Some greatest hits from Femonade

Continuing on the topic of radical feminism, here are some entries from Femonade I think are particularly worth reading:

What’s “Fuckability” Got To Do With It?
Men Hate It When Women Remember
Dood-Centric Problem-Solving: Framing the Issues
On Harm Reduction
Naming the Agent

So check them out. Especially read the comments thread on each: Femonade is the only blog I’ve ever seen where the comments are even more worth reading than the entries themselves.

24 thoughts on “Some greatest hits from Femonade

  1. Lev January 4, 2012 at 15:00

    Femonade is mentally ill and hubristic. She has something very wrong with her brain. She said that male babies should be killed (she used the term “infanticide”). A person who fantasizes about killing babies is insane and dangerous. If only she would allow dissenting comments on her blog so her stupidity and evil could be exposed, but I suppose that would mean having to tackle logical counter-arguments, and we can’t have that!

    • Francois Tremblay January 4, 2012 at 16:01

      Actually, as I discuss in upcoming entries of my abortion series, there are no pro-choice arguments that don’t also support infanticide. So I’d love to hear if you have any actual logical counter-arguments against infanticide.

  2. FCM January 18, 2012 at 09:49

    looking forward to your abortion series. thanks for the linkage, glad you find those convos useful.

  3. FCM January 18, 2012 at 11:02

    also, agree that the convos on femonade are some of the best around. thanks to my readers, this is absolutely the case. its also bc i dont allow men there, and i ban all comments that are male-identified (unless i feel like responding to them immediately, and i usually dont) and that dont move the discussion forward. what you see at femonade is whats left, when those things are removed from the equation. i was as surprised as anyone to see that this was the case, but it was and is the case. its fascinating.

    • Francois Tremblay January 18, 2012 at 13:35

      I have also noticed how inane, pointless and often hostile or counter-productive male comments have been on other radfem blogs. I guess I took note of it because I was on your blog first and saw how good your comments thread were. Of course, as a man, I can’t stop poking my dick where I don’t belong and have posted a few comments on other radfem blogs, although I don’t know how useful they were on the whole.

  4. FCM January 24, 2012 at 21:28

    ok, i wasnt even able to get my head around the pre-reqs to commenting on that series, let alone read the whole thing.

    but seriously. are you, and other anti-natalists willing to give up the PIV-as-sex paradigm in pursuit of your goals? why/why not? and, where is this being discussed, if anywhere? links please. thanks

    • Francois Tremblay January 25, 2012 at 00:42

      Oh hey, glad you’re sticking around. Are you liking the series so far?

      If you noticed, there is an entry on PIV that’s gonna appear at the very end, which I wrote after reading your blog. You were entirely responsible for that one. :)

      “but seriously. are you, and other anti-natalists willing to give up the PIV-as-sex paradigm in pursuit of your goals?”
      Antinatalists in general? No. In fact, many antinatalists support making more pornography as a way to keep men from reproducing. Yes, I know, pretty dumb huh?

      PIV is not being discussed on any antinatalist blog that I know of. It’s not something that’s on anyone’s radar as far as I know. There are entries where pornography is promoted…

      I can tell you that insofar as any radfem-related idea is discussed in antinatalist circles, it’s to promote porn or, more rarely, sex work.

      I think that’s a dumb situation, because antinatalism and PIV are very obviously connected. And many prominent antinatalists make a big show of being vegan in order to tell people that they don’t support inflicting suffering on animals. Yet they don’t realize that PIV harms women.

  5. FCM January 25, 2012 at 09:58

    hi, i cant read the series. i really cant, even though i tried. i see that you might have a strategy and that you are trying to reach a particular audience (men, and the male-identified women who love them and have PIV with them) and obviously, i see that the PIV-stuff was an afterthought and thus comes LAST. but if this were going to make any kind of logical sense that *wasnt* dripping with misogyny, the PIV stuff would go first.

    first, not last.

    all these arguments about how abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term ignore the FACT that not getting pregnant at all if the safest. THEREFORE, your arguments are not about safety per se, but an analysis of *relative* safety that presupposes that PIV is inevitable and beyond scrutiny itself. this is just not true. your premise if false, which makes your series impossible to read. imagine if this were anything else, based on a premise you knew to be false. could you even read it? would you? its like reading anything from a god-believer that presupposes that god exists. its impossible to read it, or a waste of time to even try, if the purpose is to gain enlightenment. there isnt any there. what its good for (maybe) is to see how the enemy thinks, and what their particular brand of propaganda looks like, which is a valid exercise if you have time. but im thinking that *you* dont think of yourself as the enemy, nor what you are spewing as propaganda in the most negative sense, including deliberate (or unexamined) bias, appeals to emotion, logic fails, and lying by omission. but thats what you are doing.

    your pro-abortion stance (like all PIV-positivism) is consumerist and patriarchal, because engaging in PIV involves consequences and it takes products, devices, and procedures to avoid unwanted outcomes. thus, it utilizes resources and produces waste, and is not sustainable. subjecting women to the male medical machine to avoid or terminate unwanted pregnancies is delivering them to the doorstep of a patriarchal institution that notoriously abuses women, is known to *cause* disease, and makes its money off of the sick and the dying, while making nothing when people are healed or remain healthy, or when they die for that matter. there is an obvious conflict of interest there, where healers make money from sick people and their income stream dries up if people are too healthy or dead. it makes your “its safer” argument seem ridiculous, which it is. patriarchal medicine does very well when it keeps people in a constant state of sickness and dependance thats just short of terminal. that is exactly what they do to women, when we are tied to the medical establishment FOR LIFE, because FEMALE FERTILITY. which isnt a disease, BTW. its only a problem because of PIV.

    and dont even get me started on the “legal definitions of personhood” issue. you spend a LOT of time on this one, but the law is just another PIV-normative institution that is dripping misogyny.

    PIV (and misogyny) is at the root of what you are talking about, and if you are serious about it, i would think you would put that stuff in the beginning, not at the end, because thats where it belongs. all this other shit is just a waste of time.

    • Francois Tremblay January 25, 2012 at 13:10

      I understand what you’re saying. As I wrote on my PIV entry, framing the debate on abortion is beneficial to the power elite because, well obviously because of all the things you said, and because it puts the onus on the victim instead of the perpetrator. It puts the responsibility on women instead of men.

      You’re right that my entry on PIV was written as an afterthought, mainly because I didn’t know anything about radfem or anything like that until I found your blog, which was after I wrote all of those other entries. Not making an excuse, just stating the facts. I’m sorry you don’t like the approach.

      If you don’t mind, I will add your points to my PIV entry as well, or maybe write another one, because these are really good arguments.

  6. FCM January 25, 2012 at 13:57

    of course i dont mind if you use my work, with proper credit given. there are posts on my blog that deal with all of this, including one on the consumerism inherent in the PIV-as-sex paradigm.

    i think anti-natalism could only be strengthened by a PIV-critical approach, *if* the goals of your movement really are as stated. but this is where you are going to see the reality of it, and commonly the goals of these movements are NOT as-stated, but are something else entirely. i do foresee you running into resistance from within your own movement if you accept and disseminate radical feminist PIV-criticism, which includes your own people silencing and shunning you. when this happens to you, bc your anaysis includes or centers PIV criticism, it will be evidence that anti-natalism is a mens movement, built on male supremacy, male privilege and misogyny, and accepting and even dependant on womens pain and submission to men. it will become clear to you (and others, probably) that *those* things are central to the movement, and continuing the status quo of male supremacy, male privilege and entitlement is even more important than reaching your stated goals. just dont be too surprised when that happens, is all im saying.

    but PIV-criticism is absolutely logical and rational in this context. dont forget that. and yes, our arguments are sound, and irrefutable, in fact. the resistance you encounter will be a distraction from whats true and real, and irrefutable, nothing more. good luck.

    • Francois Tremblay January 25, 2012 at 14:02

      The funny thing is, the antinatalist movement is about 50-50 insofar as men and women… but sadly there’s no feminism of any kind present. The only reaction I got when I started talking about the patriarchy is “you believe in the patriarchy! HAW HAW HAW!”

      I would write a lot more entries about PIV and how it relates to all this, but you’ve already more or less written everything! It feels rather presumptuous following in your footsteps when I am still new at all this. But I’ll give it a try…

  7. FCM January 25, 2012 at 15:00

    well, women and men have different motivations and payoffs for supporting male supremacy. radical feminists are attacked, shunned and silenced by liberal and PIV-positive feminists just like we are shunned and silenced by everyone else. it doesnt make our *actual arguments* less valid. again, its just a distraction. why might women be anti-natalist? why might women be PIV-positive, or accepting/supportive of female pain and medical interventions on our bodies as the status quo? contrast this to mens reasons. look at it objectively.

    the coat-hanger motif is so hateful, BTW that i can already tell you that only male-identified women who uncritically accept their (and other womens) lot in life as mens PIV-receptacles are going to feel comfortable here. so yes, you are going to get resistance from them too. but PIV-criticism is irrefutable. if mandatory PIV ended, and PIV engaged in when a full-term pregnancy is not the desired result ended, you could all go home. non-conception would be the default, not abortion. birth would still be the exception, rather than the rule. you would have succeeded, minus all the female pain and mindless consumption and waste. and NOT-HAVING-PIV is also available in every backwoods community, every third-world nook and cranny, where abortion isnt. you have a better chance of getting what you want that way than the way you are doing it, *if* you really want birth to be the exception and not the rule.

    the fact that they dont want to succeed, at the cost of giving up PIV, is very revealing. it means they arent being honest about the tenacity of their beliefs.

    • Francois Tremblay January 25, 2012 at 15:09

      Thank you for giving me a lot of ideas. I will think about what you said.

      “why might women be anti-natalist?”
      Well, I haven’t noticed any difference in the sexes so far. Both seem to be antinatalist for more or less the same two reasons: either because they were convinced by the arguments, or because they think life is shit and follow the logical consequences of that (of course, sex and procreation is a big part of why their life is shit).

      “i can already tell you that only male-identified women who uncritically accept their (and other womens) lot in life as mens PIV-receptacles are going to feel comfortable here”
      Do you have any suggestions on how I could change that?

  8. FCM January 25, 2012 at 15:26

    yes. get rid of the hateful coathanger motif, and get rid of the hateful misogynist ideology that the coathanger is shorthand for. center PIV-criticism, and build on a radical feminist ideological foundation, not a PIV-centric, misogynist one, or one that supports male supremacy. or at least give the radical feminist arguments equal billiing with NEUTRAL, non-misogynist arguments (like anti-consumerism or environmental concerns). get rid of all misogyny, if you can. its not easy, but it is possible.

    • Francois Tremblay January 25, 2012 at 15:30

      Yikes. Obviously that’s something I look forward to, but I’m still new at this. I’ll get rid of the coathanger, anyway.

    • Francois Tremblay January 30, 2012 at 03:33

      I’ve been trying to think of more to write about re: PIV, but I run into this weird phenomenon. Whenever I go beyond the most obvious propositions (PIV is needed to have children, PIV is dangerous, antinatalists shouldn’t support PIV, etc), my mind just muddles and I can’t come up with anything at all. That rarely happens to me with any other topic. It’s like I’ve got some kind of mental block going on. I’ve read plenty on the topic on your own blog, but it’s like I just can’t think about it farther than that.

  9. FCM January 30, 2012 at 08:52

    yes, it is unsurprising that you would have a mental block around this issue in particular. what is it that you want to try to get across?

    • Francois Tremblay January 30, 2012 at 17:06

      I’m trying to articulate the relation between PIV and antinatalism.

      By the way, in unrelated news, I think I’ve finally figured out the root of natalism. It’s the objectification of women.

      I know, you’re probably like, “geeze, he just figured that out?” But hey, I’m still thinking through all this. LOL

  10. femicommie April 25, 2012 at 22:20

    Francois, this may not be directly connected to your post but I think you, as a feminist, would be interested in listening to this debate. I would really like to know what you think:
    www [dot] youtube [dot] com [slash] watch?v=8uT38_pRxHo

    • Francois Tremblay April 26, 2012 at 00:58

      First of all, I would not qualify myself as a feminist. I don’t think any man can be a feminist.

      That aside, I listened to two of the cases from the pro side and they were very good. I did not listen to the anti-feminist pro person because seriously. I was a bit surprised to hear Tyler Cowen was in this debate, although from his blog, that doesn’t surprise me.

      I personally think the question was rather badly formulated.

  11. […] MENTION: This time, my special mention for a truly great blog goes to femonade. I have listed entries from femonade […]

  12. noboychildrenformethanks September 14, 2012 at 21:08

    Here I go, on a dead thread again. But heaven help me- I’ve had a real revolution recently. :) Many thanks to femonade.

    Lev is butthurt because, like most dudes, he wants little copies of his own patriarchal self running around destroying things, as “boyz will be boyz”. Right. Get bent.

    I will never…never…NEVER venture to raise dudes. Heck no. Not in any circle of hell will I even so much as consider it.
    I will perform my *own* abortions (I’ve found some fantastic and detailed documents on how to do it safely) if I have to. Because: NO.

    • Francois Tremblay September 14, 2012 at 21:36

      I’m glad femonade has been able to help you out. She really changes your outlook. And thank you for partially not breeding. :)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: