On Intentionality. Or, What Is It For = What Does It Do? September 25, 2012
Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, feminisms, gender roles, logic, radical concepts.Tags: causation, essentialism, intent, mary daly, quintessence
comments closed
there exists a tendency in various discourses to insist — and to theorize from this place — that patriarchy is just some grand mistake, or misunderstanding. the evidence on which this conclusion is based is never quite spelled out, and in fact does not appear to exist, as it flies in the face of the actual, real evidence. which leaves its adherents with essentially the status of cult-members, does it not? more on that below. so, the mistake-believers (or “cultists”) tend to advocate “educating” men and anti feminist women to induce feminist change, or they insist that, just as women arent naturally fuckholes and slaves for men, that men also are not naturally dick-sticker-inners or sexual, reproductive and domestic slaveowners. the poor male babies! they are just mistaken, you see. misguided. acted-upon. its not their fault. because reasons, which have nothing to do with intentionality (or design).
now, im not saying than men are or arent naturally anything, behaviorally speaking — who can prove that afterall? i am saying that its highly probable that womens twisted, victimized servitude (or “femininity” if you will) isnt our natural state. let us feminists concentrate on women for a moment, shall we — we feel this dissonance, this incongruousness strongly, and indeed the evidence would suggest that, because women as a sexual class hold neither the power nor the resources to build a local, regional or global culture that reflects ourselves back to us, that our culture does not, in fact, reflect ourselves back to us.
the fuckholeness, the servitude is not *us*. while currently impossible to prove, we speculate that this is true. but it is not baseless speculation — the evidence suggests we are right. the evidence of our lack of power and resources to create something reflective of or congruous with *us* being, well, our actual lack of those things.
the same cannot be said of men of course, and whether or not “culture” (lets just say patriarchy instead of culture, shall we, its the same damn thing) is reflective of mens values, tendencies, preferences and solutions. they created it, afterall. in fact, in the case of men, the evidence would tend to show the opposite of what it shows for women — that its in fact highly probable that mens violent, destructive and dominant “role” is their natural state, or reflective of men on whatever level. that patriarchy does reflect mens values, tendencies, preferences and solutions. that patriarchy — and the utter destruction, degradation and decimation of women and of pretty much everything for that matter — is congruent with mens Z. if you dont like the word “nature” then dont use it. call it Z, or green eggs and ham for all i care. or refer to it by its elements (values/tendencies/preferences/solutions). it doesnt change what it is.
now, i would like to propose a thought exercise to highlight the difference between intentionality and coincidence. “coincidence” connotes “unintentionality” or unrelated by cause or effect. mary daly talked about causation and intentionality (we discussed it here and here) where she noted that, once an outcome is known, any continuance to produce that outcome is intentional. “unintentional” pregnancy — within the PIV-as-sex paradigm — might be the most obvious (its also a reversal). daly chose to talk about men surgically lobotomizing women, knowing that the surgery removed all of womens creativity and made them good housekeepers. the “psychosurgeons” can, did (and do) wax poetic all day about lobotomizing women as a “cure” for this, that and the other, but it cannot be denied that they were intentionally creating brain damaged fembots to clean house and be compliant semen receptacles for men. if they didnt like or want that outcome, they wouldve stopped doing it.
so regarding intentionality versus coincidence…think “kitchen gadgets” for starters. does anyone think this is a coincidence? lots of people need to open cans, and coincidentally, a handheld device appears with two rotary cutting blades that neatly accomplishes that very thing?
coincidence?
or, was it intentional?
or…take a look at this. assuming you recognize it as a garment, (it could also be used for other things i suppose) through simple observation of this objects physical characteristics, you get a very good idea about some of the physical characteristics of its intended user:
how many fingers do i have?
please dont tell me this was a mistake mkay? im not hearing it.
now, objects might be a bit different from systems. so lets go there. some systems “just exist” like some objects “just exist” and they dont really do anything. like a rock exists of its own accord, without being a specifically functional object some systems just “exist”. sometimes you just make observations about what they do, like this:
the solar system
its not really “for” anything, or anything that we know about, it just *is*. and no, i would not say that this is a life support system for humans, even though it functions as one. like a rock isnt a hammer exactly…
some systems just “exist” (naturally) and you make observations about what they do, and from that, you can also make conclusions about what they are for, like this:
the respiratory system. what it does *is* what its for.
what it does = oxygenates the bloodstream. whats its for = oxygenating the bloodstream. in the case of the human respiratory system, these things are the same. like the solar system, its a functional design — but one that works toward an ends, rather than merely staying out of its own way?
some systems are created by people (men, more specifically). like all systems, these systems do stuff. and like *some* systems created by nature, *all* systems created by humans were created for stuff. to solve a problem, or fulfill a need. like this:
the US highway system. gets you from here to there usu. via terrestrial vehicle (or walking, to a lesser extent).
it seems that systems that were created by humans do stuff “because reasons” that have everything, actually, to do with intentionality. what they do = what they are for. otherwise, why bother?
so if we agree that patriarchy is a system, (is it?) created by humans, (it was, if men are considered human) if we want to know what its for, and to consider issues of intentionality, functionality and design, the question we have to ask ourselves about patriarchy, i guess, is what does it do? acknowledge what it does, and you will know what it is for. and that its not a mistake (far from it) and that it *probably* adheres to certain physical realities as well. think: glove. or…skyscraper?
i maximize rental income for the property owner, among other things.
and note, for example, that the US highway system is built horizontally and adheres to physical principles, and isnt made of gallons and gallons of chocolate pudding. because reasons.
it also occurs to me that the solar system is essentialist. it just *is*. and that patriarchy — while still a system — is more like the US highway system than it is like the solar system.
comments will remain open for three days.
On Foreseeability September 26, 2011
Posted by FCM in books!, logic, PIV, pop culture, radical concepts.Tags: foreseeability, mary daly, nasa, quintessence, satellite
comments closed
in 1991 when NASA was launching the satellite that just plunged to earth this weekend, did anyone any of the men and male-identified women there give a shit that the satellite was going to fall to earth at some point? and that someone or many people could easily be killed when (not if) this happened?
i am talking about foreseeability. we need to understand (if we dont already) that there are cost/benefit analyses being performed all the time in many situations where our lives hang in the balance, by men who see the math something like this (as in the case of the falling satellite): chances of someone on earth being hit: 1 in 3,200. chances of any individual (for example, me, or any one of them) being hit: 1 in 22 trillion. yes, the chances that any one of them would be injured here were remote, at best: 1 in 22 trillion are very bad odds (or very good odds, depending on your perspective. if you *wanted* one of them to be hit, the odds were bad that this would happen). however, the odds that *someone* would in fact be hit by a piece of this thing, which ended up being 1200 pounds of space junk in various sized pieces, the biggest about the size of a city bus, were actually extremely high. if the odds of winning the lottery had been this good, “humanity” shouldve purchased a ticket.
we discussed intent and its relation to foreseeability previously here, when discussing mary daly’s quintessence. and the fact of the matter is that if an outcome is foreseeable, or known, and its brought about anyway, that particular outcome was and is intentional. degrees of foreseeability exist of course, for which we have statistics to guide us (or to assess the situation in its aftermath): if something is only a remote possibility, bringing it about anyway puts less culpability on those who made it happen. the more likely the outcome is, the more culpable the actor is. this is according to men, who are forever bringing about “outcomes” that include death on a global scale and incalculable suffering to women and children, and to other men too. those other men over there, of course. never to themselves. but enough about the men.
in the case of surgical lobotomies of women, for example, the result was that the procedure made women “good housekeepers.” this result was known, and the procedure was performed again and again and again. it literally killed womens wildness and creativity, and turned them into compliant fembots with accessible vaginas (and wombs) and this was repeated again and again. this is what these doctors (and the womens husbands and families) wanted: it really couldnt be more obvious. surgically lobotomozing women wasnt intended as a treatment for mental illness or anything else. the actual-end result was the intent. it was meant to kill women, while keeping them sexually and reproductively available.
and in the case of the twin towers of the world trade center (for example) men built vertically leaving such massive amounts of potential energy at a height, that death was the easily foreseeable result, should the buildings ever fall. and no building stands forever. hmmm!
and in the case of space-junk, which is likely to fall to earth and kill someone?
in that case, as in all cases, a cost-benefit analysis was performed by those in charge, and they decided that it was worth it *to them* to go ahead and do it. that the cost *to them* was outweighed by the benefit *to them* to put someone else (not them) in serious danger at some point. importantly, *they* (the science doods at NASA) are exactly the ones with the power to be able to predict and know where this stuff would rain down when it happened, and to make sure *they* were as far away as possible. so really, the 1 in 22 trillion probably didnt even apply to them: their odds were probably even better. because they are the ones in control, they are making the rules and monitoring the whole thing they are lowering *their* odds of anything bad happening to them as much as possible.
keeping all of this in mind…lets discuss PIV. the chances of men becoming impregnated against their wills, through PIV and PIV-centric sex: not 1 in 22 trillion. not “something” even less than that. zero. zero! chances of men being injured and killed in childbirth, whether its a wanted pregnancy, an unwanted one or an ambivalent one: zero. the cost-benefit analysis men are forever doing in their minds is very easy in this case, if the “outcome” being considered here is pregnancy, and pregnancy-related complications. and thats just the cost-benefit analysis: couple mens “zero risk” with the obvious fact that part of (or all) of the payout of PIV for men IS that they are impregnating women, and women putting their trust in men, including mens idiotic “birth control methods” seems very obviously, and hideously misplaced.
and obviously, if one knows and understands the result or the easily foreseeable result, and does it anyway, that result was exactly what was intended. and men are deliberately impregnating women, against our wills and otherwise, through PIV and PIV-centic sex. its deliberate! we must understand this. they are also deliberately creating and then relying on (and having us rely on) “contraceptive” methods that are unreliable, when they and only they are the ones with the power to improve this situation. so far they havent. but they sure as hell can make things extremely safe *for themselves* when they want to.
indeed, when one considers the concept of “final causality” and the end-result being the intent, this sheds a lot of light on male-defined concepts of “collateral damage” and “statistical probability” and “negligence” and everything else: these are mens weasel-words, designed to obscure the obvious foreseeability (and intentionality) of the outcomes they cause. driving at a high rate of speed in a residential area, for example. what are men willing to call it when another man kills someone this way? or… firey drunken high-speed crashes in the middle of the night. children shooting themselves with loaded guns kept in the house, or eating poison from under the sink (who benefits from this? follow the money, honey; very young children arent mentally-developed enough to have intent. but it doesnt make it an unforeseeable accident, does it?). women being expected to partner with men, and only men, with no other adults around, when this is known to lead to womens deaths and incalculable suffering.
all of this is deliberate, and men benefit from and control it. all of it. that is all.
The PIV Contract. Bringing The Train Into the Station January 29, 2011
Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, health, international, PIV.Tags: mary daly, quintessence, sex pozzies, the four causes
comments closed
cath elliott has written a couple of times about husbands “right to expect regular sex” or what is also called the “PIV-contract” whereby men feel entitled to PIV on demand, within the context of het relationships. the comments are predictable of course, and are still coming in a year later, and prove her point. and its a good discussion to have, in that it calls attention to the problems of male sexual entitlement, in which womens physical integrity may literally be breached at any time, at the will and on the demand of her male partner. this cant be good can it? and i think the entitlement aspect of it is problematic, as are the physical and psychological consequences of PIV to women. DUH. namely…well i think we can all pretty much recite these by heart by now.
but lets bring this train into the station shall we? if we take this thought to its logical end, we will see actually that the PIV-contract also leaves no room for women to become politically aware, after having PIV with a partner, that PIV is demonstrably harmful to women, that its inherently inequitable due to the unequal physical and psychological risks between women and men, that its not even sex, and then quite logically to decide that they arent going to do it anymore.
right? the PIV-contract is literally, LITERALLY stunting heterosexual women from political and feminist growth, and making radical awakening and bringing radical change to their own lives impossible.
its also deliberate. set women up so that they are economically dependant on men, set PIV up so that its understood without question to be “sex” then make everyone also understand that the man will abandon his female parter without hesitation, if she ever stops letting him stick his dick into her, for any reason. although a POLITICAL reason would probably be the most unforgivable reason wouldnt it? as opposed to perhaps a “medical problem” for example? making it completely clear what the intent is here, and that the intent is to prevent any kind of political resistance to PIV. to prevent radical feminism, in other words.
so once again, we see that PIV-positivism is ultimately (and therefore intentionally) discouraging women from going to the end of their thoughts, when it comes to PIV, and the meaning of het relations entirely. they will NEVER, and i mean NEVER come to a radical awareness, so long as their stated intention is to remain “sex-positive” where “sex” refers to PIV and PIV-centric sexuality. and it does. thats exactly what it refers to, and we all know it. dont bullshit me people! PIV-positivism is an intentionally closed circuit of thought, (ie. an agenda) whereby women are doomed to remain loyal to men, and male interests, to their own detriment. i think we have already shown the physical and psychological dangers here, but the intentional prevention of radical awareness is also clear.
you CANNOT, and will not, have a radical awakening, so long as you dont, or cannot afford to, see PIV for what it is. and the PIV-contract ensures this result: preventing radical awareness is the logical conclusion to mandatory PIV and PIV-pozzie rhetoric, and therefore its also its entire fucking point.
“Quintessence” Part 2 January 23, 2011
Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, PIV, politics, pop culture.Tags: four causes, freedom of thought, mary daly, quintessence
comments closed
in quintessence, mary daly puts the smackdown on pomo and what she calls “academentia” and its absolutely cracking me up. it really is. she writes about how BORING it all is, about the banality of mainstream thought, and how particularly academics are operating from a place of fear, and stagnation (which she hyphenates: stag-nation). HA! (part one is here.)
and its true isnt it? i cant even read mainstream blogs anymore, without actually feeling as if my head is going to explode. for reals. and this includes (of course) the nightmarish snoozefest that passes as “feminist” in teh mainstream interwebs…i was recently saddened to realize that i was about to blow a lobe (thanks twisty) reading sociological images. damn! another one bites the dust. but where does this feeling come from? it actually, literally, feels as if i am banging my head on a wall. the pressure builds, as if i am actually experiencing some kind of trauma.
mary daly describes whats known as the “four causes” where the end result becomes the intent: once you do something and document the result, if you do it again, its because thats what you want to happen. it also includes visualizing a goal, then being moved to achieve it, by it. its a closed circuit, that motivates most people to act, and causes most of what we know as “change” or invention. but for something thats supposedly “creative” its all very boring actually, because it doesnt leave room for…spontenaity. magic. real creation. something thats not going to bore the shit out of your reader for example. something thats not going to make them long for sweet death, to stop the doublethinking brainpain (i am talking to you, feministing!) luckily i guess, since reading this mainstream garbage is so painful, it also functions as its own sedative.
from quintessence:
loretta once commented here that women need to be free to go to the end of our thoughts. and mainstream writers, including pomo-feminist and academic writers, arent doing that. at all. in fact, its a marker of patriarchal thinking, isnt it, to take your thoughts to the end of what benefits you, and then to stop. no thinking about future consequences. no thinking about unequal risk. no thinking about much of anything really (except how to get yours, whatever that is, and then perhaps how to keep it.)
so reading feministing (for example) is so punishing, and so painful, because none of us are being allowed to go to the end of our thoughts, in that forum. the fun-fem forum. the patriarchal forum. the head-banging feeling is our thoughts coming up against the “end” of a closed circuit (which is also the beginning! heads are spinning!) and not being allowed to continue. because of who we might offend. because of what we might come up with, and what it might mean. (like that PIV is problematic…oh hell no, hold the phone). because of who we must pacify, and satisfy, before we can satisfy our own need to be free, within the confines of our own fucking minds. to have the freedom of our own fucking thoughts. to have that tiny shred of privacy, that tiny shred of dignity, to ride it out, to think an entire thought to its conclusion, no matter where it might end. to jump off mary dalys cliff, as she says, to fall how you fall, and land where you land, and be surprised and amazed at what you find there.
thats not too much to ask, i dont think, and its not too much to demand either. no, its not.
