jump to navigation

Naming the Agent August 10, 2011

Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, logic, radical concepts, thats mean, trans.
Tags: ,

im still reading mary daly’s “pure lust” (part 1 is here) and she lays the smackdown on pomo feminism and “academentia” repeatedly and its hi-larious!  seriously, shes so funny.  in “pure lust,” daly talks several times about “naming the agent” of womens oppression, and damned if thats not the one thing that pomo feminists will not do.  they refuse!  they will not admit to anyone (at least they dont do it out loud) that there is a cause of womens suffering, of their own suffering, or their mothers suffering, or that theres been a common theme and a common thread to womens collective suffering over time, across both time and place: billions of women have (suffered? experienced?) a shared fate, together, and theres a reason that this is so.  hello!

not only will pomo feminists not name the agent of their own or anyone elses suffering (hint: its men!  even the cause of mens suffering is other men!) they absolutely will not identify any particular mechanism of injury either.  how is it that women have come to be injured by men, historically and today, and what does womens suffering look like, and how has it changed (and remained the same) across time and place?  when its so fucking obvious, isnt it, that the cause of womens suffering has been related to pregnancy, and sexual assault and sexually transmitted disease, all perpetrated on us at the hands of men: or more specifically, the sexual and reproductive harms delivered onto women by men, via the penis.

yes, post-modern feminists are the ONLY women, of the literally billions of us that exist now and have existed previously across time and place that seem to be completely ignorant of the harms to women, of the penis.  how can this be?  how can women have known that this was the case thousands of years ago, and they still know it today in various parts of the world (including in urban america from which i am currently blogging, hi!) and yet theres a very small pocket of “educated” women in the west who do not know what everyone else knows, or at the very least are not prepared to admit what everyone else pretty freely admits: that men as a sexual class damage women as a sexual class, and that they accomplish this almost exclusively through sticking their dicks into women.

is it *just* that they have taken an oath of PIV-positivism that precludes them from admitting this very obvious truth?  (jesus!  so take it back already!  its ok to change your mind and admit you were wrong, in the face of overwhelming evidence that this is true).  you cannot take an oath like that, and then build a “theory” on it thats based on anything besides that on what its clearly based: they have pledged to view penis-in-vagina as a positive thing, no matter what, and that means that they are precluded by definition from seeing the harms to women, of the penis.  and that means they will never believe that transwomen can harm them as only men can, even though thats clearly true.  and that this says something about transwomen.  even though it clearly does (it says that they are men.  DUH).

the fact of the matter is that anyone can start building on anything they want, really: build a library on a landfill, and tell everyone they are book-phobic when they notice the smell of garbage.  or accuse everyone of irrationally hating ice cream when youve built your fucking dairy queen in a minefield, and you are serving up unexploded rocket shells instead of ice cream too.  go ahead!  not everyone would be stupid enough to believe it, but you could certainly say it if you wanted to.  right?

this appears to be the bill of goods the pomos are selling, which kind of begs the question: why are they so reluctant to admit what is so fucking obvious to everyone, and always has been?  which is that women are a sexual class, and men routinely and systematically harm women via the penis?

why?  what is it about this tiny minority of PIV-positive women in the west, at this point in history, that would cause them to build their entire world on a very obvious lie that everyone else knows is a lie, and that they must know is a lie too?  whats stopping them from naming the agent of all womens suffering as a sexual class, around the world?



1. elkballet - August 10, 2011

Fantastic post, as usual. I really hate the total inability on the part of sex pozzies to name men. Like this insistance of rape being a human issue rather than something almost always done by men to women is infuriating. Further infuriating by the complete denial that rape is intercourse. That intercourse can be malicious and horrific and brutal. No, they have to insist that rape and sex are two completely different things and have no connections whatsoever and that it’s not primarily, in probably 99%, of cases men who rape.

2. Undercover Punk - August 10, 2011

they absolutely will not identify any particular mechanism of injury either.


Can I just tell you this story? I have a friend who recently told me about a recurring yeast infection she’s had on-and-off for the past 6 months. And she’d never had trouble with yeast infections previously. COINCIDENTALLY, that was around the time she acquired a new male sex partner. She was completely oblivious to the possibility that the 2 circumstances were related. I couldn’t bring myself to tell her exactly what I thought b/c I sensed her defensiveness. It was just “a coincidence” and ultimately inexplicable. !!1!1! So POINT BEING, this is an instance of a woman being unwilling to acknowledge a man as the possible CAUSE of a yeast infection! It’s no wonder women can’t acknowledge anything more consequential… if they can’t even NAME the agent of a yeast infection! (This implicates the larger problem of PIV causing infections and disease transmission, but we aren’t supposed to NAME that either.)

FCM - August 10, 2011

Ms. Citrus had an old post up where she described being at the gynecologist and asked all kinds of questions regarding her piv-centricity. They wrote down “not sexually active” when they grilled her about specific sexual acts and she told them she was having sex, but not having piv.

Asking questions about piv in that context is clearly a honed and deliberate diagnostic tool, used to screen women for risk of pregnancy and disease but they never come out and say it. They’d all be out of a job if women stopped being harmed from piv.

3. SheilaG - August 10, 2011

naming the agent IS the name of the game…no pun intended. It is all about nameing truthfully who does what to whom and why. And I am always dumbfounded that I have the hardest time getting other women to NAME the agent of the action. Men- rape, for example. “Human rights” does not specifically name “women’s rights” — and my favorite — domestic violence…. well who hits whom?

Mary Daly was all about naming, and to this day, radical feminists are reviled and hated because we NAME. Yeast infection = penis in vagina.
Where do sexually transmitted diseases come from? Why are there huge billboards in West Hollywood advocating caution in the midst of a syphilis epidemic? Duh? What was the massive HIV-AIDS death all about in San Francisco? It was about the penis, it was about men and male sexual behavior, and men are so obsessed with shoving unprotected Ps into “people’ that they will risk death to do it.

A little off topic, but you have all seen the resistence that women struggle with when radfems name the agent…. I can talk to a group of middle class white women anywhere, and say MEN RAPE, MEN BASH WIVE”S heads in, MEN bomb cities, MEN make the streets unsafe at night… MEN DO IT to women, and you’ll see they fight back tooth and nail to avoid naming the agent of the crimes and suffering. And these aren’t even pomo women, and the brainwashing of patriarchal thinking is so all pervasive, that I think women are afraid to say MEN are the cause of women’s misery worldwide, and the commit war crimes against women everywhere they go. Men kill millions…. Columbus killed millions of native peoples, his soldiers killed and raped women all over the new world… he gets a national holiday names after him.

FCM - August 11, 2011

sheila, i agree with you that women have a problem talking about class:male as the rapist class, and the murderer class, and the crime-class and the all-around-nasty-class in general. most people talk about crime as if its gender-neutral, when its not: this is how this information is presented to us afterall! as “crime statistics” and not statistics of mens crime, or of mens crimes against women.

what women do NOT seem to have a problem with though, is admitting publically and KNOWING privately that men impregnate women with their penises, and that this is harmful to women. women know this, and they have known it for a long time. its the fucking fun-fems AND ONLY THEM that want to deny that this is the case, even though they are all taking fucking hormonal birth control pills and pretending they dont know what these are for. hello!

my question is why SPECIFICALLY in relation to the PENIS are fun-fems feigning ignorance here? this is not a rhetorical question.

4. maggie - August 11, 2011

‘feigning ignorance’. Because they want to conform. They see that to be considered successful and to get monetary independence they need to be considered:
having a partner
having constant piv
being desired
not alone
not being seen as a prude
the measure of success is constant PIV – it’s a patriarchial measure and the funfems have embraced it.

They’ll forego the ‘room of one’s own’ to abide by these rules. It’s also subliminal consumerism and to stick with these vertiginous standards requires constant vigilance and a head in the sand approach. The reality and truth is too frightening. To engage in funfeminism one must, at all times, engage in: self sacrifice – a constant drip of erosion into one’s own personal standards – and a strict adherence to cognitive dissonance.

5. Undercover Punk - August 11, 2011

Yes, Maggie!! In order to be a Real Woman, a Good Woman, females know that we must:

[be] sexy
having a partner
having constant piv
being [sexually] desired
not alone
not being seen as a prude
the measure of success is constant PIV

If you aren’t sexually arous-ing men at all times, you are a failure. And you need to work HARDER. (no pun intended)

I think this is the crux of penis-denial. Women are defined by our sex organs; women’s social value is dependent on being sexually useful to males (esp. as wives and mothers); so women feel obligated to CLEARLY express our sexual useful-ness. To flaunt it (with femininity). The message is so pervasive, and the consequences of deviancy have historically been so grave, that women actually believe this hype. We EMOTIONALLY internalize the idea that penile attention and penetration is liberating. Women BELIEVE it. !!11!!11!

AND. They do not see an alternative. WHAT will they do and WHO will they be if they aren’t engaging in the het-game? Further, hyper-sexualization (I mean, raunch culture) artificially inflates the value of orgasms. A LOT of het women have told me how much they lurv the dick. A good dicking, they gotta have it! I just laugh. There is little discussion, even among women, about the FACT that *our* sexual pleasure center is the clitoris; that the clit has more nerve endings than a penis; that hands are more powerful and more nuanced(!!) than penises. Seriously. It makes no goddamned sense. I’m on a rant now. You get the point. Women are deep, deep denial. And most of them will remain there until a viable alternative appears on the horizon.

6. yttik - August 11, 2011

“…why SPECIFICALLY in relation to the PENIS are fun-fems feigning ignorance here?”

Because the vast majority of us live in a state of non-consent and dealing with reality is simply too overwhelming. It’s much easier to believe in “empowering choices” and to tell yourself that you own your own sexuality.

FCM - August 11, 2011

Because the vast majority of us live in a state of non-consent and dealing with reality is simply too overwhelming. It’s much easier to believe in “empowering choices” and to tell yourself that you own your own sexuality.

so its directly related to so-called “empowerment”?

7. yttik - August 11, 2011

I think many women tell themselves that they are “empowering” themselves by engaging in PIV. Everything in our culture tells women that PIV is the secret to women’s power, right? In fact, in the culture it’s pretty much all we are, the only potential we have, at least on TV. So some women convince themselves that they are really making a choice, that they own their own sexuality.

FCM - August 11, 2011

but ask any woman in the world, at any time and in any place, whether the penis is dangerous to women, and they would all say YES wouldnt they? women in the burning times would say YES and the women dworkin wrote about in “right wing women” would say yes. prostituted and enslaved women would say YES. housewives and spinsters would say YES.

the ONLY ones who are saying that this isnt the case are the fucking fun-fems, and they are saying it NOW. the sex-pozzie women jeffreys wrote about in “spinster” that did the dirty work of the male sexologists a hundred years ago, even as they extolled vaginal intercourse for women, probably wouldnt have denied that the penis was harmful to women, especially back then when there was only limited access to contraception and abortion and maternal mortality was so high. would they have? could they have denied it?

if this is something new, then i want to know why its happening now. is it that this is whats required of women who have a taste of independence from men? that they are striking a deal with the devil? i dont know, but the women in “spinster” had a taste of independence too, and they chose to become SPINSTERS. they didnt revere the cock, or deny that it was harmful to women.

what the fuck is going on here? i really want to know!

8. yttik - August 11, 2011

Besides the brainwashing about “empowerment,” and the reluctance to be labeled a prude with hang ups, there is complete denial about the lack of consent that women live under. It’s so much easier to tell yourself that you’re making a “choice” rather than admit and confront the fact that women still have very little autonomy or control over their own reality.

I was horrified a while back to be at a very liberal feminist site that was arguing against abstinence. Not abstinence-only sex ed, but the fact that abstinence was mentioned at all. They kept saying that it wasn’t realistic, that it was wrong to tell girls that abstinence was an option at all because it wasn’t possible in the real world. It was “unrealistic” not because girls have uncontrollable sexual urges, but because men do. Apparently it is so common for a girl to be manipulated, tricked, conned, drugged, or simply pressured into having sex when she doesn’t want it, that abstinence is not a realistic choice. Well, if saying no is not a choice, than saying yes is not one either. Not long ago I read another so called feminist critique of the PIV is harm argument. Again, the author stressed that saying no to PIV is not realistic in the real world and must remain nothing but an intellectual debate. The implication was that saying no to PIV was not possible, even if you wanted to.

So in response to, “what the fuck is going on here?” I’d say it’s denial. Western women, academic women, so called privileged women, just cannot accept that in spite of all their gains, they still don’t have anything resembling equality or autonomy. In their minds equality means men and women are the same and since men suffer little harm from PIV, women must suffer little harm, too.

FCM - August 11, 2011

That’s disturbing! It was one of the big fun fem sites then? Figures! Obviously my working thesis here is that the fun fems denial of the harms of piv is directly related to them buying that transwomen are really women, and not men. So if we could get them to understand their lack of consent, and the apparent fact that even they know that no piv is not an option…would this snap them back into reality on the trans front too? Is talking about women’s reality, and helping women see the world through women’s eyes (instead of men’s) going to help here? I wonder. The moment this change of perspective happens, it cannot be undone. It really is that profound a shift.

9. yttik - August 12, 2011

I don’t know how to get women to see the potential problems with trans. Uhg! You started this article by mentioning Daly. I just finished reading another blog about whether or not we should even listen to anything she had to say since she was such a trans hater. This rather fabulous feminist should probably be kicked out of feminism entirely. Cripes!

What’s not new is women putting the needs of every single group above their own. It’s also not new for women to set themselves aside and rally for some group they feel is being persecuted.

I’m not sure that denial of PIV harm plays into it. I know a handful of lesbians who see the potential harm in PIV, but think I’m a hater for not embracing the trans. They can acknowledge the harm men do to women sexually, but they simply cannot see the misogyny in the transactivists. It makes me want to bang my head on the wall.

FCM - August 12, 2011

Wait, they acknowledge the female-specific harms to women of the penis…but they can’t acknowledge that people who can harm women with their penises aren’t women, but men?

Okay fine. Why not just call them penis-people? Would they admit that all penis-people hold the power to harm women with their dicks? If they won’t even concede that much, then I don’t believe they understand what the harms to women of the penis really are.

FCM - August 12, 2011

And I’m not even talking about the obvious MISOGYNY of trans, which they aren’t acknowledging either. But that’s a separate issue isn’t it?

10. maggie - August 12, 2011


Traditionally, this ‘message’ was passed down from mother to daughter. Despite the fact that daughter saw what having babies – the result of PIV – did to their beloved mother and was often asked to take up the slack. However, post the 70s 2nd wave assault there was a gap, a chink, and as we all know nature abhorrs a vaccum. Clearly, there is a class of mothers/women – sisters, friends, aunts, cousins who will continue to pass on the compliance to PIV message, despite its harms. For those mothers/women that don’t comply, why advertising, the all pervasive consumerism that quickly filled the vaccum, does the job just ticketyboo.

But funfems know, they fecking know that PIV causes harm. How can they not in this scientific 21st century? How the feck can they not when every girl in the world is given now a vaccine against HPV? A harm caused solely by having PIV? Is cognitive dissonance that powerful? I guess it must be. (the vaccine certainly overrides any nasty image of Stds you saw in biology class – like pictures of black smokers lungs)

That’s it. PIV cognitive dissonance is no different to smokers who know that doing it will kill them.

11. Undercover Punk - August 12, 2011

Good convo!

But funfems know, they fecking know that PIV causes harm. … How the feck can they not when every girl in the world is given now a vaccine against HPV? A harm caused solely by having PIV? Is cognitive dissonance that powerful?

Yes, the HPV vaccine is absolutely mandatory in many middle class western cultures. The girls are so young, too. It scares the shit out of me. It’s not safe. It’s not necessary!! And YES, it is specifically caused by PIV. But people don’t want see it. They won’t NAME it.

