jump to navigation

If It’s “Anti-Sex” Then It Can’t Possibly Be True September 25, 2010

Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, health, international, liberal dickwads, PIV, politics, rape, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

so whats with the accusations of “sex-negative” ay?  what does that even mean?  we have already established that “sex-negative” means “PIV-negative,” in the extremely fucked up logic fail that is sex-positive feminism.  did i say feminism?  i meant male-identified PIV-centric consumerist hedonism.  but i digress.

when anyone lobs the “sex-negative” insult at radical feminists, its clear what they mean.  and what they clearly mean is that if something can be read (by them) as “sex-negative” then by definition, its also not true.  that it is not to be believed, that it should be dismissed outright.  well, thats quite a leap, isnt it?  well, not really, if you believe that PIV is, LITERALLY, in the mathematical sense, THE TRUTH.  the way.  the solution.  the answer to everything.  in fact, thats the only way anyone could come to this conclusion, isnt it?  how else could sex-negative or anti-sex mean quite literally “false”?  this is a serious question.

and they think they are so fresh and progressive here, in their dismissal of radical feminists.  they arent.  in “the spinster and her enemies,” sheila jeffreys observes that early feminists saw the same things we see, today, and named it: “sex” was just a euphemism for PIV; that PIV-centric sexuality was problematic for women; and therefore it should end (these images are from the book, and yes, they are crooked in the book too):

see?  PIV = sex = PIV.  same as today.  early feminists tried to imagine a heterosexual sexuality that wouldnt place women in harms way, and it wasnt hard to do:  eliminate PIV.  easy.  and its not just contemporary historians (and modern fun- and male- feminists) who believe early feminists to be prudes, as we will see.

one of early feminists most driven campaigns was also to enact laws that would severely punish abuse-of-power rape.  sound familiar?  they named the problem: men in positions of authority over women and girls, abusing that authority by having PIV with women and girls, and (of course) also leaving them to deal with the consequences, alone:

what fucking prudes those early feminists were!  what fucking cunts!  well, according to those who regularly engaged in abuse-of-power rape against girls and women.  namely, almost every single man in a position of power over girls and women.  (not surprisingly, certain people have a problem with women who name this one today, too.)

and heres where the mental gymnastics came into play.  yes, the PIV-positive crowd was very intellecutally, uh, limber back then too.  they verily defied gravity with this one:

yes, male sexuality is a very powerful thing, and men, as a group, are overcome by it frequently.  its natural!  but women have nothing to worry about, because men as a group are a moral people, and wouldnt sexually harm a fly.  oh, okay!  how very lucky to be a fly, then.  and woe be unto the fucking cunts and bitches i mean sex-negative prudes, who called bullshit on any of this:

oh noes!  not the pecking of hens!  nothing is more terrible, more horrible, more offensive than that!  and shut the fuck up, you are wrong.  sure they were wrong.  anyone could easily and correctly come to the conclusion that early feminists were wrong, about PIV, about men, about mens demonstrated and routine sexual abuse of women and girls.  you know, anyone who completely disregarded the actual truth.  and instead embraced this bullshit sex-positive “PIV is truth” paradigm we apparently have been living under for centuries.  centuries, people.

just like we do today.  nothing new under the sun. that is all.

Comments

1. Aileen Wuornos - September 25, 2010

First of all I just wanna say a big fuck yeah for calling the PIV reinforcive hedonists what they are!

About the hedonists seeing pioneer feminists as prudes – many moons ago I had a heated debate with some shitstick I used to know about feminism and he started harping on about how Susan B Anthony was against abortion blah blah. No surprise this person was a he, and he didn’t want to listen to the fact that Anthony wasn’t Australian and that the reasoning behind her anti abortion stance was more to do with anti racism than anything else. This is just another example of erasing real people’s voices (womyns) because they are too lazy, too willfully ignorant of the plight of others and have their heads too far up their arse to even examine the possibility that they are not the centre of the universe.

That comment about men’s ‘natural inclination’ to PIV activity sounds familiar. Oh wait, probably because every Massively (w)Rong Arsehole in the history of ever has said that crap, Cosmo likes that crap, rape apologists eat that shit up, and I’m pretty sure a couple of bandwidth wasters over at that one utah thread have spurted this crap too.

The most annoying thing about all this, is the fact that these men don’t recognise that these are things that affect womyn, every single fucking day of their whole LIVES. That they think their anti feminist codswallop is so new and originial, when it’s the same backlash, anti womon crap we’ve been dealing for at least a century or two now.

factcheckme - September 25, 2010

i added “consumerist” to the description too. because it is consumerist, isnt it? lipstick-and-high-heels feminism…well where are they getting the lipstick and high heels, ay? creating them out of dirt and twigs they found in the backyard? i dont think so. buy your way to empowerment! yes, thats the ticket. no problem there, at all.

2. rhondda - September 25, 2010

I love the term ‘male-identified – PIV centric, consumerist hedonism’.
The other day I was in a store and in front of me was a young couple. He seemed nervous and she was all over him most of the time. When she stretched her low cut jeans revealed her bum crack. My thought was not very PC. It was ‘I thought only fat plumbers showed their bum crack’. When I looked at her face, there was no one there. She appeared to be her bum crack. All I could feel was a great sadness. Is this what it is has come to? I wanted to tell her she was more than that, but I knew she would not get it.
He was getting it all and probably be off in a day or two.

3. joy - September 25, 2010

“(not surprisingly, certain people have a problem with women who name this one today, too.)”

Haha. Yeah. “Some” do.

“Massively (w)Rong Arsehole”

I’ve never seen this one before, but I like it.

Thanks again for an awesome essay, FCM, and I’m looking forward to the commentary. Even to the inevitable “refute” from a fun fem/dude, because that seems to mean you’ve done something right.

Be back later to add something intelligent.

factcheckme - September 25, 2010

rhondda you prude! seriously though, “owning” a “look” is as close as any of us are supposed to come, to actually having a personality. thats why its so shocking when any of us actually have one.

factcheckme - September 25, 2010

and if thats not just blatant fucking consumerism, then i dont know what is.

4. rhondda - September 25, 2010

Yes, I am a prude and proud of it. It used to mean wise. Those of you who have read Mary Daly’s Pure Lust, know exactly what the word means and how it was distorted by male lechery. Long live the proud prudes.
I was once told by a male-identified patriarchial woman that it was a good thing I did not have daughters. I looked at her daughters and felt sorry for them. – all dressed to please daddy. I wondered what he did to them and if she looked the other way the way as my mother did. I resisted my father’s lechery, but my sister did not. She still does not get how he groomed her and blames herself. Pisses me off no end.

5. Aileen Wuornos - September 25, 2010

FCM, I totally agree about the consumerist thing. It’s also a very middle class thing as well. So many of these empowerfulment hedonist types and their companions don’t seem to realise that cosmetics are largely tested on animals and made in third world countries, just like many of the clothes are. They’re made under what are essentially conditions of slavery done by … Womyn. Totally empowerfulising! Not to mention all the toxic shit they cram into the cosmetic products themselves.

Rhondda, ah yes, i know exactly what you mean. Haha, i let one of my co workers who is like that read a bit of my copy of mary dalys ‘pure lust’ tonight. It might of confused the hell out of her, but then again it might have planted a spark in her. I’m only a little bit into it so far myself, but aaah, Daly’s work is amazing.

Joy, i wish i could take credit for the massively (w)rong arsehole, but i pinched it from twisty/i blame the patriachy. It is brilliant though i think i might i have net spoken it.

6. Sargassosea - September 25, 2010

And when we have “some” men who seem to have *difficulty* understanding that abuse-of-power rape is actually, really, for certain RAPE (you, know, the kind that actually, really, for certain harms women) mansplaining – whoopsie! I mean – TEACHING women’s studies it’s just fucking pathetic. GAH!

7. Sargassosea - September 25, 2010

(also – Spinster is going to be the first download to my new kindle! I’m very excited. And privileged, too ;))

factcheckme - September 25, 2010

Are these second wave oldies available for kindle? I would’ve never thought. At least your pages will be straight. My copy is all kinds of fucked up.

8. Sargassosea - September 25, 2010

Some actually are – color me shocked, too! Totally jazzed I am.

9. SheilaG - September 25, 2010

Brilliant. Feminism has a continuity of 200 some years. We have to learn the language of the 19th century, because 19th century feminist hestory has been co-opted by male dominated historians.

It’s why they taught that women were behind prohibition, but never say exactly why most working class and middle class women would so object to alcohol… little things like being dependent on a male’s paycheck, or the fact that men would drink up the family income, or beat wives when they got drunk. Fun feminists wouldn’t quite make that connection.

As would an objection to abortion might mean objection to male profiteering killing women with illegal abortions, or the idea that it might be a tool for eliminating black people.

And rape… well we know for a fact that the male invented legal system has several categories of murder… first degree, second degree etc. We know that you can be punished for involuntary manslaugher— that it is not just written off as an accident. So I say, that a woman defined legal system would have many categories of rape– the first degree being actual “violent” rape, second degree perhaps abuse of power rape (therapists, professors, doctors, priests), incest rape, rape in marrige— feel free to come up with a list of terms for each type of rape.

This is what we really don’t have clearly defined in the legal system– we don’t have one powerful term to describe abuse of power rape, or coercive mental brainwashing rape…grooming…

No man ever wants to admit that he actually committed rapes against multiple women, because men don’t want to admit any wrong to women’s psyches. They view sex as purely hedonistic fun, but clearly women and men have very different ideas about sex. It’s why we’ve hit such a raw nerve with SEX=PIV, or abuse of power = rape.

It’s why radical feminism is the most powerful tool for women’s advancement and women’s justice. It’s why it’s always so threatening to the status quo, so threatening that male centric women are afraid of it too. Because the oppression of women is at its more egregious within the home, this makes it very difficult for the oppressed to stand up and say NO MORE PIV, for example. What would happen? The woman could lose the husband, the income, the kids could starve.

I see everyday the lives single mothers live. I see the dramatic suffering, the low income, the struggles. I also see single women who have no children, and the contrast is stark.

To completely transform the status quo would be very taxing to both women and men. It’s why lesbians have always been in the forefront of radical feminist theory and practice. For heterosexual women actually living with men, the oppression is subtle, ever present, and not easily identified. It’s why straight women invented the term “Nigel” for this very reason, or Unicorns.

I’d never heard the term Nigel until I started writing on feminist blogs in the 2000s, for example.

What would happen in a feminist court to someone like old liverlips? Well, he’d lose his teaching license, he might see jail time for abuse of power rape, and he would be banned from teaching women ever again. That might be the ruling of a women’s legal system.

Would a women’s legal system define product safety to apply to high heels? Would shoes that cripple be labeled as such?

We should decode the 19th century, and really learn from and study our sisters from another time.
We have to realize that women win huge victories, then we have backlash, and the process repeats itself again and again. We need to recognize the pattern of thought, just as workers need to be alert to the machinations of capitalism and the “owner” class.

Patriachy has been around for 5000 years, and there’s a clear reason for this… it is good at adapting, changing, conning and gullying. If we were to use christian terms, we’d say it has the power to seduce into hedonistic consumerism– a kind of devil or demon. That’s how powerful it is.

Hugo’s pathetic defense of his abuse of power rape, and his inability to comprehend radical feminism or to acknowledge that he is attempting to silence radical feminist critique on his blog speaks volumes. Now male supremacy has invaded the women’s studies classroom, and that is why patriarchy is a 5000 year old tyranny.

10. sonia - September 25, 2010

That freakin kills me that what women pushed so hard for in the 60s, 70s, was reduced to a sexual revolution that was then reduced to mandatory PIV.

It just goes to show you don’t work WITH patriarchy to change patriarchy, you do your own fuckin thing, define it your own way, and give any dude the finger who attemps to co-opt it. Oh yeah, and tell a little girl the truth so the next generation doesn’t wind up on their knees like ours has. Without a pillow.

factcheckme - September 25, 2010

Just to clarify, spinster deals with the turn of the century, 1880-1930. So its even older than that. Even pre-first wave, and the beginnings of the first wave, where women saw that they needed the vote if they were going to affect things like rape, prostitution, trafficking, women as property within marriage, and on and on. It wasn’t because they wanted what men have, or just some bullshit watered down “equality” rhetoric like we have today. These women wanted to profoundly change the system, and improve the lives of women and girls.

They actually had a womens police force, and tried to reform the ways that girls were treated in the court system, when they were accusing men of raping them. And they formed sometimes uneasy alliances with nonfeminist groups on issues like prostitution, venereal disease, and temperance, as Sheila mentions.

It’s fascinating. I hope people read the book. I imagine that jeffreys “anticlimax” would be the follow up to spinster, and I am looking forward to that one too.

factcheckme - September 25, 2010

holy crap! haha. the prostitution and sandwiches guy made a video response to MEEEEEEE!!!11!!1!!

did i call him a pretentious hispter? i dont even remember. i actually like his work. i just wish i wasnt pretty much absolutely positive that he was sticking his dick into women, contemporaneously.

11. Sargassosea - September 25, 2010

“…and tell a little girl the truth so the next generation doesn’t wind up on their knees like ours has.”

Absolutely sonia.

We’re equipping the 10 year old we’re privileged to have in our lives with this very herstory: that women keep after it, risk a lot to pass it on, so that if even 1 girl/womon GETS IT then she’s 1 more. Part of the aggregate. (Anyone remember that Breck commercial? “and so on and so on and so on…”)

12. Sargassosea - September 25, 2010

Jeez – at the risk of serial posting while noob – it was actually a Faberge commercial and when I went to look for it at u-tube I made the mistake of looking at the comments. GAH!

13. rhondda - September 25, 2010

I have the book Not for Sale that the gentleman in the video mentions. It is a very hard read and I have had to put it down for days. It is about prostitution. It is hard to judge pro feminist men. His list of books might be very interesting.

factcheckme - September 25, 2010

also, i just re-read the comments from the “credibility” thread, and i actually said that hes probably a pretentious hipster WHO HAS PIV. while he went on at length about how hes not “hip” he didnt comment on whether he does, or doesnt have PIV. but i think we know the answer to that.

as i also commented on that thread, pretentious hipsters who have PIV are the best of the lot, calling themselves pro-feminist men. and i think this guy probably IS one of the better ones. for whatever thats worth. heh.

factcheckme - September 25, 2010

what was a faberge commercial? i just checked my vids, and they are working properly. i thought i had misdirected you.

factcheckme - September 25, 2010

oh, wait, nevermind. heh. got it now.

14. joy - September 25, 2010

Just a thought:

No more mandatory PIV = only wanted children = no need for abortion.

factcheckme - September 26, 2010

yes! i propose that any man who is against abortion, stop sticking their dicks into women, immediately.

factcheckme - September 26, 2010

and after that, all men who are pro-abortion, pro-choice, or ambivilent, can stop sticking their dicks into women, as well.

15. Sargassosea - September 26, 2010

But what about the repohduckshunz!1!!1 We have to have teh PIV for teh repohduckshunz!11!!

News Flash: no you don’t. And welcome to the unintended benefits of “artificial” (pfft) insemination.

I’ll stop now before I go into full rant mode. Happy Sunday, all!

factcheckme - September 26, 2010

Artificial indeed! That’s a great point. From who’s perspective would non-piv insemination be artificial? Insemination is insemination, if its your body in which its taken place. That ship has sailed.

And its another thing that rape and piv have in common. Noone would say that insemination by rape is any less “authentic” than if it happened from consensual piv. A dick in a vagina is a dick in a vagina, and one is just as legitimate as the other.

16. rhondda - September 26, 2010

Goodness know, I think I love you women.
Two things I want to say is that the book Not For Sale is really worth reading. Part two is called Resisting the Sexual New World Order. Blows me away. As I said up post it is a book that is a hard read. It is now and there is no distance.
Secondly, something I thought of just as this post was hitting me with truth is that right wing women and sex pos women are two sides of the same coin. They both are male identified, albeit in different ways but both seek to please and pacify men. They both submit to male ideology. Both are afraid of being truly for oneself as a woman and for supporting other women to be themselves as women. The divide and conquer wedge is this perverse dichotomy around sex as freedom or sex as duty. Put out to one or think you are free by putting out to many or on demand. I hope I have conveyed what I mean.

factcheckme - September 26, 2010

Piv is a male-identified sexuality, that’s for sure. Being or “getting” ok with piv is an act of male-identification. It’s completely ignoring female risk. It’s completely ignoring female biology, on every level. It’s completely disregarding female psychology and the potential for trauma bonding. It’s ignoring the history and experience of millions of women over centuries, who have complained about piv, because it doesnt feel that good, or doesn’t feel that good compared to how risky it is. Female sexual pleasure within this paradigm consists of figuring out how to orgasm, WHILE or IN ADDITION TO having piv. As if that solves the problems, for women, of having piv! One of the reasons we can’t come that way is because its fucking stressful as hell! But let’s not reduce the stress on women, oh no. Just rub her clit harder, and make her come, despite herself.

The more i talk about this, the sicker I feel. And yes, conservative and sex-pos women are both identifying with men, when they embrace or submit to this dangerous, male-centric sexuality, that we know is harmful. We are literally seeing piv from men’s perspective, instead of our own. And its absolutely the most fucked up thing I can currently imagine. We are so far up men’s asses, that we are seeing out of their eyes. And never our own.

17. joy - September 26, 2010

“We are so far up men’s asses, that we are seeing out of their eyes. And never our own.”

This is so eloquently written.

I was thinking earlier about the orgasm matter, as well. A former partner, the one who basically “got me into” PIV, always said that “women just don’t enjoy sex.”
Meaning, he thought there was something wrong with women.

So, being young and credulous, I thought I’d prove him wrong.

I learned how to fake it.

I feel that this experience is a very common one. It is practically the sex-pos experience, in a nutshell.

factcheckme - September 26, 2010

Also, completely loving the image of “as this post was hitting me with truth.” That’s probably the highest compliment you can give any writer, so thanks!

Well, writers who care about telling the truth, that is. Heh. Many don’t, do they?

18. Sargassosea - September 26, 2010

“…both seek to please and pacify men. They both submit to male ideology.”

That’s coming through loud and clear to me, rhondda. Really.

I am (but mostly was) a member of a forum dedicated to women and girls who have escaped the Quiverfull patriarchal (ha!) religious movement – think the Duggars’ 19 and Counting *reality* show; PIV = God’s Love, ffs.

A frightening number of the escaped daughters (mostly college-age womyn) have simply traded the right-wing side of the coin for the other to varying degrees of harm to themselves and, ultimately, the rest of us. They call it FREEDOM – Dworkin, of course, addresses this idea of *turning away from your mother’s stifling PIV* in Right Wing Women – but try to point out that it really isn’t the freedom that they thought they were signing up for and be prepared to be greeted with, well, negativity.

(anyway, this is a very recent NPR interview with the founder of the forum, Vyckie Garrison – a former victim of being put in harm’s way for the love of god – if anyone’s interested. http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_1130_Vyckie_Garrison.mp3/view )

19. SheilaG - September 26, 2010

I think pro-feminist men have an obligation to tell the sources of their information… I know the lost art of footnoting, and also proving that they have actually read the material. I assume men read nothing, unless they are able to prove it.

Stealing and appropriating is punished in the male controlled copyright law. So you have to tell the sources, which FCM is very good at.

I like to quote sources and life experience. One thing Mary Daly always did in her footnotes was cite conversations she had with specific women– the dates and the subject matter, thus honoring women’s oral traditions.

If you are a pretentious hipster, you also engage in PIV… good call on that one FCM.

Radical feminism will be at its most powerful with women only. If men wish to be a part of it, they have to read the material and discuss it with other men. It doesn’t work with radical feminism to waste time in conversations with men, because that is patriarchal.

To get out of a 5000 year old system is going to take a lot of work. I believe women are up to the challenge, but it means we have to do everything differently, no matter what. And we have to have the absolute truth about what women actually feel and experience, unclouded by male pleasing.

It’s why there is continuity on women’s objection to PIV over time, and the fact that it is a male sexuality, and has nothing to do with what is pleasurable for women. Women can accomodate to any male demands, and have for centuries. Radical feminism merely points out that women don’t like it or hate it. Men don’t want to accomodate women and violate their bodies with impunity.

And good call on “artifical” insemination. What is “artificial about a woman giving birth?” Another patriarchal reversal, when they aren’t the main event. Insideous.

Thanks women for all the comments here. I feel that I am actually breaking new intellectual ground. It’s so hard to get at this stuff, and as a lesbian I have so little connection to the true personal lives of straight women. All of you are very brave, and I admire each and every woman here!

factcheckme - September 26, 2010

Well theres more to it than just quoting sources isn’t there? One of the things that was so fucking offensive about what Hugo did, was that he accepted all kinds of positive attention and praise, for SIMULTANEOUSLY belittling and criticizing my work AND opening peoples eyes to the possibility that piv is problematic! The people that didnt like what i was saying praised him for his criticism of it, while the people who found the topic interesting praised him for being so innovative as to broach the topic on his blog. It was a disgusting display, all of it. And old Hugo was as happy as a pig in shit, for all the positive attention he garnered for himself.

Meanwhile, ever since Hugo started his little blogwar, I am getting the following keyword searches in my stats: factcheckme is a cunt. Factcheckme is a fucking bitch. Factcheckme deserves to be burned at the. (Sic). That last one was too long to show up properly, but I’m pretty sure I know what was meant.

Julian suggested that it was completely inappropriate for Hugo to discuss my work at all, when i wasnt participating in the discussion, and where my work wasn’t even quoted, but merely “summarized” by Hugo, through hugos biased lens, and then everything that followed was really a discussion of hugos biased interpretation of my work, and not my work, itself. And I think old Julian made an interesting point. Not that old Hugo considered it, at all.

20. rhondda - September 26, 2010

Sargassosea. While I was never in a Quiverfull group, I was brought up in a liberal Christian church. I do not think that they are very different. One is more overt about women’s subjugation, the other uses seductive coercion. It is very true that I went the sex way thinking that it was a rebellion against my mother’s drudgery. The light for me was just how boring men really are and that when my ex got jealous of the attention I gave his sons, all I could think of was why do I need an adult child in my life?

21. rhondda - September 26, 2010

FCM
As so many radical feminists have said, if you are not vilified, you are not a radical feminist. All those so called nasty terms are in actually an admission that they cannot debate you on your terms. You have triggered emotional responses where their privilege lives. They have to rush to the mirror now just to see if they are actually alive for you are not reflecting their self images which is the traditional role of women.
As Virgina Woolf said 1000 times their actual size. The yes men and women are just sycophants.
I hereby give you a cyberspace medal of honour.

factcheckme - September 26, 2010

Heh. Thanks Rhondda. And, oooh, shiny!

As for being vilified, its been constant, pretty much from my first trans-critical post almost a year ago. So its really nothing new. And i have gotten nasty and threatening keywords (and comments, and emails, and entire blog posts written about me) before. That’s actually how I knew that if you googled “Hugo schwyzer liverlips” it would show up in his stats. Because its been happening to me throughout.

But ever since Hugo did what he did, its been more so. And I know that its because of him, and I’m fairly certain that at least some of these assholes probably self-identify as feminist men. And at least one of them is fantasizing about murdering me. It could even be Hugo himself. My point is really, that Hugo benefited immensely from using my work, and the WAY he chose to do it. Ie. To mischaracterize it, to lie about it, and to cast me and all the women here, and Dworkin too, in the most unflattering light possible. And I am getting even more abuse than I did before, AND my work has been watered down and degraded.

Not very pro-feminist, is it? Is there a way this could’ve been avoided? Probably. But I am sure old Hugo didn’t think about it or didn’t care, before and while he was doing it, and now that its done (for him!) he’s still not thinking about it, and he still doesn’t care. Sound familiar? It should.

22. rhondda - September 26, 2010

Yeah, he used you. However, I choose to think about how many women have read your blog and how many lurkers there are whom who have influenced. The more you expose his shit, the more those who read here will start to think for themselves.
Just take care of yourself. You probably will never know. I can remember women saying things to me that did not resonate until years later and then it was too late to thank them. Yet, I do. They are there FCM, they just have to think. Unfortunately, that is the way it is. I feel very privileged to have found your blog. As I said though your first priority is your own well being and never forget that. Radical feminism is not about martyrs for the cause.
Old liverlips has a vested interest in this game. It is called male supremacy and he uses women to do it.

factcheckme - September 26, 2010

Do you think there is a way that a profeminist man could use a radical feminists work and have it turn out well for her?

The prostitution and sandwiches guy mentions on a recent channel update that he’s planning on making some new videos based on posts from a feminist blog he likes. I don’t know if he’s talking about me, but it made me think. Is there any possible way that this would ever turn out well for the woman, when pro-feminist men use or riff off of our work? This is a serious question, and I don’t know the answer to that.

23. rhondda - September 26, 2010

I feel I am hogging the thread here.(hope not)I think women have to really see what they do and not jump on the bandwagon with them. I have a huge hope that men understand what rad fems say. Robert Jensen writes about it with Gail Dines. There are others. Even Julian, although he does not get the rad fem refutation of trans, does do some good. Each step helps. It is men like liverlips who really are the enemy. Personally, I think they are worse than real women hating men, because we tend to believe that they understand and then we are stabbed in the back. Discernment is the word I want. It is hard to maneuver in a minefield, but that is what it is.

factcheckme - September 26, 2010

Hog away Rhondda. It’s quiet here tonight. Even if it wasn’t, I still wouldnt mind.

24. joy - September 26, 2010

“They call it FREEDOM – Dworkin, of course, addresses this idea of *turning away from your mother’s stifling PIV* in Right Wing Women – but try to point out that it really isn’t the freedom that they thought they were signing up for and be prepared to be greeted with, well, negativity.”

Ha, yeah, I see that a lot. Women who grow up in two-parent households, whether conservative or ‘liberal’, tend to see their mothers trapped in drudgery and chained to a douchebag manchild.

They fail to see patriarchy as a root cause, and instead assume the enemy is monogamy. Especially since male “feminists” and other assholes associated with the “sexual revolution” have been saying so. And the word of men is still more respected than that of, say, radical women.

So these young women assume that freedom = lotsa FUCKING! With whomever they want! Yaaaay PIV!

Not.

25. SheilaG - September 27, 2010

FCM said:
“Do you think there is a way that a profeminist man could use a radical feminists work and have it turn out well for her?”

Knowing what I now know after being in radical lesbian feminism for over 30 years, I’d say the answer to your above question is “no.” There is no way a pro-feminist man can access radical feminist thought, and not have it somehow damage women. It doesn’t mean that men aren’t going to read Dworkin or Daly or be a Jensen.

But men destroy women all the time; most of it because they can’t fathom non-patriarchal power, they can’t fathom a world in which men don’t threaten, rule or degrade all of women’s intellectual work on behalf of women.

Liverlips being the most recent criminal, and what his work has done to your stats FCM. That’s who men are. I’ve come to the conclusion that they aren’t even fully human, don’t have the brain capacity to understand the danger of their oppressive selves to women both physically and intellectually.

I’m not sure how many men actually read any radical feminist stuff in its entirety. I do know most women I know barely read anything, and have a hard time even carrying on coherent discussions. I’m not kidding. A lot of straight women I know are living in a lot of fear, and are pretty much held captive by male incomes and child care responsibilities.

That said, radical feminism is about freedom for women on women’s own terms. On a profound level, it has nothing to do with men, and everything to do with women coming to consciousness.

