Witch Village June 24, 2011Posted by FCM in gender roles, logic, PIV, pop culture.
Tags: casey anthony, caylee anthony, monty python, motherhood, murder trial
the casey anthony trial illustrates perfectly (as it must, mustnt it?) the ways patriarchal institutions are designed to destroy women, and to elevate men at womens expense. loretta did an excellent takedown of this media spectacle at the HUB and added some context to what we are all witnessing: motherhood itself is on trial. femininity is on trial. which is terribly perverted, isnt it, considering that the “laws” regarding what is required of women and mothers are mostly unwritten. they are also contradictory and therefore literally impossible to fulfill: as loretta mentions for example, our emotion and our lack of emotion are both evidence of our guilt in mens courts of law.
this may be particularly true where a mother is accused of child-murder. in the case of casey anthony, she is really in between a rock and a hard place: mothers are
known imagined, by men, to be fiercely protective of their children…and yet are expected to allow men to intervene in their own lives, and in their childs lives, in various contexts. to be and to do both things, two contradictory things, at the same time. gotcha! and here, caseys story appears to be that her child accidentally drowned and she didnt call the cops, paramedics or the coroner to take the body, but kept it for a period of time and then disposed of it herself. well im sorry, but if a mother is fiercely protective and would protect her child from predatory men in life, why wouldnt she do the same thing in the event of the childs death? and if casey was an incest survivor herself, and she knows how sick men are and what they do to female children, why would she trust male authorities with her childs body when the child was already dead and there was nothing to be gained from allowing predatory men access to her? this is a serious question. (if anyone thinks that men are above sexually defiling corpses, think again.)
with their contradictory and impossible standards of conduct for women, mens legal system as applied to women is literally (LITERALLY!) psychological torture, and a sick cat-and-mouse game where men seek to punish women no matter what. they further torture us by making it seem as if all of this is fair and that justice is blind: they make it seem as if we have a chance to successfully defend ourselves against their charges in their courts, but we dont do we? and we never will, so long as every single thing we do, or dont do, is evidence of our guilt.
and more than that, in the case of motherhood specifically, men deliberately put women in the position of being scrutinized, every inch of us inside and out, physical, emotional and spiritual, is scrutinized and picked apart and destroyed, by every patriarchal institution i can think of, when they impregnate us. the big 3 of the patriarchal institutions, medicine, law and religion all attach at the moment of conception. and there is absolutely no room for doubt that this is deliberate, on the part of men, and that impregnation specifically is a devastatingly effective tool to accomplish what they clearly want: to bring women under formal control, so that men can enslave, torture and kill us. is this too harsh an indictment? i wish it were.
i wont endlessly regurgitate the details of the anthony case because its kind of irrelevant isnt it? i mean really. the very obvious ways that impregnation and PIV-centric sexuality serve to bring women under patriarchal control plays out in nearly every het relationship on the planet, and has for billions of women across time and place: forced to endure (or orgasm from, whatever) PIV and PIV-centric “sex” we are often left with pregnancies and children we never wanted. or we are left with ambivalent pregnancies, pregnancies and children we would have been perfectly happy without, but we were subjected to PIV and PIV-centric sex anyway, and our number came up. this is how our bodies work, and men know this, and they have designed their institutions to attach to our lives, to our bodies, in a way that mens institutions never attach to men, and in the only way that only they can control (impregnating women!)
and then they have the unmitigated gall to publicize an abstract-image (devoid of context) of “motherhood” as being not only unqualifiedly positive for women, but comprising our very nature, as if the entire institution of motherhood as we currently know it wasnt deliberately designed by them to destroy women, and benefit themselves.
what if this was all just a sick game? is it so beyond the realm of possibility that men would find all of this incredibly titillating, as they apply heat and pressure and make us squirm, knowing the whole time that we are going to lose and that they are going to win, always, no matter what? indeed, once we are willing to consider the possibility that men are sick bastards who enjoy torturing women, suddenly things start falling into place. many things start to make sense. PIV makes sense, insisting on it, demanding it, defining “sex” to require it, and forcefully taking it from us all makes sense. and having contradictory and unwritten requirements for female behavior, including when men accuse us of capital crimes where the end-result is state-sanctioned murder of women, by men…just makes sense.
another avenue of inquiry that would lead us straight to men via their sickening sadism would be “who benefits from all this?” how does this work, whats really happening, in which direction do the gains flow, and what do these gains look like? as we do in other contexts to figure out the source of a problem, to suss out corruption (and in some contexts, even to recapture ill-gotten gains — now thats compelling isnt it?)…just follow the money, honey! entire economies are built upon “free” (read: unpaid, from the womans perspective) domestic labor and sexual slavery of women. men profit from the prison system and from legal fees too. and the tangible benefits to men in terms of increased status (as opposed to womens, which men purposely lower, see how that works? its all relative afterall) and decreased competition from women in public places (because women cant be in the home and in public at the same time can they?) works to benefit men, at womens expense. all it takes is a little honesty to see men for what they really are, and to see how all of this works together in tandem, against women, to benefit men.
and i am extremely interested in this idea of divesting men of their ill-gotten gains. mens “legal” system and all mens systems have obvious parallels to organized crime. and researching this mayve just become my new hobby.
“Having Children” Is a Euphemism May 28, 2010Posted by FCM in gender roles, health, kids, PIV, pop culture, radical concepts, rape, WTF?.
Tags: marriage, motherhood, personal narrative, PIV, pregnancy
my mother never wanted children. she married young, was forced into it by her own mother to hear her tell it, and she was on the pill 5 years when she started having side effects from it. so she quit taking it. and my dad, the privileged, entitled fuck of a man he was (and still is) refused to wear a condom, and continued to fuck her anyway i mean they continued to have sex, regardless. and she ended up pregnant with me. (happy times! yay!)
i was 2 months old when she got knocked up again. she went in for a post-natal checkup, and got the good news. did i say good news? i meant soul-crushingly awful news, horrible news, wish you could travel back in time and do everything different news. my sister was on the way. (blessed be! oh beautiful motherhood!)
my brother was conceived under similar circumstances, but his conception wasnt really discussed, as it paled in comparison to the drama that was his birth: as soon as he came out, he turned blue. he was terminally ill, had a congenital heart defect which was supposed to have killed him within the first few weeks of his life. (oh the joy! i am welling up, seriously). but my mom was a nurse, or more specifically, a woman who wanted to be a doctor but never went any further because she got knocked up a bunch of times and got stuck with all the childcare and domestic duties and put my dad through medical school instead. but i digress. she literally saved my brothers life, many times, until the last time, when she didnt. he died when he was 21. my mom had been divorced from my dad for 10 years by then. he was rich. she was poor.
my mom tells me that people her age all talk about their kids. “how many kids do you have?” is a common icebreaker. she didnt mention whether this is prefaced by “do you have kids?” or not, but i think i know the answer to that. anyway, this kind of piqued my interest, since my brother was no longer around. i asked her whether she says she has 2 kids, or 3. she said she always responds “i have three.”
i love my mother, and i loved my brother. i love my sister, and i am sure they all love me. but “having children” is a sick and inadequate euphemism for what happened to my mother, for what my father did to her, in the context of her marriage, and in the grand scheme of her life. it renders so much of her suffering, and so much inequity in so many het relationships completely and utterly invisible. it all disappears, behind a romantic smokescreen we know as “marriage,” wrapped up in a fanciful and improbable lie regarding womens “true natures” as mothers and caregivers. so many women dont choose this, and would never choose this, to hear them tell it. but they live it, regardless.
“having children” is a euphemism for what men do to women, one of many, the almost inevitable result of mandatory PIV and compulsory heterosex. “sex” is a euphemism too. people dont tell the truth, do they, when they are talking about things that affect women, and the reality of womens lives?
It’s Pat!-Privilege December 13, 2009Posted by FCM in entertainment, feminisms, gender roles, health, PIV, pop culture, race, rape, self-identified feminist men, trans.
Tags: julia sweeney, motherhood, pat, saturday night live, the fistula foundation, trans
theres been a lot of talk lately both here and elsewhere about what i describe as gender-bending. the trans- are doing it. the queer-identified are doing it. the GLBs might be doing it, and the non-gender-conforming straights too.
but no matter how gender-bendy any of us first-world privileged people think we are being (i make more money than my spouse, and i am a hardass! give me a prize!) one fact remains, and i think feminists everywhere need to take a hard look at it. women in other parts of the world, in *most* parts of the world in fact, and in the rural and urban-poor first-world too, are being oppressed based on not their gender, but their born-sex. how can you tell? they have a gaggle of kids following behind them calling them mommy, thats how. either that, or they are being injured or killed in childbirth. because world-wide, womens female gender-role as heterosexual wives and mothers are as rigorously enforced upon them as is their born-sex. they dont have a choice. and to whatever extent *we* have a choice there, we are privileged.
you may or may not remember the character “pat” from saturday night live, but i am certain that i am dating myself by using the reference. heres what wiki has to say:
Pat (whose full name was revealed on an episode of “Saturday Night Live” as Pat O’Neil Riley) was a somewhat overweight character with short, curly black hair who wore glasses and a blue western-style shirt with tan slacks. The character spoke in a nasally voice that sometimes squeaked. Pat apparently suffered from very sweaty palms, and constantly wiped them on his/her clothing while making a strange whimpering sound, further adding to the character’s unappealing quality. Sweeney wore no makeup and colored her lips beige to further hide any sex identity clues.
The sketches always involved the celebrity guest hosts of the show playing everyday people who encounter Pat and then go to great lengths to discover Pat’s true gender without being so rude as to actually ask (since Pat can be short for either “Patrick”, a traditionally male name, or “Patricia”, a traditionally female name). Pat remained completely oblivious, endlessly frustrating the questioners with answers that leave the character’s sex vague. The character often made statements that seemed to reveal a sex, only to then immediately confuse things again. (A typical example might be, “Sorry if I’m a little grumpy, I have really bad cramps… I rode my bike over here, and my calf muscles are KILLING me!”) In another sketch, Pat tells Kevin Nealon that his/her name is Pat Riley, same as the coach of the Lakers, “except there’s a big difference between him and me. I’m not the coach of a professional basketball team.” Other gags included Pat’s attempts at humor, which served to confuse everyone further, such as when asked what Pat is short for, the character would reply, Pat is short for “P-a-a-a-a-a-t!”, or when asked in an application for sex, Pat responded “Please!”. Another joke was when Pat was asked the full name, to which the character responded that Pat almost never referred to the character’s self by the middle name, as it was embarrassing, to which an eager audience was filled in that it was “O’Neill”, again continuing the joke.
The character was popular enough to spawn a feature length 1994 film called It’s Pat (from the lyrics of the character’s theme song on Saturday Night Live). In the film, Pat meets Chris, another sexually ambiguous character played by Dave Foley. (On SNL, Chris had been played by Dana Carvey.) They quickly fall in love and propose to each other at the exact same time. Before the wedding, however, Chris breaks up with Pat on account of Pat’s arrogance and the fact that Pat cannot decide on a direction in life.