#and the dworkin extended universe

[judeesill]

it’s amazing how radblr has invented whole cloth a canon of “radical feminist” thought that has almost nothing to do with any movement history and draws almost exclusively on a bunch of bloggers and like, five books, only half of which are by even self-proclaimed radical feminists

[molsno]

there's a troubling tendency in feminist spaces to rehabilitate radical feminist theory. this isn't surprising coming from actual radfems, most notably terfs, but this tendency exists even among trans people - most often tme (transmisogyny-exempt) trans people, but also occasionally among tma (transmisogyny-affected) trans people as well.

I fail to see the need to use feminist thought put forth by, for example, adrienne rich or andrea dworkin, as the foundation for further theory. both of these authors, while very influential, both contributed to or supported janice raymond's book, "the transsexual empire", in which she infamously asserted, without exaggeration, that trans women's passive existence constitutes an act of rape.

as a disclaimer, I have not directly read any of the three authors that I named above, as the research I've done about them indicates that reading their extended works would be psychologically harmful to me as a trans woman. I have tried to learn as much as I can about their beliefs and worldviews, but I admit it is possible that I may be misrepresenting them at some points. regardless, this post is not specifically about them anyway. unless I name them, this post is about general trends I've noticed in feminist circles.

now, whether or not a given radical feminist author claims to be trans-inclusive is ultimately meaningless, as radical feminism inherently relies on biological essentialism as its explanation for the oppression of women by men. if simply being born with a penis means that one is biologically predisposed to perpetrate acts of gendered violence, including rape, then what does it mean to be "trans-inclusive" with this worldview? most often, the answer that I find to this question among radical feminists is that they only support people on the transmasculine spectrum, while still essentializing them as women who transition to escape the oppressive forces of misogyny.

I dislike this perspective for many reasons. most obviously, I believe it's blatantly transphobic to reduce transmasculine people to their assigned gender at birth, even while paying them lip service by using the correct pronouns for them. but moreover, I find that it's predicated on largely white and tme perspectives on femininity.

perhaps femininity may seem innately traumatizing for white people who were afab. after all, it's essentially forced upon them from the moment of birth. but this experience is not universal. women of color, most especially black women, are routinely and systematically denied femininity in a violent act of degendering that seeks to protect the gender binary, which itself is a white supremacist, colonialist invention. however, for the aforementioned women of color, reclaiming the femininity they've been denied and making it something all their own can be highly empowering.

I find it ironic that adrienne rich, for example, is cited in feminist circles that uphold (whether knowingly or not) this radical feminist belief, as she was quite vocal about how her perspectives were taken more seriously than her black counterparts due to her white privilege. yet, the feminists today who parrot the beliefs of her and her white contemporaries largely ignore the perspectives of nonwhite, and especially tma feminists.

my previous paragraph about femininity is not new information; it has been written about extensively by feminists of color - tme and tma alike. and yet, there is very little discussion of these works in white- and tme-dominated feminist spaces. yes, we've all heard praises of leslie feinberg's "stone butch blues", but where are the quoted passages from, for example, "women, race, & class" by angela davis, or "decolonizing trans/gender 101" by b. binaohan?

in case I haven't made it clear, I, as a white trans woman, am more than happy to read works written by tme feminists. however, far too often, I find that the writings of tme feminists that are most widely circulated represent a very narrow understanding of feminism, mostly feminism put forth by white radical feminists and their allies in the 20th century. these perspectives very frequently leave behind, and often outright exclude, people of color and transfeminine people, whose struggles are inherently linked. not only are many people of color transfeminine and vice versa, even the mechanisms which are used to deny tme women of color femininity are also used against trans women - julia serano, a white trans feminist, says this in her book, "whipping girl"!

attempting to rehabilitate radical feminist thought, even the kind put forth by feminists who claimed to be allies of people of color and colonized peoples, seems futile to me when those same feminists gave janice raymond their full support in writing one of the most violently transmisogynistic works in the feminist sphere. personally, I have no faith in people who find transmisogyny anything other than absolutely abhorrent to say anything meaningful about women's liberation. the fact is, when the only feminism that receives widespread discussion is the kind written by these people, then women of color, trans women, and ESPECIALLY trans women of color will continue to suffer under a white supremacist, transmisogynistic, colonial regime.

[haggishlyhagging]

It is a question of finding the right model. We are born into a world in which sexual possibilities are narrowly circumscribed: Cinderella, Snow-white, Sleeping Beauty; O, Claire, Anne; romantic love and marriage; Adam and Eve, the Virgin Mary. These models are the substantive message of this culture—they define psychological sets and patterns of social interaction which, in our adult personae, we live out. We function inside the socioreligious scenario of right and wrong, good and bad, licit and illicit, legal and illegal, all saturated with shame and guilt. We are programmed by the culture as surely as rats are programmed to make the arduous way through the scientist's maze, and that programming operates on every level of choice and action. For example, we have seen how the romantic ethos is related to the way women dress and cosmeticize their bodies and how that behavior regulates the literal physical mobility of women. Take any aspect of behavior and one can find the source of the programmed response in the cultural structure. Western man's obsessive concern with metaphysical and political freedom is almost laughable in this context.

Depth psychologists consider man the center of his world—his psyche is the primary universe which governs, very directly, the secondary universe, distinct from him, of nature; philosophers consider man, in the fragmented, highly overrated part called intellect, the center of the natural world, indeed its only significant member; artists consider man, isolated in his creative function, the center of the creative process, of the canvas, of the poem, an engineer of the culture; politicians consider man, represented by his sociopolitical organization and its armies, the center of whatever planetary power might be relevant and meaningful; religionists consider God a surrogate man, created precisely in man's image, only more so, to be father to the human family. The notion of man as a part of the natural world, integrated into it, in form as distinct (no more so) as the tarantula, in function as important (no more so) as the honey bee or tree, is in eclipse, and that eclipse extends not over a decade, or over a century, but over the whole of written history. The arrogance which informs man's relation with nature (simply, he is superior to it) is precisely the same arrogance which informs his relationship with woman (simply, he is superior to her). Here we see the full equation: woman = carnality = nature. The separation of man from nature, man placing himself over and above it, is directly responsible for the current ecological situation which may lead to the extinction of many forms of life, including human life. Man has treated nature much as he has treated woman: with rape, plunder, violence. The phenomenological world is characterized by its diversity, the complexity and mutuality of its interactions, and man's only chance for survival in that world consists of finding the proper relationship to it.

-Andrea Dworkin, Woman Hating

[ultramaga]

Compromise

I was just reading a post by someone who used to be on here, and they were saying we should find a compromise between SJWs and non-SJWs. SJWs state that they want a genocide of males. “The Future is Female”. Where’s the compromise? Shooting only half? SJWs state that they want a genocide of Whites. They’ve even started extending discrimination against Asians, on the grounds they are “white adjacent”, and invented the term “JOC”, to designate those Jews they feel are dark skinned enough to be allowed to survive. What sort of compromise can we manage? We should be allowed to live in ghettos? That didn’t work so well last time. SJWs have partially carried out a genocide in the few fields that they control - in DC and Marvel, they purged the redheads. Why? Why do SJWs hate ginger haired people? Well, they are a minority, and it is a tenet of SJWism that white people cannot be minorities because minorities are good and whites are evil. They have a disability. The ginger hair etc is a form of partial albinism. But by Intersectionalism, a disabled person is better than a non-disabled person. And all whites are bad - except white feminists, who achieve goodness by putting everyone else into the gas chambers. I argued about this with Dan Slott. They have spent decades erasing all the redheads and some of the standard white characters. Purging all literature of whites is the goal. They are proud of it. There’s no scope for compromise. I argued with feminists at uni every week, decades ago. That bunch were reasonable. But the Daughters of Dworkin took over. It is her beliefs that have now been taught, decade after decade, at universities, and even the sciences are compromised. 2+2=5, we are told. If we argue, that is being white. There is no compromise with insanity, with malice. Feminism must die.

[nancyedimick]

No, Gov. Dean, there is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

Howard Dean stands on a platform built on top of a police car during the 40th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley in Berkeley, Calif., in 2004. (Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated Press)

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean writes:

Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment. https://t.co/DOct3xcLoY

— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 21, 2017

This leads me to repeat what I’ve said before: There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn, for instance, Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal immigrants, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or socialism or Democrats or Republicans. As the Supreme Court noted in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), “this Court’s tradition of ‘protect[ing] the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate”” includes the right to express even “discriminatory” “viewpoint[s].” (The quote comes from the four liberal justices, plus Justice Anthony Kennedy, but the four more conservative justices would have entirely agreed with this, though also extended it to university-recognized student groups’ freedom to exclude members, and not just their freedom to express their thoughts.)

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible.

The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct — i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future. But these are very narrow exceptions. Dean’s post came in response to a Steven Greenhouse tweet saying, “Free Speech Defenders Don’t Forget: Ann Coulter once said: My only regret w/ Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building”; but if Dean meant that such speech by Coulter is constitutionally unprotected, he’s wrong. Indeed, even if Coulter was speaking seriously (which I doubt), such speech isn’t unprotected incitement, because it isn’t intended to promote imminent illegal conduct. Compare, e.g., Rankin v. McPherson (1987), which upheld the right to say, after President Ronald Reagan was wounded in an assassination attempt, “If they go for him again, I hope they get him” — and that was in a case involving a government employee being fired for her speech; the First Amendment offers even stronger protection to ordinary citizens whose speech is more directly restricted by the government.

Returning to bigoted speech, which is what most people use “hate speech” to mean, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend.

The Supreme Court did, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), uphold a “group libel” law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true and were said with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends.” But this, too, was treated by the court as just a special case of a broader First Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the court’s restrictions on the libel exception. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) (rejecting the view that libel is categorically unprotected, and holding that the libel exception requires a showing that the libelous accusations be “of and concerning” a particular person); Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) (generally rejecting the view that a defense of truth can be limited to speech that is said for “good motives” and for “justifiable ends”); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps (1986) (generally rejecting the view that the burden of proving truth can be placed on the defendant); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) (holding that singling bigoted speech is unconstitutional, even when that speech fits within a First Amendment exception); Nuxoll ex rel. Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. # 204, 523 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2008) (concluding that Beauharnais is no longer good law); Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1200 (9th Cir. 1989) (likewise); Am. Booksellers Ass’n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 331 n.3 (7th Cir. 1985) (likewise); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1205 (7th Cir. 1978) (likewise); Tollett v. United States, 485 F.2d 1087, 1094 n.14 (8th Cir. 1973) (likewise); Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies 1043-45 (4th ed. 2011); Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law, § 12-17, at 926; Toni M. Massaro, Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech Dilemma, 32 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 211, 219 (1991); Robert C. Post, Cultural Heterogeneity and Law: Pornography, Blasphemy, and the First Amendment, 76 Calif. L. Rev. 297, 330-31 (1988).

Finally, “hostile environment harassment law” has sometimes been read as applying civil liability — or administrative discipline by universities — to allegedly bigoted speech in workplaces, universities and places of public accommodation. There is a hot debate on whether those restrictions are indeed constitutional; they have generally been held unconstitutional when applied to universities, but decisions are mixed as to civil liability based on speech that creates hostile environments in workplaces (see the pages linked to at this site for more information on the subject). But even when those restrictions have been upheld, they have been justified precisely on the rationale that they do not criminalize speech (or otherwise punish it) in society at large, but apply only to particular contexts, such as workplaces. None of them represent a “hate speech” exception, nor have they been defined in terms of “hate speech.”

For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category.

Of course, one can certainly argue that First Amendment law should be changed to allow bans on hate speech (whether bigoted speech, blasphemy, blasphemy to which foreigners may respond with attacks on Americans, flag burning, or anything else). I think no such exception should be recognized, but of course, like all questions about what the law ought to be, this is a matter that can be debated. Indeed, people have a First Amendment right to call for speech restrictions, just as they have a First Amendment right to call for gun bans or bans on Islam or government-imposed race discrimination or anything else that current constitutional law forbids. Constitutional law is no more set in stone than any other law.

But those who want to make such arguments should acknowledge that they are calling for a change in First Amendment law and should explain just what that change would be, so people can thoughtfully evaluate it. Calls for a new First Amendment exception for “hate speech” shouldn’t rely just on the undefined term “hate speech” — they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected and how judges, juries and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two. And claiming that hate speech is already “not protected by the first amendment,” as if one is just restating settled law, does not suffice.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/21/no-gov-dean-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

[wolfandpravato]

No, Gov. Dean, there is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

Howard Dean stands on a platform built on top of a police car during the 40th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley in Berkeley, Calif., in 2004. (Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated Press)

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean writes:

Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment. https://t.co/DOct3xcLoY

— Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) April 21, 2017

This leads me to repeat what I’ve said before: There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn, for instance, Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal immigrants, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or socialism or Democrats or Republicans. As the Supreme Court noted in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), “this Court’s tradition of ‘protect[ing] the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate”” includes the right to express even “discriminatory” “viewpoint[s].” (The quote comes from the four liberal justices, plus Justice Anthony Kennedy, but the four more conservative justices would have entirely agreed with this, though also extended it to university-recognized student groups’ freedom to exclude members, and not just their freedom to express their thoughts.)

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible.

The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct — i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future. But these are very narrow exceptions. Dean’s post came in response to a Steven Greenhouse tweet saying, “Free Speech Defenders Don’t Forget: Ann Coulter once said: My only regret w/ Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building”; but if Dean meant that such speech by Coulter is constitutionally unprotected, he’s wrong. Indeed, even if Coulter was speaking seriously (which I doubt), such speech isn’t unprotected incitement, because it isn’t intended to promote imminent illegal conduct. Compare, e.g., Rankin v. McPherson (1987), which upheld the right to say, after President Ronald Reagan was wounded in an assassination attempt, “If they go for him again, I hope they get him” — and that was in a case involving a government employee being fired for her speech; the First Amendment offers even stronger protection to ordinary citizens whose speech is more directly restricted by the government.

Returning to bigoted speech, which is what most people use “hate speech” to mean, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend.

The Supreme Court did, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), uphold a “group libel” law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true and were said with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends.” But this, too, was treated by the court as just a special case of a broader First Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the court’s restrictions on the libel exception. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) (rejecting the view that libel is categorically unprotected, and holding that the libel exception requires a showing that the libelous accusations be “of and concerning” a particular person); Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) (generally rejecting the view that a defense of truth can be limited to speech that is said for “good motives” and for “justifiable ends”); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps (1986) (generally rejecting the view that the burden of proving truth can be placed on the defendant); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) (holding that singling bigoted speech is unconstitutional, even when that speech fits within a First Amendment exception); Nuxoll ex rel. Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. # 204, 523 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2008) (concluding that Beauharnais is no longer good law); Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1200 (9th Cir. 1989) (likewise); Am. Booksellers Ass’n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 331 n.3 (7th Cir. 1985) (likewise); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1205 (7th Cir. 1978) (likewise); Tollett v. United States, 485 F.2d 1087, 1094 n.14 (8th Cir. 1973) (likewise); Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies 1043-45 (4th ed. 2011); Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law, § 12-17, at 926; Toni M. Massaro, Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech Dilemma, 32 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 211, 219 (1991); Robert C. Post, Cultural Heterogeneity and Law: Pornography, Blasphemy, and the First Amendment, 76 Calif. L. Rev. 297, 330-31 (1988).

Finally, “hostile environment harassment law” has sometimes been read as applying civil liability — or administrative discipline by universities — to allegedly bigoted speech in workplaces, universities and places of public accommodation. There is a hot debate on whether those restrictions are indeed constitutional; they have generally been held unconstitutional when applied to universities, but decisions are mixed as to civil liability based on speech that creates hostile environments in workplaces (see the pages linked to at this site for more information on the subject). But even when those restrictions have been upheld, they have been justified precisely on the rationale that they do not criminalize speech (or otherwise punish it) in society at large, but apply only to particular contexts, such as workplaces. None of them represent a “hate speech” exception, nor have they been defined in terms of “hate speech.”

For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category.

Of course, one can certainly argue that First Amendment law should be changed to allow bans on hate speech (whether bigoted speech, blasphemy, blasphemy to which foreigners may respond with attacks on Americans, flag burning, or anything else). I think no such exception should be recognized, but of course, like all questions about what the law ought to be, this is a matter that can be debated. Indeed, people have a First Amendment right to call for speech restrictions, just as they have a First Amendment right to call for gun bans or bans on Islam or government-imposed race discrimination or anything else that current constitutional law forbids. Constitutional law is no more set in stone than any other law.

But those who want to make such arguments should acknowledge that they are calling for a change in First Amendment law and should explain just what that change would be, so people can thoughtfully evaluate it. Calls for a new First Amendment exception for “hate speech” shouldn’t rely just on the undefined term “hate speech” — they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected and how judges, juries and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two. And claiming that hate speech is already “not protected by the first amendment,” as if one is just restating settled law, does not suffice.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/21/no-gov-dean-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

[ultramaga]

Because they aren’t racist, sexist arseholes? “ as feminism - the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes “ Bullshit. That’s like saying “Nazism is the perfect blend of socialism and nationalism”. It’s taking the propaganda as if it was fact, and ignoring the clearly female supremacist agenda. You do not demand that women have it better than men, then get to hide behind egalitarianism when there’s push-back. “ Emma Watson, who launched an equality campaign with the United Nations “ Bullshit. She said Feminism freed men to express their feelings, whilst slurping from her male tears mug. Equality would be a gigantic step DOWN for feminists. “ A 2018 YouGov poll found that 34% of women in the UK said "yes" when asked whether they were a feminist, up from 27% in 2013.   “ No mention of the male-scum, of course, because who cares what they think. “No uterus, no opinion”, after all. But it’s astonishingly low, considering how tightly feminists control the education systems. Any non-feminist teacher would be in serious shit if they were found out. Feminist education extends all the way from childhood to university. The female only places at universities - as a part of ‘equality’ - were supposed to encourage them to be engineers and scientists, but instead they pick gender studies, which teaches them to hate men, hate white people, and hate the British.

Good job, white british feminists! You indoctrinate children into wanting to murder you. I am sure that will end well.

I’m surprised feminists aren’t handing out “baby’s first bomb” at day-care centres. “ The term feminist is less likely to appeal to working-class women, polls suggest. “ Funny that. It’s almost as if the people who suffer as a result of the mass immigration policies, of the open border policies, of the criminalisation policies, tend not to be Feminists. Remember Emma Watson? She demanded that the men of the UK be ‘corrected’. Feminists criminalised any approach by a male to a female. What did Emma do? Whined that men in the UK wouldn’t approach her any more, and went to the US, and got laid in a hurry. It’s nice to be rich, innit? But if you are poor, and the bombs are going off in the name of the most Feminist religion in your neighbourhood, it’s difficult to embrace the bullet wounds and learn to love Big Sister. Women at the bottom love their men, and know they need them. They can’t fly off to another country like Emma. And if their son is accused of harassment because he asked a feminist what the time was, they know damned well that they can’t afford the fancy lawyer to keep him out of gaol. “ curator Scarlett Curtis refers to the stereotype of feminists as not wearing make-up, or shaving their legs or liking boys. “ It’s not a stereotype. Feminists have said this since the 1960s. Feminists constantly scream about their hatred for men and boys, and almost half the feminist posts I see will be about their hatred for whites, or men, or both. As for looking nice for men, feminists invented the term “objectification” to cover that they think of that concept.

Andrea Dworkin helped establish gender studies courses world-wide. Do you think she wanted to look nice for men?

Gaaah! My eyes! Where is the bleach?!!!

The Future is Female is a reference to the total extermination of men and boys. Feminists have - again - talked about it since the 1960s, and it is the most popular feminist saying world-wide. The second most popular?

Oh right - women do not need men. So they have no reason to ever look good for them. Tell me again how it’s just some weird misconception that FEMINISTS HATE MEN? “ In the 1920s, feminists were often called spinsters “ BULLSHIT. UNLESS THEY WERE TIME-TRAVELLERS, THERE WERE NO FEMINISTS IN THE 1920s. An unmarried man was a bachelor, a woman was a spinster. A lot of unmarried women wanted to get married; they weren’t single because they hated fucking men! Has the author of this piece ever walked into the outside world? “ I found associations of the term "feminism" with man-hating, lesbianism or lack of femininity was a key factor in rejections of the label "feminist" “ A major part of feminism is not just man-hating, which as we saw is just standard issue, but also political lesbianism, and spitting on straight women is par for the course. Even bisexual women are constantly admonished for sleeping with the enemy. As for rejecting femininity,

Even if we hadn’t heard feminists claim that it is the oppression of Patriarchy, we can see with our own eyes that feminists everywhere despise it, just as they despise equality, and despise us. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jul/18/armpits-4-august-body-hair-feminist Oh right - the Guardian is suddenly not Feminist? For the time it is inconvenient, no doubt!

The most famous feminists are full of hate, and despise femininity.

Ironically, Big Red makes some attempt to be feminine, although she is a lesbian, from memory.

And is also one of the most infamous man-haters on the planet, sabotaging conferences on male suicide.

Her expressions of contempt for the dead became a meme.

“ 3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and  maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race.” What do you think about this statement? Mary Daly: I think it’s not a bad idea at all. If life  is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the  Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that  will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People  are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore. WIE: Yes. I find myself now thinking that’s a bit shocking. MD: Well, it’s shocking that it would be shocking. “

How my mother's fanatical views tore us apart

By Rebecca Walker for MailOnline  Updated:  22:18 AEDT, 23 May 2008