jump to navigation

Authoritah June 21, 2013

Posted by FCM in meta, radical concepts.
Tags: , ,

from now on, i shall use the completely made-up (and hilarious) word “authoritah” when referring to what is commonly known as “authority” such as with authority figures, academics, and professionals — in other words, patriarchal authority, especially as awarded to or embodied by men over any and all issues.  the divine (or whatever) authority of women over issues of sex, reproduction and childrearing and everything related to that shall henceforth be referred to as “authority.”  because that is frankly the *only* correct use of the word.

from dikipedia:

[T]he term authority is often used interchangeably with power. However, their meanings differ: while power is defined as “the ability to influence somebody to do something that he/she would not have done”, authority refers to a claim of legitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power. For example, while a mob has the power to punish a criminal, for example by lynching, people who believe in the rule of law consider that only a court of law has the authority to punish a criminal.

thanks for making that distinction, diki!  i found the distinction of power versus legitimacy/justification/right to exercise it most useful.  for example, men and their (patriarchal) institutions may have granted themselves various “authorities” by which they clearly mean power without regard to the legitimacy/justification/right of males to exercise that power, especially around issues of sex, reproduction and childrearing.  sure they “claim” legitimacy (and “claiming” it is built into the definition according to wiki i mean diki) but lets assume they mean a founded claim rather than “either a founded or unfounded” claim even though they dont say that.

and there is not, in fact, any founded legitimacy, justification or right of males to control sex, reproduction and childrearing since it is females who are impregnated, gestate and birth immature humans, not males.  and since men are notably and demonstrably necrophilic and that interest is in obvious and direct conflict with the others; and where men certainly dont participate in childrearing in any legitimate or necessary way and even if they did, it would not change or influence the fact that they are not impregnated and dont gestate and birth them.  therefore, male control over these issues — including both written and unwritten rules such as social customs, religious tenets and medical and legal standards applied under circumstances of sex, reproduction and childrearing — shall henceforth be referred to as “authoritah.”

now, from the dicktionary:

authority [ɔːˈθɒrɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. the power or right to control, judge, or prohibit the actions of others
2. (often plural) a person or group of people having this power, such as a government, police force, etc.
3. a position that commands such a power or right (often in the phrase in authority)
4. such a power or right delegated, esp from one person to another; authorization; she has his authority
5. the ability to influence or control others; a man of authority
6. an expert or an authoritative written work in a particular field; he is an authority on Ming china
7. evidence or testimony; we have it on his authority that she is dead
8. confidence resulting from great expertise; the violinist lacked authority in his cadenza
9. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (capital when part of a name) a public board or corporation exercising governmental authority in administering some enterprise; Independent Broadcasting Authority
10. (Law) Law
a. a judicial decision, statute, or rule of law that establishes a principle; precedent
b. legal permission granted to a person to perform a specified act
[from French autorité, from Latin auctōritas, from auctor author]

where “power” and the legitimate right to exercise it are apparently interchangeable or where no distinction is made, it would appear to me that only nature has authority over anything.  nature has the power to “control, judge or prohibit the actions of” animals and humans, such as when its raining so hard you literally cant see so you cant go outside.  this might last for a few minutes at most at a time, but it is *power* is it not?  cause and (natural, necessary) effect.  i especially love it when this happens when im driving, whereby my decision to go out in the rain is adjudicated by natural authority (or just “authority” without a qualifier) to have been poor or even quite poor.

now, its worth mentioning that womens behavior is often controlled and modified by men in a less direct or obviously direct way, where we do or dont do something in order to avoid various negative outcomes including male attention and male violence, or we try to avoid it.  like acting feminine (male-pleasing) or not-going-out-at-night, that kind of thing.  interestingly, even when used to mean the ability to “influence” others this does not seem to apply to the behavior modifications performed by women in response to men where women are Others, not “others” which means a completely different thing.  so in this case, men influence/control womens behavior by authoritah only.  not authority.

and of course, sex, reproduction and childrearing — issues over which only women and nature have either the power or a legitimate claim to control and which men obviously do not — includes issues directly and indirectly related to that such as population (overpopulation); environmental concerns and activism; rape and sexualized violence; and that kind of thing.  all male customs/controls surrounding these issues shall therefore be known as “authoritah.”

now a challenge: name something that *isnt* at least tangentially related to sex, reproduction and childrearing.  can you do it?  if there is anything that is not at least tangentially related to these things, and for now thats a big IF since i cant immediately even think of anything thats not, men can try to claim a right AND THEN FOUND IT to exercise power in those areas, and those areas only.  it is those areas where the possibility of shared “human” authority (or no authority, if none can be founded by either women or men) may be explored; these areas and discussion/decisionmaking/execution related to these areas (if such an area is found to exist) shall henceforth be named “politics.”

note that there is *no* area in which males have a legitimate claim to exclusive power since there is nothing men can experience that women cant, except being the bringers of necrophilia and extreme violence globally.  (and ejaculation!  — see above re: sex, reproduction and childrearing).  mens necrophilia and extreme violence, obviously, being issues over which women also have legitimate authority and men dont, or where men have “authoritah” only.

and now a video illustrating the concept of authoritah, and how it is demonstrably different from authority.  and why “authoritah” — a made-up, hilarious word is actually the right word for “males exercising power and control over issues of sex, reproduction and childrearing” which power is also made-up and hilarious although “hilarious” more in the sense of being “a screaming farce” and “uproarious stories” than of actually being funny, or haha-funny.

notably, if i started using “authority” correctly on this blog or anywhere, it would be largely unintelligible and i would seem to not know the meaning of the word.  that is all.


1. FCM - June 21, 2013

authoritah = unfounded claim of right + hitting people with sticks

unfounded claim of right + hitting people with sticks ≠ authority

2. farishcunning - June 21, 2013

I love this! I used to use a Cartman avatar, but no one would respect my authoritah, so I gave it up. 🙂

Kyle (or Stan?) says it best: “There’s nothing worse than [males] with authoritah!”

3. witchwind - June 21, 2013

Men are naturally irresponsible to all matters of life. They simply cannot take care of anything, or we can’t trust them with taking care of anything, without them using it in ways to destroy. It’s not just that they can’t claim exclusive authority on some matters (many or most of which they have no claim at all, regarding reproduction and care-taking of young humans as you say) but that given evidence of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) years of male destruction, they are not to be given a modicum of authority in anything at all.

FCM - June 21, 2013

agreed ww. those of us who think men *do* or even *might* be deserving of a modicum of authority on anything at all would be free to engage in “politics” WITH MEN of course wherein they would sort it all out. first though they would have to SHOW that whatever they were talking about was not related even tangentially to sex, reproduction and childrearing. and frankly i dont think much of anything qualifies, if in fact anything does. as a mental exercise i might try to relate *everything i can think of* back to those issues and see if i can do it. 6-degrees of kevin bacon style. 🙂

“you better get back to school little boy.” lol.

4. witchwind - June 21, 2013

given that they made EVERYTHING about their dicks and about how best control women to keep putting their dicks in women, difficult not to rule anything out really.

FCM - June 21, 2013

ww youve just killed politics. 🙂

5. Sargasso Sea - June 22, 2013

An example of usage via the endless dicki variations: “she has his authority”

That, I think, about says it all.

FCM - June 22, 2013

in case this post is so self-evident that no conversation is forthcoming or necessary, let me add some background. 🙂 i recently finished reading “the first sex” as i mentioned before, and she talks about womens “divine authority” in that book many times. through her research she uncovered what she believes is evidence of prehistorical and early historical “gynocratic” societies where women owned all the political power bc of their divine right to rule as women and the creators and maintainers of life. men also saw women as magical and powerful/wise not only due to their ability to become pregnant but because women seemed to have “extra sensory perception” (otherwise known as greater intelligence) and were clearly smarter and more perceptive than men and therefore better rulers. today of course this has all been denigrated and reversed, and women have “intuition” (which is not considered intelligence at all) or are flatly insane, and our female biology is pathologized and othered in a bad way. this is a complete deviation and indeed a reversal of the original ways. of course, davis also believes that evidence that early women used abortion and contraception is evidence of “gynocracy” or gynocentrism but i would disagree with her assessment of that evidence — to me this seems like pathologizing and othering, and centering phallocentric sex which does not benefit women or follow at all with the idea of women making the rules. it seems likely to me that this was early evidence of male centrism and that with the passage of time, it got even worse and turned into what we see today which is an extreme magnification of this specific kind of othering and male centrism which might not have been bad enough to completely oppress women back then but which has definitely turned into that now.

also, WRT the idea of authority, i recently had the terrible misfortune of watching “the conspirator” and was thoroughly traumatized at the end, where mary surratt was wrenched away from her daughter and publically group-hanged for allegedly participating to some degree with the conspiracy to assassinate abraham lincoln. its possible that the worst thing she did was to give birth to and “harbor” her own son who was one of the actual conspirators and her lawyer apparently pointed this out but to no avail. she was the half-blind innkeeper where the conspirators met, and mother to one of them. this was enough to get her legally murdered by the state, but what offended me the most was that even if she had pulled the trigger herself, would men and malesystem have any actual AUTHORITY versus mere “authoritah” to put her to death? did they have a FOUNDED claim of right to murder a woman when one woman is worth more than literally millions and even billions of men (from a biological standpoint, as males are largely redundant)? did they have the AUTHORITY to deprive a teenaged girl of her mother, especially under conditions of patriarchy where her mother was likely the only person who would ever love her or protect her from men and male violence? under what AUTHORITY did these men act when they emotionally scarred the girl forever so much so that later in her life she was unstable and insane, especially knowing how vulnerable this likely made her to predatory men? anyway, this made me think. i mentally and emotionally vomited that this had occurred under the “authority” of the US federal government.


6. Sargasso Sea - June 22, 2013

My question is that if there were to have been (to be) a *gyno-cratic rule* why would birth control even be necessary? I can see a need for abortive measures – as in the 100% chosen pregnancy is proving too taxing on the gestator – but birth control would only be *needed* due to the threat/reality of rape. So, just what exactly would be gyno-cratic about that society if the *rulers* are not immune to rape?

I saw that movie too 😦

FCM - June 22, 2013

yes that makes even more sense doesnt it? even if “phallocentric sex” wasnt patently sexist and oppressive to women like it is today, for example if it didnt cause a problem for women bc SOCIALLY there was no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy via consensual sex (ie. all pregnancies were wanted and there was no patriarchy around to other, punish, harm or control pregnant women) why would they *still* need contraception? this makes no sense, unless there was still RAPE and women didnt want to become impregnated by rape. this is being very (overly) generous to davis who didnt seem to question the practice of phallocentric sex at all or find it male centric at all (!!!) of course. whats more likely in my view is that women didnt want to become impregnated much of the time whether initiated via rape or not, which means that phallocentric sex *was* patently sexist and oppressive to women and they did it anyway. just like today. this does not indicate a gynocentric value system at all. as you say s4, abortion would be required regardless. in a gynocentric society, we would still need abortion but NOT contraception, especially considering how painful and dangerous contraceptives are for the woman, even relatively “natural” methods like packing your vagina with herbs or putting stones in your uterus. this is a very important point to make.

and as you say too, the RULERS (or ruling class) were not immune to men raping them? okay…so lets examine this. what kind of “power” is davis talking about here, where women had “political” or ruling power, but didnt have the power to stop men from raping them or the right to bodily autonomy and to be left alone? this is so important! what is power if it doesnt include that? davis seems to be talking about the power to “rule” in a male sense, like telling other people what to do, and that females did this at one point bc we were (OBVIOUSLY) better suited for it than men are. the evidence that this is true is that men have destroyed the world. BUT. men have destroyed the world largely by sexually abusing women. this cannot be overlooked. nor can we overlook the fact that for men, “power” includes certain rights including the right to be left alone. and women have NEVER possessed that, and davis isnt saying they did. she doesnt address it at all, and its a glaring oversight to say the least.

FCM - June 22, 2013

i hope people want to discuss this! 😀 its interesting to me what other people find interesting and what they want to discuss. the “framing rape” post was one of my faves, but it garnered exactly 5 comments. and 3 of those were mine.


7. Sargasso Sea - June 22, 2013

The reality of rape – in all it’s myriad of forms – and the reality that *to date* there seems to be ZERO evidence that there was a time that the sexual exploitation (rape) of girls and women by males existed is not exactly super-fun to talk/think about.

But some body has to…

FCM - June 22, 2013

yes. but discussing “authoritah” is both fun and funny. it just is.

it bothers me that the more i read, the more i realize that “feminists” of the past have mostly refused to examine PIV and to identify it as male-centric and othering. i mean how fucking obvious does it have to be? we have grasped at straws to support our earnest hope that it hasnt always been like it is now, even though the evidence strongly suggests that it always has. its cool to expose the lies and stuff about women, in this case the lie that we have never held political power — ok maybe we have. but what did that really mean in a world where men rape? what does it mean that men have always (or LONG) raped and they still do? feminists have tried so hard to center or at least acknowledge women in “history” but when our history is revived, and our “erasure” from history is corrected what do we see? we see men raping and murdering women, and male-centric values going back to early and prehistory. what does this mean for us? erasing it and OBVIOUSLY misinterpreting it is wrong.

FCM - June 22, 2013

also, i would like to announce that we are in the final week of the “mens search terms” project. so for all bloggers: submit em if you got em. we have almost 1000 by now.


i never expected this outcome TBH. its really really bad out here, maybe even worse than i had imagined. which is the value of the project of course. there will likely be a “final post” or page with an analysis of the results. if anyone wants to let me know what they think about the data or the project, or any ideas for the final post they can let me know via the contact page on femonade.

FCM - June 22, 2013

to clarify, the details are something i couldnt have anticipated, but we already knew that didnt we? we know that we cant KNOW what men are thinking bc they are constantly outdoing themselves and are creative torturers and death-dealers. we couldnt anticipate the details anymore than we could anticipate a painting that hasnt been painted yet. the general themes remain the same though. thats whats been really interesting about it for me.

8. luckynkl - June 23, 2013

Rape is an act of violence. I do think men have always been violent. But I think men learned to use their penises as a weapon (creative torture) rather than it being anything inherent or natural. Why do I think that? Because humans have to be sex-educated. It isn’t instinctual and doesn’t come naturally. I’ve heard of cases where ppl have been kept completely in the dark about sex. They don’t have a clue. They may masturbate, but it doesn’t occur to them to stick their dicks into things, much less another human.

Penises/scrotums are external and very vulnerable. It gets bumped, it gets caught in things, it gets racked – which is extremely painful for males. Males learn quickly to protect that thing. Being they’d have a natural avoidance to pain, it wouldn’t naturally occur to them to start experimenting with it and sticking it into things, as they wouldn’t want to risk that kind of pain.

Remember too, males from long ago wouldn’t have been circumcised. Rough sex is painful to uncircumcised males. It rips them and makes them bleed so they’re forced to go easy. Which is why I advocate that folks don’t circumcise their sons. It lessens the chance that they’ll be rapists or into rough sex.

In short, I contend that piv/rape is something that is taught to males and learned. I also think this is why the practice of circumcision came into being. To make it less painful for men to rape women.

9. witchwind - June 23, 2013

The discovery that PIV/rape was at the centre of men’s domination of women (men sticking their dicks into women to control reproductive functions) around which everything else of patriarchy was built, was what pushed me into feminism. I don’t think I came across any book that stated it that way. Sheila Jeffreys I think criticises PIV and she’s the only one doing it directly as far as I remember, but she doesn’t call it rape and doesn’t explain why it’s inherently harmful to women (exploitation of women’s reproductive functions).

I found this very disappointing and alienating and didn’t understand why so many didn’t make the connection which seemed the obvious and easy one to make. Especially in anti porn and prostitution books where prostitution is defined as “paid sex” which means that not only it’s not defined as rape, but implies that when this “sex” isn’t paid, it’s just sex, so outside the conditions of prostitution it would or could be fine??!! So according to this view what’s wrong with prostitution is just the fact that the sex is paid, it’s the money involved in it, not the fact it’s rape and therefore violent, a crime against a woman. Of course this is not exactly what most writers meant because they do define prostitution as violence but then they wouldn’t explain how this “paid sex” would be violent in and of itself.

What’s worse is that most feminist researchers are in fact capable of distinguishing *one* kind of rape in prostitution: the case where the prostitutor didn’t pay (that is, he “stole” the sex – or rather, stole the use of the woman from the pimp – so the victim is the pimp here really, not the woman, just as rape by a stranger is a crime against the husband, not the woman) as opposed to “paid sex” (which isn’t defined as rape, remember). So when they talk of harms of prostitution, you get sentences like “prostituted women are raped twice a week”; “will get beaten, spat on, insulted, pinched” (etc). They’ll describe at length all the OTHER harms around the rape/PIV, but never get to the violence INHERENT to prostitution which is the rape / PIV in itself. You rarely read “prostituted women are raped 10, 20, 30, 40 times a day”.
So you never get analyses that explain WHY prostitution exists at all, and WHY men put women in such categories of prostitution, wives, wet nurses. But when you see it from the perspective of PIV as means to exploit and oppress women and women’s reproductive capacities, it all makes sense.

Otherwise in feminism, rape is in 95% of the time talked about as a separate issue from PIV, which is and creates severe cognitive dissonance, and makes women continue to believe that PIV can be beneficial for women if in the right conditions, with the right “nice guy”, when “desired” and with the adequate contraceptives. It’s extremely harmful to women of course and disseminating this idea exposes women, especially younger women, to more violence from men.

Paola Tabet, in the chapters “forced reproduction” and “the exploitation of reproduction” in her book the social construction of sexual inequality does address how PIV as recreative practice is inherently and intentionally oppressive to women, with the aim of exploiting women’s reproductive capacities (strange title though for a book talking about men’s use of biology to oppress women). But she doesn’t define PIV as rape either, although she does say it’s inherently oppressive, so it’s obvious that she couldn’t go to the end of her thoughts here.

FCM - June 23, 2013

so circumcision really is a feminist issue! the MRAS were right! but srsly, i get and appreciate your point there lucky. it makes sense in a “doing nothing” kind of way too, and unlike promoting, say, botched circumcisions which would have the same effect, promoting NO circumcision would get the MRAs off our backs which is a bonus! as long as we didnt publically articulate our actual reasons for doing uh, NOT doing it, whereupon their heads would explode at the extreme dissonance that it would be for FEMALES benefit and to place sexual controls ON MEN. oh darn too late.

as for whether its TAUGHT and LEARNT by men though, it always comes back to WHO is teaching them this? and we end up back at “inherent” again although i KNOW some of you will never acknowledge this. where did they get the idea? IT CAME FROM THEMSELVES. the very definition of inherent. women sure as hell werent teaching men how to rape us. *if* we taught them at some point to inseminate us so that we could have the children we wanted, it was *they* who realized they could rape us too and give us the children THEY wanted us to have. aliens did not give men the idea to do this and we didnt come up with it and teach it. i of course dont believe its learnt and taught, not in the way everyone means it when they say it. i suspect that to the extent “society” contributes to this, its more like men helping each other organize the thoughts and feelings they already have for maximum destructive benefit, for efficiency’s sake. its no good reinventing the wheel for every man now is it? then we might have men who dont figure it out til somewhat later in life and look at all the wasted opportunities to rape, oppress and enslave women! it also wouldnt be as effective a POLITICAL tool if it was disorganized. and pretending its not organized, and that men only rape bc they were taught to (by aliens i guess?) prevents women from seeing it as either inherent to males or a political tool too. its entire nature and purpose becomes obscured.

10. witchwind - June 23, 2013

I have heard about this too. A country medic saying a couple came to see him because the woman wasn’t having babies. It turned out that it wasn’t working because the man was trying to stick his dick in the woman’s belly button.

How would you stop men from making the connection though? Even if some might never think of it, obviously there will always be a number of men who will, just by looking at animals for instance. And this, assuming women would have achieved a society and such an amount of power whereby all PIV would have been completely unlearned, and men no longer controlling women?

I’d say that at the very best, the risk of men raping women will always be there.

FCM - June 23, 2013

ive never felt the need to say that all PIV is rape or to say that they are the same thing. most people are aware that what is known as “rape” includes a degree of force or coercion (which is also force) but no one except radfems recognize that patriarchy is a coercive context for women 24/7. this makes all PIV (within patriarchy) rape, albeit “coercive” rape whereupon everyone backs off from the idea that coercion is force (or that patriarchy is coercive — thus the invented concept of womens “agency” where such agency can be thwarted/removed extremely easily by radfems, but which cant be thwarted, removed or even effected by men at all).

if rape is the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders, then standard-issue PIV is the less-violent enforcement of it. when framed that way, its easy to see that the only issue isnt “force” although that is ONE issue. the other issue is “womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders” which is more to the point and is the outcome for women of both PIV and rape. again we see similarities here between them. this is because men sticking their dicks into women is the root of womens oppression by men.

it is such a glaring error not to recognize this i think. its difficult to read “feminist” material in which “sex” and the eroticization of intercourse is taken as a natural given (and not as an oppressive invention of patriarchy). everything flowing from that assumption is going to be wrong and evidence will be misinterpreted terribly, including the significance of CONTRACEPTION and the need for it, which would not exist if women were not oppressed by men, and specifically by men sticking their dicks into us. its so obvious. in that way, i think the newest radfem material is the best — its also the UNPUBLISHED (or self-published), UNPAID kind bc as witchwind says, even PIV-criticism of the past doesnt make the connection fully or boldly. dworkin certainly didnt, although for me she paved the way by isolating and examining it at all. i think we have finally made the connection as to how critical this is. and look how badly everyone wants this work destroyed (including other women and radfems too).

FCM - June 23, 2013

what if “we” stopped saying that all PIV is rape, and started saying that all rape is PIV? or even that almost all rape is PIV for those who include other things as rape, so we dont have to fight with them about whether it is or isnt? its just demonstrably true that all (or almost all) rape is PIV. would this jar anyone into realizing that hey, theres something really central to men sticking their dicks into women, i wonder why?

if anything, it contextualizes the recent trend to redefine rape to include anything anogenital-related (or that women can rape men). its completely thought-terminating as far as realizing that rape and PIV are related, let alone thinking about why — that both are oppressive to women and not to men.

FCM - June 23, 2013

also, rmott has written repeatedly that the “sex” that occurs within prostitution is not rape but torture. so not only is it wrong to say that prostitution is paid sex, its wrong to even say that its forced sex (commonly known as rape). according to her, prostitution is something else entirely. she also writes at length about the sheer commonness of punters killing prostituted women and using them in human trials of “how much violence and pain can a human (female) endure without dying from it?” from there, ones thoughts might wander back to men being creative torturers and death-dealers, and from there to PIV and how othering, pathologizing and gaslighting women is also torture, and how many women are tortured by male-centric “sex” globally, including both physical and psychological torture. and how many women die globally from both PIV and rape (and pregnancy). the number is 500,000 per year due to pregnancy btw. hopefully this thought experiment/process can be done without removing the significance of the experience of prostituted women, including rmotts experience that it is *different* from regular old PIV (and rape).

is it possible, for example, that prostituted women are women for whom intercourse has been completely removed from reproduction (from mens perspective?) IOW prostituted women are still knocked up and have reproductive consequences from being penetrated by men, but bc she is a “public” woman from the punters perspective there is no way to know and no reason to assume that *he* has a chance of impregnating her. is this related at all to the extreme violence men seem to reserve for prostituted women which is unambiguously torture or sexualized torture often leading directly (not just indirectly) to death without much if any pretense? just thinking out loud here.

11. Sargasso Sea - June 23, 2013

“what if “we” stopped saying that all PIV is rape, and started saying that all rape is PIV?”

I’d say that’s an excellent idea 🙂

12. red - June 23, 2013

They don’t reserve it for prostituted women. Within marriage it’s common for women to be forced to endure as much sexual torture as men can mange or is possible which can go undetected. Ask worker in any battered women’s refuge.

13. Nadege - June 23, 2013

I’m sorry to bring up another man. Please let me know if I shouldn’t in the future.

Has anyone heard of Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance and collective memory? Maybe men don’t have to be taught to rape or to force PIV. Maybe it’s part of the male human species’ collective memory. Maybe they instinctively remember this as a way to control women. This could be similar to women’s collective memory of men’s violence… collective Stockholm syndrome?

FCM - June 23, 2013

ok, but rmott says otherwise. i am interested in following that thought to its end, without assuming she is wrong. also, punters dont seem to care if its “detected” or not. the “experiment” often ends in the womans death and the body is simply disposed of. the man got what he paid for, which was to push a woman to and then past her breaking point. this is not “sex” and there is no pretense of a relationship or of anything really. is this what men do when there is no pretense necessary? is it all the same, or is it the logical endpoint of male centrism and male centric sexuality (even though rmott believes it is different in both degree and kind)?

14. red - June 23, 2013

There’s a whole profession where women troubled by what their husbands are doing to them will be told to loosen up their prudish sex behaviours and to listen to their husband/partners needs. Sexologists talk about “giving women permission” to enjoy BDSM etc. Even Heather Corinna in her sex ed book for Teens FFS has a section where she teaches teen girls how to have “safe” BDSM. And since sexologists and the choosey choice left now call anything men want to do to women acceptable, women in marriage, like prostituted women, have no exit.

FCM - June 23, 2013

BTW “red” has already been spammed for making bizarre demands. and she comes here again dismissing rmotts perspective as a prostituted woman (or my summary of it) with absolutely no thought given to the issue at all. who the hell are you “red” and what exactly is your problem?

FCM - June 23, 2013

and she does it again. RED, rmott thinks that the experience of the prostituted woman is different. is it possible that she is right about that? can we assume she is right and see where that thought leads? its just thinking for christs sake. jeez.

FCM - June 23, 2013

IOW obviously there are *differences* between prostitution and these other things (like BDSM and marriage). can we assume that these differences are meaningful (as rmott says they are) and try to figure out in what way they might be meaningful from a radfem perspective? i suggested one way it might be meaningful — the separation of “sex” from reproduction (or at least from verifyable paternity which is something thats very important to men and to male control of women). it was and is just a suggestion.

15. witchwind - June 23, 2013

“its more like men helping each other organize the thoughts and feelings they already have for maximum destructive benefit, for efficiency’s sake. “

Yes, I agree.

Why this reticence in saying all PIV is rape though? How is saying “all rape is PIV” an improvement from the latter? I don’t understand.

Also, it’s a no-brainer from a radfem perspective that all the conditions in which PIV takes place are coercive to women. Men organise their system so that each individual man has much less effort to do to access a woman with his penis. The point is to make it as easy as possible for them to access women, and therefore to make it as hard as possible for women to identify the coercion, and make them believe they wanted it. This is why men built a SYSTEM for their convenience, so we can’t escape PIV. This is oppression. In these conditions no PIV is free. Therefore, all PIV is rape! And that’s just seeing it from a structural perspective. Because no woman would want PIV as a recreative practice outside patriarchy anyway. And once we are no longer constructed as limits and barriers to be violated, even for reproductive purposes we wouldn’t want to be penetrated by a penis just for the sake of it (say if men would survive post-patriarchy, though I doubt it)

Seeing things in terms of “force” is male centred. This “forced” thing is intentional so that rape/PIV is never defined as violence: what only counts as violence is everything else around it except the act in itself. So it implies that the act of PIV/rape is in itself NOT violent: it would only be experienced as violence because there’s violence next to it: ie punching, pushing, forcing the woman down, putting a knife put under her throat, ripping her clothes, etc.

This “forced” view is how most rapes, even rapes on minors for instance, get defined and dequalified as sex. Most men who rape their wives every day don’t use “force” to rape them. The force is in the marriage and the male political-economic institution that backs the man in him keeping her captive and dependent on him. The force he uses is the years and years of brainwashing that groomed her from birth into believing her body belongs to her husband only. The force is in his own years of psychological abuse, isolation, denigration of her. Fathers who rape their daughters never use force. Acquaintance rapists uses the ready made strings of “seduction”, “party” (alcohol) that the woman is brainwashed to perceive as positive attention from his part. Punters who rape prostituted women don’t need to use force her individually to commit their acts either. She’s already captive. She can’t escape. The “force” bit is the job of the pimp, beforehand. There are such an infinite amount of coercive elements to PIV that its impossible to even make a list of it.

The very use of a woman as an empty, dead receptacle for a dick and for his sperm IS violent in and of itself.

16. witchwind - June 23, 2013

I find the “enforcement of sex role” a very useful concept to encapsulate all the different ways by which men exercise power over women to force PIV on us, but again if it’s used as a euphemism to distinguish “less violent PIV” or “just PIV” from “violent PIV”, or to distinguish rape from PIV, it doesn’t make much sense to me.

And perhaps the “coercive use of women as breeders and as dick-receptacles” would be more accurate than “sex role”, because women aren’t playing roles (even if its forced), being inflicted violence isn’t a role, this word I think takes away the notion that what is being defined are premeditated, massively organised, criminal acts of men against women.

17. witchwind - June 23, 2013

“so not only is it wrong to say that prostitution is paid sex, its wrong to even say that its forced sex (commonly known as rape). according to her, prostitution is something else entirely.”

I would argue that rape can also be defined as torture in and of itself, as is what men do to women in general (media = psychological torture, etc).

Although saying this does not take away the reality that the kind of torture that prostituted women experience is of a particular kind (just as the other forms of torture), because there is the prime torturer (the pimp) who generally rapes and tortures the woman himself to groom her for prostitution, and all the other torturers that the pimp sells the woman to, which may be counted in hundreds or thousands. And each one of these hundreds or thousands men, tortures her in his own specific ways. Not to mention that the pimp relies himself on previous torturers (abusive parents, war, rapists) that made his victim shattered enough to fall in his trap.

“is it possible, for example, that prostituted women are women for whom intercourse has been completely removed from reproduction (from mens perspective?)”

Yes, I think so. Prostitution is the fate of the non-married, non-owned-by-men woman, that is, the women that escaped their role as breeders or wet nurses or slaves- breeder-of-more-slaves. It is necessary in two ways for men: it is a handy way of keeping all the other women in line, because the likely alternative to their condition of captivity and forced breeding to one man might or will be prostitution; It is also used a permanent threat to keep women in line in general. Second, it is what allows all men constant access to any woman, outside the man’s duty to impregnate the woman he owns.

So yes, the other thing specific to prostitution is that prostituted women are generally not allowed to bear the child if they are impregnated, so they are regularly forced to abort, because obviously they do regularly get pregnant. This is often done through further torture, for instance by kicking them in the stomach, or through rough operations done by the pimps.

Prostitution is now the model to which “modern sexuality” is held: that is, PIV removed from reproduction (and including all the other atrocities such as anal penetration, fellatio, BDSM, thongs, lipstick, strong make-up, shaved vulva and body, etc, all borrowed from prostitution). Liberal men were fed of being made to feel guilty for raping women other than the ones they owned (basically for being punished for sticking their dicks into women owned by other men), so the liberal dicks declared “all women will be sluts, including our own!!! All men should exchange their women and all women are owned by all men!!!”

18. witchwind - June 23, 2013

So today, this PIV removed from reproduction model has spread more and more to encompass a large part of female population, especially younger generations in western countries. Which means that the line between prostituted women and non-prostituted women has become thinner over time, although there is still obviously a boundary.

Today as opposed to 40 years ago for instance, mostly in western – secular countries, girls are no longer expected to be virgin before marriage (as ONLY breeders-to-be) but are expected to accept to be penetrated from boys from the age of 13-14, and dress in ways influenced by the prostitution-model. The expansion of pornography and “cosmetic” industries greatly influenced this change IMO, because men make loads of money by turning all women into “sluts”.

It is also true that some women have experiences which may be considered close to prostitution, for instance those fallen prey to BDSM rings (usually one man functions as the primary “pimp”, whether a friend, husband or boyfriend, and he coerces the woman into PIV + sadistic acts with many men, sometimes hundreds) or women who are subjected collective rape after collective rape (which will be filmed and shown), because they are known as the “slut” of the district or village.

Not to forget that a large portion of pimps are also the husbands, fathers, uncles or family of the victim. (so prostitution is combined with abuse by husband or parental abuse).

Rmott also says that specific to prostituted women is that rape, torture and murder doesn’t count for prostituted women because they are treated as sub-human, whereas this is not the case for non-prostituted women. I disagree slightly with this: I wouldn’t say that non-prostituted women are treated as fully human by men: this is a denial of the reality of women’s condition in patriarchy.
It is true that rape, murder and torture doesn’t count for prostituted because they are treated as subhuman, but this also holds true for women who are not in prostitution; the difference is in degrees, and varies according to context, country, etc.

19. red - June 23, 2013

I was not saying either I was saying and. Common thing is what men do to women is what they can get away with. And I was a prostituted woman once too, and a married woman. Thanks for dismissing MY comment.

By the way, all the women who wrote those blogs you have on the sidebar, the older blogs? You’ve blocked most of them. LOL.

FCM - June 23, 2013

i havent blocked anything trolly mcLOLLY. what the fuck are you talking about? nevermind, i dont care. bye now!

FCM - June 23, 2013

it does seem that the torture model makes the most sense since all this can easily be considered torture and would be but for the requirement that we view all of this through mens eyes instead of our own. IOW through the eyes of the perpetrator instead of the victim. from the victims perspective, the “turning ones body against oneself” which is endemic to torture clearly applies to both PIV and rape which both utilize gaslighting, violence and the “sick joke”-like quality of it all not to mention the pain. as you suggest ww, perhaps the mistake is talking about NONE of this like its torture when really it all plainly is? the “rape” model as it currently stands is clearly inadequate and doesnt apply to prostitution (which is torture). and “rape” itself being defined as “forced sex” where both forced sex and unforced sex are also torture (using the above criteria) doesnt describe the reality of it (again, from womens perspective). IOW i can see how rmott would disagree that prostitution is rape. calling all of it torture isnt inconsistent with her position that prostitution is torture, but it might take the bite out if it? im having a hard time getting my head around it TBH. i will bbl.

20. witchwind - June 23, 2013

I feel Rmott would like to reserve the exclusivity of the word torture for prostituted women, but this is not possible from a radfem point of view or ethical/logical point of view; that would deny the reality of all other forms of tortures of women, or deny the fact that each form of torturing women is always situated somewhere on a wide spectrum of sexual torture / coercing PIV & impregnation that men invent. And that these different “categories” of torture mutually reinforce each other, or mutually reinforce men’s domination over women. This division of women into different reproductive / PIV categories is invented by men to maximise the efficiency of their exploitation of women’s reproductive capacities and control of women. And also has the benefit for them of dividing women.

This does not retrieve the specificity of prostitution torture however, and the specific treatment of prostituted women. The experience of a Married woman forced to breed and tortured by her husband won’t be the experience of a prostituted woman tortured by pimps and hundreds of punters, which won’t be the same as a woman coerced into uterine prostitution, which is different from a “girl bride”, and different from a woman put into slavery and raped by both “masters” and males slaves, different from women raped at war, etc, etc (we could go on forever).
Nor should we prevent ourselves from seeing various degrees of overlapping between these different forms of torture: the overlap being of course PIV accross the board, whichever the way it is enforced, impregnation (whether forced to abort afterwood or not) and abuse / grooming of girls into PIV (whichever form).

Then there are general, frequent but not systematic overlappings between the different forms of torture (or the difference being in degrees in quantity, quality, etc).

farishcunning - June 24, 2013

FCM: “what if we stopped saying that all PIV is rape, and started saying that all rape is PIV? or even that almost all rape is PIV for those who include other things as rape, so we dont have to fight with them about whether it is or isnt? its just demonstrably true that all (or almost all) rape is PIV. would this jar anyone into realizing that hey, theres something really central to men sticking their dicks into women, i wonder why?”

So you would not consider forced fellatio to be rape? Even of a 3-year-old? Just trying to get an idea of parameters here.

I very much appreciate this whole convo about PIV. I have thought these things for many years, but believed I was crazy for thinking this way, or that I only thought this because I am a dyke who was molested as a child. It’s such a relief to read similar thoughts articulated by wise, strong women who have obviously invested a lot of time and brainpower into their views. Thank you all.

FCM - June 24, 2013

hi farishcunning. actually if i were going to stick strictly to MY own definition of rape which is “the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders” this could include more things than just PIV but only WRT female victims of males. for example, womens role as fuckholes would be enforced through any penetrations especially penile penetrations. and womens role as breeders would be enforced by ANY exposure to semen at all which creates a risk of pregnancy even if its not deposited directly into the vagina. i dont feel like enumerating the many man-ifestations of that one, you get the picture. ANY exposure to semen anywhere on or in a female body. and there would be no age limit to this, the point is that the victim is female and that exposing female-bodied persons to semen creates a risk of pregnancy because this is how the female body works. we know that 4-year olds can and do become impregnated (and that when this happens it is always rape obvs). but at any rate, a man fucking or penetrating a female of any age would be enforcing her role as fuckhole too and this is not debatable. with PIV its obviously both things.

i think i sometimes step across worlds and audiences when i think and write about these things though, sorry if thats confusing. my definition is not an attempt at a legal definition but a woman-centered one and i think it is correct from that perspective, meaning that this is the intent and effect on female-bodied persons of males raping us across time and place. a legal definition which will by definition NEVER be female-centered should only include PIV though since this is the crux of the issue (almost all rape includes PIV) and is frankly the ONLY way to define rape so that it addresses the historical and political reality of it without being vulnerable to equality-rhetoric bc “other things” can happen to men too. penetrations can happen to men too. “forced sex” can happen to men too. a radfem definition (see above) would not be vulnerable to equality rhetoric because we flatly reject equality rhetoric, but this is not possible in any other area bc its “discriminatory” in every other area to protect women from men or to name our oppression or to point out that what men do to us is sex-specific, which it obviously is. in this way legal protections for women will NEVER work because they arent meant to address the ways men harm females as females. the law is meant to perpetuate that, and to protect men. which is exactly what it does, and exactly the problem with redefining rape as “forced sex” or even various anogenital abuses which men do to each other but which are not politically oppressive to males as a class.

FCM - June 24, 2013

i think that addressed ww’s questions about that too? as for the “sex role” term which ww finds objectionable, i agree that being oppressed is not a “role” that women voluntarily play. this was part of the “framing rape” post which i linked to in the first comments — i mean sex role as opposed to GENDER role. this has nothing to do with GENDER and everything to do with SEX and being female-sexed. it is not something that males can “put on” bc it doesnt work that way. males simply cannot and will not, EVER, be pigeonholed into being fuckholes and breeders no matter how much “femininity” they wear, bc they are not members of the sex class and they cannot change this. fuckholeness and breederness has nothing whatsoever to do with gender, and is therefore not a gender role or a “gender” anything for either women or men. thats all. it is a “role” though in the sense that “all the world is (mens) stage, and women merely players.” this is our role in mensworld, according to them. and they enforce it with violence.

FCM - June 24, 2013

also, i wanted to add something about prostitution, i dont know exactly what to make of it yet but maybe someone else will. there are MRAs who call themselves “MGTOW” (i imagine this is pronounced mig-toe LOL) which means “men going their own way.” this is mens version of man-hating female separatists (radfems) — they are woman-hating male separatists (again, i LOL — woman hating as opposed to what?? male separatists as opposed to what?) and they want to get off the misandric and gynocentric merrygoround (LOLOL ALL DAY LONG) of relationships, “dating,” having kids, supporting gold-digging worthless women through the sweat of their manly brows etc. they want to live their lives woman-free. which should be easy enough considering that the workplace is male dominated, the government is male dominated, the military is male-dominated, etc (so much for misandric/gynocentric society ay — THE IRONY IT BURNSES). ok im on sarcasm AND CAPS overload here so let me get to the point.

MGTOWs want to be woman-free but they still want access to prostitutes and porn, and probably maids and various female service people too but lets ignore that for a minute (or not?). how is this possible? they believe that a life with prostituted women and women in pornography *is* a womanless (malecentric, non-gynocentric) life. think about this for a couple of seconds and you realize that they do not consider prostituted women to be “women” at all. so what are they? why are nonprostituted women “women” and what the hell do they think “woman” means? its gagworthy already and i dont even know the answer to it. just the question makes the chunks rise.

other than the fact that MRAs and migtoes are terrifying (terrorists) and gross misogynists, what is to be made of this, if anything? i will add that the migtoes might be the MOST intelligent of the MRAs since their ideology is at least somewhat internally consistent — they hate women, so they dont want to be around women. so i am approaching this with the assumption that TO THEM this is logical — under what conditions would it be “true” in a mathematical sense that one can have a woman-free life that includes female prostitutes and porn? it has to be that they do not consider prostituted women to be female, or that they do not consider them to be female humans doesnt it? or perhaps they arent so good at the maths, and they think its “close enough” where the inclusion of prostitutes and porn is not *inconsistent* with a male-centric worldview and doesnt challenge a male-centric worldview at all. which is true, ONLY IF they assume that prostitutes and porn-actresses accept the male-centric perspective completely OR AT LEAST WILL NEVER SAY THEY DONT or “let on” that they dont, or do or say anything to snap men out of male-centric reality at any time. of course, neither would a flank steak. and again, the chunks rise.

FCM - June 24, 2013

anyway, this suggests that what migtoes hate about women is that women have this pesky tendency to snap men out of male-centric reality in various ways (ie. when they arent fucking like prostitutes and porn stars i guess? is LITERALLY EVERYTHING ELSE a challenge to male-centrism? if so, what is male-centrism? what is “male” according to themselves?)

god its so gross. i guess i would probably disagree though that the MRAs who want domestic and reproductive slaves are being wishy-washy in their misogyny. but migtoes dont accept my premise (that het “relationships” are an extension of misogyny, not misandry). again, the best thing i can say about migtoes is that they seem to be maintaining INTERNAL consistency considering their own premises and worldview. they arent actually honest or intelligent in any real way obviously!

FCM - June 24, 2013

here is manboobz talking about migtoes and how they seem verily obsessed with women and arent going anywhere, even though women everywhere sincerely wish they would…


FCM - June 24, 2013

god the convos at manboobz suck. like clockwork, all threads devolve into a full-on derail after the first dozen or so comments and no one cares, esp not manboobz himself. this is what happens when you get paid to blog (and when youre a man) i guess…PAGEVIEWS GOOD! actual on-topic convos about misogyny — on a blog allegedly about misogyny — unnecessary! im just saying. dont waste your time.

21. witchwind - June 24, 2013

this suggests that what migtoes hate about women is that women have this pesky tendency to snap men out of male-centric reality in various ways (ie. when they arent fucking like prostitutes and porn stars i guess?

This is a good point. I understand the fact migtoes (lol!) don’t want to be around women because it costs them too much to do all the pretendy crap liberal men do. they don’t want to bother with having to lie, “seduce” or manipulate women to get what they want from them, and don’t want to have to deal with the consequences the abuse has on the woman at all. They just want the woman to be available when they need PIV and go on with their business after that. They don’t want to listen to the woman complain or “nag”. The reason they don’t want wives any more is precisely because many women now believe that it’s all about love relationship and not about being a slave and child breeder to a husband. They want it the good old days when they had a slave and she would shut up and do her “duty” and let him live his life with men, his peers.

This is the more traditional form of patriarchy where men in fact don’t interact at all with women except for PIV (whether a wife or prostituted woman) and there is no pretending that women are equals to men, to keep them quiet. It is probably the ideal form of patriarchy for many men, and which is why more and more men have resorted to bride prostitution, to pornography and prostitution (especially of women from non-western countries) in the last 40 years, precisely because western women have become more demanding and many have fled men.

22. witchwind - June 24, 2013

Not so long ago there were literally NO women in any male fields at all, or so few as to be complete exceptions and unthreatening. Women would work in one area and men in another. It’s still the case today, but there are much more token women in each field than there were before, to the extent that men do feel threatened by women’s presence. Many men are annoyed that women have entered most working fields at all, even if they’re a minority or still absent in the ones where power lies.

Men would not spend time at home with their kids, they weren’t required to do token domestic work to keep the illusion of marriage going, they would go home late after work, spending time with their male acquaintances in brothels, strip-clubs or pubs getting drunk and raping women. It was women’s job to keep the house clean, feed the kids and feed him. That’s it.

FCM - June 24, 2013

its also true that in general, wherever the power is, thats where men are and whenever women make inroads anywhere its only bc the power isnt located there anymore and has been moved. they keep moving the goalposts in other words. so if women have made inroads in the family, does that mean that its bc the family isnt the patriarchal powerhouse it once was? its also generally true that men want to dominate women so as soon as “equality” rears its ugly head, whatever it was that turned him on about the situation before suddenly isnt as interesting. so if the family no longer provides as much sexy male dominance, men arent going to want to do it anymore. this is the effect of “equality activating” in the family courts and of criminalizing marital rape and DV i guess? notice how this doesnt help women as a sexual class at all, and the burden has only shifted to the most (or differently?) vulnerable women who have to deal with these FUCKERS and their need to dominate and enslave women no matter what.

FCM - June 24, 2013

now im wondering where the power is *actually* located since we know they move it all the time. the way we can tell where it is *now* or at any given time is that only men are there and women have made no inroads at all (isnt it?) i have heard others suggest that its “corporations” with their all-male boards and that seems likely as there is far less than even token representation there (less than in government for example?). but where are women not represented AT ALL or *so close* to not at all that its basically the same thing? where female participation is a true aberration? if there is such a place, is this the real power center? if it is, im thinking its “located” in human trafficking and kiddie porn. and that fucking chills me to the bone.

FCM - June 24, 2013

in the perpetration of it obviously! girls and women are overrepresented as the victims.

FCM - June 24, 2013

of course, that would also mean that women have NO CHANCE IN HELL of ever truly sharing “power” with men and that we do not care about it and in fact would have a true aversion to “power” and be physically and emotionally UNABLE (and also unwilling) to share it or participate in it at all if this is what power entails. is it? — is the question. and frankly, based on the above, i think it is.

23. witchwind - June 24, 2013

very good point about the moving goalposts of power wherever women invest energy in changing things, that family no longer provides sexy dominance, and yes this is the effect of equality activating.

I’d say the real power is indeed located in human trafficking (of girls, women and babies), in the higher levels of pimping, pornography, genocide planning, military, and higher levels of corporations. Not to forget religious authorities which are 100% male and still exercise a lot of power in the world. a booming industry nowadays is uterine prostitution (where women are prostituted / held captive to make one baby after the other). The latter is clearly a replacement for the family.

Prostitutor-rapists (punters) are 99,99% male.

You do find lots of women in the lower levels of pimping for instance, often former prostituted women whose only escape is to become a small-level pimp herself. Generally they serve as bait for women in the recruitment part and may be the women’s “primary surveillance contact”.

FCM - June 24, 2013

dont mind me, ive just had about 1000 pennies drop.

women will *never* and i mean *never* share power with men. this is not a bad thing (considering where the power center lies — see above) but we are going to have to give up all illusions and pretense about this immediately, including those obfuscating the nature of “power” and WHY women will likely be unable to do this and will indeed have a true aversion to it. (**cough** biology **cough**). we have discussed before how women simply do not willingly participate in extreme sexualized violence except in exceedingly tiny numbers indicating that this is a true aberration for women, similar to a true mental illness (or even more rare than that). if this is where “power” lies then we not only wont want to do it but we WILL NOT be able to do it. clearly it would be unethical to try to change this about women or to “other” women or pathologize them for not being physically or mentally able to share this kind of power — note that this *is* exactly whats been done to us since we had all these “opportunities” opened up for us (to be creative torturers and death-dealers) and we have mostly declined, “equality” be damned. we have been mocked for this, for not “stepping up” and taking a piece of the pie. well maybe this is why. maybe we physically and mentally cant, due to the nature of power. which means we need to reject the entire idea, give up on politics completely and make womens world. NOW.

FCM - June 24, 2013

thats right — 1000 pennies! or, a full $10.00 in mensworld. 😀

24. luckynkl - June 25, 2013

Where is the power? I too think it’s currently with the corporations. I did some research awhile back and discovered that 94% of corporations are run by white males. The other 6% are non-white men and women combined.

There are 442 billionaires in the U.S. The U.S. is far ahead of the pack. China comes in 2nd with 122 billionaires.
*data according to Forbes

Porn, prostitution, sex trafficking, and violence against women are a national past time in the U.S. and considered entertainment. In fact, most of the world’s porn originates from the west coast of the U.S. These are multi-billion dollar a year businesses. The U.S. gov’t even took over some brothels in Las Vegas awhile back. These brothels were federally owned and run.. So the U.S. gov’t itself is a pimp and prostitutes its female citizens.

On another note, but one of interest, the original meaning of the word “rape” is “to carry away.” It refers to how men raided villages and carried off the females. The “best man” helped the “groom” carry off his “bride.” He then held the girl/woman for ransom demanding the family pay him for her return, which later became known as a “dowry.” The “honeymoon” was the period in which he forced PIV on her, impregnating her. Which then forced her into marriage with her rapist. She was then raped happily ever after for the rest of her life and forced to breed her rapist’s children. According to the History Channel, the wedding ring is symbolic of the tether he tied around the girl/woman’s waist and bolted to the floor to prevent her escape.

As we can see, words have meaning and often have an entire history behind them. Men have obviously been hard at work trying to erase women’s history and the atrocities men have committed against women. Which is why I find it so offensive when folks assert men can be raped too. Sorry, but this has never happened to a man in the history of mankind.

Also of note, sperm of course swims. So PIV isn’t the only thing that impregnates. Any sperm deposited in or around the vulva can swim and make its way to the egg.

As for marriage no longer being in style, think again. A few years back, Time Magazine ran an article. It stated that 70% of American women were no longer interested in marriage or babies – now or ever (who said feminism failed? LOL). However, 90% of men not only wanted marriage and children, but felt entitled to it and fully expected it. Uh oh, we’ve got a problem here, Houston. I groaned. I knew what was coming next. I wasn’t wrong. Let the full frontal assault on women’s rights and an all-out war on women begin! If women do not breed or go the alter willingly, then by jove, men will force it on them! We’re right back to the origins of the word “rape” again, no? Or something very similar

25. lisaprime - June 25, 2013

But wait…there’s so much fun in sight…we can now join male games, and that’s what most of human society is…you tellin’ me you don’t think this is a blast? You don’t see things like us men do?

26. lisaprime - June 25, 2013

I especially love the “tragic music” , as if there’s something of human value occurring here, but unfortunately it’s all just necrophilia and bloodgames. yeah, let’s get outta this.

27. lisaprime - June 25, 2013

Sorry, i didn’t come to a conclusion. The conclusion is, this is masculinity.

28. Greywing - June 25, 2013

Men wield their power by destruction or the threat of destruction. It might even be accurate to say that male power and male destruction (necrophilia) are synonymous. If women were ever to participate in this en masse it would probably spell the end of humanity very quickly. (Though I agree FCM, we couldn’t.) Women’s resistance to participating in men’s power/necrophilia, and instead being drawn to biophilic activities is probably why humanity is still around. (see my previous comment on Neanderthals.) Or to put it another way, the fact that we’re still around is evidence of our resistance to necrophilia.

29. witchwind - June 25, 2013

it is structurally (structures in all senses: social, institutional, genetic) and biologically impossible to share men’s power. Men’s power being based on biology (penis, semen and male genetic set up), it requires male biology to be able to exercise and desire this kind of power. Simple.

This is one major reason why reproducing any of men’s models (of relating, of activating, of organising, etc) is profoundly against ourselves and unnatural to us.

Women can “imitate” men’s power because we are held captive to men’s ways, are destroyed by men to the point of being ridden with pathologies and are kept from discovering alternatives to men’s ways.

30. witchwind - June 25, 2013

But when women imitate male power, they do exactly this: imitate, fake it, pretend: it’s not real. It requires even vast amounts of brainwashing and violence for women to want to imitate male codes and find it desirable at all. And even still, none of it makes sense at all so we pretend we understand it and want it.

FCM - June 25, 2013

yes it is an imitation of male power only, and its only ever going to be that. the illusion is fairly complete and keeps driving our behavior, and lets be clear about what this is — it is “cargo cult” behavior and it is based on a logical fallacy. i have written about that before.


IOW we see “powerful” men wearing suits and going to offices, or being in the public sphere, or being involved in government (or whatever) so we assume that those things/places are where the power is located. we imitate the suit and office stuff (or whatever) to the extent we can, because we can — but no power is forthcoming. why not? because we dont know whats going on behind the scenes thats driving it or indeed that there is ANY “behind the scenes” at all. the systems and overlapping systems of patriarchy that make and keep men powerful, which seem (!!!) to center on necrophilia and extreme sexualized violence which is incompatible with life and therefore also necrophilic. if we knew, we might reject it.

31. Farish - June 25, 2013

FCM: “hi farishcunning. actually if i were going to stick strictly to MY own definition of rape which is “the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders” this could include more things than just PIV but only WRT female victims of males. for example, womens role as fuckholes would be enforced through any penetrations especially penile penetrations. and womens role as breeders would be enforced by ANY exposure to semen at all which creates a risk of pregnancy even if its not deposited directly into the vagina. i dont feel like enumerating the many man-ifestations of that one, you get the picture. ANY exposure to semen anywhere on or in a female body. and there would be no age limit to this, the point is that the victim is female and that exposing female-bodied persons to semen creates a risk of pregnancy because this is how the female body works. we know that 4-year olds can and do become impregnated (and that when this happens it is always rape obvs). but at any rate, a man fucking or penetrating a female of any age would be enforcing her role as fuckhole too and this is not debatable. with PIV its obviously both things.

i think i sometimes step across worlds and audiences when i think and write about these things though, sorry if thats confusing. my definition is not an attempt at a legal definition but a woman-centered one and i think it is correct from that perspective, meaning that this is the intent and effect on female-bodied persons of males raping us across time and place. a legal definition which will by definition NEVER be female-centered should only include PIV though since this is the crux of the issue (almost all rape includes PIV) and is frankly the ONLY way to define rape so that it addresses the historical and political reality of it without being vulnerable to equality-rhetoric bc “other things” can happen to men too. penetrations can happen to men too. “forced sex” can happen to men too. a radfem definition (see above) would not be vulnerable to equality rhetoric because we flatly reject equality rhetoric, but this is not possible in any other area bc its “discriminatory” in every other area to protect women from men or to name our oppression or to point out that what men do to us is sex-specific, which it obviously is. in this way legal protections for women will NEVER work because they arent meant to address the ways men harm females as females. the law is meant to perpetuate that, and to protect men. which is exactly what it does, and exactly the problem with redefining rape as “forced sex” or even various anogenital abuses which men do to each other but which are not politically oppressive to males as a class.”

I just had to reprint this, FCM; it’s fucking brilliant. Puts into (eloquent) words things I have long muddled through in my head. I cannot tell you what it means to me to read your blog. Suffice to say, these ideas are rather uncommon here in Alabama.


32. Greywing - June 25, 2013

All men’s power structures are centered around sexualized violence. The vast majority of men who climb the ladder high enough do so specifically because they want to be able to rape women and children with impunity. Meetings around sex workers are crucial (strip clubs, brothels, private parties with strippers/prostitutes) not just because that’s what it’s all about, but also to make sure everyone are on the same page before they’re allowed to climb higher. And since all the men are all on the same boat, they all have each others backs etc. And all this of course goes for supposedly liberatory orgs as well, ie Assange.

FCM - June 25, 2013

excellent connection there greywing. that makes perfect sense. again we see how futile and indeed naive it is for women to challenge this (any) aspect of “corporate culture.” talk about missing the forest for the trees! corporate culture = male culture = rape. i mightve said corporate culture = rape culture except by now “rape culture” has utterly lost all meaning if it ever had any. i dont know, they lost me (and everyone) at slutwalk.

FCM - June 25, 2013

its almost embarrassingly naive although im trying not to go there. its not really our fault for not knowing this, or for having to take the long way around, but still. its not fun being ignorant and wrong! delphyne had a good idea which is to have self-identified male feminists provide actual feminists with this kind of information — what men do when we arent around, what men really do to women and say about women etc — so we dont have to spend YEARS figuring it out on our own, or never figuring it out at all, or getting it wrong. its the least they could do! i mean really.

33. Sargasso Sea - June 26, 2013

I’ve been too busy with some *stuff* to contribute much this time – the flow of convo/thought has outpaced me! 🙂

A car campaign slogan we saw today: “Control is the ultimate expression of power”. File that under they’re ALWAYS telling the truth if we are lucky enough to have the ears that are capable of hearing it.

34. witchwind - June 26, 2013

yes thanks for this reminder Greyving. Very true indeed. This is the common denominator for any male-only gathering actually: whether it be sports (at all their sports events truckloads of prostituted women are shipped to the area by the pimps so they can rape them after the sports – which shows the real sports and bonding for them, raping women, is behind the scenes), the military, corporate meetings, male religious gatherings, political gatherings, medical gatherings, stag parties, etc etc. And the higher they go up in hierarchy, status and financial power, the higher the number of women is made accessible to them to rape, either prostituted women or women in subordinate positions to them (secretaries, cleaners, trainees, any woman underneath hierarchically speaking) – who won’t be able to defend themselves because he’s “the lord” and will be protected no matter what atrocities he committed – This is true for any man whichever the field he’s high up in. For instance DSK: every six months or so new charges of rape are pressing against him from women who are speaking out, including charges of pimping, and that’s only the tip of the iceberg, yet he’s still out and about – he is known to have raped so many women around him that for the presidential elections in 2011, two bodyguards were paid for him by his party whenever he went to public meetings: not to protect him, but to PREVENT HIM from raping!!!

Studies have shown that whenever men meet in large number (or small number, but they only counted large), prostitution / rape of women rises significantly.

I’ve also read this book that studies male corporate culture in Japan where all the important meetings, not just any meetings, that is, the ones where they strike the important deals and contracts for the company, are taken in these kind of clubs where women service men emotionally and sexually (but it’s not a brothel nor a strip club, something in between, so it’s more “classy” according to their own understanding). Obviously no woman can enter in there.

This holds true for every male corporate culture in the world but in Japan it seemed particularly institutionalised and blatant.

The more there is money involved in the corp, the more likely it is that the important meeting and bonding place for the corporation and for the men in it will be in strip clubs, brothels or other inventions of either kind.

35. witchwind - June 26, 2013

And if you look at it even from an economic perspective, the things that generate most money in the world, next to drugs and arms trafficking, is pimping, trafficking in women, pornography and all the “cosmetic and fashion” (torture) industries banded together. = the trade of men’s sexual violence of women.

36. witchwind - June 26, 2013

sorry for comment spamming – but this also shows how derailing male lefty anticapitalists are to women and feminism. We know this already, but being around them or having been formatted by their thought will get you very, very far away from identifying the nature of men’s individual and global power – why each of their institutions, like CBL said, are only facades for men to gather, hold monopoly over resources so to rape women. The core of their institutions are PIV/rape. It makes perfect sense anyway since everything men do is about sticking their dicks into women, we just have to figure out how each institution facilitates this on a broader and internal level.

37. cherryblossomlife - June 26, 2013

WOnderful, wonderful post.

And yes, I’m with rmott that prostituted women are there *to* *be* dehumanized, raped and murdered, whereas when a married woman is murdered, it is *her* that her husband is murdering. *Her* soul, *her* defiance.
But with prostituted women it’s very different. To him, the whore is just an idea, not even an entity. She doesn’t even exist as a person. There is no simply no anger there where he kills her. He just calmly does it, like that’s what she’s for.
So yes, tHere is a distinction between the murder of the prostituted, and the murder of all other women.

FCM - June 26, 2013

hi cherry 🙂 i cant help but wonder, whenever i hear these distinctions being made, whether people are overestimating mens opinion of women in general. its a common mistake even among radical feminists afterall. for example, “wife” is just an idea in mens heads too, its something you acquire at some point whereupon you never have to think or do anything for yourself ever again. im also not convinced that men who kill wives and gfs are even all that angry when they do it. what do we hear from survivors? that would be the question since the ones who die obvs arent around to tell us about his demeanor when he was doing it. is this something that can be researched? maybe. judging by what what ive seen on these “postgame” true crime shows (where they interview the survivors — and yes its very much a sport or a game, real womens victimization being presented as entertainment or edu-tainment) the women very notably dont say their attackers are consumed with rage. instead we hear that the guy was cool as a cucumber, or that his face and demeanor “changed”. i have seen something similar myself where the man “changed” and his skin took on a waxy appearance like an embalmed corpse. its something i will never forget. this is the facade of “good guy” falling away of course. it is not anger.

FCM - June 26, 2013

obvs there is a difference between these “classes” of women (no difference, nothing to classify right?) but im not convinced that the difference is that nonprostituted women *arent* merely ideas in mens heads, or that men are particularly angry when they kill any of us.

38. luckynkl - June 26, 2013

The main difference I see between married women and prostituted women is that one is considered private property while the other is considered public property. Which is also the main difference between conservative men and liberal men. Conservatives view women as private property while liberals view women as public property. The radical feminists stance of course is that women aren’t property at all.

FCM - June 26, 2013

well, prostituted women are privately owned by their husbands/pimps *and* they are also the public property of all men. perhaps an unmarried, unpartnered, unpimped prostituted woman is *only* public property but the others (likely the majority?) seem to be both dont they?

FCM - June 26, 2013

and what are most women when we travel outside the private sphere? why does street harassment and workplace harassment and stranger-rape exist? are nonprostituted women “public” women too? bc it seems like it. im not saying theres NOTHING there as far as a public/private distinction, but its not exactly straightforward in my mind.

39. luckynkl - June 26, 2013

It still is a male property rights issue. Because men view women as property, not as human. Property which can be bought, sold, traded and owned by men.

To expound a bit on private vs public property, private property means only one man owns, fucks and breeds a specific woman. This is to help insure his paternity of any offspring, which he also owns. Public property means any man can fuck and breed her. Which not only holds true for prostituted women, but any woman who isn’t legally owned by a man.

These are codes of conduct for men. That doesn’t mean all men abide by these codes. Men break their own rules all the time. But these codes have been enacted into law, which means men who have had their property rights infringed upon by another man have a course of action and can file suit to be compensated for the infringement violations.

FCM - June 26, 2013

yes, “we” just sue/prosecute to enforce mens rights by proxy. i get it — its not “our” right to not be raped. obviously.

however, from womens perspective i have to wonder whether these are meaningful differences. if men make rules only to break them, and from our perspective we are sexually and reproductively abused both coming and going, i have to think that they are not meaningful *to us* or as far as we are concerned. its worth mentioning in this context that rmott is an abolitionist and this is the form her feminism/activism takes (she has said she is not a radical feminist). *she* thinks there are differences in the way prostituted women are treated and clearly there are. but are these differences meaningful politically? if its a matter of degree (and not a matter of kind) when analyzed *from womens perspective* rather than from mens or from a male-centric perspective (and legal distinctions are male-centric by design) then i would have to say sorry, but they are not. witchwind addressed this above when she said that prostituted women (or any class of women) monopolizing the word or concept of “torture” is inconsistent with the reality of all womens lives and i think thats true.

40. luckynkl - June 26, 2013

You’re right, FCM. There is no meaningful difference from the female perspective. Torture is torture and dead is dead. Do you really think I’d give a rat’s ass if it was my husband raping, torturing and murdering me or a John? Altho I suppose if it were my husband, I’d experience betrayal on top of it because he’s supposed to love me and took vows to love, honor and take care of me. Prostituted women aren’t under any such delusions. Altho I suppose some do trauma bond to their pimps.

Rmott has said in the past that it’s about the differences in status. Married women have respectability in society while prostituted women do not. I’ve heard the same argument from lesbians about het women. Black women argue that about white women. Poor women argue that about upper class women. Child-free women argue that about mothers. Unfortunately, I think many ppl suffer from “the grass looks greener on the other side” syndrome. But having been in most all these positions, I can tell you that the grass is not greener on the other side. The pros and cons may vary, but in the end, women aren’t respected no matter what position they’re in. ALL groups of women are battered, raped, tortured and murdered and there isn’t a place on the planet where any woman is safe from men or above it all. It’s common sense tho that the more proximity a woman has to men, the greater the risk will be.

41. witchwind - June 26, 2013

It is important to remind that women’s freedom is measured not by male-centred economic standards of “class” or “status” (which only men can benefit from because it’s related to how much power they have over women), but by how free, autonomous and far away we are from MEN and men’s violence.

The less men are around us and control our immediate surroundings, our selves, our lives, our thoughts, our speech, our actions and access to resources, and the less men are around us subjecting us to all sorts of violence especially sexual violence / PIV, the freer we are. It doesn’t matter how much money we have – if we’re owned by an abusive husband, It won’t protect us from his violence and stop him from killing us. Being born rich as a girl won’t protect us from being raped by fathers, uncles, brothers, cousins or other males. Because we’re the property of propertied men, that’s all. It won’t protect us from being harassed at work or in public spaces. It won’t protect us from having our work stolen by men. Upper-middle class men might also find ways of pimping (exchanging) their wives through BDSM or amateur porn rings, even if they don’t earn money from it.

So those that are furthest away from men and least in contact with men and maleness and men’s access to them (through violence and control and stealth) are actually the safest and more autonomous women, both physically and economically – whichever part in the world they might be.

This, again, doesn’t take away the differences in experience between women, which are significantly different in degrees as FCM said, but the violence is always specific to women as a group, whichever the form this violence takes. For instance if it’s racism, it will be sexual violence + specific anti-woman racism – completely different from what men experience as racism. The function of racism wrt women is to make them more vulnerable to rape, prostitution, forced breeding, sexual harassment and domestic slavery by both colonised men and male colonisers. Male invaders typically rape and prostitute the women of the lands they colonise. If it’s economic oppression, with women this oppression will take a form that’s only specific to women (= more vulnerability to rape and sexual harassment, forms of humiliation and demeaning works reserved only for women).

42. witchwind - June 26, 2013

And in general we do hear that women who live with men (are owned by a single man) have more status and power. Just to restate what lucky said and i said afterwood (which is the obvious IMO), this couldn’t be further from the truth and it’s a male lie that still works very well for some reason.

To believe the above, that married or het women have more power or status, is deeply misunderstanding the nature of male power, men’s oppression over us and the nature of our subjugation to men. If our oppression comes primarily from the coercion of PIV / breeding and any form of penile penetrations by men + ownership of our selves by men, then being het or married (or prostituted) is a sign that we have LESS power for ourselves than if we weren’t het, married or prostituted (or any other form of forced proximity to men).

The truth is that being owned by a man will be what takes the power and bodily autonomy and integrity AWAY from us – it’s the very purpose of the oppression. By being owned by a man, we are the least powerful as a human can be.

FCM - June 26, 2013

proximity to men +1

43. luckynkl - June 27, 2013

It is important to remind that women’s freedom is measured not by male-centered economic standards of “class” or “status” (which only men can benefit from because it’s related to how much power they have over women), but by how free, autonomous and far away we are from MEN and men’s violence.

Touché, WW.
I found the analysis in your last two posts to be my lived experience and right on the money.

FCM - June 27, 2013

FYI the state of texas exercised its authoritah to execute a black woman yesterday.


the story says she killed someone, and i dont give a fuck if she did. male governments do not have the AUTHORITY to execute women including nonwhite and white women, poor and rich women, lesbian and straight women, single and partnered women, mothers and nonmothers, or ANY WOMEN AT ALL FOR ANY REASON.

if you need any more evidence of mens perspective on the issue of executing women and where they are coming from when they think and talk about it, AND DO IT, read the following dialog between powerful males discussing it. the topic: how and whether to execute pregnant women. necrophilic much? male-centric issue framing much? yay!


FCM - June 27, 2013

heres a slideshow of “the women of death row.”


if you read the captions you will see that many of them killed their male partners or children (or male children — i didnt count but are women who kill sons rather than daughters MORE likely to get death for it?). the potential issues here are numerous, including misogyny (duh), overvaluing male children, unwanted/ambivalent children, surveillance of female caretakers/blaming the mother, and postpartum depression and psychosis. if you dig further into many of these stories, particularly the women who murdered others (not male partners or children) you will see that often there was a male involved somehow who may or may not have also been convicted in the same crime. of the WHOLE ONE of these that involve a woman committing extreme sexualized abuse, a man was convicted too. i found a message board for that one where people who knew the “couple” (yes they were fucking — arent they always?) said that the woman was nuttier than a fruitcake and that the dood was both creepy and scary. indeed. many of these women have histories of sexual abuse and rape, early unwanted pregnancies and other factors that obviously didnt mitigate the severity of the charges or the sentence.

these are ALL issues over which males have NO authority and are acting under AUTHORITAH only to evaluate and punish females for doing things men dont like (the very definition of “legal transgressions” — get it?).

FCM - June 27, 2013

pregnant and lactating women were also burned at the stake. their breasts and bellies burst from the heat. in one case, the force of it blew the fetus outside the perimeter of the pyre/fire and someone very helpfully retrieved it and threw it back in. the fetus story is from barstows “witchcraze”. i read about the exploding breasts somewhere else, a long time ago. it stuck with me obvs. torturing and executing pregnant women is pornographic spectacle for woman-hating necrophilic men. perhaps the most blatant example of it in fact. its fucking horrifying.

FCM - June 27, 2013

heres what pro-choice liberal dickwad politican al gore had to say about whether pregnant women should be executed:

[He] said it would be up to the condemned women to decide whether to postpone execution until they give birth.

“The principle of a woman’s right to choose governs in that case,” Gore said.

yes thats an excellent principle isnt it? its so very…principled. thanks al! one question though: are women on death row becoming impregnated in such (or any) numbers that this is even necessary to talk or think about? if not, this is just more necrophilic dickjerking (also known as “hypotheticals”) by and amongst criminally misogynistic deranged (ie. ordinary) men. if female inmates are becoming impregnated in large (or any) numbers….well houston, we have ANOTHER problem. over which WOMEN have authority and men dont BTW. but lets not talk about that at all! more necrpohilia and gross masturbation fodder for males please!

FCM - June 27, 2013

heres a man exercising his AUTHORITAH to speak about the issue of male violence:

if you can stand to watch it at all, note all the bullshit and fails. note how he never ONE TIME gets it spot-on (because no man ever will because they are men) but is seen to make a lot of good points anyway just because hes willing to talk about it at all. note the “what about the boys and men” he invokes at least a half a dozen times. note the overarching tone and message here which is that its going to take literally generations for any change to occur, and we are embarking on an epic and painful journey thats going to take DECADES AT LEAST and yet reforming males is seen as a perfectly reasonable and indeed MANDATORY use of *our* time (speak for yourself dood).

the image of embarking on an epic journey (to save our sons!!!1!11) makes me laugh and laugh. that ship has sailed, and not only that but it obviously sunk a long time ago. the proof is that we “embarked” on that journey 100 years ago and we never made it — in any other scenario that would be incontrovertible proof of a SUNKEN SHIP. but a man making money on facilitating “leadership trainings” for military and other men says we are just beginning so it must be true!

FCM - June 27, 2013

44. Farish - June 27, 2013

FCM: “…males have NO authority and are acting under AUTHORITAH only to evaluate and punish females for doing things men dont like (the very definition of “legal transgressions” — get it?).” (Emphasis added.)

And I can’t tell you how that grates on me. I have less than no interest in doing things men like. Would that our brainwashed, browbeaten sisters would collectively throw off their yokes of doing what men like and begin acting in their own best interest.

45. Sargasso Sea - June 27, 2013

That men will say with every seriousness that the IDEA of women’s *choice* dictates whether that fetus is executed or not. Gee thanks!!!

And the last I heard the time it takes to be charged and convicted of a *capital* crime (let alone all of the appeals) far exceeds a term of pregnancy – so, yeah, we have another problem here. How (and where!) are these “condemned” women being impregnated? Choice?? My ass.

FCM - June 27, 2013

do most men even have the brainpower to understand these issues, let alone the ethics to “decider” them correctly? does al gore himself even know what hes talking about and implicating here or not? sometimes i really wonder. either way its a bad deal for women that idiots and pervs are making policy that affects women and womens lives. CHOICE!? hahahahaha! oh okay. are *we* assumed to be as dumb or perverted as they are, so that EITHER we dont get whats happening either OR we get turned on by it too? or, are we supposed to not care? or what?

either we have incarcerated women being raped on death row within months of their executions (!!!) or al gore and his dickjerking politicos just enjoy hypothesizing about (dickjerking to) woman-hating disgustingness that never actually happens in real life. and infanticide!

so which is it? inquiring minds and all that. of course it doesnt matter A LOT — either way its bad, really bad. but like all truths, it does MATTER. these are “our” elected officials (and “our” prisons) afterall.

FCM - June 27, 2013

FCM - June 27, 2013

and yes i am aware that women are in fact raped in prison all the time. but for DEATH ROW INMATES that are within days or months of their executions some additional variables come into play. for example, assuming this isnt just male wanking material and actually does happen in real life, these women are in maximum security and have likely been there for a really long time, and without “conjugal visits.” this unambiguously precludes the possibility that the pregnancy happened in any other way and conclusively shows that the impregnated inmate was raped by a male official. also, there are very few women actually on death row at any one time — as of jan. 1, 2013 the number was 63. since 1976, “only” 12 women have been executed by the state in the US. (13 as of lastnight in texas, i guess?) if this was an issue for even ONE of those women, that means that women on death row are being raped at very high rates — 1 in 12 is over 8% and thats *just* where the victim was impregnated. if this is true, or if its even higher than that, we have a very, VERY serious problem here that is not being addressed by anyone in an honest way.


therefore, my spidey sense is telling me that for the most part, al gore and his friends are wanking it, and they enjoy thinking about and talking about this stuff. although it is completely possible that this has happened and it wouldnt surprise me at all, its the likely *frequency* (or infrequency) of it that makes me think this is male masturbation fodder. it also sounds like all “deep” political conversations in every undergraduate college bar ever. mansplanations R us. hypos are fun, and intellectually stimulating dont you see. intellectually. yeah thats it.

46. Sargasso Sea - June 27, 2013

Wanking for sure either way. Both ways.

And at the risk of repeating myself endlessly we must remember that it was good ol’ Al who championed the availability to the *public* the porn delivery service we call the internet. (I’m sure it was just an oversight that they didn’t anticipate women communicating with each other in meaningful ways on THEIR internetz.)

In other news (and forgive if this is too much of a derail?) the whole Paula Deen racist thing is being used to cover (invisible-ize) the OTHER part of the lawsuit which involves her brother and co-owner of the restaurant “sexually harassing” “underage” “employees”.

47. Greywing - June 27, 2013

In the U.S., one-third of female murder victims are murdered by male partners, and women survive an estimated 4.8 million rapes and physical assaults each year at the hands of their husbands or boyfriends. By comparison, less than 4% of male murder victims are killed by female partners, and most of those are women acting to defend themselves from men who have repeatedly beaten them. In Michigan, one woman is murdered by a husband or boyfriend every five days. The establishment of shelters, wider public education and greater economic options for women have resulted in a dramatic decrease in men who are killed by female partners over the past thirty years. However, the number of women who are murdered by male partners has not decreased significantly during that same period.

Despite the very real dangers that many women live with on a daily basis, there is evidence to suggest that women who kill in their own defense may face greater punishment than other defendants. A study conducted by The Michigan Battered Women’s Clemency Project of homicide convictions and sentences over a three year period from 1986 to 1988, inclusive, in Oakland County, Michigan, revealed startling levels of discrimination against defendants who are victims of domestic violence. Results showed that domestic violence victims had higher conviction rates and longer sentences than all others charged with homicide, including those with previous violent criminal records. Overall, a white female defendant with no criminal history who was convicted by a jury of killing a white person could expect an average sentence of 10 to 30 years. However, if the woman was a victim of domestic violence, her predicted sentence increased to life.

Currently, there are approximately 370 women serving time in Michigan prisons for Murder I, II or felony murder. We estimate at least one-third are women who acted in self-defense against an abusive partner but did not receive due process or fair trials based on the facts of their cases; and many have served 20 or more years. Thus, in addition to the abuse they suffered in the domestic sphere, they are now spending the rest of their lives in a prison system that Amnesty International has named one of the worst prison systems for women in the nation, especially with regard to sexual assault and retaliation by guards, medical neglect and other abuses. This systemic and institutionalized problem sustains the larger, structural pattern of violence against women.


FCM - June 27, 2013

interesting! increased support and shelters for women means less men get killed. ive also heard that where men stop beating their wives, child abuse perpetrated BY WOMEN plummets. this is because women have actual reasons for being abusive toward children that dont include sadism and sexual gratification including overwhelming stress and isolation of the maternal role COUPLED WITH the stress of being abused herself, and controlling/dominating the children to placate an abusive man. so. male violence is at the root of all male violence (obviously!) and male violence is at the root of much of womens violence too. men create violent women IOW and they take it upon themselves to evaluate and punish women for doing things they dont like, and treat women even more harshly then they treat themselves. even though its largely mens fault, and wouldnt exist but for themselves because they victimized women first. how clever.

FCM - June 27, 2013

48. Revisiting SCUM | femonade - July 5, 2013

[…] dont.  men are simply and obviously of no value to other men, and indeed this is reflective of natural law whereby men are largely redundant, and where one woman is worth millions and even billions of […]

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: