You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December 2018.
Such a treat, I do love me some sushi.
Jane Clare Jones is amazing. This is from her annotation of a discussion presented on BBC 4’s Woman Hour:
Sally Hines, Professor of Sociology and Gender Identities at the University of Leeds, and our very own Kathleen Stock, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex, very ably adjudicated by Jane Garvey.
[SH]…y’know, and we’ve seen this before, it’s very very dangerous, we’ve seen this before in feminism, in relation to the position of Black women, and in relation to the position of working class women, y’know, I think we absolutely as feminists have got to move away from a politics which is based around perceptions of realness, and that white, cis women such as myself, such as Kathleen, have got to give up some privilege here…
[JCJ] Let’s unpack some intersectionality burble then shall we Sally? First, the imputation that Black women and working-class women are a subset of women whose womanhood is ‘less real’ that white women’s womanhood is bullshit, and politically motivated and offensive bullshit. There have always been and remain tensions within feminism along race and class lines, and there probably will always be, because these intersections are massively important political and social differences that cut though the body of women. We will, I hope, always continue to wrestle with these issues, to give them space, and to endeavour to work with them in order to best articulate our shared interests as women, and to allow for the expression of our differences. As I have said before, it is not easy, and it shouldn’t be. None of this translates into an idea that Black women or working-class women are somehow not women, and Crenshaw never intended intersectionality to be used to fracture the class of female people in order to include male people. The fact that Black females are female does not mean that male people are female, and you really need to stop and have a long hard look at yourself and what the fuck you’re saying. Frankly, this makes my blood boil. And I know from listening to many Black women that they find it enraging – both because their womanhood is being undermined, and they’re being used as a political prop in an argument, and maybe even more so, because it’s being done with a veneer of woke anti-racism, while being fucking racist, and the women doing it won’t listen to them when they call it out.
Secondly, can you imagine anything more white and middle class and privileged than thinking you can avoid sex-based oppression by identifying out of it? What kind of life have you lived, that you respond to a well-grounded observation about the distribution of care-work (let alone femicide, or poverty, or lack of education, or FGM, or forced marriage, or sexual slavery, or any other of the number of sex-based violences that disproportionately affect women with less economic and racial power, or from cultures with more rigid patriarchal practices than our own), and turn around, and say that you are fighting for the interests of working class and women of colour by denying the analysis of the basis of their exploitation????? This whole towering pile of bullshit is precisely an artefact of privilege. Walk into any Gender Studies class in the country if you have any doubts. Over to Kathleen…
KS: I am exactly here to fight on behalf of the interests of Black and working-class female women, it is them that bear the disproportionate brunt of inequality in our society, and if we lose the ability to name those people as such, and to talk about the causal factors that lead to their predicament, then we won’t be able to fight for them, so it’s precisely dangerous, the kind of rhetoric that’s coming out of the new gender identity doctrine…
JG: Sally, can I just, I mean, if it were a level playing field, why do we not hear as much from trans men as we do from trans women?
BOOM. Answer that question while avoiding granting recognition to the political importance of sex if you will Sally?
In the future I’ll be quoting other parts of JCJ’s post, as her clarity of thought and argumentation is unrivalled on these topics that important to women.
The ‘inclusivity’ stupid train just keeps on chugging along over at ShoutoutJMU. Not an argument or even a shade of nuance is to be found there. Just dull eyed listless opprobrium meant to keep people in line and critical analysis at bay.
It is an insipid shit show, and we all know by now that the RPOJ is a vehicle build specifically for shit-shows. But let us not tarry further – let’s see what this “feminist” resource has to offer on the subject of the intersection between radical feminism and queer politics.
—–
“Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists are one of the worst kinds of people out there. You’re not a feminist, so you’ve been canceled.”
Wow. Such insight, much praxis, good enlightening… Starting your thoughts off with insults and slander always sets the stage for a charitable, honest, and productive discussion.
The only aspect missing is a strawman caricature of your opponents position to savagely beat and make your fellow besotted acolytes feel powerful….
“Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. These are “feminists” who consistently choose to leave trans folks OUT of the conversation.”
Radical feminism, or effective feminism, is the project to liberate women (Adult human females) from the patriarchal constructs of society. Generally speaking radical feminist theory and praxis revolves around identifying social structures in society that are oppressing women, raising the consciousness of women being affected by said structures, then analyzing and deconstructing said oppressive edifices with the goal of the emancipation of women from patriarchy.
A helpful insight provided free of charge – One of the primary axis of oppression women experience is based on their sex. The means of this oppression is the construct of gender which dictates and imposes the inferior role for women in society.
The radical feminist solution is working toward the abolition of gender in society, because the of the harmful nature of the construct for both women and men.
Radical Feminists are therefore about the liberation of women in society, and centring women in that struggle. The activist world is big, if you’re not feeling like you’re the primary concern in Feminism (the struggle for female liberation) then start your own damn movement and stop co-opting feminism proper for goals that do not focus on the female struggle against patriarchy.
Also since trans identified females (Tif’s) are in fact, female, they are subject to the same sex based oppression all females face and indeed are included under the aegis of effective female-centric feminism.
“Why? Because, well they suck.”
Queer theorists and the SJW ilk are just full of profoundly deep explanations for their assertions. To be fair though, they are gangbusters at circular arguments, but that’s still coming; so hold on to your hats folks, the circus ride of abjectly plaintive idiocy has yet to crest.
“The idea is that “transwomen” aren’t really women because they “grew up men” and still “receive all the benefits of the patriarchy”.
Trans women, or trans identified males (Tim’s) are not women. Male socialization is unavoidable for natal males born into our society. You’ll have about as much success as renouncing your white privilege if you happen to be born white. In other words – your personal subjective solution to the dominant ethos of society is fucking irrelevant.
“In turn, they use the same rhetoric with transmen “who grew up women” and are now “trying to receive the benefits of the patriarchy”
They actually don’t. It is risible enough to deny the potency and ubiquitous nature of male socialization, but to gloss over the fact that much of radical feminism is built on material, factual, reality, is really quite egregious. Furthermore since TiF’s are female they are indeed most welcome in effective feminism.
“Either way, someway, all transpeople contribute to the patriarchy and therefore, do not deserve feminism.”
Said no radical feminist ever. But its damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead when beating the the crap out of the straw feminist bogywoman you’ve created.
That was honestly hard to write.”
It must have been hard to write considering the sheer magnitude of bullshit per square centimetre demonstrated.
“Transwomen are women.
Transmen are men.”
It wouldn’t be a ‘woke’ SJW article without at least one thought terminating cliche, combined of course, with a circular definition of what a woman is. (i.e. What is a woman, a woman is anyone who says they are woman [but what is a woman…??]. – You can’t define a term by itself.)
Sorry, not sorry, but the above statements are not arguments, they are strictures meant to discriminate between the ideologically sound and the unwashed. They are endpoints meant to discourage questioning and silence dissent. You many fuck off now with your thinly veiled ‘woke’ misogyny at your earliest convenience.
“They aren’t “men who grew up to be women and women who grew up to be men”. They’re people who sometimes grew up in the wrong bodies.”
Wrong bodies or not, biological sex is immutable.
“Don’t even get me started with NB people. OOMPH. The DISRESPECT.”
So we’ll combat the evil of the gender binary by creating another false binary? Seems to be layering another layer of oppression into a already terribly oppressive system. Woo, the progress…
“Rhetoric from TERFs has been used for years to silence people. But right now, me and everyone else in the gendery and queer community are amused…”
Wow, winning the oppression Olympics must feel soooo fucking good.
You and the ‘gendery-queery’ community continue to avoid speaking and acting on the elephant in the room: the epidemic of patriarchally endorsed male violence. Violent males continue to kill women and trans people at alarming rate, pretty much without repercussion and you’re banging on about experiencing repression at the hands of the Radical Feminists?
Get back to me when you start tackling the root of the problem instead of whinging on about a small collection of females who are rightly calling bullshit your inconsistent, misogynistic, and female erasing ideology.
“Some folks are discussing… […]”
Skipping tangential meanderings/virtue signalling.
“TERFs are exclusive, and demand their turf space. But, people like me aren’t going to let them have it.”
The struggle against male power is age old, and the misogyny exhibited here is nothing new. Women will rise, women will struggle, and women will prevail against patriarchy in whatever form it happens to take. Thankyouverymuch.
“Even when TERFs include race or ability, their sole goal to deconstruct the patriarchy and battle gender stereotypes and fight for equality of gender….is counter intuitive. They’re not fighting for all women.”
Radical feminists are struggling for female liberation. Gender is a toxic hierarchy by definition, and thus, no semblance of “equality” can be struck within the system.
The only counterintuitive aspect of your statement is attempting to lump males into a movement that strives for female liberation. It makes about as much sense as asking for management’s opinions on how to run a union strike.
“Why should I contribute to feminist conversations… […]”
I’m solidly with you on that one, because other than creating a writable RPOJ-moment, the value of your contributions (at least to the feminist movement) approaches zero.
Absolutely no silliness! Unacceptable. Verboten! Nein!
In Defying Hitler, Sebastion Haffner’s disturbing 1939 memoir chronicling the rise of Nazism, the author, a law candidate, describes the insidious day-to-day changes in attitudes, beliefs, politics, and prejudices that began, for Germans, the slow descent into a “trap of comradeship” in which this culture of cruelty flourished as many of them become “owned by it”. “Comradeship” as the Nazis meant it, became a “narcotic” that the people were introduced to from the earliest age, through the Hitler Youth movement (Hitlerjugend), the SA, military service, and involvement with thousand of camps and clubs. In this way, it destroyed their sense of personal responsibility and became a means for the process of dehumanization:
‘It is even worse that comradeship relieves men of responsibility for their actions, before themselves, before God, before their conscience. They do what their comrades do. They have no choice. They have no time for thought (except when they unfortunately wake up at night). Their comrades are their conscience and give absolution for everything, provided that do what everybody else does.’
Haffner goes on to describe how this comradeship, in just a few weeks at camp, molded a group of intellectual, educated men into an “unthinking, indifferent, irresponsible mass” in which bigoted, derogatory, and hateful comments “were commonplace, went unanswered and set the intellectual tone.” The Nazis used a variety of psychological stimulations and manipulations to this end, such as slogans, flags, uniforms, Sieg Heils, marching columns, banners, and songs, to help create a dangerous, mindless “group think.” One of the most disturbing aspects of this comradeship was how the men in the camp began to behave as a collective entity, who “instinctively ignored or belittled anything that could disturb our collective self-satisfaction. A German Reich in microcosm.” This collectivity is the “and” in Arthur Eddington’s mathematical formula. The bullies and the bystanders become a deadly combination that is more than the sum of its parts.
[…]
In all three genocides [Armenian, Jewish, Tutsi], it was found that if one person (or small group of dedicated people) refused to go along with the genocidaires, some others who were potential witnesses actually became witnesses, defenders, and/or resisters themselves. This group readily admitted that if it were not for those who took the lead in desisting, they probably not would have had the courage to do so themselves. In his research in “atrocity producing situations,” Robert J. Lifton came to the conclusion, “There’s no inherent human nature that requires us to kill or maim… We have the potential for precisely that behaviour of the Nazis …or of some kind of more altruistic or cooperative behaviour, We can go either way. And I think that confronting these extreme situations is itself an act of hope because in doing that, we are implying and saying that there is an alternative. We can do better. ”
‘It is immensely moving when a mature man [or woman] – no matter whether young or old in years- is aware of a responsibility for the consequences of his conduct and really feels such responsibility with heart and soul. He then acts by following an ethic of responsibility and somewhere reaches a point where he says: “Here I stand; I can do no other.” That is something genuinely human and moving. [Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation]
-Barbara Coloroso. Extraordinary Evil – A Brief History of Genocide. pp. 85 – 87
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…