A Continuum of Woman-Hatred. Or, What “Flavor” Is Your Misogyny? December 24, 2010Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, international, PIV, porn, rape.
Tags: heterosexuality, misogyny, PIV
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.
New “Old Navy” Commercials Offend…Just About Everyone October 5, 2009Posted by FCM in entertainment, pop culture, porn, race.
Tags: commercials, misogyny, nudity, old navy, race, supermodelquins
this is the “true hollywood” -style background story to the newest old navy ad campaign known as “the supermodelquins.”
the most recent installment in this campaign playing in my neck of the woods features a “model” hawking sweater-coats who gets separated from her legs at the airport. HER LEGS. WTF? seriously, watch the whole series if you have the time. these commercials offend nearly every vulnerable population there is. starving actors, the unemployed, women, POC, and the disabled are the ones i noticed first, although perhaps not in that order. more videos are embedded below.
- the human element…where did the real people go?
first, as the economy continues to suffer and more and more jobs are lost, it bothers me that yet another franchise has taken to using non-actors to fill roles in their money-making schemes, also known as television shows, and commercials. while this may be at the very bottom of anyones particular list, the failing economy has rocked my own corner of the universe. for reals. and while i am not an actor, i can certainly empathize with professional actors that have been hip-chucked out of their industry and left unable to earn a wage, and had their medical benefits lapse, due to long-term unemployment. (the screen actors guild (SAG) has been quantifying the harm that reality-television has caused working actors since at least 2005.)
this newest old navy campaign has made living, breathing human beings obsolete, (at least in front of the camera) and i think most everyone would agree that particularly in these times, that decision was unethical. not to mention hypocritical, where old navy is relying on the disposable incomes of its customers to make its own living, but they arent giving anything back. in fact, where reality franchises have replaced union workers with non-union ones, saving themselves the money and hassle (also known as ethics and regulatory oversight) of having to deal with SAG, old navy’s decision to forgo the human element altogether seems particularly self-serving, and cruel.
Fauxgressive Liberal Dickwads Strike Again, Satirizing Rape, Murder and Lynching of Women and Girls to Advance Their (Progressive?) Agenda September 3, 2009Posted by FCM in entertainment, liberal dickwads, politics, race, rape.
Tags: bloggers, dickwads, glen beck, liberal, lynching, michelle obama, misogyny, murder, newsvine, progressive, racism
i encourage my readers to submit examples of self-identified liberal progressives acting like racist, misogynist assholes. heres a recent example i found, all on my own. it wasnt hard to do.
liberal male bloggers recently started an internet smear campaign against fox news host glen beck. which fundamentally i do not have a problem with at all. fox news is certainly not advancing a feminist agenda, and they are no friend of mine. what i do have a big fucking problem with, however, is the decidedly misogynist nature of said “liberal” campaign. specifically, those crafty, creative little liberal turds have decided that laughing at the rape and murder of little girls is an acceptable political tool, and that evoking misogynist hate (their own) is the perfect way to make their (progressive?) point. the point being, apparently, that they are socially-conscious, and have the moral high ground on issues of race and sex.
“If You Can’t Afford Your Children, You Shouldn’t Have Them?” Racism, Sexism and Eugenics Inform Both Sides of the Abortion Debate August 26, 2009Posted by FCM in health, kids, liberal dickwads, politics, race.
Tags: abortion, eugenics, misogyny, progressive, racism
Gotta Do More Than Drive Your GF’s to the Clinic, Guys.
the author of the book “Liberal Fascism,” an unabashedly conservative tome, (NY Times review here) describes a pattern and a history of liberal progressives in this country seeing abortion and birth control as a “solution” to the social problems of disease, poverty, and even “idiocy.” despite the odiousness of the author’s apparent denial of his own party’s racist and sexist history, even the most ardent liberal must concede that at one point in american history, there were eugenicists who self-identified as progressives. but do the eugenicists’ arguments continue on in modern progressive discourse, today?
in a word: yes. yes they do.