I know some of you bastards (and bastard lovers) thought you were rid of us. Nope. Not that easy. We have been busy! 
How’s that picture for a reminder of the carbuncle on your ass?
There is a very decided effort on the part of most “feminists” to obscure the role female people play in male supremacy by labeling it “victim-blaming.” There is a difference, however, between discussing women’s actions before males attack or otherwise affront them, and critiquing women’s actions after such an offense. You see, when someone makes an unwanted advance, imposition, or assault on another, the victim’s response can only ever be either a condemnation or a condonation of that behavior.
Now, given that we live in male supremacy – that is, we, as female people, live under conditions of class oppression/victimhood, even when we have not necessarily been affronted individually – there are, of course, all manner of justification for the condonation of male insult and injury against us: fear, whether real or imagined; coercion, whether economic or familial, etc. Despite the fact that there may be rationalizations for it, though, it doesn’t change the fact that male behavior toward female humans is condoned; we, on a large scale, do in fact condone male supremacy, our own oppression.
I’m not sure why women want to pretend as if the existence of justifications for condonation of male supremacy somehow renders the fact of the condonation entirely irrelevant. If women’s condonation were irrelevant, after all, male people wouldn’t go to such lengths to provide us with justifications for our continued forgiveness. Our forgiveness is necessary to male supremacy. As I’ve said before, male dominance in the absence of female submission (and, yes, condonation is submission) is simply a reign of terror ; male supremacy, on the other hand, is a system, a social contract, an agreement to bring up future generations to believe in, maintain, and further the oppression and enforced inferiority of the female.
I want to reiterate, here, that I’m not talking about female behavior “causing” male violence or offense that would otherwise be unprovoked. That, of course, would be appropriately labeled victim-blaming. I am, however, talking about the ways in which female behavior after the fact (which fact might be an individual affront or, if you’re more broad-minded, male supremacy altogether) encourages males to continue their behavior and fosters male entitlement to our continued forgiveness. To address this integral facet of male supremacy is not “victim-blaming.” It is necessary to a meaningful condemnation of male treatment of female human beings. Male supremacy will never be ended if it is not first condemned rather than condoned.
Both Margie and I have been too busy to post and comment. Has 2009 blown by or what? And this month is National Novel month. I have about 29 stories that I need to tie together and make a novel. The thing is, I can put you there. I can reveal the misery, but I suck at plot. All plots seem contrive, I swear they do.
Open thread nevertheless. Maybe some lurkers will come out and admit in public that they read us.
He will not be deploying to Iraq.
I will need to get the popcorn ready. The patriots will have a field day with that name. I will be interested in seeing how they will juxtapose his position in the American military industry complex with domestic terrorism. All of this right after the news that the average kid is too dumb, fat, and delinquent to stand in as a military target. The irony of course is, the Whole Foods’ children, you know, those fucking snobs who send their children to private schools, count calories and vitamins, and tell the less fortunate that we are too stupid to vote properly, will no longer have the poor to use as military fodder. If they want their imperialist nation protected they will have to send their educated, healthy and non-delinquent (because mommy and daddy made it all go away) children to the front lines. HAH! Whose eating the pizza pockets now fuckers? Maybe Whole Foods will be contracted to make the M.R.Es.
“Cis-privilege” is the “privilege” that is supposed to derive from being in a female body while accepting that one’s body is indeed female. Of course, since being female means belonging to an oppressed class regardless of whether or not one acknowledges she is female, this concept is poorly conceived to begin with. But even if female people weren’t oppressed AS FEMALE (ie, not as female-who-identifies-as-female, for crying out loud), acknowledging oneself as female while living in a female body would only privilege a person insofar as to do otherwise would render her insane, out of touch with reality, hallucinatory, whatever you prefer.
Yes, sane people have privilege over insane people. But that has nothing to do with sex, except, of course, with regard to the way that female people have historically been falsely and disproportionately classified as insane in order to further male supremacy. Aside from issues of sanity, though, it cannot be said that understanding oneself to be female, while living in a female body, in any way privileges a woman over anyone, whether female people who are insane and believe themselves despite all evidence to the contrary to be male OR male people who are similarly insane and insist despite reality that they are female.
I do so hate the penchant for made-up words (like “cis-privilege”) intended to refer to concepts for which there is already long-standing and easily recognized terminology (like ’sanity’).
But will it be full of the same ol’ tropes?
Males did.
Police are not looking for people who may have participated in the rape of a 15-year old girl. The police are looking for males who participated in the rape of a 15-year-old girl.
As a female, I refuse to be the mouse in a male’s pocket.
This post (and you will see it again) is for the express purpose of collecting comments from the feminist blogosphere that sound an awful lot like wishing that one can call black women niggers, lynch black women, have the freedom to display black women lawn jockeys and Aunt Jemimas without social scorn, and perpetuate the belief that racism is cured/over. Feminists are not just white! Racism is not cured! Get a fucking grip already.
Feel free to submit a comment when you see one. I shall add it to the top and bring the post to the most forward position when a new comment is added.
• Grace says:
Perhaps the best comparison to people’s reactions toward rape in the form of the victim “brought it upon herself,” is the case of a racially motivated hate crime. Nobody would ever say that a 15 y/o black young man brought it on himself after being attacked and hit with a baseball bat by a mob in a predominantly white neighborhood.
There would be an uproar, police, criminal charges, lawsuits to the city, etc. This happens because sexism and attacks against women in a patriarchal society as ours are seen as part of life, just “natural” and “normal” events. And women simply have to learn how to protect themselves, the same way that black people were told to do 50 years ago.
I bet that at that time “wise” people also said things like “racism is part of life” and that “colored people” needed to stay at home in the closet after dark.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:33 pm EST
• Kookaburra says:
…There’s a man there that ALWAYS has some article of clothing that proclaims “Skin Industries” and has a mudflap-esque female silhouette on it. I couldn’t articulate to another woman why it bothered me so much, but then I suddenly said, “If I was black, and the design featured a blackface caricature, would you still think I was over sensitive? What if the logo was ‘coal industries’ and featured people in coolie hats? Pornarrific portrayals of women are just as much hate speech as racial caricatures.”
I don’t know if she agreed with me, but she got really thoughtful.
Thankfully the dude is dumb as a box of rocks, so he’ll probably be dropped from the program soon.
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:45 am EST
• yttik says:
….It’s ironic, we’ve decided as a society that portraying black folks as lawn jockeys, Aunt Jemimas, or as clowns in black face, isn’t very respectful and negatively impacts the way we view people. For some reason we still can’t seem to understand how violent imagery of women might also be a problem.
October 21st, 2009 at 10:58 am EST
Swannie says:
If you added an Aunt Jemima headscarf to that picture it would be an affront , but as it is its “ok” by cuttent music industry and societal norms . How about if we added a male figure of indeterminate race with a whip , would that be ok too ??
• SweetSue says:
There, you’ve hit it. Anything the dudebros might want to masturbate to-image of Rhianna in barbed wire-is free speech protected by our sacred Bill of Rights.
Other violent images like depictions of lynchings are obscene and beyond the pale…
October 21st, 2009 at 2:53 pm EST
• gxm17 says:
We live in a culture where hanging nooses with no one in them is a hate crime but wrapping a (black) woman in barbed wire is sexy. Now, that’s just f’d up…
October 21st, 2009 at 8:06 pm EST
• Ciccina says:
…
2. @ gxm17
We live in a culture where hanging nooses with no one in them is a hate crime but wrapping a (black) woman in barbed wire is sexy.
Indeed. Though hanging a life-size Sarah Palin doll from a noose on your front lawn is considered good clean Democratic fun in some parts, namely Los Angeles.
A grown ass man dressed like a caricature of a woman maced a little boy on a subway. That same grown ass man talked shit about how fat a woman and her boys were, although he is quite fat himself. Instead of walking completely away from the uncivil children (who may or may not have been initially provoked), that grown ass man was determined to stay within earshot to keep the argument going. Then when he could escape out an open door, he sprayed mace on the boy. The man should be charge with assault. A grown ass man has no business attacking a child, including a loudmouth male child. Men always resort to violence, –always.
In typical acrobat fashion, people have ignored the male privilege the grown ass man invoked when he insulted the woman by calling her fat, ugly, and mental (all tropes used against females by males) and utilized his physical presence (taller and probably stronger, at times he menacingly towered over them) to intimidate. In justifying the immature and illegal activity of the man in drag, people have completely glossed over how threatened a grown ass man (dressed in drag or not) can be to an unprotected woman, particularly a woman who society does not normally listen to, and instead, focused on how the immature man was oppressed (AS IF!) by a poor just as frustrated as everyone else family. Any other time people will talk about how it is never acceptable to assault a child. NEVER!
There should be charges filed against this asshole. Of course, the police will probably not care what happens to a poor (most likely) fat black woman and/or her poor fat black children.
The contortions have got to hurt.
