General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWitchwind: "No woman is heterosexual"
Recently, I discovered the most radical, Valerie Solanas-level RadFem blogger I have ever read (and I have read a few).
Her contention is that all PIV is rape, and that women could never love men, but only be colonized by them.
I am attempting to grow in understanding and compassion towards the vast world of people who are not me (which is everyone, as NO ONE is just like me). I would appreciate some feedback on this. I just don't know what to think, other than finding this person to be scary and just as much of a manipulator as the men she is attacking.
http://www.feministes-radicales.org/2013/08/13/4638/
What men call heterosexuality is an institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our reproductive functions and steal our labour.
Heterosexuality, or sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship to men that exists is mens violence, physical and mental invasion one that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love. All womens attraction to men is 100% eroticised trauma bonding / stockholm syndrome. There is no other form of attraction to men possible than that. None. Any woman sexually or sentimentally attached to a man is ONLY trauma-bonded to him. This is a universal rule under patriarchy.
~ snip ~
So just by looking at the reality of mens domination of women, it holds that emotional or sexual attachment to men can always only be trauma-bonding, because for it not to be trauma-bonding, men would have to not be our oppressors. But theres more to this than what Dee Graham says, so Im building on her theory here.
The reason so many of us trauma-bond so instantly and intensely to men in our proximity and sometimes to just any man that crosses our way, whether we are lesbian, celibate, separatist or het, is that we are programmed and groomed to react in this way to male threat since birth. The key to understanding this is dissociation, since trauma-bonding is a form of dissociation; so before I continue into the female child-grooming theory ill explain what I mean by dissociation and why trauma-bonding is a form of dissociation. Sorry if its a bit long but I have yet to find a shorter way of explaining it.
~ snip ~
This is the template on which grooming to heterosexuality is fixed. I think the reason we can so easily switch to trauma-bonding to men, experience mens approval as such a matter of life or death, perceive that our self-worth is so dependent on somebody elses external attention even if they are repugnant oafs, is because this is how we learned to live and survive as a child, from birth. Then we simply continue to adapt in this way to male violence as we grow, we know no other way to react to abuse. The system of captivity to parents is the same as with male ownership / relationships to men. Same isolation, same captivity, same need to dissociate / TB from ongoing abuse, etc. Theres no way we would dissociate so easily from mens abuse were it not for this treatment as girls. Theres no way we would go near men at all.
~ snip ~
Some more from the primary Wordpress of this author
http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/24/on-colonisation-by-men-friendships-with-type-2-colonised-women-and-how-we-understand-it-as-radfems/
~ snip ~
Note. Im writing on colonisation because Ive been thinking a lot about relationships with non radfem (though already into feminism) women lately and how difficult these relationships are. This is a really important question to me because talking to women about feminism (spinning) and creating bonds with women in order to decolonise collectively from men is really whats most important and what I believe feminism and liberation is based on. But sometimes I just get so much shit, and it never stops being painful and exhausting. I make friends with women, I introduce them to feminism, Im full of hope that finally there will be women with whom to discuss and further radical feminism, just BE with them and not in dissonance as it usually is with colonised women, but at some point they end up betraying me, hurting me, they stop and stagnate in the middle of their tracks, may revert even, turn against me, because im too far ahead and they cant go there yet, because theyre not ready to meet certain feminist standards, they have a boyfriend who keeps undoing what she just learned, theyre still not feminist enough to value our friendship and the feminist space were giving each other, they have no idea how rare and precious it is, or may still prefer male company. It hurts every time the same.
At first I was always wrought from brain contortion by trying to figure out what Id done wrong for them to do that to me, Id go over and over the situation to decrypt some hidden understanding I might have missed, something I could do so it wouldnt repeat itself. But something new always crept up again. And I had enough, I had to find a way to protect myself because the whole thing is just too unbearable, its not feminist to let myself continually be hurt by women. So recently Ive figured out a pattern: that every time a woman does this to me, this weird turning down and gaslighting or whatever she chooses to do to harm me, its because she was type #2 colonised. It is the common denominator to all these women, no matter how almost there yet I thought they were. It never happens with women who arent type #2 colonised, or if it does happen, it mends itself easily, I know I can trust them and I dont feel like our relationship will be threatened every minute, not knowing what to expect from them.
~ snip ~
Can men and women live in peace and harmony? Or should women seek social and perhaps completely physical separation from men in WBW-only spaces?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)neverforget
(9,433 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)neverforget
(9,433 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Now you've got me interested! It looks a little light for me (drinking a black IPA from North Carolina right now), but I do love the concept.
Now, the concept of no heterosexual women, well, that's a lot harder to wrap my brain around... I've met a few.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)scoot ovah
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)shenmue
(38,501 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Not this again...
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)You might as well pull out a Fred Phelps-esque screed on gay marriage, because doing so would prove just as much as the OP, which is to say absolutely nothing...
Dorian Gray
(13,469 posts)I would liken this to something as radically offensive and hateful as Fred Phelps.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)he by no means speaks for all Christians. Obviously, even though I'm sure he would like to imagine that he does.
It should be likewise apparent that people who specifically criticize the ideology and statements of Fred Phelps and his ilk are not, somehow, "Anti-Christian"... or bashing ALL Christians.
Lex
(34,108 posts)That's what I think. Also it seems like flame bait.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Who the fuck cares.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)indie9197
(509 posts)make a good reality tv show though
Dorian Gray
(13,469 posts)I went to an all girls boarding school for my Junior year of high school. It was NOT Facts of LIfe!
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,297 posts)Of course we can live in peace and harmony with men, and they with us.
We do love them, at least the ones who are worthy and good men.
I am gobsmacked.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)The vast majority of RadFem blogs I have been reading have some powerful and legitimate criticism of the patriarchy and the violence and destructive control that results from it.
This particular author, however, strikes me as someone who wants to replace male control with female control. She excludes any possibility of male awakening and growth, and has declared the entire male sex as enemies of humanity.
One starts to wonder whether, as a middle aged man seeking to do "the right thing" in all aspects of my life, whether there is anything at all positive about my existence, or whether the only moral thing men can do is to cease to exist.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,297 posts)I am certainly a feminist, but not like this.
And I love having men around. I think the world would be a much less interesting and vibrant place without you.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)We are not all monsters.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,297 posts)The monsters are not restricted to men.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)real women love real men
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Someone trying for their 15 minutes of fame?
Shandris
(3,447 posts)Its like trying to understand theoretical mathematics by way of Ted Kaczynski -- you're sure there's a connection somewhere, but the journey isn't worth your sanity.
Ohio Joe
(21,656 posts)Or is that a type you already know?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)From the most noble and virtuous, to the most violent and degraded, yes, I want to learn how to positively interact with everyone.
Hating and or controlling people is just NOT my thing.
Ohio Joe
(21,656 posts)Pretty one sided presentation, don't you think?
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)This person's writings are disturbing to me. And so, I brought it in here to let other eyes and other minds check it out and help me process this.
And I appreciate their feedback.
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)This is no more acceptable than posting extremist Men's Rights looney rantings. That shit is equally disturbing and yet, you aren't posting it to help you process it, are you? Have you wandered around other extremist sites and asked us to help you process them? Been to Stormfront lately? - now THAT is some disturbing shit there.
It's my opinion that ALL extremists should be ignored... I feel no need to "process" their madness. I would urge you to self-delete this, but from your other responses, I doubt you will.
Ohio Joe
(21,656 posts)Strange that only one sides extremists disturb you.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Can I do it as a separate post in the next few days? Unlike RadFems, I don't normally read their blogs, so I don't know much about them other than they have a neanderthal mentality which disrespects and diminishes the very real problems faced by women.
Same thing with Stormfront. I know they are out there. I know they are vile and dangerous.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Seems like all sides have their extremists and since bringing such up on the other end of the spectrum is seen as shining the light on ignorance/hate/etc why not in this case as well?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Feminism, on a basic level, is not inherently anti-male. Whereas I'm not sure I can say the converse for MRA-ism.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)But I think it is important to the discussion to evaluate a number of topics related to this particular poster, and how her beliefs and writings can negatively impact the feminist cause.
Going Sgt Schultz on this is not protecting the cause of universal respect and opportunity.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I consider that way, way down on the list of real priorities. I've also said that it's not always possible - or even advisable - to be conciliatory and "fair" when discussing complex, difficult issues that make people uncomfortable.
The blogger in the OP may well be mentally ill - she certainly has "issues" to say the least - but ideas like hers don't form themselves in a perfect vacuum by any means. When you compare the rates at which men sexually victimize and physically injure women, to the rates of woman-on-man, it's not exactly some even, symmetrical "battle of the sexes." Thus the small kernel of truth hidden in the otherwise deranged blather of this blog post.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)By some monster(s) with a Y chromosome.
Rape is real. A friend of mine calls it "soul murder". And while I believe that men, as a group, are making progress towards enlightenment, we still have a long way to go.
But to make the projection that we are invariably rapists because we enjoy the physical, romantic and sexual company of women is something that needs to be called out.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)The whole point, as you said, is knowledge and understanding.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)"This is just a select few. Move along. Nothing to see here."
All madness should be studied and learned from.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)I seek out knowledge from everywhere it comes from.
NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)uppityperson
(115,674 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Everything else about the writing in question rocks though
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)I've not been reading these types of threads, but somehow the title caught my eye.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)Shows how much I've followed this spat recently...
Warpy
(110,905 posts)The marriage laws are loose, to say the least, and women are neither breeding stock nor family property.
It's knowing about these cultures that gives me hope. They're not perfect cultures by any definition, they just do one thing better than we do.
LukeFL
(594 posts)You are so hopeful for
Recursion
(56,582 posts)An attempt to evoke the alienation from their emotions and bodies that women were at times forced into. Though this seems to be aimed more at other women, whereas Solenas (at least by my reading) was aiming at men.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's been a long day, cut me some slack!
Yeah. Uh, Andy Warhol.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)But would be about 10 years too early.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It can be whomever we want it to be! The point is the thing!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)DU proves it every. damn. day.
Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #20)
Recursion This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)To say he wasn't a health nut would be an understatement.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)in a surprise attack. She also attempted to shoot a third person, Fred Hughes, but the gun jammed. Hughes would have been shot at point blank range.
Worhol was critically injured and never fully recovered from her attack.
So she literally aimed at three men and shot until her weapon failed her. Those are the facts, not a 'literary device'.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Thanks.
Her attacks on Warhol were not art. The SCUM manifesto was.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)"Art"? YMMV, in my book she doesn't even get points for spelling.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)instead of a genuinely homicidal maniac, given the fact that she actually shot someone in the gut.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If ones reaction to learning this is; "Ha ha that's still funny.", their psychological state is suspect.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)who wrote a completely tongue-in-cheek screed about killing people, who then suddenly turned on a dime into a violent gun-wielding maniac..... but there was no relationship between the "before" and "after".
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Did the author compare having parents as "a system of captivity", where if one has parents, or "a man", they experience the same isolation, same captivity, same need to disassociate/TB from ongoing abuse? It sounds like the author is declaring not just all male/female relationships but all parent/child relationships as "abusive".
It sounds like the author is trying to make the argument that any women who thinks they like men (or just a particular man) is just so abused they don't know any better, which is a really convenient way to dismiss any woman that might disagree with her views.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)*LIKED IT TOO*
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)EN GARDE
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Skittles
(152,964 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)That said, if you want some suggestions for well-regarded feminists and their work instead of cranks with blogs, I'm sure many of us would be happy to make suggestions.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)"Rage Against The Man-chine" is another that I find enlightening and humorous.
This individual, OTOH, seems to just want to trade male control for female control. Operative word, control.
But yes, I would be interested in a few more opinions and viewpoints.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I haven't looked at IBTM very much or very recently, but I thought her take on it was: I'm not against all heterosexual acts, I'm against only the ones that aren't consensual -- BUT the consent doesn't count if it was the product of a patriarchal system. Furthermore, every society that exists today is so oppressively patriarchal that no woman's consent to any sex act with a man can be considered valid. Therefore, every heterosexual act that occurs in today's world is an instance of rape.
If I have that right, then there's very little difference between her and the blog you quote in your OP. They both agree that heterosex today is always rape. The only difference is that IBTM is at least theoretically open to the possibility that such sexual acts might be OK in a completely different kind of society, but Witchwind seems to rule out even that.
Is that a fair characterization of the views of these two bloggers?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)cinnabonbon
(860 posts)I am a sucker for puns, so I obviously want to see what "rage against the man-chine" is about.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)MMkay!
I would like some Caesar dressing with that word salad, thank you.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)attached to those she is trying to convert to her way of thinking.
BarackTheVote
(938 posts)break up with your boyfriend/husband or you're not a real feminist. At which point they tell her to take a hike. #2 colonization means what, exactly?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and it is about time that someone called them out on it. You go, girl.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)If the former, you're mad, if the latter, you're merely slightly overly subtle.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)"...whatever she chooses to do to harm me..."
What a victim. Sounds as if WW can't get along with anyone... what a way to go through life.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)"The girls" and I are planning a February lunch -- we're widows, divorcees, and never-marrieds. Think I'll send an e-mail asking them to share "feminist space" with me... they'll probably laugh me off the teh internets.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And the whole world is a massive conspiracy against her personally.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2014, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)
Which indicates to me some form of delusional psychosis* latching onto a distorted ideology that feeds and enables the delusions, the paranoia, the apocalyptic end times struggle against the all-powerful conspiracy, etc.
The specific ideology probably doesn't matter. It's a symptom.
* not a professional diagnosis, by any stretch
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)radfems, as well as the most extreme MRA's whom I suppose could be considered "separatists" in the sense that they have no female contacts outside of their mail-order bride. Same rejection of society as "sinful" or "wicked," same paranoid response to "non-believers."
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)All the evil in the world can be traced back to one thing.
Neoma
(10,039 posts)Being vague about it broad brushes it like any type of mental illness could cause this behavior.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I have no clue what type of mental illness it is, but I KNOW it as A mental illness.
Neoma
(10,039 posts)I was also not asking you.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Lighten up
Neoma
(10,039 posts)I'm the leader of the mental health group at my college. I'm going to have to be prepared for a lot of crap...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I was wrong.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2014, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)
duty paranoia and an extremely distorted relationship to reality.
Edited: Post changed upthread. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Neoma
(10,039 posts)I understand the thought process of immediately thinking mental illness, but when people have stupid thought processes, it may just mean they have stupid thought processes.
On the other hand, I've been known to say that people who don't seek help are more insane than people who do. But when people think that someone is mentally ill, it feels like they're accusing people who do get help. Especially when it comes to violence...computer chair diagnoses become really stupid in time.
Problem is, there's no PC when it comes to mental health.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Serious question. I'm wondering what the term is for someone who has that sort of paranoid relationship with reality.
I mean, really, what I see is this sort of apocalyptic worldview with several common characteristics, including heavy duty paranoia, conspiracy thinking, black and white reasoning, the tendency to attribute all evils in the world to one force or "original sin", an unrealistic "garden of eden" state pre-"fall"... I fully realize that much of what I'm describing gels with the religious beliefs of many fundamentalists, too.
So you are absolutely right that mental illness the diagnostic term isn't really fair, because the people struggling with that and getting help aren't who I'm talking about, in fact the descriptor far better applies to many people out in the world who many societies regard even as "virtuous".
Neoma
(10,039 posts)Is "cult mentality." How ill is a person who is brainwashed into something that is acceptable by parts of our culture? Points of view can be considered crazy, but if a person is taught paranoia, what then can we do? (I consider Fox News watchers cult members by the way.) This particular person appears to be trying to make her own cult of sorts (while failing at it) and that's why there's such a negative reaction here.
It comes back down to the opinion that these sorts of people, "aren't right in the head." Which isn't off base, but I think cultists are in their own category. The likeliness that they'll all be helped and treated is next to nil. In that sense, they aren't really part of the mental health community. Unless they cross that invisible line where they say they're Captain Picard of the starship Enterprise. And even then, we can't be sure that's crazy.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Plus once when we were in LA, we spent a fairly squicked out afternoon in what was oddly dubbed the "Patrick Stewart Suite" of the LAX Travelodge.
I can't imagine, based upon the quality of this room, that Mr. Stewart feels this is a compliment.
Yeah, cult mentality, that works.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This isn't a narcissistic injury to her. Though it's probably good that I'm not the one deciding who's crazy and who isn't. That's just my reaction: she sees the other women as independent agents, which is precisely what the control freak MRAs don't do.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I couldn't possibly have read what I just thought I did.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)has some woman on the hook, the phone rings and "It's my boyfriend. We're going out to dinner later."
Turns her plans to shit every time. No matter how hard she tries, there are still a whole bunch of women out there who actually like men. And don't care if some harriden thinks they are enslaved.
Anyway, this isn't new thought by any means, and is still too far out there to take seriously.
She picked as good name, though. Witches, especially wicked ones, have historically never taken men seriously except as beasts of burden. And I hear witch farts are especially vile.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I'm hoping for the same, quite soon again.
Upton
(9,709 posts)and PIV is always rape too..
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)And suddenly I'm in the mood for some seriously rough colonization...
Upton
(9,709 posts)and have come to the conclusion the writer is either deeply traumatized or just plain crazy..
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Can someone please help? My grandson gets sick of my phone calls about this stuff.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)A pair of trousers or a top is too tight, stifling, short and uncomfortable? Instead of getting rid of it and choosing something wearable (and saying this thing is shit), were supposed to hate ourselves for not being able to fit into it and we either try to forget the pain it causes or starve ourselves and try to forget were hungry.
Its like that for EVERYTHING, everything. Whats perceived as wrong and aberrent isnt what men inflict on us but the fact we feel pain from it. Why should it feel painful if its love, pleasure, affection, beauty?
I choose and purchase all my wife's clothes and shoes for her. Don't you?
It appears to me that the only agency that these people retain for themselves is hate.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)victim-ish.
Somehow I've made it through about half a century without a man inflicting clothing or footware upon me. Fancy that.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Upton
(9,709 posts)I'd get stuff thrown at me if I were to try it..not to mention an earful, and deservedly so. Anyway, what kind of a man tells his wife or girlfriend how to dress?
The piece and comments are not only aligned in their hate, but they appear totally clueless and bear little resemblance to what goes on in real life..
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)December 15, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Everything you said was worded brilliantly. I had a piv post of my own, but I dont think it came out the way I originally intended.
Im done with the notion that piv should be used for reproduction alone, if practiced at all on a female. Theres just no need for it. Our bodies werent made for that. A big clue is that every hetero females first time is painful. No other form of stimulation is painful, never (i.e. our clitoris, the main female source of pleasure) . A woman has to make her body not feel pain via piv over time.
I did not say women are designed for pregnancy. The reason we have a vagina is because if we are pregnant, the baby can come out. Its the physical function of the vagina. There is no other way for the baby to come out than through the vagina, thats the way it is, its natural. Biology ordered it that way. On the other hand, PIV isnt natural, its an action done by men to us. They can choose not to do it, it isnt necessary. There are many other ways of becoming pregnant than through penetration of the penis into the vagina. For instance, putting sperm on the vulva is enough to become pregnant. Women, if they wanted to become pregnant, could just ask a man for some sperm and apply it herself. PIV isnt natural but externally imposed, cultural. As opposed to pregnancy which is a process thats internal to our body, its not something that men are doing to our body 24/7 so that the pregnancy happens. Pregnancy, once it happens, IS. Its not caused externally. Its there. In the case of PIV, because its something DONE by SOMEONE ELSE to ourselves, not something internal, looking at the physical damage it causes is a way of arguing that its unnatural (violent) because if it were either natural or good, it wouldnt cause that.
First of all, consent is meaningless wrt violence. The very purpose of violence is to inflict something on you that you dont want and thats against your interest: because the point is to destroy you or use you in ways that are destructive. So it excludes, BY DEFINITION, wanting it. And you cant want your own destruction, thats impossible, you only always want whats good for you and what men do with violence, is that they twist our brains into believing that whats bad for us is good for us.
Choice is the liberal code word for submission. The best choice we can ever make for our own well being is to reject male ideas and mens physical presence as much as possible.
to whom it may concern, Im doing you a massive favour and being super nice in saying that im not publishing any comments which include the following:
PIV as rape trivialises real rape victims
and but, but, I like sex and youre insulting women or men who like sex;
and youre just doing sex the wrong way
naming violence doesnt trivialise violence or victims of violence, it names violence. To be a rape victim isnt a competitive elite oppressed status reserved to a special few women, which loses in specialness as the number of rape victims increases. All women are raped in patriarchy, even by non-radfem standards.
PIV is most certainly always rape.
It is the very definition of violation, the very act itself is invasive by nature.
In many cultures, women are seen as nothing than a vessel for semen.
There will, sadly, always be women who go along with this subjugation.
But thankfully one person is brave enough to speak the truth!
If it any other website I'd swear is was sarcasm.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)by some other means? Weird. Sad. All clearly traumatized.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)She's certifiable.
rebecca_herman
(617 posts)Ok, so PIV sex is always rape, and it's also bad bad bad because it can make the woman pregnant and birth control, abortion, and childbirth are all dangerous - but.... if the woman wants a baby anyway she can just ask a guy for his sperm and get artificially inseminated? So it's free choice if she takes the risk that way but not if she wants to purposely have sex to have a baby?
I am so confused.
Also, I'm pretty much asexual and used donor sperm to get pregnant and I even I think she is 100% nuts.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)by the majority at DU. Everything she is saying should be taken under the context of an evolved "patriarchy." In other words, when these behaviors are performed under the context of or because of patriarchy, they are inherently infused with a will to dominate. Something I actually agree with if other DUers can see it or not.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)... in terms of philosophy
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)I am planning to read all that was linked to but I only got the chance to read what was exerted here so far. I'll have to dig further.
Btw, when are you going to be picked up by MSNBC? Your talents are needed there. They are wasted at Faux.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)men who transition to become women as some kind of espionage infiltration of men into the women group and they do not think those people deserve any status as women.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)to a certain degree, you can't shed thousands of years of internalized patriarchal behavior patterns by just swapping body parts.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Tell me! What did I just say? Whatever you're concluding, lets just slow down and allow me to clarify my point before you hang me.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Telling those who transition from men into being women that they aren't real women in some way is denying their equality.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)While you were typing this I already figured out what you were objecting to and posted a response, hopefully redeeming me.
I regard this a much more complex issue than it seems people are treating it here. Hopefully you can provide a little allowance for misunderstandings.
But I can see why you'd object to what I seemed to be implying.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)I addressed this above.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2014, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)
I think I sense what you're objecting to...
No, I'm not saying men all men that transition aren't internally women. I'm saying the woman who wrote the article is already suspicious of her fellow friends of the same gender. She is going to be suspicious of men who transition.
But I fully recognize there are transitional a that can mentally have all the knowledge and understanding of any feminist.
Edited for iPod typos. eGads, I hate the typing on this thing. Whatever, other typos you find on my posts today, blame this thing.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Morning Dew
(6,539 posts)Always a disgusting term.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Hypocrisy much?
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)TERFs aren't people I'd want to associate with.
Morning Dew
(6,539 posts)cinnabonbon
(860 posts)not that they endorse it.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And in fact, when they've been banned for specific anti-trans bigotry, there has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the fact.
One hopes that perhaps people have learned and grown since then. Or at least they know now that sort of outright bigotry isn't okay, here.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)All sex involving men is violence. Easy enough to understand, but must arise from a pretty sad world view.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Which would be considered fringe even for the most radical of feminists. Political lesbianism and lesbian separatism is an important thought experiment but, really, nothing more.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I was thinking how to put that sort of thing in perspective without entirely dismissing it - because even "extremists" have their valid points sometimes.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Although, clearly there is evidence that some extremism can be linked to actual mental illness. Valerie Solanas pretty clearly suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. That doesn't take away from the strength of many of her arguments. The truth she espoused was not crazy because she was mentally ill.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I've observed this phenomenon in my own life as well, with friends who've had mental health issues.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I have very little doubt that Zizek has some sort of mental illness. No one I know who's studied him thinks otherwise.
Deleuze is another example. I don't think it would be possible for someone to write a book like Capitalism and Schizophrenia and not be marginally unhinged. But, as you've said, I think departing from what is considered a normative state of mental health affords one an opportunity to view the world from an important and often ignored perspective.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)"Truth: all men are the evil, alien, living-dead, zombie, robotic, automated, formatted invaders and colonisers who want to and do destroy all life on earth. The truth is that WE need to get ALL MEN out as soon as possible if we want to save the earth."
if you give any that shit a shred of credibility, I would feel bad for you.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Which was discussed previously with another poster. I suggest you read it.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)she's nuttier than a shithouse rat, and 100% wrong in every sentence of bullshit she writes.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)would be the kindest form of dismissal. If she is, in fact, in possession of all her faculties then she is a vile hate-monger. At least "crazy" implies an innocence on her part.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And they were very upset I hit back at Bristol Palin for being homophobic if you see the comments to that blogpost.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)As a man AND I stopped giving a shit. The self-importance and smugness just oozes from mens words. Ugh.
Talk about self-importance and smugness. Any person who refuses to hear another party state that party's side of an issue on the assumption of their own infallibility is, by definition, self-important and smug. And I bet she roared that off her keyboard without a whiff of irony.
Meanwhile, if I were to rebut their nonsense on its own terms (a task accomplished easily enough) I would be branded as a victim of the patriarchy, too brainwashed to see the truth, subjugated and "colonized." They would deny that I have my own education, experiences, desires, values and self-determination. They would define me and demand I accept their definition as a condition of my acceptance into their authoritarian, anti-democratic society.
In other words, they become every dehumanizing monster they would presume to fight.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Some more whackjobs enter the fray.
Damn.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)That's not a healthy view on men at all.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)She sounds like a very controlling person. I hope this is not translating into violence, but it honestly gives me the vibe of the classic wife abuser.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)ostensibly trying to "save." I don't remember her name, but she was a piece of work to say the least.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)How can anyone read her and not see the signs of a domestic abuser?
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)particularly worth paying attention to, is all. I don't see why it is.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But unlike the SCUM manifesto (which is a brilliant work), you weren't even the target here.
How can anyone read her and not see the signs of a domestic abuser?
I don't see signs of a narcissistic injury. She does not see the women who "betrayed" her as extensions of her own identity, and so feels no shame from their actions. That's the main red flag for domestic abuse, for me.
ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)I just rolled my eyes at it. She would have been better off talking about heteronormativity, as apposed to heterosexuality. Because assigning a sexual orientation to anyone is just bullshit. That "all heterosexual sex is rape" is an old and tired trope. I was hoping the whole thing would go away, but I suspected not, given the potential for trouble making it has.
I keep a copy of Solanas manifesto at my bedside; it's excellent therapy for when I read about yet another crappy comment about women; rape, violence, reproductive rights, inequities in any number of areas or of the feminists who constantly fight this shit. I love the dark irony of it--- the complete turn around of traditional gender criticism. Although it's becoming dated, It's still hilarious.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It would be more hilarious and ironic (Words mean things? Really?) if she hadn't literally taken her own advice and shot men like she said she would.
ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)He a wonderful loving man, with a mind that can encompass all kinds of ideas and history.
Is it like that for you?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)C'mon man....
eridani
(51,907 posts)However, that doesn't mean that they don't exist. The OP is just silly.
Crunchy Frog
(26,548 posts)And I'm not trying to be facetious.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Should I call someone or will it pass?
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)I've seen the radical wind blog already:
Truth: There is no evidence at all that men can stop being violent against women, raping women, feeding off womens work, energy and attention. Pro-feminist men prove to be time and again the same violent rapist fucktards as any other men. I do not know of a SINGLE exception.
Before I go any further I just want to pull up again some basics on consent, violence and oppression, because that applies to every situation of violence: no matter how much you think you want, enjoy or choose to submit to an act of violence, violence excludes choice by definition, so its never something you could have chosen.
Etc. These are not mainstream ideas and I doubt they ever will be. If she wants to make her own woman-only space, more power to her- go forth and do, by all means. There's little danger of the rest of the gender following suit. Most men and women manage to get along fine.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)She is attempting to destroy positive real and potential relationships - be they familial, social, or romantic. And it appears she is using some heavy duty guilt tripping and even a form of "slut shaming" to do so.
She is giving the MRA goofs ammo. She is fulfilling the most negative stereotypes of feminism. And I think she should be called out by people who recognize feminism as a positive force for social and personal growth.
Perhaps somehow, she can break through and have more positive, growth oriented relationships with people. Perhaps she will be able to let go of her need to monopolize and control the conversation, and recognize other women as individuals, with experiences and ideas that may be different than her own.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Hmmm...
Dorian Gray
(13,469 posts)with destroying real relationships. She claims she's betrayed time after time by women who go back to their men.
So what kind of power does she really have?
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Go for it, of course, but bear in mind these are grown women who've bought into this philosophy by choice. You have roughly as much of a chance of converting one back to sanity as you have with a woman who's converted to Westboro Baptist, the FLDS or fundie Islam. This is what they've chosen to believe, for whatever reason, and they are absolutely convinced that they are in the right. It doesn't exactly seem like she's rolling in followers, so obviously it's not appealing to many.
MRA goofs will find ammo where they want to find ammo. The same thing I just said about converting back to sanity also applies to them- they have also chosen a hate cult because it appeals to them, and they are convinced they are in the right. You mentioned IBTP above- Twisty's maybe a little closer to sanity than Witchwind and certainly a better writer than Witchwind, but Twisty is also an extremist nut (just more skilled at mixing the truth in with the propaganda), so if you're worried about giving MRA goofs ammo, Twisty would be a better place to start. Especially since she has a much larger following.
None of these people are going to have any kind of breakthrough until they choose to do so. Marginalize the philosophy whenever you see it, educate as best you can, and generally let the world know that the philosophy isn't acceptable to either feminism or humanity in general. It's about all you can do.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)cue the Odd Couple theme music...
Squinch
(50,773 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)It couldn't possibly be because she is a kook, could it?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)What a shame.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
cali
(114,904 posts)disjointed, rambling, pressured.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)eShirl
(18,466 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Sorry honey but some of us gals with a V actually really (and only) like P!
All kidding aside, this woman seems to be not right in the head.
Now I gotta get me my morning PIV
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)tavernier
(12,322 posts)and so will my husband as soon as I tell him to.
What a bunch of drivel.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)What this OP describes and links is known as separatist feminism and it has been around for a long time, since the 60's and 70's at least. The author of the piece calls herself a radical feminist, but separatist feminism is an offshoot of radical feminism and not representative of radical feminism.
Like all discriminated folks who take things this far, they have legitimate issues that they have allowed to warp their reality.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)their wacko theories a misogynist, a woman hater, and worse. This is like the situation we have here at DU, where a tiny group has bizarre extremist theories and expects everyone to treat it as the gospel. And then some wonder why most duers have a problem with it, and refuse to drink the kool-aid.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)I think it is a good analogy.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)demonizing and and attempts elimination of everyone that doesn't buy into their koolaid
quinnox
(20,600 posts)yup, exactly. I can tell we are on precisely the same wavelength regarding this.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Silent3
(15,018 posts)No one that I've run into on DU is quite so over the top and the OP, fortunately, but there's still that element that for some people, daring to challenge them on the slightest point of one of their screeds (this is hardly limited to the gender wars) is taken as proof that you must be a champion of the exact polar opposite, that you don't understand what's important, that you don't see your own privilege, and you're definitely "part of the problem" -- and having dismissed you thus, they have no reason to listen to the actual words you're saying.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I am 100% in agreement with your post!
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Many of us in HOF are happily married to men.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)An analogy does not have to be exact in the particulars.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Nobody here has views anywhere near that extreme. Being surprised and expressing surprise when people on a progressive board are not progressive about gender issues is nowhere near even the zip code of what the OP is about. It is a faulty analogy because you're comparing people at HOF to a ridiculously extreme person.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)transparent OP. Of course,no one here espouses these views,but don't let that stop you.
ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)Had to happen.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)it came to me in a flash of inspiration. You can of course, disagree. But I think it is a good one.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"t came to me in a flash of inspiration..."
Imaginative narratives, regardless of peevishness, often do.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Long but worth the read, Witchwind has a broken clock moment:
http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/radical-feminist-you-say-2/
But wait! there's more! Scroll down a little ways (about 10 posts) into the comment section once you're done with the article, and look who's commenting! Without a trace of irony, even!
polly7
(20,582 posts)I'm happy she's gotten to this point of freeing herself from all abuse, but seriously sad at what she's obviously been through to get there.
(Wasn't Saragasso Sea a poster here?)
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2014, 10:07 PM - Edit history (1)
Several times. One of iverglas's besties. This and this are a couple good examples of her socks.
polly7
(20,582 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Ohio Joe
(21,656 posts)Trying to paint all feminists as extreme and using wacko theories about how men are treated worse then women... Imagination... Who knew?
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)I'm not sure anyone here comes anywhere close to whatever the hell that (the ww blog) was.
Dorian Gray
(13,469 posts)I think she is judgmental and victimizes all women by her thought process.
And when women disagree with her, she considers herself betrayed and victimized by a woman with a boyfriend.
It's all wrong thinking, and it disturbs me immensely.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)Paglia said all sex is rape. Any man intruding on a woman's body is rape. She said much of what this OP states.
Atman
(31,464 posts)...then tell me why I'm banned from discussion in the HoF forum. All sorts of stuff posted which I have opinions on, yet I'm not allowed to express them. It's like the Ellen Jamsians...I'm hated simply for being male and as a male I am not allowed to discuss my opinions within the cloistered walls of HoF. Only allowed to respond if you agree to agree with us.
seaglass
(8,170 posts)Atman (26,969 posts)
45. Who invented "18"
Why is it special? At that magical age, you can die in war, but not drink. You are an "adult" but you can't rent a car. What makes 18 special? A piece of paper some guy wrote and got passed into law. Ask the 16 year old whether or not he was "endangered" by having a skanky snatch ground in his face. He'd probably disagree with you. But give him two years, then it's all okay.
You can keep pretending there is no reason on this green earth why you wouldn't be welcome in HoF. This post would be one of the reasons. Hopefully, eventually you will get it instead of being so confused about it.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I read Sexual Politics by Millett in high school. So???
I figured Valerie Solanas was seriously disturbed back when she shot Warhol. I was almost in high school in '68. Attempted murder of men is not going to prove anything. Kind of like hijacking airliners and being a terrorist won't convince anyone of the rightness of your cause. No matter whether you are left wing(see Baader-Meinhof Gang) or right wing nuts.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Like what she was most infamous for.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)camile was a far better writer than this woman.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I actually enjoy(ed) reading Camile...this person is just kind of annoying. I put the (ed) in parens because I haven't actually followed Paglia's writing for quite some time. The Google gave me all new, recent quotes from her about lesbianism. Fine, just not what I was looking for for reference material.
distantearlywarning
(4,475 posts)Those of us who are not religious fundies don't tolerate any explanations for homosexuality that involve "emotional brokenness", sin, "being brainwashed by liberals", "a product of one's environment", or anything else that isn't about an inborn orientation. That's because homosexuality *IS* an inborn orientation.
But guess what? That means that HETEROSEXUALITY is an inborn orientation too.
I am a woman who is a zero on the Kinsey scale. I am nearly 40 years old, and I have quite literally never met ANY woman who I felt any feelings of sexual or romantic attraction for. I even deliberately slept with a woman who I found to be asthetically attractive in college to make sure that I just wasn't feeling "repressed by my culture", to test whether maybe I would like it if I just tried it a few times, and nope, nada, nothing. It was like being with a man I had zero interest in, or my brother, or something. My very first romantic feelings as a small child were exclusively about little boys, and nothing has changed over the last 30 years since then. I like the PIV. It's nothing to apologize for, just like if I were a lesbian I wouldn't be expected to apologize for finding the PIV to be of no interest.
Thus, this woman's insistence that I am heterosexual because I have Stockholm Syndrome, and I would be a lesbian if I only I were an emotionally healthy person is deeply offensive to me. It is very reminiscent of what the fundies say about gay men - they are suffering some kind of emotional disorder, they were brainwashed by other gays at an early age, if only they would get psychological help from someone who knows what is best for them (i.e., the reparative 'therapy' hucksters) they would actually be straight, blah blah blah! It's all a total load of crap, no matter what side of the political spectrum it comes from. This woman, like the fundies, is merely trying to control other people's sexuality in a misguided and sad effort to prop up some extreme worldview she's invested herself in.
Also, she obviously has some serious issues with other women more generally. My guess is that her neediness or something drives them off, not the patriarchy.
Neoma
(10,039 posts)"My very first romantic feelings as a small child were exclusively about little boys, and nothing has changed over the last 30 years since then."
People who look too much into people's posts and take things too literately might think you're a pedophile.
distantearlywarning
(4,475 posts)I meant I liked little boys when I was a little girl. Now I am a grown woman and I like grown men. A lot.
Now I know that's just because I'm brainwashed by the patriarchy, though. If I were in my right mind I'd revert to my actual lesbian self.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)And are using it as a cover for what is essentially a street gang?
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/new-black-panther-party
Founded: 1989
Location: Washington, D.C.
Ideology: Black Separatist
The New Black Panther Party is a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers. Founded in Dallas, the group today is especially active on the East Coast, from Boston to Jacksonville, Fla. The group portrays itself as a militant, modern-day expression of the black power movement (it frequently engages in armed protests of alleged police brutality and the like), but principals of the original Black Panther Party of the 1960s and 1970s a militant, but non-racist, left-wing organization have rejected the new Panthers as a "black racist hate group" and contested their hijacking of the Panther name and symbol.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Next up, you should post a blog by someone who drives a new Cadillac, eats lobster everyday and smokes crack-- all paid for from from the pockets of state welfare programs... so as to "better understand" that side of the the particular debate also.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)I have a LOT of interests, plus I work a full time job, plus I do some programming on the side, plus I have to lay down and stretch my back a few times a day, so time can be at a premium sometimes.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'm rather certain that six of one is half a dozen of the other in this case.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If you're not getting why people are bristling on this.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)She seems to be identifying the more subtle and hidden reach of patriarchy and how to defeat it. I see what she sees too, even as a straight male. And notice, she writes "under patriarchy." In other words, she doesn't say women should back away from men under some new or evolved social paradigm or contract between them. Just under the corrupted existing one. She's absolutely right. The only way to defeat patriarchy, whether conscious or unconscious - at every level, both loud patriarchy and quiet patriarchy - is to stop feeding it. Stop rewarding it with social and biological selection. That's the only way men will evolve out of dominant patriarchal behavior. They have to be forced to survive without it. The men who are able to do this will then be rewarded by selection by women. The men who refuse will hopefully die the &@&% off. That's evolution.
cali
(114,904 posts)and that's all it is.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)understand the way she explains the theories, too. But that's because I've read some feminist theories before. To someone who is new to radfems, they're bound to misunderstand what she's saying.
zazen
(2,978 posts)Like others here, I find some of her writing similar to other interesting "thought experiments," in that I do think there are elements of some heterosexual relationships in the context of 10,000 years of patriarchy (tracing back through this particular civilization, anyway) that congeal/eroticize power/submission dynamics into gender.
But then there's living in the bloomin', buzzin' confusion of the present, with complex human beings who are all born into conditioning and try to do all of the things humans do (love, hate, reproduce, protect our young, make meaning, serve others, control others) when we are limited by the language and limits of any given age.
The idealization/rejection splitting type behavior she's doing with her female friends screams borderline personality disorder, which is really better described as complex PTSD now, since it's generally a reaction to long-term childhood trauma where you had to bond with an abuser who repeatedly abused you in some way in order to survive. There _are_ people who understandably experience childhood as captivity, but it's truly sad that she can't imagine it otherwise.
Complex PTSD (and the conditions that breed it) look the same regardless of the genitalia of the actors in it. They aren't inherently patriarchal. She's taking a lot of examples of battering, rape, and sexual harassment that cross cultures and that tend to be male-on-female (in other words, patriarchy) and conflating the two. Men aren't born abusers, and women aren't born victims, but we're born into a gender system that eroticizes power and submission (that people with alternative sexualities have to struggle with as well). We're also born into a continuum of formative family situations where we may be subject to awful abuse (from women as much as from men) that lead us to a kind of borderline thinking where people are all good/all bad and where we voraciously search for patterns in others' behavior that might indicate danger.
She appears to be conflating her personal complex ptsd with the realities of patriarchy and then explaining the latter in terms of her desperate fear and paranoia from the former.
Does the drive from her complex ptsd lead her to make intelligent, thought experiment-like points about male dominance? Occasionally. But living with that level of hate, pre-judgement, self-certainty, and paranoia is just perpetuating whatever hell she came from and must prevent her from seeing love and beauty in the people around her when they don't fit into her pre-established terror-inspired categories of safe/unsafe.
As we say down here, bless her heart, and I mean that in a really nice way.
I also really, really hope she gets help before she has any children. God forbid.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)Arkana
(24,347 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Even when it comes from a *blogger*.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)People who feel the need to define and control other people's consensual nonviolent sexuality are not quite right in the head and have an unhealthy need to run the lives of others.
It is what it is. Just move on.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)WTF?
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Those are according to Urban Dictionary.
Oh... Women Born Women.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Hadn't come across this one before but I post to "Fundies Say" and posts like this occasionally crop up (including one arguing for universal castration of all men and yes, she was entirely serious). Not half as often as the MRA/MGTOWs but from time to time.
It's a sad fact that, if you have a group organized around any cause, a few are going to cross the line into extremism. In this case, the cause is radical feminism and a few will devolve from that into outright misandry. Suffice to say, they're of more interest to psychologists than mainstream feminists or even mainstream radfems.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I'd love to see her form a separatist type cult with only women, like the Amish or something. Would make for good reality TV.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Someone have a list of which sex acts are always rape, and which ones aren't?
( )
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)This is from A Voice For Men,one of the biggest MRA sites on the internet:The Future of Women in a MGTOW Society
http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/m-g-t-o-w/the-future-of-women-in-a-mgtow-society/
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)...crazy. So we women are only good for "cooking, cleaning, and copulation"? What if I don't want to cook his food, clean his house, or have his children? Hell, I've never wanted to have kids! He claims to love women and that he wants to work it out, but I really, really doubt that. Jebus, if every single man on earth was like him, I'd end up like that other fringe-y blogger!
Edited to add: What does MGTOW mean? Men get to own women?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I'm not very familiar with this outlook, but I think the basic idea is that laws regarding marriage and divorce unfairly favor women so it's a bad idea for men to get married. I think (even less sure here) that it goes further, by saying that the attitudes of contemporary women, in terms of what they demand of men in a relationship, are so extreme that it's not worth trying to put up with.
Maybe they just mean that a man without a woman is like a fish without a bicycle, but I'm guessing they don't phrase it that way.
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)who am I to stop them? Besides, I'm not even sure about marriage! It just seems like people spend way too much time and money on a party/ceremony while forgetting about the actual relationship. And hey, if they want to be alone, that means my chances of having to put up with them goes way down.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)I wish people like her would stop with the 'women are weak (physically and mentally) and are victims of men'.
She, and others like her, have deep personal issues they need to sort out.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)stage of dealing with the "male problem".
Radfem extremists like these are not much different from MRA extremists.
Same shit, different hates.
Radfem extremists represent a miniscule but vocal minority of the number of feminists around the world.
Alice Paul must be spinning in her grave.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)point and laugh. We shouldn't ignore them and hope they just go away because they arose on their own and Heaven forefend enough people take them seriously. We shouldn't censor them or whatever to diminish their ability to speak freely because then we diminish our own vital freedoms. But I certainly refuse to become upset by anything so absurd so all I can do is give it the mocking it begs.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)I've often wondered if it was Poe's Law level sarcasm or serious
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I've said it before; I don't take philosophical or life advice from anyone whose motto is "I Feel Like Shit And Want Everyone To Die"
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I guess we need to teach men to stop enjoying sex and just volunteering their semen to be applied by any woman that would want to become pregnant. No word on whether or not the man would then be obligated to a family relationship or child support. I would imagine that could complicate the issue of finding donors.
I'm curious about what she thinks about all the PIV in the animal kingdom. Is she really suggesting any form of non-asexual reproduction is rape or are humans supposed to evolved into some sort of species that transcends sex and as such any reversion to sexual reproduction?
GaYellowDawg
(4,443 posts)I'd bet she'd say that women have evolved beyond "PIV" but that we grunting, hairy, domineering, violent, rapey men have not, so we engage in it by way of gleefully depriving all women of consent just by being our disgusting, violent, rapey selves. Oh yeah, and we're the devil for wanting it.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)What's the "mother" to do if the baby's sex is male, or if you prefer, rapist? What would she raise him to believe about his sexuality and "unnatural" genitalia? Not a very bright individual we're dealing with here.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I think she's very bright. She's obviously creative and able to formulate complex ideas; it's just that she dedicates her abilities to abjectly abhorrent ideas and malicious sexism.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)someone who dismisses 200,000 years of evolutionary biology, bright, but ok.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)But her ability to apply her creative abilities and bility to construct facades for her arguments -- albeit based in venom, error and animosity -- cannot be denied. One can say, "Golly, those Nazis sure were efficient bureaucrats" and still desire to see Nazis bombed into annihilation.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Lower animals have lots of eggs and external fertilization. Lots of zygote mortality in the environment.
Later internal fertilization developed, to produce fewer eggs and protect each individual offspring with more energy and time invested. This introduced the need for the penis to deposit sperm. Some ducks have them, and some reptiles like crocodiles.
And in mammals a long gestation time is needed, depending on size. Fewer offspring are produced the bigger the mammal is. And penes are necessary to internal fertilization the biological way.
Smearing semen on the vulva is not the most efficient way. The vagina is normally slightly acidic which helps the sperm survive. Also the cervix is not completely passive.
The author doesn't understand basic mammalian reproductive biology.
I'm not going to address why PIV is fun, because I must be brainwashed, right???
Dash87
(3,220 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)will go away as a gender. (Yes I heard that one in one of those science programs on the science channel). BUT we are talking in the order of at least a million years, likely longer than humans will be around in our current homo sapiens incarnation, species emergence, or rather separation will take care of that little problem.
I wonder though, how this woman thinks we humans are to do that biological imperative called reproduction? Oh yes, I know, with science we could dispense of men, but we still need men. We are not creating semen in the lab last time I checked.
This is not just radical, but in the realm of crazee talk
GaYellowDawg
(4,443 posts)I don't think she's thinking about that, given her view of pregnancy as harmful. I think she'd rather see the species go extinct than have one more man "impose" one more pregnancy on one more woman.
Yep, she's a total freaking head case.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)some of these people are just plain out nuts.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)"The Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) movement is an offshoot of the men's rights movement consisting of a weird type of straight male separatism. Basically, MGTOWers buy into the same rhetoric MRAs spread ("society is actually biased against men, not women!" etc.), but instead of doing something about it (what MRAs mistakenly imagine themselves to be doing), MGTOWers have decided to stay away from women altogether (hence "going their own way" . In other words, it's a hilarious analog to the lesbian separatism movement. It's unclear if the movement has any power beyond "disgruntled douchebags talking shit about women (in general) on the Internet." As a general rule, the reaction of sane people is "Sure, do go your own way and stop whining already!"
The "going their own way" part is often framed not just as self-preservation, but as some kind of "strike" that is supposed to punish women. Apparently in the worldview of some (if not most) MGTOWers, women are some kind of succubi-like creatures, seducing men with their feminine wiles in order to exploit them and unable to live support themselves without men to exploit. (It's worth mentioning that there's a strong whiff of literal misogyny wafting around many in the movement.) There are amusing parallels here with the notion of "going Galt" that is popular among wingnuts who overestimate their importance in the grand scheme of things.
Occasionally, proponents of the movement will advocate that Western men try marrying Asian women instead, as they are "apparently" more demure and submissive.[1] Asian-American feminists and other decent human beings are wholly disgusted[2][3][4] by this idea, as are the MGTOWers that also frequent Stormfront. At least lesbian separatists have real patriarchal traumas to justify their extremism..."
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I agree with much that they say.
"In other words, it's a hilarious analog to the lesbian separatism movement."
Here is the rationalwiki site on the "radfem hub", which produced a couple of the bloggers who were trolling DU back in the meta days:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Radfem_Hub
It's a shame we don't have colonies on Ganymede or Triton where these perpetually complaining, outraged and pissed off people can go and be miserable amongst themselves, without having to constantly bother the rest of us with their endless series of grievances.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Law of averages and all that.
This forum has over 1300 members, so there's at least enough for a small colony for starters.
Of course, they'd all die out quickly, given their philosophical leanings.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Only difference is, I'm not aware of any of them being repeatedly banned by MIRT/Admin and then complaining about DU specifically on their blogs.
Find me an MGTOW and I will laugh at their silly acronym'd ass, too.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Don't know if he complains out anywhere else, he seems to enjoy coming back here and complaining about how the wimmins done him wrong.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'll say this about "men going their own way", if that's really a "thing": I suspect its like when the person gets dumped and then they try to claim that they never liked their partner anyway.
"See, I want to be alone!"
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I'm not sure what the threshold is for being a thing, although I suspect having their own logo and a Facebook page puts it beyond isolated incidence
https://m.facebook.com/MenGoingTheirOwnWay?id=138667452826626&_rdr
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Or even a "league"
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Before Christmas, I engaged in a discussion with a poster who claimed to do the Japanese version of MGTOW - can't remember the name, though. Something starting with H? Or is saying that calling out a DUer?
If you don't trust people not of your gender enough to have a relationship with them, then I definitely encourage you not to have a relationship with them. If you think women are only out for your wallet, then we're lucky if you decided never to date women. If you think all men are rapists, then men are blessed if you decide never to date men. Or, with another saying, good riddance to bad rubbish.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Claimed that sexual harassment codes at public schools made men not want to ask women out on dates.
There are a couple of others who fly under the radar. If one of DUs admins was a woman, this stuff might get less traction here, imo.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)is because of the date rape awareness seminars they have to sit through, I should stop being surprised at anything coming from that corner. Because an hour-long seminar on date rape is a better deterrent than 1 in 36 female college students being raped each academic year, know what I mean?
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)But in the end they are as crazy as "Witchwind"
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Quick impression - they are chauvinist asswipes.
More to come (if there IS any more)
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)by a "RadFem" gets such a response from DUers, and yet when Brit Hume, a more or less mainstream pundit , tells us that Chris Christie is an avatar of masculinity, the response on DU is only a fraction of the back and forth here?
One is a single woman with obvious issues, evidently able to affect no one outside her immediate personal sphere of influence. The other is a "journalist" with millions of viewers, who has at least some influence over a rather large swath of the American public. Yet this "radfem" gets 242 responses and counting in a single day, and Brit Hume, who defines masculinity as the willingness to inflict pain on tens of thousands of innocent people, generates less than 50 in three days or so of comments?
It truly makes me wonder what's going on.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Quick, call Brit Hume.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)A joke?
Your scintillating insight is duly noted.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It is possible that people here have been conditioned to reflexively change the channel, mental or otherwise, when they hear "Brit Hume"
It is also possible that people have been conditioned by the near-constant presence of gender threads in GD, to regard them as a comforting, familiar presence and place to hang out.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)than the second, to me anyway.
Even so, I would have expected some of the folks who are most routinely outraged by "misandry" to have responded in some way to Hume. And maybe they did, and I just missed it.
Whatever the case--thanks for giving me a more serious reply.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I mean, starvation, lack of medical care in the 3rd world... human rights abuses in North Korea-- okay, there are some things to be outraged about.
But the crops generally being peddled at the Outrage-DU-Jour Farmers Market don't interest me one whit.
GaYellowDawg
(4,443 posts)An anchor on Fox News being a racist/sexist/homophobic asshole has happened so many times that it's no longer news. Brit Hume, sexist? (insert Scarlett O'Hara accent here) Well, Ah'm shawked down to mah verruh founDAYshun! (/accent)
It's like putting up a post about the sky being blue.
The blog, on the other hand, is a shiny new toy.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)as any I've seen.
It still strikes me as weird, though, and depressing as shit.
But thanks for your reply, "shiny new toy" and all.
Best wishes.
GaYellowDawg
(4,443 posts)Expressing justifiable outrage with Fox News seems like it'd be a 40 hour a day job. You know, watching 24 hours of reprehensible crap, and then time to respond. There are literally not enough hours in the day to be outraged at everything on Fox worth being outraged over.
I certainly do see your point - that a sexist jerk statement from someone who has a national platform should garner more attention than an obscure blog written by someone who has probably been through some terrible treatment - and I completely agree with it. But responding to Fox News is like playing an eternal game of Whac-a-Mole - for a little while, tearing the illogical stupidity down is fun, but it is terribly wearying after a while. There are times that I feel like hatred is the most powerful fuel in the universe, because Fox News never loses energy.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)But then again, you'd think that at least those folks who are so engaged in debating and debunking "misandry" where ever it appears--and I think some of them have even posted on this thread--would take Brit seriously and focus, even if just for a minute or two, on the hateful things he said about men and masculinity.
Why take on some anonymous and clearly troubled lone "RadFem" but then have nothing to say about Hume?
I don't respond to Limbaugh all the time--who possibly could--but I sure as hell took him on when he did the whole Sandra Fluke/slut thing. Wrote to some of his sponsors. Joined "FlushRush" and all.
It just seems odd to me, is all I'm really trying to say. Whether there's anything deeper to any of this, I really don't know.
Thanks again.
GaYellowDawg
(4,443 posts)You've persuaded me that you're right - that even given Fox fatigue, the energy spent on the blog is disproportional.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Whereas no one here expects Brit Hume to be anything but a Wingnut.
cali
(114,904 posts)which is overwhelmingly negative on scores of threads. Make that hundreds.
Secondly, it's a poor and shockingly dishonest comparison.
ugh.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You can interpret that as you wish.
Dr. Strange
(25,898 posts)No more chicken threads!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)I am mildy suspicious.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)Seriously. No one has ever heard of her. No one follows this philosophy. This writing has zero effect on society. Marriage isn't going to end because of this and women aren't going to suddenly stop desiring men.
It's just one crazy person's opinion.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)For whatever reason, it's clear that a lot of DUers do care about this.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)This thread has more posts that practically any other at the moment. That suggests that, for whatever reason, this is something a lot of people want to express their opinions on.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)You know, this thing:
Just kidding. But it is rare to see us all agreeing. I see some names and comments here that I want to high five because we finally agree on something.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)I guarantee you not a single one will have any idea what you're talking about and at least two thirds will insult you.
No one in real life cares about this idiotic theory or whatever.
Christone123
(1 post)I am married to a loving woman. We both love each other and discuss and share all aspects to create equality in our marriage . We have two daughters who we love. The natural order here is very simple. Our family is a loving unit and it seems so natural and normal.
I have a simplistic religious agenda. One thing I would always encourage is this gem;;
"BE KIND TO EVERYONE YOU MEET AS MOST PEOPLE ARE FIGHTING A BATTLE "
Freedom of speech is taken or granted in the western world and I truly believe Witchwind is taking advantage of this privilege . Her views are not supported by 99% of radical feminists. Her offensive sick rantings should be private and dealt with by a therapist.
If we didn't have normal procreation or a she likes to call it P.I.V we wouldn't have a species.
Why on earth does she have a platform to vent this vitriolic nonsense ?
Please do not patronise or give this lunacy credence .......there is enough confusion in the world.