sourcedumal:

Susan B Anthony said she’d rather cut off her own arm before she let the Negroes get the vote before white women.

White women actively sided with white supremacist politicians in order to get women’s sufferage.

All while using BLACK WOMEN to spread their message of ‘equality for women’

But I’m supposed to believe that white feminists give a damn about women of color?

(via lavenderpanda)

[Trigger Warning for Sexual Child Exploitation of Trans Child]


If you’re not outraged by this, you’re not understanding the problem, including the hypocrisy.

Feminists Who Believe in Accepting “Male” and “Female” At Face Value

are basically saying that they trust men and patriarchy/kyriarchy when it comes to science.  Which, given the numerous criticisms of science, especially biology, coming from feminists (like Anne Fausto-Sterling and Emily Martin to name just two prominent examples) is touchingly and ignorantly naïve at best and a cynical use of the power of patriarchy/kyriarchy to oppress the ‘right’ people at worst.

If your feminist response to the existence of trans people, intersex people, etc is to defer to science, you’re a pretty shitty feminist imnsho.

[tw: ableism, rape, murder; cw: radfems being radfems]

telegantmess:

lucypaw:

taleth:

taleth:

home-of-amazons:

hedonisticparadise:

taleth:

isn’t radical feminism against the oppressive tools of the police force and the prison-industrial complex?

so why do so many feminists feel empowered by jailing women for trying to make a living? or are we now policing specific behaviours of women that we don’t like?

Are you fucking retarded? We want johns and pimps jailed, not prostitutes. Sex work is dehumanisation, plain and simple.

It’s a good idea to read an opposing viewpoint’s perspective before you make yourself look this stupid, OP.

Generally I don’t go out of my way to respond to people who go about shouting “retard” to anyone who disagrees with their silly little political theory. There are, surprise surprise, actual disabled people on tumblr who don’t exactly like that term, considering its use has been used to justify rape, sterilization and murder.

But you wouldn’t care about those women, right?

Or actual sex workers.

Two months before the demonstration outside the Voice, feminist icon Gloria Steinem held court in the brothels of India as part of a humanitarian junket sponsored by the NoVo Foundation, one of the largest private women’s charities in the United States. NoVo’s money is Warren Buffett’s money: $1 billion, transferred by the second wealthiest American to his son Peter, who chairs the effort along with his wife, Jennifer. Steinem accompanied Peter and Jennifer Buffett on a tour of Sonagachi, Calcutta’s biggest red light district. Steinem came away from her visit with an astounding proposal: What would really benefit the women who worked there—whom she described to the Calcutta Telegraph as “prostituted,” characterizing their condition as “slavery”—would be to end sexual health services and peer education programs in brothels, programs that have been recognized by the United States Agency for International Development as best-practices HIV/AIDS interventions. Steinem described the women leading those health and education programs as “traffickers” and those who support them “the trafficking lobby.” 

So Steinem goes and sees these poor women being exploited, and her resolution is to…destroy all their support systems. Not actually do anything to help them, just you know. Cut programs.

But it’s not about punishing sex workers. Or diminishing their access to healthcare and education.

amos is the executive director of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW). According to promotional copy from the speaker’s bureau that represents her, Ramos is at the forefront of “one of the most ignored and tragic social justice issues that affects our world.” She takes credit (with some exaggeration) for shutting down Craigslist’s “Erotic Services” listings, where anyone with an email address used to be able to post an ad offering sexual services to anyone with an Internet connection. After the demise of Erotic Services, which followed years of lobbying by law enforcement agencies and the National Association of Attorneys General, many sex workers opted for Craigslist’s main competitor, Backpage.com, which saw a tremendous spike in new sex work ads. (The site, once owned by Village Voice Media, was recently split from the alt-weekly side of the business, partly due to the controversy over its content.)

Ramos’ Craigslist fight, like the Backpage campaign that followed, drove up the cost of doing business for some sex workers. After opponents used the media and congressional hearings to dubiously link Craigslist to violence and exploitation in the sex trade, Craigslist began charging $5 per post for its Erotic Services ads, arguing that credit card numbers would help police locate advertisers who had been victimized. For sex workers who could not afford the fees, the next best choice was to take on the additional physical and legal risks of soliciting on the streets. All the buzz threw a spotlight on both sites, giving cops an excuse to step up stings that put Craigslist and Backpage advertisers in jail. Now Ramos is agitating for an encore.

So Ramos sees women trying to get by and post ads to make money, and she goes instead and shuts down their main avenue of subsistence. Sure, makes sense!

But it’s not about punishing sex workers. Or sending them into worse poverty.

This next quote is long, but I mean, unless you’re “”“retarded”“” you’ll be able to read it all, right?

How Sex Work Became “Sexual Exploitation”

Feminist fights over prostitution and pornography are old news. But anti−sex work feminism has come a long way from the magazine store picket lines of the 1970s and the campus anti-porn revivals of the 1990s. “Pornography is the theory, and rape is the practice,” wrote feminist author and activist Robin Morgan in 1980. She is still around today, hosting a radio show on D.C.’s 1580 AM for the Women’s Media Center. “Prostitution is paid rape,” claims Melissa Farley, who has been fighting against sex workers since the 1990s and now produces reports for anti-prostitution organizations such as Demand Abolition. While these women once focused on ending sexual “objectification” in magazines and red light districts, today they are waging a global war that pits one class of women against another.

One architect of this shift is attorney Jessica Neuwirth, a founder of the women’s rights organization Equality Now. In a 2008 interview with Barnard College sociologist Elizabeth Bernstein, Neuwirth described the change as a move away from “an earlier wave of consciousness about exploitation that took both pornography and prostitution almost together as a kind of commercial sexual exploitation of women.” The rewrite was necessary, Bernstein explained in the journal Theory and Society, because the outright prohibition of porn and prostitution was not popular, putting feminists at odds with liberal allies such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “They got battered down by ACLU types,” Neuwirth told Bernstein. “By re-situating these issues in terms of the ‘traffic in women’ overseas and as a violation of international commitments to women’s human rights,” Bernstein explained, “they were able to wage the same sexual battles unopposed.”

These battles were now being fought in the name of combating “sexual exploitation,” “sex trafficking,” and “sex slavery.” The activism has shifted to the realm of international law. In 2000 anti−sex work feminists attempted to push their redefinition of sex work into the U.N. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. Norma Ramos and her allies wanted the protocol, which is intended to formally define trafficking across U.N. programs and to promote collaboration among U.N. member states in order to protect the rights of people who are trafficked, to define all prostitution as “trafficking.” According to the Paulo Longo Research Initiative scholar Jo Doezema’s 2010 book Sex Slaves and Discourse Masters, sex workers were supported by the U.N. special rapporteur on violence against women, who rejected the prostitution/trafficking equivalence. Sex workers also opposed the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women’s substitute proposal, which described commercial sex as “sexual exploitation.”

CATW went on a media offensive, seeking to discredit their opponents, even enlisting Sen. Jesse Helms to the cause. It worked. The protocol was approved and is now signed by 117 countries, defining sex for pay as “sexual exploitation.” The protocol has given feminists legal and moral cover to target sex work under the banner of fighting trafficking. 

“People have been very successful in using this term sexual exploitation in pushing legislation,” says Ann Jordan, former director of the Program on Human Trafficking and Forced Labor at American University’s Washington College of Law and an attorney who has defended the rights of trafficked persons. “Many of the people they talk to never ask them what they mean by it.” But while sex work opponents have been successful in passing laws against “sexual exploitation,” Jordan says, “they are not enforceable because no one knows what this means.”

It’s funny, because like these heads of organizations, you regurgitate the same tired catchphrases over and over again like a parrot. 

But it’s not about punishing sex workers. Or deliberately confusing people through language.

On the domestic front, anti−sex work activists scored one of their biggest wins with the 2005 reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPRA). TVPRA earmarked $50 million for law enforcement agencies to “develop and execute programs targeted at reducing male demand and to investigate and prosecute buyers of commercial sex acts.” Although ostensibly aimed at supporting victims of forced labor, TVPRA provides money for efforts to discourage men from hiring sex workers, including quasi-legal and legal activities such as escorting, pornography, stripping, and phone sex, as well as for investigating the people they attempt to hire.

So essentially what TVPRA is doing is… taking money out of women’s hands. No matter how you try to spin it, silly feminists, you’re reducing the money that sex workers are getting, which is forcing them to starve or sell off their possessions in order to live from day to day. You know that right?

But it’s not about punishing sex workers. Or sending them into worse poverty.

What happens when people in the sex trade—the people these laws supposedly are meant to protect—push back? Anti-trafficking activists often respond by denying their existence. At the June anti-Backpage protest, I watched Norma Ramos’ staff distribute fliers to passers-by cautioning them against the very term sex work, a phrase that “completely masks the physical, psychological, and sexual violence inflicted on prostituted persons,” although they had to acknowledge “it is a term that women in prostitution themselves use and prefer.” 

So… radical feminism is about “We know you better than you know yourselves. You couldn’t possibly advocate for yourself, and your silly little attempts at doing so are just from false consciousness. Trust us, we really know what’s going on. You should just let us speak for you.”

But it’s not about punishing sex workers. Or removing their autonomy.

If this semantic debate seems a bit arcane for placards and fliers, the purpose was revealed 15 feet further down the sidewalk, where members of the Sex Workers Outreach Project New York (SWOP-NYC), a volunteer-based, grassroots group dedicated to improving the lives of sex workers, held a quiet counter-protest. SWOP members—current and former sex workers among them—greeted New Yorkers on their way through Greenwich Village with smiles and fliers, inviting them to throw their support behind the people who had real expertise on the sex industry. That day the police repeatedly instructed SWOP members to stay half a block away from Ramos’ people. They made no such demands of Ramos.

Interesting how these feminists tell actual sex workers to shut up to their faces when they protest against being spoken for.

With a police force.

Oh wait, what was that that silly hedonisticparadise was saying about not using the police force on women? Shit, I guess you have to rewrite them as pimps! Quick, give them the fur coat and gold cane! 

But it’s not about punishing sex workers. Or silencing them.

 “Putting in an earbud and picking up her pink-and-black Kate Spade-encased iPhone to dial a local police officer, Powell says urgently, ‘We have to report her now.’ ” But when the cops set up a sting operation against the advertiser, the story continues, “she said she was in fact an adult—and didn’t want help from the police or anyone else.” 

Some activists view calling the cops to “rescue” people from the sex trade as the model of a successful human rights intervention. They don’t count their victories by the number of people they help; they count them by arrests.

She wanted the sex worker to be arrested. The sex worker said, no, I have my own autonomy.

Bolded: B-b-but didn’t that little heddy say that that’s not what radical feminists do?!??!?! how can one feminist be saying one thing about all feminists but another feminist be saying things about some feminists! I wonder who could possibly be wrong!?!?!??!

But it’s not about punishing sex workers. It’s about sending them outright to jail for trying to keep themselves from being starved to death. Not enough bootstraps!!!

hese tactics are part of a rise in what Elizabeth Bern­stein calls “carceral feminism”; Harvard law professor Janet Halley calls it “governance feminism.” Feminists once offered a powerful critique of the criminal justice system, but that argument has faded as they have found power within it. Not surprisingly, they have found conservative allies along the way.

In redefining sex work as an issue of bad men doing bad things to enslaved young women, anti-prostitution activists have recast themselves as liberators instead of scolds, while simultaneously making their message more attractive to the social conservatives who have at times distrusted them. The conservative Heritage Foundation has taken up the cause of “fighting sex trafficking,” though mostly as a way to beat up on the Obama administration and the United Nations for not adopting even more punitive policy. The Protect Innocence Initiative, a partnership between the anti-prostitution Shared Hope International and the American Center for Law & Justice (the right’s answer to the ACLU), gave a presentation at the Values Voters Summit in Washington last September touting the 40 bills it has persuaded state legislators to introduce since December 2011. The title: “Can You Protect Your Children From the Commercial Sex Industry?” Shared Hope International’s director, former Rep. Linda Smith (R-Wash.), explained to the Values Voters audience that they should “put this issue in its proper position” alongside the anti-abortion cause.

Hahaha, radical feminists have aligned themselves with conservatives. 

I’ve been saying this for years, that radical feminists just act like conservatives, they just slap a nice label in a cute little bow to pretend they’re the White Saviours instead of, well, those in support of patriarchy.

 Hughes banged her own curious “women’s rights” drum in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a 2004 Washington Post op-ed, co-written with second-wave feminist Phyllis Chesler, in which the duo criticized feminists for not seeing that conservatives “could be better allies on some issues than the liberal left has been.”

Oh wait. 

Now they’re outright saying it.

But demanding cops protect women by “going after the johns” doesn’t exempt sex workers from arrest. A 2012 examination of prostitution-related felonies in Chicago conducted by the Chicago Reporter revealed that of 1,266 convictions during the past four years, 97 percent of the charges were made against sex workers, with a 68 percent increase between 2008 and 2011. This is during the same years that CAASE lobbied for the Illinois Safe Children Act, meant to end the arrest of who the bill describes as “prostituted persons” and to instead target “traffickers” and buyers through wiretaps and stings. Since the Act’s passage in 2010, only three buyers have been charged with a felony. These feminist-supported, headline-grabbing stunts subject young women to the humiliation of jail, legal procedures, and tracking through various law enforcement databases, sometimes for the rest of their lives.

“It’s fascinating that women who claim to be feminists” are so willing to use the law in this way, says Ann Jordan. Supporting anti-prostitution enforcement requires them to call in the muscle of “all these institutions that have oppressed women forever,” she notes. “But they are willing to use the law to coerce a particular kind of behavior from women.”

But wait!? Wasn’t heddy just saying that this wasn’t the case? That sex workers aren’t punished?

I guess the facts aren’t in your favour here.

But this isn’t about punishing sex workers. It’s about sending them to jail to be beaten and abused and raped, and deprived of their ability to support themselves.

When somebody like [New York Times columnist] Nicholas Kristof writes an article about shutting down Backpage or applauding law enforcement efforts, it creates this picture that the answer is criminalization and punishment, and then people think we need to arrest more people, and that’s incredibly detrimental. And unfortunately, when there is more money and a mandate for arrests, that will often result in sex workers who may or may not have been forced into sex work being arrested.”

Sex-worker activists have long voiced this concern, not to protect the sex industry (as anti-prostitution campaigners claim) but to protect themselves from the violence of arrest and the violence that results from widespread social stigma and discrimination. Defenders of sex workers’ rights want to stop those arrests, while the feminists who should be their natural allies are pushing for more.

But this isn’t about punishing sex workers. Or sending them to jail.

Except it is. It literally is. So I guess hedonisticshitweasel is wrong here. And deliberately lying about it’s agenda. 

This next one is so fucking gross, that I can’t even make any comments. Feminists dehumanize murdered women to further their anti-sex worker agenda. It was established earlier in the article that feminists have allied themselves with NOW-NYC - the conservative women’s group.

‘Sack of Bones on Gilgo Beach’

Between 2010 and 2011, the remains of 10 people, many identified as sex workers, were found on Long Island’s Gilgo Beach. New York sex workers, including SWOP members, responded by reaching out to the families of the victims, attending vigils, and providing support to one another. Networks such as these are strong among sex workers, who cannot rely on cops, courts, or other institutions most people can turn to in times of crisis.

NOW-NYC’s response to these murders, still unsolved, came in a letter from its president, Sonia Ossorio, to the New York Daily News. Against the backdrop of NOW’s campaign to increase stings and raids in the sex trade, Ossorio complained that the paper was out of bounds for running a column questioning the public good in keeping prostitution illegal. She closed her letter by invoking the murdered women who “ended up as sacks of bones on Gilgo Beach.” For Ossorio, these women’s deaths are a justification for prohibition rather than a wake-up call to the dangers that prohibition creates.

It is not sex work that exposes sex workers to violence; it is our willingness to abandon sex workers to violence in an attempt to control their behavior. Prohibition makes prostitution more dangerous than it would otherwise be by pushing it underground and stripping sex workers of legal protection. The fight over that policy is about more than just strains between generations of feminism. It is about an unholy marriage of feminism with the conservatism and police power that many feminists claim to stand against. 

Advocates for sex workers are making some headway in calling that alliance to account. In 2011, for the first time, sex-worker activists participated in the U.N. Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights (UPR), a review of all member states’ human rights records conducted each four years. It was also the first year that the U.S. government’s record on human rights was up for U.N. review.

Activist Darby Hickey, a transgender woman who has been involved in the sex trade and is currently an analyst at the Best Practices Policy Project, which defends sex worker rights, participated in the U.N. evaluation. Its findings reinforced what sex workers have been reporting for decades: American sex workers are vulnerable to discrimination and violence not simply because of their work but because of the ways institutions exclude and harm them. The United States signed on to UPR recommendations that “no one should face violence or discrimination in access to public services based on sexual orientation or their status as a person in prostitution.”

“Now we’ll see what they do with that,” Hickey says, “and what steps they take to address violence from law enforcement and systemic violence.” When it comes to criminalization and the prison system, Hickey says, “there’s a general recognition that we’re going in the wrong direction, but around prostitution it’s going in the opposite direction, where people are saying, ‘Arrest more people; increase penalties.’ ” Just as the war on drugs is in many ways a war on black people, Hickey says, the war on prostitution is a war on sex workers.

If we are going to call attacks on reproductive and sexual rights a “war on women,” then let’s talk about a war on women that has actual prisoners and a body count. It’s a war on the women engaged in sex work, waged by women who will not hesitate to use their opponents’ corpses as political props but refuse to listen to them while they are still alive and still here to fight. 

But it’s not about punishing sex workers.

Except that it, really really blatantly is.

And you’re a bunch of… fucking assholes to even try to lie about what you’re really aiming for.

I thought you said I hadn’t researched my opinion? Otherwise I wouldn’t have asked my original question. Tumblr feminists…

remember that thing where radical feminists feel 100% ok with calling people ‘retarded’ and nobody in the radical feminist community did anything about it

ever

at all

0%

That awkward moment when feminists who are always talking about ending patriarchy end up being its biggest supporters.

I have said it before, and will continue until it stops: these radfems are not being opposed because they are feminist, or because they are radical, or because they are women. They are being opposed because they intentionally use institutional power to enforce their purity narrative. This is a behavior that is regressive, patriarchal and authoritarian.

They are radical if I’m the tooth fairy.

That’s definitely why I oppose them.  I’m against patriarchal, authoritarian people.  Plus, purity narratives don’t change things.  There are radical feminists who don’t engage in this but they seem to be few and far between any more.

I do sometimes wonder if the reason they claim the root of all oppression is misogyny is because that’s where they put all their efforts to oppress other people.  Mind you, it doesn’t stop them from also engaging in other forms of oppression but they seem to consciously do the misogyny while unconsciously doing the others.

I am infinitely suspicious of any cis person who is “porn critical”, “BDSM critical” and “sex critical” (regardless of how they define those terms)

genderbitch:

lucypaw:

genderbitch:

appropriately-inappropriate:

genderbitch:

Because invariably, regardless of any other oppressions you may navigate or how well you might do with trans people normally, you’ll somehow still manage to spew transmisogyny in your critique and sometimes even wider cissexism as well, no matter how hypocritical it may end up being to do so.

Double points of suspicion if you’re white, cis, abled and class privileged above working.  Centuple (100x) points if you’re a self identified radical feminist in addition. 

Okay, I’ll bite.

Are you sure you don’t want to bite on some of your sock puppet accounts that you pretended were separate people to stalk someone? :o

Why are you suspicious of someone who is porn critical when the evidence and survivor testimony clearly explains that porn is inherently inegalitarian in terms of labour (something that seems very near and dear to your heart recently) and which benefits from kyriarchy in that the most marginalized and desperate are often the ones who are taken advantage of the most due to a lack of support systems? 

This was explained in the post. Because invariably, any cis person who is porn critical will inject transmisogyny into otherwise valid criticisms of the porn industry and the fucked up way it functions.

Why are you suspicious of someone who is BDSM-critical when there are kink.com alumni who have gone on record as saying that their experiences were traumatic and negative? When even a cursory jaunt through Fetlife shows a bunch of openly misogynistic individuals who are operating in a legal grey area with minimal oversight and community policing? When more and more people are experimenting and joining the scene at younger and younger ages, with less situational awareness; as anyone could tell you, that’s a recipe for being taken advantage of. 

Same as above.

Why are you suspicious of someone who is sex-negative, when sex (specifically the presumption of access to cis women and, to a lesser extent, trans* women)

See, you already oopsed. You just spouted transmisogyny by ignoring the intersection of transness and womanhood and how that would actually boost a presumption of access to the bodies of individuals in a sexual manner, creating higher percentages of people affected by the consequences of that presumption.

The raw numbers are lower because there are far less trans women than cis women. Any knowledge of statistics would steer you away from using raw numbers alone, however.

Anyways, you managed to prove the point of my post and justify suspicions of cis people talking about those three topics WITHIN three paragraphs.

That’s pretty impressive. You couldn’t even make it past three paragraphs without justifying the suspicion by spouting transmisogyny. 

funds a multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry, enables a multi-billion dollar sex industry (porn, stripping, massage/escort/outcall) that has established links to human trafficking? When “sex positivity” uses the term “slut shaming” to refer to the harassment of a pregnant fourteen year old rape survivor. 

I’ll redirect you both above to what I originally said the purpose of the post was and also to your own proving of my point more immediately above as you injected transmisogyny into otherwise valid* critique of various sex related industries.

*Insofar as I haven’t been able to detect any prescriptive nonsense specifically fucking over sex workers themselves or directing blame at them or ignoring complexities involved in some of their situations. If it’s there and I didn’t catch it then I apologize to any sex worker folks that follow me and had to see you engaging in that behavior without me striking it down.

I mean, I’d like to hear why you think any of those things are ethically defensible; especially the two industries linked to the commercialization of sexuality.

Actually I’d really like to hear how you managed to take a post talking about the justified suspicion of cisgender people who critique things that absolutely should be critiqued but end up filling up their critique with transmisogyny (and other isms) as somehow meaning that the sex industry is defensible.

My guess, since you managed to spout transmisogyny in this very post, is an attempt at a strawman to deflect from the fact that it is absolutely worth being suspicious of you since you’re a denial filled transmisogynist at your best and a vile stalking compulsive liar who creates sockpuppet accounts to stalk trans women on the internet at your worst.

But please, let me know, ptsdreamy/ohnozombees/inappropriately appropriate/whatever other sockpuppets you may have that you pretend aren’t you even to the point of pretending to communicate with them through asks.

I agree with your questioning but wanted to point out something more:

The ‘sex-critical’ point from IA-A is especially silly if you  think in analogy to other things.  Like, let’s take being ‘eating-critical’.  Who wouldn’t be against eating when it: Enables a multi-billion dollar food industry that has ties to trafficing?  Means using (over)eating to fat-shame people regardless of their weigh or why they’re fat?  I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

Why does sex merit such special criticism?  Why BDSM?  Why porn?  They’re not the only things that deserve criticism from feminists and yet it seems this is pretty much all certain feminists care about.  Obviously, it can’t be that they think that the major problems for women are sex-related, right?  Right?

Haven’t people actually specifically attack eating and food choices for the problems of the food industry though? Mostly when it comes to POC and fat folks and especially fat POC?

It’s not a good counterexample if people actually do it.

Ehr, my point was not to provide a counterexample but to show that the three “-critical” things are not special with the sex-critical examples being almost directly transferable to eating.  Oppression, even oppression of women, is not just based around sex, porn, and BDSM.  So, why are these the things that are singled out as if they are somehow unusual?  Why do (radical) feminists spend whole conferences concentrating on these to the exclusion of other issues (except for maybe swipes at trans people)?  Why is the sex-related stuff so much more important to address?

(Source: hexgoddess, via hexgoddess)

I am infinitely suspicious of any cis person who is “porn critical”, “BDSM critical” and “sex critical” (regardless of how they define those terms)

genderbitch:

appropriately-inappropriate:

genderbitch:

Because invariably, regardless of any other oppressions you may navigate or how well you might do with trans people normally, you’ll somehow still manage to spew transmisogyny in your critique and sometimes even wider cissexism as well, no matter how hypocritical it may end up being to do so.

Double points of suspicion if you’re white, cis, abled and class privileged above working.  Centuple (100x) points if you’re a self identified radical feminist in addition. 

Okay, I’ll bite.

Are you sure you don’t want to bite on some of your sock puppet accounts that you pretended were separate people to stalk someone? :o

Why are you suspicious of someone who is porn critical when the evidence and survivor testimony clearly explains that porn is inherently inegalitarian in terms of labour (something that seems very near and dear to your heart recently) and which benefits from kyriarchy in that the most marginalized and desperate are often the ones who are taken advantage of the most due to a lack of support systems? 

This was explained in the post. Because invariably, any cis person who is porn critical will inject transmisogyny into otherwise valid criticisms of the porn industry and the fucked up way it functions.

Why are you suspicious of someone who is BDSM-critical when there are kink.com alumni who have gone on record as saying that their experiences were traumatic and negative? When even a cursory jaunt through Fetlife shows a bunch of openly misogynistic individuals who are operating in a legal grey area with minimal oversight and community policing? When more and more people are experimenting and joining the scene at younger and younger ages, with less situational awareness; as anyone could tell you, that’s a recipe for being taken advantage of. 

Same as above.

Why are you suspicious of someone who is sex-negative, when sex (specifically the presumption of access to cis women and, to a lesser extent, trans* women)

See, you already oopsed. You just spouted transmisogyny by ignoring the intersection of transness and womanhood and how that would actually boost a presumption of access to the bodies of individuals in a sexual manner, creating higher percentages of people affected by the consequences of that presumption.

The raw numbers are lower because there are far less trans women than cis women. Any knowledge of statistics would steer you away from using raw numbers alone, however.

Anyways, you managed to prove the point of my post and justify suspicions of cis people talking about those three topics WITHIN three paragraphs.

That’s pretty impressive. You couldn’t even make it past three paragraphs without justifying the suspicion by spouting transmisogyny. 

funds a multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry, enables a multi-billion dollar sex industry (porn, stripping, massage/escort/outcall) that has established links to human trafficking? When “sex positivity” uses the term “slut shaming” to refer to the harassment of a pregnant fourteen year old rape survivor. 

I’ll redirect you both above to what I originally said the purpose of the post was and also to your own proving of my point more immediately above as you injected transmisogyny into otherwise valid* critique of various sex related industries.

*Insofar as I haven’t been able to detect any prescriptive nonsense specifically fucking over sex workers themselves or directing blame at them or ignoring complexities involved in some of their situations. If it’s there and I didn’t catch it then I apologize to any sex worker folks that follow me and had to see you engaging in that behavior without me striking it down.

I mean, I’d like to hear why you think any of those things are ethically defensible; especially the two industries linked to the commercialization of sexuality.

Actually I’d really like to hear how you managed to take a post talking about the justified suspicion of cisgender people who critique things that absolutely should be critiqued but end up filling up their critique with transmisogyny (and other isms) as somehow meaning that the sex industry is defensible.

My guess, since you managed to spout transmisogyny in this very post, is an attempt at a strawman to deflect from the fact that it is absolutely worth being suspicious of you since you’re a denial filled transmisogynist at your best and a vile stalking compulsive liar who creates sockpuppet accounts to stalk trans women on the internet at your worst.

But please, let me know, ptsdreamy/ohnozombees/inappropriately appropriate/whatever other sockpuppets you may have that you pretend aren’t you even to the point of pretending to communicate with them through asks.

I agree with your questioning but wanted to point out something more:

The ‘sex-critical’ point from IA-A is especially silly if you  think in analogy to other things.  Like, let’s take being ‘eating-critical’.  Who wouldn’t be against eating when it: Enables a multi-billion dollar food industry that has ties to trafficing?  Means using (over)eating to fat-shame people regardless of their weigh or why they’re fat?  I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

Why does sex merit such special criticism?  Why BDSM?  Why porn?  They’re not the only things that deserve criticism from feminists and yet it seems this is pretty much all certain feminists care about.  Obviously, it can’t be that they think that the major problems for women are sex-related, right?  Right?

(Source: hexgoddess, via hexgoddess)

lavenderpanda:

lookatthisfuckinradfem:

A friend just showed me this amazing game.

Oh my god lmao

This is amazing and fun!

(Source: lookatthisfuckingoppressor)

Transphobic Lies: Trans People Don’t Respect Women/Care About Women’s Issues/Aren’t Feminist

Transphobes tell many lies as part of their transphobia, but one of the ones that annoys me most is the claim by transphobic (radical) feminists that trans people don’t respect women, care about women’s issues and/or aren’t feminist.

First, it’s true in part.  Some trans people aren’t feminists.  With good reason.  They’ve been actively hounded out by the same transphobic (radical) feminists.  Blaming the victim is a classic tactic, and it’s one these transphobes engage in gleefully when they claim that trans people aren’t feminist when they’ve made it clear that no trans person can be feminist under their definition of feminism.  Plus, llet’s be honest.  While feminism has some lovely ideals, as practiced, it tends to be dominated by, well, privileged people who seem more attached to the possibilities for fame, influence, and money.  Feminism in the anglophone world has consistently failed the women and men who most need its ideals to be realised.


Second, let’s talk about what ‘respecting women’ and/or ‘caring about women’s issues’.  Transphobes actually mean ‘respecting my cissexist privilege to deny your gender and force you into the sex/gender binary just like patriarchy does’ and ‘caring about my issues which includes excluding you as the gender you are’ which I think explains the whole lie right there.  It’s no secret that transphobic (radical) feminists are only really concerned about them being respected as women (note how they lack any respect for trans people and will use transphobic slurs and intentionally misgender trans people) and about issues that involve them either ‘leading’ even though they are not the ones directly suffering (ie, setting the terms of what the feminist solution is;  sex work is the most famous example) or that solve their particular problems.  This is just another example where they couch themselves in righteousness and declare that in not accepting transphobic exclusion or inclusion in, for instance, women’s spaces means that trans people neither respect nor care about women’s issues.

All this serves a purpose, of course.  They’re trying to convince others that they are being assaulted and victimised by trans people.  They’re trying to claim that they are the victims here, not the trans people who they conspire with patriarchy/kyriarchy to hurt.  The idea is to infect people with the belief that trans people are bullies who hate women even though a good number of them are women or are treated as women.  It’s insidious, it’s vicious, it’s a lie.

image

ktempest:

Right now on the Diane Rehm show there is a discussion of Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique” and guest Michelle Bernard (founder and president of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics and Public Policy) is laying down some TRUTH about the absence of WOC in the book and subsequent discussion. 

“Black women were completely left out of the book… many African American women looked at the word feminism and the title of the book and the contents of the book as almost being frivolous. And being sometimes about white women whining about something that African American women never had the option to whine about.”

Diane is having a hard time grokking her point. One of the other guests pointed out that the book comes out of Betty’s background in academia and spoke specifically to the women in her circle — college educated, mostly young and white — and the societal messages aimed at that group. She does admit that this leaves out other kinds of women.

This is on right now, but will probably be available to stream here. Worth a listen.

Also, I need Michelle Bernard in my life at all times. She seems awesome.

(via audscratprophetlilith)

You know what I’d love to see?

telegantmess:

TDoR lists that include trans* people that die from medical negligence, suicide, poverty, lack of medical care and all of the other cumulative effects of being trans* in a cis oriented society.

Those may not be physical violence, but they are violence nonetheless. And those lives deserve to be remembered and counted.

Relevant for today.

genderbitch:

taleth:

friendlyangryfeminist:

What I Mean When I Say I’m Sex Negative

  • that sex positive feminism has little room for survivors of assault
  • that sex positive feminism has little interest in helping people who don’t want their sex-life to be a coping mechanism from trauma
  • that sex positive feminism prioritizes individual pleasure over critical thinking skills
  • that sex positive feminism should be critiqued!
  • that not all “kinks” are okay 
  • that people are allowed to not be interested in hearing about your sex life
  • that people are allowed to not enjoy sex
  • that people are allowed to be scared of sex
  • that no one needs to have or enjoy sex to prove how empowered they are

What I Don’t Mean

  • I’m going to yell at individual adults who have consensual sex.
  • I’m anti-sex
  • I’m anti-kink
  • I’m against coping mechanisms and survival

wow here I was thinking sex-negative feminism was anti-porn, anti-heterosexuality (and anti-AMAB people to the detriment to CAMABs; I don’t care about men tho), anti-sex work, anti-kink

but it’s been re-defined now?

We’ve always been at war with Eurasia, right?

That awkward moment when cis women who don’t practice sex work or porn work “reclaim” a term used most heavily against trans women and transmisogny facing dmab trans folks, sex workers and porn workers.

Much as I agree with the criticisms of “sex-positive” in the OP, the “reclamation” makes me want to throw things.

(Source: fauxcyborg, via hexgoddess)

sinkintohope:

lucypaw:

sinkintohope:

lucypaw:

It’s the mansplaining. You know, that thing where someone, almost always a man, attempts to explain something to you when you know as much as, if not way more than, them. That’s exactly what these radical feminists are doing when it comes to trans, kink, sex work, parenting, sex, and so on. They…

Women cannot “mansplain.”  Radical feminists are women. (Sorry dudes. You can be allies or pro-feminists if you like.) Lucyspaw, I don’t think you understand what is meant by mansplaining. I don’t know you, so I’m just judging from your photo, but aren’t you the one mansplaining?  You appear to be a man and you’re ‘splaining how things are to us women with our poor little lady-brains.

Seriously, no, women can and do mansplain.  As I explained in another reblog on this post, one of the first examples online of the use of the term was a woman explaining how another woman mansplained how to do laundry to her.  Perhaps you should understand a term and how it’s used before you decide you’re an expert on it.

Secondly, how the fuck do you get that I’m a man?  Please explain that to me like I’m two.  Because, I’m tired of people deciding what my gender is when I state it on my blog’s profile (and even have a pic that I am pretty sure doesn’t scream “man”) and then using their assumption against me like a fucking weapon.

I apologize for assuming that you are male from your photo. I used to get called “sir” when I had short hair. Sometimes people make snap judgements based on a quick look that turn out to be incorrect. I admit I am guilty of that in this case. Of course, now that I’ve read your self-description, I’m even more confused regarding your sex.  If you are biologically female, I apologize for accusing you of mansplaining.  If you are biologically male, I stand by the assertion that you were mansplaining.

And I don’t give a flying fuck if some woman did accuse another woman of mansplaining. If she did, she used the term incorrectly. Mansplaining is not the same as explaining something in a condescending manner. Anyone can do that.

Mansplaining specifically refers to a man (an adult human male) explaining something to a woman (an adult human female) as if she is an idiot or a child, simply because she is a woman and he is a man and we live in a misogynist, patriarchal culture which assumes that men know more than women simply by virtue of being male and that what men have to say is more important than what women have to say. So, no, women cannot mansplain.

I accept your apology and thank you for it.  I’m a bit sensitive on the subject recently because multiple people have decided either my sex or my gender for me to use it to discredit me and/or to decide to ignore me.

We’re going to have to disagree on that.  I understand your position, but historic usage disagrees with it.  Certainly, I think we can agree that it’s something that men do a lot.  I know I’ve experienced it in person lots of times (which I usually chalk up to my being feminine-looking), and I get annoyed every time.

sinkintohope:

lucypaw:

sophine:

vialisa:

lucypaw:

Yes, yes, and no.

I think that transphobic, kinkphobic, etc radical feminists (because I know radical feminists who are not those things) ostracise and discipline mothers, trans people, sex workers, and kinky people for not adhering to…

I still have PTSD from experimenting briefly with mild and completely consensual BDSM. (Yes, I’m too sensitive. Yes, I’m a wimp. So what? )I think it is absolutely vital that we discuss the real dangers involved in kink and BDSM. To call any critical discussion of fetishistic sex-practices kink-shaming is simplistic and potentially harmful.  People need to know the potential emotional, mental and physical harms of engaging in “kink.”  It isn’t always just harmless fun. Perhaps a more honest discussion of kink by society could help those of us who are ultra-sensitive from being hurt by “harmless fun.”

I’m sorry you were hurt by your experiences in BDSM.  However, I will point out that a) I’m not saying everyone do BDSM because I believe it is not for everyone and can be actively harmful to some people, and b) there is potential harm in having plain sex (of whatever kind), riding roller coasters, and so on.  I would also point out that I know people with PTSD who use kink to help with it.  More to the point, I am not calling criticism of kink practices kink-shaming.  Hell, I’m incredibly critical of the silencing of survivors of consent violations, the cover provided to abusers and predators, and so on.  But, I do believe that a criticism that focuses on acts while erasing the people or, as I complained about in the original OP, talks about kink without actually knowing much, if anything, about it is not helpful.

If anything, there is rarely anything that is universally “harmless fun”.  In my experience.

sinkintohope:

lucypaw:

It’s the mansplaining. You know, that thing where someone, almost always a man, attempts to explain something to you when you know as much as, if not way more than, them. That’s exactly what these radical feminists are doing when it comes to trans, kink, sex work, parenting, sex, and so on. They…

Women cannot “mansplain.”  Radical feminists are women. (Sorry dudes. You can be allies or pro-feminists if you like.) Lucyspaw, I don’t think you understand what is meant by mansplaining. I don’t know you, so I’m just judging from your photo, but aren’t you the one mansplaining?  You appear to be a man and you’re ‘splaining how things are to us women with our poor little lady-brains.

Seriously, no, women can and do mansplain.  As I explained in another reblog on this post, one of the first examples online of the use of the term was a woman explaining how another woman mansplained how to do laundry to her.  Perhaps you should understand a term and how it’s used before you decide you’re an expert on it.

Secondly, how the fuck do you get that I’m a man?  Please explain that to me like I’m two.  Because, I’m tired of people deciding what my gender is when I state it on my blog’s profile (and even have a pic that I am pretty sure doesn’t scream “man”) and then using their assumption against me like a fucking weapon.

I Think I Finally Realised What I Hate Most About Transphobic, Kinkphobic, etc Radical Feminists

appropriately-inappropriate:

lucypaw:

sophine:

vialisa:

lucypaw

Yes, yes, and no.

I think that transphobic, kinkphobic, etc radical feminists (because I know radical feminists who are not those things) ostracise and discipline mothers, trans people, sex workers, and kinky people for not adhering to radical feminist theory/orthodoxy.  Heck, they ostracise and discipline radical feminists who speak out against doing such things.  But it is interesting that you show that radical feminists only accept ex-sex workers and ex-trans people (which is a fascinating concept, btw) as valid people in their community.  Anyway, I’ve read and discussed and argued with various radical feminists for years now.  I’m willing to bet I’ve read more radical feminist base works than many younger radical feminists.  I based my statement on my experiences.

ok. you are gross. 

1. i am a radical feminist and former sex worker and i am not “ostracized” or “disciplined” by other radfems. radfems understand that women do what they have to do to survive, and that includes sex work. you’re conflating hating an industry with hating the workers. 

2. if you are not part of a group, you should probably stop ‘splaining 

how is kinkphobic even a word? kink shaming would be more accurate. “AGAINST ABUSIVE/HARMFUL SEXUAL ACTS” would be even more so.

I’m going to assume your question is rhetorical.  Call it kink-shaming if you like.  However, claiming that it’s being “against abusive/harmful sexual acts” shows complete ignorance of kink as well as implicitly claiming that there are sexual acts that by their very essence are not abusive and not harmful and others that are, all while erasing the agency and existence of the people involved in those sexual acts.  That claim with its erasure is a huge problem in that it suggests that a) there is one right way to have sex, and b) everyone feels the same way about and experiences all sexual acts the same way.  But that’s not true.  I know radical feminists tend to believe a) very heavily but because it relies upon b) being true, they’re both false.  The same sexual act can be abusive and/or harmful at one time and not at another.  Or, can be abusive and/or harmful to one person and not to another.  That transphobic, kinkphobic/kink-shaming, etc radical feminist theory and praxis has a “one size fits all” approach to sexual acts (among other things) is exactly what I’m talking about in my original OP.

So, since I can’t resist putting my two cents in:

However, claiming that it’s being “against abusive/harmful sexual acts” shows complete ignorance of kink

Bullshit. I’ve been a kinkster all my life, and even I can tell that certain acts are harmful. I’m sorry, but if you hit someone with a Delrin cane, you are intending to do harm. If you choke someone, you are intending to do harm. If you paddle someone to the point of hematoma, harm. Bullwhips, floggers, pinwheels—-
Sadism revolves in its entirety around doing harm.


Regardless of whether or not you intend it, or you consent to it, you are still perpetrating harm on someone else.

And don’t try to piss on my head and tell me it’s raining; the kink community—the real life scene, not the 50 Shades shit—is well aware of the potential to do harm. It’s also aware of the predators in its midst who take advantage of masochists and submissives in order to perpetrate abuse on an ostensibly willing partner.

I could find you—quite literally—hundreds of cases of partner abuse in the kink community, but since I don’t believe in “I herd it ergo it must be twue!”, I’ll spare you the anecdotal evidence.
However, it’s downright disingenious to be all “I said yes, so it’s okay!”
Some people consent to be eaten alive, for christssake. That doesn’t mean cannibalism is a-ok.

Wow, that’s a whole mess of fallacies, but I’m just going to point out that people are allowed to determine for themselves what is and is not harm, regardless of what you declare that this or that is harm.  You don’t get to decide that for other people, because why are your definitions better than theirs?  Why are your declarations superior to mine when, for instance, it’s my body involved?  This opposition to body autonomy and imposition of patriarchal judgement is really a large part of why I get very annoyed at the radical feminist ‘critique’ of kink.

And, I do love how again, someone is telling me how things are in my life, in my community, when I’m well aware.  Yes, there is abuse, yes, there are predators, just like in the rest of the society.  Including the supposedly safe spaces of “women only”.  To blame kink for these as though it is somehow so different is bizarre.  I have found that abuse and predators are less likely to happen and flourish in an atmosphere of openness which generally does not exist because of societal attitudes that victim-blame kinky people because “Kink is abuse by predators so what did you expect?”.  No, it’s not, but thanks for reinforcing the idea that it is.

I would ask if “I said yes, so it’s okay” is to be overruled by other people’s judgement being substituted for mine, who gets to decide who those people are?  I notice that radical feminists don’t seem to show any self-reflection on why they should be the ones to overrule me and others.  My body, my choice.  What gives you the right to overrule that?  How are you an improvement on patriarchy doing the same damn thing (literally, in this case, as patriarchy agrees with you that I should not be kinky).

implicitly claiming that there are sexual acts that by their very essence are not abusive and not harmful and others that are

Do you disagree? See the above statement. There are some sexual acts that by their intrinsic nature are meant to perpetrate harm against others—and unfortunately, those acts tend to be those that the kink community engages in.
Why do you think the Black Rose society does after-care classes, and why RACK and SSC are as important as they are?
Because people take advantage of others, and in an area as intimate as sexuality, it’s very easy to hide abuse and harm under the guise of “Master said, so I did”.

That you claim that sexual acts have an intrinsic nature separate from people means that I have to wonder why you suddenly slide from that to saying that people are using kink to take advantage of others?  Just explain that intrinsic nature of perpetrating harm against people like me.  Explain to me what harm happens to me when I enjoy a sexual act that you claim has an intrinsic nature of harm.  Please, do explain to me how that works, how I’m being harmed even though I don’t experience harm.  Explain to me how your judgement of my experience is superior to mine, is right while mine is wrong.  Please, do.  And then explain to me why that’s not mansplaining.

erasure is a huge problem in that it suggests that a) there is one right way to have sex, and b) everyone feels the same way about and experiences all sexual acts the same way

Noone’s saying “there is only one way to have sex!!1!”. They are saying “There are a few ways NOT to have sex”, and that is  very different thing altogether.
Likewise, noone’s saying that sexual experiences, attitude and tastes are universal. They are critiquing a community wherein it is shamefully easy for abusers to prey on well-meaning individuals, and get away with it under the auspices of “It’s just 24/7, you can’t tell me my kink is not okay”.

Likewise, there is a endemic problem with the kink community, wherein newcomers (who, lets face it, generally identify as some flavour of sub/masochist/girl/whatever) can be unaware of their rights in the scene, fall prey to dishonest and abusive dominants (and recall, abuse needn’t be physical—calling someone a “dirty cum-guzzling fuck-hole” when that’s not their thing but are too intimidated to speak up about it for any reason is never the less verbal and emotional abuse). These submissives are then too intimidated by the dominant’s social status and clout in the scene to speak up and are, unfortunately, rarely taken seriously when they do.


Okay, so why are those ways not to have sex?  Why?  If I enjoy them, if I experience joy and pleasure and even bonding to another person with them, why are they ways to not have sex?  How did it get determined that my ways of having sex are not ways to have sex?  Who gets to overrule me on my life like that?  Why?

As to the problems of which you speak, I don’t see how that proves anything other than there needs to be the usual destruction of patriarchy in kink just like in the rest of the culture.  You can keep talking about abusers preying on people (which, of course, does happen) but that happens everywhere in the culture, not just kink.

More to the point, there are those of us who are, in fact, trying to fight abusers and predators.  But as long kinkphobic feminists keep claiming that kink = abuse and predation, then we’re being impeded by people who supposedly care about the same people we do.

I know radical feminists tend to believe a) very heavily but because it relies upon b) being true, they’re both false. 

You know nothing, Jon Snow. See above.

The same sexual act can be abusive and/or harmful at one time and not at another

With all due respect, physical harm is physical harm whether you consent or not. You’re still going to have open weals on your ass the next day, whether you said “RED!” or “please oh god more harder ooo”.
HARM is basically a given. Whether it’s intended as abuse—yes, your mileage may vary—but I’d argue that there are certain acts that even kinksters—perhaps especially kinksters!—deem “beyond the pale”. So if radfems are “one size fits all” (which I don’t believe), your thesis is “all sizes are okay”, and frankly, after six years in the scene (and having been sexually active since 15—and privately involved in the scene from that point), I really have fundamental difficulties agreeing with your point.

I am curious about this appeal to an objective reality of harm when you’re talking about a subjective experience.  More to the point, given the physical damage that results for many people from standard PIV sex, the physical damage that results from exercise, the physical damage that results from work ffs (heck, I’m clumsy enough I get physical damage just walking around;  you should see the shin bruises and cuts I have), I really wonder why it’s only with regard to kink that this standard is asserted.  Again, my body, my choice.  Why do you get to determine what I should or should not have done/do to my body?  What makes you the superior judge?  Why is what happens to my body as I decide your concern?

I don’t claim all sizes are okay, though I can understand your misunderstanding on that.  What I do claim is what I’ve been repeating: body autonomy.  My body, my choice.  People get to make their own decisions about their own bodies.  Because I still fail to see how radical feminists telling me what I can’t do with my body is an improvement on patriarchy telling me what I can’t do with my body.

Lastly, I’d like to address a point you raise in  your original post:

I think that transphobic, kinkphobic, etc radical feminists (because I know radical feminists who are not those things) ostracise and discipline mothers, trans people, sex workers, and kinky people for not adhering to radical feminist theory/orthodoxy.

You are allowed your own opinions. You are not, however, allowed your own facts, and the fact of the matter is:

Radical feminists do not, as a general rule, ostracize mothers, trans people, sex workers or kinky people.

LOL  Talk about wanting your own facts.  Yes, they do, when it’s the transphobic, etc ones I’m talking about.  For six years plus, I’ve experienced and watched transphobic, etc radical feminists doing just that.  Hell, even offline in the theory world, Mary Daly has a little fantasy section in Gyn/Ecology devoted to just that ostracism (minus mothers, I think) with a whole convocation of radical feminist women jeering, harassing, and expelling them from their world.  She does it less obviously in the rest of the book.  Transphobic, etc radical feminists love ex-trans people (whatever that means), ex-sex workers, ex-kinky people who toe the line but for those of us who refuse to do so, we’re told very clearly that we are bad people and not wanted.

Look, there are radical feminists who don’t do this shit.  I know at least one or two of them.  But, sadly, they are in the minority, especially online and especially on tumblr.  I don’t reject radical feminism, but I do reject bigoted radical feminists.  That you want to misread my OP as the former instead of the latter says a lot to me about either your misunderstanding or your desire to justify bigotry as an intrinsic part of radical feminism.  If it’s the latter, I pity you.