jump to navigation

Decoding the FAAB/MAAB “Argument” February 12, 2011

Posted by FCM in authors picks, feminisms, gender roles, health, PIV, radical concepts, trans.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

transactivists and fun-fems seem to have a lot invested in this one, dont they?  this keeps coming up, and the pomos are absolutely hell-bent on denying that FAAB is a meaningful distinction.  even though there are actual criteria that define it, pomos insist that there shouldnt be.  that its not fair to distinguish FAAB from MAAB.  or at least, that the differences between FAAB and MAAB are irrelevant.  now why would this be?

admittedly, i am not a great chess-player. but luckily for me, the pomos arent playing chess.  i know a strategy when i smell one.  and i smell some strategizing here, big time.  (to the war room!)  obviously, the FAAB issue is a very important battle, and they’ve given that much away from the beginning, by spending inordinate amounts of time on it.  so, whats over that particular horizon that they want so badly?

if FAAB as a meaningful category were removed from the feminist game, what would be different?

well, one obvious result, if the pomos got what they wanted here, would be that in successfully rendering FAAB meaningless, then its opposite, MAAB, would also be rendered meaningless. being two-sides of the same nonexistent coin and all.  they never really mention MAAB by itself, or call attention to it at all, instead preferring to lash out at FAAB (by discounting the importance of girlhood for example) but i think its an omission of the glaring kind.  again, they arent so great at keeping secrets.  so the question that needs asking here is probably this: who would gain if MAAB were rendered meaningless?

lets explore!  first, a little (recycled) graphic:

this chart outlines how the FAAB/MAAB distinction is made, based on the presentation of a childs genitals at birth.  “girls” are pink (female assigned at birth) and “boys” are blue (male assigned at birth).

now, regarding “gender,” i always believed that the female gender (or FAAB, if you will) was a way to funnel girl-children into an oppressive female gender role, based on their assumed ability to become pregnant.  which lets face it, almost all FAABs are capable of, and most of them are actually impregnated at some point, worldwide.  almost all. 

BUT.  whats to be made of box #3?  its pink toooo!!!111!!1  here, we have obviously intersexed babies who are unable to reproduce as females, also being assigned-female-at-birth.  why?  and why are MAABs relegated to a mere one square, when males as a sexual class are always entitled to HAVE MOAR?  (i am sorry, but this one really sticks out at me.  MAABs are fucking obsessed with everything always being representative of them, MOAR.  so much so that if and when they are ever relegated to a corner, as this chart illustrates, i believe this indicates that there is something there worth exploring.  and particularly, as here, if they are trying to divert attention from it and onto something else, its roughly equivalent to about sixteen billion red flags).

what i am thinking at the moment is that FAAB itself, as a category, appears to represent all bodies that cannot cause female-specific harm to other people, in the way of pregnancy, medical-events and trauma-bonding, via PIV.  doesnt it?  not all FAAB bodies can *be* harmed this way (if they arent impregnable).  but NONE of the bodies represented by the FAAB distinction can cause female-specific harm.  no…that appears to be left up to the MAABs.  MAABs of course being non-impregnable (non-female) children, with enough of a dick to pass as male, as an adult.  because who would raise a child as a “boy” if it didnt even have a dick?  and on what basis exactly?

do we get it now?  when deciding whether a nonimpregnable child is MAAB/FAAB the only consideration appears to be whether theres enough of a dick there to be a threat.  YES = MAAB.  NO = FAAB.  the MAAB distinction literally turns on this: whether this person will pose a legitimate threat to women.

and every single MAAB alive was chosen as an oppressor of women, and groomed as one, because of his ability to cause female-specific harm.  based upon the appearance of his genitals, at birth.  the meaning of “gender” and the entire purpose of it is to funnel everyone into an oppressive female gender role, UNLESS they are likely able to cause female-specific harm.  then they are groomed for that, instead.

okay?  the ability to cause female-specific harm appears to be the main distinguishing characteristic of all human beings, under patriarchy.  it is THE main event.  its even more important than the ability to reproduce (this is why there are only 2 genders, but 3 sexes.  ah that pesky box #3!)  those who are able to cause female-specific harm are represented by MAAB.  everyone else, isnt.  this is not irrelevant.  far from it. 

so regarding the question, “if FAAB were removed from the feminist game, what would change?” the answer appears to be this: MAAB would also be removed from the game.  and with it, the fact that THE crucial line drawn in the sand for millenia has been based on the known dangers to women of the penis, and the creation of a master class based solely and demonstrably on the ability to cause female-specific harm, would become invisible.

it would signal the end of radical feminism, in other words.  it wouldnt be necessary, anymore.  and this is not a small thing.  not at all.  all of this also has very little to do with sparkly shirts, if it has anything to do with them at all.

Comments

1. Loretta Kemsley - February 12, 2011

There’s a basic reason why the trannies want to wipe out our importance: we’re valuable and they aren’t. Not under the current system.

The reason why FAABs are oppressed by MAABs is because of our value. We are the core of the clan, the center of the tribe, the shaper of the future. Without controlling us, MAABs count for nothing.

When we are free, they don’t count for anything more than sperm providers unless they work hard to get our attention and continue working hard to keep our attention.

Isn’t that clear in every post by every MAAB who complains how hard it is to get laid? They have self-defined as important only when getting laid….providing sperm in other words. There is no other reason for it to exist.

We’re in turmoil now, as a culture, because women are beginning to realize they don’t need a man to survive and never did. Even in ancient times, women were perfectly capable of taking care of themselves and their children. It’s even easier today with technology.

The trannies see this and want to be part of the future. But they have retained the old MAAB need to pretend FAAB is inconsequential. They have kep their oppression induced self-image as male privileged even as they try to take over the value and importance of FAABS.

All the grotesque “cultural” stuff inflicting violence and pain on women is meant to change that bottom of the pile status.

2. Loretta Kemsley - February 12, 2011

BTW, you’re right on again with the definition of MAABs as people who can inflict harm on FAABs. Very concise and on target

3. rainsinger - February 12, 2011

Its cutting out, erasing and removing all the female-bits. Hatred of the female, means removing it. So no ovaries, no wombs etc. They want an all-male society, just with some of them having tits and fuckholes. Until they can replace reproduction with technological means, they need to control biological females. Once they can replace natural reproduction, biological females are no longer necessary, as some males can always take the place of ‘feminine’ fucktoys. Eunuchs have a long history of being placed as controllers of females.

4. rhondda - February 12, 2011

I seem to recall twisty doing a book study on Shulamith Firestone. I have ordered the book just to make sure that I have this right, but another feminist I read said that Firestone thought women should become men and let technology take care of babies. If that is the case, then this is not surprising really. When a woman has had cancer and has most of her female parts are removed, something has got to happen in the mind about this. Who are you then? Just saying, not defending.

5. rhondda - February 12, 2011

please remove that ‘are’ in the third to last sentence.

FCM - February 12, 2011

i can appreciate everything thats been said here about trans. making men responsible for reproduction is the reversal of all reversals, as mary daly said. as is putting them, as largely anti-social beings, in charge of society. and making women rely on woman-haters to offer us love. patriarchy is all about reversals, and making women seem like they are crazy. and definitely NOT that absolutely everything is upside down, backwards, and misogynist.

but this post wasnt really about trans. its about MAAB, and men as a sexual class, being literally defined by the fact that they can cause female-specific harm. and the fucking pomos are ignoring all of this, and expecing FEMINISTS to ignore it too, and be complicit as they divert the attention away from everything that matters to women, as a sexual class, around the world. as they demand that WE IGNORE the harm THEY CAUSE, or to agree with them that its not harmful, at all.

FCM - February 12, 2011

anyway, my point is that ALL MAABs benefit from being classified as MAABs, by definition. and that all of them therefore stand to benefit from FAAB/MAAB being made into meaningless distinctions, because it renders the ways they benefit from it invisible. third-wave feminist men are benefitting from this, big time, because it makes it appear as if theres any such thing as “GOOD GUYS” and they THEY are good guys too. that we should make ourselves available for PIV, stripping, and domestic servitude for their benefit is of course their conclusion from all of this. that there LITERALLY is no reason for radical feminism, to exist, anymore. that we are all wrong about that.

thats why third-wave feminist men are all on this FAAB-erasing bandwagon, and its why they are supporting the fun-fems who are doing it too.

6. FAB Libber - February 13, 2011

ditto to what rainsinger said.

and making women rely on woman-haters to offer us love. patriarchy is all about reversals, and making women seem like they are crazy. and definitely NOT that absolutely everything is upside down, backwards, and misogynist.

Absolutely. As LK said, they are little more than sperm donors in the grand scheme of things, and yet they have created this artificial world where they (MAABs) are numero uno.

FCM - February 13, 2011

btw, this is my 100th post. i guess its fitting that its trans, because my first radical post was trans. its how i came out as a radical, and its still the most-viewed post on this blog.

https://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/sorry-sex-pos-transwomen/

7. Miska - February 13, 2011

Congrats on 100 fcm, and brilliant expansion on your ideas here. You’ve nailed why there is such a concerted effort on behalf of funfems/trans and male “allies” to erase the distinction between faab and maab. It’s actually quite chilling, to consider that maabs are assigned male at birth SOLELY because of their capacity to harm faabs. It explains so much.

8. SheilaG - February 13, 2011

You design an oppressor class, you design a class to serve the oppressors… then the oppressed wake up massively, and the oppressors decide to “move the goal post” so to speak, and erase the source of the oppression. Pretty clever. They are not going to get away with it!

FCM - February 13, 2011

pretending that the number one most important distinction under patriarchy IS NOT based on the known harmfulness of the penis, also serves the sex-pos agenda pretty well. at least, it doesnt totally undermine it, which is what happens when you see PIV for what it is, and acknowledge that MAAB absolutely depends on PIV-related harm. PIV is harmful to women, and our entire society is based in and organized around that specific knowledge. yet, we are meant to believe that PIV is harmless, or that its going to be the source of womens liberation. fuck your way to freedom!

9. Loretta Kemsley - February 13, 2011

The only way anything will lead women to freedom is if women are in charge of it. Everything about sex is meant, per the culture we live in, to be controlled by men with women being reactive rather than proactive.

Women need to assume control of this very intimate part of their lives. By control, I don’t mean decide how much PIV you want (or any other act) but decide no one but yourself gets to demand sex of any kind. When no one but yourself decides when, if and how to have sex, then you are in control.

But that isn’t what happens. As soon as women decide to engage in sex, then the control is ceded to their sex partners who decides what that sex will consist of, how often, etc.

Women have been taught they only have one sexual choice: active or not active. They need to stop agreeing that is their only choice. How does it serve them? All accepting that as the sole choice does is increase the harm inflicted by MAABs. It increases their power. The only way to stop increasing their power is to totally remove all MAAB control over every aspect of sex and put it into the hands of FAABs.

The MAABs realize this is happening, thus they want to do away with the distinction of the categroy FAAB.

10. Loretta Kemsley - February 13, 2011

FCM wrote: i can appreciate everything thats been said here about trans. making men responsible for reproduction is the reversal of all reversals, as mary daly said. as is putting them, as largely anti-social beings, in charge of society. and making women rely on woman-haters to offer us love. patriarchy is all about reversals, and making women seem like they are crazy. and definitely NOT that absolutely everything is upside down, backwards, and misogynist.

Well said. Prior to god worship, the Great Goddess ruled. She birthed the universe. When the patriarchs became desperate to usurp women’s control, they need to usurp the Great Goddess, so they invented gods that birthed in the most grotesque fashion. Zeus birthed through his forehead. Yahweh birthed by speaking (God said let their be light and there was light). Men fancy their penis is powerful enough that it created rivers and oceans from their ejaculate. Egyptian god Atum masturbates and considers himself mated with his penis. Enki ploughs irrigation ditches with his penis. When he realizes he can create babies with it, he exclaims “Let now my penis be praised.”

The funniest part of Egyptian mythology is not discussed as to the reality of its import though. Isis, the Egyptian Great Goddess, has to fashion an alternative to a penis after her lover’s penis is severed. Osiris is totally dismembered by jealous Seth. Isis is able to find and reassemble all the parts except his penis. So she fashions a replica. She’s still having sex with him but with what basically amounts to a strap-on penis and still gets pregnant.

Of course, the “normal” interpretation of this is that the penis is so powerful it defeated death and dismemberment. But looking at if from a liberated woman’s POV, it proves the male penis is not needed. A replica will do.

Let’s face it. Patriarchy is built on phallic worship and all the teachings surrounding their superstitions concerning the magic power of the penis should be considered phallusies.

11. SheilaG - February 13, 2011

Loretta, that was very well put. Again, this whole scenario is really in the hands of straight women. When straight women do whatever it takes to be free, we will have a better world. But I don’t see this happening any time soon. We can’t even get straight women to see how the whole thing is a set up to begin with.

But something must be happening or we wouldn’t see the MTF escalation of Internet activism, the push for surgically altered men to barge their way into women only spaces, the whole POMO thing that “gender” is a construct that completely lacks biological sense, the take over of lesbian spaces by trans-so-called lesbians. I’d say lesbian nation is the canary in the coal mine on this issue, and we’ve been on it for decades. When straight women start to be colonized by the trans-patriarchs, maybe we’ll see some real action here… MISKA and FCM being good examples.

Erase “woman” as a biological category, and you have the triumph of patriarchy… MTFs being the latest greatest tech innovation to destroy feminism and women.

12. Loretta Kemsley - February 13, 2011

You’re right. It is in the hands of het women and too many don’t take a serious look at what they’re subscribing too. However, for the first time in our history, there are more single women than married women. Women now make up the majority of the workforce. As women become the primary supporters of the household, they reconsider how many mouths they’re feeding and why. That’s why the divorce rate doesn’t go down even as the marriage rate goes down.

When I filed for divorce, he crowed, “You’ll be in the gutter without me.” Except he was the primary overconsumer of my money. Once he was gone and I had total control, I had more money even though his income was no longer available. I prospered. He ended up living in his truck.

When women stop buying the BS and realize they won’t end up in the gutter without a man controlling their lives, then they become proactive. It’s an individual thing but is fast approaching critical mass and will take over the culture at some point.

That is why the MAABs are panicking and trying to wipe out categorical thinking. We see this in redefining the Divine too. Too many are saying, “Well, we don’t need to worship the Goddess because deity is really sexless.”

Of course, that leaves “god” as the powerful deity in everyone’s mind while keeping Goddess worship from gaining traction. We should only accept the elimination of an oppressed category when the cultural acceptance is fully equal. Otherwise, it is just another way for the oppressor category to remain the oppressor.

13. FAB Libber - February 13, 2011

Erase “woman” as a biological category, and you have the triumph of patriarchy… MTFs being the latest greatest tech innovation to destroy feminism and women.

They first did it with feminism – made it a meaningless category and therefore ineffective (3rd wave & pomo). No one knows what the fuck is going on with feminism (except RFs) because feminism means anything ‘you’ want it to mean.

Now they move onto category ‘woman’ and hope to make that a meaningless category as well. They won’t fully erase category ‘woman’, but they will muddy the waters so that it becomes meaningless, primarily so they can destroy FAAB-only spaces. Basically, it stops the oppressed getting together and plotting an overthrow of the overlords.

14. FAB Libber - February 13, 2011

Of course, that leaves “god” as the powerful deity in everyone’s mind while keeping Goddess worship from gaining traction. We should only accept the elimination of an oppressed category when the cultural acceptance is fully equal. Otherwise, it is just another way for the oppressor category to remain the oppressor.

That is an excellent connect-the-dots Loretta.

15. SheilaG - February 13, 2011

Good point about making a sexless “god” and derailing Goddess spirituality Loretta. All I can say is, you can now go to lesbian groups and never hear two words: “Goddess” or “feminism”– in the 80s, these words were very much a part of lesbian groups all over the place. So now young women have to “rediscover” Z. Budapest, or they have to “rediscover” Dale Spender … and back to square 2 we go again. Or heck, they have no clue as to what radical feminism really is…Jessica Valenti take note!

That the patterns still remain unclear to whole new generations of women is disturbing in the extreme to me. But Mary Daly said that patriarchy is about the constant erasure of women and what we have achieved age after age, and patriarchy imbedes erasure in all the tapes wired in women’s brains, so that each new generation of women erases the previous generation, thinking it has invented (fill in the blank).

Mary Daly didn’t have a knowledge of her foresisters, she had to go find them. Our foresisters are much more visible than they were to a generation of women born in the late 1920s and early 30s (the source of the greatest feminist generation IMHO). Daly used the word “foresisters” because motherhood itself would be problematic to an unassimilated lifelong lesbian like Daly.

I don’t believe there will be a revolution of women Loretta– that is just never going to happen, because het women are the majority worldwide, and they are always going to sell out to the penis people, always and forever. Sorry, but it’s the simple truth. Until even the most privileged of western women can earn daily bread without male subsidy, I just don’t see it, and male subsidy in marriage and boyfriend paying the bills is just everywhere you go. The kept woman is still the kept woman. I see more of this in Southern California than ever before.

So straight women, it is up to you. Lifelong lesbians just don’t get any of this stuff, and we never have and never will.

FCM - February 13, 2011

i havent read early daly yet sheila, but in quintessence she seems more hopeful (if thats the right word?) she seems to believe by that point that we ARENT constantly reinventing the wheel, that it just appears as if this is the case close-up, when the big-picture is actually that we are moving forward to what she called the “archaic future.” a feminist-friendly (nay, female-identified) future where all of the horrors of patriarchy (and the horrible 90s and the shitsucking millennial time or whatever she said, i am paraphrasing) are behind us and this all seems like a bad dream, and a barely imaginable fairy tale to those who are too young at that time to have lived through any of it. i hope she is right about that. i admit i felt hopeful when i was reading it. she was really something wasnt she?

16. Loretta Kemsley - February 13, 2011

Sheila, you may be right. I hope you’re wrong because our future is dependent upon the young joining into a critical mass. That will take quite a while, much to my dismay, but there is progress.

There is a principle at work here called “generational forgetting.” It is normal for all succeeding generations to not understand the dynamic circumstances of the previous generations. The best they can muster is reading about it in retrospect. But reading isn’t the same as experiencing. My daughters who do not remember a time when abortion wasn’t legal can’t know the anguish of watching your friend suffer from a back alley abortion. They can try to imagine it, but that isn’t the same as sitting there, holding her hand while she hemorrhages.

This isn’t just true for feminism. It’s true for every issue of every generation. My parents suffered through the Great Depression and WWII. I can read about it. I can’t pull forth the experience I did not acquire. But I can remember and practice the lessons of thriftiness they taught me because of their experiences. I can try to pass them along to my daughters, who are even further removed from the experiences of their grandparents.

We need to admit our mistakes too. One of our biggest mistakes was changing “Women’s Liberation” to “feminism.” They did it because feminism better fit’s the legal strategies of the time and because it is a term that can include men who support equality. But in doing so, they gave rise the ability for the misogynists to separate “normal, attractive, nice” women from “abnormal, ugly, bitchy” feminists. It is easy for them to claim, “I love women, but I hate feminists.” How much harder it would be to say, “I love women but hate liberated women.” it also gave room for the “I’m a humanist, not a feminist” argument which so many use to avoid self-identifying with the plight of women and pretend the plight of men is equally distressed. This is part of the reason why our cultural progress has not kept the pace we’d wish.

Because the misogynists have done a great job of separating the “normal, attractive, nice” woman from the “abnormal, ugly, bitchy” feminist, our younger women are afraid of the word “feminist.” They would feel quite comfortable stating, “I’m a liberated woman” and owning it in every decision.

Men have a habit of turning every bit of progress in women’s rights to their own advantage without ever acknowledging the actual rights of women. I had one man who I barely knew and would never have considered dating try to corner me and feel me up. When I shoved him away, he argued I could not be a women’s libber and refuse him. This response was no different than a young man in my teens who wanted to dance. I politely refused. I was sitting down. He was standing up. He began stepping on my toes while holding his hand out and insisting I did not have the right to refuse him. That was right about the time the second wave was beginning but was not yet being discussed much. I’m sure if I was out at nightclubs today, I’d get the same nonsense. The idea that women have no choice is very much still taught at every church service and in every school locker room in our nation.

The media has also played a huge role in this relapse. They are relentless in their depictions of women as the “natural” prey of sexual predators. Women always at risk because men have privilege. Women who rebel as grotesquely unhappy. Women who find their fulfillment when they unite with the male love interest at the end of the movie, book, TV program. While they pretend these movies are made for women — chick flicks — they are all written from the patriarchal POV: women can only be happy serving men. Men need to protect women from other men. That’s the “natural” order of things.

So our second big fail is in presenting good fiction with a equality/equity that young women want to read, see, etc.

The third big fail is in allowing physical violence against women to take the headlines while not discussing the psychological violence that is the root of physical violence. The psychological violence is relentless, experienced by every little girl and every woman every single second of every single day, yet we don’t discuss it enough out among the masses. When we do, the idea is so foreign to them, they fight back, claiming it is not true and/or it has no effect. Violence against women in the media (porn, mainstream, whatever) does not contribute to violence against women in real life, per them, and certainly the psychological violence inflicted on women by having everything defined from a male paradigm has even less of an effect.

Until we start tossing these bombs out there for everyone to read and see rather than at feminist gatherings, we won’t see cultural progress go any faster. We’ll have to take comfort in the knowledge that women who earn and control their own assets won’t go back to not controlling them.

17. thebewilderness - February 14, 2011

It does seem to be womens struggle to come full circle to where we started before the men destroy the planet.
It’s going to be close, I think.

18. Sargassosea - February 14, 2011

Loretta, I’d forgotten the change-over from Women’s Liberation to Feminism until you reminded me. I was pre-pubescent when that went down and your analysis of the damage wrought, I think, is right on the money.

Also, this: “Until we start tossing these bombs out there for everyone to read and see…”

Just ONE of the reasons I am so fond of the radical feminist blogging community.

19. delphyne - February 14, 2011
20. SheilaG - February 14, 2011

And Mary Daly thought we were all in trouble when we went from women’s movement to women’s community.
So words and phrases that make women the most powerful are essential, and I think if blogging women talk about women’s liberation movement yet again, we can reclaim the phrase.

However, and I’ll say this endlessly, it is women’s desire to live with and have sex with the enemy in the first place that will guarantee that no women’s liberation becomes a reality in the world, and that is just factually accurate. So as long as the system of women living with men continues–the slavery in the home, the private servitude, grooming and control… the people most likely to rebel–young women, will continue to be colonized… you might have a large percentage of older women who wake up, but it is the youth who are sexually colonized and groomed in patriarchy.

21. Noanodyne - February 14, 2011

This is all great analysis – thank goddess for the authentic radical women’s liberationists.

I’m thinking that maybe we should be considering reclaiming and using that term. I, too, had forgotten it until you brought it up, FCM and Loretta. I was young then too, but I remember well how men sneered and used the epithet “women’s libbers” – that pissed me off even at a young age and def set me on the path I’m still on today. I think that moment in time really scared them. “Feminism” is much more academic by comparison and therefore more easily compartmentalized and dismissed.

22. Loretta Kemsley - February 14, 2011

Okay, let’s all start using it again. Or the equivilent “liberated women/woman.”

It we start doing it, others might follow suit especially if we tell them why.

23. FAB Libber - February 14, 2011

“Feminism” is much more academic by comparison and therefore more easily compartmentalized and dismissed.

Absolutely, and that would be why I am “FAB Libber”.

24. Loretta Kemsley - February 14, 2011

Delphyne wrote: Italian women are on the streets

The article reveals women are organizing in Boston, Tokyo, etc

And an Italian politician dismisses their concerns with “these are just radical women who are being used.”

Yep, yep, women are just too, too dumb to want to be treated equal…they’re not smart enough to avoid “being used.”

Of course, I agree with him. Women are being used and abused…by men like him and the prime minister.

25. Sargassosea - February 14, 2011

Words matter.

Women’s Liberation.

Fuck, yes.

26. Sargassosea - February 14, 2011

(oops! no faux-haiku intended!)

27. SheilaG - February 14, 2011

OK folks, I am going to try at every opportunity to use the term Women’s Liberation, and attempt to avoid using the word Feminism. The worldwide movement for the liberation of women. Liberation as in the greatest movement for human freedom the world has ever known…. think Egypt is big, just imagine women worldwide out in the streets… women’s liberation, a planet changing proposition!

28. Noanodyne - February 14, 2011

I’ve changed the “radical feminism(t) elements on my blog to “women’s liberation” and put up a post to help start getting the word out.

FCM - February 14, 2011

i like it.

29. Noanodyne - February 15, 2011

I’d like to see us put together a manifesto, too. Something that brings in elements from our great writers and thinkers of the past and present. It would be great to draw on the posts and commentary from the last week, too.

30. FAB Libber - February 15, 2011

it will look like I am a bandwagoner LOL

FCM - February 15, 2011

and as long as we are being accurate and nonacademic and everything, i propose we start calling post-op MTF’s “eunuchs” from now on. since thats what they are. and the neovagina…well “inverted penis” is perfectly acceptable, since thats what it *is*. and “second asshole” is both as accurate and LESS OFFENSIVE TO WOMEN than calling it a vagina. that was eve’s daugthers idea i think. i like it.

FCM - February 15, 2011

and heres a little something from my spam folder:

There are a lot of things that feminism used to be about that the world still needs. This is not one of them. If the idea is that we’re all created equal, what is with the gender test?

By creating a gender test, you are creating female privilege just like men. Most men with issues “down there” (or those who somehow fall outside of male gender norms, ie gay people) are not likely going to talk about it for fear of being labeled a sissy or somehow not male.

Transwomen on the other hand [BLAH BLAH BLAH. and it went on and on for about 9 pages after that.]

i bolded the best part. IF all people are created equal….YES, WHATS WITH the gender test? that seems oddly out of place in a world where all people are equal!

once again, for the peeps in the cheaps: this shit EXISTS, already. the “gender test” is real, and already operational, and operating on all bodies, all the time. i am just pointing it out. DUH.

31. FAB Libber - February 15, 2011

[BLAH BLAH BLAH. and it went on and on for about 9 pages after that.]

ROTFLMAO

Precious, isn’t it? That now radfems are being accused of being the “gender police”, invented it, enforced it, etc etc.

And, it seems, that for proto-feminists, or proto-wannabe-feminists, history (or herstory) only began when they were born, or something. But, at the same time, we oldies, well, we just don’t know shit because we aren’t young and hip and cool. A few notable exceptions in the young crowd, but by and large, this is the point of reference they start from.

32. Loretta Kemsley - February 15, 2011

By creating a gender test, you are creating female privilege just like men.

Ummm….men didn’t create “female privilege” They created “male privilege.”

Denying eunuchs the ability to pretend they are more important than FAABs is not raping them, battering them, preventing them from going to school, preventing them from having a career, preventing them from controlling their own assets, forcing them to give birth, enslaving them, or any of the other things that are still forced onto women around the world.

The very fact that they think their biggest problem is FAABs who don’t want to be associated with their male-privileged phallusies and assitudes shows they have far more privileges than FAABs already.

They want to claim they are women? Then let them prove it by enduring what women endure. They are voluntarily mutilating their genitals using highly skilled surgeons and the best medicine has to offer while millions of women are forced to endure FGM while held down in the dirt and with their attackers using a dull rock or broken piece of glass.

Now there’s a “gender test” for them. Have at it, eunuchs. Prove you’re woman enough.

FCM - February 15, 2011

I would also mention that so far, not a single person has even attempted to disagree with the content of this post. Wherein I assert that MAAB as a category includes ONLY those people who are able to (or presumed to be able to) CAUSE female-specific harm. TO FAABS.

Gender does not harm MAABS, and MAABS are not harmed by gender. It’s entirely the opposite.

33. Loretta Kemsley - February 15, 2011

They haven’t addressed it because it is true. The MAABs would rather change the focus to self-pity and pretense that they are somehow the sex that is suffering under male entitlement and privilege.

34. FAB Libber - February 15, 2011

Now there’s a “gender test” for them. Have at it, eunuchs. Prove you’re woman enough.

LOL Loretta. nay, ROTFLMAO.

35. Noanodyne - February 15, 2011

Speaking of eunuchs – have you seen GallusMag’s recent post? Apparently some men already think that’s a bang-up thing to be.

36. K.A. - February 15, 2011

I think there are many, many women, and perhaps all radfems, who had the same dysphoric experiences that transfolk did, but the difference is the conclusions they came to about why they felt like shit. A child’s brain who sees the simple binary division of girl/boy could easily come to this conclusion that if they were the other sex, they’d feel all better. That’s their diagnosis of the problem with their innocent little kid-mind struggling to understand WHY they feel so bad. I had all the same feelings transfolk did, less coming to the conclusion that the wrong body was the source. Thanks to feminism, I finally started understanding and stopped feeling like I wanted to crawl out of my own defective dirty WRONG skin. I finally understood.

So when transfolk say our interests intersect, absolutely they do. What they fail to realize though is that in spite of sharing the same source of our collective gender dysphoria, we have fewer privileges in society during this phenomenally psychologically painful life experience. Transfolk feel more oppressed for gender nonconformity, but we, too, get harassed for gender nonconformity! That’s what they don’t seem to want to recognize. I certainly was abused for gender nonconformity, as well as feeling like my female body was defective, wrong, dirty.

Transwomen seem to think we don’t understand that their oppression is our oppression. We understand the source is the same perfectly well! It’s the PRIVILEGE, STUPID!

(And all this is without even getting into the misogyny of the surgery, as well as how it reinforces the binarism rather than transgressing it, which is a psychologically abusive thing to force radical feminist women to accept in spaces where artificial femininity needs to be eradicated.)

37. SheilaG - February 15, 2011

The point of radical lesbian spaces was to eliminate “artificial femininity” that is the toxic waste of straight society. That’s why we said we want out of that hetero-conforming nonsense in the first place! So now the fakes return in the form of eunuchs– which historically were the very people set up by patriarchs to guard “their” women in the first place. Hmmm, seems that the male overlords have decided it’s time to do this kind of policing again.

38. Loretta Kemsley - February 15, 2011

I never felt my body was “wrong.” I thought people were wrong for trying to define me solely because of my body.

I never wanted to be a man. Who wants a penis? It’s unruly and unpredictable. I’d much rather borrow one when I feel the urge and then send it home for someone else to worry about.

I don’t identify with Trannies. Not in the least. I don’t see similiarities in our experiences. They had the choice of exposing their differences with other men. I didn’t. I’m not saying they should choose to live in the closet but just that they have choices I could never even contemplate. The closest I can come to identifying with them is that we’ve both suffered because we aren’t what our culture likes to pretend is the superior male.

I don’t know the answer for trannies, but it isn’t pretending they are the same as FAABs. They aren’t, not in any way. And I have enough to cope with because of discrimination against FAABs. I don’t need to be told to step aside to allow MAABs who’ve chosen to be eunuchs take precedence over me. I’ve fought too hard for what I have now and don’t want to concede a single bit of ground, especially since there are far too many battles I’m still fighting (along with all other FAABs).

39. FAB Libber - February 15, 2011

I’m with you Loretta, I never felt my body was “wrong” either. Just really pissed off that I was treated as an inferior and not given the same opportunities or rewards for harder work (than the be-penised lot did).

I can see that KA’s point is valid, that children could interpret things as being in the “wrong body” without realising that the system stinks.

40. delphyne - February 15, 2011

It’s not the binarism that’s the problem though, it’s the hierarchy. It’s pomos who’ve made the big fuss about the sex binary, to take the focus away from the fact that male domination of women is what we need to counteract to free women, not pretend that women don’t exist so we don’t need that freedom any more. Systems of power are the issue – who has it, who doesn’t, who is abusing it, who isn’t – not categories that do actually exist in nature.

FactCheckMe, I agree with you that it is a strategy, and the strategy is the age-old patriarchal one to erase women. They were able to do it with impunity before the women’s movement, but since women have been rising up in numbers and identifying our oppression *as women*, the obvious response was for them to destroy the category of woman, either physically through trans or philosphically through postmodernist “words mean anything I say they mean thus there is no such thing as a woman” arguments. If women don’t exist there can be no oppression as you say, so we don’t need feminism. You’ll also notice they *never* say there is no such thing as a man. That category is not under attack. Men get to exist all the while women are being destroyed.

41. Loretta Kemsley - February 15, 2011

That’s true. I’m sure many women hate their bodies (internalizing) rather than seeing the problem isn’t themselves but the patriarchal demand for rigid roles assigned by sex. I certainly don’t think all women or girls would feel the way I do. In fact, I doubt any do when you consider the whole me and the whole them.

That’s where our society goes wrong for everyone: they demand conformity to rigid roles that never made sense in the first place. They were developed to oppress women and to force them to accept “real” men have these certain traits. That’s the only way patriarchy can survive.

42. SheilaG - February 15, 2011

I never felt I was in the wrong body, but I did face the reality that my work was never or rarely judged on its quality alone… and that men were always given a free ride. Now the big recession/depression has hit, and all that work paid off. Accustomed to battling it out in the world as a very out gender non-conforming lesbian, well I would not compromise, I just kept steadily working away. Yes, you will win in the end. Even straight women are kind of getting me, something they were incapable of until say the last six years or so…

You will be in opposition physically to just about everything in the world as a life long lesbian. I often think that my very emotional reactions, my physical feelings, my sense of bodily self has absolutely nothing to do with a straight female mentality. It’s an odd feeling, and perhaps people confuse resistence to patriarchy as “gender dysphoria”– I guess resistence to colonization by monsters not worthy of note, but hey, when non-white men throw white men out of their country, this counts. My revolution is rarely recognized at all. And I do say that women who sleep with men, live with men, and consort with men are the colonized, and that there are no exceptions to this. The price of freedom would be very high for straight women I imagine, and most aren’t convinced that freedom is worth it. It’s all how much you really want to be free.

43. Loretta Kemsley - February 15, 2011

It all depends upon how you define freedom.

I’m a loner by nature and would not be happy with either male or female being too close, with or without sex. I value my privacy more than I value people.

Trying to lump all women into one category is harmful, whether it is done by patriarchs or rebels against patriarchy.

44. thebewilderness - February 15, 2011

Colonial imperialism is pretty much the strategy of Trans activists with regard to Feminism.

Do you ever wonder why Trans activists do not appear to be interested in colonizing Holly the Happy Homemaker blogosphere? Or maybe they do and I’m just ignorant of their efforts.
Srsly? Why Feminism? Why Radical Feminism?
Because it is a political movement, that’s why.
And women are conditioned to accept putting the least important thing in a mans life ahead of the most important thing in a womans life.

The 1850 Rebellion in China planned to give females social and educational equality. It gave them oppression in the name of communism instead.
The Weimar constitution gave women the vote and one of the earliest Nazi excluded women in perpetuity from office and sent them home to produce human resources.
Women have been revolutionaries for three thousand years and every success has been brutally twisted to disadvantage them in favor of men ruling over them.

This is precisely what Trans activists are doing. They do not give a bloody damn what happens to cissy women as they like to call us. They simply want to redirect our efforts to promote their interests.
Their interests are equal rights for Trans persons.
In order to do so they have created what they call the Trans umbrella, that declares all Lesbian, Gay, Bi, people to be covered by their Trans umbrella.
They can put their umbrella where the sun don’t shine.

45. thebewilderness - February 15, 2011

Equal rights with men, that should say. They already got the equal rights with women and they do not like!

46. thebewilderness - February 15, 2011

Remember this?
http://uppitybiscuit.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/do-not-call-me-cisgender-you-do-not-have-my-permission-to-name-me/

Maybe some of the newbies at IBTP should give it a think.

47. Loretta Kemsley - February 15, 2011

The same thing happened to the suffragettes as they fought for the vote. They included blacks in their movement. Well, the black men settled with the white men and left out women, including their own women. That’s why black men had the vote seventy years before any woman had the vote.

Men have always used and abused women without caring what happened to the women.

FCM - February 15, 2011

Yes about the trans umbrella tbw. FAABs are supposedly under it too.

48. Loretta Kemsley - February 15, 2011

That’s rather like the Catholic church declaring all Christians are Catholics (which they did). They can screaming it from the roof tops but that doesn’t make it so. There are millions of Christians that hate the RCC.

I’m not under any “umbrella” I don’t choose to lift for myself.

BTW, thanks for the link to Uppity Biscuit. I did not know the history of CIS. Seems to me these men who were probably called “sissy” from their earliest years are not trying to elevate themselves above women by using “cissie” and pretending it has no nefarious context. Won’t work. Too obvious.

FCM - February 15, 2011

MAABs will be MAABs, under patriarchy. That’s what they do. It’s what they are. They can pretend that their entire identity as male and their very existence as men isn’t rooted in their ability to cause female specific harm. But they are just pretending. I believe that they are wrong, and I’ve demonstrated it. I cannot even imagine how they would attempt to refute it, and what that would even look like. Ignoring it and diverting attention from it and obfuscating it is all they will ever do, but again. I think its pretty clear, for anyone who is even willing to consider that it might be true.

49. FAB Libber - February 16, 2011

Seems to me these men who were probably called “sissy” from their earliest years are not trying to elevate themselves above women by using “cissie” and pretending it has no nefarious context.

They are pretending. I think they knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they started calling us cis-, and for the exact reason you stated.

That would be a perfect example of transmisogny*

*the new and improved definition:
misogyny by TWs towards FAABs.

You boys aren’t the only ones who can appropriate and twist meanings…

50. FAB Libber - February 16, 2011

Oh, and “my sister, my ass”
(reference to the trans suck ups over on the Twisty thread)

51. thebewilderness - February 16, 2011

What we call ourselves is important to us.
In Japan women have filed suit to keep their names when they marry.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/japanese-women-sue-to-keep-maiden-names-20110214-1athc.html

Now if we could just convince them to skip the whole marrying thingamabobble.
This is not a resurgence of womens lib all over the world. It is a continuation of a movement that has been underway all along.

52. Loretta Kemsley - February 16, 2011

LOL. Glad you understood what I meant. The word “not” should have been “now.”

Good definition, btw. Very good.

FCM - February 16, 2011

btw i also love the “sissie” connection loretta. i am sure you are correct there. the PROOF that you are correct will come when you call it out, and they dont change it immediately. same as when we call all their other shit out, and point out how offensive it is and why, and they keep doing it, MOAR. they INTEND to insult women. if it wasnt deliberate, they would stop doing it they saw that it was insulting. DUH.

also, regarding “existing in nature” i am not sure if you meant to suggest otherwise delphyne, but the FAAB/MAAB distinction does not exist in nature, as far as i know. i am not talking about SEX here, i am talking about GENDER. and GENDER is what MAAB/FAAB represent. GENDER is how ALL FAABs come to be socialized into an oppressive female gender role, even ones that cannot reproduce as female, and OF COURSE including those that never want to, or dont for whatever reason. it has absolutely nothing to do with sparkly shirts, feelings, or even the ability to reproduce (as box #3 illustrates). it has everything to do with the ability or perceived ability to cause female-specific harm. that appears to be THE line in the sand, under patriarchy. if you can, you are one thing. if you cant, you are another (THE. OTHER.)

this post is not about sex, or even the ability to reproduce. i hope that is clear. of course, regarding female harm, if this wasnt being caused deliberately…they would stop doing it, once it was pointed out. this is of course a running theme.

if pregnancy wasnt absolutely intended to be harmful to women, there would be 1) 100% foolproof technology that would prevent it, under complete control of the woman AND 2) there would be no negative social or economic consequences to women, of childbearing. #1 would seperate us from the animals. #2 would make us the same as the animals (or MAABs as benign as male animals). its 100% under the control of MAABs to make both of these happen, and so far they have made neither one of them happen.

their plan is apparently to convince a few of us that none of this is harmful, at all. they are doing a really fucking good job with that few, judging by the fun-fems. the rest of the FAABs of the world just have to keep being harmed, knowing that its harmful. and i am sorry, but this appears to be MOST OF THE WORLDS FAABs. take away the benefits of western medicine, and its pretty fucking clear who is being harmed, and the nature of the harm, and who is causing it too.

FCM - February 16, 2011

and heres another sizzling slice of spam, straight from my spam folder:

apart from pregnancy (I recently read that abusive spouses have been known to sabotage birth control), what harm can a MAAB impose on a FAAB that can’t be imposed on a trans woman?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!11!!!!!1! APART FROM PREGNANCY, indeed! they always discount the importance of this one, dont they? gee, i wonder why. (its because they are MAABs, and MAAB as a category represents…). fill in the blank, from the article. DUH.

FCM - February 16, 2011

that uppitybiscuit post was awesome. thanks.

53. joy - February 16, 2011

Those individuals should perhaps read your Jessica Valenti article, FCM.

Also, I’ve always had a funny dysphoria too. Inside, I’m a human being. Outside, I’m a woman.

I will keep repeating that on the internet until it sinks in (ie, forever).

Maybe some women drank the Kool Aid from an early age, but I’m one of the ones who never did. I will not settle for having my work discredited. I will not settle for being seen as less than human. But I do not need surgery, and nor do other women like me.

I don’t care about the MAABs. I’ve spent way too much energy on them.

Umpteenthing the idea that trans- was created to derail feminism. First by making many proto-feminist women believe they are actually men, and then by allowing men to infiltrate the ranks of women. It’s like the FBI infiltrating any other radical group. It means we were doing something right, and the MAABs felt truly threatened.

54. thebewilderness - February 16, 2011

“apart from pregnancy (I recently read that abusive spouses have been known to sabotage birth control), what harm can a MAAB impose on a FAAB that can’t be imposed on a trans woman?”

What harm can a MAAB inflict on a Trans woman that they cannot inflict on another MAAB?

