understanding the fringe
As someone who has always considered themselves a feminist, and quite radical by persuasion, I was surprised to discover that there’s a lot about some parts of ‘radical feminism’ I find illogical and potentially harmful. In the last few weeks I’ve been exploring some of those issues: discussing similarities with extreme religions; looking at the unscientific negation of any kind of gender expression; querying the tendency to malign all men.
I was still left feeling mildly confused about exactly where this subgroup of radical feminism pulls its theories. I’ve read some deeply tragic personal stories that help me understand where some of the fear and bitterness comes from, but I couldn’t understand where the ‘academic’ element could slot in with anecdotes. I couldn’t understand how conclusions not rooted in reality, words so very far from seeking equality for all humans, could gain any kind of traction.
Pink helped me out with this link to Rational Wiki, which, for me, has made sense of this entire group. Here’s a quote from one section:
TERFs have been known to collaborate with the Religious Right. Notable instances include Cathy Brennan’s collaboration with the Pacific Justice Institute in order to harass a trans woman via death threats, and generally acting as their mouthpiece;[20] and when Sheila Jeffreys said she aligned with the “radical right” regarding transgender legislation.[21]
Their particular transphobic rhetoric also owes a lot to wingnut homophobia in its structure, showcasing the same homosexuality-as-a-choice; when Jeffreys noticed RadFem2012 was cancelled and labelled a hate group, she said:[22] (emphasis added)
Criticism of the practice of transgenderism is being censored as a result of a campaign of vilification by transgender activists of anyone who does not accept the new orthodoxy on this issue.
The bolded part is eerily similar to what the radical right have said about homosexuality; specifically, it resembles a quote about such by neo-Nazi Paul Fromm:[Note 8] gender identity as choice instead of something a person is, as well as a massive persecution complex.
But, I’m very much aware there are two sides to every story.
Two buddies in my blogging network subscribe to this branch of radical feminism, and I’d like to hear their thoughts on whether the opinions presented on the Rational Wiki page are accurate. I’ve been following some of the people in wider blogging networks who also subscribe to this branch of radical feminism, and I’d be interested to hear their thoughts on this also.
So, Roughseas, The Arbourist, stop trans chauvinism, Anti-Porn Feminists, Purple Sage – and anyone else who is interested – is the Rational Wiki page linked to above a fair representation of the issues or are there any statements you feel are inaccurate? It would be interesting to have your input.
Oh, OK, I thought, until your last paragraph, which makes me run away in terror and boredom. I cannot be bothered with the attacks. “Transwomen are Rapists!”- er, how?
LikeLike
Last paragraph? You mean the inclusion of some of those blogs? I’d be interested to know if they all share the same viewpoint, if they’re willing to discuss it. I’d also be interested to know if they relate to the Rational Wiki page or would take issue with any of it.
But I suspect the ones who are open about their views won’t find my blog a ‘safe space’ to air them, and the ones who like to fudge the issues won’t want to discuss it in detail. I hope I’m wrong as I think it would be a useful discussion.
LikeLike
Did you read purplesage boasting about spamming Merv? They don’t like argument.
Should I be excluded? Yes; I am a man. No; I am a harmless weirdo. It goes into huge detail, over a wide number of questions and issues, but that is the nub of it. It is unanswerable: it is a choice,, not an argument.
LikeLike
Oh my goodness, just clicked back to that purplesage post. The comments are simply unbelievable. Who’s Merv?
Maybe I’ll become a lesbian excluding feminist – I bet they exist. I’ll google them later.
LikeLike
Merv is Mr Merveilleux.
Lesbian-excluding feminists are more 90s, so more difficult to google: there are fewer of them now; and the editor of Diva magazine uses their example as a reason for supporting trans inclusion. Did you follow my links to Prof. Sara Ahmed, lesbian feminist: Trans women are willful women; women who have to insist on being women, who have to keep insisting, again and again, often in the face of violent and repeated acts of misgendering…an anti-trans stance is an anti-feminist stance; it is against the feminist project of creating worlds to support those for whom gender fatalism (boys will be boys, girls will be girls) is fatal; a sentencing to death. I don’t think you could tempt her here, but her blog is worth a look.
Some of the TERFs are lesbians, horrified at the idea of us calling ourselves lesbian; a lot of them are straight.
LikeLike
So they do exist! Everything exists, I guess. I subscribed to Sara’s blog but the posts are a bit long for my attention span (oh, the shame…)
Are we calling him Merv? He’ll always be Pink to me. Or Mr Marvellous when he’s really annoying me. 😉
LikeLike
What? I’m lost… I’m Merv?
LikeLike
I like Pink, btw. Is this something to do with the fact that the radfems who were annoying me on twitter all deleted their accounts afterwards? Or that RS has taken one of her blogs private?
It’s all looking a bit fishy at this point.
LikeLike
I didn’t hear about the Twitter action, deary me. I saw the Clouds had gone private and assumed it had happened when I wasn’t looking – was that part of this? There’s nothing fishy, she’ll just want to make it a safe feminist space (much in common with an echo chamber, but understandable if she wants to discuss personal/painful issues).
LikeLike
I’m not sure if you clicked on the name Cathy Brennan- but in case you didn’t I recommend you do:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cathy_Brennan
If you scroll down you’ll see she has no less than 10 twitter profiles, and 10 websites- all promoting some variety of anti-trans sentiment.
Nut job doesn’t begin to describe her: “In June 2012, the feminist group Oakland Occupy Patriarchy began organizing a protest of police harassment of sex workers. Brennan pitched a fit and claimed to have called the FBI on them.”
There’s no way around the fact they’re a group promoting an ideology of exclusion- and they’re doing that using classical sexist techniques: People being worth more or less, having or not having a or b rights *because* of their sex.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure how much I trust Rational Wiki after trying to click on some basic links to what I thought would be sources backing up what was said. For instance, I can’t find a link to that letter to the UN – that should be pretty basic, shouldn’t it?
But you’re right, it is an ideology of exclusion. It baffles me beyond belief that they can’t see parallels in the exclusion of gay people and the arguments used there.
LikeLike
Like wikipedia… sometimes links go bust, but here’s the letter to the UN:
http://sexnotgender.com/gender-identity-legislation-and-the-erosion-of-sex-based-legal-protections-for-females/2012-submission-to-the-un-commission-on-the-status-of-women-the-legal-category-of-sex-and-understanding-the-status-of-women/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s more detail and links to the original Brennan/Hungerford letter and their position: http://genderidentitywatch.com/frequently-asked-questions-about-brennan-hungerfords-un-submission-re-gender-identity-legislation/
LikeLike
Hi, thanks for the link VW. It’s such a big subject that I’m sure we could discuss this for quite a while. I have a fair bit on my ‘to do’ list so I’ll make a brief comment now and hope to return.
Stop Trans Chauvinism is a posting collective that doesn’t just include radical feminists, but also marxists and ‘no specialized alignment’. Atheists and witches. We cover a broad range of commentary relating to transgenderism, including that put out by gender-critical trans people.
I think whether or not someone has a thoughtful critique to be made of a politic can partly be seen in how they attempt to undertake it. Do they put time into ensuring they understand its main analyses? Or do they attempt to take it down by focussing on one or two figures. Because we all know that any political movement, no matter how valid, has amongst it figures that can more easily be criticized. (Although I’ll note that the Rational Wiki piece linked to above makes a lot of claims whose references just lead to more unsupported claims.)
I’ll try remembering to check back in later, and hopefully we can discuss some of the major concerns and themes of gender abolitionism some more.
LikeLike
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I think you make a valid point about Rational Wiki. I was just checking out the link that Pink left on the Cathy Brennan entry and couldn’t find any reasonable sources backing up what was said. But, bearing that in mind, was there anything about the TERF entry that you find objectionable, or does it pretty much sum up your outlook on feminism and gender?
LikeLike
Which claims in particular do you believe can be refuted?
LikeLike
As I suggested earlier, a rigorous approach to analysing a politic doesn’t involve focussing on a couple of individuals involved in a movement.
What is more pertinent (unless you believe gender abolitionist feminism is unlike other liberatory movements and must have only members with pristine records to be supported) is what the major trends are.
Transactivism, for instance, is pushed by numerous capitalist states, and has been for some time. Especially by those with very homophobic and anti-abortion practices. It has massive sponsorship from Big Pharma and the psych profession. Many of its participants are Republicans and gun industry promoters. Some are MRAs. None of which can be said about gender abolitionist feminism. (And that’s without even getting into the threats and intimidation by many transactivists towards GA feminists, which simply are not mirrored in the other direction.)
So, given all that, I won’t be drawn into believing it’s my job (or useful) to discuss refuting claims which haven’t even been proven. I’m concerned about discussing the broader trends here.
LikeLike
LOL. Are you serious? The underlying backbone of your ideology is that people should be reduced to their sex at birth. And then you form a hierarchical structure based on that.
It’s patriarchy all over again.
As for Brennan, how is she not representative of your group?
All the ideas she’s pushing seem to be perfectly aligned with your ideology.
LikeLike
I hadn’t said anything about Cathy Brennan’s views. You were the one trying to narrow the conversation onto her, as though your stance depended upon it.
In any case, I invite anyone to peruse our wordpress site and Facebook page. The culture is to discuss who women are and what we do without first checking with us: the narrative about us is regarded as such a concrete reality that this is regarded as unnecessary. To such an extent that quite ridiculous myths about what GA feminists support continue to circulate, even where they have published numerous works which make their views ultra clear. (Revealing that their critics are far keener on pounding their chests about them than they are on doing even the most cursory reading of their work.)
It will become clear that our emphasis is on divesting women from sex stereotypes and the male predation and general sexist treatment that these stereotypes enable. As we frequently say: women are more than our biology, but not less than it.
I will reference some recent posts we’ve made on our FB page:
Sheila Jeffreys writes
‘The inferior sex caste status of women is assigned with reference to their biology, and it is through their biology that their subordination is enforced and maintained through rape, impregnation, and forced childbearing.’
Germaine Greer writes
‘A woman’s body is the battlefield where she fights for liberation. It is through her body that oppression works, reifying her, sexualizing her, victimizing her, disabling her. Her physicality is a medium for others to work on; her job is to act as their viceroy, presenting her body for their ministrations, and applying to her body the treatments that have been ordained. If she refuses to present herself, if she refuses to accept the treatments, she is behaving badly.’
Transwoman Miranda Yardley writes
‘The proposed movement towards a system based on a self-declaration of gender identity is a fundamental shift in the definition of the words “men” and “women.”
‘In effect, what is a “man” or a “woman” is redefined and is no longer be based on objective reality. Instead we define men and women based upon sexist stereotypes.
‘Even if “woman” is redefined in the way the report suggests, female people will still be subjected to male violence, rape, reproductive control, child marriage, female genital mutilation etc.
‘Nobody can identify their way out of biology, yet women will be robbed of the language to describe the social reality inscribed upon their female biology.
‘The concept of single-sex services, facilities and organisations will disappear, as access to these spaces will now be based on gender identity.
‘Without sex-based protection, women will no longer have the right to define their own boundaries, yet the very reasons they may wish to do so are obviously not going to disappear.
‘Much of the real-world discussion around transgender matters is one-sided. Scientific and medical evidence is sidelined in favour of ideology.
‘Transgender activists refuse to even define what it means to be transgender. Debate is shut down with authoritarian rhetoric such as “transwomen are women” and “we will not discuss our right to exist.”
‘The right to exist and the right to redefine language are not the same — surely women have a say in the debate over what the word “woman” means? More to the point, surely we could have a debate over what the word “man” means?’
If gender abolitionist feminism involves “reducing women to their sex at birth”, then so does lactivism, home birth activism, abortion rights activism and so on.
LikeLike
You’ve just gone on to confirm everything I’ve said. But let’s take it part by part; and let me also suggest that spam style information bombing like your last comment is hardly effective. It’s also tiresome. You’re not convincing anyone of anything by copy/pasting regurgitated points of view, most of which have already been thoroughly debunked.
1. “I hadn’t said anything about Cathy Brennan’s views. You were the one trying to narrow the conversation onto her, as though your stance depended upon it.”
-Not at all. I simply used her as an example of the ideology and methods of your group. Nothing I said rested on her identity alone. Although you’re trying to manipulate the situation to create that false impression. Utterly dishonest attempt, at that.
2. “The culture is to discuss who women are and what we do without first checking with us.”
-Fascinating. That’s the ultimate in hypocrisy. Society can’t define your group without *checking with you*, but your group is free to define other groups without *checking with them*? You get to define what sex and gender is unilaterally, for everyone. Thanks so much, but I personally don’t need you to decide for me. I imagine few people need you to tell them what they are and how they should or shouldn’t live it.
3. “women are more than our biology, but not less than it.”
-That’s the ultimate in sophistry. Back in the real world it actually means: We can use sexism how and when it suits us. We get to pick and choose what varieties of sexism are acceptable.
What you don’t say is that *No Variety of Sexism* is acceptable- and that’s one of the reasons this fringe movement is a failure. The other more obvious reason is that since the enlightenment we’ve known that for arguments to survive scrutiny they can’t be applied selectively. All citizens are equal except A, B and C falls flat on its face (Jim Crow, anyone?) It’s the equivalent to a black person saying they don’t want race being taken into account unless it gives them some sort of special status in the (traditional social) hierarchy.
LikeLike
Dude, you have no idea what an idiot you are. You’re embarrassing yourself.
LikeLike
Another one with the “dude”? Is that part of TERF language?
People can verify everything I said. I welcome them to do that and make their minds up for themselves.
LikeLike
“Dude, you have no idea what an idiot you are. You’re embarrassing yourself.”
I’m assuming a 12-year-old got hold of the keyboard at that point. Surely that’s not the same person having a sensible(ish) discussion above!?
LikeLike
Violet, could you do me a HUGE favour and do that IP check… like we did for the askthebigot people? 😀
Looking at the comments (here and on twitter) I’m noticing some interesting patterns. One of which is I’ve rarely been referred to as *dude* in my almost 38 years of life. In the past week every TERF I’ve dealt with not only called me dude, but used the same sort of “talking points” answers. I’m not sure yet, but if Brennan operates multiple websites and multiple twitter accounts- what’s to say another single individual isn’t behind all these answers we’re getting?
LikeLike
Loving the new name! As to the ‘favour’, absolutely no way.
LikeLike
@Mr.M
‘dude’ – in feminist circles, shorthand for aggressive entitled men – usually ones fond of explaining to women how they should do feminism.
That it’s coming from many sources is indicative of the veracity of the label. 🙂
So, it isn’t a conspiracy as much as confirmation of particular role.
LikeLike
Thanks for all the additional information.
“The culture is to discuss who women are and what we do without first checking with us”
I’m not clear who ‘us’ is here. It seems like some small groups of women have got together, women who are outliers in terms of gender expression and women who have had seriously bad experiences with men, and they have agreed between them exclusively what being a woman is, and how they want society to change based on their unrepresentative sample. Do you think that’s a possible explanation?
I’ve always considered myself an outlier in many respects, confused by many of the typical things that women are supposed to enjoy. I’m embarrassed to say I used to feel a sense of superiority that I was ‘better’ than the women who spent time on their appearance, read nonsense magazines and dressed in impractical clothes. I assumed they couldn’t think their way to my more sensible approach to life. But I’ve come to realise that people do gravitate towards things that make them comfortable – I didn’t gravitate towards those typically feminine things purely because I, as an individual, wasn’t interested.
Are we calling the majority of women who choose typically feminine interests stupid? Ignorant? That would be ridiculous. Most people are not physically geared for a gender free society, however nice the thought may be. And it’s not patriarchal brainwashing, it’s nature. Sure, there are lots of things about current gender roles that are harmful – for both sexes. Working on removing the weight of expectation that we should conform based on our biological sex is a starting point, and here I can see your project could do valuable work. But you seem to move beyond that, assuming that gender roles can eliminated. Where do you see that in any other animal species?
“Debate is shut down with authoritarian rhetoric such as “transwomen are women” and “we will not discuss our right to exist.””
I’m not sure how to respond to the suggestion that a group of people are being ridiculous to insist on their right to exist. What do you suggest trans people do with their lives? Live in misery because your even smaller group of people don’t like the fact that they exist and don’t think they should have an opinion on themselves? It simply doesn’t make sense. Feminism is an equality movement. We don’t seek equality by marginalising others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello.
These labels! I am indeed a Republican. Over here, that means I would prefer an elected President to the Queen and her family. However I am not a gun industry promoter. I am a pacifist.
Some trans women are Republicans in the US sense. Some are Democrats, in both British and US senses. That is because we are a diverse group of people, rather than a political ideology.
“Wipes the fingerprints”- why?
LikeLike
Oh, and-
I am in favour of the Nordic model. That, I understand, makes me a SWERF!
LikeLike
Oh please, enough with the exclusions …
LikeLike
I don’t think it is excluding, actually. It seeks to protect the most vulnerable sex workers. I will post on this.
LikeLike
I look forward to it. I’m sure ‘Excluding’ is in the acronym …
LikeLike
On a tangent – I just came across some interesting statistics that the anti-prostitution feminists seem to ignore.
Not sure where I read it, though I would guess on Arb’s blog, but someone was touting how Sweden is progressive in sexuality while tough on prostitution. I found that troubling as I believe sexual liberation with an increasingly limited availability of sexual outlets is a recipe for trouble.
Well, it seems that approach in Sweden has brought a high rape rate along with it. Surprise surprise.
http://culturemonk.com/2016/03/02/single-men-are-raping-women-at-staggering-rates-really/#comment-64130
LikeLike
Define sexual outlets.
LikeLike
sexual outlet = a way to achieve sexual satisfaction, which can sometimes require contact with another person. When one struggles with finding such contact after a long period of time without any, more extreme measures can be considered by some, and that is when rape is a higher risk.
If there are people willing to be paid to help assist others with this problem and it is legal transaction, that can help to reduce the risk of potential rape.
LikeLike
What’s wrong with masturbation?
LikeLike
Nothing wrong with it in general, but as an only option there is the problem of lack of contact with someone else that people tend to desire, especially in situations where they are having no luck in finding a partner to share a sexual experience with.
LikeLike
So by “sexual outlets” you really meant women willing to have sex.
Do you believe it is OK for men to use women as sexual toilets / outlets?
LikeLike
Absolutely not. The transaction should be fair to both parties involved. There can also be varying degrees of sexual experiences and varying gender combinations.
LikeLike
Are you a Christian, Jason, as your blog appears to suggest? If so, then how do you reconcile your support for prostitution and your view of sex as transaction with your Christian beliefs?
Religious considerations aside, a transactional view of sexuality, where the most intimate contact between two human beings is reduced to an exchange of ‘goods’ — another person and her (or his) body — for money or other forms of compensation is distinctly psychopathic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nope, not Christian, sorry!
Yes, sex can be quite intimate, but it can also be transactional. Should massages not be transactional? They can also be quite intimate.
Just because you prefer only intimate sex doesn’t mean that view should be forced upon everyone.
LikeLike
We are just talking here, nobody’s forcing anything on you. Do you feel that you are being forced?
Massage is not like sex and you know it. Or should.
If your co-worker tries to give you a shoulder rub, you probably wouldn’t object and may even welcome and like it. If he tries to penetrate you, your reaction may be different. (Or not; I’m just guessing based on the common human experience.)
That said, using other people as means to one’s ends — objects of one’s need / wish fulfillment, sexual and other — is dehumanizing and yes, decidedly psychopathic.
This is obvious to people with a conscience. It is not what I “prefer;” it is an objective fact. That you don’t want to hear it because it interferes with your personal agenda does not change it one bit.
Re: rape and prostitution stats from that other blog
Here is a map of Europe, color-coded to reflect rape statistics:
_Rape_rates_per_100000_population_2010-2012,_world.jpg)
Note that the prevalence of rape is greater in countries where prostitution is legal.
An aside: Now I will get personal.
I find it fascinating how easily and casually seemingly normal men reveal their inner psychopath when it comes to sex. Your language of “sexual outlets” betrayed it instantly and you did not even notice it, that’s how obvious it is to you that your (men’s) sexual needs trump women’s dignity and humanity.
When taken upon it, you predictably resort to the (psychopathic, but so cherished and plausible to moral relativists everywhere) rationalization of the mutual benefits of transactional sex and freedom of choices.
Instead of thinking through it, you keep insisting that your (men’s) need for sexual release must be accommodated by turning women into sexual outlets or else. Cuz men just can’t help themselves.
To oppose sex work is to oppose the opportunity to help those in need. And like any other prohibition, people find ways to get what they are after, often in even more destructive manners.
Translation:
To object to turning women into legal sexual outlets is to thwart men’s right of sexual release into those sexual outlets. Men will not put up with it, as their need for sexual release is more important than women’s humanity, dignity, and bodily autonomy. There will be violence.
And you put forth his profoundly egocentric — yes, psychopathic — argument not as a criticism of the roots of misogyny (that RF so well addresses), for example, but as something to be taken seriously and accommodated.
It is revealing, but not surprising. Such views are one of the reasons why we continue to need feminism (its radical bent and not the liberal/lifestyle kind where dehumanization = empowerfulment).
And now I’m done, with both the personal and objective portions of this exchange. None of what I said should be taken as forcing anything on you; you are free to disregard it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Note that the prevalence of rape is greater in countries where prostitution is legal.”
Where do you stand on legalising prostitution Emma? I’m not sure if you’re trying to suggest that legalising prostitution leads to worsening sexual objectification and sex crimes? My interpretation would be that countries that are sufficiently advanced to try and provide a legal and open framework for sex work probably have a better record for encouraging people to report sexual crimes. Selling sex is never going to disappear by keeping it illegal, it only drives it underground and minimises protection for the women caught up in it. One thing Jason has right is that we have to change our attitude towards women who are selling sex, so that they have a voice that is taken seriously and can take control of where they are.
LikeLike
The Swedish model that criminalizes johns and pimps while protecting women shows some, albeit limited and debatable, promise.
LikeLike
“That said, using other people as means to one’s ends — objects of one’s need / wish fulfillment, sexual and other — is dehumanizing and yes, decidedly psychopathic.”
Do you feel psychopathic whenever you choose to eat at a restaurant? It’s the same thing.
How is massage not like sex? Intercourse is a form of mutual massaging.
Where have I spoken out against women’s dignity and humanity? Women who choose to get into sex work should not be in the position of sacrificing their dignity and humanity. Do you automatically judge look down on women who choose lines of work that you don’t approve on?
Women shouldn’t be turned into sexual outlets. Why must you keep twisting my viewpoint to suit your agenda? People (not just women) should be free to profit from providing a safe sexual service. Do you not care about women’s humanity, dignity, and bodily autonomy?
In comparing the rape rate map you linked with the legality of prostitution map linked below, I see no clear correlation between prostitution legality and rape.
LikeLike
Women shouldn’t be turned into sexual outlets. Why must you keep twisting my viewpoint to suit your agenda?
What is my agenda, Jason?
Let me remind you that you used the term sexual outlets as a synonym for women willing to have sex.
LikeLike
How about you tell me what your agenda is and why you twist what I say in the directions you do? Do you want me to make assumptions about you as you do to me?
You might want to change “women” to “people” if you would like to be more accurate about my views. Maybe your agenda is to make me out to be the sexist one in this conversation?
LikeLike
I’ll re-phrase that last part:
Let me remind you that you used the term sexual outlets as a synonym for women
willing to have sex.LikeLike
** that can be when rape is potentially a higher risk.
LikeLike
That post is disgusting Jason, I can’t believe you’ve lifted even an ounce of the conclusions drawn. Your comment is ridiculous and repulsive, your use of ‘sexual outlet’ is foul and insulting. Levels of reported sexual assault are on the increase because women are no longer ashamed and hiding it. Men who are sufficiently maladjusted to consider rape as an option, do so because they are violent, not because they’re randy. When the ‘sexual outlet’ of prostitution is pushed as an option, it’s because sex workers bear the brunt of violence – and no-one cares. Honestly, I’m sickened beyond belief that someone I considered relatively well informed about life could be so harmfully ignorant.
LikeLike
Actually I am quite well-informed about what it is like to experience long-term sexual frustration. My 20’s were not kind to me in the romance department. Being quite socially awkward certainly didn’t help me any. I’ve been close to the line, I was a stone’s throw away from those who cross that line. It’s not a fun place to be.
I think it’s absurd that you are suggesting that sex work being pushed as an option because it bears the brunt of violence. Sex workers absolutely should not have to face that. They should have security in their job, should they choose that road of employment. And you know what? Sex workers could be in a position to find help and understanding for those who end up in such a position who can’t seem to find a way out of it.
To oppose sex work is to oppose the opportunity to help those in need. And like any other prohibition, people find ways to get what they are after, often in even more destructive manners.
There needs to be somewhere to turn for those in desperation. There needs to be improved connection, not greater separation.
LikeLike
“Sex workers absolutely should not have to face that.”
Well, I’ll point you straight back to the statistics in my post about selling sex. “Should” is a great idea – but most women selling sex started under the age of 18 (children), many were abused as children, most have been raped and seriously assaulted on the job that “should” be safe. It’s not. And men who want to take it for granted that it’s their right to buy satisfaction from an objectified sexual outlet seem seriously unperturbed or generally uninterested by these facts.
You make an interesting point though that is worthy of further exploration. I also saw Culture Monk’s latest offering on this theme. Part of the problem is definitely expectation, this idea heterosexual men have that they are ‘due’ a woman, and they feel justified being bitter if they don’t meet someone who’s interested.
But I agree part of it is biological – there is a human need to be physically close with other humans. When it’s not available, the majority of humans respond in a number of negative ways – withdrawal, depression and alcoholism spring to mind. I’m still not convinced that violence is a natural response (I wonder how much pornography feeds fantasies along those lines and makes bad connections that otherwise wouldn’t be there) but violence can seem ‘natural’ if men say to each other it is, which is worrying.
Anyway, it would be interesting to explore alternative models of how as a species we can satisfy the need of physical closeness and comfort, rather than continuing to take it for granted that it’s okay to exploit women, and pretending that if we make it legal, all the nastiness associated with selling sex will simply disappear.
LikeLike
I think a more comprehensive approach that goes beyond simply making it legal needs to be looked at. Some safeties should be built in so that those utilizing the paid-sex system who may be exhibiting troublesome behaviour can be identified and connected with appropriate help.
I think a change of style away from red light districts would be beneficial as well. Sexual health clinics might be a more appropriate approach. That could also help in making a move away from many aspects of objectification that tend to show up in typical prostitution. I wonder if this sort of thing has been tried anywhere?
LikeLike
Remember this post?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Background on the issue.
The link to the article on T&S – Talking about Gender.
The Trans Conundrum – what is the real meaning of gender.
What is a Woman?
It contains much of what radical feminist opponents like to say about radical feminists. That much is certain.
LikeLike
“‘dude’ – in feminist circles, shorthand for aggressive entitled men – usually ones fond of explaining to women how they should do feminism.”
Really? Feminist circles? Or do you actually mean your little group? I’m the grandson and son of feminists. Feminism has played a huge role in my life, I’ve known feminists all my life, and none has ever called me dude.
Good try, but you can’t explain away the very obvious similarities of the comments in question- and even more so, the tactics:
A) Dehumanization of trans people
1. Casually present trans people as rapists
2. Deride their right to live their gender as they choose
3. Reduce them to their sex
B) Debate manipulation
1. Information bombing (spamming discussions)
2. Creating the false impression of widespread consensus and support for your position
3. Any dissent or disagreement is labelled an aggression (playing the victim).
It’s exactly the same model and method used by extremist right wing groups against gay rights and women’s rights. When you call me angry and entitled, you’re simply trotting out the same manipulative tactic that was used for decades to dismiss the *angry* feminist and the *angry* black woman. It’s a manipulation.
The essence of this debate is authoritarianism vs. freedom of choice. Your group wants to unilaterally dictate to people how they should be and behave. The other side says those are individual choices that each human being can and should make for themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope he replies to this comment. Good points. (Except you really should work on your aggression and it undermines your argument. Note he’s reined his right in.)
LikeLike
I don’t believe they’re interested in a real debate. I haven’t noticed evidence making a difference to the particular individuals who have been defending trans-discrimination. Even when some obvious things have been pointed out, as in your last comment: “All men are not responsible for the violence of some men.”- they just gloss over it as if they hadn’t read it.
You’d given the same sort of example before to RS but you had framed it as “spouting racist garbage” if someone had been attacked by a black man. She pretended, rather shamelessly, that what you had said made no sense. It was, in fact, the perfect simile
LikeLike
Yes, that was weird, she didn’t even challenge it as not applicable for some reason. She seems to have gone quiet. I hope she’s giving it all some serious thought and is preparing her apology and retraction post. 😉
LikeLike
@Mr.Merveilleux
Do you know some black folk too, so your statements are inoculated against racism as well?
I’m describing the behaviour you’ve demonstrated on this thread.
Making an issue of Roughseas marital situation, where she lives, her occupation, her professional output and over what? They are irrelevant, to the argument at hand, but great for bullying and intimidating someone.
You disagree with her point of view. Do you raise issue with her point of view and her words? Quote her arguments and show where she is wrong? No, you attack and disparage other aspects of her character and private life in the name of self-justified ‘honesty’. That isn’t debate, nor is it justified.
And as I said upthread – experiences such as this are just a small part of the gauntlet women face when they dare to have opinions about feminism.
Going after her, as opposed to her arguments, is shitty behaviour and it is wrong. 😦
LikeLike
“Do you know some black folk too, so your statements are inoculated against racism as well? ”
There you go again using sexism to shut down real debate. On your theory, men can’t defend feminism. White people can’t defend racial equality. Wealthy people can’t be against inequality. Even worse, you imply people are incapable of understanding anything unless they were *born* as it. That’s basically the theory of aristocracy wt hand which goes hand with patriarchy. A plebeian’s word in court was automatically dismissed in favour of that of a nobleman- until the enlightenment.
As for RS (and she knows clearly I believe this from past experience): I believe context is tremendously important in every debate. Glass houses, and al that. The reason I touched on her personally was because of the purity tests she’s proposing. She wants to set out definitions for “real feminists” and “real women”- I clarified that that isn’t a one way street. The second people go down that rabbit hole they’re inviting someone to come along and apply their own litmus test.
RS’ litmus test, as a prerequisite to being a feminist, is having been born with female genitalia. That excludes trans people.
Another person’s litmus for being a feminist may be: not depending on a man.
So my point isn’t what RS should or shouldn’t do. Her life, her choices. My point is we shouldn’t use litmus tests where personal identity is concerned. She has the right to define herself as she chooses, and so do trans people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correction:
That’s basically the theory of aristocracy which goes hand in hand with patriarchy.
LikeLike
Thank you. I’ll have a look at those links.
“It contains much of what radical feminist opponents like to say about radical feminists. That much is certain.”
So, are you suggesting there are inaccuracies? Obviously it’s judgemental in tone, but can you identify anything that is presented as fact which you consider to be incorrect?
LikeLike
@VW
Yep. Perhaps a look from the other side might be informative, as the link is quite specific and speaks to many of the assertions made on rational wiki.
LikeLike
Thanks for this link. It is in the most useful one I’ve seen, in terms of being clear what this fringe thinks and why, without being overtly hostile to trans people. You and Roughseas skim about the subject, avoiding full discussion, and the people who are willing to discuss it openly (like purplesage) are so offensively hostile it’s like bad comedy. This person has attempted to lay it out clearly, without an undercurrent of hate (although far from an undercurrent of equality).
It’s the age-old problem of being wrapped up in your own personal conspiracy theory. Many Christians have a tendency to see everything through a lens of sin and end times. Mansopherians see everything through a lens of game playing. Communists see everything through a lens of class war. Some feminists seem unable to see the world as anything other than a problem for women.
Yes, sexism is real, but this notion of patriarchy isn’t the be-all and end-all to understanding human experience. Equality of the sexes is just one of many areas where humans should be aiming.
Here are some important bullet points that need amended from that link:
– No other axis of oppression/privilege is erased by sexism.
– Everybody is socialised differently from everybody else, every individual life is unique in its circumstances.
– Female people are entitled to female-only spaces, as are any group of people (this is not practically applicable to public areas)
– Female people calling men ‘penis’ is offensive and certainly sounds like the basis for a hate speech. If I was grouped into ‘vagina’ by men I would consider it misogyny.
– All men are not responsible for the violence of some men.
– Children should not be forced to pretend they are anything they aren’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@VW
“not being an expert on issues that do not center on women should not be unexpected”
This is the kind of thing that really worries me about the anti-trans crowd. The lengths you’ll go to in order to make a low blow. If you don’t understand what it’s about, then stop having an opinion on it.
“Build as many monuments to equality you’d like – if they are based on the current patriarchal bedrock of our society – they, necessarily, will be flawed.”
We could just as easily exchange “patriarchal” for “religious” or “racist” or “classist” or any other concern. Do you take the accusations that you are like a tunnel-vision fundamentalist anything seriously? It’s shocking how much you despise all other fundamentalists, yet here you are in your own nest.
“The oppressed class cannot oppress the dominant class.”
No, but individuals can oppress individuals, regardless of their “class”. I won’t be party to treating men as some people with similar genitalia have treated women. Do you have any concept of what progression is? Or should we aim to move from one injustice straight to another?
“Nope, but the class of men as a whole are responsible for the vast majority of violence perpetrated in the world, toward other men and women.”
Nope. Not a class, just some men who fall under the grouping label “men”.
LikeLike
@VW
Should the topics such as societal norms, patriarchy,and oppression also fall under this rubric.? 🙂
So men are not responsible for the majority of violence in society? Good to know, I was worried about all the statistical, historical and sociology evidence that points to the converse of your assertion. Glad we cleared that up.
LikeLike