It's Quite Literally Feminists' Responsibility To Care About Each Other's Husbands. The Role Of A "woman"

There is no way forward for either women or the planet itself without enacting female separatism and agroforestry on a mass scale. You don't have the eggs to kill every rapist, CEO, anti-abortion politician you see? That's fair. The fastest way to destroy capitalism/patriarchy is for women to walk away-- completely remove themselves in body and spirit. Without their servants/broodmares/receptacles, everything men have built crumbles-- and fast enough to save the planet besides. We walk away, protect ourselves (yes, with violence if need be), and let them burn.

Everything you eat and wear must be locally produced, scavenged, or fairly traded for-- this is the only sustainable path. We need all-female land stewards, all-female livestock keepers, all-female shipping networks, all-female builders, all-female soldiers. Girls must be brought up free of male toxicity, mediocrity, society. If you bear children, bear only daughters.

We do not have time for small gestures.

If the human body "requires" the death/destruction of another being's peace state, that particular body of humanity is in no way fit to continue existing. In the same way, if you require another being to physically reproduce yourself, that is a sign that you are not supposed to, hence why you are in genetic lockdown in the first place.. ie: The vagina attacks sperm because they are unwelcome guests hence why semen (which encases sperm) is forced to evolve even more diabolically to survive the terrain it treads because the male's role is to serve the ego (his own physical perpetuation at the expense of what's natural), while at the same time the female body is trying to unlock its own parthenogenic potential a la Ovarian Teratomas. But it fails because they have not been shown worthy genetically to proceed to the next round. You are not supposed to chest your way out (or in) when you want something to appear. The egoic way of life is going to die out in these coming millennia which is why the underclass is going to complain about veganism because it may seem to them that there's an "agenda against meat" when meat eating itself is an agenda against spirit and wholeness, and crosses every line of basic morality by virtue of being so damn close to the next step... cannibalism. I bet enough people will get on board if someone started preaching about protein quota contained in human flesh, but I digress. This is spiritual warfare and if you claim to be unable to survive without the destruction of others then you deserve not to survive.

I think there's another reason. Go on say it. You know what it is.

If you want to give someone a big lesson, love them unconditionally. You cannot do this if you do not love yourself. Unconditional love toward the other is properly expressed when you have an abundance of love energy inside of you. That energy is overflowing, the waters of your heart are full so you're able to pour into another lake. You cannot give that which you do not have. Practice unconditional love on yourself first and see how you'll naturally be inclined to spread this energy to others too.

"Human beings see oppression vividly when they're the victims. Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought."

Isaac Bashevis Singer

I’ve been seeing my mutuals (on my main) reblogging that “transwoman transition masterpost” over and over and it finally hit me what was bothering me about it, especially the passing socially tips section that summarized went somewhat like;

“Emulate your ciswomen friends, choose a friend you like the most, how they talk, act, walk, stand, how women they act in movies, choose what woman you want to be, elegant, sexy? Makeup is a must, shaving is a must, women talk with emotion, Look at how women act in their idle time etc”

It consisted of all of the stereotypes in the book, all of the concepts we as feminists have been fighting for years to stop associating with womanhood being once again being romanticized and normalized and promoted under feminism

And it just reeks of male gaze male gaze male gaze, it profits off it, validates it’s enforcement on us, tells males how to mimick us and continue to perpetuate so many actions we do subconsciously and compulsory because of our own female socialization and gender roles, our “mannerisms” and “habits” etc i get flashbacks from reading the Reddit tips on “how to pee like a woman where it’s advice was to listen in on ciswomen urinating in public bathrooms, and how it echoes the way some men fetishize women peeing.

Then they have the audacity to tell us it’s us that are demeaning ourselves by knowing it’s our body that makes us women and not these compulsions? It’s misogyny and sexism plain and simple, And it just makes me so much more hyper aware now that not only do we have the sexual male gaze from straight non dysphoric men to deal with but now the transwoman male gaze, looking for the best way to mimick our behaviors and enforce gender stereotypes in a way we are not allowed to question or be bothered by

Although misogyny necessarily plays its part into the whole JKR debacle, I think the 'vitriol' as you said is mostly caused by the fact that a large portion of the haters grew up with the Harry Potter books whilst they haven't, for example, ever seen a Polanski film in their life. And JKR in a way could be a sort of parental figure to them. You know, as ~problematic~ as Freud may be, he was onto something when he spoke of one's need to symbolically kill the father; and the same people who practically worshipped the HP novels growing up had already begun dismissing them as child's play when the Rowling vs. Transactivists affair started. To quote another writer here, the issue crystallised at that point.

@helshades

It's so funny that you're bringing that up because I had this exact conversation with my man around a week ago. As I said in the tags of the post that prompted those couple of rants of mine, he's currently reading them for the first time at the rip old age of 35. A result of him giving Philosopher Stone to his pupils this year (HP so bad, primary schools use them to get kids to read, apparently) and making a point of doing everything he asks of them and that include learning all the poetry by heart, and therefore reading all the books as well. After finishing PS, he asked for the rest since he was surprised at how much funnier it was than the movie.

Anyway, I don't exactly remember how we ended up talking about JKR and the discourse currently surrounding her, but he made the exact same point as you, he mentioned how interesting it was that Freud might actually have had some interesting ideas hidden in his work somewhere in there, and that some people do need to "kill the mother / father" in order to grow up and leave childhood behind. I pointed out to him that it was rather obvious and blatantly observable all around us, but that, as per usual, people took that point way too literally, imagining that it meant killing your actual mother/father and marrying the other one so to speak; when a father or mother figure doesnt even have to be someone close to you nor someone you know at all - just a person or even a concept that shaped you enough when you were younger, that you are now feeling the need to "rebel" against in order to mature.

Which really goes back full circle to the point I constantly make when it comes to HP and how people are unable to read (just because you can decipher doesn't mean you can read, I will stand by that, always), and how really, most discourses and analysis surrounding it are people fancying themselves smart by what they believe is "deconstructing" something they loved in childhood, when in reality it's 8 grade level analysis (if I'm generous) and honestly just look like they're going through their teenage phase of explaining to mum why she actually sucks.

Still though, I'll keep believing that if Joanne Rowling had been Jonathan Rowling, there wouldn't be quite the same level of vitriol directed at her and that her being a woman plays a role in how confortable and justified people feel in robbing her of her achievement and devaluing her work.

i know that women are physically "inferior" to men according to male standards of physicality only, but i wish we would stop tripping over ourselves to prove that we are better than men in a lot of way. like i think it's important that we learn to appreciate our body's capabilities, but even if we were weaker than men in all ways who gives a shit? that's not an excuse to treat us like they do. lol a man irl wants to tell me he's stronger than i am, cool bro, im way fucking smarter than you tho.

a fucking horse could kill you with a single kick, what of it? a bull could crush you. a bear could maul you. you could die from a bug bite. a little infected cut. why does you being "stronger" than i am mean you are allowed to subjugate me?

My radical feminist starter pack

To Read:

Suggestions from the inbox:

MEGA PDF

More books here, here, here, and here

de Beauvoir: The Second Sex (1949) 

Brøgger: Deliver Us From Love (1973)

Burstow: Radical Feminist Therapy (1992) PDF

Collins: Black Feminist Thought (1990)

Criado-Perez: Invisible Women (2019)

Daly: Gyn/Ecology (1978)

Daly: Beyond God the Father (1973)

Dines: Pornland (2010)

Dworkin: Intercourse (1987)

Dworkin: Last Days at Hot Slit (2019)

Ekis Ekman: Being and Being Bought (2013)

Firestone: The Dialectic of Sex (1970)

Friedan: The Feminine Mystique (1963)

hooks: ain’t i a woman (1981)

hooks: Feminist Theory (1984)

Jeffreys: Beauty and Misogyny (2005) PDF

Jeffreys: The Industrial Vagina (2000)

Lorde: Sister Outsider (1984)

MacKinnon: Are Women Human? (2006)

MacKinnon: Butterfly Politics (2017)

Miles: Who Cooked the Last Supper? (1988/2001)

Millett: Sexual Politics (1970)

Moraga: This Bridge Called My Back (1983)

Rich: Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence (1980)

Russ: How to Suppress Women’s Writing (1983) PDF

Saini: Inferior (2017)

Wolf: The Beauty Myth (1990)

Wollstonecraft: A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792)

Please feel free to message me if you have anything to add! 

Completed:

Dworkin: Pornography: Men Possessing Women (1981)  

Dworkin: Right Wing Women (1983)

Solanas: SCUM Manifesto (1967) PDF

I found this document called "The Asexual Manifesto" and thought it was interesting in how it addressed asexuality amongst women in some 1970s feminist groups:

The Asexual Manifesto (1972) was recently found by Caoimhe Harlock on Twitter.  It is available as a pdf.  I have transcribed it below for better accessibility.  The format mimics the original, except for the placement of the footnote on the first page. The Asexual Manifesto was also excerpted in Shere Hite’s book, Sexual Honesty (1974); I have separately transcribed the excerpt and noted what was left out.  Feel free to use this in any way.

--Siggy, 6/22/2019

I wrote an article explaining some of the context of the Manifesto. --Siggy, 8/9/2019

The Asexual Manifesto

Lisa Orlando, Asexual Caucus, NYRF *

* In September 1972, the Co-ordinating Council of New York Radical Feminists formed caucuses based on similarity of sexual orientation.  Each caucus was to explore its members' personal and political attitudes about their sexuality and communicate these views to the larger group.  Barbie Hunter Getz and I realized that we would not feel comfortable in any of the proposed caucuses (heterosexual, Lesbian, bisexual) and formed our own.  Out of this caucus came a paper of which the “Asexual Manifesto” is a revision.  That the paper’s plural form has been retained does not imply that all the views expressed in this final version necessarily reflect the views of both the original co-authors.

I. Origin and Definition.

Our experiences with sexuality have not been congruent with our feminist values.  As our consciousness became raised on this issue we began to see how sex had permeated our lives and the lives of others.  We categorized our relationships in terms of sex ----- either friends or lovers.  We engaged in a "sizing up" process, however subtle or subconscious, with each new person, accepting or rejecting her/him as a possible sexual partner even if we never intended to become sexually involved.  We arbitrarily rejected whole groups of people as unsuitable for intimate relationships because we assumed that such relationships, by definition, necessarily included sex.  Often we chose to spend time with people simply on the basis of their sexual availability (the “bar scene”).  As we became aware of this in ourselves, we became painfully aware of how we were being objectified by others.

Asexuality is an outgrowth of this consciousness.  It is a concept we have come to employ out of the wish to communicate ----- not merely through being but also through language ----- our struggle to rid ourselves of sexism in our personal lives.

In this paper we have used the terms “sex” and “sexual” to describe any activity one goal of which is genital excitation or orgasm.  Physical affection and sensuality (including kissing) are not, by this definition, sexual unless they are directed towards the goal of genital excitation.

We chose the term “asexual” to describe ourselves because both “celibate” and “anti-sexual” have connotations we wished to avoid: the first implies that one has sacrificed sexuality for some higher good, the second that sexuality is degrading or somehow inherently bad.  “Asexual”, as we use it, does not mean “without sex” but “relating sexually to no one”.  This does not, of course, exclude masturbation but implies that if one has sexual feelings they do not require another person for their expression.  Asexuality is, simply, self-contained sexuality.

II. Philosophy

Our philosophy of asexuality grew out of our personal ethics, which have been reshaped by our feminist consciousness.  To us, as to many other women, feminism means more than the fight against sexism.  It means "sisterhood" ----- a new way of relating, perhaps a new way of life.  Feminist morality, at this stage in history, can only be defined as antithetical to the oppressive values of our society (e.g., competition, objectification).  On a personal level, it is reflected in our beliefs that: we should attempt to relate to others in their totality as much as possible and not view them as objects existing for the gratification of our needs; we must not exploit others ----- that is, use them “unjustly or improperly” ----- nor allow ourselves to be exploited; we must not be dishonest with ourselves or those we respect.  In addition, we believe that we each have the responsibility for examining our behavior, determining how it has been affected by sexist conditioning, and changing it if it does not meet our standards.

As feminists we had decried the sexual exploitation of women by men without seeing that we too had used others “unjustly and improperly”.  Interpersonal sex is not an instinctive behavior pattern; it is behavior we have learned to use for the satisfaction of a need (for orgasm) which we can easily satisfy for ourselves.  We came to see this use of others as exploitative and realized that in allowing others to use us in this way we were acquiesing in our own exploitation.

In our attempt to be honest with ourselves, we tried to determine what our real needs are.  We saw that we have needs for affection, warmth, skin contact, which we had been taught to satisfy through interpersonal sex.  As we began to satisfy these needs in our "friendships," our need for and interest in sex diminished.  We also realized that we had a need for intimacy, a state we had always seen as "completed" by sex.  In retrospect, we realized that we, and others, had used sex as a means of self-deception, as a way of avoiding real closeness rather than achieving it.

We had struggled against our conditioning in many ways, especially in terms of roles, but we had avoided examining the basic conditioning which had shaped our sexuality.  It is difficult even to speculate on the nature of "ideal sexuality" (uninfluenced by sexism) but we are certain that it would not occupy as much of our lives as it does in this society.  We live in a culture of "fetish-worshippers" who regard sex with an extreme and irrational amount of attention.  Just as many of us were conditioned to direct our energy into the preparation of lavish meals, creating a fetish out of a simple need to avoid confrontation with the emptiness of our lives as women, so we were conditioned to seek sexual satisfaction in convoluted and circuitous ways.  Since our involvement with feminism, our lives have been increasingly meaningful and we no longer feel the need for fetishes.

In examining our experiences relative to our values, we have come to asexuality as a stand and a state of being concurrently.  Interpersonal sex is no longer important to us, no longer worth the distorted and often destructive role it has played in relationships.  It no longer defines our relationships or in any way constitutes our identities.  As asexual women, we do not (1) seek, initiate, or continue relationships in order to experience interpersonal sex, (2)use others for the satisfaction of our sexual needs or allow ourselves to be so used, (3) attempt to satisfy other needs (e.g. for affection, warmth, intimacy) through interpersonal sex, or (4) perceive others according to their potential, or lack of it, as sex partners.  In essence then, our asexuality reflects a rejection of interpersonal sex as long as it cannot meet our conditions: that it be both congruent with our values and totally incidental and unimportant to our relationship.

III Politics

Basic to the liberation of women is the destruction of sexism, one manifestation of which is the sexual exploitation of women by men.  Asexuality is a step towards achieving this goal at the personal level, as it eliminates one means by which men oppress us.  Through our asexuality, we have excluded sex as a goal and, essentially, even as a possibility in any relationships we may happen to have with men.

Because of the patriarchal culture which has resulted from institutionalized sexism, the exploitative behavior, standard in such a culture, has made it extremely difficult for women to realize their own independent, more humane style of relating.  Most women consequently reflect, in their relationships with each other, some of the exploitative behavior patterns characteristic of our male oppressors.  One area where the oppression of women by women may occur is, again, the sexual; this oppression too must end before we can be truly free. Through asexuality, we have rejected sex as a goal in our relationships with women, thus avoiding the sexual objectification, exploitation, and oppression of our sisters.  Here too, we reject any possibility of sex unless our conditions are met, and we thereby prevent ourselves from being sexually exploited and oppressed.

To destroy a particular culture’s basic myths is to undermine its very foundations.  Patriarchal culture, based as it is on sex differentiation, has constructed some of its strongest myths around sexuality.  We believe it is of prime importance that feminism direct itself to the exposure and destruction of the current patriarchal mythology which, through deception, reinforces our oppression.  Those myths most responsible for the distorted role sex plays in women's lives are:

Interpersonal sex is essential since the sex drive is a powerful force in human life and, if unsatisfied (through interpersonal sex), tends to produce unhappiness or possibly illness,

It is important that any sexual excitation always and/or immediately be satisfied,

Sex is essential for closeness in a relationship, no relationship being complete without it,

The ultimate closeness in a relationship occurs during sex and/or orgasm,

The needs for physical affection and sex are basically the same,

It is almost impossible satisfactorily to express affection physically without sexual excitation also occurring,

Women who have little interest in interpersonal sex, or who rarely if ever reach orgasm, are somehow inadequate.

While all these myths may not be credible to all women, some women believe some of them some of the time.

Finally, we see a conflict between, on the one hand, the time and energy necessary to our struggle as feminists, and, on the other hand, the time and energy necessary to develop and maintain relationships in which sex is a goal.  If we would use our energy efficiently, a choice seems indicated: to struggle against sexism or to struggle for satisfactory sex.  Although it may be said that to turn one’s back on a problem is not to solve it, we think the truth of this statement is relative to the importance one places on the problem.  If we saw interpersonal sex as important, asexuality would be a cop-out; since we do not, it is instead a means of withdrawing our energy from an area in which we feel it is being wasted.  

We see asexuality as an efficient "alternative life-style" for revolutionary women but we do not claim that “asexuality is revolution.”  We call ourselves “self-identified women” but we do not demand that all feminists adopt this title.  Our statement is simply this: as a result of examining the nature of our sexuality and reclaiming it from the sexist misconceptions surrounding it, we are able to form and maintain relationships in a way which both reflects our values and is effective in our liberation struggle.  For us, asexuality is a committment to defy and ultimately to destroy the baseless concepts, surrounding both sex and relationships, which support and perpetuate the patriarchy.