Dear White Male Activists. Collect Your Pigs. Jesus. July 22, 2015Posted by FCM in feminisms, liberal dickwads, meta, race.
Tags: police brutality, racialized misogyny, racism, sandra bland, woman murder
white male activists of every stripe, but especially the enviros and liberal progressives like DGR males (no matter what you call yourselves, and no, you arent radical) could do something about this if they wanted to. but they arent, even though they arent generally opposed to doing both underground and above board “actions” designed to bring XYZ to its knees.
it apparently doesnt occur to these white male pig activists to “start” by neutralizing their own personal brute squad, but it wouldnt, would it?
you are disgusting fucking cowards who get off on images of black women being brutalized by other white males, and you and only you benefit when a black woman is killed for calling a white male pig a coward and a pussy.
you dont actually want it to stop. but you know that already. and so do i.
99.9% Rape Free December 31, 2014Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, meta, rape.
Tags: activism, defining rape, rape, rape free cultures
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.
A Final Analysis August 19, 2013Posted by FCM in feminisms, meta, radical concepts.
Tags: blogging, retirement
this might be a multi-part post, im not sure yet! recently ive become aware that there are costs to doing this kind of work, and that this should never be ignored or minimized. i have therefore been applying a cost-benefit analysis to my own involvement in this “movement” — in general, this is something women are never (ever, ever) supposed to do. in no circumstances ever, anywhere in life, are we supposed or allowed to consider what XYZ is costing us, and whether its worth it to us. we are the only actors in any economy whose work has no value, and when we are harmed it is not harmful. for my part, i have very publically utilized the cost-benefit analysis in other areas, and now im applying it to this one — whether or not to continue blogging here or anywhere.
to be clear, i consider “magic” to be a benefit, as well as creativity and change, so its not a matter of playing Economist in any obvious or obviously male ($) sense, just in a balancing sense. the cost-benefit model is a natural model that follows natural law, not mens law. or, it is if you do it right.
it seems to me that at this point, there is very little to be gained in comparison to what is being lost and what it is costing me (and “us”) in continuing down this road. to wit, modding a high-volume, priority-target blog has always been a chore whose cost is only outweighed where there are plenty of good comments coming in, inspiring new work. spinning and spiraling, in other words. where comments are down for whatever reason, modding and otherwise maintaining this space becomes very costly. thats not the only issue, but it is the final issue for anyone who is interested in analyzing cost/benefit, which i obviously am.
as additional context, and i am only repeating myself here, in my experience, and as confirmed by the writing/experiences of women who came before, once you get to a certain point in your radical consciousness, the “movement” spits you out like a bad fig. just squirts you right out, and “masticating” would not be a bad analogy for what “it” does to you right before. testing your resolve, seeing if you might be broken or broken down and whether or not you can be molded and made more palatable, or made palatable again. and probably other things. there are very few of us afterall, and some of us are interested in numbers. those of us who have lost our figginess or potential figginess or whatever are of no use to those who are making money off this, or who are doing it to win friends and influence (large numbers of) people or any other patriarchal agenda. which is not really a surprise now is it?
and in the end, if you arent a fig or a particularly palatable fig, youre a nut (or the gray, unappetizing pudding which is fun-feminism) — ask any exiled radfem/revolting ex-reformist. the nuts, apparently, are those who come to certain conclusions about men and maleness, and who reject “palatability” and politicking on feminist grounds because they hold no promise to free us.
and for reasons i am beginning to completely (even intimately) understand, the “nuts” arent generally commenting on radfem blogs, or having anything whatsoever to do with “radical feminism” or with what i am calling “figgishness” which is no more and no less than a product bought and sold. thats the bottom line really, for me, as a radfem blogger/modder and creator/co-creator of this space, which was always partially or mostly purposed by/toward conversation and advancing radical thought.
i will, of course, leave the archives intact, and will accept comments below, as long as people are discussing. and i may (or may not) write a followup post. thanks for reading and contributing (spinning and spiraling) to femonade!
Women Didn’t Do It. That’s the Point. July 22, 2013Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, gender roles, meta.
Tags: electricity, gender, male violence, sonia johnson, time travel
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.
A 10,000-Year War? Not Likely. July 16, 2013Posted by FCM in feminisms, meta, radical concepts, rape, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: language, metaphors, natural disasters, rape, war
the global subjugation of women throughout historical time (and probably since before even that) is kind of its own thing, is it not? the worldwide oppression of women as a sexual class by men as a sexual class — 3.5 billion of each by now — is simply unprecedented, and unsurprisingly we find ourselves mostly without the words to describe this. we do the best we can, invoking metaphors. in the case of the global oppression of women by men that transcends time, we have used “war” as a metaphor (and had it pushed on us) but is this apt? im thinking its probably not.
women are a non-entity in the war-model or are its sexy-funtime/spoils. we are “collateral damage” even where we are more maimed and more killed than the men fighting it, by the men fighting it — besides, women get it with both barrels whether “our side” has won or lost. peace, war — these concepts are largely meaningless to us, where both war and peace are (traditionally) political, and follow mens laws. all mens laws, including the one that says that men have a right to oppress women globally, that they can rape and murder us for any reason or no reason, and do so with impunity, and that they need never stop. in war, even if we’ve won, we’ve lost. is this where we want to begin thinking about liberating ourselves from male dominance? i think not.
also, a 10,000-year war? really?
since we (i guess?) need a metaphor to describe/conceptualize/realize womens oppression by men, since there are no words, can we at least pick a better one? lets try. firstly, anything evoking/invoking mens laws is right out, where mens overarching law is that women shall not be free of men ever, and we shall always be subjugated and oppressed no matter what. so what else is there? natural law i guess — this is where there is no distinction made between “power” and “founded claim of right to exercise it.” cause and natural, necessary effect. like when its raining so hard you literally cant see, so you *cant* go outside, if only for a few minutes at a time; or *if* you do go, your decision is adjudicated by a natural authority to have been poor, or even very poor. this is the best example i can come up with at the moment, although there are most certainly others.
so does nature offer us a model/metaphor that makes more sense than the war-one, and where we actually have a shot at surviving/thriving? note that i did not say winning — thats war-talk. as some of you probably know, ive been working with the “natural disaster” model for a while now. and i think it fits. now, im not saying anything about whether mens global oppression of women is natural, like a hurricane is natural, although if i did address it i would suggest that its more or less “natural” for them, but wholly unnatural for us. or, maybe its “natural” in the exact same way that natural disasters are natural actually — because over time, through exercising known male propensities which transcend time and place (and therefore, social conditioning) such as shameless greed, outrageous arrogance, and constant attempts to overpower and outsmart nature mens infrastructure, isnt. the inevitable occurs (a tsunami; semen exposure causing pregnancy) and women, children and indeed everything dies (homes built too close to the sea; global overpopulation/maternal mortality). yes that sounds about right!
anyhoo, the thing about using metaphors for womens global oppression by men is that they are being used to describe a political reality, and therefore implicate political strategy. dont they? if we use “war” this implicates allies, winning/losing and importantly, fighting/mortal combat where numerous casualties are expected; in the case of mens (10,000 year!!! at least!!!) war on women, women are also expected to continue to engage with men apparently indefinitely, and voluntarily place ourselves in harms way apparently forever. even as we know that men feed off womens attention and gynergy, and that they would likely (or absolutely, in the case of male children) die without it. that cant be good.
whereas in the case of natural disasters (or man-made disasters due to mens necrophilia and foreseeable failures of man-made infrastructure) and surviving natural disasters, the strategy implicated is notably and demonstrably different. among other things, the immediate response to natural disasters by people who are actually there (not the government obviously) are necessarily swift; they are regional, localized or even hyper-localized/individualized out of necessity and reasonableness (and instinct); and narrowly-tailored to fit the circumstances. importantly, in the midst of a natural disaster, no one can tell you what to do, and you would be a fool to wait around for it anyway because emergency, and because they arent there to even know whats happening to you — you are.
only you know exactly what is going down on the ground wherever you are, and what you need to do to
fix survive it, including getting the hell out of the way, and the wise and natural thing and indeed the only thing to do in this situation is to “save yourself” and those physically close to you/within arms reach. and these are not individual solutions in a pomo or choosy-choice way. under a natural disaster model, there are very few choices actually, and little individualism for that matter — it is you responding to the collective reality in the place you are. here, instinct, imminence, necessity and survival carry the day. and anyone suggesting *that* is pomo garbage is selling something.
of course, i am aware that for women, the biggest problem in the aftermath of a natural disaster/failure of mens infrastructure is men, and male violence and sexualized violence. its the same problem with the war-model actually, only the war-model offers no solution and no hope to that particular problem, being that rape is built-in to the war-model as mens recreation and reward, and as a male strategy and indeed a male objective of war as a matter of fact. whereas getting the hell out of the way, and utilizing instinct and survival (not combat) skills offers the possibility of another outcome.