jump to navigation

Framing Rape July 16, 2012

Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, logic, radical concepts, rape.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

rape is not just “forced sex” mkay.  to the extent that anyone thinks rape is a bad thing — and many people obviously dont think even that — the issue has been framed as either a property issue implicating “consent” and trespass (hey you kids, get off my lawn!) or similarly as “forced sex” implicating bodily integrity and sexual autonomy.  obviously, bodily integrity and sexual autonomy are positive goals, but this framework is fundamentally flawed.

in reality, rape is not “forced sex” because rape is not sex.  to say that it is forced sex requires that we cede that rape is sex, some kind of sex — i do not think we want to cede that, or even that we are knowingly ceding that, but its clearly the case isnt it?  if we are saying that it is possible to “force sex” then we are saying that our definition of “sex” is “a man sticking his dick into another person.”  and thats being generous, considering that we often hear tell of men having the “sex” with inanimate objects like knotholes, cars, and inflatable pool toys.  in reality, it seems that “sex” means “a man sticking his dick into anything, anything at all.”  “sexuality” and “sex crimes” — including rape — are all built on this theoretical and linguistic foundation.

but if the problem of rape was not framed in male-centric terms, and instead was framed in female-centric terms (whether it should be being a completely separate point — i of course think it should be) what we would get is essentially this: rape is the violent enforcement, by men, of womens sex role as fuckholes for men and breeders.

sex role.  sex, not gender.  and forced sex role, not forced sex.

of course, in framing rape in male-centric terms, we not only have male-centric sexuality i mean men sticking their dicks into literally anything under any circumstances — and objectifying the recipient — being completely normalized, but also, taken to its logical conclusion (as it has been in the last few years) we see that men are able to claim legal and other status as “rape victims” when they experience “forced sex.”  even though the purpose and effect of anyone forcing sex on men has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose and effect of men raping women globally, across time and place.

indeed, patriarchal mission-creep often happens when women are finally and at long last allowed legal protections from the things men do to us, like sexual harassment (and rape) — the “perfect plaintiffs” (plaintiffs meaning victims) in a legal and moral case of sex discrimination of any kind is a male plaintiff.  catharine mackinnon talks about this in “womens lives, mens laws.”  thats probably because we keep framing everything in male-centric terms, mistaking them for neutral.  they arent.  we find this out later when everything comes back around — as it always does — to serving and protecting men and decidedly not to serving women, or protecting women from what men do to us.

being that this is how language, the law and legal protections work, we should probably stop assuming that legal protections are going to protect us, or protect us for very long — taking things to their logical ends happens sometimes, especially when doing so will support male power at womens expense.  and that includes framing the rape-problem as having anything whatsoever to do with sex.  it doesnt.

Failure of Application vs Failure of Reason December 18, 2010

Posted by FCM in books!, entertainment, international, liberal dickwads, politics, pop culture, race, radical concepts.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

i wanted to expound on the concept of “application versus reason” that i mentioned about a month ago (help!  i’m being repressed!).  analyzing social inequities using the “equality model” is standard liberal dickwad politics 101, in that it allows self-identified progressive males to analyze “unfairness” without being distracted by the ugly realities of male privilege, and the ways that women are and continue to be victimized as women, by men and male institutions.  in the above clip, the monty python players make hi-larious fun of class-based inequities, and their extreme silliness and ability to absolutely hit the nail on the head with regard to analyzing class assures monty python its place in history and in the hearts, minds and living rooms i mean ipods of good liberal dickwads everywhere.  i mean lets face it.  they are funny mkay?  and smart.  and they know it!

but the equality-model as the foundation for modern liberal dickwad politics (ie. liberal politics) was first advanced in the male civil rights context.  in other words, the idea that there is no legitimate reason to treat black men any differently than white men are treated.  but disenfranchised men, and only men, were meant to be included in the arguments against slavery, and all race-based anti-discrimination discourses that came later.  in her essay “reflections on sex equality under law,” catharine mackinnon notes that including women in federal workplace discrimination legislation was an afterthought, and sneaky politicking by a racist senator that was intended to bring about the failure of anti-racist legislation by including teh wimmins in it.  (heartwarming isnt it?)  for some reason, it passed anyway:

but just because women were now technically protected under anti-discrimination law in certain situations, it doesnt mean what we might like it to mean, when the laws were drafted and intended to apply to only men, and in fact have only men in mind throughout.  and where the favored liberal-dickwad argument is “but thats not fairrrrrr, you wouldnt do that to a white man.”  for example, in an employment context: you would never stick a white man in the kitchen of a restaurant instead of letting him wait tables.  or, you would never execute a white man for sticking his dick into someone.  etc., etc.  male-centric anti-discrimination discourse addresses and prevents failures of application onlymeaning: if it makes sense for a white man, it makes sense for a black man.  if it doesnt make sense to make a white man do something, then it doesnt make sense to make a black man do it either.  not surprisingly, unfair-application isnt the issue though, when addressing the ways women are victimized as women, by men.  namely, female-reproductive issues and the sexual abuse of girls and women by men:

what the failure-of-application or “equality” model doesnt address, doesnt anticipate and doesnt care about at all, is the failure of reason that comes into play when any male-centered discourse is applied to women.  for example, sick time, and the 40-hour workweek.  its all well and good (under an equality model, its not “unfairrrr”) to give everyone (or no-one) 5 days a year of sick-time right?  its all well and good (under an equality model) to force everyone to sit at their desks for 8 hours a day, every day, if they expect a paycheck.  but women are subjected to medical events that men arent, just by virtue of being biologically female (care to name them?).  they are also more likely to be the caretakers of the home and of children because they are socially female.  you see where i am going with this.  and it gets worse.

the inapplicability insanity of applying of male-centric disourse to womens bodies and lives becomes glaringly obvious when observing the mental (and legislative) gymnastics regarding the fetus, and its relationship to the pregnant woman carrying it.  the best they have so far been able to do (bless their clueless hearts!!!1!!11  actually, no.  fuck them all.  srsly.) is to regard the fetus as a body part.  because men have body parts tooooo!!111!11  but a fetus is NOT a “body part,” and its in fact completely irrational and unreasonable to regard something as something it isnt:

ignore the dangling words at the end there.

do we get it now?  its not merely unfairrrrr when male-centric discourses are used against women, as women.  its literally insane.  its not rational.  so, when the liberal dickwads snort and knee-slap over the monty-python players in the “witch village” clip, what is being criticised here really?  men murdering women of their own class based on misogynist religious superstition (literally, insanity masquerading as logic) and sex-based discrimination in the legal system?  HA!  not likely:

taken in the context of monty pythons usual social class-commentary and criticism of the ruling elite, this is clearly a criticism of religion and superstition sullying the legal process, which is usually rational, although perhaps unfairly applied, against men, by other men.  whew!  thank (us rational men) this doesnt happen anymore!  except that it does.  this very type of shit happens all the time, when you are a woman.  reason, fails.  logic, fails. 

more examples!  the male-centric discourse surrounding sex, which is that PIV = sex = PIV.  you went over to his house because you wanted to have sex, and he stuck his dick in you against your will…well, sorry, but you actually asked for it.  HUH?  yes!  reality of course being completely irrelevant here, which is the problem when we are dealing in INSANITY.  a mother abusing her child gets an extra-harsh sentence for “abusing a trust relationship” because we are allegedly, as a civil society, horrified when people abuse trust-relationships.  right?  not so fast.  even *if* the male-centric legal system applied this one equally to male abusers of children (they dont), we are still left with a significant problem, in that its not even fucking true.  we *dont* value trust-relationships, at all.  or at least, when a trusted man rapes a woman, its not really rape at all in most peoples minds, because she knew him, and trusted him.  HUH?  the examples of this kind of shit are endless, and the legal frameworks of both motherhood and “sex” are extremely…fertile…ground.

the equality-model and liberal-dickwad politics dont work for us, because they dont protect us in the way we need protecting: from men, exploiting girls and womens biological femaleness for our destruction and their gain. 

and we have to understand that its not intended to.  men create this chaos, this unreasonableness, and force women to live in it, because it benefits men to do so.  our adpoting male-centric liberal dickwad politics isnt going to help us a damn bit, when men *are* our problem, and they always have been, and they fucking revel in it.

Moron Reality November 20, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, feminisms, health, kids, liberal dickwads, PIV, pop culture, porn, prostitution, race, radical concepts, rape.
Tags: , , , , ,
comments closed

in “womens lives, mens laws” catharine mackinnon talks about “reality” several times, and in several different ways.  i think this is what it all boils down to actually: realizing that theres the “reality” we all live in and with every day, which frames and creates our experience in a male-centered way (for example, that PIV is sexual, and that vaginas are just fuckholes for men) and then, theres what actually happens

the first one is the only thing that most people care about.  realizing that theres a second track playing all the time is key, but its also a realization that “reality isnt real” which causes individuals problems.  particularly when those individuals are women, and everyone who actually matters already thinks women are crazy, and suffer us primarily as masturbatory aids.  perhaps i digress.  but even the linguistic fallacy of what appears, in this case, to be a demonstrably true statement (“reality isnt real”) illustrates the problem of existing within a male-centered universe, when what actually happens, exists outside what is real.  basically its a huge mindfuck.  but luckily we have a few tourguides to help us along the way!

in mackinnons essay “law’s stories as reality and politics,” she talks about “male-centered reality” versus the “second track” as story 1 and story 2.  one is what actually happens; the other is what “power” wants to hear, so its given its rightful place AS reality:

this pretty much sums up pomo feminism and their relationship to “lived experience” actually: for example, women who have “negative experiences” with heterosex and PIV have “issues” and “baggage” while any who report having positive experiences are celebrated.  see?  “normative” experience is not the one that is the most often experienced, by the most people.  its just the one that “power” wants to hear.  and “power” never lets actual facts get in the way of the reality it creates…especially in the case of numbers, where “power” literally cannot or will not put 2 and 2 together:

judging by the numbers here, sexual harassment in the federal workplace actually happens more often than it doesnt.  and sexual abuse of girl children happens, literally, all the time.  but we still live in a world where victims are not to be believed.  and where the workplace is “business” and not “personal” and where women who chronically job-hop and lose seniority every time just arent committed, and dont end up in positions of power and authority because they dont want to.  oh, okay!

relatedly, in another essay entitled “mediating reality”, mackinnon also talks about the medias portrayal of violence, including sexual violence, and the effect it has of making things that actually happened seem “unreal.”  she notes that the school shootings at columbine, for example, left people who actually experienced it up-close and dirty, saying that they “couldnt believe it” and that it “didnt seem real.”  same with 9/11.  people who saw the footage on television said the same thing.  but obviously, both things actually happened.  how is this possible?

from the article, regarding “the schoolhouse massacres in

so we are exposed to these flashing images onscreen, but are unable to make rational connections between these images-of life, and real-life.  and in porn, mackinnon makes it completely clear that we are intended to believe that things that NEVER ACTUALLY FUCKING HAPPENED, did in fact happen.  that the “sex was real.”  but the abuse was not.  but its not just television, and this is kind of the big reveal: there is actually evidence that even before television existed, people dis-associated the same way.  it actually happened, but it was “like a bad dream”.  some of this, when experienced firsthand, could be traumatic dissociation, sure.  but what about the rest of it?

its as if we are reading from a fucking script, and no amount of actual facts is going to get in the way of the prefab-reality we THINK we are experiencing.  but whose reality is it?

well…i hope this isnt too cryptic, but for me, it kind of says it all.  i am still trying to finish “the spinster and her enemies” and it seems as if jeffreys left the best for last.  i nearly came out of my skin when i read the chapter on “the invention of the frigid woman”.  apparently, in the early 1920s, upperclass married white women suddenly became afflicted with not liking PIV enough.  “frigidity” of course is 100% an invention of male sexologists, as jeffreys documents in excruciating detail, and was created, in part, from white mens travels abroad, having PIV with native women who “screamed with joy” when the foreign white men touched them, and stuck their dicks into them.

they were screaming.

Psychotherapy. It’s Porn-Tastic! On MacKinnon’s “Sex, Lies and Psychotherapy” October 31, 2010

Posted by FCM in books!, health, porn, rape.
Tags: , , , , ,
comments closed

this essay from catharine mackinnon’s “womens lives, mens laws” addresses how pornified medicine and psychotherapy/psychiatry really are, and how female patients with histories of sexual trauma are treated by male doctors.  namely, womens stories of having been sexually abused, molested, and raped give male doctors boners, and anything that gives men boners is both good, and not real, at the same time.  sound familiar?  male doctors are also known to go out of their way to mansplain to everyone around them how sex, violence and rape are completely different.  and how nothing thats violent can be sexual too, and nothing men percieve as sexual can possibly be violent, even where male violence directly targets womens breasts and genitals.  now thats good mansplaining!

in another essay, mackinnon (a lawyer and law professor) mentions how the legal standard for what is “obscene” and therefore illegal sexually-themed material must both appeal to the “prurient interest” (aka.  it induces boners) and be “patently offensive” at the same time.  otherwise its just, you know, perfectly legal porn.  and theres nothing wrong with porn, right?  right?

well…only the very obvious problem that if any “questionable” material thought to be obscene is ever taken in front of a court of law to determine whether it is or isnt, and the material gives men boners, in order to make the material illegally obscene, they must also acknowledge that whats making them hard is also patently offending them, at the same time.  and they never will.  because if it gives them boners, its generally good.  and if it is just obviously patently offensive, at the same time, so much so that they might actually be embarrassed to be sporting wood at such a disgusting display, a strategically-placed notebook (or a lie) can easily hide the evidence that its also very much appealing to their prurient interest, too.  thus, we have all kinds of boner-inducing, patently-offensive material widely available to just about anyone, at any time, and noone is willing to name it.  material thats so vile, violent, and offensive, and without any redeeming value at all, that it should be illegal, and would be, except that men are fucking liars and literally cannot tell the truth about obscenity, and what it is, and how it affects them.  this is what we know as porn.

oh, and its extremely likely that doctors and psychiatrists use porn, as described above, and they always have.  enjoy!