THE PARASITIZING AND GUTTING OF RADICAL FEMINISM
Too many women and girls are put off Radical Feminism because of the bland, vague politics that masquerade as Radical Feminism. Too many have been personally insulted by false “leaders” of a movement that is based on having no leaders. The energy, excitement, and love that can exist among Radical Feminists is being sabotaged by imposters substituting anti-feminist politics.
I object. I object to our Radical Feminist movement and culture being appropriated and parasitized. I object when men do it, claiming to be Radical Feminists and demanding we accept them as women. And I object when women who are not Radical Feminists do it, setting themselves up as the bosses of our movement, misrepresenting our politics, policing women to accept their distorted version of Radical Feminism, and harassing actual Radical Feminists who object. This movement is not theirs to steal.
It’s clear that men can’t ever be women, so they also can’t be Radical Feminists. But a woman who is not yet a Radical Feminist could yet become one, making it more difficult to draw the line about who is or who isn’t a real Radical Feminist. However, just as there is a clear definition of “female,” there is a clear definition of true Radical Feminist politics as developed for over forty years. Still, lies repeated enough begin to be believed, especially when supported by arrogant cliques who use ruthless tactics.
Some present these new anti-feminist politics as the ultimate law of “radfems,” yet no Radical Feminist I know ever voted on it or agrees to it. It’s like a cult where no thinking, or questioning the contradictions with real Radical Feminism, is allowed. Women who dare to object are immediately bombarded with ridicule and hatred to shame them into mindlessly obeying. They then are trained to police other women who step out of line. Some women who want to learn about feminism, and who want and need to share support with other women, instead find this Counterfeit Feminism online and are put off and give up.
This is not about women new to feminism excitedly repeating mainstream ideas they learned from the media or fake women’s studies classes, but about a deliberate weakening and distortion of Radical Feminism.
In many groups now, as soon as Radical Feminists refer to the basic principles of what has been known for decades as Radical Feminism (clearly distinct from anti-feminism, mainstream feminism, or liberal feminism), we are censored, silenced, and even told we are “misogynist” – which are the same tactics the trans cult use with their mock charges of “misogyny” against women who say no to them. This manipulative ploy is being effective in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ takeover of real Radical Feminism because it’s hard to fight such an accusation when you are not allowed to answer at blogs or in facebook “Radical Feminist” groups because you are immediately banned. Then the imposters misrepresent your politics with lies to explain your disappearance. Other women in the group withdraw in terror of being the next to be banished. (By the way, if anyone does hear bizarre misrepresentations of my politics, feel free to ask.)
Many online feminists are well-meaning, but also are isolated and lonely, and fear rejection. It’s in women’s nature to be social and want a community of friends. Yet too often the price of joining the parasitizing cliques is agreeing to abandon common sense. So they learn the new rules and join in the gutting of real Radical Feminism.
This re-defining of Radical Feminism is similar to how the word “Lesbian” has been re-defined to include bisexuals, het women, and even men.
We already know that there are trolls in our online international Radical Feminist movement. Some have been revealed to be MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) but others are women betraying our movement and playing a double game. Too often the women trolls get into positions of power, and even name themselves our leaders. When they are exposed, they just start new pretend Radical Feminists groups to moderate, and real Radical Feminists, not wanting to be left out of the cliques, join, ignoring what these women have done, and so give credibility to the troll groups, draining our movement.
Some feminists talk sadly about how heart-breaking the “infighting” is, but infighting is what happens among members of the same movement. The women dismantling Radical Feminism are NOT part of our movement or culture. It helps protect us as a movement, and protects our hearts individually, to recognize that clearly.
Knowing our history, means knowing that every destructive anti-feminist and anti-female group that infiltrated our culture began by claiming to be feminist and using our language to convince our community they were one of us. (In 1979, the sado-masochists Wikipedia describes as “writer Pat Califia and feminist academic Gayle Rubin,” began Samois, used classic Lesbian Feminist terminology like “womyn” and “womon” in their publication to convince feminists that sado-masochism was feminist. I still hear women repeating some of their stock phrases used to explain the unexplainable. Similarly, many of the men who insist they are women and Lesbians call themselves “feminists” and even “Radical Feminists.” Those two female-hating worlds merged when Pat Califia, the bisexual who also used to appropriate Butch identity now claims to be a “gay man.”)
Our Women’s Liberation movement does not grow if we are forced to re-discuss basic feminist ideas and politics endlessly, which is a classic method of trolling and sabotage. Those who do not know our history keep trying to condemn us to repeat it.
Feminists who have strong politics about some issues suddenly can sound like liberals with no politics when they insist “You can’t define Radical Feminism and tell a woman she isn’t a Radical Feminist.” Well, why not? The politics either are or are not Radical Feminism, as opposed to liberal/mainstream/right wing feminism. Any woman who wants to dilute Radical Feminism into a bland, meaningless mess is simply not a Radical Feminist.
So What IS Radical Feminism?
Radical Feminism is liberal feminism taken to its logical extreme. Radical Feminism is where liberal feminists are afraid to explore. Though there are strong het Radical Feminists, It’s important to know that Radical Feminism did come from Lesbian Feminism.
Radical Feminism, which began in the late Sixties and early Seventies, is an international movement of females of all ages who are fighting against patriarchy. Some Radical Feminists have access to the many books that came later, but other women are just discovering it, as we did, inspired by their own minds and experience, and by talking with other women.
Mainstream, reformist, and liberal feminists support the status quo. They believe everything will be just fine if men as a group would somehow stop raping and killing females, and destroying the earth. Of course they think it’s always up to women to make men change, which means devoting even more time to men and boys. That never works. Reformism does not go past fantasy into reality. Reformists don’t want to face the upsetting truths about patriarchy and males, or female collaborators. As painful as those realizations are, Radical Feminists know that Radical Feminism explains what has gone wrong with mainstream feminism and is the only way to actually change patriarchy and to end male violence towards all females and the earth. It is ultimately extremely freeing.
Liberal/reformist feminism is about pleading with our oppressors and relying on the male system to eventually make things better for women, with women bearing the brunt of the work as usual. Part of the problem is that most women want to just feel comfortable and not be deeply challenged to think or to change their lives. They know that patriarchy is not fair for girls and women. They want a better deal from men. But many do not realize that better deals are limited, as well as subject to removal over time. Those of us who have been watching for decades see the various ways that patriarchy plays games and even uses mainstream feminist slogans for their benefit. Woman wanting freedom from men are turned into “liberated women” who give men exactly what they want, with none of the protections that het women previously expected (like sexually serving men in exchange for marriage, which, while constricting, also means increase in family status and societal status as well as security, money, property, etc. that most women could never hope to get on their own or with other women. Yes, it’s a form of legal prostitution, but with more advantages than servicing men for free. Of course Radical Feminism is against both.)
Women become more bound to men with less safety when they believe the patriarchal version of mainstream MS magazine feminism (with its het porn stories) instead of finding out about real Radical Feminism.
Radical Feminism, and particularly Radical Lesbian Feminism, takes liberal, mainstream feminism past its bland, vague request for equal rights for women into the most courageous and unacceptable extreme of working for true justice for all females. It takes us past where we are forbidden to even think, which is why it’s so threatening. Radical Feminism is about always questioning every single thing that we are told is “reality” or “just the way things are,” etc. Parasitized pretend feminism teaches women to stop questioning and thinking, and to accept lies that can be comfortingly similar to the regular patriarchal cons. Only enough is changed to fit the agendas of the false leaders of this counterfeit feminism.
Radical Feminism is what women discover and invent when all the patriarchal censors on our minds are gone, and the fear of retribution is ignored. Radical is more than the root, it goes beyond all the lies we were taught, recognizing that patriarchy is built on deception. When the lies are exposed, then patriarchal control of girls’ and women’s minds unravels.
Radical Feminism shakes patriarchy to its core because it calls for the very ending of patriarchy. And we believe that that is the only thing that will save the earth from the direction of destruction men have set.
Radical Feminists don’t even pretend to believe that females and males are basically the same, while liberal/mainstream feminists repeat the dangerous myth that male violence is not an innate biological difference, even though male violence can easily be seen and verified in many other animal species. They also push the line that men are somehow victims of “socialization,” and therefore victims too.
The truth is all around us, and even our other animal sisters know better than most women that it’s the norm in males to want to rape and kill.
Male sea otters kidnap baby otters from their mothers, forcing the mothers to bring food to them. They kill ten percent of the females when trying to rape them. They also rape baby seals to death and continue raping the corpse until it rots. Male koalas, attempting to rape the females, often kill the females and their babies. Male lions kill the babies, including their own, and rape the females. In one bug/hemiptera species, the males literally puncture the females’ abdomen to reproduce. In response, some female animals have built female-only societies, and some have almost completely eliminated the males and control the existence of those they choose to create.
This was one of the clear dividing lines in the Seventies, when the women invested in males said we must help them overcome socialization, ignoring that boys raping animals and baby girls were no way shown in the media or approved of in most families, religions, neighborhoods, and cultures. If the boys who do this bring shame to their people, then where does the “socialization” come from? (There was a video online showing a boy raping a chicken, and then his father hitting him in the head, knocking him down.) Would women really pay to go to brothels where they could sexually assault animals, like men have constructed?
Already for millennia, before there was mass media, males were as dangerous as they are now. Now over forty years after the theory of men as “victims too” was introduced, we see how well the making of new non-misogynist males has worked. Some of the most female-hating men come from women trying their hardest to make decent men out of their boys. It’s not the mother’s fault that their sons absorbed their love and energy to become even more entitled and now have inside information. (One of the worst, pornographer Tobi Hill-Meyer, even while posting online photos of his erect prick, insists he’s a Lesbian and Butch, and is given a power position on the board of Butch Voices to ban real Lesbians and Butches from doing Lesbian workshops.)
The Radical Feminist politics of males and females being biologically different matches common sense and what men themselves admit (just ask them), and is also what most non-feminist women know. If we want a worldwide movement, we must be aware of what aspects of feminism put off most women. The insistence of liberal feminists that there are no brain/mind/spirit differences is one which most women know is not true.
We’ve been saying no to excuses for male violence for decades. (The classic “he’s a serial rapist/murderer because he was abused” would mean that most women would now be serial killers.) Feminists should be questioning all patriarchal propaganda instead of making up a fantasy world which excuses men.
One clue to the pretend “radfem” tactics is to notice how much they attack real Radical Feminist ideas with nonsensical charges. Some of these women actually lecture us that our daring to name the truth about male violence being biologically caused somehow excuses male violence. Of course it doesn’t — they still have free will, and they do control themselves when it suits them, usually when the consequences are higher than they want to risk. Of course they are still accountable for the choices they make to rape, torture, kill, and contaminate the earth with their territorial marking (male nuclear marking is forever, whether from contamination through accidents and storage of radioactive material, or use of nuclear weapons, including “depleted uranium”), which is why men will not give it up in spite of the obvious. As the scientist we quoted in Dykes-Loving-Dykes said, “a male human being loves to see an explosion.”) Men know the truth about themselves, but women are too often willing to sacrifice other women and girls to protect men. That is not Radical Feminism.
Another tactic has been to insist that only men are our enemy, forbidding any mention of women’s crimes because somehow no woman is recognized as having any real power. This tends to come from women whose lives revolve around males, and who ignore that many of us have moved on, knowing we want nothing to do with males and are now focusing on making women’s communities as good and safe as possible. It’s almost as if naming some women’s betrayal will blow apart fragile feminism, but this fantasy works only for the most extremely privileged women who rarely feel oppression from other women, or for those who somehow continue ignoring the world all around them. Radical
Feminism is not a cult that needs institutionalized fantasies and lies to protect it.
Denying the truth weakens Radical Feminism, while daring to say the truth strengthens it. Some newer Radical Feminists despair and quit after seeing how some women participate in the worst of men’s crimes. Insisting that collaborators are mindless victims who can’t choose anything is not the answer. It’s simply not true. Of course some women betray us, and Radical Feminism explains why. Our book focused on explaining the reasons many women collaborate with men, but we still don’t believe that women would be raping and killing and destroying the earth on their own. Yes, some women are our enemy, but as a group, women are never close to being life-hating and female-hating as most males are. (By the way, because many men are now legally accepted as women, the statistics on violence caused by ”women” is increasing.)
Why Are Liberal and Mainstream Feminists Pretending to Be Radical Feminists?
Of course not all women who name themselves “radfems” are parasitizing Radical Feminism, but still, “radfem” is the newer trendy word that some of the cliques opposed to original Radical Feminist politics use. Yes, “radfem” is an abbreviation, but so is RF (Radical Feminist) and so is the trivializing term “women’s lib,” which no feminist would ever use.
Much of what we took for granted as basic feminism is being dismantled and eliminated. We never thought that we would ever again be forced to argue with women claiming to be feminist that of course heterosexism, racism, classism, ableism, ageism, fat oppression, etc. exist among us and have to be fought. Never did we think we’d be lectured about how all money comes from men, so classism doesn’t exist among us (just ignore the rich “radfems” with servants), and then see class appropriated and confused when used unnecessarily in phrases, such as “the class of women.” Nor did we think that even our clear and direct language would be muddied with academic terms that are intentionally substituted to further confuse women. An example is how “intersectionality” is used to discredit early Radical Feminist politics describing the multiple differences and oppressions that we must deal with to avoid having a segregated pretend feminism of only the most privileged. (As soon as the academic term “intersectionality” is used, I know that the writer either does not know Radical Feminist history or that they are deliberately undermining Radical Feminism. I explain at my blog in https://bevjoradicallesbian.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/
Progress Versus Cooptation in the Radical Feminist Movement).
Attempting to erase our Radical Feminist history of fighting all oppression among women so we can have equality is also an attempt at segregation. This is all the more infuriating for those who know that Radical Feminism was created by those very women they want eliminated, such as class-oppressed and race-oppressed Lesbians.
It used to be that misogynist men claiming they were women were supported only by a few women who felt sorry for them or who bonded with them in the “Leather” sado-masochist and porn culture. Most women just said no to the embarrassingly obvious men parading around as their prurient fantasies of women. But that’s all changed — now women who say no to the trans cult are called bigots, are censored, sent death threats, etc. What was once sensible basic feminism now appears radical only because of how bad things have become for women. But hating men who pretend to be women and being targeted by them is not enough to make someone a Radical Feminist – and hating real Radical Feminists is definitely not being Radical Feminist.
It’s easy enough for counterfeit Radical Feminists to read our extensive history. When they say what we’ve done hasn’t worked, telling us to weaken our politics, they are ignoring how governments and media and MRAs have been undermining us for decades, as well as have the majority of women who betray females for males. Many more Radical Feminists are poor and barely surviving now than in 1970, with the worldwide change in economics, and that has made it very hard to organize in the US. (Rooms rented in Radical Feminist group houses were $50 a month, and houses $100. Spaces could be easily rented for women only events where we could do political work and socialize. Since surviving was cheaper, Radical Feminists had more time.) Nothing was wrong with our movement and politics, considering a handful of women were fighting all of patriarchy and creating an entirely new culture. What Radical Feminists did all over the world was amazing and is still having an effect.
So why don’t the pretend “radfems” just leave Radical Feminism and us alone and start their own movement as a segment of liberal feminism? They won’t though. They want to claim Radical Feminism for their own.
Posturing as radical is trendy, but those who really ARE radical are a constant reminder of the truth, so the counterfeit feminists mindfuck, accusing us of being “liberal, “third wave,” and other projections. They want to erase our existence since we are proof of their lies, similar to how the trans cult wants to erase true female existence.
Also, some women new to feminism believe they are radical because they go further than the vague, meaningless con that is generally presented as feminism. The media made “feminist” stars of privileged liberal women in spite of the basic feminist tenet that feminism has no stars or leaders. Patriarchal spokeswomen’s “feminism” would make almost any woman think she is radical by comparison. Plus, having fleeting fantasies about hating men causes some liberal feminists to be accused of being “sexist man-hating fanatics.” And of course all women on some level will be drawn to the truth in Radical Feminism. But none of these alone make a woman a Radical Feminist.
Then some women want fame and notoriety, so they started blogs plagiarizing feminists’ writing from decades earlier, forming elitist cliques with their own elitist “radfem” language that automatically excludes true Radical Feminists and requires those wanting to join the cliques to submit to the humiliation of asking what the bizarre terms mean, even if they were the original writers of the plagiarized work. Real Radical Feminism is opposed to hierarchy and inequality, dominance and submission that the cliques thrive on. One of the most quoted of these privileged pretend “radfems” admits she came to feminism as a “funfem” (women who participated in the female-hating pseudo feminism that men push, such as glorifying male-invented “femininity,” porn and sado-masochism.) She also has a history of being a cruel bully who uses ridicule to try to intimidate Radical Feminists. She is heterosexist and particularly targets Lesbians. We have no idea how many girls and women we lost from our movement who were searching for feminism and ended up being her victim. I believe it was her and other bloggers’ het privilege (some still with their “special” men) that gave them more authority and appreciation since het women are generally far more valued by feminists, including Lesbian feminists.
By undermining real Radical Feminism, these “radfems” eliminated any potential questioning of the hypocrisy in their own lives, such as presenting themselves as courageous man-haters while still keeping their own “exceptional” men (as feminists used to sarcastically say). When I saw the online bullies referred to reverentially, I asked what they had said that made them so worshipped and was told in almost hushed tones that they were writing against “PIV” (the new gutted feminism loves elitist, middle class, exclusionary terms — in this case, “penis in vagina” — as if the women who want to be fucked by men must be protected by using a fake, twee euphemism that blunts the shock of the graphic image of that reality) — as if this issue was something new that hadn’t been extensively and more radically written about as basic feminism in the late Sixties and early Seventies.
No one seemed to even notice that the more radical question of why would feminists even be sexual/intimate with men was completely ignored, since patriarchy literally could not go on without women helping. And that, of course, was because the pretend “radfem” bloggers certainly did not want to lose their het privilege.
Even worse for Radical Feminism, it somehow became a crime to question women’s choices, which had been the basis of even liberal feminism in the Seventies. To further deflect, gaslight, and mind-fuck, the new parasitized feminism’s rules say that not only are women’s choices not to be questioned, but that women have no choices!
So why are these women, who either did not care to learn our history or who are happily plagiarizing parts of it and gutting Radical Feminism in the process, so lauded?
Meanwhile, we are treated as imposters by the imposters. If these women weakening our movement were new and excited and wanting to learn, that would be fine. But just as men say they are better women than we are, these women declare that they and not we are the real Radical Feminists. Both men pretending to be women and women pretending to be Radical Feminists refuse to argue directly and honestly, because they can’t. Instead, they insult, name-call, and use every bit of their privilege, hoping that by oppressing us, they can drive us away. When that doesn’t work, they just lie, censor, and ban.
This is not an issue of Lesbians versus het women because some of the strongest and most courageous Radical Feminists are women who choose to be with men. Yet when they support Radical Lesbian Feminists, they are ridiculed and banned. How dare they break ranks?
The more Radical Feminist a woman becomes, the more she realizes the fact that males (“mankind”) are destroying the earth and raping whatever girls and women they have access to. Those not actively raping (yet) are fantasizing through their beloved porn. It’s over forty years since the massive changes of feminism and yet the rape of girls and women has increased. “Exceptional” men might exist, but more likely they haven’t been caught or haven’t taken the risk to rape. (Remember how Ted Bundy was considered the ideal man?) I always say that we never know what a boy or man is doing when he is alone with human babies or animals. There certainly are enough horrific true stories. (I personally know a Lesbian whose friends’ dog was raped by their male gardener. A dear friend was abused by her mother’s boyfriend, who was known to have orally raped his baby daughter to death.) None of this is rare. Almost every woman I know has been sexually assaulted as a girl and/or adult, often multiple times. All have been sexually harassed. This isn’t about “crazy” or “sick” men. These are normal men, who measure “normal” on psychological tests. And even if some men are trustworthy, why do some women who claim to be feminists spend so much energy trying to find them, making them more important than women?
We’ve been seeing the same circular discussions among feminists for the last forty plus years. Clearly we can’t just stop men and patriarchy. But some Radical Feminists suggest that if every woman could deal with the man who had sexually assaulted her, that would not only get rid of most men, there wouldn’t be enough to go around — impossible, though, unless it was done at the same time. So then what? Well, a simpler, safer method, as some of us said in the Seventies, is that women could end patriarchy by not giving males any more love, attention, support, etc., because men simply could not continue without women supporting them. They would fall apart. And instead of producing the 85% males that Lesbians getting pregnant produce, what about all women saying no to reproducing more males? That would certainly end the problem in a few years and save the earth as well. (A giveaway of right wing mindset is the often frantic response “But the human race will die out!” – as if that’s even a possibility when it’s doubling every few years.)
The most right wing pretend feminists immediately attack these longtime Radical Feminist ideas with their new, dangerous politics that I call “Counterfeit Feminism.”
I was there when Radical Feminism was created. I saw it and I remember it. I watched the battles between the reactionaries who wanted a segregated feminism where they could get a better deal from their men and patriarchy, as they treated less privileged women like dirt. I saw when most of those women left to return to patriarchy for their careers and/or going back to men. I saw the porn, academia, sado-masochism, genderqueer propaganda, and the heterosexism of the main “sexologists” (who pretended to be Lesbians, while defining us out of existence) come into our community at the end of the Seventies. I also saw the trans cult (and have been fighting it since 1971), though those men did not have widespread liberal/right wing feminist support until decades later.
I like to keep things simple. There are many reasons to do that. Convolution and academic styles of writing confuse things and are methods of establishing class dominance. I want to reach all females, including those who, because of oppression, haven’t had access to patriarchal “higher” education and those whose first language isn’t English. That was why we wrote Dykes-Loving-Dykes in direct, honest, and clear language. As we said, it’s also harder to refute or dismiss something that is direct and clear.
Reformist feminism is about trying to get a better deal from patriarchy while betraying women. It’s about women invested in patriarchy not wanting it to really change because the reformists will lose their privilege. I mean, my god, if patriarchy ends, what good is that law degree, and how will you keep your servants?
Liberal feminism is about wanting to do good, trying to improve patriarchy, but also not wanting to go very deeply into how bad things really are and not wanting to question too much, and, ultimately, not wanting to really change because it will shake up the liberal’s world. It’s about not wanting to take risks, mentally or physically. This is a more comfortable position to be in than Radical Feminism because you can feel part of the mainstream while also feeling superior, and you can still keep your privilege. (This is why “Counterfeit Feminism” religiously forbids the once basic feminist idea that women make choices.)
Counterfeit Feminists say “Women are just too oppressed, too ‘colonized,’ and too uninformed to be able to make real choices….All women participate in patriarchy….No woman escapes male rules, etc.” This ignores reality as well as denies the existence of any of us who have made good choices and who have said no to men and male rules. (And we are not magical mythical privileged freaks. We are among the most oppressed of Lesbians and women in our movement.)
Counterfeit Feminism tells women we are powerless victims, while Radical Feminism is about empowering women. That is partly why the feminist movement seems to have lost much of that incredible sense of excitement and pride in ourselves, as well as hope for the future. Even Sixties and Seventies reformist and liberal feminism was almost completely focused on women thinking, exploring, and making choices to change their lives. Women were sharing skills, going into work previously reserved for men only, forming collectives, etc.
Who wants women to stop thinking and to wallow in feeling helpless in order to not think about past, current, and future choices? And who then wants such women to police other women to also stop thinking, especially about saying no to men? The MRAs couldn’t have thought of a better plan than to parasitize women and send them on their way to spread the new gutted feminism.
A question I’ve asked when this topic comes up, but which I haven’t yet seen answered, is how do they reconcile their “radfem” politics with hiring women to clean their toilets? How do they deal with the embarrassment of seeing their Radical Feminist servant at “radfem” events? (They solve this by making the event unaffordable for anyone but the privileged.)
This is where some reformists and liberals merge into “right wing” feminists. I believe both groups want a segregated movement where more oppressed women are not allowed in or are condemned to “knowing their place.” If they had their way, we would have no feminist movement, because our strongest best writers and theorists were primarily the kind of oppressed Lesbians they want to eliminate. Doesn’t sound too different from how the Male Left treats women, does it?
Another giveaway is how they deal with disagreements and conflict. These colonizers have been very comfortable in feeling superior to other women who refuse to submit to their dominance. They don’t really know how to deal with women who talk back, so they just keep repeating their male tactics. They do not argue with mutual respect about the issues. They can’t really. So they immediately go to name-calling and insults. They use classism and every other possible privilege to win. And yes, the women who parasitize Radical Feminism are primarily very privileged compared to the majority of women. (Again, no excuse since some of the strongest Radical Feminists are also privileged, but the difference is that real Radical Feminists don’t use their privilege to hurt other women.) They patronize and condescend, calling us “stupid” or say we “need educating” or that we are “old fashioned,” as if the reality of patriarchy has changed, meanwhile ignoring the many Radical Feminists with our same politics who are in their twenties. They wildly project what they are doing onto the Radical Feminists they are fighting against, etc. In other words, they imitate male and trans cult methods.
Just look at the issues being discussed and it becomes clear. With this dilution of feminism, women who choose men are presented as somehow victims, denying the significant power they actually have in relation to and over women who have said no to men. How did feminism become “Counterfeit Feminism,” where we are not allowed to talk about the most important choices of our lives without severe punishment? As soon as Radical Feminists say that most women make choices about whether to be invested in men or not, suddenly we are asked don’t we know there are girls in the world who are literally slaves, chained to the wall in the most oppressive patriarchal countries? The privilege of the woman berating us, and her own choices of men over women, is conveniently ignored.
Instead of harassing us, why don’t these counterfeit feminists confront Gail Dines and other famous feminist activists against porn and prostitution who are married to men and demand that they admit they are mere victims of “Stockholm Syndrome”?
In one Radical Feminist facebook group, I was called “misogynist” and reprimanded for “blaming the victim” because I said that women choose who they love. It was the usual patronizing lecture about how women are with men only out of fear, and Stockholm Syndrome. I had no idea that this bully who professes to be “smashing patriarchy” actually has her own ” unicorn,” as she calls her man (Having such a rare man makes her the exceptional woman, doesn’t it?) So how is she a victim? Interestingly, she, like a number of radfems who constantly talk about how evil men are, never say they are with men, deliberately concealing their hypocrisy and obvious conflict of interest. No talk of her leaving her man.
It seems that the online gang-up attacks on Lesbians and other Radical Feminists who say that het women are choosing to be het are attempts to stop a very obvious contradiction in loyalties, and certainly to prevent mention of what used to be a common Radical Feminist topic: het women as collaborators with men against other women and girls. This has been an ongoing discussion among Radical Feminists in books and articles, at conferences, etc. for over forty years. To bully women into stopping talking about it is to censor Radical Feminism….on behalf of men and patriarchy.
What kind of feminism wants girls and women to not be aware they can make choices away from men and into Radical Feminism?
There is no integrity in the methods used. When het choice is brought up, immediately they deliberately confuse rape with voluntary het sex. One online group was actually called “PIV Is Rape.” That not only trivializes the horror of actual rape, but defines it out of existence. Of course being fucked by men IS horrifying and harmful to women on many levels, but these women have to know that many liberal feminists do brag in pornographic detail about loving it. Some of these women now saying “PIV Is Rape” once bragged about loving it themselves. Meanwhile, they usually avoid mention of the existence of women who have said no to men, but if there is a rare acknowledgement, they use the patronizing term “gold star,” and spread the lie that Lifelong and Never-het Lesbians and celibate women have never been raped.
If you dare to say that women who are invested in males automatically have more societal respect and power and privilege than women who say no to males, suddenly every other issue imaginable is brought up, even though these women previously tried to censor those same topics – like what about poor, disabled women oppressed by racism, etc. – ignoring that more oppressed women are also the women most likely to have said no to men and are still saying no to men.
In the Sixties and Seventies, when feminism meant questioning all of our choices individually and as a community, women’s groups supported each other to go further into feminism, including sharing support to leave their men. NO ONE ordered women to shut up or insisted that women were just complete victims with no choice about the men they were with. That would have been laughed at. Women still with men were quite proud about having gotten a man and made sure everyone heard about it. Women who left men and came out were also proud, but still endlessly bragging or complaining about their ex-husbands and boyfriends, making sure everyone knew it was definitely a choice in order to separate themselves from “perverted” Lifelong Lesbians.
Politics and movements do not always advance over time. In the Seventies, Lesbian Feminists proudly said they chose to love other women, yet liberal feminists don’t seem to know that the “born this way” theory they so vehemently believe actually originated with our enemies. Before feminism, psychiatrists declared most women were born het, but that a few were born Lesbian because of genetic abnormalities or from later damage during development. Girls were expected to go through a phase of being attracted to other girls before they grew out of it to become “normal” women who want to be fucked by men, rather than being pathetic mentally ill “inverts” who continue loving our own kind and refuse boys and men. Another cause was attributed to having been sexually assaulted by males in girlhood – as if almost all girls weren’t). Then as feminism was over-shadowed by the later genderqueer/gay male/trans cult re-write of Lesbian Feminist history, the “born this way” propaganda was reinstated when gay men pleaded for equal rights from hets who said Lesbians and gay men had the choice to just stop being queer. (Somehow bisexual choice is ignored in the plea for rights based on pity.)
Why on earth would any kind of feminist want to join with medical and genderqueer misogynists in believing the con that Lesbians are an aberration – other than that it releases het women from the responsibility of admitting they are making a choice rather than believing the lie that they are just “normal?” Interestingly, this game is played in reverse when feminists do start questioning why they chose or choose men over women. Suddenly, they insist they had the traumatic childhood as an explanation for choosing men and het privilege. Yet how many of these women once and still do openly ask or secretly wonder if a Lifelong Lesbian is “that way” because of terrible childhood trauma?
These attitudes and politics ignore reality. Some of us do remember watching our friends go from hating the boys who harassed us to making them far more important than us and other girls. I heard the girl I was in love with when we were fifteen describe how she had to get herself to learn to be attracted to boys and to flirt with them if she didn’t want to be an outcast. She was already thinking of Lesbians as freaks. (She asked if I really wanted to use the men’s restroom when I told her I loved her.) Some of us also remember those friends turning on those of us who refused the rules, name-calling us to cement their new het membership status. It is a denial of truth, as well as insulting, to now lecture those few of us who did not join with males against females, claiming to be much more oppressed than us.
Since we can’t change boys or men, the main obstruction to ending patriarchy is that het women support and even create it. That is something women can control and change. What keeps patriarchy in place is women believing the misogynist con that, by nature, women somehow belong to men. End that lie, and you have full scale revolution. This self-hating, female-hating myth of heterosexuality as normal is so deep that when recently I explained to a woman that it was wrong to call ants “he,” “guys,” and “little fellows,” etc., because, except for a brief, rare appearance of the few winged males for a day, all the ants we ever see are female who live in a true sisterhood — the “queen,” all the workers and soldier ants, all ants ever seen walking around, are female — she could not get it. Commenting on how hard they work, she tried again to present an ant heterosexual supremacist world of the men ants lazing at home while the women ants worked, probably thinking she’d made quite the feminist statement. No, there are no husband ants at home. Female ants do not belong to male ants. All the ants are female, together, sharing everything, working for each other, willing to die for each other, intimately feeding each other from their mouths, with only one ant out of thousands or millions having been het for just a moment. Even in mammal animal societies, it’s more common for females to live together away from the dangerous males. And though reproduction is usually rape and the males often will kill the babies and females, in many species, the majority of adult females do not reproduce.
Another con by pretend radfems deeply invested in males is to try to convince women to obey men by spreading the myth that some women must be with men or otherwise men will enslave or kill us all for saying no to them. I thought I’d seen all the excuses women make to stay with their men, but this was a new one, which I never heard or read in over forty decades of Radical Feminist writings and discussion. I say, give it a try and see what happens, but really…. that is not why women stay with men.
Note that as soon as collaboration with the enemy is mentioned, het women invested in men will accuse us of having the secret agenda of wanting them to become Lesbians. Our response is: PLEASE do not flatter yourselves, and please do us the favor of not adding any more female-hating, Lesbian-hating, male-worshipping women to our beleaguered communities where such women already outnumber us. They also tell us that they just don’t feel “sexual” towards women – conveniently ignoring that saying no to their men does not mean they have to become dreaded Lesbians. There IS a third choice between that horror and intimate alliance with our oppressors, but it’s conveniently ignored for a reason — being celibate/single is a significant step down in privilege for het women. Most will make sure everyone knows they did have a man in their past and that they aren’t that most despised of women (constantly joked about in the media, and even among Lesbians, as in discussions about the Michigan Women’s Music Festival) – a virgin. Of course, if virgins are seriously mentioned as more than a joke, the bullying starts with insistence that virgins don’t really exist. Again, erase the lives of actual women in the quest for insisting that all women have to have chosen men.
This derail/diversion away from admitting that choosing men means supporting patriarchy is relevant in terms of being a Radical Feminist though. But notice the het/male term used about being a Lesbian – “sex.” Well, I’m a Lifelong Lesbian and I don’t feel “sexual” towards women either. That is exactly the heart/mind/body/spirit disconnect that women who choose men have learned from their men. “Sex” is the male term as well as their obsession. It turns Lesbians into a mere “sexual orientation,” the offensive term which of course is never used to refer to “normal” women — anything to avoid the terrifying truth, which is that choosing to be a Lesbian is not about anything as trivial as “sex,” but is choosing to love women. And making that choice in spite of getting severe oppression — not only from men, but also from women allied with men — would literally change everything in patriarchy. At this point in the discussion (if the Radical Feminist hasn’t been banned already), the pretend “radfems” scathingly comment that being a Lesbian doesn’t mean being a feminist, playing on the Lesbian-hating still lurking in most feminists.
Well, yes and no. I have a badge from 1971 that says “Lesbianism Is Revolution.” To actually say no to men and then go further into oppression and risking hatred and rejection from everyone in your life in order to love other women is pretty damned feminist and revolutionary. Yes, there are some Lesbians who do bad things, but using that to vilify Lesbians as a group is similar to anti-feminists saying women are as bad as men when male crimes are named. (Lesbians also are actually way out of proportion to other women in devoting their lives to fighting oppression and the harm done to the earth and other species.)
If all women chose to be Lesbians, of course patriarchy would be over. Why do these “radfem” pretenders try to stop this fact from even being mentioned? It was commonly said in the Seventies, including by het feminists who knew clearly what they should do to end patriarchy. When radfems now lecture us about why we didn’t “win,” ignoring the reasons, do they even consider what it means that this revolutionary idea is now almost censored in online “radfem” groups?
The worst part of the parasitizing of Radical Feminism is the shutting off of women’s logical thought processes and excitement at exploring these common old Radical Feminist issues, which is exactly what men want. And that brings up again, how many of these women are working for the MRAs and how many are just trying to steer women away in order to protect their own privilege?
Almost all girls do feel in love with other girls at some point. That’s natural. Making a cold decision to transfer those powerful love feelings to boys and men, even though males are empty and boring at best, and repulsive and dangerous at worst, is not natural. But most girls do it, just to fit in, be “normal,” to not be hated and rejected by family and friends. If that woman finally returns to her love for other women, sometimes decades later, she is unlikely to say, as courageous Radical Feminists did in the Seventies, “I finally returned to my first choice of love, our own kind.” Instead, she will say, “I was always a Lesbian, I just didn’t know it,” in order to not upset the liberal genderqueer/gay male line. It’s one thing for non-feminists to explain themselves in this way that defines Lesbians out of existence (because women who chose men at that point in time are NOT Lesbians), but why do feminists participate in propping up this cornerstone of patriarchal propaganda?
You can clearly see many women finally and happily choosing to become Lesbians in their fifties and sixties and older. Some leave husbands, and many are left by their men. Some of these women grew up in places where they saw out Lesbians in public and some were friends with Lesbians for decades. They usually have far more privilege (houses, careers, savings, etc.) than Lifelong Lesbians — or celibate women. (I’m not criticizing these women who are my friends. I appreciate how they honestly admit that our oppression and existence and visibility made it easier for them to make conscious choices. One friend said she felt uncomfortable having so much when it looks like being a Lesbian means being poor.)
These non-feminist new Lesbians are aware of their past het privilege, so why do women who pretend to be Radical Feminists try every trick possible to shut down such discussions now, including accusing us of “reverse oppression?” They, who are often hyper-critical and condemning of women who don’t measure up to their brand of feminism, and especially go after traitor women who support the trans cult, accuse real Radical Feminists of being “judgemental.” Talking about the differences in access to privilege gained from choosing men is not “judging.” It’s daring to speak about something real that we are not allowed to mention without punishment. They also imply that the women who choose men are more real women, compared to celibate women, Lesbians, and the least “real” women — Butches. So of course het women are more important, and we are expendable. Really, many radfems just wish we would disappear.
Recently in a Radical Feminist group I was chastized for not admitting the “special benefits” I got from living in a “women-only community.” I have no idea where that mindfuck came from since I write continually about our having no women-only space left, having to deal with trannies and other het men leering at us, trying to grab us, etc., at “Lesbian” events, and that I live in one of the most dangerous cities in the US where guns are fired off in the street in front of our house.
The most obvious proof that women do choose, usually ignored, is the fact that many ex-het Lesbians choose to go back to men for privilege. I certainly remember my Lesbian Separatist lover, much more privileged than me on every level, who I held as she told how abused she’d felt by past boyfriends, how she wished she’d never been with men, felt so damaged by them, crying with her, for her. And only a few years later, she told me in graphic detail how much she loved being fucked by the boyfriend she left me for. She, who had placed limits on our love-making, theoretically because of the abuse she suffered from men, now bragged, “We do everything.”
So please don’t tell me women don’t choose to be het.
And why would a Lesbian say she feels sorry for het women? Is she in a strange vacuum where she never goes outside, or is she so convincingly passing as het and is so non-threatening to patriarchy that she doesn’t get Lesbian oppression? Feminists who obey male-identified rules of femininity will complain about being sexually harassed by men. I can tell them that if they stop all participation in those male rules (which freaks out most women to where they won’t even consider it, making up the most bizarre reasons for why they have to wear toxic makeup, ugly dresses, etc.), they will no longer be sexually harassed by male strangers. Of course, they might be assumed to be a Dyke and get dirty looks and insults. That is the main reason women keep participating, as well as wanting to attract the “male gaze” which they hypocritically complain about. (This double standard was very clear when a “radfem” online who had tried to stop a discussion about Butch oppression and about the privilege of women who obey male rules of femininity posted on her own page a photo of a little girl in lurid makeup, saying she was a “princess.”)
I can’t avoid seeing the looks of contempt aimed me for just being my unapologetically Lesbian and Butch self. This disapproval and hatred are not just from men, but from het women in this area, many of who have far more privilege than I could ever hope to have. So no, in spite of the bizarre “radfem” line that being a Lesbian is being privileged, it clearly isn’t. How can it be? Choosing to be a Lesbian means being harassed, raped, and too often, killed, for saying no to men. It means that during your vulnerable teenaged years your girlhood friends turn on you because suddenly you are something to despise. (And for those who insist there is no choice, do you really think we forget what you did to us?) It means having your family ashamed of you, disowning you. Too many young Lesbians are locked up in psychiatric hospitals by their families where they are tortured. With other oppressions, you usually at least have your own family and friends reflecting you so you are not alone in being treated badly. For the young Lesbian, and even more so, the young Butch, it means being hated and ostracized with no support.
Choosing to be a Lesbian means having less access to money, which also means less access to a place to live, food, medical care, etc. In some parts of the world we are executed. Until recently, we were either a pornographic joke or said not to exist. When some of us dare to talk about how het and bisexual women choose to be with men, we don’t forget how those women once treated us – and many still do — as objects of contempt while parading on their arms of their men. Some of them deliberately go where they know Lesbians will be, like at Dyke Marches, to video the freak show with their men.
When women brag about being with men they are making it clear they are part of the heterosexist power structure, and that we are not. It’s about heterosexist domination when they say how wonderful it is, how they love it, etc. Some ex-het Lesbians do this too, like the “friend” who showed me a photo of an erect prick on her cell phone, and another who showed a grotesque key chain of a male figure also with an erect prick, laughing “this is going to scare you,” and yet another “friend” at a dance who asked our group of Lesbians, “Wouldn’t you like a great big dick right now?” I was the only one who said, “No, I’d rather eat dog shit.” A few minutes later, she publicly humiliated her Never-het Butch lover by announcing loudly that she was the only one who had ever been inside her. In my experience, there is no getting away from this kind of harassment — so then to hear how het women don’t choose, because they have Stockholm Syndrome, is infuriating.
One of the most dangerous examples of anti-feminist het-supremacist propaganda about how all women are helpless victims of all-powerful men – not because of male violence, but because of how “attractive” men are – comes from a much-praised “radfem” blog: http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/grooming-pimping-into-heterosexuality-politics-of-love-pt-ii/
Even to this day if a man is kind to me or just smiles I can still feel this “attraction” and gratefulness that I’d feel before and tried to get rid of, which simply means that men are still our captors and there’s no way we can completely get away from stockholm syndrome so long as they hold us captive. Which is precisely why I know I have to stay away from them as much as I can…
The reason so many of us trauma-bond so instantly and intensely to men in our proximity and sometimes to just any man that crosses our way, whether we are lesbian, celibate, separatist or “het”, is that we are programmed and groomed to react in this way to male threat since birth.
If I hadn’t seen this kind of woman-hating masquerading as feminism reflected elsewhere, I would have wondered if it was written by a man because of its worship of male power. I have never known a feminist to describe men like this. In the Seventies, men were acknowledged as dangerous, but even liberal feminists wrote about men as weak fools, delusional in their assumption of women being attracted to them. Mainstream films, like “Nine to Five,” depicted men as pompous buffoons who had institutionalized power, but were easily dealt with by smarter and stronger women working together. And that was het feminism. Lesbian Feminism was even more scathing towards men. No feminist attributed such power to them as at this blog.
The new “radfem” attitude is disturbing on many levels. This writer is so determined to appear as a helpless victim, not of male violence, but of her own uncontrollable “attraction” to men, that she reads almost pornographic in her masochism. She says she must keep away from men, not because she hates them or recognizes how how dangerous they are, but because she can’t control herself around them.
Men reading this will love it. It’s bad enough that we have the male media bombarding us with images of women swooning over men, and presenting them as being so powerful that they can just take a gun from a woman’s hand because she is crying too hard to fire. (This scene is never shown in reverse or between two men.) Why would any woman calling herself a radfem want women to feel so helpless around men or promote the woman-hating propaganda that all women are captives of men?
Even worse, how dare she implicate Lesbians, celibate women, and especially Separatists in her pervy obsession with men? Any man in front of us and we “trauma-bond?” I don’t know any woman who reacts that way other than the most male-worshipping of women. How dare she erase those of us who do not obey men? Counterfeit Feminism means not taking responsibility for loyalty to males over females. Why can’t she control herself around men? Why isn’t she naturally repulsed by them? And even worse, how dare she completely erase the existence of women who do not feel equally obsessed with men by saying “men are still our captor.”
This is classic mind-fuck/gaslighting. It reads like a bad romance novel. She ignores the real reason she was with men, which is privilege. It’s that simple. And saying that women choose men because of “trauma bonding” denies the existence of women who refuse to bond with men in spite of suffering horrific girlhood abuse. The girlhood sexual assault theory again makes Lifelong and Never-het Lesbians invisible.
Patriarchy teaches us we have no control over our attractions and choices, but we do. In fact, most girls do feel attraction/love for other girls that they stifle, and then systematically teach themselves to go against nature in transferring those feeling to males. True feminists would never say that women have no control of sado-masochistic feelings that they’ve learned. The assumption is that women must fight those impulses, knowing how and why they came about, and that they are not innate.
Even after several years of not interacting with men any more and choosing to love only women, I still get invasive flashes and dreams of PIV/rape, and I still TB to men if I can’t avoid them and they’re “friendly”. I hope it will dissipate more over time though.
She is STILL “aroused” (the word she uses earlier) by pricks. Since most longtime Radical Lesbian Feminists I know rarely think about or talk about men except in to acknowledge one more horror they’ve committed, I believe women pushing these victimizing politics are continuing to obsess about men as they have done most of their lives, and are only pretending to want to be done with them. I believe this “radfem” is actually bragging on some level, and is likely to return to the men she can’t stop thinking about. (I’ve certainly seen enough “man-hating” ex-het women do that.)
Sure, PIV is pleasurable, but the political and social prices are not worth it.
Make up your mind – is it horrific rape or is it a “pleasure” that you choose?
This propaganda is destroying the feminist movement. We need to separate completely from these women. They are our enemies. Who does it serve to say that women have no real choice in one of the most important decisions they will ever make? Men.
Why do too many feminists want to deny the reality of the choices on all levels, weakening and disempowering women. Choices are still being made now.
Another “radfem” online commented:
The fact that all us womyn are thoroughly immersed in Societal Stockholm Syndrome by virtue of having been raised in captivity does NOT mean that we are to be blamed for not freeing ourselves! Always remember that it is the ABUSER, not the victim who is to blame for the abuse, even if the victim has been inculcated into capitulation as her primary mode of coping with her captivity.
I don’t see women who support men against women as victims. All women are NOT “thoroughly immersed in Societal Stockholm Syndrome” or none of us would be feminists. Many of us said no on various levels.
WE are the victims of those women. Liberal feminism is so diluted that the politics of understanding about collaborators versus resistance fighters is lost. Those who are blamed are those who are the resistance fighters. And of course I never say that women who choose men choose to be abused. I’m saying they choose men for many reasons, including because it means going with the flow, fitting in, feeling normal, etc. A few say they were attracted to men, but most I’ve heard say that it was the thing to do and they didn’t question it and so they crushed their love for other women. Some even talk about breaking the hearts of girls who loved them.
Part of this is that we are not supposed to exist in hetero-patriarchy. And we are not supposed to exist among many feminists. The other part is that we are said to have some special privilege to be who we are or that we are just “lucky.” That denies that some of the most oppressed Lesbians I have ever met (oppressed by racism and classism, etc.) are Lifelong Lesbians and/or Butch. We don’t have to speak out to get targeted. We just have to be. But yes, when ex-het Lesbians say “We’ve all been het,” and we dare to say some of us haven’t, that intense hatred of being treated like freaks, we’ve experienced from hets since girlhood, gets turned on us once again.
We are warned to be quiet and ashamed of being Lifelong Lesbians or being Butch, or we’ll get even more hatred. Not long ago, some “radfems” made cruel posts to simply attack Butches, with one saying we didn’t even exist. We get the brunt of Lesbian-hating in the male and het world, and we also get it from women pretending to be radfems.
This issue is very personal to me because Butch-hating kills. I can’t tell you how almost every Butch I knew when I was a young Lesbian is dead — from cancer, from being beaten to death, suicide…. Three more Butch friends died this year from cancer, and two more diagnosed. One of those was harassed and ridiculed by her family and Lesbian friends at her own birthday party, by being told she should wear a dress and makeup – “to be more of a girl.” Being Butch is closer to what all women would be without patriarchy, and is therefore as far away from being “male” or “masculine” as a woman can be, yet Butches are targeted by pretend radfems as being “like men.” I have actually been accused of “lesbosplaining” and “sounding like a man” by het feminists when I was objecting to their man-loving politics.
This is the way the mindfuck works: “We must protect and defend real women at all costs. Lesbians aren’t real women. Only women who want to be fucked by… oh, excuse me, ‘have sex with’ men are real women.” But if Radical Feminism means really thinking about male crimes, from the boys who torture and rape animals and even little girls, to the majority of men who would rape and kill if they knew they could get away with it, and, as a group, are destroying the earth, then isn’t it logical that this is a war of survival, not just for human females, but for the earth and all other species? And in that case, aren’t women who keep men going, who nurture and reproduce males, collaborators? Patriarchy and men rely on women. They could not survive without women’s intimate support.
But of course in the new parasitized version of Radical Feminism, no woman is ever to be criticized. (Unless she really IS a Radical Feminist and then she is fair game to be banned, lied about, etc.) Just keep those women with the most privilege from being disturbed. In fact, forget they exist. So the most privileged het women, secure in being rich, owning companies, property, political power, and with Radical Feminists as servants, must be erased from the mind. Forget you see them in the media or out in the world or in some of your families. Forget the rich women who are film stars who keep the increasing porn in mainstream movies going. Yes, they make less money than men, but many still make millions. Some of these women are writers and producers, like Lena Dunham, whose acclaimed television series, “Girls,” normalizes the most disgusting scenes imaginable, like where Lena’s character’s beloved boyfriend, who continually sexually abuses her, is shown graphically wanking off on a protesting woman’s chest while calling her a “whore.” This series is lauded as “feminist” and Lena is in full charge.
And then there are women like Miley Cyrus who are continuing the pornographic selling of females to make fame and fortune, in the tradition of Madonna, except that she has far greater influence on young girls. These women know exactly what they are doing.
Obey the fake radfem cult. Just keep talking about girls far away who are chained to walls. Definitely ignore the ones who are so proud of their men and who look at Lesbians like we need to be exterminated. Forget the ones who fire and evict Lesbians, and who join with their men to destroy us.
It’s actually horror movie scary how women who want to be Radical Feminists, but who are indoctrinated into Counterfeit Feminism, respond to obvious female-hating atrocities, like when a Radical Feminist posted in our Radical Feminist group about women who sell their little ten year old girls to men who hire them out to be daily, multiply raped. This is so premeditated that the women first pay to get their daughters medically certified as virgins because then they will make more money selling them. One little girl escaped home, but her mother sold her again. Some of the true Radical Feminists in our group responded with reasonable outrage, saying they would sell themselves first rather than ever sell their daughters, But others actually lectured us about how oppressed the mothers were, they didn’t have a choice, etc. I wondered at what point they would hold a collaborator accountable. We wrote about some of the more outrageous cases in our book, like what about the women who lined up to marry serial rapist and murderer Ted Bundy when he was on death row: https://bevjoradicallesbian.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/heterosexualityselling-out-is-not-compulsory/
Ted Bundy confessed to murdering 23 young females in four U.S. states. He’s suspected of actually murdering over a hundred. He usually vaginally and anally raped his victims before murdering them, and in at least one known instance he forced one girl to watch while he raped and murdered another, before killing her also. Many of the bodies were found decapitated and otherwise mutilated. It’s believed that his first victim was an eight-year-old girl who he killed when he was 14. After he was in jail for two years, a woman named Carol Boone married him. The night before his execution for murdering 12-year-old Kimberly Leach, his mother told him, “You’ll always be my precious son.”
In 1987, Robert Chambers strangled Jennifer Levin, his 18-year-old friend, and left her half-naked body in Central Park in New York City. He claimed she was forcing him to have “rough sex” with her and he killed her “accidentally”! Since his family is very rich, they hired the best lawyer money could buy, and Chambers was let out on bail. In December, 1987, before the trial even began, he went to a “slumber party” consisting of just him and four women. A videotape was made of the party, showing the women wearing pajamas, laughing, dancing, and playing sado-masochistic games with each other and with Chambers. At one point, he holds a Barbie doll up to the camera, twists its head around and says, “Oops, I think I killed her.” In another scene, one of the women plays at being a baby crying and tells him, “I’ll tell everyone.” He says, “I’ll say you’re lying. I lie and they believe me.” The women were laughing throughout these scenes, even though they were also Jennifer’s friends. One of them, Chambers’ new girlfriend, was interviewed on TV. She said she “loved” him, that he was “warm and funny,” and that everyone at the party knew he’d confessed to the murder. She said he’d received over 400 letters of support, many from women. When asked how she felt about the murder, she said, “I don’t feel it’s really my business.”
How about Susan Smith who murdered her two sons because the man she was leaving her husband for didn’t want her kids, and blamed it on a mythological “Black man”– or Nancy Garrido, who helped her husband abduct Jaycee Dugard at eleven years old, keeping her prisoner to rape and impregnate for twenty years? What about women kapos in concentration camps, or the Klan members who contribute to bake sales, sew the men’s robes, and cheer at lynchings.
What about the laughing woman who was concerned her fifteen year old son had been raping chickens since he was eleven, not because he was torturing innocent small animals, but because he might get an STD. The boy was shown stroking the chicken as if he loved her, calling her cute, and then showing her cloaca where he rapes her. The announcer says that chickens are easier to get than “girls.” Throughout the video, comparisons are made with consensual heterosexuality. Finally, his mother says she should get him a prostitute, even though she thinks he might have STDs. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vwjdNJCjQ4 There is another video of a different boy showing him actually raping a chicken, but this isn’t it.)
I know women whose mothers supported their rapist sons to keep raping their little girls. No one has posted about this, but I can imagine the responses excusing such women. When it’s about women leaving husbands or boyfriends who are raping their daughters, the line (which was unthinkable decades ago) was about how the women have no choice because of fear. But what about a seventeen year old Lesbian whose mother invites a six foot four military man to stay in her daughter’s room over a weekend, where he rapes the girl until her bed and even walls of the room are covered with blood? My friend has very limited memory of this, but remembers her mother being so set on making her het, that she had bought her birth control pills before the extended rape, acting like everything was fine, and afterward mimicked the man’s accent, telling her how easy it would be for him come back and open her window to get inside to rape her again. Please, “radfems” who believe women are always victims, explain this betrayal according to your anti-feminist convoluted female-hating politics.
Many other Radical Feminists, like most women, have experienced horrific abuse as girls by males that their mothers allowed or encouraged for the rapists’ benefit. Calling these women “victims” is a direct betrayal of the real victims, many of who are still vulnerable to these cruel and sadistic women. Even in patriarchal courts, it’s sometimes acknowledged that the men who help the actual rapist are equally accountable. We reject pleas that the men are victims too. Feminists were outraged when I reported that one of the men organizing the community rally for the fifteen year old Richmond, California girl who had been gang-raped for hours outside her high school dance said in his speech that “the rapists are victims too.” That large group of boys and men had texted for their friends to join in. If excuses are made for women who help men against women, why not excuse the men also?
Another post was a link to a dishonest article by a woman who was almost every man’s fantasy of a Lesbian going back to men, blaming San Francisco for making her het again.
This was a classic mindfuck article like many I’ve seen before, by a genderqueer, porn-loving, sado-masochist whose hatred for Lesbians just poured out. She is the worst kind of collaborator, on a par with the bisexual pretend Lesbian sexologists like Pat Califia, JoAnn Loulan, and Susie Bright, who made money off ridiculing and manipulating Lesbians, bringing their porn and sado-masochism into our community in books and workshops – except that this article was entirely for men’s benefit. Yet, in our Radical Feminist group, one newer confused woman wrote an elaborate explanation describing this particularly repulsive writer’s supposed past trauma (never referred to in the article) to explain her betrayal of Lesbians and women, and why she was really another victim. This level of mindfuck is enough to get some of us to just give up.
So why this horrific double standard when applied to women? It’s like wanting a fantasy world where all females always are trustworthy allies, but that is not reality. Women who push this as a feminist line are losing and betraying women who remember what the truth is. Just as you cannot love both the real victims and their rapist/murderers, you cannot support both the victim and the collaborator.
Feminism in the early Sixties and Seventies was about empowering women to know they were making choices. No superior boss feminist stepped in to tell women to shut up talking about choices because they are so oppressed they must not even think about, let alone form, consciousness-raising groups to discuss leaving their men and to decide whether they should then be celibate or return to their early love for other women.
One “radfem” who was constantly posting extremely man-hating posts actually told the group one day about her husband and how nice he was. I said, “Well, this is amazing. I’m guessing you are going to be honest, unlike some others, and at least admit that you, as a Radical Feminist with a husband, are choosing to be het.” She actually started to waffle and say she was “Stockholm Syndromed” to make sure she didn’t step out of the cult line of het women as victim only.
Another het “radfem” posted about how a woman who had been fucking with a married man for a year because he had promised to leave his wife was a now a victim of “rape and male violence” simply because her boyfriend stayed with his wife, and shouldn’t she have the right to sue him for fraud, violence, etc.? When I responded that she was defining real violence and rape out of existence and wasn’t the wife the real victim, she started insulting me for being a Lesbian Separatist, completely distorting my politics. She also said “It’s also a form of Domestic Violence for a man to fraudulently obtain sex. Saying that a woman should leave a man when she finds out he’s married is similar to saying that a woman should leave a man who beats her.”
True Radical Feminists who are honest and don’t pretend to be victims of the men they are choosing to be with are rare and precious.
Radical Feminism versus Reformist/Liberal/RightWing/Counterfeit “Feminism”
If those of us who helped define and invent Radical Feminism are not allowed to say what our movement is, then who is?
I first met feminism in 1970 when I discovered the Lesbian Feminist community in the San Francisco Bay Area. It was intoxicating, with love of women and Lesbians, amazing Lesbian Feminist politics, women only space taken for granted, and support to choose to never voluntarily have to be around males. Male crimes against girls and women were named for the first time, and that awareness of patriarchy was incredibly freeing, explaining so much of what had been wrong with girls’ and women’s lives.
We met in the famous unfacilitated small consciousness-raising groups and read and talked and explored. We created politics and culture and community, with newspapers, journals, books, poetry, music, dancing, parties, bookstores, coffeehouses, dojos, conferences, and gatherings. We were ecstatic with our love for each other.
Some of us continued to go further into what the most radical female-identified feminism would become, which was Lesbian Separatism. We transformed ourselves and our beginning feminist movement into Radical Lesbian Feminism. And we paid a price for it, then as now, being censored, lied about, banned from organizations, and threatened. Some quit at the point at which feminism improved their own lives. And some of us did not. Some of us would not stop until everything was transformed for all females and the earth. Our Radical Feminist movement has a clear, unbroken history that is well-documented if anyone cares to look.
So I am very protective of our movement and culture, and I do not want any more true Radical Feminists driven away by pretender “radfem” bullies. The harassment from the men posing as Lesbians is constant, as are their defenders, but the harassment of the women posing as Radical Feminists is more dangerous because they have more direct access to us. I have been banned from “Radical Feminist” online groups for telling the truth, for listing famous classic books by Radical Feminists of Color (responding to racist white women questioning why there aren’t more Radical Feminists of Color), for defending a woman who was announced to be a troll without enough evidence, for revealing a troll who never denied supporting trans against girls (the man won a lawsuit to be able to continue exposing his prick to girls), for revealing a troll who had her man friend in a Lesbian caucus, for calling a Radical Feminist my friend who had been physically and emotionally abused by the moderator of a group, etc. I’ve seen other Radical Feminists unfairly banned from “Radical Feminist” groups also for the crime of being truly Radical Feminist.
I want women to feel free and not trapped. Talking about choices is not about trying to make anyone feel bad for having made bad choices in the past or even about the choices they’re making now. I’m just asking them to acknowledge the truth instead of pretending to be victims. Most of us have been victims of men and boys. That’s different that choosing men to love and making that public enough to get additional privilege.
It’s the same with choosing male-identified femininity, which is giving men what they want and getting privilege at the direct expense of women and girls who are saying no. Men want all women to be marked by them. They can’t stand it when women refuse to humiliate themselves by masking their faces in toxic lurid makeup that mimic sexual arousal, or accept the badly-made, exposing clothes and crippling shoes they demand women wear as well as refuse to hate their bodies enough to shave off most of their natural body hair. (Women who are anti-prostitution advocates should be aware that makeup and nail polish used to be part of how prostitutes advertised what they were willing to do.) Women aren’t even allowed to have natural eyebrows. (And plucking permanently marks women’s faces as women who have obeyed men.)
Men want women to be immediately identifiable even from a distance as prey and for ridicule. Women aren’t even supposed to be grounded or to safely stand or walk. Men also want women to be terrified at being considered to be Lesbians. No woman is allowed to be in the media without some obvious difference in her clothing from males’ clothing/shoes, etc. Even when feminists have posted online showing reversals of common sexist media images of het couples by switching clothing and trying to show the man in the women’s role, the women’s postures and stances are still submissive.
Most feminists fighting this will still only go so far, yet how can they be against gender while participating in that most female-hating culture? This was one of the most powerful ways that feminists in the Seventies said no to men and male rules. Women in deep with the femininity cult will come up with the strangest reasons why they won’t stop, including that they think they look ugly if they don’t mask their faces into looking grotesque. It all comes back to privilege and wanting to be accepted as “normal,” as well as being in competition with other women. Challenging and changing male-identified femininity is in itself revolutionary. It’s one of the most important ways to say no to patriarchy and is extremely freeing.
Some of our best Radical Feminists are honest about being with men and the privilege they’re getting and do not say they are victims. For those with men who really feel that they’re a victim, then stop. If they can’t because of literal survival, then they are prisoners, not het. (But if this is asked outright, usually women in the Radical Feminist groups will suddenly change their minds because they want status for being with men, as much as they might complain about it.) If they are honest, most women will not leave men because of not wanting to lose the tangible rewards, which the rest of us do not have and never had. It’s not just money and property, but status, including how you feel about yourself. If you can’t bear your family and friends to think that you might be a Lesbian if you leave your man, what are you thinking about us?
Every time you talk about women being victims and having no choices, you are helping patriarchy to keep women trapped. Women are trained to be passive enough. It’s hard enough for women to be able to talk about how they have been betrayed by women. Who is it who wants women to think they naturally belong to men and no choice is possible?
I say to the pretenders gutting Radical Feminism, as I say to the male pretenders — call yourselves whatever you want, just stop trying to steal our name, our movement, our culture, and then parasitizing it for your own use. I say the same to the trolls, and to those who “don’t want to know” what harm that a troll is doing to Radical Feminism and to individual women — please be responsible enough to recognize that we cannot have a movement of women who don’t care about each other, and if that troll, whether paid agent for the enemy or someone who just enjoys pitting women against each other, is not named, held accountable, and stopped, then she will eventually hurt you too. We are in this together. If there is a doubt, let’s make a forum where all concerned can talk freely, with no banning so all can decide what the truth is.
Real Radical Feminists do not prevent discussion about past betrayals of our community. Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. Those who try to prevent discussion about the past that is relevant to now are harming our community. The personal is political. We need to know which women supported men and the trans cult against Radical Feminists. We need to know who lies and uses online bans to eliminate evidence in an attempt to rewrite history. If some women truly do regret betraying us, they will say so, apologize, and explain. They will not make up more lies to continue slandering those who are warning our community about them. And they certainly won’t threaten women to silence them.
Question everything you have been taught is the truth, and know that the more privilege you have, the more likely you will be oppressive unless very careful. It is a constant struggle to not let our Radical Feminist community absorb the dominant male-worshipping, false-femininity worshipping, sado-masochistic, competitive, hateful patriarchal culture.
If you are outraged when a Radical Feminist says something “too radical,” too man-hating, too questioning of the myths about femininity or het supremacy, then stop and realize what you are reacting to, and consider whether you are trying to stop the truth from being said. Don’t force us to go over what was solved forty years ago – try to learn our past so we can finally go on.
For those who are not Radical Feminists yet, but who are excited about our politics, please do not come into our community, ordering and lecturing as if you are our boss, when you haven’t even bothered to learn the history and the work of this movement. Also, if you are privileged, do not try to impose your dominant culture on us, whether it is heterosexist, classist, racist, ableist, ageist, fat oppressive….
If you’ve been drawn to feminism but still feel like an outsider because you are seeing some of the same heterosexist, racist, classist oppressive crap that is in the rest of patriarchy, know that that is not true Radical Feminism but a posturing imitation.
Real Radical Feminism is the opposite of Counterfeit Feminism. We can still have that excitement that was Radical Feminism, but we need to recognize who is and who isn’t truly Radical Feminist. Trying over and over to accept the bullies and trolls who often dominate is done at the expense of the women who should be with us. We need not just a growing, powerful, truly Radical Feminist movement that welcomes all girls and women, but a refuge, a safe space where we can finally talk about the most radical of feminist politics, to go as far as we can. We want the women who have been isolated, marginalized, and othered to finally know they are not alone and that they have finally come home.