Pathei-Mathos

Privilege had made my gender, class, and race invisible to me. Feminism/Queer Theory made my (cis)gender(and heteronormativity) visible to me. Marxism made my class(and capitalism) visible to me. Anti-racist criticism made my race(and systemic racism) visible to me.  Intersectionality made the web oppression visible to me. And bell hooks helped me realize that we live in a White Supremacist Capitalist Imperialist Heteropatriarchy. Now, I'm trying to find my place in it as an ally to those fighting the injustices whilst trying to be constantly aware of existing privileges that threaten much needed movements, but can also be of use to them, if utilized appropriately. I used to speak first and listen after, but I learned to listen first and speak later. 

voraciousbull asked: I just watched Emma Watson's address to the UN. I was curious what your thoughts were on what she said? Specifically the part about "extending an invitation to men" to join feminism. How does what she said mesh with radical feminism?

radfemale:

PROS

  • The more celebrities openly discuss feminism the better
  • It means more women will be engaged
  • She’s a great speaker & is very strong and engaging
  • SOMETHING is being done about the oppression of females

CONS

  • The whole thing is male-inclusive
  • Oppressors should not be a ‘part’ of the group they oppress’ liberation because it’s counter-productive and patronising. AKA males should not call themselves feminists. They are allies.
  • She does the whole ‘I’m not a *MaN hAtEr*’ like women who DO hate men aren’t warrented.
  • She’s more concerned with being seen as ‘anti-men’ and the ‘uncomfortableness’ of feminism than the actual message and being unapologetic
  • She says ‘if you hate the word then it’s not *the word* that matters, it’s the message’. Stop apologising for *the word*! Address the problem! Why is the word ‘feminist’ dirty? Because MEN don’t want their power to be deminished. Because valuing women’s rights is BARBARIC.
  • She says ‘Men need gender equality, too!’ and then rattles off how hard MEN have it which silences feminism in general. I fucking hated the whole ‘I can see men are put in jail for GENDER STEREOTYPES’ um hello? Men DO commit more crimes. Men are put in jail for RACIAL stereotypes, but because of ‘gender’ stereotypes? Nah man.
  • She failed to acknowledge her own privilege (being an able-bodied, rich, heterosexual white woman) and how women aren’t all evenly oppressed, depending on race, ability, sexuality, class etc.
  • The whole ‘equality’ thing just doesn’t sit right with me. Women shouldn’t ‘envy’ men, and try to be ‘equal’ to them. Men aren’t enviable. The whole ‘equality’ thing is too comfortable. Too male inclusive. Women need to be liberated from men, and that liberation should not be measured.

Don’t get me wrong, I love that feminism’s being addressed. She’s a lot better than most celebrities who sit by and don’t do much about bringing women’s rights into the lime light. I get that. But in terms of Radical Feminism, this speech is too apologetic, too ‘FEMINISTS AREN’T MAN-HATTTTTINGGG’, too male inclusive. But like I said, at least she has said something.

I don’t consider sex work a wrong to women because I think it affects my sexual value. I reject the idea that any woman should be given a sexual value at all. I consider prostitution a wrong because it places all women within an economic structure that prices them sexually: there is no comparable structure that women can place on men, because women have neither the capital nor the social power to do so. Gira Grant thinks that we must accept the legitimacy of sex work to make women safe; I think that as long as sex work is legitimised, men’s power over women is legitimised by extension, and women are made less safe.

Sarah Ditum, Toying with politics: A review of Melissa Gira Grant’s “Playing the Whore”

I was linked to Gira Grant’s book after being told I was ‘anti-sex worker’ and exclusionary of sex workers in feminism for opposing the capitalist, imperialist industry that utterly exploits them. I was interested in Gira Grant’s arguments since they appeared to be coming from a leftist viewpoint, but when I saw they entailed the lazy agency narrative so fraught in liberal feminism, my receptiveness waned. Just a note, not everything published by Verso books and popular in your leftist clique is necessarily correct, and neither is it a direct challenge to a capitalist industry that systematizes sexual violence against women, fuels sexual colonization of various Third World and indigenous women, and abuses children by enslaving them for sexual services. In fact, it serves to normalize and legitimate this exploitative industry under the guise of ‘women’s rights’, yet another instance in the burgeoning trend of feminism being used to validate and feed patriarchy. 

(via churayl)

(via radfemale)

I once told a joke about a straight person.

They came after me in droves.

Each one singing the same:

Don’t fight fire with fire.

*

What they mean is: Don’t fight fire with anything.

Do not fight fire with water.

Do not fight fire with foam.

Do not evacuate the people.

Do not sound the alarms.

Do not crawl coughing and choking and spluttering to safety.

Do not barricade the door with damp towels.

Do not wave a white flag out of the window.

Do not take the plunge from several storeys up.

Do not shed a tear for your lover trapped behind a wall of flame.

Do not curse the combination of fuel, heat, and oxygen.

Do not ask why the fire fighters are not coming.

*

When they say: Don’t fight fire with fire.

What they mean is: Stand and burn.

Stand and Burn by Claudia Boleyn.  (via claudiaboleyn)

(via mulders)