jump to navigation

Moron Surveillance May 26, 2012

Posted by FCM in books!, liberal dickwads, MRAs, radical concepts, rape, self-identified feminist men, trans.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
trackback

reading (or re-reading) orwell as a radical feminist was eye-opening.  everyone has read orwell, or everyone who considers themselves to be good progressives or educated persons has read it, so its an easy shorthand we can all use when speaking about certain concepts.  like surveillance, and the political significance — the political intent and effect — of surveillance when employed by the oppressors against the oppressed class.

as orwell spelled out plainly, and as was his observation about oppressive totalitarian regimes that did this in real life, the point of the oppressor class surveilling its charges is to guard against thoughtcrime — made-up “crimes” against the oppressor class that begin and end at the level of thought.  its not what we are planning to do, and not what we are doing, but what we are thinking thats at issue, and its our negative thoughts about our oppressors, or positive thoughts about ourselves and our own capacities and desire to revolt against oppressive controls that are the crime.  we have seen this repeatedly, where men surveil women, allegedly to bring our thoughts and what is in our hearts and minds into the “light of day” aka. (and to use orwells frame) for scrutinization and reprogramming by the oppressor class, in this case, by men and patriarchal women.

our thoughts.  not our plans, or our actions.  thats important.  as is the intent of reprogramming.

even fun feminists understand that men are the oppressor class, (hence the need for any kind of feminism, even their kind, see how that works? or are all feminists, even the blandest kind, merely a solution looking for a problem, like the MRAs claim?  this is a serious question) so they too should be very wary about men invading womens spaces, because of the potential — and i would go further and say the demonstrated intent and effect — of patriarchal surveillance.

so, to apply this “theory” to our reality, and let me remind everyone that we all pretty much accept the idea of oppressive surveillance used by totalitarian political regimes — they are known to do this — i propose the following: just in case transwomen are just men in dresses — just in case! — i think we should not close the door to organizing and meeting without transwomen in the room.  because of the potential for patriarchal surveillance.

as another example of a scenario that is rife with the potential — i would say demonstrated intent and effect, but lets stick with “potential” for now — for patriarchal surveillance, consider these chilling words from a male social worker, and how he sees his role as a therapist for female rape survivors.  this was in the context of a discussion of the need for female-only space, specifically rape crisis shelters, and in the context of the Rape Relief vs Nixon case, specifically whether transwomen should be allowed to therapize raped women in a women’s shelter: (bolds mine)

Andrew Pari, LCSW
May 16, 2012

Maybe I’m stating the obvious and not to derail a great conversation, but there are many male psychotherapists and supportive counselors who practice in the area of sexual assault/rape. A large part of my practice is in working with children with a history of sexual abuse/molestation, in addition to young women who have been raped as well.

This doesn’t take away from what all of you are saying about rape crisis centers which I agree need to be staffed predominately by women to create the atmosphere of comfort/safety needed for girls/women to initially talk about what happened. I was just picking up, probably falsely, on the idea that it is inherently harmful for men to be involved in the healing process at all. I’ve had many girls/women transferred to me specifically because of my background and where my “maleness” was able to promote healing as it gave an appropriate outlet for the person’s trauma and anger that needed to be expressed and could be in the safety of therapy. In the field of mental health, it’s become more known as another way to help survivors heal.
If this is already common knowledge here, then forgive the assumption.

and heres another cold slice of shit pie from andrew, male therapist to raped women, in the context of a discussion of the need for female-only space, and whether women have the right to exclude transwomen from therapizing raped women in a women’s shelter:

Andrew Pari, LCSW
May 17, 2012

I agree with everything you said. Especially about the recognition of the inherent power imbalance as a therapist, on top of which is the often unnamed, but obvious, societal imbalance between men and women in the therapeutic context. This is why I am a huge believer in naming these things early on in treatment. Overtly and clearly stating the obvious differences and what they might mean, even when (and sometimes because) the client may be reluctant to do so themselves. I don’t pretend to be expert at this and I find myself going back sometimes to bring this into the room if I failed to earlier.

Much of my experience with these kind of referrals has been from female colleagues who have either helped the client to a particular point and want them (or rather the client articulates being ready to) work through anger towards the perpetrator or the projection onto men in general, or they need the experience of an intimate non-abusive connection with a man. The latter can be difficult as there is often a kind of “rebound effect” where the client experiences feelings of infatuation or seeing me as “the only good one.”

Actually, there is a third type; when the abuse was female perpetrated. Then I’m dealing with a whole other set of nuances in unpacking what happened on the individual level while still being mindful of the male-female dynamic in the room.

I really liked what you wrote about that, as a male, I have a vested interest in not seeing or not working with the socialized oppression of women. It’s an area I do my best to challenge myself on and it is an important reminder that I can not lose sight of this or risk unintentionally harming or, at best, not helping my clients to move forward.

One piece you wrote that I will challenge somewhat is the idea of inability to identify with a female client who was experienced female-specific harms. This may be an aspect of my own denial/arrogance, but I carry that idea into every therapeutic relationship. I cannot ever truly know the experience of who is sitting in front of me until they share it, and they will not share it if they see me as someone who “already knows it.” I actually talk about this in training regarding those clients who seem more like us than different from us. I can expand on this, if you want.

And thanks for stumbling across the show! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had the “you’re on the air with WHO?” conversation. I’ve had several guests refuse to come on before getting to know me as they took me for a conservative “Dr. Laura” style show. I will share with some glee that one of my favorite moments was realizing I was really really talking to Jaclyn Friedman on the show. Also Meghan…maybe you’ve heard of her, but I don’t want to name drop…

this is telling, isnt it?  again, here is the context: a discussion, on a feminist blog, of the need for women-only space, specifically, whether male-to-female transgendered individuals should be allowed to therapize raped women in a women’s shelter.

it is within that context specifically that andrew pari, a “cis” male, feels the beginnings of an itch, you know the one.  the itch that is a manifestation of a desire to move to action — and he does move to action — in this case, to defend the “abilities” (entitlement, right) of men in general to therapize raped women.  and to quell any urgency women mightve had around this issue with his sedating mansplanation about (among many, many other things!) his own growth, you see — therapizing raped women gives andrew a chance to challenge himself.  because thats important.  to andrew.

now why might andrew do this?  why might andrew show up to sedate the women and to derail the discussion, and to “represent” males as a sexual class, on this issue in particular, and why did he recognize the opportunity to do that in the context of a discussion about transwomen, not cis-men?

men see whats happening here, you see.  they get the itch, and a desire to move to action, because men know that transwomen are men, and men know that to defend trasnwomens interests is to defend their own interests.  we should probably listen to them when they tell us such obvious truths about their own intentions and politics, and where their allegiances lie.  we will be the ones to properly analyze it of course, and place it within its proper historical and political context, not them, since their interests are in the opposite happening.  but listening to them self-reporting on their own itches, and what moves them to action, is probably a good idea.  im just saying.

interestingly, andrew acknowledges the possibility that he is arrogant and in denial (euphemisms for being male privileged, a member of the oppressor class, a member of the rapist class) and the risk of “unintentionally harming” or not helping raped women due to his male privilege, and membership in the oppressor and rapist class.  and then he says the word but.  there should never be a “but” after acknowledging your male privilege, and the risk you and all men pose to women and raped women, andrew.

heres another piece:

Andrew Pari, LCSW
May 17, 2012

And for the record, I want to be clear I don’t think I’m some sort of “magic” therapist in this regard. I’ve had clients that I realized I could not help and referred back or re-referred to a female therapist for some of the reasons you mentioned.

It also sounds like, in your case, in addition to Michael not being where you needed him to be, you were ready for a level of feminist-specific reflection that was beyond his ability. While I would love to someday have a client who wanted to have that kind of discussion and self-focus, I would probably refer her to a female feminist therapist for the same reason.

therapizing raped women is at least partly, by his own admission, an exercise in bettering andrew, you see.  because bettering andrew is important, and its why raped women exist, and its why women-only rape relief shelters should be erased from the face of the earth.  there are numerous and very serious problems with what andrew has said, and he should be taken to task for every bit of it, but lets dig a little bit deeper.

if we were to apply the concept of patriarchal surveillance to the situation of men therapizing raped women, what we see is the potential — or, you know, its demonstrably and obviously happening, in real life — for men to scrutinize and “treat” womens potential and actual thoughtcrime related to men raping women.  this is very sneaky indeed.  and andrew is telling us very clearly, if we only pay attention, that patriarchal surveillance is in fact not just his “potential” role, but his actual, real role that he plays every day.  he disabuses raped women of their notion that men, as a sexual class, rape women, as a sexual class, even though thats true.  he disabuses raped women of their anger, even though it is righteous anger.  he creates or re-creates (frames) what he defines as a non-abusive situation — in this case, a man, thought-policing a raped woman — and it is he that gets to define that as non-abusive and safe, you see.  then, after sufficient exposure to that very calculated environment, when — or rather, if and only if — the women “come around” to wanting to fuck men (again?) and not recognizing men as a sexual class, they have been successfully treated.  for thoughtcrime.  their thoughts about men are different — thats the only thing thats changed.  they have been reprogrammed.

transwomen want to be able to do this to women too, and cis-men sometimes (or you know, always) show up to “represent” when this is discussed.  lets connect the dots, people.  this is all very disturbing.  and i would say without a single moments hesitation or doubt of any kind that this is all very deliberate, and it benefits men at womens expense.

but my point, really, is this, and it should be fairly easy to swallow, for anyone, because i am not taking about absolutes, but merely possibilities.  even if its merely a possibility that these situations might be used for patriarchal surveillance, shouldnt feminists support womens right to female only space?  you know, just in case?

why is it so important that we never (never, ever, ever) be allowed to organize and gather without men there?   at the very least, why cant we do both?  and why is there no room for any doubt at all that transwomen are women, and why are we so certain that they arent actually men?  there are very few certainties in life, and yet we are willing to say that we are *certain* that male-to-female transgenders are really women?  really?  im not buying it.  the *zero* room for legitimate doubt here, on a subject that is at least worthy of 1% or even .01% uncertainty (if anything ever was!) is pretty convincing proof that this is a scam, and its operating at the level of thought.

we are dealing with thoughtcrime, and patriarchal surveillance, and attempted patriarchal surveillance.  this is nothing new.  all good academics, politickers and progressives understand what surveilling for thoughtcrime is all about — its a political tool of oppressive totalitarian regimes — and feminists know that there is an oppressor class under patriarchy.  lets put two and two together.  the whinging about the radfem summer conferences — and over the audacity of radical feminists to attempt to gather without men or transwomen — is just more of the same.

Advertisements

Comments

1. cherryblossomlife - May 26, 2012

Why does a raped woman need to learn to trust men again, let alone fuck them? Women should maintain a healthy distrust of all men, but especially ones that come sniffing around them when they’ve just experienced trauma.
And no, they definitely don’t need some “not-like-all-the-others” nice-guy asshole within 100 feet of them. That shouldn’t even be PRESENTED as an option.

“just in case transwomen are just men in dresses — just in case! — ”

LOL!

2. DavinaSquirrel - May 26, 2012

What CBL said.
When I read his comments on the two threads (I think), my first thought was – why was it so important that women get to trust men as a class again? And yes, the Mr Nice Guy doing the therapy, just ewww.

Men get off on rape, seeing rape, reading stories of rape, and listening to women talk about rape. This dude is probably one of the sneakier ones, able to get paid AND get off listening to women talk about rape. Most of porn is fairly obviously rape and simulated rape (looks of pain and discomfort).

And yes FCM, it is very important for patriarchy not to have any effective female-only gatherings. I mean, ffs, a few hundred women want to meet up and discuss feminist issues, and we get called KKK and nazis (all on that CiF thread).

A few hundred women – so what is so threatening boyz, that you have to send in your laydee-operatives to monitor/disrupt the meeting? Perhaps because you know that radfems are right about it all – because if we were the nutters-completely-wrong-about-everything that they keep making us out to be, there wouldn’t be any need to disrupt the conference at all, and nothing of patriarchy-smashing value would be discussed.

And a big thank-you to M2Ts and fem-lite handmaidens, because you actually confirm our views that we are on the right track. And yanno what – we are just more determined than ever to meet.

3. Mary Sunshine - May 26, 2012

men know that transwomen are men, and men know that to defend transwomens interests is to defend their own interests.

That’s it exactly.

Arguing with males themselves is pointless, a waste of one’s own life-energy.

What we need is for more females to grok what you have written above.

4. Yisheng Qingwa - May 26, 2012

they need the experience of an intimate non-abusive connection with a man. The latter can be difficult as there is often a kind of “rebound effect” where the client experiences feelings of infatuation or seeing me as “the only good one.”

EW EW EW EW EW. This man is all about himself! Narcissism, what a surprise.

I was told (and believed, for WAY too long- how could I be so STUPID and waste so much of my life this way?) that all I needed was to “find a good man”. AS IF THERE IS ONE. I have severe PTSD, and men LOVE to re-traumatize me. For real, strange men, in public places. They can spot me a mile away.The NASTYNESS, and the rapist mindset of these dudes makes me physically ill, and afraid to leave the house.

That comment thread was disturbing, to say the least.

5. bugbrennan - May 26, 2012
6. Utopia Bold - May 26, 2012

It reminds me of the Nazis forbidding more than two or three people meeting. The French resistance HAD to have private meetings without NAZIS and for the same reason women-born-women need private space without MEN

7. Lysandra - May 26, 2012

Yisheng, I’m a therapist, and I don’t have a single male colleague–not a single one–who is not a complete and raging narcissist. I have gotten calls before from women who want couples counseling but their husbands will only go to a male counselor and it breaks my heart to have to refer them to even the better of my male colleagues. I always want to say to the women, “just leave that douchebag!” but ethics prevent it.

FCM, thank you for this post. I tried to engage that guy but I found it difficult to even read his responses to me. I wasn’t sure why at first that I just then avoided that thread after that, but your post has been really helpful in me sorting it out. I now think it’s because I was being triggered–and I don’t use that term loosely. I really honestly started going into dissociative mode when I read his response to me. The violation of a nice guy therapist who secretly gets off on your stories of abuse, is a re-traumatization. Maybe my experience with my own male therapist wasn’t as harmless as I thought…

And you are SO RIGHT ON when you frame it as “just in case.” Just in case. We don’t even need to make the case that this is ALWAYS true, even though it probably is, at least from a statistically significant standpoint (that is, outliers would happen with such infrequency as to be statistically insignificant). The fact that it MIGHT be true, SOME of the time, is ENOUGH reason to protect women.

It’s the same exact argument about women-only space at all. If one male rapist MIGHT dress up as a woman to gain access to female only space, then that is ENOUGH for us to bar them from the space. And anyone who thinks like a woman would get that and support that! And any man who has even an OUNCE of empathy for women would get that and support that!

8. thebewilderness - May 26, 2012

He has quite the Hugo Schwitzer vibe going on there.

9. cherryblossomlife - May 27, 2012

Wow, I missed that quote Yisheng. Yes, women do absolutely grab onto the first available man to get their bearing, which is the “rebound” effect that Pari refers to… which is exactly why men should never be around traumatized women. Women need to transfer those intense feelings onto a caring, empathetic woman, preferably a good friend or relative, but failing that a female therapist.

10. Sargasso Sea - May 27, 2012

You know, I just had to google an image of Mr. Andrew because I had a mental picture of what I thought he would probably look like based on his geographical location and his particular brand of privileged, *nice-liberal-guy* vernacular. Sure enough he bears an uncanny resemblance to the last man I ever had any kind of “intimate” relationship with.

And that was almost 20 years ago. Some things NEVER change.

FCM - May 27, 2012

Yes, liberal nice guy assholes are everywhere, they seem to transcend time if not place. And to say they were a dime a dozen would be to grossly overvalue them.

Lysandra, thanks for trying I guess? Although I hate to encourage anyone to waste their time on men like Andrew, or on attempting to radicalize a nonradical space or convo, and that thread definitely was not radical. Andrew so thoroughly derailing the conversation, and turning or having the focus turned on himself, however, was a perfect example of why men shouldn’t be allowed in these spaces, and what happens when they are. I could go on and on, and I might yet.

11. DavinaSquirrel - May 27, 2012

This is a picture of him.
http://ilivetodayav.ning.com/profile/ChasingTheWhywithAndrewPari

When I look at him, peg him as a bdsmer.

12. cherryblossomlife - May 27, 2012

I rarely click on links, but I did just now, and this was the first thing I read:

“Chasing The Why with Andrew Pari posted a status.

“Is it smart to be pretty? Do good looks make life better? Lipstick, implants, success and happiness this Monday on CTW. Not afraid to ask.”

13. DavinaSquirrel - May 27, 2012

well, here is another of his status updates:

“Monday on CTW: The FAIR Act-adding GLBTQ contributors to our school’s social sciences. Is our community ready? Your thoughts? Reply here!”

How terribly pc – puts the Q into the WTFBBQ

Only the Q supporters ever put the Q in, the rest of us just use LGBT, reluctantly putting in the T at the end. But I am going to start using LGB(T). To denote their pending boot-out status.

Because I am mean. Very mean.

Thank fuck I don’t get Andy to cure me of my unlaydeelikeness.

FCM - May 27, 2012

omg. fucking liberal dickwad. also, since when do social workers “practice psychotherapy”? jesus. not real strict with the credentials in cali are they?

i thought this was telling:

Are you who you set out to be? Understand the choices you’ve made in relationships, work, friends, fun and life.

It’s your turn…chase your why.

because its our CHOICES that determine our destiny. a social worker, practicing psychotherapy, who seems completely ignorant of context, particularly feminist context and patriarchy, and instead focuses on how our CHOICES produce unfavorable (or favorable) outcomes. that deeply disturbs. as does the fact that he is continuously overwhelming and derailing feminist discussions on a feminist blog (meghan murhphys f-word) and she is letting him.

and YES he does sound like hugo doesnt he? google andrew pari and slutwalk and see what comes up. he supported hugo, slutwalk, and hugos involvement in slutwalk, as i recall. which means that yes, we have a creepy sex-pozzer who supports calling women sluts, counseling female rape victims.

14. witchwind - May 27, 2012

Very interesting and enlightening post, thank you! I really like the way you applied concept of thoughtcrime to radfem analysis, you’re a genius!

It’s significant that men focus on thought rather than action, or on thought even before action can take place. Because if they can prevent, restrict or alter our thoughts, then they can prevent any kind of action: we can only go so far as our thoughts. We cannot act towards our freedom if we can’t think it. Freedom of conscience is the first freedom before any kind of freedom. This is why psychological violence (male ideology diffused through culture, images, media, art, porn, etc.), combined with rape and threat of rape, violence and threat of violence, is so efficient in maintaining oppression. this is why meeting in spaces where men cannot colonise or police our thoughts is so important to our liberation. We will never be able to think freely if our oppressor is in the room.

Men have to modify our conscience and police our thoughts at every moment so that our capacity to resist is completely broken, so our allegiance to them is total.

Men are so used to policing our thoughts so we don’t commit “thoughtcrime” that seeing a man, even the nicest guy in the world, might be enough to create a blank in the mind, block thought and emotions, trigger fear or dissociation. For this reason alone women should be allowed to always meet in women-only spaces whenever we wish.

15. witchwind - May 27, 2012

Also, thought policing is the violence that’s most invisible, difficult to detect. There are no visible chains, no wounds to be seen (although PTSD, a normal consequence of psychological violence, is easy to detect) yet everywhere we are bound and tied. From the outside, everything may seem normal and fine.

Psychoanalysis was created by men in the 19th century for the very purpose you describe FCM: to prevent women rape victims from committing thoughtcrime. To police women and put them back in line before they even think about telling other women what happened to them, and realise it’s a system of oppression by men.

FCM - May 28, 2012

Thanks for expounding on that ww, that was very helpful. It’s just stunning and very painful to realize the extent to which women are deliberately stifled.

16. cherryblossomlife - May 29, 2012

I’m having to go through lots of academic-type stuff at the moment, and literally all of it seems to be revolving around controlling women’s thoughts. Here’s a lecture that I’ve transcribed a section of:

Professor: You’ve read Chapter 10 which describes Edward Hall’s work on personal space, the distance one keeps from other persons in public. I’m sure you found what he had to say about Americans interesting and important. A friend of mine recently travelled to another continent for the first time. I’m not going to tell you which one, but I’m sure you can guess.
From the minute she got off the plane, she couldn’t believe how everyone seemed to be talking in her face. She felt extremely uncomfortable and found herself backing away whenever anyone started talking to her. She hadn’t been prepared for total strangers putting their arms on her shoulders or giving her hugs and kisses. Once someone explained to her that what is normal in the United States—a personal space of 30 to 36 inches—is actually half the distance where she was visiting, she was able to make some accommodations in her own behavior and be less critical.
Although this example is a social one, we’ll be discussing the implications of Hall’s work in world trade and diplomacy.

The suggestion is that the woman here is being narrow-minded and culturally elitist… but I’m sure people weren’t hugging and kissing American men as soon as they got off the plane. THe American professor insists that SHE is at fault for not accepting the advances of the strangers. It’s very telling that he glosses over the fact she is a woman, and yet at the same time he manages to imply that women, generally, are critical and conservative (as opposed to being open-minded like a wordly guy would be).
Hell, perhaps women should not even bother travelling ANYWHERE if they’re going to insult the host country so much…. he seems to want to say.

17. parallelexistence - May 29, 2012

there is often a kind of “rebound effect” where the client experiences feelings of infatuation or seeing me as “the only good one.”

And here we have what it’s all about for Mr Very Special Therapist – a knight in shining armour rescuing those silly little girls. Or to put it another way, complete creep.

FCM - May 29, 2012

Yes, sounds like trauma bonding to me, which means these women are being further traumatized by the therapy and by the therapist. Which, of course, they are. Thought policing and reprogramming are traumatic by design. It’s designed to literally break you. Again, read 1984. Orwell was a fantastic pervsplainer as well, but he didn’t romanticize that part, not like old Andrew does here. Creepy, yes.

FCM - May 29, 2012

I once saw a program about a food poisoning outbreak in the US where some beef was contaminated and several people died, including several children. One of the dead children’s mother was interviewed and she said one of the most bizarre things I had literally ever heard, and its stuck with me all this time. She said something like how she was made to feel like a terrible mother, bc she had meant to give her child something to nourish him, (a hamburger, in this case) and instead, it was poison and it killed him, and she had to work through that and realize that her child wasn’t dead bc she was a bad mother, it was just “one of those things” and not to blame herself.

I thought BULLSHIT. Those words were put into her mind, they did not come from her. I knew instantly a therapist had put them there. It was a complete thought termination, and the use of the word “nourish” and that entire construct from the concept to the sentence structure just leapt out at me as something that had been fed to her during therapy and she was regurgitating it.

I knew she was angry at the men who were in change of beef production from the farmers to the government regulators who had let tainted beef kill her child, and she was outraged and trapped like a fish in a barrel like we all are, where we are so separated from our food sources due to capitalism and there’s no way to realistically change that, and we have men who don’t care about women or children in charge of it all, and she had no control over any of it. Her outrage had been completely diffused/defused.

18. 101 « Radical Feminist Memes - June 2, 2012

[…] Elam comments at GenderTrender.  Read more here about patriarchal surveillance here and here. Share this:Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Category : MRAs, Trans Tags […]

19. MRAs and MTFs sitting in a tree « Radfem-ological Images - June 2, 2012

[…] critical blog GenderTrender in support of transwomen.  Read more about patriarchal surveillance here and here. Share this:Like this:LikeBe the first to like this […]

20. Links Roundup: Radfems respond to Transpolitickers and MRAs attempted silencing of Radfem 2012 | Radfem Hub - June 2, 2012

[…] FCM writes at femonade: Moron Surveillance […]

21. Rusty - June 2, 2012

With many years of therapy behind me I’ve had to talk about my rape and childhood molestation dozens of times. What I’ve learned is that male therapists, doctors, treatment specialists sure are keen on knowing the details.

I first learned this when I checked into rehab for drug addiction many years ago, the intake dude asked me for details about any sexual assaults I had experienced. This was on intake – not a therapy session of any kind. There was absolutely no reason for me to be telling him any of it. I’ll never forget the sound of his voice and the intense look in his eyes as he said “Can you describe exactly what he did to you, in detail?” I realized in that moment what was happening and I stopped talking. I knew he was looking to be titillated. When I said I wasn’t going to give him details, he immediately got uncomfortable, apologized, shifted around in his chair and changed the subject.

Of all the therapists, doctors, and other professionals I’ve seen over the years, when the topic has come up, not one time has a woman ever asked me for any details. And every man has.

22. RoseVerbena - June 3, 2012

We don’t want to give them wanking material. That’s a perfectly valid concern and I don’t think we should have to explain it further.

Go wank to someone else’s troubles, dude. You’re not getting the details about mine.

23. MagicPoppy ([Description: a pretty young woman with long blond hair is dancing in front of a mirror in an open-fronted blouse. Her white toy poodle looks on.]) « Radfem-ological Images - June 5, 2012

[…] something men and patriarchal institutions do to women every minute of every day, for example, when psychotherapy and psychotherapists frame women’s negative “lived experience” with men as destructive […]

24. Intersex Community unite with Radfems against the Transsexual Empire « Cherryblossomlife - June 11, 2012

[…] the middle east, keeping rebellious women in line. In 2012 it seems that the role of the eunuch in controlling women’s thoughts and private spaces is gaining a new relevance. Patriarchy is upping its […]

25. Abilify « Radfem-ological Images - June 12, 2012

[…] and psychological and psychiatric illness, women’s very thoughts are subject to constant patriarchal surveillance and “correction” and reprogramming.  See also Femicide; […]

26. Elin - June 17, 2012

I once accidentally stumbled upon on some – very bland and neutral appearing – forum for women who are going through menopause or are post-menopausal.
Surprisingly (to me), a lot of talk was about how vile and contemptible and unfair men in general and “patriarchy” (not their phrasing, but contextually they meant that, they used phrases like “current man-ruled society” and such) in particular are. Much anger about being told stupid fairy tales and fed the pill and being socialized to “care” for those lazy rapist assholes and such.

Now, if younger (i.e. impregnable) women would say the same things they did, the forum would be loaded with mainsplaining and/or trolling dudes. But no man was on that particular forum to control the speech – and they *are* on every other women’s forum.

I think that kind of shows that it is just about preserving fuckables /. impregnables for men. Not about any interest in making women “feel comfortable”; make women ‘integrate” with society, or just merely an intellectual-psychological/theoretical interest for discussing beliefs about the natures of the sexes or gender roles. That Andrew would never “work through anger towards the perpetrator or the projection onto men in general” with these women, because he doesn’t give a damn about non-impregnables.

27. T - June 21, 2012

Elin, you are dead on.

If they were fuckable, you’re right: the men would be all over it, trying to control the young women’s thinking.

28. Yisheng Qingwa - June 23, 2012

cherryblossomlife, yes. I just dumped my male psychologist after he talked about my meds for ADHD in the context of me “getting older”. Yes, I am AGING, and MIGHT NOT BE FUCKABLE IF I KEEP TAKING DRUGS THAT “AGE” ME. AGH!

I have only a few female friends- both in their early 50s- and they are even more traumatized than I am. Just watching their kids treat them like shit while they work their asses off to support them (with NO SUPPORT from the dads of their kids), and hearing from one of them (old-school hippie lady with awesome Edie Brickell style and epic sense of humor) how yet another male KICKED the SHIT out of them and broke their ribs as he LAUGHED. She didn’t tell the police what happened because she feared him hurting her more. He works about 3 blocks from her house, and he knows where she lives.

The other one (beautiful, sweet woman, trained chef from New Orleans) was thrown out of a moving car and kicked/slapped in a dirt parking lot and lied to the police, omitting the man who did it to her. Now, she wants to sue him for her injuries, but can’t because she didn’t tell the reporting officer who did it to her. Because she was afraid he’d do it again. And, yet ANOTHER man dislocated her shoulder and she still talks to him in public. Which I CANNOT UNDERSTAND.

I try to help them with computer issues/job searching, housework and such, but I get SO ANGRY watching how they are abused and can’t/won’t fight back. Because Stockholm Syndrome. It makes me so very sad, I cry for them.

Is it horrible that I wish suffering and death upon the men who hurt these amazing women? Because, I do. And, I hate that I do.

I need female friends so, so badly, and I don’t know how to find them.

I am seeing another female therapist in early July. I really hope she can help me… so far nobody has. I often feel like giving up. Can’t find a job, can’t get respect, can’t get a fucking break.

29. Rididill - July 2, 2012

Hi Yisheng… am also in need of radfem friends. Drop me a line if you want to talk, I live in NYC. therididill@gmail.com.

I really hope you have some luck with the therapist n stuff.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry