You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
I find it curious that when it comes to feminism as a movement it is often decreed that it must be “inclusive”. Here is the thing though, feminism is the struggle for female liberation from the patriarchal structures and mandates of society. The only requirement for membership in feminism is, hold on to your (pussy)-hats, being female. Encompassing more than half of the world’s population should satisfy any musings about inclusivity and the like.
Concomitantly one can identify what feminism is if the stated goal or objective in question happens to is to aid in woman’s struggle against patriarchy. If you’re not working toward increasing female liberation from patriarchy you are not ‘doing’ feminism.
So here is Empress-radfem expressing her thoughts on the recent Woman’s march, and she compares the feminist movement to other movements struggling for liberation. She asks very important questions in the first paragraph that makes me wonder why it is beyond the pale to foist up an #all lives matter at a #BLM rally, but females in feminism can make no such claim.
Why is that?
“it’s no coincidence to me that liberals have taken aim at women holding signs about vaginas, uteruses, and specifically female-centered issues during the women’s march, but wouldn’t dare suggest that “black lives matter” activists should include “white lives” or “blue lives” in their signs and slogans too, nor did they see fit to inform occupy wall street protesters that its “not all rich people.”
women are the ones who have to step aside and make room at the podium for others. women are the ones who have to be reminded that it’s not okay to put ourselves first. women are the ones who need to sacrifice precious time, space, and voice at a public demonstration to make sure others are heard and seen, too. women are the ones who have no specific experience worth naming and discussing, no specific interests worth protecting.
woman does not exist.”
A change of pace, let’s imagine for a minute that Lennon’s Imagine piece was written in the Baroque period. It could sound a little like this.
The Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision reverberates strongly in my consciousness when I read articles like this one from Tom’s Dispatch. I am still at a loss as how to compute the base equation of $ = Free Speech, because, well… it doesn’t.
Certainly money grants access, but it begets the question: Should it? I mean, how could the Justices not see the folly in quantizing what was formerly a non-fungible good?
The dumpsterfire (dtrumpsterfire?) that is the current US polity illustrates that change (and not of the positive variety) is happening, that is not only destabilizing the US, but the world as well.
“In March of 2015, for instance, two months before The Donald tossed his hair into the presidential ring, in a post at TomDispatch I asked if “a new political system” was emerging in America and summed the situation up this way:
“Still, don’t for a second think that the American political system isn’t being rewritten on the run by interested parties in Congress, our present crop of billionaires, corporate interests, lobbyists, the Pentagon, and the officials of the national security state. Out of the chaos of this prolonged moment and inside the shell of the old system, a new culture, a new kind of politics, a new kind of governance is being born right before our eyes. Call it what you want. But call it something. Stop pretending it’s not happening.”
We’re now living in Donald Trump’s America (which I certainly didn’t either predict or imagine in March 2015); we’re living, that is, in an ever more chaotic and aberrant land run (to the extent it’s run at all) by billionaires and retired generals, and overseen by a distinctly aberrant president at war with aberrant parts of the national security state. That, in a nutshell, is the America created in the post-9/11 years. Put another way, the U.S. may have failed dismally in its efforts to invade, occupy, and remake Iraq in its own image, but it seems to have invaded, occupied, and remade itself with remarkable success. And don’t blame this one on the Russians.”
-Tom Engelhardt writing at Tom’s Dispatch
“Transgender is an anti-gay, anti-lesbian, homophobic and sexist movement. Their aims are to roll back the visibility and pride of homosexuals and undo the scant gains made for women in the female equality movement. The Kennebunk High School administration is perfectly clear: Gay Pride should go back in the closet.”
Fascinating stuff. I’m wondering how long the LGB community will cater to the whims of these individuals. I mean it’s okay for females (obviously) to be marginalized, claims about their bodies and realities erased, and their boundaries ignored – par for the course. But really LGB community, what now?
I’m not sure why people are having such problems dealing with factual reality.
Whether it be the gender-queer crowd and their patented ability not to understand that sex and gender are not the same thing or here today with this story about the head of the EPA not accepting the fact that CO2 is a significant green house gas and pumping more of it into the atmosphere threatens human existence as we know it.
“The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency said on Thursday he is not convinced that carbon dioxide from human activity is the main driver of climate change and said he wants Congress to weigh in on whether CO2 is a harmful pollutant that should be regulated.
Pruitt, 48, is a climate change denier who sued the agency he now leads more than a dozen times as Oklahoma’s attorney general. He said he was not convinced that carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal is the main cause of climate change, a conclusion widely embraced by scientists. “
What the ever living frak is this malarkey? Predictably, scientists are call Pruitt’s bullshit for what it is.
“Scientists immediately criticized Pruitt’s statement, saying it ignores a large body of evidence collected over decades that shows fossil fuel burning as the main factor in climate change.
“We can’t afford to reject this clear and compelling scientific evidence when we make public policy. Embracing ignorance is not an option,” Ben Santer, climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said in a statement.
The Supreme Court unleashed a fury of regulation and litigation when it ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases are an air pollutant that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Two years later, the EPA declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants.
Pruitt said the Supreme Court’s decision should not have been viewed as permission for the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
“Decisions were made at the executive branch level that didn’t respect the rule of law,” Pruitt said in his Houston speech.
Pruitt has previously said the EPA should not regulate CO2 without a law passed by Congress authorizing it to do so. The Republican-controlled Congress could potentially issue a strong signal to the EPA that carbon dioxide should not be regulated by the agency, a move that would undermine many Obama-era rules aimed at curbing emissions.”
When Florida is mostly underwater, then – maybe – these people will understand what AGW is.
Men not tolerating creepy behaviour on the behalf of other men is the least that can be done in the public sphere to combat the gauntlet of patriarchal foolishness women face every day of their lives. Dudes, are you up to it?
“Let me tell you what happened to me an hour ago:
So I’m at the bus terminal and this guy (who’d been following me and hovering over me for 10 minutes) comes up to me and says “hey beautiful. Can I talk to you?” So I said “no thank you.” He goes “I just want to speak to you, though.” And I said “yeah I know that and I’m not interested in talking to a strange man at a bus terminal. Please leave me alone.”
So he stands there watching me.
Finally he says “listen, there’s no need to be difficult. I approached you politely like a gentleman so I don’t see why you’re saying no. Now just let me speak to you.”
I said “nobody’s being difficult my guy. You asked a question, I gave an answer so we’re done.”
Then he says “yeah but the answer you gave me made no sense. Why don’t you want to talk to me? You don’t know what kind of person I am. You’re judging me before you know me. You’re being ignorant and prejudiced so”-
Just then this other guy who’d been sitting close to me said “my nigga shut the fuck up! I saw you following her and stalking her like a fucking animal or some shit, like you didn’t think she didn’t notice? She’s probably scared of your predatory ass and I don’t blame her. Mans need to understand you don’t follow girls and shit. That shits corny.”
So the guy goes “yo, mind your fucking business.”
And the other dude says “nah because I see you harassing this girl and as a man this becomes my business. You thinking you were polite doesn’t mean a girl has to speak to you. Be nice because you’re nice, don’t use that please and thank you shit and think somebody has to speak to you. You’re not a “gentleman if you don’t respect her. Take the L and go catch your bus you fucking creep.”
So the guy starts swearing and then walks away. The guy who’d defended me is like “you okay tho? Like real talk I don’t really like men because of shit like that. They’re fucking predators man. I do what I can when I’m able to for women because you don’t deserve to be hunted.”
This is literally how you do it.
Our helping of Radfem goodness for the day. Thank you for the incisive commentary Purplesage. :)
It’s time for another talk about the meaning of personal agency among oppressed people, because anti-feminists are still saying shit like:
- You’re denying women’s agency
- Take some personal responsibility for yourself
- You just have a victim mentality
Anti-feminists say these things because they believe that, since feminists point out the structure of women’s oppression and feel pretty alarmed and upset about it, we must therefore be people who just want to choose to be victims because we like being victims. Apparently, if we didn’t want to be victims then we’d simply decide not to be victims, because we have free choice and agency. I’ve seen this exact line of reasoning argued a ton of times from various people, and it’s bullshit. This is a misrepresentation of what feminism is about.
The best paragraph ever written about “I Choose My Choice” politics is this old gem by Twisty Faster:
View original post 2,385 more words