jump to navigation

Women Didn’t Do It. That’s the Point. July 22, 2013

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

ive been so happy to see the idea going around that it hasnt been women “forcing” manly behaviors, values and thought processes on men, if indeed men have been or need to be “forced” into these things at all.  radical feminists point this whole time has been that womens sex role as fuckholes, breeders and slaves has been forced on us by men, and that this role is wholly unnatural to us.  our point has never been, until very recently that is, that the same force-thing is happening *somehow* to men.  and in fact it makes very little sense if you think about it a bit.  if anyone were forcing men to do anything, who would have the power, resources and inclination to do this?  oh yes.  men!  not women, men.

not only that, but where did this stuff come from in the first place?  who thought it would be a good idea (for example) to rape women and impregnate us against our wills, knowing how painful and dangerous childbirth is to us (and not to men)?  who thought it would be a good idea to force women to do anything, to starve torture and kill us and everyone and everything else?  think: global overpopulation and environmental abuse.  did women first suggest this, and did women take it further at every step with creativity, leaps of thought and constant envelope-pushing?  or did someone else?

here we are faced with a potentially uncomfortable truth, “we” being those of us who still hold out any hope whatsoever for men, that they will change, that this has all been a huge mistake etc.  included here are those who think meaningful legal change will be forthcoming BTW, seeing as how the law is the codification and normalization of male behavior, values and thought-processes selectively enforced to support male power at womens expense.  to those women and everyone, kindly note (if you havent already) that at the intersection of “who came up with this shit” and “who would be able to enforce it anyway” there are men.  men and only men.  no women anywhere.  if male behaviors, values and thought processes were a gum, it would be men-tyne.  if it were a museum, it would be the men-tropolitan museum of art.

not that i personally believe for a second that these things are forced/enforced on men — the evidence actually suggests they enjoy it and even revel in decidedly male interests/pursuits like torture and necrophilia, but lets not dwell on that insignificant detail (or fact, whatever).  the point is that i know other women believe its forced, or they assume it without ever really having thought about it, so seeing it as an intersection of maleness (which it obviously is) might be useful to them.  is it?

whats compelling to me about this recognition is that it implicates men as a sexual class and takes that concept and discussion further.  in this case, we see that we can and indeed must take males as a whole as our “class,” meaning males throughout time and place, not just whoever happens to be alive now, and not just those special snowflakes who came up with something noteworthy/super gross or whatever at some point (i.e. helped move male behavior, values and thought-processes forward through creativity and innovation, like whoever came up with this).  in other words, when analyzing how and indeed whether what is known as “masculinity” is forced on men, if we add a fourth-dimension to the class-model, which is time, we see that men have always done this.  that there was never a time (that we know about) that they didnt.  and importantly, there was never a time when we (females) did.

get it?  women had nothing to do with this — men came up with this sickening abuse and necrophilia on their own and it is in fact a closed-circuit of maleness in which we see abusive and sexually and reproductively abusive (i.e. male) behaviors, values and thought processes working and evolving across time.  there is no female “input” there are only female victims, and perhaps female collaborators and individual collaborators at that — as a class, women have been wholly excluded.  its closed, you see.  thats how a closed-circuit works, and this very obviously is one.

if there were *ever* a more perfect example of a closed-circuit, well, it might be one without collaborators (or without equality rhetoric, history-erasure or a fourth-dimension!) because that might make it easier to see it for what it is.  but even so, this isnt rocket-science (or is it?)  the concept of the closed-circuit does, however, implicate electricity, and therefore electronics, plugging-in, technology, and industry, and probably other things.  even time-travel seems implicated here, or all “times” existing at once — non-linear time.  we discussed that here, in the context of sonia johnson’s work including “the metaphysics of liberation.”

if that complicates the discussion, disregard.  its (i think?) unnecessary to the point, which is that male behaviors, values and thought processes — and patriarchy — is a closed-system of maleness to which women have never (substantively, ideologically) “inputted” and we never will.  thats the point.  everything you see, hear, feel, smell, taste and intuit around you thats abusive and sick, including men and what they do and what they are, and regardless of whether its “forced” on them (meaning, same result whether it is or isnt) — thats men mkay.  its men, its men, its men.


1. FCM - July 22, 2013

obviously the idea of “electricity” is related to the concepts of male parasitism/vampirism and gynergy-sucking. plugging-in. perhaps men plugging-into women is what makes the circuit move/circulate? just thinking out loud here. without female energy, would this just be a ring or pool of (inorganic) shit/death that didnt move or do much of anything at all? or not?

2. Michele Braa-Heidner - July 22, 2013

Thank you for this writing. I feel that what you wrote about here was very much needed right now. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard that men are victims to patriarchy too. I then ask them who created patriarchy and who upholds it today? Saying that men are victims to patriarchy is the ultimate oxymoron. Regarding “electricity” and “plugging in”. I have always felt that the act of PIV was a way that men gain energy and control from women. Carlos Castanada who wrote a series of books on the Yaki Indian way of knowledge mostly about Don Juan who was a Shaman Yaki Indian wrote that when men have PIV with women they implant these energy worms (energy suckers) that stay in women for 7 years and the men get energy from women and more control over them for 7 years after every PIV experience, even after they split up. I’m not sure if I buy this idea but in my experience, being celibate for years from PIV, I have a lot more energy than I did when I was having PIV. We are always told that it is healthy to have PIV and other coercive tactics to get women to comply. What if the reasons were more sinister than we even imagined?

FCM - July 22, 2013

omg energy worms? gross! i have never heard that before, thanks.

FCM - July 22, 2013

also, its interesting that you see this particular false equivalence/refusal to name the agent as peaking now, or that it hasnt peaked yet. in the last few months i have seen more women accepting that its MEN doing this to other men (if anyone is doing it to them) than i have seen in the last 4 years or ever. to me it seems like this one has finally sunk in and is becoming widely accepted (in online spaces anyway, esp tumblr). yay!

3. wwomenwwarriors - July 22, 2013

OMG I am laughing my ass off over here and I agree with you and I love you and omg this is fucking hilarious. You are brilliant.

We need stickers: “It’s men. Men did this.”

I would put them everywhere.

FCM - July 22, 2013

thats nice, but do you have anything to add to the discussion? unrestrained PDA makes me uncomfortable as a modder being trolled constantly. you understand.

4. lisaprime - July 22, 2013

Wow, what a straight-ahead and impassioned article this is.,

5. lisaprime - July 22, 2013

Sorry, lost control of the mouse and here’s the rest. I agree with this notion or metaphor of a “closed system” in which half of humanity has systematically shut out the other half.

To say that women were shut out of the public sphere fails to describe the extent of being shut out. In the private sphere as well, women were shut out; having to eat the scraps or after the men in the kitchen, unable to make family decisions, surveilled and sequestered even at home. Women were and are still, even in developed countries, Untouchables, outside all locations of human endeavor – politics, economics, art, science, law, and so forth, contrary to the media propaganda that has pronounced us “equal”. To the extent that women in developed countries are wresting some entry, they are being absorbed as exceptions and collaborators. I have been one of those “exceptional” snowflakes and it took me a long time to realize I was simply being used, and not doing women any good, not changing the rules in any way. It was a sad and hard realization to come to, and I felt hoodwinked when I finally understood.

There’s a curious comparability in your description of the male-controlled human system as a “closed system” and the laws of entropy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that in a closed sustem, entropy can only remain constant or increase. “Entropy”, taken broadly, means the process of falling apart, in which disorganization of the system increases, and useful energy is gradually lost. Entropy is being applied widely as a more or less metaphorical concept to other human sciences besides statistical mechanics or quantum mechanics, it’s being applied now to sociology and economics for instance.

To the extent that this system can “suck” useful energy that it otherwise cannot make from the outside, and by so doing, has to open itself and loses its boundaries and controls, you could be led to the thought that the system is rapidly on its way out, because it sure is sucking a lot from women, its main support, since agriculture came in. It might be objected that the system has been sucking our useful energy without an apparent loss of power/control for a long time. I’d just say that the speed of the entropy increases, and there probably is a natural law regarding such an increase in speed.

So I’m just adding to your thoughts about a closed system that has sucked in women’s energy, gynergy, to make up for its own worsening enervation. The implied result over time is going to be a destabilization and opening of the system to the “outside”, namely women and nature. Another implication would be that women, compelled as a sexual class to support this system they were excluded from and controlled by, would have the capacity to render the system completely useless if they can take advantage of this opening to free themselves from this control, and then withdraw their energy.

Just a “natural” way to say what we’ve said before, sparked 🙂 by your comments on electricity. The more ways we have to describe what’s going on, the better.

FCM - July 22, 2013
6. lisaprime - July 22, 2013

“It’s men it’s men it’s men.”

It’s pretty great how the article leads up to this powerful statement, btw. I can’t see how anyone could read this article and not get a chill when they come to this.

7. lisaprime - July 22, 2013

Here’s something non-mathematical that discusses social entropy. This author isn’t thinking about the closed system we have in mind, obviously.


FCM - July 22, 2013

i keep trying to link to the TED talk embedded there about the mathematics of cities and corporations but its not working. there is food for thought there isnt there? springboard anyone? (TED — yuk!)

8. wwomenwwarriors - July 22, 2013

Sorry FCM I am definitely not trolling. I just loved this piece. No, I do not have anything to add right now, other than that I agree with you. I am in the mode of taking things in right now, so I am soaking up analysis and not able to regurgitate anything. Creativity block. I put out a PIV post yesterday and need some recluse time now. Just wanted you to know that this post is brilliant. And hilarious. And I am definitely not a troll. Click my name (if you want) and I think it will redirect you to my blog, which has been up for awhile (that would be a lot of writing just to troll radfems online 😦 )

I am actually a long-time reader of yours, but I rarely comment. I just read and share on Facebook.

9. witchwind - July 22, 2013

the non-linear time element is interesting. It suggests that men are what they always have been and always will be, and they haven’t evolved or changed and won’t ever.

Mary Daly talked about closed circuits, it’s where I got the plugging quote from.

That men are at the source of everything that’s abusive is evident. Only men can do this and the abuse derives directly from their having to plug into women to survive (PIV and wider social or smaller genetic forms of plugging in). Their very existence is inherently abusive to women and all female life because it necessitates plugging in women / femaleness.

We can apply this for the concept of closed circuit too, if we define it more largely as something that goes endlessly in circles and is isolated from the rest. Everything in male/human society that functions as a closed circuit either at the micro level (individual person, cognitive level) and at the macro level (institutions, organisations, groups, social mechanisms) is men, men and male. That is, anything that goes round and round, that is repetitive and works like a broken disk or is thought-terminating is male.

PTSD for instance may be considered as a closed circuit. Literally (in the brain, it’s memory that’s trapped and can’t connect to the rest) and socially: it means endless, circular repetition of violence. Violence in itself functions in circular, closed circuit ways. Violence is male and men are violence.

I’m afraid I didn’t understand what entropy means and the articles didn’t clarify it for me. Would someone mind explaining it with very simple words again?

10. witchwind - July 22, 2013

*I mentioned PTSD because it’s male-induced, caused by men and their abuse

11. witchwind - July 22, 2013

interesting video (ted). Men do die though, as a species. There are some species where there are no males any more. And even male scientists have predicted the end of male species. Although this is not the case for females.

I also find it confusing because it treats destructioni (men) and life as the same thing. It might simply be that because men take a semi female form (they use female living cells to live), their destructiveness during their life span takes a biological form because that’s the condition of the life that they parasite and it may not mean anything more than that. We know that men die. And if all men were dead and no more new men were born, our oppression from men would be solved

12. Marisorigin - July 22, 2013

Hi, Witchwind. Re: your question about entropy:

The way I understand it, entropy is a gradual disordering of things. Think of a room that is often used but never cleaned – things get picked up and moved, items are left out and scattered, spills and messes are made, and eventually any organization that had been in place is gone.

That is the “closed system” – a room where no one has put in any effort to clean or organize. An “open system” is one where someone wipes up the spills, puts everything away, and reorders it all. When Lisaprime says that “in a closed sustem, entropy can only remain constant or increase,” she means that a messy room can only stay messy or get messier.

Applying this metaphor to our discussion, yeah, it’s pretty clear that men get the energy they need to continue their system (patriarchy) from women. If we withdraw our energy/gynergy from them, they have two choices: use their own energy and effort to live/keep a functioning society, or let things dissolve into a disordered mess (and probably die.)

Recalling that video of the women-only village in Kenya, and the competing men’s village (that became a shambles), we have a clue what men would choose.

13. witchwind - July 23, 2013

aha! Thanks!! That made it much clearer.

So if I understood well, men’s system is only an open system because of women doing the work / giving energy, am I right? Once we remove ourselves from it, men will be the closed system that they naturally are? And deplete naturally? If so, that seems perfectly logical to me, it has been said repeatedly by many different radfems too. If they are dependant on women to survive, it makes sense that once we remove ourselves they will not survive. Simple.

Yes, i found it just hilarious when the reporter said something like “in comparison, the men’s village doesn’t look as attractive, it is very badly kept”. Left to their own means, they just rot.

FCM - July 23, 2013

so interesting that we have (yet another) natural model for what is happening here. 🙂 and as we said before, the model suggests the response/solution. the “time” element and the necessity of incorporating it into our concept of “class” was the most interesting part of this post for me when i was writing and thinking about it. including “time” is the only way to include all men in class-male, which is what we say we are doing anyway, but is this really true? how can it be if we dont consider all men, regardless of when they lived? this helps cement the concept IMO and makes it clear who has been the agent all along. so even if literally no man alive today would be violent and rapey but for these traits being passed along as socialization, men as a class are responsible for it anyway. it came from them, even if its in the distant past, and not from us. thats the point. not that i believe its all that distant, but some women do. regardless, clearly they are wrong if they think the time-element absolves males as a class of responsibility for this, or that these things do not “come from men.” clearly they do, and this is very the definition of innate.

this is the third time ive written about “time” and what happens when we apply it to our models, including our activist models. in the case of fun-feminism, the addition of time to their model of PIV-positivism and male-pleasing leads very obviously to substandard nursing homes for old women due to prioritizing het relationships and PIV, and consumerism. especially considering that men die first! duh.


the third was when we discussed sonia johnson and her idea that there are shortcuts we can take to our goal of womens liberation from male dominance, that we dont necessarily have to take the long-way around, such as accepting that “no meaningful change will occur in our lifetimes.” i used wormhole imagery in that one bc a wormhole is a shortcut of both time and space. ive been told that the meaning of the images wasnt obvious the first time around though. see for yourself. 😀 (both of these are linked in the post too). time and time/space! its interesting!


14. ptittle - July 23, 2013

the whole electricity thing made me think of this poem by chris wind, written way back in 1988 (hi everyone – i found this blog months ago and have been reading the archives – i was going to wait until i was caught up before contributing, but it’s taking a while – there’s so much great insight here…it’s taking me a week per month!)

electronic studio

it’s getting so i can’t work:
every time i patch a connection
i’m reminded of confinement, restraint,
bondage, forced entry–

holding the plug
–any plug, they’re all the same,
RCA, quarter-inch, mono, stereo,
all little silver phalluses
visibly active, everywhere–
i move toward the jack
–any jack, they too are all the same,
input, output, mic, headphone,
all fixed vaginas, immobile,
necessarily passive, in their units–

(oh i know why it’s like this:
the female part is stationary
instead of the male
because it has more energy, more power–
but this knowledge only makes it worse.)

unable to rape
i stand there, unconnected,
without any sound.

15. witchwind - July 23, 2013

by the way, am reading wildfire and I finally understood what you meant! Although I already did in the previous discussion where we made the difference between a decision / internal disposition to change here and now vs. decision / disposition to delay change or refuse it for XYZ reasons, regardless of how fast this change occurs (the fact is that change occurs in the first model and not in the second).

but reading her made it clear to me and I’m looking forward to expand on that.

If we apply the time as non-linear model, and if it holds that men are naturally violent at all times (therefore their past, future and present is to be violent) then it also holds that our natures is to be free, at all times, whether now, yesterday or tomorrow – since if we can change now, we can change and be(come) free at all times.

FCM - July 23, 2013

i just posted this link on the “10,000 year war” thread as well. i thought this was interesting, especially the part about misogynists (extrapolated to mean male allies for our purposes, bc theyre all misogynists) being effectively agents of the state, even if its not their official job. and that they disrupt radical (and feminist) space. its what they do, and its as if they cant NOT do it. it seems as if its more or less inherently male to thwart feminism/women using specifically sexual and reproductive abuse (which is the function of the state too — afterall, they created it). its not this authors conclusion, but its mine.


16. ptittle - July 23, 2013

Yes! INHERENTLY male. Because male is DEFINED as superior to female. So they HAVE to!

FCM - July 23, 2013

im not really talking about definitions ptittle. thats gender-talk. besides that, the evidence shows that men LIKE it, so saying that they HAVE to isnt really the point. and have to — according to who? again we end up back at inherent, and this has nothing to do actually with the “definition” of male, but is the stone-cold reality of it.

ptittle - July 23, 2013

What I meant was that men see it that way. That’s how they define themselves. Given that, they feel compelled to do what you’ve described.

FCM - July 23, 2013

again, you are talking about definitions, and this is gender-talk. what if you knew that men are “compelled” by something very much more compelling than definitions to rape and kill us? like a feeling, a physical sensation, like a hand pushing them for example, or something else they act on and yet cannot even explain themselves. all of which they will never admit to (except all the times they do). you are talking about gender. if you dont realize it, im not sure why.

17. ptittle - July 23, 2013

So you’re suggesting it’s biology–testosterone or the Y chromosome–that makes men thwart feminism/women using specifically sexual and reproductive abuse? I wouldn’t be surprised. (That that is so, not that you’re suggesting that!)

FCM - July 23, 2013

im suggesting that, if necrophilia and sexual and reproductive abuse were not consistent with mens natures in at least a basic way, they wouldnt do it. they would rebel and rail against it instead, as women have rebelled and railed against our sex roles as fuckholes and slaves. but they havent, and we have. thats what i am talking about, and have been for about a year now. i do not believe i have ever attempted to locate that in either testosterone or the Y-chrom, nor would i, because its unnecessary for my purposes which is to point out the obvious about men and what they do, and that they are unlikely to stop because they never have.

FCM - July 24, 2013

clearly i shouldve spammed ptittle’s comments. sorry bout that! if anyone wants to attempt to resurrect this thread, please do. otherwise i will close comments and try to do a better job weeding next time….

FCM - July 24, 2013

damn that pisses me off.

ptittle - July 25, 2013

Why did my comment fall into the spam category? Because when I agreed with you and endorsed your comment, I took “inherently” to mistakenly refer to social conditioning (gender) and not — welll, actually, I’m still not sure, but I saw that you were peeved, so I didn’t persist — and not biology? (Hence my query for clarifcation re testosterone and the Y chromosome) (but you replied NO! and yet referred to a physical sensation and “nature” — so I’m still not clear) (and really hesitant to try again to join the conversation)

(still enjoying the archives though, I’m up to nov/11)


FCM - July 25, 2013

since this thread is dead anyway, thanks to trolling and “potted feminism” sure lets continue down that road, why not?

i have noticed that there are some new faces and new blogs around and i happen to know, having been there myself, that there are certain things you do that can garner you pageviews and an audience on your own blog. and one of those things is to sign in and start commenting everywhere, so that people can click through to check you out. it doesnt matter the content or quality of your comment because thats not really the point, the point is to get attention and bring traffic over to your own blog. and ptittle emailed me earlier to TELL ME directly that she had a new blog and asked me how she might go about “getting on” the radfem central blog aggregator. so before the pearl clutching begins, i can tell you that i know that this is part of it, its not a guess or even an educated guess. okay? this isnt my first rodeo either, but i also have firsthand knowledge about ptittles intentions in particular.

now, having said that, let me mention briefly what i mean by “potted feminism” and direct you to witchwinds blog where she is discussing that very thing right now. potted feminism is a mary dalyism, and it describes “feminism” that is not wild, its not creative, and its a deadend and has nowhere to go and (therefore) offers absolutely no possibility to free us. what i have enjoyed and been amazed at in fact over the past 4 years of doing this, is how women spiral and spark off each other in these spaces and we take everyone and the work higher, deeper and wider than we were before. in addition, and this is related BTW, i put a lot of work into these posts and in modding these posts, and it takes time and energy out of MY day and MY life to do this. imagine my joy and then my utter disappointment when i see that there are comments in queue only to then see that they are bullshit, trite/fluff, attention-seeking and/or otherwise add absolutely nothing to the conversation, ESPECIALLY when it comes from new or unknown users who very well might be trolling me on top of it. imagine that i do not appreciate the energy expenditure of even having to hit the “spam” button, let alone thinking about approving these kinds of comments and responding to them, or what its going to do to the conversation if i do one or the other. the tl;dr is that i have never apologized for having expectations for my readers/commenters and im not about to start now. take us all to a higher place, please. it is NOT too much to ask, and in fact is the whole entire point. if that didnt happen here on a regular basis, i wouldve quit a long time ago. thank you!


FCM - July 25, 2013

and let me tell you too that “radfem central” is not my project and its not under my control. okay? ptittle went to ME (because reasons) assuming that i could or even would do this for her (because reasons) and then sucked up with some bullshit “endorsement of my views” in the comments here which was literally painful to see, especially considering that she obviously has no idea what shes even talking about. and on top of that, the conversation on my post DIED immediately thereafter. we already know that nonradical people kill radical space — its what they do. sometimes i let certain things slide when i shouldnt, or put myself in a position *i* dont want to be in when i approve certain things against my better judgement, and i do this for various reasons. when this happens i cross my fingers that the conversation and the group can overcome and turn it around, and sometimes it does but it didnt happen this time. and in the summer months its slow anyway, theres less possibility that anything will be overcome and less room for errors like this and i shouldve known better frankly.

18. Sargasso Sea - July 25, 2013

Yep, the convo pretty much screeched to a halt there at ptittle #17 didn’t it? I considered sharing my thoughts about that (taking her questions on good faith of course…) but decided it wasn’t worth my energy. Seriously. How many times can *we* repeat ourselves?

And this makes me think about where/what exactly the mid-way is between potted/hothouse feminism and our free and wild feminism because it seems like there is just a huge LEAP there that 99.8% of women never make.

FCM - July 25, 2013

hothouse feminism! haha! like when you bite into a grocery-store tomato and it tastes like fish. wtf is that? it LOOKS kinda like a tomato, it SAID tomato on the bin, and yet my senses rebel (all of them at once!) it triggers my gag reflex and ruins my meal. regret!

FCM - July 25, 2013

also, i no longer buy them. hello. its unambiguously better to go without.

19. Not Chattel | femonade - July 29, 2013

[…] after something cannot cause it, or provide the model for it (among other things).  again we see the “time” element is important to our thinking about it — men have “owned” (or whatever, exploited, […]

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: