jump to navigation

Heads Men Win, Tails Women Lose. Bring In the Dancing Lobsters March 10, 2013

Posted by FCM in feminisms, kids, logic, rape, thats mean.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

many of us know by now that if you play mens games (voluntarily or involuntarily) you are bound to lose, if you are a female-bodied person.  this might seem “unfair” or discriminatory or even like blatant insanity, and indeed some of us have been acting like this has all been just one big misunderstanding this whole time.  that if we could only articulate the unfairness (or insanity) it would be magically remedied.  as if the point of the game was equity, and the whole point was definitely NOT to benefit men at womens expense.  interestingly, the “accidental unfairness” principle seems to be both the premise and the conclusion of equality activating.  in other words, we work from the assumption that its all just a big mistake, and then no matter what evidence is forthcoming (including evidence that its all very deliberate indeed) we conclude that it mustve been an accident.

note that there is no room here for evidence, or reality, or changing course or anything except heading in the same direction forever.  a notably circular direction.  judge trudy — a skit from a childrens television program — illustrates the concept of bias and circular reasoning (and victim blaming!) perfectly.  the premise of judge trudy is that the judge always sides with the children no matter what.  the premise of the grown-up (patriarchal) legal system is not that different.  get it?

so i was thinking about the alleged “logistical problem” we have in our prison system where there simply is not enough room for all the men who commit crimes.  often times, violent offenders are released because there isnt enough room to house them all — one proposed remedy to this problem of overcrowding (of mens prisons by criminal men) has been to legalize drugs.  okay, thats not a bad idea — if men dont have legal remedies backing up their property rights to their drugs, they resort to violence.  give them ownership rights over their drugs and they might not kill each other over disputes of ownership, creating additional violent offenders “we” dont have room for.  and, like, the fact that using drugs is a “victimless crime” or whatever, so users wouldnt go to jail just for using or buying drugs.  but im more interested in the property ownership aspects of it at the moment.

we are all the time working with the understanding that men will kill each other and everyone if they are given even the slightest impetus to do so.  no one ever says this directly, but this is the reality of it, isnt it?  we wonder why men dont take rape seriously, and feminists speculate that its because a great number of men rape, and that they all benefit from it which is clearly true.  but you know what else is probably true?  the people who work in (patriarchal) law enforcement and the judicial system know for a fact that if he *only* raped you, you got off fucking easy.  you are lucky he didnt kill you on top of it because thats what men do.  and we dont have room for all the men who murder, attempt murder, or viciously assault, let alone those who “merely” rape, which is almost all of them depending on the definition you use (including the “legal” one, not incidentally).  there isnt enough room for all of them.  if men were punished for rape almost all of them would be in jail and practically none of them would be free and thats just no way to run a “society” is it?  (or is it?)

but what would happen if there was no more property ownership at all?  what if no one owned anything anymore, including drugs?  there would be more violent offenders, as men took it upon themselves to protect something that doesnt legally exist — ownership rights over property.  honestly, this outcome is quite terrifying, the upside being that suddenly there wouldnt be any more property offenses either.  so presumably we would have all that extra space in our prisons currently being taken up by the perpetrators of property crimes, including the only crime besides being prostituted that women commit more frequently than men — shoplifting.  we would finally have room for all the violent men who commit crimes of violence against actual people.  one might initially assume that this would include violent offenses men commit against women, but not so fast.

rape is still a property crime, see.  rape is not defined or discussed as other violent offenses are, as something harmful or reasonably likely to result in serious harm or death — it is defined and discussed in terms of “consent” which is the language of trespass, not violence.  as in trespassing, on someones property, get it?  we have discussed this before.  if we did away with property crimes, opening up all that extra space in jail for violent offenders, the number of violent offenders would skyrocket as they killed each other over property disputes (because men are more or less inherently violent and there is no way to stop this or change it — ask anyone except a reformist-oriented feminist!) but notably, rape wouldnt be a crime anymore at all.  men would kill each other for raping each others women so the murderers would be in jail but the rapists would be dead.

see what i did there?  it is suspiciously as if men cannot be jailed for committing rape under any circumstances, using any reasoning.  this quirk of reality could theoretically be “reformed” if it was an accident, but i dont think it is — if left to “chance” the statistical probability of any outcome (out of two) is about 50/50 but what we see is that men win all the time and women always lose, perhaps particularly in the area of criminalizing rape, and providing meaningful punishments/deterrents to men raping women.  so can you reform a system that is actually working perfectly, and exactly as it was intended?

perhaps more importantly, why would anyone want to?  dont you ever get sick of trying to teach men how to be good people (and then taking the blame when you almost inevitably fail)?  the fact appears to be that men want things more or less the way they are — if they didnt, they would change it themselves.  men, as a class, are violent, nasty and they oppress women voluntarily because they like oppressing women.  they oppress us no matter what — if there is such a thing as “meaningful brain difference” they will oppress us based on that.  if there is no evidence (or no accepted or “scientific” evidence) to be found (by themselves usually, as they are the ones in the position to look) of meaningful sex-based brain difference (or of whatever) they will oppress us anyway.  somehow they will find a way to do it.

this rather notable “quirk” — that men oppress women no matter what — doesnt seem to mean much to reformist feminists, but it ought to.  doing this work because you are scared to death of what men will continue to do (and what they will come up with next) if you dont is a bit short-sighted, and reactive at best.  and its definitely no reason to conclude that theres any hope for men.  honestly, i dont know where we come up with some of this stuff.  feminists using bad reasoning and then maintaining perpetual support for their reformist position using coercive tactics including thought-termination is what it looks like to me.  see the discussion here for more on that.

Advertisements

More Separatism By Default. Happy Valentine’s Day! February 14, 2013

Posted by FCM in porn, rape, thats mean.
Tags: ,
comments closed

love, me.  ❤

we talked previously about the idea of separatism-by-default — if there are logistical problems getting in the way of women separating from men in a direct, forthright way, there are other ways of getting there that are worth exploring.  this isnt an “ends justifying the means” kind of post, no.  this is a “take a deep breath” kind of post.  this is a lets reconsider.

what kind of rapey shithole are we living in, afterall, if we would have separatism by default if men were (finally) punished with jailtime for raping and contributing to men raping women.  i mean if all men who were guilty of the range of offenses between actual rape and not adequately protecting women in their own communities and proximities from rape, were actually sent to jail, including every man within a 20-mile radius (say) of any and all instances of a boy or a man raping a girl or a woman, within just a few minutes there would be no men left in many places in the world.  justice for women, in other words, would create female separatism by default, where all male offenders were separated from us, and allowed to do their male-culture thing with each other and not allowed to do it to us anymore.  we would be alone.  because justice.

what kind of porny nightmare is this, where if any of us were able to divorce ourselves from a woman-hating perspective, say by refusing to engage with patriarchal media images anymore, by default, we would be left in a female-only space.  no men and nothing any man ever thought, dreamed or created would be there.  because no.

and what kind of violent hell is waiting just beyond the horizon, what is it, exactly, that we are actively preventing from happening with our female blood, sweat and tears, when women put their energies into placing and enforcing social controls on men and male behavior, including mens violence against other men?  and, why do we bother doing this at all?  this is a serious question.

(re)consider: how many men would just kill themselves voluntarily if left to their own devices?  how many resources in the form of suicide hotlines, drug rehabs, DWI checkpoints and the like are being actively put towards preventing men from killing themselves, and is this really the best use of these resources?  says who?

(re)consider:  how many men would kill each other if they werent prevented from doing so, both actively and passively, and how much energy is dedicated to achieving that ends daily?  weekly?  annually?  is it worth it?  this is a serious question.  what would happen if we just let men do to themselves and each other what they do, unabated?  im not talking about *us* doing a fucking thing to hurt men at all.  im just talking about not stopping them from harming — even eliminating — themselves.  do we owe it to them or something to save them from themselves?  really?  because we are acting as if we do, but why?  i dont think women owe men a fucking thing.

and sure, women have our own interests in preventing male violence against other men, but our interests here are complicated, and worth parsing.  for starters, women and girls often get caught in mens crossfire, literally and more literally.  when boys and men are killed, so is the gynergy of the mothers, grandmothers and others who spent their lives and their very selves in raising and nurturing them.

perhaps our greatest fear is that if men are allowed to do what they do, and if “culture” — otherwise known as patriarchy — were allowed to be as hellishly brutal, as bloody and awful as it would be if men were allowed to just be men, unmodified, that men will simply and finally go mad, unleashing an heretofore unimaginably lawless, vicious violence, raping and slaughtering us all.  and this is a realistic fear, i think.  but obviously it begs the question, doesnt it — why are they worth saving, again?

what if we just got out of their way and let nature (or whatever) take its course?  im just asking.  we likely wouldnt have to do it for very long — i think even *i* could stand the trials and tribulations of “womens land” and passing the communal nut butter (or whatever) for the five minutes (or 5 years) it would take for men to render themselves, well, dead.  after that, we could all go our own ways if we wanted.  or not!  either way, aaaahhhhhhh.  heaven.

What Logistical Problem? January 9, 2013

Posted by FCM in pop culture, rape, thats mean.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

imagine with me.  whenever a woman is raped, every man within 20 miles of where the rape occurred is presumed to be a rapist, an accomplice, an egger-onner, an enabler, or completely disinterested (in protecting women from rape).  they are all rounded up and jailed.

because it would be stressful for all women involved if there were any uncertainty regarding whether the men would be released or not — if the men were “coming home” or if they would ever again be “walking the streets to rape again” — to relieve womens stress, the answer would be NO, none of them will be released, ever.  all the women would go on with their lives and never look back.  there wouldnt be any prison-visits either.  (feel the relief wash over you like a warm bath?)

if there was a problem of prison overcrowding (can you imagine the logistical problems we would encounter if we actually started punishing men for rape?) well thats easy — let all the newbies i mean “new fish” sleep in the recreational areas until a spot opens up.  start a “communication initiative” whereby all prisoners would be given a new mont blanc pen and a letter opener and instructed to write letters to other prisoners around the country, like a pen-pal kind of thing.  watch them all kill each other with the pens and letter openers.  overcrowding?  no longer an issue.

keep doing this for a few months, a few years.  what is “society” like now?  how many men would there be left in free society — im thinking a negligible amount if any.  so under these new circumstances, what happens when we go out at night (or stay in?)  what happens to us if we dont know how to run the factories, or universities, or the coal mines (because we were never taught, or not enough of us were)?  what happens if we *do* know?

in this new, free society, what would we throw away?  what would we keep?  what would we invent, or implement, or revive? understanding of course that we could learn *any* of mens values, systems and machines (if not their machinations) if we were willing to put the time and effort into it — if men did it, it cant be that hard.  i mean really.  but we dont *have* to — thats my point.  we would start anew.

if we actually punished men for raping girls and women, without regard for fairness to men, and *only* caring about fairness to women and relieving womens stress, and centering womens survival as a sexual class, including the complete eradication of rapey males and rape culture, female separatism would no longer present the logistical problem it once did — “mens culture” would become prison culture.  it already is, you see.  under conditions of zero tolerance for men raping women, we would have “womens culture” and female separatism by default.  it probably wouldnt take but a year at most for (nearly?) every single man to be rounded up and imprisoned for raping or contributing to the rape of a woman, if we actually punished men for rape, and contributing to rape.

thats literally all it would take to create female separatism: justice.  thats all.

Don’t Feed the Parrots? Or, On Spinning and Spiraling, Part 2. Or, On Cargo Cults, Part 2. Trigger Warning: Monty Python October 16, 2012

Posted by FCM in feminisms, logic, meta, thats mean, thats random.
Tags: ,
comments closed

in light of recent discussions, it occurs to me to talk about merit-based systems (among other things).  many of us are not used to a merit-based system, because that is fundamentally not how patriarchal systems work.  many women get up every day and do their best impersonation of a worthy, competent human being — meaning they try to impersonate “good women” or men the best they can — and go to work, or out in the world generally and try to get things done, but most of us have realized by now that at the end of the day, life aint fair if you were born female under patriarchy.

its not about what you do, or even about who you know, or even about “who” you are, but what you are that will determine whether you win or lose (if you are female, you lose.  end of.  read more about women impersonating men and male rituals in the context of cargo-cultism and the post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc logical fallacy here — really, its fascinating.)

in short, male success and male reality are not based on either the merits of their work or the objective truth of their beliefs.  generally speaking, men can shuffle papers around all day, looking busy but not doing much, and look at porn on their work computers in their spare time — porn, the perfect illustration of male truth-telling about men while lying about women — and somehow they manage to get paid, promoted, elected and respected anyway.  somehow, (somehow!) they end up being put in charge of things including monitoring and judging others behavior, or charged with keeping us all safe…

its a boys club out there.  a non-merit non-truth based system, or overlapping systems.  we know this.  this model does not generally work for women, but we keep trying vainly to make it work anyway…

enter…the girls club?  or something?  (srsly, what the hell is this?  read the comments)  completely without regard for the merits of anyones work, the objective truth of their statements, or the radicalness of their alleged radicalism, anyone spouting daly quotes or claiming to be a woman or a radical feminist gets in the door, no questions asked allowed?  really?  we are creating a non-merit non-truth based system, why again?  because it works so well for women generally?  because we dont know what else to do?  or…what?

the thing about radical feminism — unlike anything men try to do — is that it actually makes sense mkay.  this sense-making operates on 2 levels — one is the mathematical level, in that our “proofs” actually work, and are logical and “true” in the mathematical sense.  we do not “argue” we demonstrate.  we do not “debate” as much as we debunk.  this is how and why we are able to draw logical proofs and flow charts and are generally able to show our work.  its because we are right, and obviously so.  its a matter of naming the agent, and wiping away the patriarchal cobwebs, mindbindings, doublethink and reversals to reveal whats been there all along.

radical feminist sense-making also operates on an intuitive level, or something like it…our words resonate with women because of our shared experience as women.  we believe that there is such a thing, and beyond that, we are right — there is.  and because of this shared experience, on an intuitive level or partially intuitive level (read: the learned survival mechanisms all slaves have, and perhaps with something genetic thrown in, in case evolution itself has been affected by millenia of patriarchy or by our being subjected to the brutal realities of animal mating behaviors even longer) our words generally do not go “clunk” as they hit the dirt.  far from it — our words cause sparking and spiraling inside other women.  we know this is true.  so believe it.  believe your eyes.

now, i will grant you that the second (intuitive) “test” of radical feminist material might be more fallible than the first — by contrast, mathematical proofs are notoriously reliable, which is the entire point, and if your proof is debunked you must concede that you were wrong because its made obvious through another proof — but which one has probably saved more womens lives and asses across time and place?  its not the math.  when something sounds “off”, or doesnt resonate or whatever, it is evidence of something.  evidence, not proof.  and we are entitled, as thinking persons, to make reasoned conclusions based on credible evidence.  like….that the person spewing it isnt really a radical feminist.

and beyond that, spewing male-centrism — including liberal feminism under any guise — is boring mkay.  it just is.  i might even go further and say its RUDE.  its RUDE for writers to put their audiences to sleep like that…please dont do it…

anyway, we all know better than to feed trolls by now — but might i also suggest that we refrain from feeding parrots as well?  in this context, a “parrot” is a person who has nothing original or interesting to say at all, and who simply offers decontextualized or misplaced quotes from classic radfem texts (or parrots blogs, or parrots other peoples comments from blogs) to show any number of things (or to cause thought-termination) and where such quotes are notably *not* offered as a teaching tool or jumping-off place from which we are all invited to spark and spiral.  you know the type.  do not feed these people with your attention — ignore them.

for what its worth, mary daly didnt appreciate parrots either, and upon learning that women were merely parroting her work, she cited it as evidence that unfortunately, then, those women didnt understand a damn thing she had said, or radical feminism at all for that matter.  im paraphrasing from here.  parrots can very easily be men, too.  because all you have to do to be a parrot is buy a book.  you dont even have to read or understand it — and men do neither.

instead, might i suggest that we adopt a merit- and truth-based approach in general: the proof of anyones radicalism is in the pudding.  show, dont tell.  write something radical, and lets talk about it.  dont name drop, dont vouch for other womens radicalism — say something radical, and you will be seen to be a radical feminist.  where (oh where?) have we gotten this bizarre notion that the merits of anyones work are irrelevant and the truth doesnt matter?  (or alternatively, how has this become so reversed, where the merits are mistakenly believed to matter in some instances, and are also mistakenly believed *not* to matter in others?)  why is it ok to have muddy thinking and reversals pollute or comprise our movement?  this movement specifically i mean — radical feminism.  this playing loosey-goosey with the rules ideology doesnt happen everywhere.  thats important.

TL;DR version: i like my feminism how i like my coffee — merit based.  our safety and our movement depend on it.  thank you.

PS.  monty python clip to illustrate just HOW boring male-centrism and liberal feminism are.  also, words have meaning.  enjoy!

3 Women Show December 3, 2011

Posted by FCM in kids, PIV, rape, thats mean, thats random.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

the other day, i went to the movies with nigel.  we sat on the end of a row that was filled with 13-year old girls and three adult female chaperones that i saw, it was kind of dark and i actually think their group extended into the next row too.  so there were probably more adult women but i only saw three.  anyway, there were 2 empty seats on the end, and we were obviously about to take them: the three adult women looked at us as we were about to sit down.  nigel moved like he was going to go into the row and sit down first, next to the last girl, with me next to him on the end.  i could tell that the women did not like that, i could sense this easily, but even before i had consciously noted that, i had already decided that i would push past him and sat down next to the last girl, forcing him to sit on the end.  this was very fluid and nothing that wouldve been noticed by anyone observing, or even by nigel.  it really wasnt anything out of the ordinary at all, no more than breathing, really.  i had connected psychically with 3 women i didnt even know.

did i mention that im psychic?  cause i am.  i can also see the future, and alter the course of history: if nigel had sat down next to the girl on the end instead of me, i absolutely know that one of the women wouldve traded seats with the girl so no girl would be sitting next to an adult man in the dark for 2 hours in a crowded movie theater.

so anyway, the course of history having been altered, the women relaxed and stopped paying attention to us completely.  all women reading this anecdote know why.  the ones who dont want to believe it know why, the ones who love men know why, the ones who hate men know why.  the ones who hate me know why.  the readers who are men…well who knows what delusion they are privileged enough to live under.  women know the truth.  they can deny it at their peril, but thats not the same as not knowing it.

and as everyone who is being honest here knows, these 3 women did not want an adult man sitting next to one of the girls, because of what men are known to do to girls: men sexually abuse girls, and devastate girls and womens lives.  and men do this often.  this is obvious, its contextual, and its true.

the 3 women at the theater that day were not unusual women.  they were just women.  female-bodied persons.  with all the senses of human beings, and the memory of human beings too.  and the ability to cognate, synthesize, and make connections.  like all humans, and perhaps some other animals too although i dont know.  all women know this, all women have a shared, lived experience because they are female, they have these concerns and they maneuver and negotiate at all times so that they and the girls they are caring for can be as safe as possible from men because they know what men do.  this is womens reality.  all womens reality.

now, being your completely-usual woman, knowing what she knows and what all women know, i wouldnt be at all surprised if many or even most pregnant-women take a few moments to consider, once she realizes shes been impregnated and that the fetus is male, that this boy-fetus she is carrying is very likely to be the worst-possible thing to ever happen to another womans girl-fetus.  that this male child, even if he never abuses a person in his entire life, will end up ruining one woman or many womens lives by sticking his dick into them and wreaking havoc in their lives that will never compare to any other horror or any other trauma or any other tragedy: it will be greater, and more constant and worse, and it will never be remedied.  that this fetus will ruin womens lives, and thats a given, even if he doesnt do anything “wrong” because this is the paradigm under which we currently live, and thats the truth of it.

women know what we know.  women are watching and paying attention, and behaving in accordance with what they know, and altering the course of history one way or another, and this cannot be stopped.  like the women in the movie theater, they absolutely cannot be stopped.  they might nod and smile and pay lip service, but they will keep doing what they are doing and they will never stop doing it.  all women know what men do and what they are.  this gives me hope.