jump to navigation

Moron NTE December 15, 2014

Posted by FCM in liberal dickwads, news you can use, radical concepts.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

before i close up shop here again, which i will shortly, i wanted to address NTE/NTHE a bit further as it is still in the forefront of my mind.  as i said before, it was a comment on a radfem blog that first alerted me to this — before that, i had never seen it addressed anywhere.  i had, however, taken note of a dozen or more vague, cryptic, and seemingly off the cuff remarks left on various blogs over the years (years!) and that these comments were left by trusted commenters who obviously did not want to address it further.  there was a time afterall when excellent discussions were happening all over the radfem internets, so wouldnt it have made sense to drop an actual link or something, something to spin and spiral from, so that we could all learn about it together?

clearly not.  knowing what i know now about the radfem internets, i can see that this and many subjects are simply off limits, and considered going too far, even amongst ourselves.  ask me how i know!  to be a radical feminist who rejects reformism — and sees no or little hope for men, in other words — is to live with one foot solidly within “feminism” (understanding how this all works) and knowing also how pointless it all is (because there is no hope for men), with the other foot in “feminisms” grave.  knowing that men will destroy the entire planet, and that they simply will not stop destroying everything no matter what, is kind of the logical outcome of “nutty” or non-reformist radical feminism in fact, if taken to its logical endpoint.  isnt it?

obviously, i think it is, and that it is from that place of understanding that one must speak of NTE/NTHE (near term extinction/near term human extinction) and this is where i speak from now.  to their credit, NTE “activists” arent really activating for/toward anything, believing that it has been too late to DO SOMETHING for decades now — this is the foundation of their belief system in fact, that self-reinforcing feedback loops have been set in motion and cannot be stopped, and that the changes happening now are not linear but exponential.

to their discredit, from what i can tell, the majority of NTE “activism” consists of talking with other believers about how not to kill yourselves out of despair in the years leading up to it, and the solution, apparently, is to “do what you love to do!” while waiting, then kill yourself at the last minute before it gets really bad.  also known as resource hoarding and hedonism, and then avoiding any direct consequences to yourself by whatever means necessary.  just like men have always done.  exactly what has created the problem of runaway global climate change (and NTE) in fact, considering what men “love to do” which is almost without exception fucking women, and (thereby) making babies.  almost 8 billion of them/us now.  the largely unwanted and/or ambivalent progeny of the largely unwanted and/or ambivalent 2.5 billion that successfully (albeit prospectively) choked the life out of the living world decades ago.

“JUST KEEP FUCKING!” may as well be made into a bumper sticker at this point, it is as ironic/tragic as it is universally applicable and lets not forget misogynistic and necrophilic, but yay male orgasms so whatever right?  god, literally everyone would be on board with that one wouldnt they?  (BTW DGR/deep green resistance is pro-sex, they say this constantly.  google it!  yawn.  and by pro-sex, they mean pro-PIV, or at the very least they are not anti-PIV, or even PIV-critical.  because lets not prudish guyz boners yall!  prudish isnt radikewl and we are radikewl so lets cant prudish nope nope!).

anyway, this is the conversation that is happening around NTE and as far as i can tell, it is the only one — this dick-jerking fantasy, (and pro-PIV jibberish) where good liberal and progressive males legitimize and even manage to progressive-ize resource hoarding (and MOAR intercourse and baby making) with no consequences to themselves.  somehow they have done this.

and i am utterly unsurprised at this point that there has been little to no public radical feminist conversation about NTE, and that so far, the only “radfem” treatment of global climate change has been limited to discussing veganism (and shitting on women who eat meat) and supporting PIV-positive, manarchist environmental/anti-civilization organizations like DGR.  we see how even men who “get” it are responding to this, which is to say they are responding to it as they respond to everything.  which is the entire problem BTW.  radfems know this.

i do accept and anticipate that there are radfem and nutty radfem conversations happening in private about NTE of course.  my point really is that radical feminism, and its PUBLIC face, the PUBLIC face of our movement, is not the endpoint of radical thinking, and (therefore) does not address in any adequate way the very serious situation(s) in which we find ourselves.  these conversations, actions, and inactions happen elsewhere.  it took me a long time to figure this out, so here.  let me be your shortcut.  do not waste months and years of your life the way i did.  anyone else who has something to add, with the sincerest hope that it will save another woman some time, energy, and/or sanity…please discuss in the comments below.

Moron Owen Lloyd. Or, What ‘Depoliticization’ Actually Means July 9, 2013

Posted by FCM in feminisms, gender roles, rape, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

nope, not done with owen lloyd yet!  somethings been bothering me about that rape-article he wrote, and its the title.  Steven Pinker and the Depoliticization of Rape.  the depoliticization of rape.  depoliticization of rape.  depoliticization.  of.  hmm.  has steven pinker attempted to or succeeded in depoliticizing rape?  having not read steven pinker and only having owen lloyds cherry-picked quotes as evidence of whether he did or didnt, i have to wonder if owen lloyd even knows what “depoliticization” means.  (according to google, it means “To remove the political aspect from; remove from political influence or control.”)

query: if there is a natural/innateness component to men raping girls and women across time and place, is *that* in itself enough to depoliticize it?  or, if women started responding to men as a class as if men as a class were rapists, which they are, would womens response be apolitical?

lets discuss.  first, rape is a politicized act, its true.  there are political aspects and consequences to men raping girls and women across time and place, and yes there is a war on (woron?) in case anyone didnt get the memo.  but the political aspects of rape do not start and end there.  rape causes unwanted pregnancy in women, and men have set it up so that the big-3 of their patriarchal institutions — medicine, religion, and law — all attach to womens bodies and lives at the moment of conception.  and make no mistake — these are political consequences mkay, where political means

1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: “Calling a meeting is a political act in itself” (Daniel Goleman).
3. Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.
4. Interested or active in politics: I’m not a very political person.
5. Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution.
6. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives.

check out numbers 1 and 6 in particular.  1 is obvious, but 6 is interesting.  self-serving objectives.  it serves men as a class that (patriarchal) medicine, religion and law all attach to womens bodies and womens lives at the moment of conception — thats why.  they.  did.  it.  it does not have to be this way, but men have made it this way to benefit themselves; they have granted themselves the power to open the door to formal, institutional and state control of women by impregnating us.

so, if there were a biological/innateness component to men raping us, would that remove these consequences?  no, it would not.  men have created these consequences out of whole cloth and they intend to keep them in place forever, where men have also granted themselves the sole power to remove them or not.  get it?  politics.  in fact, in order to depoliticize rape in this way, men would also have to agree to depoliticize intercourse at the same time.  because medicine, religion and law attach to womens bodies and womens lives at the moment of conception regardless of whether we are impregnated through consensual intercourse or rape.

put another way, if the men who had the power to do this were to say “we hereby remove all mechanisms by which male institutions control pregnancy and pregnant women” and then did it, this would at least partially depoliticize rape.  of course, it would also depoliticize intercourse, and we would all be forced to see (or willfully ignore, albeit a bit more obviously at that point) how the political intent and effect of intercourse and rape have actually been the same this whole time — to control women — and that men made it this way.  politics.

and what if women started avoiding men like the plague they (historically and currently) are?  owen lloyd says steven pinker advocates women doing this, although frankly i dont trust owen lloyd to accurately summarize anyones writing or their intent.  owen lloyd also suggests that *if* women did this, it would not and indeed could not be a political move on our part — it would be us apolitically “adapting” to rape culture which we shouldnt do because victim-blaming and not only that, black (male) civil rights movement.  hmm.

welp.  how about this, owen lloyd.  since you (or was it pinker?) suggested it, what if women did start avoiding men and we do this both individually (because its the only way we can) and collectively (a happy coincidence of the former) until men remove the political consequences to women of men raping us.  would this be political enough a response for you?  in practice this would mean until you remove religious, legal and medical mandates, controls and standards of care from the pregnant, laboring, lactating (and childrearing — as long as we’re at it) female body.  of course this means turning over all control of these things to women, as we discussed here.

when and if you do this, we might come back.  not that you ever (ever, ever, ever) would, which makes this useful primarily as a thought exercise, but if you did remove the political implications of rape to girls and women, perhaps then we could address the gnatty little issue of whether rape is *only* political, or traditionally political, or whether it would still exist if it werent so politically invasive, controlling and damaging to us.  in other words if rape were just (!!!) “forced sex” (meaning forced intercourse and impregnation) and stopped being “the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders.”  (yes, perhaps *then* we could discuss it — if thats okay with you?  jeebus.)

this is what the partial* depoliticization of rape looks like owen lloyd, so you know what it looks like if and when you see it.  considering that you will likely never see it of course, and certainly never from another male, including steven pinker BTW, from your perspective its probably a largely useless tool.  and i shall end on that note because thats just funny.

*i say “partial” because we havent even addressed yet whether traditional political controls are the end-all be-all of the politicization of rape, where men rape women to serve themselves, and where men demonstrate daily that orgasm (and necrophilia) is largely its own reward.

Keep Talking Owen Lloyd June 28, 2013

Posted by FCM in feminisms, meta, PIV, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

i saw the lierre keith/derrek jensen article on counterpunch in all its weird queerified gendernonsensical antiglory and was disappointed, but not quite moved to respond to it.  i mean, how many times can a position be stated and restated for the record before it ceases to be helpful?  this is a serious question.  repetition can be a good thing, and its helpful to both readers and writers to see and think about things multiple times, or in more than one way or in more than one time or place.  it probably has something to do with the brain, but thats above my pay grade.  i run mostly on intuition, and my intuition is telling me that providing a breakdown of a weird queerified “radfem” text isnt going to be useful today.

enter owen lloyd.  remember him?  hes the fucking terrifying asshole who becomes enraged at the sight of women, existing.  he also writes and does fundraising for DGR news service, which, according to himself, is responsible for “educating people on news and media related to the ongoing struggle against environmental and social injustice.”

educating them.  get it?  and since DGR itself is billed as being “unconditionally” feminist, we see that DGR news service and other publications and whatnot released by DGR, in addition to whatever else they do and are, are meant to educate people about feminism and in particular radical feminism.  because any other kind is antithetical to environmentalism.  true, that.

heres owen lloyd writing about rape for DGR news service back in march.  oh goody, a self-identified feminist man talking about rape, i say to myself.  chance of him implicating himself in something gross and woman-hating: approaching 100%.  one immediately notes the [TW] at the top of the page — like a good (liberal?) feminist, he lets us know straight up that we are in for graphic depictions of extreme sexualized violence i mean a porny treat of male masturbation fodder and that we are to proceed at our peril.  so if we disassociate for the rest of the day, its our own fault and definitely not the fault of the man who caused it.  wow, how unusual ive never seen that tactic used before in other contexts i mean thanks for the warning?  i guess?  i was right about owen lloyd.

i continue to read, at my peril, because DGR is on my radar but almost anything would be more interesting to me today than deconstructing that counterpunch article.  and in fact i dont feel much like properly deconstructing anything today, so no direct quotes will be forthcoming.  let me convey my general impressions (analysis) only.  you can read the original material for yourself.

owen lloyd is upset at steven pinker, a “canadian-born experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author” because pinker suggests that there is a biological component to male violence and to men raping women across time and place.  rape, that thing that men do to women globally and across time which (by definition) largely transcends social conditioning and rape, that thing that women generally dont do to anyone, anywhere, ever.  incidentally, owen lloyd gets “upset” at people quite a lot, but lets ignore that insignificant detail for a moment.

and although neither pinker nor lloyd could probably be expected to recognize this, and they clearly dont, lloyds cherry-picked quotes from pinker (which are supposed to show that pinker is an extraordinary asshole) and lloyds own porny examples of extreme sexualized violence actually paint a vivid picture of a necrophilic male context that transcends time and place.  i say “necrophilic” because extreme violence including extreme sexualized violence is not compatible with life — necrophilia is a radfem concept coined by an actual, real feminist (mary daly) who wasnt invested in carrying water for men or pretending that men were something they arent.  and once you recognize it for what it is, evidence of mens sickening necrophilia becomes obvious everywhere you look, and i do mean everywhere.  we are swimming (drowning) in it.

anyhoo, owen lloyd whines that there cannot possibly be a biological/innateness component to men raping women and babies across time and place because man-bashing, and because owen lloyd wants to believe that there is such a thing as “making love” (or whatever) and that this is very different from rape and mens extreme sexualized violence against women yes it is, yes it is, yes it is infinity.

owen lloyd does not seem to be aware that intercourse, the way men do it, is just more of the same necrophilia because it creates unwanted and ambivalent pregnancies, where it is largely (completely) unwanted and ambivalent pregnancies and the resulting unwanted/ambivalent children — mens sexual and reproductive abuse of women, in other words — that are overpopulating and killing the world.  an environmentalist should know this.  a feminist should know this.  owen lloyd and DGR do not seem to know this, and yet they are educating the public on matters of both feminism and environmentalism.  oops.  and as if that werent enough, some 500,000 women die every year around the world from pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications — more necrophilia, and more evidence that intercourse is a necrophilic practice.

men are killing women and the entire world with their dicks, and owen lloyd is mad at steven pinker for pointing out that men stick their dicks into women and mostly dont care about the consequences and implications of that for the women or for anything — like the environment? — even though that is demonstrably true.  owen lloyd defends his own motivations i mean special snowflake status when he is joined at the reproductive organs with his “partner” as meaning and be-ing something different than the thing other men do when they are joined at the reproductive organs of other women.  even though IN MANY WAYS its not different at all.  enumerate the ways, environmentalist feminist.

and perhaps even more to the point, owen lloyd is mad.  yet again.  something rises up in him every time someone says or does something he doesnt like — he himself has described this feeling as rage.  this is his involuntary, knee-jerk response which he seems completely unable/unwilling to control, and which pops up mostly regardless of context or provocation — indeed, he cant seem to help it.  someday perhaps owen lloyd will learn to control both his rage and his urge to stick his dick into women and to zealously and angrily defend other mens right to stick their dicks into women too.  it is *possible* that he will endeavor to and succeed in controlling these things.

the one thing owen lloyd will probably never do is to seriously consider that these involuntary physical and emotional sensations he experiences all the time which are mostly or entirely invisible to himself — in particular, rage and the need to stick his dick into women and then to fucking defend the practice (!!!) (with rage!) regardless of the consequences or implications to women or to anything, including the environment — is something he shares with other males, as a class, and that this transcends time and place (and therefore, social conditioning).  that it comes from himself, in other words, and that this is the very definition of innate.

this appears to be the size of it, owen lloyd.  u mad?  LOL.  thats what i thought.

Moron Mansplaining/Women’s Perspective is Wrong August 19, 2012

Posted by FCM in liberal dickwads, logic, radical concepts, rape, self-identified feminist men, WTF?.
Tags: , , , , ,
comments closed

radfem-ological images presents a radfem perspective on mansplaining here.  to see a doozy of an example in real life, see this liberal dood’s response to a woman in a laundry cringing at the very sight of him here and here.  yes, according to dood, this woman found him cringeworthy because other men had likely harmed her personally, (ie. shes damaged goods) and because other men had made themselves a threat to her and to all women.  because patriarchy, you see.  because (other) male violence against women.  and he holds his hand out to receive his cookie — and receives several!  yum!  and chew carefully — after offering this very mediocre and not entirely incorrect analysis.  the bar is very, very low here, obviously.

but what dood apparently doesnt get and never will, is that this woman, who literally cringed and cowered at the very sight of him, couldve very well been responding reasonably to the threat that he imposed personally, and not just because he has a dick, although certainly thats a good enough reason.

no, this dood, by his own admission, he individually and personally, is emotionally unstable, and prone to becoming enraged.  not only that, but he cannot control his emotions at all, has weird emotive fits and outbursts and becomes entirely and involuntarily enraged at the very sight of women, existing.  in response to women, existing, this man literally cannot control himself, and his most natural response is rage:

Beyond shame and embarrassment, another feeling rose within me on that laundry day seven years ago. I felt rage. Rage first of all to those whose inhuman actions did such damage to the young woman in the laundromat, and millions of other women every year. I felt enraged also that beyond destroying women, these men are destroying the possibility for men and women to co-exist peacefully. Finally I was enraged about men’s lack of response to this violence against women and against peaceful human relations.

rage.  in response to a woman, existing.  but allegedly the rage is in response to men’s inability to be peaceful.  as if his mansplanation, even if true, makes any damn rational sense at all, or is consistent at all with women continuing to hold out hope for men, and to live voluntarily with men.

in reality, she mightve smelled that on you, dood.  its kind of a thing we do.  because youre out of control, emotionally unstable, and prone to becoming enraged; and in response to women, existing (among other things!  many, many, many things!  all the things?).

is there anybody out there?  hello?