Council Elections: An open letter to Liberal Councillor Kent Johns

Dear Kent

Thank you for reminding the womenfolk in our family of our place in patriarchy. My twenty two year old daughter has been on the electoral roll for several years now. However, now that my seventeen year old son has enrolled, it makes perfect sense that all your correspondence now be addressed to him, with my daughter’s name merely added as an appendage to his Mr.

I will endeavour to make sure that full power of attorney over my daughter’s assets be signed over to my son as soon as possible, until such times as a suitable husband can be found to transfer ownership to.

In the interim, please forward us all of your laundry including dirty socks, shirts with particularly tough collar stains etc. to us. And what would you like on your sandwich?

Yours Sincerely

Linda Radfem

On hetero privilege and feminism.

And now it appears that I have really upset the author of the comic “Feminist Dad” which is a comic satirising the idea that when men father daughters they become born again feminists. The author feels that I have bullied her and tried to force her to ban men from her blog. This is based on my problematising the inclusion of men in feminist discussion after the resident men reacted badly to the comic.

Anyway, it’s got me thinking about other times when I’ve been in similar situations and speaking the brutal truth about gender-based oppression and gender relations. Lesbian separatist theory holds that heterosexuality is a main institution of patriarchy. And that women who receive the privilege and (relative) safety of being heterosexual will always, when it comes right down to the nitty gritty, side with men against their lesbian sisters. We see this played out repeatedly on the internet these days and it’s often interpreted as “defence of men”, that our straight sisters behave as they have been socialised to according to gender roles – as carers and nurturers. I’ve interpreted it this way myself when trying to analyse social interactions that have ended in someone being upset.

But I know that not all hetero feminists fall into this trap. There are radical feminists on the net who don’t do this and who are not male-identified and have given up their investment in het privilege. This got me wondering why do some (or most, it appears) hetero feminists do this? And if it were about just adherence to the rigid gender roles forced onto women in patriarchal society, then why don’t hetero feminists feel as responsible for caring about their lesbian sisters, who they surely understand to be less privileged (and more hated) than they are?

I think it’s about preserving privilege rather than wanting to defend/take care of, men. I say this because I have several straight friends whom I have known for upwards of twenty years, one has been my friend for forty one years. I love them; they love me. They respect my work and my passion for women’s freedom. But each of them has, over the years, when forced to choose between defending or siding with me or defending/siding with a man, they have all, at times, chosen man. But not necessarily a man they care about, or a man whom they are financially dependent upon, in fact none of them are financially dependent on a man. In fact, all of them see men very much the same way I do. All of them have experienced, as I have, violence, abuse, harassment and discrimination at the hands of men individually and collectively. They know the extent of the vile shit that men are capable of doing to us, and the truth of the whole stinking system we are stuck in, and behind closed doors they share my disdain.

But publicly, if it has ever come down to it, and it rarely does anymore because I actively avoid those situations IRL now, they will sacrifice me in favour of het privilege. Not in favour of taking care of an individual man, but in the interests of holding onto that privilege. This is why lesbian and some radical feminists advocate separatism – because most straight women will always protect the bit of privilege they have, in order to survive. The rise of neoliberalism must surely have made this response much worse. This is why radicals have women-only spaces; because having men in our spaces prevents us from achieving feedom for all women. This is also, presumably, why most straight feminists side with men in demonising women-only spaces on and offline. If they don’t they risk the privilege they have as individuals.

We see this happening in online feminist spaces that include men and male-identified women. It’s all well and good until male-identified feminists perceive themselves as being forced to choose – they choose their privilege. And don’t the men reward them for it?

Trans-centric feminism and lesbophobia

Well ding dong! This is (at least) the second time I have seen a post on this site attacking a lesbian feminist human rights activist immediately after she has died. Adrienne Rich, a key contributor to feminist thought, died recently. Rich coined the term “compulsory heterosexuality” among other insights, and she deserves better for her brilliance and her significant contribution to women’s struggle. The same site published a similar post immediately following the death of Mary Daly. Even MRAs don’t usually stoop that low. It horrifies to see the extent that male-identified women have been trained to do the dirty work of men in the vilification of lesbian women.

Refer to this excellent post by Dragon Dyke, regarding the expansion of the trans movement and the appropriation of oppression. Men have not been content with appropriation of women’s oppression; they are now looking to appropriate disability and no doubt work to have their needs positioned front and centre simply by claiming to feel like a disabled person inside. I wonder how far this nonsense will go before funfems wake up.

This comment from the aforementioned thread:

She may have fought for cis women, but she certainly didn’t fight for women

…says so much doesn’t it? She only fought for “cis” women (biological women) but she didn’t fight for the real women (transwomen). This tells us so much about how “transwomen” see women – they hate us just as all men do, and they see us as lesser just as all men do. They centre their “human rights” issues around sexual access to women just as MRAs do. They reek of male entitlement and misogyny.

As straight/male-partnered women, the libfems who run this site will likely never be in a position where they are expected to have sex with “transwomen”. This post by factcheckme describes the new “theory” called “the cotton ceiling” which states, unbelievably, that lesbians need to be trained to accept penised people as sexual partners. Not wanting to have sex with a person who has a penis is being framed as “transphobic” bigotry, and those penises are apparently not male – they are female penises. There are workshops held, similar to those run by the PUA/Seduction community, where “transwomen” can go to learn how to break down lesbian’s resistence to having sex with them. Get it? The cotton ceiling refers to women’s underwear, a barrier to men’s entitlement to access our bodies. It also steals feminist theory regarding the glass ceiling which prevents women from advancing in the work place – not even an acknowledgment of that! Just typing this makes me feel nauseous.

I have to wonder if funfems have really considered all of this, and if so, why are they so quiet on these issues? Do they simply not understand the implications for lesbian women? Have they forgotten that it has been lesbian women at the forefront of a lot of the activism aiming for the liberation of women, achieving gains that they now benefit from? Do they understand the implications for their children? If their children are encouraged to resist rigid gender roles, and most feminists fun or otherwise, do encourage this in their children, then do they not see how discourses of “gender dysphoria” will then be used against them? Do they understand that children have rights? These are not rhetorical questions; I am genuinely desperate to know the answers. How can funfems and other women who support transfolks in their oppressive agendas, not hear their lesbian sisters saying “Hey. This is oppressive to us. Please stop.” Please stop promoting this rape culture, erasure of lesbians, and pleease stop slandering, from the safety of your het-privilege, our greatest human rights activists, living or dead. I’m just so tired of this lesbophobia.

I wonder where it will all end. But I ask our funfem sisters to please consider our commentary and engage with our ideas instead of pressing on with the “transphobe” mantra that has been taught to them by men.

Why??

Professor Germaine Greer, appearing on Q and A the other night, publicly ridiculed the first woman prime minister in this country, for having a big arse. This is not helping the climate of rampant sexism and misopolitics that have characterised the country since we’ve had a laydee pm. Abbott would have laughed his evil head off.

New marriage equality campaign

This new video strongly reflects the politics of the equal marriage movement itself, but is not very representative of lesbians and gays in Australia.

The whole marriage equality push is quite literally rooted in conservatism. It was started by conservative gay white men who, being men, presumably didn’t like to be denied what straight men are entitled to.

My problem with it is that it is based on the principles of assimilation, which is a form of erasure. Did anyone see any butch dykes in the video, for example? No doubt we’re too grotesque for the nice het folks of Australia to have to look at. We’d probably ruin the whole campaign.

The other thing I hate about it is that it promotes one of patriarchy’s primary institutions, one that features highly in the oppression of women (see my other posts for more on my thoughts on this). So how is allowing more women the “right” to it, about equality?

Finally, it really promotes monogamy in a big way, and monogamy sucks in my opinion. It’s a push for yet more couple privilege in a society where couples are already privileged. What of lesbians and gays who are not exclusively partnered, or don’t want to be? This so-called “right” to marriage will eventually cause many gays and lesbians to be even more marginalised than ever. It will cause straights to become more marginalised than ever as the patriarchal ideal of a household set-up which is built around coupledom becomes ever more entrenched as the only way to live. What of single parent families, gay and straight? Siblings living together? Friends living together, or all the other various living arrangements that exist in Australia?

Living as a part of a legally recognised couple brings a hell of a lot of social capital and political and economic privileges. Why should those people be privileged above the rest of us? There is nothing revolutionary about allowing a few extra people into the privilege club. Abolishing the privilege altogether would be revolutionary.

This new ad reflects the conservativism and white malecentrism of the marriage equality movement. Where are the lesbian couples? Where are the poor or poverty class lesbians? Indigenous lesbians? There is one (non-threatening christian) lesbian, who appears without her partner. The other people speaking are either gay men, or straights, straights who claim they want their friends to have this sacred right to marriage. So, where are those friends? Why are they not there speaking for themselves? How is giving straights the power to speak for and define us, in any way progressive?

The older guy at the end is particularly inappropriate, speaking for his son while his son stands there mute. It’s older men who are often the worst for public displays of homophobic abuse. Just because he is convinced that his son should have the right to get married doesn’t mean that he will have less homophobic thoughts about lesbians.

The push to keep an institution that is destructive and harmful for women, lesbian or het, is not my idea of good feminism.

On Hetero Feminists

Hello! How dare we suggest that they not partner with men anymore?
This is what I Blame The Patriarchy has deteriorated into since the great transquestioner eradication project. It’s all full of that 101 femininity-defending and nigel-defending that you see on the funfemmie blogs. In other words, it’s become a hell of a lot more male-identified. How strange, that the peeps who are left there, the so-called pro-trans peeps, are the male-identified ones. Is anyone surprised at that? Not me.

According to some there, the desire to fuck dudes is their natural instinct rather than the result of a life time of male hegemony and social enforcement. It’s apparently mean of lesbians to suggest that perhaps they are helping to perpetuate patriarchy by identifying so strongly with their oppressors.

In the interests of avoiding the dualism patriarchy loves, maybe we could envision something in between marriage and the sexual/domestic servitude that accompanies it, and lesbian separatism. Just humour me for a moment.

When het feminists say “Hey I’m het! I like sex with males!” I want to say this in response:

Have your dude sex if you like it. Personally I can’t understand how any woman with even mild feminist awareness could stomach the thought of consensual sexual intimacy with a man, but that’s just me. If you want to do that stuff in your spare time, that’s your business. But. Why can you not just leave it at that? Why not just sex? Why do you have to also co-habit with a dude and become his carer as well? That’s the part that saps your time and energy and wears you down into identifying with male interests.

That energy could be used in forging social ties with other women. It could be used in supporting other women to access social resources that are denied them under patriarchy. It could be used to facilitate your own access to social resources! Meaningful work, study, pursuit of your own unique talents, developing your own identity. It could be harnessed in pursuit of human rights activism and social justice for all. The spare time you would have left over could be used for other women’s company, for friendships and laughter. It could go to strengthening feminist revolution! Hell. You don’t have to be having sex with women in order to enjoy their company. What a shame that het women have internalised this very patriarchal view of themselves and other women; the view that the only meaningful relationships are sexual ones.

But het women can’t seem to just have the sex. Heterosexual relations seem to incrementally mould women into the subservience that men and patriarchy require; it brainwashes them. In this way heterosexual relations are toxic for women, all women. They might deny that they are Stepford wives, and clearly this is true for many of them as can be evidenced by the excellent feminist commentary that comes from them. But. Just because they can manage to have sex with men and still think feminist thoughts, doesn’t mean that the relations are good for them. Just because they like having sex with men doesn’t mean it’s good for them. Not if, as I said, it goes part and parcel with the full brainwashing deal; the deal that prevents them from using their talent and their energy and resources for a real feminist revolution, as opposed to the fauxrevolution that is the femisphere. It is the strong identification with the oppressor class that keeps women too exhausted for feminist activism. When you suggest to het feminists that they could be more political, more committed to activism and sociostructural change, they sometimes get kinda snippy. Then they think we’re being unfair to them, because they are doing the best that they can under patriarchy and it’s ‘unfeminist’ to suggest they do more. The reason they don’t feel that they can do more is because they’re too busy taking care of nigels and hence maintaining patriarchy.

I wonder if they ever stop to consider that maybe there is a whole other, more meaningful, life waiting for them on the other side of that husband/boyfriend/penis. A life so satisfying that they would hardly notice the absence of a little thing like a dick.

Het feminists are deluding themselves that their personal sexual relations with men are harmless and only impacting on them as individuals. Those attachments are NOT harmless. They are stealing the energy needed to free all women from male power and tyranny.

Male-identified women and collusion with white male supremacy

One of my projects right now is policy development at a women’s service. The workers at this particular service are all white, het, married and middle class. This is a major pain in the arse when I’m trying to have conversations around service delivery to a client group who are mostly Aboriginal and poor. Today I sat in a meeting with these workers and one of them tried to pull the old “but women can be just as violent as men” shit on me. As I said, this is a women’s service and the client group have long histories of experiencing male violence in all it’s many forms. Needless to say I had a brain explosion.

This is an example of the way in which the more privileged women, domesticated females as Dworkin would say, participate in the continued oppression of other less privileged women. All of the women at this meeting are attached to Nigels and I understand this attachment as a barrier to their being able to acknowledge the heinousness of men in general. I saw their faces cloud over when I pointed out that statistically it is men who commit certain acts of violence. Their thoughts all went immediately to their obligations to defend their own Nigel. Their continued privilege hinges upon this unspoken agreement to turn a blind eye to the heinousness of men as a class.

I recently made a post about the heinousness of men, and I was quite shocked to realise the extent of this agreement, when two male-identified feminists of the internets tried to post comments which actually attempted to minimise male violence. When I think back, it has only ever been white, male-identified women who have objected to my posts. Those women tend to use a certain tone of condescension with me because their nigel privilege has inflated their sense of superiority. When I called one of these women on her abuse of privilege, nigel and middle class privilege, she informed me that privilege does not mean she is wrong and that I am not right because I “perceive” someone as having more privilege than I do, thereby exhibiting the very same privilege that she is trying to minimise. Apparently, privilege is just some kind of subjective perception, rather than actual social, political and economic advantage over others which makes a person feel qualified to stand over and silence less privileged people from challenging the structures and norms which keep them down. Another nigel addict tried to pull the same shit when I posted about teachers abusing children. Why? Because her precious nigel is a teacher. When I called her on using her privilege as a weapon to bludgeon other’s into silence she suddenly cried victim. She accused me of inducing her into a panic attack and ran away like a snivelling brat rather than stay and examine her own oppressive behaviours. After she had invaded my space to specifically oppress me with her nigel privilege and talk down to me like I’m some kind of lesser being.

These women hang out together online, in spaces that they kid themselves are somehow progressive, where they do nothing but chat about their middle class property ownership and their glorified nigels and their PhDs and their amazing whiteness and their amazingly white children. Spaces which they actively police against invasion from alternative or marginalised voices.

Do these women think we don’t see them for the white male supremacists that they are? I mean, many of them get the concept of male privilege and can discuss in detail when it is wielded against them. So one would think that it should only be a short step to understanding that non male-identified women can easily see when nigel addicts are doing the same thing to them. For them to keep denying this is just an example of disgusting white het privilege.

Short Post: Please don’t LGBTQI me

How much longer is this acronym going to get? How many more different groups can be lumped in together for the convenience of people who just really want to say ‘non-het’ and who can’t be bothered to distinguish between us all? Today there are marriage “equality” rallies all over the country (Australia) and so I’m seeing that offensive acronym all over the internets. Do people not realise how totally unrelated on most every level, personal, political and cultural, all those groups are?

Bitch gets pissed off about something, two times.

Supporters of white male supremacy will once again lever their privileged middle class arses off their leather lounges and out of their heteronormative, picket-fenced enclaves to go out in the street and rah rah about marriage.

This ’cause’ has become the preferred activism of straights now. It’s a culturally-safe cause to align themselves with. Much safer than say, speaking out against men’s penchant for raping, or men’s other violence, or men’s massive culture of celebrating their rapes and their violence. Couldn’t do that, might upset teh poor menzez! Seriously, I never see these types at other rallies – Reclaim The Night doesn’t even blip on their radar.

This bizarre behaviour by straights is problematic for several reasons and here is why; firstly they are aligning themselves with white male supremacy by so fervently supporting marriage ‘equality’ and this obviously is of great concern to feminists, white male supremacy being the vast bastion of oppression, exploitation and cruelty that it is.

Also, they are perpetrating another form of chronic douchebaggery; they are contributing to erasure of lesbian and gay people, of our voices, our lives and our experiences. They don’t think they are doing this. By getting their freak on and pretending to be all radical and rebellious for kicks, they think they are actually contributing to social inclusion. This is some fucked up logic. There are lesbian and gay people who not only do not give a flying fuck about marriage, but who more importantly, wish to retain a clear and distinct cultural identity that is far removed from boring heteronormative ideals like marriage. Co-opting a few of us into the socially-acceptable mainstream does NOT promote acceptance of diversity or tolerance of difference, rather, it disappears us completely. I would argue that this is exactly what homophobes in the straight community want – they want to be surounded by lots of non-threatening, cookie-cutter relationships that feel right to them.

Further to all that, by making such a big fucking deal out of the supercool fun activism that they don’t even have to challenge their own thinking in order to participate in, they are helping to obscure more serious issues. Issues such as homophobic abuse, harassment and violence; systemic discrimination; the homosexual advances defence. They are disappearing our cultural identities and by doing this they exclude us from serious public debate and policy decision-making processes – in other words, they are contributing to social exclusion. But hey, so long as they feel good about themselves, and can tell themselves stories about themselves about how hip and progressive they are, who gives a crap about real social issues?

Another thing to keep in mind here, is that many lesbians and gays are extremely uncomfortable with the thought of legal marriage as it would necessarily mean to identify themselves to the state. Many of us, particularly older people, do not believe we have evolved enough as a society that it is safe to do this. We don’t know what type of governments are going to perpetrate patriarchy in the future. The Weimar Republic of pre-WWII Germany was liberal enough that lesbians and gays could be openly visible – the government that followed began exterminating them.

Whirlpool says:”Shutup and do your laundry, bitch!”

Whirlpool have recycled not only an old advertising slogan, but the tired old gender stereotypes of the 1950s – and they don’t even have the decency to pay a female actor to do it.

Would you mind supporting me in my activism by dropping them a quick email?

aus_customerlink@whirlpool.com

It won’t take a moment of your time and then you can get back to preparing your Nigel a delicious dinner for when he comes in from a hard day at the office, or maybe finish that sweater you’ve been knitting him.

Thankyou to News With Nipples for the heads up.