People just don’t think with their thinker, do they?
Even with a diagram, examples, and explanations, they will not accept reality.

55. FAB Libber - February 16, 2011

the PROOF that you are correct will come when you call it out, and they dont change it immediately. same as when we call all their other shit out, and point out how offensive it is and why, and they keep doing it, MOAR. they INTEND to insult women. if it wasnt deliberate, they would stop doing it they saw that it was insulting.

YES !!!
It is their intention. From the very start RFs said “knock it off with this cis- shit” and they did NOT. In fact, they convinced the stupid funfems into taking it up and calling themselves that. This was before the sissie connection was really known. We were just pissed that they dared name us. It has the derogatory equivalent of calling a gay guy “fag”. So, that makes it 10x worse. Transmisogyny, there was never a better example.

apart from pregnancy…
What sort of idiot troll posts that exception, when the primary theme of the post is the sex-specific harm (or assumed sex-specific harm) of FAABs??? I like the way they can wave off pregnancy as some really small inconsequential thing, when many het FAABs are frequently avoiding it (for years) or dealing with unwanted ones? No contraception is 100% safe. None.

56. FAB Libber - February 16, 2011

That should be harm TO FAABs (by MAABs) of course.

57. Sargassosea - February 16, 2011

(I recently read that abusive spouses have been known to sabotage birth control)

So abusive, legally married women are sabotaging their *sex* partners’ birth control?

Really?!

58. Sargassosea - February 16, 2011

“Historically, regarding all other human/civil rights movements, the idea was, oppressed people named THEMSELVES. They didn’t re-name their oppressors. To do so would have either been laughable or dangerous, mostly dangerous.” – Uppity Biscuit

Today, women’s liberationists are again naming ourselves as such AND daring to remind the world that this particular group of oppressors were named, by MEN of history, eunuchs.

59. SheilaG - February 16, 2011

The communists seized power in 1949 not 1850 in China, and women were revolutionaries.

60. delphyne - February 16, 2011

Well it is about sex. We aren’t oppressed because of our “gender” – gender (the socially created hierarchy which sets men above women) is imposed on women and girls because of our sex.

Male and female, men and women exist in nature. Nature created two sexes for reproduction (whether we reproduce is immaterial), sex exists because of that. What trans are doing is saying that sex doesn’t exist, or rather it exists because they want it – so when they want it, it’s real; when women claim it, suddenly it isn’t.

I don’t like MAAB and FAAB because I think those categories play into trans’ hands, because we’ve had to retreat from “woman” and “man” because trans have been able to completely fuck up the meanings of those and take them from us. I’m not a FAAB, I’m a woman. I want woman back.

The thing is identity/reality/experience matters and if women can’t name ourselves as women, we are lost. Acronyms don’t replace our being. What trans are doing is theft and infiltration.

61. delphyne - February 16, 2011

Maybe we’re talking at cross purposes though FCM. What I got from the thread at Twisty’s was a whole lot of people saying female biology doesn’t matter, hence trans being allowed, or rather welcomed, into women only space. I don’t think they have an issue with gender or sex roles, or deny them. In fact if gender didn’t exist it would make it a whole lot harder for trans to pretend to be women.

That’s why I linked to the Julia Serrano video, to remind people who they are welcoming: a guy who is proud of his penis, proud how he has used it against women, and proud of its magical powers, so magical that it can actually become female and turn women into lesbians.

I thought you were using FAAB interchangably with “woman” there as a reference to female human beings.

FCM - February 16, 2011

i fully agree that women are oppressed because of our sex. YES. our born-sex. almost all FAAB are impregnable, because they are born-female. almost NONE of them are intersex. almost all my posts address the FACT, because its true. the PIV-related criticism is all about this.

this post is different. it addresses FAAB/MAAB, intersex, and “gender” and why the trans and fun-fems are so interested in discounting FAAB as a meaningful distinction. in twistys latest, she banned men from posting anymore at IBTP, and the fucking trans immediately brought up “well what about teh trans?” and twisty concluded that as far as she is concerned, FAAB is a meaningless distinction, and that transwomen are women. WELP. i am sorry, but the FACT that there are actual criteria that define FAAB (as illustrated by the chart) prove that its a MEANINGFUL distinction, not a meaningless one. we can talk about the meaning, but we cannot say that its meaningless. WHY they are so interested in PRETENDING here, when they are obviously wrong and i can easily demonstrate they are wrong with a simple graphic, got me to thinking. what are they up to?

this post addresses intersex and gender in a way that i HOPE puts it to fucking bed. it puts it to bed as far as i am concerned, and so far not a single person has even attempted to argue with my point: that MAAB, as a category, represents all bodies that can cause (or are presumed to be able to cause) female-specific harm. THIS is why intersex and “gender” are relevant. NOT the way they are doing it, which is to act like it levels the playing field or something, and that “patriarchy hurts men too” or whatever they are trying to push by addressing it in thier own disingenuous way. if anyone really examined “gender” for real, (aka. funnelling people into male/female “gender roles” based on the appearance of their genitals at birth) they would see what it was all about. and THIS is what its all about. i think its pretty clear, and i have made my point, and i frankly dont even think it can be argued with. and it hasnt been argued with, here. intersex and “gender” prove the radfem position, not the fun-fem one.

62. Loretta Kemsley - February 16, 2011

As to the troll comment dismissing pregnancy as a very real negative consequence, these new findings adds to the ever growing list of the dangers of pregnancy:

http://www.examiner.com/women-s-health-in-national/new-women-s-heart-disease-prevention-guidelines-more-realistic

Another example is consideration a woman’s history of preeclampsia that doubles the risk of heart disease and stroke 5 to 15 years after delivery and raises the chances of dangerous blood clots. Mosca says the risk for women can be considered the same as failing a stress test.

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/parenting-family/pregnancy/story/2011/01/Diabetes-in-pregnancy-a-risk-for-mom-years-later—/43116430/1

Roughly half of women who’ve had gestational diabetes — the pregnancy kind — go on to develop full-fledged Type 2 diabetes in the months to years after their child’s birth

And yet MAABs continute to pretend their insistance that women submit to PIV for their pleasure is no big deal.

63. Jilla - February 16, 2011

Well it is about sex. We aren’t oppressed because of our “gender” – gender (the socially created hierarchy which sets men above women) is imposed on women and girls because of our sex.@@

Exactly. We are wombmen.

64. FAB Libber - February 16, 2011

Sort of straying a little off the topic, the other harm, specific to FAABs (and perhaps some intersex) but not MAAB/transw, is cervical cancer via the HPV introduced during PIV. Neo-vaginas (or the inside-out penis) are not subject to it. No cervix.

Historically, but especially the present, there has always been MAAB resistance to using condoms. It is safe to say that MAABs don’t even want to protect themselves from disease, why on earth would anyone conclude they care at all about FAABs?

65. FAB Libber - February 16, 2011

I don’t like MAAB and FAAB because I think those categories play into trans’ hands, because we’ve had to retreat from “woman” and “man” because trans have been able to completely fuck up the meanings of those and take them from us. I’m not a FAAB, I’m a woman. I want woman back.

The thing is identity/reality/experience matters and if women can’t name ourselves as women, we are lost. Acronyms don’t replace our being. What trans are doing is theft and infiltration.

Delphyne, I understand your attachment to the word “woman”, and disgust at the tranz hijack of the word too. For the purposes of clarity within these discussions, given the current climate of the tranz hijack of the word, it is necessary to be specific of the type of woman (ie the actual default FAAB woman). I do not know if the word can be reclaimed without taint, only time will tell.

The one experience common to almost all (FAAB) women is that they were assigned “female” at birth, then treated accordingly with contempt.

It is a very precise term, and difficult to hijack. I wouldn’t put it past them to try though. Zoe Brain for instance, came onto the scene as TW, had time to kill to look for every medical research paper zie could find, then declared hirself intersex. ZB now claims that her alliance to TWs was because of the commonality (the actual reason yes, because ZB was MAAB), yet this is not the experience of most intersex who are assigned FAAB.

This rewriting of history was also seen in that comment saying TWs used to only say “I feel like a woman” to get SRS. Which was also bullshit, because they used to use the line within feminist circles, and feminists were not issuing any SRS. They really like to rewrite history (read: lie).

66. FAB Libber - February 16, 2011

Also, the damn British Govt muddy the waters too, by re-issuing birth certificates as the ‘new’ sex (most often M scrubbed to become F). This also confuses the general population about sex/gender.

Even on that Twisty thread, they denied hijacking Female (a point you first addressed). It is easy to see they are lying about that, by using the MTF terms. Otherwise, if they were really sincere they were not confusing sex and gender, then they would be MTW. But they ain’t. My gawd, what a catalogue of lies lies and more fucking lies.

FCM - February 16, 2011

I think FAAB is important, for the reasons outlined in this article. It’s probably more important than I had even previously considered, actually, because of what it reveals about MAAB, and the organization of sexual class based on the ability to cause female specific harm. I am sorry, but this is fucking breathtaking. And I can’t believe I never saw it, before.

But there’s also no denying that the trans and fun-fems disingenuous cries of “essentialism!!!11!1” are what bring FAAB/MAAB to the forefront of these discussions. Because they just will not understand that male privilege, exists. So they are framing and directing the discussion, which stinks. But look what’s been revealed here, by examining and responding to it. I think it was time well spent, really.

FCM - February 16, 2011

I think too that this is so much bigger than “male privilege.” They can barely get their heads around what that means, and surely its mostly deliberate. But I think I have shown here that all MAABs are groomed as oppressors, from birth. They are groomed TO cause female-specific harm, based on their perceived ability to cause it. They are groomed to see piv as “sex” and to perpetrate it on as many women as possible. They are groomed to rape. FROM BIRTH. That’s gotta do stuff. Call it a “privilege” if you want to, but it doesn’t change or even affect what it is, and what MAABs are, by definition. Maybe this will help bring it home. It’s brought it home for me, I know that much.

67. Loretta Kemsley - February 16, 2011

Because they just will not understand that male privilege, exists.

They understand perfectly. But they are invested in denial because if they admit it, then they have to admit it is discrimination and should not be part of our society.

And yes, they are groomed to harm from birth. Patriarchy depends upon male violence to exist. No woman would voluntarily accept second class status if she wasn’t afraid of acting with total freedom.

Look at the rape “warnings” that are passed around telling women to give up freedom in every part of life, right down to what they wear, how long their hair is and what colors are “appropriate.” These “warnings” assume that women should voluntarily give up their freedoms based on the fear of being raped. What warnings do men receive telling them they should voluntarily give up their freedoms in order to avoid becoming a crime victim? I’ve never even heard of one let alone several circulating so they get them several times a month in their in box.

Women living in fear is necessary for patriarchy to exist. Otherwise, women would feel free to tell the patriarchs to stick it and go on about their business without surrendering their freedom.

68. Jilla - February 16, 2011

Do you believe her when she says she’s intersex? I don’t. As for the so-called research, unless we have the studies (not the abstracts) and do the maths, we shouldn’t believe it is valid.

69. thebewilderness - February 16, 2011

Hi SheilaG,
I was speaking to the T’ai-P’ing Rebellion of 1850-1864.

70. delphyne - February 16, 2011

So does this mean that everybody here is OK with Twisty including MTF trans in her “woman-only” policy therefore letting the likes of men like Zoe Brain, or Julia Serrano, if he turns up, onto her “advanced blaming” aka radical feminist blog. Because we’re saying that MTF trans are women now?

Because I’m not really sure what the argument against trans is then, if the only thing we’re saying about them is that they highlight the fact that men like to put defective males (thanks GG) into the category of woman, because that’s all they see us as.

71. Loretta Kemsley - February 16, 2011

FAB brought up cervical cancer. That’s just one type of harm caused by PIV. Women can also die from an air embolism caused by PIV. The thrusting action forces air into the uterus where it can enter an open blood vessel. (such as when we are menstruating). The air can also rise up into the fallopian tubes where it can drift to anywhere in our abdomen. There is also the problem of burst fallopian tubes or other organ due to an ectopic pregnancy. Of course, that doesn’t even begin to address the wide range of dangers from birth control which is only necessary because of PIV.

Trannies can’t imagine any of this because they don’t have real vaginas that actually lead somewhere.

72. Loretta Kemsley - February 16, 2011

I agree with Delphyne that we need to retain woman and not let them sully it with their need to find a new identity. Let them find another word to describe who they are. Make one up even. But don’t expect us to say, “Yeah, you’re exactly the same as we are.” They’re not. They’re not even close to being the same.

They don’t really want what women live with day in and day out. They want what they imagine are women’s privleges but without having to endure the hardships.

I don’t see trannies out there working hard to liberate women all over the world. I don’t see them working hard to help women in their own neighborhoods. They’re all about helping themselves and no one else.

They obviously believe womanhood is defined by the shape of our body, which is just the same old MAAB objectification. Breasts and vaginas do not define who I am or the experiences I’ve endured because I have breasts and a vagina. Even on a physical basis, breasts and a vagina are not what defines body as female. Every organ in my body is part of that definition. Changing one organ doesn’t change the rest or the effects a lifetime of being female imposes upon them.

But I also agree with FCM that in this discussion and in those where we are contrasting born women from eunuchs who want to call themselves women, the designations of FAAB and MAAB are important so there can be no confusion or deliberate hiding behind what we’ve worked so hard to achieve.

BTW, what does MOAR stand for?

FCM - February 16, 2011

Delphyne, what in the wide wide world of sports are you talking about? Not a single person here believes that mtf are women, or belong in women only spaces. That’s the point. They are MAAB. Not FAAB. No matter how badly they wish it, or wish that it didn’t matter.

Moar means “more” but snarky. Heh.

FCM - February 16, 2011

Did you believe we were saying that post-op mtf aren’t MAAB anymore, because they no longer have their dicks? No! That’s the whole point. If you are MAAB you can never be FAAB. And no FAAB should be expected to share woman-only space with someone who was groomed as an oppressor of women and a rapist, since birth. And all MAABs were. THAT’S WHAT THEY ARE. That’s what male privilege is, and it doesn’t go away.

We also shouldn’t have to wonder if they still have their dicks. And many of them do.

73. northernsea - February 16, 2011

One of the things I have noticed lately is that there are two fronts to this battle. There is the left with their fun-feminists who include trans and there is the right who are co-opting the word feminist to mean anything they want it to mean. One right-left coalition blog is claiming it means woman. No wonder everyone is confused. Patriarchal parrots from both sides are distorting and dissembling. Pomo is not just from the left. The right are using it too and pretending they are not. So for me FAAB is a very important distinction for both the words woman and feminist have been co-opted and are confused which is what they both want. Control of language hence reality is the game. So thanks FCM, I get what you are saying and it is for me grounded in a reality I know.
I took for granted for years that I was included in the term humanity. Hello, no. It has been only radical feminists who have shown me that that is the biggest deception of all. Thank you Mary Daly, and all the other rad fems who wrote those books which we can only get from second hand book stores now for they are being disappeared.
(Rhondda, Northernsea is my wordpress avatar)

74. veganprimate - February 16, 2011

“apart from pregnancy (I recently read that abusive spouses have been known to sabotage birth control), what harm can a MAAB impose on a FAAB that can’t be imposed on a trans woman?”

Um, is this for real? Apart from pregnancy? APART FROM PREGNANCY?!?

That’s like saying, “Apart from political, economic, and social oppression, what harm has patriarchy caused women?”

Fucking idiots.

75. FAB Libber - February 16, 2011

delphyne:
Because we’re saying that MTF trans are women now?

Nope, totally the opposite. The FAAB distinction is one they can NOT co-opt. For the longest time we had a hard time defining what “woman” (as in the real kind, not the fake kind) was. It was more than just the reproductive bits (but that is a big part of it). We wanted to be totally inclusive of all our born-sisters (and exclude the Jane-cum-latelys). FAAB is a great way to do it, to include post-menopausal women, sterile women, pre-puberty girls etc, and keep out the riff raff.

I know you are really attached to the word, and it’s not like we have totally abandoned it, but it has been sullied from all sides (except ours). Hopefully we can reclaim it one day, but only time will tell.

Loretta:
The air embolism thing is probably at most risk in the weeks after delivery. There are men out there that coerce their wives/gfs into having PIV days or weeks after birth, and some women die. Even cunnilingus is still dangerous in the weeks after birth, women have died after that. In this sex-poz culture, even some women are convinced that they should ‘get things back to normal’ (meaning PIV asap). The most stupid expression is ‘to make sure everything is working’. How brainwashed can you get? It’s not a faux-vagina that is going to close up completely if not stretched out regularly. It is a working organ, its natural state is with the vaginal walls touching.

Roughly 2% of (known) pregnancies are ectopic. It is fairly common, for something so potentially serious (fatal). Most require medical/surgical intervention, but it is possible to survive one without (I have).

Pregnancy. Really dangerous shit.

FCM - February 16, 2011

Or, its like saying “apart from your enumerated valid concerns that I DON’T want you to talk about, what are your concerns?” They ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS discount this one. Always.

76. thebewilderness - February 17, 2011

Do you all remember Theriomorph? She doesn’t blog any more but she is on FB.
She had something to say on this matter and the current efforts to deprive women of Planned Parenthood services that I think you will find interesting.

77. veganprimate - February 17, 2011

“The air embolism thing is probably at most risk in the weeks after delivery. There are men out there that coerce their wives/gfs into having PIV days or weeks after birth, and some women die.”

You know, that is sickening. I mean, really, can’t these dudes just fucking choke their chicken? Give it a rest, Sport. Leave your woman alone for five fucking minutes.

78. Jilla - February 17, 2011

Are there still obstetricians who tell women it’s good or have sex after birth? They say:

1.) orgasm causes the uterus to contract, helping it return to normal size

2.) uterine contractions help bring the mild down, and suckling helps the uterus to contract to normal size.

79. Jilla - February 17, 2011

Ooo gawd that is awful. Sorry. Posting w/o glasses. Posting at 3 a.m. Posting while enraged.

80. Jilla - February 17, 2011

Facebook links. I can’t access the links unless I’m willing to let FB rifle through my underwear drawer.

81. FAB Libber - February 17, 2011

You know, that is sickening. I mean, really, can’t these dudes just fucking choke their chicken? Give it a rest, Sport. Leave your woman alone for five fucking minutes.

Agreed. The sad thing is that there are a number of women who will either submit or go along enthusiastically with mandatory PIV in order to “hold onto their manz”. Frankly, if that is a condition of ‘the relationship’ that she ‘puts out’, then ‘the relationship’ is not worth keeping, certainly the dude isn’t.

Speaking of which, this will make you puke:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1357771/Couple-sex-day-year-revive-marriage.html

So, how come ‘marriage’ is some sort of magical condition? If a single woman had ‘sex’ 365 days of the year, she would be branded ‘slut’. If the married woman does it, it being same thing, she is some kind of martyr? WTF! Marriage. Obviously some sort of mystical condition that changes a woman.

If you read down the article, two of her friends followed her lead and got pregnant (no shit sherlock). So they will be in their mid-late 50s when they have teenagers to deal with. Nice.

82. GallusMag - February 17, 2011

Impregnability is the biological foundation upon which patriarchal oppression is based. Period. Because sex is a reproductive category donchaknow. Not an “internal gender identity” category.
I see no further purpose in dialoging with men on this issue, whether those men are modeling faux woman surgi-suits or not. Men want total access to and control over women. That is why some embody the fetishized object “female”- for greater access. For enhanced exploitation. Those of us in the Lesbian community have seen this dynamic in effect for years- since before the existence of chimera-enabling modern medical technology. No female stone may be left unturned. And the more females are detached from male access, the more intoxicating that access becomes to males.
There is no point in discussion with these males. There is no treaty to be negotiated, no boundaries that will be respected, no language that will remain commonly understood, no demonstrable fact or logic that will be acknowledged.
Political activism aimed at halting the governmental practice of issuing legal false sex markers should be our only goal to stem the tide of invisibilizing what it means to be FAAB.

83. GallusMag - February 17, 2011

Love the illustrative diagram btw. Very simple and devastatingly clear.

FCM - February 17, 2011

I agree that we are not going to convince the fun fems or teh trans. BUT. These things must be discussed. In woman-only radfem spaces where we are free to go to the end of our thoughts, we are practically obligated to discuss these things, and figure out what they mean, and decode the language and the strategies that are being used against us.

I admit I harbor some hope for nonradical FAABs who might stumble on this stuff accidentally, or those who begin reading radfem work through a male perspective that eventually cracks. The MAABs I have no hope for, and I don’t care about at all. Even the super special snowflake MAAB who might “get” some or all this stuff, better do it quietly, and discuss it elsewhere, if he discusses it at all. Because I am completely not interested, at all.

84. Loretta Kemsley - February 17, 2011

I’m tired of having everything discussed through the frame of male ideas. One of the reasons I like it here is because it is women discussing the issues on their own terms, without worrying what men think and without allowing men to frame the issue.

It’s time for women to stop acceding to a world that is defined only from the male perspective. We are the majority sex. The world should be defined from our perspective based on that alone. Our experiences are so radically different that there is no way we can address them if we’re only allowed to use male perceptions and male terminology. The simple answer is to just quit using it and frame all discussions according to our own perceptions and own paradigms.

85. maggie - February 17, 2011

Women can still orgasm post baby to ‘reduce uterine contractions’. They don’t need a willy in their vagina to do it. Women orgasm perfectly – oh the shock and the horror!!! – ON THEIR OWN. Just like FAABS. When menz talk about masturbation it’s assumed that it’s penis in hand sex. Never crosses their menz minds that women engaged in this too.

I peek into that article you linked to FCM in the Mail/Male earlier. You are right of course. Had she been a single woman it would have been deemed slutty behaviour. On the other hand, had she been a ‘sex worker’ it would be okay too (providing a service, just like the ‘wife’).

86. Sargassosea - February 17, 2011

“…we are practically obligated to discuss these things, and figure out what they mean, and decode the language and the strategies that are being used against us.”

It’s truly amazing to me how that in such a short span of time words like “feminist” and “woman” and “lesbian” (even!) have been contorted to mean what maabs want them to mean. Which IS, indeed, nothing.

I am a woman, but so is Julia Serano. Now.

I am a feminist, but so is the uber-submissive xtian wife*. Now.

I am a lesbian, but so is any m-to-f who claims to be. Now.

Now, the words I have always used with pride to describe myself mean nothing; I am nothing and am disappeared along with millions of other FAABs.

In their dreams.

*to be a feminist is to worship and be all things ‘feminine’ in some circles

87. maggie - February 17, 2011

Sargassosea

Your logic is flawed. In that you say

I am a woman, but so is Julia Serano. Now.

Julia Serano is not a woman. Logic dictates that this cannot be so. And no ‘intellectual’ or medical dictate can deem it so.

Gay sex has been there as long as het sex.

xtian wives is a construct of religion, and by logical extension patriarchy, so is therefore a null and void construct in the logical world in which I exist.

FCM - February 17, 2011

Maggie, get to know the players, before you jump into the game. That’s free advice.

Ps. If that’s what s4 meant, I probably wouldn’t have published it.

FCM - February 17, 2011

Not without laughing and pointing anyway. Like I did with the “aside from pregnancy” comment. This is not a fun fem blog

88. maggie - February 17, 2011

But I’m not a disappeared FAAB. Despite the logic that would deem it so…

I’ve played the ‘game’ of wifey and had children and sacrificed a career to do so to no avail. The ‘game’ didn’t work.

I have three gorgeous children who all now know that pregnancy brings risks and responsibility. Proceed with caution is my advice to them.

I do however still have handbags and shoes. Of which I’m ashamed.

I’ve found strength and inspiration from these threads and a resonance. I thank you for that.

And of course apolgies to Sargassosea. I love your posts. And just wanted to help.

s4 means what FCM?

89. maggie - February 17, 2011

So if you have been pregnant and had children you’re not welcome?

90. maggie - February 17, 2011

I’m not a funfem. Far from it. Call me frigid if you wish, given my post menopausal state, but please never funfem. Past that don’t ya know!

91. Loretta Kemsley - February 17, 2011

There are no frigid women, only inept men.

Maggie, I too married, had children, divorced to free myself from a violent marriage, left xtianity because they thought it was my fault and I should go back, fought with the police who would not respond even when he tried to shoot me in front of a witness, etc.

The only people who cared were feminists. They gave me hope and an avenue to reclaim myself. I am a feminist. I am a liberated woman. I will never go back.

Our history does not define us. Our beliefs do. Our future is ours to claim. That’s why we’re here. All of us: to claim our future.

92. Jilla - February 17, 2011

Maggie’s true FCM.

93. veganprimate - February 17, 2011

maggie, I think what FCM meant by getting to know the players before you jump in the game is that you need to understand someone’s “intonation”, their style of writing, when they are being saracastic, etc.

Sargassosea didn’t mean that she herself believes those things to be true. That’s what MAAB’s, trannies, fun-fems, etc. believe.

94. veganprimate - February 17, 2011

“Speaking of which, this will make you puke:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1357771/Couple-sex-day-year-revive-marriage.html

Oh, yuck! What pisses me off is that the woman makes a point of mentioning that housework, chores, childrearing, etc. all get in the way of being sexual. But yet, it’s still her responsibility to have sex more. Why can’t her tool of a husband do more around the house? In fact, they’ve done studies that show that men who do more housework get more sex. If your wife is overworked, stressed out and tired, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, YA STUPID KNOBHEAD!

Is this woman post-menopausal? Because I don’t have any squeamishness about having sex during menstruation, but I certainly would not want to do it if I were having cramps.

Not to mention, this is wholly unnatural. In nature, it’s the male animals who go the lengths to attract and seduce women. But women are supposed to get dressed up in lingerie, do the whole seduction routine for a dude who is ready to go all the time anyway? A person who is easily stressed and overworked has to make an effort to seduce the person who experiences less stress (b/c he isn’t working the notorious Second Shift) and who can most likely summon up an erection on demand? I hate that shit.

I wrote a blog post about it 5 years ago. Five years? Man, I’ve been blogging a long time.

http://veganprimate.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/nem-nemow-dna-spihsnoitaler/

FCM - February 17, 2011

Indeed vp. Thanks.

I know there are a few new people here, and I also know that this topic is emotionally charged, and hits very close to home. As does everything written by all radical feminists everywhere.

I am taking this opportunity to reiterate that I have extremely high expectations for my readers, in that I expect that the vast majority of comments here will evince actual reading, as well as engaging with the material, and being responsive to what’s been said, and will add something to the discussion, that wasn’t there before. I am continuously surprised that this has proven to be an extremely high bar, but it is. And I do not apologize for it. I am extremely busy irl, and I do not have time for bullshit. If this culls the herd as they say of people who comment here…IT’S INTENTIONAL.

I also don’t post bullshit trans politicking or anything that evinces a mainstream view. I don’t have time. So if anyone thinks they read something here that sounds fun femmy, read it again before you respond to it. Because its extremely likely that you read it wrong.

That is all.

95. Loretta Kemsley - February 18, 2011
96. FAB Libber - February 18, 2011

given my post menopausal state […] Past that don’t ya know!

This just prompted a thought regarding PIV and the pregnancy thing. Many women still retain a strong sex drive post-menopause, if not stronger than pre-menopause. This has mainly to do I think with not being able to get pregnant any more. That stressor in the back of the mind is gone.

So, curious dudes go after the younger ones, the ones able to be impregnated. The harm factor seems in line with their turn-on factor. [relating briefly to the post topic!]

The main reason women go off (het) sex after menopause is that they have finally figured out that men are jerks. So, not really a decline in sex drive per se, just the turn off towards the available partners. Big difference!

97. maggie - February 18, 2011

Like it VP and of course FCM otherwise I wouldn’t post here.

Thanks Loretta and Fab, too.

FCM - February 18, 2011

special

i have a new graphic up at SCUM-O-RAMA. i also put a permanent hyperlinked/screenshot of THAT blog on the front page of THIS blog, in the side bar. enjoy!

http://scumorama.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/a-graphic-response/

98. FAB Libber - February 18, 2011

I love it!

99. FemmeForever - February 18, 2011

“Men want total access to and control over women. That is why some embody the fetishized object “female”- for greater access. For enhanced exploitation….No female stone may be left unturned. And the more females are detached from male access, the more intoxicating that access becomes to males.
There is no point in discussion with these males. There is no treaty to be negotiated, no boundaries that will be respected, no language that will remain commonly understood, no demonstrable fact or logic that will be acknowledged. ”

I can’t argue with that one bit. Today there was a guest on Oprah. The new Calvin Klein? it girl supermodel except she is MtF. Before the punchline was revealed I was thinking she was one of those interesting-looking models as opposed to classically beautiful and now I know why. But I’ve known for some time that the source of men’s misogyny is jealousy. They can’t stand that they can’t hold a candle to womanhood and they want to be us. So a MtF supermodel must be in hog heaven.

100. FemmeForever - February 18, 2011

Even though modeling is a degrading abusive career for women, a lot of women have made their fortunes this way and this is an added slap in the face to women and feminism.

FCM - February 18, 2011

i watched americas next top model for a season and there was a model on there who everyone thought was a MTF. they ended up having a pube-waxing challenge or something…and i suspect it was so that someone could get a good look at “her” genitals. we were never told the results.

as far as a MTF being a calvin klein model…modeling as a female i imagine…well thats just the logical progression of all of this isnt it? next it will literally be mannequins. because they are better (and more compliant) women than actual women are too. its really becoming a perverse joke…as if it werent already completely obvious that mens “beauty standards” are impossible for any real women to acheive, and that men dont even like real women OR want to fuck them…now we have this. the only ones that can ultimately live up to mens standards, are MEN. even what they claim are standards “for women” really arent.

101. FAB Libber - February 18, 2011

I only ever saw the promos for America’s Next Top Model, and from the brief clips, the entire show was based on misogyny and ridiculing (young) women at every opportunity.

But, that is the fashion industry anyway. You just have to look at some of the shoes they are made to walk in, and the fact that most of the ‘designers’ behind the scenes are MALE. I don’t give a shit if they are gay or not, gay male is not any kind of ‘natural ally’ to women just because het men say he is effeminate.

102. cherryblossom - February 18, 2011

I’ve been reading your blog non-stop since I found it yesterday. LOve it. Thank you!
I had the best night’s sleep I’ve had in years t last nigh and I don’t think it’s a coincidence. I feel like I’ve discovered an space that represents peace and sanity.

FCM - February 18, 2011

what an amazing compliment cherryblossom. thanks for reading.

103. cherryblossom - February 18, 2011

you’re very welcome.
I’ve had on-line “discussions” with trans women and fun-fems, as you call them. Never again.

One thing I tried to express to them was that women don’t feel comfortable in their bodies. At fifteen, one of my main worries was how I was going to obtain the money for breast implants (I considered prostitution to be a reasonable option having been taught to loathe my own breasts to such an extent it felt like I had no choice but to mutilate them into social acceptibility.)

The minds of vulnerable females are invaded by patriarchy-capitalism. Females, unless they are particularly self-confident and have had the right nurturing, know *exactly* what it feels like to be in the wrong body and to *know* that the only way out of their suffering is through the gender reassignment surgery which they see advertised in the rear pages of womens’ magazines and promoted on TV screens in the form of movies and dramas. Breast implants, tummy tucks, labioplasty (FGM).. gender reassignment surgery is culturally *mandated* for females; looking “feminine” is not even a choice.
IN the end I neither had the implants, nor prostituted myself, thank God, but to suggest that women don’t know what it’s like to be painfully uncomfortable in their own body, and to suggest they are comfortable in the gender they were assigned, suggests a complete and utter IGNORANCE of what it’s actually like to be a woman.

104. cherryblossom - February 18, 2011

I just read the post about the British government scrubbing M to F on the birth certificate. This scares me a lot. It means that males (those born with XY chromozomes) can now legitimately be held in female (XX chromozome people’s) prisons and have been given the green light to invade every single private female space that exists.

FCM - February 18, 2011

I would also add re the comments policy that I don’t think I have ever specifically excluded men or MAABs. They are excluded by default, because they don’t know how to read, they are completely unable or unwilling to be responsive, and they never evince anything besides the mainstream view. Seriously. It’s fucking stunning. And I can spot the mtf and male feminists a fucking mile away, and that’s even BEFORE they start talking about their dicks, and saying “what about teh trans” and “apart from pregnancy…”.

It’s so obvious. And yet they still deny that MAAB means anything or that male privilege and malestream viewpoint exists, at all, and that they never go away.

105. FemmeForever - February 18, 2011

Correction: the MtF supermodel is in the new Givenchy ad campaign.

106. FemmeForever - February 18, 2011
107. FAB Libber - February 18, 2011

I just read the post about the British government scrubbing M to F on the birth certificate.

I am not sure, but I believe it has already happened, that any male, who has “lived like a woman for two years” can have HIS birth certificate amended to F. It is completely independent of whether or not SRS has taken place (I mean, FFS, amending birth certificate to read F when there is a willy still in situ?). And yes, the biggest danger is for FAAB places like prisons or domestic violence shelters where the presence of someone with a willy is problematic, either from an emotional point of view, or a religious one (whereby muslim women cannot share accomodations with a non-related male).

I cannot think of a more perfect example of rewriting history, than the (govt sanctioned) amendment of birth certificates. Males always rewrite history to suit themselves.

108. FAB Libber - February 18, 2011

Givenchy, I believe, have as their major products, make-up. As the average MTW (I now refuse to use MTF), has to apply make-up with a spatula, I gather that Givenchy are expanding their customer base. Just sayin’!

109. FAB Libber - February 18, 2011

Furthermore(!)
If anyone was in any doubt that all this MTW business was pro-male and anti-female, just look at how damn quick they were to bring in birth certificate amendment. One hell of a lot faster than giving women the vote.

The stench of patriarchy is all over it.

110. FAB Libber - February 18, 2011

Mega apologies for spamming!

Yes, confirmed. New birth certificates can be amended to reflect “new gender” in the UK.
http://www.ukdp.co.uk/name-change-birth-certificate-england-and-wales/

Changing the gender on your Birth Certificate

The name and gender on your birth certificate can only be changed once your full legal status has been confirmed by the Gender Recognition Panel.

In order to apply for this you must prove that:

1. You suffer from, or have suffered from gender dysphoria
2. You have been living in your acquired gender for the last two years
3. You intend on remaining in your new gender permanently

Providing your application for a Gender Recognition Certificate is successful, your amended birth certificate will be issued to show your new gender and name.

FCM - February 18, 2011

Because sex and gender are the same!!!11!!11

There is no gender information on anyone’s birth certificate. So teh trans are asking for super special snowflake status, as usual.

111. Jilla - February 18, 2011

That’s an interesting blog you have femmeForever. Trans are oppressed you say. How so?

FCM - February 18, 2011

Jilla, if this is another reading comprehension fail, I’m going to be really pissed.

112. Jilla - February 18, 2011

You’re very tolerant of maybe-feminist newbies but the women who put their lives on the line in the ’60s and ’70s so you can be PhDFCM? Not so much.

If there has been a “reading comprehension” fail, I think you should look closer to home.

FCM - February 18, 2011

Actually Jilla, I am not tolerant of maybe feminist newbies at all. People who have been around here awhile know that. There’s a reason you don’t.

FCM - February 18, 2011

If femme forever believes that trans are oppressed, and you wish to call her out for it, provide quotes and links or shut the fuck up. That goes for everyone. No more picking fights and cryptic messages. I am sick of this shit. Femme forever has been commenting here a long time, and I haven’t read anything here that indicates what you say it indicates.

If I am wrong, I will of course apologize, and begin awarding medals to any trans or fun fems who have successfully flown under my radar. I might even design a graphic to memorialize it.

113. Female: Now with willies! | FAB Libber's Blog - February 18, 2011

[…] post was an expansion of the comment that I made at FCM’s. My blog here is not available on search engines, but I don’t mind […]

114. FAB Libber - February 18, 2011

FCM, Jilla is sincere and genuine, even if she is mistaken on occasion. She is very much an ‘elder stateswoman’ in feminist and antiporn circles.

I have half-heartedly started blogging, which you should see the URL by an incoming link. Feel free to pass that URL onto any of your regulars. It is not able to be found via search engines. I can’t be bothered dealing with the riff raff.😛

115. Loretta Kemsley - February 18, 2011

Jilla wrote:

You’re very tolerant of maybe-feminist newbies but the women who put their lives on the line in the ’60s and ’70s so you can be PhDFCM? Not so much.

I’m 65. I’m one of those feminists. I don’t have any problem relating to FCM or her to me.

As a writer, I know that all readers bring their own experiences and ideas to the table when they read what I write. I’m delighted with that. That means, if I’m lucky, my writing and their response will spark new insights between us.

Like FCM, I expect readers to really think about what is written rather than just dash off any old response. Because I put a lot of thought into what I write, I expect my readers to do the same.

I get a lot of that “but you really meant….” nonsense on my column. If they’d read it and thought about what I’d written, then they’d know I didn’t mean any such thing. It irritates me no end when someone is too lazy to read and contemplate in an effort to really communicate.

Of course, there are always those who want to deliberately “misunderstand” so they can make false accusations and derail the entire discussion. I have even less patience with them.

So it isn’t an age thing where us older feminists are being rejected by FCM or where we should feel a separation from the younger feminists. It’s incumbant upon us all to respect the ideas of each other and respect everyone’s intelligence.

FCM - February 18, 2011

Thanks loretta.

I find it ironic that people come in here swinging their credentials around, even as they degrade others for being credentialled. Noone here knows what I do, or what exactly my credentials are, and they never will. But now we all know jillas credentials don’t we? Just like she probably wanted.

It’s also ironic that an old-timer shows up here out of the blue, picking fights and lobbing cryptic insults, but doesn’t believe she’s required to furnish any proof. “It is, because I say it is” is very pomo indeed.

116. FemmeForever - February 18, 2011

Jilla,

I don’t have a blog. Whooooopsie.

FCM - February 18, 2011

Thanks for clarifying femme forever. Now that Jilla has successfully hijacked this thread, why don’t we move the convo over to scum o rama. Where miska can mod the comments. 😛

Damn that pisses me off. Some people just can’t have anything nice, without being moved to destroy it.

117. Jilla - February 18, 2011

Then I owe you a huge apology femme forever. I thought this must be you.

http://femme-forever.blogspot.com/2010/12/trans-issues-hidden-in-fashion-style.html

“Finally, at the end of the article, they get to the Givenchy ad. Thankfully, this ad actually features a transsexual model.

Not only did the NY Times stick this into the fashion and style section, thereby trivialising the politics of trans issues; but they also took the focus off real transpeople and put it onto a star in make up. This portrays transpeople as a fashion, a fad, or a trend not as real individuals who are oppressed.”

118. Jilla - February 18, 2011

You’ve been attacking older anti porn/anti trans feminists since I first posted.

What did you expect me to do, just roll with your abuse?

I’ve never stated my “credentials” by the way. But if you want them, then ok, here they are:

I’m a bylined national daily newspaper reporter.

119. Loretta Kemsley - February 18, 2011

Jilla wrote

women who put their lives on the line

I never viewed being a active feminist as putting my life on the line. Becoming a feminist was running to safety for me. I survived an ex who was actively trying to murder me. Marrying him was putting my life on the line, but I didn’t know that then.

The reason femonade resonates with me is that I have stared death in the face as he shoved a gun in my face and pulled the trigger, tried to choke me while trying to set my hair on fire, tried to run me over a freeway embankment.

I enjoy being here talking to women who get it without having to explain all that, women who see the danger we face every single day just because we exist.

Compared to those dangers, this blog is a safe zone that I treasure.

FCM - February 18, 2011

Jilla, you are seriously making me laugh now. This “timing” you note is not a coincidence. YOU have been on my radar since YOU first started posting here, because YOU have been using my blog as your personal message board, and attacking longtime posters from day one.

It’s YOU that’s the variable here Jilla. You’ve been pissing me off. I responded. To YOU.

FCM - February 18, 2011

And I never asked for your credentials. But you were more than happy to provide them weren’t you?

120. Loretta Kemsley - February 18, 2011

You’ve been attacking older anti porn/anti trans feminists since I first posted.

Nonsense. I’m an older, anti-porn feminist. As to anti-trans, I don’t care about them one way or the other except when it comes to them thinking they have the right to take over women’s issues. Then I’m definitely against them.

Not once have I been made to feel unwelcome here. It’s kind of silly to argue that FCM doesn’t liks anti-porn and anti-trans feminists when she’s anti-porn and anti-trans too.

So I have to wonder why you’re here. You clearly aren’t reading for comprehension or I wouldn’t have to explain FCM’s positions on this. You arne’t trying to provide additional insights to what others write. So are you here just to derail?

121. Loretta Kemsley - February 18, 2011

BTW, I’d like to read some of your work, Jilla, can you give me a url?

122. noanodyne - February 18, 2011

This post and comment thread moved me to create the start of a women’s liberation lexicon. Any and all feedback, ideas, additions, changes, etc. from y’all is very welcomed. And thank you all for the great ideas here.

123. thebewilderness - February 18, 2011

Jilla,
We have misunderstandings sometimes, and disagreements too, but aside from occasional reminders to stay on topic fercryingoutloud, not so much in the way of attacks.
You seem to be struggling in your effort to connect with us, and while I don’t know why, I have a suspicion that it may be a matter of style.

People make a lot of incorrect assumptions about me on the interwebs too, based on the way I say things rather than what I am saying.
That may be what is happening here.

124. rhondda - February 18, 2011

Gee, fcm I do not know where you were maligning older feminists. In fact, I thought it was just the opposite; making connections with their works which was why I felt so delighted to find your blog.

125. Jilla - February 18, 2011

Show me where I’ve been attacking anyone FCM.

Post it/them.

I made a flippant, sardonic comment to SheilaG. It was not understood that way by by her and I apologized.

You’ve been attacking older feminists. I took it when it was toward me. But the last time, to marcella? That was beyond the pale; rude, obnoxious, completely unnecessary and **entitled**.

Just the way a male would treat us.

Was I wrong with the blog I attributed to you femme?

This isn’t a blog derail. This is an object lesson in how deep feminism runs in your veins.

FCM - February 18, 2011

Pomo alert! And now I have to prove something. Or something. That’s fucking rich, I’d say.

126. rhondda - February 18, 2011

No, she must be a special snow flake ette. She just accused you of doing what she just did. Wow. I have had that happen from careerists. You must be doing something right FCM.

FCM - February 18, 2011

Well that’s fortunate I guess. I already have a graphic for that.

FCM - February 18, 2011

Thanks bewilderness.

127. Loretta Kemsley - February 18, 2011

Jilla, sine I’m in my sixties and not experiencing the same as you claim, then your claim it is because of your age is invalid. Why keep beating a dead horse?

Why bring up “Marcella” who hasn’t posted on this seed?

Why keep challening Femme Forever for something that was written elsewhere? Why not challenge it where it was written?

Those are all deliberate derails. If this were my blog, I wouldn’t let any of them through.

As to “This is an object lesson in how deep feminism runs in your veins.”

That’s clearly a “my feminism is bigger than your feminism” BS. No one needs to posture that way. No one needs to “prove” they’re the “better” feminist.

That’s abusive. And a deliberate derailment without a doubt.

http://verbalabuse.com/

Verbal abuse includes withholding, bullying, defaming, defining, trivializing, harassing, diverting, interrogating, accusing, blaming, blocking, countering, lying, berating, taunting, put downs, abuse disguised as a joke, discounting, threatening, name-calling, yelling and raging.

128. Jilla - February 18, 2011

Thanks TBW. But no.

Hi rhondda. You know me as Pony. Still think it’s ok for her to call me pomo?

FCM - February 18, 2011

Maggie seemed ok as of the last time she commented here. If that’s what Jilla is on about. That misunderstanding was over, almost as soon as it began. And I don’t think Maggie needs someone taking up for her, especially someone who doesn’t even know her name.

129. FemmeForever - February 18, 2011

Was I wrong with the blog I attributed to you femme?

I don’t know why I would need to repeat myself. Yes. You were totally and aggressively wrong. Just because a thought occurred to you doesn’t automatically mean that thought has any basis in fact. I would’ve expected a journalist to know better. But you were so eager to what “gotcha” a total stranger on the internet that you didn’t even try to check your facts before attacking me. BTW, visiting one website doesn’t cut the mustard. Especially since I was clearly unsure of the designer. If I had written an entire essay on the subject two months ago wouldn’t I have known the designer for sure in the first place. I am so sick of people who make shit up out of thin air and then call it the truth. BTW what would have been your motivation for researching me in the first place? Why was that even necessary? Where did that hostile intention come from? It didn’t come from me.

FCM - February 18, 2011

Oh noes! More credentials. You all know me as an anonymous Blogger on teh interwebs. Are you going to let another anonymous Blogger talk to me this way? Answer correctly or die.

FCM - February 18, 2011

Ok now I’ve gone and made myself LOL. That was funny yo.

130. rhondda - February 18, 2011

No I don’t know you as pony. I know you as sis. And accusing someone of doing what you yourself have just done is indeed pomo: in psych terms gaslighting. That is what pomos do — confuse the issue.

FCM - February 18, 2011

Jilla cut it out. Jesus.

131. Sargassosea - February 18, 2011

Oh, this bites. My high is most certainly harshed.😦

FCM - February 18, 2011

Yes s4. This is a radfem modders dilemma I suppose…should I ban a FAAB and lifelong feminist for derailing? Let it go? Ignore? Engage? Hope it goes away?

What I ended up doing was spamming her comments on an individual basis, as needed. I’ve been doing that for about a week. It just got worse. Was I too nice? Heh. Oh well.

132. Jilla - February 18, 2011

Do you have enough for your project now FCM?

FCM - February 18, 2011

See, I have no idea what that even means.

Any advice from the peanut gallery would be appreciated. Seriously.

133. Loretta Kemsley - February 18, 2011

Why not block every post that is not an intelligent response to the subject at hand? That way she can continue to post if she’s on topic but can no longer just post to fight and derail.

134. SheilaG - February 19, 2011

Just don’t post it if it’s weird or criptic, and let good stuff in as you see fit FCM. Women need to work at clarity, content, and commentary.

Good work overall. It’s a very complex subject we’re dealing with.

FCM - February 19, 2011

okay, just so everyone knows, i went through all of jillas comments. she apparently showed up on 2/9/11 on the valenti thread, and some of her comments have added to the discussion. so i wont ban her. but i will not let anything else through thats a deliberate or even unintentional misunderstanding of another commenters words, or an attack or a derail. and thats the end of that. sorry for the derail on this thread. i really wasnt sure what to do, and i didnt even have access to a proper computer to search the comments. i was modding remotely all day.

FCM - February 19, 2011

on a happier note, i received this in my inbox today:

Message: hi fcm,

i don’t know if i’ve written to you before or not but i just read your post on decoding the faab/maab argument (including the comments) and i just wanted to say i love how direct and straightforward you are. you have almost a hundred and fifty comments on that one post alone and each of those comments is so REWARDING to read because you make sure no BS gets through.

you are so NO-NONSENSE and that is something i’ve found so hard to do, because society loves women to be nothing but NON-SENSICAL, but you do it, therefore so can i🙂

i’m learning a lot from you, from the posts you write (and from the pages you scan of the different authors you are reading at the time) and from your comments.

and, as a teacher at the high school level in pakistan, i’m constantly finding ways to bring feminist enlightenment to my students and i draw a lot of energy and inspiration from your blog.

so thank you for writing it, and please continue writing! all the best.

your constant reader,

cool right?

135. joy - February 19, 2011

Before I add anything more intelligent, I have to say:

“its really becoming a perverse joke…as if it werent already completely obvious that mens “beauty standards” are impossible for any real women to acheive, and that men dont even like real women OR want to fuck them…now we have this. the only ones that can ultimately live up to mens standards, are MEN. even what they claim are standards “for women” really arent.”

You’re echoing what I’ve thought for a long time.

It’s been clear for a long time (since at least the 1960s, with the advent of the superskinny female model, and superskinny/”boyish” was the preferred flapper type of the 1920s “sexual revolution” too — not an accident? nope) that the gay men who design women’s fashion are really designing what they want to see pretty young men wearing. The “androgynous” look is another obvious pointer that all men really wish they could fuck other men or boys, and are just making do with FAABs for the domination/control and to avoid homophobia.

Add to that the pube-waxing, leg-shaving, and societal pressure for women to dress like drag queens, and the case builds. MTF is just the final piece of the puzzle.

And men would deny all of this to the death, because they think we’re stupid. Well, that, and they’re even stupider.

136. joy - February 19, 2011

Not a derail, but, inspired by comments about post-birth PIV and air embolisms:

Is there any appropriate venue wherein a radical feminist can say, “Actually, I’m NOT in favor of abortion, because I’d rather men stopped sticking their dicks in women? Because in-clinic abortions are performed rather like rapes and in fact are nothing more than damage control for destructive MAAB sexuality. After the abortion, the woman is sent right back to the killing floor of daily life, where a man is probably going to fuck her again, possibly before she’s medically ready, which could kill her?
I’m more in favor of raising all women’s consciousnesses and arming them. Let the MAABs all fuck each other.”

Oh, and there’s a TV program on in the background here, where a man is complaining that after his girlfriend was raped (presumably by another man), their relationship ended. Meaning, he was really only upset about her rape because she (presumably) stopped wanting to give him PIV access.
And this is the narrative with which women are encouraged to identify. Not with the (fictional) woman who was raped.

FCM - February 19, 2011

there is a group called “feminists for life” that are onto men and the ways men benefit from abortion…but as far as i know, there is NO venue, in point of fact, in which ANY woman can be anti-PIV. except the radfem blogs obviously.

and the FFL as far as i know have no PIV-related criticism at all. and i believe they want to make abortion illegal. no better than any other right to lifers really, plus i think the conservative women have been onto men and the ways they benefit from abortion for awhile. but in a propaganda way, and only slamming liberal men. because its not that all men benefit from PIV…its that LIBERAL men benefit from ABORTION. (as if conservative men dont…yeah tell that to their mistresses, hookers and underage daughters right?) bullshit politicking.

anyway…the short answer to your question is, of course, no. but i am sure you already knew that.

137. Sargassosea - February 19, 2011

Is there any appropriate venue wherein a radical feminist can say, “Actually, I’m NOT in favor of abortion, because I’d rather men stopped sticking their dicks in women? Because in-clinic abortions are performed rather like rapes and in fact are nothing more than damage control for destructive MAAB sexuality. After the abortion, the woman is sent right back to the killing floor of daily life, where a man is probably going to fuck her again, possibly before she’s medically ready, which could kill her?
I’m more in favor of raising all women’s consciousnesses and arming them. Let the MAABs all fuck each other.”

I should think that right here is an appropriate venue. In any case I whole heartedly concur.

Yeah, go fuck each other brothers.

138. Loretta Kemsley - February 19, 2011

In the discussions at Newsvine where I have a column, I confound the forced birth people by agreeing with them that women should not be engaging in “sex” if they don’t want to have a child. Of course, what they mean by sex is PIV, so when I agree that women should not engage in PIV but should engage in all other forms of sex that bring them to orgasm, they go real quiet. They don’t know how to respond.

I also make it clear that women have the right to control their own bodies long before pregnancy occurs (and afterwards, of course). I point out that women should only engage in PIV if they want to get pregnant. Since women only want to become pregnant once or twice usually and since they are only fertile one day a month, that means their men will have to find other means of sexual release than PIV for the vast majority of their lives.

That really isn’t what they want to hear — that men will be deprived or that women really have the right be in control of thier own sexuality, but what can they say because I’m using their arguments and agreeing with them.

Of course, someone will sometimes say, “but what about the menz” and my answer is always, “but we’re talking about women’s bodies and women’s rights, not men’s. I’m sure they’ll find an outlet.”

I’m waiting for one to have a raging fit or to come up with some kind of “logical” reply, but it hasn’t happened yet. What it does do is completely derail their set of talking points.
ROTFLOL.

139. joy - February 19, 2011

Heh, yes, FCM, I did.

I’m not about to ally myself with the conservatives, or anyone who calls themselves “for life”, or making anything illegal. Fuck that shit. I just wish men would stop sticking their dicks into FAABs. Full stop.

140. SheilaG - February 19, 2011

Loretta, you are on the right track. NO PIV unless you WANT to become pregnant—that would end abortions as we know it. Would be amazing for straight conservative christian women to really take this one on. Go get ’em…loved your post🙂

141. FAB Libber - February 19, 2011

NO PIV unless you WANT to become pregnant—that would end abortions as we know it. Would be amazing for straight conservative christian women to really take this one on.

Unfortunately they will remain in a double-bind, due to bible propaganda that is always interpreted literally “a wife shall submit to her husband and gawd”. As most of them take PIV as one of their wifely duties, and have to love any kid as a result of that, even if they figure they already have enough to look after.

In more hardline religions of old, it was a PIV-only-for-kids rule.

FCM - February 19, 2011

i am reading dworkins “right wing women” and she of course gets right to the heart of the matter, quoting early feminists PIV-criticism and acknowledging that right wing women arent wrong, in their assessment of the mens world in which they live. namely, that women arent paid equal wages for equal work in the public workplace, so the better way is marriage, where her “share” of the assets is more than she could ever earn on her own, (ie. an “equal” share) in every profession, except hooking. PIV is of course part of the deal…but it is for all straight women, and all married women, and all hookers too. isnt it?

142. rhondda - February 19, 2011

Yes, it is mandatory PIV, also domestic drudgery,child care, and an absolute reflecting mirror for the patriarch of the family. (total emotional support, often called luv) At one point in my life I actually envied bag ladies for their freedom from these demands.

143. calliope - February 19, 2011

Rhondda, interesting isn’t it when conservative men bemoan the death of “the traditional family!!!” (meaning the lack of presence of a man in charge of the woman and children, which no matter how benign a man may seem he is as demander of PIV..) they’re really blatantly defending patriarchy. as IF they don’t see it for what it is. of course they do. the rare few aren’t. but they’re literally a handful out of billions, and they’re still conditioned to demand PIV, so they’re no help either.. the rigidity of patriarchy is astounding. Surely even teh trans can understand the FAAB MAAB distinction, they just don’t want to.

144. calliope - February 19, 2011

I hope this isn’t too off topic FCM but I just felt like sharing something that really annoyed me. I REALLY wasn’t expecting much from it, but I watched the first few episodes of the L Word – my friend wanted me to see it – and though there is a genuinely sweet portrayal of a lesbian couple trying to conceive, the series focuses on a bicurious straight girl. Within the first 3 episodes, straight girl has PIV twice, gives her boyfriend a blowjob, and the lesbian couple almost have a threesome with some random guy who stops when he realizes that (this is a quote) “you dykes only sleep with a man when you want to steal his sperm.” yeah dude, you really thought lesbians would genuinely want to sleep with you? The show is made for men. Everything is made for men. Reality in our culture is defined by men, matriarchal societies are deemed “primitive” even if they’re more ancient than our own.. To be FAAB in our culture is to be less than fully human, and lately I can’t help but wonder if Abrahamic religions are to blame – Eve being the rib, the original sinner, and Adam the very picture of God. Mary the FAAB impregnated by the spiritual peenis.. Mohamed declaring women stupid, inferior, evil deducted who must cover their entire bodies.. and all the harm and suffering inflicted on women by these three religions over the past couple of millennia..

for the record, I do believe in a creator, but have serious doubts that the creative force of the universe is a violent patriarch. I guess I’m an agnostic, but I find non-patriarchal religions fascinating. might be an interesting topic for a post? sorry FCM if this is too long

145. Loretta Kemsley - February 19, 2011

Marriage is declining in the US. We have more single women than married women. Young women who don’t view marriage as important are growing as a group. Divorces are staying at the same high percentage even while new marriages are dropping.

The same is true for the patriarchal religions. They are shrinking in size. It will take a few generations but their influence in on the wane.

What isn’t happening enough yet is for women, married or not, questioning why “sex” is defined as PIV. However, their actual sexual practices usually don’t include just PIV anymore. Teen girls are playing with their sexuality more. I don’t think they’re being wise about it, but the fact remains that many of them are not engaging in PIV so they can avoid pregnancy even as they are engaging in PIA and other options.

The patriarchal crowd are aging and will be dying, so there’s hope.

146. calliope - February 19, 2011

seducers* not deducted.. ah autocomplete

147. SheilaG - February 19, 2011

total emotional support often called Luv—Rhondda you really hit that one on the nail. Always bothered me about how women thought of love in those patriarchal families…but they are really into something else…the emotional support of men, allowing them to be monsters in the outside world (think of wives living in compounds for NAZI leaders in concentration camps– happy homes husbands come home after killing each day)–extreme example, but again the deep denial women are in to have them continue to function under these conditions and think this is about love.

148. Loretta Kemsley - February 19, 2011

Calliope, of course the Abrahamic religions are behind the suppression of women, as are all patriarchal religions.

Both women and children are safer and more stable without residing with a man as sexual mate. Domestic violence, incest, intimate partner rape, family annihilation, murder by intimate partner and the like are the very real dangers that women and children face when residing with a male sexual partner.

The earliest clans were grandmother clans where sexual mates were not included. Grandmothers knew their children and grandchildren because they emerge from the woman’s body. The clan protected the women and children. The clan included maternal sons and uncles.

These clans developed without a father concept because there was no knowledge of sex creating babies. Humans only learned about that approximately 10,000 years ago after women began animal husbandry. Most animals have shorter gestation periods than humans and observing those with the shortest gestation period provided insights as to the role sex plays in creating pregnancy. Until then, women were thought to create a child on their own.

If the God theories were correct, men wouldn’t have had to develop elaborate religious and cultural laws to force women into sexual slavery aka marriage. They wouldn’t have had to kidnap women and rape them also aka marriage, as is portrayed as “God ordained” in the Bible. They also wouldn’t have to stone women who dared to make their own sexual choices.

149. Loretta Kemsley - February 19, 2011

Afterthought: have you explored the Great Goddess concepts? The worship of the Great Goddess, Triple Goddess, Creator Goddess and Mother Goddess preexisted the Hebrew worship of the “one and only” god by 20,000 years at least. The oldest divine figures found to date are goddesses and are 30,000 years old.

The entire Old Testament is a record of the monotheistic patriarchs waging war on the polytheistic goddess worshippers.

150. FemmeForever - February 19, 2011

Marriage is declining in the US. We have more single women than married women. Young women who don’t view marriage as important are growing as a group.

Yes, but shacking has replaced marriage which doesn’t create more single women just more unmarried wives. All the domestic slavery rhondda mentioned is still there.

I just saw an interview with the daughter from Modern Family (which I don’t watch) where she was talking about the fact that she just set up house with her boyfriend at age 20. Her mother was asked if this was OK with her. She said yes. The two had been dating for over a year so it was OK. This was so depressing to me. Young women enslaving themselves when they should be learning how to stand on their own. Especially for a young rich woman with her own income.

151. FAB Libber - February 19, 2011

allowing them to be monsters in the outside world (think of wives living in compounds for NAZI leaders in concentration camps– happy homes husbands come home after killing each day)–extreme example

Extremely poor example actually Sheila, if your point was to show ‘devotion’ of the hetwoman to a male. Logic would dictate that if ‘your’ husband came home from the office after killing a few hundred people, then chances are he would be the sort of chap you would not doublecross in anyway, and leaving would not really be an option.

152. FAB Libber - February 19, 2011

Until then, women were thought to create a child on their own.

Interesting point Loretta, and seems very logical, as well as why matrilineal would be the natural order of things.

Certainly in today’s day, there are no excuses for not knowing “what does it”.

153. Loretta Kemsley - February 19, 2011

As I said, I’m not entirely thrilled with young women’s choices, but I made mistakes too, so I try not to judge them too hard.

Shacking up is better than marriage. They can get out of it far easier. By the mid-twenties, per a recent study that bemoaned its own conclusion, more and more women are not interested in PIV. That shows they’re learning from their mistakes.

They’re going to keep making them though until there is more discussion about other options. There hasn’t been a big enough push to declare women’s sexuality and sex itself as vastly different than the male culture claims.

154. FemmeForever - February 19, 2011

Even though I knew at 20 (and a lot earlier) not to make myself a sex dispenser I wouldn’t expect a young woman nowadays to necessarily know that of her own volition. I feel compassion for her, not judgment. I have much more judgment for the mom who should know better than to make it OK for her to do so. She wouldn’t be able to stop her but she could at least instill the truth for her daughter to think about and have to fall back on when she realizes her mistake.

155. FCM - February 19, 2011

what are mothers supposed to do about any of this? i mean really. when i was about 13, my mother told me she had been raped when she was first married, and that it was really confusing for her because she knew the guy was raping her, but he acted like he was “making love.” all she could tell me about that was that it was really, really, really confusing. and frankly, thats about as articulate as any rape vicitm i have ever heard, no matter how enlightened they are. because rape and PIV are nearly identical. and all rape vicitms have to go back to having PIV as part of their return to normal.

mothers dont understand sex any more than anyone else. not in a political or a radical way. so all they are going to be able to do is help with damage control, BY DEFINITION. which is all anyone else is offering too. except the radfems of course.

156. Loretta Kemsley - February 19, 2011

Part of the problem is that mothers are so devalued in our culture. They are blamed for everything and disrespected in so many ways. So when she tries to tell her teen her views, the teen is primed not to listen.

Teens are trying to establish themselves as individuals anyway. That is the important job of that age: to define themselves as separate and apart from all others, especially family.

And teen brains aren’t fully formed. Their executive functions (decision making) and their impulse control centers are still immature, so they don’t make good decisions and jump into things without enough forethought.

All of these combined with the pressure from society, porn, media, etc to be a guy’s sex toy is going to adversely affect all of our daughters, no matter how hard we try to short-circuit that reality.

157. Loretta Kemsley - February 19, 2011

I should have included religion in the pressure to be nothing more than a sex toy to use and abuse.

158. FAB Libber - February 19, 2011

Shacking up is better than marriage. They can get out of it far easier.

Plenty still get pregnant (and therefore trapped) with the shacking up. The ‘knowledge’ has to be “no PIV unless making babies”, because contraception is not foolproof, emergency contraception and abortion is getting harder to come by (deliberately, so more women do get trapped). And trying to get dudes to wear condoms is like rolling a boulder up a hill.

Someone mentioned PIA, and as women don’t have prostates, most get even less out of that than PIV. The male sexuality that is imposed is that “dick must be stuck into something”. That is the part that has to change. That is also why in porn woman becomes just a series of holes that a dick, or dicks, get stuck into.

The other option is to stay away from men entirely. I don’t think they will change, except for the worst, and that I have seen.

159. FemmeForever - February 19, 2011

what are mothers supposed to do about any of this?

Mothers/parents have been teaching their daughters not to be sexually available to men for millennia. Was it for the wrong reasons? Yes. But it is the only anti-PIV ideology within patriarchy that teaches girls to respect their bodily integrity and not to give away their bodies so easily. Yes I know half the girls ended up sexually active and/or pregnant anyway but the other half were able to delay the trauma bonding long enough to gain life experience, education, and more perspective before falling prey to sexual dependence and all that flows from it. That time is critical if young women are to minimize the damage they get from pairing up with men and it gives them a frame of reference, a seed of non-patriarchal reality, if/when they finally do have their rad fem enlightenment.

All of these combined with the pressure from society, porn, media, etc to be a guy’s sex toy is going to adversely affect all of our daughters, no matter how hard we try to short-circuit that reality.

Agreed.

160. Loretta Kemsley - February 20, 2011

The abstinance teaching of the religious right is focused solely on don’t have PIV until you’re married and get married as young as possible, so no, that isn’t the answer. They even have “Chastity Balls” where the girl has to pledge her virginity to her father. How incestuous is that? It’s the same old “wife/daughter are property owned by husband/father” routine. The intent is for women to never be able to define and control their own sexuality and never experience any true sexual choices.

There is no magic answer except to educate girls. Of course, that’s opposed too by the rabid religious. They don’t want factual medical info being taught in sex ed. They sure don’t want cultural alernatives to be taught.

They’re working hard to shut down every option girls and young women have. They just voted to completely defund Planned Parenthood in the US House of Representatives. Of course, they didn’t vote to defund their fraudulent “pregnancy centers” that are nothing more than store fronts to lure in young women seeking abortion advice only to be met with rabid anti-abortion ranting.

I used to get a lot of them on my NV column whining and complaining that I have so many columns devoted to sexual issues. “You don’t seem to realize there are teenagers allowed here.”

Yes, actually I do. They are a large part of why I seed so many feminist, goddess, and sexual issues discussions. We need to work hard getting accurate information out there on all the issues that are discussed freely in feminist blogs. No one else is going to do it.

FCM - February 20, 2011

the other half were able to delay the trauma bonding long enough to gain life experience, education, and more perspective before falling prey to sexual dependence and all that flows from it. That time is critical if young women are to minimize the damage they get from pairing up with men and it gives them a frame of reference, a seed of non-patriarchal reality, if/when they finally do have their rad fem enlightenment

YES. this is an excellent point. it is bothersome of course that its “for the wrong reasons” but i guess we arent in a position to demand perfection here are we? trauma bonding is real, the effects of plastering a male-centric viewpoint over your own too early are severe and mostly permanent, so i think there is value there in delaying the onset, as long as possible.

161. calliope - February 20, 2011

SheilaG, what you said in another thread about straight women being bewildered by & invisiblizing lesbians.. well I wanted to ask you, it happened to me today, we were talking about my friend who I’ve been worried about. As soon as I let slip to her that my friend is a lesbian, she just said “oh” and the conversation ended. My mom stared into space out the window for awhile, we drank our coffees, I wanted to talk more. My mom is very tolerant and not homophobic in the least but she was surprised and I could almost feel her connecting the dots about me – maybe. My mom wants grandkids sometime soon.. My mom is very straight. We’re very close and I wonder, will our conversations freeze and become permanently awkward if I come out? Why are straight women always so lukewarm towards their lesbian fellows?

even as a young lesbian I’ve had to consciously stop manpleasing – I used to be terrified of men, and still am. can you believe that I actually used to mistake that terror for attraction? whoever it was that said that the definition of love is messed up in patriarchy – oh how it is, it took me my whole 22 years to realize it’s ok to be les. I was thinking it was wrong, for so long, because of the notion that “het” is natural for everyone..

162. cherryblossom - February 22, 2011

I can’T stop reading this excellent blog.
Anyway, I’ve been thinking that seeing as Trans women are just parodies of the female gender, the only way they are able to “pass” as women is by adopting the stereotype of the “feminine” i.e long hair, feminine clothes, the “yellow stars” that the subordinate sex are forced to wear to indicate their subordinate status ( Sheils Jeffreys BTW, not me!)
Well… if we women just stopped, literally just stopped playing the feminine gender role– bear with me– then trans women wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. ON what premise could they prove to be women? Women and men don’t look THAT different. That’s why we have gendered clothing and roles: so society can tell females and males apart. Otherwise, especially when it comes to children, it would be very difficult to tell which person is XX and which is XY, and at first glance you wouldn’t know whether to treat them as a member of the dominant class or the subordinate class… Masculinity and femininity allows to to distinguish.

Social conditioning is a hard nut to crack but for example, if women wore suits to work and had short haircuts and rejected make-up then trans women would have to do the same and would end up looking pretty much like the men that they are.
The problem is.. how do you get women to reject consumerism and femininity en masse??? You can’t, but little things can help, such as telling your best friend she looks more beautiful without lipstick, teaching our daughters, raising consciousness. Thanks to the internet, women can now compare notes (the patriarchy’s dystopian nightmare) which will help a lot.

163. m Andrea - February 23, 2011

Loretta, #16 in it’s entirity should be a blog post, so much insight there! And also SheilaG’s #20:

However, and I’ll say this endlessly, it is women’s desire to live with and have sex with the enemy in the first place that will guarantee that no women’s liberation becomes a reality in the world

Denial is like a blockage which prevents oxygen from getting to the clear-thinking brain. One of the reasons “Liberation” with a capital L morphed into “feminism” is because no het woman EVER wants to really answer the question, “who is it exactly who is fighting to keep our rights from us, if men love us as equals”?

SheilaG’s perceptive #37: So now the fakes return in the form of eunuchs– which historically were the very people set up by patriarchs to guard “their” women in the first place. And Delphyne’s astute #40: the strategy is the age-old patriarchal one to erase women. They were able to do it with impunity before the women’s movement, but since women have been rising up in numbers and identifying our oppression *as women*, the obvious response was for them to destroy the category of woman, either physically through trans or philosphically through postmodernist “words mean anything I say they mean thus there is no such thing as a woman”

Trans have always existed but in most cultures they were considered a third gender, they were never considered to be the same gender as woman. The classifications were always “man or woman or something else”. But only now are they insisting that conflating the third gender with the second gender magically means that there are zero genders — yet somehow they’re still a very specific gender even though they said it didn’t exist. Anyway my point is, without advanced surgery techniqes and complicated hormonal manipulation, the only thing they could ever hope to resemble was literally a man in a dress — the third gender. ONLY AFTER science made it possible for them to surgically reconstruct the female body in a rough approximation, did they start spewing their current bullshit about two genders and how they “are” women.

FCM - February 23, 2011

I was hoping ms.a would come around. I love the “conflating the third gender with the second gender to prove there are zero genders, except their gender” this is kind of begging to be diagrammed actually…hmm. stay tuned!


Sorry comments are closed for this entry