@beadsland

the revolution will be televised

until the signal is cut

@beadsland

feel like this is actually a more accurate assessment

https://tech.lgbt/@deilann/112482668726705384

@beadsland

thank goodness we're not modernists

@beadsland

spending all this time examining my actions under the framework of post-post-structuralism has helped me realize that perhaps my time would have been better spent pursuing direct action

@deilann

Theory without action is to side with the oppressor.

Action without theory is to invite the oppressor inside.

@beadsland

and trying to seek the happy medium in yourself, rather than in solidarity, is to fail to identify the oppressor entirely

@deilann

Narcissus contemplating a puddle.

@beadsland

makes me think about the issue of trans men and complicity

being told you're narcissus and to seek your answers in the puddle

@beadsland

i'm sure you are familiar with the phenomenon of weaponizing white guilt and the concept of privilege to convince white folks that taking certain actions is anti-racist

but those actions are in fact, subjugation of another group

yes?

[intermediary]

@deilann

Non-intersectional praxis.

Following thus far...

@beadsland

Trans men are often fed a narrative that because "men" are a privileged group they gain male privilege by transitioning. And so they need to be careful not to abuse that privilege.

For white trans men especially, this very often results in an unhealthy level of constant self-checking.

It's built on a faulty premise, but especially when you've been at risk and subject to male violence, very easy to believe.

But because the guilt and privilege being weaponized here is actually an axis of marginalization, it is harder for trans men to reject it due to a lack of power and support.

So trans men, especially white trans men, are more likely to engage in this type of complicit behavior. Sometimes this is done directly, calling on internalized transphobia and the unhealthy narratives directly. Sometimes it's sought out as self-harm, in a misguided attempt of penance.

@deilann

"penance"

'nuff said.

@beadsland

saw a lot of it when online trans spaces in the 2010s were TIRF-heavy

@deilann

apropos re TIRF, meet TERD:

https://union.place/@inquiline/112469719694082482

Dogmatism. Penance. Yep.

@beadsland

I have expressed in the past a serious discomfort with rejecting that TERFs are feminists.

They are not intersectional feminists, but we fixate on second-wave feminists and retroactively revoke their membership in a way we rarely do for first-wave feminists. Despite first-wave feminists having all the same issues as second-wave feminists and more.

People will point out these issues, but they do not revoke their feminist card.

This is dangerous because failing to remember that there are many feminisms keeps us from remembering that not everyone who supports a cause is my ally.

Not all feminisms are good. We must remember this, if we want liberation for all.

@beadsland

Combining some previous posts on the topic:

The issue with Radical Feminism is not whether or not it is a feminism, but that it is itself a dangerous and oppressive framework.

It is not interested in systems.

In radical feminism, oppression is personal. It is violence. It is men hurting women directly.

So, someone showing up to the meeting just being male is, in this framework, violent by essentially bringing the ghost of the oppressor along. I don't matter in this equation.

Radical feminism is a with any means necessary ideology. To understand this, consider another by any means necessary ideology: anti-fascism.

Anti-fascism states that fascism is such a threat that any means necessary should be taken to ensure it doesn't flourish.

Radical feminism states any means necessary must be used to take power from men to keep them from oppressing women.

Taking away their "feminist card" does not engage with the extant danger of Radical Feminism as a theory - in any of its variants.

@deilann

"In radical feminism, oppression is personal. It is violence. It is men hurting women directly."

Ah, so this is the point of reference!

Having a very different relation to radical (yet also Hanischian personal), as historicized root, as rhizome even, hadn't tied it back to a specific claim to rootedness of violence in an ahistorical essentialism.

Perhaps because any essentialism of violence as definitively gendered is a very antefemimist, even ante-Hobbesian, patriarchal commitment.

@beadsland

radical in this case, is in reference to how to address this belief

a liberal feminism cannot address this power structure

@beadsland

so Radical Feminism is a radical feminism, in that the framework leads to the conclusion that abolishing the patriarchy and liberating women can only come about from a radical restructuring of society, not gradual legal change

@deilann

Yes, but a radical restructuring of society that only ever envisions society as in the penumbra of a cosmological structure, and ontology that is pre-given chain of causation, thus unalterable.

Suddenly recalling a younger self, disturbed at a UU service on violence that articulated a strict ontology of men, on the one hand, and women-and-children, on the other.

Me, an adult, yet even then once child, of violence at the behest and instigation of a woman, found the reduction… painful.