You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Radical Feminism’ category.
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 […]
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.
The RPOJ comes for thee RPF.
Wow. Do any of you remember the first Indiana Jones film? Raiders of the Lost Ark? Remember the beginning the tense action sequence when Indy switches the statue for a holy satchel of sand and then all hell breaks loose, Indy has to run for his life, avoiding darts, boulders, and irate local inhabitants. It was a tense and glorious romp.
What we are about to partake in, isn’t like that at all.
Imagine if you will, that very Indy-esque moment happening here in the blogosphere, but instead of a golden statue, a freshly polished intellectual turd, a veritable extruded husk of bullshit argumentation. And the satchel, instead, a thread bare mouldy hassock filled with a funky-spunky hash of whingy-cringy manspination. The switch is made, the anticipation rises… then falls limp in its sublimely uninteresting putrescence. There is no heroic dash to safety, no hairsbreadth escape, only the grim realization that there is no where to go, but down.
This article is from a genuine RED PILL FATHER (see also Reactionary Pile of Fuckery). He has taken the path of seeing feminism, as only a man can see it, and since it is how a man sees it, it MUST BE true. What is fascinating is the asymptotic nature (he comes close to having a clue on at least one occasion) of his knowledge of feminism being put on display – this RPF, has read things… things on the internet no less, that describe what feminism is, but evidently information written by people who know sweet fuck all about what feminism is.
Let us begin.
“As a Red Pill Father, one of my main goals in life, beyond making my life, and as a consequence of that, my marriage better, is ensuring that I prevent, to the best of my ability, the tainting of my young daughter’s minds with modern day Feminism.”
Because a base level of narcissism is required to be a douche, thus I will make it a requirement, perhaps even to the level of necessary ‘background douche-radiation’ (see male socialization), for ‘being successful at life’. And apparently allowing your daughter access to the philosophy/praxis that seeks to ground her humanity into the fabric of society is a compete and utter non-starter. Sorry hunny, no human being status for you.
“This is part one of a three part series of posts I’ll do depicting how Feminism is lying to both men and women”
It’s kinda creepy, yet edifying to see RPF mistakenly categorize feminism as monolithic singular totality. One might surmise that RPF is a fan of morally simplistic binary thinking and all of the sound and fury that emanates from such etymologically denuded intellectual black holes. Because fuck nuance and attention to detail; it makes wrapping the tinfoil around one’s head so much more difficult.
” and how fathers today can combat it so their sons and daughters don’t end up buying into the modern Feminist lie at their own expense.”
Ah, RPF is a tinfoil wrapped holy crusader of man-justice, ready to dispense wisdom and shield his property children from the great evil feminist satan.
“Classical vs Modern Feminism
Not everyone will agree with me on this but Feminism, in it’s earliest iterations (I’m talking late 1800s suffragists), started out as a movement with honorable intentions, back when actual inequality of opportunity between the sexes existed.”
Oh thanks RPF dude. I’m glad you approve of women striving to be recognized as human in society. You’re not going to qualify your approval of women’s struggle are you? That would be a dick move…
*
*
“However, […]”
*
*
**facepalm**
*
*
“However, even with that goal, the feminist narrative of equal rights and suffrage was tainted as it didn’t come with “equal responsibility” for women. For example, women were not subject to the military draft, even to this day, but were granted the right to vote. It wasn’t until the promise was made that women wouldn’t be drafted that more women got on board with the suffrage movement.”
Ah, the vernerable draft chestnut. If you can’t serve the military-machine then its completely obvious and follows that you should have no say in how the county is run. All aboard the shit-boat of stupidity. RPF is also no longer subject to the draft circa 2019 thus he also qualifies as lacking in ‘responsibility’ and therefore by his criteria, have no voting rights.
*
*
“So from the start, even though the intentions were good, the stated intention of true “equality” is a lie.”
I suspect that RPF would not know equality if bit him firmly on the ass, but we should let his assertions demonstrate, rather than me, your humble host tell you particular fact.
*
*
“They wanted all of the authority given to men with none of the responsibilities, and they got it.”
Ah yes, I can recall that golden age, where women could work where they pleased, in any profession, open a bank account, hell… even marry and divorce whomever they saw fit back during the days of first wave feminism.
Actually, no. Women could do none of the above and the fact the RPF glosses over these inconvenient truths is proof positive he is filled to the brim with his own bullshit. Feminism is the female struggle for liberation from patriarchy, and in the case of First Wave, struggle for base acknowledgement as human beings. This talk of ‘authority’ and ‘responsibilities’ is but mere projection of your twisted view of society through your (a)historic lens.
*
*
“And it’s this quite unequal dynamic that persists into today and is causing the feminists to want more and more authority for less responsibility. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.”
One of the key features of the MRA/Redpill dynamic is the reversal of the dominant/subordinate roles. You see, we still live in a patriarchy, where men’s hands hold the levers of power and circumscribe how society functions. There has been no historical reversal of the power roles. No, what makes the MRA cabal’s fevered minds twist and spin is the mere notion that they cannot be the sole arbiters of power in society anymore. The gall of women to assert that they should have *any* say in society is a evil for them that does not sleep.
*
*
“I believe that women’s suffrage can coexist with women who vote in the best interests of our culture and society, but those interests have to be informed and framed by the masculine and with the requisite amount of actual authority given to those who carry the lion’s share of responsibility.”
You can vote Sweety, but only how I see fit. RPF is stupid as he is condescending. Nothing *needs* to be framed by the masculine. Most of the bat shit crazy that exists in the world today is precisely because we continue to frame issues in terms of the masculine. So no, you don’t get to dispense with the basic female rights to human being status, because of your misguided notion of responsibility (which so far is the right to be drafted into male initiated slaughter – I’m still trying to square how ‘responsible behaviour’ jives with participating in mass slaughter).
*
*
“Just as you will be the best father for your children by fulfilling your role as a masculine role model and wielding your authority for the good of your family.”
Have you missed out on the last 30 years so of sociological research that points to negative outcomes for children of parents that adapt stereotypical gender roles? Apparently so. Families thrive when there is trust, compassion, and empathy. Your notions of masculine authority are shit.
*
*
“It wasn’t the female vote that got us here today, it was the continued onslaught of overzealous Feminism in its false crusade for the elusive, and already achieved, “equality” sans the commensurate responsibility for women that got us here.”
Its good to know that men are responsible for the violent culture we live in, responsible for the desecration of the earth and responsible for the wars and senseless bloodletting that continue on, even as this article is penned.
*
*
“Classical vs Modern Feminism:
*
- Equal pay for the “same” work.
-
- Right to vote,
- Pursuit of happiness and liberty.
VS Modern
-
- [1] Women are to be celebrated and advantaged above all else, at the expense of men.
- [2] These expectations reign even over the right of an unborn child to live.
- [3] Believe all women all the time without verifying. What happened to Trust but Verify?”
Wow. So much bullshit condensed down into handy bullet points.
- Examples? Because women now dominate every facet of society. Women in key political office, captains of industry, they are everywhere. In fact they are the defacto status quo – all of literature is about women and their achievements. Pop culture is chock full of positive female role models that demonstrate talent and ability and determined effort are all societal sanctioned keys to female success (nay dominance, to believe RPF’s hokum).
- What? You mean women have a right to say what goes on in their own bodies and determine their productive futures as they see fit – like real human beings with rights and everything? You have no idea what pregnancy does to the female body, if you did, you’d stop saying fatuous bullshit like this.
- The fuck? What does this even mean? Women’s inferior status in society comes with a bevy of problems when accessing the political and legal systems within our society. Women are still fighting to be heard and working toward reducing the bias against them for reporting the sexual violence against them, because shockingly in a patriarchy, women are not encouraged to hold men accountable for their shitty behaviour.
“Feminism originally started out to correct actual injustices in society but has gone so far that it is now making both men and women miserable.”
Feminism has always been antagonistic toward male power and privilege, this fact makes you sad.
“Feminism today is not about equality, it’s about disempowering and emasculating men.”
As stated earlier, (effective) Feminism is about the liberation of women from the structures of society that oppress them. So, if by correcting male excess in society is ’emasculating’; so be it.
“Children are very sensitive to what is “fair.” Whether it’s the size of the piece of cake they get compared to their friends, how much time they or their siblings get to play with Daddy. They know and they keep score. One day this past year my young daughter became aware of “International Girls Day.” She asked what it’s about and her very next question was, “Is there a Boy’s Day?” Young minds, untainted by the Feminist supremacy agenda, can detect inequality.”
Probably the same reason there isn’t a white history month you slack-jawed oxygen thief.
“Take advantage of that now. Reinforce this. Feminists of today would say, “Who cares about Boys Day… they’ve had their turn.””
Well that and every other day happens to be ‘boys day’. Funny how that works when you happen to be in the class that is accorded personhood by default.
“Which is the other side is the “It’s HER turn” coin. It’s just reverse sexism or “Also Sexism.” Not a child. A child knows better and so do Red Pill aware men.”
Reverse sexism. Wow, those slaves sure could oppress their masters couldn’t they. Just like the people of colour regularly practice reverse racism against white people. *sigh*. Trying to make the playing field even when it intrinsically isn’t is the second play in the (‘oppressed’) white dude play book. Minorities can most certainly discriminate, but their prejudices are not reinforced and normalized by the rest of society. Apples and oranges my dear whingy faux-oppressed RPF.
“I’ll take Tolpin’s point a step farther and assert that Feminism, in it’s modern form, not only tells women they don’t need men but continues to assure that men are made into ATM-Betas through the family court system.”
The court system remains in favour of men. I know the notion that being responsible for children is tough (kinda funny that you state earlier your anti-abortion ‘ethic’, and yet here are decidedly anti-family-responsibility) and quite unpalatable for RPF like yourself.
“Our femcentric culture ensures that women still have full access to the resources and money that men possess, even if men choose not to play by their rules. So of course women don’t need men nowadays, the State has ensured, through the establishment of Feminist legislation, they get that support either way.”
I’d like to know when it because femcentric culture, because I think that it doesn’t exist outside RPF’s fevered dreams. Do note his keen yearings for the golden age where women had no rights and their survival depended upon the largess of men.
The notion that women share the same status as men must be truly horrifying to RPF. You mean women are not merely objects to be possessed and collected – the hatred of women must be intense to conjure up this opposite world fantasy the RPF spouts. I don’t see any other reason for it.
“I truly believe, and the social evidence supports this*, that Feminism is not only detrimental to men, it’s disparaging to family, marriage and is even doing women a disservice.”
*Citation needed
Also, how would full human being status for females damage society? The only artifact that looks threatened with female liberation is patriarchy.
“The lie has hurt many women who prioritized “moving up the corporate ladder,” while putting off having a family until they’re 40 only to find that at that age, attracting a quality man is difficult and their prospects for conceiving a baby naturally are severely diminished. “
Because baby making is the ultimate expression of female achievement. Fuck off with your misogynistic, antediluvian attitudes dude.
“This is not the future I want for my daughters.”
The mindfuck you are subjecting them to is darkening their future as you speak.
Thanks folks, and thanks(?) to the manosphere for providing such a bountiful harvest of stupidity.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…