It struck me today that while plenty of people would like to prevent the poorest of women from having children, no one wants to prevent males from fucking/raping them. Whatever resources available to women of greater means to prevent it, to whatever limited extent any significant number of women is able to prevent or avoid fulfillment of male demands on female bodies, are not available to the poorest of women. Where some women are able to postpone or prevent it by appealing to religious dictates against sex outside of marriage, the poorest women – women living on streets, eating out of garbage cans – aren’t “valuable” marriage material. While some women can lock doors, call police – to whatever good may come of that – these measures aren’t even an option for the poorest of women.
They are literally on the front line of males’ war against females. They are human shields for the rest of us.
Oh, but it is different this time, –right?
Tiger’s driveway and crash path. LOL!
Golf Digest is kicking its ass over its January cover:
I find it interesting that people would argue that an 8-year-stale (as in, ended, for good, 8 years ago), singular, and gladly renounced, heterosexual relationship would negate my current identification as a lesbian separatist. Those who have been reading for some time know that I have only very recently, in the past few months, made any claim to lesbianism or lesbian separatism, and updated my about page to reflect my growth.
You see, separatists, all of us, are made, to whatever possible extent, not born. Every woman is born into heterosociality , tied, involuntarily or willingly, by various threads, whether economic, emotional, familial, or sexual, to males and to women who love them. So, although separatism has appealed to me for quite some time, and although my feminist theory has always been separatist, it wasn’t until I had ended my nearly decade-long celibacy, made the decision to quit my job, and broke all ties of vicinity and obligation to those who would sabotage my separatist efforts, that I called myself a lesbian separatist.
That’s all I intended to write, but while I’m sitting here, I’ll also add that hatred of males is not a prerequisite for separatism. I just happen to be a very good multitasker; I can manage to love women, choose separatism out of that love for women and my desire to see an end to the suffering males cause us as female human beings, AND hate males, all at the same time. Oh, and I can chew bubble gum, too, while I’m loving women and hating males, and the chewing of bubble gum has about has much to do with separatism as the hating of males does, although I don’t imagine disingenuous woman-haters would ever make so much ado about chewing gum as they do about my equally beside-the-point male-hating.
Men doing what they always do, murder people, –particularly women and children. The six-year-old girl was sleeping in her room, –minding her own damn business in her own space.
He must have been expected to clear his plate from the table.
——-
Pre-bake
Straight Out of the Oven
Spice Cake Pre-Frosting
laissez-faire rum and butter frosting
White women going on about how good the darkies have it now, and how it’d be great if white women could only have it so good, remind me of MRAs. MRAs whine constantly and bitterly about the few superficial gains women have made (I say superficial because even as the details of women’s oppression change, the power differential, that is, male supremacy, remains static), resentful that women have a little bit more license to pursue their own happiness in a still male-supremacist society; and white women are not very different. You see, males, especially white ones, always frame female progress in terms of males having “allowed” women their gains, of males having “given” us rights, which does nothing but perpetuate the notion of males as benevolent stewards over women.
White women seem to understand that males don’t get to decide when white women have been “allowed” enough license over their own lives, that males don’t get to decide when they’ve “granted” white women enough rights. White women seem to understand that whatever gains white women have made are not a reflection on men’s kindness and generosity, that white women’s gains have been hard-earned and even harder-maintained.
Yet these same white women believe that whatever paltry gains non-white, especially black, women have made are gifts granted us by white folks! Yes, they want credit for the few laws on the books criminalizing certain discriminations against us. They seem to believe that if black women cannot be called crack hos in the workplace that someone should in turn reward them with not only an equal law with regard to white women (which law already exists) but also a meaningful improvement in the societal psyche toward women as a result of said law. And even further, they judge themselves qualified to determine that such a change has already occurred in society’s view of non-white women.
They insist that white women are separate from white males, that white women are somehow not the beneficiaries of racism, even as they lump non-white women together with non-white men as “POC,” insinuating that non-white women are equal beneficiaries of white men’s and women’s “anti-racism” as non-white males. Even while white women stamp their feet about how discussing racism in general means discussing males, they neglect to ever mention that failing to discuss racist-sexism means excluding the vast, vast majority of women. “Talking about sexism is talking about 50% of the world’s population!” they holler.
Sure, but some 88% of those women are not white.
Tranny Racist-Misogynist, Mr. Misha Dark, Still Male Despite Trannyhood, Meaning No Transition in Sex Has Occurred and Never Will
If there are so many males who “just want to change their body,” without regard to gender, then why are they calling themselves “women” after they’ve had themselves chopped up? A mutilated male is a mutilated male. As I’ve said before, if males just want to hack off their penises and shove plastic bags under their pecs, how about they call themselves eunuchs instead of “women,” “transwomen,” and “transsexuals”? How about calling themselves males who wanted to chop off their penises and have it fashioned into a hole?
I get so sick of seeing women defend the “transwomen” they know in real life with reminders that not all “transwomen” want to wear dresses and pantyhose. OK, fine, they don’t want to wear dresses. What does that have to do with the fact that they’re still walking around calling themselves all manner of “woman”?
That is the crazy part. That is what makes them insane. One cannot change sex, and any indulgence of the, yes, insane, notion that they can is anti-female. I don’t give a damn what eunuchs wear or don’t wear. All I care about is whether or not society is actually obliging them in any way by calling them women. They are not women, insofar as ‘woman’ means adult human female, and they never will be.
