jump to navigation

Moron Owen Lloyd. Or, What ‘Depoliticization’ Actually Means July 9, 2013

Posted by FCM in feminisms, gender roles, rape, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

nope, not done with owen lloyd yet!  somethings been bothering me about that rape-article he wrote, and its the title.  Steven Pinker and the Depoliticization of Rape.  the depoliticization of rape.  depoliticization of rape.  depoliticization.  of.  hmm.  has steven pinker attempted to or succeeded in depoliticizing rape?  having not read steven pinker and only having owen lloyds cherry-picked quotes as evidence of whether he did or didnt, i have to wonder if owen lloyd even knows what “depoliticization” means.  (according to google, it means “To remove the political aspect from; remove from political influence or control.”)

query: if there is a natural/innateness component to men raping girls and women across time and place, is *that* in itself enough to depoliticize it?  or, if women started responding to men as a class as if men as a class were rapists, which they are, would womens response be apolitical?

lets discuss.  first, rape is a politicized act, its true.  there are political aspects and consequences to men raping girls and women across time and place, and yes there is a war on (woron?) in case anyone didnt get the memo.  but the political aspects of rape do not start and end there.  rape causes unwanted pregnancy in women, and men have set it up so that the big-3 of their patriarchal institutions — medicine, religion, and law — all attach to womens bodies and lives at the moment of conception.  and make no mistake — these are political consequences mkay, where political means

1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: “Calling a meeting is a political act in itself” (Daniel Goleman).
3. Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.
4. Interested or active in politics: I’m not a very political person.
5. Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution.
6. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives.

check out numbers 1 and 6 in particular.  1 is obvious, but 6 is interesting.  self-serving objectives.  it serves men as a class that (patriarchal) medicine, religion and law all attach to womens bodies and womens lives at the moment of conception — thats why.  they.  did.  it.  it does not have to be this way, but men have made it this way to benefit themselves; they have granted themselves the power to open the door to formal, institutional and state control of women by impregnating us.

so, if there were a biological/innateness component to men raping us, would that remove these consequences?  no, it would not.  men have created these consequences out of whole cloth and they intend to keep them in place forever, where men have also granted themselves the sole power to remove them or not.  get it?  politics.  in fact, in order to depoliticize rape in this way, men would also have to agree to depoliticize intercourse at the same time.  because medicine, religion and law attach to womens bodies and womens lives at the moment of conception regardless of whether we are impregnated through consensual intercourse or rape.

put another way, if the men who had the power to do this were to say “we hereby remove all mechanisms by which male institutions control pregnancy and pregnant women” and then did it, this would at least partially depoliticize rape.  of course, it would also depoliticize intercourse, and we would all be forced to see (or willfully ignore, albeit a bit more obviously at that point) how the political intent and effect of intercourse and rape have actually been the same this whole time — to control women — and that men made it this way.  politics.

and what if women started avoiding men like the plague they (historically and currently) are?  owen lloyd says steven pinker advocates women doing this, although frankly i dont trust owen lloyd to accurately summarize anyones writing or their intent.  owen lloyd also suggests that *if* women did this, it would not and indeed could not be a political move on our part — it would be us apolitically “adapting” to rape culture which we shouldnt do because victim-blaming and not only that, black (male) civil rights movement.  hmm.

welp.  how about this, owen lloyd.  since you (or was it pinker?) suggested it, what if women did start avoiding men and we do this both individually (because its the only way we can) and collectively (a happy coincidence of the former) until men remove the political consequences to women of men raping us.  would this be political enough a response for you?  in practice this would mean until you remove religious, legal and medical mandates, controls and standards of care from the pregnant, laboring, lactating (and childrearing — as long as we’re at it) female body.  of course this means turning over all control of these things to women, as we discussed here.

when and if you do this, we might come back.  not that you ever (ever, ever, ever) would, which makes this useful primarily as a thought exercise, but if you did remove the political implications of rape to girls and women, perhaps then we could address the gnatty little issue of whether rape is *only* political, or traditionally political, or whether it would still exist if it werent so politically invasive, controlling and damaging to us.  in other words if rape were just (!!!) “forced sex” (meaning forced intercourse and impregnation) and stopped being “the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders.”  (yes, perhaps *then* we could discuss it — if thats okay with you?  jeebus.)

this is what the partial* depoliticization of rape looks like owen lloyd, so you know what it looks like if and when you see it.  considering that you will likely never see it of course, and certainly never from another male, including steven pinker BTW, from your perspective its probably a largely useless tool.  and i shall end on that note because thats just funny.

*i say “partial” because we havent even addressed yet whether traditional political controls are the end-all be-all of the politicization of rape, where men rape women to serve themselves, and where men demonstrate daily that orgasm (and necrophilia) is largely its own reward.

Revisiting SCUM July 5, 2013

Posted by FCM in books!, pop culture.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

as probably everyone knows, valerie solanas shot pop-artist and celebrity andy warhol in 1968.  he survived his injuries and went on being andy warhol for another 20 years.  he didnt seem that upset about being shot — according to him, life was unreal anyway, he was incapable of experiencing emotion which television portrayed as strong and real but this did not match his own reality at all.  his “art” was flat and commercial, revealing no inner life or imagination at all.  one art critic said warhol was brilliant in his function as a mirror, reflecting our own (flat, commercial) culture back at us.  culture meaning patriarchy or male culture of course, which is indeed flat and commercial.  and dead.  necrophilic, if you will.  warhol was an inanimate object perfectly reflecting death — and this was a favorable review!

may i suggest here that andy warhol was also a walking target for other men?  especially if they knew they could get away with it, how many men would’ve killed warhol themselves if given the chance?  a certain segment of the (male) population would’ve happily killed him for being the son of immigrants, another would’ve killed him for being gay, another group would’ve done it while they were robbing him — he was very wealthy you know.  and jealousy.  or because his art sucked (the critics largely hated him).  there are a million “reasons” men have for killing other men of course, but if one looks closely enough, and taking into consideration mens necrophilia generally, one might see that most (all) of these arent really reasons at all, but justifications.  like, what if being gay (or whatever) isnt a reason to kill someone but a justification applied either before or after the fact to something a man simply wants to do and does?  that would kind of turn things on their head wouldnt it?

so back to solanas.  she shot warhol, but didnt kill him.  she was incarcerated for 3 years for this and is remembered as one of the most hated women who ever lived because of what she did.  or was it because of what she said?  or both?  note that men actually love it when women attempt to (or succeed in) maiming and killing men because that opens the door to formal, institutional and state control of us — it has nothing to do with valuing men which they clearly dont.  men are simply and obviously of no value to other men, and indeed this is reflective of natural law whereby men are largely redundant, and where one woman is worth millions and even billions of men.  this is the truth of the matter and men seem to understand this — whereupon they parasitically attach themselves to and leech off of women from cradle to grave (either their grave our ours).

so what could possibly be mens beef with valerie solanas and with women who dare read her and appreciate her work?  (jeez, doods, thought-police much?)  while the value of a man to another man (or a mans own value to himself) is approaching zero and they show us this all the time, women, since we are not men ourselves, must apply a cost-benefit analysis to determine mens worth — an objective, not a subjective valuation.  for an objective valuation, the equation is benefit minus cost.  isnt it?  solanas named mens parasitic nature/behavior for what it is, and the concept of male parasitism falls squarely on the cost-side, and it is a devastating one.  women report being life-sucked by men constantly but are mostly without words to describe this.

did valerie solanas dare identify/suggest objective criteria by which we might measure mens worth?  oh dear.  re-reading SCUM confirms that she did.  men and mensworld are boring, fatherhood is destructive — and mens life-sucking parasitism — these things represent *costs* to women of living in mensworld and indeed of having men around at all.  there is plenty of fertile radfem ground here and plenty to think about and discuss.  but you know whats even more interesting to me at the moment?  solanas’s SCUM manifesto was just a damn good read.  it was interesting mkay?  it was thought-provoking, audacious and clear.

yes thats right!  valerie solanas, public enemy number one, gave women something interesting to read.

Keep Talking Owen Lloyd June 28, 2013

Posted by FCM in feminisms, meta, PIV, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

i saw the lierre keith/derrek jensen article on counterpunch in all its weird queerified gendernonsensical antiglory and was disappointed, but not quite moved to respond to it.  i mean, how many times can a position be stated and restated for the record before it ceases to be helpful?  this is a serious question.  repetition can be a good thing, and its helpful to both readers and writers to see and think about things multiple times, or in more than one way or in more than one time or place.  it probably has something to do with the brain, but thats above my pay grade.  i run mostly on intuition, and my intuition is telling me that providing a breakdown of a weird queerified “radfem” text isnt going to be useful today.

enter owen lloyd.  remember him?  hes the fucking terrifying asshole who becomes enraged at the sight of women, existing.  he also writes and does fundraising for DGR news service, which, according to himself, is responsible for “educating people on news and media related to the ongoing struggle against environmental and social injustice.”

educating them.  get it?  and since DGR itself is billed as being “unconditionally” feminist, we see that DGR news service and other publications and whatnot released by DGR, in addition to whatever else they do and are, are meant to educate people about feminism and in particular radical feminism.  because any other kind is antithetical to environmentalism.  true, that.

heres owen lloyd writing about rape for DGR news service back in march.  oh goody, a self-identified feminist man talking about rape, i say to myself.  chance of him implicating himself in something gross and woman-hating: approaching 100%.  one immediately notes the [TW] at the top of the page — like a good (liberal?) feminist, he lets us know straight up that we are in for graphic depictions of extreme sexualized violence i mean a porny treat of male masturbation fodder and that we are to proceed at our peril.  so if we disassociate for the rest of the day, its our own fault and definitely not the fault of the man who caused it.  wow, how unusual ive never seen that tactic used before in other contexts i mean thanks for the warning?  i guess?  i was right about owen lloyd.

i continue to read, at my peril, because DGR is on my radar but almost anything would be more interesting to me today than deconstructing that counterpunch article.  and in fact i dont feel much like properly deconstructing anything today, so no direct quotes will be forthcoming.  let me convey my general impressions (analysis) only.  you can read the original material for yourself.

owen lloyd is upset at steven pinker, a “canadian-born experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and popular science author” because pinker suggests that there is a biological component to male violence and to men raping women across time and place.  rape, that thing that men do to women globally and across time which (by definition) largely transcends social conditioning and rape, that thing that women generally dont do to anyone, anywhere, ever.  incidentally, owen lloyd gets “upset” at people quite a lot, but lets ignore that insignificant detail for a moment.

and although neither pinker nor lloyd could probably be expected to recognize this, and they clearly dont, lloyds cherry-picked quotes from pinker (which are supposed to show that pinker is an extraordinary asshole) and lloyds own porny examples of extreme sexualized violence actually paint a vivid picture of a necrophilic male context that transcends time and place.  i say “necrophilic” because extreme violence including extreme sexualized violence is not compatible with life — necrophilia is a radfem concept coined by an actual, real feminist (mary daly) who wasnt invested in carrying water for men or pretending that men were something they arent.  and once you recognize it for what it is, evidence of mens sickening necrophilia becomes obvious everywhere you look, and i do mean everywhere.  we are swimming (drowning) in it.

anyhoo, owen lloyd whines that there cannot possibly be a biological/innateness component to men raping women and babies across time and place because man-bashing, and because owen lloyd wants to believe that there is such a thing as “making love” (or whatever) and that this is very different from rape and mens extreme sexualized violence against women yes it is, yes it is, yes it is infinity.

owen lloyd does not seem to be aware that intercourse, the way men do it, is just more of the same necrophilia because it creates unwanted and ambivalent pregnancies, where it is largely (completely) unwanted and ambivalent pregnancies and the resulting unwanted/ambivalent children — mens sexual and reproductive abuse of women, in other words — that are overpopulating and killing the world.  an environmentalist should know this.  a feminist should know this.  owen lloyd and DGR do not seem to know this, and yet they are educating the public on matters of both feminism and environmentalism.  oops.  and as if that werent enough, some 500,000 women die every year around the world from pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications — more necrophilia, and more evidence that intercourse is a necrophilic practice.

men are killing women and the entire world with their dicks, and owen lloyd is mad at steven pinker for pointing out that men stick their dicks into women and mostly dont care about the consequences and implications of that for the women or for anything — like the environment? — even though that is demonstrably true.  owen lloyd defends his own motivations i mean special snowflake status when he is joined at the reproductive organs with his “partner” as meaning and be-ing something different than the thing other men do when they are joined at the reproductive organs of other women.  even though IN MANY WAYS its not different at all.  enumerate the ways, environmentalist feminist.

and perhaps even more to the point, owen lloyd is mad.  yet again.  something rises up in him every time someone says or does something he doesnt like — he himself has described this feeling as rage.  this is his involuntary, knee-jerk response which he seems completely unable/unwilling to control, and which pops up mostly regardless of context or provocation — indeed, he cant seem to help it.  someday perhaps owen lloyd will learn to control both his rage and his urge to stick his dick into women and to zealously and angrily defend other mens right to stick their dicks into women too.  it is *possible* that he will endeavor to and succeed in controlling these things.

the one thing owen lloyd will probably never do is to seriously consider that these involuntary physical and emotional sensations he experiences all the time which are mostly or entirely invisible to himself — in particular, rage and the need to stick his dick into women and then to fucking defend the practice (!!!) (with rage!) regardless of the consequences or implications to women or to anything, including the environment — is something he shares with other males, as a class, and that this transcends time and place (and therefore, social conditioning).  that it comes from himself, in other words, and that this is the very definition of innate.

this appears to be the size of it, owen lloyd.  u mad?  LOL.  thats what i thought.

Authoritah June 21, 2013

Posted by FCM in meta, radical concepts.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

from now on, i shall use the completely made-up (and hilarious) word “authoritah” when referring to what is commonly known as “authority” such as with authority figures, academics, and professionals — in other words, patriarchal authority, especially as awarded to or embodied by men over any and all issues.  the divine (or whatever) authority of women over issues of sex, reproduction and childrearing and everything related to that shall henceforth be referred to as “authority.”  because that is frankly the *only* correct use of the word.

from dikipedia:

[T]he term authority is often used interchangeably with power. However, their meanings differ: while power is defined as “the ability to influence somebody to do something that he/she would not have done”, authority refers to a claim of legitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power. For example, while a mob has the power to punish a criminal, for example by lynching, people who believe in the rule of law consider that only a court of law has the authority to punish a criminal.

thanks for making that distinction, diki!  i found the distinction of power versus legitimacy/justification/right to exercise it most useful.  for example, men and their (patriarchal) institutions may have granted themselves various “authorities” by which they clearly mean power without regard to the legitimacy/justification/right of males to exercise that power, especially around issues of sex, reproduction and childrearing.  sure they “claim” legitimacy (and “claiming” it is built into the definition according to wiki i mean diki) but lets assume they mean a founded claim rather than “either a founded or unfounded” claim even though they dont say that.

and there is not, in fact, any founded legitimacy, justification or right of males to control sex, reproduction and childrearing since it is females who are impregnated, gestate and birth immature humans, not males.  and since men are notably and demonstrably necrophilic and that interest is in obvious and direct conflict with the others; and where men certainly dont participate in childrearing in any legitimate or necessary way and even if they did, it would not change or influence the fact that they are not impregnated and dont gestate and birth them.  therefore, male control over these issues — including both written and unwritten rules such as social customs, religious tenets and medical and legal standards applied under circumstances of sex, reproduction and childrearing — shall henceforth be referred to as “authoritah.”

now, from the dicktionary:

authority [ɔːˈθɒrɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. the power or right to control, judge, or prohibit the actions of others
2. (often plural) a person or group of people having this power, such as a government, police force, etc.
3. a position that commands such a power or right (often in the phrase in authority)
4. such a power or right delegated, esp from one person to another; authorization; she has his authority
5. the ability to influence or control others; a man of authority
6. an expert or an authoritative written work in a particular field; he is an authority on Ming china
7. evidence or testimony; we have it on his authority that she is dead
8. confidence resulting from great expertise; the violinist lacked authority in his cadenza
9. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (capital when part of a name) a public board or corporation exercising governmental authority in administering some enterprise; Independent Broadcasting Authority
10. (Law) Law
a. a judicial decision, statute, or rule of law that establishes a principle; precedent
b. legal permission granted to a person to perform a specified act
[from French autorité, from Latin auctōritas, from auctor author]

where “power” and the legitimate right to exercise it are apparently interchangeable or where no distinction is made, it would appear to me that only nature has authority over anything.  nature has the power to “control, judge or prohibit the actions of” animals and humans, such as when its raining so hard you literally cant see so you cant go outside.  this might last for a few minutes at most at a time, but it is *power* is it not?  cause and (natural, necessary) effect.  i especially love it when this happens when im driving, whereby my decision to go out in the rain is adjudicated by natural authority (or just “authority” without a qualifier) to have been poor or even quite poor.

now, its worth mentioning that womens behavior is often controlled and modified by men in a less direct or obviously direct way, where we do or dont do something in order to avoid various negative outcomes including male attention and male violence, or we try to avoid it.  like acting feminine (male-pleasing) or not-going-out-at-night, that kind of thing.  interestingly, even when used to mean the ability to “influence” others this does not seem to apply to the behavior modifications performed by women in response to men where women are Others, not “others” which means a completely different thing.  so in this case, men influence/control womens behavior by authoritah only.  not authority.

and of course, sex, reproduction and childrearing — issues over which only women and nature have either the power or a legitimate claim to control and which men obviously do not — includes issues directly and indirectly related to that such as population (overpopulation); environmental concerns and activism; rape and sexualized violence; and that kind of thing.  all male customs/controls surrounding these issues shall therefore be known as “authoritah.”

now a challenge: name something that *isnt* at least tangentially related to sex, reproduction and childrearing.  can you do it?  if there is anything that is not at least tangentially related to these things, and for now thats a big IF since i cant immediately even think of anything thats not, men can try to claim a right AND THEN FOUND IT to exercise power in those areas, and those areas only.  it is those areas where the possibility of shared “human” authority (or no authority, if none can be founded by either women or men) may be explored; these areas and discussion/decisionmaking/execution related to these areas (if such an area is found to exist) shall henceforth be named “politics.”

note that there is *no* area in which males have a legitimate claim to exclusive power since there is nothing men can experience that women cant, except being the bringers of necrophilia and extreme violence globally.  (and ejaculation!  — see above re: sex, reproduction and childrearing).  mens necrophilia and extreme violence, obviously, being issues over which women also have legitimate authority and men dont, or where men have “authoritah” only.

and now a video illustrating the concept of authoritah, and how it is demonstrably different from authority.  and why “authoritah” — a made-up, hilarious word is actually the right word for “males exercising power and control over issues of sex, reproduction and childrearing” which power is also made-up and hilarious although “hilarious” more in the sense of being “a screaming farce” and “uproarious stories” than of actually being funny, or haha-funny.

notably, if i started using “authority” correctly on this blog or anywhere, it would be largely unintelligible and i would seem to not know the meaning of the word.  that is all.

I See What You Did There. Or, “Witchcraze” Pt. 4? June 13, 2013

Posted by FCM in feminisms, gender roles, international, meta, politics.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 361 other followers