So I found the meme above on the Twitter, posted by some FeMRA I’ve never heard of but who for some reason has me blocked.
I’m stumped. A little reverse-image search shows that the pic is a still from a K-Pop video. Which … doesn’t really help me to make sense of this at all.
Any guesses?
OT:
Roosh is desperate:
http://www.donotlink.com/g8yb
I think it’s saying that a lot of women call Taylor Swift not a real feminist as a diversion tactic. Because she is actually our feminist super spy Robot Overlord made by SarkeesianCorp.
By that, I mean she’s Katie.
Well, white feminists aren’t intersectional. At all. Their only concern is the welfare of cishet middle-class (Usually US citizen) white women.
That isn’t to say it’s totally evil (At least, not as bad as radfems), since it’s the feminism I and many others have started with, but some feminists tend not to grow beyond the point of White Feminism and use it to preach over women of color, transwomen, poor women, and queer women, whereas the rest of us grew the fuck up and realized that we weren’t the center of feminism’s universe, and got intersectional.
I can totally understand why a lot of women of color (specifically black women), have moved away from feminism with this kind of feminist lurking in there, and have created Womanism. What we have to do is support them and be their allies in their struggles.
@PI
I think EJ meant that the other way around – racist white feminism being worse than radical feminism (radical feminism refers to much more than just the gross TERFs and SWERFs, but I’ll leave it to the radfems here to explain further).
@ Paradoxy
I stuck this up on the old open thread but it probably got buried. You may find it interesting in view of your comments. [It’s a pretty interesting article anyway] –
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/06/more-civil-rights-than-others-everybody-loses
Re: radfems
I guess I am one of them, since I believe any form of feminism is radical in itself (yes, even white feminism would turn patriarchy upside down if it succeeded)?
What other type of feminism is there that is not radical?
Ah. Well then.
But at the end of the day, TERFs, SWERFS, and White Feminists are all excluding people out of spaces they have every right to be in, no? So, why should it matter if it’s transgendered people, sex workers, or women of color? They’re all being excluded (for different reasons, but my point stands that feminism should be a place where the aforementioned groups can all find safe haven).
That’s a pretty good article, and it does a pretty good job of covering that age-old problem of overcoming one’s own privilege, despite being “well-meaning”. Thanks.
I lean towards radfem as well and I don’t see why it would be a bad thing. Unless the term is becoming synonymous with terms like TERF and the like.
This could be another interesting symposium on the meaning of words.
If we go down the dictionary route then of course radical (whether as noun or adjective) just means a total paradigm shift; which perhaps a feminist society would be.
The everyday meaning though seems to imply some sort of extremism and it would be a sad world if wanting equality was considered an extreme view. That arguably though is the world some people live in.
Another position might be just to let people both identify as they wish and let them choose what the word means; the term’s malleable enough for that anyway, as this thread is starting to demonstrate.
@Alan sadly the older I get, the more radical the idea of true gender equality seems to me. But to me “radfem” doesn’t elicit the picture of extremism that it used to conjure up. The more radfem ideas I come across the more I realize there are a lot of really fascinating issues being debated in those circles. But I guess to others the term conjures whatever their encounters have been, perhaps negative (I do tend to toss out of my mind particularly extreme or problematic viewpoints I’ve come across, which to me are fewer than the positive/interesting ones).
@PI
Oh, absolutely! As far as I’m concerned, TERFs, SWERFs and racist white feminists are all no better than MRAs. =P I just meant EJ was only talking about non-exclusionary radfems, and how it was weird for the meme to conflate non-exclusionary with exclusionary. ^^; Apologies for wording myself badly, need coffee.
… If the meme was conflating them. It’s even worse at making its point than I am right now.
RadFem is one of those things that no one seems to really have an agreed-upon definition of, certainly not the people who use it.
Anti-feminists pretty much use it as a generic label for anyone who is actually remotely feminist in their leanings. I think if you’re more ‘radical’ than Christina Hoff Summers, you qualify by these nincompoops’ reasoning.
Feminists who don’t self-identify as radfems usually seem to use it as an alternative to TERFs, or at least to the specific variety of gender-analysis that might lead to becoming a TERF. (Ie, the ones who say things like, “Since gender is JUST a social construct, why do we need to worry about transgender folks at all?”–ignoring the very real fact that ‘social constructs’ are all around us, affect our lives immeasurably, and so must be dealt with as-is, much as we have to deal with racism even though race is also a social construct.)
Those feminists I’ve seen who do identify as RadFems and aren’t TERFs are usually just particularly vocal and aggressive–and that’s not a bad thing.
I have seen hints that some self-identified RadFems make the same error that some anti-capitalsts do, assuming that eliminating one axis of privilege will cause the entire realignment of society to create an egalitarian utopia. (There’s a difference between, “This is the dominant social justice fight today,” and “This is the only social justice fight that matters at all.”) It’s essentially a rejection of the idea of intersectionality. That said, I can’t think of any really concrete examples of such.
@Aunt Edna
What the heck is he even talking about? I haven’t really kept up with him or his nonsense, other than what I’ve read here.
As for that meme, it seems like the same ol same ol “women are untrustworthy and also ugly if they’re feminists” sort of garbage.
P.S. First time poster, just wanted to say before I saw this blog I was legit afraid that a large amount of guys believed this way, and I almost started to internalize the hatred they spout. Thanks to everybody for showing me there is hope for humanity 🙂
I haven’t read the comments yet, but I believe it’s saying that when someone makes comments that sound dangerous and maybe includes #killallmen, and people say “that person is not a real feminist”… that it’s dangerous because that “not a real feminist” person
might do something awful.
However, it makes no sense because even if we all pointed to the most radical of feminists and said YES, they are “real” feminists, that would not change if someone did or did not do something violent.
Also in light of misogyny violence, this is also ridiculous.
I think indifferentsky is right, and I also think this is the most tortuous/awkward version of a hypothetical I’ve ever encountered, which is saying something.
Clearly, a reference to “Deerhunter.”
This is actually about Nixon’s secret plan to win in Vietnam. I’m stunned no one else is seeing this.
My ability to speak gibberish has finally come in handy.
freemage, I would say there are people who self identify RadFem as that particular gender analysis you mention in option two (whether or not they self-identify or are ascribed identity as others as any of the ERFs.). In fact, I can’t think of anyone who self-identifies as RadFem who doesn’t embrace that analysis on some level, personally. I’ve never seen someone self identify as RadFem just because they are “vocal and aggressive”, personally.
As for your last paragraph, I think lots of people conflate “This is the most dominant social justice fight today” and “This is the only social justice fight that matters at all.” So you get people who reject intersectionality due to that and you get people who take anyone who expresses the first to obviously REALLY be the second and attacks them accordingly.)
MRA types spout a whole bunch of asinine stuff, and as long as it sounds feminist – hatey enough, they all say “oh, yep, totally right on.”
This meme doesn’t make sense to me, but I don’t have their woman – hatey mindset.
But, this meme has an attractive woman, a gun, a general vibe of violence, and an attribution of that violence to a man – hatey looking female, so it has all of the things that make an MRA person go “OH, YEAH, TOTALLY COOL AND DEEP, IT BE SO TRUTHY. ”
Just a guess.
@Mewens
Nice reference! Classic movie! Also lol @ Nixon.
Since this is from a FeMRA, I think she’s trying to say “All feminists are naaaaasty, so pick ME, boys!”
I think she’s saying that you never know where feminists are hiding. They’ve inserted several sleeper agents into feMRA circles, Manchurian Candidate-style.
We feminists are basically Body Snatchers, right?
@Kasey
I think I agree with you in everything you said.
@Alan
I like the symposium thing, sound so serious and important…
@SFHC
I will word this carefully, but please don’t take this as questioning your position, I only intend to explain how it works in my head, and share some experiences.
That said, I usually avoid comparing any branch of feminism to MRAs.
This is not to say we tolerate racism, transexism and classism, on the contratry I think they must be questioned and opposed.
I just can’t go as far as calling them “just like MRAs” (or “no better than them” or etc).
MRAs don’t fight for anything no anyone, they won’t even move a finger for themselves.
I think that’s an essential difference. I think even feMRAs don’t sink to the same level, as horrible as they are and as convinced as they seem. They hurt and twist themselves in ways MRAs never will, or care, and they experience sexist violence all the same, as much in denial as they are.
The only group I would actually compare to MRAs would be male TERFs, if such a thing exist. Those would benefit from violence without ever taking the risk of being on the receiving end.
Now, if that made any sense, this is where it comes from:
I live in a land which was devastated by colonization. Maybe it wasn’t the most peaceful place on Earth before, but the invasion meant the beginning of a genocide that hasn’t actually stopped yet.
The best we could do was build a very, very tender democracy and shift the course a just a tiny bit. Outside of it, the ruling elites destroy anything they can’t control, and always have.
So perhaps I put a very strong emphasis on debate despite the difference, even with subjects as unacceptable as racism and transphobia. Because the other option is war and blood and we know we’re in the losing side already.
I think it works similar with Patriarchy: we’re cooked. We fucking know that.
What I feel I share with all women, feminist or otherwise, is a fundamental experience of violence (It may be shaped by other forms of violence, hence intersectionality). And this includes all of us, even those who work and fight against us.
Whatever the position they choose, and unlike men, they are all still exposed to the same violence as ourselves. And if we want to take the system of violence down, I believe we need them.
In what experience I gathered as a political activist in the past few years, I very quickly realized you can’t build power without consensus, and we don’t have a lot of people on our side, compared to the career politicians who want everything to stay the same.
So, in a world where global democracy is still in its early development, while global power is organized and efficient, we need to value those who are willing to play the game of democracy, even with horrible views and values.
Because our enemies are huge and common, and we can fight each other in certain arenas, and fight together against the biggest enemies in another. I believe it’s possible and legitimate.
But then, maybe I’m an idealist, and the fight for power didn’t break me yet. I’ll check back in a decade or so.
@Aunt Edna – Actually, he seems to have a new venue, seems to have a meetup planned tonight here in Mtl (which means he did successfully cross the border), and has induced at least two of the women leading the petition and (theoretical) protest against him to take all their instagram, model mayhem, and couchsurfing accounts private or close/cancel them.
I’ve heard nothing about there still being a protest for the event Saturday. There is a rumoured private planning group, but since they are now too suspicious to accept new people, I don’t see how they will coordinate anything significant. At best there will be a last-minute note but unless it passes by word of mouth, I won’t hear of it.
Sadly, at this point, it seems Roosh is going to “win” the Montreal confrontation, although there has been good media buzz and perhaps Toronto will have a more organized/effective protest.
I think this is about the MRAs who call themselves feminists because they want to abuse women “for their own good”.
By example, using disproportionate force in self-defense/getting the last word if a woman caused a man to feel threatened is “feminist” because it’s “holding women accountable like adults”.
I’ve seen some MRAs take offense in those claims being called out as not feminist.