who supposedly get it! Hello!

83. Social Worker - September 2, 2010

Thank you all for responding sincerely to my post. I appreciate it.
I’ve taught and currently supervise a team of younger women in my work. I have a different perspective of teaching from Loretta in that I genuinely enjoy the role of presenting information (even if it’s for the 30th time) and believe my job is to give them the tools to “get it.” I find I learn a new aspect or new way of presenting each time I do, so I do get something else from it.
Part of that for me is helping them break it down. Sometimes with tools like FCM discussed, which are great, and sometimes by sitting with them and helping them through their own thought process. Challenging ideas and presenting new ones when they ask or are ready.
Maybe it’s a bit spoonfeed-y, but I’ve gotten good results with it.
And I didn’t mean to accuse you of violence, FCM, and I’m sorry if it came across that way.
It was just a different way of saying what Loretta had about having to face the harsh consequences of trying to fully get what you’re saying. Climbing the peak to find a bed of nails, getting punched in the face with the truth, etc.
I don’t mind the fight when I come away with something.
I just prefer to make it easier for those I’m trying to teach. Maybe that’s my own academia experience though.

Re: PIV. Danger is danger, regardless of how you label it. Fuck, envelope, screw, surround, slam, embrace…whatever.
Where I worry is the consequences of MY choice to engage in it, because it does feel good to me. I’ve minimized the risks as well as I’m able, because you can’t eliminate them. So, on one hand, my choice is my choice, even steeped in the brainwashing.
But I worry about trying to impart the dangers to other women and have these talks WHILE continuing to engage in it myself, and the watering down of my message and my own hypocrisy.

factcheckme - September 2, 2010

Sorry social worker, but this isn’t my fucking job. I have a real job, and its not to spoonfeed newbies, or as loretta points out, disingenuous trolls who only want to argue with their bullshit “questions” anyway.

That said, i actually think this stuff is really clear, and i am deliberately graphic even, so that anyone with an imagination can literally SEE what i am saying, as a picture in their mind, even if you don’t intellectually grasp it. I think this blog is very appealing to the eye as well. This material is refreshing, its exhilarating, its life affirming, it really is. I am being very expressive here, and others are too. It’s ok to just sit with the material. I think it deserves to be sat with in fact, and not just things I personally write, but all radfem work. Its worthy of lengthy and serious reflection.

The rest of your comment I will get to later.

factcheckme - September 2, 2010

And this is so, so funny: Hugo hqs apparently retreated, from his own blog. Mandos has completely destroyed every single one of hugos bullshit “arguments” (ramblings is more like it, as loretta described) and Hugo simply has no response. He ran away from the discussion lastnight, allegedly bc he had to teach his FIRST WOMENS STUDIES COURSE OF THE YEARRRR!!!111!1! Which was hilarious: using teaching a course on feminism as an excuse not to respond to a discussion happening in real time, on his own blog, in which he had been clearly revealed to not have a single fucking clue what he was talking about, about feminism, and in which all his “logic” had been exposed as, in fact, complete horseshit. Mandos wiped the floor with old hugo. Teaching his first class of the year with that on his mind must’ve been tough.

You know, unless he compartmentalized it. Which he probably did, with some degree of success. Scary, ay?

84. mscitrus - September 2, 2010

I’m not trying to speak for you here, FCM, but I wanted to respond to one part because I’ve been thinking about the issue myself.

“But I worry about trying to impart the dangers to other women and have these talks WHILE continuing to engage in it myself, and the watering down of my message and my own hypocrisy.”

I think the message is still relevant whether or not you engage in the behaviour, especially when you consider how women’s sexual habits are changing and leaning more towards hookups and stuff. These hookups aren’t exactly *oh lets just touch each other*-no, it’s fucking. It should be emphasized there a bazillion other ways to have sex that are far less dangerous and often far more pleasurable for the woman, and that no man should EVER demand PIV. It’s still thought that sex = PIV.

The main problem, of course, is that men DEMAND PIV, that PIV is the “main act” of sex, that everything else is considered foreplay, that men do not do their part to reduce the dangers, and that men won’t give any pleasure to women unless they know they can get PIV. (Also that most men suck at intercourse anyhow due to their hammering-away.)

factcheckme - September 2, 2010

As far as i can recall, I have never asked why women are having piv, nor have I asked anyone to stop. I know very well, too well, why women are doing it. The question I keep presenting is why do MEN continue to do it, when they know how dangerous it is, for women, but not for men. And I don’t know about anyone else, but the implications of that question don’t exactly put me in the mood, if you know what I mean. Pretty much the direct polar opposite.

85. SheilaG - September 2, 2010

We shouldn’t have to quote those statistics of just how many women die in childbirth in the US and worldwide, but this only highlights men’s complete lack of concern for the lives of women.

Men are so ignorant of the health issues of women viv-a-vis birth control, childbirth, failed birth control, and the worry and agony teenage girls must face being pressured into sex by preditory boys.

Leave it to men to think this only issue is “enveloment vs. penetration.” Honestly, what about the half a million female deaths in childbirth? What about the shere poverty and anxiety single mothers deal with for 18 some years, because the man jumps ship? I have several straight women friends who have suffered so much because they raised a child on their own, barely escaped really abusive husbands… it’s a nightmare I as a lesbian get shocked at, even as I do everything in my power to assit the women who are struggling.

We have the men who keep women so pregnant they don’t have time to think. And yet somehow, men are allowed to teach women’s studies classes and still they don’t get what’s at issue here. I don’t know how much more blunt you have to be about the norm being already understood. Overall, the blog is not the malestream norm for women, it is about thinking beyond a box at all. It is for radical thought to flourish without men destroying women’s freedom of speech. It is about women’s lives being saved here, because so many young women are going to think “yeah, no more PIV… wait just a minute.”

And on another note, it occured to me that men for eons have had the luxury of educating other men in men’s studies (history), so why would it be too unreasonable for women to want other women in charge of how women are described herstorically? Why is it so outrageous that having men teach women’s studies is an outrage, that it short changes women, and that women were not allowed to teach college classes for centuries, and that all men’s educational systems were the norm globally for over 1000 years.

There is no perspective, no understanding of this, because we have entitled idiot men teaching women’s studies, and never even saying that 500,000 deaths from childbirth in the USA is a problem, never even mentioning this at all, because men have a right to PIV. The shamelessness the arrogance is so mind boggling here, I’m not sure I can even get my mind around this FCM, Loretta and others. Just when I think some damn man can’t shock me more, he does!

86. Loretta Kemsley - September 2, 2010

SocialWorker wrote:

But I worry about trying to impart the dangers to other women and have these talks WHILE continuing to engage in it myself, and the watering down of my message and my own hypocrisy.

Why is it hypocritical? I am a lifelong equestrian. Some of my activities with horses are much more dangerous than others. I too know the risks — and I would not allow some students to do as I do because they are not ready.

With sex, you can’t forbid them, but you can instill knowledge of the dangers and how to mitigate them, what to do if they’ve already been confronted with unwanted consequences, etc.

We don’t do that with our kids (as a society) but I did with mine. It made a difference for them. Too often all this society wants kids to know is that you shouldn’t until you are married, then have at it. But that isn’t even close to the whole story, is it? We won’t let them drive cars without learning far more, but sex? Oh, well, as long as you obey the moral crusaders…go ahead.

Everything has an element of risk. Some more than others. I have found that the more a person knows about the risks involved, the less likely they are to get hurt because they plan ahead to minimize the risk. So I don’t do the moral crusader bit. I talk to them about reality and how risk can mean the rest of your life (as in a child or a STD) and even death.

Men and boys need this especially because the popular concept is for him to get laid as often as possible without considering the risk to themselves or the girls/women they profess to love (which is too often a lie). They are also taught that the risk belongs to the girl/woman and they can get away scot free. My stance is that if a man doesn’t want a child to support, he should get a vasectomy. Many times the guys are offended because they don’t want to risk their sex life (which is not in danger in any way with a vasectomy) but also refuse to not have sex. Obviously they believe the risk belongs to the woman, and she better damn well take care of it because otherwise she’ s”trapping” him. But there’s never a thought to the reality that they are intentionally trapping the woman/girl.

If more young women/teen girls knew that ahead of time, they’d tell him sorry, see ya, but that is never revealed up front. It’s always after she’s taken the risk and is facing the consequences — alone — because the risk doesn’t belong to him..

There’s nothing sexy or romantic about being pregnant and alone or sitting alone in a doctor’s office hoping against hope they can cure the STD.

87. factcheckme - September 3, 2010

ok, since there are a few students here, i wanted to expound on what i said earlier about how to engage with the material. when i said “write in the margins,” what this means is that you should constantly be asking yourself “what does this add to the discussion?” because thats how things progress, within a course. one thing builds on the last, and leads up to the next. in the margins, you are annotating the important points (underlines, checkmarks etc) and making connections, synthesizing the material, and rewriting key concepts in your own words. this is so when you go back over it later to put into your outline, you dont have to re-read the book. you will have written out the good stuff in your own shorthand.

regarding the outline…yes you read it over and over and over at the end of the course…and much of it will make sense by then. because you have read all the original material twice, rewritten a lot of it in your own shorthand, then organized it into a map of the course. but there will still be things you dont get. thats when you get the book out again. look at the outline and the book together, and read that part of the book again. now, youve read the really hard stuff three times.

you will be amazed, and i mean absolutely amazed the volume of incredibly dense material you can master, and actually understand (rather than just memorizing and regurgitating) when you actually engage with it, in a real way. when you put in the work. of course, theres always room for creativity there, and there really are no “rules” and these are just suggestions mostly. but i think one thing that was helpful to my students (and berryblade alluded to it) is that none of them actually considered before, that learning was going to be hard work. and that there were ways to engage with the material that were more intense than anything they had ever imagined, and that some people actually work THIS HARD to understand things, and to do it right. and depending on your field…”those” people might be competing with you for grades.

of course, not all subjects require this kind of intense work. but some of them do. and some subjects just arent going to be “your thing” and will be very hard for you, when others grasp it easily. but you can still be successful with MOST material anyway. and if you put in all this work and you still fail in one area…well you will be very glad the rest of your grades were As, and not Bs, because it will even it out.

that is all.

88. mscitrus - September 3, 2010

FCM, thanks for these study tips btw. I don’t really need them now because I never (have to) study, at least not yet, which means I have 0 study skills. But I bet they’ll help a TON if I go to law or grad school.

89. yesindeed - September 3, 2010

This material is refreshing, its exhilarating, its life affirming, it really is.

Just piping up to confirm this statement. I’ve been visiting this blog and reading the discussions almost daily ever since I discovered it a few months ago. I haven’t felt this liberated, or seen this clearly, since I began rejecting “fun fem” ideology about three years ago.

…men for eons have had the luxury of educating other men in men’s studies (history), so why would it be too unreasonable for women to want other women in charge of how women are described herstorically? Why is it so outrageous that having men teach women’s studies is an outrage, that it short changes women, and that women were not allowed to teach college classes for centuries, and that all men’s educational systems were the norm globally for over 1000 years.

This is such a powerful observation – and despite its seeming “obviousness”, one that had never crossed my mind before.

Of course, if you’re too busy investing all your energy into exploring how men feel, dealing with men’s derails, etc., then you’ll never have the time, or the clarity of mind, or the level of discourse with other women, needed to think these kinds of thoughts to begin with. Which brings us back around to FCM’s original comment on Feministe – men wasting our time is a deliberate act of sabotage from which they can only benefit.

The importance of having a “radfem haven” cannot be overstated.

90. yesindeed - September 3, 2010

I seem to have experienced quote tag fail up there – sorry about that.

Anyway, I saw that one of the commenters at Hugo’s was having the vapors about FCM having declared men to be “the enemy.”

Nevermind that men have been literally treating women as the enemy for centuries – raping us, bashing our skulls in, whatever happens to have struck their fancy at that particular moment. It’s more outrageous!!!1 to actually name the problem, which is men as a class and aggregate male behavior. The last time I checked, feminism wasn’t created as a response to unicorns or ice-cream sandwiches.

91. berryblade - September 3, 2010

Ms.Citrus your comments over on Hugo’s thread are the only good thing about it. I was going to comment again there, but decided it’d be better to place my energies in a more positive space (here) and just say you rock my labia.

Factcheckme and loretta once again thank you for refreshing the way I see and engage with my course work. What you describe, in terms of engaging with material, might sound like hard work, but it’s a lot easier than just blindly chewing through the course outline and requirements and, now I know and am taking that approach to my work, i have to say, it’s a lot more rewarding intellectually and actually … More fun!

factcheckme - September 3, 2010

Thanks yesindeed! Again, I take these things as the highest compliment, I really do.

Re men who have piv as the enemy, I propose the following thought exercise. What if there were a small band of radfems, say 3 or so, who were traveling the world, and causing the deaths of a half a million men, every year. Either deliberately or merely negligently, or you know, even accidentally. 500,000 men dead, at the hands of 3 radfems. I don’t think anyone would hesitate for a single second, before characterizing these 3 radfems as terrorists. Do you?

But in the case of 500,000 women killed every year, its all men, AS A GROUP, who are having piv, who are collectively causing these deaths. But for some reason, instead of viewing all men who have piv, collectively, as terrorists, we view them all, collectively, as being completely innocent. Why would that be?

And not only do we view the people responsible as being, collectively, blameless, the result of half a million women dead, isn’t even considered a crime.

Not only is it not considered a crime, but its not even seen as a wrong. It’s not seen as a harm, at all. Not only is it not seen as a harm, its not even worth discussing. Not only is it not worth discussing, there’s nothing even there to discuss, because it doesn’t even exist. Not only does it not exist, but you are LITERALLY INSANE, if you believe it does.

Notice the complete and utter erasure, not just from discourse, but from reality too. And people who sense things that arent real, especially when they are troubled by them, are seen as MENTALLY ILL. Radfems are literally regarded as mentally ill, under this paradigm.

Now, there’s also an obvious disingenuousness to the argument that radfems are insane, because the things we are responding to quite obviously DO exist, and they become completely obvious, once we point them out, as several people here have said. But it doesnt stop anyone from making the argument anyway, and stopping radfems from pointing these things out bolsters the disingenuous argument. Basically, we have lies upon more lies, on top of even more lies. And now, we have women’s studies college professors adding their authority to the lies and obfuscations. Oh goody! Because things weren’t bad enough already.

92. Loretta Kemsley - September 3, 2010

In an earlier post I said you can’t understand Dworkin without fire in your belly. Thought this might be a good time to expand on that thought.

There are two elements in all writing that we need to be aware of: what the writer brings to her writing and what the reader brings to her reading. Because each reader brings a different set of experiences and understandings, each reader will get something different out of what the writer said. This is critical when it comes to writers like Dworkin who challenge everything we thought we knew.

The only way to understand Dworkin (and other challenging writers) is to suspend our disbelief and be eager to let her ideas mix with our own. Suspending disbelief is what we all do when reading fiction. We allow ourselves to get caught up in the plot and characters. That doesn’t mean we suspend our critical thinking skills but simply that we give ourselves permission to enter the world the author has created.

We need to give ourselves permission to enter Dworkin’s world and allow her ideas to flow through us. We have to want to understand her before we will understand her. Too many readers open her books with closed minds and a predetermined decision about whatever she has to say. They are ready to argue with her every word. It’s no wonder they are never capable of understanding her. That was never their purpose. Their purpose was to refute whatever she has to say so that their world view remains safe.

Dworkin will never be easy reading, even when you sincerely want to learn her concepts, but it is impossible if you won’t suspend your disbelief (continuing to favor all you’ve been taught). If you approach her writing (and that of other challenging authors) eagerly, with fire in your belly, you will learn from her even when you disagree with her. Your world view will change as you read. Your understanding of feminism and the reason feminism exists will deepen and grow. You will walk away with a wider understanding of every conversation concerning men and women.

This applies to every challenging author and subject, including Femonade. If you aren’t ready to enter the author’s world, don’t open the book. The entire purpose of reading is to enter the world of the author. There is no other reason to read. Wait until you are ready, until you’ve prepared yourself to allow the ideas to flow. That could be months or years. It could also be a few minutes. The choice is always yours. You just need to make it.

93. mscitrus - September 3, 2010

Thanks berryblade! ❤ I had more, but he deleted/banned me for my last few comments, probably because I started analyzing him fucking his students and the excuses he made on those posts of his. I thought even feministing thought it was rape when a teacher fucks a student-didn't they with those women teachers who everyone thought were hawt or whatever? Now of course everyone's saying he just made a "mistake" in sleeping with his students, and that I'm degrading REAL rape by calling him a rapist. Oh and that calling him a rapist and a misogynist is an "ad hominem," because being a rapist doesn't mean you can't be a feminist. I had a feeling he'd delete my comments if I pushed more on his "past"* abuse of women, and that's what happened. Funny enough, the one comment where I didn't mention it hasn't disappeared, it says it's still in moderation. Creepyyyy.

I honestly dunno why I bothered. I guess I wanted to see if a feminist guy would take it seriously or do the same crap my non-feminist rapists did-say you repented, act like you're crazy for calling it rape in the first place, ignore her reasoning, or block the bitch once she makes too many points you can't refute.

*I say past in quotes because while he claims to be "open" about his past and allows people to judge him based on it, he also deleted the majority of my comments that explained why fucking someone who you have significant power over is rape. This kinda makes me suspicious about whether or not he's actually STOPPED fucking his students, because if he were truly sorry and trying to redeem himself from his past, he would allow all interpretations of his "affairs," no? Especially considering the courses he teaches now probably have more women in them than his old ones, assuming he used to not teach women's studies (since he has a PhD in white wankery-I mean philosophy, I doubt he started teaching it).

94. SheilaG - September 3, 2010

So the bottom line with this guy is that he had sex with students while they were in his classes?
And these are the guys who are now allowed to teach women’s studies classes? Is that what you’re saying mscitrus? Did that happen, is there evidense?

And it is good to challenge these guys on their own playground so to speak, see how they come out with mansplaining and banning feminist discourse because it just doesn’t defer to men. In the past, they had the power to silence women, but now we have our own blogs, and can continue the debate in hopes that more women will discover the fraud of this guy, and warn all the women on that college campus.

Women need a thousand years to talk to each other, to develop a philosophy. If women controlled the law, death in childbirth would be considered involuntary woman slaughter, think of that! Men might think twice about PIV if a law like that was on the books. Do women kill men like this? Just how many men do women kill worldwide compared to the reverse? We need these numbers to reveal truths.

Then think of say 1780– just the sheer numbers of women who died in childbirth, and how men insisted on having wives, and insisted on PIV as the wives had 10 children, and how this was never questioned at all. And we all know how men regard women as simply interchangable parts, so a wife dies, they get a new one. Just as they dump an older wife for a young one today. Or a wife dies, and they remarry within the year, and have no desire to remember the previous wife.

So those ye old men had PIV and wives had dozens of kids and this was fine with them. They could care less throughout time.

Death in childbirth needs to be highlighted today, and we need to talk about what kind of crime this could be if women wrote and enforced the laws?
What if police forces were all women, what if men had to answer to all women tribunals?

So the institutional hatred and murder of women is just another day to men. They don’t want to think about this, just as they hate it when their hidden motives for teaching women’s studies might be slightly nefarious.

factcheckme - September 3, 2010

If hugos supporters are admitting he did it, but defending and making excuses for it, that’s pretty decent evidence. I havent been over there to see if that’s what’s going on. But if anyone does have any evidence, like Hugo himself admitting it would be perfect, then links, please! I might Google it later. On that note, the easiest way these days to get off the hook for a sex crime or impropriety is to say yeah, I did it, but it was consensual!!!!1111!1 so I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there are discussions out there exactly like that. Of course, that would be more than i needed to write old hugo off for good.

95. Loretta Kemsley - September 3, 2010

Yes, he admitted it and claims to have always been open about it. He then goes on to say he’s learned better, all of which supposedly makes it a moot point.

And yes, his defenders are attacking MsCitrus for daring to bring it up and call it what it is.

factcheckme - September 3, 2010

Ok, I just visited the smoldering ruins of what was once old hugos blog…he hasn’t committed blogicide, although he should definitely do so immediately…and yes, the pro-feminist male womens studies teacher admits to having piv with one of his own students. Ugh. I bet it was a learning experience for him, and hes shed a lot of tears over it. You know, because he got caught, and still wants continued access to young girls and women over whom he has authority, and doesn’t want a little old thing like his own demonstrated abuse of power against that very class of people, in that exact situation, to interfere. Apparently, the tears worked. Guess what also worked: his inability to remove himself either emotionally or physically from that situation, and his insistence that he still has a right to be there. Ie. He keeps applying for these jobs.

Although he CLAIMS he’s still there bc of “hiring committees.” Wow, that’s some nice blame shifting right there! He’s very talented. And he’s clearly been doing it a long, long time.

factcheckme - September 3, 2010

You know, even if men do “learn from” these things, ie they learn by actually victimizing girls and women, that they don’t really care to actually victimize girls and women AGAIN…the fact remains that these men are leaving victims in their wake. For every man who “learns” this particular lesson, there is a female victim (or many) and potentially a womans life (or many women’s) is ruined. Do we know what happened to hugos victim? Did she finish school?

This is so, so dangerous people. You know all those date rapes you know happen in colleges, all over the country? What do you imagine happens to the rapists? They become doctors and lawyers, that’s what. And so many times, the victims drop out of school, and become NOTHING.

Hugo is a disgusting shitstain and a blight on humanity, and a danger to women. There’s nothing more to it, than that.

factcheckme - September 3, 2010

heres the comment. i didnt go picking through his other steaming piles of shit (ie. his other posts) to find the apparently multiple other convos about how old hugo fucks his students. (he would say “fucked” but you know, you cant really use the past tense on that one, until youre dead. sorry!)


and when i said hugo was a disgusting shitstain and a blight on humanity…those are his GOOD qualities!

factcheckme - September 3, 2010

and heres how hugo justifies banning mscitrus:

For a host of obvious and excellent reasons, MsCitrus is banned. There’s a point at which forbearance turns into masochism, after all.

forbearance?? masochism?? really? this assclown doesnt know the meaning of the words. hes a sadist and a control freak. look in the mirror dude.


96. SheilaG - September 3, 2010

Wow, the guy actually admits to doing this stuff.
A 31 year old preditor having sex with a 23 or 22 year old student. I’m not even sure I believe that they were 21 or 22, more like 18. One of my college roomates was used by a man like that, dropped out of school, never really recovered. She was date raped too at a “frat” party I tried to talk her out of going to! Yeah, I was overreacting back in 1975– those drunken frat boys posed no threat, they were just inviting young women to a kegger. Geez, I was so frustrated and so upset about the whole thing, when she told me all about it over 20 years later, and I can still hear her crying on the phone and saying, “Why didn’t I listen to you?” That was so painful and still is. I hate those monsters, those men who think PIV is their right, and that they can have sex with these young women. In a radical feminist world, I’d chop those private parts right off a guy like that and let him bleed to death, and even that wouldn’t be punishment enough.

Men like Hugo should NOT be teaching college classes with young women in them. I don’t believe him, I think he is still into power over women, and that women should boycotte those classes and really protest this widely.

We were right about him even before we knew anything about the things HE’S admitted to. No wonder brave mscitrus who commented over at the sexist cesspool of a blog was kicked out. He can’t take serious radical feminism fight back, and that’s pretty status quo for all men.

An imbalance of power, males having sex with much younger women… well, why do they do that? It’s pretty easy to manipulate 23 year olds. Hey, I’m 53, and they are still pretty young and naive even in this day and age.

You are young and vulnerable as a college student, perhaps away from home for the first time. Believe me, men just love being in professorial positions with young female students, and it’s sickening.

Would you take a class from an older 40-something male, if he had admitted to using this imbalance of power to have sex with young women students?
I think you could hardly describe that as consensual to begin with, anymore than it was between Monica and Bill. Men don’t get that. They know they can get away with anything sexual with young women, can pretty much count on silence, and go on with their careers teaching more young women, who they have PIV fantasies about.

Wow, is all I can say! Just when I think radical feminists might be overdoing it with being on to male women’s studies professors, here we have evidense of this scum and his past actions. What happened to the victims? How is he so sure this was consensual? Men don’t hear the word NO, they ban radfem commentators from an ostensively feminist dialogue, because they the MEN have the power to do so.

What can we do to communicate with young women about avoiding creeps like this, and being onto the game? And the sexual conquest is all about a game to men, just as PIV is recreation. They don’t find out what happens later, because they are preditors.

My former room mate’s life was ruined by these PIV men. She dropped out, they became doctors and lawyers and women’s studies professors, no sweat.
That’s who men are, that’s what they do. It takes generations of radical feminists to warn other women about what this is all about, and even then, women fail to hear us, they get fooled by the wolves. Young women coming here— make a note of these stories as you begin your college career this fall.

factcheckme - September 4, 2010

sheila, you are right to bring this home: its fall term again, and women are going back to their classes, or going away to school, for the first time. this was very timely, it really was. and the study tips were timely too i guess, for the same reasons. good luck gals! dont let some fucking man get in the way of your education. just. dont. do. it.

many women who are going away to school are doing it because this life of male dominance, with men calling all the shots and determining their futures is NOT the life they want. they are striving for better. male teachers and male students need to understand this, and leave girls and women the fuck alone, on college campuses, around the country. but they never fucking will. to men, college is a fucking free for all, where they can enjoy extended childhoods and endless drugs, alcohol, and above all else, piv. again, mens interests conflict directly and obviously with whats in the best interests of women.

i was just recalling today that the sickest i have ever been in my entire life, was my second term of grad school, and i ended up with a fucking bladder infection, and i didnt have any insurance, so i didnt get it treated. it turned into a kidney infection that i also didnt treat, until i could no longer stand up straight because of the pain. by that time, i had an upper and lower respiratory infection too, and thrush, because my immune system must have been fucking shot by then. i was so sick, i cried in bed, and i set my alarm to go off every 6 hours so i could take my medicine and cry some more and go back to sleep. thats how fucking sick i was. and i missed 2 weeks of school. school! i am lucky i was even able to get caught up with the material. if it wasnt for my mad study skills, i couldve so easily fallen way, way behind, and never been able to recover from that loss.

anyone care to speculate how i got the bladder infection in the first place? i didnt even make the connection until today.

97. SheilaG - September 4, 2010

Yikes FCM– that sounds just terrible! I’m not a doctor, but if you think that PIV might have been a culprit– wow!

And timely yes,– the study skills you mentioned and the warning to young women that college is precious. It is a time to study, to grow, to get ready for adulthood. Men and boys screw around all they want, get drunk all they want, but their emotions and bodies hardly feel any of this. And they’ll still get the jobs if they are straight and white, no matter how bad their grades are.

They’ll be on top of their game, go to medical school, screw around somemore, marry a woman to put hubby through, then dump her 18 years later.

College is not the same for men and women. Women should never have to study with men like Huge ever.
They are criminals in my opinion and the only reason they aren’t in jail is because men define rape and “conscentual sex” yeah right. They also ban women who go to their blogs and call them out on their fake feminism!

I wish I had gone to a women’s college… and would have been so much happier. I was lucky in that I was a lesbian, and never bothered ever dating much less having anything to do with men sexually. So that worked out well. I got the degree, headed off to see the world, just kept working. No men got in the way of my career or personal plans other than the usual corporate blocking manoeuvers… but when I got home after a hard day’s work NO MEN AT ALL.

I was lucky, I had solid radical lesbian feminists who guided me when I was a young thing of 22… and you know what, those wise older 30-something and 50-something women looked after me, mentored me, and NEVER ONCE did any of them ever attempt to take sexual advantage of me. Not a one! And do you think a 20-something woman of today could have that experience with men in their 30s?

My partner got very sick, so it was a good thing my career worked out. She’d wouldn’t have the medical care and the home, and the male free life, so one of us had to make it happen.

Anyway, sickness is dreadful, males are dreadful, and women have all these land mines in college.
And there will still be women being raped, being used by Hugos of this world, and now THEY teach women’s studies, while good women professors are unemployed!

Oh how I wish all the young women out there would read this blog, and avoid all that trouble in the first place. One can hope that at least you have put the word out FCM, and saved some lives in the process!!!

factcheckme - September 4, 2010

oh, and obviously you USE YOUR CLASS NOTES too, as well as the book and what you have written in the book, when you are making your outline. take good notes! write it down correctly, even if you dont understand it. it will make sense eventually. sheesh i almost forgot about class notes. yellow legal pads and extra fine sharpie markers…i can still smell the ink. did i mention i think i have PTSD from school? i really do. i still have nightmares about it. the one thats recurring is that i was short a class or a credit, that my graduation was a mistake, and i have to go back. i have this one frequently. and i was actually suicidal in both college and grad school at different times, because i was so utterly alone in what i was doing, the pressure, the expense, the WORK, the sleep deprivation, not to mention working at an actual job at the same time for most of it, it was all mine to bear, alone. and i knew if i failed i would be utterly alone WITHOUT AN EDUCATION. which is even worse than being alone, with one. thats why i kept going. i dont have a family to support me, i had no male subsidy as sheila says, i knew i would be in a bad way if i didnt keep on keeping on.

and its no guarantee either, that you wont still be in a bad way. its just a leg up is all. and of course, you can still get sick. and YES, i do believe that i got that bladder infection from piv. and antibiotics cause yeast infections…and the meds for yeast infections cause bacterial vaginosis…and the meds for bacterial vaginosis are ANTIBIOTICS…so in addition to being the sickest ive ever been for several weeks, i also spent an entire year suffering from continuous vaginal infections. again, while i was IN SCHOOL. as if i didnt have enough to worry about!

factcheckme - September 4, 2010

wanted to make sure everyone saw this. its mscitrus’s latest, and its amazing. the pics made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. a sure sign of a win:


still thinking about dvelma’s connection too between “enveloping” and men not knowing where babies come from. and lorettas reminder that the “enveloping vagina” has actually been used against women, in the past, as allegedly giving men castration anxiety. hugos entire blog and each and every one of his disgusting thoughts are such trite fucking excrement…blogicide, dude. srsly.

factcheckme - September 4, 2010

and as mscitrus said, even the fucking fun-fems agree that student-teacher “RELATIONSHIPS” (fail, fail, fail, fail!) are rape. dont they? ffs. i cant believe even they tolerate old hugo. there is simply nothing there thats worthwhile, at all. its literally, LITERALLY like picking through shit. why waste the time? why waste the time picking through his idiotic theories, and why waste the time wondering whether hes actually rehabilitated, or not? this is a serious question. WHY. BOTHER.

factcheckme - September 4, 2010

berryblade, are you actually using these study tips already? and seeing a difference after only one day?

98. thebewilderness - September 4, 2010

“For a host of obvious and excellent reasons, MsCitrus is banned. There’s a point at which forbearance turns into masochism, after all.”

Yes indeed.
When reality begins to melt his pretense like papier mache houses in the rain it is not surprising that he simply could not tolerate any more truth.

He is wrong again, of course. There is no point at which forbearance turns in to masochism any more than preying on students turns into romance. But it is easy to see why he would choose to think so. He has well honed self deception skillz on display for everyone to see.

99. delphyne - September 4, 2010

So these hiring committees that Hugo is blaming for giving him jobs teaching women studies – did he actually tell them that he’d preyed on and had sex with his female students or did it slip his mind to mention it? Because if hiring committees knew and still employed him, then they do have some accountability. If not it’s back to him.

It interesting that Hugo is so big on his Xtianity because he’s definitely using it as a get out route for what he did. He is penitent and then god forgives all, because he’s admitted he’s a sinner. Meanwhile the women are fucked. No wonder he’s so keen on inserting Xtianity into feminism as well as himself.

“even the fucking fun-fems agree that student-teacher “RELATIONSHIPS” (fail, fail, fail, fail!) are rape. dont they? ffs. i cant believe even they tolerate old hugo. there is simply nothing there thats worthwhile, at all.”

He promotes them and he teaches their books in his classroom and supports them in the blogosphere. Having a penis helps too of course. He also doesn’t challenge them way radical feminists would – which is why we get ignored and he doesn’t. Did you see Amanda Marcotte showing up to complain about your anti-funism? She has publishing contracts to write fun-feminist books. Hugo was first in line to defend her when her first book was published with racist and sexist illustrations (nobody cared about the sexist) which she’d actually been warned about in advance by certain feminists, but she chose to ignore them because they weren’t the white mainstream fun kind. It’s all about their careers.

factcheckme - September 4, 2010

yes about the xtianity angle delphyne. i noticed the same thing. how convenient that he believes in a sky daddy to loves and forgives him for raping women. how convenient hes not an atheist, like me, who only has HUMAN and FEMINIST standards to live up to. i never made the connection however that this is the reason hes trying to BLEND xtian values with feminism. thats fucking horrifying, it really is. once again we see that, according to MAABs, including male feminists, gender queers, and transwomen, FAABs are just supposed to forget what MAABs have done to us. because thats the way forward, donchaknow. fast-forward is more like it, past all the scary parts where men deliberately victimize us, and our victimization has everything to do with “feminine” personality traits most women share, and our trauma-bonding. so they WANT us to be feminine and traumatized, so we are submissive and loyal and fuckable, but without our memories, or making them accountable. kinda like fuckdolls! how fun. for them, of course, not for us.

and no, i didnt see amandas comments. i am getting skeeved out by picking through those discussions and dont plan on going back. did she say anything interesting, at all?

factcheckme - September 4, 2010

and was she the one who wrote about hitchhiking on feministe?

100. delphyne - September 4, 2010

This was her contribution on the Enveloping thread:

“Anyone who sneers at “fun” as a legitimate pursuit and a valid need for human beings is already undermining their argument in my eyes. What’s the point of the fight if not to get to a place where suffering in minimized and pleasure is a human right? I’m increasingly convinced that any liberal/leftist/progressive theory that doesn’t center around the importance of pleasure and making sure all human beings have access to it is one that is fatally flawed in its humanism and bound to fail. For instance, food justice issues fall apart if you fail to talk about the pleasure of eating and the role it plays in perpetuating injustice—and how validating the need for food to give us pleasure as well as sustenance is the only way that we can actually reimagine our food systems.

Same with sex. If you discount the importance of gaining pleasure from sex, you fail to have a coherent and usable theory. The notion that women’s pleasure in intercourse should be a secondary concern to hardly universal or absolute agreements about the symbolic value of an act that those who don’t understand symbolism (basically all other mammals) also engage in strikes me as the path to failure. Like all biological acts, the symbolism we imbue on them is not absolute.

It’s questionable to me that intercourse has a single, undeniable symbolic meaning when oral sex or masturbation can have many.”

Interesting in the sense of how is it possible that someone can become a published feminist writer without appearing to have much of a clue of what feminism is about, or any kind of a clue about anything it seems. I’m still trying to work out how taking “pleasure” in food fits in with food riots in Mozambique and Russia banning grain exports this year.

She probably wasn’t writing on Feministe, she has her own very important fun feminist blog to tend to.

factcheckme - September 4, 2010

Omg. I have even less to say about amandas response than you do: I didn’t invent the term “fun feminism.” If I called their brand of male-indentified liberalism “ABC” would she think my critique of it had something to do with capital letters?

How stupid. It’s just another jab at radfems for being supposedly humorless, which is completely ridiculous. Cause I’m also funny as hell! I bet they hate that part the most.

101. berryblade - September 4, 2010

I love the discussion on this thread. And yes fcm, I tried doing that technique already! Today and yesterday actually, for uni I have to do a student led presentation on writing (poetry though) and it’s making the task a lot less daunting. Funnily enough, I have to do it with a partner (no choice in this sadly) who is male and no surprise I’m yet to hear from him about that. Once again an example of men stealing womyns energy and i bet he’ll take the credit too, kind of like our ‘ally’ hugo here.

Loretta, what you say about writing and understanding it is again so frickin helpful! Again, it’d never even occured to me to think of understanding in that perspective.

A lot of the problem is that the idea and relevancy of class analysis has been diminished and devalued with this individual western me me me ideology. And as for the pursuit of pleasure bullshit this just fuckin prooves it to me. Sexual pleasure isn’t a human right and neither is eating for pleasure isn’t either. Frankly, it’s just selfish and the fact that she conflates the two, to me, demonstrates that this warped world view of sex as a pursuit of possession. As dominance rather than you know, communication and heightened intimacy?

As for the Christianity that’s an excellent point. I don’t believe 99% of religion isn’t compatible with feminism. Why? Because it’s superstitous womon hating nonsense, plain and simple. It’s easy to avoid taking responsibility for your actions under the guise of sinning and then automatic forgiveness, beacuse it means you don’t have to be responsible because humans are apparently bad to begin with, you can’t help it and that’s okay as long as you’re admitting it. Just like Hugo is doing.

102. Loretta Kemsley - September 4, 2010

What’s the point of the fight if not to get to a place where suffering in minimized and pleasure is a human right?

So we need to fight to have pleasure? Or the fight is the pleasure? I’ve never “fought” so as to enjoy pleasure. I’ve fought so that we could be free. Freedom does not necessarily bring pleasure. It brings responsibility and opportunity but not pleasure.

If pleasure was the goal, there was no need to fight at all. We could have just focused on enjoying whatever our male captors offered. We could have continued quietly getting drunk while hubby was away at work. We could have bought some happy pills and taken enough to fly. We could have decided servicing him made us ecstatic.

Oh, wait, isn’t that the fundamentalist argument: that women are happiest finding pleasure in servicing their hubbies? That their pleasure is a derived pleasure rather than a first hand experience?

I’m increasingly convinced that any liberal/leftist/progressive theory that doesn’t center around the importance of pleasure and making sure all human beings have access to it is one that is fatally flawed in its humanism and bound to fail.

As opposed to the conservative/rightest/fundamentalist theories? If not, then why include that qualifier at all? Oh, yeah, because the fun fems love to pretend that radfems are sharing values with conservative/rightest/fundamentalists. A way to demonize, degrade and devalue other women — which is the true sharing of conservative/rightest/fundamentalist values.

Pleasure is a relatively recent concept in terms of pursuit. It wasn’t on anyone’s lips when I was a child. That’s how recent it is on the scale of human development. The goal has always been survival. Only a person whose survival is assured can then move up the scale to thinking about pleasure.

However, her argument in any age would be considered hedonist which has always been condemned because it puts the cart before the horse. It is a selfish, narcisstic argument that ignores the plight of others. For instance, she wants feminists to champion their own pleasure while ignoring the woman in Africa who is terrified she’ll be raped for the umpteenth time. That woman is not thinking, “Oh, boy, I sure hope this rapist provides me some pleasure.” She’s thinking, “Oh, no, I hope he doesn’t kill me or infect me with HIV.” Again, decades after feminism has gone global, we have a self-professed feminist believing that feminism is wholly contained within the borders of the US.

She’s assuming that all women are fortunate enough to be in her position where she doesn’t have to worry about survival, so she gets to worry about pleasure instead. Unfortunately, that state of affairs isn’t reality for the vast majority of women on this planet or even in the US. She is obviously oblivious to the suffering of her fellow American females. 25% of us suffer from being battered. 25% of us suffer from being raped. 60% of us suffer from some form of sexual assault. And most victims don’t just suffer through one episode. They suffer through multiple episodes. Those women are not worrying about any “liberal/leftist/progressive theory.” They’re worried about how to survive.

Interesting in the sense of how is it possible that someone can become a published feminist writer without appearing to have much of a clue of what feminism is about

She’s attained her “feminist” status simply because of the shelving system in bookstores. They are sorted into convenient categories, and all authors are shelved in the category closest to their subject matter. Anything concerning the issues surrounding women are shelved as feminist. That doesn’t make it true feminist writing. I’ve seen Phyllis Schalafly shelved there, and she’s far from being a feminist. She contends that once a woman has said, “I do” her hubby has the right to rape her at any time.

To show how silly that system is we only have to look at the books by Margaret Starbird. She writes about Mary Magdalene, who is a figure of importance only within Christianity. But because Margaret writes about female empowerment via MM, she can’t get shelved alongside “religious” books. The closest she can get is in Metaphysical, which is commonly interpreted as New Age.

Which brings us back to Hugo and his Christianity. Even lowly bookstore clerks separate Christianity and women’s empowerment, yet he thinks its okay to blend them? That smacks of ignorance or the classic male narcissism that declares women as most fulfilled when she’s catering to hubby.

103. delphyne - September 4, 2010

I don’t think Amanda has ever read or heard anything from Andrea Dworkin, so it’s probably why she doesn’t recognise the reference.

So for her you must just be OMG! anti-fun!

104. SheilaG - September 4, 2010

We know just how little men know about the bodies of women or the sexuality of women. This idea that sex is fun… well it may be fun for Hugo and all the girls he went after. But we don’t hear about what happened to them later, do we?

The women men use and discard aren’t part of their fun equation.

And I’d say fun feminists are like a lot of people out there– they aren’t very bright, don’t want to do real intellectual work, and mostly want things light fluffy and stupid. I’d say they act like teenagers, and regard radical feminism as something of a myth, not about reality at all.

They are pop feminists and careerists. Remember, you don’t get rich being a radical feminist, you don’t get points or quick promotions in the academy either. Just ask Mary Daly. You get points for going along with the status quo, kissing up to men, being fun and sexy to men… perhaps being the daughter of a famous feminist like Rebecca Walker or even Katie Roife– what’s her name 🙂 And their anger at radical feminism or second wave feminism has a lot more to do with their family relationships than with the discipline of feminism itself. Rebecca Walker recently wrote an autobiography telling about life with her famous mother.

Feminism is fragile, and can be easily destroyed because of patriarchal imbeds… kind of like computer virus’ planted in programs, and women are deeply programmed to hate other women so that the men win the prize. If this were not the case, you’d have equal numbers of women with many husbands to equal out men with numerous wives in places throughout the world. Or you’d have an Islamic country where men are segregated and not allowed without female police. You’d have a mixture of male and female tyrannies as well as male and female controlled democratic societies.

The women who are fun feminists are playing right into the “game plan” of the patriarchy and they’ll never know it. We have 30-something women reading The Feminine Mystique for the first time — before reading it, they thought it would be dated, but shock of shocks they realize that they have become the same as the women of Betty’s time, that their lives are very much as Betty describes– this comes as a big shock to them, because they believed they were liberated, had full time corporate jobs etc., little realizing that they bought into male supremacy right along with their sisters of the 1950s. That’s what a lot of women keep on discovering.

It’s the stuff that men are attempting to destroy by teaching women’s studies, by having sex with women students, by getting hired and not disclosing this past. It’s the same old patriarchal lies and deception that women have got to learn to see through.

But I can’t help it if 30-something women haven’t done all the essential reading, and have no interest in the herstory of their own sex. I can’t do a thing about straight women friends who are dating potentially abusive men, even though the warning signs are very clear and flashing RED.

What can I do? Come here for some sanity, and some radical sisterhood, and learn some new tactics–keep current. Share ideas that worked for me…

factcheckme - September 4, 2010

Also, I couldn’t really care less about symbolism, and none of my posts have even been about symbolism. I am talking about real, tangible harm. When i said in the intercourse series that intercourse and female subservience were the same thing, i didnt mean that intercourse “represents” female subservience. I meant that intercourse actively creates it.

105. SheilaG - September 4, 2010

Yes, intercourse actively creates subservience in women, because male sexual domination of women never takes the welfare of real women into account.

If you know childbirth is likely to kill women– say in 18th century early America, and you still dominate your wife and insist on PIV, what does this say about you as an 18th century man?

If you live in Addis Ababba, and you know the mortality rate from pregnancy is astronomically high, and you still want PIV, and say there is not even birth control available, this is not a symbol– this is males demanding sexual activity of a female that can kill the female or make her seriously ill. Death in pregnancy, disfigurement, or simply constant pain and worry, or not getting any sexual pleasure out of PIV is not symbolic at all.

So any man that talks about symbols just is a woman hater, and obfuscator, a dance around the change the subject kinda guy. And for men to seriously question PIV, well what would that mean?
What if men actively started thousands of blogs questioning this very act worldwide?

The thing is, I don’t feel men have any respect for human life if it means they can’t get off exactly the way they WANT to. Gay men were killing each other, but don’t you dare close down THEIR bathhouses, don’t you dare tell them to stop certain sex acts, don’t you dare take their porn away from them, even though the male porn actors are getting AIDS by the hundreds. NO, you can’t tell men to cease and disist— they won’t even control their sexual behavior to save other men’s lives, so can you ever imagine them doing this for women?

Honestly, there are days when I think men can’t even possibly be modern humans, and must be some primitive throwback to some other age– the bodies look modern, the brains remain primitive from 10,000 or more years ago.

Do we talk about symbolism here? We talk about real stuff that happens to real women, all of it covered up or poo pood by patriarchy, because it’s not in men’s “pleasure” interests to stop the whole game!

106. Loretta Kemsley - September 4, 2010

It isn’t a coincidence that Amanda Marcotte arrived to save Hugo. In this site Rate Your Professor, her book is the only one listed as books he uses in his courses. HIs review of her book at Amazon glorifes her, except the racist stuff which he assures the readers will be removed from the next edition. So how does he know that if they are not tight?

In the discussion at his place, one person linked to an old post and discussion about when male dominance began. The theories there revolved around men’s needs to be in the center which comes automatic to women because of pregnancy and motherhood. They collectively called it male juju (which I love) as in male magic conjured to keep them important and central.

Teaching women’s studies is his male juju. It keeps him central in importance. It keeps women subservient to him. It keeps him more knowledgeable than the women around him.

In reading his older posts on the many female students he took advantage of (he doesn’t call it that though) I noticed he often starts his essays with “I’m only writing about this because someone else asked me to…” That shows an uneasiness with claiming the subject as his own. It’s a passive way of being able to write what he wishes without actually claiming it as a topic where he is front and center at all times. The other person made him front and center, not himself.

In a series, he talks about how female students come to him to discuss their crushes on other male professors. This seems to happen to him quite frequently. I’ve never known a woman who thought she needed to seek advice from a male professor on her “crushes.” So one has to question either why this is happening with frequency to him or if it happens at all. In “rate your professor” he gets fairly low marks as an actual teacher but high marks in his “hotness.” I didn’t read all the comments, but I read several. All who praised him as a good teacher threw in the “he’s so hot” comments. So is he catering to their need to learn or his need to be front and center in importance?

But the most important statement he made, IMO, in that group of posts was an acknowledgement that he did not deserve the title “feminist” when he was bedding his students. However, he then goes on to state he does now. Which raises two important questions:

What qualifies him now that did not exist before? The claim that he no longer schleps his students? If abstaining from sex were the qualifier, wouldn’t ever celibate monk in every misogynistic religion in the world be feminists?

And if he thought back then he was a feminist and was still schlepping his students, then how does he know if some other activity he does now isn’t a disqualifier?

If he really thought he was a feminist while taking advantage of the young women in his charge, then he doesn’t seem to have a clear idea as to how feminism works.

107. Loretta Kemsley - September 4, 2010

Do we talk about symbolism here?

That claim of symbolism is a way of devaluing and degrading women’s actual experience and those who talk about it. It’s a way of distancing that distasteful. That’s why I do not write in academia. It’s entire purpose is to rationalize by removing itself from reality.

Amanda needs to discredit radfems by pretending she is the one sitting amid reality and that radfems can only theorize about sex because they don’t enjoy sex.

It happens too when radfems discuss the harm that porn causes women. They are labelled anti-sex rather than anti-violent-porn that teaches men to abuse women.

It’s all a lazy pretense used to detour around the real nastiness of it all while still pretending to stand up for women.

108. SheilaG - September 4, 2010

Yes Loretta, good documentation of the many conflicts of interest this man has, and what feminist books he actually uses or doesn’t use in his classes.

Obviously he thought he was a feminist in the past, and thinks he is one now. But I am sure he has no idea that talking about student crushes on teachers in and of itself would be inappropriate– I’ve never heard of female students ever doing this, so I think that part is definitely part of his male fantasy life.

109. delphyne - September 4, 2010

Have we mentioned he’s on his fourth wife now and he’s anti abortion and pro porn yet?

If he wasn’t so obviously lacking in sense of humour, I’d think he was taking the piss.

factcheckme - September 4, 2010

as i have said, if feminism succeeded, i would still have a job. i do not work in academia, i self-publish these posts on a free blog, and my writing is not even under my real name. i have nothing to gain from any of this, except my own freedom, and the freedom of all women, from male dominance and control. and…its nothing thats even going to be accomplished, in my lifetime. so i am working towards an unattainable goal, and i will never receive any tangible reward for my work. thats ok.

i used to think that i wanted to work in this field, either academia or something in real life where i could address “womens issues.” but now i want to distance myself from either one of those things. anything thats going to pay me to write, isnt going to like what i have to say. even dworkin wrote about how she had to sacrifice her own style to satisfy her editors (she wrote like me, without capital letters or proper punctuation, interesting ay) and how she believed that the way the editors changed her work changed the meaning of her work, the way it flowed, the way it felt on the page. i have had several trolls here who commented that they didnt read my work, because i dont capitalize my “I”s. who fucking cares about that? what a great excuse to dismiss my articles on rape, porn, PIV, etc etc. maybe i dont capitalize my “I”s because this is not about me. maybe i do it because once im on a roll, i dont want to break up my own flow to hit “shift.” i dont know why i do it, but it feels right. and i get to do it, however i want.

i still dont have any fucking idea whatsoever how dworkin, jefferys, daly or any real radical feminist ever got published, in the first place. this is a legitimate mystery to me. and correct me if i am wrong, but there isnt any real radical work being published now. why not? its all about fun-feminism, and fun-feminism is all, 100% about consumerism. they may as well sell ad space on the cover, and on the inside pages too. i have real hope for anonymous radfem blogging though. i really do. self-publishing is terrific, creating your own world is terrific, and if all anyone wants right now is the circle-jerking male feminists and empowerfulized footbound fun fems, then i am perfectly content to sit here on the sidelines and pound out some real work, and have real-time discussions, with people who know how to fucking read.

110. Loretta Kemsley - September 4, 2010

Have we mentioned he’s on his fourth wife now and he’s anti abortion and pro porn yet?

Fourth wife? On one of his posts he admitted his “wife” left him because of adultery. He only claimed one though.

The other two don’t surprise me. The fit the pattern.

how she believed that the way the editors changed her work changed the meaning of her work,?

The best thing that has happened to women is that the gatekeepers are no longer powerful and cannot stop us from publishing. This is why all feminists must stay behind the Internet freedom movements. The powers that be want to change the Internet so that they can restrict what information their customers can access. That would silence women once again unless they agree to play nice.

factcheckme - September 4, 2010

also, i propose we refer to all male feminists as “the insane clown posse” from now on. no, i didnt make that up. but it seems to fit.

factcheckme - September 5, 2010

factcheckme - September 5, 2010

promotional video for fun-fem convo 2010…with the male feminists taking center stage of course! the skinny one is hugo.

111. berryblade - September 5, 2010

As opposed to the conservative/rightest/fundamentalist theories? If not, then why include that qualifier at all? Oh, yeah, because the fun fems love to pretend that radfems are sharing values with conservative/rightest/fundamentalists. A way to demonize, degrade and devalue other women — which is the true sharing of conservative/rightest/fundamentalist values.

This is brilliant Loretta, hell, another thing that I hadn’t considered before this thread. Isn’t it odd how fun-fums seem to like lumping rad-fems in with right wing conservatives, even though radical feminism is pretty much polar opposite? I reckon it just shows a lack of inspiration for a decent argument.

SheliaG, you have everything so spot on, when I grow up, I wanna be as perceptive as you 🙂

We talk about real stuff that happens to real women, all of it covered up or poo pood by patriarchy, because it’s not in men’s “pleasure” interests to stop the whole game!

And of course, men’s everything being the centre of the universe, anything that doesn’t fit in with that becomes other, and becomes a symbol (to them) of what they hate. To men (and to the colluders) womyn are symbolic of everything they’re not, that they hate, and that they want to be. All very contradictory, but hey, just look at the virgin/whore dichotomy for a fine example of that.

They can’t accept that because we exist ON OUR OWN TERMS, so they make it easier on themselves to turn us and our issues into something vague and abstract like a symbol, instead of something concrete (like, uh, womyn’s reality.)

I’ve never known a woman who thought she needed to seek advice from a male professor on her “crushes.”

Me neither, most womyn I know (myself included) tend to keep crushes on older, authority-figure professionals in their life very much on the hush hush, to avoid giving “the wrong idea” or to later get accused of fucking for grades or something.

If he wasn’t so obviously lacking in sense of humour, I’d think he was taking the piss.

Hahah, me too.

I couldn’t even sit through ten seconds of those ICP videoclips FCM. Goddess, that is just, utter crap isn’t it? I thought wearing face paint stopped being cool past age 10 and wearing “The Crow” makeup stops being cool by AT LEAST age 16 (otherwise, there’s probably no hope.)

I am so glad this whole “juggalo” crap never really took off in Australia.

factcheckme - September 5, 2010

The first vid was a remake of “let’s go all the way” which I thought was a fitting anthem for the piv-engaging/demanding pro-feminist men. The second one featured lots of young white girls in teeny bikinis…and Ron Jeremy in a cameo. It’s fun-femtastic! Really, I just thought the name was extremely fitting for Hugo and his band of merry asshats. The vids didn’t have anything to do with my choice, i found those later.

112. SheilaG - September 5, 2010

Thanks berryblade 🙂

Again, the more I think about it, the more I believe that the male brain just has not evolved.
Men have programmed themselves to never ever consider the safety or well being of women if that is in conflict with their right to female bodies, and male sex acts as THEY define sex. And none of them ever are going to get this— it’s like expecting a first grader to know calculus.

That said, the greatest challenge is for women worldwide to awaken each other, to literally wake up from the land of male lotus eaters… radical feminism is a huge threat to male supremacy because it hasn’t been corrupted by male interests.
It knows the enemy well, it knows all its tactics and arguments, and the more it is attacked, the more we know we are right on target.

Radical feminism was a movement by for and about women– remember, those three things used to be on just about all feminist material back in the day–by for and about… What will change the world is when all women rise up together, all women suddenly get it. We waste time even bothering with men, because male conflict of interest is incideous. Male tyranny is incideous because it occurs IN THE HOME, one woman at a time, one PIV act at a time. How do you effectively police PIV?

The only thing you can do is get out the world about what this is really all about; that it represents the desires of men that have nothing to do with the sexual pleasure of women, and have nothing to do with the safety of women.

It’s probably why so many early radfems were lesbians, because we were outside that system from the get go.

113. thebewilderness - September 5, 2010

“I’m increasingly convinced that any liberal/leftist/progressive theory that doesn’t center around the importance of pleasure and making sure all human beings have access to it is one that is fatally flawed in its humanism and bound to fail.”

I keep reading this over and over trying to make sense of it and the only thing I can come up with WTF is she talking BDSM.

Or maybe the orgasmatron from “Sleeper”.

How would you go about building a theory that centralizes the importance of pleasure. First you would have to define it.

factcheckme - September 5, 2010

perhaps the definition of “pleasure” will be in a forthcoming book that we will all have to buy, if we want to know the answer. i swear to god, it seems like these people just make shit up out of thin air, and we are all supposed to just gush over how brilliant it is. when amandas entire post makes not one lick of sense, EXCEPT for the part where she takes radfems REALISM and pretends that she thinks its supposed to be SYMBOLIC. she *is* pretending, isnt she?

114. SheilaG - September 5, 2010

Well, yes, you would have to be careful about the definition of pleasure. Men have obviously little clue of how women view this, how they would view pleasure. How about being able to go out on your own to a nice bar, and enjoy a wonderful drink and not have one man bug you or proposition you as pleasure?

How about being able to enjoy a beautiful indian summer evening in a big city— without any fear of male people attacking you? Would that be true pleasure?

How about being able to travel to Paris to study art at the age of 16, and not have to worry about being raped? The life of Gerome. Or how about having a Dad who took you to the royal houses of Europe so that you could play violin, write music and have a brilliant career? Mozart.

What about having the pleasure of being hired for a top notch job, with huge benefits and pay, and earn over several years the praise of your colleagues as a matter of course, and never have a sexist or demeaning comment come your way?

How about being able to go to a business event and have all the comments be respectful to everyone, and never have to hear one man call his wife a prostitute, a woman a b—- or have to listen to any demeaning comments about women ever? Would that be a woman’s right to true pleasure in the world.

How about being able to go to an incredible park, open a bottle of wine and paint the birds, never having to worry that the males walking nearby might rape or rob you?

True pleasure for women would be having access to the world, sailing the seven seas, getting steady promotions and applause, being liberated from drudgery… Pleasure is the happiness one feels when you are with good friends on the evening before a long weekend, in the safety and security of a back yard, looking up at the stars… just women being together and having the best time ever… no males lurking nearby, no awful male infested public places… the joy of beauty.

How about the pleasure of walking into a group full of men and women, and having the men say: “Wow, aren’t these women intelligent, let’s just shut up and listen to their wisdom for the next 2 hours, and never say a thing at all!” Wouldn’t that be a pleasure as these incredibly smart women all talk and have an incredible conversation…. never having to “fight” for air time, or be talked over or belittled for what little men allow women to say…

factcheckme - September 5, 2010

But but but! What about teh menz? They can’t stick their dicks into any of the things you just described. Ergo, this isn’t the kind of female pleasure anyone wants to hear about.

115. FemmeForever - September 5, 2010

Sheila, your visioning of what the world could be like moves me to tears. I want it soooooo much. But, alas, FCM is right. The only kind of pleasure fun-fems care about is the sexual kind. If she wanted a theory centered on pleasure in general then not only would Sheila’s comments be included but so would culinary pleasure and a central tenet of this “pleasure theory” would be no body judgment. That’s right girls. No more low-carb or no carb just plenty of deep fried snickers all day long. HA!

factcheckme - September 5, 2010

Not even sexual, FF. The only pleasure fun fems care about is piv, coincidentally its the only pleasure feminist men care about too. Sure they might envision a piv-centric sexuality that includes other acts too, but they absolutely cannot fathom a heterosexual sexuality that doesn’t include piv, at all. I can only conclude therefore that female risk is a key component of het sexuality, even among feminists, and that female risk actually equals pleasure. Anyone care to diagram this one? I think we have an actual equation here. I will see what i can come up with.

factcheckme - September 6, 2010

Also, she did pay some very cursory and oddly placed lip service to “culinary pleasure” that kind of has a few of us scratching our heads. She replaced actual, tangible harms with “symbolic” harm, and then went on to say that pleasure is a human right. Eating and fucking are apparently the only things that fit the bill. Definitely anything Sheila suggests is right out.

Well i guess anyone who believes women are beyond tangible harm might as well take that next step…and make it gender-neutral, while she’s at it. Pleasure is a human right, sure why not? And sticking your dicks into women feels good, therefore its a human right to stick your dicks into women. And if women have a problem with that, its symbolic, only. Get over it! Have a cheeseburger, and call it even. Or something. Wtf?

factcheckme - September 6, 2010

you know, another thing that just infuriates me about this pleasure-based food systems shit is that what americans and other westerners consider “pleasurable” in terms of diet is high-fat and high-protein foodstuffs that only the relatively wealthy can afford. it is well known that meat-based diets are inefficient, because our food (ie. cows) is eating what other PEOPLE eat, in most other places in the world, and thousands of gallons of water are being used to churn out a pound or whatever of beef too. is she saying that americanized comfort food is a human right now? americans sure act like it is, but only clean water and sustinence-level grain-based diets are considered a human right (ie. not starving) in many places. and even then, there are millions of people that go without even that, every single day. and even more would go without, if more and more people started eating westernized foodstuffs that we find “pleasurable.”

how about starting with “not in pain” before we start in with the “pleasure.” seriously. because PIV would be right out, if we did. oh wait, thats the whole point of amandas response! duh. its that pesky pain thing that gets in the way of the pleasure…so lets just ignore it. ignoring the suffering of others is a human right, in fun-fem land. no wonder teh menz love it so much.

