jump to navigation

Brought To You By the Inventors of Drug Dealing and Rape January 17, 2015

Posted by FCM in liberal dickwads, logic, meta, politics, pop culture.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

continuing on the subject of NTE and global climate change related to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population, i would like to address the issue of anti-civ activism by “people” (mostly men) who believe that NTE is a reality and just around the corner.  indeed it does seem as if DGR (deep green resistance) and NTEs are in bed together, and guy mcpherson cites derrek jensen specifically in his own anti-civ advocacy.  i am not going to link to it here, you can find it yourselves.

let me ask you this.  if you thought near-term human extinction was not only possible but likely, or even more likely than not, what (if anything) would you DO in the face of that knowledge?  assume as NTEs do that it wouldnt matter at all in the big picture, because nothing you can do can stop NTE — our fate was sealed decades ago by rapist, necrophilic men who insisted on selfish hedonism, resource-extraction and resource-hoarding to benefit themselves, regardless of the consequences to women or the planet (or even to themselves as class:male long term).  what would you DO, understanding that the means would never justify the ends because we would not live to see any end (except NTE), and that therefore the means WERE the ends.  in other words, whatever you are going to DO, you are doing it for extremely short-term gains only, or to put an even finer point on it, doing X for its own sake.

welp.  the anti-civ strand of NTE activists/believers have decidered that they are going to do above and below-board “actions” designed to bring down industrial civilization.  while the anti-civs have been doing this for a long time (although they obviously arent very good at it) the rather unholy hybrid NTE/anti-civ activists understand that it will not change anything to “destroy” civilization, it will not reverse the course of catastrophic global climate change related to male-caused global overpopulation and global over male population, and yet NTE/anti-civ males have decidered to engage in anti-civilization destructiveness anyway.  seemingly for the sake of sheer destructiveness alone.  what else would be the point, when it is too late to change the outcome?

but what else could we expect from “people” (men) who invented drug dealing afterall, and all that entails?  get “people” including women hooked (dependent) on civilization for our most basic needs, including food, water and shelter ffs, and then take it all away.  gee, that sounds familiar!  in the case of NTE, where our fates are sealed, we wont be able to come crawling back to males like civilization junkies looking for a fix, so here we get to see it play out rather bare — this is about torture isnt it.  males, torturing and brutalizing women for the sake of doing it.  punishing “dependents” for the crime of being domesticated and enslaved, by men, over millenia, except “punishment” implies we could have done something to avoid domestication and enslavement by men (as if we havent tried).  no, this is just more male necrophilia and torture, and in the case of hybrid NTE/anti-civ males, it is completely without pretense now.  since anti-civ destructiveness on their part wont change the outcome anyway, and anyone with eyes can see how these ideologies interplay (conflict?) it seems as if this group in particular isnt even trying to hide it.

and what else would we expect from the class (men) who brought us rape?  strike a deal among men (the global accords governing the fair use of women) to somewhat-mitigate the damage of men raping women through social (legal) controls on men and social (medical) benefits to women, make women literally beg and plead for these protections for decades and centuries even, and give them a crumb or two — and then decider to destroy it.  knowing the whole time, of course, that as soon as things get sticky, all “controls” against men raping women will literally be the very first thing to go.  as both NTEs and anti-civs must know, the destruction of “civilization” and social controls on men is going to be a rape-fest.

now, i of course agree that civilization — as a euphemism for patriarchy — is pure evil and that none of this has been done for womens benefit; for example, legal protections for women against men raping us is largely gaslighting and laughable.  HOWEVER.  in any discussion of the dual issues of NTE and anti-civ, this bastard hybrid discourse specifically, i think that it should reasonably be WOMEN deciding what parts of civilization (patriarchy) should go and which should (temporarily) stay, and that men should have no say in this at all, being that they are the cause of all of this and the ones women need protection from.

and to the extent that non-human lifeforms have been affected by this the whole time, obviously their “voice” should be heard also — would it be presumptuous to assume that the voice of “nature” would be the same as womens voice here?  asking, nay demanding at this point (in the booming tone of god no less as we face the literal end of the world!) for men to STOP ACTING, and STOP DO-ing shit, jesus.  notably, the collapse of civilization at this point will only cause the global temperature to further rise — the particulates in todays industrial pollution are apparently causing a “global dimming” effect whereby the full heating potential of sunlight doesnt quite reach the earth.  the day industrial civilization collapses, no more particulates.  get it?  at any rate, i highly doubt that its the voice of phytoplankton asking NTE/anti-civ activists to bring industrial civilization to its knees.  so whose voice is it, and to what ends, exactly?

thats what i thought.

Moron NTE December 15, 2014

Posted by FCM in liberal dickwads, news you can use, radical concepts.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

before i close up shop here again, which i will shortly, i wanted to address NTE/NTHE a bit further as it is still in the forefront of my mind.  as i said before, it was a comment on a radfem blog that first alerted me to this — before that, i had never seen it addressed anywhere.  i had, however, taken note of a dozen or more vague, cryptic, and seemingly off the cuff remarks left on various blogs over the years (years!) and that these comments were left by trusted commenters who obviously did not want to address it further.  there was a time afterall when excellent discussions were happening all over the radfem internets, so wouldnt it have made sense to drop an actual link or something, something to spin and spiral from, so that we could all learn about it together?

clearly not.  knowing what i know now about the radfem internets, i can see that this and many subjects are simply off limits, and considered going too far, even amongst ourselves.  ask me how i know!  to be a radical feminist who rejects reformism — and sees no or little hope for men, in other words — is to live with one foot solidly within “feminism” (understanding how this all works) and knowing also how pointless it all is (because there is no hope for men), with the other foot in “feminisms” grave.  knowing that men will destroy the entire planet, and that they simply will not stop destroying everything no matter what, is kind of the logical outcome of “nutty” or non-reformist radical feminism in fact, if taken to its logical endpoint.  isnt it?

obviously, i think it is, and that it is from that place of understanding that one must speak of NTE/NTHE (near term extinction/near term human extinction) and this is where i speak from now.  to their credit, NTE “activists” arent really activating for/toward anything, believing that it has been too late to DO SOMETHING for decades now — this is the foundation of their belief system in fact, that self-reinforcing feedback loops have been set in motion and cannot be stopped, and that the changes happening now are not linear but exponential.

to their discredit, from what i can tell, the majority of NTE “activism” consists of talking with other believers about how not to kill yourselves out of despair in the years leading up to it, and the solution, apparently, is to “do what you love to do!” while waiting, then kill yourself at the last minute before it gets really bad.  also known as resource hoarding and hedonism, and then avoiding any direct consequences to yourself by whatever means necessary.  just like men have always done.  exactly what has created the problem of runaway global climate change (and NTE) in fact, considering what men “love to do” which is almost without exception fucking women, and (thereby) making babies.  almost 8 billion of them/us now.  the largely unwanted and/or ambivalent progeny of the largely unwanted and/or ambivalent 2.5 billion that successfully (albeit prospectively) choked the life out of the living world decades ago.

“JUST KEEP FUCKING!” may as well be made into a bumper sticker at this point, it is as ironic/tragic as it is universally applicable and lets not forget misogynistic and necrophilic, but yay male orgasms so whatever right?  god, literally everyone would be on board with that one wouldnt they?  (BTW DGR/deep green resistance is pro-sex, they say this constantly.  google it!  yawn.  and by pro-sex, they mean pro-PIV, or at the very least they are not anti-PIV, or even PIV-critical.  because lets not prudish guyz boners yall!  prudish isnt radikewl and we are radikewl so lets cant prudish nope nope!).

anyway, this is the conversation that is happening around NTE and as far as i can tell, it is the only one — this dick-jerking fantasy, (and pro-PIV jibberish) where good liberal and progressive males legitimize and even manage to progressive-ize resource hoarding (and MOAR intercourse and baby making) with no consequences to themselves.  somehow they have done this.

and i am utterly unsurprised at this point that there has been little to no public radical feminist conversation about NTE, and that so far, the only “radfem” treatment of global climate change has been limited to discussing veganism (and shitting on women who eat meat) and supporting PIV-positive, manarchist environmental/anti-civilization organizations like DGR.  we see how even men who “get” it are responding to this, which is to say they are responding to it as they respond to everything.  which is the entire problem BTW.  radfems know this.

i do accept and anticipate that there are radfem and nutty radfem conversations happening in private about NTE of course.  my point really is that radical feminism, and its PUBLIC face, the PUBLIC face of our movement, is not the endpoint of radical thinking, and (therefore) does not address in any adequate way the very serious situation(s) in which we find ourselves.  these conversations, actions, and inactions happen elsewhere.  it took me a long time to figure this out, so here.  let me be your shortcut.  do not waste months and years of your life the way i did.  anyone else who has something to add, with the sincerest hope that it will save another woman some time, energy, and/or sanity…please discuss in the comments below.

A Springboard December 7, 2014

Posted by FCM in international, liberal dickwads, logic, news you can use, radical concepts.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

i realize that some of my previous comments may have seemed out of left field so i wanted to clarify what i meant when i said that the environment may not support MALE life for much longer, and almost certainly not indefinitely.  i started researching NTE/NTHE (near term extinction/near term human extinction) based on a comment on another blog and i have been thinking about it for awhile.  there have been cryptic comments being dropped on our blogs for years by trusted commenters about some imminent disaster/extinction event but nothing that was googleable, and i was apparently not inclined to investigate it on my own; at last, someone dropped an acronym — NTE.  something googleable!  so i googled it.  (witchwind has also discussed this on her blog).

i will not get into it extremely deeply here, google will tell you all you need to know (the evidence has been synthesized and kid-gloved so its readable, the really sciency among us may be able to find the original data somewhere as well).  however, i can tell you that there are some people who believe that human-caused global climate change will cause human extinction within our lifetimes — even as soon as the next 15-20 years.  due to “positive feedback loops” of environmental destruction which produce exponentially more of the same, even if “we” stopped our policy and practice of global environmental destruction tomorrow, it wouldnt help (and we are nowhere near stopping any of it tomorrow, next year, or ever).  we have passed the point of no return.

now, i think it is always a safe bet to assume that men are lying about whatever they are talking about, or that they have gotten it wrong (or both).  i think this should be our default posture when encountering any male ideology, but that we should also not dismiss all of mens work out of hand.  mary daly talked about using mens work as “springboards” for our own.  in this way, we can turn mens necrophilic theory, policy and practice into something we can use, to help ourselves.  a sound policy, considering that males have monopolized all the resources including data and methods of collecting data, and we have to get by on whatever they decide to share with us, assuming there is anything left after stripping it down of its repulsive maleness.  and i have come to believe that there is something we can use in the data/evidence and synthesis men have shared in relation to NTE.

NTE activist (mostly) males say that global climate change will make the earth uninhabitable for humans and that we will become extinct — that the planet in its oppressively polluted state will shortly get exponentially worse and will not support human life for much longer.  and this may well be.  what i have never seen discussed is the possibility that an oppressively polluted earth will not sustain MALE life (but that female or majority female life may well live on) even though there is some evidence to support this.  i am not saying PROOF — i am talking about evidence.  and this is important.

all theorists except mathematicians (i think?) rely on evidence, not proof, in forming and coalescing their thoughts — upon which is built policy and practice.  proof is reserved for mathematics in that actual logical proofs can be drawn which are not debatable — if done correctly, proofs are demonstrably true, in a mathematical sense.  others of us have to rely on “evidence” which is a lower standard, and far from ideal, but it is what it is.  of course, an even lower standard has been applied where some feminists have “theorized” about men and maleness “against all evidence” and these feminists have long professed that there is hope for men, that men are likely to change, that males will respond to females without violence.  they admit that the policy and practice flowing from these absurd beliefs has been against all evidence.  the result has been a disaster, and 100+ years of reformist politicking has been like shooting pebbles at the moon.

anyway, all this is to say that there is indeed EVIDENCE that MALE life will become extinct or endangered in fairly short order, due to global climate change.  while NTE activists (or whatever they call themselves — doomsday cultists) present compelling EVIDENCE for their claims that human life will shortly falter or fail, they have rather notably not addressed known sex-based differences in human survival rates including fetal development under conditions of pollution and maternal stress — these conditions demonstrably favor female life over male.  in other words, where male fetuses and neonates are relatively fragile, and female is the default setting for every fetus, it is largely females that survive environmental pollution and maternal stress — massive levels of both pollution and stress being on the horizon, according to NTE activists.  and males, disproportionately, do not survive in these conditions.

i have used NTE male circle-jerking (essentially, resource hoarding and hedonism in preparation for “our” impending doom) as a springboard for my own thoughts, which is that nature will favor a global female majority, and that there is EVIDENCE that this will indeed happen, and that it may happen soon.  relatedly, there is also EVIDENCE that, when the male population decreases substantially for whatever reason, life gets better for everyone.  google it!  what all of this means in practical terms, as far as i can tell, is that natural law will take care of the maleness problem, which is partly a numbers problem, ie, too many males.  and human females need not do anything — its going to happen anyway,  no matter what we do or dont.

kindly recall that i am citing EVIDENCE, not PROOF.  and frankly, as there is NO evidence that males as a class will ever change for the better, and NO evidence that males as a class can or will respond to females without violence, what i am proposing here is in fact more logically sound than anything any reformist feminist has ever proposed.  there is more evidence that the human race will become extinct in 15 years than there is evidence that males will ever stop oppressing, raping and murdering females based on our sex.  think about that.

males have created a global system that is unsustainable, where they have reaped all the benefits while enduring no or disproportionately low costs (PIV is but one example of many, but it is the only one that all males share equal responsibility for; being that global overpopulation is largely what has caused this mess, this is no small point, but one that largely “sexually active” PIV-positive NTE activists have notably not addressed.  responsibility for other discrepant cost/benefit scenarios may differ amongst men based on their race and class, with white western males arguably being the worst.  but still, all subsidies are created by and for men).  the punchline, if you can call it that, is that nature will not stand for this forever.  women demanding some return to homeostasis, or activating towards it, follows natural law, but there is EVIDENCE that it is too late for any of this.  and as it always has and always will, nature bats last.

NTE activists believe that no humans will survive, but another outcome is supported by the evidence — the world will be so polluted and stressful that males will simply cease to exist, or will only exist in disproportionately tiny numbers while females survive to make the best of whatever is left, even if its been reduced to a toxic, smoking cinder.  just like we always have.  this is freeing in a dark way — and forgive me too if i find it a bit funny.  after all the FEMALE blood, sweat and tears expended advancing radical feminism (and environmentalism!) in the face of impending global male extinction…its gallows humor.

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.

In Which I Make a Fantastical Leap May 8, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, gender roles, international, liberal dickwads, MRAs, trans.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

stuff like this is why the organizers/PR machine for radfem13 publish stuff like this:  as an example of the MRA/tranny anti-radfem propaganda campaign, the radfem13 organizers state that MRAs and others are guilty of

Singling out individual women who call themselves radical feminist and claiming that they represent radical feminism or all radical feminist views (In fact, the movement is diverse and many claim to be radical feminist but, of course, as a movement for social change, we’d wish to discuss those differences internally)

lol.  see what they did there?  more denial and erasure of non-social determinist radical feminists by social determinist/reformist radical feminists.  of course, like a lot of good PR, this is partly true — non-social determinist radfems are indeed all the time being attacked by MRAs.  we are teh evol, you see, and apparently, reformist radfems and MRAs/trannies are mostly in agreement on that point.  d’oh!

also, we are so busy calling ourselves radical feminists, making buttons, banners and the like (i myself have a tattoo) that there is no time to do any actual work demonstrating a motivation and ability to get to the root of womens oppression by men, in order to liberate us from male dominance.  we just “call ourselves” various random things all the time even though they arent true at all.  on my days off — from falsely identifying as a radical feminist — i identify as a pickle.  i produce no actual work demonstrating that im one of those either.  i mean, what could i even do to show that i was a pickle?  my various random identifications are all equally ludicrous, and completely subjective.  but i digress.

really, i wanted to stop by briefly and make a fantastical leap so that the last remaining shred of my radfem credibility reformist political capital can be washed away forever.   :D  to wit, i recently learned that actress sarah jessica parkers ancestor, one esther elwell, was accused of witchcraft during the salem witch trials of 1692.  there was a warrant out for her arrest and she narrowly escaped trial on a technicality — “trial” in this context being a euphemism for days and weeks of torture, sexualized violence and crazy-making by men against women under the guise of legal process.  i can only imagine that this was terrifying for esther, as it was for all women who were alive during the burning times.  but lets look more closely at what this means.

i am currently reading anne llewellyn barstow’s “witchcraze” for anyone who wants to follow along.  in her study of the european witch hunts (to which her writing is limited — it doesnt specifically include the american witch trials) she elucidates and enumerates what women who were accused of witchcraft had in common, and it was often that they were “doting, scolds, mad, divelish; … so firme and steadfast in their opinions, as whoever shall onlie have respect to the constancie of their words uttered, would easilie beleeve they were true indeed.”  barstow summarizes this as meaning “uppity women — women given to speaking out, to a bold tongue and independent spirit…quarrelsomeness, a refusal to be put down.  they talked back to their neighbors, their ministers, even to their judges and executioners.”  (p. 27)

i would also add, although i am not exactly fluent in ye olde english, that this seems to say that these women were not only outspoken, they actually made sense.  as in, if you actually listened to them, you could tell that they were telling the truth, or making sense of things that were previously confusing or deliberately obscured.  kinda like what radical feminists do, when it comes to exposing the truth about men and what they do to us, and getting to the root of womens oppression by men.  get it?

notably, female heretics often received the same treatment — and defying or denying biblical dictates about womens natures counted as heresy, where the bible dictated that womens nature was to be fuckholes and slaves for men.  women often did this anyway, at their peril.  get it?  publicly (or privately) protesting mens lies about womens “natures” could get you brutally tortured and killed.  incredibly, women have been criticizing the bible anyway for 1000 years by now.  both before and after the burning times.  although we do see a divergence from that history in newer feminist thought which protests “stereotypes” of male behavior too.  men arent naturally really the way they appear, you see, even though men created the patriarchal world and all its brutality in their own image because they like it this way.  because equality.  again, i digress.

a close, personal experience/association with the burning times, a time of unparalleled misogyny and widespread sexualized violence — a global terror campaign by men against women — is this womans legacy.  isnt it?  a legacy we now know was inherited by sarah jessica parker through her ancestral relation to esther elwell.  parker reveals that she wasnt aware of this history, but heres where i make my leap:  interestingly, sarah jessica parker doesnt complain.  about anything, apparently.  and im suggesting that her compliance/non-complaining *might be* related to her connection to the burning times, either through her lineage or collectively, as a member of the female sex class.

you see, around the same time that we learned of her ancestry and her association with the burning times, we also learned that SJP has been permanently hobbled due to years of wearing disabling footwear as a part of her job.  she wore high heels on the set of “sex and the city” for 18-hours a day “and didnt complain.”  this not-complaining is considered a favorable trait in women and definitely (if not particularly) in actresses, isnt it?

on that note, see the transcript from “jaws: the inside story” here, starting at 45:49 where steven spielberg is described as having poured water down the throat of a female actress while she screamed.  to make it sound like the watery female screams spielberg heard in his head, and obviously enjoyed enough to want to share with the entire world.  see hollywood dickwad richard dreyfuss conclude laughingly that this practice is “now” known as waterboarding, and that spielberg is therefore guilty of a war crime.  but not really!!!!11!!1234  because reasons!  (honestly, this could be its own post, and if i had known that the transcript was available i surely wouldve written that post by now.  its not on youtube, likely because copyright violation.  they obviously didnt have a problem broadcasting it on television where all the men involved were making tons of money on the advertising and whatnot, and its almost (!) as if they arent ashamed of this at all, or even trying to hide or obfuscate what this might say about themselves *as men* or even as people.  hmm.)

of course, the thing about associations with the burning times is that they are passed down through families as all legacies are, but in this case, its also womens collective history — a collective history of a global terror campaign by men against women, and its no joke.  its also ongoing.  and while barstow concludes that women “kept a low profile” for literally centuries after the period of the “official” burning times, i would suggest to anyone who assumes or believes that this silencing effect ended at some point that we are probably still too close to it to see the whole picture.  and that we consider the evidence that women are still laying low, and that we still have very good reason to.

and to those who would counter with well, thats not fair because everything any woman has done in the past 300 years, or will do into an indeterminate date in the future, she does “after the burning times” therefore causation problem…i would agree with the assertion, if not the implicit point.  there *is* a causation problem, yes indeed.  but the implicit point is twofold: therefore none of this matters, and we cant or at least shouldnt discuss it.  anywhere.  even on feminist blogs.  this is what radical feminism (and radical feminists) have been reduced to, apparently?  sheesh.  and i just made all those buttons and everything.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 399 other followers