The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Anonymous, Paranoid and Unverifiable: Radical Feminism’s Anti-PIV Madness

Posted on | February 11, 2014 | 52 Comments

Six weeks ago, a “remarkable uproar” was inspired after some conservatives discovered a radical feminist blogger’s bizarre denunciation of heterosexual intercourse as “PIV” (penis in vagina).

As I pointed out at the time, the blogger’s anonymity made it impossible to verify her narrative — we don’t know her age or her circumstances and only by a careful reading is it possible to determine that she is evidently British, was raised Catholic, attended university and has experienced nothing but disappointment with men:

I never “fell” in love with anybody when I was young, and was always wondering whether I was normal or not. . . .
Anyway, a few rapes / PIV / abusive relationships later, as I was still adolescent, I “fell in love”, or so I thought. . . .
The guy was something like 13 years older than me, I was still a minor, and my “love” to him would be all the more strong that he was very fleeting, would contact me only every now and then when he needed to fuck (rape) me. I was too grateful for him paying any attention to me to be even aware of his abusive behaviour, or understand what it meant. I was confused that he only wanted to see me sporadically, instead of starting a relationship, which is the way in which this love is supposed to be expressed. If he liked me enough to “desire” me, why didn’t he want a relationship?

Careful reading is necessary to analyze this narrative which, as I say, cannot be verified because of the author’s anonymity. But if we take her account at face value, she had a series of loveless adolescent relationships before — “while still a minor” — she “fell in love” with a man who was about 30 years old. And from this we can learn . . .what?

Teenage sexual promiscuity is a bad idea.

Why was she, as a teenager, so willing to engage in loveless sex with these guys? We don’t know. We might guess or theorize, but we can’t really know, and yet this vague and unverifiable tale is what she offers as the justification of her anti-male ideology.

Keep that in mind, because last week Maetenloch at AOSHQ included this headline in the overnight open thread:

Anti-PIV RadFeminist Very Unhappy
That Men Read Her PIV=Rape Blog Post

Maetenloch commented:

Scrolling through page after page of angsty driven man-hate I can’t help but think that some therapy would lead to a much, much happier life for her.

Well, that’s a huge part of the problem, isn’t it? Feminism provides an ideological interpretation of women’s unhappiness which — just coincidentally — tells them that they are never responsible for anything that goes wrong in their lives, because all of their misfortunes and discontents are the fault of the patriarchy.

Rather than seeking therapeutic help with their personal problems, feminists instead seek scapegoats to blame. Because blame is not a solution, their problems never get better, and the worse their problems are, the more radical their feminism becomes. Let’s briefly  examine the radfem blogger’s screed, shall we?

When men view our blogs in such large numbers, it’s a threat. They’re not just looking at it, they view it with the intent of harming radical feminists and women in general. They do it to collect information so they know what next to do to prevent women from going there. They batter radfem work in public for all women to see and show the result of their verbal and written battering as an example of what will await women if they do, think or say the same. . . . All this is gaslighting and bullying, men’s lies are meant to sound convincing. They convince with the use of force, ordering me to comply to their view by using an authoritarian, terrorising tone. ‘How dare you see otherwise. You’re crazy. You’re a bully. Etc.’ Which is why it works so well to instil self-doubt because it’s a mindfuck, it’s thought-blocking, it’s also an assault and it creates fear and willingness to appease to avoid further assaults. Brainwashing works through a mix of mind assaults, terror and constant repetition of a same message until it’s hammered into our brain, which is psychological violence. 85,000 views and hundreds of trolling comments is in effect a blitzkrieg brainwashing attack by men and male-colonised women. Hundreds of men and their pawns attempting to reprogram the minds of deviant female bloggers, women who don’t comply and who break through men’s myths and lies.

Translation: “How dare you call attention to my insane rantings?”

OK, I was going to ignore this, but then Kim Jossfolk linked it and more or less insisted that I take a whack at this radfem piñata.

Why is anonymity so crucial to Radical Wind‘s feminist project? Why does she feel so threatened by criticism, which she denounces as “harming . . .  battering . . . bullying . . . mindfuck . . . assault . . . brainwashing”? I don’t have an answer to these questions, but I think this attitude has a lot to do with the fundamental indefensibility of the radical feminist worldview.

Feminism simply does not connect with the experiences of most women, who have a normal pleasure in heterosexual relationships and who do not view men as the oppressive enemy. Whatever their misfortunes and dissatisfactions, normal women do not resort to the scapegoating ideology of radical feminism, for the simple reason that they recognize that scapegoating won’t solve their problems.

Radical feminists are not normal women, however.

They are psychologically and emotionally damaged in some way which makes it impossible for them to cope with their disappointments and, rather than try to repair the damage, they seek instead to console themselves by striking exaggerated postures of victimhood and engaging in extremist hate-talk against men. And this — feminism’s function as a substitute for psychiatric treatment — explains why they can’t stand to have their narratives scrutinized or contradicted.

It is not just Radical Wind who cherishes the anonymity that protects her narratives from critical scrutiny. One of the blogs that Radical Wind links most often is Fact Check Me, aka Femonade or FCM, whose writing is typified by jargon and a lack of capitalization and punctuation. Here is FCM explaining her anonymity:

ive been doing this awhile now, and i can report that i have been a target from day one or thereabouts, when the fun fems and sex-pozzers first tried to silence me. . . . in the beginning — notably, before i had even found my voice or gone anywhere near the ends of my thoughts — in order to amass currency and credibility, i was invited to “check my privilege” to the point of nearly (even clearly) identifying myself publicly. (i declined that invitation.) in the same vein, accusations were lobbed at me of various “privileges” (and continue to this day) inviting me to reveal details of my life as a “rebuttal” lest i encounter negative outcomes (like losing currency and credibility, due to all the privilege). or to, you know, ignore it. this is no accident BTW. this “privilege checking” business mirrors doxing and outing exactly. the outcome at least is identical, where the result is to make radical feminist bloggers more vulnerable to violent men in real life, in order to silence us, or cause us to self-censor out of fear. this outcome — womens identities and personal information being revealed in order to silence radical women or original, female-centered thought — is what men want, and this is what men get. handed to them on a silver fucking platter. by us, via “privilege checking.”

In other words, FCM would have us believe, if she told us who she is, she would be “more vulnerable to violent men in real life.” Never mind the fact that other radical feminists — including  authors and academics she cites in her own blog — have no problem publishing under their own names. No, if we knew who FCM was, she tells us, she would become “vulnerable” and be silenced.

Why is this? Again, I have no answer, but you see the inherent contradiction: FCM’s feminism claims radical authenticity as “female-centered thought,” and yet she offers no biographical data by which we can verify her authenticity. Is it possible that FCM’s fear-oriented ideology is a manifestation of paranoia? Let’s read a little bit more about her radical feminist philosophy:

radical feminists point this whole time has been that womens sex role as fuckholes, breeders and slaves has been forced on us by men, and that this role is wholly unnatural to us. . . .
whats compelling to me about this recognition is that it implicates men as a sexual class and takes that concept and discussion further. . . . in other words, when analyzing how and indeed whether what is known as “masculinity” is forced on men, if we add a fourth-dimension to the class-model, which is time, we see that men have always done this. that there was never a time (that we know about) that they didnt. and importantly, there was never a time when we (females) did.

This manichean dualism — men as the source of evil in the world — is not just any garden-variety craziness, it’s paranoia. Here’s more:

note how the big-3 of the patriarchal institutions — medicine, religion and law — all attach to womens bodies and womens lives at the moment of conception, and that this does not happen to men at the moment of conception or ever. its literally a trap, baited and set by men and producing an outcome intended by men that benefits men — control of women, and control of reproduction, including the terms and conditions of intercourse, pregnancy, birth, and childrearing.
this is what our oppression consists of and what it is. men get to name it (sex, fucking, knocked up, mother, father) men get to execute it (intercourse, impregnation) and men get to enforce it (rape, heteronormativity, marriage, and legal remedies and lack thereof for sexual and reproductive offenses). note that i am considering rape to be the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders.

Is there more? Yes, of course, there’s more:

we see male violence — and mens sexual and reproductive control of women enforced with male violence — as a global phenomenon that transcends social conditioning, and men across time and place embracing it and manifesting it in various ways. even the “good guys” and men in less violent and “less patriarchal” cultures do this in their own way and we fucking well know it.
and even as we see women, globally and throughout time, dissonating with, negotiating within and around, and ultimately rejecting our sex (not gender) role as mens fuckholes and slaves. equating women with men — against all evidence — is a false equivalence and simply is not rigorous, logical analysis or honest intellectual labor.

To put it as bluntly as possible: This woman is not sane.

And if I had to guess the reason she refuses to put her name on her work, my guess would be that if we knew who was writing that gibberish, everyone who has ever known her in real life would tell us what a notorious lunatic she has always been.

It is not my argument that all women must enjoy PIV to be sane. There are plenty of crazy women who are into PIV, trust me.

But when women start ranting that men are trying to enslave them as “fuckholes” and “breeders”? That’s insane.

Paranoid schizophrenia is not a political philosophy, and delusional psychotic word-salad is not an argument.

UPDATE: RadFem: ‘No Woman Is Heterosexual.’

 

Category: Feminism

Comments

52 Responses to “Anonymous, Paranoid and Unverifiable: Radical Feminism’s Anti-PIV Madness”

  1. Why Do Lesbians Love ‘Slut Walk’? : The Other McCain
    February 25th, 2014 @ 7:08 am

    […] Feb. 11: Anonymous, Paranoid and Unverifiable: Radical Feminism’s Anti-PIV Madness […]

  2. SheilaGunnReid
    May 25th, 2014 @ 1:17 am

    @arlasko that’s always what I take away from radical feminists, they think I’m oppressed by heterosexual love. http://t.co/TI8prIDRHj