Wikipedia, Patriarchy, Proof and Pudding

Meta Feminist Dyke of the Old School welcomes all.
No comment will be censored.
Bring it on.

My Photo
Name:
Location: WE Are EVERYWHERE, U.S. Virgin Islands

Music is my Medicine. Thinking is my Sport. Nature is my Faith.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

The Monstrous Regiment Of Women

"...it is the (collective) father who structures laws and conventions to enforce the perpetuation of his authority over all underlings - beginning with women and girls. Thus we see the bound foot, the amputated vulva, and the lobotomy among so many other such patriarchal operations. Most often it is the mother and older women of a group who are charged with training girls for and submitting them to these procedures. Girls and women are valued primarily as vessels for the production and suckling of men's progeny..." Lesbesquet

Here we see just a few enforcers at work. Their tools: lies, myths, fantasies. Their hopes: by recruiting other women and girls for the use of god, he will suck them up into heaven during the rupture. Of course, they believe what they say, and no doubt have trusted reliable sources to cite if asked.

Why are my junkyard dogs at my heels the way they are? Is it my refusal to become a total woman who has been taken in hand, in the ass, or (as contraculture so elegantly expresses it) to "let him use your cunt"? Patriarchy can not stand hard and fast as it has been without the collaboration of women. So, Y, in the names of my Mothers and Sisters take responsibility for the current existance of patriarchy, as well as its relentless disintigration.

We brought you into this world,

and we will take you out.

10 Comments:

Anonymous Rintrah said...

Again there are same problems:

No sources, no argument (in the normal sense), lack of clear definition, rhetoric disguised as facts, and speculation based on personal prejudices. (Of course this does not matter because you shun arguments).

This seems to be the structure of your diatribe:

(1) Collective father rules womenkind
(2) =>bound feet, genital mutilation, and lobotomy of women
(3) Women are recruited to help collective father
(4) Women are made to serve men

(1) What is the collective father? And where do you get this behemoth assumption from? The theory of patriarchy says this, right? The theory is infallible?
(2) You do not say whom this occurs to. One would assume all women are bound, mutilated, and lobotimised. Clarity would only sap your rhetoric.
(3) How many and how? You make this "collective father" sound like a vampire who makes women feed on his blood and become vampires too.
(4) Also vague. Without clarity, you have the potential to argue anything.

"So, Y, in the names of my Mothers and Sisters take responsibility for the current existance of patriarchy, as well as its relentless disintigration. We brought you into this world, and we will take you out."

Open hostility to men. You hardly say anything concrete like "this video evidence show man X, man Y, and man Z did crime W"; you rely on sweeping generalisations like "patriarchy is responsible for the hideous crimes against womenkind; these are my half-witted attempts to persuade you." You no longer see any cogent social theory or common sense as necessary to understanding the human condition. You will not believe a white fluid resembling and tasting like milk in a carton with milk written on it is milk unless you find that fact written in a feminist book. You just emulate your hero Dworkin: assume all men are monsters (with a few, but unremarkable exceptions). Therefore, it is necessary to defer all logical judgement of something until you have consulted the theory of "patriarchy". Saying "patriarchy" all the time is an easy way to disguise your hatred of men. You are simply just "men" in more abstract minds; your mind is not well-developed enough to have some developed theory of the patriarchy.

Where have you bothered justifying your speculation? Every time I challenge you, you speculate on something else. Do you not know how to argue something?

"Patriarchy" is some universal term which explains everything but is almost meaningless in itself. You have not attempted to define it and justify any philosophical or social system it implies. You just effuse emotions and judge your success on whether you elicit the desired emotions in your audience. This is how a child operates. You may not realise this, but "patriarchy" explains everything that is real and imaginary - at least with you use it. If you do not get a job, have to wait 10 minutes in line, and feel upset for any reason you can easily impute patriarchal influence. "Patriachal" is an amorphous, abstract noun which will fit into any sentence - "this painting is obviously patriarchal, and the icecream you are eating comes from the patriarchy parlour." You want your reader to define it in each case, and thus shift the onus of explanation and proof to the reader - like saying "green monsters did this; now define Green monsters for me and come up with a proof for their existence and influence. (I sure can't)."

Do you not think it childish to think the capital letter I is some giant, typographical phallus? Your thinking is more phallo-centric than most men. You see, most men do not see a succession of phalli as they read a first person account.

You reduce the nature of men to "sperm idealization" as if that could be defined.

You hold the key to your fantasy. You create the monsters. Only a paranoid scizophrenic knows the world created by her fantasies.

Whereas an unemployed person would seek a job, you would be inclined to write diatribes against the patriarchy to excuse your incompetence at finding one. You are too old to still be a child.

You live in a country full of opportunity, yet you create monsters for yourself and make yourself as miserable as you could possibly be. If women took you seriously, they would be as miserable as you.

Thursday, December 07, 2006  
Blogger Lesbesquet said...

R:
You used to complain about my arguments, now you complain that Y shun arguments. What DO men want, anyway? ;-)

Did you explore the links in this post? If not, that would explain your confusion.

You can find my explaination of patriarchy by looking at the history pages at wikipedia. Patriarchy hardly needs definition since the word defines itself.

Patriarchy is not a theory. Just because you wish it was, doesn't make it go away. And patriarchy hurts everyone (even you, as any old Mother can plainly see)not just me and a few other lunatics.

"Do you not think it childish to think the capital letter I is some giant, typographical phallus? Your thinking is more phallo-centric than most men. You see, most men do not see a succession of phalli as they read a first person account."
Well, you must, since you have never seen anything written by me on the topic.

And you can stop 'quoting' me unless Y actually wrote whatever you are 'quoting'. You will know if Y wrote it because you will be able to copy and paste my words, like you did with the last two sentences of the post.

Thursday, December 07, 2006  
Anonymous Rintrah said...

To be honest, I have used the word "arguments" loosely. You have not written many, and as soon as there is any debate, you either let out something entirely unrelated - i.e., a red herring - or just move on. Your advocacy has mostly been in the form of diatribes, which are not arguments, except perhaps superficially. These are what I complained about; namely, that you did not find reasons or premises for your arguments, and the best you manage is a link to what you consider an example of your assertion. Diatribes are somtimes called arguments, but when they are both defined precisely, they are distinct.

You're right, I haven't seen anything written by you on the letter you avoid - but you are avoiding it, right? The reason I assume your aversion to "I" is that you brandish "womyn" because "woman" is apparently patriarchal. So I made a similar connection for "I". Your habit of using "Y" for "I" is otherwise inexplicable - other than by your general weirdness.

I shall quote you verbatim (I am sure these are your words):

"To try again: Y CREDIT my father and the catholic education Y got for showing me so intimately the workings of patriarchy, the effects of patriarchy, the methods of patriarchy, the scholarly methods of patriarchy, the opportunity to know my enemy, and so much more."

So, somehow, your father and the catholic church reveal how the patriarchy works, and you are not merely imposing their desciptions externally on the world's social order. By knowing your father and the catholic church, you know about as much about the rest of the world as someone would of Asia by learning about North America.

No, Patriarchy is not a theory. It is an entity posited by a theory - it stems from the theory -, as is "capital", "the proletariat", "star signs", and "the phrenological map of the brain". You do not see the Patriarchy; you abstract its existence from a theory. I don't "wish Patriarchy was a theory" anymore than I wish alien abductions were.

"Patriarchy" does not define itself. I don't think the average person knows Latin and every quadsyllabic word in English. If it were to defined itself, everyone would have a revelation of the concept of "patriarchy". The assumption is as saying one's idea define themselves and anyone who disagrees is in idiot.

Your explanation is vague. I can understand the words, but what the hell does it all mean? There are three sentences of it, and the rest that follows is a list of examples. This is as far as you get:
"Patriarchy = rule of father" (which is already in the article)

"Only one who is (assumed to) produce sperm commands authority."

(All you saying is only males have authority.)

"From god or gods on down the social strata, it is the (collective) father who structures laws and conventions to enforce the perpetuation of his authority over all underlings - beginning with women and girls."

No one can understand it without an explanation of "(collective) father". How does this figure structure laws and conventions? (This is what I mean by "theory"). It makes no sense. It is rhetorical bombast. In fact, you are just substituting one word for another (or two).

This is what confuses me.

You are writing the definition in terms only comprehensible to you. Imagine if the article hippy was written:

Whoa man. A hippy is one freaky dude, who, like, sees dragons - they, the system, say they don't exist, man! They vibes we emanate are like totally sympathetic with the universe. You wanna know why? You need some green medicine, man!

Do you get my point?

Anyway, I am very, very tired. You are confusing, and tiredness makes me even more prone to confusion.

By the way, ethics are not validated by sources (I refer to your comment on Catholics having sources to cite). Objective statements are.

I would have helped you work on your definition to make it clearer, but had I done so, there still would have been the problem that you are defining it (something known as "original research), not feminist theory. "Patriarchy" comes from feminist theory, not you.

Thursday, December 07, 2006  
Blogger Lesbesquet said...

Congrats, Rintrah, on your hippie explaination. From one who was actually there, your short description does more to capture the hippie 'experience' than any dictionary or encyclopedia ever could in so many words. Are you experienced? ( Jimi Hendrix )

Again, when Y talk about the influence of my father and the church, Y am talking of only the first 17 years of my life. You can bet your bippie that my immersion in the world of patriarchy did not end on my 18th birthday. Yours continues as well.

And speaking of you, again, Y am not here to please you. Y have no allegience to your methods since they have brought us projects like the Tuskegee Experiment, White Man's Burden, and the war in Iraq.

Friday, December 08, 2006  
Anonymous Rintrah said...

I haven't 'been there', so to speak, but I have known people who have. I would still be worried if my definition became the basis for an encyclopedia article, however gratifying it might initially be.

There is a difference between knowledge and ethics. My methods pertain to knowledge; I am not advocating a system of ethics. The latter is a separate, distinct question.

Whatever your life is, which despite my previous posts is not for me to judge, a personal experience cannot describe a world social order. It might be part of it, but illuminating it for the world to see cannot be from one experience alone. A personal experience is different from systematic oppression, and even when it is part of it, it is still a great leap of logic to extrapolate it to the rest of the world. If an argument is especially contentious, it needs to be elucidated by the proper mode of investigation. It is not as if the slave trade, for instance, was not well documented and argued against with force compellingly and eloquently by logical arguments.

I am not sure what you mean by my oppression by the patriarchy is. I know that certain things make life shittier: blasting pop music, advertising, other people's annoying conversations, the ubiquity of junk food, passive smoking, and so on. I do not see "patriarchal" influence, however. I am not saying nothing has contributed to the detriment of your life, but I am questioning your attribution to a universal "patriarchy".

You are not here to please me, yes, but arguing something without logic is futile, especially if you already have hardly any influence.

I am not advocating the methods you speak of. Neither the Tuskesee Experiment, White Man's Burden, nor the Iraq war were arrived at by objective knowledge. They were brought into existence by a system of ethics. Anyway, I opposed the Iraq, only read a handful of Kipling poems, and never would have condoned the Tuskesee Experiment, because each offends my ethics. The research and editorial principles of the Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, are not synonomous with the ethical reasons for war, imperialistic poetry, and morally deplorable research. This is one reason why soapbox agitation and encyclopedic content should be kept separate. Except perhaps in France prior to the 1789 revolution, encyclopediae do not lead social change.

By the way, I am in a better mood because I got some sleep. Also, if you had toned down the language, removed the examples or stated them more clearly, and found sources for your entry, your additions would have remained. You actually have a starting point, and it is not as if you need to write anything great to improve the article in question.

Friday, December 08, 2006  
Blogger Lesbesquet said...

"if you had toned down the language, removed the examples or stated them more clearly, and found sources for your entry, your additions would have remained. You actually have a starting point, and it is not as if you need to write anything great to improve the article in question."

Gee, thanks for the encourgement. Unfortuntely, you cannot support your assertion that my "additions would have remained", since you are not in controll of everything that gets 'edited' at wikipedia.

Also, although (patriarchal) ethics are certainly at play in the three examples Y mentioned, you can be sure that whoever initiated, appoved and funded these projects was convinced of their absolute necessity and value to mankind through the use of research and citations of trusted, reliable sources who claimed a neutral point of view.

Friday, December 08, 2006  
Anonymous contraculture said...

Amputated vulva, eh? Male genital mutilation perpetrated by parents is still more popular. I bet there are more men afflicted by circumcision than all the women afflicted by these other cultural body modifications combined.

The patriarchy will do just fine without the collaboration of women. You've been unable to do anything this far, and now there's a very notable anti-feminist movement among women. I know more anti-feminists than feminists, though it's a fallacy to presume that relation holds for all women. This is not even considering all the women who loathe politics, of which feminism is a branch.

And us men? We just laugh. We can usually spot feminists from a mile away, and we don't even bother giving them the time of day. They often malodorous, often have short hair, often are overweight, often adopt peculiar speech patterns, often are homosexual, often avoid vestiges of femininity, and more. You're even easier to pick out than gay men.

If you guys seriously want to bother with some subversive overthrow attempt, try actually fitting in. Oh, wait, that would be submitting to the Patriarchy, and that's not acceptable. Oh well. I guess that's too bad for you all.

Friday, December 08, 2006  
Blogger Lesbesquet said...

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Friday, December 08, 2006  
Anonymous rintrah said...

"Also, although (patriarchal) ethics are certainly at play in the three examples Y mentioned, you can be sure that whoever initiated, appoved and funded these projects was convinced of their absolute necessity and value to mankind through the use of research and citations of trusted, reliable sources who claimed a neutral point of view."

Um... so genital mutilation stemmed from objective research and was well fortified with citations. I suspect some kind of speculation here. You are virtually assuming professors murder and cannibalise babies in the name of research. You are getting very deep into a forest of assumptions haunted by monsters. Anyway, what has irrational disgust vented as agitation led to? Stalin's Soviet Russia, Mao's China, Robespierre's French Revolution, and Che T-shirts maybe?

No, I don't control the page. I do, however, watch its history occassionally. I do see that definitions and theory expositions are rarely deleted when supported by verifiable research. It is also hard to believe that an article that is so shit it might qualify for the Articles' Special Olympics would not welcome verifiable research. Even though allowing any of your blog posts on wikipedia would be a great injury, that Patriarchy article is so bad it will accept almost anything that does not violate editorial policy. The guardians of the article would have to concede this.

Your logic doesn't come from a kettle by any chance, does it?

Friday, December 08, 2006  
Anonymous Mystr Sal said...

Y call it Cattle, not kettle.
Moo.
Without MY teat, you are a dead dikhead.

Thursday, April 02, 2009  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home