Reclaiming the feminist legacy: language and defiance

If being a feminist means recognizing that women and girls face unique challenges because we’re female and men as a class exert power over us, why do some women, especially some who campaign for women’s rights, reject the label?

One reason proferred is that the words ‘feminism’ and ‘feminist’ supposedly don’t mean anything anymore because the movement has been astroturfed and is dominated by women who are male-centred. These are the “sex positive” cool girls who go on slut walks and denounce you as a SWERF if you criticize the sex trade’s disproportionate impact on women and girls. They say that talking about this creates the stigma around “sex work,” which then inspires men who purchase sex to assault and kill women. The fact that men who target desperate and underprivileged women to purchase their consent are violent misogynists driven by their hatred of women is not only ignored but unspeakable. These same so-called feminists are also happy to allow male sex offenders into women’s prisons and for men to steal medals from female athletes, represent women in politics, and erase women as the female sex class in law and language. Obviously, they’re the opposite of feminist.

The problem with this stated reason for not identifying as feminist, however, is it’s rife with contradiction. The word ‘woman’ arguably doesn’t mean anything anymore either because trans activists have succeeded in bullying a huge tranche of the population into saying “trans women are women” and defining ‘woman’ as anyone who identifies as one. Should we then abandon the word ‘woman’ because it’s been pretty much mangled beyond recognition, most recently by the Cambridge Dictionary? Of course not. It’s nonsensical for women who oppose male appropriation of womanhood to reclaim the meaning of ‘woman’ but not the meaning of ‘feminist.’

For this reason, I’m suspicious that the real motivation might be a desire to remain in feminist spaces while protecting one’s likeability. Particularly if one has broadened one’s content to non-feminist audiences and makes a living off podcasting and writing. Why else would someone who founded a feminist platform and has published so much clear, uncompromising feminist writing suddenly become sympathetic to the ridiculous claim that incels are misunderstood victims? Women who date men have to make many uncomfortable choices, often between their feminism and their relationships with or appeal to men. They should nevertheless be honest about their motivations.

Another explanation a women’s rights campaigner has given for not identifying as a feminist is she believes some feminists really are man-haters and have gone too far. Standard MRA rhetoric of the “feminism is cancer” variety. Ironically, this person also acknowledges that some women sell other women out. I’ve heard one podcaster, a lesbian who vehemently opposes gender identity, say the word patriarchy is overused. How can it be that naming a system that degrades, brutalizes, and murders girls and women is considered excessive, rather than the system itself? Should we resort to sanitized language to describe our oppression, the same way liberation has been replaced by equality? Notably, the individuals who say these sorts of things frequently criticize liberal feminism, usually on the basis that it’s fake feminism, which is exactly what they’re engaging in when they eschew class analysis and refuse to name the problem. And anyway, why be offended by fake feminists when you don’t want to be a feminist yourself?

We use certain words constantly in feminist circles because the whole point is to talk about feminist concepts. If you get tired hearing about it, do the decent thing and bow out graciously and leave women to do the work. Don’t go whining to men and any woman who will tolerate it that women won’t shut up about our oppression. Outside of those spaces, people aren’t talking about patriarchy enough. Just because men bristle at the mention of male violence, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about it.

Some arguments between feminists and not-really-feminists turn on the way in which mothers shield their boys from scrutiny. No mother wants to believe her son hates her and other females on some level. She’s inclined to believe she’s done a good job and may have even tried to avoid pushing masculinity on her son(s). But I suspect a mother who doesn’t want to call herself a feminist and parrots MRA talking points isn’t well prepared to raise a boy/man who supports the feminist struggle and treats women and girls with respect. If boys themselves weren’t a threat, many of us girls wouldn’t have experienced all manner of violence, including sexual violence, at the hands of boys. And yet we have.

There’s also the claim that feminism is the province of middle class educated women: “I’m working class and we don’t do academic feminism (paraphrasing).” A lot of radical feminists are working class and have never taken a women’s or gender studies course. I certainly haven’t and I certainly don’t come from a middle class family. Those of us who don’t fit this characterization are able to understand that naming the class of people who oppress us is critical to our liberation from them even if we believe the oppressive behaviour is learned and not biological. It doesn’t require a degree.

And what’s up with this business of identifying as a feminist, anyway? What does that even mean? Given the nonsense around identifying as a woman, or black, or disabled, we should be clear that some things are objective; words have meaning. Mere utterance doesn’t make something true, e.g. a man who says he’s a woman or non-binary is a man no matter what he says. If you satisfy the definition of feminist (what it actually means, not the bullshit version patriarchy has cooked up), then aren’t you a feminist?

You may not want to stain yourself with the title but you are what you are. You may resist in order to avoid some measure of punishment, just as some women and girls try to identify out of femaleness. The logical parallel should be evident to anyone who rejects gender identity. So if some women don’t want to call themselves feminists for whatever reason, they’re probably more male-centred than they’d like to admit. One might argue that what really matters is the work they do – tireless, brilliant, amazing work which benefits all women. That’s fair. We should give credit where credit is due.

But women aren’t fragile creatures immune to critique. Our predecessors defiantly marched behind the feminist banner. Our rights are once again under attack: our bodies, our spaces, our language. Now is the time to proudly reclaim the legacy of feminism. We don’t need another word to describe who we are. We already have one. It was taken from us. Whichever new one you try to use, they’ll try to take it from you too. Feminism, female, woman, vagina, mother, breastfeeding, menstruation, intersectionality, homosexuality, oppression, biological sex, patriarchy…

I say we stand our ground and say, “No, fuck off, you can’t have it, it’s ours.”

How gender critical are you?

The phrase ‘gender critical’ has become commonplace in discussions around gender identity. In many ways, however, it mimics gender ideology’s propensity for confusing language and contradiction.

A quick primer if you haven’t read my blog or radical feminist work: humans are a sexually dimorphic species consisting of females and males, the two sex classes. ‘Intersex’ is a misnomer as people referred to as such are technically female or male but have sex organs that haven’t developed properly; they’re not a third sex. Sex is about reproduction, which requires a female and a male. Like other species, we’re wired to instantly recognize sex because our continued survival as a species depends on it. There are physiological differences between the sexes which are designed to facilitate reproduction, but they don’t extend to cognition, personality, aptitudes, hobbies, etc. There’s no female or male brain. There are many boys who take after their mothers and girls who take after their fathers. It’s not as though those genetic traits that females inherit from their male ancestors are rendered inactive. The truth is personality is highly individualized, shaped by genetics, environment, and one’s choices.

Gender, on the other hand, is the social hierarchy that shunts females and males into two separate, opposing, and unequal social classes. Females are trained into femininity and males are trained into masculinity. It starts before birth with ridiculous “gender reveal” parties and continues from there nonstop. The first thing people ask when they see an infant is, “Is it a boy or girl? Adults speak differently to babies once they know their sex. Masculinity encourages males to engage in the sort of behaviour that affords them power and dominance, while femininity encourages females to be self-sacrificing, self-limiting, and obsessed with being attractive and available to males.

Yet how many women who refer to themselves as feminists still perform femininity? Feminists used to recognize that beauty practices rob women of our hard-earned money, time, and focus, and are physically damaging. How many years of the average woman’s life are aggregately spent on hair removal, makeup application, hair styling, fashion and clothing, and other rituals? How many self-described feminists or supposedly gender-critical women take their husband’s last name as though they’re still a man’s property? Germaine Greer is correct that “Women have very little idea of how much men hate them,” but perhaps even less of an idea of how much women have learned to hate themselves.

There’s a glaring contradiction in being a woman who says girls should be able to be and do whatever they want while performing femininity.

I argue that women have a responsibility to live this message. To show girls that not being feminine isn’t just an option, but a necessary step to liberating themselves from patriarchy. This isn’t a choice men will support, including men who claim to be gender critical. It’s not even a choice many women will encourage other women to make. Because women who perform femininity do so knowing they’ll be judged, mocked, and far less able to attract or keep men as romantic partners if they don’t. This is where liberal feminism creeps in: women feel they’re being attacked personally and claim they just happen to like femininity, that these considerations are superficial and simply a matter of individual choice. But if you’re straight or bi and have hairy legs, don’t wear makeup, and dress solely for comfort as most men do, your dating options pretty shrink drastically.

Radical feminists don’t play these games. They’re not merely critical of gender. They want to abolish it. This means that as much as masculinity is inherently toxic, so is femininity. One can’t exist without the other. There’s no reforming gender roles. Femininity isn’t just harmful when men dress up in lingerie, become submissive or masochistic “sissies,” or perform their fetish in public and in female spaces. Sure, it’s atrocious that gender identity is enabling more and more men to deny their privilege and openly eroticize women’s oppression. But they’ll continue to do this as long as there’s a gender role attached to women to perform, because it’s the act of occupying this inferior sex role that excites them.

Canadian pop music artist Shania Twain has spoken about how sexual abuse by her stepfather made her hide and hate her female body. Every girl experiences female objectification and misogynist discrimination and abuse, and now with the gender identity cult offering them a way to dissociate from girlhood and womanhood and/or alter their body to make it unrecognizable as female, they’re doing exactly what you’d expect girls to do in a world that hates them.

Female celebrities are the most obvious example. Their brand follows the liberal feminist you-go-girl template of self-objectification and overt sexualization. They’re steered in that direction by everyone around them and thought we’re told they’re happy and powerful, they, like all women, know exactly what’s expected of them from years of being groomed by society at large. The path of least resistance is to create a narrative “owning” one’s oppression. The resulting contradictions are exemplified by Twain’s rationalization of how following a personal tragedy at the age of 22 she “began to embrace her identity as a woman”:

“All of a sudden it was like, ‘Well, what’s your problem? You know, you’re a woman and you have this beautiful body.’ What was so natural for other people was so scary for me. I felt exploited, but I didn’t have a choice now. I had to play the glamorous singer, had to wear my femininity more openly or more freely. And work out how I’m not gonna get groped, or raped by someone’s eyes, you know, and feel so degraded.”

Doesn’t make much sense, does it? Twain understands womanhood as an identity because defining womanhood as embodiment means that women are nothing more or less than an adult human female, and that’s just not good enough. It’s not just liberal feminists who perpetuate this message. Though not so overtly, many women who consider themselves gender critical may criticize gender rhetorically, but they don’t quite follow through on that conviction. It’s no coincidence that the women who are most visible in this space are quite feminine-presenting. As the brilliant radical feminist Sheila Jeffreys clearly and concisely explains in the video below, we can’t effectively challenge gender identity or transgenderism while holding onto femininity.

How to be a liberal feminist

Tip #1: Rationalize

Adopt political positions that condone misogyny. Never come between a man and his sense of entitlement to sex on demand, especially his “right” to exploit vulnerable women to achieve gratification through the use of violent, degrading, pedophilic imagery. Be sure to remind men that you’re here for them and understand that they can’t help themselves. They’re wired to be visual, sexual predators who inevitably reduce women to objects. It’s in their nature. Do you really want them to go around raping virtuous women instead? Since the only form of female sexuality that’s visible or acceptable is one that validates masculinity and femininity, use this to your advantage. You can preach female sexual empowerment without infringing on boner rights. Win-win!

Tip #2: Look the other way

When a male member of the community says or does something sexist, be careful not to make any bold statements. Remember that these men were gracious enough to tolerate your polite feminism and can cut you off without a second thought. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. You can talk about all the shitty things men do, just don’t link that behaviour to actual men you know.

Tip #3: Scapegoat

When the actions of your misogynist male comrades come to light, it’s damage control time! Deflect attention away from the fact that you stood by and gave their behaviour a pass. Remember those women you all bashed together when they dared to call out the misogyny? This isn’t the time to wonder whether they might have actually been onto something. Why change your priorities now? Don’t admit they were right, whatever you do – these women are gross. When they point out that your comrade’s misogyny has finally caught up with him – no thanks to you – don’t worry, you can easily manipulate the situation to your advantage. Just say they’re gloating and lob whatever accusations come to mind at them. Nobody likes those bitches anyway. Slowly and carefully distance yourself from the perpetrator.

Tip #4: Build solidarity with other enablers

The last thing you want is for your complicity to be exposed – that could damage your reputation. Try to limit the scope of discourse by calling for healing and empathy (you’re a woman so you’re super good at that). Be as vague as possible about who deserves that empathy. You might want to save a bit of it for the perp. You’re friends, remember? The community will be reeling from these revelations. Many people will be disappointed and disillusioned. Exploit this. Express compassion for them, talk about solidarity, throw in a lot of progressive buzzwords to show how cool you are, but don’t hold them accountable for staying mum while the misogynist did his thing. You all feel really bad right now. Really, really bad. Tell each other that you and you alone care about the survivor(s). Or, at least you care now. This is a perfect opportunity to double down on the nepotism in your movement and reinforce that the people who saw this coming won’t be allowed in. Like-minded people will flock to you and you’ll all be just fine.

What Hillary Clinton means for feminism

Feminist Current has published a fantastic article by Marie Crosswell entitled Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of liberalism, not feminism. I urge you to read it. Everything from the title to the well-argued points are exactly what feminism needs right now. I wanted to add a few points of my own to bolster the great case that Crosswell has made and to put another much-needed article of dissent out there. Nothing I’m saying is original. This started out as a comment posted on the site in response to liberals but I decided it needed its own space.

 

“Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me. But they all seem to. It doesn’t matter what country they’re in or what religion they claim. They want to control women.” – Hillary Clinton [source]

Scott Eisen/Getty Images

It’s the job of feminists to critique and analyze every supposed representative of our movement. Women haven’t died and made incalculable sacrifices so that modern feminists could make excuses and settle for half-assed solutions to the domination of our species by males. We need to carry these women’s work on our shoulders and prove that it wasn’t all in vain. Feminists are having to learn this lesson over and over and over again because the movement coddles people who can’t think beyond their knee-jerk denial.

The question simmering beneath the debate is simply this: Who are you here to defend; one woman or all women?

Patriarchy runs down to the core of this rotten society. It requires a radical solution. At what point do we realize we’re decorating a tree that needs to be taken down? We know the system has many tentacles that women often only have the time or energy to focus on individually. Hillary Clinton is not one of those people. She’s white, rich, and powerful. She’s smart. She could be a formidable force but she has chosen to mold her politics to a template that does not work, and I doubt very much that she doesn’t know that. She could have decided to extricate herself from a party that recently decided, extending the DOJ well beyond its legal mandate, that sex-based protections under Title IX mean nothing because some men have confused the stereotype of femininity with the material reality of womanhood itself. Whoever can’t see how damaging this is – that it is the erasure of females as a distinct class of people whose needs should be protected – needs to call whatever it is they’re doing something other than feminism.

The question of just how feminist Hillary Clinton is has been articulately laid out by many feminists, but some people don’t think they need to internalize that info because Clinton supports abortion. How many feminist-identified politicians are against it? When you’re done counting to zero, ask yourself whether you want to keep running on this hamster wheel. Liberals are never willing to face the ugly truth and stand up for real change – and that’s dangerous.

You might have good reasons for voting for Clinton and we can certainly appreciate the good things she’s said and done. I for one will be celebrating when (I hope) she kicks Trump’s ass and outshines her own philandering husband. But none of these things make her worthy of being the face of feminism. Can we finally admit Clinton’s limitations and instead set our focus on doing the work that we know only we are willing to do?

The world has seen a number of female leaders. Thatcher broke that glass ceiling a long time ago in the U.K. How much of a difference did that make for women? She wasn’t a feminist by any means, so it’s not an apt comparison on that level. But she was a neoliberal – a capitalist individualist – whose policies weren’t so different from those endorsed by Clinton all these years. A leader’s support for women shows not only in the comments they make explicitly about women but also in their policy, particularly as it concerns education and the economy, since these areas are key drivers of sex-based inequality under the current system. Being the most exposed and least valued, women are the first to suffer, forced into work that even the poorest men can avoid, along with the risk of unwanted pregnancy and their role (voluntary or not) as the primary carers of children and other family members.

Stopping at reproductive rights leaves a huge gap that fails to address the cause of sexual violence (masculinity) or the ways in which women who are further marginalized because of their ethnic backgrounds, disability, civic status, etc. are coerced into making impossible ‘choices’. As quoted above, she’s said that she doesn’t even understand why all of this is happening. I too want to believe her heart is in the right place but the depth of her ignorance is disappointing and her contradictions form a clear pattern.

An impressive list of countries including India, Guyana, Mali, Sri Lanka, Nicaragua, Argentina, Indonesia, Liberia, Philippines, Malawi, and Brazil have elected female heads of state. I think it’s important to ask how the lives of women and girls have changed as a result. For instance, what has Angela Merkel in Germany done for female victims of violence, not only at the hands of immigrant gangs but also at the hands of white German men who prey on poor women who are often trafficked from economically depressed regions, in mega brothels? One of the fascinating bits of history revealed in the Ascent of Woman BBC series is that women have taken power many times throughout human history, some of whom used that power to help their sisters while others didn’t or couldn’t. Worse yet, neither Canada nor the U.S. have managed to elect a woman as prime minister or president. So I absolutely want to see that happen.

Ultimately, it’s a trademark liberal strategy to fool the optimistic ranks into believing that a token woman in a powerful position is a sign of fundamental change. Does it make anything more than a little dent in patriarchy? It sure does enrage MRAs to think of a woman representing a state that they believe should be protecting their own privileges. And it gives many women and girls hope. Leaving aside the question of the degree to which a U.S. president is a true leader rather than a figurehead, having a woman in that role means something. The problem is that the liberal elite are very good at exploiting this something, blowing it out of proportion, and hoping that women will be content with it because they didn’t get stuck with an openly fascist president whose hatred of women is part of his appeal.

Women can’t afford to fall for the spectacle. The good news is that feminism is not one woman, and it remains up to all of us, as it always has, to overcome male power.

When Workaholics exposes the contradictions of pop feminism, you know something’s gone horribly wrong

Workaholics is not the sort of thing I watch when I want to put my thinking cap on. It’s also one of the last TV shows I’d expect to dutifully analyze gender dynamics or present a feminist perspective, so you can imagine my surprise when the show inadvertently made a very interesting point about pornography and agency.

Every good sitcom needs an ethically compromised character to drive the plot to places where it would otherwise never go. This would be Adam DeMamp. Adam is a sex-crazed narcissist with sociopathic tendencies. While he’s perfectly happy being reduced to his vices, however, he manages to be incredibly astute in his attempts to feed them.

WARNING: contains spoilers! One of the storylines in ‘Dorm Daze’ (S5 E1 – you can view the full ep here) involves Adam’s obsession with an amateur porn webseries. He’s thrilled to discover that the college where he’s been assigned to recruit workers is in fact the same one where the movies were filmed. As he desperately searches for the dorm where these greasy escapades take place he stumbles into a gender studies class and is grilled by what we can only assume are supposed to be “feminazis”. He’s placed in front of the class and asked to describe what he likes about porn (in part, “all the gagging”). But at the same time the professor is explaining to him how women are exploited and plied in various ways, we’re shown exactly this happening to his socially awkward friend Blake, who has been lured onto the porn set under false pretenses. Adam eventually snaps and agrees that the objectification of women in porn is bad (moms shouldn’t go home after doing porn and make ham sammiches for their kids) and they all set off to liberate the female porn actors.

Of course, instead of finding a vulnerable woman he finds his friend freaking out because he can’t bring himself to perform. When Adam turns to the actress and tells her she’s been brainwashed, she informs him that she’s actually a producer and part owner. Adam asks her if it’s really true that some girls enjoy doing porn and matter-of-factly, she says, “Yeah!”.

And then, with a strained look on her face, the feminist prof chimes in: “That’s right, Adam. No man has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Even if she’s being sexually exploited.”

“I knew you were an idiot!” Adam exclaims. If you’re familiar with Workaholics, you knew this was coming.

This is the impossible position that women are in today thanks to pop feminism. Certainly, there’s a valid point to be made that men, who possess male privilege, should be very careful not to be paternalistic. That doesn’t mean men shouldn’t step in and call out sexism. They might get pushback for it but taking one for the team is what it means to be an ally. One example that comes to mind is when Benedict Cumberbatch said he didn’t like the term ‘Cumberbitches’:

I just went: ‘Ladies, this is wonderful. I’m very flattered, but has this not set feminism back a little bit? Empower yourselves if you’re going to get silly about a guy with maybe a little bit more of a sort of, you know, a high-regard, self-regarding name!’

Imagine this! A man knowing better than women what sexism is and actually having to explain to them why they should stop doing it. This is alarming. If we’re at all interested in ending patriarchy, how does it make sense for any of us, male or female, to let these things slide? How can we possibly expect males to take the idea that they’re responsible for ending sexism seriously if they’re being actively discouraged from doing so?

We’ve gotten to a point where it’s assumed that women are incapable of perpetuating sexism. Feminists are frequently admonished for critiquing such behaviour because according to liberal feminism, we’re all just individuals and anything we do that we’re not blatantly forced to do is necessarily empowering and off limits to comment. In trying to protect the concept of agency at all costs, many people who consider themselves to be feminists often end up obscuring the harm that internalized misogyny causes to women individually and collectively. Being silent isn’t an option when women argue that men are the new second class citizens and try to hijack discussions of #EverydaySexism.

#everydaysexism is men being automatically arrested in cases of domestic violence and abuse, even when they’re the victim.

— Chloe Price (@Dekashoko) April 16, 2015

Come on guys….#Everydaysexism is just for equality!* *only the good parts of it. pic.twitter.com/1BuCX6Kjxs

— The Gingerarchy (@asredasmyhair) April 16, 2015

Not sure why it became a bad thing for women to act like women and men to act like men? We are different and that’s good. #EverydaySexism

— KillerBunnyFooFoo™ (@PolitiBunny) April 16, 2015

Most feminists feel comfortable calling this sort of thing out because it’s typical conservative tripe but conservative females aren’t the only ones making mistakes. I know I’ve made my share only to look back and think, What the hell was I thinking? The primary focus should be on male behaviour because it’s male privilege that creates gender inequality. The problem we have now, however, is that women are frequently admonished – usually by other women – for suggesting that men not sexualize and objectify women because apparently this is an affront to female agency. I’ve been part of many conversations about common depictions of women in porn and how it shapes attitudes about gender, sex, and power. Without fail, there are always women who skip over this analysis and go straight to defending women’s right to perform for men. Questioning this approach will invariably get you labelled as a jealous prude who wants to police women’s sexuality even though most heterosexual porn is produced for the male gaze. More importantly, males are exposed from a young age to a version of sexuality that is violent and devoid of any sense of human connection. Although females might legitimately enjoy nudity and depictions of sex, we’re also groomed to think that it’s all a natural, realistic expression of sexuality and we’re pressured to conform to what males have come to expect from us.

Why is it that when the word ‘radical’ appears in other anti-oppression scenarios it’s cool, but it’s bad when it’s articulated through a feminist lens? Colonialism endures in part because it teaches oppressed people to self-sabotage. The bottom line is this: when chauvinists are happy with your feminism because it allows them to rationalize their behaviour, your feminism isn’t feminism.

We know that people who have been affected by the addictions of others usually need to undergo treatment themselves in order to break the cycle of codependency. The analogy applies here. Yes, men need to smarten up, but that won’t happen if we keep enabling them.

Many things are so normalized in our imagination that we’ve never had the chance to look at them objectively and ask what they really mean. Until we have an honest conversation about pornography not just as a social phenomenon but as an industry designed to generate profit and fuel exponential demand, we won’t fully understand the impact it has on our society. Gail Dines has been researching this topic for decades and makes some very solid points in this talk. Check it out:

If you’re a fan of Noam Chomsky, you might also be interested to hear what he has to say about pornography here: