i started writing a post a week or so ago and abandoned it. i dont usually do that but i couldnt seem to nail down a point; i wanted to tell everyone that i heard guy mcpherson (NTE guru) giggling about porn and sharing a riotous laugh with a fellow doodbro about dog-rape. meaning, men raping dogs, and/or men forcing women to abuse dogs for male enjoyment. this was in the intro to an interview where said doodbros were engaging in a little male bonding in the beginning as doodbros are wont to do.
while i believe that is noteworthy as an example of males being males (and demonstrating exactly the male values and male behaviors that got us here in the first place — facing the near term extinction of the human race according to mcpherson himself, although he and his frame the reason as because “civilization” and because “humanity”) it was hardly worthy of its own post. so i was going to further expound on the NTE belief system because i have not addressed a pretty important point that they themselves include when discussing the reality of whats likely to come, because of men and what men do and what men are, and thats war. NTE activists/cult members (or whatever, they arent really activating for anything except for the bastard hybrid NTE/anti civs, but thats kind of another post) believe that the end is nigh via loss of human habitat > caused by catastrophic global climate change > due to overpopulation and resource extraction; or global nuclear meltdown caused by same, which will occur when the grid fails; or war, which would be apocalyptic and probably nuclear.
i pointed out that i/we have indeed seen a lot lately that is indicative of impending global war, and/or numerous smaller wars happening at the same time, and it is terrifying. specifically regarding war, and the likelihood that it will be a war that takes us all out, keeping in mind that humans have never lived through any previous time like our current time, where there is a global overabundance of males, and knowing what men do and what men are, and that maleness itself (and therefore male values) is/are a self-reinforcing feedback loop that only picks up strength and speed over time toward whatever end…makes me go kind of quiet inside. yannow the kind of quiet i mean? just, ugh *exhale* and silent nonverbal contemplation and (something approaching) understanding.
men continuing to be men, in other words, although any of them will be god damned to actually say that — its humanity and civilization that did it, you see. some NTE activists (or whatever) even quote past males who have very un-progressively, but nonetheless totes profoundly, commented on “man’s” obvious failings and the shitty world “man” has created and these very modern males very helpfully (and comically) remind everyone that women are included in the word/concept “man” donchaknow. because equality! ah male radicals, they are good liberals to the bitter end.
anyway, repetitively pointing out the failings of male NTE activists and tying it in to the atrocity of global maleness is good meta and all, and i put it all into a post but got bored and couldnt finish. i was thinking about some comments that were made earlier on this blog where women said that they thought that the material gains women achieved through reformism over the years was beneficial to them/us and that they thought (for example) that we are better off than our grandmothers because we can earn money and move away from our rapist uncles and whatnot. modern women dont have to be raped by our dads every night…except those of us who do/are. okay, i get the point, and its not a small thing that some women are allowed some modicum of privacy from males now, where were previously werent. it is indeed noteworthy, and pokes at the root of womens oppression by men that some women are able to escape the violent and sexual/reproductive attentions of some men, some of the time, instead of all of us being subjected to mens violent and sexual/reproductive attentions always. of course this is a good thing, how could it not be?
and yet, whatever gains we thought we were securing for ourselves, and whatever successes we might have had over the years (and decades and centuries by now), seemingly behind our backs, men continued to destroy the world. didnt they? understanding and accepting the likelihood of NTE due to self reinforcing feedback loops of male-caused global overpopulation and over male population really offers a big-picture perspective on all of this, because it makes it very obvious that we were treating the symptom while the disease raged on. or something? what other analogy is there where we attempted to relieve our female pain and mitigate our female harm at the hands of men, but where in the end it is revealed that they were on a slow or unobvious burn the whole time (or something) and never actually stopped? men never stopped being men. and now, nearing 100 years after white american women were granted the right to vote, we are literally facing a burnt, raped-and-almost-fully-pillaged earth now. the entire global human race may not survive what men have done. get it? by the by, thousands of animal species have already succumbed/become extinct due to human-male-caused loss of habitat, so its not like there is no precedent for male-caused extinction.
i mean really. could it be any more obvious at this point that women and feminists got nowhere near the root of the problem, if we made “gains” and yet males successfully destroyed the entire earth anyway, apparently “just” doing what they wanted to do, and doing what males do best? namely, men’s aptitude and fondness for resource extraction (parasitism) and destruction (necrophilia). sure, raping and otherwise fucking women (and femicide including female infanticide) is what ultimately did it, if we accept that global overpopulation and over male population caused this mess. but it seems to me that we missed something kind of important, if we didnt see this coming (and thats IF — i actually believe women have seen this coming for centuries, both here and in other places). and that we are currently missing something important if we dont see it now. it doesnt have to be that way of course. the fact that some women see it is at least evidence that there are conditions under which women can and do open their fucking eyes.
i am still considering what it means — and what it doesnt — that some modern women get to have their “own apartments” and whatnot, and our “gains” made in general, in the face of likely near term human extinction caused by global male destructiveness which has raged on regardless, mostly (fully?) unabated, both behind our backs and right in front of our eyes.
in my last post, i more or less asked the question “how can radfems be so smart and so stupid at the same time?” i wrote it pointedly at first, but then deleted and said it more nicely. i have been told the message got through regardless. writing, afterall, is a logical and even mathematical process whereby other people can follow your thoughts in both directions (if they are so inclined). if they want to, readers can surmise where the writer must have been coming from to say what they said, and they can also figure out where they are going, or likely to end up if they continue down that road. the good news is that “editors” cant really change that — the intent, including the conclusions and premises of the author remain, for anyone interested in doing the work.
radical feminist writing, in particular, has been subject to the limitations of the patriarchal press leaving *us* to do the work of figuring out what the authors really meant. discussing it with other people helps, as does reading the original material for yourself instead of relying on other peoples potentially biased interpretations of it. for example, i and others understand that andrea dworkin would not, in fact, have advocated for endless reformist activating or holding out hope for men. i think anyone who reads dworkins entire body of work, and who deliberately reads between the lines (and the lines) can easily see what she was “really saying” when she said to an audience of men,
We do not want to do the work of helping you to believe in your humanity. We cannot do it anymore. We have always tried. We have been repaid with systematic exploitation and systematic abuse. You are going to have to do this yourselves from now on and you know it.
she said we cannot do it anymore. its a direct quote and its right fucking there, people. thats from dworkins infamous “24-hour truce” speech which disingenuous (or lazy, or confused, or something) radical feminists often cite as proof that dworkin said and meant the exact opposite — that we can and should keep doing it forever. fail. dworkin also seems to have given up on men in her 1999 article for the new statesman, in which she wrote that she had been drugged and raped by men, and that she was ready to die. so it seems as if, while radical feminist work is in fact censored and edited and erased by the press and other patriarchal forces (and it is) its also subject to being grossly distorted and misused by other feminists to the point that the very meaning is reversed, obliterated and destroyed. not only is that a really nasty thing to do, it also puts the women who come after in the unfortunate position of not having all the facts on which to make their own decisions, and specifically lacking the very feminist history and context that would help them to come to rational/radical conclusions faster, without always having to reinvent the damn wheel. a shortcut, in other words. women are destroying other womens shortcuts. men are doing it to us too, but we cant stop them (since they will never, ever stop). there may, on the other hand, still be hope for us.
and while there is no reason that pro-female, anti-male reasons for abandoning what is known as “feminism” would ever make it to/through the patriarchal press, even feminist publications would never publish a woman who had the gall (plus cooties) to leave, particularly if she had cogent reasons for doing so. get it? before self-publishing (including blogging) was a thing, leaving the movement also meant leaving access to the feminist press. silencing complete.
the reason i am talking about this now is that i am in the position to write if i want to, and to publish on this blog, and my work is unedited by others and not limited by the rules of the patriarchal press (but still subject to the general rules of patriarchy of course). and the position in which i currently find myself — completely disillusioned by radical feminist activating and radical feminists themselves, insofar as radical feminists consistently fail to go to the ends of their thoughts about patriarchy, including how its likely to end — is not one that is familiar to me. i have only ever read about one woman (sonia johnson) experiencing something similar to what i am experiencing now (similar but not exact, as i do not recall her mentioning NTE stuff). she self-published her account of course.
so, since i am in the position to self-publish at the moment, i have done so. i suspect that women silencing other women is the (secondary, after males silencing us) reason there are not dozens or hundreds of accounts of “nutty” radical feminists leaving or being thrown out of the movement. similarly, i suspect that other women silencing and quashing these accounts specifically is the reason i have never read about other radical feminists who believe that men have already done us all in, and that this cannot be changed, and that abrupt global climate change and loss of human habitat related to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population is a done deal. call me crazy (plus cooties) but i dont think i am the only radical feminist ever to intuit/conclude that this thing we call “patriarchy” is really a self-reinforcing feedback loop which over time has picked up speed and strength (as self reinforcing feedback loops do) and that at this point, it cannot be stopped. it is physically impossible to reverse or stop it now. it will continue to get worse of course, by definition, as this is what self-reinforcing feedback loops do.
i do not think it is unreasonable to conclude that, because patriarchy is not compatible with life, it will only end in death; and probably in proportion to its own size and strength, which is global, (literally) all-consuming, and with the power/energy of 108 billion humans behind it (54 billion necrophilic males over time, and the females they sucked the life out of) and all the power/energy of every bit of fossil fuel and renewable resources weve used to boot. all that energy* has been pumped into the patriarchal death machine (feedback loop) and its some powerful shit indeed. its some deadly shit, from which we can rightly predict powerfully deadly outcomes. i really dont know why this isnt talked about more, perhaps especially by radical feminists. oh wait! yes i do.
*while the “energy” imagery i used here may (or may not!) be theoretical/metaphysical, the concept of “exponential growth” implicated in positive feedback loops, including the positive feedback loops global overpopulation and over male population is very real. i know women understand the concept of exponential growth in our bones — its exactly what we have desperately, historically avoided growing inside us when we have tried to get men to stop fucking us, and impregnating us. cell division is exponential, get it? every time an addition is made, its a DOUBLING/multiplying, not merely an adding/counting. thats what i meant when i said in exponential growth “there is no 6.” watch a video or a gif of exponential growth for exactly 3 cycles and see what happens. anytime you go from 1, to 2, to 4, then directly to 8 without a 6…well youre fucked arent you. this is the exponential concept we “humans” are allegedly unable to grok (an ignorance which therefore alleviates “us” of responsibility for causing it? i guess?)
i have noticed something weird about television commercials lately, and the above seem to exemplify the trend. specifically, i am noticing an extreme inward-looking theme in advertising which is even more pronounced than the standard inward-looking consumerist/lifestylist fare (isnt it?) the “honest company” commercial illustrates a nuclear-family-centric circle-the-wagons message, and there is something noteworthy about the way the words “prah-ducks” and “mie famlee” are emphasized — dont ask me to competently dissect and analyze as i am not a professional marketer or media critic, but something bugs me about this every single time. like…an exaggerated, extreme individualization of consumerism and family, down to the very way the words are pronounced? or something? i dont know, but “ryan mcgee” provides an oddly memorable delivery of a timeless message.
meanwhile, the pantene commercial doubles down on the already-extreme social controls on women via the beauty/fuckability mandate where every single hair on our heads has to “pass the needle test” or else negative outcomes. this needle-test business has been around for years and has been criticized as being racist/exclusionary of women with naturally coarse hair, which of course it is. but what else is it? and why is it resurfacing in such an obvious way now? seeing as how i and others have come to believe that the end of the world is neigh via abrupt climate change and loss of human habitat related to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population, it just strikes me as weird timing to police women this way ask women to examine and control ourselves down to the very hairs on our heads (each and every individual 150,000 strands or whatever each of us has). and the extreme-inward looking message of ryan mcgee and her prah-ducks for her famlee tastes a bit tinny where perhaps especially now, we should be paying attention to the world around us. the world in which things are starting to catch on fire, blow up, slide, wash away and crash into the sea due either to “unknown causes” or due to known causes of male terrorism and/or extreme weather events.
its hardly necessary to comment on quakers take on the “”””energy crisis”””” (thats 4 full sets of sarcastic, its-not-really-a-thing quotation marks!) except to say that its very deliberately dismissive of the big picture in which there is indeed a very real man-made energy crisis happening, consisting of no fewer than 30-something self-reinforcing feedback loops and legitimate dilemmas which cannot be cured with oatmeal or with anything as a matter of fact.
in the face of these oddly-individualistic campaigns, i suppose i would remind women to “do the opposite” which is always sound advice if you can manage it. in this case, definitely do NOT circle the wagons around your famlee to the point that you fail to notice (or care) what is happening around you, specifically wrt male terrorism and extreme weather events. notice it! and definitely do NOT examine and control yourself, your female Self down to the very last hair — instead, do the opposite. whatever that means. kindly recall that if females were actually free we wouldnt be in this mess to begin with, and that males controlling females — specifically, our “natural” meaning global and timeless aversion to intercourse and multiple/endless unwanted pregnancies — is literally what caused it.
of course, a policy and practice of “doing the opposite” would also apply to male NTE activists (google it) who think they need to “carpe diem” and “create moments of joy” as the world burns because of them — considering what men find joyful, which without exception seems to be necrophilia/destruction and intercourse/impregnation, including rape, my advice to males who give even the tiniest crap (and there are those who think they do, or claim they do) would be to evaluate what you find pleasurable and positive, and then DO THE OPPOSITE. this is how fucked up men are of course. for men, who are driven to ACT constantly, “the opposite” would be to STOP ACTING and STOP DOING shit. completely. just stop. take opposite-day as far as you can, applying the concept to feeding yourselves and performing self care (to the extent you do that). pumping fuel into, and performing even perfunctory maintenance on, necrophilic killing machines isnt helping. savvy?
or, if you MUST continue to act, and i know you must, (right?) try this on for size: whatever the activity, if you like it, DONT DO IT. if you hate it, KEEP DOING IT. i think this is a fair compromise really (for those who are into compromising with men…its merely a rhetorical device for those who understand that men will never stop ever). for example, if you love your job, it probably means you are being overcompensated for it, and/because its victimizing other people, especially women, so stop doing it. if you hate your job, its likely that you arent being coddled/catered to, overvalued due to your membership in the oppressor class (male), and presented with sexual access to as many women as you want, like you sincerely believe you deserve, where catering to/supporting those male beliefs and actions created this ultimately/imminently doomed necrophilic shithole in the first place — so if you must DO anything, keep doing that. the things you find emasculating, humiliating, boring, and against your natures — its all good. you know, if you really care about any of this, and yet are still driven to act. get it?
that males as a class, even the self-identified “good ones who get it” ARE driven to act, of course, is irrefutable evidence of mens natures; and only supports my conclusion that men will never, ever stop. and that (therefore) this NTE stuff, or loss of human habitat and abrupt climate change related to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population, whenever it occurs, is a done deal.
i commented earlier that it feels very familiar to be where i am now, that is, having taken my thoughts to their logical conclusion, i find previous “networks” and even somewhat friendly working relationships have become…strained. due to the sudden onset of my obvious insanity i mean democratic politics, man-hating, transphobia, defeatism, i am not simply no longer on the same page as my former colleagues, but as of 5 minutes ago or whatever i am no longer able to evaluate evidence/reason, to make connections, or to correctly intuit or interpret the world around me and am in fact completely unrecognizable and also a big jerk, a mean drunk and retarded on top of it. stop hurting my feelings guyz!!!!!! i mean did i miss anything? happens every 5-6 years or so, looking back on my history (i came out as a democrat in high school). nothing new under the sun.
so anyway! i wanted to document, since that is what weve been doing here this whole time, and since there may or may not be some questions about it, exactly what brought me to the place im in now — having given up all hope for social or political reform, because i have given up on men, because i see what they are and what they do and that they will never stop, because they never have, i see pretty clearly that men have already successfully destroyed the world. its a done deal.
to be clear, i now believe that abrupt global climate change, up to and including that which will cause human extinction in our lifetimes is a real possibility, not only because there is evidence to support this (there is) and not just because i can feel it (i can) but because there could be no other outcome but this. this is in fact the only logical outcome to the problem of men and maleness that has infected the world cross culturally and across time (and which therefore transcends socialization…but i digress).
as many of you know, because you were there, about a year and a half ago, i really started to see men for what they are, which is ruthless brutal necrophiles and creative destroyers, and i reasoned that they like being this way and want to continue — if they didnt, they would not have created all their social institutions to support it. (tell me they hate themselves and what they do! i dare you.)
and not only do males like what they are and want to continue (the quality of maleness), they want to increase it (the quantity of maleness) — men want MOAR men and MOAR maleness. if they didnt want that, and if they themselves did not understand that what we know as “maleness” is inherent to themselves/bone deep, they would never have started the global practice of female-specific infanticide to create relatively more males than females; nor would they have rather ingeniously come up with pro-male and anti-female technologies including medicine, where males are known to be the more feeble and sickly sex. get it? now we have MOAR males, in both relative (more males than females) and absolute (increasing numbers of men) terms.
indeed, it is obvious that men have created more men and maleness than nature would have ever allowed in the absence of brutal pro-male, anti-female social engineering envisioned, built and enforced by males for millenia. and here is where we get into the thick of it, and why, i believe, our fate has been long sealed: men have created a self-reinforcing feedack loop whereupon males exist in unnatural numbers globally, where males are violent necrophiles and creative destroyers, thus males wield sexual/reproductive power over females abusively, creating more males. get it?
and it is not just a problem of global overpopulation at this point, although that is a very serious problem as well, but a problem of too many (violent, necrophilic) males, specifically. this is what will destroy the world, or at least will make it uninhabitable for humans, or much anything else, and probably sooner rather than later. to wit:
males exist in unnatural numbers globally > those males wield sexual/reproductive power over females abusively > creating more people > men’s social engineering unnaturally skews population in favor of males > those males wield sexual/reproductive power over females abusively > creating more people > men’s social engineering unnaturally skews population in favor of males> those males wield sexual/reproductive power over females abusively > creating more people >men’s social engineering unnaturally skews population in favor of males> those males wield sexual/reproductive power over females abusively > creating more people > men’s social engineering unnaturally skews population in favor of males> those males wield sexual/reproductive power over females abusively > creating more men.
get it? men continuously make more of themselves, thats what they do. the problem of global overpopulation generally is also a feedback loop and as a whole exists due to male-enforced mandatory intercourse and rape — in terms of sheer destructiveness including resource extraction and global climate change this in itself would be bad enough, but then necrophilic males further skew the balance to favor themselves via female-specific infanticide and “saving” males via medicine and technologies when no male should be saved. because of what they do and what they are.
and self-reinforcing feedback loops are game changers, they really are.
so, once i realized that men will NEVER stop making more of themselves — via the above feedback loop — and they will NEVER stop raping, torturing and murdering women based on our sex — because they dont want to stop — well, it made it very easy, actually, to see that they are NEVER going to stop destroying and pillaging the world. men will NEVER EVER stop ever.
and once one realizes that men will NEVER stop destroying and pillaging the world, well, it becomes self-evident that none of this will be saved. doesnt it? it actually becomes very easy to imagine that it was likely too late decades ago, and they didnt stop then either, just like they wont stop now. because thats what men are and thats what men do. and even if the threshhold/point of no return in terms of global climate change due to male-caused overpopulation has not been crossed as of today, it is still too late, because the tipping point will occur sometime — this is a 100% (mathematical) certainty — and men wont stop then either. they will never, ever stop.
this all seems very logical, and obvious to me, and i am not the only one. if anyone can SHOW me how and why the terminal destruction of the natural world (including human habitat) is not the logical, reasonable outcome to mens global, timeless destructiveness and necrophilia, please do so in the comments below (or somewhere! anywhere! go ahead). please dont forget to show your work, including (importantly!) how human habitat is likely to be extended beyond 20-50 years, or indefinitely, considering feedback loops including male-caused global overpopulation and if you have time, global climate change. thank you.
there is a tumblr post going around that cites several “sources” for the social constructionist belief that there are “rape free” cultures somewhere, or there were at some time. women are apparently basing their entire activism (and therefore their entire lives or a significant part of their lives and female selves) on the belief that men raping, torturing and murdering women across time and place is culturally/socially constructed, and not innate to males themselves. and that makes me want to address it. because female health and energy are the only things *in life* with the potential to help women, and because female health and energy are resources that are not renewable or easily renewable under conditions of patriarchy, it is very, very, very important that women make decisions about how to spend their time and energy wisely.
i will not link to the post, or the sources, you can find these yourselves. but i would like to suggest some questions/issues we should all consider when evaluating “evidence” of these elusive rape free zones. we have discussed this before but i think having the issues parsed in one place for future (and present) reference might be helpful. so lets dig in.
first, 99.9% rape-free or some other percentage that is less than 100% does not mean rape-free. okay? i have seen these articles too, they were required reading in undergraduate-level gender studies courses in the 1990s (if that tells you anything — it should) and many of them do not say that any culture anyone knows of was ever 100% rape free. the evidence that some cultures have men raping women LESS than they do in some other cultures, or OUR culture, is not evidence that ANY culture is a rape-free culture. and it is definitely not evidence that rape is socially constructed mkay. if anything, the presence of cultures that are 99.9% (or some other relatively high percentage but less than 100) rape free is evidence that no matter how rape-unfriendly any culture is, culture cannot stop men from raping women. they still do it. they will rape us anyway, because they are men.
next, i would like to address the elusive 100% rape free culture. has this been documented? i have not seen anyone ever say that there are 100% rape free cultures (except when they are saying that something-less-than-100%-rape-free is the same thing as rape-free when its not) but some pointed questions about this hypothetical culture, and the studies that document this if there even are any, come to mind. and really, these questions apply to all the studies collecting/reporting on the issue at all, even if they end up discovering a culture somewhere that is mostly-rape-free.
firstly, how are they defining (framing) rape? are they only considering rape-rape? cause thats not very feminist. are they considering other kinds of rape, like underage rape, abuse of power rape, incest, sexualized child abuse, acquaintance rape, marital rape? are they counting consent that is coerced like in cases of economic, social or other dependence? what about boozy sex and alcohol-facilitated “hooking up” — this is also rape mkay. we know this. so what exactly do they mean when they say RAPE DOESNT HAPPEN HERE? this is a serious question, and radical feminists must, must demand answers to this. the situation is dire — as i said, activist women are basing their entire lives on this evidence/data, and what they think they are reading when they read it. and womens lives matter. so. in the case of the elusive rape-free culture, which reformist women believe we can create here and now based on the evidence that it has been done in other places sometime, does “rape-free” really mean what they think it means, and what it is being pushed/twisted/represented to mean? does it?
i would also ask, in the case of any culture where men rape women “less than they do here,” how much female time, energy and other resources are spent on achieving that ends? when men “rape less” including not at all, do men just decide out of the goodness of their hearts or dicks not to rape us anymore? or do women have to continuously surveil them, police them, punish them for rape/attempted rapes and for “rapey” behaviors/thoughts/values that are likely to lead to rape? if we are talking about “matriarchal” cultures where the women do everything important, and the men sit on the periphery trying not to get into trouble (including committing rape), is this evidence that mens desire to rape is socially, and not biologically/innately constructed? sorry, but no. no, it is not evidence of that. at all.
next, i would ask whether these studies considered normalized sexualized/eroticized intercourse, or intercourse for pleasures sake when a pregnancy is not wanted by the women, and considered “intercourse,” making love, and PIV to be totally different from rape? how different from rape-rape does it have to be, to be considered rape? this is a serious question. we know that intercourse for pleasures sake, removed from reproduction, is an act of hateful othering because it pathologizes female bodies in their natural, normal state — the state of impregnability and vulnerability to semen. in any other context this kind of brutal othering and deliberately causing disperate impacts/outcomes with social, political and physical consequences to a protected social class would be considered discrimination, if not an outright hate crime.
but in the case of fucking women, causing them reproductive stress and pain, as well as unwanted and undesirable political outcomes based on pregnancy, doesnt count as anything. right? and its definitely not rape, even though rape historically has been used by men specifically to cause unwanted pregnancies in women, and specifically to control women politically, physically, socially, sexually, spiritually, materially, and in every way. even though PIV and rape are so much the same, they arent the same at all. right? what do the “studies” alleging there are rape-free cultures think about intercourse removed from reproduction? this is a serious question, not because i feel like bashing PIV today, but because social constructionist womens lives depend on the answer. they themselves have said this — they continue to activate because they believe these rape-free cultures exist, and that it is possible for men to stop fucking raping women. so is it? hint: mens attitude toward “sex” and “othering” women, including politically oppressing women via pregnancy (and motherhood!) is relevant.
next, i would like to know whether the studies that collect/report on data indicating that there are rape-free cultures also consider men violently oppressing women generally, such as with torture and murder. because that is really what we are talking about isnt it? rape is a form of (female-specific) torture, and rape and murder of women by men frequently go hand in hand. i would want to know, if i was basing my entire life and lifes work on the existence of these cultures, how woman-friendly are they really? are women safe from men anywhere? have they ever been? of course, the answer to this question partially depends on how one defines torture. in general, people have a pretty narrowbiased misogynistic view of what torture is (if its done to women by men, its not torture).
now, same questions about mens seemingly global, timeless aptitude for necrophilia. is there anywhere on this (formerly) green earth women can go, or could we ever, where we were/are not constantly taunted and tormented by the male death wish and mens hideous love of death, dying, and killing? kind of an important question, if the answer means that we should (or should not) hold out hope for men and their ability to exist in a biophilic, non-misogynist culture.
and finally, i will say it again, even if men have been “socialized” to rape, torture and murder women based on our sex, who “socialized” or “taught” them how to do this to us? it was not women mkay. women did not teach men how to rape us, and women do not socialize men to rape us, and women do not reward men who rape and punish men who do not rape. if these things are happening to men, and this is a huge IF, they are being done to men, by men. it begins and ends with men, in other words. this is the very definition of innate.
please understand: i am not saying any of this to endlessly repeat myself, as i have grown weary of hearing myself (and others) talk. i am saying this here, now, because women have said in their own words that they are basing their entire lives and their entire activism on the assumption that men can and will stop raping us, and that its not innate to men to do this. activist women believe the data/evidence supports this conclusion — that rape is socially constructed — but it absolutely does not. the mistake, as ginormous (and fairly, but not entirely obvious) as it is, is not womens fault of course, because the data and conclusions have been so deliberately skewed in favor of endless, reformist activating, and holding out hope for men.
this is the world we live in, thanks to men. very little in mensworld means what you think it means, and what it is re/presented to mean, and we must endlessly interrogate it to get to the truth and the information we need to live and save our own lives. it is fucking exhausting, but if the answers are this important, it must be done. because there is evidence that endless pointless feminist activating can actually kill us, in the case of “rape-free cultures” and knowing whether the evidence supports the conclusion that male-on-female rape is socially, and not biologically constructed, activist womens health and lives depend on it.
femonade 