jump to navigation

Ongoing, To Far November 26, 2011

Posted by FCM in authors picks, feminisms, meta, radical concepts.
comments closed

radical feminists go too far.  we are big green meanies and dont take many things into consideration, including mens feelings, individual (usually western, educated) womens “lived experience” and even, sometimes, practicality.  yes its extremely impractical to expect that anything radical or fundamental is going to occur in our lifetimes, if at all, to really change anything of substance for girls and women around the world.

it might be that its impossible at this juncture to change anything at all, after several thousand years of patriarchy and women-abuse which has created, among other things, way too many people.  there never shouldve been this many people alive at the same time.  and this includes, obviously, way too many men.  deny that at your peril, and the peril of logic and reasonableness.  the problem of “too many men” is inarguable in fact, if we accept that “overpopulation” is real.

if it werent for mandatory PIV and rampant use and abuse of female bodies globally, by men, this would never have happened.  but it did happen, and the problem of “too many people” when coupled with the “PIV-as-sex” paradigm is self-perpetuating.  it might really be too late.  we must accept this as a possibility, mustnt we?  i mean really, we arent stupid.  we must understand this on some level.  radical feminists not only accept it on some (or every) level, but we act in accordance with our understanding of it.  so do all women though, i think.  even the fun-fems seem to know this: its too late, we are too far down that road, better make lemonade out of lemons.  just dont rape us mkay?  please?  we will make it as easy on men as possible to accomplish the not-raping, including saying yes all the damn time to just about everything, but we must insist (please and thank you) that XYZ.  and so they do this.  very similarly to right-wing women as a matter of fact, liberal and mainstream “feminist” women are constantly making lemonade.  capitulating to men.  trying to make things…better.  its harm-reduction, i get it.  and it is necessary.  like putting a cast on an already-broken leg, or putting down salt and sand on the ice, they treat and prophylocate constantly.  i see what you are doing.  i see you, and i hear you.  yes.

but if we can accept that it is possible that it is too late, that we are too far down that road, that there are simply too many people and too many men, that the change we need the most is what we are least likely to get, whats the harm in a feminist “going too far” by anyones standards?  demonstrate the harm, if you can.  we live in a world where men rape babies, where the most acceptable, vanilla “sex act” can kill you (if you are female) and where not being traumatized by it, or too traumatized to function, or not dying from it, is the best any of us can hope for.  many of us cant even aspire to that, its too late for that too.  and still, there are those who call feminists terrorists.  feminists are terrorists.  when you succeed at getting your head around that one, the rest is kind of easy.  because if you cant go there at all, there is no such thing as going too far.  once youve put your toe in those waters, youve drowned.

not that most of the asshats who say dworkin “went too far” ever read her, but they say this about her anyway.  its accepted that dworkin “went too far” if not when she damned pornography and pornographers, then definitely when she criticized intercourse.  oh noes!  well, there are those of us who think that, for all she did and said, even about intercourse, that dworkin didnt go far enough.  there are those who think jessica valenti went too far with her brand of strawberry-gelatin i mean feminism, but what does that mean?  if dworkin and valenti have both gone too far, then that phrase is literally meaningless.  to further demonstrate this particular meaninglessness, lets continue down that road.  along with valenti, and dworkin, there are some who think valerie solanas went too far too.  valenti and solanas in the same sentence?  really?  yes.  in fact, considering what we are really dealing with here, and the meaninglessness of the phrase “going too far” when it comes to feminists and what we say and what we do, i can reasonably say that no feminist that we know of has ever gone far enough, let alone having gone “too far” and further, none of us ever will.

certainly, if youve read or heard about it, its very likely a capitulation of some kind.  there are laws against inciting imminent violence afterall: if it incited imminent violence, it wouldnt be published in the first place, or would be successfully challenged, and would instigate a chilling effect on like-minded speakers.  and even if any of us did speak in a way as to incite imminent violence, and even if there was actual violence in response, it still very likely wouldnt be enough to incite actual change on a global level.  i believe this is the situation we are in: the worst-case scenario from the perspective of the anti-feminists (that feminists would speak or act like “terrorists”) would not get us what we wanted, and would only land us, individually, in jail.  we would have failed, and lost everything in the process.  everything.  we might even die over it, but we would not succeed in anything but destroying ourselves.

thats right.  in a world where men rape babies (how young is too young?), and they rape little girls seductive children, and they rape teenagers girls gone wild, and they rape grown women sluts, and raped women and not-yet-raped women are expected to have consensual, coerced or forced intercourse for life, and if you dont want to have intercourse anymore (or at all) you are crazy, its a crime to incite imminent violence.  (and that crazy-diagnosis?  interestingly, it wont help you out in court).  the only recognized exception to this prohibition against inciting or participating in violence is within the context of all-out war.  and even war would not be an overreaction to the current situation: wars have been fought over far less (and over exactly the same things actually.  see the US declaration of independence, which was a declaration of war, citing some grievances that are identical to womens grievances against men, and others that seem made-up and superfluous but i am sure were really important to them at the time).

now tell me, again, about feminists going too far?

“This is What a ‘Glod’ Looks Like,” Says The Glod Majority Foundation April 23, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, entertainment, feminisms, gender roles, logic, self-identified feminist men, thats mean, trans.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

for anyone who doesnt know, theres no such fucking thing as a glod.  so, logicians use it as a placeholder in their own logic-based proofs, to make sure they dont accidentally add any meaning to one of the words, when they dont intend to.  for example: all glods are hooswits; all hooswits are whatchamacallits; therefore, all glods are whatchamacallits.  that is a logical proof thats TRUE.

this is a logical proof...and its TRUE

but heres one thats NOT true:  all glods are hoosewhits; some hoosewhits are whatchamacallits; therefore, some glods are whatchamacallits.

not true. aka FALSE

and the above could be drawn either way, with the glods overlapping, or not overlapping, with the whatchamacallits, so technically it may be “neither true nor false.”  (does anyone know??  seriously.  i cant remember).  but…if you are trying to prove something is true, you have just failed, if this is your “proof.”  thats my point, really.

confusing, right?  i screwed these up at first, and had to literally draw diagrams to show myself where i went wrong (thanks miska and your bad diagramming self).

start adding in words that actually mean stuff, and it gets even harder to see where you have fucked up, and why.  for example:  all blue things are bright; some bright things are shiny; therefore, some blue things are shiny…its definitely not true…but it looks like it is, to anyone who has ever seen a blue shiny thing before.  thats where we, as fallible humans, with a tendency to make everything about “us,” and our own “lived expewience” simply need some help, to see whats what.  thus, we have “glod.”

i love glods, and i love hooswits, precisely because they have no meaning.

but you know what does have meaning?  ACTUAL WORDS, THAT MEAN STUFF.  and the word “feminist” is a word, that means something.  dammit, it does.  you cant just take a bunch of people that have nothing in common, and call them all “feminist” without defining what the fuck you are even talking about.  for example, heres how i, as a radical feminist, see “feminists.”  they are, by definition, female assigned at birth; NOT ALL FAABs are feminists; and there isnt any other kind of feminist, besides the radical kind:

but apparently, heres what the “feminist majority” thinks constitutes a feminist: (note the lack of any other circles…that means theres no criteria for “what makes a feminist”.  plus the rainy-day gray illustrates how muddled, and boring this all is)

and its pretty much what the fun-fems think constitutes a feminist too…with one notable exception:

fucking shit, people.  now, just so no one starts to wonder if i have a point…heres another example of a logical fallacy: all transwomen are women; some women are feminists; therefore, some transwomen are feminists.  AND THATS BEING GENEROUS.  since they seem to believe, against the great weight of the evidence showing otherwise, that *all* transwomen are feminists.  NOT.  their conclusions dont even follow from their own premises.  not that they have ever bothered to show that their premises are true, to begin with.  fail, fail, fail, fail. 

and dont even get me started on “feminist” men, who, as men, by definition individually and collectively benefit from rape culture.  i wanted to punch youtube in the face, when i saw that.

words have meaning. “feminist” means something, and it definitely does NOT mean “whatever the fuck the feminist majority, a ‘feminist man’, an MRA or a fucking transwoman says it means.”  that is all.

On Doodbros And Neovags, And Becoming More Rad By The Day February 28, 2010

Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, international, kids, liberal dickwads, meta, PIV, pop culture, porn, rape, trans.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

my perspective has changed, drastically, in the last few months.  everything is different now, and i wanted to share it here because its happened largely within, and because of, these posts, links, and discussions.  reading over this material, including the comments and disussions with my readers, i can see it happening.  its documented, and thats very interesting to me.  i figured it might be to you, too.  i also mention it here because these shifts in consciousness are rare.  which makes them precious.  if this sounds dramatic, it is.  and, its not.  “precious” about covers it, in the most banal of ways.  it just doesnt happen that often.

in a nutshell, i have gone from a “recovering fun-fem” to a straight, radical feminist.  heres whats different:

when i am out and about during the day, i think i am *seeing* women, for the first time.  i am seeing them and i know that they have vaginas, and uterii, and ovaries, and fallopian tubes, and that these things have profoundly influenced the way they have been treated, since the day they were born. for what i think is the first time in my life, i realize that women arent fucktoys, for men.  i dont think i ever really got that before, as difficult as that is for me to believe, or to say.  i never really got that vaginas arent just “holes.”  i get it now.  and i have to say, its changed everything.

now, when i am out and about, i look at men differently.  i see them as a group, and not as individuals anymore.  because i know that their shared experience as males makes them members of a bizarre club, and that their realities arent real.  and i know that most men i see on a daily basis, all of them over age 13 or so, have probably been having PIV-sex with girls and women.  and it fucking makes me sick.  it really does.  to know that these little bastards are putting women and girls at risk for STDs and pregnancy, without giving it a moments thought as to how vaginal intercourse is problematic for us, but not for them is pretty much my limit, as far as these things go.  now that i know that mens concept of “consent” is so fucked up as to include most acts of rape too, i cant un-know it.  now that i am seeing it for what it really is, i have to tune some of it out.  its literally too much information.

when i was in high school, one of my friends was *in love* with this guy.  in typical high school fashion, she talked about that, and about him, with his friends (and hers) more than she spoke about it with him.  this guy was a total player.  his guyfriends told her that this was no big deal, because “the guy needs to get his dick wet once in a awhile.”  at the time, i didnt really get the implications of that, but now i do.  men think that having PIV-sex with women is literally no more than getting their dicks wet.  that there arent any consequences to it, at all.  that womens vaginas are just a warm washcloth, and that by definition, women arent really people.  because, you know, human beings are made of tissue and organs, not cotton.

and of course, knowing all this makes me very aware that i will no longer have anything to do with men, if i can help it.  that means that the relationship i am in now will be the last one i ever have, with a man.  which is oddly freeing.  because women are really in a dill of a pickle, once they realize they are radical feminists.  that fun-feminism is for the fucking birds strictly about accommodating men, and about normalizing mens misogyny, and their vested interest in, and commodification of, rape, and thats all it is.  when straight feminists realize, finally, that men as a group are fucked up beyond repair, and that men have a vested interest in rape culture that isnt going away, and wont in my lifetime, there is no more fun-feminism.  and there are no more men.  theres no more “what man would put up with my radical views?”  because even the so-called lefty progressive men would never tolerate it. even if they wanted to understand it (and most of them dont).

after one denounces fun-feminism, there is only “i no longer desire to please, or to be pleasing to, men.”  thats what is left, when a straight feminist becomes radical.

thank you.