more science and essentialism

My first essentialist thought on men’s violence was that only men could ever build an entire necrophilic society around the raping and controlling of women’s reproductive capacities because only men are biologically capable of doing it, using their own biology as weapons against women – penis and semen. So I saw that patriarchy fitted to men’s biology to the extent that it is only achievable through their biological capacity to rape and impregnate women. Also, I saw their hatred of women partly as an of envy women’s reproductive power and obsession with their own incapacity to reproduce life. But I still believed it was all a mistake somehow and that it wasn’t inherent in men, that they could change if we just pointed it out to them, and they were caught up in this sad masculinity thing enforced on them, TOO!

The next step to essentialism wasn’t really difficult, because men’s system is neither the consequence of some historical accident nor external to them. FCM cleared a lot of ground in essentialist argumentation by putting it this way:

1) Evidence such as the need for abortion and other pregnancy preventive methods going as far back as possible into our history point to the fact that men were rapey/violent across all times of known human history. IOW, men have always proven to be a rape threat for women.

2) Male sexual violence against women is universal, that is, covers the entire globe – there’s no exception, no my-nigel, no far-away land where men are all as sweet as lambs.

3) there is nobody outside men forcing men to be violent. Their patriarchal system is created and enforced by them alone. no invisible force is secretly pulling the strings behind the scenes. Since it comes from men and not from anyone else, this is the definition of inherent. It’s internal to them.

4) If patriarchy didn’t suit men in some basic, inherent way, they would rebel against this enforcement, but they don’t, ever. (see also here and here, arguments by FCM in comments). Not that they lack the power to do so, given that they monopolise all political power in patriarchy.

All this leads to the conclusion that their systematised violence is consistent with their natures. It’s simple, logical, solid. Inherent is the opposite of extraneous – it means “intrinsic” (Merriam Webster). And indeed, men’s violence is not externally imposed, but comes from them only, and universally so. Therefore, men’s violence is inherent to them. Easy!

Then bloggers and commenters moved on to defining maleness as parasitism (men being inherently parasitic to women), which Mary Daly, Valerie Solanas and Sonia Johnson had already talked about in their works (and surely many other women I do not yet know of), and which were taken on in various blogs recently.

I’ve also been very interested in scientific explanations for male violence and male parasitism, and have looked at mitochondrial DNA some time ago. Then someone commented on that post notifying me about the difference in corpus callosum between men and women: which propelled me into even more biological essentialism. FCM said a while ago (can’t remember where exactly and what the exact phrasing was) that male-essentialist view does not equate to saying that women are naturally subordinate to men, and in fact we have always resisted men’s violence since as long as we know, and one of the basic contentions of feminism is that subordination (femininity) is enforced on us, not natural. She went on to say that therefore, we shouldn’t make claims on female nature because we’re not able to figure it out or something (this is where my memory falters, I can’t remember what the words were, something like making claims on women’s nature is harmful, because, something… please notify if you find that passage as I haven’t found it).

Well, I actually do think it’s possible to make some claims about female nature without falling into the trap of essentialising female subordination (femininity), which I obviously reject. Especially, to make claims about our essential powers and gifts that men lack.

I base it on an intuition and experience: being around with women is substantially and physically different from being around with men. The physical and sensory experience is simply different, and I’m not talking about touching in just a physical way, but the physics of soul-touching and sparking. Men are incapable of spinning; in every possible sense of the term. Any energy sent to them never comes back, it’s a dead end, a black hole, it goes plop, or flop, it stops there and never moves, there is no real exchange, and at the very least we’re left with a feeling of unease. Whereas with women, especially with radical feminists, you can actually feel the spinning going on, the revitalisation, the constant movement of mind and senses, things just flow. It fills your blood with life. I can feel the exchange like tiny fireworks bursting around and moving up in circles, like a happy dance. It feels colourful, musical and blissful. It has a very real and physical effect on me. I think deep down women know this, that we don’t and can’t have the same connection with women as with men.

Second, it is common scientific knowledge that women and men have different brain attributes: women have on average 23% more corpus callosum* than men, and men’s brain is more one-sided, localised in one hemisphere of the brain (apparently the left). Women also have a deeper and larger limbic system, which is the memory system. *The corpus callosum is situated in the middle of the brain between the two hemispheres, it’s a very large arched tissue of nerve fibres that connect the two brain hemispheres together, as well as the different lobes and areas of the brain (memory / limbic system, pineal gland…).

These facts are well-known and you can find them easily by googling it but when you look up mainstream research, the significance of this information and its implications for men and women are always obscured: to quote Mary Daly, commenting on one such researcher:

Julian Jaynes sweeps over significant information as if it were barely worth nothing, when such information relates to the powers of women. He writes: “And a comment can be added here about sexual differences. It is now well known that women are biologically somewhat less lateralized in brain function than men. This means simply that psychological functions in women are not localized into one or the other hemisphere of the brain in the same degree as men. Mental abilities in women are more spread over both hemispheres… And it is common knowledge that elderly men with a stroke or hemorrhage in the left hemisphere are more speechless than elderly women with a similar diagnosis. Accordingly we might expect more residual language function in the right hemisphere of women, making it easier for women to learn to be oracles. And indeed the majority of oracles and Sibyls, at least in European cultures, were women” [all emphases mine]. … This fascinating point is mentioned in only one other place in the book, and there even more scantily (p. 350). Shrewd Shrews will notice that Jaynes’ language is deceptive and patronizing to women. For by his syntax he manages to belittle the oracular gifts of women and the Elemental integrity of female mental faculties, while at the same time obscuring the negative implications of overly localized psychological functions in males.

Bolds mine. In Mary Daly, Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy, 1984, p. 148, in the notes.

This is another typical example of how the crucial info and its implications is totally wiped out by male-vetted language:

A robust sex difference in the splenium of the corpus callosum, reflecting greater interhemispheric connectivity in women, was observed on magnetic resonance images from 114 individuals. In addition, bulbosity of the corpus callosum correlated with better cognitive performance in women but not in men. source

The way these differences in brain functions link to male violence and female powers is illuminating though.

If we look at men, their localised brain function and smaller corpus callosum links quite clearly to their necrophilia and disconnectedness from life, their sensory atrophy or incapacity to connect both on a sensory, emotional and conceptual level, their addiction to violence or use of violence as their only way to feel things. If their brain function is indeed localised on the left hemisphere, which is known to represent the rational side of the brain, and doesn’t connect easily to the right hemisphere (senses, emotion, intuition) because of less corpus callosum, then it makes sense that they can disconnect violent acts so easily from sensory experience and cognitive, emotional understanding of it, and from understanding the wider consequences of that violence which would normally prevent them from doing it or give them second thoughts about it. It may explain why men need external enforcement in order NOT to be violent or to refrain their violence because they wouldn’t otherwise stop it themselves, they wouldn’t see the need to themselves. It coincides with their extraordinary lack of empathy, their incapacity to relate to other living beings outside of violation and their ability to be so sadistic and cold about their violence. It also explains IMO how, because of their sensory atrophy, violence so easily becomes exclusively experienced as erection and how the want to feel this erection again or any form of arousal (even through more subliminal means) overrides all other considerations – how this is in fact the only thing they can feel, this addictive arousal-violence cycle.

There is undoubtedly a certain amount of conditioning wrt boys, but I believe that men capitalise on their inherent capacity or potential for violence to increase their lethality against women and hence their domination over us. They know exactly what to do to themselves and to girls to keep the system going. The only thing men will sometimes complain about wrt to their conditioning is what other men do to them, but never about what they do to women and living beings.

With regards to women, the implications are immense. Again, if we look at male-talk for information:

Dickipedia says:

Time published an article in 1992 that suggested that, because the corpus is “often wider in the brains of women than in those of men, it may allow for greater cross-talk between the hemispheres—possibly the basis for women’s intuition.”[13]

The greater corpus callosum allows for greater inter-hemisphere connection, which means that women’s brain functions are more evenly spread over both hemispheres – we have more brain functions, in short (contrary to what some men say, women are not right-brained but simply brained, with both hemispheres functioning properly). This accounts for women’s so-called greater “intuition”: which is an euphemism for greater creativity, inventiveness, insight, understanding, capacity to see, hear and feel sensory as well as extra-sensory events and surroundings, of connecting concepts together, of connecting emotions, feelings and concepts, of bonding, etc. It allows for better capacity to heal from trauma – if one area of the brain is shut off because of trauma, the brain can compensate and create new connections more easily. It means all areas of the body are equally connected to the brain and vice versa, not just one part (ie sexual part). Since each part of the brain is connected to and represents a part of the body, brain and body are one, and the body is the brain as much as the brain is the body, if you see what I mean. (as an example, trauma in the brain, having caused neuronal atrophy in that area can be healed by touching and stimulating the body part it is connected to, which will create new connections).

I’m pretty sure that we’d have loads more healing, psychic, telepathic and other transcendental superpowers were we not crippled from birth by men, and that men have reduced our powers generation after generation of genocide.

It also means that only women would have had the necessary brain power to create language, writing, art, science, houses, pottery, and invent all the beautiful things of humanity. There is also increasing evidence that women are responsible for it throughout the history of humanity. Digging a bit deeper into the background of male history also attests of the fact that women have systematically been the inventors and creators while men stole their knowledge and skills, erased women’s motherhood of it and turned the knowledge and skills into weapons against women and life. The only thing women haven’t invented is men’s sexual violence and male destruction in all its forms, and patriarchy.

29 Responses to “more science and essentialism”


  1. 1 Mary Sunshine December 1, 2013 at 8:54 am

    This is so clearly and beautifully put. Thank you. I’m convinced that on some level, all womyn *know* this.

  2. 2 Dar Guerra December 1, 2013 at 7:26 pm

    Thank you for your courage in setting forth this theory which was developed by fcm and which has been met with strong resistance from some feminists who are still enmeshed in the notion that admitting any biological difference between men and women is admitting the inevitability of female subjugation. You explain once more and very clearly how male violence can have a biological base, while female subjugation does not. I also remember fcm’s argument that women have always resisted – that the subjugation has always been forced on us by the most impressive coercive system, starting from our female births, ever invented.

    I hadn’t studied the brain differentials between women and men – I learned a lot! And I’m pleased that you draw in Mary Daly and others who discussed this very legitimate “essentialist” theory decades ago.

    The word “necrophilia” as used by radfems means of course the valorization of Death in male culture and perhaps more deeply than culture. I’ve written elsewhere about the observations of Freud and others that there seems to be a “death instinct” at work in the endless production of violence. I think there is increasing evidence of a relationship of behavioral violence to male biology. I also agree that of course social conditioning affects the production of violence in our world too.

    Well said!

  3. 3 witchwind December 2, 2013 at 2:16 am

    hi, thanks for your comment, well i’m glad you found the information useful, I found it illuminating and it confirmed what I already sensed and it really clicked to reality and made further sense to it. I spent quite a lot of time researching stuff online but I couldn’t be bothered to go through it all in detail for the article, so really I feel I’ve only rushed through the subject, especially on the implications on men and women, because they are so vast and there’s still so little understanding about the brain and the powers we have by official research. Yet it all can be said in a few words, as the concept in itself is very simple.

    I’d be interested to know if readers here have that same experience of spinning with women, of this kind of sparking movement I described – if it feels the same or not, and if not, how?

  4. 4 thentheysaidburnher December 2, 2013 at 4:58 am

    Spinning, wow, what a beautiful turn of phrase for such a profound experience. I love this post. It’s becoming more and more evident that men’s violence and hierarchical nature is indeed inherent, and men are losing their shit (as per ushe) over it. Not that they didn’t always know–they’re just scared that women are talking about it. I’m fascinated by the recent advances and revelations in biology and neuroscience showing the near perfection that is femaleness, and the flawed obsolescence of maleness. Thank you for writing this.

  5. 5 witchwind December 2, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    The word spinning comes from Mary Daly, at least she seems to be the originator of that term. I really suggest reading her Wickedary of the terms she invented.

    The earliest researches date back to the 70′ apparently and were done by women, but I haven’t found any of them.

  6. 6 trustyourperceptions December 3, 2013 at 4:25 am

    The current American administration has set aside $100 million+ starting in 2014 to begin major collaborative brain research. This massive effort will be on par with the Human Genome Project, which only initiated us into this endless and fruitful topic of life. Genetics and neurology are in their absolute infancy, and how the information gathered is interpreted — with new information expected on female and male brain differences — is of critical import. Alert radfems will have to pay attention.

    I beg to differ with the commenter that FCM originated the idea of essentialism. Lordy. While I LOVE FCM, the idea that men are inherently insane and violent the world over is an idea as old as men. Many women have known this in their bones many many generations before FCM was even made borne by her blessed mother. (Respect to her). Let’s have some accuracy there please. The radfems of long-ago yesterdays and many other radfems today hold this idea; in fact, in my view, essentialism is the core of radical feminism. It is what distinguishes radical feminism from the underdeveloped analysis by others.

    In my experience, the majority of women are scared to death to admit men are inherently psychofucks. I have seen much resistance from women on this point (particularly from women also insisting they are radfems). To these women, I would like to point out that even MEN argue that their maleness is responsible for their behavior: “Boys will be boys.” “It was my other head thinking.” “My dick made me do it.” “I couldn’t help it. I saw an opportunity, and took it.” “It’s a guy thing. You wouldn’t understand.” “Any guy woulda done the exact same thing.” “My dick was talking louder than my head.” Yo libfem ladies! Even MEN know this about themselves.

    Thank you Radical Wind, for spinning out loud on this essential reality. Spin on!

  7. 8 nereidafilomena December 5, 2013 at 2:01 am

    “I’m pretty sure that we’d have loads more healing, psychic, telepathic and other transcendental superpowers were we not crippled from birth by men, and that men have reduced our powers generation after generation of genocide.” This echoes my own thoughts on the subject.

    I have been wondering if men have, through wholly unnatural necrophiliac breeding of women have “domesticated” us. I don’t know if that is the right word. In a gynocentric world women would control their reproduction. We are the ones who deal with the risks- men risk nothing and get the satisfaction of seeing women suffer in a mother hating misogynist world they created.

    I have been reading about human domestication euphemistically called “self domestication” but one trait of this is it is supposed to make a species calmer. This has not been the case with men. I get a lot of annoyed feminists who tell me that matriarchy once exists and still exists in some places therefore men are poor little victims of patriarchy bc masculinity! Most of them have sons. I feel bad for them. I would hate to have a rapist mutant come out of my body. It would be traumatic on some deep level. They very soul herself.

    There is a really interesting by interesting I mean horrifying piece of research a came across on a medical site saying that women who give birth to sons or are even impregnated with a male fetus suffer from a chimera Y DNA in their brain. These increase cancer risks and all negative side effects yet idiot males cover their ass by saying “we need to look farther into this because even though its literally killing women, it may be useful, somehow someway.” http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250786.php

    Really admire your work and hope to see you blogging for a long time to come (or as long as you can stand it).

  8. 9 nereidafilomena December 5, 2013 at 2:06 am

    Sorry meant once *existed and for any other typos you may encounter. Along with echoing my thoughts the passage of yours I quoted is also a dark omnius dread in me. I also been thinking of a post of FCM’s echoed internal fears of mine that if we cannot ever restore female-ness to this planet than maybe it is inevitable that men will destroy this planet beyond repair one day. Do you think that will happen? My fb friend Thorny Rose was saying pretty much the same thing. I love other women and femaleness so much that I do not want it to ever not exist. At the same time

  9. 10 nereidafilomena December 5, 2013 at 2:11 am

    Oops sorry I posted that comment without finishing it by mistake! To continue… I also have suffered male violence like every woman and know how awful it is. Maybe it would better if none of us had to live and suffer with those parasites anymore. But I do have immense hope in my people, my sisters. Hopefully men will just be bred of out evolution but if they realize it is coming near they will go wild and take as many of us or all of us with their nuclear weapons. There is also the threat of genetic engineering on our future daughters of humanity. I fear men will eventually use it like lobotomies were used in the past to change our neurological make-up and make us more submissive and less in tune with ourselves. I know endless patriarchal propaganda does that but still… good luck warrioresses. Know our truth, the truth that we are full human beings!

  10. 11 witchwind December 5, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    I highly distrust male research on genome and neurology, which is just more objectification of femaleness and living beings. It is generally conducted through cutting down life, violating it, cutting it open. Men can’t understand or feel life so they’re obsessed by putting it to pieces to what happens to it. The only way they can measure and understand life is through machines because they can’t connect to it otherwise.

    Did I say FCM originated with the idea of essentialism? I said she cleared a lot of ground in essentialist argumentation recently – from a logical perspective – which is true. I know she wasn’t the only one to demonstrate essentialist points from a radfem perspective and that it dates back to since men exist.

    We tend to project our own being onto men, thinking that men are like us: that like us, all they need to do is understand what’s happening in order to stop, that like us, they don’t have drives, like us, they’re don’t fit in the sex role. having a convo with a friend yesterday, she pointed out that women always say they “can’t” believe that men are naturally violent, they “can’t” write off half of humanity, etc. The fact they say “can’t” instead of “don’t” reveals that there is an external constraint that prevents them from going there, fear, terror even, colonisation by a man. And in effect, they will always follow this by saying “because my son”, “because my father”, “because my boyfriend”, “because despair”, which indicates that it’s a male in her life actively stopping her from going to the end of her thoughts, colonising her mind with his own perspective.

  11. 12 witchwind December 5, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    men do always say the truth about themselves. when I first became feminist, i remember explaining to men that there was no drive to rape, it was a social construct, they could be otherwise. that men had to stop raping, it was easy. Many men around me replied with an astonished look “but we have drives”, so many of my male acquaintances did, all of them liberal progressive dudes (i no longer have any male friends or acquaintances). They kept saying it, and I wouldn’t believe them because I knew I didn’t have any rape drives and though they were the same. They were saying the truth about themselves.

    I really suggest everyone to read sisterwitch conspiracy by Sonia Johnson on the powers of women by the way. She puts forth the argument that men have reduced women’s powers over generations and generations. That women invented language, music and other things so men could communicate and feel and hear what we could feel, hear and do without external instruments, but for every invention that women gave to men to help them be connected, they used it against women. They used women’s intelligence against women. They can only destroy.

  12. 13 nereidafilomena December 6, 2013 at 1:26 am

    Men cutting open women to try to understand us has always freaked me out and explain why that is very eloquently. I once considered body donation to science because I suffer from M.E. and don’t want anyone to go through what I do, but the med students just use you to learn anatomy and they will not even pay for your headstone. They are too cheap and selfish to even learn anything useless from a corpse and I think dissecting dead women is a useless way to learn about living beings. In the human trafficking industry women are butchered alive for their organs so it upsets me when my mom says she wants to be an organ donor so she can “make use of her organs when she’s gone”. I would donate if I could choose that they would go to a female but a male with her organs inside him is a sickening thought. I want to read Sonia Johnson but I can’t find her books anywhere online. I think being existentialist about men is very important for the exact reasons you say. They are very primitive barbaric beings and projecting our wholeness onto them is unwise. Do you think that our wholeness as female beings is partly lost forever because of what men have stolen and used against us or that it is accessible through some metaphysical means? Thank you for responding to my comments! It means a lot to me.

  13. 14 witchwind December 6, 2013 at 2:35 am

    You can look inside a bit of this book. http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1450571263/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1386296490&sr=8-1&keywords=sisterwitch+conspiracy&condition=used

    and also purchase it if you can afford. Many books aren’t sold by amazon itself but other sellers who use amazon to promote their sale. I just checked and all her other books are on sale: wildfire, going out of our minds, the ship that sailed into the living room, from housewife to heretic, sisterwitch, out of this world. Out of this world is actually for 0.01$ http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1877617105/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1386297048&sr=8-1&keywords=out+of+this+world+sonia+johnson&condition=used

    Her writing is somewhat un-methodological at times, lacking in logic and rigour, but definitely worth reading her points and she does make it riveting to read, you just flip from page to page like a novel, it keeps you hooked, which is really enjoyable.

  14. 15 witchwind December 6, 2013 at 2:46 am

    I certainly think that once men would disappear we would regain our powers back progressively. That potential is still there in us, I’m sure of that. It’s there in potential, that is, if we seek to reconnect with our senses, with other women and to our living external reality and to do so persistently over time, we can realize those powers progressively. It doesn’t require some great effort. It begins with letting go of and getting out of all situations that are toxic to us, that drain us – saving our lives. Trust that our body is telling this is not ok and act upon it. It is constant life transformation. More and more things become possible over time.

  15. 16 nereidafilomena December 6, 2013 at 4:24 am

    Do you think there is any reformism that is worth our time? Obviously leftie activism is useless and toxic but what about advocating for the nordic model on sex trafficking so more women can survive and be able to ponder being free of men? I feel we have potential inside us too. Intimate relationships or even simply sharing a living space with men is highly toxic. Believing in the myth of heterosexuality is highly toxic as you have rightly pointed out. The first paragraph in your second post on heterosexual grooming is one of the best quotes I have ever found. Makes women with husbands and sons made though but I think that is misplaced rage of their inner Amazon or what ever you want to call the Divine Female.

  16. 17 nereidafilomena December 6, 2013 at 4:26 am

    mad*

  17. 18 nereidafilomena December 7, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    What are your thoughts on supposed matriarchies or as Lucky Nickel calls them matrifocal societies? I have encountered masochistic women within the radical feminist community on facebutt, most who are probably married to men of color who claim men in matriarchies were not violent and did not rape. Oh also if I want to remain in their group I must admit my “white privilege” because apparently females with white skin are not treated like breeders and fuckholes by men and their systems? How can a person that is treated like a fuckhole and breeder her whole life be privileged? Apparently I am “racist” because I did not care that Trayvon Matrin was shot because it is somehow a brand new thing that men kill each other? Intersectionality is just another way you saying you do not think the global oppression of females by men is important enough to focus on. “Intersectional radical feminists”. LOL. Also it’s somehow a bad thing that some white women in Australia make more money than some native men. I think race is just a male concept to get white women to hate themselves until they are guilt fucked by men of color. When I was a liberal feminist I hated my body and myself because “white privilege”. “OMG just by existing I am oppressing people! Such scum I am!” I grew to hate my fair skin, non-chiseled face, small lips, delicate cheekbones etc. I don’t know many RFs that will talk about black men raping white women to “conquer” them because white males did that to them or something. What do you think of “intersectionality”.

  18. 19 nereidafilomena December 7, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    Reblogged this on nereidafilomena and commented:
    witchwind is my fav RF blogger hands down!

  19. 20 witchwind December 8, 2013 at 9:55 am

    oh, well doesn’t change anything to the fact men were still rapists and rape threats to women. I think in some societies some women managed to contain men more or less, but it’s difficult to tell the extent to which their power over men was token or not, because exposure to PIV and unwanted pregnancies is rarely taken into account in the measure of women’s power / protection from male violence – or taken as a natural given. Having the same rapes + forced pregnancies but staying at home instead of going in the home of your rapist, well I guess that’s a minor improvement. And we have little information of the relationships between the women.

  20. 21 witchwind December 8, 2013 at 9:58 am

    I’m talking of modern matrifocal societies by the way, for mor ancient ones I guess there’s less information, well I don’t have that much info at hand at least. But the basic fact that men were always rape threats and rapists accross all times and places is what we have to remember, whatever arrangements women did to curtail that or reduce men’s lethality to them.

  21. 22 witchwind December 8, 2013 at 10:01 am

    also, don’t listen to the idiots who preach intersectionality. Unfortunately they have been deceived by a male ideology that disguises as feminist, but’s an antipersonal bomb that will explode any feminist group who lets it be exploded by it. Its purpose is to set women against each other and forget the main enemy. I do intend to write a post about some time, it’s not that difficult to break down really.

  22. 23 nereidafilomena December 8, 2013 at 11:06 am

    I am so looking forward to your post though I do agree it is easy to figure out. When studying in Mikmaq Studies in high school a Mikmaq elder woman who is Catholic came and talked about her culture. Something that always stuck with me was when she said that women made the decision to go to war because they are the ones who give life. However war is a very male serving happening, it never is in the interests of females. Also she said that the men, as long as they were good hunters and could feed all the kids and the women they got pregnant they could fuck as many women as the wanted. In Inuit society there is the tale of Sedna who refused to marry men, which made her “vain” in mens eyes. Then a man who was really a bird pressures her into marrying him and she agrees. She is pissed of when he turns out to be a bird and cannot provide anything she needs to live like game meats and fur her blankets and clothes. She gets sick of eating fish all the time which is all the asshole can catch. Then he dad comes back because he found out the liar was a bird. The other birds get mad and cause a storm that almost tips their canoe. Sedna is thrown overboard but she hangs on for dear life with her fingers grasping as hard as she can. But her dad cuts them off to save himself. Then she drowns and dies and becomes goddess of the sea. That is extremely patriarchal. Same with Inuit wifesharing: http://sagan-indiana.tumblr.com/post/23230106308/among-the-inuit-a-very-specialized-and Read in school women were to be raped by whatever man they were resting at while traveling bc you had to depend on hospitality to survive so it was an obligation. Treating ‘his’ wife as a fuckhole and breeder to strange men is hospitality to men. They are so despicable. If any man ever rapes me I will kill him. My dad also has rough drug dealer friends and while I know men do not have empathy so its a property dispute to them I will not let them get away with it. I knew a pacifist vegan RF when I first radicalized who was proud of not taking up an offer to kill her rapist? Pacifism is worthless, a man’s tool and all supposed male pacifists were not bc we all know Gandi was a rapist creep and Mandela was a terrorist who murdered many innocent people by bombing public places. All so called great men only mimic things any woman does not have to cultivate or act because they are inherent in us. Like spirituality empathy and possibly resistance since we all question male bullshit someway no matter how deep in their shit we find ourselves.

  23. 24 nereidafilomena December 8, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Oh yeah and of course they dad kills the bird bc men relish death to the very core of their rotten being.

  24. 25 Rididill December 15, 2013 at 7:55 pm

    “I’d be interested to know if readers here have that same experience of spinning with women, of this kind of sparking movement I described – if it feels the same or not, and if not, how?”

    Yes, definitely. The experience of being with women nourishes my soul. Even non-feminist women. With men it’s so different, it drains you energy rather than sparking it.

    “Men can’t understand or feel life so they’re obsessed by putting it to pieces to what happens to it. The only way they can measure and understand life is through machines because they can’t connect to it otherwise.”

    That is so true. There is something about men and measurement you know? They are obsessed with measurement. They cannot conceive of knowing something intuitively, and this knowledge form being dominant, it works against all of us. Because women are persuaded we are just being ‘irrational’ when we feel something is bad or harmful, if we can’t explain it in male-defined ‘logical’ concepts, and so we learn to distrust our own intuition, which is our own survival instinct also. There are so many things I knew intuitively were bad for me but I ignored it because I did not have the words to articulate it, and what’s a bad feeling, a hunch, in male terms but a bunch of bollocks?

  25. 26 witchwind December 16, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    yes indeed. We don’t need to prove certain things because we know it’s true. How many times have I been asked to argue something in 6,000 words when the truth could have been said in two sentences, and the fact I had to explain and argue painstakingly such an obvious fact, that the truth of this fact was even debatable, made the exercise completely pointless anyway, because the debate is already lost. (such as having to explain how and why being violent against women is violent against women, or why men’s violence against is harmful to women). Oo …

    So it’s difficult to tell if they want measurement and proof as a tool of domination, a way to gaslight us and revert the truth (for instance the fact they ask for evidence to prove the rape, when not only there is usually plenty of evidence in plain sight but on the top of that, it’s impossible for it not to be rape, so it’s a complete mindfuck) or simply because that’s their only way of apprehending their environment.

    Another case is when they ask for us to give them evidence of what we’re claiming (for instance say, leaves are green) because they never listen, believe or trust women. We must necessarily be wrong or be reminded by him of the true male-testified (testiculed) facts. What we say is of no significance at all to them, we might have well been saying nothing, it wouldn’t have made a difference, our voices and words are just nuisance sound to them. They look at our lips moving and all they see is either lipstick or a piece of woman-lips moving, or some annoying uppity woman talking when she shouldn’t. Women’s words don’t stay in men’s / people’s minds. We are meant to be decorative or our talking is meant to be decorative, like a pleasant background babble, but we’re not meant to talk.

    When they do actually measure themselves, it’s just an exercise of seeing how this or that living being will endure such and such type or amount of torture before she dies.

  26. 27 nereidafilomena December 17, 2013 at 4:04 am

    I think hearing that measurement is male thing because I was diagnosed with ‘non verbal learning disability’ which is basically men saying there is something wrong with me because I can’t do math, maps, graphs and some aspects of science.

  27. 28 nereidafilomena December 17, 2013 at 4:05 am

    I like* hearing

  28. 29 nereidafilomena December 17, 2013 at 10:43 am

    Being around men is like sitting a hard concrete floor in a fetal position for hours cramping and hurting willing yourself into yourself and for the damn experience of his narcissistic idiotic verbal AIDs to kill him or shut him up.


Comments are currently closed.



past musings

themes

Join 221 other followers


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 221 other followers

%d bloggers like this: