“‘Misandry’ Is A Feminist Issue,” Say Transactivists I Mean MRAs February 5, 2010Posted by FCM in feminisms, kids, MRAs, pop culture, rape, self-identified feminist men, thats mean, trans, WTF?.
Tags: custody, fathers rights, fun fems, julie bindel, misandry, MRA, transwomen
this made me laugh and laugh. transwomen (like the MRAs and fundies) love making rules for women and feminists to follow. we are supposed to suck their metaphorical (and actual) dicks, or be outed as “transphobic”. we are supposed to accept their constructed, fake fuckholes as “female organs,” as vaginas, and appreciate it as “ironic” when they appropriate our experience, and steal our work. mm-kay.
now, according to the transactivists, feminists are supposed to take on “misandry” as a feminist issue. are they serious? yes, yes they are. they are very serious. all the fucking time. and that makes it even funnier: have you ever heard an internet transwoman say something that wasnt unintentionally funny? i havent. and i doubt i ever will, particularly after reading this, which nearly gave me a stomach cramp:
Could Bindel’s trans-phobia be fuelled by her open misandry? Is the idea of someone born with external reproductive organs becoming a woman so anathema to her? Does Bindel in fact take any responsibility for murder and violence towards trans people by the words she has published? (thanks polly).
this is in response to feminist author julie bindel, who has dared speak out against transpolitics, which is the same thing as “murder!” apparently. (that bitch! lets rape her!) but speculating as to whether bindel’s “transphobia” is fuelled by her “misandry” is like pondering, in all seriousness, “could bindel’s hooswhit be fuelled by her glod?” because theres no such fucking thing as a glod, and a “hooswhit” is just some letters put together. similarly, theres no such thing as misandry, and “transphobia” is just some shit the transactivists made up to bash women and feminists over the head with, when we dont want men in dresses transwomen in our washrooms (if they wanted to address something that *did* exist, they could try addressing the problem of rape and the men they are afraid will rape them, if they use the mensroom. but they never do).
but even if it did exist, only a fucking MRA, a fundie, or a transactivist would say that misandry was a feminist issue. when someone misinterprets the aims of feminism as being “anti-sexist” instead of “removing the boot of capitopatriarchy from womens necks” its inevitably one of them, too. this absolutely screams “waht about teh menzzzzz?” but ten or so years ago, feminists werent falling for it. now, thanks to the fucking sex-pozzies, the third-wavers and transpolitics, this mens rights garbage has taken center stage. mens rights has taken center stage, within the feminist movement! think about this, people.
i admit i left feminist studies behind for most of the last decade, due to having other shit to do. and when i came back, it took me a short while to get back up to speed. i was there, once i realized what all this cis-business really was. this is mens rights rhetoric, packaged up with a pretty pink bow. thats all it is. its the same disingenuous doublespeak that has oprah thinking that boys and men are “falling behind” girls and women, and that even if this were so that its not fair. its the same shit that has fathers rights groups crying “sexism!” when the statistics show that women tend to get custody of children when they divorce.
because what the MRAs conveniently ignore is that when girls and women are successful at anything, its because they work damn hard for it. you know, its earned, rather than unearned. people lavished with unearned privileges dont know any better, they just dont. and in so-called custody disputes, most mothers dont have a fucking choice when MOST FATHERS DONT WANT FUCKING CUSTODY ANYWAY. the kids would be orphans if the mothers didnt step up, because men have *never* stepped up to the plate in this regard, and they arent starting now. too often, when men fight for custody in a divorce, its a fucking tool of domestic abuse by a vengeful ex-husband who had undoubtedly been abusing his wife during the marriage as well.
this is whats passing as “sexism” now? in what universe is a lack of reasonable options, and being the target of abuse considered a privilege? this topsy-turvy inversion of reality absolutely requires an MRA worldview.
as feminists have long been aware, men’s rights activists (MRAs) have appropriated the language of feminist discourse to acheive their own dubious ends, but they never really understood it. they talk about “sexism!” and things “not being fair” but this is coming from privileged, largely white males who havent the slightest fucking clue what “unfairness” really is. we saw through it then. we arent seeing through it now, but its the same appropriation of feminist discourse, and the transwomen are misusing and misreading it, just like men always have.
indeed, to accuse a feminist of being a “misandrist” is the worst kind of cliche: an anti-feminist one. for all their talk about being “outed” and how scary that would undoubtedly be, these transwomen out themselves every fucking time they open their mouths. the only people they would fool with their MRA doublespeak would be anti-feminist fuckwits who dont know any better (aka “normal people”), but they want to hang out with feminists, instead. why? this is not a rhetorical question.
not unrelatedly, the only “lovers” transwomen are fooling with their fake fuckholes are ones that dont use their hands. again, anti-feminist fuckwits who dont know any better (including statistically the poor, the uneducated, and the just-generally-bad-lover types). because fake vaginas arent organs, and they arent attached to anything. only a fucking MRA wouldnt know whether theres a cervix in there, or not, because he never bothered to look. and only a fucking transwoman would agree with the MRAs in that regard: that it doesnt really matter, anyway, because vaginas are just fuckholes, and are only good for one thing. but again, at least the online transactivists dont want to hang around the uneduated MRAs who would probably accept them *and* their fake fuckholes. why not? this is not a rhetorical question.
unless and until i discover some compelling evidence to the contrary, this is my working answer: because infiltrating, assimilating, and ultimately rewriting and dismantling feminism has been the MRAs goal from the beginning, and transwomen and their allies are fucking MRAs. thats why. we have to open our eyes to this reality. i dont think it would be an exaggeration to say that, literally, everything depends on it.