The Case for Legal Separatism. Let’s Talk About Kristel Candelario.

I have already made a case for separatism in the context of “health” or so-called women’s health, where female-bodied people will only ever be othered and problematized under a more or less global patriarchy. Despite decades of feminist activating by now, and women attempting to change the “healthcare system” so that it is more therapeutic and less oppressive to us, women’s physical and mental states continue to be either over or undermedicalized as a tool of patriarchal control. It probably goes without saying on this blog that women’s experience of the legal system is rife with the same type and degree of male supremacy and misogynistic abuse, despite decades of feminist attempts at legal reform.

The Kristel Candelario criminal case is a recent example of how the legal system others and problematizes women and along with a few other similar criminal cases, I think makes an excellent case for legal separatism, where girls and women who commit violence or other antisocial acts could be dealt with in a way that does not other and problematize females for being female. I say could be because this is so unlikely to ever happen that I only offer it as a thought exercise at this point.

What I am about to propose, that separatist women be in charge of other women who have committed often very serious or violent crimes, and often against children, is probably going to read as science fiction, that’s how entrenched male supremacy and misogyny is in the law, and how foundational male supremacist law is to society. What I am about to propose — not othering women and women having any real political power at all without being patriarchal handmaidens — could only happen on a different fucking planet at this point, but I’m going to attempt to describe what I am thinking anyway and I can only hope my communication (creative writing) skills are up to the task. I am doing this because I think it’s important.

Kristel Candelario has been in the news this month because she has been convicted and sentenced for murder in the death of her 16-month old child. Did she beat the girl to death? No. Did she hand the child off to some male who killed her? No. Kristel Candelario apparently left the child home alone for 10 days and when she came back the child was dead. The prosecution chose to characterize her absence as a “vacation” and maybe it was. She apparently traveled from her home in Cleveland, Ohio to Puerto Rico, and then Detroit, before returning home. But does that sound right to you?

Let me interject some lived experience here, otherwise known as an anecdote. When I was in college, I worked at a supermarket and I hurt my back one night taking the trash out to the dumpster. I filed a worker’s compensation claim because I needed some physical therapy or some kind of treatment for my back, and a couple of days later I was called out of town to attend my brother’s final illness and ultimately his death. I ended up being gone for several weeks if not a couple of months, I don’t even remember anymore. I went from Indiana to Florida, then Chicago, then back to Florida during that time. When I got back, the supermarket’s insurance company interviewed me about my injury and they decided it must not have been that serious if I could go on vacation right afterwards. They used that framing to deny my claim and I didn’t bother fighting it. I had bigger and worse issues by then than trying to get physical therapy for my injured back.

So let’s just say that men who want to control the narrative, to punish women, to deny them their rights, deny them medical care, whatever, are not above claiming a woman’s absence is a vacation when it’s not. In case anyone wondered, or didn’t even think to wonder, that’s a thing men do when they are trying to thwart a woman or fuck up her life. You can read the rest of the article yourself to see how the prosecution and judge — and the media — have framed the other issues in this case. You can see for yourself that the judge sentenced this woman to jail for life, without the possibility of parole, and that while handing down this supposedly rational, unbiased sentence he waxed poetic about the maternal bond that he believes exists because he says so.

The Case For “Health” Separatism. Let’s Talk About Overmedicalization.

I wrote earlier about the apparent recent rewriting of the definition of “healthy” here. A good paper examining the rewrite and new definition is here, from the Pan African Medical Journal. Reading this article for the third time, I was struck at the hopelessness of the situation of reformism in general, and that includes rewriting definitions of previously existing words and the problem of inclusivity, or trying to include marginalized people and their lived experience when and where they just are not welcome. The exclusion, in other words, is deliberate. It is not an accident, the system is not broken but is functioning exactly as intended. We know this.

One problem reformists encounter over and over again is that our words are constantly twisted, misinterpreted and applied in ways that manage to be the exact opposite of the way they were intended by the marginalized people (or allies) who originally crafted them. Arguably perhaps, feminists initially wanted liberation from male supremacy but ended up mired in equality activating that positioned male as the default. Women wanted to survive and thrive like men survive and thrive, we wanted to be not-oppressed because of our sex the way men are not-oppressed because of theirs. If we ever said “equal” and we may not have, but if we did, that is what we meant. At least, that is the feminist meaning of those words whether the ones who used them originally were really feminist or not, or controlled opposition or not.

Feminists then and now notably did not mean that men and women are the same. Now we are in the horrific situation of being unable to enforce same-sex female spaces for example, because men and women are legally and socially the same when men want them to be, and this is said to be a feminist outcome because it is an equality outcome. Grown men can “compete” against teenaged girls in women’s sports and must be granted access to women’s changing and locker rooms because feminism. This is the easiest example I can think of but there are many.

This is what happens when we try to change the system from the inside. This is why, as law professor and inventor of the concept of workplace sexual harassment ffs Catharine MacKinnon has said, despite all her efforts on behalf of women’s legal rights, the “perfect plaintiff” in a workplace sexual harassment case has turned out to be a male victim and notably not a female one. Male victims of sexual harassment will never be problematic victims the way women often are. Men are the perfect everything, compared to women, because male supremacy. Get it?

All the “feminist” and other work that went into the law recognizing workplace sexual harassment and the material consequences of that offense to women’s financial, physical and mental wellbeing ended up being largely for the benefit of men. We created yet another metric by which females just cannot measure up when compared to men. And we are always being unfavorably compared to men in a more or less global patriarchy. That’s pretty much the definition of it.

And as I have concluded many years ago by now, the only solution to the problem of patriarchal mission-creep, where male supremacy slides into every nook and cranny despite anyone’s actual intent, is female separatism as opposed to reformism. And by female separatism I mean prioritizing female identification, female perspective, female lived experience etc. where males and maleness are deliberately not the default ever. Not ever, in feminism, can maleness be the default, so participating in patriarchal power structures like legal reform — where male supremacy is a feature and not a bug of the law and always has been — is right out. The reality of political mission-creep in reformist activating and separatism as the only solution is where I would like to begin discussing this article on the “new” definition of health.

Patriarchy Denial = Colonization

I’ve been hearing more and more about so-called “sovereign women” who are radical-feminist adjacent, in that they advocate woman-identification and female separatism but who concurrently deny that patriarchy exists. I have written about this before. These women insist, even as they mold their lives, including future plans, physical movement and attention around or outside-of patriarchy that patriarchy is a “conspiracy word” and a conspiracy theory that does not represent anything real that must (or even theoretically could) be planned and moved around and paid attention-to. All I can say to these women is that’s what they want you to think. lol. Same with all conspiracy theories, innit. It makes you sound completely fucking crazy to surmise that we are being thought-controlled and gaslit about literally anything, even as we know factually that thought-control exists, gaslighting exists.

Are we supposed to believe, then, that we are being told absolutely everything about everything all the time? How many euphemisms are there for official lies and rote lying, shall we count them? ”National security” might be my personal favorite, it’s eternal, general purpose permission for governments to lie. Proprietary blend, corporate veil, privacy = lies, lies, lies. Espionage is a legitimate career track, so is advertising, but they are built on lying and lies. So is so-called medical research for that matter. So is political punditry and spin. Self-interest and advocacy (SJW) are up to if not fully 100% lies. To be sure, these things are > 0 lies, which means some amount of lies and not the whole full truth. Selective truth-telling is just another name for lying. Lying by omission is lying. Bluffing, puffery and poker-faces are just lies. 

And lying, at base, is a thought-control mechanism. Isn’t it? So can we agree that thought control exists? Great. Can we postulate that lying in furtherance of male supremacy is male supremacist thought control? Awesome, almost there. Is male supremacy a synonym for patriarchy? Yes it is. Can we therefore deduce that patriarchy exists? Yes, I think we can. 

I mean, there are other ways to go about showing that patriarchy exists but I think this one works. Another one is this: patriarchy means that all relevant institutional power is in men’s hands, including the military, academia, publishing, sci-med, finance, executive, judicial, legislative, men, men, men, men, men, men, men, men. That’s just a demonstrable fact. And denying facts, in the face of their obvious truth, is gaslighting. Why would women including so-called sovereign women want to gaslight themselves and others about the existence of patriarchy? Because they are colonized women, that’s why. It’s the dick-in-the-brain that all women carry unless and until they exorcise it (or forever).

Did you think patriarchy meant something different than male-owned institutional power? It doesn’t. That’s what it means.

RIP Jezebel. We Hardly (Cared About) Thee.

Liberal “feminist” blog Jezebel has apparently gone under after creating milquetoast, decidedly antifeminist content since 2007. In what I can only describe as the perfect example of Jezebel’s ineptitude and incoherent ideology, the departing editor demonstrates that she has no idea how patriarchy actually works (or what ironic means):

Laura Bassett, Jezebel’s most recent editor-in-chief told the Guardian that it was “ironic that the forces that necessitated the founding of Jezebel in the first place are the same ones that put the nail in its coffin – especially at a time when the site’s urgent coverage of abortion rights is more relevant than ever.”

Hi, I have no understanding of how patriarchy or irony work.

This is not ironic mkay. If we are saying this is ironic, we must also think it’s ironic that the same process that gives us an appetite, heartburn and gas also creates and makes us push out a poo. It’s literally the exact same thing, dumbass. In fact, this observation was so disorientingly stupid I had to look up the definition of irony to become grounded again. Here it is:

i·ron·ic

/īˈränik/

adjective

using or characterized by irony.

• happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.

Should we also look up what opposite means?

The departing editor-in-chief of Jezebel thinks that quashing a “feminist” publication is the opposite of how patriarchy works, or at least she seems to have expected the opposite for some reason. I can’t say I’m upset to see an editor shown the door who has no concept of the meaning of common words — and finds the destruction of her own feminist blog amusing, wryly or otherwise. The only thing that surprises me about the ending of Jezebel is that “advertisers” and Jez’s owners couldn’t figure out how to make money on fake feminism which is built on consumerism ffs. In the end, I can only conclude that, assuming they really weren’t making money on Jez, they must not have been trying hard enough. It’s also possible that they were making plenty of money and patriarchy isn’t about money mkay. I mean, we know this. Patriarchy is about male supremacy and controlling women, not money. It’s in the name afterall. Money and males making money is a bonus but it’s not about that.

Feminism = Slut Math. Moron the Feminist Psy Op

Obviously this is a reference to the recent Girl Math meme. I’ve been thinking more about the cancellation of Russell Brand and the weaponization of #MeToo to potentially or actually silence the voices of rapists the political Left doesn’t like. Of course, rapists the political Left is fine with are left alone (for now) and left to do what they do, which since they are rapists means that they are left alone or even encouraged to rape and otherwise contribute to rape culture. Obviously, this is not a feminist outcome, despite the framing of #MeToo as “feminist” and despite generations of feminist activating that have apparently led us to this place.

How did we get here? Obviously, we have been used, which for women who have access to little or no resources is not a small thing. Decades of our energy, time, money, brilliance, passion, lost opportunities and whatnot which we sunk into feminism and feminist activating have been used against us, where #MeToo and other so-called feminist outcomes are not really about or for us. Are we going to look at this and figure out what went wrong? Or are we going to pretend it didn’t happen? In order to pretend it didn’t happen, we are rather forced to accept that “Only liberal rapists are allowed to speak” is a feminist context that differs from patriarchy and patriarchal context, meaning that it centers women’s material reality and defangs male supremacy.

Imagining what that — a feminist context — would look like if it were actually happening, and seeing how different everything would be if it were only real, and comparing that to reality ends up being an exercise in juxtaposition. Has rape been eradicated? No. Have all women’s voices been elevated above all men’s voices? No. Do girls and women have anywhere to go, anywhere on this planet, to get away from men and maleness or where we are not materially othered for being female or for activating against patriarchy? No. It’s worth noting here that even Russell Brand’s so-called cancellation has no teeth, regardless of whatever horribleness he likely visited on girls and women, where he is still broadcasting and continues to present material critical of the global governments’ response to COVID among other things although he is currently not being paid for it.

Fathers’ Day is a Celebration of Rape Mkay.

Do we know yet, in 2023, where babies come from? Because it seems like either we don’t know or if we do know we don’t care that babies come from insemination under any and all circumstances. A lot of the time the circumstances are terrifying and dehumanizing to women and babies/children. This is to be celebrated? Clearly it is.

Does anyone, particularly feminists, care that human reproduction would happen anyway, even in the event that all women worldwide decided they didn’t want to participate anymore? Do we grok that this is the definition of rape culture and that rape is unstoppable? What is fatherhood in a rape culture except something that will happen anyway regardless of what any woman or all women want? This is to be celebrated? Clearly it is.

Human reproduction is not to be celebrated by any person or any culture that cares about either women or children. Celebration of human reproduction, and particularly insemination/fatherhood, in a more or less global patriarchy is the celebration of rape.

Comments open.

Moron Synergy. Ft. Tony Stark.

In my last post, I wrote about synergy and how things work together to create and co-create outcomes that we may not like and indeed may not be physically or mentally equipped to survive. I almost said “outcomes we cannot anticipate” but that’s really the point, innit. Some people can anticipate these outcomes, in point of fact. The first clip above has always fascinated me and is the moment Tony Stark discovers that (well, how) time travel is possible. His creative process, if you will, reminds me of what it feels like to write. The process is very literal and obvious (and inaccessible) here, but for writers, the technology, assistants and noise are the voices and images in our heads.

I also think that writers necessarily have the ability to manipulate time because that’s what it takes to be able to examine something and accurately describe it. The way writers do. Imagine trying to thoroughly examine a train as it’s blowing past you at an intersection. You can’t. You might be able to very loosely identify it, and you probably somewhat experience it via the air around it interacting with your air or whatever, but if you want to get a good look at it the train needs to stop. For writers, who often write about social issues systems, and other living things like people or animals and how they interact with their natural and man-made environments, the subjects we examine never stop. They may not even have physical form.

For me at least, I can report that the experience of examining a subject in order to understand it well enough to write about it is similar to Tony Stark’s hologram technology and that this very literal tech represents slowing down or stopping time, the way writers do. The ah-ha moments do blow you back into your chair, but it’s the chair in your brain, and it usually happens while you are doing other things. Showering, driving, shopping, and whatnot is my fancy high-tech setting where the blowing-back into my brain-chair occurs. I didn’t ask for this ability, madness, magic, whatever, I’m just describing it. For the record, if you can examine whatever you are looking at without stopping time, it means that what you are looking at is dead, because it’s no longer moving, and that includes everything that happens in any laboratory anywhere including Tony Stark’s. And that includes “laboratories” that experiment on and torture living plants and animals by the way. It’s a thinker but I think it’s true.

Culture As Sin-Eater? Moron Authoritarian Caregivers

In my previous post, I couldn’t help but conclude that at least in one context — that of the authoritarian caregiver — culture has a mathematical value and its value is -1. Here, people tasked with physical and other caretaking for invalid friends and family seem free to do terrible things to the people they supposedly love, blaming “culture” for negative outcomes such as in the case of a denied application for euthanasia for a terminally ill woman. That woman’s family let her die covered in shit and spittle and denied her the dignified death she had asked for because an authority figure (likely several working in tandem) said so.

Then, and this is the interesting part to me, the woman’s daughter — her primary caregiver at the end of her life and illness — wrote an article for Huff Po insisting that yes she let her mom die in a horrible way that was against all of their (allegedly) shared values but since her culture “made her” do it, she was actually blameless. In other words, since her culture made her do it, she didn’t actually do it at all. Somehow, the blame and burden of her action and inaction was shifted onto “culture” and she and her identity as a good and moral person was left intact. Somehow, despite doing a horrible thing to someone she supposedly loved, this lady’s self-image was unaffected, her shit still smelling like roses, her conscience clean as the driven snow. But how is that possible?

In order for that to be possible, I think the value of culture must be -1. In the case of ordinary people doing culturally acceptable yet objectively and subjectively terrible things, the value of culture is that it literally, mathematically, negates them. And that made me think of sin-eaters. While a deep-dive into the ancient practice of sin-eating is beyond my interest and beyond the scope of this post, I found this article somewhat enlightening. It begins with this:

[T]hat the ‘Western’ world is transitioning from modernity to a ‘hypermodern’ world […] presents individuals with unprecedented opportunities for pleasure, self-expression and self-fulfilment. Hypermodernity is, or is in the process of becoming, a dynamic society, characterised by fluidity and flexibility, that is either (depending upon political persuasion) liberated or deracinated from the great modern structuring principles of modernity such as family, community, government and Church. Such freedom can be exhilarating for the individual, but minimal social and/or economic support is available when things go wrong. Thus, far from enjoying unalloyed pleasure, in practice the hypermodern individual exists in a state of chronic anxiety.

Bolds mine. If I may be meta for a moment, seeing something as simple, true and taboo as this bolded statement pretty much always gets my attention. The author goes on to say that this chronic anxiety brought on by “hypermodernity” has caused a reemergence of the sin-eater character in popular culture since the 1980s or so. And she has questions:

Firstly, would complete ‘liberation’ from the social, emotional and/or spiritual ties of family, community, Church and so forth really be practicable or even desirable? Secondly, can and how should one navigate the tension between the aforementioned hypermodern values on the one hand, and on the other the institutional structures of high modernity which in practice still, to some degree, do influence an institutional destiny? And finally, in a world increasingly saturated with information, what is the emotional impact upon individuals of knowledge of the darker aspects of life? Cultural productions of sin-eaters offer diverse answers to these questions, and I conclude that it is the sin-eater’s very obscurity as an historical personage that makes him or her the ideal cipher for such hypermodern dilemmas.

Bolds mine. I think radical feminists will particularly appreciate this final question but I think all her questions are good ones.

My Culture Made Me Do It, Therefore I Didn’t Do It. Or, The Refrain of The Authoritarian Caregiver.

Or, the post in which I pile-on a family that’s already hurting. I recently read this, in which a woman describes her family’s experience with attempting to exercise “right to die” aka medical aid in dying, euthanasia or medically assisted suicide in the case of the terminally ill patient. This woman’s mother was diagnosed with late-stage ovarian cancer for which she was aggressively treated with radiation and chemo. Unsurprisingly, and likely because of the treatment itself, she then developed the triple negative breast cancer that ultimately killed her.

“What a cruel plot twist,” writes the complete idiot who doesn’t grok that immunity-decimating drugs and radiation themselves — the mainstream Western medicine/Big Pharma “treatment” for cancer — are well known to cause fucking cancer. She doesn’t say whether they treated that cancer with chemo and radiation too, but shortly thereafter, the mother was given less than 6 months to live, entered hospice care, and the family began the bureaucratic hoop-jumping and authoritarian dick-licking required to access legal, medically assisted suicide.

Spoiler alert: the mother died without the benefits she and her caregivers applied dick-licked and kowtowed-for, to wit: without dignity, in terrible pain, unable to even wipe her own spittle, surrounded by the filth and stench of disease, soiled bedding and adult diapers. Oh, and her family was there too, watching participating in the whole fucking thing and they didn’t do a fucking thing to stop it. With friends like that, who needs enemies, as the saying goes.

This article is full of euphemisms and manipulative language intended to obscure cause and effect, create distance between the actors and their acts and failures to act, and remove culpability from the family and place it on “the system” but we know better. The system is not broken, the system works fully as intended, we know this. Friends and family could in theory do better but they almost never do. And almost no one sees this as a problem or an abject failure on the part of the friends and family authoritarian dickbags who let this happen to the people they supposedly love.

So what are we saying here, when we say that “the system” causes these harms and when we hold ordinary people (read: ourselves) blameless no matter how actively they (we) participate? And by extension, how can we say and believe that we are good people when in reality, we actually do terrible things, including letting our loved ones die without dignity because Big Medicine or another authority says so? Well, I suppose we are saying that “My culture made me do it” is the same thing as “I didn’t do it at all.” Which means that “my culture made me” negates the “I did it.” And I want to know, as I often do, how that is even possible.

Like Rats Off a Sinking What Now? Let’s Talk About Community.

If you think it’s not dangerous, it’s only bc you haven’t watched to the end. Relevance 10/10

This needn’t be a long post. I’ve recently become aware that there is a radfem or radfem-adjacent “community” that does not believe that women are oppressed as a group based on their biological sex. Seeing as how the “radical” in radical feminism refers to getting to the root of women’s oppression, I’m unsure why these women feel there is much overlap between what they are doing and what radical feminists are doing but that’s neither here nor there. For my part, I don’t consider myself a radical feminist anymore either, but it’s not because I think women are not-oppressed or that male supremacy isn’t real which is the real issue innit. In my own case, I have been told that I am actually a female survivalist and I’ve learned for myself that so-called radical feminism mostly functions as light to moderate mental exercise that some women perform recreationally when they aren’t actively sucking dick.

This post may or may not make sense to those who are uninvolved in this dispute, and keeping in mind that I’m mostly uninvolved myself and am just casually observing from the margins, from what I can tell, the women who do not think that women are oppressed (which women are hardly a minority by the way, this is actually the majority view in a more or less global patriarchy and claiming minority or persecuted-status based on feeling unoppressed is actually a reversal) think that they can and should go their own way and create communities and micro-communities with like-minded women who also believe, as they themselves believe, that women are actually empowered and unoppressed.

To these women I would like to inquire, what are you running away from? Be specific. Because from where I’m standing, this looks a lot like rats running off a sinking ship, which is at base a survival instinct and not problematic for either rats or people. However, there is a little problem of context here, where the women running off the sinking ship are concurrently pretending like there’s no ship and it’s not sinking and yes they are running but they are just running for fun, or because they just recently realized they could. Or maybe they believe that they are not running at all, as if casually walking away or whatever isn’t just degrees of the same thing.

So what I’m thinking is this. If the context is as they say it is, and women are not oppressed (and male supremacy isn’t real) why would certain people have to do anything at all, to get what they say they already have? Or, looking at it another way, why do certain other people not have to do a fucking thing in order to get the thing you want, and there’s nothing for them to get because they already have it? I’m talking about women and men here, and freedom from sex-based oppression. If women already had it we wouldn’t have to do anything to get it, including leaving, or changing your beliefs about reality or whatever. It wouldn’t even be a concern.

And let’s talk about community for that matter, because while there is nothing inherently wrong with running from a sinking ship, or with striking out on your own because you are better or stronger or whatever, historically these things have not really been considered communities in and of themselves, have they. “Save yourselves” is the last resort taken by imperiled people (and rats) who would really rather not have to, if we are honest about it. And striking out in small, strong groups has usually been done with the intent of performing recon or hunting or whatever, with the end-game being that you go get resources and bring them back to the community. The strong (or “empowered”) hunting parties or whatever were never intended to go out and gather resources and then keep them for themselves and never go back home again.

Lyme Disease Misdiagnosed As Schizophrenia + Living With Medical Mistakes. Ft. Ren

Regarding the first video, I’ve been following this music reaction channel for awhile, the host is an academic, professional opera singer and voice coach and has surely forgotten more about music and singing than most people will ever know. Today she reacted to Ren’s performance of Hi Ren and as I do, I was reading the comments while watching and listening to the reaction and I gleaned something about the performer, namely, that he has been sick half his life with undiagnosed and misdiagnosed Lyme disease.

Apparently, and this was hardly a deep dive on my part, but apparently Ren was misdiagnosed and otherwise abused/neglected by the medical system for over a decade, being pushed into addiction and psychosis by benzodiazepines (Diazepam/Valium) and God knows what else as part of his so-called mental health treatment. For a mental health condition he didn’t even have. All the while being on a slow burn with essentially untreated autoimmune disease.

And this has been a gaping wound on my psyche for years ever since I first heard Peter Breggin talking about it: feeding psych meds to extremely physically ill people whose weakened and deteriorating bodies simply cannot tolerate the chemical assault is probably the worst physical and mental insult I can imagine and considering my own lifelong experience with Western medicine, that’s saying something, innit. Of course, Peter Breggin’s online catalog has now been eviscerated due to corporate and government censorship of his material on COVID so I can’t even link to his work.

So first, I would like to reiterate the problem, and it’s not just a problem with psych meds although that adds a wrinkle: I am coming to understand that physically weakened and deteriorating bodies — people — largely cannot tolerate the additional chemical assault of any Big Pharma drug, let alone those dispensed for conditions the sick people don’t even have. And a lot of physically ill people do not have the physical or psychiatric conditions with which they have been diagnosed. Get it?

It might take a moment of detatchment from the insidious, ever present medical machine to recognize this, and that’s not a small hurdle, but once you recognize that Big Pharma “medications” — whatever else they may or may not be — are before anything man-made poisonous chemicals that themselves cause iatrogenic injury and disease, the thought of administering them to people who are already extremely physically ill seems like a very bad idea. In Ren’s case, he was apparently made psychotic by the chemical insult, or the combination of the chemical insult and untreated underlying disease over time, and has lasting neurological, cognitive and physical damage from this type and degree of care.

Roseanne Barr Responds. On “Happy Healthy Women” + Idiots Who Don’t Even Understand the Material.

I previously wrote a 4 part series about Roseanne Barr, her infamous 2018 tweet and her subsequent firing and disassociation from her own show which had been rebooted as Season 10 of Roseanne. After several years spent largely in private, nursing her wounds and contemplating her personal and professional futures, Roseanne was recently interviewed by the LA Times and appeared on Fox News’ Tucker Carslon Tonight.

I thought I had said about all I had to say about Roseanne and the debacle that saw her “canceled” and her livelihood and and character destroyed politically assassinated, but now that she has finally been allowed to even speak publically about what happened, I have something to say about it, specifically what she mentions in this Tucker Carlson interview about stupid people who don’t have the experience or brain power to understand the material anyway.

For content creators who are largely at the mercy of their audience and the public generally to respond fairly and rationally to what is actually said, lest the creators be canceled and their lives, livelihoods and lifes’ work destroyed erased from the face of the Earth by the power elite, who are only too happy to erase certain people’s work by the way, the downright stupidity, reading comprehension fails and deliberate misunderstandings of people who consume our work is a problem.

I have already written at length about Roseanne’s tweet and the ways that her words were used against her. Suffice it to say that the public’s response (rather, what we were allowed to see of the response) to Roseanne’s words was a shit stew of stupidity including the political ignorance of the public at large, actual and deliberate misunderstanding of her words and position, bad-faith and worst-possible interpretations of an inherently ambiguous message, a collective rage-boner against a (fat, mentally ill, lower-class) woman with opinions, and opportunistic manipulation by the corporate/power elite to destroy her erase an influential woman and her transgender-critical work from the face of the Earth.

Obviously, as a content creator myself, I empathize with Roseanne and her apparent utter frustration with stupid people who obviously (obviously!) don’t understand the material they criticize. And I’m going to be specific. Recently I commented as Mello Yello on a You Tube video on Lisa Michelle’s channel that attracted what I can only describe as stupid replies. They were not responsive at all to anything I actually said and worse, these replies were obviously (to me) intended to be thought-terminating and punitive: I dared mention Jordan Peterson in the comments of a “radfem” vlog and therefore I must be destroyed.

Completely boringly by the way, because it happens all the damn time, what I actually said did not matter, my intended and actual points were not addressed and I was effectively run out of the space by what I can only describe as premature ejaculators who spat out words! lots of words! in response to nothing, absolutely nothing that was actually said, or intended, or implied. Obviously, these people do not find it at all relevant that they understand the material before they “respond” to it. As someone who at least attempts to understand the meaning of words myself, calling these non-responsive missives “responses” at all is simply not correct.

Does Mother-Love Imbue Us With A Soul?

I just happened across this, where a grown man who recently (and suddenly) lost his mother reported that his “soul feels empty” without the presence and support of his mom. I thought this was a strange choice of words. Unsurprisingly, he recalled that his mother was his biggest support, and he reports being in terrible pain and he feels as if the pain of her loss will never go away. Now, obviously I’m not going to tell anyone how to feel or how to grieve or anything like that, and why would I?

So many times men tell us the truth about themselves, for the sake of exposing the truth I’m not about to tell them not to, or to project something female on a male. To wit, many years ago we all learned that so-called “transgender” males feel entitled to comfort and success among other things when they outright told us that’s what transing does for them. I could hardly believe what I had heard. They won’t be successful in life without transing therefore they must (be allowed to) trans. If that’s not the most male privileged thing I have literally ever heard I really don’t know what would be.

For my part, I have experienced loss (not of a parent) and I was wrecked by it. I didn’t sleep for a year, I voluntarily visited a psychiatrist and submitted to short term “treatment” with psych drugs over it but I don’t recall feeling as if my soul had been emptied by it. So what is this man even saying? If he is saying that mother-love and only mother-love had previously “filled” his soul, I really can’t relate. Is my soul empty because my mother always hated me? Is there any such thing as a full or empty soul? Or is it a matter of whether one has a soul at all?

And this started me thinking about whether women have souls at all. Although it doesn’t please me to say this, for the most part, from what I can tell, women largely have no values, no standards, no ethics, at least none that they are willing to defend and I include myself in that assessment. By my own estimation, a Crohn’s life is largely not worth living, and yet I am still here. I honestly hate myself for letting this happen to me.

Whether it’s by nature or nurture, and this has been debated for millenia by the way, within a more or less global patriarchy women largely have no creativity, no vision, no passion — except for the dick. Is that because women are oppressed? Or is it because we have no souls? Is there something about being free — being male within a more or less global patriarchy — that “fills” or imbues humans with souls and/or does oppression “drain” or remove or prevent a soul from entering our bodies at all?

Or, is being “filled” with mother-love and all that entails literally what males are going on about when they talk about the “soul” whether it’s their own souls or ours? If that’s what they mean then they’ve been right this whole time when they mused that women are mere vessels and not ensouled, full humans or in touch with God. In a more or less global patriarchy, mothers do not love their daughters, not the way they love their sons: relentlessly, selflessly, and forever. Girl children, and thus adult women, are never filled with mother-love, not the way boys and men are and we are obviously missing something. I think it’s possible that we are (therefore) missing our souls, and that the soul (or male-defined soul) and mother-love are actually the same thing.

Comments open.

Big Pharma Heiress Needs Deprogramming After One Gender Studies Course. Moron Existential Terror.

I recently wrote about existential terror in the context of motherhood and post-partum and maternal angst. When reading about a rich girl who needed deprogramming after taking one gender studies course, my mind again went to existential terror. This young woman somehow remained “unprogrammed” for 2 years at an elite women’s college despite the culture being “aggressively anti-male” but then in her junior year, a gender studies class threw her for a loop:

“This professor tells me about the patriarchy,” Rockwell told The Post. ” I barely knew what the word meant. I didn’t know what she was talking about. I wasn’t someone that into feminism. I just knew that I felt I had always been free to do what I wanted. I never experienced sexism. But I was told there’s the patriarchy and you don’t even understand it’s been working against you your whole life. You’ve been oppressed and you didn’t even know it. Now you have to fight it. And I just went down this deep rabbit hole.”

Mount Holyoke grad deprogrammed from women-only woke culture. From The New York Post and other outlets.

There is a lot to unpack in this article, but for the record, I would like to start with this: patriarchy refers to the demonstrable fact that more or less globally, all political power lies in men’s hands, including military, economic, academic, scientific, judicial and every other damn thing you can imagine. Any alleged power or powerful positions held by women is tokenism only and does not change anything. This is the definition of patriarchy given to us by Kate Millet in her 1970 book Sexual Politics and according to others who were around at the time, that was the first time patriarchy was identified and named. It is difficult to even imagine, some 50 years later, that “patriarchy” has not always existed as a definiable political concept but indeed it has not.

Thus, all radical feminist theory followed from Kate Millet’s rather unassailable isolation and identification of patriarchy as a system. There is no way that radical feminist thought — getting to the root of female oppression — could have appeared or developed without this basic, core tenet. The existence of a more or less global patriarchy, as defined by Millet, is beyond debate and it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks about it. If elite women’s colleges are teaching another definition of patriarchy I really can’t speak to that.

I can report that my closest childhood friend dropped out of a non-elite college after taking one Women’s Studies class, which class demonstrably mentally and intellectually broke her. At the time, she had 5 brothers and came from a Catholic family; she now has 3 sons and a porn-addicted husband. Because Women’s Studies, WOST101 to be specific, my friend never finished her freshman year of college and has been supporting her family of 6 for the last 20+ years by working in a supermarket. Her porn-addicted husband is unemployable and (therefore) a stay at home dad. Apparently, she can handle “non-traditional gender roles” (and porn) and might have been a liberal feminist in deed if not in name, but learning about patriarchy in an academic setting was clearly a bridge too far.

On The “Died Suddenly” Video. Let’s Talk About Discernment.

This is the Died Suddenly video that everyone is currently talking about. Here is the BBC trying to debunk it. I can’t tell you whether or how much of the information in Died Suddenly is true, but I offer my readers the full video anyway. This is where thinking people use discernment, where we are free to consider radical, weird or unpopular ideas and decide for ourselves what value the information likely has based on our own knowledge and lived experience, feminist canon, common sense, intuition and whatever else we have at our disposal. Remember that merely considering an unpopular idea does not indicate a lapse in critical thinking, despite what the normies say.

Another tool in our discernment toolbox is this: how credible is the information — and sources of that information — that attempt to debunk it? I can’t promise that the Died Suddenly information is credible, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that the BBC — like all mainstream media — is well-known documented to be a bunch of dick-licking Big Pharma lapdogs and that the article they released debunking Died Suddenly is literally one of the stupidest articles I have ever seen, so let’s start there. (Conflicts of Interest. 10/10)

First up, we have the BBC attempting to put a human face on their “issue” and they chose a lesbian face. Instantly the BBC’s narrative is beyond reproach because although normies obviously hate lesbians, especially the radical feminist kind, the LGBTLOLWTAFBBQ+/- is a political force to be reckoned with — and thus this lesbian is a reliable narrator and the BBC article discussing her experience is unassailable — because transgender. Of course, LGBTWTFBBQ is also a bunch of dick-licking Big Pharma lapdogs because transgender (and HIV/AIDS) but let’s not talk about that. Well played BBC. (Cynicism. 10/10)

Here, we have a lesbian whose partner died suddenly and the surviving partner was cruelly attacked by online trolls who made a tenative connection between the sudden death, the documented excess mortality event currently underway, and the documented adverse events caused by the COVID vaccines. The “human face” on the issue is actually a sad emoji and everyone responding to the sad emoji (sad LGBTBBQ emoji) with anything less (or more) than fake empathy and platitudes are anti-vax trolls. 😢😢😢😢 Are we living in a children’s cartoon? If so, and if the cartoon is an 80s cartoon, the lesbian and her suddenly-deceased partner are the Smurfs and the evil, anti-vax trolls are Gargamel. Good v Evil. (Reductionism. 10/10)

I am tempted to address this frankly astonishingly disingenuous article paragraph by paragraph but I’m not sure that’s the best use of my time. Maybe if we can tease out some additional criteria for evaluating the information — criteria that will aid us in using our discernment here and everywhere — that will turn an otherwise boring media-critical task into something worthwhile? You tell me.

“Seven days, 18 hours, 39 minutes ago my beloved… died suddenly of cardiac arrest”. When Victoria Brownworth logged onto Twitter to post these words about her partner of 23 years, she didn’t know that two of them in particular would provoke a storm of online harassment.

Because, as Victoria waited at her home in Philadelphia on Sunday night for her wife’s ashes to be delivered, a video titled Died Suddenly was about to drop.

In an hour and eight minutes of dramatic music and out-of-context news reports, the film tells a fictitious story of a dangerous vaccine killing off swathes of young people – all part of an imagined plot to depopulate the earth.

It landed on niche video-sharing platform Rumble on Monday and began to spread. By Wednesday morning it had been viewed more than 4 million times on Rumble and at least 1.5 million times on Twitter.

The claims made in the video quickly fall apart under scrutiny. Vast amounts of evidence from different independent scientists all over the world, as well as the experiences of billions of people, have shown that serious Covid vaccine side effects are rare.

They died suddenly – then the anti-vax trolling started. From BBC.

The Died Suddenly story is “fictitious” because the BBC says so. The plot is “imagined” because the BBC says it is. It was posted on Rumble instead of YouTube or another mainstream source because illegitimate/nefarious reasons. Trust the Science and Trust Scientists despite all the valid reasons not to. Appeals to Authority. 10/10

But its call for people to look at any reported deaths through a lens of suspicion had made Victoria fair game – and as the phrase “died suddenly” started to trend, people flocked to her memorial thread.

“How long’s it been since she got the jab?”, hundreds of people began to reply.

Victoria’s wife, Madelaine Gold – a painter and design professor – had an advanced stage of cancer, though she had been doing better just before she died. There is no suggestion the vaccine had anything to do with her death.

A lens of suspicion is the wrong lens. A lens of infantile naivete and blind trust is the correct lens. The original author didn’t suggest that she was alarmed by her partner’s sudden death, and she didn’t make a connection to the known adverse effects of the vaccines, so this story is not alarming and nothing will make it alarming, nothing to see here, move on. Normalcy Bias. 10/10