jump to navigation

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?

Mansplaining Porn, and What “Reality” Looks Like From Doodbro Land October 21, 2010

Posted by FCM in health, PIV, pop culture, porn, rape.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

i have linked to this before, as the most egregious example of mansplaining i have heard to date: a male “sex therapist and relationship counselor” (yes thats a full three red-flags) mansplaining to women who are offended that their husbands use porn, why they *shouldnt* feel that way, even though they do.  apparently, if we could just see it through a mans eyes, it wouldnt seem so problematic!  oh, and “porn” is the same thing as “masturbation” and masturbation is healthy, therefore so is porn.  you know, according to the title.  yes, even the lowly copy editors are in on it, and completely invested in seeing porn as unproblematic:

For many guys porn is basically a 30-second spa day, complete with happy ending: It feels good, relieves stress and functions as a quick little treat — kind of like scarfing down a bag of Gummi Bears in the middle of the day. It doesn’t mean we’re not interested in having “a real meal” with the woman we love, but sometimes we’re in the mood for a snack.

thanks for mansplaining that, doctor!  much like listening to fun-fems and transactivists speaking, i sometimes actually enjoy listening to mansplanations on various topics, because we are getting it from the horses mouth: what its like to “be a man” and what reality looks like, from where they are standing.  you know, assuming they arent lying about all of it of course, and making shit up to deliberately obfuscate certain truths.  but given the utter earnestness of most doodsplainers, who seem to actually believe the shit thats coming out of their own mouths, lets just pretend for a moment that they are accurately describing “reality” as they know it, and as they see it.  (thats extremely generous obviously, but the earnestness just gets me.  what about teh menz!!!11!!1)

and mens “reality” looks a hell of a lot different than womens, as the porn-problem illustrates.  apparently, in doodbroland, porn is exactly the same as gummy bears, and is completely unproblematic!  you know, if you are a man.  completely ignoring the problematic image of “consumption” this mansplanation evokes, cause thats just too easy…porn is unproblematic for men, because men cant get pregnant.  men think that women and vaginas are just fuckholes, for men. men think that the only problem with rape, is that men sometimes go to jail, for rape.  so they are completely invested in redefining “sex” to include rape-behaviors and acts of rape, and redefining “female pleasure” to include every sensation and emotion a woman might have, while she is being raped.  this is the male agenda, and its male reality.  and porn is completely consistent with that agenda, and with that reality.

but women know better.  we *can* get pregnant.  we *know* that women and our vaginas are not just fuckholes, for men.  we know that rape and PIV arent that different, and that rape is problematic in MANY ways, and PIV is too.  and that visceral “NO” that so many women experience in their bodies and minds when they see porn, and know that their partners are using porn is a response by women, responding as women, from a reality that is completely different than the one men inhabit.  the “NO” is also the recognition, by women, that the men we are financially and emotionally dependant on, and legally bound to oftentimes, see women as fuckholes for men.  that they see women as a sexual class as not-human, at all.  that we have bought into the biggest lie of all, and recognizing it, for what it is: that we are up to our eyeballs in dangerous male sexuality, and dependant on men to recognize us as human beings, when they cant, and they wont. NO.  NO.  NO.  but its true.

from doodbroland, women also appear to enjoy children, and being mothers.  because, you know, women are constantly being knocked up, by men, and bearing children.  but guess what dickwads?  this isnt even close to being true.  men demand PIV-centric sexuality from women, and PIV makes babies.  DUH.  because vaginas are organs, that do stuff.  and NOT just fuckholes, for men.  in reality, many, many, MANY women never wanted children, but ended up with them anyway.  many, many, MANY women are contemplating the proactive choice *not* to procreate, at all, ever, and almost all women, for much of their lives, across time and place are trying to mitigate the effects of dangerous male sexuality (ie. pregnancy) by being on the pill and using other dangerous and painful devices to specifically avoid it. 

and others are having serious thoughts and discussions about what it means to make more male-children, and to be slaves to the whims of male-bodied persons, by having male children.  even to the point of choosing (GASP) sex-selective abortion.  (yes, they are).  and none of this can be reconciled with the belief that “women enjoy children, and being mothers.”  none of it.

but doodbroland is a fucking scary, scary place, and its a terrifying tragedy, no travesty, that this is the only reality that matters.  but it is the only reality that matters.  from this reality, women look like are inhuman fuckdolls.  and women who dont agree with mens assessment of us are seen as having a “break from reality.”  in the literal sense.  as in, we are, literally, insane, when we remove ourselves from this male-created reality for any length of time, before being summarily squashed back into it.  we have men lining up to tell us that *our* assessment of *their* assessment of reality, is wrong.  but we arent wrong.

and now, some graphics!  if men are completely used to seeing women like this, or think that women actually look like this, or that women enjoy looking like this:

when they see women looking like this, or, you know, complaining about domestic violence, it doesnt seem that bad.  to them.  who cares? 

(or is it the other way around?  many, many men are perfectly used to seeing their wives and gfs with black eyes, so the “smoky eye” just seems normal, and sexy?  who knows.  probably both.)

and where even medical students (aka. eventual doctors) think that female genitals look like this (gaping twats waiting to be filled with something, or “holes” if you will):

this seems perfectly reasonable too (especially since so many men use porn, AND they dont seem to know where babies come from, at all):

the neovagina

i really, really think that women, all women, have the power to pull ourselves out of the muck, as it were, and see things for what they really are.  to literally, LITERALLY see two worlds at once, and to recognize that mens reality, isnt real, at all.  when we do this, it feels like…well, again, it feels like “NO.”  it feels like a huge sense of “NO” that overwhelms, and crushes, and smacks us in the face.  and again, when this happens, every time it happens, we are having “breaks from reality.”  which is also (of course) a euphemism for mental illness, and our recognition that mens reality isnt real, is treated as such.  we are treated as if we are mentally ill, for seeing it, for what it is.

and indeed, recognizing two worlds at once seems witchy and “mystical” in some ways, and maybe it is.  the language around it, and the image it conjures certainly is.  but if women are seen as intuitive, or psychic, or as magical or as witches or whatever (or as mentally ill) for being able to literally, LITERALLY remove ourselves from our bodies at times, and see ourselves interacting with other bodies, as they really are…well thats straight-up “objectivity,” is what it is.  thats the very definition of objectivity in fact.  and if men think that “objectivity” is mystical, its only because they have no frame of reference, and no explanation for it, at all.  because they arent objective, at all.  no matter how badly they want to believe otherwise about themselves, men are simply not rational, at all.

you know, giving them the entire benefit of the doubt, that they arent just fucking LYING.  about everything.  either way…they are just downright dangerous.

On Credibility August 27, 2010

Posted by FCM in feminisms, liberal dickwads, meta, MRAs, PIV, politics, pop culture, porn, rape, self-identified feminist men, thats mean, WTF?.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

in the real world, meaning in the world occupied by men, where womens issues are a nonissue really, and we are only talking about trite, privileged bullshit that doesnt matter anyway…credibility matters.  journalists have to disclose any possible conflicts of interest when they are reporting on a story, so that any possible bias on their part is vetted.  and if the politician they are covering turns out to be their third cousin or something, the story might be given to someone else entirely.  you know, to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  to avoid the stench of fish.  or to, most importantly, maintain the value of some rich white mans stock in publicly traded media outlets

in court, judges arent allowed to rule on cases in which it could even appear as if there were something fishy going on.  if the judge is scheduled to hear the testimony of a doctor that once treated him, he must, absolutely must recuse himself, lest the outcome of the case be tainted by judgement that was impaired.  in this context, the rule against the appearance of impropriety

must cover not just the clear and obvious improprieties but indirect, disguised, or careless conduct that looks like an impropriety to an observer who is neither overly suspicious nor unusually gullible…[in other words] conduct that “would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.”

not that these rules are not sometimes broken; all rules are sometimes broken, which is why we have the need for punishment, and sequestering offenders from the public, lest the damage be repeated.  but my point is that there are rules, governing the issue of credibility, and bias, in some situations.  but apparently, there are no such rules within third-wave feminist circles.

behold the third-wave feminist man.  when mens access to womens and feminist spaces is challenged, self-identified feminist men respond with rage.  absolute rage, and unabashed mansplanations that should make any reasonably feminist or feminist-identified human blush (or change the channel).  but they never do.  and importantly, the credibility of the speaker isnt seen as an issue, at all.  for example, when i commented on feministe regarding the problem of allowing men access to on-campus feminist groups: 

sorry, but you are going to have this problem constantly, and consistently be wasting your time with aggressive, entitled men and mansplanations, as long as you let men into womens and feminist spaces. full stop. there is no remedy for this problem, except to not allow them access. and unfortunately, theres really no way to limit membership and privatize groups when you are in a public school setting, even when its to deny men access to womens spaces DUE TO WOMEN NEEDING PRIVATE WOMEN-ONLY SPACE, DUE TO AGGRESSIVE, ENTITLED MEN. 

the completely unoriginal, trite and banal response from one male reader, who felt the need to write an entire post of his own refuting my suggestion mansplaining why i was wrong, was this: 

I sympathize. But as a man who is committed to doing feminist work, I respectfully reject the commenter’s suggestion. 

well isnt that just the shock of a lifetime, from which none of us might recover. 

the fact of the matter is, and its the entire fucking point of radical feminist theory in fact, is that men have everything to gain from maintaining the status quo when it comes to the systematic oppression of women by men.  they have PIV to gain.  they have free domestic labor to gain.  they have less competition, more freedom, and nothing but eye candy and women trying to sex themselves up for the male gaze, as far as the eye can see.  and its all so sexxxay, man!  it really is.  you know, if you are a man. 

so regarding mens credibility to comment on feminist issues, to criticise feminist work, and to access womens and feminist spaces, men (including transwomen) have none. nil.  nada.  the question we must therefore ask ourselves, since they are never just going to shut the fuck up, is “is any of what this assclown doodbro is saying actually TRUE?”  and sometimes it may be.  the video above addressing prostitution and the logical fallacies men tell themselves and each other about prostitution and prostituted women might have some truth to it.  patrick stewart might have something valuable to say about domestic violence against women.  but they have NO CREDIBILITY ON THESE ISSUES, AT ALL. 

so for our part as thinking humans and feminists, we have to analyze every word of every goddamned thing that self-identified feminist men, and indeed all men say, on all topics, in every situation.  its like picking through dog shit for the keys to your vespa…when you really really suspect you actually left them at the grocery store, and they probably arent even in this pile of stinking feces you are picking through, at all. 

the other option of course would be to JUST NOT.  and if we chose that route, there would be nothing anyone could say about it to legitimately criticize our response to JUST.  NOT.  BOTHER.

Oh, Great! It’s Mansplaining Dot Com! February 19, 2010

Posted by FCM in entertainment, MRAs, pop culture, porn, WTF?.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

let me mansplain something to you

i nearly choked on my own spit when i realized that there is something out there, in the same universe inhabited by me, called “guyspeak.com.” mansplaining has been getting its share of attention on the feminist internets lately, so this struck me as funny. much like the MRAs “pwning” domestic violence, these assholes clearly dont get the irony: women dont have to fucking pay for a mansplanation, or even ask for one. thats the whole point.

if i may digress for a moment, this is what i get for attempting to watch something on the WE channel: the realization that mansplaining dot com exists (via a commercial) followed immediately by the realizations that whomever came up with the idea is going to get rich, and that people are actually going to use this service and find it not only fun, but “helpful” too.

and while i am digressing, i may as well explain that mainsplaining dot com was advertising during an episode of a series called “48 hours on WE” which if you havent seen it, is really just an old episode of the reality crime series “48 hours” but where a woman committed the murder in question, instead of a man. WE channel apparently bought the rights too all *those* episodes and shows them nightly, around 10 p.m. (after the kids are asleep!) you know, to address womens issues, and stuff, and things. thanks, WE channel!

so here we have it: doodbros dot com, or whatever, an entire web-based service dedicated to men, mansplaining stuff to women, women who actually have to take time out of their day to register to use the service. WTF? what ever happened to a good old fashioned anonymous contact form? i mean really. heres their tagline, which actually made me laugh: ask real men questions about anything, and get real answers. oh, goody! just in case anyone cant wait to be mansplained to within an inch of their lives, heres their manplaining lineup:

Teh "Chic Geek"

Mansplainer #1: The Chic Geek is equally comfortable amongst the hipsters at a Grizzly Bear concert or at home playing Wii Bowling with his friends, or if lucky enough, his girlfriend, on a Saturday night. (sorry, ladies, this ones apparently “taken.”)

Teh "Girls' BFF"

Mansplainer #2: The Girls’ BFF is your BS filter. He’s like a sweet and sour gummy bear. He’ll tell you if “he’s just not that into you” whether you want to hear it or not. But he’ll also give you a hug and tell you that you don’t need that guy anyway. (yes, do top off your ‘splaining with some uninvited physical contact. good idea.)

Teh "Funny Guy"

Mainsplainer #3: The Funny Guy firmly believes that the key to a woman’s heart isn’t wealth, good looks, or regular bathing, but rather a great sense of humor (and lasers; chicks love lasers). (i didnt add that thing about the lasers. its in the original. yes, really. guess he hasnt heard that we also like shiny things, and crave PIV-sex in life-threatening situations. his loss.)

Teh "Mystery Man"

Mansplainer #4 (and my personal favorite): Mystery Man will tell you the truth, as he sees it, without the hug. (oh great. an unapologetic mansplainer. these morons clearly dont know the first thing about mansplaining. if they did, they would know that men are ALL unapologetic about their mansplaining. duh.)

Teh "Wise Ass"

Mansplainer #5: The Wise Ass. When the chips are down and you need advice, why bother asking an honest, objective stranger when you’ve got plenty of family and friends to coddle you and tell you exactly what you want to hear? (yes, because if it hurts, that must mean its TRUE. right?)

Teh "Reformed Player"

Mansplainer #6: The Reformed Player knows the dark secrets that lurk in the hearts of men, mainly because they’re his secrets too. And he’s willing to reveal all the dirty truths — if it means womankind will forgive him a little for all those times he never called. (trust me asswipe. those girls have enough problems without you bothering them. so dont.)

i am working on getting a question together. one that will absolutely require the end-all-be-all of mansplanations. i doubt any of these clowns are up to the challenge, but i might submit it to the mansplainers, and see if i get a response. of course, the real test will be whether i get an answer, without ever having to ask the question.

on that note, i wanted to share the absolute most eggregious example of mansplaining i have come across to date: a “relationship expert” on MSN who mansplains to women that their husbands watching porn is unproblematic (regardless of how the women feel of course) becauase porn is really “just like getting a pedicure, but for guys!!!11!!1”:

For many guys porn is basically a 30-second spa day, complete with happy ending: It feels good, relieves stress and functions as a quick little treat — kind of like scarfing down a bag of Gummi Bears in the middle of the day. It doesn’t mean we’re not interested in having “a real meal” with the woman we love, but sometimes we’re in the mood for a snack.

thanks for mansplaining that, doctor. now, would you like to mansplain to me how porn is*not* the commodification of rape, and does *not* destroy real womens lives? or, would you care to mansplain how getting a pedicure is completely unproblematic too, when one considers the usually poor, brown woman performing this service, who sits on a stool bathing rich, white womens feet, for money? can you mansplain for those of us who are still reading, doctor: whats it like to have lost your humanity?

so, does anyone have anything they want to have mansplained to them? be honest ladies. if you are just sick and fucking tired of the doodbros and their ‘splanations, i feel you. i am sick and fucking tired of it too.