I See What You Did There. Or, “Witchcraze” Pt. 4? June 13, 2013Posted by FCM in feminisms, gender roles, international, meta, politics.
Tags: london, radfem 2013, reformism
so radfem13 went off without a hitch. mostly. the event took place and the organizers have issued a postgame statement focusing on the legal issues involved in organizing and meeting as women, in women-only space exclusive of men and trannies. the title of the piece is “protecting female-only space in the UK.” an “interim legal statement” was previously published here. the organizers are quoted extensively in an article on “counterpunch” which you can read here (via gendertrender).
relatedly, melinda tankard reist has been reporting on the saga of young feminist talitha stone taking on a misogynist rapper — i will expound on how this is related below. the latest installment of this series is here.
theres a lot going on here, and its hard to know where to start. so lets start at the beginning, which is probably “what are we doing here in the first place” or the point of radical feminism. and lets be brief about it and come to the analysis quickly. radical feminism is about locating, exposing and understanding the root of womens oppression by men, so that we can be liberated from male dominance. so what is the root?
radical feminists understand that the logical endpoint to radical feminist thought is that the root of womens oppression by men is mens sexual and reproductive abuse of women. this is what it means and what it looks like to be oppressed as women by men as men — men dominate and enslave women based on our reproductive biology and mens demonstrated ability and interest in exploiting it.
this means “othering” and pathologizing womens biology by eroticizing intercourse and separating or falsely separating “sex” from reproduction, where there has been no 100% reliable contraceptive invented and there is unlikely to be one ever. and by gaslighting women when we experience reasonable anxiety and aversion to penis-centered “sex” and when we become “unintentionally” knocked up, as if there was any other reasonable outcome to eroticized and normalized PIV considering our female biology and how it works.
it means that men grant themselves the power to open the door to formal, institutional and state control of women by doing the one thing that only men do to only women and which we cannot do to anyone — by impregnating us. note how the big-3 of the patriarchal institutions — medicine, religion and law — all attach to womens bodies and womens lives at the moment of conception, and that this does not happen to men at the moment of conception or ever. its literally a trap, baited and set by men and producing an outcome intended by men that benefits men — control of women, and control of reproduction, including the terms and conditions of intercourse, pregnancy, birth, and childrearing.
this is what our oppression consists of and what it is. men get to name it (sex, fucking, knocked up, mother, father) men get to execute it (intercourse, impregnation) and men get to enforce it (rape, heteronormativity, marriage, and legal remedies and lack thereof for sexual and reproductive offenses). note that i am considering rape to be the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders.
and there is no legal solution to rape — men rape us, period. then when we are inevitably impregnated, we are caught in their trap and cannot escape — pregnancy triggers the system of overlapping controls on women (via reproduction) including medicalizing/legislating/moralizing abortion; the medical and other standards of care that apply to pregnant, laboring and lactating women; and laws and customs that allow surveillance and control of caretakers, primarily women, and defining parenthood itself so that men are included, tethering women to the men who impregnate them for life. all of this is made-up by men and follows no natural (inevitable) law, and is all by patriarchal design.
now, it is important to note that both rape and legal remedies for sexual and reproductive offenses are used by men to enforce their sexual and reproductive control of women. arent they? thus, womens relationship to the law specifically regarding issues of sex and reproduction — and therefore the terms and conditions of both our oppression and our liberation — is not merely complicated but demonstrably conflicted where men obviously use rape and then not-punishing rape, as well as restrictive (legal) controls on pregnant, birthing and mothering women, in order to dominate and enslave us.
so. regarding radfem13, we have organizers statements indicating that “protecting female-only spaces in the UK” is paramount. whether or not this is the case is a question for the community. so i present the question this way: does protecting female-only spaces in the UK cease or even affect mens sexual and reproductive abuse of women? in order to know whether it does or doesnt, or whether radfem13 was radical at all, we must understand what the organizers themselves intend and mean when they say it. and to figure out what they mean, it helps to read what they have said in their own words about what they were trying to accomplish and why. they tell us what they mean where they say that they wish to evoke the Equality Act to preserve their right to legally assemble sans men; and they explain that the reason they need to do this is because gender, meaning stereotypes which emanate from a persons born-sex but which arent endemic to either sex. and that the artificiality and unfairness of “gender” (meaning sex-based stereotypes) apply to both women and men.
so firstly, we have an appeal for legal reform/protections in one country to meet in women-only space; being generous we can assume they mean that they wish to have mens laws interpreted and applied fairly to women generally and globally, although they do not say this. previously, the organizers released this statement which indicates their intention to fight for our right to meet as females; and another statement here concerning the legal issues and difficulties involved in meeting in female-only space in the UK. again, no mention is made of why this is necessary; nowhere in these statements is there an acknowledgement of or an appeal to end womens sexual and reproductive abuse by men, or why its important, or how they wish to achieve this. and (therefore) no mention of anything of any importance to radical feminists or radical feminism as a matter of fact.
from an outsiders perspective (i did not attend) and assuming that it served some legitimate purpose, it seems as if the intent and effect of radfem13 was meta — the purpose of meeting in the UK in women-only space was to prove that they could. one wonders whether this was fair to women who traveled long distances to attend a radical feminist conference, rather than a reformist one, or one centering the legal situation in the UK which does not affect all or even most women globally.
but still, is it possible that, once attendees gathered inside, this conference became radical, or less reformist? sadly, organizers statements made elsewhere indicate that it probably didnt. while all radical feminists must agree that “sex matters” and that trans and queer politickers misuse “gender” essentially as a euphemism for sex, albeit “brain sex” (or as voluntary “performance”) the obviously reformist-oriented radical feminists we see organizing radfem13 and elsewhere misuse both “sex” and “gender” to mean essentially sex-based stereotypes. “stereotypes” which, according to them, are oppressive to both men and women, or at least reflective of the biology or essence of neither, even as we see male violence — and mens sexual and reproductive control of women enforced with male violence — as a global phenomenon that transcends social conditioning, and men across time and place embracing it and manifesting it in various ways. even the “good guys” and men in less violent and “less patriarchal” cultures do this in their own way and we fucking well know it.
and even as we see women, globally and throughout time, dissonating with, negotiating within and around, and ultimately rejecting our sex (not gender) role as mens fuckholes and slaves. equating women with men — against all evidence — is a false equivalence and simply is not rigorous, logical analysis or honest intellectual labor. and conflating “sex” with “sex-based stereotypes” does nothing to locate the root of womens oppression by men — our sexual and reproductive abuse as women, by men as men — in order to liberate women from male dominance.
and finally, i bring up melinda tankard reist’s recent reporting of the young feminist who is single-handedly taking on a notoriously misogynistic american rapper because this is yet another manifestation of reformist-oriented politicking, what it consists of and where it leads. on her blog, reist says,
One of the great rewards of this work is seeing a growing wave of young women go into battle against violence against women in all its brutal manifestations, calling out and naming this violence as unacceptable. One such woman is 24-year-old Talitha Stone. [...] Talitha’s passion and gutsy activism gives me hope that things can change.
okay. here, we have reist, a well-known, seasoned radical feminist who makes money on radical feminism as a speaker and writer, applauding and encouraging individual women who dont make money on it and who in fact may have little or nothing to gain from it, to engage in “gutsy activism” (and everything that entails including the very real danger of physical and emotional violence by men) by taking on a misogynistic industry and all misogynists everywhere — in this case by protesting rap lyrics that describe the sexual abuse of women by men. how and indeed whether this instance or this kind of activism is likely to liberate women from male dominance is never made clear. and frankly, giving well-known seasoned radical feminists who make money from radical feminism hope that things can change, in the complete absence of evidence that this is true, or even that radical feminism informs this activism, how, and why, is not a good enough reason for anyone to do it or to expect anyone to do it, or to applaud those who do it at great cost to themselves.
indeed, if a woman throwing herself on the pyre in this manner inspires hope, and i think this is an apt metaphor, one might wonder “hope for what, exactly?” hope that the next generation of women will fall into the same reformist traps, creating paying “radical feminist” jobs and opportunities for MOAR ACTIVISM, and more meta — the continuance of reformism itself, in other words, as opposed to identifying the root of and liberating women from male dominance — is what it sounds like to me.
Announcing a New Blog: Men’s Search Terms May 28, 2013Posted by FCM in meta, porn, WTF?.
Tags: men's search terms, pornography
from the “about” page:
Men’s search terms is a catalog of offensive search terms that real men have typed into their search engines, obviously hoping to find pornographic photos and videos of these things happening in real life.
In case anyone was in any way unclear about what lurks in men’s minds and psyches, or what their precious Nigels think about and hope other men are really doing to women and children (and animals, inanimate objects and even other men) so they can find it online and wank to it…we present the proof, in the men’s own words.
These search terms have been compiled by female bloggers, and represent search terms they found in the stats on their own blogs. Trigger warning: men, and what they think about.
- inanimate objects
- men hate trannies
- men will stick their dicks in anything
- porn actress injuries
- sexualized racism
- things that don’t exist
this project is anticipated to last one month, and will be accepting submissions from known radfem bloggers. click on the image above to visit men’s search terms.
That Explains That. (Or, ‘Witchcraze’ Pt. 3) May 26, 2013Posted by FCM in books!, logic, meta, politics, pop culture.
Tags: andrea dworkin, anne llewellyn barstow, mary daly, publishing, witchcraze
ive been seriously wondering for years how certain radical feminist writers managed to get published. actual, real published in the sense of actual, real publishing houses, with editorial controls, factchecking (where the official “facts” are either baldfaced lies or spin, or where the real truth is unknowable) bank checks to be written and cashed and various patriarchal gatekeepers throughout the process. how did daly, dworkin or anyone manage to get their work out there despite all the obstacles specifically designed to quash and erase womens work in general and radical feminist work in particular? i wondered this from the first time i read dworkin and the question has lingered. lingered!
welp. reading and finishing anne llewellyn barstows ‘witchcraze’ has been eye-opening in more ways than one. i mentioned earlier that barstow concludes that women as a class — having been relentlessly hunted, raped, tortured and murdered in a stunning period of global gendercide against women — understandably “kept a lower profile for several centuries” following the official period of the burning times, meaning after the period of 1560-1760 (or after 1800 depending on the source). (p. 29) bawdy women, women who talked back to men, were “scolds” or prominent members of the community for any reason (perhaps especially midwives and healers) having been put in their place by 2 centuries of unbridled misogyny and woman-murder, carried out by men and male institutions, all women understandably laid low after that. for several centuries. several. centuries.
doing the math, and understanding that “several” generally means three or more, we see that the period of “laying low” wouldve ended by about 2060 or so. its still happening, in other words. but she doesnt say it. and she uses the past-tense — women kept a lower profile — which reverses what she actually means. she doesnt mean to say that this ever ended, but she does say it. or more accurately, she says both, but the effect is to communicate that it ended at some point when that cannot be concluded from her own research or her own words. a mindfuck effect. later, she concludes that, as a result of the burning times,
[w]omen began to protest less in general. From having, at the end of the Middle Ages, a reputation for being scolds and shrews, bawdy and aggressive, women began to change into the passive, submissive type that symbolized them by the mid-nineteenth century.
(p. 158). what she doesnt do is make any statement at all about the “feminizing” effect of the global witchhunt by men against women carrying over into modern times or address how and indeed whether it still affects us at all. it does, of course. how could it not? and why would anyone assume or believe otherwise — that women found their voice at some point — and if anyone did think that, when exactly did this happen and how?
the mystery of how barstow got published has been answered to my satisfaction, and the answer appears to be that she didnt make any useful political connections or draw any relevant feminist conclusions from her own work. instead, she makes the historical point, and the math takes us well into the future but she doesnt explain how or indeed whether the patriarchal purpose (intent and effect) of the witchcraze is relevant now, or how or whether it will continue to be relevant into the future or perhaps forever. she leaves the reader to do that, and in fact no thinking person who was both paying attention and interested in the subject matter could reasonably conclude otherwise, based on her work and the information she provides. hmmm.
as for daly and dworkin, it seems as if the same principle applies, and obviously so, so dont shoot the messenger mkay. specifically, dworkin criticized PIV — intercourse — to within in inch of its life (as a patriarchal institution that benefits men at womens expense) but what she never said was that PIV-as-sex or for pleasure alone was inherently oppressive to women. and when asked to clarify, she did — as everyone knows, she said that it was her belief that intercourse-as-sex could and would survive equality. what she didnt do was explain how or why she thought that, or indeed how that conclusion reasonably followed from her own work. it doesnt, by the way.
and daly, as i recall, (as many radical feminists do) used “5000 years” as the age of patriarchy, concluding that patriarchy is therefore a social (read: not biological) phenomenon with a beginning, and that therefore it will have an end. but in reality, it seems as if institutionalized patriarchy began about 5000 years ago, and merely codified and formalized the previously informal patriarchal controls and structures that already existed everywhere anyway. daly (and others!) using the 5000-years tidbit didnt lie exactly, but did the actual, real (whole) truth no favors and made it harder in some ways to draw reasonable conclusions based on the evidence.
now, im not calling daly or dworkin liars, or handmaidens or disparaging their work at all, i dont think, by calling attention to what was very likely a calculated trick or strategy used in order to get published in the patriarchal press. in fact i appreciate both of them very much, including whatever strategies they mightve employed to think, write and publish because their work changed my life and my brain etc etc. i feel about both of them the way you probably do — with love, admiration, gratitude and awe. and probably other things. amiright?
but what i am saying is this. because published radical feminists (obviously) have to make concessions in order to be published at all, in order to get to the real, actual (whole) truth, other radical feminists have to read very closely, and not just *some* radical work but as much radical work as possible by a lot of different authors and make the connections ourselves. *we* still have to figure out what the hell is going on, and take these radical thoughts to their logical ends. this makes truth-seeking very difficult as its made both time consuming and frustrating. and as is always the case, these half-truths and thought-termination/truncation make it decidedly *unobvious* that there is, in fact, any further truth to be revealed at all, or any obfuscating strategies being applied at all.
in the case of radical feminist publications in particular, its entirely possible that, since men cannot truly understand radical feminism, male editors and publishers didnt and in fact couldnt take these thoughts to their ends and understand the implications of any of it, including where and how it went off the rails, or was inconsistent, incomplete or unclear. and being that men conflate “pleasing” with male-pleasing, they cant even identify that — male-pleasing as a political strategy (used to get published, despite being irrational or not reasonably following from the material) or as a “politic” at all. even though it obviously is one.
of course, since i believe that the radical feminists that came before were some of the most intelligent, ingenious and creative humans who ever lived, i can only assume that this was deliberate on their part, and if it was, that they counted on us to realize what was happening and to do what they likely couldnt — to use their published work as a springboard and to take this material and these thoughts further, deeper and wider than anyone has ever done before. to read between the lines and to use it in any and all ways to get to the actual, real (whole) truth about womens lives, and what men do to us, in order to liberate us from male dominance. they are asking us to do this, i think, but in any event we are clearly invited to do it. thats the point really. not only the (historically gatekept, written) medium but the nature of radical feminist work itself absolutely invites our freedom of thought. it just does.
Radfem HUB Archives Now Open May 18, 2013Posted by FCM in meta, WTF?.
Tags: archives, collective blog, group blog, HUB, radfem hub, radical feminist blog, radical hub
just wanted to let everyone know that the HUB has been reopened as an archives. please note the new address: radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com.
also, the original wordpress address, which was radicalhub.wordpress.com still works, and all links to HUB content which include the original wordpress.com address, that is, links dropped PRIOR TO january, 2012 — when the domain was purchased — will still take you to the content. all links to HUB after january, 2012 which contain the now-defunct radicalhub.com address, will take you to the .com address, which is no longer under radfem control.
among other things, prior to the archives being made available, 3500+ tainted links within the HUB itself, that is, links in the HUB linking to the HUB had to be changed/updated to avoid taking people into (possibly) enemy territory via clicking through to the .com. get it? i am currently undertaking this link updating endeavor on my own blogs, and i would ask other bloggers to update their links and blogrolls as well.*
i would like to thank everyone who helped get the HUB archives back online, and to everyone who read, commented and contributed to the HUB project while it was still publishing. and i would invite everyone to revisit the archives, especially the early days because back then, HUB was glorious. it really was. it was something i will never forget.
* to the asshole who made the updating of literally thousands of links (among other things!) necessary, and caused thousands more dead links to be left across the internet on literally thousands of other blogs, posts, comments and platforms, linking to now nonexistent content, links which cannot or will not be updated: THANKS ASSHOLE. thanks especially for depriving people reading mainstream and fun-fem blogs of the chance — perhaps their only chance — to be exposed to radical content. because thats what was lost when the HUB went down.
Tags: erasure, herstory, radfem 2013, radfem hub, reformism
ive been doing this awhile now, and i can report that i have been a target from day one or thereabouts, when the fun fems and sex-pozzers first tried to silence me. this was even before i received my first rape or death threat — it was the women that nearly did me in! granted, half these “women” were probably men, but not all of them.
in the beginning — notably, before i had even found my voice or gone anywhere near the ends of my thoughts — in order to amass currency and credibility, i was invited to “check my privilege” to the point of nearly (even clearly) identifying myself publicly. (i declined that invitation.) in the same vein, accusations were lobbed at me of various “privileges” (and continue to this day) inviting me to reveal details of my life as a “rebuttal” lest i encounter negative outcomes (like losing currency and credibility, due to all the privilege). or to, you know, ignore it.
this is no accident BTW. this “privilege checking” business mirrors doxing and outing exactly. the outcome at least is identical, where the result is to make radical feminist bloggers more vulnerable to violent men in real life, in order to silence us, or cause us to self-censor out of fear. this outcome — womens identities and personal information being revealed in order to silence radical women or original, female-centered thought — is what men want, and this is what men get. handed to them on a silver fucking platter. by us, via “privilege checking.”
luckily, even way back then, although this was my first blog, it was not my first rodeo — i continued. at some point my focus changed, and i came to realize that what i was doing was qualitatively (and quantitatively) different than what anyone else was doing at this time and place (online, now). very recently, and very painfully, and painstakingly, and like REALLY SLOWLY, as if i had some kind of mental block against realizing this particular truth as a matter of fact, i realized that reformist-oriented radical feminists have taken over the movement, and are trying very hard to silence dissent. here is what i mean by that.
i mean that there are radical feminists who are without a doubt radical — they recognize the importance of getting to the root of womens oppression by men. that is not a small thing. in order to fulfill that most basic requirement, one must first believe in women and men — in todays pomo, queerified environs, almost everyone who identifies as “feminist” fails. reformist-oriented radical feminists believe in women and men as sexual classes, and they want to get at the root, and notably, they have chosen to utilize legal and social reform as a tool to dismantle what they consider the root, which is usually identified as dom/sub. the ugly part of this is not that they are utilizing a specific strategy towards ending male dominance — to each her own. the ugly part, as it always is, is the disingenuous part, the silencing part.
to wit, and these are but 2 examples, men and trannies have been really pissed off about mary daly and her very existence for a long time — they see her as an “evil” woman (HA!) and resent her audacity in every way. they have identified her “sexism” against men and her female-centered vision as offensive to themselves and thus they
want activate towards complete erasure of daly and her genius and her exceedingly excellent work and legacy from the face of the earth. indeed, if mary daly were alive today, her work likely wouldnt even be published, and her physical safety would be in serious danger because of the escalating threats and violence of men against women and the attempted and successful silencing of specifically radical feminist ideology.
so within this political and material context, where men vehemently
wish activate towards mary daly and her work being wiped from the face of the earth, what does one (relatively) well-known reformist-oriented radical feminist do, in a public letter to the UN (subject: trannie politicking) but throw “essentialists” like mary daly and all feminists who think like mary daly under the bus — we are erased from feminism. mary daly! not a feminist! because she noted that men are unlikely to be changed, and that its likely biological. thats rich. no, the real feminists are the social determinists, like gloria steinem — and steinem herself seems especially quotable when she herself is quoting a man. srsly, read the UN letter if you havent already. now thats good erasure i mean reformist politicking.
next, and of personal and political significance to myself (and others) men and trannies set their sights on the radfem HUB early on. they wanted it GONE. erased. they activated towards that end mercilessly; notably, they failed. and yet, be that as it may…has anyone seen the HUB lately? gee, where did it go, who was involved, and what lead up to it — even more to the point, what has been so distracting, stressful and time consuming of late (erasure complete) for 2 of the most prolific radfem bloggers out there, 2 radfem bloggers who are decidedly against reformist politicking and have been calling shit on both reformism and the tendency of reformist feminists to hold out hope for men against all evidence — and why oh why arent they (they, specifically) writing anything?
and rounding out the picture nicely, including who wants/activates towards what ends for the HUB, and why, is this: “liberation collective” has just today republished a series originally published on the HUB — but “lib coll” doesnt mention the HUB at all, or mention that this is not the first time this series has been published, or where. its as if HUB never existed, but of course erasing the HUB is the entire reason lib coll exists — it was created a year after HUB was, and hosted exclusively republished/recycled content from the HUB but without acknowledging the HUB at all, or the fact that the posts were *not* first published at lib coll, but in fact were created previously and exclusively for/within a specific context, and were first published “somewhere else.” and what that “context” was and where that “somewhere else” might be was and is specifically omitted. get it? all of that has been erased. a very fine point has been added now that the HUB itself has been destroyed. from the inside.
now, anyone can investigate the connections here if they want to: are the organizers of lib coll and the organizers of radfem 2013 the same people? was the owner and dispositor of the HUB domain involved in any way in either lib coll or radfem 2013? if so, was it in a “public relations” capacity? im just asking.
and for those who plan to go, i hope you will report back as to whether the entire point (intent and effect) of radfem 2013 was to advance the agenda and numbers of reformist-oriented radical feminists, while simultaneously erasing and negating the fact that there is any other kind. and that we were very vocal, once.
this is what “erasure” looks like, on the ground, in real time. in case anyone has ever wondered. it looks like reformist activating, or at the very least, reformists and reformist activating routinely and demonstrably produce a very specific result — to erase radical feminism and radical feminists, including our radical feminist history and our work. do they not? we are absolutely swimming in the erasure of radical herstory right here, right now. remember this.