Jordan Petersen and his pet Golem . The incel teddy bear . 

Ok . We all know enforced monogamy is a batshit idea .  Like some Golem-in-theory-form  it rears its ugly head whenever male  violence occurs . Send out the “you won’t fuck us it’s your fault” Golem . 
What we also know is this , that in areas where there is an imbalance amongst the sexes – a shortage of available women, if you will – male violence towards women , and themselves , increases . This is a fact . It’s been seen in the bride snatching phenomenon in parts of sino-Asia ,to the wholesale kidnapping of young women by group such as Daesh or Boko Haram.  
We must be honest about this , not try and rage it away as mere incel agit prop . 
The western incel , unlike his brother elsewhere , isn’t facing any physical shortage of women per se , just ones willing to make themselves sexually available to him . It is his sick fantasy that tells him otherwise . 
Never mind . My point is this . We must acknowledge that the function of patriarchy is – to frame female sexual availability as an obligation as – inimical to to us , and be honest about how that is and why, rather than let ourselves be provoked into the counter tactic of denying facts as mere fiction of the masculine mind . The only thing men are being dishonest about is the structural causes , patriarchy and – latterly – capitalism , and how they is dismantled .

In short – if we want to counter their argument – acknowledge the facts and put it to them that since they are the problem , that it is their reaction – their actions , kidnappings and shootings – then it is theirs to fix . They sold themselves the idea that they were entitled to women , literally through the ages and latterly with neoliberalism . 

By dehumanising women they are dehumanising themselves . 
What’s the end game here?

Do they not realise that the hegemony they desire would come only at the cost of catastrophe ? That even in Atwood’s seminal work “The Handmaids Tale “ , women aren’t available to anyone , and that most – if lucky – do not qualify for a “wife” their ego imagines ?
Ask any man – expressing empathy for the incel’s interpretation – does he really feel brotherly sympathy for men who’d nuke the world , and burn it , so they could fuck in the ashes ? Because that is the mind of the bride snatcher , the Daesh kidnapper , the incel . 

And any man not wholly horrified by such nihilism – encompassing also the “good bloke” narrative of the family annihilator – is little better . 
That is my issue with Jordan Petersen . Not his reference material , but his exculpatory use of known anthropological theory .

Like those who use anthropology to excuse racism and eugenics , his message relies on inchoate feminist rage as justification , proof that the feminine is the chaotic , and that man and masculine is order . That black is savagery , white is order. 

Just as white supremacists channel black anger to their profit. 
So we must not be afraid of anthropology . We must stand up , say coldly to them , these MRA’s etcetera – “so what ,so what if we are female , or black ? Whatever, we are human . If you cannot deal with that , then you must learn to fix your problem , or live with it . 

Or the world will burn at the hand of the ultimate manifestation of patriarchy , the incel.

(Ans  his , “gotcha , if only you’da fucked us” favourite teddy bear/Golem)

Advertisements

Largesse is not philanthropy . 

Did Meghan make a speech at the reception , I hear friends speculate .

Probably methinks , almost certainly .

And it was probably full on Californian soundbite and artifice .Like that crap about 

“Not wanting to be the lady who lunches , but the woman who works “
Just a tad condescending toward the reality of the vast majority without that choice , on minimum wage from paycheque to paycheque, thought I . 

Does their – more mundane but markedly more sacrificial and costly – philanthropy – have anyone wetting their knickers ?

No, but on they toil , permanently impoverished by the cost and efforts of looking after kids , men , parents . 
Cost you ask ? Yes, how many women sacrifice time – and therefore career development – and pay ? How much of a working mother’s meagre remuneration gets eaten away by childcare costs ?

How much future security does she lose in pension if she’s a home maker or carer ? 

For them , such a choice is a fantasy they daren’t indulge in , for the sharper focus it forces on their exhausting reality .
And when I call it philanthropy I mean exactly that . What effort is it for a millionaire to dole out largesse ? 

How much pain , sweat and tears does it involve ? 
I’m brought to mind of the ease of which those -so blessed with wealth and glamour – we vaunt so as “philanthropists” would pass through the eyes of needles, and parables of painted artifices . 

The largesse of the privileged is NOT philanthropy , not in the sense we recall from the Quakers, Methodists , Jesuits or – indeed – the Rochdale Pioneers . 
It serves little other purpose than to exalt those doling it out . Unlike their supposed forbears , they are rarely faced with opposition , opprobrium, and physical effort . (Visiting a facility and playing with kids is not effort , it is NOT kissing the feet of lepers . 
The worn out woman – who would love to “lunch”- is the true philanthropist . She is my hero . 

