jump to navigation

Dear White Male Activists. Collect Your Pigs. Jesus. July 22, 2015

Posted by FCM in feminisms, liberal dickwads, meta, race.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

white male activists of every stripe, but especially the enviros and liberal progressives like DGR males (no matter what you call yourselves, and no, you arent radical) could do something about this if they wanted to.  but they arent, even though they arent generally opposed to doing both underground and above board “actions” designed to bring XYZ to its knees.

it apparently doesnt occur to these white male pig activists to “start” by neutralizing their own personal brute squad, but it wouldnt, would it?

you are disgusting fucking cowards who get off on images of black women being brutalized by other white males, and you and only you benefit when a black woman is killed for calling a white male pig a coward and a pussy.

you dont actually want it to stop.  but you know that already.  and so do i.

Not Chattel July 29, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, liberal dickwads, logic, meta, race, rape.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

its hard and painful enough to get your head around the idea that under patriarchy, women are “chattel,” meaning that we are not human and are only a partial (or no) step above mens personal property in the grand (male) scheme of things.  this “chattel” concept was useful to me once or it felt like it, in the same way perhaps as other “feminist” concepts like the male gaze, enthusiastic consent and other things that move the emphasis a little, or shift your everyday perspective/perceptions a bit and give you an inkling that there is something more/else (inequality, men, rape) there than what you thought.

but chattel?  really?  this reminds me of liberal dickwad and white anti-racism activist tim wise waxing idiotic about american black slavery, and how his great-great-great (or whatever) “grandparents” owned slaves exactly as one would own a table or a lamp.  those are his words, not mine.  of course, when talking about personal property like tables and lamps one is talking about chattel.  for this to be the truth of american black slavery (or any slavery) however, his “grandparents” including his grandmothers wouldve had to have been able to own property to begin with, which may or may not have been the case and tim wise doesnt address the legal status of his grandmothers at all or indicate any feminist awareness at all when analyzing an institution that implicated both women and men (as all institutions do).

and importantly, for the chattel designation/analogy to work, the “grandparents” wouldve had to stick their dicks into their tables and lamps and create shared children with them.  get it?  either something is just like something else, or its not.  and “like tables and lamps” does not describe the reality of slavery at all, either for female slaves or for the “people” who own/ed them.  it just doesnt.

beyond that, there is evidence that “chattel” is not just an analogy badly drawn; as a concept applied to women and mens relationship to women, its actually impossible because of time.  and this is because men owning women likely predated the concept of personal property and personal ownership — women were the first property (mens), its where the idea and concept of “ownership” of anything actually came from.*  so in reality, men own tables and lamps like they own women.  saying it the other way is like saying that wal-mart predated (and perhaps caused) moms and pops opening the first stores on main street.  isnt it?  its a time-thing.

so besides revealing the truth of the matter, what does examining and then using/refusing the “chattel” analogy mean for us?

well, for one thing, discarding the flawed “chattel” analogy opens up the concepts of ownership and property beyond just “personal property” like tables and lamps — real estate is not counted as chattel for example, even though men “own” it.  and natural resources arent chattel either, but men own those too — rather like they own women as a matter of fact.  taking complete dominion over something they know nothing about and are actually powerless to control in any meaningful or absolute way, or in a way existing outside mens own delusions.  im not saying they dont try of course, or that they dont really believe this is their “right” and that its even possible, or that they arent abusive and threaten to use it all up and kill us all (and themselves!) in the process because they obviously do.  the point there i guess would be to consider that women function as natural resources to them (and not chattel), or more to the point women were/are the first/original “natural resource” which helps us isolate the root of our oppression (and explains why mens abuse of us is mostly sexual.  duh).

the women-as-chattel analogy also reverses the the timing and causation elements, where something that comes after something cannot cause it, or provide the model for it (among other things).  again we see the “time” element is important to our thinking about it — men have “owned” (or whatever, exploited, used and used-up) women for a very long time.  this brings up other issues/questions, including questions of ownership in general, and (perhaps?) whether increasing/creating female wealth including ownership of property is likely to free us, or whether “womens land” is something we want or if its even possible seeing as how its basically a contradiction in terms (womens (male ownership of women)) or where “female ownership” like “land ownership” can only mean women being owned by men and cannot mean anything else.

or where the relationship of “women” to “ownership” considering origin and historical meaning is dependent to such a degree that the very words/concepts cancel each other out (and where “womens land” would mean, essentially, womens women and/or lands land)?  i dont know, im still working on that.

anyway, its a time-thing, and a word-thing.  its a concept-thing, where we are dealing in ideas and concepts and, using words, getting to the root of our oppression so that we can liberate ourselves from male dominance.  and chattel as a concept does not describe womens reality, or how men relate to us, or anything really — even more than that, it obscures our most basic truth(s) and this is probably deliberate.  so we might as well get rid of it.  women arent chattel to men, this is a wrongheaded concept, and this is obvious.  we are something else.

*for more on the idea that women were the first “property” see gerda lerner, the creation of patriarchy.  its worth the read.

Strange Days July 19, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right-Wing Women (Part 3-D) March 26, 2011

Posted by FCM in books!, health, liberal dickwads, politics, porn, prostitution, race.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

part 1 is here.  part 2 is here.  background in the way of dworkins own graphics (some in 3-D!) are here and here.  in fact, the 3-D graphics are what inspired this post, so i hope people will click over to scum-o-rama to review them, before reading further.  its kinda important.  and its dworkin afterall!  its worth it!  i’ll wait….

the above is just a very low-quality image to serve as a mental placeholder.  it will not replace actually viewing the real thing.

in RWW, dworkin states very plainly what she sees as “the condition of women” and the fact that she means to include *all* women, under patriarchy.  under patriarchy, pornography is what women are; the crimes against women, as women, by men are what women are for; and prostitution is what women do (in other words, everything women do is within the context of prostitution, because prostitution is the context in which women exist as women, under the P).  prostitution is the outer wall keeping women inside the sex-class.

and lets just assume that she is right, for purposes of this post.

now…dworkin blows up her graphic into 3-dimensions, and i think it helps to visualize it that way.  because it helps us envision this, too: imagine that the “lateral view” (the flat circle) is actually given depth so that it extends outward like a paper-towel roll (this is what happens when you turn a 2-dimensional “circle” into a 3-dimensional “cylinder”).  okay?  using dworkins graphic, the outside of the paper towel roll would be “prostitution,” the wall keeping women inside the sex-class; and inside the tube would be “the crimes against women” and inside that would be the “heart of pornography.”  (if you cut a slice out of the width of the tube, you would be left with the lateral view again, or the flat circle).  can you see it?

now…i am going to add a fourth dimension…lets call it “time.”  this is what you see when you look through the tube.  so…pick it up and look through it.  from the outside, it would look something like…this beautiful faux-antique kaleidoscope, from google!  on the inside, what would you see, as time passed, under the system dworkin described, of women living as women, as the captive sex-class, under patriarchy?  well…i think this is what you would see:

isnt it?  old women.  this is what happens to all women, around the world, as time passes.  but where women are only valued insofar as they can be exploited, sexually and reproductively, by men…where women ARE sex, and they exist within the context of prostitution, and there is no escape…the passage of time creates…well, see for yourself.  from RWW:

*if* you live long enough, this is whats going to happen to you, unless you can do something to stop it.  this is what we all have to look forward to, assuming that things continue the way they have been going for the last oh say several millenia.  and theres simply no reason to believe that this is going to change, in our lifetimes, if ever.  is there?

and the “if ever” is an interesting point, considering that radical feminists are, as women, coming from a base of powerlessness.  right wing-women choose to align themselves with powerful men, and not feminists, because right-wing women, when they look at feminists, see women.  and they know that all women, living in dworkins horrifying (and accurate) kaleidoscope, are barreling towards the end of their lives, and theres nothing there except the worst suffering and abuse anyone can imagine, and more.

are right-wing women wrong, if they think feminists will not succeed?  are they wrong for doubting it?  are they? 

and are they crazy for being seriously concerned, or pissed off that feminists are potentially ruining the deals the right-wing women have made, with men, so that they (the women) may best survive (as women) under patriarchy?  i dont think these women are crazy.  no, i dont think so, at all.  in fact…the old-age stuff has haunted my days and nights ever since i first read it, and it makes me *kind of* wish i could create my own small army (say 4 or 5 young professionals with unlimited earning potential?  just as an example) to help me out when i am old, and have become so much human garbage.  kind of.  i mean, i can see why someone might want to try it, just in case.  i think most people could see why this might sound like a good idea, if they just thought about it a lil bit.  or, like dworkin, if they thought about it a lot.

Failure of Application vs Failure of Reason December 18, 2010

Posted by FCM in books!, entertainment, international, liberal dickwads, politics, pop culture, race, radical concepts.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

i wanted to expound on the concept of “application versus reason” that i mentioned about a month ago (help!  i’m being repressed!).  analyzing social inequities using the “equality model” is standard liberal dickwad politics 101, in that it allows self-identified progressive males to analyze “unfairness” without being distracted by the ugly realities of male privilege, and the ways that women are and continue to be victimized as women, by men and male institutions.  in the above clip, the monty python players make hi-larious fun of class-based inequities, and their extreme silliness and ability to absolutely hit the nail on the head with regard to analyzing class assures monty python its place in history and in the hearts, minds and living rooms i mean ipods of good liberal dickwads everywhere.  i mean lets face it.  they are funny mkay?  and smart.  and they know it!

but the equality-model as the foundation for modern liberal dickwad politics (ie. liberal politics) was first advanced in the male civil rights context.  in other words, the idea that there is no legitimate reason to treat black men any differently than white men are treated.  but disenfranchised men, and only men, were meant to be included in the arguments against slavery, and all race-based anti-discrimination discourses that came later.  in her essay “reflections on sex equality under law,” catharine mackinnon notes that including women in federal workplace discrimination legislation was an afterthought, and sneaky politicking by a racist senator that was intended to bring about the failure of anti-racist legislation by including teh wimmins in it.  (heartwarming isnt it?)  for some reason, it passed anyway:

but just because women were now technically protected under anti-discrimination law in certain situations, it doesnt mean what we might like it to mean, when the laws were drafted and intended to apply to only men, and in fact have only men in mind throughout.  and where the favored liberal-dickwad argument is “but thats not fairrrrrr, you wouldnt do that to a white man.”  for example, in an employment context: you would never stick a white man in the kitchen of a restaurant instead of letting him wait tables.  or, you would never execute a white man for sticking his dick into someone.  etc., etc.  male-centric anti-discrimination discourse addresses and prevents failures of application onlymeaning: if it makes sense for a white man, it makes sense for a black man.  if it doesnt make sense to make a white man do something, then it doesnt make sense to make a black man do it either.  not surprisingly, unfair-application isnt the issue though, when addressing the ways women are victimized as women, by men.  namely, female-reproductive issues and the sexual abuse of girls and women by men:

what the failure-of-application or “equality” model doesnt address, doesnt anticipate and doesnt care about at all, is the failure of reason that comes into play when any male-centered discourse is applied to women.  for example, sick time, and the 40-hour workweek.  its all well and good (under an equality model, its not “unfairrrr”) to give everyone (or no-one) 5 days a year of sick-time right?  its all well and good (under an equality model) to force everyone to sit at their desks for 8 hours a day, every day, if they expect a paycheck.  but women are subjected to medical events that men arent, just by virtue of being biologically female (care to name them?).  they are also more likely to be the caretakers of the home and of children because they are socially female.  you see where i am going with this.  and it gets worse.

the inapplicability insanity of applying of male-centric disourse to womens bodies and lives becomes glaringly obvious when observing the mental (and legislative) gymnastics regarding the fetus, and its relationship to the pregnant woman carrying it.  the best they have so far been able to do (bless their clueless hearts!!!1!!11  actually, no.  fuck them all.  srsly.) is to regard the fetus as a body part.  because men have body parts tooooo!!111!11  but a fetus is NOT a “body part,” and its in fact completely irrational and unreasonable to regard something as something it isnt:

ignore the dangling words at the end there.

do we get it now?  its not merely unfairrrrr when male-centric discourses are used against women, as women.  its literally insane.  its not rational.  so, when the liberal dickwads snort and knee-slap over the monty-python players in the “witch village” clip, what is being criticised here really?  men murdering women of their own class based on misogynist religious superstition (literally, insanity masquerading as logic) and sex-based discrimination in the legal system?  HA!  not likely:

taken in the context of monty pythons usual social class-commentary and criticism of the ruling elite, this is clearly a criticism of religion and superstition sullying the legal process, which is usually rational, although perhaps unfairly applied, against men, by other men.  whew!  thank (us rational men) this doesnt happen anymore!  except that it does.  this very type of shit happens all the time, when you are a woman.  reason, fails.  logic, fails. 

more examples!  the male-centric discourse surrounding sex, which is that PIV = sex = PIV.  you went over to his house because you wanted to have sex, and he stuck his dick in you against your will…well, sorry, but you actually asked for it.  HUH?  yes!  reality of course being completely irrelevant here, which is the problem when we are dealing in INSANITY.  a mother abusing her child gets an extra-harsh sentence for “abusing a trust relationship” because we are allegedly, as a civil society, horrified when people abuse trust-relationships.  right?  not so fast.  even *if* the male-centric legal system applied this one equally to male abusers of children (they dont), we are still left with a significant problem, in that its not even fucking true.  we *dont* value trust-relationships, at all.  or at least, when a trusted man rapes a woman, its not really rape at all in most peoples minds, because she knew him, and trusted him.  HUH?  the examples of this kind of shit are endless, and the legal frameworks of both motherhood and “sex” are extremely…fertile…ground.

the equality-model and liberal-dickwad politics dont work for us, because they dont protect us in the way we need protecting: from men, exploiting girls and womens biological femaleness for our destruction and their gain. 

and we have to understand that its not intended to.  men create this chaos, this unreasonableness, and force women to live in it, because it benefits men to do so.  our adpoting male-centric liberal dickwad politics isnt going to help us a damn bit, when men *are* our problem, and they always have been, and they fucking revel in it.