That’s So Totes 70s! June 29, 2012
Posted by FCM in feminisms, politics, pop culture, trans, WTF?.Tags: catharine mackinnon, declaration of independence, mary daly, sheila jeffreys
comments closed
1770’s to be exact!
full text of the declaration of independence below. its still relevant! celebrated, even! because men’s work isnt expected to change and evolve constantly, to accept the trends of the day or put on a pretty face, whatever that means, in whatever time or place. men’s foundational documents (declarations and yes — manifestos) are not denied, shunned, wrongly paraphrased, endlessly parsed or not parsed at all — even when they should be — watered down and ground up and obliterated to the point that they are ethereal nothingness, losing the plot. men’s foundational documents dont even have to recognize that women exist, and they are still valid, you see. it was an accident of language, it wasnt deliberate — even when it was.
when men build patriarchal foundations, the foundations are allowed to stand, and if anything, its the house that gets tinkered with and not the foundation (you know, like recognizing the existence of women — at the insistence of women). indeed, womens responses to men’s patriarchal foundations — when we are even allowed a response — is the window dressing and the furniture and the dishes and the towels. we decorate men’s patriarchal houses, literally and more literally. we attempt to make ourselves comfortable there. they allow us to do this somewhat.
when women build feminist foundations, like the works of sheila jeffreys, mary daly, and catharine mackinnon, men drop bombs on them and reduce our foundations to bombed-out, smoking craters. at least, they try to do this. some of us are resisting, but when our work has been thoroughly debunked by the people who get to determine such things, what does that mean for us? our foundations are destroyed, reduced to holes and rubble. we sit along side of them and weep, but that is not all we do. we decide that architecture itself is patriarchal, it must be. holding that truth to be self-evident, we work from there.
In Which I Utilize Accordion Techno Illustratively! January 6, 2011
Posted by FCM in books!, entertainment, feminisms, international, PIV, pop culture, porn, prostitution.Tags: heterosexuality, PIV, sheila jeffreys, stereo love
comments closed
as usual, i am probably the last person on planet earth to have heard this song. i was like “pretty sure thats an accordion!?” so i googled it. and yes, its an accordion. there are a surprising number of accordion-techno songs out there actually, but i wouldnt know that being that i live under a counterculture rock with my favorite reruns and my ipod stuffed with the soundtrack of my fading youth. and sometimes, books. its the only way to successfully avoid accidental encounters with eminem and charlie sheen…and get off my lawn!
anyway, this song is currently playing on every radio station at all times, and there are at least 2 versions of both the song and the video. the above version kind of surprised me actually, because it doesnt feature any men in the entire video, at all (except the accordionist). and…the driver probably. and…well, all the men she is probably fucking in those high-priced hotels she is being driven to in the middle of the night in a black luxury sedan. right? shes a hooker. a happy, shiny one, at that! so this is the fun-fem sexxxay empowered version of the song. you know, or something. okay, i am with them so far.
heres another version:
mkay. this is the “sweetly romantic” version i guess? where she pines away for her man, or some man, and lucky for her he was stalking her the whole time and they eventually “randomly hook up” just like she always dreamed (and like he had planned from the beginning). how creepy i mean completely normal! okay. 2 versions of the same song. 2 takes on (literally) the same narrative.
so…i have been thinking lately that there is exactly one explanation for the existence of fun-fem “sex worker advocacy” i mean pornstitution empowerfulization that makes any fucking sense, at all. and i think its just the latest rationalization of het partnerships to come down the pike, since the first rationalization of het partnerships came down the same pike in or around 1900 or so. when some women were no longer as dependant on men as they once were, and were first starting to cut their teeth on a female-centered reality, being openly critical of aggregate male behavior, especially mens dangerous sexual behavior, and making real progress toward eliminating PIV-centric sexuality, and the sexual abuse of women and children, by men.
and as sheila jeffreys notes, out came the big guns to tear it all down, to literally erase all the good work the feminists had done: the male sexologists, who decided, with science! (despite their obvious bias and conflicts of interest) that women were supposed to enjoy PIV, and engage in it as often as possible. oh crap! we better get right on that then. on, men, or back on them. see, theres nothing wrong with men, and mens male-privileged perspective, whereby they audaciously proclaim the most dangerous and least-pleasurable sex-act to be “sex” and you bitches better keep doing it, you better start liking it, and you better quit making us feel bad. just start liking it, and the problem (of women complaining about it) goes away.
so now that we have the mandatory enthusiastic PIV covered (thanks male sexologists!) it becomes even more clear that hooking and het partnerships share quite a lot in common, do they not? so much so that justifying hooking actually justifies your average het partnership pretty well. perhaps especially the way the fun-fems do it, with their empowerfulized “happy hooker” narrative, which is actually nothing like the actual experience of your average prostituted woman, anywhere in the world. and where the most egregious violence that prostituted women encounter consists of words, the words of radical feminists who are (and always have been) critical of aggregate male behavior, and the sexual abuse of girls and women, by men.
and the economic and social coercion to partner with men hasnt gone away, and decades of feminist history and PIV-critical work has been erased, making the possibility of a non-coercive and non-PIV-centric sexuality seem frankly bizarre to almost everyone. and the resemblance between het partnerships and “sex work” is even more uncanny in fact since women started faking it. or you know, figuring out how to actually have orgasms “from” PIV, by rubbing their clits WHILE being fucked. (god that just makes no fucking sense at all does it?) and keeping that in mind, always…
i think that this pro-pornstitution empowerfulization rhetoric is just more of the same shit, a covert “lesbians and spinsters are gross” meme that primes women for PIV, and quells the screaming inside “modern” women’s heads, because their relationships with men resemble prostitution in a very fundamental way. isnt it? all this empowerfulment and agency bullshit is really just to justify their nigels porn habit, and het partnerships generally.
because straight women know they are never, and i mean NEVER going to find a partner who *isnt* going to regularly masturbate to graphic images of misogyny. to images of other women becoming impregnated. to images that he doesnt know and cant know where they came from, or even what is going on, or who its happening to, and he doesnt care. damn thats disturbing! and of course, porn serves to normalize mens absolute obsession with PIV, and the way they want to fuck too. and all het men, i dont care how “good guy” they are, are ALL demanding PIV-centric sex from their female partners, and under circumstances that look a hell of a lot like a quid-pro-quo, or a barter, if not an outright sale.
just…damn, do “empowerfulized” fantasies regarding sex-workers lives, and the average nonviolent (!!!11!1) nonexploitative (!!!11!!1) empowerfulized het partnership, look almost identical. and the way these empowerfulized couples are fucking has been made to resemble porn. yay prostitution, then!!11!!1 yay actual porn! all of this is ok! (you know, or none of it is). yes it is, shut up. it is, because the fucking fun-fems (and male sexologists!) say it is.
Men Hate It When Women Remember December 2, 2010
Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, health, international, PIV, politics, pop culture.Tags: frigidity, history, male sexologists, PIV, sheila jeffreys, the spinster and her enemies
comments closed
this moron reality seems to have another part to it doesnt it? story 1 and story 2 are playing all the time, and one is real, and the other isnt. but women also arent supposed to remember anything. and at the same time, we are also supposed to have the reasoning skills of very young children, who because of childrens inexperience and not-yet-fully-formed brains fail to grasp the importance of motivation, or the fact that people have agendas. these both seem key dont they? incidentally, who else is completely ignorant of history, and motivation? its almost…or, exactly…as if the perfect (or perfectly compliant) woman is one with a head injury.
regarding memory, when women remember what other men have done, they are bitter. when a woman remembers what her current partner did in the past, even if it was just last week, she is being mean. oh noes! not teh terrible meanness! and thats just the stuff we have experienced firsthand.
when it comes to realizing and remembering and getting, really getting, what men as a sexual class have done to women as a sexual class, even within our lifetimes and in our own cultures, we are all supposed to be blind, deaf, and suffering from amnesia. and illiteracy apparently. because the very last thing we are supposed to do, i guess, is read actual books, written by radical feminists. books! its like…a secret treasure trove of knowledge, that exists to disprove just about everything the third-wave and allegedly-feminist men believe is true. only, its not really a secret as much as we just arent supposed to know about it, even though its right there. do they think we are stupid or something? this is not a rhetorical question.
for example…the first “sexual revolution” in the 1920s was an anti-feminist backlash, created in direct response to womens increasing economic opportunities in the west, and feminists work against PIV-centric sexuality and the sexual abuse of women and children, by men. this is documented. and male sexologists (sexologists! since when does engaging in something and liking it, qualify anyone as an -ologist? they were more like PIV-ologists anyway, or perhaps euphemism-ologists) who arrived on that scene at that exact moment in time, had an agenda. DUH. male sexologists had an agenda. most people, and groups of people do. some agendas are legit, others arent.
in figuring out how the world works from the perspective of a fucking adult, recognizing motivation is a very preliminary step actually, but women arent supposed to figure this out, ever. along with remembering and acknowledging that everything has a history, adult humans who are capable of rational thought also realize that something motivates every person, and every group of people, all the time. and that people, perhaps especially men, dont normally do things that are against their own best interest, out of the goodness of their hearts. this is really basic.
anyone who doesnt get that by now needs to pull on their big-girl pants, and get real. once you have a handle on that, then things like this arent as difficult to believe:
from the chapter on “the invention of the frigid woman” in jeffreys “the spinster and her enemies.” see? the idea of “enthusiastic consent” is not new. it was invented over a hundred years ago, to solidify the primacy of marriage and the het relationship, just when women were first able to do without men, and without the mandatory PIV that follows all heterosexual men around like their fucking shadow. and because men were used to paying prostitutes for fake enthusiasm and fake orgasms, and they felt that fake orgasms were lacking with their wives, who only put up with PIV, historically, because they had to. what upperclass wives never had to do, before the sex reformers of the 1920s got ahold of them, is to like it. or, you know, to pretend like they did.
meanwhile, feminists work in lessening PIV-centric sexuality, including the sexual abuse of women and girls, failed. and something else won out, instead. this “something else” is what passed as a sexual revolution in the 1920s. and it passed again, in the 1960s. and its passing YET AGAIN, for the third fucking time, now. how many times is this going to play out? how long will it be, before women remember, and before they learn to recognize and acknowledge motivation, and do something with that information?
i get that there are competing interests here, and there are many forces that, acting in concert, motivate women to not see the truth about men. fine. just dont call it feminist, is all i ask. its acting as if you have a fucking head injury, as a survival mechanism. thats all it is.
The “New Morality,” Faking It, and Marginalizing the Spinster (Aka. Sex-Positivism, Old School Style) October 1, 2010
Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, gender roles, health, MRAs, PIV, politics, pop culture, self-identified feminist men.Tags: lesbian, sex positive, sheila jeffreys, the spinster and her enemies, WWI
comments closed
there seem to be essentially two ways that MRAs, anti-feminists and sex-pozzies go about their business of “discrediting” radical feminist work, and derailing the discussion to meet their own ends. and by “discrediting” and derailing, i mean calling radfems lesbians (because lesbians are always wrong) and the “end” appears to be, again, supporting the sex-positive agenda, which boiled down of its endlessly obfuscating rhetoric is approximately “PIV is truth.”
the first one is the logical fallacy, which i diagrammed here. basically, they just make all kinds of idiotic conclusions that dont even follow from their own premises. for example: all lesbians eschew PIV; some radical feminists eschew PIV; therefore all radical feminists are lesbians. LOGIC FAIL! it also doesnt work to conclude that “some radical feminists are lesbians.” this is just completely and utterly false. and thats even without discussing that its also completely offensive to use “lesbian” this way. DUH. diagram it, and see for yourself.
the other is the logical proof that is structurally true, but they fail to examine the premises. that form of argument is diagrammed here. basically: radfems are lesbians, and lesbians are always wrong about everything, and are evil and gross; therefore, radfems are always wrong about everything, and are evil and gross. but their premises are a bit, um, politically incorrect, arent they? i mean, i wouldnt expect anything less from the MRAs, but the sex-pozzies like to think they are better than that. they arent.
theres also nothing fresh or progressive about it. again, we see in “spinster” that women who eschewed sexual relationships with men, even if they werent lesbians, were labelled as sexually frustrated man-haters, even though it was actually a hard-won option and was made possible by womens increasing economic opportunites that made mandatory heterosexual partnerships increasingly unnecessary. which was obviously a good thing for any woman who found PIV problematic:
and i bet they were all ugly and fat too! because those characteristics also render anything a feminist has to say patently false. so we are now on the road to separating spinsters from “normal” women. we also saw a deliberate campaign at the time to encourage “good” women to be “enthusiastic” about their participation in PIV with men…gee, where have we heard that before? and not only were spinsters not having PIV, they were further marginalized from “real women” who not only put up with it, like they had in the past, but also began to “like it.” or you know, to pretend they did:
radfems is bitter and dont like sex! check. real women let their men the world know how much they LOOOOVE PIV. and this “sex positive” business is about as fresh and new as…well, pre-world war 1.
so what is this all about, really? and why did “PIV-positivism” and its attendant celibate-bashing and lesbian-inferring pop up at the precise moment it did? could it possibly be because…some women were about to legitimately cast off PIV (and therefore men) for good? looks like it:
and from here of course, it was but a hop, skip and a jump to the creation of “lesbian” as a deviant sexual category. yes, apparently, that was the beginning of the end of PIV-critical feminism, and it was instigated by male sexologists, and just at the right time, too. issues of morality, sexual expression and orientation splintered feminists into basically 2 camps (care to name them?), and dealt the death blow to any real, earth-shattering feminist work, erasing anything PIV-critical, literally, from history (even the history of feminism):
new categories, based on sexual contact. at exactly the same time that feminists were dissecting PIV, finding it problematic, and becoming socially and financially able to do without it, for probably the first time in history. now why would that be?
what a coincidence.
and did i say how utterly homophobic and regressive this all is?
and its exactly as fresh as…this lace tea gown, which i found here, circa 1890-1892. it couldve been worn by the first sex-positive feminists! now thats good history.
If It’s “Anti-Sex” Then It Can’t Possibly Be True September 25, 2010
Posted by FCM in books!, feminisms, health, international, liberal dickwads, PIV, politics, rape, self-identified feminist men.Tags: PIV, radical feminists, sheila jeffreys, the spinster and her enemies
comments closed
so whats with the accusations of “sex-negative” ay? what does that even mean? we have already established that “sex-negative” means “PIV-negative,” in the extremely fucked up logic fail that is sex-positive feminism. did i say feminism? i meant male-identified PIV-centric consumerist hedonism. but i digress.
when anyone lobs the “sex-negative” insult at radical feminists, its clear what they mean. and what they clearly mean is that if something can be read (by them) as “sex-negative” then by definition, its also not true. that it is not to be believed, that it should be dismissed outright. well, thats quite a leap, isnt it? well, not really, if you believe that PIV is, LITERALLY, in the mathematical sense, THE TRUTH. the way. the solution. the answer to everything. in fact, thats the only way anyone could come to this conclusion, isnt it? how else could sex-negative or anti-sex mean quite literally “false”? this is a serious question.
and they think they are so fresh and progressive here, in their dismissal of radical feminists. they arent. in “the spinster and her enemies,” sheila jeffreys observes that early feminists saw the same things we see, today, and named it: “sex” was just a euphemism for PIV; that PIV-centric sexuality was problematic for women; and therefore it should end (these images are from the book, and yes, they are crooked in the book too):
see? PIV = sex = PIV. same as today. early feminists tried to imagine a heterosexual sexuality that wouldnt place women in harms way, and it wasnt hard to do: eliminate PIV. easy. and its not just contemporary historians (and modern fun- and male- feminists) who believe early feminists to be prudes, as we will see.
one of early feminists most driven campaigns was also to enact laws that would severely punish abuse-of-power rape. sound familiar? they named the problem: men in positions of authority over women and girls, abusing that authority by having PIV with women and girls, and (of course) also leaving them to deal with the consequences, alone:
what fucking prudes those early feminists were! what fucking cunts! well, according to those who regularly engaged in abuse-of-power rape against girls and women. namely, almost every single man in a position of power over girls and women. (not surprisingly, certain people have a problem with women who name this one today, too.)
and heres where the mental gymnastics came into play. yes, the PIV-positive crowd was very intellecutally, uh, limber back then too. they verily defied gravity with this one:
yes, male sexuality is a very powerful thing, and men, as a group, are overcome by it frequently. its natural! but women have nothing to worry about, because men as a group are a moral people, and wouldnt sexually harm a fly. oh, okay! how very lucky to be a fly, then. and woe be unto the fucking cunts and bitches i mean sex-negative prudes, who called bullshit on any of this:
oh noes! not the pecking of hens! nothing is more terrible, more horrible, more offensive than that! and shut the fuck up, you are wrong. sure they were wrong. anyone could easily and correctly come to the conclusion that early feminists were wrong, about PIV, about men, about mens demonstrated and routine sexual abuse of women and girls. you know, anyone who completely disregarded the actual truth. and instead embraced this bullshit sex-positive “PIV is truth” paradigm we apparently have been living under for centuries. centuries, people.
just like we do today. nothing new under the sun. that is all.
femonade 