jump to navigation

Taking the Pin Out February 9, 2015

Posted by FCM in logic, meta, radical concepts.
Tags: , , ,

as long as i have produced radical feminist writing here and elsewhere, which has been over 6 years now, i have never expected or insisted that anyone come up with a solution to patriarchy.  to insist that, as a precondition to discussing/criticizing patriarchy, one must have a viable alternative in mind and share it with all of us in detail and have everyone agree that well i’ll be damned shes right, lets do THAT from now on! is thought terminating and unfair.  which is why everyone else demands exactly that — any woman who wishes to dares criticize patriarchy must have already solved the problem and be ready to furnish the solution, therefore, shut the fuck up.  get it?  being that there is no solution to patriarchy, this is in fact an airtight silencing technique, but even if there were a solution, women would not be the ones with the power to implement it.

even worse than its silencing intent and effect, requiring that women solve and offer a viable transition/alternative to the problem of patriarchy is thought-terminating.  if you cant change it, theres no sense criticizing it or even thinking about it right?  because what else could possibly be the point of absolutely anything except to propose and implement a solution?  keeping in mind, of course, that some 99% (or something) of all problems started out as solutions to other (man-made) problems.  seriously, look it up.  under patriarchy, solving anything is just another justification for fucking things up differently, and over time, in aggregate, fucking things up more. the point is definitely and obviously not to thoroughly understand and articulate the problem, or to imagine something completely different, or to reject sadism and necrophilia on principle (and therefore to reject men) across the board.  i mean whats in it for men if women do that?  that is not a rhetorical question, and deserves discussing.

anyway, because i know how painful thought-termination is, and how effectively it destroys radical space, i tried to never do it, and i never allowed anyone else to insist that women solve or even attempt to solve the problem of patriarchy as a precondition to discussing it in this space.  i think the quality and quantity of discussion here and on my other blogs over the years is testament to how well that and other things worked and how effective it was to foster truly radical thought.

however, in not requiring that anyone think about or discuss the end, we must have put a pin in it and saved it for later.  right?  surely we did not intend to ignore the topic completely, forever?  well, in my estimation, its time to take the pin out (or it will be time, sometime, as the intent was never to ignore or avoid the truth, quite the opposite in fact).  i personally never intended for anyone to stunt their own imaginations on the subject, but when i realized that global overpopulation and over male population were runaway self-reinforcing feedback loops (and likely unsolvable by anyone, perhaps least of all women) i felt quite alone in that.  i have never seen overpopulation and over male population discussed as a result/function of patriarchy — specifically rape, female-specific infanticide and pro-male prenatal and neonatal technologies, and generally taking control of reproduction out of womens hands and putting it into mens — but i think thats exactly what it is.  and as radical feminists, we should be in a unique position to understand and discuss it.  but by and large, we arent.  why not?  this is a serious question.

of course, what logically follows would be a discussion of the carrying capacity of the planet as well as global climate change related to male-caused resource extraction, which is well out of our (and most peoples) comfort zone.  and its a real drag having to rely on mens research and mens interpretation of the data in general, especially when it matters so much to us (women).

the good news is that i do not think its necessary, and that we can reach the same conclusions without mens research and potentially biased interpretations of the results thusly: a policy and practice of necrophilia, barring outside intervention, can only end in death; and a global policy and practice of necrophilia can only end in death on a global scale.  also, men rape and pillage, and rape creates more men (where men rape and pillage).  where there are finite resources to pillage, this cannot last forever.  get it?  this has to stop.  therefore, it will stop.  oh yes it will.  natural law does not operate the way mens law does — lets do the destructive thing increasingly, forever.  in the natural world, where resources are finite, and conclusions are logical, eventually you run out of things to destroy.

at any rate, radical feminists could take the pin out if they wanted to, and start thinking and talking about the end, or the likely end of patriarchy, and for reals, with none of this wishful-thinking stuff.  to jump off that bridge and to land where we land, no matter what.  to be honest and brave.  seeing as how thats womens natural state…being honest and brave i mean…it can maybe be done under the right circumstances, or with decades of practice and formal training.  lol.  that was a joke.  seriously, its not that hard.  or, if youre having trouble, just forget everything you know, and “feel” how its likely to end.  sit with the feeling for a long time, and eventually put words to the feeling.  or not, whatever.  in my estimation, feeling how patriarchy is likely to end counts.