jump to navigation

Heads Men Win, Tails Women Lose. Bring In the Dancing Lobsters March 10, 2013

Posted by FCM in feminisms, kids, logic, rape, thats mean.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

many of us know by now that if you play mens games (voluntarily or involuntarily) you are bound to lose, if you are a female-bodied person.  this might seem “unfair” or discriminatory or even like blatant insanity, and indeed some of us have been acting like this has all been just one big misunderstanding this whole time.  that if we could only articulate the unfairness (or insanity) it would be magically remedied.  as if the point of the game was equity, and the whole point was definitely NOT to benefit men at womens expense.  interestingly, the “accidental unfairness” principle seems to be both the premise and the conclusion of equality activating.  in other words, we work from the assumption that its all just a big mistake, and then no matter what evidence is forthcoming (including evidence that its all very deliberate indeed) we conclude that it mustve been an accident.

note that there is no room here for evidence, or reality, or changing course or anything except heading in the same direction forever.  a notably circular direction.  judge trudy — a skit from a childrens television program — illustrates the concept of bias and circular reasoning (and victim blaming!) perfectly.  the premise of judge trudy is that the judge always sides with the children no matter what.  the premise of the grown-up (patriarchal) legal system is not that different.  get it?

so i was thinking about the alleged “logistical problem” we have in our prison system where there simply is not enough room for all the men who commit crimes.  often times, violent offenders are released because there isnt enough room to house them all — one proposed remedy to this problem of overcrowding (of mens prisons by criminal men) has been to legalize drugs.  okay, thats not a bad idea — if men dont have legal remedies backing up their property rights to their drugs, they resort to violence.  give them ownership rights over their drugs and they might not kill each other over disputes of ownership, creating additional violent offenders “we” dont have room for.  and, like, the fact that using drugs is a “victimless crime” or whatever, so users wouldnt go to jail just for using or buying drugs.  but im more interested in the property ownership aspects of it at the moment.

we are all the time working with the understanding that men will kill each other and everyone if they are given even the slightest impetus to do so.  no one ever says this directly, but this is the reality of it, isnt it?  we wonder why men dont take rape seriously, and feminists speculate that its because a great number of men rape, and that they all benefit from it which is clearly true.  but you know what else is probably true?  the people who work in (patriarchal) law enforcement and the judicial system know for a fact that if he *only* raped you, you got off fucking easy.  you are lucky he didnt kill you on top of it because thats what men do.  and we dont have room for all the men who murder, attempt murder, or viciously assault, let alone those who “merely” rape, which is almost all of them depending on the definition you use (including the “legal” one, not incidentally).  there isnt enough room for all of them.  if men were punished for rape almost all of them would be in jail and practically none of them would be free and thats just no way to run a “society” is it?  (or is it?)

but what would happen if there was no more property ownership at all?  what if no one owned anything anymore, including drugs?  there would be more violent offenders, as men took it upon themselves to protect something that doesnt legally exist — ownership rights over property.  honestly, this outcome is quite terrifying, the upside being that suddenly there wouldnt be any more property offenses either.  so presumably we would have all that extra space in our prisons currently being taken up by the perpetrators of property crimes, including the only crime besides being prostituted that women commit more frequently than men — shoplifting.  we would finally have room for all the violent men who commit crimes of violence against actual people.  one might initially assume that this would include violent offenses men commit against women, but not so fast.

rape is still a property crime, see.  rape is not defined or discussed as other violent offenses are, as something harmful or reasonably likely to result in serious harm or death — it is defined and discussed in terms of “consent” which is the language of trespass, not violence.  as in trespassing, on someones property, get it?  we have discussed this before.  if we did away with property crimes, opening up all that extra space in jail for violent offenders, the number of violent offenders would skyrocket as they killed each other over property disputes (because men are more or less inherently violent and there is no way to stop this or change it — ask anyone except a reformist-oriented feminist!) but notably, rape wouldnt be a crime anymore at all.  men would kill each other for raping each others women so the murderers would be in jail but the rapists would be dead.

see what i did there?  it is suspiciously as if men cannot be jailed for committing rape under any circumstances, using any reasoning.  this quirk of reality could theoretically be “reformed” if it was an accident, but i dont think it is — if left to “chance” the statistical probability of any outcome (out of two) is about 50/50 but what we see is that men win all the time and women always lose, perhaps particularly in the area of criminalizing rape, and providing meaningful punishments/deterrents to men raping women.  so can you reform a system that is actually working perfectly, and exactly as it was intended?

perhaps more importantly, why would anyone want to?  dont you ever get sick of trying to teach men how to be good people (and then taking the blame when you almost inevitably fail)?  the fact appears to be that men want things more or less the way they are — if they didnt, they would change it themselves.  men, as a class, are violent, nasty and they oppress women voluntarily because they like oppressing women.  they oppress us no matter what — if there is such a thing as “meaningful brain difference” they will oppress us based on that.  if there is no evidence (or no accepted or “scientific” evidence) to be found (by themselves usually, as they are the ones in the position to look) of meaningful sex-based brain difference (or of whatever) they will oppress us anyway.  somehow they will find a way to do it.

this rather notable “quirk” — that men oppress women no matter what — doesnt seem to mean much to reformist feminists, but it ought to.  doing this work because you are scared to death of what men will continue to do (and what they will come up with next) if you dont is a bit short-sighted, and reactive at best.  and its definitely no reason to conclude that theres any hope for men.  honestly, i dont know where we come up with some of this stuff.  feminists using bad reasoning and then maintaining perpetual support for their reformist position using coercive tactics including thought-termination is what it looks like to me.  see the discussion here for more on that.

Advertisements

Gawker Bad, Professor Orange Pop Good? October 19, 2012

Posted by FCM in kids, liberal dickwads, logic, MRAs, pop culture, porn.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

i wanted to talk a bit about the recent outing of an infamous reddit perv and the ensuing shitstorm implicating free speech, doxxxing and online anonymity.  if anyone has noticed the utter hypocrisy of those condemning the gawker journalist while supporting the infiltrations of radical feminist space by agent orange privileged white male basement dwelling using their work computer during work hours perving and harassing women online while their wives are at work MRAs, well, you arent alone.

in fact, its pretty difficult to miss this very obvious logic fail, and some are actually coming to the conclusion, albeit grudgingly, that within a “free speech” framework one cannot logically support infiltrating, harassing, surveilling, and dropping docs on radical feminists while simultaneously supporting online pervs “rights” to perv on women and children anonymously, with no real-life consequences.  if you support “free speech” in one instance, logically, you must support it in both instances.  (for this part, lets assume that all the children involved were legal adults and that the pervs didnt break any laws, even though that assumption is probably false.  for our purposes, assuming that the speech of each side is legally protected speech, it is logical to support them both in the same way within a free speech context.)

in reality, it is only when one doesnt frame the issue in terms of “free speech” that it becomes acceptable and logical to differentiate between radical feminists and predditors and to support fucking ones shit up while protecting the rights of the other to continue with their work.  so lets go there.  how are people framing it, if not in terms of free speech?

welp…those who support dropping docs on radical feminists while simultaneously supporting pervs rights to perv are probably framing the issue thusly: “i support victimizing and lying about girls and women.”  since pornographers, rapists, pimps, pervs and predditors are victimizing and lying about girls and women, and radfems arent, logically it is perfectly acceptable to condemn one (the feminists) while supporting the other (the pervs).  while obviously a decent-human-being FAIL, this one is at least logically a WIN.  its internally consistent.

at the same time, those who are framing the issue thusly: “i support telling the truth, including the truth about men and what they do to girls and women” are perfectly logically supporting radical feminists right to continue with our work unabated, while supporting penalties alternate outcomes for MRAs and other pervs and misogynists.  this is a logic WIN.

additional issues come to light, and need addressing, when (for example) people support predditors right to break the law, with or without also supporting radical feminist speech.  in other words, supporting a policy whereby pervs and misogynists get to say literally whatever they want about girls and women, even if its against the law because it incites imminent violence, its child pornography, its obscenity etc.  here, the issue is clearly being framed as such: “i support victimizing and harming girls and women across the board, even if it means breaking the law, period, full stop.”

here, the “free speech” framework is a complete obfuscation of the truth, and for that matter, so is attempting to justify that stance with the completely unrelated “but i support radfems free speech rights toooo!!”  not so fast.  in reality, in this instance, the issue is not free speech at all (because the pervs illegal speech is not protected, but the feminists legal speech actually is) and to say so is to equate apples and oranges.  rather, what we have here is a demonstrated policy of unconditional support of misogyny and victimization, including criminal victimization, of girls and women by men.  this framework — of unconditional support of the misogynist victimization of girls and women by men — should be recognized wherever anyone is supporting the pervs rights to perv, even when there are children involved, and even where the pervs actions implicate stalking, rape, or other illegal behavior.

and even when the ones supporting it are the so-called good guys who very democratically *also* support radfems rights to tell the truth without breaking any laws.  gee, thanks doods.  please do not fall for this one mkay.  in reality, these “good guys” are lying their fucking asses off.  in reality, these so-called “good guys” like kiddie porn, and they hate women.

and if all this sounds really boring, BTW, it is.  it really, really is.  thats because this is all male-centric issue framing, including breaking down whats “legally protected speech” and whats not.  because we all know that there are plenty of perfectly-legal ways to harm girls and women, and that the male-centric legal framework doesnt even come close to addressing or redressing these harms.  thats because its not intended to.

its also very boring to address whether its logical or illogical to condemn radical feminists for telling the truth about men, and what they do to us.  because men will do this anyway, even when they cannot rationally justify it.  (see above, hello!)  they simply do not care whether its rational or not, they will do it anyway because radical feminists pose a legitimate threat and therefore must be destroyed.  even at the cost of *gasp* their precious logic (and despite their alleged dislike for doc-dropping and ad hominems for that matter).

so before i bore you all to death, let me get to the point.  my point really is that if anyone wants to go there — and wax poetic about free-speech and stuff, and things  — i can go there too.  im smart like that too.

and more importantly, that “free speech” is not even close to being the real issue when talking about doxing, or making parallels between doxing radical feminists versus doxing pervs, predditors and (other) MRAs.  it is obvious that a goodly fraction of these men are lying — even the allegedly good, democratic-minded ones are fucking lying — about supporting or caring about free speech at all.  they dont.  most of them hate women, and like kiddie porn.  end of.  if they didnt, all of these debates — and indeed, the entire internet — would look very different than they do today.  that is all.

What Male Entitlement Looks Like March 5, 2012

Posted by FCM in authors picks, entertainment, gender roles, kids, liberal dickwads, news you can use, pop culture.
Tags: , , , , ,
comments closed

everyone knows that in relationships with women, men lie constantly.  constantly!  they lie about everything, from the smallest thing to the biggest thing.  especially the small things.  and…especially the big things.  they seem incapable of telling the truth, in fact, so much so that a cynical reasonable person might conclude about men, as we are told to conclude about alcoholics and addicts, that if their lips are moving, they are lying.  you can pretty much take that one to the bank.

and unless you enjoy the warm breeze generated by the lip-flapping, its best not to be in the way of a compulsive liar generally, because of the utter destruction and devastation they cause to everyone in their path.  get out of the way, would seem to be reasonable advice.  but instead, when it comes to men lying to women within the context of the het partnership, where mens lying completely devastates and wrecks womens lives all the time, we hear things like…”nothing is 100%.”  this from mama rivers to her daughter melissa, when melissa finds out that her live-in boyfriend of 3 years has been clandestinely trolling craigslist for sex, among other things.  and melissa is devastated, of course.  i really feel her on this one.  i do.

but the thing about “nothing” being 100%?  actually, thats not true at all.  men lie.  THAT is 100%.  and if any particular man hasnt lied to you yet, its only because at the present time, telling the truth works.  when the truth ceases to be useful to him for whatever reason, he will stop using it.

men lie to women.  end of.  its a funny, funny joke, haha.  everyone that matters, chuckles about it, and moves on.  the destruction, when it happens to women, literally does not matter.  and make no mistake: the destruction is often very, very bad.  its not that its just a little destructive, thats not why its situation comedy-fodder.  its a lot destructive, and the “joke,” if you can call it that, is that the jokes on women.  this is what men do and its what men are.  and so many women have literally no other choice but to put up with it.  some women dont recognize that they have another choice, and even more women really dont have any other viable option, they are literally trapped with men who lie and they arent hallucinating about being there and being trapped.  so many women are *that* vulnerable, and without other viable options.  and *that* is fucking hilarious, to everyone who hates women.  which is pretty much everyone.

but why do they do it?  why do men lie to women about everything?  well, in a word, entitlement.  men lie to women because for their entire lives, since they could first cognate, boys and men have imagined what their lives would look like, and there was a woman there.  maybe a nice boat, a nice house, a good job, a nice dog, some small and large appliances, maybe even lots and lots of sex with other men!  but in addition to all of that, there was a woman.  it was part of the plan.  since they were first able to wrap their minds around the concept of a future-self, and im not sure at what age that happens, most men (even gay men!) knew that a woman would be part of the equation, that a woman was part of the package to which they were entitled.  because they are men.  and a woman is there, among all the other objects and appliances because women are just objects to men, nothing more.  think of male entitlement as a big boat, loaded with cash -n- prizes, where one of the prizes is a woman, and the men are the skippers.

and lying to women is part of the steering mechanism?  i guess?  men want their lives to go a certain way, and lying to women is partially how they accomplish that.  if things are going well, and telling the truth would keep him heading in the direction in which he wants to go, and would keep the woman there, great!  maybe he will tell the truth.  but the second the truth would cause choppy seas, where telling the truth would throw the life he imagines he is entitled to off-course, he will lie.  because keeping his entitlement on track is his goal.  his goal is NOT to be a good partner to a woman.

and if the woman bails (or is tossed overboard), he just gets another woman, and starts lying to her as soon as it becomes necessary.  the women are as interchangeable as any other object, it could be anyone.  dont take it personally, would actually be pretty good advice, because in this scenario, you arent a person.  you might be the boat, but you arent the captain and you arent the first mate either.

this is men steering their own individual completely loaded with pirate booty barges through the navigable waters known as “life” when you are a man.  they are trying to get somewhere, dammit, and they leave many, many female bodies in their wake.  and to the extent they care about that, its only because they might find themselves stalled, or even going backwards for half a second while any particular storm passes.  but thats all it is.  any guilt or regret or “i’m sorry” you might get from a man, has nothing to do with a “conscience” or any other emotion or cognition evoked where one human being either “accidentally” or on purpose (or “accidentally-on-purpose,” yes thats a thing) wrongfully destroys another person and hurts them perhaps beyond repair.  its nothing like that.

the only way a woman might understand what this feels like, from mens perspective, is to imagine how she would feel if she destroyed a very useful object she owned, either accidentally or on purpose.  can you feel it?  can you?  good.  this is “empathy” afterall: feeling what another person feels.  if you thought a man in your life was feeling anything more than that, when it came to you, well, you were wrong.  and youve probably been projecting this whole time, not empathizing.

the look on melissa’s face when she realizes what has happened to her, is what a moment of clarity looks like.  she knows EVERYTHING at that moment, on an individual and probably a systemic level.  this is what a breakthrough looks like, and no, it aint pretty.  and the rage and extreme sorrow on joan’s face as she is witnessing the events happening to her daughter are very revealing too.  joan knows whats up because she has doubtless seen the same thing countless times before.  too bad they will both promptly forget the whole thing.  or pretend to.

and meanwhile, melissa is attempting to raise a son, and is concerned about how this man has hurt her boy-child.  surely she also knows that this man was her son’s teacher, since her son is a skipper-in-training, and that her now-ex has actually helped her son out quite a bit by showing him how its done?  the look of unbearable agony tells me that she probably knows that, too.

3 Women Show December 3, 2011

Posted by FCM in kids, PIV, rape, thats mean, thats random.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

the other day, i went to the movies with nigel.  we sat on the end of a row that was filled with 13-year old girls and three adult female chaperones that i saw, it was kind of dark and i actually think their group extended into the next row too.  so there were probably more adult women but i only saw three.  anyway, there were 2 empty seats on the end, and we were obviously about to take them: the three adult women looked at us as we were about to sit down.  nigel moved like he was going to go into the row and sit down first, next to the last girl, with me next to him on the end.  i could tell that the women did not like that, i could sense this easily, but even before i had consciously noted that, i had already decided that i would push past him and sat down next to the last girl, forcing him to sit on the end.  this was very fluid and nothing that wouldve been noticed by anyone observing, or even by nigel.  it really wasnt anything out of the ordinary at all, no more than breathing, really.  i had connected psychically with 3 women i didnt even know.

did i mention that im psychic?  cause i am.  i can also see the future, and alter the course of history: if nigel had sat down next to the girl on the end instead of me, i absolutely know that one of the women wouldve traded seats with the girl so no girl would be sitting next to an adult man in the dark for 2 hours in a crowded movie theater.

so anyway, the course of history having been altered, the women relaxed and stopped paying attention to us completely.  all women reading this anecdote know why.  the ones who dont want to believe it know why, the ones who love men know why, the ones who hate men know why.  the ones who hate me know why.  the readers who are men…well who knows what delusion they are privileged enough to live under.  women know the truth.  they can deny it at their peril, but thats not the same as not knowing it.

and as everyone who is being honest here knows, these 3 women did not want an adult man sitting next to one of the girls, because of what men are known to do to girls: men sexually abuse girls, and devastate girls and womens lives.  and men do this often.  this is obvious, its contextual, and its true.

the 3 women at the theater that day were not unusual women.  they were just women.  female-bodied persons.  with all the senses of human beings, and the memory of human beings too.  and the ability to cognate, synthesize, and make connections.  like all humans, and perhaps some other animals too although i dont know.  all women know this, all women have a shared, lived experience because they are female, they have these concerns and they maneuver and negotiate at all times so that they and the girls they are caring for can be as safe as possible from men because they know what men do.  this is womens reality.  all womens reality.

now, being your completely-usual woman, knowing what she knows and what all women know, i wouldnt be at all surprised if many or even most pregnant-women take a few moments to consider, once she realizes shes been impregnated and that the fetus is male, that this boy-fetus she is carrying is very likely to be the worst-possible thing to ever happen to another womans girl-fetus.  that this male child, even if he never abuses a person in his entire life, will end up ruining one woman or many womens lives by sticking his dick into them and wreaking havoc in their lives that will never compare to any other horror or any other trauma or any other tragedy: it will be greater, and more constant and worse, and it will never be remedied.  that this fetus will ruin womens lives, and thats a given, even if he doesnt do anything “wrong” because this is the paradigm under which we currently live, and thats the truth of it.

women know what we know.  women are watching and paying attention, and behaving in accordance with what they know, and altering the course of history one way or another, and this cannot be stopped.  like the women in the movie theater, they absolutely cannot be stopped.  they might nod and smile and pay lip service, but they will keep doing what they are doing and they will never stop doing it.  all women know what men do and what they are.  this gives me hope.

Strange Days July 19, 2011

Posted by FCM in entertainment, kids, pop culture, race, rape, WTF?.
Tags: , , , , , ,
comments closed

serving suggestion: if you can stand it, listen to the songs first, without the videos, and then watch the videos afterwards.  lyrics below.

ive tried to wait it out, and hoped they would go away but they havent — these 2 songs are currently playing on every radio station at all times, and have been for awhile.  listen to any station for more than 6 minutes (or change channels) and you will likely hear them back-to-back.  its a double-feature horror show, and the saturation is full.  people are hearing this, whether they particularly care to or not.

for overlapping and probably irrelevant reasons, i heard the songs long before i saw the videos, and the lyrics without the images accompanying them absolutely chilled me to the bone.  rihanna sings about s&m, how she loves whips and chains and how pain and pleasure are indistinguishable to her; a black woman with a history of institutional and domestic violence being paid handsomely to literally read from the script of every mans fantasy for all women, within a context of american black slavery and a global epidemic of male sexualized violence against women.  a willing victim who wont call the cops, no matter what is done to her.  how sexxxay!  according to wiki, she didnt write the script, someone else did.  one writer is a woman (ester dean) the other 4 appear to be men.

meanwhile, katy perry sings about wanting to be an abduction victim, “disrobed and probed” as well as infected, poisoned, stunned, and “lead into the light” by her abductor.  according to wiki, three doods “helped her” write it; all four get songwriting credit.

i dont know who gets credit for the videos, and i am sick of googling already.  but its kind of irrelevant isnt it?  i mean really.  we all know from whose perspective we are all supposed to be viewing/consuming these images (and indeed, the entire world) at all times.

anyway, the banality of the male violence in these songs, the pure horror and the banality of it is so clear when the music plays.  women really are abducted, stunned, and “disrobed and probed” (aka raped) by men all the time.  men really do beat, rape and abuse women, with whips and chains and with other objects and with their own hands and bodies, whether or not the women “like it” and consent may be better than no-consent to men who like to abuse women, but maybe not.  like all consent rhetoric, it serves to keep men out of prison sometimes, but theres no such thing as a willing victim, and men like to sexually victimize women.  they want women to not want it.  it really couldnt be more obvious.  and in these songs, the women are saying they want it and need it or whatever, but the horror is still so obvious.

but something happens when these words are made to correspond to these sexualized images.  doesnt it?  the banality of it is erased: the images that accompany both songs seem alien, exotic, and staged (and they are, and they are meant to appear this way).  the violence of it is transformed into something else.  at least, it fails to register as violence anymore, or not in the same way it did when i was just listening to the words.  and its not like the words themselves are unproblematic either.  but this is not the first time i have noticed that something happens when the images are added.  so what is going on here?

i think whats happening is that we are being shown the meaning and the impact and the history of these words through mens eyes.  and that these images are somehow more powerful and meaningful, and are able to displace the reality invoked by the words.  the words clearly signify (to me) that these women are being victimized, and i can relate to that, its a female-centered reality afterall.  but the images?  to use my own image….its as if the video images displace that female-centered reality like water in a bowl, if the images were a stone and the words were water, and the water reminded me of my own life.  and the stone didnt.  and once this happens, you forget instantly that there ever was another reality, or that there was ever even a bowl.  what the fuck?  i dont know, im not really into deconstructing film, and ive never made one, but how’d they do that?

as for the videos, this is all just sex to them, and this becomes clear when they let us see what they see:  women being beaten by hands and objects is sexxxay.  its sex.  women being kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured and raped is made to seem like a fun little game.  a sex-game.  and it is, for the abductors, and for people who fantasize about doing this.  but ask jaycee dugard what its really like to be abducted, disrobed and probed, for example.  for women, this is our worst nightmare, but the images belie this dont they?  noone wants this to happen to them, so from whose perspective are we supposed to be consuming these images/fantasies?  whose reality do these images represent?

once again, women are made to see everything, even our own destruction through mens eyes.  someone once made a sci-fi flick about this, but its not science fiction is it?  anyone remember this?

from the movie strange days.  some fucking dickwad (james cameron…directed by kathryn bigelow) surely thought he was being very clever here, inventing the novel concept that a rape victim could be “jacked-in” and experience her own rape, from her own perspective and from the perspective of the rapist at the same time (i havent seen this film for probably 15 years, but i remember that part clearly) but you know what?  this really happens, or something approaching it.  this is reality, what women encounter daily, when we are forced to see mens sick pornified misogyny and rape fantasies, acted out and projected against our bodies, but from their eyes.  and never from our own.

trying to unravel this is a full-time job, and women-identified-women do a good job of this, but it takes constant vigilance and belligerence to stay behind our own eyes.  who else can say this, and in what circumstances?  this is a serious question.  clearly james cameron can only envision this jacking-in and jacking-back-out-again as a fantasy, but its not one.  i feel exhausted just thinking about it, but i do it, and i struggle to do it consistently and to be honest i cannot do it consistently.  i fail, constantly.  there are not enough hours in the day, there are too many images and messages to digest, and i have other things to do, before, during and after.  this is what feminists do.

but seriously, whats the deal with images, specifically, and the seemingly transformative power of images, and their ability to frame and reframe issues?  i hope im not the only one who saw the videos last, instead of first, because i dont think i ever wouldve noticed.  but considering that so many of us are jacked-in now and our preferred media appears to be video (and not words or music by themselves) i suspect there are many people who dont notice, and that many of these people are young girls.  and this is fucking terrifying.  it really fucking is.