Radical feminists are so adorable when they're mad

[kydoty]

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/grooming-pimping-into-heterosexuality-politics-of-love-pt-ii/

 

And this is just the first paragraph:

 

No woman is heterosexual. What men call heterosexuality is an institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our reproductive functions and steal our labour. Heterosexuality, or sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship to men that exists is men’s violence, physical and mental invasion – one that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love. All women’s “attraction” to men is 100% eroticised trauma bonding / stockholm syndrome. There is no other form of attraction to men possible than that. None. Any woman “sexually” or “sentimentally” attached to a man is ONLY trauma-bonded to him. This is a universal rule under patriarchy.

[ashbury]

No man is faithful. What women call fidelity is...

 

Whatev.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think there is anything I find more laughable about modern feminism than the idea that men are inherently violent/awful and women are the victims.

 

Violent/immoral/awfulness to their fellow person knows no one gender.

[Squirrel]

I don't think there is anything I find more laughable about modern feminism than the idea that men are inherently violent/awful and women are the victims.

 

Violent/immoral/awfulness to their fellow person knows no one gender.

 

I don't call that modern feminism ... I call that extremism. And, quite frankly, find it insulting you'd refer it to feminism at all, modern or otherwise. Feminism about equality for women. It's not about redefining their sexuality. Yes, some feminists do explore gender roles and sexuality, but that is really a separate exploration beyond seeking equality in the 'socio-economic-political' realms. At least in my opinion it is.

[Brock Beauchamp]

TC;DR

 

(Too Crazy, Didn't Read)

[PseudoSABR]

Like all causes, beliefs and fields of research there exists a wide variety of voices, which all claim the same label. Modern Feminism, as found with in academia, and really how most people identify with it, simply involves freeing individuals from their pre-defined gender and sexual roles. Something any reasonable person should be able to get behind.

 

The idea that men are inherently violent is basically absent from credible Feminist thought, and you'll only encounter it from the most juvenile and oddly extreme of voices.

 

While the paragraph quoted is extreme and is largely academic goobly-goop, if we replace heterosexuality with heteronormativity--that is that women have always been asked to engage in relationship with men in a way that might somehow diminish them, that there is a patriarchy found in our classical notions of how a man and woman should love each other--that idea is far more reasonable than the pedantic show-boating the blogger put forth.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't call that modern feminism ... I call that extremism. And, quite frankly, find it insulting you'd refer it to feminism at all, modern or otherwise. Feminism about equality for women. It's not about redefining their sexuality. Yes, some feminists do explore gender roles and sexuality, but that is really a separate exploration beyond seeking equality in the 'socio-economic-political' realms. At least in my opinion it is.

 

The problem is that the author considers herself a feminist.

 

She's not a feminist. She's a ****ing crazy person. I hope, and often see, the "normal feminist" community give people like this the boot because they give anti-feminism forces an insane argument to rally against. People like this blogger are counterproductive to the task at hand, and that is female equality.

 

BTW, if you want a real "treat", read the comments section. She is only scratching the surface of crazy in the article itself and really hits her stride in the comments section (along with some of her fellow commenters, who are equally as crazy).

 

The most hilarious aspect of it was the line of thinking that men "bred out" disobedient females long ago because they were too unruly. Because, as we all know, men are the only interested parties in perpetuating our own species. Real women were so unruly that they wanted to see the entire species die out of principle.

[ashbury]

I don't think there is anything I find more laughable about modern feminism

 

Aside from the posts that have followed, I'd also take issue with the word "modern". I well remember the feminist rally I attended when I was living in Washington DC in the 1970s - I figured, sure, I'm a feminist, go check it out. Heh. Lots of speeches along the lines of the linked blog. I did not feel especially welcome there.

 

I suspect you could find similar sentiments going back to the days when Sappho's poems were read in their original handwriting, as well.

[Squirrel]

The problem is that the author considers herself a feminist.

 

She's not a feminist. She's a ****ing crazy person. I hope, and often see, the "normal feminist" community give people like this the boot because they give anti-feminism forces an insane argument to rally against. People like this blogger are counterproductive to the task at hand, and that is female equality.

 

BTW, if you want a real "treat", read the comments section. She is only scratching the surface of crazy in the article itself and really hits her stride in the comments section (along with some of her fellow commenters, who are equally as crazy).

 

The most hilarious aspect of it was the line of thinking that men "bred out" disobedient females long ago because they were too unruly. Because, as we all know, men are the only interested parties in perpetuating our own species. Real women were so unruly that they wanted to see the entire species die out of principle.

 

Yeah ... which is why I said some feminists explore these <ahem> 'other areas' but those are not what feminism defines, imo. And yeah ... this is just bat**** crazy, imo, and extreme and makes me wonder just what her experiences in life has been to put her over the edge. But I think that about just about anyone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there on the fringes. (And I mean, way out there ... further than any of us! ) Again ... I don't think this should be equated to feminism, modern or otherwise, at all. It really negates the good that some have done in the name of equality.

[Squirrel]

While the paragraph quoted is extreme and is largely academic goobly-goop

 

Sorry ... you wrote such a good paragraph but this really made me laugh. 'Academic goobly-goop' ... such a great oxymoron. Or maybe it's not ...

[Ultima Ratio]

As someone in academia, this is unsurprising and par for the course. In grad school I had a professor tell us point blank: if you want to get published/noticed, you have be brilliant or controversial -- most are not brilliant. Thus…. say something crazy and get some attention. Most of my feminist colleagues would probably say this is to be taken as thought-provoking: to question and re-examine gender roles, eros, oppression of the proletariate (understood as the female class in this case -- or queer from normal (male)), and on and on, but would tell you privately that they don't personally agree with this sentiment. It's a silly mental exercise that is not informed by reality, other than of one's own imagination/making.

 

Make no mistake though, this is not the only vein of modern feminism, but it certainly has numbers and acolytes.

[TheLeviathan]

I love how everyone is rushing to call this extreme and somehow suggesting I am casting the net too wide.

 

You know whose fault that is? Feminism and Academia in general for casting a wide umbrella for all these whackos. That's the case for many fields. But itis absolutely under the feminist umbrella, extreme or not.

 

If the phrase modern is the problem, fine....call it academic feminism. I personally don't draw a distinction, but some appear to.

[PseudoSABR]

I love how everyone is rushing to call this extreme and somehow suggesting I am casting the net too wide.

 

You know whose fault that is? Feminism and Academia in general for casting a wide umbrella for all these whackos. That's the case for many fields. But itis absolutely under the feminist umbrella, extreme or not.

 

If the phrase modern is the problem, fine....call it academic feminism. I personally don't draw a distinction, but some appear to.

It is extreme; there's no position that can be held that's further extreme in this particular line of thinking.

 

It's in academia's and scholarship's best interest to cast an umbrella as wide as possible--to give room for both the radical and the traditional to have a voice, no matter how extreme or blase. That said, there's a reason this kind of writing appears in a blog with the word "radical" in the title, and not in say The Chronicle of Higher Education. Academia has it's own systemic (and serious) problems, but this blog post isn't symptomatic of it (or at least not in the way you're implying).

 

While this kind of writing can result in a PhD, it's not because this vein of thought is reminiscent of current feminist thinking; it's because academia doesn't really care what you write about or what positions you take as long as you go through its bureaucracy and utilize its vernacular. In general, like in all profession, the more you actually posit these kind of rock-the-boat positions, the less hireable you are--so while some professors might even pen an article like this, it's rarely if ever going to make its way into the classroom much less will it contribute to the real world problems women face. In this sense, academic extremism is a bit of a farce.

[TheLeviathan]

All of what you said is subjective about what qualifies as too extreme for the label. the truth is that the label fits and the label often invites all kinds of radicalism. The net is frequently cast that wide in all of academia.

 

As for the rigors of academic review, we both know there are a host of issues there, so I don't buy that as a cover for anything. Certainly not the social sciences/humanities.

[Bark's Lounge]

Yowza.

 

I know mysogyny is still a problem we face as a society, but the written piece in question dictates the writer as a person who has probably experienced an extreme kind of abuse at the hands of a man... for this I feel very bad for the writer.

 

Not all women and men are good people, and on the same point - more women and men are good people than bad. In the group of people I mingle with who are married or have a partnership, the women at least 50% of time make more money than the man. We actually care about and take care of each other and make the best out of it... equally.

 

As we all know, everyone has a different upbringing and outcome and I have seen mysogynistic relationships take place and are still doing as such, but these aforementioned people are of the religious persuasion. Not to poo poo on religion, but at this point of time it still seems to foster this kind of behavior. Sometimes interpretations of the bible trump dignity to those who deserve it the most.

 

Anyways, the writer of the article is an abuse victim and letting her flag fly. Being a person who has grown up in these kind of situations I feel confident in saying that this is truth.

[Shane Wahl]

Do we even know who this person is or if she has any degree?

[TheLeviathan]

Do we even know who this person is or if she has any degree?

 

If a degree is all it takes to qualify/disqualify someone please explain this list:

 

http://creation.com/creation-scientists

 

At this point, a college degree behind your name is borderline meaningless. I'm not happy to say that, but it's true.

[Shane Wahl]

If a degree is all it takes to qualify/disqualify someone please explain this list:

 

http://creation.com/creation-scientists

 

At this point, a college degree behind your name is borderline meaningless. I'm not happy to say that, but it's true.

 

I am just wondering because there are some claims being tossed around here about "academics" and I want to know if this woman has a degree, what it is, and where it's from.

[PseudoSABR]

I am just wondering because there are some claims being tossed around here about "academics" and I want to know if this woman has a degree, what it is, and where it's from.

She writes like a graduate student.

 

While Masters and Doctorates are hardly meaningless, they are oversaturated in the humanities, and the quality of any given degree is pretty nebulous.

[TheLeviathan]

I am just wondering because there are some claims being tossed around here about "academics" and I want to know if this woman has a degree, what it is, and where it's from.

 

I'll clarify: Academia = Universities. I'm sure there are a few beacons of intellectual integrity out there in the world, just not enough for me to avoid generalizations.

[Craig Arko]

I am just wondering because there are some claims being tossed around here about "academics" and I want to know if this woman has a degree, what it is, and where it's from.

 

Maybe you should ask her.