Just when you think that she couldn’t find new depths of lunacy in her crusade to defend “radical feminism” from the scurge of erection-wielding men, transfolk and sexbot women, Heart(less) digs deep into her yoni (or would that be the other end??) and breaks out this nice little rant at her place against the latest in “radfem slogging” (to steal Stormy’s apt phrase) and trashing of her “critique” of transfolk who pollute her sacred womynspace.
Interpretation and added emphasis by me is included just for entertainment purposes only.
A few responses to the latest anti-radical feminist tactics, screeds, attacks, propaganda:
Radical feminists are no more “transphobes” than we are “manhaters.” To allege that we are is to indulge in sexist, misogynist, anti-feminist propaganda. The herstoric position of radical feminism is that those who are born male into this world enjoy male privilege, for all of the years they live as males and as men. It is never “_phobic” for an oppressed people group — which females certainly are – to castigate its oppressors, even in harsh and mean-spirited terms, with name-calling, swearing, and hyperbole. It might be mean-spirited, we might be generalizing, we might be stereotyping, we might — and likely are — angry, but we aren’t “manhaters” because we denounce what men do or because we denounce male privilege, which again, all who are born male into the world have or have had. Male to female transsexuals/transgendered persons have enjoyed male privilege, for all of the time that they have moved and lived in the world as males or continue to. To call them out for their sexism whenever we see it, find it, hear of it, know of it, are targeted by it, are impacted and affected by it is not “transphobic.” It is feminism.
Ahhhh…eeeeee-yah. Of course, when “radical feminist” women trash transsexuals as simply rapists and “chicks with dicks” trying to get into real womyn’s panties, it surely isn’t bigotry or hatred or even “transphobia”…it’s just decent classic feminist critique of “male privilege”. Now, the fact that most transsexuals don’t have the choice to lop off their dicks and become real womyn (not that even that would suffice in the deranged den of cobwebs that consists of Heart(less)’s brain, since only “biowomen” can be truly oppressed as women by the patriarchy), or that such “privilege” that they are alleged to retain usually comes at the steep risk of getting beaten down by other men of “privilege”, doesn’t seem to register at all with her radfem manifesto. And besides…some of those evil transfolk happen to be born with vaginas, too; but never mind that….just having a dick makes you powerful enough. So why am I not a freakin’ millionaire, Heart, just by osmosis??
Female-to-male transsexuals/transgendered persons are situated much differently than male-to-female transsexuals/transgendered persons. Transmen have not enjoyed male privilege for any of the years they lived as females and as women, and they never enjoy male privilege as men do. When radical feminists call out transpersons, we are calling them out on their sexism. This means that most of the time, we are calling out transwomen or trans-identified men, not transmen.
Ahhh…hold up a sec……so, FTM “transmen” (I assume that Patrick (nee Pat) Califia would be an exception, because he’s against everything Heart(less) stands for), who now live as men, are exempt from being part of the evol patriarchy because they lived as women prior to their surgery and their change in sexual orientation?? But by that logic, shouldn’t they be the ultimate sellouts to womynhood for abandoning their natural “sex” and taking on that penis??? Why should they get a free ride?? Oh, and if male power is so overwhelming, then shouldn’t MTF “transwomen” actually get some credit for rejecting and repudiating such “male privilege”?? Oh, but nooooooooosiree…..it’s all about their schlongs attempting to distort and destroy the purity of natural womynspace. Oh, and the fact that they might attempt to seduce real biowomyn in bathrooms out of the sisterhood doesn’t help their cause, either.
Were that the worst of Heart’s rant, I could barely let it slide…..but then she attempts to seperate herself and her transhating minnions from the Religious Right….and only ends up making things that much worse.
To compare radical feminists to the Religious Right is propaganda, it is a smear campaign, it is disingenuous, and it is transparently and hatefully misogynist. Shame on “progressives” who can’t find more positive ways to articulate their perspectives than to engage in down and dirty cheap shots of this nature.
Oh, but she must be right…..I mean, giving the nod and wink to the likes of Luckynkl and MarySunshine and delphyne comparing transsexual women to evil gay men cruising public restrooms is certainly much different than the lunacies of NARTH or the ex-gays. Really, it is. And woe to such “progressives” who simply attack the fundamentalists who rip on the perversity of “the gay/tranny lifestyle” without understanding the subtle nuance of radfem theory which is at least more “positive” in its willingness to suck up to….errrrrrr, criticize traditional conservatives for their beliefs against sexual dissidents.
I was personally put out of business by the Religious Right. I sued eight fundamentalist organizations including several fundamentalist churches in federal court in 1997 and I won by a unanimous jury verdict. It’s silly to attempt to lump me in with the Religious Right. Having said that, I would much rather deal with the open and unapologetic misogyny of the Religious Right than with the veiled and unapologetic misogyny of white leftist liberal men. At least with the Religious Right, all the cards are on the table, and I do not have to, for example, deal with someone who is calling himself a “feminist” who prostitutes women, makes, uses, or benefits from the making of pornography, and engages in other acts of male oppression and privilege while pretending to be my ally .
Translation: “No, I’m not a fundamentalist antisex hatemonger, but when fundies happen to share my fear and loathing of evil ‘white leftist liberal men’ (hey, Heart, I’m not a liberal or White; so am I exempted from your wrath??) who defend porn, prostitiution, and other evil “male oppressive” sex acts, I can work with them anytime.”
There are plenty of transgender/transsexual people who are religious fundamentalists and the Religious Right does not take any unified or unitary position as to transgender/transsexuality. To suggest that it does is to participate in, and be guilty of, the willful ignorance around issues of religious fundamentalism and religion in general of which far too many liberals, self-identified feminists, and “progressives” so-called are guilty, which ruins whatever shreds of credibility remain so far as the Left goes and clouds the credibility of progressive movements in general.
Ahhhhh….I get it now; Heart’s brand of antipornradicalfeminism is really a page from her conception of the “Religious Left”; a nice means of retaining political credibility while appealing to social conservatives. But I guess that “credibility” amongst the Left can only be found by parroting the Right on social policy and making sexually Puritanical women the new vangard of the progressive movement. Didn’t the Democratic Leadership Council already try that tact for the last 20 years, and fall flat on its face??
People need to do their homework about the Religious Right if there is to be any productive confrontation or challenge to fundamentalisms (as opposed to tickle-for-a-nickle demonizing and scapegoating). There are female persons, girls and women, being horrifically oppressed by fundamentalist men. They deserve and need our educated and intelligent SUPPORT. Women and girls in fundamentalist religion are not similarly situated with men in fundamentalist religion and should not be lumped in with men in fundamentalist religion. Women in fundamentalist religion are an oppressed people group .
Yeah….Phyllis Schafly and Kathleen Parker and Mona Charen really are radicalfeminists, however they may deny it. They just don’t know it yet…because they are soooo oppressed.
Mary Daly did not “compare transsexuals with Frankenstein.” This is a lie.
Well, we’ll just let Daly’s own words be the judge of that. From a comment (which was altered by Heart for “snarkiness”) by nexyjo, quoting directly from GYN/Ecology (pp. 70 – 71):
“Today the Frankenstein phenomenon is omnipresent not only in religious myth, but in its offspring, phallocratic technology. The insane desire for power, the madness of boundary violation, is the mark of necrophiliacs who sense the lack of soul/spirit/life-loving principle with themselves and therefore try to invade and kill off all spirit, substituting conglomerates of corpses. This necrophillic invasion/elimination takes a variety of forms. Transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring which invades the female world with substitutes.”
[Emphasis added by me.]
Remember, this is the same Mary Daly who proposed “Misterectomy” as a cure for all of womyn’s ills.
Going back to Heart(less), who’s never, never out of control (often):
Male-to-female transsexuality/transgender is really about men’s rights. It has nothing to do with feminism. As such, as feminists, just as we oppose men’s rights, in general, we oppose this manifestation of men’s rights as well.
Because, of course, in a perfect womynhood, men would have no rights that womyn would be bound to respect…in fact, men would probably be reduced in population for the survival of the human race and the good of society in Heart’s grand vision of “progressive radicalfeminist” society. And, of course, transsexualism would not even exist, since technology and womyn’s wisdom will be able to nip any such deviancy in the bud through “natural selection”…or merely trashing “male nanates”.
And finally, Heart concludes with the grand finish:
One more. Critiques of transgender/transsexuality are no more meant as attacks on individual transgender/transsexual persons than critiques of prostituting women are meant as attacks on prostitutes or critiques of pornography are meant as attacks on women in pornography or critiques of motherhood are meant as attacks on mothers or critiques of marriage as an institution are meant as critiques of married women or critiques of high heels are meant as critiques of those who wear them or critiques of lipstick are critiques of those who wear it or critiques of shaving are critiques of those who shave or critiques of boob jobs are critiques of those who have them, and on and on and on, infinity. Some ought to get over themselves and learn the difference between critiques, analysis, opinions, politics and them. I can critique the hell out of your politics and your theories and ideas and go to the mat for you, love the hell out of you, and be willing to lay down my life for you. This is what any mother knows. This is what any lover knows. If you want to know how to critique and analyze the hell out of something without making it personal, try unconditionally fucking loving somebody, would you? Then you’ll understand. Maybe unconditional love is just so goddamn rare right now, nobody knows what it is any more. And if people don’t learn, then there will not be any revolution, not any time soon.
So, now, all you funk-filled bratwurst lovers, you lipstick faux-lesbians, you stripper prostitute sexbots, you patriarchy/mixed gender fuckers…listen up; Mama Heart has only your best interests at heart (sorry for the pun) when she tells you that you are betraying the sisterhood by getting those implants or dabbing on lip gloss or shaving your legs or putting on those stilettos for your oppressors. How can she show such unconditional love for you if you don’t reciprocate by adopting her ideas to the hilt?? If you’d just stop taking yourself so seriously and just give in to her and her whacked-out beliefs, then she and her Womyn Nation will love you forever and ever….and all will be right with the world. After all, it’s only analysis and science, it’s not personal.
Sure, Heart. Nothing personal about The Bell Curve or Birth of a Nation, either.
Ann and Nancy Wilson (of the 80’s rock group Heart) oughta sue this woman for libelling their good name. Most decent progressive people should do the same out of general moral principle.