jump to navigation

Keep Talking Owen Lloyd June 28, 2013

Posted by FCM in feminisms, meta, PIV, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

i saw the lierre keith/derrek jensen article on counterpunch in all its weird queerified gendernonsensical antiglory and was disappointed, but not quite moved to respond to it.  i mean, how many times can a position be stated and restated for the record before it ceases to be helpful?  this is a serious question.  repetition can be a good thing, and its helpful to both readers and writers to see and think about things multiple times, or in more than one way or in more than one time or place.  it probably has something to do with the brain, but thats above my pay grade.  i run mostly on intuition, and my intuition is telling me that providing a breakdown of a weird queerified “radfem” text isnt going to be useful today.

enter owen lloyd.  remember him?  hes the fucking terrifying asshole who becomes enraged at the sight of women, existing.  he also writes and does fundraising for DGR news service, which, according to himself, is responsible for “educating people on news and media related to the ongoing struggle against environmental and social injustice.”

educating them.  get it?  and since DGR itself is billed as being “unconditionally” feminist, we see that DGR news service and other publications and whatnot released by DGR, in addition to whatever else they do and are, are meant to educate people about feminism and in particular radical feminism.  because any other kind is antithetical to environmentalism.  true, that.

heres owen lloyd writing about rape for DGR news service back in march.  oh goody, a self-identified feminist man talking about rape, i say to myself.  chance of him implicating himself in something gross and woman-hating: approaching 100%.  one immediately notes the [TW] at the top of the page — like a good (liberal?) feminist, he lets us know straight up that we are in for graphic depictions of extreme sexualized violence i mean a porny treat of male masturbation fodder and that we are to proceed at our peril.  so if we disassociate for the rest of the day, its our own fault and definitely not the fault of the man who caused it.  wow, how unusual ive never seen that tactic used before in other contexts i mean thanks for the warning?  i guess?  i was right about owen lloyd.

i continue to read, at my peril, because DGR is on my radar but almost anything would be more interesting to me today than deconstructing that counterpunch article.  and in fact i dont feel much like properly deconstructing anything today, so no direct quotes will be forthcoming.  let me convey my general impressions (analysis) only.  you can read the original material for yourself.

owen lloyd is upset at steven pinker, a “canadian-born experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author” because pinker suggests that there is a biological component to male violence and to men raping women across time and place.  rape, that thing that men do to women globally and across time which (by definition) largely transcends social conditioning and rape, that thing that women generally dont do to anyone, anywhere, ever.  incidentally, owen lloyd gets “upset” at people quite a lot, but lets ignore that insignificant detail for a moment.

and although neither pinker nor lloyd could probably be expected to recognize this, and they clearly dont, lloyds cherry-picked quotes from pinker (which are supposed to show that pinker is an extraordinary asshole) and lloyds own porny examples of extreme sexualized violence actually paint a vivid picture of a necrophilic male context that transcends time and place.  i say “necrophilic” because extreme violence including extreme sexualized violence is not compatible with life — necrophilia is a radfem concept coined by an actual, real feminist (mary daly) who wasnt invested in carrying water for men or pretending that men were something they arent.  and once you recognize it for what it is, evidence of mens sickening necrophilia becomes obvious everywhere you look, and i do mean everywhere.  we are swimming (drowning) in it.

anyhoo, owen lloyd whines that there cannot possibly be a biological/innateness component to men raping women and babies across time and place because man-bashing, and because owen lloyd wants to believe that there is such a thing as “making love” (or whatever) and that this is very different from rape and mens extreme sexualized violence against women yes it is, yes it is, yes it is infinity.

owen lloyd does not seem to be aware that intercourse, the way men do it, is just more of the same necrophilia because it creates unwanted and ambivalent pregnancies, where it is largely (completely) unwanted and ambivalent pregnancies and the resulting unwanted/ambivalent children — mens sexual and reproductive abuse of women, in other words — that are overpopulating and killing the world.  an environmentalist should know this.  a feminist should know this.  owen lloyd and DGR do not seem to know this, and yet they are educating the public on matters of both feminism and environmentalism.  oops.  and as if that werent enough, some 500,000 women die every year around the world from pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications — more necrophilia, and more evidence that intercourse is a necrophilic practice.

men are killing women and the entire world with their dicks, and owen lloyd is mad at steven pinker for pointing out that men stick their dicks into women and mostly dont care about the consequences and implications of that for the women or for anything — like the environment? — even though that is demonstrably true.  owen lloyd defends his own motivations i mean special snowflake status when he is joined at the reproductive organs with his “partner” as meaning and be-ing something different than the thing other men do when they are joined at the reproductive organs of other women.  even though IN MANY WAYS its not different at all.  enumerate the ways, environmentalist feminist.

and perhaps even more to the point, owen lloyd is mad.  yet again.  something rises up in him every time someone says or does something he doesnt like — he himself has described this feeling as rage.  this is his involuntary, knee-jerk response which he seems completely unable/unwilling to control, and which pops up mostly regardless of context or provocation — indeed, he cant seem to help it.  someday perhaps owen lloyd will learn to control both his rage and his urge to stick his dick into women and to zealously and angrily defend other mens right to stick their dicks into women too.  it is *possible* that he will endeavor to and succeed in controlling these things.

the one thing owen lloyd will probably never do is to seriously consider that these involuntary physical and emotional sensations he experiences all the time which are mostly or entirely invisible to himself — in particular, rage and the need to stick his dick into women and then to fucking defend the practice (!!!) (with rage!) regardless of the consequences or implications to women or to anything, including the environment — is something he shares with other males, as a class, and that this transcends time and place (and therefore, social conditioning).  that it comes from himself, in other words, and that this is the very definition of innate.

this appears to be the size of it, owen lloyd.  u mad?  LOL.  thats what i thought.

Advertisements

Golden Girls Marathon. I Have My Period. February 3, 2013

Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, MRAs, news you can use, PIV, rape.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

these arent my favorite episodes or anything, they are just free, full episodes on youtube.  you can find more here.  really, this post isnt about the golden girls at all, im just engaging in a bit of misdirection.  if i wanted to buy myself a few extra minutes, i might even add a page break, or use a couple of big words.  and if the MRAs want to link to this post, their link *will* say “golden girls marathon” and “i have my period.”  ha!

also, my stools are a bit soft, even though i took probiotics.  can anyone recommend something for loose stools due to menstrual-related hormonal fluctuations?

are we alone now?  good.

there is something very wrong with men — we know this.  feminism is not about fixing men, or curing them of their repulsiveness — it would be a better use of our time to try to cure tangerines of their tangerine-ness.  and pointless experimenting on citrus fruit would surely smell better, and we could eat our mistakes!  yum!

i made a jello mold today but it didnt set up right — does anyone know why?  i think i added too much pineapple, but i thought i had compensated for that by adding a bigger box of jello than what the recipe called for.  i dont normally care for jello-based desserts but i have found that using exotic fruits and nuts keeps the focus off the jello.

thanks to mandatory PIV and rape, and mens global policy of female infanticide (but not male), there are too many men worldwide.  men exist in unnatural numbers globally and we know this.  we also know that genetically, the Y chromosome is defective and decaying over time — generation after generation, human males are becoming even more incomplete, even more lacking and they are indeed barrelling toward their own extinction.  google it.

my TiVo crashed and i lost my entire collection of ghost whisperer!  does anyone know how season 4 ended — the last episode i saw, jim had died and his spirit jumped into the body of some other dood, but does this mean that jim is still on the show and the actor that plays jim is leaving or what?

the human male is on its way out.  we know this.  however, on their way out the door, thanks to male genetic decay and the fact that they exist in unnatural numbers globally, they seem to have reached a critical mass of pure evil, and this might not have been the case 20 or even 10 years ago but it absolutely *is* the case now — things are getting worse.  we need to understand this, and take this into account in our theory and our actions.  what we thought was going to work before might not work now, or if it was working, it might not have any further usefulness because the game has changed.  we have to adapt to changing circumstances and use what we know, but some seem very invested in their own status or in the work itself rather than the truth, and liberating ourselves and other girls and women from male dominance — this is a mistake.

im having a cocktail party next week and i need some good ideas for appetizers.  i am really sick of the standard fare and would like to serve something with some “wow” factor — does anyone have any ideas?

women have known there is something fundamentally wrong with men for a long time, and they talk about it like its the common knowledge it is.  i am BEYOND sick of feminists (and feminism) which denies reality and the reality of womens lives and what men do to us AND WHY THEY DO IT, AND WHETHER THEY ARE LIKELY TO EVER STOP.  they arent.

i have an itchy anus, its especially bothersome at night — when i googled this, i found that this is a warning sign of intestinal parasites!  i do eat a lot of raw fish so i am afraid that perhaps i have picked up a parasite.  god that fucking sucks, as if i didnt have enough to deal with.

the increasing decay and incompleteness of the Y chromosome over time + unnatural numbers of men globally due to mandatory PIV and rape and female infanticide = critical mass of male evil.  this appears to be the truth of it.  this problem is real, and it is urgent.

read between the lines mkay.  men are showing and telling us everything we need to know about their intentions, and what they want to do to us and to the world, whether they can be reformed, and whether they will stop.  they are telling us the truth about themselves hourly, daily, weekly, yearly.  believe it.

On The “Sexual Double Standard” and Slut-Shaming December 9, 2012

Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, PIV, pop culture, rape.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

this will make sense in a minute hopefully?  i wanted to talk a bit about “slut shaming” and what has been framed as the “sexual double standard” since long before any of us was born — i think i first heard of it in the context of first-wave feminists who noticed that prostituted women were being singled out for oppressive state controls like mandatory screenings for venereal disease while male johns werent.  while i think the “double standard” concept was initially useful because it drew attention to a misogynistic phenomenon, so that we could isolate, identify and examine something that was really happening in real life, the concept itself is thinly (or not at all)-disguised equality-rhetoric isnt it?  it means that, assuming we are all the same, or “all things being equal” there should be one standard that applies universally.

the problem with identifying sex-based “double standards” however is that there are actual, meaningful sex-based differences between women and men — the “assuming we are all the same” part poses a problem for radical feminists, who understand that men do not equal women and women do not equal men.  for us, once we have identified the relevant issues as being reproductively-based, or having literally to do with “sex” (either biological sex or sexual intercourse, which implicates biological sex-based difference) an analysis based on the sexual double standard is a nonstarter.  radical feminists can and must do better, and our analyses do in fact shed meaningful light on issues affecting women as a sexual class, including social patriarchal structures and mechanisms which are designed by men to benefit themselves and support male power at womens expense.

in the case of the so-called sexual double standard of oppressive state controls being placed on prostituted women but not on male johns, the problem is not that its a double standard (which is an unhelpful liberal, rather than a feminist, concept), but that its actually a patriarchal reversal — policy and practice has assumed that prostituted women were largely infecting men, when the truth is that its the male johns who are infecting prostituted women, and not so much the other way around.

furthermore, a truth-based policy and practice would also have to acknowledge that, as a general matter, male johns are becoming infected themselves primarily through engaging in penetrative sex with other men (and intravenous drug use) — again, due to biological differences between women and men which make it relatively difficult for women to infect men with disease, as a general matter, men are not becoming infected by women, prostituted or not.  men are also known to engage in risky sexual and other behavior more than women are, which complicates the matter — what that “social” difference does not do, however, is make women more likely to infect men with sexually transmitted disease.  ruminate about “nature versus nurture” on that difference all you like, but for our purposes its largely irrelevant.

to clarify, whats “unfair” about the historical treatment of prostituted women is not that they are treated differently than men — the “double standard.”  no.  in reality, these policies and practices are “unfair” because they are objectively damaging to women and are misogynistic and patriarchal, designed to benefit men at womens expense (and in the case of the reversal, its an inversion of reality, to boot).

savvy?  now, for any of you who are still awake, i will attempt to draw a parallel between slut-shaming and the chest-burster scene from alien.

regarding “slut-shaming”.  slut-shaming, apparently, refers to the “sexual double standard” whereby women who engage in (primarily) intercourse with men are cast in a negative light, while males who engage in (primarily) intercourse with women arent.  yes?  so dismissing the equality-framework of the double-standard as inadequate on its face (we are talking about intercourse, where there are in fact meaningful sex-based differences between women and men) we must go deeper.  what is really going on here, when women who fuck men “consensually” are regarded as “more promiscuous, less intelligent, less mentally healthy, less competent, and more risky” than are the men they are fucking?

first, its obvious that this is a male-centric viewpoint — everything is, and will continue to be, unless and until women develop our own female-centric discourse, and create language and concepts and definitions that center female reality, and that address and communicate what *we* mean when we say what we say.  interestingly, when viewing the world through mens eyes, the reasoning behind “slut-shaming” instantly snaps into focus doesnt it?  to wit, considering that men know that intercourse is harmful to women, including the risks of disease and pregnancy; and understanding that female-specific reproductive harm is central and critical to male political and interpersonal power; and considering that intercourse-as-sex is therefore the very foundation of patriarchy itself — men tend to view women who “have sex” in a negative light because no sane, healthy, competent etc. person would voluntarily engage in it, considering the risks.  get it?

so sane person.  no human person.  no man.

you see, there is not a man in the entire world, if the risks of intercourse applied to men, who would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER choose to engage in it for pleasures sake.  never, ever, ever, ever, ever would a man voluntarily place himself in harms way like that, and that includes the most submissive, masochistic and self-hating man.  NO man would EVER do this.  so if the question is, “why do men treat women who voluntarily engage in intercourse as if those women are retarded, damaged, or crazy?” the answer, im sorry to say, is “because thats what they think you are.”

historical note: nymphomania.  this is not abstract theorizing mkay.  men have long thought that women who desired intercourse with men were crazy, as in mentally ill.  because no sane person would voluntarily engage in it, considering the risks.  note that historically and today, this diagnosis applies only to women, although that history (and, uh, present) has been obscured of late with bullshit equality rhetoric: wiki now redirects to “hypersexuality” despite the female-specific context and connotations of nymphomania.

its not difficult to see how and in what context “slut shaming” makes perfect sense, actually.  note that *i* am not saying that women who voluntarily engage in intercourse are retarded, insane, or particularly damaged.  i know better, and that its more akin to making a deal with the devil, where men are the devil.

interestingly, and very much related, this is what men appear to think of pregnancy:  (remakes of) the chestbursting-alien scene from alien!  i couldnt find the real one, but these will do.

which is even more reason for men to think women are LITERALLY RETARDED, literally insane, to voluntarily place themselves at risk by having intercourse with men.  it also demonstrates what they think of people who are insane, when sane = man = human.  as in, no sane person.  no human person.  no man.  listening to men tell it, they seem to think pregnancy and aliens are very much related.

and while *i* accept that some women might desire pregnancy under some conditions, men seem to think that NO sane person would EVER voluntarily submit to it under ANY conditions, although they are assuming the continuation of patriarchy including patriarchal medicine and how it is deliberately used to support male power and to harm and damage pregnant, birthing and mothering women.  of course they are.

tl;dr.  slut shaming: its what men really think of women who voluntarily have sex with men, because men know that intercourse is damaging to women.  also,  the sexual “double standard” cannot be applied to radical analyses of policies and practices implicating “sex” and sex-based difference.  in the context of “slut shaming”, a double-standard analysis is unhelpful liberal equality-rhetoric, nothing more.

Hate Song December 3, 2012

Posted by FCM in entertainment, liberal dickwads, PIV, pop culture, thats random.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

when you talk, i basically tell you to shut up, or wish you would.  youre young and beautiful now, but you wont always be.  fortunately for me, you cannot move through the world anonymously even if you wanted to, and thinking about other men threatening your safety gives me a boner.

i want you to consent to PIV with me, when PIV is a hateful act which others you and pathologizes your female reproductive biology.  to help me fulfill my agenda, i am trying to confuse you with hateful reversals.  is it working?  also, its probably better (for me) if you dont think about what will happen if you say no.

look, something shiny!

more on PIV here.

And With That, The Entire House Came Crumbling Down November 26, 2012

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

oh how i wish this would just happen already!  the internets have blown up with the PIV-critical talk — and this makes me so happy i cant even.  of course, i doubt this will be the final throes of the PIV-as-sex paradigm — the one that has left literally billions of damaged, dead and dying female bodies in its wake across time and place — which makes me so sad i cant even.  we will have to live like this for a bit i think, but how long is a “bit” really?  things change on a dime (in some cases).  that one piece of the puzzle finally clicks into place and the picture becomes clear — in some cases.

and did i mention men lie?  they make shit up, they create realities that arent real.  this makes our job harder, but moving through mental molasses is still movement.

an illustration.  what does this image conjure for any of us when we see it:

sea monsters arent real. so what is this?

sea monsters arent real mkay.  so what are these images a placeholder for?  whats really going on, and what are men lying about exactly when they create these elaborate scenarios and images that attempt to explain real phenomena but with the added “twist” of building males up and increasing male power, and stumping for men and a pro-male agenda, whatever that means at the time?

in the case of the mythology of the sea monster…an entire false history complete with evocative imagery and compulsory emotionality/sentimentality seems to have been written by men to explain away entire ships — hundreds of them — being lost at sea, possibly due either to bad seamanship or to rogue waves.

according to the history channel, historically, when not-incompetent seafaring men reported seeing or being damaged by one of these “monster waves” — assuming they survived at all — the other men laughed at them, and called them drunks or worse.  so the men just started making shit up.  because they could, you see.  men create reality; the rest of us just live in it.

in the case of the seamonster, men created an incredibly rich, vivid and yet as it turns out completely false reality narrative that *kind of* explained what had happened, but which made them look better than the actual, real truth, and deflected the blame away from them onto something — anything! — else.  only when other men found “scientific evidence” of rogue waves did anyone start believing they were real, and (happily!) this truth was exculpatory of men and mens incompetence, and knowing that, men started widely reporting the actual real truth about rogue waves and the part they play in anyones reality.

i find it particularly striking that rogue waves are known to take out the masts of ships — knowing how frequently we see images of seamonsters grabbing onto the masts of ships.

and speaking of rich, vivid and yet completely false narratives, what of this:

this isnt real either. so what does this image stand for?

feel the emotion and history there?  so do i.  unfortunately though, just like in the case of the seamonsters, this “history” — of PIV and what it is and what it means — is not real.  we are left to deal with the fact that this imagery and this history feels real, and is physically and emotionally evocative — of something made-up, that never happened.  talk about a mindfuck.  does it help to understand that men do this all the time?  that they invent imagery and entire histories of things that feel or seem real — and that deliberately somewhat-correspond to actual events — but which never actually happened in real life?  because they do.

like this:

men lie.

feel that?  feel the witchy history there, the evocative narrative, the sounds, the smells, the emotions and all of it?  thats intentional.  but its not real.  srsly, how do they do that — how is emotion and history manufactured so easily and so effectively?  i cant say i fully understand the mechanism, but look — “witches” were mainly women — regular women.  witches cauldrons were for cooking, a cauldron is just a big pot, get it?  and all women had one in their homes.  brooms were for sweeping, (not for flying ffs) and all or almost all women had one in the house.  just like we do today.  get it?

mens ability to rewrite this and to have their lying-ass version of history just last and last is terrifying, it really is.  think of these examples as mansplanations, perhaps — and then realize how malicious and malevolent mansplanations really are.  men lie.  and men kill women on purpose, and lie about it, including inventing evocative histories bursting with sentimentality and emotion which deflect our intellect and imagination to where men want them, instead of on the real actual truth.  and this of course includes the truth about PIV and what it means for female-bodied people across time and place.

in the case of the seamonsters, the actual, real truth was exculpatory of men, so men were more than happy to report the truth when they finally knew it.  but this is *not* the case with accused witches and what men did to them because they wanted to and because they could — that history has been trivialized, and all but completely erased.  and it is not the case with PIV either.  the truth will never be reported, by them.  the picture will never finally come into focus, relying on that one critical piece of information, supplied by them.  we have to do this ourselves, or it will never be done.   and once the truth is out, we will probably have to work very hard to preserve it.