jump to navigation

The Language of Consent (Or, Hey You Kids, Get Off My Lawn!) March 3, 2011

Posted by FCM in authors picks, feminisms, health, liberal dickwads, PIV, pop culture, rape, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , , , ,
trackback

this was inspired by undercover punk’s latest, detailing mens use of rape to oppress women, due to the specifically-female harms of rape.  namely, pregnancy.  specifically, pregnancy unwanted by the woman, and the fear of unwanted pregnancy, and the complications of unwanted pregnancy.  complications which are identical, of course, to the complications of a wanted pregnancy, or even an ambivalent one.  but i digress.

it is (as UP says) painfully obvious that this is the case.  and that womens oppression by men is based in womens specific vulnerability to men, namely, our ability to become impregnated by them.  otherwise the abuse and oppressive tactics wouldnt be sexual in nature.  (DUH!)  and that rape is a tool, and its used to deliberately cause a very specific harm, to impregnate and (thereby) terrorize, colonize, mutilate and annihilate women, as a sexual class.  by men.  as a sexual class. sex-ual.  okay?

the thing is, that the specifically-female harms of rape are identical to the specifically-female harms of PIV, undertaken when the woman does not want to become pregnant.  and even assuming that an individual man does not consciously wish to terrorize, colonize, mutilate and/or annihilate his partner by fucking her, he is, in fact, placing her in harms way.  to incur the same female-specific harm as the female-specific harm that occurs, deliberately, with rape.  unwanted pregnancy.

does intention matter?  and are these men really as innocent as they, uh, feign?  well, as mary daly observed with men who surgically mutilated women by lobotomizing them, once these men realized that the end-result of a surgical lobotomy was to make women “good housekeepers” and to destroy their creativity and personality, and they did it to even more women after that…its perfectly clear that at some point, that result was exactly what they wanted to achieve.  they kept doing it, intentionally, in order to get the result they (obviously) wanted.  which was to destroy women (and in the case of surgical lobotomies, to replace them with meat-bots.  and are we to believe that these womens husbands stopped fucking them after their lobotomies were completed?  sure mkay).  clearly, if you continue to do something, once you know the result, the result *is* your intention. see?  its intentional.

so…when the female-specific harms and cruel intentions behind PIV (all PIV, including rape) are so painfully obvious…what in the everloving fuck are the fun-fems going on about, when they continue happily framing the “sexual” issue as an issue of “consent,” enthusiastic or otherwise?  seriously?  what is this about?

heres a clue, of the google kind.  turns out, consent, as a concept, is routinely used in another context which is actually incredibly revealing: its used in the context of property violations, and trespassing.  come again?  YES.  a quick google search of the use of consent and property law reveals this, which is meant as a primer on trespassing law for media folk who wish to intrude on other peoples property to gather material to print, but dont want to get in trouble for trespassing:

Seeking Consent to Enter Property

You should make sure that you get consent before entering someone else’s property.  This consent must come from the individual, group of individuals, or business entity that is in possession of the property. In many cases this means that you need to get the owner’s consent. [...]

In some cases you’ll be able to get express consent (verbal or in writing) from the person in possession of the property.  In other cases you may believe you have the person’s implied consent for your ability to enter her property.  This type of situation occurs when:

–the person is not present, but your prior contact with the person leads you to believe that you can enter her property without express permission; [!!!]

–you don’t ask for permission, and the person keeps silent during your visit to her property. [!!!]

If you rely on implied consent, you may find it difficult to defend yourself if you are charged with trespassing. You will need to show that a reasonable person in the same situation would have believed that there was implied consent based upon the conduct of the person in possession of the property and the overall circumstance.

oh dear!   now, what does all this consent-business sound like, to you?  indeed, it is eerily familiar.  especially the part about implied consent.  now i wonder why that would be?  but wait, theres MOAR:

Scope of Consent

If you have a right to be present on private or public property you will not be trespassing if your use of the property is consistent with your right to be there.  Make sure you understand the scope of the permission you’ve been given and stay within its boundaries.

Misrepresenting yourself in order to gain consent

You may want to engage in investigative reporting tactics in order to inform the public about improper business practices or governmental wrongdoing, and thus may feel the need to misrepresent yourself in order to gain the necessary consent.  If you do so, you may find yourself facing charges of trespass on the basis that your misrepresentation vitiated the consent given to you.

indeed!  now, be that as it may, and it may indeed be sage advice for woodward and bernstein wannabes who want to infiltrate the local planned parenthood for some anti-abortion politicking.  you know, or whatever.  but what else does this consent-business sound like?  this is a serious question.

YES!  its the exact same bullshit the fun-fems (and everyone in fact) are going round and round about, on teh fun-fem (and mainstream) blogs, and in life, when it comes to the issue of rape.  rape used to be a property-violation, but guess what?  it still is.  once men owned the property i mean they owned women, and now WE OWN IT!  i mean, us.  we own us.  yes we do, shut up.

when they talk about consent, what they are really saying is that rape is no more problematic than someone walking across your yard, without permission.  that its the same type of harm.  they are saying that its a property-issue, when really its not a fucking property issue, at all.  it has nothing to do with it.  women know this.  i know they do.  and men know this too.  this is clearly the case, when they themselves are routinely sticking their dicks into women, with the deliberate intention of causing female-specific harm.

so everyone knows whats going on, but they are all talking about it like its something its not.  they are hiding the fucking ball, is what they are doing.  i blame the men of course.  the fun-fems are just their very enthusiastic cheering section.

About these ads

Comments

1. FCM - March 4, 2011

i wasnt intending to post, but what can i say. UP’s brilliance inspired me.

also, i have 2 new trolls already! they ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS come out of the woodwork, when you talk about rape, and consent. ALWAYS. i learned this early on, when i talked about porn being rape (see the “sorry men and fun-fems: all porn is rape, all the time” post for more on that.) or did they come out because i was talking about their precious porn? hmm, hard to tell! i allowed trollish comments back then, but now i dont. i dont even read them, once i have figured out what they are, and it doenst take long. they are usually absolutely dripping with sarcasm (thats how important they think the issue is, they cant even seriously consider it) or are just full of white-hot rage. interesting right?

2. Undercover Punk - March 4, 2011

This is a fascinating analogy, FCM! Especially because the law of trespass is soooooo old. Way, way, way older than the legal concept of rape! By centuries. And women WERE, literally, property. For centuries. And the whole IMPLIED consent to trespass?? Yup, directly analogous to marital rape. And fed rule of evidence 412 (consent once, Consent always)! I mean, talk about MALE REALITY!1!!1!!11!!!

3. FAB Libber - March 4, 2011

Well, the dudely camp might well be trying to argue it from a trespass stance, but I would class it more in the property damage league. I am no legal expert, but perhaps the property damage is more akin to the problem, because it usually does not matter (except for penalty) whether the damage was intentional or unintentional. The damage is the reason in the dispute.

But! I totally 100% agree with you that the damage caused by rape is both known and intentional.

I did have to have a bit of a nervous giggle on “misrepresenting yourself in order to gain consent”. The oldest rape trick in the book.

Our collective (sexual) consent has been eroded away from the “reasonable belief in consent” pov, which is the main defence that rapists use these days. Short of pulling a gun on your attacker, everything else is regarded as consent by the woman. “No” is playing hard-to-get/modest. Struggling (and injury) is just ‘rough play’. Only in death do they decide that the woman probably did not consent. I blame the sex-pozzies for this shit.

We may now ‘own’ our bodies, but the dudes still effectively own ‘consent’.

4. veganprimate - March 4, 2011

That trespass stuff really gave me the creeps. Yikes!

It bugs me that men think women have no autonomy. I had a dude tell me that I didn’t have any rights to refuse someone commenting on my blog as long as it was public and comments were enabled. I had a fucking stalker for years, and this other dude defended him. Then there were the insults that I was weak and didn’t have the balls to handle blogging.

I love that bit about once you’re aware of the consequences, if you keep doing it, it’s intentional. I’ve always said that once humans figured out where babies came from, they should have stopped doing PIV except in cases when they were purposely trying to make a baby. This totally proves the whole rape issue. Men have indeed stopped having PIV except when they are purposely trying to make a baby. Even in cases of consensual sex, men are trying to impregnate. Since no birth control method is foolproof, and every single bloody person who isn’t MR/DD knows this fact, then we must conclude that pregnancy is the desired outcome, even if the dude is unaware of it, like maybe it’s subconscious. Maybe he doesn’t really want kids, but the idea of really fucking a woman over is just so appealing. If he really and truly cared about her as an autonomous human being, whose wishes and desires were just as important as his, he would not have PIV. Why risk giving her a disease? Why risk knocking her up? Why indeed.

FCM - March 4, 2011

To clarify, I don’t think this is a property issue now, and I don’t think it was a property issue then, EVEN WHEN men effectively “owned” their wives. Men always talk about slavery in terms of “property” but when a man owns a woman, its not the same as owning a lamp or a coffee table or a cow or a workhorse is it? How often does anyone stick their dick into their lamp? How often does anyone create shared unwanted children with their coffee table, or with a horse? The coffee table and lamp analogy was used by Tim wise when he was attempting to divest himself of his white privilege, confessing that his “great grandparents” or whatever owned slaves. Clearly, he was only talking about his great grand FATHER though, since he didn’t address whether women could even own property back then. He likely never even considered it. He was also pretty obviously only speaking about MALE slaves, when he very noticeably omitted any discussion of rape or pregnancy as a part of the reality of slavery. Male reality indeed.

I think this property-business, and framing the issues this way, is just a big obfuscating disingenuous lie. It’s not about property, even now. And it wasn’t about owning property back then either.

5. FAB Libber - March 4, 2011

I was not really suggesting it was literally like a property thing, more that if they were trying to parallel the concept with property-type laws, then they are aiming at the wrong one.

6. Noanodyne - March 4, 2011

Well argued. By framing rape as related to property crimes, the actual nature of it is obscured by debates about consent and not-so-obliquely, ownership (over one’s own body for fuck sake, only as far as women are concerned of course).

Without that obfuscation and men’s desire to have it remain obfuscated, rape would obviously be seen as the same as any other aggravated battery. With that, consent isn’t ever an issue, the assumption is that serious bodily harm or murder was the intent, and it’s always a felony. Going a step further, if we say that PIV=rape always and in every instance, women’s lives would suddenly look a whole lot different.

7. Loup-loup garou - March 4, 2011

That term “enthusiastic consent,” so beloved of the sex poz crowd, has always made my skin crawl. It sounds vaguely like porno dialogue: imagine a pouty funfem in a French maid uniform saying “I NEVER do anal without giving my ENTHUSIASTIC CONSENT!” in a breathless voice. (Boom-chicka-wah-wah-chicka-boom…)

Or some liberal dude saying, “Real men always make sure they have the woman’s enthusiastic consent. Real men never pressure a woman for sex. I, for example, have never done that, because those bitchez always yell ‘Stick it in me!’ before I can even get around to pressuring them. Let’s face it, chicks are hot for me.”

Also — hope this is sufficiently on topic, btw — it annoys the hell out of me that women are assumed not to have any real rights over their own personal property once they walk out the front door. I’m talking about that unsolicited help with your luggage, bicycle, groceries, etc. Some guy will pop out like a jack-in-the-box, grab your stuff, and start “helping” you with it. As a woman, you are expected to temporarily surrender posssession of your own property to a complete stranger, simper, and thank him. Never mind that you did not need, want, or ask him to grab your bag out of your hands, or start fucking around with your bike and scratching it. If you object, prepare to be told that you’re a bitch, have an “attitude,” or worse. Yup, you just had your boundaries tested, and failed to display proper deference.

8. FAB Libber - March 4, 2011

Boom-chicka-wah-wah-chicka-boom…
ROTFLMAO.

9. The Masked Lily - March 5, 2011

this discussion reminds me of he whole ASSange thing (which makes me want to bang my head on walls)

“She says she insisted that Assange wear a condom when they had sex in her apartment in the Swedish city of Enkoping on Aug. 16, and that he reluctantly agreed. **The incident labeled as rape happened the next morning**, when the woman claims she was woken up by Assange having unprotected sex with her.

“She immediately asked: `Are you wearing anything?’ and he answered `You,’” according to a police summary of her deposition. “She said to him `You better don’t have HIV’ and he answered `Of course not.’ She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue.”

**”It is a complicating factor that this person when she wakes up in one way or another gives her consent,” said Nils-Petter Ekdahl, a judge and **expert on Sweden’s sex crimes legislation**. “Does the consent also apply to what happened when one was sleeping? This question has not been tested by the justice system.

————————————
“The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange “sexually molested” Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her “express wish” one should be used.”
———————————-

aaand he undoubtedly will get away with it
of course

FCM - March 5, 2011

yes and the lefty liberal dickwads were the first to come to his defense. shocking.

10. 1rudegirl - March 5, 2011

Hello
this is really interesting/creepy.
Do you think the way rape is often talked about as ‘occupation’ in radical discussions may come partly from a pre-existing cultural understanding of rape as a crime of trespass against property? Like an amplification of the same thing.

FCM - March 5, 2011

Do you mean colonization? I have never heard it described as “occupation” I don’t think. But that’s interesting isn’t it?

Colonization evokes someone coming into your neighborhood, and setting up shop in your space. When I think about rape/piv, I think of men literally, well, occupying women’s vaginas by penetrating them, and the pregnancy discussion is very much about occupation, in the case of the gestating uterus. There’s also the obvious attempting to (and mostly succeeding unfortunately) replace women’s worldview and perspective with a male-centric one. In that way, the culture and values of the colonizers are given priority, and they take over and replace what was there before. Or that’s the intent, to whatever degree its successful. As with any colonization, there may be some resistance/resistors, and some of the old ways might survive.

At any rate, its more interesting than the bullshit consent analysis performed by the mainstream. But physical space does seem to be an issue. It’s not a metaphor though, like talking about rape in terms of trespassing. The colonization/occupation of piv and rape are literal, but its also borrowed language from other discussions isn’t it, of what men do to other men/people. And not specifically what they do to women individually or as a class, or even what men who colonize entire peoples do to the women they find there. I don’t know, what do you think?

11. 1rudegirl - March 5, 2011

I don’t know, I’ve only just started to think about the use of ‘colonisation’ from this angle. I note that acts of colonisation and occupation are often described as ‘the rape of a people’.
I’m pretty sure I’ve heard rape described as occupation but I could well be wrong about that as the words colonisation/occupation occupy (haha) pretty much the same place in my head.

My thinking about colonisation developed through reading people like Frantz Fanon, before I started reading radical feminism. So I understood it in the literal sense, reading the words of people who were struggling against the colonisation of their nation. And I always felt that when used to describe rape and the experience of women under patriarchy, colonisation was a metaphor rather than an actuality. And I have never felt that it’s fitted completely. [This is not to diminish the consequences of patriarchy, just that I think there are ways in which it's just not the same.] Also women in occupied countries experience colonialism, and they also experience patriarchy. And they experience these things differently.

Reading your post about the language and concept of rape and consent developing from and understanding of property/trespass or being related to it, just made me think. It’s like, this colonisation analysis doesn’t actually move away from that, or deconstruct it. It just amplifies it. It sort of says ‘yeah, it is like kids being on my lawn, but it’s BIGGER than that- it’s a nation being colonised by another nation’. It sort of scales up to make a point. That’s not to say that it’s a bad analysis necessarily.

I’m not sure when/where this colonisation understanding first got put into words, it would be interesting to know that.

12. 1rudegirl - March 5, 2011

Actually, Dworkin calls it Occupation, for example in Intercourse. Though I’m guessing she wasn’t the only one to say so.

13. FAB Libber - March 5, 2011

So I understood it in the literal sense, reading the words of people who were struggling against the colonisation of their nation. And I always felt that when used to describe rape and the experience of women under patriarchy, colonisation was a metaphor rather than an actuality. And I have never felt that it’s fitted completely.

Colonisation/occupation seems like a very good ‘fit’ to explain what patriarchy does to females, not just metaphorically. We females don’t have our own language to exactly describe our experiences, so we must borrow examples and language from the malestream.

The colonisation model is extremely close. After generations, many of the colonised have adapted to and adopted the coloniser’s pov. And there will always be some of the colonised population that will resist, and see the possibility of a world without the colonisers in it, and to dream of the freedom, pre-colonisation.

14. 1rudegirl - March 5, 2011

I apologise for spewing all over your blog. But this has really got me thinking now. I’m just thinking about this occupation thing and it leads on to the way radical feminists talk about patriarchy in terms of war. Like for example Dworkin (again, cos she’s magnificent) talks about pornography as the command HQ in this war where men on the street are soldiers. I am just beginning to wonder about this. I’m starting to think why can’t we say ‘no it’s not a war, it’s pornography and rape and battery and this stuff is IMPORTANT’? It’s like we have to describe women’s experience in terms of MEN’S experience to understand it, and to make it matter. It would just be cool if we didn’t have to do that, at least when talking to each other.

I also have just thought that when the experience of colonised people is described in terms of female experience- ie ‘the rape of a nation’- they aren’t saying ‘it’s comparable to female suffering, so it matters’. They’re saying ‘these people have been denigrated and emasculated and made to feel as unimportant and contemptible as women’.

(as an aside, I reckon Dworkin’s understanding and use of war as a metaphor in this way may stem from her activism against the Vietnam war… )

15. 1rudegirl - March 5, 2011

‘We females don’t have our own language to exactly describe our experiences, so we must borrow examples and language from the malestream.’

Interesting cross-posting!

Ambalavaner Sivandan calls women ‘the colonies of the colonised’. I can see the point, especially after generations [I mean the relationship works a lot better when you're talking about people who have been colonised for generations], but as a framework for understanding patriarchy and women’s experience of such, it’s something I have to figure out backwards if you get me. As in, it doesn’t help me understand reality, I have to use reality to then construct the metaphor/model/whatever you wanna call it. And there’s huge things that differ- like a colonised person doesn’t tend to share a home/family unit with a member of the colonial race.

I think it may be a better metaphor if you’re not a colonised person yourself. But the experience for colonised women are of colonisation and of patriarchy, separately and together. Eg, simplistically, they may be fighting side by side with men to liberate their nation. But they are also gonna experience sexism from those same men.

16. rhondda - March 5, 2011

I think Dworkin uses the word war quite literally as in words and images as acts of aggression.
Men get off on words and images of women being degraded and humiliated. They literally get off on it. The words and images used against her, made her feel as if she was in a war. She had no right of recourse either as the newspapers and magazines which ran denigrating articles about her refused her a right of reply. Not a war as in guns and bombs, but a propaganda war. It is real.

17. FAB Libber - March 5, 2011

“The Colonies of the Colonised”
Yes indeed we are. But for a few scattered bands of resistance.

18. Colonisation | twanzphobic since forever - March 5, 2011

[...] both sides insist on mandatory PIV, it is a reminder that our bodies are not our own. They are the property and for the purposes of our colonisers. This is probably why there is little difference between rape and PIV, culturally-sanctioned [...]

19. SheilaG - March 5, 2011

The colonization begins the moment a woman moves in with a man and he has PIV, and the colonization begins with the constant propaganda that women have sex with men, and that having sex with a colonizer is normal. And all women living with the colonizer… as in day in and day out in a home, are colonized to a degree that I can’t even begin to imagine, but I see the behavior out in the world, and it sickens me. It sickens me that women are so colonized that they will defend the colonizer when he is criticized in even the mildest way, or they will object when I don’t want to talk to or associate with the colonizers if at all possible. This is seen as the ultimate heresy, and the colonized will defend the right of the colonizer to be present at social events, at gatherings etc. It’s an insane thing to be a witness to.

FCM - March 5, 2011

Also, regarding “spewing,” not only is spewing thoughtful comments on this blog allowed and encouraged, I revel in it. Spew away.

20. rhondda - March 5, 2011

When I said that men literally get off on images and words of women humiliated and degraded, I mean they get a hard on and they masturbate to it. When they are fucking you,you can tell by their eyes whether or not they are there with you or off on some imaginal domination idea. You know in your bones whether or not you are being used as a fuck toy or whether or not they are right there with you with all that sensuousness body sensation. When you are used you know it and when they as in some can be there with you, you know that too. The thing is most men will not let go of the control and it is just their ejaculation that counts and not the whole experience.

21. rhondda - March 6, 2011

I fail to see Sheila that since you have never lived with a colonizer that you know what it is like. So sorry, you don’t. You may observe, but you will never know the experience and since you hold those of us who have had the experience in contempt, whatever you say means nothing to me. Just so much hot air. I care about the women who are actually living it and do not know that there is another way and that is to find their own being and live their own life according their own desire. How to do that is what I want to find out. Not promote another lifestyle, but for women to be able to find their own meaning in life without someone else telling what it should be.

22. 1rudegirl - March 6, 2011

rhondda- yeah, that is very true.

This colonisation thing has always been a little strange to me, I never concieved of patriarchy as colonisation myself, and when the idea was introduced to me, as I say I could see the parallels but it didn’t seem like a literal truth.
It’s like- you can apply a lot of what Fanon says about the experiences of a colonised people to the experiences of the working classes in a country that is not occupied. However this is not THE SAME and it doesn’t mean the class system is literally colonisation.

[Before anyone misinterprets me, I am not minimising the harms done to women, or saying they are any less important or that patriarchy is less pervasive, systemic, or less vicious, by saying this.]

People seem very attached to this occupation/colonisation understanding of patriarchy, I have no problem with that but for me, it’s limited. And I end up bending my thoughts and observations to fit it, if you know what I mean.

I would put money on that it entered feminist dialogue as a result of feminists’ involvement in the Vietnam war activism, and how this informed their thinking and analysis. I could be wrong, obviously. If that is correct it would probably mean this is mainly a Western way of conceptualising patriarchy. Does anyone know if there are any feminists who have lived under colonial rule- I mean in their nation- who concieve of and write about patriarchy in these terms? [in case this comes out wrong, what with text not allowing for verbal cues etc, this is not sarcasm or asking to make a point, it's a genuine inquiry.]

23. cherryblossom - March 6, 2011

Rhondda, I will never forget the first time I had PIV [after many years of lovely non-PIV sex with boys] and realising that the boy I was with had ‘disappeared’ ; his eyes were glazed, he’d Gone. I’ll never forget the realization that at that moment, *I* , cherryblossom, wasn’t even there.

24. 1rudegirl - March 6, 2011

@ cherryblossom- don’t you think this can happen with guys regardless of whether you’re doing PIV-sex? I’ve had it happen even when we’re just kissing.
And also, you ARE there, the wanker’s just failing to percieve you. :)

25. FAB Libber - March 6, 2011

Does anyone know if there are any feminists who have lived under colonial rule- I mean in their nation- who concieve of and write about patriarchy in these terms?
The two examples that are best known and fit would be the Native Americans and Australian Aborigines. The whites (colonisers) came in, terrorised shot (and to the women raped) them. The indigenous people were treated/regarded as second class. In both countries they limited the freedoms, and left them very little space to move around. The main difference between the colonisation model and the patriarchy model is the integration – as in the coloniser lives in the home with you, whereas colonising the indigenous people, the colonisers live separately (but usually manage to take the best bits of land).

26. FAB Libber - March 6, 2011

I should also have stressed, rape is a common tool in the arsenal of colonisation. The colonisers love to rape.
Patriarchy, in setting up house with the colonised, they are able to rape a lot, under the guise of PIV (either for ‘fun’ or for ‘duty’). PIV is supposedly an essential element of het coupledom, and supposedly the main way adults express ‘love’.

27. cherryblossom - March 6, 2011

I like the colonization concept. It makes a lot of sense to me. We’re plucked away from our sisters and divided and this specific set up is the pillar that hold up the patriarchy. That’s why single mothers are vilified by the media, why lesbians are hated, why spinster was a derogatory word. These words represent uncolonized women and the patriarchy fears what they represent.

FCM - March 6, 2011

fab libber, i dont think anoyne asked for examples of colonized people, as if they dont exist.

FCM - March 6, 2011
28. FAB Libber - March 6, 2011

fab libber, i dont think anoyne asked for examples of colonized people, as if they dont exist.
1rudegirl seemed to be having trouble grasping the fit of the colonisation model. I had a go at it.

29. 1rudegirl - March 6, 2011

Nah, I don’t have any trouble grasping it- as in, I understand it. I just find its usefulness limited, personally.

What I was asking for was examples of women who have lived under colonisation- as in, lived as indigenous people in nations that are occupied and colonised- and have and articulate a concept of patriarchy that sees it as colonisation of women. To be specific, I guess I’m asking for examples of feminist commentators from colonised nations, who talk about patriarchy as colonisation of women, by men.

30. delphyne - March 6, 2011

Well I suppose if you see this world as women’s too, we are definitely colonised. In the old-fashioned sense of the world.

Men have stolen almost all the world’s land, shoving women to the peripheries or margins or keeping us as (slave) labour to work on it. Women have no homeland, we have nowhere we can go to be safe from men. Every piece of land we step on is likely to be owned or controlled by another man. Despite the fact it doesn’t belong to them. Despite the fact they took it by force.

It’s only because men have so completely erased the idea that this planet belongs to women too, and that women are a part of it, that the idea that women could be a colonised people could be seen as alien.

In fact you could argue that the colonisation of women and women’s land was the model for all colonisations after it. It’s still going on today with subsistence farmers, who are overwhelmingly women, being thrown off the land to make way for men to plant cash crops for the world markets.

We don’t even need to talk about bodies here, we can just talk about the space our bodies inhabit. None of it is female space, except in the very tiniest of exceptions.

31. delphyne - March 6, 2011

“In the old fashioned sense of the word” that should be. Oops.

32. 1rudegirl - March 6, 2011

btw FCM, if you want me to shut up about this on here please say, as I am aware this is now quite a way from your original post.

33. 1rudegirl - March 6, 2011

I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that I am not denying the huge and overwhelming nature of patriarchy, or the harms done to women. I am aware of it, land, property, history, language, VIOLENCE… too many facets to begin to list. Even in our own heads.

It feels like people are thinking that when I say I don’t really find the colonialism model useful, that I am minimising or denying the nature of patriarchy. Like I’m saying it’s not as bad or as pervasive as colonialism. This is not what I’m saying at all (if anything, it’s way more pervasive). All I’m saying is, for me, thinking of it in terms of colonialism has limits. Which means that I choose to use it occasionally as a metaphor and more often, discard it. Because it limits my thoughts. If it works for others and offers a deeper understanding for others, that doesn’t worry me. And I’m not seeking to dissuade anyone from using it.

34. FAB Libber - March 6, 2011

In fact you could argue that the colonisation of women and women’s land was the model for all colonisations after it.
Yes indeed.

35. thebewilderness - March 6, 2011

In my view patriarchy is the tradition that provides justification for colonization.
When there is plenty of land and shelter and water and food there is no need for anything beyond the most basic cooperation between people. Social organization is unnecessary.
It is only in lean times or places that distribution of resources becomes an issue. That struggle for limited resources is where traditions are born.
Traditions of both sharing and stealing.

I think that an examination of various cultures and their traditions around the world bears this out.

It is echoed in most societies when we think of the economic restraints on women in lean times and times of plenty when they stretch beyond one or two generations. Tradition becomes patriarchy and patriarchy becomes natural law of the most unnatural sort.
Colonization is just another way of saying the strong steal from the weak.

36. cherryblossom - March 7, 2011

I don’t want to say where I’m from but suffice it to say I’m from a colonized nation! The concept of ‘nation” is, in itself, blatantly patriarchal and all nations boast the trappings of patriarchy: flags, alliegence, “important” dates, male history. One group of men colonizing the resources of another group of men is a little different from male colonization of women.
I think the confusion comes about because women are linked to males biologically, whereas one ethnic group or race is not linked to the oppressed group in quite the same way.
But given enough freedom, women would naturally graviate away from men and towards each other. Patriarchy has always put a stop to this flow by appointing each woman a master. In Japan the word for husband is synonymous with master. So this is what I personally mean when I refer to the colonization of women. And I have to add that I’d never heard of women being colonized before until I read one of SheilaG’s posts so it’s also a new concept for me.

37. veganprimate - March 7, 2011

TBW said: “When there is plenty of land and shelter and water and food there is no need for anything beyond the most basic cooperation between people. Social organization is unnecessary.
It is only in lean times or places that distribution of resources becomes an issue.”

I have heard it framed in the opposite manner. That when humans began agriculture and had surplus, that was when the problems began, b/c you have accumulation of wealth, so to speak, and the control issues that stem from that.

38. zeph - March 7, 2011

“I have heard it framed in the opposite manner. That when humans began agriculture and had surplus, that was when the problems began, b/c you have accumulation of wealth, so to speak, and the control issues that stem from that.”

Interesting, as you said these things can be framed in different ways, Although property provides a reason for patriarchy, violence and war. It is notable that the Minoan society was largely peaceful, with small differences in living standards between individuals. In our closest relatives, chimps and bonobos, one society is patriarchal the other matriarchal, one, the chimps, have wars, the bonobos do not. Male chimps cruelly beat females, including their own mothers. Male bonobos do not, neither of them have property they have territory. So developments of hierarchies are multifactorial and do not require you to be human, or to own property.

39. thebewilderness - March 7, 2011

I was talking about the pre agriculture period.
Agriculture requires effort and controls that did not exist in areas where there was abundance throughout the year.
There is a marked difference in the way societies function in areas where agriculture is necessary and where it is not.

40. thebewilderness - March 7, 2011

Why would you accumulate wealth and why would it be considered wealth if it were all around you for anyone to use? It was only when and where there was not abundance that social organization was necessary for survival.
How you organized that society determined who survived.

41. SheilaG - March 7, 2011

I believe Mary Daly talks about the colonization of women within patriarchy a lot. She also says that women’s ideas and treasure have been stolen from us and used against us (reversals) and that she wants it back!

42. FAB Libber - March 7, 2011

have been stolen from us and used against us (reversals)
A common tactic that men use is to use the good qualities of women against them: compassion, trust, understanding etc

43. SheilaG - March 8, 2011

Women’s supremely humane traits are completely co-opted by men all the time. Compassion—kindness, generosity… don’t want to waste this on men, lavish it on women.

44. veganprimate - March 8, 2011

Makes sense, TBW.

45. zeph - March 8, 2011

“I was talking about the pre agriculture period.
Agriculture requires effort and controls that did not exist in areas where there was abundance throughout the year.”

Patriarchy existed and still exists in non agricultural societies. Very few places in the world can produce year round abundance for us, or any other animals. All animals have social structures. Women are the most likely creators of agriculture, planting certain grains and then reaping them when they returned next year, and creating symbiotic relationships with animals. What may have been small improvements in survival rates of still essentially nomadic people could have, in time, allowed for settled dwelling, craft making, etc. Stationary living allows for accumulation of goods and surplices creating a possibility for hunter gathers to turn into opportunistic bandits on settled groups. Early settlements, show signs of egalitarian living as do advanced societies such as the Harappa civilisation in India and the Minoan civilisation in Crete.
The Northern white skinned Neanderthals who were hunter gatherers, show signs of cannibalism and violence, so lack of agriculture is no guarantee of peaceful relations.
Some of the Polynesian Islands where food is abundant are patriarchal, though they may once have been matriarchal and egalitarian.

46. Sargasso Sea - March 8, 2011

“Stationary living allows for accumulation of goods and surplices creating a possibility for hunter gathers to turn into opportunistic bandits on settled groups.”

This ties into something I’ve been thinking about in the back of my head, zeph, in conjunction with VP’s *when people figured out piv = babies they should have stopped doing it for ‘fun’*.

I think that they probably did within their own tribe/family networks because they didn’t want harm to befall key players within their own *economic* circle.

BUT

What’s to stop the fellers from taking a little raid on some other women?

47. Sargassosea - March 8, 2011

I could have sworn that I submitted a comment but I don’t see it.

FCM, am I tripping or did it maybe go to spam?

If the answer is “tripping”, I wouldn’t be surprised :)

48. Sargassosea - March 8, 2011

Confirmed: S4 tripping.

FCM - March 9, 2011

Not tripping. I’m just not as quick on the draw as I usually am. You all are on moderation, and you don’t even know it. :P

49. zeph - March 9, 2011

“This ties into something I’ve been thinking about in the back of my head, zeph, in conjunction with VP’s *when people figured out piv = babies they should have stopped doing it for ‘fun’*.

I think that they probably did within their own tribe/family networks because they didn’t want harm to befall key players within their own *economic* circle.

BUT

What’s to stop the fellers from taking a little raid on some other women?”

Well, I think all animals, let alone humans sort of know were babies come from. In the same way that we sense that the round fruit on a tree may be something to do with making our hunger pains go away. But young people, at least, were bound to be a bit short on specifics.

I think you are bang on, that a little womb raiding, is an ancient motive for conflict and hierarchical competition among men as is, relatedly, territory. Both of these motivations existed before agriculture, though its advent probably exacerbated the mix. It seems clear though, that some civilisations become advanced without becoming unduly hierarchical and that these probably had a matrifocal structure, and that many hunter gatherers societies also had matrifocal cultures, such as some American Indian tribes (Custer, actually used their wonderful cultural balance against them, by capturing their women and hiding behind them to avoid defeat). While, at Alesia, Vercingetorix and Caesar played ping pong with the Gallic women, eventually leaving them outside the fortress to die of wounds and starvation. But I digress, I just can’t find any clear evidence that agriculture was the pivotal factor in forming patriarchy.

50. veganprimate - March 9, 2011

zeph said: “Stationary living allows for accumulation of goods and surplices creating a possibility for hunter gathers to turn into opportunistic bandits on settled groups.”

I’ve read that when looked at from an efficiency standpoint, that kind of behavior (pillaging) is actually the most efficient. Let someone else do all the work. That was apparently the modus operandi of a couple of Native American tribes, like the Apache and the Navajo.

51. Undercover Punk - March 9, 2011

Zeph said:

Well, I think all animals, let alone humans sort of know were babies come from.

I’m not sure exactly what I want to say about this statement, but I agree. No surprise, I’m sure.

FCM - March 10, 2011

wait, are you all saying that you believe dogs and cats etc *understand* how reproduction works, conceptually? just checking. i am kind of an absentee modder on this thread, as i said i would be.

heh. that sounded like “absentee mother”.

52. cherryblossom - March 10, 2011

I think some female animals know about the concept of giving birth before they conceive in the sense that they know it is something they will do and they’re not surprised when they do it. … Female cats are interesting

53. cherryblossom - March 10, 2011

Please feel free to delete that ramble FCM!

FCM - March 10, 2011

well i have observed female cats birthing and they seemed to go into a trance of some kind, and panted but never screamed out in pain. they licked the babies and let them nurse and ate their shit. they didnt act as if this was bizarre.

but i dont think i am willing to believe that animals make the intercourse-connection, do you? i am really just asking. i mean, i kind of hope it *is* true, so i can slam men even more than i do now, for deliberately placing women in harms way FOREVAH and not just for the last few thousand years or whatever, once we knew where babies came from. i was willing to concede at least plausible deny-ability for a few millenia (or whatever) before that, perhaps i was beng too generous?

FCM - March 10, 2011

also, why do you believe that female cats “know about the concept of giving birth” even before they conceive?

54. zeph - March 10, 2011

Yes, FCM that is what I am saying :). The specifics can be learned by watching the adults, in many cases animal mating is a bit of a social event and everyone turns up to watch.
There appears to be some cultural differences, I think, between how the UK and US view animals. I wonder if it may be due to the waning influence of the church in the UK. In my grandmothers day when christian views were more widely held, they saw strict divisions between humans and animals, that is why anthropomorphism as exemplified by books like “The Wind In The Willows” was seen as not just twee but subversive too. Most people here now believe that animals and humans are evolutionary variations on the same theme. Though we still can’t say they communicate or feel; that would be too threatening to the food industry. Pagans have always viewed the natural world as alive and thinking and are really closer to Darwinism on this than patriarchal religions.

“I’ve read that when looked at from an efficiency standpoint, that kind of behaviour (pillaging) is actually the most efficient. Let someone else do all the work. That was apparently the modus operandi of a couple of Native American tribes, like the Apache and the Navajo.”

VP, I thought the Navaho and Apache were hunter gatherers before we turned up and stole their land?
There is no doubt that living like a bandit has its benefits, but because you have to rely on force of arms to exact your portion of the work of others, your society is likely to become hierarchically structured, with the ability to inflict harm highly valued.

“I’m not sure exactly what I want to say about this statement, but I agree. No surprise, I’m sure.” Thanks UP.

55. veganprimate - March 10, 2011

“VP, I thought the Navaho and Apache were hunter gatherers before we turned up and stole their land?”

I don’t know very much about Native Americans. I don’t think the Navajo necessarily relied on raiding, but they did do their share. They also grew crops. The Apache I think did more raiding in comparison to other tribes. I did read a little bit of Geronimo’s autobiography, but I didn’t get very far before I had to return it to the library. He mentions a lot of animosity between the Apache and the Mexicans and there was a lot of taking turns of raiding each others camps.

I would love to study more about Native Americans, but there are so many tribes, and they are all different.

FCM - March 11, 2011

one thing: if people dont know that much about indigenous people, they probably shouldnt talk about them. seriously. i was interested in “cargo cults” a few months ago (theres a parallel i still think could be fleshed out between what is widely known as “cargo cult” and trans) and went on youtube to find a video for you all…and these videos were some of the most racist shit i have seen recently, couched of course in “scientific” terms. some of them were quite old, which didnt help, and were obviously part of some PBS “documentary” from decades ago. instead of writing about cargo cults, i ordered a book about them, which was a newly published graduate-level collection of cargo-cult critique. (which no doubt has its own problems too). turns out, just about everything “widely known” about cargo cults is wrong, based on racist assumptions and flat out fabrications made decades ago that still survive to this day. which isnt really a surprise. its a tough read but i am making progress.

the parallel i wanted to flesh out is a logical fallacy/causation problem described in wiki:

From time to time, the term “cargo cult” is invoked as an English language idiom to mean any group of people who imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance. The error of logic made by the islanders consisted of mistaking a necessary condition for cargo to come flying in, i.e., building airstrips, control towers, etc., for a sufficient condition for cargo to come flying in, thereby reversing the causation. On a lower level, they repeated the same error by, for example, mistaking a necessary condition of building a control tower, i.e., build something that looks like a control tower, for the sufficient condition of building a genuine control tower.

The inception of cargo cults often is defined as being based on a flawed model of causation, being the confusion between the logical concepts of necessary condition and sufficient condition when aiming to obtain a certain result. Based on this definition, the term “cargo cult” also is used in business and science to refer to a particular type of fallacy whereby ill-considered effort and ceremony take place but go unrewarded due to flawed models of causation as described above.

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

FCM - March 11, 2011

also, this was in my email today:

Hey,
Ive just spent the last hour or so reading your blog and loving it! I’ve avoided reading feminist blogs for so long because of all the anti-woman bullshit, so its been so heartening to read these radical feminist blogs (I found them through Sheila Jeffreys sending a link to a e-mail list I’m on – Im sure you know she reads a lot of your blogs!). Anyway, I was reading your posts on intercourse and how you mention stockholm syndrome and heterosexuality. I was wondering if you have read the amazing book “loving to survive” by Dee Graham? In this book she posits that women love men in order to survive, that heterosexuality is in fact born out of fear, and that we bond with men out of the same conditions that hostages bond to their captors. If you haven’t read it I highly recommend it!
I’m looking forward to reading more of your stuff!!

sheila jeffreys reads these blogs?!

56. Undercover Punk - March 11, 2011

Yo, that “cargo cult” analogy is pretty sweet. I’ve never heard of such a thing, so thanks!

57. FAB Libber - March 11, 2011

sheila jeffreys reads these blogs?!
Cool. At least she knows she is not alone – that there are still radfems out there who have not become tranzgroupies. Or pomo-ised. :P

FCM - March 11, 2011

she totally has about a million copyright violations against me. i wonder if she minds me using her work. i mean, literally scanning it! HA! mackinnon too.

58. Sargassosea - March 11, 2011

“she totally has about a million copyright violations against me.”

Lol! It’s only funny because it’s true!

Let’s just hope that our Sheila J isn’t the litigious sort. :)

FCM - March 11, 2011

for anyone who doesnt know, “what is widely known as cargo-cult” (and thats what i am calling it until i know more about what they are *really* about) is that some pacific islanders that were temporarily colonized (is there such a thing?) by american and european military during WWII saw the ways the military operated during that time, and that they (the military) had planefuls of cargo shipped in regularly to maintian their military bases. jeeps, refrigerators, stuff like that. so, after the military bases were closed and the americans and europeans left, the native people apparently built fake airstrips, control towers etc hoping that these actions would cause the planefuls of cargo to appear for them, too. its really fascinating, and i first read about it in richard dawkins “the god delusion”.

so far in my book, i have learned that (for example) researchers have been obsessed with learning what cargo specifically the cargo-cultists wanted, and so they would go there and ask them leading questions like “what did you want specifically, refrigerators?” and the people would say yes, refrigerators! or they would reluctantly recite “lists” of cargo when they actually wouldnt have come up with lists if they werent prompted to do so by the researchers. which makes it seem more like a capitalist enterprise than maybe it really was, from the perspective of the people doing it.

anyway, thats just one example of the way the issue has been framed, from the perspective of the researchers, instead of trying to figure out what it “meant” to the people who were actually doing it. ie. RESEARCHER BIAS. i might write about it some day, if i ever have something intelligent/informed to say about it. which i really dont currently.

59. Undercover Punk - March 11, 2011

Yo, FRG is like copyright violation central. And I’m a *lawyer.* A bad ass one, obviously. Obviously! I’m banking on the sisters wanting to spread the sweet radfem word more than they want to protect their “intellectual property” rights. Ugh, such a patriarchal concept!

FCM, that cargo cult business is (still) fascinating! Really. Even if “we” never “figure out” exactly what was going on with those peeps. It’s an interesting phenomenon that aptly demonstrates how causation can go so, so wrong. Like with trans!

60. Sargassosea - March 12, 2011

Everything UP said! (except for the lawyer part…)

61. FAB Libber - March 12, 2011

(theres a parallel i still think could be fleshed out between what is widely known as “cargo cult” and trans)

Yes, I think so too. In that trans are only looking at the outside of “woman” and dressing up at that, or imitating the gender role sterotypes of “woman” and imitating that.

It is the main reason why they don’t really come off as “women”, because it is an outsider view. There just seems to be “something missing” when they ‘do’ women. And yet, the one straight dude that I do know IRL, has a non-threatening woman-energy about him (can’t explain it better than that). He is not effeminate in any way (nor is he macho). This ‘energy’ I get from him I do not get the same from most trans, I almost always get a male energy vibe coming from them. I can only attribute it to their upbringing as males.

As far as trans goes, it is just the biological (surgical) extreme end of cross-dressing. Same continuum.

FCM - March 12, 2011

yes the cargo stuff is really interesting. the obvious parallel (the trans parallel) is the one where trans “go through the motions” of performing (or “feeling”) femininity, without an understanding of the underlying system that makes female-bodied persons “women” (the patriarchal concept) OR that they think that its the performance that CREATES THE OUTCOME (“woman” the patriarchal concept) rather than considering that the underlying system creates/dictates the need for the performance, and thus the performance itself.

there are a few other areas kind of begging to be fleshed out too. like colonized people mirroring the external cues of the colonizers and hoping to get the same result that the colonizers have procured for themselves (but of course its NOT the same, and ultimately fruitless)…like women STILL making less than men even though we are showing up 9-5 (or 8-8) like they are, wearing suits etc. in my cargo book, there was a description of cargo-behaviors that were very specific, like shuffling around blank papers, mirroring the paper-pushing done by the militarymen that made me think of this. its kind of embarassing to think that this is what women are doing, trying to get the same result when really its the underlying system thats making mens behaviors work, FOR THEM. because its clearly not working FOR US. except…well look at george w bush. that man has been shuffling around blank papers his entire life, and he became the president of the united states. so maybe its mens papers that are blank, and we look at their shuffling and think they are doing actual work, when really they arent. its not the WORK that pays. we might think it is, but we would be wrong.

FCM - March 12, 2011

ok there are some new readers checking me out, i can tell because they are reading the tabs AND a bunch of old posts. (sheila jeffreys mailing list?) like the really old ones, the ones i wrote for newsvine and barely even gave them a tweaking before posting them over here. ah the old posts. misty watercolor memories of the way we were. (i actually called PIV “sex” in at least one of them. eeek! how embarassing.)

62. Sargasso Sea - March 12, 2011

“so maybe its mens papers that are blank, and we look at their shuffling and think they are doing actual work, when really they arent.”

I was fired for pointing this out at one of my jobs. There was a dude who LITERALLY shuffled blank papers around and got paid (50% more than me) for it. Who was creating the actual PRODUCT the customers paid money for? Um, me and I got canned for daring to suggest that maybe I should be paid at least as much as someone who doesn’t produce anything. Silly me.

Fucking everything dudes do is cargo behavior; going through the motions is the BEST they can do and they constantly applaud themselves for it as if it is some kind of earth shattering achievement. And when there’s talk about *level playing fields* and shit I cringe because it’s not that we need to come up to their level, but that they ought to get the fuck up to ours and carry their own goddamn weight for a change!

My partner and I have been in the process of getting her idiot, perv father into assisted living (yep, that’s right! for the past 6 years we’ve been doing the caretaking for her abuser! good times!) these last 2 weeks and her brother was all, Well we should talk about this. I don’t know how daaaaaaaad will fweel about it. But, of course, once we assured him that HE wouldn’t be inconvenienced in any way suddenly daddy’s fweelings had nothing to do with it…

All of this to say that dudes don’t do shit. They have some damn job which they put minimal effort into and they have some damn hobby that usually is not in any way productive, but if it is productive it’s something that only benefits them. So, yeah they sit around and *go through the motions* of living and STUFF magically appears. Stuff like food and clean clothes and PIV on demand.

63. * - March 12, 2011

the dee graham book suggested above is really good.

64. rhondda - March 12, 2011

Sar, holy cow rage. I could sure relate to that rant. Love you woman. Rage on.

65. FAB Libber - March 12, 2011

the obvious parallel (the trans parallel) is the one where trans “go through the motions” of performing (or “feeling”) femininity, without an understanding of the underlying system that makes female-bodied persons “women” (the patriarchal concept) OR that they think that its the performance that CREATES THE OUTCOME (“woman” the patriarchal concept) rather than considering that the underlying system creates/dictates the need for the performance, and thus the performance itself.
Yep. I could see this connection straight away, so totally onboard.

like colonized people mirroring the external cues of the colonizers and hoping to get the same result that the colonizers have procured for themselves (but of course its NOT the same, and ultimately fruitless)…
Yes, a great follow-on, and sign me up for this one as well!

As for shuffling the blank papers, yes indeed they do. They also work this thing called “face time” whereby they appear to put many many hours in at the office. Many is the time I have seen them ‘working’ by sitting around throwing paper-balls at one another, or any number of childish behaviours. So they only really shuffle the blank papers around when the boss is looking, when he is not, it becomes “face time” games. Most places have electronic clocking in and out, so their timecards show they have been ‘working’ long, long hours, but not really, 95% of it was “face time”. Sometimes they even get paid overtime for this ‘extra’ time at the office.

So apparently “face time” and blank paper shuffling is worth paying 25% more for. I can do in one hour, what it takes these dudes eight to sixteen hours to do.

Frankly, I don’t think most women could get away with doing what they do in the office, so we aren’t strictly mirroring their entire behaviour, even if we think we are.

And Sar, they hate whistleblowers. And most whistleblowers are female.

We really should not even be sharing the same planet as the dudebros, let alone domestic quarters. Raw deal for the wimms.

FCM - March 12, 2011

If it weren’t for face time, and the mandatory 40 hr (minimum) workweek, I could have two full time jobs. If the only thing that mattered was the work, and I didn’t have to show up at all, I could probably do 3. Srsly. It’s all fucking bullshit, and is modeled after male workers who want to be away from home as many hours a day as possible, to avoid the domestic labor and putting the kids to bed. It’s a waste of fucking time, which is what men do best.

Agreed that was a righteous rant s4. Well done!

66. cherryblossom - March 13, 2011

Just saw your question about the cats. I was embarrassed about what I’d written until I saw zeph’s post about non-christian societies viewing animals differently. Culturally, I am a pagan. When women give birth “the beast is there for all to see” (unless they’ve been sedated or anaesthetized) , and they seek out quiet, dark private spaces to birth in peace, so we are more similar to animals than “civilization” likes to pretend.

It wasn’t just the lack of surprise in cats that I noticed. It was as though they were embracing something they’d been waiting for. I think a male cat would be pretty surprised if he found himself giving birth. So it could be that it’s not just humans who have an awareness of whether they are the type of mammal who hold the potential to give birth to pups/kittens/kids (or not)

I wanted to add something about female energy. MAry Daly mentioned how it has been widely observed that females are a source of energy, which is why the patriarchy are obsessed with harnessing it and dominating us. Given how oppressed women are over the world, it’s amazing that we are believed to be energy sources. A lot of our energy is taken up in our oppression and yet we still have more life energy in us than men. If you enter a house without a woman living in it you can *feel* the listlessness and lack of energy. It’s almost depressing. It’s painfully obvious why men need a female to live with them.

67. Sargasso Sea - March 13, 2011

Cherryblossom, all of what you say is very interesting and I think often on *levels of connectivity to universal understanding/peace/symbiosis* (jeez, if this were twisty/jill’s I’d be run out on a rail for being so witchy-woo!) but right now this is what caught my fancy:

“If you enter a house without a woman living in it you can *feel* the listlessness and lack of energy. It’s almost depressing.”

This sort of goes back to FCM’s post on “Menergy”, doesn’t it?

And it occurs to me that I can only think of two types of male energy (both individual males and their spaces) one is DULL (yes, listless) and the other, CHAOTIC.

Dull = absence of imagination and (therefore) creativity

Chaotic = absence of forethought and (therefore) stability

These are the rings, otherwise known as entitlement, they put around their own necks by stealing our resources: imagination/creativity and forethought/stability, instead of cultivating them for themselves.

I mean, there’s the idea that being a “well rounded person” is a good thing and I agree, also I’d argue that women ARE well rounded as a result of their oppression. But, whatever, we HAVE it and we USE it on a regular basis in order to survive and STILL have energy left over to try to have some fun.

Leeches.

68. cherryblossom - March 14, 2011

yes, it goes back to FCM’s Menergy post. I’m trying to apply the feminist concepts I’ve picked up to my own experiences as a woman (in case you thought I’d written anything original!)

69. Big Meanies Club | twanzphobic since forever - March 14, 2011

[...] are energy vampires. They steal from females; female time, energy, support, compassion, understanding, then they turn [...]

FCM - March 15, 2011

i have a new graphic up at scum-o-rama:

http://scumorama.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/because-this-guy-allegedly-exists/

thanks IBTP!

70. 29 April, why weddings suck for women | twanzphobic since forever - May 3, 2011

[...] – – – – A few more semi-related posts: FCM – the language of consent Ballbuster – het marriage ≠ prostitution & the word prostitution FCM – Right Wing [...]


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 324 other followers