jump to navigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trannies (Men) Want, Trannies (Men) Get. What ‘Erasure’ Looks Like On the Ground. March 31, 2013

Posted by FCM in feminisms, international, meta, politics.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

ive been doing this awhile now, and i can report that i have been a target from day one or thereabouts, when the fun fems and sex-pozzers first tried to silence me.  this was even before i received my first rape or death threat — it was the women that nearly did me in!  granted, half these “women” were probably men, but not all of them.

in the beginning — notably, before i had even found my voice or gone anywhere near the ends of my thoughts — in order to amass currency and credibility, i was invited to “check my privilege” to the point of nearly (even clearly) identifying myself publicly.  (i declined that invitation.)  in the same vein, accusations were lobbed at me of various “privileges” (and continue to this day) inviting me to reveal details of my life as a “rebuttal” lest i encounter negative outcomes (like losing currency and credibility, due to all the privilege).  or to, you know, ignore it.

this is no accident BTW.  this “privilege checking” business mirrors doxing and outing exactly.  the outcome at least is identical, where the result is to make radical feminist bloggers more vulnerable to violent men in real life, in order to silence us, or cause us to self-censor out of fear.  this outcome — womens identities and personal information being revealed in order to silence radical women or original, female-centered thought — is what men want, and this is what men get.  handed to them on a silver fucking platter.  by us, via “privilege checking.”

luckily, even way back then, although this was my first blog, it was not my first rodeo — i continued.  at some point my focus changed, and i came to realize that what i was doing was qualitatively (and quantitatively) different than what anyone else was doing at this time and place (online, now).  very recently, and very painfully, and painstakingly, and like REALLY SLOWLY, as if i had some kind of mental block against realizing this particular truth as a matter of fact, i realized that reformist-oriented radical feminists have taken over the movement, and are trying very hard to silence dissent.  here is what i mean by that.

i mean that there are radical feminists who are without a doubt radical — they recognize the importance of getting to the root of womens oppression by men.  that is not a small thing.  in order to fulfill that most basic requirement, one must first believe in women and men — in todays pomo, queerified environs, almost everyone who identifies as “feminist” fails.  reformist-oriented radical feminists believe in women and men as sexual classes, and they want to get at the root, and notably, they have chosen to utilize legal and social reform as a tool to dismantle what they consider the root, which is usually identified as dom/sub.  the ugly part of this is not that they are utilizing a specific strategy towards ending male dominance — to each her own.  the ugly part, as it always is, is the disingenuous part, the silencing part.

to wit, and these are but 2 examples, men and trannies have been really pissed off about mary daly and her very existence for a long time — they see her as an “evil” woman (HA!) and resent her audacity in every way.  they have identified her “sexism” against men and her female-centered vision as offensive to themselves and thus they want activate towards complete erasure of daly and her genius and her exceedingly excellent work and legacy from the face of the earth.  indeed, if mary daly were alive today, her work likely wouldnt even be published, and her physical safety would be in serious danger because of the escalating threats and violence of men against women and the attempted and successful silencing of specifically radical feminist ideology.

so within this political and material context, where men vehemently wish activate towards mary daly and her work being wiped from the face of the earth, what does one (relatively) well-known reformist-oriented radical feminist do, in a public letter to the UN (subject: trannie politicking) but throw “essentialists” like mary daly and all feminists who think like mary daly under the bus — we are erased from feminism.  mary daly!  not a feminist!  because she noted that men are unlikely to be changed, and that its likely biological.  thats rich.  no, the real feminists are the social determinists, like gloria steinem — and steinem herself seems especially quotable when she herself is quoting a man.  srsly, read the UN letter if you havent already.  now thats good erasure i mean reformist politicking.

next, and of personal and political significance to myself (and others) men and trannies set their sights on the radfem HUB early on.  they wanted it GONE.  erased.  they activated towards that end mercilessly; notably, they failed.  and yet, be that as it may…has anyone seen the HUB lately?  gee, where did it go, who was involved, and what lead up to it — even more to the point, what has been so distracting, stressful and time consuming of late (erasure complete) for 2 of the most prolific radfem bloggers out there, 2 radfem bloggers who are decidedly against reformist politicking and have been calling shit on both reformism and the tendency of reformist feminists to hold out hope for men against all evidence — and why oh why arent they (they, specifically) writing anything?

and rounding out the picture nicely, including who wants/activates towards what ends for the HUB, and why, is this: “liberation collective” has just today republished a series originally published on the HUB — but “lib coll” doesnt mention the HUB at all, or mention that this is not the first time this series has been published, or where.  its as if HUB never existed, but of course erasing the HUB is the entire reason lib coll exists — it was created a year after HUB was, and hosted exclusively republished/recycled content from the HUB but without acknowledging the HUB at all, or the fact that the posts were *not* first published at lib coll, but in fact were created previously and exclusively for/within a specific context, and were first published “somewhere else.”  and what that “context” was and where that “somewhere else” might be was and is specifically omitted.  get it?  all of that has been erased.  a very fine point has been added now that the HUB itself has been destroyed.  from the inside.

now, anyone can investigate the connections here if they want to: are the organizers of lib coll and the organizers of radfem 2013 the same people?  was the owner and dispositor of the HUB domain involved in any way in either lib coll or radfem 2013?  if so, was it in a “public relations” capacity?  im just asking.

and for those who plan to go, i hope you will report back as to whether the entire point (intent and effect) of radfem 2013 was to advance the agenda and numbers of reformist-oriented radical feminists, while simultaneously erasing and negating the fact that there is any other kind.  and that we were very vocal, once.

this is what “erasure” looks like, on the ground, in real time.  in case anyone has ever wondered.  it looks like reformist activating, or at the very least, reformists and reformist activating routinely and demonstrably produce a very specific result — to erase radical feminism and radical feminists, including our radical feminist history and our work.  do they not?  we are absolutely swimming in the erasure of radical herstory right here, right now.  remember this.

A Personal Statement February 28, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, health, meta, politics, WTF?.
Tags: , , , , ,
comments closed

please bother me for the password so you can read my super sikkrit thoughts.  j/k.  (this is not a password protected post.  read on.)

i have experienced a blogging crisis recently.  is this a first-world problem?  oh dear.  actually, its a speech problem, a silencing problem.  women around the world experience this, and i experience it too.  this is why i am a radical feminist, afterall.  because i share class: female with 3.5 billion women globally who are rountinely, systematically and very easily silenced, by men, and by male technology, and you know, rape, and threats of rape.  when we do get a word in edgewise, its precariously positioned indeed.  we are no-platformed globally, and we speak from atop the head of a pin, standing on one foot, juggling knives.  the lucky ones have a getaway-car waiting at the base of the mountain.  sometimes the driver has been shot.  me, i have a bicycle.

a bicycle?  the head of a pin?  is this supposed to be symbolic or something?  no — its just words, meant to convey an image, a feeling and above all, an un-obscured message.  the message might be a feeling, of course.  did it work?

but its not symbolic — i dont do symbolism.  i dont have time, and i was never good at it anyway.  i tried, when i was young and first thought i wanted to write — a play, as i recall.  with symbolism!  hester prynne’s illegitimate (foreign, irritating, secret, precious) daughter was named pearl — get it?  and as i was getting my characters in order, i realized okay, this is going to be a hell of a lot of work.  this is going to take so much research, and there are some things that i — as a 16-year old (and girl) — simply could not know.  like, i wanted one of my characters to be an adult man from new york city (i think?)  how was i supposed to write that?  that project went nowhere, once i realized that.  i had written some notes in a small, extremely cheaply made journal covered in black chinese polyester silk.  i never used the journal for anything after that.  what a waste.

oh, and i just remembered!  my very first big writing project was going to be a book!  i started it when i was 10, over summer vacation.  the only line i recall: a wave of excitement splashed over her body as she…did something.  i know she — a high school aged girl — was going to a dance at school, so she was either entering the school or the gym.  at 3:00 in the afternoon.  because thats what time the dances were, when i was in 4th grade.  somehow i knew i was being naive though, and that high-school dances worked differently, but how?  i never finished the book.  i remember sitting at the table in the air conditioning in a wet bathing suit, typing on an old typewriter with a couple missing keys that poked into my fingers.  like, really bad.  it was almost useless as a typewriter.  my sister and our friend made “tea cakes” for us to eat, in our wet bathing suits in the air conditioning — “cakes” which consisted of the inner parts of whitebread slices balled up in our hands, which we drank with…something.  maybe tea, but probably not.  iced tea maybe.  the swirls in the “tea cakes” (bread-balls) that looked kinda like cinnamon were actually dirty-hand dirt.

i had thought exclusively positive things about all of this — it was fun! — until one of the mothers asked us what “tea cakes” were, and then what the swirls were.  she also asked me what i was writing, and when i replied that i was writing a book, she seemed skeptical!  it hadnt occurred to me to be embarrassed about literally every single thing i was doing there at that table, eating dirty hand-balled whitebread, typing words that would never be a book ever, because there is no possible way.  then, im sure i went swimming.  in a dirty lake.  with fish.  in case anyone was wondering.

anyway, what was i saying?  oh, symbolism.  i dont do it.  what i do is write things, for people to read, and then i converse with them about it.  generally speaking, i speak literally (not metaphorically) and i invoke feeling, as well as convey information.  in every post i write, i include an insight, because otherwise i bore myself to death and see very little point.  these insights come from different places and i dont take credit for most of them — i just work here.  i show up to work here.  luckily, i am frequently inspired.

as a part of this writing-thing, i sustain direct and indirect hits, because for whatever reason, people are actually reading what i am saying.  they are paying attention to it and responding to it in various ways.  i *dont* like attention, but i do like writing things, for people to read, and then discussing it with them.  so i keep doing it.  sometimes i think about ending it so that i dont have to deal with the shitty parts of it anymore, and the shitty part is really fucking shitty.  like, i feel like i am eating some amount of shit every fucking day, or most days.  it feels toxic and alienating.

what i started doing when i feel toxic and alienated — because when i get like this i feel like i have nothing else to read, even though thats not exactly true, but thats how it feels when there is so (relatively) little radical work out there and i just want to feel inspired again, and i am feeling quite alone and frustrated by this point, and the thought of picking up a 30-year old book isnt doing it for me, and i dont want to have to search for anything, wahhhh, poor me — i read my own archives.  okay?  i do.  i read the posts and i read the comments — seriously, i highly highly recommend the comments.  it takes about an hour to read 2 or 3 posts and the conversations that follow, and every time i do this, i think — this is some of the best if not THE BEST writing on the internet.  or something.  you literally cannot get this anywhere else.  okay?  i think this about the posts, and i think this about the comments.  its not the writing as much as the ideas of course, but damn those are some nice words, strung together in a coherent way, intended to make sense to other people.  which is different than being a “good writer” not incidentally.  get it?

and i used to do this with the HUB too.  every time we were under attack or experiencing some crisis or sustaining repeated blows, from within and without, sometimes at the same time, i would pry one hand out of my hair and go a-browsing.  in its early days, i would browse HUB’s front page — it went on forever, and had so much fresh content, it was glorious — and i would think “this is really good work.  i am really happy about this.  excellent.”  or something.  and you know what else i would think about?  as much as i hate to admit it to all you amazing women who might be able to go entire minutes without an old white man popping into your head, i (would and do) think about dave thomas, the creator of the wendy’s hamburger franchise.

okay?  i think about dave freaking thomas and his freaking fast-food restaurants.  because i once saw a biography about him, and he spake into the camera thusly:

every time i feel down, and like this cant possibly succeed (he was competing with the biggies mcdonalds and burger king, dont forget) i go into one of my restaurants, and i have a burger and a frosty and i think “this is really good food.”  and that makes me feel better, and i start to believe this might actually work.

thats a paraphrase, and its rather like “if i build it, they will come” — but with pickles and onions.  get it?  if i build it, they will come.  another dumb 80s reference that has stuck with me all this time, for some reason.  the young ‘uns can google it.

so look.  deep down, im just a hick who remembers stuff, and i find inspiration where i find it.  i involuntarily recall this interview of dave thomas i accidentally saw once, when im feeling down about radical feminist blogging, or when the biggies are about to crush me.  because the biggies are about to crush me, always, and therefore, i sustain blow after blow, from within and without, i end up thinking about hamburgers a lot.  not all the time, but more than i normally would, for sure.  i am thinking about them right now.  and now you are too.  :)

so, is there an actual point to be located anywhere in this post?  yes.  did it come through?  you tell me.  i feel like hammered shit right now, and im thinking about crusty, greasy hamburgers i cant even eat.  because of food allergies, mind you.  my appetite is completely fine.

