jump to navigation

24-Hour Menergy January 12, 2011

Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, PIV.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

i am currently reading mary dalys “quintessence” which is the last in a trilogy “describing the Metapatriarchal Journey of Excorcism and Ecstasy.”  (her words).  gyn/ecology and pure lust preceded quintessence, and i havent read either of them yet.  since she plays around with the ideas of time and space, and points out that radical feminist work is both timeless and boundless, i dont think she would mind my reading them out of order.  she might even think it was funny?  i dont know.  her internal dialogue seems to be a track of constant laughter.  which takes some getting used to, since she tackles the most gruesome of subject matter, like all radical feminists do.  you can tell when the laughter is perverse, and hers isnt.  sonia once commented here that reading daly was like being wrapped in a warm blanket.

in quintessence, among other things, daly discusses energy, and intent.  regarding energy, she notes that we are literally surrounded by man-made energy at every moment of every day: the magnetic and electrical energies of technology, like radar, for example, which is apparently bounced off of every square inch of the earth, once an hour, by military and other satellites which store the data as images to be downloaded later.  i have personally viewed the street where i grew up on google earth, as well as every home i have lived in since, so this isnt really a surprise.  for anyone who isnt convinced, she quotes an actual man who can confirm this is true.  (she advocates using phallocentric authors as a springboard for radical feminist work, where applicable.)

regarding intent, she mentions the practice of surgical lobotomy, which was performed on thousands of women mere decades ago, with the surgeons themselves concluding after followup with lobotomized women that the procedure made these mutilated women “good housekeepers.”  and they continued to do it to even more women, after that.  interestingly, this is where the end-result becomes the intent, if it wasnt already.  even assuming they werent really sure what was going to happen in lobotomized patients in the beginning, once they recorded that the result was, in fact, to completely destroy womens “wildness and creativity” and they still did it to even more women, its obvious that AT SOME POINT, this is exactly what they wanted to happen.  (kinda like inflicting physical harm and trauma-bonding from PIV.  but i digress).  and that this “intent” (to destroy women) is exactly the intent of patriarchy, as a whole.

so, after reading this during the day, i was driving home and realizing the obvious, that mens energy is literally all around us, at all times, and not just radar from military satellites.  men built the roads and bridges.  men built the cars.  men built the signs and hung the wires.  men are literally patrolling the streets, every nook and cranny in fact, and keeping the order.  everything is permeated with maleness, and literally (literally!) embodying male energy: if men put their energy into creating a bridge, their energy is still there.  heres what wiki has to say about the relationship between potential and kinetic energy, which seems to be applicable here:

The action of stretching [a] spring or lifting [a] mass requires energy to perform. The energy that went into lifting up the mass is stored in its position in the gravitational field, while similarly, the energy it took to stretch the spring is stored in the metal. According to the law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed; hence this energy cannot disappear. Instead, it is stored as potential energy. If the spring is released or the mass is dropped, this stored energy will be converted into kinetic energy by the restoring force, which is elasticity in the case of the spring, and gravity in the case of the mass. Think of a roller coaster. When the coaster climbs a hill it has potential energy. At the very top of the hill is its maximum potential energy. When the car speeds down the hill potential energy turns into kinetic. Kinetic energy is greatest at the bottom.

bolds mine.  now, i am not talking about “male energy” necessarily.  (i am not an evil essenshul-ist afterall!)  realizing that its “mens energy” i think is good enough.  and when one considers mens intentions, always, the fact that mens energy literally built every artificial structure and every piece of technology and every everything, the possibility that they have left some kind of mark on everything becomes even more compelling.  i mean really.  what were these men thinking, when they were building the bridge?  what were they thinking, when they built the signs, and paved the streets, and hung the wires?  what motivated them to do it?  (ie. what was their intent?)  what motivated them to even get out of bed that day, and what were they expecting to happen that night, and the next day, and the next week, and the next year, and for the rest of their lives?  of course, the chances that their intent exactly mirrored the intent of patriarchy are high.  in fact, we can probably take it as a given.

so.  the fact that men built literally everything, and that mens energy (and the intent driving them to expend it?) is literally stored, everywhere, is known.  it isnt a variable, its a given.  that parts easy.  the next question i guess is “does it matter?”  and i am starting to think that it probably does.

Comments

1. Andrea1 - January 13, 2011

hello
read a few of your posts and will definitely be checking back. I don’t agree with a lot of what you say as regards PIV, say, and/or pregnancy, but you always make at least one really fresh and original point. And I love Dworkin. So yeah cheers, I will be back.

xxx

FCM - January 13, 2011

What people mean, of course, when they say that they “disagree” with the piv stuff, is not that they disagree with my points, or disagree that piv is harmful, and specifically harmful to women. Because this is so clearly the case, that its impossible to dispute. They disagree that IT MATTERS. Let’s not pretend its something it isn’t, as if theres any gray area, at all. There’s not. It’s not a debate. It just IS.

2. FAB Libber - January 13, 2011

On the menergy motivation, I think it is clear what the motivations of men are: control, taming, domination etc. They like to do it with everything (including trying to mansplain on radfem blogs, *eyeroll*). They cannot leave anything alone, they have to control or dominate it – hence the need for feminism, they control and dominate us too (just in case anyone missed the memo on what feminism was about). I also think it is the main reason that most men don’t like cats as pets. Cats like to do their own thing, they won’t do tricks/obedience like dogs do.

3. FAB Libber - January 13, 2011

I don’t agree with a lot of what you say as regards PIV, say, and/or pregnancy

Really? In excess of 100,000 women in England in 2009 might just disagree that THEY are the ones bearing the brunt of responsibility for all this “yippee yahoo piv funz”.

The number below, 70k, is only 48% of abortions below 9 weeks (so around 145k total), and that does not even include abortions after 9 weeks.

In 2009, around 70,000 women in England and Wales had early medical abortions, which was 48% of all women seeking abortion below nine weeks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12173743

That is one shitload of consequence that only one half of the population is having to deal with for piv-as-recreation. I don’t see any menz having to line up and fuck up their body chemistry, or have it physically invaded to deal with this recreational activity.

4. Andrea1 - January 13, 2011

actually the blog you just wrote has gone straight over my head, save to say that I’m pretty literal minded when it comes to matter and electricity is just electricity. It don’t matter who wired the circuit.

It’s important that the plans and the traditions and the rules for approaching architecture and construction and engineering were devised by men, presumably with some sort of male bias, but I don’t really get the stuff about energy laid into the bricks by the construction workers, or whatever. Unless that was a big metaphor. :S

FCM - January 13, 2011

I do not deal in metaphors. I am talking about men’s energy being literally stored in the bricks. My understanding of this energy business is that whatever energy is expended to lift up an object (like a brick) and hold it suspended in midair, as in a bridge or a building, is literally stored in (or maybe around?) the brick as potential energy. When it falls, the potential energy turns into kinetic energy. A brick that falls from a height of one foot doesn’t fall with as much force as one that falls from a thousand feet. That’s because it didnt take as much energy to get it there in the first place. That’s why when the world trade center fell, it fell with such a massive force that humans and desks and everything else were pulverized into dust. It took a massive amount of energy to build it in the first place, and that energy never went away.

I saw that on the discovery channel, or something approximating it. I am not a freaking structural engineer, but I do vaguely recall learning about potential and kinetic energy in school, and that this was the gist.

FCM - January 13, 2011

Holy Hannah, teh menz have found this post, and they seem to have an issue with it. I wonder why that would be?

5. Andrea1 - January 13, 2011

that’s totally not how energy works. Did you ever study physics?

6. Social Worker - January 13, 2011

I’m more interested in the direction of “men building everything.” As you said, what was the motivation, what’s the point?
Control, domination, putting their “mark” on something which seems to be far more important to men (hence piv, paternity concerns, etc). Men love to mark stuff, make it “theirs”, like dogs peeing on trees.
That’s MY bridge, I built that. Really? Gee, thanks, but wasn’t planning on heading anywhere over there until you built it and forced me to go with you.

I’d like to hear more thoughts though, on the effect of the actual stored energy. At this point, I tend to agree with Andrea1 on that point.

That men did the building, there’s definitely a lot there worth exploring.

FCM - January 13, 2011

Andrea1 had a point?

FCM - January 13, 2011

Ok I spammed Andrea1 for a big old blathering what about teh babiez rant. But now she appears to have a disagreement with my explanation of how energy works, so I am posting it.

You can tell she “disagrees” by the way she tells me I am wrong, without explaining WHY I am wrong. That’s what passes as a disagreement in teh mainstream interwebs, as I recall.

FCM - January 13, 2011

And yes, I am the radical feminist physicist who cites wiki and that 9/11 special on the discovery channel, when making points about physics. You mayve heard of me.

FCM - January 14, 2011

sar, you left an excellent comment that went into the spam folder for some reason. and on the other thread too. try to post them again wont you? i dont approve comments that are automatically tagged as spam, even if they look ok, its just not safe. thanks.

7. calliope - January 14, 2011

Andrea1, yes energy can and does work that way. FCM stated the correct term – kinetic energy – already. potential energy too. I took grade 12 physics at least and actually loved it (light sound being my fave units :)). Funny too that it’s a field totally dominated by men, just like engineering, all sciences until recently. And still..

This is a really fascinating post, really strange to realize that almost everything around us has literally been built by men.

8. FAB Libber - January 14, 2011

putting their “mark” on something

Ah yes, I forgot that one from the list above. They do like peeing on things, literally and metaphorical.

I thought it strange (trollish) that Andrea1 would make the first comment about the piv on a non-piv thread. Instinct seems to be a good thing.

FCM - January 14, 2011

Is this going to be like on the sex-positive equation post, where all teh science guys showed up with jerking knees to tell me how wrong I was…but really I was right? Funny how they get all bent out of shape when their own fucking theories and disciplines are used against them, or in a way they DON’T like. Intent indeed. It does matter, and they confirm it with their protests.

FCM - January 14, 2011

This is why they never wanted women to go to school of course. And as far as weve supposedly come, this is still true. I hope Mary daly is right about radical feminist work being timeless and boundless, because men’s hate for us, and desire to destroy us, is. They don’t even want us to read, they don’t want us to learn, and they definitely dont want us to understand (with science!!!11!) what’s happening, or to be able to prove it. They don’t even want us to understand a freaking special on the discovery channel, because of what we might do with the information. It’s fucking stunning.

9. FCM - January 14, 2011

this is from sar. it went into the spam folder for some reason:

Its not happenstance that everyone “disagrees” so vehemently with this premise. DO NOT QUESTION INFRASTRUCTURE, is rule #1. If the end of piv would be the end of sex in the male mind, the end of infrastructure would be the end of humanity. we would become animals!

I expect more women to be upset by this than men, actually. Men are happy to live in a world constructed with their own energy and in their own image. Women however, have to convince themselves that this is NOT the case, in order to live.

reviewed in HTML editor for purity. not sure why it was spammed. sar, if you want to repost, i will remove this one. thanks.

10. FCM - January 14, 2011

a very common MRA/male response to any criticism of “infrastructure” is that women are happy to USE these things, but we dont want to give men the CREDIT for what they did. i have seen this repeatedly elsewhere, and it was the FIRST (!!!111!11) comment on this thread. lets examine this shall we? number one, we arent given a choice. its not as if we can choose another road or building or technology that WASNT built by men, or isnt permeated by maleness. because everything is.

and number two, the absolute LAST THING any man wants is for men to be given CREDIT FOR WHAT MEN, as a sexual class, DO. so cut the crap. they simply want us to STFU, and they want to be paid union wages to dominate us and take ownership of the entire world, and make babies they dont support.

i see you!

11. Sargassosea - January 14, 2011

Yes, men built everything and their energy IS stored therein.

Also, masculine identity is completely wrapped up in what they do to make money: I’m an engineer/bricklayer/lineman for the county so I can support my (future) wife and kids! I’m a MAN.

So that when men are performing their work the real intent is to bolster their masculine identity. Men can stand around and SEE and TOUCH the things that they have made and be reminded at all times that they are MEN, that they are in control because they have changed the very shape of nature.

Women have nothing like this. They have children (although it is so completely wrong for parents to take credit for their children!), they have dinner on the table they have perfectly white whites, impeccable make-up, 100 pairs of sexxxay shoes, those last 10 pounds! I over-simplify, of course, but it’s true.

Where are the skyscrapers, jets and ocean liners that were conceived of and built almost entirely by women at every step of every process?

12. Sargassosea - January 14, 2011

I hope I’m not straying too far off topic with this big ’ol anecdote, but about a couple of years ago I was very excited to hear of a discovery in the world of physical anthropology that claimed to be a fossil even older than Lucy the famous australopithecine afarensis and was dubbed Artelopithecine, or Arte for short. If true, this would be a huge discovery and would bring us solidly closer to finding the ‘missing link‘. I read about it in some rag like Discovery or Science and shortly thereafter watched a 2 hour special on the tv about it. I was in heaven! Two whole hours of fucking cool anthropology!

Anyway the show was interesting enough until the last 15 minutes when the speculation into the origins of upright ambulation began; was it to see over the savannah grasses? Did it make carrying tools easier? No, this time the ANSWER was: women are choosey and prefer to “mate” with men who can reach fruit higher in the trees and bring it to them so they can laze about, eat that perfectly ripe fruit and play with teh baybeez.

Did my head explode? Yes, it did! This was my rude introduction to the evo-psych crowd and the way that they will take their crap and slap it on what for all intents and purposes is Hard Science* – jump from a couple of bone fragments which can be empirically observed to a simple male domination fantasy, call it Science so it Must Be Believed and then get all pouty and whiney when women call you on it. Pfft.

* a couple of months later I googled “artelopithecine” looking for scholarly writings on the subject and got ZERO hits. Not even one declaring it to be a hoax. I didn’t realize that anthropologists had a Universal Scrub Machine!

FCM - January 14, 2011

Yes, their conclusions are highly suspect. What’s objectively observable and therefore prove-able is as far as any of them should go, due to their conflicts of interest, and inability to be rational. But they won’t admit their own bias or deal with it, or see a problem at all where they turn history and pre-history into their very own porn flick.

I would also note that this post didn’t go at all beyond what’s objectively observable and therefore prove-able. There’s no interpretation here at all, I am literally quoting their own fucking science back at them, and still people have a problem with it. They “disagree.” Disagree with what? A basic mathematical premise that’s been proven sound centuries ago? God. The lengths people will go to, to ignore things that are completely true, just because they don’t LIKE it, or personally believe it MATTERS. And yes, its just plain arrogance. That’s what it is.

13. Undercover Punk - January 14, 2011

Where are the skyscrapers, jets and ocean liners that were conceived of and built almost entirely by women at every step of every process?

Seriously. Oh yeah, NO WHERE. Just like there is no country– or even CITY or TOWN– in the WORLD that is run entirely BY women or FOR women. Nope, men rule everything. EVERYTHING. It HAS an effect on us, you know. Us females, that is.

Also, I hate pedantic scientists. Pet peeve, I think. First of all, your little concepts aren’t that complicated. Energy storage is not an advanced concept. Secondly, the knowledge base of science isn’t that STABLE. I’m all for evolution of wisdom and everything, but science acts likes it’s the end all, be all, of all. Which it isn’t. It is constantly learning new things and revising past assumptions. Doesn’t make me feel safe or secure about relying on it. Can we all remember how much DAMAGE “science” has done to women? Thank you.

MENERGY. Love the word.

FCM - January 14, 2011

Some of you were here for the sex-positive equation convo, and this is apparently round two. I still laugh about that post to this day, teh manly science guys got their asses so thoroughly kicked, shredded, sliced, diced and sauteed, and then handed back to them, it was grand. But what was really great of course was that at least 2 bona fide science WOMEN showed up, and a few more who were well versed in logic, and really set the record straight. They actually looked at my work WANTING to understand MY POINT, and walking everyone through the math, and discussing whether the math CONVEYED what I wanted to convey. AND IT DID. It’s a completely different tactic than what teh menz pulled, and what Andrea1 and even social worker have displayed here. Disagree first, understand later. I don’t believe that Andrea1 is even female, but that’s neither here nor there. She contributed nothing to the discussion, at all. At least social worker sort of halfway indicated she was willing to learn.

14. kurukurushoujo - January 14, 2011

Anyway the show was interesting enough until the last 15 minutes when the speculation into the origins of upright ambulation began; was it to see over the savannah grasses? Did it make carrying tools easier? No, this time the ANSWER was: women are choosey and prefer to “mate” with men who can reach fruit higher in the trees and bring it to them so they can laze about, eat that perfectly ripe fruit and play with teh baybeez.

This, of course, begs the question how women every learned to go upright seeing as they had all those horny males busily running around and collecting fruits.

Evo psychos explain everything through uninhibited mate selection, everything. This is why they can’t understand that homosexuality exists since it is assumed that gays & lesbians don’t procreate and therefore should not have been able to pass on the genes “causing” homosexuality. Even following the belief that homosexuality is 100% hereditary social structures forcing the vast majority to marry would guarantee for a gay and/or lesbian gene to be passed on. But in the minds of evo psychos social structures are completely born out of genetics and therefore… homosexuality is a mystery! *facepalm*

A similar example are the many totally interesting and valuable theories about the origin of women’s tendency to visit the toilet together. There’s a theory that since women squat to urinate they always had to have someone nearby to look over the high praerie grass in our good old savannah days. But, you know, women don’t need to squat to piss- if you’re naked you can just let it flow (and indeed when women were still wearing long skirts without any underwear they often didn’t bother to squat).

Not to forget that one bozo whose name I have thankfully forgotten who said that women always “choosing” to marry the richest men in ancient Turkey was proof of men’s inherent provider role. Then someone reminded him: you know, the girls’ parents actually sold their daughters to the highest bidder. So, you know, no “choosing”.

I completely agree with Daly on the intent of lobotomies and similar measures to violently circumscribe female potential- they destroy us and use the empty shells we become to utilize them in their own service. I think a good book to get into this topic in more detail is Phyllis Chesler’s “Women and Madness”. There’s a horrible section on Zelda Fitzgerald, the wife of writer Scott Fitzgerald, who was constantly pressured by her husband to not make use of her literary talents because that wasn’t something a woman should do- he’s the man in the house so he writes! In the end she didn’t even care about being institutionalized because that was as good as her marriage. As far as I know she suffocated in the course of a fire breaking out at the institution. She was so tired of living that she didn’t have the energy to leave her bed. Scott, of course, was writing about really important things like the potential of ridicule male desire of fucking young women might arouse.

15. sam - January 14, 2011

Every sizable city has at least one neighborhood where pimps and johns openly, brazenly conduct their slave trade. They’re called “red light districts” and they form where men approve legal prostitution businesses like strip clubs and porn stores.

Is there one block of any city in the world owned and operated entirely by women?

16. Social Worker - January 14, 2011

Of course, very willing. My only “disagreement” and I meant it as more a push for more dialogue on this, was about the meaning of specifically men’s energy stored in things, inanimate matter.

The psychological effect on us of men having built everything (although I wonder if we are ignoring feminist history of actual contributions made when we say this), is a no-brainer. Of COURSE the male mind conceives of and designs things differently and having that all around us forces us into that paradigm, whether we like it or not. Same with language and all the other realities that we’ve discussed on here.
Thems who creates make the reality or some such.
We now have to CONTINUE (again and again) to redefine it in non-male specific ways. ALL OF IT!
Which is what you do every day on here, FCM.

I just don’t KNOW what specific effect the maleness/femaleness of stored energy could be.
That’s all.

17. Sargassosea - January 14, 2011

“…the meaning of specifically men’s energy stored in things, inanimate matter.”

Well, there’s the bicycleàgeneratoràbattery where people’s energy is literally stored in an *inanimate* object.

So what’s the difference with a brick or a cultivated tomato or a mars lander? Our physical and mental efforts require an output of energy and that energy HAS TO go somewhere, it doesn’t just *disappear*.

The universe is a giant recycling machine.

18. Sargassosea - January 14, 2011

Ah, crap. Sorry about the symbol screw up! Bicycle : generator : battery, I meant.

As for the potential effects of stored male/female energy on the public at large I’ll make a very, very simple comparison:

Grandma’s handmade quilt vs. the atomic bomb.

19. rhondda - January 14, 2011

There is a delightful book by Elaine Morgan called the Descent of Woman: the classic study of Evolution which men are very upset about and denigrate, but really most of it is about how women ensure the survival of their offspring. Hello? Why do most female animals run off the male after their babies are born? Hello again. The male gets so jealous that they try and kill them. Freud anyone? Another interesting book is Mothers and Amazons by Helen Diner. One of her thesis’s is that Amazons rejected even the roles that mothers proscribed for them. They wanted their own life. Love it.

FCM - January 14, 2011

The only question I presented here was “does it matter” that men’s energy is stored literally everywhere. It’s in the tiles in your shower, in every nook and cranny of your house, and in every house in fact, and every building. In every telephone wire, and every sign and every bridge and every everything.

I didn’t say I had an answer. I literally just considered the question for the first time THIS WEEK. I mean, I actually have thought about the fact that men build everything, but I never considered the part about the stored potential energy.

My thought at the moment is how could it NOT matter? And that it probably does. Also, I am seeing things differently than I did just a week ago, which kind of amazes me. All from two chapters of a book, by Mary daly. Rainsinger once told me she couldn’t wait for me to read and digest dalys work. Heh. I am looking forward to reading more.

FCM - January 14, 2011

But seriously, can you sense the menergy, now that you know its there? If so, don’t you think that’s kinda strange, since its been there all along? It’s weird what you can get used to. It really is.

20. rhondda - January 15, 2011

It does matter FCM. It matters because men have said they are culture and women are nature and there to be exploited. Just look at what they are doing to nature and they are fucking wrong about it/her. All you have to do is go out into nature and start observing without any male preconceived notions and pretty soon the message is clear. They have no fucking clue about how nature works. They have abstracted some mechanical laws and that is all. To top it all most scientist are paid to find what the payee wants to find. I can’t tell you how many arguments I have had with foresters, ecologists, naturalists, etc who insist their myopic vision is the truth. I had one who admitted to me that the only reason they kill weeds is for the ranchers and farmers, but he would never say that publically. He is paid by the government. Weeds only grow on disturbed land and you would not find them in a ‘natural landscape’. It matters for fucking men and their myths are destroying the earth.

21. calliope - January 15, 2011

UP,

“..the knowledge base of science isn’t that STABLE. I’m all for evolution of wisdom and everything, but science acts likes it’s the end all, be all, of all. Which it isn’t. It is constantly learning new things and revising past assumptions. Doesn’t make me feel safe or secure about relying on it. Can we all remember how much DAMAGE “science” has done to women?”

So true!!

22. Social Worker - January 15, 2011

Hmm, so the question is does potential energy have gender? And if so, how does it manifest/affect us?
Which is very different from Sargassosea’s (very good, but different) analogy which is related to WHAT is made rather than the exact same item made by a man vs a woman (say, a brick) and is it somehow actually different?
I don’t have an answer either, but I love the question.

Putting aside the physics (although I’d like to hear more on that), the psychological effect of just subconsciously (and now more consciously) KNOWING nearly everything around me and even the words I use and speak with were designed by men has a chilling effect. Maybe this is too simplistic, but it must at least make women feel “one-down” at nearly all times in both subtle and overt ways.

23. zeph - January 15, 2011

I don’t think it is men who have made everything. They steal our energy and credit it to themselves. They have distorted history to make it appear that they are the ones with the ingenuity and we have none. The truth can be found in any class room, for the most part women achieve and men have to cheat to keep up, that is why patriarchy given full reign prefers to deny us education. When you compare the few male geniuses, that we never hear the last off, with the vast swath of mindless grunts that form the majority of the male population you see the lie, is one of spotlighting a few in order to obscure in shadow, the efforts of many, mainly women. Our contributions our simply erased from history, his name is on all our achievements.

In chimpanzees it is the females who pioneer tool use. Even in different species, male science journalists cannot bear to attribute these achievements to females and actually tried to credit the adolescents (who are being taught to make spears by their mothers) instead.

It is not men’s energy alone that has made our world, it is largely ours, but like all slavers it is them that have directed its use. I think you define something very important factcheckme, the sense that we are in an alien world which has been constructed in ways that control us; our abilities have been utilised against our interests, for the benefit of men.

FCM - January 15, 2011

Regarding inventions, ideas, and writings, and of course nurturing, I agree that women have contributed more than they will ever be given credit for. This is clearly the truth. Men steal our energy and our ideas to benefit themselves. Women’s writing was and is stolen by men who claim it as their own, or women write under assumed male names, just to get published. So yes, women’s energy is out there too, and it never goes away either does it? Interestingly, I have never seen a discovery show special on THAT kind of energy, and I don’t know if it can be or ever has been mathematically expressed either.

But this is different than the potential energy that’s stored in buildings isnt it? When I look all around me, I see structures that were built by union labor. This is a notorious boys club. I would more easily believe that a woman designed and planned a major building project, or had it built, or “inspired” some man to build it, than to have actually built one using her physical labor, or the kinetic/potential energy model. Women are not welcome on construction sites, or in labor unions, at all. And I understand that in the US, subway tunnels, railroads, skyscrapers, and major bridges for example that were constructed in the last few hundred years were done by largely immigrant men, and labor unions. In any major city, there will be stored potential mens energy that’s been stored there for centuries, in structures that were built by men long dead.

So if women provided the nurturing or the inspiration or designed and planned it or whatever, how is their energy stored? Is this kind of energy stored, or is it just recycled?

Or, are people suggesting that women’s energy IS stored in major structures as potential energy, because they were there, building these things with their own hands, and not getting credit? And/or that this has happened in large numbers? I admit that the possibility, and even probability that its happened at least once, comforts me.

FCM - January 15, 2011

heres the formula for potential energy:

PE = m x g x h
where PE = Potential Energy, m = Mass of object, g = Acceleration of Gravity, h = Height of object

heres an example:

Case 1: A cat climbed up to the top of a tree. The Tree is 20 meters high and the cat weighs 6kg. How much potential energy does the cat have?

m = 6 kg, h = 20 m, g = 9.8 m/s2 (Gravitational Acceleration of the earth). so, substitute the values in the below potential energy formula:

Potential Energy: PE = m x g x h = 6 x 9.8 x 20 = 1176 Joules

http://easycalculation.com/physics/classical-physics/learn-potential.php

as i said, i am not a physicist (in case andrea1 is still reading, i will maintain that i AM in fact a physicist, and that i am now adding easycalculation.com to my list of references along with wiki and that 9/11 special on the discovery channel) but i think that the cat example is the same as the construction example, except that to get the potential energy of the brick, you would just subtract the mass of the construction worker before you did the calculation. so if the guy was x kilograms and the brick was 1 kilogram, then m would be 1 kilogram if you JUST wanted to calculate how much potential energy he leaves behind, if he carries a brick up to a height and then leaves it there. anyone?

FCM - January 15, 2011

also, to clarify, i am not concerned about whether potential energy “has a gender.” again, i think its enough to consider that we are dealing with MENS ENERGY, and that its not necessary to take the next step and consider “male energy” which is controversial, because its ESSENSHULIST!!11!!11 i dont care whether theres any such thing as “male energy” or “female energy,” at least not as it relates to THIS POST. i am talking about MEN, and what male-bodied persons are known to leave behind, when they carry objects up to a height, and then leave them there. thats all.

does it bother anyone, for example, to know that rapists are leaving their energy behind in buildings, and that their energy lasts in that form forever, until the building comes down? most rapists have jobs afterall. men (including rapists) like to pretend that rapists arent human (they are monsters etc) but women know better. the potential energy of a rapist, or hundreds of them, is stored in every building in every major city on this earth. the stored potential energy, and massive, massive amounts of it at that, of abusers, dominators, deadbeat dads, and PIV-entitled pricks is all around us, every minute of every day. does this seem strange?

and i am JUST TALKING about stored potential energy. i am not talking about intention, which is different. to say that intention alters the energy in some way would be a metaphor, and its not provable, as far as i know. but at any rate, it would not be expressed in the above example (PE = mgh). intention is not expressed here, but its not irrelevant is it? intention drives men to expend energy, in the first place. intention brings about a result by setting things in motion…and the end-result becomes the intention, as in the lobotomy example. it becomes a closed circuit. circuit? energy? anyone?

the idea that the end-result is/becomes the cause has been around for a long, long time. aristotle talked about it. daly talks about it too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

24. Sargassosea - January 15, 2011

From the wiki on Four Causes: “…a telos [Final Cause, or intent] can be present without any form of deliberation, consciousness or intelligence in general.”

Lol – pretty much explains why since men made almost every, thing almost every thing is totally fucked up!

In all seriousness though, I’m with FCM on not caring about the *gender* of bricks. That’s not the point. The point IS that men made/make 99.7% of everything (yes, yes women have fabulous ideas that are stolen from them, women are erased systematically – the .3 represents those women who *escape* those fates and I think I‘m being generous here) so it is THEIR intent that matters whether or not they know what they’re after in the first place. Like with the lobotomies.

And, yes it bothers me a whole lot that buildings that men conceived of and built are filled with piv perpetrators AND rapists AND pedophiles AND porn sick misogynists. And their victims. As I said upthread, the building serves as a solid, physical symbol of male dominance and I imagine it feels pretty good to THEM. Shit, it’s almost as if the stored man energy sort of seeps back out into the people inhabiting the space so yeah, congratulations Social Worker: you’ve hit the nail on the head with that ’one-down’ comment, although I’d amend it to ’at least one-down’.

25. Sargassosea - January 15, 2011

You know, even though I’ve been aware that men make everything for a long time and all that I just never really stopped to think about if there are ANY *public use* buildings, infrastructure, spaces made primarily (97.7%) conceived of and built by women even if their intent was to honor MEN and/or their stooopid crap like wars and even if the $$$ came from men in the first place. I can’t think of a single one even with that weak criteria.

