#but also it is absolutely something radfems would and do capitalize on

[salted-caramel-tea]

could i please please rant about a fashion aesthetic that personally gives me brain damage? see i actually agree with everything you said about balletcore being about classism with people trying to look rich with no respect for the art itself but i also want to talk about the opposite side of it, COTTAGECORE. I FUCKING HATE IT.

its the exact opposite in this case because people are trying to look poor which they somehow consider as humble???? and these days its so tied with TERF shit that it makes me homicidal. "Oh look how the simple village folk were so effortlesly beautiful, the village women nothing but fairylike waifs dancing through the fields with a handwoven basket full of apples, the absolute pinacle of true femininity and grace ❤️" IF YOU SAW AN ACTUAL VILLAGE WOMAN AT WORK, YOU WOULD PUKE.

theres also that millionaire bitch on tiktok that keeps pushing tradwife shit in her village cosplay kitchen which is a whole nother topic but lets continue onto the actual outfits used for this aesthetic. first, every single color and pattern choice is fucking wrong. i have my great grandmothers clothes, i wear her headscarves, the actual village aesthetic is surprisingly mainly white with bright pop out colors done in culture specific patterns on the hems of the garments. while cottage core is muted brown, muted brown, oh look! muted green! what a fantastic variety of earth tones and creams! why not just wear a fucking potato sack while your at it?! and surprisingly they rarely if ever incorporate headscarves into the easthetic, as if there aren't multiple village cultures that all share the use of headscarves as work and celebratory garments. and none of the aesthetic clothes have patterns outside of just cableknit! its all just cream shirt, cableknit sweater, long skirt. thats it? no scarf? no sash? no embroidery patterns? no apron?! also depending on the region (and the aesthetic is heavily focused on the EU countries often the western side) where the fuck are the furs?! wolf fur hats, fox fur coat/scarf???? welted boots?! its a fucking disgrace

all that i understood from doing research on the aesthetic is that they took western EU village outfits, took every single cultural marker out of them, smashed them together, got a brownish mess like dirty paint water, seperated it into basic color tones, and made shitty clothes which they mass produced and are now selling at an outrageous price so that the rich can badly cosplay as the poor. i have way more hang ups like how cottagecore is often merged with wiccan to make up mystical terfy bullshit which is so fucking disrespectful to the actual pagans but thats outside of fashion so nvm

yeah there’s been a lot of criticism of cottagecore and the audience it markets itself to there’s definitely something weird with the way they treat femininity and the whole connection between cottagecore tradwifeisms and divine femininity which is starting to seep into radfem spaces too like . the way that a soft femininity is being weaponised to promote anticapitalism and feminine separatism but also promoting traditional gender roles and enforcing a borderline biblical femininity as the ‘right way to be a woman’ whilst actively pushing capitalism by buying into aesthetics and specified interior design to portray the illusion of humility . it all feels very not like other girls as well by rejecting and borderline condemning modern femininity esp the treatment of women who enjoy glamour and express sexuality liek its almost puritan . its pretty i like muted greens i love a safe green kicthen but aestheticism always goes beyond the clothes it’s communication and i’m not a fan of what’s being communicated through cottagecore a lot

[epochryphal]

oh, and the verbiage shift around (C)ASAB! is a problem also!

original: "jordan was CA[X]AB."

passive voice, the subject is acted upon by an external agent (the medical industrial complex) in the past

contemporary 2022: "jordan is A[X]AB."

copula verb, = equals sign, the subject IS this

original: "people who were CA[X]AB are…"

same as before, passive past tense event done by external agent

contemporary 2022: "A[X]AB people are..."

adjective that cannot be changed because it describes an event that happened, frontal adjective that follows identity-first language patterning

like. okay here's my favorite link on identity-first v person-first language. but let me elaborate a bit here.

identity-first language is for situations like Autistic folks (and Deaf folks, Mad folks, Disabled folks, and others) resisting being called "a person with autism" because these are integral parts of ourselves that cannot be separated - being autistic permeates the whole identity and sense of self, there is no way to "cure" and get to "the real person underneath." there is Deaf culture, and people who are members of it do not want called "a person with deafness."

by contrast, person-first language was created for distancing an attribute and emphasizing one's humanity first, as in "a person with disability." a parallel in trans communities is "a person with transitioning experience" - which is important, because not everyone considers themselves to be trans (because =, copula verb BE/IS, indefinite/forever) and that is okay! why would you if you don't relate or have anything meaningful to you in common - words are tools for connecting

now.

"A[X]AB person" is following the identity-first pattern of communicating "this is an integral attribute that cannot be separated from who i am and is important to me, do not distance it from me in conversation."

plus it's often "A[X]AB trans person," putting ASAB before the actual identity-first adjective trans!

i can definitely opine about how starting with A[X]AB doesn't resist the status quo in the way that identity-first language like Autistic does...

but more simply: hey, uh, some people prefer person-first language and that's okay. people relate to descriptors, words, attributes, experiences, traits, etc differently.

and: be intentional about your choice between identity-first and person-first, and aware of who that puts off

personally, "A[X]AB person" pings gender essentialism flags for me. like saying "female woman," y'know?

[cannibaldaughter]

I think it's highly concerning that mainstream libfeminism has begun to push the narrative that doing sexwork and being a sexworker is the thing to do if you need a bit of extra money for young women specifically newly adult women (18, 19, & 20). Like the number of jokes and tiktoks and tweets I see regularly of women my age saying that they're thinking about becoming a stripper, an escort, or something else because they think it's an easy way to make money is INSANE. Like first of all those are incredibly dangerous jobs with deep stigma and a lot of times sex workers end up getting killed or thrown in jail over absolutely nothing. Secondly sex work is difficult. You can't just be a stripper randomly that requires effort and a lot of it. Most importantly though I think mainstream lib feminism has decided that because a lot of terfs/radfems criticize sex work means that the sex work industry can't be criticized at all which is such bullshit. Sex workers aren't bad people and no doing sex work doesn't make you bad but the industry itself leaves so many women (especially black and trans women) vulnerable to violence and harassment. People do not understand what is actually necessary to being a sexworker or what kind of vulnerable positions you put yourself in by being one and that's fucking crazy.

Also as an extra, due to the inherent nature of all capitalistic labour's being exploitative, sex work under capitalism will always be exploitative because there can not be any form of consensual sexual exchange if it would not take place without monetary incentive, i.e. all sex work is non consensual meaning it is 1. exploitative 2. morally wrong to participate in as a CONSUMER under a capitalistic framework

Also if any so called gender critical/radical feminists/terfs reblog this I will get your blog nuked I promise <3 die slow

[rametarin]

Between Rachel Dolazel and that ‘trans Korean’ guy..

I sincerely hope we’ve had enough of the nonsense brought on by postmodernism.

It’s one thing for the struggle for transrights to get conflated with the ‘Gender Theory’ crap, because it’s close enough one can confuse the real thing for the philosophical predatory mimic that is Gender Theory. One requires tolerance and asterisks in respect for a physical and mental condition. One requires arguing that the existence of trans people must mean there’s no such thing as a normal sex/gender conformation and argue to socially redo the entire relationship between body and sex around the lens to be trans is normal and just different.

But Intersectional Feminism, is in the position that Radical Feminism found itself in right before the Intersectionals threw them off their progressive Marxist high horse to replace them with Intersectionality and higher extent Gender Theory, rejecting biological materialism in the process.

What do I mean by that?

It’s simple. Radical Feminism believed that because all minority groups belonged to the female, “class,” that meant women were the natural diverse minority to lead. That meant women should lead, and meant any woman was able to speak up on behalf of any woman and their assorted minority status. This is what led to the entitled white girl/woman climbing on every soap box to talk shit to every white boy/man since the 60s.

Radical Feminism adopted the idea of demographic as class, the idea, “the nature of different classes is one struggles to dominate and oppress the other. One always absolutely oppresses, the other is the oppressed,” and so attributed that to being male and female. When radical feminism talks about oppression, they do not just mean cultural or legal practices on the books, they mean the very nature of being human makes a woman oppressed by a man, and that’s just the permanence and static of the situation that, left unchallenged by Marxist ideas of legal and social equality (putting women on a pedestal by ‘society,’ so they can live with the benefits of technology and infrastructure without even having to SEE a man, nor thank them, just expect a modern life as a given and paid for by men’s taxes) then women would just innately be oppressed and suffer as is the nature of their being.

Radical Feminism adopted critical sex theory and class struggle theory, but only accepted the arbitrary class definition as far as imagining their sex as oppressed. However, the devil in the details soon found them as oppressor, themselves.

Oppressor of the transgendered woman, whom was not allowed, according to radical feminism, into their woman-only clubs, their woman-only covens, their woman-only endowments, scholarships, grants for higher education, their woman-only health spas, gyms and other gender apartheid organizations. Suddenly according to the convenient logic radical feminism used to try to substantiate the idea society owed them shit because their natural state was oppression, they were now oppressors and bigots for even opposing transwomen in their club. Because of the nature of how it was argued.

Gender Theorists argued, 1.) Transgendered is a demographic minority. 2.) You listen to demographic minorities. 3.) Gender is an identity, be it male or female or other and align with sex or not. 4.) You denying their gender is no different from the heteronorms denying homosexuality’s validity because it’s inconvenient. You’re basically part of the patriarchy.

And just like that, radfems became, “bio-essentialist,” according to this big brain logic of competing classes and demographics and what you’re allowed to say to reprimend or deny them vs. yourself, a larger demographic that inherently oppresses the smaller demographic, whom is always right, must always be listened to.

Well, a funny thing happens when you apply this logic to races and cultures.

The difference between a black man and a white man is largely aesthetic and the genetic differences are very minute. Compared to something like sex, where two different chromosome sets are like two different hardware companies, it’s largely the same stuff between two different men of, “different races.” Just, different expression of the same existing DNA.

And if you entertain ‘races as cultures,’ like a Capital B Black or Capital W White, then it’s no different, logically, from divorcing sexual expression in psychology from the concept of, ‘gender,’ as divorced from biology. Where one can be a whole opposite sex because gender is attitude and culture, not a part of your physiology (according to Gender Theorists.)

By the very rules and laws and theory of Class Struggle Theory and gender theory, these rules SHOULD also apply to races. As batshit stupid as they are, it’s logically consistent that Rachel Dolazel or whats-his-face, the, “trans Korean” guy take this stupid theory to its stupid logical extreme and declare they can be, “trans racial.”

This will go one of two ways; Postmodernist theory tied to gender will tie to race, and tomorrow’s minority will be transracial. Transblack, Transasian and Transwhite will become things, people will be federally barred from disrespecting or attacking them for their life decisions to be what they feel inside because, “races don’t exist and there is only culture.”

Or, the next generation, cis, trans and all, will see the similarities between transracialism and Gender Theory, and throw the whole theory out, offended and disgusted.

But, we’ll still have trans rights, because you don’t need postmodernism or Gender Theory for transgender rights to exist or be respected. Just acknowledge some people neurologically are wired different, nothing we can (currently) do about it, if ever, and asterisks to acknowledge exception to the norm. None of this, “well we’re respecting the arbitrary existence of transgendered people.. that must mean all sex/gender is arbitrary!” shit.

So!! There’s my prediction. The Intersectionals will eventually be challenged, internally, with people that argue race itself is a culture, culture is not biological, and you CAN convert and IDENTIFY your way into it, and anyone that does not agree, they’ll consider to be tantamount to a Nazi for bioessentialist thinking.

[sickofyourfandombullshit]

Heathers 2018

So when I saw @princess-has-a-pen​ post about the new Heathers remake I had to look it up for two reasons:

1. I’m a huge fan of the Movie and Musical and 2. I had to see the fucking horror show that Spike TV was no doubt going to turn it into.

Now Princess asked in their tags the exact same thing I asked myself when I saw the post:

“Why?”

Well friends, strap yourselves in cuz I’m about to take you for a fucking ride.

Why remake Heathers? A movie that has solidified itself as a cult classic for it’s gritty, fucked up story and characters that took pretty much every kid who went to high school in the 80′s (or any time really) life and amped it up to 11?

Cuz the original Heathers is full of 'problematic' things and they can now remake it to be more 'progressive' while snagging a new audiance of younglings who know about Heathers because of the musical.

Now my friends, as I stated before, I love both the movie and the Musical, but as a mature, rational fan over the age of 30, I can look at something I love and point out it’s flaws and believe me, when it comes to the source material, Heathers the Musical is stuffed full of flaws and that creates some problems.

I am pretty sure all the Tumblrinas who idolize ‘Heathers’ have only seen the musical because honestly, the ‘date’ scene where Heather McNamara gets raped in the background would be enough to make them REEEEEE all the way to the fucking bank.

Like legit, she is literally struggling under her date (and not in a fun way) to make him stop and Veronica just fucking leaves her there. We don’t see her get away or anything, so you can only assume that that whole thing didn’t end well, especially given how miserable McNamara is in the movie to begin with.

The Muscial made light of a lot of the grim parts the movie worked to highlight, specifically bullying and suicide and the dangers of giving into pressure and just  being a fucking terrible human being. Not to mention it twisted things in a way that actually reinforced some harmful tropes. Specifically with the two main characters JD and Heather.

JD in the movie is a completely sociopath who physically and mentally abuses Veronica for almost the entire thing and in the Musical they gave him the stereotypical ‘troubled boy who wanted to make the world better but it just got out of hand’ treatment. Like “Oh yeah, he murders three people and tries to blow up a school but his dad’s a jerk and his mommy committed suicide so you can’t blame him! Deep down he’s just a tortured soul who really loves Veronica!”. Spoilers! He doesn’t love Veronica, at least not in any way that should be even entertained as any sort of ‘love’. He and Veronica’s relationship coupled with his ‘sacrifice’ at the end of the play made me cringe extra hard because it felt like it was romanticizing abusive relationships and in all honesty it was. A specific scene from the Musical where I thought they were actually going to address the toxicity of their ‘relationship’ (at the end of the ‘Our Love is God’ musical number where Veronica seems to have a mental break down as she screams ‘Our Love is God’ over and over again as if to drown out the fact that she just assisted in the murder of two people), was brushed under the rug the next scene and seemingly forgotten about till something ELSE big happens and then it’s fucking Ground Hogs Day apparently.

Veronica in the movie joined the Heathers before the movie even began because she wanted to be popular and due to her skill in forgery is pretty much made their pet project. She’s not as much of a cunt as Chandler or Duke but she's still pretty fucking bad. She kills Kurt herself, blows off her actual best friend in exchange for shallow popularity, laughs over Heather Chandler dying and only turns on JD when the suicide note she writes for Heather Chandler backfires and causes people to glorify Chandler as a saint. This as well leads her to realize that it’s pointless to kill people because someone else just takes their place as “The Mythic Bitch” ala Heather Duke’s transformation (also because JD straight up slaps her in the face for trying to back out on him). She only ever does anything semi sweet at the VERY end after JD gets blown up. In the Musical she is portrayed as a sweet innocent little buttercup who is super besties with Martha and sticks up for the little guy and never meant to hurt anyone and was just dragged into everything bad by bad people. She feels constantly guilty for it and seems unable to make any actual choices herself outside of breaking into JD’s house to fuck him. She’s totally innocent guys. Totes.

And before you say “C’moooon it’s a fuckin’ Muscial!” you need to go watch you some Dear Evan Hansen or Les Miserables because those two Musicals are heavy as fuck and had no problem in showing how fucked up serious shit like war and suicide was through flawed characters.

Now with this new series coming out it seems destined to fail. It has only been releasing Instagram videos to promote the show and already it’s hitting all the same old PC points while being SO EDGY at the same time. It’s Riverdale all fucking over again.

“The terrible trio is more like a set of outcasts who have taken over Westerberg High School.” -EW article

Like really? Fuckin’ really? The Heathers were all popular girls due to their wealth (McNamara), beauty (Duke) and over all exuding of confidence and attitude backed up by all of the previously stated assets (Chandler). They weren’t a bunch of outcasts. They took pride in how they looked and how people saw them. I don’t understand this fucking need to make every kid nowadays an ‘outcast’ in an effort to make them ‘relatable’. They did it to every kid in the Power Rangers remake and MJ in Spider-Man: Homecoming and it’s starting to  get fucking annoying. Oh well, gotta get them kids with all that EDGE!

So let’s look at the ‘Heathers’ (I can’t bring myself to not put that in quotation marks when talking about these piles of hot garbage):

Heather Chandler is a plus-sized, Skrillex haired edge lord who looks like every Tumblr Feminist/Suicide Girls reject and literally gives off no aura of power or fear at all. She just comes off as some fat bitch who found the HAAS RadFem movement on Twitter and used it to fill herself with enough undeserved self importance to justify being a cunt to everyone. Yes, where the original Heather Chandler got her power and reputation through sheer intimidation and personality, this Heather Chandler looks like the type of girl who will physically assault you in the bathroom and threaten to sit on you till you die.

Gee golly, I see Heather Duke is a sassy gay male now (and a white one at that). Wow, it’s not like that hasn’t been done a billion fucking times. Funny that he’s a white dude whose character in the movie and play turns out to capitalize on Heather Chandler’s death to raise their own status to the ‘queen bitch’ of the school. That’ll do GREAT for gay stereotypes I’m sure.

Aaaaand Heather McNamara, our possibly Asian possibly Latinx butprobably just party bag of mixed race token character who is the literal punching bag of the group. At least that seems to have not changed but I am sure it’ll help add shallow sympathy since now it’s not a bunch of white kids beating up on a little white girl, it’s a bunch of white kids beating up on a little minority girl. Goodie goodie.

The rest:

JD literally gets nothing to show from his video except one speaking line where he is telling Veronica that she’s “Not like Heather Chandler” she’s “better” while quick cutting a bunch of random shots from the show that mostly seem pointless and just confusing with one flash of him apparently running the flat of a knife on his palm behind his back? So we get nothing from our poor, tortured sociopath. I can just hear the producers of this show now: “We can’t show him being too soft or the old fans might not watch it and can’t show him being a psychotic asshole or the Musical fans won’t watch it, so make it just as cluster fucking and confusing as possible so no one will ask questions and just be drawn in with all the cheap visual click bait!”

For Veronica we again get nothing. One line of “Dear Diary, I hate my friends but that doesn’t mean I want them DEAD!” followed by more random cuts of shots from the show, many of bloody scenes and hints of violence but a lot more of just weird confusing scenes that make no sense. It’s kind of funny for the sheer reason that they seem to be banking on people just already knowing who these characters are ala the original movie but at the same time are trying to pull in new audience members with all the vague quick cutting which they seem to have mistaken for ‘mystery’.

And last  but not least, we have Betty Finn. What’s that? “Who if Betty Finn?” all you fans of the Musical ask? Well you wouldn’t know who Betty is unless you watched the MOVIE cuz Betty is who Martha Dump Truck replaced in the Musical because Betty wasn’t fucking sad sacky enough and they didn’t want to clutter the script with such a minor character. Betty was smart and an actual good person, the only good person in the movie honestly, who was Veronica’s friend since they were in diapers. She didn’t have a huge part in the movie outside of providing some blackmail material for JD to use against Heather Duke and trying to get Veronica to stop being such a moron (which failed). Now she’s appears to be the stereotypical side character that will be prominent in the show, probably as a comic relief character or plot device to be used against Veronica at some point.

Now, there is a huge question you have to ask:

Where is Martha? Will Martha even be in the series? Alright, it’s two questions but you get the point.

I have two guesses;

1. Possibly

but more than likely

2. No. Absolutely not.

Why do you ask? Because Martha’s character served as a plot device in both the Movie and the Musical to show how awful the Heathers really were and how their bullying was actually dangerous. Martha was a fat, slow, ugly dump of a girl. Problem is, you can’t make fun of that anymore. It’s not ‘progressive’ to make fun of people with those flaws. As well it wouldn’t make sense, Heather Chandler is fat in this remake. Unless they’re going to go full retard with some kind of ‘internalized fatphobia’ shit it wouldn’t make sense to make fun of Martha for that. Heather McNamara is the stereotypical ditzy airhead which doesn’t seem to have changed in this remake so to make fun of someone being ‘slow’ while laughing at an Air-Head-of-Color would just be super duper mean!

If they DO put Martha in, she will either have to still be dumpy, slow and fat and end up being the most popular character in the end for ‘not giving into societies beauty standards’ or some shit, OR she will have to actually flat out die from her suicide attempt to push the EDGE and drive plot.

Either way this whole thing is going to be a train wreck that will either take off at the idiotic rate in which Teen Wolf and Riverdale did or be an utter failure.

I seriously hope for the latter. Sorry this is so long and there are probably some spelling and grammar errors. It’s literally 2:30 in the morning and the Monster I drank is starting to ware off so I’m running on fumes.

[theresgloryforyou]

*Rubs hands together*

*this is gonna be a nice long post, ladies*

For many socialist feminists, critiquing liberal feminism is easy. Many of us came to socialism from liberalism and have a clear understanding of its limits and flaws.

However, the history and substance of radical feminism is less well known. While the “radical” in radical feminism seems to suggest a politics that socialists would embrace, a closer look reveals an ideology that’s incompatible with socialist feminism. Plagued by a narrow understanding of gendered oppression and a misguided strategy for change, radical feminism ultimately fails to offer women a clear path to liberation.

It’s very clear from the rest of this mess that the author didn’t take a closer look at radical feminism, at all.  Also “plagued by a narrow understanding of gendered oppression” grows genuinely funny later in the piece, as it becomes clear the author’s view of gendered oppression is so narrow as to be non-existant.

Radical feminism arose out of second-wave feminism in the 1970s, alongside, but mutually exclusive from, socialist and Marxist feminism. Nonetheless, they share some commonalities. Like socialist feminists, radical feminists take issue with the individualism of liberalism and argue that personal choices and individual achievement are not enough to transform society. And they locate women’s oppression in a broader, societal context.

From the beginning, radical feminists have been especially concerned with sexual and domestic violence, seeing it as fundamental to women’s oppression. Andrea Dworkin, one of the most prominent radical feminists of the 1980s, distinguished herself with her crusade against sexual violence. In one of her most famous speeches, “I Want a 24 Hour Truce During Which There is No Rape,” Dworkin implored men in the audience to try to understand the profound fear of sexual violence that women live with every day.

This commitment to combatting sexual violence — a scourge that hinders all aspects of women’s lives — is admirable. So too is radical feminists’ emphasis on large-scale reform rather than small-scale tweaks.

But the way that radical feminists have gone about enacting change is both troubling and symptomatic of deeper flaws in their ideology.

Their anti-pornography work is emblematic of this. In the 1980s, many radical feminists worked to ban porn, viewing it as inherently misogynistic and violent. Some, like Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon — a radical feminist academic, lawyer, and professor — went to even greater lengths. Joining hands with Christian right-wingers like Edwin Meese, they pushed for a number of local ordinances to stamp out pornography. “Among the many legislators with whom we have worked on the ordinance,” MacKinnon enthused in a 1990 New York Times op-ed, “one is a political conservative. We were honored to work with her.”

Some aspects of pornography are undoubtedly despicable, racist, and violent. But outlawing pornography would do little to address the immediate, material concerns of women involved in the industry. And it makes no sense to work with conservatives to fight women’s oppression. These are the same people who want to restrict women’s access to reproductive health and roll back the already-meager welfare state.

Radical feminists’ anti-porn work throws into sharp relief the dangers of misidentifying the roots of women’s oppression. Relying on the state for censorship, emboldening the carceral apparatus, making alliances with opponents of progressive change — this is where radical feminism’s analysis leads us.

If you want to discredit radical feminism, it helps to lead with a strawman.  First, make sure everyone believes all radical feminists love leaping into political bed with neocons who hate women.  This is why no one will cover the huge uproar among us radfems about WoLF deciding to do this exact same bullshit-- if you can attack us as misguided baby deers and then shake your head patronisingly and sigh and say “see, this is where the analysis leads!” you can avoid mentioning a majority of us see creating alliances with the Heritage Foundation and Edwin Meese as exactly anithetical to a radical feminist analysis.  (This is also the exact reason why some of us yelled our heads off about WoLF and were criticized for not accepting political pragmatism as a good decision making strategy. Also I’m positive socialists generally and Jacobin particularly have never compromised pragmatically, to back up a certain political candidate, say, or in any other arena-- rest assured, us girlybrained radfems could only dream of being as upright and principled as you.)

Given this is Jacobin it is surprising, this article fails to note that socialists SHOULD be cool with destroying a 96 billion dollar a year industry that exploits primarily women, sexually and economically, and you’d think socialists would not be okay with defending that same industry with “but the workers!  think of the workers!  where would they go to work?”  But that’s what happens to leftists who fail to include an analysis of patriarchal values in their writing.

Onward!

At the core of radical feminism’s theoretical blunders is its conception of class.

For radical feminists, the two main classes in society are not the working class (who sell their labor power) and capitalists (who exploit them), but men (the oppressors) and women (the oppressed). They call this patriarchy theory.

Radical feminists don’t always acknowledge capitalism, but even when they do, they regard it as a completely separate sphere, siloed off from female oppression. Their ultimate goal is to abolish gender, which they see as inherently hierarchal and oppressive toward women.

Stopping here for a sec:  radical feminism is a leftist movement that, in theory, should be consistent in acknowledging capitalism-- but as tumblr often proves, many radfems don’t seem to understand this is part and parcel with the movement.  Also, radical feminist theory does not consider capitalism a sphere siloed off from female oppression-- it specifically names capitalism as a working feature of the patriarchy.  The core of socialism’s theoretical blunders in its conception of sexism is that merely getting rid of capitalism will fix patriarchy.

While Marxists share this antipathy toward patriarchy, [HA HA HA HA HA SURE YA DO!  Oh, sorry, carry on] we have a different conception of both class and the roots of women’s oppression. We define class not in gender but in economic terms: a person’s class is determined by their relationship to the means of production and the state. Hillary Clinton and Sheryl Sandberg, for example, reside in much a different class than the female graduate student fighting for unionization or the mother of four working at a fast-food restaurant for minimum wage.

Socialists oppose any and all sexist comments hurled at Clinton, Sandberg, and other elite women. But the fact remains that their interests as capitalists and well-heeled politicians are fundamentally at odds with the interests of the vast majority of society.

Take a recent example: when female hotel workers attempted to unionize a Double Tree Hilton in Cambridge, Massachusetts a couple years ago, they explicitly asked for Sandberg’s support, stating that they were taking her advice to “lean in.” Sandberg refused to back them. And it’s no wonder. Universal “sisterhood” ran up against the concrete interests of capital. Sandberg’s true allegiances came through, loud and clear.

A radical feminist analysis of this would point out, Hillary Clinton and Sheryl Sandberg only have any power at all because males have conferred that power upon them.  This is true of any powerful woman under patriarchy.  And, as is true of all women as individuals-- the woman who wrote the Jacobin piece, for example, attempting to throw an entire feminist political philosophy under the bus-- you absolutely cannot count on every single woman to stand by other women when her interests, under patriarchy, might outweigh her solidarity with others.  That’s the shared nature of both capitalism and patriarchy-- they are best served by turning those with common interests against each other.  But the point is, like all women, no matter how privileged, connected, white, hetero she might be, she’s always dependent upon males for her influence and power.  Sandberg’s true allegiance is to Sandberg-- and under patriarchy she’d be a fool to not know which side her bread is buttered on.

As Marxists, we know the enemy is not men, but the capitalist class — which itself is multi-gendered and multiracial — and that our strategy must reflect this. Women’s oppression is not innate in humans but instead arose at a particular historical and political moment, alongside the development of class society and the nuclear family.

Women’s oppression persists not simply because men hate us, but because of the role we’ve played historically in the nuclear family. While men headed off to work each morning to engage in capitalist production — making cars at the factory, writing legal briefs at the office — women typically engaged in what is known as social reproduction: the biological reproduction of new workers (i.e. having children) and the day-to-day reproduction of workers — doing laundry, feeding the family, getting children ready for school, and so on.

Even in recent decades, as women have entered the paid workforce en masse, they’ve still tended to be saddled with the “second shift,” carrying out social reproduction at home after they return from work.

These tasks are all vital to capitalism. Workers must be fed, clothed, and prepared every day for capitalism to function. But it is in capitalism’s interest for this work to be done for free and in the private sphere.

It is in capitalism’s best interest for women to do all of this for free, but tell me something, um, given your admiration for radical feminist analysis of “domestic violence” and rape culture, are the mass murders of women and their families by their male significant others happening because of capitalism?  Isn’t that kind of a dodge, telling women and men the only reason specifically women are beaten and raped and murdered by specifically men who they usually specifically know is because of ... what, class?  The ruling classes are doing this?  Are causing this?  Or is it not in the best interest of the male proletariat to have his unpaid sex slave at home, or better yet, working too and THEN being there to do all the things she’s supposed to do for him, and have “his” children that he can take from her whenever he wants?  I mean, isn’t it possible a class analysis doesn’t quite cut it when you consider the daily oppression of women, of all classes, by men, of all classes?

And not only was all of this in capitalism’s best interest, and in the male’s best interest, but it was in the best interest of feudal lords, and the church, and it remains in the best interest among leftist organizers, who seem to have a great way of dodging their responsibility built into arguments like this one.  Rape and sexual assault and sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination take place in leftist organizations and movements every single day-- did capitalism cause this?  See, in the end, the reason radical feminism is NECESSARY to being a solid leftist with a holistic praxis is not because it is “limiting” and “blundering” and irrational, but because it makes everything make MORE sense.

Continue!

As a result, socialist feminists argue that the only way we can liberate women is to end class society, once and for all.

Along the way, there are reforms we can and should fight for, like raising the minimum wage, introducing paid maternity leave, and implementing universal child care. Socialist feminists like Sylvia Federici have also advocated “wages for housework,” in order to provide women financial independence and recognize their work in the domestic sphere as labor. Others, like Angela Davis, have proposed socializing these domestic tasks to remove the uneven and gendered burden from women.

But none of these reforms — much less the overthrow of capitalism — will be won without massive and united social movements. And that’s where the working class comes in. Because of its position in society, the working class as a whole — in all its multi-gendered, multiracial, multigenerational glory — is the societal agent that can fight to radically reform, and ultimately go beyond, capitalism.

Does this end goal include the abolition of gender? Probably! To quote Engels:

That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual — and that will be the end of it.

PROBABLY?  Um, okay, who has the limited philosophy now? 

Okay, deep breath everyone, you know this was coming:

In recent years, many people’s understanding of radical feminism has been colored by their opinions of TERFs, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists. Not all radical feminists are TERFs. MacKinnon has been an outspoken supporter of trans rights for decades, and has criticized TERFs for their bigotry. “Anybody who identifies as a woman, wants to be a woman, is going around being a woman, as far as I’m concerned, is a woman,” she said in a 2015 interview.

But while not synonymous, radical feminism contains many TERFs in its ranks, and its core ideas lend themselves to an exclusion of trans people, especially trans women.

For many radical feminists, it doesn’t matter what gender someone identifies and presents as — it only matters what gender they were assigned at birth. If men are the oppressors and the source of women’s oppression, it follows that those men maintain that oppressive power, even after they transition. Their socialization as men, no matter how short-lived or plagued by gender dysphoria and violence, renders them agents of female oppression. Thus, many radical feminists ban trans people, and particularly trans women, from their politics and organizing spaces.

This exclusion isn’t just bigoted — it’s hypocritical: while radical feminists campaign vigorously against sexual violence, it’s trans women who suffer from disproportionately high rates of sexual and physical violence (particularly trans women of color).

Statistically, only trans women of color-- the majority of trans women are white, and do not experience the same rates of violence or exclusion at all compared to trans women of color.  Many trans women of color are sex workers, which greatly enhances the risks of violence-- which female victims of sex work also suffer, at the same or higher rates.  There is some noise in the statistics, probably because violence against prostituted people is underreported overall, and you have the fact there are many more women than trans women involved at any given point in time, but it appears that sex work is a common denominator for violence against trans women-- not being trans.

Also there is nothing exclusionary about organizing women for women.  That’s just common sense.  Trans women are welcome in many spaces, and don’t need to be in every single one.  That’s not hypocritical-- that’s how leftists organize, unless you are going to pretend you’re against, say, Black activists deciding they only want to organize with other Black folk.  If trans women felt the need to organize together without the people they call “cis” around, would that be a problem?

TERFs may argue that trans women do not share a reproductive system with cis women, and thus can’t understand women’s struggles for birth control and against forced sterilization. But then what do they say of solidarity with lesbian women, or cis women who cannot or choose not to have children? The arguments that TERFs put forth are both weak and prejudiced.

Oh look, another strawman.  That’s not what “terfs” claim at all.  It isn’t about sharing a reproductive system or the ability or desire to give birth or to have abortions, though it’s a valid question as to what trans women might bring to the table on those issues.  No, it’s about sharing a lived experience based on being TREATED LIKE A FEMALE your entire life, based on your perceived reproductive capablities.  Lesbians and child free women and women who can’t have chldren all have the experience of female oppression.  Males, no matter how dysphoric they are, get treated like males. That’s the argument, if you’re going to try to debunk it at least get it right.

(Also note how effortlessly she slid into using TERF!)

Radical feminism is also noticeably silent on the question of racism, and is burdened by a politically suspect strategy for fighting it.

Men of color perpetuate sexism just like white men. But their experience of racism also binds them together with the women of color in their communities. As Sharon Smith writes, “the need to fight alongside men in the fight against racism or in the class struggle [has] made separatist ideas unappealing” for women of color.

Indeed, for many women, the struggle against racism is inextricably linked to the struggle against sexist oppression (both of which are ingrained in capitalism).

The Combahee River Collective, a legendary group of black feminist socialists, embodied this understanding, writing in their 1979 statement: “We need to articulate the real class situation of persons who are not merely raceless, sexless workers, but for whom racial and sexual oppression are significant determinants in their working/economic lives.”

YAWN!  You do realize radical feminism has a shit ton of writing on race, given how many of us are not white, right?  Is this your “white feminism” accusation?  Cuz no, honey, you are wrong.  Just because you haven’t read it /couldn’t be bothered to look it up doesn’t mean it isn’t there.  Also, you do know there were (and are) Black Lesbian separatists, right?  No?  I didn’t think so.

Women cannot reduce their experiences of oppression merely to their gender. Most of us are workers. Many of us are mothers, people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and more. We need to understand how all of these things are tied together in order to fight domination in all spheres — and in order to win.

Congratulations, you described intersectional feminism, which is exactly what radical feminism is.  Radical feminists are mostly workers, many are mothers, a good majority I know are women of color,  a large percentage of us are LGB, and some of us are even T (shocking!).  You clearly haven’t met any radical feminists is what I’m getting from this article.  If you had, you’d know this, but okay, onward!

While radical feminists posit separatism as a political strategy — and for some, the goal — socialist feminists understand that our power lies in our numbers. The division between working-class men and women, between cisgender people and transgender people — these fissures are detrimental to our overall aims. They only make us weaker and our fight against capitalism that much harder.

Radical feminists are pretty divided on the issue of separatism.  It’s hardly a bedrock strategy for the majority of us, any more than it remains a bedrock strategy for most Black people organizing today-- it was a popular strategy for a lot of groups, at one time.  All of us have moved on, except liberal and socialist feminists looking to discredit radical feminism on dated technicalities.  But it’s true, this is an area in which socialists and some radfems clearly, strongly disagree.  There is overlap, but of course there are differences or I wouldn’t feel the need, as a Marxist, to out myself clearly as a Radical Feminist as well, and to prioritize it. 

But the paragraphs below are the actual point of Jacobin deciding to publish this really badly written  critique of someone’s IDEA of what she THINKS radical feminism is, based on, I guess, social media?  I don’t know know.  Anyway, here it is:

Socialist feminists’ goal is to build solidarity across the entire working class. Our fates are tied together, and the struggle against gendered oppression is inseparable from the struggle against transphobia, racism, and capitalism more broadly. Any movement or theory of feminism that either explicitly or implicitly excludes trans people, intentionally misgenders them, or perpetuates transphobia has no business being on the Left.

Recently, Left Forum came under fire for including a panel that questioned the legitimacy of transgender people and their need for health care. After much controversy, it was ultimately cancelled — and rightly so. As the movement for transgender rights gains steam, the Left must be forthright in our solidarity with transgender and gender non-conforming people.

(For the sake of accuracy one of us should mention that Left Forum knew full well they were a radical feminist group, because at one time Left Forum, and all leftists, had no problem with radical feminists.  The panel did not question the legitimacy of trans people and their need for healthcare-- this is what trans activists at Left Forum accused them of to preemptively shut them down.)

While there are things we can find inspiring within radical feminism, such as the emphasis on sexual violence, its analysis of the roots of women’s oppression and resulting ideas about how we should organize politically fall flat.

For example, we absolutely must prop up gender as a construct and never question the concept of hierarchy in that one aspect of human life, because if we did we’d get somewhere close to the actual roots of women’s oppression, and have to call men out on their shit, and that would be HARD.  We don’t really believe it can or should be done.  We don’t want to make waves.  MY boyfriend isn’t like that!   And what if we abolished gender as a hierarchy-- then we’d have to acknowledge biology is real, and trans people are experiencing a mental issue that they need every help and sympathy with but no we do not need to reorganize the world around them, and then how ever will Jacobin virtue signal so fucking hard???

Rather than seeing men as the core source of women’s oppression, we must identify class society as the culprit. Fighting capitalism remains the only path toward women’s full liberation.

Okay.

When the revolution comes, and socialist women find out men are no different, no nicer, no less violent and entitled, not at all changed, then I guess it will be time for them to figure out the patriarchy transcends capitalism.  It was there before capitalism, and unless we destroy it, it will be here after capitalism.  Of course, I don’t think there will be a revolution without radical feminists, at least not one worth fighting for.

Good luck, comrades.

[azurowle]

I’ve decided I’m going to try and make a concerted effort not to use the term “TERF” going forward on this blog - if I absolutely must I will refer to it using capital letters only.

This is in no way a defense of trans-exclusionary radical feminists, nor a condemnation of those who still choose to use the acronym TERF; this decision actually came after reading a poster on Reddit who described the reasons they didn’t like using TERF, and more expansion on it based on my own thoughts that followed after that.

1) Precision of language. TERF is an acronym, but one that, for me at least, is slowly losing meaning.  Concepts, rhetoric, and ideas that originated with radical feminists (the demonization of “fujoshi”, “cishet aroace” exclustion, ect.) are starting to get parroted by other groups such as exclusionists, gatekeepers, and ship/anti-kink discoursers. While there is significant overlap in beliefs with these groups, it becomes problematic when TERF becomes the go-to in describing everyone who says something reminiscent of their language. There’s a risk of lumping LGB, trans, and queer people who are also anti-TERF in with their oppressors, and that is not something I am personally willing to do anymore. 

(There’s also the fact that there are radfems - Andrea Dworkin and Margaret Atwood, for example - who are inclusive of trans woman, and my issues with Dworkin aside she did at least support trans people getting necessary surgery to alleviate gender dysphoria.)

2) Terminology transparency. Radfems are beginning to use “TERF is a slur” to redirect legitimate criticisms of their behavior and beliefs. While I don’t believe it’s a “meaningless slur” (it’s an acronym, my dear trans-exclusionary radical feminist friends), I do believe that for me there was an element of abstraction in simply using TERF and calling it a day.  It also ties into the previous point - precision of language.  It cuts right to the heart of addressing what they are and where there’s an issue with them. When I spell out the words, I can understand the meaning - and others observing the conversation can understand the issue I have with them.

3) To quote Albus Dumbledore, “Fear of the name increases fear of the thing itself.” The particular context of this quote was one that I initially thought of when I came to this decision. In my case, it was a combination of fear, anger, and desperation. As I described in a previous post, I read trans-exclusionary radfem rhetoric in a combination of emotionally draining and invalidating myself, reinforcing that I’d never be anything but female and might as well accept it, that I was a gross fetishist of gay men, that I was suffering from a “social contagion”...I could go on.

This failed for a lot of reasons, but more importantly, it caused me to hone in on TERFs as a particularly bad, nasty, unique brand of bigot. My desperation to find a non-transition way to deal with my gender dysphoria and the utterly nasty things I saw popular radical feminists say without being challenged created a poisonous mindset that eventually led to me abusing alcohol and self-mutilation in an attempt to escape from the pain it caused. It caused me to hyperfixate on 

And all that time, I ignored the other transphobes who hated me just as much - the social conservatives, the alt-right, the Nazis, and the trolls. I did not give them the same emotional investment I gave to trans-exclusionary radfems.

Spelling out the acronym takes away that anger. “TERFs” aren’t really anything special. I don’t hate them, not really. I don’t pity, empathize, or even really want to understand them that much anymore. I’ve been on T for two months and have never loved myself more than I do now.  It’s the difference between watching TV on an old 80′s model and watching it on a high-definition digital screen. They were wrong, plain and simple, about how transition would make me feel and how much it would alleviate my dysphoria.

At the end of the day, they’re just transphobes who, like every other transphobic group I mentioned above, wants to limit our rights to exist as trans men and trans women in this world. They deserve the same emotionless, logical takedown that social conservatives, the alt-right, Nazis, and other transphobes deserve. Nothing more or less.

[red-stocking]

What in your opinion are the upsides and downsides to both radical feminist theory and Marxist feminist theory? :)

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION THANK YOU (as always i apologize for the hella long response)

First, i want to start off by saying that I would really define marxist feminism as kind of a sub-category of radical feminism. There is just such a tremendous overlap in theory, and quite a few radical feminists were also socialists, and vice versa. The real difference is kind of the plan-of-action, the ‘how to actually concretely fight the patriarchy’ part, and then kind of the in-practice cultures of marxist feminism and radical feminism.

I also wanna say that, in a perfect world, marxist feminist is a redundant phrase. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Zetkin all agreed that women’s rights must be part of a socialist program, without it you do not have socialism. That Marxism makes feminism unnecessary, because socialism is already fighting for equal rights for all, power to the people, no worker’s voice is stronger than another’s. There are many women marxists who do believe it is redundant and so they don’t apply the feminist label to themselves, Not because they are at all anti-feminist, and not out of condemnation to feminists of any kind, but because they see their ideas both as encompassing of the women’s struggle and not inclusive at all to the bourgeois feminist movement. If that makes sense. Anyway, I call myself a Marxist feminist because I don’t wish to distance myself from feminism, especially on this site, because I want to engage feminists and i want other feminists to see that we have ideas in common immediately, without me having to explain several marxist pillars. Both marxist and radical feminism look at the roots of womens oppression, they both analyze the social contexts in which patriarchy exists, and both recognize that femininity and masculinity are not innate, biological facts but culturally relative tools of oppression. 

So- the major pillars (or what I think they are) of radical feminism are included in marxism/marxist feminism. They differ then, in how we must dismantle the patriarchy. It has never been clear to me what the plan is in radical feminism. As far as I have been able to tell, its just analysis and like, growing consciousness or awareness at the socialization we as women experience. Or I have also seen separatism as a way to escape patriarchy. But otherwise, just suggestions of donating time and money to women’s shelters and charities, but none of these things actually change the system, none will deliver that huge blow that will take patriarchy down for good. If there is a radical feminist that knows differently, please do comment! I am not the most well-read person on the subject, so I could be wrong and just haven’t learned what that plan is yet. But yeah, as far as I know, that’s the plan.

The ultimate goal of marxism is to establish socialism. The idea behind marxism is that society changes when the people’s relationship to the means of production changed, and this is confirmed by what we know of archaeological history. When private property was first developed as a concept (and there was enough surplus from what people were producing to claim ownership on things) that was when women’s oppression began. Prior to that, there was what we call primitive communism, where resources were shared because there was not enough to go around anyway- communism for survival. There were divisions of labor between the sexes in most primitive communist societies (the whole hunter-gatherer idea) but there is a lot of evidence that these divisions were hardly strict, and not as pervasive as once thought. Then of course, under feudalism slavery was developed, and then later, with the transition to capitalism, racism really took hold. (there is a LOT of debate about when racism really ‘began’- but it did more or less coincide with the transition from feudalism to capitalism i believe.)

Sorry, that background was necessary. Basically, social relations in society change when the economics of society change.  Marxists then apply that idea to the future of humankind as well. They say, well if we want to dismantle these systems of oppression -sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism, etc) we have to change the relationship of the people to the means of production. We have to dismantle capitalism, and establish socialism. Giving women economic equality is the first step to dismantling patriarchy, and that cannot be done under capitalism. 

Now of course, no marxist/marxist feminist believes that all we need to do is have a socialist revolution and then Boom, we r done. After all, we still have the oppression of women, something that could have been dismantled with the transition from feudalism to capitalism, but wasn’t. There needs to be active intervention to ensure women’s equality under socialism after the revolution. After the Russian Revolution (which celebrates its 100th anniversary this year, and started with a women’s strike 100 years ago this wednesday!) there were programs established that gave access to free childcare, healthcare, contraception was legalized, it was easier for women to get divorced, women were given the right to vote and equal status to men was given immediately, and at one point the sciences had an equal representation of women- even almost tipping to give women a majority. This was the nation engaged in the space race with the US, remember. (I dont want to sound like I am in anyway romanticizing the USSR and I absolutely am NOT a Stalinist, but they got a couple things right in the early days and those are worth pointing out).So that is what I consider the ‘upside’ to marxist feminism, or the ‘downside’ to radical feminism. WOW OK ALMOST THERE STAY WITH ME YALL.

The other way in which radical feminism and marxist feminism differ is the communities. Marxism is dominated by men. So fucking dominated by men. i have found a leftist group that is very welcoming, aware of women’s oppression, and I feel very comfortable speaking up in the group- but I am the ‘token’ female, the only one. And this is not just my group, but the national and international organizations my group belongs to. There’s an LGBT Rights pamphlet but they really only talk about the G and the T. And I do know it isn’t out of maliciousness, I have met the guy who wrote that pamphlet. Its just. Out of sight out of mind. The representation of women is just appallingly low. They are aware of it and really do want to change it, they are working on making women’s issues more prominent in discussions, making their spaces more welcoming to women, etc. But at the moment, my sex sometimes can feel like a burden, or extra responsibility. Like I have to represent an entire half of the world by myself. There isnt really a ‘marxist feminist’ community, just marxists.

In radical feminist circles, obviously it is men who are the minority if they are at all present. Its a very different community than marxism. Obviously it’s not perfect, there are issues that the radfem community needs to work out, but I appreciate things like how open i can be about my menstrual cycle, I can vent about men a little more viciously than i would with my male comrades- though they are pretty accepting of anti-men rants, I gotta say. It’s just nice to talk to women and the culture in radical feminism is just- being a woman and an asshole is more acceptable lol. I don’t have to be on my tiptoes with what words I use. I am not even sure how to explain it tbh. So that’s the upside of radical feminism/ the downside of marxism. I talked about a ton of different stuff and touched on a lot more things, so if you or anyone wants to ask me any follow up q’s i welcome asks. anon is always on. sorry for the essay.

[rametarin]

If I had the ear of South America..

I would say, “Latinx is only the beginning.”

Yeah. It’s perceived as an anglo plot to colonize and imperialize the Spanish language, as it was born in the US thanks to a bunch of cultural marxist shitheads that are shamelessly trying to argue against gendered language on some futurist utopian transhumanist bullshit, white claiming it’s purely, “for diversity and inclusion of the transgendered and non-binary gendered people.”

But you aren’t going to stop or stem this tide of stupid by writing it off as some anglo plot. It just.. it won’t stop.

Here in the United States a guerilla cultural war went on. As a child I was exposed to radical feminists that took careful measures to engineer my experiences and get me to draw conclusions. That white people were evil, as individuals and as a group. That white people were destroying the world. That white people were soulless, cultureless imperialist monsters that just wanted to subvert all the innocent and harmless brown people and verifiably undeniably had enslaved everybody and everything.

That togetherness you enjoy under the label Hispanic and/or Latino? These people that formulated Latinx are working to subvert that, too. Here in the states, “I don’t see race” became controversial because the supposed progressives don’t like the egalitarian model that eliminates race and class from the equation to address if an individual is free or not based on their own personal merits, poverty level, education, etc. They DO like to ask, “Are these COMMUNITIES and MINORITY GROUPS (self identified) thriving and growing? If not, is it because the majority isn’t helping them grow at their own expense?”

In the United States, for the longest time, the narrative was that Spanish colonialism was irrelevant, at least in the US conversation about race and oppression, because, “Spanish speakers are marginalized and oppressed.” And also implied to be synonymous with being as different from white people as Asians and black Africans. So giving the Spanish the same stigma as they give, say, people descended from the English, or the French, or the Germans, was considered wrong.

But now that they’ve decided they want to cement more ties with drug cartels and guerillas across South America, the conversation and discourse has progressed. Now they want to kick up activity in Latin America to make society divisive and talk about how the black Latino is inherently oppressed by the white Latino. Rather than the discourse assume everybody south of the border is some big happy singular culture and family, it’s becoming clearer they don’t like white Spanish, and want the progressive and hip and cool kid view that white Spanish people, regardless of their origins or immigration status, are oppressors of people with different skin, solely on account of their, “privilege.”

This mentality that encouraged minority groups to militantly self-segregate and declare themselves separate cultures unto themselves, being oppressed by a white majority, is being used to sell social theories and scapegoat majorities for any and all problems being faced by a community .Exploiting the very real colorism and history of discrimination, but not for the ends of ending it, but for exploiting it to motivate division, discord and violence.

Feminism’s surface stated values and goals in and of themselves aren’t all bad. Obviously, there are backwards and exploitative or outright misogynistic views, values and social policy put in place to prevent women from living independent lives or progressing in work or business. The concept of a niche of interest that covers that WOULD be good, except it has been co-opted and platformed by these same marxist guerilla people for the purposes of selling dialectic materialistic views on what is unfair and what is unjust, and they’re harnessing that anger to create a culture that makes women feel oppressed as a class and under the auspices of what they’re learning from the Marxists.

They use and exploit this niche, this legitimate advocacy towards equality and advancement for women, the way a horror movie monster wiggles into the skin of a crewmate to characterize itself as something it is not while sabotaging the environment and exploiting the situation for its own ends. Infiltration. So female uprightedness and empowerment in and of itself is not the problem, but ‘feminism’ as a social organization is. The banner has been platformed and tained, and a lot of the literature mixed in with it is more of the same Critical Legal Theory crap that tells them certain things are true and absolute based on arbitrary theory.

It is important to not see this egalitarian undertone as the problem. It is not. The egalitarian element that is appropriated by these conspirators and guerillas is not the issue. The issue is the people that have exploited the conversation of female equality, are doing so to stick lenses over the eyes of the people with the only outlet of social organization they can see or know to do anything about it. And that’s how you get populist radical feminism as the only or biggest, loudest game in town for their organizing.

That’s how you get buzz cut self-proclaimed radfems rioting and attacking churches and other, “patriarchal organizations.” That’s how you get the same sort of woman taking the liberty of telling young girls (whom then go on to see young boys so dourly and poorly) that “society is corrupted and evil.”

It is so, so important going forwards to fight shit like Latinx in the correct way. If you make the wrong arguments, you won’t break through to your daughters or sons. They’re being told that white people (and this now includes Spanish-Latinos) are monsters. And they’re being told that men are shit. Little boys (like I was) are being cornered by their female age-group peers, their peers older sisters, aunts, mothers, other peers, that men by default are oppressive, woman-hating monsters by default and by society/culture.

You need to understand that the things these supposed progressives try to fight for, they do it solely to take the niche away from anybody else and DEFINE progressivism as what they want, and anything they do not, to be more of the same oppression by race, by sex, by religion, by culture, by money. It’s a propaganda game, and the more any of you try to preach about Jesus or the church knowing best, or ‘things are just naturally a certain way and you need to understand that,’ the more you play into their hands.

Your enemy is radical, and it is only secular on paper. But they’ll induct people to have “important conversations” with your children and community that appeal to what they only call science and logic, that are in fact only loosely that. And really just subjective opinion, philosophy. Social science. You try and appeal to religion to argue their stuff, they’ll beat you like a drum and you’ll just prove them right in the developing hearts and minds of a generation that is trying to not be stuck with the stigma of their parents or ancestors in the eyes of their friends.

This is not an enemy you can just sing a song about Jesus and Mary and defeat. These people will take and twist any real or even perceived and interpreted flaw in your society and those that suffer from the ills the most will internalize it, if what’s made to appeal to their sensibilities takes.

In America, that comes in the form of mixing racial separatism and supremacism with conflating it for the struggle for black freedom and equality. And I cannot imagine it being any different south of Mexico, whatsoever. They’ll work on the girls and tell them that to be born white-Latino is to be an oppressor, tell the girls they’re largely exempt from this because women are a marginalized and oppressed minority/demographic, and tell the misc. non-white groups across South America that they should organize against the hegemony of white people and “whiteness.”

They’ll do it while pretending their attempts and desire to spread disunity and hostility is “sticking up for the little guy.” They’ll do it while confronting overbearing actual patriarchal culture and binary gendered culture (so long as it’s white)  and write off ALL of Catholicism in South America as equal to the WORST of examples of bad Catholicism.

American conservatives continue to struggle dealing with these people because they see an opportunity to polarize and capitalize on the totalitarian nature of this polarization. They see it as a way to incentivize people to vote for more conservative, religious and similarthings, because if their alternative are literal communists and socialists, they can afford to ask for more.

Meanwhile they lose when it comes to hearts and minds of the young because their messages are just utterly worthless when as a 2-13 year old, you’re being told religious, old, white, capitalist people are oppressing everybody and destroying everything and trying to force everybody to live and society to work under the totalitarianism of religion.

When the angry political lesbian type corners you as a small child and explains that men are why women are so afraid of men, and you can’t even rebutt that it’s a feminist talking point without them talking about how that’s a Nazi/conservative propaganda view, and the young girls they’re grooming go with that interpretation of the world and events because it holds more romantic value for them, things they want to be true and things that they’ve been given just enough facts and reason to think are true, it doesn’t help when competitive arguments are either, “you’re too young to think about or talk about social issues or political discourse,” or, confirm every negative suspicion they now have with, “well they’re right, we are oppressing them, but we have every right to.”

The only way to truly beat these manipulative, lying, exploiting animals is to beat them at their own game.

They do not care about minority welfare or rights beyond their solutions on how to address any given injustice they can think of. Whether it be by making society respect the establishment of different racial communities again solely to provide financail welfare to people on the basis of race, or rules that say they’re free to discriminate against groups of people in the name of hiring and defending others. They care only about using those struggles to give the state more power over not just people, but groups, and even how communities are defined. Right down to trying to demand biological sex be marginalized in importance of terms like gender solely because less than .4% of the human population claims to not be defined by the biological sex/gender binary.

So the only way to defeat them is to address the problems in a way that route and solve them, while you still have power and the means by which to solve them the proper way. For if you don’t, the Marxist village idiots will.