Feed on
Posts
Comments

Are Feminists Allowed to Be Partnered with Transmen and Transwomen?

I got myself entangled in a trainwreck discussion on the internet, the likes of which I know better than to allow myself  to be anywhere near.  When I make this particular mistake these days, it is usually because (1) I feel under some obligation, morally, ethically, as a feminist/anti-racist/anti-capitalist/anti-imperialist activist, or just personally,  to make my position known on some issue (as opposed to just feeling like commenting about something); (2) because I (naively, I know, but I’ve always been hard-headed like that) believe that some conflict has mostly to do with mixed-up or poor communication, and I, communicator that I am, might therefore be able to participate productively and usefully in the resolution of the conflict.  Both of these factors figured in to my unwise decision to enter into the trainwreck which is at issue.

I was the only radical feminist in the discussion who held the specific views as to transgender that I hold (and other things as well, but the issue was transgender).  I was hugely outnumbered, and not only outnumbered, but outnumbered by people who (1) don’t know what my views are; (2) think they do know; (3) haven’t evidenced they have even begun to think deeply around issues of transgender as they relate to  feminism and gender, in general, but who hold the erroneous belief that they have; (4) relentlessly mischaracterize and misunderstand my and other radical feminist views; (5) reject what I say out of hand before I can say it, most of the time and reassert all of the above instead of evidencing any interest in actually communicating.   So, that was a setup for disaster.  Hopefully, I am at least a bit closer to the day when I manage to stop myself before I throw myself under these trains the way I do at times. 

Anyway.  From time to time I am going to write about issues raised in that particular thread.  For today, I am going to begin with the sentence up there which is the title of this post:  “Are Feminists Allowed to Be Partnered with Transmen and Transwomen?”

The roots, the source, of much of the conflict which resulted in that trainwreck I’ve described are in evidence in that  question.  I could write a book about the problems with that question.  I am sure that over the years I have been writing on these topics, I have, in fact, written many books.  But for now I’m going to say a few things, somewhat succinctly, or maybe not.

(1)   Where, I would like to know,  is the feminist cabal, the feminist elite, the inner, powerful, circle, which is empowered or enfranchised to “allow” any woman, or man, or child, anywhere on the face of the earth, to do anything, or not?  Where is the feminist legislature, the feminist judiciary, the feminist executive branch, charged with deciding what people are or aren’t allowed to do, and then enforcing their views, imposing them on people?  Of course, those questions are rhetorical.  We all know there is no feminist cabal operating anywhere on the face of the earth.  We all know feminists don’t have any power to “allow” or not allow anybody to do anything at all, to tell anybody what to do, or what not to do.  And yet an otherwise intelligent and thoughtful feminist asked this particular question which is in this post title, evidencing, as have so many others I can’t even begin to count them over the years, a very strange underlying thesis or view that feminists somewhere, somehow, “allow” people to do certain things, or don’t allow them to, or tell them what to do, and what not to do.

What is it with this inability so many have in distinguishing between the having of, and the expressing of, a point of view, an opinion, as against occupying an actual position of power which would allow for imposing some point of view on the unwilling?  Expressing a point of view is just expressing a point of view.  My opinions are binding on no one.   Your opinions are binding on no one, if you are simply a feminist woman.  I command no one.  I wouldn’t command anyone if I could, because my feminist beliefs preclude it.  I don’t tell anyone what to do, not my children, not even my cats, dog, and sheep.   I am a noncoercive parent to both my children and my animals.  When I talk about what I believe about a thing, I am just talking about what I believe about a thing.  And that’s the way I hear what people say to me, too.   When someone tells me they believe XYZ about whatever, it doesn’t occur to me to worry that they might not “allow” me to believe or act differently from them based on their differing view.  Where does that kind of thinking even come from?

(2)  The question at issue, “Are Feminists Allowed to be Partnered with Transmen and Transwomen,” evidences an alarming lack of understanding of,  insight into, or knowledge of radical feminist community.  I have to wonder if lies about radical feminism aren’t being taught straight up, outright, by those who really do have authority to “allow” or to not “allow,” like, to some degree, teachers, professors, boards and committees of various kinds. 

On to answering the question:  One reason the radical feminist community is as exercised as it is in issues around transgender, one reason it has written voluminously about these issues,  is — hold onto your hats  — transgender individuals have always, always, always been among us in our radical feminist communities.  Always.  Going back to the early days of the Second Wave, and before that into the 50s and earlier, before anybody identified as a “radical feminist.”  They have been among us as friends, sisters, lovers, sex partners, mothers, fathers, and yes, as wives, and as husbands (although radical feminists generally oppose civil marriage).   Some transgender people have, from time to time, wittingly or unwittingly, deliberately or accidentally, been the source of very, very serious, and I do mean serious, difficulties and conflicts among us, and not because of theories, beliefs, hare-brained ideas about something or other.  Some have been the source of very serious difficulty and division among us because of their behaviors, their actions which harmed our communities or gave rise to events which caused harm to our communities.

In other words, radical feminists have not developed and honed our views around transgender issues in some maude-forsaken academented vacuum in which non-engaged, non-involved, non-transgender, talking heads sit around pontificating on about the lives and fates of those they have never met or engaged in real life, or loved, or, for that matter, hated.  Radical feminists have developed and honed our views around transgender together with transgender people, for better or for worse, often with tremendous difficulty, in the crucible of human connection and community.  My experience is, ask 10 radical feminists whether they’ve had an intimate relationship with a transgender person, 9 will say they have.  Ask 10 radical feminists whether they have been close friends with transgender persons at some point in time, 10 will say they have.  In the positions we take, we speak from our own lived experiences.  We have paid for the beliefs that we hold, too.  Sometimes we have paid very dearly, which is a post I am going to write one of these days.

Well, anyway.  If that question actually made any sense, the answer to it would be “yes, radical feminists, feminists, period, are ‘allowed’ to be partnered with transmen and transwomen.”  If the question made any sense,  another answer might be, “Not only are radical feminists, feminists, allowed to be partnered with transmen and transwomen, sometimes radical feminists ARE transmen and transwomen.”  You know?  But again, the question is nonsensical from a radical feminist perspective.

Our  theory, as radical feminists,  doesn’t lead our practice.  If it does, it has nothing to do with radical feminism.  What I mean by this is, radical feminists don’t tell women they ought to do this, that or the other thing because radical feminist theory requires or mandates it.  That’s not how radical feminism works or has ever worked.  For us, practice always leads theory.  We live out our lives, we talk about what we are living, we compare notes, we process, we make theory out of what we have experienced.   Always we recognize that we and all women know things with our lives, far beyond any theory that has ever yet been written by any woman.  And that being so, when push comes to shove, and it is time to act, or not, there is no such thing as any of us “allowing” any woman anything, or “not allowing” or anything like that.  It doesn’t work that way.   All of our talking and arguing and discussing, ranting, raving, screaming, blowing up, losing it, cursing, telling someone off, giving someone the piece of our mind we can’t afford to lose? That’s process if it takes place in radical feminist community.  At the end of the day, those of us who truly are committed to women and to one another will say some version of, huh, that was interesting, might take a while sometimes, we might be slow, but we’ll get there, and then we will move forward in our living out of our feminist lives, and in our making theory out of what we are living.  If someone sets herself up to be the arbiter of what is or is not to be allowed, others of us will come along in time to engage in a bit of healthy radfem smackdown (discursive only, of course).  And that is all to the good.   Because women have to live by their own lights, staying connected with other women who are also living by their own lights, making their own lives with their own hands, then making feminist theory out of the lives they are making for themselves.

If you (generic “you”) take it upon yourself to straighten out communities of women to which you do not belong,  at a bare minimum, you ought to have a clear understanding of what those women actually believe and of where their beliefs come from.  This is something any beginning student of international feminism, or anthropology, or archaeology, or sociology,  knows.  This is something plain, ordinary wise people know.  You don’t just barge into a community, a culture, which is unfamiliar to you, and start straightening out the ignorant peasants and heathen hordes with your infinitely more brilliant truths.  You watch.  You listen.  You show respect.  You ask questions.  You gain the trust of the community.  Most of the time, what you will find out is, the people you don’t understand, the people you don’t respect, those you find soooo ignorant and soooo backwards, and oh sooooo 70s or 60s or 50s or whatever?  They have sound,  brilliant,  tried and true, time-tested reasons, forged in the difficulties and challenges of real life,  for the things that they do and the beliefs that they hold.  It is no different for the radical feminist/lesbian separatist community.  No one has any right to present for the purpose of straightening any of us out, especially if you haven’t done your homework as to who we are and what our history is, as a community.  That’s part and parcel of the same imperialist/colonialist spirit you so despise in the patriarchs.  But if you do presume to straighten out a community of women, knowing nothing about who they are or what they believe, and they won’t allow it, and turn their backs on you– well, that’s sad.  But that is also what they are going to have to do, for the sake of their own mental, emotional, spiritual, and even physical well-being.  Yes, these are hard words.  Sometimes, it’s time for hard words, and this is one of those times. 

Heart

**********

Note:  I am going to severely moderate this thread.  I will not have trainwrecks here around this issue.  I am letting everybody know,  if you comment, particularly if you are new to this blog, your comments will be moderated. – Heart

335 Responses to “Are Feminists Allowed to Be Partnered with Transmen and Transwomen?”

  1. on December 29, 2006 at 2:28 am Melinda Casino (Sour Duck)

    Could you please link to the discussion you’re referring to? I have no idea what you’re referring to and I’d like a little context.


  2. on December 29, 2006 at 2:40 am Burrow

    Thank you. One of the comments that drove me most crazy when I responded to Anamata was that radical feminists would never be involved with a man or someone born a man. My strong feelings that transwomen should be included in women’s spaces comes from friends, allies, and, yes, lovers I have had that are transgendered. Here I am marked a handmaiden of the patriarchy by some for having relations with men and standing up for trans folk and radical by others for my belief in the complete overthrow of all dominance and submission paradigms. You said it better then I could. Feel free to edit this comment as you see fit, I just wanted to say thank you from the bottom of my heart for explaining it better then I ever could.


  3. on December 29, 2006 at 2:55 am Kita Kazoo

    Hi,

    I found your blog today and have very much appreciated what you’ve said here.

    Kita


  4. on December 29, 2006 at 3:29 am chasingmoksha

    Before I can read any further, why must the people who were discussing this be dismissed as a trainwreck?


  5. on December 29, 2006 at 3:35 am Branjor

    ***the feminist cabal, the feminist elite, the inner, powerful, circle, which is empowered or enfranchised to “allow” any woman, or man, or child, anywhere on the face of the earth, to do anything, or not?***

    I always find that belief (that there is such a cabal) striking when it comes out of the mouth of a contemporary because it reminds me of something I read in Mary Daly’s Gyn/Ecology about “scholarship” surrounding the European witchcraze. The 16th century “genius” Jean Bodin was of the opinion “that there existed, not only in France, a complete organization of witches, immensely wealthy, of almost infinite potentialities, most cleverly captained, with centres and cells in every district, utilizing an espionage in every land, with high placed adherents at court, with humble servitors in the cottage.” It also sort of reminds me of some people who think that the world is run by a “Jewish cabal.” Purely delusional!


  6. on December 29, 2006 at 3:39 am chasingmoksha

    If someone sets herself up to be the arbiter of what is or is not to be allowed, others of us will come along in time to engage in a bit of healthy radfem smackdown (discursive only, of course).

    I think that is what was alleged. A body of people did set up who was allowed by not moderating. And although I understand how it would eventually be worked out according to a self policing body, it appears that for people who are acutely aware of being part of the not allowed or abused felt like it was not happening quick enough. Or when it was brought to the attention, it was treated with flippancy.


  7. on December 29, 2006 at 4:52 am Ann Bartow

    Hi Heart. I read through the thread I believe you are referencing, just now. I can understand why your felt misunderstood. I disagree with you about some things, but I found your comments thoughtful, and not meanspirited. There are some really awful comments there, though. I’m still trying to figure out why it got so nasty.

    On a happier note, I recently got my first issue of “off our backs” and it’s really good!


  8. on December 29, 2006 at 7:07 am womensspace

    Melinda, sorry about the omission of a link, I was posting quickly from work and meant to link, but didn’t. The thread is here.

    Branjor, creepy, the conspiracy theories about “witches,” but the church did that, too, really, justified the burning times by insisting that powerful witches were pulling all sorts of cosmic strings.

    Burrow, hugs to you. :( {{{}}}

    I know there are radfems and lesbian separatists who have never partnered with transgendered persons– maybe I was too extreme there. There might be many more than 1 in 10 who have been with women only, ever. But every time I have this discussion with radfems/lesbian separatists, it feels like by far most of the women say something like, “I had a relationship with a transwoman and….” The thing is, we are outlaw womyn, we are outliers, marginalized, and as such radical feminists, lesbian separatists, transwomen, transmen– well, we find each other, encounter each other.

    chasingmoksha, I don’t mean to be dismissive in any way in describing the thread at issue as a trainwreck. Trainwrecks are very, very serious things. I have tremendous respect for their power. I’ve been really really hurt in trainwreck threads in the past and so I try to protect myself now. I meant no disrespect or dismissiveness, quite the opposite.

    I know you may feel that you and I disagree on things. That’s okay; I’m fine with us disagreeing. I still want to say, though, that you did not deserve to be treated the way you were treated in that thread. You worked very hard to communicate, to engage, to be clear in expressing your views. For this, you were shat upon, and it really, really sucked. I felt horrible for you and wished I were in some position to offer you support, but given the acrimony coming my way, anything I might have said on your behalf would have made things infinitely worse. I wish you and I could have the discussion I want to have with you. Maybe someday we can have it. For now, I want to say again that you didn’t deserve the treatment you received in that thread, and I hate it that you were subjected to that. I also deeply respect you for the hard work you put in to saying what you felt you needed to say.

    Ann Bartow, thanks. Whaddya mean you disagree with me about some things, you know I’m RIGHT. :P My thinking is, the truest thing spoken in that thread was spoken by bfp where she said that I was the stand in for 30 years of white radical feminists. Dang, do I have some posts to write about that! But I think she’s very correct, and I think the awful comments had to do with precisely what she said there.

    Yay, you subscribed to oob, glad you like it! I haven’t got mine yet. I love that publication. Damn right, it’s good and it’s been SO good for 35 years now, just continually a source of fine journalism. I’m so proud to be part of it.

    Heart


  9. on December 29, 2006 at 8:32 am chasingmoksha

    Don’t worry about it Heart. The sex positive crowd (which is being used loosely, because it is more like only a few people) had it out for me regardless of what I said or what side I sided with. I do not adhere to one doctrine specifically and some feel uncomfortable with that, they seem to need to put be in a box which is ironic since the whole point (I thought) was to get out of a box.

    I read about sex positive feminists and radical feminist using wiki. I know it is not the greatest source but I just want to make sure I am not getting something fundamentally wrong. There is a paragraph about radical feminisms that does not include a precursor such as “the neutrality of this is questioned” so I do not know for sure if it is a definite tenant of radical feminism or not, but I do strongly disagree, and that is the matriarchy wants to replace the patriarchy. I think that would contradict the whole premise of trying to eliminate dominance. One is no better than the other when it is forcing people to submit. I do know that the accusation in wiki could be the result of patriarchy attempting to demonize radical feminists, so I am taking that with a grain of salt.

    Nevertheless, my heart lies in powering over with POC issues as my focus. I have to try very hard not to put that before everything else, so I do not see why others do not strive for the same. Yet, I understand my personality type, and I am in fact as rational as I have been accused of.

    I often agree with BFP and BA because I do think they have a moral compass, and I may add myself (at the risk of sounding condescending. And by not listing others I am not eliminating them, I am simply focusing on the main people I read). People in general do not like hearing the results of the moral (I am not talking in a religious sense, but just in what is right) compass. However, regardless of how pessimistic or how history has shown, I cannot believe that the discourse (regardless of how stinging it can be) is invaluable. Therefore, I trudge on. Usually by myself, because I am usually attacked in some round about way, and can not remember ever having anyone come down on my side. Even though Nanette is always very very good to me, and I appreciate her immensely. But it is not about me, but on the other hand, I am still a person.


  10. on December 29, 2006 at 8:44 am nexyjo

    thank you for posting this, heart. i can say that i’ve lost a few friends - trans friends mostly, and specifically m2f trans women friends - when they discovered that i was involved with our declaration/affirmation on the importance of woman only spaces. in that sense, part of “my” community of trans women have “not allowed” me to partner with radical feminists.

    i can totally relate to your feelings of aloneness in the thread in question. i can’t count the number of times i’ve been out numbered in discussions, especially by people who make assumptions about who and what i am and feel about the issues. times when i post on the mwmf boards, as one example.

    i really wish we could find some kind of neutral ground, in which a few representative of each community could feel comfortable in discussing the issues with each other.

    i’m so tired of fighting, and i’m so ready to work together toward our common goals.


  11. on December 29, 2006 at 11:29 am rich

    Deleted for the time being at author’s request.


  12. on December 29, 2006 at 12:32 pm Midwest Doubter

    Hi Heart, Loved the post and although I’ve not ventured into activism, I’m a dedicated feminist in the making and am learning a lot from your web site. I just wanted to point out one thing: that the overall picture is one of fundamentalism. You, of all people (and I kindly mean because of your history), should realize what fundamentalism means, even if exhibited in a supposedly enlightened context such as feminism. It’s that irresistible power-over model that whispers in people’s ears that they are divinely sanctioned to tell others what to do, because they perceive themselves to be right doctrinally. There are fundamentalists spouting “correct” doctrine in EVERY sphere of life: science, religion, and politics chiefly. I’ve found that blogging invites these sorts of people and to disagree is to invite wrath. You have clarified the chief points brilliantly. Thank you!


  13. on December 29, 2006 at 2:47 pm uppitybiscuit

    What I would like to expand upon is the seemingly common practice of posters who have little or no real knowledge of feminism, radical feminism and the basic foundations of the same, posting within, regards to or referencing a feminist discussion, and immediately derailing a discussion or bad mouthing feminists with name calling and accusations. It does, at times, have the effect of ending any real discussion when a poster, one who thinks they know what feminism *is*, starts calling womyn bigots, (insert word)-phobes, haters, ignorant, anti-(insert word), and the list goes on. All of it is just name calling, baseless accusations, troll-like and a diversionary tactic without any value or substance to real discussion.

    There is then so much energy spent on the diversion, trying to educate the poster as to what feminism is. The real discussion is then, at times, lost in dealing with name-calling persons who troll with diversions, who want to stop and change any conversations that feminists may be having. Yet, every day, every week, a new poster hops into a feminist discussion, otherwise bashes feminist’s discussions and pulls the same ol crap. If any of those posters are reading this now, and it applies to you, do the reading and research that many people have asked you to do.

    If I were to post on a board where Fords were being discussed, and I had an opinion regarding how Jeeps are better, I damn well better know Fords inside and out before I enter any debate and start calling the Ford people names for the opinions they hold, without ever discussing and refusing to talk about the details of the foundation of their Ford opinions. How could I be anything but non-educated and bent on creating friction if I went to that Ford board and start name calling, and they reacted because, well obviously I haven’t even looked into the frame of a Ford, what drives the chassis, yet I am telling them just how ignorant and wrong *they* are, and that they should simply cease to exist as they are. They are reminded that they are going to be hounded by the likes of me forever, until they are gone, cease to exist or agree that Jeeps are better. All the while, I really don’t know anything about the basic foundation of Fords, but I may think I do, because someone told me something about what they think Fords are all about, so I jumped on the anti-Ford wagon.

    Same holds true for any person(s) who pass judgments on feminism, and radical feminists. There is more often than not a deep and severe lack of knowledge presented by those posters regarding the most basic foundations of feminisms. For cripes sake, read folks, get an education, listen and learn from those that do know and intimately understand what the elemental foundations are and then try out the waters, with an informed base. Come into the debate with an intelligent, informed position.

    Feminists are becoming very tired and savvy to this name calling tactic.


  14. on December 29, 2006 at 3:23 pm nexyjo

    “Are there even enough trans-whomevers out there so every radical feminst can have at least one of her own?”

    estimates of the prevalence of transsexuals range from 1:30,000 in the 1994 dsm-iv, to 1:2500 (those who have sex reassignment surgery) by lynn conway, who uses the actual numbers of surgeries performed by the 5 or 10 top surgeons. there are also estimates that suggest only 1 in 10 trans women actually have surgery. even with the lower estimates, assuming the u.s. population is 300 million, there are 10,000 trans women in the u.s. who have had bottom surgery, assuming my math is correct.


  15. on December 29, 2006 at 4:54 pm Ann Bartow

    The legal system in this (and probably every) country requires gender labels and enforces gender binaries, and that being so, I’ve always been inclined to let people decide for themselves which label to choose. Of course, that doesn’t solve very much, because even when they get to make it, people get stuck with their choice in negative ways later (for a example a person who chooses “female” and then wants to marry a woman). I know the issues raised here are well beyond legal ones, but that’s the piece I think about a lot. Opening marriage up to any two adults who want to marry might improve life for a lot of people.

    Another area of “overlap” is bathrooms. Many women need to sit to urinate, while many men do not, and many women wear more complicated and restrictive clothing than many men, so that on average women need more time to go to the bathroom than men do, leading to the long bathroom lines we have all experienced when men plan buildings and allocate inadequate bathroom facilities for “females.” Co-ed bathrooms would solve a lot of problems for women, and end one unnecessary system of binaries. Some really smart law profs have written about this, and I’d be happy to provide links and cites if anyone is interested. As an emprirical matter, co-ed bathrooms structured as a series of single rooms that each have a toilet and sink have worked really well in many contexts.

    Those are just two examples and I don’t want to go on forever. My point is that feminist problem solving around eliminating gendered legal strictures can sometimes benefit everyone, so for me, that’s a good place to focus.


  16. on December 29, 2006 at 6:35 pm womensspace

    Dang, there’s a lot to respond to!

    chasingmoksha, I think you totally nailed it when you said the sex positive crowd had it in for you. I wonder how much of what uppitybiscuit has described, when you get right down to it, amounts to a whole lot of people being pissed because radical feminists in all of our staggering might and power :P have challenged pornography, prostituting people, and specific sexual practices like blowjobs and SM. How did we arrive at this place in history where you can’t even challenge this stuff? We’re fricking surrounded by it all the time and suffocated by it, everywhere we look, in our e-mail boxes, on the newsstand at the grocery store, in the ads on Craig’s List and the Stranger, and you-name-it supposedly “alternative” newspaper, full to the brim, always with “escort” ads that are straight up ads for prostituted people, with doms and dungeons and so on. Heck, the Lesbian Resource Center schedule here doesn’t have regular meetings for feminists but last time I looked (which has admittedly been a while), there were all sorts of regularly scheduled SM “play parties!” So what the hell is up with the outrage over our simply challenging that stuff. I mean, take a look at the “Truth About Men” post here, which is always one of the most popular posts. THAT is the kind of sentiment towards women that is floating around amongst men looking for sex with women. Does anybody care about that? If you’re a feminist, why don’t you? I don’t understand. But once you start talking about porn, negatively, or SM, negatively, or blowjobs, negatively, you are SO in for it. You are going to get reamed a new one every time you show up in a discussion, no matter what the discussion is about. It’s like you did the forbidden thing which can never be forgiven, you raised the issue of the sacred holy blow job, or whatever.

    Re wikipedia’s definition of radical feminism– I haven’t looked at it, and I will, but it’s not correct to say that radical feminists want to replace the patriarchy with the matriarchy. That’s a common accusation against radfems, just as you say, but it isn’t true. Having said that, there’s a lot more to say about that. Radical feminists aren’t, again, a monolith. There also aren’t too many radical feminists who aren’t simultaneously other kinds of feminist. Not to mention, we’re all learning and changing our minds about things and trying out new positions and so forth. In general though, in general, radical feminism and feminists aren’t about any matriarchy. Some have a real aversion to even that word, or any kind of talk about that kind of thing. Many want to stay far, far away from discussions of motherhood, maternity, women’s connection with nature, women as nurturers, women’s “ways of knowing,” women’s spirituality, etc. At the same time, interestingly, some of this group are not anti-war or nonviolent. There have always been radical feminists who advocated for violence, at least for the sake of self-defense, and sometimes for the sake of revolution. It is really “cultural” feminists who are more interested in the idea of a matriarchal culture, or in historic matriarchal or matrilineal cultures, but cultural and radical feminisms are commonly confused. Having said all of that, it’s very possible to be both a cultural and a radical feminist. That’s how I self-define, as both a cultural and radical feminist (also as an anarchafeminist and an ecofeminist). An important difference between radical feminism and cultural feminism is in the understanding of biology, genetics, the idea that women and men are different more because of biology than because of how they are socialized. Here, I am a radical feminist, though not 100 percent, as some are. I believe that gender is socially constructed and imposed on people on the basis of their biology. But I also believe that women’s and men’s biology informs their experiences of gender construction in ways which are unavoidable. Which makes me not a 100 percent social constructionist.

    Feminists who are matriarchists are not proposing replacing patriarchy with a matriarchy in the sense of just replacing the men who dominate with women who dominate. Matriarchies, as the term is understood by those who are matriarchal, are noncoercive, consensus communities. It’s interesting, there are two bloggers, Morgaine and Athana, of The Goddess and Radical Goddess Theology, who commented about that very thing a couple of days ago. The term “matriARCHal” is really a misnomer, in that the matriarchies feminists envisioned aren’t “-archies” proper, in other words, it’s not the “rule of the mothers,” as patriarchy is the “rule of the fathers.” It’s a whole new paradigm. A good place to learn about this if you’re into the academic side of things is here, the International Academy of Modern Matriarchal Studies. But The Goddess and Radical Goddess Theology are good sources, too.

    It’s interesting, someone on bfp’s thread said they figured Twisty’s ideas came from Michfest. Not true. Based on what I’ve read, Twisty is not a Michfest kind of a person at all, really, as many radical feminists are not. Then again, from my experience, Michfest is what remains of radical feminist/lesbian separatist community in the United States, and it’s really all that remains of it in organized form, which is why it is so central and important to me and others. Anyway, I’m saying this because it’s an example of the way radical feminists differ, and yet we still hold certain distinctives in common, especially distinctives around the importance of eliminating gender and the importance of eliminating dominance heirarchies, what you’re referring to as “power over,” chasingmoksha.

    I have five biracial daughters: 31, 21, 19, 17, 15, and three biracial granddaughters (so far). I want them to live and grow up in a world in which they do not suffer on account of their race or their sex. What I know is, sexual violence is racialized violence, and racialized violence is sexualized violence. I don’t think these can be separated. But one thing I know: eliminate pornography, you eliminate that particular expression of racialized violence. Eliminate prostitution, you eliminate that expression of racialized violence. Eliminate SM and blowjobs and you eliminate any all of the connotations and enactments of power over and dominance hierarchies which end up reinforced by orgasms. To me, this is not rocket science. It is not difficult to understand– especially in that when we move beyond the old one-up/one-down paradigms in sexuality, when we reject the buying of some human beings for the pleasure of others, whether in pornography or via prostituting them, we must necessarily enter into a new time in history in which we experiment with liberatory sexual paradigms. Why is this so hard to grasp? I don’t want to go to fricking Michfest and see SM flyers on the Janes featuring a white woman dom and a black woman sub, as though this is just oh so hawt and progressive and transgressive. How in the fucking hell can it be? You’ve got to be kidding me– a white woman dom in a position of sexual, phyical power over with a black woman sub?! Screw THAT. (And I did, I ripped the damn things down and saved them in case I need to show someone what I mean. No way do I want my daughters exposed to that kind of thing as though sexuality can be bracketed off from everything else in one’s life; everywhere else you work for your own liberation as a woman of color, but in sexuality, you orgasm to signifiers of your subordination. Hell no.) But this is what “sex positive-ness” has given us, which is one example of why it is so aggravating the way radical feminism is cast as “racist”. THINK about things, would you? (Generic you, I know I’m preaching to the choir. I also know people are reading.)

    nexyjo, I hear you and have watched you stand alone many times, dissed by transpeople and feminists alike. It sucks. I’m right there with you– I’m sick sick sick to death of the fighting. I think the thing to do might be, as I’ve talked about before, to create a blog specifically for the petition, which, since you’ve mentioned it, might as well go there, it is here. I’ve dragged my feet on publicizing it for several reasons, one being, as you say, I’m just so done with fighting, and I know once it gets out there with wider visibility, I might have to. So, I procrastinate. But I’ve had the same thought you’ve had, that I’d like to see a few people discussing the issues with a few people. These free-for-alls are nothing but destructive. I also owe you an e-mail, and thanks for yours, it’s all good.

    Rich and Burrow– I missed whatever happened with Amananta that resulted in her post about her wife. Could you provide the link so I can see what happened and get the context for your comments?

    Uppitybiscuit, YES. I think it’s intentional, this coming in, all guns blazing anytime radical feminists are discussing something, to accuse, lie, attack, target, and so divert the discussion. Hell, it goes on when we’re not around, just this promulgation of nonsense into the blogosphere about what we supposedly believe/do whatever. Midwest doubter, YES to you, too, re fundamentalisms. What’s funny is, I get my past used against me when it makes a nice weapon (I know you aren’t doing that), and yet those who do that are often the fundie-est of all in their own ways!

    Ann Bartow, I completely support anybody being able to marry anybody if it’s marriage people want. So long as het people can marry, I think everybody should be able to. I don’t see that as a transgender issue, that’s just a civil rights/human rights issue as I think you’re saying there.

    I like the idea of bathrooms as series of single rooms with a toilet and sink, not only for the reasons you mention, but also to accommodate nursing mothers and women and men with children, so I think that’s a great idea. I agree with you that eliminating gendered legal strictures is in everyone’s best interests. By all means, post links to the articles you mention!

    Heart


  17. on December 29, 2006 at 6:38 pm womensspace

    One more thought– Rich, I think the anger towards Twisty was that she didn’t moderate the Lipstick thread and so there was a lot of over-the-top stuff in there that it looked as though she approved or at least allowed. She later came in and said she hadn’t read it which didn’t go over so well. Then again, the thread immediately got derailed when someone came in early on to denounce Sheila Jeffreys for her views on transgender, which was off topic and a diversion. It was all downhill from there.

    Heart


  18. on December 29, 2006 at 11:05 pm Pony

    chasingmoksha

    You make the following comment adding that you are taking what the WP page on radical feminism says. You are right to do so. Much, if not all, of that page was written by pornography and prostitution positive men.

    I generally will not use WP as source for anything for two reasons: anyone can edit. Although it makes great pretense at being democratic and scholarly, it is not. Anyone can edit, and those who have the highest privileges there are very anti-feminist males.

    My second reason for seldom giving WP as resource is that it was founded on money Jimmy Wales raised with a pornography website named Bomis.


  19. on December 29, 2006 at 11:07 pm Pony

    Sorry I neglected to put in chasingmoksha’s comment. And now also apologize for this tangent to the post focus. But I think it’s important because CM says she (and who knows how many others) read Wikipedia to learn about radical feminism.

    Chasingmoksha’s comment to which I respond:

    “There is a paragraph about radical feminisms that does not include a precursor such as “the neutrality of this is questioned” so I do not know for sure if it is a definite tenant of radical feminism or not, but I do strongly disagree, and that is the matriarchy wants to replace the patriarchy. I think that would contradict the whole premise of trying to eliminate dominance. One is no better than the other when it is forcing people to submit. I do know that the accusation in wiki could be the result of patriarchy attempting to demonize radical feminists, {grain of salt}. “


  20. on December 30, 2006 at 6:48 am womensspace

    Tiny Cat Pants (such a great name for a blog!) has a great post, well worth reading, about all of this.

    I’m not delinking anybody because of this chapter of feminist blogosphere herstory. We’ll get through this. We’ll work it through and make amends and say sorry and whatever else. I am going to be updating my links, though, and I will be feeling horrible to have to delete “With My Nappy-Headed Ass,” whose blog is deleted now, and she’s not the only one who has deleted her blog. :(

    I read Tiny Cat Pants at Melinda Casino/Sour Duck’s place — thanks Melinda.

    Heart


  21. on December 30, 2006 at 4:39 pm saltyC

    I posted this at Twisty’s “gone camping” thread, don’t know if it will make it so I’ll post here too:

    Before we all agree to murder the divine Luckynkl over some salty language, don’t forget this: that when men invade feminism they will marginalize issues having to do with being born with a uterus, IOW all the issues which Slade astutely listed: wartime rapes, peacetime rapes, multilation, welfare, abortion, birth control, all these will be secondary because they “privilege” being born with a uterus over the “underprivileged” position of deciding to pretend to be a woman.

    And to say that they “really are women” and that to question that is bigotry is—disemvowel me if you wish– Orwellian double-speak 2+2=5.

    Yes they are pretending, and to believe you’re something you’re not is insanity, and for others to enforce that insanity at the point of a retorical blade is also insanity.

    Why would patriarchs do it except to say that womanhood is frivilous?

    And that is the heart of what is so upsetting, isn’t it? To say MTF really aren’t women. That is the bigotry.

    And if that is true, and if Twisty can’t help us out here, this isn’t radical feminism, invocations of Solanis notwithstanding.

    So sad that another one folds like a polaroid camera.


  22. on December 30, 2006 at 4:47 pm Ravenmn

    Hello, Heart. I came here from the discussion at Brownfemipower. Also good to see ChasingMoksha here and I’m glad you are still posting.

    First, I think I’m the person who brought up Michigan. It wasn’t in reference to Twisty, although I didn’t make that clear. It was a response to people saying, “I’m shocked! Shocked! This objection to transpolitics is coming from thin air and I simply don’t get how anyone can feel that way.” I wanted to say a bit of what you said here: there is a history and there has been a struggle and the politics of activist feminists are based on an amazing amount of thought, discussion and the long patient process of working for a better world.

    Uppity biscuit used a great metaphor: If I were to post on a board where Fords were being discussed, and I had an opinion regarding how Jeeps are better, I damn well better know Fords inside and out before I enter any debate and start calling the Ford people names for the opinions they hold….

    I disagree. There are places in which we allow people to come in and make ignorant statements and the internet is one of them. The best we can do is learn the proper methods to explain our disagreement in a way these “newbies” can hear them. Or we can ignore them. Or offer links to help educate them.

    Heart, I think I have a slightly different view of power than you as a result of my own experiences in women-only organizations. Empowerment is awesome and I’ve seen it work wonders. The problems I’ve experienced is when refusing to engage in action in order to avoid exercising power has caused significant harm. So I’m working toward some sort of balance: an ability to recognize when I have power and *must* use it and to learn to use it wisely and effectively, while recognizing my using power has serious consequences. OK, that wasn’t brief.

    Heart wrote: “What is it with this inability so many have in distinguishing between the having of, and the expressing of, a point of view, an opinion, as against occupying an actual position of power which would allow for imposing some point of view on the unwilling? Expressing a point of view is just expressing a point of view”

    And in comment #16 wrote: “But once you start talking about porn, negatively, or SM, negatively, or blowjobs, negatively, you are SO in for it.”

    Here’s where my own “newbie” question comes in. Neither radfems nor pro-prøn feminists are in positions of power over feminism. So why is a pro-prøn comment not “just expressing a point of view.” I am not referring to name calling. I saw a lot of name calling on the part of pony, Luckinlvl (sp?) and others as well as the “transphobic” name calling by people ignorant of our history.

    Heart wrote: But one thing I know: eliminate pornography, you eliminate that particular expression of racialized violence. Eliminate prostitution, you eliminate that expression of racialized violence. Eliminate SM and blowjobs and you eliminate any all of the connotations and enactments of power over and dominance hierarchies which end up reinforced by orgasms. To me, this is not rocket science.

    This goes back to my question from brownfemipower. I believe KH was saying exactly this, but in different language. Eliminate sexism and you eliminate ONLY one expression of violence. You still have to deal with other expressions of violence. I honestly don’t see the difference in her statement and yours. Is this another “newbie” question?

    Feel free to delete this post or edit it if I’ve gotten out of line here.


  23. on December 30, 2006 at 5:19 pm womensspace

    Hey, Ravenm, good thoughts. I agree with you that power can be exercised in the refusal to exercise it (!) and that sometimes we find we have to exercise power *because* we are so averse to exercising it! That is not going to make any sense, I already know, to anybody who has not worked alongside people, in activist organizations and communities, in which there is a core commitment to consensus and the sharing of power and avoidance of power over. But for those of us who have a long history in such organizations, it is truly a can of worms, I hear you. If you stand aside, for example, and refuse to exercise power because of your aversion to power-over, those who have no such aversion (despite what they say!) will use power destructively. Now comes your dilemma: do you use power in response? For years and years I have been working to replace responding with the use of force or power with responding creatively, looking always for win-win solutions. But where people haven’t spent a lot of time analyzing power or considering how they wield it, or don’t, in their own lives, well, it becomes an impasse, because they don’t understand. Which is all to say, YES, I hear you!

    I think the pro-porn position in feminism is just a position, a view, a perspective, just like the anti-porn position is a position, a view, a perspective. The problem is that the pro-porn position rules right now. It is the position which has the power. Look around, porn is everywhere everywhere. The anti-porn position has only one thing: advocates. Women (and men) speaking their own truths in the hopes of gaining a hearing wherever a hearing might make a real difference.

    I think sexism, as I say, is racialized. I will get and post a quote that says this very well, or maybe a couple of quotes. Sexism is never JUST sexism; it is always stratified, hierarchicalized on the basis of race/class/who a person loves and so on. If we eliminate sexism we eliminate all of the stratifications which are part and parcel of the sexism, we eliminate the mechanisms by way of which the stratifications are maintained, reified, “made real.”

    I think it’s true that on the internet, people make ignorant statements, but I think it’s also true that as activists, feminists, we have to decide whether we’ll provide a venue, a forum for ignorance, you know? If we must explain and re-explain and re-explain to the ignorant, we won’t have time or energy for the work at hand. In particular, those who enjoy societal power and privilege — men, white people, het people, rich people — have to educate themselves and not further drain the resources of the marginalized by expecting to be educated and coddled and forgiven for their ignorance.

    Heart


  24. on December 30, 2006 at 5:30 pm womensspace

    I think the pro-porn position in feminism is just a position, a view, a perspective, just like the anti-porn position is a position, a view, a perspective. The problem is that the pro-porn position rules right now. It is the position which has the power. Look around, porn is everywhere everywhere. The anti-porn position has only one thing: advocates.

    Sorry to quote myself, but this is why the demonizing of radical feminists is so disturbing. We are called the censors and the fascists and the nazis and so on, just for speaking up! In other words, having pornography, prostitution, etc. all around us, accepted, legal, forced on us isn’t viewed as coercive. Pornographers aren’t understood to be the fascists and nazis censoring the anti-pornorgraphy view, even though they effectively DO act to censor us, in that they scream so loudly, our voices can barely be heard. Which is why it is a reversal to speak of radical feminism as though we are some power elite which can “allow” or disallow anything at all. In fact, the power elites have made sure to steamroll over everything we have to say about pornography, prostitution, etc.

    Heart


  25. on December 30, 2006 at 6:01 pm Ravenmn

    I am saddened to learn that both Black Amazon and Brownfemipower have closed their sites as a result of this discussion. That really sucks. I hope everyone will take a moment to let them know how much they will be missed.

    Pornographers aren’t understood to be the fascists and nazis

    OK, as a marxist, I recognize this attitude. Bosses aren’t generally understood as to be stealing our wages and destroying our communities. Living as a wage slave is not viewed as coercive. We’ve done a really piss poor job of explaining that to the world, in part because the bosses have power and control over the media, education, etc.

    I participate in the capitlist system and I enjoy earning money, having benefits and I even like what I do for a living. I don’t blame people who think the capitalist system is normal and enjoyable for not understanding something that is perfectly clear to me. Creating that alternative is gonna take a while and a lot more people than you and me to accomplish.

    I still don’t see how you read KH differently from me. It sounds as if you are replacing the word heirarchy with sexism and don’t recognize any forms of heirarchy that do not include sexism. Which isn’t true, because we just discussed how even in women-only space we have to deal with our power.

    Why use the word sexism if it is interchangeable with heirarchy?


  26. on December 30, 2006 at 6:11 pm womensspace

    Ravenm, I think sexism is the foundational or central dominance heirarchy. I don’t think there are any forms of heirarchy that don’t include sexism, you’re right. I think the heirarchies which exist in woman-only spaces are artifacts of patriarchy, which would disappear once patriarchy, sexism, disappeared. We all cut our eye teeth on the heirarchy known as “sexism.” It’s all we know. That’s why gendering is evident even in lesbian relationships and in woman-only spaces.

    To be fair, I didn’t carefully read KH, just barely skimmed, didn’t like what I got on skimming. I’ll go take a look again at what was said.

    I hope and believe Black Amazon and BFP will be back. They have much to say, much to give, and if they stop blogging, they will be sorely missed.

    Heart


  27. on December 30, 2006 at 6:22 pm nexyjo

    “And to say that they “really are women” and that to question that is bigotry is—disemvowel me if you wish– Orwellian double-speak 2+2=5.”

    the issue is not that some radical feminists do not believe m2f transsexuals are women. the issue is that some radical feminists call m2f transsexuals, as a group, “nutjobs”, worthy to be fitted in straight jackets in a psychiatric hospital, and are compared with serial killers.

    compare that type of language to the type of language that some men use to describe women as a group, and i believe you’ll understand what the uproar is about.


  28. on December 30, 2006 at 6:42 pm womensspace

    Very true, nexy. At the same time, one problem is, the type of language some men use to describe women as a group shows up all over the blogosphere — it’s even shown up at IBTP, I understand, though I haven’t personally seen it, given that I JUST figured out how to read comments threads there (have to use Firefox) — and there is rarely any outrage. For that matter, as salty said, and I said, too, horrific things happen to women at the hands of men and they don’t get *blogged* about anywhere, except here, and at Twisty’s and on radfem blogs. It’s like, oh well, another rape, another murder, more incest, more prostituting, more trafficking, more religious/sexual slavery, more mutilation at the hands of doctors and religious people, ho hum, same old same old. Everything gets blogged BUT what is actually happening to girls and women throughout the world every single day, or if these things do get blogged, they aren’t blogged about as crimes against women or war on women, they are framed differently such that the women disappear, become invisible. I think that’s what saltyc was getting at and I so see that as well.

    Heart


  29. on December 30, 2006 at 7:28 pm nexyjo

    “horrific things happen to women at the hands of men and they don’t get *blogged* about anywhere, except here, and at Twisty’s and on radfem blogs.”

    yes, the very same radfem blogs that are calling out the bigotry of the aforementioned pronouncements regarding trans people. horrific things happen to both women and trans people, and the blogoshpere at large ignores them both, except at the places you mention. i believe the last thing either of our respective groups should do, is engage in the exact same types of behavior. it’s wrong when men do it, and it’s wrong when we do it.


  30. on December 30, 2006 at 10:02 pm saltyC

    Nexyjo: “the issue is not that some radical feminists do not believe m2f transsexuals are women. the issue is that some radical feminists call m2f transsexuals, as a group, “nutjobs”, worthy to be fitted in straight jackets in a psychiatric hospital, and are compared with serial killers.”

    Okay, I see now.

    I will be reevaluating my own motives. Thank you.


  31. on December 30, 2006 at 10:13 pm Pony

    I have looked and cannot find the comment(s) that compared transsexuals with serial killers.


  32. on December 30, 2006 at 10:37 pm womensspace

    pony, I might be wrong, because I never saw the film The Silence of the Lambs and don’t know what it’s about; I am something of a movie illiterate so far as a lot of the mainstream films go, I just don’t watch television and only rarely watch mainstream movies and NEVER watch violent films, horror films, slasher films, films with blood and gore. NEVER. I can’t bring myself to see or to hear, it is traumatic for me. But I think Silence is about a serial killer, and I think Lucky made reference to that movie. I honestly didn’t understand the point she was making; then again, I read through quickly and didn’t read every post carefully, but based on what others have said, it sounds like some think she was comparing transpeople with serial killers.

    Heart


  33. on December 30, 2006 at 10:52 pm saltyC

    There was a character who was a serial killer who killed women because he was making a female suit for himself. He wanted to dress in women’s skin. As opposed to the “good” serial Killer Hannibal Lecter who helped catch him. Hannibal “merely” ate people.

    Heart, you and me both, I can’t stand those movies.


  34. on December 30, 2006 at 11:29 pm rhondda

    The serial killer in that movie takes women’s skins to make his own skin to wear. That is the reference that has made people so angry. It is a bit extreme, as an argument against people changing their bodies to fit their gender. As a provocateur, Lucknkl, is very good. Sometimes, we need to be provoked, sometimes not so much. This has made alot of people think. It has also hurt alot of feelings. The theory that people should not have to change their bodies to be who they are is one I could agree with. However, in practice, people have to make their own life decisions which are not easy in this civilization. I did notice though that a few transgendered people met others in the same boat. To quote martha “This is a good thing”.
    I refuse to demonize Luckynkl. I also refuse to demonize transgendered people. This is not a virtuous self righteous position on my part. I do not know Luckynkl, nor any transgendered people. However, I do know demonization and what it does and how it operates. There is a difference between reacting and responding. Goodness Goddess, we have a long way to go.


  35. on December 30, 2006 at 11:53 pm Pony

    Ok. I have now found the comment you must be referring to.

    Luckynkl Dec 21st, 2006 at 12:45 am

    Lucky:
    Ever see “Silence of the Lambs?”

    antiprincess:
    wow. seriously? that’s the way it is for most (or even all) transgendered people?

    Lucky:
    Not if what you get out of the movie is that trans are psychopathic killers. That’s not what I’m talking. Trans aren’t any more likely to be psychopathic killers than their knuckle dragging brothers. What I’m talking about is the way men, whether they be trans or not, objectify women, fetishize female body parts, and reduce women and their body parts into things. Both hold anything that is authentically female in contempt.

    I must be extremely obtuse, but I don’t get here that she is saying transsexuals/transgendered persons are serial killers. Or the other. I’m just stunned. I’ve never seen the movie, but still, I don’t get that connotation. Lucky seems to extrapolate there to something much less, which is her opinion.


  36. on December 30, 2006 at 11:56 pm Ravenmn

    “horrific things happen to women at the hands of men and they don’t get *blogged* about anywhere, except here, and at Twisty’s and on radfem blogs.”

    First and foremost Brownfemipower has consistently written about violence against women and she is also active in Insight! with lots of linkages to women activists against violence. Since this post links directly to her site, I’m suprised and frankly saddened she isn’t even mentioned, considering this thread begins with a link to her site.

    Another consistent commenter is Pinko Feminist Hellcat. Pandagon has done a lot, too, although I’ve taken a break from her site since burqagate.

    Thanks for the discussion, Heart. I disagree that getting rid of the patriarchy will solve racism. Given that white women activists like me have such a shitty record of paying attention to anyone’s needs other than our own, I am leery of giving my own issue priority in the struggle for equality. There’s also the fact that benefitting any one oppressed group provides benefits to others. That’s my rocket science. Maybe you can challenge me on that.

    I am sorry you saw that thread as a “train wreck”. There were bad things but also a lot of valuable feedback. Little Light has agreed to continue the discussion at her place: http://takingsteps.blogspot.com/ Taking Steps.

    Rhondda, it boggles my mind to describe L’s comments at Twisty’s as the actions of a good “provocateur”. My understanding of the term is a person who shocks us into seeing an issue in a completely different light. L offered nothing but insults, as far as I remember.


  37. on December 31, 2006 at 12:13 am rhondda

    You are right Pony, but that is what people reacted to. It was emotional. Feelings were hurt and then it went from there to demonize Lucky. On and on.
    Then it went on to how Radical Feminists don’t understand people of colour, just like they don’t understand transgendered people. On and on and it was fed from there. On and on how white feminists never listen to others. On and on. It was like a whole bunch of people finally found someone to make the scapegoat and let loose their all their repressed feelings. Because you know it is very difficult to name the real oppressor. Horizontal violence, I think it is called.


  38. on December 31, 2006 at 12:38 am womensspace

    Given that white women activists like me have such a shitty record of paying attention to anyone’s needs other than our own, I am leery of giving my own issue priority in the struggle for equality.

    I guess I don’t consider sexism white women’s “own issue”– I consider sexism everybody’s issue. Why would it not be? Am I misunderstanding, and you are referring to some other issue as your own issue?

    Since we’re talking about this, and I have it on my mind for other reasons, you know, I’m not situated as other white women are situated, and I haven’t been for 35 years. White women partnered with black men (in the U.S., and it isn’t the same for any other kind of biracial marriage because of the facts of American history) are not situated similarly with white women or any other women besides white women partnered with black men. We are the people who were forbidden to marry in most states, the last state making “miscegenation” legal in the late ’90s IIRC. We are race traitors. We have no community except each other, and we are a tiny number. We are hated, resented, distrusted, by *all* races of people internationally. We are targeted for specific forms of oppression, violence and subordination because we have transgressed the boundaries of race. That will remain true for us so long as we are partnered with black men and/or have children by them. My views as to sexism are necessarily, because of my own life experiences, always informed by my experiences of being marginalized because I am a race traitor. I don’t know why otherwise progressive, conscious people can’t get their arms around that, but my experience is, many cannot or will not– it’s too much a fly in the ointment. It wreaks havoc with certain kinds of intersectionality theories (and I’m not directing this at you ravenm, I’m frustrated right now and speaking out of deep frustration).

    You’re right that bfp has done a lot of blogging on violence against women and I should have included her in my earlier post. I’ve only started reading Pinko Feminist Hellcat recently and not very often, but I did blogroll her, and I will read her more. It’s never seemed to me that Pandagon blogged a lot about violence against women, but maybe I haven’t read at the right times.

    Heart


  39. on December 31, 2006 at 1:26 am Pony

    I was part of that thread, Rhondda. I found it impossible to keep up and missed many comments. I’m still reading it!

    I am adamant that there is far more, FAR more misogyny and hate speech toward women, on other feminist blogs (save here, tho’ I haven’t read BF but twice) than any other. Even racism gets called out in the blogosphere, generally, certainly among feminists. But sexist misogynistic comments, just par for the course. It sickens me. Women last. Always, women last.


  40. on December 31, 2006 at 3:23 am chasingmoksha

    “We are race traitors. We have no community except each other, and we are a tiny number. We are hated, resented, distrusted, by *all* races of people internationally. We are targeted for specific forms of oppression, violence and subordination because we have transgressed the boundaries of race. ”

    Aint that the truth.

    Here is just a tip of the iceberg that I deal with 24/7.

    “*My husband cannot possibly love me, he only wanted me because I am white. (to avenge slave masters, use me for upward mobility, secretly abuse me to get back at YT, etc etc etc)
    *I cannot possibly love my husband, I only wanted him for his big black dick. (Or I must be fat, bleached blonde, or could not get a white man, etc, etc etc).
    *Race is a social construct when it is race with a color, but I cannot be culturally black because I just cannot be, even though my whole world was black until I went out to work at 19, and I do not know most of white codes, not codes to discriminate anyway, because my existence is negated because I may get some privilege because I look white, yet no one subtracts the lost of privilege I do not get when I am with my bi-racial children and black husband or make choices that will not put me over them.
    *I have to constantly prove loyalty to my black m-i-l because her black (actually bi-racial) husband left their marriage after 18 years for a white woman.
    *Proving loyalty means I must not exercise my agency as a person. If I complain then it is my white supremacy wanting to run something.
    *I do not care about black women really, I just want their brothers and/or to steal black men from them.
    *Being the mother of half-black children is not as credulous as a mother of a quarter children with color because the starting point has me at 100% white and that mother at 50% white who then married white. Yet the one-drop rule constructed by whites is rallied against when ones wants to declare whatever identities he or she wants but embraced when excluded those white women with bi-racial children who want to steal black men for their big black dicks.
    *I should not complain about a WOC who think I should denounce all MOC including my husband and put their head on a stick in order to curry favor with some white feminists. If I protect him, I am not protecting him because I recognize that he is already systematically oppressed, I am protecting him because I am protecting my big black dick. Even though what has been failed to mentioned is that my husband has not taken on the stereotyped of the MOC who participates in violence, the very stereotype perpetuate by white supremacy. However, I should treat him as he does.
    *I just think I’m black. (is something wrong with that?)
    *I’m a wigger. Forget that wigger is racist because it is a play off of the N word and it implies that if whites encompass black culture they are inferior. Yet all of that is negated because if whites are culturally blacks it is not because blacks have a favorable culture that suits that individual it is because whites are just hell bent on appropriating every thing for themselves, even when they are two months old and are placed in that culture.


  41. on December 31, 2006 at 3:58 am womensspace

    Dear goddess, chasing moksha, thank you for posting that, horrible — and so goddamn true — as it all is. Just, thank you. I could kiss you right now.

    Heart


  42. on December 31, 2006 at 4:36 am womensspace

    Heh.

    I just think I’m black. (is something wrong with that?)

    My second husband used to say that all of my moles on my body were my “true color, trying to come out.”

    I bet you and I could come up with a list to end all lists. How about “driving while being white with mixed kids,” and getting stopped because you’re profiled as dealing drugs or being prostituted. How about getting fired when you show up at the company dinner and you didn’t announce to your coworkers that you were interracially married. How about you, the white wife, getting an apartment, and then when your family shows up, the landlord says, “oops, I didn’t realize we’d already rented it, sorry!” How about being asked stupid idiotic things like, “Why does someone like you marry BLACKS?” Or, being told stupid idiotic things like, “I really admire you for marrying BLACKS.” How about the way doctors and medical professionals treat you? How about the stupid things they do, like not recognizing the Mongolian spots on your baby’s tailbone and looking at you like you hit your child. How about writing on charts that your child is a “mulatto.” How about your own hopelesslessness and shame when you realize you don’t know how to do this and nobody gives a shit, you got yourself into it, stupid slut. How about the way your children and you get scrutinized for, for example, how you do your children’s hair, and the way people talk smack about you if you don’t know what the hell you’re doing, even if you are doing your level best and really care and are trying to learn.

    Ah shit.

    Now I’m crying.

    I’m going to go to my “My Mother is White,” blog later on and post excerpts of James McBride’s book, The Color of Water: A Black Man’s Tribute to His White Mother. McBride’s mom had 12 children; he was the eighth. When he was a baby, his dad, a black man, died. His mom then married another man who was half black, half Native, and had four more children. She was Hungarian and Jewish but would never admit to her kids she was white. She said she was “light-skinned.” Through sheer force of will she put all 12 of her children through college.

    You need this book, chasingmoksha, if you haven’t read it. You will spend days and hours crying over it.

    I’m going to go to my other blog later and post excerpts.

    Hugs.

    Sorry all, for this diversion.

    It’s especially poignant for me today because my second ex’s son from a former relationship, who is now 34, contacted me and my kids after 20 years of not knowing where he was or hearing from him. He’d been looking for us all this time. He e-mailed me, saying he remembered me as a “sweet and gentle woman.” His mom had moved away, to Hawaii. We’d lost touch. Now we are reunited and are going to e-mail. He already called today. It’s exciting, this new brother my kids all knew about, and two remember, who has come back into our lives. He lives in Holland with his girlfriend and is just about to be discharged from the Army. His mother has converted to Islam and is a Muslim now. I dunno. My life is full to the brim like this. I am a very rich woman and yet I feel so goddamn alone, even among feminists. Maybe especially among feminists around these particular issues.

    Heart


  43. on December 31, 2006 at 5:53 am Pony

    Heart xxxooo


  44. on December 31, 2006 at 9:32 am Luckynkl

    Are Feminists Allowed to Be Partnered with Transmen and Transwomen?

    Are they allowed? They can date the man in the moon, the pope and George Bush if that’s what flops their mops. I’m not aware of any laws which prohibits feminists from partnering with transmen and transwomen or anyone that’s been imprisoned or fined for it. It’s none of my business who people choose to partner with. I mean, women partner with men all the time, even tho it’s not in their best interests to do so under patriarchy. All I can say is, live and learn.

    However, women that do choose to partner with card holding members of the patriarchy often tend to get torn in two between their love and loyalty to their partners and their own best self interests and that of their sisters. It’s been my experience, that 99 out of 100 times, women will choose to put the interests of their partners over that of themselves and their sisters. It’s really not all that surprising. Women are conditioned to put men, children, dogs, and groundhogs before themselves. EDITED

    As for the nonsense that I compared transpersons to serial killers, all I can say is, nah, it didn’t happen. I posted that comment of “Ever see the Silence of the Lambs” early one morning before I went to work. I was running late and didn’t have time to expand. When I came home 9 hours later and saw the way my comment had been misconstrued, I went out of my way to clarify what I meant by it so that there could be no doubt that I was not comparing transpersons to psychopathic killers. And I did so in my very next comment, which Pony has posted above.

    So do people just see what they want to see and disregard the rest? Apparently so when an agenda is being served.

    EDITED

    My youngest brother is schizophrenic and so is my closest cousin. My ex was a junkie with a $2,000 a week habit that also was delusional and prone to hallucinations. I have spent most of my life living with people that are delusional, prone to hallucinations, and dangerous. EDITED Why should I be polite about it? EDITED Which I personally find patronizing and less than truthful. Why would I do that? To make myself look better at their expense so people will think me oh so politically correct and swell? Even tho we both mean the same exact thing? It all just seems so hypocritical and less than truthful to me.

    Now, while I may be rude, rudeness is not the same as hate speech. Women do not have the power politically, economically, socially or culturally to oppress. And it’s just downright willfully ignorant to act as tho women do have such power.

    And what’s up with the double standard? Transpersons are supposedly all hip about gender, but the moment I step out of my gender role of being sugar and spice and everything nice, that’s not allowed? EDITED It’s the same old, same old. One set of rules for the boys and another set of rules for the girls.

    What I see is the same old white boy squatting mentality that’s been going on for centuries. White boys think the world is their oyster and they’ll squat where ever they damn well please, whether anyone likes it or not. And the more anyone protests, the more they will squat just to show you who’s in charge here. So when the Iraqis tell the white boys to leave, the white boys ignore them and say, I’ll squat here for as long as I damn well please and I’m not leaving till I’m damn good and ready, if I decide to leave at all. All the while calling them the terrorists. Ring a bell and sound familiar?

    So sad that another one folds like a polaroid camera.

    Yep, it did. I got banned. Score another one for the patriarchy.

    Oh well, it isn’t the first time. It won’t be the last.

    EDITED
    It wasn’t my integrity and credibility that was impeached. I didn’t say anything that isn’t old hat. I haven’t changed my stance or views in years. So I have a pretty good idea that at least some were briefed on what to expect when they got there. Unknown names materializing en masse out of nowhere. And I didn’t disappoint them. I never do.


  45. on December 31, 2006 at 10:40 am chasingmoksha

    “…and it would be incorrect to say that lesbians associate, make love, live with women, for ‘woman’ has meaning only in heterosexual systems of thought and heterosexual economic systems. Lesbians are not women.” (Monique Wittig, 197 8)

    For Wittig, the category “women” exists only through their relation to the category “men”, and “women” without relation with “men” would cease to be “women”.

    So you Luckynkl are saying that your first thought, regardless of the condition you were in (hurrying out the house), to serial killers when thinking of transgender people should not be considered offensive? To many (including myself) it reveals a subconscious comparison. It is equivalent to avoiding accountability for what is said when one is drunk. The reason we have old wives (aren’t ‘wives’ as ‘women’ in patriarchal society deemed superior in anti-transgender circles?) tales is to teach us things like the truth comes out when someone is drunk, angry, rushed, etc. It is subconscious thought surfacing before the niceties of conscious thought translates it in a form that conceals the ugliness of that subconsciousness.


  46. on December 31, 2006 at 11:07 am chasingmoksha

    Ignore the quoted parts, that was something I was working on and got pasted with the rest. Sorry.


  47. on December 31, 2006 at 11:39 am Luckynkl

    EDITED

    I really don’t give a damn what men do or do not find offensive. They sure as hell haven’t given a damn what women have or have not found offensive over the past 5 milleniums. Need I remind you that men are the oppressors, not women, and that they were the whole problem to begin with?

    “…and it would be incorrect to say that lesbians associate, make love, live with women, for ‘woman’ has meaning only in heterosexual systems of thought and heterosexual economic systems. Lesbians are not women.” (Monique Wittig, 197 8)

    Lesbians are not women? This sure is news to me. I’m a lesbian and I sure as hell have been married, raped, impregnated and forced to bear children against my will.

    It’s not all in the mind, you see.

    For Wittig, the category “women” exists only through their relation to the category “men”, and “women” without relation with “men” would cease to be “women”.

    Actually, it’s the opposite way around. It is men who would cease to exist without women. If you’ll look closely at the word “women,” men are the sub-category. “Wo-man” meaning man is of the womb.

    Wittg was obviously not aware of the patriarchal reversal.


  48. on December 31, 2006 at 11:42 am Luckynkl

    Ignore the quoted parts, that was something I was working on and got pasted with the rest. Sorry.

    Sorry back. We cross posted.


  49. on December 31, 2006 at 1:06 pm Miranda

    “regardless of the condition you were in (hurrying out the house), to serial killers when thinking of transgender people should not be considered offensive?”

    EEEEEEEARRRGGHHH!

    I used to be on the Ms Boards (catte), and I’ve had plenty of my own problems with Lucky, so I’m not biased towards her, but SHE DID NOT COMPARE TRANS TO SERIAL KILLERS! I’m not direct quoting because I don’t have permission, and the quote is right there in the thread but the entire basis of “OMG Hate Speech!” is inaccruate.

    But don’t let facts get in the way of your rightous indignation or anything.


  50. on December 31, 2006 at 2:16 pm womensspace

    Lucky, I’ve edited your posts, in keeping with my intentions for this thread and this blog.

    Heart


  51. on December 31, 2006 at 3:04 pm chasingmoksha

    “I posted that comment of “Ever see the Silence of the Lambs” early one morning before I went to work.”

    Miranda the above is admitted by Lucky. Whether she finished the thought or not, it was the first comparison that came to mind. That is the fundamental point.

    Lucky, I don’t know what men you are talking about. I am a biological and socially conditioned gender female/woman and I found the “Silence of the Lambs” disturbing. I am not attacking you. I am trying to get you to ask yourself why was it The Silence of the Lambs that you thought of first? Our minds tell us things.


  52. on December 31, 2006 at 4:00 pm Miranda

    Yes, I saw her statement, and I saw the original post where she made the comparison, and I also understood the context of that post, which is in the sentence preceding the Silence of the Lambs statement.


  53. on December 31, 2006 at 4:07 pm Branjor

    ***I am trying to get you to ask yourself why was it The Silence of the Lambs that you thought of first? Our minds tell us things.***

    You mean you’re trying to get Lucky to come to the answer *you’ve* decided she should come to. Like a police interview in which they’ve already decided that the suspect is guilty so they just interview and interview him until they get what they want.

    Silence of the Lambs is the only movie in which a man literally sews female skins together to make a suit for himself.


  54. on December 31, 2006 at 4:23 pm chasingmoksha

    And what would you police about me if I said you and everyone like your existence is that of Medea on crack?


  55. on December 31, 2006 at 4:29 pm uppitybiscuit

    I need to have more understanding of your question chasingmoksha.

    Do you mean crack, as in body part?


  56. on December 31, 2006 at 4:38 pm womensspace

    Well, here’s what I think. I think that invoking any sort of imagery having to do with a man sewing women’s skin into a suit for himself in a discussion of transgender issues is, best case, inflammatory and hurtful, even if the intention wasn’t to make a specific association between the two. I don’t think anybody’s interests are served by that association, no matter what the intention was.

    Again, I don’t want any sort of trainwreck precipitated here and so I am moderating closely. Please, everybody, say what you have to say in the least inflammatory, most thoughtful and light-, as opposed to heat-producing way possible.

    Heart


  57. on December 31, 2006 at 4:54 pm Branjor

    I would ask you to clarify that statement as I don’t really understand what *you* mean by it. By the interpretation *I* would make off the top of my head, I don’t really think that “Medea on crack” is very bad. Patriarchy has been so vicious and aggressive over the millenia, it might have taken (might *still* take) “Medea on crack” to beat it. Over the years, it might have merely saved a few million women’s lives. Thank you, I consider that a compliment.


  58. on December 31, 2006 at 5:42 pm Medea On Crack

    Oh no, now you’ve done it.

    Pony


  59. on December 31, 2006 at 5:47 pm Medea On Crack

    There was a :)) there.


  60. on December 31, 2006 at 5:55 pm nexyjo

    “Ah shit.

    Now I’m crying.”

    i’m crying with you. there are so many people in the world who judge others based on their own prejudice and bigotry. it’s terrible.

    i grew up in an affluent suburb of new york city. the town was (and still is, i believe) about 40% black and 60% white with a large jewish population. as a child, i had several friends that crossed each of those boundries. one especially close friend was black. he lived a few blocks from me, in the “white” section of town. literally, divided by the railroad tracks. while i was aware he was black, it never struck me that his color meant anything significant. until we reached junior high school, when the kids from each “side” of the town went to the same school. we stopped hanging out with each other, almost immediately. it wasn’t “allowed”.

    we grew up in ignorance, enjoying each others friendship. until our respective cultures stepped in, and taught us - forced us - to believe that our respective color meant something. we’d pass each other in the hallways at school, our eyes met, and that horrible unspoken understanding passed between us. i don’t remember ever speaking with him again. i guess neither of us had the courage to step outside the roles our society enforced. we were scared children, trying to fit in.

    right, there were no laws against us being friends, and people would claim that it didn’t make any difference what color we are. but laws don’t necessarily have to be “on the books” so to speak, and people lie. it did matter, and it still does.

    there’s no law that says i can’t remove my beard, grow my hair long, and surgically modify my gentials. but as soon as i did, i lost my job of 14 years, the only jobs i can find pay 1/4th of my previous one, my son refused to ever speak with me again, and men and women both see me as “other”, and treat me accordingly as soon as they know what i did. which is why now, i don’t speak of it to most people. i’m just a “normal” woman when they don’t know my history. i’m a “nutjob” when they do.

    heart, i don’t believe your post was a diversion at all. in fact, i’d argue it was extremely relevant.


  61. on December 31, 2006 at 6:31 pm Luckynkl

    ***I am trying to get you to ask yourself why was it The Silence of the Lambs that you thought of first? Our minds tell us things.***

    My trademarks are irony and hyperbole. I often use extremes that are way out there to drive my point home. I mean, you don’t think I actually believe that transpeople all have wells in their basement to keep women in and all have these little white dogs named “Precious,” do you?

    Men objectify women and fetishize female body parts. They covet what they see. Transsexuals do as well. During SRS, transpeople have body parts surgically removed and attached (or sewn on, if you will), so that they may appear to have the outer layer of “skin” of a woman, no? As if women are suits of clothes to try on. Nothing better illustrates this point than the extemism of “The Silence of the Lambs.” It drives the point home.

    Skin is just a boundary. It is there to protect what is underneath. To reduce women into being nothing more than an outer layer of skin is so insulting and offensive to women that I don’t know where to begin. Women are more than just the covers on books.

    This is the message I got when I first saw “Silence of the Lambs.” It is still the message I get when I watch the movie. It is about a man’s extreme objectification of women and the coveting of her skin so that he may pass as a woman. By doing so, he “changes” and “becomes” a woman in his mind. How does Buffalo Bill’s goal differ from that of transsexuals? The means may be different, but the goal is one and the same.

    ***Well, here’s what I think. I think that invoking any sort of imagery having to do with a man sewing women’s skin into a suit for himself in a discussion of transgender issues is, best case, inflammatory and hurtful, even if the intention wasn’t to make a specific association between the two.***

    Here’s what I think. I think transpeople objectify, fetishize and covet women and their skin in much the same way as men objectify, fetishize and covet women and their skin with pornography. Tho perhaps with different purposes in mind with what they want to do with those objectified parts.

    Just because men don’t all go out and act on their rape fantasies of women doesn’t make pornography any less insidious and harmful to women. By the same token, just because transsexuals don’t all go out and act like Buffalo Bill doesn’t make their fantasies and objectification of women any less insidious and harmful to women. Objectification is objectification and harmful to women.


  62. on December 31, 2006 at 6:35 pm Medea On Crack

    CM thanks for your post, from one who was ‘collected’ by a European man who needed a native wife to complete his Jack London view of the north.


  63. on December 31, 2006 at 6:38 pm womensspace

    Ah, nexy, so sad, your son!!

    One of my daughters’ closest friends has two moms; her mom divorced her dad to be with a woman partner. There has been a lot of friction in their home because the partner so clearly favors the younger brother. We were talking and my daughter mentioned almost offhandedly that the partner had a son who lived in California. :”"”( So sad! What is the story there? No wonder. So many people with so many sad things in their lives that nobody even knows about. :(

    It’s interesting the way marginalized kids find each other in high school, or just kids who know themselves to be different. One of my closest friends in high school was a guy. He was the only guy who stayed just my friend, didn’t make any move on me or whatever. Twenty years later I learned he was gay, ran a gay bar in Seattle. It made perfect sense to me, but so sad that this could not have been discussed openly back in the 60s. All three of my daughters who have gone to the local high school have quickly connected with, oh, gay and lesbian students, transgender students, students of color. Thank the goddess at least there is some freedom now for these students to be out and open about who they are, even “Gay-Straight” alliance clubs. This was unheard of when you and I were young, nexy.

    Well, thanks.

    Heart


  64. on December 31, 2006 at 7:40 pm gayle

    Heart,

    I’m sorry. I just spoke for you on the Okay thread at Feministe.

    Please feel free to refute me here or there if I’ve misinterpreted what you’ve written.

    Bad blogging behavior. I should have written to you earlier. I should know better!


  65. on December 31, 2006 at 8:02 pm womensspace

    It’s interesting, I think I’ve gotten both harder with respect to transgender issues and softer and weenier at the same time. Maybe I’ve gotten more real. Maybe it’s all become more human to me than it ever was before because I know more transpeople than ever before. I think that’s the way it works maybe? I’m both more impatient and more accepting, I don’t know. I think I have a better b.s. detector than I had before, but that works both ways. I detect when there is b.s. and I detect when there isn’t.

    I think what you say, Lucky, about transpersons is undoubtedly true for some MTFs. I think it isn’t true for all transfolk. For example, it isn’t true for transpeople who never transition (some of whom I know pretty well now and have really come to appreciate, just good people). It isn’t true, I don’t think, for transmen, i.e., FTMs. It isn’t true for nexy.

    Some of us are so shell-shocked from our dealings with a few, really destructive, bent transwomen. We find it hard to open ourselves to the possibility that those destructive few are not representative.

    My belief is that for patriarchy to end, gender has to end. It’s really that simple. Whatever works to perpetuate gender is counterproductive in my mind, and so I have to take issue with a lot of what transpeople say and