Sunday, June 10, 2012

Pay Close Attention to THIS!

Here is an article at the NOW blog. When you read it, you will see it is a muddled, scrambled, incoherent trainwreck of a piece. It waffles. It dithers. It flip-flops. It tries to say something, but immediately says something different, then veers drunkenly back to the original thesis, only to retract this immediately while introducing a third thesis  which modifies the second one while obliterating the first one, only to bring the latter back again in the following paragraph. Do you follow me? No? Well I don't blame you. Honestly now, I have read this carefully, straight through, at least five times, and I still haven't got a clue what the hell Loretta A. Kane is trying to tell us. And you know what? I don't think SHE has a clue about that, either!

But wait, maybe I'm all wrong! I think Loretta finally spills her guts in the following short paragraph near the end of the article.
"We cannot blithely accept gender, gender studies or gender rights. We must determine whether gender rights will facilitate progress for women, or if gender rights is part of the backlash against women."
How typically feminist of her, to call a backlash against feminism a backlash against women! But that aside, what we've got here is extended evidence for long-developing trend.

All right, we know that the RadFems want to repel "transwomen" from their movement. That particular war has been apparent for quite some time, and the Conway Hall debacle further confirms it. But what intrigues me now, is that a supposedly mainstream feminist from the NOW lobbying group is averse to the "gender movement" as she calls it. Oh, she beats around the bush like a politician who doesn't want to alienate supporters, but there is no getting away from it -- she is not a bit happy about this gender movement. It puts her in a tight spot and makes her squirm.

Wait a minute -- "gender movement"? Why, that would need to include the transgender movement if I am not mistaken. Wouldn't you say so?

That's right, we are entitled to entertain some questions here.  Not to mince words, is anti-trannyism the sole province a few radical lesbians on the so-called fringe? Or does does that emotion run through ALL  feminism, from wall to wall, like a tectonic cleavage? Those are critically important matters indeed. And true to my customary method, I shall incline toward what I deem the greater probability.

Said probability being, that the entire feminist movement splits along a fault line dividing trans-phobics and trans-haters on the one side, from all other feminists on the other. I won't venture to guess the relative proportions of the two sectors, but I cannot doubt that such a division is present, for it would overstretch my power of belief to believe otherwise.

That said, there remains, to my mind at least, one significant question. How ought this tectonic division in the feminist world affect the policy of those who oppose feminism?

Should we openly seek alliances with the transgendered community?

Well. I admit the possibility of such a thing, but I don't consider it strictly necessary. Historical forces have squeezed the conflict to the surface of feminism already. So far, the fissure is comparatively small. But I think the pressure is growing, so give it time and the crack will grow too. No doubt it will be quite the spectacle -- especially when Agent Orange pulls the next rabbit out of his hat!

In the meantime, here is my video on essentialism and constructivism, which clears up plenty of smoke upon matters relevant to the present discussion:



Anonymous Anonymous said...

hmmm. it would appear that this whole inclusiveness thing of egalitarianism is coming home to roost for them

inevitable snag female supremacists would eventually encounter by living parasitic within an egalitarian host

i'm forced to reevaluate the potential of leftist leaning mra-ism

11:53 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Oh yes. . . it has potential.

12:12 AM  
Anonymous ragnar said...

This isn't hard to figure out. Feminist hate all men but they particularly despise men who want to be women. It's an extension of the way they loath beta males and want them dead. Then there are the alpha's, feminist still hate those guys but they love to hate them and bang them then hate them again after.

6:28 AM  
Blogger Hack said...

You are added to our blogroll. Keep up the good work.

2:29 PM  
Blogger CrazyPoet said...

"The very laws we pass to promote women’s equality may serve to reverse the progress the feminist movement has gained for women."

What she is basically saying here, coded in different language, is that the privileges Feminists have fought for women to possess exclusively would be useless if men could simply change sexes and gain them as well. What if a woman made it to the top of a particular institutional hierarchy via affirmative action, and then changed sex to a male? Horror of horrors!

But if "equality" was achieved by NOW, how would anyone switching their sex reverse any progress, or even be noticeable on a social scale?

The decision to change one's sex might be, from a gender-political perspective, the most radically individualistic expression of gender. And here we have people who say nothing but "my body, my choice" going against that very "principle." How "anti-choice" they are! But as we all know by now, their only principle is the pursuit of absolute power. That is the common denominator, the hub of the wheel from which the spokes of the various schools extend.

This may also tie in to what you were saying a while back about Radical Feminists being closet essentialists - that they do indeed believe men are by nature bad and women by nature good. Thus in their eyes, men who change to become women cannot ever wipe off the stain of having been male.

But yes, let us our associates consider what leverage this affords us.

2:42 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home