jump to navigation

Women Didn’t Do It. That’s the Point. July 22, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, gender roles, meta.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

ive been so happy to see the idea going around that it hasnt been women “forcing” manly behaviors, values and thought processes on men, if indeed men have been or need to be “forced” into these things at all.  radical feminists point this whole time has been that womens sex role as fuckholes, breeders and slaves has been forced on us by men, and that this role is wholly unnatural to us.  our point has never been, until very recently that is, that the same force-thing is happening *somehow* to men.  and in fact it makes very little sense if you think about it a bit.  if anyone were forcing men to do anything, who would have the power, resources and inclination to do this?  oh yes.  men!  not women, men.

not only that, but where did this stuff come from in the first place?  who thought it would be a good idea (for example) to rape women and impregnate us against our wills, knowing how painful and dangerous childbirth is to us (and not to men)?  who thought it would be a good idea to force women to do anything, to starve torture and kill us and everyone and everything else?  think: global overpopulation and environmental abuse.  did women first suggest this, and did women take it further at every step with creativity, leaps of thought and constant envelope-pushing?  or did someone else?

here we are faced with a potentially uncomfortable truth, “we” being those of us who still hold out any hope whatsoever for men, that they will change, that this has all been a huge mistake etc.  included here are those who think meaningful legal change will be forthcoming BTW, seeing as how the law is the codification and normalization of male behavior, values and thought-processes selectively enforced to support male power at womens expense.  to those women and everyone, kindly note (if you havent already) that at the intersection of “who came up with this shit” and “who would be able to enforce it anyway” there are men.  men and only men.  no women anywhere.  if male behaviors, values and thought processes were a gum, it would be men-tyne.  if it were a museum, it would be the men-tropolitan museum of art.

not that i personally believe for a second that these things are forced/enforced on men — the evidence actually suggests they enjoy it and even revel in decidedly male interests/pursuits like torture and necrophilia, but lets not dwell on that insignificant detail (or fact, whatever).  the point is that i know other women believe its forced, or they assume it without ever really having thought about it, so seeing it as an intersection of maleness (which it obviously is) might be useful to them.  is it?

whats compelling to me about this recognition is that it implicates men as a sexual class and takes that concept and discussion further.  in this case, we see that we can and indeed must take males as a whole as our “class,” meaning males throughout time and place, not just whoever happens to be alive now, and not just those special snowflakes who came up with something noteworthy/super gross or whatever at some point (i.e. helped move male behavior, values and thought-processes forward through creativity and innovation, like whoever came up with this).  in other words, when analyzing how and indeed whether what is known as “masculinity” is forced on men, if we add a fourth-dimension to the class-model, which is time, we see that men have always done this.  that there was never a time (that we know about) that they didnt.  and importantly, there was never a time when we (females) did.

get it?  women had nothing to do with this — men came up with this sickening abuse and necrophilia on their own and it is in fact a closed-circuit of maleness in which we see abusive and sexually and reproductively abusive (i.e. male) behaviors, values and thought processes working and evolving across time.  there is no female “input” there are only female victims, and perhaps female collaborators and individual collaborators at that — as a class, women have been wholly excluded.  its closed, you see.  thats how a closed-circuit works, and this very obviously is one.

if there were *ever* a more perfect example of a closed-circuit, well, it might be one without collaborators (or without equality rhetoric, history-erasure or a fourth-dimension!) because that might make it easier to see it for what it is.  but even so, this isnt rocket-science (or is it?)  the concept of the closed-circuit does, however, implicate electricity, and therefore electronics, plugging-in, technology, and industry, and probably other things.  even time-travel seems implicated here, or all “times” existing at once — non-linear time.  we discussed that here, in the context of sonia johnson’s work including “the metaphysics of liberation.”

if that complicates the discussion, disregard.  its (i think?) unnecessary to the point, which is that male behaviors, values and thought processes — and patriarchy — is a closed-system of maleness to which women have never (substantively, ideologically) “inputted” and we never will.  thats the point.  everything you see, hear, feel, smell, taste and intuit around you thats abusive and sick, including men and what they do and what they are, and regardless of whether its “forced” on them (meaning, same result whether it is or isnt) — thats men mkay.  its men, its men, its men.

Advertisements

Peak Fun March 26, 2012

Posted by FCM in authors picks, feminisms, gender roles, liberal dickwads, PIV, politics, pop culture, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

first, a question: has the great cotton ceiling debacle of 2012 affected you wrt your feelings towards trans politics and/or liberal “fun feminism” and if so, how?  if not, why not?  and is there a point at which it will become more than obvious what fun-feminism really is, including who it benefits, and why?  will the truth out?  does it ever?  if so, why?  if not, why not?

while all women are socialized to be compliant dick-pleasers, and frequently acquiesce or avoid confrontations with men due to the threats of violence and actual violence backing up mens demands, including their demand that we see the entire world through mens eyes, womens socialization to be pleasing to dicks (and penises!) cannot be the variable here, where some women are buying this trans politics/fun-fem shit and others are not.

most arent, in fact.  most women, i dare say, both globally and locally, simply are not on board with trans politics.  the oft-repeated claims by trans and fun-ems that trans are a political minority, and are often oppressed by women, is evidence that this is true.  so while the fun-fems are definitely being dick-pleasing and compliant in their acceptance of what is very obviously an anti-feminist mens rights (trans) agenda, conservative grandmas really arent, or if they are, they arent talking about it.  soccer moms arent.  wilting southern flowers arent.  even women who are compliant or even hesitant dick-pleasers in every other way, arent necessarily buying this one.  so whats the variable here?

it seems to me that the variable is sex-positivism, and liberal anti-woman sexual politics.  sex-positivism requires, absolutely requires that women see the world through mens eyes, where removing “sex” — including intercourse and its attendant reproductive consequences — from its anti-woman, patriarchy-supportive historical and political context is a good thing, because men have been in the wrong for millenia and it benefits them to ignore that.

and sex-positivism, and the idea that “sex” and intercourse with men is a good thing, and that it could and should be liberatory for women, at this time and place, is the most egregious mansplanation — aka. example of forced-male-perspective — that i have literally ever heard.  because in order for women or anyone to see sex with men as beneficial for women, even conditionally, but often as unconditionally beneficial, to us, we must agree that mens perspective on 4 critical points is correct and adopt their perspective as our own:

1) the political class-based oppression of women by men which is based on biological sex is a good thing and should continue; and 2) men deliberately systematically, institutionally and interpersonally harming women as a sexual class, via intercourse, is a good thing and should continue; and 3) the female-specific harms of the penis are particularly beneficial and should therefore be centered as much as possible; and 4) it further benefits us and supports our (male) power to publically deny 1-3.

viola!  sex is apolitical!  no more sex-based differences, no more male bodies, no more female bodies.  because we said so.  just potentially orgasmic bodies, just apolitical, ahistorical blobs of meat, catching friction on each other, for fun.  just like men pretend to be, when they are actually deliberately harming women with their dicks, to support male power.

now, let me just say a little bit about my utter disdain for sex-positivism, and how much of an atrocious fucking lie it is.

if women are really to be made whole again after literally millenia of systemic, institutional and interpersonal sexual abuse at mens hands — a history that no one can credibly deny, and when i say sexual abuse i mean abuses that are directed at our female genitals, and which often have intended reproductive consequences — it would not be too much to ask for a couple of millenia, or even a century, or a decade or even a year or a day, for that matter, of respite from that, so that women as a class could recover from our collective and individual histories of sexual abuse at mens hands and to heal.  and yet, to date, we have not been allowed to have even one day to heal from this.  we are not even allowed to acknowledge it happened, or that it never stopped.  even if the oppression had stopped years ago, (and it hasnt!) and even if sex with men wasnt inherently oppressive, (and i think it is inherent, or at least that PIV for pleasures sake is inherently oppressive to women) we would still deserve a chance to breathe in an environment that was substantially different from the oppressive one.  but what we have is men in womens pussies 24/7 like they have always been.  this is simply not a substantial, or substantial enough, change.

and to attempt to erase or deny history, including human rights violations in other contexts is a political and moral no-no, while attempting to reverse the course of oppressive histories on a dime is flatly impossible.  and sex-positivism attempts to do both.  when it comes to any other type of oppression, has either the oppressive or the oppressed class ever tried to reverse the course of that oppressive history on a dime, or expected it to work, or have they said “look it worked” when it obviously didnt, and had people believe them?  has anyone ever taken the site/source of a group’s political oppression and claimed it was now, magically, the site/source of their power, and had that be true?  its ridiculous.  there are lingering, ongoing effects of systemic political and physical oppression, we know this.  and this is true even when the oppressive institution is formally abolished, and ours hasnt been.

meanwhile, the part that liberal/progressive, anti-woman sexual politics plays in trans discourse is obvious: just go on the fucking pill already, and shut the fuck up.  that way, you (women, and especially liberal women) can be more easily resemble an apolitical, ahistorical, potentially-orgasmic meatbag, catching friction off of other people, for fun.  it furthers the illusion that this is true for either women or men, when of course it isnt.

and while we are pretending, lets *also* pretend that contraceptives actually do that for women, when in order for them to do that they would have to be 1) 100% effective, and 2) cause no side-effects themselves.  and clearly, neither applies.  women arent even effectively changed into pretend male-like meatbags, they just have to pretend they are!  but whats a little more pretending when you are already living in an alternate male-centric reality thats based on lies about men but also wasnt built for you?  note to women: if you have to take a pill to live in mens reality, a pill that men do not have to take, it indicates that 1) there is such a thing as male reality thats different from female reality and that these differences are biologically-based and 2) men are forcing women to fit male reality.  and oh what the hell, 3) there is probably a reason for that, ie. it benefits men to do this.  because everything men do benefits men, because patriarchy.  duh.

anyway, my point is this.  while other male-centric politics are decidedly woman-hating and thrive off of mens sexually abusing women too, liberal politics in particular seems to be the one thats heavily invested in turning both male and female bodies into apolitical, ahistorical, potentially-orgasmic meatbags that catch friction off of each other for fun.  where all women are collectively owned by all men, and women’s male-centric sexual activity and sexual slavery are prized over our virginity and reproductive slavery.  (contrast that to conservative sexual politics.  conservative and liberal men disagree with each other somewhat, on some points, regarding how to treat women, aka. liberal and conservative mens sexual, domestic and reproductive slaves).  and sex-positivism is the ideology that tells women this is *not* just a slimy political deal struck with sleazebag liberal men who demanded it: its really an acontextual (apolitical, ahistorical) choice.  women could not embrace trans politics without both of these things, i dont think.

and thats just (i think?) the fun-fem acceptance of the physical aspects of trans. ie. sex is a social construct, there are no meaningful physical differences between women and men.  acceptance of the gender part also requires internalized misogyny, homophobia and lesbophobia, ie. a woman who likes other women or can change her own oil or doesnt want to be a disempowered, feminized rape-object for a man, even when having intercourse with men, (gay transmen!) is really a man herself, so long as she says she is.  nope, no problem there.

are we having fun yet?  or, is this what peak-fun feminism looks like?  stay tuned…

Decoding the FAAB/MAAB “Argument” February 12, 2011

Posted by FCM in authors picks, feminisms, gender roles, health, PIV, radical concepts, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

transactivists and fun-fems seem to have a lot invested in this one, dont they?  this keeps coming up, and the pomos are absolutely hell-bent on denying that FAAB is a meaningful distinction.  even though there are actual criteria that define it, pomos insist that there shouldnt be.  that its not fair to distinguish FAAB from MAAB.  or at least, that the differences between FAAB and MAAB are irrelevant.  now why would this be?

admittedly, i am not a great chess-player. but luckily for me, the pomos arent playing chess.  i know a strategy when i smell one.  and i smell some strategizing here, big time.  (to the war room!)  obviously, the FAAB issue is a very important battle, and they’ve given that much away from the beginning, by spending inordinate amounts of time on it.  so, whats over that particular horizon that they want so badly?

if FAAB as a meaningful category were removed from the feminist game, what would be different?

well, one obvious result, if the pomos got what they wanted here, would be that in successfully rendering FAAB meaningless, then its opposite, MAAB, would also be rendered meaningless. being two-sides of the same nonexistent coin and all.  they never really mention MAAB by itself, or call attention to it at all, instead preferring to lash out at FAAB (by discounting the importance of girlhood for example) but i think its an omission of the glaring kind.  again, they arent so great at keeping secrets.  so the question that needs asking here is probably this: who would gain if MAAB were rendered meaningless?

lets explore!  first, a little (recycled) graphic:

this chart outlines how the FAAB/MAAB distinction is made, based on the presentation of a childs genitals at birth.  “girls” are pink (female assigned at birth) and “boys” are blue (male assigned at birth).

now, regarding “gender,” i always believed that the female gender (or FAAB, if you will) was a way to funnel girl-children into an oppressive female gender role, based on their assumed ability to become pregnant.  which lets face it, almost all FAABs are capable of, and most of them are actually impregnated at some point, worldwide.  almost all. 

BUT.  whats to be made of box #3?  its pink toooo!!!111!!1  here, we have obviously intersexed babies who are unable to reproduce as females, also being assigned-female-at-birth.  why?  and why are MAABs relegated to a mere one square, when males as a sexual class are always entitled to HAVE MOAR?  (i am sorry, but this one really sticks out at me.  MAABs are fucking obsessed with everything always being representative of them, MOAR.  so much so that if and when they are ever relegated to a corner, as this chart illustrates, i believe this indicates that there is something there worth exploring.  and particularly, as here, if they are trying to divert attention from it and onto something else, its roughly equivalent to about sixteen billion red flags).

what i am thinking at the moment is that FAAB itself, as a category, appears to represent all bodies that cannot cause female-specific harm to other people, in the way of pregnancy, medical-events and trauma-bonding, via PIV.  doesnt it?  not all FAAB bodies can *be* harmed this way (if they arent impregnable).  but NONE of the bodies represented by the FAAB distinction can cause female-specific harm.  no…that appears to be left up to the MAABs.  MAABs of course being non-impregnable (non-female) children, with enough of a dick to pass as male, as an adult.  because who would raise a child as a “boy” if it didnt even have a dick?  and on what basis exactly?

do we get it now?  when deciding whether a nonimpregnable child is MAAB/FAAB the only consideration appears to be whether theres enough of a dick there to be a threat.  YES = MAAB.  NO = FAAB.  the MAAB distinction literally turns on this: whether this person will pose a legitimate threat to women.

and every single MAAB alive was chosen as an oppressor of women, and groomed as one, because of his ability to cause female-specific harm.  based upon the appearance of his genitals, at birth.  the meaning of “gender” and the entire purpose of it is to funnel everyone into an oppressive female gender role, UNLESS they are likely able to cause female-specific harm.  then they are groomed for that, instead.

okay?  the ability to cause female-specific harm appears to be the main distinguishing characteristic of all human beings, under patriarchy.  it is THE main event.  its even more important than the ability to reproduce (this is why there are only 2 genders, but 3 sexes.  ah that pesky box #3!)  those who are able to cause female-specific harm are represented by MAAB.  everyone else, isnt.  this is not irrelevant.  far from it. 

so regarding the question, “if FAAB were removed from the feminist game, what would change?” the answer appears to be this: MAAB would also be removed from the game.  and with it, the fact that THE crucial line drawn in the sand for millenia has been based on the known dangers to women of the penis, and the creation of a master class based solely and demonstrably on the ability to cause female-specific harm, would become invisible.

it would signal the end of radical feminism, in other words.  it wouldnt be necessary, anymore.  and this is not a small thing.  not at all.  all of this also has very little to do with sparkly shirts, if it has anything to do with them at all.