Why Trump, why not all the other……………?

Hallo whateboutery , isn’t been – what – days ?This time it’s “why are they protesting Trump , whatabout when Obama …(the Saudis , append as necessary) .”
It’s bloody simple , America is – at least notionally – the leader of the free world . Whatever else it may be , it’s the largest economy . And – like it or not – that means something . 
Putting aside the inference that such protesters are (what?) not as woke , educated , or whatever – what’s being said here , that they are “hypocrites “? So what *if* they are not as aware of global geopolitics? Are “simple folk” not allowed to protest lest it offend the whatboutist commentariat ? I mean , hello snobbery . 

Why not give them the benefit that they do know “as much” , but – unlike those who feel everyone should protest everything , or nothing , they see America as centre – hub if you will – of a Ven diagram , upon which those other global factors , rotate? Could it just be possible they’re focusing on the bullseye of the target , not its outer rings and positions ? 
Like I said , America IS the world’s largest economy and – few would argue against the proposition – the world most powerful country .

As to the quip regarding the employment status of the protesters , really? Until I joined the navy I rarely – in my seven years between leaving school and enlisting – had a weekend off , equally rarely consecutive days off – working as I did , variously – in retail , travel , and care . These days the privilege of a job that afford weekends off is even rarer , so it’s no stretch to imagine them perfectly well employed . Or even taking a day’s leave .

It’s a miserly imagination that cannot see beyond one’s own perception and circumstance , and assume triviality and unemployment in those whom – probably – have so little opportunity to protest , they have to pick carefully what that time is spent on . It may well be they’re losing a precious day’s pay , and we sit in judgement , safe at our keyboards ? Huh. 

Back to insinuated ignorance – so what – if they *are* as ignorant , what’s the saying ?
Ah yes , “when America sneezes , the world catches a cold “.
And that’s enough for me . 

Advertisements

“All women can be lesbian – and should choose to be lesbian – politically”

This theory occurs frequently , people asserting that being sexually orientated-towards-and-attracted-to the same sex , and choosing to act on that , as the same as choosing that orientation .

Except , except , social constructs have to have a natural foundation . They’re not conjured from thin air but rely on a material foundation . 
Homosexuality, lesbianism and heterosexuality ALL exist in nature , equally naturally but not in frequency . Patriarchy colonises and enforces heterosexuality , because it’s a perfect control tool . Make compulsory what most female mammals do in nature , and by the same token , weaponise it against – not just heterosexual women -but all homosexuals and lesbians, in the form of homo/lesbophobia . They’d be compulsory – as well- if patriarchy could control women through it, to their benefit.

The fact that it is only heterosexuality that is compulsory is NOT equating mammalian heterosexuality as either entirely a construct OR saying that because heterosexuality exists in nature (is ergo natural) and has been weaponised (unlike others which it is weaponised Against ) it is the “only” natural orientation . 
But again and again I’ve seen those exact arguments , usually enforced by regiments of straw man , used to bolster why “any woman” , can “be” lesbian . 

They can’t . Just because patriarchy has made heterosexuality compulsory doesn’t mean it’s NOT a natural orientation , or that feminists referencing nature are saying it’s the only “natural” one . We have to reference nature in order to analyse that which exists outside human society , just as we have to with the sex in nature/gender under patriarchy paradigm . 
Of course , if it was entirely a choice than what are we saying , that het women are freely choosing and colluding in theirs – and all women’s – oppression . Isn’t that just a tad superior and misogynistic?

Now ,there’s the theory that most woman are – at least a little – Bi , which could bolster the argument that women could choose women , but what free choice do we really have? I’d say it’s only a free – caveat, I’m not saying easy – choice when the alternative repulses you . But then , you’d have to afford that choice to those likewise repulsed by the alternatives facing them . 

Finally , only under a post patriarchal world will we know for sure , but – it’s worth reiterating that – heterosexuality , homosexuality , Lesbianism , and bisexuality exist within nature – outside human society – AND existed before patriarchy , within human society . We were human and procreated before society was a thing , and certainly before patriarchy moulded society in its own image . 

In conclusion ; for me , political lesbianism means loving women and centring women in my politics – it is something ANY woman CAN do –  and I feel it inimical to the liberation of women , to blame any group of women for their subordination by patriarchy , under particularly as – with[and-especially-under]compulsory heterosexuality – it is our very biology and SEX , that has been used to enforce that by rape , forced child birthing and sexual slavery . Our common womanhood, in nature , as adult human females . While our sex/sexual orientation has been politicised , it does not automatically follow that sexual orientation can be a purely political choice . 

There is no better politic* in rejecting that which repulses you , even less in assuming better politic over women for whom it does not . 

*this is not a blanket accusation against any that hold such theories . If you do not[hold your politic so] then this blog should be no more than another theory , to take or leave . 

It was all about getting *at* us .

Sisters , a gift .

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)

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/