Log in

No account? Create an account

Petition! (is only the beginning)


me starting a campaign to try and get roger's communications from selling porn--porn that is overtly racist, misogynist, pedophilic, rapist, etc.

please sign and spread the word!

in the case of pro-porners and/or pro-sadopatriarchs (pro-"bdsmers") finding this, read: http://community.livejournal.com/_feminism/59030.html, before commenting. chances are, it's already been addressed. let's save each other the hassle.

New community: radfem activist

Yes, now you too can educate others on how to be a radfem activist! _allecto_, dis_senter, y'all already have the invitations; go to "Manage Your Invites" under "Communities" and accept. The rest of you, go join. It's not quite up yet, but that doesn't mean we can't post things.

Needed topics:
How to make a pamphlet
How to set up a meeting
How to set up a women's space
How to analyse your privilege (for men and whites)
How to find a shelter to volunteer at (should be friendslocked)
How to arrange a Take Back The Night rally
How to set up a protest
How to become a clinic escort
How to run for the government (!!!)

And if you have anything pertaining to these topics:
Women's projects to donate money to
Women's projects to donate time to
Women's projects to start in your own community (which will also be how-to topics),

Send your email and the information about the project/shelter/women's space to my public email at herosfanatic@hotmail.com


Some Questions

.. So I'm back from Germany (it was great, duh) and I've been getting into feminist discussions lyk woah and I have these two question-sets for y'all strong, beautiful women out there.

Free choice set:

1. Is free choice possible? (Or, how do you define free choice?)
2. Why is free choice possible/impossible?
3. What would you consider an "acceptably free choice"?
4. Other notes?

Beauty set:

1. How do you see beauty as defined by the larger culture? - How does your "subculture" (location, music scene, political group, etc.) define beauty? - How do these intersect and interact?
2. How do you define beauty, and how is it different/the same than the larger culture? - What physical aspects are beautiful? - What personality aspects are beautiful?
3. What are your thoughts on beauty in general? (I know, extremely broad.)


Transwomen and women only spaces

The following is an email I wrote a while ago about transwomen and women's space. I also want to write some more about the anti-feminism of words like cisgender and ciswomen but I don't have the time right now. I realise this following opinion could be considered 'transphobic'. Well, to be honest I am deeply afraid of the surgical regulation of gender. I am deeply afraid of the impact of the increasing push towards transexuality and what it means for lesbianism and lesbian feminism. There are women out there who have been bullied into surgery by the male supremacist doctors simply because they were attracted to women. This is real. This is happening. They are trying to erase lesbianism through transsexuality.

Anyway this is the email I wrote about transwomen and women only spaces.

Men and women who go through transsexual surgery do not end up as a member of the opposite sex, they merely end up being mutilated: physically, emotionally and psychologically. Like others here have said I do not put the emphasis of blame on the transsexual but rather I blame the patriarchs: the ones who commit the crimes of this patriarchal mutilation. Namely, the doctors, the surgeons, the therapists (the/rapists).

However, although I see men who have been mutilated as being victims of the crime of medical mutilation I do not think that the fact of their oppression should be a reason to allow them into women only spaces. I, like many other radical feminists, believe that women only space is sacred space. I do not think that women benefit from inviting men into that space, regardless of whether they are mutilated or not. Although not all transwomen continue to be agents of women’s oppression after their mutilation, many do, and this is something that worries me. There are many, many examples of transwomen trying to muscle in on sacred women’s spaces and this is not acceptable. The fact that transwomen get the support of the queer community and some sections of the lesbian feminist and radical feminist communities worries me greatly.

Why would women who claim to be for women support the rights of mutilated men over the rights of women? This is an anti-feminist action and I will not shy from naming it as such.

Lastly, yes there are many things that need our attention as feminists and I would argue that the attempts by the patriarchal medical institutions to regulate sex and gender by creating the mental illness: gender dysphoria and treating that illness with medical mutilation, I would argue very loudly that this is an absolutely pivotal issue for us as feminists. As feminists, it is we who have sent the loudest and most consistent message to the patriarchs that gender is of their making and that it is something that we are going to topple because the fact that men are made into men by dehumanising and making women into women is the biggest reason that our planet is now faced with destruction.

I have heard that in some parts of the US transsexuality is being used to ‘treat’ lesbianism. This does not surprise me. But it is horrifying to me as a woman and as a lesbian. I think that in the current conservative climate it is absolutely possible that gender will be increasingly regulated here. I work with children and I am consistently dismayed by how often I come across evidence that parents are regulating their child’s gender. If transsexual surgery and medicalised gender intervention becomes more common in Australia I absolutely believe that there is a danger that children will become increasingly targeted. Perhaps I am too cynical.

Thinking about this makes me want to write about appropriation. I would argue that the act of transitioning is an act of appropriation. This is not a new or recent phenomenon. Men have been appropriating women’s work, passion, creativity, sisterhood for thousands of years, why they hell would they stop now? So thinking about it this way, men believing that they can become women, appropriating, or at least attempting to appropriate our womanhood, is itself a violative act.

Men make other men into ‘women’ and force real women to accept them as such. Men name other men ‘women’ and force real women to accept them as such. Women are not the ones that control this process. We are the ones that are having mutilated men appropriating our name and our culture. And then we are told that we cannot speak against it. More than that we are told that we must accept their idea of what it is to be a woman and that the male idea of a woman can be surgically constructed.

As women we know that men’s idea/ideal of a woman is constructed. We have been fighting against this patriarchal construction for thousands of years. Of course, men believe that they can construct women surgically but I for one will not be participating in that particular delusion. I will call it what it is; whether they do it with or without consent to male or female or intersexed bodies: mutilation.

And men who pretend to wear our bodies, men who pretend that they can cut off dick in their heads as easily as cut off the dick on their bodies, men who do these things and name themselves and are named by other men as women, I accuse these men of committing a violative act of appropriation. Appropriation has never stopped being an act of colonisation.

As feminists we know that letting men cut off bits of us has only ever served to make us less whole. Men who have submitted or have been forced to submit to transsexual surgery have been made less whole. That does not make them women.


The questions:

What does consent mean in a Patriarchal society?

What does empowerment mean in a Patriarchal society?

Can pornography be consensual?

My answer to the third (and I'll tie the other two in here in a moment) is no - that pornography is antithetical to consent. Why? Because consent must be given on a case-by-case basis - considering the mass media dissemination we have now, there is no possible way to do that with pornography, though there was little in any case. With pornography, the women (who have typically been the "centerpiece" of pornography - much like a dead turkey is at the centerpiece of the (American) TG table) have traditionally been the ones stripped of their right to consent, or to consent to all participants - and that's a cryin' shame and, well, flat-out wrong.

But, I think, even if a woman does consent to having sex with one or more men, she can't give her consent to each of the others to watch her having sex. You know? I'm having trouble explaining this here..

Basically, when consent is taken for granted, bad things happen - consent must be given each and every single time. It doesn't need to be verbal consent (though, I think, that should be required for people who have known each other less than six months to a year), but there needs to be some kind of consent that is not just implied by money or the viewer.


Transwomen & Radical Feminism

I witnessed part of the trainwreck that was the feminist mods' response to two situations (ask demonista for more) that reaffirmed my decision to never, ever join that comm. But, as these things tend to do, it made me think some - and I came up with this question:

Why is differentiating experiences between two groups (particularly when one group wants to identify as the other), such as ciswomen and transwomen, so offensive?

My hesitant, still-tentative answer is that (using the example given above, as that was one of the situations), when you feel you've suffered so very much by not being held as belonging to the category of women, it's offensive to you for ciswomen to say "sorry, not the same." (And I know that the radfem response is a very modified version of that, bear with me.) It's the corollary to the Slavery/Animal Agribusiness stuff, and I think that basic reaction is where many non-radfems' minds jump to when they see ANYONE questioning transwomen, accusing the radfem of doing it: "We've suffered WAY more than you! Shove off! Find your own social movement!"

That's part of what it is, I think - I think it also has to do with the idea that's so ingrained in our society: that different = lesser. We see this all the time with human-nonhuman relations; they're different from us, so they must be inferior to us. Meanwhile, non-radfems, pro-civil rights people get up in arms about us saying that transwomen's experience is just different than ciswomen's - not that their suffering is lesser, not that their suffering is greater, just that it has been different - is because they think that different = lesser.

What do y'all think? I'm still constructing my thoughts on this.

Young radical feminists (35 or younger)

I'm going to compile an informal listing of radfems under 35 (born post-1970) because academia (or as Mary Daly would say: academentia) thinks or hopes us folk are going the way of the dinosaur.

So if you're a rad fem born 1970 or later, could I get a comment? Just give your username, or a nickname, or your real name. And if you know any authors, singers, activists, etc. who are radfem and under 35, could you give us their name. And maybe a little bio for both categories if you like, or a wee manifesto or whatnot.  And do you/your rad fems you list identify as 2nd or 3rd wave?

This is not meant to belittle older radfems in any wany, shape, or form. They're more than welcome to comment too, but please state you're older than 35, so i don't count you as a "young" rad fem.

Also, please post this other rad fem/feminist communities, blogs, etc. Let's get this thang going!


Time to press the baked tofu*

*The vegan version of "beating a dead horse".

A quote from this article stuck out at me:

"Levy spent about three years interviewing everyone from the female TV exec who green-lighted a stripper documentary to the actual college girls accommodating the camera crews on spring break, and she kept getting the same response: Chill out! We're just celebrating female sexuality.

What rankles [Ariel Levy] is the fact that this new celebration looks remarkably like the old exploitation, except that now the women insist they are "in" on it - even women she respects."

Apply this to BDSM. BDSM, without "consent", is spousal abuse, which used to be routine and sanctioned by the mainstream. And I've heard many accounts -- and lived one -- where the former participants said that essentially, the abuse was being internalised even more, that it was killing their self-esteem and that they "got off" on being abused. Most of these people had been abused earlier in life. So, even despite proclamations of consent, that brings up the questions:

Why do women engage themselves in this? What does it mean to consent freely? Can we ever get that sort of a consent from women in a society that basically "teaches" (read: abuses) them from the time they're in diapers? How could we reformulate society so that this is possible? What do we do for the women who have been inculcated into "enjoying" abuse already?

Discuss. :)

Booklist: Oppressed Races

I actually don't know any of these, which shames me greatly. Post here so I can learn!

Book List: Feminism

Transforming a Rape Culture, edited by Buchwald, Fletcher, and Roth
The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf
Can't Buy My Love by Jean Kilbourne
The Body Myth by Margo Maine, M.D., and Joe Kelly
The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
The Pornography of Meat by Carol J. Adams
Intercourse by Andrea Dworkin
Scapegoat by Andrea Dworkin
Our Blood by Andrea Dworkin
Pornography: Men Possessing Women by Andrea Dworkin
Pornified by Pamela Paul
Not For Sale: Feminists Resisting Prostitution and Pornography by Christine Stark and Rebecca Whisnant
Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy

Add here.


Hunting: teardropdangel
'I'm a radical feminist. Not the fun kind."

Latest Month

April 2008