You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Radical Feminism’ category.

I’m kinda glad people can share their opinions on WordPress (mostly), but there seems to be a category of dudes that take it upon themselves to write important(?) words about radical feminism. While discussing the great satan and how it is destroying men, society, and the universe (clutches pearls), it becomes markedly clear that the authors in question know sweet fuck all about how society works, and if possible, even less about feminism.


Dear the People,

I’m sure you’ve heard it before: radical feminism is targeting men, harming them, and making them victims of sexism against males.”

Sometimes the punter in question gets close to the truth, but almost always quickly veers away; asymptotically doomed to forever miss the point.  As is the case here.

Radical feminists correctly deduce that the class of men oppress the class of women in society.  That we should change the structure of society to get rid of the oppression is the crucial factoid that dudes just seem to gloss over.

Instead we get the pablum presented in the quote.  I don’t pretend to understand what this first sentence is saying.  I’m gonna say apply my bafflegab to English translator and roughly interpret that our beleaguered dude is try to make the case that radical feminists are calling men out for their bullshit behaviour and this is making them have a sad.

Sorry my dude, but enough men are still on board the good ship patriarchy and thus continue to treat women as second class citizens.

“While all of this is true, there are victims here of third-wave feminism that we don’t talk about as much (and no, I’m not actually addressing the unborn babes that are slaughtered by the thousands). “

Good, because it sounds like, unsurprisingly, you are against female bodily autonomy.  (*shocked*)

“That’s right. For as much as the Left would like to make it seem like they’re truly concerned with the plight of females, they’ve proven time and time again that the last thing they really care about is raising up the females around them. You may have heard about “sisterhood”, “female power”, kumbaya around the campfire, etc. But while strong female relationships do thrive in different situations, this idea of “empowered females banding together” isn’t quite as accurate as we’d all like to believe. Don’t believe me?”

No, you’ve demonstrated an astonishing allergy to even the most basic features of society and how it works.  The best part is, you’re going to start making assumptions and arguments based on nothing but your sheer ignorance and the power of your uniformed opinion.  Buckle in tight, because the nothing good can come when your argumentative building blocks are made of high-octane stupid.

“Take for example, the statistics. Men are often cited as being the ultra-violent, over-aggressive beings that are causing workplace abuse and bullying. “

Men perpetrate the most violence in the world.  The current shit state of things is a direct result of the ‘male way’ of handling problems.

“While men contribute, it’s actually women that tend to target women in work situations.”

Based on what?  You are making an assertion of fact right here.  Where is it coming from other than the dark recesses of your arse?

“While men contribute, it’s actually women that tend to target women in work situations. This is not due to men’s “crippling” of women and turning them against each other, but instead due to the fact that women are naturally very competitive and intellectually aggressive [see HERE and HERE for examples and studies proving this point].”

I do love it when people cite research.  It is also good to read the sources and see what they actually say, rather than just what you think they say.

Quote from the first source:  “I recently conducted a survey focused on women in the workplace, and found that approximately 70% had been the victim of either workplace bullying or covert undermining by a female boss”

Methodology?  Sample Size?  Where the results were published?  Nothing like that to be found?  Okay then, first source is trash, disregard.

Quote from the second source “More recently, research has shown that women may not support each other’s progress specifically in situations where they are outnumbered by men. Ryan et al. (2012) found evidence that female supervisors were less supportive of female employees in male-dominated organizations.”

Less supportive, in situations where males outnumber females does not support what you’re saying – “but instead due to the fact that women are naturally very competitive and intellectually aggressive “- your claim that women are ‘naturally competitive’ is not backed up by even a charitable reading of your source, and claims that people are “naturally x” is usually fallacious (see genetic fallacy).

“Keep in mind that women were designed to compete for the best resources. For as long as time has begun, women have competed for the best man, the best home, and in a modern day when marriage is no longer the only way to financial and physical security, the best jobs.”

Tests for genetic fitness of partners is indeed part of our system of drives.  But it is not a single totalizing endeavour.  We are a complex social species and it is wrong to attribute motivations of people based on one factor, especially without consider the current context (the workplace).

“As such, everything that leads to a better quality of life and more security is something that women will bully each other over. This is why (biologically, at least) girls tend to dress nicer not just to impress men, but also to outdo their former females, all of whom have the same motivation of getting a mate.”

*sigh*  Biologically speaking you’re full of feces.  We have the social construction of society that great affects how we act and are how we are expected to act in society.  The wearing of clothes (nice or not) is a social construction as has little to do with biological precursors.

“Radical feminism, however, rejects the idea that women have this natural competition and instead embraces a group mentality where all women band together to fight abusive male. “

Please quote the Radical Feminist source that says this?  The only branch of radical feminism that embraces this idea exists only in your head.  For bonus points, historically speaking, our societies have been based around the principle of cooperation.  Only when hierarchical structures have been introduced (see patriarchy) do we see competition become a virtue.

Women need solidarity to fight the patriarchal structures in society because going against societal norms individually is not effective and is quite dangerous to undertake without support.  Do not mistake action against patriarchy as action against particular men – it is the system that empowers them that is the problem.

“So why do feminists want to ignore the damage perpetrated by females and focus primarily on that spread by males?”

Because male violence is endemic within the structure of society?  Women literally mould their lives around reducing the threat of rape and male violence.  Violent males and their aspirations exist in every facet of society and if you happen to be in the class that receives most of unwarranted aggression, then it becomes a problem.

“For one thing, it means females can continue inflicting this damage on females while crying “victim”.”

Oh, so if women would just shut up and let men do their thing, the problem of violent male behaviour would fix itself (?).


It doesn’t work that way, the problems of society need to be identified, deconstructed, and replaced with ones that acknowledge the base humanity of all members of society.

And it means they can continue to shift the blame of their bullying onto men so they can talk about what they really consider to be the “problem”. “

Men need no help in the bullying department, no blame shift is required.

Girls who are read this book will be taught that they are discriminated in every circumstance without reason”

Truth hurts, no?  Living in a patriarchy is not a fun time if you happen to be female.

“They will be taught that all-guy’s club are sexist and that any activity in which they are not the first chosen is due merely to their gender.”

Being educated, or allowed to vote, or have a credit card/bank account in their name was once only in the domain of males.  So one must look with a certain amount of skepticism to ‘all-guys’ clubs or organizations.”

“And for girls who don’t submit to this narrative? They are taught that they are being sexist or even worse, that they have no minds of their own and that they are being bowled over by men.”

Plugging your ears and denying the reality of women’s station in society doesn’t fix the problem.  Feminists realize though that each woman must strike her own patriarchal bargain within society and do what she must to survive.

“Their problem isn’t that they dare to think differently; their problem is the evil patriarchy who has stuffed their oppressive, sexist ideas down their throats. “

The patriarchal norms of society are passed on through both the father and the mother.  The mother does what she can to help her daughter survive in a society that is fundamentally arrayed against her and her personhood.

“Girls in the past were faced by ideas that kept them in their station in life and the same is true today. Not much has changed unfortunately.”

Glad to see that you (unknowingly) acknowledge patriarchy is a thing and its bad for women.

 “Girls are still being told how and what to think. The only difference? Those distributing this wisdom are not their fathers, their brothers, their husbands, or their friends. Instead it is their sisters, who insist that the girl who refuses to believe is the girl who refuses to rise above her circumstances. “

Because men know the solutions to female problems.  Right…  Right?  Most men know even fathom (see this post) what being female in society is like, and what women do to survive within it.  It is only from a position of assured ignorance does drivel like this get written.

“It is the poor female who must choose between obeying the louder members of her own gender or allowing herself to be crushed beneath the “patriarchal” heel. “

You have a very strange notion of what a patriarchal bargain.  The choice women face is how to deal with the fact that they are treated as the submissive class in society and their base humanity is always in question.  Sure you can go along with the feminine prescriptions of society but how much of yourself and your ambitions are you willing to sacrifice to guarantee(?) your position/safety in society?

Feminists ask the question, why should there have to be a sacrifice in the first place?
















   We need to insure that inclusivity does not become male dominance by any other name.  Jane Clare Jones delineates between helpful and harmful inclusion:


“I’ve been meaning to write, and will write soon, something on how the left’s current obsession with ‘inclusion’ and ‘openness’ and ‘smashing boundaries’ and ‘deterritorialization’ makes sense only as a critique of the psychic structure of dominance (like, go and tell it to Donald Trump and leave us the fuck alone). It is entirely, gratuitously, inappropriate, when turned against the boundaries of the violated, of those who are raised in a society which leads them to understand – when they are grabbed or catcalled or made to feel like meat – that that is where they are positioned. It is no wonder that a woman who cannot even bear to think about this fact, who prefers to deny the power that frames it, who prefers to think it could all be rewritten by playing games with superficial scripts, would, when addressing the mess that she has made, avert her eyes so resolutely from what this is actually about. Women’s psyches are far far more than ‘scenes of violation,’ but there can be no feminism which refuses its reality, which recoils from recognising that ‘smashing boundaries,’ when used against women as a class, is the absolute axiom of male power, and, at its core, everything happening here is as it ever was.”

This isn’t a general essay, more the upshot of the ongoing intra-philosophical spats, so it might not be of interest to all of you.. So, anyway, someone calling themselves Dr Specious (ho ho), possibly one of our philosophical colleagues in disguise, turned up and pass-agg pointed me and Kathleen and Holly at this paper, which […]

via On a Specious Reply — Jane Clare Jones

Wow, Ms.Burchill just doesn’t have time for the bullshite that woke-intersectionalists have turned into a squalid art from here in 2019.  Five years ago she was calling bullshite on the current empire of cud (‘intersectional’ queer theory) that is currently bolllocking up effective feminist action.


From a 2014 article titled Don’t You Dare Tell me to Check my Privilege

“Suzanne’s crime, it transpired, was to be ‘cis-gendered’ as opposed to transgendered (that is, she was born female) and not to have ‘checked her privilege’ — what passes for a battle cry in certain ever-decreasing circles these dog days. It’s hardly ‘No pasarán!’ — rather, it declares an intention that it is better to be nagged to death on one’s knees rather than stand by one’s principles on one’s feet. Consider how lucky you are, born women, before you raise your voice above that of a trans-sister! — that veritable cornucopian horn of plenty which we lucky breed fortunate enough to be born to a sensory smorgasbord of periods, PMT, the menopause, HRT and being bothered ceaselessly for sex by random male strangers since puberty take such flagrant delight in revelling in, shameless hussies that we are. Add to this that Suzanne was, like myself, born into the English working class, and therefore marginally less likely to have beaten the odds than a dancing dog or busker’s cat to have become a public figure, and I was buggered (not being homophobic, there) if I was going to put up with a bunch of middle-class seat-sniffers, educated beyond all instinct and honesty, laying into my girl.

But it wasn’t just that. It was an instinctive desire to defend the socialism of my dead father. Because intersectionality is actually the opposite of socialism! Intersectionality believes that there is ‘no such thing as society’ — just various special interests.

In my opinion, we only become truly brave, truly above self-interest, when fighting for people different from ourselves. My hero as a kid was Jack Ashley — a deaf MP who became the champion of rape victims. These days, the likes of those who went after Suzanne would probably dismiss him as a self-loathing cis-ableist. Intersectionality, like identity politics before it, is pure narcissism.

Though it reminds us ceaselessly to ‘check our privilege’, intersectionality is the silliest privilege of them all, a gang of tools and twats tiptoeing around others’ finer feelings rather than getting stuck in, mucking in, like proper mates — the ultimate privilege, which is to serve each other with collective love and action. The most recently inter-species ruckus happened when the Deirdre Spart impersonator Laurie Penny wrote a passionate defence of the pixie cut in the New Statesman, only to get it in the sleekly shaved neck from women who accused her of not taking the different behaviour of African hair into consideration. When I asked a supporter of this lunacy whether she thought that every subject of interest to women should have every type of woman weighing in with her written opinion, she answered that yes, she did. Seriously? I don’t think my heart can stand the excitement of a weekly Staggers the size of a telephone directory.

I personally can understand black women occasionally getting teed off with their apparently carefree Wash’n’Go white stepsisters. But the most recent and reactionary development within this hissy-fitting hothouse — the insistence of intersectional feminists on the right of transsexuals not to be offended — tells you all you need to know about the essential stupidity of the movement.

The idea that a person can chose their gender — in a world where millions of people, especially ‘cis-gendered’ women, are not free to choose who they marry, what they eat or whether or not their genitals are cut off and sewn up with barbed wire when they are still babies — and have their major beautification operations paid for by the National Health Service seems the ultimate privilege, so don’t tell me to check mine. Here’s hoping that the in-fighting in-crowd of intersectionality disappear up their own intersection really soon, so the rest of us can resume creating a tolerant and united socialism.”

We as a society should prioritize the safety and security of women (adult human females) over the gender feels of men.  This snippet from the Cambridge Radical Feminist Network expands upon this simple truth.

“Sex segregation in spaces where women are in positions of vulnerability is a legitimate and important precaution for women. Women exist in society where the risk of sexual assault is a simple reality of their lives — even young girls within UK schools are experiencing what has been described as an ‘epidemic’ of sexual violence from young boys. I could go into these statistics in more detail if it had not already been done countless times before. But the fact it has been done countless times before is the disturbing thing about the entire gender neutral toilets issue. Supposedly progressive commentators and politicians have seemingly decided that publicly supporting a postmodernist view of gender is more important even than these facts. Perhaps it is cowardice in the face of a vitriolic social-media ‘take down’ culture.

But perhaps it is something more simple, and depressing, than that: feminism — and other equality movements — have to deal with the difficult problem of ‘latent prejudice’. It can be tricky to tell when there is a true change of popular attitudes, or when instead there is a understanding that some attitudes cannot be expressed explicitly. Sometimes we only find out once people feel they have been given permission to express those attitudes. We saw that to some degree with the Bernie-Bro phenomenon — certain US leftists felt that their support for a ‘progressive’ Bernie Sanders meant they were able to criticise ‘not-as-progressive’ Hillary Clinton in sometimes violently sexist terms. The gender neutral and gender identity debates seem to represent something similar in the UK. Blatantly misogynistic tropes and a lazy disregard for women’s safety and concerns are being overlooked because it is in the service of a supposedly progressive cause.”

A good article overall, I recommend you follow the link back to Medium and read the entire piece.




The central feature of patriarchy is Men’s relentless efforts to control women’s sexuality and reproduction:

“For females to be subordinated and subjugated to males on a global scale, and for males to organize themselves and each other as they do, billions of female individuals, virtually all see life on this planet, must be reduced to more-or-less willing toleration of subordination and servitude to men.  The primary sites of this reduction are the sites of heterosexual relation and encounter – courtship and marriage-arrangement, romance, sexual liaisons, fucking, marriage, prostitution, the normative family, incest and child sexual assault.  It is on this terrain of heterosexual connection that girls and women are habituated to abuse, insult, degradation, and girls are reduced to women – to wives, to whores, to mistresses, to sex slaves, to clerical workers and textile workers, to the mothers of men’s children”

And on patriarchy being the bedrock of oppression:

“Without (hetero)sexual abuse, (hetero)sexual harassment and the (hetero)sexualization of every aspect of female bodies and behaviours, there would not be patriarchy, and whatever other forms or materializations of oppressions might exist, they would not have the shapes, boundaries and dynamics of the racism, nationalism, and so on that we are so familiar with.”

  Both selections from The Willful Virgin.


This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.

Like Privacy?

Change your Browser to Duck Duck Go.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 390 other followers

Progressive Bloggers


February 2019
« Jan    


Blogs I Follow

The DWR Community

Volunteer petunia

Observations and analysis on survival, love and struggle


the feminist exhibition space at the university of alberta

Raising Orlando

About gender, identity, parenting and containing multitudes

REAL for women

Reflecting Equality in Australian Legislation for women

The Feminist Kitanu

Spreading the dangerous disease of radical feminism

Double Plus Good

The Evolution Will Not BeTelevised

la scapigliata

writer, doctor, wearer of many hats

Mars Caulton

Teaching Artist/ Progressive Educator


Still she persisted

Old Wives' Tales

feminism, motherhood, writing

Female Personhood

Identifying as female since the dawn of time.

Radfem Resources | Radical Feminist Literature

A virtual library for those interested in radical feminist literature and resources.

Not The News in Briefs

A blog by Helen Saxby


A blog in support of Helen Steel

Where media credibility made a comeback.


Memoirs of a Butch Lesbian


Radical Feminism Discourse

a sledge and crowbar

deconstructing identity and culture

The Radical Pen

Fighting For Female Liberation from Patriarchy


Politics, things that make you think, and recreational breaks

Nordic Model Now!

Movement for the Abolition of Prostitution

The WordPress C(h)ronicle

These are the best links shared by people working with WordPress


Gender is the Problem, Not the Solution


Peak Trans and other feminist topics

There Are So Many Things Wrong With This

if you don't like the news, make some of your own

Gentle Curiosity

Musing over important things. More questions than answers.

The Disobedient Feminist

A sanctuary for feminists who still believe in women's liberation and reject neo-liberal narratives of empowerment and choice activism.


short commentaries, pretty pictures and strong opinions

Revive the Second Wave

gender-critical sex-negative intersectional radical feminism

Trans Animal Farm

The Trans Trend is Orwellian

Princess Henry of Wales

Priestess Belisama

miss guts.

just a girl on a journey

writing by renee

Trigger warning: feminism, women's rights


Happily Retired

freer lives

A socialist critique of gender ideology

Centering Women

A radical feminist page made for women only


radical Elemental feminism

%d bloggers like this: