jump to navigation

A 10,000-Year War? Not Likely. July 16, 2013

Posted by FCM in feminisms, meta, radical concepts, rape, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , , , ,

the global subjugation of women throughout historical time (and probably since before even that) is kind of its own thing, is it not?  the worldwide oppression of women as a sexual class by men as a sexual class — 3.5 billion of each by now — is simply unprecedented, and unsurprisingly we find ourselves mostly without the words to describe this.  we do the best we can, invoking metaphors.  in the case of the global oppression of women by men that transcends time, we have used “war” as a metaphor (and had it pushed on us) but is this apt?  im thinking its probably not.

women are a non-entity in the war-model or are its sexy-funtime/spoils.  we are “collateral damage” even where we are more maimed and more killed than the men fighting it, by the men fighting it — besides, women get it with both barrels whether “our side” has won or lost.  peace, war — these concepts are largely meaningless to us, where both war and peace are (traditionally) political, and follow mens laws.  all mens laws, including the one that says that men have a right to oppress women globally, that they can rape and murder us for any reason or no reason, and do so with impunity, and that they need never stop.  in war, even if we’ve won, we’ve lost.  is this where we want to begin thinking about liberating ourselves from male dominance?  i think not.

also, a 10,000-year war?  really?

since we (i guess?) need a metaphor to describe/conceptualize/realize womens oppression by men, since there are no words, can we at least pick a better one?  lets try.  firstly, anything evoking/invoking mens laws is right out, where mens overarching law is that women shall not be free of men ever, and we shall always be subjugated and oppressed no matter what.  so what else is there?  natural law i guess — this is where there is no distinction made between “power” and “founded claim of right to exercise it.”  cause and natural, necessary effect.  like when its raining so hard you literally cant see, so you *cant* go outside, if only for a few minutes at a time; or *if* you do go, your decision is adjudicated by a natural authority to have been poor, or even very poor. this is the best example i can come up with at the moment, although there are most certainly others.

so does nature offer us a model/metaphor that makes more sense than the war-one, and where we actually have a shot at surviving/thriving?  note that i did not say winning — thats war-talk.  as some of you probably know, ive been working with the “natural disaster” model for a while now.  and i think it fits.  now, im not saying anything about whether mens global oppression of women is natural, like a hurricane is natural, although if i did address it i would suggest that its more or less “natural” for them, but wholly unnatural for us.  or, maybe its “natural” in the exact same way that natural disasters are natural actually — because over time, through exercising known male propensities which transcend time and place (and therefore, social conditioning) such as shameless greed, outrageous arrogance, and constant attempts to overpower and outsmart nature mens infrastructure, isnt.  the inevitable occurs (a tsunami; semen exposure causing pregnancy) and women, children and indeed everything dies (homes built too close to the sea; global overpopulation/maternal mortality).  yes that sounds about right!

anyhoo, the thing about using metaphors for womens global oppression by men is that they are being used to describe a political reality, and therefore implicate political strategy.  dont they?  if we use “war” this implicates allies, winning/losing and importantly, fighting/mortal combat where numerous casualties are expected; in the case of mens (10,000 year!!!  at least!!!) war on women, women are also expected to continue to engage with men apparently indefinitely, and voluntarily place ourselves in harms way apparently forever.  even as we know that men feed off womens attention and gynergy, and that they would likely (or absolutely, in the case of male children) die without it.  that cant be good.

whereas in the case of natural disasters (or man-made disasters due to mens necrophilia and foreseeable failures of man-made infrastructure) and surviving natural disasters, the strategy implicated is notably and demonstrably different.  among other things, the immediate response to natural disasters by people who are actually there (not the government obviously) are necessarily swift; they are regional, localized or even hyper-localized/individualized out of necessity and reasonableness (and instinct); and narrowly-tailored to fit the circumstances.  importantly, in the midst of a natural disaster, no one can tell you what to do, and you would be a fool to wait around for it anyway because emergency, and because they arent there to even know whats happening to you — you are.

only you know exactly what is going down on the ground wherever you are, and what you need to do to fix survive it, including getting the hell out of the way, and the wise and natural thing and indeed the only thing to do in this situation is to “save yourself” and those physically close to you/within arms reach.  and these are not individual solutions in a pomo or choosy-choice way.  under a natural disaster model, there are very few choices actually, and little individualism for that matter — it is you responding to the collective reality in the place you are.  here, instinct, imminence, necessity and survival carry the day.  and anyone suggesting *that* is pomo garbage is selling something.

of course, i am aware that for women, the biggest problem in the aftermath of a natural disaster/failure of mens infrastructure is men, and male violence and sexualized violence.  its the same problem with the war-model actually, only the war-model offers no solution and no hope to that particular problem, being that rape is built-in to the war-model as mens recreation and reward, and as a male strategy and indeed a male objective of war as a matter of fact.  whereas getting the hell out of the way, and utilizing instinct and survival (not combat) skills offers the possibility of another outcome.



1. FCM - July 16, 2013

BTW this is the 200-th post on femonade. 🙂 thanks for reading!

2. radikit - July 16, 2013

I really like the direction your thinking/spiralling is taking. Don’t have anything to contribute at the moment, but this post is surely making me think. Also, congrats on your 200ths post! 🙂

FCM - July 16, 2013

thanks radikit! come back whenever you are ready. i will leave comments open for as long as people want to discuss (and are discussing).

3. Sargasso Sea - July 16, 2013

I’m glad you bring up *individualism* here. Because the only way women can and will regain themselves in any meaningful way will be to act individually – we can only have (moral?) authority over ourselves.

I was living in San Francisco when the 1989 earthquake happened. After riding out a night of aftershock after aftershock I went to my workplace mostly to check in on a couple of my co-workers. I was astounded to see that the streets were packed with families out for a stroll/shopping as if it were some kind of holiday or something. The owner of the shop (cappuccino and ice cream!) expected me to get to work… on the bottom floor/basement of a 4 level victorian that had not yet been inspected. I refused on the grounds that his potential windfall profits that day were not worth my (our) potential loss of life. The punchline though was that he insisted he had to stay open to “have milk for the babies”! Yeah, right.

So, that St. Olaf story brought to you by the idea that natural disaster is ALWAYS followed by male disaster and , as you say Fact, one must act for herself given her individual circumstances. IOW I wasn’t about to stand around and wait for all of the other employees to agree that it was a dangerous situation and appeal to our boss to let us go somewhere safer – I had my say and I left. And so did the other women.

FCM - July 16, 2013

cappuccino and ice cream for the babiez!!!! they are all dairy products i guess?

also, i see that you didnt wait around for anyone to agree; that you said your piece and left. i have been wondering lately what the point of blogging is going to be for me now or into the future considering exactly that. with my 200th post, and my 4-year blogiversary approaching in august, its coming to the forefront even more. of course, this is woman-only space, and not in danger of falling down on my head (or is it? hmmm). anyway, its something to think about. its not really the point that anyone agrees with me or not, although the conversations amongst mostly-like-minded people are way more interesting than the contentious/pretentious “debates” you see in other places. im still saying my piece, i guess, and still developing it. and theres still plenty of ways to say it, and a constant stream of material to debunk in order to further clarify/highlight certain points and perhaps more to the point, certain historical failures, including failed assumptions, failed models and logic fails. plus, i mostly enjoy it. 🙂

4. witchwind - July 16, 2013

Again, more paths opened here. thanks for that. I find the metaphor apt. Although even if we defined men’s actions as war, men’s responses to war are different from our responses. So getting the hell out of the way and disengaging completely with men as well as women actively engaged with men and men’s systems would be our response no matter what metaphor we used.

To me this model is the primary model of protection from violence and danger, whichever the form of violence and danger. It’s very simple. Get away, don’t ever get in contact with the source of violence or danger again, and use instinct to do this, and trust our perceptions to identify the danger or violence.

FCM - July 16, 2013

yes thats true ww, if we correctly identified the war model (or at least the reality of war?) as being men-against-men (against women) which it is, then our response would be the same as with the natural disaster model. to disengage, because women cant win in war. but we dont do that, and indeed we are specifically prevented from thinking and doing that by the very terminology/ies and concept of war. which is “us” versus “them” (with rape as a nonissue or a side-issue) where there are 2 “sides” that are clear-cut and where either side could win. if we dont even stand a fucking chance, its not a war anyway, its a massacre. and its time we realize these things, and say it out loud.

witchwind - July 16, 2013

their wars are always a massacre against women. The fact they engage in wars against other men is just a pretense, a derail, a way to persuade us we’re not the primary target of men’s violence.

FCM - July 16, 2013

yes i think thats the size of it! good point/well said.

FCM - July 16, 2013

4 years! haha! omg.

5. lisaprime - July 16, 2013

Awesome accomplishment, fcm! You truly do open up so many new paths. Keep it up!

You said: “women are also expected to continue to engage with men apparently indefinitely, and voluntarily place ourselves in harms way apparently forever.”

I agree that there are no words – yet – for the true relationship between men and women. We “are expected” to engage – we seem to historically accept – that there IS no out, nowhere to run to, while the tsunamis roll in one after the other. The key word in the last few blog entries here for me has been “Disengagement”. Some commenters here say, do it in organized fashion. You seem to say here, do it however you can do it, and if there’s no organized way to do it, do it as an individual.

OK. The idea is to disengage even without fully understanding the system we’re disengaging from (because it is maybe just too veiled, too ancient, to deconstruct and conceptualize and analyze, so much so that we don’t even have the words to do it), giving up completely on the possibility of living within that system.

We’ve talked a lot about where to run to. The problem is huge – because we are talking about leaving human society. That’s true, isn’t it? Human society globally, which is male-dominated and poisoned by oppression. Is there any other society? Any place on earth not patriarchal and oppressive?

There is also the problem that if we physically separate we will be followed and captured and returned, or at least attempts will be made that will require self-defense. Most commenters here I think agree with that intuition.

I only see two ways to go. Both involve still living within the system, so they won’t lead to complete liberation. One can
“leave” individually or in a small group but still be seen as in society, so alarm bells don’t ring to go after you. That’s a path a number of women I know follow – getting hold of some land, dealing only with women whenever possible, keeping a low profile in the community, maybe having a cover personality or profile. This can be done in developed countries thanks to feminist reforms of the past 50 years. It can’t be done in most countries in the world, however, where a woman MUST be under some male’s control or simply can’t exist in that society.

The other is to act collectively to disengage. There are certain models for this, mostly religious. I think of the Amish in the US. For instance, we could establish something like a “religion” with “nunneries”, large institutions worldwide where women could live with other women in peace. One could also think of these institutions as women’s universities, which would have associated women’s townships. I think this is remotely possible. It would require women en masse accepting that Disengagement is the solution, pooling their resources (with western women funding women in countries where they are not able to have any resources), planning gradually and carefully and quietly. Nuns have historically been helpless because they have been internally controlled by their Patriarch and externally by church officials. This “religion” would have no patriarch, obv.

Perhaps transitional Disengagements along these lines could lead to complete liberation in the future as we do somehow get stronger and find a way to dismantle the patriarchal concept.

6. Sargasso Sea - July 16, 2013

Ha! I was just getting ready to say: Wow has it been that long already?!

Congrats and thank you sooo much for this space. Your *saying your piece* and hosting the discussions that follow are invaluable. 🙂

7. Sargasso Sea - July 16, 2013

“…there are no words – yet – for the true relationship between men and women.”

Yes there are. And they’ve been used here over and over again.

8. SheilaG - July 16, 2013

I am a strong advocate for getting the hell away or acting quickly in an emergency, since I’ve survived two major earthquakes, one riot, and a lot of other dicey situations. Lots of people were ordered by the male guards to go back into the Twin Towers, and thus they died, when they were almost out the front door.

Getting stuck with men forever, put this bluntly, make the hyeteria of the trans against radical feminist born women only conferences all the more understandable. That’s why radical feminist female only conferences are causing such an uproar, and why lesbian separatists were the most hated back in the day. I think people have pretty much forgotten us as a 70s relic these days.

War is not an apt word for women, since we are never at war–men are at war with each other to get power –peasant men overthrowing kings etc. Rape in war is across the board, although I do recall that the north Vietnamese made it official male policy not to rape in war, to be used as leverage to prove the evil colonialists only did that. Rambling a bit here, but all of this does explain the trans hysteria over women insisting on a Michigan to ourselves, and why even stating you want male free space is always controversial even among most women. So that’s why it is important to go very far indeed with this, to get out the radical truth. There is much we women can do for each other. As a lesbian, I know that I have many many homes I can turn to to crash if I needed to, and a few foreign refuges as well. Lesbian hospitality is famous this way, because most public accomodations are definitely dangerous for butch dykes to be in.

9. Sargasso Sea - July 16, 2013

Also: “…find a way to dismantle the patriarchal concept.”

But that’s part of what *we* have been doing. We are perfectly aware that the planet is ruled by men and that there’s no out except for what we can do/not do individually, in real time, in our own lives every day.
Because without each woman realizing this and acting/in-acting on it there is no way there can EVER be a group of them.

If many many (or all) women individually disengaged would there be a need for groups at all?

10. Citizen Taqueau - July 16, 2013

Lisaprime, single-sex universities are being forced to go co-ed as it is, and all-female religious orders have always been under attack. Have you read about what happened to the Beguines? Jan Raymond’s A Passion For Friends has a succinct account. They were not under the authority of the male church, and after the authoritehs got tired of it they hired brute squads to drive the women into the streets, rape them, and force them into prostitution.

I think we understand the system from which we wish to disengage. http://radfemimages.wordpress.com/the-gears/

11. witchwind - July 16, 2013

@ lisaprime: your vision of leaving men is strange. First, you don’t call it leaving men but human society – as if you had an emotional attachment to what men have done to the world – which they call “society” but which is only the mass genocidal organisation of females and female life. We’re talking about the necessity to leave men and their institutions to save our lives, and you say some women should remain controlled by men so others go off on their lands? Not only it’s deeply unethical to sacrifice some women over others but from a strategic point of view it makes no sense at all.

Second, the whole principle of saving your life is not to wait until others disengage so you do it yourself. That defeats the purpose of self protection and deprogramming from maledom. So one consequence of this strategy is either getting deliberately stuck in danger forever because others don’t follow, or forcing others to follow you because you can’t stand the idea of it not being collective or “mass” – but the thing is, you can’t, be definition, force anyone to free herself. And what’s this obsession with wanting radical feminism to be a mass movement?

12. witchwind - July 16, 2013

Invasion, persecution, occupation, colonisation, massacre, genocide best describe men’s “war” on women I think. Or other words in the same vein. If war doesn’t fit because it implies two fairly equal parties fighting each other, which isn’t the case between men and women (the oft said “battle of the sexes” is a lie) then the others do, because it’s a unilateral attack.

FCM - July 16, 2013

maybe it would be helpful to list all the things women dont have access to, and then refuse to require those things as a precondition to us liberating ourselves. does that help? to do otherwise — to require things we will likely never have before we act on our own behalves in order to save our own lives, like resources and land for example — seems like a deadend.

FCM - July 16, 2013

not seems like. IS.

13. witchwind - July 16, 2013

haha yes! such as, taking over the state! rewriting all the laws! Entering politics! changing men! getting in the news!

these preconditions are promoted by men in their media as the way to go for feminists because it’s thought-stopping and action stopping. It prevents us from deciding to act in the way we want our world to be right now, to protect ourselves from harm right now

FCM - July 16, 2013

and “waiting” and thinking about or trying to organize a coordinated, homogenous global response is also antithetical to the entire point of this post. if the “natural disaster” model is inaccurate and does not describe/conceptualize/realize womens oppression by men, whats wrong with it? be specific. also, propose an alternative.

FCM - July 16, 2013

i would also like to point out that the 2 times i have heard of women questioning the practice of gestating/birthing/nurturing males it wasnt american/canadian or european women mkay. women around the world are coming up with their own solutions to this mess, and to the problem of men and male violence. if we “wait” until we can help them as well as helping ourselves, we might just find that we were the stupid ones for waiting, and that they were actually helping themselves this whole time. in fact i would absolutely count on it. and if we keep on this way, we are going to die, and they arent. perhaps this is for the best? consider that they might be letting their numbers dwindle while we still keep pumping out white western males at the same rate we always have, thereby making the world *even worse* than it is now for ourselves and for them. and they need OUR help? im just saying. perhaps we should just stop being so fucking arrogant while simultaneously making everything worse. maybe THAT would “help”?

14. witchwind - July 16, 2013

That is, I do hope that men will no longer plague the earth one day (that maleness will have disappeared) and that ultimately all women leaving men will as a consequence make men vanish like dust. And even if it doesn’t, we’re still better off getting away from men than staying with them.
And I agree that it’s not necessary to have to coordinate this globally. If we believe that women are connected with each other, the more of us saving our lives, the easier it will be for women to catch on that lead, whether on the local or global scale.

I also strongly believe in example and in its transformative power. That if we act in ways that are protective to ourselves and the women around us from men’s violence, it will necessarily have positive outcomes for ourselves and for women. It’s not something you can fake. If you choose to live by your values and seek liberation actively in your own life and this is the message and example you will be setting for other women too. You are creating a world around you where self-protection and respect and freedom from men is the norm. If you remain tied to men’s power and violence plays, tied to men’s institutions (etc) this is the example you are giving to other women: that it’s ok to stay in proximity to the source of harm and danger (men). You sustain women’s presence within this harm and within men’s prison.

This applying of freedom from violence here and now, wherever we go, and whenever we identify harm, to get away from it as soon as we can, is really the key and it’s pretty simple to understand. And it changes lives.

FCM - July 16, 2013

ww i wouldnt use the words you suggest, because even though as you say they are more accurate than “war” the equality-of-position implication isnt the only problem with it. in fact, “war” shares problems with the “unilateral attack” words/concepts bc they are male concepts and follow male laws, including un-doing/remedying these things and responding to them (decolonization; prosecuting genocide as a war crime). i would have to object to any use of male models/concepts that follow mens/male law at all, and the only thing left is natural law. thats why i looked to nature for a model — being outside maleness and pro-male/anti-female bias, i think its the only option that holds any potential to free us. also, womens law is, for all intents and purposes, natural law. they are the same thing.

15. lisaprime - July 16, 2013

Thanks, the later comments have really made me think about mine. I’m just thinking here, not advocating, just trying to work through some of the stubborn contradictions and deadends I keep coming to whenever I think about disengagement.

Sargasso, regarding “there are no words”, that was following on fcm’s comment “we find ourselves mostly without the words to describe this.” You say we have been using the words, Sargasso, but I don’t think we’ve agreed on one or even a combination, to describe the global subjugation of women throughout time. I’m working with some of those words right now: is it “dehumanization”? “invisibilization”? “colonization”? “chattelization”? What is this group, “women”, worldwide? A class, a caste, a chattel-group, property, legal children, a group that has always been subsumed and lost all identity in marriage? Saying it’s all of the above is too diffuse to make progress with. I think the oppression of our group of one-half of humanity is unprecedented, and currently there are no words.

Sheila, you seem to say in times of disaster women can take each other in, privately and individually. Yes, but I think that’s a disaster expedient, temporary until the wave passes.

You also mention again that intense need of men to crash any group of women. I think we still do not fully understand the motive behind this need. Why is it so crucial to keep us from talking among ourselves, to permit us independence? Why must we be restrained, surveilled, sequestered, controlled, with rape systems, all kinds of violence, with so many resources of our culture devoted to it? Why has so much cultural effort gone into devaluing girls and overvaluing boys, to the extent that women in some countries are destroying millions of girl fetuses so that boys may be supported?

I’ve been thinking a lot about radical truth. Fcm, I’ve seen you locate the root of our oppression with reproduction, and I believe this is accurate. I am thinking more specifically about that, and would like to very carefully set out an intuition I have had without advocating it: what if there is a truly terrible male fear at the bottom of it all? What if there has been a grand reversal so well-disguised and taboo’d that we haven’t really seen it ourselves?

What if women have held all the power all along, in the sense that we are not just the life-givers, we are also the ones with the complete power to destroy men in their infancy? We are, of course; putting aside sex-selected abortion, which women in some countries do have a lot of control over, women are also left alone with their new babies. They have to be trusted. Are men terrified that left to themselves, having figured out the harm patriarchal society has done them, women will commit male infanticide on a general basis? Is this what they are trying to stop? Is this whole goddamn system, from romance to rape to keeping us dependent on men, set up to persuade women not to think about that, not to do that, to prevent us from doing that? I may be going all deep psychology here, but it has always seemed to me that what is driving men to set up the oppressive society they have, is some need that is so buried as to be beyond speaking, and I wonder if this is it. Can men fear that the Mother is a destroyer as well as a life-giver? If so, much is explained.

Sargasso, you asked: “If many many (or all) women individually disengaged would there be a need for groups at all?” What I wonder is how any of the women in non-Eurocentric countries could ever disengage as individuals. They would be beggars and prostitutes at that point. In developed countries I do think many of us can disengage individually, so long as we live in tiny isolated cells and keep a low profile. it’s just one opinion, but I think that leaves these women highly vulnerable. When the natural disaster comes, we all run and try to sauve qui peut. There’s a place I saw once named by the Mexicans “Salsipuedes” -“save yourself, ye who can.”

The “natural disaster” model is not quite the right conceptualization, maybe, because disasters are periodic, with time to recoup in between, and we don’t get that, our “disaster” is ongoing. Also, in natural disaster, the running away, the tents, the bad food, the refugee camps, etc, are temporary. We may need to run now, but we need to couple that with organized resource-developing, long-term planning. So, OK, run now, but organize. To me one of the hallmarks of radical movements is recognizing the strength in group action. Some of us may just have to agree to disagree there.

It’s true, though, that a “war” is supposed to have 2 sides, and women aren’t at war, so that war metaphor fails. We are under continual intense pressure, and many of us are dying, and more are traumatized; I tend toward the medical metaphor; there’s a disease out there, we need to find a cure, stat.

FCM, you ask for an alternative to running and surviving. I did suggest one. As for my notion of using man-made law to set up women’s private organizations with no public funding, why not? The Beguines were an amazing group that could not survive because women had no legal rights at that time. In developed countries, we have the right to earn money and put it toward private educational or “religious” institutions if we so choose. We could hold property, run businesses, use female religious orders as our model, establish female universities. No federal funding, ever, nohow, and it could happen.

Sorry, hard to stop…too many ideas…

FCM - July 16, 2013

well, i didnt ask for an alternative to running and surviving, i asked for an alternative model/metaphor if you dont like the natural disaster one, if you can think of one. i never demand that anyone come up with alternatives to patriarchy before they dare criticize it bc this is thought-terminating and unfair. likewise i would never demand someone come up with a transitional plan on the spot or ever. again, all of this is the antithesis of this post. the point is that our model/metaphor dictates/suggests a response. so why not pick a good one? more to the point, can we look to nature to provide this model? i think its important that we try.

another way to approach this is perhaps, why is “save yourself” being assumed to mean these certain things? i never actually said what i meant by that. also, “legal rights” do not protect women from men. they just dont.

16. Sargasso Sea - July 16, 2013

Lisa, it’s quite clear that you are missing the point and frankly your hamster wheel *questions* would be very easily answered if you weren’t.

FCM - July 16, 2013

recommended reading: sonia johnson, “going out of our minds: the metaphysics of liberation” “wildfire” and “the sisterwitch conspiracy”. pay attention to the “metaphysics” part bc she didnt just include this in the title as a lark — she really believes this is part of it, for example, that there are shortcuts to our destination/liberation from male dominance (wormholes = shortcuts). actually she made me think that we have no idea whats possible, which is true. i wrote about those ideas/books here:


17. lisaprime - July 16, 2013

Ok, thanks for the suggestion, I really have to read Sonja Johnson, and I appreciate the chance to respond to this article. fcm, always a pleasure. I seem to be coming at it from an unhelpful direction this time around.

FCM - July 16, 2013

also, i can tell by the other comments that my message came through in general, so thats good! honestly if this post gets derailed with some thought-terminating bullshit i will be very disappointed. thats pretty much the opposite of what i had in mind!

18. daughteristhesun - July 16, 2013

So many great ideas! FCM, what a fantastic leap to stop using the male language of war. It seems obvious now, that war is not a correct description of what is happening, and it does terminate thinking to frame it in that way! Heres an analogy from nature that’s along the same lines as lisaprime’s idea of a medical model. In ecology there are basically four types of relationships organisms can enter into:

Mutualism: both organisms benefit.
Ammensalism: one organism is harmed, while the other is unaffected.
Commensalism: one organism benefits, the other is unaffected.
Parasitism: one organism is harmed, the other benefits.

The relationship between female and male humans is one of male parasitism. Like other parasites, the male uses the female (host) immune system and defenses against her. Our self-protective instincts to nurture and defend ourselves and our young are rewired by pathogens (male culture) secreted by the parasite. This is why women defend men and feel comfortable sacrificing themselves to them, while feeling overwhelming guilt for even criticizing males. Her defenses and survival instinct have been co-opted, to protect male interests instead. This happens all the time in nature and results in organisms acting batshit crazy and doing things counter to survival. For example, rats infected with toxoplasmosis are attracted to cat urine. Parasitic wasps turn cabbage worm caterpillars into their bodyguards. Sacculina parasitize crabs and become! in effect their new brain, turning them into new creatures. Human females produce and nourish males and give them our energy; which they use to rape and murder us and desecrate the environment. There are many instances of parasitism in nature in which the host appears to simply become a puppet, and the parasite the hand inside. It’s frightening.

The first thing to do is REMOVE THE PARASITE, not engage in activism with it (DGR!) or plead with it to be nicer. The parasite (men) will never willingly let go because it’s life depends on sucking energy from the host (women) and it has nothing to offer the host.

“You still don’t know what you’re dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. It’s structural perfection is matched only by its hostility…I admire it’s purity; unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.”
–Ash to Ripley in Alien (1979)

19. daughteristhesun - July 17, 2013

I’ve also found it useful to understand our situation as that of cult members trying to escape. Because that’s exactly whats going on, we’re all unwilling members in a global male death cult. While chapters in other locations may have superficial differences, the core philosophy and the abuse we suffer is the same globally. This isn’t a nature metaphor, but understanding women’s situation in this way has helped me immensely in keeping my sanity.

There are certain similar patterns in those deprograming from a cult and women coming into a feminist consciousness. It takes years to understand what really happened to you in the cult/patriarchy.

From s4: “I wasn’t about to stand around and wait for all of the other employees to agree that it was a dangerous situation and appeal to our boss to let us go somewhere safer – I had my say and I left. And so did the other women.”

I completely agree, we shouldn’t wait for other women to agree with us before we save ourselves. It’s pointless arguing with a brainwashed cult member, and wastes valuable energy. There is only one thing that can convince a brainwashed cult member to leave–seeing you leave. This action bypasses the mind bindings the cult/patriarchy has left in the higher processing centers of the brain; it sparks the ancient survival instinct. When one member of the pack starts fleeing, the other members look up and take notice, sensing danger. As more start to leave, it triggers a chain reaction, until the entire pack is fleeing to safety.

FCM - July 17, 2013

remove the parasite! +1

FCM - July 17, 2013

i love the parasite metaphor/model. valerie solanas wrote about mens parasitic natures/reality in SCUM manifesto and its the thing that stuck with me the most, even more than the parts about un-working and fucking up men and mens systems. i dont know what was more meaningful to her, and i hope im not putting the focus somewhere she wouldnt or undermining her work. i hate it when feminists disavow the violent parts of SCUM instead of taking it as a complete work, a whole. also, pander much? and yes, the parasite metaphor/model suggests/implies a solution. remove the parasite. do whatever it takes, understanding that this will be considered violence even when its not (this makes me wonder even more about those who would disavow the violent aspects of SCUM out of hand, and no, im not talking about war or anything like it, but look what we are talking about here — consider the POV of the parasite. they will not like this. at all). and no, dont negotiate with a parasite, its pointless and besides soon you wont have the energy to do that or anything! because parasite! hello.

i wrote about SCUM here


FCM - July 17, 2013

also as i said there, i have to wonder why the strong reaction to solanas, who shot a man, when men go around shooting men all the time. who cares about that? men dont. sure i understand its a different thing when the slave harms the slaveowner and they get their dander up about this specifically. but this is also a male model that doesnt take into consideration womens reality, including the reality of female slaves. i really suspect it was the part about mens parasitic natures that was taboo, and why solanas was so hated, disavowed and destroyed. even feminists did this to her. shulamith firestone herself said that solanas was a nut and an embarrassment to the movement. ironic considering that by many accounts, firestone was those things too.

FCM - July 17, 2013

remove the parasite *OR* just dont let one attach to you in the first place. this is so critical, and its what i hope the young ‘uns here are taking away from all this. it might be harder to un-do these things than it is to just not-do them in the first place. and once youre trauma-bonded youre pretty well fucked (as well as the other way around). trust an old lady on that one! seriously.

20. witchwind - July 17, 2013

Thanks for that daughterITS, I like the model you suggest. Those descrptions of parasites are chilling. I’ve also heard of small funghi or bacteria getting inside the brains of insects and using their bodies as vehicles or something.
I’ve been thinking of males as parasites for a long time (and this has been mentioned several times on blogs for the past 2 years), it didn’t even cross my mind to mention it here but of course it is a natural model too! I think it makes more sense than the natural disaster one because as Lisaprime said, natural disaster is a one-off occurrence, it comes and goes for a very short time, we know it is temporary. This is not the case for men, because we know neither the beginning nor the end of it, and the harm element is permanent. And natural disasters don’t plug onto us, insert themselves into us and use us for reproduction.

I find the virus model apt too

Men / males also function like viruses. Viruses are the only (parasitic) organisms on earth which aren’t autonomous life, that is, they can’t duplicate / reproduce without using the cells of the host. So they are doubly parasitic, or “pure” parasites. Once it’s settled in a host cell, it uses it to reproduce then takes the form of another cell so it’s not recognised by the host as an enemy (is this correct?) and this way it can continue to feed off the host and propagate. I would imagine that males /men are a lump of female cells controlled by a male virus. That is, a virus that managed to insert itself in the reproductive system of females in order to reproduce itself and take the form of a human female (with defects + appendage/sperm to continue to use females to reproduce more male viruses). I think women are emotionally bonded to males also because they know / feel that there are female cells in them, so we recognise our kind in them – except that these female cells are taken hostage by maleness.

The virus model would fit with the necrophilia / deadness of men – because contrary to living parasites (living organisms that can reproduce autonomously, such as wasps, insects, bacteria, etc), viruses aren’t life.

I very much like the concept of death cult too, and the way you frame it. All male systems function like cults, from men’s domestic violence to larger systems. It completely fits with the general system of brainwashing / mind control and captivity that men put in place (using human female intelligence to do so, since they feed off female cells) and with the fact that deprogramming is the singular most important task we need to undertake so we can break free of men / remove them from ourselves (hence the importance of discussing and writing).

So remove the viruses I’d say!

farishcunning - July 17, 2013

Daughteristhesun, thanks so much for the parasite metaphor! My partner and I have been instinctively removing the parasite for a couple of years now. We felt the toxic effects of the male parasite sickening us, and began to detach wherever possible. One major area has been with our healthcare providers. We insist on women as we do not want males examining our bodies and minds. (Something I’ve never understood–why would any woman ever want a male gynecologist?!)

We will continue to remove the parasite, and thanks again, FCM, for this space. And congratulations on your 200th and 4th!

21. wwomenwwarriors - July 17, 2013

Oooh I really like this. Female-centered language to describe this in a way that doesn’t utilize their models.

This opens up an entire new section of my imagination with regards to how we might approach maletastrophies. It does have a ring of “they are brainless break-shit machines” but then that doesn’t seem too far off anyways. I wish that we could at least get to a point, one beautiful day, when we are not simply containing male violence and all their problems, but can actually think about something else and this could cease to occupy our minds.

Can you even IMAGINE what we’d do if they were SOLVED?!?!? If the male problem were SOLVED, meaning they completely ceased to rape us, attack us, start wars, and boss us around, and we had it so solved that there were no chance they’d start this shit back up again….can you IMAGINE what femalekind would do with that sort of space?

Goddess…they think their moon trips are cool with their fancy spaceships. Puleeze. We’d be telepathically having tea parties on the friggin’ moon and harvesting strawberries on Mars by now. We’d have a name for the other galaxies by now, would know how to heal with our fingertips, and would have figured out a way to intentionally activate a collective consciousness moment towards accomplishing a specific task (like when a real tsunami were to hit, we’d all tap into the universal wave and eloquently have supplies, housing, support teams winding into the disaster zone with the grace of dancers who have rehearsed a 1,000 times and can actually hear the music.) Also, we’d live longer. No doubt. Cause men are the number one cause of my stress and aging.

FCM - July 17, 2013

haha! maletastrophies! also, i too have always wished that i didnt have to do this shit — not that i hate doing it, just that i wish it werent necessary, and that i could spend my time as i pleased or on other things. and i do not recommend anyone become attached to the work itself since that is so far from the point you cannot even see the point from there! and this is in fact a real danger which i have written about before. but since i cant spend my time as i want to anyway, since my time is not my own, and indeed nothing is “mine” bc i am female in a patriarchal suckhole/cesspool, this is *preferable* to some of the other options/fauxptions available to me. thats all. and yes, imagine what women could do if we werent constantly having to negotiate and try to solve the problem of maleness, including getting them out of our heads. they are a problem, and the proof of that is that they have destroyed the world. this is beyond debate.

also, the parasite model/metaphor suggests another solution besides simply removing/expunging it. it suggests prevention, the most obvious/literal one, what we already do to avoid harmful parasites is to seek out and maintain clean food and water, and a clean environment. not sanitized, but clean and free of parasites and other harmful organisms. perhaps to know the difference between harmful organisms and nonharmful ones too, and to treat them accordingly. the opposite of the scattergun approach (like antibiotics and bleach). and to not have direct/unmitigated contact with those who are infected. some parasites are sexually-transmitted too. ask me how i know! theres a lot to work with here. and following this thought through, it also implicates/highlights the male-tastrophy aspect of it, which is that the conditions of patriarchy magnify the harms/exposures/effects of parasites and male parasitism too. just like men and mens (failures of) infrastructure magnify the harms and destructiveness of natural disasters as a matter of fact.

FCM - July 17, 2013

this is the most disgusting thing i have read all day. honestly it gave me anxiety and nausea. poor kate.


FCM - July 18, 2013

oh dear. was it something i said? haha! sorry bout that!

a month of tweets from the HUB archives. please share/retweet. 🙂


FCM - July 18, 2013

22. Sargasso Sea - July 18, 2013

I woke up thinking about Jeffrey’s Spinster and Her Enemies this morning. I read it quite some time ago now but it seems that although there had been a growing number of women who were disengaging from men it was when they began forming groups/cells and agitating and promoting their cause that the male establishment started striking back.

In the same vein, we were watching the first installment of Ken Burns’ (god I hate that guy!) Prohibition series and was reminded that women’s groups were responsible for creating the temperance movement (men were spending more on booze than all other expenses combined) and that they were only ever able to achieve very short-lived success. It was only after men took over the movement that it became more and more extreme AND *successful*. It’s telling I think that today we are left with the idea that it was a handful of crazy women who forced through legislation that failed so miserably.

23. luckynkl - July 19, 2013

I’ve spoken numerous times over the last decade and a half about men being parasites, leeches, and viruses – similar to cancer, which fool the body into thinking it has a right to be there. Biologically, it is literal and I’ve shown that. But I hesitate in calling the phenomenon of maledom and the phallocracy as something natural. As I’ve said before, I think the Y chromosome is alien and doesn’t belong here. I have no clue where it comes from, but if it’s natural, it sure isn’t natural on this planet. The fact that males consume and destroy every living thing on the planet doesn’t seem natural. If it were natural, there’d be a balance. There is no balance. Men won’t be satisfied until there is total destruction.

As for women’s condition, I think of the last 10,000 years as a female Holocaust. If men could reproduce, they would’ve exterminated females long ago. That seems to be only reason men have allowed women to live. To reproduce more of their kind. Once men figure out how to reproduce without women, women can kiss their asses goodbye. Until then, men must keep women enslaved to insure males will continue to be reproduced – by any and all means possible.

24. daughteristhesun - July 19, 2013

Hmm, this is an interesting and fun direction to explore, luckynkl:

“But I hesitate in calling the phenomenon of maledom and the phallocracy as something natural. As I’ve said before, I think the Y chromosome is alien and doesn’t belong here. I have no clue where it comes from, but if it’s natural, it sure isn’t natural on this planet. The fact that males consume and destroy every living thing on the planet doesn’t seem natural. If it were natural, there’d be a balance. There is no balance. Men won’t be satisfied until there is total destruction.”

As of now, I feel comfortable identifying the Y chromosome as “natural”, in the sense that it is logical that something as horrific as maledom would evolve on this planet. I kinda think this planet is fucking evil. But maledom is definitely not natural in the, natural=right and inevitable way. I see many varieties of life mixing like crazy; feeding on, infecting, inhabiting, cooperating and competing with each other. There is usually an equilibrium reached. Then came the humans. And holy shit–the intelligence of the human brain combined with the sadism and selfishness of males has completely thrown off any equilibrium and threatens all life on the planet. Like you said, “men won’t be satisfied until there is total destruction”. They will KILL US ALL, and ejaculate to the carnage.

You said: “I think the Y chromosome is alien and doesn’t belong here.” Well, this feels right to me too. Hmm, I think you’re right that it is alien and doesn’t belong here. The Y chromosome is an alien in any kind of future where we survive. The Y chromosome doesn’t belong, can’t belong, in a future in which we are free. The Y chromosome’s rightful home is a sadistic hell dimension, kinda like the one we’re in now.

The parasite-virus-disaster model is biologically accurate, yes. But there’s something missing. It’s the soul-crushing intimacy of the violence, perhaps; no natural phenomenon replicates it.

25. Nadege - July 19, 2013

It’s really interesting that you say that the Y chromosome is “alien” luckynkl. A while ago, before I’d learned about feminism, I got interested in and started reading about different theories put forward (by men) about the lost history and origins of homo sapiens and civilization. Many in this community (“alien/extraterrestrial research”) believe that extraterrestrials merged with neanderthals or genetically modified them, a really long time ago, after which these neanderthals became homo sapiens. Some of the dates given by these researchers align very closely to the dates given by feminists as when patriarchy might have begun, but not all. I read a lot about this stuff during my spare time before having kids. It seems out there and crazy, but made sense to me then and is starting to make sense to me again now. So, there may actually be scientific proof out there that the Y chromosome IS in fact alien, and that it doesn’t belong on this planet. I can provide some links if anyone would like. I don’t believe that there was mention of the Y chromosome specifically in what I read, but I’m excited to go back and read them again to find out.

26. aSillySpinner - July 19, 2013

“if men could reproduce they wouldve exterminated females long ago….once men figure out how to reproduce without women, women can kiss their asses goodbye”

this is what they have been planning and working on for decades, cloning themselves. the human genome project is about creating a composite person, of course formally male, “comprised of autosomes taken from men and women of several nations, multinational, multiracial melange, a kind of Adam II”
they know the ‘y’ chromosome is a mutation, “unstable and flighty” and they are impelled “to seize control of biological evolution by gene manipulation before the vanishing point arrives”. mary daly talked about this in Quintessence, “the nechtech future II: the end of women (p 201 ff)

“i think the y chromosome is alien and doesnt belong here”….

i am still wondering, WHY (Y) are they here?? if they are a mutation, did we produce them? did they get here thru a wormhole?? spaceships?? the big bang theory? a huge solar flare?? sonia johnson maintains that males OF ALL SPECIES are mutations and to me that implies a cosmic disaster of gigantic proportions bc i believe, like sonia, that before maleness occurred on this planet, , femayls have been here for thousands and millions of years, living in a totally different form than we have now……see Sisterwitch. i refuse mens explanations of either creation by their male gods or their male science/theories of evolution as the only 2 options as to how we / they came to be on this planet.

daughter……do you really believe THE PLANET is FUCKING EVIL??? i dont. i believe MEN are the SCUM of the Earth
and what they are doing to the Earth, Wimmin & Girls, and every other living plant & animal species EVERY DAY, IS EVIL.

27. witchwind - July 19, 2013

If we look at the origin of men, I think we have to look at the origin of maleness, or the males of all species. I don’t see why and how it would be possible to separate out human males from the other males. If we see men as alien it makes sense to see maleness as alien too, tracing it back to when it first appeared. the idea that before, all was female, after which came the males (aliens? wherefrom?) is very credible and logical to me.

And it might also be a cosmic disaster of gigantic proportions too, that’s quite possible. I wonder if it’s related or not to the propagation of black holes / the fact that life is sucked by black holes. This question leads to another question, that is if black holes are a benign phenomenon of circular life span (the expansion of the universe forming back to an original compression in the centre of black holes) of if they are a symptom of some disorder. And if it is a disorder / disaster, and if it connects to maleness, how does it connect, etc.

I do not have any answers to these questions and obviously at this point it’s quite difficult to get clues from male research.

28. Sargasso Sea - July 19, 2013

It seems to me that speculation about how and why and where the y came from – be it outer-space alien, *terrestrial* virus/parasite or whatever. Does it really matter? – is sort of beside the point of disengagement and how we go about doing THAT.

And men have all the tech they need to reproduce males only without our *help*. It’s just that they like fucking women over every which way. It’s just not quite as fun (or easy) to fuck over another guy.

FCM - July 19, 2013

see, i was just thinking how enjoyable it was to speculate. 🙂 its having the desired effect on me at least, which is to “feel” differently about them and differently from them. thats a big part of it IMO.

FCM - July 19, 2013

also, hugo flounced from the internet. lol

FCM - July 19, 2013

and speaking of aliens, whenever i watch an alien movie now i kind of hope the aliens win. or at least i fail to see “humans” (men) as being any different from the dread aliens at all, especially the ones that want to come to earth to suck out all its “resources” and leave it a smoking cinder. thats exactly what men are doing to it now! duh! sorry but one is not any better than the other, and the same result either way so who cares?

29. Sargasso Sea - July 19, 2013

Hugo who? Lol

Oh yes speculation is totally fun 🙂 But I’m also thinking that if the result is the same, again, does it really matter to US where this/these necrophilic/parasitic *things* come to be?

Rhetorical question really.

FCM - July 20, 2013

i know what you meant. its a *feeling* thing. we have been force-fed this equality-bullshit for so long, and begged for our “humanity” for so long i think we identify with them a bit more than we would otherwise and certainly more than we should. this alien-talk is hitting the right note IMO. its in the getting there. the result, as you say, would be the same.

FCM - July 20, 2013

its *partially* a feeling-thing i should say. these (all) doods are in our heads, or in many of our heads. we *feel* a connection to them thats not real, the illusion has many layers/parts. trauma bonding is a feeling for example. and the “sameness” we have been forced/led to feel is a powerful con.

30. delphyne - July 20, 2013

As Witchwind says earlier it’s quite possible that women are bonding with the femaleness they recognise in men – the humanity they have which comes from the X chromosome which they are parasiting on to. It might also explain in part why we don’t kill them, even when our own survival is at stake, because killing one of our own, even when it is contaminated with maleness, fundamentally goes against our female natures.

It is interesting where these discussions can go once the edict/taboo against considering any biological basis to mens behaviour is overcome. I’ve also been having the “men are aliens” thoughts for a few weeks, prompted by the conversations here. Perhaps if the X-chromosome was removed from a Y, all that would be left would be a little frail limbed grey malevolent creature. Given men’s obsession with aliens, it bears further investigation.

31. delphyne - July 20, 2013

Also maybe men’s main aim isn’t reproduction of themselves, but rather female annihilation. They keep us around so they can destroy us over and over again. Doing it once just isn’t enough.

32. radikit - July 20, 2013

Delphyne said:
” Perhaps if the X-chromosome was removed from a Y, all that would be left would be a little frail limbed grey malevolent creature.”

Oh my goddess, YES! Everytime I look at males I think “degenerate mutant”. When I’m around on I either feel sorry for them, or they make me feel intensely uncomfortable, exactly as if they were really little frail limbed grey (malevolent) creatures. *shudder*

33. radikit - July 20, 2013

Also I’d love to read some of that alien research one commenter mentioned earlier!!

34. witchwind - July 20, 2013

That’s a very good point Delphyne, about annihilation of females. They need to constantly force women to recreate new females to destroy. That’s what they feed on too

35. survivorthriver - July 20, 2013

I have looked for archeological evidence of Goddess since reading Merlin Stone’s, “When God Was A Woman” in 1976.

I recall depictions of female warriors on their backs and numerous male warriors standing over them with foot on chest and spear at throat.

I have always wondered in a karmic sort of way, what could women possibly have done to extract that vengeance?

We know that women’s sexuality was subordinated, and can trace that to patriarchy rise of boy sky gods.

What was also subordinated was our role as destroyer, Kali the destroyer and the Goddess power to annihilate life.

Men had to stomp out female autonomy by taking away our weapons, subjugating us militarily and slaving us to beta males to keep in subjection.

Numerous paleolithic grave sites across Europe contain female bones accompanied by spears and regalia of priesthood.

At one time there’s no doubt women held great positions of power as priestesses and warriors. Our goddess worshiping was stamped out, the death knell through several hundred years of The Burning Times by Catholics and people who profited from females losing their real estate and possessions at the drop of a hat due to jealousy perhaps.

Womens sexuality is resurging, but, we also lost our warrior status and I don’t see that returning.

I also think women as powerful beings DID dispense with male criminals who raped women. I believe rape by a male in the Goddess culture would’ve been punished by death or total ostracism. No help from the Temple, no food, no nothing. Rapists would’ve been driven out of society if women were in power.

Male priveledge fights our reproductive choice because that is the lynchpoin of subordinating and owning women. Our offspring as chattel for males.

But, the even scarier thing, the reason women only spaces are destroyed is that males are very afraid, very very afraid of female warrior power. They are afraid of our organization genius. We are like bees and ants and could very well collectively eliminate men down to a few inseminators or workers.

Modern rape porn is a privileged entitlement any boy can click “I am 18” and see subjugation of women, and the male reptilian brain must remember a time when he was killed for that act.

This patriarchal blip on human history is destroying women and our planet. It is not sustainable. We should replace it in our daily life as much as possible with sustainable life styles and networks locally and globally to reduce female dependence on males and build our own co-operative economies.

Don’t fool with Mother Nature.

36. survivorthriver - July 20, 2013

Food buying co-ops are a great way to share time, work, and help each other save money on food.

We did this in the 70’s – group buying power. Here’s a link to a woman founded food buying club:


And, food buying club could explore sharing equipment, bartering services…and confab on escaping patriarchy’s pincers.


FCM - July 20, 2013

i will never look at “grays” the same way again! omg. it does make you wonder, have they really *never* tried to split the X from the Y and just grow the Y, or a Y + other stuff just to see what would happen? if they havent, why not? theyve done just about everything else, no matter how unethical, painful, gross, porny, doomed to fail or whathaveyou. if they have done this, what did they do with the evidence, including the bodies if there were any? jesus. it is weird how obsessed they are with “aliens” including with the idea that they are going to invade and destroy the planet (which is HUMAN MALES’S to destroy dammit). sometimes it even ends with “humans” being the real aliens or human-alien hybrids — is this what they want, or are they horrified at the thought? or what? very interesting. 😀

FCM - July 20, 2013

“I mean, just LOOK at him!” lol

FCM - July 20, 2013

i havent watched this all the way through but there are “gray” documentaries (or whatever) all over youtube.

37. delphyne - July 21, 2013

“they believe the greys are here on a diabolical mission: abducting humans and conducting reproductive experiments”

If you want to hide the truth, tell it to the conspiracy theorists!

38. Nadege - July 22, 2013

Radikit, here are some links to the stuff I mentioned upthread. The interpretations of the findings are VERY male-centric and women are made invisible in them. I used to like that they suggested an alternate history, but looking through them again now from a different perspective, I can tell that they’re wrong. Mostly men stroking their egos, but maybe women could use what they’ve found as a springboard.


FCM - July 22, 2013

in “the first sex” the author speculates about the same things, specifically the advanced prehistorical and early historical civilizations from which we have since apparently devolved (not evolved). they had astronomical and mathematical knowledge too advanced for their age for example and left various stone structures around the world that were built “god knows how” a very long time ago, before this shouldve been possible. some of it is (allegedly) not even possible now. gould-davis speculates that this is evidence not of aliens (as men speculate) but of advanced matriarchal cultures that existed before the “patrarichal revolution” overtook the planet, replacing intelligent, peaceful culture with what we see today (male stupidity/ignorance and violence). so yes, there are very different ways to interpret the evidence. of course, i still have a problem with the idea of matriarchal cultures where women needed contraceptives (hello!) and their widespread availability and use is used as evidence (by gould davis) of women making the rules way back when. i would strongly disagree with that interpretation. it makes no sense at all in fact, and absolutely has to be a load of shit. unfortunately this leaves me in the uncomfortable position of saying that the alien hypothesis is more likely (or at least not less-likely, since gould-davis’s is impossible) but of course i dont know enough about it to pick out its obvious flaws. or…could it be true? 😀

FCM - July 22, 2013

also “the field of alternative history” PMFP omg that gave me a good laugh! haha!

39. Nadege - July 22, 2013

These men are so self-absorbed and self-glorifying. I sometimes hear them in interviews referring to themselves as Indiana Jones. Yup, it’s fucking hilarious. It is gratifying though, and liberating, to think of men and women as different species, even if it doesn’t prove to be true. It’s even more gratifying to think that men might have fucked up their planet and then came here and fucked up ours, because then when I look at them, I can really see them as alien and parasitic.

I’m looking forward to learning more about this. I’ve put “The First Sex” on my reading list.

FCM - July 22, 2013

yes i would recommend it as background/foundational material (its from 1971 and i first saw it mentioned either by dworkin or daly) but to be clear, she didnt address the alien stuff at all. thats a connection i made when reading it and even more clearly now as a result of this convo. she attempts to explain all the weirdness of these pre-historical yet very advanced civilizations — how did they get so advanced, and why did we only devolve from there? its really too bad that shes obviously wrong. oh well. and its still excellent food for thought and excellent research.

also, i have a new post up, and will close comments on this post shortly, or as soon as people are finished discussing it. new post here:


FCM - July 23, 2013

one final thought on this one, and its about male allies. the war-model implicates allies, and the entire notion of allying with not-us, that is, with males, has been extremely fraught for us. perhaps next time we are met with something that just feels, and obviously is, WRONG, we can reverse-engineer it and figure out the model thats at work there and discard it. this works from either end, i think. on that note, i thought this was interesting:


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: