jump to navigation

Moron Reality November 20, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, feminisms, health, kids, liberal dickwads, PIV, pop culture, porn, prostitution, race, radical concepts, rape.
Tags: , , , , ,
trackback

in “womens lives, mens laws” catharine mackinnon talks about “reality” several times, and in several different ways.  i think this is what it all boils down to actually: realizing that theres the “reality” we all live in and with every day, which frames and creates our experience in a male-centered way (for example, that PIV is sexual, and that vaginas are just fuckholes for men) and then, theres what actually happens

the first one is the only thing that most people care about.  realizing that theres a second track playing all the time is key, but its also a realization that “reality isnt real” which causes individuals problems.  particularly when those individuals are women, and everyone who actually matters already thinks women are crazy, and suffer us primarily as masturbatory aids.  perhaps i digress.  but even the linguistic fallacy of what appears, in this case, to be a demonstrably true statement (“reality isnt real”) illustrates the problem of existing within a male-centered universe, when what actually happens, exists outside what is real.  basically its a huge mindfuck.  but luckily we have a few tourguides to help us along the way!

in mackinnons essay “law’s stories as reality and politics,” she talks about “male-centered reality” versus the “second track” as story 1 and story 2.  one is what actually happens; the other is what “power” wants to hear, so its given its rightful place AS reality:

this pretty much sums up pomo feminism and their relationship to “lived experience” actually: for example, women who have “negative experiences” with heterosex and PIV have “issues” and “baggage” while any who report having positive experiences are celebrated.  see?  “normative” experience is not the one that is the most often experienced, by the most people.  its just the one that “power” wants to hear.  and “power” never lets actual facts get in the way of the reality it creates…especially in the case of numbers, where “power” literally cannot or will not put 2 and 2 together:

judging by the numbers here, sexual harassment in the federal workplace actually happens more often than it doesnt.  and sexual abuse of girl children happens, literally, all the time.  but we still live in a world where victims are not to be believed.  and where the workplace is “business” and not “personal” and where women who chronically job-hop and lose seniority every time just arent committed, and dont end up in positions of power and authority because they dont want to.  oh, okay!

relatedly, in another essay entitled “mediating reality”, mackinnon also talks about the medias portrayal of violence, including sexual violence, and the effect it has of making things that actually happened seem “unreal.”  she notes that the school shootings at columbine, for example, left people who actually experienced it up-close and dirty, saying that they “couldnt believe it” and that it “didnt seem real.”  same with 9/11.  people who saw the footage on television said the same thing.  but obviously, both things actually happened.  how is this possible?

from the article, regarding “the schoolhouse massacres in

so we are exposed to these flashing images onscreen, but are unable to make rational connections between these images-of life, and real-life.  and in porn, mackinnon makes it completely clear that we are intended to believe that things that NEVER ACTUALLY FUCKING HAPPENED, did in fact happen.  that the “sex was real.”  but the abuse was not.  but its not just television, and this is kind of the big reveal: there is actually evidence that even before television existed, people dis-associated the same way.  it actually happened, but it was “like a bad dream”.  some of this, when experienced firsthand, could be traumatic dissociation, sure.  but what about the rest of it?

its as if we are reading from a fucking script, and no amount of actual facts is going to get in the way of the prefab-reality we THINK we are experiencing.  but whose reality is it?

well…i hope this isnt too cryptic, but for me, it kind of says it all.  i am still trying to finish “the spinster and her enemies” and it seems as if jeffreys left the best for last.  i nearly came out of my skin when i read the chapter on “the invention of the frigid woman”.  apparently, in the early 1920s, upperclass married white women suddenly became afflicted with not liking PIV enough.  “frigidity” of course is 100% an invention of male sexologists, as jeffreys documents in excruciating detail, and was created, in part, from white mens travels abroad, having PIV with native women who “screamed with joy” when the foreign white men touched them, and stuck their dicks into them.

they were screaming.

Comments

1. Let'sGetReal - November 20, 2010

I’d add trauma bonding to this. Dissociation and trauma bonding. Two sides of the same coin. Explains a lot.

If the trauma event is not real but the bonding is imprinted and feels real, we have a very bizarre situation. Reality is bizarre, in other words.

Brilliant analysis, FCM!

2. Let'sGetReal - November 20, 2010

Ok, I just saw this headline about the Pope saying condoms are ok, but only in the case of male prostitutes to prevent HIV. Well, if the husband has AIDS, they are not ok, since it could prevent contraception. This way the woman gets AIDS and pregnant. More “women’s lives, men’s laws” and moron reality.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/20/pope-condoms-can-be-justi_n_786414.html

3. SheilaG - November 21, 2010

Thanks FCM for doing all this research. I definitely have to read “Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws.”

If girls are terrorized and sexually tortured, but somehow escape this, or live through this, and don’t go into prostitution, what this might mean, is they are living in some sort of dissociated terror, and will deny that men are the problem. If there is such massive fear in women, because women are not believed, this type of discussion is trivialized and denied by women, and men of course think they are never guilty of anything. Think of smug Elliot Spitzer with his co-hosted TV show now.

He quits the governorship but TV hires him. What does this say about all male commentators on TV now, and how they would cover topics like this?

Sexual harassment in offices, and sexual exploitation of women — think interns in Clinton’s oval office, and think what would have happened if Monica Lewinsky hadn’t gathered her own DNA evidense. Think of Gloria Steinem defending Clinton and NOT Lewinsky. I felt such rage and betrayal over this; I’ve never recovered.

The real is the sexual exploitation that all women face every day. I notice anytime men are present, even in cases when one man shows up — say a husband, and in less than a minute of talking, makes a crude sexual reference. They literally can’t shut their fowl sexually charged brains and mouths up– that is how evil men are.

So what we are dealing with is women scared and traumatized and literally unable to speak this truth, and their fear is so great, that they will jump right into “well women do this too to children.” Just had a discussion last week about this very topic, and the conversation got very heated and brutal on my part. Finally, after a few choice and VERY blunt lesbian words, one quiet woman admitted that her boss sexually harassed her.
But she was the first to defend men, and say that women sexually violated boys. I found it a telling insight into what goes on in terms of women being token torturers, and men not even knowing that a scream is really a scream of pain during what to women is a forced sex act, and what to men is gratification.

The ending to your piece will haunt me for a very long time FCM!

factcheckme - November 21, 2010

thats what i was going for sheila, and you use the perfect word. it has haunted me ever since i read it. it was one of those things where the air stops moving and gets very heavy, and you block everything out except what you just read. the penny dropped. the male arrogance here, the violence, the self-serving interpretations of events, for lack of a better word, UN-BELIEVEABLE. and thats telling, isnt it? again, our first impulse is to say “i cant believe it” regarding things that actually happened. its partially a language-problem, which says alot, namely, that language is based in male-centered reality too. BUT. i think theres more to it than just a language-problem. its a conceptual problem. people cannot conceive of things that are directly at odds with everything they think is true, or want desperately to be true. even when they experience them firsthand. its the most fucked up thing i have recently considered, and follows nicely from the dicussions we have been having for the last few weeks, about reality, oppression/privilege, and even male-centered civil rights activism fails. its all connected.

factcheckme - November 21, 2010

also, “womens lives, mens laws” is kind of a difficult read, and i havent gotten through the whole thing. its a collection of essays on various legal topics, so you dont have to read it cover to cover, and some of it is repetetive, as you saw above. and dated (the clinton reference). but whatever. mackinnon is brilliant legal scholar and an absolutely fearless radical feminist. i have “toward a feminist theory of the state” on my shelf for later.

factcheckme - November 21, 2010

re: the pope…ugh. there are so many ACTUAL legal laws in place regulating women and fucking us over, the absolute last thing we fucking need are the religious laws too, and unwritten social laws after that. the restriction on womens liberty, when all these are considered, is overwhelming. its absolutely overwhelming.

some of these are somewhat opt-out-able. SOME. for SOME (extremely privileged) women. i think its extremely important that we do opt-out, to whatever extent we can. giving up on male-centered religion, and the more extreme fuckability stuff might be the easiest. PIV might be next.

4. FAB Libber - November 21, 2010

When ‘reality does not seem real’, in other words does not match what you have been told about the world, it is usually down to the propaganda of the regime in power. Dictatorships are well known for it; suppressing the true information and disseminating fallacies in their stead.

Our current regime worldwide is patriarchy-based, and they follow exactly this model, suppressing the true extent of rape, child sexual abuse, domestic violence and femicide. In its place we get lots of fairy stories regarding romance, sexy-as-empowerment, women are equal now, and women are just as bad as men when it comes to violence and CSA. When personal experience does not match the rosy world view, that becomes just “individual bad luck”.

In effect, the population has had a mass brainwashing. There are always a few dissenters and those who see through it. In dodgy countries the dissenters get run over by tanks, in ‘civilised’ countries economic sanctions.

5. FAB Libber - November 21, 2010

some of these are somewhat opt-out-able. SOME. for SOME (extremely privileged) women.

I am a little uncomfortable with your choice of word here FCM – “privileged” [women]. It is more a combination of seeing through the brainwashing, luck, and sometimes self-determination. And how early on the woman sees it (thereby escaping the marriage/kids trap).

For example, I know a lot more working class and lower middle class lesbians than I do upper class lesbians – so the use of the word ‘privileged’ in this context is completely wrong.

The above message has been part of my one-radfem campaign to stop calling women ‘privileged and oppressors’.😛

factcheckme - November 21, 2010

FAB libber, obviously i never said “oppressor.” but being born in a developed country where you werent married off and impregnated repeatedly before age 15 (for example) is kind of a prerequisite to “seeing through the bullshit” especially if you think that marriage and kids are a trap, or THE trap. in many places, this is not an option, and the main way that human beings are “treated” as female is by being completely sequestered by male relatives, and then sold or married off as children to men who very often kill them, either on purpose, or by impregnating them when they are too young and malnourished to birth safely. imagine also, for example, being born in a small rural religious community, or not speaking english and therefore being cut off from the global economy and many professions…”the god delusion” i thought was an excellent book for explaining religious indoctrination, and how inflicting religion on very young children is very much a brainwashing technique that ensures that religion will be passed down generationally as a meme, almost like genetic code. this is not so easily “seen through” you know?

anyway, i see and appreciate your point. if NOT being born into the above seems more like just dumb luck…well thats pretty much exactly what it is. and i have NO IDEA what makes some people see through it anyway, or why people who arent as heavily indoctrinated never think to question it. theres much more to it, and i have wondered for a long time what makes some people conform, while others rebel. its kind of a mystery.

factcheckme - November 21, 2010

and YES to your comments about dictatorships and propaganda. excellent.

6. FAB Libber - November 21, 2010

if NOT being born into the above seems more like just dumb luck…well thats pretty much exactly what it is. and i have NO IDEA what makes some people see through it anyway, or why people who arent as heavily indoctrinated never think to question it. theres much more to it, and i have wondered for a long time what makes some people conform, while others rebel. its kind of a mystery.

The ‘dumb luck’ element was what I was getting out to differentiate between being born into say a religious rural family and sold off into marriage at 13, and the situation in most of us in the first world.

But, to refer to the ‘dumb luck’ of being born into first world vs third world as ‘privilege’ is problematic, because it conjures up the image of a direct benefit of escaping marriage at the direct expense of those females in the third world.

It is more ‘advantage’ rather than ‘privilege’, but the advantage is really just the absence of more of the insurmountable (or difficult) odds, and again, that is luck as to how many you have to deal with per individual situation. Do you get what I mean here? I just think that ‘privilege’ is a poor choice of word to be thrown about without due qualification of what the ‘privilege’ actually is or is not. I am being nit-picky, and probably reactionary due to crap like cis-privilege being thrown about. It’s just too easy to throw the word around and give a false impression of the actual reality – which actually brings me back on point. It is a good word to hide obstacles and reality.

7. FAB Libber - November 21, 2010

i have wondered for a long time what makes some people conform, while others rebel.

Yes curious. I will take a guess and say it is due to the social nature of humans in general, to conform, as long as it is relatively fair – or appears that way.

Which brings me back to the propaganda point, one of the currents being “we don’t need feminism any more; women are equal now!”. If you do not analyse the reality, you will accept this point. A quick peek that females routinely get paid 15% less than male counterparts says that equality has NOT in fact been achieved. Reality vs propaganda check = does not match.

factcheckme - November 21, 2010

FAB libber, i am not sure who you are talking to here. but if you read back in the archives, you will see that we have been discussing this for a long time. and no one here is talking about cis-privilege. all radfems expressly reject that idea, as far as i know. see the “fallacy of cis privilege” and “its pat privilege” and “sorry sex positive transwomen” posts for more on that. the discussions on all those are excellent.

and i think i have made it clear in the last 2 posts what i think about the way most discussions of privilege/oppression BETWEEN WOMEN are framed. and i have made it clear over at undercover punks place too, as you know. these discussions have been highly visible. so again, i am not sure who you are talking to, or why you are bringing this over to this thread. its off-topic, and its pissing me off. as are your comments about sonia. just leave it alone.

8. FAB Libber - November 21, 2010

Obviously my point has been missed, then further confused by trying to use a similar (but not the same) application of the word.

I am aware of the previous discussions, having read most of your archives. That just makes me more surprised why you would use the word at all, particularly in a woman vs woman context, which you say you are against.
“for SOME (extremely privileged) women.”

I am sorry, but I do see that as a woman vs woman context of the term.

I shall abide by your wishes, and shut the fuck up and go away now. I apologise for pissing you off.

9. Sargassosea - November 21, 2010

realizing that theres a second track playing all the time is key, but its also a realization that “reality isnt real” which causes individuals problems.

…and i have wondered for a long time what makes some people conform, while others rebel.

Maybe the answer is right there in that 2nd track and our awareness of it. I think some women are just born with a fully functioning bullshit detector and/or the human insistence that our eyes ain‘t lying.

I often say that women are MADE crazy and I think this is why. As Mackinnon says in
the excerpts you provide us with (thank you! you do a great service to us!) that women [prostitutes] have been more badly traumatized than soldiers who served in Vietnam, but that war is over – the war between their ‘reality’ and ours has been going on for centuries and shows no signs of letting up.

*off to see if this book is available for kindle*

10. sam - November 21, 2010

inflicting religion on very young children is very much a brainwashing technique

A week ago I chanced upon an internet channel playing the old “Dungeons and Dragons” cartoon, so I looked up info about the show and found the following from the series creator,

“Dungeons & Dragons was a series about six kids who were transported to a dimension filled with wizards and fire-snorting reptiles and cryptic clues and an extremely-evil despot named Venger.

The kids were all heroic — all but a semi-heroic member of their troupe named Eric. Eric was a whiner, a complainer, a guy who didn’t like to go along with whatever the others wanted to do. Usually, he would grudgingly agree to participate, and it would always turn out well, and Eric would be glad he joined in. He was the one thing I really didn’t like about the show.

So why, you may wonder, did I leave him in there? Answer: I had to.

As you may know, there are those out there who attempt to influence the content of childrens’ television. We call them “parents groups,” although many are not comprised of parents, or at least not of folks whose primary interest is as parents. Consultants were brought in and we, the folks who were writing cartoons, were ordered to include certain “pro-social” morals in our shows. At the time, the dominant “pro-social” moral was as follows: The group is always right…the complainer is always wrong.

This was the message of way too many eighties’ cartoon shows. There was even a show for one season on CBS called The Get-Along Gang, which was dedicated unabashedly to this principle. Each week, whichever member of the gang didn’t get along with the gang learned the error of his or her ways.

We were forced to insert this “lesson” in D & D, which is why Eric was always saying, ‘I don’t want to do that’ and paying for his social recalcitrance.”

Now I will always think of this when reminiscing on the cartoons I was fed as a child.

The sublime MacKinnon excerpt has got me thinking about the social reconstruction of prostitution as harmless and Eliot Spitzer. When news of Spitzer requesting “unsafe sex” from a prostitute got around, the usual pro-porn fembloggers jumped to the incorrect conclusion that the request was merely for condomless sex.

Pro-pornstitution folks love condoms. They posit the use of condoms as the great life-saver of the world’s prostituted persons.* Facts about what “unsafe” acts johns actually perpetrate are irrelevant. Research shows fear of AIDS is extremely low on the list of what prostituted women fear in a day, but preventing AIDS with condom use is what the social reconstruction of prostitution into harmless “work” demands be the main area of activist concern.

What else could a john wanting “unsafe sex” from a prostituted woman possibly mean in Sexpozland other than condomless sex?

Turns out Ashley Dupre meant what most prostitutes mean when they say they “unsafe”, and as usual it had nothing to do with condoms:

“But when he grabbed my throat, that was too much. I remember trying to push myself up off the bed, which made him apply more pressure. I’ve never been worried about my safety, but I was really concerned. Finally, I pushed him away and got up. He hadn’t finished. But I’d had enough.”

I haven’t seen any follow up discussion about Spitzer’s violence from the feminists who invented information so they could self-righteously declare from bloggy soapboxes that they are officially against fucking prostitutes without condoms. Billions of public relations money (thousands spent directly to send pro-porn feminist bloggers on free trips to Amsterdam) has been spent to guarantee their knee-jerk downplaying of john violence. The truth about many johns erotically enjoying their ability to stop a woman’s breathing while his dick is inside her makes them shut down mentally out of self defense; Spitzer was one of their Good Guys. The most common way johns kill prostitutes is strangulation. That’s what “unsafe” means in prostitution.

*I must note the racism of pro-prostitution shucksters who hold up 100% condom use as the salvation of Southeast Asian sex workers while also saying 100% condom use by American porn workers is an infringement on their safety and employment rights.

factcheckme - November 21, 2010

I must note the racism of pro-prostitution shucksters who hold up 100% condom use as the salvation of Southeast Asian sex workers while also saying 100% condom use by American porn workers is an infringement on their safety and employment rights.

yes, this idea that fun-fems care about “intersectionailty” is becoming more and more of an obvious joke. its actually very much like a “story 1 and story 2” situation with them isnt it? story 1 is that they care about women, they care about racism, they care about ableism. story 2 (what really happens) is that they care about MEN, and PIV, and consumerism. and thats about it.

and i used to watch the D&D cartoon too. i was a child in the 80s, although i seem to have missed the message that following the group is best. wait…unless that explains all this anxiety… 😛

11. SheilaG - November 21, 2010

I think I might have an inkling as to why some women rebel and others do not. There are a lot of factors out there, many many variables. But bottom line for me, conformity held out no real rewards. I didn’t see any advantage in having anything to do romatically with men. So there was zero interest sexually in men, and when I was in junior high and high school I was completely distant from heterosexuality. It literally made no sense to me at all, and still doesn’t.

So my first rebellion was I wasn’t interested in girly girl, fashion, or dumb pop culture. I had my own interests which were very counter cultural for my age and generation. And it had nothing to do with hippies, drugs, sex, or rock and roll, all of which I had no interest in.

What I wanted was something else entirely. So in some respects, I was so bored by hetero girls, that I found other venues with more lesbian girls — we had dozens of later OUT lesbians in my girl scout troop, for example. I didn’t know they were lesbians at the time, but later, word spread.
These girls were fun to be with, we went camping, canoeing, and it was one of the most ideal all girls groups I have ever been in.

Also, there really were zillions of working class and lower middle class lesbians that I’ve known. The wealthier ones are deeply closeted and assimilationist. These types of lesbians were always very afraid of me. But they are far richer in every way imaginable. And I mean serious RICH.
Now of course, thanks to all my radical work, they are much better situated and are out to a select group in a kind of don’t ask don’t tell kind of way.

Why didn’t they rebel the way I did? Again, they liked the malestream world, and I never much liked it, so rebellion was rather easy for me.

I saw children as economic drains from an early age, women with children bored the living hell out of me, even when I was a kid, I was largely bored by my peers outside of music and girl scouts.

Because I was so odd as a young adult and teenager, I was brutally treated by most of the hetero girls, with some exceptions. They wanted me to conform to servitude, and I was not about to do that. I said publically that marriage was slavery to men, that women who changed their last names to the man’s last name were owned property, and that proms and het dating were for women who had no clue how to get a profession and earn a real living. Saying stuff like this in 1972 would get any girl in big trouble in a big city junior high or high school.

So I “rebel” because what I’m interested in has nothing to do with what most women my age or older are interested in. And to a certain extent, lesbians of my generation did win big, because we were on the ground floor of radical lesbian feminism. We had women like Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan, Jill Johnston etc. to look up to and learn from. Most straight women my age have never ever heard of these authors and still are deeply threated by radical feminism, and still very very male identified and threatened even if I brought up some of the “milder” stuff from this blog.

In fact, I have brought up the milder stuff from this blog and all hell broke loose with those cowardly straight women. Cowards.
Women who are lawyers have never read MacKinnan, for example. I ask them, that’s how I know.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an interesting example of a rebel, because she did come from Somalia, was genitally mutilated by her grandmother, and managed to escape an awful arranged marriage and fled to Holland, where she was granted aslyum, which the Dutch revere. But her father was also a rebel leader, and she was exposed to these ideas as a young girl.

Also, I think most human beings are basically conformist– they believe they will get ahead, and materially they are right, they will get ahead. My material wealth is much less than a lot of professional straight women my age, and although I am a homeowner, it was far more difficult for two lesbians to get the loan, and save up the 20@ required downpayment in our case.

Social rejection simply doesn’t have as much affect on me. Another factor I think might be physical strength. I actually am stronger than a lot of men, am violent when messed with, and have beaten up many men very brutally. I simply feel nothing for them, and enjoy their surprised defeat at my hands. Words gets around, men are cowards, but most women have never beaten a man in physical combat, and won, so they don’t know the thrill of victory, literally. Women are very very fearful out in the world, I don’t feel much fear. I don’t go looking for trouble, but fear just isn’t a part of my operating system.

Hope this explanation– just my example might help here. Hard to say why women rebel, really.

factcheckme - November 21, 2010

i will say this exactly one time, for FAB libber and kristinas benefit, and for anyone else who still isnt sure. comments must ADD TO THE DISCUSSION. take it to a higher place, or be spammed. no shit. thanks.

factcheckme - November 22, 2010

omfg. i now have a concern-troll, who is concern-trolling about my mental health. welp…these clips i used are from mackinnon, a respected legal scholar who literally INVENTED the law of sexual harassment. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE, as a concept, was her idea. are they “concerned” about mackinnon too? or just me? armchair psychiatrists are really nothing new to most women, and probably not to any feminist. DUH.

in her own words, catharine mackinnon admits that she questions “reality”, and has done so for decades, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY surviving and thriving in the same world she criticises and deconstructs. and by anyones standards, she is one of the highest functioning human beings who ever lived, and an accomplished professional and profoundly revolutionary thinker of the highest order. i am sure there are people out there who just HATE THAT. but its true.

factcheckme - November 22, 2010

BTW, the concern-troll called himself “sar.”

12. SheilaG - November 22, 2010

“i am sure there are people out there who just HATE THAT. but its true.”
Yes, FCM, so well said. A respected legal scholar who literally put sexual harassment on the map as a legal concept is no small matter.

Men do not want to give up once ounce of control over the legal system and legal consepts, because if women wrote the law … knowing full well how Story 1 and Story 2 function all the time, what would it make men’s reality. Well they’d be called the crazy ones, the incompetant ones and the monsters.

Just think for one moment about girl childen raped by their fathers, and how large a percentage of the female population is raped by male relatives.
Doesn’t it make you wonder what Islamic men are thinking as they sequester women in Saudi Arabia, and the Arab world? Shouldn’t this one detail speak volumes of what men know about other men?

I meet women all the time who were victimized by sex crimes, by sexual harassment… and it changes them. So when you quote MacKinnon, who most men have never heard of, they literally can’t believe that she invented these legal concepts or that women’s idea of justice would be to end tyranny not in government but in their own homes. Think of it.

13. SheilaG - November 22, 2010

Think of a large American city, where women were the entire police force, and where almost all the guns were owned by women. Think of prisons completely controlled by women, and men having to face all female jurys, all female attorneys, and an all female court room. Think of that lone man up on the stand trying to deny the rape charge, and think of the female police force that would take that convicted man to a prison controlled by say radical lesbian feminists with stun guns. Think of that world Mr. Man, and you will get some idea of what it is like being a woman under YOUR laws.

14. chicky - November 22, 2010

I don’t know how to show a video here but I’ll try. This video is relevant especially the story she tells at 4:58 and she connects this to patriarchy as well.

I think your idea about power creating the realities it wants, or the illusions it wants to cover up reality, seems to be directly related to the root of patriarchy. More of the root then reproduction because it is the reason men want to dominate women and this is the how to that why. Men want what women have especially if they are biologically incapable of attaining it. Sex, free labor, creativity, time, emotional energy, reproductive power. Men want it and they live off it. It’s the reason they are so successful I mean just listen to MRA’s and the like boast at all of men’s accomplishments and women just being house wives and “supporting roles.” Men live off women like parasites(but thats a name usually attributed to women isn’t it?)Which is why the men fail at creating themselves a movement to understand and fix men’s problems. It’s just a ripoff of Feminism, but the MAR’s ARE GOOD at trying to create false realities that benefit them. You could say “power creates the realities it wants.” But you can also say it’s just plain false and is spiting in the face of truth of REAL reality and ORDER. It is a direct kick to everything the way it IS. Like spiting in mother natures face? But it can be seen as balanced and equal dispute this equality hurting women. Carrying on an illusion of “women are equal now” if you think loss of equality is the problem and not another mind fuck ‘men as standard.’ Which is a mind fuck created off of women’s pursuit of equality. The pursuit of equality is just another way to mind fuck women into submission. Which is the real problem.

The woman in the video is saying something like this in her video about women seeking balance with men in a spiritual since. She says balance does not exist. There is only order and patriarchy isn’t a result of loss of balance but of order.

This is from the idea of men trying to transcend nature and from the view of women as nature or closer to nature. The idea is that men and women are not equal thus not balanced, like the universe, thus defying nature and causing all the problems. In this theory women must seek equality with men, but not go to far in fear of the pendulum swinging and still being unequal or not balanced and not in harmony with nature. Regardless of this being spiritual this way of thinking is familiar in Feminists politics as well as women’s spirituality movements.

What she says is basically what I have heard from some radical Feminists I think some here, that equality is not the answer.This obsession with balance leads men whinnying about not getting abortion rights and creates men as standard erasing women or the parts that aren’t equal to men erased to achieve a since of equality that women believe will free them from patriarchy(since loss of equality with men is the root of patriarchy.)In reality it is a loss of order not balance. Balance is an illusion equality is an illusion. Women get fucked and fucked over from being mind fucked not because men have taken anything tangible or have something women don’t. It’s perception, mind control, having the power to phrase the conversation.

15. chicky - November 22, 2010

Lets try again

factcheckme - November 22, 2010

i dont usually watch videos from people i dont know…especially when they are 12 minutes long, and say “part 2.”

16. chicky - November 22, 2010

I was just referring where I got the part of what I was saying inspired by the video. The rest of what she says is very informative to me, but no one has to watch anything. She talks about equality not existing, that value is subjective like men and people always place value on themselves of course. There is no hierarchy of value everything simply has it’s role to play. And how we need to be in order or in other words have a soceity where there is peace and harmony. And there is no order under dominance(I liked that part) Explaining how trying to balance out men and women doesn’t work.

The second part she is explaining what maat is and stuff and isn’t as relevant to want to post two videos.

12 minutes isn’t to long for me I guess I have more time on my hands. Sorry.

17. Sar - November 22, 2010

I’m very confused and kind of hurt in your reaction to my post! I was honestly trying to add to the discussion, and the part that was concern for your mental health was supposed to come off as solidarity. This is something I struggle with- living in two realities simultaneously, as you described in your post. Inherent in a devastating critique of the culture is the risk of more repression, and one of the ways men marginize their opposition is by labeling them crazy and then making them crazy. I was NOT buying into this construct of mental health, nor saying that I believe you are delusional or “mentally I’ll”!! As I said, your article was great and blew my mind- in a good way. if it came off another way, I apologize. Maybe you could take that last part out all together and still post it, I am interested in your perspective on colonialism and the construction of “mental health”. I am a woman and a radical feminist.

factcheckme - November 23, 2010

Sar…you came off as a concern troll. The absolute nicest thing I can say about either one of your comments is that they are meta.

Why dont you tell us what YOU think about colonialism, or even what posts you are referencing. That would be a good start.

18. chicky - November 23, 2010

Oh yeah I remember now. That was why I said especially 4:58 and explained what she said in the video relating to what I was saying. I didn’t really expect anyone to want to watch it but I was talking about the video so yeah. She doesn’t talk about distorting reality in her order theory until at 4:58 she tells a story about a guy conveyancing other 1+1=3. So she seems to hint that the reason things are out of order is the distortion of reality. So there results no maat.

19. sar - November 23, 2010

I was referring to this post, “moron reality”. This post is all about the construction of reality, you said “reality isnt real” illustrates the problem of existing within a male-centered universe, when what actually happens, exists outside what is real. basically its a huge mindfuck. ”

I am agreeing, yes it is a huge mindfuck! And when I say mind fuck, I dont mean that it is just confusing, it is repression. Perhaps, one of the most successful tools of oppression. When it is successful you believe in their reality or you go insane. What do you think about the idea that a great portion of the population is incapable of holding two world views in their minds at once? I think that it is very difficult for humans to do this, and in my experience, the ability to do so is a shared characteristic of colonized peoples like women and indigenous peoples.

I see this moron reality, as a tried and true tactic of colonialism. Your connecting of the dots to say that when men feel entitled to PIV sex and construct PIV sex as Sex, they have literally colonized a space that belongs to women and formed reality to match was awesome. They do form their own reality and construct it as real/sane, when the existence of that reality is in an of itself INSANE. right?

Science chimes in saying, oh yes the vagina is just a space in the shape of a penis. Your observations have really gone straight to the heart of the matter, for me, and cracked the facade of partriarchy, colonialism/white supremacy, and civilization in one blow. I just wanted to point that out, that in fleshing out a full critique of patriarchy you have also critiqued technology/science/civilization.

thanks for giving me a second chance to be heard. Hopefully I haven’t fucked it up.

20. SheilaG - November 23, 2010

I think it is possible to hold many ‘realities” in your head at one time. What makes people crazy is when they don’t have THEIR truth validated. That’s the crazy making part. It’s only when you find lesbian tribe, and lesbian community that you can begin to detox from straight culture contamination. A lot of us don’t get this chance until we are young adults, and literally out of the house!

So before second wave feminism, Betty Friedan came up with the now famous phrase “the problem that has no name’ because she was trying to find out why women of her social class felt so empty and lacking in passion.

I found it very helpful as a lesbian to simply leave the united states entirely for a long period of time, to be in a different culture, and have time to evaluate what american society was all about once I was not in it.

I’d say it would be extremely hard for most women to have a leg to stand on mentally if their lives were enmeshed in male reality in the home. The colonizer/penis pusher literally LIVES WITH the woman. If you haven’t lived with men for decades, your internal world reality is radically different.
It’s why I can hear the vicious sexism that most women claim to have NOT HEARD in conversation. They have developed such denial mechanisms, that I don’t think they do hear it when men call women “bimbos” to their face, make wife beating jokes at business meetings, or watch bloated blathering idiot men dominate rooms.

It is a constant battle for me to point out the blatant woman hatred going on right in the very room with straight women, and it is always straight women who are the most deluded in these cases. Straight white women I might add. Black women, both lesbian and straight instantly get it, lesbians get it.

We go outside our homes and see horror, straight women just shrug and tee hee if you point this stuff out, which I always do. Then they go all tee hee tee hee and claim women do as much harm as men, and I have to go ballistic to get the point across, and sometimes I get real real mean…”How much denial do I have to blast through tonight…no this is not tee hee tee hee, get that straight woman smirk OFF OF YOUR FACE!” Believe me, that is what it often takes to shake something lose with women who live, breathe and justify horror with very deep denial.

A lifetime of serving men in the home, raising sons, taking care of big baby (husband) would really do in a lot of women I think. And if they have no means of income, and have to live in this colonial manor welfare daddy state, heaven help them.

It’s still the main reason there is no women’s revolution… women literally live with and have sex with their mortal enemies.

factcheckme - November 23, 2010

still thinking about colonized people and thier ability to hold 2 worldviews at once. do you want to expound on that? actually sar, i am very interested in your entire comment and hope you post more. the part about critiquing civilization and technology is fascinating too.

as for “worldview” i dont know if thats quite the right word for what i am describing. because i think i only have one, now that i realized i have an option. i mean, i know everyone doesnt share it. but the “vagina as fuckhole” for example, i cant say thats any longer a “part of my worldview” because i can now expressly reject it.

speaking though of people who DO hold two worldviews, MEN seem unable to reconcile the presence of their OWN CHILDREN with their obvious worldview that women are just fuckholes for men, and there are no consequences to PIV. but on some level, they must ALSO know that they have kids…i mean, after the paternity tests, after the family court order, after the forced child support for several years AND usually several kids too…they have to get it, on some level dont they? by sar’s theory, wouldnt they men be the ones who were crazy?? i dont think radical feminists hold both “views” at the same time. i think once they realize theres another way, they expressly reject the other. but perhaps thats exactly why radical feminists are some of the sanest women out there. taking a birth control pill every fucking day of your life and worrying about getting pregnant every single time you have PIV, but still believing essentially that you are a sterile fucktoy for men and that PIV is sexual, even though its not pleasurable, IS insane. it really is. whats the birth control pill for?

i do very much agree though that men and the whole het setup make women crazy. its the most common indictment of women actually once the relationship ends. THAT BITCH IS CRAZY! well obviously its a misogynist slur, first and foremost. but i actually do think that being repeatedly wounded and traumatized by mandatory PIV and pregnancy scares, and the experience of molding yourself absolutely and completely to the male-centered reality, which is exactly what you have to do to maintain a PIV-centric relationship with a man, and to live with a man who demands a PIV-centric sexuality, is extremely crazy-making. its telling us something about ourselves that we know isnt true, and swallowing it (LITERALLY SWALLOWING IT! the pill *is* *it,* its like the fucking communion wafer for penis worship) for the duration of the relationship.

thanks sar. you left an excellent comment.

factcheckme - November 23, 2010

also, regarding new posters, it might be a good idea for an introduction or something in the beginning wouldnt it? i mean, i am not in this for the social aspect since i mostly dont enjoy the presence of other people. heh. BUT. for example, when a new poster shows up out of the blue and posts a video, i automatically assume its porn, or something abusive meant to shock and derail. i have never watched a vid posted here by someone i dont know, and if its posted without a comment that evinces actual reading comprehension and radfem skillz, i dont post the vid at all for the same reason. sar and chicky, i am speaking to you. thanks.

21. factcheckme - November 23, 2010

Also, just wanted to make sure everyone saw what the porn actress in Charlie sheens hotel room is saying he did to her, and what made her realize she was in serious, serious trouble. He grabbed her by the throat.

This does seem to be an epidemic doesn’t it? Thanks to Sam for pointing this one out.

22. Undercover Punk - November 23, 2010

Oh, now it’s getting good!

speaking though of people who DO hold two worldviews, MEN seem unable to reconcile the presence of their OWN CHILDREN with their obvious worldview that women are just fuckholes for men,

I’m sorry, that just made me LAUGH! Seriously. Men cannot DEAL with children. And there is an OBVIOUS disconnect between their obsessive sexualization and conquering of female bodies, and the fact that PIV=impregnation. I’ll never forget that comment VeganPrimate made about how AS SOON AS humans figured this out, PIV should’ve become RESERVED for procreation ONLY. But it wasn’t. And it hasn’t been. We all know exactly WHY.

And this too:

(LITERALLY SWALLOWING IT! the pill *is* *it,* its like the fucking communion wafer for penis worship)

LOL!!! God, I hate the fucking pill! And it’s so fucking MANDATORY. I can hear the “I hate condoms” cries now.

Sam does make a good point. Ever single instance of PIV is a threat to one’s life. But only actual, physical violence seems to register on women’s radar as “scary.” Because we are living through male eyes/reality.

23. Undercover Punk - November 23, 2010

@Sar:
And when I say mind fuck, I dont mean that it is just confusing, it is repression. Perhaps, one of the most successful tools of oppression.

AH! She said REPRESSION! And that it’s an on-the-ground tool of O-pression. As in, what we DO to others to keep them in line. OMG. OMG. PO-LICE!!

24. Undercover Punk - November 23, 2010

Shit, I got so excited that I forget my blockquote tags. Sorry! And now I’m comment-spamming. ;P

25. SheilaG - November 23, 2010

So the Charlie Sheen thing is he choked a prostitute, and she feared for her life. Elliot Spitzer choked a prostitute and didn’t use a condom, is that right? So we have two well known men who have done this. Are they going to be banned and lose their jobs?
How come women aren’t up in arms and going after Elliot Spitzer and making sure everyone knows that he chokes women! He even co-hosts a show with a woman, and I don’t know how she can stand to sit near that guy? This IS what makes women crazy!

Pill as communion wafer of patriarchy… LOL- LOL

26. sam - November 23, 2010

But only actual, physical violence seems to register on women’s radar as “scary.”

I have to slightly disagree. One of the things that most stood out to me about Ashley Dupre’s testimony was the way she called being choked “unsafe sex.”

Because choking is a sex act unless you’re a sex negative, anti-kink bigot.

As Rebecca Mott and a hundred thousand million other prostituted women have said, what is rape to other women is sex to them.

The rise of pop cultural references to so called “autoerotic asphyxiation” in the 1980s and 90s is a direct result of hardcore pornography’s cultural ascension and along with it the intentional promotion of men’s worldview that sex is violence and violence is sex. In 1981 Hustler magazine had an article on the subject called “Orgasm of Death”, and soon after a 14-year-old boy named Troy Herceg was found nude and hanging by his neck in a closet with the magazine open to the article at his feet. Pretty smoking gun, right?

Wrong. His mother sued Hustler and lost because autoerotic asphyxiation was not illegal in Texas, so no incitement to illegal activity happened. Underaged boys reading Hustler is illegal in Texas but somehow pornographers keep avoiding responsibility for their adult products used by/on children with deadly results.

27. Undercover Punk - November 23, 2010

Wait, Sam. Are you calling me “a sex negative, anti-kink bigot”?!?!11?!!!11!!!?!1?!?!?!11

Ahahahaaaa!! Fuck yes.

28. Undercover Punk - November 23, 2010

Oh also,

Underaged boys reading Hustler is illegal in Texas but somehow pornographers keep avoiding responsibility for their adult products used by/on children with deadly results.

Yeah, because the legal system is WEAK. I mean, controlled by corporate interests. Sometimes my father uses the law as a benchmark for how things “ARE” (such as what is right/wrong/good/bad), but I simply counter that the law is WRONG. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

29. Nelle - November 24, 2010

I think the many who try to defend pornography and the like are very privilege. Many women who participate in the sex industry do so for financial reasons,as a matter of survival. They could be runaways, they could be single mothers,they could be motherless/fatherless, amongst many other things. In this economy, people are lining up in Hollywood begging stars to pornify themselves everytime they see that they’re struggling financially-imagine how it is for those who aren’t rich,who live in poor communities. They don’t want to think about porn this way, because this is their wank-off or mash-up matterial. It’s defended with blind eyes,especially by those with class privilege. They don’t think that some prostitute is living in a crappy little shack and that’s why she does it so she can move to a better place for her child. They don’t want to think about the drugs involved either. They don’t care about women’s health- they care about how women getting them off. Some people “just don’t want to think about it”, or reconsider.

Sex positivity is in reality the biggest mindfuck in sexual politics. Depicting rape scenes,commodifying women,and emulating pedophilia (sexy schoolgirl/”little” red riding hood,sexy cheerleader) is somehow a fucking positive thing. It’s all negative, even if *some* ladies are benifiting from it. You can’t effectively be sex pos until you eradicate the patriarchy, you are just being given *permission* by the males to be “sex pos” because your sex pos is presented in Male Friendly fashion. Why do they think “sex negs” are hated so ferociously? It’s because they *deny* The Man sexual “rights”,unapologetically.

30. Nelle - November 24, 2010

Also,I love your blog. I forgot to mention that. And I’m new,just in case someone else has this name.

31. SheilaG - November 24, 2010

it is interesting that only “scary violence” registers on women’s radar. That is a telling thing. i regard the very presence of men violent, that they bring violence with them everywhere, and that I don’t want to be in rooms on my free time with men in them. That’s just a given with me.

I think women are in denial about how awful men are, in denial about the brutal porn out there, in denial about how rape to a lot of women is considered how Johns treat prostitutes.

So men are out raping prostitutes, choking them, making them perform dangerous violent acts that have nothing to do with sex–all of the ideas for this stuff coming directly out of a porn video that they think is fiction.

Men can’t tell the difference between reality and fiction, and have to be carefully educated about it. Since they don’t really ever listen to women, they don’t know how angry or fed up most women are with most men. I notice that a lot of weak willed straight women just put up with it, and seem surprised when i get outraged at behavior they are tolerating. It’s an interesting situation when this comes up, and lately, they’ve admitted to me that they “didn’t hear” the offensive words spoken by men, or just tune them out. But I can see a look of concern on their faces, like they know they are in denial and I’ve called out reality.

I guess I see straight women AND men as pretty much living in a perverse fantasy land most of the time.

32. sar - November 25, 2010

I would be glad to introduce myself, I am a radical feminist. I am not white. I am close to academia, but not in it. I have rejected it. I don’t know what a “troll” is and I don’t have the internet, so my presence here will be somewhat sporadic. But this blog is fucking awesome. Proves to me once again how impotent (ironic usage, i know) academia is when it comes to revolutionary critique. The stuff I have read here has honestly changed/ added to my perspective forever.

So, back to colonized peoples and worldviews. Its hard to discuss because our language tries to hide the existence of other world views/frameworks for reality, but we must try. What I am calling a worldview is a paradigm, what a culture see as TRUE, as obviously and unquestioningly real, and thus as sane. All the things a belief system relies on to frame reality, is a worldview. And logically two universally true ideas (realities) that oppose… is not possible- right??? Our logic doesn’t allow us to hold two worldviews simultaneously.

We acknowledge other “perspectives”, but we do not acknowledge other worldviews-that is what colonizing is- the attack on opposing worldviews not because they are consciously seen as other worldviews but because they are seen as absences that need filling, empty spaces that we are entitled to. Hence supremacy. For example primitive people who need to be civilized and their “empty” continent, female organs as empty spaces whose existence make no sense without being filled by a penis. PIV is not seen as a cultural fetish, it is the absence of fetish.

When I say see two world views, not side by side but overlapping, I don’t mean agree with two worldviews. Agreeing is a barrier because holding two truths requires you to plainly see that our reality, our Truth, is constructed by cultural institutions that are not neutral: patriarchy, technology, science etc. This is why I think it is so very hard/impossible for the majority of people to hold two realities at once. How can you reject reality without being insane?-Again, our language brings us to a dead end. Its logic is monolithic. Moreover why pursue something that makes you insane by definition? That is a very dangerous place to be. The only thing that would ever lead someone to pursue such knowledge is when those cultural foundations do not work- do not do the work that culture is supposed to do. And, overall, the culture works for men.

What will it take?, is my question, for men to see us as human? Well, It was nothing less than crushing multiple oppressions that cracked the facade for me. In a way I didn’t *choose* to see, I was forced if I was going to survive, because I couldn’t push that much shit down. This is why I think that few people are even *able* to see women as human, women included. Fun fems who are white and upper class can’t critique capitalism and so can’t see that all work is slavery and that sex work is rape, duh. Their feminism must still perfectly fit within the cultural paradigm because they only hold one.
Men as a class are just soo privileged by the current situation that they CAN’T see. Even when they try they can’t.

I’m beginning to see the vocal liberal trans women as a prime example of this. They experienced a bit of gender oppression, have felt a disconnect in reality, and still CAN’T see outside the cultural assumptions. Because they don’t see reality as one framework among many they unwittingly fight to defend their oppressive universal truths. They point out that born women are privileged not to have to choose surgery or suicide. Actually, they have chosen suicide before holding two worldviews- *its that hard*. They have constructed a narrative that allows them to experience a much easier agony- that of physical pain from surgery that is safely within paradigmatic bounds (completely embraces science, technology and the gender binary) , rather than the mental agony of a paradigm shift, a break with reality. They fetishize vulnerability but when it comes down to it, like all appropriators they pick and choose, they don’t want the vulnerability of insanity.

Thanks for the space to speak, I have never discussed this with anyone before. I hope this wasn’t too long. By all means let me know if it was.

33. joy - November 25, 2010

“people cannot conceive of things that are directly at odds with everything they think is true, or want desperately to be true”

It’s seemed a given to me for many years that reality is totally subjective. It comes down to a matter of perception.

I’m a synesthete. The way I hear sound is totally different from the way another person does.
A blind woman’s reality is different from a sighted woman’s reality, for obvious reasons.

And it only goes on from there. It seems perfectly obvious. No two people are alike, so no two perceptions of the world are going to be exactly the same.

Does that seem way too weird and Huxley-an for most people? (I haven’t even done psychedelic drugs, though.) Or is it perhaps a dude mechanism.

“Everyone’s reality is the same, because my reality is the one and only true reality. Thus, you are crazy.”

Yep. Sounds like dude-thought.

34. SheilaG - November 25, 2010

Thanks sar, very clear. Just a little gem. I’m going to have to think on this.

35. thebewilderness - November 25, 2010

He really was a dick, a brilliant dick, an insane dick, but brilliant.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” ~Philip K. Dick

36. rhondda - November 26, 2010

I am confused. Are people really saying that the patriarchy is fiction? Hello? It is not an abstraction. It is story one and women’s lives are story two. Men really have created a system to enslave women. They use divide and conquer techniques to convince us that women are not slaves under patriarchy. So some women get doggy biscuits (luv and money, and status mainly) and that is part and parcel of the game. These women are male identified parrots incarnating male ideas and confusing our freedom with verbiage. Discernment is a skill that needs to be practiced every day.

37. Szrgassosea - November 26, 2010

And here one of my all time favorites on this subject as ‘channeled’ by Jane (high woo-factor) Roberts way back in the day: “As you believe it, so it is.” It’s such an interesting juxtaposition/accompanyment to the PKD quote, I think.

38. rhondda - November 26, 2010

yes, I read Jane Roberts. I do think you are right, there. If you believe it, it is true. However, that does not make it real. Belief systems and reality are not not necessarily the same. Scary thoughts.

39. sar - November 26, 2010

“Speaking though of people who DO hold two worldviews, MEN seem unable to reconcile the presence of their OWN CHILDREN with their obvious worldview that women are just fuckholes for men, and there are no consequences to PIV. but on some level, they must ALSO know that they have kids…”
Yes, the existence of actual human children, not just the *idea* of women conveniently stuck laboring in the home seems to really cause some cognitive dissonance in men. Humanity inherently causes cognitive dissonance in a culture where everyone is non-human except men.

men have living knowledge of the endemic violence against women, because they all perpetrate it, it just seems that they only realise it until they see potential victims as human, rather than subhuman women.

Then they freak out. They know that violence will be done against them, just as violence/coercion was used in PIV with that child’s own mother.

My own father did this. They see their own girl children “asking for it” purely by being female and having a sexuality. Thus they try to repress and stamp it out. Is it just other men who they feel are predators of their girl children, or is it themselves too? Because the fetishization of vulnerability can never be questioned the vulnerable who are the “human exception” to the rule (your own flesh and blood) must be sexually repressed.

40. sar - November 26, 2010

rhondda,
im not saying the existence of patriarchy is a fiction, but that the cultural beliefs that underly it are.

41. rhondda - November 26, 2010

While I agree Sar that the existence of patriarchy is not a fiction, I do not agree that the cultural beliefs that underlie it are. (a fiction) This is what men and their female parrots do believe. You and I can believe that it is fiction, but for those who do not it is a real living reality and that is what they act on and is what they use as power over others. How do you get someone who believes that shit to see what it is? You see as in science, they say function and form are the reality. Therefore a vagina is a hole for the penis. It is science. How do you get someone to change that belief? How do you get someone to think that a vagina is not just a hole for a penis? That is our society. That is religion and that is science. That is reality for most of the people on this planet.

factcheckme - November 27, 2010

rhondda, i think we are all on the same page. and i dont know the answer to your question, “how do you get people to see?” i dont think most people will ever see it. the congnitive dissonance is enough to get some people uncomfortable, and to start asking questions. but for the rest, theres alcohol, drugs, sex, work, endless distractions and sedatives that make it less uncomfortable. and for the people who actually benefit from all this, ie. men…well i think they are a lost cause. this works for them, and they will do everything they can to keep it working for them, forever. why wouldnt they?

factcheckme - November 27, 2010

this is why fun-feminism is such a crock. enthusiastic consent, you say? just rub your clit while he fucks you? its just supposed to make us “more comfortable” living in a male-centered reality. same with valium, xanax, alcohol, etc. and frankly, if all you ever wanted was marriage and kids, you are completely dependant on MEN to make your dreams come true. so whats a little xanax? women have been popping pills for exactly these reasons for decades. fun-feminism is the cool-chick version of what miserable women have done to get by in a mans world, forever. sheila jeffreys has made this so clear to me. there is NOTHING new under the sun.

42. ShielaG - November 27, 2010

Yeah, nothing new under the sun FCM. Sheila Jefferys got that right.
We have clear evidense that half the human race tortures, demeans, rapes, sexually degrades and underpays… We have statistics going back eons.
We know that once women have kids, they can pretty much kiss any high level math or science profession goodbye forever.

We know there is a 50-60% divorce rate, but women are lining up to be dependent on men.

98% of het women I talk to day in and day out haven’t a bloody damn clue. And I’m not being insulting here, they can barely summon the passion for a high level political debate, much less get up the guts to make it on their own without male dollars and male cookies to keep them going.

The suck male penis’ for goddess’ sake, what could be more degrading then that! Point this out to them, and they freak out and you know what happens to messengers. Lesbians are meerly the bearers of bad news about men. We’ve tried to tell women this for decades. Quite frankly, there are days when I get so disgusted, that I almost think that het women are never going to rebell in big numbers.

They don’t like lesbians because we just reveal the slavery they are in. And they ain’t gonne change no matter what. That said, now and then, a het woman will awaken and take back her life. It is those women I support, I don’t have time for the sleep walkers of patriarchy.

factcheckme - November 27, 2010

this is why i challenged so-called “pro-feminist” men to give up PIV. and guess what? i dont hear any of them actually doing it. i hear old liver lips saying “whoa wait a minute wait a minute, lets not be hasty, i am totally willing to call it enveloping instead of penetrating, mkay?” and i also see allegedly pro-feminist men taking their “cues” on these issues from fun-feminist women (but noones asking who the fun-fems are taking THEIR cues from…and this is of course key). because men are completely incapable, i think, of embracing anything thats going to be truly revolutionary in this area. most women are incapable of it too.

factcheckme - November 27, 2010

also, this is funny. my stats are all wonky today, because someone reddit-ed my “intercourse series” tab. i had 3000+ views today, which is quite a lot for this little blog. do you suppose any of the 3000 newbies trolls who clicked on the article actually had the brain power to understand what they were reading? do you suppose they are aware, at all, that this is a counter-culture blog, and that their mainstream views arent welcome here at all? not because i am into “censorship” but because the opinions expressed here are a RESPONSE TO what i already know all of them think, because they all think the same thing?

one of them emailed me to express his “concern” that i had been “fucked over” by a bad dood, but that it wasnt faiirrrr of me to make generalizations based on one bad dood.

i dont suppose he read the mackinnon excerpts, at all.

factcheckme - November 27, 2010

sheila, the spinsters and the lesbians seriously have it going on, and they always have. and i didnt get it, until i read jeffreys. i really didnt. the PIV-critique is key, and its NOT NEW. even when dworkin did it, it wasnt new. i assume she knew that, but *i* didnt know it, until jeffreys pointed it out: it predates WWI. and it was squashed, and for all intents and purposes it was ERASED FROM HISTORY, by the first and then the second “sexual revolutions” that were PIV-based.

lesbians lack credibility with straight women, its sad and stupid, but its true. which is exactly why spinsters were said to be lesbians, and why “lesbian” as a deviant sexual category was created in the first place. again, jeffreys makes this painfully clear. PIV-criticism was in full swing a hundred-plus years ago, and it was making serious ground. most people dont know about it. this is deliberate.

43. ShielaG - November 27, 2010

I think you have to be careful about how spinsters are actually categorized, because it will erase lesbians. And that’s part of the heteronormative program, to erase our existence in HIStory.

To challenge “pro-feminist” men on PIV entitlement is I think a good way to go for straight women. Powerful, no getting around it, liver lips on the ropes… good arguing.

Still, this whole thing can be boring and tiresome from a lesbian feminist perspective, because we regard even living with men as problematic for women wanting complete freedom from male supremacy.
I don’t think men are capable of even thinking of women as full human beings; their brains don’t function in that way at all. They are incapable of any type of analytical thought that fully assumes women have the right to complete control over their lives, and a right to a completely PIV free environment, a rape free world. Since rape and PIV sex are actually the same thing, men don’t know the difference and never will.

I believe Jeffrey’s said in the Spinster and her enemies that 65% of suffrage organizations in the early 20th century in England were comprised of single women– that means one heck of a lot of lesbians have been fighting for well over 100 years for women’s rights, and it’s time we are fully recognized for the warriors we are. No, a large number of us never gave in to a heteronormative world, we did not have sex with men, we were very very determined to have a kind of freedom unknown to straight women. We founded the damn rape crisis centers to pick up the pieces for straight women who still believe men are ok, even after they are raped, divorced or PIV’d.

Don’t know what it will take. Susan B. Anthony was a lesbian, Jane Addams was a lesbian, a large group of lesbians from NY actually came up with the ideas of the new deal, and Eleanor Roosevelt lived in a cottage with these women until Franklin got elected. Lesbians were a back bone to reform movement innovation. No surprise that all women who stay away from men, and don’t have children have plenty of time to change the world.

Again, have this kind of talk with 98% of the straight women out there, and they’ll change the subject, because they don’t give a damn,and that is really how most women are. Until this changes radically, I can expect all the 30-somethings now to be happily married stay at home moms while dad is out selling life insurance in southtern california– and a woman like this will say she is not a feminist, and that the feminist movement won..I kid you not. They come up with this nonsense with me every day of the week if I let them. The profound mental disconnect with straight women these days just defies imagination.

Are we talking about really really dumb women or what? I’m at my wits end with this.

factcheckme - November 27, 2010

wait, are you saying that all or most “single women” are lesbians now? because i think that is erasing of spinsters, and i have heard this sentiment before. women who eschew PIV and wont have anything to do with men because of what men do, and are known to do, arent necessarily lesbians. i understand the desire to column-tick and pad your numbers, but for me, the spinster concept was a revolution. i dont think it should be dismissed, or spinster women made into something they werent, retroactively, for some modern-day identity politicking.

and i definitely dont think that women who eshew PIV today, or who are thinking about the possibility, need to be told that they are lesbians, if they know they arent. some people dont need to have sex with other people, and others dont even like people all that much. if my current partnership fails, i am 100% prepared to spend the rest of my life alone.

44. ShielaG - November 28, 2010

The thing is Jane Addams and Susan B. Anthony and so many other women who we now document as lesbians were called “single” and “spinsters” in their day, and even up until the 1970s, before feminist scholars found the letters collections and documentation that they were indeed lesbians FCM.
That’s why I get boiling mad at the erasure of lesbians and the destruction of our existence by straight women, who have a stake in wanting to be single but not labeled! So why would straight women not want to be labeled lesbians? Well for one, it makes straight women vulnerable to sexual blackmail by men–happens all the time in the military, for example. Women who are afraid of being labeled a lesbian are the cowards and pawns of men. You’d think that straight women, literally penis whipped would get the tactics of men to sexually colonize all women. It’s why early NOW was so compromised by Betty Friedan’s “the lesbian menace.” Menace to whom? Straight women’s prissy reputations, their fragile male pleasing agenda? Or perhaps it is convenient for straight women to actually want the elimination of lesbians? Highly likely, given past herstory.

And also it is the supreme arrogance to think that lesbians are rare in the world, we aren’t. In whose interest is it to cover up lesbians of the past? Patriarchy, naturally. In whose interest was it to cover up the real nature of Eleanor Roosevelt’s friendship circle in the last century?
As I recall, Roosevelt’s letters to Lorena Hickok had only been made public in the late 1970s, or at least a feminist scholar had discovered them back then. This is one example of the cover-up and erasure of lesbians that aids and abets patriarchy.
And I know this is going to be a radical concept for the straight female mind, but you don’t actually have to have sex with women to be a lesbian. Just as you can be straight and not have sex with a man.

This slippery slope of erasure of lesbians is the most horrifying of patriarchal tactics, and straight women, being the homophobes that they often are, go right along with it. Lesbians used the term “women” in the 1970s as a code word for lesbian, it’s the caginess of Michigan Womyn’s Music festival, for example.

Patriachy doesn’t want an accurate count of lesbians, because then we’d know worldwide just how many of us there are, and just how many more they will be when they no longer have to have sham fake marriages to men to survive, the most horrifying indignity, in my opinion.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with being called a lesbian, since lesbians are a highly evolved freedom fighting part of the female population, and straight women have used us for eons on their abortion rights activism, rape crisis, and domestic violence movements. I for one am sick of being used for agendas, and then erased by straight women too fearful of the “L” word, and believe me, a lot of straight women often appear to be incredible moral cowards.

We’d have the revolution tomorrow if straight women got off their addiction to the oppressor, and that revolution point might be too much for the women who want to go along to get along.

Herstory uncovers more and more of lesbian existence, I’ve done original research and made my own discoveries that shocked straight women who had no idea what to look for in the early 20th century records. Believe me, spinster was a cover that lesbians used to hide from bigoted straight people. It was a tactic, and unfortunately, it’s still a survival tactic of lesbians in the military today.

that’s why I deeply resent not telling the full extent of lesbian herstory, and the erasure, which is obscene to me. Nothing makes me angrier than this colonization of the Amazon tribe.

45. ShielaG - November 28, 2010

Now what is wrong with being called a lesbian? What’s the big deal about this? You know this is a threat men use against women they want to sexually colonize, they try to shame or scare women into having sex with them because straight women are afraid of being called a name. Seems to me, that lesbian nation rose up, and pointed this out, so that straight women with some backbone could have ahem,,, solidarity with women who never did have PIV, never slept with the mortal enemy, never gave in to that nonsense in the first place.

You’d think women with that kind of determination would be highly honored in feminism, not denegrated and called spinsters these days. Sheesh.

46. joy - November 28, 2010

But if women call themselves lesbians when they aren’t — when they are actually just not interested in sex or relationships with either men or women, and by this point, who would be interested in anything with men? — that’s incorrect and identity-erasing/stealing as well.

What’s okay here?

factcheckme - November 28, 2010

well, i didnt think i had to preface my comment with a seinfeldian “not that theres anything wrong with that!” but perhaps its just always needed?

anyway, i would say that if its not true, then THATS my problem with it. and its my only problem with it.

47. ShielaG - December 1, 2010

I think I should clarify a bit here… if you are not a lesbian you are not. However, what I have noticed is that straight women are afraid of being thought of as a lesbian, and this fear then gets turned against lesbians fighting for their rights.
Many people might think I’m straight, and I can correct them or not depending on the situation.

Last night a very stupid waitress thought I was a man. This happens off again on again because I usually don’t smile at strangers (women do this habitually I don’t), etc. I was caught up in the discussion with four other women at our table, but one of the other women corrected the waitress the next time around. I didn’t care one way or another, and I tend to write off stupid people and not engage them in their stupidity.

That said, no woman should be afraid of being mistaken for a lesbian, because this is a fear men use to keep all women in their places. It’s why lesbian visibility throughout history is of primary importance, because we don’t want women mistaken for straight, and thus creating the false idea that all women have sex with men, when they obviously don’t. And lesbians do heroic things, and should be given full credit for our non-stop protest against male supremacy. Remember, we don’t live with, cook for or clean up after the enemy, and this is an important thing for the world to know. We don’t submit to male sexual entitlement, we don’t submit to them period, and if this is covered up, then even straight women who don’t want to have anything to do with men sexually will not have a stronger lesbian resistence to be out on the front lines.

Erasure of lesbian existence is something straight women do all the time with me; it is their fear, their collusion with patriarchy, their discomfort and lack of imagination. They don’t even know they are doing this.

And I’ve met thousands of women who actually used to think they were straight, and came out later in life. I believe the success of the lesbian movement was simply making more room for women who didn’t even know a lesbian life was possible. When we were erased, then even lesbians were conned into believing themselves to be straight, when they actually weren’t.

Or maybe there was a huge number of bi women, who simply chose men as a meal ticket, and in the past, it would have been more difficult to be a lesbians so they took the easy way out… most women do choose to slide by on penis privilege.

48. rhondda - December 1, 2010

I distinctly recall a bit of a blog war a while ago where a lesbian who claimed to be never het, said that political lesbians were not really lesbians and that a real lesbian was born that way and did not make a decision to become one. This I believe is one reason Amy of Feminist reprise quit blogging. She was a second class citizen then. So the issue really is around this being born one way or not or if it is all socialization to heterosexuality. For if never het is a status, then I take the label spinster thank you.

49. Undercover Punk - December 2, 2010

Oh, rhondda. You are brave! Yes, there were many words typed over the whole ‘contamination!’ debacle. I believe people are entitled to their own opinions. So, for example, I don’t believe in innate, immutable sexuality. (Even though this is The Case for Gay Equality– but we can’t *help* it! Just like MEN can’t *help* raping!) So my being once-het, even if it means I’m “less of a lesbian” to some other lesbians, doesn’t mean much to me. My wife is never-het and we’re cool, so it doesn’t matter. Same as feminists who think I’m just interested in the male gaze when I wear my fem-femme clothing. I know the truth. MY truth. So whatevs. Not gonna quit blogging or anything. And not gonna hate on people who disagree with me about innate sexuality– whether it’s you or FCM or Sheila G or anyone else.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry