Great American machinations revisited: W. Burroughs’ plan to eliminate females

by cherryblossomlife

William S. Burroughs was a great American intellectual, novelist, poet and essayist, considered to be “one of the most politically trenchant, culturally influential, and innovative artists of the 20th century”. He is something of a cult figure, having had eighteen books published, six collections of short stories and four collections of essays, excluding the books in which his interviews and letters appeared. He also recorded with numerous performers and musicians, and made many appearances in films.

Burroughs held a strong belief that women were superfluous and should be eliminated. He wrote seriously on this issue, which I will address in a moment. But in case you are under the impression he was being ironic by promoting this grand plan of his, it’s worth pointing out that he “eliminated” his own wife with a gun, getting away with it, unpunished, on the grounds that her murder was “a sex game gone wrong.”

No charges were pressed and after a few days he was released from police custody.

Umpteen intellectuals backed his political opinions. They were not at all horrified by his stance on eliminating women and wholeheartedly supported his writing, so we can only assume that they were in favour of it. J. G. Ballard declared Burroughs to be “the most important writer to emerge since the Second World War. Norman Mailer called him “the only American writer who may be conceivably possessed by genius.” This should come as no surprise: Mailer was also in the habit of eliminating females, or attempting to, as exemplified by the stabbing of his own wife.

Before analyzing the motivation behind Burroughs’ master plan,  I feel it is important to offer some context, because I happen to believe that without it all information is arbitrary and meaningless.

At risk of labouring the Radfem point, I’m going to reaffirm the fact that women rarely harm men, never rape them, and on the rare occasion a woman does kill a man it is usually in self-defense. Aside from the dangers posed by other men ( i.e themselves, their own sex class), men live a carefree existence. They have the luxury of living in a world in which they are not preyed upon by women.

Women, meanwhile, try their best to try to get on with their lives.  But it is difficult. Though they wish men no harm, sadly this sentiment is not reciprocated. Statistics show that men, in every country in the world, are a grave danger to women. Two women are murdered by their spouse every week in the UK alone. A woman is beaten by her partner every 15 seconds in the U.S., and three women are killed every day by possessive lovers and abusive husbands. The psychological ramifications are great. Women are are acutely aware of the fact that they are prey, and (whether they realize it or not) this effects many of the decisions they make in their daily lives.

In espousing femicide, Burroughs is simply exposing and echoing the (age-old) desire of the male sex to destroy females. Nothing new there.

It is also worth examining the extraordinary fact that even though women are being annihilated by men daily, they still love them. We simply cannot escape the fact that women love men. They love their lovers, their husbands, their sons, their work colleagues. They respect and admire them. They enjoy men’s company. They seek to spend time with them. They aim to please them by adorning themselves. Most of all, women desire a deep connection with men, or one man: to love and be loved in return. This is the sum of how women (in their innocence and goodness) feel towards men as a group. We know this because every year women marry men, even though other economic paths besides prostitution have now opened up to them. Loving men seems to be part of the female condition, or at least part of women’s feminine conditioning.

Back to Burroughs. He found women’s existence problematic, and decided the solution was for them to be eliminated. Their crime?  Female sexuality. Women’s insistence on blurring the boundaries between sex and love was an evolutionary mishap which had to be overcome for the good of the species. Quoted from Anti-Climax by Sheila Jeffreys:

“Burroughs explains the problem of the existence of women thus:

“In the words of one of the great misogynists, plain Mr Jones, in Conrad’s Victory, ‘Women are a perfect curse.’ I think they were a basic mistake, and the whole dualistic universe evolved from this error.”

Women were unregenerately anti-sexual by their very nature and poisoned society with their baleful influence, particularly in those societies he saw as matriarchal such as America. They were, he decided, responsible for the control of consciousness through suppression of eroticism and the supremacy of the family. Women were not just responsible for making the world anti-sex by inventing love and thus making men’s lives miserable, they were even responsible for racism!

The whole Southern worship of women and white supremacy is still the policy of America. It’s a matriarchal, white-supremist country. There seems to be a very definite link between matriarchy and white supremacy.” (Jeffreys, Anti-Climax, pp. 75)

His ramblings prove that he, like so many men, believed women knew nothing about sex and that this was some sort of fault in their genetic makeup, a line of thinking which perhaps stemmed from his erroneous patriarchal assumption that women are the add-ons of the species and while males are the original human prototypes. (Science proves the opposite is true)

Women’s backwardness was apparently responsible for much misery in society, and this could be remedied by strictly controlling the amount of females born. He had a cruel prescription for those who were allowed to exist: they were not to be granted any involvement with their babies (I say it is cruel, because women have a tendency to love their babies).

“Burroughs had plans to ensure that boy children never had contact with women because ‘boys who have never had contact with a woman would be quite a different animal’ and would therefore never be contaminated into thinking that sex could be anything other than what he intended. This was to be achieved by the cloning of boys from cells in men’s intestines to produce ‘identical twins of people [i.e men] gifted with exceptional talent or beauty. All these themes appear frequently in Burroughs’ books. The Naked Lunch is full of diatribes against matriarchy, which is held responsible for creating hostility to homosexuality. The Wild Boys (1972) presents a Burroughs fantasy which, in an interview in May 1972, he is prepared to call both a desirable scenario and a prediction. In this fantasy boys are parthenogenetically created via anal intercourse, and grow up uncontaminated by women, to live in violent gangs, dedicated to killing each other in different ways. The Soft Machine (1968) proposed the separation of the sexes in childrearing and education until women became unecessary.”

And yet here, unwittingly, Burroughs reveals the true root of his misogyny. Of all misogyny, in fact. It is not women’s insistence on blurring the boundaries between love and sex that is the root of his rancour, as he claims. His true motivation is more ancient. It is the phenomenon women recognize instantly when misogynistic men speak and write. It is connected to women’s life-giving capacities,  the age-old blight crippling the male psychological make-up: it is of course, womb envy.


73 Comments to “Great American machinations revisited: W. Burroughs’ plan to eliminate females”

  1. And yet we continue to have men claiming misogyny doesn’t exist because men supposedly ‘like and worship women.’ Burroughs is clearly one of those innumerable ‘isolated incidents’ wherein his misogyny has no connection whatsoever with how men created the male supremacist/patriarchal system or how men justify their women-hating diatribes.

    Unfortunately Burroughs is not unique in his women-hating pontifications because Aristotle (that much over-rated Ancient Greek philosopher) also claimed women were not human since the default human species can only be male!

    The male supremacist system is a very clever one wherein it has for centuries promoted the belief that women cannot exist without male approval or men’s love as well as the fact women have to co-exist with men daily. Unlike racism and homophobia we women can never, ever get away from our male oppressors. Then too male supremacy has always promoted the lie that a women does not exist unless she is in a relationship with a male. This subtlety is so obvious it is rendered invisible because it is supposedly ‘natural and hence cannot be changed. So we women continue to be fed the lie that a woman’s worth rests in whether or not she meets men’s approval. Men however do not need women’s approval to exist – because they are supposedly the default human.

    In fact the reverse is true – men depend on women for their everyday needs and resources whereas women do not depend on men – apart from economic survival and that is only because men ensure they are the ones who retain control over economic resources – not women. Men are not the ones caring for children; undertaking the unpaid and unnoticed housework etc. no that is women’s work and hence it is rendered invisible.

    Men would not exist were it not for female reproduction but that too has been co-opted by men because as Aristotle claimed it was/is men who are the ones who create the child whereas women are merely empty vessels waiting to be filled with the man’s seed!

    Loving To Survive by Dee Graham et al proves 100% how the male supremacist system deceives women and why women internalise the belief their sole reason for existing is to serve men.

  2. Uhhhg! Yes, womb envy. I see more and more evidence of that everyday. I don’t understand it, it’s as if some men can’t even share that tiny bit of reproductive power with women. It’s not as if women are ruling the world or something, it’s just that our bodies play an important role in reproduction. Just that little tiny bit of reality seems to be too much for some men to handle, they want it all, they want more, they despise the fact that this one thing does not belong to them.

    Psychologically, I don’t understand any of it. It’s a generalization, but women tend to understand sharing and fairness, while mens idea of fair is, “I get it all, you get none.” It’s like speaking a different language entirely. Maybe we raise them this way, maybe they’re born like this, but regardless, many men feel like they have a divine right to EVERYTHING, and if you (a woman) have anything at all, it’s an injustice. Even those who aren’t trying to literally annihilate women, still think they are entitled to all the finances, to the biggest piece of chicken at the table.

  3. yes, femicide (including but not limited to female infanticide) is practiced in many places around the world. its not as if he was writing anything revolutionary at all; this seems to have been missed by the liberal dickwads and others who praised him. what else is new? as usual men are completely trite and banal in their circle-jerking woman hatred, while praising each other for being so interesting. LOL they wish. seems to me they just enjoy patting each other on the behind for any reason. or no reason at all. pat, pat!

    in reality, they are completely ignorant (or spin disingenuously regarding) the actual reality of girls and women around the world who suffer tremendously at the hands of men and only men. and how much the global culture of femicide (in all its manifestations and degrees) benefits men and only men. and yes, not only do they envision a future like the one you describe, they are taking steps in their own lives towards harming women and are actually harming women, often multiple women being victimized by one man. on an enormous scale, men are raping, abusing, impregnating, attempting to murder and actually murdering women they actually know. the lack of both generalized and specific, focused outrage at all of this, both the future vision and the immediate reality of all this is evidence of both generalized and specific male-supremecy thats is so accepted, ingrained and self-perpetuating, its invisible.

  4. I think it’s not so much literal womb envy as envy of what female reproduction signifies. The ones who give birth (women) are rightly the ones who head their own families, communities, societies. Men crave that social status, so they set up their society to give it to them. But they are forever reminded of who should really have that status by the simple existence of women being women and doing what they can’t.

  5. i dislike the term “womb envy” too, without explanation and analysis of what is meant by this.”envy” doesnt even begin to describe mens feelings and regard and actions WRT reproduction, or female reproduction. they are quite obviously and notably fixated on it, and the causes AND EFFECTS of this fixation must be vetted, analyzed and shouted from the rooftops.

  6. is it homophobic to point out how male culture is basically male-homo-erotic? cause it kind of is, and i am not the only one whos noticed. they way they support each other and constantly praise each others special-snowflakeness reminds me of the ways women are constantly required to build up men in the context of het romantic partnerships. and then theres the literal ass-slapping….

    or is it just that men require this sort of coddling and unconditionally-supportive treatment from absolutely everyone? or what?

  7. Another spectacular case of reversal. Like every other self-loathing homosexual man, Burroughs desperately wanted the straight guys’ approval. He couldn’t see that their contempt for him derived mostly from their contempt for women. I keep noticing milder versions of this in some conservative gay intellectuals who jabber on about how unlike women they are — they’re men! MANLY MEN, I tell you!!! But they have no idea what women are really like as people; they simply project onto us all the stereotypically female qualities they’re afraid of being associated with — and when feminists point out that that view of women is a lie, they stick their fingers in their ears and start muttering about the decline of Western civilization.

    But really, most straight men, including the hard-core misogynists, have no interest in bonding with gay guys over anything. The gay conservatives who persist in the delusion that some day, their straight brothers join hands with them against the common female enemy are going to have a long, lonely wait. I’ve never met a straight man who thought Burroughs was anything other than a disgusting freak. Norman Mailer zeroed in on him because he was a freak collector, and had a real talent for missing the obvious about nearly everything.

  8. Homophobia and misogyny are pretty closely entwined. When you have so much hatred directed towards you, towards the female form, sometimes you can’t help but wonder if men are even attracted to women at all. We’re supposed to truss ourselves up in heels, make up, distorted waists, until you start to resemble an insect more than a female human being. I have a friend who makes me laugh because she has a theory that men are actually sexually oriented to insects. When you take a good look at all these wasp waists, long legs, and exaggerated thorax, she starts to make sense.

    Anyway, all the gay men I know actually really seem to like women. I’m sure there are some jerks out there somewhere, but truthfully, most of the woman hatred seems to come from so called heterosexual dudes. Was part of William S. Burroughs’ problem that he was gay and repressed? Maybe. He did develop a heroin addiction quite young and blamed women for all the world’s problems.

  9. This has been men’s pattern since our ancestors stood upright. Whoever possesses a precious resource (i.e. wombs in this case) needs to be conquered, subjugated, colonized, tortured and slaughtered occasionally to remind the wards of their oppressors’ power over their lives….AND have their psyches twisted and poisoned with sadistic, bigoted propaganda (internalized misogyny, anyone? Stockholm Syndrome?) in order to complete the terroristic campaign of calculated, systematic dehumanization. As we have seen in history with white people colonizing and ravaging the planet, and enslaving and wiping out millions of people in order to rob/control the earth’s of its finite resources, men terrorize and colonize– subtley and not so subtley– the minds, bodies, and spirits of women and girls all because we possess a bodily function that’s all too necessary for human survival. We are serfs and house-slaves to them. They hate us for possessing what is the greatest resource in existence, so they punish us for it with systemic misogyny and call it “love”.

  10. Fuck! It’s “subtly” not “subtley”. And forget the “of its” following “the earth’s”. I’m such a Yank.

  11. We simply cannot escape the fact that women love men. They love their lovers, their husbands, their sons, their work colleagues. They respect and admire them. They enjoy men’s company. They seek to spend time with them. They aim to please them by adorning themselves. Most of all, women desire a deep connection with men, or one man: to love and be loved in return. This is the sum of how women (in their innocence and goodness) feel towards men as a group.

    I’m female and I never felt any of the above. I have no feelings at all towards men or boys, and statements such as the above just draw a blank from me. It’s not possible to have a “deep connection” with men or a man because men are shallow and superficial creatures. I think the “love” you speak of is based on projection onto men of qualities and traits they don’t have and that the yearning is really for the mother, other women and the female Self.

  12. doesnt the fact that normal mailer tried to stab his wife to death kind of *hint* that he wasnt just “collecting freaks” when he supported borroughs? i mean really.

  13. haha i said “normal” mailer. its funny cause its true.

  14. Before analyzing the motivation behind Burroughs’ master plan, I feel it is important to offer some context, because I happen to believe that without it all information is arbitrary and meaningless.

    😉 indeed it is.

  15. For many years I was desperate for men’s validation, to be in their company, and identified only to men, because that’s what I was tought to do as I was a kid. but what I felt for men was definitely not love, but more a form of terror mixed with awe which I afterwoods learned was trauma bonding. I have never ever felt this for women, because I’m not oppressed by women, although we do project internalised misogyny / patriarchal violence against ourselves.

    Yeah it’s not so much womb envy as utter fury of being insignificant (or so they think) in the production of life and community. Womb envy fetishizes a part of women’s reproductive organs, what patriarchy does all the time – plus men are all too happy when we say that, cause it provides a very convenient justification for what they do to us and at the same time completely erases the hatred aspect.

    Men still havn’t gone past that basic tantrum and primary trauma of being insignificant in the production of life, of having been created second, of not being the default human, and thereby having an inferior, subservient role to that of women (although when it’s in the service of life, it has nothing to do with the prurient form of patriarchal subservience based on slavery, domination and hierarchy – women are in the service of life too, they litterally give their bodies for the human community). Recently a man happened to be there when I was trying to open a women’s eyes about the horror of patriarchy, and he seeped in, completely off-topic and seeming quite upset, saying “yeah but women are horrible to men too, they completely instrumentalise us, we’re only just used as sperm distributors and that’s it”.

    Well, I didn’t even reply to him (wtf? Boohoo, I’m just a sperm donor?? How dare he compare this to the suffering of women who endure forced pregnancies, rape, male violence of all sorts, innumerable forms of torture by men?? This is really telling of what men experience under patriarchy compared to women) but it struck me how so traumatized men still are about this, how they still hate us so much for this. Grow up for f ‘s sake! Stop whining, stop behaving like kids!!

  16. Well okay FCM, but until you (or somebody else) comes up with a better term, “womb envy” sounds about right to me. Though mostly because many people are already familiar with Freud’s’ penis envy theory and everything that term is supposed to signify. So when they hear “womb envy” they already have a clue what you may be referring to.

    However, they only envy/resent/ the womb because it can gestate BOYS. And even if they developed an alternative method of reproduction with suited their homo-erotic fantasies, they’d still need a class of people exclusively set aside to act as their designated Dumping Ground. Hence all the plastic blow-up dolls, robotic imitations of living fucktoys, and drugs designed to induce Stepford Wives in actual women,

  17. Yeah it’s not so much womb envy as utter fury of being insignificant

    Yes, exactly. But “feeling insignificant” because one lacks a penis at birth, is exactly what is meant by the term “penis envy”.

  18. Someone above said they couldn’t relate to women’s “love” of men. I think a lot of what looks like love is simply dependency, and making the best of a bad situation. Sure slaves appear to “love” their masters, but did they?
    And as a lesbian, I don’t love men. I can work with them, deal with them, be in business meetings with men. They pretty much leave me alone, and I the same. However, my purpose is to serve and make the world better for women. Since straight women are so entwined with men, the least I can do is make sure their interests are both overtly and subtly protected, even when they are so enthraled with their men, I know the danger of this.

    “Normal” Mailer was roundly defeated in debates with prominent feminists of the day. He was also responsible for getting a murdered released from prison because the man’s novels were so great. The man then got released and killed someone else. Forgot the name of the guy but it was a big cause celeb a few decades ago.

    Why is it so hard for men to believe that they are the terrorists of the world, a danger to women and other men. Since most men aren’t macho super muscle types, they get preyed on by other men too. No men I know fear women in a dark parking lot, but all humans fear men in similar situations.

    Gay men are hated by straight men because gay men are “like women.” The fact that gay men don’t have sex with women, and love men is a huge threat to the straight guys. It’s why effeminate men are the most reviled and attacked even within the gay community. I can’t tell you the number of times “het appearing” gay men have trashed “swishy men.” Gay conservatives love to trash the effiminate history of gay male culture. I do hear straight women trashing butch lesbians, that’s another topic. Gender non-conforming women get trashed by everyone too, but in the case of effieminate gay men the hatred is toxic and in your face.

    Clueless gay men who are anti-feminist, and almost all of them are, simply don’t get that their freedom is tied to women’s liberation. They will be beaten and attacked more the more patriarchy is in power. The worst countries for gay men are also the worst countries for women. But they don’t seem to really get that, and thus, there is the lunatic fringe of gay male writers like Bourroughs who kill women, or use them as objects to hide their gayness.

    It is necrophilia in men, and men will do anything, put themselves and others at great risk because they simply worship deal, and can’t imagine life. I don’t think men know what life really is all about at all.

  19. P.S. Thanks Cherryblossom for writing this. I just LOVE all your work. It is unbelievable!!!

  20. old sigmund was describing something that does not exist, of course. but whatever he was referring to (that didnt exist) also didnt cause women to rape and kill and mutilate and operate on men. and “feeling” insignificant and actually being insignificant are obviously different. 🙂

    the term is problematic, but perhaps its not technnically innacurate? men do tend to rape and kill over things they wish they had, but dont. ie. they conflate envy with “justification for violence.” many of them would kill their own mothers for a nickel…but they also do it for free. men often conflate anger and violence as well.

  21. oh! what do y’all think the term “penis envy” means? The way I understand it, Freud was assuming that there were innate characteristics associated with possession of a penis (which upon closer examination only turns out to be socially constructed male privilege) and so then he extrapolated from his inaccurate factoid to assume that women are jealous of these innate male characteristics.

    But there are no privileges associated with possession of a uterus (in fact just the opposite). Yet the ability to gestate life IS a real “thing” (don’t know what word to use, sorry) and men want this mysterious “thing” desperately. So I guess another question would be: what does the ability to gestate “others of one’s own kind” mean to MEN?

  22. also, are we very sure we want to be calling a man who MURDERED HIS WIFE a homosexual? im having some sort of cognitive dissonance here. sorry, but allegedly straight men fuck up their wives and fuck men before, during and after too. straight, gay, whats the difference in a case like this?

    according to wiki, later in life he cut off his own finger to impress some dood he was in love with, but before that HE KILLED HIS WIFE. im just saying. interestingly, he apparently wasnt in the habit of playing sexxxay-william-tell with any of his male lovers, or at least he never shot any of them in the head that we know about. this dood was a misogynist, plain and simple.

  23. Whether you call it “womb envy” or “controlling the means of production” the obvious fact is that men have expressed their outrage throughout history that they may not really be made in the image of God and therefore Godlike because they cannot pull a baby out of their ass.
    Most of them are not as up front about it as Burroughs. Women do what only God is supposed to be able to do, and many men hate us for it.

  24. i read “caliban and the witch” at your recommend TBW. it sheds some light on this as well. thanks

  25. “Women do what only God is supposed to be able to do, and many men hate us for it.”

    …and “God” doesn’t even exist. He’s just a figment of some misogynists imagination, which makes women doubly more mysterious and powerful as the only true creators

    and LOL. yes FCM. Why are they calling him homosexual, or allowing him to identify as such, when his excuse for killing his wife was a sex game? How weird.

    THen again, I agree with SheilaG that he was probably using his wife to hide his gayness.

    THank you for liking the post SheilaG!

  26. seriously. whyd they go and invent a god in the first place, let alone one that CREATES LIFE? and why make him male? this is all their fault. they didnt have to do that.

  27. @FCM. I’m not using the phrase “collecting freaks” to trivialize anything Norman Mailer did. The man had a fascination with psychopaths, and liked to surround himself with them because he looked slightly more normal by comparison. SheilaG mentioned the murderer, Jack Abbott, who Mailer got sprung from prison, on the grounds of his (very modest) literary talent. (I read the guy’s book; the best thing in it is a detailed description of what it’s like to eat cockroaches in solitary confinement. Apparently it helps if you mash them up in Wonder Bread.) Then there was Gary Gilmore, another of his pet murderers. Then there were his revolting essays about the psychopath as a kind of modern saint. Personally, I’ve known a few freak collectors on a smaller scale; I think it’s the sign of a dangerous person.

  28. “Men still havn’t gone past that basic tantrum and primary trauma of being insignificant in the production of life, of having been created second, of not being the default human, and thereby having an inferior, subservient role to that of women”

    🙂 witchwind

  29. do people “collect” things that they identify with? its an odd choice of words, although i accept your explanation. clearly these doods were the same. mailer was probably still pissed that his wife managed to survive, and was jealous of burroughs that his didnt.

  30. Yes, I think some do.

  31. yttik, I’ve noticed that gay men tend to like women too. The woman-hatred I’ve experienced has all come from straight men, never gay men. Although I’m sure gay men are just as repulsed by the female body. Even so, I believe we have allies in gay men, going by personal experience alone. I have a very good gay friend who I went to school with, and he’s never had any qualms about saying he believes women are more intelligent than men. He suggested it before the thought had even crossed my mind. We share a state of oppression, after all. ANd, well gay men are gay after all. Much better company than the “dullards”

  32. you may want to listen to lesbian women on that point though, who have worked with gay men politically for decades without being biased over “friendships” with them. the misogyny is rampant with them just like with straight men, and gay men dont bother hiding it bc dont need women for sex and domestic servitude. ask sheila, she knows.

  33. dont forget its mainly gay male designers who are putting women in mile-high stilettos and other restrictive clothing. that evinces woman-hatred on its face, as well as not seeing us as human beings with human bodies, but as clothes hangers and mannequins and gobs of malleable dough without internal organs or tissues and fluids that expand and contract throughout the day.

  34. yes, I know. this is tricky territory. I’ve read Beauty and MIsogyny, read literature by gay men. They are misogynistic. But what they have in common with women is their fear of straight men. And… they actually LIKE spending time with women. I really believe they do, which is weird, because as you say they don’t need women for anything. And (but this is only my opinion) I believe they have the ability to appreciate women’s quirkiness and originality in ways that straight men don’t. Women’s “fabulousness” (read: ability to crack a good joke) goes over straight men’s heads. All straight men are supremely conservative. Women and gay men aren’t, basically. This is the common ground.

  35. I used to hang around with a bunch of gay guys in my early feminist times, hoping they would be more understanding and open-minded than the straight guys. Well, that’s bulls***, because they were no less misogynist, that’s for sure.
    There were the gay guys that openly hated and despised women, and were perfectly happy to hang around only with boys, and that was the very reason why they did so in the first place (this is the “ick factor” that Sheila Jeffreys talks about, and that most gays share to a certain extent). There were the guys that irritatingly glorified and celebrated phallic hypermasculinity and hyperfemininity (and if you’d criticise it and find it offensive, you’d be “discriminating” them), there were the gays that just looked plain straight and were desperate to fit in patriarchy. All of them were only concerned about having sex with each other. They tolerated me, but as in all male-dominated groups, everything was determined according to their interests, experiences, etc, and my interests as feminist/women never even scratched the surface. I had to shut up, otherwise I was spoiling the atmosphere, blablabla.

    Basically, non of them were interested in how they as a group participated fully in maintaining women’s oppression, and benefited from it. They were always, all of them, so smug about being gay, like it was the most revolutionary and transgressive thing that could be done in patriarchy. I’d say gay men may be even more patriarchal than straight men in that they push homosociality and the veneration of men to a greater extent – most of them have nothing to share with the lesser human beings (women). Also, a lot of gayness is attached to crossdressing, namechanging, which is in continuity with twanssexualism. My friends all had their female version of their first name, and called themselves like that in private. I found it insulting.

    One even told me: “when homophobia (read: homophobia against men) will disappear then sexism will disappear too”.

    Hahaha! Dudecentrism in all its splendour.

    And by the way, being gay didn’t stop them from sexualising me.

  36. Okay, I will leave this point now! I am wondering, (before I go, can’t resist) if there is perhaps a cultural element to this, because where i come from gay men sort of didn’t hang around with other gay men in groups. They hung around with women.One gay man with a group of female friends was the norm.

    ETA: to be fair though, I do come from the back of beyond. It’s possible there just wasn’t enough gay men to form a group.

  37. “dont forget its mainly gay male designers who are putting women in mile-high stilettos and other restrictive clothing. that evinces woman-hatred on its face, as well as not seeing us as human beings with human bodies, but as clothes hangers and mannequins and gobs of malleable dough without internal organs or tissues and fluids that expand and contract throughout the day.”

    Yeah, that’s a disaster for women, it’s impact not only on models but also on girls who grow up with such images every day are horrible. They created a humanitarian crisis, whereby young girls are underfed, malnourished, live in constant self-hatred (especially of the body – when I hear of twans talking about “dysphoria”, may I ask WHO suffers most from “not feeling adequate in one’s body”???) and are terrorised into doing daily body-punishing practices just to appease men.

  38. @CBL — my comment re Burroughs was not intended as a blanket statement about all gay men, but rather a certain kind. The gay men I’ve known have been all over the ballpark in their attitudes towards women. Some have genuinely had a clue about feminism, demonstrated by the way they act on a day to day basis. Others have been every bit as bad as what some of the other posters have described here. Most are somewhere in between. The misogynistic ones I’ve known tend to have a lot of internalized homophobia, and instead of dealing with it, they project that self-loathing onto women.

    @FCM I agree with you, btw, that a gay or bi man can also be a misogynist just because he’s a misogynist, but I think there’s an added element with gay men. Some sadly still believe that they’re deficient somehow as men, and develop extremely sexist/misogynistic attitudes as a way of compensating.

    I’ve noticed that some gay men who get along well with straight women do NOT like lesbians, and are extremely vocal about it. Some of it is the “ick factor,” but at a deeper level, I think it’s because they don’t like being reminded of the connection between sexism and homophobia. It just takes the fun out of too many things. There’s also a politically and socially conservative subtype of this group, that clings to the idea that someday, conservative straight men will accept him as a brother in arms, and they will sit around drinking brandy, smoking cigars, and eliminating the social safety net together. Then they will duck into the steam room for a quick…

  39. all “minority” men would seem to have good reasons for allying with women for womens liberation, yet none of them ever do. they all enjoy their male power too much, even as they deny, deny deny that they have any power at all.

  40. “…socially conservative subtype of this group, that clings to the idea that someday, conservative straight men will accept him as a brother in arms, and they will sit around drinking brandy, smoking cigars, and eliminating the social safety net together. Then they will duck into the steam room for a quick…” LOL Loup Loup Garou!

    There is a very conservative group of gay men who sell out every body… think Andrew Sullivan and his pro-war stance, or the Log Cabin Republicans — the gay republican group. Hardly any lesbians are a part of this.

    Gay men have never been good allies to lesbians, and basically steal our labor… during the AIDS epidemic lesbians got all involved with this, and I believe we have never recovered as a community, because of the huge energy rip off.
    However, gay men are better conversationalists than straight men, and actually do know how to cook and entertain well. It is the only time you ever see men throwing parties where they do all the work from beginning to end.

    Many are pretty well read in feminism, but will still never give up male privilege— it’s pretty much a waste of time working with them politically, and if lesbians do get leadership they really resent it. They take advantage of straight women, and those straight women are lesbian haters too typically..because the gay men and the straight women are all into fashion and dress up and entertainment industry stuff. Again, I wouldn’t waste my time.


    It sure does seem homoerotic- men doing what they do best- destroying things… all to support of a man who knowingly protected a predator for years. And, SPORTS! Nope, not homoerotic at all. Snicker… Gay, straight, whatever: all men come together over their hatred for women.

  42. Yes, as a radfem you can’t de-politicize the relationship you have with any man, be that “love” with a straight man or friendship with a gay man. I dunno, though. I do love the gay friend in question. When I go back to the UK he picks me up from the airport, I stay at his place, he cooks for me, we right the world over wine (yes feminism too!), we muse over how best to get his lovely, creative mother to leave his dulllard of a father. We both thought I was a lesbian for a while (early twenties), but the het force was too strong. Again, radical feminism is political, so I’m aware this example is useless in theory. And no, he wouldn’t give up his male privilege would he, so that gives me some perspective.

  43. Cherryblossom, my experience with gay male friends is the same, relatively positive.

    I just happen to find it to be an interesting dilemma/contradiction. Men who allegedly like women (heterosexuals) sure seem to spend a whole lot of time hating everything female and loving on masculinity.

  44. I think that it is not personal situations that count here Cherry. Of course all men aren’t one thing or another, it is just a class of people and their behavior over time that is at issue. We can see that male rule and male privilege has been very destructive to the world as a whole, and we don’t see the massive rape, torture, porn etc. being used by women against men. The latest scandals of the past weeks are just an illustration.

    Women as a class are trapped in the institution of male supremacy, and that is the point of radical feminism, to expose the lie that any dominant class ever is just to the classes with less social standing, political power, and institutional power. Men willingly keep the institutional power going, and it is only when extremes happen…. actual men witnessed the Sadusky man rape boys… there were actual witnesses and reports to college officials at Penn State. A male system simply covers up sex crimes against children, and it is male only domains that are the worst. So we know that men as a social class when isolated in male only social and religious and political spaces— sports, the military, the priesthoods… we know what they do.

    Whether a husband is naughty or nice, it is about the male structure, and the fact that males keep silent or don’t even intervene when they see a man raping a boy… that is how patriarchy is enforced.

    We know that being nice to men, being helpful, working for them or marrying them does not change this system, anymore than black south africans and white south africans being friends changed anything. The entire social and political structure of male supremacy has to be overthrown, and until women enmass rise up, and stop aiding and abetting this system as much as we can, men don’t ever intend to do anything or change. Their lip service is just that!

  45. Can’t say I’ve found gay men any better than straight ones in my life. In my experience, the best one can hope for from gay men is the casual sort of misogyny that can resemble indifference at first glance. But watching gay men interact with each other, and with women, much more common among them is intense, bitter misogyny stemming from envy. Many of them envy and resent us “fish” for all the male attention we “enjoy”.

    This sounds harsh, but it’s true, and it’s not exactly a secret – the first, casually misogynist group often calls out the second, intensely misogynist group on that envy. (Of course they call them out on it casually and halfheartedly, more to mock the 2nd group than to support women). M2Ts suffer from the same envy as the 2nd group, which should tell us something about our “transfeminist” friends, or whatever they call themselves nowadays. .

  46. yes “fish” is what we are called by M2T arent we? gee i wonder why the similarity there?

  47. Hope it’s okay to jump in after much lurking.

    I had a convo recently with a 19 year old two-year “out” gay guy, a friend of my daughter’s for many years. I was discussing tranz issues, that I’ve come to understand better in the radfem blogs following years of very condescending, “Yes, LGTBQQ dogma!” subservience w/o question. I was discussing this issue with gay friend and he admitted, “We don’t really like lesbians. And, we do wish that straight men would f*** us.” He also thought that the trans usurptation of hyper-feminine attributes and my objection to that was very conservative-backlash-ish. It’s interesting, how fawning I was of him, how my daughter and her friends fawn over him, yet he evinced zero sympatico with radfem ideas. It really pisses me off, having worked on the political campaign for a black man’s senatorial race in 1970 (closet gay as well) and was relegated to licking envelopes, and I’m still pissed that women’s energies in support of civil rights ultimately resulted in the spawning of today’s rapcrap glorifying pimps and rape. Is that what you do with your liberation Mr. Rapist Pimp Rapper?

    I try and try, for many years, to imagine who I would be without patriarchy, without gender trauma, without being born into an Army drill Sergent’s family of six kids. The depth of patriarchal conditioning is almost inconceivable to shake. I think of being raised with my mothers and sisters and our larger family,neighbors in an egalitarian community, and having a woman’s temple for red days, and a temple where the wise women adjudicate, will allow wise male elders to visit as long as house rules are respected, another temple structure where sexuality is owned by women and for women’s use with any man they desire….for one night or part of a many-mooned agreement. And, for use with any woman a woman may desire…for one night of part of a many-mooned agreement. The woman’s council would decide which financial efforts to support in the community, and it sure doesn’t benefit some fat ass male of some odd race lining his pockets with flooose for his toys and abusive habits.

    I think women should create an “Old Woman’s Home” type charity, like Hollywood’s Screen Actors Guild has an old folks home/program for their elderly. Women who don’t have children, or women who have few children and some reserve of assets to commit, donate to a living trust that takes care of old women. The answer truly is to not depend on men economically.

    Use the woman’s purse strings power to the max. Now.

  48. PS: I used phrase “odd race” only to mean one different than one’s own, how folks often think of otherness as odd, whatever the race of the other, if it’s different and one is unexposed it can be experienced as odd. Especially how economic resources are allocated and squandered by men often of other races than where they suck the money out of our communities. Hope this isn’t overkill. thanks.

  49. Men willingly keep the institutional power going, and it is only when extremes happen…. actual men witnessed the Sadusky man rape boys… there were actual witnesses and reports to college officials at Penn State.

    Does anyone else notice that whenever a so-called “extreme” is reached and there are headlines and mass indignation over “child” sexual abuse, it is always about boys and boys only and never girls?

  50. Yes. There’s virtually no difference at all between a heterosexual male and a male pedophile who abuses girls. At most, its regarded as unfortunate timing (she wasn’t quite old enough) or an instance of a seductive child. Boys are never made out to be homosexuals in training or seductive children, but girls are made out to be heterosexuals in training and seductive children when they are raped by men. Do the math.

  51. Hey they’d say the girls led them on. Never do they say the boys led them on.
    And the real outrage is over boy sexual abuse by priests, football coaches etc. Girls are just child brides in most parts of the world. Ever heard of a boy groom? I rest my case.

  52. Rape of men is rape. Rape of women is just sex. What qualifies as torture and crime for men is dismissed as normal sexuality for women. Genocide, prostitution (the commercialisation of rape) torture and sadism (in pornography and SM), murder (eg in snuff films) and all sorts of crimes against humanity, are not crimes when it comes to women.

    Crimes committed against women aren’t ever perceived as crimes, because that would require men seeing women as humans, and actually identify to them. However it’s in their interest to keep seeing them as objects, as a sub-species, as slaves, fucktoys and breeding machines.

  53. SheilaG, no kidding, one of my old psychology books actually stated that the sexual abuse of boys was “unnatural” and therefore more damaging. Abusing girls, meh, that’s what they’re there for, right?

    As to the Penn state case, that’s exactly why closed male systems are so dangerous. If there had been a woman in there somewhere, a cop, a social worker, a witness, a lawyer, she would have spoken out. In fact, that’s the only two who ever did speak out, a couple of mothers who filed police reports ten years apart. All those men in the system looked the other way, for decades.

  54. FCM, you are BLOWING MY LOBE, again… this is good. Thanks.

  55. Oh, hey y’all. Here’s a link of stats about pedos if you need to smack anyone down with facts. I’ve been using it- and excerpts from it- quite a lot this week.

    This stood out to me in particular:

    ‘3 in 4 child victims of violence were female.’

  56. The abject horror of the rape of girls and women doesn’t register until and unless it happens to boys and men. THEN its damaging. THEN its humiliating. THEN its sick and selfish, and only sick and selfish men do it. THEN it ruins lives.

    This is what it means to be female doesn’t it? All of this is part of the female experience, its normal when it happens to us. To be damaged by rape is to be a normal woman. To be humiliated and our lives ruined by sick and selfish men is completely normal. To see this as abnormal is to BE abnormal, and to reject what is natural for girls and women. And reject and recognize it we do.

  57. So did women try to report the sexual abuse and rape of the boys at Penn State?

    I know two security guards in Berkeley actually nailed that Garido character, when he’d fooled parol officers for years.
    The women noticed his child victims were behaving like robots and got very suspicious.

    Men just cover for each other all the time, and I really believe when men are elevated to gods the way foothball coaches are or catholic priests or generals you have the perfect storm for abuse of power, rape of girls and boys, and no accountability.

    Male only enclaves are filled with this weird homoerotic subtext, and men believe kids are for the raping, and women are for the using sexually. Rape of boys of course is real rape, rape of a girl gets a guy another film or Oscar deal.

  58. Thanks for the stats doctress!

  59. 😀 (BLUSHING LIKE ALL GETOUT) Glad I can help!

    I notice that too: its’ all fine and good when it only affects women, until it happens to a boy or man. Then it’s RED ALERT!

    The same thing happens all the time. Like, with the TSA groping tons of women, and then some d00d gets his ‘junk’ touched and it’s FRONT PAGE NEWS! ARRRGH!

  60. “So did women try to report the sexual abuse and rape of the boys at Penn State?”

    Yes, back in 1998. The mother of one boy actually had the cops hide in her house while she confronted that coach and got a confession out of him. Then child welfare investigated and decided to close the case. The DA reviewed the evidence and declined to press charges. A few years later the DA, perhaps in a completely unrelated incident, went missing and has never been found. Again in 2008, another mother reported to the police and to her child’s high school. The current Governor was instrumental in getting a grand jury investigation, but it is currently being handled by a woman right now. That mother’s report from 2008 is what has blown the lid off the current case.

    Don’t read that grand jury report, it’s atrocious, but what caught my attention was how many men had actually witnessed this coach raping boys in the shower and all they ever did was mention it to their supervisors. Nobody ever called the cops, nobody ever pulled this guy off his victims, they just walked away and turned it over to their supervisors. That’s why the school is in trouble. There were actual witnesses to this coach’s rapes and they just swept it under the rug.

    Cherryblossom’s post reminds me of that aspect of the Penn state case a bit. This Burroughs guy actually killed his wife and it didn’t occur to anybody that this was wrong? Janitors, coaches, players all saw this guy raping young boys and it didn’t occur to them that it was wrong? Does it really take a woman to come along and say, “hey assholes, it’s not okay to rape and murder people?” Why yes, yes apparently it does.

  61. “Burroughs guy actually killed his wife and it didn’t occur to anybody that this was wrong? “

    No, it didn’T occur to any of those men, those “intellectuals”, that it was wrong.

    This is what radical feminists are dealing with here.

    And it’s fucking scary.

  62. LIke vivisection. Vivisection is the practice of experimenting on, and cutting open, animals, while they’re alive. (Men have done it to people too, in the Nazi death camps, for example)

    Anyway, when women entered the sciences they were horrified to see that vivisection was regarded as normal. Women, with their natural empathy for living things, simply couldn’t bear it. ONe woman in particular fought against male “scientists'” right to vivisection, and it took up her life energies, made her ill. It was a battle every step of the way. These men, apparently, *needed* to disect live animals, and despised her for trying to stop them.
    Her name was Frances Cobbes and over 100 years ago she founded the first ever organization against this practice.

    Men, with all their power, and all their economic and social clout, never founded anything. A woman, with what very little social power she had, somehow managed to establish a political organization.

    Those men probably thought she was mad. Why on earth would you found an organization to protect animals against vivisection? Judging by their reaction, I’m sure they regarded her as a clear-cut case of a mentally ill woman.

    Women and men are like night and day.

  63. well isnt this nice:

    A historian has been arrested in central Russia after police found the corpses of 29 women, dressed as dolls, in his apartment, authorities said this week.

    Police said the man is a well-known historian specializing in Celtic studies who authored many books and articles, and used to be a college professor at some point.

    feminists are wrong about men! waaaaahhhhhhhh!! the *good news* is that this guy was just a grave robber and not a murderer.

  64. I’ve never really said this out loud before because I’m afraid of being called homophobic, but I’ve always felt somewhat insulted by men dressing up like women and acting flamboyant… kind of like a white person painting their face black and singing “Mammy.”

  65. You know, I think you all are right about men having womb envy. Otherwise, why would they be so horrible to us? We obviously never did anything to them. I think it’s because the first civilizations were actually built by women and were matrifocal. It only makes sense, because life flows from the female, and therefore the female is the natural center of life. That’s why they’re so paranoid about becoming nothing more than “sperm donors.” But from what I understand, as far as we can tell, men were always valued members of the community, so I don’t understand where all the insecurity comes from. And the ancient matriarchal societies were peaceful and egalitarian, so it’s not as if the men were being mistreated in any way. I honestly don’t understand what the problem was. It’s not as though having to carry pregnancies and give birth is any kind of a privilege. And what’s so wrong with women taking care of the tribe? Aren’t men always wanting women to take of them anyway? It’s more of duty than a privilege. In other matrifocal species, such as the bonobos, the males don’t have qualms about not being the ones who give birth. Maybe it is the whole male concept of “God” and women having “God like” powers that sent men into a tailspin. I don’t know. Maybe it was men who first elevated women to the level of Goddesses, and then decided to punch The Goddess in the face because they felt so insecure and inferior. And to be honest, in some ways they ARE inferior, but are we supposed to suffer for that? It’s not our fault. Each gender has it’s own strengths and weaknesses. It’s not that one is “better” than the other. It’s just that we have more genetic material, more complex nervous systems, and we live longer. Ha ha ha. But seriously, men can be brilliant and charming and funny and innovative and all of that. They invented most of the modern technology in our world, as they constantly like to rub in our faces. (Not that women were given much of a chance.) So I don’t really understand where all the insecurity comes from anyway. It’s not like they haven’t accomplished anything. Haven’t they proven themselves by now? Or perhaps the technology they created just makes them feel that much more insecure, like now we have even less need of them, especially since it might not be long until we can reproduce on our own. Anyway, I’ve never understood it. If there were a God and if I could meet Her/Him, the one question I would ask is “Why do men hate women?” I just don’t understand.

  66. These ‘intellectual’ men don’t think ahead do they, the implications dig deeper than “man babies yay! women boo!”.
    In order to accomplish this ingenious plan (lightning crackles, *snicker* mpreg) what sadistic practices would the bastard implement? how would he trick or coerce the ‘test subjects’ into it into it, my guess he’d pick those with the least recourse-prostituted women, people of colour and poor people.

    Let’s say the asshole did it, then what? No seriously, did he think most men actually want to be pregnant? or that men would actually risk it? Sure they talk tough and are jealous but they won’t carry through. He seems to have wanted to do just to stick it to women and to prove he can-Mummy look at me ARE YOU LOOKING. LOOOOOK. Perhaps these men just can’t seem to get over the fact they were dependent on a woman and really still are. It reminds me of little kids (often boys) wishing hateful things on their mother just because she disciplined them.

    Boadie, I agree it’s largely womb envy, why else would women be deem “empty vessels” and their “sacred seed and phallus” be just SO important (apart from the fact they can see it) it’s rather transparent; but I can’t help but think there’s more to the hatred. Trying to make women obsolete when they already had women backed into a corner is a little more than a symptom of insecurity; it’s sociopathy. Too many men especially men with power meet the criteria for personality disorder, usually they have some kind of power being men of course existing in a society men have set up which helps create, encourage and reward sociopathy.

    Then we get to the inferred holocaust quandary (tv tropes-credit where it’s due) Ok so in this reality thanks to Burroughs mpreg is a thing, its safe, easy-ish and affordable. What happens to women do we get full human rights? (or at least insultingly only for time his plan takes to effectively breed us out) or do we become some kind other underclass (do we get right to exist after that?) No something tells me that men who desire this want to keep women around, just to abuse.

  67. Burroughs always made my skin crawl. When I used to date d00ds, a few of them were ‘into’ his writing. I dumped them soon after I read enough of his work myself, and his boigraphy (!) and was like NUH UH, OMG runawaaay…

    I can do a really good imitation of his voice, though, and I like to make ‘him’ say feminist, woman-loving things. 😛

  68. So many men kill women without penalty, it’s a trite truism sufficient to keep me away from male humans whenever multiple female witnesses are not in the space.

    Joan Vollmer is the name of the Beat poets’ muse, once the wife of William S. Burroughs, documented in Kerouac’s novels, who was murdered by Burroughs with drinking and a game of William Tell used as the excuse. The erasure of women is so nearly total in phallocracy that Vollmer’s name has been nearly lost in the insanity-of-normality faux cultural awe of Burroughs for offing her and getting away with it.

    Naming another woman in this space, “Survivorthriver” wrote some beautiful “background” words of inspiration in her 11-11-11 replies here. (“Background” in an elemental sense the way Mary Daly wrote about the archaic/future realizing of the naturally existent “background” to trump the phallocrats’ “foreground” patriarchy.)

    It inspires me, and connects all nature-loving women, when “Survivorthriver” thinks of (her words) “being raised with my mothers and sisters and our larger family, neighbors in an egalitarian community, and having a woman’s temple for red days, and a temple where the wise women adjudicate …”

    This is truly re-membering the past for our possible future. We need the sustenance of the “background” and “hopping hope” (Mary Daly’s term) and every connection we can still find to the natural elements … to sustain ourselves against the phallocrats’ intensifying women-hating and attempted destruction of the natural world.

    Sing on, sisters! And survivors! May we yet thrive, as once we did and can do again.

  69. Perhaps I will try again without the link. Has anyone here heard of Tiqqun and their disgusting “theory of a young girl?”

  70. Why don’t you tell us about them and do some analysis for those who are unfamiliar? Thanks

  71. I wish I saw this post earlier, but still wanted to add that I noticed the same thing many women here have — in my personal life, gay men have their own unique brand of misogyny, just like het men, and just like transmales do. I was only harassed for how I dressed (I didn’t dress “like a boy” — all I did was dress comfortably without the active and time-consuming purpose of sexualizing and femme-fetishizing myself) twice. And who projected that onto me as homosexuality, among other things? Two different gay men who were self-loathing and in the closet at the time.

    But why are some good allies? The difference between the self-loathing homosexuals who project that onto women as misogyny and the ones who seem like good allies seems to be whether they are self-loathing closet cases in denial. I also had a gay friend who played the “fag hag” dynamic, but didn’t seem misogynist at all. He was out with people he knew well, and accepted himself. Told his parents in middle school and everything! That probably makes all the difference.

  72. *redundancy alert! self-loathing gays are self-loathing, who knew?

  73. New to reading here, just found this. I’m really (really, really, yes, it’s real, really) glad this blog focused in a radfem way on the male fantasies by prominent men of killing off all the women. For William S. Burroughs of the “beat” poets, it was not only a famous fantasy of his wanting to mass murder women just for being women and a venting of his hatred of women onto the page as a prominent author with a popular following. He also killed his wife and got away with it as if he was a god.

    No wonder women have so much to vent about, with the overwhelming numbers (about 99%) of violent perpetrators against women and children being men. This is a place to let off emotional steam so we can hold our composure and take the higher ground in the actions of daily living (as William S. Burroughs did not). But then, he was emotionally crippled by his male gender, wasn’t he? We could almost feel sorry for them, if men were not so dangerous to women.

    And btw, the MI4 Tom Cruise holiday movie vehicle perpetuates the “male protector of women” myth big time (by his ending language about his wife), while also not having any woman talking to any other woman on screen at any time about anything unrelated to a man. You do in the movie watch a woman kill another woman at close range however, which William S. Burroughs would have liked.

    Is it any wonder we need to blog and comment about this insane world men have built with force for us?

%d bloggers like this: