On Male Entitlement to Women or “Whose Fault is Patriarchy?”

Men as a class believe that they deserve access to women.

When women reject men, they get angry. They think are being denied some*thing* that they believe they are owed.

Given this context, I’d like to evaluate something I’ve heard said, which is:

If women withdrew their energy from men, the patriarchy would collapse.

I don’t believe this to be true, and I’d like to evaluate it in the context of male entitlement to women.

To begin with, the statement presumes that women are free to choose to leave men.

Are they?

In many cases, there are economic considerations to think of when freeing women from men. Many women are currently financially unable, due to children, or disability, or life circumstances, to leave the men in their lives.

Furthermore, women are conditioned to reject one another in favor of male attention, and to pursue male attention as a primary life goal. Those very few women who find themselves able to become female-centric are rare, because the conditioning we receive to hate other women is so pervasive and insidious (see The Exceptional Woman ). At least in my case, I am not the perfect radical feminist, and am not always certain that I place women first in my life in every circumstance, though I *try* to. Undoing this conditioning and pursuing sisterhood can be a lifelong process.

Additionally, compulsory heterosexuality coupled with Societal Stockholm Syndrome make it very difficult for women who are in love (or “in love”) with men in their lives to leave them.

(And of course, perhaps there are a very small number of truly pro-feminist unicorns men who do not stomp on women’s liberation, but I am not getting into exceptionalism here.)

Now none of this means that all women are unable to withdraw their energy from all men. It simply illustrates the various difficulties women might encounter when attempting to do so.

But even if women are able to withdraw their energy from men, that will not change men’s behavior, or their sense of entitlement to women.

If there are not enough women willing to give men energy, men will take women’s energy for themselves.*

We see this in porn and prostitution already. In the ForeverAlone subreddit, for example, a man who has been “unsuccessful” at wooing women to be his f’khole and maid thinks it is funny to suggest that he should just buy a wife, aka trafficked woman. He feels he deserves a woman so much that if she won’t consent on her own, he’ll simply purchase that consent for himself. Either way, he’s getting his.

This happens all the time, and everywhere. Men laugh about their entitlement to women.

We can easily see this entitlement illustrated by a New York Times story that came out yesterday.

In the article, we read that Williston, North Dakota is a recently booming oil town where there are at least 1.6 men for every woman.

Men do not like this ratio, because it means there are not enough f’hole maids women for their liking. They feel entitled to a certain type of object (that is, women), so they get very angry when they don’t get the toy they want to play with and take care of them.

Notice how resident Jon Kenworthy discusses the lack-of-women situation in Williston. His response illustrates his entitlement to women, and describes them as if they are dehumanized objects to be “imported”.

“It’s bad, dude,” said Jon Kenworthy, 22, who moved to Williston from Indiana in early December. “I was talking to my buddy here. I told him I was going to import from Indiana because there’s nothing here.”

What do men do when their entitlement to women is not met?

Men in Williston harass women in the grocery store and at the bars. They frequent prostituted women, and strip clubs. They attempt to carry women off in the middle of the afternoon. Men in Williston take their entitlement to women, and force themselves upon them. Either way, they’re getting theirs.

This is why women in Williston are afraid to leave their homes.

If women as a group withdraw our energy from men, then men will forcibly take us. Boundaries they find inconvenient will be violated by force.

We are, in a very real sense, their hostages.

This is why slutwalk marches don’t work. As I said in another blog post,

“By publicly dressing up in panties and duct tape, these women seem to me to be placating the men, saying, “I’ll consent, so you don’t need to rape me! See, sex is on the table, so no need to go forcing anyone.”

How disgusting that we live in a world where a popular protest against male sexual violence “works” by placating men with the offer of sex. How repulsive and infuriating that this is what men demand of women.

Now. All that having been said.

Please don’t think this post means that we shouldn’t focus on women, and withdraw our energy from men. We can and should do whatever we can to manage under patriarchy.

The point of my post is to state clearly that men are responsible for upholding patriarchy.

The point of my post is to state clearly that women are not responsible for upholding patriarchy.

*The short story Wives by Lisa Tuttle illustrates this.
** Thanks to Winnie for discussing these issues with me.

Ruled Over by a Male Figure (RObaMF)

I cooked the holiday meal yesterday. It was a lot of work, but it was fun.

This was my first time hosting Xmas. For various reasons, Mom was invited to the festivities this year, but dad was not.

As we sat down to enjoy the meal I had just made, Mom addressed my partner.

“[smash’s nigel], why don’t you come over here and sit at the head of the table.”

Whoa.

Mom knows I’m a feminist, but this came so naturally to her that she said it anyway.

I informed her that we don’t do “head of the table” at my house, and that she herself might as well sit where she had been indicating, since there is nothing special in my house about plopping oneself in one part of the rectangular table versus another.

But, even if we did do “head of the table” bullsh*t at my house, one might think that the person who had cooked the meal should sit at the “head”—not the dude who is dating the person who cooked the entire meal.

It’s clear to me that Mom didn’t mean to offend me by offering the head/dominant seat to nigel. It was simply natural to her. If we had had the event at her house, dad would have taken the head seat. If dad had been invited to my place, he would have taken the head seat. Since the big ‘P’ Patriarch was absent, the little ‘p’ patriarch would have to do.

In Mom’s mind, she can’t imagine a world where the meal was not Ruled Over by a Male Figure. In Xmases past, she’s cooked the meal many times before, but still, the meal she cooked was Ruled Over by a Male Figure. She bought the presents, the groceries, and decorated the house; still, the event was Ruled Over by a Male Figure.

It’s not just my Mother for whom all big events must be RObaMF.

My grandpa was a preacher, and he often officiated weddings. He passed away several years ago. Grandma bore four children—the first two are my aunts, my dad is the third child, and my uncle is the fourth.

This year, my male cousin married a woman. Since grandpa has died, my cousin had a special request for my dad. Would he, as the new capital ‘P’ Patriarch, officiate the wedding? Even though dad was the THIRD born child, behind two Wonderful Women? Behind cousin’s Mother?

To my cousin, it was very important that this family event be RObaMF.

Why?

Perhaps because cousin hoped to someday become the big ‘P’ Patriarch. After all, that’s one big reason why dudes get married– this is a privilege they have been promised since birth. Perhaps it was because he was taught, as my Mom was taught, that DUDES rule the family, and events don’t really count unless they are RObaMF. Whatever the case may be, he didn’t ask his own Mother (the second born aunt)—he asked my dad.

Radical feminists know that the male domination of the family is exceptionally dangerous and we wish to eliminate the cult of masculinity. We recognize that choosing a man to sit at the “head” of the table, or officiate a wedding is a *symbolic* act that is used to convey to the family, and the world, that HE is in charge, and that we are subordinate to him. Sitting in a certain order at the table is a small “traditional” act, but it is an act that is symbolic of male domination, which is of course enacted through male violence.

It is important to notice this. We must open our eyes to the way patriarchy operates in every aspect of our lives.

Let’s remind each other that our analysis may take us to critical places we don’t want to go, but that we must go to in order to determine the truth about our lives as women, and the forces that suppress us.

Let’s support one another throughout this process, rather than condemn.

I know my mother didn’t mean harm by her statement; it was an instant reaction based on the patriarchal brainwashing she’s been soaked in since birth. At the same time, I can love my Mother without pretending away the harm.

When I was young, I asked my Mom, “What happens when you and dad disagree? Why is his word the Final Say on the Matter?”

At the time, she replied to me, “Because someone has to have the final say, or we’d continue to argue forever about it.”

Her answer hides the true nature of heteromarriage; it is built on RObaMF.

My response, as a child, was “Why don’t you get to have the final say, instead of him? Why is it always HIM?”

I was told, “Because, that is just the way it is.”

No thank you. I’ll pass.

barrettes don’t matter, because boys have a what?

The following passage does a good job of teaching children the difference between males and females. I applaud the efforts these parents have made to teach their children the difference between boys and girls (hint: it isn’t gender). (Click on the documents to make them larger):

From Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender, page 214-216.

Radical Feminist Mini-Retreat

I was fortunate to have been able to attend a regional radical feminist mini-retreat the first weekend in November. We did a lot of brainstorming, networking, sharing, and discussing. It was truly awesome to be in person with my sisters, and I am so grateful to have been a part. Sorry for the length of the post– feel free to jump ahead to the sub-topics if you don’t have time for the whole thing.

Topics to Cover
On Friday night we decided what topics we were going to cover. We agreed to talk about what projects we are working on in our own lives, how to navigate the queering of our cities, and how to deal with disagreements within our radical feminist community. We also agreed to watch Water Lilies, Andrea Dworkin’s Anti-Pornography, and the BBC documentary Angry Wimmin.

Film: Water Lilies
We watched a lovely lesbian film called Water Lilies. It depicted the difficulties of falling in love with a friend, as well as the predatory nature of most teen males. That aspect reminded me of my own youth, and made me wish I had known better that most young men are only after sex. It was melancholy, but also lovely, and I was really grateful to have gotten the opportunity to see it.

Discussion: Feminist Projects
The next morning we drank coffee and tea and discussed what our feminist projects are. Several projects were discussed, including the need for a radical feminist blog for teens, ways to get our message across in cities, podcasts, working in domestic violence shelters, getting porn out of libraries through employee rights, etc. It was a really productive discussion, and we were able to brainstorm together good ways of working towards helping women in “real life” as well as on the internet.

Walk
Next we took a lovely walk by the lake. It was so beautiful! It is really nice to be out in nature with sisters. One of us spotted a longhaired cat, and this absurd upturned chair:

Film: Against Pornography and Discussion
After lunch, we watched Against Pornography: The Feminism of Andrea Dworkin. You can find the documentary here. Dworkin explained that she always starts out her talks by describing what actually occurs in pornography, since folks may not be familiar with it. It isn’t just naked women’s bodies these days– it is violent, aggressive, and abusive. She says the message of porn is that no matter what happens to a woman in porn, she will enjoy it. This teaches men that women enjoy abuse, which makes it a very dangerous instruction manual. I really enjoyed this phrasing of the point, “Porn is the war room where strategies of sexual abuse are planned.” Porn ties orgasms to inequality, and it is an institution that socializes men to rape. She ended by reminding us that if you know what needs to be torn down, tear it down.

The film led to a very interesting discussion. We pointed out that many don’t address the problem of porn in our society, because many men don’t want to give up their porn, and many women don’t want to give up their men. So our society fails to address the issue because we are afraid of the changes we might need to make if we did. We also talked about BDSM and the consent ritual. Under patriarchy, women really have two options: consent to be hurt, or be hurt without consent. The thought is, perhaps if we consent to it, it won’t be as bad. We also discussed the phrase “consent is sexy”, which is often found on “feminist” placards and t- shirts. One woman pointed out that the reason rape is wrong is NOT because rape is “unsexy”. The “consent is sexy” campaign targets the wrong objection to rape. Furthermore, since women are told that sexy is a good thing, they are thereby coerced by this message, and encouraged to “consent”.

Film: Angry Wimmin
Next we watched Angry Wimmin which was an awesome documentary on the beginning of radical feminism in Brittan. It was interesting to see the ways in which our movement overlaps with theirs. For example, the movie talked about how radical feminists sometimes try to make sure in conversation to replace certain words with others. For example, to say “oh goddess!” instead of “oh god!” when frustrated or amazed, or to say “herstory” instead of “history”, etc. I have found myself afraid of bringing my patriarchal framings into discussions with other radical feminists by using these words, so I could totally relate. At the same time, I have also found that we shouldn’t be ashamed if we decide not to make simple word replacements like the above and focus our efforts on working to free women. It was also inspiring to see the first Reclaim the Night marches in this film. I saw a poster that said “all men benefit from rape”, and I thought that was right on. Non-rapist males benefit from a terrorized underclass of women who are afraid to go out at night (we all know that doesn’t mean all men rape). Of course, I was inspired by the movie, and I also hope we can avoid some of the pitfalls of what they went through. There was some discussion of racial tensions at the feminist publication Spare Rib. It was a good reminder that we keep in mind class and race issues while working towards women’s liberation.

Discussion: Queer Culture and Radical Feminism
After this documentary we discussed the ways that queer culture works against women’s liberation, and what to do about it. One woman pointed out that queer culture is often saturated by pornography. Some famous trans folk speak about and “star” in pornography, and many are highly resistant to radical feminist critiques of prostitution and pornography. This is the first clue that queer ideology may not be liberatory for women. Another clue is the lesbian erasure that occurs in queer communities. Many women have begun to identify as “queer” or “trans” rather than lesbian. Also, queer culture ignores the boundaries between men and women, and aggressively insists that women who would like to maintain their own private spaces are transphobic. Clearly, if women are not allowed to organize without MAAB (male assigned at birth) folk present, that is a problem for our liberation. We also discussed how to begin bringing the radical feminist message to folks within the queer-ified cities and towns we live in.

Discussion: Conflict within Radical Feminist Communities
Finally, we discussed what to do about conflicts within the radical feminist community. We all agreed that women must step in when we see others being abused– even if this makes us worried of being personally ostracized ourselves. We agreed that resolving conflict involves standing up for each other, meeting women where they are at, and supporting women who have been attacked, We agreed that when we disagree with a woman, it is best to either discuss the issue with her via private message, or in the comment section of her blog. It is not sisterly to, as a first strike, publicly denounce a woman on facebook or on your own blog. Clarification can sometimes dissolve conflict. We also recognized that sometimes resolution is not possible, and that in those cases it is best to disengage with one another, rather than dredging up old issues on a frequent basis. We are human, and we all make mistakes– sometimes huge mistakes. Sometimes there is abuse. But we are also a community with common goals.

Conclusion
I am fired up about finding more radical feminists in my community, and engaging in political action. I am so excited to be a part of this movement at this moment in time– despite how difficult it can be. We are attacked by MRAs (men’s rights activists), queer culture, the right wing, and the pornographers. We are often hated and many times deliberately misunderstood. But we are empathetic to the struggles of women’s lives, and we can provide a truthful analysis of life under patriarchy. We are here, we are organizing, and we are not going away.

Is the Way He is Treating Me Abusive?

The book Why Does He DO That? by Lundy Bancroft was recently recommended to me by Teh Bewilderness, and by the domestic violence shelter I’ve started volunteering at. It is exceptionally good. It’s written in 2002 by a man who runs programs for abusers, and it shows what tactics they use, as well as how their behavior can be crazy-making for women. Bancroft is very clear that MEN abuse women, and that women do not have the ability to terrorize and undermine men in the way men abuse women. He also discusses the ways in which friends, family, courts, and therapists can often take the abuser’s side without meaning to. He emphasizes that being “neutral” in cases where it is known that abuse is occurring is in fact choosing the side of the abuser.

Anyway, this is a great book, and I recommend every woman read it. We’ve all known (or been) women in abusive situations.

I thought the below checklist was very helpful in helping women discover whether they are in an abusive relationship. The list is taken from pages 124-130 of the book.

About his behavior, he is abusive if:

He retaliates against you for complaining about his behavior.

He tells you that your objections to his mistreatment of you are your own problem.

He gives apologies that are insincere or angry and he demands that you accept them.

He blames you for the impact of his behavior.

It is never the right time or the right way to bring things up.

He undermines your progress in life.

He denies what he did.

He justifies his hurtful or frightening behavior or say that you “made him do it”.

He touches you in anger or puts you in fear in other ways.

He coerces you into having sex or sexually assaults you.

His controlling, disrespectful, or degrading behavior is a problem.

About you, if you show signs of abuse such as:

Are you afraid of him?

Are you getting distant with your family and friends because he makes those relationships difficult?

Is your level of energy or motivation declining, or do you feel depressed?

Is your self opinion declining, so that you are always fighting to be good enough and to prove yourself?

Do you find yourself consistently preoccupied with the relationship and how to fix it?

Do you feel like you can’t do anything right?

Do you feel like the problems in your relationship are all your fault?

Do you repeatedly leave arguments feeling like you’ve been messed with but can’t figure out why?

If you think you may be in an abusive situation, please contact your local shelter or crisis line. You can just call to talk. They can help. They want you to call. Please call. Also, you can buy the book here.

EDIT: This post got a lot of negative feedback and accusations of misandry (lol) so I wanted to clear up what author Lundy Bancroft of Why Does He DO That? actually says about men and abuse.

This is from page 288-289 of his book, under the subheading “How Society Adopts the Abuser’s Perspective”:

“To the person who says “These abuse activists are anti-male”:

How is it anti-male to be against abuse? Are we supposed to pretend we don’t notice that the overwhelming majority of abusers are male? This accusation parallels the abuser’s words to his partner: The reason you think I’m abusive is because you have a problem with men!” One of the best counters to this piece of side-tracking is to point out how many men are active in combating the abuse of women. Remember also that abused women are the sisters, daughters, mothers, and friends of men. Men’s lives are affected by abuse, because it happens to women we know and care about.”

Additionally, from page 290:

“Everyone should be very, very cautious in accepting a man’s claim that he has been wrongly accused of abuse or violence. The great majority of allegations of abuse– though not all– are substantially accurate, and an abuser almost never ‘seems like the type’.”

Farmer’s Market

I went to the farmer’s market this weekend, and had two feminism-related experiences.

First, there was an old dude wearing a “Feminist chicks dig me” shirt.

Dudes think they are soo hi-larious.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Watch us all laugh.
.
.
.
.
.
.

*crickets*

My initial thought was that this shirt must be a dig against feminists, and that those wearing it actually do hate feminist women and want to shame them.

But then I saw that Jessica Valenti gave Stephen Colbert one of these shirts on his show. I honestly do not know what to make of that. See? Feminists actually do like dudes! Look, I gave you this shirt that demeans me– that proves we have a “sense of humor”!
*sigh*

Many of us know dudes who call themselves feminists. The internet is full of them! One of them just joined my book club! (YUCK)

But most of the men who self-identify as feminists do so on the belief that so identifying will bring with it sexual perks. Make her think you give a ‘ish about her rights, and she’ll be sure to let you bone her!

Real pro-feminist men don’t spend their lives bloviating on about how much of a feminist they are. They teach other men, instead of trying to lead women. But these men are rare.

Anyway. My next feminism-related experience came when I saw what I’m calling a princess-off in the middle of the grounds. Yep. There were two adult women dressed up as Disney princesses for the kids. One was Cinderella, and the other was Princess Merida from Brave.

Obviously, one of the princesses is much more feminist-approved.

As you all know, Cinderella teaches young girls that women cannot trust each other, and that the only way to advance in life is to marry your way out of misery by being petite and “beautiful”.

Now, I haven’t seen Brave and therefore can’t fully evaluate its feminist cred, but I have read the wiki on it. Though it seems somewhat problematic in depicting Princess Merida’s relationship with her mother, it does revolve around a young woman’s self-determined choice not to be married against her will. Also, she is an active character that makes things happen, rather than a passive one that receives the action like Cinderella.

What was encouraging about the princess off was that the Brave princess was much more popular with the young girls. They were circled around her, and asked her if they could play with her adult-sized bow-and-arrow. They lined up to shoot the kids bow-and-arrow set that was set up for them. There were young boys there too. Cinderella looked bored and embarrassed in her hoop dress and shiny gloves. Actually, I felt bad for her.

The two princesses at the farmer’s market could not have been more different, and the young girls decidedly chose the more active, self-determining, and adventurous option. I found this quite encouraging.

For more feminist analysis of Disney princesses, check out Allecto’s post here. Andrea Dworkin also talks about Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty in Woman Hating. As she says, the moral of fairy tales tells us that, “happiness for a woman is to be passive, victimized, destroyed, or asleep.”

So despite the frustration created by dude’s shirt, I was thrilled to see girls embracing a powerful– if imperfect– female role model. On top of all that, I bough some delicious chomp from local venders. Overall, it was a lovely Sunday.

Femininity and Essentialism

USian vice presidential candidate and full time misogynist Paul Ryan recently spoke at a GOP event called the Value Voters Summit.

The Family Research Council displayed a pamphlet at the event entitled “Modesty Matters”. It stated, among other things:

“All women, whether married of single, are to model femininity in their various relationships, by exhibiting a distinctive modesty, responsiveness, and gentleness of spirit.”

Woman-hating is no surprise coming from Republicans, but this was quite a blatant statement being displayed at a conference where the VP candidate was speaking. This article from RH Reality Check analyzes the code words in the above statement:

Modesty: Hiding yourself and avoiding clothes you find appealing, trying your best to be invisible. Responsiveness: Giving men attention and smiles they demand, no matter how miserable it makes you to do so. Gentleness: Giving up the urge to fight for yourself, instead just giving in and submitting. Women exist, in their eyes, to serve and to be invisible when they can’t be of direct use to men. Reproductive rights and sexual autonomy threaten that view of women, because these things suggest that instead of a servant class, women are people just like men, instead of creatures put on earth to serve men.

Clearly, modeling femininity as prescribed above is about controlling women’s behavior. As Lierre Keith has stated, in most cases the practice of femininity is “a set of behaviors that are in essence ritualized submission.” Nowhere is this made more clear than in this latest Republican offering.

Some postmodernists and genderists have downplayed the harms of femininity. As Julia Serano has said, “The only thing that all feminine traits have in common is that they are typically associated with women in our culture.” Statements like these miss the mark entirely, pretending that the performance of femininity has no historically oppressive context, and ignoring the fact that these traits are associated with women because they have been and are currently used to suppress them.

Most feminine traits are useful to men because they discourage women’s agency, and ascribe value to her only insofar as she pleases them.

Radical feminists know that male supremacists such as the Family Research Council have an agenda of dominating women. But outside of feminism, many people are not familiar with the oppressive nature of the feminine gender role. In fact, it is a common misconception that women are, by nature, more gentle, nurturing, responsive, etc. As many of you know, this position is called essentialism.

In actual fact, it is impossible to determine what characteristics women would exhibit outside of patriarchal socialization, since there is no way to observe that reality. Essentialism takes no account of gender socialization which begins at birth and teaches girls to be quiet princesses, while “boys will be boys” and are encouraged to be aggressive and dominant.

Interestingly, if gentleness, nurturance, and responsiveness were so natural for girls and women, why would socialization require such brutally pervasive influences to make sure girls turn out that way?

Radical feminists wish to free women from this type of feminine socialization. We acknowledge that patriarchy is an oppressive system that molds behavior, and that we cannot gain information about “natural” behavioral tendencies by observing current trends under patriarchy.

On Sisterhood

There is a worldwide community of radical feminists.

We don’t always agree on issues, and we don’t always disagree respectfully. We’re not perfect ethical beings (or perfect feminists) all the time either. There are personality clashes, and there are frequently differences of priorities. Sometimes there are betrayals– big and small.

Given that, I’m still glad to be a part of this community. We all hate the patriarchal bulls’it that says our value is in our objecthood. We are infuriated when we see pimps masquerading to spread their woman hating propaganda. We recognize that male pattern violence serves to terrorize women into a state of Societal Stockholm Syndrome.

We are working towards the liberation of women.

The other night, I had a dream that I ran into one of the women I met at the Reboot. In the dream, we were both busy doing other things with our time, but once we saw each other we ran together and shared a giant hug.

Then we went about our days separately. The dream wasn’t really even about this person– it was simply a side note in a larger sequence. But in the dream, as I went about my business doing other things, it was so great to know that I was not alone. There was a sister nearby.

Some of us are geographically closer to one another than others. But what we do share– no matter the distance– is sisterhood.

We are part of a community, and I am extremely grateful for it.

Also, that reminds me. We have work to do.

[Image from here]

Radfem Reboot Day Three: Reclaiming Women’s Space and Sexuality

Here is my third entry in the series. Part one is here, and two is here.

Sunday’s presentations didn’t begin until 2 pm, so I had a chance to spend some more time regrouping and hanging out in Portland. It is such a fun city! I had been told that it was a rainy place, but so far it was nothing but clear skies and cool weather. I had some delicious Thai food for lunch, and enjoyed a leisurely approach to the venue.

Cathy Brennan’s discussion was entitled Organizing for Lesbian Reality : Legal and Political Responses to Conflicts Between Lesbian and Transgender Communities. Her talk is reprinted in full here so I won’t summarize it, but I did want to emphasize several important points she brought up.

She mentioned the International Bill of Gender Rights which states, among other things:

“no individual shall be denied access to a space or denied participation in an activity by virtue of a self-defined gender identity which is not in accord with chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.”

In other words, the authors of this bill have an agenda to eliminate sex-segregated space. That is, female/women only space would no longer be allowed, if they have their way. Although I was aware that this was a goal of trans activists, hearing it lain out in a declaration from the early 90s was another thing. Amazingly, trans activists have been very successful in breaking down woman only space since the declaration was written. Even this summer, as many of you know, Conway Hall in London bowed to pressure and booted the RadFem 2012 conference because it was supposed to be a specifically woman-only event.

Another worrying point that Cathy brought up was the definition of gender identity legislation that has been enacted in many states. Many legal definitions of “gender identity” are similar to this definition used in Washington, DC:

“Gender identity” means a gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of an individual, regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.

Definitions such as this one “suggest or codify into law that there are ways of expressing one’s self (or behaviors or appearances) “consistent or congruent with biological sex”” [quote from here]. Radical feminists know that this is a problem, since we want to abolish gender. As Lierre Keith said earlier, gender is a hierarchy and harms females. These types of legislation suggest that if women do not identify, appear, or express themselves in a way that is in line with their assigned sex at birth, they are trans. Obviously, radical feminists seek to destroy gender constraints, and hope for a world in which there is no such gendered behavior typically associated with our assigned sexes at birth. These types of legislation suggest that there are gender presentations that are appropriate for female persons, and others appropriate for males. This presents a risk to females, as such definitions codify the notion of stereotypes based on sex into law.

Cathy Brennan’s presentation was dynamic, and gave me a lot to think about. It was also lovely to meet her.

Finally, we saw an awesome presentation from Maggie entitled How Patriarchy has Hijacked Women’s Sexuality on Every Level, and What We Can Do to Fight Back. Maggie spoke about the male-centric vision of sexuality that we are sold through PIV sex, sadomasochism, and the use of dildos in lesbian encounters.

This male-centric sex uses media to spread its propaganda– media such as “women’s magazines” like Cosmo, Seventeen, and even lesbian publications such as autostraddle.com and Diva magazine in the UK. Even though these magazines are for both lesbian and heterosexual women, both frame women’s sexuality in terms of “f*cking”—which is a very male-centric view.

Another example of male-centric sexuality in lesbian media is through the television shows The ‘L’ Word and Lip Service in the UK. In these shows, beauty- and gender-compliant women are shown using dildos and engaging in BDSM—both practices which mirror dominance/submission paradigms of male-centric sex.

As Maggie eloquently put it, our entire societal order is based on the hierarchy of dominance and submission. There is nothing egalitarian about our society. In this context, sadomasochistic sexual practices make sense. If all we know is dominance and submission, how can we organically envision a mutually respectful egalitarian sexuality? For this reason, BDSM practices can never be separated from male domination—even when practiced in an all women environment. As Maggie said,

“We’re programmed to get off on our own oppression, and orgasms don’t make it right.”

But, some (non-radical feminists, of course) might object at this point by saying, “what about women who consent to these practices? If they consent, how can we criticize?” Maggie reminds us to not pay attention so much to the act of consent, as to the practice that is being consented to. If we are consenting to torture, perhaps the horrifying nature of the act is what is important, rather than whether or not consent has been offered. As Susan Hawthorne commented at this point in the presentation, those who ask for consent are typically the ones who have power— and those who give consent are the ones who do not. I found that statement to be quite true, as well as revelatory.

So what is the solution to this male-centric sexuality?

We must decolonize our bodies and psyches from sadomasochistic culture. We must do this without shaming women who are currently engaged in these sexual practices. Instead, we must work towards a positive view of egalitarian, female-based sexuality.

I was really inspired by Maggie’s presentation to continue the process of de-colonizing my own mind and body from our sado-society’s anti-female practices. Not only that, but Maggie was such an awesome person to meet!

I left the weekend with feelings of inspiration, fellowship, and genuine love for the women I had been spending time with. I realized that I want to do more towards the goals of liberating women, and I found myself developing the strategic and visionary tools necessary to start that process. I also wanted to find more radical feminists in my own area to organize with—or if not to find them, then to help radicalize feminists I already know!

I was so, so very privileged to have participated in the Radfem Reboot in Portland, OR. I want to thank the organizers, the members of Sisters Underground, the presenters, and finally the women who were able to prioritize this moment and were able to make it. Truly—this is only the beginning of something wonderful.

Radfem Reboot Day Two: Overthrowing Men’s War Against Women

You can find a summary of day one events here.

Jumping right in…

Day two began with a panel discussion with survivor Jeri Sundvall-Williams, the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter (VRR), and the Asian Women’s Coalition Ending Prostitution (AWCEP). Jeri Sundvall-Williams’ discussion of her traumatic experience in prostitution made clear that prostitution is modern slavery, and must be stopped. The AWCEP women spoke to the fact that prostitution is violence against women, and that it both entrenches racism, and amplifies sexism for all women. Additionally, they stated that the move to legalize prostitution is racism against Asian women, as well as other women of color. Such powerful statements! Next, VRR stated that these three oppressions: race, class, and gender (that is, sex-based oppression) must be fought at the same time, in order to fight for all women. I loved their point that prostitution must be kept on the continuum of violence against women, which is why they welcome prostituted/trafficked women into their shelter. They also reminded us not to use prostituted women as a shield to make our own arguments, and that those who have not been prostituted have an obligation to speak out for abolition once we see that it is in the best interests of women.

Next, Kathleen Barry led a fabulous keynote speech on her new book Masculinity of War: Unmaking War, Remaking Men. I was personally very touched by this discussion, because Barry emphasized empathy as a solution to our war-infected society. She describes empathy as the ability to put ourselves in the position of another person, and she mentioned that empathizing can be a political action. With all the discussions of male violence that had occurred through the course of the weekend so far, as well as through RF discussions over the past year, I found myself quite emotional in thinking about the serious lack of empathy that men have had toward women. Masculinity dictates that men never consider the position of women– let alone what it would be like to be in that position. This is such a hard truth to realize, and I was struck hard by it. Empathy is necessary, and men need to get some already. Certainly, empathy is not enough— but it is a start, and it is something we must teach our children, and our friends, and our family. We cannot make men empathize. However, we can require it of them. I also enjoyed what Dr. Barry said about the language of protection. At the core of masculinity, she said, is the idea of protectors— those who must watch after the family, and be strong. Those protectors are seen as superior, and in patriarchy women are required to recognize them as superior. Masculinity, as Lierre Keith mentioned later in the day, leads to emotional disengagement, and remorselessness— which are the opposite of empathy. Kathleen Barry spelled this out so very clearly— and I began to actually envision what an empathetic world would look like.

After a break, Kathleen Barry led a strategy/consciousness raising session where we envisioned what a world without war would look like. While some women had ideas, others could not see that possible future, given the horrific realities of now. Barry did an excellent job of leading the discussion, as well as helping us see what steps should be taken to help this world become reality. I want to say that the incredible dynamic we created during this session cannot be reproduced in writing— unfortunately, one just had to be there. Please do take my word for it though— this was awesome. I have discovered that it is possible to schedule sessions like this with Barry, and more information on that can be found on her webpage kathleenbarry.net, as well as through this flyer here . [PDF]

What a morning this was! I was struck with how brilliant and dynamic the speakers were, as well as the participants. Something truly powerful happens when women get together— something that the internet activism I had been a part of up until this point was not equivalent to. The activism we can do on the internet, as I’ve said before, is important. But I think these conferences are vital as well. I look forward to the next one.

Cherry Smiley spoke after lunch. She is a First Nations woman from Canada. Her stories were particularly difficult, as they made clear the racism, misogyny, and violence that native women suffer on a daily basis. As she said, aboriginal women are over-represented in street prostitution, so the idea of “legalization” (that is, legalizing the purchase of women) poses particular harm to them. She spoke on the “Harm Reduction” model, which does nothing to stop men from purchasing women, by saying, “We need to meet women where they are, but we cannot leave them there.” Additionally, the “Harm Reduction” model assumes that women can only go so far with their lives once they have been damaged by prostitution. These low expectations abandon women, rather than providing options for exit and another life. I was very moved by her awesome statements. Additionally, she laid out the two myths of prostitution: 1. That it is a choice, and 2. That it is inevitable. Finally, she emphasized that abolitionist and other movements must address white privilege, and that native and survivor voices take leadership roles in these movements. I learned so much from her presentation, and was very glad to have had the opportunity to hear her speak.

After this, we heard from Lierre Keith. I’ve transcribed a portion of her talk here, and you can find the entire video here. Keith was such a clear thinker—I really appreciated hearing her presentation, and I encourage you to watch it for yourself if you haven’t already.

Following this, Sam Berg discussed tactics for anti sex-industry activism. It was a fun, hilarious discussion! Again, with this one, you just had to be there :).

For the last event of the day, we watched a few short radical feminist films by Catherine Crouch. Several of the films were funny, and we were told that one of the films, called Gendercator, had generated controversy and had been pulled from the Frameline Film Festival because it was considered transphobic. I encourage you to watch the film and see for yourself, or check the description here.

After such a long and satisfying day, I needed some time to myself to journal and reflect. I went out, had a burger, and contemplated what an amazing few days it had been. The panels and the talks were all awesome, but one of the things that had developed over the course of a few days was true sense of community. As several women mentioned on our last day, there was not a lot of backbiting as we often see in activism circles. Rather, we put our differences aside (for the most part!) and recognized that while we may not agree on everything, our unity is exceptionally important in the fight against male supremacy and domination. As Sam Berg said, “What we have is not money, and it is not public opinion. What we have is each other.”

Stay tuned for day three!