jump to navigation

Gawker Bad, Professor Orange Pop Good? October 19, 2012

Posted by FCM in kids, liberal dickwads, logic, MRAs, pop culture, porn.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

i wanted to talk a bit about the recent outing of an infamous reddit perv and the ensuing shitstorm implicating free speech, doxxxing and online anonymity.  if anyone has noticed the utter hypocrisy of those condemning the gawker journalist while supporting the infiltrations of radical feminist space by agent orange privileged white male basement dwelling using their work computer during work hours perving and harassing women online while their wives are at work MRAs, well, you arent alone.

in fact, its pretty difficult to miss this very obvious logic fail, and some are actually coming to the conclusion, albeit grudgingly, that within a “free speech” framework one cannot logically support infiltrating, harassing, surveilling, and dropping docs on radical feminists while simultaneously supporting online pervs “rights” to perv on women and children anonymously, with no real-life consequences.  if you support “free speech” in one instance, logically, you must support it in both instances.  (for this part, lets assume that all the children involved were legal adults and that the pervs didnt break any laws, even though that assumption is probably false.  for our purposes, assuming that the speech of each side is legally protected speech, it is logical to support them both in the same way within a free speech context.)

in reality, it is only when one doesnt frame the issue in terms of “free speech” that it becomes acceptable and logical to differentiate between radical feminists and predditors and to support fucking ones shit up while protecting the rights of the other to continue with their work.  so lets go there.  how are people framing it, if not in terms of free speech?

welp…those who support dropping docs on radical feminists while simultaneously supporting pervs rights to perv are probably framing the issue thusly: “i support victimizing and lying about girls and women.”  since pornographers, rapists, pimps, pervs and predditors are victimizing and lying about girls and women, and radfems arent, logically it is perfectly acceptable to condemn one (the feminists) while supporting the other (the pervs).  while obviously a decent-human-being FAIL, this one is at least logically a WIN.  its internally consistent.

at the same time, those who are framing the issue thusly: “i support telling the truth, including the truth about men and what they do to girls and women” are perfectly logically supporting radical feminists right to continue with our work unabated, while supporting penalties alternate outcomes for MRAs and other pervs and misogynists.  this is a logic WIN.

additional issues come to light, and need addressing, when (for example) people support predditors right to break the law, with or without also supporting radical feminist speech.  in other words, supporting a policy whereby pervs and misogynists get to say literally whatever they want about girls and women, even if its against the law because it incites imminent violence, its child pornography, its obscenity etc.  here, the issue is clearly being framed as such: “i support victimizing and harming girls and women across the board, even if it means breaking the law, period, full stop.”

here, the “free speech” framework is a complete obfuscation of the truth, and for that matter, so is attempting to justify that stance with the completely unrelated “but i support radfems free speech rights toooo!!”  not so fast.  in reality, in this instance, the issue is not free speech at all (because the pervs illegal speech is not protected, but the feminists legal speech actually is) and to say so is to equate apples and oranges.  rather, what we have here is a demonstrated policy of unconditional support of misogyny and victimization, including criminal victimization, of girls and women by men.  this framework — of unconditional support of the misogynist victimization of girls and women by men — should be recognized wherever anyone is supporting the pervs rights to perv, even when there are children involved, and even where the pervs actions implicate stalking, rape, or other illegal behavior.

and even when the ones supporting it are the so-called good guys who very democratically *also* support radfems rights to tell the truth without breaking any laws.  gee, thanks doods.  please do not fall for this one mkay.  in reality, these “good guys” are lying their fucking asses off.  in reality, these so-called “good guys” like kiddie porn, and they hate women.

and if all this sounds really boring, BTW, it is.  it really, really is.  thats because this is all male-centric issue framing, including breaking down whats “legally protected speech” and whats not.  because we all know that there are plenty of perfectly-legal ways to harm girls and women, and that the male-centric legal framework doesnt even come close to addressing or redressing these harms.  thats because its not intended to.

its also very boring to address whether its logical or illogical to condemn radical feminists for telling the truth about men, and what they do to us.  because men will do this anyway, even when they cannot rationally justify it.  (see above, hello!)  they simply do not care whether its rational or not, they will do it anyway because radical feminists pose a legitimate threat and therefore must be destroyed.  even at the cost of *gasp* their precious logic (and despite their alleged dislike for doc-dropping and ad hominems for that matter).

so before i bore you all to death, let me get to the point.  my point really is that if anyone wants to go there — and wax poetic about free-speech and stuff, and things  — i can go there too.  im smart like that too.

and more importantly, that “free speech” is not even close to being the real issue when talking about doxing, or making parallels between doxing radical feminists versus doxing pervs, predditors and (other) MRAs.  it is obvious that a goodly fraction of these men are lying — even the allegedly good, democratic-minded ones are fucking lying — about supporting or caring about free speech at all.  they dont.  most of them hate women, and like kiddie porn.  end of.  if they didnt, all of these debates — and indeed, the entire internet — would look very different than they do today.  that is all.

Moron Surveillance May 26, 2012

Posted by FCM in books!, liberal dickwads, MRAs, radical concepts, rape, self-identified feminist men, trans.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

reading (or re-reading) orwell as a radical feminist was eye-opening.  everyone has read orwell, or everyone who considers themselves to be good progressives or educated persons has read it, so its an easy shorthand we can all use when speaking about certain concepts.  like surveillance, and the political significance — the political intent and effect — of surveillance when employed by the oppressors against the oppressed class.

as orwell spelled out plainly, and as was his observation about oppressive totalitarian regimes that did this in real life, the point of the oppressor class surveilling its charges is to guard against thoughtcrime — made-up “crimes” against the oppressor class that begin and end at the level of thought.  its not what we are planning to do, and not what we are doing, but what we are thinking thats at issue, and its our negative thoughts about our oppressors, or positive thoughts about ourselves and our own capacities and desire to revolt against oppressive controls that are the crime.  we have seen this repeatedly, where men surveil women, allegedly to bring our thoughts and what is in our hearts and minds into the “light of day” aka. (and to use orwells frame) for scrutinization and reprogramming by the oppressor class, in this case, by men and patriarchal women.

our thoughts.  not our plans, or our actions.  thats important.  as is the intent of reprogramming.

even fun feminists understand that men are the oppressor class, (hence the need for any kind of feminism, even their kind, see how that works? or are all feminists, even the blandest kind, merely a solution looking for a problem, like the MRAs claim?  this is a serious question) so they too should be very wary about men invading womens spaces, because of the potential — and i would go further and say the demonstrated intent and effect — of patriarchal surveillance.

so, to apply this “theory” to our reality, and let me remind everyone that we all pretty much accept the idea of oppressive surveillance used by totalitarian political regimes — they are known to do this — i propose the following: just in case transwomen are just men in dresses — just in case! — i think we should not close the door to organizing and meeting without transwomen in the room.  because of the potential for patriarchal surveillance.

as another example of a scenario that is rife with the potential — i would say demonstrated intent and effect, but lets stick with “potential” for now — for patriarchal surveillance, consider these chilling words from a male social worker, and how he sees his role as a therapist for female rape survivors.  this was in the context of a discussion of the need for female-only space, specifically rape crisis shelters, and in the context of the Rape Relief vs Nixon case, specifically whether transwomen should be allowed to therapize raped women in a women’s shelter: (bolds mine)

Andrew Pari, LCSW
May 16, 2012

Maybe I’m stating the obvious and not to derail a great conversation, but there are many male psychotherapists and supportive counselors who practice in the area of sexual assault/rape. A large part of my practice is in working with children with a history of sexual abuse/molestation, in addition to young women who have been raped as well.

This doesn’t take away from what all of you are saying about rape crisis centers which I agree need to be staffed predominately by women to create the atmosphere of comfort/safety needed for girls/women to initially talk about what happened. I was just picking up, probably falsely, on the idea that it is inherently harmful for men to be involved in the healing process at all. I’ve had many girls/women transferred to me specifically because of my background and where my “maleness” was able to promote healing as it gave an appropriate outlet for the person’s trauma and anger that needed to be expressed and could be in the safety of therapy. In the field of mental health, it’s become more known as another way to help survivors heal.
If this is already common knowledge here, then forgive the assumption.

and heres another cold slice of shit pie from andrew, male therapist to raped women, in the context of a discussion of the need for female-only space, and whether women have the right to exclude transwomen from therapizing raped women in a women’s shelter:

Andrew Pari, LCSW
May 17, 2012

I agree with everything you said. Especially about the recognition of the inherent power imbalance as a therapist, on top of which is the often unnamed, but obvious, societal imbalance between men and women in the therapeutic context. This is why I am a huge believer in naming these things early on in treatment. Overtly and clearly stating the obvious differences and what they might mean, even when (and sometimes because) the client may be reluctant to do so themselves. I don’t pretend to be expert at this and I find myself going back sometimes to bring this into the room if I failed to earlier.

Much of my experience with these kind of referrals has been from female colleagues who have either helped the client to a particular point and want them (or rather the client articulates being ready to) work through anger towards the perpetrator or the projection onto men in general, or they need the experience of an intimate non-abusive connection with a man. The latter can be difficult as there is often a kind of “rebound effect” where the client experiences feelings of infatuation or seeing me as “the only good one.”

Actually, there is a third type; when the abuse was female perpetrated. Then I’m dealing with a whole other set of nuances in unpacking what happened on the individual level while still being mindful of the male-female dynamic in the room.

I really liked what you wrote about that, as a male, I have a vested interest in not seeing or not working with the socialized oppression of women. It’s an area I do my best to challenge myself on and it is an important reminder that I can not lose sight of this or risk unintentionally harming or, at best, not helping my clients to move forward.

One piece you wrote that I will challenge somewhat is the idea of inability to identify with a female client who was experienced female-specific harms. This may be an aspect of my own denial/arrogance, but I carry that idea into every therapeutic relationship. I cannot ever truly know the experience of who is sitting in front of me until they share it, and they will not share it if they see me as someone who “already knows it.” I actually talk about this in training regarding those clients who seem more like us than different from us. I can expand on this, if you want.

And thanks for stumbling across the show! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had the “you’re on the air with WHO?” conversation. I’ve had several guests refuse to come on before getting to know me as they took me for a conservative “Dr. Laura” style show. I will share with some glee that one of my favorite moments was realizing I was really really talking to Jaclyn Friedman on the show. Also Meghan…maybe you’ve heard of her, but I don’t want to name drop…

this is telling, isnt it?  again, here is the context: a discussion, on a feminist blog, of the need for women-only space, specifically, whether male-to-female transgendered individuals should be allowed to therapize raped women in a women’s shelter.

it is within that context specifically that andrew pari, a “cis” male, feels the beginnings of an itch, you know the one.  the itch that is a manifestation of a desire to move to action — and he does move to action — in this case, to defend the “abilities” (entitlement, right) of men in general to therapize raped women.  and to quell any urgency women mightve had around this issue with his sedating mansplanation about (among many, many other things!) his own growth, you see — therapizing raped women gives andrew a chance to challenge himself.  because thats important.  to andrew.

now why might andrew do this?  why might andrew show up to sedate the women and to derail the discussion, and to “represent” males as a sexual class, on this issue in particular, and why did he recognize the opportunity to do that in the context of a discussion about transwomen, not cis-men?

men see whats happening here, you see.  they get the itch, and a desire to move to action, because men know that transwomen are men, and men know that to defend trasnwomens interests is to defend their own interests.  we should probably listen to them when they tell us such obvious truths about their own intentions and politics, and where their allegiances lie.  we will be the ones to properly analyze it of course, and place it within its proper historical and political context, not them, since their interests are in the opposite happening.  but listening to them self-reporting on their own itches, and what moves them to action, is probably a good idea.  im just saying.

interestingly, andrew acknowledges the possibility that he is arrogant and in denial (euphemisms for being male privileged, a member of the oppressor class, a member of the rapist class) and the risk of “unintentionally harming” or not helping raped women due to his male privilege, and membership in the oppressor and rapist class.  and then he says the word but.  there should never be a “but” after acknowledging your male privilege, and the risk you and all men pose to women and raped women, andrew.

heres another piece:

Andrew Pari, LCSW
May 17, 2012

And for the record, I want to be clear I don’t think I’m some sort of “magic” therapist in this regard. I’ve had clients that I realized I could not help and referred back or re-referred to a female therapist for some of the reasons you mentioned.

It also sounds like, in your case, in addition to Michael not being where you needed him to be, you were ready for a level of feminist-specific reflection that was beyond his ability. While I would love to someday have a client who wanted to have that kind of discussion and self-focus, I would probably refer her to a female feminist therapist for the same reason.

therapizing raped women is at least partly, by his own admission, an exercise in bettering andrew, you see.  because bettering andrew is important, and its why raped women exist, and its why women-only rape relief shelters should be erased from the face of the earth.  there are numerous and very serious problems with what andrew has said, and he should be taken to task for every bit of it, but lets dig a little bit deeper.

if we were to apply the concept of patriarchal surveillance to the situation of men therapizing raped women, what we see is the potential — or, you know, its demonstrably and obviously happening, in real life — for men to scrutinize and “treat” womens potential and actual thoughtcrime related to men raping women.  this is very sneaky indeed.  and andrew is telling us very clearly, if we only pay attention, that patriarchal surveillance is in fact not just his “potential” role, but his actual, real role that he plays every day.  he disabuses raped women of their notion that men, as a sexual class, rape women, as a sexual class, even though thats true.  he disabuses raped women of their anger, even though it is righteous anger.  he creates or re-creates (frames) what he defines as a non-abusive situation — in this case, a man, thought-policing a raped woman — and it is he that gets to define that as non-abusive and safe, you see.  then, after sufficient exposure to that very calculated environment, when — or rather, if and only if — the women “come around” to wanting to fuck men (again?) and not recognizing men as a sexual class, they have been successfully treated.  for thoughtcrime.  their thoughts about men are different — thats the only thing thats changed.  they have been reprogrammed.

transwomen want to be able to do this to women too, and cis-men sometimes (or you know, always) show up to “represent” when this is discussed.  lets connect the dots, people.  this is all very disturbing.  and i would say without a single moments hesitation or doubt of any kind that this is all very deliberate, and it benefits men at womens expense.

but my point, really, is this, and it should be fairly easy to swallow, for anyone, because i am not taking about absolutes, but merely possibilities.  even if its merely a possibility that these situations might be used for patriarchal surveillance, shouldnt feminists support womens right to female only space?  you know, just in case?

why is it so important that we never (never, ever, ever) be allowed to organize and gather without men there?   at the very least, why cant we do both?  and why is there no room for any doubt at all that transwomen are women, and why are we so certain that they arent actually men?  there are very few certainties in life, and yet we are willing to say that we are *certain* that male-to-female transgenders are really women?  really?  im not buying it.  the *zero* room for legitimate doubt here, on a subject that is at least worthy of 1% or even .01% uncertainty (if anything ever was!) is pretty convincing proof that this is a scam, and its operating at the level of thought.

we are dealing with thoughtcrime, and patriarchal surveillance, and attempted patriarchal surveillance.  this is nothing new.  all good academics, politickers and progressives understand what surveilling for thoughtcrime is all about — its a political tool of oppressive totalitarian regimes — and feminists know that there is an oppressor class under patriarchy.  lets put two and two together.  the whinging about the radfem summer conferences — and over the audacity of radical feminists to attempt to gather without men or transwomen — is just more of the same.

Southern Poverty Law Center Names Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) as Hate Group March 9, 2012

Posted by FCM in MRAs, politics.
Tags: , , , , ,
comments closed


Radfem News Service

In its latest quarterly publication “The Year in Hate and Extremism” (Issue 45, Spring 2012) the Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, names Men’s Rights Activists as a hate group, citing the MRAs’ — alternately known as “Father’s Rights Activists” — virulent misogyny, spreading of false anti-woman propaganda and applauding and even encouraging acts of domestic terrorism and extreme violence against women and children, up to and including murder.  In the same issue, the SPLC reports on the activities of other hate groups with headlines such as Georgia Militia Members to be Tried Later this Year in Movement’s Latest Murder Plot; Son of Holocaust Memorial Shooter Discusses Family History of Racial Hate; and Animal Rights Extremist Camille Marino Calls for Violence.

For those not in the know, the SPLC

is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most…

View original post 1,750 more words

Vagina-As-Fuckhole Hurts Men Toooo!!!11!1! July 23, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, gender roles, health, kids, MRAs, PIV, trans.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

so what about teh poor menz.  right?  raise your hand if you feel sorry for men, or have ever felt sorry for them, either before, during or after these discussions of PIV, dangerous male-centric sexuality, and vagina-as-fuckhole-for-men.  i dont.   

but i also cant help but notice a correlation here, between mens perception that womens vaginas are fuckholes, and an old MRA favorite: boo freaking hoo, i have to pay child support!!!!111!1!  yes, the old deadbeat dad schtick.  and i dont just mean that regarding vaginas as fuckholes causes men to make babies and run, although this is frequently the case.    

no, i actually think that mens (OBVIOUSLY INCORRECT) perception of vagina-as-fuckhole causes men to hate their own children, at least among the poor-me set.  and that this is a fucking epidemic, among men, because they pretty much all believe the same thing, when it comes to women and our vaginas.  in a frame:   

i've got wesson-ality!

men think that born-women are really just castrated men, with fuckholes between our legs.  aka.  transwomen.  yes, they do.  they literally (LITERALLY) dont get that vaginas are organs, attached to other organs.  part of a functional organ-system that, you know, does stuff.  they dont get it!  

if men understood that vaginas were organs, that do stuff, they would never regard a neo-vagina as a vagina.  born-men would never want a neo-vagina as a part of their transition into “women”, because they would know that real vaginas are not fuckholes, for men, and that having a sheath between your legs has nothing whatsoever to do with being a woman.  and doctors (DOCTORS!  WHO HAVE STUDIED ANATOMY!  HELLO!) would have never even come up with this insane (as in delusional) idea that a hollowed-out dickskin is the same as a babymaker.  because its not.   

but this is not the world we live in. so imagine (IMAGINE!) their surprise, no their horror, no their RAGE when they find out for sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt (by knocking someone up) that everything they ever thought about women was a lie.  

and imagine them projecting this rage onto the products of conception, aka. their own fucking kids (and even the pregnant belly itself many times).  boo-fucking-hoo indeed.  how terrible.  we now have incontrovertible proof that vaginas are NOT just fuckholes, for men.  but instead of confronting the truth of it, and confronting womens, you know, HUMANITY for what would likely be the first time, they would rather abuse, neglect, abandon, deny, and rage over the existence of their own children

the existence of children fucks up the narrative, you see, that vaginas are just fuckholes, for men.  your sperm traveled BEYOND the fuckhole, see?  into the fallopian tubes, into the uterus, AND BACK OUT AGAIN.  and now its sitting at your goddamned kitchen table and it wants a sammy, with the crusts cut off. 

WTF?  vaginas, like, do stuff??  why, yes.  as a matter of fact.  they do.   

so there you have it: i admit that vagina-as-fuckhole hurts men too!!!!11!!1!  it makes them fucked up assholes who deny the existence of their own children in order to perpetuate an anatomical untruth a misogynist lie.  so heres the solution for the “what about teh menz” crowd: no, teh menz, you cant wear pink, sparkly shirts to work, sorry.  but you can (and should) stop engaging in PIV.  because womens vaginas are not fuckholes, for men, and you are delusional if you think otherwise.  see, i care about your mental health.  (insofar as mens delusions are the direct cause of immense and horrible suffering of women and children, around the world).  

but they arent going to do that, are they?  so it must not hurt that bad.  or…the payoff for men of vagina-as-fuckhole is just exponentially greater (DUH) than the alleged “sacrifice” of men being abusive, PIV-entitled pricks, who believe that women are really just castrated men, and for whom the existence of their own children cannot be reconciled with their worldview.   

what about teh menz, indeed.

Teh Menz on Teh Menz June 19, 2010

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

for anyone who has ever wondered “what the fuck is wrong with men” and didnt really want to know the answer, or really to even consider the question…i offer you “the mankind project.”  (if anyone does want to explore the very real problem of WTF is wrong with men…read anything on any radical feminist blog, especially about PIV).  but i digress.

heres what teh menz think is wrong with teh menz.  but not to worry, men-luvahs!  its really not a “problem” so much as a slight energy blockage.  in fact, theres really nothing wrong with men at all, its all just in their minds.  because men are known to be masochists, dont you know.  and they dont externalize any of it of course, and its nothing that cant be fixed by a weekend of crying and s’mores:

  • they “feel stifled.” apparently.  even though this has nothing to do with actually being stifled, in real life. because they arent.
  • the painful sense that they could have more.  even though they already have pretty much everything that matters, as judged by the rules they made, to benefit themselves.  awww!
  • they cant feel their feelings, because they are too busy learning and working in the skilled trades.  oh the poor babies.  my guess is that if trauma-bonding and PTSD paid better, they would find the time.  no?
  • an annoying sense of worthlessness.  which couldnt possibly have anything to do with their actually being worthless.  you know, cause they are teh menz!
  • the unsettling sense of contentment that comes from feeling completely comfortable with your life. yes, this is what passes for “emotional pain” if you are a man. y-ouch!
  • hollywood.  and stuff, and things.
  • all the men in their lives were abusive; therefore, they didnt have any male role models.  think about this one for a good long time.  srsly.  oh, and: therefore, men are awesome.  huh?
  • men dont spend enough time with other men.  mm-kay.  see also # last.
  • fear.  and like…obstacles.  or something.  i dont know, i think i fell asleep for a minute.
  • they have “families”.  oh, boo fucking hoo.  that wouldnt have happened if any of them could keep their dicks in their pants would it?
  • they dont have enough opportunities to network.  with other men.

and some more trite, imaginary bullshit about “fear” and “shame.”  thanks, teh menz!  now…heres what one of their ex-gfs thinks is wrong with the men who produced the above video for “the mankind project” (this made me laff and laff):

yes, i think that about captures it, especially around 3:40-4:00. thanks, ex-gf!  and only slightly tangentially, if it werent for ex-gfs, many rapes, murders, gang-activity, and other crimes would go unsolved every year.  i mean, many *more* than already go unsolved.  cause ex-gfs TELL THE FUCKING TRUTH, as a rule.  oh yes they do. enjoy!