jump to navigation

Moron “The Dishwasher Dilemma” July 30, 2012

Posted by FCM in books!, gender roles, meta.
Tags: , , , , ,

awhile back, i wrote about what i believe is the genesis of most “domestic squabbles” between heterosexual partners, and that it is essentially male entitlement, and forced-perspective, and mansplaining and womens resistance to men and what the het partnership — and male entitlement, and forced-perspective and mansplaining — do to us.

now, i would like to address something i have heard so frequently from everywhere — from individual women and from pop culture and everywhere — which is that men do not seem to appreciate, at all, what it means to have a nice home, or more specifically, something to call your own, or at least a temporary or semi-permanent “home base” that is aesthetically pleasing and as sane and comfortable as possible.  men do not appear to care about this — they foul it up in every meaning/sense of the word.  if they live alone, or with each other — certain notable exceptions being, well, notable — their living spaces are fucking gross, and disgusting, and filthy.  in every corner there is literal filth — and porn, which is figurative filth isnt it?  they like it that way.  they live in their own shit, and they create and project shit so they can live in filth and shit, more.

women do not seem to understand why this is, and like they are wont to do, think that if they can figure out “why” that the problem can be solved — if everything is just a misunderstanding (ours) it gives hope.  answers to these questions are acceptable only to the extent that those answers are consistent with maintaining the het partnership, and with maintaining an affinity for men and living with men and taking care of them forever.  if not an individual man — sometimes individuals are beyond help and this is realized, painfully, after much time and resources are wasted — then with men as a class.  the primacy of the nuclear family and the primacy of the het partnership must be maintained, because without that, where would women be?  if only we would start imagining this, for real — identifying the (immediate?) problems that would cause and then solving them ourselves.  like the problem of realizing well into your forties (for example) that everything you thought you knew is wrong, and that where youve ended up is devastatingly off course and the forks in the road are so far back you cant even see them anymore, and youre exhausted and — blind?  not to mention all the legal requirements on many of us at this point — legal and moral guardianship over other people, for example.  legal and moral ties to men.  thats not a small thing.  this problem is real.

anyway, in the interest of changing the frame, and suggesting answers that are not compatible with maintaining the het partnership — to the extent that the truth is not compatible with maintaining a lie, or a structure founded on and maintained by pouring, building and maintaining lies — regarding the problem of men not appreciating a nice home, may i suggest the following thought exercise: women, imagine that the entire world is your literal and figurative toilet.  now imagine the dissonance you might feel — you, who experience the entire world as your toilet — if you were then simultaneously expected to keep your actual, real toilet — the one in your bathroom — clean.  why bother?   and indeed, men dont bother — their actual, real toilet — where they shit — is supposed to be clean, while the rest of their world is dirty because they shit there too?  why?

this takes on additional significance for modern men, doesnt it — men who literally piss outdoors, or wherever and whenever they please despite indoor plumbing.  i cannot even imagine the entitlement they must feel.  i know i dont want them in my space, to the extent i can help it — and definitely not in my bathroom, thanks anyway.  whats a little spatter to someone who regularly pisses in the alley, or knows he could, or that he would with no hesitation or logistical problems at all?  they do not care about this, and they apparently cannot be made to care about it.

but sadly, and not unexpectedly, theres more.  the home is the only place many women can go, where we can BE where we are relatively safe, and i think that includes abused women too, doesnt it?  i dont mean safe from abuse, i mean safe from the world which is an extremely difficult and dangerous place for women in general.  the “public” where we have literally no control or power, and are leered at by necrophiliac pervs and harassed and assessed by rapists every single second of every single moment we are out there.

and granted, being forced to “keep house” is often the beginnings of trouble for women who are coerced into this role, including with threats of and actualized violence for not doing a good enough job (in reality, its used as a pretext to inevitable abuse from an abuser) but in general, wouldnt women keep a nicer home than men even if this role were not coerced?  i think we would.  because its the ONLY place where we have some control over our surroundings, where we are subjects — rather than objects — in our own lives.  where our environments are or can be reflective of *us* at all, even though this is limited too, by what (for example) is available to us to purchase or make.  or, maybe in the absence of patriarchy, everything would be different, including this.  maybe if we werent animal feed and rape-objects in real life, we could afford to let a few things slide.

its also possible that we are a different species from men, and that we do not share their beginnings and will not share their ends, and that *this* explains or better explains what i am calling “the dishwasher dilemma” and why women in general tend to keep a nicer home but either way, its not exactly consistent with maintaining the het partnership now is it?  not if actually resolving this conflict is important.  species-difference is suggested in “the sisterwitch conspiracy” to explain this and other observable sex-based difference — and that book is at least as subversive and damaging to men and the institution of the het partnership as the SCUM manifesto, if not more — i suppose this one isnt on the radar because the author didnt speak mens language (the language of violence) and valerie solanas did, or she did once?

note to self: men are stupid, and speak *only* one language — and that appears to be the language of violence.  that is all.

META:  please note the change in the comments policy at femonade below. 

i have turned off all likes and comments on all posts, except new posts on which comments will remain open for three days and then permanently closed.  this policy has been adopted in recognition of the stressful and energy-draining potential of inviting contact and interaction on an open-ended basis, and the effects of doing this long-term.  although i have resisted making this change because i value these discussions tremendously, three years of constantly inviting contact and interaction via the comments on this blog is apparently my limit.  thanks for your continued participation, and feel free to leave your comments below!  and as always, please feel free to use the “share” buttons or link to and share this material as you wish.


1. Sarah Davis - July 30, 2012

FCM – please don’t take this as criticism, but I found the first few paragraphs very difficult to read. I don’t know if it was the formatting, or WordPress messing up somewhere, or something. (if you are dyslexic then please accept my apologies if that’s the right thing to be saying). Can I suggest you proof -read your post and resubmit it please.

Now, I agree with you that men and women tend to have different standards for their home (with a few exceptions of course), and I think it’s down to how they we’re raised. if you go back 20 or 30 years when sex stereotypes we’re more pronounced or obvious, then men we’re expected to do manual labour jobs, and women to stay at home making babies, housework, and if they did go out to work, it was sectretaries and airline stewards. Children emulate what they see, so boys would have diy tool toys, and girls would have dolls, and cashier till and general household things. I don’t think we naturally lean towards one or the other, but we see our peers doing certain things, and we want to be like them so we end up following them, and anyone who does what isn’t expected of their gender, is frowned upon. We need this frowing to stop, and just let kids be kids, as they’re the next generation, but we need to show them, that their aren’t jobs and things that are limited to one gender or another (with obvious exceptions), and that it doesn’t matter whether you are a boy or a girl, you can do or be whoever you want to be.

A lot of people tend to look to Margaret Thatcher as a woman who broke boundaries for women and was a positive role model. I grew up under a Tory government, never knew a male prime minister till John Major came along, and although I don’t think Thatcher did anyone but the rich any favours, she did show, that she can do what was typically seen as a man’s job, however, the Tories are known as the nasty party, so you can see where I’m going with this, which is why I think that in another four years time at the 2016 US elections, President Hilary Clinton would be a major step forward for women in general, as the Democrats seem a lot nicer than the alternative (and Sarah Palin just seems like a right nut job to be frank).

FCM - July 30, 2012

bahahaha! wow, what a perfect example of the comments im not going to miss. 1) blame the author for your own reading-comprehension fails, or “wordpress formatting error” — BTW the first 2 paras look fine to me and appear as intended 2) dont respond to the post at all 3) instead, advance some of the most trite, genderist bullshit imaginable that we have all seen and heard a BAZILLION times, as if its either original or responsive, when its neither.

how about this: we see other women doing this AND THOSE WOMEN DO IT BC THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE THEMSELVES COMFORTABLE BC THEY ARE OFTEN SO UNCOMFORTABLE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE, AND THIS IS MENS FAULT. jesus. you didnt even try to rebut my actual points, you just tried to thought-terminate me and shut down the conversation about *why* this perceived sex-difference might exist. well done. and really nice with the reference to perceived dyslexia — just what all writers want to hear. LOL srsly this made me laff.

sorry for the meta yall, please carry on.

FCM - July 30, 2012

also, i wouldve normally just spammed that comment but i thought hey why not. let you all see what attempted thought-termination looks like, in case you didnt already know. also, i believe “sarah davis” is a dood.

2. Snarkurchin - July 30, 2012

Holy shit, Sarah, entitled much? The paragraphs read just fine to me, and I teach college English. The whole post reads just fine (and reads very, very true) to me. If it’s too difficult for you to read, I’d suggest not reading it (and not commenting on something you didn’t read).

And the “different standards” thing–so what? That was my ex’s excuse for not cleaning house even when he was unemployed: I “cared more” than he did, so I should do everything. Um, no. Not acceptable. This is not Planet Mancave. You’re a grown man: don’t throw your fucking socks on the floor like an infant who’s just learned how to take them off all by himself and wants to prove it to Mommy. That’s a thinly-disguised, passive aggro show of contempt.

Gender roles are alive and well. Hilary Clinton can’t change them. Margaret Thatcher didn’t change them. Wonder Woman can’t change them. And that is because even though they Hurt Men Too, men find them convenient enough to keep and continue to enforce them at all costs…with women paying almost all of those costs.

I’m feelin’ the different species theory, FCM. Feelin’ it hard.

3. Sargasso Sea - July 30, 2012

Hmmm. The post made perfect sense to me. Sarah Davis must have taken a wrong turn somewhere in HuffPostland or somewhere equally numbing to the moral intellect.

Anyway, yes, why would a male person lift a finger to clean anything when they have had it done for them their entire lives OR have been *allowed* to live in their own filth? Makes no difference to them as long as they are not required to do anything. Different species (I tend to believe this is the case) or just centuries of conditioning, either way we’re (<— used correctly I might add!) left with knowing that it/they won't ever change.

Also, I wish you the best with the revised comment policy – your blog, your rules 🙂

4. sehkmet721 - July 30, 2012

Thanks so much for this post! While I have stopped living with men, you certainly have clarified for me why arguments with my with the men in my past went as they did.

I came very close to explaining the reality of housework to those men, but the project manager analogy really exactly defines it.

I linked to the previous post on the subject. It was awesome. I gained almost as much from the comment section as the original post.

I can understand limiting the time for posting comments. First, you won’t have a lot of repetition from everyone wanting to tell their individual stories. A few stories are important for illustrative purposes. Too many would be, if not boring, horribly depressing. Second, limiting comments probably cuts down on trolling from MRAs. They aren’t real quick on the uptake. By the time they read your post, the comments are closed. Third, you are very conscientious about responding. I can see how impossibly time consuming this could be if comments were left indefinitely open.

I’ve just found your site. I can see it will be a favorite.


FCM - July 30, 2012

thanks for your comments! and yes, we will see how the time constraints work out. its not even the comments themselves that are stressful and draining — no matter what they say — its the feeling of constantly inviting interaction and contact. its a really weird feeling of leaking energy, and i dont think its going away. 3 years into it, i am realizing that this is just how it is, when you have comments and “likes” open. so, i am plugging the holes. its not an issue of being trolled, bothered, or even fielding abuse. its something else.

anyhoo, i would like to add that i dont think its *just* a matter of not cleaning, its a matter of not APPRECIATING a nice, sane space because to men, the whole world is nice and sane (if not safe, but womens homes arent SAFE are they?) im not even talking about safety, but sanity and having your self or something pleasant or even neutral reflected back at you in your own home, wherever or whatever serves as “home” or basecamp, instead of constant egregious misogyny and filth we get everywhere else. they do not appreciate that SANITY and COMFORT are any DIFFERENT than the real world bc to men, it is not any different. its all the same: sane and comfortable, no matter how much they shit on it or try to or succeed in messing it up. if it seems like they dont see it or get it, its bc they dont.

they also couldnt care less if they even have a home really — whats homelessness to a man, when they arent rape-objects like women are? an extended camping trip? an annoyance, or even an extreme inconvenience or perhaps even dangerous, like when your stuff gets wet or stolen or whatever — but its never going to be the same to them as it is to us. if it seems like they dont fucking give a damn about even having a roof over their heads, its bc they dont. i didnt fully realize that one until my mom told me that her husband lets the utilities get cut off if she puts him in charge of the bills, and he says he LIKES IT when the power is off bc it reminds him of camping, and he loves camping. before her, when he “lost everything” in his previous divorce, he lived in a trailer in the woods, and this was just fine with him, he enjoyed it, if not preferred it. and i dont think its just him, obviously. how are women supposed to live this way? the answer is that we are supposed live with men despite all of this, and to do that *somehow* or at any cost but this is so painful and stressful for women. obviously i am talking about women who have a choice, and who do have at least the possibility of experiencing some subjectivity — if only for a few seconds a day — inside their own homes. i know that there are many women worldwide who have neither choice nor subjectivity, not even a minutes worth in a day. they are objectified constantly. their reasons for keeping house might be different, but i dont expect they would live in their own filth the way men do, even if they didnt have to keep house? its just a hunch.

5. bliz - July 30, 2012

very interesting article.

another interesting aspect of entitlement that i have noticed is many male’s referral to food/art/sensual elements as “shit.” what i realized is that they think of everything as shit because they are so numb and dead inside that they are really unable to taste, feel, and experience sensuousness and richness in any meaningful way. their offensive sense of entitlement derives from an irrational desperation to stay alive despite their parasitic nature. surely the limbic system at work, the power of which is sometimes overcome by cognitive development upon which point the male realizes his pitiful condition and commits suicide.

6. Cassaundra Blythe - July 31, 2012

haven’t commented much here in the past because honestly i haven’t had anything to say that hasn’t already been said. you have a pretty high grade of commenters i guess. but since open-time is limited and since the post above complaining about your writing is SO out of touch with my own experience i wanted to chime in.

i found the post above, and your writing in general to be VERY easy to follow. logical, simple, obvious even! and frighteningly correct.

yes, men really do NOT care about having a sane, orderly, hygienic and pleasant space to exist in. two husbands and several homes into my life, including failed homesteading attempts, I had come to this conclusion myself but never connected the dots to WHY. and you are right, when everyplace and everyperson is just a receptacle to void your shit into, whether literal, physical, sexual or emotional, why bother? piss on it! why not?

my life experience has also taught me that the rich behave this way regardless of sex. so it really IS an entitlement issue.

and oh. my. stars. i am SO enjoying the ever increasing order and pleasantness in my own home now that there is no man here to filthy up the place!

7. witchwind - July 31, 2012

This a very interesting point, FCM. I understood that men didn’t clean because they were raised being served and cleaned by women, never learned to do it themselves and are never accountable when they trash the world and the environment, but there’s also something more to it. Men do not have the same needs for sanity for their emotional survival. Because the world belongs to them. You nailed it.

Safe havens for us is something so utterly important. We have no home, no country, not even a body for ourselves. Nowhere to go if we are abused: we are hated outside as much as inside. Our lives are such a permanent internal and external war, ridden by fear, anxiety, insecurity, want, instability, fear of loss or abandonment, that we crave for spaces which are warm, bright, cosy, clean, full with light, joy, peace and life.

Also, this energy-draining effect of internet interaction is something worth talking about from a radfem perspective, thank you for putting this up, I find it very timely and you described this “leaking” effect very well. It’s not an individual thing, it’s something many of us experience I think. Nor is it a-political, because it has a political effect on our capacity to bond, spin and spiral together, on organising collectivity. We need to think of the overall effect this on radical feminism as a whole, and how it may drain collective energy too.

Because internet interactions happen on a screen, I found that the energy that is given to discussions on internet is not given back, not in the same way real life interactions are – even when these discussions are mindblowing and push our vision deeper and further. First I think there is something deadly about male technology – it always has been energy sucking rather than energy-giving. Internet interactions have this addictive, sucking feeling that real interactions don’t have, or much less. internet cuts us from seeing and feeling each other’s emotions, which leaves us having to project or interpret words or react in ways that might not be intended by the commenter, or leaving us to deal alone with sometimes very intense and wrenching emotions. This is especially vicious when dealing with conflicts.

when there’s a true exchange IRL, the mutual replenishment, sense of warmth and rewarding is incomparable to what we feel with internet interactions.

8. witchwind - July 31, 2012

Also, I can see how constant interaction can be invasive, even though it’s not negative as such. There is a limit to how much we can respond and give to other people. It’s important to preserve ourselves and respect our limits.

FCM - July 31, 2012

surely the limbic system at work, the power of which is sometimes overcome by cognitive development upon which point the male realizes his pitiful condition and commits suicide.


9. cherryblossomlife - July 31, 2012

And LOL at this too bliz!
“their offensive sense of entitlement derives from an irrational desperation to stay alive despite their parasitic nature. ”

When you think about how men live, it is irrational that they should want to continue isn’t it.
Great post FCM! So much to digest here.

10. DavinaSquirrel - July 31, 2012

Interesting post, the entitilement and safety aspects. Males certainly live in a world where problems are someone else’s problems (to fix) – and most of them cannot be ‘housebroken’ in any egalitarian way (a few, but they are the exceptions).

I am interested in hearing a bit more about “The Sisterwitch Conspiracy”, sounds interesting.

I can understand your decision for the time-limited comments, no problem there, but really unsure why you turned off the ‘likes’ on posts. Perhaps because I don’t bother with getting email notifications, I rarely notice the ‘likes’ on a post, only checking the blog for new comments by visiting.

11. survivorthriver - July 31, 2012

Good post. I try not to be a hasty poster, but I want to add how much I enjoyed this post topic and will vote here with a few words of support.

I identify the pain in my head when reading commentary such as Sarah’s here, as symptoms of man splain. Convoluted, entitled, condemnatory and often self-righteous the “blokes” dude -speaking is painful to read. The way puppet hets stand up for the Nnigels using their own male entitlement rationale is on display if Sarah is indeed XX. Or, sounds like an XY in a dress with lipstick.

“20 or 30 years ago when sex stereotypes were more pronounced or obvious” is balderdash.

Right now we women live under the most monstrous type of sex stereotyping ever – it’s called online porn. 20 or 30 years ago women actually had more powerful images than today’s callow adolescent heroine addicts featured in couture and runway fashion and the rubber-boobed plastic paid fakers starring in all porn. The new sex stereotyping for women is vicious, violent and degrading.

The fact that today’s home is probably the man’s porno sanctuary and he pipes in this palaver of putrescence depicting women and children in torture positions for their male sexual entertainment is an excellent connection between filth produced and not cleaned up by men. Do we need to go into the natural resource extraction industry organized by males with its filth released upon our Mother Earth’s body?


FCM - July 31, 2012

ww, the internet-interactions stuff *is* worth discussing IMO. i have always been interested in the writing aspect, and of creating and archiving radical content. (well the necessity for archiving came later when i realized how important this all is, including how radical womens work is routinely erased, in the beginning it was all about the writing). the comments became very interesting and helpful to me bc as you say, the conversations took my vision further and deeper. also, the feedback or peer-review aspect is very important to documenting or advancing theory, especially when you are covering new ground, or what feels like new ground — this is true across disciplines. the energy leaking and sucking-quality of the internet though, as well as the addictive quality is very male though isnt it, and seems endemic to the technology. i remember when the internet was brand new (it wasnt even that long ago, really it wasnt!) when everyone was first getting online and being sucked in, and everyone was shocked and amazed and i think a bit uneasy at the addictive quality, how you could log on and be online all night (gasp!) before you even realized it. this was before anyone even had cell phones of course, so we werent used to being in constant contact this way, or maybe it was around the same time, mid-90s? roseanne did a funny episode about this where jackie got her first computer and david set her up with internet access and he came back the next day to find her still sitting there in the same position and in the same clothes, and when she tried to look away from the screen she couldnt do it and kept getting pulled back. it was all very bizarre, and…exciting? definitely new and weird.

something else thats bothersome about the technology is that it reeks of male arrogance to me, and i do wonder what will happen when the internet dies, or theres a massive power outage/shortage or if everything online suddenly goes “poof”? how do we know civilization hasnt already gotten to this point a thousand times, with digital-everything, and it all disappeared, leaving no record of any of it bc well there wouldnt be, would there? perhaps thats science fiction, but i know i dont even have “pictures” or photo albums like i used to, its all digital pictures that are never printed out. if the internet dies there will be no photographic evidence that i or anyone i knew even existed beyond 2000 or so. for women writers whose work is ALWAYS disappeared and erased, this is all very troubling. although we have done excellent work here in the last few years, the technology is problematic in many ways. and the energy-sucking part *is* political for us, as you say. this needs to be discussed.

12. lydia - July 31, 2012

Agree with Sarah about how difficult to read this is. Capital letters perhaps? Grammar? Make it difficult enough and only converts will engage. Voila an echo chamber.

FCM - July 31, 2012

LOL hmm, echo chamber? or radical, female-only space? since this post is partially meta, i am indulging this bullshit more than i normally would. its fascinating to me how in the open we can be with some of this stuff, and it goes right over these morons heads. its similarly fascinating to me how the SCUM manifesto got onto the doods radar BIG FUCKING TIME and the sisterwitch conspiracy never has, AKAIK bc the sisterwitch conspiracy NAMES THE AGENT and is absolutely devastating to the image and reputation and potency of men. devastating. and yet the doods dont seem to know about it.

consider this logical proof: if men only understand one language, and that language is the language of violence; AND men only understand prose that is written with proper grammar, capitals etc, THEN the “language” of proper grammar etc IS the language of violence.

i believe that proof is logically true. we can “debate” (discuss) the premises if we wish. interestingly, in one of her books, perhaps in an afterward, dworkin says that she wrote like i write 🙂 no capitals, no stringent rules about punctuation etc. she said that it was her editors who changed her work (or made her change it) by incorporating the rules of grammar, and that those changes served to change the meaning of what she wrote, and how it felt on the page. dworkin was very particular with her word choice and style, and used language to convey feelings and experience of the subject matter, rather than using words merely to describe things. that mens rules change all of this, change OUR meaning, is deliberate, and can only serve men.


FCM - July 31, 2012

also, “how difficult to read this is”? how about “how difficult this is to read”? jesus. lydia, you cant even write. and your sentence structure (and sentiments, obvs) is thought-terminating, and i am sure im not the only one who can feel it.

lydias shortcomings also serve to highlight — since s/he cant even do criticism right — how we could, if we wanted to, just go around and around and around literally endlessly about “grammar” and what is essentially the TONE ARGUMENT (isnt it?) or is it mansplaining? or both? without ever getting to the actual subject matter of the post. it is only too obvious whose interests this serves.

13. thebewilderness - July 31, 2012

I have a modicum of sympathy for those who have not developed the knack yet. My brain used to stop and restart when I read things formatted in a way I was not used to. Sometimes I would have to go back and read again to overcome the distraction. I just assumed it was because I read a lot and had become accustomed to the standard formatting to such a degree that a deviation jammed the gears. I do the same thing with typos. They jar me.
The odd thing about it to me is that anyone would think it your problem rather than their own.
I haz a foible. You haz a style. We should make a meme.

FCM - July 31, 2012

srsly TBW. and they take time out of their day to tell me about their problems, instead of re-reading, or finding something better to do that they enjoy more, or that doesnt hurt as much. who does that? oh yeah — men do.

14. Sargasso Sea - July 31, 2012

Let’s see if what I have written below makes *sense*, shall we???

Dworkin totally lives on through her words (no matter how the publishers curtailed her) because her/the truth is transcendent – she obviously wrote the way she spoke, fluid and in true communication as if she is in the same room with you. This is the rarest of gifts I think.

(btw – this conversation is kinda like the old days and am looking forward to the next 🙂 )

FCM - July 31, 2012

yes the truths she spoke live on and are crystal clear. it makes me wonder though what was lost in the translation — what else she wanted to convey to us that she was never allowed to, bc some dickwad editor decided his way or “the way” was better than her way. hers — andrea dworkins. one of the best writers and thinkers WHO EVER LIVED. some editor thought he knew better, and we are all deprived of her full meaning and her full message to us because of HIM. this enrages me.

also feeling the good old days s4. 🙂 interesting ay?

15. parallelexistence - August 1, 2012

when everyplace and everyperson is just a receptacle to void your shit into, whether literal, physical, sexual or emotional, why bother? piss on it! why not?

This more or less sums it up, but there is a very particular place for women in this scenario. That is the sense of power, domination that men get off on – knowing that the female half of the human race are “owned” by them as servants to pick up after them. The refusal of men to take responsibilty for themselves and the smug entitlement that mummy/wifey/whichever female subordinate will do it for them so that they can feel like “real men”.

Safe havens for us is something so utterly important.

Yes, which is why men expend so much time and effort trying to prevent us from having them.

16. cherryblossomlife - August 1, 2012

“if men only understand one language, and that language is the language of violence; AND men only understand prose that is written with proper grammar, capitals etc, THEN the “language” of proper grammar etc IS the language of violence.”

Now THIS is really interesting. Both Dworkin and Daly refused to conform to proper grammar, perhaps because of how orderly and male it was.

17. MarySunshine - August 1, 2012

FCM, thanks for this. Whatever is good for *your* mental well-being is good for us, your readers. 🙂

FCM - August 1, 2012

lydia (or should i say “lydia”) is still trolling here, protesting my logic. here are a couple of previous posts discussing logic and how it works — in both the posts and the comments. its not the easiest subject in the world, but once you understand how it works its not that hard. such is the case with everything i guess? note the difference between logical or mathematical truth, and the “truth” of the premises. different things.


FCM - August 1, 2012

also, i wanted to add (before the comments close!) that i think “male entitlement” includes the right of men to do literally whatever they want, whether it be to have nothing and feel very smug about that (privileged males choosing it, or underprivileged males saying “fuck the system” or whevs) or to amass great wealth often at womens expense, wealth which is normalized even if its ill-gotten gains through porn, crime, or leeching off women including mothers. so male entitlement includes doods living in thier own filth as well as doods living very well, or doods who cant afford to live well feeling very slighted bc other doods have stuff and they want it too. aka. “social justice movements”. it includes both doesnt it?


often, men like my mothers husband are perfectly happy living in their own filth and shit, then when they become partnered with women, the men MOVE IN to the womens homes bc the women have much nicer homes/basecamps than the doods do and the women would never consider living in such FILTH. so then the men live there, and benefit from that greatly (like parasites) but they dont APPRECIATE it at all bc hey, i lived in shit once, or i was homeless or whatever, i can do it again who cares? and the wife ends up doing all the work to keep up the “nice home” bc dood cares THAT LITTLE about either the home or the wife.

men also display this bizarre entitlement with food. its not that they appreciate eating well is it? if left to his own devices, my mom reports that her husband will take 3 or 4 cans of literally ANYTHING from the pantry, mix them up and eat them. he once mixed canned borscht with corn and anchovies, and called it “dinner.” my nigel does this too. he will eat, for a meal, a can of soup, and a can of tuna. out of the cans. but if *i* make dinner consisting of cottage cheese and broccoli, which is actually a fine meal, he turns his nose up at it and says its not a real meal. what really “feeds” him, apparently, is not GOOD or even HEALTHY food, but ME SLAVING AWAY to prepare something complicated for him. i think this is along the same lines as what this commenter was saying over at the HUB:


18. parallelexistence - August 2, 2012

Yes, it is the process of *Taking from women* that is the key part of male entitlement. Whether it is taking our safe spaces, taking our clean homes, taking our time, labour, attention, autonomy …. It’s domination and ownership.

As the comment in the link says, it’s not just about having stuff.

FCM - August 2, 2012

you know, you can see it written over and over that men are parasites, or parasitic, and it doesnt sink it all by itself — it seems like an insult, like calling them “vermin” generically, instead of being highly descriptive of reality, which is exactly what it is. men are PARASITES when it comes to leeching off women. they do not appreciate anything they get from us, no matter how much they benefit from it — it does not matter how much better their lives are because we are in them, because if we werent there they would just find another woman to leech off of, or they would sink back into the slime, or they would die. they really do not care either way. they are like a giardia infection, where the giardia parasite is transmitted via a highly resistant cyst that can be dormant for a long time, living in shit and filth — it doesnt die there, it just waits.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry