Limiting Men

The Age of Limits conference that took place over Memorial Day weekend has sparked quite a bit of buzz, especially around gender issues.

I have two thoughts about it.

One is the essential difference between collapsetarians and doomers.

Collapsetarians think they will survive – they believe there will be another human bottleneck event after civilization collapses – and they are determined to survive it by any means necessary.

This is partly the sticking point.

If collapse aware people – who presumably have the intellectual capacity to dig into how and why we got here (on the brink of collapse) in the first place want to take dominion and patriarchy with them through the bottleneck – well, to the rest of us, that seems pretty fucked up.

But they appear to be very ready to turn women into reproductive factories, to ensure that biology is destiny.

Doomers believe that human extinction (along with 99.9% of everything else alive) is “baked in” to the total collapse equation.

Between climate change, methane release, ozone, ocean acidification, and dwindling resources on a finite planet, the roll of the dice for homo sapiens – cause of the above – appears to be snake eyes.

Doomers call the belief in human survival of collapse “hopium”. Once the grids go down all over the world, the nuclear power plants all go poof!

We may “survive” that for a while, but we’re not going to be feeling too good. Radiation sickness may put a little dent in physical prowess. It’s hard to be menacing when you’re puking your guts out.

Sure, cultural difference may explain why there wasn’t rampant violence in Nagasaki or Hiroshima after those atomic events. But pain and sickness and shock had to have been in the mix, as well.

For doomers, survival post collapse isn’t really part of the equation. Most of us speak quietly of suicide after a certain point.

That perspective provides a little distance from the human drama that collapsetarians like to project for the future. It is what separates us from the doomsday preppers and apparently it is what separates us from collapsetarians.

There is no survival. Cormac McCarthy got it pretty right, I think, in The Road. Not only humans will die, but the whole planet, more or less.

We’re standing on the beach of doom, folks. We can argue and debate and cajole, but the reality is that humans have really done it this time. We aren’t going to survive long term.

I’ve been called Cassandra in the past but perhaps Lysistrata is more appropriate. She urged Greek women to withhold sexual “favors” from their husbands until they ended a war. Perhaps what we need is an update to that, perhaps what we need to do is to withhold the means of reproduction.

Rape features prominently into any survival scenario, so it doesn’t much matter if you are lesbian. Contraception won’t be available post-collapse. Neither will hospitals, antibiotics or autoclaves.

So if you are an adult female and fertile, probably the best thing you can do for yourself and for the planet is to have a tubal ligation soon. Real soon.

**************************************************************************************************************************

Gender has been a hot topic in a couple of the internet places I frequent.

DGR and two of its founders, Derrick Jensen and Lierre Keith, have come under attack as being “trans phobic”.
I admit up front that I don’t fully understand the nuances of the disagreement between the RadFeminists and the Trans people, because they are defining the words “sex” and “gender” in different ways and then the disagreement spirals out from there.

From my perspective, when I look at nature, I see two sexes: male and female. Males have one set of body parts and females another and then there are the body parts common to both.

Gender is about culture, roles, conditioning and as such it is much more difficult to pinpoint causes and effects.

As I understand the ignition point on this particular flare up, it was that a Trans person wanted access to a woman only space at a convention. The women discussed it, and decided to deny access. The person then became verbally and physically confrontational. And it went downhill from there.

It raises the age old question. Does a woman’s “no” mean “no”? Does a woman have the right to deny access to anyone, to control (to whatever extent) their personal space?

I think the answer to that question is yes. DGR, Jensen and Keith are on record as saying the answer is yes.

This does not deny a Trans person’s humanity. This is not violence. This is not phobic.

A sensitive, aware and caring person, when told no, takes no for an answer. To become confrontational, to demand, is entitlement in action.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Limiting Men

  1. pauline says:

    Nice post! I just read the lates DGR post and it is perfectly written and explained. Gender versus biological Sex is defined in it as per Sociological perspectives on Gender and Sex. It is an accurate definition of how these two terms are used culturally and how gender and sex are viewed by society.
    I never thought of myself as a radical feminist because I like wearing makeup, the rare dress, and occasionally shave, when the mood grips me, otherwise, I’m all up in anyone’s face about my human right to equal pay, health care, smashing glass ceilings, etc.
    Based on this essay I would say that I, and most of the women in my life, my daughters especially, are Radical Feminists.
    http://www.deepgreenresistance.org/faq-radical-feminism/#more-6987

    • igotsomethin says:

      Thank you, Pauline!

      I guess I’m a radfem as well, though it’s kinda news to me. I like a little makeup on occasion, skirts are cooler than shorts in summer, and I do shave. So I figured that left me out, too.

      I like DGR and their stance a lot.

  2. leavergirl says:

    Well, I have been hanging in the doomish-collapsitarian-unciv circles for quite some time, and these definitions seem to me made up. Collapsitarians expect a collapse of civ. Some think in terms of all of civ, but most think in terms of industrial civ.

    Doomers cover a whole variety of impending disasters, from peak oil onwards. They have a penchant for panic mongering (viz the articles a few years back decrying we are doomed because we are running out of phosphorus, which we absolutely are NOT). They love panic, they love their daily dose of doomer porn, and they get it from whereever they can get it. By “doom” they mean dire times ahead. Some doomers of course have moved through their doomer porn phase and perhaps that makes them more collapsitarian.

    Preppers can come from these and other groups. Both doomers and collapsitatians tend to want to make their lives and communities more resilient, aware, etc. Uncivilization people are more interested in raising awareness that this civ sucks, and any “reforms” are bullshit. They tend to look to remove themselves from at least some of the trappings of civ.

    Only a small section of the above mottley crew has recently hopped on the NTE bandwagon. I see no indication of doomer = NTEer. Do you have evidence?

    • igotsomethin says:

      Evidence? Are we in a court of law?

      I guess there IS overlap between all of the groups. I came to NTE by way of Jensen, actually. I’m a doomer in that I think we’ve fucked up the planet beyond fixing and we’re gonna pay for it someday, probably sooner rather than later, call it NTE or whatever you want. I’m unaware of doomer porn. What is this?

      Thanks for the proper spelling of collapsitarian! Couldn’t find it anywhere and knew my spelling was wrong.

      This blog doesn’t get into the nitty gritty nuance of every definition…..my goal here is to be a voice for the rest of us….non-intellectuals who are trying to understand the world we live in. I am reflecting what I’ve seen in the areas I go. I had never heard of JMG or JHK or Orlov until about a year ago, and I don’t like any of them.

      But whether or not the definitions are made up, they are helpful, yes? You use them yourself.

      • leavergirl says:

        Don’t bite me head off. It’s fine to make stuff up, as soon as you tell people this is what you are doing.

        I wrote on doomer porn here, FYI:
        http://leavingbabylon.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/doomer-mania-i/

        I don’t much care for those gentlemen either, though at least Greer is courteous most of the time.

        I think the definitions have evolved over quite a few years now. Sure they are helpful. But please keep doomers/collapsitarians and NTErs separate. Let’s say they are a subsection of the above? It will be easier that way to keep peace among the various ideological persuasions that way, IMO.

        On the whole dust up over trans, I saw a great comment by an Indian, who said they were seen in the tribal situations as “two spirit” people, not the same as most of us “one spirits.” They cannot speak for ciswomen, but that doesn’t mean they should be ostracized. Seems like DGR took a hard stance that pissed a lot of people off. (That’s all I know, haven’t looked into it myself.)

      • igotsomethin says:

        I didn’t make it up, I’m just using the definitions as I see them used.

        Thanks for enlightening me on doomer porn.

        DGR didn’t ostracize anyone that I heard. They told a tran person “no” and that person didn’t like the answer. I logged onto EarthFirst!Newswire one morning and saw a hysterical story by “Trashy” about how awful DGR is, etc., and I’ve been trying to understand the conflict ever since. As I said, I don’t get all the nuance. But as a woman, I do want to have say over who comes into my private space (sleeping area, bathroom, etc) because I sure as shit don’t get a lot of say over anything else in the world! Just my 2 cents.

      • leavergirl says:

        So where have you seen the usage of doomer = NTEer?

      • igotsomethin says:

        Don’t remember. Maybe I conflated the two. So there are doomers who are not NTEers? What’s the difference?

  3. leavergirl says:

    As I said, doomers see dire times ahead. Huge problems. Probably a big die-off. Most are not in the “humans will be extinct by 2030” camp at all.

    • igotsomethin says:

      Ah. So it’s the date thing. Well, I get that. No one knows, even Guy and he’s said so. The 2031.6 was Malcolm Light’s assessment.

      • leavergirl says:

        Well, it’s actually more than that. The date is an artifact. Doomers do not generally think that human extinction is in the offing near term. I think that’s more accurate, and not linked to McPherson in particular.

  4. witsendnj says:

    I’m confused – and curious – about DGR. What “womans’ space” was the transperson denied access to? Have you got a link to Trashy’s account of what happened?

    • igotsomethin says:

      It was at a conference in Oregon, I believe, and a space had been designated female only for sleeping/bathing. I do not have a link to Trashy’s account. I’d have to look for the date it was posted on EF!Newswire.

      • igotsomethin says:

        Ok, I just checked and it was May 14 or something really close to that date.

      • witsendnj says:

        Thanks – I’ll google it. I was wondering what the “space” was – sleeping/bathing/toilet or just a hangout. I just wrote this to Pauline – I have a lot of sympathy for someone who self-identifies as female being rejected by other females. It almost seems like the antithesis of what you’d expect DGR or people concerned about justice to propound – the freedom to not be discriminated against based on who you are. From a transgender person’s pov, it could well be construed as no different than, say, wasp-only clubs because other races or religions are “inferior”.

        And I might add that, as a born-female, I would feel exceedingly uncomfortable sharing toilet & sleeping space with the guys. Unless the women at DGR had reason to believe that the transwoman was faking her trans in order to voyeuristically and sneakily peer at their titties in the shower, I tend to think she should have been accepted as who she identifies as.

        But since I know next to nothing about that particular situation I’ll add that is subject to learning more about the facts of the matter.

      • igotsomethin says:

        I tend to agree with you, but in this particular case, the case of the tabling incident, that person had not yet become a female and would not accept no for an answer. I have a lot of problems with that.

        I don’t know a whole bunch about the whole trans issue. In this case, I think it was about entitlement. From what I hear, this is not the first time a trans person was insisting on joining women in a womans only space…this seems to be the point of contention.

      • leavergirl says:

        Yikes! So a cross dressing man was demanding access to the women’s space?! That takes the cake. Mindboggling.

      • igotsomethin says:

        Well, I don’t know where this person is/was in their transition, so I wouldn’t refer to him as a cross dresser. Insensitive, entitled, yes. This is a pattern of some, repeat some, trans people (formerly men people) in that they demand to enter women’s spaces. There is also evidence that trans people try to manipulate and coerce women into sex.

        Feminists have a problem with the hyper femininity of some trans people.

        It’s an involved argument and I make no pretense of understanding all of the nuances.

        All I’m saying is that when a woman says “no” it damn well means “no.” If that is not respected, then the woman is not respected. That’s all I’m saying here.

  5. witsendnj says:

    Good grief! I have so far found these 2 articles and haven’t got through all the comments yet – but it’s clear that the transgender rift with DGR was brewing for a very long time and runs very deep – well beyond one individual:

    http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/deep-green-transphobia-ii/#comments

    http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/deep-green-reclamation/

  6. paulineschneider4p says:

    “they appear to be very ready to turn women into reproductive factories, to ensure that biology is destiny.” Indeed, they do, and Orlov continues on this tack, calling women shameless who would question the authority of a patriarchal cult, in light of human extinction, as if potential extinction makes it right an noble to rape women and force them to breed under the auspices of a patriarchal cult. It is quite unappealing.
    I’ll take extinction if I had to live with men like him.

    • igotsomethin says:

      I haven’t been back to his site for a while, so thanks for the update. These kind of attitudes are why I frequent few sites around the internet. I only go to Doomsteaddiner once in awhile, and found, to my dismay, a two part essay that was…….poorly written. So, cross another one off the favorites bar. I add and subtract quite a bit. None of them are going to be perfect 100% of the time, but there are places where women and men are equal partners most of the time and that’s good enough to keep me away from the places where this is not true. BoysClubOrlov will be fine without us. We’ll be fine without it.

    • leavergirl says:

      Tee-hee-hee. Nailed it, Pauline.

      Though I would add that Orlov is mainly outraged that women would question HIM and his behavior. Just not allowed, you know. 😉

Thanks for reading!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s