jump to navigation

Keep Talking Owen Lloyd June 28, 2013

Posted by FCM in feminisms, meta, PIV, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , ,

i saw the lierre keith/derrek jensen article on counterpunch in all its weird queerified gendernonsensical antiglory and was disappointed, but not quite moved to respond to it.  i mean, how many times can a position be stated and restated for the record before it ceases to be helpful?  this is a serious question.  repetition can be a good thing, and its helpful to both readers and writers to see and think about things multiple times, or in more than one way or in more than one time or place.  it probably has something to do with the brain, but thats above my pay grade.  i run mostly on intuition, and my intuition is telling me that providing a breakdown of a weird queerified “radfem” text isnt going to be useful today.

enter owen lloyd.  remember him?  hes the fucking terrifying asshole who becomes enraged at the sight of women, existing.  he also writes and does fundraising for DGR news service, which, according to himself, is responsible for “educating people on news and media related to the ongoing struggle against environmental and social injustice.”

educating them.  get it?  and since DGR itself is billed as being “unconditionally” feminist, we see that DGR news service and other publications and whatnot released by DGR, in addition to whatever else they do and are, are meant to educate people about feminism and in particular radical feminism.  because any other kind is antithetical to environmentalism.  true, that.

heres owen lloyd writing about rape for DGR news service back in march.  oh goody, a self-identified feminist man talking about rape, i say to myself.  chance of him implicating himself in something gross and woman-hating: approaching 100%.  one immediately notes the [TW] at the top of the page — like a good (liberal?) feminist, he lets us know straight up that we are in for graphic depictions of extreme sexualized violence i mean a porny treat of male masturbation fodder and that we are to proceed at our peril.  so if we disassociate for the rest of the day, its our own fault and definitely not the fault of the man who caused it.  wow, how unusual ive never seen that tactic used before in other contexts i mean thanks for the warning?  i guess?  i was right about owen lloyd.

i continue to read, at my peril, because DGR is on my radar but almost anything would be more interesting to me today than deconstructing that counterpunch article.  and in fact i dont feel much like properly deconstructing anything today, so no direct quotes will be forthcoming.  let me convey my general impressions (analysis) only.  you can read the original material for yourself.

owen lloyd is upset at steven pinker, a “canadian-born experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author” because pinker suggests that there is a biological component to male violence and to men raping women across time and place.  rape, that thing that men do to women globally and across time which (by definition) largely transcends social conditioning and rape, that thing that women generally dont do to anyone, anywhere, ever.  incidentally, owen lloyd gets “upset” at people quite a lot, but lets ignore that insignificant detail for a moment.

and although neither pinker nor lloyd could probably be expected to recognize this, and they clearly dont, lloyds cherry-picked quotes from pinker (which are supposed to show that pinker is an extraordinary asshole) and lloyds own porny examples of extreme sexualized violence actually paint a vivid picture of a necrophilic male context that transcends time and place.  i say “necrophilic” because extreme violence including extreme sexualized violence is not compatible with life — necrophilia is a radfem concept coined by an actual, real feminist (mary daly) who wasnt invested in carrying water for men or pretending that men were something they arent.  and once you recognize it for what it is, evidence of mens sickening necrophilia becomes obvious everywhere you look, and i do mean everywhere.  we are swimming (drowning) in it.

anyhoo, owen lloyd whines that there cannot possibly be a biological/innateness component to men raping women and babies across time and place because man-bashing, and because owen lloyd wants to believe that there is such a thing as “making love” (or whatever) and that this is very different from rape and mens extreme sexualized violence against women yes it is, yes it is, yes it is infinity.

owen lloyd does not seem to be aware that intercourse, the way men do it, is just more of the same necrophilia because it creates unwanted and ambivalent pregnancies, where it is largely (completely) unwanted and ambivalent pregnancies and the resulting unwanted/ambivalent children — mens sexual and reproductive abuse of women, in other words — that are overpopulating and killing the world.  an environmentalist should know this.  a feminist should know this.  owen lloyd and DGR do not seem to know this, and yet they are educating the public on matters of both feminism and environmentalism.  oops.  and as if that werent enough, some 500,000 women die every year around the world from pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications — more necrophilia, and more evidence that intercourse is a necrophilic practice.

