You are currently browsing the monthly archive for May 2017.
“Before I became radicalised as a man-hating, separatist feminzai hell-bent on installing a matriarchy and imprisoning men as its slaves, I possessed a nominal amount of internalised misogyny. Women were bitchy and mean. They cared about irrelevant rubbish and talked in loud, shrill voices. Their laughter was annoying and tinny, and they did it performatively and too often. Women were boring and dumb, especially if they were pretty and nice.
Were I born a few years later, I’ve no doubt that I could have easily fallen into the horrifying hole that is Women Against Feminism. Being down on other girls was a gesture to reassure all the boys around me that while I may have looked vaguely like a girl on the outside, I wasn’t really like a girl-girl.
Like so many girls caught in this trap, it wasn’t enough for me to be considered an intellectual and social equal by men (because really, that’s what a lot of this scrabbling for their approval comes back to—the misplaced desire to achieve equality for ourselves by being welcomed into the inner sanctum rather than to destroy the sanctum and redefine the dynamic entirely); I also had to climb a tower made of the discarded and disdained bodies of other women in order to prove myself worthy to enter.
Because I was born a girl, I was taught to fundamentally distrust other women. Whether it arises as bullying, cruelty, or viciously-applied sexism, girls are separated from each other (and from organising into a bloc of power) by being encouraged to view each other as competition for male approval.”
— Clementine Ford, Fight Like A Girl
The Neo-liberal programme is the very antithesis of class consciousness and solidarity. The hyper individual focus of neo-liberal dogma forever places the systemic problems of society out of reach, while at the same time insisting that the Pyrrhic drive to better oneself (see self recrimination and loathing) is the only solution.
“This is a kind of neo-liberalism of the emotions, in which happiness is seen not as a response to our circumstances but as a result of our own individual mental effort, a reward for the deserving. The problem is not your sky-high rent or meager paycheck, your cheating spouse or unfair boss or teetering pile of dirty dishes. The problem is you.
It is, of course, easier and cheaper to blame the individual for thinking the wrong thoughts than it is to tackle the thorny causes of his unhappiness. So we give inner-city schoolchildren mindfulness classes rather than engage with education inequality, and instruct exhausted office workers in mindful breathing rather than giving them paid vacation or better health care benefits.”
It would be nice to believe that we are past the era of patriarchal stereotypes. Unfortunately, this is not that case. PSA’s like these three pictures exist because even in the most advanced Western societies many people believe that the length of skirt a woman happens to be wearing determines her sexual availability and moral standing.
Have you noticed that there isn’t a similar standard for men? I mean certainly we can make biased judgments against fedora wearing, skinny tie and thick rimmed faux-glasses rocking hipsters and what not, but it is not like if said hipster is assaulted his clothing choice will become a major factor in whether the person that had assaulted him goes to jail or not.
Patriarchal double standards still exist because the majority of people consciously make the choice to follow the ‘moral rules’ they enforce. It is bullshite, and it needs to stop.
Auntie Wanda on the Pronoun Game.
“Pronouns refer to visible sex and a man is referred to as a “he.” Not everyone has to play your word games.”
“Pronouns aren’t malicious, they’re neutral words that refer to female people and male people respectively. The knowledge that our species has two sexes isn’t malicious either.
I’ve never once had a gender identity proponent clearly articulate what they even think the words “woman” and “man” mean beyond being common words for people with specific sex-differentiated biology. As far as I’m concerned it’s a bunch of people adhering to and perpetuating sexist ideas that being a woman or man is something beyond biology, some inherent personality or behavior. And that’s malicious. “
I could not hit reblog fast enough. Plus a wonderful quote from said article. Thank you giuliaalexis.
“Recently, I got into a Facebook discussion about how gender is not neutral for women. At some point, I commented that patriarchy wouldn’t exist if men didn’t want to control the bodies of women for reproduction – and this includes replacing female midwives almost completely with male doctors and male viewpoints of medicine. Of course, I was accused of being transphobic, of “cisplaining,” and of not understanding feminism (seriously). But what had me truly flabbergasted was one young woman’s comment that “your version” of feminism, that which focuses on reproduction, excludes not just transwomen but also women such as herself who aren’t reproducing.
I thought to myself, should I explain to this individual that this isn’t “my version” of feminism but the accepted reason for the existence of patriarchy, and not just by feminism – but also by sociology and anthropology? This wasn’t controversial until the rise of queer theory. Should I explain to her that I, too, have no intention of ever reproducing – but you cannot “not reproduce” yourself out of patriarchy? Reproductive rights also cover birth control, which means if we lose that right women such as myself and her may very well end up reproducing against our will. It’s the POTENTIAL of reproducing that brings ALL females under the umbrella of patriarchy. You get treated as second-class citizens under patriarchy whether or not you reproduce, menstruate, have a hysterectomy, etc.
This comment also reflects the bizarre new feminist belief that if a subject matter doesn’t cover every single person’s “lived reality,” it is exclusive. Liberal (and thus mainstream) feminism is trying to be so inclusive towards transwomen and so individualistic towards “empowerment’ and “agency” that it is paralyzed. Liberal feminism is trying so hard not to define women by their biology that feminists are ignoring the fact that women are DYING of their biology.
Mainstream feminism is incorrect in its belief that the purpose of feminism is to re-define the idea of woman as divorced from their biology. That was never the intention of feminism. The intention of feminism is that women not be LIMITED by their biology. Thus the quotes “I have a brain and a uterus and I use both” and “I can’t breed in captivity.” Feminism never meant to DENY the reality of female biology. Feminism means to change society’s PERCEPTION of females and female biology. The two are not the same thing.”
Well played Star Wars, well played. :)
So nice to see an actual feminist message getting out into the public sphere. Megan Murphy goes to town in a Canadian Senate hearing.
Today there was a hearing on Canada’s Bill C-16, which amends the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Here is Meghan Murphy’s testimony:
As well, here is an article by Murphy explaining what is wrong with the bill.
To watch the full hearing:
- Go to this page: http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/View/Calendar/20170509/
- Click on May 10
- Click on LCJC meeting no. 67
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…