Thursday, May 7, 2009

Left of Karl Marx: a new biography on the life and politics of Claudia Jones

[the above image of radical feminist leftist activist Claudia Jones was found here]

I found what follows on Facebook, a place I rarely go to. I slightly modified one sentence, that has a link in it, to make it easier to get to the link.

In her crucial book on the political life of Claudia Jones, Carole Boyce Davies describes Jones as "Left of Karl Marx." Jones is literally buried in the same cemetery as Marx, to his left, but Boyce Davies is also suggesting that Claudia Jones a rarely remembered black feminist Trinidadian communist organizer who was deported during the McCarthy Era for her radical beliefs and activities, is also left of Marx politically because her black feminist approach and her emphasis on cultural transformation challenged the limits of Marxism.

In her essay "An End to the Neglect of the Problems of the Negro Women", Claudia Jones articulates her understanding of how black feminism can transform the left in a revolutionary way.


There is a discussion group forming, via Facebook, to talk about that book, which looks completely fascinating to me. I went there to find the group, and cannot. So if anyone finds out more about it, please post here, with the discussion group moderator's permission only, please.
END OF POST.

"Sexual Bullying" is the new "Queer-Bashing": I don't think so

[the above ridiculously homophobic/misogynist/racist "test" image is from here]

In case you didn't see it, the Oprah Winfrey Show about "sexual bullying" was filled with many heart wrenching moments, and many infuriating ones as well.

I watched the very, very sad program yesterday, featuring three grieving parents of boys who committed suicide due to being called gay and variations of it. (I just typed and corrected a "slip": when about to type "boys" I began to type "bodies" instead. Tragically, that would not have been an error on my part.) The show also told the story of another boy who was in the midst of dealing with this problem, being victimised especially by one boy in particular.

I have a problem calling anti-queer violence "sexual bullying" both because "sexual bullying includes far more than anti-queer violence, and anti-queer violence includes far more than sexual bullying. The rape of women and the bashing of lesbian women, trans people, and gay men, for example, are not forms of "sexual bullying" exactly. Or, they are at least that and also are other things, like the use of force to degrade and subordinate, so as to make said victims more compliant and amenable to what patriarchal men want from women and trans people. Surely the "sexual bullies" discussed on the program were or are not intending to get "more frequent sex--the kind bullies want" with the victims while all concerned are adolescents in public or private school systems.

There is something quite insidiously dangerous about using the term "sexual bullying" to refer to anti-girl, anti-woman, and anti-queer violence, all stemming quite directly from misogyny. But what else is left out of the equation if we consider it "sexual bullying" when it happens among pre-adolescents and teenagers in or around schools?

For me, that answer is that there is actual violence done to specific groups of people because they ARE members of that group. Calling pre-adolescent boys who are "effeminate" or "odd" gay, if they are not yet aware of their own sexual orientations and do not self-identify as gay (however privately they do so), is a form of [sometimes lethal] gender policing, making sure boys learn to not behave as some (by no means all) girls behave, in any visible ways. Calling boys and girls "gay" for liking Disney's High School Musical series is not the same thing either. "Gay" has become especially popular as an insult, but it was one when I was a boy too, and it's never stopped being used that way by anti-gay assholes, or people--younger and older--who just don't understand what they are saying, nor the impact of saying it. Children who are lesbian and gay, or transgendered, do not have to be bullied overtly to take our own lives. We do so, at alarming rates, independently of rates of bullying, simply because we learn we are socially despised (if in heterosexist societies). What happened to the three boys was a tragedy. Their sweet selves never got to live beyond their early ages. Those who knew them never got to see them reach adulthood. This is cause for outrage and grief. And we ought not conflate this particular form of venomous cruelty with anti-lesbian/anti-gay violence, even while they appear to have some of the same features.

I used to babysit two white Jewish kids; the girl was three years older than the boy. And I was friends with their mom. (Each of them--mom, daughter, son--and I are still friends.) Two incidents of note:

1. I realised they were beginning to use the term "gay" to mean "stupid" or "uncool", and that they picked this up from their elementary school environment. So, after consulting with their mom, I told them about my first boyfriend who was gay, and how a brick was once thrown against his head because he was gay. (Needless to say, I "came out" to them as well.) They stopped using the term to mean those things after that talk.


2. When their divorced mom's ex-husband, the biological father of these two wonderful children, who also parented them for the first few years of their life, found out I (their primary babysitter) was gay, strange things happened. He had already arranged for them to be with him for a year, in a distant state in the U.S., but once in his home he then filed for full custody based on that fact alone. Letters I had written to the boy were photocopied and presented in court as "evidence" by the prosecuting attorney--and idiot--of this molestation that had apparently been going on--well, in the mind of the boy's father, anyway. Keep in mind the boy had never made any allegations, nor was there ever any evidence of him having been molested... by anyone.

The judge, a fair-minded person, dismissed the case. She told the "ex" that he has wasted all of their time in court and that the allegedly damning letters revealed to her a very appropriate, caring relationship between babysitter and the boy. His children have not been that close with him ever since then; but he went on to have two more. They and I are close and I consider them part of my chosen family.

The "dad" had two more children with a second wife. Again, one girl and one boy. He raised them in one of the more white conservative/homophobic school systems in Kansas, and when this other son was a teenager, there was a lesson on the sin of homosexuality, or some such nonsense. In protest, not necessarily knowing of his father's history of being a misogynistic/homophobic asshole, he held hands with a male friend, visibly, during the whole anti-queer lecture. He's heterosexual, btw, which only matters because him doing so as a socially identified heterosexual male made a different statement and had different consequences than if a gay-identified teenager had done the same thing.

Which brings us back to the matter of "sexual bullying" not being the same thing as "queer-bashing" (even if the "bashing" involves neither sticks nor stones, but instead only words). [The book linked to there deals with racist and misogynist speech-as-harm, primarily. But many of the points apply to anti-queer speech as well if it occurs in a deeply heterosexist society such as the one I live in.]

Calling lesbian girls "dyke" and gay boys "fag" is something else. That is in the same category as whites using the n word against a Black person, and as men using the b or c word against women. It is intended to humiliate and degrade and otherwise harm someone, deeply, for being who they intrinsically are socially--for being a type of person over which they have no control. It is not due to "naturally occurring traits" of race or gender or sexuality" which is the stimulus for harassment and other violence, btw. The stimulus, the causal agent, is a violently dualistic and hierarchical ideology, made real in practice, in the society in which one lives.

About the matter of "causation" when it comes to "sexual bullying", I have serious disagreements with Dr. Susan Lipkins. She was a guest on this episode, and a support person in the thirteen year old boy. They had done some counseling together, some of which was filmed and aired on Oprah's program. The ethics of airing that is for another conversation. This boy has endured a great deal of anti-gay and misogynistic violence in the form of "sexual bullying". As a potential solution to the problem of being bullied she did not see that anything needed to be done to modify the behavior of the abuser. Instead she worked with the victim to learn the necessary skills that would enable him to stand up for himself and speak out against what is happening to him, directly, to the bully. We all know how well that approach works for women with rapists: "No" being contorted by fucked up men to mean "Yes".

Then another professional on the show promptly noted the following: in some cases, vocally or otherwise opposing or standing up to the bully may result in much more harm coming to the victim; this may become the time when verbal bullying moves into verbal and physical bullying. It may be the time when one bully rallies his troops to more thoroughly destroy the esteem of a victimised boy or girl.

Dr. Susan Lipkins also said, quite clearly, even if she meant to say something else, that schools and parents cannot be responsible for this behavior. She may have meant this to augment her statement that our children are sometimes alone with other children, without teachers, guidance counselors, and parents to look out for them, but the effect of her statements on me, and obviously to others there in the audience and beyond, was to "blame the victim" for not doing what is possible to do that will cause bullies to not be bullies.

As someone who was bullied for seven years consecutively in my childhood and adolescence, I'll tell you that me stating "No" or otherwise vocally opposing what was happening to me, which I did, had no effect whatsoever, and only egged on the bully to humiliate me further. So I believe "professional counsel" that teaches victims to "just say no--loud and forcefully enough" is a crock of shit, and dangerous in many ways. In my view, any psychotherapist or guidance counselor who believes this is "the" approach to teach and employ when abuse is happening inside a school system has no business counseling children.

Ironically, strictly speaking, homophobia means the fear of that which is the same, as opposed to heterophobia, which means the fear of the different. Let us now consider the fact that heterosexual men are raised to loathe gay men, who are, after all, also men. And men are raised to loathe heterosexual and lesbian women for many reasons, but the bottom line is "they are not the right kind of female human being"; in patriarchy, "Woman" is, by definition, not the right kind of human being. This partially explains why in some past Western cultures--also virulently patriarchal and lethally misogynistic--"same sex" sexual unions were not regarded as evil or bad. In some ways, in some societies, they were seen as preferable to the so-called "degrading acts" of the allegedly good, pure, rational, spiritually high and holy man laying down with the allegedly bad, impure and polluting, irrational and emotional, low and beastly woman.

We can note that one of the most common Old Testament verses quoted by homophobes and other heterosexist assholes, Leviticus 18:22, is the one that when, mistranslated and misunderstood, is sometimes said to mean: "Thou shalt not lay down with [have sex] with a man as one would [have sex with]a woman".

As has been noted by many feminist thealogians, the interpretations of this verse are largely CRAP, and are misogynistic at least as much as they are homophobic, and also deeply racist. The secular or religious "crime" per se, is for a man to behave as a woman behaves [sexually]. Some interpret this to mean men ought not take a penis into any part of his body, because to do so is to behave as degraded humans (patriarchally meaning: women) do.

I've always thought this "meaning" ignores the fact that surely it is something about the penis that must be socially and morally foul, if women who have contact with it are damned, and men who have contact with it are also damned, even if only masturbating! That penis/serpent is a dangerous thing, in the Old and New Testament/Christian Bible. What is it about the snaky penis that will degrade in a heartbeat? Is it that it is used in such a way as to degrade? Could it be that "How the penis is used by a man" determines whether or not the "engager" with said penis is degraded by such contact? I'd say yes. If men use their penises, or words, or hands, or any other dimensions of their beings to degrade women, that is an abomination.

Thou shalt not degrade a woman with a penis or by any other means.

That's not in the patriarchal Bibles I've seen; I just wanted to see what it would look like, and to imagine growing up in a society--and there are such societies--where this is a basic tenet or moral belief. (They aren't necessarily industrialised societies, but they existed and do still exist.)

We know men use our penises in ways that are, to use that biblical term, an abomination: men use them to hurt others, to harm them (causing them physical injury), to subordinate, to degrade, to humiliate, to dominate and control. Men use many other aspects of their beings to accomplish these goals as well.

"Thou Shalt not be a Patriarchal Man".

I just wanted to see what that looked like written down, as I can't seem to find it in few books pulled together by patriarchs, leaving out the stories that were not misogynistic.

In conclusion, I think that shows that when we approach the matter of "girls and boys being ridiculed in school", sometimes so severely or ceaselessly that the child feels the only escape is death, we had best distinguish between the ways in which this violence functions as overt misogyny, as anti-queer activity, and as gender policing.

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

On Pornography Addiction and the Resources to Deal with It



The above image is from here, which, if you click on it, provides one way of understanding "pornography addiction" by having you fill out a quick quiz. I have serious social and political objections to this way of understanding "the problem", which is also reflected in the blurb that follows.

From here:

What is porn addiction?

Similar to someone with a chemical or substance addiction, porn addicts tend to replace important relationships and commitments with Internet sex or other forms of porn. Non-Internet porn addicts can be found in places like strip clubs and adult bookstores, but it is unlikely that they have a strip club addiction or an adult bookstore addiction, but rather that they have consistent and compulsive sexual problems that appear in a variety of settings.

Pornography addicts tend to isolate themselves when engaging in their sexual acting out. They can typically spend many hours or even days lost in online images and experiences. Some also lose time to Internet addictions such as online fantasy games and/or gambling sites.

__________________________________

What follows now is not from either of the above sites; it is solely written by the blog host of A Radical Profeminist:

It goes without say that in many men's minds and practices, there is no such thing as "a problem" when it comes to using pornography or to using women as pornography. Pimps, procurers, sex traffickers, pornographers, nudist and non-nudist child molesters, all maintain a culture where the problem is seen more as "censorship" or "prudery" than the oppression of women by men, sexually and otherwise. Against all evidence, prudery and censorship are not what feminists want more of. So much for the lies spread across the web about anti-pornography feminists.

There is a population of people who does think there is a problem regarding men's compulsive or habitual use of pornography, especially and particularly while they are in relationship with a woman who is not pro-pornography.

I am aware of four significantly different approaches to dealing with this social matter called "pornography addiction". I'm sure there are more than four but below I'll distinguish between four, and will offer brief critiques and comments of each. (Note: The use of quotes around specific terms or words in blog posts seems to carry with it an implied condescension or snarky attitude. It appears to be dissing, putting down, being cynical or sarcastic about, or showing overt contempt for "that which is in quotes". I do not use quotes in this post, anyway, to indicate any such attitude.)

1. Twelve Step Approach. Financial cost: nominal contributions to each meeting, or no cost at all. This is based on Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, with their structure (steps) and values (in a god or higher power to whom one relinquishes control and to whom one looks for powerful guidance and wisdom), including the value of anonymity and confidentiality. Here, either in interpersonally (in meetings in real space) or interactively (in meetings or gathering sites online) one finds "fellowship". I have a lot of respect for these groups for a few reasons. One is that they are very accessible and affordable. Another is the value of community support, of "not doing it alone". Yet another is the way that meetings set up contexts of care and compassion. I find all of this remarkable and good, overall. I am disturbed by the way Dominant Christian values are infused into "treatment" and find this, when done, to be most misogynistic, heterosexist, and usually overtly anti-lesbian/gay. For example, see here. See also the sites linked to a the beginning of this post.

2. Psychotherapy. Financial cost: often and usually significant, well beyond most people's means. This is usually a one-to-one paid talk relationship between a therapist and the "client" or "patient". (The therapist usually holds a degree in social work or psychology and counseling, such as an LCSW but among such therapists there are various models for treatment. A cognitive-behavioralist, for example, who may hold additional or different degrees. A psychiatrist, holding an MD, will likely prescribe pharmacological medicines and offer talk therapy as a support to the medications. This is usually expensive, although some people who have healthy insurance may find that the costs are covered, at least in part, through their insurance. I think for those who can afford it, there is value in psychotherapy, whether psycho-dynamic (with a focus on understanding behavior in light of one's history and with an effort to bring insight into the client's experiences) or cognitive-behavioral, which often takes an approach of working less to "understand", and more to effectively interrupt and stop the problem behavior.

3. A rare approach, articulated well in some reading materials and discussions, including the soon to be released book, Pornography and Love (due out soon, in 2009). Financial cost in this case: the price of the book, or free if the book is obtained through a library loan system or is borrowed from a friend. That book, and perhaps others, chronicle how a couple (usually heterosexual) copes and deals with a partner's or spouse's (most often a man's) "addiction" to pornography, and related behaviors, such as checking women out in obvious ways when together in public. I know of one case in which this has been effectively accomplished, and "success" is defined in quite different ways than in approaches 1 and 2. (Or in the next.) Here, success is determined by the degree to which the needs of each person in the relationship are being met. What may count as "successful" work for one couple, may be only "stage one" for another. At best, the process allows for mutual sharing and compassion, as well as clear articulation of boundaries and needs. Ideally, any sexist or other oppressive dynamics in the relationship are challenged along with the man's use of pornography, but I am VERY doubtful about this outcome being likely.

4. A feminist approach. Financial cost: none. Here "success" is measured in the degree to which a woman, if in a heterosexual relationship, is not exposed to pornography and/or her male partner's use of it. This effectively means he stops using pornography, or they split up. A primary and central value here is "how does pornography use, and pornography in general effect women". Pornography, here, is seen less like "a drug" to be kicked, or a "problem behavior" to be curbed, but more as a human rights violation, a form of undermining women's self-esteem and integrity as human beings. There is a focus on how pornographers and those who use pornography harm women, not on how the use impacts on the man who uses it, although this approach could include that as well. I stand by this model for approaching the "problem" of "pornography addiction" because of it centralising the oppression and exploitation of women by men, and because it places a premium on issues of men's access and accountability to women.

A fifth approach would be to purchase a series of books or CDs which teach you "how to stop using pornography, such as this one, which I don't recommend as I have no more information about it than do you. Financial cost: varies.

No approach needs to be employed exclusively in a way that prevents bringing in useful aspects of other approaches. But my experience is this: that all other models, perhaps most especially 1 and 2, do little to make conscious what, for me, is the central problem: how women are used and abused sexually and economically, in misogynist, racist, ageist, and ableist ways, in order to maintain male supremacy, among other systems and ideologies of domination and control.

In a future post, I will highlight how approach 4 can be brought into a relationship among men, where one or both men have a history of violating women, at least visually. I consider the exchange I will excerpt or replicate in full to be one that is responsible, which is to say, responsive to the feminist concerns I have been aware of for over a quarter of a century.
END OF POST.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Bullied to Death: Two Devastated Moms Speak Out

WEDNESDAY'S OPRAH WINFREY SHOW:
For more, see here.
END OF POST.

Genderism: a definition


[image is from here, a great source for lots of other wonderful buttons]


I define "genderism" as a politic, a social order, a philosophy, and an ideology which seeks, in its human manifestations and expressions, to distort and demean humanity in profound and destructive ways in order to create and maintain the gynocidal/genocidal/ecocidal reality of male supremacist societies and their cultures.

Western liberal societies often refer to "gender"* as synonymous with a person's "sex"--with what is assumed to be a fully natural phenomenon (whatever that means) in which the human species is neatly and discretely "made" in two distinct forms: female and male. Popularly, in many societies, these "two" genders are posed as opposites, as compliments, or as two parts of an otherwise incomplete whole. (This post is not about "sex" in that sense. Nor is it about "sex" as that term is used to refer to interpersonal sexual behavior.)

[*not all white-dominant and Western liberal societies use that term as the U.S. does; in Sweden, for example, I've heard from a Swedish friend that the term for "gender" is used primarily in academic circles, and is not as popularly used a term outside the academy as it is in the U.S.]

As polar opposites, "female" and "male" are understood and treated as essentially different, fundamentally not alike, in bodies, in character, in brains. What one gender is, the other is not. So if males are "strong", women are weak. If men are logical and reasonable, women are irrational. In Christianity, if men are close in spirit and temperament to a god in the sky, women are equated with the dirt and the devil.

As compliments, female and male while substantively different, are not necessarily understood as "in opposition". In this view, often, women and men may be seen to offer different gifts: women are seen as intuitive, knowing from the body, nurturing, emotional, peaceful; men are seen as cerebral, knowing from the mind, dominating, rational, war-prone.

As two parts of an otherwise incomplete whole, this view also allows for the possibility that women might be valued by men, but likely does not conclude "woman" is ever spiritually whole unto herself. As someone who once wore "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" t-shirt--for years until it wore out, I reject this view personally. As a gay male and as a profeminist it is, for me, an intrinsically heterosexist/anti-lesbian view, if not also more generally misogynistic. This view too often fuels absurd and harmful expectations of what in the West is termed "romantic love".

Often these three views are braided together, so that opposites attract, are meant to be together, and, if fortunate, also be soul mates. Romance novelists, soap opera screen writers, "great" white male supremacist novelists, and pornographers all work to keep these ideas alive.

As I understand them, radical feminist theorists and activists, during my lifetime and before, have sought to expose each of these views as dangerous to women and girls, to humanity as a whole, and to the Earth and all its inhabitants. Liberalism, feminist or not, has often sought to make what is seen to be "the best deal" for women and girls with some unquestioned assumptions about genderism. For a good discussion on these distinctions and the protections to male supremacy built into these unchallenged assumptions, see, for example, Catharine A. MacKinnon, in both Feminism Unmodified and Toward a Feminist Theory of the State--the latter book in some ways a more formal and theoretically refined version of the former. Using the index to look up her discussion of the work of Carol Gilligan in each books will bring the reader to the chapters in which this is explicitly discussed in terms of liberal feminists' work and theories. It should go without say that anti-feminist liberal writers and other social citizens pose far more misogynistic views of women and girls. 

"Liberalism" here, I use as a term that defines a perspective, a philosophy, a politic, that is popular if not always prevalent in white male supremacist societies.

In non-industrialised, non-Western societies, gender is a far more fluid construct and reality. In some societies, for example, there are as many as eleven genders. Using Western English terms--which has its own problems, in all societies there are babies both intersex, which is to say their genital formation is or later changes to become not identifiably just female or only male. In many societies, some variation of transgendered people have existed and exist. In white male supremacist ("WMS") societies, intersex, and transgendered people are often viewed by non-intersex and non-trans people as "a problem" in some regard that "gendered" people are not. This is akin to how heterosexist societies often view "homosexuality" as either "problematic" or "sinful" in ways that heterosexuality [allegedly] is not.

Intersex and transgendered people are, in WMS societies, commonly discriminated against, harassed, ostracised, alienated, and otherwise mistreated.

In WMS societies, women and girls (and some boys and men who do not fit with the gendered standards of the era and region), are frequently mistreated and discriminated against as well. What is particularly grievous is that whether girls and women fit or do not fit, it doesn't make them immune or safe from the violence against women and girls that is endemic in and foundational to WMS society. To draw on two examples of womanness, both "butch" women and "femme" women are harassed, for example, and may be raped precisely because they are females who at least one man feels entitled to degrade or violate.

Women of color face discrimination and violence from at least three groups of people: white men, men of color, and white women.

For the purposes of this post, I here define "sexism" as the oppressive, subordinating, systemic, systematic mistreatment of women and girls by men and boys. It is unavoidably harmful in a Western gendered social hierarchy. "A level playing field" does not exist in WMS societies, racially or sexually, therefore "sexism" can't go "both ways". The same is true of racism: there is no level playing field between whites and people of color. The ways that sexism manifests in women is in how women buy into and practice male supremacy, to the detriment of womankind. Racism manifests in people of color in ways that strengthen or do not challenge harm people of color thereby strengthening white supremacy. But in politically, structurally meaningful (reality-based) ways, women cannot be sexist to men; nor can people of color be racist to whites. They don't have the structural or institutional support. For a visual, imagine white people atop a hill and PoC at the bottom, with success being defined as being on top. Boys have to maintain space; PoC have to work just to approach the space, and then contend with those defending it. And laws define the top space as rightfully and appropriately white-dominated.

Heterosexism is the belief and practice of making whatever current version there is of heterosexuality appear natural, unaltered by era or region, normal, and healthy--a social good, and all other ways of being "odd" or "harmful to society"--a social evil. Racism, sexism, and heterosexism are each tied to specifically dehumanising and harmful assumptions of meaningful differences in "value" or "personhood", as assigned and enforced by systems and structures of white heterosexual male supremacy (WHMS).

I am not using the term "genderism" here as a synonym for "sexism". For me, this is the distinction: Sexism is the political practice of subordinating and otherwise oppressing and degrading women and girls as such (by men and boys), already defined as women, men, girls, and boys--in whatever language a particular dual gender system/society employs. "Genderism" in other words, must pre-exist sexism, socially, for sexism to exist. Genderism is a belief that "gender" is a social imperative or a natural inevitability.

A critique of gender among radical feminists, as I have understood such critiques, includes a belief that for women to be liberated from male supremacy, not only must male supremacy be uprooted and completely transformed or eradicated. Unlike some philosophies which have argued that females or males are "naturally evil" or "no good" no matter how they are raised, the radical feminisms I have held to firmly and absolutely reject this. In 1977, Andrea Dworkin addressed the danger of women supporting a view of men as somehow "naturally oppressive" in her speech, Biological Superiority: The World's Most Deadly and Dangerous Idea.

In the last ten to fifteen years particularly, I have witnessed tensions and hostilities develop between some non-transgendered feminists and some transgendered people who do not identify as feminist.

Whenever two oppressed groups are engaged in serious conflict, it is my opinion that their oppressors always win. This is to say, if women make the primary fight for liberation against other women, if trans people and nontrans women campaign against each other, if lesbians and gay men are embattled, WHMS is strengthened. The possibility of  radical transformation opens when all our struggles are geared toward identifying, challenging, and working to eradicate gender, race, and sex as social-political hierarchies. We must keep in mind that race, gender, and sex are enforced ideas and ideologies, backed in the real world with great violence and other coercive pressures. We live inside the ideas of others; and those ideas, when institutionalised, can be deadly.

There are, of course, feminist trans people who have publicly stated that if hierarchical dual gender systems were eradicated, or if they'd never existed, "transgenderism" wouldn't either. It goes without say that "genderism" wouldn't either. But "genderism" and gender are not synonyms. As noted, many societies have beliefs that there are far more than two genders, and that each has value, and belongs in the community as a social good.

There may still be at least a few women who argue that once male supremacy is wiped clean off the Earth then the current political meaning and ideological existence of "woman" will be radically removed as well, and may also disappear. This doesn't mean that "women", as liberated people, disappear. Ungendering patriarchal societies at the root level liberates us, it doesn't annihilate us.

MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) and other white male supremacist activists have quite self-servingly and misogynistically promoted the least promoted views of very few feminist-identified women as emblematic of feminism generally. (These men also just make crap up and pretend the statements are truisms of feminism.) About a dozen or more "famous feminist quotes" make the rounds (around and around, to the point of inducing nausea) on various pro-WMHS websites, "proving" that feminism = man-hating, for example, in part by arguing that feminists call for "the eradication of men" when what virtually all of those feminists were describing was the necessity of eradicating male supremacy and "manhood" in its oppressive, hierarchical forms. (Again, as stated above about women, the men, as people, do not go "poof" when and if the mission is accomplished. There is no plan to exterminate men-as-people that I've ever heard of from any feminist; what I've repeatedly heard is a call to reveal, challenge, and (hopefully) end male supremacy in all its social-political-economic manifestations.


Some transgender activists make a similar claim: that the perspectives and agendas of some radical feminists will mean 'transgender' reality goes away. If your identity, as a man or as a trans person, is 'you', you may imagine that means you disappear. Careless or willful misunderstanding what radical feminists state is in service to the oppressive status quo.

For the raced gender that is alleged to manifest the greatest, most supreme levels of "intelligence", it is remarkable that these white men can be so completely and willfully ignorant about the meaning of some of the feminist quotes they pass around. It strikes me as absurd that they are unable to comprehend the political systems in which they are systemically and systematically privileged and esteemed, not the ones who are disadvantaged and degraded.

Andrea Dworkin was apparently quite optimistic about the possibility of radical feminism accomplishing its goals when she gave that speech in 1977. Now it is abundantly clear that any belief in the natural or Goddess-ordained superiority of women over men is nothing more than a rare idea among a few ostracised individuals.


Debasing nontrans women and defending nontrans men, together, remain the status quo. White heterosexual male supremacy remains one of several main sources of gross global human atrocity, more seriously and negatively impacting women and girls worldwide. Any proposed manifestation of "female supremacy" has never had mainstream status, established roots and branches, let alone ripened fruit offered in hand.

In primarily Western academic circles, Judith Butler is often quoted and misquoted, often in simplistic ways, for noting that gender is "performed". My response to that statement is this: to the degree it is performed, it is done so on a man-made stage, with male supremacist snipers in the audience and in the wings, ready to take out anyone who doesn't "perform" it correctly, according to WHMS gender standards. To assume there is a way to socially perform gender in a white male supremacist culture without facing that threat and violence, is to not grasp what genderism is and does.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

USA SURPASSES ALL THE GENOCIDE RECORDS!

[above image is from here]

Below is just the artwork, without John Lennon and Yoko Ono standing by it.

It is a piece by the artist George Maciunas, who was part of what has been termed the Fluxus Movement. Yoko Ono was among the few women who were part of this movement. She has gone on to do many other creative works, in many media.
Flag poster designed by George Maciunas; it measures 54.8 x 87.8 cm. [this image was found here]
END OF POST.

In-Fidelity: Corporate Capitalism = Genocide = White [Mostly Male] Supremacy

Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with Fidelity's Albert R. Gamper, Jr.
[image was found here]

The following information on this Company is from here, and it took quite a while to find it online!
Fidelity Management & Research Company
SnapshotPeople
OverviewBoard of DirectorsCommittees

Fidelity Management & Research Company INSIDERS ON BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Name (Connections) Relationships Title Age
Edward Johnson III, 45 Relationships, 78
Dennis Dirks, 39 Relationships, 59
Albert Gamper Jr., 107 Relationships, 66

Other Board Members on Board of Directors
Name (Connections) Relationships Primary Company Age
Abigail Johnson, 105 Relationships,Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index Tracking Stock, 47
James Curvey, 38 Relationships Geerlings & Wade Inc., 72
Arthur Johnson, 44 Relationships Lockheed Martin Tactical Systems, Inc., 60
Alan Lacy, 45 Relationships Oak Hill Capital Partners, 54
Peter Lynch, 112 Relationships The Lynch Foundation, 64
Joseph Mauriello, 44 Relationships Arcadia Resources Inc., 63
David Thomas, 67 Relationships Sprint Nextel Corp., 58
Michael Wiley, 65 Relationships Bill Barrett Corp., 57
George Heilmeier, 40 Relationships Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 71
Marie Knowles, 151 Relationships McKesson Corp., 61
Ned Lautenbach, 153 Relationships Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc., 64
Cornelia Small, 62 Relationships Fidelity Advisor Growth & Income Fund, 63
William Stavropoulos, Ph.D. 157 Relationships, Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc., 70
Kenneth Wolfe, 57 Relationships Revlon, Inc., 67


The following Company information is from here.
Fidelity Management & Research Company
SnapshotPeople
Company Overview

Fidelity Management & Research Company is an investment management firm that acts as the investment advisor to Fidelity's family of mutual funds. Its equity investment strategies include growth, growth and value, high yield, indexing, value, small-cap, mid-cap, large-cap, and market timing. Fidelity invests globally, specifically in the United States, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, Europe, and global emerging markets. The firm is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. It operates as a subsidiary of Fidelity Investments.

82 Devonshire Street

Boston, MA 02109-3605

United States

Founded in 1946

Phone:

617-563-7000

Fax:

617-476-6150

www.fidelity.com

Key Executives:
Mr. Rodger Alan Lawson
President
Age: 61

Mr. Joseph B. Hollis
Chief Financial Officer
Age: 59

Mr. Stephen P. Jonas
Executive Director

Mr. Richard C. Habermann
Senior Vice-President and Portfolio Manager

Mr. Robert von Rekowsky
Portfolio Manager
Age: 42

There should be LOTS of outrage, over this really stark display of intentional pro-genocidal policy.

See also, here and here, and here, and here.

More news on this is here and here.
END OF POST.