jump to navigation

Not Chattel July 29, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, liberal dickwads, logic, meta, race, rape.
Tags: , ,
trackback

its hard and painful enough to get your head around the idea that under patriarchy, women are “chattel,” meaning that we are not human and are only a partial (or no) step above mens personal property in the grand (male) scheme of things.  this “chattel” concept was useful to me once or it felt like it, in the same way perhaps as other “feminist” concepts like the male gaze, enthusiastic consent and other things that move the emphasis a little, or shift your everyday perspective/perceptions a bit and give you an inkling that there is something more/else (inequality, men, rape) there than what you thought.

but chattel?  really?  this reminds me of liberal dickwad and white anti-racism activist tim wise waxing idiotic about american black slavery, and how his great-great-great (or whatever) “grandparents” owned slaves exactly as one would own a table or a lamp.  those are his words, not mine.  of course, when talking about personal property like tables and lamps one is talking about chattel.  for this to be the truth of american black slavery (or any slavery) however, his “grandparents” including his grandmothers wouldve had to have been able to own property to begin with, which may or may not have been the case and tim wise doesnt address the legal status of his grandmothers at all or indicate any feminist awareness at all when analyzing an institution that implicated both women and men (as all institutions do).

and importantly, for the chattel designation/analogy to work, the “grandparents” wouldve had to stick their dicks into their tables and lamps and create shared children with them.  get it?  either something is just like something else, or its not.  and “like tables and lamps” does not describe the reality of slavery at all, either for female slaves or for the “people” who own/ed them.  it just doesnt.

beyond that, there is evidence that “chattel” is not just an analogy badly drawn; as a concept applied to women and mens relationship to women, its actually impossible because of time.  and this is because men owning women likely predated the concept of personal property and personal ownership — women were the first property (mens), its where the idea and concept of “ownership” of anything actually came from.*  so in reality, men own tables and lamps like they own women.  saying it the other way is like saying that wal-mart predated (and perhaps caused) moms and pops opening the first stores on main street.  isnt it?  its a time-thing.

so besides revealing the truth of the matter, what does examining and then using/refusing the “chattel” analogy mean for us?

well, for one thing, discarding the flawed “chattel” analogy opens up the concepts of ownership and property beyond just “personal property” like tables and lamps — real estate is not counted as chattel for example, even though men “own” it.  and natural resources arent chattel either, but men own those too — rather like they own women as a matter of fact.  taking complete dominion over something they know nothing about and are actually powerless to control in any meaningful or absolute way, or in a way existing outside mens own delusions.  im not saying they dont try of course, or that they dont really believe this is their “right” and that its even possible, or that they arent abusive and threaten to use it all up and kill us all (and themselves!) in the process because they obviously do.  the point there i guess would be to consider that women function as natural resources to them (and not chattel), or more to the point women were/are the first/original “natural resource” which helps us isolate the root of our oppression (and explains why mens abuse of us is mostly sexual.  duh).

the women-as-chattel analogy also reverses the the timing and causation elements, where something that comes 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, used and used-up) women for a very long time.  this brings up other issues/questions, including questions of ownership in general, and (perhaps?) whether increasing/creating female wealth including ownership of property is likely to free us, or whether “womens land” is something we want or if its even possible seeing as how its basically a contradiction in terms (womens (male ownership of women)) or where “female ownership” like “land ownership” can only mean women being owned by men and cannot mean anything else.

or where the relationship of “women” to “ownership” considering origin and historical meaning is dependent to such a degree that the very words/concepts cancel each other out (and where “womens land” would mean, essentially, womens women and/or lands land)?  i dont know, im still working on that.

anyway, its a time-thing, and a word-thing.  its a concept-thing, where we are dealing in ideas and concepts and, using words, getting to the root of our oppression so that we can liberate ourselves from male dominance.  and chattel as a concept does not describe womens reality, or how men relate to us, or anything really — even more than that, it obscures our most basic truth(s) and this is probably deliberate.  so we might as well get rid of it.  women arent chattel to men, this is a wrongheaded concept, and this is obvious.  we are something else.

*for more on the idea that women were the first “property” see gerda lerner, the creation of patriarchy.  its worth the read.

Comments

1. FCM - July 29, 2013

i am returning to my previous policy of closing comments after 3 days, so please, post ’em if you got ’em! im finding this is particularly appropriate in the summer months when things are slow, and when checking back in every few minutes for weeks on end is less appealing than at other times, i.e. when its not summer. you understand. thanks for reading!

2. aliyah16gurl - July 29, 2013

It’s kinda hard to come up with a name for what women are to men. While yes, we are the energy-providers when men are energy-absorbing. What do you call that?
Because it can’t be chattel or just any property owned. Most(all) men treat inanimate objects better than they treat the females around them. And the way they own/control us is uniquely through piv/pregnancy; a way that no other creature, object, or enslaved man is controlled.
It seems pretty accurate that we are their “natural resource”. And like all natural resources, men want to destroy us.

FCM - July 29, 2013

its true that men treat inanimate objects better than they treat women, although they use “she” for both (cars, boats, women, whevs) which makes the objectification seem the same. its not. also, i shouldnt have said that we WERE a natural resource, just that we are more like that than we are like chattel but this similarity (or any critical thought actually) is not visible/possible if you are stuck in the chattel-analogy.

3. luckynkl - July 29, 2013

Women are livestock. Which men farm, breed, buy, sell, trade and own. No different than their dogs. Men get to add the puppies and the children to their livestock as well. It’s called animal husbandry. And yes, men fuck their dogs and the livestock as well. I guess it was so rampant in biblical times that even the bible had to tell men to quit fucking the livestock.

FCM - July 29, 2013

men fuck livestock, but they do not create shared children with them. okay? you are saying “obvious differences aside, these things are the same.” well, thats boring and beside the point. its also gotten us exactly nowhere in 100 or 1000 years of thinking about it. i say its different, and it obviously is. the question is, as it always is, are these differences meaningful? and theres no way to know if they are or arent without thinking about it and discussing it. which is the opposite of your bullshit trolling tactics lucky. your comments really suck lately, what the hell is wrong with you?

4. witchwind - July 29, 2013

It’s a double conundrum when it gets to naming men’s violence against women. On one hand we find it impossible to get ourselves to identify to our own suffering because it’s always erased, never named, because we’re not considered as humans capable of suffering, it’s always derealised, reversed, and we’re made to identify to our oppressors and dissociate from our selves.

On the other hand, when we want to demonstrate the horror of our condition we are forced to use men’s words and men’s definitions of what suffering is, which of course includes everything and anything EXCEPT what women experience. That is, it concerns only the suffering of men and of living species other than female humans. It might be genocide, torture, war, racism, discrimination, oppression, murder, sexual assault (men dicking men or animals), grooming, indoctrination, terrorism, hunting, putting in a zoo, using for lab research, breeding for livestock and then killing, trafficking, etc etc.

Men can be capable, if they want to, of understanding the suffering of any living being (although only a minority understand the suffering of animals, trees or plants for example) *except* the suffering of women. Which means that they have defined all the kinds of destructions that derive from their violent use of women as breeders / dickholes, everything that exists outside it, but never the main one, never the one that concerns women.

So back to my point, in order to explain the horror of our condition, so other women begin to identify back to our suffering, we are left with lesser or incomplete comparisons to define our condition under male rule – by saying “it’s as bad as – this and this”. When in fact, it’s usually worse than this or this. But even getting women to use and understand it in the male-defined terms might be hard enough if not impossible, to get them to understand even a minor extent of the full horror – that it’s torture, crime, genocide (for lack of better words). So when we get these words to be used, we’re happy enough.

But the fact is, that the condition of girls and women is all of this combined and worse (when we compare it to men – WRT to animals and living species made captive by men, while their condition is different form womens’, it may not be worse).

5. witchwind - July 29, 2013

I meant ‘less bad’ in the final sentence above.

Another thing: one reason I don’t like using the chattel comparison is that it’s insulting to animals. For example when you say “he treated me like a dog”, it’s based on the assumption that the normal way to treat a dog is badly. This is a lie. This is a very male, anti-animal position.

Saying that women are treated like cattel, is assuming that
a) animals are cattel, instead of being made into cattel (as if they existed only for male/human use, and not naturally wild animals that have been held captive to be killed and eaten); and that
b) that the normal way to treat animals is to own them, hold them captive, forcibly breed them in awful conditions then slaughter them for consumption.

This is incorrect also from the animal’s perspective

6. witchwind - July 29, 2013

so androcentric definitions of our condition go against our capacity to define what they do to us, the extent of it. Instead of using comparisons (it’s as if they treated us as…xyz) I try to describe most accurately what is it men do to us.

FCM - July 29, 2013

the idea of men “owning” natural resources and even land for that matter is also patently absurd, and shows the depth and breadth of their insanity and delusions of grandeur, and also how they fundamentally equate exploitation and power. they actually think they “own” things like waterways, huge swaths of frankly uncontainable and uncontrollable land like national parks, mountains/volcanoes, geysers, mines and deposits that are millions of years old etc. they cannot control them or contain them as this is impossible, so why do they think they “own” them? this invites reflection i think. they think they “own” them not because they can control or contain them (since they dont) but because they have granted themselves “ownership” on paper, a completely made-up concept in the absence of control/containment BTW, which they execute/exercise by exploiting these things and using them, and using them up. there are parallels here between this kind of “ownership” and how they own women, who also cannot be controlled or contained, i dont think. its also similar to the difference between “authority” and “authoritah” which we discussed earlier. and it gives us something to consider about our own situation, and the nature or reality/unreality (illusion/delusion) of male “controls” on us if similar concepts apply and i think they do. i think it gives hope.

https://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/authoritah/

7. witchwind - July 29, 2013

They invented the concept of ownership or property rights only to provide a justification for their abuse and exploitation of women / animals / natural resources. It is to give it a semblance of legitimacy. Hence the laws, the paperwork, the rituals, the fake officialness of it to make it seem real. But the only thing real are the acts of violence they exercise against women / life and the continual exploitation.

It also works as an enforcement. It’s the brainwashing side of the enforcement. To be able to continually exploit and abuse women (and the earth) they have to use violence but also, wrt women, powerful brainwashing to minimise the use of force. The concept of property right, the idea that some men rightfully “own” life and can own at all, is part of the lies and brainwashing.

Men do not own women, they destroy women. This is also why I refrain from saying “the woman he owns” but try to say “the woman he claimed ownership over”.

Ownership is a grand farce, I agree. There’s nothing natural in there precisely because for men to uphold their “ownership right”, it requires the constant use of force and brainwashing and destruction, to prevent the being from escaping. Proudhon (an anarchist asshole) said some interesting stuff on ownership. You can’t own life. You don’t even own yourself, because you ARE yourself. You can only destroy life, until it dies. And then you can continue to manipulate it after its death. Sonia Johnson says that trying to control beings is a sign of weakness, not power. It certainly is weakness.

8. Sargasso Sea - July 29, 2013

In “legal” terms chattel is property which can be moved (ostensibly…) from place to place whereas “real” property is that which can not (ostensibly) be moved – like land and dwellings and a minority of slaves in the US at times/places, it seems.

We have been treated as and trained to be and expected to behave like we are moveable objects (somewhat like the majority of slaves in the US) but our female reality as not only a natural resource but a fully-sustaining one (given the limits of what the planet can endure of course) must surely attest to our moral un-owner-ability.

FCM - July 30, 2013

yes i meant chattel as essentially “personal property” as opposed to real property/real estate. sorry if that wasnt clear.

9. luckynkl - July 30, 2013

I’ve been posting regularly on your blog for years, FCM. You usually agree with me and my ideas, and my words are often used. All of a sudden I’m trolling and my comments suck? Obviously you’re referring to something that has nothing to do with you or my comments here. If you want to discuss it, feel free to email me. Otherwise, let’s move on.

That said, why do you disagree with linking men’s brutal treatment of women and men’s brutal treatment of animals and the reference to animal husbandry? Men actually refer to women as livestock, refer to women as dogs and barnyard animals, and words like “husband” leave no doubt. Do you think men don’t really mean it? Sure, men can’t reproduce naturally with animals, but I’ve sure heard tales of men breeding animals with humans. Since men can’t reproduce, it’s of course women they experiment with. Men also hold female animals down against their will and have the male animals rape them against their will, and impregnate the females against their will – which is how, for example, many dog breeds are produced. So how does this differ from what men do to women? Or for that matter, anything female?

FCM - July 30, 2013

actually yes, i am talking about you and your comments on THIS blog in particular which have been less than helpful for months, including false equivalences and gender-talk. although it is certainly possible that *i* am just more aware now that this is what you are doing and what you are talking about, as my bullshit detector/spidey senses have been honed considerably in the last year or so. and you are doing it again here. animal husbandry? really? for one thing, you keep discounting the obvious difference that men stick their dicks into us and create shared children with us. why discount this? in “the creation of patriarchy” gerda lerner notes that this was used deliberately against women in particular — women, not animals — to control us and link us to our captors. this is how men created the first human slaves — the first slaves were female, not male. and they modeled slavery and controlling/containing slaves after what they were already doing to their own “free” women — rape and impregnation with human children lucky. their captors children. this is not an insignificant detail, and i dont know why you are pretending it is.

also, unlike (some?) domesticated animals, women are actually smarter than men are and we know this — and its by a lot. we are also smart in the same general ways as men, as opposed to smart like horses and pigs are smart, and we have thumbs, and are about the same size as men — we are a formidable opponent in other words because we are similar to them only better. practically whatever they can do, we can do better, especially thinking. this makes controlling/containing us, and therefore owning us, US in particular, meaning female humans, fraught conceptually, wouldnt you say? similarly to the way they “own” other things that they do not, because they cannot, control and contain, like national resources and huge tracts of land such as with national parks. i wrote about that before here:

http://radfemimages.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/air-wick/

also, thinking about our situation in terms you describe — animal husbandry for example — has gotten us absolutely nowhere in 100 or 1000 years of thinking about it. its possible that men even use the same words for both to thought-terminate us, so that WE think its the same thing when its clearly not, and its right in front of us how and why its not. think about it, is all im saying.

10. witchwind - July 30, 2013

Another major difference between women and the rest of species and life – wrt to men’s abuse – is that human females are the only ones men are directly dependent on for their survival. Men don’t need women to eat or consume living beings around them, however they need women to reproduce their species, to survive as a species and also feed on femaleness on an energetic / genetic level. Maybe on a cosmic level too, but that I wouldn’t be able to tell.

This is the very reason why women are the first beings to be claimed ownership on, the first slaves, the first colonised, raped and invaded people, from which all men’s abuse derives and on which all their exploitation is modelled: This means women are the ONLY beings who have the power to put an end to men. No other species can free the earth and ourselves from men. Only we can liberate animals and nature from men, by liberating ourselves from men.

11. Rididill - July 30, 2013

This is very interesting. Especially the women being the first property thing. I’ve bought the book and hope to get to it soon.

But I think there can be no equivalences b/c women are the means of reproduction; natural resources are the means of production. And all other property can be roughly grouped in the latter category – but ONLY women are the means of reproduction.

This uncontrollability thing is also v. interesting. Property rights in general aren’t really a relationship between human and thing but between human and human. We tend to think of property as stuff which is owned and controlled but in reality the rights are simply for non-interference with the object by other humans. With inanimate objects, it’s easy to think of the intrinsic-ness of the relationship as ownership/controllability, but I think in no cases is this the core of ownership really. Land rights or owning of women isn’t fundamentally defined by the relationship btw man and women or man and land but the relationship btw men and men in relation to land/women.

FCM - July 30, 2013

so if women were the first “property” and men owned women “like they own women” and there was no other ownership model, i suppose the first/original ownership wouldve looked like this: means of reproduction + means of production + right of possession/delegation + actual possession (unless delegated). yes?

then when ownership of other things (not women) came later, the “rights” that didnt apply were peeled off?

so when they decided they owned natural resources (including land and animals), perhaps they just took away “means of reproduction” and everything else still applied (ownership = means of production + right of possession + actual possession). then when they decided they owned inanimate objects (most chattel), they took away both “means of reproduction and means of production” bc they didnt apply, and they were left with the last 2 (ownership = right to possess + possession).

the last 2, which would apply to everything “owned” deal with mens relationships with other men (dont touch my stuff without permission). the first 2 deal with mens relationship with the thing that is owned (what they can do/take from it, their intent, the whole point IOW, from the perspective of the owner).

this could probably be made into a graphic. i dont know what to do with this information yet, im just thinking it through. thanks!

FCM - July 30, 2013

at any rate, its an excellent illustration of why women *arent* chattel! haha! assuming its correct, and i think it is. also, it shows that women are more like natural resources than they are like chattel, but not exactly the same (bc of reproduction). 🙂 excellent

FCM - July 30, 2013

FYI

FCM - July 30, 2013

FCM - July 30, 2013

12. witchwind - July 30, 2013

Why would it be more like natural resources than it would be like chattel? I don’t understand that bit.

I find the table with the different forms of violence clarifying but the terms “reproductive means” and “productive means” are quite thought terminating to me. I would rather find words that describe more accurately the specific violence that it entails. At least name the violence of it because in those words it seems like there’s no violence involved.

I’m not sure what is meant by means of production. Does this include forcibly breeding a species? That is, forcing the males to rape females (or inseminate the females of the species) to reproduce more of those species? The same is done with plants too. In this case the objective is holding life (animal and plant) captive, to forcibly breed it in order to consume it. Where do you place forced lactation of females to use and consume the milk of females?

They also do the same, but where the objective is not to consume (kill and eat) the living being, but to use its labour, energy, force, physical properties. The aim is to keep it alive to serve various objectives other than being killed + eaten or put into products that will be sold for consumption either to be used or owned.

Just throwing around thoughts here.

13. witchwind - July 30, 2013

And thanks for putting those Mary Daly quotes back up. Is always worth reminding. I’m glad she said it in interviews so we have evidence of it!

14. SheilaG - July 31, 2013

Mary Daly’s interviews are incredibly powerful, and I’m always sad that even feminist who should know better don’t fully honor her uncompromising insights. Women who are that free intellectually are a real threat to patriarchy, even after they are dead.
One of the interviews with Enlightenment magazine was interesting, in that Daly was trying to tell the interviewer that she was not interested in male scholarship, but the woman kept bringing up male writers. The interviewer could have been smarter and used other radical feminist writers to ask Daly about. Still thanks for putting up the links, every woman should read the Daly interviews!!

15. SheilaG - July 31, 2013

Favorite quote from Daly: When asked about men, she simply said, “I don’t think of men.”

FCM - July 31, 2013

the way i am currently thinking about it, because of rididill’s contribution, is that these 4 elements of ownership have their own values for illustrative purposes. if each one is simply valued at 1, women have 4, natural resources have 3, and chattel have 2. you could also assign letters (variables) to them so that ownership of women = A+B+C+D; ownership of natural resources = A+B+C; ownership of chattel = A+B. ownership of women is closer in value mathematically to natural resources than it is to chattel. thats all im thinking at the moment.

FCM - July 31, 2013

thanks sheila. that enlightennext interview i linked to here a million years ago only to find that the original source (enlighten next magazine) had removed it at some point. sadly it was the only place i have ever seen her spell it out clearly: its innate. now we have it back bc some feminist thought to PDF it before it disappeared. smart.

16. witchwind - July 31, 2013

Ok thanks for your reply.
I don’t understand why chattel counts as inanimate objects though?

FCM - July 31, 2013

chattel just means “personal property” as opposed to real property which is basically real estate. most chattel are inanimate objects, hammers, tables and the like. men consider domestic animals to be chattel (i think?) but for our purposes im putting them in with natural resources (like land) bc it makes more sense (i think?). regardless, women arent chattel whether we include farm animals in chattel or not bc women are not farm animals. see rididill’s comment about “means of reproduction.”

FCM - July 31, 2013

also, lucky is threatening me now. lol. oh noes, im so skeered! welcome to my spam folder lucky!

FCM - July 31, 2013

i may or may not dust off my paint program later to graphic this, but heres the general idea:

if women were the first property, then the original ownership model was A+B+C+D where A=actual possession; B=right to possess/delegate; C=means of production; D=means of reproduction.

thats the first point and it stands on its own (women were the first property; all other ownership models were based on/derived from this one; ownership of women was not based on any other model; women are not owned “like” anything else is). even if women were not the first property, ownership of women is still A+B+C+D.

and other ownership models look like this:

ownership of natural resources (incl. land, domestic animals, “human resources” incl. labor and domestic labor) = A+B+C
ownership of inanimate objects (most chattel, excluding domestic animals and including “attachments to land”) = A+B

this has surely been said before and isnt completely new, but it is clarifying the issues for me and also shows mathematically (i think?) that tim wise is a moron. lol. and probably other things.

witchwind - July 31, 2013

Ah I see I didn’t know that distinction between real estate and personal property, and didn’t know that the definition of chattel was “movable personal property” that included both inanimate object and domestic animals (just looked it up). My confusion, sorry. It makes sense to put animals in with natural resources then, yes, and include only inanimate objects in chattel.

FCM - July 31, 2013

it does make you wonder what the point of mens designations really are, when you look at A,B,C and D and see right there that a hammer is different than a cow (even though they are both “chattel” to men) and a building is different than a mountain or a field (even though they are both real property/not chattel). and even though these things are obviously not owned in the same way. obviously! just look at the letters! unless the letters are wrong, but they look pretty right to me, meaning that they describe the objective reality of it. mens subjective reality is obviously different, (and at odds with reality) so what is it? i shudder to think actually. i hate getting inside their heads.

17. Greywing - July 31, 2013

I think what you’re describing FCM, is what Rididill mentioned above, men trying to pretend reality isn’t really a thing, and men’s real relationship to their “property” doesn’t matter, but only that other men respect it, so as long as they all agree that these are all “properties” they “own” the shared delusion stays intact. I think it goes back to men on some level being aware that the force of life doesn’t flow through them. So they try to force it to. Which of course equals nothing but necrophilia and death. They try to pretend all this life belongs to them, are of them somehow when it’s very clearly not. But actual chattel CAN actually belong to a person, you can hold a hammer and swing it and it truly does function as an extension of yourself and your own physical power. So by calling all these other things that are autonomous life and nature the same thing as a hammer, it enables men to think they are the same thing, are an extension of them, and that their life somehow are of them.

18. Greywing - July 31, 2013

Doesn’t all property flow back to men’s excessive and forced PIV? If there wasn’t all that PIV, there wouldn’t be too many humans, and there wouldn’t be scarcity of resources. If women had control over reproduction, there would only be as many humans as would be sustainable without straining nature, and there would be no need for property (violently defending resources from other men who need them for their excessive offspring.)

If there were only as many humans as could be sustained naturally, there wouldn’t be any need for farming and animal husbandry the way witchwind described it either. The violence of PIV itself and all the manner of violence that it necessitates are very closely interlinked. Men have excessive PIV to get excessive human beings to kill, or to use as an excuse for killing (in excess too!) other living beings, humans, animals and plants. It’s obscured a bit since men like to separate into groups, but really, men from different groups force PIV which creates excessive humans that men from other groups then get to kill in conflicts over property/resources. Men forcing PIV to create humans for each other to kill. And then on top of that breeding animals and plants for all these humans to eat. All of which would be unecessary without all that PIV.

FCM - July 31, 2013

yes that would make sense wouldnt it? and it follows from the idea that women were the first property, bc if they were and men abused/controlled them completely, including reproduction/overpopulation, it actually wouldve caused the need or male-perceived need to “own” these other things due to scarcity. so not only was woman-as-property first in time, theres actual causation there. interesting.

FCM - July 31, 2013

and your first comment was very thought provoking too! still thinking on it as a matter of fact.

FCM - July 31, 2013

to clarify, if there is actual causation there, it *proves* that woman-as-property came first in time bc thats the only way causation is possible. so really when you think about it in terms of scarcity, thats all you need to do to prove or at least convincingly show that women were the first property. gerda lerner cites actual research supporting that as well, which helps, but its looking pretty clear anyway isnt it?

19. Greywing - July 31, 2013

This is kinda tangentially related, but goes back to the last few previous posts. I think parts of men’s necrophilia are attempts at cargo culting women’s life force. They know and see that women have this life force flowing through them, and then try to cargo cult to aquire that same force for themselves. Much of men’s supposed “creating” and “creativity” falls under this general rubric. Their art… they can’t create life, they can’t create human beings, so they create facsimiles of human beings and treat them as if they deserve more reverence and respect than actual human beings, to exhalt their own “creation” over the actual human lives women create. (And this is literally true right? Resources used to preserve men’s art while human beings die due to lack of resources.) But the art men “create” is in reality actually dead matter, so it is another form of necrophilia, yes?

And this seems to be a recurring theme in what men do. They try as much as possible to replace rich, living, breathing life with artifice, synthetic facsimiles. Replace food with processed and cruelly, terribly farmed substances that are drained of as much life as possible. Men have created synthetic artificial replacements to stimulate all the senses. Images, moving and not, artificial lights that only recreates parts of the spectrum, audio recording and replaying (and actual synthetic electronic music) all manner of engine noises to kill the silence, synthetic scents and flavors. They have trouble with touch though (and try to downplay it as much as possible… porn attempting to turn intimacy into a visual thing is just one example.) I think something FCM mentioned in an earlier post about literally feeling and touching natural things as a path to liberation might be a clue.

Actually thinking about men and art makes me think of the earliest known art. The venus figurines, that according to established wisdom mean men at the time worshipped women. Maybe they actually represent the earliest known examples of men trying to cargo cult women, and by creating facsimiles of human life trying to take their life force as their own. The cave paintings kinda makes this more obvious, no? Men painted all these animals to try to own, control and claim some kind of ownership relationship over them. We still say that right, images “capture” living beings.

I might be dumping a bit too much all at once in the comments, but this post really made a lot of things click into place for me, so thank you!!

FCM - July 31, 2013

glad to know that this post did something for you! i was starting to think no one “got” it/it didnt make any sense. haha. getting good comments helps too of course, so im glad we have some to work with!

FCM - July 31, 2013

it made sense to ME of course, or i wouldnt have hit “publish.” whether in a big-picture way or just a gathering-evidence way or a formulating questions way, if it doesnt make (some kind of) sense to me i dont publish it. so “what the hell was she thinking?” is a very relevant question actually, although most people who probably ask themselves that dont really want to know. 🙂

20. Greywing - July 31, 2013

To explain how things clicked into place, in case it can help anyone else. The example of men owning a national park and somehow owning, controlling and having power over a geyser really made things hit home for me. Because it’s so hilariously obviously untrue. So if that part of men’s supposed power is obviously untrue, maybe other parts are too. Which made me leap back to the previous discussion of women cargo culting men’s power by trying to participate in men’s power structures. But if men’s power is a delusional joke in the first place, maybe that’s a reversal. And when you reverse it to men cargo culting women (and more generalized, cargo culting life in a necrophiliac way, aka cargo culting life by killing it!!) a hell of a lot of things suddenly start to click into place.

21. SheilaG - July 31, 2013

Porn itself is the absense of touch, and them men OWN the images of women they pornify. Or they love paintings of cats and dogs, but can’t seem to interact with real dogs and cats–I’ve witnessed this personally!
And a friend told me recently, that women are exposed to all kinds of STDs through PIV, and that part of the problem is, they don’t know how to create the intimacy where the woman is truly connected to the man sexually. But that two women, who have a real passion for one another actually feel connected.
Chattle was an interesting discussion, because I didn’t know that it mean anything men own… hammers etc. I thought it was a synonim for slave. Revealing the true definition. Woman as the first piece of property in the male ownership of the world scenario. Virginity, owned by men, so they can sell their daughter in marriage to other men, and on and on it goes. Good work wimmin, this is absolutely fascinating!!!

FCM - July 31, 2013

i have heard this before of course, that men are trying to parrot/recreate womens life-giving properties, they do this with rites/rituals, including penis-mutilation and other things to mimic “female.” “the first sex” talks about these rituals/mimicking in the context of a prehistorical global gynocracy where female was the norm (and the god-model) and where males were deficient and everyone knew it. i didnt buy it when she said it tho, bc i rejected her “global gynocracy” theory on the basis that women still needed contraception! in a true gynocracy, where female was the norm and our functioning biology wasnt abused and pathologized this would be unneccessary. but as far as men “cargo-culting” women from within patriarchy where women are hated and male is the norm…well i dont know if that makes much sense either. plus the cargo-cult analogy only applies where oppressed people are performing the rites/rituals (so it does apply to women mimicking males thinking we will recreate male power).

doesnt it make more sense to think that boys/men simply have a death-drive? or that they arent “mimicking” life when they create art (and porn), they literally just prefer it that way bc its flat and dead (like they are?) just thinking out loud here. obviously im not saying you are wrong bc how would i know? it just seems likely to me that if these things were against mens natures, they wouldnt do them. that suggests that they have a vibe or something, and perhaps they are seeking to reproduce it/return to the mothership. also, saying that they are trying to mimic it (but are doing it wrong) suggests its an accident, or a misunderstanding doesnt it?

FCM - July 31, 2013

the thing that sticks out the most for me here in this post and this convo is the idea (fact) that male power is at least partly illusory, or incomplete, such as when they say they “own” things like volcanoes and geysers. for whatever reason, i think theres something there we can do something with, so ive honed in on it. i see that greywing has too.🙂

22. Greywing - July 31, 2013

I think that’s key to how men can truly be said to cargo cult women. (I don’t think all of men’s necrophilia is cargo culting of life though, there is plenty of necrophilia just for its own sake.) It’s not about the power men do wield, which is quite limited control over other human beings, but all the forces in play that men cannot possibly control, all the forces of nature and life itself. Women are WAY closer to this force (maybe men can’t touch it at all?) I said it flows through us because we don’t wield it the same way men wield their violent powers. Words failing me, but basically it’s about men vs nature not men vs humans. “Within patriarchy” is still just about men vs humans, not the whole of reality. And I don’t think men cargo cult life because they want life, but because they sense a force there, a power there, and they want at THAT, not the life, but the force and power of it (as if they can be separated or something lol, it’s all absurdity.)

23. Greywing - July 31, 2013

Also, another way to word it that might make it clearer, this “cargo culting” of women is of course also just another way of trying to destroy women, I think previous discussions of MTFs here and at gendertrender has fleshed this out quite clearly.

But maybe other forms of this that are less obvious, like men depicting women in art (and porn.) But if all men’s art can be said to be necrophilic, it would explain a lot of things, like how attempts at all manner of feminist art has been such a dead end (pun inevitable.) And how attempts at reforming men’s art to make it (more) feminist is SUCH soul (life) sucking work.

24. No Blah Blah - July 31, 2013

Wow Greywing I think you are really onto something here. I don’t think males have a death drive though FCM. I think they want to transcend birth/death altogether, that is, they want to dominate it. Both birth and death are part of nature – they are part of a natural cycle.

If men are to death as women are to birth, that means we are both inseparably two sides of the same coin. That men play an essential role in the natural harmony of things. I’m not convinced by that. Is it just that the ‘death’ side of things got out of balance? I don’t think so. All this stuff we are calling necrophilia – it isn’t death, it’s undeath. It’s zombie, it’s vampire, it’s animated objects, but it’s not death. I’ve written about this on my blog – please come check it out!

If you control both destruction and creation you have total control, total domination. I think that’s what this usurpation of creation is about. It’s not about the love of what women have or anything like that. Men can never have total control unless they can create. That is why they prefer the flat and dead, cos it’s theirs. cos they own it and they made it. But if they had a death drive, well, they’d just kill everything and themselves and be done with it. But they don’t. They create undead.

FCM - July 31, 2013

ok i see that people are suggesting that men desire control (over death/life) because it represents power, or is a kind of power. yes? while this may be true, this is not new thinking, this has been around a long time and its gotten us nowhere. which is why the other approach is more interesting to me. and the other approach (i think?) is, what if they want power so that they can kill either indiscriminately or as they see fit? what if killing is the whole point, not power? if this is the case, then this explains why women have not gained any real power despite being half the population, and why formal “equality” has not changed this at all even where women have it, and in fact why many women fail and why others are simply not interested. its bc we arent into the killing. and men are.

as for the idea that they would just kill everyone and everything and be done with it, if they were really into death, well they are well on their way arent they? also, in the case of global female infanticide, men have adopted a policy and practice to breed males and mothers-of-males. because they have to allow for SOME mothers-of-males (females) to exist if they want to keep doing their sick killing-thing forever. and it appears as if they do (if they dont blow up the world first, either way they win if the goal is killing). which means that they dont just *have* to kill or are compelled to, but that they actually want to do it, and that they enjoy it. this enjoyment and dragging-out quality could be part of the drive, not separate from it. otherwise known as torture BTW. we have discussed this before.

25. Greywing - July 31, 2013

I don’t think men really want to control creation and destruction. Their ultimate goal is to stop both. Stop time, stop the natural cycling of life, and finally have the linear time they cling to never end and “live” forever in a static never-changing state, which incidentally, would be very similar to what we know as death would it not? rofl.

FCM - July 31, 2013

also, “domination” is equality-rhetoric. it necessarily implies inequality of position. and unsurprisingly, i have yet to see it used in a radical way ever. why cant we just say that men like to torture and kill? is it really that hard? is it demonstrably wrong?

26. SheilaG - July 31, 2013

“why cant we just say that men like to torture and kill? is it really that hard? is it demonstrably wrong?” This is a very good point. What has been of great value to me in this blog, is getting to just that conclusion! Not exactly in the same way, but more like getting a huge amount of clarity. Men enjoy torturing and killing others, they enjoy rape, and watching rape torture porn. They love every minute of this. They love going on rampages after big sporting events and destroying cars, smashing windows… just had a big male right after a surfing event in Southern California the other day, for example.

they caught this guy smashing in a window with an upended stop sign.

27. SheilaG - July 31, 2013

There is massive resistense among women to just say this! It’s really revolutionary to just say it! Just to know it. We have to just know this stuff flat out, and stop making excuses for men, or stop with it all. All we have to do is watch their behavior worldwide, and this destruction is just fun and games to them. Build buildings but then blow them up…fun. Have another war and make more killing machines and torture machines as an act of pure fun. Sexual torture of women as fun… De Sade. BDSM as fun. Kidnapping girls and keeping them as rape/torture/sex slaves, they’re having a ball with this.

They love watching men smash each other in the face as entertainment.
Do women do any of this? Women don’t enjoy this at all, women are numb trying to survive in the world these killers live in.

28. SheilaG - July 31, 2013

One thing I notice is the genuine freak out to NAME THE AGENT. That gets all kinds of liberal reactions of note my nigel, not all men, not all men are bad…. even hint at critiquing even a little bit what men are, and legions of women are going to get very uncomfortable. There is real discomfort saying men kill for the sake of it.

I really like how you said “domination” is equality rhetoric FCM, nicely put. I’m going to have to think about this a bit, still trying to grasp that little gem.

We have all the proof we need that men love to torture and kill, just go into any science lab worldwide, and they are busy torturing and killing animals all the time. They get off on humiliating and torturing women, even their own wives, even when they are running for mayor supposedly trying to get women’s votes as well–Wiener… but this kind of bothered me. “Why would he be such a doofiss if he wanted power?” I couldn’t figure that one out, especially since he’d been caught sexting and got kicked out of congress the first time. So what was it, and then it hit me. He LOVES dragging his wife in front of the cameras so that he can enjoy every minute of her humiliation. It’s the ultimate high for him, knowing he owns her, she had a kid, he’s got her! Then he can watch as she is tortured more for getting attacked for being so stupid staying with him… double win!

And he probably recorded the press conference so he could watch his wife’s humilated face over and over again on a big FLAT screen TV, and that was the whole point of running for Mayor of New York! What do you think of this theory everyone?

FCM - July 31, 2013

yes, all these doods are torturing their wives and gfs, absolutely. and yes, domination is clearly equality rhetoric and obscures the issues. BDSM is not dom/sub, its torture and necrophilia (bc torture, violence and extreme violence are not compatible with life). if radfems got rid of all the hidden equaity rhetoric things would look a lot different wouldnt they?

FCM - July 31, 2013

honestly the mens search terms project brought this train into the station, for me at least. WRT BDSM in particular, we had to decide how to categorize the BDSM/bondage related search terms, do we need a BDSM category etc? meanwhile, we had a “torture” category already (bc TORTURE) and we realized we didnt need another category, BDSM fits very comfortably within torture. and obviously, torture is incompatible with life so is necrophilic. there are only a handful of themes to anything men do really. as creative as they are, its all very much the same.

29. SheilaG - July 31, 2013

The categories are pretty simple— ala “men’s search terms” BDSM getting put under the heading of torture, for example. Men are creative when it comes to torturing and humiliating women, and the internet itself was created as one large male porn/sexting device. Porn really launched the mass market for the Internet, as well as the prostitution and sex websites.

I too am getting sick of equality rhetoric, because time and time again, even the women promoting it know its false, yet they go and do it anyway.

There seems to be no clear concensus that radfem perspectives are really needed, that this should be widely put out there. But getting into the heads of male search terms was the goldmine. This is what they are doing behind closed doors, and like the Nixon tapes, wow, they truly reveal the mind of men. I can honestly say, that nothing those men searched for was anything I had EVER thought of doing to another human being, even my worst enemies. But the fact that men so commonly go there should speak volumes.

30. SheilaG - July 31, 2013

“BDSM is not dom/sub, its torture and necrophilia (bc torture, violence and extreme violence are not compatible with life). if radfems got rid of all the hidden equaity rhetoric things would look a lot different wouldnt they?” FCM said…

It’s all the rape is sex and sex is rape confusion out there. BDSM is not about the honoring of life, and yet there it is, and I’m noticing an amazing number of trans people promoting this and talking about it quite openly.

If we did get rid of the equality rhetoric, and really stood our ground on just this alone!!! It gets me to thinking how hard it actually is to get beyond the equality rhetoric, because sometimes, out of exhaustion, I find myself unable to deal with it.

31. SheilaG - July 31, 2013

For example, the stupid gay marriage stuff. No marriage is never the answer folks! NEVER ok. But still, well meaning nice straight people think this will not harm me, that it is great, that we “deserve” this equality producing failing institution… it’s not works for hets, so why would it work for us? This is a very hard point to get across. When I diss marriage and living with men big time, they come back with the gay marriage thing, and when i say I’m against that too, that really confuses them.

To eliminate equality as a vocabulary word entirely is what I am after, so we are forced to talk about something different. Eliminate the desire for power or elected office, the desire to dominate the world, the desire to make the sex act equal or fun…. and get to the bottom line– men inherently deal death, they love it, they keep this game going as the funest thing in town. That makes men truly horrifying doesn’t it? Well the evidence is there, and since they are revealing their secret thoughts in the search terms, those “nice” men are creating those millions of hits on evil search terms, while outside everyone thinks they’re Mr. Wonderful.

Even women who get divorced from an abusive man, someone I know, the husband I know who is the joker and life of the party…. a right wing woman, and then bam the whole house of cards comes crashing down. How little most women want to even talk about the male genius of torturing women behind closed doors. Not my nigel, not all men are bad, we just want equality, and these guys want to kill us. We are NOT speaking the same language at all, but equality, it deludes and seduces us all. It’s painful to realize we all get duped by it, we all get conned. The gay marriage hoola among straight liberals patting themselves on the back… it reveals the lie… and to see all my lesbian friends getting married, and now divorced…. and now the “marriage industry” has women targeted for those expensive displays of consumption, lesbians of all people wanting a dopey wedding cake! Florests suddenly rubbing their hands together in greed over the new gay wedding business. Equality rhetoric, so seductive, was designed by the master craftsmen of the death cult. They’ve got it down to a t.

32. No Blah Blah - August 1, 2013

The word domination doesn’t have to be ‘equality rhetoric’ I think that’s a knee jerk reaction to what I’m saying, which has very little to do with that dom/sub paradigm you are referring to.

I am trying to making a distinction btw death and un-death. At the moment you are putting everything under the category of necrophilia and I think this obscures what is really going on. There is a huge difference.

If it’s only about death, there would be no human race already by now. I mean, you say we’re going that way already but why did it take 5000 years if killing everything was the only point? I guess there is an argument that you need life to keep being reborn so you can keep on killing (if it’s enjoyment of killing and not the end state of deadness itself which is the point), which would explain all the forced PIV etc but there is still a difference btw this, and everything else they do – which is more about undead than dead. All their technology, history, linear time, images, art… this is not about death in any normal sense of the term. Death is part of nature and it’s an essential part of the regenerative process of natural systems.

Greywing above talks about creating linear time as stopping birth/death. I don’t think this is the same as stopping creation/destruction though, and I don’t see why it would be static. Linear time is cumulative not static. Men have always wanted accumulation.

I think what men hate and want to destroy is not so much individual living beings (or even collective ones) but the notion of self-generating life itself. What they offer instead is neither life nor death though – it’s an existence which is undead and artificial, and which is entirely originated by and controlled by men. I think men want to be the originators of all things that exist, but to do so they must destroy all self-generating life because they cannot produce life itself.

At the moment they are stuck in a paradox though, because to do so would mean to destroy themselves too, because they have not yet learned to produce an undead consciousness (this is what all those artificial intelligence stories are all about, no?) so they must keep women for now, to make themselves.

None of this of course is incompatible with saying that men love to torture and kill. But would it be accurate to say that’s the only point? i don’t think so.

FCM - August 1, 2013

knee jerk ay? hardly. first, you are the third new blogger with a new blog THIS WEEK to promote your blog here, and you did this in your very first comment. well your third comment actually, your first 2 werent even comments, just shameless links to yourself with no commentary at all, which i spammed. you got the message, and included some text in the third. yay?

you are using equality-rhetoric, and attempting to gaslight me over that fact, when in reality “domination” is equality rhetoric any way you slice it, and no matter how much you say its not. you say women are “notions” which means they are ideas — just like trannies do. are you a tranny? on the front page of your blog, which i can see from my dashboard BTW, i dont make it a habit of clicking over to strange blogs, you say that patriarchy is a “theory.” a theory? really? this makes me wonder who signs your paychecks. it wouldnt be academia now would it? and finally, i find both of your comments to be thought-terminating, which makes me think you are a man or a saboteur, or both. so knee-jerk? not really. although thats exactly what a man would say when a woman responded to him in a way he didnt like, ie. as if he were a predator. innit.

FCM - August 1, 2013

srsly, if people arent proxied-up by now, they should be. i think the circus is in town.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry