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.

 

In solidarity with the FEMALE RIGHT TO SPEAK!

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. My last post, on Friday morning, was a collection of screen caps: a random sampling of the abusive and threatening tweets directed at Suzanne Moore following her “SEEING RED: THE POWER OF FEMALE ANGER” article re-publication.

Prior to Friday morning’s post I did five controversial posts in succession:

1.) I outed an MD and Phd who threatened to murder a bunch of radical feminists, also specifically targeting myself and Cathy Brennan. 1/10/2013 FRI

2.) I posted the text of Professor Sheila…

View original post 1,379 more words

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.

 

Will DU Still Talk About Me When I’m Gone?

The answer is a resounding YES!

Hello Ruby, Warren and all the rest of you whom I not-so-affectionately label the Moron Posse and *welcome* to my backwater blog.

I see that you have figured out that I am indeed an independent feminist, and a radical one even, to add to your collection of evil women to churn with rage over.  Well, I use “figured out” rather loosely seeing as how Iverglas had to serve the link to this blog to you on a silver platter, proving yet again that y’all are really, really good at lying about all the sleuthing you do to out trolls and disruptors when in fact you’re too lazy and entitled to even bother.  Lies are truth.  Up is down.  Black is white – or does saying that make me a racist too?  

OMG!!1!  She’s a puppet!!1!  OMG11!1 She broke DU rulezzzz!!1!  OMG!!2! She’s “a transphobic” and a bigot!!2!

No, the simple fact is that I am a:  female sexed woman, female assigned at birth, female socialized to be a girl, then a woman by the patriarchal world order.  Furthermore I care about females first, most and always to the exclusion of males and I am not afraid to say so.

And Jesus Christ, the way all of your heads explode.  The way you all grasp at whatever lies you can dream up to explain away the fact that there are women who do not kowtow to males out of fear or habit or socialization.  It is pathetic to watch adults of both sexes completely melt down in the face of simple truths.  What on Earth are you so afraid of?

And as for deleting comments?  You and I both know that not a single one of you has dared make a comment at this blog.  Gee, I wonder why??? 

And that, as they say, is all; back to your regularly scheduled fantasy life.

Radfem Hub

Since when is “Majority Rules!” the battle cry of an oppressed minority?

Recently, male-to-female transgender Joelle Ruby Ryan pointed out how well organized, well-supported and well-attended the 11th annual Philadelphia Trans-Health Conference (PTHC) was expected to be, and contrasted that to the relatively tiny and unsupported Radfem 2012 conference which has had to relocate after trans* activists successfully lobbied for its booking to be canceled by London’s Conway Hall.

Which is the David, and which is the Goliath in this scenario?

View original post 1,223 more words