Please Donate Now to Women’s Liberation Front to help keep women/girls as a protected class under the law; ensuring their right to safety away from predators, violence, sexual abuse, and harassment that comes about from transgender policy loopholes that makes it lawful for born males to access any female facility only on the basis of a self-declared gender identity, at a time when peeping incidents with electronic recording devices are high. Schools are being threatened with federal defunding if they do not comply with vague, unscientific transgender policy rules. Female students are now being told they have no right to complain about feeling uncomfortable. These new bills aren’t about harm reduction, nor are they necessary reforms of TitleIX; it is the destruction of it’s intended purpose; making sexual abuse acceptable under law.
This extreme intimidation is completely anti-woman and anti-feminist. Vandalizing feminist literature, and attempting to scare women out of a feminist space shows a complete lack of respect for women’s struggle and the history of that struggle to gain our humanity and rights. These patriarchal male dominating tactics of making feminists the enemy should prove beyond a doubt that the new left is attempting to erase woman, our right to organize, and our history of intellectualism and achievements for a cult mindset.
I’m not sure when the definition of progressive queer activism changed to mean defiling and destroying women’s spaces, but unsurprisingly, the violent men of Queer activism (terrorism) are at it again. And quite honestly, they (GAG) can fuck the hell right off – violent patriarchal repression of women with a shiny coat of queer paint is still male violence and misogyny – and has no place in a society that claims to value women and stand for ‘equality’.
This violent shit doesn’t raise eyebrows or cause a stir in the media because the targets are only women after all. Meghan Murphy and the Guerrilla Feminist Collective are on the case though. Thank heavens.
“GAG / Gays Against Gentrification have vandalized the building housing the Vancouver Women’s Library. This latest action is prompting the following comparison of this new alt-white group’s activism.
♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂…
View original post 461 more words
Transactivists are aggressive and violent. Males intimidating, threatening, and shouting down women because they want to force them to accommodate feminism for them. This is the silencing and terrorism of women.
I was so incensed by the news that Michigan State’s women’s lounge was closing in favor of something more “inclusive” that I wrote the university’s president imploring her to re-open it. I kept it short and to-the-point:
Safe spaces for women and other minorities are absolutely necessary. We’re not living in a post-sexist society. Women need women-only spaces to protect them from abusive, entitled, misogynists. Re-open the women-only lounge.
As MSU continues to evaluate facilities and programs to ensure access for all students, plans are under way to convert the space that has historically been used as a women’s study lounge in the MSU Union. This decision was reached to ensure access for all students, consistent with the University’s federal Title IX obligations, and not as the result of any one individual’s complaint. The redesign and construction of the space is slated for…
View original post 623 more words
Dear Michigan State University,
The first thing you should knowabout me is that I’ve looked up to you as an institution since I was a child. If there is such a thing as a legacy MSU student, I was one—the third generation in my family to be offered admission at MSU and accept. I graduated from Michigan State’s professional writing program in 2009 with high honors, and I have proudly represented my alma mater since.
The second thing you should know about me is that I am a woman, a fact that has had a profound impact on my life experiences in general and those I had in college in particular.
I come from a small town in northern Michigan, so it was not until college that I learned to fear walking alone at night. It was not until college that I experienced walking to a party and being followed…
View original post 1,497 more words
Women’s safe spaces are under attack by transactivists and MRAs. Please Sign.
I was just reading an article about how a self-proclaimed men’s rights activist got Michigan State to close their women-only lounge based on cries of “discrimination against men.” When you’re done hurling plates against the wall, sign this petition to reopen the lounge and provide a safe space for women.
Also, feel free to write the university’s president Lou Anna K. Simon here: firstname.lastname@example.org
When I stumbled over sadomasochism in my late teens, I felt like everybody was getting something I didn’t. Why did they choose a Marquis as a symbol of the huddled masses? Why was whipping people associated with freedom for these people? Why did sadomasochists try to make themselves out as an oppressed minority and “the cool kids” simultaneously?
It was like an inside joke, and I was determined to get behind it. I mean, it was there. When I came out as a Lesbian, one of the first books I read about being a Lesbian had a long section in it about how to do sadomasochism (and another one mocking separatism). Our local women’s and Lesbians’ café held sadomasochistic workshops. And I was a leftist. By sheer association I figured I should be okay with it.
I went to university, and of course sadomasochism was there, too. Again, student organisations…
View original post 12,104 more words
“We’re surprised when we read stories about “women” who break into houses and ejaculate in underwear drawers, molest children or murder their spouses. Then, when we learn the perpetrators were born male, we’re not surprised anymore. Because the words “woman” and “man” mean something.”
you aren’t a marxist leftist if you don’t believe in sex oppression and reproductive exploitation of the female. marx was a fuckin terf, engels was a fuckin terf, you loons. you vapid goofs. literally that is the basis of collectivist-communalist political theories, the bourgeois exploitation of female reproductive labour as a way to serve the maintenance of a large proletariat wage slavering workforce
the tie is inextricable and this ‘soft queer radical communist’ tripe has no actual basis of intelligent, coherent thought behind it
liberalist tarrycock…neocaptialist idiocy
why have the queer cabal co-opted all of the edge with none of the analysis? this is starting to become more and more apparent to me and is disconcerting. it is a real obstacle to liberatory direct action when identity politics take precedence over materialist analysis.
if your identity is dependent upon the capitalist consumption of goods engineered to perpetuate the oppression of…
View original post 283 more words
“The narrative is this: people living in these “war torn” societies don’t have the same moral values as the troops who come, often but not always from Western countries, to protect them. As the Blue Helmets head off on their expeditions, they’re applauded for bravely choosing to bring decency into a country where citizens are too barbaric to look after themselves. It’s this good vs. bad narrative that clears the way for violence.”
Content warning: Rape, Sexual violence and abuse
A Blue Helmet’s job is, quite literally, to keep the peace. The UN peacekeepers whose nickname comes from their characteristic headwear, are supposed to protect people in countries torn apart by war. However a steady drip of accusations coming out of the Central African Republic (CAR) suggests it’s Blue Helmets who are the threat to civilian safety.
Three girls in the CAR have told a harrowing tale, in which a French peacekeeper tied them up, along with their friend, stripped them and then forced them to have sex with a dog. This sickening abuse of power is not isolated. Soldiers from France, Gabon, and Burundi have allegedly committed atrocious acts of sexual abuse against women and girls in the CAR. Just last year, peacekeepers reportedly forced refugee children to perform sex acts on them, telling them it was the only way…
View original post 1,105 more words
With women’s liberation, civil rights, and homosexual rights, historically oppressed and subjugated minorities have gained more ground in society. Though, in response, there has been a giant cultural backlash, with structural oppression manifesting in numerous forms as a result. One way this is done, and often overlooked, is through the appropriation or co-opting of progressive ideas that help continue to serve capitalist, patriarchal ideals, instead of dismantling them. Another is through our collective unconscious, learned, and internalized prejudices carried along through the technological advances of the time. Often, the problem lies in the ignorance, arrogance, and lack of solidarity with marginalized groups’ issues from more privileged members of society, who don’t face the same issues and experiences, so find it hard to relate. This keeps a tradition of white, male, and upper-class supremacy in place in our culture, despite the tireless efforts of the oppressed to change the system.
This is a long list of some examples of what should be outdated, conservative, or anti-feminist forms of thought, that seeped into the politics of the progressive movement:
- Domination and submission are a natural part of human sexuality and romance.
- Domination, submission, & violence are a natural/inevitable part of male & female relations.
- Getting off to the fantasy of having power over women isn’t misogynistic; it can be feminist.
- Dehumanizing portrayals of women in pornography doesn’t reinforce, nor encourage violence against women.
- Hardcore pornography is just meeting market demand.
- Criminalizing/banning violent and abusive depictions in pornography is censorship and against freedom of speech/expression.
- Criminalizing/banning child pornography or sexualized depictions of children is oppressive because it’s a violation of freedom of speech/expression.
- Female porn actresses are never raped in the making of pornography.
- Women are never coerced into sex acts in the making of pornography.
- Women featured in pornography are never harmed in it because it is a choice.
- Pornography doesn’t cause harm to women and girls in society.
- Pornography doesn’t condition boys’ thoughts on girls/women, and sexuality.
- Pornography is a good educational tool for sex; it doesn’t teach rape myths.
- Pornography is about sexual liberation and has no connection to systemic oppression.
- The porn industry is completely safe and consensual.
- There are no corrupt porn companies.
- Pornography is feminist and a healthy reflection of sexuality.
- If there were no prostitution or pornography, men wouldn’t be able to control their sex drives around women.
- Male violence against women in pornography shouldn’t be stopped because it is needed to prevent men from perpetrating crimes against women.
- Violence and misogyny depicted in pornography are just fantasy.
- By fetishizing misogyny, sexism, racism, ableism, sexual abuse/slavery as just play; it overcomes these issues in reality.
- Using historical or current oppressions as pornographic scene themes is simple, fun, entertainment.
- It’s a form of bigotry for historically oppressed groups to be offended by people imitating their oppression in pornography or as a sexual fetish.
- It’s more socially acceptable to make oppression into an erotic art in society than it is to fight against it.
- Parody or satire negates sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, ableism, etc.
- Oppressed groups who are offended by sexist, racist, homophobic & ableist, etc. jokes are humorless.
- Oppression and abuse are funny.
- Feminist women against the sex trade are just prudish about sex.
- It’s oppressive to women to be against the sexual objectification of women.
- Women who refuse to recreate porn acts with their partners are frigid prudes.
- Girlfriends and wives should accept their boyfriend or husband’s porn use or else they’re prudes and not open about sexuality.
- Women who are against media that depicts the degradation or hyper-sexualization of women are moralist prudes.
- Violence & pain during sex creates a greater bond between two lovers because it evolved naturally with sexual intercourse.
- The male desire for dominance isn’t something that can be controlled.
- Women secretly desire for men to be dominant and violent toward them.
- Dominant & submissive roles, along with some violence, are necessary for relationships to function.
- Punishing your partner and spanking them to relieve frustrations is healthy and acceptable if it’s done as a sexual fetish.
- Relationships that practice consensual violence, domination, and submission are superior to other relationships.
- There is more consent in BDSM relationships and sexual encounters.
- Creating a safe word other than ‘no’ doesn’t minimize the meaning of the word.
- Creating safewords other than the words ‘no’ or ‘stop’ is more consensual.
- Sexual dominance is masculine, and submissiveness is feminine.
- Equality and mutual respect during sex are too plain and boring.
- Sex is about getting instant gratification.
- Trauma can be healed through further humiliation & pain in power exchange relationships.
- Trauma bonding is part of gaining full trust, forgiveness, and agreement in a relationship.
- If a woman agrees to subordinate herself to a man, then it is empowering to her as a woman.
- One should embrace sexual feelings that might arise from their own past, or current, traumatic sexual abuse.
- Getting a sense of fulfillment from the desire to dominate and control others is a normal sexual desire that has nothing to do with abuse.
- Pornography hasn’t been used as patriarchal manuals by men.
- Pornography has no relation to prostitution.
- Pornography used to coerce or groom people into degrading sex acts or prostitution isn’t a big societal issue.
- Pornography has no big influence on culture or on people’s behavior and attitude toward women and girls.
- The women featured in porn choose it, so porn doesn’t perpetuate sexual objectification and degradation.
- The porn industry doesn’t promote pedophilia, child molestation, and child pornography by sexualizing teens and young women as virginal girls.
- There is no science to prove pornography influences people’s attitudes or behavior.
- There’s absolutely no science to back up the claim that pornography has an effect on men committing sex crimes.
- Pornography doesn’t reinforce or promote misogyny.
- Violent & degrading, sex and pornography are liberating & empowering for women.
- A woman can still be a feminist by participating in & promoting misogynistic, and dehumanizing depictions in pornography.
- It’s sex-negative and bigoted to be opposed to male pornographic fantasies of degrading, raping, torturing, or molesting women/girls, because it’s just fantasy.
- Women being roughed/beat up by a man who penetrates them for pornography is just a job.
- Being at risk for sexually transmitted diseases without required protection is just a part of the job.
- Calling women whores, sluts, bitches, cum dumpsters, etc. is sexy and okay in porn.
- Sex can be reduced to a transaction; not a mutually equal bond between people.
- Sex trafficking and sexual exploitation are not inevitable consequences of a growing globalized sex industry; they’re an inevitable result of the criminalization of the sex industry.
- The criminalization of prostitution is just like drug criminalization, leading to the exact same results.
- The sex trade commodifying female bodies doesn’t lead to sex trafficking.
- The sex industry has no relation or close relationship to organized crime.
- Prostitution isn’t the result of poverty and patriarchy.
- Men in power paying for sex with women on the side isn’t sexist; it’s receiving a service.
- Women are sexual objects to be used, bought, and sold for men’s amusement and sexual entitlement.
- Men’s sexual right to purchase women for sex is a part of women’s sexual liberation.
- Having sexual access to women is a need that must be provided for men.
- Paying for sex or access to another person’s body is a human right.
- Paying for sex or the bodies of prostitutes is always fully consensual.
- Money equals consent in prostitution.
- Privileged men with money isn’t a power dynamic in prostitution.
- Men paying to access women’s bodies isn’t about having power over women; women have the power of sexuality over men.
- Women selling their bodies to be penetrated by men is empowering and gives women more power in society.
- Equality means ignoring power relations between different groups of people.
- Feminists have no business critically analyzing or questioning women’s life decisions, even if they were made within a patriarchal cultural context.
- Coercion is a choice that women have some personal responsibility in.
- Women being influenced by beauty standards in the media is empowering and of assistance to them.
- Unreasonable beauty standards in the media shouldn’t be prevented, as it’s just a reflection of our human desire to idealize certain features.
- The beauty/modelling industry doesn’t significantly contribute to the sexual objectification or harm of women and girls.
- Women are meant to be of sexual service to men, and men are meant to be sexually served by women in society.
- It’s women and girls’ right to sell their sexuality to men in a capitalist, patriarchy, in order to make a living.
- Some women are more useful for the sexual use of their bodies, they shouldn’t be encouraged to strive to contribute any more than that in society.
- Women had agency in prostitution throughout history, even though there were highly patriarchal societies back then.
- Modern-day prostitution used to be considered a sacred part of the spiritual worship of womanhood in the ancient past.
- Soliciting people on the street for sex is just a business method used to get more customers & employees; never a form of sexual harassment.
- If a man cheats on his significant other to fulfill his desire for certain sex acts with younger, prostituted women; it should never be condemned, because you’d be condemning a man’s natural sexuality.
- Men believing they have a right to access female bodies that fit patriarchal beauty standards & what they see in porn, to do what they want with sexually, has nothing to do with male domination.
- Men’s right to buy access to women’s bodies must never be challenged, because you’d be condemning a man’s natural sexuality.
- Monogamy is a forced, oppressive, social institution; polygamy is natural so isn’t.
- Men believing they should be able to have multiple sexual/romantic relationships with women at one time because it’s their natural sexuality has nothing to do with patriarchal male entitlement/power.
- Pointing out the sexual objectification of women in the sex trade in a capitalist, patriarchy is whorephobic and leads to their deaths.
- Sexual objectification is empowering for women.
- Sexual objectification is a women’s right.
- Sexual objectification is natural to our sexuality.
- Women are meant to be sexually objectified.
- If women choose to sexually objectify themselves, then it’s empowering.
- Age of consent laws discriminates against both men and girl’s natural sexuality.
- Age of consent laws are oppressive and harmful to girls because it prevents them from having bodily autonomy.
- Pedophilia is a sexual orientation.
- Pedophilia should never be condemned as a sickness because you’d be discriminating against the pedophiles who haven’t molested kids.
- Pedophiles are more oppressed than homosexuals.
- Pedophiles are an oppressed group that faces unfair discrimination.
- Sex offenders are an oppressed group that faces unfair discrimination.
- Creep Shaming is discrimination against male sexuality.
- Animals can consent to sex with humans.
- If a man says he is a woman, females should be totally accepting and unquestioning of it, or else be labeled as a bigoted, paranoid conspiracy theorist.
- If a man says he is a feminist or working for the benefit of women; feminist women should be totally accepting/unquestioning of it, or else be labeled a bigoted, paranoid conspiracy theorist.
- Men who desire to go into a women’s spaces can never have any ill intentions, to think so is to be a bigoted, paranoid conspiracy theorist.
- Men aren’t desperate to find ways to perv on women or girls in private facilities.
- Peeping toms and recordings aren’t a big privacy/safety concern for women/girls.
- Women who fear sexual assault/harassment from men are paranoid & irrational.
- Female sexual assault victims who fear sex crimes from men accessing female private facilities are paranoid/irrational, & shouldn’t be listened to.
- Women who believe there are perverted men out there who wish to spy on women in private facilities are paranoid and irrational.
- Concerns around letting males in female spaces on the basis of self-declared gender identity are hysteria and have no basis in reality.
- There are no dangerous consequences to making changing/shower/bathrooms gender-neutral or allowing access to the rooms of the opposite sex only on the basis of self-declared gender identity.
- There have never been any attacks on women and girls from males identifying as women/girls in private facilities and to say so is transphobic.
- A man can totally understand & relate to what a woman’s lived experience is like living in a patriarchal society.
- If your feminism centers on women’s issues and doesn’t prioritize men’s feelings or issues, then it is extremist.
- If your feminism doesn’t accommodate men’s hurt feelings then you’re an extremist misandrist.
- Men are oppressed by misandry.
- Men are oppressed by patriarchy.
- If a woman says a man isn’t feminist because he’s causing harm to other women, she is an extremist misandrist.
- If a woman says men can’t be feminists because they are part of the oppressor sex class, she is a misandrist.
- Women born female gathering/organizing together is oppressive & should never be allowed.
- Women only spaces hurt and silence men.
- Women are not entitled to female-only protected spaces.
- There is something wrong with lesbians who refuse penis in their sex lives, they need to be corrected.
- Lesbians who refuse penis are transphobic.
- Lesbian women who refuse penis in their sex lives need to try it out or they’re bigoted.
- Women who have sexual feelings for the female sex, and don’t conform to gender standards, have male brains.
- Feminist women who center women, and only have relationships with other women, are vagina fetishists.
- Heterosexual males can be lesbians and know what having a lesbian sexuality is like.
- If transwomen activists threaten or act aggressively toward women it’s acceptable & justifiable, but when women do it to men it’s wrong.
- There is no reverse racism, but reverse sexism is called: Radical Feminism.
- TERF is not a slur, they’re a subgroup of women that deserve hatred, misogyny, death and rape threats.
- Women who acknowledge that women are oppressed on the basis of their sex are reducing women to vaginas.
- Women are privileged over men.
- Gender doesn’t oppress women, they’re privileged by it.
- Women are privileged by their subordinate gender status.
- Gender gives women and girls easier lives than men.
- Girls do not experience a significant difference in gender socialization as boys do.
- There is no significant gender socialization in culture, it’s biologically destined.
- There is no distinction between male and female lived realities.
- Females do not experience the same material realities based on their sex.
- Females as a sex class are not oppressed on the basis of their biological sex.
- Female biology is whatever a man says it is.
- Woman is whatever a man defines it as.
- Being a woman in this world is like whatever a man feels like it is.
- Being a woman is just a feeling.
- Woman is anything a man associates with femininity.
- Woman is a stereotypical gender expression; heels, dress, make up, & femininity.
- Societal gender norms are just as, if not more, oppressive to men than they are for women.
- If a male gravitates toward female gender stereotypes, then he is actually a woman, because no real man would ever do those things.
- Femininity is an empowering choice for women.
- Women who reject femininity are femmephobic.
- There’s something innate about feminine and masculine gender.
- Gender identity is innate and fixed.
- Gender must be affirmed in society, not abolished.
- Ending sexism means biological sex isn’t real.
- Men should be leading & dominating the feminist discourse in a women’s movement.
- If your feminism doesn’t please men or isn’t approved by men, then it’s bad and harmful.
- Men patronizing, policing, publicly humiliating, & silencing marginalized women is okay as long as you demonize them for their feminist sociopolitical views first.
- Men were the great heroes and go-getters of the past, who achieved great things; not the oppressors of women.
- Women weren’t that much more oppressed than men were in the past.
- Women’s oppression is equal to men’s.
- Women must treat their oppression as equal to men’s in their struggle to end their oppression.
- Equality with men should be the main goal of feminism to end oppression.
- Joining forces with men in a revolution is the only way women will end their oppression.
- Men can’t be blamed for their actions, culture is.
- Poor, disadvantaged, men were only victims who never dominated women in the past.
- Men do not have more power over women in society.
- Male violence isn’t the biggest problem in the world.
- Intersectionality means not focusing on male violence against women.
- Intersectionality means putting women’s issues behind other issues.
- Intersectionality means women have just as much power as white, heterosexual, men do in society.
- Intersectionality means women are not a political group with their own needs.
- Intersectionality means centering women in feminism is bigoted.
- Intersectionality is about putting more importance on solidarity with other oppressed groups than on women having solidarity with each other.
- White supremacy has no link to male supremacy.
- Racial minorities need to cooperate with the establishment to end systemic racism.
- The large sex trade in indigenous or racial minority women and girls has no link to white supremacist colonialism.
- Heteronormativity is feminist; it’s equality between men and women.
- Going along to get along with your oppressor is about equality, not submissiveness.
- Giving up independence to live with a man is an empowering choice for women.
- Women choosing submissive roles is feminist.
- Marriage isn’t a patriarchal institution, it’s about equality.
- Women who have been most affected by patriarchy in their lives don’t have more of a say about their oppression than men do.
- Women are not an oppressed sex class, whose goal should be that of collective liberation, it should be about individual empowerment.
- Ignoring male privilege & the lived experiences of oppressed women is treating them equally to men.
- If women want to be treated equally, then there is no reason to respect them as women.
- A man believing himself to be intellectually superior to women in politics and saying a woman hast nothing intelligent to say, is legitimate criticism and has nothing to do with sexism.
- Labeling women, crazy, isn’t sexist if you think they’re being illogical, and there are no historical sexist implications to that.
- Feminist words and ideas are more violent than actual violence.
- Radical feminism causes male violence and crimes against women, not the men who perpetrate them.
- Women perpetuate patriarchal violence.
- Women can be blamed for male violence.
- Materialism, consumerism, neoliberalism, and poverty aren’t the inevitable results of capitalism.
- A free market under capitalism creates freedom for all.
- Personal choice is of the utmost importance.
- Everything in our lives is the result of our own choices.
- If someone volunteers to do something, then it’s not exploitative or harmful.
- Wage labor, economic exploitation, and striving to become a part of the capitalist class are feminist goals.
- Women and racial minorities will become free through wage labor.
- Members of historically oppressed groups supporting & gaining levels in a capitalist system ends oppression.
- Equality and liberation can only be achieved through the top down.
- The West using military force in third-world countries are saving women and girls.
- Pointing out how the inferior status & control of women is enforced and maintained through religion is offensive, extremist, and anti-feminist.
- Conservatism in religion isn’t extremist, anti-theism is.
- Feminist women who are against religion just need to learn more about religion from religious groups/people.
- We must respect religious cultural traditions/values.
- We should always look at other cultural practices from a cultural/moral relativist perspective, not in the context of oppression.
- Female Genital Mutilation should be a respected cultural practice; it’s racist and colonialist to oppose it.
- An outright ban of Female Genital Mutilation is a form of cultural prejudice.
- Labiaplasty is a choice free from coerced patriarchal beauty expectations and has no relation to Female Genital Mutilation.
- Groupthink, and using a position of power to intimidate, and bully those you disagree with, are effective strategies that show your position is the correct one.
- As long as you aren’t sending rape and death threats it is okay to persecute some feminists for their beliefs.
- Working toward a truly equal and free society is overly idealistic and Utopian; only reformism in an oppressive system is the solution.
- Wanting a society or belief system that isn’t built around a superior/inferior hierarchical structure is extremist.
- Oppressed groups can reclaim the slurs used against them, even if they weren’t created by them in the first place.
- Men achieved and earned their privilege in society; women just need to compete more.
- Even if born males who claim to be transgender have a past of murdering, abusing, or raping females, they should still be respected as women, be allowed to change their identity, and be granted access to women’s safe spaces.
- Men saying they feel female, even if only sometimes, is enough for them to be considered women, and allowed in women’s safe and private spaces.
- If a man says he is a woman, gender fluid, or non-binary, that puts him in a group that is more oppressed than both women and racial minorities.
- White, heterosexual men who’ve experienced gender dysphoria are in a more oppressed group than women and racial minorities.
- Heterosexual males are a part of LGBT+.
- Heterosexual males are victims of homophobia.
- Males are victims of misogyny.
- Men who’ve experienced gender dysphoria suffer more than oppressed women.
- Patriarchal oppression, internalized misogyny, body image issues, enforced gender norms, or lesbian/bisexual interests are not causes for gender dysphoria in girls.
- Gender dysphoria means transgender; a gendered culture or other mental health issues shouldn’t be considered as contributing factors.
- Even if gender dysphoria is a delusion, it should be treated as if it’s real.
- Gender dysphoria in people can only be treated by encouraging the belief that they’re born in the wrong body, must go straight to transitioning, & undergo a sex change operation.
- Gender non-conforming children are transgender.
- Sterilizing and experimenting with hormone blockers on prepubescent children, who are told they’re born in the wrong body, is healthy.
- There are no moral issues with operating on children for a sex change, when many don’t realize they are homosexual until later on in life.
- Children that don’t fit into gender stereotypes associated with their sex, and like stereotypical things associated with the opposite sex, should be assumed to be internally the opposite gender.
- Claiming transgender status is not a way people are dealing with internalized homophobia in a heteronormative society with strict gender roles.
- Gender dysphoria isn’t a symptom of a gendered society showing gender is wrong; it shows gender is real and innate.
- Medical transition is healthy, not harmful.
- Pharmaceutical companies aren’t pathologizing gender non-conformity for profit.
- Sex-segregated spaces are exactly the same as the racist segregation of the past.
- Forcing schools to grant male teens access to the girls’ locker rooms if they say they’re transgender isn’t a violation of Title IX & complicit in sexual abuse.
- Gender-neutral bathrooms and changing rooms are about gender equality.
- Transwomen need safety from male violence, not females.
- Homosexual interests/behavior may be a sign of sexual inversion.
- The fetishization of violence against women must be respected as a sexual orientation, but not lesbianism; women loving the female sex.
- Women who recognize biology and sexual dimorphism are obsessed with genitalia.
- Women who want to protect female-only safe spaces from predatory men are bigoted.
- Women who don’t want violent males in their spaces believe women can’t be violent.
- Female violence is as much of a problem as male violence.
- Men being able to hit women is about gender equality.
- Men are not biologically, physically stronger than women.
- Male penetrative rape isn’t more physically harmful or any different from a woman sexually assaulting another woman.
- Male penetrative rape isn’t about patriarchal power.
- There is nothing potentially more harmful and dangerous about Penis in Vagina for females; to say so is to be discriminatory toward male sexuality.
- To say Penis in Vagina is a patriarchal sexual expectation women are forced into, is anti-male sexuality.
- Women who feel victimized and violated by revenge porn are ashamed of their bodies.
- Sharing nude photos without a woman’s consent wouldn’t be a problem if more women felt comfortable being naked around men.
- Real radical feminists adhere to male demands of what feminism should be like.
- It’s men’s job in feminism to weed out the women who say things they don’t like.
- Radical feminist women must be inclusive of men calling themselves women, even if they terrorize, stalk, and threaten them with anti-feminist tactics.
- Brain sex theory is science that proves gender exists.
- Transwomen are female.
- Saying men can’t be women is hate speech.
- Transracial is cultural appropriation, but transgender is legitimate.
- Feminists who reject gender are sexists who promote the gender binary.
- Feminists who believe gender is a social construct are promoting genocide.
- Using the wrong pronouns on a trans person is equivalent to systematic violence.
- Feminists who resent men are just broken, abused individuals, who have a warped view on life, and blame men for all their problems.
- Feminists who believe the sex industry and gender are harmful are responsible for male violence.
- The sex trafficking of girls and women to fulfill male sexual demands isn’t a big deal.
- Underage girls can choose to go into sex work.
- Men paying to have sex with underage girls isn’t sexual abuse; it’s receiving a service.
- Even if a woman started prostitution while underage, it’s still work, not sexual exploitation.
- Women’s bodies being violated, penetrated by penises, while having the highest risk for STDs, violence, rape, and death from men; isn’t different from any other job.
- Sex work should always be a voluntary option provided for women to get out of poverty.
- The problems in prostitution all stem from the stigmatization of selling sex, not from male power/entitlement/violence and the sexual objectification of females.
- The personal accounts of ex-prostituted women, who’ve joined prostitution abolition movements, shouldn’t be trusted, because they’re traumatized.
- Exited or current prostituted women who speak out against the sex industry are ideologues and liars.
- Exited or current prostituted women who see the sex industry as harmful, because of traumatic experiences, deserve hate and abuse.
- Ex-prostituted women working to abolish the sex trade in women/girls should be silenced for their oppressive views against prostituted women/girls.
- Ex-prostituted women who join abolition movements just had a negative experience, it shouldn’t reflect badly on the sex industry.
- Women who experience trauma from being prostituted are just not cut out for the job.
- Only those who like being prostituted should be listened to, the rest are lying for an anti-sex, man-hating, and radical feminist agenda.
- The sex industry has no relation to structural oppression whatsoever, it’s just sex.
- The West using wombs for rent from impoverished, women of color in the third world, for surrogates has no relation to exploitation, it’s all about choice.
- Poor women renting out their wombs to a wealthier couple has no relation to women’s economic oppression & exploitation of reproductive labor; it’s a consensual agreement.
- Women and racial minorities are the oppressors of themselves and of gender non-conforming men.
- Radical feminist women are oppressing women.
- Second wave feminists are outdated, bigoted, and shouldn’t be listened to.
- Older feminists aren’t as feminist as the new generation of third-wave feminism.
- Feminists who believe that feminism requires full devotion from women for it to be successful in liberating them are bad.
- Showing a commitment to radical feminist goals/concepts is ideological purity.
- It’s excusable to threaten, harass, track, stalk, and dox feminist women online if they don’t seem ‘progressive’ enough.
- Polygamy is a good arrangement because it keeps men sexually satisfied and women from turning to prostitution.
- There’s no such thing as sexism among gay men because they have been oppressed as much as women.
- Women of color should keep quiet about their abusive relationships because it makes men of color “look bad”.
- All-girl schools are bad for girls because by keeping them away from boys it doesn’t prepare them for “the real world”.
- You can’t choose two or more racial identities but you can identify as male and female.
- Women who critically examine the sex industry and sexuality are oppressive and comparable to Nazis.
- Women who say they’re oppressed because they’re biologically female are oppressive and comparable to Nazis.
- Women must be stopped from gathering in public spheres to discuss how their rights are being impacted by changes to definitions in policies and law.
- It is acceptable to threaten violence or be violent toward women labeled transphobic or TERF because their ideology is comparable to Nazis.
- Transwomen deserve sympathy no matter who they harm.
- Women/girls assaulted and harassed in safe spaces/refuges/prisons by men/boys identifying as women/girls, are just collateral damage in the effort to accommodate trans people.
- Young girls aren’t allowed to say they’re uncomfortable with male bodies around them in their private/safe spaces or establish boundaries with men/boys who identify as women/girls.
- Misgendering someone is a hate crime but not misogyny.
- It is okay to use authority to force people to accept others’ personal identity.
- Exit services for women/girls in the sex industry aren’t needed, more legal brothels are needed.
The solution here requires a lot of effort from the progressive movement to start critically examining the positions they are pushing and advocating for to see whether they are actually free from the strong influences of systemic oppression, or being influenced by, and helping to continue the institutions that perpetuate the subjugation of others. Then, to go onto working to dismantle these institutions.
You are welcome to leave any more examples that you can think of in the comments below… and I will keep adding to this list.
Disclaimer: The purpose of this site is simply to document. This site does not encourage or condone discrimination against trans men and women. It is in no way intended to demonize trans men and trans women any more than reporting on any other types of violence demonize women or men. Presentation of research data is simply that, presentation of research data.
A common myth in popular media is that trans women are never violent and pose no threat to women or children. While this may be the case for many trans women, it is certainly not the case for all and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. The following represents a list of crimes committed specifically by trans women. It only includes cases where trans or gender identity was claimed or diagnosed. Cross dressers and other males under the transgender umbrella are not included.
- Peter Rogers/Debbie Vincent – Theft, threats and bombs:…
View original post 1,703 more words
Some very valuable female wisdom:
“Why does everyone seem to insist that feminism must accommodate all beliefs and values, even beliefs and values that are harmful to women? “
Okay, I rounded… I admit it. I rounded 88% up to 90%. Substantially all still applies. Do not mistake that.
88% of the transgender population, those people who are protected by gender identity and gender expression laws, are, as reported by their own advocacy organizations, males with a psychosexual disorder. (1)
Many men with psychosexual disorders practice their fetish in the privacy of their own homes. But as many as 13,946,348 of them in the US, at the time of this writing, will be free to practice their fetish in public, in front of your children, in women’s locker rooms, in the girls bathroom at school. (2) This will be enabled by current and pending transgender legislation throughout the US. (3)
Transgender fetish is the largest sexual disorder reported in convicted sex offenders.(4) Almost 100% of convicted sex offenders have a documented history of transvestism, crossdressing, free-dressing, Autogynephilia, transsexualism…
View original post 1,620 more words
“When someone is so convinced that you have literally no right to an opinion, that they will do anything to try and stop you expressing yourself productively, there is no negotiation, no compromise, no dialectic.”
I am not an idiot. I know, it really needs stating.
I’m far from a lawyer, and I don’t pretend to be.
As an intelligent woman who used to write and amend laws, I’ve got a general comprehension of concepts like presumption of innocence, the burden of guilt and reasonable doubt.
You wouldn’t know it from the Men On The Internet.
In the wake of the Ghomeshi verdict, I said I believed women. Just that. Simple.
Since then, I’ve been inundated with men explaining veeeerrrryyyy sssllloooowwwlllyy that there’s such a thing as innocent until proven guilty, you know little lady.
WHAT?! THERE IS?! I have literally never heard that phrase in my whole life! I thought everyone was guilty of all the crimes until proven otherwise. Oh boy, I’m going to need to go back and reassess a whole bunch of life choices.
And you’re telling me that reasonable doubt is a…
View original post 698 more words
Over time, academics – Judith Butler, for one – got sloppy drunk on Deconstructionism and started applying the technique to other fields, like sociology, psychology, anthropology. (Scientists, you’ll note, have not jumped on the Deconstruction train because their discipline is, thankfully, rooted in that which can be verified by logic and reason.)
Queer Theory, which has hijacked every Women’s Studies program (as far as I’m aware) in the U.S., is nothing but Deconstructionist Literary Theory applied to human beings – the “science” of “because I say so.”
The other day, California Magazine, published a piece by a gay male academic/Deconstructionist who took some time to, not surprisingly, celebrate the eradication of Women’s Studies programs in favor of those that center around male needs, and to chastise mean ladies who question the assertion that their bodies, their lived realities are interchangeable with male bodies, and males’ lived realities. This man…
View original post 2,704 more words
“To “choose” your gender – as if gender weren’t a set of oppressive obligations and proscriptions invented by men to keep women physically, emotionally and financially handicapped, is a very masculine idea.”
I love this post so much, thank you for pointing out how the basics of transgender ideology are masculine ideas. This is why I try to avoid describing male trans as ‘feminine’ or ‘gender non-conforming’. The truth is they’re really just like any other man socialized in a patriarchal culture.
“The fact that they are using the trans lifestyle to promote their misogynistic and homophobic views should wake women up and make them realize they are fighting for the extinction of their own sisters.”
Astonishingly, and I say that sarcastically, since this does not surprise me in the least, trans women actually hate women. It isn’t just about men controlling women, this is flat-out misogyny at work here.
It’s no secret that trans women, being men, believe they not only have the right to use the words woman and lesbian to describe themselves and they not only have the right to women’s spaces, these men also believe they have the absolute right to women’s bodies. This is what the cotton ceiling is all about: men demanding that women who don’t want to have sex with them, have sex with them anyway or be accused of being bigots for not having open enough minds to see these men as women.
Let’s be clear, shaming, guilting, or tricking a woman into having sex with you is rape. Period. Full stop. Women, lesbians, have the right to…
View original post 863 more words
“I simply laughed PRIVATELY about a neckbeard fedora fool in a private message on Reddit, a website where men monitor the PRIVATE speech of women, lesbians and feminists for signs of PRIVATE LAUGHTER at ridiculous men, in order to slander, ban and censor us from public speech.”
“TransAdvocate is an aggregator site for anti-woman, anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-feminist trans bloggers.”
“When radical feminists try to police our terms, we are accused of trashing. This is probably because Socialists tend to be men and Radical Feminists are always women and women can’t open their mouths at all without someone telling them they’re not being nice enough.”
“Only then did radical feminists find out you spent almost a year working closely with someone who has demonstrated a political commitment to going after several women for years. This was done using anti-feminist websites, doxxing, slurs, malicious manipulations and mind fucking misogynistic obfuscations.”
Disclaimer: The purpose of this site is simply to document. This site does not encourage or condone discrimination against trans men and women. It is in no way intended to demonize trans men and trans women any more than reporting on any other types of violence demonize women or men. Presentation of research data is simply that, presentation of research data.
Despite reports from popular news media, men, including cross dressers and trans males (trans women), commonly spy on, harass and assault women and children in bathrooms and sex segregated spaces.
Men spy on women:
Men take advantage of “gender neutral” bathrooms:
Men dress up as women and spy on women:
Men dress up as women…
View original post 149 more words
Very beautifully written. I experienced this in my abusive relationship, but it’s actually a societal problem, and now I experience it in almost every interaction I have with men, both anti-feminist and men who wish to define feminism for us. The public oppression of females is responsible for the private abuse of women and girls. What a strong message! We must learn to live for ourselves and support other women for our dignity.
When they keep telling you, it’s you
and you keep saying, no, it’s you
and this goes on and on
and on and on and on and on and on
until you just can’t do it anymore
until you don’t care, just then
who it is anymore
That is when they think they win
That your defeat admits that it is about you
But actually, it was never about you
It was never about your love
or your sense of obligation
or your free heart.
It was never about your love
It was never about your creativity
it was never
about anything but a bunch of lies.
because lies work
lies mindfuck us
because we are trained to always be kind and trusting
see how that works?
they may not know what they do
but they still do it on purpose
because it works. So, sisters
the goal here, the…
View original post 75 more words
“not all people who describe themselves as ‘queer’ are entirely uncritical of pornography and BDSM”
This is interesting (but two years old, so not exactly cutting-edge ‘news’ any more), that not all people who describe themselves as ‘queer’ are entirely uncritical of pornography and BDSM:
At least six people were arrested on Saturday night after a protest against a prison-themed Kink.com party. The protestors’ message was “queer liberation, not incarceration.”
This is a travesty–on the anniversary of the famed Stonewall Rebellion, where trans and queer people rose up against police brutality, that six people would be arrested for protesting an SF Pride-sanctioned party that celebrated state violence and prison rape.
The six included a National Lawyers’ Guild Legal Observer; several protesters were clubbed and beaten to the ground after a protest numbering several hundred marched to the Armory at 14thand Mission Streets in the Mission District, from a 10 p.m. gathering at the 16th Street BART Station
“Worse, women who want to eradicate gender-based oppression are forced to prove an allegiance to men: the same social class of people that oppresses women, before their arguments are considered. What a conundrum we women feminists are placed in.”
“Women’s spaces have been few and far between and bitterly gained. The erosion of our voices, spaces and our specific needs are considered ‘transmisogyny’ by those who haven’t lived a day of our experience.”
I took some time today to view the petition to fire/no-platform Meghan Murphy. I was interested in what these people who are calling for the burning of the witch had to say. Their petition tantrum has about 900 signatures.
I’m signing because as a sex worker, I am disgusted that Rabble publishes her garbage. I refuse to even read Rabble anymore because of it.
Meghan Murphy publishes intensely transphobic and sex-worker phobic material that has no place in a feminist publication. You have to do better, Rabble.
Sex work is real work!
Everybody deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.
less terfs more surf
Meghan Murphy’s effect on culture is detrimental to my well-being.
Meghan Murphy and all the other TERFs need to go… this is not what a real feminist looks like.
Meghan Murphy is an embarrassment; a anti-black, transphobic embarrassment.
I’m signing because I am a feminist…
View original post 1,709 more words
“They believe that females have no rights to any space or service or gathering, public or private, that excludes the presence of males, or that exists for the benefit of female fellowship, or for the protection of females from potential male predation.”
Dawkins is just as much of a “regressive leftist” as neoliberal feminists are. He thinks he can hide this fact by pointing the finger at feminist women, then claiming victimhood when people see through his shit. Just like other atheist men who think they’re logically superior to everyone else, he feels entitled to dictate feminism to women, even if it involves hurting other women in the process.
I’ve been watching on the sidelines as Richard Dawkins tweets himself into a corner. It all started when he tweeted a cartoon uploaded by a but-I’m-not-a-Men’s Rights activist, SargonofAkkad aka Carl Benjamin, on Youtube, (I won’t link it because it’s misogynist crap) The cartoon was ridiculous and featured a young woman that men’s rights activists have attacked for at least 2 years and who they call ‘Big Red.’ She was just a young woman who was at the University of Toronto protest against Warren Farrell, who is called the ‘father’ of the Men’s rights movement.
Here’s Dawkins’ original tweet that was captured and later erased :
Dr. Dawkins has deleted his tweet. We will not link to the video, but here is a screen grab of the tweet and video. pic.twitter.com/kzr1BqCTIG
— NECSS (@NECSS) January 28, 2016
This young woman was unlucky in the sense that she attended a…
View original post 1,383 more words
“Men silence women – even the “good” ones. Men in feminism fill the space. They infiltrate, dominate, captivate and warp feminism into a movement that is no longer about the liberation of women, but what men want.”
“Men are feminists too” “not ALL men” “what about men?!”
Women-only spaces are VITAL for women – all women.
I have attended many feminist gatherings over the last 2 years – some were formal such as conferences and some were informal such as social gatherings. For me feminist gatherings should be for women only because only women can be feminist. However, post modernism and liberalism have developed an uneasy, amorphous, glutinous mass within feminism. Boundaries are blurred and many social groups no longer have the ability to gather without interference from more privileged social groups. I find this incredibly sad, damaging and erasing.
Men have been present at 20% of the feminist gatherings I have attended since 2012 and the impact of men in feminist spaces has been significant. Men silence women – even the “good” ones. Men in feminism fill the space. They infiltrate, dominate, captivate and warp feminism…
View original post 478 more words
“The benefactors of an oppressive system have no business setting the language and parameters of the activism that seeks to destroy that system. The conflict of interest here is obvious to anyone willing to see it.”
When Emma Watson posted a tribute to the late Alan Rickman by highlighting one of his quotes about feminism, she faced a swift backlash for what some
people idiots claimed was a gratuitous promotion of feminism (because promoting feminism is a bad thing and famous people are never quoted in memorandum?).
— Emma Watson (@EmWatson) January 14, 2016
It’s always good overall, I think, when men can say the word feminism without looking like they’ve just smelled something funky. Although it’s helpful that not all men (or women) think it’s a dirty word, not speaking derisively about the movement for women’s liberation is a basic minimum of decency. If the bar has been set so low that men are lavished with praise for verbally recognizing that women are human beings, this is a solid argument for sustaining the topic in public discourse, to be sure.
The question is: who should shape and own that discourse? Lately there…
View original post 1,768 more words
Another male atheist youtuber who claims to be a feminist using hateful rhetoric against radical feminist women. He has made it known before when arguing with MRAs, that he’s in agreement with them that misandry and matriarchy are feminist threats to men, but that these ‘radical’ feminists shouldn’t reflect badly on the whole movement. Throwing us supposedly ‘bad’ radical feminists to the wolves because we actually challenge their privilege, instead of making feminism comfortable for them. Now he’s using the excuse that women aren’t really standing up for their civil rights out of concern for women and girl’s safety when it comes to trans right to invade our private spaces only on the basis of a self-declared gender identity, but that we really think we’re superior to men with gender dysphoria. Who cares about the many instances of crimes against women perpetrated by men wearing dresses claiming to be trans, male violence is no longer a problem for women apparently, so us bigoted feminists are just paranoid about predatory men taking advantage of our spaces. Supposedly, women actually have power over men even when our rights are under attack by them. Using his status as feminist to compare women he doesn’t agree with to oppressive men. No man who refuses to stand up for women’s basic right to bodily integrity, and acknowledge women’s material reality under patriarchy, while demonizing those who do, is an ally to women. This is why men cannot be feminists, they are twisting it to suit themselves. Women must reclaim our movement.
Kevin Logan and the ‘male feminists’ of Youtube regularly go after Thunderfoot aka Phil Mason and other MRA’s for their anti-feminist views while perpetuating the same attitudes and crap arguments they do. Kevin Logan can point out flaws in other people’s arguments but resorts to MRA strawman-type arguments in order to shout down women and girls.
In this video, Kevin makes a bale of hay.
Go to 46:10 and listen for a few minutes.
The best part was his set up. He’s a feminist because he’s able to learn dammit! He’s able to LOLgically see the world for what it is, uh, except for, uh, those nasty women and girls who want privacy rights. And those would be TERFS! He despises those privileged bigots who get video recorded and assaulted by males in what’s supposed to be a legally private space.
He also doesn’t get that men claiming to be women are invading…
View original post 540 more words
With my experience as a young woman just getting into the subject of feminism, even though the feminist part of me was already there, it took me a while to fully realize where my feminist positions really stood, and to self-actualize these deep-set feelings that I’ve accumulated throughout most of my lifetime. I began by learning about feminism on social media, after witnessing misogyny from content sharing sites such as YouTube.com, and this was my mistake.
On there, feminism is very unpopular, and will get you bullied by anti-feminist mobs for openly showing your support of it. Most anti-feminist videos are misogynistic in some way or another, while pro-feminist videos are few and far between, which results in them being massively down voted and given negative comments by the dominant, anti-feminist, male majority. Most youtubers in the public sphere are men, and as a result of this, they also dominate the feminist discourse within a small, youtube, atheist community. At my own expense, I learned more about how misogyny thrives in anti-feminist groups, but it was actually the men who claimed to be allies of feminism in the youtube community that turned out to be my downfall, or falling out with this online youtube community.
Male content creators who claim to be feminist or defend feminism like: HannibaltheVictor13 or Sequester Zone; claimed to have higher education in feminism and philosophy; making themselves authorities on the subjects in the youtube community. Many young men and women looked up to them on scientific, philosophical, and feminist topics. So when it came to feminism, these men controlled the conversation on it in the atheist community for quite some time; they decided which feminist topics were worthy of discussion, and used tactics to convince their followers to reject the feminist ideas in which they personally disapproved of. In this article I will explain how they managed to do all of this.
One method I want to discuss, is through classic gas-lighting techniques. As many feminists know, men have used this tactic for many years in order to subjugate women, by trivializing our concerns and discrediting our points of view; they render our lived experience and our material realities of being a woman in a male supremacist society as meaningless, unless it is validated by their own experiences, or it is them who are defining it. That, along with the intention to get us to doubt our own thoughts, feelings, and experiences. When I brought this up to SequesterZone, on him calling feminist women ‘crazy’, he didn’t even acknowledge it, instead he called me “a little crazy” for supposedly misunderstanding his argument against the other feminist, which was basically just an attempt at joining in on character assassinating her. I brought up how ‘crazy’ started out as an ableist slur and that it was offensive to me that he was calling women this, as a woman who suffers from mental illness, and that the women who he has labelled this may be as well. Still, he thought there was no reason to apologize. When I brought up how it is sexist to label women as crazy, he said I was mistaken, that I meant to say female hysteria, using the excuse that the medical diagnosis doesn’t exist anymore, so it’s acceptable to call women crazy now. He later went into defense mode in a video, resorting to mansplaining the historically, sexist, medical misdiagnosis of female hysteria to me, and how crazy actually means illogical in the context that he was using it in, which had nothing to do with the arguments I brought forth to him, which was actually about gaslighting women. I explained how even if a man thinks a woman is being illogical, whether or not she actually is, there is still a sexist trend of men calling women crazy in society. Of course, my arguments still weren’t being taken into any consideration. He ignored the Ph.D source I provided about how calling so called “bad” people crazy is both offensive and ableist to those with mental illness who are most associated with the slur ‘crazy’. This was actually an argument he, himself, had used before when arguing against one of the few, female, popular, atheist youtubers, Jaclyn Glenn, because she called the mass shooter, Elliot Rodger, crazy, but not misogynistic for his behavior. When those with mental illness are actually more likely to be victims of crimes, not the perpetrators of them. He also targeted her with another male “feminist”, saying nothing she ever says is intelligent and that the only reason she got to where she is, and why people like her on youtube, is because she is attractive. Then, going on to make a parody account of her on Twitter, with one tweet making an offensive lesbian joke with her and Rebecca Watson, who was a target of anti-feminist hate mobs.
My intentions weren’t to try to censor any use of the word crazy in any context. My point was that he was being hypocritical when it comes to calling out someone else for ableism when describing an anti-feminist mass shooter, but then turning around and describing feminists the same, and denying ableism has anything to do with it. And, thereby, ignoring any harm done that would result from calling other feminists who go after MRAs, ‘crazy’, as well as ignoring how women constantly being labelled as ‘crazy’ by men is a form of misogyny and gaslighting. There can be no denying that it has always been used as a weapon against women throughout history, that we are just over-emotional and not as logical as men are; that we are just overreacting when we bring up our issues with misogyny, and that anything we say cannot be trusted as being truthful. Despite this, somehow, he thought it was perfectly alright to call a female feminist crazy for her words in a past argument between the two of them that no one else had any knowledge of; not even giving her the benefit of the doubt for her words that were being presented, as well as misrepresented, in a video made against her by another male “feminist”. The reasons he gave for appropriately labeling her as ‘crazy’, is from a private argument between the two of them where he claims she was inciting bio-terrorism against anti-choice activists with something to do with using an aborted fetus, which I’m certain was just a hyperbolic response to anti-choice extremism on her part. He claimed she never looked at a source which proved that is what she was describing, but as it turns out, from a screenshot she took herself, you can see that it was he who never went to her source, that she had read his, and explained to him how it didn’t described what she was talking about. Apparently, he then got angry, blocking her afterwards.
The reason I decided to confront him on his behavior toward feminist women is because he called another female feminist crazy before in a past video of his, because she argued with him that religion is patriarchal. He denied that the God in Abrahamic religions has largely been portrayed as masculine gendered, which is quite a departure from ancient religions that came before, which worshiped the feminine aspect of divinity. Instead, he said God is supposed to be genderless. Basically ignoring how religious texts were written by men since the beginning, reflecting themselves as an authoritative father figure in God; playing a substantial role in controlling the structure of the family and women’s sexuality through patriarchal tradition. Instead, blaming a patriarchal culture on this, rather than considering religious texts could be patriarchal doctrines that have a strong influence on culture. He acted as though there is a certain purity that can be ascribed to historical religious texts, when they were really rehashed myths used to control the masses by the current power structure; as moral rules and guidelines are used to maintain the order of male supremacy. Someone’s own personal spiritual belief system can be secular instead of patriarchal, but this isn’t what she was talking about; she was talking about the indoctrination through patriarchal religious texts, which creates a continuance of the patriarchal family structure in society. One of the excuses he gave to me for calling out these women for saying religion is patriarchal, is that there’s proof Jesus was an actual person who lived at the time, so we should respect the bible as a book with recorded history and moral lessons in it. And that religion is sacred to people because it is traditional, so we should respect their belief system as well. I think this is the same argument used by religious people to protect religion from any atheist or secular criticism or analysis. And what about ex-religous women, especially those who come from countries ruled by the authoritarian religious-right? Are they not allowed to speak of their experience of oppression being connected to religion out of respect? He got very upset with her that she said he supported misogynistic religions, so he made a video against her, using personal details about unrelated viewpoints of hers to make her look crazy in the eyes of the atheist community, as well as sharing screenshots of her private messages to him without her permission. She was also not a content creator like him, so she shows how her arguments were being misrepresented by him in his videos in her blog.
So the questions that came to my mind was, what makes these men feel so entitled to dictate feminism to women while dismissing our concerns? Instead of calling out other male “allies” for their obvious misunderstandings, and disrespect toward feminist women? Why do they think it’s right to try to silence women from speaking against religious oppression? And why do they think calling women crazy for disagreeing with them is acceptable? Even if these men do hold some disagreements with these women, these actions should still not be tolerated. So I denounced SZ as a feminist for these actions, which apparently is something women are not allowed to do to these men who claim to be feminists, but something they have complete free rein to do to feminist women. Other men quickly went to his defense, by also using gas-lighting language, since they look up to this guy, they repeated his arguments to me; saying that nothing we were saying made any sense, and denying that any harm was being done to us. I then later faced retaliation from SequesterZone for doing this, along with others for our disagreements with him.
This all came about after another male, self-described feminist, youtuber called, Captain Andy, decided to make an attack video on a feminist who I personally looked up to. This woman was the first to make a google plus community for youtube feminists to share their comments, videos, or other information pertaining to feminism and women’s issues. I liked the feminist propaganda that she created because it emphasized the cruel and dehumanizing aspects of a male supremacist culture over women, it was one the first times I heard women’s oppression as being a result of an ideology of male supremacy. Her political messages were harsh, blunt, and didn’t coddle the feelings of men, and this is what upset these men the most. Captain Andy was offended by her comments about Islam, religion, hierarchy, and war. Demonizing her an islamophobe, racist, egalitarian, anti-theist, misandrist; as well as an over idealistic, hateful, idiotic, bigot. Some strong labels made from just skimming over her words and not looking into any deeper meaning behind them, and coupled with a poor understanding of basic feminist concepts such as: patriarchy and equality. Instead of featuring the dialogue that happened between the two of them, he took out of context quotes of hers to put in his video to paint her as a bigot.
His knee jerk reaction was to persecute her for what he perceived to be her socio-political beliefs, thereby persecuting other feminists who hold similar positions, such as: political/economic Egalitarianism and Radical Feminism; to which he felt appointed to label as extremist. He believed equality just means equal rights under the law in education, the workforce, and in politics. Pandering that ol’ liberal mantra that freedom and equality can only be enforced through existing power systems, which hint: are patriarchal and enforce oppression in other ways; through authoritarian, economic, and political power. If feminism were just about equal rights for women with men under the law, then there would be no need for feminism any longer after the first wave in the first world, but there is. Ignoring any differing definitions about the meaning of equality, which dismantles and questions authority and hierarchical structures that perpetuate a superior/inferior status, or master/slave power relations between people. Thereby, ignoring how there is a gender hierarchy; with males at the top and females at the bottom; maintained through systemic oppression and religion. And by taking the concept of equality to mean the descriptive, literal, definition of the word; when it comes to there being a truly egalitarian society. This is the same fear mongering tactics used against the concept of equality or egalitarianism by right-wing Libertarians; a vision of a kind of dystopian, conformist, society, where everyone is forced into limited standards so that no one is perceived as being better at something than anyone else. This, coming from a guy who now claims to be a socialist.
He defended the divisiveness you see among humanity brought about by religious tribalism; as if the warring hatred and intolerance between groups of people isn’t a result of this. Rationalizing that it is acceptable for groups of people to believe God created them superior to other groups of people, by comparing this to ideologies being better than other ones, and that it’s inevitable for people to think their beliefs are superior to others. He also defended masculine values of competition, as a part of our human nature to achieve, which cannot be altered. Ignoring the role a divisive and competitive community or humanity leads to hostility, selfishness, egoism, and social Darwinism; which downplays the enduring benefits of a united community of humanity; resolving conflicts by assisting each other, and advancing together as equals; rather than harboring an us vs. them mentality. By dismantling a competitive society, people wouldn’t be left behind to fend for themselves; lower class people wouldn’t be blamed for their situation, and told it’s up to them to get out of it. Materialism and consumerism wouldn’t be valued over human life. People wouldn’t be told they must strive to climb the economic ladder in order to be valued or find value in life. Violence wouldn’t be glorified and celebrated in order to rally people in uniformity against other people’s differences. No one would be dehumanized by being perceived as weak or inferior; domination and oppression would be foreign concepts. Men wouldn’t be expected to prove their manliness through aggression, by being competing killing machines. An egalitarian society wouldn’t rely on a contradictory religious morality, which teaches love and equality, while simultaneously teaching hate and supremacy. Which is really all the point she was trying to make. But he called the positions that he perceived she held, utopian, and demanded that she had to make a well thought out plan to structure society in order to hold these beliefs against male supremacist values that create the conditions in society that oppress women, or else be mocked. Although, a lot of what he accused her of believing didn’t really reflect what she actually said, in fact, he defended the very things he condemned her for doing, such as: believing she was claiming to have superior knowledge about what she believed in, and that she was being divisive in feminism. Even comparing her to a cult leader. It was baffling to me that other leftist men were defending his backwards, clearly misinformed viewpoints, and the resulting witch hunt against feminists for their socio-political views. Something I’ve never seen these leftist men do to other men with similar values who defend feminism, in fact the opposite happens, these men are given support, and vice versa.
Captain Andy also denied religion has ever played any historical role in enforcing patriarchy with male violence and control through organized institutions. Or that men have been perceived as physically, intellectually, morally, and spiritually superior to women within the eyes of a masculine God in religion; who keeps women in a subordinate state for their perceived wickedness. The point she was trying to make was that people are indoctrinated into Islam and other religions in religious societies, where the religious-right has full domination of women and girls with the control of their bodies. Religion teaches unquestioning obedience to authority; that only men can hold superior positions in a religious hierarchy. As well as culture, religion is also a reason why women are forced to be modest and treated as the subordinates to men under what is perceived as God’s commandment; resulting in covering up, genital mutilation, being married off early, sexual slavery, and death for disobeying male authority. But he was also deflecting blame away from men for perpetuating a patriarchal culture, instead putting all the blame on culture for men’s actions against women from a moral relativist point of view. Culture does play a huge role in forming our belief systems, but this doesn’t mean the majority of men shouldn’t be held accountable for benefiting from patriarchy while harming women in the process. To say feminists are creating a conspiracy theory by saying patriarchy is enforced by men collectively participating in the oppression of women since the beginnings of civilization, is no different from MRA propaganda; it infantilizes men for their wrongdoings, portrays them as being an oppressed group, and denies them any personal or collective responsibility in the oppression of women. Banding together with other men in a brotherhood to deny women rights is more than just a mistake; it’s an intentional effort to dominant over another group. Men may have been raised to see themselves as more human than women, but they still contributed to, and continue to perpetuate a system of male supremacy. He used a one-dimensional, old-fashioned definition of patriarchy, which only mentions the rule of the father, but lacks a feminist theory of structural oppression, male domination, or the rule of man as master in society. He then denied that patriarchy exists anymore, using the excuse of there being a ‘kyriarchy‘ instead. And argued that working class men couldn’t have possibly held dominance over women in the past, because they were an oppressed class, basically using a “Not All Men” type of argument. Even though men in the same economic class as women still held dominance over them, because of a gender hierarchy, male violence and control, and the resulting male privilege from this. And, working class men, to this day, try to exclude women in male dominated industries.
Refusing to think outside of the box society has groomed him on how to view the world, he defended war as an inevitable, heroic, part of life; rather than being the biggest example of patriarchal masculinity and imperialism; that ought to be prevented to stop crimes against humanity. Because this feminist woman said she didn’t feel sorry for men who’ve died in world wars and emphasized the fact that women were finally welcomed into the workforce, and were given a chance to gain equal rights because many men were gone; he brought up how past female feminists played a role in pressuring men into going into war, but he didn’t mention how men had a role in voluntarily participating, creating a culture of war, or starting the wars themselves. This isn’t to say that many men weren’t forced into going into war by the state, but if he were really against this, he should hold the position that men should have collectively stood against it; not that men weren’t to blame for the atrocities they’ve caused, such as rape being used as a weapon against the enemy forces women; torture and mass murder. He said instead of condemning men for wars, we should have sympathy and respect for men who fight in wars, because they are protecting us; rather, treating us as their property, and other women as spoils or casualties of war. This isn’t to say that there weren’t ever men with noble intentions trying to defend their loved ones or destroy evil regimes, but in the majority of cases, this is just used as a cover to conquer more land, spread dominance, and gain more resources through male violence; most of the time, complying with the orders of men in a power hierarchy, where the top benefits from their deaths. Her saying that men must hold full responsibility for facing the inevitable consequences of participating in war, is in no way a pro-war stance, as Captain Andy put it, while derailing away from the point that war is a patriarchal institution that must be stood against.
Believing himself to be intellectually superior to the women he disagreed with, he had no problem with belittling us and calling us stupid in response to anything we said, yet while not appropriately refuting our arguments, just cherry picking out of context quotes to fit his limited perceptions. Taking no consideration as to the fact that women are largely stereotyped as stupid, and harshly judged for their intelligence, especially on political matters. I have to admit, that I didn’t make the best of arguments under his video, since I was completely unprepared to deal with his confusing interpretations. I made a few comments under his video inviting him to debate with me on what I thought he was misunderstanding about what she said, to which he intentionally ignored, even liking a comment by someone else who replied to me instead, even though the comment was clearly meant to be directed at Captain Andy. It’s not that he didn’t have the time, or wasn’t obligated to engage with me, as I was told by another dismissive member of the community, he just simply wanted to sit back and watch the drama he started unfold, while dismissing and demonizing anyone who tried to defend her. And later, blocking the woman who he had made the video against, so that she could no longer defend herself. Instead of just blocking and ignoring her to begin with, he wanted to make an example out of her with a video punishing her as a bad feminist, because he really just couldn’t handle debating against her; he found using his position in the community to defame her a lot easier to do. I had never felt so insulted in my life by people who claimed to be my allies and so I expressed this sentiment by saying they could not be feminists, and that they are men, so they could not possibly fully understand what women experience; to which they thought was misandrist.
He has since went on to attack women for their feminist views against prostitution or for being gender critical, demonizing them as ‘TERFs‘ and ‘SWERFs‘. Making ‘intersectionality’ into a sort of call-out competition, which does nothing to actually assist those who are affected by oppression, only to try and bully them for their socio-political viewpoints; further marginalizing and oppressing the people he chooses to not support, such as survivors of the sex trade. In other words, punching down instead of up. It should then come as no surprise a white privileged male like himself would believe nothing could possibly be wrong with men paying for sex with women, who are the majority of buyers, making up most of the demand, in an industry where women are mostly prostituted, and is the most dangerous for women. Men, who are more likely to be more economically and socially powerful than the women they use as sex dolls on their spare time. Reducing sex, something that is deeply intimate and personal, into a simple transaction, and resulting commercialized industry, does nothing to help put an end to gender and economic inequality in society; it only helps to further the sexual exploitation and sexual objectification of the most marginalized and vulnerable women and girls.
Later on, when I tried to confront SZ on how I felt ignored and hurt by both him and Captain Andy in the comment section after confronting him on calling women crazy, he went on to say that I was unworthy of his attention, because I was declared a troll by this self-proclaimed feminist. I responded to this by making a witty, semi-trollish, comment, calling out his love for BDSM, by bidding him farewell to go enjoy his torture porn. He used this against me by saying the only reason I was after him was because of his recent show of support for BDSM in one of his videos, even though the entire reason I expressed why I was upset with him was because he ignored the arguments I had made toward him under that exact video. As well as the recent ones I had made under the Captain Andy video that he went on to indirectly mock me behind my back about with his buddies on Twitter, rather than engaging with me. He mocked my concerns saying some people will still complain even when they are being treated equally. I told him in response, having my concerns as a woman in feminism being dismissed and trivialized by a man, is not being treated equally. But in his mind, this was an excuse for him to ignore his male privilege and to not reflect on his actions against members of an oppressed sex class; instead, treating me as if I’m like other oppressive men. One of his fanboys butted in on the dialogue I was having with SZ, mentioning an old 90’s BDSM themed video game to SZ, in which you gain points by whipping the clothes off of a chained up woman, both of them pointing out the absurdity of the creators ever thinking it was a good idea to make it, and that it is obviously sexist, but some how, along with that position, they think people should be uncritical of BDSM in real life; that it’s acceptable within feminist philosophy, and that I shouldn’t say someone who has more education in philosophy than me is less of a feminist than me.
In the then, recent video, where he mentioned BDSM in order to be “progressive”; SZ expressed a wish that if only more people were like people who practiced BDSM, then there would be no rape culture, since he believes they practice consent better than the general population. I found this to be unbelievable, not only because I’m against anything that erotizes sexual abuse, violence, and torture as being considered in any way a superior form of sex, but because we live in a rape culture, and surely any sexual practice or fetish can be subject to it. So I looked up some sources showing people who practice BDSM speaking out against the community for covering up instances of sexual assault, and as it turns out, there are many instances. It makes sense that careless, abusive, misogynistic people would be attracted to, and take advantage of a practice that sexualizes non-consent. Where despite pre-negotiated terms, the line between full, ongoing consent and coercion is often blurry. Not to mention, choking, which poses the risk of death, and becoming unconscious, as well as physical assault in interpersonal relationships, and torture; cannot be legally consented to. When someone is tied up, blind folded, gagged, and being choked, they do not have full control over what happens to them; they are put into a powerless position so that the sadist can get off. He has also opened up to others about how he has hit women in the face before in a sexual context, and that it was okay, because he was aware of what he was doing, unlike those who don’t understand consent. I would argue that abusers are at least somewhat aware they are doing something that is selfish and wrong to do to women, unlike him, which makes him more dangerous. Not having the intention to do wrong doesn’t necessarily mean what you are doing isn’t wrong. The fact that he wants to distance the practice of BDSM from consent violations, while others in the community acknowledge rape culture trends within it, shows he does not truly support sexual assault victims. I wanted to have a respectful discussion about this with him, but he decided to ignore my comment while replying to other ones that didn’t express any disagreement with him. I felt as though my comments must have offended him somehow, that he was upset that I even posted them, and that since I was not a content maker, I was unworthy of any response. In this video he also used a radical feminist on youtube’s personal sex life, to push BDSM as feminist, and to appear as though he is in solidarity with radical feminists against the label ‘sex negative’.
Under this video, I also questioned him on his stance on prostitution, which he said he wasn’t against it, but believed it shouldn’t be legalized. I asked him how could prostitution be separated from sexual objectification, since in a previous video he expressed the position that commodifying women’s bodies is the definition of sexual objectification, then going through a list of images depicting women that he didn’t believe were examples of it, that have long been considered to be sexually objectifying by feminists, such as: the male gaze and portraying women in a dehumanized or subordinate fashion. I also asked about what his views are on survival prostitution. He didn’t really respond to my questions, besides saying sex surrogates are an example of how prostitution isn’t sexually objectifying. I responded by saying having sex isn’t a medical necessity, and that these women’s worth in society is still being determined by the instrumental use of their bodies for sexual purposes. In a culture that highly sexually objectifies women’s bodies, making their bodies into a commodity to be bought and sold into a legitimate profession plays an intrinsic role in perpetuating the belief that women’s worth can be reduced to sexually servicing men; this belief further endangers women into sexual exploitation. Normalizing the commodification of women’s bodies as a positive, even healthy thing, ignores the real damage that results from it. My comment about Belle Knox, who he talked about in the same video, which I will go into later, were also ignored by him, and everyone else who watched his video. So all this made me feel pretty alienated in this youtube feminist community. From what I’ve experienced, it’s more likely that he had a bias against me for my comments; since he purposely avoided them, dismissed me as a troll, made a video against me, and afterwards went after a friend who defended a BDSM critical stance.
This all brings me to some other methods that are used to silence views deemed unworthy of consideration: Herd Mentality, groupthink, mob attacks, and online witch hunts against women. These methods are the most used on social media sites such as youtube in order to try to silence opposing viewpoints, especially feminist ones. Before joining the feminist community, I noticed these methods being used ever since I first began using youtube, while observing a small cult on it that was run by a narcissistic man. I found out later that this was an all too common practice. Basically any type of criticism or questioning of certain admired content makers, or of any of the positions they hold dear, is never allowed by them or their devoted fans. And with youtube and social media pop-feminism, there are certain topics that are declared protected from feminist critique, such as: BDSM and prostitution (“sex work”), unless they are being propped up in a “choice feminist” framework, rather than acknowledging patriarchal socialization and oppression.
While all of this was going on, SZ was set to host an all female panel hangout with some young, female feminists on youtube to discuss prostitution, all this being his great male ally idea, because debating whether men should have the right to use women’s bodies for their own sexual gratification is such a fun topic to debate about! Making these young women feel obligated to give their opinions on it for the feminist community, while potentially creating drama in the process; as is what always results when the topic of prostitution is brought up on youtube. But before this, there was another small hangout with some other prominent members in the feminist community. And because a feminist named, Buntzums, didn’t show up, and because she defended the feminist who was being demonized earlier, they decided to gossip about what happened earlier under the Captain Andy video, and to use this against her. She was labeled as crazy for her actions by both Hannibal and SZ in this hangout. This type of drama should have absolutely no place in a discussion that was supposed to be about a serious topic. And the reason for her not showing up actually has to do with her not knowing when the hangout was going to be until the last minute, which is highly suspicious. She also had no idea she would be the only one there arguing against prostitution, since SZ isn’t actually against it. Because of this, Buntzums created her own hangouts to discuss prostitution from a feminist abolitionist perspective, since she felt excluded from the other one. You can hear her account of how she was treated by SZ and the rest of them here. I can also say that I never saw a notification in the feed for what time the hangout was going to occur.
SZ then went on to make the attack video on me and others who also expressed concern for his behavior and stood up for the feminist who was being character assassinated by them earlier. Associating us with her as a terrorist, and slandering us as unintelligent trolls, as well as sharing private messages from Buntzums, after telling her he has never, and would never, share private messages. This is the attack video I mentioned earlier where he defended calling feminist women he disagreed with crazy, comparing this to calling religious extremist terrorists crazy, because they’re irrational; as if mental illness or religious beliefs don’t make people irrational; contradicting himself about how people should focus on the hate ideologies that motivate violence, instead of just excusing the perpetrators as crazy. In this video he named something along the lines of ‘Clearing the Air’, but it was really just him putting fuel on the fire. He said Buntzums was lying about what had happened, that she lied about him excluding her from the chat, and that this was all just a scheme against him to make him look bad; even though his actions prove to be incredibly irresponsible, and he was the one using his position in the youtube community to target us. He felt victimized as a male ‘feminist’, when all she had requested from him was for him to leave us alone and to focus on helping women instead.
And to be clear, Buntzums and another user named, MRAsExposed, are entertainers on youtube, but also hold serious positions against the sex trade. But he wanted to create an image in people’s minds of them being tricksters, when they only play as tricksters on youtube. In other words, he was trying to make others not want to take them seriously, as he has done before by calling feminists ‘crazy’ and trolls. Even comparing MRAsExposed to an MRA, because he said if he had a daughter he wouldn’t want her to go into the sex trade because of the risks involved. He wanted to lump us all together as examples of bad feminists in the youtube community, and that we are basically just prudes, even though he has tried to make it out like he is against calling feminists ‘sex negative’ before. No one should be punished like this simply for defending themselves or someone else, or simply for questioning a content maker on their positions or behavior. Attempting to publicly shame us for these things was more of an attack on our viewpoints; to make us targets in the atheist, feminist, and MRA communities.
We decided to refrain from continuing any drama by not reacting to any attacks made against us or interacting with those involved. And mostly because we really just didn’t have the time, nor the energy to deal with it. This has in a way, swept what has happened to us under the rug, but it’s also important to warn others about some dangerous youtube users, which is why I made this blog. These videos against us portraying us as extremists, rather than opening up a dialogue, were shown overwhelming support. We were victims of ostracization in this youtube ‘feminist’ community, this is not the way people should be dealing with different ideas.
SequesterZone’s next move went to an even more disturbing low. A youtube contributor, RepublicofSandles, who is very critical of BDSM, found out about the drama that was going on. I explained how SZ was treating us, as well as his positions on BDSM, but ROS didn’t know who SZ was, so most likely thought he was an anti-feminist from what they heard about him. When ROS went to look him up, they mistook a video where SZ used the audio of an MRA’s voice, as being SZ’s voice. Even though it was a pretty simple, understandable, mistake; the argument ROS made against him was still sound, since SZ was being hypocritical about his stated allyship with feminist critiques of pornography and other forms of sexist media, which is what the MRA was speaking against. But, this one comment was turned into a weapon to be used in order to bully ROS, by the defensive SZ, in the same mocking styled video that he made of the MRA. Using the audio from an old video ROS had just uploaded against BDSM, which wasn’t a response to SZ, and the comment ROS made to SZ didn’t even mention BDSM. He used a slideshow of stupid memes, along with a screenshot of ROS’s comment, to make ROS out like an idiot, but not once responding to any of ROS’s points, just simply ending the video with a slide about BDSM being ‘safe, sane, and consensual’; a cult like mantra used to prohibit any questioning of BDSM ethics.
I think he put this video up for attack because he saw it as a personal attack on him for his position on BDSM, and as an invite to battle. All because ROS defended an anti-BDSM position by uploading the video in solidarity after only a few comments I made toward SZ that went against his narrative about it being perfect. And because this video didn’t make a positive view of BDSM, he made a video in order to target the video for attack, and anyone else who wants to express criticism of BDSM, or disagree with him on anything, into being intimidated into silence. Under the comment section of his trollish video, his fans were joining in on undermining ROS for being asexual and having Asperger’s syndrome, as if these personal things disqualified ROS from having any position on BDSM. Coming from the position that BDSM is a sexuality, instead of a practice or personal preference, they used ROS’s sexual orientation as an attack, by saying ROS can’t understand sexuality as an asexual. Asexuality isn’t a misunderstanding of sexuality, it is an absence of sexual interest in others, there are many asexuals in the BDSM community. ROS is not a child and shouldn’t be treated like they can’t make well informed opinions about anything pertaining to sexual activity or fetishes. The message from all this really being, that it is wrong to dislike BDSM, that it’s wrong to only want to promote healthy and equal relationships; devoid of violence, dominance, sexism, and misogyny. And that there can be absolutely no feminist analysis of it, because of a key word used in the movement: ‘consent’. Consent is not the be all end all when it comes to determining whether sexual things are liberating women from patriarchy, for example, it is possible for women to objectify themselves, internalizing the gendered belief that their only worth is connected to their sexuality. It’s also important to take into consideration that under authoritarian systems, there is a construction of consent and manufacturing of consent, with the use of traditional societal norms, and cultural influences that people are born into. The defense of consent, contrasts with the issue I originally brought up to SZ about BDSM, which was simply about the community not being immune to rape culture, because of the consent violations frequently occurring within it. But, apparently, he considered this to be causing trouble simply for talking about sexual assaults within the BDSM community, which he believes isn’t possible within BDSM, because the ideology of it being an acceptable practice relies on completely separating sexual assault from it. This is a reason why victims have so many problems bringing up their issues and are blamed for their assaults such as, not saying the safe word in time.
The troll video that was used to bully ROS, and target anyone who might consider criticizing BDSM, was basically an invite for his fans and other onlookers to attack ROS’s video, making way for the potential for dogpiling; with SZ silently standing by on the side lines. Knowing full well only very few other people, and myself, would be on that video defending it without a pro-BDSM stance. Just as MRAs do to feminists who have small followings, these male ‘feminists’ are really no different when it comes to targeting feminists who disagree with or question their view points. There were three so called, male feminists, who decided it was their duty to use their privileged positions to put us in our place for openly speaking about BDSM being linked to an oppressive, authoritarian culture, or an abusive upbringing. Anything we said about BDSM having ties to misogyny, racism, and other forms of oppression were dismissed as bigotry, especially by another male feminist known as, UnseenPerfidy, who thought by just repeating that we are bigots over and over again in response to anything we said, was an excuse to get everyone else to hate us and avoid actually arguing or thinking about the points being presented.
One point I tried to explain to him, that he continually refused to acknowledge; was that BDSM is not healthy for those with PTSD and abuse victims, because becoming addicted to the thrill of domination or self harm, is a compulsion to repeat trauma, which could also easily trigger it. And in a Christian Grey type of fashion, lead to the abuse of others; continuing a cycle of abuse. This is because I was told by SZ that BDSM is therapeutic for abuse victims, in response to me sharing a link on how BDSM is unhealthy for those with mental illness who use it to self-harm or mutilate themselves. As an abuse victim who suffers from mental illness, and possibly PTSD, I found it very offensive that a practice which uses self defeating terminology, oppressive slurs, and physical harm, would be considered at all therapeutic for past abuse. When I told UnseenPerfidy that I know what abuse is as someone who has experienced abuse in the past, because he accused me of not understanding what abuse is, he then accused me of trying to speak for all victims of abuse, and said I had to be lying about my abuse in order to have the position that BDSM is or can be abusive. He then went on to say that I deserved worse than being called stupid because of this.
This is not what someone who claims to be a feminist against harassment should be saying to an abuse victim, who has only just recently, before and after this event, experienced online abuse from their ex-boyfriend; who mocked my past sexual abuse in arguments, later using the excuse that he thought I was lying about it. I’ve also been called stupid many times by the person who sexually abused me as a child. And have had to witness MRAs online saying women are abused and get raped for being stupid. Yet, UnseenPerfidy has been held up as a defender against harassers in the online feminist community. And has gained sympathy from the community when MRAs accused him of lying about being raped; this being used an example of how abusive MRAs are to rape victims who are feminists. I guess being against or offended by depictions of dehumanization, as an abuse victim of misogynistic oppression, doesn’t grant you that same respect. Because the BDSM community is considered a minority group, they somehow carry the same oppressed status as actual oppressed groups, even though they fetishize what oppressed people suffer from. After this he called me a horrible, vile, piece of shit in a private message before blocking me. I was never disrespectful toward him in this way, I was again, only trying to have a respectful discussion, despite all the unbelievable attacks against the wonderful feminists and allies that I had witnessed. I’m amazed I even kept my cool as much as I did, perhaps because I knew it was their intentions to upset me, which is sick, especially for grown men to be doing this.
I was told by another male user, XCBeskow, that questioning whether someone is misogynistic for getting pleasure out of the thought of women being tortured is, by far more creepy than if the person actually is, because it is trying to “go into their head”. Apparently women trying to avoid dangerous men are just bigoted against their sexuality. These male “feminists” want to give out the message that it is perfectly alright for men to get off to the thought of women being abused and tortured, and that this type of dehumanizing media doesn’t trivialize, nor encourage, violence against women. He made sure to let me know what a horrible radical feminist I was, which meant I deserved no respect, because I’m not as opened minded about sex like how all the real, hip, modern feminists are; who’ve been raised on hypersexualized media all their life, associating sexual objectification and appeasing male sexual entitlement with sexuality. Our understanding of sexuality is still subject to sexist socialization, just as anything else is in society. It’s important for feminists to acknowledge power relations when it comes to sexual activities, not to blindly embrace anything considered sexual as being progressive. Whether women are expected to always be sexually appealing/available for men’s sexual access to them, and open to all degrading forms of pornographic sex, or expected to be child bearers and chaste to live up to the feminine ideal; they’re still both two sides of the same coin of men controlling women’s sexuality in a patriarchal society, with the virgin/whore dichotomy.
The violence that happens in pornography are more than just fantasy, they have real destructive effects on society, and onto the “sex workers” whose bodies are used to act it out on to meet the demand. They reinforce rape myths and misogynistic beliefs; reflecting what men really think of women in society. The history of sadomasochistic media has been that of glorifying femicide; mutilating and disemboweling women’s bodies. And having a sexist culture within it, by making use of gender stereotypes of masculine and feminine, as master and slave roles. As is seen in the Gorean lifestylers cult, with a philosophy built around the idea that men are naturally dominant and women are naturally submissive; whose life’s purpose is to serve the men who enslave them. And, of course, modern sadomasochism has it’s roots in the work of Marquis De Sade, a sociopath of the 18th century who committed crimes against women; paving the way for novels which included sexual abuse, torture, and femicide to be considered erotic. Like the ‘Story of O’, inspired by Sade’s work, involving an ending with the submissive O getting permission from her ‘master’ to commit suicide. Or from the more recent “erotic” novel, Fifty Shades of Grey, which involved a powerful, wealthy, sadistic man pushing a slave contract onto a young, naive, woman; romanticizing domestic abuse and consent violations. It’s about time this type of media is talked about openly; violent and sexist depictions of women are very common, and are a reactionary response to women gaining equal status in society; it has nothing to do with respecting women’s rights. Time is already running out, when these sadomasochistic fantasies have led to the rape and murder of women just after this recorded drama happened; as in Ireland in the case of Graham Dwyer with the influence of the Gor series, as well as Julian Ghomeshi using the defense of BDSM after being accused of violent rape by multiple women; and after the popularization of Fifty Shades of Grey, in multiple cases men got away with rape by using the defense that they were practicing “rough sex”. This shows that fantasy can blend in with reality and that associating violence with a sexual preference gives men an excuse to violently rape women by blaming them for it.
If the atheist community is truly about free thought, then they should allow critical thought of BDSM and the communities’ ethics, not condemn any position that isn’t completely for it. Because we don’t comply to the demands of accepting a torture fetish as a sexual orientation, or tolerate those who get off on dehumanization, we are considered oppressive enough to have our views silenced. Their argument for this being domination and submission are an innate part of human sexuality, and we shouldn’t care about what people do sexually behind closed doors, even though BDSM isn’t always sexual or private, and has been accepted into the mainstream media. In fact, many BDSM practitioners are quite explicit about BDSM being mainly about domination and submission, rather than it being about sex. How this can be considered feminist, is a complete perversion of the goals of feminism. Women accepting submissive roles are not fighting their oppression, they are complying with a role that has been pushed on them. Playing with dominant and submissive roles is not subversive; it continues a cycle of domination and submission in how people relate to each other in society. We were not hating on people who practice BDSM. All these people demonizing us on ROS’s video reject basic feminist and egalitarian principles.
And then there is the male ally named, HannibaltheVictor13, who at least admits he isn’t a feminist, yet still somehow in our culture has had an authoritative position on the subject by promoting “sex work” and pornography as empowering, feminist, choices for women. I wonder how this can be? Men like this have co-opted women’s sexual liberation as an excuse to be open about their own sexual perversions, and to make males’ sexual access to women’s bodies a human right. He has been very open about his love for “sex work”, not being shy about sharing pornography pages on his social media accounts, and encouraging teenagers to go into the porn industry as an empowering choice. These men have had live open chats with other men defending and debating the merits of feminism with very little, to no female representation; they did it because they knew it is seen as okay for men to dominate the feminist discourse in our culture in the name of equality. This man believes any feminist who doesn’t think women can be empowered through hardcore, face-fuck pornography, or living off the avails of sexually servicing men, are no more than prudes and bigots. Really keeping up the tradition of keeping a subclass of women for sexual use and abuse since ancient Greco-Roman times. Preserving man’s sexual right and freedom to dominate the bodies of lower class women and girls doomed to sexual servitude.
This is evidenced by his and SZ’s promotion of Bell Knox, famous for being bullied by men from her college who found out she was performing in pornography in order to pay her way through college. The media blew up over this story with the porn industry as the hero and her as a slut-shamed victim, pushing her into the spotlight as a representative for the porn industry, even though she was only a beginner at the young age of 18 years of old. Hannibal and SZ dismissed any constructive criticism of her from more experienced porn workers who were concerned for her wellbeing, by calling it slut shaming. And by not giving the whole story behind her career, which actually involves coercion from her porn producer, who didn’t let her know the man she’d be performing with was a lot older than her, even though she let her producer know beforehand that she didn’t want to perform with someone that age. Understandably, she created a scene, getting angry and crying because of it, then feeling pressured into doing it by the producer, because she was already there at the shoot, and thought it would reflect badly on her in the business if she left, which it would. I’m assuming these male “feminists” knew about this, since they complained about the male performer who complained about her behavior, so why would they support it?
This woman is obviously too young to give any experienced opinion on the porn industry and was basically forced into a position of showing the industry in only a positive light, with the promise of fame and fortune, despite having been clearly uncomfortable in some situations within the industry. As I pointed out before, she was in desperate need of the money to pay off student loans. The porn industry made sure to take advantage of the opportunity to use her image as a feminist working towards a degree in women’s studies to promote pornography as feminist to the public. One of the porn sites she performed for when just starting out in the industry, as many women are initiated into when entering the porn business, was a violent porn site called ‘Facial Abuse’, where they verbally abused her, calling her fat, stupid, and a feminazi; before physically abusing her in the shoot. Clearly in pain and not liking how she was being treated, they told her they had to keep going after she told them to stop, violently forcing a penis into her throat when she showed resistance. The message these male ‘feminists’ were giving out is that, if a woman submits to being degraded for men’s sadistic pleasure, then it makes it perfectly okay, even feminist. A man who claims to be an ally to feminism, who seeks the equal status of women in society, can not also support the sexual objectification of women through misogynistic, violent, and degrading pornography at the same time.
After these revelations how can anyone say these men truly care about women? Not to mention, after all this Hannibal had the nerve to put all the attention onto his feelings when it came to anti-feminist hatred, this is because feminist Buntzums dared to create her own hangout chat to talk about issues surrounding prostitution, rightfully defending herself against the gossip about her and the drama that had happened earlier. More concerned with how this makes him look as a male ally, while being completely unsympathetic to how any of it negatively impacts us as women and feminists who are targeted by MRAs. Clearly, only women who comply with them are worthy of protection from this hate group. He even equated hating ‘some men’ to misandry, when criticizing us. Thankfully, some people called him out for that, but have any of these fans called these men out for any of the other things I’ve mentioned here and stopped giving them their support? Most likely not, because to them youtube is all a show, and video makers who have a substantial following know this.
(It has been revealed since then that HannibaltheVictor13, who has now destroyed his youtube channel, is a sex offender. A screenshot of his court file is here, he was grooming a girl under the age of 16 for sexual abuse online. It’s no surprise then, that he has made videos in support of prostitution, the porn industry, and eradicating age of consent laws under the guise of being progressive. Saying things like, the sex trafficking of minors connected to the sex trade is an overblown issue made up by prostitution abolitionists. What he really meant to say is that; those under the age of consent should be able to consent to the sex industry.)
What these men have proven to me is that they do not truly care for, nor do they actually understand female’s lived experience. This isn’t an attack on them simply for being men, as they would like to frame it, I liked their content before I realized how they operate. They will use bullying tactics and create videos against you in order to publicly shame you for your views, to make you feel even more afraid to speak your mind in an anti-feminist environment, while at the same time claiming to understand what women go through on the internet and outside of it. Even if a person were to only make a few comments disagreeing with them like I did, they’re still at risk for this public humiliation. Of course, there are women in the ‘SJW’ community who do the same thing, but usually these women are also in alliance with these kinds of men when they attack other women. These tactics are one of the biggest reasons why I avoided MRA videos like the plague; I didn’t want to end up as some laughing stock for hate-filled men for having the courage to defend women, but it ended up happening anyways by people who claim to want to protect women from harassment. Women should never have to expect or excuse this type of treatment just because they are on the internet.
The biggest lesson I’ve learned from this experience, is to never fully trust men on the subject of feminism, especially not on social media. Even though these men think they can put down amateur female feminists as bad representations of feminism, they will never be in the same qualified position in the movement to talk about the oppression these women have experienced for themselves. A better learning experience comes from reading feminist material written by women for women, and learning from past feminists on what they believe is needed to achieve women’s liberation, not listening to what a man thinks you should do, especially when they won’t even put in the effort to listen to us. Older women have had to put up with a lot more of men’s bullshit in their lifetimes than younger women have, and their generations put up a good fight to create the foundations young women enjoy today, their wisdom can only be beneficial to the movement. There’s always a lot more to learn and explore on the subject and history of Feminism, don’t allow feminist ideas to be restricted by neoliberal principles.
This, as well as countless other examples, show how men within positions of leadership in the feminist movement is problematic, and at worst, dangerous to vulnerable women. There are many misogynistic leftist men, it’s not too far fetched for women to believe there are men joining the movement for the wrong purposes, and we have every right to exclude them as the privileged, oppressor, sex class. There are various reasons for us women to become suspicious of men in the movement. Men don’t just lose all of their male socialization and privilege simply by labeling themselves as feminist, or because they are interested in feminism. That is why female only spaces in feminism are so essential, women need a safe space to talk among ourselves for our well being and consciousness raising, without the interference of men hovering over us and trying to assert themselves in the movement. Fighting back against patriarchy is a constant struggle, which is why Feminism needs female only spaces for women who have been deeply harmed by misogyny to discuss our issues; not a space where men think they have the authority to talk down to us on what we think causes or constitutes our own oppression. Although feminism is an important subject everyone can benefit from properly learning from, or debating on in an academic setting, and it’s better for men to be pro-feminist; the movement isn’t obligated to be inclusive of men, and I think that is what makes it so threatening to them. Men already dominate enough space in this world, feminism should only serve as a barrier to this cultural trend.
Even where women only spaces are not possible, like on websites such as youtube, more importance still needs to be put onto men respecting women’s boundaries and women gaining sisterhood in the feminist movement. Women organizing and supporting each other is the best and most effective way to combat patriarchy. Internalized misogyny doesn’t go away easily, we have to keep in mind that women need other women to believe and support them, since society already neglects to this. Catering to men’s agendas instead of doing this only benefits men, while increasing the suffering many women experience already under misogynistic oppression. Women who are more willing to align themselves with men will eventually get stabbed in the back, betrayed, or disappointed in some way, because male privilege and socialization runs so deep in society. Men are much more able to get away with their wrongdoings without a strong sisterhood to expose them. So called feminist men who target feminist women for their opinions act no different than anti-feminist dudebros. We do not have to be totally accepting and unquestioning of men simply for doing the bare minimum in the movement. Your feminism isn’t bad or harmful if it doesn’t please or isn’t approved by men. Women are not obligated to ally with men who treat them poorly in the name of feminism. Liberating ourselves from male oppression is far more important than focusing on collaborating with men to maintain an image that feminism sees men as our equals; since we live in an unequal society, this only gives men a free pass to ignore their place in the oppressor class.
I hope from this blog, other feminist women, as well as men who wish to be good allies, will reevaluate their staunch support and idolization of male voices in the movement, especially if they are being favored over women’s voices. Marginalized women have it rough enough already, they don’t deserve to be put down even further through humiliation and silencing by men with more power, who have gained status for themselves under the guise of equality; in a movement that is largely supposed to be for the benefit of women. Men should not be spending their time policing and dictating feminism to women in the movement, they should first be policing their own, and other men’s behavior. Leave us women to manage the internal politics ourselves, don’t drag us into the drama that you’ve created which further divides women in a movement that is meant to bring us together. This solution will produce far better results in the ongoing saga of the ‘battle between the sexes’.
I started this blog post in April, taking my time to accurately detail the events that took place in the Fall the previous year as best as possible, and before I could even publish it, everything I wanted to warn female feminists about with men in the movement had been revealed in the online yt community, although not completely. Which was actually a pretty short period of time since these last recorded events. Which takes the total up to around 6 women who have been targeted by SZ, other than a few MRAs he has made videos against.
SZ added another female feminist onto his hit list, except this woman, who will be called EB in the blog, was once his friend and she had protected him before when I expressed my issues with him. I don’t think I could have prevented this from happening, and some women really don’t understand until it happens to them personally. When a man positions himself as such a vehement supporter of feminism, it can be difficult to see them as abusive to those they claim to defend. Unfortunately, in this male dominated world, it happens all the time. And I can understand why she would want to maintain friendships with the men in a male dominated space as a token woman feminist of the community, not that I agree with that. She was accused of harassing him because she had realized what an abusive and disrespectful person he really is, and decided to tell some friends about it, who also decided they wanted to distance themselves from him as well. She and others had a problem with his constant rudeness with people whom he disagreed with in the community, as is what I had problem with as well. She also expressed concern for his behavior toward another female feminist in an interaction, because it seemed sexual in nature and the woman was 18 years old, SZ probably being in his 30’s or early 40’s. He flirted with an 18 year old, using the excuse that he sees her as an autonomous human being; this trivializes the problem of older men sexualizing and flirting with teenagers. His position on this is more comparable to claiming to be a victim of creep shaming discrimination. He also believes 16 year olds, or in some cases, teens under the age of consent, can consent to sex with adults over the age of 20, as many male feminists on social media I’ve witnessed do.
Now it turns out the young woman who she thought SZ was being inappropriate or disrespectful toward, was not hurt or offended by him, but this young woman did come out saying she has experienced sexual harassment from other male feminists in the community, and apparently it is quite a problem, especially among bigger youtubers. But because another female feminist even suggested that SZ might have been inappropriate toward another woman, and proposed that he may really not be a good feminist ally from her experiences with him, EB became just another horrible feminist to this man and his devoted supporters. So he took it upon himself to use the power of his feminist platform to make a video about her in order to defame her in the eyes of the community, just like he has easily done to other feminists who had a problem with him before. He claimed they were accusing him of sexual harassment and because of this, he was a victim of harassment for these accusations, and for being kicked out of chat groups. He, of course, never showed any proper evidence of being harassed; using his skills of persuasion to get people to only believe his twisted version of events.
So, because she expressed some red flags she saw from him to people, he wanted to punish her by giving out personal details about her to the public in a video, that he had learned from her in confidence through their private online interactions. All of which have no bearing on whether she is actually a bad person who just wants to harass him or not. Such as: having a mental illness, a lack of friends, no contact with family, no job, lack of ambition for future, and substance use; using these details to go as far as to accuse her of being a sociopath who was just jealous and obsessed over him, so all these concerns of hers were just crazy false allegations. Unsurprisingly, another male ally I spoke about here, HannibaltheVictor13, decided he needed to weigh in on this unruly woman too. Taking SZ’s side of her being a sociopath, he says there is evidence in a lack of emotion he perceived in her videos, that he thought was a result of past abuse she had experienced as a child. I don’t know much of EB, but from what I’ve seen of her in her videos and text, you can tell she is an introverted, timid, intelligent, kind, and empathetic person who cares about women’s rights. He basically blamed her past abuse for her supposed attacks on SZ, of her being a bad person, and ultimately, the attacks made against her. Again, only bringing the attention onto their male feelings as allies to feminism; that they put so much effort into being good allies, so we should just bow down, respect that, and never portray them in a negative way. These men have successfully deluded themselves into being good allies to women in feminism, whether we agree with it or not, and because they are all we got of men on youtube defending it. Apparently, us women online are too unreal for them, only their interactions with individual women in their personal lives offline can prove to them how good of male allies of feminism they really are. This sense of grandiosity with being allies to women has led them to believe they can accuse a woman of lying about being raped and get away with it, even be believed. Which is what happened when they accused EB of lying about being raped, after accusing her of having sociopathy. EB had made a video opening up about being raped at a party when she was under the influence of alcohol after popular, anti-feminist, atheist, Thunderf00t, made a video blaming women for date rape, and saying women were just regretting drunk sex. These men also made videos after this, speaking out against disbelieving rape victims, but once they’ve proclaimed a woman as a bad person who shouldn’t be believed, they’re not condemned in the same way as MRAs are. Another male user on youtube named, Bewildered Ape, who has tried to ally himself with feminists, also took these men’s side accusing her of being a sociopath who lied about being raped. This is extremely low, and dirty, coming from the same men who once supported her and her video opening up about being raped, which shows these men’s true character.
EB and SZ were never in any real relationship, but he and others were treating it like this was just about a jealous woman’s revenge. Even when she had expressed that she was unsure about being with him, was distrustful of him from their interactions, and wanted no contact with him anymore; this shows she wasn’t attacking SZ because of jealousy or because of a break up. He was the one trying to convince her to move in with him, because of her financial situation. I see this as an attempt to rule over her life while disguising himself as her savior, claiming to feel the need to protect and care for her, because he is so convinced that she can’t take care of herself, so he believes he needs to tell her how she should live her life, and that she is worthless without him. Many young adults, like myself, are in the same situation as she is, it’s nothing unusual, and devaluing someone because of these things is extremely unhelpful. I can see why she wouldn’t want an older man trying to take care of her as a young woman. That doesn’t spark encouragement in women, as he claims he wants to put in her, it’s incredibly discouraging for a young woman to feel parented by a man a lot older than them, and there is a high risk of women being taken advantage of in this way. He then blames her for having this strong desire to take care of her, and that she was the reason he went and got a job, all the while he has been living off of his ex-girlfriend’s money. EB never wanted to use him in this way; he wanted to gain her trust as a friend in order to get close and personal with her so he could take advantage of her. His ex-girlfriend, who he was with when all the previous drama happened, even spoke out against his shady and abusive ways online; that he has also lied about her and talked about her behind her back to people online, but apparently not even a person who has lived with him, and knows him personally can convince some people.
Once EB opened up about her problems with him, he expressed how he was angry with her, deciding to go after her when she only wanted to distance herself from him. This created fear in EB about speaking out more. In his videos about her, he kept trying to distance himself from abuse by constantly making excuses for his behavior, bringing up how he had an abusive father as a child, so he knows what abuse is, disqualifying him as an abuser. Keeping up the pattern of ableism in order to character assassinate, he used her mental health issues against her, because he perceived this as a weakness to attack, instead of being considerate toward her issues. One of these mental health issues is called agoraphobia, which is something I’ve suffered from as well, and know how difficult and misunderstood it is to have in this society. You see, SZ wanted to use his status as a feminist in order to identify his way out of the oppressor class to get with away with abusive behavior, while comparing anyone who has a problem with his behavior to MRAs, sorry, but we don’t share the same ideas and behavior as them, it’s SZ who has proven he does. Even teaming up with them in his hate campaign against feminists by joining a hangout chat with them, since demonizing online feminists is so acceptable and popular online.
He wanted to create a sob story for himself as a victim of online feminists, claiming everything he has done against other feminists that he disagrees with, was actually done to him by them. Deflecting blame away from himself and never taking responsibility for his own actions. All the while gaining a pity party from his fan base, other female feminists, and of course, MRAs. It makes sense that a man who makes his feelings out to be the most important issue, while putting down a female feminist as a straw feminist, to gain the same victim status as women who are actually subjected to online harassment, would be believed and supported by the MRAs. These chauvinistic male feminists want women to stay meek and humble with them in order to be considered good feminists, otherwise be punished for our perceived uppitiness. After he threatened a video against her, she destroyed her channel in order to avoid harassment. She wanted nothing to do with him anymore, especially not the attention from the public from what would result from it. This is proven by her leaving groups in order to avoid him. Yet, in the dog eat dog atmosphere of youtube, she was condemned for refusing to play his vengeful game. He has proven that he has no respect for her boundaries, even feeling comfortable saying he had people spying on her interactions with other people, and saying he can see what she posts even if she has a private twitter account. As well as trying to contact her multiple times after she had told him not to, and threatening that he is going to continue to do so. This should be considered a form of harassment and male control, at the very least, an invasion of privacy. But despite all this, him dead naming a transgender male was considered the worst thing that he did according to the, mostly male, youtube feminist community; not even the fact that he even went to search for this person’s private information. This proves that the SJW community cares more about PC violations than actual justice.
The support SZ got from the community from all this, proves that only certain privileged members in the community will be respected, where men can feel comfortable creating smear campaigns against women without facing any repercussions. This is all a great example of what I’ve detailed in this blog post. It was also brought to my attention that he lied to EB about being a submissive in BDSM, I think this, as well as what I described in my blog, show how he is actually a sadist, not a switch, as he has claimed before. This completely turns his credibility as a compassionate ally to women’s oppression on it’s head, when he can’t help but get turned on by the thought of dominating over them. It was also found out that he lied about having a master’s degree in philosophy, which is important, because he was using this claim to higher education against me and other people in order to make us seem uneducated and stupid. His ex-girlfriend has also opened up about his offline emotional and physical abuse of her; choking and being pulled by the hair. From what I heard she also showed proof of this. After claiming to be done with youtube feminism, he couldn’t help himself but to engage in more drama against a targeted woman, joining a hangout with other male “allies” or MRAs, drawing misogynistic things on a screenshot of a feminist youtuber who is currently being targeted by hoards of anti-feminists attempting to dox her. Towards the end of the video, the older men in the hangout hypocritically spoke out against exactly what they were doing by hosting and participating in a chat to harass Jenny. This hangout has always been a sort of boy’s club, where these male “allies” were hosted to talk about feminism. It makes sense that it would end up turning into a fully misogynistic hangout eventually. This brings the total up to 8 women SZ has targeted for abuse, including his ex-girlfriend. He has also threatened to dox someone for replying to his comments.
(SequesterZone, or Christopher Roberts/Amarus, made most of his videos private, especially the ones where he is abusive in. This is because he wanted to hide the videos that might make a bad impression on him for his new website and video projects. So I can not link to the videos and some of the comments that were mentioned in this blog post, this makes the events detailed rather confusing, but those involved should know which ones I’m speaking of.)
(After this, he has now completely deleted his SequesterZone channel and his newer video review channel. HannibaltheVictor13 and UnseenPerfidy are no longer on youtube as well.)
You can learn more about this here, on a blog called Mancheeze created by a radical feminist who also knows how male “feminists/allies” operate. She’s a badass who battles against MRAs on an almost daily basis, and who was also made a target by yt communities in the past for her views against prostitution as an exited woman. And most importantly, the feminist in question, using the name, extremelyboring, gives her account of the situation in the comment section of this blog post, which has more truth in it than SZ’s hour long rants put together. The fact that her version of events, as well as her character, are being devalued over a much louder one from a man in a trusted feminist position, speaks volumes as to the current pop-feminist, social media atmosphere.
By some mysterious process all that pertains to sex in this society has been separated off from politics, even by those who would consider themselves socialist and radicals. In order to make sexual practice a private enclave of individual delight, sexuality has been seen as somehow removed from the effects of sexism, racism, any oppression in the world outside the bedroom, and considered to have no effect upon or relevance to that world. In fact sex plays a crucial part in fuelling and regulating the oppression of women and racist oppression. There is nothing pure about sex nor anything which might claim for it a special exemption from political criticism.
Sheila Jeffreys, “Sadomasochism: The Erotic Cult of Fascism” (originally written in 1984, published in Lesbian Ethics in 1986), appendix to The Lesbian Heresy: A Feminist Perspective on the Lesbian Sexual Revolution (1993), p. 218
(found at Pomeranian Privilege)
This is part 2 of a BDSM FAQ written by C.K. Egbert for the Feminist Current. It expresses excellently why radfems are against BDSM and why the common arguments for BDSM don’t hold water.
“But BDSM has such great standards of consent!”
Ongoing and affirmative consent involves explicit expression or active participation throughout the entire encounter. Affirmative consent means that there is not coercion, pressuring, or manipulation, and that both partners are emotionally and physically able to communicate (including their desire to stop, if that happens). Importantly, affirmative consent helps us understand non-abusive sex as sex that is wanted and not simply endured. But this is not the standard of consent used in BDSM relationships. Consent in BDSM instead appears to be based on the idea of contract agreement and lack of active resistance.
First, affirmative and ongoing consent is precluded by the practice itself of dominating or controlling another…
View original post 223 more words
Men are always thinking up new ways to intimidate and harm women. 2016 will be no different. We’ve come to expect this from the men’s rightsers but it also comes from transactivists, who are aligning themselves closer to MRA’s than ever before. The TransAdvocate has started a new 2016 feature called Conversations. Two men, John Stoltenberg and Cristan Williams, editor of the Transadvocate, are attempting to rewrite radical feminism, to make it more palatable for men. *yawn*
I found out about this new development on Twitter, when I came across Lucyfire’s tweet.
— LucyFire (@LucyFirre) January 4, 2016
Cristan Williams: a man bent on rewriting radical feminism to suit himself
I find even the name of this new feature hilarious because women aren’t part of the conversation and with all the transactivists no…
View original post 690 more words
The BDSM sub-culture is often held up as being somehow ‘better’ or ‘safer’ than the ‘vanilla’ mainstream, and even as being ‘feminist’, because it supposedly operates a ‘culture of consent’ where sex is actively negotiated, boundaries are respected and ‘no’ (in the form of a safe word) means ‘no’.*
An article up at Salon today invalidates this, with prominent women within the ‘community’, including women described as ‘sex educators’ only now (after almost a decade in one woman’s case) standing up and talking about the abuse they experienced within the ‘scene’.
[Maggie Mayhem,] 27-year-old sex educator and fetish model has never before publicly shared the story of her sexual assault, but the purpose of this evening’s event, a “consent culture” fundraiser, is so that she can start telling it, again and again. Her mission, along with fellow activist and sex worker Kitty Stryker, is to raise awareness about what they…
View original post 1,596 more words
At least since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, Lefties have been rankled by the presence of feminists among their ranks.
But purging these uppity women presents a challenge. Overtly denigrating feminists is risky: it can be perceived as misogynistic, and cedes too much political ground on issues lefties like to call their own – such as abortion rights.
Unfortunately, prolific and global male crimes of incest, rape, prostitution, domestic violence, female genital mutilation, child marriage and acid attacks make the feminist cause a bit too justified, and a bit too popular.
So the Left is stuck with having to marginalise through covert means the political movement organised to resist male supremacy and its violent war against women and children.
An effective covert tactic has been to play wedge politics.
Marxists, peaceniks, greenies, queers, animal libbers and some anti-racism groups over three decades have been remarkably united in their commitment…
View original post 1,256 more words
BDSM is the normalization of domestic violence.
This post contains graphic descriptions.
Radical feminists often argue that BDSM practice is about degrading, humiliating, violating and torturing women. It is patriarchal violence against women—whether it occurs in your bedroom, on your computer screen, or is simulated during your lunchtime book reading.
We do not blame women who participate in it, but we will analyze it through a feminist lens.
BDSM is the legitimization of domestic violence against women. Case in point: The Feminist and the Cowboy. Author Alisa Valdes wrote an erotic semi-autobiographical book about a dominant lover who violently f’ked her under the guise of consensual “play”. After her book was released, Vales wrote a blog post detailing the real life abuse that the “cowboy” inflicted on her. Though the abuse was framed as consensual in her book, her real life experience with the cowboy involved being raped, verbally abused, threatened, and abandoned once he…
View original post 1,028 more words