jump to navigation

Moron “The Dishwasher Dilemma” July 30, 2012

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

awhile back, i wrote about what i believe is the genesis of most “domestic squabbles” between heterosexual partners, and that it is essentially male entitlement, and forced-perspective, and mansplaining and womens resistance to men and what the het partnership — and male entitlement, and forced-perspective and mansplaining — do to us.

now, i would like to address something i have heard so frequently from everywhere — from individual women and from pop culture and everywhere — which is that men do not seem to appreciate, at all, what it means to have a nice home, or more specifically, something to call your own, or at least a temporary or semi-permanent “home base” that is aesthetically pleasing and as sane and comfortable as possible.  men do not appear to care about this — they foul it up in every meaning/sense of the word.  if they live alone, or with each other — certain notable exceptions being, well, notable — their living spaces are fucking gross, and disgusting, and filthy.  in every corner there is literal filth — and porn, which is figurative filth isnt it?  they like it that way.  they live in their own shit, and they create and project shit so they can live in filth and shit, more.

women do not seem to understand why this is, and like they are wont to do, think that if they can figure out “why” that the problem can be solved — if everything is just a misunderstanding (ours) it gives hope.  answers to these questions are acceptable only to the extent that those answers are consistent with maintaining the het partnership, and with maintaining an affinity for men and living with men and taking care of them forever.  if not an individual man — sometimes individuals are beyond help and this is realized, painfully, after much time and resources are wasted — then with men as a class.  the primacy of the nuclear family and the primacy of the het partnership must be maintained, because without that, where would women be?  if only we would start imagining this, for real — identifying the (immediate?) problems that would cause and then solving them ourselves.  like the problem of realizing well into your forties (for example) that everything you thought you knew is wrong, and that where youve ended up is devastatingly off course and the forks in the road are so far back you cant even see them anymore, and youre exhausted and — blind?  not to mention all the legal requirements on many of us at this point — legal and moral guardianship over other people, for example.  legal and moral ties to men.  thats not a small thing.  this problem is real.

anyway, in the interest of changing the frame, and suggesting answers that are not compatible with maintaining the het partnership — to the extent that the truth is not compatible with maintaining a lie, or a structure founded on and maintained by pouring, building and maintaining lies — regarding the problem of men not appreciating a nice home, may i suggest the following thought exercise: women, imagine that the entire world is your literal and figurative toilet.  now imagine the dissonance you might feel — you, who experience the entire world as your toilet — if you were then simultaneously expected to keep your actual, real toilet — the one in your bathroom — clean.  why bother?   and indeed, men dont bother — their actual, real toilet — where they shit — is supposed to be clean, while the rest of their world is dirty because they shit there too?  why?

this takes on additional significance for modern men, doesnt it — men who literally piss outdoors, or wherever and whenever they please despite indoor plumbing.  i cannot even imagine the entitlement they must feel.  i know i dont want them in my space, to the extent i can help it — and definitely not in my bathroom, thanks anyway.  whats a little spatter to someone who regularly pisses in the alley, or knows he could, or that he would with no hesitation or logistical problems at all?  they do not care about this, and they apparently cannot be made to care about it.

but sadly, and not unexpectedly, theres more.  the home is the only place many women can go, where we can BE where we are relatively safe, and i think that includes abused women too, doesnt it?  i dont mean safe from abuse, i mean safe from the world which is an extremely difficult and dangerous place for women in general.  the “public” where we have literally no control or power, and are leered at by necrophiliac pervs and harassed and assessed by rapists every single second of every single moment we are out there.

and granted, being forced to “keep house” is often the beginnings of trouble for women who are coerced into this role, including with threats of and actualized violence for not doing a good enough job (in reality, its used as a pretext to inevitable abuse from an abuser) but in general, wouldnt women keep a nicer home than men even if this role were not coerced?  i think we would.  because its the ONLY place where we have some control over our surroundings, where we are subjects — rather than objects — in our own lives.  where our environments are or can be reflective of *us* at all, even though this is limited too, by what (for example) is available to us to purchase or make.  or, maybe in the absence of patriarchy, everything would be different, including this.  maybe if we werent animal feed and rape-objects in real life, we could afford to let a few things slide.

its also possible that we are a different species from men, and that we do not share their beginnings and will not share their ends, and that *this* explains or better explains what i am calling “the dishwasher dilemma” and why women in general tend to keep a nicer home but either way, its not exactly consistent with maintaining the het partnership now is it?  not if actually resolving this conflict is important.  species-difference is suggested in “the sisterwitch conspiracy” to explain this and other observable sex-based difference — and that book is at least as subversive and damaging to men and the institution of the het partnership as the SCUM manifesto, if not more — i suppose this one isnt on the radar because the author didnt speak mens language (the language of violence) and valerie solanas did, or she did once?

note to self: men are stupid, and speak *only* one language — and that appears to be the language of violence.  that is all.

META:  please note the change in the comments policy at femonade below. 

(more…)

In Which I Utilize Accordion Techno Illustratively! January 6, 2011

Posted by FCM in books!, entertainment, feminisms, international, PIV, pop culture, porn, prostitution.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

as usual, i am probably the last person on planet earth to have heard this song.  i was like “pretty sure thats an accordion!?” so i googled it. and yes, its an accordion.  there are a surprising number of accordion-techno songs out there actually, but i wouldnt know that being that i live under a counterculture rock with my favorite reruns and my ipod stuffed with the soundtrack of my fading youth.  and sometimes, books.  its the only way to successfully avoid accidental encounters with eminem and charlie sheen…and get off my lawn!

anyway, this song is currently playing on every radio station at all times, and there are at least 2 versions of both the song and the video.  the above version kind of surprised me actually, because it doesnt feature any men in the entire video, at all (except the accordionist).  and…the driver probably.  and…well, all the men she is probably fucking in those high-priced hotels she is being driven to in the middle of the night in a black luxury sedan.  right?  shes a hooker.  a happy, shiny one, at that!  so this is the fun-fem sexxxay empowered version of the song.  you know, or something.  okay, i am with them so far. 

heres another version:

mkay.  this is the “sweetly romantic” version i guess?  where she pines away for her man, or some man, and lucky for her he was stalking her the whole time and they eventually “randomly hook up” just like she always dreamed (and like he had planned from the beginning).  how creepy i mean completely normal!  okay.  2 versions of the same song.  2 takes on (literally) the same narrative.

so…i have been thinking lately that there is exactly one explanation for the existence of fun-fem “sex worker advocacy” i mean pornstitution empowerfulization that makes any fucking sense, at all.  and i think its just the latest rationalization of het partnerships to come down the pike, since the first rationalization of het partnerships came down the same pike in or around 1900 or so.  when some women were no longer as dependant on men as they once were, and were first starting to cut their teeth on a female-centered reality, being openly critical of aggregate male behavior, especially mens dangerous sexual behavior, and making real progress toward eliminating PIV-centric sexuality, and the sexual abuse of women and children, by men. 

and as sheila jeffreys notes, out came the big guns to tear it all down, to literally erase all the good work the feminists had done: the male sexologists, who decided, with science! (despite their obvious bias and conflicts of interest) that women were supposed to enjoy PIV, and engage in it as often as possible.  oh crap!  we better get right on that then.  on, men, or back on them.  see, theres nothing wrong with men, and mens male-privileged perspective, whereby they audaciously proclaim the most dangerous and least-pleasurable sex-act to be “sex” and you bitches better keep doing it, you better start liking it, and you better quit making us feel bad.  just start liking it, and the problem (of women complaining about it) goes away.

so now that we have the mandatory enthusiastic PIV covered (thanks male sexologists!) it becomes even more clear that hooking and het partnerships share quite a lot in common, do they not?  so much so that justifying hooking actually justifies your average het partnership pretty well.  perhaps especially the way the fun-fems do it, with their empowerfulized “happy hooker” narrative, which is actually nothing like the actual experience of your average prostituted woman, anywhere in the world.  and where the most egregious violence that prostituted women encounter consists of words, the words of radical feminists who are (and always have been) critical of aggregate male behavior, and the sexual abuse of girls and women, by men.

and the economic and social coercion to partner with men hasnt gone away, and decades of feminist history and PIV-critical work has been erased, making the possibility of a non-coercive and non-PIV-centric sexuality seem frankly bizarre to almost everyone.  and the resemblance between het partnerships and “sex work” is even more uncanny in fact since women started faking it.  or you know, figuring out how to actually have orgasms “from” PIV, by rubbing their clits WHILE being fucked.  (god that just makes no fucking sense at all does it?)  and keeping that in mind, always…

i think that this pro-pornstitution empowerfulization rhetoric is just more of the same shit, a covert “lesbians and spinsters are gross” meme that primes women for PIV, and quells the screaming inside “modern” women’s heads, because their relationships with men resemble prostitution in a very fundamental way.  isnt it?  all this empowerfulment and agency bullshit is really just to justify their nigels porn habit, and het partnerships generally.

because straight women know they are never, and i mean NEVER going to find a partner who *isnt* going to regularly masturbate to graphic images of misogyny.  to images of other women becoming impregnated.  to images that he doesnt know and cant know where they came from, or even what is going on, or who its happening to, and he doesnt care.  damn thats disturbing!  and of course, porn serves to normalize mens absolute obsession with PIV, and the way they want to fuck too.  and all het men, i dont care how “good guy” they are, are ALL demanding PIV-centric sex from their female partners, and under circumstances that look a hell of a lot like a quid-pro-quo, or a barter, if not an outright sale.

just…damn, do “empowerfulized” fantasies regarding sex-workers lives, and the average nonviolent (!!!11!1) nonexploitative (!!!11!!1) empowerfulized het partnership, look almost identical.  and the way these empowerfulized couples are fucking has been made to resemble porn.  yay prostitution, then!!11!!1  yay actual porn!  all of this is ok!  (you know, or none of it is).  yes it is, shut up.  it is, because the fucking fun-fems (and male sexologists!) say it is.

A Continuum of Woman-Hatred. Or, What “Flavor” Is Your Misogyny? December 24, 2010

Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, international, PIV, porn, rape.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

this was inspired by 9/2’s most recent and most-excellent takedown of porn.  she mentioned how so-called “feminist porn” is so elusive, and it got me to thinking…WHAT IF…

if PIV (or PIV-as-pleasure for the “what about teh babiez” crowd) itself is woman-hating, and i think there is an excellent argument that it is (because its specifically and particularly dangerous to women and not to men) then PIV-centric sexuality and therefore heterosexuality itself as we currently know it exist on a continuum of woman-hating.  i think we all know what madness lies at the far end of the continuum (rape-murder…and deaths resulting from unwanted pregnancy) but what lies in between just good old-fashioned “vanilla” PIV (what flavor is *your* woman-hate?  mine is strawberry!  well it used to be, currently i am off the sauce) and the intentional and sexualized extermination of girls and women, by men?

welp…all PIV-centric porn would lie on this continuum, for starters.  and this would, in fact, explain a lot.  it would explain why so-called “feminist porn” is so elusive (because it doesnt exist, because nothing feminist exists on a continuum of woman-hate.  duh.)  it would explain why PIV and rape are nearly indistinguishable in so many instances: where does each lie on the continuum?  an inch apart?  half an inch?  two full inches?  color me unimpressed with *that* alleged difference…kinda like the difference between night and…still night.  it would also explain why just run-of-the-mill heterosexual fucking (and porn) has become more and more degrading to women over time, and more and more violent, but is still considered “just sex.”

heterosexual “sex” as a continuum of woman-hate would explain why even the united states supreme court has historically had a difficult time articulating any real difference between “mere” porn and material that is so vile and without redeeming value that it is illegally obscene.  it would explain why marriage and in fact het partnerships in general resemble prostitution, and why the fun-fems and PIV-pozzies framing all of these issues in terms of “consent” and “agency” are chasing their tails, and why their entire discourse absolutely smacks of double and triple-think.  wouldnt it?

in fact…in the interest of time, i propose that we start with the assumption that everything exists on a continuum of woman-hatred, and see if things fall into place.  i mean really.  whats the sense of resisting this at all, when its probably the truth, and its the short-way around, at that?  are we afraid of hurting mens feelings?  please.  IF ONLY any of this were about “feelings” instead of actual, demonstrable harm, it would make me SO.  HAPPY.  but i digress.

with specific regard to “sex” and PIV-as-pleasure, i think the continuum framework is clearly applicable.  it starts with a man sticking his dick into a vagina because it feeeeels good (to him), and ends in the literal (LITERAL!) death of hundreds of thousands of women annually, now, and millions (billions?) of women across time and place.

so.  where does *your* heterosexuality fall on the continuum?  where does your favorite memory of the best “sex” you ever had, fall on the continuum of woman-hate?  this is why i can barely even masturbate anymore.  my own memories of 20-something years of heterosexual fucking, material i used to invoke as a masturbatory aid, are horrifying to me now.  and again, the idea of PIV-centric sexuality existing only on a continuum of woman-hate explains a lot.  it also seems to be demonstrably true, for anyone who thinks this is just a mental exercise, or a faith-based discourse.  its not.