fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3336 ]

[ SECRET POST #3336 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3336 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #477.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But they fall under the umbrella of feminism, like it or not (and most of us do not like it and are appalled that they continue to say they're feminists when they aren't for gender equality at all).

To me radfems/+TERFs and modern feminists have too big a doctrinal difference to be considered of the same group. Their beliefs are very divergent and based on very different theories. I don't even think of radfems when I think of feminism.

Add in that both are very willing to play No True Scotsman and insist that the other group doesn't qualify as feminist, ("one must be intersectional to be a feminist, and so if you're racist/sexist/transphobic/etc, you're not a feminist.") and it's easy to see why it doesn't count as an instance of calling out extremist elements in your group: if you don't believe a person is a member of your group/shares values with you, then how does it count as calling out someone within your group?

If you don't think TERFs or radfems are extremists what's your definition of extremism in the context of feminism? To me "extremism" implies taking something too far (to the extreme) and radfems are pretty much the definition of that (thinking that men are evil, men should be controlled/lashed back against, men don't deserve consideration because sexism exists, stuff like that).

Edited 2016-02-21 23:08 (UTC)

If you don't think TERFs or radfems are extremists what's your definition of extremism in the context of feminism?

Radfems are basically biological existentialists, yes? That's not necessarily an extremist opinion. What is extreme is for them to advocate that male babies should be killed at birth, which some of them do.

The problem with the nonnies' mention of radfems being called out by intersectional feminists as an example of extremism being called out is that intersectional feminists call out *all* radfems because they believe they have a harmful/evil/misguided ideology. Not because "that's one of our people taking our beliefs too far.

An extremist intersectional feminist would be one with extremist views based on intersectional feminism's tenets.

(*I assume I'm using a correct and accurate term with "intersectional feminist" but if what I mean by that is unclear let me know.)

Radfems are basically biological existentialists, yes?

Er...? Radfems are the sort of feminists who believe either that women are superior to men or that men don't deserve equal status because of their collective crimes. If that's what you're going for then sure? I think it's definitely an extreme application of feminism. Society treats women as worth less than men. Feminists think of women as equal to men. Radfems elevate the status to above that of men, which is an extreme application of the goal of feminism.

An extremist intersectional feminist would be one with extremist views based on intersectional feminism's tenets.

Can you give examples of what beliefs you're talking about here that are different from those espoused by radfems?

"Gender essentialism is the idea that men and women have inherent, unique, and natural attributes that qualify them as their separate genders."

I say "sex essentialism" instead only because of radfems/TERFs views on gender and transgender people.

But basically, radfems/TERFs are gender/sex essentialists, and intersectional feminists are usually not. Gender essentialism itself isn't an "extreme application of feminism" because it's not a uniquely feminist viewpoint in the first place. Many religious fundamentalists are gender essentialists, for instance, and aren't feminist in the slightest.

Can you give examples of what beliefs you're talking about here that are different from those espoused by radfems?

Are you familiar with the concept of intersectional feminism?

So when you said "biological existentialism" what you meant was "gender essentialism". I really don't know if I was supposed to pick up on that since the former term is one I've actually never heard. I am familiar with the concept of gender essentialism and reject it because it's pretty contrary to feminism. The idea that people cannot be trans is only one component of gender essentialism and arguably the only one TERFs definitely espouse (some might buy into it more, but I think it varies from what I've seen), and also, I was talking about radfems in general, not TERFs specifically, but if you want to talk about TERFs we can do that. However, from the standpoint of talking about radfems in general as taking the tenets of feminism to the extreme, I still think that is true.

Are you familiar with the concept of intersectional feminism?

Yes...can you give examples, please?

So when you said "biological existentialism" what you meant was "gender essentialism". I really don't know if I was supposed to pick up on that since the former term is one I've actually never heard."

It's a self-explanatory term, especially when used in the context of radfems, who base their arguments on biological differences. I don't really see the need to make a distinction between radfems and TERFs, because from what I've seen of radfem idealogy, it's transphobic in its basis whether they embrace the term trans-exclusionary or not.

Yes...can you give examples [of intersectional feminism], please?

From Wikipedia: "Intersectionality holds that the classical conceptualizations of oppression within society—such as racism, sexism, classism, ableism, biphobia, homophobia, transphobia, and belief-based bigotry—do not act independently of each other. Instead, these forms of oppression interrelate, creating a system of oppression that reflects the "intersection" of multiple forms of discrimination."

Ergo you have intersectional feminists, who understand that you cannot tackle sexism/gender inequality and defeat it separately: you have to attack oppression on all fronts.

If you categorically decide to ignore the oppression certain groups face, you're not an intersectional feminist. Radfems blatantly reject fighting transphobic oppression, so they're hardly intersectional feminists, are they?

Ok, I'm really not sure we're on the same page. Let me back up a sec.

Above you said radfems are categorically distinct from intersectional feminists, with which I partly disagree - there are some ideological distinctions but there is also an ideological spectrum, which is why I think the term "extremist" applies to radfems in comparison to intersectional feminists.

Then you made a claim: "An extremist intersectional feminist would be one with extremist views based on intersectional feminism's tenets."

To clarify: I'm asking for examples of what you call "extremists intersectional feminists", not examples of intersectional feminism in general. How would those views, as opposed to the views of feminism in general (e.g. gender equality) be taken to an extreme in a way that's distinct from the beliefs of radfems?

This is gonna be long, skip it you want. I don't mind agreeing to disagree at all. (Sorry this response is late, but I wanted a while to think on this).

Above you said radfems are categorically distinct from intersectional feminists, with which I partly disagree - there are some ideological distinctions but there is also an ideological spectrum, which is why I think the term "extremist" applies to radfems in comparison to intersectional feminists.

I don't think radfems are just an extreme version of intersectional feminists though--radfems aren't just inter!feminists'views taken to extremes. They don't have really have the same views in the first place. Intersectional feminists are much more rooted in privilege theory and similar sociological concepts as an explanation for inequality, whereas radfems look to biology.

Both believing misogyny is wrong isn't really enough to unify them to me. Egalitarians and humanists believe misogyny is wrong but that doesn't make them feminists. Just like religious fundies believe in biological essentialism, but that doesn't make them radfems-or make radfems religions fundies.

A Muslim and a Christian both believe in one god and an afterlife, but they're not just casual/extreme versions of the other, despite both being in the same group (monotheist religions). [Sorry if that's a bad analogy.]

I'm asking for examples of what you call "extremists intersectional feminists"

Basically using intersectional feminists ideas to justify extreme actions. For instance, the harassment/bullying of Zamii until she attempted suicide, could be seen as an extremist action--and it was justified by some because she allegedly perpetuated bigotry.

Likewise, the bomb threats that were made against Gamergate meetups would be another example of an action done by extremists, if it were done by intersectional feminists.

TERFs are biological existentialists. A TERF is a subset of radfem.

Shit, I meant "biological essentialist". That's what I get for using auto-correct.

Now I'm kind of curious if there are any actual biological existentialists...

They're biological essentialists, too. You're genderqueer, right? To them you'd either be a female at birth gender traitor, or a male at birth trying to sneak onto their side, nothing in between.

That IS taking feminism and gender equality to an extreme, making it out to be a zero-sum game of two genders only which are always in a competition where women must 'beat' men to achieve equality due to men historically being the winners, instead of working at cooperation for the future.

I'm familiar with how the TERFs view me, yes XD

That IS taking feminism and gender equality to an extreme, making it out to be a zero-sum game of two genders only which are always in a competition where women must 'beat' men to achieve equality due to men historically being the winners, instead of working at cooperation for the future.

I went into this more in my reply to diet_poison, but basically I see gender essentialist beliefs as so common, and hardly distinct to feminism, that I find it hard to view that as an example of feminist extremism in itself. Religious fundamentalists and Redpillers have the same gender essentialist views, and those views aren't taken as an example of extreme feminism in them, so why would it be the case for radfems?

That IS taking feminism and gender equality to an extreme, making it out to be a zero-sum game of two genders only which are always in a competition where women must 'beat' men to achieve equality due to men historically being the winners, instead of working at cooperation for the future.

Emphasis mine.

That's why it's feminist extremism, it's all about gender equality taken to an extreme. Gender equality is a feminist fundamental.

The belief that there are two genders, one of which has been historically oppressed, and must fight to take a dominant role in society if they ever want to be equal, just doesn't seem that intrinsically extreme to me.

When you factor in that extremist is also a term that has the qualifier "especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action." it's even less so.

"Eliminate the patriarchy" = not that extreme. "Eliminate the patriarchy by neglecting male babies" = extreme.

SA

I thought of an example I'm sure you're familiar with.

"There's a special place in Hell for women who don't help each other [and vote for Hillary Clinton]."

Qualifies as a radical feminist statement, as it reduces a presidental race into a single point: gender. Above all else.

Feminists all over the political spectrum decried that remark until Albright apologized and Hillary tellingly didn't.

Why would Hillary apologize for something she didn't say?

Because she had the person on stage to speak for her and was laughing and clapping approvingly afterward.

Taking the responsibility to say "these weren't my remarks but I apologize for them having been said" would have done wonders for her respectability. She told feminists that they were too easily offended, instead.

Did not know that Hillary was applauding that speech. Dang.

Wow, so did Hillary help Monica Lewinsky recover from being used by her husband Bill and being pilloried worldwide?! Or did she just ignore Monica and pretend she didn't exist?!

...I'll wait.

Shit, I meant "biological essentialist".

Thanks for clarifying. (Not being sarcastic. I was really confused by "biological existentialist")

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3336 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject