More RadFem Ravings

Posted on | March 24, 2014 | 79 Comments

When last we took notice of feminist blogger Radical Wind (“PIV is always rape, OK?“) it was in context of her praise for Mary Daly, but she has not been idle. On Sunday she published these insightful paragraphs in a message to the sisterhood:

Our task as radical feminists is to undo, unlearn and un-peel the workings of men’s violence — including how men’s patterns are embedded in our psyche — and to reveal them to other women, so to spark our movement towards liberation. . . .
Since all forms of domination such as racism, classism, urban vs. rural domination, adult vs. child, human vs. animal, etc. stem from the same male-rapist root, our attitude to all of them should be the same — in short, only a radical feminist attitude towards male domination can be liberating. It is what we already do: raise awareness, name the workings, lies and reversals of patriarchy and reveal our reality as women in this or that form of patriarchal oppression. Explain how men benefit from this practice and how it’s at the expense of all women. How it deceives and traps women in its net. How it reinforces and is linked to male rapism. Seek to meet, make friends with and listen to as many women across male classes, borders and race, and talk about our respective experiences and lives.
Women will relate to that, it will expand our consciousness, deepen our understanding of how men oppress us. It will give each other the power to see which will spark our ethical rage and rage to be free.

In other feminist empowerment news, Duke University freshman Miriam Weeks, a/k/a teen porn star “Belle Knox,” was interviewed last week on Dr. Drew Pinsky’s Headline News show:

KNOX: I didn’t bring my family into this. The media brought my family into this. The media has been the one who has been harassing my family. I`ve made it crystal clear I did not want my family to be involved.
PINSKY: No, no, but . . .
SEGUN ODUOLOWU: But you can’t hide your anonymity. Once you do a video, people will know who you are. I mean it wouldn’t take Sherlock Holmes to find out who you are.
PINSKY: Let me put it there really. Let me put it there really. If I were your dad I’d be chomping down on a cyanide capsule right now. It’s all I’m saying. (LAUGHTER) So, it affects your family in the deep way. And how about that?
KNOX: I’m so glad you laughed at that because that’s just hilarious. But I mean, my family supports me in what I choose to do. . . . And I’m really sick of this entire culture of outing girls who we believe are sexually promiscuous . . .

Dr. Drew got a lot of blowback from that “cyanide capsule” remark. And speaking of blowback, let’s talk “rape culture”:

Men, It’s Our Moral Responsibility
to Combat Rape Culture
— Huffington Post

The friend zone cultivates rape culture
— Spartan Daily

It’s Time to End ‘Rape Culture’ Hysteria
— Time

Fond du Lac High School student’s ‘rape culture’
article sparks free-speech debate
— Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

And finally: “Hot-shaming” — some women are so attractive that they “intimidate” other women at the gym.

Category: Feminism

Comments

79 Responses to “More RadFem Ravings”

concern00
March 24th, 2014 @ 1:19 am

Such a short column; so much mental illness exposed.

Let’s sample a couple of extracts…

So men are responsible for all …isms; well that follows since only men do stuff, make and fix things and invent things…as a gross generalization, of course…that reality supports.

Knox – sexually promiscuous…no a whore and a slut would be more accurate, who has a mental illness that has turned degradation into a turn on.

I could just as easily write a blog on male oppression by lemurs. It would be as coherent and factual as any column ever written by a feminist. Men against lemurs…Unite!
The Daley Gator | Feminuts digging deeper into Pit of CRAZY
March 24th, 2014 @ 1:31 am

[…] Other McCain has the latest on Feminuts driving their Krazy Train right off the […]
#BellaKnox, #LaurenA, and #MiriamWeeks #Rule5 #DukePorn Post #NSFW Update: Is Bella Knox the love child of Sandra Fluke and the Democrat Party? | Batshit Crazy News
March 24th, 2014 @ 2:06 am

[…] TOM: Rad Fem Ravings… […]
Anamika
March 24th, 2014 @ 2:14 am

There is something special about the sex industry. And it is not a moralistic prudery issue here.

Quite simply, there are few economic sectors which involve so deeply our basic life energies, or instinctive drives, if you prefer. Some parts of the food trade exploit natural needs for sugar, salt, fat, etc and are widely seen as despicable without recourse to religiously inspired social stigmas. Still, the exploitation of food workers is for all practical purposes an economic one.

I introduced the point above only for the “life energy” theme. It applies much more to sex, and is a gender issue because the two sexes have different needs, which are not always easily reconcilable. And sex work is unique in that the male quasi-imperative to seek and grab sex has the tendency to pit the interests of one sex against the other. Of course in healthy, consensual sex, that is not an issue, but here we are talking about a vast market of under-satisfied males. Religious strictures have to a large extent created this market, yes, and they have enhanced the social status of men over women so that blah blah etc, so we can agree on blaming religion (and such atrocities as non-religious culturally inspired female infanticide), but we still have a quandary:

The financial options of many women leave them vulnerable to the hooks in this field.

Of those that do work in the field, many many are driven by an unconscious need to explore issues pertaining to sexual abuse when they were younger. These women are especially vulnerable and exploited thereby.

The usual observation about the exploitation of the consumer, whose culturally created inability to satisfy normal healthy needs also applies.

Regarding “seek and grab,” “civilization” has reduced somewhat the incidence of rape, though in no small part that reduction has arisen from a view of women as property. And, duh!, there is a cost, as one of the main civilizing influences has been religion, and their method has been to subvert natural life energy. One consequence is that the potential pool of females ready and willing to meet men for a mutually satisfying joyful exploration is severely reduced. The solution is not just “better porn,” but education and empowerment for all.
Dana
March 24th, 2014 @ 5:42 am

The lovely Miss Weeks missed it:

And I’m really sick of this entire culture of outing girls who we believe are sexually promiscuous . . .

It isn’t that Miss Weeks is “sexually promiscuous,” but that she is a prostitute. On campus, the girls who are “sexually promiscuous” are very much appreciated by most of the guys, and not a few of the girls. Had Miss Weeks simply been “sexually promiscuous,” copulating with every guy who smiled at her at Duke, we’d never have heard of her.
Mm
March 24th, 2014 @ 6:06 am

Performing in videos and advertising said performances on Twitter outed her. What does she expect people to do, pretend that she has not made herself a public figure?
texlovera
March 24th, 2014 @ 7:15 am

“life energy”?

Seriously?
RS
March 24th, 2014 @ 7:15 am

Ms. Weeks is like a witness at trial who wants to tell her story, but refuses to submit to cross-examination. It was Ms. Weeks who brought her family into the discussion by pleading its penury as one of the many mutually exclusive justifications for her behavior. To claim that it is the Media’s fault is disingenuous if not outright delusional.
rmnixondeceased
March 24th, 2014 @ 8:20 am

C’mon RS, you know feminists are not responsible for anything, the rape culture made them do it!
rmnixondeceased
March 24th, 2014 @ 8:23 am

Delusion speaking male exploiter, sit back and listen you raper! /sarc
rmnixondeceased
March 24th, 2014 @ 8:24 am

What do you have against lemurs?
Mm
March 24th, 2014 @ 8:29 am

I’m with Anamika on the life energies thing. S/he clarified that another way to refer to it is “instinctive drives,” and sex is certainly that. I don’t agree with all the other conclusions, however.
Frankly Bored
March 24th, 2014 @ 8:32 am

I’m beginning to think that all of this media attention is just a highly orchestrated marketing campaign for prodect with a very limited shelf life. …or maybe Miriam Weeks really is the Blair Witch.
William_Teach
March 24th, 2014 @ 8:57 am

These radical feminists sound like really lonely people. Their cats probably abandon them they’re so miserable.

What they probably need is a good schtuping.
Dana
March 24th, 2014 @ 8:57 am

I probably shouldn’t have read Witchwind’s linked original, but I did:

As said in the second part, women’s
class and status is defined by the class and status of our husband or
father. If we leave our male lord, we’re nothing. However we might keep
in appearance the traits and habits of those men. For instance white
women bear the skin colour of their male oppressors and are assimilated
to their male racist culture. As such, women reproduce and embody this
male presence – as all women do with the male determinants they grew up
with. Their cultural assimilation to white men is a forced-upon mask
that men have fitted on women’s bodies and spirits, which does not
belong to women.

The first think I noted was Windy’s British spelling of “colour,” which lead me to believe that she’s not an American.

However, I was amused by the notion that “white
women bear the skin colour of their male oppressors and are assimilated
to their male racist culture,” as though white women — and all women — don’t get half of their biological makeup, which would include skin colour, from their mothers.
M. Thompson
March 24th, 2014 @ 8:59 am

Are they capable of making an arguement that does not rely on obfustication or blaming others?
William_Teach
March 24th, 2014 @ 9:00 am

Bingo!

Ms. Weeks is upset that she got caught out over her pornography career. She probably had zero thought as to what would happen. And now she’s trying to spin everything, and specifically Blame other people for denigrating her special slutflake status.

I wonder if she’s considering that her $160,000 degree will be essentially toilet paper. Who will want to hire her?
Dana
March 24th, 2014 @ 9:01 am

No.
Dana
March 24th, 2014 @ 9:02 am

After reading more of Windy’s arguments, which tell us that men really hate women, I see her real problem. It isn’t that men hate women — we most certainly don’t! — but that men like our esteemed host will mock women (and men) who say stupid things.

Hatred she could handle; mockery she cannot.
Dana
March 24th, 2014 @ 9:05 am

No one, at least no one who is sensible enough not to want the drama of having an ex-porn starlet on the payroll, or the walking Discrimination Lawsuit that a Women’s Studies major is.

She said that she wants to go to law school, to become, I suppose, the next Gloria Allred, but at least we haven’t seen Miss Allred naked.
TigerstripesRVN
March 24th, 2014 @ 9:20 am

Andrea Dworkin..is hideous. No wonder she’s a radical, anti-intercourse, feminist, loon.
RS
March 24th, 2014 @ 9:42 am

Religious strictures have to a large extent created this market, yes, and they have enhanced the social status of men over women . . .

Actually, it’s the opposite. Where Chastity is seen as a virtue and a social good, women are elevated in social status when they practice it. It is a simple matter of economics applied to human relationships. When women offer their bodies to all and sundry, they devalue themselves and sex in general. Value, especially on the margins, decreases with increased supply.

This why many, many young women find they are not emotionally satisfied by participating in the “hook-up” culture. Men increase status by having lots of mates, but it is zero sum as far as women are concerned. They lose. It’s as if the grocer is claiming empowerment by giving away everything in his store.
RS
March 24th, 2014 @ 10:33 am

Adding a “u” to color is her way of striking a blow against American Rapist Linguistic Hegemony.
Anamika
March 24th, 2014 @ 10:33 am

One thing about the West . . . It may be the West’s greatest gift, greatest achievement . . . Women have historically been second-class citizens in almost all cultures, where greater male physical strength laid the groundwork for cultural rules and more subtle forms of control. But finally, in the West, under the watch / rule of Christianity, a new paradigm has emerged, is emerging. It is still a work in progress but it is something of true value that the West can offer the rest of the world, which in this respect is mainly lagging behind. However crass our culture is, there is this.

Perhaps Christianity offered the least intransigence of all the big religions to female empowerment, or perhaps the “material progress” here somehow enabled the questioning of tradition, the heavy hand of the status quo, inertia codified. The logic that none of Jesus’ 12 apostles were female — and therefore women shouldn’t be ordained today — persists, but is being eroded. Praise the Lard!
Dana
March 24th, 2014 @ 10:36 am

My darling bride (of 34 years, 10 months and 5 days) and I were at a Hallowe’en party last October, amongst some people who were mostly younger than us but married nevertheless, and part of the conversation went to how many previous sexual partners do you tell your new boyfriend/girlfriend you’ve had. The answer is, it was concluded, always five, unless the real answer happened to be fewer. You only admit to five.

It was my guess that the people in question might have had actual numbers somewhat in excess of five. But it seemed that even the members of the “hook up” culture understood, albeit somewhat after the fact, that sluttiness is not a valued personality trait in life after college.
Kirby McCain
March 24th, 2014 @ 11:11 am

Most of you, I’m sure, are familiar with the phrase ‘out of body experience.’ RSM’s continuing coverage of Radical Wind’s ‘out of mind experience’ is proof positive that the paranormal is alive and well on the radical left. If twelve year old children are watching porn as Miriam Weeks assures us that they are, is she making porn for children? Certainly, Belle Knox has no problems making porn knowing that children will see it. But who am I to question such a praise worthy symbol of human dignity as Miriam Weeks?
Kirby McCain
March 24th, 2014 @ 11:14 am

Public spectacle. Or pubic spectacle, I’m not sure.
Kirby McCain
March 24th, 2014 @ 11:21 am

at least we haven’t seen Miss Allred naked. Where’s your sense of decency? Do you know what kind of visual that gives people? I denounce you!
Dana
March 24th, 2014 @ 11:23 am

Yes.
Kirby McCain
March 24th, 2014 @ 11:57 am

I love your analogy about our attraction to bad food. Desire overpowers intellect. Remove religion from your arguments. Civilization demands restraint and discipline. Men and women cannot indulge every desire and expect to also live in an ordered world. What we’re dealing with is the self destructive nature of an affluent society. How do we beat a problem that has ruined so many cultures before?
Kirby McCain
March 24th, 2014 @ 12:08 pm

How many Christian Queens have ruled in the west? How many in the rest of the world? Exclude Freddie Mercury, Ru Paul, and Boy George.
Kirby McCain
March 24th, 2014 @ 12:17 pm

Desire, and it isn’t just sexual desires. The desire to do violence is one we have no problem in justifying why we should refrain from it. You don’t hear people scapegoating Christianity on that one.
Kirby McCain
March 24th, 2014 @ 12:20 pm

Are you sure you want to know?
RKae
March 24th, 2014 @ 12:30 pm

“PIV” used to be called “sex.” Sad that there is now a descriptor for “doing it correctly.” Sort of like the distinguisher that is “cismale” or “cisfemale.”
Kirby McCain
March 24th, 2014 @ 12:31 pm

Ms.Weeks is coming to realize she has stepped in dog poo. Nobody likes stepping in dog poo. The problem with dog poo is you can’t unstep in it.
Unix-Jedi
March 24th, 2014 @ 12:39 pm

“Who will want to hire her?”

Anthony Weiner….
Elliot Spitzer….
Bill Clinton…

I dunno, seems like she’s got a bright future ahead of her.
Kirby McCain
March 24th, 2014 @ 12:47 pm

Things are always looking up when you’re always on your back.
Unix-Jedi
March 24th, 2014 @ 1:08 pm

But you can smear it everywhere and get everything else poo’ed to get it off.

Yeah, the analogy fits
Anamika
March 24th, 2014 @ 1:27 pm

‘Patriarchy’ is the result of an opportunistic ‘invasion and seizure’ of an existing hierarchy. It is hierarchy itself which is the problem.

Our ‘primate nervous system’ is inbuilt to favor subservience to the ‘alpha male’, even to the extent, of inventing a ‘spiritual’ alpha in the absence of an actual flesh one; eg, ‘God’.

Are we doomed, because of this tendency, which seems to be ‘wired’ in our brains? Is it inescapable?

My answer is ‘NO’. We are not doomed, by our own monkey-brains, any more than we are prohibited from flying, by the force of gravity itself. In fact, it is gravity which produces the atmosphere, the fluid in which our planes do fly; and it is also the baseline, the horizon, to which all flight must be referenced. So it is with our ‘brains’ and their trends. We are able, if we care to, to see the outpicturing of our inner primate hierarchy, and then, we may move to use it, or counter it, in any way we choose. But the first step is to see it, including the ‘god-as-absent-alpha’ syndrome, as embarrassing as it may be to catch ourselves in the midst of such a monumental (indeed, monotheistic) error.

We have to a large extent, not only conquered gravity, but have harnessed it for our own purposes. It can be the same, with hierarchy as well, no matter how entrenched our assumptions.

Thus I offer this; to concentrate on the male or female at the top, is to miss the point. Certainly, in personalized cases, complaints arise. But the only way to eliminate this chronic problem, is to question the necessity of hierarchy itself, in any form, and at any time.

And this effort, if it is to be made, must begin at home.

I say this to all parents and children. To recognize our common goals, those which extend beyond mere organization, allows us to move toward them in a cooperative manner.

Finally; to the victims of hierarchy, I say this:

Yes, you have been mistreated, and disadvantaged. Your brains may have been scrambled, your future put in jeopardy. You are hurting. But move with caution; do not give the hierarchy its power, by merely reacting to it. Instead, move to the side of it, but resist forming a ‘child’ of the hierarchy, one which you assume you need, to fight the parent of it.

A hierarchy that is not supported, will fall. To fight it, is to support it, for it will simply garner from your own larder, what it needs to defeat you.

The foundation of hierarchy, is our ‘primate-based’ assumption, too long unexamined, that we must have it. For too long, have we assumed that we need a ‘grand father or mother’ to be ‘in charge’. I ask you to see that this assumption, is the worst possible form of crippling of your own nature and its possibilities.

Instead of dreaming about the overthrow of the hierarchy, and instead of starting your own such, consider how it would be if each person were made aware of, and cleansed of, the above-described assumption.

And beware, the ultimate trap; be careful that you are not simply an ‘agent’, ala ‘The Matrix’, an enforcer of the authoritarian hierarchy. Such ‘agents’ benefit, in proportion to the harm they do, and are the ‘first responders’, should a dreaded ‘tall poppy’ make itself known in any venue. In reality, such ‘agents’ suffer and expire exactly in proportion to the efforts they make; beware the authoritarian tendency.
RS
March 24th, 2014 @ 1:28 pm

Quite. It is also the rape culture which compels me to take that pulled pork and stuff into womb of blue corn tortillas tonight for the enchiladas I’m making for supper.
Kirby McCain
March 24th, 2014 @ 1:44 pm

Of course in healthy, consensual sex, that is not an issue, but here we are talking about a vast market of under-satisfied males. You go to hypothesize that this vast market was created by religious strictures. Your logic is so flawed that it exposes your own bias against religion. But do go on, I’m truly fascinated.
Anamika
March 24th, 2014 @ 1:50 pm

One thing that characterizes hierarchies is that they are essentially conservative. That is to say, it is a feature of their operations that they conserve their structure at the expense of everything else, including the people who comprise them.

There is a very strong emphasis on policy and rules. The hierarchy is, not about the well being of the people who comprise it but about the preservation of the system of power that constitutes it as a hierarchy with the patriarch at the top. This can be shown in the huge penalties exacted by the hierarchy for any breach of the rules. Death, mutilation, excommunication, jail, public shaming being fired, sacked, or fined. Operations which can scarcely be said to add to the general welfare of anyone. Unless we consider ‘infallible control of all people’ to be a benefit. After all, we must all fear the dreaded ‘anarchy’ and ‘breakdown of social order’. Or must we?

Instead, such methods and penalties produce a culture of fear and apprehension by which the Patriarch, King, Pope, or CEO maintains power and control within the organization.

I use the term hierarchy in its usual sense of ruling body organized into orders or ranks each subordinate to the one above it ; especially : the bishops of a province or nation b: church government by a hierarchy 3: a body of persons in authority.

Originally it referred to the hierarchy of angels and the `Orders’ of the Church (where the term order and as in “I order you.’ came from) Hierarchies have a very long history in religious practice and perhaps cannot be separated from it.

Anywhere where some folks are seen as being `higher’ on the scale and others `lower’ reveals the patriarchal hierarchical nature of the thinking of the person making this distinction. It is all pervasive and is fundamentally related to the history of religion, (Western anyway) and is the means by which authorities maintain power.

Anyone with half a mind can see that hierarchies are the complete antithesis of freedom. There is no freedom in a hierarchy, except to obey orders and keep within the structure that ordained it.

And it seems that there are few, who think to question the necessity of hierarchy. Hierarchy has inbuilt, the vertical structure, and the solid assumption of ‘top-down’ being the only correct and workable way.

This might be true, of certain hierarchies which have been formed for undoubted pragmatic purposes; the obvious example, is the military ‘chain of command’. Without it, defense against invasive enemies would be improbable, if not impossible (should it come to that!).

But for ‘spiritual’ and social structure, hierarchy is exactly as I pointed out. And the use of the word ‘conservative’ is exactly correct; eg, to maintain an existing order. The ‘perks’ given to all who inhabit the descending chain of offices, assure that each of those holders will fight in every way to preserve their own station; and of course, this is how the whole structure survives any challenge.

It is our assumption of the necessity of hierarchy, which opens the way to endless numbers of abusers in all walks of life.

My observation is that hierarchy is essentially synthetic; it is an adaptation to circumstances. In our human realm, circumstances have changed radically since the majority of our social and institutional hierarchies were invented, and so, the problem of ‘conservatism’ which I have pointed out.
Kirby McCain
March 24th, 2014 @ 2:04 pm

The logic was more flawed. This vast market of under-satisfied males was created by religious strictures that have been around how long? How about the extensive loosening of social mores over the last century coupled with the proliferation of smut has created this vast market of under-satisfied males.
GVK
March 24th, 2014 @ 2:06 pm

Doing something you’d rather not do is degrading. If you hate your job, but you have to do it, that feels degrading. This can be separate from how much you’re being economically exploited.
Kirby McCain
March 24th, 2014 @ 2:08 pm

And every girl. She likes girls, you know.
Anamika
March 24th, 2014 @ 2:20 pm

Religion is cool, as far as it goes, because it’s mainly about people. I have no quarrel with that. Even priests are people, and some of them are very beautiful in their celebration of humanity, human spirit, etc. But i was talking about the institution(s) and ideology of Big Religion, and their relationship to low self-esteem. IMO the relationship is well established, that’s all. A few key words and phrases can take the place of a long rant here: Abortion, birth control, witch-burning, Salem, sexual repression, pedophilia, misogyny, patriarchy, celibacy.

Regarding misogyny, we can consider a small example: There are those today who refuse to consider the possibility of women as priests because all Jesus’ so-called Apostles were male, at least according to the Official Story, set down centuries later. Case closed, though it requires overlooking the cowardly absence of those wankers at Calvary while Jesus was being attended by women.

The sexist standards of 2000 years ago must be forever replicated. This is idiocy, or such is my way of seeing it.

And this whole discussion feels the same as one on Fundamentalism, which is Organized Religion at its worst, sponsoring Terrorism, Pogroms, Crusades, Jihads, “Settlements,” etc. All these things are not limited to the so-called Three Great Monotheistic Religions, but those three are the most egregious, what to do?

Yes, i am foisting in my way but it is a) not all that often and b) aimed at the forces of Intolerance and life-negative ideologies. I stand by the words of Karl Popper:

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
Kirby McCain
March 24th, 2014 @ 2:22 pm

A prophet has come to save us from our ignorance. I’ve seen these arguments before.
Adjoran
March 24th, 2014 @ 2:22 pm

You probably don’t even OWN a crystal!
Adjoran
March 24th, 2014 @ 2:27 pm

Did we ever resolve with certainty the question of whether Radical Wind is just a parody account/blog?

I mean, could you write a better satire of radical feminist “thought” if you set out to do so?
Anamika
March 24th, 2014 @ 2:27 pm

Similarly, “degradation” is not just about generically hating your job and having to do it. Really, there is nothing that separates this from the “economic-only” consideration of exploitation. ‘Fraid we’re going to have to jump into another paradigm here to get it:

1. (“Soft”) pornography presents women as able to satisfy desires in a fantasy way that few real women can compete with. (We’ll leave out rape porn, kiddie porn and so on.)

2. It is not in the interests of most women to seek out casual sex with many near-anonymous partners, but the portrayal of intimacy-based non-casual sex must surely be almost non-existent in porn annals. In fact, as the pov of the porn consumer must at all times be catered to, any female pov is likely hardly considered at all. This can only make the gender wars worse.

3. Thus, ALL women are degraded by this phenomenon, which portrays them as OBJECTS to be consumed, held, bought and sold, rather than full human beings.

4. The plight of the male consumer is also not laughable. A male friend has shared about how he is addicted to porn and is unable to have a normal orgasm without fantasizing about porn, even while making love with an actual woman for whom he has a real attraction. This has resulted in real tragedy, as sooner or later, the real woman gets alienated by his inability to “be present” to her. He is basically unable to sustain relationships because of this. In this we have both exploitation and degradation.