jump to navigation

Moron Slutwalk October 2, 2011

Posted by FCM in feminisms, liberal dickwads, logic, PIV, politics, pop culture, rape.
Tags: ,
comments closed

when i first sat down to create this graphic, my intent was to show why liberal men and self-identified feminist men seem so interested in slutwalk: why are they participating at all, whats in it for them?  clearly, they are participating because their own male privilege and power is being challenged (this is why they get involved in most things…also note their rage when their participation is itself questioned) but in the case of slutwalk i think its very clear where this challenge is coming from.  this is liberal mens entitlement to womens bodies being challenged by more “conservative” mens ideas about women and “sex.”  namely, that conservative men think women in general shouldnt dress like sluts and whores for men in general, because under conservative sexual politics womens sexuality is confined to their reproductive servitide to one man at a time within the context of marriage.

conservative mens own use of prostitutes of course needs some examining here, but the one thing they always say when they get caught is that they have “sinned.”  isnt it?  they are flawed and faulty human beings who have run afoul of their own values.  not that theres anything wrong with their values (according to themselves) just that they couldnt (chose not to) personally adhere to them, when using prostituted “common women” for sex.  well looky there, ive examined it!  that was easier than i thought.  and that now-infamous toronto police officer who advised women to stop dressing like sluts if they wanted to stop men raping them was an expression of conservative sexual mores, that threatened liberal mens entitlement to have girls and women dressing as slutty as fucking possible, for liberal mens pleasure.  this was a clash of liberal mens and conservative mens respective brands of rape-culture.  this is what liberal men are protesting, when they get involved in slutwalk.  mystery solved.

but what this graphic also revealed, i think, is that slutwalk cannot possibly challenge “rape culture” because it happens in the friction and overlap where 2 rape cultures collide.  the existence of rape culture in itself didnt precipitate the need for slutwalk: the 2 brands of rape culture being incompatible with one another and creating friction and overlap at one point is what created this “emergency.”  and protesting this emergency (of 2 brands of rape culture being incompatible with one another somewhat on some issues but not creating enough static to undermine either one of them) is what gave rise to this.  men creating conflict between and amongst themselves, as to the proper use of womens bodies within patriarchy and within a male-centric PIV-as-sex paradigm that colonizes and kills women for mens pleasure, and increases male power and increases womens submission to men.  warring factions of slaveowning men, disagreeing somewhat on the proper use of their sexual slaves, would not be an inaccurate description of whats happening here.

the message here is not that theres anything wrong with rape culture as such: the message seems to be that liberal mens brand of rape culture is better than the alternative brand, but is that really true?  conservative women dont seem to think so: they seem to think that theirs is better, or at least that there is no escaping rape culture so its better to be the property of one man than all men.  so theres even some disagreement amongst the sexual slaves as to whats the better deal under this inherently oppressive regime.  a feminist analysis of course would reveal that all brands of rape culture are still rape culture.

there is friction and overlap here, but its all very much within the context of rape culture, and it all very much supports (and comprises) rape culture as such.  on the ground, i have no doubt that this would all seem very confusing for women who are fucking sick and tired of all of it, of knowing men are salivating when we walk by and that its because we are on the menu, and the dinner bell is always ringing.  this happens no matter how or even whether we are dressed.  the cognitive dissonance here must be paralyzing, and this is in fact what we see: this post entitled “post slutwalk anxiety” reveals quite a lot.  second-wave feminists not being welcome (gee i wonder why?); issues of “consent” being brought up, which is rape-culture language and benefits men and causes extreme anxiety in women, even in the context of this allegedly empowering exercise; and the issue of there being severe consequences to resistance, and the fact of any resistance to rape culture at all being incompatible with womens real lives, no matter how liberally they identify and how deeply they are involved and invested in liberal politics.  there is a reason this is happening in the context of slutwalk.  it doesnt mean what they are being told it means, and what they want desperately for it to mean.  it doesnt mean that.  but clearly, its not meaningless.  slutwalk — and mens participation in it — just mean something else entirely.

and it *is* stunning, the complexity and the audacity do have that effect.  but it doesnt have to be paralyzing.  it doesnt have to be this way.  some “feminism” does actually make sense.  and we will be there, supporting them, when women have an a-ha moment and realize what all of this means (and what it doesnt).  and this does happen.  radical feminists have always performed this function — to support women and womens interests as a sexual class around the world, no matter what — and we always will.

“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.