Radical Feminist Resistance


Feminism, true feminism, is about subversion. It’s about naming the truths of male supremacy. It’s about connecting with women so we can collectively fight for women’s liberation.

This basic message is becoming lost because there’s currently an all-pervasive humanist/liberal approach to feminism, masquerading AS feminism, which is plastered across social media.

I want to be part of a movement which ensures that the basic message about what feminism really is, does not become lost. With that goal in mind, I’m going to start collecting online (and herstorical) feminist phrases/abbreviations and feminist descriptions of male supremacy. I’m going to start a # hashtag on twitter and invite more suggestions because I can’t remember that many.


NAMALT: ‘Not All Men Are Like That’: When women name the uncomfortable truths about male violence, 9 times out of 10 they will receive this kind of response. It’s almost inevitable

MANSPLAINING: When a man patronisingly tries to explain to us something we know better than him or when any kind of male explanation is not needed and is unwelcome

MANSPLAINED: (as in ‘he mansplained me’): When a feminist describes the process of a man talking over her, and explaining something simple to her as if she was unable to understand for herself.

“Not my Nigel’/’My Nigel is different’: This has been going on since forever; when women critique the male caste, a het woman often produces an unnecessary qualification that her male partner/boyfriend/husband is unique and ‘special’. (Hint: he really isn’t). The word “Nigel’ has become synonymous to mean (het) men. Usually sarcastically used when a het woman is intent on dominating a feminist agenda with stories about her ‘Nigel’ and how great he is. (Hint: He’s not and/or we don’t want to hear – we’re busy overthrowing patriarchy)

‘My Nigel’: any man a het woman is involved with.

Radical Lesbian Feminist: A female who actively makes political connections between their love for women and their fight against compulsory heterosexuality/male supremacy. They understand that sexuality is a social construct and fight the ‘born-that-way’ narrative.

Political lesbian: A woman who becomes connected with other women politically, emotionally and sexually via developing a feminist consciousness.

Separatist: A female who will not willingly associate with males; despite the myths, this does not include where we buy our groceries or who employs us

Womanist: An alternative description for women-centred politics. Frequently used by black feminists in the 1980s/90s in order to make a political point about the domination of feminism by white women.

TERF-IS-A-SLUR: The word “TERF” is used against feminists who describe how women’s oppression is connected to female biology (e.g. how birth, pregnancy, menstruation is treated within a male supremacist society) and, increasingly commonly, used against any woman who refers to the relevance of female biology in any context, whether she’s a feminist or not. The word ‘TERF” is frequently accompanied with abuse and threats. Many feminists have equated it with the word ‘witch’ from the past.

‘HANDMAIDENS’: shorthand for when women betray other women in order to defer to men/male supremacists. Not keen on the term myself for various reasons there’s no space to go into. But, still, it’s used quite a bit so here it is.

‘Gaslighting’ When a woman’s reality and lived experience/knowledge/observation is denied/reversed/repackaged. Male supremacists use it all the time and, sadly, women locked in hostility with each other, use it too. It’s an anti-feminist tactic.

‘Spinster’: A reclaimed word from the past which means an unmarried woman. Used particularly ferociously after World War 1 when so many men were killed and more women were free to lead independent lives. Male supremacy re-constructed this freedom by depicting single women as ugly and unattractive and ‘on the shelf’. Today’s ‘spinster’ rejoices in her freedoms.

Queer Alphabet Soup: A send up of the trend to add more and more letters to an unfathomable growing list of alleged disadvantaged groupings – an individualistic approach instead of an analysis about how some groups oppress others (i.e. male supremacy reigns at the expense of the caste of women)

Pomo: Shorthand for the ideology ‘ post modernism’ which underpins queer politics and transgenderist politics. Post modernism is at the other political spectrum to feminism because it promotes and celebrates individualism whereas feminism recognises that power rests with specific groups and the ways they use their power to control how society is structured.


NB: I did have a little google but I couldn’t see that anyone else has already done this; not in urban dictionary form. If someone has, please link and I can include the link in this blog post.

A day of truce – imagining freedom

Originally posted on Reclaim the Night Perth, Australia:

In 1983 Andrea Dworkin spoke to male activists about a day of truce, asking for a single 24 hour period in which male sexual violence against women ceased. Stating that equality between men and women could not coexist with rape, she said:

“And on that day, that day of truce, that day when not one woman is raped, we will begin the real practice of equality, because we can’t begin it before that day. Before that day it means nothing because it is nothing: it is not real; it is not true. But on that day it becomes real. And then, instead of rape we will for the first time in our lives–both men and women–begin to experience freedom.”

When I discuss the idea of a truce with women, the response is that this is never going to happen, that it is simply not possible. Men rape women every minute…

View original 777 more words

If full decriminalization will protect women in prostitution from these men… why do these men want it?


I have nothing to say about how disgusting it is that male violence and power is so blatantly glorified in this way – including by organisations who allege they stand for ‘justice’ internationally

Originally posted on A Trick Of The Trade:

     The Argument

The Nordic model? It won’t work. You can’t decriminalize women and girls but criminalize the men who buy sexual access to them. It drives prostitution underground and puts them at risk of violence. Decriminalize ALL aspects of the sex trade to protect women and girls against violence and exploitation.”

Human rights group Amnesty International is currently risking everything it stands for to endorse The Argument. But if The Argument is true, why do violent and exploitative men want decriminalization?


‘LikeRedHeads’ is the name used by a man on the Toronto Escort Review Boards (TERB). He has written over 1000 posts on the site, including reviews of the women he pays for.

He is John No.9 in The Invisible Men Project (Canada). [Read the full review here]

If the Nordic model would just facilitate him doing this to women, and full decriminalization would stop him – he must support the Nordic model. Right?


1. He petitioned against…

View original 1,068 more words

Thoughts on “Intercourse”


Another 21st century woman who brilliantly articulates how unpacking compulsory heterosexuality as an institution of oppression can lead to making political and personal leaps for womankind.

Originally posted on not who they say I am:

Transcrit from the Andrea Dworkin Conference “Not the Fun Kind” – Ruskin Anglia University – Cambridge

A few years ago I read Intercourse or rather I tried. I read the first chapter which I remember finding so powerful, insightful, revolting. and then once again like every time I read her work, being totally radicalised by what was written and the strength of Dworkin’s language.

I started chapter 2, “Skinless” and something I never experienced before happened. I was reading but it was wrong, I understood every words but I didn’t get it. I didn’t understand what she was saying , I didn’t understand what she was talking about. Suddenly the language I knew, I was able to speak write and read, made no sense, what a strange feeling. I stopped reading the book not quite sure what was the problem and went on to other things. My life took over…

View original 1,440 more words

A John Called Hatrick: Case study of one of the men tolerated by Vancouver Police Department and Surrey RCMP


Men can openly ‘boast’ about their violence towards women and no one does anything – even with legislation in place

Originally posted on A Trick Of The Trade:

“Back to Surrey and cruise the Leigon, hmm nice ass on the corner and big tit’s too. It’s an older crack-ho, very impatient wants to score rock, fuck, I drop her where I find her no mood for that shit, I would have gone for the Hatrick but with someone worthy not that fuckin thing! Did learn something to-nite, 7-11’s are a good hunting ground. I picked up a real doll a few weeks back in the one at Royal Oak. Just check em out as you cruise by, if there is some hottie in there that looks like she might go, it pays to ask. You can check em out in a safe environment, all the Ho’s go in there at some point durring the nite. I will be keeping a close eye myself, happy hunting!”read the full review


The author of the above review is a long-time…

View original 2,661 more words

On leaving the trans cult

Originally posted on Purple Sage:

When I came out as a lesbian, it was during the time of inclusion, when more and more letters were being added to the LGBTQ alphabet soup because every sexual minority needed representation. It seemed obvious that we should include everyone—since we face ostracism ourselves we know how awful it is to be excluded. We wanted social justice, we wanted love and respect for all minorities. No matter what new letter was added to the “queer” acronym, we included them without question. I met people of all sorts during my time in university—gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, asexuals, gender fluid people, etc. I believed in us working together and gaining acceptance from straight people. During this time I also started learning about feminism. At first, the various feminist bloggers I was reading didn’t seem so different from each other. But over the last few years, we have become divided by…

View original 1,459 more words


Human personality traits, which anyone is capable of experiencing, are assigned to the social construction of ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’ in order to reinforce male supremacy. From birth, women are assigned personality traits which are traditionally supposed to keep us compliant and controlled, such as co-operation, gentleness, kindness. They firmly place us in a subordinate caste. We are conditioned, controlled and punished unless, and until, we display these traits. From birth, men are assigned traits which will reinforce male superiority such as domination and aggression. They firmly place men in a dominant caste. Men are taught to dominate and dismiss women and to fight with each other over women as commodities in order to determine who is top of the pile. These traits, we are taught, are ingrained in each gender leading to women as submissive and men as ‘naturally’ (sic) dominant. Women adopting masculinist traits leads to a reinforcement of this system because those individuals merely reinforce the whole premise that domination of one human over another is inevitable (or, rather, that individual women can dominate other women). Subversive herstorical feminist projects have sought to turn on its head assumptions that personality traits, which are seen as traditionally ‘feminine’, are to be devalued. Instead, the projects sought to value, respect and elevate particular personality traits assigned to women e.g. empathy, understanding, care-giving. It is no coincidence that motherhood, carers of adults and paid work in the care sector are unpaid/among the lowest kind of paid work possible under capitalism. That is because these traits and conditioned skills are essential for a compassionate society but are assigned to ‘femininity’ and, therefore, are as under-valued as possible. It is feminist, therefore, to value traits and skills which are about social cohesiveness above a male dominated world where men fight, kill, murder and rape in their millions.

We used to think that if only men could cry and individual women could do male jobs patriarchy could be overturned. We now know that it’s far more complex than that – assigned personality traits according to gender are embedded in institutions, structures, societal rewards and punishments ensuring that masculinist ways of behaving are rewarded and ‘femininity’ reinforces female subordination.

Nowadays, many women think that reinforcing masculinist behaviours in themselves, and other women, is a good thing because, they argue, they are breaking free of the bonds that hold them. All that happens is that the concept of ‘masculinity’ as a superior way of constructing society, is reinforced and women as a caste are still imprisoned by it (even if some women find ways of expressing masculinist personality traits and are no longer punished for it). Outside of patriarchy, kindness, compassion, empathy, honesty would be traits which hold communities together; they would prevent ‘otherness’, they would prevent war and rivalry; they enable societies to work together for the common good as opposed to individuals vying against each other. Socialism says little about the role gendered traits play in upholding unequal, masculinist societies. Feminism of old said a lot and women began communities and activist projects which actively sought to tear down male notions of superior masculinist personality traits and behaviours. Away from men, and their conditioned assumptions that domination and control is ‘inherent’, women began finding alternative ways of community-building. The danger for women, conditioned to be ever-kind to those in need, is that part of the package is to put men and others before ourselves and the caste of women. Being stuck in ‘femininity’, as opposed to breaking relevant personality traits free so we can create alternatives to patriarchy, is an ongoing challenge for us.

There is, of course, a second aspect to ‘femininity’ which, these days, is where both feminist activism and queer theory/transgenderism focuses. It’s about the outer trappings of ‘femininity’ – long hair, dresses, any outward social signifiers that someone is a woman, not a man. These trappings such as bras, high heels, tight or short dresses are designed to restrict and control women and are a different method of reinforcing male supremacy over women. If we can’t run because what we wear restricts us, it’s as if we’re held in a trap, ready and waiting for our captors. Radical feminism seeks to abolish all these trappings which is why we are often viewed as ‘gender non-conforming’ when we practice rejection of male-identified ’femininity’ as individuals. Other feminists have written extensively about this so I’m not going to labour the point other than to confirm I strongly agree with a rejection of ‘femininity’ in this context.

One of the many issues we have with transgenderism (the ideology and practice of claiming it is possible for men to transition to become women) is that, too often, it is the outer trappings of ‘femininity’ which dictates that transition. Either they say they’re more comfortable aping these ‘feminine’ trappings rather than those of ‘masculinity’ or that the ’feminine’ trappings are innate within them. And, when they say they ‘feel like’ a woman, they almost always mean ‘femininity’ which (radical) feminists reject wholeheartedly as a tool of our oppression. What doesn’t accompany the outer ‘feminine’ trappings, is personality trait conditioning along gender lines. M-to-F have often lived many years conditioned as boys and men; learning that when they speak they should be heard and that aggression gets them places under patriarchy. That behaviour is almost never abandoned after transitioning and nor can it be easily unlearnt after a lifetime of conditioning. Consequently, abuse, threats of violence, successful silencing of radical feminists about anything to do with female liberation are rife among anti-feminist transgender activists (AFTAs). That is the dangerous context of the male supremacist notion that personality traits should be socially constructed along gender lines.

Some younger feminists, who’ve not been through these years-old debates, such as the ones briefly outlined here, have interpreted all this as me saying that ‘femininity is empowering’. Greenham and other feminist community projects, where we tried to do things together cooperatively, carefully and kindly, seem now to be lost. I strongly urge a move away from radical feminists trying to re-enforce masculinist notions such as hierarchy, cruelty, ‘doxxing’, ‘calling women out’ activism-by-ego, ’trolling’ other feminists, pretence at being ’neutral’ in the face of feminist arguments and the rest. It’s horrific and adds to the ‘toxic stew’ which is patriarchy. This is NOT the same as a failure to hold ourselves and other women to account for anti-feminist behaviours, especially when done in the name of feminism.

Reclaim The March! Statement from Radical Feminists on what occurred at London Reclaim The Night 2014

November 24, 2014

reclaim banner2

What happened when radical feminists raised awareness of male transgender violence at the London Reclaim the Night, 2014:

Note: The London Reclaim the Night March claims to be women-only, whilst also stating on its website that  ‘trans women’ (sic) are welcome.

A group of radical feminists, all of whom have attended RTN for many years, and several of whom have been involved in organising women’s marches, attended the London 2014 RTN to assert the right of women to organise autonomously and to raise awareness of violence perpetrated by male transgenders. They carried a banner stating ‘Reclaim the March: Reclaim the Night is for WOMEN’ and placards highlighting the need for women’s services to remain women-only. Some of the group distributed flyers giving factual information about violence perpetrated by male transgenders, and highlighting why it is vital that women’s services and women’s marches remain women-only.

While on the march:

– a radical feminist was approached by three hostile women who tried to snatch her leaflets away and the police had to intervene for her safety.

– the radical feminists were met with considerable hostility and antipathy from trans supporters

At the rally following the march:

– the compere opened the rally by emphatically distancing the organisers from the radical feminist group, stating that there was only one official RTN leaflet, and that they were not responsible for any other leaflets being given out on the march. In our recollection, this is unprecedented at any London RTN. She then proceeded to stress that ‘transwomen’ (sic) are welcome at RTN, and that any other sentiments did not reflect the policy of the organisers. This was met with hearty applause and a strong sense of disapproval of the radical feminist presence and message. The compere also then advised anyone who had experienced harassment or felt intimidated as a result of the leaflets to inform a steward or police officer: the imputation of this statement was that the radical feminists had been harassing and intimidatory. This was a gross misrepresentation of what had happened, since none of the radical feminists had harassed anybody, and in fact it was one of them who had been harassed and intimidated. The radical feminist group pointed this out but were ignored. The compere’s tone conveyed a sense of apology for and disowning of the radical feminist presence on the march: one of the radical feminists objected to this, but was ignored.

– later at the rally, one of the radical feminists vocally protested the double standards of one of the speeches, which condemned some forms of male violence while failing to acknowledge the realities of violence perpetrated by male transgenders, or to challenge the condemnation of those who had called attention to these realities on the march.

Our thoughts on what happened:

The support for transgenderism and antipathy towards radical feminists at a march that is purportedly against male violence against women is extremely disturbing. We believe this testifies to a lack of understanding amongst feminist communities of the harms of transgenderism and a reluctance to acknowledge the realities of violence perpetrated by male transgenders, even though these are well-documented. We also believe it testifies to a fear around speaking out. While there were women at the rally who were privately supportive of radical feminists taking a stance on transgenderism, these women remained silent in the public arena – no doubt due to the climate of fear around this issue, and the extreme hostility that meets any woman who is vocal about it.

Over the years, many leaflets have been handed out at RTN marches. Some of these have been supportive of the exploitation and abuse of women in prostitution. We note that our leaflet is the only one to have been singled out and publicly denounced by a representative of RTN. We find it strange that women who support prostitution and the sex industry are not met with such hostility, and are allowed to march and attend the event unhindered, when sex purchase is violence against women. We also note that there is a strong line of consistency between the pimp lobby, the porn lobby and the trans lobby.

The silencing of women speaking out against the harms of transgenderism and male transgender violence cannot continue. We need more courageous actions like those in evidence at the London 2014 RTN. And we look forward to support from our sisters.

reclaim banner2

[Read more about this action here:


Some women have been gathering together for 3 years at a UK event called ‘North East Feminist Gathering’. Previously, the agenda seemed quite clearly centred on women’s liberation. This year, there was a turning off course where, as with other ‘feminist’ conferences and gatherings, anti-feminist rhetoric is mistaken for feminism. A failure to name male supremacy and, instead, promote anti-feminist ‘queer’ politics was an underlying theme. Some radical feminists, having enjoyed the women-only event previously, decided to go anyway to ensure that radical feminism was not marginalised and misrepresented.

A few days after the gathering an anti-radical feminist account was put out in public on tumblr. One radical feminist attendee gave a different version. As a radical feminist, it is my aim to ensure radical feminism is better understood. For that reason, I am publishing her account (with permission of course).

There were two workshops held which are important to radical feminists, politically. These were: ‘why women-only space is important ‘and ‘trans-inclusivity in women-only spaces’. ‘Women-only space’ is at the heart of radical feminism. We cannot fight for our freedom with our oppressors in the room. See, for example:

The radical feminist position is often misrepresented in hostile environments. Radical feminists did not make a coherent decision to go to these workshops. FACT. Many of us turned up feeling that we needed to do so, not knowing others were going. Women-only space is important to us; of course we are going to go where the debate is. I attended on my own. Others decided not to go at all.

The only account out in public about this event was written by 1 of 4 members of the Newcastle university ‘feminist’ society. This society on facebook is very queer-identified. Queer theory upholds, and reinforces, ‘gender’ and radical feminism seeks to abolish it. ‘Gender’ is a socially constructed vehicle designed to ensure women’s subordination under male supremacy. There is a clash of beliefs. The women’s account is a total exaggeration and misrepresentation.

In the first workshop, a radical feminist did walk out of the workshop.  She raised her voice generally in the room, not directed at the mbt person whose behaviour had distressed her. She said: ‘I’m going outside for a fag. I can’t stay in this workshop and watch a young, black woman be spoken over’. Radical feminists believe that those who are male-born are conditioned to accept, and expect, male privilege as members of the dominating caste. The young black woman herself did not feel personally silenced. There are issues about whether it is appropriate for those with one structural oppression to get angry, and speak on behalf of, a member of another oppressed group. That is not peculiar to radical feminism. In fact, it’s far more common among queers who operate on the individualistic level almost entirely.

There were non-radical feminists in the workshop who said during the discussion that they felt uncomfortable in relation to transgenderism and yet didn’t feel able to critique it. They felt able to say this with the language radical feminism gives and because they were in a space where it was allowed to be said alongside other views. FACT.

At the beginning of the second workshop, the transactivists present said they would not be offended by anything said. The transactivist facilitators were polite and facilitated well. They wanted honest dialogue. They invited honest conversations. They did not insist on pronouns. They said they would not be offended by that. Generally, the workshop was not heated.

I am afraid this is more propaganda from trans allies this time as opposed to transactivists themselves. Their understanding of feminism was limited. Many younger women told us that they are frightened to question the trans issue but that they are uncomfortable with it. FACT. I did refer to one mbt as ’he’. That was in the context of what the transactivists had said at the beginning.  No one said anything at the time. I usually try to use names but sometimes it’s impossible and I am not giving up. My reality. I get called a ‘lady’ and no one bothers that that offends me.

The main challenge in the second workshop was by a young woman. She said she is not a radical feminist. The workshop undertook some group work. The question posed was how should trans inclusivity sit within feminism. Of course, some of us said it did not. The workshop was presented by the facilitators as an open dialogue and so we expressed our views. The women who were most anti criticism of transgenderism were not making feminist arguments. Queer theory has leached on to a variety of ideologies and de-radicalised them. Those espousing queer theory will, nonetheless, argue that that’s not what they are doing.

I believe anti-radical feminists are trying to use a feminist conference to undermine and attack radical feminism. Some radical feminists believe we should only organise separately. I believe we should do that and be involved in the conversation. I hope that some women will now be open to radical feminist views as a result. When they met us, they were pleasantly surprised and interested in a critique of transgenderism from a radical feminist perspective. Some women have not got the language to express what they instinctively feel – that there’s no such thing as a ‘female brain’, for example.

In the anti-radical feminist account (which we are not linking here), the author states: “I felt just as unsafe as I would have in a room full of angry, misogynistic men.” Really? I don’t think so. Angry, misogynist men use violent and threatening imagery and, perhaps, real threats aimed at women. There were no threats aimed at anyone in that room. There were powerful emotions. Political disagreement becomes ‘putting other women down’ in this individualistic world of queer theory where everyone must feel ‘safe’ except radical feminists. Survivors of male violence find the misuse of the words ‘safe space’ offensive. It means a safe space from being, or feeling, threatened, personally, by those with structural power.

Some of us have been talking about the use of the word ‘unsafe’. Political debate has to have an ‘edge’ and certain robustness since challenge is essential. There are, of course, debates to be had about the most effective ways to challenge someone or a situation. What feminists can’t do is allow the concept of ‘safe space’ to silence differing political viewpoints. At no point were the ground rules, agreed at the beginning of the event, said to be broken or called in during either workshop. It is true only two slides were shown during the ‘trans inclusivity’ workshop. Some radical feminists thanked the transactivist facilitators. Some talked about having a day’s conference so that the entire debate could be out in the open – both sides of it.

Four women. I repeat FOUR women are now misrepresenting the whole experience. The account by the women involved in the Newcastle ‘feminist’ society is ageist in places. Some women who were vocally critical of transgenderism were younger and didn’t identify as radical feminist. They were speaking with their hearts and instincts. In feedback, I represented a view that unrelated women felt unable to explore their true feelings without being labelled ‘transphobic’. Women in that small group stated that they were happy for me to represent their views in this way. These women were not ‘middle-aged’ either. Many younger women have expressed a viewpoint that it is ageist to dismiss critical views of transgenderism based on age. Criticisms exist about transgenderism from women of all ages.” 

NB: the account of the radical feminist walking out has been changed following feedback from other radical feminists present


The transactivists who ran the workshop had this to say:

Emma and I (Tara) would like to thank everyone who attended our workshop today regarding Trans Inclusion. It was an emotionally charged session, but worthwhile dialogue was opened on this contentious issue.”

Their opinion backs up the radical feminist account published on this blog, rather than the tumblr ‘horrific gathering’ viewpoint.

You can read their comment yourselves on face book public page:

‘Phobia’ finger pointing: it’s the new misogyny

There is a new danger to women. And feminists are on it. We’re naming it. We’re angry. And we WILL fight back.

It doesn’t matter what kind of politics a feminist has, unless she is fully accommodating to men (in the shape of anti-feminist, queer gobbledygook and other woman-haters) she will be attacked. Attempts will be made to silence her through a systematic campaign of hatred and intimidation.

Many feminists receive threats of violence simply because they are individuals who have made pro-women statements and carried out pro-women actions. See just one example:

There has been a recent bout of attempts to stop individual feminists from speaking at events. The chosen method is to call someone ‘phobic’. You can put any word you want in front of it. It doesn’t have to be a real word, you can just make it up. In circulation, we currently have: biphobic, transphobic, whorephobic, lesbians who are somehow ‘homophobic’ (will leave you to work that one out, I can’t) etc. When questioned, we’re told that the person knows this is what we are because they ‘feel’ it, they have ‘experienced’ it. It’s not possible to ‘experience’ or ‘feel’ an undefined made-up word so we’ve got a problem before we start. Words mean something.

In the distant past, we used to say that we rejected the term ‘lesbophobia’ because we felt men should fear us and our political analysis about male surpremacy. Well, that’s turning out to be true. The weapon of choice is made-up words which others take seriously. Who knew.

Deborah Cameron does a thorough, good, job of explaining that the constant use of something-phobia is meaningless because it implies oppression is driven by a psychological problem; a condition which gives rise to hatred. Although sometimes oppression is about hatred, it is always about power. A radical feminist analysis always involves where the power lies and why it is being used:

Oppression is about power enshrined in structures and institutions as well as in attitudes and societal assumptions. It’s not about isolated insults or ideological differences which may result in questioning the way someone lives their life. Here is an example: Bisexual people are not structurally oppressed. Lesbian feminists accused of ‘biphobia’ do not have structural power over bisexual women. Bisexual women may be receiving the rewards of compliance which accompany compulsory heterosexuality – these are financial, societal approval for conforming and various other benefits (het women are also oppressed under comp het – it’s a complex system of rewards and punishments). Women who are ‘out’ lesbians (as opposed to those who ‘feel’ lesbian but are intimately entangled in comp het) are not.

When/if bisexual people face oppression it’s because they are perceived to be lesbian or a gay male or, possibly, gender non-conforming. Structural oppression, as it relates to sexuality, is about the way compulsory heterosexuality is imposed on women, from birth. The purpose is to enforce male domination. It’s nothing to do with someone’s feelings, about bisexual jokes or assumptions made about bisexual people. Any other analysis is bullshit individualism and has a libertarian agenda. That has no part to play in feminism – feminism is about the liberation of women, as a caste. It’s not humanism, it’s not about all other oppressions. It’s an unrelenting fight for women’s freedom.

That’s not to say that, as feminist activists, we should not take into account other oppressions; we may share other oppressions and we may be fighting other injustices alongside our feminism. However, losing focus on the liberation of women within feminism leads to humanist murkiness where women’s concerns, as always, is everyone else but our own caste. We are conditioned to put the needs of others before ourselves. Queer ‘phobic’ smoke-screens play right into that. Women, especially ‘feminists’ who have liberal notions of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ for everyone, end up fighting for the wrong team and against their own liberation. The reason liberal feminists lose focus is because they don’t recognise the importance of power in a political context. Power is more than the power of one individual. Power is about which group of people (men as a caste) control what social, financial and other resources and why. I really don’t know why we have to keep repeating this to brainwashed women on the left. But we do.

Never has this been more obvious than the recent spat of ‘feminist’ university societies targeting individual feminists. They have worked with male supremacists (whether visibly and consciously so or not) to silence both long-standing and newly emerging feminists. Having a critique, or, even better, a political analysis about why women’s liberation leads to gender abolition, is enough to get labelled one phobia or another. The mere use of the word ‘phobia’ gets ‘feminists’, and their anti-feminist allies, worked up into a frenzy and demand no-platforming of women who have something to say about male violence. It doesn’t even make logical sense half the time.

It’s surely the witch hunts of centuries past, all over again. The lack of analysis is very telling. Julie Bindel was simply called ‘vile’ by the NUS. Very mature. Over and over students admitted they had not read her work but something-something-‘phobia’. Caroline Criado-Perez has recently received the vague accusation of being a ‘damaging and exclusionary figure’ followed by an unsubstantiated but emotive ‘we urge you to distance yourself’.

You can read the sorry state of affairs here:

Am I right to see a hint of a threat there? – ‘distance yourself, single-out and ostracise this individual or we will cause trouble’. It’s a threat feminists are beginning to get used to. It comes from MPAs (Male Privileged Agitators) and queer folk alike. These types of accusations against feminists (who are, importantly, from across the whole political feminist spectrum) serve only to make women obedient to the male supremacist agenda

The mission to train feminists into being submissive, obedient, silent women goes like this: Don’t ever allow yourself to be called ‘phobic’ or else bad things will happen to you. Not to women. To you, personally. You will suffer and be punished if you express radical politics. When you’re challenging, for example, the billion dollar sex industry, you may be called ‘whorephobic’ (sic) and accused of hating prostituted women. And, if that happens, it’s not just a word with ‘phobia’ at the end, it has the power to set a stream of hatred and no-platforming your way. It has the power to disrupt your political convictions, your career. It enables some to justify terrifying threats of violence from misogynists towards you. Threats which often stem from the targeting of individual feminists as ‘bigots’ or something-phobic. No woman is safe from this mission. Liberal feminists might as well throw in the towel and develop a better understanding of radical feminism because male-appeasement won’t save you.

Our ‘choices’ are limited. We keep quiet, we go anonymous and hope we’re not doxxed (by anti-feminists or ‘feminists’ who knows?) or we speak our mind under our real name knowing that years of intimidation and harassment lie ahead. The pattern of thinking for the Obedient Woman goes something like this: ‘We avoid any kind of ‘phobia’ (sic) at any costs – but see those women over there? They’re bigots and should be silenced. I am, of course, a good ally of yours, how could you think I am not? Hey you over there! BIGOT! TRANSPHOBE!”. Don’t believe me? Unless you put men first every second of every moment in your political thinking or agree with queer bull-shit and acquiesce that to do so is more important than women’s liberation, I guarantee you, you’ll be on the list in no time.

Individual feminists with their real names out there are brave women. It is typical for individual feminists to receive death threats, rape threats, and a variety of other implied threats. On top of that, those same women face being singled out for no-platforming with massive campaigns of hate based on misinformation and assumptions. Those women deserve my, our, unconditional support as individuals, even if we don’t always share the same political agenda. The toll on women’s mental health cannot be under-estimated. I have heard some horrendous accounts of the impact it has had on women. I have felt it myself. We all do. Some, however, bear more of the brunt of it than others.

These intimidatory attacks are succeeding in preventing individual feminists from speaking in malestream public as well as women-only meetings. The male supremacist plan to silence feminists is working swimmingly – it’s morphed into an ‘own’ goal, attacking feminists and feminism from within. Call anti-feminist rhetoric ‘feminist’ and feminist analysis something-phobic and you’ve managed to reverse the whole situation. Well done, patriarchy!

However, as always, male supremacy under-estimates the fire in our bellies. The rage that we feel when we observe women’s caste systematically murdered, raped, abused, intimidated and harassed. All women. Everywhere. And, for their, and our, sakes, we can, and must, fight back.

And fight back, we will.


I can be found on twitter @rubyfruit2


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 258 other followers

%d bloggers like this: