20

When I first found r/gendercritical on reddit, some of my earliest questions were the distinctions between it and radical feminism. It seems the answer to that question is all radical feminists are GC (or hold gender critical views) but not all GCs are radfems. I would venture to even say that GC is not even (if it ever was) a branch of feminism as there seems to be so many people who are not feminist (or support women-centred values) by any description of the word who are GC.

The entire disagreement reminds me of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her activism which prioritised suffrage for white women ahead of black men and women. Stanton was also a very effective campaigner and very eloquent.

I think a lot of the problem can be attributed to the invisibilisation of non-white women in this conversation and a conversation about intersectionality. As an African, I navigate society thinking about the parts of my identity that are most visible, my race and my sex. For black women, it is impossible to prioritise one over the other. To choose to support women's rights at the expense of immigration laws, racial laws, etc. Or to support race at the expense of gender (African men are misogynistic and only able to understand equality and privilege when it affects them while being completely blind to gender inequality). So both must progress at the same time which is difficult or impossible and quite a thing to aspire to.

So it's quite distressing to see white gc campaigners collaborating on trans activism with white racist organizations. From your perspectives, I think it seems to be just making use of the tools in your toolbox. But to black women or immigrant women or lesbian women or women who are black, immigrant and lesbian or possess some other minority identity, it must appear to be a collusion or a betrayal.

I know people say the enemy of my enemy is my friend in justification of this. But what about when this new friend is the enemy of your friend? I just don't see that analysis. There are also other tensions between immigrants and the working class which appear to be another thing which could potentially be exploited by anti-immigrant groups.

Audre Lordes' "the master's tools will not bring down the master's house" comes to mind here. I fail to see how racist, sexist, anti-immigrant groups will protect the interests of women beyond idk trans rights. Many lesbians will be targeted as will be gay men and non-gender conforming people. Is the GC movement simply traditionalism/conservatism? What about abortion rights?

I don't know what the solution is really. If white GC campaigners are convinced that the way forward is only to further collaborate with these groups then they should be aware that they'd also likely lose the support of women belonging to these other groups who have been traditionally or historically protected by the left. While the left seems currently unable to distinguish between male and female, the right does not care about male and female in their campaign against black people. From their perspective, I think it's clear where more safety lies.

I think it's important to be pro-women and not just anti-trans. And being pro-women would or ought to involve thinking about women of all social groups and ages. But then again that might be too much for GCs to do seeing as it's a single issue campaign.

When I first found r/gendercritical on reddit, some of my earliest questions were the distinctions between it and radical feminism. It seems the answer to that question is all radical feminists are GC (or hold gender critical views) but not all GCs are radfems. I would venture to even say that GC is not even (if it ever was) a branch of feminism as there seems to be so many people who are not feminist (or support women-centred values) by any description of the word who are GC. The entire disagreement reminds me of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her activism which prioritised suffrage for white women ahead of black men and women. Stanton was also a very effective campaigner and very eloquent. I think a lot of the problem can be attributed to the invisibilisation of non-white women in this conversation and a conversation about intersectionality. As an African, I navigate society thinking about the parts of my identity that are most visible, my race and my sex. For black women, it is impossible to prioritise one over the other. To choose to support women's rights at the expense of immigration laws, racial laws, etc. Or to support race at the expense of gender (African men are misogynistic and only able to understand equality and privilege when it affects them while being completely blind to gender inequality). So both must progress at the same time which is difficult or impossible and quite a thing to aspire to. So it's quite distressing to see white gc campaigners collaborating on trans activism with white racist organizations. From your perspectives, I think it seems to be just making use of the tools in your toolbox. But to black women or immigrant women or lesbian women or women who are black, immigrant and lesbian or possess some other minority identity, it must appear to be a collusion or a betrayal. I know people say the enemy of my enemy is my friend in justification of this. But what about when this new friend is the enemy of your friend? I just don't see that analysis. There are also other tensions between immigrants and the working class which appear to be another thing which could potentially be exploited by anti-immigrant groups. Audre Lordes' "the master's tools will not bring down the master's house" comes to mind here. I fail to see how racist, sexist, anti-immigrant groups will protect the interests of women beyond idk trans rights. Many lesbians will be targeted as will be gay men and non-gender conforming people. Is the GC movement simply traditionalism/conservatism? What about abortion rights? I don't know what the solution is really. If white GC campaigners are convinced that the way forward is only to further collaborate with these groups then they should be aware that they'd also likely lose the support of women belonging to these other groups who have been traditionally or historically protected by the left. While the left seems currently unable to distinguish between male and female, the right does not care about male and female in their campaign against black people. From their perspective, I think it's clear where more safety lies. I think it's important to be pro-women and not just anti-trans. And being pro-women would or ought to involve thinking about women of all social groups and ages. But then again that might be too much for GCs to do seeing as it's a single issue campaign.

68 comments

There are no GC women working with racist groups. These accusations are tiresome.

An obscure nationalist group live-streamed Kellie Jay Keen’s event. This event was free, public, on public land, and open to everyone.

Kellie makes a point of not excluding anyone from hearing her speak or engaging with her. This is because one of her two main focuses is raising awareness of gender ideology to save children from mutilation, and as she says, the children of conservatives equally deserve to be saved.

You can’t raise public awareness if you’re picking and choosing who to raise awareness to.

I admire KJKs hardline in inclusivity. It is a genuinely radical stance in this day and age.

I'm also tired of being lumped in with racist groups just because people like Senator Space Laser also believe that women have vaginas

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 35 points Edited

There's one MAJOR factor that isn't mentioned here, and that I wouldn't expect most Africans (as opposed to African-Americans) to even rlly be aware of.
Namely: A big % of Black Women—including a fair share of ardently Womanist, GC++ Black Women—tend to push back against fully teaming up with, allying with, or, hell, even forming real friendships with White Women. This genuinely shocks lots of people who don't live or regularly socialize in Black communities, because "the call is coming from inside the house" and these are not conservative Women at all.

The heart of the problem here is also my single least favorite feature of US Black culture, which is that Black Women have somehow collectively been appointed guardians of genetic Blackness when it comes to dating, marrying, and having kids.
Black men are rarely stigmatized even a little bit for dating White Women. But hoo boy, when an educated Black Woman dates a White boy, do the sparks ever fucking fly.

The burden of 'enforcing' Black people dating other Black people that's been coercively loaded onto Women's shoulders is so stupidly heavy that professional, educated Sisters with non-Black husbands or boyfriends have been made out to be literal activists, with a title and everything: all together, these fearless intrepid Girls-who-swirl are "the Divest movement", or Divesters or some other grammatical version of the word "divest".

I'm not talking about lesbians, but, the ethos is so strong at times that it spills over into Female friendships, which all by itself is already just fucking weird! I honestly can't think of any other culture-wide dating-related vibe (for straight people) in the western world that actually colors the direction of friendships and associations between Women. What the actual hell.

I'm sorry but I just think this is some whole-ass abject bullshit that's also reactionary AF.
I have this conversation a lot, actually (High risk, low return! 😅), and I've almost started fights with it a few times—UNTIL I point out that White culture did this shit once upon a time, too, and slurred mixed-race dating/marriage as "miscegenation". That's some old-ass shit! Of course there will alws be racists, but, the death blow to concern-trolling about "miscegenation" at the level of the whole culture was the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia (1967).

1967 was a long-ass fucking time ago, and only historians and neo-nazi-identifying incels would ever talk about "miscegenation" now. And yet in fuckin' 2022, educated Black Women can't just get down with a cute White boy without "divesting", a word purposely chosen to sound like throwing a whole culture in the trash.
It's bullshit and I fucking hate it so much.

I hate it even more because there are so many absolutely wonderful features of US Black culture, especially for outspoken and self-sufficient Women, double-especially if they're gnc/butch, which is still a way of being Female as far as Black people are concerned (the idea of butch Women 'transitioning to male' is basically a punch line, where it just sounds like a bad attempt to make fun of Women who wear short cropped Natural hair.)

I never learned about how some cultures don't want to be, or aren't allowed to be friends with, white women until I met my ex gf. She was a Muslim Pakistani girl born in the UK, and in that culture there is a similar push to never interact with white people. It blew my mind, because I never even thought that was something that was possible!

It does explain a lot of things though. Reading your perspective was very interesting, thank you

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 19 points

Yw.
Likewise it's just beyond fascinating to idly look at differences in all the little racisms that do or don't exist in which countries—most of which probably originated in some totally random completely unimportant one-off thing turning out this way and not that way, and then were passed down a billion times in succession.

E.g., the US tech sector is heavily White and South Asian, where the South Asian complement is mostly Indian but with plenty of Bengalis and Pakistanis, and there is NO dynamic even remotely like what you're describing. Interactions are pretty much unfettered by anything other than the laughably thoroughgoing lack of social skills that plagues 99% of Silicon Valley.

But then you turn around and watch any tv or movie. In the US YOU. CANNOT. GET. AWAY. from everybody injecting gratuitous spectres of race into fucking everything all the time.
For someone like me. who's fundamentally unmoored from the entire idea of race[1], it's emotionally and even physically exhausting to watch for more than 10 minutes or so.

And there are TONS of British tv shows, esp comedies, with dazzlingly multiracial casts that look like they walked out of a Benetton ad, and they all clearly give precisely 0.00000 fucks about one another's races. Noticing what people DON'T do is pretty rare to start with; being smacked in the face by the absence of something is phenomenal.

I'm not a dolls person, but my fangirl status for L.O.L. Surprise dolls and associated merch, also from Britain, is growing for mostly the same reason—they're maximum multiracial, without anything about it being written into the marketing materials anywhere. Not in dialogs, not on the boxes, not in kids' workbooks. Nowhere.
Aspirational.
I also just like how the faces are drawn ahaha.

[1]:
my 3 sisters and I were all adopted orphans; no 2 of us are genetically related to each other or to either parent. In fact, our ancestries are so widely disparate that if you chose 2 earthlings completely at random out of all 8 billion, they would be more likely to be related more closely than any two of us.

[–] GenderHeretic Assigned2LegsAB 13 points

My mum was very careful about who I was friends with, and specifically said that white girls are sluts. My friends were all white (this was a very white community), and there were a few girls she forbade me from spending time with outside of school and discouraged me from associating with in school. The idea was that "boys will think you're a slut, too."

[–] ovaryacting Dilatemadaboutit 3 points

I'm mixed South Asian so got plenty of shit from both sides in the UK.

My ex was actually told the exact same thing! That all white girls are sluts, and drug addicts. It was very confusing to learn this, and made me less likely to reach out to people.

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 26 points Edited

I would venture to even say that GC is not even (if it ever was) a branch of feminism as there seems to be so many people who are not feminist (or support women-centred values) by any description of the word who are GC.

There's no need to grope around different groups of Women to prove these are 2 distinct schools of thought.

Finding Female examples on both sides is... well, really hard (you can't rlly draw the right dividing lines until you've learned a TON of very granular things about different alignments of Women, including but not limited to: GCs vs. 2nd wavers vs. 3rd wavers vs. Womanists vs. misc intersectional weirdofaces vs. blue-collar White Women who'd punch you in the face for calling them feminists but who are kinda secret ambassadors for GNC and/or radical self-sufficiency through their lived examples...For starters.)
And ironically, might end up diluting your message, because almost nobody who doesn't have the same breadth of understanding is really gonna "get it".. and that's not even touching the extra barriers that toxic TRA culture has put up. (Those are some robust-ass barriers, too... I still literally can't believe how many Women with a lifelong history of actual feminism have somehow been coerced into buying ideas like "welp, Lizzy went straight for the hardware aisle again... i guess it's time to have her tits chopped off"'.)

You can prove that GC ≠ feminism—to basically anybody with two eyes and at least four working brain neurons—in 20 seconds, by just pointing out that there's a shit ton of ardently GC gay men, relatively few of whom give any real heartfelt fucks about Women (and out of that group, half or more are too clueless about the basic realities of Female existence to give any such fucks that might count for anything).

In fact, the single biggest pipeline of gay men into gender criticism revolves specifically around Female exclusion, I.e., telling TIFs larping as little boys to fuck off and stay gone from everywhere gay men hook up for sex.
Obviously there's not a single molecule of feminism to be had here, but, "Getouddahere, Jayden—this is a boy party" not only is GC advocacy, but in fact is THE purest, most basic form of GC that exists.

Not exaggerating in the slightest: Keeping sexed sexuality sexed is the one and only area of life where the sex binary/dimorphism is the actual thing that directly motivates our perceptions.
Every other GC thing has at least one extra degree of separation between those. For instance, the fears of male violence (underlying all GC safeguarding concerns) are not based directly on seeing/smelling/hearing maleness—they're based on a lifetime's worth of empirical observations that men are not only bigger and stronger, but also more prone to fits of uncontrollable violence (à la road rage), and that in turn is what's based on physiological maleness.

Sexuality is THE ONLY GC thing with actually zero degrees of separation here.

[+] [Deleted] 9 points
[–] Eava -11 points

Gay men wanting to exclude TIF is not being Gender Critical.

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 19 points Edited

Also, if this were true, then the symmetric complement is also true: "Lesbians wanting to boot TIMs from lesbian spaces are not GC." This is just flat out unsupportable; the sheer aggregation of Lesbians in the GC movement proves by reductio ad absurdum ("If not then all these Lesbians are here at random, which is a statistical impossibility") that protecting lesbian spaces is GC—which means that protecting gay male spaces is, too.

I thiiiiiiiiiinnnnkk you MIGHT, possibly, be conflating "This GC issue doesn't need our attention because it's preemptively solved by our cultural biases" (which accurately describes a huge proportion of GC matters centering men) with "This is not a GC issue". I think possibly maybe.

In any case, whether something is or isn't a gendercrit issue is totally symmetrical: If you take a valid GC issue and swap the m's and F's, you have to get another valid GC issue. Likewise, swapping sexes in a non-issue has to create another non-issue. Self-fact-checking is kinda neat.

Gender Critical is about more than same sex spaces. There are plenty of women who aren't Gender Critical who don't want men I their spaces, and men who aren't Gender Critical that don't want women in theirs. One can be an extreme genderist and come out the same way. Being Gender Critical means opposing the imposition of gendered expectations on people based on their biological sex. Someone can support rigid gender roles and behavioral expectations and not want people of the opposite sex in what are traditionally same sex spaces.

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 14 points

Of course it is. It's a defense of SEXual attraction combined with a wholesale repudiation of magical gender soul feels, I.e. it combines the most fundamental specific thing that gender crits affirm AND the most fundamental thing we reject, all in one.

ironically, it's the very base nature of these items (see above "zero degrees of separation" part) that makes it impossible to write more than a few lines analyzing them, but they're still at zero remove from sex dimorphism and therefore at the center of everything gender crit.

This website sprang forth from the banning of r/GC so naturally that’s the overwhelming focus. I wouldn’t call Ovarit a radfem site, and many of the people here aren’t even feminists. (Just throwing this out there….)

I don’t personally believe that we should align with the right. Use them for what they’re worth? Ok, I can understand that. But align? No. I cannot stand those who bow down to Matt Walsh, etc. He’s “GC” but only because he wants to know who to fuck, and who to fuck over. I see so many women “gushing” over him and I just think ok, a tiiiiiiny bit of thinking beyond the surface would be nice, or has your female socialization kicked in and you are rendered powerless? (In which case, try harder, speak less.)

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 16 points Edited

Apropos of this. You don't happen to have looked at Andrew Sullivan's twitter (@​sullydish) in the last few days, do you?

Asking because I ended up there yesterday through a fit of endless strings of clicking links. I know there are a fair number of Andrew Sullivan haters on ovarit, so I wasn't expecting much—and FFFFFFFFFFFF that was the sound of 75mph winds of raw whole-ass GC truth that greeted me there when i poked my head out the window to look at his twitter timeline.

b0i is absolutely on fire this week. He even threw a brushback pitch at none other than Matt Walsh, with a tweet whose first line was, "The first resistance to gender ideology came from the feminist left."

guuuuuuuuuurl

Really? Got a link?

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 12 points

was starting to think you wouldn't ask.

this is the shout out to left-leaning feminists as bulwark against gender bullshit: https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1573395882875420672

From there just click his avatar and scroll away.

Haven't had time to dig that much, but from what I've seen so far it seems he didn't so much walk a road to Damascus as that TRAs did something to PISS HIM. OFF. and the whole-ass fire under his very homosexual little booty is still burning at full strength.

If that's actually true, meaning that Mr. Sullivan runs on a universal totally renewable eco-friendly fuel called burning hot righteous fucking anger—just like me—then we could be friends, ahaha.

Bingo. Aligning with the right hurts the cause and allows the proliferation of sexist ideas into GC/radfem spaces. I’m not involved in this movement to be mansplained to by a guy as idiotic as Matt Walsh that a woman is a woman because she likes dolls (see first 5 mins of his documentary)

I'm not sure what's meant by "aligning with" groups we disagree with. Are we saying feminists shouldn't work on single issue policies with groups they have disagreements with? I'm just wondering what the downsides would be if we, for example, worked with conservative women on challenging "affirming" health care for youths, and then worked with progressives on abortion access. Or maybe there are conservatives willing to work with us to promote the Nordic Model, and support for anti-poverty measures on the left. I would have thought the number of feminists is so small that this kind of cross-party work is necessary to get things done. Do we really enhance e.g. Right wing parties' power by working with them on limited areas of agreement, especially when we make our own values explicit? I don't yet see how that would work--we're not giving them money or votes for their other projects. What mechanisms do you think are at work? (E.g. do you think we increase their credibility, and if so, to whom? Or is your main worry that we'll lose our own credibility by association?) I'm asking because I'm legitimately interested in how to achieve actual policy change given how few people seem to prioritise women's interests, and although bipartisan work seems necessary to me, I do want to know if the downsides outweigh the benefits.

[–] Fury 31 points

What racist groups are you specifically talking about? Who is working with racists?

What I've seen is that the war is more about class than race. White, wealthy, establishment-entrenched, "professional feminists" have used their privilege to slander and effectively kneecap the poor & working class, multi-ethnic, every day women who have been most successfully raising awareness of the gender cult problem.

GC conservatives are an oxymoron. Conservatism was pretty much what enabled transgenderism. They are the same ideology, but with different applications. Both believe that there is a set of characteristics belonging to women and men besides sex. It’s more like conservatism are jumping on the bandwagon of going against the TRA movement because it’s a movement with a majority of opposition views on other aspects. Let’s get Matt walsh as an example: he parades on all the points gc women were talking ages ago, gets credit for all of this, and then spew the same bullshit TRAs push about women being a rigid set of characteristics, as stated on the end of his own documentary. Both conservatives and TRA doesnt allow nonconformity on its own, as seen on the pressure butch lesbians get to either transition or “be more feminine”. Being a GC conservative is akin to saying being a pro-life feminist.

"Lets get Matt Walsh as an example: he parades on all the points gc women were talking ages ago, gets credit for all of this, and then spew the same bullshit TRAs push about women being a rigid set of characteristics, as stated on the end of his own."

This. This infuriates me.

We cannot be mother of all causes and when we try we end up fckng ours, Sadly we haven't in either side a way to combine them fairly, because race is a huge issue, and ends up with black women rejecting all white feminism that one that has allowed us to whatever progress we have. "Intersectional" liberal feminists tried to add opressions and arrived somehow to the conclusion that smh men in skirts are the most opressed.
I try to not criticize feminism just bc of color but there are some ideas that are pushed in black feminism that I don't find feminist at all, but won't reject it all, thing is black feminists don't wanna discuss it. Then if we have to take case by case and jump from one group to another to make legislation fair that is wxactly what we should do.

I just want to fix an assumption you are making before I read the rest.

You are taking at face value that people who say they are GC really are GC. But words have meanings. If you aren't a rad fem or a male ally of radical feminism, you cannot be GC. They are the same thing. The basis of radical feminism is destroying gender. Gender is female oppression.

So if someone says they are GC but not a rad fem, that means they either don't understand what either of those things actually are, or they are purposely trying to obfuscate their views to appear more palatable to someone.

I don't mind working with more right-aligned people on this issue, but a lot of those people do use the label GC to describe themselves incorrectly. But what they really don't like is transgenderism. They are fine with gender. There are many people on this very site who feel this way. They are not GC if they are fine with gender in any form.

So I would not take it at face value that people who say they are GC really are. It used to be synonymous with radical feminism back in the good old days, and that has only changed because people who are not rad fems have been misusing the word.

I disagree. GC has never been synonymous with radical feminist. Radical feminism has always been a different level and GC was largely coined to be a more inclusive term. Back in the day normal, mainstream feminism was gender critical. All feminists were gender critical. It wasn’t called that because there was no need. Essentially all feminists recognized gender as sexism and wanted to do away with it. The trans movement worked to convince people that gender wasn’t bad, that it was “liberatory” to trans people, and even reversed the popular conception of gender from being sexist roles and stereotypes to being an inner essence of identification with sexist stereotypes that everyone supposedly has. All sorts of people can be opposed to gender without being radical feminists. They can be any kind of feminist or maybe even not a feminist, I don’t know every possibility. Radical feminism however is a rather high bar, which has nothing to do with the gender definition issue.

I guess my question is what does it look like to be a person who is not a feminist or who is a liberal/non-radical feminist, and be gender critical? Does it mean thinking some aspects of gender are OK, but not others? To me, that is a misuse of the term "critical". Can you provide an example of, say, a liberal feminist who was recognized as gender critical before the term "gender" was poisoned by TRAs?

I do realize who I am talking to, but what you are saying here is the opposite of what I have heard over and over again from rad fems on r/GC and here. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong-- and you probably know better than me. But it's not what I have consistently heard from people who appeared to know.

the enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarily my friend. conservatives (as in, far right wingers like Trump and the like) may be anti trans, sure, but that doesn't men we should support them. they want us to go back to the kitchen and impose strict gender roles, and also abolish gay marriage again, and to discriminate against other races. they don't have our interests at heart, they don't give a shit about us.

before you support someone just because they're anti trans, think about what will happen if this particular group is in a position of power.

they're anti trans not because they're gender critical, but because trans people are deviating from the norm of gender as they see it. men dressing up as women, acting feminine, these are all horrible things because these men aren't masculine macho stoic bros like they want men to be. they hate any gender nonconforming person regardless if they're trans or not.

they are NOT gender critical. they want to impose gender roles very strongly as well.

[–] furyosa no, thank you 13 points

I know people say the enemy of my enemy is my friend in justification of this. But what about when this new friend is the enemy of your friend?

This is my stance as well. If you choose to include certain women in your ideological fight, you will exclude others. I know that radical feminism will benefit right-wing women but I will not work together with them because I know we're ideologically opposed on everything other than acknowledging that sex is real. I will denounce them and their ideology at every step of the way while working to improve their standing as women in society. I strongly dislike them spouting their racist and misogynist talking points, but I do want them to be able to spout it as women in a free society with a plurality of opinions where we can aim to marginalize their despicable opinions through open debate.

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 10 points Edited

If you're interested in changing this—i.e., getting to a place where right-wing Women suddenly don't look like they're your arch-nemisis 97% of the damn time anymore—I suggest a thought experiment that sounds easy, almost simplistic.

Here it is: YOU were born into a right wing social milieu. You'le now 12 / 16 / 21 / 25 / 32 / 45 / 60 / 80 years old. Who are you? What are you? What are your lived values? What are your heartfelt values?
Try it you'll like it. The ages are very nonrandom, and you basically have to start at 12 and work your way up to the higher ages (otherwise you'll inadvertently port over a whole haul of values that belong to your current self, not to this hypothetical self).

For your 12- and 16-year-old self, try to stay as aware as possible of different obsessive purity cultures (e.g., father/parents; church youth group; certain types of friend groups) that all want to grab an absurdly huge chunk of your free time and hang onto it for 17.2 forevers.

As an adult, don't forget that right wing culture is still stuck in 1935, mired in the belief that Women's lot in life is Kinder, Küche, Kirche.
Most Women on this forum either have long professional histories or (if younger) detailed designs on future career paths—either of which in a RW environment would mean severely alienating yourself from all the many housewiferies that are idealized, and, as a result, probably alienating yourself from tons of potential Female friendships too. Should you catch yourself copying and pasting careerist ambitions into this thought experiment completely unchanged from their current form, you're doing this thought experiment wrong.

I've writen in "lived values" ≠ "heartfelt values" as 2 different categories, becaues they should be. If these end up identical, you're just lying to yourself; no Woman can subsist without a little bit of a mental fantasy land of some sort.
But they can't split too far apart, either, because nobody's mental health can survive a whole life of not-X while actually harboring exactly X set of beliefs.

You might even find that YOU, i.e.,your exact same starting self at age 0, emerge from this thought experiment with a bunch of the same RW core values that don't do anything except viscerally disgust you right now—and you might acquire them just as a result of doing your best to construct a normal life in that kind of social echo chamber.

[–] furyosa no, thank you 15 points

I appreciate the effort to spark sympathy for their ideology but I was born into a right wing social milieu and was an ardent proponent of them for a great deal of my life. I'm a latecomer to feminism, and even later comer to radical feminism. I have a lot of empathy for right wing women as I'm still surrounded by a lot of them. But I can't stand their (my previous) defeatist ideology that women can't do better than the lot we've been forced into and that we must not rock the boat for ourselves or any other subjugated group. I understand that it stems from a survivalist response to the dire threat of male violence but if we stay in that freeze and fawn mode we will never get anywhere. It's time to activate the fight mode and I love to tease right wing women to try and activate it in them as it was activated in me by other feminists.

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 6 points

Thanks for the honest response. It all makes sense.

and I love to tease right wing women to try and activate it in them

You, stahhhp it, or you're gna make me fall slightly in luv...

(Kicking off personal growth experiences with teasing, gratuitous button-pushing, and other empathy-based forms of conflict is... life itself, as far as I'm concerned. At this point, though, I'll thank you to stop looking directly into my heart and soul.)

Excellent!

[–] Lipsy i/just/can't 4 points

Thank you.

The unrepentant whole-ass Female supremacy is real AF with me. I'm not damn fool enough to think everybody can get along with everybody else, but, situations in which two Women can't limn at least a basic articulation of each other's core values and traits make my heart hurt.

Load more (4 comments)