Skip to content


April 27, 2011

  1. Mary Sunshine permalink
    April 27, 2011 1:20 am

    Essentially, yes, males are selfish. 😐

  2. April 27, 2011 1:44 am

    hi mary! and you can tell by the way i spelled “evol” (and essenshulist) that i dont really care if anyone is an essentialist or not. 😛 seriously, i got over it. the important part is that we tell the fucking truth, about men. leave the “BUT WHY” to the fucking fun fems and prison reformers. WHO CARES WHY?

  3. FAB Libber permalink
    April 27, 2011 2:28 am

    I will have to add “selfish” to my Big List of Reversals.
    That list gets longer by the minute…

  4. Sargasso Sea permalink
    April 27, 2011 2:35 am

    Yes. Men are selfish. There’s a solution for that.

    Ask me how! 8)

  5. April 27, 2011 3:04 am

    OMG, the goops!!! I haven’t seen a goop in like, forever!!!

  6. Sargassosea permalink
    April 27, 2011 3:20 am

    The goops they lick their fingers,
    the goops they lick their knives,
    they wipe their hands on the tablecloths;
    they lead such disgusting lives.

    I’m glad that I’m not a goop!
    Are you?

    (there’s more, but that is totally from memory)

  7. Sargassosea permalink
    April 27, 2011 3:27 am

    Here it is (and my memory is a bit off it seems!):

  8. April 27, 2011 5:06 am

    Wow, I had no idea they survived into the digital age. Never even occurred to me to look for it. I had the original book, it was my grandmother’s, who expected each of us in her household to take its lessons very much to heart. The females, that is. That’s why I’m so veddy, veddy polite, doncha know. (I’m not surprised you remember the lines, s4, it has that effect!)

  9. April 27, 2011 5:17 am

    And back to the original point, didn’t men just leap on that idea of “survival of the fittest” and cling to it for all they were worth? They lurve them the idea of a “selfish gene” and the individual ensuring its own survival, even down to their itty bitty gametes. All that jumping up and down and arm waving by biologists telling everyone, oh wait, it’s the collective that’s selected for, not the individual? They’ll just ignore that and go right on thinking of their clever selves and how great they are to have evolved to such awesome single self wonderfulness.

  10. Claire K. permalink
    April 27, 2011 5:59 am

    Unfortunately it doesn’t matter whether you think it’s natural or not, making any sort of “totalizing,” “universalizing” statement is considered essentialist, at least in the context of academia since maybe sometime in the 80s. This is also why the words “woman” and “women” are no longer acceptable in an academic context –just referring to women as if we could be classified as a discrete social group is considered essentialist. It’s a bit depressing: feminists, rad fems included, understand the dangers biological determinism presents to women and therefore shy away from the label “essentialist,” but the Deleuze-and-Derrida-loving pomo types who toss out these accusations don’t care whether a generalization is based in biology or in socialization, or whether it helps or hurts women, so even a statement like “women are oppressed” (or, worse and unforgivably, “men oppress women”) becomes essentialist and totalizing. This is why academic pomo types get along so well with the decidedly nonacademic and even anti-intellectual pomo types at places like feministe and feministing: the fun fems believe ardently in biological determinism –people are gay, trans, into bdsm, or whatever because of their genes or hormones– but they aren’t willing to talk in terms of broad social groupings. Your genes make you who you are, but they make you one very special snowflake. So the fun fem philosophy includes the biological determinism that frightened rad fems off from “essentialism” in the first place, but not the generalizations that would get them in trouble with pomo academics.

  11. April 27, 2011 10:07 am

    richard dawkins has said that he misnamed that book, and that its caused him endless grief trying to undo the damage from people taking it wrong. upon reading the book, of course, anyone would realize their error, if they had assumed that he meant “there is a gene for selfishness” rather, his whole point was (apparently) that genes themselves fight for survival. or something, i dont remember. his point was that, as a writer, you lose control of your material once you put it out there for public consumption, and that most people are fucking stupid anti-intellectuals and dont actually read books, they just believe what other people say about them. and he may have also been talking about how memes get created now that i think about it? i think he invented the concept of “meme” or at least he has been credited with doing do.

    anyhoo, YES, if it benefits them, they will believe it, and that includes misrepresenting data, misreading books, misquoting feminists (and others), rewriting history. etc etc. and of course just outright lies and reversals, like saying that WOMEN are the selfish ones! omg! i really dont know how i lived my entire life without the concept of “reversals.” i think i first heard about them from mary daly (did she invent this?) and it was a lightbulb moment. around the same time i was introduced to a political tactic (i dont know what its called) of “take an opponents strength and turn it into a weakness.” hmm! people really do that??!!! of course, men have always done this to women, when it comes to womens generosity and apparent willingness (compulsion?) to nurture. i dont know why these strategies arent completely fucking obvious, but there it is. i admit i am not so good at strategy, but apparently many people arent, if they cant recognize a very obvious reversal?!

  12. April 27, 2011 10:41 am

    Your genes make you who you are, but they make you one very special snowflake. So the fun fem philosophy includes the biological determinism that frightened rad fems off from “essentialism” in the first place, but not the generalizations that would get them in trouble with pomo academics.

    thats a great clarification claire. now that you have outlined the differences between the pomos (academic vs nonacademic) it does seem like an uneasy alliance doesnt it? obviously the owners and writers of the websites you mention would be offended that you called them anti-intellectuals…they all have their bachelors degrees afterall, and call attention to them often. BUT they also very much like pretending to be inclusive…especially if its some fucking uneducated mansplaining transwoman who spent all “her” student loans on SRS. its also funny that ANY of them would want to be members of any “class” including class:academics. i guess if it makes them sound smart its OK? speaking of uneasy alliances…the fucking trans politickers own (pwn) the universities now…trans of course being obvious essentialists. its all extremely bizarre in my view, and you have kind of unpacked just HOW its bizarre.

    im still not sure about the WHY though. whats the point of this alliance exactly, if you know? is it *merely* to run off and discredit radical feminism? because thats the ONLY common goal these asshats seem to share. that, and listening to themselves talk i mean obfuscate.

  13. April 27, 2011 10:48 am

    also, if this graphic causes even minor damage to the worldview of any “anti-essentialist” essentialist fun-fem/trans who are obviously reading, i will consider my work done. as you say, even *they* dont seem to know what the hell they are saying, when they call radical feminists “essentialists”. when asked to define what they mean, they will say that we are wrong because “biology does not equal destiny, and sex and gender are not the same.” eleventy! even though they clearly believe the opposite.

  14. April 27, 2011 10:57 am

    also, i am still not clear on WHY “academic” pomos would accept someone who held ANY essentialist beliefs at all? why do they let the ‘stingers etc get away with any “but my genes/hormones made me this way” arguments at all? or do they just ignore it? and if so, why? do they really need the fun-fems that badly? for what?

  15. FAB Libber permalink
    April 27, 2011 11:31 am

    im still not sure about the WHY though. whats the point of this alliance exacly, if you know? is it *merely* to run off and discredit radical feminism? because thats the ONLY common goal these asshats seem to share. that, and listening to themselves talk i mean obfuscate.

    It does seem to be the common ground, so I guess we have to assume it is the common goal as well. Nothing else really makes sense. There seems to be a companion tactic, that works very well for tranz particularly, and I will call it ‘theory/ideology cuckooisation’ as a place holder. That is to infiltrate a group, and over time, change their ideologies to reflect your own. After a while the original ideologies are twisted so as to be almost unrecognisable. Best example was in adding the T to LGB. It is becoming obvious now to just about everyone how generally homosexuality erasing the tranz thing is, Chaz Bono prime example. Gays in Iran etc, example of it rolled out on a larger scale.

    Great comment Claire. Good overview of current ‘bedfellows’ (LOL, sorry, couldn’t resist it)

    And on Reversals. Yes, once you ‘see’ the reversals, there is no going back. Thereafter it becomes rather easy peasy to unpack the bullshit. Fish in a barrel.

  16. April 27, 2011 11:47 am

    also, i will probably change the graphic later to say “bio-essentialist” instead of just “essentialist.” because its fun to cause damage to the worldview of fun fems and trans and all, but its even better when you can do it with 100% accuracy, and in this case, i think i can. thoughts?

  17. Sargassosea permalink
    April 27, 2011 2:00 pm

    The unholy alliance between the pozzies, fun fems and tranz (pfft!) is, I think, just the souped-up 21st century version of the *fag hag* phenomenon.

    Gay guys love to have a *girlfriend* to drive them around and buy their drinks; on call 24/7 for escort service for family/work events, *emotional support* or a fuck when he strikes out at the club.

    Of course, when he’s with his *boyfriends* they rip Ms. Hag to shreds; talk about how stupid and fat she is, how pathetic she is that she doesn’t even know that really, secretly he despises her because she’s a stinking woman who can’t even *get a straight man to fuck her* (nice bit of self-loathing taken out on poor Ms. Hag in a most dangerous way).

    It looks to me like it’s the same thing only on a huge scale. And what SHE gets out of it, I have no idea.

  18. pmsrhino permalink
    April 27, 2011 2:59 pm

    Leave it to men to take simple scientific concepts like evolution and turn it into something that benefits only them. Actually had a conversation (well, butted into a conversation) about the concept of a selfish gene. How, using Darwinian theory, there is no reason to help the poor or for welfare or anything like that because it’s all survival of the fittest. We should leave the weak to die and not help them because, also using Darwinian logic, we are all just apes so why should we be expected to act any better? Which is bullshit. Evolution is good for helping us figure out how we got here and helps us find cures and vaccines. Evolution was not meant to be some sort of moral code. AND YET! Men CLING to evo psych like it’s some sort of holy grail that will let them continue being the assholes they are. This is the main reason why I have just left the atheist community entirely. It’s all just a bunch of men who refuse to listen to any woman unless she is patting them on the back and backing up whatever they say. The clincher for me was the panel at a conference about how to get more women comfortable and involved in the atheist movement. The panel of 5 men and one woman who ended up just talking about how men NATURALLY EVOLVED to hit on every female in sight (or NATURALLY EVOLVED to sexually harass and rape women, in essence) and females should just get over it and realize they are only men, they can’t help it. And then one one woman finally stood up in anger and mentioned that the way they keep saying “females” was pretty offensive she was mocked and laughed out of the room.

    It’s like if you aren’t fighting some religious prick about how his God has no say over your body or whether or not a man gets to control your entire life, you’re fighting with some scientific dickwad who thinks we all just naturally evolved to have men ruling over women and men sexually assaulting and raping women.

    Because, you know, NATURE. It’s explains everything and absolves us of any responsibility to try and fix shit.

  19. Sargasso Sea permalink
    April 27, 2011 4:00 pm

    Oooooo. Can’t stand the atheist dudes. Oooooo, really, really can’t stand them.

    They’re almost worse than the gawdsuckers.

  20. April 27, 2011 4:14 pm

    Yes, atheist men are fucking horrible. The fact that atheism and progressivism have nothing to do with each other should be completely obvious, considering that Christopher hitchens is an atheist, but there you go. And there’s DEFINITELY nothing feminist about it! Like trans perhaps, atheist men COULD TRY to be feminist allies. They’d fail, but the point is that there’s nothing INHERENTLY feminist about either atheism or trans.

    At least moderately-religious men can openly acknowledge that they don’t know every fucking thing. Atheist men think they know it all, JUST LIKE the fucking godbags. Duh.

  21. April 27, 2011 5:20 pm

    The thing we’re really talking about when academic pomo-ism comes up is deconstruction. It is that tool that breaks down every possible human construction and concept into discrete elements, thus progressively denying that there is any such thing as… anything. The original proponents of this technique of inquiry (and destruction) are long gone and in their place are people who are left holding that bag of shattered theories, concepts, and meaning. Many of those people realized that, while the original idea was interesting and might be a good tool for some things, the movement that grew up around it (and the rock star proponents) was one big wank-off. (Some honest ones have even declared that we were never actually in a post-modern era, but are still in a modernist era and that other stuff was a side trip into a mutual jerk-off session by Derrida and his followers. Judith Butler anyone? If you read current takedowns of dear Judith, you’ll see what I’m talking about. Someone has finally said, “what in the what???”) But we now have academics trying to re-assemble something meaningful out of the detritus. They are trying mightily to make it look as if 40 years of conferences and papers and PhDs weren’t one big circus with nothing to show for it. These folks have decided that there ARE some essential things (“unpacked” in their tireless struggle for truth and meaning) — now they’re the true believers! They’re now trying to prove that, while there still aren’t big categories of things (like “woman” — you certainly can’t let that one stand), there is core truth and they will soon know what it is. (The more things change…) That’s why they are the heroes of the anti-intellectuals (who learned this crazy shit at their master’s knees as undergrads). This new scenario, that breaks down progressive social ideals while propping up neo-conservatism, fits perfectly with what the none-too-bright sex-poz and tranz would like to believe with their whole hearts. Those movements don’t even have to be endorsed directly by the post-pomos, it’s enough to have a passing relationship because everything is always in a state of “contention” and “interrogation.” And that’s the classic haven for the conservative, the superstitious, and the cowardly.

  22. April 27, 2011 5:22 pm

    And there is NO ONE more superstitious than the “skeptic” community.

  23. April 27, 2011 7:15 pm

    Feminism should have NEVER been mixed with academics. What the hell were people thinking? The whole entire point of feminism, the real kind, is a critical examination isn’t it? It’s even kind of fun, if you do it right, and not in a narcissistic wanking-way. In a productive expansive way, its like figuring out a puzzle or a really great geometry proof. You know, FUN! 😛

    Academic feminists all know that if feminism ever succeeded, they’d all be out of a job. Let the wank-fest begin…and above all, make sure it never ends. They are fucking shameless.

  24. April 27, 2011 7:31 pm

    It’s like a freakin’ merry-go-round: There is essential truth — There’s no such thing as essential truth — But there is an essential truth under another name — But you can’t know what that truth is, because blah, blah, blah — But there is a core reality — But reality is suspect — AAAGGGHHHH. Anything that gets put into that is going to be useless for a political movement. Yes, as you say, that’s the who point of putting it in there!!! Works for PhDs and a deeply conservative male institution (the academy) and supports all the other deeply conservative, male institutions in keeping people from making real change.

    And yes, exactly, when it’s not in the hands of academics, our analysis is actually engaging, interesting, fun, AND it’s gets somewhere!

  25. April 27, 2011 10:49 pm

    At one time, I was seriously considering a graduate program in gender studies. Talk about dodging a fucking bullet; I wasn’t even that radical then, but I really don’t know what that would’ve done to me. It wouldn’t have been pretty, and it wouldn’t have been fun. Omg! Whew!

  26. Claire K. permalink
    April 28, 2011 2:57 pm

    “The original proponents of this technique of inquiry (and destruction) are long gone and in their place are people who are left holding that bag of shattered theories, concepts, and meaning. Many of those people realized that, while the original idea was interesting and might be a good tool for some things, the movement that grew up around it (and the rock star proponents) was one big wank-off.” Yes, yes, yes and yes. I think you hit the nail on the head with this comment, noanodyne. And it definitely works well with neo-liberalism, doesn’t it, this fragmented (individualistic) outlook?

    FCM, I was thinking about some of the questions you raised. It’s hard for me to really get my mind around this stuff, it ends up seeming all a big muddle. But I think that’s kind of the point, as I’ll get to in a minute. Anyway, yeah, I called the funfems anti-intellectual because of their emphasis on personal experiences over systemic analyses, which is another point at which their politics would seem to conflict with the ideas of pomo academics, who don’t approve of words like “experience” and “identity” treasured by funfems. In fact, academic pomos criticize radfems for relying too heavily on those concepts. So as to why they can work together despite these differences: I think it’s partly because of the wide divide between academia and the world of mainstream feminism. The funfems would find some of the academics’ ideas offensive if they knew about them, but they don’t. The academic pomos write things that go against funfem philosophy in scholarly books and journals, but they don’t challenge funfems directly. The funfems themselves aren’t all that powerful, but ideas like sexual orientation being genetic are popular among liberals of all stripes and the academics can’t afford to take on such a large group. Nor do they have any reason to: the funfems and the academics have basically the same goals, whether that’s a nice thing like gay rights or an icky thing like protecting the porn industry, so the academics don’t mind if the funfems are accomplishing those goals by different means. For example, a prof into queer theory might use the introductory volume to Foucault’s History of Sexuality in his classes, but in his “civilian” life he’s not going to start lecturing his fellow gay rights activists on how the idea of homosexuality as an identity rather than an act only dates back to the Victorian era because the anti-feminist ramifications of sexuality-as-genetic either don’t occur to him or aren’t worth disrupting the unity of the movement for (male) gay rights. Academic books on feminism include the occasional swipe at Andrea Dworkin, because as low-profile as radfems already are one still has to make sure they stay that way, but not at Jessica Valenti, because even if they don’t agree with her ideas she doesn’t challenge their goals the way Dworkin does.

    I don’t think the ultimate goal of this unholy and somewhat accidental alliance is only to oppose radfems –we just aren’t a big enough threat to bother with most of the time. Instead, I think the goal is to expand and secure male sexual access to women, and the conflict with radfems is a side effect of that. Of course, many or most of the people involved don’t think of this as their goal at all, but a sort of intellectual survival-of-the-fittest ensures that those ideas best adapted to survive in their environment (i.e., those that best serve the interests of the people in power) are the ones that get the most press (tho the internet might be leveling the playing field a bit on the nonacademic side). So maybe the porn-defending liberal feminist prof really thinks she’s helping work against the marginalization of lesbians, but the dudely dean who signs off on her tenure bid does so because he sees that despite being a feminist she’s not going to take away his porn. (Or whatever. Examples abound.)

    I see this opposition to the characterization of women as a social category and to related forms of “essentialism” as linked to the transition from “women’s studies” to “gender studies” and from “gay and lesbian” to “queer.” Replacing women’s studies with gender studies ensures that there are no spaces from which men are excluded. It’s probably accurate to describe this as the “penetration” of academic feminism by men. The word “queer” has become so common in academia that it’s rare to even hear anyone talking about “gays and lesbians” but at the same time its meaning has been expanded to include anything the speaking academic finds cool and sexy, from companion animals to cyborgs to spinster aunts. As a result there are no longer any academically-correct terms to describe people who are just plain old homosexuals (and not cyborgs or whatever). In particular, while calling a man “queer” is still usually enough to get across the idea that he has sex exclusively with other men, when used to describe women “queer” is unofficially understood to mean something more like a destabilized and fluctuating version of “bisexual.” Then make it common practice to refer both to exclusively lesbian and to celibate women as “queer” and, voila, you no longer have any women who don’t have sex with men, or at least you have no words for such a phenomenon. The promotion of the word “queer” and the elimination of the word “woman” both work to create this vague soup of sexualities and gender identities in which anything is acceptable except that which excludes men altogether. To feminist academics this way of thinking is very seductive because it seems to promise to “destabilize” the patriarchal construction of gender and sexuality as absolute (this is how my favorite professor explained it to me. Right before she called me an essentialist. Sigh.) The danger is that the resulting confusion will only hide male dominance instead of dismantling it. For instance, “women’s studies,” as opposed to “gender studies,” would have to be a temporary concept from a radical feminist perspective, because it maintains the idea of a class:woman set in opposition to a class:man, but it does take on the issue of women’s oppression directly whereas “gender studies” does not. And even Derrida himself said that struggles against oppression have to include a basic ‘overturning’ phase, though he certainly had plenty of other douchebaggy things to say about feminists.

    Really sorry this is so long and rambling; I’ve been turning this stuff over in my mind for the past year or so and haven’t had anyone to vent to about it.

  27. Claire K. permalink
    April 28, 2011 3:02 pm

    One more thing about the relationship between academic and funfem pomos: they don’t deal with one another directly, but reading the funfem blogs it’s obvious some stuff has filtered in from academia. So how exactly does that happen, I wonder? And the feminist pomo academics do have contact with the funfems outside of academia, so they probably feel more comfortable writing things they know would be funfem-approved even if they never mention the funfems explicitly in their scholarly writing.

  28. Sargasso Sea permalink
    April 28, 2011 3:24 pm

    … when used to describe women “queer” is unofficially understood to mean something more like a destabilized and fluctuating version of “bisexual.” Then make it common practice to refer both to exclusively lesbian and to celibate women as “queer” and, voila, you no longer have any women who don’t have sex with men, or at least you have no words for such a phenomenon.

    Good old fashioned lesbian erasure. Well said, Claire.

  29. Mary Sunshine permalink
    April 28, 2011 4:02 pm


    Thanks for your thoughts. Much there to nourish the mind.

  30. April 28, 2011 7:01 pm

    Holy crap you wimmins have ENORMOUS BRAINZ!!!11!1 love!

  31. FAB Libber permalink
    April 28, 2011 9:42 pm

    Many excellent points Claire.

  32. yttik permalink
    April 28, 2011 10:50 pm

    Men are trained from day one to be selfish, so of course they are. I think it’s even written in the code book, “Masculinity for Dummies.” You have to be selfish because everything else is considered feminine.

    As to being a gender essentialist, I’ve been called that so many times, I just embrace it now. It just seems to mean, STFU, you’re not allowed to say anything negative about the learned behavior that the majority of men engage in. It used to mean that you believe gender is innate or biological or something, but now it just pretty much means you’ve said something observable and negative about men and we can’t have that, you gender essentialist, you!

  33. April 28, 2011 11:09 pm

    Gender essentialism ay? That’s a new one. Srsly. Take a group who shares “masculinity” and all that entails (to varying degrees I suppose) and tell everyone else (FAABs) they cant speak aloud WHAT it entails. We have to ignore it. Yay pomo!

    Seriously, is gender essentialism a real thing?

  34. April 29, 2011 12:48 am

    also, claire, i think you are 100% spot-on regarding the erasure of lesbians and spinsters (everyone who doesnt have sex with men!) AND the shared goal of fun fems and academic pomo being expanding and securing sexual access to girls and women. absolutely. and the lesbian/spinster erasure is very relevant to my “words on words” post on the other blog: thanks to the word “queer” now there is LITERALLY NO WORD for women who dont fuck men. the entire concept has been erased. its fucking stunning. thank you for your comments.

  35. Loup-loup garou permalink
    April 29, 2011 4:20 am

    How does this pomo queer stuff filter into the real world? I’m having flashbacks to a workshop I attended at some queer activist thingy in the nineties. (I spent much of that decade ignoring the small, still voice saying, “You know what real feminism looks like, and this ain’t it.”) It was organized by Queer Nation types who published their own alternative porn zines, but attended by earnest young people who just wanted to fight the good fight against AIDS and other bad stuff.

    Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians had a hit song, Gender Trouble had just been published with the unattractive purple cover, and under-thirty lesbians, oops, I mean, queer women, were being totally transgressive by buying Susie Bright’s new book at the local feminist bookstore, which had reluctantly stocked it. Standing around with a styrofoam cup of coffee, I overheard the following conversation:

    Earnest Young Woman: So…I was wondering about this term, ‘genderfuck.’ I’ve never heard that before — what does it mean?

    Queer Activist: Well, it’s when you fuck with gender. Like if a guy with a full beard puts on a tutu and some fake breasts, that would be a genderfuck.

    Earnest Young Woman: *Nods gravely.* Oh.

    I forget if an exhortation to read Gender Trouble followed, but it probably did.

    Seriously, a lot of women absorb, or semi-absorb, this stuff in college, but do not become academics. Some eventually figure out that their hip, queer, pomo profs were, in fact, extremely sheltered individuals with limited knowledge of the world outside their offices, but not before they’ve done their part for funfeminism by explaining 1.5 million times to Bob in Accounting that, you bet, some lesbians are totally into stripping for male audiences because it’s a way of asserting their seckshual power — in fact, when some lesbians sleep with men it’s a totally queer act, because…AGENCY! (Or FLUIDITY, take your pick.)

  36. maggie permalink
    April 29, 2011 8:13 am

    Claire, excellent comments to a great post. My brain has expanded ten fold in one hour. Fantastic!!

    The change to gender studies, so that the men can be included, is done to shut down expansion of female thought. Men get to clear their heads to think, expound and theorise as an exclusive group and, guess what, the same results happen when women do similar. Like these blogs which are the most fantastic havens of intellect on the planet internet.

    In Norway the equalities minister decided that voluntary action to put women on the board of directors in the top 100 companies didn’t work – that’s selfishness working right there. So the equalities minister passed a law that if the companies didn’t put women on the BoD they would be shut down. The result? Not a big surprise. And it works. I always use this example against those who say women shortlists don’t work. They have to be put in place because men are selfish. Men cause women shortlists and then it’s mainly them who criticise it. Men’s selfishness is an eternal circle.

  37. Mantis permalink
    April 29, 2011 9:25 am

    Yes, men are indeed selfish. How selfish? So selfish that, when one of them actually decides to toss a random scrap of kindness at a woman deemed worthy of male compassion, both the benefactor and 90% of the female species sings the praises of his astounding humanitarianism and noble character. This “good deed” could be something as miniscule as refilling the toilet paper spool, or as dubious as refusing to succumb to the temptation of raping his stepdaughter, even though “the bitch was asking for it because she dresses like a slut”. I think all women know, deep down, that most men are scum-sucking pieces of shit. But it’s an ugly reality; a reality that is so horrific, women are forced to adopt all sorts of unnatural coping skills. One of those skills is hope; the hope that, despite all evidence to the contrary, men are capable of love & compassion, and capable of seeing women as whole human beings. And so, when any man strays from The Script of Masculinity (no matter how brief it may be), it justifies that self-deluding optimism. I can hear them now… “See?! ALL men aren’t bad!”. LOL

    Well, evidently, most of them are; else women wouldn’t so desperately lavish attention on the first Joe Blow who begrudgingly acknowledges (after much heated debate) that it might be possible that they were not put on this Earth for the exclusive purpose of being every man’s own personal fuck-muppet. Men are also aware of their scum-sucking ways; they are not ashamed, wearing it like a badge of honor. But when a woman names it, out loud, the menfolk wail in defensiveness… “JUST BECAUSE I SAID ALL CHICKS ARE WHORES, THAT DOESN’T MAKE ME A MISOGYNIST. I’M SICK OF THIS PC CRAP!!!111!!”.

    Men are shit, and they know it. But they hate the fact that women know it too. Fun-feminism is just another variant of the old Dude-Aid recipe. Radical Feminism is the antidote. 🙂

  38. April 29, 2011 11:02 am

    mantis, just YES! there are a few new commenters here for this post, where have you been all my life?!

  39. FAB Libber permalink
    April 29, 2011 11:37 am

    Right on Mantis!

  40. Loup-loup garou permalink
    April 29, 2011 2:26 pm

    Just realized that some of my cultural references are not from the same year…but the conversation is, I swear, verbatim!

  41. Mantis permalink
    April 29, 2011 6:12 pm

    FCM said:

    “…where have you been all my life?!

    Well, I was a reader of IBTP… till the infamous Transgate incident put a bad taste in my mouth. So, I began to search for greener pastures. I saw you commenting at 92’s place, so I payed a visit to your blog, and many of the other blogs you link to. It was very encouraging to see another woman, of my own age group, whose also a fan of Dworkin. And, needless to say, I have thoroughly enjoyed your thoughts on the whole trans situation…. which brings me to a question: Have you heard about the two girls in Baltimore, who beat up a tranny at McDonald’s? The public response to this incident has been rife with female-hate & racism (the girls are black, tranny is white). I keep hoping you’ll post something about it, as I’m very eager to hear your perspective.

  42. FAB Libber permalink
    April 29, 2011 6:16 pm

    (only dead links so this does not end up in mod)

  43. April 29, 2011 7:27 pm

    Yes, I highly recommend gallusmags post. It was excellent reporting, and it was news to me. The Nigel heard about the beatdown even before I did, but apparently, and unsurprisingly most of what gallus reports isn’t widely known.

  44. April 29, 2011 9:31 pm

    I don’t really do news reporting or current events, so I am glad there are others who do. It’s just not my thing, although Jessica valenti almost dying from pregnancy related complications was just too good to pass up. And when I say good, I mean bad. 😦

  45. Mantis permalink
    April 29, 2011 11:47 pm

    @ FAB: Thanks. I just posted a comment on GallusMag’s article (still in mod).

    Much of the commentary I’ve read about this, all over the internet, has been about as ludicrous as The Spearhead’s claim that men are being oppressed by Susan Lucci’s breast implants. It’s good to finally see a competent assessment of the McTranny situation.

  46. KatieS permalink
    April 30, 2011 2:59 pm

    Searching for my own sexuality, I read the book on women’s sexual fluidity by Lisa Diamond. She portrays women’s sexuality as different than men’s and complains that women’s sexuality has been defined through a male paradigm. So far, so good, right? At the time I read it, some things bothered me about this book, though. I think the blurring of categories was one of the things, the “queer” woman was one of them. Something was left out. Reading the comments here, I realize that it’s that there is no place for women who don’t fuck men.

    My biggest disappointment in reading it at the time was that sexism was not discussed in any meaningful way when it comes to relationships. In reading about PIV here, I realize that intimate relationships are not really possible with men given the PIV-entitlement culture. Trying to find the man who is the exception is barking up the wrong tree. Since women are colonized, no real intimacy is possible. The entitlement runs deep in men. They are socialized into selfishness from the start. Even those who might be less-than-selfish are part of a selfish-entitlement-privilege system that runs very deep. They may be generous, but that would only be to non-FAAB’s. When it comes to FAAB’s their generosity is only noblesse oblige or worse.

    I wonder what a book on women’s sexual fluidity would look like that started with that as a premise? It would have to make a place for women who don’t fuck men, that’s for sure.

  47. April 30, 2011 6:43 pm

    assexuality i.e. spinsterhood (reviled) and bachlerhood (accepted), is considered, though only if your are FaaB, as not the done thing. Since Victorian times. Surprise, surprise. Heavens above if you want to live on your own. As a female. Cause the rumour will spread that *gasp* you’ll never have enjoyed the wonders of PIV. Or motherhood. But the menz were excluded. Why?

  48. FAB Libber permalink
    April 30, 2011 7:07 pm

    That’s a great reversal Maggie. Good catch!

  49. jilla permalink
    April 30, 2011 7:19 pm

    I think they were called nuns, Kate.

  50. jilla permalink
    April 30, 2011 7:28 pm

    The men were excluded (from censure if not married) why?

    I don’t think they were excluded. They were the “funny uncles”. I know most families have spinsters (women) and they are not thought of as dangerous. Not so with Uncle Bob the bachelor. Mothers do not not leave their children with him. Thus, bachelors, and funny uncles, (hell, men) will still get themselves a female shield to hide behind.

  51. FAB Libber permalink
    April 30, 2011 7:36 pm

    I think Maggie was meaning more batchelor-sewing-oats as a celebration, rather than creepy batchelor uncle dude. Spinsters are not celebrated.

  52. April 30, 2011 8:02 pm

    Just a suggestion that we don’t conflate the word “asexual” with “spinster.”

  53. Sargasso Sea permalink
    April 30, 2011 8:30 pm

    I’ll second that Noanodyne 🙂

  54. maggie permalink
    April 30, 2011 9:03 pm

    Nanodyne, I’ll third that. No I would never conflate the word asexual with spinster but I was suggesting that it is done.

    Never thought about the funny uncle but I have cousins who are bachelors and were seen as hellraisers in their day, as FAB points out. However my sister, who is unmarried and without issue, like her cousins, is pitied (and always has been). I wouldn’t leave my children with any of them as my children don’t know them. Ha!

    Now I have another sister, married with no kids. She has ‘respectability’. I wouldn’t leave my children with her either. Ha!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: