jump to navigation

The Presence of Absence. An Illustration? April 13, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, health, news you can use, radical concepts, thats random.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

in pure lust, mary daly talked about the presence of absence/absence of presence whereby women seem “present” in the foreground, but only as male-constructed fembots and handmaidens.  in reality what we see of women in the media, the male identified/dominated/defined workplace, entertainment, our “representation” in the law etc is the complete absence of “female” or anything having anything to do with women at all.

notably, one thing “women” hawk constantly in the foreground is poop, and everything feces related.  jokes on women!  so you want to be an actor, or more specifically a working actor ay?  how badly?  will you literally talk about shit — scooping it, wiping it, dealing with the literal shit and filth of all of humanity and its pets too — even though male actors almost never have to talk about anything anywhere near as degrading, and women are specifically shamed for demonstrating nay possessing gastric function?  thats what we thought.

i wont post actual videos, because there are so many, but see women talking about wiping their own and their familys asses herecat poopfarts.  it also seems as if there are a lot of women lately who cant poop at all or are otherwise suffering from “irregularity” for which there are consumerist remedies specifically targeting women.  honestly, if you ever see a male commercial actor talking about shit, or more specifically wiping it, scooping it, or improving upon it, its an aberration and not the norm.  so while i think there are several things going on here, including deliberately humiliating female actors (hey, at least its not porn, right?  right?  right?  right?) and normalizing and degrading womens role as the shitkeepers of humanity, there is probably a whole vein worth excavating in a presence-of-absence sense.  meaning, we see a lot about women and poop.  therefore, we can probably assume what we are seeing is the absence of women and womens truth about it.  we see a lot about women and “sex” too, but thats another post.  from like 2 years ago.  🙂

walk with me.  i am currently reading gerda lerners 2-part “the creation of patriarchy.”  in part one, she provides a thorough history lesson and concludes that patriarchy — institutionalized male dominance and female submission to male rule — has been around for about 5000 years.  it was modeled after the widespread miniature, private patriarchies of the male-headed household which existed even longer.  this means that women have been dominated by men for a long, long time.  and the institution of slavery itself was modeled after mens oppression of women.  womens oppression predated it.  and women were the first slaves too — knowing how to control their own women (via rape) and utilize their unpaid sexual, domestic and reproductive services, conquering males first enslaved enemy women and killed enemy men.  men they didnt know how to enslave.  men developed tactics to enslave enemy men, but that came later.

interestingly, the conditions that make institutionalized slavery possible include food surpluses — slavery “seldom if ever occurs in hunter/gatherer societies but appears in widely separated regions and periods with the advent of pastoralism (animal husbandry), and later agriculture, urbanization and state formation.”  slavery does not predate agriculture — it came later.  to the extent that women were ever free, their freedom predated slavery — by how many years i dont know.  but after slavery (and agriculture) women were never free.  this is one of the conclusions i have gleaned from this book, although there are others.

now.  i have recently had cause to examine an essentially pre-agricultural diet.  it seems that people with various digestive issues, including serious and even potentially life-threatening diagnoses such as crohns and celiac disease, are helped with a diet devoid of grains, lactose (milk) and sugar.  symptoms of crohns and celiac include gastric complaints such as chronic diarrhea, constipation, gas, and malabsorption/malnutrition which causes osteoporosis among other things.  (think: poop and problems associated with poop).  advocates of this diet call it variations of the “what our ancestors ate” diet — to the extent it is possible to currently do this, and this is not an insignificant qualifier, it may in fact be largely if not fully impossible at this juncture — adherents only eat (approximations of) what was likely available pre-agriculture.  which means meat, berries, and some fruits and vegetables, but which notably excludes grains.  one variation includes dairy but excludes most non-grain starches as well as lactose (hard cheese and 24-hour fermented yogurt are acceptable).

anyway, heres my point.  for months now, i have been aware that if women were ever free, this was a long long time ago — and that the materials and activities in *my* daily life do not mirror theirs at all.  i literally have no idea what its like to be free, because i am not free, but i am also not privy to the everyday experiences and sensations of free women.  all the experiences and sensations i do have are *only* shared between myself and other women who are oppressed.  feeling the seat and steering wheel as i sit in a car.  feeling my feet on cement.  that kind of thing.

in order to experience a sensation, any sensation that was likely also experienced by free women, so that i might feel part of what it felt like to be free i have tried to walk on a dirt path wherever possible.  i have gone outside at night and looked up.  i pick up rocks and branches and smell them.  these sights, sounds, smells are something that free women experienced, and i want to experience them too.  to the extent that sensations lead to thoughts, i want to know what free women thought.  to the extent that sensations evoke memory, i want to remember what free women remembered.  and to the extent that feeling my ass in a car or my hands on a plastic container (and other things) lead to thoughts and evoke memories shared *only* by oppressed women and slaves, and they could do nothing else, i do not want to experience those things anymore at all.  its surely no coincidence that its going to be exceptionally difficult if not impossible to do this completely.

but right in the middle of this sensory experiment i have been conducting, i received this detailed historical lesson about agriculture, and concluded that if women were ever free, it was never in an agricultural context.  and i actually wondered if it would be possible to eat a pre-agricultural diet in order to cultivate a shared dietary experience.  the answer, really, is NO, although the internet explains how you can get as close to that as possible.  but i also began to wonder, to the extent that women are experiencing this, and perhaps especially to the extent that a (modified) pre-agricultural diet alleviates or cures it, are womens “tummy troubles” (poop problems) their bodies literally rejecting patriarchy and the conditions of their own oppression and slavery?  because stranger (equally strange?) things have happened.  see depression.

that is all.


Happy Cranberries + Holiday Darwin Awards + I Love Melinda Dillon December 24, 2012

Posted by FCM in entertainment, pop culture, thats random.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

this isnt late for christmas — its early for new years.  goes better with leftovers IMO but you can really eat it anytime.  i just made some just now.  and yes, i am a little drunk.

for HAPPY CRANBERRIES you will need:


whole orange


fresh cranberries

fresh or frozen raspberries

small box black cherry or raspberry jello

red wine



white wine or champagne

orange juice


note that ALL INGREDIENTS ARE TO TASTE.  i dont use recipes unless i absolutely have to.  for this one, my mother makes it every year and i know what its supposed to look, smell and taste like.  which is GOOD.  not bitter.  so do that.  🙂  it will be good.  and you will be happy!

first, mix white wine or champagne with orange juice.  drink.  😀   (ETA:  do not add orange juice and white wine to the cranberry recipe!  its for the cook to drink — if you add it to the recipe it will never set up right.  thanks mary.  i told you i was a little drunk!)

now.  in food processor (or pioneer-woman style — use a knife) chop separately and put into large bowl:

2 celery stalks; about a cup of walnuts; about 2 cups raspberries; 1/4 whole orange, including peel, minus seeds.

chop about 3 cups fresh cranberries and put into separate bowl with about 1/2 cup sugar.  set aside for about 20 minutes to let the sugar do its thang.

boil 2 cups red wine; dissolve jello in wine.

mix everything together and put in fridge.  let it thicken as much as you want to, then eat.  yum!

now, i have to tell you that i think 2 cups of wine is probably too much due to the water in the other ingredients and i am wondering if its going to set up right.  perhaps i shouldve only used a cup?  who knows.  if i made this more than once a year perhaps i would remember how to do it properly, gains from specialization and all that.  at any rate, i am drinking white wine and orange juice while im waiting.  we have a roast beef in the oven, red potatoes boiling, and fresh asparagus waiting in the wings.  24-hours of “a christmas story” is an hour and a half away.  linda radfem is making hilarious fun of the MRAs.  🙂  have a great holiday yall.

holiday darwin awards (aka. the “Y” chromosome in action):

i love melinda dillon:

“mommy’s little piggie” scene from “a christmas story” here:

“close encounters of the third kind” watch entire film here:

enjoy!  comments open.  see you in 2013!

Hate Song December 3, 2012

Posted by FCM in entertainment, liberal dickwads, PIV, pop culture, thats random.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

when you talk, i basically tell you to shut up, or wish you would.  youre young and beautiful now, but you wont always be.  fortunately for me, you cannot move through the world anonymously even if you wanted to, and thinking about other men threatening your safety gives me a boner.

i want you to consent to PIV with me, when PIV is a hateful act which others you and pathologizes your female reproductive biology.  to help me fulfill my agenda, i am trying to confuse you with hateful reversals.  is it working?  also, its probably better (for me) if you dont think about what will happen if you say no.

look, something shiny!

more on PIV here.


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!


Deadpan October 1, 2012

Posted by FCM in meta, thats random, WTF?.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

i always assume that if a woman ends up dead, a man did it.  i assume this across the board, no matter what it “looks like.”  fell down the stairsdrowned?  was there a kennedy man anywhere nearby?  it was probably a man that killed her, it was almost certainly deliberate, and if she was partnered or married to a man, it was probably him that did it.  the cops know this too, of course, because its the truth about “violence” and “crime”.  to put “male” in front of those words would be redundant.  that must be why no one ever says it.

of course, theres no need to name the agent if the event never occurred (what event?)  like the notorious nonreporting on all the male violence that happens every day: theres not enough time in the day, or page space, so oftentimes, no one reports on any of it.  some of us are left with the impression that this absence of information means that this doesnt happen every single minute of every day, and that men are not extremely, supremely dangerous.  that impression is wrong, obvs.

so anyway, i recently read about a womans apparent “”””suicide”””” (thats 4 sets of red-flag quotes) and immediately suspected her husband.  he was a psychologist, which made me suspect him even more — doctors wives seem especially clumsy and prone to attracting sharp objects, projectiles, poison.  and psychologists/psychiatrists just might be more sadistic and misogynistic than your average sadistic, misogynistic male.  creepy, pervsplaning fuckers, those.

so more background.  she was a psychologist too.  (the husband reported) no history of depression.  no reported history of clumsiness or proclivity towards attracting sharp objects, projectiles, poison.

she was, however, the proprietor of a feminist bookstore.

for probably the first time in many years, i actually believed the husband.  i do not think he probably killed her.  i think it probably happened exactly as he said.

my conclusion was involuntary, and surprising.  upon reflection and discussion, i still think its probably right.  although obviously the husband should be investigated to within an inch of his life, just to be sure.  and because his wife died on his watch, that should count as at least one strike against him, and should be taken into consideration in all future contexts, including but not limited to dating, job prospects, and jury service.  you know, instead of counting as zero strikes like it does now.  it doesnt count, even when the guy actually did it, and even when everyone knows it.  that is all.