jump to navigation

Moron Reality November 20, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, feminisms, health, kids, liberal dickwads, PIV, pop culture, porn, prostitution, race, radical concepts, rape.
Tags: , , , , ,
comments closed

in “womens lives, mens laws” catharine mackinnon talks about “reality” several times, and in several different ways.  i think this is what it all boils down to actually: realizing that theres the “reality” we all live in and with every day, which frames and creates our experience in a male-centered way (for example, that PIV is sexual, and that vaginas are just fuckholes for men) and then, theres what actually happens

the first one is the only thing that most people care about.  realizing that theres a second track playing all the time is key, but its also a realization that “reality isnt real” which causes individuals problems.  particularly when those individuals are women, and everyone who actually matters already thinks women are crazy, and suffer us primarily as masturbatory aids.  perhaps i digress.  but even the linguistic fallacy of what appears, in this case, to be a demonstrably true statement (“reality isnt real”) illustrates the problem of existing within a male-centered universe, when what actually happens, exists outside what is real.  basically its a huge mindfuck.  but luckily we have a few tourguides to help us along the way!

in mackinnons essay “law’s stories as reality and politics,” she talks about “male-centered reality” versus the “second track” as story 1 and story 2.  one is what actually happens; the other is what “power” wants to hear, so its given its rightful place AS reality:

this pretty much sums up pomo feminism and their relationship to “lived experience” actually: for example, women who have “negative experiences” with heterosex and PIV have “issues” and “baggage” while any who report having positive experiences are celebrated.  see?  “normative” experience is not the one that is the most often experienced, by the most people.  its just the one that “power” wants to hear.  and “power” never lets actual facts get in the way of the reality it creates…especially in the case of numbers, where “power” literally cannot or will not put 2 and 2 together:

judging by the numbers here, sexual harassment in the federal workplace actually happens more often than it doesnt.  and sexual abuse of girl children happens, literally, all the time.  but we still live in a world where victims are not to be believed.  and where the workplace is “business” and not “personal” and where women who chronically job-hop and lose seniority every time just arent committed, and dont end up in positions of power and authority because they dont want to.  oh, okay!

relatedly, in another essay entitled “mediating reality”, mackinnon also talks about the medias portrayal of violence, including sexual violence, and the effect it has of making things that actually happened seem “unreal.”  she notes that the school shootings at columbine, for example, left people who actually experienced it up-close and dirty, saying that they “couldnt believe it” and that it “didnt seem real.”  same with 9/11.  people who saw the footage on television said the same thing.  but obviously, both things actually happened.  how is this possible?

from the article, regarding “the schoolhouse massacres in

so we are exposed to these flashing images onscreen, but are unable to make rational connections between these images-of life, and real-life.  and in porn, mackinnon makes it completely clear that we are intended to believe that things that NEVER ACTUALLY FUCKING HAPPENED, did in fact happen.  that the “sex was real.”  but the abuse was not.  but its not just television, and this is kind of the big reveal: there is actually evidence that even before television existed, people dis-associated the same way.  it actually happened, but it was “like a bad dream”.  some of this, when experienced firsthand, could be traumatic dissociation, sure.  but what about the rest of it?

its as if we are reading from a fucking script, and no amount of actual facts is going to get in the way of the prefab-reality we THINK we are experiencing.  but whose reality is it?

well…i hope this isnt too cryptic, but for me, it kind of says it all.  i am still trying to finish “the spinster and her enemies” and it seems as if jeffreys left the best for last.  i nearly came out of my skin when i read the chapter on “the invention of the frigid woman”.  apparently, in the early 1920s, upperclass married white women suddenly became afflicted with not liking PIV enough.  “frigidity” of course is 100% an invention of male sexologists, as jeffreys documents in excruciating detail, and was created, in part, from white mens travels abroad, having PIV with native women who “screamed with joy” when the foreign white men touched them, and stuck their dicks into them.

they were screaming.

Sorry, Sex-Positive Transwomen: I’m Not Buying What You’re Selling. At All. November 9, 2009

Posted by FCM in authors picks, feminisms, gender roles, health, PIV, pop culture, prostitution, self-identified feminist men, sorry!, thats mean, trans, WTF?.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

sex-pos transwomen–if i were born male, like you were, i might be “sex-positive,” too.  you know:  exhibitionist, pro-porn, and squeeee!-fully sexually available to men.  if only….

i had been lavished with male privilege since the day i was born, and taught that the only thing that mattered was my wants, my feelings, that i was entitled to turn my desires into reality, no matter how trite, fleeting, or bizarre.  if i grew up with an entirely misogynist view of women, instead of one interspersed with actual, lived, female experience.  like you, believing that girls and women were emotional manipulators, that just have to cry big, black tears to get “their way“–and merely the sum of their fleshly and artificial parts–as observable by men.  the clothes, the eyelashes, and always, always how fuckable they are.  if i had no cramps, and no fear of pregnancy.  you know, all the things you obviously think constitutes “woman” as well as the things that you dont think about, at all, which make your interpretation of “female” so deeply problematic.  if i had been taught to stick my dick into anything that moved from day one, and to enjoy it.

if i had to have regular intercourse with men, on advice from my sex-reassignment surgeon, literally on pain of death: lest i lose my “use-it-or-lose-it” neo-vagina or experience life-threatening complications from (gasp) not being fuckable enough!  (oh, thats rich.  and how “pleasing” to men generally must one be, to ensure oneself of regular access to their sex?)

in other words, if i had grown up a man, like you, i might be as inclined as you are, to tell women that they should be having sex with men.  if i literally had to have regular intercourse with men or DIE, that would color my perspective, as well.  but guess what?  i wasnt, and i dont.