Showing posts with label twisty faster is fucking insane. Show all posts
Showing posts with label twisty faster is fucking insane. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
TWIFI: Porn Comments!
Sometimes I feel bad doing the Twisty posts, because she's not much of a real-life threat, is she? The effects of sexism can be felt in daily life; the effects of Internet radical feminism seem rather safely contained to a little circle of crazy-person blogs. I feel like I'm arguing with flat-Earth believers: yes, they're wrong, and if anyone listened to them it would be very dangerous, but they're not doing any harm, sheesh.
But hey, I'm not exactly dictating public policy either, am I? So I might as well have fun. And oh is there fun to be had. Let's read the comments on the porn post.
I’m so sick of (dudes using) Danish people as the measuring stick of “healthy “progressive” European freedom. Yes, they can smoke do heroin and look at prostituted women in red-lit windows drunk on Guiness after smoking expensive hash in a cafe. Therefore they know everything there is to know about life? Durr.
Ladies and gentlemen, Denmark.
"And their wooden shoes and their dikes and their stupid little windmills too. Just because they have tulips and Gouda they think they're soooo special, those Danish people."
When people argue that sexology research is actually kind of important, Twisty replies:
I remain unmoved by this romanticized mystification — it’s so “wondrous” and “complex” — to which sex is constantly subjected. Whatever bangs your box, of course, but to me orgasms lack the nuance and sophistication of other human pursuits (such as playing the autoharp, or reading to the sick) and so fall a bit short when you’re talking about high moral purpose.
Well that's nice for you. But you know what? I don't play the autoharp, but I would never tell anyone else not to, or talk as if autoharp mastery was some sort of forbidden knowledge. How about you devote yourself to autoharping, and I devote myself to the study and pursuit of sex, and we live happily ever after?
Don't tell me "whatever bangs your box" and then tell me that my form of box-banging is rape and won't exist when you get your way.
Alas, this is why I prefer to hold up women’s intuition, which is actually a rational scientific tool of reasoning, over dude science any day. That doesn’t mean science is bad, it means that woman’s intuition is often far superior.
I have asthma. It's not the worst, it only comes up occasionally if I breathe really nasty dust, but when I get an attack it doesn't go away on its own. In any time or place that didn't have albuterol (or at least epinephrine), I would never have made it to adulthood. And albuterol, I am led to believe, was not developed through intuition and the deep wisdom if the Earth. It was made in a lab, by scientists, and it's the reason I haven't painfully choked to death.
So if it's all the same to you, I don't want to assign intuition to women and science to men, because science is really really useful and women contribute to it. I mean, am I really the one on the side of sexism here? You're the one telling me science is some dude thing and that ladies should just stick to having feelings! Christ!
I hate how ‘free speech’ is used to silence the most undebatable research and arguments. That phrase has no meaning or value. It’s ridiculous and is used in every rebuttal to complaints against sexism. ‘free speech’ is starting to sound more like an insult every time it’s used.
Okay, you know that thing you just said? How other people are able to see it and you will face no adverse legal consequences for saying it--probably no adverse consequences at all? That's your meaning and value, dumbass.
A man can’t gag, strike, humiliate, abuse, rape and physically punish a woman legally (ok…he can’t nominally), but if he records it and calls it ‘porn’ suddenly he can. What’s the difference?
Oh come on, would you people take the tiniest effort to learn what porn actually is? I have to shop around to get good humiliating and physical punishing. (Which, of course, I enjoy not because I hate the actress but because I assume she's having as much fun with those things as I do.) Most porn just has fucking. And fucking, I hate to tell you, is pretty much legal in all 50 states and Denmark.
Never in my life have I known a woman to seek out porn to get her through a lonely Saturday night.
Well hi. My name is Holly. You know me now. Stop making sweeping assumptions about my gender.
They like watching it because it degrades and harms women, and women don’t like it. Else porn would be full of women doing things that delight us sexually, none of which would include being choked by phalluses, receiving ejaculate on the face, being anally raped, or any of the other myriad “harmless” porn activities the dudes so frantically defend.
Well hi. My name is Holly. I delight in these things. Stop making sweeping assumptions about my gender. (Actually I have trouble with the "choked by phalluses" part because I have a really tricky gag reflex, but I love sucking cock as long as it's not a choking thing, so I'm, like... a human being with preferences and quirks that you can't know just by looking, how 'bout that.)
If gang rape can be a quotidian scenario in porn, how long until children, animals and murder become the new lows to meet the insatiable desires of the masturbating consumer?
Oh Nonsensical Slippery Slope, my old friend. "If we allow Dr. Pepper at soda fountains, how long until they start serving human blood?"
But you want someone to prove they have the right to dictate “meaningful consent” so okay let’s go there. My definition of meaningful consent is consent without the presence of socialized brainwashing since birth.
Well great, now no one can consent to anything ever. Big help there.
This shit is like Kevin Bacon; it takes less than seven steps from any topic to explaining why women can't consent to sex. Ugh. Now I remember the real reason I feel bad after I write these posts.
But hey, I'm not exactly dictating public policy either, am I? So I might as well have fun. And oh is there fun to be had. Let's read the comments on the porn post.
I’m so sick of (dudes using) Danish people as the measuring stick of “healthy “progressive” European freedom. Yes, they can smoke do heroin and look at prostituted women in red-lit windows drunk on Guiness after smoking expensive hash in a cafe. Therefore they know everything there is to know about life? Durr.
Ladies and gentlemen, Denmark.
"And their wooden shoes and their dikes and their stupid little windmills too. Just because they have tulips and Gouda they think they're soooo special, those Danish people."
When people argue that sexology research is actually kind of important, Twisty replies:
I remain unmoved by this romanticized mystification — it’s so “wondrous” and “complex” — to which sex is constantly subjected. Whatever bangs your box, of course, but to me orgasms lack the nuance and sophistication of other human pursuits (such as playing the autoharp, or reading to the sick) and so fall a bit short when you’re talking about high moral purpose.
Well that's nice for you. But you know what? I don't play the autoharp, but I would never tell anyone else not to, or talk as if autoharp mastery was some sort of forbidden knowledge. How about you devote yourself to autoharping, and I devote myself to the study and pursuit of sex, and we live happily ever after?
Don't tell me "whatever bangs your box" and then tell me that my form of box-banging is rape and won't exist when you get your way.
Alas, this is why I prefer to hold up women’s intuition, which is actually a rational scientific tool of reasoning, over dude science any day. That doesn’t mean science is bad, it means that woman’s intuition is often far superior.
I have asthma. It's not the worst, it only comes up occasionally if I breathe really nasty dust, but when I get an attack it doesn't go away on its own. In any time or place that didn't have albuterol (or at least epinephrine), I would never have made it to adulthood. And albuterol, I am led to believe, was not developed through intuition and the deep wisdom if the Earth. It was made in a lab, by scientists, and it's the reason I haven't painfully choked to death.
So if it's all the same to you, I don't want to assign intuition to women and science to men, because science is really really useful and women contribute to it. I mean, am I really the one on the side of sexism here? You're the one telling me science is some dude thing and that ladies should just stick to having feelings! Christ!
I hate how ‘free speech’ is used to silence the most undebatable research and arguments. That phrase has no meaning or value. It’s ridiculous and is used in every rebuttal to complaints against sexism. ‘free speech’ is starting to sound more like an insult every time it’s used.
Okay, you know that thing you just said? How other people are able to see it and you will face no adverse legal consequences for saying it--probably no adverse consequences at all? That's your meaning and value, dumbass.
A man can’t gag, strike, humiliate, abuse, rape and physically punish a woman legally (ok…he can’t nominally), but if he records it and calls it ‘porn’ suddenly he can. What’s the difference?
Oh come on, would you people take the tiniest effort to learn what porn actually is? I have to shop around to get good humiliating and physical punishing. (Which, of course, I enjoy not because I hate the actress but because I assume she's having as much fun with those things as I do.) Most porn just has fucking. And fucking, I hate to tell you, is pretty much legal in all 50 states and Denmark.
Never in my life have I known a woman to seek out porn to get her through a lonely Saturday night.
Well hi. My name is Holly. You know me now. Stop making sweeping assumptions about my gender.
They like watching it because it degrades and harms women, and women don’t like it. Else porn would be full of women doing things that delight us sexually, none of which would include being choked by phalluses, receiving ejaculate on the face, being anally raped, or any of the other myriad “harmless” porn activities the dudes so frantically defend.
Well hi. My name is Holly. I delight in these things. Stop making sweeping assumptions about my gender. (Actually I have trouble with the "choked by phalluses" part because I have a really tricky gag reflex, but I love sucking cock as long as it's not a choking thing, so I'm, like... a human being with preferences and quirks that you can't know just by looking, how 'bout that.)
If gang rape can be a quotidian scenario in porn, how long until children, animals and murder become the new lows to meet the insatiable desires of the masturbating consumer?
Oh Nonsensical Slippery Slope, my old friend. "If we allow Dr. Pepper at soda fountains, how long until they start serving human blood?"
But you want someone to prove they have the right to dictate “meaningful consent” so okay let’s go there. My definition of meaningful consent is consent without the presence of socialized brainwashing since birth.
Well great, now no one can consent to anything ever. Big help there.
This shit is like Kevin Bacon; it takes less than seven steps from any topic to explaining why women can't consent to sex. Ugh. Now I remember the real reason I feel bad after I write these posts.
TFIFI: Porn!
To quickly get the "porn vs. erotica" argument out of the way, before we even start: I have never heard any definition of "erotica" that didn't translate to "the porn that I happen to like." (Or worse, soft fuzzy wuzzy vaseline-lens porn that's all about cunnilingus and spooning. Because rough sex is evil and all women hate it.)
So, in a post that is apparently rocking the Internet or whatevers, Twisty Faster vs. Porn. Oh, and also science, a little bit.
The setup: a scienceblogger proposes a mostly-tongue-in-cheek "experiment" in which he watches a shit-ton of porn, then reports whether his view of women has changed. Not really scientific, but as a silly little blog-project, seems unobjectionable to me--he also discusses a lot of more real research on the effects of porn.
Hahaha! An experiment where you have to watch tons of porn! That’s a funny joke! It reminds me of real sexology experiments. Like the ones where subjects are naked and “invasive probes and electrodes” are inserted into their vaginas. Those researchers are, of course, totally objective professionals when it comes to getting grant money to make porn right in their own labs.
It would be better to never study what goes on inside vaginas, and leave them as enigmatic, untouchable mysteries forever. To do otherwise is undoubtedly both sexual and wrong.
Also, everyone doing vagina research must be a straight man, because science is like totally a dude thing, right?
You know, the usual. Pornography is “free speech.” Pornography is only harmful to the user when he is a deviant perv to begin with. Male aggression is associated with buttloads of porn use only in a select few previously-messed-up douchebags. ‘Normal’ porn consumers, i.e. ‘most’ men (fully 98% of all men, apparently, and 80% of all women), are happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and brimming with contentment. It’s the kook-and-psychopath minority out there who get all compulsive on your ass, or who act out all rapey, giving well-adjusted exploiters a bad name.
Well... yeah. Exactly. Repeating a valid argument in a snotty voice hasn't counted as a counterargument since fifth grade.
(What I did above was a penetratingly revealing rephrasing, okay? Sssh.)
Goldman cites no research on the effects of pornography on the pornulated women themselves, or of porn culture on women’s status within the sexbot continuum.
This is the great paradox of Twisty Faster: the insistence that women should never be viewed as sexbots, combined with continual annoyance that so many dumb sluts go around being sexbots.
What if--I'm just blue-skyin' here--there was a woman who had been photographed naked but was not a sexbot? What if this woman liked to read old science fiction, grew tomatoes on her balcony, had been photographed naked, was afraid of sharks, and loved the smell of the earth after a summer rain? Is calling her a "pornulated sexbot" really an insult to our culture--or to her?
Second question: does updating "been photographed naked" to "been photographed covered in welts and tears with one man's cock in her ass and another's fingers in her cunt" change a goddamn thing above?
In fact, he seems to suggest that there are but two possible stances on porn. You’re either for it, or you’re for banning it. He omits to consider other, more elegant schemes. Such as the solution we advocate here on Savage Death Island, wherein pornography is made, not illegal, but obsolete, via elimination of the sex class, which may be accomplished by feminist revolt. There is a difference between banning porn and eradicating the demand for porn, a delicate nuance that no dude ever seems able to contemplate.
Yes. The difference is that the former is possible but ill-advised, and the latter is completely fucking impossible. Because the desire for porn is, essentially, the desire to masturbate. I don't get off if I don't fantasize. Why is borrowing someone else's fantasies different? Certainly porn can be unethically produced and often is, but that's not a fundamental problem--the concept of filming consenting adults fucking and then jerking off to the film seems dandy to me.
Anyway, what the hell kind of revolt is this going to be where people won't masturbate anymore? I know, I know, that's twisting the argument, after the revolution people will masturbate strictly to thoughts of cuddles and frank emotional discussions. (Wait... is cuddling exploitative? Like if the woman is only a cuddle object to you? Problematic.) Or while facing a blank wall.
Like all men who claim to have a bunch of sex-poz feminist BFFs and who consider that access to porn is guaranteed under the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women,
"Claim to?" What am I, chopped liver? Oh, that's right, I'm the wrong sort of woman, thus removing my voice and vote is best for society. FEMINISM!
Hey, another question: what about gay porn? Like, with two dudes? Would two-dudes porn be okay? I can usually get off to that.
And a serious question: is it the specific porn actress that we're worried about being used, or the general idea of women? Because if it's the specific actress, the answer is to only watch ethically made porn where you can be reasonably sure that everyone involved is sober and giving informed consent and not paying off a pimp or something. (Yes, this exists. I think.) And if it's the latter, I feel like Twisty is confusing sexual attraction with use. As long as sex isn't the only way someone interacts with femininity, I frankly enjoy it when it's one of the ways.
Goldman doesn’t appear to grasp that patriarchy — a social order predicated on the oppression of women as a sex class — is actually real, and that as such, ours is a culture of domination wherein the ‘art form’ known as pornography is the graphic representation of rape.
No. It's the graphic representation of sex. There's so much footage of so many different kinds of sex out there in Pornland, that saying "all porn is rape" is equivalent to saying "all sex is rape." At which point there is no such thing as sex, at which point we are no longer on Earth-1218.
There's some back-and-forthing about the comments to someone else's blog that I'm going to skip over because at some point it's just not worth it to metametametametablog everything, but what Twisty considers the money quote is:
Paying for a luxury item with such an immense human cost is deplorable. No porn is worth it, and I don’t think people should be free to buy something that causes the rape of women. What is crazy is that the rape of a woman can become speech if someone takes a picture.
But how does the sex life of a woman become rape if someone takes a picture?
Look. I'm not going to wear myself out defending Max Hardcore and Joe Francis here. Sectors of the porn industry--I'm not sure how dominant those sectors are, but they're not small--are sleazy as fuck and treat women like shit. (There are also producers like NoFauxxx and Pink & White that maintain excellent reputations for operating in above-board and decent fashion.) But let's talk about the very concept of porn here, not the execution. I'm naked right now, as I type this, and I'm kind of playing with a dildo, just idly. (My writing process is very complex.) If I take a picture right now and sell it, am I--necessarily, intrinsically, 100% of the time--getting raped?
And don't tell me that isn't porn, unless you want to explain exactly where the line is. If the answer is "it's porn when it's rape!" that would actually be awesome, because then we can still have lots of videos of people fucking! Whee, we all agree now, let's go home.
Comments next! Oh I do love the comments.
POSTSCRIPT: After I wrote this, I went and jerked off to some porn. (Don't worry, I only use organic free-range artisanal porn.) I'm not trying to be difficult or whatever by mentioning this, I just think it's funny. And now I'm much more relaxed. Ahhh.
So, in a post that is apparently rocking the Internet or whatevers, Twisty Faster vs. Porn. Oh, and also science, a little bit.
The setup: a scienceblogger proposes a mostly-tongue-in-cheek "experiment" in which he watches a shit-ton of porn, then reports whether his view of women has changed. Not really scientific, but as a silly little blog-project, seems unobjectionable to me--he also discusses a lot of more real research on the effects of porn.
Hahaha! An experiment where you have to watch tons of porn! That’s a funny joke! It reminds me of real sexology experiments. Like the ones where subjects are naked and “invasive probes and electrodes” are inserted into their vaginas. Those researchers are, of course, totally objective professionals when it comes to getting grant money to make porn right in their own labs.
It would be better to never study what goes on inside vaginas, and leave them as enigmatic, untouchable mysteries forever. To do otherwise is undoubtedly both sexual and wrong.
Also, everyone doing vagina research must be a straight man, because science is like totally a dude thing, right?
You know, the usual. Pornography is “free speech.” Pornography is only harmful to the user when he is a deviant perv to begin with. Male aggression is associated with buttloads of porn use only in a select few previously-messed-up douchebags. ‘Normal’ porn consumers, i.e. ‘most’ men (fully 98% of all men, apparently, and 80% of all women), are happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and brimming with contentment. It’s the kook-and-psychopath minority out there who get all compulsive on your ass, or who act out all rapey, giving well-adjusted exploiters a bad name.
Well... yeah. Exactly. Repeating a valid argument in a snotty voice hasn't counted as a counterargument since fifth grade.
(What I did above was a penetratingly revealing rephrasing, okay? Sssh.)
Goldman cites no research on the effects of pornography on the pornulated women themselves, or of porn culture on women’s status within the sexbot continuum.
This is the great paradox of Twisty Faster: the insistence that women should never be viewed as sexbots, combined with continual annoyance that so many dumb sluts go around being sexbots.
What if--I'm just blue-skyin' here--there was a woman who had been photographed naked but was not a sexbot? What if this woman liked to read old science fiction, grew tomatoes on her balcony, had been photographed naked, was afraid of sharks, and loved the smell of the earth after a summer rain? Is calling her a "pornulated sexbot" really an insult to our culture--or to her?
Second question: does updating "been photographed naked" to "been photographed covered in welts and tears with one man's cock in her ass and another's fingers in her cunt" change a goddamn thing above?
In fact, he seems to suggest that there are but two possible stances on porn. You’re either for it, or you’re for banning it. He omits to consider other, more elegant schemes. Such as the solution we advocate here on Savage Death Island, wherein pornography is made, not illegal, but obsolete, via elimination of the sex class, which may be accomplished by feminist revolt. There is a difference between banning porn and eradicating the demand for porn, a delicate nuance that no dude ever seems able to contemplate.
Yes. The difference is that the former is possible but ill-advised, and the latter is completely fucking impossible. Because the desire for porn is, essentially, the desire to masturbate. I don't get off if I don't fantasize. Why is borrowing someone else's fantasies different? Certainly porn can be unethically produced and often is, but that's not a fundamental problem--the concept of filming consenting adults fucking and then jerking off to the film seems dandy to me.
Anyway, what the hell kind of revolt is this going to be where people won't masturbate anymore? I know, I know, that's twisting the argument, after the revolution people will masturbate strictly to thoughts of cuddles and frank emotional discussions. (Wait... is cuddling exploitative? Like if the woman is only a cuddle object to you? Problematic.) Or while facing a blank wall.
Like all men who claim to have a bunch of sex-poz feminist BFFs and who consider that access to porn is guaranteed under the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women,
"Claim to?" What am I, chopped liver? Oh, that's right, I'm the wrong sort of woman, thus removing my voice and vote is best for society. FEMINISM!
Hey, another question: what about gay porn? Like, with two dudes? Would two-dudes porn be okay? I can usually get off to that.
And a serious question: is it the specific porn actress that we're worried about being used, or the general idea of women? Because if it's the specific actress, the answer is to only watch ethically made porn where you can be reasonably sure that everyone involved is sober and giving informed consent and not paying off a pimp or something. (Yes, this exists. I think.) And if it's the latter, I feel like Twisty is confusing sexual attraction with use. As long as sex isn't the only way someone interacts with femininity, I frankly enjoy it when it's one of the ways.
Goldman doesn’t appear to grasp that patriarchy — a social order predicated on the oppression of women as a sex class — is actually real, and that as such, ours is a culture of domination wherein the ‘art form’ known as pornography is the graphic representation of rape.
No. It's the graphic representation of sex. There's so much footage of so many different kinds of sex out there in Pornland, that saying "all porn is rape" is equivalent to saying "all sex is rape." At which point there is no such thing as sex, at which point we are no longer on Earth-1218.
There's some back-and-forthing about the comments to someone else's blog that I'm going to skip over because at some point it's just not worth it to metametametametablog everything, but what Twisty considers the money quote is:
Paying for a luxury item with such an immense human cost is deplorable. No porn is worth it, and I don’t think people should be free to buy something that causes the rape of women. What is crazy is that the rape of a woman can become speech if someone takes a picture.
But how does the sex life of a woman become rape if someone takes a picture?
Look. I'm not going to wear myself out defending Max Hardcore and Joe Francis here. Sectors of the porn industry--I'm not sure how dominant those sectors are, but they're not small--are sleazy as fuck and treat women like shit. (There are also producers like NoFauxxx and Pink & White that maintain excellent reputations for operating in above-board and decent fashion.) But let's talk about the very concept of porn here, not the execution. I'm naked right now, as I type this, and I'm kind of playing with a dildo, just idly. (My writing process is very complex.) If I take a picture right now and sell it, am I--necessarily, intrinsically, 100% of the time--getting raped?
And don't tell me that isn't porn, unless you want to explain exactly where the line is. If the answer is "it's porn when it's rape!" that would actually be awesome, because then we can still have lots of videos of people fucking! Whee, we all agree now, let's go home.
Comments next! Oh I do love the comments.
POSTSCRIPT: After I wrote this, I went and jerked off to some porn. (Don't worry, I only use organic free-range artisanal porn.) I'm not trying to be difficult or whatever by mentioning this, I just think it's funny. And now I'm much more relaxed. Ahhh.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Twisty Faster speaks out in favor of hijab!
I haven't done a TFIFI in a long time, huh? I got requests. I find critiquing Twisty is a little more difficult than going after PUAs and evo-psych weirdos and Cosmo, because:
a) She doesn't post that often, and a lot of her posts are personal-life fluff
b) Her writing style is terse and densely "ironic", so it's hard to pull a lot of good quotes and sometimes hard to pin down when she's being serious
c) I get creepy enemy-of-my-enemy comments and emails about "yeah, those fucking feminists should get back in the kitchen, lol"
But I'm in a vicious mood today, and what entertainment Twisty's posts lack, her commenters provide amply.
Okay, so everyone who reads blogs knows about Boobquake, right? Here's the post that started it, if you aren't up to speed. And here's Twisty's totally pro-woman response. Needless to say the TL;DR is "sluts should cover their nasty tits!" FEMINISM!
McCreight was surprised when about 47.876 million people joined her boob joke on Facebook, largely in the shape of helpful dudes offering to photograph the event.
No, largely in the form of women, only we don't count them because they're disobedient hussies and thus not invited to the Real Women party.
We’ve all said stupid things on the Internet. But when you say stupid things about encouraging women to protest oppression by capitulating to Dude Nation’s fondest desire [...] all I can say is, ewww.
Dude Nation is my peeps, Twisty. Woman-attracted dudes are my friends, my family, my neighbors, my coworkers, and let's not forget my freakin' bread and butter. What's wrong with making them happy? I won't prioritize their happiness over my happiness, much less my dignity or security, but if I'm getting titsy for my own reasons and they happen to enjoy it, that's a win-win situation right there.
(Oh lord. I think I'm writing like her. Ow.)
And that's about it for Twisty. She doesn't like it because men might like it, and Twisty would eat her shoes if she heard men liked it when women don't eat shoes. At any rate she certainly seems to agree with Islamic clerics about the need for modesty--they claim it's about the men too, you know--and the horror of sluts. Whether she's also concerned about earthquakes is not specifically addressed in the post.
As always in these posts, the real fun is the scary-insane fucknuts who comment on Twisty's blog. (Note that because of the popularity of Boobquake, there were more normal humans than usual commenting, but the fucknuts still ran the show.)
OMG you guys, wait! We’re totally as bad as the woman-haters whom we profess to oppose. By not equally bestowing the credentials of “good feminism” on all women and their perfectly valid choices, we are committing an atrocity against womankind. Woe, this feminism is a false idol of puritan sexy-lady-hating!
Well... yeah. Exactly. Well said, fucknut.
I realize I am a humorless feminist, but is it wise to antagonize a part of the world we are perched on the brink of war with? A place where women can be executed for showing their ankles or beheaded for having an affair? I’m wondering how the Muslim world will respond to western women mocking their religion and wagging a few hundred thousand boobs at them? I understand the urge to humiliate this cleric, but diplomacy is a delicate thing.
Holy shit, I think they really are Feminists for Hijab. I thought I was joking. Twisty called the Boobquake "capitulation," but it looks like her commenters could teach her a thing or two about capitulating.
[Normal human], you show a real lack of imagination if you think *this* is a hostile environment. Here’s a scientific experiment for you: start a feminist blog, and then watch as the hostile trolls, threatening emails, and vilification roll in. That would be a step up in hostility. Then maybe you could join a male-dominated profession and see what that’s like. It can get a whole lot worse from there.
Check and check on your scientific experiment. And as you all know I'm widely threatened and vilified. Of course this isn't really a feminist blog because I sometimes forget to hate and exclude male sexuality, and EMS isn't really male-dominated because... uh... maybe they threatened and vilified me and I didn't notice? I can be a little dense.
Sexism is a problem. Men are just people who are sometimes very sexist and sometimes not very. And the world isn't that against you, ya big baby. That's the difference between me and the Twistyfans in a nutshell.
I’ve yet to see some Dude earnestly talking a 40+ year old woman into being okay enough with her body to show her tits.
Then buddy, you haven't been to some of the parties I've been to.
Whether proposed earnestly or as a joke, I’m not a fan of seeing fashions that subjugate and objectify women being promoted as a way to reclaim female power against male oppression.
I'm not a fan of fashions that subjugate and objectify! (Actually I am, but ssh, it's hard enough explaining normal sex to these people.) But we're talking about tank tops here. Tank tops are comfy and practical. If casual clothes with good airflow and freedom of movement are "subjugating," shit, I wish they'd let me subjugate myself at work.
Perhaps Jen McCreight’s defenders should ask themselves what purpose drives a boobquake “experiment”? Is this really an “experiment” that requires additional “data”?
Nope! It's just fun, funny, and freeing! I actually like having my tits out--it's physically comfortable as well as making me feel happy and pretty--so I'll pretty much take any excuse.
How many men do you see wearing low-cut shirts – and short shorts, crop tops, etc. – “because it’s hot outside”? Women’s clothing is designed to allow men maximum sexual objectification opportunity, and women are brainwashed into believing this is something desirable.
Patriarchy--making summer hot since 4.54 billion BC. Fucking patriarchy.
The more naked and semi-naked women DudeNation consumes, the more female nudity they crave and the more stringent their requirements become for whom should be allowed to take off their clothing. There are scientific studies that corroborate this.
Oooh, science. It must be uncomfortable keeping an entire laboratory up your ass.
If you seriously want to put the kibosh on the sexual objectification of boobies, you should consider becoming an anti-porn activist. Put a stop to the rampant objectification of the female body, and then, and only then, will we be able to reclaim our titties as our property and our property only.
Very astute, my titties are my property! To use as I see fit!
“I don’t give a shit about what reaction my boobs and their level of visibility will have on men.”
Spoken like somebody who has never been a victim of rape or of childhood sexual abuse, someone who has never hid as a 12 yr girl under a triple large sweatshirt trying desperately to hide her “promiscuity,” least she become prey for male consumption.
I sort of feel for this commenter, but that way she was feeling, under the triple large sweatshirt? Was BAD. It was a harmful effect of harmful experiences, and should probably not become the new fashion standard.
I forgot to add that in skeptical groups there is some weird obsession with proving how superior *our* sexist attitude towards women is compared to *their* (muslim) sexist attitude towards women. Liberal dudes are the majority of the people upholding the boobquake as a good idea; you know, dudes who are for abortion so that they have more access to pussy without the consequence of children.
BURQAS AND ABORTION BANS FOR FEMINISM! GIRL POWER!
Saying we give feminism a bad name is silencing us
No, a DOS attack on 69.89.20.43 is silencing you. This is more like letting you speak and also I speak. If you need a totally silent room to not be "silenced," well, either you don't talk much or you carry a lot of duct tape with you.
Perhaps there are some women who are … attached to the mammary tissue and fat deposits strapped to their chests (whoops, the ellipses means “almost typed ‘delusional with patriarchy-sickness’”).
But for many of us, breasts are just breasts. After all, they don’t really serve a purpose other than for suckling children.
And for happy times! And for being part of my body and my womanhood! Apparently real feminists hate breasts. Presumably also vaginas. And double X chromosomes. I mean, wow, talk about giving men what they want. I suppose you've been fooled into thinking you like those chromosomes, you stupid chromosome whore?
one could cease and desist the wearing of bras (beneath tee-shirts, even) and it would in an existential sense be a radical act because for most women, said breasts do not conform to patriarchal ideas, thus pornsick dudes everywhere would recoil in disgust.
Written like someone who doesn't climb a lot of stairs.
Agreed. This blamer recently wrote an essay that posits most if not all male “desire” for “females” is not actually desire for sex but desire for ownership
Huh. Now I hate evo-psych as much as anyone, seriously, but there might be something to the whole "perpetuate the species" dealie there. (Also, how come when I get owned, it feels so right?) (...Wow, you can take that at least three ways and they're all true.)
yea, how do we deal with the psychological effects of atleast 1/2 the population hating you. It’s almost like you have to become a hermit and misanthropist. It’s like watching people eat a banquet you’re not invited to 24/7. Atleast in the west we aren’t slaves, for the most part can choose between poverty and servitude, which often means more psychological abuse and spiritual death than poverty, and sometimes it’s both at once.
Oh grow the fuck up. I'm sorry Dad made you mow the lawn.
a) She doesn't post that often, and a lot of her posts are personal-life fluff
b) Her writing style is terse and densely "ironic", so it's hard to pull a lot of good quotes and sometimes hard to pin down when she's being serious
c) I get creepy enemy-of-my-enemy comments and emails about "yeah, those fucking feminists should get back in the kitchen, lol"
But I'm in a vicious mood today, and what entertainment Twisty's posts lack, her commenters provide amply.
Okay, so everyone who reads blogs knows about Boobquake, right? Here's the post that started it, if you aren't up to speed. And here's Twisty's totally pro-woman response. Needless to say the TL;DR is "sluts should cover their nasty tits!" FEMINISM!
McCreight was surprised when about 47.876 million people joined her boob joke on Facebook, largely in the shape of helpful dudes offering to photograph the event.
No, largely in the form of women, only we don't count them because they're disobedient hussies and thus not invited to the Real Women party.
We’ve all said stupid things on the Internet. But when you say stupid things about encouraging women to protest oppression by capitulating to Dude Nation’s fondest desire [...] all I can say is, ewww.
Dude Nation is my peeps, Twisty. Woman-attracted dudes are my friends, my family, my neighbors, my coworkers, and let's not forget my freakin' bread and butter. What's wrong with making them happy? I won't prioritize their happiness over my happiness, much less my dignity or security, but if I'm getting titsy for my own reasons and they happen to enjoy it, that's a win-win situation right there.
(Oh lord. I think I'm writing like her. Ow.)
And that's about it for Twisty. She doesn't like it because men might like it, and Twisty would eat her shoes if she heard men liked it when women don't eat shoes. At any rate she certainly seems to agree with Islamic clerics about the need for modesty--they claim it's about the men too, you know--and the horror of sluts. Whether she's also concerned about earthquakes is not specifically addressed in the post.
As always in these posts, the real fun is the scary-insane fucknuts who comment on Twisty's blog. (Note that because of the popularity of Boobquake, there were more normal humans than usual commenting, but the fucknuts still ran the show.)
OMG you guys, wait! We’re totally as bad as the woman-haters whom we profess to oppose. By not equally bestowing the credentials of “good feminism” on all women and their perfectly valid choices, we are committing an atrocity against womankind. Woe, this feminism is a false idol of puritan sexy-lady-hating!
Well... yeah. Exactly. Well said, fucknut.
I realize I am a humorless feminist, but is it wise to antagonize a part of the world we are perched on the brink of war with? A place where women can be executed for showing their ankles or beheaded for having an affair? I’m wondering how the Muslim world will respond to western women mocking their religion and wagging a few hundred thousand boobs at them? I understand the urge to humiliate this cleric, but diplomacy is a delicate thing.
Holy shit, I think they really are Feminists for Hijab. I thought I was joking. Twisty called the Boobquake "capitulation," but it looks like her commenters could teach her a thing or two about capitulating.
[Normal human], you show a real lack of imagination if you think *this* is a hostile environment. Here’s a scientific experiment for you: start a feminist blog, and then watch as the hostile trolls, threatening emails, and vilification roll in. That would be a step up in hostility. Then maybe you could join a male-dominated profession and see what that’s like. It can get a whole lot worse from there.
Check and check on your scientific experiment. And as you all know I'm widely threatened and vilified. Of course this isn't really a feminist blog because I sometimes forget to hate and exclude male sexuality, and EMS isn't really male-dominated because... uh... maybe they threatened and vilified me and I didn't notice? I can be a little dense.
Sexism is a problem. Men are just people who are sometimes very sexist and sometimes not very. And the world isn't that against you, ya big baby. That's the difference between me and the Twistyfans in a nutshell.
I’ve yet to see some Dude earnestly talking a 40+ year old woman into being okay enough with her body to show her tits.
Then buddy, you haven't been to some of the parties I've been to.
Whether proposed earnestly or as a joke, I’m not a fan of seeing fashions that subjugate and objectify women being promoted as a way to reclaim female power against male oppression.
I'm not a fan of fashions that subjugate and objectify! (Actually I am, but ssh, it's hard enough explaining normal sex to these people.) But we're talking about tank tops here. Tank tops are comfy and practical. If casual clothes with good airflow and freedom of movement are "subjugating," shit, I wish they'd let me subjugate myself at work.
Perhaps Jen McCreight’s defenders should ask themselves what purpose drives a boobquake “experiment”? Is this really an “experiment” that requires additional “data”?
Nope! It's just fun, funny, and freeing! I actually like having my tits out--it's physically comfortable as well as making me feel happy and pretty--so I'll pretty much take any excuse.
How many men do you see wearing low-cut shirts – and short shorts, crop tops, etc. – “because it’s hot outside”? Women’s clothing is designed to allow men maximum sexual objectification opportunity, and women are brainwashed into believing this is something desirable.
Patriarchy--making summer hot since 4.54 billion BC. Fucking patriarchy.
The more naked and semi-naked women DudeNation consumes, the more female nudity they crave and the more stringent their requirements become for whom should be allowed to take off their clothing. There are scientific studies that corroborate this.
Oooh, science. It must be uncomfortable keeping an entire laboratory up your ass.
If you seriously want to put the kibosh on the sexual objectification of boobies, you should consider becoming an anti-porn activist. Put a stop to the rampant objectification of the female body, and then, and only then, will we be able to reclaim our titties as our property and our property only.
Very astute, my titties are my property! To use as I see fit!
“I don’t give a shit about what reaction my boobs and their level of visibility will have on men.”
Spoken like somebody who has never been a victim of rape or of childhood sexual abuse, someone who has never hid as a 12 yr girl under a triple large sweatshirt trying desperately to hide her “promiscuity,” least she become prey for male consumption.
I sort of feel for this commenter, but that way she was feeling, under the triple large sweatshirt? Was BAD. It was a harmful effect of harmful experiences, and should probably not become the new fashion standard.
I forgot to add that in skeptical groups there is some weird obsession with proving how superior *our* sexist attitude towards women is compared to *their* (muslim) sexist attitude towards women. Liberal dudes are the majority of the people upholding the boobquake as a good idea; you know, dudes who are for abortion so that they have more access to pussy without the consequence of children.
BURQAS AND ABORTION BANS FOR FEMINISM! GIRL POWER!
Saying we give feminism a bad name is silencing us
No, a DOS attack on 69.89.20.43 is silencing you. This is more like letting you speak and also I speak. If you need a totally silent room to not be "silenced," well, either you don't talk much or you carry a lot of duct tape with you.
Perhaps there are some women who are … attached to the mammary tissue and fat deposits strapped to their chests (whoops, the ellipses means “almost typed ‘delusional with patriarchy-sickness’”).
But for many of us, breasts are just breasts. After all, they don’t really serve a purpose other than for suckling children.
And for happy times! And for being part of my body and my womanhood! Apparently real feminists hate breasts. Presumably also vaginas. And double X chromosomes. I mean, wow, talk about giving men what they want. I suppose you've been fooled into thinking you like those chromosomes, you stupid chromosome whore?
one could cease and desist the wearing of bras (beneath tee-shirts, even) and it would in an existential sense be a radical act because for most women, said breasts do not conform to patriarchal ideas, thus pornsick dudes everywhere would recoil in disgust.
Written like someone who doesn't climb a lot of stairs.
Agreed. This blamer recently wrote an essay that posits most if not all male “desire” for “females” is not actually desire for sex but desire for ownership
Huh. Now I hate evo-psych as much as anyone, seriously, but there might be something to the whole "perpetuate the species" dealie there. (Also, how come when I get owned, it feels so right?) (...Wow, you can take that at least three ways and they're all true.)
yea, how do we deal with the psychological effects of atleast 1/2 the population hating you. It’s almost like you have to become a hermit and misanthropist. It’s like watching people eat a banquet you’re not invited to 24/7. Atleast in the west we aren’t slaves, for the most part can choose between poverty and servitude, which often means more psychological abuse and spiritual death than poverty, and sometimes it’s both at once.
Oh grow the fuck up. I'm sorry Dad made you mow the lawn.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Pervocracy Stew.
How long has it been since I last posted fun pictures? Too long!
So for your brief amusement, my butt, my boobs and pinchy things and hooray for nakey!
And a brief link, which I won't try your patience by fully eviscerating: Twisty Faster on what the "revolution" actually entails. Basically that we'd stop having families and being feminine (because only men want that, we all really want to be hairy and alone) and therefore all of civilization would restructure itself and religion and economy and government would crumble. (We want that too.)
And a weirder link, to something that's probably a great idea but you'd look so painfully ridiculous: Fleshlight cushions! Just plug it in and go to town like you were really having sex with a small square mattress-person! I think it's brilliant.
And a programming note: I'll be at the Kinky Crafters' Munch from 3-6 PM at the CSPC today, so if you're in Seattle and want to meet a real-life Holly Pervocracy, come say hi. (There's a $5 suggested donation for the event, membership not required, 18+ obviously.)
EDIT: Durrr. Fixed Twisty link.
So for your brief amusement, my butt, my boobs and pinchy things and hooray for nakey!
And a brief link, which I won't try your patience by fully eviscerating: Twisty Faster on what the "revolution" actually entails. Basically that we'd stop having families and being feminine (because only men want that, we all really want to be hairy and alone) and therefore all of civilization would restructure itself and religion and economy and government would crumble. (We want that too.)
And a weirder link, to something that's probably a great idea but you'd look so painfully ridiculous: Fleshlight cushions! Just plug it in and go to town like you were really having sex with a small square mattress-person! I think it's brilliant.
And a programming note: I'll be at the Kinky Crafters' Munch from 3-6 PM at the CSPC today, so if you're in Seattle and want to meet a real-life Holly Pervocracy, come say hi. (There's a $5 suggested donation for the event, membership not required, 18+ obviously.)
EDIT: Durrr. Fixed Twisty link.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Why female dominants are really submissive: the doublethink that will not die!
I said I'd get back to Twisty (I know she's Jill now, but it's so much catchier!) and I am. Her next post addresses female dominance, and why it's exactly the same as female submission. Somehow.
What maidden refers to as “the opposite situation” isn’t opposite at all. Any practice that furthers the interests of patriarchal oppression, regardless of the sex, gender, race, diet, type of refrigerator, underwear, or political affiliation of the practitioner, is crappy and antifeminist. This includes sexay domination practiced by women; these behaviors are dictated by male fetish. As are all feminine behaviors.
These are, I'm guessing, the words of someone who doesn't know any female dominants. Read any couple posts in Bitchy Jones' blog; does she come off as a woman who only dominates on a "honey, could you please put on the leather corset tonight?" The woman's not just a dominant but a sadist, in that sorta scary oh-jeez-she's-not kidding way that not all dominants are, and although she certainly satisfies certain male fetishes, I can guarantee you she wasn't created by them.
I wonder, why doesn't this reverse? Why is the situation where a man is pressured into BDSM (in either role) by a woman not considered? If a man's behavior is being dictated by female fetish, is he still somehow secretly in charge?
And that last sentence. I realize she said "feminine" behaviors and not "female," but still, Jesus. Apparently all of women's culture, everything passed down from mother to daughter, from family traditions to fashion secrets, is really men's culture. And since men's culture is obviously men's culture, and shared culture is unthinkable of course, we've got nothing. Women have been part of civilization umpty-thousand years and created no legacy whatsoever. Maybe we are dull and weak-willed after all.
"Is it down to a choice between lesbianism and asexuality?"
Not even lesbians and asexuals are 100% patriarchy-free. Its ubiquity, see, is what makes patriarchy the dominant paradigm.
Okay, so my question is, if everyone is all patriarched up, why pick on heterosexuals/kinksters/homemakers/etc in particular? If patriarchy is the Original Sin in every human soul, why come down on sexuality and femininity like they were the enemies?
Sadly, I fear that many readers are reluctant to fully embrace the horrific truth that patriarchy isn’t just some abstract academic conceit. The don’t wanna face that they themselves, as members of an honest-to-fuck sex class, are well and truly screwed.
Screwed. What does that mean? I'm gonna die? I'm gonna be beat up? I'm gonna lose my job? When I say I'm "screwed" it means a bad thing will happen to me soon. The condition of "this entirely theoretical label which is applied to you by definition, will continue to apply to you" is hardly "screwed."
Anyway, if I'm screwed either way I might as well have awesome sex while I'm at it.
That was a short post, covered no new ground ("people don't really want what they say they want," yawwwwn--still shockingly psychopathic, but you know, same old psychopathy) and I still have ire to burn, so let's do the comments!
Realizing that patriarchy is real, and is the “matrix” in which every single action of every group and individual takes place–in the bedroom or out, is sickening, but also can be freeing.
Not freeing from responsibility to try to make change and to live a life according to one’s moral code, but freeing from that sense of “I’m doing everything “right”, why 1. can’t I reach my goals, 2. do I feel so awful all the time, 3. don’t people’s actions correspond to what they’re saying, 4. etc.”
Actually, you might just be a loser. I have it on excellent authority that there are happy women on Earth, at least inasmuch as there are happy people. I'm twenty-three and I've already lived some goals I thought I'd never reach, and on the balance I don't feel awful most days. Sure, I got harassed at the ambulance company--but I also get to drive an ambulance every day, and whine as I may, I love that. And the patriarchy didn't keep me from it.
maidden, it’s okay if you “prefer” to go blissfully back into the Matrix and “enjoy” your artificial steak. The P tells you that it’s juicy and delicious. Eat up. But please don’t pretend that’s truly “living”.
I always thought Cypher had a point, actually. When you get released from the Matrix you pretty much eat bacteria mush and live in a crappy little cave. Your experiences in the Matrix may not be "authentic" in the sense of physical reality, but they are authentically experiences and your enjoyment of that steak is just as enjoy-y.
I don't know what any of this has to do with having a morally correct sex life. If male-dominant sex isn't "really" sex... I think maybe I wouldn't like real sex.
Count me in for the Feminist Revolt! Maybe the BDSMers can bring weapons.
We can. A lot of them. We know how to use them. Which side do you want us on? Think carefully.
Start where you can: don’t stand in the middle of the grocery store saying “What kind of cheese does he like?” (if you have a Nigel). Get what you like. If other people don’t like your choices they can do the work and make *their* choices.
But the situation would be exactly the same if you were shopping for a woman! That's not feminist, that's self-centered. And it misses the point of what a "Nigel" is supposed to be. A partner, ideally, should be someone you want to make happy, not because they're male but because they're part of your life and you value them. I don't buy him cheese because I'm cowed; I buy it because his cheese-joy is my cheese-joy, and his cheese-sorrow my cheese-sorrow.
Won’t we continue to be “women” even if we remove “men” from the equation? Because no matter how much I am able to intellectually recognize the moral depravity, dangers, and illusion of the gender binary, I still call myself a woman and still self-define as woman, and am a woman. Even if I can imagine myself existing in a world in which “woman” isn’t even a word, because the concept of dividing humans into categories based on silly, not-even-universal traits is incomprehensible (because in this imaginary world, gender does not exist)? Gender, for me, will always exist. So I can never live in a post-patriarchal world.
That's true. But maybe someday you can live in a world of physical safety, of material abundance, of spiritual awareness and intellectual freedom. And even if that world still has dudes and ladies I still think it would be pretty nice.
I was out on my motorbike a while back, and was having trouble getting it started after I stopped for gas. A no-doubt well-meaning man came over and ‘helped’ by which I meant got in the way and offered unsolicited advice. And do you know what I did? I said ‘oh thank you’ and smiled at him gratefully as he ineffectively futzed with the bike, and listened to him pontificate, and talked to him in a nice voice, and reassured him that I’d be fine, etc. Do you know what I wish I’d done? I wish I’d said in a firm curt voice, thank you for offering to help but I understand this bike and you don’t, and I’d like you to go away please. Because I’ve been trained to respond to men in the former way rather than in the latter way, and in the back of my mind I was thinking ‘what if my response to him makes him angry?’ and that made me afraid. [...] If something like that happens again, I may, despite wishing I wouldn’t, respond in exactly the same way, because the penalty for not responding gender-correctly is ‘bitch’ or worse, and I’m very vulnerable on a bike.
No. You, individually, were a weenie, and you need to own up to it, because right now you're still being a weenie by blaming the world. Plenty of women have turned down unwanted help from plenty of men. You can become stronger if you try, and looking down at your vagina and going "no, I can't possibly, everyone's against me" is the action of a coward, not a woman.
But the joke is on the superstrong submissives, because now, whenever you experience sexual pleasure, you get to experience fear and pain. Your body will bypass your conscious mind and someday you’ll jerk away from a soft touch as from a hot stove.
Huh??? This does not actually happen to humans.
The best solution is to keep all fetuses female and then let children choose their own puberties depending on what physical traits they want to develop and when. Then if they want they can get a stem-cell penis attached when they turn 18 and pass a test to get their dicker’s license, subject to revocation by the state if convicted of misuse.
Fascinating. And making maleness an earned privilege, with femaleness as a punishment, would definitely solve all our problems.
I’ve been told I’m sexist, a whinger, bitter, a fruit and nut job – you’ve heard them all before. You can see people’s eyes glaze over as soon as I open my mouth.
Yeah, that's probably because you're such a beautiful rebel hero, the world just isn't ready for you.
Plus, If you participate in submission to patriarchal standards to keep sane and deal with it, then good. better to not burn out before the revolution.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS "REVOLUTION" SERIOUSLY. Some of the commenters seem to use it as a shorthand for a gradual turnaround in the culture, and some of them seem to see it as a single catastrophic event. The first group probably aren't so different from me even if they use more dramatic terms; the second group are cuckoo crazypants. And the weirdest part about the crazypants faction is that they seem so uninterested in the pre-revolutionary world. All this noise about hating the patriarchy and this person comes out and says she's going to go along with it for her own convenience, never mind beliefs or progress. It's almost like the worst interpretations of dispensationalist Christianity--nothing before the Rapture matters, and everything afterwards will be perfect, so why bother to put your house in order?
Dang it all! I said “If it’s patriarchy…” I meant “When it’s patriarchy…”
figleaf
I'm only quoting this comment because figleaf (who I've met, and he's a smart, insightful guy and as feminist as they come) is here correcting a previous comment... which is nowhere to be found. I guess he just wasn't feminist enough.
It's one thing to delete abuse and trolling, but Twisty prunes and cultivates her comment section like a carefully trimmed (not to mention deliberately stunted) bonsai of crazy. The outcome is to create the illusion of a very different discussion than the one her readers would like to actually have. What a safe space.
What maidden refers to as “the opposite situation” isn’t opposite at all. Any practice that furthers the interests of patriarchal oppression, regardless of the sex, gender, race, diet, type of refrigerator, underwear, or political affiliation of the practitioner, is crappy and antifeminist. This includes sexay domination practiced by women; these behaviors are dictated by male fetish. As are all feminine behaviors.
These are, I'm guessing, the words of someone who doesn't know any female dominants. Read any couple posts in Bitchy Jones' blog; does she come off as a woman who only dominates on a "honey, could you please put on the leather corset tonight?" The woman's not just a dominant but a sadist, in that sorta scary oh-jeez-she's-not kidding way that not all dominants are, and although she certainly satisfies certain male fetishes, I can guarantee you she wasn't created by them.
I wonder, why doesn't this reverse? Why is the situation where a man is pressured into BDSM (in either role) by a woman not considered? If a man's behavior is being dictated by female fetish, is he still somehow secretly in charge?
And that last sentence. I realize she said "feminine" behaviors and not "female," but still, Jesus. Apparently all of women's culture, everything passed down from mother to daughter, from family traditions to fashion secrets, is really men's culture. And since men's culture is obviously men's culture, and shared culture is unthinkable of course, we've got nothing. Women have been part of civilization umpty-thousand years and created no legacy whatsoever. Maybe we are dull and weak-willed after all.
"Is it down to a choice between lesbianism and asexuality?"
Not even lesbians and asexuals are 100% patriarchy-free. Its ubiquity, see, is what makes patriarchy the dominant paradigm.
Okay, so my question is, if everyone is all patriarched up, why pick on heterosexuals/kinksters/homemakers/etc in particular? If patriarchy is the Original Sin in every human soul, why come down on sexuality and femininity like they were the enemies?
Sadly, I fear that many readers are reluctant to fully embrace the horrific truth that patriarchy isn’t just some abstract academic conceit. The don’t wanna face that they themselves, as members of an honest-to-fuck sex class, are well and truly screwed.
Screwed. What does that mean? I'm gonna die? I'm gonna be beat up? I'm gonna lose my job? When I say I'm "screwed" it means a bad thing will happen to me soon. The condition of "this entirely theoretical label which is applied to you by definition, will continue to apply to you" is hardly "screwed."
Anyway, if I'm screwed either way I might as well have awesome sex while I'm at it.
That was a short post, covered no new ground ("people don't really want what they say they want," yawwwwn--still shockingly psychopathic, but you know, same old psychopathy) and I still have ire to burn, so let's do the comments!
Realizing that patriarchy is real, and is the “matrix” in which every single action of every group and individual takes place–in the bedroom or out, is sickening, but also can be freeing.
Not freeing from responsibility to try to make change and to live a life according to one’s moral code, but freeing from that sense of “I’m doing everything “right”, why 1. can’t I reach my goals, 2. do I feel so awful all the time, 3. don’t people’s actions correspond to what they’re saying, 4. etc.”
Actually, you might just be a loser. I have it on excellent authority that there are happy women on Earth, at least inasmuch as there are happy people. I'm twenty-three and I've already lived some goals I thought I'd never reach, and on the balance I don't feel awful most days. Sure, I got harassed at the ambulance company--but I also get to drive an ambulance every day, and whine as I may, I love that. And the patriarchy didn't keep me from it.
maidden, it’s okay if you “prefer” to go blissfully back into the Matrix and “enjoy” your artificial steak. The P tells you that it’s juicy and delicious. Eat up. But please don’t pretend that’s truly “living”.
I always thought Cypher had a point, actually. When you get released from the Matrix you pretty much eat bacteria mush and live in a crappy little cave. Your experiences in the Matrix may not be "authentic" in the sense of physical reality, but they are authentically experiences and your enjoyment of that steak is just as enjoy-y.
I don't know what any of this has to do with having a morally correct sex life. If male-dominant sex isn't "really" sex... I think maybe I wouldn't like real sex.
Count me in for the Feminist Revolt! Maybe the BDSMers can bring weapons.
We can. A lot of them. We know how to use them. Which side do you want us on? Think carefully.
Start where you can: don’t stand in the middle of the grocery store saying “What kind of cheese does he like?” (if you have a Nigel). Get what you like. If other people don’t like your choices they can do the work and make *their* choices.
But the situation would be exactly the same if you were shopping for a woman! That's not feminist, that's self-centered. And it misses the point of what a "Nigel" is supposed to be. A partner, ideally, should be someone you want to make happy, not because they're male but because they're part of your life and you value them. I don't buy him cheese because I'm cowed; I buy it because his cheese-joy is my cheese-joy, and his cheese-sorrow my cheese-sorrow.
Won’t we continue to be “women” even if we remove “men” from the equation? Because no matter how much I am able to intellectually recognize the moral depravity, dangers, and illusion of the gender binary, I still call myself a woman and still self-define as woman, and am a woman. Even if I can imagine myself existing in a world in which “woman” isn’t even a word, because the concept of dividing humans into categories based on silly, not-even-universal traits is incomprehensible (because in this imaginary world, gender does not exist)? Gender, for me, will always exist. So I can never live in a post-patriarchal world.
That's true. But maybe someday you can live in a world of physical safety, of material abundance, of spiritual awareness and intellectual freedom. And even if that world still has dudes and ladies I still think it would be pretty nice.
I was out on my motorbike a while back, and was having trouble getting it started after I stopped for gas. A no-doubt well-meaning man came over and ‘helped’ by which I meant got in the way and offered unsolicited advice. And do you know what I did? I said ‘oh thank you’ and smiled at him gratefully as he ineffectively futzed with the bike, and listened to him pontificate, and talked to him in a nice voice, and reassured him that I’d be fine, etc. Do you know what I wish I’d done? I wish I’d said in a firm curt voice, thank you for offering to help but I understand this bike and you don’t, and I’d like you to go away please. Because I’ve been trained to respond to men in the former way rather than in the latter way, and in the back of my mind I was thinking ‘what if my response to him makes him angry?’ and that made me afraid. [...] If something like that happens again, I may, despite wishing I wouldn’t, respond in exactly the same way, because the penalty for not responding gender-correctly is ‘bitch’ or worse, and I’m very vulnerable on a bike.
No. You, individually, were a weenie, and you need to own up to it, because right now you're still being a weenie by blaming the world. Plenty of women have turned down unwanted help from plenty of men. You can become stronger if you try, and looking down at your vagina and going "no, I can't possibly, everyone's against me" is the action of a coward, not a woman.
But the joke is on the superstrong submissives, because now, whenever you experience sexual pleasure, you get to experience fear and pain. Your body will bypass your conscious mind and someday you’ll jerk away from a soft touch as from a hot stove.
Huh??? This does not actually happen to humans.
The best solution is to keep all fetuses female and then let children choose their own puberties depending on what physical traits they want to develop and when. Then if they want they can get a stem-cell penis attached when they turn 18 and pass a test to get their dicker’s license, subject to revocation by the state if convicted of misuse.
Fascinating. And making maleness an earned privilege, with femaleness as a punishment, would definitely solve all our problems.
I’ve been told I’m sexist, a whinger, bitter, a fruit and nut job – you’ve heard them all before. You can see people’s eyes glaze over as soon as I open my mouth.
Yeah, that's probably because you're such a beautiful rebel hero, the world just isn't ready for you.
Plus, If you participate in submission to patriarchal standards to keep sane and deal with it, then good. better to not burn out before the revolution.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS "REVOLUTION" SERIOUSLY. Some of the commenters seem to use it as a shorthand for a gradual turnaround in the culture, and some of them seem to see it as a single catastrophic event. The first group probably aren't so different from me even if they use more dramatic terms; the second group are cuckoo crazypants. And the weirdest part about the crazypants faction is that they seem so uninterested in the pre-revolutionary world. All this noise about hating the patriarchy and this person comes out and says she's going to go along with it for her own convenience, never mind beliefs or progress. It's almost like the worst interpretations of dispensationalist Christianity--nothing before the Rapture matters, and everything afterwards will be perfect, so why bother to put your house in order?
Dang it all! I said “If it’s patriarchy…” I meant “When it’s patriarchy…”
figleaf
I'm only quoting this comment because figleaf (who I've met, and he's a smart, insightful guy and as feminist as they come) is here correcting a previous comment... which is nowhere to be found. I guess he just wasn't feminist enough.
It's one thing to delete abuse and trolling, but Twisty prunes and cultivates her comment section like a carefully trimmed (not to mention deliberately stunted) bonsai of crazy. The outcome is to create the illusion of a very different discussion than the one her readers would like to actually have. What a safe space.
Another type of woman Twisty Faster hates!
Before I even begin, I want to mention something: when I first became interested in BDSM, my boyfriend at the time was very vanilla and barely knew such things existed. He was game enough to slap me around a little on request, but it was definitely not his idea.
Anyway, Twisty Faster says entirely predictable things about BDSM.
It is a myth that self-expression (on radical feminist blogs or elsewhere) is a health-giving antidote to mental and physical diseases precipitated by dangerous levels of pent-up creativity or opinions. Self-expression is merely a pop-psychology franchise that grants captive audiences to the self-absorbed.
Boy don't it take one to know one.
[Also, I have no idea what this has to do with anything but she goes on for four paragraphs about it.]
When stating an opinion in the comments section of a radical feminist blog, it’s stupid to begin with the personal pronoun I. ... The truth is, you are boring. You exude ennui from every pore. Any sane reader would rather have root canal than subject herself to your moldy old first-person secretions. But, by expunging boring old you from the subject of your statement, you might stand half a chance of actually engaging in discourse that people give half a crap about.
I don't see why this is the case. As a child of pop-psych, I was taught to speak in "I" statements, especially when I'm arguing. I believe it doesn't mean that I'm only talking about myself, but that I'm acknowledging my limitations--I only know what I know, so saying "this is my belief" is less hubristic than trying to say "this is the way it is." When I say "I don't see why," I admit that a statement could make sense (on Mars or something), but this reader sure can't make head nor tail.
Only through obedience can you know the freedom that is slavery! Only through discipline can you revel in the love that is hate! Only through appeasement of the oppressor can you experience the unfathomable mysteries of the great submissive gift of unconditional masochism!
Well... yeah.
Also, I don't see how this is worse than conventional heterosexual sex. That also "appeases" the "oppressor," (while appeasing the shit out of me, if anyone cares) it's just more popular. If the goal is to deny men pleasure, you've got a lot more work to do.
For it takes great strength, Grasshopper, to order patent leather spandex French maid outfits off the internet so you can get off sucking up to some asshole who gets off on rape fantasies.
Wait... I'm that asshole! They are my fantasies! MINE! I want these things to bring me joy! I don't know about great strength (although taking a beating takes quite a bit, don't knock it), but I know what I want, and I wanted these things before any man wanted them from me.
That was barely about BDSM. She only touched on it in two sentences. It was much more about "this may look like a blog with a comment section, but it's actually my personal fiefdom in which I decree the form and content of all opinions." Which, hey, it's technically feasible and not illegal, so I guess if she wants to delete everything that isn't virulently antisocial and composed in iambic pentameter, she can go have fun with that.
Oh, but that comment section. That's always the entertaining part. Let's get to that.
I think that when some people are writing blogs they should try to be a little less judgemental about how some people choose to write their personal opinions because certain people ought to know that a lot of people don’t have fancy spell checking computers because they might have spent all their fucking money on super CUTE!!! leather thingies and just because I have black bangs and look a little like Bettie Page doesn’t mean that others really ought to judge me just because I’m into the life style because I am imprinted that way OK?
My spellchecker doesn't stop me from using the word "I," it must be a bug. My spellchecker also doesn't remind me to discount the opinions (and finances???) of people based on their hallucinated fashion choices. What a cheapass spellchecker.
...women like this exist to shit on things. ‘I actively try to be everything you hate!’ A nasty brand of narcissist – they get off on it. People like her are best ignored and were probably an only- child. They’re no different to anyone else and yet think they’re Gods.
Boy don't it take one to know one. Anyway, when you hate so many things, it's hard for me not to be a few of them. And anyway when you go to your average BDSM gathering there isn't anyone present who doesn't approve, but I promise you we don't just play Heads-Up-Seven-Up and say "let's tell the radfems we were beating each other in here, they'll go nuts."
“My kinky former partner was my equal in every way”
Equal in every way except, I am obliged to suggest, insofar as you were a member of the sex class and he wasn’t, the only way that really matters.
This is Twisty herself talking, and getting quite efficiently to the differences between her breed of feminism and mine. I'd rather have the best life I can have here and now, and be equal to my partner even if I can't be equal to all men. She doesn't seem to find anything worthy of hope in the current world order. And in doing so, she always manages to sound a bit sexist herself--saying that women are "sex class" even when no specific man is oppressing them makes it sound like the problem is with women themselves.
I always thought the problem was "a lot of men treat you like you're the sex class," but it's very different to say "you are the sex class."
BDSM is simply an extension, the progress down a continuum, that many of us already engage in everyday. If those Swiffer ads continue, we may all come to understand exactly how people are sexualized to certain abusive concepts, like the “erotic” experience of mopping the floor. Or the orgasmic joy of doing laundry. Ahh, the pleasures of unpaid mandated labor, why, it’s almost like foreplay already.
I actually don't mind mopping the floor. If I didn't, the floor would be gross! I might resent doing it for a partner who doesn't pitch in, but I have no aspiration to never mop the floor.
Anyway, this doesn't fit with my observation that kinky women are rarely the most oppressed. It's not like BDSM clubs are full of migrant laborers and street hookers--it seems like middle and upper-middle class women, who are usually fairly powerful in their "real" lives, make up the majority of female submissives.
The properly empowerful response to external interrogations of one’s stated causes of personal empowerfulment is not justification through extended dialectic, personal anecdote, or terse “but I like it!” statements. Such responses indicate a distinct lack of empowerfulment, in fact.
But I like it. I like it! I really, actually, from here to there with no reason, like it! I don't know what else to say! I'm throwing up my hands! I like what I like and I want it love it enjoy it desire it LIKE IT.
And that's what matters. Why is hitting women wrong in the first place? Because they don't like it.
Blame the fucking shitheads, the rapists, the willfully ignorant. Blame the motherfucking patriarchy and burn down the houses of those who sell it to us as “empowerment.”
You'll be burning down a lot of women's houses.
Oh, for goodness’ sake. I’m just asking for an argument instead of just “BDSM is gross. And your writing sucks.” [...]
I am also asking for an argument against all het sex that amounts to more than “How can the oppressed give consent?” and perhaps takes account of reality. (Here’s where I would use my personal experiences to discuss how het relationships can be non-oppressive, if that were welcome. But it’s not, which means any attempt to make a properly supported and illustrated argument will, presumably, be met with hostility.)
If questions and discussion in a public forum are unsafe and unfriendly, then discourse is impossible. If you’re not looking for discourse, fine. But I’m just sayin’.
This comment is just posted here for preservation before it gets deleted, I think it's awesome.
People should also understand that because BDSM often involves violence, pain, degradation, and/or use of force – in a sexual context – it is very likely to trigger extreme emotional responses from people who acutely feel the constant threat of sexual violence. That’s why a pro-BDSM stance – or even a “neutral” stance – can make a space feel unsafe for discussion, as Jonathan pointed out.
If you're under the constant threat of sexual violence--like, for reals--you shouldn't be wasting time on some goddamn blog, you need to get the fuck out of there! Pack and leave when he's out of the house, don't let him know where you went, and don't be afraid to get the police involved! If you're living with threats of violence, insensitive blog comments are the least of your worries.
I don't know what sort of "discussion" can be had in a truly "safe space," then, but I assume it consists largely of "ooh, you're even more super awesomer than me... now tell me how awesome I am again."
The next post is on femdom, and how dominant women aren't really dominant because submissive men enjoy it, and that's terrible. I'll get to it tonight or tomorrow.
Anyway, Twisty Faster says entirely predictable things about BDSM.
It is a myth that self-expression (on radical feminist blogs or elsewhere) is a health-giving antidote to mental and physical diseases precipitated by dangerous levels of pent-up creativity or opinions. Self-expression is merely a pop-psychology franchise that grants captive audiences to the self-absorbed.
Boy don't it take one to know one.
[Also, I have no idea what this has to do with anything but she goes on for four paragraphs about it.]
When stating an opinion in the comments section of a radical feminist blog, it’s stupid to begin with the personal pronoun I. ... The truth is, you are boring. You exude ennui from every pore. Any sane reader would rather have root canal than subject herself to your moldy old first-person secretions. But, by expunging boring old you from the subject of your statement, you might stand half a chance of actually engaging in discourse that people give half a crap about.
I don't see why this is the case. As a child of pop-psych, I was taught to speak in "I" statements, especially when I'm arguing. I believe it doesn't mean that I'm only talking about myself, but that I'm acknowledging my limitations--I only know what I know, so saying "this is my belief" is less hubristic than trying to say "this is the way it is." When I say "I don't see why," I admit that a statement could make sense (on Mars or something), but this reader sure can't make head nor tail.
Only through obedience can you know the freedom that is slavery! Only through discipline can you revel in the love that is hate! Only through appeasement of the oppressor can you experience the unfathomable mysteries of the great submissive gift of unconditional masochism!
Well... yeah.
Also, I don't see how this is worse than conventional heterosexual sex. That also "appeases" the "oppressor," (while appeasing the shit out of me, if anyone cares) it's just more popular. If the goal is to deny men pleasure, you've got a lot more work to do.
For it takes great strength, Grasshopper, to order patent leather spandex French maid outfits off the internet so you can get off sucking up to some asshole who gets off on rape fantasies.
Wait... I'm that asshole! They are my fantasies! MINE! I want these things to bring me joy! I don't know about great strength (although taking a beating takes quite a bit, don't knock it), but I know what I want, and I wanted these things before any man wanted them from me.
That was barely about BDSM. She only touched on it in two sentences. It was much more about "this may look like a blog with a comment section, but it's actually my personal fiefdom in which I decree the form and content of all opinions." Which, hey, it's technically feasible and not illegal, so I guess if she wants to delete everything that isn't virulently antisocial and composed in iambic pentameter, she can go have fun with that.
Oh, but that comment section. That's always the entertaining part. Let's get to that.
I think that when some people are writing blogs they should try to be a little less judgemental about how some people choose to write their personal opinions because certain people ought to know that a lot of people don’t have fancy spell checking computers because they might have spent all their fucking money on super CUTE!!! leather thingies and just because I have black bangs and look a little like Bettie Page doesn’t mean that others really ought to judge me just because I’m into the life style because I am imprinted that way OK?
My spellchecker doesn't stop me from using the word "I," it must be a bug. My spellchecker also doesn't remind me to discount the opinions (and finances???) of people based on their hallucinated fashion choices. What a cheapass spellchecker.
...women like this exist to shit on things. ‘I actively try to be everything you hate!’ A nasty brand of narcissist – they get off on it. People like her are best ignored and were probably an only- child. They’re no different to anyone else and yet think they’re Gods.
Boy don't it take one to know one. Anyway, when you hate so many things, it's hard for me not to be a few of them. And anyway when you go to your average BDSM gathering there isn't anyone present who doesn't approve, but I promise you we don't just play Heads-Up-Seven-Up and say "let's tell the radfems we were beating each other in here, they'll go nuts."
“My kinky former partner was my equal in every way”
Equal in every way except, I am obliged to suggest, insofar as you were a member of the sex class and he wasn’t, the only way that really matters.
This is Twisty herself talking, and getting quite efficiently to the differences between her breed of feminism and mine. I'd rather have the best life I can have here and now, and be equal to my partner even if I can't be equal to all men. She doesn't seem to find anything worthy of hope in the current world order. And in doing so, she always manages to sound a bit sexist herself--saying that women are "sex class" even when no specific man is oppressing them makes it sound like the problem is with women themselves.
I always thought the problem was "a lot of men treat you like you're the sex class," but it's very different to say "you are the sex class."
BDSM is simply an extension, the progress down a continuum, that many of us already engage in everyday. If those Swiffer ads continue, we may all come to understand exactly how people are sexualized to certain abusive concepts, like the “erotic” experience of mopping the floor. Or the orgasmic joy of doing laundry. Ahh, the pleasures of unpaid mandated labor, why, it’s almost like foreplay already.
I actually don't mind mopping the floor. If I didn't, the floor would be gross! I might resent doing it for a partner who doesn't pitch in, but I have no aspiration to never mop the floor.
Anyway, this doesn't fit with my observation that kinky women are rarely the most oppressed. It's not like BDSM clubs are full of migrant laborers and street hookers--it seems like middle and upper-middle class women, who are usually fairly powerful in their "real" lives, make up the majority of female submissives.
The properly empowerful response to external interrogations of one’s stated causes of personal empowerfulment is not justification through extended dialectic, personal anecdote, or terse “but I like it!” statements. Such responses indicate a distinct lack of empowerfulment, in fact.
But I like it. I like it! I really, actually, from here to there with no reason, like it! I don't know what else to say! I'm throwing up my hands! I like what I like and I want it love it enjoy it desire it LIKE IT.
And that's what matters. Why is hitting women wrong in the first place? Because they don't like it.
Blame the fucking shitheads, the rapists, the willfully ignorant. Blame the motherfucking patriarchy and burn down the houses of those who sell it to us as “empowerment.”
You'll be burning down a lot of women's houses.
Oh, for goodness’ sake. I’m just asking for an argument instead of just “BDSM is gross. And your writing sucks.” [...]
I am also asking for an argument against all het sex that amounts to more than “How can the oppressed give consent?” and perhaps takes account of reality. (Here’s where I would use my personal experiences to discuss how het relationships can be non-oppressive, if that were welcome. But it’s not, which means any attempt to make a properly supported and illustrated argument will, presumably, be met with hostility.)
If questions and discussion in a public forum are unsafe and unfriendly, then discourse is impossible. If you’re not looking for discourse, fine. But I’m just sayin’.
This comment is just posted here for preservation before it gets deleted, I think it's awesome.
People should also understand that because BDSM often involves violence, pain, degradation, and/or use of force – in a sexual context – it is very likely to trigger extreme emotional responses from people who acutely feel the constant threat of sexual violence. That’s why a pro-BDSM stance – or even a “neutral” stance – can make a space feel unsafe for discussion, as Jonathan pointed out.
If you're under the constant threat of sexual violence--like, for reals--you shouldn't be wasting time on some goddamn blog, you need to get the fuck out of there! Pack and leave when he's out of the house, don't let him know where you went, and don't be afraid to get the police involved! If you're living with threats of violence, insensitive blog comments are the least of your worries.
I don't know what sort of "discussion" can be had in a truly "safe space," then, but I assume it consists largely of "ooh, you're even more super awesomer than me... now tell me how awesome I am again."
The next post is on femdom, and how dominant women aren't really dominant because submissive men enjoy it, and that's terrible. I'll get to it tonight or tomorrow.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
BR CA.
It's amazing how often I think I'm in an absolute pit of depression because my whole life is a pathetic failure, then I eat something nutritious or take a nap and I have perspective again. I'm like a toddler.
Anyway. Yesterday I participated in my second breast cancer walkathon this year. (I was a walker last time, staff this time.) I think it's a good cause, but I won't lie to ya, it's a weird atmosphere at those things. Everything's too pink, and everyone's a little... too happy. "WOO FIGHTING CANCER WOOOOO!" I don't like cancer either, and fundraisers should be fun, but medical research doesn't seem like a matter for "wooo," you know? Also the amount of money that comes in is freaking massive and it sorta creeps me out how opaque it is where it goes. I'm not accusing them of impropriety (the Susan G. Komen foundation spends 87% of funds on programs), just of vagueness--I wish they would say what is being done to "fight" cancer. They make it sound like we're paying a guy to run out and punch tumors. Or the degree of cutesy pinkness reaches the overload point until you think you're donating for the promotion and spread of pink itself.
Still, better to help a basically-worthy cause than to sit on the sidelines bitching. Isn't that right, Twisty? I don't want to be too harsh on this one because she is a breast cancer survivor herself, but mocking women who get breast reconstruction and cover their hair loss? Daaamn. Also, a nice bit of tinhattery about "they want you to get cancer and they want you to think treatment is easy because that's how they make their money!" (Apparently none of Them have breasts of their own or care about anyone who does.)
And then the comments are largely about how encouraging patients to fight is unfairly suggesting that surviving cancer is somehow "better" that dying from cancer, and assigning that kind of value judgement is very patriarchal.
I wish there was this kind of turnout for other cancers, though. I'd like to hold a 5000-person rally for colorectal cancer prevention and treatment. Brown banners and ribbons everywhere, "Save the assholes" t-shirts, chirpy hand-drawn posters of anuses that are also smiley faces, kids handing out brown lemonade with extra fiber. We'd be doing good and having fun!
Anyway. Yesterday I participated in my second breast cancer walkathon this year. (I was a walker last time, staff this time.) I think it's a good cause, but I won't lie to ya, it's a weird atmosphere at those things. Everything's too pink, and everyone's a little... too happy. "WOO FIGHTING CANCER WOOOOO!" I don't like cancer either, and fundraisers should be fun, but medical research doesn't seem like a matter for "wooo," you know? Also the amount of money that comes in is freaking massive and it sorta creeps me out how opaque it is where it goes. I'm not accusing them of impropriety (the Susan G. Komen foundation spends 87% of funds on programs), just of vagueness--I wish they would say what is being done to "fight" cancer. They make it sound like we're paying a guy to run out and punch tumors. Or the degree of cutesy pinkness reaches the overload point until you think you're donating for the promotion and spread of pink itself.
Still, better to help a basically-worthy cause than to sit on the sidelines bitching. Isn't that right, Twisty? I don't want to be too harsh on this one because she is a breast cancer survivor herself, but mocking women who get breast reconstruction and cover their hair loss? Daaamn. Also, a nice bit of tinhattery about "they want you to get cancer and they want you to think treatment is easy because that's how they make their money!" (Apparently none of Them have breasts of their own or care about anyone who does.)
And then the comments are largely about how encouraging patients to fight is unfairly suggesting that surviving cancer is somehow "better" that dying from cancer, and assigning that kind of value judgement is very patriarchal.
I wish there was this kind of turnout for other cancers, though. I'd like to hold a 5000-person rally for colorectal cancer prevention and treatment. Brown banners and ribbons everywhere, "Save the assholes" t-shirts, chirpy hand-drawn posters of anuses that are also smiley faces, kids handing out brown lemonade with extra fiber. We'd be doing good and having fun!
Friday, August 21, 2009
TWIFI, The Inevitable Sequel: Comments!
Twisty Faster's commenters are always way, way more than half the fun, and I just can't do a TWIFI without scrolling down into the comment section and being amazed by the progressive, well-reasoned, and thoroughly feminist attitudes displayed therein.
Pelicanh’s also been guilty of the, “I just find women’s bodies more attractive than men’s, so that’s why I only photograph women.” Of course, if that were the case, you’d see him photographing a range of body colors and sizes, wouldn’t you?
He's an artist, he doesn't work for you, and he can photograph nothing but dogs' elbows if he wants. (Also, about half the photos are of his girlfriend, who only comes in one color and size.) He's under no obligation to turn his work into an 80's cartoon show with exactly one black kid and one kid in a wheelchair and one kid with the power of Heart.
Whenever dudes try to make women feel ‘beautiful’ they manage to talk down to them the whole time.
The kind I hate the most is the “men like curves” talk whenever any woman in the media gets too skinny to be of sexual use to most dudes. As if the way dudes think we should feel is a replacement for the way that women actually feel.
I care how dudes feel, though. I don't use it as a replacement for my own feelings, but this is kinda how it goes:
Me: Aw, I'm fat and Media Lady is skinny, guys must like her more than me.
Guy: No, you look great, men like curves.
Me: Yay, my perception that guys don't like me is corrected! I feel better about myself without feeling like I have to change! I now feel less bound by male expectations than I did before! Yay!
Urgh, Deviantart. Anyone here a member over there? Because the site definitely needs more feminism. Recently one of the “Daily Deviations” was a photo of black woman’s nude body in chains. Not problematic at all apparently, just a nice “fetish” photo!
Yes, black people shouldn't be allowed to do anything that makes me uncomfortable. If only there were some sort of law about this.
(I think it's also interesting how this person seems to sort of assume the photographer must have been white. If the photographer was black, or the photo is a self-portrait, doesn't that change the problematicism quite a bit? Regardless of the race of the photographer, I think it's somewhere between bigoted and just plain dumb to think the model herself didn't know what she was doing, and requires our protection.)
If he were smrt smart he would realise that having to justify his work means that the work isn’t what he thinks it is.
Total and epic fail.
Rationalising one’s own objectification by celebrating that objectification doesn’t change anything. It is still exploitative crap.
No, I haven’t seen the actual pictures. I don’t need to. The artist himself doesn’t think they have enough merit to stand on their own.
I show you a painting of a great eagle breaking the chains that tie it to the earth. Ignoring for the moment what a tacky fuck I am, I tell you "this painting represents freedom."
Now, apparently, it must represent something else, because I talked about it. It's like Heisenberg's Painting.
And I love that "no, I haven't actually looked at the thing I'm condemning." That's how you keep the mind and spirit pure, sister!
But no matter how many feminists are on dA, magically few of their submissions are popular enough to make it to the front.
I'm sure that's not true. I'd bet you've looked at a feminist's abstract digital rendering, a feminist's painting of songbirds, a feminist's photos of Rome, a feminist's sketches of the female form... but it's true, magically few pictures of men being violently humiliated and destroyed make the front page. Guess it's a conspiracy.
A man needs to know his parts. Clearly we should make porn showing men getting their members cut off and ripped apart. Clearly we need to show men getting my hot period blood across their face when I get off, because that’s porn. High class porn. Fresh cut off dick, that gets me hot damn it.
Twisty has a pretty iron grip on what feedback she'll allow to appear on her blog. It's the only blog I know where you can watch the comment number go down over time as it is winnowed down to only the worthy. Opposing arguments get zapped right off, and check the trackbacks--no opposition there either! But people who agree with her in psychotic, disturbing, and violent ways: hunky-dory.
(Also, there's really no use in pointing this out to a psychotic person, but have you seen any porn lately? Women don't get chopped up, for shit's sake! They take their clothes off and sometimes have sex! That's much more comfortable!)
Pelicanh’s also been guilty of the, “I just find women’s bodies more attractive than men’s, so that’s why I only photograph women.” Of course, if that were the case, you’d see him photographing a range of body colors and sizes, wouldn’t you?
He's an artist, he doesn't work for you, and he can photograph nothing but dogs' elbows if he wants. (Also, about half the photos are of his girlfriend, who only comes in one color and size.) He's under no obligation to turn his work into an 80's cartoon show with exactly one black kid and one kid in a wheelchair and one kid with the power of Heart.
Whenever dudes try to make women feel ‘beautiful’ they manage to talk down to them the whole time.
The kind I hate the most is the “men like curves” talk whenever any woman in the media gets too skinny to be of sexual use to most dudes. As if the way dudes think we should feel is a replacement for the way that women actually feel.
I care how dudes feel, though. I don't use it as a replacement for my own feelings, but this is kinda how it goes:
Me: Aw, I'm fat and Media Lady is skinny, guys must like her more than me.
Guy: No, you look great, men like curves.
Me: Yay, my perception that guys don't like me is corrected! I feel better about myself without feeling like I have to change! I now feel less bound by male expectations than I did before! Yay!
Urgh, Deviantart. Anyone here a member over there? Because the site definitely needs more feminism. Recently one of the “Daily Deviations” was a photo of black woman’s nude body in chains. Not problematic at all apparently, just a nice “fetish” photo!
Yes, black people shouldn't be allowed to do anything that makes me uncomfortable. If only there were some sort of law about this.
(I think it's also interesting how this person seems to sort of assume the photographer must have been white. If the photographer was black, or the photo is a self-portrait, doesn't that change the problematicism quite a bit? Regardless of the race of the photographer, I think it's somewhere between bigoted and just plain dumb to think the model herself didn't know what she was doing, and requires our protection.)
If he were smrt smart he would realise that having to justify his work means that the work isn’t what he thinks it is.
Total and epic fail.
Rationalising one’s own objectification by celebrating that objectification doesn’t change anything. It is still exploitative crap.
No, I haven’t seen the actual pictures. I don’t need to. The artist himself doesn’t think they have enough merit to stand on their own.
I show you a painting of a great eagle breaking the chains that tie it to the earth. Ignoring for the moment what a tacky fuck I am, I tell you "this painting represents freedom."
Now, apparently, it must represent something else, because I talked about it. It's like Heisenberg's Painting.
And I love that "no, I haven't actually looked at the thing I'm condemning." That's how you keep the mind and spirit pure, sister!
But no matter how many feminists are on dA, magically few of their submissions are popular enough to make it to the front.
I'm sure that's not true. I'd bet you've looked at a feminist's abstract digital rendering, a feminist's painting of songbirds, a feminist's photos of Rome, a feminist's sketches of the female form... but it's true, magically few pictures of men being violently humiliated and destroyed make the front page. Guess it's a conspiracy.
A man needs to know his parts. Clearly we should make porn showing men getting their members cut off and ripped apart. Clearly we need to show men getting my hot period blood across their face when I get off, because that’s porn. High class porn. Fresh cut off dick, that gets me hot damn it.
Twisty has a pretty iron grip on what feedback she'll allow to appear on her blog. It's the only blog I know where you can watch the comment number go down over time as it is winnowed down to only the worthy. Opposing arguments get zapped right off, and check the trackbacks--no opposition there either! But people who agree with her in psychotic, disturbing, and violent ways: hunky-dory.
(Also, there's really no use in pointing this out to a psychotic person, but have you seen any porn lately? Women don't get chopped up, for shit's sake! They take their clothes off and sometimes have sex! That's much more comfortable!)
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Twisty Faster Shares Definition of "Porn" with Anthony Comstock! Film at 11.
The flap over "cuntalina" caused Twisty Jill to explode over the course of several posts, change her name, and then retreat into silence and cutesy dog posts for weeks. Just the kind of resilient scrapper spirit we'd need in a revolution.
But she's baaack, and I haven't done a TFIFI in so long. Today's brilliance: "your so-called 'artistic' photography is a horrible affront on decency!" Because, y'see, we will never liberate vaginas as long as people can go around looking at them and stuff.
The evil pornographer in question is just some random DeviantArt guy with a slick and fairly tasteful portfolio of artistic nudes. His stuff ranges from the kinda porny to the more restrained to the definitely not porn at all. Oh, and this clearly raving misogynist also has pictures of himself naked, which just shows you how he equates nudity with dehumanized worthlessness, or something. He also posts in the commentaries about his friendly relationships with the models and which shots were their ideas, which shows the sad depths of this pornographer's self-delusion.
But Twisty cares not for your "art." What she sees is naked, and naked always means exactly the same thing to all people in all contexts. PORN! Which is an alternate spelling of "rape."
This amateur pornographer, known on the website Deviantart.com as “Pelicanh,” snaps photos of naked ladies, stands back, basks in it, and calls it art. Furthermore, he puts it on the World Wide Web and gets thousands of hits a day.
THOUSANDS OF HITS A DAY! I'm sure he's becoming a billionaire.
"Anyone taking even a casual stroll through my gallery will see a lot of pussy photos. Let’s just call them what they are, OK? NO….they are NOT photos of “vaginas” - learn your anatomy, people.
I’d LOVE it if there was a sweet and endearing name for them, ya know. “Pussy” sounds pretty “Playboy-ish” to me but it is the best I can do because it ISN’T a vagina photo and that sounds waaaaayyy too medical to me anyway. There are at least a billion names for that part of a woman’s anatomy but that’s not what this journal is about. SO - get over it, I’m gonna call it a pussy."
Well, sure, you’re a pornographer. This means you think “pussy” is “anatomy.” But even if you didn’t, obviously you’d have to call it “pussy,” since degrading women and telling them to “get over it” is one of the Inalienable Rights of Man.
Fuck am I supposed to call it, lady? "Vulva" is a detached, ugly, medical-Latin word; "pussy" is indisputably English and ground-level and kind of cute. Degrading? Acting like a woman's anatomy is too sacred, obscure, or disgusting to describe in ordinary language is degrading. "You have an abnormal growth on your vulva"; "I think your pussy's beautiful."
I'm not a man, but I think that being comfortable with women's bodies is part of being comfortable with women. If the pussy is always hidden, always referred to in precise and hushed tones, it's up on some kind of fucking pedestal. A pussy that's part of a human being, that gets used and revealed and exercised and loved, is going to get called a lot of things and seen in a lot of ways, and that's a good thing.
It might also dawn on you that a “sweet, endearing name for them” would be useful only to you and your efforts to distract their owners, through some kind of phony sympathetic display, from the fact that you are a dehumanizing, exploitative prick.
So if you say bad things about pussies, you're obviously a jerk; but if you say good things, you're faking, Twisty can tell. Win-win situation here. (The solution, of course, is for men to never speak or think about pussies, which will undoubtedly give them a very healthy attitude toward people who happen to own You-Know-Whats.)
It doesn’t occur to old Pelicanh that a vulva might have aspirations that rise above being photographed by some perv for public display on his perv web page, where viewers are “made” to look at “beauty.” Aspirations, for example, that do not involve complicity in dudely “art” projects, dudely perceptions of “beauty,” or perpetual availability for pornsick voyeurism. A vulva might want to just hang around. Hit the links. Go to a museum. Menstruate. Enjoy a taco. Chillax on the chaise with a marg and a copy of I Had Trouble in Getting to Solla Sollew.
Or a pussy--or rather its owner, sheesh, I'm up here, honey--might want to be photographed. Why is it beyond conceivability that a woman might think her pussy was beautiful enough to share, or even that it was just fun to be photographed that way or even--really stretching the limits of what's possible in Twisty's reality here--that as a paid model she didn't mind accepting money for artistic nudes?
Give me the choice between being part of a well-crafted, beautifying, even kind of worshipful photo or sitting around menstruating, fuck, I know what I'd choose.
The “It’s beautiful so it’s art, not porn” argument always hilarifies me. Haw!
The "It's a crotch so it's porn, not art" argument always hilarifies me. (Although, really, most of the guy's photos are of women's entire bodies, so when you call those crotch-shots, well, tells me where you're looking. Who's reducing women to their fun bits now?)
What could it be about a vulva that makes it the universal Holy Grail of a certain species of male shutterbug? Why must these vulgar specimens insist on its unique “beauty” when, in fact, a vulva is precisely as “beautiful” as an elbow or a nostril? Why do they so vociferously declaim that they are not pornographers even though their “work” depends entirely on the gross imbalance of power between dudes and women, specifically on flattening women into 2-dimensional sex graphics?
Is it really bad to say that pussies are nicer than nostrils? Sure, there's a sexual attraction; why is that wrong or exploitative? Sex is part of life and art addresses life. It's not like the models are being kept in his basement and have no say in the matter.
And as for gross power imbalance--OH NOES NOW HE IS OPPRESSING HISSELF
A photograph of a disembodied vulva is not, as is one of an elbow or a nostril, a politically or socially neutral concept. It is the graphic representation of the universal belief that women = sex, and a symbol of male dominance in a rape culture.
It's the graphic representation of the truth that women include sex, and a symbol of our fundamental humanity. A woman who's nothing but pussy is problematic; a woman without a pussy is messed up.
I have a pussy. I love it. As a practical matter I don't hang it out in public, but I refuse to be ashamed of it. I refuse to be told that it is somehow a tool of my own oppression. My pussy is mine--mine to hide, mine to show, mine to protect, mine to offer up.
Shit, at least when this guy tells strange women what to do with their pussies he has the decency to pay them.
But she's baaack, and I haven't done a TFIFI in so long. Today's brilliance: "your so-called 'artistic' photography is a horrible affront on decency!" Because, y'see, we will never liberate vaginas as long as people can go around looking at them and stuff.
The evil pornographer in question is just some random DeviantArt guy with a slick and fairly tasteful portfolio of artistic nudes. His stuff ranges from the kinda porny to the more restrained to the definitely not porn at all. Oh, and this clearly raving misogynist also has pictures of himself naked, which just shows you how he equates nudity with dehumanized worthlessness, or something. He also posts in the commentaries about his friendly relationships with the models and which shots were their ideas, which shows the sad depths of this pornographer's self-delusion.
But Twisty cares not for your "art." What she sees is naked, and naked always means exactly the same thing to all people in all contexts. PORN! Which is an alternate spelling of "rape."
This amateur pornographer, known on the website Deviantart.com as “Pelicanh,” snaps photos of naked ladies, stands back, basks in it, and calls it art. Furthermore, he puts it on the World Wide Web and gets thousands of hits a day.
THOUSANDS OF HITS A DAY! I'm sure he's becoming a billionaire.
"Anyone taking even a casual stroll through my gallery will see a lot of pussy photos. Let’s just call them what they are, OK? NO….they are NOT photos of “vaginas” - learn your anatomy, people.
I’d LOVE it if there was a sweet and endearing name for them, ya know. “Pussy” sounds pretty “Playboy-ish” to me but it is the best I can do because it ISN’T a vagina photo and that sounds waaaaayyy too medical to me anyway. There are at least a billion names for that part of a woman’s anatomy but that’s not what this journal is about. SO - get over it, I’m gonna call it a pussy."
Well, sure, you’re a pornographer. This means you think “pussy” is “anatomy.” But even if you didn’t, obviously you’d have to call it “pussy,” since degrading women and telling them to “get over it” is one of the Inalienable Rights of Man.
Fuck am I supposed to call it, lady? "Vulva" is a detached, ugly, medical-Latin word; "pussy" is indisputably English and ground-level and kind of cute. Degrading? Acting like a woman's anatomy is too sacred, obscure, or disgusting to describe in ordinary language is degrading. "You have an abnormal growth on your vulva"; "I think your pussy's beautiful."
I'm not a man, but I think that being comfortable with women's bodies is part of being comfortable with women. If the pussy is always hidden, always referred to in precise and hushed tones, it's up on some kind of fucking pedestal. A pussy that's part of a human being, that gets used and revealed and exercised and loved, is going to get called a lot of things and seen in a lot of ways, and that's a good thing.
It might also dawn on you that a “sweet, endearing name for them” would be useful only to you and your efforts to distract their owners, through some kind of phony sympathetic display, from the fact that you are a dehumanizing, exploitative prick.
So if you say bad things about pussies, you're obviously a jerk; but if you say good things, you're faking, Twisty can tell. Win-win situation here. (The solution, of course, is for men to never speak or think about pussies, which will undoubtedly give them a very healthy attitude toward people who happen to own You-Know-Whats.)
It doesn’t occur to old Pelicanh that a vulva might have aspirations that rise above being photographed by some perv for public display on his perv web page, where viewers are “made” to look at “beauty.” Aspirations, for example, that do not involve complicity in dudely “art” projects, dudely perceptions of “beauty,” or perpetual availability for pornsick voyeurism. A vulva might want to just hang around. Hit the links. Go to a museum. Menstruate. Enjoy a taco. Chillax on the chaise with a marg and a copy of I Had Trouble in Getting to Solla Sollew.
Or a pussy--or rather its owner, sheesh, I'm up here, honey--might want to be photographed. Why is it beyond conceivability that a woman might think her pussy was beautiful enough to share, or even that it was just fun to be photographed that way or even--really stretching the limits of what's possible in Twisty's reality here--that as a paid model she didn't mind accepting money for artistic nudes?
Give me the choice between being part of a well-crafted, beautifying, even kind of worshipful photo or sitting around menstruating, fuck, I know what I'd choose.
The “It’s beautiful so it’s art, not porn” argument always hilarifies me. Haw!
The "It's a crotch so it's porn, not art" argument always hilarifies me. (Although, really, most of the guy's photos are of women's entire bodies, so when you call those crotch-shots, well, tells me where you're looking. Who's reducing women to their fun bits now?)
What could it be about a vulva that makes it the universal Holy Grail of a certain species of male shutterbug? Why must these vulgar specimens insist on its unique “beauty” when, in fact, a vulva is precisely as “beautiful” as an elbow or a nostril? Why do they so vociferously declaim that they are not pornographers even though their “work” depends entirely on the gross imbalance of power between dudes and women, specifically on flattening women into 2-dimensional sex graphics?
Is it really bad to say that pussies are nicer than nostrils? Sure, there's a sexual attraction; why is that wrong or exploitative? Sex is part of life and art addresses life. It's not like the models are being kept in his basement and have no say in the matter.
And as for gross power imbalance--OH NOES NOW HE IS OPPRESSING HISSELF
A photograph of a disembodied vulva is not, as is one of an elbow or a nostril, a politically or socially neutral concept. It is the graphic representation of the universal belief that women = sex, and a symbol of male dominance in a rape culture.
It's the graphic representation of the truth that women include sex, and a symbol of our fundamental humanity. A woman who's nothing but pussy is problematic; a woman without a pussy is messed up.
I have a pussy. I love it. As a practical matter I don't hang it out in public, but I refuse to be ashamed of it. I refuse to be told that it is somehow a tool of my own oppression. My pussy is mine--mine to hide, mine to show, mine to protect, mine to offer up.
Shit, at least when this guy tells strange women what to do with their pussies he has the decency to pay them.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Cuntalina.
(I'm going camping over the weekend, no posts.)
So Twisty Faster called a columnist a "cuntalina" for saying some admittedly ridiculous things about how women without kids are defective or something. Various people observed that calling a woman "cunt" for not being feminist was not entirely awesome.
Does Twisty say:
A) "Whoa, yeah, I screwed up and went too far, that's not acceptable language for a feminist and I'm sorry."
B) (which I am not making up) Twisty Faster is a fictional character. I'm just a writer named Jill who happens to have everything in common with her. So if you like something I said, I really meant it, but if you didn't like it it was just a fictional thought exercise and you're dumb for taking it seriously.
Also, hilariously, she complains that Internet feminists these days are too strict and hypersensitive, and she just can't take it anymore, wahhh.
Fortunately, 99% of the comments (well, of the comments that got through screening) pretty much amount to "we love you Twisty no matter what, of course it's different when you use sexual slurs, we understand! besides, women who aren't with the program really are cunts! hugs!"
For clarification, I am actually Holly and I'm barely smart enough to remember what I think, let alone make up entirely fictional points of view that I will present and defend as totally serious for years on end. Unless I piss you off, then that was my secret magical friend Molly. Molly's a bitch.
So Twisty Faster called a columnist a "cuntalina" for saying some admittedly ridiculous things about how women without kids are defective or something. Various people observed that calling a woman "cunt" for not being feminist was not entirely awesome.
Does Twisty say:
A) "Whoa, yeah, I screwed up and went too far, that's not acceptable language for a feminist and I'm sorry."
B) (which I am not making up) Twisty Faster is a fictional character. I'm just a writer named Jill who happens to have everything in common with her. So if you like something I said, I really meant it, but if you didn't like it it was just a fictional thought exercise and you're dumb for taking it seriously.
Also, hilariously, she complains that Internet feminists these days are too strict and hypersensitive, and she just can't take it anymore, wahhh.
Fortunately, 99% of the comments (well, of the comments that got through screening) pretty much amount to "we love you Twisty no matter what, of course it's different when you use sexual slurs, we understand! besides, women who aren't with the program really are cunts! hugs!"
For clarification, I am actually Holly and I'm barely smart enough to remember what I think, let alone make up entirely fictional points of view that I will present and defend as totally serious for years on end. Unless I piss you off, then that was my secret magical friend Molly. Molly's a bitch.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Obama nominates a liberal woman of color for the Supreme Court. Guess Twisty Faster's reaction!
A) "This is a great day that shows just how far our country has come."
B) "While I applaud the choice of a woman of color for this position, I have reservations about her record and political leanings."
C) "HE HUGGED HER THAT ASSHOLE HE HATES WOMEN."
If you guessed C), congratulations, you've read Twisty Faster before.
Some of the comments are golden too.
Wow. At least he’s not beheading her or something.
Uh... yeah. Yeah, that's a good thing. It's probably just political though; he knows if he beheads her now the confirmation process is going to be a nightmare.
If that man ever tried to touch me I’d make sure I pissed all over myself before hand. And I’d hold him tight and linger. I’d actually like to change a messy tampon and shake his hand right after. No washing.
Is this your politics or just your fetish?
And of course it’s paternalist. Do you actually suggest there’s no power differential between a dude President of the United States and a female Hispanic judge upon whom He bestoweth shit?
I dunno, man, beats the hell out of not bestowething shit.
If nominating someone to the Supreme Court is an insult to their race and gender, fuck, I don't know what would be a compliment.
A) "This is a great day that shows just how far our country has come."
B) "While I applaud the choice of a woman of color for this position, I have reservations about her record and political leanings."
C) "HE HUGGED HER THAT ASSHOLE HE HATES WOMEN."
If you guessed C), congratulations, you've read Twisty Faster before.
Some of the comments are golden too.
Wow. At least he’s not beheading her or something.
Uh... yeah. Yeah, that's a good thing. It's probably just political though; he knows if he beheads her now the confirmation process is going to be a nightmare.
If that man ever tried to touch me I’d make sure I pissed all over myself before hand. And I’d hold him tight and linger. I’d actually like to change a messy tampon and shake his hand right after. No washing.
Is this your politics or just your fetish?
And of course it’s paternalist. Do you actually suggest there’s no power differential between a dude President of the United States and a female Hispanic judge upon whom He bestoweth shit?
I dunno, man, beats the hell out of not bestowething shit.
If nominating someone to the Supreme Court is an insult to their race and gender, fuck, I don't know what would be a compliment.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
PIV = PATRIARCHY
This one is GreenEarth's fault. I mean, okay, like everything else on this blog it's obviously my fault, but GreenEarth gave me the link.
A fairly minor Twisty post goes wacky in the comments. The OP is about a spray that reduces premature ejaculation, which is obviously a horrible thing because guys might enjoy it or something.
There was no point in imagining that the spray to which it alludes was, say, pepper spray, and that the scenario proposed incapacitating your would-be pronger long enough for you to get the job done yourself.
...Apparently the idea here is that you would fend off a rapist and then masturbate? Either that or you just mace your boyfriend and then masturbate. (If the test of a sexist statement is how fucked-up it sounds when you reverse the genders... yeah.) Either way, make really sure you wash your hands in between.
But in the comments is where things get kind of weird. Weirder.
Twisty:How long should “sex” last?
And doesn’t this assessment entirely depend on your point of view? What if you are a prostituted woman? Or you suffer from one of those conditions where penetration is painful? Or you’re one of those women in Afghanistan who is required by law to make herself available whenever Mr Dude wants it? Or a mama in a motorcycle gang? If such women were allowed to define sex, I imagine no ejaculation would ever be judged “premature.”
Gosh, I'd rather not be raped than be raped but it's real quick. I guess that's overreaching though.
Anyway, even "prostituted" (remember kids, women can't make decisions!) women, Afghan women, and biker mamas (what?) might still want to have consensual straight sex at some point. The fact that someone has suffered sexual abuse doesn't mean that they automatically become gay or asexual.
slythwolf:
I also seem to recall that women were likely to report two and a half minutes of penetration as having taken five minutes, which to me says we’re mostly staring at the wall going, when is this going to be over?
That's certainly the pessimistic way of looking at it. I might use phrases like "feels so fucking fantastic time stands still," but I'm sure that's just some man or other speaking through my helpless little puppet mouth.
Also, a thought: ejaculation is premature when it’s too early to have a chance of impregnating anyone.
...Huh?
rubysecret:I’d like to see a “Shut up about yer stupid weeny and bring me a sandwich” spray. Or a “Hon, would you please run to the store a pick up fresh batteries for my vibrator?” spray. That I’d buy.
"I’d like to see a 'Shut up about yer stupid coochie and bring me a sandwich' spray. Or a 'Hon, would you please run to the store a pick up fresh lube for my pocket pussy?' spray. That I’d buy."
FIGHT THE POWAH! REPLACE IT WITH A COMPLETELY IDENTICAL POWAH! *fistpump*
Jonathan:The men who fall over in bed after 5 seconds are seen as losers by the other dudes. It doesn’t matter if their foreplay* stamina lasted orders of magnitude longer than their weener did. It doesn’t matter whether their partners were happy, bored, or asleep. Their dudefriends are who they are having sex for.
Gosh, if that's the only reason, maybe they just shouldn't tell their friends about their ejaculations.
rubysecret: I don’t know if it’s been discussed in any studies, but I’ll bet that there are many women who say they enjoy penetration but are saying so because they know it pleases their partner - because it’s so ingrained that our sexual pleasure comes from pleasing someone else.
I'm so glad that you know what women really want even when they say something completely different. ("C'mon, baby, I know you really like it.") If we started believing what women said about their own sexuality, we'd never defeat the Patriarchy.
Twisty:One of these maneuvers, which I try to explain in this post, is that men own and define women’s sexuality in this dudely world. Surely — may I call you Shirley? — you can see that because our social order is a patriarchy, and because women in a patriarchy are a subjugated sex class, submitting to penetration is not a politically neutral act.
"Submitting to penetration" does sound like a bad idea. How about craving penetration, welcoming it, asking for it, loving it?
(Terminology break: I actually agree that "penetration" is not the most even-handed expression for the act. One of the Twisty commenters suggests "envelopment," but that's just the opposite problem. Figleaf mentioned "interlocking" recently, which works. But for practical purposes I think I like "fucking" best. It's easy to use reciprocally--he didn't just fuck me, I also fucked him--and it's pleasingly street-level.)
Anyway, an awful lot of lesbians penetrate in one way or another, and an awful lot of women penetrate themselves with no dude watching. Jesus, it's like dudes are controlling us when they're not even there! Either that or there are nerves in the vagina, it's really a toss-up.
Narya:Members of a subjugated sex class have no other option but to “submit” to penetration, just as members of the dominant class have no other option but to own and define the sexuality of the sex class.
Actually you're pretty free to not fuck if you don't want, or to define the type of fucking in your own relationships in any way you like. If someone is forcing you to be penetrated you should probably stop whining on the Internet and call the goddamn police.
niki:Even if you’re on top with a whip and he’s gagged, if he’s penetrating you you’re still the sub, ultimately.
Well, what in hell would it take to make him the sub? You're just setting up your definitions so that the very act of owning a vagina means that I'm a natural submissive. Fuck that.
(Anyway, what if I am the sub? What if I'm gagged and he has the whip and I'm his dirty little slut... and afterwards we laugh, put our clothes back on, and treat each other as equals? Seems like making sexual submission structured, explicit, and thereby optional is really quite feminist... but honestly I'd come up with any excuse to keep doing it.)
hedgepig: As long as we hets (cises?) continue to take part in hetero activities we are preventing the revolution from taking place. The fact that I can’t be part of the revolution and am actually contributing to its failure is one of the biggest disappointments I have about myself.
Why the fuck should we hets even want that kind of revolution then? We can't fix things until ~90% of women give up something they're emotionally and physically wired to want? Yeah, good luck with that and let me know how it goes, honey.
CassieC: lotsa foreplay and short and sweet is how I like it - they can stop thinking about Manchester United or whatever it is they do to drag things out. As mentioned above, this leaves more time for hot chocolate, cuddles, playing with the cat, telling bedtime stories, tickling, running out to play on the swings, beer and sleep.
Women do like chocolate and cuddles more than sex, don't we. Also, sewing and cooking and aprons with little flowers. That shit soaks my fucking panties.
Ultimately, the Twisty crowd are making the same fundamental mistake as their favorite strawmen the "stripper pole feminists"--assigning way too much political importance to private sexuality because it's more fun to talk about than childcare or health coverage. I like pontificating about sex too, but I hope I don't pretend it's a Revolutionary Battlefront.
I like dude-stuff in my vagina, I like it there for a while, and the option to use a substance that furthers those goals is just fine by me.
A fairly minor Twisty post goes wacky in the comments. The OP is about a spray that reduces premature ejaculation, which is obviously a horrible thing because guys might enjoy it or something.
There was no point in imagining that the spray to which it alludes was, say, pepper spray, and that the scenario proposed incapacitating your would-be pronger long enough for you to get the job done yourself.
...Apparently the idea here is that you would fend off a rapist and then masturbate? Either that or you just mace your boyfriend and then masturbate. (If the test of a sexist statement is how fucked-up it sounds when you reverse the genders... yeah.) Either way, make really sure you wash your hands in between.
But in the comments is where things get kind of weird. Weirder.
Twisty:How long should “sex” last?
And doesn’t this assessment entirely depend on your point of view? What if you are a prostituted woman? Or you suffer from one of those conditions where penetration is painful? Or you’re one of those women in Afghanistan who is required by law to make herself available whenever Mr Dude wants it? Or a mama in a motorcycle gang? If such women were allowed to define sex, I imagine no ejaculation would ever be judged “premature.”
Gosh, I'd rather not be raped than be raped but it's real quick. I guess that's overreaching though.
Anyway, even "prostituted" (remember kids, women can't make decisions!) women, Afghan women, and biker mamas (what?) might still want to have consensual straight sex at some point. The fact that someone has suffered sexual abuse doesn't mean that they automatically become gay or asexual.
slythwolf:
I also seem to recall that women were likely to report two and a half minutes of penetration as having taken five minutes, which to me says we’re mostly staring at the wall going, when is this going to be over?
That's certainly the pessimistic way of looking at it. I might use phrases like "feels so fucking fantastic time stands still," but I'm sure that's just some man or other speaking through my helpless little puppet mouth.
Also, a thought: ejaculation is premature when it’s too early to have a chance of impregnating anyone.
...Huh?
rubysecret:I’d like to see a “Shut up about yer stupid weeny and bring me a sandwich” spray. Or a “Hon, would you please run to the store a pick up fresh batteries for my vibrator?” spray. That I’d buy.
"I’d like to see a 'Shut up about yer stupid coochie and bring me a sandwich' spray. Or a 'Hon, would you please run to the store a pick up fresh lube for my pocket pussy?' spray. That I’d buy."
FIGHT THE POWAH! REPLACE IT WITH A COMPLETELY IDENTICAL POWAH! *fistpump*
Jonathan:The men who fall over in bed after 5 seconds are seen as losers by the other dudes. It doesn’t matter if their foreplay* stamina lasted orders of magnitude longer than their weener did. It doesn’t matter whether their partners were happy, bored, or asleep. Their dudefriends are who they are having sex for.
Gosh, if that's the only reason, maybe they just shouldn't tell their friends about their ejaculations.
rubysecret: I don’t know if it’s been discussed in any studies, but I’ll bet that there are many women who say they enjoy penetration but are saying so because they know it pleases their partner - because it’s so ingrained that our sexual pleasure comes from pleasing someone else.
I'm so glad that you know what women really want even when they say something completely different. ("C'mon, baby, I know you really like it.") If we started believing what women said about their own sexuality, we'd never defeat the Patriarchy.
Twisty:One of these maneuvers, which I try to explain in this post, is that men own and define women’s sexuality in this dudely world. Surely — may I call you Shirley? — you can see that because our social order is a patriarchy, and because women in a patriarchy are a subjugated sex class, submitting to penetration is not a politically neutral act.
"Submitting to penetration" does sound like a bad idea. How about craving penetration, welcoming it, asking for it, loving it?
(Terminology break: I actually agree that "penetration" is not the most even-handed expression for the act. One of the Twisty commenters suggests "envelopment," but that's just the opposite problem. Figleaf mentioned "interlocking" recently, which works. But for practical purposes I think I like "fucking" best. It's easy to use reciprocally--he didn't just fuck me, I also fucked him--and it's pleasingly street-level.)
Anyway, an awful lot of lesbians penetrate in one way or another, and an awful lot of women penetrate themselves with no dude watching. Jesus, it's like dudes are controlling us when they're not even there! Either that or there are nerves in the vagina, it's really a toss-up.
Narya:Members of a subjugated sex class have no other option but to “submit” to penetration, just as members of the dominant class have no other option but to own and define the sexuality of the sex class.
Actually you're pretty free to not fuck if you don't want, or to define the type of fucking in your own relationships in any way you like. If someone is forcing you to be penetrated you should probably stop whining on the Internet and call the goddamn police.
niki:Even if you’re on top with a whip and he’s gagged, if he’s penetrating you you’re still the sub, ultimately.
Well, what in hell would it take to make him the sub? You're just setting up your definitions so that the very act of owning a vagina means that I'm a natural submissive. Fuck that.
(Anyway, what if I am the sub? What if I'm gagged and he has the whip and I'm his dirty little slut... and afterwards we laugh, put our clothes back on, and treat each other as equals? Seems like making sexual submission structured, explicit, and thereby optional is really quite feminist... but honestly I'd come up with any excuse to keep doing it.)
hedgepig: As long as we hets (cises?) continue to take part in hetero activities we are preventing the revolution from taking place. The fact that I can’t be part of the revolution and am actually contributing to its failure is one of the biggest disappointments I have about myself.
Why the fuck should we hets even want that kind of revolution then? We can't fix things until ~90% of women give up something they're emotionally and physically wired to want? Yeah, good luck with that and let me know how it goes, honey.
CassieC: lotsa foreplay and short and sweet is how I like it - they can stop thinking about Manchester United or whatever it is they do to drag things out. As mentioned above, this leaves more time for hot chocolate, cuddles, playing with the cat, telling bedtime stories, tickling, running out to play on the swings, beer and sleep.
Women do like chocolate and cuddles more than sex, don't we. Also, sewing and cooking and aprons with little flowers. That shit soaks my fucking panties.
Ultimately, the Twisty crowd are making the same fundamental mistake as their favorite strawmen the "stripper pole feminists"--assigning way too much political importance to private sexuality because it's more fun to talk about than childcare or health coverage. I like pontificating about sex too, but I hope I don't pretend it's a Revolutionary Battlefront.
I like dude-stuff in my vagina, I like it there for a while, and the option to use a substance that furthers those goals is just fine by me.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Dammit, Lance Part 3: COMMIES!
Okay, I know I need to go on a Twisty Faster post diet before I get all bloated with self-satisfied strawman rage, but I gotta do the comments on that last one. The good news is that a lot of her commenters actually did point out practical issues with this goofy-ass utopia. The bad news is... well, read on.
Everyone would be an artist and everyone a musician. If something needs fixing, everyone would try and if one excelled, they’d deign to teach others who wished to know and they wouldn’t own that knowledge, they wouldn’t carry it around on their chest like a badge to market and to demand “respect” because respect would not be something to be demanded, everyone would have it, everyone would get it because they exist and that’s all there is; existence, the beauty of existence in all things as they are.
That's nice. But some things aren't worth doing if you're going to be equally beautiful and respected either way. People may continue to make music just for the joy of it, but you're going to run awful short of plumbers if you don't offer them something that non-plumbers don't have.
Of course with this kind of fluidity with reality, I’d imagine there wouldn’t be a lot of “progress” as we know it, but then who cares? What’s the rush? Does a dog or a cat rush to find the answer to why they can’t sit at a table and eat with fork and spoon? No, they accept what is and are happy.
Does the mother of a child with a disease rush to find a cure for it? Does a peasant living on a few cups of rice a day rush to produce and distribute food more effectively? Does a farmer with dying crops rush to fertilize and protect and irrigate them? YES THEY FUCKING DO, YOU SPOILED DUMBASS.
But post-revolution, advancement of the species would FINALLY be merit-based. You do what you want, and if you are good at it, other people build off of your work. Whether its organizing people, sequencing DNA, writing music, or playing with kids.
Awesome! Now who's going to fix the shitter?
There is no official parent or guardian. The idea being that the baby is cared for by the community, to which time when its not. The child, who of course, needs less and less care as they get older, would decide for themselves when to move on, who to get guidance from, what they need most. The child would have full rights of self-determination.
When I was fourteen, I would've loved to move out and self-determine my life to center around staying up all night eating pizza and watching anime porn. In retrospect I'm rather glad that I was oppressively dominated out of that.
Education, learning, skills, food, support, information, everything should be shared freely and easily and not maintained as a badge of superiority. If you know how to do something offer to teach others, whether people you know personally or advertising the sharing of these skills. If you have food, share it with the person next to you who might not have any and even if they do have some.
I don't "have" food. I bought it. (Or for illustration let's say I grew it.) I grew enough for me. You want me to grow more? Sure, I'm not stingy... wait, how much more? (Without a market or a government you won't even know.) I might double or triple my patch for warm fuzzies and free music lessons. But if you want to support a First World country's proportion of non-farmers, you need agriculture on a scale that warm fuzzies alone can't motivate. No one clears, tills, plants, tends, and harvests a 500-acre cornfield because their neighbor gave them a free sweater and they feel all obligated.
You might avoid this by having a huge proportion of farmers, but then farming's nearly all your society can do, and by setting potential doctors and engineers and plumbers behind the plow you're dooming a lot of people to unnecessary suffering. Civilization requires specialization, and specialization requires power differentials.
Hey, here's a conundrum: say Farmer Alex grew 100 tons of corn, and Farmer Bob worked dawn to dusk and invented a new way of planting and grew 300 tons. Do they get the same amount of free music lessons and socks and butter from the community? If so, Alex is dominating Bob by getting the same reward for less contribution. If not, if Bob gets more, then he's obviously dominating Alex. You can't eliminate dominance.
Perhaps technological advances will mean there are ways to get robots to the things we don’t want to be doing - cleaning up shit, finding ways to dispose of garbage - but even that strikes a wrong note with me. We are the ones producing the shit and the garbage and should be taking responsibility for it rather than yet again handing over to ‘garbage people’ or even robots to deal with it because we don’t want to.
I am taking responsibility for it; I pay the garbage people. Spending an hour a day maintaining my own personal landfill isn't more virtuous than giving an hour's pay to Rabanco once a month, it's just massively less efficient. (Also... am I supposed to feel bad about imposing upon a robot?)
as soon as someone mentions utopia/revolution/post patriarchy etc there is a gut reaction of people to immediately say ‘but that is impossible!’ and then come up with reasons why it isn’t rather than putting their energy into making it happen.
Because if you don't think critically you can pour all the energy in the world down a hole, doofus.
the thing is that even post-patriarchy is a cultural construct, and has arisen out of culture, in its broadest sense.
OH SHIT PARADOX!!!
But in the end, commenter "Jael" nails it right on the head.
so basically, if we woke up tomorrow and everything was perfect, then everything would be perfect?
Everyone would be an artist and everyone a musician. If something needs fixing, everyone would try and if one excelled, they’d deign to teach others who wished to know and they wouldn’t own that knowledge, they wouldn’t carry it around on their chest like a badge to market and to demand “respect” because respect would not be something to be demanded, everyone would have it, everyone would get it because they exist and that’s all there is; existence, the beauty of existence in all things as they are.
That's nice. But some things aren't worth doing if you're going to be equally beautiful and respected either way. People may continue to make music just for the joy of it, but you're going to run awful short of plumbers if you don't offer them something that non-plumbers don't have.
Of course with this kind of fluidity with reality, I’d imagine there wouldn’t be a lot of “progress” as we know it, but then who cares? What’s the rush? Does a dog or a cat rush to find the answer to why they can’t sit at a table and eat with fork and spoon? No, they accept what is and are happy.
Does the mother of a child with a disease rush to find a cure for it? Does a peasant living on a few cups of rice a day rush to produce and distribute food more effectively? Does a farmer with dying crops rush to fertilize and protect and irrigate them? YES THEY FUCKING DO, YOU SPOILED DUMBASS.
But post-revolution, advancement of the species would FINALLY be merit-based. You do what you want, and if you are good at it, other people build off of your work. Whether its organizing people, sequencing DNA, writing music, or playing with kids.
Awesome! Now who's going to fix the shitter?
There is no official parent or guardian. The idea being that the baby is cared for by the community, to which time when its not. The child, who of course, needs less and less care as they get older, would decide for themselves when to move on, who to get guidance from, what they need most. The child would have full rights of self-determination.
When I was fourteen, I would've loved to move out and self-determine my life to center around staying up all night eating pizza and watching anime porn. In retrospect I'm rather glad that I was oppressively dominated out of that.
Education, learning, skills, food, support, information, everything should be shared freely and easily and not maintained as a badge of superiority. If you know how to do something offer to teach others, whether people you know personally or advertising the sharing of these skills. If you have food, share it with the person next to you who might not have any and even if they do have some.
I don't "have" food. I bought it. (Or for illustration let's say I grew it.) I grew enough for me. You want me to grow more? Sure, I'm not stingy... wait, how much more? (Without a market or a government you won't even know.) I might double or triple my patch for warm fuzzies and free music lessons. But if you want to support a First World country's proportion of non-farmers, you need agriculture on a scale that warm fuzzies alone can't motivate. No one clears, tills, plants, tends, and harvests a 500-acre cornfield because their neighbor gave them a free sweater and they feel all obligated.
You might avoid this by having a huge proportion of farmers, but then farming's nearly all your society can do, and by setting potential doctors and engineers and plumbers behind the plow you're dooming a lot of people to unnecessary suffering. Civilization requires specialization, and specialization requires power differentials.
Hey, here's a conundrum: say Farmer Alex grew 100 tons of corn, and Farmer Bob worked dawn to dusk and invented a new way of planting and grew 300 tons. Do they get the same amount of free music lessons and socks and butter from the community? If so, Alex is dominating Bob by getting the same reward for less contribution. If not, if Bob gets more, then he's obviously dominating Alex. You can't eliminate dominance.
Perhaps technological advances will mean there are ways to get robots to the things we don’t want to be doing - cleaning up shit, finding ways to dispose of garbage - but even that strikes a wrong note with me. We are the ones producing the shit and the garbage and should be taking responsibility for it rather than yet again handing over to ‘garbage people’ or even robots to deal with it because we don’t want to.
I am taking responsibility for it; I pay the garbage people. Spending an hour a day maintaining my own personal landfill isn't more virtuous than giving an hour's pay to Rabanco once a month, it's just massively less efficient. (Also... am I supposed to feel bad about imposing upon a robot?)
as soon as someone mentions utopia/revolution/post patriarchy etc there is a gut reaction of people to immediately say ‘but that is impossible!’ and then come up with reasons why it isn’t rather than putting their energy into making it happen.
Because if you don't think critically you can pour all the energy in the world down a hole, doofus.
the thing is that even post-patriarchy is a cultural construct, and has arisen out of culture, in its broadest sense.
OH SHIT PARADOX!!!
But in the end, commenter "Jael" nails it right on the head.
so basically, if we woke up tomorrow and everything was perfect, then everything would be perfect?
Dammit, Lance Part 2: Twisty Liberates Babies From Their Cribs!
Good ol' Lance found me a ripe one: Twisty Faster slightly further off the deep end than normal. (Maybe she's kidding, kind of? I can never tell.)
Lots of the ideas put forth by Shulamith Firestone in The Dialectic of Sex intrigue the fuck out of spinster aunts, but none intrigues the fuck out of them like this one: that in a post-patriarchal society, culture (inclusive, I am happy to say, of art) will become irrelevant and extrinsic and die a long-overdue death, whereupon humans, freed from the prison of domination, will transmogrify into giant intellects pretty much throbbing with contentment.
So what you're saying is that a post-patriarchal society will not feature humans. Or intelligent sociable organisms of any kind. Maybe blue-green algae? They don't have sexes and they don't do much dominating. Don't do much else, of course, but such is the price of equality.
(Fuck, I just looked up blue-green algae and it has role differentiation within its colonies that might be considered "domination." The patriarchy is everywhere!)
No culture, no domination. Well, if there's no culture, how the hell will we know things? Culture brings deleterious beliefs with it, yes, but that's a side effect of culture bringing all beliefs. Learning biases and inaccuracies from each other is better than learning nothing from each other and starving to death trying to reinvent agriculture.
As for no domination, that works great in groups up to about twenty. (Well, in some book I read. In reality most groups of two end up with a clear leader.) After that you run into the problem that people's cultural-preconception-free self-assigned roles won't match up with the group's needs, and once again you can't even produce food, much less airplanes and insulin.
What about the children?
These are legitimate concerns for persons whose experience is confined to the intellectual suffocation demanded by life in a primitive, violent dystopia. Which is just about everybody.
Certainly we couldn’t, at this point in human evolution, just start turning the kids loose in the world. It is unthinkable that they should not spend their idyllic first years in thrall to one or two adults who will educate (socialize) them according to the adults’ personal “values,” meaning, of course, the DNA necessary to replicate patriarchy. This indoctrination period is known as “raising” children, and differs from raising tomatoes chiefly in that tomatoes are given quite a bit more freedom to be themselves.
Oh what the fuck.
I can't even argue about this without looking stupid. It's like explaining why houses have roofs. Do I actually have to spell out that firstly kids can't feed and shelter themselves, and secondly if you don't "indoctrinate" them they won't know anything? Also, if your house didn't have a roof birds would poop on your bed.
Raising children is thought to be both a moral obligation and a deeply fulfilling endeavor. When people, especially women, reproduce and fail to take sufficient interest in the deeply fulfilling endeavor of hammering patriarchal ideology into their kids, they are described by people who do do this (i.e. “good” parents) as “bad” parents.
Hey, if your beliefs lead you to not have kids, awesome, have fun, you're doing the gene pool a favor. But once you've had the kids you've got a goddamn responsibility. No one's calling you a bad parent if you don't give girls little pink aprons and boys little blue police cars; if people are saying that then you're failing at something much more fundamental.
Say, for example, that because of changes engendered by the feminist revolution, kids wouldn’t need to be raised at all. They could flit about the countryside according to whim, just like anybody else. Why not? They wouldn’t be kidnaped or raped or sold into sex slavery because, remember? dominance and submission is a thing of the past.
I was not aware that you could culture-change away all violence in the world. Can you do ingrown hairs, too?
The kids would choose the people they wish to hang out with, which people may or may not include their biological parents.
Sometimes that would be no one, if biological parents are equally "free" not to care for their kids. Or sometimes that would be the people with the most candy and toys to offer. Four-year-olds are not noted as great judges of parenting competency and good faith. (Or perhaps it's just my cultural perception of four-year-olds that makes me think that! I imagine that a post-revolutionary preschooler would not only be a master of human relations and nuclear physics, they would be six feet tall.)
The parents would be relieved of their neurotic, self-absorbed obsession with their own offspring, the kids would be free from enslavement as low-status sub-beings in a nuclear family to which they belong only as an accident of birth.
Still not over that time you had to mow the lawn even though you didn't wanna, huh?
Firestone asserts that after the feminist/proletarian revolt, humans, unfettered by class and culture and power differentials, will be free to “realize the conceivable in the actual.” We’d become giant pulsating globs of happiness.
Thus would art take a powder! Hallelujah! At least, art as we know it — that ponderous, self-absorbed, interpretation, or anti-interpretation (whatever!), of reality, with an audience manipulated by a creator — would cease to be.
I'm not sure what hating on art has to do with anything. But at this point in this post I can't remember what anything has to do with anything and I'm no longer sure if I'm awake or dreaming or in the grip of a fevered Robitussin vision.
Imagine: oppression of children, gone! Imagine: war, gone! Imagine: art, gone! All made irrelevant by human evolution into pulsating, contented geniuses. Gone is the power differential between parent and offspring, homeland and enemy, audience and creator. Blamm! Revolution fixes everything.
I think the only "revolution" that could fix this would be bigger than women just abandoning men. Bigger than women fighting men. Bigger than everybody fighting everybody. It would be the dissolution of human beings into bodiless entities of pure philosophy, stripped of all needs and emotions and associations.
...So, uh, let me know how that works out for you!
(I'll hack on the comments tomorrow; even a lot of Twisty's commenters admitted to not making head or tail of this one. But plenty of them added their own crazypants to the mix. Or better yet, said "Well, I don't understand this but I'm sure Twisty is just too smart and advanced for me," which is an attitude I never seem to get out of my commenters.)
Lots of the ideas put forth by Shulamith Firestone in The Dialectic of Sex intrigue the fuck out of spinster aunts, but none intrigues the fuck out of them like this one: that in a post-patriarchal society, culture (inclusive, I am happy to say, of art) will become irrelevant and extrinsic and die a long-overdue death, whereupon humans, freed from the prison of domination, will transmogrify into giant intellects pretty much throbbing with contentment.
So what you're saying is that a post-patriarchal society will not feature humans. Or intelligent sociable organisms of any kind. Maybe blue-green algae? They don't have sexes and they don't do much dominating. Don't do much else, of course, but such is the price of equality.
(Fuck, I just looked up blue-green algae and it has role differentiation within its colonies that might be considered "domination." The patriarchy is everywhere!)
No culture, no domination. Well, if there's no culture, how the hell will we know things? Culture brings deleterious beliefs with it, yes, but that's a side effect of culture bringing all beliefs. Learning biases and inaccuracies from each other is better than learning nothing from each other and starving to death trying to reinvent agriculture.
As for no domination, that works great in groups up to about twenty. (Well, in some book I read. In reality most groups of two end up with a clear leader.) After that you run into the problem that people's cultural-preconception-free self-assigned roles won't match up with the group's needs, and once again you can't even produce food, much less airplanes and insulin.
What about the children?
These are legitimate concerns for persons whose experience is confined to the intellectual suffocation demanded by life in a primitive, violent dystopia. Which is just about everybody.
Certainly we couldn’t, at this point in human evolution, just start turning the kids loose in the world. It is unthinkable that they should not spend their idyllic first years in thrall to one or two adults who will educate (socialize) them according to the adults’ personal “values,” meaning, of course, the DNA necessary to replicate patriarchy. This indoctrination period is known as “raising” children, and differs from raising tomatoes chiefly in that tomatoes are given quite a bit more freedom to be themselves.
Oh what the fuck.
I can't even argue about this without looking stupid. It's like explaining why houses have roofs. Do I actually have to spell out that firstly kids can't feed and shelter themselves, and secondly if you don't "indoctrinate" them they won't know anything? Also, if your house didn't have a roof birds would poop on your bed.
Raising children is thought to be both a moral obligation and a deeply fulfilling endeavor. When people, especially women, reproduce and fail to take sufficient interest in the deeply fulfilling endeavor of hammering patriarchal ideology into their kids, they are described by people who do do this (i.e. “good” parents) as “bad” parents.
Hey, if your beliefs lead you to not have kids, awesome, have fun, you're doing the gene pool a favor. But once you've had the kids you've got a goddamn responsibility. No one's calling you a bad parent if you don't give girls little pink aprons and boys little blue police cars; if people are saying that then you're failing at something much more fundamental.
Say, for example, that because of changes engendered by the feminist revolution, kids wouldn’t need to be raised at all. They could flit about the countryside according to whim, just like anybody else. Why not? They wouldn’t be kidnaped or raped or sold into sex slavery because, remember? dominance and submission is a thing of the past.
I was not aware that you could culture-change away all violence in the world. Can you do ingrown hairs, too?
The kids would choose the people they wish to hang out with, which people may or may not include their biological parents.
Sometimes that would be no one, if biological parents are equally "free" not to care for their kids. Or sometimes that would be the people with the most candy and toys to offer. Four-year-olds are not noted as great judges of parenting competency and good faith. (Or perhaps it's just my cultural perception of four-year-olds that makes me think that! I imagine that a post-revolutionary preschooler would not only be a master of human relations and nuclear physics, they would be six feet tall.)
The parents would be relieved of their neurotic, self-absorbed obsession with their own offspring, the kids would be free from enslavement as low-status sub-beings in a nuclear family to which they belong only as an accident of birth.
Still not over that time you had to mow the lawn even though you didn't wanna, huh?
Firestone asserts that after the feminist/proletarian revolt, humans, unfettered by class and culture and power differentials, will be free to “realize the conceivable in the actual.” We’d become giant pulsating globs of happiness.
Thus would art take a powder! Hallelujah! At least, art as we know it — that ponderous, self-absorbed, interpretation, or anti-interpretation (whatever!), of reality, with an audience manipulated by a creator — would cease to be.
I'm not sure what hating on art has to do with anything. But at this point in this post I can't remember what anything has to do with anything and I'm no longer sure if I'm awake or dreaming or in the grip of a fevered Robitussin vision.
Imagine: oppression of children, gone! Imagine: war, gone! Imagine: art, gone! All made irrelevant by human evolution into pulsating, contented geniuses. Gone is the power differential between parent and offspring, homeland and enemy, audience and creator. Blamm! Revolution fixes everything.
I think the only "revolution" that could fix this would be bigger than women just abandoning men. Bigger than women fighting men. Bigger than everybody fighting everybody. It would be the dissolution of human beings into bodiless entities of pure philosophy, stripped of all needs and emotions and associations.
...So, uh, let me know how that works out for you!
(I'll hack on the comments tomorrow; even a lot of Twisty's commenters admitted to not making head or tail of this one. But plenty of them added their own crazypants to the mix. Or better yet, said "Well, I don't understand this but I'm sure Twisty is just too smart and advanced for me," which is an attitude I never seem to get out of my commenters.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)