FSTDT

femonade #fundie factcheckme.wordpress.com

but sticking your dick into a vagina AINT SEX. mm-kay? its not. since when did “sex” come to mean “men sticking their dicks into women?” because thats what it means. thats the intended, and working, meaning of the word. someone fucked up here, people. we need to start over, because ”sex” has nothing to do with being sexual, with arousal, or desire, or with being interesting or creative or anything. and its definitely not about “expressing” anything, except penis-worship, and mens entitlement to put girls and women in harms way, without reproach.

so if someone were to say to me, “its just erotic massage!!!!1!!11!” or “its just mutual masturbation/digital penetration!!!11!!” or “its just authentic female desire” or “its just a warm, wet, aroused vulva with a non-phallic-looking vibrator stimulating it to orgasm!!!!1!!1? i would say “yay sex, bring it on.” but thats not what anyone means, when they say “its just sex.”

“sex” as its intended to mean, means “penis in vagina” and since that puts girls and women at risk for pregnancy and STDs, the payoff is not worth the risk. even if our clits were located in our vaginas, IT STILL WOULDNT BE WORTH IT. but they arent, and its not. “its just sex” means “its just misogyny and male entitlement.” and if you dont have a problem with that, you have a very serious problem, indeed.

tix8770 #fundie factcheckme.wordpress.com

I’d like to comment on where this column takes me. I don’t go straight to the aftermath of this crime and the “rounding-up” of men, I mean, I’m not all that interested in the separatism that you hypothesize would follow. I’m interested in the at-first strange notion of rounding up men for 20 miles around and putting them in prison when one man rapes a woman. I apologize if these thoughts are pretty tentative.

If a woman is raped by a stranger (meaning the authorities can’t immediately get the criminal off the streets and can’t identify the criminal), it can be said, thinking outside the system, that a crime against the CLASS of women has been committed, not just a crime against an individual. This is because every woman and girl for 20 miles (to use your cutoff) is injured by the crime. All women are once again confined. They already live in a society where their freedom to exist outside their homes is always under attack. Women have been kept from public life, the street, public spaces, anywhere but the family-hole, from time immemorial, and fear of rape has been one of the most effective tools keeping them confined.

It needs to be emphasized that women raped by strangers are in most senses of the word, randomly selected. The rapist may simply find an opportunity, a moment alone with a girl walking down a street. He may have some fetish about black hair. He may not like women who wear red shirts. He may be angry at losing his job. It doesn’t matter. The crime has a random quality, looked at from a larger perspective.

So this rape affects a highly vulnerable population, puts them into renewed fear, and restricts their freedom. If the individual rapist is not caught, none of these women can feel safe. It is the equivalent of all women for 20 miles being rounded up and put in prison, is what I’m getting at. This is the true scope of the crime, and the true set of victims.

So just to embellish your thought-experiment a little, let us say that this is a society which is not male-supremacist – and which fully understands the that such a crime is a crime against a class. Let us say that the punishment must be commensurate with the crime. What should this punishment be?

If it is to be commensurate, it must also treat men as a class. I believe this is where some of your words lead. It’s a revolutionary thought.

In short, men for twenty miles around should suffer the same fear of rape, restrictions on their movements, and fear of being attacked at any moment. This could (logically, but only as a thought-exercise) be accomplished by putting them in literal prisons, not that different from the metaphorical prison women still live in.

But I see a way to make this punishment better-focused and more realistic than rounding up all the men. That is, the authorities should attempt to identify the perpetrator, and if they can’,t they should RANDOMLY arrest a single male in the area. The punishment is then exactly as awful as a the original crime. All men for twenty miles around are placed in fear of being confined and raped (in prison), not knowing which of them will become the scapegoat for their class.

Savage, isn’t it? As savage as the crime, and the effect of women in the area.

One of the problems with trying to step outside the beliefsystem is that there are no words for doing so. For instance, I can’t think of an analogy here to make these thoughts simple. I can say, rape is like burning a cross on a lawn, having the effect of injuring all local African-Americans. Or I could try to analogize tribal warfare, like the Tutsis and Hutus, or kulaks vs serfs, etc etc.

But crime in U.S. jurisprudence is still considered a crime of an individual – there is no legal concept I know of that addresses joint culpability as I try to talk about it here. Maybe others can think better than I can on this point. I suppose that what I’m suggesting, following along with your words, is that the idea of a “class” crime could enter jurisprudence, and used carefully to describe certain crimes by one class against another, with the punishment directed against the entire offending class. A very few violent felonies, such as rape, with its eternal history of use as a tool of social control of a class by another class, would be eligible for inclusion.

FCM #fundie factcheckme.wordpress.com

imagine with me. whenever a woman is raped, every man within 20 miles of where the rape occurred is presumed to be a rapist, an accomplice, an egger-onner, an enabler, or completely disinterested (in protecting women from rape). they are all rounded up and jailed.

because it would be stressful for all women involved if there were any uncertainty regarding whether the men would be released or not — if the men were “coming home” or if they would ever again be “walking the streets to rape again” — to relieve womens stress, the answer would be NO, none of them will be released, ever. all the women would go on with their lives and never look back. there wouldnt be any prison-visits either. (feel the relief wash over you like a warm bath?)

if there was a problem of prison overcrowding (can you imagine the logistical problems we would encounter if we actually started punishing men for rape?) well thats easy — let all the newbies i mean “new fish” sleep in the recreational areas until a spot opens up. start a “communication initiative” whereby all prisoners would be given a new mont blanc pen and a letter opener and instructed to write letters to other prisoners around the country, like a pen-pal kind of thing. watch them all kill each other with the pens and letter openers. overcrowding? no longer an issue.

[...]

if we actually punished men for raping girls and women, without regard for fairness to men, and *only* caring about fairness to women and relieving womens stress, and centering womens survival as a sexual class, including the complete eradication of rapey males and rape culture, female separatism would no longer present the logistical problem it once did — “mens culture” would become prison culture. it already is, you see. under conditions of zero tolerance for men raping women, we would have “womens culture” and female separatism by default. it probably wouldnt take but a year at most for (nearly?) every single man to be rounded up and imprisoned for raping or contributing to the rape of a woman, if we actually punished men for rape, and contributing to rape.

thats literally all it would take to create female separatism: justice. thats all.

Femonade #fundie factcheckme.wordpress.com

women as a class are subservient to men as a class, then, due pretty exclusively to PIV.

now. gays and lesbians are vilified, under this system, because homosexuals fuck up the narrative (again, the narrative is, and must be, men fuck women, and women are fucked by men). see? regarding gay men, they make it too clear that men have asses that can be fucked. its not *just* women that can be fucked, men can be fucked too. but how is that supposed to work???!!!!!1 no, its not fucking unless women are fucked. its not “fucking” unless someone can die from it, unless someone can become pregnant. because fucking and female subservience are the same thing.

and lesbians fuck up the narrative too: they make it too clear that PIV is not inherently erotic, for women. so, they arent really women, at all. and what they are doing to and with each other isnt fucking. because its not fucking unless someone can die from it, unless someone can become pregnant. because fucking and female subservience are the same thing.

and i have kinda been harsh on transwomen in this series, but they fit in here too, dont they? because transwomen are men, and they have asses that can be fucked. they have fake fuckholes that can be fucked. but its not fucking unless someone can die from it, unless someone can become pregnant. because fucking and female subservience are the same thing. and its not a fucking coincidence, is it, that many times when a straight man murders a transwoman, its after he has fucked her (or right before), and finds out that shes not a woman? because the transwoman reminds him that he, too, has an ass, that can be fucked. that what they have just done or almost done together wasnt fucking or almost fucking, it was something “disturbing” in fact, because its not fucking unless someone can die from it, unless someone can get pregnant.

because fucking and female subservience are the same fucking thing.

tiamathydra #fundie factcheckme.wordpress.com

(response to: "--men really dont want to fuck that often — just enough to make you afraid you are pregnant every month, but never enough to give you any real pleasure. yes? welcome to female heterosexuality. thats pretty much the definition of it.”)

Actually, I believe that if a 100% safe and harmless contraceptive method for intercourse was found, men suddenly wouldn’t enjoy fucking anymore. They enjoy it for the sake of female risk, I really, really believe this. After safe and healthy contraception would be discovered, they’d feel that the charm of sex would be gone. Because heterosexual sex in patriarchy = sadism. Against females.

Factcheckme #fundie factcheckme.wordpress.com

what kind of rapey shithole are we living in, afterall, if we would have separatism by default if men were (finally) punished with jailtime for raping and contributing to men raping women. i mean if all men who were guilty of the range of offenses between actual rape and not adequately protecting women in their own communities and proximities from rape, were actually sent to jail, including every man within a 20-mile radius (say) of any and all instances of a boy or a man raping a girl or a woman, within just a few minutes there would be no men left in many places in the world. justice for women, in other words, would create female separatism by default, where all male offenders were separated from us, and allowed to do their male-culture thing with each other and not allowed to do it to us anymore. we would be alone. because justice.

(...)

and what kind of violent hell is waiting just beyond the horizon, what is it, exactly, that we are actively preventing from happening with our female blood, sweat and tears, when women put their energies into placing and enforcing social controls on men and male behavior, including mens violence against other men? and, why do we bother doing this at all? this is a serious question.

(re)consider: how many men would just kill themselves voluntarily if left to their own devices? how many resources in the form of suicide hotlines, drug rehabs, DWI checkpoints and the like are being actively put towards preventing men from killing themselves, and is this really the best use of these resources? says who?

(re)consider: how many men would kill each other if they werent prevented from doing so, both actively and passively, and how much energy is dedicated to achieving that ends daily? weekly? annually? is it worth it? this is a serious question. what would happen if we just let men do to themselves and each other what they do, unabated? im not talking about *us* doing a fucking thing to hurt men at all. im just talking about not stopping them from harming — even eliminating — themselves. do we owe it to them or something to save them from themselves? really? because we are acting as if we do, but why? i dont think women owe men a fucking thing.

and sure, women have our own interests in preventing male violence against other men, but our interests here are complicated, and worth parsing. for starters, women and girls often get caught in mens crossfire, literally and more literally. when boys and men are killed, so is the gynergy of the mothers, grandmothers and others who spent their lives and their very selves in raising and nurturing them.

perhaps our greatest fear is that if men are allowed to do what they do, and if “culture” — otherwise known as patriarchy — were allowed to be as hellishly brutal, as bloody and awful as it would be if men were allowed to just be men, unmodified, that men will simply and finally go mad, unleashing an heretofore unimaginably lawless, vicious violence, raping and slaughtering us all. and this is a realistic fear, i think. but obviously it begs the question, doesnt it — why are they worth saving, again?

what if we just got out of their way and let nature (or whatever) take its course? im just asking. we likely wouldnt have to do it for very long — i think even *i* could stand the trials and tribulations of “womens land” and passing the communal nut butter (or whatever) for the five minutes (or 5 years) it would take for men to render themselves, well, dead. after that, we could all go our own ways if we wanted. or not! either way, aaaahhhhhhh. heaven.

Factcheckme #fundie factcheckme.wordpress.com

(About the husband of a feminist who committed suicide. There were absolutely no suspicions of foul play from the police or anyone else except this dingbat and her followers.)

i always assume that if a woman ends up dead, a man did it. i assume this across the board, no matter what it “looks like.” fell down the stairs? drowned? was there a kennedy man anywhere nearby? it was probably a man that killed her, it was almost certainly deliberate, and if she was partnered or married to a man, it was probably him that did it. the cops know this too, of course, because its the truth about “violence” and “crime”. to put “male” in front of those words would be redundant. that must be why no one ever says it.
(...)
so anyway, i recently read about a womans apparent “”"”suicide”"”" (thats 4 sets of red-flag quotes) and immediately suspected her husband. he was a psychologist, which made me suspect him even more — doctors wives seem especially clumsy and prone to attracting sharp objects, projectiles, poison. and psychologists/psychiatrists just might be more sadistic and misogynistic than your average sadistic, misogynistic male. creepy, pervsplaning fuckers, those.
(...)
for probably the first time in many years, i actually believed the husband. i do not think he probably killed her. i think it probably happened exactly as he said.

my conclusion was involuntary, and surprising. upon reflection and discussion, i still think its probably right. although obviously the husband should be investigated to within an inch of his life, just to be sure. and because his wife died on his watch, that should count as at least one strike against him, and should be taken into consideration in all future contexts, including but not limited to dating, job prospects, and jury service. you know, instead of counting as zero strikes like it does now. it doesnt count, even when the guy actually did it, and even when everyone knows it. that is all.