jump to navigation

Post-Modern Feminism Is A Dick-Centered Faith-Based Religion. That’s All It Is. December 8, 2010

Posted by FCM in authors picks, feminisms, liberal dickwads, PIV, pop culture, self-identified feminist men, thats mean, trans.
Tags: , , , ,

pomo feminists are male-identified dick-pleasers. we already know that, what with their PIV-positive propaganda machine and marginalizing radfems, lesbians, spinsters, and everyone else who doesnt enthusiastically participate in their own destruction through dangerous PIV-centric sexuality.  but theres more to it than merely being pleasing, to dicks (and penises!)  pomo feminists (and pomo feminism itself) are so far up mens asses, that they are seeing out of mens eyes.  and never their own.

for example, the privilege discussion.  as undercover punk has recently and aptly described it, we (women) are all expected to acknowledge that we are wearing “privilege blinders,” and if it werent for our privilege blinders, we would be able to clearly see XYZ, whatever whomever is trying to sell us at the time, regarding the ways that we (women) supposedly oppress each other.  and the ways we oppress men!

yes, thats what it comes down to, in the end.  women oppress men, with all our gender-related power.  granted, radical feminists dont take it quite that far, but when self-identified radical feminists insist on calling each other out on their various privileges, and making accusations of privilege-blindness instead of explaining the mechanism of the alleged oppression and the demonstrable harms that flow from it, their reasoning is just as flawed, and in the exact same ways, as the idiotic “reasoning” of the pomos, who invented cis-privilege and uncritically insist that women can and do oppress men by hurting their feelings, and invalidating their experiences, and stuff, and things.  in other words, by being horrible bitches!  yes, its feminist to call other women bitches now, and to demand that they femininely pamper your fee-fees.  and its radical to insist that the source of womens suffering is…other women!  yes it is, shut up.

anyhoo, regarding pomo feminism being dick-centered: it is.  feminism has become a male-centered discourse now, or at least the pomo-version of it that passes as feminism in nearly every corner of the feminist blogosphere, and the mainstream too (thats not a coincidence).  how can you tell?  because it only makes sense when you look at it through mens eyes.  just like regarding non-PIV-centric sexuality as “prudish” and even “abstinence” in fact.  but i digress.

heres what men hear, when women talk about male privilege: something that doesnt make any fucking sense, at all.  they dont get it!  in general, men cant and wont understand what male privilege is all about.  they cant hear it.  they cant see it, smell it, or taste it.  and they dont understand it, at all.  the GOOD ONES will take it on faith, that these things exist: that men rape.  that PIV is dangerous to women.  that all kinds and manners of shit happen to women, because we are women, and these things are done to us by men, because they are men.  the GOOD ONES TAKE IT ON FAITH, that men are privileged, and that they exist, essentially, at womens expense.  for self-identified feminist men, feminism is a religion.  its faith-based.  and male privilege, like, hurts womens feelings or something, i dont know, but teh feminists are pretty upset about it.  the fact that what radical feminists say is also demonstrably true is beside the point.

enter pomo privilege rhetoric.  now everyone is supposed to just take everything on faith, because thats how men do it, and men are the default humans afterall!  self-identified feminist men are faking it, and now we are expected to fake it, too.  when we hear something that doesnt make any fucking sense, at all, we are supposed to just shut up, and believe that its true.  even things that arent demonstrably true, and even things that are, in fact, demonstrably false.  like cis-privilege, for example.  or, like young-privilege.  and hurt-feelings-as-harm is as far as anyone is willing to go, when analyzing the harms that flow from oppressive systems, and even from abusive people.  because when it comes down to it, MEN think that feminists are just big babies and are taking everything wrong, or that we are “offended” at various “inequalities”.  and not directly, demonstrably and seriously harmed, by misogyny.  see the difference?

now we are supposed to take it on faith, that women oppress other women…why, again?  oh yeah, because our various, demonstrable female privileges are demonstrably harmful…because we are causing the death, disease, pregnancy, and poverty of other women by acting out our privilege, and thats why its so important that we just listen to other women, and believe what they say.

wait.  no its not.  thats why its at least arguably tolerable that self-identified feminist men take this shit on faith: because they wont have it any other way.  because they dont or wont believe whats demonstrably true, about men, and about what they do to women.

but feminism as a dick-centered faith-based religion is not womens feminism.  womens feminism (ie. feminism) is based in reality, on things that are demonstrably true, and that stand up to serious scrutiny.  it has everything to do with actual, demonstrable harm, and nothing, really, to do with how we feel about it.  and its a fucking insult to reduce radical feminist concerns to such trite bullshit, but frankly, its the best men have to offer to women, and to feminism.  and we have to remember: thats all it is.  pomo feminism is not feminism.  its mens interpretation of it.  thats all.


1. Boner Killer - December 8, 2010

i HATE this “feminism” seriously…i’m so sick of women coming up to me and telling me i’m a “man hater” because I don’t support dancing around in bars for men to get boners and other such things. It’s always about teh menz feelings and how being pissed off about women’s oppression and men’s violence against us is just “prudish, man hate” Apparently this is more important, not hurting men’s feelings, than actual feminist issues happening around the world.

Apparently if we all just put on some burlesque outfits and watch sex in the city, we will be liberated from our oppression, women in other parts of the world, or women who don’t buy the pomo crap, won’t be liberated because they won’t be empowerfulized by their sexuality

great post!

2. Nelle - December 9, 2010

I’ve been saying this since age fourteen. It shouldn’t have to come to a concrete,blunt explanation for everyone to get it. I mean,we all have eyes. What bugs me about post modern feminism is that it is centered around a whole lot of pop culture media whoring garbage. Post modern Feminism doesn’t seem to offer much but a good time until you get old and unable to “get it” like you used to, so you may as well be as pantiless as you wanna be and puke on the street corner,peforming a full eagle-spread after falling on your drunken-ass before your sexyfuntime runs out. We women are limited to what is sexy and liberating once we get older according to men. Once you are knocking on forty, they will call them a woman who needs to “settle down and grow up” because they simply aren’t into “old” women,no matter how well they’ve “kept themselves up”. Women who no longer give men boners become invisible so they can gawk at the next little miss hottie 20somethin’ with no “interruptions”. Goodness forbid that you are fat and forty-you might as well give it up. The slim ones can try to regain the male approval by becoming a “cougar”,a woman to provide their sons endless,experienced pussy. Boy , this pos mod femnisim sure has a lot of valuable,beautiful,life-fulfilling options!

Hell, all pos mod feminism is ,is “settling” for piss-I mean,at least they aren’t getting shitted on,I guess. It’s not ever going to be pure freedom because sex pos is on male terms by default because of the patriarchy. You can’t play the game and win anything except slut shaming, an std,or pregnancy,and a couple of sexual romps with some dickbags. What men get is the endless approval by all dudelydudez , his reputation clean as a fresh pair of Adidas, and a sea of women following him after he just totally treated you like you’re nothing. I know this is not all men,but you know,sexism is kinda like racism-it’s a taught thing,and even though many men might not think they are sexist ,misogynist fuckadoodles,they really are. Some of them just aren’t as bad off as the rest. I call those men “savable” for dating/marrying.

My theory always was- Never Play A Man’s game. You will surely get the short end of the stick everytime you do. I do believe there are some things a woman can’t do,and all of that falls into the category of playing A Man’s Game with all the sexpos funfem stuff. There’s even been a few people I’ve seen online saying how sexpos didn’t work for them. I say if you’re going to show people this false reality ,at least teach them to fake it properly and not get young girls feeling hurt,abandonned and shamed after “liberating” herself to various amount of sexual partners. There’s a whole lot of things I find wrong with post modern feminism, and feminism in general-but I see Feminism as a good computer that just needs a little tune up to run properly. The idea/concept is fine, but a little tweaking would be ok every now and then-but posmo feminism doesn’t even come close to tweaking-it wants to demolish what once was and recreate it in their own image so they can feel comfortable with what they are doing as women in a phalocentric society.
Why,outside of the enjoyment,would you want to play a man’s game anyway? I find much of what men do to be morally deplorable and disgusting,and for women to want to emulate that scares me.They aren’t raising the bar very high-and you’re fighting for that? Meh, I think I’ll pass on that one.

Men don’t really need to coerce a woman into having (unprotected or protected) sex with them anymore-it’s freelove feminism giving men all their time,life,and energy all in the name of receiving equality permitted to them by males.

Men give them the permission to feel “empowered” because being sex pos (post mod fem) benifits men tremendously and does not call them out on male entitlement & privilege thanks to patriarchy & feminism making a bastard child. You are permitted and supported by men to be sex pos,post modern feminists because it is the least offensive, the least challenging of male authority and privilege. This is the biggest mindfuck of feminism today,and I often find myself being labeled as a religious zealot when I say these things outside of my own blogs. Yeah,that’s another thing people enjoy doing to people who share radfem ideals – call them religious zealots in the most dismissive,assholish fashion. Has it ever occured to the titty-sucking moronic men that call me this that I find this type of feminism to be counter productive because it helps men more than women? Ugh.

factcheckme - December 9, 2010

i understand the frustration with the sex pozzies, and have written about it several times. but this post wasnt about sex positivism, as much as it was about taking things on faith, and how we no longer seem to think that anything requires proof. all this pomo privilege garbage and faith-based feminism serves men very well, because it obscures the FACT that radical feminism is fact-based, its theory and reality-based, and it stands up to serious scrutiny. radical feminists have been laying it on the line and telling the truth about womens lives, and about what men do to women and girls for decades, and backing it up with actual facts. but now its become some watered down version of “you hurt my feelings, therefore you are an asshole.” i am suggesting that this superficial faux-feminism is what MEN see, when they look at feminism, because they dont get it. because they CANT get it, because they are men, and they refuse to deal with THE FACTS. the DEMONSTRABLE HARMS to women, by THEM. this is what causes them (even the “feminist” ones!) to think that if they just call intercourse “envelop” instead of “penetrate” that they are making a feminist statement, because they are trying to be sensitive to womens FEELINGS (or something) instead of recognizing the DEMONSTRABLE HARMS that flow from PIV, and male-centric sexuality. even the GOOD feminist men, the ones that are anti-rape and anti-porn and anti-prostitution DONT GET that the problems with PIV go way beyond consent, or economic coersion, and that even under the best circumstances, PIV is DEMONSTRABLY HARMFUL TO WOMEN. its not a fucking abstraction, and it has nothing to do with our feelings.

undercover punk sent me a link to another discussion that i found useful, about how pomo ideas are harmful, and are invading even radical discourse. and its NOT a discussion of sex-positivism either.


3. NotSo - December 9, 2010

@FCM – part-time lurker/stalker here, have loved reading your blog, thank you so much for writing it!

Re post title: all religions are dick-centered religions.
I do not agree with the concept of religions at all. I understand having ‘faith’, but in people, in one’s self. Not in the whosit up there – whether that’s Giant Floating Peen or Tantric Mother Earth.

Also – if men aren’t “getting it” (as you say) then the harms done to women by men BECAUSE they are women are *demonstrably true* to nobody but the women.

I’m not trying to be argumentative here, honest. I’m just trying to understand because – well, this actually seems like a really interesting if-then scenario and I’m a little (okay, VERY) puzzled by it.

4. Undercover Punk - December 9, 2010

Love this comment clarification from you, FCM! DEMONSTRABLE harms, versus subjective feelings. The critical point. Feminism has rarely been concerned with women’s FEELINGS, in particular. It is concerned with the CONSTRAINTS which prevent us from FULL HUMANITY (ie, rape, pregnancy, excessive burden of child care/domestic labor, violence, the wage gap, poverty, sexual exploitation, forced marriage, mandatory intimacy with oppressor, etc).

The *only* time that “waaah! you’re erasing me” comes up for radical feminism is when BORN MEN insist that they *are* women. In other words, as a RESPONSE to pomo I-dentity bullshit. It is not an original claim or concern of feminism. I suppose we *could* start arguing that Patriarchy in general erases women (men laws, women’s lives, etc). Which is true. But that is not feminism’s PRIMARY concern. We have much, much more important (DEMONSTRABLE) things to worry about in the meantime!

And about DEMONSTRABLE harms, I find it fascinating that funfems are SOOOO bleeding heart about violence against trans women. Again, of course, this is trans playing on the emotions of FABs and leveraging our “feminine virtues” to their favor. Violence against women, as compared to violence against trans women, is THE SAME THING. Only on a much, much larger scale. But instead of asking trans to recognize this, and at trans’ demand, FABs coddle them and their “unique” oppression. “Just take it on faith. my cis-privileged ally, we trans have it waaay WORSE than you do! (EVEN though we can’t get pregnant or anything.)” FABs are thereby bullied from critical analysis of the gender essentialism inherent to trans ideology and how it HARMS women. So all the while FABs are crying in their beers over trans violence and telling us that dress-wearing is the totality of the female experience, the PANDEMIC of violence against FABs RAGES ON unrecognized. UGH. Demonstrable harm against trans=heart breaking socio-political crisis. Demonstrable harm against women=denial. WTFF.

5. Undercover Punk - December 9, 2010

So all the while FABs are crying in their beers over trans violence and telling us that dress-wearing is the totality of the female experience, the PANDEMIC of violence against FABs RAGES ON unrecognized.

Correction: FABs are buying the trans bullshit about dress-wearing being the totality of the female experience, while crying in their micro-brews about trans violence.

factcheckme - December 9, 2010

Well, we have known where babies come from for a long time, notso. And we’ve known for longer than that, that pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous for women. This is a demonstrable fact, the cause and effect are verified, and its all common knowledge, and has been for some time.

Yet, self-identified feminist men, like all heterosexual men, continue to stick their dicks into women anyway.

The harm is demonstrated, but men choose to disregard it. This is a very different animal, isnt it, than MAABs or anyone for that matter, saying that if someone hurts their feelings, that person is oppressing them…WITHOUT DEMONSTRATING THE HARM. Demonstrate it, if you can! And they cant. Or at least, they WON’T, citing the privilege-blinders concept, and demanding that we take it all on faith.

The difference is that men are fucking assholes, who can’t or won’t acknowledge the facts that underlie radical feminist theory. And feminists repeating the facts ad nauseam won’t change that, and demonstrably HASN’T changed that, even though we’ve tried. Whereas the fucking pomos demand that their “facts” be assumed, when they’ve NEVER bothered to demonstrate the harms or oppressions they are talking about. They claim the right not to be repetitious, but they’ve yet to say it ONCE.

6. Undercover Punk - December 9, 2010

I’m comment-spamming!

So about the Good Ones, I think SOME of them do “get it.” But only *Because* the harms against women ARE so demonstrable. I mean, they don’t “get it” like WE “get it.” They can’t. They don’t walk in our shoes. They don’t fear night like we do. But I think there are a few men who, at least, believe the scientifically-legit rape statistics. These “facts” are supported by male law enforcement, male scientific method, etc.

I also think that Good Ones, even when they try to deny the facts, are exposed–in men’s locker rooms and shit– to male talk about women. I cringe to even begin imagining the horrible things men say about women behind our backs. But the Good Ones hear EVERYTHING. And I think that scares some of them. You know, the ones with souls…?

7. Undercover Punk - December 9, 2010

Did I just have a moment of FAITH? in humanity or something? Oh goddess. I’m sorry everyone.

factcheckme - December 9, 2010

In other words, they are fucking lazy, and are just going through the motions, without laying the foundation. They are mimicking or mirroring feminism, and feminist discourse, without doing any of the actual work, or even seeing that there’s any difference, at all.

factcheckme - December 9, 2010

Kinda like transwomen mimicking born-women actually, and not seeing that there’s a bit of difference. Seems to be a rather pervasive male trait.

8. Undercover Punk - December 9, 2010

Yes, yes, and HELL yes to both of FCM’s comments just above this one. THAT’S IT, sister.

9. sam - December 9, 2010

There are ghost asterisks throughout this week’s mainstream feminist commentary on Sweden’s progressive rape laws that all lead to the unspoken footnote, “But Swedes are still wrong about prostitution being rape”.

The cowards prefer willful ignorance of proven harms and willful ignorance of proven solutions.

10. NotSo - December 9, 2010

Right-o! That’s untwisted these here panties well enough. Cheers 🙂

And re the trans-trance — I was wondering about SRS and why there is a need for it, biologically. Because chemical/surgical castration and hormone therapy would take care of any male chemicals floating around the body. A fake vagina is not going to change the chemical/mental makeup of the trans in question. It’s not suddenly going to create an area in the brain specifically for “vagina” – there will just be some random areas for a hotchpotch ex-penis.

So why do it? There is no biological reason for getting a fuck-hole installed. NONE.

It just doesn’t make sense.

(Interesting side-note: I have yet to read a current biologist/chemist radfem blog. All the ones I’ve come across, with the exception of rainsinger.wordpress.com who has not posted in a long while, have social/political academic backgrounds or write from that perspective. Can anyone help a sister out? Are there any more bio-view blogs by radfems?)

factcheckme - December 9, 2010

I think that if self-identified feminist men are still sticking their dicks into women, then no, they do NOT get it. Not at all. If they are treating vaginas as fuckholes, knowing how dangerous it is to get pregnant, and knowing the risk SHE is taking, and the probably dangerous lengths SHE is going to, to mitigate the harm HE is causing her…then he doesnt “get” anything.

In very simple terms, men who stick their dicks into women, even under the best of circumstances, don’t even “get” what FEMALE means. The word. It doesn’t mean fuckhole, it doesn’t mean love object, sex object, or even “equal human being who’s exactly like me.” FEMALE generally means, for adult humans, having a female reproductive system. Which means that female bodies, BY DEFINITION, are vulnerable to male bodies, and specifically to piv. If they dont get that, then they dont get anything. If they don’t get that, they don’t get that women are human. Seriously. Humans are made of tissues and organs, and organ systems. Humans generally have the capacity to reproduce. Human females are impregnable. That’s just the way it fucking is.

11. SheilaG - December 9, 2010

I think when you look at male violence against women in all forms worldwide, you are looking at facts, statistics, and all of this generated by male police states everywhere.. So men come up with the abuse numbers, the rape numbers, the death of pregnant women because husbands / boyfriends kill pregnant women etc. The pay gaps– mild sounding by comparison.

All of this violence against women that is well documented worldwide by the UN, by Interpol, by the Houston police department—all of this is just poo pooed, or it is about “individuals” commiting crimes against other “individuals.”

Day in day out, some woman and her children gets killed, and it’s always an insane husband, or it’s the Columbine creepo boys, or it’s US male soldiers raping US women soldiers. Just how much evidence of evil and violence that men commit against women–real measurable violence does there have to be before both women AND men get that men ARE the problem for women worldwide. That peace is trying to get men to stop raping and killing, that women dying in childbirth are the result of male PIV– and that men don’t die in childbirth, and will never get pregnant.

If you had rape and violence statistics of Catholic men against Jewish men and women in America, and that it was ONLY Catholic men who killed and violated Jewish women, what would happen then?

At year end, we need a compliation of data:

12. Undercover Punk - December 9, 2010

I think that if self-identified feminist men are still sticking their dicks into women, then no, they do NOT get it.

You’re right; I’m wrong. I’m sorry. I don’t know what came over me! Eeek! I hope it wasn’t all that fashion I was posting this morning… 😉

13. thebewilderness - December 10, 2010

You know it was! That stuff will rot your brain.

14. Undercover Punk - December 10, 2010

thebewildreness, you know you love aesthetics! Aesthetic harmony is BENEFICIAL to cognitive efficiency AND nurtures the spirit. Don’t get me started cause you *know* I’ll go OFF. 😉

15. FAB Libber - December 10, 2010

Pomo & ‘taking it on faith’ are primarily just two distraction techniques.
Helps to cover up the evidence that men are the problem. It’s a more sophisticated development on ‘men are victims too’ and ‘women are just as violent as men’.
And if those don’t work, then the fallback position is to discredit the messenger (radfems) with either being ‘not nuanced enough’ or ‘sexless prudes’. And if that doesn’t work, radfems can always be dismissed by a hearty round of ‘transphobic’! In other words, baseless name-calling.

This stuff just gets old.

16. SheilaG - December 10, 2010

Men can’t stay on topic as to who is the real problem for all people– for it is men who kill trans, it is men who rape women, it is Orthodox rabbinical men on a child molestation spree only now coming to light. It is about men, not about religion or anything else.

This denial derail– oh women are violent too, is such a statistical joke, it just shows that we have to get this clear message out, because male supremacy can’t stand up to sheer numbers.

It is not about taking anything on faith within radical feminism, it is about facts. But in the patriarchal house of mirrors and reversal of the reversals, the facts are not facts. If men are violent then women are violent too– no real accounting for hard data naturally.

factcheckme - December 11, 2010

just thought i’d share…this showed up in my stats because the author linked to me. shes a feminist who just “came out” as someone who doesnt believe in cis-privilege, and who doesnt accept transwomen as women (although she acknowledges that they are human beings, obvs. SO DONT START, transactivists. you know who you are).

go girl!


17. feministatsea - December 11, 2010

Thanks for linking back to me factcheckme. It has already started with one comment witch I for now have let through, but I may change my mind. Do you get a lot of “you’re so wrong and unfair” comments here? and do you keep them?

And definitely a yes on vaginas not being fuck holes. It’s freaking ridiculous. I can’t talk about pregnancies or menstruation because it makes me an essentialist apparently. Which is totally stupid. They are the essentialists for believing that certain clothes and behaviors = being a woman.

They keep using definitions of existing words that no one uses and are unclear about what they really mean, but you can’t be critical or logical about this, because then “whah! you are oppressing transwomen”.

factcheckme - December 11, 2010

hi feministatsea

first, congratulations on standing up to the transactivists and fun-fems. seriously. they make this extremely difficult, which is intentional: they are men, and/or standing up for mens rights, and they know that radical feminists are their biggest obstacle to their me, me, me male-centered bullshit, rampant misogyny and essentialism. they make it difficult, but its the only path for feminists who are critical thinkers, and who refuse to allow the erasure of women.


They keep using definitions of existing words that no one uses and are unclear about what they really mean, but you can’t be critical or logical about this, because then “whah! you are oppressing transwomen”.

YES! welcome to fun-fem town. they all do this. their arguments fall apart when reason and logic are applied, so they rail against both, and call it “erasure” or “invalidating lived experience.” its very sneaky, and manipulative, and emotionally charged. again, all this is intentional, because they need to get women upset and appeal to thier emotions and need to caretake others emotions, as a distraction from the fact that what they are actually saying MAKES. NO. SENSE.

Thanks for linking back to me factcheckme. It has already started with one comment witch I for now have let through, but I may change my mind. Do you get a lot of “you’re so wrong and unfair” comments here? and do you keep them?

oh dear. do you think the abusive comments came from my readers, who found you via my link? if you want me to take it down, let me know. as for what i do with the same kinds of comments, well, it depends on what you want to acheive. in the beginning, when i made my first trans-critical post “sorry sex-positive transwomen” i let most comments through, so that i could better explain what i meant and respond to the criticisms that were at least relatively civil (if not logical). and then i had a group of radfems show up and do the same thing, which was awesome. the thread turned into a good discussion. i RARELY let through longwinded mansplanations however, or abusive comments, or anything condescending UNLESS i have a specific purpose in mind. like to ridicule them, or for example when a male feminst comes over here and is abusive, i out him as an abuser.

my general policy NOW, having been here for awhile and gathering a terrific readership and people who comment well, and not feeling the need to go over basic shit anymore or repeat myself, is this: the mainstream view goes without saying, on this blog. this is a counter-culture blog, and its a space for a counter culture view. comments have to add something to the discussion, and not espouse anything mainstream, that all of us already know, and flatly reject WITH GOOD REASONS that have already been gone over like a thousand times. thats pretty much it.

that said, “granite scones” totally mansplained you, and i would have deleted his ass immediately, currently. back in the day, when i was brand new, i might have taken the time to systematically blow his ass out of the water, but today i wouldnt. its already been done.

18. feministatsea - December 11, 2010

Hm I doubt the readers came from your blog. Before you even noticed I had linked to you blog and had linked back my post already appeared on the top list of google searches for “radical feminist blog trans”. It’s scary. That took only a few hour after I posted this. Some people have been linking to it for sure, but won’t identify themselves.

It is so strange all the known controversial feminist issues I blogged about and the one post about trans is what hits the internet instantly. Are people on the lookout for this stuff?

19. thebewilderness - December 11, 2010

I got a little cranky over at your place, feministatsea.
Feel free to delete me if you think it will help avert a flame war.
That, by the bye, is what is likely to happen if you post the trans activists and the pamper the penis peeps comments as well as rad Feminist comments.
Most radical feminists on the interwebs have better self discipline than I and resist the troll bait.
The other out come is the possibility that the only peeps that will post are those who mansplain and chastise you for your failure to respect their “Humpty Dumpty language roolz” whereby the words mean whatever they say the words mean at any given moment and are subject to change without notice.
Wearisome and fruitless circular discussions ensue.

20. thebewilderness - December 12, 2010

OK I read the fugi forum couple pages after you left.
The penis pamperers angry refutation punched bigger holes in their own argument than you did with all your reason and logic. That happens a lot over at mAndrea’s place.

21. feministatsea - December 12, 2010

no worries, I am allowing it all and I would never accuse you of purposely trying to incite a flame war. I also did not perceive your responds as cranky though I was a little surprised when you question my “feel like a woman” statement. I did not mean it like in the song. 🙂

I can definitely feel like a woman when I am aware of my biology and I don’t think it’s anything bad. But it is simply me being aware that I have a uterus and stuff. It does not mean feeling sexy and happy with men’s lewd comments. Definitely not like that. I also don’t feel womanhood is this mystical powerful thing though I do understand women using it as a sort of religion to reclaim it for themselves as opposed to what they have always been told by men what it means.

22. SheilaG - December 12, 2010

feministatsea– the trans gang is out to derail all radical feminist commentary, and opposition to trans invasions of women only space. It is pure colonial behavior mostly on the part of castrated men who, still being men, are unaccustomed to women saying NO to them. So your trans radical feminist stuff will likely get the hornets out in force. Don’t fall for their bait. I’m sure FCM can advise you.

factcheckme - December 12, 2010

yes. like i said, in the beginning, i allowed more comments through than i do today. i liked getting my thoughts around the issues, and formulating responses, and seeing other radfems responses to things too. it was very much a learning experience for me, because these things are discussed in so few places (and are silenced instead) that i never had the chance to really dig into it, before i did it here.

and now i am done. 😛

i will NOT allow mainstream comments here anymore, on any subject, and that includes trans issues. thats not what this space is for. mainstream bullshit is boring, its tiresome, its aggravating, its derailing, time wasting, and abusive. thats the whole problem with mainstream ANYTHING. its horrible. and thats exactly what we are responding to, with our alternate views. THEY need to shut up and read, because OUR viewpoints are the minority. i already know what they think, and everything they will EVER think, about these issues. they are nothing if not completely trite, and predictable.

23. thebewilderness - December 12, 2010

It was not your “feel like a woman” statement that I was questioning so much as it raised an issue that I have never understood and has puzzled me exceedingly.
How can trans person argue that they know how it feels to “feel like a woman” when the only thing they have to go on is what men say it feels like to feel like a woman.
It is weird and convoluted so no wonder it was confusing.

24. joy - December 12, 2010

feministatsea — I’m too shy (cowardly?) to post over on your blog because I don’t want to get involved in a flame war (I don’t purposefully try to start them, but I tend to be … blunt … and it always rubs Teh D00ds, aka Peenie Brigade, the wrong way).

I think your post was extremely well articulated, and you were quite clear. The reason assholes don’t ‘get’ it is because you are framing the entire issue in a way they don’t understand. (Shit, you even framed it in a way that I hadn’t entirely considered, re, ‘feeling like a woman’, and I’ve thought of everything. /snark)

You could be clear as day, and give them a microscope and magnifying glass too, and they still would miss the point by a million miles.

Mainstream society is, obviously, fucked up. Mainstream mainstream is openly racist, homophobic, transhating (the actual transhatred, ie men murdering, beating, discriminating against trans people, comes from the main/malestream and they often tend to forget that), and of course misogynist. Then the supposedly ‘liberal’ mainstream pretends to be oh so enlightened and openminded, while it blithely continues to be racist, often homophobic, and possibly even -more misogynist- than the overt mouthbreathers.

This is the shit that makes manarchists and other douchebags complain about society becoming “too PC.” ie, the discourse pretends to be sensitive about racial and LGBT issues while kissing trans ass and promoting funfeminism (although that shit is often crass and funfeminists also complain about things being ‘too PC’, wrap your head around that one).

The truth is, of course, that women’s issues are still ignored and marginalized everywhere except in radical feminism. Women elsewhere are expected to take, on faith, that “we’re all equal now, yaaaaay! except, now we all have cisprivilege. Except transpeople, who are the only remaining oppressed group. Please ignore that curtain and never look at the little man behind it. Thanks.”

And it seems like ever so many of them do. Take it on faith, that is.

25. NotSo - December 12, 2010

@ thebewilderness

is your handle anything to do with larson’s bewildebeests? it’s funny!

ok so this is not meant as a derail, so apologies beforehand if it serves as one.

but a lot of trans people claim biology (like this:

is responsible for their ‘feelings’, and some of this research then suggests that certain “behaviours” or “feelings” about being a “woman” are intrinsic.

what do you make of this?

(because i’m a little worried that they’ll find some actual biological tumpty-tum that *necessitates* that women be oppressed and then we’ll just have to stfu and do what we’re told, because it’s “nature you idiot woman!”)

26. purpleunderground - December 12, 2010

The “feel like a woman” is another thing that everybody is supposed to take on faith from transactivists.

Except, half the population – the half that are supposed to “feel like a woman” – don’t know what the hell they are talking about. It is particularly amusing when trans like to claim that they have “felt like a woman since the age of 4”. WTF? Seriously? When they make statements like that, you know they are making it up.

The only things that a 4yo girl will notice is that the boys are usually arrogant and aggressive, and treated with favouritism. Girls are not. The favouritism is an external condition, which usually fosters the arrogant/aggressive behaviours. The correct assessment is “I did not feel favoured when I was 4”.

BTW, the acronym for “feel like a woman” is FLAW.
Which does really describe the dodgy premise of “feeling like a woman”.

27. feministatsea - December 12, 2010

@NotSo: Brains change all the time. If they didn’t we would never be able to master new skills. This also makes us vulnerable to propaganda and conditioning. I have yet to see something better than “our brains change when we makes changes to our environment and our thinking” and “girls prefer to play with dolls while boys prefer to play with cars.” That’s just speculation and bad science.

Btw people who suffer from a depression also have differences in their brains from people who do not suffer form a depression. Does that prove depression is innate? If that were the case then all mental therapists all over the world would suddenly be out of business.

factcheckme - December 12, 2010

The “feel like a woman” is another thing that everybody is supposed to take on faith from transactivists.

YES! this is such an excellent point. there is no proof from any of them, NOR CAN THERE BE, that theres any such thing as “feeling like a woman” OR in fact that THEY “feel like women” themselves. these are 2 seperate claims BTW, and BOTH require a faith-based belief system. we are just supposed to BELIEVE THEM, MEN, who are known to rape and brutalize women, that THEY “feel like” women, when the obvious agenda there (regardless of whether its actually true) is to gain access to women and womens spaces, like public restrooms. how easy would it be for ANY man to just say that? duh. they must think we are fucking stupid. thats the only explanation for their expectation that we are just supposed to BELIEVE ITS TRUE, because they say it is.

and as for whether theres ANY SUCH THING in the first place as “feeling like” a woman, well, how the hell is anyone supposed to prove that? especially when we have INDISPUTABLY FEMALE BORN-WOMEN, who are NOT intersex, who are NOT chromosome-variant, saying that we DONT “feel like women” and we never have.

what they dont seem to understand, even though its DEMONSTRABLY TRUE (so they are deliberately disregarding it) is that most of the womanly-activities we engage in, are necessitated by the shit MEN do to us. women are subjected to mandatory PIV which causes many of us to become knocked up. some of us bring the fetuses to term, then we engage in caretaking duties BECAUSE MEN WONT DO IT. all of this (or a lot of it) is completely dependant on men being entitled assholes. if men werent such entitled assholes, literally everything would look different than it does today.

and theres simply NO PROOF that physical differences in trans-identified persons, WHERE THESE DIFFERENCES EVEN EXIST, actually cause any of the shit these alleged physical differences are said to cause. its impossible to prove a cause-and-effect relationship. whereas, FOR EXAMPLE, the fact that PIV causes pregnancy is demonstrable. the fact that men dont and wont partake in equal caretaking duties is demonstrable. the cause-and-effect there, that MENS BEHAVIORS force women into these roles, is demonstrable. the only possible conclusion here is that men and transactivists DONT CARE about cause-and-effect. they only care about pushing their agenda, and serving themselves.