So, clearly women are inferior at thinking and building things because only men think and build things! This radical feminism IS for the birds after all!😉

Grrr.

FCM - January 15, 2011

good catch about the “without deliberation or intelligence” etc ss! you are right, that is funny.

and yes about the “one down” too. i agree that theres a psychological component to all of this. again, how could there not be? i do think its possible to think about too many things at once though, and am trying to strip these things down to basics. i think the potential energy and the intent/outcome-circuit and the psychological effects are seperate and distinct entities, and am trying to keep that in mind as i write about them. and as far as metaphors go, i think that the psychological part has a metaphorical as well as a tangible component: like high-heels, there is the symbol of our oppression, and then the physical manifestation of it, where the “metaphor” exists but it also works to ACTUALLY hobble us, and keep us in our place.

and looking at the actual items that creative women create, versus what “creative men” create, is another thing too. and again, i dont think its necessary to step into essenshul-ist territory in order to ACKNOWLEDGE that when women create, both now and in the past, both here and in other places, its so frequently been something like….grandmas quilt. or food. or crocheted-coral reefs (as on UP’s post). or whatever. and its worth mentioning too that a grass hut or similar “primitive” structure, if it ever fell down, would not pulverize humans and desks (or whatever) into dust.

this all makes me want to leave this urban area immediately, if not sooner. just, ew.

FCM - January 15, 2011

also, this is where everyone who DOESNT WANT to understand it goes off the rails, when reading daly isnt it? this is why she is called an “essentialist” and dismissed by almost everyone? again, there is NO REASON to talk about male/female energy, if you dont want to. and i havent seen daly invoke it, at least not yet. its enough, i think, to look at WHAT MEN AND WOMEN ACTUALLY DO. actually. not whether they are compelled to do it, and by what. NO. whether and what (and who) they actually harm. whether and what (and who) they actually create. i dont care whether destructive males are compelled to do what they do. its enough to know that they do it, and they havent stopped, and its not looking like they ever will.

talking about what they MIGHT BE CAPABLE OF BIOLOGICALLY is fucking irrelevant, and its the ultimate what about teh menz isnt it? lets ignore what they ACTUALLY DO, and necessarily of course then ignore the actual, demonstrable harms they perpetrate…and instead talk about…what exactly? something more palateable, right? doesnt matter what it is, as long as it gets the focus off WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO.

26. joy - January 16, 2011

kurukurushoujo —

I’ve been writing a book for the past two years about the Beat women — there’s an anthology called ‘The Women Of The Beat Generation’, but mine is using a radical feminist interpretation of these women’s experiences.

Zelda Fitzgerald wasn’t of the Beat generation, but she has long illustrated to me the end result of accepting the female role in patriarchy.

ie, eventually preferring institutionalization to marriage, and not even caring if you die of smoke inhalation.

Speaking as we have on here about the cycles of feminism — if Zelda was the 1920s version of a funfem, well, look how her life turned out. Funfems of today sure have a lot to look forward to.

Eventually preferring institutionalization to marriage, and not even caring if you die. Being so passive that you literally don’t care if a man murders you.

Also — I just tried to search half.com for Chesler’s book, and the first three search results for “women and madness” were all about how teh hormonez makez womens teh crazee bitcheses. The banality of mainstream thought, it burns indeed.

27. zeph - January 16, 2011

“Or, are people suggesting that women’s energy IS stored in major structures as potential energy, because they were there, building these things with their own hands, and not getting credit? And/or that this has happened in large numbers? I admit that the possibility, and even probability that its happened at least once, comforts me.”

I am agreeing that energy that is stored directly in buildings is mainly mens, not solely though. I was looking at energy additionally as it functions to form society as a whole. It is interesting to note that nations, (once advanced) who remove education and the societal contribution of women from their culture, go backwards and become politically and practically dysfunctional. Creativity and inventiveness becomes stifled and the national wellbeing is sunk in corruption.

Still, women have contributed in ways that history commonly denies. Here are a few quickly googled examples.

After the second world war, the women of Berlin rebuilt their city with their bare hands. Pictures here:http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-56829-3.html

Suspension bridge supports.
Invented in 1811 by Sarah Guppy, 41, from Birmingham, UK.

But strange indeed are some of the occupations in which some of our country-women find a livelihood.
We find that there are 231 women blacksmiths (205 of whom are widows), one coachman, one cabdriver, 42 coal heavers, 25 farm bailiffs, two woodmen, six shepherds, seven coal miners and quarriers (all single), three shipwrights, four bricklayers’ labourers, 14 masons’ labourers, 86 plumbers (77 of them widows), five gasfitters, three navvies, 70 paper hangers, 166 painters and decorators, 657 cabinet makers, 56 carpenters and joiners, 605 pilots and boatmen on seas, and 358 occupied as pilots or boatmen in barges or as watermen on rivers and canals. http://www.hastingspress.co.uk/history/1914bluebook.htm

Arthur told us how, once the ‘sets’ had been made for the cobbled roads the pieces that weren’t used would be cracked down further into siftings for road building, and other uses.
While it was skilled craftsmen who cracked the larger pieces of stone, the job of making the siftings fell to women and children who would use specially designed hammers with small heads and very long handles which they would almost ‘whip’ into the pieces of stone to break them down.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guernsey/content/articles/2008/02/27/

Women and children were probably working at or in the mines in Devon and Cornwall from the days of antiquity, but the earliest written records date from the Middle Ages. From this time, at least, it seems that women and girls did not work below ground, but usually dressed ore at surface. They were employed in particularly large numbers from about 1770 until 1860. From then their numbers declined; the last being laid off in the early 1920’s. They were employed throughout the mining industry; at tin, copper, lead, manganese, uranium, antimony, arsenic and zinc mines, as well as at the clay works and smelters. In Cornwall and West Devon they were often referred to as ‘Bal Maidens’ (the word Bal being ancient Cornish for mining place).
http://www.balmaiden.co.uk/CornwallDevon.

http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/wvon/2010/11/women-and-girls-most-exploited-by-bangladesh-quarry-boom/

FCM - January 16, 2011

thanks for the links zeph. the pics of the trummerfrauen (rubble women) were very moving. as a side note, i googled “trummerfrauen” and found youtube vids…some apparently about the rubble women rebuilding berlin…and others were music vids, apparently by a german techno group calling themselves “trummerfrau” who promote….wait for it….BDSM.

fucking sickening isnt it? for some reason i am reminded of the “neo-vagina monologues” and how stealing womens energy, work, and NAMES to promote the patriarchy is so fucking common, and so damned obvious, it hurts.

28. Andrea1 - January 16, 2011

[edited out a bunch of whiny shit that preceded the substantive point…i will not do you this courtesy again andrea1. stop whining.]
My feelings about this energy business is just that it seems really bizarre to concieve of potential or kinetic energy as having some kind of character relating to the person who created the energy- like the nature of the person who moved the brick somehow makes a difference to any potential energy in the brick. It’s like you’re using physics to create some kind of spiritual realm where we have rapist energy buzzing in the walls. I mean maybe that’s true but only in the same way that maybe god exists.

I think it really matters that men designed and built basically everything, for overwhelming and obvious reasons. But I don’t think the potential energy in the bricks has any kind of CHARACTER because of this. To argue that it can or it does is making a huge leap and extrapolation from simply explaining that the energy is there. I don’t think a physicist would back you up on that either.
As though a wall built by a generous person who never hurt anyone would have any kind of different potential energy to a wall built by a rapist. I mean that just doesn’t make sense to me. If they both wired a circuit the electricity’d be the same.

FCM - January 17, 2011

To argue that it can or it does is making a huge leap and extrapolation from simply explaining that the energy is there.

i have made no such leap. i am just explaining that the energy is there. and a few days ago, you werent even willing to accept that much. are you accepting it now? and if so, why?

29. FAB Libber - January 17, 2011

I don’t dispute the stored energy and kinetic energy, that is part of the physical (science) world. But, I think there is some connection you are trying to make between kinetic energy and what would be called spiritual or emotional energy.

Kinetic energy is stored, and released, and is a ‘fixed’ (or measured) type of energy. But, it is neither good/bad, it just ‘is’. Like electricity, neither inherently good nor bad.

Spiritual energy is not fixed, does not adhere to physical contraints, and can be added to or removed from objects. Not all objects have a spiritual energy imprint either, it is not essential to created objects.

But, here is where I think the difference is between female and male energy. I regard males as mere cardboard cutouts of humanity, generally unable to be truly creative or emotional.

Big things like buildings or stuctures are “gee, that’s big” but that is usually about all, they are somehow ’empty’. There may be kinetic enery stored within them, but little spiritual (emotional) energy attached to them.

It usually takes females, the true creators, to add that ‘spiritual’ energy. The only energy I ever sense left behind by males is negative energy.

In all probability, the domination of nature and the landscape (by males) is because that is about all they can do.

Most separatists ‘just know’ about the female energy thing, it becomes more obvious when you distance yourself from males.

FCM - January 17, 2011

I am an atheist. And I already said that I have made no leaps here. I am not talking about spiritual energy, I am talking about men’s energy. That’s all. I agree that it takes some effort to get your head around this, but its not because I am complicating it with some kind of religious or spiritual component. I have said this repeatedly. I am not talking about metaphors.

If intent fits in here anywhere, it seems to quite literally be that mens intent is a closed circuit in which this energy operates. I don’t know, I am still thinking about that part. In the meantime, here are a few additional thoughts…

It’s not good energy or bad energy that caused several thousand people to be ground to dust at the world trade center cite, when the towers fell. It was just energy. Men’s energy, that they chose to put there in such a massive concentration and in a highly populated area, that death was the easily foseeable result, should the towers ever fall. And no building stands forever. Yes or no?

And this was done largely if not entirely for money. Yes or no?