men are killing women and the entire world with their dicks, and owen lloyd is mad at steven pinker for pointing out that men stick their dicks into women and mostly dont care about the consequences and implications of that for the women or for anything — like the environment? — even though that is demonstrably true.  owen lloyd defends his own motivations i mean special snowflake status when he is joined at the reproductive organs with his “partner” as meaning and be-ing something different than the thing other men do when they are joined at the reproductive organs of other women.  even though IN MANY WAYS its not different at all.  enumerate the ways, environmentalist feminist.

and perhaps even more to the point, owen lloyd is mad.  yet again.  something rises up in him every time someone says or does something he doesnt like — he himself has described this feeling as rage.  this is his involuntary, knee-jerk response which he seems completely unable/unwilling to control, and which pops up mostly regardless of context or provocation — indeed, he cant seem to help it.  someday perhaps owen lloyd will learn to control both his rage and his urge to stick his dick into women and to zealously and angrily defend other mens right to stick their dicks into women too.  it is *possible* that he will endeavor to and succeed in controlling these things.

the one thing owen lloyd will probably never do is to seriously consider that these involuntary physical and emotional sensations he experiences all the time which are mostly or entirely invisible to himself — in particular, rage and the need to stick his dick into women and then to fucking defend the practice (!!!) (with rage!) regardless of the consequences or implications to women or to anything, including the environment — is something he shares with other males, as a class, and that this transcends time and place (and therefore, social conditioning).  that it comes from himself, in other words, and that this is the very definition of innate.

this appears to be the size of it, owen lloyd.  u mad?  LOL.  thats what i thought.


1. FCM - June 28, 2013

LOL. a man talking about rape, and deconstructing another mans assessment of rape.

FCM - June 28, 2013

lloyd = cartman. pinker = guy in the car. haha. more generally speaking, men talking about rape = cartman. women, who actually experience rape = the guy in the car.

2. lisaprime - June 28, 2013

I wondered when someone would go after Pinker. Pinker’s got an odd status – one of his books is featured as a link on the mensrights subreddit. On the other hand, in his book on violence he made a few “:mistakes” and wrote what the studies show regarding the maleness of violence and its biological base. For most of the book, yes, he did whitewash that truth, but here and there he let it be said, and I’m happy for those crumbs of truth. Will try to find some of what he said today.

As for the other guy – this is the problem when radfems try to ally with men. Nuff said. DGR has some growing pains ahead.

3. Sargasso Sea - June 28, 2013

Yay! An opportunity to submit the belly-laugh of my day:

“Sex is the glue that keeps most marriages together. Absent that intimacy, there’s little point.”

This in response to another *liberal* dude who posits that PIV is harmful to women (because the women in porn don’t look like they’re having fun) although much was made of whether this “anti-PIV” dude’s blog is satirical, and if not, what a poor deluded (sexually abused!) loser he is.

That’s right, without the right to the “intimacy” of sticking your dick into the woman you own (trauma bonding) what’s the point of owning her?

FCM - June 28, 2013

theres an anti-PIV dood? lol

but seriously, people need to consider the phrase “making love” and realize its not a euphemism for “sex” but an admission and a very literal description of what PIV is for. it creates a feeling of bondedness out of whole cloth. the “love” feeling is not authentic, but deliberately created and cultivated IN WOMEN (and notably and historically not in men) through trauma bonding. and we are staring this one in the face constantly but cannot see it for what it is, despite the language. MAKING. LOVE. think about it.

maybe thats why most people dont come right out and SAY it anymore, they just imply it. like good-guy owen lloyd who describes having sex with women but not in an objectifying or sadistic way, and with empathy!!!1!1224

4. Sargasso Sea - June 28, 2013

Oh yeah there’s an anti-PIV dude and he has this very blog on his blogroll too!!



FCM - June 28, 2013

oh HIM. yes i remember him. hes the “yeah im a virgin WUT WUT WUT” guy. he had to show the other doods that he wasnt abusing women with his dick because HE didnt want to. and it definitely wasnt because no women wanted him. all while embracing the word if not the concept (but probably both) of “virginity.” yes? LOL poor anti-PIV doods, what a miserable life they have, talking about PIV with other doods. srsly tho, that would kind of suck.

5. Rididill - June 28, 2013

wow that is spot on about ‘making love’. bloody hell. there is so much there that is hidden in plain sight…

FCM - June 28, 2013

hi rididill! good to see you.

BTW i shouldve linked to the convo at witchwinds about “male feminists” in general. duh! relevant


6. Sargasso Sea - June 28, 2013

Yeah, hi Rididill! And Wwind’s post/convo is good stuff 🙂

Part of what was so funny to me about anti-PIV dude was that my *boyfriends* were treating that post like it was Breaking News. What these men fail to get is that, in one of their own favorite phrases, the exception proves the rule.

I tried to read Lloyd’s *article* and did have to stop at the Pinochet’s trained-rapist-police-dog (footnoted!) bit because THAT wasn’t about men’s innate need to rape women – by proxy – at all! It was all just political “violence” after all and had nothing to do with “sex”. Because women can’t be impregnated by dogs, I gather… Does he not realize that he’s proving *our* point?

FCM - June 28, 2013

yes indeed. duly noted that men have yet to train dogs to poop in womens cornflakes, which would be insulting and gross but would not be sexualized violence against women.

also, in addition to being RAPE, having women raped by dogs (WTF) also qualifies as torture, and torture is incompatible with life. also necrophilic! DUH.

7. Rididill - June 28, 2013

oh how nice! Hello to you too. I sometimes forget that although I am on here all the time, well I have been somewhat lost for words lately so have not made my presence known. This place is a haven.

The comments on the anti-PIV dude’s blog are beyond stupidity. I could barely stand to read them. Not a single one of them engaged with the whole ‘risk’ thing, which is basically the crucial point, regardless of what you want to say about pleasure. I mean, BDSM women say they get orgasms from all kinds of horrible shit, and I have no interest in disbelieving them, I just think it’s kind of irrelevant. And all these gross dudes being like ‘oh ur so sexist irony haha excuse me while I go back to my girlfriend who comes when my dick is in her mouth’. Bleugh.

Also, from the Lloyd article,

“It seems to me that if rape is primarily about sex, as Steven Pinker contends, then the purpose of sex for men in this culture is to violate, humiliate, intimidate, shame, silence, and express hatred for women”

Isn’t it? Damn, you could have fooled me. Actually a lot of the Pinker quotes on there seem to be right on the money. Except for the part where he says that

“t may also come from a parochial inability of men to conceive of a mind unlike theirs, a mind that finds the project of abrupt, unsolicited sex with a stranger to be repugnant rather than appealing”

Men definitely do not think it is appealing because they fear being raped by other men. They just don’t care. Also, ‘abrupt’? ‘unsolicited’? poor choice of words.More like men are incapable of thinking rape is bad for women b/c they think it is what we are for.

Seriously, the realization that the possibility of men’s behaviour being ‘innate’ most fundamentally does NOT let men ‘off the hook’ as Lloyd argues, was the most liberating and thought-freeing thing ever.

By the way, does anyone know if Pinker actually does say that means that rape is a-ok and feminists should just STFU as Lloyd claims? It didn’t really sound supported from the quotes he gave. Like,

“I may be permitted an ad feminam suggestion, the theory that rape has nothing to do with sex may be more plausible to a gender to whom a desire for impersonal sex with an unwilling stranger is too bizarre to contemplate”

This is said by Lloyd to be an accusation of prudishness, but when I read it was like, duh, because we are not horrible dehumanizing sadists. ‘Bizarre’ again not the way to put it but still.

8. miss pixie - June 28, 2013

Hi, just so you’re aware, the feminist stance of DGR is determined by us women. We tell the men (including Owen) what we expect of them as allies.

FCM - June 28, 2013

i dont know pinkers work well (or really at all TBH) but you are right that the quotes selected by owen lloyd do not appear to mean what lloyd thinks they mean, or at the very least they dont HAVE to mean what lloyd says they mean. and YES lloyd makes a classic LOGIC FAIL when he assumes that just bc somethings “innate” that thats same as being not-malleable, and where he concludes that THEREFORE we should let men do whatever they want. someone who appears to be familiar w pinkers work calls lloyd out on this FAILURE in the comments at DGR. also, from mens perspective sex isnt about domination etc? this appears to be lloyds first day on planet earth. jesus. i suppose hes thinking that being anti-pornstitution gets him off the hook here, but it really doesnt. what an utter fail.

FCM - June 28, 2013

@ miss pixie thanks for clarifying that. there was probably at least one person here who cared/wondered about that, so thanks.

i really dont, so rather than responding to something i dont really care about, my intuition is telling me something here that i am going to share with you (and everyone). i suspect that the women of DGR — and in fact many women in many social justice movements that include men, its not just you — see a lot of angry men around you all the time and you assume (or you are told, and you believe it) that the men are angry for the same reasons you are. in this particular case, you and others might see owen lloyd CONSTANTLY FUCKING RAGING and you assume that owens rage is righteous rage, like you know your own and other womens rage to be. but you would be wrong about that.

owen lloyd has issues, you see, and they are issues he shares with members of his class — IOW with men. the reason owen lloyd shares these particular issues — the most repugnant of humanity BTW — with males as a class is because he is one. and there really isnt anything more or less to it than that.

9. GallusMag - June 28, 2013

HAHAHAHAHA! Holy shit. Preach. Best post ever.

10. Sargasso Sea - June 29, 2013

That seeming righteous rage is (was) *intoxicating* – marching ONE “pro-choice” demonstration in the late 80s demonstrated to me otherwise.

The bottom line is that men don’t care about the same things women care about and that not much has changed since then (and a long way back) except internet porn and all its manifestations in media everywhere.

Love/caring (or righteous rage?!) can not be made, it just IS.

11. lisaprime - June 29, 2013

Damn I love how you advance radfem thinking into major new areas. In the last post you raised the whole idea of Natural law and how it influences current statutory law – how it remains even when statutory law changes…Yeah. Women’s inferiority is built into the ancient law, the real law, the one that informs all our statutory law, the one the libfems, ignore, the one the radfems concentrate on. The one that is the Root of our oppression, building from

Aristotle and the bible. What use are all these hi! we’re equal laws, when the hidden, influential, law is the old Natural Law. Radfrems go here, to the Natural Law BS and attack it.

And what does that boil down to? The usual bio argument.Pinker looks at reality. He turns it on its ass. Natural law turns out to be violence to try to contain women. He shows how men do the killing. I see no need to nuance this. He shows…

How Men Do the Killing.

Have to say. i’m feeling more and more that there should be a welcoming of all techno methods that help women. Shulamith Firestone is looking more and more like a prophet to me.

All my friends: “we do not want male partners.” So simple and profound.

The thing about Owen lloyd is simple to me. No male allies. Women must do this thinking. Women must look at the evidence and speak.
Men cannot speak the truth about women’s status. Their motives are always suspect. they always end up hurting us. How many times do we have to say this? Please, men, stop. Stop fucking us.

12. azahda - June 29, 2013

lol some “ally”. You tell the men what y’all expect of them? No half-DECENT dude would ever write/think up such blatantly misogynistic claptrap and call it radical, regardless of whether other women are okay with it, want him to write about it, or wtv. So if that comment is supposed to absolve him of his responsibility in writing what he did, I fail to see how. He is a man promoting/disguising rape whilst calling this kind of politics “radical” – yeah, that’s earns getting called out.

Also, would it be too much to ask if you told the men of DGR that you expect them to shut up? As “allies”? 🙂

13. Greywing - June 29, 2013

I noticed watching movies and scripted TV how easily men depict women being sexually and emotionally tortured. And the more progressive, the more pro-women they try to be, the more the merciless depictions seem to flow out of them. The more realistic they try to be, the more they depict women in horrible situations with no hope and no way to resist effectively. (This in contrast to men engaging in what they consider pure fantasy, with reversals of powerful women.) Sometimes the women die or are shown as living in endless despair with no hope ever. I guess they want to hammer home the point that the women who get to trauma bond with a hero rescuer are the lucky ones.

And the higher “quality” the worse all this gets, critically acclaimed, must see, award material, the more starkly and vividly women’s torture and despair is portrayed. And this is all hailed as being progressive, as being pro-woman, as raising awareness, as being helpful. And I do believe these men genuinely try to depict women’s lives and inner lives as accurately as they can. But the harder they try, the more all they seem to see is hell and necrophilia, and a completely bewilderment at how women live through it. It is reminiscent of how men torture prostitutes, to see how far they can go before they die.

I think maybe one reason for this is that men do not understand how we’re alive at all. They don’t truly believe we are alive, human beings (this is the heart of objectification.) All the things they believe are keeping them alive, the destructive domination, the penis, the infliction of female-specific harm, we don’t have them. And yet we live, and despite of men’s best efforts to humiliate, torture, and kill us, on top of it. But they don’t understand how, and they don’t truly believe it. They see us as unliving, the walking dead, zombies. And when they look at us they see necrophilia, and the closer they try to look, the more necrophilia they see, in more and more excruciating detail the harder they try. (This might be one root of why men hate women talking. Anything that viscerally tells them we’re not actually walking death (note, movie zombies never talk) irritates them to no end.)

The way these trying-to-be-good men portray women as not being able to resist men’s sexual violence I think is key. Whether it’s not being able to resist physically because of being physically overpowered, or being thrown into mental despair and hopelessness by the trauma, they find some way to depict women not resisting effectively, in a state of deep pain, with no hope and no joy. Of being rendered hollow shells… the walking dead. And if it’s one thing these nice men who were unable to “get laid” in high school hates, it’s women’s resistance to men. So these thoughts of women being rendered unable to resist, through and through, down to the depths of their souls, must be very satisfying.

So back to Owen and the brief incident in the laundry room that kept his rage going for seven years. It’s not just that the woman existed, but that on top of it she resisted him. His rage is ignited by her resistance. He thinks this resistance is caused by men awakening her resistance by treating her wrong. If they had treated her right, the way he thinks women should be treated, she would have turned out the right kind of woman, who allows men to to “make love” to them without resisting. And after this woman accidentally makes it suddenly and starkly clear to him that she would resist his sexual advances (not letting him down gently and slowly as women are supposed to) he conjurs up a fantasy of other men sexually torturing her, with her being unable to resist. And this seems to be where the minds of men like him keep going, over and over and over, women who do not resist effectively, whether it’s men raping and torturing them, or it’s men “making love” to them.

FCM - June 29, 2013

on the subject of “allies” YES no bullshit misogynistic crap, including porn, should EVER EVER EVER be published as radfem material. there is some debate among radfems as to whether we should show actual porn in our anti-porn work for example, but within that debate there is no room for MEN in either making or executing policy. if the decision is made to use pornographic material for some reason and women are triggered by it, it should NEVER EVER EVER be a man who triggers them mkay. and men should not be writing or using pornographic material at all for any reason because they all get off on it. ALL OF THEM. this should be fucking obvious but apparently its not. WOMEN get to make these mistakes and discuss them and correct them. MEN do not.

and as is said above, no man worth his salt would want to, even if the women said it was ok because it is NOT ok. so either the men are too stupid to know the difference, or they know there are issues there and they dont care. either way, its bad. if men do not have the brainpower to understand these issues in the first fucking place, and we know many of them are just stupid and do not and cannot understand radical feminism at all, they will NEVER EVER EVER be able to spot these issues or analyze them properly — this means that in the best case scenario (where they arent deliberately pushing boundaries) they are USELESS except as robots, or robotic helpmates/coffee fetchers. do “we” really need robots (or coffee) so badly that we are willing to put up with and include MEN? this is a serious question which includes 2 parts — what do we need, and what are we putting up with when we deal with men?

and by the by, if the DGR rape article (and all DGR’s feminist work) is really womens work, WHY ARE MEN PUTTING THEIR NAMES ON IT? what the fuck?

FCM - June 29, 2013

a woman gets a LIFE SENTENCE for cutting off her husbands dick. LIFE.


FCM - June 29, 2013

14. Greywing - June 29, 2013

This reminded me of some excerpts I read from John Stoltenberg. Most of the excerpts were on the ways the male mind gets off on brutalizing women. He describes men getting off and their inner lives in pornified, vivacious detail, in all the usual ways, as active, powerful, as seeing themselves as real, alive, whole and so on. When he finally gets around to describing the mind of a woman, he uses words like “severed” and “obliteration” and the woman as seeing herself devoid of “moral deciding” “rational thought” and “conscientious action.” Disclaimer, I have not read the full book, so maybe it gets better somewhere in there. (lol)

(link goes to the excerpt of his necrophiliac fantasy of a woman’s mind)

15. SheilaG - June 29, 2013

As a lesbian, and all the movements and groups I’ve been involved with going back to the 70s, we never worked with men. We had autonomous communities or groups of 15-35 just doing the work. We had our own magazines, we published them worldwide, we traveled to different countries, we connected with lesbian groups in those places.

We just had no use at all for political work with men. There was no reason or purpose to this, because we were building a women’s culture. It’s why the male to trans are attacking so viciously, because they seek to invade lesbian sacred space now, while liberal sex poz hetero women cheer them on.

This has been going on since the late 60s. You can’t work with men politically ever, and shouldn’t even be living with them if you can help this.

16. SheilaG - June 29, 2013

it often takes hetero women a very long time to get to this point. I guess they have to go through the stages of being exploited by boyfriends etc. And sadly, it is out of these negative experiences that produce hetero radical feminists. In our case, it was more our joy of coming out into a radical feminist community, so it was a welcoming, a home coming, it was an embrace of what we wanted, rather than trying to escape from something. That’s the major difference between hetero and lesbian radfems I think.

So we have know for a very long time that men are not allies at all, they just have too much of conflict of interest baggage.

I still to this day find my inner power in the profound love of lesbians, just as much as my desire for a malefree country, and freedom for all women from male terrorism.

17. Rididill - June 29, 2013

wow did not know that Bobbit guy went on to make ‘adult films’. you can bet that was a kind of revenge.

Are we going to see life sentences for all the gynos in the US who perform unecessary hysterectomies? The US has the highest hysterectomy rate in the world I think and MUCH higher for male gynos.

That’s not even mentioning the mutilating rapists.

FCM - June 29, 2013

who the hell even gets life in prison for murder anymore, let alone for cutting off an unnecessary appendage? oh yeah i forgot — WOMEN do, unless they get the death penalty instead. maybe someone should tell men that men have been known to survive having their penises cut off and in fact that it is possible to live without a penis at all. would anyone believe it? dont let the existence of LIVING PROOF influence your perspective in any way — all these guys including mr. bobbit of course have managed to survive their injuries. what a head scratcher this is, considering that cutting off a mans penis is a fate both equal to and worse than death.

this isnt even attempted murder ffs. she did get charged with “torture” however. forgive me as i laugh and laugh, considering the convos we have recently had about torture, and the fact that all women are tortured under patriarchy and when we say torture it is neither hyperbole nor symbolism.

and women are actually raped to death and yes, medically butchered all the time. and yet life in prison for rape or medical mutilation of a female by a male is nonexistent.

18. Sargasso Sea - June 29, 2013

“She has torn off my identity as a man.”

Did THAT guy just utter the truth too? How will he ever be able to BE a man without his free-at-birth necrophilia weapon?!? Lucky for us gals that male violence is contained solely in a fleshy appendage. lol

19. Yisheng Qingwa - June 29, 2013

And the guy who got his dick chopped off says: “In a statement to the court on Friday, the victim said he felt Kieu stole his identity in the attack.” Yep. HIS WHOLE IDENTITY WAS IN HIS PENIS (which he used to rape women with). Says it all.

FCM - June 29, 2013

the comments over there are pretty chilling too. everyone is out for this womans blood. they are upset that she is even *eligible* for parole in 7 YEARS. for inflicting a non-lifethreatening injury. lets not even get into whether the dood deserved it, or what injury he had inflicted on her over the years with that exact same dick. she threw it in the garbage disposal too — perhaps she knew better than to leave even the possibility that they would be able to reattach it. honestly, the testerical response to these cases reveals a lot, perhaps especially what women have in store for us if we EVER, and i mean *ever* dare to identify the penis as an agent of harm, and then do something about it. but they are kind of giving the game away at the same time arent they? i mean really. red flags (and big arrows) all over the place!

20. Sargasso Sea - June 29, 2013

I decided it was in my best interest to avoid the 387 BILLION comments. I always think I can imagine the worst but then they always out-do me 😦

FCM - June 29, 2013

I KNOW. billions of comments. imagine the headline “man inflicts non-lifethreatening injury on woman” and consider what would probably happen. i suspect everyone would be confused and wonder why he didnt just straight up kill her. the comments would be full of men calling him a pussy whipped loser for not finishing the job. probably the same men who are on there now, calling for this womans blood.

21. luckynkl - June 30, 2013

LOL. She threw it down the garbage disposal. Can’t say women don’t have a sense of humor.

It’s fairly obvious there’s more going on here than just a divorce. Women don’t attack like that for no reason. Certainly not over a divorce. Judging by what Kieu targeted, we have a real good idea of what he did. Especially since CNN brings up John Bobbitt. Who was a rapist. Which CNN conveniently omits. But then, everyone knows the folks at CNN are rape apologists. Or did CNN think we forgot about how they handled the Stubenville case?

FCM - June 30, 2013

i would like to state for the record that this post wasnt really about male allies. 🙂 its not a derail to *briefly* discuss male allies in this context obviously, but its kind of a narrow criticism that has limited applications and (therefore) is likely to be taken personally by women who organize with men. it should, of course, be taken personally by owen lloyd who is a terrifying asshole.

in reality, this post was about shared characteristics and behaviors of males which transcend time and place (and therefore, social conditioning) and how these male characteristics and behaviors fit very comfortably within the category of “necrophilia.” what owen lloyd and steven pinker both do, i think, it to reduce mens extreme sexualized violence against women to something less than what it is and separate each manifestation of it into its own special-snowflake category (sex, rape, political torture) instead of contextualizing it or identifying common denominators. lloyd seems particularly inept at this kind of analysis, where pinker is at least willing to see some similarities between rape and “sex” although he seems unaware of the necrophilic aspect of both. like the concept of “reversal” i think necrophilia has real potential to enlighten women as to the reality of maleness and (therefore) the nature and mechanisms of womens oppression by men across time and place. this does not come from women and women are not teaching men to be necrophiles. this necrophilia that informs, drives and flows from EVERYTHING men do comes from themselves, which is the very definition of innate.

22. wwomenwwarriors - June 30, 2013

Hi FCM. I am finally commenting here. I have been reading your blog for awhile and can never figure out when to drop into the discussion. I always seem to show up to a new post after it has a bazillion comments already.

I will try to be better about that, because I have thoughts and then by the time I get to the end of the post, they seem suddenly like a derail to the convo happening in the comment section already.

Anyways, hello. You are very, very funny 🙂 And spot on, of course.

Was just noticing today a woman on Facebook who made an announcement that she would be deleting all female friends on her list if she found out they were man-haters. She claimed this was because of her loyalty to Dworkin. If I weren’t blocked by FB at the moment for posting a photo making fun of a dude for stating that women are running the porn industry and thus exploiting men, I would have commented to her. Defriending women for not being nice enough to men…is sooooo radfem. Yup. *cough* What the hell? She said she has noticed a rise in man-hating lately. I hope she is right.

And I’m very worried if even self-proclaimed radfems are cutting off ties with other women because those women are openly anti-male. I understand social construction. I get it. I do. It’s good analysis. But it’s a little too late for all that, imo. Men are killing and raping us unconscious. Whatever social situation supposedly created in a vacuum called patriarchy that is forcing the poor men to behave like this is a little past the point of my giving a shit what their excuse is.

FCM - June 30, 2013

hi, anyone who wants to can subscribe to this or any blog and receive notifications by email if you feel you are coming in too late. as long as comments evince reading comprehension and add something to the discussion, theres no such thing as a derail IMO. its all good food for thought.

as far as an increase in man-hating lately…i hope so too. honestly. men deserve it, and women deserve it too — our hatred for men is legitimate and reflective of our reality, when everything legitimate and reflective of our reality has been stolen from and silenced in us for too long. its time to go there, finally. and all the man-lovers out there — and by that i mean women who continue to have sentimental feelings or love, respect etc for men as a sexual class — can go be with men and turn into men if they love men so much. they are anyway, its not like we can stop them. *we* have better things to do!

23. aSinninSpinster - July 1, 2013

Hi FCM, just droppin in for a momint……i love reading you , its Soul Food for me……thanksxx so much

regarding man hating……. from Right Wing Women Dworkin says
“a man-hater is a woman who speaks her own mind, a feminist or a Lesbian; in other words, a woman who has her own voice and doesnt put men first is a man-hater”……so i definitely qualify on all 3 counts and i openly confess to it. i was also informed the other day by my best friend of nearly 20 years that as a RadFem i am also an Extremist. She compared my beliefs/ “religion” to my mother who is a conservative religious fundamentalist. ….this bc i had pointed out male violence to her, again. i couldnt even respond , i just apologized for offending her. this is how normalized male violence and rape culture is , you cant even talk about it without offending most women and nearly ALL men!

24. wwomenwwarriors - July 1, 2013

Yes, they deserve it, we deserve it. Absolutely. Time for them to be held accountable, and I need to stop imploding this pain on myself. Self-victim-blaming and self-gaslighting was a prison with circular walls. Any good shrink knows the first step is to put the blame WHERE IT BELONGS! I bet they didn’t guess we’d figure out it belongs with the whole class of males when they started promoting being angry with the perp. I might write on this soon.

FCM, I feel a revival of the revolution coming on. I really do. If there is a rise in man-hate, then it might finally be time. There are some cosmic movements going on right now completing 3-part cycle that started during the first feminist movement, the second phase was during the 60s-70s, and the final phase is starting now (this is all in the sky). No more 1st, 2nd, 3rd wave feminism. We ought to put our foot down, all women, and call it the final wave of feminism until no more male supremacy and domination.

❤ Your blog! I'll be around. Take care

FCM - July 1, 2013

i will close comments on this post today if everyone has said their piece. so post em if you got em. 😀 also, theres another convo happening here FYI:


25. Sargasso Sea - July 1, 2013

Yes! Excellent food for thought at WWind’s 🙂 Thanks!

26. witchwind - July 1, 2013

I find studying the behaviour of male allies quite interesting because they’re supposed to be the best we’ve got in terms of male “female-friendly behaviour”, or represent the best men have achieved in pro-femaleness or biophilia. And yet they prove to be exactly like other men, except that they learned to parrot what women say in feminism (and get the credit for it of course), but of course they’ll parrot the things that suits them.

It’s quite easy to prove a point on all men by looking at male allies.

And as you say FCM, at best they’re useless as allies because they don’t understand what’s going on. I do know of one man who apparently has agreed to stop PIV with his girlfriend (I know this from the women as I don’t interact with men on individual levels). But that’s it. I’d be interested in knowing what he actually thinks of it. Is this more of the same pretending? Or just that he needs to feed off his girlfriend’s energy so it’s a concession he’ll make? Is it that he knows he has social, economic an emotional power over her (that gives him the kicks) so he’s compensated for this PIV loss in a way? Knowing that he “owns” her in some way is sufficient perhaps?

27. witchwind - July 1, 2013

I think for men it’s all a question of degrees of domination. Some might not need so much direct and sadistic acts of domination to get the effects, and for some, at best (although a very small minority), just knowing they’re in control, on the top, that they have power over a woman’s life (even if it’s not through PIV) is enough for them to achieve this arousal effect.

28. witchwind - July 1, 2013

oops I meant to say “at best some might not need so much direct sadistic acts…”

29. femmeforever - July 1, 2013

i was also informed the other day by my best friend of nearly 20 years that as a RadFem i am also an Extremist.

Wow. Do you mind if I ask how you pull off this friendship? So she thinks you’re a crazy but she loves you anyway? Actually, I’m most impressed by your ability to tolerate her. For me, the man worship. It burns.

30. Moron Owen Lloyd. Or, What ‘Depoliticization’ Actually Means | femonade - July 9, 2013

[…] not done with old owen yet!  somethings been bothering me about that rape-article he wrote, and its the title.  […]

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: