#feminist manifesto

[overtlydinosaurian]

Are you a Feminist?

Are You A Feminist, the introduction of Jessa Crispin's 2017 feminist manifesto

Do you believe women are human beings and deserve to be treated as such? That women deserve all the same rights and liberties bestowed upon men? If so, then you are a feminist, or so all the feminists keep insisting.

Despite the simplicity and obviousness of the dictionary definition of feminism, and despite years of working at feminist nonprofits and decades of advocacy, I am disowning the label. If you asked me today if I am a feminist, I would not only say no, I would say no with a sneer.

Don't worry this is not where I insist I am not a feminist because I am afraid of being mistaken for one of those "hairy -legged, angry, man hating feminists" who are drawn up like Boogeyman by men and women alike. Nor will I now reassure you of my approachability, my reasonable nature, my heteronormativity, my love of men and my sexual availability (despite the fact that this disclaimer appears to be a requisite for all feminist writing published in the last 15 years.) If anything, that pose- I am harmless, I am toothless, you can fuck me -is why I find myself rejecting the feminist label. All these bad feminists, all these Talmudic "can you be a feminist and still have a bikini wax?" discussions. All of these reassurances to their (male) audiences that they don't want too much, won't go too far - "we don't know what Andrea Dworkin was on about either! Trust us!" All of these feminists giving blowjobs like its missionary work. Somewhere along the way towards female liberation, it was decided the most effective method was for feminism to become universal. But instead of shaping a world and a philosophy that would become attractive to the masses, a world based on fairness and community and exchange, it was feminism itself that would have to be rebranded and remarketed for contemporary men and women.

They forgot that for something to be universally accepted, it must be banal, as non-threatening and ineffective as possible. Hence the pose. People don't like change, and so feminism must be as close to the status quo - with minor modifications - as it can be in order to recruit large numbers. In other words it has to become entirely pointless. Radical change is scary. It's terrifying actually. And the feminism I support is a full-on revolution. Where women are not simply allowed to participate in the world as it already exists - a world that because it was devised by a patriarchy in order to subjugate and control and destroy all challengers is inherently a corrupt world - but are actively able to reshape the world. Where women do not simply knock on the doors of churches, of governments, as capitalist marketplaces and politely ask for admittance, but create their own religious systems, governments, and economies. My feminism is not one of incremental change that is so revealed in the end to be The Same As Ever, but more so. It is a cleansing fire. Asking for a system that was built on the express purpose of oppression to um? please stop oppressing me? Is nonsense work. The only task that is worth doing is fully dismantling and replacing that system. This is why I cannot associate myself with a feminism that focuses dementedly on ""self empowerment,"" whose goals do not include the full destruction of corporate culture but merely a higher percentage of female CEOs in military officers, a feminism that requires no thought no discomfort and no real change. If feminism is universal it is something that all women and men can get on board with, then it is not for me. If feminism is nothing more than personal gain disguised as political progress, then it is not for me. By declaring myself a feminist I must reassure you that I am not angry, I post no threat, then definitely feminism is not for me.

I am angry and I do pose a threat.

-Jessa Crispin, Why I Am Not a Feminist, Emphasis mine.

Crispin, J. (2017). In Why I Am Not a Feminist (pp. ix–xii). introduction, Melville House.

[androgynealienfemme]

“The Woman Identified Woman” from Radicallesbians (1971) sourced from Burn It Down! Feminist Manifestos for the Revolution.

[slidehead]

hello online feminist do you hate men as an extension of the hierarchical class they create, uphold and coercively enforce in society or do you hate men because you genuinely believe they are evil through an inherent biological heritage that cannot be mended

[raddietrin]

favorite excerpts from SCUM manifesto by Valerie Solanas

[scum-man-of-pesto]

Okay I found out that the band I posted about before dropped a new song a couple months ago that's one half andrea dworkin speech and one half like hardcore punk about killing rapists and how aileen wuornos did nothing wrong but my reblog about it didn't get much attention so I'm just posting this one myself. This shit rips and I'm so glad that the gash rock thing is picking up traction now bc I'm so tired of liberal-ass riot grrrl. Start a rad ass band today!! It's never too late

[dworkinhardorhardlydworkin]

Does anyone have the url of the woman who made the radfem bling banners? I had some downloaded but I need more (also if you know of others/have made some of your own, add that as well!!)

The ones I still have are:

I don't even recall if these are all from the same blog either ngl

[lesbianlenses]

[screambirdscreaming]

I used to like saying "gender is a social construct," but I stopped saying that because people didn't tend to react well - they thought that I was saying gender wasn't real, or didn't matter, or could be safely ignored without consequences. Which has always baffled me a bit as an interpretation, honestly, because many things are social constructs - like money, school, and the police - and they certainly have profound effects on your life whether or not you believe in them. And they sure don't go away if you ignore them.

Anyway. What I've taken to saying instead is, "gender is a cultural practice." This gives more of a sense of respect for the significance gender holds to many people. And it also opens the door to another couple layers of analysis.

Gender is cultural. It is not globally or historically homogeneous. It shifts over time, develops differently in different communities, and can be influenced by cross-cultural contact. Like many, many aspects of culture, the current status of gender is dramatically influenced by colonialism. Colonial gender norms are shaped by the hierarchical structure of imperialist society, and enforced onto colonized cultures as part of the project of imperial cultural hedgemony.

Gender is practiced. What constitutes a gender includes affects and behaviors, jobs or areas of work, skillsets, clothing, collective and individual practices of gender affiliation and affirmation. Any or all of these things, in any combination, depending on the gender, the culture, and the practitioner.

Gender encompasses shared cultural archetypes. These can include specific figures - gods and goddesses, mythic or fictional characters, etc - or they can be more abstract or general. The Wise Woman, Robin Hood, the Dyke, the Working Man, the Plucky Heroine, the Effete Gay Man, etc etc. The range of archetypes does not circumscribe a given gender, that is, they're not all there is to gender. But they provide frameworks and reference points by which people relate to gender. They may be guides for ways to inhabit or practice a gender. They may be stereotypes through which the gendered behavior of others is viewed.

Gender as a framework can be changed. Because it is created collectively, by shared acknowledgement and enforcement by members of society. Various movements have made significant shifts in how gender is structured at various times and places. The impact of these shifts has been widely variable - for example, depending on what city I'm in, even within my (fairly culturally homogeneous) home country, the way I am gendered and reacted to changes dramatically. Looping back to point one, we often speak of gender in very broad terms that obscure significant variability which exists on many scales.

Gender is structured recursively. This can be seen in the archetypes mentioned above, which range from extremely general (say, the Mother) to highly specific (the PTA Soccer Mom). Even people who claim to acknowledge only two genders will have many concepts of gendered-ways-of-being within each of them, which they may view and react to VERY differently.

Gender is experienced as an external cultural force. It cannot be opted out of, any more than living in a society can be opted out of. Regardless of the internal experience of gender, the external experience is also present. Operating within the shared cultural understanding of gender, one can aim to express a certain practice of gender - to make legible to other people how it is you interface with gender. This is always somewhat of a two-way process of communication. Other people may or may not perceive what you're going for - and they may or may not respect it. They may try to bring your expressed gender into alignment with a gender they know, or they might parcel you off into your own little box.

Gender is normative. Within the structure of the "cultural mainstream," there are allowable ways to practice gender. Any gendered behavior is considered relative to these standards. What behavior is allowed, rewarded, punished, or shunned is determined relative to what is gender normative for your perceived gender. Failure to have a clearly perceivable gender is also, generally, punished. So is having a perceivable gender which is in itself not normative.

Gender is taught by a combination of narratives, punishments, and encouragements. This teaching process is directed most strongly towards children but continues throughout adulthood. Practice of normatively-gendered behaviors and alignment with 'appropriate' archetypes is affirmed, encouraged, and rewarded. Likewise 'other'- gendered behavior and affinity to archetypes is scolded, punished, or shunned. This teaching process is inherently coercive, as social acceptance/rejection is a powerful force. However it can't be likened to programming, everyone experiences and reacts to it differently. Also, this process teaches the cultural roles and practices of both (normative) genders, even as it attempts to force conformity to only one.

Gender regulates access to certain levers of social power. This one is complicated by the fact that access to levers of social power is also affected by *many* other things, most notably race, class, and citizenship. I am not going to attempt to describe this in any general terms, I'm not equipped for that. I'll give a few examples to explain what I'm talking about though. (1) In a social situation, a man is able to imply authority, which is implicitly backed by his ability to intimidate by yelling, looming, or threatening physical violence. How much authority he is perceived to have in response to this display is a function of his race and class. It is also modified by how strongly he appears to conform to a masculine ideal. Whether or not he will receive social backlash for this behavior (as a separate consideration to how effective it will be) is again a function of race/class/other forms of social standing. (2) In a social situation, a woman is able to invoke moral judgment, and attempt to modify the behavior of others by shame. The strength of her perceived moral authority depends not just on her conformity to ideal womanhood, but especially on if she can invoke certain archetypes - such as an Innocent, a Mother, or better yet a Grandmother. Whether her moral authority is considered a relevant consideration to influence the behavior of others (vs whether she will be belittled or ignored) strongly depends on her relative social standing to those she is addressing, on basis of gender/race/class/other.

[Again, these examples are *not* meant to be exhaustive, nor to pass judgment on employing any social power in any situation. Only to illustrate what "gendered access to social power" might mean. And to illustrate that types of power are not uniform and may play out according to complex factors.]

Gender is not based in physical traits, but physical traits are ascribed gendered value. Earlier, I described gender as practiced, citing almost entirely things a person can do or change. And I firmly believe this is the core of gender as it exists culturally - and not just aspirationally. After the moment when a gender is "assigned" based on infant physical characteristics, they are raised into that gender regardless of the physical traits they go on to develop (in most circumstances, and unless/until they denounce that gender.) The range of physical traits like height, facial shape, body hair, ability to put on muscle mass - is distributed so that there is complete overlap between the range of possible traits for people assigned male and people assigned female. Much is made of slight trends in things that are "more common" for one binary sex or the other, but it's statistically quite minor once you get over selection bias. However, these traits are ascribed gendered connotations, often extremely strongly so. As such, the experience of presented and perceived gender is strongly effected by physical traits. The practice of gender therefore naturally expands to include modification of physical traits. Meanwhile, the social movements to change how gender is constructed can include pushing to decrease or change the gendered association of physical traits - although this does not seem to consistently be a priority.

Gender roles are related to the hypothetical ability to bear children, but more obliquely than is often claimed. It is popular to say that the types of work considered feminine derive from things it is possible to do while pregnant or tending small children. However, research on the broader span of human history does not hold this up. It may be true of the cultures that gave immediate rise to the colonial gender roles we are familiar with - secondary to the fact that childcare was designated as women's work. (Which it does not have to be, even a nursing infant doesn't need to be with the person who feeds it 24 hours a day.) More directly, gender roles have been influenced by structures of social control aiming for reproductive control. In the direct precursors of colonial society, attempts to track paternal lineage led to extreme degrees of social control over women, which we still see reflected in normative gender today. Many struggles for women's liberation have attempted to push back these forms of social control. It is my firm opinion that any attempt to re-emphasize childbearing as a touchstone of womanhood is frankly sick. We are at a time where solidarity in struggle for gender liberation, and for reproductive rights, is crucial. We need to cast off shackles of control in both fights. Trying to tie childbearing back to womanhood hobbles both fights and demeans us all.

Gender is baked deeply enough into our culture that it is unlikely to ever go away. Many people feel strongly about the practice of gender, in one way or another, and would not want it to. However we have the power to change how gender is structured and enforced. We can push open the doors of what is allowable, and reduce the pain of social punishment and isolation. We can dismantle another of the tools of colonial hedgemony and social control. We can change the culture!

[pennydykedaughter]

oc. 2024

The Radical Cat Collective has formed. Their tails are high and their claws are sharp!

[rainsfiction]

My quick take on Poor Things (2023) is that it’s obviously not realism, it’s absolutely not feminism, it’s without a doubt not about sex, and it’s definitely a little sick and twisted at times… but my god was that a gorgeous surrealist movie about autism and unapologetic joy

[doubledyke]

Once I head someone say Sarah is the only really necessary or meaningful female character, and that Nazz and the Kankers are pretty much disposable; ''Nazz has no personality, and the Kankers are absent from 50% of episodes and are just a Diabolous ex-machina ending when they appear. The could work very well without any of them.''

What do you think of this?

are they implying that she's only "meaningful" because she's related to ed? because...yikes dog. sarah serves a pretty similar role to the kankers in that she foils the scams and pranks and acts as an obstacle and/or deterrent. an antagonist. but the way they fulfill the role and the reaction they get from the eds are different in ways that i'm too lazy to get into at the moment.

now i could genuinely be missing something because i've never taken a class on media analysis or whatever the fuck, but i truly don't get what people mean when they say nazz is uniquely lacking in personality. i'm not saying eene has excellent, fleshed out female characters, but some people act as if 1) any of the non-eds have highly complex personalities that are explored canonically 2) being kind, outgoing, flirtatious, sporty, etc. aren't personality traits. just because someone doesn't like her personality doesn't mean it doesn't exist. and we know just as much, if not more about nazz's interests than we do the kankers. or jonny: he likes wood, is laid back and seems to enjoy superheroes. or kevin: he likes bmx. he's a bully. he has a crush on nazz. he's buds with rolf, whose backstory we probably know the most about after the eds (maybe even more?). then there's jimmy who lowkey has a great, complex personality.

seems like since nazz is pretty, is into stereotypically "girly" things and is nice, people consider her a "bad" (female) character. which to me is hilarious and ironic. these are the same people who call the kankers "evil". like okay... 😂

this idea that all female characters are supposed to be virtuous geniuses... it's a show about 3 dumbass preteen boys. there are tons of female-led shows available out there, and female main characters galore. these people should go watch em. seriously. im tired of hearing about it frankly.

oh and if edd was canonically a girl, people would hate her and call her a mary sue 👍

[annabelles1692]

Bitch Mutant Manifesto (2024)

born from an obsession with vns matrix, i made this fanzine of their 'bitch mutant manifesto'. my first experimentations with html and web design, so if it's completely inaccessible - i guess that's part of the performance. :)

[basedbeads]

SCUM beaded keychain, $10.00

[fadedfrills699]

[lesbianlenses]

[vintage-bentley]

Neil made it canon that Aziraphale has a gun. Then he took to social media to declare that apparently Aziraphale was in America during the 60’s being a feminist.

You know who else was in America during the 60’s being a feminist and also had a gun?