Repost: Men Are Not Broken

Source: Men Are Not Broken

Looking back on my posts so far, I realise I have written a lot about how liberal feminists are failing other women, and relatively little about the root cause of the miserable state the planet is in: Men.

There is a reason for that. Men are utterly unimportant to me. There is nothing to be expected from them.Writing about what anti-feminist women and men should do is pointless. Anti-feminist women make choices I can only view with disgust and contempt; a sentiment that without a doubt is mutual. And men? Men can’t change.

Their fundamental set-up is faulty. When a man does horrible things to girls and women, he is doing what his very nature commands him to do. Men can’t be reformed, they can’t be reasoned with, and they can’t be fixed. They are not broken.Their lack of intelligence, depth and human emotion is built-in. Even ″matriarchal″ societies suffer from men’s inbuilt shortcomings.

Men are biologically brittle. Their Y chromosome is a joke, and their rates of life expectancy, disease, injury, addiction, education failure etc are evidence for their fundamentally faulty design. They can manage to somehow keep the upper hand as long as they manipulate the stakes against women. But even the most timid changes towards some sort of fairness (never mind liberation) make women outrun men in no time. Boys and men are not failing at school and university because these places all of a sudden have become matriarchal habitates, as certain anti-feminists suggest. They fail because as a group they are less intelligent than women. Boys and men excel only when they get to manipulate the testing method: They create IQ tests to favour white Western males, they give each other Nobel prizes and trump this as ″proof″ for their intelligence. IQ tests and Nobel prizes are tightly monitored instruments. But schools and unis exist all over the world, with millions of teachers and billions of students. Schools and unis are not controlled by a relatively small gate-keeping elite like the Nobel prize committees or the opinion leaders in the field of psychology who have the power to declare one test valid and to disregard another. Schools and unis can’t be controlled as tightly, and so boys and men are failing in them. I wonder how badly they’d fare if the schools were indeed female-centered.

Even the most intelligent of men are still incredibly dense. Talk to science phDs or techies. I had to do with this demographic more than I ever wanted, and their sheer ignorance often took my breath away. Context, history, depth, complexity, ambiguity and beauty are completely lost to them. It is like talking to vaguely human-like machines. I suspect that this is the reason why so many men are drawn to machines, instruction manuals and lifeless things.

At this point men usually come up with the last two arguments for their existence: Physical strength and sperm. They argue that they are needed for the hard work (or, according to delusional anti-feminists, ″exploited″ to do the hard work) and that without them ″mankind″ will die out.

But reality shows that all this male strength and sperm is completely wasteful and unnecessary. If tomorrow all men fell down and were dead, the biggest problem would be the stink. Sperm banks would enable the surviving women to bring just enough men into the world to stock up the banks again. There would be far less people on earth, but they would live in peace.

As for strength, nobody needs to be able to lift hundreds of kilograms. It is just not necessary. Make smaller loads and go the way twice. Or build a tackle. There is no industry – including the notorious mining industry which regularly is brought up in such discussions – impossible to function with exclusively female workers. In the very moment men step back or vanish from the picture, women do fine for themselves. Mining, metal work, construction work, fishing, hunting, making timber, finance, business, women simply don’t need men. The truth is, that men are actively keeping women from learning ″male″ skills and from working in ″male″ professions. By this they secure their financial dominance and keep women dependant on them.

And if that doesn’t help, they use violence.
Men are violent and predatory by nature. Even little boys and very old men are violent. Ask the family of Jamie Bulger (1). Other boys may not kill random toddlers, but they terrorise girls or torture animals. A male toddler squashing ants or dragging around the family dog by the tail isn’t even perceived as violent by most people. A boy hitting, insulting, bullying and harrassing his sister is not perceived as violent – siblings quarrel, that’s just how things are, and boys will be boys.

As for old men, not even physical weakness stops them from attacking girls and women. There is a reason why the phrase ″dirty old man″ exists. With the onset of the general mental decay so typical for aging men, their self-control slips and they start to make mistakes. Every ″dirty old man″ used to be a dirty young man who just was quick-witted enough to cover up his crimes, and every dirty young man is a grown up violent boychild.

Last year, there were two men prowling my neighbourhood and bashing in women’s heads from behind. One of them was 21 years old and used a crowbar in order to steal money and phones. The other one was 89 (!) years old and used a wooden meat hammer. His reasoning? He married a woman from Thailand 30 years his junior. When he abused her, she divorced him and moved back to Thailand. This made him so angry that he sneaked up on random women and hit them in the head with the meat hammer he specifically bought for this task.

No amount of oppression, weakness or illness keeps men from being violent and predatory.

Logically, men adore death. They bring death. They like death. They like dead things.
Men see women as things, as useable goods, as animated corpses. Some don’t even bother with ‘animated’. Men admit openly in the media that they prefer pornography over sex, as if the women raped on the screen weren’t real. Men work hard to develop realistic sex robots or wife robots (2). Men literally will rape dead women.

Egyptian pharaos and other historical ruling men developped intricate cults around their dead bodies, going so far as to sacrifice not only animals but humans to serve their dead carcasses in the afterlife. Modern dictators have themselves embalmed or at least their wives: Tomás Eloy Martinez wrote a whole novel on the mummy of Evita Péron and takes great delight in describing the necrophiliac interactions of living men with the dead woman (3). Historical and modern ″anatomists″ have gone far beyond scientific interest with killing, collecting, disembowelling and mummifying bodies. Gunther von Hagens does not offer any new scientific insights on the human body. He just enjoys to play with dead bodies. So did Ed Gein or the Russian man currently in the news who dug up the bodies of little girls to make them into dolls (4). So did Ted Bundy who raped the dead bodies of his victims and put make-up on them. So did Carl Tanzler who was obsessed with the actress Elena Milagro de Hoyos he treated for tuberculosis until her death. She rejected him while she was alive. So he stole, preserved and violated her body, which he kept until he died. He didn’t give a damn whether her body was alive or dead. (Don’t google him.)

Boys too young for sex will do the same with animals, like the Dutch teen who recently made it into the news by turning his dead pet rat into a helicopter. He was supported in this brave endeavour by two adult engineers: http://gawker.com/teen-turns-dead-pet-rat-into-memorial-helicopter-1633038513

Artists will try to make women as corpse-like as possible, make us un-persons, faceless meat, and will be praised for it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/10/paul-kooiker_n_5953494.html
This fotographer’s glorified form of crime scene fotography of a faceless fat woman is not exactly new. Picasso gets praised for doing the same thing in paint: http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/L/L02/L02971_9.jpg
This woman may have a rudimentary face, but still is a slab of meat. Nonetheless this picture made it into the Guardian’s rating of ‘The top 10 female nudes in art’ (5) by Jonathan Jones, who describes this pornographic shit as: ″Picasso imagines his lover as a welcoming cloud of pinkness, a constellation of curves, in this ecstatic painting. The woman, here, is a part of nature, reduced to the status of objects in a still life, to be enjoyed by the male artist. Yet his love, possessive as it is, cannot be doubted. Picasso puts his own sexuality into every pigment of this opulent painting. If his vision of the nude is utterly proprietorial, it is also absolutely honest.” (What an original idea. Woman as ″welcoming pink cloud… constellation of curves… part of nature″. Not in millennia this revolutionary thought has occurred to anyone if not for Picasso.)

Male movie and TV producers offer us endless stories about decaying zombies and fascinating serial killers, following a tradition already present in the writings of the Marquis de Sade who considered a cold-blooded, utterly pointless murder the highest art. Slasher movies gained broad influence when the backlash against feminism hit – men are invited to identify with the killer and women are threatened with what will happen to them if they get too uppity.

Men are usually very much aware that they are scum. Their delusions of grandeur and the demands towards women to cater to them are a reaction to this deep inner awareness of their inferiority. Occasionally men even will admit that they are scum.
Commenters on this article did it: http://valleywag.gawker.com/peter-thiel-admits-the-paypal-mafia-built-bombs-in-hi-1632734435
Look how many commenters casually point out that it is normal for teenage boys to build bombs just for the fun of it.

Comedian Louis C. K. did it: http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/30/04/9b/30049b5e9b976ba7dc2d1442db1411fb.jpg
″A woman saying yes to a date with a man is literally insane, and ill-advised, and the whole species’ existence counts on them doing it. I don’t know how women still go out with guys when you consider the fact that there’s no greater threat to women than men. We’re the number one threat to women! Globally and historically, we’re the number one cause of injury and mayhem to women, we’re the worst thing that ever happens to them. (…) But woman still go out with men! ‘Yeah, I’ll go out with you, alone, at night’ What are you, nuts? ‘Hi, where are we going?’ To your death, statistically. If you’re a guy, try to imagine that you could only date a half-bear, half-lion, like ‘Ugh, I hope this one’s nice’.”
He is a rich white male. He can say such things and people will laugh and agree. If a radical feminist says something like this, she will be ridiculed. And liberal feminists will accuse her of victim-blaming and sexism against men. How dehumanising, calling them animals! Stupid bitch!
The evidence for male love for death and destruction is overwhelming. But it would be wrong to assume that this is the end of the argument, that we just have to accept men’s natural dangerousness and adjust to it.

This we do anyway: taking self defense classes, keeping separate bank accounts when married, telling girls not to go with strange men. This is something even the most right-wing women do, however illogical and ineffective their precautions often seem. This is nothing particularly feminist. To – literally or metaphorically – carry a weapon in a world of predators is the bare minimum, not radical. (Many right-wing women carry literal weapons, something radical women should take in consideration for themselves as well.)

But unlike right-wing women and collaborators who simply accept male behaviour or at best demand cosmetical, individual change, Radical Feminists dig deeper. Beside the overwhelming evidence for male dangerousness we also find overwhelming evidence that men actually control their dangerousness when it suits them.

The picture of the man who just can’t help his nature is peddled by patriarchal apologists: The poor man was nagged and mocked by his shrew of a wife and couldn’t take it anymore. The poor man only follows his evolutionary instinct and raped her to assert his dominance. The poor man is the victim of political oppression, he just had to attack women to cope with his feeling of powerlessness. But women’s experiences make it very clear that men are highly selective towards whom they are ″losing control″.

Abusive men don’t attack their nagging and mocking male bosses with their fists. They don’t ambush their male boss on the toilet and rape him to get back at him. When they are oppressed and exploited, they don’t kick the boss from one corner of his office to the other. When their favourite team loses, they are not seeking out the quarterback to use him as a punching bag for their frustration. In a crowded train, they are not driven by some evolutionary instinct to go for the throat of their fellow male who enters their personal space or bares his teeth to them.

Men also are perfectly able to dose their violence. Male violence against women and children follows an escalating cyclic pattern. The escalation is a conscious strategy: How much will she be able to take? How far can I go? How many of my depraved fantasies can I make come true? (We observe the same deliberate escalation in sadomasochism. It is embraced there as ‘slave training’.)

Men are planning their crimes and they are able to cover them. Losing control is adverse to both. Someone who loses control does not build an air-tight terror regime in his own home, by and by cutting off his wife’s and children’s means of refuge and lowering the bar of ″reasons″ for his violent outbursts. Someone who loses control does not take upon him the logistics of building torture chambers or digging up graves. Someone who loses control does not buy a new hammer before he goes out again and again to prey on women.

Men can control themselves just fine. They make the active choice to act on the impulses their faulty nature gives them.

So, where does that leave us?

Right-wing women openly collaborate to secure their individual position. If they are just compliant enough, they think they will be allowed to sit at the men’s table. If they are just submissive enough, they will be taken care of and be rewarded.

Many liberal feminists de facto do the same in a more hidden manner, while they are touting an empty ideology of equality. For them, maleness by and itself has worth. Therefore, to them, males can be potential allies, partners, lovers, teachers, people worthy of shaping society. They can even be women. If only they were a bit more friendly, a bit more peaceful, a bit more loving, a bit more loyal, a bit more equality-oriented.
This is nothing new. Contrary to anti-feminist propaganda, ever since feminism came into being – even more so, ever since women started to take action against their miserable situation, pre-dating organised feminism – an overwhelming majority of women preferred the equality approach, the liberal approach. Suffragettes argued that mothers were bringing voters into the world and thusly should be able to vote (6). ‘Bread and Roses’, one of the old songs coming out of the leftist women’s movement, includes the lines ″As we go marching, marching, we battle too for men; for they are women’s children, and we mother them again″ (7). Second-wave ″women’s libbers″ won out over their radical counterparts, enabling the backlash, sex positivism and the modern mantra of ″I choose my choice!”. Modern third/fourth-wavers with their love of sexual submission, trannies and He-For-She bring this sucking up to men to a logical conclusion.

Many women do this deliberately. They are sell-outs or anti-feminists making use of a liberal feminist mien to gain something from it. TV show creators like Shonda Rhimes or Lena Dunham make good money by catering to a certain urban, slightly feminist, female audience.

Other women are too much invested in the personal privilege they obtain for being compliant to patriarchy: They get to call themselves feminist, without having to change their personal lifestyle or to risk income, while they can keep any convenient patriarchal mind blankie, from religion to sadomasochism. A sizeable portion of these women explicitly doesn’t want to be any more radical. They want to have the privilege AND the sisterhood, without seeing the fundamental contradiction between the two.

But some of them are just not aware of what they are doing. This is an impression I got in the last years. There are plenty of campaigns on Twitter and in the blogosphere (like e. g. #Yesallwomen or Project Unbreakable) documenting the horrors women experience under patriarchy. The thousands of testimonies show two things: Women are reliable, sharp and precise observers of their own lives – and many women are somehow unable to draw radical and long-term conclusions from their experiences.

Instead, they are desperately begging men to be nicer to them because they want to be able to love them. Many liberal feminist suggestions aim in this direction, e. g. trying to make men not use pejorative language. As if a man who does not call them a bitch, a cunt, a whore or a dyke to their faces was somehow rendered incapable of thinking these things in his mind. (Personally, I prefer to be called names, because I instantly know whom never to turn my back to.) On the other hand, liberal women try to achieve their goals by appealing to men’s interests, e. g. when they declare that a ″liberated″ feminist is better in bed that those other prudes. Their approach is to be inclusive, as if the oppressed class could make the oppressors relinquish their power by being nice.

These women are actually the ones I expect to do better. Women as a group are not stupid or naive or even close-minded. There is a reason why women are to be found at the forefront of every social cause imaginable. Women as a class – unlike the patriarchal lie of the ‘conservative woman’ proclaims – tend to be more open to new things and ideas than men. They are deeper thinkers than men, capable of understanding the ma-trix rather than the mechanics.

Women have to WANT to think, though. Hoping and wishing and begging is not enough.
The only realistic way for us to shape freedom for girls and women is seperatism. We as women need to put other women – any other woman – above everyone else. Men do that. Men can hate each others’ guts, but they will always close ranks towards women. It is time women do the same. This is the only way for women to make a better future: Stop catering to men in any way. Don’t make them lunch. Don’t listen to their problems. Don’t pick up their dirty coffee cups at work. Don’t have male friends. Give up male family. Don’t have children. Don’t talk to men at all if you are not forced to. Don’t live with them. Don’t sleep with them. Don’t step aside on the street. Don’t take gifts from them. Don’t interact with them online. Don’t imagine the ″perfect″ man. Het women do that and when they don’t find any man living up to their ideals, they come to the conclusion that all men are scum while still clinging to their mental image of the perfect man. But the truth is, even the ideal man still is scum.

Start with a small change, e. g. not talking to the creepy neighbour anymore, and work your way. You will realise, the less interaction you have with men, the easier you’ll breathe. This also doesn’t make you more vulnerable. Think about the statistics. We are most likely to be attacked and/or raped by men we know: Family members, boyfriends and husbands, friends, acquaintances. Random attacks by strangers do happen, but they are nowhere as likely as becoming the victim of a man we already know. Living with a man, spending time with men, this is what endangers women most. We have been told the opposite, so this seems counter-intuitive. But it is a fact that the biggest threat to a woman, statistically speaking, is the man whom she thinks of as her protector.

Put women above everything else. Live alone or build separatist communities. Show solidarity. Look for hobbies done in female-only groups. Find the beauty in every woman. Stay away from men and their empty promises.

This is what I do. Cutting one man after the other out of my life. Prioritising Lesbians and women and girls. And I will keep writing about how liberal feminism hurts all of us, because for liberal feminists I still have hope. Not much hope, admittedly, but still hope.
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger
(2) http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/profile-in-male-privilege-martine-rothblatt
(3) ‘Santa Evita’, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_Eloy_Mart%C3%ADnez
(4) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807572/Pictured-Inside-house-horrors-Russian-historian-held-birthday-parties-150-little-girls-dug-graves-mummified.html
(5) http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/apr/15/top-10-female-nudes-art
(6) https://violetreva.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/15938-suffrage1.jpg
(7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Roses

The Misogynist Etymology of Woman/Women

People ask me why I use womon/wimmin instead of woman/women.

Well, apart from drinking the delicious tears of misogynists who get upset about it and go out of their way to police my language, radical feminist literature has varying spellings of womon, wimmin, womyn.

Why do we do this, then? Well, it’s a way of subverting malespeak. It’s, as one womon told me, “soothing”. Keeping the male out  of our minds. It’s nice.

Woman

“adult female human,” late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally “woman-man,” alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) “woman, female servant” (8c.), a compound of wif “woman” (see wife) + man “human being” (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Compare Dutch vrouwmens “wife,” literally “woman-man.”

It is notable that it was thought necessary to join wif, a neuter noun, representing a female person, to man, a masc. noun representing either a male or female person, to form a word denoting a female person exclusively. [Century Dictionary]

The formation is peculiar to English and Dutch. Replaced older Old English wif and quean as the word for “female human being.” The pronunciation of the singular altered in Middle English by the rounding influence of -w-; the plural retains the original vowel. Meaning “wife,” now largely restricted to U.S. dialectal use, is attested from mid-15c. Also in American English, “In loose and especially polite usage, a woman” [Craigie, “Dictionary of American English”]. The peculiar usage was much commented upon by English writers; in the U.S. the custom was considered especially Southern, but the English didn’t bother with nice distinctions and regarded it simply as American. “This noble word [woman], spirit-stirring as it passes over English ears, is in America banished, and ‘ladies’ and ‘females’ substituted; the one to English taste mawkish and vulgar; the other indistinctive and gross. The effect is odd.” [Harriet Martineau, 1837]

Wife

Dutch wijf now means, in slang, “girl, babe,” having softened somewhat from earlier sense of “bitch.” The Modern German cognate (Weib) also tends to be slighting or derogatory

Some proposed PIE roots for wife include *weip- “to twist, turn, wrap,” perhaps with sense of “veiled person” (see vibrate); and more recently *ghwibh-, a proposed root meaning “shame,” also “pudenda,” but the only examples of it would be the Germanic words and Tocharian (a lost IE language of central Asia) kwipe, kip “female pudenda.”

The modern sense of “female spouse” began as a specialized sense in Old English; the general sense of “woman” is preserved in midwife, old wives’ tale, etc. Middle English sense of “mistress of a household” survives in housewife; and the later restricted sense of “tradeswoman of humble rank” in fishwife.

pudenda

“external genitals,” late 14c. (pudenda), from Latin pudendum (plural pudenda), literally “thing to be ashamed of,” neuter gerundive of pudere “make ashamed; be ashamed,” from PIE root *(s)peud- “to punish, repulse.” Translated into Old English as scamlim (“shame-limb”); in Middle English also Englished as pudende (early 15c.). Related: Pudendal.

Malespeak with Radical Feminist Translations by Elaine Charkowski

One summer, a womon introduced herself and gave me a radical feminist article. I’m not sure if it was Elaine herself handing out these printouts, but it contains updates that aren’t available anywhere online. The printout indicates it is “(Copy, Paste, Postable, and Shareable)” so I want to post it here.
Since we’re naming the problem I thought I’d do a bit of research: The CDC reports that between January and December, 2011, 99.0% of female victims were raped by men. It also said that men are the majority of rapists against other men. In 2010 CDC reports show that men rape women when they are young: 80% of females before age 25, 42.2% before age 18.
Without further ado:

 


Malespeak with Radical Feminist Translations by Elaine Charkowski

Mary Daly in her book Quintessence wrote, “Naming the agent is required for an adequate analysis of atrocities.” As linguist Julia Penelope has shown in her book Speaking Freely: Unlearning the Lies of the Fathers’ Tongues, “Agent deletion is a dangerous and common mind-muddying flaw.”

The purpose of Malespeak is to avoid naming MALE violence in general and male violence against women and its perpetrators (MEN) specifically. After reading Carol Adams’s books (Neither Man Nor Beast, The Sexual Politics of Meat and The Pornography of Meat) about how male violence against animals and women are not named, I watched for more instances of linguistic techniques to avoid naming male violence against women. Here are the kinds I have gathered so far with the help of radical feminists. I’m sure there are more!

The Absent Referent

Referring to something without actually NAMING it. Carol Adams coined this term in her books linking men’s abuse of women and animals. Animal examples of the absent referent are: “veal” (baby bull flesh) “steak” (cow flesh) “bacon” (pig flesh) etc. Some examples of the Absent Referent that don’t name men as the agents of women’s agony are “domestic violence”, “gender based violence” “family violence” “sexual violence” “intimate partner violence”, or just “violence”. All these timid terms dance around naming male violence, and thus, men as the agents. They alse do not name those who men abuse — women.

Here is an extreme use of the Absent Referent by lawyers defending a school district in which an adult male teacher raped a twelve-year-old girl:

  • Malespeak: “Carelessness and negligence on her part, proximity, contributed to the happenings of the incident.” Neither the perpetrator (the adult male teacher), his victim (the girl he raped), nor the crime of rape (“the happenings of the incident”) was mentioned. In addition, the lawyer blamed the girl for causing the man to rape her because of where she was (her “proximity”).
  • Radical Feminist Translation: “An adult male teacher raped a twelve-year old girl. The lawyers said it was her fault because of where she was.”

The Passive Voice

The victims are doing the action of being victimized which shifts the focus from the perpetrators (men).

  • Malespeak: “I refuse to watch as more than a billion women experience violence on the planet.” The women are doing the action of “experiencing violence”. This shifts the focus away from the men committing the violence. The Absent Referent is also used since men are not named. It’s MALE violence, not “violence”. Malespeak can consist of more than one element.
  • Radical Feminist Translation: “I refuse to watch as MEN inflict MALE VIOLENCE on more than a billion women on the planet.”

The Active Voice

The perpetrators (men) and their victims are named, so this is not Malespeak. “Men raped the women.” The focus is on MEN doing the raping and the Absent Referent is not used since men are named as the rapists. Men are the subject of the sentence.

  • Misuse of The Active Voice: A recent term I read is, “The women fell into pregnancy.” The women are not doing the action of “falling into pregnancy.” The Absent Referent is also used. Men are not named.
  • Radical Feminist Translatio: “Men impregnated the women.”

Sex-Neutral Terms

This uses Blending (lumping things together to obscure each of them, such as women and men). Sex-neutral language is a type of Absent Referent that avoids naming male abuses.

  • Malespeak: “Children are raping children because of seeing porn at a young age.” Naming the sex of the abuser is necessary to name the agents, males, and the ones they rape, girls.
  • Radical Feminist Translation: “Boys are raping girls…”

The antidote to using sex-neutral language which blends females and males (such as “human” “they” “them” etc.) is coining specific words.

  • Malespeak: “colonization” This applies to invaders colonizing both women and men without naming women. For example: “The Native Americans were colonized.”
  • Radical Feminist Translation: “gynocolonization.” This applies specifically to the male colonization of women. For example: “Men colonized the minds of women who oppose women’s rights.”

Other female specific terms are “gynoappropriation” (such as men stealing women’s inventions and writings and taking credit for them), “gynonullification” and “gynerasure” (also not naming women and their accomplishments).

  • Malespeak: “sovereignty” This applies to the self determination of both women and men.
  • Radical Feminist Translation: gynosovereignty. This applies specifically to women’s self determination.

All of these female specific words address the patriarchal male tactic of making women and their accomplishments invisible. In this following example, the sex neutral terms are “Native Americans” and “they”.

  • Malespeak: Native Americans skinned buffalo, deer, and other animals. They scraped and pounded the hides until clean and pliable. They sewed tipi covers, clothing, moccasins, and containers to carry their belongings. They adorned their containers with beautiful designs made from dyed porcupine quills. They were also responsible for childcare, gathering vegetables, and cooking meals.”
  • Radical Feminist Translation: Native Americans WOMEN skinned buffalo, deer, and other animals. The WOMEN scraped and pounded the hides until clean and pliable…”

Erasing and/or Watering Down Women’s Words

  • Malespeak: “The Women’s Movement”. This erases the whole idea of women’s LIBERATION and no longer begs the question of who women need to be liberated from (men). Worse, Gender Studies (formerly Women’s Studies) erases both women and their need for liberation from men by using sex-neutral language to lump women women and men together (Blending).
  • Radical Feminist Translation: “Women’s Liberation.” This both states that women need to be liberated and implies who they need liberating from: men.

The False Equivalent

This is a type of blending that combines male violence with female violence. This is to obscure the fact that violence is overwhelmingly male violence by equating it with the far fewer instances of female violence. For example, “violence” is often cast as a sex-neutral human issue, since “women are violent too.”

Also, notice that MEN created, owned, and control the Male Supremacist System in which woman may collaborate to gain power. But female collaborators did not create the system nor do they control it.

Below is data from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Males were almost 10 times more likely than females to commit murder in 2005.

  • ALL Homicide Types Listed By Sex (1976-2005): 88% Male, 11.2% Female
  • Eldercide: 85.2% Male, 14.8% Female
  • Felony Murder: 93.2% Male, 6.8% Female
  • Sex Related Murder: 93.6% Male, 6.4% Female
  • Gang-related Murder: 98.3% Male, 1.7% Female
  • Drug-related Murder: 95.5% Male, 4.5% Female
  • Workplace Murders: 91.3% Male, 8.7% Female
  • Argument Murders: 85.6% Male, 14.4% Female
  • Gun Homicide: 91.3% Male, 8.7% Female
  • Multiple Victims: 93.5% Male, 6.5% Female
  • Child Murder of those killed by someone other than the parent: 81% were killed by MEN.
  • Child Molestation: According to the US Dept of Justice. “Males are reported to be the abusers in 80% to 95% of cases.” Thoriger, D., et al 1988.

And last but not least, legal mass serial killings listed by the MILLIONS of people MEN killed in WARS (started by MEN). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

  • 1911 – The men who ruled Turkey disarmed its citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
  • 1929 – The men who ruled Russia disarmed its citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
  • 1935 – The men who ruled China disarmed its citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
  • 1938 – The men who ruled Germany disarmed its citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 6 million Jews.
  • 1956 – The men who ruled Cambodia disarmed its citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
  • 1964 – The men who ruled Guatemala disarmed its citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
  • 1970 – The men who ruled Uganda disarmed its citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Giving words volition, making words into a person or thing with the power to act.

Words just carry meaning, sounds from vocal chords or combinations of letters. However, Malespeak turns words into actual physical entities with the power to act:

  • Malespeak: “War broke out.” The word “war” is given the power to “break out.” This is also another use of absent referent that does not name the agents (men) nor their victims, who are often women and children.
  • Radical Feminist Translation: “MEN decided to wage war to kill (fill in the blank of the ones men want to kill).”
  • Malespeak: “Israel bombed Palestine.” “Israel” is just a word that defines a country, but malespeak gives it the power to act (bomb Palestine). Again, the absent referent is used to avoid naming the agents (men) nor are men’s victims named.
  • Radical Feminist Translation: “The men who run the government of Israel ordered the bombing of women, children, men, animals, birds, trees, etc).” The agents not named are those who flew the bombers, nor are their victims named.

Fictional words used to make things that don’t exist appear to be real.

  • Malespeak: “Phrenology”. This “scientific” term claims that the shape of and bumps on the skull determines human intelligence. Of course, whites have the “right” kinds of skulls showing intelligence, but people of color and women do not. This is racist/sexist fiction.
  • Radical Feminist Translation “Racist/sexist junk science.”
  • Malespeak: “Transwoman”. This word gives the false impression that “transitioning” to the other SEX is possible and that men can “become” women. Supposedly, to “become” a woman does not depend on the biological reality of being a human female and having the XX chromosomes. Instead, a man can just “identify” as a woman and decide that he IS a woman with or without artificial modifications such as surgery or hormones. To look like a woman is NOT the same as being a woman!
  • Radical Feminist Translation: “Female impersonator.”

The “Straw Man”, or Woman, or thing.

This tactic creates a fictitious description and then says why the thing is so wrong. It gives the illusion of a reasoned argument against what is being described.

  • Malespeak: “Straw radical feminism”. “Radical Feminism must be opposed because it advocates the eradication of all men.”
  • Radical Feminist Translation: “Radical Feminism is about the liberation of all women from male domination.”

Using male pronouns to define “god” in the bible and other “holy” books that men wrote.

  • Malespeak: “Lord” “Heavenly Father” “He” “Him”
  • Radical Feminist Translation: MAN or MEN. Using their invented “gods” like ventriloquist’s dummies, MEN wrote “scripture” (the male dominating SCRIPT of their “gods”). Examples: “I am the Lord thy god. Thou shall have no other gods before me.” “Vengeance is mine, said the Lord.” etc.

Since men invented “god,” men not only “play” god, they ARE god, as can be seen by the following male authored “scripture”:

  • “A woman must never be free of subjugation.” — Hindu code of Manu V.
  • “Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, for the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church.” — Ephesians 5:23-24.
  • “The body of a woman is filthy and not a vessel for the law.” — Buddha.
  • “God formed her body to belong to a man, to have and to rear children. Let them bear children till they die of it.” — Martin Luther.
  • “In pain shall you bear children, yet your urge will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” — Genesis 3:16.
  • “Let the woman suffer in silence with all subjection. Suffer not woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man.” — Timothy 2:11-15.
  • “Your women are fields for you to cultivate, so go to your field as you will.” — Koran 2:223.
  • “Women have weak memories, are undisciplined, impulsive and dangerous when given authority over anything.” — Catholic Church’s edict against “witches”.
  • “I thank thee O lord, that thou has not created me a heathen, a slave, or a woman.” — Orthodox Jewish prayer.

As Simone de Beauvoir wrote, “Man enjoys the great advantage of having a god endorse the code he writes…and the fear of god will keep women in their place.”

Male violence against women is one kind of male violence that impacts half the human race. Other forms of male violence include, but are not limited to: racism, colonization, genocide, nationalism and Ecocide, the murder of the Living World (environmental male violence against Mother Earth).

In her book “Come Inside the Circle of Creation,” Elizabeth Dodson said patriarchy is the first fatal need to rank diversity.

If we try to rank all the abuses within human society by claiming that “our” abuse is more important and “worse” than their abuse, we also rank the value of the victims. Thus, the hierarchy and all its divisions that keep us separate and fighting with each other are preserved.

However, there is only one type of male violence that must be ranked as the worst of all. This is Ecocide, men’s systematic murder of the Living World upon which humanity and all life depends. It is implemented by capitalist patriarchy, which is the social structure of male violence.

In ALL of these types of violence, no matter if female collaborators help them out or not, MEN are the COMMON DENOMINATOR and the SOURCE of ALL aspects of male violence. Men control the system of patriarchy they created while women who collaborate with them do not.

MALE VIOLENCE IS THE WORST PROBLEM IN THE WORLD, hence the universal use of Malespeak to avoid NAMING it!

 

Men’s place in the revolution is conditional

My expectations of solidarity are low for men. I’m a bit indifferent. But it’s only fair: Men of every appearance and walk of life are very concerned with their own selves. But as long as they don’t fuck with my shit (and leave wimmin alone) then I’m fine. I would feel worse if I could not trust men to look out for their own interests in defiance of the higher ranks of patriarchy. The truth is that our revolution does not only free ourselves as wimmin. Surprisingly enough, the feminist revolution doesn’t entail mass androcide. Because our aim is true liberation and a life that is truly full and free, it means that man will rediscover his humanity as wimmin work to liberate themselves. Because we are only free when all are free. Man siding with radical feminism means, therefore, that he acts in his own best interest, which is against every predatory impulse embedded within him that degrades his very existence even if predation is in his nature. Men cannot act for wimmin’s liberation but they can act for themselves and clear the way. Let us not congratulate him for doing himself a favor.

I would like to point out that this is a clear contrast with what liberals say about feminism. Men are spoiled: this is a bad thing. Liberals like to imply that taking away the rights of men (to rape, to pillage, to dominate, etc) is some sort of tragedy that men suffer — and then they pretend not to care. As if being a monster or Schrodinger’s rapist is some kind of enviable existence, rather than acknowledging the fact that man’s predatory inclinations toward wimmin also take a personal toll on his own life. The evidence is clear that man not only destroys wimmin, he destroys himself, in every murder-suicide and every attack upon his fellow man.

Furthermore: Do we want reparations? No, there is nothing that can make up for what the female sex has had stolen in all these countless generations. Sister-comrades also believe that taking a moral stance of expecting men to take care of us is reactionary: counter to our liberation. It would be better if we just became independent and separate from them. Trying to coexist in the same place, when our boundary needs are too great, would only trap wimmin further into cycles of dependence and abuse perpetrated by the man. Don’t get me wrong, temporary stop gaps of receiving support is a helpful reform, but not the end goal. The end goal is to build a fully autonomous female society. We should get to a place where men can be fairly apathetic about us and we won’t be affected by the lack of relationship to men. We would also defy the heterosexual assumption.

We shall want nothing from men. We shall not be indepted neither in any sort of fake mutuality. After all, no womon should feel obligated to support men of any kind, not even oppressed men, not even after receiving aid. Where is the mutuality in mutual aid when the female sex has so little for herself as it is? Where is the mutuality in being exploited while working with men for liberation from a shared oppression? This is inevitable and the only solution is to have a separate movement. Obligations will only entrap wimmin.

Mutual aid with men sometimes makes sense strategically, if our goals align. We do it for ourselves, in synchronicity, to amplify our success. It can make things easier for wimmin when men fighting for their own interests end up helping wimmin as a side-effect, and may help them see us as neutral rather than enemy combatants — but these are only bonuses, not essential. Fighting capitalism, racism, and homophobia may involve coalitions with men lower in the patriarchy, and if such alliances are pursued they should be approached as guarded, conditional alliances with no obligation and only for the betterment of working class wimmin, wimmin of color, and lesbians. Anything more and the old exploitative patterns will reemerge.

Where did we go wrong?

(Note: United States-centric. Might not apply to other countries.)

Why do you think there’s been a rise in authoritarianism in the left?

Men, machismo, and male violence. Manarchy is the gateway to authoritarianism.

Maybe because the new patriarchs, rather than fully lash out at the system oppressing them, are still partially invested in maintaining their place in the patriarchal pecking order. They want the revolution but they still want to use wimmin. Like abusers, or like the abusers they are, they are so angry about the raw deal the ruling class and the old lefty patriarchs left them that they want an outlet for their murderous rage and see in wimmin that outlet, that scapegoat. Because he is so mad about being stamped on, he clings to his own boot more passionately and eagerly stamps our faces.

But that would seem to suggest that this is inevitable, and perhaps it is. Not sure. I mean, you could even argue that late stage capitalism is why pornography became so violent. I think we’d need to look at actual sociological data to track the correlations…

When a man is so obsessed with violent fantasies, anarchism makes no sense to him. So he’ll become a tankie instead, where his machismo is better sated. To remain anarchist I suppose he would still have to be resolutely for the underdog, and maybe not all men like being the underdog.

But maybe it’s more than that. Maybe some people think it is explained by agent provocateurs. Sure, but if that’s the case then they’ve gotten away with it in the context of a lot of normalized machismo.

Manarchism is definitely a widespread problem, because patriarchy is a widespread problem. The patriarchy makes life dangerous for wimmin, resulting in the entrenchment of a male movement, a stag-nation. It’s a feedback loop. And clearly, as long as wimmin cannot gain a foothold into anarchist theory (it is possible to gain notoriety as an anarchist theorist even while practicing separatism), then anarchism will lose all its revolutionary and liberatory potential.

How did identity politics take over class analysis?

Class amnesia. Partly through giving in unreflectively to the values implicit in capitalist society and partly our own refusal to read history, especially from primary sources. The result is class amnesia. The working class, the racially oppressed, and the wimmin — almost all of us… We went back to sleep.

Feminists have analyzed many times the ideologies that emerged as a backlash against feminism:

  • liberalism/neoliberalism
  • postmodernism
  • queer theory
  • identity politics
  • gender studies
  • scientific sexism or biosexism in the form of neuroscience, evopsych, psychiatry, etc.

It is hard to trace exactly how identity politics entered anarchist politics for the very complex reasons that modern anarchist history and the context of events (especially those that do not take the spotlight) within the anarchist world are not often recorded on paper, but identity politics has been thoroughly documented in feminism. Some wimmin suggest that identity politics was intentionally designed to fracture our movements with infighting. Marxist feminists, radical feminists, and post-left anarchists have repeatedly cast their doubts on identity politics as holding any redeeming qualities. Yes, they are right, identity politics is merely a caricature of what we’re all about and is very much a distraction. The earliest critiques of identity politics that I have seen came from radical lesbian feminists. These same lesbian feminists holding classes in academia warned of the rise of postmodernism, queer theory, and gender studies into mainstream academentia, which soon replaced them. Embrace, extend, extinguish is the approach that malestream academics seemed to take to deal with these radical educators.

Noam Chomsky has said that academia is no place for radical politics. That was sometime in the 90s and 00s, long after universities bowed to their capitalist masters. The radical lesbian feminists of the 70s enjoyed greater academic freedom in both England and the United States. Mary Daly even held special classes that were female-only. She and others like her, using this freedom, must have provoked the ire of the establishment. It was enough already that wimmin were in academia, but then they were bringing the revolution to young female students. One can almost imagine the men in boardrooms saying: Something had to be done!

But what we do know is that the 80s was a recession. Lesbian feminists point out that universities became increasingly privatised, and as this happened they weren’t able to teach anymore. Therefore it seems that as universities became more subject to capital, all threats to capital (including lesbian feminism) would need to be neutralized. I might add that over the decades this trend has continued, where all students are increasingly viewed as threats to the social order who must be more tightly controlled with security cameras and a police presence on campus.

I think identity politics has managed to take root in movements which are patriarchal rather than matrilineal. Identity politics seems almost made to replace feminism. The future of wimmin is the future itself, and we can trace our lineage in wimmin. Men who are too concerned with overturning society with their bare hands and not too concerned with building an intergenerational movement cannot themselves preserve history. Patriarchy has an inherently bad track record of making actual progress — as Mary Daly said, the patriarchs have a kitty litter box routine of re-searching, and re-covering. The result is that these movements more easily manipulated by the ruling class ideology because the adherents are young, lost, reinventing the wheel, and often dominated by arrogant males who think they know everything. This influence of patriarchy allows for convenient thought stoppage like identity politics and authoritarianism to take hold.

I think the reason identity politics is such a useful way of subverting struggles for liberation in general is that it taps deep into the nature of how capitalism and patriarchy itself impacts our lives. At capital’s and patriarchy’s mercy, human life is devalued and we are alienated from each other, pitted against each other, and cannot empathize with those who are being exploited the most. Identity politics ensures that we cannot challenge this system because lose perspective, too busy putting everyone else first and overfocusing on individual behaviors rather than oppression as a system.

For feminism in particular, identity politics, whether or not they are specifically trans identity politics, is effective at promoting the assumption of sex neutrality by either erasing the distinction between the sexes or making that distinction meaningless with a cacophony of equally important other oppressions, specifically men’s oppressions, that allow men to compete in a points based Oppression Olympics. If wimmin are forced to compete with men for the Most Oppressed trophy in order to be heard, the men are going to get all the trophies and the wimmin are going to go home. Not because men are more oppressed, but because the game is rigged.

But it seems as though anarchism was almost meant to be married to identity politics, rather than feminism. It wouldn’t be wrong to say that the anarchist movement’s approach to oppressed groups is nauseatingly liberal (the ruling class ideology!). An already white male dominated movement in the West, which saw little to no other influence, and apparently tokenized some wimmin and people of color. Not much to speak for a movement that’s apparently about liberation. Perhaps the non-white, non-males concerned with liberation did not see the need to call it anarchism? (In any case, I see the necessity in having a coherent theory which opposes all hierarchy and exploitation.) Anarchism, with its endemic sexism — even Emma Goldman’s comrades in her time did not respect her — is also inherently sex neutral at best, because anarchism proper makes many assumptions about human beings in general and this archetypal human being is modeled after white men. (Now it’s becoming obvious why wimmin and people of color don’t take much interest in anarchism.) Traditionally, anarchism wants to liberate the working class and all human beings, but in its beginnings did not see the need to differentiate them.

Later on this was somewhat fixed when people created different tendencies of anarchism based off of their status as wimmin, people of color, sexual orientation, love of nature, religious beliefs, method of struggle, etc. So, people took their lessons from anarchism and remixed it into their own interpretation, which allowed anarchist theories to fit their lives rather than the other way around. However, the problem comes when everyone interacts with each other… We still live in a class society, so dominant classes win, even over ideas. Certain groups are heard more than others. (To be fair, not all anarchists are on board with identity politics. It would be wrong to say that all anarchists represent the same beliefs.) Some anarchists are more welcome to participate in the broader movement than others. Having such a wide range of beliefs under one banner and one flag is quite the accomplishment, for one thing, but also means unity is only as strong as our tolerance for disagreement.

Our tolerance for disagreement was undermined, however, when every anarchist space was a mandatory “safe space”. There were valid reasons for making anarchist spaces safe for every oppressed non-white non-male. After all, disagreement and tolerance offered no protection from harassment if people had differing opinions on ethics and oppression, and some anarchists retained their investment in things like racism and sexism. Many anarchists did not like the PC police, but it was better than nothing. To this day, anarchists still practice anti-oppression and have seemingly unilaterally converged on a list of protected categories. (As it happens, this coincides with the rise of “SJWs” on the Internet, but SJWs are often liberals.) This was the crystallization of identity politics for mainstream/malestream anarchism. It wasn’t long before gender and queer theory followed suit. (Postmodernism, however, has never particularly enthralled anyone but it did seem to contribute to the decline of anarchafeminism.)

I speak of anarchism, but I would soon find that the same thing was also happening to liberals and authoritarian socialists. However, to me the most distressing story is the story of how anarchism lost itself. Safe spaces and callouts and sex neutrality created the necessary conditions for anarchists to start policing themselves. In my opinion, class conflicts were ignored; race and sex must have been ignored because the rules were applied to everyone equally. The usual absurdities of SJWism apply, but with more clusterfuck. Being racist while black, for example, is met with the same severity as being racist while white. Also, being mean to your oppressor created friction and confusion because we’re all supposed to be equals. People had to learn 101 stuff like the fact that you can’t oppress your oppressors. People couldn’t tell the difference between abuse, oppression, and just being rude. It was possible for a white man to play Mr. Feminist and be able to call out someone, even if that person was not white or male.

Social justice culture trained people into saying that they can be “oppressed” as individuals. My understanding is that oppression happens to groups, classes, and castes, not individuals. You can certainly say as an individual that you are oppressed, but not as an individual rather as a member of a group. And abuse happens to individuals, which accumulates into oppression if it is systemic. Therefore, the sentence, “You are oppressing me” is annoying and nonsensical. Individuals cannot oppress, they can only abuse. Groups, classes, and castes in society oppress, through systematic abuse carried out by individuals.

Collapsing people’s perspectives of the macro (The System) into the micro (individual behavior) enables and justifies abusive behavior, especially when language gets interpreted as violence. There were some very complex problems that people openly struggled to work out, which perhaps were underestimated. People were not happy about this. But the hosts of safe spaces simplified things by encoding behaviors and banning certain words and expressed thoughts. This made other people lose their shit and give up on identity politics. It would be to no avail, because safe spaces became a standard in anarchist spaces. They became both ubiquitous and a means of control — thought policing. It seems that anarchists invented their own crowd control. The open exploration and curiosity was gone, and possibilities for dissent narrowed.

Naturally, as Western anarchism lost its own libertine character and devolved into anarcho-tankieism, they would find it easy to justify violence against thought criminals. It seems to me that it was men who led the charge on that. Unfortunately in the last couple years this form of tyranny has become acceptable, and it was identity politics that paved the way. Identity politics is the commodification of oppression into a power game where the rulers always win. Anarchism is becoming a men’s rights movement (MRM).

The only real solution is real, radical, anarchist feminism.

How to do female separatism without harming yourself.

This is mostly a preemptive theoretical problem that I haven’t yet seen come up, but I feel it might become useful if we start talking about it now. Separatism failed the first time. Why? I think in part because wimmin became entranced with individualistic notions of “I’ve got mine”, as lesbian feminists have pointed out, but also because they may have taken a hardline authoritarian approach, a one-size-fits-all solution that turned wimmin off the idea of solidarity between wimmin as a class. It is true that we are the sex class, but what is also true is that we are a class made up of individuals, not shoeboxes. It’s not really either-or.

In order to stick together, we need to look after and be accessible to everyone. That which is inaccessible to the poor, to the differently abled, to the needy, is neither radical nor revolutionary. Some of us have mental health problems, have less income, have certain needs that need tending which the separatist community cannot yet service. We must not gloss over the fact that this produces different individual outcomes and challenges that must be overcome in order to reach a collective goal.

Simply put, in achieving female separatism, some of us are going to have a harder time. Is it really worth cutting off the men in your life if that means being all alone? Maybe. But maybe not, if it means you end up missing a medication or lose your job, or end up in a more dangerous situation. I’m just saying. Your immediate situation needs to be taken into account. This isn’t about moral purity.

So what is separatism about, then? Yes, some of it is about the ethics of standing in solidarity with wimmin to the exclusion of men. However, the number one reason why we must practice separatism is men are known to be dangerous. We do it for safety reasons, then. And when it comes to safety, sometimes there is no perfectly safe alternative and you have to strike a balance. So do that, and don’t feel guilty for failing to commit 100%. Every decision to empower wimmin and stop giving men our energy is a small victory, so remember the small victories in life.

Another thing about separatism is, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. We can borrow from other movements in history. If that means interacting with a man…fine. Decide whether it’s a good use of your time.

I prefer female autonomism over separatism. Autonomism is more defined by self-determination and becoming, whereas separatism is assumed to be defined as the absence of men. Yes, that’s a feature, but that’s not quite the point. This is a movement built on collective action, on systemic and structural change to consolidate female power, not on individual choices.