jump to navigation

More Separatism By Default. Happy Valentine’s Day! February 14, 2013

Posted by FCM in porn, rape, thats mean.
Tags: ,
comments closed

love, me.  ❤

we talked previously about the idea of separatism-by-default — if there are logistical problems getting in the way of women separating from men in a direct, forthright way, there are other ways of getting there that are worth exploring.  this isnt an “ends justifying the means” kind of post, no.  this is a “take a deep breath” kind of post.  this is a lets reconsider.

what kind of rapey shithole are we living in, afterall, if we would have separatism by default if men were (finally) punished with jailtime for raping and contributing to men raping women.  i mean if all men who were guilty of the range of offenses between actual rape and not adequately protecting women in their own communities and proximities from rape, were actually sent to jail, including every man within a 20-mile radius (say) of any and all instances of a boy or a man raping a girl or a woman, within just a few minutes there would be no men left in many places in the world.  justice for women, in other words, would create female separatism by default, where all male offenders were separated from us, and allowed to do their male-culture thing with each other and not allowed to do it to us anymore.  we would be alone.  because justice.

what kind of porny nightmare is this, where if any of us were able to divorce ourselves from a woman-hating perspective, say by refusing to engage with patriarchal media images anymore, by default, we would be left in a female-only space.  no men and nothing any man ever thought, dreamed or created would be there.  because no.

and what kind of violent hell is waiting just beyond the horizon, what is it, exactly, that we are actively preventing from happening with our female blood, sweat and tears, when women put their energies into placing and enforcing social controls on men and male behavior, including mens violence against other men?  and, why do we bother doing this at all?  this is a serious question.

(re)consider: how many men would just kill themselves voluntarily if left to their own devices?  how many resources in the form of suicide hotlines, drug rehabs, DWI checkpoints and the like are being actively put towards preventing men from killing themselves, and is this really the best use of these resources?  says who?

(re)consider:  how many men would kill each other if they werent prevented from doing so, both actively and passively, and how much energy is dedicated to achieving that ends daily?  weekly?  annually?  is it worth it?  this is a serious question.  what would happen if we just let men do to themselves and each other what they do, unabated?  im not talking about *us* doing a fucking thing to hurt men at all.  im just talking about not stopping them from harming — even eliminating — themselves.  do we owe it to them or something to save them from themselves?  really?  because we are acting as if we do, but why?  i dont think women owe men a fucking thing.

and sure, women have our own interests in preventing male violence against other men, but our interests here are complicated, and worth parsing.  for starters, women and girls often get caught in mens crossfire, literally and more literally.  when boys and men are killed, so is the gynergy of the mothers, grandmothers and others who spent their lives and their very selves in raising and nurturing them.

perhaps our greatest fear is that if men are allowed to do what they do, and if “culture” — otherwise known as patriarchy — were allowed to be as hellishly brutal, as bloody and awful as it would be if men were allowed to just be men, unmodified, that men will simply and finally go mad, unleashing an heretofore unimaginably lawless, vicious violence, raping and slaughtering us all.  and this is a realistic fear, i think.  but obviously it begs the question, doesnt it — why are they worth saving, again?

what if we just got out of their way and let nature (or whatever) take its course?  im just asking.  we likely wouldnt have to do it for very long — i think even *i* could stand the trials and tribulations of “womens land” and passing the communal nut butter (or whatever) for the five minutes (or 5 years) it would take for men to render themselves, well, dead.  after that, we could all go our own ways if we wanted.  or not!  either way, aaaahhhhhhh.  heaven.

Golden Girls Marathon. I Have My Period. February 3, 2013

Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, MRAs, news you can use, PIV, rape.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

these arent my favorite episodes or anything, they are just free, full episodes on youtube.  you can find more here.  really, this post isnt about the golden girls at all, im just engaging in a bit of misdirection.  if i wanted to buy myself a few extra minutes, i might even add a page break, or use a couple of big words.  and if the MRAs want to link to this post, their link *will* say “golden girls marathon” and “i have my period.”  ha!

also, my stools are a bit soft, even though i took probiotics.  can anyone recommend something for loose stools due to menstrual-related hormonal fluctuations?

are we alone now?  good.

there is something very wrong with men — we know this.  feminism is not about fixing men, or curing them of their repulsiveness — it would be a better use of our time to try to cure tangerines of their tangerine-ness.  and pointless experimenting on citrus fruit would surely smell better, and we could eat our mistakes!  yum!

i made a jello mold today but it didnt set up right — does anyone know why?  i think i added too much pineapple, but i thought i had compensated for that by adding a bigger box of jello than what the recipe called for.  i dont normally care for jello-based desserts but i have found that using exotic fruits and nuts keeps the focus off the jello.

thanks to mandatory PIV and rape, and mens global policy of female infanticide (but not male), there are too many men worldwide.  men exist in unnatural numbers globally and we know this.  we also know that genetically, the Y chromosome is defective and decaying over time — generation after generation, human males are becoming even more incomplete, even more lacking and they are indeed barrelling toward their own extinction.  google it.

my TiVo crashed and i lost my entire collection of ghost whisperer!  does anyone know how season 4 ended — the last episode i saw, jim had died and his spirit jumped into the body of some other dood, but does this mean that jim is still on the show and the actor that plays jim is leaving or what?

the human male is on its way out.  we know this.  however, on their way out the door, thanks to male genetic decay and the fact that they exist in unnatural numbers globally, they seem to have reached a critical mass of pure evil, and this might not have been the case 20 or even 10 years ago but it absolutely *is* the case now — things are getting worse.  we need to understand this, and take this into account in our theory and our actions.  what we thought was going to work before might not work now, or if it was working, it might not have any further usefulness because the game has changed.  we have to adapt to changing circumstances and use what we know, but some seem very invested in their own status or in the work itself rather than the truth, and liberating ourselves and other girls and women from male dominance — this is a mistake.

im having a cocktail party next week and i need some good ideas for appetizers.  i am really sick of the standard fare and would like to serve something with some “wow” factor — does anyone have any ideas?

women have known there is something fundamentally wrong with men for a long time, and they talk about it like its the common knowledge it is.  i am BEYOND sick of feminists (and feminism) which denies reality and the reality of womens lives and what men do to us AND WHY THEY DO IT, AND WHETHER THEY ARE LIKELY TO EVER STOP.  they arent.

i have an itchy anus, its especially bothersome at night — when i googled this, i found that this is a warning sign of intestinal parasites!  i do eat a lot of raw fish so i am afraid that perhaps i have picked up a parasite.  god that fucking sucks, as if i didnt have enough to deal with.

the increasing decay and incompleteness of the Y chromosome over time + unnatural numbers of men globally due to mandatory PIV and rape and female infanticide = critical mass of male evil.  this appears to be the truth of it.  this problem is real, and it is urgent.

read between the lines mkay.  men are showing and telling us everything we need to know about their intentions, and what they want to do to us and to the world, whether they can be reformed, and whether they will stop.  they are telling us the truth about themselves hourly, daily, weekly, yearly.  believe it.

Moron Issue Framing. Or, Why Male Violence Against Women and Children Survives a Cost-Benefit Analysis December 19, 2012

Posted by FCM in logic, politics, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

the responses to recent calls for banning firearms in the wake of the sandy hook elementary school annihilation are stupefying.  heres one now, from some allegedly pro-feminist dood equating male violence against other men with male violence against women and children.  stupefying!  or the even more stupefying “what about the pens!” argument: men will use any object as a weapon, (link within to a “school massacre” where the man used a hammer against children — and all the children survived their injuries, get it?) therefore we are obligated to make mens job of annihilating large numbers of women and children easier by giving them access to guns.  what?

now, obviously, gun control is a harm-reduction strategy only.  lets be clear about that: women generally are not so stupid as to ever believe that we can eliminate the problem of violent men, and reducing or eliminating mens access to guns will not cure or even reduce the problem of violent men.  we have been in mens crosshairs since before there was such a thing as crosshairs mkay?  we know guns arent really the problem, but to suggest a real solution (eliminating or reducing the number of men, or female separatism) garners us rape and death threats and worse.  some of us do it anyway, because the problem of male violence against women is so ghastly and so penetrating and so real that it makes very little difference whether the threats against us are made more-overt.  they are overt already.

and i am about as disinterested in harm-reduction strategies as anyone could possibly reasonably be: which means that i am very interested in them, and i do think about them, but i dont like to waste my time writing or talking about them.  other people can and do perform that function better than i ever could, and i am happy to let them — i invest my time and talent elsewhere, because thats what *i* do best.  mkay?  but look.  even *i* cannot stand by whilst people make the same idiotic remarks on this issue, making false equivalences, stinking the place up with equality-rhetoric and worse.  this is maddening.  maddening!  so allow me to try to help, if i may.

the problem, i think, is that in mainstream and even “feminist” discussions of male violence, there are several issues being discussed as if they are one issue, or different issues being discussed as if they are the same.  when they arent the same at all.  firstly, male violence against women is a different animal than male violence against other men.  mkay?  because women do not equal men and men do not equal women.  women are the oppressed class, men are the oppressors.  women are impregnated while men impregnate.  get it?  different, not the same.  we have to assume meaningful sex-based difference, i think, and work from there, lest we fall into obfuscating and male-centric equality-rhetoric accidentally.  if there are no meaningful sex-based differences implicated, thats one thing, but there frequently are.

secondly, from womens perspective, male violence against other men is bad too, but our reasons for thinking so are not mens reasons, or they cannot be assumed to be the same or even similar.  okay?  because women are not men and men arent women.  clearly, if the issue of male violence against either women or men was the same issue for us as it is for them, women and feminists would probably care about it as much as men seem to care about solving the problem of male violence, including the problem of male violence against other men, which is to say we wouldnt care about it much at all.  except to use it to derail, obfuscate and negate womens calls to reduce or eliminate male violence against women perhaps, like old tremblay did there with his “what about the pens?”  its pretty useful for that.

to wit, i think we need to realize and accept that everything man-made that currently exists, exists because it has been found by men to survive a cost-benefit analysis.  male violence against other men survives a cost-benefit analysis, and male violence against women survives a cost benefit analysis.  to men.  if it didnt, they would stop doing it.  can we agree on that much at least?  if not, please detail any reasonable disagreements below.  i dont think there are any.

and when analyzing both sides of the equation of male violence against both women and men — the cost-side and the benefits-side — things like hierarchies, and power, and misogyny, and sadism, or the political usefulness of paralyzing fear might be too abstract to plug into a mathematical equation.  for the purposes of understanding the cost-benefit analysis men are obviously applying toward male violence, i keep coming back to the issue of “gynergy” which isnt abstract at all — where women consistently put their time, resources and literally our life-energies into the survival and growth of ourselves and our children, this can be measured.  when men kill *anyone* they are killing womens gynergy, and each child and indeed every adult is the embodiment of a real womans gynergy: a 6 year old child represents 6 years (and 9 months) of its mothers time, resources and her very self.   a 50-year old, for that matter, represents 18 years (ok who are we kidding — the full 50…plus 9 months) of its mothers — and other womens! — gynergy.  when a man kills someone, to the killer and to all men, the victim may be no more valuable within mens value system than any other 200- (or 50-) pound meatbag, (whats even the most expensive meat worth? not much) but that is not the value of a human life to women, as a sexual class, around the world, now is it?

and thats just the beginning of the discussion, i think.  and the conclusions we will be forced to draw, when we analyze mens value system and compare it to ours, including the reasons for obvious difference will likely be devastating.  but we have to do it dont we?  at the very least we should probably shut the hell up if we cant make a decent observation about male violence so we dont confuse everyone.  but that is kind of the point of doing it, when you are a man.  right, tremblay?

male violence against women, and male violence against men, consistently survives a cost-benefit analysis to men and male supremacy — if it didnt, men would stop doing it.  its time we look at the equation they are using, to figure out how they keep getting the result they are getting.  and why we get a different result when we do the math.  and if it seems cold and calculated to think of it in these terms, blame men mkay?  if they werent all the time killing people, and obviously finding a net-gain to themselves in doing so, we wouldnt have to examine why that is, and whats in it for them, or to examine anyones values or the nature of our investments so closely.  but they are, so we do.  that is all.

A Red Umbrella for Visual Impact September 10, 2012

Posted by FCM in gender roles, logic, pop culture, porn, radical concepts, rape.
Tags: ,
comments closed

i previously wrote about the intent and effect of “the obliterating false equivalence” here, where false equivalences are used as a linguistic and literary weapon against women to erase proof of mens misogyny and criminality as well as our response and resistance to them.  this is a fairly complicated use of the device, which renders it unobvious — for example, when women respond to misogyny and personal misogynist attacks with righteous anger, deserved ad hominems, or completely accurate class-based observations or policies regarding violent and predatory males, our response is said to be as bad the same as whatever the men did to deserve the response.  thus, radical feminism is framed as a “hateful ideology” rather than a personal or political response to mens hateful ideology of misogyny.

in online spaces, a feminist response to misogyny may be violative of the terms of service so that both the woman and the man/men she was responding to are punished “equally” by suspension or termination from the online space.  the effect is that the rape- and death-threats (and more!) are deleted, so the proof of what men are doing and saying is erased from history.  and the feminist voices and resistance are erased — feminist material and context which often contains theory, quotes, citations, and new ideas, or fresh expressions of old ideas that name the agent and resonate with women and (therefore) have the potential to create feminist change.  its as if none of it ever happened, which benefits men both coming and going.

interestingly, the false equivalence has many anti-feminist uses, and we see it again and again in “equality” discourse, where men are said to be the same as women and women the same as men.  this is a very basic use of the false equivalence…interestingly, it is again rendered unobvious.  here is a perfect expression of this, seriously, i couldnt have come up with a better example if i knitted it myself:

[I do not] believe that testosterone at normal male levels must needs result in brutes who rape, dominate and enslave women and children — no more than I believe that hormones at normal female levels results in women as a class being “naturally” passive, submissive little crumpets of femininity who like to be hemmed in, controlled and dictated to from cradle to grave by their fathers, husbands and adult sons.

in other words: i dont believe that females are naturally victims; therefore i also cannot believe that males are naturally victimizers.  as comforting as warm oatmeal to “feminist” women who love men, unfortunately, this position fails to stand up to even basic scrutiny.  to wit, i believe this proof would be expressed like this:

A = B; B = C; therefore A = C.

where A = “men” and B = “women” and C = “doesnt exist in their natural state”.

if men and women are the same, and women do not currently exist in our natural state, then men do not currently exist in their natural state either.  the problem is that A = B (men = women) is, in fact, demonstrably false.  radical feminists, at least, normally do not have trouble making this distinction.

the rest of it — B = C, or women do not exist in their natural state — is probably true.  exploring how and why women are so damagingly twisted and removed from our natural state by patriarchy, along with a pinch of background about design and function generally, also tends to reveal an uncomfortable truth — that men very likely do, in fact, live in their natural state, under patriarchy.  and that patriarchy was and is specifically designed to make men both comfortable and likely to succeed as they really are, which is — as demonstrated every second of every day, in every city and town in the world, by the men themselves — violent, destructive, and dominant.

i mean really.  in general, given the choice and power to do it, who the hell would design and maintain something that wasnt functional to themselves?  observe:

the umbrella.

who would imagine, design, build, and implement this and think it was a good idea for keeping the rain off?  no one, thats who.   because this object is not functional for that purpose.  it doesnt do what we want it to do.  thats why umbrellas actually look like this:

this design is functional, and it does what its supposed to.  that is, there was a problem or need identified (im getting wet); criteria developed (i have to be able to manage the water), and a solution was created (a handheld device that deflects rain).  voila!  a functional design.

or, consider the wheel:

same idea.  the square wheel is a bad design.  it will not function the way anyone probably wants it to function, so in reality, wheels are round.  it just works better.   interestingly, the square wheel can be made to work if the ground is changed in a specific way, and this solution has been calculated, designed, built and shown to be functional, although highly context-specific:

of course, if a round wheel was big enough, i think that would work perfectly well on this kind of surface too wouldnt it?  but anyway, it works.  men have made it work.  because they can.  even to the point of changing the ground — they can twist, bend and shape anything to meet their own needs.  they have the time, energy, resources and motivation to do this.

it cannot be a controversial point to say that men generally imagine, design, build and implement objects and systems to be functional, to serve themselves.  we all do this, to whatever extent we can.  its not a stretch to imagine that men have twisted, bent and shaped women to meet their needs, and that this is what “femininity” is — like pornography, womens “role” has nothing to do with women being women, and everything to do with men being men.

and women propose and build solutions for ourselves to the best of our abilities too, but therein lies the rub: under patriarchy, women do not have the power or resources to imagine, design, build and implement real solutions to our problems.  frequently our harm reduction strategies twist and harm us more or differently than the original threat — like being clever (or grossly “feminine”) to avoid negative outcomes, including male violence.  but you know who does have the power and resources to make real solutions for themselves that really work and solve problems at a fundamental level?  males, as a sexual class, around the world.

so being that this is the case, why the hell would anyone assume that patriarchy isnt the perfect solution for men?  they were and are the designers, afterall — they have the power and resources to do whatever they want, and this is what they have chosen.  its pretty likely, isnt it, that men have created the system we currently live in — patriarchy — and everything it entails, including all the interacting, overlapping systems that tolerate and perpetuate male violence for the same reasons that pants have 2 legholes instead of 4, and gloves have 5 finger-holes and arent generally made with inflexible materials, or with bees.  because it works for them.  because it fits.  them.  them, not us.

clearly, in reality, whether women under patriarchy exist in our natural state actually has nothing whatsoever to do with whether men are naturally violent, destructive and dominant.  nothing at all.

of course, i have not proven that men *are* naturally anything, ive just presented evidence.  so in that spirit, does anyone have an actual reason to believe that in the case of patriarchy, it is more likely than not that men imagined, designed, built and implemented a system that went against their natures, made them less comfortable, seriously damaged them, or did not serve their needs?  like an actual evidence-based reason?  if so, please note that in the comments.  and while youre at it, kindly note at least three other examples of any designer/builder with the power and resources to do whatever he wanted, actually undermining his own interests or going against his own nature in other contexts.  and please provide explanations as to why.  as always, the comments will remain open for three days.  thank you.

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?