jump to navigation

A 10,000-Year War? Not Likely. July 16, 2013

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

the global subjugation of women throughout historical time (and probably since before even that) is kind of its own thing, is it not?  the worldwide oppression of women as a sexual class by men as a sexual class — 3.5 billion of each by now — is simply unprecedented, and unsurprisingly we find ourselves mostly without the words to describe this.  we do the best we can, invoking metaphors.  in the case of the global oppression of women by men that transcends time, we have used “war” as a metaphor (and had it pushed on us) but is this apt?  im thinking its probably not.

women are a non-entity in the war-model or are its sexy-funtime/spoils.  we are “collateral damage” even where we are more maimed and more killed than the men fighting it, by the men fighting it — besides, women get it with both barrels whether “our side” has won or lost.  peace, war — these concepts are largely meaningless to us, where both war and peace are (traditionally) political, and follow mens laws.  all mens laws, including the one that says that men have a right to oppress women globally, that they can rape and murder us for any reason or no reason, and do so with impunity, and that they need never stop.  in war, even if we’ve won, we’ve lost.  is this where we want to begin thinking about liberating ourselves from male dominance?  i think not.

also, a 10,000-year war?  really?

since we (i guess?) need a metaphor to describe/conceptualize/realize womens oppression by men, since there are no words, can we at least pick a better one?  lets try.  firstly, anything evoking/invoking mens laws is right out, where mens overarching law is that women shall not be free of men ever, and we shall always be subjugated and oppressed no matter what.  so what else is there?  natural law i guess — this is where there is no distinction made between “power” and “founded claim of right to exercise it.”  cause and natural, necessary effect.  like when its raining so hard you literally cant see, so you *cant* go outside, if only for a few minutes at a time; or *if* you do go, your decision is adjudicated by a natural authority to have been poor, or even very poor. this is the best example i can come up with at the moment, although there are most certainly others.

so does nature offer us a model/metaphor that makes more sense than the war-one, and where we actually have a shot at surviving/thriving?  note that i did not say winning — thats war-talk.  as some of you probably know, ive been working with the “natural disaster” model for a while now.  and i think it fits.  now, im not saying anything about whether mens global oppression of women is natural, like a hurricane is natural, although if i did address it i would suggest that its more or less “natural” for them, but wholly unnatural for us.  or, maybe its “natural” in the exact same way that natural disasters are natural actually — because over time, through exercising known male propensities which transcend time and place (and therefore, social conditioning) such as shameless greed, outrageous arrogance, and constant attempts to overpower and outsmart nature mens infrastructure, isnt.  the inevitable occurs (a tsunami; semen exposure causing pregnancy) and women, children and indeed everything dies (homes built too close to the sea; global overpopulation/maternal mortality).  yes that sounds about right!

anyhoo, the thing about using metaphors for womens global oppression by men is that they are being used to describe a political reality, and therefore implicate political strategy.  dont they?  if we use “war” this implicates allies, winning/losing and importantly, fighting/mortal combat where numerous casualties are expected; in the case of mens (10,000 year!!!  at least!!!) war on women, women are also expected to continue to engage with men apparently indefinitely, and voluntarily place ourselves in harms way apparently forever.  even as we know that men feed off womens attention and gynergy, and that they would likely (or absolutely, in the case of male children) die without it.  that cant be good.

whereas in the case of natural disasters (or man-made disasters due to mens necrophilia and foreseeable failures of man-made infrastructure) and surviving natural disasters, the strategy implicated is notably and demonstrably different.  among other things, the immediate response to natural disasters by people who are actually there (not the government obviously) are necessarily swift; they are regional, localized or even hyper-localized/individualized out of necessity and reasonableness (and instinct); and narrowly-tailored to fit the circumstances.  importantly, in the midst of a natural disaster, no one can tell you what to do, and you would be a fool to wait around for it anyway because emergency, and because they arent there to even know whats happening to you — you are.

only you know exactly what is going down on the ground wherever you are, and what you need to do to fix survive it, including getting the hell out of the way, and the wise and natural thing and indeed the only thing to do in this situation is to “save yourself” and those physically close to you/within arms reach.  and these are not individual solutions in a pomo or choosy-choice way.  under a natural disaster model, there are very few choices actually, and little individualism for that matter — it is you responding to the collective reality in the place you are.  here, instinct, imminence, necessity and survival carry the day.  and anyone suggesting *that* is pomo garbage is selling something.

of course, i am aware that for women, the biggest problem in the aftermath of a natural disaster/failure of mens infrastructure is men, and male violence and sexualized violence.  its the same problem with the war-model actually, only the war-model offers no solution and no hope to that particular problem, being that rape is built-in to the war-model as mens recreation and reward, and as a male strategy and indeed a male objective of war as a matter of fact.  whereas getting the hell out of the way, and utilizing instinct and survival (not combat) skills offers the possibility of another outcome.

discuss.

Advertisements

Moron Owen Lloyd. Or, What ‘Depoliticization’ Actually Means July 9, 2013

Posted by FCM in feminisms, gender roles, rape, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

nope, not done with owen lloyd yet!  somethings been bothering me about that rape-article he wrote, and its the title.  Steven Pinker and the Depoliticization of Rape.  the depoliticization of rape.  depoliticization of rape.  depoliticization.  of.  hmm.  has steven pinker attempted to or succeeded in depoliticizing rape?  having not read steven pinker and only having owen lloyds cherry-picked quotes as evidence of whether he did or didnt, i have to wonder if owen lloyd even knows what “depoliticization” means.  (according to google, it means “To remove the political aspect from; remove from political influence or control.”)

query: if there is a natural/innateness component to men raping girls and women across time and place, is *that* in itself enough to depoliticize it?  or, if women started responding to men as a class as if men as a class were rapists, which they are, would womens response be apolitical?

lets discuss.  first, rape is a politicized act, its true.  there are political aspects and consequences to men raping girls and women across time and place, and yes there is a war on (woron?) in case anyone didnt get the memo.  but the political aspects of rape do not start and end there.  rape causes unwanted pregnancy in women, and men have set it up so that the big-3 of their patriarchal institutions — medicine, religion, and law — all attach to womens bodies and lives at the moment of conception.  and make no mistake — these are political consequences mkay, where political means

1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: “Calling a meeting is a political act in itself” (Daniel Goleman).
3. Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.
4. Interested or active in politics: I’m not a very political person.
5. Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution.
6. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives.

check out numbers 1 and 6 in particular.  1 is obvious, but 6 is interesting.  self-serving objectives.  it serves men as a class that (patriarchal) medicine, religion and law all attach to womens bodies and womens lives at the moment of conception — thats why.  they.  did.  it.  it does not have to be this way, but men have made it this way to benefit themselves; they have granted themselves the power to open the door to formal, institutional and state control of women by impregnating us.

so, if there were a biological/innateness component to men raping us, would that remove these consequences?  no, it would not.  men have created these consequences out of whole cloth and they intend to keep them in place forever, where men have also granted themselves the sole power to remove them or not.  get it?  politics.  in fact, in order to depoliticize rape in this way, men would also have to agree to depoliticize intercourse at the same time.  because medicine, religion and law attach to womens bodies and womens lives at the moment of conception regardless of whether we are impregnated through consensual intercourse or rape.

put another way, if the men who had the power to do this were to say “we hereby remove all mechanisms by which male institutions control pregnancy and pregnant women” and then did it, this would at least partially depoliticize rape.  of course, it would also depoliticize intercourse, and we would all be forced to see (or willfully ignore, albeit a bit more obviously at that point) how the political intent and effect of intercourse and rape have actually been the same this whole time — to control women — and that men made it this way.  politics.

and what if women started avoiding men like the plague they (historically and currently) are?  owen lloyd says steven pinker advocates women doing this, although frankly i dont trust owen lloyd to accurately summarize anyones writing or their intent.  owen lloyd also suggests that *if* women did this, it would not and indeed could not be a political move on our part — it would be us apolitically “adapting” to rape culture which we shouldnt do because victim-blaming and not only that, black (male) civil rights movement.  hmm.

welp.  how about this, owen lloyd.  since you (or was it pinker?) suggested it, what if women did start avoiding men and we do this both individually (because its the only way we can) and collectively (a happy coincidence of the former) until men remove the political consequences to women of men raping us.  would this be political enough a response for you?  in practice this would mean until you remove religious, legal and medical mandates, controls and standards of care from the pregnant, laboring, lactating (and childrearing — as long as we’re at it) female body.  of course this means turning over all control of these things to women, as we discussed here.

when and if you do this, we might come back.  not that you ever (ever, ever, ever) would, which makes this useful primarily as a thought exercise, but if you did remove the political implications of rape to girls and women, perhaps then we could address the gnatty little issue of whether rape is *only* political, or traditionally political, or whether it would still exist if it werent so politically invasive, controlling and damaging to us.  in other words if rape were just (!!!) “forced sex” (meaning forced intercourse and impregnation) and stopped being “the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders.”  (yes, perhaps *then* we could discuss it — if thats okay with you?  jeebus.)

this is what the partial* depoliticization of rape looks like owen lloyd, so you know what it looks like if and when you see it.  considering that you will likely never see it of course, and certainly never from another male, including steven pinker BTW, from your perspective its probably a largely useless tool.  and i shall end on that note because thats just funny.

*i say “partial” because we havent even addressed yet whether traditional political controls are the end-all be-all of the politicization of rape, where men rape women to serve themselves, and where men demonstrate daily that orgasm (and necrophilia) is largely its own reward.

Keep Talking Owen Lloyd June 28, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Moron Issue Framing. Or, Why Male Violence Against Women and Children Survives a Cost-Benefit Analysis December 19, 2012

Posted by FCM in logic, politics, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

the responses to recent calls for banning firearms in the wake of the sandy hook elementary school annihilation are stupefying.  heres one now, from some allegedly pro-feminist dood equating male violence against other men with male violence against women and children.  stupefying!  or the even more stupefying “what about the pens!” argument: men will use any object as a weapon, (link within to a “school massacre” where the man used a hammer against children — and all the children survived their injuries, get it?) therefore we are obligated to make mens job of annihilating large numbers of women and children easier by giving them access to guns.  what?

now, obviously, gun control is a harm-reduction strategy only.  lets be clear about that: women generally are not so stupid as to ever believe that we can eliminate the problem of violent men, and reducing or eliminating mens access to guns will not cure or even reduce the problem of violent men.  we have been in mens crosshairs since before there was such a thing as crosshairs mkay?  we know guns arent really the problem, but to suggest a real solution (eliminating or reducing the number of men, or female separatism) garners us rape and death threats and worse.  some of us do it anyway, because the problem of male violence against women is so ghastly and so penetrating and so real that it makes very little difference whether the threats against us are made more-overt.  they are overt already.

and i am about as disinterested in harm-reduction strategies as anyone could possibly reasonably be: which means that i am very interested in them, and i do think about them, but i dont like to waste my time writing or talking about them.  other people can and do perform that function better than i ever could, and i am happy to let them — i invest my time and talent elsewhere, because thats what *i* do best.  mkay?  but look.  even *i* cannot stand by whilst people make the same idiotic remarks on this issue, making false equivalences, stinking the place up with equality-rhetoric and worse.  this is maddening.  maddening!  so allow me to try to help, if i may.

the problem, i think, is that in mainstream and even “feminist” discussions of male violence, there are several issues being discussed as if they are one issue, or different issues being discussed as if they are the same.  when they arent the same at all.  firstly, male violence against women is a different animal than male violence against other men.  mkay?  because women do not equal men and men do not equal women.  women are the oppressed class, men are the oppressors.  women are impregnated while men impregnate.  get it?  different, not the same.  we have to assume meaningful sex-based difference, i think, and work from there, lest we fall into obfuscating and male-centric equality-rhetoric accidentally.  if there are no meaningful sex-based differences implicated, thats one thing, but there frequently are.

secondly, from womens perspective, male violence against other men is bad too, but our reasons for thinking so are not mens reasons, or they cannot be assumed to be the same or even similar.  okay?  because women are not men and men arent women.  clearly, if the issue of male violence against either women or men was the same issue for us as it is for them, women and feminists would probably care about it as much as men seem to care about solving the problem of male violence, including the problem of male violence against other men, which is to say we wouldnt care about it much at all.  except to use it to derail, obfuscate and negate womens calls to reduce or eliminate male violence against women perhaps, like old tremblay did there with his “what about the pens?”  its pretty useful for that.

to wit, i think we need to realize and accept that everything man-made that currently exists, exists because it has been found by men to survive a cost-benefit analysis.  male violence against other men survives a cost-benefit analysis, and male violence against women survives a cost benefit analysis.  to men.  if it didnt, they would stop doing it.  can we agree on that much at least?  if not, please detail any reasonable disagreements below.  i dont think there are any.

and when analyzing both sides of the equation of male violence against both women and men — the cost-side and the benefits-side — things like hierarchies, and power, and misogyny, and sadism, or the political usefulness of paralyzing fear might be too abstract to plug into a mathematical equation.  for the purposes of understanding the cost-benefit analysis men are obviously applying toward male violence, i keep coming back to the issue of “gynergy” which isnt abstract at all — where women consistently put their time, resources and literally our life-energies into the survival and growth of ourselves and our children, this can be measured.  when men kill *anyone* they are killing womens gynergy, and each child and indeed every adult is the embodiment of a real womans gynergy: a 6 year old child represents 6 years (and 9 months) of its mothers time, resources and her very self.   a 50-year old, for that matter, represents 18 years (ok who are we kidding — the full 50…plus 9 months) of its mothers — and other womens! — gynergy.  when a man kills someone, to the killer and to all men, the victim may be no more valuable within mens value system than any other 200- (or 50-) pound meatbag, (whats even the most expensive meat worth? not much) but that is not the value of a human life to women, as a sexual class, around the world, now is it?

and thats just the beginning of the discussion, i think.  and the conclusions we will be forced to draw, when we analyze mens value system and compare it to ours, including the reasons for obvious difference will likely be devastating.  but we have to do it dont we?  at the very least we should probably shut the hell up if we cant make a decent observation about male violence so we dont confuse everyone.  but that is kind of the point of doing it, when you are a man.  right, tremblay?

male violence against women, and male violence against men, consistently survives a cost-benefit analysis to men and male supremacy — if it didnt, men would stop doing it.  its time we look at the equation they are using, to figure out how they keep getting the result they are getting.  and why we get a different result when we do the math.  and if it seems cold and calculated to think of it in these terms, blame men mkay?  if they werent all the time killing people, and obviously finding a net-gain to themselves in doing so, we wouldnt have to examine why that is, and whats in it for them, or to examine anyones values or the nature of our investments so closely.  but they are, so we do.  that is all.