Under Sexism 1.0, women were…

Posted by

A Twitter thread by @radicalhag

Under Sexism 1.0, women were controlled by means of gender. We were acknowledged to be female, but restricted to certain clothes and behaviours deemed appropriate for us.

Under Sexism 2.0, we are completely reduced to the clothes and behaviours, the stereotype. A woman is anyone who performs the stereotype. Our bodies are now unmentionable and incoherent, and may only be referred to as random body parts.

Please explain to me how this is an improvement. A conservative male who says women must behave a particular way, and allow him to control their bodies, is less sexist than someone who says that anyone who behaves a particular way is a woman, and women’s bodies are unmentionable.

Denying that women exist as a category of humans is a deeper level of woman-hating than acknowledging our existence but keeping us subservient.

And if some feminists choose to collaborate with conservatives on this issue, that’s why. Conservatives don’t pretend women don’t exist.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/24/trans-activists-threats-execute-women-sure-dont-look-like-social-justice/

As Sister Outrider points out here https://t.co/2teyy2uHsI , the performance of gender is now what makes a woman. This offers women no chance to be fully human *as women*.

Sexism 0.1 (the beta version) could be said to have controlled women’s bodies explicitly. There was no pretence. Men kept women in captivity to control our sexual and reproductive functions and ensure that they were the biological fathers of ‘their’ children.

Sexism 1.0 was a bit cleverer and imposed gender on women, got us to buy into our oppression, so we could have the illusion of some freedom (and make da menz feel better) but still behave like good little wives and mothers, or bad girls.

Patriarchal religion inspired and drove both, but with increasing secularism we now have what Cordelia Fine calls neurosexism to help prop up the notion that our little ladybrains are innate. But it’s still Sexism 1.0.

And both of these are typically right-wing/conservative, although a lot of men on the left do neurosexism.

Sexism 2.0 says: we’ve established gender, we’ve used it to control women’s bodies, and now we can get rid of the bodies, and the class of people to whom those bodies belong, as a political force, by saying gender and not sex is what makes a woman. But women are still oppressed.

This is a very good analysis of Sexism 2.0 and its hatred of the female body https://t.co/ST7LM2vhAD I especially like her remarks about trans identities as the negation of white or male.

If women are non-men and transwomen are non-men by virtue of not wanting to be men, then they must be the same class of person according to the kind of misogynist male who sees himself as the default human. So why not lump them together and apart from men?

This is a bit less sexist than the kind of man who salivates over the erasure of women, and the violation of our boundaries, that is introduced by redefining us as a gender. This sort of male wants to force men into our spaces, force us to acknowledge them as women.

He relishes forcing us to yield privacy as well as ground in politics, sports, media representation and so on. He relishes wielding the whip of dogma to silence our objections. In this case the dogma is that transwomen are the most oppressed women of all.

In a previous era he would have burned witches for the good of their souls. He loathes and fears women, and bitterly resents our freedom to exist as people, but covers it with a veneer of righteousness so he can maintain the deception of being ‘good’.

An MRA, who simply hates women and says so, is at least more honest. Sexism 1.0.

And then of course, there are men who fetishise the feminine. They have always existed, but in this climate of extreme misogyny, they are allowed to parade themselves as uber-women.

Their performance of the madonna/whore dichotomy, the male notion of what a woman is, is now the definition of womanhood. A penis attached to a body clad in sufficient frills is female. A mere female body doesn’t count, is nameless, is an incoherent collection of parts.

Uterus-haver. Menstruator. Gestator. The perfect language for a society that commoditises sex and child-bearing, sells women’s bodies off by the kilogram, and calls it liberation. We are in the belly of the beast.

To suggest that women are those people with female bodies, that we exist as a coherent group, that we are oppressed on the basis of those bodies, that we have rights and needs associated with them, that we are an identifiable group of humans, is hate speech under Sexism 2.0.

Our word is female. A female pig is a sow, a female bovine is a cow, a female sheep is a ewe, a female human is a nameless collection of body parts which can be bought in isolation. Let that sink in.

I don’t like moralistic words, but this is pure evil. Dehumanisation of women and threats of violence against us are being not merely excused, but extolled as progressive. I imagine this is what it felt like before the witch-burnings began.

Babe in Botland againhttps://babeinbotland.com/2018/07/11/why-trans-woman-is-a-very-bad-word/

Read the whole thing. You may not agree with her about military service, but she has the misogyny of transactivism taped.

For anyone who is determined to miss the point of the thread, here is a picture: