jump to navigation

Not Chattel July 29, 2013

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revisiting SCUM July 5, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, pop culture.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

as probably everyone knows, valerie solanas shot pop-artist and celebrity andy warhol in 1968.  he survived his injuries and went on being andy warhol for another 20 years.  he didnt seem that upset about being shot — according to him, life was unreal anyway, he was incapable of experiencing emotion which television portrayed as strong and real but this did not match his own reality at all.  his “art” was flat and commercial, revealing no inner life or imagination at all.  one art critic said warhol was brilliant in his function as a mirror, reflecting our own (flat, commercial) culture back at us.  culture meaning patriarchy or male culture of course, which is indeed flat and commercial.  and dead.  necrophilic, if you will.  warhol was an inanimate object perfectly reflecting death — and this was a favorable review!

may i suggest here that andy warhol was also a walking target for other men?  especially if they knew they could get away with it, how many men would’ve killed warhol themselves if given the chance?  a certain segment of the (male) population would’ve happily killed him for being the son of immigrants, another would’ve killed him for being gay, another group would’ve done it while they were robbing him — he was very wealthy you know.  and jealousy.  or because his art sucked (the critics largely hated him).  there are a million “reasons” men have for killing other men of course, but if one looks closely enough, and taking into consideration mens necrophilia generally, one might see that most (all) of these arent really reasons at all, but justifications.  like, what if being gay (or whatever) isnt a reason to kill someone but a justification applied either before or after the fact to something a man simply wants to do and does?  that would kind of turn things on their head wouldnt it?

so back to solanas.  she shot warhol, but didnt kill him.  she was incarcerated for 3 years for this and is remembered as one of the most hated women who ever lived because of what she did.  or was it because of what she said?  or both?  note that men actually love it when women attempt to (or succeed in) maiming and killing men because that opens the door to formal, institutional and state control of us — it has nothing to do with valuing men which they clearly dont.  men are simply and obviously of no value to other men, and indeed this is reflective of natural law whereby men are largely redundant, and where one woman is worth millions and even billions of men.  this is the truth of the matter and men seem to understand this — whereupon they parasitically attach themselves to and leech off of women from cradle to grave (either their grave our ours).

so what could possibly be mens beef with valerie solanas and with women who dare read her and appreciate her work?  (jeez, doods, thought-police much?)  while the value of a man to another man (or a mans own value to himself) is approaching zero and they show us this all the time, women, since we are not men ourselves, must apply a cost-benefit analysis to determine mens worth — an objective, not a subjective valuation.  for an objective valuation, the equation is benefit minus cost.  isnt it?  solanas named mens parasitic nature/behavior for what it is, and the concept of male parasitism falls squarely on the cost-side, and it is a devastating one.  women report being life-sucked by men constantly but are mostly without words to describe this.

did valerie solanas dare identify/suggest objective criteria by which we might measure mens worth?  oh dear.  re-reading SCUM confirms that she did.  men and mensworld are boring, fatherhood is destructive — and mens life-sucking parasitism — these things represent *costs* to women of living in mensworld and indeed of having men around at all.  there is plenty of fertile radfem ground here and plenty to think about and discuss.  but you know whats even more interesting to me at the moment?  solanas’s SCUM manifesto was just a damn good read.  it was interesting mkay?  it was thought-provoking, audacious and clear.

yes thats right!  valerie solanas, public enemy number one, gave women something interesting to read.

That Explains That. (Or, ‘Witchcraze’ Pt. 3) May 26, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, logic, meta, politics, pop culture.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

ive been seriously wondering for years how certain radical feminist writers managed to get published.  actual, real published in the sense of actual, real publishing houses, with editorial controls, factchecking (where the official “facts” are either baldfaced lies or spin, or where the real truth is unknowable) bank checks to be written and cashed and various patriarchal gatekeepers throughout the process.  how did daly, dworkin or anyone manage to get their work out there despite all the obstacles specifically designed to quash and erase womens work in general and radical feminist work in particular?  i wondered this from the first time i read dworkin and the question has lingered.  lingered!

welp.  reading and finishing anne llewellyn barstows ‘witchcraze’ has been eye-opening in more ways than one.  i mentioned earlier that barstow concludes that women as a class — having been relentlessly hunted, raped, tortured and murdered in a stunning period of global gendercide against women — understandably “kept a lower profile for several centuries” following the official period of the burning times, meaning after the period of 1560-1760 (or after 1800 depending on the source).  (p. 29)  bawdy women, women who talked back to men, were “scolds” or prominent members of the community for any reason (perhaps especially midwives and healers) having been put in their place by 2 centuries of unbridled misogyny and woman-murder, carried out by men and male institutions, all women understandably laid low after that.  for several centuries.  several.  centuries.

doing the math, and understanding that “several” generally means three or more, we see that the period of “laying low” wouldve ended by about 2060 or so.  its still happening, in other words.  but she doesnt say it.  and she uses the past-tense — women kept a lower profile — which reverses what she actually means.  she doesnt mean to say that this ever ended, but she does say it.  or more accurately, she says both, but the effect is to communicate that it ended at some point when that cannot be concluded from her own research or her own words.  a mindfuck effect.  later, she concludes that, as a result of the burning times,

[w]omen began to protest less in general.  From having, at the end of the Middle Ages, a reputation for being scolds and shrews, bawdy and aggressive, women began to change into the passive, submissive type that symbolized them by the mid-nineteenth century.

(p. 158).  what she doesnt do is make any statement at all about the “feminizing” effect of the global witchhunt by men against women carrying over into modern times or address how and indeed whether it still affects us at all.  it does, of course.  how could it not? and why would anyone assume or believe otherwise — that women found their voice at some point — and if anyone did think that, when exactly did this happen and how?

the mystery of how barstow got published has been answered to my satisfaction, and the answer appears to be that she didnt make any useful political connections or draw any relevant feminist conclusions from her own work.  instead, she makes the historical point, and the math takes us well into the future but she doesnt explain how or indeed whether the patriarchal purpose (intent and effect) of the witchcraze is relevant now, or how or whether it will continue to be relevant into the future or perhaps forever.  she leaves the reader to do that, and in fact no thinking person who was both paying attention and interested in the subject matter could reasonably conclude otherwise, based on her work and the information she provides.  hmmm.

as for daly and dworkin, it seems as if the same principle applies, and obviously so, so dont shoot the messenger mkay.  specifically, dworkin criticized PIV — intercourse — to within in inch of its life (as a patriarchal institution that benefits men at womens expense) but what she never said was that PIV-as-sex or for pleasure alone was inherently oppressive to women.  and when asked to clarify, she did — as everyone knows, she said that it was her belief that intercourse-as-sex could and would survive equality.  what she didnt do was explain how or why she thought that, or indeed how that conclusion reasonably followed from her own work.  it doesnt, by the way.

and daly, as i recall, (as many radical feminists do) used “5000 years” as the age of patriarchy, concluding that patriarchy is therefore a social (read: not biological) phenomenon with a beginning, and that therefore it will have an end.  but in reality, it seems as if institutionalized patriarchy began about 5000 years ago, and merely codified and formalized the previously informal patriarchal controls and structures that already existed everywhere anyway.  daly (and others!) using the 5000-years tidbit didnt lie exactly, but did the actual, real (whole) truth no favors and made it harder in some ways to draw reasonable conclusions based on the evidence.

now, im not calling daly or dworkin liars, or handmaidens or disparaging their work at all, i dont think, by calling attention to what was very likely a calculated trick or strategy used in order to get published in the patriarchal press.  in fact i appreciate both of them very much, including whatever strategies they mightve employed to think, write and publish because their work changed my life and my brain etc etc.  i feel about both of them the way you probably do — with love, admiration, gratitude and awe.  and probably other things.  amiright?

but what i am saying is this.  because published radical feminists (obviously) have to make concessions in order to be published at all, in order to get to the real, actual (whole) truth, other radical feminists have to read very closely, and not just *some* radical work but as much radical work as possible by a lot of different authors and make the connections ourselves.  *we* still have to figure out what the hell is going on, and take these radical thoughts to their logical ends.  this makes truth-seeking very difficult as its made both time consuming and frustrating.  and as is always the case, these half-truths and thought-termination/truncation make it decidedly *unobvious* that there is, in fact, any further truth to be revealed at all, or any obfuscating strategies being applied at all.

in the case of radical feminist publications in particular, its entirely possible that, since men cannot truly understand radical feminism, male editors and publishers didnt and in fact couldnt take these thoughts to their ends and understand the implications of any of it, including where and how it went off the rails, or was inconsistent, incomplete or unclear.  and being that men conflate “pleasing” with male-pleasing, they cant even identify that — male-pleasing as a political strategy (used to get published, despite being irrational or not reasonably following from the material) or as a “politic” at all.  even though it obviously is one.

of course, since i believe that the radical feminists that came before were some of the most intelligent, ingenious and creative humans who ever lived, i can only assume that this was deliberate on their part, and if it was, that they counted on us to realize what was happening and to do what they likely couldnt — to use their published work as a springboard and to take this material and these thoughts further, deeper and wider than anyone has ever done before.  to read between the lines and to use it in any and all ways to get to the actual, real (whole) truth about womens lives, and what men do to us, in order to liberate us from male dominance.  they are asking us to do this, i think, but in any event we are clearly invited to do it.  thats the point really.  not only the (historically gatekept, written) medium but the nature of radical feminist work itself absolutely invites our freedom of thought.  it just does.

Moron Creativity May 19, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, international.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

we have discussed creativity before here.  this post is more on that subject, and its also about men.  get it?  moron.  i always assume people get that, but maybe its just me.  sometimes i just make myself laugh and thats good enough, but as vonnegut once wrote, maybe people would like art more if the artist explained it a little?

i am currently reading about the witchcraze and one thing ive noticed, indeed its rather difficult not to, is that men were very creative in the ways they treated witches.  more to the point, they were creative torturers.  men came up with shit that would blow your mind if you only knew about it, and it *is* mindblowing to read about this stuff.  its mindblowing in the same way as reading the work and ideas of any creative genius is mindblowing as a matter of fact.  its shit you could never come up with yourself in a thousand years.  of course, the destructiveness of mens torture, when coupled with the creativity of it creates a mindfuck experience as well.  we have no words for this, as “create” and “destroy” are supposed to be opposites.  but they arent.  not for men anyway.

you see, i think its very obvious by now that men are creative torturers and creative destroyers.  in light of recent conversations about the innateness of mens destructiveness and violence, the idea of creativity hits the right note.  a good thing, too, because im getting sick of going around and around on this one.  because all of us, i think, are quite aware that some people are just naturally gifted in certain areas, and that this giftedness cannot be taught.  although we do not fully understand where natural giftedness comes from, we accept and admit that it is real.  we are perfectly comfortable saying people are naturally gifted in certain areas, music, sculpting, cooking, that kind of thing.  arent we?  naturally.  gifted.

welp.  men, as history and experience shows, are gifted at torture.  they really are.  and torture is violence taken to an artform, its violence imagined, designed and implemented with creativity.  isnt it?  if we are going to use other artforms or abilities as analogies, we could say that a naturally gifted person (like a painter or an athlete) can be coached or inspired, and that the gift can be developed and helped along.  but what we know we cant do is teach it.  okay?  creativity, and true creative talent, cannot be taught.  it is innate, and we fucking well know this.

and as men are creative in the area of violence, otherwise known as torture, we can see that men are in fact naturally violent.  i think this is indisputable, and again, that the proof of innateness is that they are able to be creative about it.  they are gifted.  and the existence and pervasiveness of torture, perpetrated by men, globally, across time is absolute proof of this natural propensity and that men share this innate tendency because they are men.

now.  this does open up areas for discussion, and even hope.  because just as we know that creativity can be nurtured, we also know it can be stunted.  we can take away opportunities instead of providing them.  leisure time, money, and an understanding of what is possible based on what other people have done in the field, for example, are used to increase and encourage creative pursuits, and withholding these things can be used to stunt them.  we have lost many geniuses and natural creative talents this way in fact, and i daresay most of these lost geniuses were women due to womens general lack of all conditions and materials known to foster and nurture creativity.  we do this to female talent all the time.  and we have evidence, dont we, that creative talent can be stifled, if not snuffed out completely.

and now that ive thought this through a bit, i can see mens propensity for creative torture, including their torture devices everywhere.  its not just the political torturers and witchhunters, although they might be extreme — that is, different in degree but not kind.  womens clothing and shoes for example — known torture devices.  “restraining orders” that are naught but a piece of flimsy paper, creating a mindfuck.  get it?  and humiliation.  tampons and “pads that feel like diapers.”  as mundane as this kind of torture is, it is still creative.

of course, i could go on and on.  we all could because we all know.  ex-husbands paying child support late every month, in order to make women squirm.  by “sexualizing” intercourse, the only thing *in life* that creates unwanted pregnancy.  that kind of thing.  and in general by turning womens bodies against them in the many ways men do.  indeed, the “body being turned against the agent whose body it is” is the whole point of torture and this is accomplished through both pain and fear (in male terms).  of course, male bodies cant be literally hijacked, but ours can — through unwanted or forced pregnancy.  if anyone needs examples of the creative ways men torture other men, just google. trigger warning for extreme and graphic (and creative!) male violence.

but what im also thinking is not whether but how and how soon we can stunt mens natural propensity for violence?  if we cant do this, or if we dont want to, at least we know that it is possible.  and understanding and accepting, knowing, that men choose to nurture their gift for creative torture and violence instead of stunting it, when we all know they could, is evidence of something too.  oh yes it is.  maybe, maybe just talking about this will help.