I’m sometimes asked why I give such serious side-eye to the term identity politics. This isn’t some sort of dogwhistle like the freezepeach moniker that gets affixed to people who want to say racist or sexist things and then hide behind free speech. Gender IDPOL is a systemic denial of the reality women face and an iron scold meant to silence and shame women who dare to speak out against the arguments IDPOL make.
The good news is that despite the abuse from the ‘progressive’ left and the usual abuse from dudes, brave women are speaking out against gender IDPOL, precisely because of its insidious nature and the implicit erasure of the female experience from the public sphere.
Ms. Sanchez writes a cogent essay that appears on the Feminist Current, I suggest going there and reading the entire work. However, I wanted to highlight this section in particular as it speaks to the material situation women face in society, and how IDPOL is obfuscating that struggle. Also highlighted are some of the rhetorical dodges genderists use to muddy the water when it comes to the reality of sex based oppression.
“This is because there is an expectation that women are inherently nurturing. Being forced into the position of caretaker translates to women having less savings, being promoted less, and accumulating less money in their pensions.
But gender identity politics reduces this reality — and womanhood itself — to a trivial, malleable identity. It is baffling that in a world where women and girls face structural oppression due to their biology, gender identity politics has thrived.
Susan Cox argues that: “The non-binary declaration is a slap in the face to all women, who, if they haven’t come out as ‘genderqueer,’ presumably possess an internal essence perfectly in-line with the misogynistic parody of womanhood created by patriarchy.” There’s a twisted, neoliberal cruelty in arguing that the primary problem with gender is its impact on the chosen identities of individuals, and not the way it operates systemically, under patriarchy, to normalize and encourage male violence and female subordination.
When confronted with evidence that, historically and globally, women’s oppression is sex-based, gender identity politics simply claims that sex itself is an “invented” social construct.
BUT male/female as two distinct categories is a system we made. bio sex is a classification we invented. these aren’t inherent in nature.
— Riley J. Dennis (@RileyJayDennis) July 9, 2017
In an article at Quartz, Jeremy Colangelo writes:
“Sex and gender are much more complex and nuanced than people have long believed. Defining sex as a binary treats it like a light switch: on or off. But it’s actually more similar to a dimmer switch, with many people sitting somewhere in between male and female genetically, physiologically, and/or mentally. To reflect this, scientists now describe sex as a spectrum.
Despite the evidence, people hold on to the idea that sex is binary because it’s the easiest explanation to believe. It tracks with the messages we see in advertisements, movies, books, music — basically everywhere. People like familiar things, and the binary is familiar (especially if you’re a cisgender person who has never had to deal with sexual-identity issues).”
But feminists don’t argue that sex is real because it is “the easiest explanation to believe” or because of what the media tells us. We argue sex is real because from the moment an ultrasound reveals a baby is female, her subjugation begins. And though “gender identity” is presented as an issue feminism must contend with, it is, as Rebecca Reilly-Cooper explains, completely at odds with feminist analysis of biological sex as an axis of oppression:
“Women’s historic and continued subordination has not arisen because some members of our species choose to identify with an inferior social role (and it would be an act of egregious victim-blaming to suggest that it has). It has emerged as a means by which males can dominate that half of the species that is capable of gestating children, and exploit their sexual and reproductive labour.
We cannot make sense of the historical development of patriarchy and the continued existence of sexist discrimination and cultural misogyny, without recognizing the reality of female biology, and the existence of a class of biologically female persons.”
Far from fluid, the realities of sex-based oppression are strict and enforced through violence — this is particularly true for women of colour and women in poverty.”
If gender identity is so amazing why are not females in large droves identifying as Men to escape their oppression?
34 comments
July 29, 2017 at 11:21 am
Marie Snyder
This: “We argue sex is real because from the moment an ultrasound reveals a baby is female, her subjugation begins. And though “gender identity” is presented as an issue feminism must contend with, it is, as Rebecca Reilly-Cooper explains, completely at odds with feminist analysis of biological sex as an axis of oppression.”
Exactly. I’ve taken to task some problems with identity issues (not to be confused with the typical use of ‘identity politics’), and it’s a struggle to be heard when you’re progressive yet have concerns with what’s now seen as the progressive side. I’ve been in the minority position on issues before, though, so I know the drill.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 29, 2017 at 11:37 am
The Arbourist
@Mary Snyder
I agree most definitely that it is a struggle to be heard. When discussing gender identity so many conversations end in one being accused of murder.
Radical feminists, and their allies are not currently murdering trans folk.
Violent men, upholding patriarchal values, are. Violent men are the problem (almost always).
Curtailing debate isn’t the answer to the gender issues we face.
LikeLike
July 29, 2017 at 7:37 pm
Miep
Wrt your last sentence, actually they are, but it doesn’t work. Roles in the sexual hierarchy cannot be identified into or out of, it’s not that easy. If anything, you just get punished worse for not obeying the rules.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 29, 2017 at 7:39 pm
Miep
Though it is true that more masculine-presenting women who medically transition do it to pass more easily (obviously). I don’t know that this gives them more power so much as it frees them from harassment. Which is a kind of power, but it only goes so far.
LikeLike
July 29, 2017 at 10:52 pm
The Arbourist
@Miep
Agreed. There is no winning for females under patriarchy. Degrees of less losing, but as you said, that is about as good as it gets. :/
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 2, 2017 at 7:07 pm
Sam Rosenbalm
WHOA! I thought this was a leftist blog. And while I admit I despise identity politics and have pointed that out here before, are you actually against transgendered women??? I did check at some of your linked blogs and found this nice little patch of fascism:
https://handsacrosstheaislewomen.com/2017/02/17/biology-isnt-bigotry-why-sex-matters-in-the-age-of-gender-identity/
WTF???
LikeLike
August 2, 2017 at 7:24 pm
severeves
* cont (signed in) Transgenderism is no more identity politics than cisgenderism. It’s personal identity. Some people choose to politicize gender identity (and many other types of identity) in ways that preclude the development of class-consciousness and potentially intrude on the comfort of competing demographic identities (we have liberalism to thank for this).
Attacking transgendered women and holding up biological sex over gender for the purpose of attacking sexual minorities is NOT something any actual leftist would do. This is a strain of feminism that is a cancer and is reactionary as all hell. No place for reactionary, sexual supremacism on the left. Not even as a counterpoint the patriarchal institutions. There doesn’t have to be a yin for every yang. This is a base and hateful manifestation arising from deep personal bitterness, perceived victimization on a personal level, and dialectically unsound mind.
These attitudes are not conducive to the fostering of class-consciousness and proletarian revolution. They anti-Marxist. They are a problem.
LikeLike
August 3, 2017 at 2:00 am
Miep
I see the MRA contingent has checked in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 3, 2017 at 6:34 am
severeves
MRA’s are reactionary radical right-wingers. I highly doubt they would take a neo-Marxist position in respect to this issue. You’re just incredibly lazy and void a good counter-argument. Hence reducing my rational critique of pussy-fash feminism (as opposed to leftist, inclusive feminism which is about fighting for gender and sexual equality) to the inane musings of an MRA, you can paint me with the most vulgar of brushes and stay content in what at least appears to be a cesspool of hatred, helplessness and sheer stupidity.
If you are interested in a constructive dialectic, that’s one thing. I’d be happy to oblige. But if all you want to do is lash out with titty tantrums spouting reactionary, bitter bullshit because you’ve called out for your fascist targeting and abuse of one of societies most vulnerable elements, then you’re so-called “leftism” is vulgar, useless, and merely fuel for a selfish determination to fight fire with fire.
Again my old adage of trying to take over the plantation rather than abolish ir rings as true as ever.
LikeLike
August 3, 2017 at 7:08 am
Miep
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 3, 2017 at 11:13 am
The Arbourist
@Sam Rosenbalm
Hi Sam.
It is a leftist blog, a feminist leftist blog to be more accurate. :)
What exactly does that mean? Let’s just raise the question here – is disagreement the same as hatred?
Understanding the material reality of the oppression of women should not be news.
LikeLike
August 3, 2017 at 11:34 am
The Arbourist
@severeves
Disagreeing with ideology that does not concur with reality is an ‘attack’ on transwomen? The claims made by transgendered ideology are specious, self-serving, and harmful to biological females as a class. Understanding that biological sex is key axis in the oppression of females *is* something a leftist should know and should work against.
The tenets of the second wave of feminism have no place in the left? :) Riiight. Feminism is the female centred movement that is dedicated to the liberation of females from patriarchy.
Transgender ideology conserves and reinforces the toxic notions of gender and gender-roles in society – therefore it has nothing in common with the above stated goals, and therefore is not feminism.
Wow, thank you for telling women how they feel and how they should act, in their own movement, toward men. Since when did disagreement become hatred? Or really since when did acknowledging the material reality of the situation become hatred? It isn’t, of course, but because the genderist/trans-activist arguments are shit, we get to go down this route. Fun times.
Yep, dealing facts and reality are definitely not conductive so such a venture.
Prioritizing female autonomy and safety over male feelings has always been a problem for dudes and patriarchy. We’ve seen the dance before and are seeing it again.
LikeLike
August 3, 2017 at 11:37 am
The Arbourist
@Miep
I know, right? But isn’t patronizing, well meaning(?), misogynistic bullshit so much better when coming from the left? *sigh*
LikeLike
August 3, 2017 at 11:52 am
Miep
Yeah, there’s nothing like a stream of vitriol peppered with pejorative terms for women to convince me some random dude on the net ain’t an MRA. Works every time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 3, 2017 at 11:54 am
The Arbourist
@Severeves
Ahhahahahah. *Looks again…* hahahhah… Here you are trying to tell women how to do feminism and using the neo-liberal fun feminist definition. I’ll repeat myself from an earlier comment – feminism is the female struggle to emancipate themselves from patriarchal structures of society. If the actions being undertaken don’t fit in this definition, then it ain’t feminism.
Fighting for ‘gender and sexual equality’ in a society that is fundamentally, structurally, unequal is the liberal feminist’s fools errand. Have fun with that.
Women occupy that space of being the most vulnerable and oppressed the world over. Women not going along with specious claims – especially ones that erase their ability to name their oppressor and infringe on their autonomy isn’t fascist or hateful, disagreement is not hate.
There is nothing preventing transwomen from starting their own movement and building the supports necessary in their struggle. Appropriating female struggle and undermining feminism, the current state of fairs for transactivism, isn’t the way to do it.
Gender is a patriarchal construct – radical feminists want to dismantle gender and gender roles. Transactivism conserves and reinforces the gender hierarchy which is harmful to everyone involved.
Fascinating, while advocating the liberal position in feminism, you throw shade on the radical feminist position that is actually about changing/deconstructing and abolishing the structures in society that oppress females.
LikeLike
August 3, 2017 at 11:55 am
The Arbourist
@ Miep
Like a charm, right? :/
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 3, 2017 at 12:11 pm
Miep
If men want to bend gender and fight for their right to do so, hurrah!
If they want to say this makes them women, they’re doing it wrong.
LikeLike
August 4, 2017 at 2:39 pm
severeves
Oh please, I despise liberalism and all it entails. I am no reformist – western capitalist society is fundamentally flawed from it’s very foundation. It seems to me feminism as a movement is too often rife with neo-capitalist reformist elements with no appreciation of capacity to appreciate class struggle. I get along well with many feminists who agree with me on my stances and acknowledge this very point. The problem is that you don’t actively give two shits about the working class or the liberation of those institutionally disenfranchised by capitalism unless they have an actual vagina.
Women occupy the space of being the most vulnerable and oppressed the world over? This is true to a large degree. Western women don’t always necessarily apply, though. White women were and are largely the beneficiaries of white western imperialism. Yes, by all means, western women should join in the struggle for global emancipation, but to suggest that you are impervious to critique on this basis, or that my criticism is somehow less valid because you have a vagina and I don’t, I suggest you check your own privilege first.
Lastly, it seems to me that if you were at all serious about deconstructing traditional gender roles in society and abolishing the patriarchal institution that gives them power, the transgender movement you hatefully dismiss would be a natural ally towards that end. But somehow I get the feeling that you’re interested in doing anything constructive in that sense.
LikeLike
August 4, 2017 at 2:42 pm
Sam Rosenbalm
For some reason I can’t post under my own profile. I tried responding but I don’t want to post the response under this name if it turns out I was blocked.
LikeLike
August 4, 2017 at 3:31 pm
The Arbourist
@Severeves
Most of liberal feminism is rife with the condition you describe. Being a radical second wave feminist, I also give serious side eye to liberal feminism and appreciate the benefits of class analysis.
Effective feminism is the movement to liberate females from patriarchy. Who that struggle benefits is in the name, that feminists don’t speak for or deal with male struggles seems quite reasonable.
This is the third time the accusation of ‘white feminism’ has crossed by bow, it cannot be a coincidence. It seems to be yet another silencing tactic aimed at females that have the temerity to name their oppressors and identify problems in society. The only credentials needed to be a feminist is to be female, white or otherwise.
Critique away, but arguing that men should be centred in a female movement is simply asinine, and that is the reason you sense that your critique isn’t getting much traction.
Firstly, is disagreement the equivalent of hate? It certainly seems to be what you are asserting. Secondly, transactivism/queer theory conserves and replicates the toxic notion of gender and gender roles. Radical feminists rightly identify that gender is a conception in society that should be abolished, not further enshrined (sadly) into legislation and the larger culture.
It is as simple as this – male and female are biological descriptions of the two categories the majority of people fall into. How they choose to act after that is completely up to them. Man in a dress? Awesome! Woman in a Tuxedo? Awesome! Life goes on. However the notion that wearing a dress, or makeup, or heels (and all of the negative stereotypes that currently go along with dress wearing et al.)is *intrinsically* what being a woman is, is patently wrong and continues the propagation of gender roles that are harmful to both women and men.
So yea, dress and identify as you will, but don’t make specious claims and have the expectation that others have to follow your own subjective view of the world.
I’m interested in feminism being recentred on females and their struggle under patriarchy. Once patriarchy is dismantled, then talk of combining movements could possibly happen. Hard to say, dudes tend to ruin most things. :)
LikeLike
August 5, 2017 at 2:55 am
Sam Rosenbalm
I actually don’t believe that feminists should, as part of their platform, deal with male struggles just as I don’t believe BLM should deal with white struggles. Maybe what I was trying to say was poorly articulated, but the critique has more to do with my distaste for identity politics in general rather than just feminism. I can appreciate and understand people taking a leading role in their own emancipation. Although not ideal, I cannot blame them for caring more about the issues relating directly to themselves – but the point I was trying to make was that such groups should, at the very least, be willing to march alongside other groups as they also fight for emancipation.
I never asked to be center in a woman’s movement. But for the life of me I cannot understand why you seem to think that men cannot be feminists. I can only imagine what the world would be like today if every social movement for equality were as narrowly constrained.
As for disagreement being hate, well, it is when we’re talking about social segregation and exclusion. When religious people disagree with gay marriage, it’s called hate. When whites disagree with integration, it’s called hate. So depending on the context disagreement can be hate – or at least it might as well be hate.
When patriarchy is dismantled? That won’t happen until the root cause is dismantled. And as much as you’d like to believe that males are the root of all evil, I’m afraid capitalism holds that distinction.
Also, they’re is nothing especially “intrinsic” about being born with a vagina. Just as there is nothing intrinsic about men who oppress women. It’s all social. Spouting noise about biological intrinsicality is something I’d expect from Nazis, truth be told. But I tell you what – how about you give me just one example of something intrinsic in the personality of a biological woman that cannot be intrinsic in a transwoman.
LikeLike
August 5, 2017 at 8:17 am
Meg
I don’t know if I’ve asked you this before, but why do you allow misogynist comments on this site? And why do you bother responding to them? Don’t you know by now that they’d rather cut off their own legs than give up hating women? They are violent, irredeemable sexists and complete lost causes. Discriminating against women gives them a thrill. Treating women like shit is like a drug to them and they won’t quit until they end up face down in the gutter somewhere. Misogynists are sociopaths in that you cannot change them. They do not profit from their mistakes and they do not learn. After 22,000 years they have never learned. They are incapable of empathy nor have they ever considered the consequences of misogyny at all.
If empathy is what is supposed to make us human, they aren’t even human anymore by that definition. They are hollowed out husks of barely sentient embodiments of hate in both speech and action. They try so hard to make themselves sound intelligent but anyone can see the narcissistic compensation from ten thousand miles away. When they aren’t railing against feminism or abusing their girlfriends/wives, they’re on the Internet yelling at anyone who questions their entitlement to treat women like punching bags.
Don’t mistake this comment for endorsing a head-in-the-sand approach – I just don’t think anyone should have their time wasted by blind misogynist harassment. That’s all this is and we both know it. Such commenters keep coming back because again, they are sociopaths and are thus morbidly competitive. They also like torturing people, even if it’s electronically over the Internet.
There is also this to consider: if you truly reject misogyny, you’ll stop entertaining misogynists. Such is why I do not talk to barely anyone either online or offline. People make me sick.
LikeLike
August 5, 2017 at 8:33 am
The Arbourist
@Sam R
When the vocal trans-activists stop try to actively erase women and their role in society, and embrace reality instead of their personal subjective fantasies, perhaps. More on what I mean from previous posts here, here and here.
Good, it isn’t for the likes of us.
August 5, 2017 at 9:05 am
The Arbourist
@Meg
No, you haven’t asked that before, at least I cannot recall right now.
I teach troubled youth, and most of them are boys (quelle-suprise). The socialization they get from their peers and sometimes their family is atrocious, patriarchy writ large with all of the misogyny that comes along with it.
I work with them and help them see the attitudes that they have internalized and get them to question where it comes from and is it really healthy for them to maintain that those particular values. I see some differences by the end of the year, some of them unlearn a bit of the toxic programming that our society mandates for its citizens.
There is progress, shit… I know most of the time it isn’t, but sometimes there is a small incremental move toward pro-social behaviour and attitudes.
It gives me hope, and the will to keep going and doing what I can to make society better, even if it is just a small fraction better.
I think I am a little more optimistic toward reaching out to people and hoping to change or at least challenge their perceptions of the issues at hand. In your eyes, it seems a fools errand, but what else is there to do? I see the injustice and depredations women face in society and must name, argue, and act against them.
My patience with dudes is always with the hope that they might glean something from the interaction, maybe pause and consider what they’re doing and maybe they will reflect a bit on the positions they hold. I’d like to think that most of my readership is savvy in the ways of patriarchy and despite the default shit-sandwich that comes with discussing feminism with dudes, can use some of the arguments/tactics on display here in their own struggle with the P or even just to know that there are some people who are willing to push the ocean back just a bit, just for awhile.
That seems like a very bleak position to be in. I’m sorry that things look so forsaken for you. :/
LikeLike
August 5, 2017 at 11:57 am
Meg
After 22,000 years of systematic abuse, rape, femicide and denial of human rights there is not much for me to be optimistic about. The fact that people are more interested in talking shit about white women, Melania Trump and feminism rather than saving their own planet and/or prevent another genocide says a lot doesn’t it? Either it looks forsaken, or it really is forsaken because people have picked their poison and decided it didn’t matter if everyone died in the process of getting their fix. You’ll pry the misogyny from their cold dead hands except we’ll all be dead and nobody will be around to pry it out. Savvy? They’ll hang onto it until the bitter end even when Earth looks like Mars.
As far as my “bleak” position is concerned – I saw a guy who told a feminist that she would end up alone surrounded by cats. I can’t imagine a better way to end up. It certain beats being surrounded by people who only use and abuse you and treat you like you exist solely to perform a function in their lives. I also think that if you can’t stand your own company then you won’t make good company for others. Withdrawing from others has been a benefit, not a loss. I am far less willing to put up with other people’s abuse and misogyny. I guess that’s why there’s so many fairy tales about evil witches living in seclusion – it’s just more misogyny demonizing women for not being someone else’s punching bag.
LikeLike
August 6, 2017 at 8:06 am
Sam Rosenbalm
I am abusive, Meg? Because I have a penis and ask questions that offend you, well that must mean I like to abuse women? Well let me tell you something sister, as a homosexual in a rural Ohio town I am subject to at least as much, if not more abuse than the country bumpkin soccer moms and church going women I live around – the women who are every bit as hatefilled (probably more) and just as happy to throw stones as their male counterparts. But according to you THOSE women are the victim and I am the perpetrator, you vulgar collectivist.
A hateful, irredeemable sexist, according to you. A sociopath, even. How dare I take up for transgendered people at a time when they need it more than ever in this country. How dare I ask questions to trans-exclusionary feminists (who BTW are despised by 95+% of feminists). I deserve to get my queer ass bashed and end up face down in a fucking gutter to hear you tell it.
Vulgar collectivism is a cancer and incompatiable with actual dialectically sound leftist thought. At least the arborist is respectful, but that’s more than I can say for you. Perhaps the reason the arborist entertains other views is because she recognizes the pointlessness of echo-chambers. That you don’t recognize it and even have to ask says all I need to know about your vulgar leftism. Please stay away from children, Meg. Having a vagina don’t automatically mean you aren’t a threat to them.
LikeLike
August 6, 2017 at 8:21 am
Sam Rosenbalm
Let me say that I seldom ever bring up my sexuality because I’m not a vulgar collectivist. I did so here for a specific purpose. The fact that LGBTQ people have also been abused by women is pointless to her and all that matters is the one particular basis for grouping people – in this case I have a penis and she doesn’t – that makes me the enemy based on the historical context convenient to her identity and perceived oppression.
But the fact that as a gay man “my people” have been historically abused and still are, and also why by women, is completely meaningless. The fact that I’m a feminist who also supports equality for women is pointless as well. That penis, ya know.
Vulgar leftism. Total fascism.
LikeLike
August 7, 2017 at 2:52 am
Meg
@Arborist this is why I specifically asked why you allow misogynist commenters. Female commenters are inevitably verbally abused as long as misogynists are given freedom to post without some form of moderation. You may “rebut” their bullshit in response but you are still giving a platform and bandwidth to their sexist speech and you are still emboldening them to lash out at women for criticizing misogynists and sexism. You’ve devoted a lot of time to criticizing the Patriarchy but don’t seem at all concerned when women are publicly punished for rejecting misogyny by vile, repulsive sexists who, by their very nature, side with serial killers, wife beaters, and rapists everywhere.
If you’ve ever wondered why female feminists do not trust male feminists, this is one reason why. But it’s more than that – this is why I don’t trust a lot of female feminists either because they also pander to these raving sexist egotists. I made it clear and obvious in my above comments that I am not interested in talking to anyone let alone abusive misogynists (anatomy not specified or cared about!) and the abusive misogynist persisted to speak to me anyway. Do you not see what is wrong with this situation? In a public place where people are face to face, talking to someone who does not want to be talked to would be legally harassment. But then, that’s what sociopaths do – they do whatever they want without any consideration to the person they are doing it to. And as per the typical course, they’ve made everything all about THEIR ego and THEIR interests and to hell with the female half the human population. They are basically telling half the fucking planet to go to hell. It can’t be clearer that misogynists fundamentally lack empathy and the capacity to understand the rights of others.
If someone does not want to viewed as a sociopath perhaps they should leave others alone and stop acting like one. It’s not that hard, nor does it cost anyone anything to simply STOP talking to someone. But then, this is the Patriarchy and men are used to doing whatever the fuck they want, when they want, and violate any boundary they damn well please no matter how “oppressed” they are. If that doesn’t prove the existence of extreme male privilege, I don’t what does.
LikeLike
August 7, 2017 at 3:40 am
Sam Rosenbalm
On what basis am I a misogynist? Because I don’t agree with your despicable worldview? I guess that makes me the worst kind of scum.
Meg, please try and understand: it is not misogyny for men to challenge women on ideas. My contention is not on the basis of you being a female. It’s the transphobia to which I take exception.
Disagreeing with and challenging hatespeech is in no way harassment, Meg. I could go on an MRA site and call them out for the vile heathens they are and would probably be accused of the very same thing. The problem in today’s world is that people don’t want a dialectic – they want safe spaces and then throw titty tantrums when they don’t get their way.
I actually believe in feminism and defend equality for women. But all of that goes right out the window if I happen to take exception to your particular strand of it. And all of a sudden I go from a leftist who believes in social justice for everyone to being a sociopath – an irredeemable, misogynist, vile sexist. Don’t you see the folly in that?
Here is what I’m contesting, mainly three things:
1. Transwomen are not trying to invade female spaces for nefarious purposes.
2. Transwomen are hurting no one and are very much an oppressed class.
3. Transgenderism in no way harms efforts to topple genderism – neither does transgenderism reinforce gender as a social construct, and furthermore, it would sooner have the opposite effect.
I think the thing that bothers me so much is just how full of hate you are, Meg. That you would consider someone, a fellow human being who lives and breathes, as no better than dirt and guilty of the most terrible of crimes just because they disagree with you.
LikeLike
August 7, 2017 at 6:48 am
Meg
This is going to be my last comment for a while, because as per usual it is everyday business of the Patriarchy to either silence women or drive women away by disregarding her right to say “NO,” not even to a conversation.
I have only a few things to say, to nobody in particular, based on the observations of this thread:
1. If someone can’t do the bare minimum and respect someone else’s right to not be talked to then they have no business talking about oppression and human rights. Respect for human rights is first and foremost respect for boundaries. If you can’t respect the smallest of boundaries, how can I expect you to respect the big ones?
2. It is not pro-social behavior to punish women for existing because they are “privileged.” Some women have it better than other women, but it doesn’t change the fact that ALL women are underrepresented politically and are dehumanized every day either by dogwhistle messages or blatant female specific slurs. Not even the Queen of England is immune from sexism. Misogyny is done casually and callously without empathy or remorse. People will justify it by saying women “deserve it” as though there’s no other way to respond to women they don’t like. Expecting women be men’s idea of perfect before granting us human status and equal political representation is bullshit. Either you believe in equality or you don’t – if someone thinks half the human population should sit down, shut up, or “earn” basic human rights they have missed the point entirely. Human rights are supposed to be self-evident and independent of one’s feelings about someone else. You know, the way people respond to injustices when they happen to men.
3. I have no reason to believe anyone actually gives a shit about social justice, if they did, they wouldn’t be so willing to allow their own mothers and other female family members be treated like dogs and excluded from fully participating in society. There’s a saying – charity begins at home. If you can’t treat your own family right then you have no idea how to help create a healthy society. Your mother isn’t a programmable robot from outer space sent to cater to your every whim, and neither is any other woman.
4. If you look at human history, it’s always been men in charge. At no point have women ever been given a say in anything – or at least, anything that couldn’t be reversed by men later. Abortion rights are a good example of this. So if you have a complaint with the way males in power treat other males with less power, take it to the males in power. Don’t lay your complaint at women’s feet and demand we “do something” to make your lives better. We can’t even make our own lives better without being severely punished for it – and often by misogynists who think they know something about “equality.”
5. I am not typing all this because I think anyone gives a shit what I say, but for other women who are just as sick of misogyny as I am. Men keep saying women don’t “fight hard enough” for equal rights. Then they’re the first ones who punish us when we do. Consider this thread an example of how men try to silence women and force us into conversations we did not consent to, or diminish the importance of women’s rights with the issues of oppressed men.
That about covers it. I still have nothing to say to misogynists who only want a response/reaction from me so they vampirically feed off of my pain and suffering, which they get some sick twisted thrill from. Besides, they don’t actually want to talk to me or have a discussion. If misogynists were interested in what I had to say, they would have respected the first time I said NO to talking to them. It really is that simple. Persisting to talk to me only further proves the utter disdain they have for women, especially women who reject misogyny and take their own oppression seriously. So goodbye for another six months or so, and feel free to have the last word. It’s nothing less I’d expect from misogynists who think they are justified in their sadistic contempt for women.
LikeLike
August 7, 2017 at 7:35 am
Sam Rosenbalm
Meg, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I wish you godspeed in your efforts against gender inequality. I will do everything I can in my capacity as a white male to speak out against other white males who refuse to take an active role changing white male culture.
I just don’t like the trans-exclusion. I’ve given my reasons.
I didn’t continue responding to be disrespectful or upset you – but I will honor your request and won’t bother you anymore. If you want to get the last word then by all means have it. I’ll read whatever you write and won’t respond.
LikeLike
August 7, 2017 at 12:41 pm
The Arbourist
Females are the oppressed class in society, they have the right to define their spaces and boundaries especially not to include their oppressors (men).
Except threatening death and violence toward women. Quite typical of males to express rage and violence toward females.
Transgenderism conserves the patriarchal notion of gender and gender roles. The ideology states that to be a woman one must take on a ‘feminine’ appearance – this is the apogee of the patriarchal conception of women.
A woman, by definition is an adult human female. The end.
LikeLike
August 8, 2017 at 12:19 am
Sam Rosenbalm
Females are THE oppressed class. And the oppressors are anyone and I mean anyone with a penis.
Okay.
As for threatening death and violence, the source you linked didn’t demonstrate hatred towards women, but rather, hatred towards terfs. I hate to bust your bubble but women aren’t exactly on your side either. In fact you’re pretty much despised by the vast majority of not only women but feminist women as well, and spare me any no true scotsman retorts.
As for Transgenderism conserving the patriarchal notion of gender, I think you’re refusing to distinguish between sex and gender, and I believe that this is deliberate on your part.
I don’t even care to keep this going. You’re eaten up with hatred and generalizing entire demographics and I don’t have any more desire to try and reach vulgar collectivists. It’s the antithesis of Marxism. Bourgeois decadent, vulgar collectivism. People with jobs who struggle to put food on the table don’t have time for such bullshit. Overprivileged, identity politics poisoned, pasty-white feminism. I’m through here.
LikeLike
August 8, 2017 at 12:33 pm
The Arbourist
@Sam R
Such a bold start, I thought you might actually start to understand what actual female centric feminism was. Sadly not to be.
And which class of people does your finely developed class consciousness do ‘terfs’ fall into. Oh, right… females. Because women voicing their opinions deserve death threats. Your dude-friendly liberal faux-feminism is shit. Proof positive that neither the men on the left or the right can be trusted to help women in their struggle against patriarchy.
The misunderstanding lies on your end. Biological sex and socially constructed gender lie at the heart of the rad fem refutation of queer/trans ideology.
Disagreement isn’t hate. But, you’re certainly high on the regressive leftist scale, well done for proving yet again, that men have no place in leading feminism or the female struggle against patriarchy.
You might try hanging out at Everyday Feminism, their empowerful liberal feminist cant seems like a good fit for you. :) Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
LikeLike