jump to navigation

99.9% Rape Free December 31, 2014

Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, meta, rape.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

there is a tumblr post going around that cites several “sources” for the social constructionist belief that there are “rape free” cultures somewhere, or there were at some time.  women are apparently basing their entire activism (and therefore their entire lives or a significant part of their lives and female selves) on the belief that men raping, torturing and murdering women across time and place is culturally/socially constructed, and not innate to males themselves.  and that makes me want to address it.  because female health and energy are the only things *in life* with the potential to help women, and because female health and energy are resources that are not renewable or easily renewable under conditions of patriarchy, it is very, very, very important that women make decisions about how to spend their time and energy wisely.

i will not link to the post, or the sources, you can find these yourselves.  but i would like to suggest some questions/issues we should all consider when evaluating “evidence” of these elusive rape free zones.  we have discussed this before but i think having the issues parsed in one place for future (and present) reference might be helpful.  so lets dig in.

first, 99.9% rape-free or some other percentage that is less than 100% does not mean rape-free.  okay?  i have seen these articles too, they were required reading in undergraduate-level gender studies courses in the 1990s (if that tells you anything — it should) and many of them do not say that any culture anyone knows of was ever 100% rape free.  the evidence that some cultures have men raping women LESS than they do in some other cultures, or OUR culture, is not evidence that ANY culture is a rape-free culture.  and it is definitely not evidence that rape is socially constructed mkay.  if anything, the presence of cultures that are 99.9% (or some other relatively high percentage but less than 100) rape free is evidence that no matter how rape-unfriendly any culture is, culture cannot stop men from raping women.  they still do it.  they will rape us anyway, because they are men.

next, i would like to address the elusive 100% rape free culture.  has this been documented?  i have not seen anyone ever say that there are 100% rape free cultures (except when they are saying that something-less-than-100%-rape-free is the same thing as rape-free when its not) but some pointed questions about this hypothetical culture, and the studies that document this if there even are any, come to mind.  and really, these questions apply to all the studies collecting/reporting on the issue at all, even if they end up discovering a culture somewhere that is mostly-rape-free.

firstly, how are they defining (framing) rape?  are they only considering rape-rape?  cause thats not very feminist.  are they considering other kinds of rape, like underage rape, abuse of power rape, incest, sexualized child abuse, acquaintance rape, marital rape?  are they counting consent that is coerced like in cases of economic, social or other dependence?  what about boozy sex and alcohol-facilitated “hooking up” — this is also rape mkay.  we know this.  so what exactly do they mean when they say RAPE DOESNT HAPPEN HERE?  this is a serious question, and radical feminists must, must demand answers to this.  the situation is dire — as i said, activist women are basing their entire lives on this evidence/data, and what they think they are reading when they read it.  and womens lives matter.  so.  in the case of the elusive rape-free culture, which reformist women believe we can create here and now based on the evidence that it has been done in other places sometime, does “rape-free” really mean what they think it means, and what it is being pushed/twisted/represented to mean?  does it?

i would also ask, in the case of any culture where men rape women “less than they do here,” how much female time, energy and other resources are spent on achieving that ends?  when men “rape less” including not at all, do men just decide out of the goodness of their hearts or dicks not to rape us anymore?  or do women have to continuously surveil them, police them, punish them for rape/attempted rapes and for “rapey” behaviors/thoughts/values that are likely to lead to rape?  if we are talking about “matriarchal” cultures where the women do everything important, and the men sit on the periphery trying not to get into trouble (including committing rape), is this evidence that mens desire to rape is socially, and not biologically/innately constructed?  sorry, but no.  no, it is not evidence of that.  at all.

next, i would ask whether these studies considered normalized sexualized/eroticized intercourse, or intercourse for pleasures sake when a pregnancy is not wanted by the women, and considered “intercourse,” making love, and PIV to be totally different from rape?  how different from rape-rape does it have to be, to be considered rape?  this is a serious question.  we know that intercourse for pleasures sake, removed from reproduction, is an act of hateful othering because it pathologizes female bodies in their natural, normal state — the state of impregnability and vulnerability to semen.  in any other context this kind of brutal othering and deliberately causing disperate impacts/outcomes with social, political and physical consequences to a protected social class would be considered discrimination, if not an outright hate crime.

but in the case of fucking women, causing them reproductive stress and pain, as well as unwanted and undesirable political outcomes based on pregnancy, doesnt count as anything.  right?  and its definitely not rape, even though rape historically has been used by men specifically to cause unwanted pregnancies in women, and specifically to control women politically, physically, socially, sexually, spiritually, materially, and in every way.  even though PIV and rape are so much the same, they arent the same at all.  right?  what do the “studies” alleging there are rape-free cultures think about intercourse removed from reproduction?  this is a serious question, not because i feel like bashing PIV today, but because social constructionist womens lives depend on the answer.  they themselves have said this — they continue to activate because they believe these rape-free cultures exist, and that it is possible for men to stop fucking raping women.  so is it?  hint: mens attitude toward “sex” and “othering” women, including politically oppressing women via pregnancy (and motherhood!) is relevant.

next, i would like to know whether the studies that collect/report on data indicating that there are rape-free cultures also consider men violently oppressing women generally, such as with torture and murder.  because that is really what we are talking about isnt it?  rape is a form of (female-specific) torture, and rape and murder of women by men frequently go hand in hand.  i would want to know, if i was basing my entire life and lifes work on the existence of these cultures, how woman-friendly are they really?  are women safe from men anywhere?  have they ever been?  of course, the answer to this question partially depends on how one defines torture.  in general, people have a pretty narrow biased misogynistic view of what torture is (if its done to women by men, its not torture).

now, same questions about mens seemingly global, timeless aptitude for necrophilia.  is there anywhere on this (formerly) green earth women can go, or could we ever, where we were/are not constantly taunted and tormented by the male death wish and mens hideous love of death, dying, and killing?  kind of an important question, if the answer means that we should (or should not) hold out hope for men and their ability to exist in a biophilic, non-misogynist culture.

and finally, i will say it again, even if men have been “socialized” to rape, torture and murder women based on our sex, who “socialized” or “taught” them how to do this to us?  it was not women mkay.  women did not teach men how to rape us, and women do not socialize men to rape us, and women do not reward men who rape and punish men who do not rape.  if these things are happening to men, and this is a huge IF, they are being done to men, by men.  it begins and ends with men, in other words.  this is the very definition of innate.

please understand: i am not saying any of this to endlessly repeat myself, as i have grown weary of hearing myself (and others) talk.  i am saying this here, now, because women have said in their own words that they are basing their entire lives and their entire activism on the assumption that men can and will stop raping us, and that its not innate to men to do this.  activist women believe the data/evidence supports this conclusion — that rape is socially constructed — but it absolutely does not.  the mistake, as ginormous (and fairly, but not entirely obvious) as it is, is not womens fault of course, because the data and conclusions have been so deliberately skewed in favor of endless, reformist activating, and holding out hope for men.

this is the world we live in, thanks to men.  very little in mensworld means what you think it means, and what it is re/presented to mean, and we must endlessly interrogate it to get to the truth and the information we need to live and save our own lives.  it is fucking exhausting, but if the answers are this important, it must be done.  because there is evidence that endless pointless feminist activating can actually kill us, in the case of “rape-free cultures” and knowing whether the evidence supports the conclusion that male-on-female rape is socially, and not biologically constructed, activist womens health and lives depend on it.

Comments

1. Black Metal Valkyrie - December 31, 2014

I am very familiar with this theme. Anita Sarkeesian commits it at 27:33 in this recent video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RPr9DwMA

I think reformism is soul destruction for women. There is a very common reversal in more malestream feminism that telling women the best hope for their own wellbeing is to reject PIV and intimate relations with men is somehow blaming women for men torturing them. I know because I comment on liberal articles on Facebook warning women to stay away from men. It’s funny how drug harm reduction is popular among progressives but when these people hear about the most effective method of harm reduction of male violence towards us is to reject PIV, they scream bigotry. I find it cruel how liberals constantly gloat about how most rapes are committed by a man the woman knows and yet vapidly promote “consensual” relations with men at the same time, power dynamics be damned.

Rejecting relations with men is probably one of the only truly empowering thing you can do in a patriarchy. I think it does a disservice for ALL forms of feminism to compare patriarchy to more recent male systems like crapitalism, to minimize one of the foundations of feminist theory itself, in order to forward a reformist agenda. I see these dickweeds from Dickish Ghey Resistance criticize lifestyle activism (using that in regard to consumer choices, which is what they actually mean, which is actually propping up the crapitalist system they claim to be against but no matter) yet promoting a paleo diet and telling people to get off the computer and “do something” yet also saying they are pro people with disabilities yet fail to consider that is the only activism many disabled people can do. Men can’t keep their own bullshit straight.

2. sellmaeth - December 31, 2014

Thanks for spending your valuable energy on writing this article.

I am one of those delusioned reformists, though I have to admit, I do wonder how those statistics are made. There is one that says women are raped less in cultures where we are completely oppressed, and in those where we are equal (let’s just imagine that is the case somewhere, for the sake of the argument), but more wherever we try to challenge the status quo of oppression.
I always wondered how they defined “rape” in those more oppressive cultures. When women cannot freely choose whom to marry, how is intercourse within marriage not rape? Even though I may not agree that ALL intercourse is rape, I can see the lack of logic there.

3. Mary Sunshine - December 31, 2014

So beautiful to see this in print. Thank you.

FCM - December 31, 2014

although i could do without the snark sellmaeth, or what i am reading as snark, “forced marriage” is an excellent example i did not think to expressly include in the post, so i am publishing your comment.

good to see you mary. i hope this helps.

4. Mary Sunshine - December 31, 2014

Truth always helps.❤

5. vliet - December 31, 2014

Hoping you’ll keep posting, fcm. I’ve missed you. You seem to have gathered a lot of conviction and clarity in your time away. I have been studying hard this past year and clarified my own thoughts quite a bit too.

Like you and others here I have rejected pure social constructionism as an explanation for human behavior. Ignoring biological factors is anti-science and burying our heads in the sand, and we as feminists have got to let go of this increasingly ludicrous position even though the truth is painful.

To say that male biology appears to predispose to rape is NOT to say that all other anti-woman social factors, such as women’s subservience, are ordained by nature. One does not become a biological determinist because one points out that biology is a factor in all systematic human behavior.

You are asking what rape is. I agree that is the question to answer long before one startes gathering numbers and making pronouncements about rape-free cultures.

I have been reflecting on de Beauvoir’s insight that men, as the possessors of power in all societies, define social reality. Social reality reflects their needs and desires, not those of women. You and others here have been developing this truth.

Our society does not define rape as torture or injury or harm at all. There is no harm if there is consent, because with consent it is merely intercourse, which women engage in as a group all day, and which is the function and definition of women from the male point of view.

Rape is instead defined as “unconsented-to” intercourse, which ignores the many ways as you point out in which CONSENT IS COERCED. As Catherine A. MacKinnon says in her powerful analysis of rape law, “…CONSENT IS A COMMUNICATION UNDER CONDITIONS OF INEQUALITY…the crime of rape [is] defined and adjudicated from a male standpoint.” See her article at
http://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/pprg/MacKinnonFMMS2.pdf

You ask: “Are they counting consent that is coerced like in cases of economic, social or other dependence?” Like prostitution and performing in pornography and advertising from the Ukraine for an American husband?

We all know “they” aren’t. The way they get around it is to pretend that the people invoved all come to the “consent” table with equal power to start with. The fiction is each woman has the power to not give her consent. The legal “consent” definition builds in that lie.

That’s why formal abstract “equality” under the law, where the law appears neutral, just reinforces whatever underlying inequality that exists, and why legal reformism along “equality” lines does not work. Only when women have the same degree of real power to make laws and define culture and governance as men will they have the power to voluntarily consent to anything.

The funny thing is, the [male] legal standard that rape is unconsented-to intercourse, if taken at its face value, does unpack very logically into all that rape. US “consent” law has a lot to say about the importance that consent be uncoerced. This body of law is simply not applied in rape cases in the larger sense. It is avoided by taking each crime as an individual case and not allowing the status of women as a group to be considered. It must take a lot of energy to ignore such a glaring truth.

BTW thanks, BMV, I got a lot from your comment above.

Vliet

6. sellmaeth - December 31, 2014

Sorry, I didn’t mean to insult you. Just a little bit of self-deprecating humour to defuse the discussion. I like your blog – it is truly thought-provoking, and I like thinking.
If men convinced you that they’re beyond all hope, that’s their problem to solve, not mine. (And if they keep it up with harassing Anita Sarkeesian for believing she can change them, I might just drop my reformism, too.)

FCM - December 31, 2014

vliet, i am definitely NOT going to keep posting, i believe i have been clear about that, including my reasons why. i do think there are a few things that can be said, and perhaps need to be said, so i am saying them before i sign off again. thats all. it is possible that i will pop up now and again to say something and then close up again. it is also possible that i wont. i dont know, but i have said repeatedly that i do not intend to resurrect this blog.

wrt this post specifically, it was a response to something i saw with my own eyes yesterday, and i see that the situation is dire (due to the potential and actual wasted female energy and health, and lives), and the misunderstanding is huge. i thought i could help, or at least give women who have given up on men something to link to when they see this trope dragged out, and it is fucking everywhere, even if its not explicit. the underlying belief that there are rape-free cultures, used to support the belief that there is hope for men, is the subtext of literally all activism/reformism, including feminist activism/reformism, even that which claims to be radical, or revolutionary.

FCM - December 31, 2014

honestly! when i see commercials for literally any charity including those “fighting” animal cruelty and child hunger, if they do not assume that men can be stopped doing these things, they seem to have no qualms having “others” take up the slack and clean up mens mess, and tend to the tortured and broken left in mens wake. i suppose in the case of animal-focused charities, it is not as glaring an omission to ignore SEX in the analysis (meaning the SEX of the perpetrator) but in any case, the failure to name the agent there is really surreal. there is one where there is an abused animal on the screen and there is a written text beneath saying “why do they keep kicking me?” THEY. as if a bunch of women are standing around kicking this poor dog. its fucking ridiculous. or, maybe the THEY is a fucking tranny, and THEY his HIS preferred pronoun? nah, its was men kicking that dog. one or several males, torturing and abusing hundreds, thousands and millions of animals.

of course, in the case of these ridiculous charities, there is plenty of money to be made for the directors, and employees/contractors (if there are any). same issue with feminists for profit, including feminist academics. they lie for a living, as a survival tactic. we need to understand that if WE arent making money from endless reformist activating, OUR interests in doing it are very different from those who tell us its the right thing to do.

7. Utopia Bold - December 31, 2014

The core issue is not “nature vs nurture” This is a false argument that diverts from the fact that men have free will. It doesn’t matter if men are violent due to biological determinism or social conditioning.

Men ALWAYS choose to rape. They claim that rape is always the woman’s fault because “men cant help it” . To always blame women for what men do, men voluntarily relinquish their human trait of having free will and voluntarily take on the status of animals that run on instinct.

The bible is full of descriptions of men’s fear of “losing control” to their own lust “caused” by women. So men have to always control women (make them wearing burquas, not breast feeding in public, always escorted by males in the mid east and placed under house arrest etc.

Because men *choose* to not control their lust.

Men blame women for what men do because men claim the status of animals. Hence they should not be trusted with power or be allowed to touch weapons.

FCM - December 31, 2014

actually it does matter, utopia bold. it matters because the truth matters. and it matters that we point out the flaws in this reasoning when it has the potential to impact so many womens lives, and i am talking about activist women who think they can MAKE men stop doing what they observably do and they support this with “evidence.” when the “evidence” actually shows something else entirely and they are being lied to and in turn, they are further disseminating the lie.

if not nurture, then what else is left? this is a serious question. also, a biological basis for male violence does NOT necessarily imply biological determinism of male action — as you say, men CHOOSE to rape. oh yes they do. shitting is a biological urge, and yet we are mostly able to curb/control this urge to appropriate times and places, and certainly dont go around shitting on each other. so could men choose to curb/control whatever other biological urge they may have. but they dont. i would not even call it “lust” but “necrophilia” as it is more inclusive of all male urges they mostly fail to control, and which have wrought so much havoc on girls and women, and on the entire earth by now.

i do agree with your conclusion that males should not be trusted with power, or allowed to touch weapons.

FCM - December 31, 2014

and you are right that it might not matter in a PRACTICAL sense if its biological or not. however, as long as we are writing and theorizing about it, logic itself dictates that the “nurture” argument (or at least the EVIDENCE said to support it) be discarded as utterly absurd.

8. Sargasso Sea - January 1, 2015

It seems so much like a no-brainer (feminism 101) that I kind of can’t believe that I’m taking the time to even say it, but if we’re talking about ‘nurture’ and rape in the same breath I think that it can stop right there.

Who does the the actual nurturing of boys? Women. Do women groom and encourage their sons and nephews and little brothers to be rapists? Well, that’s just stupid – of course we don’t. So to even pretend that women have any say at all in the way boys are nurtured is beyond the pale.

Men ‘nurture’ boys. Men create and ‘nurture’ laws and other systems that allow for, and normalize, their basic nature which is to destroy everything in their paths and then have the nerve to whine about and ‘debate’ and blame on women what they themselves simply feel like doing.

It’s so goddamn simple.

9. nuclearnight - January 1, 2015

I had a social constructionist tell me that women from the Lakota nation (very patriarchal indigenous culture) had no word for rape thus she extrapolated that rape did not exist amongst them.

I pointed out we did not have a word for sexual harassment until it was invented by feminists. The phenomenon however was (and still is) a great part of the female experience.

I believe that there were probably matriarchal societies where men were peripheral and the women basically did everything and worked together to control them (that seems to be the natural order of things in the mammalian world), but thats not an ideal system in any sense. How is it liberating to set up a system where we’re all watching our backs constantly? Putting more attention into controlling male behavior? How is that ideal?

Can’t we just, I dunno, focus on ourselves for a change?

FCM - January 1, 2015

it took me years to get over the hope that men would or could ever change, and these exact same bullshit academented “sources” indicating rape-free cultures existed somewhere, sometime, were partly responsible for that. i didnt have the critical thinking skills to understand what i was reading, and it didnt help that they were pushed down my throat in school either (where i mistakenly thought i was LEARNING critical thinking skills, my mistake obviously!) what was the actual tipping point is unclear, but the conclusion came to me in a vision of all things. it was a very literal vision of a “war room” with a semi-dark room and underlit glass table in the center, with people sitting in the periphery in the darkness, and i was standing over the table with my sleeves rolled up evaluating the “big picture” laid out in front of me on the table (maps and miniatures i guess, like the warrooms on tv!) and considering every angle…and i just said outloud (in the vision) “they arent going to stop.” and from that point on, i knew it was the truth. thing is, the EVIDENCE completely supports that conclusion. there is simply no denying it.

10. bronte71 - January 1, 2015

Vliet wrote: “Like you (FCM) and others here I have rejected pure social constructionism as an explanation for human behaviour.Ignoring biological factors is anti-science and burying our head in the sand, and we as feminists have got to let go of this increasingly ludicrous position even though the truth is painful….To say that biology appears to predispose rape is NOT saying that all other anti-woman social factors, such as women’s subservience, are ordained by nature.”

Thank you for the above; most especially for the “even if the truth is painful.”
In the past fifteen years or so there have been a number of male scientists, anthropologists, geneticists, neurobiologists, brain-body system theorists etc. who have published strong research validated arguments that, although not rad fem (a man can never be), at a very basic level – at least for me- were, “Ole! This is what women have been saying all along. What took you so long to get here?”

Here I specifically refer to the work of the neurobiologist on stress/primatologist Robert Sapolsky, the male authors of the book Demonic Males (mentioned by FCM), the male authors Malcolm Potts and Thomas Hayden of the book Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism, the work of the neurobiologists Joseph Le Doux (The Emotional Brain) and Antonio Damasio.
NB: I do not automatically discount the work of male scientists because they are male. Nor do I unquestioningly accept every word they speak/write as truth. Biology, brain science,scientism, psuedoscience has always been used against women in the past in ludicrous ways (phrenology? the wandering womb?) and will continue to be used in ludicrous ways today and tomorrow. Nevertheless, I believe that today some few things have been established beyond dispute: EXCEPT by feminism.

Please google ‘sex differences in the responses of the human amygdala’ or ‘male aggression: testosterone increases brain’s threat response.’
What HAS been established by modern neuroscience is that small changes in the brain can show up in enormous ways in life and contribute to male aggression. I emphasize ‘contribute’ because I believe human behaviour is based on a number of interacting, complex factors including evolution, biology, our developmental environment and the ‘choices’ made in those environments.

Having stated that, the amygdala in men’s brains is larger than in women’s. That is, there is a higher concentration of neuronal cells within this almond-shaped structure in the limbic system/emotional brain/ mid-brain. The amygdala is commonly referred to as the “fear response center” or the “fight or flee” center in the brain.
The reason for the larger amygdala in men is their serum testosterone levels – about 10 to 100 times more in men than in women- and it makes for a hair-trigger aggressive response in men.
Men have always told women that we are the “hysterical” ones and the “over-emotional” ones but, according to the evidence of science, this is another male reversal.
For some time now I have placed most of the blame of male aggression and violence on both testosterone and the amygdala. I’m certain the argument is more complex than that, but why contine with the over-simplistic social constructionism when both biology and neurobiology – for a while- have disputed it strongly?

FCM: Your ‘war room’ vision. I’ve been having similar for years.
And did you know that the High Commander In Chief (or whatever he is called) of the US MIlitary is surnamed Breedlove?
Too close to Dr. Strangelove. Watch very carefully what happens this year.

FCM - January 1, 2015

what i remember from school is that these physical including brain differences are also largely or totally explained away by socialization, including differences in testosterone levels between women and men, and also between relatively nonviolent and violent males. it seems that these changes can occur after birth and due to social factors such as placing a man in a stressful or violent environment such as prison (where their testosterone increases), or from having them “socialized” as males for decades. babies and fetuses are not studied in the same ways because it is unethical or impossible to study them physically, and in any event there is no social context for brand new humans, they have not been socialized yet. so there are problems with these kinds of post hoc studies that cannot be remedied. it is interesting that mens “ethics” come into play in this area specifically, to prevent actually getting to the truth about men and maleness, even as they are not particularly concerned with ethics in general, or when it comes to women, including experimenting on women by lobotomizing them and seeing what happens. but this is indeed a limitation that we are working with, and within, because men said so.

what i would say to all of that is that MEN have created this hellhole within which we are all socialized, including all males, so any “socialization” falls on males and can be said to be innate to males since women had nothing to do with creating it, and have relatively little to do with enacting or enforcing it. at any rate, women are not socialized at all, we are oppressed and terrorized due to our sex, and males are not, so to call both of these things “socialization” is ridiculous and they are not the same thing. but i digress.

even if all these negative “human” qualities possessed by men (all the negatives it seems!) including observable physical and brain difference are due to their male biology becoming warped through males socializing other males, it does not mean it can be changed. for one thing, it becomes physical over time and these changes are permanent (like brain structures) but for another, the socialization of them cannot be changed either because they refuse to change it (and this might also reside in them physically by now). this is what is known as a feedback loop, and some feedback loops cannot be changed/stopped, and produce exponential change after some point. we see this with global overpopulation and climate change too. in other words, even if it could have been changed at one point, its too late now. and this is also mens fault, as women had nothing to do with it except perhaps that we let men alone to be themselves for way too damn long, and this is how it turned out.

really, the idea of self-reinforcing feedback loops is extremely useful for our purposes and i think it helps us understand or at least ACCEPT that there are things cannot be changed now, even if they once could. applying this to the maleness problem might be a good bridge for women who refuse straight “determinism.” even if it could have been changed at some point, it doesnt mean that currently, there is a damn thing that can be done about it. game over. sorry it hurts.

FCM - January 1, 2015

also, let us not forget the probable number/percentage of males alive today who only exist due to rape, including males whose entire lineage for millenia consists of nothing besides rape after rape after rape. here we would consider that for many men alive today, all or many of their male ancestors were rapists, and all or many of their female ancestors were rape victims. if there is ANYTHING biological that causes rapiness in men, or a social or physical trait in females that cause men to choose them as victims, those would be prone to feedback-loopiness too. and considering the problem of not only global overpopulation at this point, but also global male overpopulation due to female-specific infanticide, all existing in a worldwide rape/PIV culture…well TBH it seems like a sci-fi horror flick at this point. i mean really. its really really scary.

11. Alexis Flamethrower Daimon - January 1, 2015

Yes it’s scary. Everytime I look at males, i remember that they only exist because of rape. Adn especially males from extremely woman-hating cultures where the women are literally slaves and they are forced to bear child after child after child and especially SON after son after son..look at the males, they are obviously degenerated mutant parasitic demons. You can see it just looking at them.
Women have lived in a patrix that terrorizes, tortures and brainwashes us into not even understanding what exactly is happening, all the while men are running amok, destroying everything alive and raping us senseless in order to steal our life force and reproduce themselves. It’s a horror show, literally. And it’s even scarier that most women believe to *love* (some) men and that (mainstream, even “mainstream radical”) feminism has now deteriorated into a movement centered around the most delusional males (trans) and is refusing to acknowledge well established facts, like biology, and biological factors in male behaviour.
And at the same time, male violence and necrophilia and female suffering are completely normalized and turned into all kinds of entertainment. Turn on the television and watch any random movie and it’s always the same thing: male violence and necrophilia and female suffering and it’s comedy, or drama, or horror movie, but it’s NEVER taken seriously as the horror show that it is.
It really makes me wonder what they are, because at this point they and their culture are utterly alien to me.

FCM - January 1, 2015

and speaking of feedback loops and global climate change…i predict that we are going to lose more commercial airplanes this year, and that the cause will be related to extreme weather. this has (likely) happened twice now. also, if people are going to be making any major decisions this year, i would suggest taking the possibility of abrupt global climate change into consideration, and to “live” as if you want to survive it, or live like you want to die in it. either way it probably doesnt matter in the big picture, but…if you are in the US, dont live to the east of any of the great lakes due to lake effect snow (thanks buffalo, NY for this heads-up). and dont live in tornado alley if you can help it, or on a flood plain, or anywhere near a river, ocean or anywhere that the tide is likely to cause flooding. just think about it, is all im saying.

FCM - January 1, 2015

yes alexis, i now believe it is much worse than i ever imagined, and certainly way worse than any mainstream/public feminism, including radical feminism would ever admit. i think the window to change things likely passed decades ago wrt global climate change, and the window to stop the maleness problem closed centuries ago, before global overpopulation started. once global overpopulation began, especially global male overpopulation, it was all over due to the problem of exponential growth/feedback loops. there are so many more males alive now, and for the last several hundred years, than there ever should have been and this has been a direct affront to natural law which would never have allowed it in the absence of brutal and unnatural pro-male anti-female social engineering, done by men to benefit themselves. honestly, once you get the concept of feedback loops, and exponential change, it becomes very easy to see how men have done us all in and to accept that this is in fact the case.

12. Alexis Flamethrower Daimon - January 1, 2015

I agree with you about the airplanes. this is a thought that has crossed my mind too. This scares me (even though it gives me some kind of satisfaction, because airplaines are unnatural and natural law is now finally taking care of it), because I really want to visit radical feminist friends of mine, who live all across the globe as well as my family, who also lives in other parts of the world. And since this is going to get worse, it means that seeing my extended family is going to get more difficult if not impossible at some point and that is really sad. I am already quite scared of flying, and i never used to be and I have been flying to see my family for all my life. I never used to be scared. I am now, everytime there are turbulences I think: this is not natural. the plane i mean. and if its unnnatural, then natural law says I shouldn’t be doing it.
I predict that 2015 will be “historic”. wars, planecrashes, natural catastrophes, male escalating even more on all level, BUT also a re-emergence of female power. And I don’t mean this in the sense of “women will fix society, ” I’m totally with you that this si impossible. but in terms of women’s survival, this is good. In terms of MY survival, this gives me hope. I want to survive, and I will center my energy around that.
Happy New Year, btw! Glad you are temporarily back. My journey into awareness started with you, not sure if you are aware. So thank you!

13. Mary Sunshine - January 1, 2015

FCM, your above comment is a precise summary of the state of this planet. Eminently quotable.

FCM - January 1, 2015

which comment mary?

wrt airplanes, so far, if it turns out that the 2 “disappeared” malaysian based airplanes were lost because of extreme weather, it seems like this has begun in a certain area of the world first. we do know that the most recent one was weather related, because the pilots asked permission to divert course due to weather, then for “unknown” reasons disappeared, and crashed into the sea. the earlier one hasnt been found at all and we have no evidence at all what happened to it. but i suspect both planes ran into abrupt extreme weather, possibly something that literally no one has ever seen before. i think this will happen more and more, and that planes will start crashing or “vanishing” in this part of the world now. it might start happening elsewhere as well but currently the evidence indicates it is somewhat regional.

14. Mary Sunshine - January 1, 2015

FCM, this one:

” … . i think the window to change things likely passed decades ago wrt global climate change, and the window to stop the maleness problem closed centuries ago, before global overpopulation started. once global overpopulation began, especially global male overpopulation, it was all over due to the problem of exponential growth/feedback loops. there are so many more males alive now, and for the last several hundred years, than there ever should have been and this has been a direct affront to natural law which would never have allowed it in the absence of brutal and unnatural pro-male anti-female social engineering, done by men to benefit themselves. honestly, once you get the concept of feedback loops, and exponential change, it becomes very easy to see how men have done us all in and to accept that this is in fact the case.”

FCM - January 1, 2015

also, stay away from florida altogether, and avoid the east and gulf coasts and anywhere hurricanes are likely to hit including as far north as new york (long island and new york city). i know we do not have complete control over where we live oftentimes, but if you are in the position to choose, choose wisely. always good advice!

15. WordWoman - January 2, 2015

Also, avoid drought stricken areas or ones that are most likely to be so. Look at the things that have happened in australia, for instance. In the US we are aware of california, but other places have been much worse. I’ve never been in an extreme drought, but was shocked to see how quickly things go up in flame in a relatively mild one.

Back a while ago new agers made much of the idea that a butterfly’s wings could set off a large weather event elsewhere. The new agers used this idea urging a small action of something positive or how chanting a mantra could solve world hunger. But instead I think we will see the other side of the coin here. Severe and extreme changes, instead. Not to the good.

FCM - January 2, 2015

the new agers say many things i find fascinating, and not in a good way! the idea that “it will all work out in the end” positive thinking stuff is obviously correct in a big picture sense, of course it will “work out” how could it not? but they weirdly interpret this to apply to the small-picture too, as in everything will work out FOR THEM. nu-uh, sorry. how utterly banal and boring that they are such clueless narcissists, just like everyone else.

kind of OT, but i hung around with some new agers for a time, and one thing that has stayed with me all these years was their rather precious ‘splanations of male violence. they believed that every “soul” has to experience literally every experience available/possible to all humankind at least once…so all of us will at some point come back as a jeffrey dahmer, or an ariel castro, or a cleveland strangler, and we will all come back as victims too, and walmart greeters, and gardners, and third world children. endless incarnations, although i think they thought this would end at some point and that it was possible to experience “everything” as if men dont keep pushing the envelope as far as whats possible in the field of torture and necrophilia right? anyway, its probably stuck with me all this time because it was such an egregious mindfuck it was actually traumatic to hear it — male “gurus” describing hideous male crimes of torture and necrophilia to the flock, knowing that the females would identify with the victims always and dissociate, while at the same time they are being rather forced to feel “empathy” for the male perpetrators because it was just their souls time, you see, and because we will be in their shoes too at some point and we will need empathy too when its our turn to rape, torture and murder (against our wills, because we had to, because we never had, and you have to do everything once). they really believe this. rape, torture and murder are therefore not male crimes, but crimes of genderless souls who are fulfilling their destinies…and besides, they “come back” as victims toooo! so victimhood is not gendered either. and it all works out in the end — once you have done everything once, your soul gets to move on. no consequences of being either a victim or a perpetrator, everything was just a valueless experience, and nothing means anything. its *almost* as if every single belief system, including radical feminism, has a way to ‘splain away male violence while demanding women feel empathy for violent males. every fucking one.

16. Black Metal Valkyrie - January 2, 2015

Your recent posts have really got me thinking, radical feminists like us (those who reject reformism) were likely fun fems and reformist rad fems once. We are often very good at activating because we have done the hardest activism for a long time. Who else is pressured to clarify obvious shit over and over as much as feminists do? Even the fact that we are oppressed, and that patriarchy exists! I was reading something written by a friend on Facebook about how she was activating for single moms in Australia- despite fierce protest and activism against tearing down of the social safety net specifically for single moms in that country absolutely nothing was achieved. Their work was largely ignored and she was exhausted after. There is no kind of activism more derided than activism for women or it is appropriated for male ends aka DGR. I’m sure I would be harassed if I held up a sign saying “porn is male violence against women. BAN PORN!” Why am I expected to put myself at a high risk of male violence to be “true to the cause”? Of course most of mens so called art is porn but you know the particularly degrading trash I mean. Online activism is so derided by people like DGR but if I didn’t have internet access I would probably know nothing about how to articulate why prostitution and porn are torture to women. How are you supposed to do useful activism when you aren’t properly informed? Anyways, your recent posts have made me consider that maybe our honed skills would be better off activating for very narrow causes. For example, a particular disease, an animal shelter etc. We could inconspicuously sneak in points about how this particular problem effects women, with the activism hopefully leading to indirect positive effects for women. In some cases it may only be some women, not women as a class, but still. I was wondering what your opinion on this is. Should we avoid activism altogether? I am interested on activism for CFS, since I suffer from it personally. In one of your recent posts you mention taking in stray animals and I thought you might be interested in this link if you are involved with any shelters. I like the fact it dramatically lowers testosterone in male cats so they will hopefully be less abusive to the female cats – http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/calcium-chloride-for-males/

17. Black Metal Valkyrie - January 2, 2015

I can totally relate to what you’re saying about new agers, and it is deeply disturbing. I also find these new age types often lazily fiddle with social justice issues they have a very poor understanding of. That is why they and the public is general are likely to critically embrace pro-porn, pro-prostitution, trannies and other pseudo causes. This is a good blog for an example of spiritual, new agey, pagan types being pseudo socially conscious. They call these people “hard polytheists”, they are people that believe gods and goddesses are beings that really exist. I’m sorry I am not linking to a particular example, I can’t find the search function. I used to be interested in it myself until I read Daly’s critique of Dionysus.

https://lokisbruid.wordpress.com/

I believe being politically/socially informed, understanding how class based analysis works and then involving spiritual beliefs is much more healthy.

18. bronte71 - January 2, 2015

FCM: You mentioned the disappearance of certain Malaysian airlines or affiliated to Malaysia aeroplanes this past year and attributed the first and third to weather conditions in the area. If you hadn’t mentioned that I would not be writing this.
Please google, “false flag operation” and apply it to the disappearance of the first, the downing of the second over Ukraine, ask yourself why they were both Malaysian, and then ask yourself, “Cui bono?” Who benefits? Who does it serve? Nothing to do with the weather conditions in the Pacific.

There is one more thing WRT to the situation the world finds itself in today because of men and their “Terminator will never stop” mentality. I don’t know how many of you reading are aware of the surreal, La La fantasy land amounts of propaganda expounded in the corporate mass media over the past year; so much of it that I find myself living in a down the rabbit hole, total reversal of the truth – with jingle bells on- world. Some days I just want to run away and hide and become a hermit for the rest of my life (where?) because I just can’t stand the unrelenting barrage of lies and propaganda anymore.

Hello, George Orwell. I bet you are spinning fast in your grave because your novel, 1984, was correct.
You only got the year wrong: 2014.
Re: “We have always been at war with Eurasia” to anyone who wishes to understand.
Also google, Wolfowitz Doctrine, the Grand Chessboard, the petrodollar system, TTIP, BRICS and connect the dots. I won’t indicate more than that because I’ve never been interested in telling any person how to think. However, I DO care that they begin thinking. Even if they totally disagree with me.

Because of my former work, I spend a lot of time reading the international finance news websites (the alternative media websites.)
“Another year of putting lipstick on the zombie known as the global economy” is what the last article I have just read stated and I agree. I’m not the only one around who is amazed that the global economy is still functioning: a miracle for many reasons.

Anyway, one of the reasons for this comment is that to a growing number of people around the net, it is crystal clear that the reason for the unrelenting barrage of outrageous lies and cheapest propaganda in the corporate mass media (worse than it has ever been) over the past year is because of preparations for war. The corporate media is banging its war drums.

That war, if not averted somehow, is going to be a global war and it will affect every part of the planet; at least economically if nothing else.
These days I’m no longer much interested in the climate catastrophe we are living through. For me it’s a done deal. Too many tipping points reached.
Instead, what disturbs me is that most of the Western world – the corporate mass media attached world- is under the spell of the current wave of propaganda. I’m interested more in how women are going to cope in a collapsed economy and a possible World War III.

There, I’ve said it.
But those women can’t cope rationally if their heads are filled with the insultingly cheap, emotion-tugging Orwellian propaganda that passes as “news” these days.

The ultimate reason for this comment.: please do not accept as truth what you are reading in the mass media. Dig deeper. Dig much much deeper and connect the dots. There are a lot of alternative media websites around (still, until they get rid of them) that clarify what is really happening today.

When I go down – because I hold no illusions about this- I want my eyes fully open as to why. I would wish this on every women. To me, that is the only and final homage or tribute I can give to the millions of my foresisters who went down before me because of male violence, greed and power hungriness.
And no, I am not a “conspiracy theorist” at all. In a former lifetime I used to hang out with a lot of those power hungry, corrupt men. I know how they think. And I understand what they are doing to the world.

19. WordWoman - January 2, 2015

@FCM ” male “gurus” describing hideous male crimes of torture and necrophilia to the flock, knowing that the females would identify with the victims always and dissociate, while at the same time they are being rather forced to feel “empathy” for the male perpetrators ”

Trauma bonding for a group. Perfect description of the Stockholm syndrome. These guys know exactly what they are doing. Plus it explains away their abuse of women in their group. They abuse women and children in horrendous ways from what we have seen in numerous cases that have been reported in the media.

Plus new age groups often seem to insert their way into various environmental groups and then drain off the energy of the group, most often the gynergy. This is because people are desperate for answers since they are the ones who are less likely to have their heads in the sand. They also distort important ideas like intuition, making it into something it is not, another gynergy diversion. This is one reason new agey groups piss me off so much. I think much of the earlier feminists got diverted into such groups.

Well, back to the 99.9% idea, one thing it does is encourage trust. In my family, the women were trusting, the males were mistrustful. Did they know something we were kept from knowing? By statistics like this one. I say “were” because it certainly set me up for betrayal of trust. I related to what Bronte said in the last post about being betrayed a number of times and becoming very cautious as a result. Not necessarily a bad thing.

I think the 99.9% idea is like a new agey thing, too. Masked as science. Oddly, the rapey beliefs you describe are the other side of the same coin. And, ha ha taking gender out of it completely. Nothing new under the sun.

20. WordWoman - January 2, 2015

@FCM: “please understand: i am not saying any of this to endlessly repeat myself, as i have grown weary of hearing myself (and others) talk. i am saying this here, now, because women have said in their own words that they are basing their entire lives and their entire activism on the assumption that men can and will stop raping us, and that its not innate to men to do this. activist women believe the data/evidence supports this conclusion — that rape is socially constructed — but it absolutely does not. ”

My point about trust and mistrust is exactly this. My warning to any woman experiencing betrayal, even a hint of it, is to look at the bigger picture and the science. I’m hoping, with you, that the learning curve will be much shorter if women are warned about this, or they will know what to look for and preserve their gynergy for of themselves and women. Goddess knows we need it now and for the future.

21. cherryblossomlife - January 2, 2015

Article at the New Statesman today saying that while we should campaign for the big important things, but we also shouldn’t forget to campaign about the small things too.

lol

“The lesson for feminism in 2015: it’s worth campaigning for small victories as well as big ones

When we think about changing the world, we usually think big. But even the biggest oppression is made of small, seemingly insignificant things, and it is just as worthwhile to campaign for these issues”

And what do we need in an article about feminism, but a large, long ramble detailing a man’s opinion, a man who insists that campaigning for the small things are crucial..

“John Coventry, Global Communications Director at Change.org, the online petition platform, agrees. It is the small changes, he insists, that are crucial. He even has a name for them: “the little big things”. You have to take people with you, he says, and the way to do that, is to begin from where they are and start a conversation. “No one has a god-given right to have people believing immediately in their big abstract concept of what they want to see changed. We have a duty as campaigners to take them on that journey to where we are. There are lots of little steps to bring them on that way. And the most important thing that people will hear, the most important story that you can tell them, is the story of winning.”

FCM - January 2, 2015

omg! haha! i assume “Global Communications Director at Change.org” is a paid position…but obviously thats not the only problem with this. i find myself pondering, in the case of feminism, what does mr. man imagine are “small victories”? honestly i cannot even think of one, and certainly nothing of any size that starting a petition would fix. can you? how utterly, utterly absurd.

FCM - January 2, 2015

also, lmao @ “winning.” feminism wins! yay! lolol

22. cherryblossomlife - January 2, 2015

Feminism: The Story of Winning

lol

23. cherryblossomlife - January 2, 2015
24. Sargasso Sea - January 2, 2015

“No one has a god-given right to have people believing immediately in their big abstract concept…”

Except men, of course. Lolol!

Whadda dick…

25. sellmaeth - January 2, 2015

@ Black Metal Valkyrie: Now that you mention it, it would be interesting to know how many women suffer from CFS compared to men. Like depression, that might be a disease ultimately caused by patriarchy. I’ll google the statistics.

An aquaintance of mine suffers from CFS she suspects was caused by an infection she never properly recovered from – that is very typical for women, working while ill, isn’t it? Even those who could afford to stay in bed often feel it is their duty to go to work.

FCM - January 3, 2015

i would like to start a petition for derrek jensen to kill himself. if you think about it for half a second, you realize the problem with starting a petition for derrek jensen to kill himself is the same problem with petitioning for feminist change — the only person who can suicide derrek jensen is derrek jensen. get it? also, i have not seen petitioning being widely used for feminist causes anyway, have i missed it? what would that even look like? i am really wondering.

26. bronte71 - January 3, 2015

“The lesson for feminism in 2015: it’s worth campaigning for small victories as well as big ones.”

Cherryblossom, articles such as the New Statesman one you cited are an example of what I meant by the current tsunami of propagandizing in corporatized media.
Notice the man used the word ‘victories’ and ‘win.’ You think he chose those expressions accidentally?

We are going to see a lot more of this urging women to ‘campaign’ for ‘victory’ to ‘win’ as the economic situation in the Western world/ daily life worsens.
Translation : the corporate media – or “presstitutes” for the government as they are being called by some today- are going to slowly, slowly, ever so slowly begin ratcheting up campaigns exhorting women to “shoulder the burden……for your children, your men, your nation and the world !!!”

The Austrian feminist, Claudia von Werlhof, has emphasized in many of her essays that “patriarchy is built on the back of matriarchy.”
I think we are going to begin seeing how correct she was: women forever rescuing men whenever their stupid systems fail; women forever shouldering the burden for male ‘victory’ and to ‘win.”

I have never liked anyone tugging at my heart strings and personal well of empathy and caring for their own purposes: probably why I have always eschewed activism. These days I’m more alert than ever at the pulling of women’s heartstrings-emtions in the mass media because I understand why it is being done.
NB: Edward Bernays “Propaganda.”

During World War II we had the Rosie the Riveter war effort media campaigns to get women out of the kitchen and into the factories. After World War II, more media campaigns to get back into the kitchen.
However, Claudia von Werlhof for anyone who wants to read her:

http://www.fipaz.at/werlhof3.pdf

27. bronte71 - January 3, 2015

Sorry, that should be “more media campaigns to get women back into the kitchen.”


Sorry comments are closed for this entry