One of the things that happens to you if you run a radical feminist, gender-critical page or blog, or even if you just comment on articles from this perspective, is that some dewy-eyed young third-wave ‘feminist’ will turn up and explain breathlessly that you just need to read some Judith Butler, or perhaps some Halberstam, and the error of your ways will become clear. It’s all just a misunderstanding, you see.
It’s a bit like long-time atheists, who are often experienced and critical refugees from early doses of religion, being told to read the Bible. It’s not that the assumption of truth may not be questioned; it’s that the well-meaning evangelist has no idea that the questions have long since been asked, and answered. Continue reading
Helen Saxby has written an excellent summary of the state of play around the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act, and the way that transactivists are silencing debate.
“It’s sometimes difficult to remember, amongst all the arguments, exactly what women stand to lose here. The sex category ‘female’ is being asked to absorb the sex category ‘male’. What women are being forced to accept could literally not be any more extreme.”
Read the whole thing here – it’s excellent.
And probably non-binary too.
These days, it comes down to who owns the word ‘woman’. It might all matter a bit less if ownership of the word did not imply access to spaces, housing, social facilities, and if the word itself didn’t say so much about personal identity. But it does, and we are where we are. Continue reading
This is the full text of Andrea Dworkin’s speech to a Men’s Movement group – at the time, supposedly a group combating sexism. It was written 35 years ago, and things have only gotten worse since then, particularly since porn and prostitution have become completely mainstream. Reading it from the perspective of 2017, it reflects the overwhelming failure of third wave feminism to combat the abuse of women in a sexist society. Text is taken from here.
This was a speech given at the Midwest Regional Conference of the National Organization for Changing Men in the fall of 1983 in St Paul, Minnesota. One of the organizers kindly sent me a tape and a transcript of my speech. The magazine of the men’s movement, M., published it. I was teaching in Minneapolis. This was before Catharine MacKinnon and I had proposed or developed the civil rights approach to pornography as a legislative strategy. Lots of people were in the audience who later became key players in the fight for the civil rights bill. I didn’t know them then. It was an audience of about 500 men, with scattered women. I spoke from notes and was actually on my way to Idaho–an eight-hour trip each way (because of bad air connections) to give a one-hour speech on Art–fly out Saturday, come back Sunday, can’t talk more than one hour or you’ll miss the only plane leaving that day, you have to run from the podium to the car for the two-hour drive to the plane. Why would a militant feminist under this kind of pressure stop off on her way to the airport to say hi to 500 men? In a sense, this was a feminist dream-come-true. What would you say to 500 men if you could? This is what I said, how I used my chance. The men reacted with considerable love and support and also with considerable anger. Both. I hurried out to get my plane, the first hurdle for getting to Idaho. Only one man in the 500 threatened me physically. He was stopped by a woman bodyguard (and friend) who had accompanied me.
I have thought a great deal about how a feminist, like myself, addresses an audience primarily of political men who say that they are antisexist. And I thought a lot about whether there should be a qualitative difference in the kind of speech I address to you. And then I found myself incapable of pretending that I really believe that that qualitative difference exists. I have watched the men’s movement for many years. I am close with some of the people who participate in it. I can’t come here as a friend even though I might very much want to. What I would like to do is to scream: and in that scream I would have the screams of the raped, and the sobs of the battered; and even worse, in the center of that scream I would have the deafening sound of women’s silence, that silence into which we are born because we are women and in which most of us die. Continue reading
Here is a really solid analysis from Anti Porn London of why gender performativity, the concept so beloved of queer theorists, is misogynist victim blaming. I’m quoting the last four paragraphs in full because they’re so good, but you can read the whole argument here.
If gender was performance, then there would be a way to perform that didn’t result in rape for women. But men rape housewives. Men rape butch lesbians. Men rape quiet women in dresses and lipstick. Men rape snarling punks in leather jackets and safety pins. Men rape every type of woman. There is no way for a woman to be that doesn’t risk rape. There is no way to perform that lets women escape the confines of gender because gender is not performance; it’s the designator of who can rape – us, the people called men – and who can be raped – them, the people called women. Performance has nothing to do with it.
When gender is a violent, unnatural hierarchy we are born into, the abuse of females is understood as a brutal result of a power structure that subjugates one class of people to another. When gender is an internal, subjective choice we make, the abuse of females becomes a hazard of identification, a set of circumstances implicitly welcomed by anyone who puts on a particular performance – or even an “affirmation of femininity”, in the words of a particularly noxious figure in the trans community.
Conversely, linking the massive privilege bestowed on men to an internal state erases the structural and political institutions that give power to males at the expense of females – and, shockingly, the ideology that does this is being largely pushed by males with the hopes of gaining access to female spaces, female resources, and female identities. This should be troubling to anyone who seeks to challenge actual, real male supremacy – not male-identified supremacy, not cis-male supremacy, not person-with-this-certain-set-of-feelings supremacy. Male supremacy. You know, the violence men do, to women, because we can.
The heart of gender performativity as a concept is a twin project of blaming victims and excusing perpetrators. By obscuring the brutality of our sex-caste system in a postmodern mist that privileges the internal identifications of men – the oppressors – over the material conditions of women – the oppressed – any attempt to throw the strongholds of patriarchy into focus is immediately neutralized. On queer theory, men win, women lose. What a surprise.