Sort of taking the day off today but here is a post related to the feminist post Sunday. A radfem blogger argues all sex with a male is rape. She complains in this post about not having any friends. The irony is simply too rich.
I’m writing on colonisation* because I’ve been thinking a lot about relationships with non radfem (though already into feminism) women lately and how difficult these relationships are. This is a really important question to me because talking to women about feminism (spinning) and creating bonds with women in order to decolonise collectively from men is really what’s most important and what I believe feminism and liberation is based on. But sometimes I just get so much shit, and it never stops being painful and exhausting. I make friends with women, I introduce them to feminism, I’m full of hope that finally there will be women with whom to discuss and further radical feminism, just BE with them and not in dissonance as it usually is with colonised women, but at some point they end up betraying me, hurting me, they stop and stagnate in the middle of their tracks, may revert even, turn against me, because i’m too far ahead and they can’t go there yet, because they’re not ready to meet certain feminist standards, they have a boyfriend who keeps undoing what she just learned, they’re still not feminist enough to value our friendship and the feminist space we’re giving each other, they have no idea how rare and precious it is, or may still prefer male company. It hurts every time the same.Read this post for colonisation. It means the sex act. All sex with a man is rape and male domination. She literally states man is the enemy. All men. Earlier post
At first I was always wrought from brain contortion by trying to figure out what I’d done wrong for them to do that to me, I’d go over and over the situation to decrypt some hidden understanding I might have missed, something I could do so it wouldn’t repeat itself. But something new always crept up again. And I had enough, I had to find a way to protect myself because the whole thing is just too unbearable, it’s not feminist to let myself continually be hurt by women. So recently I’ve figured out a pattern: that every time a woman does this to me, this weird turning down and gaslighting or whatever she chooses to do to harm me, it’s because she was type #2 colonised. It is the common denominator to all these women, no matter how ‘almost there yet’ I thought they were. It never happens with women who aren’t type #2 colonised, or if it does happen, it mends itself easily, I know I can trust them and I don’t feel like our relationship will be threatened every minute, not knowing what to expect from them.
Through thinking and talking with other radfems, I came to the conclusion that it’s just too dangerous to have high expectations of and become emotionally close to women who aren’t yet radical feminists, in the nut sense – especially women who are still with men and colonised by those men. They are too occupied by men’s violence to prevent themselves from exposing it to you too, they will inevitably turn against you because it’s the way male colonisation is configured to work, there’s nothing personal about it; so long as they’re colonised they will be likely to turn down the relationships with women that are most likely to lead them to feminism or free them from men or embedded maleness.
Even just acquaintance-type, friendly interaction with a colonised woman is stressful because I know to some extent that I can’t rely on her, that I’ll be in the waiting for her for whatever we’re involved in together because she might pull away for being freaked out by what I say, cancel meetings in the last minute because of a dude or out of disrespect to my time and won’t take me and our/my projects or work seriously enough because we’re women, I’m a woman, and a feminist. Or she’ll expect me to abide to mindfucking politeness rules that are impossible not to break. She won’t share with me the same desperate need to talk about feminism, blame men and value feminist discussions, spinning and sparking. Now I know for my own safety not to expect too much of colonised women, to not place too much hope in them, not to drain my energy – and trust that they will take their own path in their own time even if they end up rejecting the stuff I say (and myself with it) at the beginning. I won’t take it personally any more.
My disposition now is to what I can do, say as much truth as I can in the short time I have, and then run away to leave her with processing while maintaining distant contact in case she’s ready to move forward again. Becoming close to her too soon is not only risky for me but for her too, as it might damage any chance of being there when she’ll really need it: because it gives her the opportunity to destroy that relationship before she can appreciate what it means. Rest of the post and don't forget to read the comments.
19 comments:
Didn't know creatures existed like that on the planet.
Ex-girlfriend of Kingfish? Survey says YES.
(Forgot to click the email box above. Sorry.)
oh my Lord, never seen someone so terribly uncomfortable in their own skin! what a sad, odd, tiny world she lives in.
Hardcore. An attitude adjustment would be impossible.
I hope to do some colonisation tonight! Mutual, respectful colonisation that is...
Got no problem with freaks being freaks if it makes them happy (& they don't scare the neighbors), but an *unhappy* freak is sad.
"Whoever is dissatisfied with himself is continually ready for revenge, and we others will be his victims, if only by having to endure his ugly sight." - Nietzsche.
Happy new year!
She is one more sick twisted in the mind person.
I sure would like to scissor her!
Perfect candidate for a JFP internship!
I would like to see Phil Bryant, steps of the capitol, officiating the wedding ceremony for this chick and Tom Head. Howz that for a positive start to 2014?
I wonder if she has poured quickrete in her vagina yet. She not only hates all the world's men...She also hates herself.
4:55, I would like to see Phil Bryant on the steps of the Capitol officiating the wedding ceremony for his sweet son Patrick!
I doubt the KF posts this one, double standard being standard and all amongst the true partisan ideaologues.
This is an unhappy, hurt woman trying to find some explanation in society for the source of her pain.
She doesn't write well and appears psychologically damaged.
Very sad.
I don't see that she hates men but simply has chosen to blame society which is this case , she sees as male dominated where a woman's status and acceptance is determined by men.
Nietzsche would be sympathetic to this woman as existentialism is about individual rejection of cultural and moral constructs in society. Since this woman is clearly rejecting the culture in which she finds herself. Kierkegaard would say ,she is on the path of becoming the existential " Superman" .
Me, I think happiness is a gift you give yourself and the blame game, in any form, is destructive. You can't change others but you can change yourself and how you let other people and events affect your life.
But, then , I'm NOT an existentialist which at it's inception was and is a rejection of Christianity.
That she 'doesn't write well' isn't sad. It's simply a fact, based on our understanding and expectation of those who write.
But then, she doesn't claim to have the key to effective writing. She only claims to have the key to in-depth knowledge of sexual relationships between men and women.
I could not care less whom she blames or why or what Nietzsche might think about her. She's simply another among millions of malcontents who failed at cheerleader tryouts forty years ago and who never discovered the art of clitoral stimulation, either individually or when accompanied.
She would no doubt be dangerous with a hoe-handle and finding herself out of Gin.
4:15 pm not every sentence stands alone. " Sad" refers to " in pain" and " psychologically damaged".
I don't care what Nietzsche thinks either. That was a reference to 4:50 pm's quote that didn't apply.
There are plenty of unhappy and foolish and stupid and hostile people who are orgasmic.
To me, this woman is an example of nothing. She's pathetic in a time when pathetic people can start or participate in a website and find others who are equally pathetic to enable their negative thoughts and make their angst seem political rather than just personal angst.
She is to be pitied. She's no threat to anyone save herself.
@ 7:14; If you can diagram this, fine. If not, you will be considered a pathetically poor writer yourself:
"She's pathetic in a time when pathetic people can start or participate in a website and find others who are equally pathetic to enable their negative thoughts and make their angst seem political rather than just personal angst."
And please do publish your research supporting your 'orgasmic persons' contention.
"She's" the subject " she" and the verb is the contraction for "is" . "Pathetic" is an adjective describing the subject. The rest is a descriptive phrase which is the direct object describing the verb action.
Thanks for asking. Want a copy of my verbal scores on the SAT, GRE,LSAT and GMAT? Did you think your challenge intimidating? LOL
I guess long sentences are like thick books to some.
You need research? Try Masters and Johnson. But, I would think just having close friends, having sexual experiences , watching a few CSI shows or reading about sex crimes would have helped you...in short, life! How old are you?
You might also pick up a basic text book on abnormal psychology at a library.
I didn't axe you to describe the parts of a sentence. I axed you to diagram it. People of your mentality are bent toward convolution and endless mediocrity. None of what you have posted thus far is of value and most makes little sense. Time to light the grill, isn't it?
Post a Comment