Potential energy is stored energy, that is eventually released and recycled, but when men build vertically, their energy is intended to remain in stasis indefinitely, and for as long as possible. Which kinda makes them immortal, or more immortal than other beings who just recycle their energy right away. Like nurturing energy, or the energy of some lower lifeform that lives and dies in the span of a few days or weeks. Yes or no?

Women have little to no choice in any of this, and men who at least arguably deserve to die because of what they have perpetrated on women and children, are kinda made immortal instead, and we all know this is happening, and it continues to happen. Yes or no?

Even the psychological component there isn’t metaphorical, I don’t think. Because you don’t have to believe that the intention altered the energy, in any way. It’s men’s energy, stored by men, that they intend to last indefinitely, that’s the problem. Isn’t it? Again, I’m an atheist, and I’m just thinking out loud.

FCM - January 17, 2011

Also, and this is different and doesn’t have to do with stored potential energy, but its worth noting that we have men who don’t care about families, designing and building houses. We have men who don’t care about women, building women’s shelters. They don’t care about their own health or anyone else’s, and in fact harm others with some regularity, and they are building hospitals. It’s easier to see that this kind of thing probably matters. But I think the other thing probably matters too.

30. rhondda - January 17, 2011

FCM, you are really making me think and I am re-reading Quintessence. I think you are right. One cannot fragment energy into spiritual, emotional, intellectual, or physical. It is all connected and it is energy and men’s energy dominates. I keep thinking how men think they own you once they have fucked you. It really doesn’t matter if you say no they don’t, they don’t care. It’s all a monument to themselves and if people die, it is their own fault for wrecking the monument. They pretend to care which they call the cock tax, but really they don’t. You are supposed to do the caring for them. Then they laugh.

FCM - January 17, 2011

you wont find all of this in quintessence, its just what i started thinking about after reading it. daly does however discuss the circuitous nature of intent/outcome, which is known as the 4 causes (see wiki link above, or google artistotle and the 4 causes). and the “menergy” example she uses is “radar from military satellites” which is bounced ito every corner of the globe, once an hour. see what you think, and happy reading!

31. rhondda - January 17, 2011

I know it is not in Quintessence. The thing is you are doing exactly what she recommends. Taking off on an idea inspired by thinking about what she has said. I do not believe she wants any woman to think just like her. She is after freedom.
In pure lust she calls it ‘realizing reason’. You brought that home to me. Thanks. I do see where you got it with the radar stuff. You took it further and I started thinking about it and seeing connections.

FCM - January 17, 2011

It’s all a monument to themselves and if people die, it is their own fault for wrecking the monument.

YES. and the thing about vertical monuments is that the energy is destructive. vertical structures store massive amounts of energy in a way thats dangerous. its going to come down, eventually. and therefore its forseeably harmful. what does this remind you of? well…it reminds you (and thanks for saying it) of the way men fuck. no surprise there.

the fact that they (THEY!) perform a cost/benefit analysis with our lives is cold comfort indeed. if it wasnt worth it FOR THEM to build vertical structures, they wouldnt do it (and i am talking about the big-wigs as well as the labor). but its 100% guaranteed that the buildings are eventually going to fall, and its highly likely (and within their control to ensure) that they wont be around when it happens. they will have their money and the compound interest it generates, and the rest of us have to deal with the consequences. this is literal. its not a metaphor. just because someone somewhere decided its “worth the risk” to build vertically, doesnt mean theres no risk, or thats its shared equally by them. and just because someone somewhere decided it was “necessary” doesnt mean its benign. i am thinking now of highrise residential buildings. we are overpopulated, so this is “necessary”. doesnt make building vertically any safer, or less monumental of men, and mens energy.

32. joy - January 17, 2011

We are overpopulated because men cannot stop sticking their dicks into women and creating more and more unwanted children.

Let’s hear the ‘wat about teh baybeeeze!’ whine again, shall we?

33. joy - January 17, 2011

(obvs not from you, FCM. I mean from lame, whingey readers who have been culturally brainwashed into believing mommydom is wonderful and beautiful and necessary, and/or are so deluded that they actually think the human population is in any way threatened.)

FCM - January 18, 2011

well thats an excellent point isnt it? specifically regarding overpopulation, men sticking their dicks into women creates a “need” to build more and more vertical structures i mean destructive monuments to themselves. yay PIV!

34. FAB Libber - January 18, 2011

One cannot fragment energy into spiritual, emotional, intellectual, or physical.

For the sake of clarity, yes you can ‘fragment’ them into different groups, even if some are more closely related than others.

For example, jellyfish are animals, humans are animals, but they are dramatically different. Yes they are all lifeforms, but to gain an understanding of how they work, you categorise them into groups.

Electromagnetic energy works differently to kinetic energy. Within the electromagnetic spectrum, that can be further divided into visible and not visible etc. Some electromagnetic energy is very penetrable (like xrays) and some is more easily deflected (like light). Whilst some energies share similarities (like the electromagnetic spectrum are waves of energy), other energy is not.

Not all energy behaves the same way, even though it comes under the category ‘energy’. Jellyfish and humans are dramatically different, even though they come under the category ‘animals’.

35. GallusMag - January 18, 2011

Interesting thoughts about the destructive capacity in potential re-released male kinetic energy enshrined in patriarchal structures. And what relation if any that stored potential has relative to one’s subjective (or objective) experience of that structure and/or cumulative effect on one’s habitat.

FCM said: “and its worth mentioning too that a grass hut or similar “primitive” structure, if it ever fell down, would not pulverize humans and desks (or whatever) into dust.”

Female-built structures have tended to be home and homestead. Houses, barns. In many indigenous cultures the home structure was and is built and maintained by females. This is especially seen with adobe structures. This is not due to some love of home but rather to the female creative spirit and energy being restrained forcefully by violent males. Even now female architects, contractors and builders are met with harassment sexism and discrimination from the male establishment and labor unions. When it is profitable (due to lower wages) or when there is a shortage of male labor (as in wartime) or when the task is so tedious that no sane man would choose it (as in factory labor) females make the bricks, place the stones, nail the boards, “man” the conveyer belts. Females helped build the pyramids. Archeologists discovered this when they detected the same patterns of bone wear among female skeletons as they did among male laborers- patterns acquired after years of heavy stone lifting.

What would female architecture look like in absence of patriarchy? Fun to imagine.

36. joy - January 18, 2011

Men also perpetuate overpopulation because they’re responsible for the patriarchy that brainwashes women into wanting marriage and mommyhood.

Men lie and cover up medical information that women need.

Men create artificial means to prevent pregnancy, means which actually harm women and often don’t work — and then restrict women’s access to these means anyway.

Men and their religions prevent women from having abortions.

Then men continue to force children upon women by fucking them over and over and over again.

If the women think they want this suffering, that they’ve even chosen it, then it’s just easier. For men. But they’ll do it anyway.

FCM - January 18, 2011

fab libber, things that exist “behave” (as in, they have properties of thus and so) and things that do not exist cannot behave. you cannot even prove that spiritual energy “exists” let alone that it “behaves” a certain way, or any way. so why are you trying? this is not a post about spiritual energy any more than its a post about jellyfish (or animals). and you have brought up both. why?

FCM - January 18, 2011

Re what things would “look like” if women were (now, suddenly) involved in large numbers in architecture and building projects…I don’t suppose it would look much different at all would it? I mean, maybe aesthetically and functionally there would be differences for example, but overpopulation and capitalism would still make building vertically “necessary.” And it would make lots and lots of money available to anyone who wanted to participate, just like it does now.

In other words, women would still be playing by men’s rules, in the world created by them, to benefit themselves. And piv is at the center of it all. It wouldn’t be any more feminist than “feminist porn.” Would it?

FCM - January 18, 2011

The part about immortalizing rapists might be lessened I guess? Although it wouldn’t go away. And “women’s energy” wouldn’t negate the rapist energy that was there. Again, I am not speaking about metaphors, or essentialism.

37. FAB Libber - January 18, 2011

you cannot even prove that spiritual energy “exists” let alone that it “behaves” a certain way, or any way. so why are you trying? this is not a post about spiritual energy any more than its a post about jellyfish (or animals). and you have brought up both. why?

In general, the conversation has attributed similar/crossover properties to all energy without any distinction – lumping it all together in other words. The jellyfish/human example was to get the point across that two things under the same category can be very different, more different than similar. Surely that was clear and basic as to purpose of illustration?

Physical energy (gravity, electromagnetic, kinetic) is neither good nor bad. Good things can come of it, and bad things can come of it. It is good/bad neutral.

Saying that rapist energy or manergy is somehow stored in bricks along with kinetic energy is beyond the properties of physical energy. Even if you disbelieve in spiritual energy, don’t try to assign the properties of spriritual energy into other energy to somehow prove spiritual energy’s non-existence, which is what appears to be happening. I don’t care whether you believe or not.

What you can say about things like the WTC and the way it came crashing down is that building really tall things is stupid. Does not matter if the towers were built by rapists or buddhist monks, the result will be the same when it comes crashing down.

Menz like to build huge monuments to themselves to prove their ‘power’ and dominance. They do a lot of stupid things, and pointless things.

FCM - January 18, 2011

Fab libber, I am not saying the things you attribute to me. So either you are misunderstanding, or you are projecting, or both. Not only that, but I am mostly saying the same thing you are saying, and attributing to yourself. READ BETTER, is the only thing I can suggest.

I am not talking about “rapist energy” any more than I am talking about “male energy”. That’s essentialist, and not tangible or proveable, and its not the point.

I am talking about MEN’S energy. Men. Male bodied persons. The part about immortalizing rapists had more to do with the psychological effects of all this on both men and women. But its not a metaphor either. If you have ever driven around town with a construction worker, they absolutely delight in telling you “I put the roof on that house” or “my buddies and I did that kitchen” or whatever. What was it like to live in new York city when the towers or any major structure were being built, for one or ten or a hundred or a thousand women who had been victimized by the men that they and everyone else knew were building the damn thing? And for those women who are still living there? I’m just asking. If you don’t think it matters, then thats your opinion. But you kinda have to understand what I am saying, before you can form an opinion either way, and you clearly dont, or you keep showing that you don’t, by the comments you post. If you do understand it, prove it. I cant even read your comments anymore, because you keep saying the same thing.

FCM - January 18, 2011

And the jellyfish “example” was both unneccesary and incorrect, because you were using it to show how “spiritual” energy is different than potential/kinetic energy. It’s not an apt analogy, because humans and jellyfish both demonstrably exist, and spiritual energy doesn’t. Okay?

38. Undercover Punk - January 18, 2011

This is FASCINATING, sisters. I’m not sure that I have much to add, but I am going to share these sort of vague thoughts I had…

Rhodda said:

One cannot fragment energy into spiritual, emotional, intellectual, or physical.

So at first, I was like YEAH. So true!! And in a lot of senses, this is true. But then I started thinking about my other USE of the term ‘energy.’ I DO think that people have ‘energy’ about them. For example, some people have slow, calm, soothing energy about them. Some people have hectic, anxious, fast-paced energy. Some people have a humorous OR very serious, energy. Or both!! The dead pan– love it! This energy can vibrate around the room. I mean, who HASN’T experienced a tidal change in the atmosphere when a particular (usually hostile/negative/angry) person enters a room and changes EVERYTHING? Y’all know what I mean, right? Or when some sweet, sweet stranger (usually a woman) SMILES at you for no reason and it just, CHANGES your mood? This my way of saying that EITHER we are confusing 2 different meanings of the same word (omg, j/gender!!), OR there IS a connection between physical and emotional “energy” and we don’t know it/how to ARTICULATE it/substantiate it with MAN-SCIENCE. I think the primary differentiator, in my mind, would be the INTENT &/or CONTAGIOUS aspect of the emotional energy. …Wait a minute…doesn’t psychical energy also have both an exponential component (like when fire goes CRAZY, eating oxygen) and a negative inertia type of thing? Which is why we need fulcrums to leverage stuff? Or something? I don’t know. Physics was never my thing, so go ahead and yell at me!

It is all connected and it is energy and men’s energy dominates.

Yes. Regardless of whether spiritual or emotional energy exists, it IS all connected. Especially to the extent that all energy is CYCLED, not created. I guess it begs the question of the agent and agency and all that…

I think FCM has conclusively shown that the energy stored all around us was PUT THERE by men. Period. Scientifically accurate. Demonstrably TRUE.

just because someone somewhere decided its “worth the risk” to build vertically, doesnt mean theres no risk, or thats its shared equally by them.

Right. Dependence on and assumption of female care-taking and clean-up (energy expenditure) is always figured into these “risks.” As SMAAHT as these white men are, they never seem to actually ACCOUNT for this. Like, what IF women DIDN’T clean up? What if we DIDN’T do the laundry, have dinner ready and wipe away everyone’s tears?? Ha. Impossible. It’s, like, OVERHEAD they don’t have to pay for…or free property/services that they think is performed by invisible, slave-elf (free) labor. Goddess, the more you think about it, the more outrageous it becomes, doesn’t it? And we’re not SUPPOSED to think about it. SHHHHHHHH!!!!!

39. Sargassosea - January 18, 2011

“Saying that rapist energy or manergy is somehow stored in bricks along with kinetic energy is beyond the properties of physical energy.”

It was ME I think who treaded into the *spiritual energy* area but only tangentially and certainly not to somehow equate it (if it can be said to exist in the first place) with actual, real kinetic energy. I can be very sensitive to a place’s *psychic energy* so thinking about rapists’ energy being contained in (and emitted by) a physical structure which was built by/inhabited by men with intense misogynist focus makes perfect sense to me because I have had these experiences.

But I also understand that this is not what FCM was talking about; even just the potential lethal energy of monumental structures and the obvious lack of fucking forethought is enough to focus on.

Apologies.

FCM - January 18, 2011

Thanks ss. Well said. And I am actually glad that someone “went there,” I mean it kinda makes sense doesn’t it? Because even though its not the same as stored potential energy, (and not a single person here has said it is, including you as you note) there are many people who do believe in psychic energy. I even believe it, I just think its natural, and not supernatural. And there’s absolutely no reason we cant discuss both.

Separately, and understanding what it is we are discussing. The “mish-mash” fab libber said was here, wasnt.

FCM - January 18, 2011

Again, please understand that every single one of my comments before that last one where I reference psychic energy, were meant to be taken literally, and that I was talking EXCLUSIVELY about stored potential energy, and not referencing psychic energy at all. No metaphors either.

Just in case anyone still isn’t sure. If anyone can SHOW me that I’ve gone off the rails in discussing stored potential energy, then please do.

40. Undercover Punk - January 18, 2011

with permalinks and quotations, ALWAYS.

41. Undercover Punk - January 18, 2011

Oh my goodness, I just clicked on the links that zeph provided. In regard to the Berlin pictures, the women are in SKIRTS and DRESSES and little heeled shoes!! Amazing. Like that saying about Ginger Rogers: she did everything he did, but backwards and in heels!

42. Sargassosea - January 18, 2011

“…I just think its natural, and not supernatural.”

and

“I mean, who HASN’T experienced a tidal change in the atmosphere when a particular (usually hostile/negative/angry) person enters a room and changes EVERYTHING?”

Right.

There’s a very real reason we remind our kid to ‘trust her gut’ because it IS a natural occurrence when one’s very vital organs turn *cold*; it’s a split-second physical response to DANGER and part of the flight/fight physiological dynamic. That’s man-science right there and it makes sense.

But man-science could very, very easily explain how we are able to sense intangible/immeasurable psychic energy and that they don’t is evidence that they would be acknowledging that they have been using Crazy and Hysterical and Witch in the most nefarious of ways, DELIBERATE ways, against women for a long time.

It would also require having to admit that women know what women are talking about.

FCM - January 19, 2011

YES. if men are creating almost all the danger, they of course arent going to want us to recognize it, before its too late. and they definitely dont want anyone to be able to prove their intent, and (1) make them miss out on an opportunity to victimize us, and (2) hold them accountable for it, before they actually did whatever vile act they were planning to do. the entire concept is un-american actually. they have literally everything invested in this one dont they?

FCM - January 19, 2011

i have to say, i find all this energy-talk enthralling. i really do. so, thanks!

43. GallusMag - January 19, 2011

I said: “What would female architecture look like in absence of patriarchy? Fun to imagine.”

FCM said:
“Re what things would “look like” if women were (now, suddenly) involved in large numbers in architecture and building projects…I don’t suppose it would look much different at all would it? I mean, maybe aesthetically and functionally there would be differences for example, but overpopulation and capitalism would still make building vertically “necessary.” And it would make lots and lots of money available to anyone who wanted to participate, just like it does now.

In other words, women would still be playing by men’s rules, in the world created by them, to benefit themselves. And piv is at the center of it all. It wouldn’t be any more feminist than “feminist porn.” Would it?”

It seemed like you were responding to my supposition (or imagining) here but if you weren’t then disregard this comment. When I said it was fun to imagine architecture in the absence of patriarchy I meant literally that. Not what architecture would look like if women were now suddenly involved in architecture and building in a mass post-patriarchy recovery phase. I meant to imagine architecture in total absence of patriarchy. To imagine THAT. Because then what are we talking about. For one thing I imagine lack of unnecessary expansion beyond a cultures needs being comfortably met, etc.

44. GallusMag - January 19, 2011

(I based that specific imagining by superimposing territorial patterns observed among non-patriarchal primate cultures btw, not on subjective gender essentialist projection)

FCM - January 19, 2011

i find that to be essentialist.

j/k. yes that is a great point. in the absence of patriarchy. the total absence of. excellent. and yes, it becomes obvious that we probably would not have overpopulation, in the absence of mandatory PIV. and that mandatory PIV would be the first fucking thing to go, if patriarchy ended. so no need for residential high rises. no need for a lot of things. and capitalism…also a faint memory if it is in fact completely dependant on the sex trade, and keeping women as the sex class. without free domestic labor, the economy as we have known it at least since the industrial revolution in the west, would crumble. and without a permanent underclass to reward themselves with cheap trinkets (because thats all they can afford) many industries would go under, tomorrow. etc etc. feel free to add to the list.

FCM - January 19, 2011

Jeez, my mind is in the gutter isn’t it? When someone says “in the absence of patriarchy” and I don’t take it literally. Heh. I blame the fun fems.

FCM - January 19, 2011

I am seriously just shaking my head right now. LOL! WTF?! Thanks gallusmag. You are totally and completely right. I didn’t take it literally. I need to read better. That’s my only suggestion. To myself.

FCM - January 19, 2011

For anyone who senses my hooomerous energy right now…I am actually laughing, and shaking my head. No shit. And no sarcasm either.

45. Jilla - January 19, 2011

What do you make of this FCM?

A women’s studies founder retires:

http://media.swarthmore.edu/bulletin/?p=539#comment-399629

“As she contemplated clearing out her cluttered office and moving her possessions to California, (…) I asked Marecek how it might be different for a 25-year-old woman joining the Swarthmore faculty in 2010. “You’d have lots of women as colleagues, and your identity as a woman wouldn’t be so salient to you and to others. You wouldn’t continually be confronted with difference and marginalization and skepticism—with whether you really belonged here or not,” she mused.”

46. Jilla - January 19, 2011

http://fap.sagepub.com/

Call for Papers

Feminism & Psychology Special Issue

DSM-5 and Beyond: A Critical Feminist Dialogue

Edited by Jeanne Marecek and Nicola Gavey

Possible topics include:

• The proliferation of diagnostic categories, as well as “conceptual bracket creep” (the tendency for diagnostic criteria to expand over time, so that more and more everyday experience is deemed pathological and said to require professional intervention).

• Conflicts of interest in the psychiatric and psychological professions that may affect diagnostic practices; the colonization of psychiatry by pharmaceutical interests.

• Examinations of the epistemological features of DSM-style diagnoses (e.g., the disease model, biological reductionism, universalism, and categoricalism) and implications for feminist theory and practice.

• Critical histories of efforts by feminists and other progressive groups to influence diagnostic categories and practice. What can we learn from their successes and failures?

• Critical analyses of how conventional diagnosis practices inhibit or facilitate feminist and other critical approaches to research, practice, psychotherapies, and social action.

Closing date for submissions is 15 November 2011

FCM - January 19, 2011

Thanks jilla. I don’t suppose they take anonymous submissions?

As for the quote, I am not sure what to make of it. My first impression is that using “woman” as an identity is pomo. And that it would make sense if she had founded a “gender studies” program, but not if she founded a woman’s studies program. I haven’t read the article yet. What do you make of it?

47. jilla - January 19, 2011

I read it like this. Here’s this feminist who founded a woman’s studies course, and her whole long career has culminated in us not being salient, in the course of study that’s supposed to be about “women”? I would bet this is a transgender/male context field of study there and we have her to thank for that?

I don’t know this university, or this department, but if that’s her achievement, if that’s what WE achieved, I’m almost ready to give up.

48. rhondda - January 19, 2011

I so agree with you jilla. I know this probably sounds like argument from authority, but if the authority is right, well why not. I am reminded of something Daly said in Gyn/ecology about ‘unselfconscious inclusion’ being the goal of patriarchial academics and this seems to fit that. Anyway it is on pages 374 -377 for those interested. Gee we get to merge with male psychology. whoopee. Commonly called tokenism.

49. jilla - January 19, 2011

And she achieved in her career, and is now quite comfortable thanks to that, but ultimately, what will be open to young women today. Can they ever achieve what she did? She started it, built it up, got it funded and accredited, and turned it over to…who. Women are now not “salient” in “women’s” studies. I have looked through the courses in some so-called women’s studies programs, failing to see anything about women’s lives. Gender always means men. Male born men, and men who decide they are women. Spit spot.

50. jilla - January 19, 2011

Gender in that academic context.

51. Jordan - January 20, 2011

Working from the idea that we should care about the fact that men’s energy is stored in everything, I think there are some important points to be made about women using what was made by men. If some women, say, use a building built by men to conduct a feminist group, then wouldn’t the menergy stored in that building infuse their efforts? How can we be effective in fighting the patriarchy if the energy we are using to fighting it comes from the patriarchy itself?

This is why I think it’s important for us to build our own infrastructure. While for practical reasons we may still need to use some stuff made by men (for example, we shouldn’t starve to death rather than eat food produced by men), there is a lot that we can cut out. As much as possible, we should avoid living in men’s cities, driving in men’s cars, etc.

52. Links: January 19, 2011 « Against All Evidence - January 20, 2011

[…] “24-Hour Menergy”. . . on Mary Daly’s Quintessence and men’s […]

53. joy - January 20, 2011

Relating to overpopulation, and the ways men cause it:

Of COURSE fear of pregnancy and not wanting to be pregnant is a fucking “mental illness” and DISORDER.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocophobia

THANKS, MEN.

FCM - January 20, 2011

Primary tokophobia is the fear and deep-seated dread of childbirth which pre-dates pregnancy and can start in adolescence. This often relates back to their own mother’s experience or something they learned in school.

Secondary tokophobia is due to a previous horrendous experience regarding traumatic birth, poor obstetric practice or medical attention, postpartum depression or other such upsetting events, which renders them emotionally unable to have more children.

A few [tokophobic?] reactions to childbirth include the following:

“The truth is that the very thought of having something almost alien-like growing inside me is disgusting.”

“It’s not too strong to say that the very thought of childbirth disgusts me in a big way.”

“It’s much more than an anxiety – I am actually physically repulsed by pregnancy and childbirth.”

“I even struggle to be around friends when they are pregnant and can’t bear to watch or listen to anything about the process of having a baby.”

is this a joke?

FCM - January 20, 2011

is there a name for mens phobia of children they ALREADY HAVE? what would be the treatment i wonder? its early yet, but this might just be the most fucked up thing i have heard all day. thanks joy!

54. joy - January 20, 2011

Heh, dubious ‘you’re welcome.’

You are not alone! I actually sputtered with disbelief and had to go get drunk when I read that page.

(Which, because it is ultimately relevant, I reached via Emilie Autumn’s wikipedia page; apparently she attempted suicide after having an abortion, which she had because a.) [as I read it] she’d been raped, and b.) she was terrified of being pregnant and giving birth [possibly unrelated to the raping]. The line about her fear of being pregnant was linked to ‘Tocophobia.’

Which means:
– If you have been raped, you have a disorder for not wanting to bear the resulting child.
– If you are aware that pregnancy is painful, terrifying, and life-threatening, you have a disorder for not wanting to be pregnant.
– If you experience emotional trauma from being pregnant when you do not wish to be pregnant, you have a disorder. Full stop.

So all you ladies, just hurry up and get pregnant! There are no more excuses. Love, the MENtal health industry.

For the record, Emilie Autumn was also committed to a mental institution as a result of this trainwreck pileup of awful situations. I do not know her or have a personal opinion about her — I just looked her up because someone linked me to one of her songs — but the whole story left me feeling like I needed to hose out my soul. With bleach.)

55. joy - January 20, 2011

I didn’t make clear:

It seems, from what I read and understand, that Ms. Autumn attempted suicide over the entire ‘rape and terror of pregnancy’ thing, not over any anti-abortion sentiments.

That the abortion was just the straw that broke the camel’s back isn’t a farfetched conclusion to draw. As a woman who also underwent an abortion after a rape, and because she is “tocophobic” (ahahahaha, puke), I can attest to the fact that abortion as it is typically performed is incredibly painful and very much like another sexual assault/rape.

In fact, while I feel that abortion in patriarchy is a lifesaving surgery, I classify the way it is currently performed as “medical rape.”

(Clearly without patriarchy and mandatory PIV, there would be no need for abortion, except in the case of a wanted pregnancy going terribly awry.)

Oh, and when it’s done? They tell you to suck it up, because you really wanted it.

No big surprise that a woman who had already been raped and traumatized anyway, would attempt suicide. Although obviously, this is an irrational mental disorder on par with delusional thinking and schizophrenia.

I also do not endorse alcoholism as a way to deal with living in patriarchy. It’s been discussed here before, that it’s bad and yet another way society encourages women to flush themselves down the toilet (silenced by drinking to death, by drunkenness, by the fact that men can point to a drunk woman and say, ‘Ignore her, she’s just a drunk’ — and then maybe rape her again too.)

56. calliope - January 20, 2011

wow, I’d never heard of this “disorder” before.. ugh.

this is kind of personal but hey I’m anonymous so.. I’ve been having really extremely irregular periods for a few years now and my Dr. sent me to a reproductive endocrinologist. I went a couple of times and most recently I was prescribed birth control because she thinks I might have PCOS..

The way she worded it, though.. She told me that PCOS is pretty much an epidemic among women my age (I’m 22). She said I should take birth control *for a few years*, when she assumed I’ll want to take drugs to help me conceive.

I tried to talk to her about other options but she was determined to sell me on taking BC. I took it for one month. It made my period happen, ok whatever, I don’t want to do. Yes I kind of do want to have kids someday – but I’m not sure yet. Most important to me is to make sure I don’t have to have a hysterectomy in the future but no doctor will talk to me about anything other than birth control. I don’t even plan on sleeping with a man.

What bothers me most us what you pointed out in architecture FCM – the lack of any care or even awareness at all regarding the future potential for damage in the patriarchal mode of thinking.

I mean. Faced with an epidemic of female infertility, that was caused by flooding the waterways with unnecessary, artificial fucking hormones, and then treating it with the same substance?? It’s absurd. I wish I knew what to do, I don’t want to take the pill.

57. FCM - January 21, 2011

i wanted to add that all of this makes me want to leave this urban nightmare, immediately. if not sooner. i have been thinking about it for the last year or so actually, but this kind of brings it home doesnt it? i have lived in a lot of places in my life, and the place i was most at home was in the desert. i hope to return.

58. FCM - January 21, 2011

i took birth control for possible PCOS too calliope. i really dont know if it worked or not. it occurs to me to link you to an old post, about what doctors can and cant tell you, and something you can easily try yourself at home, and see how you feel. see what you think.

https://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/news-you-can-use-volume-one/

59. MAD - January 21, 2011

Using ‘woman’ in 1972 as an identity is pomo?!?! Jeez, when Marecek started the words/concepts ‘pomo’ and ‘gender studies’ didn’t even exist yet!

“Salient” – conspicuous. Women used to be ‘salient’ at university then because there were so few of them, for f’s sake.
Read the article before crapping on her. She looks like one of the good ones.

FCM - January 21, 2011

Woman is not an identity, woman is a biological fact. That’s what I meant. All this identity business is pomo, its kind of a red flag that its a male centric discourse that focuses on gender, not sex. You know, because some men don’t feeeeel like men, and some men aren’t comfortable with their gender role. While ONLY WOMEN are oppressed by our sex. And only by men.

60. MAD - January 21, 2011

I came back immediately with this:
Oops, sorry, of course the words existed, though not in the sense you used them.
Doesn’t change my point.
Then I read your comment. Which is spot on.
I meant that Marecek is one of the pioneers, and in 1972 ‘woman’ was all she had to work with.

61. MAD - January 21, 2011

That was about ‘womens studies’ vs ‘gender studies’. I see that later on she said ‘your identity as a woman’. Maybe she hasn’t adapted her seventies vocabulary to all the modish stuff that followed.

FCM - January 21, 2011

What the hell are you talking about? The article was written in October, 2010. And as I suspected, her program started out as women’s studies, then progressed (ha!) to gender studies, then to gender and sexuality studies. What she is saying IS fucking pomo. Maybe it started out as radical feminist, but then became trans activist, then diverted/expanded into bdsm and sex pos. Yes? And she is speaking their language.

Read the article, if you haven’t already. Is this not exactly what’s described there?

62. jilla - January 21, 2011

“Woman” is still all there is to work with if you’re aiming for a women’s studies program.

Gender studies seems to have taken over women’s studies, and at that university, appears to have been enabled by a woman at the end of her 180 degree career.

So I’m disappointed that this once woman who rode to the heights of her career on the backs of a movement FOR women, allowed herself to be co-opted and has ushered this department and the career and life aspirations of young women out the door.

Woman/Women have become dirty words in most women’s studies programs. It really makes me mad these pomo programs for men are taking women’s funding. At the end of the day, she not only achieved nothing, but worked to kill women’s issues in women’s studies.

Not as coherent as FCM, but that’s how I call it. Bad enough she took a lifetimes worth of funding meant for women to work this travesty.

63. jilla - January 21, 2011

“once women’s rights leader”

64. jilla - January 21, 2011

“Maybe she hasn’t adapted her seventies vocabulary to all the modish stuff that followed.”

Maybe the problem is she has “adapted” (I prefer sold-out) to all the modish stuff.

When she started, she fought against all the modish stuff to establish a program called women’s studies.

At the end of her career she turned it back, smeared in merde.

65. jilla - January 21, 2011

“The College’s interdisciplinary programs, specifically Women’s Studies (now Gender and Sexuality Studies)”

Ha.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cBj26EVQM0cJ:media.swarthmore.edu/bulletin/%3Fp%3D539+jeanne+maracek+retire&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

FCM - January 21, 2011

Gender of course referring to men and transactivism. And sexuality referring to bdsm and sex-pos. Horrible.

It’s been discussed here more than once, that if feminism actually succeeded, these pomo academics and piv-positive bullshit artists would be out of a job. Feminism succeeding, therefore, is the exact opposite of what they want. This should never be forgotten, ever.

66. Jilla - January 22, 2011

No comment:

This is ok:
CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission) gives porn channel okay to go HD.

“In a broadcasting decision handed down yesterday, the CRTC has approved an application by Sex-Shop Television which would allow the broadcaster to offer its adult pay television …in high definition (HD).”

This is not:
“On January 12th, the CBSC (Canadian Broadcast Standards Council) and CRTC found that the use of the word “faggot” contravened the Human Rights Clauses of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code and should be edited from the song (Money for Nothing) for airplay.”

67. kurukurushoujo - January 22, 2011

OMG, I didn’t know that Emilie has been raped (more than once and from what I’ve read even when she was in an mental institution). The wording in the Wikipedia article also seems to be slightly biased towards anti-choice: first mentioning that Emilie had an abortion and then that she tried to commit suicide make it sound like the suicide is a direct consequence of the abortion.
No comment about tocophobia- frankly speaking, if we tried really hard we could diagnose everyone with a mental illness.

I cannot emphasize enough how thankful I am for women like Sheila Jeffreys still going strong and being uncompromising even today. Marecek and others like her got what they wanted: better (academic) career opportunities for women. Their concern was most likely never liberation from the concept of female otherness, a concept whose basis doesn’t rest within (in)equality of opportunities but within social interactions, the social structure. In Germany, for example, the government suddenly wants to encourage women to work, and this after years of supporting the nuclear family unit. The reason: people are getting older, Germany needs more workers. We are the spare resource for hard times, a bandaid to fix the economy. I’m not saying that this won’t be advantageous (more bargaining power in relationships)- however, we always have to closely watch how and when so-called “progress” happens.

68. joy - January 22, 2011

“OMG, I didn’t know that Emilie has been raped (more than once and from what I’ve read even when she was in an mental institution)”

Yeah, that was what I gathered — woman who identifies as “asexual” suddenly gets pregnant (red flag), rushes to get an abortion (red flag #2) because of mental distress (#3) and then attempts suicide (bingo!)

But nope. It’s just that the bitch be crazy.

Says men. Who can’t get pregnant.

“The wording in the Wikipedia article also … make[s] it sound like the suicide is a direct consequence of the abortion.”

That’s why I clarified my summary of the event[s].

Again, yes, the bitches are just selfish and then regret their selfish whoring babykilling ways.

Says men. Who can’t get pregnant.

“if we tried really hard we could diagnose everyone with a mental illness.”

Says men. Who can’t get pregnant.

That is NOT an accident. I repeat: NOT AN ACCIDENT.

69. MAD - January 23, 2011

“Their concern was most likely never liberation from the concept of female otherness”
No, she just started out with criticism of Freud etc. to ‘smear herself in merde’, right.
Reading comprehension anyone?

Some of the merde, i.e. courses in the programme founded by the sell-out Marecek:
Women and Technology
Women and Literature
Black Women in the Civil Rights Movement
Feminist critiques of biology
She also worked on something called ‘The politics of madness’. Now, what would that be all about?

I’ll go back to lurking now. Do go on crapping on women who worked for you, that will get us somewhere fast, I’m sure.

FCM - January 23, 2011

As I said, perhaps it started out as a radical feminist program, a women’s studies program, but it clearly isn’t one now. Gender and sexuality studies?? Wtf? My next post was actually inspired by this part of the discussion MAD, so no apologies necessary as far as I’m concerned.

What I would like to know is why did she use literally her parting statement (from a program that’s clearly pomo NOW) to say something fucking pomo about woman as identity? Does she still want to publish for example? She could’ve used her parting words to say something about her program, that started out as women’s studies, then deteriorated into gender studies, then deteriorated more into sexuality studies, which is clearly code for bdsm and sex-pozzie. How she might’ve felt about that. Unless she WAS taking some kind of shot by mentioning identity in this context? Was she being cheeky here? I hope she was. That would be great. But also, why be coy? If you are going to literally make a final declaration as you are going out the door, why not make it a good one? I am just asking.

70. MAD - January 23, 2011

FCM, I think the courses I mentioned (taught NOW) are very far from bdsm/sexpozziness.
From the article: “we look at the larger cultural and social processes that create masculinities and femininities as we know them.” It may be my age (50), but to me it seems clear that she means the whole media/high heels/performing femininity thing.
And I interpreted the ‘your identity as a women wouldn’t be so salient to you and to others’ more as: ‘the fact that you are a women…’ She is talking here about how it got a bit easier for female students since she started.

I’m working at home against a deadline and cannot come back regularly, sorry. I would like to look up if the ‘queer’ and ‘sexuality’ things at Swarthmore are hers or younger teachers’/professors’, but no time today.
I did a quick check however and found now she’s studying on womens’ suicides in Sri Lanka. No bdsm/sexpozzes anywhere in sight. Maybe she doesn’t find them very relevant🙂

FCM - January 23, 2011

again, there are red flags here that people need to be aware of. people are aware of them, and they are calling them out. this is a good thing.

obviously, masculinity and femininity are gender-based concepts. GENDER. not sex. and saying “masculinities” (with an ‘s’) suggests that theres a way to “do” the masculine gender thats not inherently harmful, which is impossible, since it requires some sort of “femininity” to be its opposite. its prescribing female-appropriate behavior, by definition, although somewhat sneakily. and AGAIN suggesting that there are men who dont FEEEEL comfortable with the “traditional” male role. and NOTHING about how men victimize women, AS WOMEN, mostly by stucking thier dicks into them. this is pomo 101.

i guess its not fair to assume we know what she meant, with her parting words. i would like to think that if it were me, i would cut them all off at the knees with something so uncomprimisingly critical, they would never forget it. she still needs them, or she still wants to publish, is the thought i am left with, because she didnt.

71. MAD - January 23, 2011

Red flags: yes. That quote was about the whole department, and parts of the programme there do suck.
Here’s what she herself was doing in 2002: “Jeanne Marecek analyzes the social processes that sexualize the bodies of adolescent and preadolescent girls and simultaneously construct sexualized bodies as vulnerable. That sense of vulnerability and danger then regulates girls‚
subjectivity and the mother-daughter relationship.”
And now I’ll really shut up and get back to work.

72. kurukurushoujo - January 23, 2011

obviously, masculinity and femininity are gender-based concepts. GENDER. not sex. and saying “masculinities” (with an ‘s’) suggests that theres a way to “do” the masculine gender thats not inherently harmful, which is impossible, since it requires some sort of “femininity” to be its opposite.

This is what jumped out at me, too: “masculinities”.

Perhaps I really was too quick in my judgement and I don’t deny that the courses she held can be helpful in illuminating women’s oppression- for some, however, they are just an exercise in intellectual prowess with women becoming study objects like any other. I admit that I have done her wrong by portraying her as an opportunist but still she seems to have adopted an individualist perspective focused on identity building that doesn not neccessarily reflect in her current work but in her words (“masculinities” etc. Even Judith Butler thinks that gender is a constuct you can never use for yourself, especially not to build different “masculinities”.)

Many feminist academics seem to have adopted non-essentialist notions- for various reasons, possibly because they want to stay on top of academia or don’t think that radical views are needed in our day and age.

73. cherryblossom - February 18, 2011

BUt women produce all the food. WOmen own less than 10% of the world’s land but produce 90% of the world’s food (for a pittance), namely in Africa and Asia before its transported by plane to the supermarkets in the North and West of the world.
They also produce most of the tat: the knick-knacks, clothes, shoes that we wear. They chop the vegetables that go into the ready meals. They clean and clean and clean… And of course, they produce life, which is the *very* thing that men cannot stand, the very root of misogyny.
So women’s energy is there all around us too, but it’s not static, just like nature is not statice. WOmen and nature are at one, and men work against it, to dominate it, and destroy it in order to *believe* that they existed at all.

FCM - February 18, 2011

actually i dont think that energy is stored this way cherryblossom. thats the whole point. womens energy is immediately or very shortly recycled, while mens energy is stored indefinitely in vertical structures, and in massive amounts. your point is well taken though, and i absolutely know and agree that women expend vast amounts of energy daily. its just not stored, and its not the kind that teh menz think is important.

74. cherryblossom - February 21, 2011

No that’s true: women’s energy is not stored; it’s not present in the structures all around us, and not in phenomenal quantities all in one spot. And that must have an effect on us all- both women and men- psychologically.
Moreover culture is parasitical of female energy, so the men who walking around fat and happy (building and making things) are doing so at the expense of female energy. An example of this is breastfeeding, where babies can, literally, live exclusively off their mothers’ energy and life force for up to a year.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry