Dicks in a Box January 19, 2015Posted by FCM in logic, meta, pop culture, radical concepts.
Tags: NTE, NTHE, the burning times
i have about reached my limit with the modding aspect of blogging, where i put something out there for public consumption then am physically and psychically tied to the internets for as long as comments remain open. it is documented that repeatedly “checking” things like email and comments is an addictive cycle whereupon the checker receives repeated dopamine hits, one every time you “check” something that may or may not have changed since last time you looked, even if that was literally half a second ago. as many times as you check, and whether or not there is something new in your inbox/queue, has nothing whatever to do with whether there will be something new there in a minute or a second, so you can check as many times as is physically possible and its always a “novel” event so produces a dopamine hit every time. that cant be good. its not good for my readers either, because you end up doing the same thing — checking to see if the conversation has progressed since the last time you looked. we are all junkies now, and this cannot possibly be helping us (can it?) so, i am no longer accepting comments.
anyway, as you already know, since i have been very vocal about it, i believe that men have effectively done us all in via the self-reinforcing feedback loop of global overpopulation and global over male population, resulting in catastrophic global climate change. there is evidence that our fate was sealed decades ago by rapacious, resource extracting, resource hoarding males who just wouldnt stop raping women (creating babies) and polluting and pillaging the earth. there is evidence that this is a done deal and its too late now to stop it; this makes me wonder about the time before it was too late, 50 years ago, 100 years ago and earlier. did women see what was happening and (try to) intervene? i figure they probably did — globally and across time, women have despised intercourse and repeated pregnancies, knowing in their bones that various man-ifestations of maleness were not compatible with life, and (thus) not sustainable.
of course, any evidence of womens knowing about this, and responding to it, will have been buried so deep it will be nearly impossible to locate and extract it. so we have to use the scraps of information we do have, along with our intuition and creative leaps of thought to try to put our herstory (and our female Selves) back together again. the question of “what would womens resistance have looked like?” is probably a dead end since womens (real, effective) resistance is killed, cremated, and buried quickly lest other women use that information and get ideas. and, you know, build on the knowledge and work of women who came before. that, we cannot have. its probably rule #1 under patriarchy, now that i think about it (isnt it?)
probably a better question would be, if women had resisted, and effectively resisted, what would mens response to it have looked like? and this line of inquiry bears some fruit. i think, if women were resisting effectively, anywhere in the world, that mens response to it would be testerical, brutal, and absolutely devastating, not just to the resistors themselves but to all women everywhere. the resistors would be taken down and out, and an example made of them, the message communicated to all womankind that this behavior will not be tolerated ever, and to resist further will be the absolute worst thing you could ever do, so best not to even think of it. ever. again. the intent would be to give the entire resisting class such debilitating trauma that they would be cognitively impaired (PTSD) and both physically and mentally ineffective for the rest of their lives, and furthermore, that they would pass these traumatized (submissive) beliefs and behaviors down to their own girl children forever, creating a true aversion to real, effective female resistance as surely as if it were genetic (this happens and is known as a a meme, a belief and related behaviors that travel through bloodlines almost as if they are physical and not social traits).
men would have gone absolutely nuclear on effective female resistance, and their response would have been so outrageously oppressive and brutally violent as to prevent it ever happening again. i think this is a reasonable assumption. which brings my thoughts to the burning times.
andrea dworkin wrote in “woman hating” about what she understood to be a mass delusion in the times of the witch hunts (approximately 1560-1760 or even later, depending on the source) which was the “dicks in a box” delusion. apparently, women at the time were accused of telekinetically castrating males and keeping their members in boxes, where the severed dicks would root around eating corn. (!) i have heard this rather bizarre historical fact explained 2 ways: either folks were delusional about this and were reporting truthfully about what they believed they saw, or they were lying in order to crazy-make and implicate women in practicing witchcraft. both are plausible, and there is no way to know for sure (although i think men lying about it to justify torturing and murdering women is more likely than the mass-delusion explanation. interestingly, dworkin herself believed they were delusional and telling the truth).
understanding that we will probably never know for sure, because it is impossible to reliably put our female past back together again because of mens erasure and mens lies, i would propose a third possible explanation. one that takes into account the rather unprecedented male testeria and the brutality and oppressiveness of the burning times, which could very well have been mens response to effective female resistance at the time (if women had resisted, the quality and quantity of male violence and oppressiveness demonstrated during the burning times would be the likely response).
here, i would tentatively suggest that around the year 1500 or so, women somewhat-collectively came to realize what men were and the likely outcome of mens ruthless and unsustainable regime of necrophilia and rape, which would be the literal end of all (or much of) life on earth. because there could be no other end to it but that. knowing that in their bones, and they were right of course, women started killing men. the dicks in a box thing could have been women keeping souvenirs (a rather male thing to do) or perhaps more likely, was a way to keep track of just how many men they had done away with. because their intent would not have been to kill all or too many of any life form — women are not men afterall. if they were doing this, they probably had a specific goal in mind and they planned to stop once they reached their goal (modern researchers seem to believe that a reduction of 90% (i think?) is just the right amount to achieve a level of sustainability and peace — google it). also, it is possible that some women chickened out and lied to each other about having done in their fair share of men, so a reliable method of keeping tally would have been necessary. could there be a better method of tallying than collecting and keeping the deadmens dicks in a box? i cant think of one (although admittedly, i havent really tried. when you hear pure perfection, and something which could not possibly be improved upon, you just know it).
in short, what if the dick in a box thing was real? im just asking. surely everyone is much more comfortable believing that men simply tortured and murdered between 100,000 and several million women because delusion, or because misogyny — nothing too repulsive or wrong with either of those, right? surely nothing that would keep anyone up at night. whereas the idea that women might have actually harmed men in self defense, and done something to deserve what they got from men is disturbing and wrong (“deserved” in a patriarchal sense of course — both natural law and hindsight dictate that reducing the number of men at that time in history would have been both prescient and timely. in other words, the exact right thing to do, at the exact right time, as if women knew what was coming and really, seriously desired and endeavored to stop it). its too late to do anything now of course.
tl;dr dick in a box may in fact represent humanitys last best chance of survival: reducing the number of males before the start of mens industrial (necrophilic) revolution mightve actually worked. there is evidence (although obviously not proof) to support this. as thinking persons, we like evidence, and hypotheses/theories based on evidence. dont we.
Brought To You By the Inventors of Drug Dealing and Rape January 17, 2015Posted by FCM in liberal dickwads, logic, meta, politics, pop culture.
Tags: near term extinction, near term human extinction, NTE, NTHE
continuing on the subject of NTE and global climate change related to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population, i would like to address the issue of anti-civ activism by “people” (mostly men) who believe that NTE is a reality and just around the corner. indeed it does seem as if DGR (deep green resistance) and NTEs are in bed together, and guy mcpherson cites derrek jensen specifically in his own anti-civ advocacy. i am not going to link to it here, you can find it yourselves.
let me ask you this. if you thought near-term human extinction was not only possible but likely, or even more likely than not, what (if anything) would you DO in the face of that knowledge? assume as NTEs do that it wouldnt matter at all in the big picture, because nothing you can do can stop NTE — our fate was sealed decades ago by rapist, necrophilic men who insisted on selfish hedonism, resource-extraction and resource-hoarding to benefit themselves, regardless of the consequences to women or the planet (or even to themselves as class:male long term). what would you DO, understanding that the means would never justify the ends because we would not live to see any end (except NTE), and that therefore the means WERE the ends. in other words, whatever you are going to DO, you are doing it for extremely short-term gains only, or to put an even finer point on it, doing X for its own sake.
welp. the anti-civ strand of NTE activists/believers have decidered that they are going to do above and below-board “actions” designed to bring down industrial civilization. while the anti-civs have been doing this for a long time (although they obviously arent very good at it) the rather unholy hybrid NTE/anti-civ activists understand that it will not change anything to “destroy” civilization, it will not reverse the course of catastrophic global climate change related to male-caused global overpopulation and global over male population, and yet NTE/anti-civ males have decidered to engage in anti-civilization destructiveness anyway. seemingly for the sake of sheer destructiveness alone. what else would be the point, when it is too late to change the outcome?
but what else could we expect from “people” (men) who invented drug dealing afterall, and all that entails? get “people” including women hooked (dependent) on civilization for our most basic needs, including food, water and shelter ffs, and then take it all away. gee, that sounds familiar! in the case of NTE, where our fates are sealed, we wont be able to come crawling back to males like civilization junkies looking for a fix, so here we get to see it play out rather bare — this is about torture isnt it. males, torturing and brutalizing women for the sake of doing it. punishing “dependents” for the crime of being domesticated and enslaved, by men, over millenia, except “punishment” implies we could have done something to avoid domestication and enslavement by men (as if we havent tried). no, this is just more male necrophilia and torture, and in the case of hybrid NTE/anti-civ males, it is completely without pretense now. since anti-civ destructiveness on their part wont change the outcome anyway, and anyone with eyes can see how these ideologies interplay (conflict?) it seems as if this group in particular isnt even trying to hide it.
and what else would we expect from the class (men) who brought us rape? strike a deal among men (the global accords governing the fair use of women) to somewhat-mitigate the damage of men raping women through social (legal) controls on men and social (medical) benefits to women, make women literally beg and plead for these protections for decades and centuries even, and give them a crumb or two — and then decider to destroy it. knowing the whole time, of course, that as soon as things get sticky, all “controls” against men raping women will literally be the very first thing to go. as both NTEs and anti-civs must know, the destruction of “civilization” and social controls on men is going to be a rape-fest.
now, i of course agree that civilization — as a euphemism for patriarchy — is pure evil and that none of this has been done for womens benefit; for example, legal protections for women against men raping us is largely gaslighting and laughable. HOWEVER. in any discussion of the dual issues of NTE and anti-civ, this bastard hybrid discourse specifically, i think that it should reasonably be WOMEN deciding what parts of civilization (patriarchy) should go and which should (temporarily) stay, and that men should have no say in this at all, being that they are the cause of all of this and the ones women need protection from.
and to the extent that non-human lifeforms have been affected by this the whole time, obviously their “voice” should be heard also — would it be presumptuous to assume that the voice of “nature” would be the same as womens voice here? asking, nay demanding at this point (in the booming tone of god no less as we face the literal end of the world!) for men to STOP ACTING, and STOP DO-ing shit, jesus. notably, the collapse of civilization at this point will only cause the global temperature to further rise — the particulates in todays industrial pollution are apparently causing a “global dimming” effect whereby the full heating potential of sunlight doesnt quite reach the earth. the day industrial civilization collapses, no more particulates. get it? at any rate, i highly doubt that its the voice of phytoplankton asking NTE/anti-civ activists to bring industrial civilization to its knees. so whose voice is it, and to what ends, exactly?
thats what i thought.
Alternate Reading January 12, 2015Posted by FCM in meta, news you can use, pop culture.
Tags: mary daly, near term extinction, NTE, NTHE, sonia johnson
in light of recent discussions, in particular NTE stuff and the
likelihood absolute certainty of the catastrophic loss of human habitat due to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population, whenever it occurs, i am reminded that certain of us have described visions of our female future. in particular, i am re-membering mary daly and sonia johnson, although i am unable to access my books just now to look this up properly (if i am remembering it wrong, i am sure someone will tell me). as i recall, both women “saw” a female future (and a past) where women were free of the plague of global maleness, where we were/are finally, finally free to simply BE, without much if any do-ing, and without the constant threat of being raped and pillaged by men. ahhhh, that does sound nice.
specifically, what i am remembering is that these visions were of another dimension, where women were able (somehow?) to live without eating, drinking or performing any maintenance-type stuff at all — sonia johnson envisioned that women were free of any DO-ing whatsoever and that we literally lived on clean air and sunshine, and could fly. (!) at the time i first read her vision, i embraced this as a thought exercise where women were encouraged to imagine/experience effortlessness, and the freedom to just BE and in so imagining to realize and feel how much of our female lives and female selves are in fact spent DO-ing under conditions of
patriarchy female oppression, torture and slavery, especially doing for and doing because of others, namely, men. i found the exercise mind-expanding and helpful.
and as i recall, mary daly imagined women coming together in a place far away from men and maleness; maleness was no longer an issue for whatever happy happenstance (happy/stance) and women found each other and lounged about, enjoying each others company and sharing lore about the bizarre past where patriarchy reigned. daly wrote in the 1990s about this coming-together occurring in what would now — as we are currently in 2015 — be the rather near future. in this future, as i recall, women subsisted (largely? completely?) on lemonade and dog-licks. i dont remember exactly, but that was the gist — another plane of existence, in the not-so-distant future, that is as different from the one we currently inhabit as can be imagined, and then some. and we have everything we need, and nothing we dont, (because) the problem of men and maleness has been solved.
sonia johnson also imagined that women could change perspective at will to experience BE-ing a bird, or a wolf, or a tree.
so currently, in light of the issue of catastrophic climate change due to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population, i am considering dalys and johnsons visions of womens “female future” and i have to wonder just what it was these women were envisioning when they essentially saw women existing without bodies. get it? while it is a nice exercise to imagine not having to eat or drink or DO anything, the fact is that natural law applies, it applies now and it will continue to apply in the absence of patriarchy. and natural law dictates that women — as human animals — cannot, in fact, live on lemonade and dog-licks alone, and we also cannot fly. temporarily “trading” consciousness with birds and trees does not violate natural law as far as i am aware, so i will leave that one alone.
now, obviously i understand and agree that in general, we are free to en-vision whatever we want, or to describe whatever vision comes to us whatever the source (the source may not be “us” exactly, i say this as a creative person) and that it doesnt have to make sense, or be possible. in the case of johnson and dalys visions of our female future (and past) i previously understood these metaphysical (metaphysical = literally “beyond physics”) visions as fictional writing, or thought exercises, and i assumed that daly and johnson were imagining/describing a scenario/universe in which we (somehow) experienced these obviously metaphysical things simultaneously with being (BE-ing) very much alive. i understand and accept that this is the accepted interpretation of this writing, and also that daly and johnson likely intended to be read that way as well.
but i have to tell you. as of recently, i am really wondering: when they “saw” women in this vastly different state, where women are/were finally free of not only men and patriarchy but of everything, including all DO-ing and the limitations/requirements of physics (and bodies) what were they seeing really? not to be alarmist or anything, because whats the point…but as has become my inclination in every area*, i am taking note. specifically, i am taking note and notice of current and past events that could be reasonably associated with global climate change (and resulting near-term human extinction), and i think our best feminist thinkers and visionaries visions of our female future are absolutely relevant to that. that is all.
* i see that they have found one of the black boxes from the most recently “disappeared” malaysian jet and i am waiting to hear if this catastrophic failure was weather-related. considering what we already know, that the last communication with the plane involved changing the flight path to avoid the weather, i suspect we already know the answer to that…but far be it from me to try to predict the
future uh, past?
Déjà Vu January 7, 2015Posted by FCM in logic, meta, rape.
Tags: feedback loops, global climate change, NTE, NTHE, overpopulation
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.
99.9% Rape Free December 31, 2014Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, meta, rape.
Tags: activism, defining rape, rape, rape free cultures
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
narrow biased 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.