The Manketplace of Broideas! February 18, 2013

Posted by FCM in international, liberal dickwads, MRAs, politics, porn, prostitution, radical concepts, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

i think we have all seen recently (and forever) that mens alleged “marketplace of ideas” really isnt.  men wax idiotic about their beloved “marketplace” which is interesting terminology in itself — if there is no “market” for it, it has no place.  and obviously they mean this literally — if men cant make money (or some other benefit) from it, its worthless.  they like to think this isnt true, and cite as evidence their made-up assertion that but but but their marketplace includes anti-capitalist dood-volutionary type material too!

in reality, mens “marketplace” includes allegedly subversive material, as long as its porny enough, and exploits women.  hello.  orwell himself once marveled about his own career as a writer that he had “somehow” convinced capitalism (or like, the establishment, or something) for a short time to pay him for work that was directly oppositional to its own interests.  a close reading of “1984” of course reveals that, whatever else it mightve been, orwells doodvolutionary work was also valuable PIV-positive, woman-hating propaganda.  mystery solved.

we have seen rampant censorship of womens ideas recently — funny that, since women have only recently been granted a voice in public, and been allowed to read and write for that matter.  the lucky ones of us anyway.  and despite a global policy and practice of silencing women, often via rape and threats of rape, we see men waxing asshole about “free speech” and how it doesnt count as censorship if its hate speech!  or, its not really silencing unless the government does it.  it doesnt count, when its done to us, by men, because this that and the other.  but specifically women dont need the government to silence us if we are shut down immediately by your average, male-privileged joe via domestic terrorism, including terroristic rape and death threats and men stalking us and promising to harm our children.  or if we manage to speak for a couple of months anyway, and later, when a major blogging platform shuts us down for alleged TOS violations (while leaving up all manners of woman hatred, including porn AND RAPE AND DEATH THREATS).

this isnt technically censorship they say, quite ironically, since they are saying it with the deliberate intention of shutting us down and preventing us from developing a theory about whats really going on — we are specifically prevented from conceding ok, this is not technically censorship AND YET we are being effectively silenced anyway, and then speculating on why and how that is.

so the average joe shuts us down, because it *is* in fact (largely) the average joe that oppresses women globally, every day, because patriarchy.  they do this with their dicks, and with the express and implied threat of using their dicks against us.  and, you know, their vicious murderous violence and threats of violence.  it works.  and they go right on believing (or pretending to believe) that their “marketplace of ideas” really includes a diversity of human thought, or that it should, and even that it could.  their idiotic assertions are laughable, making one question the veracity of certain “common knowledge” regarding what men really fear — legend has it, men fear women laughing at them more than they fear anything else in the world.  but they dont bother hiding their ludicrous hypocrisy, which tends to invoke a hiccup and half-concealed snort at least.  so while i believe that men hate (not fear) women laughing at them, their solution is to silence womens laughter.  notably, they dont try to not be funnySILENCE.

with this in mind, i would like to acknowledge that the program and registration materials for radfem 2013 have been posted.  here, there and elsewhere, women are bringing *our* ideas to the marketplace.  men arent proving to like it, but mens response certainly does not detract from or negate the value of those ideas, or speak (in any direct way) to the value of our ideas to and for women, as a sexual class, around the world.  in reality, radical feminism is the only idea and the only policy and practice that has any value at all.  its the only honest, rigorous discourse on the planet at this time, because its the only one that centers or even acknowledges the lives and the reality of 3.5 billion oppressed people globally — women.

for thinking, intellectually honest women, for women who acknowledge our own humanity and who want to be fully free, radical feminism — including female separatism, and organizing and gathering in female-only space — is all there is.  because women are a sex class, the rapeable class, sexual politics is the only political platform that holds any promise to free us, including liberating our female bodies and our minds from male dominance, and that is why we continue to do it.  historically, it seems that human beings want to be, and activate towards being free, and if it surprises (or enrages) men that we persevere in the face of their threatened and actualized violence, its only because they do not think we are human at all — but they are wrong about that.  in reality, everything men do and everything men think is wrong.

The Patriarchal Intent and Effect (i.e. The Purpose) of Transgenderism January 25, 2013

Posted by FCM in international, meta, politics, pop culture, rape, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

the video the transactivists are apparently trying to censor/silence:

like all man-made social processes and systems, we must assume that trannyism — and the social, legal and medical implications of trannyism — serves a patriarchal purpose.  that is, that the intent and effect of trannyism as a social phenomenon is to ultimately benefit men at womens expense.  intent can be proven circumstantially of course — even in the case of unanticipated side effects, once the previously-unknown or unknowable result becomes known, if one doesnt like the outcome, one is free to stop reproducing it.  and obviously if one continues to produce the now-known, now-anticipated result, its because one likes it, needs it, wants it, benefits from it.

in other words, the intent can be deduced from the result — to understand what was intended, you need only examine the end effect, especially when that end-effect is reproduced again and again and again and again.  and such is the case with transgender.  and i think enough time has gone by, from the beginning of modern trannyism until now, that we can identify and examine its patriarchal intent and effect.  what has been the point of all this?

for the sake of expediency, and because they are related, lets review the effect of liberal feminist equality-activating while we are at it — and this includes allegedly radical feminists who build theory and practice around the equation women = men and men = women in the various ways they do, whether purposely or accidentally.  for example, the oft-repeated “womens sex role under patriarchy as fuckholes and slaves isnt our natural state, therefore mens sex role as rapists and slaveowners isnt natural to men either.”  srsly, please stop saying that.

thanks to equality-activating, feminist consciousness-raising — whereby feminists have met for decades in women-only space to discuss our “personal” and understand that our personal is political — is now illegal in many places.  because it is discriminatory against men.  mkay?  its illegal.  the tool that women have reported was the single most effective in our feminist toolshed for understanding sexual politics, and the mechanisms of male interpersonal and institutional power and therefore of womens oppression by men, and meeting and be-friending women for that matter, and be-ing able to be together, unshaven if we wanted to, and for once in our fucking lives not having to worry about dick-pleasing the dick-people — this could land us in jail (as rape-fodder) or leave us open to civil liability stripping us of financial security, where financially destitute women under patriarchy are — you guessed it — rape fodder.

in short, our previously female-only safe space functions as the queue to a raperoom now — rape via jail or poverty — because of equality-activating which has made it illegal to discriminate against men based on sex.  i understand that we might notve seen that one coming — its breathtakingly dastardly afterall.  but it happened.

in fact, the only way to do this “right” is to let men in — especially predatory men who wont hear our “no” and who invoke the misogynist legal system to bypass our consent.  our newly defiled female-only-safe-space-which-includes-men-now is the raperoom proper — because predatory men are there, and they have complete power and we dont.  the threat of rape is real and imminent — if we do it right, following mens rules to the letter, the rape-threat is not symbolic, or even attenuated at all.  the rapists are really, actually there, in the flesh as it were.  get it?

and thanks in particular to trannyism, in certain places in the world, women can no longer publicly discuss female biology because its transphobic.  we can no longer publicly say that females are uniquely oppressed by males, and that womens oppression globally is directly related to males exploiting female reproductive biology through mandatory intercourse and rape — even though that is true.  this is radfem 101 — it is the essence of sexual politics, and the only truly rigorous, honest and revolutionary discourse that has ever existed anywhere at any time, because it isolates and examines the mechanisms of male power and of womens oppression by men.  discussing sexual politics is illegal now.

we can still mention fucking and rape of course, as long as we cast them in a depoliticized (favorable) light.

and because of legal protections for transgendered males, we can no longer publicly organize in women-only spaces that exclude transgendered males; and when seeking public services such as shelters and rape-crisis services, in some places, women have no choice but to submit to cohabitating with and being thought-policed and reprogrammed (therapized) by men who have everything to gain from thought-policing and reprogramming women.  all of this due to laws designed to protect transgendered persons — or so they say.

and as often happens around the same time legal changes take hold, like oh say civil rights protections for american blacks (black males) making black males more or less ethically equal to white males now, (and where racism against black males is unethical) our ethics around “sex-discrimination” have changed too, and the result is that we cant “ethically” discriminate against men in private either, in our private spaces and even in the privacy of our own minds.  we are expected to thought-police ourselves, censor ourselves.  this is the worst kind of totalitarian oppression — the extreme controls on persons in public and private is the thrust of a totalitarian regime so well-described by orwell in 1984.

between equality-activism and trannyism, the effect has been to render radical feminism — and only radical feminism, which includes both consciousness-raising in female-only space and discussing sexual politics including the politics of reproductive biology — both illegal and unethical, in certain places of the world.  more importantly, its made it increasingly dangerous to *be* or to practice radical feminism, putting women who do it at increased risk of being raped by men.  raped, in particular, see?  this was deliberate of course.

in short, legal protections for males — and in particular, criminalizing or penalizing women for discriminating against men — puts women at increased risk of being raped by men.  savvy?  it really couldnt be more obvious.  thats what trannyism does, and therefore we can (must) conclude that thats what trannyism is for.  its also why equality-activating has been allowed for as long and to the extent it has been.

it is in this context too that we must examine the overtly rapey behavior of transgendered persons individually.  it is all connected, where the patriarchal purpose and effect of trannyism as a whole and in its individual parts *is* rape, and womens increased vulnerability to being raped by men — and being forbidden to talk *or think* about what rape means politically.

as a political strategy, to maintain the historical record of our work, our understanding and our resistance via our archives, i agree with the vidder above that “mirroring” trans-critical videos and distributing them widely is probably a good idea.  that is all.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 391 other followers