Some Responses to the “Easy Mistake To Make” Cartoon
| July 24th, 2007(The cartoon these folks are discussing can be read here.)
Laurie and Debbie at Body Impolitic (a blog I’m a fan of) argue that the cartoon is “the politics of hypersimplification.”
…The reason the two characters in the cartoon appear to agree is that their positions are hypersimplified. We seem to be living in a time where most political/social/gender opinions and expectations have been reduced not just to the sound bite but to the bumper sticker. Oversimplified opinions lead to false agreement and false disagreement.
Piny at Feministe responds:
Radical-feminist transphobia is not distinguishable from conservative Christian transphobia because they’re both transphobia. I hate to be as uncharitable as Amp here, but my experience has borne that out in many cases: tap the facade of philosophy and/or tradition and it cracks to reveal a deep and powerful current of simple hatred. All of the positions argued by the characters in the cartoon are shortened, but they’re not actually all that hyperbolic, and they don’t actually distinguish themselves in the longer version; take the “silencing/transsexual agenda” concurrence, for example.
Meanwhile, Littoral Mermaid suggests that I’m beating a straw radical feminist. She and I debate the question in her comments. Other comments on this post range from a smart criticism from Cellycel (whose blog I like, mainly because it’s well-written, but also because it includes references to role-playing games and “Avenue Q“) to impressively venal anti-fat bigotry from someone whose name I’ve forgotten.
Anyway, here’s a quote from my exchange with Cellycel:
Why compare it to the Christian right? Isn’t transphobia bad because of things like say, oppression and discrimination? Not “Because Conservative Christians thing it’s bad, so it must be good. Also radical feminists agree with conservative Christians. That makes radical feminists bad.”
I think this is the most substantive criticism of the cartoon I’ve seen so far. (A few people have made it, including my “Alas” co-blogger Maia). The cartoon would have been better if it had somehow closed off this interpretation.
My intent with this cartoon wasn’t “conservative Christians are bad, therefore anyone who agrees with them on anything is bad.” That would be a ridiculous argument (is giving to charity bad because Christians do it?), and it’s not what I believe.
My intended point was that transphobia is wrong no matter who the speaker is; and that if these arguments are bigoted when they’re coming out of a conservative Christian’s mouth, then they are still bigoted when they are spoken by feminists.
July 24th, 2007 at 7:27 am
The idea that male-to-female transexuals shouldn’t be treated as women was espoused by germaine greer in “the whole woman”.
For me I have big issues with the idea that we live in a society where gender roles are so aggressively defined that people feel the need to have surgery. But that’s different from how I feel about people I know who are transgenered - I mean I just know they suffer heaps of prejudice and I want to help fight that.
This comment was written by Cruella.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 9:26 am
I’m wondering, is there actually a movement among transgendered people themselves opposing surgery, the same way some (not all) East Asians oppose eyelid modification surgery and many Asians and Africans oppose skin lightening creams? Because if transgendered people are not themselves even in a minority opposing gender reassignment surgery, then that certainly speaks to the bad faith of those radical feminists who oppose GR surgery.
This comment was written by Sajia Kabir.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 9:34 am
You know, I feel like a radical feminist. To the rest of the world, I come off as a radical feminist.
But I can’t imagine dismissing you solely because you’re a man, nor finding it acceptable to mock your weight under a thin veneer of definitional trickery.
My response to Littoral Mermaid, which at this time remains in moderation:
Gender essentialism is noxious whether it’s radical feminists saying that what defines a woman is childbirth (which was one of the opinions expressed on the IBTP thread) or whether it’s Christian conservatives saying the same thing.
Radical feminism does have a history of entanglement with transphobia. Major theorists, including people I greatly admire like Joanna Russ, have thrown down with the bigotry.
Fair enough. No movement is innocent. But we police our own, neh? And I see transphobic hatred on other feminist blogs. I see it leak onto transfriendly blogs, too, whenever someone makes a post in support of people who are trans.
Transphobia is bigotry. It is mean-spirited; it is cruel; it is victimizing the weak.
Gender essentialism — the apparent basis for noxiousness like that represented in the cartoon –has fatal flaws which have been martialed throughout history to hurt women.
It’s silly to maintain the position that the group of radical feminists does not include a visible portion of virulent transphobes who attempt to distort radical feminist arguments in order to vent bile at transsexuals. It’s likewise silly to maintain that this strain of radical feminist thought is limited to blogs, when it is clear in radical feminist literature as well.
As to whether or not it is a legitimate reading to assume that Ampersand (who I note has not called you names, despite your willingness to mock him and his weight) believes all radical feminists to be identical to conservative Christians, I give you the same advice Ilyka gave to her man when he swooned with offense over feminist critiques of the faults of some of his gender.
If you don’t do that, it’s not about you.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Is the idea that it’s ironic that Raf-Fem and the Fundamental Christians agree that hard to get? It’s a joke. It doesn’t have to be 100% accurate. If it were a cartoon showing a situation where Karl Rove and Jesse Jackson agree that would also be funny. It wouldn’t mean they’re all that alike. This isn’t a hurtful joke. It doesn’t reinforce harmful stereotypes. It actually challenges them a little by showing the fundie as a woman with tattoos.
Good job starting the conversation though amp.
Also the fat stuff was pretty mean. To say nothing of the comment that said fat women are okay, fat men are greasy and evil.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Sajia Kabir, in many trans communities surgery is a seen as a personal choice, up to each individual to decide whether or not hormones/surgery are right for hir. There are actually, quite a few no-ho and/or non-op trans*people out there, but I don’t believe there is any group, that I have heard of at least, that opposes hormones/surgery for all trans*people. Most non-op/n-ho trans*people, certainly all that I have met, realize that their experience of trans*ism is different from the experiences of others.
And given that hormones/surgery for trans*people are not comparable to the procedures you mentioned, I doubt that there ever will be a large group of trans*people against the medical transitions of all trans*people.
Surgery/hormones are not always about ‘passing,’ they are often about making us comfortable in our bodies. For the basics of trans*ism: http://www.t-vox.org/index.php?title=Trans_101
This comment was written by Drakyn.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 11:03 am
“To say nothing of the comment that said fat women are okay, fat men are greasy and evil.”
And you know — amazingly, as a fat woman, that caveat doesn’t make me feel any safer. If people can be reduced to how much extra food they carry under their skins, then that will be a salient characteristic, regardess of what genitalia that skin folds into.
(Not saying that it’s okay for fat men to be derided for being fat. Just saying that even if I were to be selfish about things, that argument would still suck.)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I just want to say political arguments revolving around this imagined group of people’s genital configuration and reconstruction surgery options make my stomach roll over.
Why do things get phrased as if transsexual people aren’t here–why does it have to be this certain “us” versus this imagined “them”. Do I need some sort of “I’m trans and I read blogs” button?
Cruella writes:
“For me I have big issues with the idea that we live in a society where gender roles are so aggressively defined that people feel the need to have surgery.”
I am having a hard time unpacking this statement. In many locations, to change one’s sex on (for instance) a birth certificate, a sex reassignment surgery must be completed. In my birth state Illinois, a genital reconstruction surgery must be completed and documented. I should say correcting my documents is a pretty big “need”. If you truly feel this is an unfortunate rule (which I do) then perhaps we can join together to protest the state’s rather strict and unfair rules around gender and genitals.
This comment was written by jayinchicago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
“But we police our own, neh?”
Nah.
Feminism lacks recognized authority. Nobody can pull membership cards. Therefore, we don’t “police our own.” We disagree with our own, and AFAICT never reach resolution on some matters of fundamental disagreement; unlike churches, we don’t even have enough central authority to schism and recognizably separate. So we argue. Sometimes nastily, and for decades at a time.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
There are certainly a lot of trans people out there — even ones who have had some form of gender-related surgery — who are actively engaged in resisting the idea of surgery as a criteria or defining quality of trans people, the idea that all trans people want or should want or are legitimized by surgery, the pressure that without a doubt exists on trans people to get surgery and to have our bodies look more like non-trans people’s bodies through surgery.
At the same time, the trans people who write about this subject — as opposed to non-trans academics and observers — are much more likely to grasp, or have personal experience with, the concept that for many trans people, wanting a change in the shape and function of our bodies has very, very little to do with the demands and conformity of society. Another way of putting this: even completely removed from society, without the horrifically oppressive constraints and violence of the gender system pressing upon us, a whole lot of trans people would still opt to change our bodies, to live in different forms.
Of course, this is a thought experiment: it’s no mean feat to even try and imagine our lives, experiences, beings outside of the frameworks of society and gender. You can’t just “turn off” the pressures that are exerting their forces on you, so some people are suspicious of the idea that there’s something “outside of society” going on with trans people. However, here’s the thing: some people presume to have a better idea of why trans people seek surgeries (for instance) than trans people themselves do; they may imagine that they have a better understanding of what makes gender work, how it operates inside other people’s heads.
Sure, reading a lot of theory about gender and oppression can give you this impression (I’ve been there). But really, we are all fishes theorizing about the murky water we’re swimming in, aren’t we? And yet we ignore or try to explain away the fish whose beings and experiences and lives seem to be unusually allergic, for some strange reason we don’t quite understand, to the water we live in. The ones who have to find a way to cope, in order to live. Wouldn’t it be better to pay attention to what trans people (along with so many other victims of gendered oppression) are saying about their problem-filled experiences with gender? Instead of presuming to know?
If you’re interested in reading on the subject of surgery, medicalization, assumptions people make about why trans people seek surgery, I would recommend starting with this paper:
Mutilating Gender, by Dean Spade
The idea that trans people get surgery because our society has strictly defined gender roles is simply the explanation that seems the most obvious to anyone who doesn’t have the experience of being trans. It’s a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw, honestly. But trans people will tell you differently, and I hope it makes sense to listen to why, instead of assuming that trans people are victims of false consciousness and can’t understand the effects and pressures of a gender-oppressive society on us.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Mandolin: Major theorists, including people I greatly admire like Joanna Russ, have thrown down with the bigotry.
Can I ask what you are referring to, here?
This comment was written by Daisy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Daisy,
Russ’s The Female Man (1975) in some ways anticipated Raymond. In fairness, though, there’s this from a May 2006 interview at WisCon 30, conducted by Samuel (Chip) Delany.
At http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Joanna_Russ_Interview_with_Chip_Delany:
Q - i was just wondering, i know you mentioned that your opinions of gay men used to very different & traditional, i was wondering if your opinions of transsexual women have changed since you wrote the female man.
JR: oh yes. oh yes it’s almost as if my life as arranged itself to disabuse me of one prejudice after another. and all of these have gone b/c none of them were real really.
SD: do you want to say anything more about that or move on
JR: let’s move on
There’s a slightly different transcript at http://www.broaduniverse.org/broadsheet/0702jrsrd.html:
Question from the Audience: You mentioned that your opinions of gay men used to be very different and traditional. I was wondering if your opinions of transsexual women have changed since you wrote The Female Man.
JR: Oh yes, oh yes, it’s almost as if my life has arranged itself to disabuse me of one prejudice after another. And all of these have gone because none of them were real, really.
This comment was written by KH.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Yeah, that’s what I was referring to. I was in the audience during that interview.
(KH: Are you in BU?)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Amp:
You are getting thrashed by a couple of people less for your cartoon and other for that other issue, you know which one. You could say the sun rises in the east, and some people would have issue with that because of that other issue. The cartoon offended some folk, I suspect you knew it would, that does not make it an any less true or accurate description of the feelings of SOME radical feminists wrt to the transgendered. Many radical feminists do not like having the occasions when their ideals, goals, or tactics fall along a similar path of conservative Christains, but sometimes it happens nonetheless. Sometimes, indeed, some radical feminists have views or goals that are similar to some conservative Christains. That is not a huge insult to them, or some dirty accusation, it is simply truth.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Can we stop pretending that the anger directed at Amp here is just about the trans issue? What this is really about is some people still feeling betrayed because he sold the domain. Pure and simple.
And WTF is this shit about Amp’s weight? What does his size have to do with, well, anything? Mandolin already said what I would have said upthread. This stuff sends chills down my spine, and I’m not even fat. It’s one thing to have sexual or aesthetic preferences, but when you start making moral judgements about people based on their weight and/or deciding that “I don’t care what you say because you’re fat” is an acceptable argument then you’re an asshole. Acting like there’s some kind of link between weight and intelligence or moral authority or whatever…that way madness lies.
Also, hello, compassion? Empathy? Are these completely foreign concepts to some people? And that applies equally to the comments about Amp’s weight and the responses to the trans issue.
I’m no authority about trans issues, but here’s what bothers me about the way this conversation keeps playing out. It’s as if people want their abstract political theories to be more important than other people’s actual lived experiences. The implication seems to be that we have a theory on gender and trans people are fucking it up by existing, so they should shut up. We liked the theory, why should we have to change it just because that group of people over there keep telling us that it doesn’t work for them and doesn’t describe their experiences?
The problem with which is, those people do exist, and ignoring them and/or demanding that they stop mucking up your tidy little theory makes you A. not a very good theorist and B. a collossal asshole. Theories are MEANT to evolve, that’s why we call them theories, not rules.
This comment was written by CassandraSays.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Bingo.
Thank you for summing up nearly every single ‘feminist’ anti-trans argument I’ve ever heard in my entire life.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Mandolin: Me BU? No. You BU?
Question: Is Amp’s offense the presumption that there’s something so inherently wrong with (any nonnegligible number of) radical feminists ever agreeing with rightwing religious folk? Or the presumption that (any nonnegligible number of) radical feminists would ever do something so inherently wrong as agree with rightwing religious folk? It used to be that the latter was the only correct answer, but Amp’s apparently guilty on both counts. I say that’s progress.
This comment was written by KH.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Can we stop pretending that the anger directed at Amp here is just about the trans issue? What this is really about is some people still feeling betrayed because he sold the domain. Pure and simple.
No, honestly, I think that commenters over at Littoral Mermaid are using that to destroy his credibility, because they don’t want to deal with his arguments. What’s the alternative? Sniping that his allegations of transphobia among radical feminists do not refer to a universal problem, and that it’s therefore unjust to make them at all?
If I wrote something attacking something someone had said–which I do quite often–I don’t think I’d have the right to get angry if they showed up to defend themselves.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Ooookay. Um, it occurs to me that this sort of commenting might not be to Amp’s preferences. Delete if the spirit moves you, dude.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Yes, KH, I’m in Broad Universe.
Was just curious. :)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
With regard to The Theory, sometimes it might not be considered abstract by someone because everyone has and experiences sexed discrimination to varying degrees. If everyone experiences sexed discrimination and the theory is based solely on that, then someone else’s decision might turn ‘personal’ because the same choice wasn’t made even though in a broader view shown through a skewed lense, the same types of things were experienced. Or people might feel that they deserve a say in something that doesn’t seem to hinder their choices one way or the other, and are looking for any excuse to make a claim against a group or persons they don’t like. Happens everywhere.
Anyway, I think the theory (might be mistaken, it is horribly simplified) goes something like… ’surely a segment of the population can’t formulate a response to something (like, say, a body configuration) where personal opinions weren’t due only to an ‘outside’ environment, which of course once it’s (environment) changed will make those opinions (and subsequent decisions) disappear. Like magic!’
Honestly, I think that if by some unknown entity’s grace there were no sexed roles and expectations, people would recreate something along those very lines from scratch just to feel better about themselves. Changing or getting rid of a possible reason for something does not get rid of all the decisions people like to associate with it.
Seems to me using a theory that is supposed to explain and reflect some people and yet, ignoring said people shoves the theoretical cart before the horse, breaks the horse’s leg and then, just for a good measure, shoots the driver then dismantles and runs off with the wheels so the carriage will never move because it’s a hell of a rude thing to disregard whomever someone is theorizing about.
This comment was written by A.W..Report this comment to the moderators
July 24th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
I’ve seen that before, too. Everywhere. ‘Not all of my-group-in-question believes/does such-and-such even though lots of people from all walks of life do the same thing, so please don’t mention it. Ever. Nor draw any comparisons to other groups I don’t like that do the same thing. Only I’m allowed to mention it and make comparisions because we all know it exists and I don’t want any behavior I don’t like associated with me.’
That argument is still oddly popular. It’s like…not talking about it is supposed to make it go away?
This comment was written by A.W..Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 2:34 am
(Same basic idea cross-posted at Ren’s)
Amp, I have to admit I don’t come here very often, simply due to a general lack of time, so forgive me for jumping in here with no real background of why it appears many rad fems dislike you. I am under the impression it has something to do with porn links?
In any case, as both an ex-radical feminist (although I must admit my embracing of this label came more from a respect for certain theories in radical feminism and desire to reaffirm my more or less lifelong status of “feminist” than any thing else) and as one who was forced to attend a very right-wing Christian church every Sunday for up to 5 hours as a teenager, I feel the cartoon was dead-on accurate. More on this at my place at another time perhaps as I can see a long post coming on.
Also, any mention of your weight is unforgivable. Apparently, you are the Michael Moore in these parts. For some reason, some folks feel it’s okay to make fat phobic comments about you because … well, good question. I haven’t a clue what the justification is. It goes without saying if any mention was made of a radical feminist’s weight in this way, the outcry would be heard from here to “After the Revolution.” Why some feel it’s okay to ridicule your weight is beyond me.
This comment was written by Kim.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 5:30 am
Anti-Radical Feminist, Pro-Men’s Rights, Propaganda
A few responses to the latest anti-radical feminist tactics, screeds, attacks, propaganda
This comment was written by Women's Space/The Margins.…
Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 6:31 am
I think what bothers me most is Amp using trans issues to make his own personal and public slam on radical feminists regardless of how many rad fems are transphobic and how many do mirror conservative Christian mentalities. It seems, in whole, that folks are willing to climb on board with Amp, despite his open, unguarded hostility, just to discuss the issues of trans politics. Ren’s post above is a perfect example: a hurrah! to Amp and his clever revelation of bigoted Rad Fems; but a nudge, nod, and a wink towards Amps very open, public, personal gain off of his misogyny.
I don’t see how one set of people can point out complicity between some Rad Fems and conservative Christians, and completely miss the complicity between Amp and misogynistic pornographers.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 6:45 am
I don’t see how one set of people can point out complicity between some Rad Fems and conservative Christians, and completely miss the complicity between Amp and misogynistic pornographers.
Ren’s a sex worker. Whatever you might think of the inconsistency or cognitive dissonance involved in being pro-transpeople but not anti-porn, she’s not not condemning Amp’s decision because she wants the chance to bash radfems.
Personally, I think this cartoon is right, I think that percentages are a dodge, and I think that bringing up Ampgate again is just fucked up. Worse than that–I think it’s an excuse. Would this criticism be more palatable if it were up at, say, Little Light’s blog? Would it be less likely to get tossed into the “screeds and attacks” bin? I doubt it. I don’t care whether he has a personal beef with certain radical feminists or radical feminism in particular, any more than I care whether or not they prefer to dismiss his arguments because he’s the one making them.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 6:52 am
There has been much discussion of Amp’s decision to accept money for offsite/onsite/whatever pornography advertising, and I think it’s the height of disingenuousness to claim that the connection has been missed or that he’s gone uncriticized for it.
Furthermore, I do think it’s relevant in a sort of slantwise way, in that I find the reaction to that to be a perfect example of putting theory ahead of human lives, and I think that that’s an interesting and ongoing pattern.
However, this isn’t going to be a thread about Amp and pornography. There’s nothing wrong with defending radfems from charges you feel are unfair, but please refrain from attacking Amp in order to do so.
“These charges are untrue/irrelevant/etc.” = Okay
“These charges are untrue/irrelevant/etc because Amp is a pornographer.” = A textbook Ad Hom, and Not Okay
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Dumb question perhaps… but why are percentages irrelevant or a dodge? I mean, we talk about them all the time here.
Obviously nobody claims that all radical feminists are 100% in lockstep with each other on any particular issue. But just as obviously (to me, at least) if there isn’t a significant majority that share a particular view then it’s incorrect to attribute that view to the group in general.
It applies to all groups, including “feminism”: I can reliably say “feminists are concerned about women’s interests” but I can’t reliably say “feminists hate men” (and in fact, there have been many mentions on Alas of the fact that some feminists are very different from all feminists.”
I don’t know enough about radical feminism’s position on this issue to answer this myself, so I’m asking out of curiosity. What percentage of people who identify as radical feminists DO agree with the attitude in the cartoon? What percentage DON’T agree with the attitude in the cartoon?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Piny, I don’t think it’s about the relevance of trans bigotry in divergent communities - I think it’s about Amp using other peoples trans bigotry to further his own agendas of slamming rad fems, which is made transparent, in part, by his collusion with pornographers. And, yes, I’m aware that Ren is a “sex” worker, whatever that may mean, but *that* most certainly doesn’t mitigate Amp’s misogyny, anymore than my working with queer youth might mitigate my rad fem position on trans issues. Furthermore, your saying it isn’t an issue, all the while pointing out collusion between other communities, is exactly what Amp and others want. Because we all know that the similarities between Rad Fems and conservative Christians are the height of heresy, while those shiney pr0-sex feminists who share their ideology with pornographers, pimps, and the BDSM scene are just peachy keen because they’re not haters, they’re doing it for empowerment!
As others have pointed out, you don’t need to make the comparison (relevant or not) because the issue is trans bigotry. Amp is just adding unnecessary layers of his personal beef, knowing it will fly under the radar because trans bigotry is such a hot issue.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 8:08 am
I think it’s about Amp using other peoples trans bigotry to further his own agendas of slamming rad fems, which is made transparent, in part, by his collusion with pornographers.
Honestly, I’m looking at it from the other angle: I see at least a few radical feminists using Amp’s deplorable but non-pertinent decision to make money off of pornography to lift their own agenda above criticism. I don’t actually think that Amp really hates radfems or is only attacking what he sees as transphobia because he hates radfems. If he is inconsistent, he’s inconsistent; that’s different from being cynical.
I also don’t think that Amp is the only one making these arguments, even here. There have been a few posts like this, and transpeople and their allies have responded here and on other blogs, mine included. Lately the response stops at Amp’s deplorable but non-pertinent decision to make money off of pornography. It’s insulting, and it’s doubly irritating to have people ignore the problem with the ostensible rationale–on behalf of the people who seem to disagree–that a discussion of trans bigotry cannot be conducted on the blog of someone so impeached. That’s the end result: transphobia is ignored, or outright denied. It apparently isn’t a significant collusion at all, even in a thread devoted to it.
And, yes, I’m aware that Ren is a “sex” worker, whatever that may mean, but *that* most certainly doesn’t mitigate Amp’s misogyny, anymore than my working with queer youth might mitigate my rad fem position on trans issues.
It’s the term she uses, so you might want to ask her; as I understand it, it’s rather a catch-all. You were calling her reaction to the two things hypocritical, and I explained why I don’t think it is.
Furthermore, your saying it isn’t an issue, all the while pointing out collusion between other communities, is exactly what Amp and others want. Because we all know that the similarities between Rad Fems and conservative Christians are the height of heresy, while those shiney pr0-sex feminists who share their ideology with pornographers, pimps, and the BDSM scene are just peachy keen because they’re not haters, they’re doing it for empowerment!
I didn’t say it wasn’t important or worth discussing. I said that it wasn’t germane to this discussion, which is about transphobia in general and transphobia amongst some radical feminists (oh, and laughably transparent protestations of same). This particular collusion deserves attention of its own. There are at least a few other ways in which Amp himself is a little too similar, after all–I’m not sure he’s banned Robert yet, for example. That doesn’t invalidate his argument.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 8:10 am
As others have pointed out, you don’t need to make the comparison (relevant or not) because the issue is trans bigotry.
Also, as someone else pointed out at my place, this is sort of like saying you shouldn’t compare the Sierra Club’s xenophobia with that of the paleocons because the issue is xenophobia. I think that it is worth discussing as a comparison, and I don’t think it’s just parallel evolution.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 8:26 am
I’ve read plenty of the texts that often get mentioned on this topic (”radical feminists and transphobia”) and watched any number of discussions, online and at conferences and the like… and I tend to agree with you. I think there is a strain of anti-trans ideology in radical feminist writings, theory and community discussions, and I usually refer to it as such, instead of generalizing about “all radical feminists” which is not only slightly lazy, but would kind of shoot myself in the foot, since I agree with a lot of radical feminist theory and politics.
However, it’s also worth noting that for every (relatively rare) radical feminist who is outspoken about being anti-trans, there are definitely several more, sharing the same communities and discussions, who simply don’t care enough about trans people to strongly object. The more noble and diplomatic among them try to take the “let’s look at it from both sides” approach or will occasionally say “well, I don’t have a problem with trans people.” But you don’t see that many women who put it on the line and refuse to tolerate transphobic sentiments all that much (although I would be happy to see some examples) because taking a strong stand against transphobia stirs up a whoooole lot of drama and disagreements. It’s better not to go there, right?
Of course, what this ends up meaning, practically speaking, is that the openly anti-trans radical feminists, however few in number they are, are tolerated, especially if they only open their mouths to say something anti-trans occasionally. This doesn’t exactly make for a welcoming environment for trans folks — it’s like saying to a POC, well why don’t you want to hang out at our bar? Sure, Joe and Bill over there occasionally make racist jokes or talk about “we oughtta send them back where they came from” but you just ignore them, OK? They’re long-time patrons of this establishment and we don’t want any fights around here, newcomer. And then later on, wondering why a POC wouldn’t want to hang out at that bar — I mean it’s not like most white people are racist, I guess they just really dislike white people, huh?
Complacency. Is it that much better?
Bloggers who are really outraged by this kind of thing don’t tend to remain part of the self-identified radical-feminist section of the blogosphere for real long, or are marginalized (by the margins).
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 8:41 am
The interesting thing about Amp’s cartoon to me is that it points out strains of gender essentialism in the way that two people with very different political positions talk about a particular subject (trans people). This is not really that surprising, it doesn’t even necessarily make some huge comment about fundamentalist Christianity or radical feminism. Gender essentialism is a common strain in a lot of attitudes because it’s basically what is taught to everyone and rarely gets questioned by “common sense” mainstream attitudes. If there’s any point about radical feminism in all of that, it’s that shouldn’t we recognize essentialism when it inevitably creeps into our arguments, as feminists? Of course, like I said in my last comment, I don’t think this is true of all radical feminists, but the point’s still made.
If someone wanted to illustrate something similar about pro-sex feminists and misogynist men who exploit women, I think that could actually turn into an interesting conversation. For instance, instead of gender essentialism, how about the concept of “empowerment?” Frequently critique of sex-positive feminism, and language that definitely has been adopted by any number of misogynist assholes.
Oh wait, people already are blogging about this.
If done in a really pointed way like Amp did, maybe you’re right, it would have just provoked a lot of defensiveness and hostility. But all of these conversations do need to happen — problems with gender essentialism. Problems with how the concept of “empowering” women is easily usurped for misogynist ends.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Piny wrote:
This is so true.
For those of you who want to discuss “Ampgate” here on “Alas,” the pertinent thread to do so is here.
Any further instances of “Amp is an asshole, therefore hate and bigotry against trans is okay / can’t be objected to by Amp” will lead to deleted comments and bannings.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 8:50 am
I notice that Amp only gets slammed w/ Ampgate, etc. when he posts any sort of criticism of feminism. Why is this? Why didn’t we hear the same sort of ad hom about the Big Corn comic? Surely, if his misogyny & pimping invalidates his points about commonalities WRT anti-trans bigotry between radical feminism and convervative Christianity, it invalidates his points about everything.
Yet, it doesn’t. Strangely, many of the folks slamming him for this cartoon agree with him (w/ nary a mention of Ampgate) when the target is not their cherished ideology. Weird.
If you want to criticize Amp for selling his domain, that’s fine. But using the sale of the domain to attempt to silence only his criticisms of feminism reeks of hypocrisy and an inability to address those criticisms.
The majority of those that I’ve read slinging the fat insults & Ampgate in response to this cartoon are those who’ve been slinging insults at Amp for years (many of them from before this blog existed). Many of them have used this as an excuse to further spout their anti-trans drivel. And I’ve seen almost none of them actually address the point raised in the cartoon. How odd.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 9:09 am
I never said you were an asshole Amp, and I think you know I don’t feel that way about you.
Yeah, piny. I see what you’re saying - I wasn’t trying to go there. I’m sick of seeing RadFems trashed, baby with the bath water kinda thing. I feel like I’m alone on this one. Certain RadFems don’t trust me because I “talk” with trans folks; trans folks don’t trust me because I’m a Rad Fem. Personally I don’t trust either side when they pull tactics like this cartoon - and yes, both sides do it. So be it. Time to become a hermit, I suppose.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Yeah, piny. I see what you’re saying - I wasn’t trying to go there. I’m sick of seeing RadFems trashed, baby with the bath water kinda thing. I feel like I’m alone on this one. Certain RadFems don’t trust me because I “talk” with trans folks; trans folks don’t trust me because I’m a Rad Fem. Personally I don’t trust either side when they pull tactics like this cartoon - and yes, both sides do it. So be it. Time to become a hermit, I suppose.
You and I aren’t entirely aligned wrt: feminist stuff in general, I don’t think; however, point taken.
I tend to get very curt and uncharitable whenever a response looks like the no-true-Irishman fallacy or a conflation of “gee, this specific radfem-identified person sure is a creepy asshole” with “I cannot stand radical feminists or radical feminism.”
It’s true, though, that this cartoon was cartoonish, and while I think that reading it as conflating radical-feminist and fundamentalist attitudes towards transpeople in general is inaccurate, I wouldn’t call it unreasonable. I think that some transphobia amongst radfems–and I don’t call it critique of anything–either covers or legitimizes itself with radical-feminist arguments or language. I think, as well, that some radical feminists just plain don’t like transpeople on a conscious or unconscious level (I think this is pretty common; I’ve blogged about how I got skeered of transwomen myownself). But this is not to say that radical feminism is itself transphobic, or that radical feminists in general harbor an irrational hatred of transsexuals. I said that percentages aren’t all that important to me, but I definitely don’t think that as great a proportion of radfems hate transpeople.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Because we all know that the similarities between Rad Fems and conservative Christians are the height of heresy, while those shiney pr0-sex feminists who share their ideology with pornographers, pimps, and the BDSM scene are just peachy keen because they’re not haters, they’re doing it for empowerment!
Damn, I just got my irony meter recalibrated, too.
Complaining that Amp is tarring radical feminists with too broad a brush is one thing. Insisting that he has a sinister agenda is just self-indulgent crap.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Regarding the “percentages” question Sailorman brought up, Holly answered it very well in comment #31. However, I’m going to reply as well, with a slightly-rewritten version of a comment I left at LM’s place.
In the thread on LM’s place, LM herself objected to the anti-fat bigotry Sis posted (and would have objected a lot more strongly, I believe, had the target not been evil Amp). This is an example of how social norms in the radfem community work to discourage anti-fat bigotry (much ot the radfem community’s credit; in contrast, anti-fat bigotry is generally acceptable in most liberal blogs).
If a radfem were to post on major radfem blogs persistently saying things like “In short, fatties are nutjobs. These unfortunate, but seriously disturbed individuals belong on the 5th floor in a straight jacket,” (which is something Luckynkl said about trans folks), they’d face strong social/institutional pressure from other radfems to mend their thinking, or at least to keep it to themselves.
Transphobia, in contrast, is widely accepted among radfem blogs, and (pre-blogs) it was widely accepted among radfems in online discussion groups, and in real life. That doesn’t mean that all radfems express anti-trans bigotry, because obviously not all radfems are anti-trans bigots.
But it does mean that those radfems who do express even extreme and virulent anti-trans bigotry — and who have done so over and over — barely have to worry about being banned or ostracized. Those who express more mild bigotry face no such worries at all. In that sense, being transphobic is acceptable in most of the radfem blog community.
Furthermore, criticism of anti-trans bigotry is often looked down upon in the radfem community. Look at how widely accepted it is among radfems that discussions of conflicts between transgendered and non-transgendered shouldn’t use words that make non-trans people uncomfortable, such as “transphobia.”
Imagine someone suggesting that lesbians, gays and bis should avoid using the word “homophobe” because many straight people think the word unfair. I feel safe in assuming most radfem bloggers would find that objectionable, and say so clearly. Yet the identical sentiment about transsexuals is widely accepted on radfem blogs, and rarely elicits criticism from other radfems.
So I’m convinced that transphobia among radfems is an institutional problem within the community, not just a matter of some isolated “bad apple” individuals. The exact percentage matters less, in my opinion, than the social norms which make transphobia acceptable.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Q-Grrl;
Heya, i’ll answer your question for you. I’m a stripper, do some professional domination, I perform in porn, and yep, I make some porn too…so I guess that makes me a pornographer. I’ve engaged in illegal sexual transactions in the past, but grow fearful of arrest in my old age….so yeah, sex worker. Also, I my defense of Amp, who has been thrashed as much for the Ampgate episode this go around as for the actual content of his cartoon…well that’s what bothers me. Someone doesn’t like the cartoon, fine, critisize it on its own, don’t bring up every other deed in Amp’s life to blur the issue…and attacking his weight? Not at all cool.
I’ll admit I found the cartoon funny. And I stress this when I say it, because SOME radical feminists are very anti trans and could be mistaken for being religious right on the issue. Not all, SOME. It’s much like political cartoons of the same nature which, due to the limited format of a cartoon, seem to insult ALL republicans, democrats, capitans of industry, (insert group of people here), but are, when one thinks about it, really directed towards those who fit the image portrayed. I no more think that ALL radical feminists have religious right-like attitudes on trans people than I think all republicans love G.W. Bush…but in the limited space of a cartoon, the author/artist can’t always specify that in order to not offend everyone and anyone.
And I’ve seen plenty of cartoons laughed at by SOME radical f eminists which are pretty offensive to others as well….
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 10:34 am
FYI that percentage question wasn’t a veiled attack on your position or anything, it was a sincere “i don’t know how representative this is, so I can’t distinguish between good and bad points; can you elaborate more?” question.
Which, incidentally, you and Holly have answered very well, so thanks.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Q Grrl Writes:
“Because we all know that the similarities between Rad Fems and conservative Christians are the height of heresy, while those shiney pr0-sex feminists who share their ideology with pornographers, pimps, and the BDSM scene are just peachy keen because they’re not haters, they’re doing it for empowerment!”
And your quick conflation of the BDSM scene with “pimps” speaks VOLUMES about everything that’s fucked-up about radical feminism and what it shares in common with the religious right.
The religious right and radical feminism – same moral panic, different conspiracy theory.
This comment was written by imacuriousblue.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 10:53 am
I’m sick of seeing RadFems trashed, baby with the bath water kinda thing. I feel like I’m alone on this one. Certain RadFems don’t trust me because I “talk” with trans folks; trans folks don’t trust me because I’m a Rad Fem. Personally I don’t trust either side when they pull tactics like this cartoon - and yes, both sides do it. So be it. Time to become a hermit, I suppose.
Hey Q! We could start our own political party! I’ll be a hermit with you, we could call it “Hermit grrls” or something…
I hate this rift, really I do. I think I’m gonna tear my hair out.
This comment was written by Daisy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 11:20 am
The religious right and radical feminism – same moral panic, different conspiracy theory.
I’m not panicked, I’m perfectly calm. I don’t have any conspiracy theories, either.
I just asked someone else on another blog, not to generalize about radfems and trans, and now I come here and ask YOU not to do the same, please.
You make it real difficult for those of us (radfems) who are trying to sort things out, you realize? Does that matter to you?
If not, you are as dogmatic as anyone you criticize.
This comment was written by Daisy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I think it’s important not to generalize in a way which ascribes the motives and actions of a part of a group to the whole of the group.
I think this is true whether you’re talking about men, women, transfolk, cisgendered folk, radical feminists, non-rad-feminists, leftists, rightists, etc.
At the same time, I think it’s important to be able to discuss radical feminists, as a group, and opinions and behaviors that are prevalent within that group, while recognizing that there are exceptions. Radfems are not a monolithic group in which everyone marches in lockstep, but neither are they a random sampling of the population.
I think that Amp’s discussion of transphobia within the radfem community is appropriate, and that iamcuriousblue’s comment about the radfem perception of BDSM (though a little off topic) is appropriate.
OF COURSE not all radfems hold these opinions. Not all sex-positive feminists are pro-porn, either. The problem is that if we push the ‘not all X are Y’ game far enough, we’ll never be able to talk effectively about anything. Some behaviors and opinions are widespread enough that pointing it out is as it should be.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 11:50 am
What I think was obvious about the cartoon, is that Amp decided who was worth offending and who wasn’t.
And I hate to see that happen.
This comment was written by Daisy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
How so?
I’m not asking to be disagreeable. I honestly don’t understand what you’re saying here, and hope you’ll spell it out a bit, if you don’t mind.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Daisy Writes:
“I just asked someone else on another blog, not to generalize about radfems and trans, and now I come here and ask YOU not to do the same, please.
You make it real difficult for those of us (radfems) who are trying to sort things out, you realize? Does that matter to you?
If not, you are as dogmatic as anyone you criticize.”
Myca Writes:
“I think it’s important not to generalize in a way which ascribes the motives and actions of a part of a group to the whole of the group.
I think this is true whether you’re talking about men, women, transfolk, cisgendered folk, radical feminists, non-rad-feminists, leftists, rightists, etc.”
First, I think some very false analogies are being drawn here – leftism, feminism, Islam, Catholicism, etc are NOT the equivalent being being black, white, male, female, gay, etc. The former are ideologies and religions and represent belief systems that one can accept or reject. The latter are groups of people and aspects of identity that one are to some degree immutable. Attacking a person’s identity is rightly considered a form of bigotry. Attacking an ideology, religion, theory, belief or position is not only not bigotry, its intellectually dishonest to hold such things above rigorous criticism.
As for “dogmatism”, if I was saying something to the effect that left libertarianism or sex-positive feminism was the one true path, you could very well accuse me of that, but that’s not what I’m saying. (My political reading list is pretty damn eclectic, really.) However, I don’t think its overly dogmatic to dismiss entire ideologies as essentially reactionary. I’m sure most people here would be pretty dismissive toward white nationalism, in spite of the often fascinating debates and differences between the National Socialists, Odinists, Christian Identity, Third Positionists, National Anarchists, etc. Similarly, dog knows there are probably several thousand competing varieties of Marxist-Leninists out there, even some ones who basically have their hearts in the right place (hey, I like a lot of the folks at UK Workers Liberty), but I have yet to see Marxist-Leninists build anything other than an extremely repressive state when given a chance to put their ideas into practice, so I’m pretty comfortable writing off that ideology, too.
And excuse me if I have a lot of trouble locating exactly what’s good in radical feminism. OK, there were some good exponents of early radical feminism – I count Ellen Willis as a political mentor of mine. But pretty much anything that’s come out of radical feminism from Robin Morgan and Andrea Dworkin onwards – its hopelessly reactionary stuff. And yes, I realize there are some radical feminists like yourself and some of the other folks who I encounter on Ren’s blog who aren’t hateful, fucked-up people, but a disproportionate number are, and what does that say about radical feminism as an ideology that its proven so attractive to mean-spirited, hateful people?
“I’m not panicked, I’m perfectly calm.”
I’m talking specifically about the social psychological phenomenon of moral panic. A similar psychology of moral panic is something I think underlies the fact that radical feminist positions on pornography, BDSM, transexuality, and even the Satanic ritual abuse scare so often doevetail with that of the religious right, even if the two positions are fundamentally opposed in theory.
This comment was written by imacuriousblue.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I agree completely, and I don’t think criticizing Radical Feminism is anywhere in the same universe as being horribly transphobic. My point was just that broad generalizations without recognition of individual difference serve nobody.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with you. I certainly don’t think that Radical Feminism (or any system of belief) ought to be above serious criticism and examination.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
If you look closely at the purportedly feminist “critiques of transgender” that are floating around the internet on various blogs, sites, etc, you’ll see that part of what’s going on is that “trans” is being characterized as some sort of ideology that can be questioned and critiqued. We wouldn’t accept this for any other category of identity or experience; you can’t “critique African-American politics” or “be opposed to gay ideology” without sounding like you’re making wild-eyed generalizations and probably being racist or homophobic to boot.
But if it’s possible to take a group of people with shared experiences and oppressions and an identity coalesced around those things, and somehow shift the focus onto an abstract “ideology,” it seems much less prejudiced and/or hostile to go on the attack. In the case of trans stuff, it’s also a way of delegitimizing the existence of trans people altogether, at least as a category, which is part of some people’s anti-trans goal.
This is why alarm bells go off when I read someone talking about “trans politics” and “trans ideology” in the abstract, as if there was one unitary belief system instead of, you know, a whole bunch of different people with certain life experiences and oppressions in common.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
A very oblique comment on percentages: If not quite an iron law, it’s often the case that vocal or assertive personalities, whether they’re minorities or not, disproportionately set the tone within their groups. The dominant ideological trend of a movement can’t be determined solely by a show of hands. Leaders & vocal minorities often hold more extreme views than average members, but to the extent they set the agenda & discourse norms, by a process of self-selection they can gradually change the group’s character, attracting new like-minded people & either converting or causing existing members to drift away. A group’s other adherents may not share its most extreme members’ most extreme views, but to the extent that an assertive minority shapes & reshapes the movement’s profile & character, the other members may be forced to make an unwelcome decision for or against the leading minority’s views, which may be more extreme than their own, but which have come to characterize the movement as a whole. Every sizable group has its bigots & cranks, but when we agree to participate in any collective project, we implicitly assume a measure of moral responsibility for its direction, & have to accept that there may come a point when a bigoted or retrograde current becomes sufficiently influential that we can no longer enjoy the luxury of just turning away, or absolving ourselves by indignantly insisting that “we’re not all like that.” Sometimes we’re obliged to set things right in our own house, to fight, even at the cost of hurt feelings, & even if it requires us to sort out our own unresolved moral uncertainties, now. It may seem unfair, & it’s often a source of unhappiness, but it’s an irreducible part of collective action. The history of social movements doesn’t lack for pointed examples.
To put it (slightly) less obliquely, when serious-minded members of a group that’s beset by highly vocal bigots are making an earnest effort to sort things out, it’s usually not outside critics – even sloppy, overgeneralizing ones – who’re making things most difficult for them, appearances sometimes notwithstanding. It’s the bigotry.
This comment was written by KH.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
As someone who rejects the transphobic elements within the radfem community, I still didn’t find the cartoon funny. Mainly because, depending on the issue being discussed, ALL of us would have at least some opinions in common with the religious right.
For example, I personally would strongly object to the idea that running round, randomly shooting anyone over 60 in the head is a good idea. And you know what, I’m guessing most people here would agree with me……AND OH NOES!!! SO WOULD MOST OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!!! Noooooooo, we’re all JUST LIKE THEM!!!
Please. Amp slammed radfems on this issue because radfems are currently a very easy target. He could just as easily have picked out similarities in thought between, say “fun” feminism and fratboys–hey, y’know, they both really dig their porn, don’t they? And they’re both really into the whole sex work concept. So that must make them totally alike or something.
But that wouldn’t be so popular in the current climate, and wouldn’t earn the cartoonist a lot of nice back-slapping.
Transphobia in the radfem community needs to be criticised. It is unacceptable. But making intellectually lazy jabs does nothing to help and only furthers the whole “us v them” dynamic.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
But that wouldn’t be so popular in the current climate, and wouldn’t earn the cartoonist a lot of nice back-slapping.
Really, now? Because it earned at least one woman a book deal.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
” …ALL of us would have at least some opinions in common with the religious right. For example, I personally would strongly object to the idea that running round, randomly shooting anyone over 60 in the head is a good idea.”
I take it Crys T thinks Amp’s cartoon isn’t funny in part because she questions whether the similarity it portrays between a radical feminist and a conservative Christian is significant.
If group A is similar to group B with respect to property X, the similarity may be either significant or trivial. But the observation that some third group C, or all groups, are similar to group A with respect to some trivial property Y provides precisely zero warrant for the conclusion that the similarity between group A and group B with respect to property X is also trivial. If the opposite were the case, then it would follow that no similarity between groups could ever be significant, an absurd conclusion.
Crys T is right that the fact that both she and conservative Christians oppose the murder of people over the age if 60 is a trivial similarity. But she’s mistaken if she thinks the triviality of her example elucidates the question of whether the asserted similarity between some radical feminists’ and conservative Christians’ attitudes towards transsexuals is significant. The significance or triviality of the asserted similarity can only be established by substantive argument, not by concocting immaterial examples of trivial similarities.
This comment was written by KH.Report this comment to the moderators
July 25th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Crys T:
I think Amp has addressed this a few times, and it’s a perfectly reasonable objection, but I think it’s born of confusion as to what his intended meaning is.
If Amp was saying, “radfems share opinions with the radical right,” you’d be right . . . that’s next to useless.
What I think he’s saying is more “Radfems share opinions with the radical right, but they also share their reasons for those opinions, and in most cases, they are reasons that we recognize as bigoted bullshit when the right says them, but we tend to give a pass to radfems when they say the exact same things.”
I think that’s pretty darn valid.
And, I think it’s likely to continue being valid, since the most common radfem response to an ongoing and egregious instance of blatant bigotry in their community seems to be “How dare you point this out?!”
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Long-time lurker coming up for air, because I feel very strongly about this.
I wince every time someone uses the phrase ‘the trans issue’ - as though there’s only one, and it’s the one that matters to them, of course - or makes huge generalisations about trans*people without bothering to do the slightest bit of reading or, y’know, asking trans*people about the things they’re writing about. Such casual dismissal. And those are the good threads, the ones where people don’t savage, insult and silence trans*people deliberately. People - not only radfems - build these huge edifices of theory, and completely ignore the fact that they are building them on top of the bodies and lives of real human beings, who are being crushed.
Amp makes a cartoon, and a whole bunch of people get very uncomfortable. Well, good. About time too.
This comment was written by mazaru.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 1:04 am
I’m with Myca and KH, here. What if the cartoon were about how both fundamentalists and some pseudo-progressive men think domestic violence is no big deal? Would it be unfair to try to connect the dots there, or would we have to pretend that it’s a totally different set of underpinning assumptions?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 1:05 am
But if it’s possible to take a group of people with shared experiences and oppressions and an identity coalesced around those things, and somehow shift the focus onto an abstract “ideology,” it seems much less prejudiced and/or hostile to go on the attack. In the case of trans stuff, it’s also a way of delegitimizing the existence of trans people altogether, at least as a category, which is part of some people’s anti-trans goal.
Rock on.
It’s also a way of divorcing civil rights for transpeople from self-determination for transpeople.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 1:20 am
I’m trying to read this as anything other than “the only good cartoon is one which offends no one.” And utterly apart from the particular issue at hand, this is a basically unsupportable position.
This comment was written by Auguste.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 4:00 am
I feel kind of sad that none of the discussion about this cartoon has actually delved into what seems to me to be the real point: the prevalence of biological essentialism across what are usually conflicting ideologies.
Is that because it’s an obvious bad bad no-no in everyone’s eyes? I mean, I could see that being a common opinion, but you don’t have to go very far before you stumble into someone inadvertently or quite deliberately summoning biological essentialism into any number of feminist conversations–especially when trans people are involved.
Or is it the elephant in the room that’s being avoided by a lot of “how dare you!?” and “radical feminists are nothing like christian fundamenalists!” (No duh.)
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Are any of the people who are upset about the cartoon as a slam against rad feminism going to address the fact that it was intended to show that it is the gender essentialism in both rad feminism and the christian right that create the similar feelings toward trans folks?
I understand that one reading of the cartoon can be that Amp is slamming rad fems trans phobia because it’s like the Christian right, but I think a better interpretation is that he’s slamming gender essentialism which is something rad fems and the Christian right have in common on this particular issue. And how gender essentialism when it is part of the Christian Right rhetoric is almost always sexist (and I suspect most radical feminists would agree with that), so what makes gender essentialism in radical feminism ok?
It’s been said numerous times in this thread and others that gender essentialism has a centuries long history of being oppressive to women. That some branches of radical feminism embrace gender essentialism is for me, a pretty significiant flaw/drawback/whatever you want to call it.
Would any of the radical feminists who have a problem with the cartoon care to address the accuracy of the gender essentialst claims in the cartoon? Is gender essentialism part of the radical feminist rhetoric or not? If it is, and you don’t see a problem with that, why not? If it’s not, please tell me why not - because that’s a lot of what I see. I don’t have a problem with people wanting to “defend” their position against the cartoon, but lets actually defend the substance of the cartoon.
ETA: Or, what Holly said. Sorry, didn’t read the entire thread before posting.
This comment was written by KateL..Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Q Grrl Writes:
Because we all know that the similarities between Rad Fems and conservative Christians are the height of heresy, while those shiney pr0-sex feminists who share their ideology with pornographers, pimps, and the BDSM scene are just peachy keen because they’re not haters, they’re doing it for empowerment!
Can we call a moratorium on “empowerment” used ironically? Usually I much love satire, but women seeking and embracing power is as fragile as a butterfly newly hatched, and I hate seeing feminists sit on that particular insect. In order to get ANYTHING done, women need to seek and embrace power - I’d like that particular idea to hit air and to see if we can identify a way to seek and embrace power without mistreating other people to get it.
You are conflating “this idea is wrong” with “these people are wrong”.
The IDEA that transpeople are somehow disingenuous, destructive, immoral, or trying to hurt people via their simple existence is WRONG. Groups of RadFems and groups of Conservative Christians both hold the idea that trans is BAD. The comparison of the two on this issue is a shaming gesture; Amp may not be the best person to place is, given he’s not part of either population he’s shaming for their bigotry, but that doesn’t alter the simple fact that you yourself have below indicated that transphobia within RadFem groups you deal with has made CERTAIN RADFEMS mistrust you.
I’ve never been clear on what sexpositive feminism is, other than “the people who don’t insult women who enjoy sexual things said people don’t approve of and their friends”. This also isn’t the place to discuss this rather volatile subject, nor - given the language you used in presenting it - do I wish to discuss it with you. That being said, if you wish to draw a comic which identifies one area where there is commonality, more power to you. Perhaps it will open a dialogue on an issue you feel deserves more attention.
Certain RadFems don’t trust me because I “talk” with trans folks; trans folks don’t trust me because I’m a Rad Fem.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the attitude of certain RadFems lend legitimacy to Amp’s cartoon, insofar as their transphobia would lead them to mistrust someone simply for TALKING with transpeople? And given you acknowledge RadFems exist who hold this attitude, isn’t it understandable that a hugely ridiculed and insulted and mistreated group like transgendereds and genderqueer people would be gunshy when dealing with someone who identifies with a movement in which people express transphobia to such an extend that they can push away people who just TALK to transpeople?
To make another analogy, I don’t LIKE that black people in the USA mistrust me because of my appearance, but I don’t BLAME them for assuming someone who appears white is going to be racist on some level or another given their life experiences and the fucked up system we’re both enmeshed in. My assumption, re: most minor, mistreated populations is that there will be mistrust initially until I have shown myself to not be using them as a “token” or some sort of proof that I’m liberal and cool. As far as I’m concerned, to do otherwise is to mistreat people who have already gotten to much of that.
As a side note, your sentence structure equates the people who mistrust you because of who you talk to with the people who mistrust you because of an ideological identity you have adopted and defend from allegations that the first half of your sentence is widespread. It might help you smooth things over in the second half of your sentence if the first half of your sentence didn’t exist.
This comment was written by Deoridhe.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Crys T’s substantive points have been extremely well responded to by KH, Myca, and Piny, so there’s not much for me to say other than “what Piny, Myca and KH said.”
I wanted to also respond to Crys’ nonsubstantive point, which was a personal attack on me:
This is something I’ve seen about a thousand times from right-wingers responding to my cartoons (and from left-wingers responding to right-wing cartoons, for that matter): basically, if you don’t agree with the cartoon, accuse the cartoonist of being a hack. It’s disappointing that you’re using this tactic, Crys, but let me say three things in response:
First, Crys, it’s astounding that two sentences later you claim to be against “intellectually lazy jabs” — as if it’s possible to imagine any argument intellectually lazier than your “he’s only saying that because he wants to be popular!” jab.
Second of all, if you really think I do cartoons for back-slapping you have zero understanding of what motivates me, so stop deluding yourself into thinking you know shit-all about me.
Third of all, unless your very next comment includes an apology for your baseless personal attack on me and my motives, you’re banned from “Alas” for the next week. (Note that I’m not demanding that you back down on any of your substantive arguments — as ludicrous and poorly conceived as they are — just on your personal attack). This is my (co-)blog, and people calling me a hack because they don’t agree with my cartoons isn’t something I have to take here.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 8:45 am
This is an incredibly important point, and one I’d missed, Deoridhe. Good on you.
“My conservative friends don’t trust me because I talk to black people,” and, “Black people don’t trust me because I’m conservative,” are NOT equivalent statements.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Hmm.
A post I was writing last night made me think: Is there any way to make this point that would be “acceptable” to radical feminists? If the issue is with the phrasing, or the timing, or the medium: what phrasing/timing/medium could Amp use to make an equally effective statement, and be received better?
Obviously it’s not Amp’s burden to change his presentation on request to suit everyone (or anyone.) But the question is revealing anyway.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 9:32 am
I once reviewed a research article on transphobia. It focused primarily on transphobia being expressed by conservative, non-LGBT individuals. I mentioned that they need to incorporate the transphobia expressed by other groups (some forms of feminism and within LGBT communities) in developing their theory of transphobia. To not do so would be intellectually limiting. Focusing on conservative and non-LGBT elements gives a biased understanding of transphobia as a concept. It also creates a problem with activism when transphobia is defined as only being the result of conservative or religious foundation its not recognized when expressed by progressive, feminist, and LGBT supportive agents/agencies.
This comment was written by Emilia.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Transwars redux: You’ve got your mother in a whirl…
This comment was written by Daisy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Myca said…
This is an incredibly important point, and one I’d missed, Deoridhe. Good on you.
“My conservative friends don’t trust me because I talk to black people,” and, “Black people don’t trust me because I’m conservative,” are NOT equivalent statements.
Yup, and thanks for reframing it so clearly. That’s what confuses me about this whole thing. I see some radfems saying that yes, they realise that other radfems are bigoted where trans people are concerned, and even that that bigotry has negative consequences for themselves (as QGrrl did), but what I’ve yet to see is any radfems confronting their less enlightened sisters and saying “hey, you seem to have some serious issues with transpeople, and some of the things you say about them aren’t very kind, what’s up with that?”.
I get why radfems resent criticism from people they see as outsiders, but why is there no INTERNAL criticism of even the most obvious bigotry going on?
This comment was written by CassandraSays.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
hey q grrl, i trust you, and i’m trans. of course, there’s enough trans people that don’t trust me, probably because i talk to rad fems. that’s what we get for trying to build bridges.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
July 26th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
[...] cartoon over on alas, a blog has resulted in some responses, and some blog posts across the blogosphere. in heart’s blog post, she states: Mary Daly did [...]
This comment was written by » stuff of nightmares.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 12:05 am
OK, I’m going to sound REALLY pissed off in this comment, but it’s because I am.
I have big issues with other people trying to deconstruct something they know absolutely nothing about. For many transpeople, me included, this body feels more natural and comfortable for ME. It isn’t really up to you to have issues with any way I FEEL. This has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with sex. There is a difference.
Um, how about you ask a transperson! :)
Who really cares? What I do to my body is none of your business. It amazes me how ANYONE who is a feminist can make these kinds of questions up. The abortion debate and this debate are THE SAME. It’s MY body, and MY choice. If you appose having GRS, then leave your bits alone.
Actually, you need to watch your P’s and Q’s here. Gender is a social construct, while sex is a biological construct. Gender essentialism isn’t what rad femmes believe in. It’s biologic sex essentialism.
No shit. I’m really tired of other people generalizing about how we feel and what we do, in this post.
That’s one of the biggest issues I have with all this. People are talking out of their ass about theory… while I’m living it.
As far as I’m concerned, if you haven’t pissed someone off, you haven’t done your job. I loved that it pissed people off. The personal attacks prove it makes people uncomfortable to to talk about the actual content.
Talk about generalizations. As a poly person, I start out with love for you and see you as a PERSON, not a rad fem or a trangender person or anything else… but you. I’ll only think you’re an ass, if you act like one.
Can I get an Amen?! ;)
It’s one of my beefs with all this. ESPECIALLY since so many feminists are for a womans right to choose. It’s the same argument… my body, my choice.
This comment was written by Marti Abernathey.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 2:27 am
Amp, I apologise if my comment appeared to be a personal attack on your character or motivations. If it did, it certainly didn’t convey what I wanted it to. However, I don’t apologise for thinking I see behaviour that every one of us is guilty of at some time. We all play to our intended audiences in order to get strokes, and we all take cheap shots at times when we know we’ll get rewarded for them. Any of us who says we never do this is a liar.
And no, that was not some snide way of getting in an “Amp is a liar” insult–it means exactly what it says. We all go on about how much honour and integrity we have, but we all know how small we can be at times. And yes, when I say “we,” I mean “we,” not “you.”
I know that lately you tend to see me as against you in some way, and I suppose I can understand that given the clashes of opinions we’ve had, but I’ll repeat what I said a few months ago: despite the disagreements, I do have a weird sort of affection for you. If I didn’t I wouldn’t keep coming back here.
However, that cartoon pissed me off. Not because I’m a radfem and took it personally, because I don’t ID as radfem, but because I thought it was silly and beneath you. I know, that’s not my call to make, but I assume you want reactions or you wouldn’t post your work here. My opinion was and is that you went for a cheap laugh without really thinking it through logically, which I think is out of character for you. If it’s not the current anti-radfem vibe that allows lazy attacks with no real consequences, why else would you allow yourself to do such a thing?
And for those of you who are still defending the basic concept of the cartoon: you’re also allowing personal prejudices too much influence on your thinking. Those radfems who are transphobic are transphobic for ENTIRELY DIFFERENT reasons than those who are transphobic for religious reasons. Note that I do not say that transphobia in radfems is any way more acceptable or understandable, only that it does not come from the same place. I can understand a transperson saying it doesn’t matter to them why a person hates them, what matters to them is the hate, and they’re right about that. However, that still doesn’t make radfems any more like fundies than the rest of us. Or the rest of you.
It does not make them in any way more similar to fundies, and it is not in any way a “more significant” similarity than any number of other attitudes that lefties and fundies may share. I’m sure that if we thought about it for a little bit, we could come up with a very long list of things that we all have in common with fundies that are pretty fucking “significant”. You are engaging in tactics you regularly accuse your opponents of, such as cherry-picking what supports your attack while ignoring myriad other factors that contradict it.
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 4:43 am
crys t “Those radfems who are transphobic are transphobic for ENTIRELY DIFFERENT reasons than those who are transphobic for religious reasons.”
Are they? In what way?
Again, in my experience people have focused primarily on the conservative/religious basis of transphobia and not from other groups. Are there significant differences beyond the citations people use? Both tend to view the gender of trans people as false and deceitful and give primacy to birth sex as the basis of gender. what aspects do you see as being different?
This comment was written by Emilia.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 5:29 am
How, exactly? Reducing it down to basic principles, from one group, I hear: ‘God made men and women different so they could have babies together, and that’s why it’s wrong to want to change your physical sex’. From the other, I hear: ‘Biology made men and women different so they could have babies together, and that’s why it’s wrong to want to change your physical sex’. Maybe there’s some nuance here that I’m missing, but honestly, it sounds like the same reasoning from where I’m standing.
This comment was written by mazaru.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 5:39 am
Crys T,
I’m a trans person, and I don’t care why someone hates me; you’re absolutely right about that. That being said, I think you’re being disingenuous. Nowhere is Amp saying the *reasons* some radfems and conservative christians are similarly transphobic, just that affectively, at the point where it’s encountered, the *are* the same. It seems such a patently obvious point that I am deeply suspicious of anyone who claims to miss it.
This comment was written by prosphoros.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 6:49 am
I’ve been hesitant to comment on these threads, for any number of reasons, and I still am, in the fear it’ll get lost at the end of the conversation, but nevertheless, here I go.
0. As a transguy who had his lesbian separatist days and is a christian, the original cartoon made me crack up, because while not ALL radfems nor ALL conservative christians behave in exactly that way, I’ve encountered those attitudes often enough that the cartoon is fucking funny. In that “I have to laugh or else I’ll cry” sort of way.
1. I do think, however, that there are subtle differences between the gender essentialism of radfems and the gender essentialism of conservative christians. I think that some, but not all, radfems view one’s upbringing as the “essential”, hence the emphasis on girlhoods and boyhoods—though I’ve certainly encountered the “if it doesn’t bleed, don’t trust it” attitude among radfems. Conservative christians, on the other hand, seem to lean a bit more towards a “biology is destiny” attitude—what parts you’ve got determines your gender—though there’s certainly some crossover into the upbringing part, when we note the “how to make sure your son isn’t gay” websites.
2. In spite of 1., as prosphorous notes, the point of encounter seems the same to transfolk, namely that once you reach an age of being able to think critically about your gender, it’s already been set for you, by either society or biology and is immutable.
This comment was written by ataralas.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 7:06 am
I still have yet to see a radical feminist come here and tell me that gender essentialism isn’t part of the paradigym (sp?). I’m guessing that means it is. Which means the criticque Amp is making in the cartoon is not only genuine it is poignant.
This comment was written by KateL..Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Exactly. The whole point of the cartoon, what nobody has really bothered to challenge, is that the reasons ARE very similar once you scratch beneath the surface. The surface, of course, is all about justifying things based on the Bible and God in one case, and entirely different (and in many cases more diverse) motifs in the other. But the basic ideas — that gender is an essential and unchangeable quality of people that must be defended and controlled, that words like “transphobia” are scare tactics — are very much the same amongst many fundamentalist Christians and some radical feminists. They’re arguments that crop up all over fundamentalist Christian defenses of the family and women and heterosexual privilege, and they also crop up in some feminists’ defense of “womanhood” against trans people, whether trans men or women or otherwise, who they perceive as threats. Who often go unchallenged by other feminists in the same spaces, since to do so often results in hostilty and/or ostracism. There are quite a few people around the blogosphere who could tell you about that.
I totally <3 rad fems who stand up for trans people. They do exist. They have my admiration, and I generally like and agree with their politics, too.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Plenty of others have pointed out that many of the reasons, as articulated by both radfems and the religious right, are pretty much the same, especially gender-essentialist reasons.
I agree with that, and I think Amp’s cartoon is appropriate and accurate, but I am interested, though, in what different reasons there actually are. Are there any?
The first one that springs to mind is the old, “transwomen are just men in disguise, trying to colonize the female experience,” but although I doubt a member of the religious right would say that exactly, it is an argument that relies on a gender-essentialist framework, which they share.
Even the best candidate (that I can think of) for a non-gender essentialist reason for excluding transwomen from female-only spaces, “they’ve carried male privilege for much of their lives,” seems to ignore some pretty huge differences in privilege and life experience in favor of a simple ‘you are forever what you were born as’ construction.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but radical feminism has always seemed to be a home for those with particularly large axes to grind. It seems whenever I hear about a feminist organization or person advocating such policies as making het sex illegal, the removal of men from political office or forbidding the birth of male children they most often identify themselves as radical feminists.
And while I often hear from individual radical feminists that these extremist views are not theirs, I don’t think I’ve heard of radfem majority going out of its way to denounce them.
If it’s a mischaracterization of the movement I apologize, but their behavior is consistent with this characterization. Imagine how J. Edgar Hoover would react to a Commie wanting to become an American, or one of one of his agents having sex with a Russian? You know how he would react because you know what he was like, and you can tell what he was like from how he did react. In the same way heterosexual relations are like corresponding with the enemy and trans folk, depending on which way they cross, are either full-blown traitors or spies. Anti-trans behavior is inseparable from the idea that Men are the Enemy.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Christian,
Your comment is… bizarre and needlessly incendiary. It would make as much sense for me to say “Whenever I hear someone espousing controversial ideas, like the beheading of newborn black infants, or the need to use hot irons to brand all people who are found guilty of minor drug offenses with the mark of Caine, that person is most likely a Christian. I appologize if I’m mischaracterizing the movement.”
I would be, and you are. Don’t use the discussion of an actual flaw in some strains of radfeminist culture to batter them with straw.
**
It occurs to me that you’re spoofing the arguments here about saying that radfems should create an atmosphere where transphobia is not considered acceptable. Is that what you’re doing? I don’t think that’s valid either, but if that was your intent, please ignore my above warning.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Do you have any examples of these things?
I ask because they sound an awful lot more like typical anti-feminist ‘urban legends’ than they do like any position any feminist has ever seriously advanced.
IF there are examples of some sort of reputable (or even really extreme) radfem organization seriously advancing these ideas, then yeah, they should probably be opposed, but I just don’t think it’s a problem somehow.
I disagree with radical feminism on a lot of grounds, but I’m pretty sure they’re not trying to force the abortion of male children or make hetero sex illegal. I mean, Jesus, man.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 10:17 am
“In the same way heterosexual relations are like corresponding with the enemy and trans folk, depending on which way they cross, are either full-blown traitors or spies. Anti-trans behavior is inseparable from the idea that Men are the Enemy.”
In contrast, I think here you may have a bit of a point. I don’t think anti-trans behavior in inseparable from the idea that Men are the Enemy, or we wouldn’t see it in other communities.
But it may have a grain of truth within some radfem perspectives, insofar as some strains of radfeminist can hold a certain amount of seeing the genders as inevitably embattled (since gender oppression is seen as being the original strain). If women must defend themselves against all men, as individuals rather than as a class, then any male outreach is suspect — whether that’s in the form of heterosexual partners, FtM transsexuals, or male-identified pro-feminists.
I admit I see a bit of behavior that I’d classify as falling under that rubric. But really, not all that much. Even Twisty, who I’m guessing is the origin for the claim that (rad)feminists want to outlaw all heterosexual sex (although I think this is an oversimplification of her position for various reasons), appears to endorse the idea that there’s a difference between individual and class critiques. Yes, on some level, all men hate women. Welcome to complicity in the culture that oppresses women. At the same time, she seems to endorse the idea that: If you don’t do it, it’s not about you.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Mandolin, I trust your judgement. But bigotry against the opposite sex is a logical precurser of transphobia, and the radfem movement has been torn by man-hating scandal more than once. Are you saying that there is no such bigotry within the body of Radical Feminism, or are you saying even if there is, it’s a separate issue to their real problem, transphobia?
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Let me start by saying that if I have misunderstood your intent, and you are trying to be sarcastic, witty, or funny, then I apologize. But, at this point, all I can say is “What kind of logic is this?” A Radfem has not responded to your demands of an answer, so therefore there is no possible response? Maybe it’s the anti-radfem hostility that is so prevalent on this blog (and not only from Amp, the commenters seem to be even more hostile to radical feminism than he is — and I certainly wouldn’t call him open to it, based on my readings here). Maybe it’s the seemingly disingenuous aspect of the question — because I really don’t get the feeling that you or many of the commenters here would actually be open to discussing the answers were someone to try and give a genuine answer. Hell, I have a lot of reasons that I completely and utterly disagree with your view of radical feminism’s stance on gender essentialism. But I certainly wouldn’t discuss them here or with anyone here. I most certainly don’t think anyone would actually listen to what I’m saying — not even for a genuine discussion in which the end result was still disagreement. I don’t mean to generalize — I do, actually, think there are a couple of people here who would be willing to discuss this openly, honestly, and respectfully. But, unfortunately, I do think that they are the minority, and I don’t think we would be able to have that conversation here. FWIW, I do think that Amp is usually one of those people you could have a conversation like this with — but I don’t in this situation. I don’t know if it is the subject matter — perhaps this is an issue that is more relevant to Amp’s personal life in some way, or is just an issue closer to his heart so he takes it so personally, or if it is because he sees it as an attack on his cartoon and therefore him, and therefore is taking it personally. In either case, I simply do not feel that Amp is able to have an open, honest, and respectful discussion of this issue. At least, not in this thread and/or at this time. I do not mean this as an attack, honestly. I just feel, based on your responses here, that for whatever reason, this is too personal to be objective about.
This comment was written by Eliza.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 10:54 am
I’m reluctant to classify even extremist radfem positions as man-hating, most of the time. Maybe I don’t read the right sites.
I admit, there is one radfeminist who I do sometimes read who I feel genuinely hates men. She is also virulently transphobic. I read her site occasionally, and I appreciate some of what she writes about women — but in general, I find her toxic.
I’m not sure I’d call her bigoted against men. She doesn’t have the power part of the equation, prejudice power. She does have power when it comes to the dynamic cisgendered/transgendered, and I’d definitely call her bigoted against transsexuals.
I think I’d revise that. I don’t think she hates men. I think she fears them, deeply. Which is a distinction, for me, particularly given that she’s a member of an oppressed class.
As I mentioned above, I think you may have a point when you’re saying that for some radfems, fear of men may be the origin of transphobic behavior. I’m not sure how many radfems that describes, though.
I think most radfems are able to distinguish between class-based critiques, and indivudal critiques. I brought up Twisty’s phrase “Men hate you” because I think that it sounds like the latter, but is actually the former. Just as all white people participate in white supremacy by virtue of their white privilege, which creates teh effect of racism which is indistinguishable for the victim from hate, all men engage in acts of male privilege. It can read as man-hating, but I don’t think it really is.
I’m suspicious of the ways in which radfeminist arguments are characterized as man-hating, and particularly of the ways in which you summarized certain radfeminist arguments which I imagine you’ve heard. Are people really arguing for making het sex illegal? If one examines the context of that, does the argument become more complicated, or possibly sarcastic, or even just kind of grumpily dreamy in a way that doesn’t reflect what the arguer would actually want to do in a real world situation? Is the argument y ou were discussing the one that I quoted of Twisty’s? If it is, I think the reduction is substantively different from the argument itself.
So, in sum, the way you phrased the particular examples of supposed radfem ideology seem to me to be problematic and unlikely. I do think that it’s possible that fear of men feeds transphobia, though, at least in some individuals.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 11:18 am
And for those of you who are still defending the basic concept of the cartoon: you’re also allowing personal prejudices too much influence on your thinking. Those radfems who are transphobic are transphobic for ENTIRELY DIFFERENT reasons than those who are transphobic for religious reasons. Note that I do not say that transphobia in radfems is any way more acceptable or understandable, only that it does not come from the same place. I can understand a transperson saying it doesn’t matter to them why a person hates them, what matters to them is the hate, and they’re right about that. However, that still doesn’t make radfems any more like fundies than the rest of us. Or the rest of you.
Great, now we’re the bigots.
I disagree. I used to believe that radical-feminist gender essentialism was a different animal, and that radical-feminist transphobia came from a whole different worldview, but it just doesn’t hold up. I agree with you that some of the arguments against “the trans issue” are ostensibly based on different beliefs about what, if anything, “makes” men and women.
However, this is not the same as saying that radical feminists who are transphobic, either formally or practically, believe any differently than fundies do. Transphobia isn’t actually supported by radical-feminist beliefs about gender or about class theory. It isn’t actually supported by the picture of transition, either historically or currently. It isn’t actually supported by the real lives of transpeople. It tends overwhelmingly to come from a far older, far more pervasive set of beliefs and a far more general set of stereotypes–baggage many fundamentalists and a dismaying number of radfems have not, what’s the word, examined. Both these caricatures have found comfortable space in their chosen ideologies, but their own prejudices have shaped their interaction with the text.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Myca writes:
“Do you have any examples of these things?
I ask because they sound an awful lot more like typical anti-feminist ‘urban legends’ than they do like any position any feminist has ever seriously advanced.”
clomp….clomp….clomp….
http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2006/12/03/more-truth-about-men-britney-spears-crotch-photos-poetic-justice-a-proposal/
Believe me, I could find MANY more examples of this level of hatred and extremism within radical feminism, and not just on the part of a few marginal figures. (Check out Heart’s site for awhile and you’ll see plenty.) That fact that the general feminist milieu doesn’t seem to have the courage to face up to this and stop enabling these messed-up people is, well, pretty sad.
This comment was written by iamcuriousblue.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
i agree with piny on this. when you drill down to the root of each argument, it comes down to the belief that there are two sets of people, men and women, and it’s somehow wrong for men to live their lives as women, and women to live their lives as men. one can wrap the rationalizations up in fancy theories, but the underlying belief is the same.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Believe me, I could find MANY more examples of this level of hatred and extremism within radical feminism, and not just on the part of a few marginal figures.
Not to be snide, but “a few marginal figures” and “commenters on Heart’s blog” are not exactly mutually exclusive categories. I think that hatred of men rather than a belief that men as a class enjoy privilege and are taught to hate women cannot be generalized to radical feminists as a group.
And like I said, I really _don’t_ think that transphobia amongst radical feminists can be chalked up to misandry. I think it’s a different prejudice.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Yeah, I don’t see there being a necessary connection — even though you often see misandry and transphobia in the same place. It doesn’t follow that one flows from the other. Plus, the power dynamics are totally different, even though some transphobic people will insist that somehow trans people, as a class, hold more power than them. This does make sense if you believe that all trans people are “tainted” with maleness in one way or another (more permanent for those with a “childhood taint” than as adults) so maybe there is a tenuous connection there.
Also,
Exactly right on, piny. This needs to be pointed out more. Transphobia in radical feminism comes from the transphobic baggage we all carry around with us and from setting up gender essentialism, consciously or otherwise, biologically or “socalized,” as one of the pillars of your worldview. But this is not, in itself, part and parcel of “radical feminist beliefs” any more than the racism that some radical feminists exhibit is part of “radical feminism.” It’s baggage, and it comes up because border wars over gender are more crucial to people’s ideas of feminism than even issues about race are.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Yep. I do think that they use the -excuse- of–well, they won’t call it misandry, there’s no such thing possible, fine whatever–anyway, they say it’s all about male privilege, male energy, male this, male that.
still doesn’t really explain the whole “it,” “Buffalo Bill,” “sick boys who belong in straitjackets,” etc. etc., though.
or why straight, even married women are way more acceptable than transfolk
or where the sneerage at “LBGTQRUTWUXYZ” fits in
or why a male-born-male is in the “womens’ space” fapping away at transfolk and apparently that’s perfectly okey-dokey.
This comment was written by belledame222.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I’m with piny on this; I think the transphobia comes from a peculiar strain of conservatism, of maintaining a form of purity, of clear, absolute lines, of providing an unquestioned, unquestionable foundation for inescapable difference: in short, tribal identity.
This comment was written by prosphoros.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
and yeah, the thing about “straw” anything is, I am coming to believe, there’s ALWAYS a real solid scarecrow flapping around somewhere; stereotypes generally don’t come out of thin air.
This comment was written by belledame222.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I also don’t think that it’s a coincidence that at least several of the people whose positions on transfolk, etc. etc. I find most objectionable, do in fact have backgrounds in fundamentalist Christianity. I am sure that it irks deeply to be accused of still being the thing they are trying to distance themselves from as much as possible. I’m not saying that people can’t ever change. What I -am- saying is: it seems to be easier for some people to go from one fundamentalism to another. And, if people spot similarities, it’s due to -several- reasons, form as well as content. People carry baggage, as has been said, and besides the mainstream anti-trans prejudice, I do not believe that separate baggage from a fundamentalist background is automatically purged when one becomes a radical feminist, or a Buddhist or an atheist or anything else. But on -top- of that, as has been said: this whole “Us/Them” thing, the need for purity, that remains consistent even when -who- is Us and Them and -what- needs to be kept pure changes. It’s a real problem.
This comment was written by belledame222.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
“Yeah, I don’t see there being a necessary connection — even though you often see misandry and transphobia in the same place. It doesn’t follow that one flows from the other. Plus, the power dynamics are totally different, even though some transphobic people will insist that somehow trans people, as a class, hold more power than them.”
And this is why I part company with identity politics in general. So hatred of men is somehow a positive thing because men have relative social power over women? I can see where its less dangerous, considering men have more social power to fall back on to defend themselves against such attacks than do transexuals. It might even be understandable, especially if somebody has a history of abuse at the hands of men. But I don’t have much patience for the idea that hatred of men is actually something positive and just.
And I really do think the two are linked in a way – its not at all atypical that groups that feel extremely self-justified in raw hatred toward a relatively privileged group very often let that hatred spill over toward less powerful groups. And in this particular case, the two are explicity linked – transexuals are explicitly hated because they’re part man after all.
As for this silent majority of radical feminists that are actually reasonable non-hateful people, well, I’ll believe that when I see more than a few isolated examples.
This comment was written by iamcuriousblue.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Oh, and as per urban legend, etc., here you go:
http://easypersiflage.com/blameforum/index.php?topic=882.msg11785#msg11785
justicewalks
Wonderment
**
Posts: 59
Re: Suggestions about moderation from Feminism ja drag queens
« Reply #32 on: July 17, 2007, 10:10:15 AM »
Quote
…
Radical feminism is about females as a class rising up against our oppressors, males as a class. If you think the idea of radical feminism doesn’t inherently entail a fight against racism, you are mistaken. It is not a side issue. You cannot be a radical feminist and be racist. You cannot be a radical feminist and be classist. You cannot be a radical feminist and be ablist. Do you understand? We cannot be sisters until we are all recognized and respected as female and as human. To splinter the multifaceted goal of female freedom into discrete shards, hived off, as delphyne put it, into their own isolated categories is to diffuse our efforts and to minimize the importance of each and every facet of our colonization. When you push discussions of racism off the table, you put female freedom just that much further out of reach. That’s the radical idea, that no female gets freedom, or joy, or peace until every single female gets it. Male freedom, on the other hand, is not the concern of radical feminism, since, if they’d wanted freedom rather than control over women’s bodies, they could have had it for themselves in all these 6000 years of “civilization.”
Carpenter, I’ve hesitated to respond to you at all because I haven’t respected the generosity with which you’ve contributed your “ADMITTED”ly un-advanced understanding of radical feminism. Perhaps instead of getting huffy (and I’m not saying that you, specifically, have gotten huffy) about being challenged, people who haven’t educated themselves as to the ineffectiveness of eradicating only bits and pieces of patriarchy’s hierarchies should sit back and listen until they feel they understand. It certainly doesn’t make sense that people with an admittedly limited understanding of radical feminism (which, sorry women, if you’re radical, you’re actively and ever-increasingly anti-racist) would come to a radical feminist forum and presume ill will on the part of its proponents. I mean, really, you admit you don’t know anything about the philosophy, yet you think you’re savvy enough to tell an attack from a basic argument in a radical feminist discussion? Give me a break.
Medusa, I have hesitated to address your Nigel Jr issues as well, because you want to take it personally that radical feminists do not care what a good little patriarch you are raising. Radical feminists only care that, so long as patriarchy exists, all little boys, down to the very last puppy dog’s tail, grow up to be patriarchs, who are our enemies. Your joy at your son’s empathy or niceness or whatever doesn’t change the fact that the existence of patriarchs (especially the ones who ‘can do no wrong’) at all means that girls and women will continue to be oppressed by male supremacy. The joy your son brings you is gotten off the backs of the women and girls your son has/will continue to exploit (and exploit is broad; please give some consideration to the ways even ‘good’ men exploit women before you let your hackles raise too far; if he’s school-aged, he’s probably already stolen more than his fair share of the teacher’s attention from some equally deserving girl, not his fault, but still a fact of life), and off the backs of the women he’ll stand by and let his brethren rape and exploit. While I don’t deny that women do not currently have much choice in the matter of raising our oppressors, that doesn’t change the fact that it is nothing to celebrate on a radical feminist forum, not least because it isn’t radical.
Thanks to everyone who has sent a message of support, or defended me here on the boards. I hope to see you elsewhere on the great wide net.
This comment was written by belledame222.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
I’ve seen this link too, but I can’t decide if it’s a reason (i.e. they hate men and justify hating transfolk because they are or were men), an excuse (i.e. they hate transfolk in the beginning and justify their hatred however they can), or if the link is even valid at all.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
And in this particular case, the two are explicity linked – transexuals are explicitly hated because they’re part man after all.
But you have to get to that premise in the first place, don’t you?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
That said: besides everything else, there are different strains of radical feminism, and it’s not all synonymous with “cultural feminism,” which is i think what’s really at the heart of this sort of sexual Slytherinism or whatever it is.
This comment was written by belledame222.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
“I’ve seen this link too, but I can’t decide if it’s a reason (i.e. they hate men and justify hating transfolk because they are or were men) or an excuse (i.e. they hate transfolk in the beginning and justify their hatred however they can).”
Both/and? Or possibly, depends on the individual?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Well, there you go getting all accurate and nuanced.
I demand sweeping generalizations!
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Laugh! You kick ass.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Eliza,
Thanks for coming over. I can’t speak for Amp, and I don’t know whether I’m one of the commenters you characterize as anti-radfem — which I don’t think I am, although I can see where one would read me as being so if one were only looking at this issue.
Here’s my take:
Transphobia’s just not okay, in the same way that racism is not okay. It is bigotry. Therefore, justifications of it — which are justifications of bigotry — are going to be really hard to phrase in such a way so that they come across in a way that doesn’t necessitate harsh response.
Additionally, much of the rebuttal to the cartoon has taken teh form of “Amp sucks and is a pornographer,” which… you know, has very little to do with the argument put forth.
If you can express an opinion, while avoiding actually bigoted statements (transpeople need straightjackets; transwomen are lurking in bathrooms waiting to wave their penises at us) and while not basing your argument in “Amp suxxors” then it seems to me that you’re welcome to speak here. Though you’re not entitled to agreement, obviously.
If you are interested in vacating this space to put up a post explaining how you feel about gender essentialism, or transsexuality, or whatever, I hope that you will do so and give us a link, whether or not you’re interested in inviting commenters from this particular sandbox to go play in yours. I, for one, am genuinely interested in reading opinions that avoid pitfalls 1 and 2 above.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
belledame222 Writes:
“That said: besides everything else, there are different strains of radical feminism, and it’s not all synonymous with “cultural feminism,” which is i think what’s really at the heart of this sort of sexual Slytherinism or whatever it is.”
Well, yes, anybody who’s made a cursory reading of Alice Echols knows this was true historically. Hell, radical feminism, in the broad sense, was the intellectual foremother of sex-positive feminism. (Ellen Willis, co-founder of Redstockings, even coined the very term “pro-sex feminism”.) They brought the whole sex and oh-my-god-lezbianz issue to the table at a time when Betty Friedan was trying to distance feminism from that as much as possible.
But that’s the history, and that’s not where were at right now. Self-professed “radical feminism” today almost always means in the tradition of Dworkin, Morgan, Jeffreys, Daly, etc. (And I realize that there’s some division between Dalyite cultural feminism and the less drawing-down-the-moon/more politico types.) Feminists who draw on early radical feminist authors but reject Dworkin, etc are largely not calling themselves radical feminists at this point in history, at least as far as I’ve seen. (Correct me if I’m wrong on this point.)
And, yes, there still actually is a Redstockings (with a website, even), which is radical feminist and explicitly anti-cultural feminism, but that group consists of precisely three members, last I heard.
This comment was written by iamcuriousblue.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Not to beat to a dead horse (which had already been flogged before the comment was made):
Those radfems who are transphobic are transphobic for ENTIRELY DIFFERENT reasons than those who are transphobic for religious reasons.
1. It’s hardly a criticism of the cartoon, which, far from denying it, is predicated on the irony that people from ostensibly different ideological backgrounds should converge on the same bigotry. There’d be no joke if the characters were otherwise ideologically identical.
2. Targets of bigotry, & anybody alive to injustice, can’t afford to care so much about the rationalizations people give for it. The effects are what matters. Isn’t there something a little unseemly about telling the victim of a mob assault that “my friends (or whatever you call the people you’re apologizing for) pummeled you for entirely different reasons than those other people”?
3. Ostensible ideological differences are highly overrated as explanations for bigotry. The reasons people give for their bigotry usually aren’t its entire causes. They’re often rationalizations – makeshift, confused, counterfactual & self-contradictory expedients – to make the irrational seem defensible. Beneath their various, shifting Rube Goldberg “theoretical” differences, the radical feminist transphobes & conservative Christian transphobes ultimately are animated by the same visceral enmity, vomited up from the same black hole in the human spirit. Everything else is the narcissism of small differences.
This comment was written by KH.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
ditto Mandolin. It is because in both this thread and the original that I had not seen a single criticism of the cartoon that did NOT fall into pitfalls 1 and 2 that I became suspect that there was another criticism. THat doesn’t mean there isn’t one - and I am genuinely interested in hearing it. I may not wind up agreeing with you, but I do appreciate new perspectives and ideas as food for thought, just as I would hope you would appreciate my own perspectives as food for thought.
This comment was written by KateL..Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
And
Okay, you guys are actually right on this. Mea way damn Culpa.
That shit is reprehensible, I had completely underestimated the level of bile, and people who either say it are either evil, crazy, or both.
Seriously. Wow.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
… that still doesn’t make radfems any more like fundies than the rest of us. Or the rest of you.
It does not make them in any way more similar to fundies, and it is not in any way a “more significant” similarity than any number of other attitudes that lefties and fundies may share. I’m sure that if we thought about it for a little bit, we could come up with a very long list of things that we all have in common with fundies that are pretty fucking “significant”.
Crys T,
It’s a morally & politically important fact that some radical feminists & some conservative Christians exhibit functionally equivalent transphobia. That’s a legitimate criticism of those radical feminists, even if other groups also exhibit the same defect. It’s not a criticism of Amp’s cartoon that some conservative adherents of non-Christian religions, or secular people, or whoever, make a similar point of transphobia. It’s still legitimate for people who participate in forums in which feminists, radical & otherwise, participate to criticize the vocal transphobia of a subset of radical feminists, & it’s not a legitimate defense against the criticism to point to other, ideologically disparate people who don’t participate in the fora but who’re also are transphobic. Nor is it unfair to note that the presence of transphobia within the feminist community, & the similarity of such bigotry to some conservative Christian attitudes, is peculiarly at odds with the presumed values & self-concept of feminist & progressive people. That’s why the cartoon has an edge, & makes some people defensive. If you grant that Amp hasn’t invented radical feminist transphobia out of whole cloth, but his cartoon still pisses you off, maybe you should take it as a sign that some part of the ideological community you identify with isn’t upholding the values you identify with it. They, not he, are responsible for your cognitive dissonance.
Some radical feminists most certainly do share transphobic bigotry with some conservative Christians more than many of “the rest of us,” and that makes them more like those conservative Christians than “the rest of us” in that significant respect. Nobody imagines that all radical feminists are distinctively transphobic, but it’s simply a fact that transphobia is more salient & more tolerated in some prominent radical feminist fora than in other feminist & progressive environments. That’s no doubt a problem that many radical feminists wouldn’t have wished on themselves, & a misfortune, but it exists, & the better response isn’t to join in ad hominem attacks against anybody – of whatever gender or weight – who dares to mention the problem, but to put your feminist shoulder to the wheel to make transphobia less salient & less tolerated in radical feminist discourse.
It’s a poor defense of bigotry to speculate that there might be some other equally significant similarity between “the rest of us” & conservative Christians. Maybe, maybe not. But tempting as it may be to invite us to examine our own real or imagined failings, in the absence of anything specific, it’s hard to say whether there’s any truth to your speculation. And whether there are or aren’t other similarities among other groups, they don’t make transphobia any prettier. Your argument is, among other defects, what’s called a tu quoque fallacy.
You seem grudgingly to acknowledge that there may be a current of transphobia among some radical feminists, & that it’s a bad thing, but seem more offended by the mention it, & the alleged imperfections of the person who’s objected. Wouldn’t be easier, slightly more dignified, even more feminist, just to fix the problem?
This comment was written by KH.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Mandolin, Myca, if you value two states of being equally, you don’t raise a fuss when one becomes t’other.
Myca, I don’t believe all radical feminists want to force the abortion of male children or make hetero sex illegal. Just as the Aryan Nation fantasizes about a White America, there is a feminist equivalent that ponders similar futures without men, and they are welcome within the ranks of radical feminism because they are vigorous allies, highly motivated to pursue power for women.
Neither of you can possibly be oblivious to man-hating rad fem ideology. I see some examples have been posted. [ ETA: Myca - I see you noticed the examples, okay maybe you were! Sorry. ] I can accept that it is not indicative of the rad fem majority, but I would like to hear that from the rad fem majority. And a little more often. Declarations like “You are not allowed to call yourself a radical feminist, peddle your hate somewhere else” would help, but Mandolin, you for example described a writer who you feel genuinely hates men, whose writing is toxic. You might consider her a bigot, maybe, possibly, but you definitely consider her a genuine radical feminist?
I’m suspicious of [...] the ways in which you summarized certain radfeminist arguments which I imagine you’ve heard. [...] Is the argument y ou were discussing the one that I quoted of Twisty’s?
No, nothing from Twisty’s, but she’s one source from which I concluded there was indeed some bigotry in Rad Feminism. Perhaps I suspect rad feminism is more anti-male than it really is because Rad Feminism that doesn’t include some kind of man-bashing often sounds like just Feminism to me. But anyway, I don’t see how you can reduce these statements to the level of irrelevency, no matter how blithely they said it. And hardly ‘blithely’. They’re channeling the Third Reich.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
It may not be just, but I think it can be understandable, or even justifiable — at least, anger, which I think needs to be talked about separately from hatred. The central tenet of radical feminism that I happen to agree with is that women, as a class, are oppressed by patriarchal systems for the benefit of men, as a class. I think it’s always understandable — healthy, even — for an oppressed group of people to be pissed off at their oppression, not just at the abstract, reified notion of “patriarchy” that’s out there somewhere, but at the actual human beneficiaries of this system too.
I’m also of the school of thought that the healthy thing to do with your emotions is to express and share them, and that this is an OK thing to do as long as you aren’t actually hurting anyone. Yelling “I’m so mad I could punch someone in the face!” is a perfectly legitimate exprssion of anger, and also happens to fall within the protection of free speech. Actually punching a particular person in the face, threatening credibly to do so, or exhorting someone else to, is not. This crosses the line into action, which is where we have to make more responsible decisions about how to act on our feelings.
So basically, I think a certain amount of expression of anger expressed against men, white people, straight people, thin people, able-bodied people, rich people, people in power, what have you — it’s a good thing. And this can take many forms. People who are privileged in some way (and I certainly have some of those privileges I just listed) should understand where it’s coming from, try not to take things personally, and when necessary, find their own space to express how they feel about the subject. (Incidentally, this is also why I think entirely public discussion spaces, like the whole blogosphere, have their limitations.)
Of course, if someone is advocating “making hetero sex illegal” that starts to get into a grey area. But how close to “acting on anger” does this really get? Is this really a real campaign someone is marshalling political and economic capital for, getting signatures? Or is it just dark daydreams and black humor?
Hatred is a stronger word. I don’t think all anger directed at men is evidence of hatred of men, which implies something ingrained and deeply held. I think that can certainly happen too, and I don’t think most of us have to try very hard to imagine reasons why it might, especially if someone feels powerless and frustrated. It’s evidence of serious problems, and not just at the individual level. It’s worth paying attention to, although no, I don’t think I could ever call hatred, just by defintion, positive or just or healthy.
This comment was written by Holly.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Damn it, lost my comment.
Christian, please accept my apologies for coming down so hard on you.
For some reason, I’m not running into many comments like the ones listed in this thread. Either I’m not reading those sites, or I am but I’m skipping those comments for some reason, or I’m reading those comments but filtering them out because they seem bizarre and irrelevant. Or some combination!
I generally agree with Holly about the difference between bigotry directed toward transpeople and the anger directed toward cissexual male people by radfeminists. That doesn’t make the bile in the comments that are in the thread okay, but I think they’re a different kind of problem than the third reich going after “undesirables.”
So, the definition of radfemnism under which I’m operating: women who believe that the original form of oppression is male versus female. Is this wrong? Are there others? It’s kind of fuzzy who is and isn’t radical, yes?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Christian, as I said back in 106, I totally agree and apologize. I underestimated how bad it was, and I was very wrong. Sorry about that. I think I wanted to believe people were not saying these things.
I was just over at antiprincess’ blog, where she was talking about someone (apparently seriously) arguing that mothers should refuse to care for their male children. That’’s the kind of thing that gives you a whole new look at a mindset. I mean, holy crap.
Mandolin:
This is the definition I’ve been using too, and the really scary thing to me is that it’s not, in itself an unreasonable argument. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree, but I think it’s worth looking at and talking about and thinking about . . . and now I have to wonder if it leads inevitably to this kind of craziness.
I mean, is this just an instance of the web magnifying awfulness? I don’t think that identifying as radfem must automatically make you advocate for the murder of children, but even the thought that there’s some sort of connection scares the shit out of me, seriously.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Holly Writes:
“So basically, I think a certain amount of expression of anger expressed against men, white people, straight people, thin people, able-bodied people, rich people, people in power, what have you — it’s a good thing. And this can take many forms. People who are privileged in some way (and I certainly have some of those privileges I just listed) should understand where it’s coming from, try not to take things personally, and when necessary, find their own space to express how they feel about the subject. (Incidentally, this is also why I think entirely public discussion spaces, like the whole blogosphere, have their limitations.)
Of course, if someone is advocating “making hetero sex illegal” that starts to get into a grey area. But how close to “acting on anger” does this really get? Is this really a real campaign someone is marshalling political and economic capital for, getting signatures? Or is it just dark daydreams and black humor?”
This expression of anger might make for good therapy, but I really think it makes for lousy politics. On one hand, yeah, ideas like a hetero sex ban or a “man tax” aren’t ever going to amount to anything. (Though I do think radical feminists like MacKinnon have actually taken crappy ideas like this into actual legal theory and, more rarely, practice.) On the other hand, where “women expressing anger” encourages them to be taken in by existing moral panics and dovetails rather neatly into some existing reactionary political movements, namely the religious right-driven social conservativism, I think it can be very harmful. This is what I think much of radical feminist activism is doing when it goes into anti-trans, anti-sex work, anti-porn, and anti-BDSM territory.
And I think when political ideas are coming from a place of deep-seated hate, that to me constitutes an argument against that position, no matter how “theraputic” it might be to express those feelings.
“Hatred is a stronger word. I don’t think all anger directed at men is evidence of hatred of men, which implies something ingrained and deeply held.”
I see plenty on boards like I Blame the Patriarchy and Womensspace that I think constitutes real hatred – not just “dislike” of men. And if angry women need a place to vent, hey, I’m not going to get in their way. Just don’t expect me to get behind any politics that comes out of it, or to not point out where such politics are coming from.
This comment was written by iamcuriousblue.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
So, the definition of radfemnism under which I’m operating: women who believe that the original form of oppression is male versus female.
Perhaps I’m off base, but that doesn’t seem all that radical. I wouldn’t use the word “oppression”, but I’d certainly argue and/or agree that the original form of conflict is male versus female.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Radical meaning root, not necessarily radical meaning extreme.
As in “Radical feminists believe that male versus female oppression and othering is the root of (and template for) all oppression and othering.”
Also, the Wikipedia says that:
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I wonder if any fundies would be offended by the cartoon because of the comparison to Radfem’s? Or would they embrace their transphobia and say “at least they got that much right?”
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Radical feminists locate the root cause of women’s oppression in patriarchal gender relations
That seems circular. The root cause of the oppression is in the relationship between genders? (”Radical race activists locate the root cause of black’s oppression in racist race relations…”) I thought it was the relationship between the genders that was oppressive. How can the problem be the cause?
Thanks for the clarification re: radix. So easy to forget.
Or would they embrace their transphobia and say “at least they got that much right?”
They would say that the gender essentialist view was correct, and if a radfem said that gender essentialism was the source of her belief, they’d basically say “at least you got that much right”.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Okay, I think it’s useful for the conversational participants to suggest what definitions they’re working with, but I also think that a probing philosophical consideration of “what is radfeminism?” is probably a distraction.
The question of whether or not radfeminists as a group condone anti-male bigotry also seems like a sideline — except when it’s being used within the specific context of its relationship to transphobia.
We might want to refocus on the cartoon and the social dynamics it brings up.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
i’d argue that anytime radfems as a group condone transphobia, it’s because they also condone anti-male bigotry, because those that condone those sorts of things, see trans women as males. or at the very least, “male born”, which is a round-about way of saying that trans women *are* male. from my experience, those rad fems who are anti-male are also anti-trans. they go hand in hand. i’ve never encountered a rad fem who was one without the other.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Amp, was this *intended* to become a radfem-bash thread, or was that just the way it shook out?
This comment was written by Daisy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Good points, Nexyjo.
I think the reasoning goes something like, “maleness is so incredibly threatening and hurtful to women through its mere existence, whether it’s biological maleness or male privilege we’re discussing, that we must treat anything even close to or related to maleness as if it were the same thing.”
Thus people who used to be male, people who are becoming male, and people who are male (but infants) are all equally a threat. Because that’s how bad it is.
I don’t have any sympathy for the bigotry, of course, but I guess I find the whole thing just sad in a way. How awfully wounded are these people to get to that point? What kind of awful shit has the patriarchy done to them? I mean, it really reaffirms my commitment to be as careful as I can be with the world around me.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Hey Daisy . . . I would be interested in discussion of this stuff without bashing.
Much of what I’ve seen and read lately has me kind of very worried when it comes to what’s considered publicly acceptable in radfem circles, and if what I’m seeing is cherry-picked or extremely rare or generally confronted and shouted down by other radfems, I’d like to know it. It’s entirely possible that I have the wrong impression.
On the other hand, if the stuff I’m seeing generally isn’t uncommon or isn’t confronted by other radfems, then discussing that seems fair.
Also, back in post 45/46, Amp kind of tried to engage with you directly, and give you an opportunity to explain some of what was bothering you about the cartoon. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind if you wanted to respond to his post now.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
I don’t understand why my two extremely esteemed co-moderators are being so soft on Christian.
Christian wrote:
Let’s not forget that not a single example of a feminist person or organization “advocating such policies as making het sex illegal, the removal of men from political office or forbidding the birth of male children” has been posted.
What has been posted is a couple of hateful comments that stopped well short of any of the extremist proposals Christian described. I followed the first link, to Pony’s “all men are rapists” comment, and saw that later in the thread there were comments like this (from Heart):
And this comment, by Gaia’s muse:
So what it seems to me we’re dong here is cherry-picking the most extreme comments from Heart’s threads, not talking about the representative views there.
You could make a reasonable argument, I think, that the cherry-picked comments might not represent the norm, but they do show that a great deal of misandry is tolerated and even welcomed on Heart’s blog. (It’s not like Pony is an unwelcome member of the community there). But even so, the cherry-picked comments fall far, far short of the accusations Christian leveled but failed to support with any facts.
I think Mandolin’s early response to Christian was on the mark:
And also Myca’s initial comment:
Again, right on the mark, and I’m frankly bewildered that you apologized for this statement, Myca. Your first instinct was right.
As far as I can tell, Christian is a nasty anti-feminist troll and a liar. If he doesn’t actually answer Myca’s question, by providing “examples of some sort of reputable (or even really extreme) radfem organization seriously advancing these ideas” — and no, Valerie Solonas doesn’t count! — then I think he should be banned from “Alas.”
Edited to add: Actually, I’m going to ban Christian regardless, unless he apologizes profusely for the third reich comment (and maybe even then). But before banning him, I want to see if he can actually come up with any evidence to substantiate his fantastic accusations. My bet is he can’t.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 12:08 am
IAmCuriousBlue, I’ve enjoyed your participation in this thread, and I’ve agreed with some of the things you’ve said. So I don’t mean to disrespect you when I disagree with this:
Actually, I don’t think that’s true at all. MacKinnon’s biggest success at policy making is the laws against sexual harassment in the workplace; even if you disagree with sexual harassment laws, they simply cannot fairly be described as being “ideas like” a ban on heterosexual sex or a tax on being male.
MacKinnon most famous and reviled attempt at lawmaking is the MacKinnon/Dworkin anti-porn ordinance, which would have made it possible for people who believed that they were victimized by porn to bring civil suits against makers and distributors of porn. I think the law was a bad idea, both on its own merits and as a political strategy; but it’s still a thousand miles away from ideas like banning all heterosexual sex.
I think my claim — which is that radical feminists have too often been way to accepting of anti-trans bigotry in their midst — is quite supportable. But I don’t think all of the other claims made about radfems in this thread are equally supportable.
(Yes, I know I’m digressing my own thread. But heck, it’s past the 100th post, and to tell the truth I agree with Daisy: some of the comments on this thread, most especially Christian’s, are nothing but radfem-bashing.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 12:34 am
I very much agree with Holly’s response to IAmCuriousBlue, in comment #110.
KH, #105 and #108, thank you for your eloquent defense of my cartoon. I mean, I need to thank a whole bunch of people for that :-D , but I think your comments in particular were well-reasoned and frankly did a better job than I have done putting into prose what I “intended” with the cartoon, and why most of the critics have entirely missed the point.
Crys T wrote:
Crys, it was a negative characterization of my motivations. In your original context, there is no other reasonable reading of “Amp slammed radfems on this issue because radfems are currently a very easy target…. earn the cartoonist a lot of nice back-slapping” except that you were talking about my motivations.
There’s no “if” about it.
That said, apology accepted.
For what it’s worth, you’re dead wrong. I didn’t post the cartoon thinking “gosh, I’ll get a lot of praise for this one”; I posted it fully expecting to be torn apart, and to be attacked not just for the ideas expressed in the cartoon but for the “amptoons sell-out” (which is NOT a topic I’m eager to bring up again!) and for whatever other personal attacks people could make (which turned out to be attacks on me for being fat). Also, publishing the cartoon caused two real-life friends of mine to be significantly peeved with me, which is not an outcome that I want at all, but was an outcome I suspected would happen.
As for why I wrote the cartoon, it was because I was furious after reading a thread at Heart’s place. Not because I was seeking praise; not because I’m bitter over “Ampgate”; I was just pissed off. Just as I’ve been pissed off when I’ve written dozens or hundreds of previous cartoons about other subjects. Why is that so hard to believe?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 3:20 am
I’ve noticed that when amp posts a cartoon about ANYTHING he’s sure to be told that it’s wrong, incomplete or needs to be done better.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Would these two be strange bedfellows? No stranger than the alliance premised between radical christians and transpeople in “Gendercator”
I’m sorry to look like a hit and run, I’m just starting to find my voice in the feminist blogosphere (e.g. I have a blank blog under the name of justmekaren “What was I thinking?”) so it may seem hit and run, but I don’t mean to be so.
This whole idea of hypersimplification really reflects on more than just a cartoon. If we look at ourselves, are some not hypersimplifying transpeople, and transwoman a la carte, in the blogs of others?
Won’t that beg a hypersimpliflied answer? Or even, only entertain one?
I’m saddened that more nuanced voices don’t get the attention that a few commentators get. People with nuanced voices help nuanced listeners, they are themselves nuanced people. They care. They break down walls.
I read the cartoon as asking “Maybe we should talk, and not just ascribe motives (walls)?” through a negative inference. The people being talked about aren’t there, though.
They are in the response section of this blog, however.
This comment was written by justmekaren.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Just another reminder. Whichever side wins, my spouse and I are in trouble. Gee, reminds me why I stick up for transfolk.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Myca, Amp admirably acquitted himself in this thread. :)
Thanks, since I also consider Christian a troll.
This comment was written by Daisy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
[...] the idea that it happens. (Many of the dynamics I’m talking about are easily pointed out here) And genuinely well-intentioned people without the community history will wonder why people are [...]
This comment was written by What are we doing here? « Feline Formal Shorts.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 9:29 am
[Paranoid rantings, completely devoid of any actual evidence to support Christian's deluded accusations, disemvoweled by Amp. Christian, you are now banned from "Alas"; please don't attempt to post comments here anymore. --Amp]
spps hv n chc bt t nswr y, mp. ntl rd yr ltmtm ws gng t drp t. thght thr ws lss dsgrmnt tht rdcl fmnsm hd sm sss wth mn. Y cld mk rsnbl rgmnt, thnk, tht [...] th d shw tht grt dl f msndr s tlrtd nd vn wlcmd n Hrts blg [...] Bt vn s, th chrr-pckd cmmnts fll fr, fr shrt f th ccstns Chrstn lvld bt fld t spprt wth n fcts. Y dmt msndr s tlrtd wthn rdcl fmnsm. Y dmt trnsphb s tlrtd wthn rdcl fmnsm. wld xpct th frqnc f n t crrlt strngl wth th frqnc f th thr. Tht s th ssntl pnt wshd t mk. Th thr nswrs n ths thrd fr th qstn ‘Wh d th tlrt trnsphb?’ hv bn ‘Bcs th’r mr gndr ssntlst… fr n xplnbl rsn’ nd ‘Wht trnsphb?’. f h dsnt ctll nswr Mycs qstn, b prvdng xmpls f sm srt f rptbl (r vn rll xtrm) rdfm rgnztn srsl dvncng ths ds nd n, Vlr Slns dsnt cnt! thn thnk h shld b bnnd frm ls. cpl f thrs wr qckr n th drw t nwrng Myc wth xmpls f th wrtngs. Myc rd thm nd th md th pnt s ddn’t bthr rptng thm. dn’t knw f n rptbl rgnztns tht r prsntl tryng t psh nt-ht sx lws thrgh th crt systm, bt th wld hv t b nsn t tr wtht vr lrg pltcl spprt bs. Crt lng bfr th hrs. n bsns f pltcl rtrdtn ds nt mn th r bv rprch, nd t dsn’t mn th r glt f crs, bt smn s sprdng sch ds t grss rts lvl. Sm f thm r cknwldgd b sm f th ls lt t b rdcl fmnsts. Nw, th Fmnst nttv prt f Swdn ws rptbl nd frst ttmpts t nt-ml lws hd bn lnkd wth thm. Th prt hd bn dvncng pltcll b lmtng tslf t strtg f prmtng pltfrm f scl gltrnsm fr ll nn-htrnrmtv flk, pplr mvmnt n Swdn. Thr chncs f frmng prt wthn th gvrnmnt dspprd whn thr ntrnl nt-ml, nt-htr nd nt-trns bgtr nd bllyng ws xpsd. S t sms rdcl fmnsm s s cpbl f prjdc s n thr grp, nd s s cpbl f dnyng t s n thr grp. ctll, m gng t bn Chrstn rgrdlss, nlss h plgzs prfsl fr th thrd rch cmmntT nyn wh fls hv ffndd thm b lnkng ht prpgnd wth th Thrd Rch, plgz. ws nswrng qstn: hw dd th spkrs f th d cnv thm? Srsl? Srcstcll? Drml? sd th Thrd Rch s shrthnd t s ‘th cnvyd th wrst knd f flth wth th vgr f tr blvr.’ Gd lck thn, whtvr y dcd mp.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 6:10 pm
MacKinnon’s biggest success at policy making is the laws against sexual harassment in the workplace
To be more detailed there, Mackinnon helped pioneer the idea of the “hostile workplace”. Up until then, sexual harassment was only considered harassment if it was quid pro quo–”sleep with me and I’ll promote you,” that kind of thing. But it didn’t address sexual harassment where there were no explicit conditions other than having to tolerate the harassment. For example, a lone woman at a workplace whose male co-workers constantly hit on her, left pornographic photos with her photo pasted over the model’s face taped to her desk, discussed their sex lives in graphic, loud detail every time she walked by, etc. - would not, traditionally, have been “harassed” because nobody threatened to fire her or made promotion contingent on sleeping with her boss.
Mackinnon helped legal theory change to understand that this kind of work environment, like quid pro quo harassment, is sex discrimination.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Out of curiosity, did you sometimes take out the y?
This comment was written by arrogantworm.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Myca - “I don’t have any sympathy for the bigotry, of course, but I guess I find the whole thing just sad in a way. How awfully wounded are these people to get to that point? What kind of awful shit has the patriarchy done to them? I mean, it really reaffirms my commitment to be as careful as I can be with the world around me.”
This, honestly, is where I am too. As disgusted as I am with the bigotry, there’s a part of me that’s going “something really bad must have happened to this person to make them feel that way”, and I just can’t ignore that. It’s how I feel about Dworkin, actually - I disagree with her on almost everything BUT looking at her life experience, I can understand why she came to the conclusions she did. At one point I genuinely hated her, then I read about her life story and ended up wanting to give her a cuddle.
Which is why this whole thing is so damn confusing. I can understand WHY some radfems hate men, I just can’t agree with them, and it always seems to end up with a situation where you’re talking past each other
This comment was written by CassandraSays.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 9:24 pm
And this is why I part company with identity politics in general. So hatred of men is somehow a positive thing because men have relative social power over women? I can see where its less dangerous, considering men have more social power to fall back on to defend themselves against such attacks than do transexuals. It might even be understandable, especially if somebody has a history of abuse at the hands of men. But I don’t have much patience for the idea that hatred of men is actually something positive and just.
What Holly said, although I think it’s not that clear and bright a line between “anger” and “hatred.” maybe that’s not really the point, though. I mean: you feel the way you feel, right; and in some ways, even shit I’d describe as outright bigotry, I think there’s an argument to be made that I’d rather just deal with it right up front than have to work through a bunch of pseudo-polite veiling only to find that under all the code it amounted to the same damn thing all along, weeks or months or years later.
Maybe this: the confusion between what’s hateful and hurtful, and what is or isn’t an accurate description of systemic injustice.
So, I mean: I don’t actually think the “Nigel Jr.” crap is any less hateful than the transphobic crap, especially when you consider that the speaker was addressing a mother and at the same time telling her to not take it personally; and yeah, that shit matters all by itself, it’s corrosive and horrible, and sometimes, you bet, “it’s the thought that counts.”
On the other hand, if someone were to point at that and say, well that clinches it, men are being discriminated against, feminists are telling women to leave their boy babies out on a hill to die and lo! it is so! this is an imminent societal danger! well…not so much. Does that mean it could -never- happen in any possible world, or that the speaker is any less loathsome than someone talking that way about some other population? No. But it does mean that people who grab onto that sort of shit as some sort of justification for how men ARE the Most Oppressed Of All really need to put down the crack pipe. Too.
This comment was written by belledame222.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Or, put it another way: putting the demonizing shit aside, the basic statement
“Men oppress women,”
while you can argue it’s an oversimplication and so on and so forth, I still find it less problematic than, as some of these people are also saying,
“Transpeople oppress women.”
This comment was written by belledame222.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Well, this thread is probably dead, but I want to respond to several points that were made.
1) Women hating men – obviously, my argument is very unpopular here, considering that this blog seems to be a bastion of a “hardline” approach identity politics. So be it. But its terribly clear to me – however much women hating on men may be valid as therapy (and one can certainly make a good case for this), it makes for piss-poor politics. It is simply not valid to concoct rules and proscriptions other people have to live by based on your hatred of them. (Hell, its pretty questionable to do that for somebody’s supposed benefit – doing it out of hatred is just that much worse.)
“Men have privilege over women” is a true statement (in a gross generalization kind of way). “Therefore, women should be able to do anything they like to men” or “therefore, the human rights and civil liberties of men is a non-issue” does not automatically flow from that true statement.
I’ll also point out once again that radical feminist who are the most “man-hating” are also the ones that are most hateful toward trannies and kinky people. I don’t think hatred can be kept in a tidy little box, where one can neatly separate out hatred of socially privileged groups (like men) from relatively marginalized groups (like transsexuals and other sexual minorities). If anything, hatred of the privileged simply manifests as a “kick the dog” syndrome where aggression and hostility is vented out on nearer and more vulnerable targets.
2) Catherine MacKinnon – I recognize her contribution to sexual harrassment law, and I’m not against sexual harrassment law per se. I am definitely against the highly problematic overly-broad application, especially in the area of “hostile environment” law. (For a very good discussion of why “hostile environment” law is corrosive toward civil liberties, I refer you to Eugene Volokh’s writing on the topic – shorter version here, longer version here.) I think this over-breadth comes straight from the fact that MacKinnon played such an important role in pioneering this area of law. And I think the over-breadth is intentional and that, if anything, MacKinnon’s intent is to make this branch of law far more far-reaching. I refer you to this podcast interview with MacKinnon where she makes some statements about how far-reaching these kinds of laws should be.
3) It was not actually my intention to make this discussion all about man-hating or sexual harrassment law or MacKinnon. My point is that similarities between the religious right and radical feminist lines on transsexuality simply cannot be viewed in isolation. There are multiple points of convergence on issues as diverse as transexualism, sadomasochism, pornography, monogamy and sexual “promiscuity”, and even, back in the day, on the Satanic ritual abuse panic. One would have to simply be blind not to see that all of this convergence adds up to a pattern.
This comment was written by Iamcuriousblue.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:34 am
I am definitely against the highly problematic overly-broad application, especially in the area of “hostile environment” law. (For a very good discussion of why “hostile environment” law is corrosive toward civil liberties, I refer you to Eugene Volokh’s writing on the topic – shorter version here, longer version here.)
While I really disagree that it’s “overbroad”, the issue with hostile-environment harassment is that there is no bright line. There can’t be.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators