jump to navigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

1. aliyah16gurl - July 9, 2013

Ive often thought medicine, religion, and law (and especially religion, which i think is the origin of mens women-hating ways besides their biological flaws) were like the three pillars of patriarchy. If they were to all crash and crumble then mens control would either fall or be very close to it. And if we women began to avoid men and rely on ourselves and each other, then that could possibly happen.
Oh and Owen Lloyd is moron, imo.

2. Sargasso Sea - July 9, 2013

It would seem that OL could not accept women removing themselves (as much as possible) from male control as a political act at all even though under #6 of the definition that’s EXACTLY what it would be, singularly or en masse. (I mean, please, if women were to do just that we would be victim-blaming *ourselves*? Naughty woman-hating women who remove themselves from men!!) No matter how many females comprise a political class it’s as if they don’t exist.

I am reminded of how men talk about porn being “fiction” and a product of “imagination” completely oblivious to the fact that they are erasing the real, live girls and women who are used to produce it. As if they don’t exist.

FCM - July 9, 2013

indeed! it seems as if owen lloyd doesnt consider males and females to be sex classes, or political classes at all. which of course is what this “shape of the genitals” business is all about.

from DGR’s website:

Are there differences in skin tone across the human species? Yes. Why do those differences mean anything? Because a corrupt and brutal arrangement of power needs an ideology called racism. Are there differences in the shapes of people’s genitals? Yes. Why do those differences matter? Because a corrupt and brutal arrangement of power—patriarchy—needs an ideology called gender.

http://www.deepgreenresistance.org/faq/dgr-a-feminist-organization/

shape of the genitals! the difference is located solely within the shape!

FCM - July 9, 2013

honestly, you would have to turn your brain off completely to actually believe that its the SHAPE of the genital that matters, and not what the “shape” indicates about your ability to become impregnated (or to impregnate) and HOW and WHY this matters a great deal actually. this is nonsensical genderqueer bullshit.

as lucky (i think?) said, the proximity to males is predictive of rape/increases the likelihood of rape. increase the proximity, increase the danger — increasing the proximity is a political act which men and male institutions do all the time on purpose. marriage anyone? fatherhood? it also works the other way around of course!

3. Sargasso Sea - July 9, 2013

So the penis (and all that… junk… attached to it) with all its female-dominating power, political and otherwise, is merely an “ideology”?

If you had not included the link I would have thought it was a fucking joke. I’m still laughing. Ruefully.

FCM - July 9, 2013

yes! its an ideology, because black (male) civil rights movement. because owen lloyd (and DGR) says so.

FCM - July 9, 2013

is it JUST that they refuse to see the POLITICAL similarities between “sex” and rape? or what?

4. Sargasso Sea - July 10, 2013

I’ve read most of that dgr “feminist” faq page. It reads to me like an undergrad mish-mash of prevailing liberal *ideology* heavily footnoted with feminist stuff and Stuff.

I wonder who takes writing credit for it.

FCM - July 10, 2013

one of the women of DGR showed up on my last OL post and said that the women do all the feminist work and they tell “male allies” what is expected of them. to me this says that WRT the feminist work of DGR, the women do all the work, and where men are named authors (such as on DGR news service and the articles derrek jensen co-authors with lierre keith) this would seem to mean that the women do the work and the men put their names on it.

also, i *know* it must seem (to some) that i have some kind of weird bug up my ass lately, but let me share something with yall. it wouldve saved me a LOT of pain and grief over the last couple of years had i known that many people who call themselves radical feminists (including “trusted” radfems and CELEBRITY radfems lol) dont know what the hell they are even talking about, and in fact couldnt make a coherent political argument to save their own lives or anyone elses (and this is literal and its important — considering the subject matter we are dealing with). obviously OL and DGR dont know what radical feminism even is. okay? im sorry if that chaps anyones ass, but this is *my* time and *my* life and i can honestly say that i have WASTED some of it on this fucking nonsense and its pissing me off. we do not have time for this shit, and (AND!) actual, real radical feminism is fucking interesting okay? it is! try it sometime! at the very (VERY) least, kindly STOP confusing the issues because it makes everything harder. jesus fucking christ on a cracker. thank you!

FCM - July 10, 2013

i mean really! its nonsense and gaslighting. how long has this been happening anyway? decades? somehow i get the feeling this isnt *new*.

s4 your “undergrad mish mash” comment reminded me of this for some reason:

5. delphyne - July 10, 2013

Radical feminists don’t organise with men. This is simple radical feminism. I realise that’s not adding much to the conversation, but it’s the basic WTF? moment with Deep Green Resistance. Seeing Derrick Jensen’s name on supposed rad fem articles is disgusting. It’s easy for him to do it though, because they reduce the politics down to “gender” not sex. Derrick can step out of gender in his non-threatening woolly jumper, but his penis offers more complicated problems.

Agree it is a complete waste of time trying to get one’s head around this stuff and uncover all its flaws, including all the stuff they deliberately keep hidden or refer to only obliquely. If it’s necessary to do ten rounds of mental gymnastics in order to make it OK to have men around, your politics probably aren’t as good as you wish they were.

6. daughteristhesun - July 10, 2013

Male activists, fuucking Jesus. I wonder what feminism would look like if men took it over. I think the liberal guys’ solution for women would be to suck dick and wear heels in order to empower themselves and get lots of men to be feminists. And the super progressive guys who ‘get it’ would round up their army of female comrades and lead them into battle against the corrupt alpha males. Oops, this is pretty much liberal and progressive feminism. Men are idiots. Men will never agree with, let alone imagine, real solutions. The best idea I’ve heard has come from radical feminists: disengage from men. They would rather fight us to the death than have this happen. Owen Lloyd and all other men, they will never advocate for this. They cannot even imagine it.

I’m reading two books right now, “Eve’s Seed” and “Sex and War”, which I highly recommend. The male authors are refreshingly honest about history, male nature, and admit how fucking awful men are and have always been. Yet, they never propose that women disengage from their abusers.

FACT: Men are worse than useless at feminism.

FCM - July 10, 2013

its easy enough from my perspective to not organize with men, but its another thing to refuse to organize with women who dont know what the hell they are talking about and who couldnt make a coherent political argument to save their own lives. and i wish (I WISH!) i would have refused to do this, or that i had recognized this for what it was before i spent the last 2 years of my life being bullshitted and gaslighted by liberal reformists pretending to be radical, and arguing with them about that only to finally have my work sabotaged and destroyed by them. i cannot tell you how this has affected me.

as for trying to get your head around the bullshit…as long as you recognize it for what it is, i think it can inspire real thinking and real work, but there is indeed a fine line isnt there? because there are areas of slight disagreement/tension (i guess i would call them?) then theres just plain wrong, and finally theres NONSENSE and JIBBERISH. and it fucking hurts my feelings that people are reading politically incoherent nonsense and jibberish and they dont even know it. it must make them feel stupid mustnt it? they must feel like THEY are wrong for at least a couple of minutes before they figure out whats happening and that the words on the page really really really dont make any fucking sense at all. i remember that feeling in various contexts and it fucking sucks. nonsense/jibberish and gaslighting should have no place in radical feminism. i cant even believe i have to say that.

7. FCM - July 10, 2013

and LOL @ derrek jensens nonthreatening woolly jumper. haha! and yes i know im spelling his name wrong and i will keep doing it forever and he cant stop me. u mad dekker? i mean doorknob? derwood? dumdum?

FCM - July 10, 2013

derwood the bold

8. nuclearnight - July 11, 2013

He could be obtuse (ie young naive liberal) or he could be lying like most doods do. Either way its real boring.

Here’s the thing with any mixed-sex organization. Female autonomy via caucus or whatever is a joke. Women are caucusing in a MALE organization. The whole purpose of the caucus is to make working for male goals easier. (fuck that)

Female separation would mean the end of male-lefty orgs though since no men throughout the history of resistance have ever been able to condescend to taking their turns doing shit work that women willingly do *for the cause*.

We can’t have that! Save the males! Spread those legs! Consent is sexy!

(left-wing community survivor)

9. nuclearnight - July 11, 2013

Okay to be fair I hadn’t read the dood’s article up until now. WHAT THE FUCK! Gratuitous writing about rape and violence much? I’m not convinced that a dude violently murdering a woman he raped isn’t about sex either bro. Nope. Pretty sure they GET OFF on doing that kinda stuff thus it is sexual, not just an act of *violence*. SHEESH.

FCM - July 11, 2013

to be clear, owen lloyd writes for DGR which is “deep green resistance” and is not a liberal organization, or at least they pretend/claim to be radical and definitely NOT liberal. they kind of make a big deal of it. this is lierre keiths organization — she was a speaker at radfem13. so they also claim to be radical feminist, and if they actually were radical feminist this would make sense (minus the doods) bc any other kind of feminism is antithetical to environmentalism.

i probably wouldnt even bother taking down a male (or any) fun fem at this juncture. we are all beyond that.

FCM - July 11, 2013

my point lately (over the last few months) is that there are a LOT of radical feminists out there who dont know what the hell they are talking about and who dont make any goddamned sense at all. and that this is not good for us bc its confusing/alienating and obscures the real issues which is what MEN do to us, and its antithetical to identifying the root of womens oppression by men (ie. the very definition of radical feminism).

i think this is becoming very obvious now bc there is a lot of radical writing available thanks to the blogs, and you cannot hide or easily hide a flawed argument/belief system in writing. its relatively easy to see where these trains of thought are headed when its literally SPELLED OUT and where and whether theyve gone off the rails and indeed many of them have. i frankly suspect that this is where a lot of the factions/fractions have happened over the decades and why our movement has been so poisonous to the women involved, and that its because the women with “status” have been saying whatever they wanted this whole time and if anyone pointed out that they were full of it, the boat-rocker was shown the door. or perhaps its also been that “disagreements” have been based on subjective/individual belief systems and that there has never been an objective or coherent (or correct) theory at all. if this is the case then again, the women with “status” and their (subjective, irrational) belief system would win out even though theirs wasnt objectively any better than anyone elses subjective/irrational belief system. this would of course be fundamentally unfair and tyrannical and would cause very serious hurt feelings or worse. this needs to be discussed.

FCM - July 11, 2013

i mean, i really wonder what mightve happened if over the years ALL women had access to publishing (or at least if MANY did like we do now on the blogs). if the minority opinions/positions were properly expressed/vetted and if the majority opinions/positions were properly examined and discussed, and revised where appropriate. would there have been so many hurt feelings? would trashing have been so complete and so successful? radical writing is rare and precious, but access to publishing has been elitest and limited/limiting (and patriarchal). and probably other things. we dont even have a “manifesto” or anything of the sort do we? if we did, what would it say? perhaps we should make one. i can tell you right now where a major point of contention would be from my perspective: is the root of womens oppression by men “dom/sub” or is it the more specific “the sexual and reproductive abuse of women by men?” i think its the latter, and i also think that the former is a compromised position held and pushed by the academics, and that its biased and wrong, and that theres substantial evidence backing me up on that. so am i a party of one then? or 4 or 5 maybe? fine by me, but i ask you, how many people are even going to know the disagreement exists? more than wouldve known about it before blogging was a thing i guess!

10. Sargasso Sea - July 11, 2013

“… there are a LOT of radical feminists out there who dont know what the hell they are talking about and who dont make any goddamned sense at all. and that this is not good for us bc its confusing/alienating and obscures the real issues which is what MEN do to us, ”

This reminds me of the concept of “Plain Language” that has been being bandied about (in a reformist way, for example: http://centerforplainlanguage.org/) for quite some time – for at least 25 years anyway.

And in thinking about radical feminist *tracts* in that light, the obfuscation must be at least deliberate as that being perpetrated by the government/law/business (golly, is that redundant?!) on the American Public. Right?

11. Sargasso Sea - July 11, 2013

And by that I mean to say: the *powers that be* in government are BAD for women – this we know – so one would think that radical feminists would want to be as clear as possible to their intended audience. But we see that almost 100% of radical feminist writing is arcane/academic to the point of being incomprehensible.

It’s ridiculous.

12. daughteristhesun - July 11, 2013

I’d have to agree that men’s sexual/reproductive abuse of women is the root of oppression. Females have been fighting off the male invasion and control of their bodies for eons. It’s interesting to see how other species deal with male violence, and how effective theyve been. Seems to be four strategies females use across species:

Deception: which is basically harm reduction and only sporadically helpful. Ex: faking headaches, abortion, false estrus (great apes), false vaginas (ducks).

Appeasement: a product of trauma bonding that requires buying into our brainwashing and pouring all energy into men. A strategy advocated for by conservative women and liberal feminists. Never works and increases mens contempt of women.

Direct combat/control: still requires pouring most of our energy into males. Aids in immediate survival. However, we legitimize patriachy by always fighting it. Also, men excel in combat and torture, they fucking love it.

Disengagement: this is a human strategy, and one I think only humans have the capacity to use on a large scale. This is one of the most exciting ideas for me right now and I love the conversations going on around it. Disengagement is anything but passive, and probably the most logical/loving thing we could do right now. Ironically, men will interpret our actions (such as not nurturing men, refusing to produce boys) as the most hateful violent acts possible, even more violent than their endless wars, rape etc. We already see this in the attacks on women’s spaces by trans activists and mras.

13. SheilaG - July 11, 2013

Daughterofthesun:

The below is absolutely brilliant.
I like the way you broke down the 4 strategies of women and female animals to protect themselves from males. But this last one “Disengagement” I too believe is the most powerful and doable for the greatest numbers of women.

And patriarchy being ultra-clever knows this, that why we have the trans invasion now, because male supremacy senses that radfem resistence is on the rise again, and that they need to keep up the surveillance of women.

“Disengagement: this is a human strategy, and one I think only humans have the capacity to use on a large scale. This is one of the most exciting ideas for me right now and I love the conversations going on around it. Disengagement is anything but passive, and probably the most logical/loving thing we could do right now. Ironically, men will interpret our actions (such as not nurturing men, refusing to produce boys) as the most hateful violent acts possible, even more violent than their endless wars, rape etc. We already see this in the attacks on women’s spaces by trans activists and mras.”

14. SheilaG - July 11, 2013

Deception, appeasement and combat — all three of these things can work, but for the greatest effect, it is disengagement that gives all of us the time we need to truly enjoy women’s company, to be excited about our discussions, and to feel free. The other three tactics involve being around men, or giving them energy.

So a sole focus on women with women, and pulling the plug really work. It works on this blog, because we have FCM editing out the men. She still gets stuck with them, but the rest of us can carry on.

15. SheilaG - July 11, 2013

The hardest thing about disengagement is for married women, who literally are under the same roof with men. This is a huge issue for women worldwide, and I have no answers to this. But I suspect, that the renewed attack on women’s reproductive rights in the U.S. has to do with the fact that so many women are single, raising kids, or not living with men, so males attack yet again.

They can see the disengagement, the economic self-sufficiency and the rise of radical feminism through the internet. That’s something that male porn inc. didn’t bargain on.

16. SheilaG - July 11, 2013

Lesbians have spent over 40 years developing male free spaces and politics, which is why the trans invasion has stepped it all up. Male attacks on Michigan escalating since 1999. Lesbian owned and operated isolated land that bringing music and women only energy one week a year, is a huge threat to male supremacy. Even one week male free causes trans to go berserk with death threats, sneak ins and invasion. We should know that the sheer vitriol hurled at radical lesbian feminist writing alone is indicative of just how powerful this really is, and most of the most powerful writing was done by Sonia Johnson, Mary Daly, Janice Raymond, Julia Penelope, Sheila Jefferies…. all proud lesbians. The most male free women from the get go, do create this power zone. Hetero women are free to join this powerful movement, but there are problems. Even Michigan capitulated to allow boy children in the gate, for example.

FCM - July 11, 2013

yes that was excellent daughteristhesun thanks!

FCM - July 11, 2013

women “globally” arent all in exactly the same boat though. especially liberal american women for example seem to think its a good idea to be “friends” with their husbands and attempt to be equal with them and perhaps as a direct result of this are very male-identified, while CHOOSING to spend their free time with them to boot! other women arent so male-identified and choose to spend their free time in other ways. also, i am really starting to think that these solutions are going to be very localized and even hyper-localized/individual solutions and that we might not know about them all now or ever. for example, women around the world are questioning the practice of gestating/birthing males and i suspect they have always done this and avoided it whenever possible. but ive only heard about it in the mainstream news TWICE. get it? just because we cant get all women on board some grand global scheme at the same time doesnt mean WE cant implement these things for ourselves or that we shouldnt. in fact if we do just stand here and do nothing or wait to be told what to do, or wait to tell everyone else what to do we would likely be the only ones doing nothing while women around the world are figuring things out for themselves and saving themselves. this really is becoming a “save yourselves” kind of situation globally, in other words an extreme emergency akin to a natural disaster where you literally have no choice but to save yourselves and saving anyone else not within your immediate reach isnt even possible or reasonable. it really is this bad i think, and if it is, these seem to be the rules that apply.

FCM - July 11, 2013

and it is stunning that ONE WEEK a year gets them so upset. or with the radfem summer conferences 2 weekends, and not even on the same continent! they are kind of giving the game away with this shit. i mean really. way to be completely obvious DOODS.

17. midnightcache - July 12, 2013

I am not sure that women disengaging from husbands would be the hardest step- I believe that many women see intimately how they and other women are damaged by men in their personal relationships. I think that the hardest step in disengagement will be mothers disengaging in sons. Not producing sons is a viable option as then the problem of a deep and intense connection with a male child never comes to be. Currently though that is not an option for many women and even if it became an option of all women, at any given time there would already mothers deeply attached to sons who would present a problem in the transitionary period between here and a place where women no longer produce sons or the number of women who produce sons is greatly reduced. Also, while it pales in comparison to the harm of continuing engagement with men in general, on an individual level I could see that disengaging or abandoning a male child could be devastating to a mother. In my life and the lives of other women I can see a willingness to walk away from men, but I do not see that same willingness to walk away from male children.

18. daughteristhesun - July 12, 2013

“I don’t know what we must do, but we must do something,” said Sophia Europa, from Bredasdorp, fighting off tears. “Otherwise, there is no use giving birth to a baby boy if men treat women lower than animals.”

This was a quote from a woman in response to a horrific rape/murder of a young girl in Bredasdorp, South Africa. Many women don’t want boys. Until recently the technology wasn’t available to prevent their conception. Even now most women can’t escape PIV and pregnancy. But it gives me hope that at least the technology now exists for women to choose daughters without excessively invasive procedures. It’s also really cheap.

We want so badly to believe that men are good because we are forced to create them, and they are part of us. “Not my boy”, women say. There is a complete refusal to acknowledge the effects of the Y chromosome on human brains, and the consequences of rearing sons on our daughters, other women and the earth. Men know what they are and shout it at us all the time. It is imperative that women believe what men tell us about themselves.

This comment became WAY too long so I turned it into a post.
http://daughteristhesun.wordpress.com/

Hope its ok I posted the rest of it here!

19. SheilaG - July 12, 2013

Giving the game away completely and utterly I’d say. It is the solution for male free weeks, weekends, etc., and to make it known that this is the point of radical feminism— then the men go nuts, the trans go nuts, and now we know for sure that this is the way to go as much as possible. Their huge overreaction to our own organizing speaks volumes about what they fear when women meet radically without any men at all, for the purpose of women’s liberation, freedom and strategy.

And individual women worldwide have had tactics as well, and I suspect they are sophisticated and secretive.

20. SheilaG - July 12, 2013

Good point about American women believing they live equally with men or even are friends with their slave owners, I mean husbands. Women from other cultures are not this deluded by a long shot. Not my Saudi women friends, not my Japanese women friends, not the women from heavily sex segregated cultures— they are much more advanced in disengaging completely. Clearly, female brainwashing is an art form in America.

FCM - July 12, 2013

re male children, as a thought exercise, what if women imagined that *if* they gave birth to a male child, giving the child over to its father or another man or group of men. regarding the terror that rises, that the man would abuse or neglect the boy, or that he would not be well taken care of, that the father would abandon him or kill him, know that the boy is no different from the man. the boy *is* the man. does that help disengage the emotions, love or optimism for the boy? is there anything that could do this? im just asking. because there is nothing redeemable about them at all. with only the passage of time, the boy becomes the man and there is nothing anyone can do to stop this. women know this on an intuitive level. they might know other things too, but i know they know this.

FCM - July 12, 2013

very young unmarried women may be very deluded about men, especially if mothers and grandmothers have protected them this whole time from knowing the truth. one of my young unmarried female family members once said about her plans with her future husband that she would simply have him share the childcare 50/50 easy peasy! the older women rolled their eyes and nearly choked but did this mostly silently and off to the side. one of them said “good luck with that” or something but no one told her the truth, which is that men cannot or will not take care of anyone or anything, including themselves. granted, many women might chalk this up to “masculinity” but experienced women are under no delusions that this is anything that can or will be changed, and more importantly, they dont assume or believe that any one man is going to be the exception to this NO MATTER HOW GOOD HE IS OR HOW GOOD HE “SEEMS” NOW. once you are married to a man, apparently the blinders come off and you are stuck with the reality, and the reality is that men are incapable of caretaking and you would be a fool to let them alone with a child or to make decisions and use judgement in that area, because they have none. married women who think or say “he will be such a good father!” know or quickly find out that he may or may not be an acceptable parent IF AND ONLY IF she is around to supervise and perform all the mental labor herself. and mental labor, delegation and supervision, all of which require judgment and foresight are the bulk of any project including domestic projects. a chimp could probably learn to change a diaper.

21. Nadege - July 12, 2013

I have 2 boys and though I’ve contemplated giving them up for adoption, even before I knew about radical feminism, I’d be afraid to give them up to their father. I’ve been finding disengaging from men relatively easy, even men I felt I loved like my brothers, but my sons are another story.

I’m under no illusion that they will turn out to be “good men,” though I will raise them as best I can. I guess I’m hoping to take care of them until they’re 17/18 and then walk away. I don’t see any any solutions for women with male children, but I’m very happy to be able to talk about it here.

22. Nadege - July 12, 2013

Woops.
*I meant “any easy solutions” not “any any solutions”

FCM - July 12, 2013

in “out of this world” sonia johnson describes the process and aftermath of “divorcing” her grown children including (i think?) 3 sons and a daughter. i recall that in an earlier book she had said something to the effect of “i have sons so i simply cant believe there is anything inherently wrong with males!” i nearly barfed at the sentimentality/logic fail but was happy to see that she remedied it later. of course, divorcing daughters isnt exactly the same thing now is it? but for her, the maleness/worthlessness (or not) of her children was only part of the point of divorcing them. she wanted very badly to be rid of patriarchy and all patriarchal thinking/feeling including the thinking/feeling of motherhood, where women are tethered to and forced to emotionally and/or physically caretake others for the rest of their lives (or for the rest of hers). she divorced all “relationships” from her life actually, and even broke up with her girlfriend and vowed to never have another (traditional) “relationship” ever again bc relationships themselves are patriarchal bc they involve controlling/being controlled and s/m.

anyway, she describes being sick and literally howling and writhing in agony for days afterwards. but she was completely determined to do this in her own life, among other “exorcisms” and experiments which she and her new partner perform all the time. BTW both she and her new partner deny that they are in a “relationship” and say that what they are doing is definitely not one!

FCM - July 12, 2013

also, i know that the very thought of “giving boys to their father” inspires fear, yes. but there is such a disconnect there if you dont also realize that, since they are males too, the boys are destined to become just like their father — in this case as in every case, worthless lumps who you legitimately fear might kill someone. yes? why not give males over to their fate by giving them to other men? if you answered “because i could never afford to pay alimony/child support!” you are probably onto something! interesting isnt it? what a sneaky way to make sure women raise not just “children” but sons specifically. bc there are NO good reasons to give daughters away to males. NONE.

23. Greywing - July 12, 2013

I wish I hadn’t wasted my time reading that, but since I did… that wasn’t even liberal feminism, that was straight up MRA. The entire piece is centered around his anger at being seen as a threat and sexual predator because of his male body, a sentiment that is central men’s rights activism, and not coincidentally also a focal point of his previous laundry room piece. (and also a central concern of MTFs.)

FCM - July 12, 2013

indeed! but lets not forget that its *also* simultaneously and at the same time, “radical feminism” according to DGR, and more specifically, according to someone who showed up on my blog and told me so, the position of THE WOMEN OF DEEP GREEN RESISTANCE, who do all the feminist work of DGR but (for some reason) let the men put their names on it.

and that DGR is lierre keiths organization, and DGR “educates” people about feminism, and keith herself was a speaker at radfem 13.

thats the ONLY reason i wrote about it.

FCM - July 12, 2013

IOW this is the “official” radical feminism now! havent you heard?

24. Greywing - July 12, 2013

I wonder if it’s worth it trying to figure out HOW anyone would come to take that as a radical feminist text. Or figuring out some basic strategies for easily and quickly detecting and ignoring similar texts. (“don’t think/speak ill of the good men” might be a good red flag to start with.)

FCM - July 12, 2013

“a mans name is on it”

FCM - July 12, 2013

it includes a trigger warning

FCM - July 12, 2013

its written by DGR

FCM - July 12, 2013

sorry, was that last one MEAN?

25. SheilaG - July 12, 2013

Speaking ill of “good” men is a major sin in liberal feminism. Speaking well of male “feminists” is the height of liberalism its reason for being! And letting men put their names to articles within DGR is also liberal feminism. I suppose they score points for standing up even mildly against mttrans, but we should know that based on the attacks on DGR, that liberalism and kindness towards trans never works. They intend to walk all over women anyway. We have nothing to lose by refusing to coddle them or “good men.” Good men stand by and watch as men rape, bomb and torture women, good men join the military to rape women, then they get to be good male generals, who are then kicked out for having affairs with other women. Sheesth.

So DGR is not a radical feminist organization, and male authorship is the test of it all.

FCM - July 12, 2013

i suppose we are supposed to be grateful to ONLY have to deal with tree-sitting PIV-hounds because at least they arent hugo schwyzer!?

26. midnightcache - July 12, 2013

In a world where men have access to women- or even in a world where most men have access to women- I fear giving male children to men… I believe it would be near impossible for women to break that bond, especially at early ages with male children, but I also fear the results.

I do believe it is highly likely that men would make boys (the ones that survived) even more violent and harmful to woman, both as boys and as men. Women are able to survive a great deal of violence without becoming violent, especially if we use violence at large instead of violence directed at an abuser; the same is not true of men/boys. In fact, it seems true that men have a natural propensity to be violent and if we gather them in a group where they are responsible for the ‘care’ of boys and those boys are constantly abused and violated it is quite possible it would create a greater number of *the worst* abusers women have seen, is it not?

I will be continuing to think on this, but this was my first reaction.

FCM - July 12, 2013

again, the terror rises. this is good, this is our individual and collective knowledge and instinct. its best not to tamp it down and i am glad to hear you are feeling this and acknowledging the terror that rises when you even consider letting men do what comes more or less naturally to them.

but. the reasoning/justifications/excuses/harm reduction that often follows the terror isnt necessarily useful or rational. boys and men who arent abused at all (or no more than anyone else) still turn out to be violent rapists, pedophiles, killers, abusers, PIV hounds, porn addicts, whoremongers, warmongers, pimps, pornographers, conmen, drug dealers, gangsters, etc etc etc. and our terror at knowing what men are, including what they are likely to do to boys, is no reason to hold out hope for men, or to not separate from men, or to continue to birth and nurture boys. its just not.

FCM - July 12, 2013

in fact i would say its an excellent reason to do pretty much the opposite.

FCM - July 12, 2013

feel the terror. seriously. feel it and sit with it and dont let it get away. its my best suggestion. this is shit getting real.

27. Sargasso Sea - July 13, 2013

As some of you know I have one daughter who was *kick-started* via alternative means in the most remote (immaculate?) way possible🙂

I often think what I would have done had the ultrasound – which I had the SECOND they’d let me – had not shown the girl I *knew* my body was knitting together. Thinking about that terrifies me on several different levels. I’m different than I was then but still I would have had to contemplate – very seriously – a third and final abortion (#1. not wanted and #2. life threatening + ambivalent) which was totally not the point of going to some lengths, mostly legal/financial but physical too obviously, to produce the girl we have with us today.

Knowing the intense… visceral… connection I have with her it terrifies me to think of the visceral… pull… (radfem) women with boys must have.

28. Sargasso Sea - July 13, 2013

Because this IS the root of our oppression – that we *make* everyone. That the males are destined to be our oppressors is a sick reality to contemplate. Sick.

29. radikit - July 13, 2013

Hmm, I think the root is not that we make everyone but that men control when, how and with whom we make everyone. But the fact that we make everyone is the basis for men to control that, true. SO maybe you’re right and it is the root. This is so very depressing.😦

30. witchwind - July 14, 2013

Remember that there is no child that hasn’t been abused. All boys have been abused, even at far lesser degrees then girls. So technically for boys, handing them to men will be the difference between one kind of abuse and the other.

Boys being raised by their mothers who aren’t radfems / or are male-identified / strongly trauma-bonded to men (= the vast majority of women), will raise their boys with deference, submissiveness, fear and preferential treatment. This is inevitable. While it may be less abusive for the boys, it certainly doesn’t decrease their hatred and contempt for women. It teaches them what it is, that women, even their mothers, are slaves to them. So it’s a win-win for boys and a lose-lose for women.

And raising boys, whether we are aware of our aversion to them and are capable of expressing it (refusing to talk to men, to nurture them, to react to them, disengaging, etc) or whether we trauma-bond to the boys, is ALWAYS a lose-lose situation for women.

31. Nadege - July 14, 2013

I don’t have much to add, merely repeating what’s already been said here before, but I’d like to respond to S4 and suggest that though this (mother-male child bond) may be visceral, it is taught and learned to benefit men and patriarchy. So… can’t it be unlearned? I come from a country where children are abandoned fairly regularly (can’t find statistics right now) because of poverty, but it benefits men for mothers to feel intense shame, guilt and physical/emotional pain at the thought of abandoning their male children, especially to idiot neglectful/abusive fathers who couldn’t even take care of cactus plants if their lives depended on it.

This discussion elaborates on this: https://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/hate-speech/

FCM, Sonia Johnson divorced her children when they were grown (wasn’t Noel over 18?). I don’t think that would be too difficult for most women, especially if they knew other women who have done it or are willing to do it with them. Maybe if they chose to do it as a small community of women. But giving 17/18 years of your life to a male child isn’t a good solution at all. For mothers with male children, what options are there? How to circumvent the guilt a mother feels when thinking about the possibility of walking away from her male children? I haven’t read Sonia Johnson’s Going Out of Our Minds yet. It’s in the mail though.

I love my sons, but I know that even if I teach them to be PIV-critical, which I plan to do, they’ll most likely turn out to be misogynist, or at least PIV-loving.

The point you make about the difference between American women and women in some other countries is important because I see that some women in “developing” countries get it, while most women living in the states (and other “developed” countries like Canada, for example) do not. And, this is something that’s been discussed on this blog before, but perhaps this is happening because men continue to offer crumbs, like Roe vs. Wade, to women in countries like the US. Whereas, in places where there’s no pretense of male-allyship, women don’t feel like they are putting any kind of privilege at risk by either terminating pregnancies once they know the sex of the child, walking away from the child at an appropriate age or earlier if the child proves to be sadistic, or, discussing openly, like the article daughteristhesun mentions, that there are no benefits to having male children. You know, like, if slavery is total/absolute, then there’s more likely to be resistance or effective, subversive solutions?

Having male children is a catch-22 for women. By pretending that it isn’t and that “male-allies” are the rare exception to the rule, organizations like DGR are actively harming women. Even before I knew about radical feminism, I felt ambivalent about having a male child. I knew that having a son would make the life of women, and especially a daughter if I ever had one, difficult. Deep down, women know this.

FCM - July 14, 2013

yes, as i said SJ divorced her GROWN children. as she (i think?) made excuses for them earlier, i can only assume this shift in consciousness came after they had reached the age of majority. interesting timing ovbs, as she wouldve been in quite a pickle if she had had the realization earlier, while still being morally and legally responsible for them! and perhaps the legal and moral obligations in themselves were enough to thought-terminate her into believing the unbelievable about them. once that didnt exist anymore, she saw the truth. i think one of her boys (the youngest child) wasnt quite 18 yet when she divorced the others, and she just told him what was coming. even though i think he wasnt living with her at the time. this is just from memory, but it was pretty memorable overall!

thanks for the link to that previous discussion, its very timely and relevant! in that convo i repeatedly suggested that we not talk or think about the issue/problem of male children devoid of the global context of female infanticide. and i would still make that suggestion today. since globally, men forcibly impregnate women and at the same time they murder female infants (but not male) the point of forcibly impregnating women and then enforcing the institution of motherhood does not seem to be *only* about tethering women to “children” but to specifically boys. we cannot deny/ignore this, just bc the global practice of female infanticide might not affect us directly, in the places it doesnt, if it doesnt.

also in that thread was this link from mary sunshine, i would encourage everyone to view it! its amazing. its a pictorial of a specific familys experience but i think it (obviously) has wide applications. here, a mother of nearly-grown or grown sons gets and dies from cancer, and the boys proceed to completely destroy her home. their necrophilic tendencies come to the forefront, they stop taking care of themselves or their (mothers formerly well kept) home, and basically go feral but with a decidedly male (necrophilic) inclination. which is exactly what boys and men are, and its what women and mothers have been charged with tamping down/mitigating for oh i dont know, millenia now? and which we are now charging OURSELVES with, as evinced in the comments above. notably, the pictorial was originally posted on a feminist blog with a feminist observation (that they were disgusting males terribly disrespecting their mother) and then people complained about it being misandric (!!!) and it was taken down! this was nearly erased from history and from our consciousness forever. im so glad mary saved it.

http://randombinary.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/is-art-creating-patriarchy-or-is-patriarchy-creating-art_-by-mary-b-c2ab-feministactioncambridge.pdf

farishcunning - July 14, 2013

FCM, you said: “nonsense/jibberish and gaslighting should have no place in radical feminism. i cant even believe i have to say that.”

I am still so very new at this that I wouldn’t venture to propose theory or anything; but I am learning at a tremendous pace, and find myself appalled at things I used to (but no longer) condone. Radical feminist thinking is expanding and growing my mind.

But I find I am less tolerant of other women who don’t think this way, for whom radical feminism is “extreme”. I was greatly disappointed this past week by two women for whom I have (had?) great respect. Their arguments in defense of (indefensible) males saddened me and turned my stomach. They took “not my Nigel” to new heights, or should I say, depths.

It has become increasingly obvious to me that we MUST stay away from males, and maybe from the women who won’t abandon them, too.

I am so glad to have found these blogs, and want you to know–you, and Gallus and Dirt and wwomenwwarriors and others–that you’re not just shouting into the whirlwind. Your words are changing lives.

Peace,
Fare

32. Sargasso Sea - July 14, 2013

“…suggest that though this (mother-male child bond) may be visceral, it is taught and learned to benefit men and patriarchy. So… can’t it be unlearned?”

I suppose it is possible to unlearn bearing and nurturing children who are unwanted/ambivalent/male. But I’m not sure that that the kind of connection I have with my daughter (whether or not she has it with me and regardless of whether I even WANT to have that connection in the first place) is the kind of thing that is driven by patriarchal controls and mores.

You say you love your sons even knowing that they will grow up to be oppressors of women no matter what you do to try to mitigate that. And that’s what I was trying to get at – the visceral connection that just IS with many mothers. And that men exploit that capacity.

And, yeah, it IS depressing😦

33. Nadege - July 14, 2013

S4, you know, I didn’t get it until after clicking the “post” button. Weird activist reflex I have of reacting before I get what I’m reacting to. I do see your point and FCM’s. Very depressing indeed.

34. SheilaG - July 14, 2013

Yes, women know this, they know they are raising oppressors, they excuse the boys will be boys behavior. I find lately, that I am being more blunt with hetero women with boys, and they will have this passive agreement that marriage is the very cornerstone of male ownership of women, and that the world would be radically different if women never had to get income or support financially from men.

So the high hetero women with their arrogant privilege actually can see this, but then you know they have no intention of every trying to do something about. Then there was a lesbian who had a boy child and could see the damage the boy was already doing. She said she knew this about boys, had almost had an abortion, but then decided to raise the boy anyway. So she had this idiotic excuse as well.

Radical feminism is making inroards, because these women DO recognize what is happening, and DO recognize that they are raising the future rapists of America. I can see the look of recognition in their eyes, but then, with high hetero women, one never quite knows if they are just humoring me so that they can change the subject to their next diet plan or clothing shopping spree. This is actual reporting folks of what actually happens when I bring up radical feminist points of view with middle to upper middle class hetero women btw. I find their manner fascinating to behold. Maybe some day down the line, they’ll think back to what I’ve told them, so it is worth it to plan seeds.

35. Delphyne49 - July 14, 2013

Midnightcache said:

I do believe it is highly likely that men would make boys (the ones that survived) even more violent and harmful to woman, both as boys and as men. Women are able to survive a great deal of violence without becoming violent, especially if we use violence at large instead of violence directed at an abuser; the same is not true of men/boys. In fact, it seems true that men have a natural propensity to be violent and if we gather them in a group where they are responsible for the ‘care’ of boys and those boys are constantly abused and violated it is quite possible it would create a greater number of *the worst* abusers women have seen, is it not?

FCM replied:

…snip

but. the reasoning/justifications/excuses/harm reduction that often follows the terror isnt necessarily useful or rational. boys and men who arent abused at all (or no more than anyone else) still turn out to be violent rapists, pedophiles, killers, abusers, PIV hounds, porn addicts, whoremongers, warmongers, pimps, pornographers, conmen, drug dealers, gangsters, etc etc etc. and our terror at knowing what men are, including what they are likely to do to boys, is no reason to hold out hope for men, or to not separate from men, or to continue to birth and nurture boys. its just not.

Midnightcache,

I don’t think that men, charged with caring for boys, would make those boys any more violent than they are – but ONLY if women walked away and had nothing to do with them, in spite of the visceral attachment women might have for their sons. I believe that the men and boys would devolve into a living version of Lord of the Flies, killing each other off if they knew that women were no longer willing and available to tend to them and their constant, incessant needs. I agree with Sargosso Sea that men exploit women’s love for and attachment to their sons and, sadly women allow that exploitation – even if they know, deep down inside, that their sons will most likely become oppressors of women, including them. Their sons march to the beat of patriarchy because they know that patriarchy is their native language and culture and they resonate with its vibration. Patriarchy is like a magnet for boys and a mother’s love is not powerful enough to keep them off that path.

I personally believe that women’s power is wasted on males of any age as they’re like vampires, sucking us dry of all of our life force. And for me, personally, the only way to get that life force back is to separate from men and reconnect with Nature. I chose not to have kids in this lifetime – being the oldest of a large family tends to do that to some women. I cannot imagine the pain and terror of raising a son, knowing that the odds of him becoming a pervert are so high. It’s difficult enough to try and rid myself of life long brainwashing and internalizing the poison that is patriarchal dogma. Add a kid to that mix and I’d be institutionalized.

I don’t know what the answers are or how we will find them. What I do know is that spaces like this online are so helpful, comforting, inspiring and for that, I am grateful.

FCM - July 14, 2013

what the hell is a “high het woman” sheila? i seriously think you spend too much time with rich people. sheesh.

36. Sargasso Sea - July 15, 2013

Stumbled over “high het women” myself. 🙂 I haven’t heard high in the social-class-hierarchy sense in a long time.

37. SheilaG - July 15, 2013

High het women are obsessed with fashion, obsessed with looks, hair coloring, make-up, often refer to “my hubby” this and that; it is positively amazing to see them in action. They obsess about selling jewelry, get all wraped up in the latest fashions and hair styling– a kind of Mad Men retro womanhood, but all the rage in southern california. Some of them are well off, some are just full of pretense and hollywood, but after 20 years of living in this town, the high hetero brigade never ceases to amaze me.

38. SheilaG - July 15, 2013

They have a social arrogance that boggles the mind, but every now and then something happens. They get beat up by husbands, addicted to prescription drugs — in the last ten years this addiction as increased four fold among women, and this happens a lot to this high hetero set. When Mad Men the TV show came out, they flocked to it. I really had a hard time trying to figure out if this was a ruse or women really did fall for all of this. And then we had the latest in trans invasion, so who knows what to think. Women could be free by now, but all oppessed groups figure out ways to go along to get along.

FCM - July 15, 2013

i wonder how much of the “visceral” response to having children under patriarchy is tied into the moral and legal obligations to care for them, or face serious consequences including incarceration and torture (rape). this could be similar to trauma bonding and it cant help the situation can it? and the standard of care is certainly higher if you are caring for a boy child — fuck that up AT ALL and you are in serious shit. im just saying. and if thats part of it, or if its like a “booster” to the biological/hormonal/spiritual part of it then that part could theoretically be removed or lessened couldnt it? its something to think about. and as has been said here already, mothers of sons know they are producing the next generations of rapists and PIV hounds, and that therefore their male fetuses/children are going to ruin the lives of another womans girl fetus/child. even if he is one of the “good ones” which is statistically unlikely, her boychild will be the worst thing that ever happened to some woman bc he will demand PIV and impregnate her against her will and suck the life out of her like all men do, in addition to possibly being classically abusive, a rapist, pornographer, pimp or even a serial killer. perhaps if women start seeing PIV for what it is, (men ruining womens lives) the myth of the “good one” will start to lose its effectiveness and shrink until it disappears — i hope so!

39. farishcunning - July 15, 2013

I was discussing these ideas with my partner, especially the idea of women separating from males, and she brought up something I hadn’t thought of. She said that if women were to remove themselves from males completely, the males would go ballistic; that they would come after us with a vengeance, raping and killing even more until they recovered their “property”. We already see some of this in the male/trans reaction to Michigan and the radfem conference. How could we protect ourselves, if this ever happened on a large scale? Or even individual women who try to leave the males they live with only to be stalked and killed? How do we fight their violence?

FCM - July 15, 2013

again, the terror about what men will do if they are given the opportunity to be their true, highest selves is no reason to hold out any hope for them. thats all i can say. its also possible that if women un-plugged men from our sockets, men would shrivel up and die. it is possible isnt it?

FCM - July 15, 2013

also, these kind of gruesome hypotheticals are thought-terminating and unfair. i mean really. how can we “fight” mens violence? what if men went ballistic? for one thing, we already are, and they already are. and if anyone expects a coordinated global response, they are going to be waiting for a very long time. so stop thinking that way, is my best suggestion. its a recipe for failure. as i have said, i am thinking “natural disaster” which suggests that we save ourselves, and that anything else is both unreasonable and insane and against natural law in fact. would it surprise anyone if “traditional” politics itself were against natural law? would it?

FCM - July 15, 2013

and SIT WITH THE TERROR. fucking feel it. jesus. im not kidding about that. women are terrified of men, and the thought of taking social and other controls off men — “controls” including but not limited to placating them and letting them leech off of us from cradle to grave so they maybe wont maim and kill us quite as much as they actually want to please please please dear god please save us from men jesus christ they are terrifying i dont want to die like that — fills us with overwhelming terror and dread. think about this for a minute before just dismissing it, or trying to solve it, or making yourself feel better. its like the opiate of the masses or something! just stop it!

40. Sargasso Sea - July 15, 2013

Men shriveling up and dieing is an entirely plausible outcome to women, individually, *cutting the cord* on them. It’s a slow and steady drain, plus the individual woman regains a fuller potential in the process – her mind changes, her perspective changes as Fare mentioned above.

A slow and steady drain is almost imperceptible and will eventually kill any battery. That’s what they’ve been doing to us over centuries (forever) and most of US didn’t even notice so why would they? And since, by pure hubris or whatever, they have become so utterly dependent on our batteries (organizing and forethought and placating and nurturing and cleaning up et al FOR them) it’s frankly kind of a stretch to think that they could organize themselves *better* than they already have.

41. Sargasso Sea - July 15, 2013

Oh my! I meant “dying”. lol

42. Kim - July 16, 2013

I’m a longtime lurker; usually I just sit with the ideas that are talked about here and don’t feel I have much to contribute. Since the comment thread is now talking about how women are manipulated into pouring their energy into sons I feel the need to recommend Sheri S. Tepper’s The Gate to Women’s Country. Not a perfect book by any means, but it expresses some really interesting ideas. I think you would like it.

43. L - July 16, 2013

if women deleeched males from themselves and cut off their energy supply (us) and connected to other women instead, is this what we are supposed to do? I think this is what is happening on radical feminist blogs like this one. like many creative things happening. I am sure this happens in real life too (the connecting part), mostly unintentionally, but when it happens intentionally and deliberately it is probably more powerful, like with the recent radfem convention? the unintentional instances–from my personal experience, the field I work in is very female dominated, dominated as in mostly women are working in this field, of course men still occupy the top places or whatever, but anyway many women are in it–not a lot and in fact almost no men. in my SPECIFIC workplace anyway, my coworkers are almost 100% women. and we connect and it feels very nice! it isn’t perfect and rainbows and sunshine all the time, but whenever any male appears he feels very neutralized or ridiculous. I think even if some or many women will never be able to completely detach from males, women linking up with women will always be a good thing. it will all be very diverse and not even and in neat rows probably, like some women will not want to be linked to men in any way even by proxy and some women will be ok with it.

I’ve been reading this blog on and off in short sporadic bursts for a while and recently am going through the whole archive! I am so thankful for this blog and the radfems who contribute here, it changed my life. I am probably a slow learner so I didn’t get the WHOLE THING immediately, I got the big impactful parts of course the first time I read some stuff, but the complete deep realization comes slowly. the PIV stuff is the part that took the longest but shifted around the most things.

this DGR thing is headed by men. straight white males. as a movement it was dead on arrival and will go exactly nowhere. 100% true prediction!

44. L - July 16, 2013

I want to replace the ‘good’ with ‘better’ in my women linking up with women part of my post above ^

45. A 10,000-Year War? Not Likely. | femonade - July 16, 2013

[…] therefore implicate political strategy.  dont they?  if we use “war” this implicates allies, winning/losing and importantly, fighting/mortal combat where numerous casualties are expected; in […]

FCM - July 16, 2013

i have another post up related to/continuing this discussion. pingback above. thanks for reading!


Sorry comments are closed for this entry