Transphobia is plain old homophobia . YES IT IS.                                                                        So , as a separate -unique – “phobia”, it does NOT exist . 

Lesbians aren’t displaying homophobia when they refuse penis . So they CANNOT be expressing transphobia .THEY ARE NOT . 

Gay men , likewise expressing a distaste for female anatomy .

Het people , guess what ? Same . Orientation ISNT phobia .

Bisexuals ditto . It’s a SEXuality , not a genderuality . 
But , yanno …if you’re with a fellow female you’re calling your “boyfriend”, then – maybe* – you’re just a tad ikked you might actually be – drumroll- a LESBIAN (or bi) .

Well howdy there , good ol’ homophobia .
NOT TRANSPHOBIA .
If you’re a male , so revolted by your own feelings and orientations…then hallo . Homophobia . 

If you’re a male , and the thought that someone with a penis isn’t acting as a person with a penis “should” , is dressing “wrong “ , frightens and revolts you – as opposed to simply not finding them attractive cus penis – so much so you experience violent urges ….HOMOPHOBIA . 

Refusing to admit the emperor is anything other than naked is not transphobia , because it’s not homophobia . Nobody cares a man wears a dress , calls himself “Skyler Rainstorm Fae” , and dies his hair purple . Literally nobody .

Except homophobes .
Expressing reservations about MALE people identifying themselves past all the SEX BASED protections of women , to creep and predate on women , isn’t transphobia . BECAUSE IT ISN’T HOMOPHOBIA.

FINALLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY …. lesbians don’t owe anyone anything . Women period – even bi – but particularly lesbians.
You’re so internally homo/lesbophobic you deny your own sexuality – your own sex – then nobody owes you shit .

Lesbians fought SO long , and SO hard , against the backlash they face from patriarchy for rejecting peen , that they ARE NOT OBLIGED to accept people who despise themselves- their very existence in female bodies – as women .
And that’s not transphobia petal,  because it isn’t homophobia . 

Transphobia doesn’t exist . 

My feelings+my identity=my politics=my radical feminism=you “must” accept it , or else . 

Gender essentialism .Mother blaming .

A complete swerve of the overweening role of patriarchy .

Right .

There.

LOOK , I ABSOLUTELY affirm the right of any woman to hate any and all males . I do .

We have good reason to .

But we should stick to those reasons , not couch our thinking in gender essentialism (vis a vis “innateness”) or misogyny (“all these mothers”) and demand that that be seen as radical feminist thought , and therefore unimpeachable. 
People , admit your actual reasoning , it’s TOTALLY VALID . But also – what’s more – that would be honest.
there’s a lot of polarising , disingenuous crap being flung by both sides which is descending into deeply personalised anthropomorphism as regards radical feminism .

“I am/think thus – I identify as a radical feminist – ergo radical feminism *is* thus”

No. 

It is about US AS WOMEN , THE GROUP , THE CLASS .

NOT YOU.

NOT ME . 

Because that is – tadaa – idpol. 
I’m done . This isn’t aimed any anyone I’ve spoken to over the last few days , all reasonably and honestly . 

Y’all know who you are and we cool .

This is about the creeping influence of idpol , and the increasing febrile adherence to our own tropes . 

I don’t want a debate about female only space . READ MY POST.

So please , just don’t .  

*and while we’re on the subject of honestly , it’d be nice if people would admit that they’re excluding other women , and that – furthermore – they don’t care.

That if they see any conflict with that and their otherwise proclaimed political identity , that it troubles them not , rather than accusing those of us with such misgivings as classist , never mind we have never opposed excluding males per-se, and have never claimed to know the answer . 

** a final word .

“Classist” . Really ? So having a moment’s pause about the exclusion of less privileged women is classist is it ? 

Well ain’t that  the same old “go-to” ad hom of the right ,  that one cannot empathise outside the class imposed by the interlocutor , for the very interlocutor’s purpose of silencing /undermining and delegitimising any cross class solidarity ? 

I suppose were that true , it would deligitimise such as Tony Benn. (No comparison with self inferred , before anyone tries *that*) 

Dear Owen . Can we talk . About what we know , and why we know it? 

“Owen you’re gay . You wouldn’t dream of calling a het man a bigot or homophobe purely because he didn’t want to sleep with you . Nobody is calling you a bigot for not wanting sex with a trans man .                                                                                             Putting aside the – admittedly often problematic – language people often use to express their absolute right to veto sex with anyone , that is their absolute right .                                                                                                                                                        Heterosexual men don’t want to sleep with you and you don’t want to sleep with trans men .And – skirting about as much as you like , fling as many accusations as you wish (pointless as I’m nobody you can damage ) – WE ALL KNOW WHY. 

Refusing to extend that absolute right – for whatever reason – to women , particularly lesbians – and bisexuals but mostly lesbians – (and calling them names)who won’t date trans persons is startling hypocrisy . AND YOU KNOW WHY. 

Now , as to self I.D. Ok . You could Identify yourself as a refrigerator if you want – apart from knowing damn well nobody’s gonna expect you to dispense ice – Id wish you nothing less than a happy and safe life . And the same goes for trans persons . AGAIN , WE ALL KNOW WHY.

Nobody is saying trans persons are default = nefarious. But why -for instance – should female athletes who’ve trained for decades , face the prospect that the gold medal they’ve been chasing , will be taken by someone whose testosterone – even suppressed – is still ten times higher than theirs ? I wish you’d face female athletes and explain this , I surely do . But you won’t. Will you ? 

Back to the nefarious . Have you ever heard of “Schrodinger’s rapist “? We know not all men are rapists , but they don’t wear badges . Who can tell a genuine harmless trans person from an imposter ? Women are jipped AND WE BOTH KNOW WHy.     Now , doesn’t it follow that if anyone can identify into anyone’s space , anyone will?                                                                            How would that make trans persons safer ?
It might even lead to a backlash .                                                                                                                                                                          Why?                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Back to Schrodinger’s rapist .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Not all men are rapists , but ALL women have to proceed as though they are , until they know either way . 

So, the corollary is thus. If anyone can access female only space , the women within may well extend that mistrust to said “anyone “ , because – drumroll – ANYONE WILL HAVE TO MEAN EVERYONE , until we know either way .

“Gee , sucks you’re actually female..”

Ok . I’ve no issue with anyone participating in sport . 

But , but , physiology changes only minimally with cross sex hormones , and cannot reverse the effects of androgens on a grown – formed – adult body .
Second rate sprinters beating first rate girls out of teams , prizes , university scholarships , second rate cyclist – doing the same – are bad enough.*

But when it’s contact sport , when life altering or life extinguishing injury is possible , then nobody’s feelings are paramount , NOBODY should seek affirmation via participation when that has the capacity to KILL. 
If anyone is in any doubt , please Google Fallon Fox . 
So , do we sit by being all nice and liberal , and tell our daughters “gee , sucks you’re actually female ” , or what ? 

You decide . 

Because if you’re not done with all this shit, you may just as well admit you hate your daughters . 

And have the cojones to tell them . 

Now. 

*Below are two latest examples …..

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/aflw/hannah-mouncey-could-be-secret-weapon-for-aflw-club-next-year-after-strong-season-in-canberra/news-story/a67db1032bdf7aace62cc6df75266ca7?nk=ea623c2c4cecfd3a0e3dde5312b690fa-1504702528
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/07/first-female-transgender-pro-cyclist-colorado-classic-2017/

Election campaigns , distilled by stanza.

From the Tories –
DID YOU KNOW CORBYN TALKED TO TERRORISTS
I WILL PRESS THE BUTTON
I WILL RIP UP YOUR RIGHTS
STRONG AND STABLE .

If you really care about your kids you’ll submit to fear and allow us to strip you of your rights , your NHS.
DID YOU KNOW CORBYN TALKED TO TERRORISTS
I WILL PRESS THE BUTTON
I WILL RIP UP YOUR RIGHTS
STRONG AND STABLE .

If you care about Brexit then it must be a hard Brexit , if you care about the country you must allow it to become a tax haven .
DID YOU KNOW CORBYN TALKED TO TERRORISTS .
I WILL PRESS THE BUTTON
I WILL RIP UP YOUR RIGHTS
STRONG AND STABLE .

If you care about your kids you’ll ignore that we tripled the national debt and added half again to the deficit and anyway , that’s not bankrupting *at all* – that’s what labour does .
DID YOU KNOW CORBYN TALKED TO TERRORISTS
I WILL PRESS THE BUTTON
I WILL RIP UP YOUR RIGHTS
STRONG AND STABLE .

If you care about your kids you’ll ignore that food banks have proliferated exponentially under the Tories .
DID YOU KNOW CORBYN TALKED TO TERRORISTS
I WILL PRESS THE BUTTON
I WILL RIP UP YOUR RIGHTS
STRONG AND STABLE .

If you care about your kids you’ll ignore the thousands who’ve died – sometimes within 24hrs – of being declared fit for work , under the Tories
DID YOU KNOW CORBYN TALKED TO TERRORISTS
I WILL PRESS THE BUTTON
I WILL RIP UP YOUR RIGHTS
STRONG AND STABLE .

If you care about your kids you’ll ignore the exponential rise in hate crime and racism under our watch .
DID YOU KNOW CORBYN TALKED TO TERRORISTS
I WILL PRESS THE BUTTON
I WILL RIP UP YOUR RIGHTS
.

If you care about your kids you’ll allow us to steal their inheritance that you prudently saved up , all to make the PM’s husbands company even richer , never mind all the taxes you paid , if you get dementia , never mind it’s a disease no different and avoidable than cancer
DID YOU KNOW CORBYN TALKED TO TERRORISTS
I WILL PRESS THE BUTTON
I WILL RIP UP YOUR RIGHTS
STRONG AND STABLE .

If you care about your kids you’ll ignore that we cut defence and police TO THE BONE and simultaneously facilitated and capitalised on the terrorism we now rely will scare you enough to allow us to rip up your rights .
DID YOU KNOW CORBYN TALKED TO TERRORISTS
I WILL PRESS THE BUTTON
I WILL RIP UP YOUR RIGHTS
STRONG AND STABLE .

How dare you point out we haven’t costed any part of our manifesto .
Look at my shoes .
DID YOU KNOW CORBYN TALKED TO TERRORISTS
I WILL PRESS THE BUTTON
I WILL RIP UP YOUR RIGHTS
STRONG AND STABLE .
TERRORISTS TERRORISTS TERRORISTS LOOK INTO MY EYES BE SCARED BE VERY SCARED TERRORISTS TERRORISSSSTTTTSSSS,…..

From Labour –
We’d like to build houses , nationalise the trains , save the NHS , feed kids , save education .
Yes our manifesto is costed and no , we will not indulge in character assassinations or terrifying people into petty minded isolationism and snooping – we think Britons are better than that .
Ah and that pressing the button thing ? Only a nutcase would do that happily , and we HAVE signed up to Trident because whilst we hate nukes, we do understand deterrence .
And it’s under the Tories the biggest defence cuts happen FYI .

#trufax

Cogito Ergo Sum

Humans are solipsistic , narcissistic .
Yet we “prove our individuality ” by joining tribes .

This is how the cult of individualism has colonised liberalism , allowed “identity” and “choice” politics to become tools of neoliberal capitalism , to mutate from liberalism to libertarianism .
It has allowed the political to become personal , rather than the other way round .

We “are”.
So much so that we will only join and vote for a political party if it’s leader most closely reflects our own tropes . We reject pluralist consensus as though we would be abandoning all our ethics – every principle we ever held dear – never mind the collateral damage .
We assert that such is “necessary ” for the greater good of all.
Yet we never stoop so low as to ponder what the “all” , might suffer – never giving focus to the contradiction we create , the totalitarianism.

We find it impossible to believe that our ethics or morals may not be appropriate to apply to others for a variety of – sociopolitical , socioeconomic , cultural ,environmental – reasons , yet justify our moral , ethical and cultural equivalences -as well as our moral relativism – by invoking the individual .

We recoil at the very idea that a woman’s choice to sell her body may be damaging all woman – inter alia – it’s her choice and therefore sacrosanct .
We never address the the impact of – or what drives – such .
We reject participating in herd immunity , using our western tech to deride anyone using the same as a hypocrite , should they mention the aforesaid .
Don’t use your choice to question mine , we say . How dare you choose to?
We render political alliances asunder – yet form new ones – all in the name of choosing “sovereignty “.
We never hold a mirror to our faces – lest it reflect the unseen driving hand of darkness – and the dark within.
Should anyone have the temerity to lift the looking glass , we rage at the traitor , their insurrection . Their very treason .

We react with wounded egos when we are informed that dietetic trends may be an indication – of or gateway to – eating disorders in the young female , rejecting the bigger picture and imagining a non existent attack on our sacred , dearly guarded ethics .
Our quinoa , biodiesel and soy must remain unexamined in their impact .

We say a person can change sex , simply because of a notion in their head .
We say A is A because A says it’s A . Never once allowing A to have a material , biological , scientific basis on which it can be defined – empirically – as A , rather than B.
It never occurs to us that in doing so , we render A and B nonsensical , and that in doing so it becomes impossible to identify as either .
Cui bono? Those of us for whom material reality is an inconvenience to acknowledge lest we are forced examine its part in the oppression of billions , and our participation thusly .

We are trapped in the tumbril of solipsism , unable to discern or apply nuance .
We are addicted to identity and in thrall to consumerism .
The only consensus we will suffer is that of the cipher.
And to a greater of lesser extent . It’s is “we” – all of us .
I think I think I think , the contradiction of our times .
The world has gone from revolving around – to revolving within – us .
We are all vulnerable to the seductive – chauvinistic – charms of cogito ergo sum.

Sisterhood not cisterhood , is women. And you don’t get to tell us it isn’t .

Right . The term “Cis”.

You’ll hear that it’s not reductive , you’ll hear that it just means “not trans ” , you’ll hear that it simply means “someone whose gender identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth”.

Let me unpack that , rat fans .

1 . We do not need a prefix to illustrate that female born women are women , we already have a prefix that differentiates us from those born male , and THAT, rat fans , is “trans ” .
Hence “transwomen” and “women “- NOT “cis-women” and “women ”
Going along with that shit semantically erases who the “actual ” women are .

2. Gender is a construct . Nobody is “assigned ” anything by the identification of their sex .
However , once sex is identified , a codified set of behaviours , preferences , personality traits , talents , abilities , and expectations , will be inculcated from day one .
In short , gender is the distillation of SEXism , it is a role that is assigned .
Forcibly and without mercy .
Now , tell me , what female – WHAT WOMAN – identifies or aligns with being assigned the role of not fully human , the lesser , the raped , the subordinate , the corseted , the genitally infibulated , birth forced , wretched set of low expectations and lower lives , the GENDER , forced upon them that transwomen so fetishise and covet ?
Indeed , explain to me how anyone can identify as a woman without being either gender essentialist and/or resort to sexist tropes ?
Cui bono from framing the narrative thus? Who’s trying to enforce it with hysteria , silencing , and obsessive , narcissistic victimhood ?
Not women.

So next time , dear sisters , dear brothers , as well as refraining from that crap , shut it down .

It’s sisterhood , not cisterhood .

Solidarity . Happy IWD .

Why objecting to the “Spousal Veto” , is nothing more than rape culture, and how it seeks to shame women for having boundaries.

Removing the rather mis named the spousal veto is a coercive measure , campaigned for by people who want their cake and eat it, and wish to force non compliant wives (for wives this overwhelmingly applies to) into courts to be labelled self declared TERFs and homophobes , in short, this is pre-emptive revenge on women* who wish to exercise their sexual boundaries .

If I marry a man, who is male, I do not wish to discover I married someone who has always been trans, (sorry “always been a woman” ..silly me) just as any straight man/woman , does not wish to discover they married someone who is gay, and has – presumably – lied during the whole marriage , and has ergo deceived them into marriage (something the Catholic Church, weirdly progressive for a change, considers renders a marriage nullified) .

Sexuality and orientation isn’t bigotry, and only people who don’t respect women’s boundaries or right to honesty would have you believe otherwise.

Should a so called “veto” be removed I can see the argument thus..

Transitioning spouse….”yur a homophobe and a TERF”

Woman ….”no, I’m not, I’m just not gay and you weren’t honest ”

TP.. ” what’s wrong with being gay?”

W … ” nothing, if I was gay I’d maybe be married to an actual woman now, already ”

TP “but you already were, have always been , since I was always ACTUALLY a woman..”

W…”so, you’re calling me what?”

TP “a lesbophobe TERF , and what’s more, if you wanna divorce , bitch, I’m gonna make you stand up in court and admit it”

After all, what wounds a male more than his dick be denied?

Which is of course a human rights infringement.

Calling women’s access to divorce a veto implies that this is a legal tool open to women who wish to prevent their spouse transitioning. It is not.
It simply allows women to access divorce quickly and fairly when it becomes clear that the original basis of the marriage was based in a a falsity….
And quite apart from anything, when was a man ever prevented from doing whatsoever he pleases , just because he spouse objects ?

Baroness Stowell (Con) , summed up opposition to this succinctly and effectively…thusly

Tina Stowell, Baroness Stowell of Beeston @tinastowell (UK)

*This of course would also include , more rarely , lesbians married to women transitioning , and even more rarely, straight men married to transitioning women , or gay men married to transitioning men, though the dynamic vis-a- vis assumed sexual access, especially where it’s females transitioning , may differ.

Remember, it’s still common belief amongst men that marriage infers tacit ongoing consent to , and availability of , sex upon demand, and that in the UK, marital rape was only recognised as actual rape in 1991.
In many countries it remains unrecognised as even “bad manners”.