And yes, @yttik

I know a handful of lesbians who see the potential harm in PIV, but think I’m a hater for not embracing the trans. They can acknowledge the harm men do to women sexually, but they simply cannot see the misogyny in the transactivists.

Yeah, this is a problem. I agree.

12. cherryblossomlife - August 12, 2011

“The message is so pervasive, and the consequences of deviancy have historically been so grave, that women actually believe this hype. We EMOTIONALLY internalize the idea that penile attention and penetration is liberating. Women BELIEVE it. !!11!!11!”

Oh, that is brilliant FCM. This is it. It’s not just about the denial, it’s about the that there are very real consequences in a patriarchy for not being *acceptable* enough, as a woman–for deviancy.
The very thought of ridicule and social exclusion probably inspires a deep seated and un-named fear of *death* in many women. And they don’t even know *why* a shadow walks over their grave if they imagine how life would be if their identity was not based on man-pleasing, if they defined as unattractive prudes who were not “up for it.” Men don’t hide the fact they despise women who do not conform, that they will keep those Unacceptable Women in line somehow.

13. cherryblossomlife - August 12, 2011

And I’m boiling over in anger that they’re giving that vaccine to young girls everywhere. It smacks of vaccinating children against the condition of being female. Males don’t have to be subjected to this. Over my dead body will my daughter be getting this injection, and if her school want to know why, I will write a polite letter explaining that it only exists because men are having sex with so many young girls, and the politicians who put the policy in place support this. I will write that letter if anyone objects to my decision, see if I don’t!

14. yttik - August 12, 2011

“Is cognitive dissonance that powerful?”

Yes, it really is! I struggle with words like “brainwashing” and “denial” because it’s so difficult to try and explain. I know women, smart women, that have gotten pregnant and still don’t connect it to PIV. They blame it on their own body, on their birth control, on themselves, like they spontaneously combusted or something. It had nothing to do with PIV, it was a failing of their own bodies.

One thing those trans supporting women seem to have in common is that they don’t like women very much. A guy can pursue a female gender identity, but born women themselves should be ashamed of their own. It’s hard to figure out because some of these women reject rigid gender roles and yet support trans pursuit of …rigid gender roles and female stereotypes. There’s some major cognitive dissonance happening in there somewhere.

15. Undercover Punk - August 12, 2011

Hey, cherry, that was me. 😉


I know women, smart women, that have gotten pregnant and still don’t connect it to PIV. They blame it on their own body, on their birth control, on themselves, like they spontaneously combusted or something. It had nothing to do with PIV, it was a failing of their own bodies.

Yes, I know very smart, successful, feminist women who are having unprotected PIV within the context of long term relationships, but who also deny and truly don’t believe that they’re *trying* to get pregnant. I think they are. It’s a very obvious cause and effect. But they don’t want to NAME it.

And @cherry:

they don’t even know *why* a shadow walks over their grave if they imagine how life would be if their identity was not based on man-pleasing

Yes. It’s inconceivable to many women. Laughable, even. The female sense of self, under hetero-normativity, is deeply committed to relentlessly pursuing male-relationships.

*I*, on the other hand, want to fall into my grave when I imagine a world without WOMEN (only men). Now that’s scary!

FCM - August 12, 2011

i remember when angelina jolie got pregnant with shiloh, she said something in an interview like “im the one who got knocked up! dont blame brad!” or something like that. i was like “HUH?” this from the woman who at 26 years old was meeting male “friends” in hotel rooms so that she could be made to “feel like a woman.” what, used as a masturbatory aid by some dood and afraid your pregnant? yup, that sounds pretty much like “what a woman feels” like to me.

16. sam - August 12, 2011

Undercover Punk, your words about women trying to get pregnant and not admitting it reminded me of my disappointment with how Ani Difranco described her daughter’s conception.

She said in an interview that she was partnered with her now husband (“because we wanted to own each other” -ugh) and he looked at a playground and spoke of seeing their kid playing there one day. Then *poof*, like magic she found herself pregnant, as if their love willed the the baby into existence and having unprotected sex with a man played no role.

I can accept that as artsy fartsy melodrama of the sort creative types are prone to if it stood alone, but plugged into a world where most births are accidents (some 60% of kids born in the USA were not planned) it feels as forced as when any woman self-soothes herself after ‘the facts of life’ have their way with her body.

17. sam - August 12, 2011

I should have followed the trail up higher and properly credited yttik for the thought spark.

FCM - August 12, 2011

If anything these are ambivalent pregnancies aren’t they? Where the woman would be just as happy without it, but is subjected to piv centric sexuality anyway and doesn’t have an abortion when the rather inevitable occurs? At one point I was well on my way down that road too. I was on the pill but starting to think that if I got pregnant I would NOT have an abortion. The only thing that was different from the previous 20 years of having “sex” was that previously, I always knew I’d abort. Nothing else changed, and I still did not want to get pregnant. Weird right?

18. sam - August 12, 2011

I’m right there in Weirdsville with ya. Though sterilized, when asked by a friend what I would do if I were impregnated despite the sterilization I glibly suggested that if Mother Nature was that damn insistant that I produce a child then I’d have to have it.

After some time to reflect on what would really happen, I realized the truth is I would most likely have an abortion. The moment was made humorous by my resigned retort regarding Ma Nature, but it was also not untrue because as you might have noticed I did write “most likely” in the prior sentence.

19. sam - August 12, 2011

By “insistant” I meant “insistent” and I blame yesterday’s brush with L’instant perfume for gunking up the spelling gears of my brain.

20. cherryblossomlife - August 13, 2011

ooops, sorry UP!

I was talking to my friend the other day about these accidental and ambivalent pregnancies. The friend in question, no radfem by any standards, said she found them strange because there is really only a very small window in the month when you’re likely to conceive.
Of course it *is* possible to conceive at any point in your menstrual cycle, but quite a lot of women who want to conceive find they have to aim to have intercourse when they’re most fertile (you’re least fertile during menstruation, contrary to what patriarchal doctors believed for many, many years, and most fertile mid-cycle!). This has got nothing to do with age. My friend was 26 when she started trying, and after a year of trying it was only when she’d worked out her menstrual cycle that she actual conceived.

So what I’m saying is, there is a LOT of PIV going on, for so many women to have so many ambivalent pregnancies. Yes, sometimes it takes just once (I conceived in the first month of trying), but many women have to have sustained PIV over a long time in order to conceive.

The scary thing is, many women *are* having sustained unprotected PIV over a long time, even though they are *not* trying to have a baby, and when they fall pregnant they are surprised, shocked and unprepared. I really don’T get it.

21. maggie - August 13, 2011

Contrary to the Monty Python “Life of Brian” sketch in the previous post, men can have babies. They are the ones who are fertile 24/7, for most of their adult lives. They are the ones who can have the least damaging permanent end to this fertility – vasectomy. So men can have babies. They don’t appear as if by magik in a woman’s uterus. Men can have babies it’s just that these ‘ambivalent’ pregnancies seek once again to erase male responsibility.

Another way of looking at it is through the distortion of creation myths. Eve was born of Adam, Athena born from Zeus. Why did this obvious stealth of agency occur, when millenia later the men are seen as gormless bystanders when it comes to pregnancy?

22. Radfem-ological Images (Dove and Dove for Men) | Radfem Hub - August 16, 2011

[…] solution to womens suffering, as a sexual class, around the world and to do that we have had to name the problem.  and the problem is not “womens self esteem.”  the problem is men, including mens […]

23. parallel - August 16, 2011

whats stopping them from naming the agent of all womens suffering as a sexual class, around the world?

There was an article in the Independent the other day about a new maternity unit in Afghanistan and it mentioned the UN report from last December that stated that 24,000 women a year die in childbirth there.

That’s 24,000 women a year effectively being murdered by men – though of course the article does not put it like that. In fact it barely even mentions the males. Seemingly the deaths are the fault of some magicked-up-out-of-thin-air “blood loss” or “pre eclampsia” or “girl’s bodies are too frail”.

Everyone knows full well it is the men though, and hospitals like this are only a sticking plaster on a much more serious wound.


24. Undercover Punk - August 16, 2011

parallel, I read that horribly depressing article yesterday. Thanks for sharing it here. It’s perfect.

25. elkballet - August 16, 2011

Everyone knows full well it is the men though,

Yup. It’s horribly depressing, isn’t it? Must be nice to be a man knowing that people are dying just so you can have a better orgasm.

But of course, know one thinks about it like that. Everyone doesn’t know full well it’s the men. Pregnancy is talked about as though women spontaneously become pregnant, as though we reproduce asexually (but of course only when we make mistakes, so must be punished). And no one (except us) questions it or even thinks about it.

Things like that that are incredibly obvious to radical feminists just aren’t seen by other people. I know it seems like it’s right in front your face, but if you’re trained from birth to not see it and not acknowledge it, you won’t.

As a very new radical feminist I can tell you I certainly never even considered things like that pregnancy was a danger men put women through. It seems so obvious now, but the connection between these things just was totally hidden.

FCM - August 16, 2011

heres another one: FAB libber covered this on her blog. MAAB and FAAB have PIV and FAAB gets pregnant and has baby. this is some kind of “medical miracle” because according to each of them, they are both trans. WEIRD!!!11!1! the fetus literally appeared out of nowhere, and was willed into being due to their love. same old shit, different day!


26. Undercover Punk - August 16, 2011


FCM - August 16, 2011

from parallel’s link:

Afghanistan’s atrocious maternal mortality rate is down to numerous factors. Particularly in rural areas such as Helmand, women give birth in the mud compounds of their homes, husbands refuse to bring them in to hospital until complications are near fatal and many are so young their frail bodies cannot cope.

They suffer from ruptured uteri and eclampsia along with a variety of other problems, explained Dr Latif. “Some are 10 or 12, generally they are 14,” he said. “Because of these problems they will die. If the women came in earlier, we could do something.”

More than half of Afghan girls are married off under the legal age of 16, according to United Nations figures, and in the poverty stricken villages of Helmand, the problem is acute. Girls who have babies before the age of 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth than women in their twenties. At the other end of the age scale, Dr Latif explained, he was dealing with women who had borne 20 children in their life time: “The oldest was a woman of 60, who had 25 children – 12 survived.”

not only does no one blame men for impregnating girls as young as 10, they dont really name the problem of those same men refusing to seek medical care for their wives either, instead blaming it on “lack of education” and “illiteracy.” oh really? thats the problem here ay? from where im standing it looks quite a bit like premeditated murder, so that they can get another “wife” and do the same thing to her. which is exactly what they end up doing: men kill multiple girls and women in this same way in their lifetimes. and they know exactly what they are doing.

FCM - August 16, 2011

seriously UP. its so basic!

27. yttik - August 16, 2011

“…instead blaming it on “lack of education” and “illiteracy.”

Oh indeed! That is my pet peeve. Whenever I read about illiteracy or lack of education I know somebody is covering up male responsibility and blaming women again. It’s actually not women (or men) in 3 rd world countries that need to be educated about the dangers of PIV, it’s highly educated western women! Everybody else seems to get it just fine, they’re dying from it after all.

I was getting angry watching the famine in Somalia. These women are dealing with violence, starvation, and cholera, and just trying to keep their babies alive, but in the back of my mind I’m thinking who impregnates a woman over and over again in the midst of a famine, a war, and an epidemic?

28. Mary Sunshine - August 22, 2011


Exactly! When people on comments threads about the famine sneeringly ask, “then why do they have eight children?”, I go all wtf ???!!!!. Becuz raping his wife is a daily habit, like using the latrine.

FCM - August 22, 2011

yes, and thats all it is to many men isnt it? a daily habit (like defecation), or a stress-relief ritual (like masturbation or drinking). and women are left to deal with the consequences. womens stress STARTS with PIV, its not relieved by it. this proclamation always made me somewhat nauseas and i wasnt sure why: hearing a partner saying that he was relaxed or relieved of stress after PIV was very dissonant for me, even before i became PIV critical. because for me, of course, STOPPING after a couple hours of “foreplay” and without any genital to genital contact at all would have been all the pleasure i needed, with none of the stress. but thats the one thing they will never do isnt it? insisting that they stop before intercourse is a good way to get fucking raped, is what it is.

29. cherryblossomlife - August 22, 2011

“insisting that they stop before intercourse is a good way to get fucking raped, is what it is.”
the girlie mags I used to read as a young teen basically taught you this

FCM - August 26, 2011
30. thebewilderness - August 28, 2011

It isn’t lack of education. It is very specifically because of education.
We talk about getting pregnant as though it were a choice a woman’s body makes will she nil she. From the moment of birth and our first baby doll we are educated to believe that our bodies are going to produce and we better start getting ready. The sooner the better.
Long before we find out where babies come from we have been educated to think of them in a way that enlists our support in producing them. Then, years later, when we are thoroughly conditioned to think and speak as though producing human resources were the most natural thing in the world for every girl to do they present us with “sex education”. By then we have all heard some pretty bizarre rumours about this stuff and most younglings have seen porn. How can they be expected to integrate PIV into their early education? I don’t think they can. I think it stays separate for most. Not intellectually, but emotionally.
Our language keeps it separate.
In most cultures, until recently, it was expected that large numbers of women would die in childbirth. It was essential that they be taught to desire and value producing children, or die trying, as the greatest good they were capable of.

Sorry. I wandered off topic more than a bit.

31. calliope - September 9, 2011

I’m so grateful to be a lesbian. I’m at least safe from the mandatory PIV of straight relationships.

32. SheilaG - September 10, 2011

A-woman to that calliope… just the amount of energy women waste on men, get ruined for it, become derailed by the PIV, the dating, the abuse… and all of this is most damaging at a time in life when women have great energy, passion for education…. enthusiasm… all of this gets killed quickly in hetland. I think this is why there is such a profound disconnect between radical lesbians and radical het women. We knew all along that men were not the way to liberation. But when we were telling this message in our 20s to other het women also in their 20s, they just would not listen. They wanted the het lifestyle and the social pats on the head. They chose that life willingly believing, like all lottery ticket buyers, that their man could be the golden ticket… and in many cases this was true… but a whole raft of het women chose the wrong ticket….

So for all you young women out there…. you don’t have to have anything to do with PIV or men. They are not your future, and you can choose otherwise.

Compared to life back in say 1975, lesbian life today is pretty much a piece of cake anyway.

33. 1rudegirl - October 22, 2011

I just had this crazy thought and really wanted to let it out. What if part of the point of feminity is to get women to consent to pregnancy that they would otherwise not choose? Because feminity as we know it, you know hair removal, uncomfortable clothes, anti-fat, constant war with your body etc etc, it makes women feel very dissociated from their bodies. As though your body is a thing, not actually you. And honestly with femininity, the point of your body’s existence isn’t even you, is it? It’s men, and pleasing men. I have always thought this psychology is part of the reason women visit doctors more. But also it leads you to a place where your male partner’s opinion on whether or not you should get pregnant is given as much weight as your own. Becuase your body is simply an object, which your have part stake in, but is largely used to please men. So why not use it as an incubator? I hope this makes some sort of sense.

FCM - October 22, 2011

well…i think that male-identifying women are going to tend to see their bodies like men see them in any and all contexts. certainly the point of heterosexual grooming, the belief in male exceptionalism, mandatory PIV and all male-centric values get women to do alot of things they wouldnt normally do, including PIV, pregnancy, and having abortions when they would rather give birth.

i have heard some women say when they are pregnant thats its lovely because they actually get to eat rich foods and its a relief that weight-gain is inevitable. it means they dont have to try to control every ounce anymore. of course, some still try and we have preg-norexics now, or whatever they are calling them which isnt safe for the woman or the fetus.

anyway, yes, i think you are onto something. but dont stop at pregnancy. womens consent is coerced in all contexts through grooming.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry