jump to navigation

Wow. I Can’t Type. November 29, 2014

Posted by FCM in meta, news you can use, pop culture, radical concepts.
Tags: ,
comments closed

whatever typing skills i had gained over 4 years of constant blogging fail me now, i cannot type anymore.  at all.  however, i still want to connect, and to say HI, and to report back on what i have seen and learned over the last year when i was away.  on my way out, i had been commenting, rather at length, about how and why our “movement” probably looks the way it looks, and acts the way it does.  the nuts leave.  i wanted to add something to that parting thought, which is that women are not meant to communicate this way — using words.  we just arent.  realizing this has been interesting for me, as a (formerly) prolific writer, because i still believe that getting the important stuff in writing, so we can access it both now and later is, well, important.  having our beliefs written out in a logical, unassailable form that is easily conveyed and understood by other people is important.  but it is just the beginning.

for example, i have had the great pleasure in the last year of encountering stray animals and “taking them in”.  bizarrely, i found myself sing-songing to them, meaning, i spoke to them, but not in any recognizable language, a bit like women have always sung to babies (and animals!) but not being a mother myself, i had never experienced this.  this “baby talk” is so demeaned and devalued in this culture, and it is also misused (in het relationships, between partners — blech) that it was humiliating to me to realize that i was doing it.  but the more i sat with it, the more i understood it.  i now believe that womens voices can be used for so much more than just speaking — we communicate through sound when we want to, but the way we connect is non-sensical.  it is jibberish, and yet something is conveyed — a thought, perhaps, or a feeling, or just a way of filling the space between us, our sounds (and our silences!) matter.  i now believe that women, and animals, are largely nonverbal, and that this is the way its always been and is much more natural to us than using language, which came later.  sonia johnson explores this in her books, unsurprisingly.  nothing new under the sun.  i get that this may sound bizarre to those who have never experienced it (and even to some who have).

and to take this a bit further, *if* it is true that women are largely or naturally nonverbal, like animals are, then quite a lot of mensworld begins to make sense.  i immediately think of “pick up artists” and how they have been training each other for years how to capitalize on this — women say NO to men, and to PIV in hundreds of (nonverbal) ways, but to the PUA, unless a woman shouts NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (or kills him in self defense) none of our NOs matter.  we are not communicating NO to them on their terms, using words, so the many ways we *are* communicating it do not matter.  they have free reign to rape us, and if it comes down to it, law enforcement will probably agree with them — that our nonverbal NOs were not communicative, or not sufficiently communicative.  of course, men rape women anyway, even when we do say NO (and women are also “socialized” to be coy mute, so theres that).  but there is something here worth parsing, i think, having to do with communication, versus language.

and the bottom line might be, it is better to just stay away from men completely, if they do not respect/accept our “language” and the many ways women speak/communicate which do not follow mens rules.  and the evidence suggests that indeed men do not respect/accept it.  also, we can never win with them, which is another great reason to stay away (see scat, and michael stipe — men have long been recognized and allowed to communicate nonverbally, using the voice as an instrument, but women have not).

i would also like to report (again!) that i have experienced “womens land” over the last year, and that it is quite unlike anything else on earth.  women who have been doing this for decades (and longer) already know this of course and i do not wish to demean their experience and contributions to our collective knowledge by merely repeating it.  to hopefully expound on it, perhaps like the patriarchal toxic waste that is left behind in mensworld by men, i think that women using women-only space leaves some kind of energy behind that is palpable to those who come later.  when women-indentified-women use a shower, or toilet, or table, or room, they leave something behind, and it is palpable — the opposite of the gross and palpable evil that males leave in their wake, women-identified-women leave behind female identification, and female life.  the women that come after, if they are sensitive to such things — and probably even if they arent, this is partially what is so exciting about it — *feel* what has come before.  and it invites more of the same, and more of the same.

to wit, a “shower” on womens land feels different than any other shower — everything that is expected to, and does, happen in there with female bodies, minds and our entire reality while showering is normal, to be expected, and acceptable.  it is (we are) not tangential, tertiary, dysfunctional, or weird.  and this means something.  there is a reason we are not expected or allowed to ever experience this, or to know this.  our bodies, and everything that we do and everything we are, can be experienced as normal, expected, and accepted.  this is possible.  i know this now.  and i just wanted to document it here, along with everything else.  i believe that this is at least as important as anything else we have discussed here or anywhere, and i will therefore leave comments open for as long as women are actively discussing.  that is all.

Revisiting SCUM July 5, 2013

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

as probably everyone knows, valerie solanas shot pop-artist and celebrity andy warhol in 1968.  he survived his injuries and went on being andy warhol for another 20 years.  he didnt seem that upset about being shot — according to him, life was unreal anyway, he was incapable of experiencing emotion which television portrayed as strong and real but this did not match his own reality at all.  his “art” was flat and commercial, revealing no inner life or imagination at all.  one art critic said warhol was brilliant in his function as a mirror, reflecting our own (flat, commercial) culture back at us.  culture meaning patriarchy or male culture of course, which is indeed flat and commercial.  and dead.  necrophilic, if you will.  warhol was an inanimate object perfectly reflecting death — and this was a favorable review!

may i suggest here that andy warhol was also a walking target for other men?  especially if they knew they could get away with it, how many men would’ve killed warhol themselves if given the chance?  a certain segment of the (male) population would’ve happily killed him for being the son of immigrants, another would’ve killed him for being gay, another group would’ve done it while they were robbing him — he was very wealthy you know.  and jealousy.  or because his art sucked (the critics largely hated him).  there are a million “reasons” men have for killing other men of course, but if one looks closely enough, and taking into consideration mens necrophilia generally, one might see that most (all) of these arent really reasons at all, but justifications.  like, what if being gay (or whatever) isnt a reason to kill someone but a justification applied either before or after the fact to something a man simply wants to do and does?  that would kind of turn things on their head wouldnt it?

so back to solanas.  she shot warhol, but didnt kill him.  she was incarcerated for 3 years for this and is remembered as one of the most hated women who ever lived because of what she did.  or was it because of what she said?  or both?  note that men actually love it when women attempt to (or succeed in) maiming and killing men because that opens the door to formal, institutional and state control of us — it has nothing to do with valuing men which they clearly dont.  men are simply and obviously of no value to other men, and indeed this is reflective of natural law whereby men are largely redundant, and where one woman is worth millions and even billions of men.  this is the truth of the matter and men seem to understand this — whereupon they parasitically attach themselves to and leech off of women from cradle to grave (either their grave our ours).

so what could possibly be mens beef with valerie solanas and with women who dare read her and appreciate her work?  (jeez, doods, thought-police much?)  while the value of a man to another man (or a mans own value to himself) is approaching zero and they show us this all the time, women, since we are not men ourselves, must apply a cost-benefit analysis to determine mens worth — an objective, not a subjective valuation.  for an objective valuation, the equation is benefit minus cost.  isnt it?  solanas named mens parasitic nature/behavior for what it is, and the concept of male parasitism falls squarely on the cost-side, and it is a devastating one.  women report being life-sucked by men constantly but are mostly without words to describe this.

did valerie solanas dare identify/suggest objective criteria by which we might measure mens worth?  oh dear.  re-reading SCUM confirms that she did.  men and mensworld are boring, fatherhood is destructive — and mens life-sucking parasitism — these things represent *costs* to women of living in mensworld and indeed of having men around at all.  there is plenty of fertile radfem ground here and plenty to think about and discuss.  but you know whats even more interesting to me at the moment?  solanas’s SCUM manifesto was just a damn good read.  it was interesting mkay?  it was thought-provoking, audacious and clear.

yes thats right!  valerie solanas, public enemy number one, gave women something interesting to read.

= Necrophilia June 6, 2013

Posted by FCM in logic, pop culture, porn, radical concepts, rape, trans.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

one week into it, i can report that the new mens search terms blog has been eye opening.  specifically, in preparing the first hundred or so posts to go live, having a lot of data to review at the same time made it very easy to categorize mens search terms into their general themes, and to realize that there are indeed parameters within which men seem to be operating when they go online.  mens depravity is not random, in other words, and its not individualized, despite what everyone else seems think or at least say.  there are patterns and constants, and as creative as men are when it comes to envisioning and perpetrating violence and abuse, its all very much the same if you can just get your head around it.

their deviance doesnt deviate.  get it?  which means that we arent dealing in deviant behavior (or thought) at all, but rather we are observing males operating within male norms. from what i can tell from the data i have, the norms are as follows, and these are the “categories” of the search terms on the new blog:

autogynephilia; bestiality; castration/SRS; excrement; holocaust; inanimate objects; incoherent (but within sexual or violent contexts or both); men hate trannies; men will stick their dicks into anything; necrophilia; pedophilia; porn actress injuries; rape; sexualized racism; terrorism; things that don’t exist; torture; trafficking/slavery.

thats 18 general categories of “porny” search terms, and these 18 represent the gist of very nearly all the porny search terms we came across.  the ones we left out as not falling into any of the 18 categories were very generic such as “fucking porn” or “violent porn” for example which had no relevance to this project, where all the search terms were pornographic and/or referred to sexualized violence (male violence against women, specifically womens breasts and genitals).

and some of these do overlap such as “rape” which can and does constitute “torture”.  this overlap is especially obvious if it includes torture directed at female genitals above and beyond “mere” unwanted penetration (which is also torture).  for example, when men rape girl children and babies, this counts as both rape and torture due to the extreme size differential and the problem of putting a large object into an especially small opening/organ.  and filming a rape or other sexual offense would also constitute terrorism, as it is meant to terrorize women as a sexual class as well as producing a terrorizing effect on the victim who can never escape the predatory men who will use the images of her rape/torture forever, and even search for or recognize her in real life.

anyway, this is how the categories are being used, but what one also notices when viewing the extreme depravity of these search terms — and when considering the 18 categories and the ways they overlap — is that necrophilia seems to be the common denominator, or the one category that encompasses most if not all the rest.

for example, extreme violence is not compatible with life; therefore extreme violence could be said to be necrophilic.  references to disembodied body parts, including sexualized body parts such as vaginas and anuses, are references to necrophilia because living beings cannot be separated from their parts without it killing them, or without being placed at extreme risk of death.  raping babies — pedophilia — is incompatible with the babies life, and indeed often kills them.  castration and “nullification” of genitals is incompatible with life, or at least it is incompatible with creating life.

and on that note, i actually dont have much of a problem with men who castrate themselves — more of them probably should — but one cannot escape the fact that castration has necrophilic connotations.  thats the point really.  castration can also constitute torture, or medical torture, and torture is incompatible with life.  and infertile/castrated (or simply unable to gestate) males taking the place of females — nullification of class female, in other words — is obviously incompatible with life, womens lives and indeed all life everywhere.  we end up there, no matter how we look at it.

and in reality, what is the “porn” context itself if not a necrophilic context?  porn itself is not compatible with life, or more specifically with female life.  we see this incompatibility play out where the average “life” of a female porn actor is months only, before she is forced to leave the industry forever.  and thats assuming she survives at all.

of course, we also know that PIV itself is necrophilic the way men do it.  it is incompatible with life — incompatible with womens lives, childrens lives, and indeed the entire world has been polluted and violated to its breaking point by men, sticking their dicks into women, and “creating” literally billions of unwanted or ambivalent children across time and place.  pro-creation is actually destructive when men are allowed to do it the way *they* want it done, and when control over reproduction is taken out of womens hands and placed into mens.  men use absolutely everything (including procreation) towards one ends — to destroy.

and in case anyone thinks this sounds familiar (“i cant do anything right!”) it does, doesnt it?  (poor men — i can see how this could hurt their feelings.  we cut off our dicks — necrophilia!  if we keep our dicks (and use them) its necrophilia too!)  but the fact of the matter is, yes, everything men do is necrophilic.  literally.  everything.  perhaps especially when what they are doing is porn, or within a pornographic context, including PIV, rape, pedophilia, castration, bestiality, torture, terrorism, trafficking/slavery etc.

tangentially, the revelation of one partners “inability to do right” is often what happens at the end of a relationship, isnt it?  im just saying.

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.

Moron Patriarchal Purpose (Or, The Intent and Effect of Transgender, Pt. 2) January 26, 2013

Posted by FCM in liberal dickwads, meta, pop culture, porn, rape, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

well that was fast!  i have more to say already.  part one is here — i remember posting it like it was yesterday!  which it was.

now that we know that wordpress has shut down “mansplainin’ and transplainin'” for a TOS violation, and in the wake of recent internet witchhunts and burnings of women who dare express a fucking opinion which is incompatible with womens sex role as fuckholes and slaves, i think it would behoove us to step back and look at the internet as a whole.  what has been the internets patriarchal purpose — what has been its end effect, from which we can deduce mens intent in creating and implementing it?  we know that women with an internet presence have been targeted for elimination since day one — women who were around “back then” remember vividly being told to “get off my internet” or face dire consequences at mens hands.  but why?

like the patriarchal intent and effect of transgender, which i believe ultimately was to increase womens vulnerability to rape as well as erasing the political implications of men raping women across time and place, it seems that the effect of the internet as a whole has been to widely disseminate and distribute the photographic evidence of men raping women and children with impunity.  otherwise known as porn, including “kiddie porn.”  thanks to the widespread availability of internet pornography, porn has seeped into every nook, cranny and crevice of much of the world — practically anywhere that has electricity is now fully saturated with 24/7/365 porn.  men, who already created the entire world in their own image — to wit, shit and filth — now get to live in filth and shit, more, and force us to live there too, thanks to pornographic imagery which you literally cannot get away from even if you tried.

relatedly, the internet has also been very useful in disseminating patriarchal propaganda equating sex and rape — anywhere there is “news reporting” on rape, we see the words sex-crime, sex-offender, sex-trafficking, sex-slavery.  but we are not talking about sex mkay — we are talking about rape.  rape-crime.  rape-offense.  rape-trafficking.  rape-slavery.  and “kiddie porn” is not porn (and much of your standard-issue adult porn isnt porn either) if what is meant by “porn” is documentary evidence of consensual fucking.  this is not what porn is — insofar as intercourse is coerced or forced, and insofar as “rape” is the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders, most porn isnt even “porn” — it is documentary evidence of rape and it is everywhere.  thanks largely to the internet which disseminates it (rape) and frames it (rape) in a way that politically benefits men at womens expense.

so are we really going to be surprised when men want women off their internet — women who arent literally in the process of being raped by men, that is?  is it any surprise that we will be attacked and graphically threatened by men, and not-supported by other men who read mens threats against us and become erect because the threats include graphic depictions of rape, and sexualized woman-murder (necrophilia)?  this is *all* porn to them.  every bit of it.  and when i say porn, i mean rape.  and when i say rape, i mean “the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders.”

im not surprised that this is happening to us at all, and no one would be, if they were to understand that the entire purpose of the internet was not “communication” or dissemination of information per se, but the communication of a certain idea, and a certain image, with a very specific intent in mind — the whole point being to threaten 3.5 billion women globally with rape, and to violently enforce all womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders.  and fuckholes and breeders do not speak about being fuckholes and breeders.  fuckholes and breeders do not speak at all, unless it is to ask for more of the same — and even then, men dont necessarily want to hear it.  they put things in those womens mouths to shut them up too, when the sound of the raped womens voices becomes tiresome, or interferes with mens ability to rape, or to rape to maximum political effectiveness — which requires ejaculation.  doesnt it?

in the end, wordpress can shut down all our blogs, and i will not be surprised at all.  none of us should be, and really i dont think we would be anyway.  outraged, yes.  surprised?  no.  in a way, im surprised we have lasted this long, but mens obfuscating yet tenuous adherence to their own fake principles of “free speech” and the “marketplace of ideas” seems to have confused even them for a minute.  soon the facade will fall away, and they will shut us all down, because what we are doing and saying is the antithesis of what the internet is for.  we are speaking, when the entire purpose of the internet has been to shut us up, via rape, and threats of rape.

like the purpose of transgenderism, the purpose of the internet has been rape, and disseminating, normalizing and perpetuating men raping women across time and place.  thats all.  its been nothing more, and nothing less than that.