People like hugo illustrate this perfectly. Julian’s defense of MTFs as having access to bio-women’s spaces is another violation. He can’t get that MTFs ARE MEN. This seems to go over liberal’s heads.

So if you can name one man who is a radical feminist, and who hasn’t damaged women in the process of citing or using radical women’s writing, I’d love to hear about it. Hey, is that a pig flying by?🙂

One thing that keeps me very sane, and believe me, I have been a radical lesbian feminist far longer than most people on this blog have been alive, is that I believe in women. I know my work has freed and protected women, even if straight women often fail to thank me or give me credit for this work.
It kind of goes with the territory I think.

What I am proud of is the powerful radical feminist writing and innovation of lesbians, and we’ve been legion in this ideology. When straight women use our work, does it serve us? That might be a worthy discussion topic at some point.

factcheckme - September 27, 2010

You have triggered emotional responses where their privilege lives. They have to rush to the mirror now just to see if they are actually alive for you are not reflecting their self images which is the traditional role of women.

love this rhondda. thanks.

26. rhondda - September 27, 2010

You warm my heart. Take care.

factcheckme - September 27, 2010

Sheila, if a pig were to fly in this regard…what would it even look like? Can you imagine it? I don’t know if I can, not right now. How would the material be used, would it be riffed on, explained, or quoted directly? What’s his motivation in the first place? What’s he getting out of it? How would the woman be kept safe, and what would she get out of it? Would he ask permission or collaborate, or would credit be given her just by dropping a link?

BTW, I asked him whether he was talking about me, and he said he wasn’t.

27. thebewilderness - September 27, 2010

Is there any possible way that this would ever turn out well for the woman, when pro-feminist men use or riff off of our work? This is a serious question, and I don’t know the answer to that.”

No.
They will filter it through their male dominance POV and it will come out all bollixed up. The only appropriate thing for a male feminist to do is provide a link to the feminist discussion and invite other pseudo feminist men to discuss it there without cluttering up the real feminist blog here. Or wherever.

Hugo declared you to be of value because you were useful to him. He didn’t say your ideas, writing, wev were of value in and of themselves. He quite clearly stated that your value, your only value was being of use to him.
I get that he didn’t realize what he was saying, but that is the male dominance POV right there, in spades.

28. SheilaG - September 27, 2010

Good questions. I think liberal feminists are just more willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt. Historically speaking no ruling class ever gives up its power without a huge protracted fight. I just don’t see men ever giving in to anything unless women as a mass rise up to change this.

What’s he getting out of this? Probably dates with women, I imagine. I think these guys think of a variety of ways to use women sexually. It was done all the time with the “new left” of the 60s, it’s a part of the deal with male revolutionary movements worldwide.

So to rephrase something “follow the sex” and you get the answer as to why men do anything at all for women.

factcheckme - September 27, 2010

i also think that theres something about the male ego that gets off on logic puzzles. probably because you can actually be “right” and demonstrably so, instead of actually having a conversation. if you can rephrase any of this stuff into the language of logic, many of them will bite, as we saw on the “fun with numbers” thread. thats also what the prostitution and sandwiches guy enjoys doing: using logic to blow holes in MRA and others anti-feminist arguments. which i have to say, is an extremely important project. because anti-feminist arguments are completely baseless, and without reason, reactionary, and illogical. and he is very good at what he does. i considered that he might be talking about me, when he said that he was going to make videos based on a feminist blog, because a few of my posts very much lend themselves to his style. namely, the “fun with numbers” post, the “this is what a glod looks like” post, and even this one frankly. because the arguments are framed logically, or mathematically. but whatever feminists work he does end up using, the word will get out, and he will probably do it effectively. but theres going to be some backlash, and its never going to be against him, or at least, it wont be a legitimate threat to him. he puts his face on youtube, for everyone to see, for christs sake. whereas so many feminist bloggers, all of them i can think of, blog anonymously. because this is a dangerous and stressful undertaking for us. not so much for him, or any man. as someone mentioned elsewhere, many of these men use not just their real names, but include thier MIDDLE NAMES TOO (like we do for serial killers…to make them seem more threatening. Or something) and include personal details and photos too.

29. Sargassosea - September 27, 2010

“What I am proud of is the powerful radical feminist writing and innovation of lesbians, and we’ve been legion in this ideology. When straight women use our work, does it serve us? That might be a worthy discussion topic at some point.”

I suspect that such a discussion would, amongst other fantastic (!) things, serve to more strongly illustrate just how much men absolutely serve no one but themselves with their little hobby. “Follow the sex” is spot on, Mz.G!

“because this is a dangerous and stressful undertaking for us. not so much for him, or any man.”

Right, because the dood (no matter how *well-intentioned* he may be) can always just point the finger at YOU – Hey! It was HER idea, not mine! Send your porn-sick, snuff fantasy fan mail to HER! Because, you know, she’s used to looking over her shoulder and covering her tracks.

Truth-telling women, I salute you!

(Not to go on about Quiverfull, but interestingly at least a few of the women who were seduced by this “lifestyle” report that their mothers were second wave feminists and that that was what they were turning away from: Dad felt alienated! He used me (emotionally?) as a surrogate wife! It’s all mom’s fault! Feminism is eeevviillll!1!

Anti-feminism 101, anyone? Jesus.)

30. sonia - September 27, 2010

“We are so far up men’s asses, that we are seeing out of their eyes. And never our own.”

woot! there’s a tattoo idea😉

31. Loretta Kemsley - September 27, 2010

That said, radical feminism is about freedom for women on women’s own terms. On a profound level, it has nothing to do with men, and everything to do with women coming to consciousness.

Men and most women are used to thinking of women as only existing as a mirror image of men. Of existing only within a mirror image of the masculine paradigm.

I’ve upset a lot of people by insisting that women do not reflect anything along those lines, that they exist separate and apart of any thought men have about women. That freaks them out. They cannot comprehend that we are not necessary opposites that cannot function one without the other, like negative and positive poles on a battery (with women being the negative and men being the positive)

Women can function without men. They might have needed men in the past for procreation, but other than that, we’ve never needed them. That was reflected in the very first families and clans where “fathers” were non-existent. That role was performed by maternal uncles if it was performed at all.

But today, we don’t even need men for that. Two eggs can be joined to create a baby. More than a decade ago, a male biologist angered men everywhere with his book The Redundant Male where he posited that men are redundant according to nature, that the Y chromosome is deteriorating and that within a hundred thousand years or so, males will no longer exist.

That is what men fear most: that we don’t need them and that they will cease to exist. The more they fear that, the more they need to cling to male “superiority.”

It’s all nonsense. We would be healthier as a society if we did away with the “father” in a family at all, let alone as the one in control. That alone would stop most of the rape that men inflict on children and would stop most of the abuse that is inflicted on children because women feel so powerless.

Those who want to have sexual relationships could have them and then send them packing, just as was done until just a few thousand years ago. Few know that Muhammad’s clan was matriarchal and that is how they did “marriage.” He came to her clan, they had sex, he went away until the next time she wanted sex. That was only fourteen hundred years ago.

factcheckme - September 27, 2010

As they prove every time they open their mouths to speak on a radical feminist blog, men ARE redundant, now. They parrot other peoples work, whether its relevant or not, and whether its contradictory or supportive. They are completely unable to recognise the utterly, UTTERLY banal and mainstream, and will just parrot back anything they can think of, regardless of whether its already been said a billion times. They add nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing to the discussion, at all. And fascinating, groundbreaking intellectual work goes right over their heads. They define redundant. I already know what every fucking one of them think, and will ever think, about these issues. So they can all shut up now! Except they never will.

factcheckme - September 28, 2010

heres another keyword search that showed up today: Factcheckme is shit covered garbage.

now, i havent done a trans-critical post in quite some time. although this sounds a lot like something a transwoman would say, in reasponse to anything trans-critical, doesnt it? and it may well be, since they are always twittering and redditting and facebooking etc my old posts, and might be seeing some of this stuff for the first time. ZOMG LOOKS WHAT I FOUND ON TEH INTERNETSSSS!!!!111!!1!

another possibility is that its one of hugos self-identified male feminists, or one of oneutahs liberal progressive men, responding to my piv-critical posts. it could even be hugo himself, or another self-identified liberal progressive or male feminist who has “attempted a dialogue” with myself or another radfem and were not responded to as they would have liked.

male feminists indeed. they act like fucking transwomen, dont they? see my “is eminem a transwoman” post for more on that.

factcheckme - September 28, 2010

Teh menz have found the “fun with numbers” post. Again. And they just cannot fathom that I am right. Again. They also have obviously neglected to read any of the comments, where I explain HOW I am right, or the part telling all teh menz that they, as a group, can fuck off, and leave the real work to the feminists.

They’ve been spammed.

factcheckme - September 28, 2010

They just cannot fathom that I intend my equals signs to mean equals. It’s stunning. They just will not hear it. The math works, people. MAKE YOURSELVES SEE IT. And stop wasting my time.

32. Loretta Kemsley - September 28, 2010

The fact that they are obsessed with disproving you is an admission of the importance of your writing. If it was not important, they would ignore it.

factcheckme - September 28, 2010

It’s so obvious isn’t it? God they are just the most transparent, malignant assholes on the face of the earth. Here’s what they are essentially saying: looking at this through a lens that makes you wrong, makes more sense to me. As a man. Due to my conflicts of interest.

Duh. And that’s being nice, and assuming they are just stupid. A few of them are probably smart enough to know what they are doing, and just PLAYING dumb. Either way, they are making me very glad that I am no longer dating. The pickings are slim. Heh.

33. Sargassosea - September 28, 2010

Well, you know, there were a lot of men who resisted the mathematical proof that the earth is not flat, too.

Relatedly: in regards to the XY, is the glass half-full or half empty? (HA!) The way I see it – especially in light of anti-feminists being so in love with their biological necessity arguments – the XX should be the default. Just sayin.

34. rhondda - September 28, 2010

FCM, you are not thinking of the poor menz and their privilege! Even if they are confessing to looking at it with the lens of a man, they cannot fathom trying to see it from the point of view of women. Isn’t that amazing. So much for their compassion and empathy. They are just words to them and not actual feelings or even a leap into the imagination. One of the biggest mind blocks I had to overcome was the contradiction between what men said and what they actually do. They seduce with words, confuse those very words with their behaviour and then blame us for not understanding what they mean. When I first figured out that when men say they love you, it is not a feeling, but a sensation between their legs. Love and fuck are the same to them, essentially wiping you out as a person.

35. SheilaG - September 28, 2010

I don’t think men know the meaning of love. It just isn’t something they feel the way women do.
It’s why men’s behavior is so supremely illogical.
Low income for women = low income for an entire hetero family. This forumla should be why men should get good and angry that women aren’t paid equally to men.

If you are a husband, and have a couple of kids, why wouldn’t you support equal wages for women? You’d get the money back in the “family unit.” This bit of logic is over the male head, because they don’t care about extra family money, they want power and control over women, they want women to be forced into prostitution and porn, and if they keep wages low for women, and opportunities for good jobs hard to get for women, they’ll have women sexually available to them.

So even if the logic would actually benefit men, they can’t even see this.

Low wages for any adult = problems for the family
Male children will be short changed if mothers are paid badly. Wouldn’t cross the male mind.

When women are central, and come up with an ideological system completely helpful to women, you have a forceful innovation. Men and women are not complementary at all, they are at odds in the most profound sense of the word.

The law, western civilization, Plato’s republic… all were con-COCK-ted by males. Women weren’t in these discussion groups, universities, legal reform movements, Magna cartas etc. etc. Even in the 19th century, an argument that women should not get the right to vote, is that only the word “he” was used in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, therefore, it only stood for men. They argued that way.

Men change the arguments avoid the logic and flounder around when women argue the centrality of women’s freedom and our dialogue to create this.

Radical feminism is like a car tune up— suddenly the engine is running so much better. Or it is like dog training school. SIT, STAY…etc. short words to get men to back off (no offense dogs).

36. rhondda - September 28, 2010

Yes, Sheila, do not offend dogs, they know more about unconditional love than anyone else. Give me a dog any day. Although I like cats too.

37. SheilaG - September 28, 2010

I love my dog and my cat! And a male neutered dog is very well behaved. One can learn from that!

38. rhondda - September 28, 2010

You are bad girl, very bad. Love it.

factcheckme - September 28, 2010

the poor menz and their privilege! Even if they are confessing to looking at it with the lens of a man, they cannot fathom trying to see it from the point of view of women.

this was made painfully obvious when not a single fucking one of them could even fathom the concept of a specifically female harm. due to PIV.

makes you wonder what they think “female” actually means doesnt it? FEMALE. FEMALE. hmmmm! insert jeopardy music here.

the best any of them could come up with was “something bad happening that could happen to anyone, happening to a woman.” like…a woman breaking her arm. yes, that was THE BEST THEY COULD DO. and of course, they couldnt think of a single fucking thing that could happen “to anyone” (ie. TO MEN, the default humans) that was caused exclusively by PIV. because there ARE NO specifically male harms to PIV.

they didnt (couldnt) even come up with “pregnancy.” WTF?? and of course, the concept of “risk of an unwanted pregnancy” did not cross any of their minds. none of them could fathom this. like transwomen who cannot differentiate between a wanted and an unwanted pregnancy (when they consider it at all, they claim they are “jealous” of womens fertility…yeah its a real peach, thats why we are all on the pill) men just have no concept that pregnancy, and the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, is a SPECIFICALLY FEMALE HARM, and that its ONLY CAUSED BY PIV.

female. hello! what do they think female fucking means? this is not a rhetorical question. clearly, CLEARLY it has nothing to do with being biologically female, aka. impregnable. so they must believe it has to do with something else. what? being a fuckdoll…eyecandy…helpmate…victim…

what does FEMALE mean to these assholes? and…is it possible (probable) that WE have adopted their view?

39. rhondda - September 28, 2010

Well, yes most women have adopted their view. Right wing women, sex positive women have all adopted their view. God damn it I adopted their view because that is what society says sex is. Their view. It is a scary thing to drop it. Except for lesbian women, het women have alot to lose by dropping it. There is societal privilege for adopting it and alot of sanctions for figuring it out and saying no.

factcheckme - September 28, 2010

i dont buy that its a privilege to SEE YOURSELF as a fuckdoll, where the “payoff” is to be sexually used and abused by men. i really dont. i think its streching the term “privilege” to beyond its breaking point.

i also dont think that women 100% buy this about ourselves. not like men do. at least, the fact that we have to take a little pill every day so that we dont get pregnant is a constant reminder that we are NOT just fuckdolls. i think we actively have to lie to ourselves in order to make sense of this. and that we do it because we are financially dependant on men. everything is different, when you are not financially dependant on your partner. thats what i hope is getting through to the young uns reading here, assuming they are still reading. you do NOT have to do this, as long as you can afford to have him leave, and as long as you arent absolutely sold on the married-with-children ideal. if you need one man or men as a sexual class to support you, or to make your dreams come true, you are quite literally fucked. and its NOT a privilege. not by a long shot.

40. SheilaG - September 28, 2010

I don’t know what I expected of men and PIV, and even talking about the fact that there is no harm to men and lots of potential and real harm to women who engage in PIV.

I don’t think men think of anyone but themselves when it comes to sex. They are so obsessed with their own gratification, that it doesn’t occur to them that for centuries, men killed women by the millions just by making them pregnant.

Read any 19th century book on women reformers, and you’ll find out about the women in their lives giving birth to 7, 8, 9, 12 kids. Often, the women die in childbirth after kid # 7, for example.
I think the husbands just tune out there deaths and move on.

I remember reading a famous biography of Teddy Roosevelt many years ago. It is said that his young wife died (I think when Roosevelt was 27?), and that he was so grief stricken that he never spoke of her again. At the time, I was rather touched by this male historian’s perspective on the event. Now I’m beginning to thing that TR never spoke of her again, because it was just easy to move on and completely forget about her.

Men marry, lose wives, then remarry, sometimes within the year. I have yet to meet a woman who has done this. Usually I meet women in their 60s or 70s whose husbands have died, and they never marry. So many of these women confide in me how much happier they actually are to be single again.
If they are lucky enough to have good social security benefits, savings, assets etc., they happy continue with their art, painting, spiritual study etc., and have no intention of being owned by a man again.

Men have never cared that act of PIV in previous centuries was deadly for women. They had to have the PIV, and were never interested in creating a safer sex act for the women they supposedly loved.
Today, they believe that birth control has ended all the danger, or that abortion will solve the problem. Hey, let’s have sex with students, and not think at all about how this might actually affect women’s psyches in the long run.

That men have never commented even here, even responding to this blog the least inkling of what this means for heterosexual women is just mind blowing. Because then they’d have to admit that PIV might be a form of mass murder, and that a woman owned legal system might actually put them on trial, among other things.

41. SheilaG - September 28, 2010

Actually, I don’t think het women have a lot to lose at all by dropping PIV. You don’t need men as much as you might think. Your social life doesn’t have to revolve around men at all, and being in charge of your own life, will actually make your life more prosperous.

Just thinking and writing about this stuff on this blog will be a real education for straight women.

To me, all PIV is rape, and all sex with men is rape. It is such a repulsive thing to me, such a horror. I have never been able to fathom just how straight women can put up with this. In America, women can be fully self-supporing. I’ve never gotten the attachment to men, but I actually am beginning to believe that PIV can cause an addictive response in women… the traulma bonding that FCM mentioned awhile back. I don’t think men experience this kind of addiction, and can easily have sex with any woman anywhere. They don’t much care as long as they have PIV. Although they could be the ultimate addicts, because they never seem to really want to try alternatives.

It’s why the whole AIDS epidemic was so horrifying for gay men… they hated the idea of safe sex, and still hate it. Men are so selfish that they will literally kill each other with unsafe PIV, so that should tell you something about the nature of men.

42. rhondda - September 28, 2010

I think you misunderstood me. It is sold to women as a privilege. Even my 30 something daughter in common law was considering quitting her job to have a kid. I interfered. I told her do not do that. As much as I love my son, if she does not have her own income, I am not convinced that he would not use that against her. It is what the male convention tells him to do. It happened to me. What my ex and I agreed upon before marriage was totally thrown out the window when I had a kid. What recourse did I have? Besides that I told her men are lazy and if you do all the kid care, he will let you.
No women do not see themselves as a fucktoy. They think it is true love. However, I must say where I live women are starting to regard men as fucktoys. They drive trucks and have bumper stickers that say my other boytoy is at home which I think is just as sick.

factcheckme - September 29, 2010

If you mean that compulsory heterosexuality, mandatory piv and the rather inevitable motherhood that follows from all of this is made to look like an attractive option to relatively well off women who are into making “choices” then I guess I think so too. Aka. The mommy track. In other words, its a big fat fucking lie that a few women fall for. But the majority of women don’t choose it, at all. It just happens. Because they are financially dependant on men, who use women like fuckdolls. Even women they love, or supposedly love.

43. rhondda - September 29, 2010

I agree. It just happens because as Andrea Dworkin so brilliantly articulated, we are taught it, even at university. Well, I went when she did and she was right. Women were dismissed and regarded as only trying to get an MRS. so that we could converse with the gentlemen our husbands brought home for dinner. There was a window with the second wave feminists, but that window has been shut as men and trans and queer have taken over feminist/women studies. Do not forget peer pressure and that other women continually police for politically correct conversation.
I am not sure what you mean by “it is a big fat fucking lie that a few women fall for it.”
Do you mean that most do not? Personally, I think most middle class white women do fall for it. I do not think women of colour, or working class women do. But you have to consider all the propaganda too from TV and movies where any woman out of line dies.

44. joy - September 29, 2010

“I love my dog and my cat! And a male neutered dog is very well behaved. One can learn from that!”

I have a neutered male horse that I raised from the time he was born. He’s sweet and gentle, and would never hurt me on purpose (although he might by accident, since he weighs half a ton and is approximately five times my size).
He follows me like an oversized dog, lets me crawl around his feet and under his belly, plays fetch, likes to cuddle, carries me around wherever I’d like to go …

He was gelded (castrated) when he was six months old. Hint, anyone?

But the whole argument “uncastrated male animals is horndogs, thus so is teh menz!!!!1! It is teh naturez!!1” is also wrong. The horse is stabled right next to an uncastrated male horse (stallion) who has never bred a mare (it’s all ‘artificial’ insemination these days, at least among the more valuable horses) and is a total sweetheart. He can’t go into a pasture with other horses, just in case he does have a hormonal flip and freak out, but he never bites — is very sweet and docile — is eminently trainable … everything human males are not.

Ever seen a horse testicle? Half the size of a human head. Horse testosterone levels are much higher than human levels, too. Yet I would trust this stallion much, much more than I would trust any human man. Shit, any stallion. At least I know a stallion isn’t going to -rape- me.

45. joy - September 29, 2010

“they didnt (couldnt) even come up with “pregnancy.” WTF?? and of course, the concept of “risk of an unwanted pregnancy” did not cross any of their minds. none of them could fathom this. like transwomen who cannot differentiate between a wanted and an unwanted pregnancy (when they consider it at all, they claim they are “jealous” of womens fertility…yeah its a real peach, thats why we are all on the pill) men just have no concept that pregnancy, and the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, is a SPECIFICALLY FEMALE HARM, and that its ONLY CAUSED BY PIV.”

Again, more evidence that men literally do not know where babies come from.

They do not make the connection between sticking their dick in, and pregnancy.

If I wasn’t already off the ol’ PIV, this alone would convince me to quit it forever.

46. joy - September 29, 2010

“If you mean that compulsory heterosexuality, mandatory piv and the rather inevitable motherhood that follows from all of this is made to look like an attractive option to relatively well off women who are into making “choices” then I guess I think so too. Aka. The mommy track.”

Well, thinking of oneself as a fuckdoll isn’t JUST for the middle and upper middle class, now! Women of all classes ‘benefit’, superficially, in ways society claims are beneficial, by fucking and being fuckable.

Straight women of all classes and countercultures can’t seem to imagine living without men. Or without fucking men. Even dirt-poor “punk” or “anarchist” women are really attached to this idea, such that they use their welfare insurance or even meager pocket pittance to buy the Pill — better yet, just go without and cross their fingers.

Because, as I’ve learned, the minute you go off men, you’re fucked. In terms of social comforts. Friends? See ya. Social credibility, even in circles you’ve associated with for years? Gone.

Want to sit around alone every evening and weekend, become a radical feminist and eschew men/PIV. Want to get spit on and yelled at on the street? Stop being fuckable and acting meek. You may even lose your job. Yay!
Lesbians and even transmen have been talking about this for a long time, but it happens to any woman who doesn’t fall into the sex category. (It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t for all women, of course, which is what a lot of transwomen can’t wrap their heads around.)

Of course, the ACTUAL benefits outweigh the pretend benefits. But one often has to give up a lot, and that is too much for many women to handle.

It was probably easier for me because I was already an unemployed anarcho-activist who didn’t have many friends due to shyness/poorness/social outcastness. But it wasn’t even easy. It was about 10 times harder than when I shaved my head and ‘came out’ as an anarchist but was still fucking men. I still did it anyway, and don’t regret it at all — I’d rather have my personal freedom than any supposed friend who’d deny me it.

Many women don’t want to make the trade. There are just not that many resources for women who don’t play any of the games.

47. SheilaG - September 29, 2010

And the above is what has never made a bit of sense to me. I just don’t get why women find living with men, and giving up everything attractive at all. It’s not like there aren’t a million feminist books out there clearing stating all of this.

Yet, again and again, women get hooked on men. Despite 40 years of radical feminism activism, despite every job opportunity, despite everything, women will side with men, ruin their future, and get hooked on a life that strikes me as pure horror.

Or is it just the PIV addiction, the indoctrination, another thing I don’t get. With the full hetero indoctrination going full blast 24/7, I still found men absolute pigs, absolute losers, absolute oppressors. And I’ve always thought this about them, as I observe the hundreds of hetero women even today who give all of it up, and for what? It’s such a mystery. It’s almost like cult indoctrination of heterosexuality. No thanks ever!

factcheckme - September 29, 2010

Regarding “falling for it,” I meant that not that many women are in a position to make the choice your daughter in law is in the position to make. Ie. Deciding while you aren’t pregnant, to plan for a baby, and then quitting an actual job that you already have, to be a stay at home mother. This isn’t the way it works for very many women. My mom was 5 months pregnant with me before she even knew she was pregnant. This is more common than probably most people think. And she found out she was pregnant with my sister when she went in for a POST-natal checkup, like 3 months after having me. My sister and I are only 11 months apart. There’s a month every year, after she has her birthday and before I have mine, where we are the same age. When we were young, if people asked us how old we were, and it fell during that month, they would assume that we were twins. Imagine their confusion when we said we weren’t.

My mom never actively “wanted” kids. She was married and took the pill for 5 years before the side effects got so bad she had to quit. And my dad refused to wear a condom, and kept fucking her anyway. She told me that she never knew it was an option to NOT have kids, its just something you did. She told me this after I started saying I didn’t think I wanted any, because it just didn’t seem like a good idea, at all. She had never considered whether it was, or wasn’t. Again, I think this is extremely common.

That’s all. It just happens, more than its “wanted,” and definitely way more than its “planned for.”

As for thinking of yourself as a fuckdoll (a pill-popping and/or repeatedly impregnated one perhaps) and fuckability mandates, well I was just talking about ACTUALLY HAVING piv. I am seeing them as somewhat separate things, probably because I still do some of the fuckability things, but don’t have piv. Of course, unattractive or otherwise “unfuckable” women are having piv, and always have been. Many of them appear or become “unfuckable” by actually being fucked too much! It’s something I am thinking about lately. I might write more about it later.

factcheckme - September 29, 2010

A fucking transwoman calling herself “Amy” just emailed me about how much she agrees with everything here, EXCEPT the trans-critical stuff. There’s a surprise. Kinda like an abuse of power rapist being ok with radfems…until they start calling shit on abuse of power rape.

And I was apparently supposed to guess that she was trans, since she NEVER identified herself as such…as usual he revealed himself immediately anyway, and I just had to skim to the end of the page where “she” started talking about her penis. Newsflash dickwad: you are a man. If having a dick isn’t proof enough of that FACT, then constantly talking about your dick to women who you know damn well don’t want to hear about it should about shore it up. YOU. ARE. A. MAN. Duh. And I could fucking smell you, bro. I knew it, even before you brought your pecker into it. Who do these assholes think they are kidding?

48. thebewilderness - September 29, 2010

The 24/7 cultural indoctrination is probably the reason it “just happens” for most young women. By the times they are eight or nine they have found out the high price of independent thought or action.
At what point is a young person exposed to an alternative to pairing off with a boyfriend for protection from the boy packs? When they are old enough for Hugo’s women’s studies classes?
There is no alternative presented to children that is not condemned by society.
By the time they figure out they have been conditioned to serve everyone’s needs but their own they are in too deep to claw their way out.
In this society girls grow up experiencing cognitive dissonance in their every living moment.

49. thebewilderness - September 29, 2010

Who do these assholes think they are kidding?

It isn’t about them going to any trouble to deceive anyone. It is entirely about the absolute male entitlement of expecting no woman to ever call them on it.

factcheckme - September 29, 2010

sheila jeffreys talks about the exact moment in history when what we call “lesbian” relationships became taboo. it was the exact moment that spinsters became PIV-critical, and their work was garnering serious attention. male “sexologists” who also studied gay males and identified gay male “homosexual behavior” as genital contact between men, identified “lesbian behavior” as any physical contact between women at all. they couldnt just narrow it down to “genital contact between women” because womens “passionate friendships” were very hard to distinguish from “love partnerings” and even “love partnerings” between women werent always genitally expressed.

so spinsters, who were only really hanging out with other women by definition, and, like, sometimes touched one another in various contexts, were labeled “lesbians” and their PIV-critical work was erased. and after that, girls only had boys and men to hang out with, because they would be judged to be “lesbians” if they had any real relationships with women at all.

the road to compulsory heterosexuality, and mandatory PIV, was paved by male sexologists. what a surprise. and we start down that road very early, and it only really ends in one place: motherhood, and financial dependance on men. but noone ever tells girls and women that the outcome is predetermined, or that we are headed down any road at all. they make it seem like its something other than what it is.

factcheckme - September 29, 2010

also, usually by wednesday i am pretty sure what i want to write about for my next post. at the moment, i have no idea. i just started the second half of “spinster” where she gets into the sexology stuff, and its really interesting. i am just waiting for the next bombshell to go off in my head. it usually happens by now. hmmm.

50. mscitrus - September 29, 2010

Sorry I haven’t commented on this post yet, FCM. I have been lurking again and just absorbing everything, and find that I have little to nothing to add.

I am now convinced I have to buy this book.

Ok, sexologists are creepy as hell. I forget if Dworkin addressed this in Intercourse or Pornography, or if it was even in her work, but I remember the things those dudes studied and said chilled me to the bone.

On indoctrination and kids and stuff:
I think its important to note that even if girls reject femininity and the heterosexual mandate in their childhood, most succumb to the pressure eventually. I know I wore only boy clothes, no makeup, and identified as a lesbian from middle school until sophomore year of high school. Most of the time I went without a bra, too, or if I had to it was just a sports one.

Not coincidentally, a few months after I started dating my abusive ex, I started wearing skirts and makeup for the first time. Him raping me and talking about how “hot” other girls were (feminine girls, of course) broke me down. The other friends I had that were like me (“tomboys”) broke down eventually too-for similar reasons, I think. I still wonder if I would even have dated men if not for that bastard “coming out” as an FTM during our relationship. Who knows?

“Because, as I’ve learned, the minute you go off men, you’re fucked. In terms of social comforts. Friends? See ya. Social credibility, even in circles you’ve associated with for years? Gone.”

And this, 1000x over. I didn’t even cut off all men on purpose, but when I confronted an ex-friend about molesting me, and refused to be around people who didn’t care about what he did, resulted in my totally being kicked out of my social circle. Because bros look out for each other, even if they’re “nice guys.” It’s so lonely once you refuse to put up with any BS.

51. Sargassosea - September 29, 2010

So, the kindle came and I have successfully downloaded Spinster and am part way through Chapter 2 and am fucking loving it. Another fine example of Ourstory by, about and for us! Yay, us! We totally rock🙂

52. joy - September 29, 2010

“The 24/7 cultural indoctrination is probably the reason it “just happens” for most young women. By the times they are eight or nine they have found out the high price of independent thought or action.
At what point is a young person exposed to an alternative to pairing off with a boyfriend for protection from the boy packs? When they are old enough for Hugo’s women’s studies classes?
There is no alternative presented to children that is not condemned by society.
By the time they figure out they have been conditioned to serve everyone’s needs but their own they are in too deep to claw their way out.

In this society girls grow up experiencing cognitive dissonance in their every living moment.”

This, exactly. Especially the bolded parts.

msc, I was always a ‘tomboy’ too. My best friends all through my childhood and teen years were two other badass, rough and tumble girls. But once we started growing breasts, the adults (teachers, parents, one of the girl’s pastors) started trying to push us apart. Not the dreaded LESBIANS!!!!

We all fell out of touch. I still feel cheated. The touch of my female friends is so much more pure and valuable a touch than that of any man.

53. joy - September 29, 2010

Expanding on my last sentence:

That might be another reason why straight/’enforced straight’ women turn to men. We’re denied the touch and physical comfort and emotional intimacy of other women, so that leaves us with men.

And of course they all want PIV. Are incapable of touch and any physical contact without wanting or demanding or expecting PIV. Are incapable of emotional intimacy at all, and try to overcompensate with their dicks.

I’d still rather be alone, and just never get hugged by anyone.

54. Loretta Kemsley - September 29, 2010

Another aspect of this is the loss of the woman’s name when she marries. Women in my generation did not keep their maiden names. Today, trying to find a female friend from our school years is a nightmare because her maiden name has completely disappeared unless she got a divorce and took it back like I did.

However, there was intense pressure not to do that. My own mother told me I had no right to use my maiden name once married. She maintained that until she died many years later, even naming me in her will under my married name. The courts honored my request to change that into my maiden name but she never did.

I’ve always hated dresses, was forced to wear them as a child but got rid of them as soon as I left high school and never bought another. Because I loved horses and wore jeans to ride, I too was called a lesbian — in grammar school.

I’m still close with several of my earliest friends. One just left here to go back to her home in Oregon. We were called lesbians because we were close and still run into that attempt to devalue our friendship. Like me, she chose interests other than the rigid roles assigned to little girls. We worked our entire lives, showed horses, raised our kids as single mothers, pretty much lived a life not approved of because we are both very independent….which supposedly means we’re lesbians even though neither of us has ever had a lesbian lover.

Another friend I met in college (late twenties) married some years later. Her new husband tried to keep us from continuing our friendship because he decided I was a lesbian scheming to take her away from him. It never seemed to occur to him that if my interests were in that direction, I was on the scene long before he was.

Men tend to use the designation of lesbian for any woman they cannot control, who won’t let them into her bed and who is independent from male control.

The only other word they have to condemn such women is feminist. They use both with an equal amount of fear and hatred.

55. SheilaG - September 30, 2010

Losing last names… again what truly amazes me is that women in their early 30s! have taken on husband’s last names! You’d think this would have ended by now. I ask them why the husband didn’t change HIS last name sometimes. Blank looks.

And some men do keep women away from other women. I’ve had a few friendships killed that way. Creepy. Every now and then, at the last minute, a group of business associates I’m in go out for a late night drink. Spontaneous… and I’ll car pool over… the straight woman driving will call her husband on the cell phone to tell about the last minute change. You can hear disapproval on the other end. It makes me realize how much on a leash straight women really are.

Of the friendships ruined by husbands, never once did the wife fight back to keep the friendship. My partner has never dictated what kind of friends I have, although we are very different people. I get shocked at the shackles on women!!

56. Loretta Kemsley - September 30, 2010

The deliberate isolation of women by their lovers or husbands is worse than creepy. It’s a necessary step in controlling her through domestic violence. Isolation never works for the victim, and always aids the abuser.

That’s why all extreme patriarchal societues isolate women in their homes and deprive them of a public voice. Women who communicate with each other can ask for help and can form alliances to evade or end the violence inflicted upon them.

That’s why it is so important to patriarchal religions to oppose feminism. Feminists don’t allow themselves to be silenced or isolated. They insist on being proactive and outspoken. They insist on informing other women about their options. Informed women who are in touch with networks are harder to victimize.

The reason why some women accede to these isolating tactics without complaint is because they’ve been taught since birth that their first allegiance must be to their husbands and they must be submissive to their husbands. That’s what they’re taught in Sunday School and in every almost every pulpit in the nation. It’s “God’s order” don’t ya know and she can be condemned eternally if she “disobeys God.”

That’s why I focus so much on debunking religious dogma. It’s all a fraud perpetuated on women so men can retain power and control over them.

57. Feminist Outlaw - October 1, 2010

Hello sisters,

I’m probably the most stalked and harassed radical feminist on YouTube by the Sexpozz anti-feminists.

Oh YouTube I am known as SaelPalani1969.

Lately, my blog shows me defending myself against various attacks by sexpozzes. It is exhausting trying to defend yourself.

I’ve been called everything under the sun. I’ve been trolled mercilessly and I even had to start a legal action against a sexpozz for libel.

This particular sexpozz, who goes by the name ScentedNectar on YouTube, has made public comments that I’m an illegal in Canada and that I don’t have the papers to be here.

The abuses are so severe and they cover the gamut of anti-feminist rhetoric and insults.

I am reaching out now, instead of being such a silent licker of my own wounds and constant defender.

I have to re-position myself in order to continue my feminist work. I have to constantly cleanse myself of the assaults that come my way.

The main sexpozz behind all the division and abuse is Divinity33372. She was the beginning of the dismantling of the feminist community on YouTube. I’ve written in my blog about her several times.

She doesn’t outright abuse much anymore. She has other people do it. You know, uses her sex pozz love of everything male to get her dirty work done.

I’m happy I read this post and I look forward to being amongst those who get it instead of feeling like I’ve been fighting this alone.

I used to be a sex worker as well, so that’s another reason why I’m the primary target.

Time to get stronger.

factcheckme - October 1, 2010

there was a radical feminist community on youtube? i didnt even know about it.

my first thought is that its interesting that the sex-pozzies are targetting you, and not really targetting me. nothing that i am going to waste my time on anyway. i wonder why that would be? i have heard that ex-sex workers who speak out are mercilessly harassed, and that its because they are vulnerable in many ways (i am not) and because they have firsthand knowledge about everything that the industry says does not exist. put another way by another ex-sex worker, “we were never meant to survive it.” they intend on sex workers being murdered, and killing themselves, and going farther and farther into the tailspin of drugs and alcohol and abuse that they simply are no longer a threat, because they no longer have a voice. often, they are literally silenced.

this is sex-positive?

58. berryblade - October 1, 2010

Gah, leave this thread for a week and now I’ve got so much catching up to do!

Spinster is on kindle? Sold, sold sold! I’m going to buy it so I can read it at work tonight.

SheilaG, you’re my internet shero (or one of many):

It’s why they taught that women were behind prohibition, but never say exactly why most working class and middle class women would so object to alcohol… little things like being dependent on a male’s paycheck, or the fact that men would drink up the family income, or beat wives when they got drunk. Fun feminists wouldn’t quite make that connection.

Holy fuck, I did not know this! I didn’t even know that so many womyn did support prohibition; however, I did know that in Australia at least, white womyn wanted the vote to be a stronger moral ground because they knew men were incapable of being in power and not abusing it.

I love your idea for the “degrees of rape” law. That would make so much more sense. Murder could be reduced down to two categories – self defense and non-self defense, rape would be classed as a hate crime I’m guessing as well?

SargassoSea, I love your handle. That book is like mad money😉

Rhonnda, Not for Sale is a very hard to read book I agree. It’s heart breaking stuff. I tried to read it in the library once in one setting and ended up having to go home and curl up after having a viscous flashback.

FCM,
Yeah, I noticed that he didn’t even address that the PIV thing. About the artificial insemination, and artificial being in the context of omfg, it happens without a man penetrating a womon, look at what I found the other day for a ‘sex toy’ for men:

“Japan’s number 1 male sex toy! These amazing Onacups (named after ‘onanism’, which is another name for masturbation) deliver the finest artificial orgasmsyet” (emphasis mine)

ARTIFICIAL ORGASM. An orgasm is only really an orgasm if it takes place in the orifice of a womon. One only has to see ‘sex’ toys like the Fleshlight to know what men really think of womyn.

Joy,

I was thinking earlier about the orgasm matter, as well. A former partner, the one who basically “got me into” PIV, always said that “women just don’t enjoy sex.”
Meaning, he thought there was something wrong with women.

So, being young and credulous, I thought I’d prove him wrong.

I learned how to fake it.

I feel that this experience is a very common one. It is practically the sex-pos experience, in a nutshell.

I think we’ve just found a way to summarise sex positive “theory”.

FCM,

I’ve even gotten people getting to my blog by looking up “FCM is a cunt” “miss andreas transphobia” etc etc etc and a couple like “where can i find berryblades rape foot…” which is just all kinds of fucked up, the last one cut out, but it was pretty obvious what they were looking for.

Julian suggested that it was completely inappropriate for Hugo to discuss my work at all, when i wasnt participating in the discussion, and where my work wasn’t even quoted, but merely “summarized” by Hugo, through hugos biased lens, and then everything that followed was really a discussion of hugos biased interpretation of my work, and not my work, itself. And I think old Julian made an interesting point. Not that old Hugo considered it, at all.

Oh, an oh snap moment for Julian after all! I like the way even though I asked Hugo to take down the link to my blog – he’s still kept my handle name up there, just so you know, his cronies know who to blog stalk.

Also, in regards to what a lot of womyn on this thread have mentioned. No male can take the work of feminism, let alone radical feminism and not piss on it. It’s in male behaviour, they want all the credit and none of the responsibility. It’s what nearly every single male writer/historian/whatever “authority” has done all through-out history – taken ideas from great womyn, sapped their energy, literally fucked them out of their own lives and then let the pennies fall on them.

Loretta,

But today, we don’t even need men for that. Two eggs can be joined to create a baby. More than a decade ago, a male biologist angered men everywhere with his book The Redundant Male where he posited that men are redundant according to nature, that the Y chromosome is deteriorating and that within a hundred thousand years or so, males will no longer exist.

Yess! I read about this a little while ago and thought, if the world wasn’t so ridiculously over-populated and if I didn’t hate humans so much, that’d be the way of reproduction for me. In the mean time, we’re going to need some Futurama style cryogenics chambers so we can wait around for them to die out😉

I love my dog and my cat! And a male neutered dog is very well behaved. One can learn from that!

This is so true, they turn into big smooch poochies who love belly rubs and cuddles – it’s the best😀

Today, they believe that birth control has ended all the danger, or that abortion will solve the problem. Hey, let’s have sex with students, and not think at all about how this might actually affect women’s psyches in the long run.

Yes! This is what really annoys me about the Hugo-butt-monkeys, is that they think OH BUT SHE’S PROBABLY FINE. Just because a womon thinks it’s fine at the time doesn’t actually mean it is then or ever. For instance, when my first boyfriend raped me and was an abusive shit-eater, it took me a year or so after we’d broken up to call his crap what it was – rape and abuse. Who’s not to say that one of H’s students isn’t going to wake up one day ten years from now and think “that fucking bastard raped me and fooled me into thinking otherwise” – it can and does happen.

Also, just because someone might think something isn’t psychologically damaging doesn’t actually make it so. Someone who sits on best gore dot com all day certainly isn’t going to have a healthy attitude towards life + death, even though they might like to think it’s had no influence on their thoughts AT ALL. IMHO it’s another extension of this consumerist, hedonist, libertarian bullcrap.

It’s why the whole AIDS epidemic was so horrifying for gay men… they hated the idea of safe sex, and still hate it. Men are so selfish that they will literally kill each other with unsafe PIV, so that should tell you something about the nature of men.

It speaks volumes.

59. berryblade - October 1, 2010

A fucking transwoman calling herself “Amy” just emailed me about how much she agrees with everything here, EXCEPT the trans-critical stuff. There’s a surprise. Kinda like an abuse of power rapist being ok with radfems…until they start calling shit on abuse of power rape.

They stand out like sore thumbs, hey, FCM, did you get some svinehund called “Coro” trying to comment here as well? He’s just spammed my blog with a whole bunch of anti-feminist/pseudo-piss taking bullhockey, and it isn’t even remotely funny.

Newsflash dickwad: you are a man. If having a dick isn’t proof enough of that FACT, then constantly talking about your dick to women who you know damn well don’t want to hear about it should about shore it up. YOU. ARE. A. MAN. Duh. And I could fucking smell you, bro. I knew it, even before you brought your pecker into it. Who do these assholes think they are kidding?

I wonder if they are even fooling themselves? Do they really, really believe that they are womyn?

Having the same problem as you atm FCM about inspiration. I’ve been working on my family guy actually being a bunch of conservative bullcrap, but it just doesn’t seem to come out right!

Ms Citrus,

And this, 1000x over. I didn’t even cut off all men on purpose, but when I confronted an ex-friend about molesting me, and refused to be around people who didn’t care about what he did, resulted in my totally being kicked out of my social circle. Because bros look out for each other, even if they’re “nice guys.” It’s so lonely once you refuse to put up with any BS.

Holy crap, I know right. I lost all my friends when I tried to press charges against my rapist. And the other day, some people I know were talking about some guy who calls himself “fingers” cos he likes to “finger” girls when they’re drunk and unconscious and how they actually doubted that he did that. It’s like, wtf, you’ve heard him BRAG ABOUT IT. They kinda gave me this “crazy dyke bitch” look and went on talking about womon-hating crap. It is SO hard to find/make/keep IRL friends, or for womyn to have genuine friendships with another even if they aren’t rad fems.

Loretta,

Men tend to use the designation of lesbian for any woman they cannot control, who won’t let them into her bed and who is independent from male control.

The only other word they have to condemn such women is feminist. They use both with an equal amount of fear and hatred.

&

That’s why I focus so much on debunking religious dogma. It’s all a fraud perpetuated on women so men can retain power and control over them.

Exactly, and it’s awesome that you do that🙂

60. Sargassosea - October 1, 2010

I’ve a confession to make, berryblade: I haven’t read the book! I was more in mind of the literal, physical Sargasso Sea that lies in the North Atlantic – it’s utterly fascinating.

Spinster is just fantastic (currently enjoying Ch. 6) and FCM, you are soooo right when you say ‘there’s nothing new under the sun.’ I just keep hearing these womyns’ words (especially Christabel Pankhurst’s!) and am inspired to daydream about producing a theatrical reading or perhaps an awesome documentary based on this work. Think we can find some backers?!

61. sonia - October 1, 2010

hey ttyly off topic= FCM, did you read “The transsexual empire”?

I’m right now reading it and that shit is blowing my mind. All the stuff we gab about on here, all the stuff we’ve put in essays, she laid out. Making me think it has to be some internal truth we are all unearthing.

I forget if you’ve gone over that one on the site, just wanted to double check.

factcheckme - October 1, 2010

no havent read that one yet sonia. thats on my list though. just arrived: “man made language.” cant wait to read it.

62. berryblade - October 2, 2010

Oh no, you can’t buy Spinster on the Australian kindle store😥
Oh, haha, well, now I feel like a fool cos I didn’t even know it was a real sea! It’s a great little book, it’s a prequel to Jane Eyre and tells the story of Mrs.Rochester before her arsehole of a husband sends her mad and how and why she went mad. It’s wonderful.

63. Sargassosea - October 3, 2010

Don’t feel like a fool!

And Jane Eyre is a favorite of mine and I look forward to the day that a copy of WSS crosses my path😉


Sorry comments are closed for this entry