Skip to content

Feminism 0, Patriarchy 1

March 24, 2009
Male-woman Chris Mason nee John Leslie Vallandingham murderd his husband. (Marriage, a social privilege not afforded to same-sex relationships in many states, but circumvented when one convinces patriarchal medicine to indulge delusions).

Some people speculate that James Mason may have molested Chris Mason as a child. If so, then why wasn’t he treated for the trauma that abuse caused, instead of being allowed to transition into a male-woman and marry his abuser? Also, if so, the entire case will show just how sick patriarchy is and to what extremes the patriarchy will go to cover up how adult males rape children (both female and male children, but disproportionately female). Nevertheless, I’m not really comfortable with the notion of molestation made a person however they are, it seems a little homophobia-ish.

However, going with the speculation (and conviction) that Mason murdered (by using his younger, larger, and heavier body) his husband out of greed, then how does his transitioning to a a male-woman and subsequent behavior subvert the patriarchy, thus, contribute to feminism? He will not be seen as an individual (a woman who used to be a man, therefore was socially conditioned to take on the behaviors that society assign to the masculine gender), but a representative of the whole of women. Women are seen as a collective when a lone woman murders her husband or child. Only men are afforded individual status when it comes to socially unacceptable behaviors. Murdering a man is indeed a socially unacceptable behavior, unlike the excuses afforded to men who murder women. (She made him do it. She drove him to it. She cheated. He lost his job so it is understandable that he murdered his entire family, etc).

I can read the argument on the MRA boards now. “Yall accepted him as a woman, therefore, we can use him as a perfect example of wives murdering husband.” Hence, it will be taken that wives/girlfriends/ex-girlfriends/members of THE oppressed class in the patriarchy (FAB women) murder husbands (MAB, men) equal to husbands (MAB men) murdering wives/girlfriends/ex-girlfriends/members of THE oppressed class in the patriarchy (FAB women). Thanks for that added statistic Chris Mason. It is not as if FAB women do not already have to deal with inflated statistics that serve misogynists’ agendas.

(AP) James M. Mason knew his wife since she was born a boy. The janitor and former military man was a boarder in the child’s home and was treated like family. […]

He [the murdered husband] was in his 70s, she [the murdering male-woman] in her 30s. He [the murdered victim] was mild-mannered; she [the male-woman murderer] had a domineering personality.

Well, of course he had a domineering personality. When the doctor sees that an infant has a penis, he is declared a boy. From that moment forward, he is tracked/groomed to be a king. When that little boy is enrolled in school, he is enrolled as a boy. He can feel like a girl. He can desire to be a girl. He can wish upon a star that he transforms into a girl, but the fact remains, that parents, teachers, school officials, and other children, particularly other boys will see him as a boy and treat him accordingly. He will be groomed to be a king. Regardless of how much he does not want to be a king, he will not be thrown in the fucktoy/future service provider category. His penis guarantees him the privilege of not being tracked as a service provider. Even if he is at the bottom of the heap among his male peers, he will always be seen by the parents, teachers, school officials (the majority of them anyway, sans the ones who are truly anti-heteronormative), and other boy children as being superior to the girls/females/fucktoys who are being groomed differently.

In a patriarchy (in which we live in) being tracked into fucktoydom is not a privilege over being tracked into kingship (even if said future king does not want his position as king). Having said the preceding, I am not condoning or desiring that the separation continue, I am simply stating a fact of the patriarchy. Patriarchy divides children into future kings and future fucktoys/ service providers based on sex at birth.

Repeatedly I’ve read tales of the male born who feels/felt like a girl/woman. What he often describes is what it feels like to be a girl/woman according to the narrative set forth by the patriarchy. In other words, his feelings coincide with the feminine gender that the patriarchy has constructed. The very gender narrative that men (the oppressor), the patriarchy have always defined, shaped, and enforced.

When a male-woman talks about being tormented as a child, his torment is not the same or equal to the torment a female born child is subjected to. It should not even be compared because they are completely different experiences. His torment is at the expense of being at the bottom of the kings and not complying with their wishes. Her torment is at the expense of being placed secondary to all male borns. She is groomed to accommodate a servicing position for and to come second to every single potential king, —including the ones who do not want to be kings. The patriarchy does not care what she feels either. If she does not feel like becoming a service provider/fucktoy, regardless of how much she does not want it, she is still treated and tracked as a future fucktoy/service provider. What happens to him has nothing at all to do with how he feels (the same for her). Nothing. The patriarchy is a soulless beast. His feelings are not taken in account when the doctor sees his penis and declares him a male. His feelings are not taken in account when the box is marked male at school. His feelings are not taken in account when teachers, parents, and other students look at him and label him a boy. His feelings have absolutely nothing to do with any of it. His feelings are left for him and him alone to sort out when he no longer has to legally participate (such as being school age) in an institutional system (education) that enforces gender roles.

Just a note for the nit pickers who want to avert. First, there is nothing positive about being domineering. Nothing. It is a tyrannical behavior, —learned or innate. It is a behavior that must be discouraged, unless of course one wants a power-over system such as patriarchy to survive. The patriarchy teaches and rewards dominance. A CEO who hostilely takes over another company is patted on the back. The boy who uses physical force to knock all the other boys off the dirt pile becomes the king of the hill. His boyish violence is rewarded. The man who can beat another man in a fight is view as the superior man. A husband who beats his wife into submission is simply viewed as a man who is taking control of his family. A country’s army that can dominate another country’s army is viewed as the winner. To dominate is to be patriarchal. To be domineering is to perpetuate the status quo. Behaviors encouraged and learned since birth are not easily jettisoned and disappeared simply because a man chops off his penis.

Chris Mason was domineering because he learned to be domineering. He was rewarded for being domineering and it was why he resorted to domineering violence to achieve the prize his eyes were on when murdered (dominated) his husband for money.

Then, last summer, there was another surprise: Chris Mason was accused of exercising her frail husband to death so she could inherit his retirement benefits, in an attack caught on surveillance video. Police say she forced James Mason, who had heart disease, to do stressful activity in an indoor pool for more than two hours. […]

Her sister is domineering, “although I hate to say it,” while James Mason was very gentle and laid back, Vondrasek said. She told police she once saw her daughter flip a chair while James Mason was sitting in it, putting a hole in a wall. She said she saw James Mason standing with his nose to a wall in the corner of the living room because, he told her, his wife had ordered it. Neighbors at times heard yelling and objects being thrown in the couple’s apartment and complained to a Geauga County social service agency that checks on the safety of the elderly, said Middlefield Police Chief Joseph Stehlik. A security videotape shows Chris Mason pulling her husband by his arms and legs on June 2, tossing and dunking him. Sometimes he clings to the side of the pool and his wife pulls him away. She appears to block his path as he tries to get out of the water — 43 times, by the police chief’s count. […] His [The murdered husband] widow [the male-woman] was involved in a bar fight in December and was jailed after her personal bond was revoked, said Prosecutor David Joyce. She was banned from another bar she frequently visited. “She was getting obnoxious, and the owner told her she had to stay out of here,”said Tracy Hall, a bartender at Middlefield Tavern. “She liked to flirt with all the guys who come in here.” […]

But James Mason’s half-sister, Cinda Meyer, said Chris Mason appeared to show little grief. “She had him cremated, and she called and told me to come and pick up the ashes and do something with them,” said Meyer, of Seville in northeast Ohio. “She was pretending to be a grieving widow.”

The above is a story that will not be exploited, linked, and re-linked all over the Internet by pro-trans people the way it is when a transsexual is murdered. In the linked stories, more times than not, the murder victim is a minority transsexual, and in most cases the transsexual had not transitioned. The murderer, a king conditioned in the patriarchy, hence, a potential homophobic misogynist masculine-male brute could care less if another man feels like a woman. To him (the brute) a “fag” is trying to trick him, is threatening the good order and discipline of society. To regain his perceived lost masculinity he must retaliate with domineering violence. His act of disdain and violence stems from the king’s homophobia and little to nothing to do with transsexuality.

No, this story I present here will be classified as an isolated case. And the anti-feminist aspect of transsexuality as proven by the story will be swept under the rug. Entitled men will continue utilizing the stories of less fortunate people to promote a white males first agenda. MTF transsexuals trying to dominate and set the agenda for feminism are exercising the same domineering behavior that Chris Mason illustrated. MTF’s political actions toward feminists display the same violent and domineering behavior homophobe-brutes do toward minority transssexuals.

And let’s not even talk about how FAB feminists are expected to ignore stories like this, to take one for the team, to hide the dirty laundry, even though the players jockeying for the lead positions (MAB men, MTF Transsexuals) have no qualm about further relegating FAB women in a movement that is a political movement for women.

The Chris Masons of the world are not doing a thing for feminism. Transsexuality is not doing a thing for feminism.

9 Comments
  1. MargaretJamison permalink
    March 24, 2009 10:14 pm

    I’m glad you cut folks off at the “women are always decried as domineering” pass. Yeah, women raised to be docile get decried as domineering. Male people raised as male people are raised quite simply often ARE domineering, and it’s not just mistaken perception of dominance. It’s instilled.

  2. The Fabulous Kitty Glendower permalink
    March 24, 2009 11:05 pm

    Yeah, that would be a total non sequitur to examine FAB women. It is not as if domineering is a good thing. Who wants the “honor” of being labeled domineering?

  3. Anna Belle permalink
    March 25, 2009 3:27 am

    Can I just say thank you? Because this is an important topic for feminism and I don’t know anyone else brave enough to post about. Feminism has become a cell pool of tolerance without thinking, and the feminine fear of offending somebody has prevented this IMPORTANT conversation from taking place. Males are trained as males, regardless of whether they feel like a girl or not. The fact that transgendering is a predominantly male act just demonstrates how that act is another extension of male privilege. It’s so fucked up, yet we’re supposed to embrace it in the name of tolerance. No thanks.

  4. The Fabulous Kitty Glendower permalink
    March 25, 2009 3:46 am

    Yes, I would say in the name of tolerance, and in the name of inclusion. This puts us (female born people) back at square one. We are the ones expected to “mother” everyone, to make everyone feel welcome, even at our own peril. Patriarchy demands female martyrdom. If our causes are diverted, well, so what, that’s what women are for, –service providing. Transsexuals can be transsexual, but why do they insist on forcing their way into the feminist movement and/or labeling their actions feminist when clearly there actions are NOT feminist. I could imagine a world where feminists and transsexuals can communicate and commiserate our similarities, but I will not stand for a world where they just want to push women out of the way and take over. That screams too much like their conditioned male entitlement, the exact thing that has kept women oppressed. Males as a class are not oppressed, —even the ones who do not wish to be males.

  5. MargaretJamison permalink
    March 25, 2009 11:02 am

    Hey, Anna Belle, I’m glad to read your comment. 🙂 Everyone’s so scared of being called a bigot that they don’t want to actually analyze the politics of it all. They have totally appropriated the language of oppression in service of an anti-feminist agenda. They’ve turned that discourse against female people, instead of against the male people who are actually oppressing them. Instead of trying to get a piece of men’s pie, they come after the crumbs women have gathered. They want the time, energy, organization, and funding that women have scraped for themselves.

    Margie

  6. MargaretJamison permalink
    March 25, 2009 1:57 pm

    Now they’re really getting down to the bare bones over at little light’s:

    ***The point that you’ve all missed, that you always all miss, is that the way feminists frame the issue is harmful to harmed men.***

    Talk about a comment that should never see the light of day on a feminist blog!

    A feminist framework can’t be used to analyze the world because it’s harmful to men. Just forget about the fact that anything other than a feminist framework is harmful to women, all of us. We’re not allowed to think of ways to help only ourselves; we have to make sure that anything we do is beneficial to men, as well. If it’s not actively benefiting them, men take it as active harm, which is their entitlement again, as that is not an accurate perception of feminist ideology.

  7. The Fabulous Kitty Glendower permalink
    March 25, 2009 3:54 pm

    I know, right. LMAO! Let it all hang out, let the hands be revealed: MENz ARE ALL ABOUT THE MENZ! Wow, what a new concept. That is why their asses need to stay the fuck away from feminism. And of course once it is learned how to swing a dick, chopped off or not, the male-woman still swings his dick. Case in point:

    shemale said…
    This was a fantastic post, little light.

    Margaret: No one was saying that the sexism and violence experienced by [FAB] women is somehow okay or that it is non-existent or that it isn’t institutionally supported.

    Unfortunately, you’ve missed the point of the post: that, far from trans women having the privileged existence you seem to think we have, violence against trans women is, in so many ways, institutionalized and socially condoned in a way that it never is against [FAB] women.

    So, shut the fuck up. Not everything is about you, you self-absorbed little prick.

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

    Little prick? Projection much. LMAO! “Not everything is about you Again, projection!

    Their game is over. The male-women’s agenda has been exposed. It is all about men. Which, radical feminists have known all along.

  8. MargaretJamison permalink
    March 25, 2009 8:01 pm

    Yeah, it’s so crazy. If it’s not about women, it’s not about feminism. And if it’s about little boys being trained to be little boys, but the only problem the author has is that he felt he should have been trained as a girl instead, that is NOTHING other than a minimization of the suffering girls undergo!!! You can’t say “I should have been socialized as a girl and not as a boy” without VALIDATING the horrible socialization of girls! I mean, my god! I’m sorry for all the exclamation points, but honestly, don’t compare your situation to girls’ situations if you want to make it all about yourself. You bring girls’ oppression into it, it’s my business.

    By all means, talk about your horrible upbringing. Just don’t say it would have been better for you to have been brought up as a girl. There’s NOTHING “better” about being raised as a girl under patriarchy. NOTHING. It’s all oppression.

  9. stormy permalink
    March 29, 2009 11:24 am

    Yes, I would say in the name of tolerance, and in the name of inclusion. This puts us (female born people) back at square one. We are the ones expected to “mother” everyone, to make everyone feel welcome, even at our own peril. Patriarchy demands female martyrdom. If our causes are diverted, well, so what, that’s what women are for, –service providing. Transsexuals can be transsexual, but why do they insist on forcing their way into the feminist movement and/or labeling their actions feminist when clearly there actions are NOT feminist. I could imagine a world where feminists and transsexuals can communicate and commiserate our similarities, but I will not stand for a world where they just want to push women out of the way and take over. That screams too much like their conditioned male entitlement, the exact thing that has kept women oppressed. Males as a class are not oppressed, —even the ones who do not wish to be males.

    A big resounding YES, to all of it.

    And *nodding* to Margie:
    We’re not allowed to think of ways to help only ourselves; we have to make sure that anything we do is beneficial to men, as well. If it’s not actively benefiting them, men take it as active harm, which is their entitlement again, as that is not an accurate perception of feminist ideology.

    It is amazing that non-inclusion, or non-priority, is seen as “harmful”. It illustrates how women are not regarded as fully human in their own right.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: