jump to navigation

Radfems are Conservative (and Women are Stupid) August 28, 2011

Posted by FCM in feminisms, liberal dickwads, logic, politics, rape, self-identified feminist men, thats mean, trans.
Tags: ,
trackback

a recycled graphic from SOR.  click on image to view full-size.

i thought this topic deserved its own post.  and since i am still not finished reading “pure lust” i thought i would address this rather timeless classic: the disingenuous dodge the trans and transactivists (and liberal dickwads) try to confuse everyone with, when they make an analogy between radical feminists and conservative christians.

they must believe we are all complete morons of course, because only a complete moron couldnt see right through this one, even if it starts out as an intuitive “WTF?”  because we all know this ones a baldfaced fucking lie.  anyone who wants to could give the trans and liberal dickwads the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that the ones making the fallacious analogy are too stupid themselves to understand whats wrong with it?  i dont know.  maybe its a little of each.

anyway, whats wrong with this picture is that the “analogy” only holds up if all you see is the “access denied” sign: stopping there is the only way this works.  and therefore, assuming they really believe this analogy holds, the transactivists and other assorted “progressive” men who see their own rights to unfettered access to women being impinged on here, and drawing the fallacious analogy ignoring the rest of the picture, *must* be stopping there.  theres no other way to explain their conclusion (again, unless we assume they are lying about believing it themselves.  and they may well be lying.)

so one must wonder, mustnt one, why is that all they see?  why is their perspective so obviously distorted and skewed here, so that they dont see what lies beneath: the agendas and reasoning of both groups that are completely different, oppositional in fact, and from which no analogy can legitimately be drawn?

why indeed?  the reason men can only see the “access denied” sign is because they are men, and this is the part that affects them, as men.  they dont appreciate being limited in their sexual access to women and womens spaces, at all: this is a direct challenge to their rights as men under patriarchy.  a direct challenge to what was granted them as part of the social contract that they entered into at birth, being assigned male as they were, due to the presence of a penis and the probability that they would someday be able to cause female specific harm to women by raping and impregnating us.  its also the “bonus” many of them signed on for, when they became progressive in the first place (when their other asshole politics — specifically sexual politics — so closely parallel religious and conservative ideals.  like normalizing PIV for example.  the bonus of unfettered access to women is absolutely required, and maintains the illusion of meaningful separation between male-supremecist political factions).

and NO ONE, especially not some fucking bitch or group of fucking bitches, is going to get in the way of whats theirs.  of *us* being theirs.  this is what this is about: male ownership of female-bodied persons.  and challenging this particular entitlement absolutely enrages them.  again, why is *this one* so important?  hmm?  men have everything, but this one is the holy grail.  why?

specifically in the case of those pushing the trans/genderqueer agenda (but also including those pushing PIV-positive rhetoric too) if men and women are the same, or if “sex” as a meaningful category doesnt exist (or if the penis *isnt* harmful to women) why arent they going on about something sex-neutral that doesnt directly implicate the female-specific harms of the penis, and mens opportunities and access to inflict these particular harms on women?

again, assuming they arent lying here (and thats assuming alot!) one could easily imagine that white-hot rage and nothing else was informing this idiotic discourse.  because their logic is right out: this is a ridiculous analogy that doesnt even withstand the most basic scrutiny.  and they are used to women backing down, arent they, on the basis of mens white-hot rage alone.  due to mens demonstrated ability to harm us, as a sexual class, including inflicting the female-specific harms of the penis.  you know, the ones fun-fems, transactivists and self-identified feminist men say dont exist.

the thing about the internets of course is that there is no imminent threat to women, from men who rage at us online.  the internets have castrated mens dangerous sexual presence: mens ability to physically and imminently harm women, in the moment, with their dicks and with the ever-present threat of sexualized violence.  its telling of course that they still rage at us, online, and that they are using their castrated online presence to advocate for mens continued sexual entitlement to women and access to womens spaces in real life.  they know where their real power over women lies, and its in the flesh, as it were, in our real-life spaces and between our legs.  due to the female-specific harms of the penis, that they say dont exist.

and its also telling that they use threats of real violence that go even beyond raging at us, banking on womens learned and instinctive tendency to back down in the face of violent threats by men, or to defuse the situation before it ever gets that far.  the learned response of women, responding to the reality of the female-specific harms of the penis, and the systematic use of sexualized violence by men as a sexual class against women as a sexual class.

men have that in the bank: womens response here is completely reasonable (and therefore predictable) and critical to mens success in “debates” with women in both public and private, and in fact its critical to mens success everywhere.  because women remove ourselves from the situation or change its trajectory the best we can, all the time, to avoid this particular negative outcome.  and these men are cashing this one in, at the exact same time they are saying that these very threats and harms and classes of people dont even exist.

of course, theres garden-variety PIV-entitlement happening here too.

fail, fail, fail, fail.

cathy brennan and elizabeth hungerford have started a new blog dedicated entirely to discussing and debunking the idiotic “frequently asked questions” to their paper on womens rights recently submitted to the UN.

Comments

1. FCM - August 29, 2011

edited to add:

a direct challenge to what was granted them as part of the social contract that they entered into at birth, being assigned male as they were, due to the presence of a penis and the probability that they would someday be able to cause female specific harm to women by raping and impregnating us. its also the “bonus” many of them signed on for, when they became progressive in the first place (when their other asshole politics — specifically sexual politics — so closely parallel religious and conservative ideals. like normalizing PIV for example. the bonus of unfettered access to women is absolutely required, and maintains the illusion of meaningful separation between male supremecist political factions).

2. ehungerford - August 29, 2011

People who say this, either *they* don’t get it. Or they think *we* don’t get it. Both are disturbing.

Women backing down…

men have that in the bank: womens response here is completely reasonable (and therefore predictable) and critical to mens success in “debates” with women in both public and private, an in fact its critical to mens success everywhere. because women remove ourselves from the situation or change its trajectory, to avoid this particular negative outcome. and these men are cashing this one in, at the exact same time they are saying that these very threats and harms and classes of people dont exist.

YES. Beautiful!

3. thebewilderness - August 29, 2011

The Dominionist males and the Free Thinker males have always been at war over how to position the boot on women’s neck.
When women object to a Dominionist they call us minions of Satan, just like those Free Thinkers. When women object to a Free Thinker they call us prudes, just like those Dominionists. We aren’t party to the argument, the discussion, the debate. We are what the argument is about.

I love the interwebs because they can not shut us up. For the first time in history we can be heard to say a pox on both their houses.

4. Sarah Terkes - August 29, 2011

Hugo tries so hard to seem calm, reasonable and rational, doesn’t he? Such a silky style. What a professional ……… manipulator, that is.

Shame his argument doesn’t hold intellectual weight. And it’s a real shame that his acolytes can’t imagine a sexual world that doesn’t involve PIV.

For Hugo’s minions: try to imagine sex where the woman is completely comfortable, feels safe, loved, and receives at least an equal amount of pleasure. For most women, that sexual encounter will not include PIV. A woman who is truly in touch with herself will more often opt for kisses, licks, patting, tickles, cuddles, long drawn out foreplay, etc

PIV should only be for when SHE wants to get pregnant, or for when SHE really really genuinely feels like it.

It’s just that simple.

I love the way you scare him, FCM. Keep it up!

FCM - August 29, 2011

haha! is widdle hugo scared? he should be. anyone who makes their living off of fake feminism should be scared shitless, because their conflicts of interest are there for all to see. and not everyone is as stupid as they need them to be, to pull of this charade forever. perhaps PIV- entitled male womens studies professors particularly.

also, not to make this post about hugo specifically (because its not) i think i should address how he shows up in the xtian right faction in the graphic (because hes xtian, DUH) and he ALSO shows up as a hapless sexually entitled MAAB at the far left (with all the other “progressive” dickwads and transwomen) whining about his sexual access to women being blocked by the religious right and radfems in the same way. see his entire BLOG for examples of that one (there are many relevant links at the HUB, see link below). the only way this can be reconciled, of course, is to recognize that it cant be: that hugo cant reconcile with hugo, and that hes a hot fucking mess that tries to have it both ways. recognizing that hes a xtian who BY DEFINITION embraces and exercises ownership of women sexually and reproductively, and blocks sexual access to HIS WOMEN from other men (but not from himself or “his” men) gives creepy insight into his participation in slutwalk for example. it also explains why he cant give anything resembling a coherent answer when he is called upon to address issues like porn. being that hes a xtian and self-identified progressive (and feminist — LOL) BOTH, at the same time. it cant be done, is why. see the f-word link to see meagan murphy expose this facet of hugos dysfunction. its hi-larious.

http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/steering-the-sluts/
http://www.feminisms.org/2947/feminism-porn-and-slutwalk-part-one-of-a-conversation-with-hugo-schwyzer/

5. Mary Sunshine - August 29, 2011

{{{ FCM }}} This is a balm to my spirit. I love your brilliant young mind. ❤

6. yttik - August 29, 2011

Actually it is the trans advocates who are most closely aligned with conservative religionists. Iran is the country that performs the second most sex change surgeries in the world. In many theocracies, sex changes are supported, even mandated, and transgendered men are afforded special rights not even granted to born women. In Christian history, women couldn’t sing in public, but castrated boys/men sure could. Religious extremists have always supported a trans agenda.

Even today, sex change is more accepted in Christian extremism than homosexuality is. Two women or two men cannot be together but if one of you has a sex change, problem solved.

I would say rad/fems and conservative women are more closely aligned in understanding the threat men pose to women and the dangers of the trans issue. In general conservative women haven’t been the primary homophobic ones, not really concerned about the threat gays pose to them, because they don’t see much of a threat to them personally. It’s usually the male preachers talking about fire and brimstone and sodomy and horror. Ironically, it is males from the far left and the far right that are practically aligned in their desire to enforce rigid gender roles, especially on women.

FCM - August 29, 2011

Yes it is ironic isn’t it? And yet they specifically align themselves with feminists, and specifically DON’T align themselves with MRAs or fundies, who may well accept their entire premises and their fake fuckholes too due to their shared values there that obviously exist.

No, in the US at least, they have labeled themselves progressive, and taken their place in the alphabet soup. Why? Again, they obviously think women and feminists are stupid.

FCM - August 29, 2011

And they know what men do. Even though WE aren’t supposed to. Can’t forget about that.

7. wtfhappenedtomyreallife - August 29, 2011

I agree with the comment above that we are not a party to the argument, we are what the argument is about. It is ridiculous that in this “modern time” we still have to face these issues. What are we, cattle that the men can just lead about by the nose? I don’t know what they think, but I for one do not say “Moo”.

I like to hope that someday they will get it, but I do not think that they ever will. I am raising my son to know the difference and to respect and treat women and men the way that he should. At least there will be one guy out there in a few years that gets it….at least I hope he gets it. (I was a single mom for a lot of years and he is 13 now.)

Love and light,

Lucky Star

8. cherryblossomlife - August 30, 2011

The problem is, women have been trying to raise good men for thousands of years!! It just doesn’t work. I have a baby boy myself and I don’t khow how the fuck I’m going to reconcile the political and the personal

FCM I loved this post

9. cherryblossomlife - August 30, 2011

I suppose I could teach him that PIV is wrong. That’ll go down well when he’s 17. I’m going to do it anyway, of course. I’m just not overly-confident about my success. If I raise him to be gentle, which I am doing, he may not survive his childhood because other males will crucify him

10. Cathy Brennan - August 30, 2011

Don’t. Ever. Stop.

11. yttik - August 30, 2011

Cherryblossom brings up a good feminist subject, trying to raise sons. It’s not all hopeless, I’ve seen some good changes over the years, especially the more we move away from rigid gender roles. Boys benefit from being taught to be gentle, girls benefit from being taught to be tough. Strength is actually something very gentle and everybody wants strong, well balanced kids. It’s almost impossible to be a well balanced person if you’re trapped in rigid gender roles.

I have numerous problems with the trans agenda, but that’s one of them, they way they insist on enforcing gender stereotypes. That’s counter productive to a rad/fem agenda. You’re not a girl simply because you like to paint and make yourself fairy wings and you aren’t a boy just because you like to wear jeans and hang off the monkey bars.

12. cherryblossomlife - August 31, 2011

yes, *societal* and *political* changes, such as banning porn, punishing rapists and relaxing gender will do more to help women raise boys than anything else.
Otherwise we’re just talking about the age-old patriarchal argument of Blaming Women, especially mothers, for the crimes and emotional pain that men CHOOSE to inflict on women

FCM, I think this line is truly brilliant. “the thing about the internets of course is that there is no imminent threat to women, from men who rage at us online. the internets have castrated mens dangerous sexual presence”🙂

13. SheilaG - August 31, 2011

“The internets have castrated mens dangerous sexual presence.” Now that is a quote for the ages FCM! We had this same power in women only space and lesbian only space.

So men’s “false” debating tactics are basically backed up by the implied threat to women’s bodies. Think of a woman dating a man twice her size.
Think of how men dominate space and control urban spaces, and how they collectively benefit when women are controlled, threatened or terrorized.

Men invented debate, they “invented” a legal system that is designed to keep women in line. But what they are not very used to is when women gather together and tell the truths, and brutally attack male supremacy. When women warn of the harms of PIV, it completely derails all male centric thought both on the left and right. It’s why liver lips can’t discuss PIV and its harm to women, because liberal that he is, he will never give this up, and his wife is required to do this. He is a patriarch, he is PIV entitled, and radical feminism would derail everything he pretends to be.

The threat men pose to women is diminished when women speak the truth, when women control the “comments’ button, when women have the power on a blog to completely silence men at will. Yeah, they rage at that, because they hate it when women tell the truth, they always want to interrupt, they have nothing to say to women, so they resort to the age old threaten and humiliate and attack mode that worked in the past so well.

Castrated by the internet!

14. TungstenVirago - September 2, 2011

“The internets have castrated mens dangerous sexual presence.”

YOU ABSOLUTELY ROCK.

FCM - September 3, 2011

thanks for the comments everyone! i cant imagine having to raise a boy child at all. i cant imagine having to raise a girl child in this world either. many women say that they dont want to “bring a child into this world” but most of them end up doing it anyway, due to mandatory PIV and ambivalent pregnancies (ambivalent in the sense that they think its inevitable i suppose, and it is rather inevitable, isnt it, when you are subjected to mandatory PIV?) and “ambivalent” in the sense that they DONT FUCKING WANT TO DO IT, but dont really fight it or fight about it either, or they do and they end up losing or giving up. which isnt really “ambivalent” at all is it? more like “hopelessly defeated.” womens wills and wishes have nothing to do with anything in this system. its fucking horrifying. even if you wanted a child of course, raising one in this world would tend to drive one rather insane wouldnt it?

also, ive been thinking about trans and why they dont align themselves with MRAs and fundies, even though they all believe the same things when it comes to gender and gender essentialism. even though there are shared values there, this is never going to happen is it? and its because transwomen cant be harmed by the penis, and everyone knows it. having intercourse with transwomen doesnt support male supremecy the way intercourse with women does, so its just never going to catch on with straight men, except as a perversion or a novelty. and “straight” transwomen think they are entitled to straight male attention and the alleged benefits of being in a “het” partnership with a man, but they seem incapable of realizing all the male-pleasing that women do, to reap any of these dubious rewards. we arent entitled to straight male attention either, and the ones who want it (or never explored other options) work very hard to make ourselves pleasing to men, including male bosses and colleagues. and even we rarely succeed, and we are never, ever secure in it, and always have to provide PIV (physical vulnerability to male bodies, or the perception of it which makes us sexxxay targets in the workplace for example) which transwomen cannot provide.

15. rhondda - September 3, 2011

Oh my Goddess FCM you are so right. I had that idea, albeit in inchoate form, but yes, yes and yes. Trans are an experiment of the medical establishment and it is all about cloning themselves which is the goal of patriarchy,even if individual doctors are unconscious of this goal. They (Trans) are a distraction for radical feminists.
The sad part is that they( male) take males who are not the Nietzschean superman type (the weak feminine male)and convince them they are actually female so that they (trans)can invade us and thus force us to deal with them. Why are they not invading right wing conservative female blogs etc? Well, they are not a threat to patriarchy now are they? They are male identified women out to keep the status quo and stand by their man.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to hear what Sarah Palin or Michele Bachman thought about trans? What dissembling would they employ?
The patriarchy has incredible PR. Valerie Solanas saw that. They play on a women’s sense of justice and that is how they divide and conquer us.
There is no domination when a straight man fucks a trans which is what the patriarchy is all about. That is also why when a straight man solicits a prostitute, he gets upset if ‘she’ turns out to be a ‘he’. It is not homophobia, but a threat to his sense superiority and ability to threaten pregnancy. Hey, no fun. To confuse and distract by making trans the uber victim and ignoring the atrocities inflicted upon women is quite brilliant when you think about it. We are in a psychological and philosophical war.

16. SheilaG - September 4, 2011

Yes a psychological and philosophical war is a very good way to describe this Rhondda. The sad part, is that even women not dealing with trans invading their spaces the way lesbian communities do all the time now, don’t fully face up to the fact that men are at war with women. It is war of domination, exploitation, control, and PIV threats 24/7.

This might be just too much for most women to really handle or acknowledge. Too overwhelming to see this truth, and since the dominator lives in the home of the dominated, almost invisible day in and day out.

Steal someone’s car… you’ve got a crime, police come etc. Subject a woman to PIV domination for a lifetime, and there is no crime right? No understanding that the nuclear family itself is a police state.

But conservative women believe that men will at least behave if they are subject to Jesus, that they will at least provide for the family…. they’ll tune out the warning signs, the affairs, the brutality. They want a good deal within patriarchy… seeming respect as long as they stay on the farm.

Left wing women supposedly deal with social justice leftist men…ever wonder why there isn’t an accurate herstorical account of all the rapes of women within any social justice movement that includes men? Thousands of women in the anti-war movement…. PIV forcing, civil rights movement, more PIV, Woodstock…. Carolyn Gage wrote about that.

All the denial of the attrocities, and all the collusion believing one master is better than having to be sexually available to dozens of men. And in the past, conservative women had old age to look forward to… husbands could no longer perform manditory PIV… they then invented Viagra… elderly women in retirement homes are getting AIDS and HIV because these elderly preditory men now have Viagra. It never ends does it?

17. The Masked Lily - September 10, 2011

Honestly I’m beginning to think that “transitioning” is in large part about gaining access to lesbians. That and autogynephilia, but I’ve yet to read about a M2T who is attracted to men.

At least conservative women know to distrust most men (though ideally a woman should trust no man, with astronomically few exceptions). Funfems keep themselves blind to the danger in men, which is why their watered down feminism is so appealing to males.

It’s true that the Internet has castrated men’s sexual presence but there’s the expression “e-peen” (ew).. I hope our free speech lasts but it’s all too possible that radfem blogs could be torn down fir having “hateful” twanzphobic content. I think we should be vigilant and have secondary means of keeping in contact somehow, like an underground railroad of radfem bloggers.

FCM - September 12, 2011

e-peen! ew indeed. i agree that we need to be vigilant always, and yes thats a good idea about being able to contact each other if the worst happens.

PS. i have a new post up at SOR. 🙂

http://scumorama.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/idiots/


Sorry comments are closed for this entry