Facebook update causes Nine Deuce to delete contact, hate Nietzsche even more.

6 Apr

Well, I’ve been shirking long enough and it’s time to write. I suppose the many, many MRA-penned death threats I’ve been getting this week have had something to do with my reluctance to get back on the old bloggeroony, but fuck those assholes.

For some reason, I have as one o’ my Facebook bros a dude I tertiarily knew when I was 20, and this particular dude has been a source of laughter for me on many occasions. He’s about 40 years old, has been a rave DJ for the last 16 years, and, like rave DJs the world over, has a hankering for women half his age because they’re too young to realize how fucking ridiculous it is for a 40-year-old man to be hanging around in dodgy industrial lofts playing tired, rehashed 1999 house music for teenagers on ketamine by night while spending his days writing and re-writing online bios about what a serious musical artist he is. I know I’m supposed to disassociate myself from all sexists, misogynists, users of women, and general dickfers, but I just can’t seem to do so sometimes. As revolting as these types can be, they’re also good for a laugh. I mean really, what in the world is funnier than a person who has striven for so long to avoid analyzing himself or the world around him that he has successfully convinced himself that playing records in public matters and that the absurd thoughts that MDMA causes in the minds of people who dress like kindergarteners gone wild might have the potential to radically improve human society? I can’t give up a source of entertainment that rich just because the guy happens to objectify women. Call me a sell-out if you must; I still don’t listen to Ludacris or go see Seth Rogen movies.

Anyway, this particular individual has recently been having problems with his girlfriend, aged 22. I know this because he stopped posting her borderline pornographic head shots with captions like “My little super model” and began writing cryptic updates about the value of honesty and how wack it is when “people” attempt to deceive others. It was REAL subtle, I assure you. I admit it, I snickered at this fellow’s misfortune, but only because I think it’s very funny when adults air their relationship difficulties in a public forum. I especially like it when they include song lyrics they think are pertinent to the situation. Well, this dude dealt very poorly with having been cheated on and dumped and, in between posting updates such as, “I don’t have to put up with this shit. I’m ____ _______!”, got a little introspective and started checking out quotes from European philosophers on the internet, the choicest of which he elected to share with his many Facebook pals. Most of them were the kind of silly, obvious, sophomoric nonsense that seems to appeal so much to Fight Club fans (sorry, Geoff) and MMA enthusiasts, but one of them really got me to snickering. The other night, this sage posted a quote from our boy Friedrich Nietzsche that nearly made me drop my taco:

“The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.”

I started sputtering and cussing in a manner reminiscent of Dennis Leary discussing Steven Seagal’s ponytail as I recounted the quote and its context to Davetavius. In between giggles and exclamations of surprise at just how ridiculous people are capable of being, we came to a very important conclusion: it’s probably best to avoid anyone who likes to talk about Nietzsche.

Think about the famous people who claim him as an influence. Marilyn Manson? Jim Morrison? (Scott Stapp claims to be the inheritor of Jim Morrison’s legacy, so we can indirectly blame Nietzsche for the existence of Creed. OK, maybe that’s a slight stretch, but whatever.) Yes, I’m aware that Nietzsche did present some interesting ideas about the possibilities of intellectual inquiry, and that all those French dudes I’m forced to read every semester would have been nowhere without the foundation Nietzsche laid (I’ll give him credit for some of that, but he also gets credit for helping some of those French dudes drop us into the toilet of relativism we now swim in), but very few people know anything about that. Most people who go around quoting Nietzsche do so because they heard he questioned the basis of morality, and that kind of shit really appeals to people who are looking to intellectualize their juvenile, narcissistic interest in smoking pot and participating in faux-Wiccan orgies or whatever.

But as hilarious as Jim Morrison was (The Doors is the greatest comedy ever made) and as embarrassing as Marilyn Manson is, they still at least deserve credit for attempting to understand something Nietzsche wrote beyond whatever one-liners one can find on a website of quotations that also includes “I’m the type of nigga that’s built to last. If you fuck with me, I’ll put my foot in ya ass” (NWA, “Gangsta Gangsta”). Jim Morrison was most definitely a self-absorbed asshole whose “art” amounted to getting ripped, fucking whoever was around, abusing his girlfriend, and overusing the word “death,” but at least he was smart enough to justify his behavior in terms that were not quite yet trite in the 1960s (now, on the other hand…). And though I cannot help but snort, snicker, and pretend to fall over with mirth when someone tries to tell me what a genius Marilyn Manson is, I suppose I can admit that he seems reasonably intelligent and that he possesses the mental faculties required to manipulate quasi-rebellious adolescents en masse. But this DJ dude, and the vast majority of dudes I come across who love to repeat banal quotes from philosophers in some impuissant attempt at projecting sophistication, cannot boast of such, and hence deserve even more derision than Morrison and Manson (fuck, what a rad super group that would have been).

And it’s the selection of quotes like the one above that tip you off to who these guys are. Let’s think about that quote for a minute. Real men want danger and play, and hence they’re into women because women are “the most dangerous plaything”? SNORT.

Now, I know better than to spend any time stomping around in a rage over the misogyny present in nearly every philosophical text from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (whoops, I mean ever). I do, after all, have to sift through them once in awhile to get at ideas that I need to write or think about. But it’s 2010. Even DJs should know that the ideas these guys held about women and gender roles are fucking silly. Nearly every one of these continental thinkers seemed not to realize the contradiction between making the assertion that women are mentally inferior children who need male guidance even if “guidance” requires physical violence, and then claiming that women are evil geniuses who will make use of their wily-ass feminine wiles to dupe even the most astute among men of letters into doing their bidding, bidding that almost always results in the destruction of the man of letters in question. It’s fairly obvious that these guys had some serious problems relating to women (maybe because they were continental intellectuals, the totality of which group has never produced one dude any woman should have deigned to have sex with), and that their ideas about what it means to be a man resemble most closely the masculine ideal of The Lord of the Rings or some other such regressive dorkery, so why the admiration?

Oh, right, because quotes like that from figures one has heard mentioned by people who wear glasses do a sahweet job of grounding one’s own stupid worldview and behavioral tendencies in pseudo-intellectual authoritativeness. After all, in this day and age the kind of dude who, at 40, dates someone who was born when he reached the age of majority needs to stand on the shoulders of giants if he’s to reconcile his penchant for preying on younger women who have yet to develop the maturity and self-confidence to recognize what a creepy DaHarb he is with his insistence on crediting them with the kind of depraved brilliance that would allow them to victimize him. I mean, really, how else are we to interpret the “dangerous plaything” concept?

Bookmark and Share

174 Responses to “Facebook update causes Nine Deuce to delete contact, hate Nietzsche even more.”

  1. Imaginary April 6, 2010 at 7:37 PM #

    Awesome post as always 9-D. Seriously, anyone stupid enough to say that without humour deserves to be manipulated to death. Though I have to say that Marilyn Manson is a snappy dresser.

    And I liked the phrase “faux-Wiccan orgies”.

  2. Hecate April 7, 2010 at 12:21 AM #

    For me, this piece brought to mind what Ms. Solanas had to say about ‘Great Art.’ And I imagine this dude’s girlfriend would have been exactly the type to “allow him to impose his hideously dull chatter on her.” :D

    “Prevention of Conversation: Being completely self-centered and unable to relate to anything outside himself, the male’s ‘conversation’, when not about himself, is an impersonal droning on, removed from anything of human value. Male ‘intellectual conversation’ is a strained compulsive attempt to impress the female.

    Daddy’s Girl, passive, adaptable, respectful of and in awe of the male, allows him to impose his hideously dull chatter on her. This is not too difficult for her, as the tension and anxiety, the lack of cool, the insecurity and self-doubt, the unsureness of her own feelings and sensations that Daddy instilled in her make her perceptions superficial and render her unable to see that the male’s babble is babble; like the aesthete ‘appreciating’ the blob that’s labeled ‘Great Art’, she believes she’s grooving on what bores the shit out of her. Not only does she permit his babble to dominate, she adapts her own ‘conversation’ accordingly.”

    – Valerie Solanas (from S.C.U.M. Manifesto)

  3. SargassoSea April 7, 2010 at 6:56 AM #

    “…Morrison and Manson (fuck, what a rad super group that would have been).”

    This actually caused me stop and speculate. For a moment I was there and it was like some kind of bad trip: a totally fucked up US Festival (not that I attended the first mind you) complete with swinging dongs, compulsory vomiting and flowing tresses – and makeup. Rad, indeed!

    Glad you’re back, 9-2 – and, yeah, fuck those assholes and Nietzsche too.

  4. KBO April 7, 2010 at 7:24 AM #

    You rule.

  5. Baberaham Lincoln April 7, 2010 at 8:07 AM #

    I have been constantly annoyed by this juxtaposition for years. Women are either sweet, weak, emotional, incompetent sillyheads or evil, manipulating, powerful, greedy, conniving, castrating masterminds.

    Pick one and stick with it if you must, but you can’t have it both ways, DaHarbs.

  6. Taybeh Chaser April 7, 2010 at 12:55 PM #

    I think I know this guy. If not him, then another member of his breed, or several. And they are in fact a breed, sadly.

  7. bellacoker April 7, 2010 at 5:17 PM #

    Maybe, like Nietzsche, this dude just found out he has the syphilis.

  8. Komal April 8, 2010 at 9:19 AM #

    “Most people who go around quoting Nietzsche do so because they heard he questioned the basis of morality, and that kind of shit really appeals to people who are looking to intellectualize their juvenile, narcissistic interest in smoking pot and participating in faux- Wiccan orgies or whatever.”

    Best line ever!

    But I do like Nietzsche, I’ll admit.

    • Nine Deuce April 9, 2010 at 10:14 AM #

      Komal — So does Davetavius. He’s mortified by 75% of what Nietzsche wrote and by the other people who seem to be into him, but I suppose Nietzsche isn’t unique in that regard.

  9. Christina April 8, 2010 at 1:17 PM #

    I have only just recently come across your blog and I am in 100 percent agreement with everything I have seen on it.
    Don’t stress about the MRAs and their death threats they will try and do anything to destroy feminism and everything feminism has achieved. They only care about holding onto male privilege even though it is at the expense of women.

  10. Rian April 8, 2010 at 1:40 PM #

    After all, in this day and age the kind of dude who, at 40, dates someone who was born when he reached the age of majority needs to stand on the shoulders of giants if he’s to reconcile his penchant for preying on younger women who have yet to develop the maturity and self-confidence to recognize what a creepy DaHarb he is with his insistence on crediting them with the kind of depraved brilliance that would allow them to victimize him.

    I want to make ten million copies of this and plaster it all over ev psych philosophy. It makes so much more sense than the crap they’re peddling. Men’s attraction to younger women has fuck all to do with their fertility and everything to do with their willingness to put up with men’s shit, where older and wiser women will not.

  11. redpeachmoon April 8, 2010 at 2:32 PM #

    Love the feminist viewpoints and discussion, but am really alarmed by the creepy angry men (mra’s)
    please carry on boldly, but do be safe.. !I understand why Twisty shuts out the anti-fems.
    Frikkin’ patriarchy.
    Thank you for your site.

  12. wiggles April 8, 2010 at 3:24 PM #

    Hecate, the only part of that Solanis quote I disagree with is this: “Male ‘intellectual conversation’ is a strained compulsive attempt to impress the female.”

    I don’t think the guy gives a crap about impressing the female. He’s more concerned with impressing himself and other males. He can do this by lulling the female into a stupor with a wall of pseudointellectual words. If her confidence has been sufficiently beaten down, she’ll mistake the man’s ability to bore her silly for intellectual superiority, in which case he might convince the female that it would be a good idea to fuck him, and then he can brag to his friends about it, which is all he really cares about.

    Guys don’t even like sex. They’re just in it for the bragging rights.

  13. Mary Tracy9 April 8, 2010 at 4:54 PM #

    I love this post and I love this thread. You are all awesome.

    “that kind of shit really appeals to people who are looking to intellectualize their juvenile, narcissistic interest in smoking pot and participating in faux- Wiccan orgies or whatever.”

    So true. And I would add “hedonistic” as well.

    “Men’s attraction to younger women has fuck all to do with their fertility and everything to do with their willingness to put up with men’s shit, where older and wiser women will not.”

    SO, SO true!

  14. Mary Tracy9 April 8, 2010 at 5:21 PM #

    Oh, and Ashley, I’m so glad I found out about you :D

  15. Mary Tracy9 April 8, 2010 at 6:09 PM #

    “Guys don’t even like sex.”

    I ALWAYS knew this. Otherwise pr0n, which is really bad sex, would not exist.

  16. isme April 8, 2010 at 10:01 PM #

    “Men’s attraction to younger women has fuck all to do with their fertility and everything to do with their willingness to put up with men’s shit, where older and wiser women will not.”

    Not really…it’s carried over from when women of all ages had to put up with whatever the man did, so it’s not that.

    Nowdays the appeal seems to be to get as close to pedophilia as possible, without taking the final step and risking prison time.

  17. joy April 9, 2010 at 12:13 AM #

    Beg to differ, isme, or maybe it’s a combination of the above — the desire for something theoretically gullible and malleable, and the desire for something that looks more like underaged pr0n actresses so that your buddies think you’re the shit for bagging ”young tail.”

    For the record, it feels dirty just to type that.

    Yes, some women of all age groups will to this day tolerate male shit, and some of all age groups will not. So it seems logical to assume that men desire young girlfriends out of a combination of desire for the theoretically vulnerable and desire for their buddies’ pats on their backs.

    There is more and more evidence for the theory that this super-homosocial cultural environment actually creates virulently misogynist closeted homosexual men.

  18. Rachael April 9, 2010 at 11:18 AM #

    Aww…Pardon me while I shed a single womanly tear for this poor baby and who discovered that his “little super model” wasn’t the doormat he expected her to be.

    Ugh. I am so sick of these assholes who have one bad relationship and use it as an excuse to spout off about all that’s wrong with women and why men should stick to their guns and never, ever let a woman have a will of her own because we’re all evil bitches who date Jerks instead of Nice Guys. Whenever I encounter one of these guys, I can’t help but think that the woman who broke up with him did so because she was sick of his shit.

  19. ashley spencer April 9, 2010 at 9:46 PM #

    Dood1: My GF is sooooo immature! She’s such a spoiled beeotch.

    Dood2: I know! Teh wiminz and their childish manner– it must be in their genes. Wimminz need to grow the fuck up!!

    Dood1: Yep bro. I’muna kick her to the curb. Now off to find another GF 1/2 X my age.

    Dood2: Better luck this time my man. Eventually one of these chicks 1/2X your age is going to have the mature, responsible attitude you dream of. You just need to persevere.

  20. Ren April 10, 2010 at 1:45 AM #

    Aww, not all of us Nietzsche readers are bad!!! And really, I’d be happy to stand on your stairs with a firearm to re-educate MRA assholes if it comes to that…

    • Nine Deuce April 10, 2010 at 2:35 AM #

      I know. Davetavius even likes some of his stuff, though he also admits that much of it is garbage and that he was a misogynist. Thanks for the offer. I’ll let you know should it become necessary.

  21. Taybeh Chaser April 10, 2010 at 6:07 AM #

    “Guys don’t even like sex.”

    I’ve often wondered about this, esp. with regard to those pick-up artist types and others who treat sex as a game to be won rather than, say, a fun collaboration. It never seems to be about the pleasure of the act itself–more about ego-gratification and the opinion of other men.

  22. kurukurushoujo April 10, 2010 at 8:38 AM #

    The early German feminist Hedwig Dohm has a brilliant take-down of Nietzsche’s opinions in her essay collection “The Anti-Feminists”. I would link to it if an English version was available. :/ (The whole thing is recommended, especially her four categories of anti-feminists which are sadly still relevant today.)

  23. joy April 10, 2010 at 9:32 AM #

    The death-threat thing is disturbing. Remember BitingBeaver.

    Not that anything will actually come of it, but … again, remember, kids — in black and white, it’s MEN and MRAs who have actually taken action to bully and even harm feminists.

    I can’t think of one feminist, from the Internet anyway, who has ever harmed or threatened a man in similar ways.
    Can’t even remember any respectable radical feminists making death threats.

  24. csr April 10, 2010 at 11:58 AM #

    Very funny post, reminded me of Bertrand Russell’s classic hatchet job on Nietzsche, particularly regarding women: “The whole of his abuse of women is offered as self-evident truth; it is not backed up by evidence from history or from his own experience, which, so far as women were concerned, was almost confined to his sister.” Oh, snap!

  25. wiggles April 10, 2010 at 1:08 PM #

    Taybeh Chaser – that’s exactly what I mean. It’s not limited to PUAs but they exemplify my point. When your idea of sex is so wrapped up in conquest, it’s not the sex you’re getting off on.

  26. Ashley (thatantipornfeministonyoutube) April 10, 2010 at 5:48 PM #

    I found the biggest anti-feminist blog post ever today. by someone i know.
    thought you’d like to see

    http://coldgroundpoetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/fck-it-friday-why-i-hate-feminists.html

    • Nine Deuce April 12, 2010 at 5:08 PM #

      Ashley – Apparently the post has been taken down?

  27. DZA April 11, 2010 at 1:19 AM #

    Brilliant.

  28. polly April 11, 2010 at 3:34 AM #

    This reminds me of Lisa Alther’s very funny novel ‘kinflicks’ (I recommend it) where the heroine is driven mad by Nietzsche before being rescued by a counter cultural lesbian folk singer, with hilarious consequences. Anyway it’s a lot funnier than Nietzsche (who is also impossible to spell correctly). And yes people who talk about Nietzsche (or any philosopher) seriously for long periods are probably best avoided because they’re pretentious fools.

    There’s also the Bruce’s philosophers song from Monty Python of course. If you hadn’t deleted him, you could have posted it on his facebook wall thingy. Anyway he’s clearly a knob is my penetrating insight.

  29. sp April 11, 2010 at 8:42 AM #

    My friend redirected me to this site specifically to read this post. As she puts it that it may be an eye-opener for me, which I did find kind of condescending, but I am always willing to listen to different opinions. I was just going to read it and not post, but I felt I needed to say something. I’m 23 and my bf is 45, and I don’t see how there is anything wrong with that. The truth is he is similar to this DJ guy you describe, and even has a similar job. Yet, I like him because he is aggressive and sweet and in our relationship I am definitely the smarter one. Maybe I misinterpreted your post and some of the comments, but it almost seems like you are saying that women who date these men and too weak or naive to see the reality, and these men are just preying on these young women. I don’t think any of it is true. I am with him because I want to, and he is with me because he wants to. We are attracted to each other. I like older men, and he likes younger women. I don’t see what is wrong with people having a certain preference, and yes I’m sure he tells his friends about me but I do the exact same thing. I wanted to put in my perspective as a young woman who is dating an older man, but I am intrigued by the stuff you have posted on here never heard anyone speak this way about society.

  30. isme April 11, 2010 at 11:22 AM #

    “Maybe I misinterpreted your post and some of the comments, but it almost seems like you are saying that women who date these men and too weak or naive to see the reality, and these men are just preying on these young women.”

    I don’t think that was the point (otherwise it looks like we are getting close to “slut-shaming” again). A previous blog entry condemned much the same stereotyping, with genders reversed, here:

    http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/08/25/if-youve-ever-called-anyone-a-cougar-fuck-you/

    • Nine Deuce April 11, 2010 at 7:12 PM #

      SP – I was calling attention to the men’s perception, not to any reality on the part of women. A younger woman may or may not be more naive than an older one, but these dudes seem to assume that young women are both easily-led children and evil genius manipulators, wherein lies the problem: men are making women take the responsibility for all of men’s flaws.

  31. Ren April 11, 2010 at 4:55 PM #

    SP: This begs the question however…

    You ain’t always gonna be young. Younger, sure, but if if his natural attraction is (obviously) younger women, and that is something that is highly important, what happens when, well, you look older- not even older than him, but in a time marches on way? Will everything else matter more, or will the fact that you, like all humans, have aged, be a deal killer?

  32. factcheckme April 11, 2010 at 5:18 PM #

    totally with you on the “men dont even like sex.” they dont. not when you consider all the activities that includes…like shoving things up their butts, and making women come. i think they *do* enjoy putting girls and women at risk for pregnancy and STDs though. which is why for them, “sex” means pretty exclusively “PIV.”

  33. wiggles April 11, 2010 at 5:52 PM #

    sp – What is it about older men that you prefer? Has your boyfriend ever stated what it is about younger women that he prefers?
    I don’t think every younger woman who dates an older man is doing so because she’s weak and naive. I actually think a lot of younger guys can be pretty obnoxious and sometimes age helps them eventually grow out of some of that. So to that extent it makes sense to me why some younger women would prefer the company of older men. I’m actually more concerned about the motivations of older men who seek out younger women. I’ve known too many older guys in real life who admittedly seek out younger women to impress other men or because younger women are easier to “manage” (yes, they say that shit out loud) and are more beauty-standard-compliant to dismiss that as a stereotype. I’m not saying that’s who your boyfriend is, but it’s just something that tends to raise suspicions for me.

  34. sp April 11, 2010 at 8:56 PM #

    Isme- Thank you for the link.

    Ren- I understand what you are saying. I have actually had this conversation with him. He told me that yes his initial draw is to younger women, but he needs more than just that. He has not exclusively dated younger women, and for him the person, their character, and way of being is much more important that their age and looks. For him attraction lies in having a connection and not simply in the physical, and I am the same way. I believe that is why we were drawn to each other. Although he tells me all that stuff, as I get older it is a definite possibility that my age could become an issue, but I know if we are still together at that point and that is an issue for him he is someone I was not meant to be with.

    Wiggles- I don’t really know what it is about older men that I prefer. I just find myself attracted to them although I have dated men closer to my age (yet still 4 or 5 yrs older than me). I think partly I have build up the idea that younger men are more immature than older men. I know that is not necessarily true, but it is just my preference. As for my bf, he hasn’t told me what about younger women he prefers. I do agree with you there are plenty of older men out there with younger women because they believe they can “manage” them, and that is completely problematic. I have been on dates with guys where I quickly come to realize that’s the intent because they see themselves as the older “adult” like figure in the relationship, and I promptly leave that situation.

    Nine Deuce- Thank you for clearing that up. It helped me understand your post better.

  35. wiggles April 11, 2010 at 10:00 PM #

    I have been on dates with guys where I quickly come to realize that’s the intent because they see themselves as the older “adult” like figure in the relationship, and I promptly leave that situation.

    Ugh. Yeah I’ve been on dates with guys my own age who see themselves that way too.

  36. Nokidding April 12, 2010 at 11:06 AM #

    SP – Men want two things from women: sex and obedience. If your boyfriend is attracted to younger women, it’s because in his mind he thinks that younger women are sexier (why wouldn’t he think, this is what media says all the time – women are only sexy till they turn 30) and easier to control.

    I’m sorry, but I’m sick and tired of hearing women claim their mates are different. They aren’t. Men are biologically wired to hate women, period. None of your husbands/boyfriends respect you, they don’t have the ability to!

    Don’t you see how everything he says is just a load of bs? He claimed to you that he is attracted to what is “inside” of a person. But that obviously isn’t true, if it was, age wouldn’t matter to him. He already said he has preferences, so he lied.
    And trust me, men know exactly how to manipulate women with sweet talking.

  37. polly April 12, 2010 at 11:37 AM #

    It’s really up to you SP. If you’re happy with this dude right here, right now, that’s your choice. It probably won’t last forever (I hear this from women who’ve had similar experiences, if the dude is into women of a particular age, he usually doesn’t tend to revise that age upwards as he ages).

    But whatever, you could also die in a freak accident tomorrow, let’s face it. You can’t live your life solely for the future, because it might not materialise. And you may also find HE loses his charm as well (more likely I’d say).

    I didn’t read the piece as an injunction against going out with older men (or older women, there’s a hell of lot of dykes who seem to have the same thing going on) though, just a comment on this dudes general foolishness. When a twentyish friend of mine was in a similar position (yes again with a forty something dude on the fringes of the music industry), I told her I thought he was a knob but she needed to conclude that for herself. She did.

    NB Nine Deuce, being over 40 doesn’t necessarily bring an addiction to garden centres and sensible footwear, some of us ageing types still like clubbing tha knows. Though not to rave music which is 99% shite and needs some fairly serious drugs to be bearable.

    • Nine Deuce April 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM #

      Polly – I didn’t mean to imply that anyone over 20 is old and never does anything but put puzzles together. It’s just funny to me that anyone over 20 can handle the rave scene. It’s just so effing silly. I know I can’t.

  38. polly April 12, 2010 at 1:11 PM #

    I’m just amazed there still IS a rave scene. I know the eighties are back, (supposedly) but really there are limits.

    • Nine Deuce April 12, 2010 at 1:18 PM #

      There is, but it’s turned into yet another scene where women are aggressively objectified. By the way, glad to see you back!

  39. sp April 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM #

    No Kidding- I am going to have to disagree with you. I do not think men only want two things from women. Yes, of course one of the things he wants in our relationship is sex, but so do I. It is extremely important to both of us, but in no way does he want my obedience and I would never be with someone who would want that. Also I don’t find anything wrong with him being attracted to younger women, and I want to stress again it has nothing to do with control. He has his preferences and I have mine.
    I also was not claiming he is different. Just saying that is what he tells me, and I choose to believe him. He never lied to me about his intentions. I choose to trust him and I am smart enough to figure out his “sweet talking” and manipulation. His attraction is both the physical and the inside. Just like me we both were first physically attracted to each other, then go to know the person, if more wasn’t there we would not of seen any point in starting a relationship. I like that he finds me physically attractive, its important, but it also goes beyond that.
    As for men being biologically wired to hate women that I cannot agree with at all. It isn’t true. There is not biological wiring to cause such behavior. If it was, I’m screwed cause I plan on being with a man and maybe one day even marrying one and I really don’t believe that person will hate me or require me to be obedient.

  40. sp April 12, 2010 at 1:59 PM #

    Polly- I agree with you anything can happen that is why I never really look to the future. With this relationship I live in the now, and right now I’m really happy.

  41. Ren April 12, 2010 at 2:05 PM #

    Having a nod with sp here…saying men are hardwired to hate women and are ONLY interested in sex and obidience is a bit much- similar to saying women are hardwired to be manipulative and only want money and posessions (the sort of statements most women tend to agree are complete horseshit when spoken by men). I’ll say I do think some people are more hardwired for hate (or manipulation, or whatever else) than others, but it is not a matter of biological sex.

  42. wiggles April 12, 2010 at 3:08 PM #

    Nokidding, not to pile on, but I’m going to strongly disagree with you on this point:

    Men are biologically wired to hate women, period.

    They’re socially indoctrinated to hate women, not biologically wired.
    It’s just that the indoctrination’s been going on for so long a lot of people mistake it for biology.

  43. Faith April 12, 2010 at 4:04 PM #

    “Men want two things from women: sex and obedience.”

    Well, yes, they -sometimes- want only those two things. Much of the time many of them only really want those two things. But you’re going wayyy out on a limb if you really are declaring that’s all they ever want all the time. Believe it or not, men actually are full human beings. They really do experience the entire gamut of human emotions. Many of them will even share those emotions and fun times with the women in their lives.

    “Men are biologically wired to hate women, period. ”
    I sincerely hope you don’t identify as a feminist of any variety.

  44. joy April 12, 2010 at 5:22 PM #

    I actually agree with Nokidding, other than the ”biological” part.

    Most men ARE complete human beings, they’ve just been socially conditioned to disdain and even hate women.
    Men are taught that women are intellectually inferior, so the only thing women are good for is sex.
    They are also taught that they’re entitled to a woman’s obedience, because they are superior to women. Thus they often expect women’s superiority.

    That is cultural training though; it’s not innate. It just takes a hell of a lot of work to wake up from it and see women as whole human beings.

    If I, a woman who has made an extreme effort to learn about feminism, works constantly to live her life free of internalized sexist thoughts, and defines herself as a radical feminist, still sometimes falls back into antiquated and sexist thought patterns … well, imagine what it’s like if you’re a dude who’s got all the incentive in the world NOT to embark upon consciousness-raising at all.

    We are all marinated in the patriarchy, and we can never escape it completely. We just have to do what we have to do to live with it and mitigate the damage.

  45. joy April 12, 2010 at 6:58 PM #

    Also, re, older men.

    I recently wrote at IBtP about older dudes in the music biz creeping onto younger girls. It happens all over the art world, but I know the music and writing worlds best because I’m in them.

    A lot of the problem is that women run out of ”shelf life” pretty quickly. Either they hit twenty-five or twenty-six and are deemed unfuckable and/or they quit, their careers never get off the ground because they aren’t patriarchally pretty, or they get snatched up by and married off to some dude — but regardless, even in the Brooklyn underground Americana scene which prides itself on being accepting and politically progressive, there are very few women over the age of twenty-five who are active in music.
    Meanwhile, guys almost never expire, even if they are ugly and/or don’t have talent. Go figure.

    So this leaves the door wide open for some special shit to happen. I’ll give you two examples from my own life, and you can see what you think.

    One guy is 54 years old and very well-known in the musical community. He is a socialist-anarchist activist who’s all about peace and love, and he’s also widely regarded as the guy to know if you want help getting ”seen on the scene.” He promotes other artists, especially to each other, and he’s great for social networking.
    I thought he only liked me because I was talented. He doesn’t. He wants me in his bed. At first I felt bad, thinking I had led him on, but then my female friends informed me that he does this with ALL the young women he mentors. This is at odds with his claim that he ”rarely falls for younger women” and ”likes me for my talent and for who I am”. Adding to the creepy? He has a daughter my age.

    The second guy is in his late 30s, but looks younger — I had thought he was in his late 20s when I met him. Unlike a lot of the other younger dudes in the music, he’s got his shit together and doesn’t act like a 22-year-old Hustler addict, but he’s also far from dry, boring, pretentious, or condescending.
    For my part, I have a lot of life experiences and look and act a lot older than I am; most people, even females, think I’m in my mid- to late-20s.
    I thought this dude liked me because he likes younger women. However, this is actually not the case for a change — when he met me and decided I was interesting/fun/good at what I do, basically that he liked me, he thought I was older than I am. And was surprised when he found out otherwise.
    He didn’t discount me, and the attraction/respect hasn’t gone away, but neither of us is stupid enough to think we could have a romantic relationship untainted by power dynamics — even power dynamics imposed upon us from outside. Maybe we’ll discuss it thoroughly and end up doing it anyway, especially once I’m just a tad older than I am now — but seriously, he was a teen when I was a child, and that makes for a huge gap in a lot of different arenas.

    So let’s put it this way, any guy worth his salt isn’t going to go into a situation that could be so colossally bad, and never without a lot of self-aware conversation, mutual discussion, and boundary-setting — the woman’s boundary-setting, that is.
    And there just aren’t that many worth their salt.

    Thus, the kind of older guy a younger girl WOULD end up dating, is probably going to be anywhere from a straight-up creepo, to a guy who simply gets off on power dynamics with or without his own knowledge. Choose carefully.

  46. joy April 12, 2010 at 9:17 PM #

    Oh, and typo — ”women’s superiority” is supposed to read ”women’s obedience, by default of men’s presumed superiority.” Missed a few words there.

  47. polly April 13, 2010 at 12:21 AM #

    I am reminded here of (I think it was Dr Johnson, but it could be wrong), anyway it’s a great quote.

    “Were it not for imagination a man would be as happy in the arms of a chambermaid as a duchess”.

    Says it all really. Men want a lot of things from women, but one of the things they want (pace Levi Strauss) is an increase in their social status. (And yes that does include human beings generally, ugly rich old dudes). And a trophy partner is usually young. Cos young people are gorgeous. Even George Clooney had to have his eye bags done.

    Oh and as a sad middle aged person desperately clinging on to youth, (well I’m told I look so much younger than I really am), generally the thing about aging is that old people lose their looks and also a lot of them are boring, desperate and sad, having been through the mill several times, and have more baggage than your local airport. Also a lot of us are trying to avoid thinking about death, disease and decay. It’s a huge case of denial basically.

    Also what Joy said. Nobody is *hardwired* for anything. We are all the products of the influences that surround us. That’s why there’s a difference between challenging ideology and cultural beliefs and criticising individuals.

  48. berryblade April 13, 2010 at 2:26 AM #

    “And though I cannot help but snort, snicker, and pretend to fall over with mirth when someone tries to tell me what a genius Marilyn Manson is, I suppose I can admit that he seems reasonably intelligent and that he possesses the mental faculties required to manipulate quasi-rebellious adolescents en masse. ”

    Hear hear! Fuck, I brought Beyond Good and Evil when I was like 15 and thought I was the coolest cat out, I got maybe half way through, realised how much of a wanker he actually was and started using it as a paper weight. Worst way to waste money.

  49. FemmeForever April 13, 2010 at 4:50 AM #

    for him the person, their character, and way of being is much more important that their age and looks. For him attraction lies in having a connection and not simply in the physical

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Oh, SP I feel for ya. You are soooo 23. Men are not interested in your soul. Full stop. He wants your warm, moist, orifices for his dick and he wants your hero worship to make him feel good about himself because he knows better than anyone what a zero he is. If you want to test this truth, stop having sex with him and see how long he sticks around.

    I was 23 once and I can tell you, then and now, the idea of some guy 20 years older approaching me romantically is utterly disgusting. When young women crave attention from much older men it is usually involuntary and connected to daddy issues. Only you can know whether this applies to you or not, but my guess would be – aaayyyffirmative.

    I agree with every syllable of Nokidding’s post except for the phrase “biologically wired”. That phrase offends me because it brings up faith issues. But I have no problem a’tall with “Men hate women, period”. The reason is not because they can’t help themselves. It is because they can’t stand the fact that women are utterly superior in every way and their pathetic little egos can’t stand the reality of that fact. They despise us because they can never be as worthwhile, as substantive, as we are. The envy. It consumes them.

    I’m afraid you have many, many years ahead of being used like a dish rag and I wish I could spare you that heartache. But if you’re one of the unusually lucky ones (because most women, sadly, never get to clarity) one day your eyes will open. In the meantime make sure you bookmark this blog on your home computer so you can touch base with reality whenever you need to.

    You reminded me of Lauren Hutton’s life story. She was a supermodel/actress who made millions in the industry and for 27 years she was with a much older man from a very young age whom she called “Bob God”. When she wanted to marry this man she worshiped, he said no. Later, when she wanted to have children in her late thirties, he said no. I don’t want children. Shortly after she went into menopause and forever lost her option to have natural children. Later still when old Bob died, who as her manager also handled all of her finances, Lauren discovered that he had never been faithful to her and in fact had swindled her out of her entire fortune. She had nothing left and what little was left at his death he bequeathed to some other woman. She is now in her late sixties and alone in the world with no family (although lots of friends) because God Bob willed it so. Yes. I know. He loved her for her beautiful soul. Her story is tragic. Not because there is something inherently wrong with her life, but because it is not the personal life SHE wanted. Her fate was chosen by a man who hated, not loved her. And he’s not a bad apple. He’s the norm. Read it for yourself.

    NY Daily News

    48 Hours

    The Hollywood Interview

  50. Nokidding April 13, 2010 at 7:23 AM #

    How is it not biological?

    If culture was to blame, why has there never been any cultures where women HAVEN’T been oppressed? There have been cultures that have been extremely isolated, small groups with their unique social world, yet, there has NEVER been any non-patriarchal societies. Amazon women didn’t exist, there is no such a thing as a human society where women aren’t treated like sh*t.

    Rationally thinking, if one group (men) have repeated same behavior patterns trough their whole existence (as far as we know homo sapiens history), it’s not culture, it’s not coincide – it’s biology, it’s their nature, it’s how they are hardwired.

    I’m sorry, but it seems to me like you ladies refuse to believe this because you can’t stand the idea that there are no exceptions. That your sweethearts are dudes as well, that as much as they might be superficially different, deep inside they are men and they can never ever see you as their equal.

    And no, I’m not a feminist. I’m a man hater. The problem I have with feminism is that it’s always about asking – asking men to give us what BELONGS to us. Even radical feminist only DEMAND rights. Why would dudes give us anything? They wont. Only reason we get to go to work and vote is because economics demand it (dudes love money even more than their dicks), not because dudes care. Only way to change things is to TAKE what belongs to us. Not ask, take.

  51. Finisterre April 13, 2010 at 12:48 PM #

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    That last paragraph in particular was absolutely sublime.

    The most personally depressing thing about this post, however, was that I’m finally reading Mary Wollstonecraft, who said similar things about the logical contradiction between saying women are lesser beings incapable of reason, and then blaming them for falling for dudely bullshit, several hundred years ago. And yet, it still needs saying and you still get death threats (FFS!) for saying it.

    Good thing you say it so amusingly, then. :-D

  52. polly April 13, 2010 at 1:10 PM #

    Well I have no reason to wish males to be anything Nokidding, being a lesbian, so I’m not trying to protect my Nigel. I don’t believe it’s biological because there’s no MECHANISM by which it could be biological. That simple really. Unless you also believe that as a laydee I can’t do electrical wiring or sums. I can do both. The problem with biological essentialism is that its beloved of the right wing. And incidentally it lets men off really easily.

    And most *societies* you’re talking about are property owning. It’s about protecting the passing of property and faux homosexual relations (Levi Strauss again). I don’t disagree with you that in a capitalist society/patriarchy I wouldn’t trust a man further than I could throw him. But I blame him, not his ‘hardwiring’.

  53. Finisterre April 13, 2010 at 1:15 PM #

    NoKidding

    While I’m prepared to accept that I am biased against your idea because I love my Nigel, I don’t think you’ve sufficiently justified such an extremist position.

    If you agree that there are some cultures in which women are treated worse than others, it follows that there are some cultures where men are prepared to allow us a modicum of respect. (and yes, I totally agree that it’s Fucked. Up. that such terminology is applicable.)

    Also, men have also enslaved and brutalised each other, which means that some are at least able to empathise. Some are, for whatever reason, even allies to some extent.

    And I’m uncomfortable with the idea that they are biologically wired to hate us for the same reason that I don’t accept racist ideas and, indeed, misogyny. The idea that evil (or hatred, or love of shoes) is inherent allows no room for individual autonomy or development.

    I do find it hard to disagree with a lot of what you say, but I need a bit more evidence before I can write off half the human race as a lost cause. I enjoyed your posts though.

  54. Ren April 13, 2010 at 1:17 PM #

    Nokidding- Biologically men possess more testosterone, which can lend it them being more aggressive and violent…not the same as being hardwired to hate women. You’re a man hater- is it hardwired, were you BORN that way, or having things in life caused you to hate men???

    Femme: This is just me here, but I think a huge mistake older women can make is being utterly dismissive and ageist towards younger women and telling them how they are doing it all wrong and they will just get tossed aside like dishrags- exhibit A, your comment to Sp. Things like that don’t, oh, breed any community or support amid women, they breed anger and resentment which…helps younger or older women how, really? Now, I am all for some anger and resentment from time to time, and don’t much care who gets along with whom, but shitting all over Sp…because, why, exactly…well, why? You seem to take a whole hell of a lotta glee in pointing out how wrong and silly she’s being.

  55. joy April 13, 2010 at 1:57 PM #

    True, nokidding, but please don’t lump us all in as male sympathizers. I for one don’t have ”a sweetheart” and I don’t believe there is a single man out there who IS ”a sweetheart.” Just that some are less shitbaggy than others.

    To paraphrase what ND has said, ”some shit sandwiches are less shitty, but they are all full of shit.”

    I think I like to believe that it’s culture because I want to believe that humanity has some kind of possibility for redemption, even if I will never see it in my lifetime.

    Otherwise I would barricade myself in my house, as I do a lot of the time anyway — PTSD, you know, from molestation and rape traumas — and/or shoot any man in the face on sight. That my life would be filled with hatred and fear more so than it already is. That I would be so consumed with a fear that has no end, with the feeling that I am a hunted animal — which I AM, that I would commit suicide almost immediately.

    If you can believe that male behavior is innate, and still NOT want to off yourself, then please share your secrets, because you are clearly going about it more healthily than I. Seriously, I am not being sarcastic.

  56. FemmeForever April 13, 2010 at 2:00 PM #

    It is not biology because hate is not inborn. It is both taught and a personal choice. Men choose to hate women based on the logic I discussed because they want to hate women.
    They want to feel superior. Saying they can’t help themselves absolves men of the personal responsibility to behave like human beings and I won’t give them that out. They never have made that choice and they never will because they don’t want to and they don’t have ANY negative consequences to stop them from doing so. I completely agree that 100% of men hate women by choice. Please don’t assume I am a male apologist. I HATE THAT SHIT with an all consuming passion. Remember, I was agreeing with your position except for the biological basis.

  57. sneeky bunny April 13, 2010 at 2:13 PM #

    No kidding you’re a man hater NoKidding, and I am sorry that your life experience has brought you to that place. But, that being said, your thinking is reductive, your logic is flawed and one suspects that your actual practical knowledge of biology as a science is slim to none. Blanket statements as to the motives of billions of people (half the population!) are not useful. All men are not bad. All women are not good. The patriarchy is a problem for the entire human race, and the entire human race needs to address it. Dismissing all men as monsters of comic book proportion lets them off the hook.

  58. sneeky bunny April 13, 2010 at 2:41 PM #

    SP, I would like to join those who give you enough credit to know your own mind even at such a young age. Love is messy, and there is always a high risk of getting hurt, particularly if there is a big disparity in experience or expectation, but it is up to you to navigate your own life and examine your own motivations. I, for one, will not insult you with an arm chair analysis of your, (or your lover’s) psyche, but I would hope that you will continue to visit this blog and benefit (as I certainly have) from the many flavors of feminist thought expressed here. I’m sure it will be illuminating.

  59. wiggles April 13, 2010 at 2:48 PM #

    “for him the person, their character, and way of being is much more important that their age and looks. For him attraction lies in having a connection and not simply in the physical”

    How is it possible for this to be the case and for him to simultaneously have a preference for younger women?

  60. sneeky bunny April 13, 2010 at 2:58 PM #

    My goodness I’m posting a lot today! I would like to chime in as another middle aged person who still goes clubbing and sees no reason not to. I attended Goth Prom this last weekend and aside from sore feet and some slight corset bruising suffered no ill effects. But that’s just me. :)
    I would also like to comment on dating the younger. Most of my relationships have been with younger (some much younger) people, and perhaps as a woman that is unusual. I, for one, have always tried to abide by the Camp Site Rules, and have been able to maintain cordial relations with almost all of my exes of both genders. I do think that what might be most important for the survival of a long term relationship is a meeting of the minds and life expectations. Often, but not always, that means being closer to one another in age. Just my two cents.

  61. sp April 13, 2010 at 3:54 PM #

    FemmeForever – You’re right I am soooo 23. Wow I’m sorry but your reply is incredibly condescending and judgmental.
    Trust me I am not that naive. I never claimed he is solely interested in my soul. I said the first thing that brought us together was a physical attraction, but we have many things in common, we can talk, laugh, and generally enjoy each others company. If it was just physically it would of stopped right away, but we found something more so we decided to date. Sex is EXTREMELY important to both us, maybe more for me than even him. I have absolutely no problem with him wanting sex. We are dating, sex is part of it, and I know I would question sticking around if there was no sex, so I have no doubt he would too. We are both very sexual people.
    As for even hinting at me having daddy issues seems a bit out of line without knowing anything about my background. I date older men because I like them because I WANT to. I have a great relationship with my father, and no sorry I have no daddy issues. Pretty stable, normal, smart, young woman here. I get it. I see why it looks bad that this older guy is with me, but truth is I choose him. I approached him initially. Also I crave no attention from him. I like him, and I want to be him. I don’t need to be him. I have my own life, just started a PhD program, have my own career. I’m in a good place, but I want him as part of my life cause I like him and he makes me happy.
    I’m not being used, and the thing that I don’t understand is why are you making such harsh generalizations about me? I don’t need clarity. I’m not stupid, trust me I am fairly aware of what is happening around me. Responses like this are frustrating because it seems like you basically think I’m too naive right now to figure anything out and that attitude towards me is more frustrating than anything my bf may or may not be doing. I’m happy he makes me happy and I have no false illusions about some perfect relationship. Nothing is perfect.
    I actually really like this blog, and I really like the way Nine Deuce expresses herself. I may not always agree, but I am enjoying reading what she writes, and for the most part the responses here have been good. I just don’t appreciate being looked as a naive or a victim.
    Finally, I’m not Lauren Hutton (nor will I be) because I will always live the life I want and never let anyone dictate my life for me. I’m much stronger than I think you give me credit for.

  62. Miss Andrist April 13, 2010 at 4:21 PM #

    Nokidding:

    Wow, you sound a lot like me. (- and we both sound a lot like Valerie Solanas.) How am I just now meeting you?

    I am a militant radical feminist.

    I hate men because hate is the weapon of fear.

    I confess I permit the possibility to differentiate between men (monsters) and the ~.001 percent of humans who pee standing up but are purported to manage to not constitute a direct threat to my personal safety. I acknowledge that possibility partly on the basis of statistical probability and partly because fucking whatever, it helps me.

    I’m going to weigh in on the discussion addressing the source of men’s monstrosity: I frankly do not give two shits and/or a fuck.

    Maybe men are monsters because our species’ survival favored an irrepressible compulsion in one half of the population to mercilessly terrorize the other half among our evolutionary adaptation. Maybe men are monsters because the entire architecture of human socialization dating back to the beginning of the Middle Paleolithic era has been structured expressly to ensure that one half of the human race lives in perpetual fear of the other half. Either way makes absolutely no practical difference to me.

    Our reality is completely saturated with the damage men inflict. We already endure the majority of consequences, the burden of men’s monstrosity. I for one refuse to be assigned responsiblity in any way for the collective deficiencies of menz. Here’s a notion: let’s stop trying to figure out whatever whatever the fuck is wrong with them / how to fix them. Just straight give up. Trying to fix men? Is not and never has been our job, is definitely not our biggest concern and has always been a monumental waste of our collective and individual time, energy, health, sanity, safety and lives. Fuck men, fuck whatever it is that’s wrong with them. Our priority should be damage control for ourselves and one another. When will it be our turn in triage? Yeah, yeah, it’s not possible to abruptly break and magically escape the patriarchy and the oppression of men – but slow retraction, that concentrates on protecting one another and insulating ourselves from them starting with the worst of their monstrosities…

    Makes so much sense to me. Did I metamorphize into a seperatist without noticing? Have I finally gone off the deep end? If so, I gotta say the water’s fine.

    …And I am chopping this comment at this point, because I really did go right off the deep end. I just discovered that I make a frighteningly convincing argument in support of our collective embrace of hate -> the weapon of fear, and I’m not sure that’s okay. Or rather, I’m not sure it’s NOT okay, and the patriarchy has conditioned me to accept my / our own exploitation and victimization as acceptable, while hating the exploiters and victimizers for doing it remains taboo. Gonna have to think about this. Stay tuned.

    :/

    And Nietzsche? Fuckwad who can suck my goddamn clit. ~_^

  63. joy April 13, 2010 at 6:52 PM #

    By the way, I’m also 23 years old, so I too found the ”you are soooo 23” thing to be kind of irritating. If you haven’t read anything else I wrote, let me tell you — I am far from a naive romantic.

    Also, anyone can live a life totally free of critical thinking and self-reflection, at any age … and unfortunately, SP, as your peer, I kind of think that’s what you’re doing. Read what I wrote about the two older guys who like me, and see which one sounds more like your guy.

    The one who insists he’s attracted to ”inner beauty” … but only seems to see ”inner beauty” in women half his age or less —

    or the one who liked me without knowing my actual age in years, but who understands that dating someone so much younger is an invitation for fucked-up power dynamics to intrude — if not from within then definitely from without.

    From what you’ve written, yours sounds like Column A as opposed to Column B. And you said yourself that you’d never read any radical thoughts outside of the mainstream, much less radical feminist thoughts.
    So it’s easy to believe that the emperor’s wearing new clothes, if you’ve never seen a naked person before. Hopefully that metaphor makes sense.

  64. sp April 13, 2010 at 6:55 PM #

    sneeky bunny- Thank you :) I will definitely continue to visit this blog. I am enjoying reading about all the different styles of feminism expressed on here.

    wiggles- He is mainly attracted to younger women, but he does not exclusively date young women. For him there has to be some kind of connection with the person regardless of age, but yes most of the women he has dated are younger than him. I hope that makes sense.

  65. joy April 13, 2010 at 11:57 PM #

    Yep, sp, sounds like a classic user. But he might not even know it himself. See above for evidence.

    You don’t NEED to dump him and become a separatist. I’m not telling you that you have to do so or encouraging you to feel bad about your decisions.

    I’m saying, as most everyone else is saying … you’re going to live and hopefully learn.

    I, for one, learned so much by age 20 that I largely became a separatist, at least emotionally. But to each their own. The same approach doesn’t work for everyone.

  66. FemmeForever April 14, 2010 at 1:49 AM #

    you are soooo 23

    I never said or intimated that anyone was stupid. It is an inescapable fact that wisdom comes from experience and experience comes from living. Most 23 year old persons haven’t lived enough life yet to see and believe the pattern of male behavior for what it is. It is perfectly normal for you to take what you are told at face value in the vacuum of no experience to the contrary. This makes you inexperienced in the ways of men, not stupid. Hence my comment about wanting to spare you the slow realization that must take place before you reach enlightenment. And make no mistake you DO need clarity. Clarity is why your friend sent you here in the first place.

    Like it or not I have been dealing with men a lot longer than you have and consequently I have information that is highly beneficial to you and your life whether or not you want to receive it. Nobody said you had to. But just because you want to put your fingers in your ears and keep telling yourself that orgasms are all that matter, it doesn’t change the truth. You are perfectly free to reject the truth and throw away a lot of your life, energy, and sanity on people who never had any intention toward you except to make you their personal slave, physically and emotionally. Oh and fwiw, someone who didn’t give a shit about you and your journey wouldn’t bother to tell you the truth.

    Joy, you seem to get it at an unusually young age. Good on you. I hope you came by your wisdom in the gentlest of ways.

  67. joy April 14, 2010 at 11:39 AM #

    No, FemmeForever, unfortunately it was childhood molestation, rape, and then the cold hard realization that this society really doesn’t encourage men to mature past high school.
    Since then, it’s been rape and more rape, some domestic assault, etc., to the point that I’ve completely embraced individual female separatism.

    Luckily I’m a cultural dropout and a bohemian, so it’s easier for me to avoid men. Don’t associate with any of my family, ignore most males when I encounter them on the streets, etc.
    When I do encounter and associate with them, for business or whatever, it’s only with the ones who don’t give off the immediate douche vibe, ie talking about porn, staring at my legs, acting smug and condescending, etc. — which narrows it down to maybe one individual in one hundred. I always try to pretend they’re whole human beings for at least as long as the conversation or business transaction lasts … but most of them still let me down in that regard as well, so I don’t get invested in or involved with any of them.

    Once I accepted the fact that no man is going to treat me like a complete human being, life became so much easier. The nagging self-blaming voices in my subconscious quieted from the bullhorn-volume shouting of my teen years to a mere whisper that I can typically ignore. If I want to, I can even have sex with a male without getting attached to him, but I typically don’t bother — frankly, I can do better for myself with my hand.
    I am basically an island, inasmuch as anyone can be an island, which is to say except when the Patriarchy invades that island with catcalling, assholery, and general shitnozzlery.

    That is pretty much every day, except for days that I don’t go outside, but … seriously, Miss Andrist is, and Valerie Solanas was, totally correct, separatism inasmuch as each individual can practice it is as close to freedom as a woman can get.
    So is living below the poverty level, because it makes separatism easier AND rids you of many pesky aspects of life in capitalism.

    I guess I lied about wanting to tell people what to do. I encourage everyone to just go for it, everybody, at least as much as you can.

  68. murph April 14, 2010 at 12:21 PM #

    Miss Andrist said, “I hate men because hate is the weapon of fear…the patriarchy has conditioned me to accept my / our own exploitation and victimization as acceptable, while hating the exploiters and victimizers for doing it remains taboo…Stay tuned.”

    With bells on.

  69. Rian April 14, 2010 at 1:47 PM #

    Biologically men possess more testosterone, which can lend it them being more aggressive and violent

    While it’s true that men possess more testosterone biologically, it’s not clear that that makes them more aggressive or violent (i.e. that testosterone causes aggression or violence). There is a correlation between testosterone and aggression because acting aggressively raises testosterone.

    The direction of causality is very important here. Men with an average level of aggression and average sexual behavior cover a wide range of testosterone levels. Basically, our bodies work to become efficient at whatever we practice doing, and a lot of factors influence testosterone levels (genetics, age, lifestyle, behavior, etc.).

  70. Nokidding April 14, 2010 at 2:12 PM #

    This will be my last post here, sorry for writing long ass rants but I felt like I really had to. I like this blog a lot and agree with most statements you make, ND!
    (Also: I’m not crazy, I have no trauma behind these opinions, I’m just normal young woman who happens to REALLY dislike dudes. ;) )
    ———————–

    Finisterre

    “Also, men have also enslaved and brutalised each other, which means that some are at least able to empathise. ”

    I don’t understand this statement. Men enslaving and brutalizing each others doesn’t make them empathise OUR oppression and brutalizing. Those things are between men, but what unites all men is that they all believe they are above us – women. Poor man might be oppressed by rich man, maybe even by poor WOMAN, but poor men everywhere oppress poor women.

    Also, I don’t believe that dudes have ability to feel empathy. Sympathy yes, but not empathy. There are studies that support my view, although nobody has dared to say the truth aloud. Empathy makes things like beating, killing, raping and taking other people’s rights away impossible – those are all common hobbies along men. Men are narcissistic.

    Ren – Comparing my hatred towards dudes to their hatred towards female gender doesn’t work. MOST WOMEN DON’T HATE MEN. Women hating men is actually very rare. This is why women don’t beat, rape, kill and oppress men.
    Men do that to women and have always done. We are not talking about individuals – we are talking about sexes.

    joy – You are right. After you once realize that men are all scum, there’s no turning back. It makes life more dificult because you will understand that we’ve always been fucked over and most likely always will be.

    You see, I don’t believe in equality. I live in Scandinavia, the most gender equal place in the whole world. In here the common opinion is that “equality has gone too far”. I wish I had made that up. And it’s not just dudes but women also.
    Obviously, every day Scandinavian women are being beaten, raped, killed (see how much I love repeating these? If people only realized these are facts), objectified, looked down on, all the while the common opinion is that “feminazis have ruined our country!”.

    Because here are mole female politician than probably anywhere in world, apparently, everything bad is their fault.

    So I repeat: there is never going to be equality between sexes. Women will always be oppressed. Except maybe if we get gender selective mutation and all women get super powers while men get none – maybe THEN it would be possible. Otherwise, nope! Don’t see it happening.

    You can be damn sure it makes me suicidal. And homicidal – there are too many times I have wanted to buy a gun and go out and shoot every dude in sight. I really believe it would even the scales a bit. Maybe I’m a bad person. I think I’m realistic.

    And I haven’t even been raped or abused. I just liked reading history and newspaper and statics as a kid and saw how it has always been. So I don’t blame you if you don’t want to accept it.

    FemmeForever – I don’t think men’s responsibility matters. They wont take it anyway. I don’t care if they can stop shitting on us. They have never done so, so whatever! I’m only interested in STOPPING them from doing it. We can’t talk to them and except them to realize that what they do is wrong. If they cared, they would had stopped a long, long time ago.

    It’s like a bear that attacks you in the middle of the woods. Yeah sure, it’s “hardwired” to do so, but if you have to shoot it to survive, does it really matter?

    sneeky bunny – I don’t have any tragic past that excuses my hate. I have come to this conclusion (men = shit) by simply looking around me. It’s so simple.

    As for my biology being flawed, if we were talking about animals, you wouldn’t say that.
    Let’s take bunnies, like the one in your icon:

    Ever since bunnies have existed, they have probably dug holes, right? They all have dug holes, indeed, you could say those bunnies who don’t dig wholes are expectations and “freaks” and probably have slimmer chances of survival.

    Okay, same withe teh dudez:

    Ever since men have existed, they have oppressed women. They all have oppressed women to the point where those men who haven’t done it, are regarded as exceptions and “freaks”. If a man doesn’t oppress women, he is regarded sissy and has slimmer chances of being successful in this world where men step on women all the time to gain something.

    “..patriarchy is a problem for the entire human race…” The good old “men suffer from it too”-argument. WRONG. Men have never, ever suffered from patriarchy, EVER. Saying something like this isn’t just foolish, it’s insulting. Men profit from patriarchy, every single one of them.

    Miss Andrist – Thank goodness someone agreed with me.

    You are absolutely right about not educating men. It’s probably the biggest mistake feminism has made. Trying to make men “wake up”. Really, you might as well walk in the middle to neo nazi meeting and try tell them how all races are equal. They have heard that and they don’t agree! Men have heard all of our arguments and they don’t agree. They hate us. They call us “feminazis”, “bitches” and who knows what when we demand being treated the same as them. THEY ARE FILLED WITH THE LOATHING TOWARDS US.

    Let’s stop educating men. Let’s stop it right now. World is filled with women who believe the bullshit patriarchy has fed them. Lets educate them, it’s the only way. I’m sick of hearing young women take pride of not being feminists because that way men – patriarchy – give them a little bit more respect (for a while).

    And yes, hate is normal and it’s even healthy, despite what everyone might think. What is unhealthy is how us women have been brainwashed to hate OURSELVES instead of those who are at the biggest fault.

  71. Nokidding April 14, 2010 at 2:26 PM #

    Miss Andrist – Forgot to add that I read your webpage. Good stuff, specially about how we are not even allowed to hate. Isn’t that exactly what radical feminists always hear? “Are you having your periods?”, “She just needs good fucking” etc. Our hate isn’t real to them.

    If you wish, you can email me to nekojiru at windowslive dot com

  72. polly April 14, 2010 at 3:01 PM #

    Sorry but testosterone iz innocent.

    Popular scientific literature, art, and the media have been attributing the roll of aggression to the arguably best known sexual hormone for decades. Research appeared to confirm this – the castration of male rodents evidently led to a reduction in combativeness among the animals. The prejudice thus grew over decades that testosterone causes aggressive, risky, and egocentric behavior.

    The inference from these experiments with animals that testosterone produces the same effects in humans has proven to be false, however, as a combined study by neuroscientist Christoph Eisenegger and economist Ernst Fehr, both of the University of Zurich, and economist Michael Naef of Royal Holloway in London demonstrates. “We wanted to verify how the hormone affects social behavior,” Dr. Christoph Eisenegger explains, adding, “we were interested in the question: what is truth, and what is myth?”

    For the study, published in the renowned journal Nature, some 120 test subjects took part in a behavioral experiment where the distribution of a real amount of money was decided. The rules allowed both fair and unfair offers. The negotiating partner could subsequently accept or decline the offer. The fairer the offer, the less probable a refusal by the negotiating partner. If no agreement was reached, neither party earned anything.

    Before the game the test subjects were administered either a dose of 0.5 mg testosterone or a corresponding placebo. “If one were to believe the common opinion, we would expect subjects who received testosterone to adopt aggressive, egocentric, and risky strategies – regardless of the possibly negative consequences on the negotiation process,” Eisenegger elucidates.

    The study’s results, however, contradict this view sharply. Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. “The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted,” sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. For animal species with relatively simple social systems, an increased awareness for status may express itself in aggressiveness. “In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression,” surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. “The interplay between testosterone and the socially differentiated environment of humans, and not testosterone itself, probably causes fair or aggressive behavior”.

    http://www.physorg.com/news179504442.html

  73. sp April 14, 2010 at 5:18 PM #

    I know my viewpoint may not be the most popular here, but I am enjoying the dialogue and the varying opinions I am reading and learning from. I just know for me personally I couldn’t live that far outside the system and become a separatist. For those who can, I truly think it is great. I just know I can’t and I will admit it is easier not to. I haven’t had the best experiences with men either. I have been abused and used and it almost destroyed me, but I did find the strength to put myself back together. Even with all that though, I don’t hate men and I don’t think I ever will. I think we need to coexist in this world, and in my opinion hatred only breeds more hatred and separation and I don’t think that is good. For me, it is about the person and I have known amazing as well as horrible men in my life, but I can’t lump them all in one category because then my grandfather, father and brothers (some of the best people I know would be in there). My father sacrificed everything for his family, and my two brothers are probably some of the most honorable people I know. Everyday all I do is think of them and worry as they are currently deployed with the army, and I just can’t see these individuals in a bad light, they have never done anything for me to see them that way, and I genuinely love them. I can’t hate them. I never will, but like I have mentioned I am trying to learn more about feminism, and the varying viewpoints.

  74. joy April 14, 2010 at 6:15 PM #

    ”Honor” in the popular conscience is also a patriarchal concept.

    I come from a military family as well. I don’t speak to any of them any more, and haven’t for eight years, because they are willing to fight and die to prolong my oppression. All of our oppressions. That is not honor. That is terror.

    We all have different opinions, and I’m glad you’re open to reading them even if you don’t jump up and break free of all men today. Ha. Like I said, not everyone CAN do that, ultimately not everyone will WANT to …

    but damn, personally, it feels great to know I don’t have to starve for a man. Shave for a man. Put on makeup or cripple my feet for a man. Act stupid for a man.
    And while I once, about three years ago, felt like ”separatism” was just a reverse form of hatred, I’ve come to realize it’s in fact a freedom FROM hatred. At least for me.

    I don’t hate men, just don’t think about them much at all. And thus, their hatred for me — their simultaneous hatred and lust that translates into a sick, sick desire for control — doesn’t impact my life much either.
    Except when they harass me in public, and then I feel anger and sadness, not hatred.

    Most importantly, I no longer hate MYSELF. Often I despair, but don’t hate myself.
    I’ve become pretty hate-free, just by cutting men out of my life. I hate the things that the patriarchy does, and that’s about it — with the bonus that I can work to change those things, at least within my own life.

    I will reiterate — I’ve become pretty hate-free, just by cutting men out of my life. Ain’t it funny how that one works.

  75. sp April 14, 2010 at 8:04 PM #

    Joy- I don’t want to get into a political fight, but what they do is not terror and they are honorable both for you their are and what they do.
    I think in you are right we all need to make our decisions, and truth is I do already feel free. And I am happy that you feel that way as well. I think we both just have different paths to reach that freedom. Ok I have spend way too much time on here. This is my last post…promise :)

  76. joy April 14, 2010 at 8:55 PM #

    Well, respectfully, they’ve never done anything for me. I’m more or less an anarcho-socialist, if you need to define my ”politics”, and don’t believe that living in America = ”freedom.”

    So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Other wacko radicals will know what I mean.

    Oh, and I didn’t stop talking to my family – because they were military. – Rather, because they were abusive, repressive, rapist assholes.

    I’m sure those concepts were connected, but, you know. Again, wacko radicals will know exactly what I mean, and otherwise it’s another discussion for another time.

  77. Ren April 14, 2010 at 11:16 PM #

    Polly- Interesting stuff.

  78. Saurs April 14, 2010 at 11:22 PM #

    Keep on keeping on, joy. Between this and the Dimples Kids Spa page, it’s a pleasure to read you calmly engage some truly delusional commenters.

    Also, Nokidding: I don’t think I love you, I don’t want to have your babies, and I don’t want to marry you, but I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Same with Miss Andrist. I totally disagree with you both re: the essentialist argument and dudes, but fuck if I’m not loving reading all your comments. Beautiful, exciting, embiggening stuff.

  79. Ren April 14, 2010 at 11:46 PM #

    …Serious honest question…

    I have no issue with women who wish to live out their lives as separatists…in fact, I think that is great if it what works for them best, and I wish that women who chose that path had a far easier time of it…that they could just be and do as they wished in that realm without taking crap for it from anyone.

    But I get the impression that many women who advocate or engage in separatism (in so much as they can) think it is right or the best choice for every woman…and a choice more women should make-and I am curious to know why this is, because it seems like it is heavily based on an assumption that one, all women are the same and have fully universal experiences.

  80. joy April 15, 2010 at 12:38 AM #

    ”it seems like it is heavily based on an assumption that one, all women are the same and have fully universal experiences.”

    Well, I can only speak for myself, but I can definitely say that I don’t think of women as a monolithic group. So your summarization is not entirely what I was aiming for …

    well, except that it is.

    Listen to women around you, and on the Internet. All women, not just feminists. What seems to be the main problem they have? In other words, at the simplest level, what do most if not all of their problems stem from?

    Body insecurity/eating disorders? Trying to please men. So, men.
    Bad hair days? Trying to please men. Men again.
    Unavailable, manipulative, abusive, cheating, and just generally shitty male partners? Men, obviously.
    Harassment on the street or in the workplace? Men.
    Discrimination and/or the glass ceiling effect? Men.
    Lack of childcare? Men.
    Lack of money? Probably relating to behaviors conducted to the ends of pleasing men, encouraged but not supported by men. And/or by job loss caused by, or financial control imposed by, men.

    Fuck. Menstrual cramps/PMS? Men.
    Think about it — if you were having PMS symptoms or cramps but could control your own day, what would you do? Stay home and relax with pain-control methods. It might make you cranky from the ouch factor anyway, but you wouldn’t have to worry about conducting your daily routine while uncomfortable, PLUS camouflaging your symptoms to keep Teh Menz from harassing/discounting you.
    And I read somewhere the theory that most menstrual-related pain, other than, say, endometriosis, is caused indirectly by the anxiety most women have about their periods. Instilled in us by men.
    Add to this the fact that male health professionals still don’t have a frigging clue about how to handle menstrual issues at all, and yes, I feel safe blaming men.

    So, if you cut men — or, if we want to say these concepts exist, men except for ”non-shitty” or ”less shitty” men — out of most women’s lives, their lives improve. Thus, cutting men out or limiting contact with men could work for everyone.

    Also, thanks, Saurs, I always like your commentary too.

    • Nine Deuce April 15, 2010 at 12:50 AM #

      SR – You don’t get to comment here anymore unless you can knock off the gendered insults and woefully unwarranted patronizing attitude. Calling someone “baby doll” doesn’t take anything away from her point, it just shows that you’re an asshole who can’t come up with anything better than a tired, condescending insult. Try addressing someone’s point next time or hose off.

  81. polly April 15, 2010 at 12:46 AM #

    Well I’d say separatists only think women should engage in separatism, if they want to be free

    And no, I’m not consciously a ‘separatist’, though I’m probably one by default. (men just hit my snooze button). As I’ve said about a million times, I don’t advocate women making themselves miserable to be political lesbians (successful revolutions are never composed of the reluctant). The separatist position is quite simply however that you can’t be with men and be genuinely liberated. Or safe. Statistically speaking they’re right (cue the many arguments on here about how to really avoid rape).

    As a non essentialist (and pace the research on testosterone) I’d say the problem isn’t males specifically but social structures. However I do find engaging with most males a waste of time and a bore, and avoid it more than I need to for that reason.

    And a lot of people clearly do have problems with separatists, and wish to make their lives as difficult as possible. As in sending them death threats, rape threats and racist abuse.

  82. sneeky bunny April 15, 2010 at 1:29 AM #

    The thing that almost always gets my goat and causes me to post is universal statements, and sloppy reasoning.
    NK: You refer to studies that support your opinion that men are not capable of empathy, “but no one has dared to say the truth aloud” Which is it? Published studies which by definition are public, and if so please cite your sources, or stifled truth in which case how would you have been privy to these studies?
    Re: Bunnies and holes. In point of fact not all rabbits live in holes and not all of those who do, dig their own burrows. Two minutes. Google. I stand by my statement, you appear to have little or no knowledge of biology.
    You hate men, and you are not alone in that. Separatism may indeed be the best option for you, but it is not practical on a larger scale and as such amounts to a fantasy of a tree fort where “no menz allowed” is the rule. I want to find ways to actually, practically, and concretely effect change in the world in which I live. Sweeping generalizations unsupported by more than your opinion are all very well, but how, exactly, does that help? How, exactly, do you plan to address or redress the oppression suffered by our gender? Do you truly feel that the task at hand is impossible? I would ask Miss Andrist and Femme Forever that question as well. Do your really believe that there is no hope?

  83. sneeky bunny April 15, 2010 at 1:43 AM #

    Femme Forever, I’m sure you didn’t see yourself as being condescending toward SP, but posting HAHAHAHAHA might surely be mistaken as such. Indeed, you have lived longer than 23 years and gained experience and insight. I also have lived longer than 23 years (more than twice that in fact) and my insight and experience differ radically from yours. Your truth is your truth, and I respect that. It is not, however, THE truth. SP, will find her own way and it may or may not include her current boyfriend, or any boyfriend, but if it does, that’s her business.

  84. Bill April 15, 2010 at 2:35 AM #

    First off, I want to apologize for my lack of support for reproductive rights a few months ago. The more I think about it, the more I believe abortion should be ENCOURAGED. Especially male womb worms!

    And second, I would like to point out the one true cure for the patriarchy!

    —————————————————-

    Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

    May we live long and die out. Thank you for not breeding.

    http://www.vhemt.org

    —————————————————-

    No humans means no exploitation!

    BTW…thank you all for giving me the gren light to blindly hate! .

    For years I was under the delusion that I wanted health, peace and harmony for the entire human species. And that I could, through reading and listening, opening my heart and mind, I could grow to become a better person. Wow was I off base! I cannot help myself… it’s wired into me to be a shit sandwich. So it’s time for me to quit pretending there is a higher possibility for me and start to enjoy my patriarchy benefits, instead of feeling guilty about them.

    Well, time to go grab some pork rinds, some Jack Daniels, and a Lil’ Jon CD and go get crunk while making rude comments to women passing by!

    (Or not! Greedy me, I want restful sleep and at least a tiny bit of self respect even more than sex or power!)

  85. Ren April 15, 2010 at 9:43 AM #

    Joy:

    Most of the people I know (women & men), esp. those in the US complain most about the economy. Other things that seem to be main complaints amid women I know- as in, I hang out with them and such- include: how expensive child care is, how expensive any form of recreation is, worrying about making rent, and often, their mothers and or mothers in law. Granted, most of my in real life female friends are over 35- and mostly married, so perhaps SOME of the pressures about weight/beauty issues have faded, but by in large- the complaining is about money and the job market. Which sure enough, in most fields out there men make more than women- but in our current economy- people feel lucky to make a living wage at all be they male or female it seems. I also agree with you that the medical profession really sucks when it comes to women’s medicine. I know a woman doctor or two who would be nodding right a long with that as well. I hope that with more women doctors around maybe this will change. (I can, on occasion, be optomistic). At the same time though, a couple of my best friends in life are, well, men, and cutting them out would probably not make me happier. A great many things I do for recreational pleasure (gaming, I am a gamer, messing around fixing cars, things like that) well, most enthusiasts of those things are men…and yes, there are jerks and assholes amid the ranks, but me stopping doing those things would not make my life more pleasurable- in fact, quite the opposite. Though it is generally cool to find other women involved in these hobbies too.

    Polly: The hate on for separatists is unfortunate and I do not get it. However, I guess I just do not feel any more or less “free” than a woman who is a separatist.

  86. wiggles April 15, 2010 at 11:53 AM #

    sneeky bunny
    April 15, 2010 at 1:29 AM
    I want to find ways to actually, practically, and concretely effect change in the world in which I live.

    Maybe by withdrawing women’s support from “mainstream” (patriarchal) society and creating more female-centric spaces is the way to do that. I’m on the fence; I’d like more women in the Senate and on the Supreme Court and that kind of thing, but those are the master’s tools. Damned if I can find a female-only commune though.

  87. polly April 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM #

    I take your point Ren, but the separatist point of view is pretty simple really. Men are dangerous and a drain on female resources. If you have a different opinion, your choice, but if separatists believe that men have those qualities, they believe that they’re a threat to all women, not just some. They’re not denying that under a patriarchy all women are not equal, and some have better experiences than others. They just don’t think that good men exist. So if you think something is harmful, wouldn’t you advocate other people staying away from it?

    The fact that so many people find separatists a threat and are desperate to stop them even speaking on tiny corners of the internet is revealing though. It’s like those Christians who are convinced that if young people find out homosexuality exists they’ll all turn gay. IE the haters must be secretly convinced, that given half a chance, all women would be separatists too. Which makes me think that THEY aren’t that convinced non separatism, and by implication, the male species is attractive enough in and of itself to keep women on board.

    It’s interesting going back to the rape prevention tip thread – I kept asking Andrew etc why they didn’t just advocate women staying away from men if they were so bothered about *preventing* rape. It’s the only thing that’s going to work of course. But of course Andrew et al would never advocate it as a way of women avoiding rape. Because they’d then have to admit rape was men’s fault. So we get into some convoluted mental acrobatics about if you don’t drink too much, and you don’t walk home alone, you won’t get raped. Utter bullshit of course, but more comfortable than the truth. The separatist position is that men themselves are the problem. The only workable solution therefore is to avoid them, not expect them to change.

    I don’t know what I’d do if I were heterosexual. Thankfully I’m not.

  88. sneeky bunny April 15, 2010 at 12:50 PM #

    wiggles: I am in support of more woman centric spaces, and I can see how forming a network of friends or collective, to work together to survive in the world with minimal contact with men could be achievable. Kind of like the way the Amish do, but that just takes care of the women with in that collective. For the rest of us I think it’s going to have to be about more and more and more women using the master’s tools (through the political process for example) until they become our tools. I am sure it will take a very long time, but I see how much has changed just with in my lifetime, and that gives me hope. In short, I do not oppose those who wish to withdraw from society, I just think that it is not the only answer.

  89. joy April 15, 2010 at 12:50 PM #

    Ren, you mean, you don’t know ANY older women who have body insecurities?

    Here’s the thing, I don’t hang out with people my age, or if I do they’re similarly progressive. ie, any female friends that I have are all fine with sitting around together sucking down ice cream while wearing flat shoes and strange hair and letting our fat rolls hang out unabashedly.
    So the body-bitchery I hear comes mostly from older women. My mother and stepmother, mostly.

    They are getting older. Their bodies have changed. My mother had a child, me; and my stepmother got married, both of which are events that lead to putting on pounds. That shouldn’t be a problem. However, they are also getting older, they’ve gained weight and are sprouting wrinkles, and that translates to being patriarchally unpretty. Neither of them are unobservant to this fact, but neither of them blame the patriarchy.
    Well, my mom is starting to, but she still wishes she could lose x number of pounds, etc.

    The fact that both my mother and stepmother are stunning people is apparent to me, and they claim it is apparent to them … right before they launch into a new round of food-shame and talk about dieting. It’s enough to make my anorexia spin.
    This is not uncommon among older women. Witness Botox and other plastic surgeries designed to ”keep women looking young.” Aging is pathology in our culture and I still blame men.

    Also, we can blame all of our economic woes on men as well. Who invented government? What gender did GW Bush identify as? I know it’s more complicated than that, but Occam’s Razor isn’t something I use to shave my legs.

    I’m not trying to be confrontational — if you don’t wanna give up on the male gender, that’s fine. But there is good reason if you want to. MANY good reasons.

  90. joy April 15, 2010 at 12:58 PM #

    Also, polly, re, heterosexuality —

    I can go either way. Which is to say, society would say I’m bisexual, I don’t believe in a binary and it’s more complicated than that, so I prefer ”queer.”

    If I feel a hankering for dong, I can sleep with one of my male friends — I’m not a pure separatist, I maintain friendships with a few similarly radical and ‘queer’ people who happen to have penises.
    But invariably, I find that I can do better for myself. With my hand. Or I can date a woman.
    Thus I go back to ”being friends” with my friends, no harm and no foul.

    Not to say that I am typical of all women, everywhere, but … even someone who is hetero/likes having sex with men can find ways to do so without getting shackled to an immense man-baby. Whether that be by sleeping with friends who are established as trustworthy, by refusing to get emotionally involved, or what-have-you, is up to the individual.
    I guess the key lies in making good friends, and since ”good men” are about 1 in 1,000 if they even exist at all …

    well, wouldn’t almost anyone rather be alone and ‘jill off’ when she wants to, than be trapped in a terrible, or at least unsatisfying, situation?

  91. sneeky bunny April 15, 2010 at 1:22 PM #

    I am an older woman and I observe with some sighs the changes that age has brought to my body. Nobody likes getting old, and not just for vanity’s sake. That being said, I will totally cop to being vain, (particularly about my feet. I have really pretty feet) and I enjoy all the little grooming rituals in which I indulge, but I am aware that it’s all based on a beauty standard to which I am not obligated to adhere. I would like to see a world where we are not hammered on from birth to conform to said standard and would be free to decorate ourselves (or not) as we pleased. Full disclosure: I have a degree in costume design and thus have a very strong relationship with fashion. I have been known to change outfits three or four times in a day, earning myself the nick name of Sparkle Pony. :)

  92. joy April 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM #

    There isn’t anything wrong with ”vanity”, of course — as much as men, who are also very vain creatures and in previous centuries were known to be more vain than women — other than the ”patriarchy” thing.

    I’m sorry if you thought I was trying to shame you, sneeky, far from it. Like I’ve said, I have anorexia, so I’m definitely not trying to castigate people for having issues. The P gives all of us issues and it’s not as easy as just waking up saying ”poof, I’m now a feminist and it’s gone.”

    Having a meta-awareness, if not meta-meta-awareness, to the things we do is pretty much the key to the mint. If you know why you are putting on a costume, which is essentially what we all do every day, THEN know what the costume you put on is actually communicating, you have done all right for yourself.
    I too have a relationship with fashion — avant-garde and ”outsider” fashion, I guess you could say — and it’s a really fun thought exercise. And sometimes an exhausting thought exercise. For example, I got dressed today thinking, ”Okay, I want to wear these vintage shorts because it’s warm and I want to be comfortable, but what can I wear with them to keep from being ‘too sexy’ and getting harassed, but also stay within ‘not too frumpy’ and avoid getting harassed for THAT?”
    The thought exercises when I wish to wear a dress are even more complicated. And that shouldn’t be the case. Ideally, anyone, of any gender and orientation, should be able to wear what they want to. Dresses, shirts, pants, whatever — and remain unmolested.

    I live behind a schoolyard. Today I listened to one little girl telling little boys, ”Leave me ALONE! Leave me ALONE!” a bunch of times, very insistently. They weren’t being lewd, just pestering her to talk when she didn’t want to, but it seemed a perfect distillation of our culture.

    Anyway, I’m talking about this a lot because I feel like the discourse here is finally getting somewhere now that we’re minus the trolls. They’re only fun when it comes to perfecting discourse.

  93. Nokidding April 15, 2010 at 2:28 PM #

    sneeky bunny – You sound like exactly the kind of elitist who I don’t bother arguing with.

    I know nothing about biology? Sounds like it’s the other way. Please do explain how it’ possible to say that biology has nothing to do with men being sexist while it’s common knowledge that oppression of women happens in EVERY SINGLE CULTURE no matter how separated from rest of the world it is.

    Yeah, different species of rabbits (that’s why I used “bunnies”) behave in different ways. In here rabbits dig holes at least in snow when it’s coldest winter. And yeah some don’t need holes and others don’t dig them for their selves – but VAST MAJORITY does, and this is why it’s reasonable to think that evolution has made them behave that way – it’s part of their biology.

    If one in hundred men is not sexist jerk, so what? The rest are from the moment they make distinction between boys and girls. In every single culture (there is no actual proof about matriarchal societies). Even little boys are sexist.

    Bill – You are already enjoying your “patriarchy benefits” every day. What are you even doing here reading feminist blog, dude?

  94. Ren April 15, 2010 at 3:44 PM #

    Joy-

    Ah, most of the women I know (whom I was speaking of above) sound a bit like your crew- most of ‘em just don’t particularly care and are more into being comfortable than stress out over being hollywood ideals of pretty. It’s nice, really. I probably as I general rule engage in more “beauty rituals” than they do, but even I’ve given up a lot of that stuff for the most part…except shaving and the gym…addicted to both. I admit it.

    But yes, I do know older women who have body insecurities, I actually think most people have body insecurities.

    I also have no issue what so ever with women who want to have their own communities and live apart from me. If that would make them happier and more comfortable, I am all for it.

    Polly: I hear what you’re saying, but I think ALL people are dangerous and a strain on resources. I could go off on that all day long, but it could get me stoned to death, so I will leave it at that.

  95. wiggles April 15, 2010 at 6:07 PM #

    Nokidding –

    If one in hundred men is not sexist jerk, so what? The rest are from the moment they make distinction between boys and girls. In every single culture (there is no actual proof about matriarchal societies). Even little boys are sexist.

    From what I’ve seen, they start off just like us. Neutral, not even really knowing what sex they are themselves. I don’t think I put any thought into what sex I was until I was about 4.

    And as femininity compliance was thrust on us, masculinity compliance is thrust on them. And a big part of masculinity compliance is strict aversion to all things female.
    Grown-ups make sure they never wear anything with a flower on it, swat away any dolls that end up in their hands, tell them to man-up if they start crying, ridicule them if they throw or run “like a girl,” and basically equate femaleness with shame and embarrassment. This programming causes boys to forget what they knew instinctively from the start, that female people are real people just like them. Once the programming is complete, the boys are told that they have to get girlfriends to prove they’re not fags, or honorary boy-girls.

    So that’s how girls and women become objects of dirty shame that boys are obliged to conquer or acquire as symbols of status and non-fagginess rather than whole human beings. It all starts with that “throws like a girl” shit. I had a brother very close in age and that’s how it seemed to work for him and his friends.

  96. Miss Andrist April 15, 2010 at 6:44 PM #

    Maybe we should go over the basic definition of OPPRESSION. Being oppressed means being held at the bottom of the hill. Shit only rolls one direction, and the only thing that rolls downhill is shit.

    Thus, the difference between my hatred of men and any man’s hatred of me is which one gets to oppress the object of their hatred.

    Men hate women because every human being has feelings of insecurity, self-doubt, worthlessness, fear, weakness, etc. and men have created for themselves the privilege of taking all that shit out on us. -Ism is the act of singling out a group of people by Trait X, projecting all the bad bullshit onto them, and then punishing them for it.

    Hormones? I’m gonna try to put the ol’ biological determinism excuse to bed… one last time.

    Melatonin doesn’t cause white people to disenfranchise anybody who isn’t white any more than testosterone (or estradiol, or epinephrine, or dopamine, or cortisol, or any other hormone) causes men to disenfranchise anybody without a peen. That’s apologism, justification, rationalization, just another insipid excuse in the endless whiny litany of why some people just get to be special snowflakes.

    If endocrinological secretions are the precursor of willful selfishness, blood pressure medication (blocks amygdalic function) would be more effective at stopping male aggression than full frontal lobotomy. Hormonal impulse causes involuntary reflexive responses like ovulation and developing a tan. Hormonal impulse would mean men’s aggression against women is reflexive to some degree and frontal lobotomization wouldn’t stop it any more than it stops knee-jerking.

    Conclusion: male aggression against women is conscious choice. Hormones do not cause men’s aggression any more than kidney stones cause emphysema.

    And the hormonal bullshit? Patriarchal peenie-tales intended to shut down opposition, shift responsibility off men, and most especially to conceal the source of men’s hatred of women: men’s free will. And men resist as intensely as they do to avoid an avalanche of guilt. They know the guilt is there, which means they know they’re fucking wrong, and they lead us on this wild goose chase where we exhaust ourselves trying to overcome their contrivances and convoluted delusions and force them to admit the fucking truth.

    That women could possibly be expected to STILL have patience for this bullshit? BLOWS MY MIND. How many times have you guys PROVEN to menz that they are wrong and had them just sort of refuse to acknowledge it regardless? This rat maze has no cheese and no exit.

    Fuck that shit. I have a shotgun. Who’s with me?

  97. Miss Andrist April 15, 2010 at 8:09 PM #

    @Ren:

    “Polly: I hear what you’re saying, but I think ALL people are dangerous”

    Now if only women could internalize this instead of the fucking physical inferiority peenie-tale, we’d all be hitting the gym instead of counting on pleading our way out of danger.

  98. polly April 15, 2010 at 9:07 PM #

    What Miss Andrist said. Except I don’t have a shotgun.

    Ren, I also hear what you’re saying, but the question you asked was ‘why do separatists advocate women avoid men’ and there’s your answer. If you think they’re fundamentally wrong, you thing they’re wrong, but that’s a whole other debate. They think they’re right, and that’s why they hold the opinions they do.

    I read a piece a while back, where a separatist said why do women want to go on dating men, and expect them not to rape? Now that’s not victim blaming, (bear with me) because it’s not saying that women’s behaviour CAUSES rape – unlike all the don’t get drunk, don’t walk home alone shit, since I do both of those on a regular basis and don’t get raped because there are no rapists around.

    It IS saying there’s nothing women can do to prevent men raping, and men aren’t about to stop raping anytime soon, so best avoid men. Be under no illusions. And statistically (cited this one before as well) most women who are raped are raped by partners or ex partners.

    My friend smokes. If she starts talking about being worried about her health, like she did the other day, I will say to her “If you really want to be healthy, you should give up smoking”. I don’t demand she gives up smoking, it’s her body to do with as she likes, but nor do I lie and say ‘carry on smoking, it’s harmless’.

  99. Miss Andrist April 15, 2010 at 9:27 PM #

    @Ren –

    Separatism is just another way to say “aversive phobia.” The people who are advocating separatism are the ones who have determined that men are dangerous, that men can and will inflict harm. Think Schroedinger’s Rapist. It’s a risk management strategy: men are too dangerous to be worth it, I can’t be safe if men are around, I’m best off in a men-free environment.

    And naturally, since avoiding solitude is a powerful survival instinct, we imagine a social environment that happens to be free of males. Males are the single most dangerous entity in the female universe – so a male-free setting logically eliminates suffering of the present as well as fear of potential harm, so much that we have a hard time coming up with any rational reason why anyone wouldn’t eagerly agree. And Nigel isn’t often seen as a rational reason. I mean, if anyone is going to hurt or kill you, it’ll probably be Nigel. Nigel is a still a man, predictable like sweaty dynamite – hard to understand hesitation.

    Separatism is not a fascist thing. It’s an inability to see the presence of men as acceptably safe to women. Sure, some women will be okay. But other women won’t. I mean, it’s like rusty metal: shot in the arm hurts, but so does tetanus before it kills you. The old dilemma: we can’t tell which men are safe until we’re not safe, so it’s better to err on the side of caution and get rid of all of them.

    Got a crazy idea for creating a separatist collective. Gonna write it up on screaming-banshee.

  100. Ren April 15, 2010 at 11:01 PM #

    Miss:

    “Now if only women could internalize this instead of the fucking physical inferiority peenie-tale, we’d all be hitting the gym instead of counting on pleading our way out of danger.”

    I’m a proud gun owner and in the gym often…because I think all people are dangerous. You are very correct that statistically it is far more likely for me or any other woman to become a victim of male violence, but in practice, worst beating I ever took in my life came from a woman…so I am big on trust no one and be prepared for anything. Goes with the whole people are dangerous thing…

  101. Miss Andrist April 16, 2010 at 1:57 AM #

    Ren:

    I haven’t been able to buy the physical-inferiority peenie-tale since my big sister enlisted in the Marine Corps. Her first husband was also a jarhead (there’s a story there, and it’s on my site. Warning, you may throw out your back leaping with joy in triumph.) Her current husband? Another Marine. Unlike the first d00d, who was discharged before she enlisted, she met Sgt. Nigel while stationed on board the U.S.S. Wasp (a destroyer parked in the Persian Gulf.) They ended up trench buddies for the rest of their tours (her job – combat communications) since she was his commanding officer. She did an extra year so they would both be discharged at the same time, and they got hitched on the beach in Florida with a warship for a backdrop.

    A model for het romance. Or as my sister would say, outstanding.

    ^_^

  102. polly April 16, 2010 at 2:15 AM #

    Physical danger IS there for everyone, but to be honest the chances of me getting beaten up, statistically, are very remote. Most physical violence by strangers happens to men. And to be honest, if someone decides to attack you, having just spent half an hour on a stairmaster isn’t going to be much help (please also bear in mind ablism here, I currently CAN’T go to the gym because I’ve got a bad cold I just can’t shake, some people can’t go at all). Having a gun may well be more helpful, but over here we have this crazy gun control thing going on. (nb joke, I would hate to live somewhere where everyone has the right to bear arms).

    But it is as Miss Andrist pointed out a matter of risk management. We all take SOME risk (getting in a car, getting on a plane), the question is what level of risk is acceptable. And where does the greatest risk lie.

    But as I’ve already said, I’m a de facto separatist just cos men bore the living crap out of me.

  103. Miss Andrist April 16, 2010 at 2:29 AM #

    sneeky bunny
    April 15, 2010 at 1:29 AM
    I want to find ways to actually, practically, and concretely effect change in the world in which I live.

    — Amen.

    The other night, I had a total epiphany. I’m a programmer by trade, specifically a web developer. Porn makes me want to kill somebody. And then I had this other idea that doesn’t include killing anyone, regarding what somebody like me could do about something like porn. You know, like on teh interwebs. Think you can guess what my idea is? (Here’s a hint: it’s not the kind of thing you say over standard TCP/IP.)

    So I ran it past Joy, just to make sure I’m still sane. She liked it. A lot. And she inspired another stroke of genius: what if I did workshops or something to pass the skillz required for Affecting Creative Solutions on to like-minded individuals? *ahem* She, too, is filled with zeal to Do Something – I bet it’s not just her.

    …And, uhm, my idea would be exponentially more effective it more that just me were working on it.

    Sorry for the vagueness, but I’d love to hear thoughts?

  104. FemmeForever April 16, 2010 at 4:46 AM #

    [Trigger Warning: Violence]

    Thursday’s Oprah show was about a woman who was nearly killed by her ex-husband. He lured her into his house when she went to pick up her kids, repeatedly bashed her in the head with a baseball bat, duck-taped her face, wrists, and ankles and threw her in a trash can. Then he loaded the trash can in his 4×4, drove it across state lines, filled it with snow and locked it in an unheated storage unit in the dead of winter.

    She survived for two reasons. When she was in the trunk of the 4×4, somehow she was able to use the cell phone in her pocket to call 911. But 911 only understood that somebody couldn’t breathe. Not about the abduction. When paramedics got to the house they saw blood and signs of struggle and a police investigation started. Police found her about an hour before she would have died and she lost all ten toes to frostbite.

    The expert on the show, Gavin de Becker, writes books that teach women how to survive violent situations. The current book is a 48? question survey that women can take to help them determine if their man is likely to be violent. The whole time the victim is being interviewed about all the warning signs she missed, I’m thinking why would one even want to put one’s self at potential risk by dating in the first place. Not blaming her, you understand, I’m just soooo frustrated at watching women beaten, raped, and killed because they insist on sleeping with the enemy. It just makes me utterly despondent, every time I see another story like hers.

    I agree with Miss Andrist and Polly. Although, I think MA was referring to melanin in her example and not melatonin, yes? The only thing is I don’t come by my belief based on fear. I don’t fear men and I know that’s a privilege that not every woman can share. I just know when someone means me harm and I want nothing to do with that person or group. It’s matter-of-fact, untrembling, rational, self-defense just like locking the doors when you go in or out of your house. It’s common sense.

    Joy, you are a treasure.

    NoKidding, glad to see you back and hope you stick around.

  105. Ren April 16, 2010 at 9:15 AM #

    Miss: That sounds like an awesome wedding, and I think it’s cool your sister is a marine.

    Polly: I can see why the idea of almost everyone being able to have a gun is scary and why a lot of people do not like the idea at all…however, where I live, pretty much anyone CAN have a gun…which is why a lot of people have them- not because they love guns, but because literally anyone, legally or illegally, can get one. I’ve sort of been around guns my whole life (what can I say, my people are hicks), and as a 5’2″ woman who used to live alone in a less that stellar neighborhood, seemed like a wise idea to own some. Also agreed that a half an hour on the stair master is not going to save anyone, but being able to run faster and longer than whomever is trying to hurt you never seemed like a bad idea to me…

    Story in our local news today: Man set pit-bull loose on ex-gf…ex-gf shot dog in head with the .44 she had in her purse…five times (dog lived- man backed down). Both arrested. She was released, he is facing charges.

  106. Miss Andrist April 16, 2010 at 9:22 AM #

    @Saurs –

    Sorry, didn’t catch this earlier – essentialist? As in biological basis -> d00dism? Ha ha, no. I’ll recap right quick, my point has always held: pursuit of questions like “why do men create bullshit? nature or nurture?” are a waste of our time and should be abandoned. Seriously, I’ll sit here and hit the high points d00dbrains per relevance to us, but I object to the detailed, probing inquiry of d00dly nature/nurture because the only use WOMEN would have for that answer? Fixing men.

    Hence my answer to the d00dly nature/nurture question: IRRELEVANT, NEXT CALLER. Didn’t our foremothers ^ infinity invest enough women’s time/energy trying to fix men that we can’t just call it a loss, and move on? Men are not women’s job and it took all our foremothers’ cumulative effort to date just to win that assertion. Conclusion: Now that we can quit the Sisyphean bullshit, let’s.

    So I felt compelled to posted up, hopefully before the dialogue turned into one of those races where everybody keeps turning left. Men are not women’s job, but we’re still conditioned to male-centricism and programmed against placing our self-interest at any priority. That we’re even talking about this in the first place? Blame the fucking patriarchy.

    @sneeky bunny

    “Re: Bunnies”

    I have a pet bunny. He’s dwarf hotot (“eyeliner bunny.”) His name is Scissors, but sometimes I call him stuff like Captain Tuftybutt and Sir Hopsalot.

    Just felt like sharing. Eyeliner bunnies = cute beyond reason. ^_^ Here’s the serious response to your post a ways back where you asked me a question.

    “You hate men, and you are not alone in that.”

    Psychology: fear engenders hate. Men taught me to fear them. To the point that I hate them. That’s me.

    “Separatism may indeed be the best option for you,”

    Even a cursory skim of statistics would probably be safer than the alternative for any non-male. The benefits any woman might experience as a result of liberation from shit like the muzzling effect of the male gaze are harder to project/quantify, but are strongly suggested nonetheless. But whatever.

    “but it is not practical on a larger scale”

    Stop the bus. How the hell would we know? History tells us pretty much everything men did. It tells us almost nothing about what anybody else was doing (other than wiping men’s butts.) Male-supremecist selective interpretation describes the conspicuous omission of everyone else as evidence that nobody but men did anything. False; evaluate women’s role in history like you evaluate 1 + x > 1.

    And um, what does “larger scale” mean? I mean, women’s seperatism kinda happened by default / accident numerous times in history: World War II, the Great War, the American Civil War just to be American-centric.

    So there were these two sisters who raised an army of eighty thousand women and led them in battle for a year, victory after victory culminating in the expulsion of the conquerers and liberation of their country from domination and tyrannical rule. Then they and their woman-only army defended and ruled for the next three years. That was the Hai Ba Trung Rebellion expelling the Chinese from Vietnam. PERFECT EXAMPLE of women being totally capable of successfully resisting, overthrowing male oppression and then maintaining liberation. Predictably, if you haven’t heard of it, you’re not alone – just another case of nobody can hear anything over the sound of how awesome the patriarchy is.

    “and as such amounts to a fantasy of a tree fort where “no menz allowed” is the rule.”

    Right, I keep forgotting that women are infants crippled by our collective incompetence. Your display of internalized learned helplessness is bad enough, but please refrain from projecting it onto me, kthx. For somebody with a lot to say about your world experience, that statement should ring every single one of your Happy Horseshit alarms.

    “I want to find ways to actually, practically, and concretely effect change in the world in which I live.”

    Me too. I’m postulating going black hat for the good of women and teaching other women how to do the same. Lot of interest. Now, I know I’m supposed to validate that remark and defend my assertion or some shit because everybody knows people with vaginas can’t operate technology, but I seriously don’t have the time it would take to list my skillz; my project is overdue and I need to get back to coding.

    “Sweeping generalizations unsupported by more than your opinion are all very well,”

    Hear hear! Think the male-supremecism could stand up to that heat?

    “but how, exactly, does that help?”

    Hmm, you got me. How?

    “How, exactly, do you plan to address or redress the oppression suffered by our gender?”

    Uhm, not through separatism, that’s for sure. You’re kinda missing the point of separatism, yannow – which is to effect a safety zone for ourselves. Has absolutely nothing to do with punitive measures against men. Step 0 of triage: get the patient out of harm’s way. When no more injuries are being inflicted, proceed to Step 1: stop the fucking bleeding.

    On other fronts, I program in seven languages and specialize in internet systems development. But I guess I’d have to be competent at anything, which is unlikely because I failed to have a peenie, and then impossible because my vagina makes me harmless.

    “Do you truly feel that the task at hand is impossible? I would ask Miss Andrist and Femme Forever that question as well. Do your really believe that there is no hope?”

    No hope for what? Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, is this about fixing men STILL? I guess that’s what you meant with the hope thing. Okay, first, the HELL does hope have to do with anything? Separatism equals immediate / future protection to women from immediate / future danger from men. It’s as if you’ve never heard of women’s shelters.

    The men who need to be fixed the worst are the ones putting women’s lives in the most danger RIGHT. FUCKING. NOW.

    Which is more important, fixing those men or protecting those women?

    I suggest you think about trading places with one of those women. You’d be able to get to work hoping to fix that man in the the most concrete manner you will ever find, and as an added bonus, the point of putting space between ourselves and men will make a lot more sense, I promise you.

    -Miss Andrist
    Lover of Men

  107. sneeky bunny April 16, 2010 at 10:25 AM #

    Joy, no apology necessary! I completely agree with you about awareness being key. As a costume designer I use clothing as a communication tool. It gives the audience a lot of information about the character, quickly and often subliminally. In real life people tell you about themselves the same way sometimes with out even realizing it. I love to read the stories their clothes tell me. Even people who say they don’t care at all about fashion are telling me something about themselves by their choices. Why chinos rather than jeans? Why that sweatshirt or t-shirt? I could go on and on and bore the vintage shorts off you. :) I would love to hear more about the outsider fashion you mentioned. Personally I like to mix army/navy pieces with vintage and local designers.

  108. sneeky bunny April 16, 2010 at 10:42 AM #

    Nokidding , there is nothing elitist about expecting someone to be able to back up their opinion with facts. It is a sign of respect that I hold you to at least that high a standard. If there are studies (as you mentioned) that support your position, cite them. Put up links, as others on this blog have. You have made a sweeping a provocative statement and it is up to you to defend it, if indeed you wish to convince others of its validity. Just because you say it is so is not enough. You seem to have a big brain, I ask you to use it, and not just take your ball and go home at the first sign of opposition.

  109. sneeky bunny April 16, 2010 at 11:04 AM #

    Miss,
    1) Reading the phrase Capt Tuftybutt made me squee.
    2) Black hat hmm? Very interesting.
    3) Thank you for clearing some things up for me. I was laboring under the binary assumption of separatism vs direct action. That withdrawing from the world would necessarily mean giving up.
    I still have a lot of reservations about how separate communities would work. Would it be compounds sort of like the Amish or communities with in cities where one would still interact with the world on a limited scale, like the Buddhist nuns that come into my Starbucks? What about children? Would male children be allowed? What about those with male partners? I mean Femme Forever talks tough about hating men, but even she has a disconnect there in that she’s been partnered with a man for 8 years, so she doesn’t hate them all. These are the questions that come to mind when I think of separatism.
    I do think that learning how to use a fire arm is an excellent idea.

  110. Saurs April 16, 2010 at 12:26 PM #

    Miss Andrist, in that storied and universal project towards the helpful “re-education,” “fixing,” and “healing” of dudes, I am a strict and vocal non-participant. I don’t give a damn about helping men help themselves to stop being raging fuckwads. We’re in agreement there. I just disagree re NoKidding’s statement about “biological” “wiring,” as it’s an inelegant idea, at best. I still love you all, and when you ask who’s with you, please count me in. I’ve no shotgun, however, but I do possess a mean set of brass knuckles and I’m willing to use them.

  111. polly April 16, 2010 at 1:17 PM #

    Well you could have a 48 point questionnaire. Or you could have the question *is your partner a dood*? You see the thing about blokes like that is that they can seem perfectly normal, even charming when you first meet them.

    My niece’s ex tried to kill her by whacking her head with a claw hammer. She was extremely lucky he didn’t succeed. The hospital doctor told her had the blow been an inch lower she would have been dead, as it was, by great good fortune he hit the thickest part of her skull, so she just ended up with a fracture.

    The point was he seemed ok, even a nice bloke. I’ve sat in a van with him as he helped me move my possessions from London. When he launched the murder attempt, she thought he’d come round and started being ok, which was the only reason she agreed to meet him at all.

    The trouble with ‘spot the warning signs’ to me is that it’s a bit like ‘don’t drink and avoid rape’. It’s really missing the point.

  112. polly April 16, 2010 at 1:21 PM #

    Do you truly feel that the task at hand is impossible? I would ask Miss Andrist and Femme Forever that question as well. Do your really believe that there is no hope?”

    No, I don’t think it’s impossible for men to behave like decent human beings, any more than I think world peace is impossible. I just don’t think it’s very LIKELY and I’m therefore working on the assumption it won’t be happening any time soonish.

  113. Grace Margaret April 16, 2010 at 4:59 PM #

    Miss Andrist, you r freaking the coolest person ever.

    I am beyond being sick and tired of wanting to take a gun and blow my brains out when hearing of yet another woman being sexually abused and assaulted and then being blamed for it in the media. There’s a case going on right now in the news, jesus, there’s always a case in the news where a woman comes forward and she’s put through absolute hell for speaking out. And famous asswipes, like Jim Carrey in this case, will make rape jokes minimizing it and will be seen as an ‘edgy’ and ‘not being politically correct’ naughty boy. Not a complete monster for gloating over someone’s pain. Just a little ‘controversial’. And there’s more and more blame and it never stops. These a just a couple of links, their name is legion:

    http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/independent-woman/issues/poll-rape-victims-partly-to-blame-2064282.html

    http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/146360/why_we_still_blame_victims_of_rape/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet_reproductivejustice

    I was brought up in such a sheltered environment that growing up I really thought rapists were strangers who lurked and hid and that everyone, except the rapist, would be against rape and consider it evil and criminal and would have compassion for anyone who has ever been through such an incredible trauma. Silly me.

    I haven’t read all the posts yet, but I have to say to the person dating the older man, although I don’t have a crystal ball I can safely predict that he will dump you when you get ‘too old’ by his standards. Every woman thinks ‘no way, my man is different!’
    My older brother is in his early 40’s and he’s been dating 18-22-year-old women since he was 18. And everyone thinks he’s such a super nice sensitive guy (he’s a musician too). All these girls thought he cared about them on more than just a physical level and maybe he did, but the physical level obviously was the most important because he has never dated a woman over 22.

  114. sp April 16, 2010 at 6:12 PM #

    Grace Margaret- I do agree with you there is a possibility that he will. I went into this relationship knowing that maybe when I get too old for his standards he may break up with me. I definitely don’t think he is different, but he at least has treated me better than the other men I have been with.
    I don’t think my experience with men has been too different from some of the people on here. I have experienced abuse by men, but my way of coping was to forgive, although not excuse (I want to make that clear). The only way I could heal was if I forgave them and harbored no anger.
    My last relationship was a mess and I am still dealing with the emotional scars of it, yet I cannot find myself hating him. I even speak with him time to time, although it is becoming less and less. I don’t think I could ever really hate anyone.
    I am trying to learn about these different perspectives. I have never read stuff like this. I will admit I did grow up in a very sheltered and structured life. My goal was always to be a military wife and that’s it. Now I have expanded from that seen a lot more of my worth beyond just being someone’s wife, and my first goal is to get my PhD, build my career, then deep down my desire to be a military is still kind of there, but myself and my career comes first. I do give the women on here so much credit for finding what makes them happy and free. I just feel that I have my own path cause I don’t think there is one universal truth or way of finding that freedom. When I came on here, I did not know it was a radical feminist website (as I mentioned my friend directed me to this site). It has been eye opening, while at the same time it did help me figure out what I really want and my viewpoints. What makes me happy is having a companion, while at the same time having my own life.

  115. joy April 16, 2010 at 7:07 PM #

    ”Well you could have a 48 point questionnaire. Or you could have the question *is your partner a dood*?”

    Exactly. Ren, the ”ladies do it too” argument is … kinda trite. Hey, Miss Andrist’s sister is a badass marine, I also know a woman who put her husband in the hospital, and my mother used to beat me harder than my uncle did — so that means that dudes aren’t dangerous.

    No. It just means that people can be dangerous even if they don’t have the penises to excuse that behavior in the public eye.
    I also know a few people, albeit a VERY few, who have penises and are not violent. But people with penises, ”men” in common parlance, are more likely to be violent than people without, and thus they should be viewed as greater potential risks than the non-bepenised — aka, ”women.”

    It’s all risk management, as Miss Andrist said. I’ve got my shotgun too, let’s all get ready.

  116. joy April 16, 2010 at 7:15 PM #

    A few other small points — Miss Andrist, as usual you are right on, and I would love to continue our scheming … and Sneeky, I would love to trade ”what I wore today” stories with you, actually …

    except my hard drive just took its turn to crash. Once I save up for a new one, which may be a while, I will be more available for such emailing antics.

    Also, Ren, the funny things about my mother and stepmother are that my mother is a hillbilly farmer (plays the mountain dulcimer!) who raised me on her own and put herself back through college both without the help from a man, who advocated that I in fact avoid men, and who’s only ever worn heels three times in my memory (her college graduation and two first days at new jobs) …
    and my stepmother is a former ER doctor and trauma surgeon who entered medicine at a time when women simply did not do that, and now has her own homeopathic, osteopathic practice.

    Not the kind of dolled-up shiny middle-class housewives a lot of people think of when they think of the default middle-aged woman.

    They come from widely different familial backgrounds and widely different socioeconomic backgrounds, with widely different motives and motivations; one is single by choice and the other is happily married, one cares about keeping up appearances (in the general sense) while the other doesn’t …
    and yet the patriarchy touches them both. In ways they really don’t need to be touched, for reasons that are absurd and largely irrelevant. I wish I could wave the magic feminist wand and make it all go away for both of them.

  117. wiggles April 16, 2010 at 9:31 PM #

    sneeky bunny
    April 16, 2010 at 11:04 AM

    Miss,

    I still have a lot of reservations about how separate communities would work. Would it be compounds sort of like the Amish or communities with in cities where one would still interact with the world on a limited scale, like the Buddhist nuns that come into my Starbucks? What about children? Would male children be allowed? What about those with male partners?

    According to my vision, there’d be no men. Small male children could be okay because if they’re raised in an otherwise female-only environment by women who choose to live in a female-only environment, they’re not likely to be indoctrinated by the P, or any masculinity programming they’d gotten so far might be undone if you catch them early enough. There’d have to be a cut-off age though, when boys can’t be admitted. Top of my head, I’d say that age would be about age seven or eight. And all males would have to leave by the time they’re about 21 and their preparation to leave would be part of their education.
    And it would be a totally self-sustaining community relying on small-scale farming for food and fabrics. For energy, there’d be solar panels and wind turbines. If there’s a need for cash, the residents could have farmer’s markets or sell crafts to the outside or contract out whatever skills they have, or businesses can be run from within the compound. The cash part gets dodgy because it might require interaction with the P, depending on how it’s done. Maybe there’d be more than one compound, and the residents would sell and trade goods and services between compounds.
    There’d be priority recruitment of residents with skills in construction, healthcare, renewable energy, farming, and whatever else is necessary for self-sustenance, at least at first, until those skills can be passed on.

  118. Miss Andrist April 16, 2010 at 10:14 PM #

    Joy:

    Bricked hard drive doesn’t necessarily mean no more puter. If you can burn a CD or have a USB drive handy, I’ll help you get set up with Puppy. (Puppy Linux is kind of a hard drive life-boat operating system that loads completely into your memory, no hard drive needed.) Firefox plus whatever featherweight puppy apps and you’ll still be functional. I won’t lie, it’s not much fun, but it keeps you online in a pinch. Oh, and it’s free. Can’t beat that with a stick. ~_^ Besides, our scheming would have required you get jiggy with *nix sooner or later. And mountain dulcimers KICK ASS. Hurdy-gurdies are even better. Youtube, Eluveitie and Abinchova -> pagan folkmetal, the very awesomest thing since celtpunk.

    I think Ren’s point is mainly expressing support of women’s potential to succeed in physical confrontation and rejection of the male-physical-advantage peenie-tale?

    @Ren:

    We can assert that men are dangerously violent towards us without implying women pose no threat. Separatism isn’t a magic panacea – probably won’t solve the energy crisis, cure cancer or eliminate all the danger from our lives. However, given that it’s our accumulated life experience that led us to settle on separatism in the first place, it’s worth pointing out that we learned what we were taught by all the people in our lives. Potential threat of harm -> part of the full spectrum of human. We acknowledge said human potential, and can handle it in women and not men. It’s not that women can’t cause as much harm, it’s the expectations that our experience creates – men: very probably harmful. Women: exponentially less probable harm. For that matter, my dog might bite me. But dogs haven’t bitten me much, or badly. I expect that it won’t bite me if I don’t give it a reason. Demonstrating respect for my dog’s ability to bite is acceptable management of that risk. Same thing. Anywayz.

    @sneeky bunny:

    “Would it be compounds sort of like the Amish or communities with in cities where one would still interact with the world on a limited scale, like the Buddhist nuns that come into my Starbucks? What about children? Would male children be allowed? What about those with male partners? I mean Femme Forever talks tough about hating men, but even she has a disconnect there in that she’s been partnered with a man for 8 years, so she doesn’t hate them all. These are the questions that come to mind when I think of separatism.”

    Actually, I’ve had this idea for a while, trying to come up with an idea that wasn’t contingent on shit that isn’t likely… See, compounds implies property ownership on some level and structures. Projected problems: land is expensive, taxes suck, structures are targets and insular groups of people with dramatically unorthodox perspectives on pretty much everything? I kinda think we need to set ourselves up with a situation less likely to produce a prophet, amirite?

    See, re: the Amish / Buddhists – this isn’t asceticism. This is practicality, not spirituality or orchestrated political statement or whatever. We’re also not in exile, and we’re not being punished or punishing each other. Remember, the strongest advocates are the trauma victims, we’re looking to ESCAPE a prison, not check into one. We are people who can only be safe when we’re free to leave whenever we want regardless of where we are or who we are with. This is about empowering us, not depriving us.

    Male children is the most difficult question, far more than Nigels.

    It is monstrous to suggest anyone choose between their safety and their child. However, the difference between a 6-year-old and a 16-year-old is which one’s broad silhouette triggers my panic attacks. Dilemma, because while I could not give two shits about men, children are part of the reality of women. So who loses? The mother of sons, or the victim of men? Neither. Tolerance for risk varies by individual and women with young sons could form a buffer zone between those who cannot abide men at all, and women with sons who are close enough to adulthood to represent a challenge to any facet of our safety. Like a DMZ. Eventually, sons will grow up and they’d have to leave. Mothers would not be prohibited from going out to see anyone they wished, least of all a grown child – and after the sons are gone, these mothers can move back inside the “safe” zone if they want.

    Nigels are SOL. You can come in but he can’t. Just because you can still feel safe and secure in the presence of your Nigel doesn’t mean I can, and if I don’t feel safe, it’s because I’m not safe, the end.

    I actually have two (ex)Nigels of my own. Six years with Thing 1 and two years with Thing 2. Sorta-Nigels? Whatever. Anyway, I understand the effect that seeing the shape of a man’s body or the sound of a man’s voice can have on trauma survivor. It doesn’t matter if one’s Peter and the other is Paul, their broad shoulders and deep voices == the ability to be intimidating by virtue of presence. So they can’t be present. If I want to see them, I’d have to go to them. I don’t get to compromise the safety of everyone else because I’m sure my Nigel would never do THAT.

    My idea was like an RV camp, I guess. Advantage of mobility (harder for hate-mongering male supremecists to attack a moving target.) Relatively cheap startup, no big investment in land or buildings and no restriction in space to grow. It’s not like we could run out of beds, right? Sure, it’ll probably strike a lot of people as completely insane at least at first glance, but the more you think about it, the specifics of it, it makes more and more sense. An environment combining tight social knitting with self-sufficiency, and everyone has personal space to themselves while safely surround by allies. A home you can’t ever be evicted from. It might not be the most luxurious, but if you ever need to run away, you’ll ALWAYS have a place to go. Besides, it has Mad Max cred. And that just kicks ass.

    …Honestly? I’m so convinced of the value of this that I have every intention of buying an old school bus and RV’ing it.

    Hmm, maybe I -am- a wingnut. ^_^

    -Miss Andrist

  119. Miss Andrist April 16, 2010 at 10:21 PM #

    Wiggles:

    I’ve got a design for a turbine lift that will prop on top of my bus. Did you know, you can make a wind genny out of an old box fan and a lantern battery? ^_^ And solar desalienation (I live by the Gulf.) Square-foot gardening, I telecommute anyway…

    REVOLUCION

    -Miss Andrist
    contact info -> on screaming-banshee.

  120. Ren April 17, 2010 at 1:46 AM #

    ND: This is sort of a wierd one and may be slightly triggering…

    Miss & Joy:

    I hear and believe you. Absolutely….it is maybe perhaps, my entire life, I have had the “advantage” of being…scary. I do not, when it comes to threats to myself or those I care about….fuck around. Maybe I have an unhealthy lack of fear..I don’t know. I’ve not been abused by men, really…do I see sexism, yes, I do, but honestly personally hurt? Not so much. I think that is because I intimidate people. But I have in the last…hell almost two years.. learned more about physical pain that most people learn in a life time…

    http://theger.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/as-promised/

    Now, that does not, even in my own opinion, hold a candle to personal, mental emotional hurt. But I think people have odd ideas about trauma. I know some people would look at that and cringe, and some people would look at that and say “that’s nothing…” and both are right considering their perspective. However, I think a lot of people assume I know nothing about, oh, pain, or PTSD, or things of that nature…and they are wrong. Mine is just different. I wake up in the dead of night screaming thinking I am on fire. Other women wake up screaming in the night thinking they are being raped, abused, molested. It IS different….very different…but we’re all shaken, you know? What I think, sometimes, the differences are is…my scars are on the outside- they scare people and keep them away from me…maybe that, along with the I scare people anyway apparently, is an advantage. That, and having felt that kind of physical pain…I am hard to hurt.

  121. FemmeForever April 17, 2010 at 3:17 AM #

    @sneaky bunny

    I mean Femme Forever talks tough about hating men, but even she has a disconnect there in that she’s been partnered with a man for 8 years, so she doesn’t hate them all.

    You know, I’m really going to have to remember to pop some popcorn before going online because learning about myself from ABSOLUTE strangers on the internet is just so entertaining.

    I have some questions. This eight-year relationship of mine. Was I conscious during it? Do you have pictures? Sex tapes, perhaps? Before you pull some bogus shit like that out of your ass next time, remember that libel is actionable. To make matters worse, you used your libel to suggest some kind of disingenuousness on my part. Look, you are obviously not capable of accepting the facts of what maleness is. What is your goal in endlessly trying to defend men on a radfem blog? The truth is not going to change to suit your dick-whipped stance. The women commenting in this thread have left you behind on the continuum of clarity. You’re still in classic denial. You will not shout down or even detour the truth with your desperate death grip on that good guy/bad guy nonsense. Stop trying to school women who know better than you and start taking notes. I have never understood how it is that most women are so willing to forsake their own tribe (women) in favor of “people” (men) who would never even consider doing the same for you. While you are expending all of that frenetic energy defending the “good” guys, they are somewhere plotting how they are going to fuck you ’till you bleed and then toss you aside for somebody with bigger breasts and a tighter hole (like your best friend, little sister, or daughter).

    MEN HATE YOU. If he thought he could get away with it a man would rip your head off and fuck your larynx for a tighter fit. And then he would go next door and do the same thing to the women in that house and so on down the block. What you think is love of you and your specialness is actually love of using you. Love of duping you into believing he loves you. Love of making you do his bidding. Love of dominating you. Love of stealing from you your admiration and love. In short, love of making a fool of you. He gets a huge hard-on every time you fall for it. And that’s why he stays. He can’t believe what a magical stud he is that he can make another human being his puppet. Fuck! Is that genuine enough for you?

    @Miss Andrist et al

    Needless to say I’m all in on the commune idea, though I do hope it’s one on firm ground. But I LOVE the vision specificity of the RV idea. Very creative.

  122. sp April 17, 2010 at 6:33 AM #

    I have a question for the women on here who have been talking about separatist communities, and female only-communities. There has also been a lot of talk about biology. There seems to be a strong binary you create between male and female, but in these scenarios where do transgender individuals especial male to female, or people with both sexes fit it. I am curious about that. Sorry if it has already been brought up I haven’t read all the comments.

  123. wiggles April 17, 2010 at 12:05 PM #

    SP – transgenderedness is a rather controversial issue among the radfems. For me personally however, because trans and intersexed folks are also physically and emotionally threatened by penile supremacy and the patriarchy, I’d venture that any trans or intersexed person who desires to live in a female separatist environment enough to seek one out and petition for inclusion probably needs to escape. I’d consider them on a case-per-case basis depending on their need to be there and what they could offer to the community. I haven’t worked out how these sorts of things would be worked out, so it’s a good question. Maybe they’d apply and state their case and existing community residents would take a vote.

  124. wiggles April 17, 2010 at 12:58 PM #

    Miss Andrist – I tried to e-mail you, but it didn’t go through. I used no dots or underscores and tried both dot com and dot net suffixes.

    I’m googling for existing separatist collectives and am not having much luck. If any exist, they’re probably pretty secretive.

  125. Miss Andrist April 17, 2010 at 1:09 PM #

    sp:

    The perception of binary is often a problem of projection. I’m pretty clear when I mean male, non-male, or female. I am pretty clear when I mean men or males, women, females, non-males, etc.

    Separatism is a different vision for all of us, to one degree female-only, to another degree male-free. Ambiguity of male children, who are NOT men but will end up looking like men whether or not they avoid becoming one. Ambiguity of the situation of plural sexes, since women-born-male act like men and men-born-female are exquisately vulnerable to being targets of male aggression.

    The real question is how much of this is actually women’s responsibility? Gay men are a class who are persecuted and oppressed for defying the gender binary too, but that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to our lunch. I for one advocate limiting our separatism to female-born women and their children, who SHOULD be exempt from social gender typing. And other victims of the patriarchy are more than welcome to set up separatist seclusions right down the street from ours, in my opinion. But really, there’s no question that women’s needs are usually refused and ignored as the needs of males are introduced. So fuck them.

    -Miss Andrist

  126. FemmeForever April 17, 2010 at 1:45 PM #

    Actually, let’s NOT derail this thread onto trans issues. There are plenty of spaces where those answers can be found and almost none where we can discuss classic feminism. See google. But nice attempt to deflect what is a brutally uncomfortable conversation for many.

  127. sp April 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM #

    Wiggles and Miss Andrist – (Wiggles I did not know that transgenderness was a controversial topic among radfems thank you for letting me know). I did not mean to bring up a controversial issue I was just wondering about the topic, so thank you both for your answering my question and the explanations helped me better understand where you guys are coming from.

    Femmeforever- Wasn’t trying to deflect anything or change the subject. I am really try to understand and learn about this. It’s a legitimate question and I was not aware that it was a controversial one.

  128. Sneeky Bunny April 17, 2010 at 7:06 PM #

    Oh my god Femme I am so so sorry! I got you COMPLETELY mixed up in my head with some one else! I am so embarrassed. You mischaracterize my questions however. They are nuts and bolts questions as to how this sort of community would function, and from the answers it would seem that there could be a lot of variation. It could be as hard core as an island cut off from the rest of the world or something more flexable like the RV idea. In any event male children are going to be an issue. Or do you think, as Nokidding does that hatred of women is hard wired and even if raised in a a female environment they’d still grow up to want to fuck my larynx? In which case mothers of sons will be banned? Hmmmm. As to the Nigel question, I like Miss A’s approach. I think it is balanced and will allow those of us whom you characterize as dick whipped some flexability.

  129. polly April 18, 2010 at 3:16 AM #

    Sorry to derail further, but just to make my pet point. (please delete if you want ND) Intersex is a condition whereby a person has biological characteristics that mean they don’t fit into straight male and female categories. Nothing to do with being transgender/transsexual.

    Separatist communes existed a lot in the 70’s/80’s I know 50 something lesbians who lived in them. Although there are points for and against, personally I just practice separatism in my own home. No men allowed unless they’ve come to read the meter. I once had to get a male plumber because I needed lead water supply pipes replaced and you need someone who’s passed exams to do that for some mysterious reason, but apart from that I do jobs myself. Separatism doesn’t have to be an all or nothing thing, a lot of it can consist of women getting the life skills they need to avoid men as much as possible. And those include plumbing.

  130. polly April 18, 2010 at 4:36 AM #

    NB Nine Deuce, not that it’s relevant but I assume you’re not a separatist, what with being married and all. Only some dood seems to think you are and you’re going to live in a big separatist commune with me, which would probably be easier if we weren’t in fact on separate continents. Especially with that icelandic volcano, which apparently could go on erupting for years.

    • Nine Deuce April 18, 2010 at 2:45 PM #

      Polly – I’m a mental separatist, so we could theoretically be members of the same commune.

  131. wiggles April 18, 2010 at 11:18 AM #

    I meant intersexed people can be part of my separatist dealio if they want because I imagine they’re as harassed and marginalized as women are, for many of the same reasons.
    I still like the idea of networks and communities of separatists supporting each other and living off the grid as much as possible – maybe creating their own grids.

  132. joy April 18, 2010 at 11:20 AM #

    Miss Andrist, email me. I know a bit about Linux — although I really didn’t like using it, because it bricked my iPod until I re-synced it with Windows …

    and next ‘puter around is going to be a secondhand/refurb Mac. I should have a means to actually work again around the first of the month.

    Also, re, the binary — many of us feel that it is socially constructed, not biological. I certainly do. There seem to be a number of male people who were born and raised away from men — one of my male friends was raised by lesbian mothers on a pot farm and is as close as I’ve seen to what I imagine a male raised without a patriarchy would be like — so that at least suggests assholism’s not innate.

    So, that’s done. Next, yes, trans people and gay men can form their own separatist communities down the street from this separatist community, because the social conditioning is still there.

    Okay, on to next order of business. Ren, you have my profound empathy. I definitely don’t mean to imply that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and in fact you always have something interesting to add to the discourse. Which is so beautifully troll-free of late.

  133. Ren April 18, 2010 at 3:12 PM #

    Joy- Mayhaps I shall start a place with no tiki torches! Y’all can have my tiki quota!

  134. Miss Andrist April 18, 2010 at 3:56 PM #

    Wiggles:

    Fail. Just because a group is oppressed by the patriarchy doesn’t make them our responsibility. Just because the patriarchy hurts gay men or transgendered women doesn’t mean women-born-female are required to make it right. Analogy: the interest of an elderly man are the concern of the Gray Panthers. The interest of a black man are the concern of the NAACP. The concern of the NAACP does not expand to include all seniors because some of their members are seniors and more than the concern of the Gray Panthers expands to include all black people because some of their members are black. Women- and girl-children-born-female are a valid class (gender based on sex) and the ONLY inclusion ambiguity applies to hermaphroditic individuals raised as and identifying as women.

    The criteria women-born-female is a combination of SEX and GENDER because those two traits result in a specific status in the patriarchy that is not shared by the woman-born-male and heterosexism is not the same as sexism any more than ageism is the same as ableism just because the same people are responsible for the oppression.

    Here’s a question for you, Wiggles:

    Why is it so fucking hard to have women’s interests include just women’s interests? We’ve got a definition of ourselves that we’re using to define “our” interests; why is there such a persistent determination to redefine who’s a member of our class? A woman-born-male is as much “one of us” those Western interlopers are members of the Native cultures they intrude on. I mean, gendered identity is what we’re fighting, so women-born-male are as much automatically our allies as drag queens. Feminization is just that: an attempt to enforce the characteristics designating femininity, be they physical or social. Considering that masculinity requires femininity to exist which is why men force is on women, when a male seeks to enforce feminimity on themselves, the existence of masculinity is reinforced and the patriarchy is validated. ABJECT FAILURE.

    I had a friend who is woman-born-male. He used to ask me for pointers on being feminine and how to act like a woman. I pointed out to him than pretty much no part of his behavior was remotely “feminine.” Stuff like, use of imperative statements. In trying to explain that women are conditioned against requiring contradiction, we both realized that he is actively seeking to enter the world of constant humiliation and degradation that women are forced to occupy, and that I object profoundly to its existence. His immediate erroneous conclusion was that I am a man-born-female. Because that’s the only conclusion his patriarchal paradigm could allo. Of course everyone with a vag opted into being treated like dogshit when they chose to be female, so the only people who might possibly object to the involuntary application of this state are men trapped in the wrong body.

    No, I don’t have a problem with what I see in the mirror. I suffer no bodily dysmorphia. I have no feelings of worthlessness, so it offends me to the point of murder when men treat me like I am worthless to cope with their own loser realities. And humiliate me because they lack dignity, and degrade me because they have no value, etc. And they do, all day every day, from blonde jokes to rape: they make me, along with every other woman, the object of their projected worthlessness.

    …Just remembering this episode makes me reach for my shotgun. That’s what all people raised male think: that women opt into being treated like this by choosing to be female.

    I want to kill somebody, so I’m going to go code.

  135. wiggles April 18, 2010 at 6:53 PM #

    I didn’t say I’d include gay men in the same class as women. They’re privileged above, and are granted more visibility than, all other LGBT people and women.

    Your position on intersectionality and on transsexuality actually enforcing the gender binary has my wheels turning, but since you feel like killing somebody, I’m reluctant to get into Brandon Teena or Angie Zapata, or WOC’s invisibility in the NAACP and the NOW. Your trans friend sounds like an essentialist dolt though.
    I’ve known of some intersexed people that don’t identify as men or as women – just as intersexed. I don’t know how common that is or what percentage of them present on one side of the binary or the other. I don’t imagine the patriarchy does them any favors though, at least not the ones who don’t present as male.

  136. polly April 19, 2010 at 12:14 AM #

    None of the gay men I know would want to form a separatist community. Gay men usually assimilate happily and why wouldn’t they.

    Wiggles: please find out something about intersexed people before you start talking about them. A lot of *intersex* people don’t identify as intersex, but as male or female, since they have chromosomal conditions which make them infertile, but superficially appear either male or female. So they aren’t persecuted by society for being intersex because they are happy with their assigned birth sex, and appear to conform to it.

    There are people who identify as intersex, and people with ambiguous genitalia. But again you might, in fact probably have, have met such a person and not realised because you assumed they were male or female. If they’re assumed to be female and reared as female, they’ll suffer the same problems as all other females, which is why I’ve always said ANYONE assigned female at birth should be treated as female for the purposes of female only spaces. If they’re assigned male they’ll have male privilege. Which is not to say there aren’t many other issues associated with being intersex, but usually societal persecution for being intersex isn’t one of them because a person’s intersex status isn’t usually apparent on meeting them socially.

    A good overview here:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_3_39/ai_94130313/?tag=content;col1

    Oh and women are killed all the time for the crime of being female. Often girl children are killed as well, sometimes even before birth. You wouldn’t be able to quote the names of all the females who’ve been killed recently (not 17 years ago) because you don’t hear about them. And usually with the female infants, they never even HAD a name.

  137. polly April 19, 2010 at 12:28 AM #

    Oh wiggles there are lots of lesbians who are murdered as well. But you don’t hear about them all the time on the *feminist* blogs either, unless they’re in South Africa and somebody wants to make some faux liberal hand wringing point about patriarchal culture there, like it was unique to South Africa. Incidentally however when I googled ‘lesbian murdered’ I discovered that there is a film called – wait for it –

    I Killed My Lesbian Wife, Hung Her on a Meat Hook, and Now I Have a Three-Picture Deal at Disney

    A little known feature directed by, who else, prime fictional turner of dykes to the true path of heteroesexuality, Ben Affleck.

    But if you put *lesbian murdered* into google, you can find out about some more murdered lesbians whose names you don’t know. As well as a lot of porn probably. But not in UK land because that stuff’s illegal.

  138. Miss Andrist April 19, 2010 at 12:41 AM #

    Wiggles:

    Sorry, I included the gay men bit in an demonstrative sense, not in response to anything you or anybody else suggested.

    WOC is invisible to the NAACP because – what’s that quote from black men, something like black women don’t have time to be black and women… *fishes thru my copy of Backlash* Snap. I doggie-eared it and then lost it, too many doggie-ears. Both the NAACP and NOW embody “the ability to sidestep your own power to oppress by saying you’re oppressed.” Naturally, I’d like to think NOW isn’t as virulently, willfully racist as the NAACP is virulently, willfully sexist. However, I fall into a privileged class (white women), so I must defer to women of color no matter how sensitive or enlightened I want to think I am. Don’t get me wrong, I will be the first to hit the objection, racist buzzer when needed, but I don’t endure the crap end of racism. That is not my reality. We as women don’t really even have systemic institutional power in general UNTIL you’re talking about NOW, NARAL, etc. where white women actually can directly oppress black women. So I suspect NOW is probably just as bad, or possibly worse, in the sense that a feminist organization copping to racial equity is a lot more insidious than the NAACP’s belligerent resistance to acknowledging the existence of sexism and the oppression of black women by black men.

    …Now I have to go look up NOW leadership just to make sure women of color enjoy diverse representation at the top. And I’m also shutting up, lest somebody give me a cookie.

    Also, just to clarify – whether or not I get pissed off shouldn’t be a deterrent to your commentary. I have PTSD and the conversation I described happened during some of the worst of the trauma; I happen to channel fear into anger, so the PTSD has resulted in a lot of chipped teeth. That notwithstanding, my temper is not your problem (or anybody else’s.) When I say I’m pissed off, I mean to explain why a comment abruptly truncates, not throw a tantrum. If it bothers you, I’ll knock it off. (But I’ll never stop making death threats, hehe. This is compromise. ^_^ )

    -Miss Andrist

  139. polly April 19, 2010 at 12:45 AM #

    Oh and what has any of what Miss Andrist said got to do with racism in women’s organisations? Um, that would be nothing. There are a lot of BME women who might actually be offended by being told they’re the same as males I imagine.

    Sorry Nine Deuce. Off to kill Ben Affleck for the sake of lesbians and lovers of good acting everywhere.

  140. Miss Andrist April 19, 2010 at 2:24 AM #

    Oh, Wiggles and any / everybody else who tried to contact me:

    I fixed the email (had it spelled out wrong.) Tested it just to make sure it works. All is well. Sorry for muxing it up. ~_^

    miss.andrist@screaming-banshee.com

  141. Imaginary April 19, 2010 at 7:51 AM #

    Wow this is exciting. I hope someone comments soon other than me. This is the first time I’ve read every single comment here. Whoo!

  142. wiggles April 19, 2010 at 9:56 AM #

    polly
    April 19, 2010 at 12:45 AM

    Oh and what has any of what Miss Andrist said got to do with racism in women’s organisations?

    The part where she mentioned the NAACP and the gray panthers in relation to trans people or others who don’t fit so neatly on the woman side of the gender binary seemed to be a reference to some old familiar arguments about intersectionality.
    Not to talk about her like she’s not in the room or anything.

  143. polly April 19, 2010 at 12:50 PM #

    I just really, really want to know what’s up with Ben Affleck.

    • Nine Deuce April 19, 2010 at 12:54 PM #

      I think what’s up with Ben Affleck is that he’s an asshole from Boston, for which I hear there’s no cure.

  144. polly April 19, 2010 at 12:51 PM #

    Oh and I don’t have PTSD, I’m just vicious.

  145. Imaginary April 20, 2010 at 11:12 AM #

    Wait, what’s wrong with Ben Ass-lick? I mean, he’s a dick, but I like hearing bad shit about MALE celebrities for a change.

  146. joy April 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM #

    “I don’t have PTSD, I’m just vicious.”

    That is totally valid.

    Also I cracked up, and raised my fist into the air.

  147. m Andrea May 4, 2010 at 2:53 AM #

    They’re socially indoctrinated to hate women, not biologically wired.

    TESTOSTERONE does indeed have some predictable effects on the human body… Decreases impulse control, increases aggression (cut the nuts off a pig and see how docile it gets if you don’t believe me), increases libido, and decreases the ability to connect indirectly-related concepts. Plus most men have womb-envy and therefore continually attempt to control a woman’s reproductive ability. So yes, delusional funfeminists, men’s hatred of women is indeed hardwired.

  148. m Andrea May 4, 2010 at 3:02 AM #

    So I suspect NOW is probably just as bad, or possibly worse, in the sense that a feminist organization copping to racial equity is a lot more insidious than the NAACP’s belligerent resistance to acknowledging the existence of sexism and the oppression of black women by black men.

    The argument you are using is: gentle oppression is worse than belligerent oppression.

  149. joy May 4, 2010 at 6:35 PM #

    Hi, mAndrea. Please don’t call me a delusional funfeminist.

    I bet Miss Andrist will say the same about herself.

  150. polly May 5, 2010 at 1:02 PM #

    What’s wrong with Ben Affleck? Apart from he can’t act? Well he made TWO films (Chasing Amy and the hilarious Gigli) in which he was presented as a cure for lesbianism (as opposed to the cause of it if any heterosexual women who’ve ever been within a hundred yards of him had any sense). That COULD just be coincidence, but now we discover he thinks hanging lesbians from a meathook is uproariously funny. Gosh he does seem a bit lesbophobic to me.

    There’s probably lots of other stuff as well, but that’s my beef with him.

  151. bluecat May 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM #

    TESTOSTERONE does indeed have some predictable effects on the human body…

    Ah, but testosterone production isn’t unique to men. While a woman’s body produces less of it, we’re more sensitive to it. If this wasn’t the case, men would statistically have a higher sex drive and this simply isn’t true. I don’t think it’s been conclusively proven that there is a link between male aggression and testosterone, but please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

    I know of at least one study concerning the population of a men’s prison that produced some interesting data: a preponderance of inmates with abnormally low levels of testosterone was discovered. Please understand that I’m not attempting to refute your argument that there is a causal relationship between testosterone and aggression, but rather that there is no definitive link between stereotypical male behavior, e.g. increased aggression, and testosterone.

  152. joy May 6, 2010 at 12:02 PM #

    I’m still smarting over the “delusional funfeminism” thing.

    I have a weapon. I have my PTSD. I hate men. What do I need to do, actually snap and kill someone?

    No, honestly, I’m not that (has this been determined to be a bad word? I don’t recall, and please know I don’t think of it as a slur) butthurt about it, but seriously. Where do we draw the lines between us as feminists, and why?

  153. joy May 6, 2010 at 12:06 PM #

    Oh, and upon further reflection, a clarification —

    That wasn’t a passive-aggressive barb directed at you, mAndrea, although I do wonder why you’d use “funfeminist” to describe the women who have been recently talking about using firepower as a preemptive rape deterrent.

    I’m happy to answer my own question, about where I personally draw the line in the sand, if asked. Am also curious to see where other people’s lines are.

  154. polly May 6, 2010 at 1:38 PM #

    I’m going to have to post this link again aren’t I.

    http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091208/full/news.2009.1131.html

    There is no proven link between testosterone and aggression in humans. Any apparent link is due to a placebo effect.

  155. isme May 6, 2010 at 4:15 PM #

    Not to mention that, regardless of testosterone, people are supposed to be able to think for themselves and decide whether or not to act like a human being.

  156. Rian May 6, 2010 at 5:14 PM #

    The link (correlation) is not a simple matter of more testosterone = more aggression.

    That said, men with unusually low testosterone (either because of castration or medical problems) experience physiological and psychological consequences, and it’s likely that people with excessive testosterone experience physiological and psychological consequences as well — and those may include the effects mentioned by mAndrea.

    Yet being aggressive and having a high libido are traits that are prized in men (by men). Consequently, men are pressured to have higher testosterone levels, and, increasingly, to use hormonal replacement injections/patches to achieve this, which will tend to increase the number of men with too much testosterone.

    In short, testosterone is not the problem; the unceasing worship of a toxic construct of masculinity is.

  157. wiggles May 7, 2010 at 10:58 AM #

    bluecat
    May 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM

    Ah, but testosterone production isn’t unique to men. While a woman’s body produces less of it, we’re more sensitive to it. If this wasn’t the case, men would statistically have a higher sex drive and this simply isn’t true.

    Doesn’t this imply that testosterone is wholly responsible for sex drive? I’m pretty sure there are some other chemicals and factors involved.

    And actually I’m the “delusional funfeminist” who said “[men are] socially indoctrinated to hate women, not biologically wired.”
    See: April 12, 2010 at 3:08 PM

    I’m standing by it. I’m such a tool of the P, I hold men responsible for their choices and behavior. I don’t believe in that “my nads made me do it” cop-out.

  158. joy May 7, 2010 at 10:17 PM #

    “I’m such a tool of the P, I hold men responsible for their choices and behavior. I don’t believe in that ‘my nads made me do it’ cop-out.”

    Amen, wiggles, that kind of shit lets guys off the hook way too easily — and opens the door for some wackaloon shit to to be said about women as well.

    Look at the “pregnancy brain” debate, referenced elsewhere. “My hormones made me do it!” is not a really sound bucket in which to carry one’s water.

    If it is true, it seems like a no-win situation. Unless you just kill all of them. And that’s not really a win either, because they could just as easily kill all of us. Not that they don’t already try.

    At least this way … well, it’s not like any of us are going to see the change we want to see in our lifetimes, but … maybe someday.

    That line of thought doesn’t make me delusional — it keeps me from committing suicide, or snapping and killing someone else (a man, or multiple men, and random men at that).

    We needn’t have radfem wars, we should all just be separatists — because whether it’s biological or cultural, we can agree that men are a threat and that we need to avoid them for our own health, sanity, and safety.

  159. bluecat May 10, 2010 at 6:38 PM #

    Doesn’t this imply that testosterone is wholly responsible for sex drive? I’m pretty sure there are some other chemicals and factors involved.

    Not wholly, from a theoretical standpoint, but primarily. The connection between hormones and libido has yet to be be firmly established in women (surprise, surprise), but there is presently enough evidence to suggest that testosterone is chiefly responsible. We’ve learned recently that birth control pills can lower libido in women and the current thinking is that this is due to a diminished amount of free and available testosterone in the bloodstream. We also know that testosterone levels decline sharply with menopause and many postmenopausal women do suffer from diminished sexual interest. From what I’ve read, estrogen replacement therapy doesn’t seem to affect libido while some forms of testosterone replacement therapy can have a dramatic impact on female sex drive.

    There are psychological factors as well, but the same holds true for men. Male libido is more resistant to stress, however. (I’m of the opinion that this is due to men’s learned ability to detach from their emotions. Sex is one of the few socially sanctioned coping mechanisms for men, therefore they develop an unhealthy reliance on it for purposes of emotional catharsis.)

    And actually I’m the “delusional funfeminist” who said “[men are] socially indoctrinated to hate women, not biologically wired.”

    That’s funny, in my experience “funfeminists” are more likely to write a blank check to guys for bad behavior. Boys Will Be Boys, etc. I thought rad fems were fervently anti-gender binary theory.

    If I may address the decreased aggression/neutering thing for a moment…I’d just like to point out that spay surgery has the same effect on female animals. My kitties’ vet and multiple cat people assure me that spaying my intensely competitive, aggressive, dominant female kitten will totally chillax her. (The resident older, and much harassed, cat can’t wait!)

  160. joy May 10, 2010 at 7:05 PM #

    Also —

    Thanks, ND, for providing a safe space for radicals.

    I was recently involved in what seemed like a no-brain “worthiness-of-affirmative-action”/”existence-of-sexism”/”what-about-the-menz” debate over on Zuska’s blog; Zuska is great, but several of her commenters actually told other women to shut up, be nicer, and “catch flies with honey.”
    I won’t even bother repeating what the trolls had to say, although it boiled down to “stop talking, you attention-whores, la la la, I can’t heeear youuu … victim-blaming, blahblahblah.”

    While some people like to say you’re “eliminating debate” by excluding unsubstantial discourse, I for one am pleased that you don’t let shit like that fly over here.

  161. smokeysizzlebar May 19, 2010 at 2:47 PM #

    This gentleman sounds transgressive. So intense, so Satanic.

  162. joy July 15, 2010 at 10:06 PM #

    PS: “…Honestly? I’m so convinced of the value of this that I have every intention of buying an old school bus and RV’ing it.”

    Miss Andrist, there is a community of hipsters –in Brooklyn– who have done this. Except for “artists”, not for women.

    So it’s clear that we could easily do this for women. Let’s get crackin’. Totally serious.

  163. Violets September 27, 2010 at 11:39 PM #

    I’ve been lurking on this blog all day and I must say that this is yet another great post! I myself dated an older man for two years(I was 19, he was 32) and I must say that while at the time I was sort of “in awe” of him at the time, I frankly realize now what a loser he is! I mean, he’s not a bad guy but he is rather pathetic. He says he likes dating young girls because they are more “open minded”…Meaning naive and less likely to pressure him into getting his shit together like an older woman would! He also has self esteem issues and looking back he really undermined my confidence in order to make himself feel better. I used to think it was sort of cute when I saw young women and older men together, but now I just think it is pathetic and frankly downright unfair to older women who have more life experience and are less selfish, that want a nice life for themselves. I really think that for the most part men that date younger women are selfish and often leave their wives for these young girls( who are naive and don’t give a shit about the other woman.) Men that date younger women initially are doing it because of the ATTRACTION factor. I don’t think it has that much to do with chemistry.

    I’m gonna go off on a rant here that may offend a lot of people because it is basically racist, but I feel the need to delineate the word “chemistry” in relation to male/female relationships. Oftentimes, the term “chemistry” should be replaced by “infatuation” when attempt to describe what makes certain relationships tick. Take, for example, “chemistry” that might be inherant between an older man and a younger women. The young woman is impressed by his level of life experience, “maturity” and rugged good looks that (may)come with age. The older man’s interest in piqued by the girl’s fresh appearance, naivety, liveliness(childish vigor), vulnerability and makes it known that he is “impressed” by her maturity for a girl her age. She is an escape from the woeful constraints that older males experience, he is taken with the whole package. And, because there are many people in this world, he just so happens to eventually find someone that he not only can relate to on some level but is also infatuated with because she fits the bill of whatever fantasy female he is questing for. The girl is naive, falls for him and loves the attention she gets from him. She feels desired, as does he. But it’s not about love, folks!

    Wait, I was gonna say something racist right…? Anyone heard of “yellow fever”? Oh, I’m gonna get it…Yes, before ya start hatin’, I AM a white female. I don’t hate Asian women, I have Asian friends. BUT…Living in a city with a high Asian population, I have seen my fair share of (primarily) white male, asian female couples. Now, I am not against mixed race couples…! However, I cannot tell you how many times I have seen these doofy white males proclaiming the superiority of asian women to all other women(especially white), how feminine they are compared to white women, how awesome their culture is, how they look flawless as they age while white women look old by the time they’re 25, how exotic they are compared to plain jane white women. Now, some of this may be technically true, I suppose(if you’re a douche). Yet if confronted about being shallow, he will say that he is with his Asian girlfriend because of the “chemistry” they have, when it mainly is based on infatuation. These men are so into Asian girls that they will try to get jobs teaching English in Asian countries or getting a job in Japan town. They’re not that interested in getting to know her, they want to have the whole idealist package. Both seem exotic to one another, she fits his fantasy, he makes her feel desired. And, they happen to get along. But what about all the other awesome girls that he snubs because they don’t fit the package? And what about his girlfriend? What if she wasn’t Asian? Or White? Or African American? Or blonde… Or big-boobied…. Or short, younger, older, tall, skinny, fat…

    Of course, I’m white and don’t deserve to complain about stuff like this. But the idea is not to lament the unfairness of being a white female. Instead, it is to illustrate a point by using an experience of my own as a conduit(while venting in anger at being snubbed by men who otherwise really were into me because I don’t “do it” for them). And sorry if I sound childish and that my post is poorly composed! Men live in fantasy land, they are incredibly shallow and I don’t think they even know how to NOT objectify women.

    Forgive me if I sound racist and jealous!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 490 other followers