Gender Abolition and Radical Feminism.

My musings on a recent post at You Think I Don’t Understand but I Just Don’t Believe You, called “Rethinking Gender Abolition”.

Although Radfems were the first ones to name gender, explaining to those who would listen that certain feminine traits did not necessarily grow organically from the XX chromosomal make up, but were in fact imposed upon the female sex in order to uphold male dominance, Radical Feminists have never regarded gender abolition as a priority. Rather, they theorized that outside of a society ruled by male tyranny (specifically male violence) women would not be pushed into little boxes of behaviour, would not be stunted sexually, intellectually, physically, emotionally, and that women’s behaviour would probably look very different to what it does today.

But the plot thickens. I am a Radfem who believes that while female and male brains are probably identical ( in that it’s unlikely that men are better at maths and science, or that women are better at music and and art), I also think that male and female behaviour is innately different.

How could it not be? Men are expendable to the species, whereas women are vital. Men are in constant competition with each other, whereas women have no evolutionary need to compete. We do not compete with our sisters because any woman who wants to be pregnant can find a man to help her with that. Killing off other women does not improve our chances of reproducing, whereas this actually is the case for men, who have to convince women that their genes are worth it, and that they’re a decent enough specimen to risk going into labour for.

Patriarchal media tries to convince us we must compete with other women (keep young and beautiful if you want to be loved, or he’ll trade you in for a younger model), but this is just a ruse to keep women tired, nervous, and mistrustful of other women. While it’s true that women have to keep men interested if they want the economic pay-offs that come with that, if they were free, the “need” to compete with their sisters would be obliterated.

Not so for men.

The patriarchal system enables almost all men to reproduce. Culture dictates that even the runts of the species are able to aquire a wife by means of hoarding economic resources and then offering them up in exchange for reproductive services. Sex discrimination in the workplace is not arbitrary. It’s a strategy. It buoys male dominance. Keeping resources in men’s hands is the only way (bar overt violence) that they can convince women to live with, and reproduce, for them en masse.

Without this set-up, women who desired children would simply raise them with their friends, or sisters, or mother. In regions of low socio-economic status, where males do not have property to exchange in return for women’s reproductive services, you can actually see this model in action. Girls (teenagers) tend to have a baby with a boy who already has a child with another girl, but has since moved on. The local stud, if you like. Other boys that don’t get a look-in: nobody would consider having sex, let alone reproducing, with them. Patriarchy skews these natural behavioural tendencies, obliging women to be beholden to all men. ( Not all men are supposed to reproduce. Harsh, but true. I’m past worrying about men’s feelings on the matter.)

Patriarchy appears to have created diseased behavior among males. Rather than competing with each other, they seem to be now competing against women. Instead of killing each other off, which would make evolutionary sense, they appear to regard women as the enemy that they must destroy.  It’s completely bizarre and they’ve clearly gone beserk.

 It’s as though their brains have short-circuted. They know they must kill someone, but they’ve kind of forgotten who. The person they actually need to kill is that tall, good-looking graceful kid who is quite the success in the bedroom, and who has fathered umpteen children around the village…. but instead they kill their wife, girlfriend or the prostitute they’ve just visited. Maybe this what keeps patriarchy going? If men killed who they were supposed to, the ratio of women to men would be higher and it would be easier to organize and become liberated.

 [And correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that it is only in humans that the female of the species has to deal with her own males murdering her kind daily. Does this happen anywhere else in the animal kingdom? AFAIK male animals don’t even murder females that don’t “belong” to them. So WTF is it with humans?]

At any rate, any woman who has become a mother knows that our biology determines our behaviour. There is nothing cultural or “socialized” about the fact that you Definitely Intended to Return To Work four months after the baby was born to Pursue your Career, only to find that you feel like your arm is missing if you’re parted from your newborn for 30 minutes and you have no choice but to stay with your baby. You’re better able to understand women’s oppression. Not all mothers feel the same, of course, but most do have a physical and hormonal bond with their child. When her baby cries, a woman’s stress levels increase and her breasts fill with milk. Hell, if you’re in the supermarket you get tingly nipples if you hear another woman’s newborn crying (which reminds me how narcissistic the nuclear family is; surely we were supposed to care for each other’s children as well as our own, for the good of the species?).

 And I don’t think I need to mention men’s track record with children at this point, but I’m going to anyway. Men have a tendency towards sexually abusing their female offspring;  they murder their families with alarming regularity; and that’s when they’re not abandoning their pregnant girlfriends. It does not matter to me whether men can or are able to be socialized into being “good dads”. Their time is up. We need to forget about Men’s Role in Child-Rearing. It’s irrelevant. They’ve fucked it up, so to speak. Women need to focus our efforts on organizing a way of becoming liberated from men economically and socially. Where we can live without men, preferably in groups. I would say this is the Radfem priority.


47 thoughts on “Gender Abolition and Radical Feminism.

  1. Some species the male kills the infants of another male, like lions. But they don’t generally kill the mature females, just adolescent and mature males (the competition).

    Without patriarchy propaganda (like Disney films and compulsory heterosexuality), a lot of women would not bother having children anyway.

    • It actually does make evolutionary sense to kill the young of ANOTHER male, but not your OWN fricken young, plus adult females.

      As I suspected, human males are bat-shit insane.

      Not to mention the fact we are humans, NOT animals (mammals, yes, animals, no), so by now men should have evolved a bit more no?

    • And yes, I agree that in a non-patriarchal society far less women would reproduce .But the difference between us and men is that nature has offered us the choice. THat’s why men hate us and need patriarchy.
      Having given birth I also believe that women are probably not supposed to have more than one child. It hurts too much. THat pain is a SIGN you’re probably not supposed to do it again

      • Which really should automatically raise one eyebrow in the direction of piv-for-recreation! But yes, it is or should be the woman’s uncoerced choice, which does not exist in the climate of baby-making propaganda. Probably yes, most would be put off by the first and not go there again!

        Anyway, the race is on – can males make humans extinct before Mother Nature does? Males seem marginally in the lead at this point, given leaking nuclear power plants and stuff…

    • LOL.

      [thinking more about the pain of childbirth, maybe that’s why society is obsessed with pushing epidurals onto women. It’s NOT because they care that women are in pain, but because they want us to go back for more.
      What they fail to mention to women, though, is that epidurals slow down childbirth, putting the baby at risk and leading to the “cascade of intervention” which then results in a c-section. There is a positive correlation between C-sections and maternal deaths. No, they don’t tell you about that, but the stats are out there for women who are interested.]

      • Epidurals also interfere with the physiological bonding mechanisms. Epidurals are very risky to the mother and fetus too. Ina May Gaskin lists numerous side effects that range from increasing length of labour, increasing chance of instrumental delivery and subsequent sexual dysfunction and incontinence.

        She also says: “Epidurals inhibit beta-endorphin and oxytocin release, and this means that they in interfere with the mother’s ability to move into the ecstatic state of consciousness that is a part of normal labour”

        Michel Odent states that in clinical studies in which ewes were administered epidurals during labour the ewes did not seem to recognise their lambs as their own and refused to feed them.

        In the US today, due to the increasing interference in birth, women are twice as likely to die during childbirth than their mothers.

        It seems that the increase in the use of technological intervention in birth is part of the war against women and works on many levels.

      • Ina May Gaskin’s Guide to Childbirth was my bible when I was pregnant with my babies. She is one hell of a woman, I have nothing but admiration for her work.
        And I didn’T know that women who give birth today are twice as likely to die as their mothers, but from what I’ve read and seen about unecessary medical intervention it does not surprise me.
        Thankfully I had two homebirths (at my midwife’s home)

  2. the idea that the P allows dorky human males the opportunity to reproduce, where that opportunity would not otherise exist, is eye-popping. its so obviously true, and yet its not something you can easily come up with on your own, perhaps because so many women claim they want the 90-pound weakling bc its better than living with the bad behavior of the “stud” but of course thats a false choice.

    also, remember that study that came out that suggested that the birth control pill made women choose more dorky partners? that was chilling bc guess who likely invented all that shit? its not the studs.

    • yes, the men who come up with the most awful patriarchal ideas (economists and scientists) aren’t known for their virility are they.

      And exactly, nature doesn’t expect us to LIVE with the stud (he can wander around the outskirts of society thank you very much). In fact these high testosterone men are more dangerous than average, which is why women should basically not live with men at all. (or are they? That could just be a rumour spread around by the weakling scientists…).

      But reproducing with a dork who can provide you with a roof over your head is better than prostitution or homelessness, and because mothers are discriminated against in the workplace and often can’t find the childcare, they do actually *need* the man to stick around— and yet none of that is a real choice . Outside of a patriarchy they wouldn’t need him at all.

      • “But reproducing with a dork who can provide you with a roof over your head is better than prostitution or homelessness, and because mothers are discriminated against in the workplace and often can’t find the childcare, they do actually *need* the man to stick around— and yet none of that is a real choice . Outside of a patriarchy they wouldn’t need him at all.”

        This is where I think Christiantiy (at least certain versions of it) and altruism play a part. They can be directed towards women and the disadvantaged with their edicts to “be not envious” and to settle for less- to respect the “little guy” and to give up your right to have a desirable mate in order to satisfy the less deserving nerdy guy.

        Religion sure is the opium of the masses!

  3. ‘if they were free the “need” to compete with their sisters would be obliterated.’
    If women were not robbed of their means of subsistence and enslaved by patriarchy, they would be cooperating with each other as this is the best strategy for what we call the ‘survival of the species’.
    Seriously, men always claim that they are ‘hardwired’ to spread their genes, meaning to impregnate as many fertile women as possible. Why then, under such conditions, a woman would voluntarily put herself and her children’s survival dependent on one man who will be away chasing other females and may conceive more children for whom he might (or not) care for, which could mean fewer resources left for her and her children, maybe not even enough to survive, or outright abandonment for her or for any other woman the man impregnated? Seriously, how is it ‘evolutionary’ advantageous for women to put themselves and their children in such an unsafe position?
    None of this is natural. Men invented the concept of ‘marriage’ so that any man could acquire a domestic and sexual slave, and created the prostituted class (which they then view as a natural necessity) in order to respond to their claimed need to ‘spread their genes’. None of these roles (prostituted or domesticated) is in women’s nature or to women’s advantage, but still men try to define this situation as being Nature (read God’s will, aka men’s will). Such a system based on men’s domination over women makes men resort to violence against women just in order for the system to be maintained.
    Isolating women in patriarchal marriages/nuclear family and making them dependant on a man whom they have to take care of (in addition to their children), who can abandon them at any time and subject them to violence is not in the benefit of children (i.e. the human species). What can be more counter-nature than a mother unable to efficiently protect her children and adequately care for them?
    It would be far more advantageous for women (and consequently their offspring) to bind with other women (such as older women with experience at raising children) in order to share tasks, tips and resources. The artificial competition created from ‘keep young and beautiful or he’ll leave you for a younger model’ would not exist. Women need to band with other women in communities where they would be free and independent and where violence would be shunned. This is how Nature intended it to be!

    • Yes, that “impregnate as many fertile women” as possible meme is bullshit, and is probably one of the most annoying patriarchal ideas, because they’re actually referring to rape
      First of all, women need a support system in order to bear a child. For example your iron levels are very low for months afterwards and you simply cannot take care of things such as cooking and shopping. That’s why I believe that nature intended for women to decided when, how and if they have a child– it’s out of men’s hands. Secondly, I believe women’s bodies can reject foetuses if the woman is under emotional stress, or even if she simply doesn’t want the child….(Not always, of course, but it has been known to happen) So having sex with, or raping, a stressed out woman who doesn’t want a baby is an evolutionary dead-end. The woman will most likely die rather than be able to raise the child successfully. So yes, it would be more advantageous for the species if women were to group with other women, and then for just a select few of those women (the ones who were curious about it) ending up reproducing.

      Then there is the fact that women are autonomous beings, not breeding machines. Abortion has been around forever. In France the herb “rue” was used as an abortificant until it was made illegal in the early 20th century so that men could control women’s fertility. So if you rape a woman, she is probably going to get an abortion, and thus it has always been. OTher women have been known to jump off cliffs after finding out they were pregnant with their 6th/7th/8th child). Idiot men don’t know anything about women and so feel justified to come up with these theories.

      And the spread the seed idea doesn’t really explain why so many men then go on to kill their own children (and wives/ex-wives/ex-girlfriends etc)

  4. Even if women were given the choice re reproduction, I don’t think the hyper-masculine beefcakes would necessarily win out. The whole beefcake alphas vs weedy beta males is a false dichotomy which ultimately serves the patriarchy. Back on the savannah when all this evolution crap was taking place, a combination of resourcefulness and a nice ass were probably more desirable in a mate than either brute strength or whatever the paleolithic equivalent is for geekery. It seems most het women aren’t that interested in either the schwarzeneggers or the bill gates’ of the world, and tend to gravitate more to the johnny depp types. Ha! I’d like to see the evo-psych idiots try to explain that one.

    Anyway, I loved this post, Cherry. I also agree that men have already made themselves irrelevant when it comes to parenthood. Really good point about how in some communities, being not being partnered to your baby’s father is the norm.

    • That’s true. As yet we have no idea what kind of man women would naturally desire to mate with. And yes, the alphas v weedy betas might not actually be the only choices we have.

      BUt I do know that some men are better looking and have more sex appeal than others. The worse case I have ever come across was a Pakistani couple. She was young and absolutely gorgeous, in an arranged marriage with a man over 10 years older than her. Seriously, geek is not the word to describe him. You can’t even begin to imagine. They were in the U.K so that he could do his Ph.D, and she was working in a pizza shop helping to support him. She also cooked all the dinners. It TURNS OUT she also had a baby boy back in Pakistan who was being raised by HIS mother. It was fucking horrible. She should not have been with him. And from the way he treated her it was clear to me that he was the kind of man who didn’t deserve ANY woman.

    • and tend to gravitate more to the johnny depp types

      Sadly, the ‘Johnny Depps’ aren’t reliable either, given the the actual Depp just split from Vanessa Paradis, and I think he has already hooked up with the younger replacement model.

      So it seems that ‘no type [of male]’ is the best type.
      Well, in the nuclear family bullshit model at any rate.

      • I actually wrote a post on Johnny Depp/Orlando Bloom versus Arnie a while back:

        Yes. I think “Johnny Depp type who wanders the outskirst of the village and is allowed to visit society from time to time” (i.e the women’s community) is probably the ideal (after the revolution, of course 🙂

        How do we know that “nice guy” isn’t just a euphemism for “a man who can’t get away with treating women how other men do and is therefore obliged to pull the final card out of his sleeve if he wants a wife”

      • Certainly. I wasn’t try to claim that the johnnies are better for women than the arnies or the bill gates. the johnnies are still men, with male privilege and all that entails.

        I just find it interesting how female desire is framed by men as being a battle between the hyper masculine alphas and the dorky betas. Which is a dichotomy reflected in evo-psych, and also popular culture (nice guys vs assholes). And yet actual women tend to gravitate to men who fall outside of this dichotomy.

      • I have no faith in ‘nice guys’ – the ‘johnny depps’ or whatever we call them. In my experience the ‘nice guys’ are just ‘bad guys’ in deep undercover stealth mode 😉

  5. Also, the problem when not all men get to reproduce is what to do with the excess males. Most animal species ostracize the unwanted males, so they are left to roam the outskirts of the community until they die of a broken heart, or something. Actually, this kind of happens in the fundie mormon communities which practice polygyny. Since the powerful men in the group annex multiple wives, there aren’t enough to go around, and the unwanted males are kicked out when they reach young adulthood. Of course, this would never work on a wide scale, as the ostracized males would just form an army and invade.

    It’s kinda interesting and hilarious to think about what might work as a strategy for dealing with unwanted males in a hypothetical future where women have control over our reproduction. Would we create a religion and send the unwanted males to priories, and keep them occupied with spiritual busywork? Would we send them off on one-way space missions? lol.

    • I think the excess males would be forced to become the “wives” of other men. Men have a pecking order and they would be way down at the bottom. Men are seriously cuthroat. That’s why they insist that all women are subordinate. Because they KNOW what will happen to them if women manage to usurp that role. They’re next.
      Women, on the other hand, would never treat other women like that. I just don’t believe we’re hierarchical like men are.

      • Yes, I agree. Men naturally form themselves into hierarchies at the drop of a hat. Not long ago I had to attend a training session with a group of strangers and within 5 mins of the introductions, the men had already formed a little hierarchy. Whenever a man walks into a room, he automatically sizes up the rest of the men and calculates his position in the pecking order. How tedious for them!

        Also, someone, somewhere, pointed out that men seem incapable of seeing themselves as equal to women. As in, if they can’t see themselves as superior, then they feel they must be inferior. I can’t remember who made this observation. Greer? It sounds like something she’d say. Anyway, it demonstrates why equality is useless as a feminist goal. Men are incapable of equality. And even in a post-patriarchy I dont think this would change.

    • I think the key factor is not disclosing the father.

      In the Bonobo species (they are matriarchal) the females have sex with many males (also many non-reproductive sex) so the males don’t know if they’re the father of the kids and stay around and contribute to the group because they might be the father. They are not inclined to leave the group this way. If they would they would indeed probably commit infanticide on such another group. Young males (who did not impregnate any woman yet) can leave. New males are admitted to the group by the males of the group. But males get only get sex with women if they behave well/contribute.

      I don’t know if this would work now, though.
      An obvious remark is, that currently, a male will know if he could have impregnated a female because humans know only PIV leads to babies.
      However, females can also get the sperm e.g. from their hands and impregnate themselves. Seldom or never doing PIV (or using condoms and such), and it can work.
      It also seems to me, males have no problem with homosexuality, and currently many homosexual males seem polysexual and quite content with such a sex life despite the diseases and ageism and such, so I think that’s what they would do as the “unselected” ones.
      Yes @cherryblossomlife many males fear this but on the other hand this fear seems partly an act to me caused by, and preserving, the status quo (“One must not not be like women!”). They might be at the bottom but I have some feeling they would feel quite at home in such a hierarchy, it’s just they have this urge to impregnate females, something of which they still can think they might have done in such a bonobo society model.

      • Thanks for your reply (I can’t comment on it so I’ll comment on myself).
        With regard to how a matriarchal society would look (or have looked) like, perhaps people will find this author interesting:


        I haven’t read any of Bachofsen’s work. But I’ve stumbled upon the works of Erich Fromm (“The Forgotten Language” and “The Sane Society”) who is heavily influenced by him and mentions him several times. Basically what they believe is there was a matriarchy before a certain time. Bachofsen supposedly wrote about how this functioned, and how matriarchy fits in human history. Of course Bachofsen was met with great resistance.

        Fromm, by the way, does a very nice to read job on debunking Freud (by his content, not by his “unscientific” methods) by noticing Freuds patriarchial inclinations. In “The Forgotten Language” he dryly notes the patriarchal reversals in (actually rewritings of) classical myths, and explains the Oedipus trilogy as a conflict between matriarchy and patriarchy (not so long existing yet at the time of writing of it) instead of just an incest story. It’s not that he is a feminist, I tend to disagree with how he explains some stuff and he is patriarchal himself too, but he has some well-laid-out ideas (like destruction being simply the poorer attempt to transcendence when the ability to create (conceive life) isn’t available) that fit quite good in a feminist framework or otherwise tend to provoke thinking.

      • Elin, when you quoted a man, I was like ‘yeah yeah’ , but having looked him up he does sound like one of these rare men who did have glimpse into women’s oppression. A few men have been known to do so (John Stolenberg, LUndy Bancroft). He does sound interesting.
        I can’t remember where exactly I read it, but I heard that once women’s liberation took off, academies quietly shelved all of this type of study. Whereas in the 19th century men were quite happy to discuss the fact that patriarchy hadn’t always existed, by the early 20th century this had already become a taboo subject.
        The only explanation for this is that when men’s power is not threatened, they are willing to make concessions, as Bachofen did. But once patriarchy became destabilized, men closed ranks and battened down the hatches and refused to believe there could ever have been a world without male dominance.

        Fromm also sounds interesting, but I think Viola Klein was the first person ever to take on Freud. Betty Friedan also did it during the 60s, and then Kate Millett smashed him apart in 1970 and after Millet he would never be taken seriously ever again. Anyway, thanks for posting the link. I’m going to read more about him.

      • Yeah, well I don’t think Bachofen himself was that into female oppression at all – I know his original intent was to write about something else entirely concerning myths (I don’t really recall what), but anyway, for that he had to study old myths. And doing so, he noted some patterns, and so he decided to write that book about matriarchy in history.
        (Kind of like Ibsen’s the Doll House, Ibsen based his story just on some friend’s story, because it had drama, he was not caring about women’s rights. Maybe these men are just a special kind of ignorant.)

        I just think it is good, to have philosophical/historical concepts about matriarchy. Of course actual rights are most urgent. But ideas about both history and future define ourselves so much. When one just can’t, or has a hard time, envisioning a matriarchy, that seems to me to be a big drawback.

        Instinctively I am sure that you are right that when women gain (potential) rights there is always media-censorship and/or propaganda following that. Like in the past when marriage was (practically) mandatory, it was also openly acknowledged women disliked intercourse. Afterwards, not so much.

        I have not read of these authors you mention (I feel shame..!), I will google them.

        I know however that Freud was attacked by feminists but afaik they concentrated mainly on the bio-determinism penis-envy thing (?). Of course rightfully so. What I found interesting about Fromm is, that he stayed in this whole “spiritual” psychoanalysis realm, therein seeing alternative views of how family/society values and myths came about.

      • Thanks Elin, and a very interesting parallel you made of it being common knowledge in the past that women didn’t like intercourse.
        I also didn’t know that Ibsen’s “revolutionary play” was a random fluke LOL!

    • Miska, that’s such an interesting point, that men are inherently incapable of equality. I think you’re right.

      It actually helps me with a problem I’ve been dealing with recently: some alpha-type guy at work being an ass. I’m in a position of authority over him, and he cannot deal with it. Which means it’s obvious that women are not supposed to be subordinate to men otherwise why does he have to vye with me for dominance? If women were naturally subordinate, it would just “happen” effortlessly.
      And the funny thing is, I think I’m winning the duel, but would not have been able to without the insights that radical feminism has given me. I would probably have reverted to type and exhibited submissive behaviour, which of course is a survival strategy for women under the P.

  6. Your article makes complete sense, though it is brutal and as I have a young son, I have to have faith that there is a place for men in a society structured according to female requirements. And sometimes I feel, ‘they’/ men, have, as you say, ‘fucked it up.’ But then, my heart says, but I love ‘him.’ What do you say to the but I love him/men thing?

    • I don’t really like the term “female requirements”, as if freedom to live without torture and terrorizm is some sort of privilege, like access to tampax or something. Sorry, don’t mean to be harsh, but one thing I’ve learned this year from reading radfem blogs is that language is important.

      So if you mean that society should be restructured in such a way that means women are not oppressed, exploited, murdered, raped…. then yes, that is a female requirement.

      How would men fare in such a world? First of all, feminism is not really about men. After what they’ve done to us over the millenia (the witch-craze, for example!) I think the logical step would be for us to separate from them completely and allow them to fight it out between themselves.
      Maybe, when they’re no longer to use women as scapegoats, perhaps they will finally learn how to cooperate and organize. You can always hope, can’t you.

      One thing is for certain, nothing, NOTHING, can be as awful as patriarchy. Men are the most evil oppressors. They invented concentration camps and gulags, they invented slavery and imperialism; they invented rape; they invented porn; they invented prostitution…they invented war…. I have hope that when patriarchy falls (and it will) life will be better for everybody, both women and men.

  7. When I say requirements, I’m not talking about having my basic human rights met, Let’s assume we live in a society where that’s a given. Then, I require help in raising my children, actual help, not ‘yes dear I’ll put the shelves up tomorrow’, but ‘I’ve assembled the baby’s new cot, cooked you a meal and when you’ve eaten it I’ll wash the pots, I understand how exhausting all of this breast-feeding must be,’ kind of help. I consider this sort of thing like basic requirements after our basic rights have been met.

    I also think that feminism is about men, it is for men, as you said in your closing statement life will be better for everybody. Men exploit men, big fat wealthy men in their big fat top floor swivel chairs, take everyone’s money and gamble with it, decide to send our boys to their death, feed them porn to twist their heads and make them feel like at least they have some pleasures in life, regardless that the more of it they consume the more difficult it becomes for them to have actual intimacy with actual real life women. Big men on their mobile phones, watching their labourer clock out, backs bent and shoulders aching, allocating to them a minimum wage while they get rich off the profits and book in for a massage. Our little men, our doers, workers, squadies, the exploited, in many cases their women take their wages and manage the household finances. But those men look at the system that oppresses them, and drink, or join a TU, or sneak off to watch porn and bash away, because they don’t know what else to do. When a soldier returns from duty, he is gob-smacked at how the govt he served don’t actually care about him at all. What does he do? Some men look at the big man and accept him as such, most just feel like they’ve been screwed over. If only they could see. Maybe they would be our allies. Instead of getting so caught up in trying to prove that they are in fact men, to women who are trying too hard to massage their braking egos, and other little men who don’t want to get too heavy about this stuff. Instead, they might actually see the iron gate, and smell something like freedom – non patriarchy, alternatives, fraternity. And they might work with us towards it. No?

    And I think they need to finally learn how to co-operate and organise with us, on our behalf and under our instruction, since we have the biggest biological responsibility. They should be working for us. And all the good stuff they can and have done for the benefit of everyone. And we would not exploit them. We would give the same respect that we would expect. If we leave them to do it on their own, they’ll only hang around trying to work out how they can break down our walls and get into our pants and history will repeat itself.

    • Hi Emma,
      Most of what you’ve written is not a radfem point of view.

      But I’m glad you’re here at my blog, so please keep reading, and there is also the blogroll at the side with some reccommended blogs.
      Feel free to ask questions about anything you’re not sure about,


    • I don’t think you understand a basic fact about human nature:

      Good people don’t need to be told not to hurt and oppress others ,and don’t “not realize” when they are doing it. Good, psychologically healthy people do not get pleasure from looking at objectified, drag-dressed fuck-dolls.

      Good people don’t need prompting. Good people aren’t men. At least for the most part.

  8. Oh. My friends and family think, mistakenly I guess, that I’m radical in my feminist thinking. Maybe because they are so unaware of the extent of their own oppression. I do want an end to patriarchy, very desperately, and very passionately. And I am very interested to read your blog. Also been finding others that are radfem, or at least fem and it’s like breathing fresh air. So thanks for being here. You may have stopped me going mad!

  9. Sorry but imputing competition as an intrinsic state amongst males is absurd essentialism that I cannot abide, and is reductionist and betrays a nuanced philosophy of nature that duly notes co-operation as motivation, and also strips animals of any effective consciousness and psychology. It then makes the oppression of women something natural and inevitable and class oppression amongst males similarly natural and inevitable due to intrinsic competitiveness. This is just a really poor positivist observation.

    • When you say that my argument “strips animals of any effective consciousness and psychology” you are effectively implying that when men murder women, and when the judicial system exonerates them for it (in the UK men get less than 4 years jail time for murdering their wife), that this has nothing to do with their Y chromosome: that they just like killing and that it is always a conscious decision on their part.

      Well yes, I would agree with the part about them enjoying the kill, but *this* is a reductionist argument because there is much more to it than that.

      The truth is we do not know –nobody knows–to what extent culture influences men’s bloodlust, or their misogyny, or why this hatred manifests in an incessant desire to kill and maim as many women as possible, often leading them to incorporate the damage they enjoy inflicting into laws and social customs.

      My main point is that by now it no longer matters whether it is in men’s nature or not, because it’s too late, and they’ve already done too much damage, but we should not rule out the possibility that is.

      At any rate, from a feminist point of view, there is literally no point at all in us trying to coax men into stopping their rapes, tortures and murders. What a waste of energy! As if they’ve ever listened to us anyway! It’s high time we simply turn our eyes away from the boys and focus on women, and on what we can do to minimize the damage. Refusing to live with men and educating our daughters is a good start.

      Your line “that duly notes co-operation” is nonsensical and meaningless. WHat has co-operation got to do with men’s behaviour past and present?

    • You might like my most recent post, on the topic of the woman who invented the theory of patriarchy being a political system (which of course it is). Kate Millett shows us, with meticulously referenced detail, how it employs all the same tactics as any other autocratic regime which proves that male dominance is not natural at all.
      If it were natural they wouldn’t need to pull out all the stops to keep women oppressed, would they.

      Radical feminism is a very hopeful ideology, full of optimism. But we refuse to shy away from the truth, and the truth is that there is something really fucked up about men’s behaviour.

  10. This is great stuff, Cherry. You think a lot like me. In fact, my nickname in RL is Cherry. 🙂

    I’ve always believed that human males are deformities of some sort. They do not behave in the same sensible fashion as their animal counterparts. Somewhere, something went wrong. When one considers fact that it was the “heterosexual” variety of males who invented feminine hygiene products, in order to wash away “stinky” female pheromones, the extent of the male human’s abnormalities becomes glaringly obvious.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s