116. m Andrea - September 6, 2010

About your original post, FCM. Sad to say but I don’t think people are going to get the point until some european racinazi shows up demanding the opportunity to lead and represent a pro-minority group. And even then funfems will find a way to miss the point, because the very last thing they want to do is become aware of a problem which they then must address.

Their entire purpose is to avoid fixing a problem which they actually prefer to protect, so each radfem attempt with that as the goal must be carefully constructed in such a way as to leave them literally no other option. Which is quite difficult but unfortunately for them we are the only ones who have logic on our side so eventually they have no choice but to cave, it’s only a matter of time. HA!

Anyway, nice post. 🙂

117. m Andrea - September 6, 2010

Why am I always last to the party? All the booze is already gone. lol Anyway, I have no idea if hugo is going to post my comment over there, so here it is, maybe somebunny will like it:

Why do you think that the question of a white person teaching Black History should be limited to criteria of your choosing? From what base of white privilege are you assuming that only the white voice or those that appreciate the white voice is entitled to restrict the criteria to that of your own choosing?

“Because I said so” is not a reason.
“Because my girlfriend thinks it’s okay” is not a reason.
“Because lots of white people agree with me” is not a reason.
“Because I don’t have a problem with my definition” is not a reason.
“Because I said opposing definitions of anti-racism are fine” is not a reason.
“Because my criteria makes me feel good” is not a reason.
“Because you’re being too picky and can’t we all just get along” is not a reason.
“Because in my own little world I see interest increasing and of course that automagically means every type of anti-racism tactic is a positive tool and no tactic could possibly be enabling racism” is not a reason.
“Because other white people would have done the same thing and anyway it’s not my fault it’s her fault she made me no wait look over there while I develope lots more excuses maybe one of them will work and gosh you made me sad so you must be wrong” is not a reason.

Keep in mind, I personally am not arguing with your conclusion. I am however questioning the process by which this conclusion is supposedly validated. Because the “reasons” appear to be nothing more than serial justifications all proudly asserting white privilege while at the same time pretending to be authentically pro-Black. Which besides displaying gross amounts of hypocrisy also invalidates the conclusion.

If anyone responds to anything at all which I’ve written first I’d like an actual reason which explains why any white person is entitled to choose the criteria for a teacher of Black History.

No offense at all but it appears you are so desperate to be one of the good white people that in your haste you appropriate choices which are better respectfully left to Blacks. To be trusted with such a responsibility by a divergent group of Black people is indeed an honor while to take it by force is something else entirely. I thought you were able to recognize consent?

FCM was quite astute in choosing this topic… But also keep in mind that it is well known at this point that men listen to other men’s opinions about women better than they listen to women themselves, so personally I feel it is not a terrible thing that you are teaching this course… and yet, if I ever had any doubt that even the best of men could never relinquish their male privilege, your response to FCM has nailed the coffin.

factcheckme - September 6, 2010

well…calling attention to conflicts of interest should have left them without options, i mean its so basic! yet they created some out of thin air, namely, deny, deny, radfems is insane!!!11!1!, rage, mansplain, deny. those are always going to be options for them arent they?

and what do you make of amanda turning womens actual, tangible pain and suffering into “symbolism?” that was a dodge even i didnt expect. guess from now on, i will. thanks for stopping by!

factcheckme - September 6, 2010

“Because other white people would have done the same thing and anyway it’s not my fault it’s her fault she made me no wait look over there while I develope lots more excuses maybe one of them will work and gosh you made me sad so you must be wrong” is not a reason.

this was my favorite. well done. “hey, is that a rabbit over there?” while you run away in the other direction also works, in a pinch.

118. thebewilderness - September 6, 2010

mAndrea, I do so totally adorable you.
I would be happy to open another bottle of spirits now that you are here.

119. SheilaG - September 6, 2010

I’d say that funfems and liberal men have very little imagination when it comes to what would be truly pleasurable to women. For men, it’s always about porn, sex, PIV… dominating women, making them servants etc.

That’s about all the imagination men have, and funfems… well they are brainless and clueless… what a waste of time.

If women truly defined pleasure from and honestly powerful position free from all male influence or dominance or threat of retaliation, what would it be? What would it look like?

I often think of happiness, and its simplest forms– and pursue this in daily life. That to me is pleasure.

factcheckme - September 6, 2010

re conflicts of interest, i actually think that fun-fems have them too. as msandrea stated boldly, their interests actually lie in protecting the particular problem radfems keep actually addressing. many of them are partnered with men who demand PIV, are actively engaged in pleasing men as a sexual class by dating men, and interacting socially with men (partying) and appearing fuckable to men. i daresay NONE of them have ever actually challenged thier male partners feelings of entitlement to PIV, so NONE of them actually realize that the guys would leave if they ever did. but probably 99.99% of the guys WOULD leave. these women have no idea the kinds of men they are sleeping with, and raising children with, and dependant on, because they have never challenged their entitlement to use female bodies like kleenex, and they never will.

BUT. even a fun-fem is not talking to other women about feminism, because that fun-fem wants to stick her dick into you, and ejaculate as she places you in harms way. even the most male-identified, male-pleasing one is not talking to you because it would broaden HER options in life if rape were not a prosecutable crime.

or at least, if it did broaden her options in life as in her male partner/relative etc is a rapist, and if he doesnt go to jail she will have continued access to his male privilege, it also decreases her options in life, as a member of class-female, the class most vulnerable to the crime of rape, as rape-victims.

these are the conflicts of interest that all men will always have in this area. even gay men! because even gay men are having PIV with women, for various reasons. even gay men benefit when women are kept out of the public sphere and in low-paying jobs, because theres less competition for all men when women as a class just arent there.

i would 100% rather pick through a steaming pile like amanda’s “pleasurable food systems” comment, than anything old hugo will ever have to say, for that reason. and fun-fems do leave steaming piles around, for radfems to pick through, if we so choose. oh yes they do. none of them have done that HERE though, which is interesting, even though they have obviously been here reading. they are taking their steaming piles over to hugos place, and they are all sitting down to dine on them together. whereas i have had at least half a dozen of hugos MALE readers attempt to sully THIS blog with their bombastic, spamtastic shit.

120. Loretta Kemsley - September 6, 2010

When I was perusing Hugo’s old posts, I came across a place where he stated that the students in his class shun us older feminists because they aren’t into victimology. They view themselves as empowered. Not his words but the gist of what he meant.

That statement alone proves he is not a feminist in any way. That is only said by someone who isn’t aware of or is actively denying the tremendous amount of discrimination, violence against women and misogyny that still exists. It is only used by those who want to proclaim there is no more need for feminism. It reveals his agenda very clearly, although I’m sure he’d deny it with an elaborate essay on why we no longer need feminism but titled “How I support feminism.”

Of course, he meant it as an insult. What he doesn’t acknowledge is that it was the older feminists that gained enough rights for these young women to feel empowered in a world still slanted decidedly against them. Those idealistic eyes have not yet been blackened by life. The 25% of teen girls and young women who have already suffered from battering and rape aren’t sitting in his classes. They’re trying to regain the most rudimentary confidence that they can survive the crimes against them. Because they aren’t sitting in his classroom, he is completely oblivious to their suffering.

Isn’t it a shame that feminism has to depend upon the violence of men in order to exist? And yet, it does. Feminism will not disappear. It will continue to grow as our young women are turned into victims by the misogynists in our society. The naysayers like him will always empower feminism because it is the naysayers that empower the rapists, batterers and all the rest who will do severe harm to those tender young souls.

121. Loretta Kemsley - September 6, 2010

The posts on how women would define pleasure have been interesting. They really struck home.

A song I really love is from the movie Shirley Valentine, “The Girl Who Used to be Me” Great movie written by Willy Russell, who also wrote Educating Rita. Now there’s a man who gets it.

Although I love that song, I’m not sure I could reclaim the girl who used to be me. I don’t know who she is without being framed by all the “you can’t do that because you are a girl” nonsense. You can’t play marbles. You can’t ride horses. You can’t wear jeans. You can’t go to college. You can’t a thousand times over. All that I “could” do was what I hated: play with dolls, have tea parties and go to charm school. I escaped into books, but even there I had to adjust to viewing myself as male if I wanted to identify with the adventures — which were all accomplished by men or boys, never a girl.

Fortunately, I didn’t heed all the don’t]s. I rebelled. I wore pants. I rode my horses and went to college (although only after I survived a violent marriage) By my teen years, I was part of the group labeled “outsider.” We lived by our own rules because we couldn’t stomach the rules set up by society. I cannot think of myself in my youngest years except through the lens of rebel — and yet, what I rebelled against would no longer classify me as a rebel today. I’d just be an ordinary girl.

For those who want to claim that feminism is dead, they only need to listen to the dreams of little girls to know they are wrong. Today’s little girls will be told they can’t because they are female. Different set of “can’t,” but the intent is the same. Discrimination. As long as it is alive, feminism will live. As will the rebels who can’t envision the girls they used to be without also envisioning the fight it took to just be “Me.”

122. m Andrea - September 6, 2010

and what do you make of amanda turning womens actual, tangible pain and suffering into “symbolism?” that was a dodge even i didnt expect. guess from now on, i will. thanks for stopping by!

I missed that one, and frankly I’m stupid about RSS feeds, most tutes assume everybody already knows everything about it. But it would be extremely convenient to know when you had another post up.

Unfortunately psychology is really clear: if a problem can’t be fixed, then pretend it doesn’t exist. It’s a feature, not a bug!

factcheckme - September 6, 2010

Unfortunately psychology is really clear: if a problem can’t be fixed, then pretend it doesn’t exist. It’s a feature, not a bug!

damn! i keep giving them too much credit. at least i would hope that they are making shit up and hiding the ball so they can sell books in the future, to explain to everybody what the fuck they are talking about. theres another conflict of interest, as others have mentioned. careerist consumerists garnering book deals. cha-ching!

also, i added an email subscribe button to the front page. sorry! didnt realize anyone wanted one. i keep a pretty regular posting schedule too. usually once a week, towards the end of the week or weekend. i have to admit at the moment however i am feeling pretty burned out. these comments keep me going, so thanks to everyone for participating.

on that note, does everyone fucking get it now? almost without exception, male feminists are ENERGY SUCKING ASSHOLES. things were chugging along here just fine, and then old hugo had to make everything about HIM. now, i am pissed off and drained. far from “stepping back” as old liverlips claims, he is actually interacting with those he is supposed to be observing, and changing things. this is ALWAYS what happens when a man enters the room. men think they know how women are, but by definition, men only know how women are WHEN MEN ARE IN THE ROOM. unless they are just reading without saying anything, even “hello” is too much, they are changing things, and stealing energy and attention away from the conversation we are are having, and will continue to have, just fine, without them.

factcheckme - September 6, 2010

i dont regret engaging old bungholio though, here, on my own turf. you all handed him his ass, and the convo was interesting. here, of course, not over there. hugos blog fucking sucks.

factcheckme - September 6, 2010

The naysayers like him will always empower feminism because it is the naysayers that empower the rapists, batterers and all the rest who will do severe harm to those tender young souls.

blam! this is an excellent point. and of course, abuse-of-power rapists, LIKE HUGO HIMSELF, are creating victims, and leaving a path of destruction behind them, that real feminists will have to clean up.

when i was very young, i felt empowered too. i drove two thousand miles off to college, through the desert, alone, without a cell phone (they didnt even exist then! and NO, i am NOT a thousand years old mkay?) i went to parties where there were drunk men, and where i was offered alcohol too. i found myself in dangerous situations that i knew were dangerous, and i got out of them, without anything bad really happening to me. i was lucky. but yes, your eyes do get blackened by life. and some people just seem to NOTICE things, and see whats happening around them. and some people never do.

when i watched “the accused” i was scarred for life. i am not kidding about that. i really was. i was probably too young to have seen it, around 13 or so, and it was a bizarre situation too: my brother, sister and i were in a hotel with my mom, and we were watching it on TV. my mother was a rape victim, and i am sure i was sensing all her emotions as she watched it, and i was terribly, terribly affected by the whole experience. i empathized with the victim. i saw myself as vulnerable in that way, maybe for the first time. i didnt know things like that happened to women. after that, i couldnt forget. when i was even younger than that, there was a case that made national headlines where some old crusty coot kidnapped a hitchhiking woman, and cut off her arms with an axe. she survived. until i saw that, i didnt realize that things like that happened to girls and women either. after that, i did.

but how many people have seen the accused, and how many people saw the same news footage as i did, and they still didnt get what was going on? how many men have seen the same thing, and didnt empathize with the victims, at all? how many women saw the same damn things i saw, and still believe that we live in an equal-opportunity world, where men arent dangerous, and feminists are crazy?

it just makes me shake my head. it really fucking does.

factcheckme - September 6, 2010

also, regarding feeling empowered in your late teens and twenties…well part of that for me i think was feeling the difference between being an adult, and being a child. i did feel more powerful and more free, as a human, who was no longer living at home, no longer restricted by the drinking age, able to vote, etc etc. also, when i started having PIV, as i have said before, i felt “empowered” against being raped, because i was going to “give it” to them consensually anyway, so rape wasnt really as big a fear as it was, before. BUT adult women never have the same degree of freedom, or as many opportunities, as adult men. as an adult, you might be tricked into thinking you are an adult “human” but the fact of the matter is, if you are a woman, you are NOT an adult human. you are a WOMAN. a grown-up FEMALE.

i think this point is lost on many teenaged and twenty-something women. eventually, some of them might get it. but then again, by the time you are in your late twenties and thirties, many women are then restricted by childrearing, domestic chores etc so they think they are restricted only by thier own “choices” and again fail to see how adult WOMEN are frequently restricted in the exact same ways they are, and adult MEN almost never are. they never see themselves as part of class: female. even though its always true.

factcheckme - September 6, 2010

also, “YES” to everything you just said loretta, not just the part i quoted.

123. Loretta Kemsley - September 6, 2010

Max Dashu posted this to the Matriarchal Studies list this morning:

Saying of the day: They only call it Class War when we fight back.

124. SheilaG - September 7, 2010

You are so right about how women do or don’t see themselves as a class. Or don’t see that their lives are exactly like all the other women’s lives around them. Or they wake up at say age 44 and realize they are totally economically trapped, and don’t know how to get out of it. I see that a lot lately.

When you are 20 or 18, yes, you do suddenly get the right to vote, and you are able to legally drink in a lot of states. You might go off to school to be on your own, and that feels like freedom.

I just know that my hearing is very accute. So I hear a lot of what goes on in a business meeting, and I hear what men publically say about women. It is horrifying the woman hatred that is done in “joking” ways, and it is almost as horrifying to point this out later to women, and have them say “oh I just let it roll off my back, or he didn’t mean it that way, or I’ll have to stop my husband from saying stuff like that…”

But most of the time, I am the first woman to bring up the creepy comments– men joking about beating their wives, or joking about how their wives “serviced” the repair man. This goes on all the time, and women in the room remain silent, and I often wonder why this is. That’s the state of denial women are in about just how much men hate women, and just how much other men remain completely silent as well.

I just watched a rerun of Beverly Hills 90210– I know I know… but anyway, there was a scene where one of the women was slightly scared of a homeless guy hanging around the beach, and the boyfriend comes off all heroic wanting to help the guy. Seemingly kind and heroic, but a woman would see a strange man on a beach in a totally different light. In the past, a scene like this might have been invisible to me, and I consider myself a pretty sharp observer… I can say I had that insight about this silly TV show as a result of reading this blog, and thinking about what all of you are saying.

It’s been a very big help to me. I have a strong voice, but being here, being energized by your common truths… and so I am speaking up more…we as radical feminist can never take this for granted. Because there will always be wolves, I mean Hugos out there.

I think patriarchy has this trick of “indulging” young women, so that they don’t believe what their mothers have told them… in this case about second wave feminism perhaps.

125. Loretta Kemsley - September 7, 2010

Oh, my, I have to brag. I was looking for a url about younger women turning away from sex (which I’ve written about before) when I found my name mentioned here:


That’s the Women’s Institute for Freedom of the Press. Lucinda Marshall, who founded the Feminist Peace Network, quoted me. Short, short quote but I am so honored to be on the same page as the other illustrious women who have spoken out against porn.

Can I say I am really jazzed? That just made my day.


126. Loretta Kemsley - September 7, 2010

ps That page is dedicated to Andrea Dworking. How fitting.

Great quotes from great feminists on that page.

127. berryblade - September 7, 2010

Sheila, your definition of pleasure is awe-inspiring. That would be GENUINE pleasure, not just hedonistic pleasure-for-the-sake-of-pleasure which is what I suspect Ms.Whatsherface over at Hugo’s blog is advocating.

The only pleasure fun fems care about is piv, coincidentally its the only pleasure feminist men care about too.

Yeah, funny how there never seem to be any men fighting for the eradication of piv being a central pillar of fucking.

mAndrea, that’s fucking brilliant.

When I was perusing Hugo’s old posts, I came across a place where he stated that the students in his class shun us older feminists because they aren’t into victimology. They view themselves as empowered. Not his words but the gist of what he meant.

I guess I’m an outlier than, mind you this has been the same in the womyn’s studies classes I’ve been a part of. Womyn in my peer group are VERY reluctant to admit oppression is occurring on their own turf, and those 25% wouldn’t always be willing to call it RAPE outright. I noticed that it was only the older womyn in my class (and my man-hating radical feminist self) who were willing to call their experiences that. The younger womyn just said they felt ‘pressured’ which is hugely problematic in itself. There’s a real reluctance to confront men for what they are – a real enemy and harm to womyn.

I think patriarchy has this trick of “indulging” young women, so that they don’t believe what their mothers have told them… in this case about second wave feminism perhaps.

Sheila I don’t doubt this for a second. There were womyn in my class who thought that getting breast implants was a perfectly acceptable “reward” to themselves for whatever reason and not a ploy to get them to waste time, energy and money on unattainable standards of fuckability, thought that cosmetic surgery tours of third world countries were also a great “holiday” (indulgence) and a bucket-load of other things. It was so disheartening. About half of them read Cosmopolitan as well and saw no real problem with this.

128. SheilaG - September 8, 2010

Yeah Berryblade, I find this limited discussion of pleasure by the fun fems and fake male professors just too much.

What women want in the world is something I don’t think men can even imagine. The idea of a pleasurable state of women, or what would make us ecstatically happy has little if nothing to do with sex. That’s what the penis invaders will never get. The fun fems just act as a male cheering machine.

Women are fearful of rejecting men, and really contemplating a world where women are fully alive, happy and filled with the joy of the world.

It’s what always struck me about male sexuality in general— it was so dull, so dulling, so female destroying that I couldn’t even imagine using the word PIV and pleasure in the same sentence.

We can dream a lot bigger than that, can’t we?

129. berryblade - September 8, 2010

What women want in the world is something I don’t think men can even imagine. The idea of a pleasurable state of women, or what would make us ecstatically happy has little if nothing to do with sex. That’s what the penis invaders will never get. The fun fems just act as a male cheering machine.

I often wonder if anyone outside of sites like these is even capable of imagining it, it seems when you ask most people what they want most/how to change the world it’s always ME ME ME. I don’t know if the majority of homo sapiens are capable (although, I’d like to believe it!) of dreaming bigger than that, all this damage and love for disenfranchisement is so deeply embedded in the human psyche it will take so much work to undo it/realise this vision. But I can, so that’s going to have to be good enough.

130. Calling Out Feminist Men | Femanon - September 9, 2010

[…] men can be creepy rapist motherfuckers. It also is a sort of case study on what FCM said in On Crediblity.  And as to why I’m motivated to this, Hugo is essentially going back on his word, where he […]

131. Right Wing Women: Some thoughts | anti social butterfly - September 14, 2010

[…] which inspired my entry on fairy tales, advertising and pornography. Also, recently, thanks to a brilliant thread over at FactCheckMe’s blog, I learned a new studying technique, courtesy of FCM. So thank you […]

132. factcheckme - September 25, 2010

the prostitution and sandwiches guy made a video response to MEEEEEE!!!11!!11

listen up hugo i mean liverlips: this is what a pro-feminist man sounds like who ISNT whining like a little bitch. i actually dont have a problem with this guy, or his work. although i wish he would reconsider PIV.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: