jump to navigation

Newsflash, Ladies: Fun-Feminism May Be Hazardous To Your Health (And By “May Be” I Mean “Very Obviously Is”) March 20, 2010

Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, kids, liberal dickwads, PIV, pop culture, self-identified feminist men, thats mean, WTF?.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

i have been processing this for several weeks, and trying to decide how and whether to write about it.  a few weeks ago, i heard from a very old and dear friend, with whom i hadnt spoken in several years.  we were roommates in college, and i credit her with introducing me to feminism.  two things about her feminism stand out clearly in my memory: one, she had andrea dworkin’s book “intercourse” on her bookshelf, and one day i asked her about it.  she told me that andrea dworkin believed that all acts of PIV within a framework of capitopatriarchy and misogyny were rape.  (mind.  blown.)

the other thing was this: one night we were laying in bed talking, and she was telling me about her ex-husband and their sex life together.  she said that he had had over 70 sexual partners, before her.  i was 18 at the time and from a little nowhere town, she was 25 and from the big city.  i didnt even know 70 people, i said.  “wow” i said.  “fuck your wow” she told me.  grow the fuck up already, its just sex.

i consider that to be my introduction to fun-feminism (although she actually “got” what andrea dworkin was saying, unlike most fun-fems and all transactivists, today).  how empowerfulizing!  how freeing!  “its just sex” rang my head like a bell.  thats not what *i* had been hearing, all my life, and i liked *that* perspective a lot better.  yay!  to make a long story short, somehow, my friend reconciled what she knew about rape and sex into the following: open relationships are a good idea, because the pressure on me to be constantly available for intercourse is off.  (because any ridiculous belief system is “feminist” as long as someone who calls themselves a “feminist” says it is!)

fast-forward to 15 years later, to our most recent correspondence.  she has been remarried for 10 years, has a young child, and her husband has been battling full-blown AIDS for several years.  theyd had an open relationship where he was free to have sex with other people whenever he wanted, as to not pressure my friend for sex (she was free to do the same, although i dont know whether she ever, or regularly did).  but *he* sure as fuck did.  and he seems to have preferred fucking other men.  and she knew that, and supported it.  how fun!  how empowerfulizing!  lets all pat ourselves on the back for being so.  fucking.  feminist.

you know, its feminism!  where women are so modern and openminded as to not question mens entitlement to fuck us, and to fuck us over, in any way.  feminism!  where men are constantly placing women in harms way, and we ignore it, because calling attention to it is “prudish” and we are empowerfulized and strong, donchaknow (because “power” is synonymous with “permissive” and above all, “deference”.  it is!  look it up!).

my friend and their son have both tested negative.  and they now believe that her husband contracted HIV sometime after they were married, even though he was practicing “safe sex.”  yeah, right.  frankly, i suspect he had a slip-up or 10 (or 1000, who knows), but if he didnt, its even fucking worse, isnt it?  because that means he was “enlightened” enough to do everything he could do *not* to fuck his wife over, within the framework of an allegedly “feminist” relationship, and even he couldnt contemplate the obvious.  that *not* exposing himself to other peoples bodily fluids was in his wife’s (and child’s) best interests.

and that means that even an allegedly feminist man, in an egalitarian relationship with a feminist woman, cant bring himself to consider her life, or her health, important enough to keep his dick in his pants.  that the cost of keeping her safe, at the expense of getting his sexxxay on, was simply too high.

and obviously, neither of them could contemplate that a heterosexual relationship did not have to include mandatory PIV; or that it was unacceptable for the male partner to assume that he was entitled to sex on demand, from anyone, whether he was married to them or not.

welp.  so much for feminist men.  and so much for fun-feminism being “fun” in the end, for women.  its fun for men, though.  which is really the whole point.

“‘Misandry’ Is A Feminist Issue,” Say Transactivists I Mean MRAs February 5, 2010

Posted by FCM in feminisms, kids, MRAs, pop culture, rape, self-identified feminist men, thats mean, trans, WTF?.
Tags: , , , , , ,
comments closed

this made me laugh and laugh.  transwomen (like the MRAs and fundies) love making rules for women and feminists to follow.  we are supposed to suck their metaphorical (and actual) dicks, or be outed as “transphobic”.  we are supposed to accept their constructed, fake fuckholes as “female organs,” as vaginas, and appreciate it as “ironic” when they appropriate our experience, and steal our work.  mm-kay. 

now, according to the transactivists, feminists are supposed to take on “misandry” as a feminist issue.  are they serious?  yes, yes they are.  they are very serious.  all the fucking time.  and that makes it even funnier: have you ever heard an internet transwoman say something that wasnt unintentionally funny?  i havent.  and i doubt i ever will, particularly after reading this, which nearly gave me a stomach cramp:

Could Bindel’s trans-phobia be fuelled by her open misandry? Is the idea of someone born with external reproductive organs becoming a woman so anathema to her? Does Bindel in fact take any responsibility for murder and violence towards trans people by the words she has published?  (thanks polly).

this is in response to feminist author julie bindel, who has dared speak out against transpolitics, which is the same thing as “murder!” apparently.  (that bitch!  lets rape her!)  but speculating as to whether bindel’s “transphobia” is fuelled by her “misandry” is like pondering, in all seriousness, “could bindel’s hooswhit be fuelled by her glod?”  because theres no such fucking thing as a glod, and a “hooswhit” is just some letters put together.  similarly, theres no such thing as misandry, and “transphobia” is just some shit the transactivists made up to bash women and feminists over the head with, when we dont want men in dresses transwomen in our washrooms (if they wanted to address something that *did* exist, they could try addressing the problem of rape and the men they are afraid will rape them, if they use the mensroom.  but they never do).

but even if it did exist, only a fucking MRA, a fundie, or a transactivist would say that misandry was a feminist issue.  when someone misinterprets the aims of feminism as being “anti-sexist” instead of “removing the boot of capitopatriarchy from womens necks” its inevitably one of them, too.  this absolutely screams “waht about teh menzzzzz?” but ten or so years ago, feminists werent falling for it.  now, thanks to the fucking sex-pozzies, the third-wavers and transpolitics, this mens rights garbage has taken center stage.  mens rights has taken center stage, within the feminist movement!  think about this, people. 

i admit i left feminist studies behind for most of the last decade, due to having other shit to do.  and when i came back, it took me a short while to get back up to speed.  i was there, once i realized what all this cis-business really was.  this is mens rights rhetoric, packaged up with a pretty pink bow.  thats all it is.  its the same disingenuous doublespeak that has oprah thinking that boys and men are “falling behind” girls and women, and that even if this were so that its not fair.  its the same shit that has fathers rights groups crying “sexism!” when the statistics show that women tend to get custody of children when they divorce.

because what the MRAs conveniently ignore is that when girls and women are successful at anything, its because they work damn hard for it.  you know, its earned, rather than unearned.  people lavished with unearned privileges dont know any better, they just dont.  and in so-called custody disputes, most mothers dont have a fucking choice when MOST FATHERS DONT WANT FUCKING CUSTODY ANYWAY.  the kids would be orphans if the mothers didnt step up, because men have *never* stepped up to the plate in this regard, and they arent starting now.  too often, when men fight for custody in a divorce, its a fucking tool of domestic abuse by a vengeful ex-husband who had undoubtedly been abusing his wife during the marriage as well. 

this is whats passing as “sexism” now?  in what universe is a lack of reasonable options, and being the target of abuse considered a privilege?  this topsy-turvy inversion of reality absolutely requires an MRA worldview.

as feminists have long been aware, men’s rights activists (MRAs) have appropriated the language of feminist discourse to acheive their own dubious ends, but they never really understood it.  they talk about “sexism!” and things “not being fair” but this is coming from privileged, largely white males who havent the slightest fucking clue what “unfairness” really is.  we saw through it then.  we arent seeing through it now, but its the same appropriation of feminist discourse, and the transwomen are misusing and misreading it, just like men always have. 

indeed, to accuse a feminist of being a “misandrist” is the worst kind of cliche: an anti-feminist one.  for all their talk about being “outed” and how scary that would undoubtedly be, these transwomen out themselves every fucking time they open their mouths.  the only people they would fool with their MRA doublespeak would be anti-feminist fuckwits who dont know any better (aka “normal people”), but they want to hang out with feminists, instead.  why?  this is not a rhetorical question.

not unrelatedly, the only “lovers” transwomen are fooling with their fake fuckholes are ones that dont use their hands.  again, anti-feminist fuckwits who dont know any better (including statistically the poor, the uneducated, and the just-generally-bad-lover types).  because fake vaginas arent organs, and they arent attached to anything.  only a fucking MRA wouldnt know whether theres a cervix in there, or not, because he never bothered to look.  and only a fucking transwoman would agree with the MRAs in that regard: that it doesnt really matter, anyway, because vaginas are just fuckholes, and are only good for one thing.  but again, at least the online transactivists dont want to hang around the uneduated MRAs who would probably accept them *and* their fake fuckholes.  why not?  this is not a rhetorical question.

unless and until i discover some compelling evidence to the contrary, this is my working answer: because infiltrating, assimilating, and ultimately rewriting and dismantling feminism has been the MRAs goal from the beginning, and transwomen and their allies are fucking MRAs.  thats why.  we have to open our eyes to this reality.  i dont think it would be an exaggeration to say that, literally, everything depends on it.

The Fallacy of Cis-Privilege November 16, 2009

Posted by FCM in feminisms, self-identified feminist men, thats mean, trans.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

for those who dont know, cis- (meaning “on the same side as”) has been used by transactivists to describe people who “arent trans.” according to them, people who arent trans possess special powers, called “privileges,” parallel to the unearned privileges possessed by whites and men, who socially, politically and relationally oppress women, and people of color.

but when transfolk and transactivists use “privilege” in this context, i do not think it means what they think it means.  specifically, their concept of “privilege” does not match up with my definition, or with any accepted definition of the word.

when a transwoman laments to a born woman, for example:

I wish I could understand where you are coming from, but I don’t think I ever will. I never had the privilege of growing up as a girl, with people automatically calling me she, her, girl, woman, etc. without having to think about it. I never had the privilege of being 5 years old and not having your mother beat the living shit out of you because you were trying on her makeup. I say this will [sic] all respect that is due to you: from where I sit, you are the one with the privilege.

what she has revealed is that her idea of anyones particular social or political privilege is “i have something you want.” in the case of born-men thinking that girls and women had it easy or preferable in that they grew up being recognized as female, it would be more accurate to say their idea of privilege is further diluted to mean “i have something you *think* you want” because theres no way a born-male could really know if he wanted to grow up like a girl, because as a boy/man, he doesnt, and indeed *couldnt* know what it was like.

to take a little tangent here, but to illustrate and underscore that point, i was assaulted by 4 neighborhood boys when i was 5, because i was a girl, and they wanted to look into my underpants. so, they trapped me in a camping tent that was set up in the backyard and wouldnt let me leave, and they said i could either give each one of them a kiss, or they were going to look inside my underwear. does this sound like fun to you, transwomen? frankly i would take a beating from my mother on any day of the week, rather than ever be trapped inside a closed space by a bunch of sexually predatory boys who gave me such a disgusting “choice.” i kissed them all and they let me leave. luckily.

but heres the problem with “i have something you want” = “i have privilege”. if i had a candy bar, and you wanted it, i would not have “candy-bar privilege”. if i had a nice dog and you wanted a nice dog like mine, i would not have “dog privilege.” you cant just say that any old goddamn thing i have that you want is a privilege. privilege means that there is *power* there, and girls and women dont possess any kind of gender-based power. exactly the opposite.