Some feminists have refused to accept, and therefore fully address the implications of, the systematic ostracism of anyone who shares our ideas from the power structures of left leaning political parties. Such a thorough un-personning and deplatforming wasn’t an accident.
It doesn’t matter what our own political ideas mark us as on an independent, objective political spectrum scale.
What matters is that the people who hold physical possession of the movements we care about, and may have helped build, have put us in their “Nazi” box.
No one will be heard whom the people in possession of the material assets, and social capital, of these movements, have marked as untouchable in this way. The woke staffers (they will all be woke) will likely never let your criticism reach the Great Man, or, now, the Great Woman.
We have been placed so far beneath their regard, beneath contempt, by people whom they like so much better than feminists, that we will make no headway so long as we can’t accept and internalize the intended finality of this rejection.
They don’t see us as peers, or friends, anymore, but as the enemies of goodness & decency. They don’t want to hear about our challenge to the sterilization of the LGB kids, or decriminalization of sex buying and pimping, because they want to do these things for their new friends.
When people think this way about you, and you’re small group that they’ve successfully marginalized, you can’t bring them back to the negotiating table with plaintive supplication. They don’t have to listen, and won’t.
We must accept the truth. We must adapt our strategies.
We’re gonna need a bigger boat.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Arguments were heard in this case Thursday: Why might a case involving a Christian conservative male professor matter to women & girls generally? Everyone has the right to discuss these issues, but women and girls have the most personal & immediate need.
From our brief, re: significance of claims made under the auspices of “gender identity,” “WoLF is particularly concerned that it deprives women who appear before the court of the ability to speak accurately about the issues they face as a sex-class.” static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea…
“WoLF maintains that preserving and advancing women’s rights, liberties, and other interests necessitates a recognition of sex, consistent with the longstanding meaning of that term ...” static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea…
This is what the Human Rights Campaign has in mind for women’s rights for the next 4 years; a total elimination of legal sex recognition in every place in the law where it still matters and helps women. hrc.org/press-releases…
We said when the Bostock decision came down, that this was the likely interpretation that gender activists would push: “Ensure consistent administrative implementation of Bostock v. Clayton County across all agencies enforcing civil rights statutes and provisions;”
We discussed this then, as it was the expectation that the ACLU, ADF, and most other legal observers had, that Bostock meant “gender identity” and “transgender status” would impose recognition of gender claims overriding otherwise lawful, sex-based rules.
For us, we look at the roots of women’s oppression in male violence & coercive control against women.
It’s not so much an issue we take on as it is a perspective shift; the violence and coercion, the ubiquity and acceptance of it, being seen as the material engine of oppression.
It’s breathtaking that some people are celebrating a Joe Biden win by telling feminists that we should never work with conservatives. Because they disagree with us about abortion. Joe. Biden. theintercept.com/2020/03/07/joe…
Joe Biden has won, so obviously we must never work with the terrible capitalists because it would harm our credibility. gq.com/story/joe-bide…
Joe Biden has won a US presidential election, and so it’s important to remember never to work with anyone, or someone who might be affiliated with anyone, who’s had a bad record on taking sexual harassment complaints seriously.
What is a ‘male feeling,’ ‘male thought,’ ‘male talent,’ or ‘male preference’ regarding the world and human expression, unrelated to the particular sensations of the sexed body, that no woman ever shares, given similar conditions?
Even if there are some broad tendencies based on sex, such as the greater male propensity to commit violence that’s borne out in the crime stats of the entire world, this doesn’t dictate an inevitable palate of talent and personality at the individual level.
Men aren’t the sex of person who understands math, because not all men ... Women aren’t the sex of person who finds fulfillment in cleaning up. There are men who are gentle and loving, and women who are incapable of genuine affection, because these traits aren’t sex dependent.
Maybe preface it with a history of the reasons why there was feminism in the first place, and all the previous male-led movements women have had to work with to gain incremental improvements to our lives, but that have ultimately turned on us.
Obviously, when men turn on women and undermine our interests, it’s our fault for picking such flawed allies. We should have known better. Should have waited for the perfect partner. It’s our fault we didn’t foresee and prevent the attack.
If men really want women to believe in their individuality, why do they all sound the same when they talk about us?