Archive for Radfems

Radfem Week Recap and Highlights

Cassandra / April 14, 2012 / 2 comments

In its most ribald and offensive week ever, this week Networks of Doom studied the Radfems, or “radical feminists.”  These dames have moxy, I tells ya (and gams for weeks!) and they are not in the least shy about sharing their distaste for men online.  They believe the world is doomed until we figure out a solution to males.

What did we learn?

  • Radfem Hub is where ladies go when they want to fight against men and third-wave “reformist” feminists.
  • Sex with men is nothing but a horrible trauma.  On this point, the Radfems and the Nittany Lions Junior Summer Sports Camp defensive line agree.
  • Radfems are generally not fond of men or children – but hairy pits get thumbs-up all around.
  • Even if a man were to excise his offending member, he would still not be welcomed by the Radfems.
  • The boys at AVM broke into the girl’s clubhouse at RFH, and good-spirited hilarity ensued (provided that by “good-spirited hilarity” you mean “genocidal-tinged hatred.”)

Facebook Twitter Reddit Tumblr Email
Category: Radfems, Week in Review / Tags: , , ,

How Men Respond to the Radfems

Cassandra / April 13, 2012 / 2 comments

How do men react to the charges of the Radfems – the largely-lesbian, strongly-anti-male radical feminists who believe that the male gender is dooming humanity to misery?

After all, Radfems post openly that men should be “herded into zoo-like compounds,” subjected to scientific experiments to see if their aberrant testosterone levels can be mollified, and if not…the lady scientists will work toward building a “future without men.”  Surely men must have some strong opinions on this!

We did a comprehensive survey, and 98.996% of the world’s men responded with the following:

Beer-swilling man

“Pfffft. Sounds like they just need a good roll in the hay. (*kiss kiss*)  C’mere, darlin’…”

Another 1.002% just made fart noises by putting their hand in their armpit and laughed at our survey-takers.

But the remaining 0.002% took these charges very seriously indeed.

Most of those men refer to themselves as MRAs (“Men’s Rights Activists”) and cluster around the website A Voice for Men.

Agent Orange’s Secret Mission

One of the MRAs at A Voice for Men got his dander worked into such a tizzy by the Radfems that he decided to infiltrate their online world.

Although the Radfem Hub‘s private messageboards are explicitly for women-born-women only, they surprisingly don’t police this via any sort of advanced chromosone-scanner plug-in.  They seem to just go by a “you have to say you’re a woman” system, which means that brave, manly men like Agent Orange are able to do gentlemanly things like lie about his sex to spy on them.

What did he find?

A better question is “what exactly was he hoping to find that would be explosive enough to warrant spending all his time on this, given that even the Radfems’ PUBLIC documents are plenty shocking?  I mean the “herding men into zoos” plan isn’t exactly mainstream.

What he found is archived at http://agentorangefiles.com, and was announced with a press release-style announcement on A Voice for Men.

What he found was lots of

Have I told you lately how much I despise men?  I hate men with a passion.  So much so that I don’t even allow men on my property.

And a little

I think menz need at least 2000 years of female violence enacted against them, then they will understand why were are sooooooo pissed

And that kind of thinking eventually and inevitably leads to

I believe this crap is just going to escalate until the point that women have no choice but to kill every man in sight.  But how would traitors be dealt with?  It seems to me there are a great number of women who are crazy enough to support these assholes.

A side-note is that when I was visiting the A Voice for Men site to check this out, the very top of the page hosted the following message from their Twitter feed:

 I favorited a @YouTube video http://t.co/Qa85n76b The Hatred Of Women

Tu quoque, MRAs?

GUYS!  GIRLS!  Radical feminists!  Men’s Rights Activists!  MGTOW!  Can we all just take a breather and take the tone down a notch in the gender wars?  Maybe we can all go out for milkshakes together some evening and just take it from there.  Not like a date-date but just a…see what develops situation.  Get to know each other.

Don’t worry.  We’ll split the bill.


Facebook Twitter Reddit Tumblr Email
Category: Radfems / Tags: , , , , ,

Radfems vs. Gays and Transsexuals

Cassandra / April 12, 2012 / One comment

You would think – wouldn’t you? – that if any group of the male-born get a pass from radical feminist scorn, it would be gays and transsexuals.

After all, gay men seem quite happy to sequester themselves off in their own bars and clubs and resist all that hooting and whistling and sexually harassing of womyn that Radfems hate.

And trannies?  What greater renouncement of male privilege and commitment to womanhood can one prove than having body parts chopped off and chemically altering yourself if that’s what you have to do to join the sisterhood?

Furthermore, gays and radical feminists are all generally clustered together on the activist political left, raging against traditional gender roles.  And as most* activist Radfems are lesbians, they’re very specifically clustered together in the LGBTQ section.

*(LOOK – don’t ask me to prove this with statistics or qualify this with a million qualifiers.  Just spend ten minutes poking around their blogosphere and then come back if you disagree).

But such linkages are not enough to generate sympathy in the Radfems book.  In fact, it seems they look even more harshly at these suspect “gender traitors” than they do your average tail-chasing fratboy.

The Radfems’ Michael-Bloomberg-esque fight against trans-thingies

Radfem Hub’s explicit “no trannies” submission policy mirrors many other similar exclusionary sentiments you can find online.

The situation has reached such a pique that the trans community has started lashing back – as in this discussion post in Transadvocate titled “Are radical lesbian separatists/feminists an enemy that we  should fight with the same veracity (sic) as we do the religious right? Your thoughts?”

This video below sums up the argument between Radfems and Transsexuals (provided you can sit through a lot of dry ideology-speak about gender and oppression).  (If you can’t, here’s a quick summary of the Radfem position – trannies haven’t experienced a lifetime of oppression like real women have, so they can never relate to women on equal terms, making their attempts to do so deeply disingenuous and harmful to women’s interests).

What About the Gay Dudes?

The Radfems don’t seem quite as exercised against gay men as they are against trannies, but you can still find plenty of negativity toward gays in their writings.  Their simple case against the lightly-loafered seems to rest on two main charges:

Charge 1: that gay men are still MEN, so they still benefit from male privilege, and are still genetically awful in the ways that men are.

Charge 2: Gonna hafta quote someone on this -

Some gay men have challenged the dominant/submissive sexuality that prevails in the gay male community, but few so far have ventured into print lest they experience the ire of their brothers. Gay men, raised in male supremacy, taught to worship masculinity, also have to struggle to overcome their eroticization of dominant/submissive hierarchies if they are to become friends to feminism.

I think we regrettably shed this blog’s R-rating and moved into hard NC-17 territory a few posts into the Radfems, but any kids still around, please avert your eyes as I translate the above.  Roughly: the only acceptable kind of sex is lesbian sex.  Since gays generally go with a top/bottom giver/receiver arrangement in bed, that means one is oppressing the other in a hierarchical sense – just like men do with women.  Gays would have to renounce this aspect of their sexuality before radical feminists can befriend them.  


Facebook Twitter Reddit Tumblr Email
Category: Radfems / Tags: , , , ,

GIRL CRUSHES!! What the Radfems Obsess Over

Cassandra / April 11, 2012 / 2 comments

sparkle sparklesmackaroonsZOMG you guys!  The Radfems may be negs about men, but they totally crush on a few things they think are super-cute and awesome!  Here are a few of their fav subjects!

1) S.C.U.M.

Valerie Solanas was a mid-20th century feminist author whose second-most-notable act was founding S.C.U.M. (The Society for Cutting Up Men) and writing the S.C.U.M. Manifesto.  She was profiled in the quite-good indie film “I Shot Andy Warhol,” which detailed her first-most-notable act.

That crazed violent rampage took Solanas permanently off the invite list for polite society and mainstream feminist organizations, but she retains a cult following among the Radfems.  At http://scumorama.wordpress.com, radical feminists continue to keep Solanas’s flame burning.  Take that, society!  Fuck you, Campbell’s Soup cans aficionados!

They even continue to hold S.C.U.M.-and-Solanas-themed conferences, like this recent one in Perth, Australia:

scum conference

 

2) Rape talk.

Now HERE’S an unsettling subject I have zero desire to blog about.  But I’ve already broached rape mentions in other posts covering the Radfems.  It’s just impossible to fairly cover this group without noticing how much rape permeates their thoughts and language.

Everything is analogized to rape.  Natural catastrophes are “raping the environment.”  Negative political outcomes mean “we were raped.”  Just about every human cultural product (from fashion to music to art) is evidence of “rape culture.”  Rape stories and articles are posted everywhere; rape statistics (of the extremely-dubiously-high kind) are trotted out regularly; to say nothing of those who plainly state that ANY sexual encounter with a man is a form of rape.

Yet at the same time, there are strong self-policed community norms and extreme sensitivity about the subject.  You will often read posts that start with a disclaimer: “Warning: This post contains graphic descriptions of rape and may be traumatic to rape survivors.”

But such displays of sensitivity are hard to square with the above.  If you believe it’s a subject to treat delicately, did you really have to write a “graphic description” – and why did you cavalierly toss around the word 900 other places on your blog?

3) (Linked from a few Radfem blogs and Posted Without Comment)

http://hairypitsclub.tumblr.com

 

4) Casey Anthony

I don’t follow many of these cable-news-driven “sensationalistic” trials, but I briefly remember this one that bubbled up last year.  The basics – a mom named Casey Anthony’s young child went missing; Casey lied to the police and went out on a partying binge; kid’s dead body shows up in her trunk or something months later; it’s pretty obvious to everyone that Casey did it, but the physical evidence was so decayed there was no way to prove it; when she skated through the trial with a “not guilty,” various cable news people’s giant plasticine heads exploded.

What I didn’t know is that there is a pro-Casey case to be made from a radical feminist perspective.

casey anthony feminist icon

Casey Anthony, feminist icon

You see: it’s merely an anti-feminist, patriarchy-dictated social construct that tells us that women are supposed to feel DISTRESSED when their young children go missing instead of going out and partying.  Casey was actually something of a feminist hero by not feeling constrained by these shackles of convention.  When the police told her “your daughter is missing” and her first thoughts were “hey, I think it’s 2-for-1 tequila shooters night down at Zio’s,” she was engaging in a form of social protest.


Facebook Twitter Reddit Tumblr Email
Category: Radfems / Tags: , , , ,

Sex Positive vs. Sex Negative Feminism: The PIV Problem

Cassandra / April 10, 2012 / 8 comments

In the previous post, we touched on the three “waves” of feminist theory.  One of the major points of contention between second-wave and third-wave feminists is the titillating (heh-heh) subject of sexuality.  Third-wavers felt that their predecessors were too dogmatic in their anti-porn, anti-prostitution, anti-”the male gaze” campaigns.  They thought feminism should be recast under the banner of sexual freedom and non-judgment, and branded themselves “sex-positcontra le sexismive feminists.”

But if they’re “sex positive,” they’re implying that their opposites must be “sex negative,” aren’t they?  Is that really a fair way to cast the Radfems?  Just a quick stroll through the Radfems’ blogosphere shows it’s definitely not.

A fairer tag would be “sex negative negative negative negative supremely utterly negative negative feminism.”

Radfemmers simply loathe all aspects of heterosexual sex.  They cast:

  • Sex as trauma.  Beyond the merely physical risks, sex with men is a psychologically damaging experience that women are better off avoiding.  As one puts it: “women are literally putting their lives [and] mental wellbeing on the line, every fucking time they engage in PIV… if its not the very reasonable fear of being raped at some point during the encounter, its the fear of disease, and the dread, absolute dread of an unintended or unwanted pregnancy.”  Let’s just restate that idea.  Women who are in the middle of intercourse with a man may harbor a fear – nay, strike that – may harbor the VERY REASONABLE FEAR – that he’ll suddenly rape her sometime in the middle of having sex with her.  Wow.
  • All straight sex as rape.  …but even that last scenario puts heterosexual sex in too positive a light for some Radfems, as it makes it sounds like rape only happens sometimes.  To them, it happens in 100% of encounters.  Just as we’d never recognize master/servant intimate relations as truly consensual because of the power imbalance, the Radfems charge that because our oppressive society casts women in the inferior position, they can never truly consent to sex.  Ergo – male/female sex is always a form of rape.
  • Love as Stockholm Syndrome.  Jumping off the “trauma” point, the Radfems will admit that some women seem to fall in love with men.  But they’ve got a handy psychological explanation why – the Stockholm Syndrome.  Just as captives bond with their captors during traumatic experiences, so to do women only fall for men because men traumatically damaged them through sex.  Even worse from the Radfem perspective is that patriarchal society invented what they dub “malignant romanticism” to fool girls into thinking that falling in love is a good thing.

Because they write about it so frequently, Radfems have come up with a tidy acronym they use to mockingly refer to heterosexual male-on-female intercourse – PIV (it stands for _____ in _____, and I’ll leave it to you to fill in the blanks).

Going After PIV on TV

This may be SHOCKING to some readers, but did you know that many of your favorite television shows are PIV-centric?  A lot of these blatant propaganda vehicles go so far as to feature attractive people engaged in relationships with the opposite sex – as if it were the most normal thing in the world!

Luckily, there is a Radfem blogger out there at http://pivontv.wordpress.com exposing this travesty.  Her blog is a harrowing tale of a girl born innocent into the world, and then brainwashed by TV into thinking that sex with men might be desirable.

the PIV-centrism in these shows influenced my heterosexuality and my desire for male companionship and long-term partnership.  these images particularly influenced my concept of and my desire for PIV and PIV-centric sex…

Golden Girls group photo

Thank you for being a friend...to our patriarchal oppressors

Once these insidious Orwellian mind-control vehicles are off the air, humans will presumably stop having icky inter-gender sex.  But until that day, PIVonTV will continue to catalog the worst offenders.

Here’s one example of a show rightly targeted – a nasty little piece of PIV agit-prop called Golden Girls.

On her multi-point checklist, PIVonTV rightly dings Golden Girls for supporting “rape culture” (as the leads sometimes wear “restrictive female clothing including high heels”).

But what really sent PIVonTV over the edge was the ludicrous ending of the popular 80′s TV series, in which Bea Arthur’s character re-marries.

why the HELL would any woman who was getting on in years, who had so many failed relationships was so educated in the subject of men and their universally dastardly ways…choose to be with another fucking man, in the end?  i wouldnt.  no fucking way.  the entire thing is bizarre and wrong, and i dont buy it.

(note: this blogger agrees that a Bea Arthur late-life marriage seems like a stretcher – though for different reasons)


Facebook Twitter Reddit Tumblr Email
Category: Radfems / Tags: , , ,
« Older Entries