28. purpleunderground - December 12, 2010

Ah yes, and when trans try to “prove” FLAW, they either say it was because they liked pink / liked wearing dresses and pretty things / liked dollies; or they maintain “just because I do/did” which then puts it back into take-it-on-faith again.

In the first case, the “likes”, these are all socially conditioned stereotypes of what girls are supposed to “like”, and it is brainwashed into girls so they conform into the self fulfilling prophecy (or circular reasoning) of gender stereotypes. Frankly, this borders on child abuse, by not allowing all children to reach their full potential. Girl children anyway.

In the second case of taking it on faith, generally speaking, most females do not FLAW, or the FLAW is so diverse it encompasses absolutely everything (from hating periods to loving periods for example), that FLAW is a ridiculous claim to make. Rather flawed in fact (pun intended).

Woman = adult human female.
It’s a fact, not a “feeling”.

Personally I do not care what anyone dresses up as, as long as it does not have serious consequences for others. The key issue here is safety for biological women in places like rest rooms, when a male, complete with penis but wearing a dress, demands entry to these spaces.

The lack of acceptance for trans comes from the trans community themselves, when they want to encompass anyone and everyone who wants to be known as “a woman”. FFS, no-penis is surely a minimal requirement here?

When the transactivists can talk logic and commonsense, it is then that more people might take them seriously. Until then, any wonder they get laughed at? It’s their own fault for presenting grossly flawed arguments. FLAW included.

29. purpleunderground - December 12, 2010

@ NoSo

but a lot of trans people claim biology […] is responsible for their ‘feelings’, and some of this research then suggests that certain “behaviours” or “feelings” about being a “woman” are intrinsic.

There is no intrinsic “behaviour” or “feeling” to being a woman/female, because behaviours and feelings cover the entire spectrum of human emotions and behaviours. Women are human after all. *shocker*

One fairly common “feeling” that many females have is being treated as second-class citizens. That is merely reactionary to the fucked up situation of male dominance.

The link did not work, and I assume it was to Zoe Brain’s blog or former blog. Zoe, bless her cotton socks, has over the years gone from claiming to be a transwoman, to intersex, to claiming she has a rare genetic disorder that made her spontaneously turn into “a woman”. I’ll send her some tampons…

I don’t have a problem with people like Zoe, it is just when they try to make their situation into public policy that has implications for half the population that I raise objection. She can do whatever the hell she wants to do with her body. And note how polite I was by using the preferred pronoun?

30. feministatsea - December 12, 2010

Hm perhaps flaw is entirely the wrong term to use when I describe what I feel in my uterus at times. So I’ll no longer be using that, but will be more specific.

I have to wonder about restrooms though. Women are not safe as long as our bodies are seen as public property. Fleeing into a restroom, unless you also flee into a locked stall doesn’t protect you from being raped. Also I increasingly see unisex bathrooms and when the line for the woman’s bathroom is too long I’ll use the men’s, when there isn’t a line there that is.

However I completely agree with you on the safe spaces. And if a man disguises himself to get access to those spaces, well that’s just fucking rude. It’s a wolf and sheep’s clothes and not likely to make women very sympathetic towards the dude in question.

31. SheilaG - December 12, 2010

FLAW… radfems are just too clever for words 🙂

32. thebewilderness - December 12, 2010

The Bewilderness is the name of the house I live in. It sits in a clearing in thick evergreen woods in the Puget Sound area.

33. joy - December 13, 2010

“being pleasing to dicks (and penises!)”

Ha! I just got this little funny. And it’s funny.

Whoever said radical feminists don’t have a sense of humor … just wasn’t paying attention. And/or wasn’t very smart. Probably both.

34. purpleunderground - December 13, 2010

Hm perhaps flaw is entirely the wrong term to use when I describe what I feel in my uterus at times.

I think the description you are looking for is “being reminded of your female biology”.

It is similar to the times I accidentally bump my elbow on something, I get reminded I have an elbow. Most of the time I don’t notice I have elbows. But I do not suddenly declare “I feel like a human!” just because I am reminded of a body part.

Certainly, being aware of one’s uterus is only an option to half the population, but most of the time females do not notice it is there.

Being female is a fact, not a “feeling”.

35. calliope - December 13, 2010

thank you thank you thank you for writing this blog. in my first year of university, when I first became more deeply interested in feminism, I came across only blogs like feministing and so on.. and was very put off by the postmodernist absurdity of it all. I’m a lesbian and (trigger warning, sorry) was molested by my own father as a child, I guess I have a deep-seated fear of men in general now. not all men of course. but men who want to intrude, to occupy women’s space, to call themselves female when they have no idea what it is like to be, mentally or physically, a woman, scares me. I feel powerless and terrified when I hear about it and I feel horrible when I do but I can’t help it. Also, people were throwing the term “ciswoman” around like a bloody insult. I unwisely posted my feelings on a feministing article – not hateful in any way,- and I felt like mud on a shoe, they called me transphobic and ignorant and lectured me as to how “cisgendered” feminists are oppressing transsexuals. It made we wonder where the hell are the feminists who don’t fall for this pseudointellectual postmodern bullshit, why are these women lauding men born men who call themselves women and then tactlessly invade women-only havens. And I’m so glad to have found a blog where the poster and regular commenters are a breath of sanity in a movement gone mad with political correctness.

factcheckme - December 13, 2010

calliope, i have to say that i feel the same way. i left feminism for about a decade because i had other shit to do. when i came back, the blogs were all in full force and i thought “great! feminist blogs!” then i started actually reading them. what. the. fuck??!!!! it didnt take long to figure out what was going on: that transactivism had taken over the discourse, and women were pandering to transwomen, and third-wave feminist men. when i started this blog, my first radical decision was to NOT introduce myself as “cis.” and the rest as they say is history.

the best stuff around here, like i always say, happens in the comments. its where i find inspiration for new posts too, so i always suggest reading not just the posts but the comments too. there is a good group here, and i too am glad to have found them. thanks for reading.

36. feministatsea - December 13, 2010

Come to think of it the term trans-phobic is mostly often thrown around by people who identify themselves online as men (not even trans-women) and also tucked away in a small corner of the internet I found the erasure of the experiences of those living with inter-sexuality by trans-activists, insisting that it is the same thing and that trans-people deal with the same issues as inter-sexual people.

Also as a parallel comparison, being critical of the crimes perpetrated by the Israeli government against the Palestinians is decried as “antisemitism”. Being critical of crimes against humanity is not discriminating against Jews, but it does result in being called a bigot. Again who are these people throwing that term around the most? Why, they mostly white and Jewish men.

37. calliope - December 13, 2010

thanks for replying, FCM! I agree, it’s astonishing how much “transactivism” has overtaken feminist discourse and the LGB and intersex communities. it really oozes male privilege. I recently asked a question about this on a forum – an LGBT forum – asking what transwomen mean when they claim to feel female, if they were born men? I also asked why, if a lesbian gently rejects their advances, they are so offended (especially if they are still male down below). and a transwoman actually had the gall to say that (sic) “judging someone based simply on their genitals has nothing to do with your sexual preference, she’s a woman, end of story, if you arent attracted to her as a lesbian then that is your prerogative, but to say no simply because she hasnt had surgery… well that’s just spewing the same kind of nonsense as the über christian right…” So if someone is physically male, I as a lesbian am not allowed to prefer a relationship with a female-bodied person..? I don’t know, this deeply bothers me. as somebody who has survived sexual assault, I think finding out that a woman wants me to accept her as a woman despite “her” having a penis would be pretty traumatic.. and yet I would be the one in the wrong somehow?

feministatsea, I agree with you, it is very depressing how transactivists have pretty much hijacked intersex discourse. however I think it’s also sad that so many people have accepted the Hamas propaganda that Israel has committed crimes against humanity. so I’d like to respectfully disagree. Iran has smuggled arms to the Gaza strip in fucking ambulances. Palestinian terrorists in disguise as medical volunteers killed Israelis not too long ago. the Palestinians *are* largely virulently anti-Semitic, and they use their own children as weapons, and their women as human shields. recently Hamas set (in 3 separate locations, with arson) the largest forest fire in Israel’s history, and the destruction wreaked on Israel was *celebrated* in the Arab world. Israel is the only peaceful state in the middle east – the only middle eastern state that protects women, gays, and even Palestinian refugees who desire to become citizens of Israel. Israeli civilians live in constant fear of rocket attacks from Palestinian civilians. sorry, I know politics isn’t the discussion here but I just have to stand up for Israel – so many people are attacking her, just for existing, all the time.

of course it’s not anti-Semitic to criticize Israel’s policy if you feel it’s right to, but anti-Semitism is alive and kicking, hard, especially throughout the Arab world. transphobia is a term used by men who haven’t got what they want from women to make them feel like they’ve wronged them somehow. and somehow they’ve succeeded in getting the majority of feminists to buy into their griping, and to do it for them.

factcheckme - December 13, 2010

Ok, I’m totally holding my nose to get past the politics stuff. Ew.

Re “she’s a woman, end of story” this is actually a perfect example of what transactivists believe, but they SAY the opposite. Specifically, they clearly believe that sex and gender are THE SAME, all the while maintaining that they believe that sex and gender are DIFFERENT. They must think we are complete idiots, to not see the shell game they are playing, but there you go.

If a man says he self-identifies as female, then FINE, his GENDER is female. Great! Doesn’t change his sex though, nor could it, unless sex and gender were the same. The transactivists are very clear in their belief, that sex and gender are the same, but flatly deny believing that. Now, what could their motivation POSSIBLY be, in pulling a sleight of hand parlor trick ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE? This is not a rhetorical question.

38. feministatsea - December 13, 2010

I am working on a blog post right now and I will write about Hamas too, because their violation of human rights, but it does not been that to be critical of policies and violence makes an argument antisemitic.

But the same is true for tans-phobia. It’s very much alive and kicking, but you can’t just throw it around every time you disagree with a person to hush the discussion.

39. calliope - December 13, 2010

sorry about the politics. will not bring any more of it into discussion – promise.

I agree completely and I don’t know how to answer the non-rhetorical question, other than that they are blind to their own inconsistency (because it just doesn’t matter to them?). men aren’t used to not getting their way, I guess.

40. SheilaG - December 13, 2010

What is the motivation for the parlour trick? Well, I have an educated guess. It is men who fully want to invade and colonize women. It is the final insult of male supremacy, and it is a deliberate attempt to ruin the radical feminism, because radical feminism is the most powerful truthtelling around. Men hate it when women organize, and they want in on their terms. I have never heard of men being respectful of lesbian only spaces, or women only spaces that are overtly political. Who is invading lesbian space/ Transwomen. They are men, they are entitled and we’re supposed to believe what they say. Women have no right to reject completely a formerly male bodied person, and the way they talk to women is exactly the way men have talked to women for eons.
The way they talk gives the domineering game away.

Unfortunately, lesbians are often naieve on this point, and younger lesbians aren’t very up on radical feminist politics. They don’t read.

factcheckme - December 13, 2010

We have “blind to their own inconsistency” and then we have “its deliberate.” Each could be possible, sure. The fact that it IS an inconsistency, in the first place, is not acknowledged by very many people, so just getting that part front and center is an important step. A crucial one actually.

Just to be clear, I have had transwomen show up here, who demanded to be called “she” and I used to just do it. Sure, why not right? Your “gender” is female. Well, next thing you know, “she” is insisting that since she had mtf surgery, that she’s also female SEXED. But I had to object to that one. I suggested that she was male-sexed, or at the very least was a third-sex that was neither male nor female, since she no longer had the reproductive organs of either one. She took offense. Now, why would that be, unless she thought that sex and gender were the same?

For my part, I don’t care that much if its deliberate or not. This shit MUST not be allowed to fly. They need to be called out at every turn, and feminists need to ditch the dumb act, once and for all. This is absurd.

41. Sargassosea - December 13, 2010

“It is men who fully want to invade and colonize women. It is the final insult of male supremacy…”

Yes, Sheila, that’s exactly what I was thinking and was trying to get at in a comment awaiting moderation at Feministatsea’s place – I think you’ve done a much better job of it though 🙂

Part of what I said: “How entitled they must feel to be able to choosily choose to be oppressed by EVERYONE.”

So, yeah, how dare we have something that they don’t have and like Calliope said they’re not used to NOT getting their way. Gotta have all of that woman oppression too and if the only way to get it is to *be* a *woman*, then fine.

Talk about erasure!

42. NotSo - December 13, 2010

Hardly a shocker that the trans (i.e. male) view is all about ‘teh pore individooals!’ – suits them just fine to talk about one ‘oppressed’ transient rather than the millions of women suffering rape/the effects thereof. Fuck that shit.

@ purpleunderground

Thank you for that clarification/affirmation. What gets me is that the difference between FAB women and trans ‘women’ is SO clear and SO obvious and yet the trans INSIST that there is NO difference (whether pre or post op). Teh fuck.

I think that’s what makes me think there is something to it, to at least SOME of their claims. This constant insistence.

Because what benefit could any (probably very confused) male possibly get from calling himself a woman and chopping off his peen? Or ‘passing’? I just don’t understand why so many would do it for kicks. There are definitely some issues there (asides from male entitlement).

@ Calliope – have you read walt and mearsheimer? “israel lobby and us foreign policy”
(see this page for more details:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby) do read it right through.

also, anything by noam chomsky regarding israel-palestine. it’s very basic stuff. but essentially, the propaganda-making machine in the us is alive and going strong, especially when it comes to israel. (hey, if the manchine can do it for men vs. women, why not israel vs. palestine? think about it.)

All – sorry for bringing the sticks-dicks-and-politics back into the discussion. I won’t say anymore about it. I just hated the thought of a fellow radfem not being clued in about all the misanthropic vagaries of the propagandic American dream-machine. (Not a word more on this from me, orbpromis!)

43. joy - December 13, 2010

“sorry for bringing the sticks-dicks-and-politics back into the discussion. I won’t say anymore about it. I just hated the thought of a fellow radfem not being clued in about all the misanthropic vagaries of the propagandic American dream-machine.”

I’m radically anticapitalist and profoundly against the American dream in every aspect. (The nuclear family — wtf!)

I’ve found that being a radical feminist does not guarantee that one is a radical in any other arena whatsoever. I’m not sure how or why that is.

44. SheilaG - December 13, 2010

I agree that it’s a mixture of deliberate and not deliberate.

Another theory I have, is that when these guys “transition” into patriarchal copies of females, that they really have no idea of what sexism is or what the fear of rape is, or anything at all that bio-females have to live with. They have never had to deal with that kind of hatred directed at them by males believing them to be females at a glance.

This shock of being overnight put into the second class sex class category of “visually appearing women” then throws them into a rage. And they still don’t get that we don’t want men in women’s restrooms period.

They would not get that biowomen and particularly lesbians want nothing to do we these born men. They still carry the obnoxious baggage of women, and they are no used to women calling the shots.
For women to say no to men is the ultimate liberatory practice, it is about taking back everything men have stolen from women. Trans is yet the newest manifestation of theft, appropriation and objectification.

45. SheilaG - December 13, 2010

And NoSo, the reason radical feminism and Noam Chomskish radicalism don’t go together is that Noam supports male supremacy. He simply doesn’t address women’s oppression by the male sex class at all. When you hear him talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what he means as the male-male tribal conflict. “International affairs” is about men, it doesn’t put women in the center of the discussion of human rights at all.

Chomsky is always welcome on NPR and Amy Goodwin, but you’ll never hear them do extensive radio shows on radical feminists like Mary Daly, Catherine MacKinnon, or Andrea Dworkin. This is telling about what is considered “radical” and it is always about men, and never about the central oppression which is male over female.

The peace process is a joke as long as it’s all men doing it. So radical that doesn’t deal with women as central is really another form of male-male dialogue, while shutting down female speech and experience. Witness Wikileaks and how leftist men are addressing rape charges against the founder. It’s a perfect example of how radical men are not radical at all.

46. thebewilderness - December 13, 2010

The words matter. Or at least they do to me.
Semitic does not mean Hebrew or Jewish.
The Palestinian people are Semite also.
Srsly, look it up. Question those assumptions and by all means question authority!!!

47. purpleunderground - December 14, 2010

The fact that it IS an inconsistency, in the first place, is not acknowledged by very many people, so just getting that part front and center is an important step. A crucial one actually.

Ah yes, the inconsistencies.
When I first started coming across TWs online, I was very open-minded, I listened to what they said.

That changed when their inconsistencies and all-encompassing policies became clear. It was primarily the latter that I had a problem with. Annoyance with their sex/gender = same, came later. OK, only five minutes later…

Given how women everywhere are treated, I could accept that TWs were “a type of woman” that could be included under the feminism umbrella. However, it was clear from transactivists (and their buddies, the ‘genderqueer’) that (trans-)woman was to include pre-op as well as the obviously post-op TWs, and including cross-dressers AND (get this) even men who only dressed up as women part-time. Seriously? WTF??? They wanted to include anybody and everybody in “woman”. Sorry, no dice. My minimum standard is that “woman” is not a person with a penis. It is sad that I have to bold that sentence!

Then came sex/gender used interchangeably. Well, they are NOT the same thing, and transactivists just come off as idiots for maintaining they are. Particularly in feminist discussions – it is feminism-101 to know the difference between sex and gender. Yet feminists are to bow to TWs as the most oppressed of all women.

To “prove” their case, they frequently trot out a childhood like for the colour pink, or pretty dresses, or tea parties, as “proof” they always FLAW. Gender crap! Nothing to do with the reproductive bits you are born with. I hate pink, therefore I am not woman? My uterus might indicate otherwise.

Arguments such as being gender non-conforming were unbelieveable, particularly because most TWs wanted to ‘perform’ the most misogynistic variety of “womanhood”. Basically the stuff feminists have forever been fighting against.

It’s not just feminists that they piss off, they co-opt intersex persons (most of whom are raised as girls). A distinct lack of boundaries.

Feminist concerns for women’s safety in women-only spaces is completely ignored by transactivists, who say we should just accept anybody in there, even the “women” with penises, else we are ‘bigots’. .

Whilst the libfems and funfems bend over backwards to suck metaphoric TW-cock, the radfems maintain ‘where there is a penis, there is a problem’.

Transactivists are not consistant, they are all over the grid. I think the strategy is just to try everything, and see what sticks.

factcheckme - December 14, 2010

It’s not even a metaphor purpleunderground. According to the transactivists, if a woman agrees to have sex with a transwoman thinking “she” is FAB, and you find out mid-act that “she” (said transwoman) in fact has a dick, you can’t change your mind, or its transphobia.

Completely disregarding what feminists have ALWAYS maintained, which is that a woman may withdraw her consent at ANY time, and if she can’t change her mind, its rape.

48. purpleunderground - December 14, 2010

I also asked why, if a lesbian gently rejects their advances, they are so offended (especially if they are still male down below). and a transwoman actually had the gall to say that (sic) “judging someone based simply on their genitals has nothing to do with your sexual preference, she’s a woman, end of story, if you arent attracted to her as a lesbian then that is your prerogative, but to say no simply because she hasnt had surgery… well that’s just spewing the same kind of nonsense as the über christian right…”

This seems typical of the trans stance. Females are to accept TW, no matter what the female’s sexual preferences are.

To insist that a female accept ‘anyone’ as a sexual partner, regardless of the female’s attraction, is denying the female autonomy and integrity. Furthermore, it is exactly a rapist mentality. Rapists have a complete disregard for the victim’s autonomy and personal integrity.

If anyone trys to pull this same stunt in a chat group, ask them how you, as a lesbian, are supposed to perform cunnilingus on “a woman” who has a penis. After all, sucking cock is a heterosexual practise, and you are lesbian, not a heterosexual.

49. purpleunderground - December 14, 2010

We cross posted there FCM.
I had the same thought when I addressed calliope’s comment – which sounded a lot like trying to push a rapist’s agenda.

50. SheilaG - December 14, 2010

“Where there is a penis there is a problem” FCM that about sums it up.

factcheckme - December 14, 2010

just wanted to drop a link here…its been getting some traffic lately, not sure why. this is the ‘glod’ post, where i first took on the fun-fems and transactivists with actual logic. it still makes me laugh, and the comments are good. i didnt remember this part, but apparently i was still reading dworkins “intercourse” at the time, and trying to figure out what i wanted to say about it. not to leave anyone in suspense…i thought of something. heh.


51. joy - December 14, 2010

It’s totally possible to be a radical FEMINIST first and a radical (everything else) second.

It’s just helpful to never engage with any radicals who aren’t radical feminists -first.- ie, women.

And I make a rule to never read anything that isn’t written by a radical woman. (That cuts down on my choices a lot, but whatever.)

I’m a radical who wants WOMEN’s liberation. I believe that capitalism (and other things that oppress people) are all tied to the patriarchy. Get rid of the patriarchy, and we start to get rid of all the other problems. (Isn’t war just a giant weenie contest?)

But we can’t get rid of all the other problems without first destroying patriarchy. That’s like having an infection and trying only to lower the fever.

Good luck trying to find anyone else who believes patriarchy even exists, though. So far I know of me, and Nine Deuce. (And a few others, like ginmar, if she even still is.) I won’t speak for anyone else, so if you’re included on this list and I didn’t mention you, add yourself in.

52. joy - December 14, 2010

Also, re, trans:

The existence of transhood is a tool for reinforcing gender roles. How a bunch of people can claim it breaks gender roles is beyond me.

Now, if a woman doesn’t FLAW — in a 1950s June Cleaver way, or a Sex In The City way, or a supersexxay pronified and/or burlesquified way ONLY — then she must be trans!

If she insists that she is not trans, she’s just in denial of her transness! Because all women must FLAW! And if they don’t FLAW, they must really be men.

This keeps all women in the nice, dainty little subservient, feminine, shoe-obsessed, sexified box. For fear of having their knowledge of self doubted further, of getting pressed into counseling and possibly medicated into subservient docility.

Doubting women’s intelligence, insisting what’s good for them even over their own possible objections, forcing them into the mental-illness box, possibly forcing them into medication or procedures that they don’t need … where have we heard that before?

Trigger warning: I know a girl who was pressed into counseling for ‘gender dysphoria’ as a teenager. The medical profession actually convinced her she was trans, although she’d always just thought of herself as ‘human, nongendered.’ She underwent surgical transition. Now she does not identify as trans and wishes she hadn’t been pressured into getting her vulva sewn shut.

Again: sound familiar?

53. FAB Libber - December 14, 2010

From your post, I found this classic statement:
and there isnt any other kind of feminist, besides the radical kind

It is only in recent decades that radical feminists have been told to “accept all feminisms” and there is “room for all feminisms”. Basically they are saying that feminism (for them) can mean anything they want it to mean – which is false. This is exactly the type of thinking that allows pomo and a free-for-all within feminism and subverts feminism’s effectiveness. Although, it was probably pomo that started this line of thinking anyway.

factcheckme - December 14, 2010

The whole “words mean whatever anyone wants them to mean” thing seems terribly counterproductive to me. I mean really. For example, if you don’t even know what a feminist IS, and many people don’t, as evinced on the video on the glod post, how do you know you want to be one? Why would you have any feelings at all about being or not being something, when you don’t even know what it is? This seems like classic peer pressure to me, like someone somewhere decided its cool to call yourself a “feminist” or its uncool to NOT be one or something, so now everybody wants in.

You know, “feminist” has kind of become synonymous with sex-pos actually, so saying you aren’t one is probably the same thing as saying you’re a big old prude. Which is unacceptable obviously. Peer pressure it is, then. YAY PIV!!!11!11

54. FAB Libber - December 14, 2010

Why would you have any feelings at all about being or not being something, when you don’t even know what it is?

Well, exactly. Generally it is empty labelling in order to look trendy and cool.

Referencing the Glod post, somewhere along the line people did a logic fail – most feminists are women therefore most women are feminists.

You know, “feminist” has kind of become synonymous with sex-pos actually, so saying you aren’t one is probably the same thing as saying you’re a big old prude.

I think it became corrupted after the logic fail of most women are feminists. Because most of them were anything but feminists, feminism was made to yield to non-feminist ideals (redefined) so that the non-feminists were not constrained in any way.

A bit like if communism became trendy, so all the capitalists joined up because it was trendy, then redefined it to become capitalism.

Hence we have all the bad things for women (eg high heels) redefined as empowering and feminist, when they are anything but.

55. Parallels between accusations of “anti-Semitism” and “Trans-Phobia” | Feminist at Sea - December 14, 2010

[…] to accusations of “anti-Semitism” as this post is about drawing parallels between the two. On the wonderful and very enlightening discussion we’ve been having on Femonade it has been brought to my attention that it is not merely the Jews […]

56. feministatsea - December 14, 2010

I am totally plugging my new posts, but it was just too much to put it all in a comment.


57. Sargassosea - December 14, 2010

“(Isn’t war just a giant weenie contest?)”

Yes! And politics and economies and everything else, too, EXCEPT radical feminism.

And, Factcheckme, I had a very similar experience re-connecting with Feminism after a rather long absence in that I was totally jazzed (at first) that there were so many ’feminist’ blogs – who knew Feminism had grown so popular?!? The first thing I noticed, though was all this talk about transwomen and *cis-privilege* and I was, like you, all WTF!?

I consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent and rational person but it took me a couple of years to pick through all the obfuscating CRAP that pretends to be feminism (but in reality is just more dick-pleasing renamed feminism) to find the tiny little handful of radicals who are indeed the ONLY feminists left. It’s pretty fucking sad, really.

factcheckme - December 14, 2010

Well then ssea, you will be *extremely* unhappy when you realize that this pomo shit has invaded even radical discourse. In case you missed it. Heh. Anytime one woman claims she is being oppressed by another, thar be pomo. It’s fucking everywhere, and those radical feminists who know better are keeping quiet about it for the most part, because the subjects are extremely volatile. The recent discussions of “privilege” of course being the most recent incantation, but it seems to come to a head every 6 months or so. Undercover punk, rainsinger, Isabelle and a few other brave souls are standing up for radicalism, but there are even fewer of us out here than even I believed just a few months ago. Good riddance I say. Radical feminism is kind of self-cleaning that way.

58. feministatsea - December 14, 2010

I have been spending way too much attention on this stuff. I now wrote two long posts in a short time regarding issues of bio-men, which I suppose is precisely the point. So I will now focus on issues that are at least as important to me.

I do however like connecting with you all over this and the posts have quadrupled my daily readership.

59. calliope - December 14, 2010

I know I’m new here, and I apologize if what I add to the conversation has already been said a zillion times before. Before stumbling across these blogs, I had never heard of the appalling movement called “transability”, and I hadn’t expected to come across trans-anything more disturbing than transgender already is, but of course there usually is.. I ended up at transabled.org and had to leave a comment (which they promptly removed) stating my revulsion at their fetishization of disability. Not to make this about me – but I am deaf in one ear and hoh in the other, and I have a vestibular disorder. I was chilled when I came across a comment on an old (and amazing) FABMatters article, from a woman who said she “felt” deaf inside, and longed to have a advanced surgeon deafen her, so that her vestibular nerve wouldn’t be damaged (and cause her any suffering that she didn’t expressly want of course. Vertigo attacks are no fun, unless you like the room spinning and you vomiting for hours.)

On the transabled site that I commented on, a transabled woman was complaining that an elderly old man (on oxygen) had taken pity on her as well as admiration, and she wants admiration and not pity.. Not that she admits to having *chosen* to be in a wheelchair. The parallels with the desires of transwomen are not surprising.. It’s like somehow, these people get off by being oppressed, or “becoming” what they have fetishized.. They claim to be “disabled in spirit” (what does that even MEAN?) but they want to eat up medical resources for the people who were disabled without choice, and demanding that a doctor mutilate them (replace disabled with female and the same applies to trans). I shudder to think of these people who would fetishize my aunt or step-sister (who both suffer from MS, and make use of wheelchairs). Maybe telling them that self-mutilation is not the same as a genuine disability was just too much for them; I guess it’s the same with transwomen.

I have a very hard time believing that there is any difference between autogynephilia and a male desire to become what he thinks is “female”.

60. calliope - December 14, 2010

whoa, sorry that’s so long.. It’s hard to tell on an iPod touch

61. feministatsea - December 14, 2010

Hm I can’t help feel that an eating disorder is somewhat similar to all this transabled and transsexual stuff. People think they are fat and desperately want to be thin and they have some really fucked up ideas about what thin really is. They go for extremes.

I can’t help, but blame the patriarchy.

62. joy - December 14, 2010

Fucking hell. I’d never heard of the trans-abled movement. What the fuck.

I knew some people had disorders that made them long to have a limb cut off, and I knew one young woman who got around in a wheelchair although she could walk (and claimed she wished to live life like a disabled person much the way a monk would wish to endure hardship, basically to gain ‘understanding’ and ‘nobility’ by purposefully living in chains).

It’s like every time a talk show host or celebrity “goes to jail” as a gimmick.* The stupid fuckers really seem to think they are having a Real Experience [TM], but they can get out and make it stop at any time.

(*I know there have been several who have done so, but apparently Tyra Banks was the most recent; the mental asylum was playing trailers for that episode when I was imprisoned within, oh the delicious and disgusting irony.
Topped only by the fact that the -actual- Tyra show that day was about a young woman who purposefully self-mutilated over enduring rape trauma. Oh, the laughs from my roomful of rape-traumatized women, where we sat strapped to chairs and fought to stay conscious as we were medicated to keep us from crying. As the last of our dignities slipped away down the drain in the face of screaming, patronizing, physically abusive orderlies and the weird rapist dudes wandering in and out [am I talking about doctors, or male patients, or the guards, or all of the above?], we loved the Tyra show that day.
Not. In case you thought I was serious. This is me being serious: I wasn’t ‘crazy’ when I went in, but that shit, and the disturbing cognitive dissonance and fetishization and bullshit almost made me so. Think of the story I just told as a universal metaphor, and that is what ‘trans’ seems to be all about. Cognitive dissonance, fetishization, and bullshit.)

63. joy - December 14, 2010

An interesting, by which I mean rage-inducing and possibly emetic, side note:

Tyra’s objective with this rape-traumatized young woman was to show her that “she was still beautiful!” ie, Yes! Dudes still want to use your body as a tissue to wipe up their emissions after they jerk off to your visage! See! All is not lost! Don’t you feel better?!

Which is how the pomo deals with rape trauma, if and when they actually admit it exists and/or encounter it.
“Don’t worry, pretty princess! If you get back on the PIV pony, someday you too can find a prince, and stop being such a worthless used-up old meatsock! Here’s some plastic surgery, if your vagina is too floppy (not like dudes will REALLY care, they even fuck pieces of literal old meat, but whatevs, this will make you feel pretty and that’s ALL YOU ARE). Oh, and here’s a book on how to do anal sex, ie, don’t cry and make sure to pretend you’re orgasming. You should probably orgasm from it though. Unless you’re a dried-up, unliberated old prude. See, don’t you feel better now!”

It’s shocking the number of people who buy that shit. They seem to flock to it. And then wonder why they never really feel like whole human beings. So they resort to self-mutilation via elective surgery.


factcheckme - December 15, 2010

Yes, mandatory piv is the only cure for rape trauma. Didn’t you know that? Kinda like consent being the cure for rape. It’s a right tidy package.

64. Sargassosea - December 15, 2010

“Well then ssea, you will be *extremely* unhappy when you realize that this pomo shit has invaded even radical discourse. In case you missed it. Heh.”

Hah! I was once ’splained (at great length) as to how I was “giving radical feminism a bad name” because I persisted in insisting that, yes, Playboy IS TOO pornography, ffs!

“It’s like somehow, these people get off by being oppressed, or “becoming” what they have fetishized..”

This gets me to thinking about women reporting having rape fantasies. I’ve always thought that this phenomenon is pretty obviously internalized misogyny but in light of this discussion I’m now thinking: What exactly is “internalized misogyny” and that it’s way more complex (or simple!) than that. It includes something more like a fetishization-by-proxy or auto-fetishizing. And THAT is just really fucked up.

factcheckme - December 15, 2010

Wait, a radical feminist told you that playboy wasn’t porn?? That’s a new one. Usually they seem in agreement about teh menz, and differ when it comes to pomo privilege stuff, between women. At least that’s what I thought!

65. rhondda - December 15, 2010

This whole thread is just so wonderful. I am in awe. Thank you, thank you all you women and especially fcm who has managed to keep those who shall not be named out of it. This is so good. I have nothing else to add, but thanks.

66. Sargassosea - December 15, 2010

Well, it was just stupid is what it was. This charge was placed by a woman who purported to have higher education in sociology (emphasis on, and field work with, Tibetan women) and identified as a Feminist. Until I identified as radical. Suddenly (!) she was THE authority on Radical Feminism even though she most obviously didn’t understand the first thing about it.

The point was though that the entire tide of thought turned towards her pomo/funfem (yet still 2nd wave) line of crap in a fucking heartbeat and all of those souls walked away believing that ‘Playboy is an Art Form and Free Speech’ is a tenant of radical feminism.

It’s whack how EASY it is to be discredited.

BTW – where’s Rainsinger anyway? Missing her…

67. Sargassosea - December 15, 2010

Synchronicity. I just this minute happened upon this example of what “radical feminist consciousness” has become: “I now have an intense respect for those who choose to engage in sex work, and see the profession as deeply transgressive.”


68. FAB Libber - December 15, 2010

Sargassosea, one problem is that there are a small number of feminists who maintain they are the radical kind – because “radical feminism” sounds cool and edgy or something. In the end, they give up the pretense, and discover the “joys” of being pro-porn and sex-pozzie. Very much WTF?

This woman you describe, hardly a radical feminist or expert on radical feminism when she cannot see the harm even in softcore.

factcheckme - December 15, 2010

i agree that part of the problem is that people think the word “radical” means “awesome” or something. i know i have heard the term “radical feminist” bandied about in the mainstream media before, and what was clearly meant from the context was “crazy and man hating” with an extra helping of completely insane, as in a thought disorder. like a terrorist. seriously. of course, the really funny thing is that they were doubtless talking about a liberal or fun-fem, and the issue was probably completely trite and banal, like some fucking man hating dyke got offended when i made a sexist joke in the office. or something. NEVER anything truly radical, because radfems do not exist…EXCEPT when we insist that men (including liberal and self-identified feminist men!) forego PIV. then teh liberal menz come out of the woodwork like the vermin they are, and suddenly “radical feminism” is getting some play. and…is ultimately dismissed. of course. hugo i mean liverlips demonstrated this one perfectly.

factcheckme - December 15, 2010

thanks rhondda! i did toss in a little jab though right before your comment. heh. would you like to reconsider your position, or did you see it before you commented?

69. Sargassosea - December 15, 2010

I’m thinking that they (liberal dudes/antifeminists and the women who coddle their diseased dicks) are appropriating the title as a way to simply annihilate US. Suddenly WE are the *so-called* radical feminists, you know the phoney-baloney bad kind who think that sex work is not an empowerfulizing, deeply transgressive choice of profession, but Oppression! Oh, those silly prudes – don’t they know that true female oppression is NOT being able to serve penile demands for food and shelter.

And I think it’s as deliberate as a sub-conscious motivation can be.

70. rhondda - December 15, 2010

I am not sure what you mean, FCM. Oh well, that is nothing new.

factcheckme - December 15, 2010

I just meant that I couldn’t resist insulting those-who-shan’t-be-named just a little, in the comment right before yours.

And what do you mean you don’t know what I’m talking about? I think my posts are super clear. Heh. Or at least, a lot comes out and is worked through in the comments, which is why I always suggest that people read them. This is a good group, and the comments are excellent. If they arent, they generally get spammed.

71. FAB Libber - December 16, 2010

I’m thinking that they (liberal dudes/antifeminists and the women who coddle their diseased dicks) are appropriating the title as a way to simply annihilate US.

Yes, it has been a strategy. First was the take-over of Feminist Lite – to mean whatever the hell anyone wanted it to mean. Then the infiltration of Radical Feminism – and how it is now supposed to include all sorts of irrelevant shit.

I got really mad a few years ago when online feminists started talking about how we should be “tolerant of all feminisms”. That’s “feminisms” as a plural word. Fuck that noise.

72. SheilaG - December 16, 2010

“Feminisms” is another one of those degrading fake words. Anything to do with male dominant ideologies doesn’t do this. There is socialism, there is communism, but there are no “socialisms” and no “communisms.” If we can’t even protect our own terms and ideology, what does this say really?

No NAZISMS either. I do recall that a tactic of right wingers was to corrupt the word “Democratic” party and call it the “Democrat” party. Not enough people called them out on this tactic to belittle the name. Women have to be extra vigilent in my opinion.

factcheckme - December 16, 2010

“Feminisms” is another one of those degrading fake words. Anything to do with male dominant ideologies doesn’t do this. There is socialism, there is communism, but there are no “socialisms” and no “communisms.” If we can’t even protect our own terms and ideology, what does this say really?

YES! imagine someone trying to coopt socialism, and including everything that socialists expressly disbelieve, or disagree with, and what that would look like. it would be completely obvious, is what it would be. why is it not obvious what fun- and liberal “feminism” have done to feminism? its an excellent point, and YES, as far as i can tell this has only been attempted with OUR ideology. with RADICAL FEMINISM (ie. feminism).

if a word can mean anything, its because it means nothing. like a “glod” for example. see the “what a glod looks like” post for more on that.

73. FAB Libber - December 16, 2010

Anything to do with male dominant ideologies doesn’t do this. There is socialism, there is communism, but there are no “socialisms” and no “communisms.”

Well put Sheila, exactly right.

There are two forms of attack:
FCM: if a word can mean anything, its because it means nothing.
and to reference my earlier point about the infiltration:
A bit like if communism became trendy, so all the capitalists joined up because it was trendy, then redefined it to become capitalism.

The two strategies are working in tandem; infiltrate it and redefine it, then make it mean absolutely nothing because the ideology stands for anything you want it to mean.

Hence, Liberal Feminism already means nothing, because it is now all-about-teh-menz. Any resemblance to feminism is purely coincidental, and cannot be called feminism any more. Radical feminism is inline for the same treatment, if we let our guard down. Don’t be surprised if some eejit claims to be a “pro-porn radical feminist”, the equivalent to a meat-eating vegan imho.

74. Sargassosea - December 16, 2010

Speaking of eejits! Remember good ‘ol Boobquake Jenn of Blag Hag? Color me all surprised, but she claims to be an *evolutionary psychologist* and is ‘splaining the women at IBTP! (now there’s a woman who knows which side her dick is buttered on)

75. Sargassosea - December 16, 2010

Correction: evolutionary biologist and supporter of ev-psych as a “baby field”. Ha!

76. SheilaG - December 16, 2010

Women are so accustomed to being colonized, co-opted, invaded, and silenced, that it is often hard to tell when this is happening. I notice that straight women just sit and defer to a husband who goes into “high” mansplaining mode. I often will look directly at the woman, and say pointedly, “What do you think?” Most of the time straight women are actually stunned by the question, and try to beg out. It’s the silencing that they live with every day in the person of their mansplaining know-it-all husband.

In feminism, women tend to be too soft as well. We let everyone in, and there are no rules, no party discipline… you have lesbians letting pre-op males into lesbian spaces, you have gay and lesbian centers having trans”women” leading lesbian groups. I’m not kidding, this is really happening.

And we got straight women sitting there looking like idiots while my civil rights are being sold down the river day in and day out, and then they want me to right for abortion rights? Get real. There is always this idea that feminism is open, no it’s not open. It’s an uncompromising ideology of liberation for women and girls. Anything that gets in the way of the well being of women and girls is not in any way feminist, it is derailing, it is what about the men, it is straight women having sex with men, it is everything about 100% focus on women.
And it’s so so hard for women to discipline themselves to focus 100% on women, they get scared.
They get figety, they get male-pleasing as a knee jerk (jerk..hmmm) habit. Example: A woman –very smart wants to lead a feminist tour of an art museum…great idea, love art. What comes out of her mouth… “I know a guy who is definitely interested.” I was just amazed at this, since earlier she had mentioned gathering about 15 women for the event. But again, I’m a tough gender non-conforming lesbian, I don’t shilly shally around straight women, so this unnerves them. They get nervous and want to fall back on malepleasing, and what’s worse, is they don’t even know they are doing this. This malepleasing is so deeply engrained in most straight women who have been married to men for any length of time, or who have boyfriends. They just don’t know how to commit 100% to women. Lesbians get caught in this nonsense by going along with gay men, trans, bi women, geez… what about the word “lesbian”–hello anyone out there. Genderqueer, queer, boi, holy sacred lesbian cow batwoman!!

77. feministatsea - December 16, 2010

I am guilty as charged. I am straight and falling back on male-pleasing is like falling back on an old drug habit. It has been so ingrained in me that often I don’t realize I do it.

I have to be conscious to say no to men, not in a sexual manner, but in things such as work and personal favors. It always helps me to remind myself that they won’t be doing more favors for me because I am self-sacrificing. They won’t self-sacrifice for me either. The men I mean. If they can’t or won’t do something for me than it’s no, so can’t I do that just as easily.

Today is a fine example of this. I am sick at home right now and am not going to school and have stayed home from work last weekend, and I initially said yes to working tomorrow, because they are short on people. It took me a few hours to realize just how crazy it is to sacrifice my own health just because a lot of other people are sick too.

78. calliope - December 16, 2010

You know what’s kind of funny is I keep reading “Pomo Feminist” as “Porno feminist”, which is really not too far off the mark.

SheilaG, I just wanted to say I agree with you a
1000 times over, and I think your comments (and all of these comments, and in fact the radfem blogosphere as a whole) should be required reading for my fellow teenage/20something lesbians.. We should be wary of all men. Personally, I’ve found there’s no group existent for lesbians in the (small) city I live in; there’s one LGBT group that caters to mainly gay men, bi girls, and transwo*men*. One of my dearest friends is a lesbian, too, and for her 21st birthday, her straight girl friends took her to a strip club.. ugh! It’s like in order to keep from being too alienated by society, we’re encouraged to be misogynistic sex-pozzies. bleh.

One thing I’ve found so satisfying about radical feminism is its basis in solid logic. Something entirely missing from postmodernism as a whole.

79. SheilaG - December 16, 2010

I recommend a strong course in using the word NO for straight women. Start small, the annoying men who come up to you in a gas station wanting to sell car wax–don’t wait for them to get the words out of their mouths–simply say NO-loudly.

Saying NO often is a good excersize for women I think. Practice, make it fun. Have a glass of champaign to celebrate a big NO 🙂

Remember straight women, you are around men a lot more than I am. You get used to being oppressed up close and personal, so this stuff gets by you.
It’s much easier to maleplease, go along to get along. I don’t need men to pay the bills or do my job. I spent many a year getting out from under their power in every way I could. It’s a good thing to work on, and thanks for passing on this website to 20-something lesbians… strip clubs… what is it with straight women? Do they think we are clueless porn addicted idiots?

factcheckme - December 16, 2010

heres an excerpt from ssea’s link:

I’m not entirely sure when my opinion shifted regarding the legitimacy of sex work, but at some point in my coming to a radical feminist consciousness, I realized that in order to fight for women’s rights, I must advocate for the safety and agency of all women, regardless of whether I personally identify with the choices they have made. I now have an intense respect for those who choose to engage in sex work, and see the profession as deeply transgressive.

bolds mine. radical feminist consciousness ay? im not so sure she has a handle on just plain old consciousness just yet. this pomo doesnt know of what she speaks. at all.

80. joy - December 17, 2010

I opened the anti-PIV can of worms over at ND’s blog. Really stepped in it there.

To my great surprise though, a few straight women were really honest: they admitted they only do PIV for their Nigels. Which is understandable (because women in het relationships are under the heel big time, not because it’s okay) and heartbreaking.

Of course, then one showed up and said, “Not everyone is fertile! And some of us like being pronged! FFS, what is the big deal!”

These people call themselves radical feminists. See, I for one am an elitist. I definitely don’t include any and all people in feminism. ESPECIALLY not radical feminism.

And good point. People tend to think “radical” feminism means “hard core” feminism. And since feminism can mean so many things these days (gag), anyone who’s hard core about anything can claim to be a “radical” “feminist.”

This includes pro-porners, sex pozzies, sex workers (ie, The Happy Hookers like Diablo Cody) … one of my roommates, a 40something woman, even claimed that P!nk was radically feminist because of her ‘angry woman’ songs. W.T.F.

And someone else’s mother, who graduated high school in 1964, asked me at a holiday party, “So … what IS feminism? Like … dressing really feminine and talking about being a woman?”

W. T. Actual. F. Is going on here.

factcheckme - December 17, 2010

the paragraph right after that bemoans the possibility of the craigslist “adult services” listings being abolished, because abolishing it would put prostituted women in danger. in other news, we apparently have another craigslist-killer on the loose…who kills prostitutes he meets on craigslist.

are people EVER going to admit that its MEN who put prostituted women in danger?


81. SheilaG - December 17, 2010

Prostituted women in danger because of men! MEN named as the enemy of women! Men being the central danger point of all women everywhere. Honestly FCM, they’ll name MEN when pigs learn to fly, and I bet pigs will be flying far sooner 🙂

Craigs list again?? Oy,

82. FAB Libber - December 17, 2010

are people EVER going to admit that its MEN who put prostituted women in danger?

Apparently not. Not the sex-pozzies anyway, who maintain prostitution is ‘a job just like any other job’. Whilst some jobs may carry a risk of accidental death – murder is a deliberate act, and not just a ‘job hazard’.

The pozzies should be ashamed of themselves, encouraging young women into this ‘work’. It’s a gigantic ‘fail’ on the feminism meter – which means pro-pornstitution is NOT feminism.

83. feministatsea - December 17, 2010

I do have to wonder though, if as a lesbian it is easier to say no to men? In my case I didn’t become a feminist until I was twenty-five. I was growing more towards male-pleasing with each year. Only in the last couple of years I have started to undo these chains. I think it is more my lack of a feminist past that makes me way too compliant than me being straight.

Also I don’t practice PIV anymore. I have never liked it and the risk of getting pregnant made it no fun at all. I merely have sex my way and make no apologies or feel any guilt. Men can other accept it or get out. I owe them nothing. I also don’t have a nigel and I refuse to limit myself to just one guy, so I have a few I have sexual encounters with. Most don’t like it, but they always have the option to walk away. It’s kinda funny that men are so insistent on monogamy, when I am much happier this way and I think it would work for many straight women.

factcheckme - December 17, 2010

Wait, you are having non-piv sexual encounters with several partners, and “most of them don’t like it?” Interesting. Before I get snarky, I will ask you if that’s what you meant. I’m just thinking at the moment that this is what almost every single het man alive would have to cop to, if they were capable of being honest. Which of course they aren’t. Namely, that they were sticking their dicks into many women, “most of whom don’t like it.”

Men don’t care about orgasms at all, even their own. It really couldn’t be more obvious.

84. feministatsea - December 17, 2010

Nah, they especially don’t like it that I am not monogamous with them, which I find weird. I hear so many guys bragging about being non-committal, but when it’s done to them it’s a problem.

The non-PIV sex just disappoints some of them, but they don’t dare to complain about it. They do seem to be great fans of my orgasms though. I couldn’t have sex with them otherwise. I also don’t fake anything and am very direct in telling them whether or not I like something.

So snark away.

85. calliope - December 17, 2010

feministatsea, you make a good point. being lesbian doesn’t mean it’s necessarily easier for us, especially for those of us who take a long time to even accept the fact that we’re lesbian.. Then you have lesbians who try to act like/hang out with straight guys, and closeted lesbians who force themselves to date/marry men in order to appear “normal”.

most of us do have the advantage over het nonfeminist girls, of being able to see through men, to some extent; but still, they can intimidate. and always there are preconceived notions about how they’re supposed to be treated differently (better) than us floating around in our minds, so I’ve tried to make a point of *not* acting differently around men: saying NO, as SheilaG suggested, simple but important; asking a man to move if he blocks your view of the shelf you’re both looking at; even having the ~*~*~*audacity~*~*~ to ignore random dudes or call them out for invading your space.

that last line reminds me of something I wanted to ask about, here.. I love swimming, and I swim athletically often, but each time I go my fear and uneasiness far outweighs the actual enjoyment I get from swimming, whether because of athletic doods hogging the lane swim pool, or creepy ogling dudes hanging out at the pool. and I never set foot in the leisure pool because it’s full of guys playing volleyball, guys watching girls from the pool sideline, guys in the hot tub doing God knows what, and guys groping their girlfriends whilst ogling other girls.. and even creepy lifeguard dudes who watch you while you swim? is this all just in my head or are they really doing that. I’ve inherited too large breasts and it makes me feel like a masochist for even going to a pool (that has no women’s only swim time, there are no women’s only pools here, if they exist anywhere) but that’s how much I love swimming. I was wondering if maybe anyone has any advice that might make going swimming less painful. Or if anyone with more knowledge than I’ve got might be interested in taking on the topic.

86. feministatsea - December 17, 2010

I think you already know it’s not in your head. They do precisely all the creepy stuff you think they do. I was never comfortable wearing a bikini at the beach or to the pool.

Last year I was able to let go of this body image obsession of mine and consequently, my perpetual dieting. I gained quite a bit. I love my body more than I ever did when I kept the weight down and I also knew that it’s easier to pee if you wear a bikini. When you add to that the fact that dudes hate fat women in bikinis, my choice was made. It have worn bikinis since and am very happy about it. And I double dare dudes to give me shit for it. I am prepared to even punch them in the face for it or in their nuts. I think with the pool it’s the same thing as everywhere. Dudes will never be so gracious as to allow you your space, so the only option is to take it from them aggressively if necessary.

If it wouldn’t hurt my career I’d even go topless to the pool. It’s ridiculous that breasts are still seen as obscene. I normally like keeping my breasts warm with layers of clothing and a bra, but in the water that doesn’t matter much anyways.

factcheckme - December 18, 2010

if doctors and psychologists/psychiatrists are getting boners at listening to womens rape-trauma…and if we really ponder and ruminate on what that means and accept it…other things arent that difficult to believe. male lifeguards are absolutely looking at you that way, as are the males at the pool. men think of women as life-support systems for vaginas. and that vaginas are fuckholes for men.

i was on a bus the other day and was forced to sit all the way in a far corner against the back wall. all around me were men in their twenties and thirties, about 8 of them. the bus was full too with other people, but there in my little corner i was surrounded and isolated. they were just sitting there minding their business, and i was thinking that if this were another situation, i would be really afraid, but that in THIS situation i was actually pretty safe and so i just started kind of taking it in. in the beginning, they all seemed to be alone with their thoughts and with their ipods or whatever, but after sitting there for maybe 5 minutes the energy started to change. it was palpable. its as if they became aware of me, and they synched-in with each other around that fact. it was as if a sexually-predatory pack-mentality began to form. another 5-10 minutes went by and eventually they all left and i was surrounded by all women. and the energy was completely different. they were completely nonthreatening, and just minding their business, and it never changed. the only thing i felt from them was that they had stuff to do, and they were just trying to get from A to B safely.

this was all very unusual actually, and i think its the only time i have been completely surrounded by single-sex groups on public transportation. it usually doesnt happen like that. it was also unusual in that i was completely isolated with them but also almost completely safe, so instead of looking for the nearest exit i could actually just observe. it might be the only time this has ever happened.

so anyway, i have mentioned here several times that i have been told that i am psychic, and a medium, but that i am an atheist, so i dont believe in anything super-natural. well, i believe that what i was picking up on was real, and that there was nothing super-natural about it. there was some kind of sexually-predatory synching-in that happened with the males, and it only took a few minutes for this to occur. i wont even speculate as to whether they were aware of it or not, because i dont give a shit about teh menz.

87. rhondda - December 18, 2010

I agree with you. It is not ‘psychic’ so much as your natural perception and ability to apprehend the situation.
Have you read Pure Lust by Mary Daly? She writes about this there albeit not in common every day concepts. We are trained not to trust our own perceptions.

88. FAB Libber - December 18, 2010

I agree, nothing ‘supernatural’ or ‘psychic’. It is more fine tuning your instincts and being hyper-vigilant. Just as the antelope are at the watering hole. It is when you realise you are potentially prey, and the males are potentially predators (especially or particularly when gathering in packs).

As rhondda says, we are trained to distrust our instincts, and this puts many women in danger (think frat parties).

It actually does not matter if ‘only some’ males are rapists – the potential victim has no way of distinguishing a rapist male from a non-rapist male. However, the likelihood goes up if two or more males outnumber females in certain situations, particularly secluded situations.

The bus situation was safe because there were other people around including the driver (potential witnesses). If it was a train carriage late at night, with little chance of other passengers getting on, then it would be a potentially dangerous situation. Even the funfems would be stupid to deny this situation.

factcheckme - December 18, 2010

i just started mary daly! nothing to report yet, but wow. i am really looking forward to getting through these books, they are of course very different from anything else i have ever read. i will let you all know when i actually have something to say about it.

89. SheilaG - December 18, 2010

feministatsea– it is very easy for lesbians to say no to men. If we are lucky enough to be self-supporting, and we don’t live with men (including boy children), we simply develop more independence of thought. We also have to be self-sufficient. Straight women become very dependent on men in so many ways, and lesbians literally have to carry our own loads.

When women live with men, they are literally living with the oppressor, and day in and day out, their independence and soul is sapped by parasites.

It’s why it is so shocking to go from lesbian groups to predominantly straight women’s groups– shocking because the male pleasing is so evident, even when they don’t have to male please they do it so habitually. The cultural dominance and conditioning goes on day after day after day–it’s what makes straight life so horrifying for me to observe.

Straight women have no idea how they look to lesbians because they are the fish in the sea, and have known only water. Lesbians are on the shore, and have swum in the sea, but we don’t live in it, and we know it is water. It’s why there will never really be a true women’s revolution as long as a) women live with men b) they are not fully self-supporting c) they grow accustomed to being colonized and servile and male pleasing day in and day out.

It’s one reason lesbians created separatism in the first place, we got sick of straight feminists selling out to men constantly. They didn’t know this, couldn’t see this… but to us it was shockingly obvious that they were male pleasing cringing cowards.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: