Why feminism will never work

FCM wrote a lot about why feminism is a failed project and getting to that conclusion.

https://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2014/12/21/unconscionable-gaslighting/

I always came too late to the party to comment. But, i came to feminism young and i never went to libfem, and i never honestly believed that feminism would ever WORK, that is, I never believed we would achieve either liberation or equality. I mean I can never recall ever believing women as a class would ever achieve this. I was lucky that my mother raised me with feminist ideas and an understanding of class: female that felt innate.

But anyway. I always still wanted feminism because it felt true, and it was important to me to be able to understand, verbalise and analyse how things worked and why. But never because i actually felt it would get us to any worthwhile end point.

I never worked it out like FCM did, the destruction of the planet and the non terminating feedback loop, which is essentially cell division in cancer too, right.

My logic went like this:

-women and men are biologically different, reproduction is important to the species, and women’s role in reproduction will always lead to our oppression by men, somehow

-men are generally physically stronger than women, which they will always have the opportunity to exploit

-if women were to ever succeed at this, we would need a war. A fight, of us v men. However women LOVE  men. They grow up with men. They love fathers and brothers. They nurture and love sons. Their first response to most feminist analysis is Not All Men. Its not a war and it never will be and never can be, therefore it will never happen.

 

 

So that was me… i just wanted to add this, however unread and however late.

 

So what are we actually doing and why, and is it worth it. And what do i think im doing, why am i still here.

Advertisements

Are periods a side effect of patriarchy?

a little while ago I saw this article about why women get periods. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150420-why-do-women-have-periods

Apparently very few mammals get periods, and the theory posited in the article is, as I understand, that women evolved deciduous womb linings in order to better naturally select which pregnancies to carry to term- because unlike a lot of mammals, humans have sex throughout the female’s reproductive cycle.

this sat in my head for a little while. And I was thinking about what fcm https://factcheckme.wordpress.com used to say about ancient societies and matriarchy. I can’t find the post but she used to point out that since there was evidence of contraceptives being used back in the day (stones in the uterus if I recall) that she doubted there was ever a time of matriarchy, ie a society where women truly chose how, when, and if they got pregnant, or if they had sex at all (where pregnancy would be the logical conclusion of sex).

 

So if we have EVOLVED periods to minimise our chances of pregnancy, because men are constantly having sex with us- how would our reproductive organs have evolved differently, if women hadn’t been subject to men’s constant demand for sexual access since the dawn of humanity?

 

would female biology be different if women had been the ones making the decisions about when they have sex?

 

and if so what are the implications of this? I realise that this is not canon because we are ‘meant’ to celebrate periods as feminists and this could instead be taken to imply that this aspect of female biology is- for want of a better word- pathological.

 

our bodies/ourselves

2b94cd48448acce587e3f737354c4091

 

I am really bothered by the way we talk about ourselves, ie about our bodies. You dont ‘have’ a body. You ARE a body, the body is YOU. We talk about women having ownership over our bodies, when it comes to consent or abortion or the clothes we wear. We literally discuss it in those terms.

How often do you ever hear, or think, of men as having ownership over their own bodies? How often do they ever talk about it? How often do they need to assert it?

How disconnected do women feel from our very selves when we need to assert ‘ownership over’ our bodies? Men simply ARE, they simply exist. Apply the concept to them and see how ludicrous it is. See how ludicrous the language is.

Womens bodies arent resources to be fought over, for women and men to argue over and decide who gets to make the final call, for whos approval or convenience they should be used or dressed. Where are women, when this debate about womens bodies is going on, when we’re deciding who owns them? I mean where physically are the women, in what physical space? The term womens bodies is meaningless. There is only women.

you cant ‘have’ or ‘have ownership over’ your body. You can only be alive, or be dead.

What I’ve learned from reading radical feminism

not so much what I’ve learned; the stuff I’ve learned to see, analyse and articulate is obviously encyclopaedic.

but what I’ve learned to do that’s new.

Mainly:

1 respect femme women and women who perform or are invested in femininity; something which i previously scorned. I have come to see that they and I are both playing the same rough hand; they have chosen to play it differently but maybe they have made a wise choice, certainly I no longer believe they have made a choice substantially ‘worse’ than mine in any respect. Or substantially less authentic. We are all performing and none of us know who the fuck we really would be without patriarchy.

 

2 respect older women. Listen hard to what they have to say because they have learned a lot of shit the hard way and some how they are telling you about it even if they’re not saying it consciously.

 

3 respect and centre women generally. Pay attention to their ideas, experiences and contributions. These won’t be dressed up or asserted but they’re usually worth hearing.

 

 

I’m not proud of myself that I had to learn to do this stuff, but there it is.

sex=rape

This is something I have been thinking about for a while…

In law, in court, consent is what separates sex from rape. The law sees sex and rape as the same thing, the same act, with consent to the act being the difference between them. The law understands them both the same; the law understands sex as something that is done to someone. Subject verb object. If that object does not consent, it then becomes rape.

In law, a woman’s sexual history and the sexual history between the rapist and the victim, count as evidence. Partly because in legal terms, rape is framed as an act of trespass and not a hate crime. It makes no sense to say to the victim of hate mail, ‘well you have received post in the past, how do we know you didn’t want this one?’ or to the victim of verbal harassment and abuse ‘well you have had conversations in the past, so who’s to say you didn’t want this?’

I have always understood sex as communication. As something people do with each other, not to each other. As something two (or more) people do together. I have always understood rape as something different.

Isn’t it disturbing that the courts of law, and the men who run this society and make and enforce those laws, have an understanding of sex which can only be differentiated from rape by getting consent first?

 

FCM

I miss FCM already. That blog, including reading the comments, has been a HUGE part of my own developing feminist consciousness or whatever you want to call it.

I will probably post more about this later. I’m thinking about writing a post about the main things I took away from Femonade, the broad strokes. But there were always certain individual comments or posts that would stay with me. Sometimes it seemed almost like I was missing the point because they would be comments and observations that didn’t seem to be so important to everyone else. But whatever they would echo and resound in my head.

I woke up today with this one still in there, five months later:

“its all very literal now isnt it? men have created technology in their own image to turn the entire world into themselves, and to literally SHOW us whats inside their minds. their fantasies, including what they want women to be, and the future of the world. futuristic movies are all apocalyptic, post-apocalyptic, or in space. there are no trees or natural areas ANYWHERE. women are robots, uniformed “honorary men”, rape objects put to work repopulating the species, or do not exist at all. and PORN. increasingly violent and dehumanizing to the woman. this is what men see when they close their eyes. they dream about it, fantasize about it, and this is what their “creativity” looks like. again, this is happening by degrees, although we have discussed before how we seem to be at a critical mass of male insanity now. surely girls and women have to be progressively sedated/euthenized in order not to see any of this, to not be disturbed by it or to not care. not knowing our history helps. and this is exactly what i am reading about at the moment. part 2 of gerda lerners “the creation of patriarchy” which is called “the creation of feminist consciousness” is all about womens history and how its been lost.”

This was a comment posted by FCM on http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/presence-of-absence/

When I read it it was one of those little epiphanies. I just thought about men and the shit they have created to entertain themselves. Mainly the videogames they unwind with, and how entertaining they find war and violent crime. I know it’s old hat, but really realising that that is what comforts them- fantasising about actually doing this shit in real life. Constructing games wherein they get to play like they’re doing it for real. Striving every time to get the graphics more and more ‘realistic’.

If you talk to men about this they’ll just laugh and tell you they know the difference between fantasy and reality. But that’s not the point, is it? The point is that this is their fantasy at all.  This isn’t a world they want to escape from. It’s a world they find — entertaining.

BDSM (again) – a question

Okay, this is something I really don’t get.

From my reading/my understanding, a big part of the submissive’s ‘training’ or role in BDSM relationships is to take whatever is dished out, and to learn to take it without making a sound, protesting, moving, or otherwise resisting.

 

I don’t understand this because surely- surely, the dom needs to see some kind of manifestation of discomfort, fear or pain from the submissive, in order to be pleased?

So essentially the more ‘trained’ a submissive is, ie the ‘better’ a submissive gets at their role, the less satisfying it is for the dom, and the more the dom will need to push it, test boundaries, etc. Until they can get a reaction again. The submissive then learns to ‘control’ that reaction and ‘take’ the next level, and then the cycle begins again.

Is this how it works? And if so, where does the cycle terminate? What’s it leading to?