jump to navigation

Taking the Pin Out February 9, 2015

Posted by FCM in logic, meta, radical concepts.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

as long as i have produced radical feminist writing here and elsewhere, which has been over 6 years now, i have never expected or insisted that anyone come up with a solution to patriarchy.  to insist that, as a precondition to discussing/criticizing patriarchy, one must have a viable alternative in mind and share it with all of us in detail and have everyone agree that well i’ll be damned shes right, lets do THAT from now on! is thought terminating and unfair.  which is why everyone else demands exactly that — any woman who wishes to dares criticize patriarchy must have already solved the problem and be ready to furnish the solution, therefore, shut the fuck up.  get it?  being that there is no solution to patriarchy, this is in fact an airtight silencing technique, but even if there were a solution, women would not be the ones with the power to implement it.

even worse than its silencing intent and effect, requiring that women solve and offer a viable transition/alternative to the problem of patriarchy is thought-terminating.  if you cant change it, theres no sense criticizing it or even thinking about it right?  because what else could possibly be the point of absolutely anything except to propose and implement a solution?  keeping in mind, of course, that some 99% (or something) of all problems started out as solutions to other (man-made) problems.  seriously, look it up.  under patriarchy, solving anything is just another justification for fucking things up differently, and over time, in aggregate, fucking things up more. the point is definitely and obviously not to thoroughly understand and articulate the problem, or to imagine something completely different, or to reject sadism and necrophilia on principle (and therefore to reject men) across the board.  i mean whats in it for men if women do that?  that is not a rhetorical question, and deserves discussing.

anyway, because i know how painful thought-termination is, and how effectively it destroys radical space, i tried to never do it, and i never allowed anyone else to insist that women solve or even attempt to solve the problem of patriarchy as a precondition to discussing it in this space.  i think the quality and quantity of discussion here and on my other blogs over the years is testament to how well that and other things worked and how effective it was to foster truly radical thought.

however, in not requiring that anyone think about or discuss the end, we must have put a pin in it and saved it for later.  right?  surely we did not intend to ignore the topic completely, forever?  well, in my estimation, its time to take the pin out (or it will be time, sometime, as the intent was never to ignore or avoid the truth, quite the opposite in fact).  i personally never intended for anyone to stunt their own imaginations on the subject, but when i realized that global overpopulation and over male population were runaway self-reinforcing feedback loops (and likely unsolvable by anyone, perhaps least of all women) i felt quite alone in that.  i have never seen overpopulation and over male population discussed as a result/function of patriarchy — specifically rape, female-specific infanticide and pro-male prenatal and neonatal technologies, and generally taking control of reproduction out of womens hands and putting it into mens — but i think thats exactly what it is.  and as radical feminists, we should be in a unique position to understand and discuss it.  but by and large, we arent.  why not?  this is a serious question.

of course, what logically follows would be a discussion of the carrying capacity of the planet as well as global climate change related to male-caused resource extraction, which is well out of our (and most peoples) comfort zone.  and its a real drag having to rely on mens research and mens interpretation of the data in general, especially when it matters so much to us (women).

the good news is that i do not think its necessary, and that we can reach the same conclusions without mens research and potentially biased interpretations of the results thusly: a policy and practice of necrophilia, barring outside intervention, can only end in death; and a global policy and practice of necrophilia can only end in death on a global scale.  also, men rape and pillage, and rape creates more men (where men rape and pillage).  where there are finite resources to pillage, this cannot last forever.  get it?  this has to stop.  therefore, it will stop.  oh yes it will.  natural law does not operate the way mens law does — lets do the destructive thing increasingly, forever.  in the natural world, where resources are finite, and conclusions are logical, eventually you run out of things to destroy.

at any rate, radical feminists could take the pin out if they wanted to, and start thinking and talking about the end, or the likely end of patriarchy, and for reals, with none of this wishful-thinking stuff.  to jump off that bridge and to land where we land, no matter what.  to be honest and brave.  seeing as how thats womens natural state…being honest and brave i mean…it can maybe be done under the right circumstances, or with decades of practice and formal training.  lol.  that was a joke.  seriously, its not that hard.  or, if youre having trouble, just forget everything you know, and “feel” how its likely to end.  sit with the feeling for a long time, and eventually put words to the feeling.  or not, whatever.  in my estimation, feeling how patriarchy is likely to end counts.

On Radical Self-Publishing February 3, 2015

Posted by FCM in logic, meta, radical concepts, rape.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

in my last post, i more or less asked the question “how can radfems be so smart and so stupid at the same time?”  i wrote it pointedly at first, but then deleted and said it more nicely.  i have been told the message got through regardless.  writing, afterall, is a logical and even mathematical process whereby other people can follow your thoughts in both directions (if they are so inclined).  if they want to, readers can surmise where the writer must have been coming from to say what they said, and they can also figure out where they are going, or likely to end up if they continue down that road.  the good news is that “editors” cant really change that — the intent, including the conclusions and premises of the author remain, for anyone interested in doing the work.

radical feminist writing, in particular, has been subject to the limitations of the patriarchal press leaving *us* to do the work of figuring out what the authors really meant.  discussing it with other people helps, as does reading the original material for yourself instead of relying on other peoples potentially biased interpretations of it.  for example, i and others understand that andrea dworkin would not, in fact, have advocated for endless reformist activating or holding out hope for men.  i think anyone who reads dworkins entire body of work, and who deliberately reads between the lines (and the lines) can easily see what she was “really saying” when she said to an audience of men,

We do not want to do the work of helping you to believe in your humanity. We cannot do it anymore. We have always tried. We have been repaid with systematic exploitation and systematic abuse. You are going to have to do this yourselves from now on and you know it.

she said we cannot do it anymore.  its a direct quote and its right fucking there, people.  thats from dworkins infamous “24-hour truce” speech which disingenuous (or lazy, or confused, or something) radical feminists often cite as proof that dworkin said and meant the exact opposite — that we can and should keep doing it forever.  fail.  dworkin also seems to have given up on men in her 1999 article for the new statesman, in which she wrote that she had been drugged and raped by men, and that she was ready to die.  so it seems as if, while radical feminist work is in fact censored and edited and erased by the press and other patriarchal forces (and it is) its also subject to being grossly distorted and misused by other feminists to the point that the very meaning is reversed, obliterated and destroyed.  not only is that a really nasty thing to do, it also puts the women who come after in the unfortunate position of not having all the facts on which to make their own decisions, and specifically lacking the very feminist history and context that would help them to come to rational/radical conclusions faster, without always having to reinvent the damn wheel.  a shortcut, in other words.  women are destroying other womens shortcuts.  men are doing it to us too, but we cant stop them (since they will never, ever stop).  there may, on the other hand, still be hope for us.

and while there is no reason that pro-female, anti-male reasons for abandoning what is known as “feminism” would ever make it to/through the patriarchal press, even feminist publications would never publish a woman who had the gall (plus cooties) to leave, particularly if she had cogent reasons for doing so.  get it?  before self-publishing (including blogging) was a thing, leaving the movement also meant leaving access to the feminist press.  silencing complete.

the reason i am talking about this now is that i am in the position to write if i want to, and to publish on this blog, and my work is unedited by others and not limited by the rules of the patriarchal press (but still subject to the general rules of patriarchy of course).  and the position in which i currently find myself — completely disillusioned by radical feminist activating and radical feminists themselves, insofar as radical feminists consistently fail to go to the ends of their thoughts about patriarchy, including how its likely to end — is not one that is familiar to me.  i have only ever read about one woman (sonia johnson) experiencing something similar to what i am experiencing now (similar but not exact, as i do not recall her mentioning NTE stuff).  she self-published her account of course.

so, since i am in the position to self-publish at the moment, i have done so.  i suspect that women silencing other women is the (secondary, after males silencing us) reason there are not dozens or hundreds of accounts of “nutty” radical feminists leaving or being thrown out of the movement.  similarly, i suspect that other women silencing and quashing these accounts specifically is the reason i have never read about other radical feminists who believe that men have already done us all in, and that this cannot be changed, and that abrupt global climate change and loss of human habitat related to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population is a done deal.  call me crazy (plus cooties) but i dont think i am the only radical feminist ever to intuit/conclude that this thing we call “patriarchy” is really a self-reinforcing feedback loop which over time has picked up speed and strength (as self reinforcing feedback loops do) and that at this point, it cannot be stopped.  it is physically impossible to reverse or stop it now.  it will continue to get worse of course, by definition, as this is what self-reinforcing feedback loops do.

i do not think it is unreasonable to conclude that, because patriarchy is not compatible with life, it will only end in death; and probably in proportion to its own size and strength, which is global, (literally) all-consuming, and with the power/energy of 108 billion humans behind it (54 billion necrophilic males over time, and the females they sucked the life out of) and all the power/energy of every bit of fossil fuel and renewable resources weve used to boot.  all that energy* has been pumped into the patriarchal death machine (feedback loop) and its some powerful shit indeed.  its some deadly shit, from which we can rightly predict powerfully deadly outcomes.  i really dont know why this isnt talked about more, perhaps especially by radical feminists.  oh wait!  yes i do.

*while the “energy” imagery i used here may (or may not!) be theoretical/metaphysical, the concept of “exponential growth” implicated in positive feedback loops, including the positive feedback loops global overpopulation and over male population is very real.  i know women understand the concept of exponential growth in our bones — its exactly what we have desperately, historically avoided growing inside us when we have tried to get men to stop fucking us, and impregnating us.  cell division is exponential, get it?  every time an addition is made, its a DOUBLING/multiplying, not merely an adding/counting.  thats what i meant when i said in exponential growth “there is no 6.”  watch a video or a gif of exponential growth for exactly 3 cycles and see what happens.  anytime you go from 1, to 2, to 4, then directly to 8 without a 6…well youre fucked arent you.  this is the exponential concept we “humans” are allegedly unable to grok (an ignorance which therefore alleviates “us” of responsibility for causing it?  i guess?)

There’s No 6. Or, How Is It Going To End. Be Honest. January 31, 2015

Posted by FCM in logic, meta.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

i remember the moment i realized that global overpopulation and over male population was a self-reinforcing feedback loop.  i was (wherever) doing (whatever) and i was thinking through the problem of men sticking their dicks into women, creating more males who would only grow up to also stick their dicks into more women, and honestly you dont have to go round and round within that particular loop very many times before you realize whats happening.  twice is probably enough.  just like i did just then.  can you see the problem?  of course you can.  because its completely obvious.  isnt it?

lets start by acknowledging that there are NO 100% effective contraceptives anywhere and there never have been.  to act otherwise is only the most misogynistic gaslighting bullshit imaginable — otherwise known as “sex” as in sex-lives, having-sex, sex-uality.  intercourse removed from reproduction.  when intercourse is not now, and has never been, and likely never will be, removed from its reproductive consequences to women.  life finds a way, as jeff goldblum said in jurassic park.  not to mention the fact that many men deliberately impregnate women via mandatory intercourse and rape.  men have done this for a long time, so i really dont know where people are going with this contraceptive stuff.  its not like its going to work when we need it most — during rape, and where men are deliberately trying to create pregnancies such as within coerced/forced marriages.  theres a lot of rape and deliberate forced impregnation happening globally afterall.  a hella lot.  and why wouldnt there be, considering that rape is a self-reinforcing feedback loop (where it creates more males in a rape culture patriarchy where males rape women because males enjoy raping women and they will never stop).

so anyway.  global overpopulation and over male population (and rape) are demonstrable self-reinforcing feedback loops, meaning the “cycle” picks up speed and strength over time just by doing its thang.  and i have yet to see any feminist address this issue specifically.  and this is a rather embarrassing oversight to say the least.  because self-reinforcing feedback loops are game-changers, when feminists including radical feminists fail to acknowledge or address them, it makes it obvious that we havent a clue as to what the “game” even is, so how can anything we say or do be trusted?  “we” are in good company of course, because most people dont acknowledge these feedback loops or any feedback loops which implicate the concept of exponential change.  “humans” in general have been observed to be unable to grok this, but i would tentatively suggest that no, its actually men who cant grok the concept of exponential change.  women understand it in our bones well enough.


think of exponential change as the absence of 6.  there is no 6 and there will never be a 6 in exponential growth: it goes from 1, to 2, to 4, to EIGHT, to SIXTEEN, to THIRTY TWO.  get it?  there is no 6, as in 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc etc.  no.  without exponential growth, i dont know how long it would take a fertilized egg to become a baby (1, 2 or even 10 cells at a time) but it would be a lot longer than 9 months.  get it?  im just thinking out loud here, i am not an expert in fetal cell division or mitosis.  without even trying, women navigate the context of exponential growth every fucking minute of our lives, where we live in constant dread of being forcibly impregnated by men.  the concept applies to wanted pregnancies too of course.  so yeah, every minute at all times, without exception, women live and breathe a concept that “humanity” is unable to grasp.

so now that we are all on the same page, and are thinking about exponential growth and feedback loops of global overpopulation and over male population (and rape) let me ask you this: how do you see patriarchy or male dominance over females ending?  be specific.  in your answer, make sure to address the issue(s) of global overpopulation and male overpopulation (and rape) within its proper context, which is the context of exponential change.  if you do not believe exponential change is relevant to the discussion of how patriarchy will end, explain why.  if you accept that exponential change is relevant, consider that whatever solution you come up with will likely be obsolete by the time you complete your thought, unless the solution is also built to function on an exponential level — any linear solution will be left in the dust promptly, because it literally does not exist on the same plane as the problem.  the problem is changing and growing way faster than that.

also take into consideration the issues of loss of human habitat (food, water and shelter) and global climate change related to male-caused resource extraction.  which also implicate positive (self reinforcing) feedback loops of course.

let me say at this point that i believe that radical feminists are some of the most intelligent people on earth because they are able (somehow) to sense (in the first place) and make sense of (in the second) the context in which we are all living: the context of patriarchy.  this is not an easy thing to do, and all this despite the profound and enormous erasures and obliterations, the cruel gaslighting and reversals, and mind-altering substances and situations forced upon us by men.  the fact that we have done this at all is frankly stunning.  and i have long believed and still believe that radical feminism is the most rigorous and intellectually honest discourse on the planet because it is the only one that takes into consideration the reality of half the worlds population: women.  some 3.5 billion of us by now.

because any other discourse has yet to accurately acknowledge and assess womens (and mens) reality under patriarchy, literally every other discourse on the planet is a screaming fucking farce, and nothing but sadistic mansplaining horseshit.  which is not to say that radical feminism is perfect; it has some obvious flaws which i have written about before.  and which i am writing about now: its seeming inability to adequately envision and describe *how* — just how in the hell — patriarchy is likely to ultimately end.

so i ask you this — “you” is anyone and everyone reading here.  in your own estimation, *how* is the end of patriarchy most likely to occur, considering the reality of it, meaning without wishful thinking, and building on the evidence we have about men and what they do and what they are, including the very serious problems of self-reinforcing feedback loops of 1) global overpopulation; 1.a) global over male population; 2) male-caused global climate change related to 1 and 1.a; and finally, 3) loss of human habitat related to 1 and 2?

PS.  dont feel bad if you hit a cognitive wall.  i banged my head on that wall for a couple of years before i heard anything that made one fucking bit of sense as far as how this is all going to end.  hint: it wasnt anything i have ever seen, heard or sensed from a feminist.  and i think this failure to fully think the problem of patriarchy through to its logical/likely end, whatever that end may be, just might be radical feminisms, and radical feminists, most striking, and most disappointing, flaw.  seriously, its fucking tragic.

Moron Morons. Or, It’s Opposite Day! January 29, 2015

Posted by FCM in pop culture, radical concepts, rape.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

i have noticed something weird about television commercials lately, and the above seem to exemplify the trend.  specifically, i am noticing an extreme inward-looking theme in advertising which is even more pronounced than the standard inward-looking consumerist/lifestylist fare (isnt it?)  the “honest company” commercial illustrates a nuclear-family-centric circle-the-wagons message, and there is something noteworthy about the way the words “prah-ducks” and “mie famlee” are emphasized — dont ask me to competently dissect and analyze as i am not a professional marketer or media critic, but something bugs me about this every single time.  like…an exaggerated, extreme individualization of consumerism and family, down to the very way the words are pronounced?  or something?  i dont know, but “ryan mcgee” provides an oddly memorable delivery of a timeless message.

meanwhile, the pantene commercial doubles down on the already-extreme social controls on women via the beauty/fuckability mandate where every single hair on our heads has to “pass the needle test” or else negative outcomes.  this needle-test business has been around for years and has been criticized as being racist/exclusionary of women with naturally coarse hair, which of course it is.  but what else is it?  and why is it resurfacing in such an obvious way now?  seeing as how i and others have come to believe that the end of the world is neigh via abrupt climate change and loss of human habitat related to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population, it just strikes me as weird timing to police women this way ask women to examine and control ourselves down to the very hairs on our heads (each and every individual 150,000 strands or whatever each of us has).  and the extreme-inward looking message of ryan mcgee and her prah-ducks for her famlee tastes a bit tinny where perhaps especially now, we should be paying attention to the world around us.  the world in which things are starting to catch on fire, blow up, slide, wash away and crash into the sea due either to “unknown causes” or due to known causes of male terrorism and/or extreme weather events.

its hardly necessary to comment on quakers take on the “”””energy crisis”””” (thats 4 full sets of sarcastic, its-not-really-a-thing quotation marks!) except to say that its very deliberately dismissive of the big picture in which there is indeed a very real man-made energy crisis happening, consisting of no fewer than 30-something self-reinforcing feedback loops and legitimate dilemmas which cannot be cured with oatmeal or with anything as a matter of fact.

in the face of these oddly-individualistic campaigns, i suppose i would remind women to “do the opposite” which is always sound advice if you can manage it.  in this case, definitely do NOT circle the wagons around your famlee to the point that you fail to notice (or care) what is happening around you, specifically wrt male terrorism and extreme weather events.  notice it!  and definitely do NOT examine and control yourself, your female Self down to the very last hair — instead, do the opposite.  whatever that means.  kindly recall that if females were actually free we wouldnt be in this mess to begin with, and that males controlling females — specifically, our “natural” meaning global and timeless aversion to intercourse and multiple/endless unwanted pregnancies — is literally what caused it.

of course, a policy and practice of “doing the opposite” would also apply to male NTE activists (google it) who think they need to “carpe diem” and “create moments of joy” as the world burns because of them — considering what men find joyful, which without exception seems to be necrophilia/destruction and intercourse/impregnation, including rape, my advice to males who give even the tiniest crap (and there are those who think they do, or claim they do) would be to evaluate what you find pleasurable and positive, and then DO THE OPPOSITE.  this is how fucked up men are of course.  for men, who are driven to ACT constantly, “the opposite” would be to STOP ACTING and STOP DOING shit.  completely.  just stop.  take opposite-day as far as you can, applying the concept to feeding yourselves and performing self care (to the extent you do that).  pumping fuel into, and performing even perfunctory maintenance on, necrophilic killing machines isnt helping.  savvy?

or, if you MUST continue to act, and i know you must, (right?) try this on for size: whatever the activity, if you like it, DONT DO IT.  if you hate it, KEEP DOING IT.  i think this is a fair compromise really (for those who are into compromising with men…its merely a rhetorical device for those who understand that men will never stop ever).  for example, if you love your job, it probably means you are being overcompensated for it, and/because its victimizing other people, especially women, so stop doing it.  if you hate your job, its likely that you arent being coddled/catered to, overvalued due to your membership in the oppressor class (male), and presented with sexual access to as many women as you want, like you sincerely believe you deserve, where catering to/supporting those male beliefs and actions created this ultimately/imminently doomed necrophilic shithole in the first place — so if you must DO anything, keep doing that.  the things you find emasculating, humiliating, boring, and against your natures — its all good.  you know, if you really care about any of this, and yet are still driven to act.  get it?

that males as a class, even the self-identified “good ones who get it” ARE driven to act, of course, is irrefutable evidence of mens natures; and only supports my conclusion that men will never, ever stop.  and that (therefore) this NTE stuff, or loss of human habitat and abrupt climate change related to male-caused global overpopulation and over male population, whenever it occurs, is a done deal.

Dicks in a Box January 19, 2015

Posted by FCM in logic, meta, pop culture, radical concepts.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

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 evidencedont we.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 424 other followers