Archive for the 'men’s lies' Category



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.

Spot the man behind the man!

Men are experts at inventing personas. Their entire careers as life-destructors are always accompanied by hardly disguised attempts at hiding the fact that all they want and can do is to rape and kill, or torture women. But as it’s not possible for them to be something else than what they are, or let alone imagine what it’s  like not to be a man (= to be a woman), it always betrays who they are, anyway.

Their attempts at hiding their vile nature are really grotesque and laughable when you think of it. They try very hard to convince us most of them are good, spiritual, just, holy, “feminine”, altruistic, world-savers, heroes (and the list goes on forever), and that it’s just some marginal men over there / some aliens over there / some robots over there / some crazy psycopaths over there / some nazis over there / the [capitalist, racist, classist, whatever] SYSTEM over there (etc etc yawn ad nauseum) that are doing the raping, killing and torturing. Note that they recognise and show the existence of men’s violence, but their super deception plan is to say that it’s N0T ALL MEN!!!! !!!!

The clues are in the “other, out there” men who they pretend to protect us from (with wars, laws, cops, priests or whatever): those they want us to think of as outliers, abnormal evils: those are exactly whthey are.

I like playing spot the man! Let’s have a bit of fun.

1.

hyper masculine man

A man

man in dress

A man pretending not to be a man

Truth: All men are men.

2.

convicted

A man criminal (thief, rapist, whatever)

cop

Men pretending not to be criminals (rapist, thief, whatever)

Truth: All men are criminals (rapists, impregnators, thieves, other)

3.

unjust man

Unjust man

judges

Men pretending to be just, or pretending to protect victims

Truth: No man has any sense of justice, ethics or morality whatsoever. Everything men do is unjust and at the expense of women, girls, animals and the earth. Men invented the laws to protect their crimes.

4.

devil

A disgusting, evil cannibal / the devil

devil

A disgusting, evil cannibal / the devil

pope

Men pretending to be spiritual and holy

Truth: Men have no understanding of what spirituality is. They function only through control and sadism. The devil is the true face of men.

5.

dictator

Man dictator

democracy

Men pretending to be democratic

Truth: All male systems are totalitarian regimes, and all men individually and collectively exercice totalitarian control over women and girls.

6.

Evil men / aliens / zombies who want to destroy, colonise and invade the earth

lord of the ring bad guys   Star wars bad guys    gollum  lord of the ring orc army  alien  images  avatar bad guy

Good guys who want to save the earth against the evil invaders

star wars nice guys   Lord of the ring nice guys   spiderman  x-men  avatar nice guy

Lie: Some men are truly committed to peace in the world and will risk everything to save  and protect the earth / protect women and children against evil invaders who want to destroy the world.

Truth: all men are the evil, alien, living-dead, zombie, robotic, automated, formatted invaders and colonisers who want to and do destroy all life on earth. The truth is that WE need to get ALL MEN out as soon as possible if we want to save the earth.

7.

capitalists

Capitalism

tche guevara

Men pretending to fight against capitalism

communists

Men pretending to fight against capitalism

Truth: All men capitalise on women’s slave labour, forced impregnation, women’s captivity to them and the use and exchange of women as goods for PIV / rape: this is the basis of capitalism. Capitalism is not a system separate from men. Men made it and all men are part of it, it for them, as men. It IS the male system.

8.

crs

State repression

manif progressiste

Progressive men fighting against repression

Truth: All men are cops and oppressors to women, and survey women 24/7, in private and in public, in thoughts, mind and body. All men are agents of repression and oppression to us. The truth is that each and every man monopolises the legitimate use of violence and repression, not just the state, military, cops, etc.

9.

MRA

Male rights extremist

feminist guy

Man pretending to be feminist

Truth: There is no evidence at all that men can stop being violent against women, raping women, feeding off women’s work, energy and attention. Pro-feminist men prove to be time and again the same violent rapist fucktards as any other men. I do not know of a SINGLE exception.

Well, I could go on and on like this but you got the picture.

Note that whichever side you look at, and despite their great efforts in disguising themselves and deceiving women, they all look just as hideous, disgusting, destructive, invasive, alien, army-like, rapey, and all that. They’re all the same, because they’re men. Really not convincing. When you put them all together side by side like this certainly isn’t a nice picture.

And despite them screaming the truth about themselves in every megaphone they can invent, when we say exactly the same and put it into political context, we’re good to be burned (this point was made here).  That’s because uncovering the truth about men is dangerous for their survival, because if we made the obvious connections of what they are, what they do, we wouldn’t stay around with them and try to raise them and change them and their system. We would run away from them fast and let them kill each other.

Though we, unlike them, have to listen to them saying “we’re evil destructors” and shut it out in order to think “no, not my nigel, not all men, not my son, huspand, male friend”. It’s profoundly humiliating to be forced to believe in the humanity of men against all evidence, to be forced to work our lives off trying to change them, when they keep blurting the evidence of the contrary around all over the place and laughing about it and laughing about the fact we can do nothing about it.

The butterflies, or unpeeling the politics of love Part I.

Men lie about everything. Or in other words, they do the most atrocious and disgusting things to us, and call it something else, for instance they call it love.

When I was really young I always wondered what it meant to “be in love”. It was painted everywhere as the “must” thing to experience for a woman, the thing you had to experience to be fulfilled. It was always depicted as some super special state that struck you like lightening and transcended you and changed the way you behaved. Quite frightening when you think of it. I never “fell” in love with anybody when I was young, and was always wondering whether I was normal or not. I’d tell people in a moany way, “i’ve never fallen in love”, and they would say to me “ah, you’ll see, it’ll come one day when you’re not expecting it”. It felt exactly the same way when people explained to me what god and faith was and apparently I was supposed be transcended by this super feeling during the rituals in mass or something, except that I never felt anything and it all was completely artificial and deadening at best, having to pretend, and feeling guilty about pretending, just like coupledom.

I remember a boy approaching me when I was 9 or so and he wanted to “go out with me”. We were supposed to hold hands and it felt utterly odd and fake (what was the difference between “being with him” and “not being with him”? The blandness and unnaturalness of it was pretty mortifying), I didn’t feel anything except unconformable about having to hold hands just to show the world that I belonged to him, which I didn’t like because I thought it was wrong to belong to someone, but I also felt guilty for not feeling that special love state that I was meant to feel, I thought it meant I was heartless.

Anyway, a few rapes / PIV / abusive relationships later, as I was still adolescent, I “fell in love”, or so I thought. All I knew was that it was very intense, so I assumed THAT must be love! FINALLY!!

now, what exactly was it that I felt? My responses to first being “seduced” (chased) and kissed (physically invaded and held captive) by a man – and him wanting to see me again – included:

  • blank in the mind

  • not knowing what to say or do

  • my heart racing

  • sweating

  • obsessive, invasive thoughts about him to the extent that it would prevent me from concentrating on other things or experiencing other things fully

  • spending hours or a long time preparing what I would say to him before i’d see him
  • nervousness
  • insomnia
  • those so-called “butterflies” in the stomach, that is, stomach tensions
  • blushing

  • checking myself in the mirror and controlling my body appearance more obsessively than I would normally do, and being more afraid than usual of being ugly, not intelligent enough, or whatever

  • Desperate waiting of signs of contact from his part. An email, a text, a phone call… checking my phone and emails obsessively and my heart dropping when nothing would come.
  • A painful feeling of loss, separation, emptiness (that is, feeling empty, non-existent without his presence) and even of being ripped apart inside the chest. A sensation that would intensify in his absence or if he would be sadistically cold or distant, or after PIV or physical invasion.
  • A constant state of scorching melancholia, varying in intensity. It is a state in which you are trapped between a perceived nothingness out there and the horror of your own solitude / emptyness in there (or what you are made to believe is solitude of the soul) so i’d drift melancholically outside of my body, begging silently to hook myself onto him (or someone else).

  • Finding beautiful things in the man where there weren’t any.

Yeah. Nothing in here is love. It’s just terror of being abandoned, and terror full stop. Or what we call trauma-bonding. Yet everywhere these very normal responses to harm, neglect and captivity by men are described as love, even when the woman (say in a “romantic” novel) DIES from this supposed love. And this isn’t just projection, in every case the abuse and threat by men in relationships is real, because PIV, because men are our oppressors and captors and we fear them, because the compulsory physical invasion that men define as sex, the real neglect, lies and manipulation, etc.

Needless to say, this first experience was extremely painful. The guy was something like 13 years older than me, I was still a minor, and my “love” to him would be all the more strong that he was very fleeting, would contact me only every now and then when he needed to fuck (rape) me. I was too grateful for him paying any attention to me to be even aware of his abusive behaviour, or understand what it meant. I was confused that he only wanted to see me sporadically, instead of starting a relationship, which is the way in which this love is supposed to be expressed. If he liked me enough to “desire” me, why didn’t he want a relationship? Not knowing whether he “loved” me or not made me constantly anxious. The emotional distance, neglect and constant waiting for him made the pain acute.

Fast forward a year, I finally realised that he’d used me and had no respect for me. I decided to give up on hoping that he’d “fall in love” (= get into the promised relationship). The instant i’d done that, I felt such an amazing sense of freedom. It felt like all the weight of the world had suddenly disappeared!! I wasn’t tied, bonded to him anymore. I was independent. I didn’t have to live my entire life according to him, waiting and yearning for him. The illusions suddenly fell apart and I saw him as some useless guy. I told myself: never again will I be so naïve with a man! I was unlucky I thought, and I should just have picked a better man, and been more careful.

The problem was, that over the next five or six years, this pattern kept repeating and repeating and repeating itself. Every man I trauma-bonded to either was only interested in using me for PIV (rape) or had no interest in me at all. I thought something was wrong with me, maybe I wasn’t pretty enough, skinny enough, boobed enough, outward going enough, mature, seductive, whatever. I couldn’t get it what it was that I lacked. I didn’t understand why I accumulated so many failures. Why did they never stay? Why was I so unlucky in “love”? Alternatively, I wouldn’t trauma-bond but then i’d be fully aware that I didn’t want the PIV and physical invasion (when I wasn’t so much aware of it with the others, because of the trauma-bonding) and it would be even more humiliating. I was still too grateful for the attention though to ward them off, so it would be painfully disgusting and i’d hate myself for what I perceived was self-betrayal.

When I was “attracted” they didn’t want, but when I didn’t want, they wanted. It didn’t make sense.

I did see there was a pattern and tried things to avoid being in such pain. I decided I would stop having PIV with men I didn’t know well or hadn’t started an official relationship with. The aim was to hold off PIV with men who were “attracted” to me until I had gotten to know them and knew they wouldn’t use / abuse me just for PIV, and would want a serious, committed and equal relationship, based on mutual discovery, friendship, etc. At least if I “fell in love” with them, they wouldn’t have fucked me, I thought. Well guess what, all that happened was that I continued to trauma-bond to men, except that after them “being attracted” to me (inviting me for drinks, or whatever) they would just lose interest in me because they couldn’t get out of me what they wanted, and they’d find another woman that was more compliant sooner or later. That was painful too. And it didn’t stop some men to rape me anyway.

Because all this was still so confusing and painful, I would think about it a lot, and ask a lot of questions to others, to see what were other’s experiences. The things that I began to figure out, bit by bit, were:

  1. That the intensity of the trauma-bond could wither away after some time of knowing the man as a friend or acquaintance.
  2. That the “love” in question had nothing to do with the men’s individual character or the fact that I appreciated them for what they were, but all to do with what they represented to me – usually a figure of authority, being much older than me, or having a higher status. It would actually prevent me from seeing them for what they were (lying rapey shitbags). The more distant or cold they were, whether or not they had decided to physically invade me, the more painful the “love” (trauma-bonding) would be.
  3. Also, I acknowledged to myself that this “love” feeling was too intense to bear and never led me anywhere except desolation. It wasn’t natural and was a sign that the relationship was unhealthy. I assumed that there must be a problem in the way I loved, that if it were really love it couldn’t possibly be so painful and alienating. So I started to seek out why this happened to me and to break the pattern in some way. I began to pay close attention to how it worked and what it did to me.
  4. I decided to stop seeking to be in a “love relationship” with a man until I had sorted myself out, and also to seek men with whom I could be equal in age and status to prevent trauma-bonding. I told myself “your’e not going out with a man until you know you can “love” without being in pain.” If I were going to feel love, it would have to be a feeling of calm and serenity, of wholeness and happiness, and there should be absolutely no fear, dread of loss, anxiety or anything like that towards the man, otherwise it would mean that it wasn’t love but trauma-bonding or S/M and I should stay away from the guy, or wait until it withered away to make an informed decision. Seduction in itself was wrong, artificial and alienating, because it was treating me like something to be owned so if I was to have a physical relationship with a man, it would have to be after some time of friendship and closeness, and come “naturally”.
  5. Soon after, I observed that constantly and secretly hoping for a love relationship to happen wherever I would go was painful in an of itself because I would always end up with a feeling of loneliness, dissatisfaction, like something special wasn’t happening – in a state of expectation of something external happening to me rather than self-centredness. It construed myself as inherently alone and empty, as being only a half of a person in the need of being filled by a man (or another person). As inherently lacking and not whole. As if I couldn’t bear being with myself, I had to disappear in a man / coupledom to “exist” – this is extremely woman-hating and annihilating of self. Waiting to depend on him and wait for him to receive love, and of course it would never come. I finally saw the utter reversal and lie of all this shite. I realised I had to give up the very desire to be in a relationship so not to feel constantly alienated. I remember very well making this decision and felt such a sense of freedom and happiness to be with myself after that. It felt like a reconciliation.

From then on things unfolded pretty fast. This is when feminism seriously kicked in, when I realised PIV, sexualised physical invasion of women and control of our reproductive organs were how men oppressed and harmed us. That PIV was inherently harmful, humiliating and that we weren’t meant to be penetrated. And where I understood the general structure of male violence and patriarchy. My whole world blew apart.

Well, guess what, all of a sudden men weren’t interested in me at all. Because I’d always stay away from any kind of “seduction” before I’d get to know the guy well, they’d simply steer off from me very soon, before I could even get to know them in fact. Har har. This was an eye-opener. It made me see that men weren’t interested in equal relationships at all with women. None of them. There were no “nice guys” or exceptions. They weren’t interested in me, not even as friends, because they couldn’t make out of me what they wanted. All they wanted was to be able to use me as a PIV-socket and as their property, because that was my function as a woman in male land, and if I didn’t fulfil that function, I was of no interest to them.

And after setting some final rules for interacting with men, to protect myself from their disgusting women-hatred (complete openness to feminism, not the slightest hint of misogyny, capable of conversing about it without the slightest defensiveness or making me feel awkward in any way), men just disappeared from my life. Not one ever fit to the criteria, even though my rules weren’t very radical and were individualistic.

I saw that however much individual effort I’d put in a relation with a man, even without PIV or outside of “seduction”, it would always be unequal with them, because they are our oppressors and captors, and they feed off our energy and us trying to change them. There would never be complete protection from trauma-bonding to them, or fear of their violence, or from being prevented to go the end of my thoughts. It didn’t matter what they did individually to be nice or not, it’s what they are and represent as a male class. Even to this day if a man is kind to me or just smiles I can still feel this “attraction” and gratefulness that I’d feel before and tried to get rid of, which simply means that men are still our captors and there’s no way we can completely get away from stockholm syndrome so long as they hold us captive. Which is precisely why I know I have to stay away from them as much as I can.

So yes, the end of peeling down men’s lies about love and coupledom was the beginning of separatism from men, and the beginning of radical feminism!


past musings

themes

Join 425 other followers