Archive for the ‘women-only space’ Category

Being Jiz…

April 29, 2012

“Jism,” the word used to be a snicker, snicker, wink, wink, instead of source for an in-their-face popular “genderqueer” FAAB porn star’s nickname, Jiz. 

Online you can find this ropes-and-bondage depiction of Jiz, who’s been popular for several years going back to 2009 and earlier:

Photos: Morgan Weinart, Umayyah Cable, Courtney Trouble
September 2009

jiz lee porn star actress free pics interview

Invited to speak (trending in late April 2012 online news) at Williams College in Massachusetts, Jiz as “genderqueer” reportedly prefers to be called “they” and “their” instead of by a singular pronoun. 
Jiz does not presently identify as trans female or trans male and the numerous free photos of Jiz online — in a google first-page search no less — show naked female (ring-pierced) breasts and vulva belonging to Jiz, although strap-on penises are an apparent favorite.  Sometimes online, because I just googled, Jiz is referred to as lesbian. 
How will Jiz the porn star appearing to college students who are FAAB and women conditioned to heteronormality encourage or discourage them from considering lesbian relationships with other FAAB as an alternative to being heterosexual with men? 
A similar guest to my sociology 101 class (last century) scared me utterly about leather-and-chain-wearing-bull-dykes, as the macho speaker at that time identified herself back before anybody had thought of an individual being “genderqueer” in the 21st century.   After that lecture I wouldn’t have been interested in dating another woman even if she had been all sparkles like Ellen DeGeneres.  
But being unsuited for male dominance in sexual relationships, now I’m alone and wondering.  What would it have been like for me and the other women in the college audience if Ellen (or a younger version of Mary Daly or Andrea Dworkin) had instead been the guest speaker that day? 

Colleges and universities don’t seem to invite women like that.  And try to find FAAB-only space for women anymore.  But exclusive, private men-only clubs still exist, of course. 

 We know why, don’t we? 


Individual Rights for All, but Violent Truth about Maleness

December 24, 2011

The violent truth about the y-chromosome sexual species appears in this cartoon (fair use, non-profit educational purposes, parody, social commentary) from a paper’s op-ed page in a place where I’m spending the ho, ho, not ho holidays: 

 Mr. Fish's Cartoon

 (source  credited as: Cam Cardow, Cagle Cartoons, The Ottawa Citizen.)

Along similar lines, this link states a notable male scientist’s words on the truth of male violence as globally expressed in its present evolution: 

Regarding the genetic modification of the y chromosome (a maleness mutation) as an evolutionary experiment (in that men are basically genetically modified women), Professor and Fellow Bryan Sykes (University of Oxford and Wolfson College), in the link, stated in part: 

“Though it is a weary lament to lay most acts of violence and aggression, from the strictly local to the truly global, squarely at the feet of men, the association is strong, consistent and undeniable. Women very rarely commit violent crimes, become tyrants or start wars.”

Sykes continued (see link) to discuss genetic experimentation and modification (aka eugenics) that might occur to correct for violent maleness and/or point human beings in a different direction for reproduction.  If he were a woman so stating, no doubt charges of gendercide would be levied against him. 

But Sykes, like women decrying global violence by men as a collective sex against women as a collective sex (by the math, by the mounting atrocities over millenia), simply tells the truth about the sexes and violence.  

This truth can be told while still honoring the importance of  individual rights within all species everywhere to be treated without cruelty or physical violence.  This year I’ve stopped eating killed meat, and find patriarchy’s systematic abuse of horses in wars past as heinous as patriarchy’s systematic abuse of women chronically.  However, this holiday season on this planet by indication of the movie multi-plex, the horses and not the women have people’s sympathies. 

 Certainly the hope for a solution to male-led violence  at a global, national, state, county, city and household level does not paint every male as violent or evil.  Some males, like Sykes, have enough integrity to tell  the truth about males as a violent collective social species. 

Individually, as true for most women, I have cordial relationships with males for whom there is reciprocal altruism between us.  Individually, I have experienced the reciprocity of betrayal among women — after millenia  of male-led global occupation we’re not perfect if ever we were.   Sometimes we blog (at least I do) simply as social experiment or to relieve through mere words the pain of living in a world with so much unresolved male violence and threat including nuclear weapons on the ready under global male leadership. 

The truth about the sexes at a collective level, here and now, this Xmas Eve, is that only y-chromosome males fit the roles comedically depicted in newspapers today about a grave horror of nuclear weapons unleashed within the last century by male invention.   

And, ho, ho, no, no, I don’t want to incur the risk of y-chromosome people I don’t know (no matter what kind of surgical drag they’re into for m2f transgender purposes) sharing the women’s bathroom with me  in my xx-chromosome non-violence (which is the norm for the xx-chromosome sexual species, collectively). 

There’s no excuse for what collective maleness has done to us (men and boys included), to the planet, to the unmet hope of peace for the strident night.  Are we really separate species, females and males, who interbreed?  I don’t know.  But just saying it reminds women that we didn’t invent the bomb and never would have done so.  We’re not likely to have invented cutting down trees for  holiday living rooms, either (not that male-controlled history is easy to unravel), so some of us will be glad when the lies of the male-identified holidays are over.

Musing about a Great Woman: Dr. Mary Daly

January 10, 2010

Dr. Mary Daly, wielding the labrys, power tool of the Goddess and Her priestesses in the most ancient Greek civilization

Dr. Mary Daly died this week at age 81 and left us stronger as women for having been here.

Two topics, women-only space and the transgender movement, generate the most controversy to pull focus away from reading works of genius written by this great woman. (Reversing the lies of patriarchy, her books have titles like Beyond God the Father, Gyn/Ecology and Pure Lust, not the pornified kind.) Let me address both topics, in hopes you will read her books, because any words of Dr. Daly’s you will read can only make you the richer, more resonant being for doing so.

Woman-Only Space

The topic of “women-only space” still causes controversy when Dr. Mary Daly enters the discussion of feminism as social change. I suggest that this is because only women-only space empowers us to change our world beyond male-dominant boundaries. Only women-only space inspires us to believe in better possibilities (not greater numbers in tokenism) outside what the man-made society presents us.

It wasn’t sufficiently “politically correct” to continue “women only” seminars where Dr. Daly taught university classes, leading to her ouster from what she called “academentia,” even though she was willing to instruct men one-on-one for class credit. Our call as women today? We can honor the best of what Dr. Daly proposed as future vision by holding our own informal all-women’s gatherings where we put women first, because nobody else does.

The point about Dr. Mary Daly’s women-only space — as classroom teaching — is that she knew what all girls-to-women know: The dynamics are necessarily different, and less-than for women, when any man is in the room.

When a man is in the room, some women will be primed to defer to him, even if he atypically as a male chooses not to dominate the discussion or not to deride (if only by facial gesture or body language) the women’s points of view. Atypical (decent) male behavior will engender disproportionate energies of gratitude from some women toward the man, pulling female energy away from women and putting female energy on the male as patriarchy typically demands.

When a man is in the room, those women who have internalized misogyny to hurl at their sisters may expect his tacit approval. His presence in the room will make it all the more difficult for the women to root out the woman-hating that has been internalized and covertly projected by one woman to another.

When a man is in the room, feminist women may resist him because of his male privilege and spend energy on this man — instead of on their own process — around their resistance. Alternatively, some feminist women will be grateful to have a man in the room as validation of feminism because men as a social class carry more credibility clout in general — and this gratitude for a man interferes with women learning to get the validation about the intrinsic value of women’s lives from themselves as women.

To the extent experiencing creative genius coming from the natural/cosmological “background” might be a goal of women, a man in the room deflects too much of the women’s energy for “gynergy” to spin up, around, over and through the women. A man in the room, at women’s current stage of consciousness blocked by patriarchy, thus blocks women’s sufficiency of energy to conjure the gynergy of elemental powers and spiritual progress. This is because patriarchy as a social system (represented by male privilege and every embodied male) has been designed to block women’s connections to natural elements and transtemporal cosmology.

If race privilege among women (of color or not) can be a barrier to sisterhood, as many writers have posited, would not male privilege be as big or bigger barrier to females attempting to conjure their own creativity blocked by man-made language and man-made cultural standards?

In Dr. Daly’s world — a world we share — the “God” of this globe is not a Red, White or Black “Him” but simply “the Lord,” clearly super-hero male in gender with race or color unspecified. The Supreme Dominator is the “He” upon which all of patriarchy (and the structure of misogyny in women’s minds) has been patterned. For this reason of “God as you understand Him” alone, Dr. Daly as a world-class theologian and former Roman Catholic gave us ample cause to seek a room, collectively as women, of our own.

The Transgender Movement

How unfortunate that Mary Daly’s colorful use of language the way a trial lawyer might has incorrectly labeled her a “hater” as to transfolk on recent blogs. It is difficult, for anybody who has not read the entire body of her philosophical work, to understand the scope of her outrage that we live in a gender-role stratified global culture in which woman-born women, man-born men and transfolk engage with male-dominant medicine’s help in the suffering of surgical bodily mutilation (i.e., the suffering that a colorful user of language might call Frankensteinian, as a label also about cosmetic surgery undertaken by anybody in order to comply with gender role stereotyping).

Labeling Dr. Daly a “hater” of individuals when to my knowledge she never took the first violent action against anybody is unfair. She instead hated these things: dominant-submissive cultural patterns, gender-based social trends, and human suffering (including elective surgery done for gender-role compliance). To label her a “hater” is a misguided reversal of truth born of misunderstanding the philosophical core of Dr. Daly’s work. Much as Catholics generally hate the sin but not the sinner, I surmise that Dr. Daly hated the transgender movement (for its focus on artificial gender roles and related bodily mutilation to fulfill those roles) but not individual transfolk. (And please, I’d say to those who disparage Dr. Daly for their own political reasons, let’s not quibble about politically correct language; the “p.c.” terminology changes so often in any political movement, who could keep up, and Dr. Daly as well as Dr. Janice Raymond did most of their writing in this area many years ago.)

Were I to indulge the language of hatred, I could as easily write about seeing, in blogs following Dr. Daly’s death, an unreasoning hatred of Dr. Daly as well as a hatred of woman-born radical feminist women as Beings, of which Dr. Daly was one. This hatred of Dr. Daly, I could opine, is a hypocritical brand of hatred, pretending to be progressive politically, by which others demonize and distort any feminist who clearly opposes gender roles.

Dr. Daly wrote as a philosopher, not as a social scientist and not as a politician. She took extreme positions to make a philosophical point — mainly because she believed so passionately that gender roles are artificial constructs that distort all relations to the destruction of Life itself as embodied in individuals who ought to be free simply to Be, not woman or man, simply Being.