jump to navigation

The Ambivalent Pregnancy May 28, 2011

Posted by FCM in gender roles, health, PIV, politics, radical concepts.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

i have written many times about “unwanted” pregnancy versus “wanted” ones, and in fact this is the way the issue is always framed when discussing pregnancy isnt it?  as if there is no in-between ground, where women are impregnated and carry the fetus to term, and “welcome” a “growing family” or whatever, but they dont necessarily actively desire the pregnancy, or another pregnancy.  but in actuality, the ambivalent pregnancy is very common, and women self-report this experience all the time, if you ask them.  “not trying but not protecting” is the way its been described to me, for example.

translation: we are having unprotected unmitigated PIV-centric sex, and i probably wouldnt have an abortion if i got knocked up.

but this is not the same thing as “wanting” to become pregnant is it?  and even if the woman would not classify herself as having incurred an unwanted pregnancy if she became impregnated this way, there are those who would say it was wanted, as if she had been wishing upon the stars and praying to god to bring her a desperately-wanted child.  but this isnt the case is it?  in fact, the “desperate longing” imagery we are faced with in pregnancy-related discourse probably only applies in a minority of situations, where a couple is experiencing fertility problems.  everyone else can become pregnant pretty easily cant they?  this is the default for all species, so far as i know: not to be sterile.

so while we have men and transwomen who cannot tell the fucking difference between a wanted pregnancy and an unwanted one because they dont care (women as “natural mothers” on the one hand, and oh how i wish i could have teh baybees!  those women are so privileged! on the other.  ie. all pregnancies are wanted, because men imagine that we want them, or they themselves desire “wanted pregnancies” which is extremely redundant, since women desire wanted-pregnancies too…desire being what makes them wanted.  DUH!) we also have a problem of framing the pregnancy-issue to specifically exclude the untold millions (billions?) of pregnancies occurring over time and place, where the woman would have been just as happy without becoming pregnant, but she was subjected to PIV-centric sexuality anyway and her number came up.  what about those women?

their pregnancies are just as dangerous as all pregnancies are…ambivalent, wanted and unwanted pregnancies can all kill you.  all pregnancies put women at serious risk for a number of complications, and women who desperately long for wanted babies are known to do crazy things, completely disregarding their own health and lives, and the wellbeing of their existing children too, to carry one (or one more) fetus to term.  but ambivalent pregnancies are “crazy” too, arent they?  to literally risk your life, for something you dont really care about, one way or the other, or about which you are conflicted or cannot decide?  who does that?

indeed, who does do that, and why, are questions that need asking.  its time to change the frame of pregnancy-related discourse to include the experience of the ambivalent mother.  this desperately-longing versus desperately-dreading trope is kinda all played out.*

*especially the desperately-longing part!

Dood-Centric Problem-Solving: Framing the Issues May 22, 2011

Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, liberal dickwads, meta, PIV, politics, pop culture, porn, rape.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

engaging fun-fems and other dood-centric politickers in “debate” feels like joining a conversation thats nearing its end.  doesnt it?  where its too late to change the outcome, and the trains of thought are not only on rails, but are already nearing the station.  everyones minds are made up already, because the issues were framed by men long ago, ensuring that any “discussion” on whatever issue has a predictable result, or where the outcome could be one of several known outcomes only, and never anything else.  this strategy probably has a name, although i dont know what it is.  putting it simply, men know that “framing the issue” is half the battle (or more than half) and i think its time we realize it too.

for example, in discussions about rape, the issue has been framed in terms of “consent.”  where womens right to bodily autonomy is exactly as important (no more!  and allegedly no less) as any landowners right to keep unwanted persons off their lawns, or any property owners right to leave their property unattended without someone stealing it.  thats right laydees — the issue of rape was once a property issue, where men raping us was a violation against mens property: us!  and…it still is.  only now *we* own the property i mean we own us.  yes we do, shut up. 

of course, men cant even be made to deliver on the promise they made, giving women property rights in our own bodies.  as pathetic and inadequate as that promise was in the first place, men (including law enforcement) cannot and will not let us have whats ours, and stay off our fucking lawns, as it were.  enter SlutWalk.  even fun-fems and (other) nonfeminists can clearly see the hypocrisy here, where men give us “rights” to bodily autonomy which they summarily shit on, disregard and ignore.  and these nonfeminist women are verily pissed about it.  which is…good, i guess?  female anger regarding mens treatment of us is a thing of beauty, it really is, and i appreciate it, always.  i do.

thing is…the promise was shit to begin with.  the SlutWalkers are marching for crumbs, promised to us by the men they depend on, and believe in, and have hope for.  but these women are making two giant mistakes: first, they are accepting mens framing of the rape issue as an issue of consent, and (therefore) a property issue.  and they seem to think that if they call attention to the hypocrisy, something will drastically change.  it wont, as long as womens collective and individual rights to our pussies are no more important than men keeping other men (and others i suppose) off their fucking lawns.  (i was going to say “our lawns” but how many women even own a fucking lawn, or any land, or any property at all?  nothing is a property issue for women, not really.  and especially not the problem of raping female-bodied persons, with penises.  hello!)

the key to understanding dood-centric problem solving is understanding this: they begin with the premise that the “problem” with many things is women complaining about it, causing noise pollution and irritation to men.  mens solution, therefore, is simple: get women to stop complaining about it, and the “problem” (of women complaining about it) goes away.  problem solved!  we can see this strategy at work everywhere, once we see it for what it is.  women have been complaining about PIV for centuries, and have been suffering it for millenia: it hurts (or it doesnt feel that good, compared to how dangerous it is); it causes disease, it causes unwanted pregnancy, its coerced and forced etc etc.  those are the reasons we are complaining about it: those are the problems with PIV, for us.

the problem for men is that they have to listen to women bitch, and we are constantly threatening to take away their sexxxay.  you know, by saying no, and for prosecuting men for rape, and stuff, and things.  so…if they can get women to like PIV, and rape, and male violence, to want it, to need it, to resign themselves to it completely, the problem (of women complaining about all of these things, which we have been doing for a long time) goes away.  for men.

the “problem” of women complaining about PIV is therefore solved by PIV-positive rhetoric.  its all in the way you look at it!  its not really or inherently problematic, not really.  the solution to the “problem” of women complaining about mens sexual violence against us, is acceptance of BDSM, and increasingly violent “sexual” encounters being framed as “adventurous” and progressive (progressively more violent).  women complaining about rape requires a double-barrelled approach (cause its a big one!  we bitch about this one a lot): destroying women who do complain about it…and normalizing porn, which doesnt even pass the consent-test men have drawn up for it (ie. it normalizes men sticking their dicks into women under dubious circumstances, often with extreme violence, and features obviously painful PIV-centric encounters in which no consent-negotiation is visible to the viewer and the circumstances do not imply it).

but we cannot let the men who are doing this to us, frame the issues to benefit themselves.  clearly, we cannot win, if we dive into a debate thats nearing its end, with the issues already framed to our detriment, and therefore all possible outcomes already known, and designed to benefit men, and not us.  we have to frame the issues, at the very least when discussing them amongst ourselves, and describe the problems as they really are, for us.  the problems with PIV, rape, and sexual violence perpetrated on us by men are that we are dying, and being made sick, and are forced into poverty and denied our humanity in concrete ways every fucking day of our lives, by men, to benefit themselves.  thats the problem with it, for us.  we are complaining about it because it hurts.

Consider Your Audience? December 27, 2010

Posted by FCM in health, international, liberal dickwads, PIV, prostitution, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

so, “rubble of empires” aka. the prostitution and sandwiches guy recently made an excellent point in the anti-prostitution video above.  i am embarrassed to say that i have never considered the “connection” between state-run welfare and legalized prostitution, but there would be one if prostitution were legalized, wouldnt there?

for example, if prostitution is legalized and legitimized as a “profession” and eligibility for state-run welfare is dependant on ones attachment to the labor market and/or “ability to work” (and much if not all of it is, at least in the US) then in order to be eligible for welfare, women would have to try hooking, before they could collect their benefits.  wouldnt they?  or, if a woman were offered a “job” as a prostitute and turned it down, or tried it for a period of time and then quit, she would be guilty of refusing work.  anyone who has ever collected unemployment benefits knows this is a problem.

furthermore, if a woman were disabled and couldnt work at all, meaning that she couldnt even sit at the movie theater and tear tickets, and couldnt be a walmart greeter, but she could still fuck, if prostitution were legal and legitimized as a “real job” she wouldnt get social security disability or supplemental security income, which requires that the applicant be disabled and unable to perform any work available in the national labor market, at all.  look it up!  undercover punk has blogged about eligibility criteria and problems accessing benefits before, and eligibility criteria for all state-run benefits programs is available online.

incidentally, have the pro-prostitution PIV-pozzies considered this, at all?  just checking.  sheesh.

anyhoo, as i have said here before, i think that anti-porn and anti-prostitution work is the ONLY good work that so-called pro-feminist men are doing.  i thought this welfare-prostitution-connection business was an excellent point, so i asked rubble about it, and to expound on what he meant, and whether it was his idea or not.  and heres what he said:

I guess my argument was that if you were to remove prostitution from the private market but still provide it (in the way I was suggesting that drugs be provided) you would need to have the government paying. There’s not really a source because it was an assertion. But I have found that one way to get people to sympathise (particuarly in Australia where welfare is more common) is to say ‘imagine if your welfare was connectd to prostitution.’

bolds mine.  he seems to be saying that one needs to consider ones audience, when engaging in these “debates” AND that if you choose your words carefully, deliberately connecting your issue to something your audience cares about, or something that affects them, you can elicit the response you want.  you can get them to see your point.

now, this isnt what i had initially intended to write about, when i started this post.  i was just going to write about state-run welfare eligibility-criteria and legalized prostitution.  and i did that.  BUT.  this is kind interesting too, isnt it?  specifically, radical feminists have been producing PIV-critical work for over a century now, since before WWI.  we have “said it” in every way possible, and repeatedly made our case against dangerous male sexuality, and the ways it is specifically and particularly harmful to girls and women.  but even so-called pro-feminist men apparently cant get their minds around this one, or wont. 

nope!  i have not heard of a single allegedly pro-feminist man denouncing PIV, or resolving to not stick his dick into women anymore, because to do so is specifically and particularly harmful to girls and women, and that the trauma-bonding, medical events, and unwanted pregnancies and childbearing it creates is the root of womens dependence on men.  and because denouncing and renouncing PIV is therefore critical to dismantling male supremacy, and to divesting oneself of ones male privilege.  NO ONE, and i mean NO.  ONE.  is doing this, so far as i know.

in fact, i called rubble out on this very thing here, on this blog, (well actually it was less of a call-out and more that i was having a conversation with my own readers, on my own fucking blog) and he responded with an entire video, addressing the issue of the “credibility” of male feminists generally, but completely ignoring my point about PIV.  now, i am not trying to pick on rubble specifically, and i dont have a problem with him, and he was nice enough to respond to my question about the welfare-eligibility stuff.  BUT.

just what the fuck are radical feminists supposed to do, when men, even allegedly “feminist” ones, cannot be manipulated by “consider your audience” debate tactics for the simple reason that men apparently do not care about girls and women, or about dismantling male supremacy, at all.  if “consider your audience” as a debate tactic works, and i know it does, then all anyone has to do, as rubble described, is to find something your audience cares about, make them see that your subject affects them, or parallels something that does, and then watch as their perspective changes, as intended.

if you try this, and it doesnt work, you probably executed your strategy wrong.  right?  you didnt give your audience a reason to change their minds.  you didnt hit on anything they care about, or feel connected to, at all.  in this case, womens wellbeing, and our lives.  which is the entire fucking problem with all men, in the first place.  they DONT CARE about womens wellbeing or womens lives, and men (even feminist ones!) demonstrate this daily with their relentless, dogged insistence on PIV.  (you bet your ass this is a feminist-litmus test.  yes, for allegedly pro-feminist men, it absolutely is.  and they all FAIL.)

and there is NOTHING, and i mean NOTHING, that affects girls and women specifically, yet also parallels anything that men experience.  hello!  its completely different.  and mens reality isnt real.

now, to be clear, my point is not that radical feminists should focus our attention on women, and give up on trying to convert teh menz.  this one is of course true, and kind of goes without saying.  my point is that the debate-structure and debate strategy itself is set up in such a way that radical feminist discourse will never win.  thats my point.  just like every other fucking thing, its set up so that anything truly radical when it comes to womens wellbeing and our lives will always lose.  its just another example of how existing structures and institutions arent conducive to feminist discourse, at all.  and that we need to find another way.

remind me again why i dont allow mainstream comments on this blog!