Listen there’s no argument of “rape/abuse fantasies, even if they’re exclusively fantasies, are disgusting and you are disgusting for having them” that doesn’t turn directly in radfem rhetoric.
The idea that it’s your responsibility as a feminist to police all your thoughts and private sexual expression (which I would strongly argue appropriately tagged and archived fiction/art is) in order to avoid harming feminism and Be A Good Woman is radfem. There is no way around it.
If your taste in fiction/fantasies necessarily correlates to your personal politics and morals, then it makes sense to ensure that yours and others fantasies line up with your politics and morals. It becomes a form of protecting yourself, a subset of activism in its own right. And all of a sudden we’ve looped straight back around to policing women’s sexual thoughts for The Good Of Society.
The moment you start shaming and forbidding fantasies on the basis of morality, you’re about ¾ of the way to radfem.
So radfem is respectability politics?
hmmm. Not especially ‘radical’.
tw: misgendering, transphobia.
When radfems use the word “radical” they are not using it in the general political sense of having an extremely different point of view, they are using it from the sense of believing that the root of all the world’s troubles is sexism/misogyny. (”radical” as derived from “radix”, meaning root) and that therefore if you eradicate all vestiges of sexism and misogyny (including from your own heart and mind) the world will therefore be Perfect and so will you. In this ideology (evolved among academic upper-class white women in the 70s and 80s, and largely unchanged since then) there is no room for intersectionalism, for the oppressions of racism, classism, ableism, or queerphobia (other than lesbophobia). (lesbianism, being by, for, and about women, is ideologically congruent with their beliefs, and hatred of lesbians can be boiled down to “people hating women and hating that they don’t depend on men,” but other forms of hatred of LGBTQ+ people can’t really be acknowledged because first you would have to acknowledge that isms other than sexism exist, and that it is possible for men to be oppressed.)
Radfems did some wonderful theoretical work in the 70s and 80s. They really did provide the theoretical foundation for a lot of our understandings of sex, gender, and oppression. However, they proved more interested in putting themselves at the top of the hierarchy than in dismantling it, because they chose not to acknowledge other oppressions than the one they themselves faced, and so did not listen to their sisters of color and of lower class, or who were in any way different than themselves, and so they didn’t and do not accept responsibility for the ways in which they contribute to the oppression of others. And they are willing to join with ultra-conservative Evangelical groups to enact and enforce laws that fit their ideology. Radfems believe that they are the ultimate arbiters of feminism, and that therefore any woman who does not agree with them is either deluded about the patriarchy or consciously participating in her own oppression. Therefore, they have the right and the duty to tell other women what they can and should think and do.
For example: they did some really EXCELLENT theoretical work on the exploitation of women inherent in the sex industry, both pornography and prostitution. About the ways in which our culture devalues women’s bodies and uses them as articles of consumption for men. Well and good. But when women who work in the sex industry, both porn stars and prostitutes, point out their limited economic choices and why they and women like them don’t always have better options, radfems do not listen. To a radfem, a woman in the sex industry is either a blameless victim, or an oppressor who betrays your own people. Because of this, not only have radfems endorsed laws created by the Religious Right (blech), they have doxxed sex workers and former sex workers who publicly disagree with them. Including at least one case where a radfem sent a woman’s current location to her former pimp. This is why radfems are sometimes called SWERFs, Sex-Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
Also, radfems got the ball rolling in the 70s and 80s talking about gender and how we should abolish gender roles. But they also believe that men/males are the root of all evil. Therefore, any transman is betraying their sisters by joining the oppressive patriarchy, and any transwoman is a “man” who is trying to infiltrate women’s spaces. Thus radfems have doxxed transpeople, signed on to bathroom bills, consistently deadname and misgender them, and done a variety of other transphobic things. This is why radfems are sometimes called TERFs, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
But yes, a whole heaping helping of respectability politics, just with THEM as the ultimate arbiters of what “respectable” (or rather, “a good feminist”) looks like.
This is a great summary of radical feminism and how it turns into anti-kink, SWERFs, TERFs, and exclusionism in general.
Tag: feminism
“The low-maintenance woman, the ideal woman, has no appetite. This is not to say that she refuses food, sex, romance, emotional effort; to refuse is petulant, which is ironically more demanding. The woman without appetite politely finishes what’s on her plate, and declines seconds. She is satisfied and satisfiable.
A man’s appetite can be hearty, but a woman with an appetite is always voracious: her hunger always overreaches, because it is not supposed to exist. If she wants food, she is a glutton. If she wants sex, she is a slut. If she wants emotional care-taking, she is a high-maintenance bitch or, worse, an “attention whore”: an amalgam of sex-hunger and care-hunger, greedy not only to be fucked and paid but, most unforgivably of all, to be noticed.”
and that’s the tea folks
This is such an interesting dissection of a very common trope in writing female characters that I never really thought about before, but it’s so prevalent and so obvious and so fucking disgusting.
(Source: https://www.youtube.com/)
it was really heartening to learn that the purpose of creating such a thick uterine lining during the menstrual period was to prevent the implantation of embryos rather than encourage them, and that our uterus is basically flushing out anything it deems unworthy during the period itself rather than “punishing” us for not being pregnant (which is how it’s usually framed). it’s almost as if your female body is more concerned with the protection and continuation of itself rather than being used as a procreative vessel.
the fact that we’ve come to accept the idea that our reproductive organs are punishing us for not being continuously pregnant is proof of how deeply patriarchal brainwashing has convinced women that we are nothing but broodmares for ‘their’ children.
Oh wow. Damn.
@ the ladies
wouldn’t it be cool if we could like… be ugly… but then…. not be considered subhuman for it
I have written in long detail about my issues with “everyone is beautiful” and this text post summarizes it in 18 words
Please tell me, what facts do feminist have that prove they don’t have equal rights
You clearly need The Womansplainer
I recommend the “Let me Google that for you” for $20. Check out her Question menu, she has already anticipated your question!
I have to admit I’m jealous of The Womansplainer for coming up with this idea.
This is transcendent and filled with light.
For all the sea lions in your comments.
Don’t confused ‘oppression’ with ‘first world problems’, it’s a rookie error among feminists.
Wow, okay buddy, you’re BEGGING for a takedown here.
First world problems? Not a thing. People who say shit like “first world problems” are massive racist, imperialist, dismissive assholes.
If you’re ever tempted to say “first world problems,” do me a favor, and pull down a map. Tell me EXACTLY where the “third world” is. Make sure you correctly identify Switzerland as part of the third world, and Turkey as part of the First World. Don’t forget that Djibouti is a part of the first world.
Literally sit down and learn what “third world” means and why people from nonwestern nations think it’s a total bullshit term.
Second: you think people in the so-called third world don’t care about shit like makeup, and love, and technology? You think they don’t care about internet harassment? You think women over there don’t care about street harassment? You think they don’t care about fashion and clothes? You think they don’t care about music and video games?
Because THEY DO.
Right now, there is a woman in burundi teaching herself how to do a cut-crease eyeshadow look. Guaranteed.
“Third world” nations have fashion shows and fashion magazines. They care about street harassment. They care about the internet. They play video games. They know more about anime than your sorry ass every will. And the idea of “first world problems,” which makes it sound like all women in “third world” nations are dealing with starvation, rape, war, acid attacks etc.
Is bullshit.
Rank.
Bullshit.
Women in Iran spend shitloads of money on makeup. Women in the DRC don’t just care about rape. Rape – the ONE THING westerners can be expected to know about women in Congo-Kinshasa – ranks NUMBER FOUR on the list of issues women in Congo want addressed. Political participation is number 1. Economic empowerment is number 2. Women in India are passionate about information technology, and you know what they hate? Coming to the United States, where Indian women in STEM are suddenly considered LESS GOOD than their male colleagues. My friends in Senegal taught ME how to download movies off the internet. Zimbabwe has a fashion week.
As Teju Coal points out:
“I don’t like this expression “First World problems.” It is false and it is condescending. Yes, Nigerians struggle with floods or infant mortality. But these same Nigerians also deal with mundane and seemingly luxurious hassles. Connectivity issues on your BlackBerry, cost of car repair, how to sync your iPad, what brand of noodles to buy: Third World problems. All the silly stuff of life doesn’t disappear just because you’re black and live in a poorer country. People in the richer nations need a more robust sense of the lives being lived in the darker nations. Here’s a First World problem: the inability to see that others are as fully complex and as keen on technology and pleasure as you are.
One event that illustrated the gap between the Africa of conjecture and the real Africa was the BlackBerry outage of a few weeks ago. Who would have thought Research In Motion’s technical issues would cause so much annoyance and inconvenience in a place like Lagos? But of course it did, because people don’t wake up with “poor African” pasted on their foreheads. They live as citizens of the modern world. None of this is to deny the existence of social stratification and elite structures here. There are lifestyles of the rich and famous, sure. But the interesting thing about modern technology is how socially mobile it is—quite literally. Everyone in Lagos has a phone.”
95% of the people who use bullshit expressions like “First world problems” have NO IDEA what life is like for people in the so-called third world. You just like sitting there derailing.
And for the record? As a white, western feminist, DAMN RIGHT I concentrate on issues in the United States. Because when white western feminists try to “save” women outside the west? We do a SHIT job of it. We’re the ones who bowl over actual congolese women, and what THEY want, and say that the #1 issue affecting them is rape. We become arms of the imperialist patriarchal complex.
Classic example: the guy who was ruling Egypt for the British got british feminists to help him in his anti-headscarf campaign in Egypt. Why did he hate headscarves? Because he wanted to *break the spirit* of Egyptians. Not because he gave a shit about women’s rights.
How do I know that?
Because he was the head of the anti-women’s-suffrage group in England.When women who live outside the west do awesome things, I will signal-boost them, and I will do whatever they think I can do to help. But I follow their lead. Because these are THEIR issues, and THEY know what matters to them. Not me.
FINALLY: My problems are not trivial. My problems are not bullshit. My problems are not to be dismissed with your racist, imperialist logic. Dress codes and makeup and music and books and video games MATTER. They matter to me. They matter to my life.
So fuck you.
And fuck your assumptions.
And maybe consider that YOUR first world problem?
Is that you can’t “see that others are as fully complex and as keen on technology and pleasure as you are.”::stands up and applauds this response::
Have I blogged this before? Still bears repeating.
I’m????
Oh my God this actually explains so much.
So there’s a known thing in the study of human psychology/sociology/what-have-you where men are known to, on average, rely entirely on their female romantic partner for emotional support. Bonding with other men is done at a more superficial level involving fun group activities and conversations about general subjects but rarely involves actually leaning on other men or being really honest about emotional problems. Men use alcohol to be able to lower their inhibitions enough to expose themselves emotionally to other men, but if you can’t get emotional support unless you’re drunk, you have a problem.
So men need to have a woman in their lives to have anyone they can share their emotional needs and vulnerabilities with. However, since women are not socialized to fear sharing these things, women’s friendships with other women are heavily based on emotional support. If you can’t lean on her when you’re weak, she’s not your friend. To women, what friendship is is someone who listens to all your problems and keeps you company.
So this disconnect men are suffering from is that they think that only a person who is having sex with you will share their emotions and expect support. That’s what a romantic partner does. But women think that’s what a friend does. So women do it for their romantic partners and their friends and expect a male friend to do it for them the same as a female friend would. This fools the male friend into thinking there must be something romantic there when there is not.
This here is an example of patriarchy hurting everyone. Women have a much healthier approach to emotional support – they don’t die when widowed at nearly the rate that widowers die and they don’t suffer emotionally from divorce nearly as much even though they suffer much more financially, and this is because women don’t put all their emotional needs on one person. Women have a support network of other women. But men are trained to never share their emotions except with their wife or girlfriend, because that isn’t manly. So when she dies or leaves them, they have no one to turn to to help with the grief, causing higher rates of death, depression, alcoholism and general awfulness upon losing a romantic partner.
So men suffer terribly from being trained in this way. But women suffer in that they can’t reach out to male friends for basic friendship. I am not sure any man can comprehend how heartbreaking it is to realize that a guy you thought was your friend was really just trying to get into your pants. Friendship is real. It’s emotional, it’s important to us. We lean on our friends. Knowing that your friend was secretly seething with resentment when you were opening up to him and sharing your problems because he felt like he shouldn’t have to do that kind of emotional work for anyone not having sex with him, and he felt used by you for that reason, is horrible. And the fact that men can’t share emotional needs with other men means that lots of men who can’t get a girlfriend end up turning into horrible misogynistic people who think the world owes them the love of a woman, like it’s a commodity… because no one will die without sex. Masturbation exists. But people will die or suffer deep emotional trauma from having no one they can lean on emotionally. And men who are suffering deep emotional trauma, and have been trained to channel their personal trauma into rage because they can’t share it, become mass shooters, or rapists, or simply horrible misogynists.
The only way to fix this is to teach boys it’s okay to love your friends. It’s okay to share your needs and your problems with your friends. It’s okay to lean on your friends, to hug your friends, to be weak with your friends. Only if this is okay for boys to do with their male friends can this problem be resolved… so men, this one’s on you. Women can’t fix this for you; you don’t listen to us about matters of what it means to be a man. Fix your own shit and teach your brothers and sons and friends that this is okay, or everyone suffers.
The next time a guy says, “What? You don’t want to be my friend?” I’ll text him this and then ask if he really wants to be friends or just have another potential girlfriend.
y’all I am living for these analyses where the new way to fight the patriarchy is to teach men to love each other and themselves
Im a communication student and can confirm the above is absolutely 100% accurate and it’s called agentic vs communal friendship theorized by Steven McCornack
“My female boss is mean to me at work” is not the same thing as centuries of institutionalized, systemic discrimination. If “beautiful women can get whatever they want,” then why haven’t we elected one president yet? “Sexism against both genders is wrong” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what sexism is. Any individual of any gender can be prejudiced or discriminate on a face-to-face level, but only one gender faces the glass ceiling, the ongoing, legalized regulation of their bodies, the significant wage gap for doing the same type of work, the deeply-engrained and consistently reinforced stereotypes about their being less aggressive, less capable and less intelligent, and countless other obstacles.
“American women, without exception, are socialized to be racist, classist and sexist, in varying degrees, and … labeling ourselves feminists does not change the fact that we must consciously work to rid ourselves of the legacy of negative socialization.”
— bell hooks
i'll apple your turnover 