jump to navigation

Revisiting SCUM July 5, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, pop culture.
Tags: , , ,

as probably everyone knows, valerie solanas shot pop-artist and celebrity andy warhol in 1968.  he survived his injuries and went on being andy warhol for another 20 years.  he didnt seem that upset about being shot — according to him, life was unreal anyway, he was incapable of experiencing emotion which television portrayed as strong and real but this did not match his own reality at all.  his “art” was flat and commercial, revealing no inner life or imagination at all.  one art critic said warhol was brilliant in his function as a mirror, reflecting our own (flat, commercial) culture back at us.  culture meaning patriarchy or male culture of course, which is indeed flat and commercial.  and dead.  necrophilic, if you will.  warhol was an inanimate object perfectly reflecting death — and this was a favorable review!

may i suggest here that andy warhol was also a walking target for other men?  especially if they knew they could get away with it, how many men would’ve killed warhol themselves if given the chance?  a certain segment of the (male) population would’ve happily killed him for being the son of immigrants, another would’ve killed him for being gay, another group would’ve done it while they were robbing him — he was very wealthy you know.  and jealousy.  or because his art sucked (the critics largely hated him).  there are a million “reasons” men have for killing other men of course, but if one looks closely enough, and taking into consideration mens necrophilia generally, one might see that most (all) of these arent really reasons at all, but justifications.  like, what if being gay (or whatever) isnt a reason to kill someone but a justification applied either before or after the fact to something a man simply wants to do and does?  that would kind of turn things on their head wouldnt it?

so back to solanas.  she shot warhol, but didnt kill him.  she was incarcerated for 3 years for this and is remembered as one of the most hated women who ever lived because of what she did.  or was it because of what she said?  or both?  note that men actually love it when women attempt to (or succeed in) maiming and killing men because that opens the door to formal, institutional and state control of us — it has nothing to do with valuing men which they clearly 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 men.  this is the truth of the matter and men seem to understand this — whereupon they parasitically attach themselves to and leech off of women from cradle to grave (either their grave our ours).

so what could possibly be mens beef with valerie solanas and with women who dare read her and appreciate her work?  (jeez, doods, thought-police much?)  while the value of a man to another man (or a mans own value to himself) is approaching zero and they show us this all the time, women, since we are not men ourselves, must apply a cost-benefit analysis to determine mens worth — an objective, not a subjective valuation.  for an objective valuation, the equation is benefit minus cost.  isnt it?  solanas named mens parasitic nature/behavior for what it is, and the concept of male parasitism falls squarely on the cost-side, and it is a devastating one.  women report being life-sucked by men constantly but are mostly without words to describe this.

did valerie solanas dare identify/suggest objective criteria by which we might measure mens worth?  oh dear.  re-reading SCUM confirms that she did.  men and mensworld are boring, fatherhood is destructive — and mens life-sucking parasitism — these things represent *costs* to women of living in mensworld and indeed of having men around at all.  there is plenty of fertile radfem ground here and plenty to think about and discuss.  but you know whats even more interesting to me at the moment?  solanas’s SCUM manifesto was just a damn good read.  it was interesting mkay?  it was thought-provoking, audacious and clear.

yes thats right!  valerie solanas, public enemy number one, gave women something interesting to read.



1. radikit - July 5, 2013

LOL. I recently watched a biopic or something about Valerie Solanas. And of course she was portrayed as being bat shit crazy, but her manifesto is actually spot on (well apart form her musings on technology, I’m not a fan of that) and FUNNY!!!!!

FCM - July 5, 2013

yes it was (is) spot on, and it was/is funny. 🙂 it is an excellent read. and speaking of malestream portrayals of her, i read somewhere that she was insane and paranoid, and one example of this is that after she signed a contract with certain publishers to purchase/publish her work, she “became convinced” that these doods were trying to control her. uh, thats kind of the point of a contract, and its definitely the effect a publishing contract has on WOMENS writing specifically. its not a delusion ffs! she also said that one of the publishing houses that published SCUM manifesto left out whole sentences and paragraphs so that it didnt make sense, or didnt say what she had wanted it to. sorry, but that is just TOTALLY, 100% TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY BELIEVABLE. i would be more surprised if they didnt!

2. karmarad - July 5, 2013

It is true that Solanas shot Warhol, and he did suffer a lot from the shooting (the famous portrait by Alice Neel shows how diminished he became after the shooting). However, the circumstances surrounding the shooting should always accompany the bald fact.

Solanas was a writer. She was living in dire circumstances in new York but had managed to write a play. She got the play to Warhol, who offered to read it and perhaps help her. He strung her along for many months while she tried to survive there, and finally claimed he had “lost” her play. She had no copy. He told her this in a condescending and indifferent way, and added that he’d make up for it by giving her $25 to be an extra in one of his plays. The humiliating fashion in which her work was destroyed or stolen left a huge wound.

She had been working on (and self-published a few copies of) the SCUM Manifesto. Maurice Girodias, the scummiest porn publisher who ever lived, who had stiffed Nabokov on the royalties for Lolita and tried to steal Donleavy’s The Ginger Man, talked her into signing an unfair contract in which she would be essentially giving him all rights to her future books, taking advantage of her poverty and desperation. When she realized this, she broke down, obtained a gun, and shot Warhol, who she believed was working with Girodias to steal all her work.

That’s the context. She never recovered, went to prison for 3 years, and became a literary pariah whose Manifesto nevertheless endures.

When I think of her I ask myself: was she mentally ill before Warhol treated her like dirt and Girodias tried to exploit the hell out of her?
Was the contempt with which these men treated her based on her being a “powerless” woman? And many other questions.

FCM - July 5, 2013

thanks for that karma. warhol life-sucked and tortured her. of course he enjoyed this — all men do. wiki says the manuscript was “apparently misplaced.” oh sure it was! they must think we are all stupid, every fucking one of us. ALL of us know what men do to women all the time. we know.

3. karmarad - July 5, 2013

The bigger context is of course the context of the really brutal suppression of women writers over history. This was just a modern version. Solanas was supposed to shut the fuck up, turn her work over, and take whatever pittance Girodias or Warhol would deign to give her for offending them by writing such original material. They were eating her up alive and she was a rough young woman with not a lot to lose, and for once the woman writer struck back. Her action of defiance was pretty much unprecedented for a woman, so amazing, she’s become a poster child. I wonder what she would have become if she had been treated with any kind of respect for her work. I doubt she would have broken down and injured the hollow, untalented, nihilistic, massively-celebrated-by-necrophiliac-society Warhol.

4. karmarad - July 5, 2013

Scuse me for going on and on, fcm, but this has angered me for so long. Nabokov and Donleavy had plenty of money to sue Girodias and engage in the male law game – it was a contest of equals and Girodias lost both cases. Solanas was barely eating – though she was clearly talented. She wasn’t exactly in a position to sue one of the most experienced legal defendants in history.

I always compare this to the scene in Dr. Zhivago when Lara avenges her rape by shooting and wounding Komarovsky. She’s never charged – it’s hushed up – because no one wants to have Komarovsky charged for rape. It’s a literary tradition, isn’t it. But Solanas wasn’t avenging a rape, she was avenging the theft of her work as a creative artist – that doesn’t get a pass in the strange horrible system of violence we call the patriarchy.

FCM - July 5, 2013

what you are describing of course is reason versus justification. 🙂 very relevant to this post. women have reasons. following from the discussions we have had lately regarding mens necrophilia and their natural/innate propensity for creative torture and violence, men seem to merely justify having done what they were going to do anyway. its a completely different animal.

im glad these facts are coming out. my copy of SCUM has some of these details (in an afterward) and some can be found other places and in other forms — saying the manuscript was “misplaced” for example. or that she was “paranoid” about being controlled by a pornographer with a literary contract!

5. GallusMag - July 5, 2013
FCM - July 6, 2013

excellent gallus thanks! 😀

6. karmarad - July 6, 2013

Fascinating article, Gallus. I’m trying to figure out why that ms is “held” by Warhol’s agents. Obviously Solanas never gave any agent of Warhol the right to possess the ms. Incredible that the text hasn’t been liberated and posted online. This should be done one way or the other. And yes, this was her real punishment: eradication of her soul and life’s work. Not enough to put her in prison; her work must be eradicated. Outrageous! But it still exists in however ghostly of circumstances and could be saved.

FCM - July 6, 2013

yes thats “odd” isnt it? even wiki seems to agree that warhol never possessed it legitimately and that he simply “misplaced” it. this would imply that if he ever found it again, it would go back to her. welp, looks like its been found. now that solanas is dead, who should it go to? it is about as “ironic” as warhols entire career plagerizing other peoples commercial art that warhols museum claims copyright here. holy shit. the audacity.

7. radikit - July 6, 2013

Interesting. I think you’ve uncovered yet another relevant distinction here, analogous to the authoritah vs. authority one. So women have *reasons* (which can be easily understood by looking at the circumstances) and men have justifications (and the real reasons can also be seen when looking at the circumstances, but only through a female-centric perspective). But in male reality, only men’s justidications are treated as if they were real legitimate reasons, while women’s reasons get dismissed and are misrepresented as if they were mere justifications/lies/irrelevant/lies. This is done almost automatically when women’s reality is processed through male institutions, which suggests that the criteria after which male institutions organize/process/interpret reality are not suitable to uncover/make visible women’s reality (real reasons). OR, that the people (mostly men) who make decisions in these institutions willfully misrepresent women’s reality in order to avoid applying the law justly towards women.
I have a hunch that for most cases both of these are true (willful misinterpretation of women’s reasons and failure of institution to process women’s reasons), but I also think that whether or not people (in the media, judges, attorneys etc) willfully prevent women form being treated fairly in these institutions, the rules/logic/parameters of the the institutions themselves are biased against women (and what is relevant to *our* reality/ our legitimate reasons). Women’s *reasons* are not seen as legitimate reasons at all.
I watched a movie called “to young to die” last night (starring Juliette Lewis who is an AMAZING actress). I think its based on a real case and it’s about a teenage girl who is thrown out by her own mother after confiding in her about mother’s nigel having repeatedly raped her and who – after a martyrium leading her downwards in the spiral of men’s violence and abuse – ends up killing an ex-lover (a grown man) in a heroin rush for abandoning her after taking advantage of her desolate life circumstances. She is convicted as giulty of course. And even though her attorney, in his final plead, tells her circumstances and REASONS exactly as they are and it is *obvious* she *never* had a chance in all this and the reasons she ended up killing him can all be traced back to male abuse/rape/life threatening betrayal/destruction of the soul, the jury sentences her to death.
So that makes me think that women’s reasons are completely irrelevant to the male institutions. Which is another piece of evidence that reformism (interaction with male institutions at all) *cannot* work.

FCM - July 6, 2013

yes i think so radikit, thanks for expounding on that! like women who cut off their husbands dicks — i think we can (and should) all assume that he had harmed her WITH THAT VERY DICK over the years, and was likely to again, probably very badly but at the very least via unwanted pregnancy/risk of wanted pregnancy. and lets not forget HPV — i once saw one of these docu-tainment crime shows where a woman tried to hire a hitman to kill her husband bc among other abuses he had “given her cancer.” the hitman (undercover cop) obviously thought she was delusional bc cancer isnt contagious!!!1!!@344 she explained to him (the cop) about HPV and about how he had given her HPV by cheating on her constantly for decades, and she got cancer and (i think?) a hysterectomy. she was arrested for attempted murder. im sure its going to go very badly for her.

and aileen wuornos — she said she killed all those johns bc they were raping her. only radical feminists and anti-pornstitution activists know (or care?) thats completely believable and that they probably were. everyone else acts like its as probable as getting hit by lightening repeatedly. in reality, a prostituted woman getting raped several times a day, or by every single john is more likely than not isnt it? especially if seen from womens perspective where rape is “the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders” (then it clearly is) but even using mens definition, men do this to prostituted women all the time. its what they pay for. wuornos was executed by the state of florida (as a serial killer ffs — THINK ABOUT THAT) in 2002.

8. witchwind - July 6, 2013

I don’t think there’s ever any equivalent to men’s and women’s violence against men, ever. Just like PIV is always rape, women’s violence against men is always self-defense. It is not possible to be otherwise in patriarchy.

For instance it is not possible for a woman to put a man under her control, like domestic abuse. He would not be destroyed psychically by it as a woman would be destroyed by abuse by a man. An equivalent of a woman being violent to a man would be a man regularly bitten by his dog (badly injured – the dog is aggressive, attacks his male owner): it doesn’t destroy the man internally because he knows it’s not violence against him personally, it’s just that the dog is being insubordinate and he needs to put the dog back into submission. he’s not trauma-bonded to the dog, dependent on the dog emotionally, for his survival, for defining his reality. Because he’s the owner. He might be scared that the dog will bite him and physically injured, but it won’t cause the utter soul destruction that being owned by someone does.

Men’s violence over women is not revertible both in the biological (PIV/impregnation) and social / structural sense.

9. witchwind - July 6, 2013

It always makes me laugh when men whinge about women being violent against them or something. Complete reversal. It’s also like, say, big white capitalists complaining about the protests of the people he exploits. Another equivalence of women being “violent” to men would be a child being “violent” to his father.

back to Valerie Solanas, what I really like her for is that she was spot on with men’s biological dysfunction. As far as I know she is the only one to have said it with such clarity. And yet she is hardly ever quoted or discussed seriously by all the other more plublicly known and published radfems. I’ve been wanting to discuss the content of her work for a while, I should do it some time. And she does it with such brilliance and humour, every time I read her text again it makes me laugh. I rarely enjoy re-reading radfems so much.

10. witchwind - July 6, 2013

Her work and points on male biology is generally considered as a joke, or a metaphor, but is not taken seriously. Yet she nailed it completely, and she was probably the most radical and integral radfem to have been published at her time, that I / we know of today.

11. Nadege - July 7, 2013

Has anyone here seen the article in the Toronto Star about the Radfem Riseup? I’ll link it below if that’s okay. This is a comment from a co-organizer, “I do support the rights of trans women to identify as women and I’m not saying they’re not women, it’s just that if we were to include trans women on the basis that they’re interested in the issue there would be no rational reason to exclude men.”

I work with some of the women attending/presenting. If I wasn’t questioning the usefulness of reformism for the liberation of women before, I guess I would start now.


FCM - July 7, 2013

thanks for that nadege, i had heard that the venue pulled the event and that it was moved to a private residence.

FCM - July 7, 2013

i should say that i saw that info publically announced, not that i heard it.

FCM - July 7, 2013

from the article:

Jessica Reardon, a trans woman living in Toronto, said she’s troubled by the idea of a radical feminist conference in her city, but relieved by the public’s response.

troubled. lol. he should be. thank goodness it was quickly relieved!

FCM - July 7, 2013

FCM - July 7, 2013

now that im comment spamming my own post, i may as well ask: nadege, what does this “questioning” look/feel like at this point if i may ask?

12. Sargasso Sea - July 7, 2013

God forbid 30 women (gasp!) gather together in one place without the intrusion of men!! How dare they?!

Quick, let’s make this type of thing illegal.


13. Nadege - July 7, 2013

Putting it all into words is difficult. Something that stuck with me while reading Sonia Johnson’s Wildfire, which I first read about on this blog, is that women aren’t taken seriously. I’ve been trying to take into account what women working in reformist activism are going through and asking myself why these experiences and feelings are brushed off as if they aren’t symptoms of a larger problem. We’re so busy fighting that we don’t have time to take care of each other and ourselves. I’ve made commitments that I have to keep between now and the end of the year, but after that, I’m done.

I’m doing a lot of reading and thinking, and making connections. I’m trying to live more slowly (activists are always on the go), refraining from attending all the activist events I used to other than the ones I’ve committed to. Most of us know they won’t lead to where we hope and that we’ll be incredibly exhausted afterwards, too exhausted to help each other recover.

Constantly thinking, but this thinking is different than what I’ve done before. This may sound silly, but there are thoughts I had when I was a child that seem relevant now. I’m allowing them to return. I’m actually listening to my mother and sister when they talk rather than brushing them off, or cutting them off because I have an important email to send or an important demonstration or meeting to go to. This is the most important part of my questioning, taking women at their word.

It doesn’t seem like much, but to me it’s worlds away from what I was doing before.

FCM - July 7, 2013

solanas’s assessment of male biology is relevant here as are all assessments of male biology. they infiltrate and surveil. they harass, stalk, terrorize, assault, rape, torture and kill. trannies do it. MRAs do it. military men do it, and peaceniks do it too. fucking priests do it. ALL MEN DO IT. this transcends time and place, and therefore social conditioning. are we going to recognize this pattern for what it likely is?

FCM - July 7, 2013

when men infiltrate, surveil and bait womens groups, they reveal what they really are. orwell describes this better than any man ever has, although notably not from a feminist perspective. do trannies read like other people? do they understand the words on the page? im just asking.


FCM - July 7, 2013

oh, and they RAGE! cant forget that, its kind of a biggie. all men are constantly fucking raging. they pretend their dander is up because “causes” but thats a bald-faced fucking lie and everyone who knows what men are already knows this, if they know anything. men rage. its what they do. if one were to recognize the various MAN-ifestations of male rage, one might reasonably conclude thats ALL they do.


14. Nadege - July 7, 2013

Groups like DGR seem to encourage behavior modification in males. But, isn’t that what was done back in the 60s? Males learned to pretend to give a shit about women, so now we have “male allies” who call themselves feminist or “pro-feminist” and modify their behavior just enough to trick women into agreeing to accept them into their groups but don’t stop to consider that something might be wrong with the male species considering that they ALWAYS find a way to control, destroy, silence and kill. Looking at the DGR news service, it looks like it’s mostly males writing, where are the women?

So far, my favorite part of SCUM is “If they’re not `good’, [the father] doesn’t get angry — not if he’s a modern, `civilized’ father (the old-fashioned ranting, raving brute is preferable, as he is so ridiculous he can be easily despised)”.

It’s hard for reformists to openly despise “male allies” because they’ve modified some of their behavior, but deep down, they are still the same, male, “a biological accident,” an “incomplete female.”

Anyway, isn’t behavior modification what serial killers do?

FCM - July 7, 2013

i am finding it quite ironic (or something) that the trannies hate DGR so much considering that DGR’s gender politics are obviously informed by queer theory and not so much by radical feminism at all. they (the trannies) are probably too stupid to realize this of course, and anyway who cares since they will target any woman, ALL women, even women who are “allies” to them will they not? it doesnt even matter what we say, or how much or even whether we capitulate does it? this is becoming very obvious by now.

and YES to thoughts you had as a child — i am re-membering these myself. i think theres something there, for sure. from back when you still thought/felt you were human, and your thoughts/feelings from that time as well as from the time you started realizing you werent, or from when the way you were treated made no sense to you at all. or made you sick. when i was maybe 4 i literally would become nauseated and throw up every time my parents took us out. i think now this was bc everyone “out there” especially the men were completely objectifying me and i felt/knew it on some level. how many of them wouldve stuck their dicks into me if they had only had the chance? how many of them were thinking that very thing when i walked past their table to go to the bathroom? i threw up from the stress of it, and my parents learned not to take me out anymore. the right conclusion i think, but they made it seem like a punishment and shamed me for it. im having a similar aversion to going “out there” recently too. i think im starting to understand why.

15. witchwind - July 7, 2013

very good point about male behaviour modification as a direct consequence of reformism. It has been said in recent discussions in many different ways but I always appreciate each new way of formulating it, it ads new light to it every time, I enjoy it very much (as well as with all the other perspectives).

All men modify their strategies or behaviour when women wag their fingers at them in disapproval, whether at an individual and institutional level – but of course institutions are embodied by men, they are men (men want us to believe they’re neutral, objective and external – that they’re institutions! when they’re not, they’re facades for male domination).

It’s funny I’ve had that very thought too recently about the feeling of coming back to thoughts and sensations I had as a child. And mentioning this to a friend of mine.
Despite the destruction during girlhood, I had a far better and higher sensitivity and sensory memory, was much more spontaneous, sure of myself in the things I could create and do, and had very strong aversions to femininity and heterosexuality (male sexuality). Unfortunately I strongly identified to men and hated myself a lot so that’s one thing I’m glad feminism allowed me to uncover (recover from).

16. witchwind - July 7, 2013

And yes it’s also true that men will target any woman, all women, no matter what we say, so we might as well say the truth because not saying the truth or saying only selective bits of does not proportionately decrease men’s violence. This is what you said in your post “to far”, and it stayed with me. Which is why only getting away from men in every sense possible, seeing and sharing to women the unvarnished truth about them protects ourselves from their violence. This has been true for me and the women I know or have met, across the board.

17. witchwind - July 7, 2013

What I mean by that is that the common denominator in those who compromise about men (either in truth-saying or in other things) as opposed to those who refuse to compromise is that they increase exposure to men’s violence in some way or another. In other words, compromising on our thoughts, insights, actions, leads to what it is, compromising our integrity. That is, compromising our integrity will always fail to protect us from men and men’s violence.

I was very surprised for instance to read on the “radfem riseup” website that on the part “why womyn-only”, 4 entire paragraphs were addressed – not to women to raise our awareness – but purely to men in dresses, explaining painstakingly why they weren’t invited, and saying in 4 different ways how important they found trannies’ rights, that they supported it and would otherwise be happy to discuss it, but this was women’s health and reproduction and other womenly-stuff so they needed this just one space one time once.

To me that is a clear example where the compromise strategy has not protected women at all, quite on the contrary. Besides, supporting the rights of men in dresses is NOT a radfem perspective at all, because trannies rights directly trump women’s rights: they want to invade women-only spaces, erase women as a significant sex/human category, perve on women freely, etc etc. We do not support this and pretending to care about them when we don’t is harmful as a strategy within radical feminism.

I wonder if spending so much time and energy catering to the men in dresses didn’t in fact increase the likelihood of a reaction from their part. The message was that they were so important as to warrant 4 paragraphs on their website, just to them, and speaking to them in person! Not to MRAs, killers, war-mongerers, regular rapists, prostitutor-rapists, colonialists, etc. But just trannies.

FCM - July 7, 2013

the MRAs have a presence in toronto as well, so yes it does make you wonder why the trannies crashed the party and the MRAs didnt. and one would hope that whoever thought it would be a good idea to capitulate to trannies or to any men, in the registration materials of a radfem conference or anywhere, will reconsider whether its actually worth it. BUT. its worth considering a couple of things that seem to come into play here. first, it seems like for whatever reason, many women need to figure this stuff out for themselves. our history is constantly erased and there that too, but is it also that women seriously just NEED to reinvent all these wheels or experience this for themselves and it cannot be taught or passed on as a legacy? because it fucking seems like it. also, it seems to me that once any of us “gets” this on a very deep level, as in MEN DO THIS BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN AND THEY WILL NEVER STOP (therefore capitulation doesnt work, AND we need to protect ourselves from all men all the time) we are shown the door. almost everyone who is still around (the internets anyway) either hasnt gotten this yet or flatly rejects it, so we dont know who knows this stuff or where they are. sonia johnson is one of these “exiled” radfems. im sure there are others. its kind of a THING ive noticed over the last year especially — no coincidence since this is the timing of MY “getting it” and oh look! the door.

witchwind - July 7, 2013

thanks for spelling it out again and reminding us about the lack of legacy, the fact that it leads to amnesia about women, gains and mistakes and the possibility to do very wreckless things and pass it for radfem. and the fact that those who go furthest into radical feminism are perceived as threatening to those who continue to compromise (this is a reversal).

FCM - July 8, 2013

its such a good point that its the capitulators who are putting women in danger because they are telling women to turn off our pain receptors and our intuition and shared/collective knowledge about men and what they are and what they do. not that its they who are killing women — of course it is men who do that — but they create and perpetuate a false sense of security and it is indeed possible that they are making things worse by resisting/engaging men where men are known to get off on our resistance and we know that in general they feed off womens energy. we know this. i hadnt considered that reformist stuff was actually making things worse until i read sonia johnson who suggested that, and reported that this was her experience in doing the ERA stuff and with reformism generally. and it makes sense in an energy-sucking way and in an engagement/war way. and yes, it is a reversal to say that its the other way around, and that it the “essentialists” who are making things worse OR that the reformists are making things better. thats just not true, and is in fact an inversion/reversal of reality.

FCM - July 8, 2013

also, i would like to point out that there are indeed places in the world where female-only gathering is being made illegal, and that this is the result (logical endpoint) of equality-activating. its not illegal in the US (yet) and it might never be made illegal, and if we retain that “right” it will be because of PORN. the privacy and speech rights we have here are because of PORN and before that it was because of genocidal colonists (colonizers) and slaveowners who raped their slaves and who created more slaves through rape. so you see, we literally cannot win. either way we are oppressed. the ONLY way we would be able to gather in female-only space (or retain our privacy/speech rights) and simultaneously get rid of porn/prostitution (and mens sexual and reproductive abuse of women) is if the state used explicitly radical feminist reasoning to make “discriminatory” laws that protected women from men, and forbade mens sexual and reproductive abuse of girls and women. but seeing as how thats THE ENTIRE POINT of the state and of “culture” for that matter — to control women and reproduction and to benefit men at womens expense — this is NEVER going to happen. and this is why legal and even social reformism is a dead end.

FCM - July 8, 2013

sorry, the privacy and speech rights we have here are because of PORN and RAPE. both. men want to be able to rape women in private with impunity, in “relationships” both romantic and familial; in prostitution; and in stranger abductions/captivity situations; and they want to be able to eroticize rape and broadcast it with impunity. to publically threaten all women with rape IOW — men call this “speech”. this is the reasoning behind these “rights” its the entire reason they were created in the first place and its the reason theyve survived this long, and this will never change to benefit girls and women. never ever ever ever. and trying it is folly in the same way that trying to make a tangerine less tangerine-y would be folly. if you think this is possible, its bc you have missed the entire point, and it is in fact very easy to miss the point here since they lie and gaslight about all of this while they hide it in plain sight.

18. SheilaG - July 8, 2013

Free speech is for men only. When women attempt to have free speech unmonitored by men, all hell breaks out. And as I have said 100 times before, you can’t negotiate with terrorists ever, and trans are just the newest terrorists on female monitors on the block. Sonia Johnson had some very powerful things to say about the failure of reform, and we need to really get this. She said that if all women learned to perform abortions, and got outside the hospital system, men would have almost no power to limit women’s access to abortion, and that Roe v. Wade was actually a way for men to control women yet again. And she had a lot to say about the failure of ERA activism.

19. SheilaG - July 8, 2013

We keep forgetting that what men fear is women globally waking up. It’s what all the tokenism is all about, what all the crumbs are all about, and why radical feminism is so brutally attacked all over the place. That should demonstrate to women what its power actually is, because women aren’t a world minority, we are a majority, and men fear the day one half of the world’s population wakes up. That’s why we have the trans invasions of lesbian spaces now, why men don’t want women to have private and thus free speech at least amongst ourselves.

20. SheilaG - July 8, 2013

Freedom of speech is for men only, that’s the whole point of it. And porn is right up there in their most valued “free speech” rights.

FCM - July 8, 2013

actually last time i checked, men were the majority globally and thats because they have murdered millions of female babies by now due to their global “preference for male children”. in the US i think we are the majority and that this is what the numbers look like in the absence of war and femicide. more or less a “natural” distribution in other words. but i get your point. even with the global shortage of females, men are taken care of by females. one female can suckle and life-support numerous men — all that demand it (and all of them do). we could stop this, theoretically certainly and in practice in some places.

21. Sargasso Sea - July 8, 2013

Referring back to Nadege – having those “different” thoughts and making the connections through past and present and then allowing them to venture out into the future (even if the future is later today or next week or whatever) is not silly at all. As far as I’m concerned that’s kind of the whole point of *life*.

It’s also how we “get it” and getting it IS an individual thing ultimately I guess BUT it sure does help to have other women to kick it around with 🙂 So in that sense it seems to me that some women are coming to the *getting it* sooner and with less damage than they might have before spaces (like this one) were available to them.

22. witchwind - July 8, 2013

Trying it would not only be folly but really, really dangerous. Getting up against male power, the core of their power, is getting against their right to access a constant flow of victims to rape, torture and murder. Anything else is just a façade to make that core power possible. If we got anywhere near to threatening the rape and murder power of some of them through patriarchal communication means (denouncing some men in the media, etc) you could easily get persecuted or killed. They sure would react.

There is no man in power (any kind of high status) that isn’t involved in some kind of prostitution ring, BDSM ring, child rape ring, trafficking ring, rape ring, “wife swap” ring, “orgies” ring, etc. Would it either be on the receiver side, organiser side or profit-making side. Rings which will inevitably lead you to a web of drug-dealers, generals, kings, princes, pimps, politicians, presidents, ministers, bankers, insurers, judges, high-ranked policemen, arms traffickers, human traffickers, magistrates, lawyers, well-placed medics, corporate managing directors, nobles and barons, high-ranked state servants, priests and archbishops, the vatican, psychiatrists, solicitors, notaries, heads of institutions (especially social institutions dedicated to helping victims, orphans, disabled children), journalists, highly ranked sports players, etc, etc.

This is what male power looks like and is for. Having access to a constant flow of victims to rape. Some rings that cater to powerful men organise female child hunting games where the point of the game is to shoot the child. Others even organise cannibal orgies or live snuff movie shows. It’s probably more rare, but it exists. There are pimps and traffickers who cater for this kind of “entertainment” for wealthy powerful men, and they earn a lot of money for it. And they get their victims from social services, from abused girls wandering in the streets, from parents (men) selling their children, or from girls in poorer countries.
Only very wealthy men could afford such “services” (live murder, torture, etc) so it is specific to the ruling / managing elite (other men get to do that in different ways but won’t have access to the same organised efficiency and impunity). The higher up men are, the worse and the more organised and invisible the crimes are. And the more dangerous and more protected and well connected they will be.

Getting up against them (against the core of patriarchal network) is getting up against those who meet the arms trafficker who deals with the pimp, who works with the police commander in chief, who knows the judges, who knows members of the ministry, who has contact with the journalists, who supports this and this famous actor or sportsman, who buy drugs and prostituted women from the same pimp everyone knows, etc, etc. They ALL protect each other. Their interest is to keep this quiet so most women don’t know about it and they will eliminate anyone (in speech or for real) who becomes too noisy for their liking.

FCM - July 8, 2013

ww, i must say thats the most bone-chillingly terrifying thing ive read all day. understanding the nature of male power which is sexual and where men desire and endeavor to, and do, control women sexually and reproductively does lead us to where male power is located, or centrally located, and it appears to be located in rape, human trafficking and child pornography. another way to look at it, since men are constantly moving the goalposts and only let women “in” when real (male) power is no longer located there, is where are there NO WOMEN AT ALL? where are women so underrepresented that IF they exist there AT ALL it is in less than even token numbers and in fact appear there so infrequently that NOTHING could reasonably be seen to corroborate or cause it including the need for money, coersion/socalization, mental illness, previous/current/future abuse at mens hands or any reason at all? (unlike the way men are represented in these areas which is that they are so overrepresented that nothing reasonably explains it including mental illness, coersion, abuse, etc. nothing except maleness and being men that is.)

and this area, the truly woman-free area, i think is these sexual abuse “rings” you are talking about, particularly human trafficking and “kiddie porn” (the documentary evidence of men raping babies). women just do not do these things, and i think that its because we dont want to. but also, it is likely that IF (and thats a big *if* and a hypothetical) a female-bodied person ever got very close to the center of this kind of power they would be raped to death, and/or tortured and killed. because thats what happens to women there, at the center of male (sexual) power which is the power to sexually and reproductively abuse girls and women. i am envisioning concentric circles (maybe the “rings” you mention) with a black hole or a garbage disposal at the center/end where women will not be allowed to survive.

so yes, getting in mens faces and expecting to peel back the layers and expose and confront male power on mens terms is fucking horrifying to think about, knowing where it leads and where male power is located. it makes me think that if women really understood the nature of male power, they would either nuke it completely and permanently (if they could) or run as fast and as far as they could to get away from it. because it really is that terrifying isnt it? it really is.

23. witchwind - July 8, 2013

Yes, bone-chilling is really the right word for it.

There are in fact quite a lot of women involved, because all these men have wives and daughters who they forced into complicity (while raping them and getting them raped too). There’s no way in the world these men would marry a woman they couldn’t force into compliance and complete submission, they’d better be darn obedient not to cause him trouble or denounce his crimes.

So even if some women are represented in these spheres it doesn’t mean anything because they
1) don’t have access to the higher level statuses within these fields that would get them acquainted with such men’s criminal dealings and
2) even if they reached some places in the top (ie, became president, or minister, or queen, or something, because some do) they would very likely be excluded from those male-bonding rape-crime rings, men would hide it away from the women, unless they joined in to be raped themselves, which of course happens more often than not (but mostly it’s the wives of the men who get coerced in). In either case, in order to reach so close to men’s higher instances of rape-power, you’d have to undergo some pretty horrible violence yourself and have all life killed out of you.

24. Nives - July 8, 2013

There is no man in power (any kind of high status) that isn’t involved in some kind of prostitution ring, BDSM ring, child rape ring, trafficking ring, rape ring, “wife swap” ring, “orgies” ring, etc.

And even if they aren’t directly involved, they approve. We can deduce that this is true from the recent surveillance shitstorm. The NSA, FBI and other agencies syphon and scan all data which passes through tier 1 networks. Which means all internet data, pretty much. And dont tell me that every neighborhood pimp and child groomer are encrypting all their emails. Or never using a phone, text message or IM to arrange the sale and rape of girls/women. The agencies are sitting on mountains of documented abuse, and they dont give a fuck and never will.

FCM - July 8, 2013

yes thats a good point! i did wonder what they might do with all that data, the data you are talking about, especially data implicating human traffickers and child pornographers and their customers/consumers. of course the *only* possible or reasonable answer is that they arent going to do anything with it, and one reason is that there would simply be too much of it. there would be so much, and so many perpetrators that it would literally be overwhelming and beyond their power and resources to prosecute, EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO. and of course they dont want to. who would end up being implicated on the near or far-ends of this stuff is an issue too. meaning, who ordered and used trafficked persons including children, who did they order them from/who provided them, and who profited from it. surely there are some known persons (men) on that list. and this absolutely cannot be revealed ever.

FCM - July 8, 2013

witchwinds extensive list of global bigwigs in other words.

25. delphyne - July 8, 2013

What they’ll do with the information is use it to control other men. All men’s power is based on the prisoner’s dilemma – they have to keep one another’s crimes secret in order not to have their own revealed, and the threat of having crimes revealed is used as a means to get men to commit more and worse crimes against women and children. It’s like becoming a member of the Mafia, where they have to kill to get in, and of course once someone has committed murder, then that crime is held over their head by the gang forever. Whenever a man with power gets out of line or out of control e.g. Elliot Spitzer or Julian Assange, his crimes can be revealed and used against him.

That’s the other place male power lies, in the continual surveillance of us and our thoughts. They can’t let anybody be, ever.

26. witchwind - July 8, 2013

They’d have to sue their own bosses, which is of course hierarchically impossible within the FBI. It works exactly like any mafia, to varying degrees: you obey to the brotherhood code (of pillaging, raping, killing) and if you leave the brotherhood because you have second thoughts about ethics or personal security (usually the latter) you’re eliminated.

The fact there is evidence of their crimes does not threaten per se their power. Because pornography is in itself documented evidence of torture and rape, yet it is available for free, in one click, for anyone to see. What matters is that those who make pornography are the same who make and enforce the laws to protect the making, selling and viewing of pornography – men.

The Nazis documented their crimes very carefully and meticulously. The Genocidal male church in the middle ages also documented their tortures and massacres of women. The military document their crimes and tortures too. Pedocriminals film their rapes. Men usually always record their crimes because it seems to be part of their death and rape rituals, and what’s more, they need to pass on the instruction manual to the next generation of men who will then build on this body of knowledge of how best to torture and rape and kill women, and thus develop these techniques and push them further. Also, it provides men with more porn material – but after all, all porn is also an instruction manual of how to rape and torture women.

So men everywhere institute and write in black and white in their laws and religious texts and whatever recording device they have that women have chattel, dick-receptacle and breeding status. In fact everything they do is a direct testimony to their rapism and necrophilia.

27. witchwind - July 8, 2013

they have to keep one another’s crimes secret in order not to have their own revealed, and the threat of having crimes revealed is used as a means to get men to commit more and worse crimes against women and children. It’s like becoming a member of the Mafia, where they have to kill to get in, and of course once someone has committed murder, then that crime is held over their head by the gang forever. Whenever a man with power gets out of line or out of control e.g. Elliot Spitzer or Julian Assange, his crimes can be revealed and used against him.

That is spot on Delphyne! Funny that we both mentioned the mafia. Looking at mafia codes is indeed a very good way of getting to know how male groups work across the board, because there the rules seem to be more explicit than elsewhere.

when you look at what you just said, this does show how men impose this criminality on themselves, and punish men who have seconds thoughts about it (not about raping women though) – why? because on this constant criminality depends their domination of women.

28. witchwind - July 8, 2013

What they’ll do with the information is use it to control other men.
That’s very true as well. Whenever we see a man denouncing the crimes of another man, you can bet it’s to damage his reputation, power and status for XYZ reasons

29. witchwind - July 8, 2013

argh messed on the blockquote on that previous comment.

What they’ll do with the information is use it to control other men.

FCM - July 8, 2013

yes im not so sure that men need any provocation or “reason” to rape or to sexually and reproductively abuse girls and women. (IOW rape is different as ww notes too). its kind of its own reward, which is why my eyes roll back in my head when i hear the news asking about “motive” for sexual crimes, including those that end with the victim being killed. they even asked about motive for the cleveland kidnapper — the one who kept 3 women as sexual (rape) slaves for a decade. hmm, MOTIVE. thats a joke, right?

however, the point about men using “intelligence” to lord over and control other men in a general way seems right doesnt it! ive noticed that when a man starts sinking after a scandal, all this additional evidence of other crimes, other witnesses, other victims etc “come forward” or thats what we are supposed to believe. but how realistic is that really? or perhaps thats partially true, but really they knew about most of it all along, and then once he was so far “gone” they couldnt protect/threaten him anymore (or he couldnt protect/threaten THEM anymore, either way) the gloves come off and they feed him to the wolves. ie. they feed him to themselves, since they are the wolves. IOW they eat him.

and a couple of years (or some appropriate period) later, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID, or how bad it was, or to whom, i guess all is forgiven?

spitzer is back.


weiner is back.


oh, and bill clinton? never left.

FCM - July 8, 2013

and WRT the recent spying/surveillance data, they couldnt acknowledge/release/prosecute it all at once (or ever) bc not only would there be too much of it to physically do this, it would tend to implicate men as a class too. the illusion that this is “deviant” or aberrant male behavior would fall away, and we would be faced with the evidence (more evidence) that this *is* male behavior, its the sum and substance of maleness including thought and action. honestly i think the sheer volume of it would have shock value, even if we already know this. this includes nonradfems too, and just regular people who “know” what men are, including conservative women, law enforcement, and others who deal with mens horribleness all day every day and who harbor no illusions about this. the sheer volume of it would be shocking and revealing, perhaps in the same way as the “mens search terms” blog was shocking and revealing? only way worse of course.

but releasing the info on a case-by-case basis, especially against men who have become targets for other men? yes, that makes perfect sense. and it reveals nothing about men as a sexual class at all, and in fact further obscures this and makes the “targets” seem deviant when they arent (or not when compared to other men, when all or most men are abusive and violent in the same ways).

30. witchwind - July 9, 2013

Interesting stuff here:

Free masons for instance are very clear about their power being primarily “sexual”. Towards the end of the vid, the guy says that free-masons believe that the ritual of sticking their dicks into children makes them immortal or leads them to immortality.

Immortality is men’s obsession – read: the perpetuation of their species through the rape and impregnation of women.

Interestingly, he says that Lucifer is their god, who himself wants to become god. And Lucifer represents point zero, nothingness. Another insight into what men are: void, death, a black hole, parasitic to life and vampirising life.

Other things he says is off the ball.

We were talking about the mafia, well free-masonry is a good example of a mafia where their rules and rituals and male agendas are more explicit than usual.

31. witchwind - July 9, 2013

also, note that he goes into the practice of making only a certain type of men (free-masons) the “target” as you say FCM, to obscure the fact that all men as a group are deviant.

Also, their obsession with aliens invading the earth and raping females (I think he mentions it in cryptic ways), wherever they come from – it’s totally male!

FCM - July 9, 2013

immortality you say? this is such a weird concept as it does not mean to live forever. vampires are immortal for example, and they are dead. all this seems to mean is “existing forever while dead” and killing things that are *actually* alive for as long as possible. this is men in a nutshell. i didnt watch the vid.

witchwind - July 9, 2013

Yes “living forever while dead” and “killing things that are actually alive” does seem to sum up men. I think vampires are part of what men really are (living while dead). Really, look at the “mythical” beings they admire, want to be or identify to, and that gives you a very strong hint of who they are.

No need to watch the vid, the essential point was said in my comment.

FCM - July 9, 2013

also, thinking back on delphynes comment, all crime does end up back at “mens sexual and reproductive abuse of girls and women” in the end doesnt it? even if men dont need any additional/external motivation to rape, traffic and exploit women, the money system itself is set up so that men can buy “pussy” as solanas says in SCUM manifesto, and i think shes right. so all crime, if it relates to money/ill-gotten gains, ends in both prostitution and rape for women because if you can buy it, you can steal it, it is a commodity. a barter system would have the same effect, but bartering is not the opposite of money, its the same idea. anyway i just read that, and this *is* a post about SCUM manifesto (or it was) so i thought i’d mention it. 😀

FCM - July 9, 2013

and YES to mens “alien abduction/impregnation” fantasy. it is all about rape and what being “abducted” means for women, but without ever implicating men — we are “disrobed and probed” and impregnated, but there is no (human, male) agent. women are being abducted, raped and impregnated by ALIENS! yeah thats it!


32. Nives - July 9, 2013

the alien abduction narrative is based on men’s fantasies of forcible impregnation, and the “abduction industry” is also an avenue for men to abuse women.

here is one example: http://www.ufoalienabductee.com

for those just wanting the gist — that site is run by a woman, emma woods, who had hypnosis sessions with dr david jacobs who is considered the leading authority on “alien abduction”, even having received his PhD for a thesis on UFO shit. he used the hypnosis sessions to play out his bdsm and reproductive coercion fantasies, and convinced emma woods that she was being sexually abused by “alien hybrids”, along with other manipulations.

alien abduction is “fringey”- it is tempting to dismiss men’s alien abduction fantasies (and fantasy-based “research” in dr david jacobs case) as fringe also. the mainstream does dismiss it as fringe, therefore letting men off the hook. the same thing applies to pedos and creepshotters. because these things are fringe they are supposedly not representative of men generally. but they are all just less subtle expressions of universal male fantasy, which almost always involves a violation of some sort and sexual coercion, and usually implies reproductive coercion too.

FCM - July 9, 2013

i have a new post up, but will leave comments open here too for as long as people are discussing it. its the only (i think?) post ive ever done on valerie solanas or SCUM manifesto, and they are kind of rare in general, so its kind of the least i can do.


33. Greywing - July 9, 2013

Add upp all the “fringe”, add the pedos, the rapists, the wife beaters, the BDSM sadists, the prostitute users, the stalkers, the creepshotters, the exhibitionists, and so on, and you will have a vast majority of men. Add porn users and you have 100% of men. Counting each “fringe” as an entirely separate freaky little aberration is just another way of hiding how common it all is among men.

34. femmeforever - July 9, 2013

Wow, witchwind. That video is amazing. It ties directly into some spiritual subjects I am very interested in just now. I wish the channel was in English so I could navigate more easily but guess I’ll have to translate each video title to see what’s what. Thanks. BTW, totally agree with your comment upthread.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry