Just A Friendly Reminder. Males And Their Dicks are “Forcing Pregnancy” And Doctors Can Still Perform Abortions. Moron Roe v Wade.

Screw you guys and your obfuscating bullshit.

The mainstream media’s post-Roe outrage of the day appears to be this story about a raped 10 year old girl who was impregnated by her rapist and, because her home state of Ohio would have “forced pregnancy” on her without the protections of Roe, the girl had to travel out of state to have an abortion. There is quite a lot to unpack just in that statement alone.

For one thing, doctors and non-doctors can still perform abortions literally everywhere mkay. If doctors and others are unwilling to provide abortion services post-Roe because it might get them into trouble, that bears looking at, doesn’t it. Roe and the overturning of Roe are not the magic wands everyone wants them to be. Doctors always were and still are authoritarian, opportunistic pricks who primarily care about their own wellbeing, full stop. And excepting what they do with their own dicks, judges and politicians aren’t “forcing pregnancy” on anyone, that would be males in general sticking their dicks into females of every age from newborns to the elderly (and the deceased) and everything in between. Just like they always have. Don’t start none, won’t be none, but let’s not talk about that. Forcing pregnancy is not the same thing as forcing motherhood or forcing a girl or woman to give birth.

Anyone with a functioning feminist consciousness can parse the bit about males forcing pregnancy on unwilling girls and women with their more or less global male-centric sexual policy and practice that others female material reality by design. I believe I have contributed more than my share to that discussion and that understanding and I don’t wish to repeat the obvious here. I hardly even want to talk about how literally everyone is conflating “pregnancy” with continued gestation and birth and/or conflating pregnancy and motherhood. Oh my, the faux outrage over “people” and “judges” and “congressmen” (or anyone) forcing pregnancy on girls and women post-Roe, when men have been doing that across time and place for millenia if not much, much longer. Clearly, no one cares about that at all.

And as I’ve said, I don’t even feel sorry for liberals post-Roe including liberal and “pro-choice” women who ditched any pretense about wanting bodily autonomy for themselves or anyone during the COVID panicpanic when they agreed that Big Pharma and their dickless lapdogs (doctors and politicians) should get to decide who gets penetrated/and why/and with what and left everyone to deal with the consequences alone. Seriously, if liberals ever thought doctors were their friends, with or without the protections of Roe, that’s only because so-called “liberals” are authoritarians who love pandering to, praising and propping-up authority figures, as long as it’s an authority figure they personally like. And liberals still love pandering to, praising and propping up doctors, even though doctors providing and/or refusing to provide abortion services post-Roe is completely voluntary on their part. Doctors everywhere could continue performing abortions if they only wanted to, and if they cared about anyone or any principle more than (or equally as much as) they cared about themselves and their own wellbeing. They don’t, but let’s not talk about that either. Screw you guys and your bullshit abortion politicking. Just fuck you all.

Proof That We’re In Hell. An Antiauthoritarian Mother’s Day Post.

I have written about mothers, motherhood, authority and maternal authority before on this blog and here I go again. Does the likely overturning of Roe in the United States make this subject even more verboten than it was before? It’s something I’m thinking about as I write. There are people who appreciate this kind of content and not the least reason is that it’s as scarce as hen’s teeth. You could easily live several lifetimes and never come across any mother- or motherhood-critical content that isn’t primarily woman hating/male supremacist. As most of you must know by now, I think males are the lowest form of life and I would like to see them eradicated immediately, even if it means that humanity itself goes extinct. I cannot concern myself with extinction, I simply don’t care about it. I care about women more. I care about life and quality of life more. I care about rape more, and because sexual reproduction under conditions of slavery is always rape, the continuation of “the human species” in a more or less global patriarchy is fully dependent on the perpetration and perpetuation of males raping females forever.

Don’t worry though, clearly I’m the only one that cares about these things. If you can’t handle the presence of literally ONE or perhaps a vanishingly tiny handful of female supremacist motherhood-critical content creators in the universe, I don’t know what to tell you except that you might have control issues and enjoy controlling others, including other grown-ass women you have no legitimate authority over. (Huge surprise, considering that illegitimate authority and the unqualified desire to control others is what patriarchal motherhood itself is based on. Are you a mother yourself by any chance?) And as an antiauthoritarian myself, I do not accept illegitimate authority. I find it intellectually and morally repugnant and seem biologically compelled to not comply. To date, this is likely my most controversial post: Mothers Are Sluts And I Am Fucking Sick Of Their Bullshit. A Contrarian Mother’s Day Post. I was incorrect to use the word contrarian though, when what I was really talking about was antiauthoritarian. Psychologist Bruce Levine explains the difference very well on his blog for anyone who wants to learn more.

Basically, an antiauthoritarian will accept only legitimate authority and will determine for themselves what authority is legitimate based on an internal criteria, including intuition and feelings. And considering how women become mothers in the first place in a more or less global patriarchy, which seems limited to male-pleasing, victimization by rape and consuming Western medical goods and services (aka reproductive technologies in this case) I find the alleged authority of mothers to be fundamentally patriarchal and therefore illegitimate. Patriarchy and patriarchal women are not the boss of me. Powerless women who demonstrably can’t control their own outcomes cannot be trusted with my outcomes for fuck’s sake. Can they? If you are a mother in a more or less global patriarchy, you got that way by letting a dick-dragging retard impregnate you (or you were unable to stop it) and almost all mothers want the same thing for their daughters and all women and that is a dangerous, woman-hating (aka male-supremacist) place to be.

The absolute best argument for the legitimacy of maternal authority I can think of is that no one else will do it. Men sure as hell don’t want to guide or nurture children and can’t seem to share space with children without raping and killing them, childfree women can’t really be counted on to be there 24/7 (largely because they don’t want to be) like many mothers are. So who else is there? That’s the absolute best reason I can come up with for the legitimacy of maternal authority: it’s relative, or relatively more legitimate than anyone’s else’s claim to authority over children. It’s fucking relative. Is that good enough? I suppose it has to be, doesn’t it. And that is fucking terrifying. In fact, I think it’s an excellent illustration of the context we are swimming in. I think we are probably in hell, where the person who probably won’t rape you, but who very well might rent or sell you to someone else to rape you is the person most legitimately in charge. Of you. And if they — meaning mothers — fuck that up, there is absolutely nothing preventing the entire fucking world from destroying you a million-billion times over. See literally every interview with “at risk” females and the men who destroy them on the Soft White Underbelly channel for more on that.

Boy Moms. Willfully Ignorant Since Forever. Or, Excuse vs. Reason.

Radical feminists have been talking about motherhood and children for a long time. We have been talking about boy children for just about as long (or as long) as we have been talking about men, and the clear and present danger male-bodied persons pose to girls and women. To wit, radical and separatist-minded women have been pushing back against entitled mothers for decades, if not centuries or longer, where those mothers have insisted that all women’s liberation requires that mothers be centered and catered-to within feminism, and that always, always includes accepting their boy children in female-only space. This is a huge problem for us, and has destroyed more radical and potentially-radical projects than most of us even know about. Anyone that’s been around longer than 3 minutes, and read more than 3 lines of our historical and contemporary text knows this.

And it’s not as if we don’t know why mothers including boymoms would apparently rather see radicalism and female-only space burn before it excludes or doesn’t center and cater-to mothers and their children, including their super-precious boy-children. Sure, women consistently prioritize males over females, sure mothers enjoy the multiple benefits of state-sanctioned breeding, including whatever current and future resources they believe they are entitled to for having given birth to males — I won’t call this privilege, for the reasons I have stated before, but you get the picture.

But radical feminists have identified another reason that mothers, specifically boymoms, cannot and will not stop sucking-off, uh, suckling, their boy children even as they age into adults, and then into fully grown men, at the obvious expense of all girls and women everywhere including the mothers themselves, and that reason is mother-love. Note that I said reason and not excuse. Males have excuses for their own behavior, but women generally have actual reasons for doing what they do and don’t-do, for example, males excuse their own violence including violence against women in a million billion ways, while women usually have very good reasons for physically harming men, if and when we harm them at all. Self-defense is a reason, but passion is an excuse. Get it? Good.

Motherhood Pt. II

As per my usual, since writing about motherhood in my last post, specifically patriarchal motherhood and how and why women become pregnant in the first place under conditions of capitalism and patriarchy, I have been reflecting on that work and the responsive comments and concerns of others. I am happy with how the post turned out and I found the conversation that followed to be mind-freeing in a way I had not anticipated. Specifically, rejecting out-loud the idea that adult, child-free women need fathers or mothers to tell us what to think, do and believe forever, in the context of either patriarchy or matriarchy opened up a thoughtspace I didn’t even know was possible as I further contemplate issues of government, anti/authoritarianism, female autonomy and the like. I might write more about those things later.

Since writing that latest motherhood post, I have lost fully 3 Patrons, all of whom had materially supported me and the CRE project long-term in both large and small ways, although none have mentioned (as yet) what prompted them to leave. It could be anything, really, including the financial fallout of this second year of a global pandemic. Maybe they left because they could tolerate, barely, my asking questions about COVID, but discussing motherhood — or calling mothers sluts — was just a bridge too far. Maybe it had nothing to do with anything. It’s really none of my business honestly.

However, I will reiterate here what I thought was already known, which is that I no longer consider myself a feminist, exactly, and that this current project is not a feminist or radical feminist project, exactly. I believe I more or less debunked feminism as it’s usually known when I showed that male violence is innate, didn’t I. We are long past feminism and well into separatist or some other territory now. And that might have to include separation or degrees of separation from patriarchal women, which mothers rather inherently are, aren’t they. By all means, mothers, keep providing patriarchy with generation after generation of rapists and victims for them to use up, discard and destroy. You know you want to, and you also know you don’t need my permission. Mothers also know, don’t they, that they are hardly the minority on this planet or in this culture or even in feminism. So I think they can shut the fuck up and let someone else be heard for a change. And I think mothers can stop gaslighting adult, child-free women and let them think their thoughts for fuck’s sake, and have conversations outside the constraints and taints of mothers’ shitty, slutty, particular worldview. Obviously, I am not saying that anyone needs to listen to men. Obviously, I am not telling anyone how to spend their money, or who to support on Patreon or anywhere.

Now. In the comments in my last post, the Motherhood post, I expounded on what is the actual basis of mothers’ claimed or alleged authority over children, as illegitimate as that “authority” is. (To antiauthoritarians, including antiauthoritarian children, legitimate authority is based in honesty, knowledge and care and concern for their charges, none of which applies to patriarchal mothers.) And I concluded that mothers, in a nutshell, are the only ones that consistently show up on behalf of their own or anyone’s children. There is no one else qualified or equipped to do it — men certainly aren’t — and no one else even wants to do it — child-free women certainly don’t — generally speaking. So, mothers are basically claiming authority over children because they love them, that love, or something like it, is what compels mothers to consistently show up and that love (and consistently showing up) is the basis of maternal authority. Aren’t they? But there are obvious problems with that.

Mothers are Sluts and I am Fucking Sick of Their Bullshit. A Contrarian Mother’s Day Post.

I have only ever heard child-free lesbian women being severely and publicly critical of mothers and motherhood, and in one of 2 contexts. Firstly, in the context of discussing matriarchy: women and feminists often believe that matriarchy or a return to matriarchal societies, assuming any ever existed,* will cure what ails us and necessarily desire to give political power not to women as a class but exclusively to mothers, as if women who have given birth are the only ones with the necessary skillset, temperment and whatnot to effectively rule. In the matriarchal vision, childless or child-free women seem relegated to the back of the room with children and males (and nonhuman animals) and we are expected to accept a subordinate place in the matriarchal utopia.

Unsurprisingly, some child-free women have a problem with a matriarchal vision and do no accept that mothers occupy a unique position to rule or that mother-rule would be a utopia for us or anyone.** I appreciate these discussions very much as an antidote to the mainstream and mainstream feminist discourse around children, mothers and motherhood and by extension, the discourse around childless or child-free women as essentially overgrown children who need mothers to tell us what to do forever. For some reason, a hierarchy of mothers over non-mothers is assumed and usually goes unexamined in discussions of matriarchy, even though a departure from hierarchies and power-over is often intended in discussing alternatives to patriarchy. Patriarchy is rather defined by hierarchy and power-over afterall, and women have found that hierarchies and power-over are abusive per-se and are always destructive to women and feminist space.

The second context in which mother-criticism occurs is the criticism of not mothers and motherhood per se, but criticism of patriarchal mothers and patriarchal motherhood, and the abuse and neglect and whatnot mothers perpetrate on their own children when they themselves are oppressed. This too is a refreshing departure from the usual misogynistic woman blame/shame, where criticism of mothers always includes derision and punishment for not being “perfect” mothers or natural caretakers, but where women’s oppressed station ensures that they will not have the resources to mother properly even if they wanted to, including performing self-care so that they are up to the task of caring for others.

What I do not believe I have ever heard, except where I have brought it up, is a discussion and criticism of why and how women become mothers in the first place under patriarchy, or how women would become mothers even in a non-patriarchal context for that matter, and that’s by pleasing men. Even in a non-patriarchal context, unless non-technological parthenogenesis has been achieved, creating a pregnancy would necessarily entail procuring sperm, and that normally means that a male somewhere has achieved orgasm which is usually considered pleasing to men. Human reproduction itself in every context may therefore be dependent on (or at least inexorably linked to) male-pleasing.

The Fraud of Western Psychiatry: A Mental Health Mashup Just in Time for the Holidays. You’re Welcome.

The nuclear family is the site of oppression, coercion and abuse for so many people, especially female people, worldwide, and yet “the family” is rarely discussed in political (or radical) terms.  Last year around this time, I wrote about various familial abuses traditionally suffered by girls and women and suggested that oppression, coercion and abuse is the reason “the holidays” are such a stressful time for people, especially women.  In my observation, the refusal of most people to address the horrors of what really happens in families just leads to confusion and avoidance — and massive cognitive dissonance — where people express dread, anxiety and other negative emotions around family-focused holidays, but only manage in reducing this common experience to a joke/meme and avoiding unpleasant sensations by drinking (or eating, or shopping, or fucking, or cleaning, or decorating, or otherwise medicating) heavily until it’s over. 

That message was generally not taken well, where I gently (and tangentially, it was literally a parenthetical) suggested that a guaranteed way to stop familial oppression, coercion and abuse (of mostly females) was to stop creating so-called nuclear families at all.  Antinatalism, basically.  I know, right?  Antinatalism wasn’t even the dominant theme of that post but I’m such a misogynistic, baby-hating bitch for letting my mind lady-brain wander there, even parenthetically, how dare I (use the internet to talk about the female experience and female oppression).  How very damn dare I.

Sticking with the holiday theme of oppression, coercion and abuse — because it’s fucking relevant — those things are known to cause so-called psychiatric symptoms in people, particularly women as they are its primary targets under a more or less global patriarchy.  In large numbers, girls and women (female human beings) experience anxiety, depression, disassociation and other uncomfortable and debilitating states as a result of being oppressed, coerced and abused, and a lot of women are prescribed and take psychiatric drugs so that these uncomfortable states go away, or have less of an impact on our lives.  And by “lives” I of course mean our ability to show up and be ab/used by our capitalistic, patriarchal overlords including (almost always male) partners, employers and other authority figures.  Mother’s Little Helper and all that.

If these medications actually worked — that is, if they did what they say on the tin and relieved us of our agony — they still wouldn’t be beyond reproach.  There are compelling political and indeed medical arguments against treating people with dangerous Big Pharma medications to ease uncomfortable states of being.  For example, the debilitating and often permanent physical and mental “side effects” of prescription medications, otherwise known as iatrogenic illness and injury that are often just as bad or even worse than the original disease.  As usual, Big Medicine offers suffering people the chance to trade one illness for another, and another, and another, and to pay through the nose for the privilege.

Many times it’s not even a proper trade because the drugs are unable to cure the original disease and the new, treatment-induced injuries and illnesses are just added on.  (This is the case with Crohn’s disease for example which is known to be an incurable disease.)  Either way, the misery is compounded.  Well, it appears to be an open secret within the psychiatric community that psychiatric medications don’t do what they say on the tin.  Women are taking anti-anxiety, anti-depressant, anti-psychotic and other psychotropic medications to treat the effects of political and interpersonal oppression — and are being asked to concurrently swallow the cultural fiction that their discomfort is not political and originates in their own biochemistry — and the medications don’t even work, because they can’t work, because there is nothing chemical to treat, get it?

As discussed below, it appears as if the theory that a chemical imbalance in the brain causes psychiatric symptoms has been thoroughly debunked, yet application of this flawed theory continues: people continue to be medicated for “mental” conditions that are not biochemical and therefore are not amenable to chemical therapies.  These medications also cause frightening and severe negative outcomes long-term and psychiatrists know all of that but they keep prescribing them anyway.

Here are some clips that illustrate what seems to be the situation in which we find ourselves.  Namely, that oppression, coercion and abuse are unavoidable in this system; families are the original and main exposure to those things for most women globally and familial exposure in particular cannot be avoided; oppression, coercion and abuse cause the symptoms we know as mental illness; and every medication in Big Medicine’s arsenal is known to not work to treat it and to even make patients’ physical and mental conditions worse over time.  More videos and discussion below the fold.

Welcome Mumsnutters!

The Mumsnet community has found this blog and are intelligently discussing the extensive content largely insulting and degrading me, personally, over my previous antinatalist posts — 2 entire posts out of nearly 100 comprising this project which is about surviving (and not surviving) as a chronically ill female in end-stage capitalism and patriarchy.  I suppose the Mums’ days aren’t full up enough what with the extreme demands of catering to their fuck trophies and future soldiers, rapists and victims, otherwise known as children under the same global system, and asking each other whether they are “being unreasonable” for wanting to be regarded as human beings by their male owners.

The Mums at Mumset also believe that talking to the men at Mumset — the Duds, I guess? — about feminism is a good use of their time.  The Mum who started this discussion also apparently thinks it’s just duckie to ask impregnators (and the impregnated) what they think about antinatalism, as if the strong bias towards natalism on Mumsnet and in a global capitalist patriarchy in general isn’t obvious.  Yes the Mums and Duds on Mumsnet seem to think that natalists and pro-natalists are the endangered cognitive minority in need of protection from the handful of antinatalists that exist on the internet and who do not appear to exist anywhere in real life because they and the antinatalist perspective are routinely and systematically silenced.

Our Mothers Want Us Dead. Another Antinatalist Post.

I have spoken at length with other women who, throughout their lives, have been abused, neglected, torn/worn down, palmed off and otherwise unsupported by their mothers to the point that the only logical outcome of this treatment would be our untimely deaths, either from the abuse/neglect itself, from the completely predictable male violence and neglect we are subjected to when we choose heterosexual relations/relationships for survival, or via suicide.  The obvious fact that motherhood is the end result of misogyny, specifically female reproductive abuse including unwanted or “survival” sex and rape, makes this non-attachment to children foreseeable and ordinary and insures that it will never be discussed as if it were either.

I have written here before about what “family” means to me, and from where I’ve always stood, family appears to be the source of overwhelming grief, torture, humiliation, powerlessness and pain including medicalized torture, humiliation and pain if you were “privileged” enough to be born to Western medical professionals like I was.  (Of course, the tools of any trade and any patriarchal conditioning can and will be used by parents to torture children, especially girls.)  Family, if we are honest, is the source and location of almost all of girls’ and women’s suffering including being subjected to abusive male “sex” practices that only lead to one place for female-bodied people: pregnancy and motherhood.  Motherhood is a biological function exactly as romantic as shitting if we are honest about it and children are treated like shit for exactly that reason including grown “children” who were never part of the families they were born into in any human sense.  More like a shit-on-the-bottom-of-your-shoe sense.  Oops.  For more forward-thinking (or adaptable) folk perhaps in a compost-sense: a useful object that better prove to be useful or else.

A goodly portion of us were not wanted by our mothers and common sense bears that out; most of us know how difficult it is to have consequence-free recreational intercourse (or rape) and we activate against pregnancy for decades and not just because of the “timing” although for some that may be part of it.  For anyone who is still unsure, the ways our mothers often treat us make it clear that we were unwanted by her, or at least that we are unwanted now.  Although I shouldn’t be I am taken aback every time I see chronically ill people commenting in groups and on message boards how they are treated almost universally poorly by their own families — including by their own mothers — now that they are sick.  The last time I spoke with my own mother she blamed and dismissed me for being sick and told me I should move to a bigger city “because they have nicer homeless shelters there.”

Why I should be homeless when my mother and my entire family all own their own homes (well, the bank owns them) was not addressed, nor was the fact that my mother only “owns” her home in the first place because she was treated generously (albeit begrudgingly) when she divorced a man who could well afford it.  The fact that she is currently sheltered has nothing to do with her own responsibility, good choices or inherent worth even though she pretends, or may even believe, that it does.  But I digress.

What “Family” Means to Me. A Lil Holiday Perspective. Or, Christmas Family Portraits I & II. (An Antinatalist Post)

I highly recommend Teri Strange’s Antinatalism series on her YouTube channel, as well as the comments below the vids.  In the spirit of Christmas, I would like to offer a little perspective on “family” and exactly what family means (and doesn’t mean) in the context of capitalism and patriarchy.  In case anyone is wondering or just not completely clear why their family stresses them out so much, about why the holidays suck, about why everyone drinks heavily and talks small (or fights, or uses passive aggression) when they get together “for the holidays” or why they never get together much if at all, I hope this will help.  I understand that this will be controversial for most of the human population but don’t bother trolling me with pro-family comments, I am completely immune.  Having a family myself I fucking know better, and I know that as much as anyone defends “family” with jerking knees thinking that what I’m saying doesn’t apply to them, the kinds of things I am talking about here are actually universally applicable and apply to everyone under the current system even if the details are not exactly the same.  And like everything that’s true and real, it’s true and real whether anyone chooses to believe it or not.

And remember: just because you don’t personally know about it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

So without further ado, I offer the following Christmas Family Portrait(s):

Christmas Family Portrait I.

On Grandparents.

Grandfather.  Your grandfather was the man who was legally entitled to rape his wife, your grandmother.  And we all know that men will be goddamned before they decline to exercise an actual or perceived right; in a sexual context that’s especially frightening because the other thing men love to do is push boundaries, and beyond that, they take things to which they aren’t entitled at all.  So if he was legally entitled to rape your grandmother you can be pretty certain he did and he probably did a bunch of other horrific shit to her too.  If your grandparents weren’t legally married he may not have had the legal right to rape her, but then where did your parents come from?  Think about that just a little bit.  Do you really think your grandmother probably said “Hell yeah!” to the prospect of being ejaculated into by your grandfather when there was no such thing as reliable birth control back then and when abortion was probably illegal?  Was your grandfather just so fucking sexy that she actually had to fuck him even though she could literally die?  Or is there another — any other — explanation that makes more sense than that?  Think before you answer.  And don’t lie.  Also, for all you know your grandfather could’ve been an unknown assailant or John.