Reading Comprehension

There was a period of time in my life when people, my mom in particular, told me that I had a talent for writing.  What no one ever knew back then was that I hated writing (and still do) because my thoughts rarely slow down enough and/or stay linear enough to capture them in any coherent way.  Or that’s the way it seems to me and that’s why I don’t write much or often. 

But I studied writing a lot mostly by way of reading – Toni Morrison was one of my favorites for her economy with words and, of course, her subject matter – brilliant.  In fact I was supposed to graduate from college with a writing degree.  What my professors didn’t know was that I would dash off my *better* pieces the morning before they were due.  The *lesser* of my works were tortured piles of crap that I’d agonized over, going through the motions of *doing it the right way*.   Maybe my mom and all of my writing mentors were right?  Anyway, I still think I’m best at comprehending the written word and the intention of their authors than I am writing those words.  I’m also quite sure that I’m not alone.  

So when I see some women in our little radfem blogworld (I don’t do, or get even, the social media joynts) go off on others, I simply do not understand – it doesn’t compute and I’ve read the links and I’ve understood all of the postions involved.  The conclusion HAS TO BE that there are some really great researchers and writers who cannot, or will not, comprehend others’ words.  Because short of a reading comprehension failure I see no reason (usually) for otherwise smart and committed women to be issuing insults and expletives and accusations at anyone involved in our movement publicly or privately.  I mean, what’s the point?  Are they not entitled to the product of their thoughts?

DEFINE RADICAL FEMINISM

“Radical feminism opposes patriarchy, not men. To equate radical feminism to man-hating is to assume that patriarchy and men are inseparable, philosophically and politically.”

Thank you, Jone.

“To both classes of radical feminism [radical-libertarian/radical-cultural], men should be educated about women, and shown that their attitudes are detrimental to women. Only after this could men and women band together to change patriarchy.”

 Thank you, Maureen.   

“Radical feminists aim to improve the status of women by focusing on legislative reforms.”

Thank you, Alice.

“A hate-speech movement which aims to eliminate the rights of men and non-feminist women and deny people the freedom of speech. Adherents of the movement use the actions of men and an imaginary “patriarchy” as an excuse for why there lives are so pathetic and unfulfilled.”

Thank you, anonymous Urban Dictionary Dude.

“The radical feminists ideology is, ‘A male-based authority and power structure and that it is responsible for oppression and equality, and that as long as the system and its values are in place, and society will not be able to be reformed in any significant way.’”

Thank you, Lucy.

“For all intents and purposes, radical and gender feminism are the same thing. […] The radicals are quite extreme in their man-hating, and many have abandoned men altogether for a political lesbianism. Many have hatred of men that can only be considered pathological or extreme.”

Thank you, Robert.

 

 

Cynical Pollyanna: What Does The Law Have To Do With It?

Inspired by Cherry’s post on Brothel Laws and adding to the ongoing discussion about how to forge women’s communities, especially those that could exist in non-rural, “zoned” settings sometime before complete Liberation or hell freezes over (you know, whichever comes first) I offer this thought exercise:

There is a property for sale in my area (a sizeable town/small city with various employment opportunities) that was developed as a “retirement community” – 8 small, individual apartments with kitchenettes, a sizable communal kitchen and dining/living space all under one roof. Included is a detached *manager’s* bungalow, vegetable gardening area and 6 on-site parking spaces plus street parking.

How many women could come together, commune together, with this particular property? A minimum of nine, and with an asking price of $300k each share could have full ownership very, very affordably. There is no reason I can foresee blocking the purchase of such a property by shares – that sort of thing is a *private* legal matter that a few fairly simple *private* contracts could handle.

Sounds kind of nice doesn’t it? BUT there any number of legalities that could be brought to bear, both external and internal, against this set-up.

CBL’s example fleshed out a little: brothel laws, although completely asinine in this scenario (hello!) could be used very effectively to intimidate/harass the shareholders – needing a lawyer to *protect our rights* to ownership and against a bogus *investigation*, emotional wear and tear, media attention, etc. – into any number of positions including collectively selling out on our investment (of property ownership which many women never dream of having let alone a peaceful, affordable and safe environment) just to make them stop, thereby leaving us arguably financially, at the very least, worse for wear.

Then there is the internal: a woman I know quite well “99-year-leased” a plot on women’s land with the ’hush-hush’ (illegal by virtue of “discrimination“ laws ) agreement not to sell out and/or deed the lease to a male. She agreed thinking that she would spend many years there. When it turned out that she didn’t fit in and couldn’t find a female buyer for her space quickly, she privately threatened to advertise widely and sell to a man if she *had to*.

Please share any pitfalls you might foresee – these are exactly the kinds of things we need to figure our way around. Because we CAN.

 

For "If You Care About Real Females"* Consumption

Reblogged from AROOO:

*You know, the kind that are among the oppressed sex class and are subjected to rape the second they are born and have periods, and can get pregnant, and are real, not delusional expressions.

GallusMag Says:

January 19, 2013 at 3:41 pm

As some of you may know, my posting access to my GenderTrender wordpress.com blog was suspended at the end of the business day on Friday January 18.

Read more… 1,469 more words

In solidarity with the FEMALE RIGHT TO SPEAK!

Going Out of Business

Because the issues which caused me to become interested in and involved with radfem blogging (the brilliant piv analysis/criticism that FCM was doing, the beginnings of a networking toward cultivation of new female-only spaces and a *return* to a more second wave sensibility) have all but disappeared in favor of focusing entirely on men who claim to be girls/women/female/feminist/lesbian.

Men claim to be all sorts of things and no measure of focusing on them and their fantasies has ever changed the men themselves.  Here, again, almost everyone has fallen into the what-about-the-men trap, squandering powerful gynergy on an attempt to reason with the unreasonable.  The singular approach that has not been taken up with any seriousness for (arguably) centuries is a steadfast female separatism, an orchestrated parallel economy forged by women and girls worldwide; a truly radical resolution and one that I intend to focus my gynergy on underground where men cannot derail us as they have done so successfully over these past months.