Or: mapping some of the big branches of antifeminism, where they come from and where we are today etc. Or: looking at intersectionality, radical lesbianism, contempt for victims and general male activist / reformist practices from a broader perspective.
I’ve been preparing a synthesis between the criticism of radical lesbianism and intersectionality to have a bigger picture of both and where they come from, and as I see things in patterns I thought I’d first draw it out to make it clearer to myself and others. So this is a first introductory part and more will come later.
We do know the vast majority of women from the women’s movement in the 70s either came from the left or civil rights movement, and were subsequently joined by women coming from lesbian and gay activism.
The positive influence from the left was that women carried with them and further developed the structural analyses that led to the radical feminist theories we have today. I assume at the time, many more women had a basic understanding of politics and oppressive structures compared to today where neoliberal patriarchal ideology has completely taken over, and so many women are convinced that everything they think comes from their own mind and their choices are the result of their own self-determined will.
However the lefty escapees who shaped the WLM also brought with them some of the internalised male attitudes and masculinist activist practices they had to cope with in the male-led organisations, which then visibly shaped the way they applied their feminism. It’s true that these women made a great effort to decolonise from the imperialistic practices of the organisations they fled from, such as getting rid of hierarchical structures, vertical decision-making and doing the immense work of cutting through all the misogynist lies and reversals about patriarchy etc, however some of this work remained largely incomplete as is evidenced by the fact we still struggle with it today, even with newer generations of feminists. Not that it’s their fault, I think it’s a normal process and they went as far as they could at the time.
The interesting thing is that the pattern works the same whichever the generation of women it concerns: what men did against women in leftist organisations then, and how it trickled down to feminism once women left those organisations afterwards, is happening today with younger generations in the same way. The tactics of sabotage of feminism haven’t really changed.
Hereunder I’ve summarised the different male left anti-feminist practices I’ve identified, then and today – unwittingly brought in by women escaping the left and forming women-only movements. It’s also a summary of the different anti-feminist politics I’ve observed in radical lesbian or intersectional-lefty influenced feminist groups, from which male groups they come from and what they have in common. For instance, a lot of misogynist radical lesbian ideologies and practices come from gay male groups. But radical lesbians are also heavily influenced by intersectionality since RL is based on liberal identity-politics and more generally influenced by the left, so that’s where it crosses over with lefty /socialist men.
Anyway hope it makes sense (click to see it full size).
I’ve also noticed that whichever lefty liberal strand anti-feminist strategies come from, they present the same characteristics. This is what I’ve tried to summarise here:
I assume this is very obvious to radical feminists but it helps to have it laid out properly. If I’ve missed anything or if you’d add anything to these lists, fire away!
radical wind 
I think avoiding the subjectivism of intentionality is important in determining how pro-male various approaches are. For instance, while most lefty groups do foster cultures which promote males at the expense of women, this isn’t different from what happens outside those groups. Lack of organisation, and informal culture, is not more pro-woman. I’ve noticed a common problem of women assuming that because their ‘political history’ is more woman-centred and less associated with these lefty groups, that their approaches can therefore be assumed to be healthier for women. Unfortunately that isn’t the case. We all draw our basic ideology and approach from this male-centred culture, whether we like it or not.
I also think your analysis could benefit from asking women with more recent experiences in these lefty groups, for their ideas about common problems therein. For instance, I wouldn’t name direct debate as a problem especially. If anything, I would say women were often given the run-around in finding it very difficult to get direct answers to questions affecting us, or direct responses to our proposals. And were more commonly patronised by being given some seemingly irrelevant response that you had to spend a lot of time and energy on interpreting (but which often turned out to mean ‘we think if you disagree with us here the problem is your confidence level and so we’ll just encourage you to think about something else entirely, while keeping you engaged by not telling you we’re not going to directly address what you said’).
Now that we’re living in Facebook-days, I’ve also noticed a phenomenon of men simply cutting off avenues for debate with women who, they have obviously heard, are likely to disagree with them on something. I found this fascinating to contrast with the experiences of women activists I know (whether their field is feminism or something else), because we commonly block or defriend because communications with someone had proved too trying or sapping. Very different from these men who block on the basis of no prior hisory of engagement.
I’d tie this to the current enthusiasm for no-platforming or ostracising activists, which I believe is directly mainly at women.
I think the whole ‘direct discussion is aggressive and masculine’ thing is actually a pseudo-progressive (but really conservative) idea which reinforces the socialisation of the oppressed to be afraid of discussing politics. Socialisation which women in particular have. We’re taught it’s mean to directly disagree, or to ask that people engage with us honestly and respectfully. This isn’t how the bourgeois class is socialised to think, which does tell us that this approach does work in maintaining the status quo.
Anyway, I had such a thorough and lasting experience of real, open discussion and debate being avoided (or large amounts of chest-thumping being engaged in when it could not be avoided – I’m not saying the aggressive masculine way of debating doesn’t occur) that I do love occasionally seeing exceptions – real, open debate that is deliberately kept low-key and respectful. And I do, which is great and, I think, partly a result of those individuals both being eager to avoid the horrible errors they’ve seen in praxis (such as in the UK SWP), and having the political confidence that comes from a higher political level. (I do think that blow-ups sometimes ensue from political debates when the oppressed lack the ability to argue out their political ideas on an intellectual level. As a result we can feel more threatened and emotional. Although of course, general obliviousness and lack of empathy can also lead to the same place.)
I’m not sure if I have misinterpreted your point about debating (apologies if so), but hopefully my comment above will be useful anyway.
In terms of some of the other points you made, I’m unsure what you meant about the professionalism of lefty groups. (My experience was that activist groups need to struggle hard against the socialisation of the oppressed to treat activism as a hobby and to be incredibly disorganised and haphazard – some groups made good headway with this whereas others seemed not to bother. Obviously it is especially distressing where feminist groups treat themselves so unseriously.) But I’d be interested if you could perhaps expand a little more on this and your point about life-sustaining work. I think these are important discussions and we do indeed need to ensure that activists engage in a sustainable way. Something I found that newer activists especially were not encouraged to do.
I like the graphics. I have a couple questions. When you refer to “misogynist radical lesbian ideologies” (I still wonder exactly who and what you’re talking about) — Are these specifically misogynist radical LESBIAN ideologies, or are they misogynist radical QUEER ideologies?
When you refer to radical lesbians vis-a-vis your graphic listing “Male tactics of anti-feminist abuse and sabotage of feminism (whether enacted by lefty men or colonised women)” — Where do you put radical lesbians? Are they “lefty men” or “colonised women” in this analysis?
Also, is there any such thing as a de-colonized woman?
I thinking about the point of women never being credited lately, especially if they don’t toe the male line, this article which mentions Dworkin and Raymond but doesn’t cite them is a good example. Not to mention it completely glosses over in in “benefits” how dangerous pregnancy and childbirth is. http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/23/what-do-artificial-wombs-mean-women/
Some more would be:
-Elevation of art which is male-centric and erasure of female centric poets, visual artists etc.
-Misanthropy: the projection of the hopelessness of male existence especially with regards to their relationship with nature and the Earth onto womankind.
-Extreme fetish for protesting, you aren’t a proper “activist” unless you’ve protested something in their mind, because women’s words don’t matter.
-“Voting with your dollar”: a rich man’s lazy way of pretending to care about worker’s right, the planet and basic ethics.
-Supportive of “equality” for women, unless it undermines some male supposedly progressive point of intersectionality. For example, disability rights advocates attacking women who choose to abort children with Down’s Syndrome or severe deformities, because women choosing what happens to their own bodies is ableist. Or a white woman standing up to a man of colour for being misogynist is automatically racist.
-Something that from a woman would be called ridiculous is seen as rational when said by a man.
-The concept of logical fallacies in general. Many of them are thought terminating, sure some can be useful but consider the ad hom logical fallacy. The end point of this is that women cannot question a man’s pseudo-feminism because that would be attacking him not his argument. I’m sure leftie males would call people upset that Laverne Cocks is reading a letter from a child rapist and killer would be “ad homing” him because its the argument that matters!!! Except wrt to women whos appearances, political alliances and really everything about them are up for endless anal criticism. Ad hom= do not criticise men. The fallacy fallacy renders the concept of logical fallacies useless. Slippery slope can be a valid argument. Men are hypocrites. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
-The glorification of “death for the greater good”. Think the revolutionary stages of communism in slaying the middle class. It is a natural consequence of men’s necrophilia, which they attempt to legitimize in the leftie circles.
-Framing things as revolutionary which are not revolutionary- for example men speak of “the sexual revolution”, claim birth control is revolutionary when its really only a band-aid, is not 100 percent reliable, has serious side effects and cannot begin to fully protect a woman from the ravages of sexually transmitted diseases.
-From general patriarchy there is of course the “virgin/whore dichotomy”. Any woman they disagree with is a whore, no matter who accomplished even in the patriarchal spheres of governance, medicine etc.
-Psychological analysis is incorporated in many of the politics. Even radical feminism has this with trauma bonding but we have cleverly taken what is useful to us, changed definitions to better suit women’s reality and discarded the patriarchal shit to the best of our ability.
-The denial of men as a mutant off-shoot of women. Glorifcation of the male form, while claiming inherent flaws in femaleness.
-Defends patriarchal institutions as having a right to exist, as if they were people. For example, saying religions deserve to exist. Liberals do it as much as fundies.
-Anthropomorphizing non human things and concepts. The Republicans are “beasts”.
-Phallic symbolism is connected to good things and never disease, rape and death.
-Glorification of earlier forms of patriarchy. Defense of “heritage” as an excuse for misogyny.
-Denial that patriarchy exists.
-Looks at wars based on the ideals behind them and not the women who suffered and died because of it.
-Creating a Satan and an Innocent out of anything. Ex- Israel is a demon/the devil, Palestine is the innocent. No balanced perspective though claims to have monopoly on rationality.
-Denial of how much harder a woman works to succeed.
-Claiming that rape is something men experience, hence trivializing the unique bio-terrorism of forced pregnancy women have dealt with for millennium. This also reduces women’s vaginas to the anus which is a passage for waste, where the vagina is a passage for Life, which shows us how they despise and think so lowly of The Living World. Men cannot be raped. To say otherwise is offensive to women.
-Exaggerating the “hard work” a man did to get into a position, achieve a political ends, whatever.
-“Oppression works both ways”.
Here is a good example of women’s work being stolen. Here a black metal musician steals lyrics from a long dead female poet who speaks of the reality of women. The black metal guy takes away the female context of suffering and applies it to himself bc deep down men know they do not know what suffering is compared to what women have endured on this earth. They appropriate our suffering for dramatic effect, because they are shallow and incomplete.
https://esotericalembic.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/the-philosophy-of-irony-black-metal-as-a-vehicle-for-feminism
^ I highly encourage you wim to check out this link because the original poem is an almost completely forgotten classic in female perspective. Do not let her words become lost.
Lisa Jones she has already done analysis on this issue. Radical lesbianism is inseparable from queer ideology, when you get right down to it, no matter how much disdain they claim for liberals. She not talking about radical feminists who are lesbians. She means people like Bev Jo. Of course radical lesbians are not “lefty men” because they are not men. They are colonized women.
@ liberation is life:
I know it isn’t that different from what happens outside of those groups, however each male group has its own sub-culture, and there is one specific to lefty men which has influenced the way women do feminism, since a large chunk of feminists come from lefty spheres. And I want to look at the anti-feminist aspects in feminism that specifically come from these male groups.
I talked about confrontational, aggressive debating modes. It didn’t mean direct. This means aggressive. Ie, shouting at others as a form of debating, cutting off speech and interrupting, using verbal abuse as a form of persuasion, etc. A lot of feminists do this, and especially those who have backgrounds in unions, political parties, male general assemblies, anarchism, etc. They can only have learned it from men actually as it’s a very unfeminine thing to do, the opposite (and usual) thing expected of women is as you say to avoid any direct talking and to shut down disagreements. In male lefty spheres, there’s a constant hostile environment and it’s considered normal to shout at someone when you disagree, or even without shouting, to repeat something so often and with such force that arguments are literally hammered down your head. I’ve been explained several times by different feminists that this is a perfectly normal way of having political debates, and it’s just laughed off later at the pub. The list of male tactics of verbal abuse and underhanded methods to take power while giving the illusion of democratic consensus within a lefty party, collective or union are endless, men even write books about how to take power in a group while giving the impression of participation. It’s textbook stuff in male politicking. Not that all women use it but you can definitely see various degrees of influence.
Also, I think you haven’t read properly what I wrote because I said “anti-professionalism”, not professionalism, and you summed it up very well: “the socialisation of the oppressed to treat activism as a hobby and to be incredibly disorganised and haphazard”. In other words it’s a way of shooting themselves in the foot, it’s a form of self-sabotage and internalised self-hatred by doing things badly, like we don’t deserve the best for ourselves: wasting people’s (women’s) time, organising things in the last minute, looking trashy and making work productions and places look trashy, being rude and unprofessional to strategic partners, not giving themselves the best conditions possible for work and gathering, disregarding mental health and material safety as important conditions when organising meetings, etc.
I think it’s also related to a fear of being perceived as bourgeois and as a class-traitor for refusing to activate in dire, gritty conditions, and in complete disrespect to our time, health and safety. There’s some male working-class pride in doing it this way. It’s the glorification of the sacrificial martyr who endures any kind of shit and pain for the “cause”.
Note in the article about fake wombs I linked to, not only do they not cite Janice Raymond and Andrea Dworkin’s work but deliberately misrepresent them. They claim that they both said fake wombs will make women obsolete but fail to mention they mean IN MEN’S EYES. They cannot bear to name the agent.
After libertrationislife’s comments another one that can be added is disdain of children and anything they mistake as conservative. Labeling things conservative deliberately to discredit and attack someone. For instance claiming feminists who oppose the global rape trade and “pearl clutchers” and because they converge with some conservatives on this, FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, that they are wrong. “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” said mockingly, etc. Femonade wrote about this:
http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/radfems-are-conservative/
this culture is complete and utter shit and it’s totally destructive to feminism. Only men can afford to activate in this way because women will be the ones cleaning after them and doing all the life-sustaining work. We can’t afford to do things in gritty, awful or haphazard conditions. It’s too unsafe and triggering and it’s certainly not sustainable.
@ lisa, I don’t understand why you seem to consider radical lesbianism to be beyond criticism – radical lesbianism, as opposed to radical feminism, is based exclusively on misogynistic ideology and identity politics – it’s based on separatism from *women* and considering heterosexual women as the enemy or as part of the problem, and is more concerned by gay male-defined politics such as “lesbian visibility” – which would be fine if it were feminist centred but the fact is it’s not, it mimics gay politics of gay visibility and pride, which aren’t applicable to women in the same way. Radical lesbianism, being a politics primarily based on an identity (lesbianism) and not on the liberation of all women, is heavily driven by intersectionalist identity politics too, because it’s only one step away from embracing all sorts of other “oppressed identities” and making it all about oppression olympics. Their concern is mostly fighting lesbophobia and lesbians are usually defined as the most oppressed of all women, while “het” women and mothers are privileged, which is a total reversal. Read any radical lesbian work such as from Bev Jo or others, there’s plenty of evidence. You can find a lot of their texts in the anthology “For Lesbians Only” by Sarah Lucia Hoagland.
Queer lesbians and radical lesbianism are two different branches that come from a same stem: gay male activism. Even though many radical lesbians profess to hate queer lesbians because queers hang around with men, there are many cross-overs and similarities between the queers and radlez:
– straight / hetero definied as the enemy (not just men, it includes women)
– missing the point on the central definition of patriarchal oppression, being sexual / reproductive violence of men against women.
– politics centred primarily on identity
– very heavy reliance on intersectionality
– contempt for victims / identification to the working class male
Now the following aspects are more specific to queers / anarca-queers but you also find self-identified radlez along this spectrum too:
– BDSM
– pro-trans
– pro-porn or anti-censorship of porn
– pro-prostitution
– or “non judgemental” on all the above (because she has lesbians friends engaged in such practices and doesn’t want to challenge them, probably out of fear of consequences).
And yes as Blackmetal says I’m not criticising radical feminists who are lesbians and lesbianism per se, but radical lesbians such as Bev Jo and many others.
@ blackmetal, that’s a very good list thanks for adding that!
Yes promoting rape / sexual torture / the prostitution model as sexual liberation for women is indeed a MAJOR lefty male thing – including promotion of pill and abortion for these ends, to increase women’s fuckability. And glorification of past traditional patriarchies, supposedly closer to nature – ignoring that these “traditional” men are what led to modern patriarchy anyway, so history would just repeat itself so long as men have any power-over in society…
Many other things you list aren’t specific to lefty men but common to all men (ie glorification of death, anthropomorphism, denial of patriarchy, male binary evil/good view, whore/virgin culture, etc.) which I think would fit in in the first circle of “from patriarchy generally”).
Correction: For instance claiming feminists who oppose the global rape trade are* “pearl clutchers”.
Thank you Witch. Hopefully Skull will comment soon.
For All Those Who Died
From Witches
For all those who died-
stripped naked, shaved, shorn.
For all those who screamed
in vain to the Great Goddess
only to have their tongues
ripped out at the root.
For all those who were pricked, racked, broken on the wheel
for the sins of their Inquisitors.
For all those whose beauty
stirred their torturers to fury;
& for all those whose ugliness did the same.
For all those who were neither ugly nor beautiful,
but only women who would not submit.
For all those quick fingers
broken in the vise.
For all those soft arms
pulled from their sockets.
For all those budding breasts
ripped with hot pincers.
For all those midwives killed merely for the sin
of delivering man
to an imperfect world.
For all those witch-women, my sisters,
who breathed freer
as the flames took them,
knowing as they shed
their female bodies,
the seared flesh falling like fruit
in the flames,
that death alone would cleanse them
of the sin for which they died
the sin of being born a woman,
who is more than the sum
of her parts.
by Erica Mann Jong
Never mind Erica Jong is not dead I confused her with someone else bc men stealing women’s work is so common. http://www.ericajong.com/poems/forallthosewhodied.htm
I want to say I mean specifically anthropomorphism of male serving concepts. I don’t think all anthropomorphism is patriarchal. This would to to throw away the Great Goddesses of the past and its comforting to know there were women in the past who could see the Divinity in themselves.
Witchwind wrote, in response to me: ‘Also, I think you haven’t read properly what I wrote because I said “anti-professionalism”, not professionalism, and you summed it up very well: “the socialisation of the oppressed to treat activism as a hobby and to be incredibly disorganised and haphazard”. In other words it’s a way of shooting themselves in the foot, it’s a form of self-sabotage and internalised self-hatred by doing things badly, like we don’t deserve the best for ourselves: wasting people’s (women’s) time, organising things in the last minute, looking trashy and making work productions and places look trashy, being rude and unprofessional to strategic partners, not giving themselves the best conditions possible for work and gathering, disregarding mental health and material safety as important conditions when organising meetings, etc.
‘I think it’s also related to a fear of being perceived as bourgeois and as a class-traitor for refusing to activate in dire, gritty conditions, and in complete disrespect to our time, health and safety. There’s some male working-class pride in doing it this way. It’s the glorification of the sacrificial martyr who endures any kind of shit and pain for the “cause”.’
No, I read what you wrote, but because that section was in dot points I wanted to be sure what you intended by it.
I don’t find this unseriousness to be an especially male-led way of doing activism, as I tried to draw out. I have found it to be more about the precise political tradition and analysis of specific groups. As I mentioned, the default way for the oppressed to view activism is to treat it as a hobby and not to think we deserve to take ourselves seriously. In feminism, we see this in women turning up to feminist meetings without pen and paper. So they are not only completely reliant on the minute-taker to tell them later which tasks they volunteered for, but they are also not in a position to correct any inaccuracies in the minutes about political positions adopted at those meetings. If anyone does raise disagreements with the minutes, they are effectively left out of the ensuring discussion.
Some socialist traditions have put a lot of energy into attempting to counter these default tendencies and so I’ve found that women who’ve spent longer periods of time in union or socialist groups tend to treat meetings, and women’s time, more seriously. That’s also the case with the socialist tradition I was in.
I do agree that a disorganised approach can only impact worst on women, in that we do have greater health and safety needs, in addition to our greater needs to be treated seriously in activism, to counter our general socialisation.
In terms of the ‘confrontational, aggressive debating modes’, thanks for clarifying what you meant. TBH I have noticed that men tend to treat each other with a whole lot more respect in debating than they treat women (as I mentioned earlier). I have also found that women learn to treat other women that way – that they have to in order to ‘stay in’ with some males. It may be partly an issue of national culture, however, since I can’t say I have observed a great deal of what you describe – more than anything else, I see avoidance and non-engagement.
You write: ‘The list of male tactics of verbal abuse and underhanded methods to take power while giving the illusion of democratic consensus within a lefty party, collective or union are endless, men even write books about how to take power in a group while giving the impression of participation. It’s textbook stuff in male politicking.’ Quite so – what I was suggesting is that I have seen a lot of this. I’m kind of getting the impression from what you write however that you are not interested in asking me about my experiences, even though you are indicating interest in this and seem to have seen some of the same yourself.
I mainly want to add a comment about the supposed ‘pearl clutching’ that women do when they speak out against something they find abhorrent. It goes further than having completely different reasons to worry and care about something than men do because female activism coming from a completely different place than men’s. What women do/think/feel is constantly mocked, so if women care about animals, for example, this is seen as twee, quaint and adorable in men’s eyes, and she’s seen as conforming to her feminine gender role. They lack the depth of feeling themselves to see how women are affected when they see animals being put through pain. I remember a documentary I saw where a young woman was carrying out work experience at a stable. One night her favorite horse went into labour, the vet was called and the horse was given a c-section. The woman was made to watch as this man mutilated the horse “for it’s own good” and the horse was very ill afterwards. The young woman was pale and shaken. It was framed as though she shouldn’t have been there to see the men at work if she couldn’t handle it, because men have now made birth and animals men’s work. They did this after seeing that this was women’s work. Women gave them the idea, so to speak. Evidence shows that it was women who first tamed horses, for example, and that this was done humanely. So when women protest against something they aren’t pearl clutching. They’re speaking with a deep and ancient wisdoms. Men copy the passionate pleas of the women they know (wives, daughters) but never seem to get it. It’s the men who are doing nothing but clutching at pearls when they fight for some cause. They mimic what women care about and pass it off as their own great manly cause.
Most important causes would never have been conceived of without female empathy and vision. Stuff that was mocked like child labour laws are now a common thing. It was either Cherry or Witch who mentioned this I think. Does anyone here believe in Goddesses? Or A Goddess? Some kind of primeval Female Lifeflow?
Interesting evidence of women’s super-sensory power: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgHm5TKBW54
I would like to add a couple of concepts, though I am not sure where they land, because I have never been part of a male political group (THANK THE GODDESS). But I do think they come from the left. Here goes:
1. Ranking of people into a hierarchy based on values associated with liberalism. What I mean is that, for example, people are not seen as simply VALUABLE but rather value is something that must be earned in some way. This seems pervasive in patriarchy at large, but within liberalism I see it in a form where, for example, having a lot of scholarly knowledge on a subject makes the person who has the knowledge more valuable as a human being, less disposable. The way I see this playing out with women in feminism is that there is a fear I sense in women of not making the cut and being seen as silly, stupid, not important, worthless. It’s in undertones of debates (mentioned above) where women having their views challenged respond to the person doing the challenging as though they’ve been dehumanized. A statement as simple as, “That is not true/correct,” can be met with vehemence as though you just called the woman stupid. This is because men have convinced everyone that you are not human by having been born human, but it’s something you have to earn, especially for women, and in liberalism, value comes via things like education, demonstrated “logic”, rationality, scholarship, bla bla. Women put other women up on pedestals for “doing work” and “writing” on the issue of feminism….as though some women are more important. We’ve got it in our heads to rank other women.
2. Definitely from the left, this rigid atheism. I mean atheism as in a total shutdown of the intuitive self, hyper-materialism, hyper-rationality, and a total disdain for seeing or hearing the word Goddess or ritual, etc. Vehement rejection of a female-centered (thus earth-centered) culture of “spirituality” (no word exists for what it really is). Women learn in liberal circles that religion is bullshit. It’s exposed as abstract, made-up, woo woo crap to control masses with opiates or whatevs. When they hear words like Goddess they assume here we go again with silly women swapping out god for Goddess thinking they’ve solved the problem. They do not give a second glance to what is really going on, which is something else entirely. Women are reaching to reconnect with who we are, our deeper well of strength, autonomous from a male intermediary. What do men gain by thinking of god as male? And what do we lose? It’s so different to say “thou art Goddess” to every single woman, to be of and for the Earth, a creature whose body dances with the tides and moon….than to be a scripture in a book written by homicidal kings of yore. This benefits men because there is strength for women here, but women get so put off by man-made religion that they throw out everything that even reminds them of it.
3. Androgyny or hate disgust with the female body. Some internalized sense that we’re just like men, but with different anatomy. Which means distance from our anatomy, not realizing that our bodies are us and we are our bodies. This dissociation as a result. Seeing the body as an abstraction, the female form as an nuisance even. Pregnancy and menstruation are “girly” and to run with the boys, we should not internalize these aspects of who we are, because we’re just like men, all humans are the same, etc. No connection to the body. No connection or concept that we are even female. Not realizing that we are part of class: woman.
There was one more I wanted to mention but now I’ve forgotten.
I think we should create a name for a Goddess that embodies the Divine Primeval Female Essence and radical feminist female consciousness. Is anyone knowledgeable about linguistics? I want to speak to a Goddess but I don’t want to use male given names.
Witchwind, I appreciate your patience and willingness to help me understand your position.
This whole time I’ve been wondering, “Is she talking about me? Am I one of the awful radical lesbians to which she refers?” Yeah, I think I probably am. I don’t believe I’m above criticism, though. By all means, please criticize anti-feminist arguments and attitudes.
You wrote of radical lesbians: “Their concern is mostly fighting lesbophobia and lesbians are usually defined as the most oppressed of all women, while ‘het’ women and mothers are privileged, which is a total reversal.”
I don’t get how this is a “total reversal.” Are you saying that radical lesbians are privileged while “het” women and mothers are the most oppressed of all women? (And why do you assume that radical lesbians aren’t mothers, too?)
How is it anti-feminist for lesbians to assert their lesbianness and visibily? Especially as the so-called LGBT movement is erasing lesbians as we speak. Maybe you and other feminists don’t give a crap about lesbian erasure, but it’s totally OK and totally feminist for lesbians to care.
As you define it, radical lesbianism is hatred of non-lesbians, and hatred of being a woman.
Sorry, but this definition makes zero sense to me. It’s a simplistic, false, strawlez definition. You’re vilifying a group of women, tarring them as enemies of women, further dividing women from women. How is this helpful to anyone but men?
The mistakes of radical lesbianism, according to you:
1. “Straight/hetero defined as the enemy (not just men, it includes women.)” Well, yeah. So-called heterosexuality is an ideology that posits female sexuality as dependent upon and subservient to male sexuality. Heterosexuality enslaves women. It’s not anti-feminist to recognize this fact and shout it from the rooftops.
2. “Missing the point on the central definition of patriarchal oppression, being sexual/reproductive violence of men against women.” On the contrary, most radical lesbians get the point of patriarchal oppression at least as well as other women do. Radical lesbians are just as rapeable and just as vulnerable to impregnation and violence as any other women. Because radical lesbians “get it,” we arrange our lives to minimize risk and reduce harm (knowing that no woman is ever immune to male violence) by not having sex with men by choice and not living with men, and by avoiding women who center men/seek to please men. You call it anti-feminist misogyny, but really it’s just good sense.
3. “Politics centred primarily on identity.” Or, more accurately, politics informed primarily by lifelong personal experience. Lesbian “identity” isn’t a fanciful inflation of ego that lesbians dreamed up for kicks and kudos. It’s a shared (and seemingly innate) sexual attraction to women combined with a refusal (or inability) to perform social rituals of femininity, appeal to the male gaze, and care about what men want and like. This “identity” does not go unnoticed and unpunished by men and by women who prioritize men.
Fact: Radical lesbianism plays no role in placing or keeping women in male-bondage/heterocaptivity. Despising radical lesbians and accusing them of misogyny for resisting heteronormativity is a doozy of a reversal.
4. “Very heavy reliance on intersectionality.” It’s called wanting allies and trying to model the sensitivity and understanding that we’d hope to find in an ally. The irony is that lesbians have no allies. Gay men don’t give a toss about lesbians. Transgender activists insist that lesbians are bigots for rejecting sex with people who have penises. Feminists aren’t lesbian allies, either, as your writings attest. If lesbians and lesbian space, culture, and social opportunities are to survive and thrive, lesbians have to get on with it and stop hoping for help that will never come.
What you’re saying, it seems to me, is that lesbians should put aside our petty lesbian concerns for the sake of “all women.” Gays, Bis, and Ts say the same thing to us — lesbians need to take a backseat to the “larger” movement for queer rights.
What you’re asking for is lesbian self-erasure, for radical lesbians to shut up about lesbianness and get busy with “real” feminism, as if lesbian problems aren’t problems concerning “real” women.
5. “Contempt for victims / identification to the working class male.” Contempt is your projection, Witchwind. Radical lesbians generally refuse to believe that women must submit to men or depend on men. Women have choices. Patriarchal oppression limits the choices of all women, including radical lesbians. Your analysis rejects the notion of choice — albeit limited choice, a choice between constant exposure to male crap and less-constant exposure to male crap.
In your analysis, there are no choices for heterocaptive women (a.k.a. all women) just endless hopeless shit until men are banished from the planet, and shame on radical lesbians for disagreeing (because radical lesbians somehow don’t experience real suffering as real women do.)
Women prioritize men over themselves, over their own lives, and over their own sisters every damn day. Radical lesbianism rightly recognizes this as a sickening, heartbreaking tragedy and, yes, a *choice* that many women make.
Radical lesbianism isn’t necessarily the greatest alternative to heterocaptivity, but it is an alternative. Your zero-sum feminism can’t acknowledge radical lesbianism as anything positive or hopeful. Your zero-sum feminism insists that any tiny moment of relief from male bondage experienced by radical lesbians must necessarily come at a cost to all other women. You’re simply wrong about that.
I hope maybe someday you will go into your views on the afterlife more. You wrote in one of your early posts something that deeply resonated with me:
“The possibilities are so infinite. Suddenly my perspective of death changed too and the thoughts that came to me was that a free world is one where we aren’t afraid of death, and death is a natural part of life, and it doesn’t lead to annihilation of our soul as men want us to believe. Annihilation is denying our existence, through rape, torture, murder – destruction for destructions’ sake. But it is not death per se. Death of a beloved person wouldn’t be so traumatising because we would appreciate the time we spent together and accept that she has simply changed from one life form to another. Because we wouldn’t depend on any one person for our emotional or physical survival, because we would live in a state of abundance, where our needs would be met. I remembered that when I was younger I wasn’t afraid of death at all neither mine or the death of other people, and i knew that those who died around me (if they did) went somewhere safe. And I remembered too that when I was younger I was far more connected to my senses and to the elements around me. Hearing the noise of the leaves through the wind and smelling the grass could give me incredible and lasting joy. So many things that would have been unthinkable to me then, I have been groomed to tolerate now.”
https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/thoughts-on-feeling-our-way-to-freedom/
I agree with you about death. I’m not afraid of death like I’m supposed to be but I’m TERRIFIED of hospitals, because men run and orgNize them! and have power there. Men have turned them into houses of horror willingly. A labouring woman is statistically more likeLu to die in hospital than during a home birth. There is a horror movie out called “The Hospital” with picture of a woman on the front cover.
What if dying meant having the old healer woman come over to make your room smell nice, to give you special tea and to have a chat with your friends about your favorite memories.
What patriarchy has done is terrify people. It’s sadistic necrophilia.
I think it is Critically Important to address the Necrophilic policies and practices of male centric Activism as opposed to Biophilic or Life Sustaining Work as you call it. Specifically that men’s various Activisms, like everything they do, is Subsidized by Women’s energies and unpaid and unacknowledged caretaking and domestic labor where females (female activists as well as relatives and partners) caretake the males if something Bad Happens and they are Harmed. The result is that Males can engage in deleterious activities and Routinely place themselves in Harm’s Way such as with Financially, Physically or Psychologically risky actions, chronic overwork, and inviting Police or other Interventions, and not only do these men not have to Worry (emotionally Labor) over what would Befall them if something bad happened, but when it does, they are Cared for, Bailed out (literally and figuratively) and Built Back Up by women. Women never have the same Resources at our disposal, this is true across the Board, and it is certainly true in the case of Radical Feminist activism which is unsupported Ideologically by all male factions and the majority of the population, including our own Female friends and relatives. If something Bad happens to us, even if it is “merely” chronic overwork and chronic illness related to it, women frequently have No One to care for us and No One to build us back up to what/where we were, or to Replenish what we have Lost. And yet so many Women Activists activate as if this were not the Case, and as if the Consequences to our Lives and our Health do not matter. This is a terrible, terrible mistake, and one that is often not Recognized until it is too late to change, alter or Reverse the damage. As always, the true (unsubsidized) costs of male Necrophilia and Necrophilic systems and values falls on and destroys Women. We cannot afford to forget this, or to Pretend otherwise.
Blackmetal that would be Lilith. If you dig into Lilith and see past the patriarchal reversals, read her story, back to Catal Huyuk, she is the radical feminist Goddess. Radical Kitten could probably explain better than I can. She’s been demonized biblically of course….which is apt, because she is the embodiment of all you said. Men HATE that Goddess. They tried to destroy her and rid her from female consciousness because she is their undoing when awoken in a woman.
And as a result of this Discussion, I (and others) are thinking about Sustainable Radical Feminist Activism and what that would Look Like. I admit that I am at a Total Loss. We know that Blogging has proven to be largely Unsustainable, the evidence of that is the Graveyard of Radical Feminist blogs littering the Internet, many of them marked “Private” and no longer Accessible. Due to Violent Threats by Violent Males, as well as Complete Destruction and Burnout of the Authors (related to same, including the Destructiveness to and against Ourselves as Radical Feminists) many Blogs have been erased completely. Andrea Dworkin’s type of In Real Life activating, including more traditional Writing, does not appear to have been Sustainable either, where she ended up Debilitated and very ill in the last part of Her life. In fact, She ended up once more being a Victim of rape in her last years and said she had Had Enough and was Ready to Die. It is as if Nothing she had Done had changed anything, and certainly not the Material Circumstances of her own Life enabling her to avoid Male Sexual Violence. Not even She could do that. Then, we have the Academics who may last years or decades in the University system, having accrued the Benefits of the Male Tenure system. Is this Sustainable? Perhaps, as the Benefits including a Salary and Housing physically sustains these women, but it is not exactly Radical. Radical Feminist academics routinely Censor themselves as well as Denouncing and Distancing themselves from other Radical Women who (perhaps) have less to lose, because they are not Sustained this way. This Pits Feminists against each Other, where some of us are Sustained materially but Most of us are not. Those of us who are Not sustained this way are More Free say what we really Think and what we really Mean when we do speak, but the Feminists who are getting paid for it can speak Louder and Longer than we can, although they cannot Tell the Complete Truth about anything. It is a terrible double bind. Interestingly, it immediately appears as if the Women who are getting Paid for it should Secretly Fund those who are not, and that this would solve the problems for Each of Us. But due to (for example) prohibitions against Money Laundering and secreting away Money, as well as women’s Lower salaries and Higher expenses generally, this is unlikely to really happen, although Male Criminals and Terrorists manage to do it mostly with Impunity/Immunity all the Time (Women are never Immune to Anything it seems). There are so many Dead Ends when thinking about this, it is Good that we are discussing it. I really look forward to Reading what other women have to Say on the topic of Sustainable Activating, if anything.
LOL Lisa what a bunch of straw man arguments. Witch would never advocate living with men. We are all separatists here.
“Feminists aren’t lesbian allies, either, as your writings attest.”
Feminism is a movement for liberation of all women. Dissecting radical lesbian ideologies is not lesbophobic, it is entirely necessary, as it is a perversion of feminism with other crap thrown in. Her “zero sum” feminism is radical feminism. It seems you have not read much of her work, especially her earlier posts on heterosexuality. You are insulting the intelligence of all the radical feminists here and attacking positions Witch has never expressed or supported, and in fact actively opposes, such as living with men.
I think blogging would be more sustainable if there was no commenting. I’m not saying I want that for Witch’s blog bc I like the spinning discussions but I think a radical feminist would be less likely to burn out if there were no creepy dudes leaving troll comments and also if it was hosted on a site meant for activism instead of a commercial site where we can be attacked. It would be great if you could buy a domain and make a blogging site to host radical feminist blogs exclusively.
http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/youngestmother.asp
The most disturbing thing about this article is how little the fact that she was impregnated by some man was focused on.
@Lisa – I have to agree with BMV. Your understanding of Witchwind’s work/intent seems quite limited.
Also, I always question a person who uses words like “despise” to characterize a critique of a certain ideology ie: You don’t like what we say or do, therefore you despise us. This kind of approach tells me that the reader is taking the critique as a personal ‘attack’ rather like trans do when they throw around “vile” to discredit radical feminist critique of their ideology.
It’s hyperbolic and childish, really.
@Tracy – ‘sustainability’ is in the eye of the beholder I think. Each of us must decide how much (of whatever is draining/toxic) is too much. As a concept it requires an endless loop of doing the same work over and over and over.
Repetition is the state we’ve been in for some 40 years with few practical, lasting gains and while this repetition is unfortunately necessary to simply hold on to the crumbs we do have, women cannot keep doing this forever and stay ‘sane’ and healthy.
As an example, a newer radfem I’m familiar with who has been doing great consciousness raising work in lefty circles has finally, today, thrown up her hands – the opposition she has braved for the past years finally sucked the last of her energy away… I am glad for her because she has at least faced her limit and can begin to shift her focus – I’m quite sure that another woman who maybe didn’t speak up much but who learned from her will step up to take her place.
And maybe that’s what sustainability really is: doing our work until we are done knowing that those who picked it up will carry it on. ??
Read this on an article about Native Americans- “For instance, the rape of Native American women by non-natives continues to be a big problem”. I hear this said over and over again. Why do they have to put all these things in front of it to make it seem isolated? Its not isolated. Not at all. My correction: “The rape of women by men is a big problem”.
@BlackMetalValkyrie @SargassoSea
I regret that I didn’t communicate my point to you. My point is that radical lesbians (real ones as opposed to strawlez caricatures) have more in common with radfems than not. Radfems saying that radical lesbians are anti-feminist misogynists is baffling to me. I hoped to make this point by addressing specific points that WW cited in her comments in this thread. I did not mean to insult anyone’s intelligence. As for my taking WW’s analysis personally and being childish, OK, yes, I’ll cop to that.
I had to look up Bev Jo, the exemplar of radical lesbian anti-feminist misogyny whom you specifically named here. All I can say is, Really? This is the type of thinking that you believe perpetuates the enslavement of women?
Bev Jo’s most recent post struck me as radical but sensible considering the experiences of many lesbians:
http://bevjoradicallesbian.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/chapter-seven-patriarchy-is-one-big-unhappy-family/
I don’t agree with everything she wrote, but I admire the boldness of her position.
I’m sorry to learn that your brand of radical feminism cannot find value in a voice like Bev Jo’s (or mine either, I’m guessing.) Maybe you’re right, and maybe you’ll bring patriarchy crashing down with your superior, richly nuanced ideology. I sincerely wish you all the best in this pursuit.
@Tracy
I became private to avoid anyone at Uni finding my blog/internet personality. Since, I have already had professors find me somehow, yet don’t know my identity yet. But I agree, it’s unsustainable.
But I don’t think internet radical feminism is supposed to be sustainable. It’s supposed to be temporary, until something greater is generated out of these writings, something physical, you dig?
@ BlackMetal and everyone
Hi!
My thoughts are now jogging about lefty men.
One obvious point, is that men are only interested in their “issues” for superficial reasons, not because of true care, oppression, or passion like women.
So I think an anti-feminist tactic is for men to trick women into seeing oppression from a distant, othered viewpoint like men do.And be only vested in to for superficial reasons, like feminists wanting women to have equality, but not really interested in stopping capitalism and patriarchy which exploit women’s labor.
Also, ARROGANCE. Most lefty male activists become activists to causes to become well read elitists that know everything and are somehow above the rest of the world, and definitely women because they can cite the communist manifesto by heart, and run an anarchist collective.
That’s why they can hold anti-femiist positions and be against women because clearly they have the title “activist”, meaning “good guy”, and that stands stronger than any female concern, blog, or space we want for our selves. It’s always at their mercy, and they tell us what issues to care about as Black Metal said.
For example, Tim Wise, apparently the world’s most renowned anti-racist academic expert, and he’s a middle class white male.
I’ve had environmentalists men say to me that they became vegetarians to piss people off,
there, the love of isolating oneself from the rest of the world, and claiming superiority, inherently male.
I really want to write a post on environmentalists men, because while apparently this largely white male middle-class movement is responsible for educating most of us and raising awareness on the environment which is important, like Daniel Quinn, Derrick Jensen, etc. their reasonings and overall understandings/connections to it are actually more exterior than anything and at base flawed.
I don’t know how to explain it, but I will try.
Men know that their activism, will always seems like real materially effective activism, unlike radical feminist activism which doesn’t because it lacks all those nice resources handed down by daddy.
But I think you’ve made with point before Witchwind.
Skulldrix, did you Think I was talking about You? I did not even know your Blog had been taken Private, or I forgot about it since All blogs I have clicked on lately are Private and not accessible. But now that you Mention it, yours is but one of Many and I am very Glad for your and All of our Sakes that you recognize that blogging is Unsustainable, before it is Too Late. This should be part of our Consciousness Raising, I think, because each Time a woman Recognizes this, it seems as if it is the First Time. This topic seems Completely Taboo even though Radical Feminists are very Bold in many other Areas, the topic of Sustainability and our own Health and Happiness, as well as the strength and viability (and even Accuracy or whether we are staying True to our rational foundational beliefs) of our Movement seem to be Off Limits. The result is that Many of us both online and “In Real Life” like Dworkin are falling Ill (more than we even know certainly) or Abandoning it, and the group that remains just Moves On, more or less appropriating the “Identity” of Radical Feminism even when the Larger Picture of what is happening is continuously erased including the voice and perspective of the Dissenters who think like We do. Because this Herstory is continuously erased, each time this happens it is as if it never happened before, and as if it will never happen again. The definition of Lunacy. It is not just Internet radical feminism that is not Sustainable. Kate Millet, Sonia Johnson and so many Voices of the Past just Disappeared, or Were disappeared by their Sisters. Many women wondered, Where have they all Gone, and were Pleasantly shocked when Dozens of them showed up to Pen and/or Sign an open letter regarding Transgender last year, but have since gone quiet again. Andrea Dworkin arguably, but probably, died from it. Why is this not talked about more? The “Physical” part of it, the part where we Implement and Integrate what we have Learned about women, men and patriarchy into our Lives is completely absent from at least our Public discourse. Because Radical Feminism can apparently Kill Women, it seems like a Visible Warning of some kind is indicated.
Quick replies:
@ Sarsea & Tracy: I agree sustainability has to be defined more or less subjectively. Modding online convos on blogs is draining and unsustainable but there are ways of making it manageable. I don’t think it’s enough to simply say blogging is unsustainable therefore we should stop blogging. I think we should think about how to continue to make our blog writing available to women when we don’t want to blog any more for some time and how to prevent erasure or distribute it in formats that prevent the extreme amount of erasure as with blogs. The thing is with blogs, unlike any other writing format, it’s really demanding and requires a high level of constant involvement and updating, and also requires lots of time spent on computers which itself is unhealthy. When you don’t have the time or energy to post posts every week or so, hits decrease.
The ease with which we can make our activities sustainable, above material conditions, also depends on how easily we protect ourselves from invasion and burn-out in general. As women, more than any other population we have much difficulty respecting our boundaries because our boundaries are constantly violated by men. In order to work on sustainability we have to work on how to protect ourselves and how to develop networks with women that aren’t destructive.
I wouldn’t attribute women the responsibility of violence against women within feminism, even if it’s enacted by women. Our lack of options for liberation and the extent of anti-feminism within feminism are completely proportional to the extent of violence men inflict on us. The repression and imprisonment of women is just so great that liberation is extremely difficult and all our progresses are systematically destroyed by men collectively.
@ Lisa, your points were very clear. I got that you identify as a radlez. However you keep distorting all my points. I’m not going to go through them again because it’s exhausting and pointless. Bev jo is misogynistic, i never said she perpetuates enslavement of women. The question isn’t who do I value or not, but who holds misogynistic views while presenting it as feminism and why is it toxic to women in feminism / anti-feminist. The fact she’s capable of saying one or two common sense things or of regurgitating some feminist theory is beyond the point. Accusing women of being oppressors because they’re penetrated by men is misogynistic and woman-hating. That’s all. I’m done replying to you on this topic now.
I am glad you decided not to further Engage with Lisa on her points, which are really Non Points and Straw Men arguments (I also Paused at Lisa’s “enslavement of women” comment which had Absolutely no relevance here). It has been suggested above that it is Male Trolls which deplete radical feminist bloggers, but when Reading Trollish and Unresponsive comments from Women it seems as if it is not Just Males who deplete us. And as you say Witch Wind, I would never Blame women or assign Ultimate Responsibility to women for the ways we Deplete each other, as it does not Ultimately benefit Us to do this (it benefits men) and this kind of thing is Precisely what you are talking about with your Post on anti-feminist and pro-Male policies and practices within Feminist activating. This is very much On Point. I would also Suggest that the flip side of women Trolling and Derailing is the Back Slapping and “supportive” comments you sometimes see, where Readers tell the Authors how needed and necessary their Work is, and that We do not know what We would Do Without You, Don’t ever stop, Et Cetera. What are the effects of these kinds of comments? When I read them, it feels Coercive to me, and like the Readers are Vampirising and Objectifying the Blog Hosts and giving “supportive” comments for their own selfish reasons, and are being Offered by women who have no idea what they are asking when they say Never Stop. In practice, because typical/unexamined activating is so Demonstrably harmful to us, they are asking that you Die for the Cause, and this is Unacceptable. Not only is it terribly misogynistic and wasteful, our Martyrdom is not even going to work.
I’m just going to be blunt. If lefty men had a true understanding of global issues and really cared about them, they would be conscious of men’s role I creating all the problems we have. They would do he gentlemanly thing and commit suicide. As FCM once pointed out, that’s the most biophilic thing a man could do. If he can’t do that, the next best thing he could do to help the world and the planet is…. nothing. But noooo, instead we have lefty men preaching to, or worse IGNORING, women.
Examples of male activism that I’ve seen:
– Flying around the planet to as many capital cities as possible giving rock concerts to raise awareness about environmental destruction. Politicians do this a lot too, converging from all around the world to Switzerland or wherever to discuss the environment.
– Spending thousands of dollars on TV advertising convincing people to donate to causes, such as Save the tiger, or adopt a girl in Africa. My mum has adopted a girl in some third world country after seeing an commercial on TV (according to them sending money every month is adopting). I asked her if they’d sent her anything to show her how the money was being a
ent. They hadn’t.
– Sending “free information packages” to people about the environment. This one is the biggest joke every When I was 15 I called up a free phone number I’d seen advertised on TV about receiving an info pack on the environment. When it came, my 15 year old brain couldn’t compute. The pack was huge and contained masses of leaflets and notebooks and other various items. Even I knew at that tender age that using paper didn’t help the environment. Why were these people sending wads of paper out to people? Where were they getting the money from? But that’s men’s crazy system, where they use the planet as a resource for their egos. Whoever had organized that farce was pron ably getting lots of champagne dinners in reward for his activism. I was that shocked it has stuck with me to this day.
“love of isolating oneself from the rest of the world, and claiming superiority, inherently male.” So very true. Men-the original hipsters.
On the topic of physical diseases, like I said earlier I suffer from CFS so this is something personal for me. Many more women suffer it than men. Lots of feminists told me they think its caused by trauma but was conflicted on accepting this due to also identifying as a skeptic, but the man who diagnosed me and science on it suggests it is triggered (or caused) by emotional trauma. Going through public school was very emotionally traumatizing to me, to the point I wanted to throw myself down the staircase everyday and die right in there so I wouldn’t have to suffer anymore. So the feminists were right.
I think eventually, the logical end point of radical feminism is something that is spiritual. Remember femonade said something to the effect of that she was going to do witchy spiritual type stuff? You may see faeries, hear plants and other things men would ridicule at this end point of radical feminism. I think some people are born with spiritual abilities but they are not necessarily sustainable but those developed through radical feminist consciousness are.
I do however think the idea that CFS is only in the sufferers head is very damaging, it has legitimate physical symptoms that need treatment. Research funding is not forthcoming, I think due to the larger number of female sufferers. I hope a drug is developed to treat it one day. I do think though that spiritual experiences are very healing to women when we have been threatened with death as non existence our whole lives when we have never truly lived bc of men’s terrorism.
I’m not sure I agree with you on an earlier point of shamanic drugs not being trustworthy. I have been really wanting to have a spiritual experience for a long time especially since I don’t remember my dreams hardly ever. The term “spiritual bereft” comes to mind. It distresses me deeply I think women have deep communion with plant spirits and it is something special to take them into ourselves and have our spirit bond with theirs.
Sure there are superficial similarities between rad les and rad fem. But they are just that- superficial. Much like how trannies steal feminists concepts to use against feminists the same is true for rad les. Lisa, you have been very disrespectful to Witch especially when she covered this in depth previously. Someone who uses that many strawman arguments has a personal bias they are deeply invested in. Anyone who calls women in heterocaptivity “dick lovers” is a misogynist!! It should be plain enough.
Seeing “freedom” or “liberation” as movements. This externalizing is so that a male or group of males can gain ascendence through directing the movement. Then it becomes like other male campaigns based on a war metaphor. A war has sides. I don’t think radical feminism should have sides, though clear positions that don’t blame other women are essential to help women see through the trauma-induced fog that is female socialization.
What is the alternative? While it is important to have positions that are clear, it is important to allow heterocaptive women a process of waking up. I like what Dworkin did when she wrote about right-wing women, she did not put them down but explored why they took the routes they took. She attempted to understand. This is different from war.
Here’s an example of a harm of our process. Some liberal feminists are just waking up to what has been done to women, but instead of making a progression toward radical feminism when they begin to reject the prescribed heteronormative role, they get sidetracked into the trans thing that is so mind boggling they are again traumatized in new and very strange ways. I have often thought about the trans phenomenon as intentionally trauma-producing. It is so gaslighting, so strange.
Your point about lefty groups using women’s caucus groups reminded me of experiences I’ve had in such groups years ago now, but provide an example. People are invited to suggest topics of interest and if others want to discuss it they can join the person. There are also some pre-set topics/leaders. So, I suggest a topic. A number of people join it and it’s a good discussion. But then the top leader comes in and merges it with another group (that is nothing like the topic I suggested) and assigns a different leader, usually one of the groups they set up. In a couple of cases these groups had very few attendees. So why, I wondered, was I not assigned leader, etc. Answer: It appears that “people’s ideas” are being heard but then they are just subordinated to the agenda of the patriarchal people in charge. This has happened more than once to me, so I began to suspect it was a specific strategy. I no longer am part of such groups, thank the Goddess!
How can I start a woman’s group and make it so that it is not male colonized? If I advertised no trannies the trannies would whine but I don’t want any trannies.
Another thing which is probably general patriarchy but has specific manifestations in leftieism is extreme obsession with the perp and not victim of the crime not matter how horrific the crime was. Think all these organizations obsessed with men in prison such as Just Detention. There seems to be a societal obsession with serial killers and so little care about their victims and how their bodies were defiled and humiliated.
“Sex offenders are human too.”
“Pedos need mental healthcare.”
“NO ONE deserves to be raped, not even rapists.”
I have been thinking about what a reversal heterosexual anal sex is. Only men can feel sexual pleasure by being penetrated by having their prostate stimulated. There is no physical reason women would feel pleasure from being penetrated like there is for men. Men wish we were men but women at the same time. They are hopelessly confused and needy which is why they love trannies so much. That is why men accuse us of penis envy because they wish we had them yet still be women, they want us to be everything.
Despite the hype about the so called g-spot, there is no scientific consensus that it even exists, despite fun fems claiming it definitely exists and that radical feminists say there is no proof for ideological reasons. Its clear their insistence that the g-spot exists is ideologically based (so their accusations of radical feminists saying the g-spot has never been proven to exist for purely ideological reasons is a reversal) and even if the g-spot did exist it doesn’t exist where PIV can reach it, they make specifically designed sex toys in odd shapes to stimulate it.