Lesbian as in FUCK YOU
|This blog's mainly for my own reference but you can read it if you want. (This is a sideblog btw)|
As a class (not necessarily as individuals), we [females] can bear children. From this, according to male-supremacist ideology, all our other attributes and potentialities are derived. On the pedestal, immobile like waxen statues, or in the gutter, failed icons mired in shit, we are exalted or degraded because our biological traits are what they are. Citing genes, genitals, DNA, pattern-releasing smells, biograms, hormones, or whatever is in vogue, male supremacists make their case which is, in essence, that we are biologically too good, too bad, or too different to do anything other than reproduce and serve men sexually and domestically.
The newest variations on this distressingly ancient theme center on hormones and DNA: men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape; in women, pacifism is hormonal and addiction to birth is molecular. Since in Darwinian terms (interpreted to conform to the narrow social self-interest of men), survival of the fittest means the triumph of the most aggressive human beings, men are and always will be superior to women in terms of their ability to protect and extend their own authority. Therefore women, being “weaker” (less aggressive), will always be at the mercy of men. That this theory of the social ascendancy of the fittest consigns us to eternal indignity and, applied to race, conjures up Hitler’s identical view of evolutionary struggle must not unduly trouble us. “By current theory, ” writes Edward O. Wilson reassuringly in Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, a bible of genetic justification for slaughter, “genocide or genosorption strongly favoring the aggressor need take place only once every few generations to direct evolution.”
I have told you the very low opinion in which you [women] were held by Mr. Oscar Browning. I have indicated what Napoleon once thought of you and what Mussolini thinks now. Then, in case any of you aspire to fiction, I have copied out for your benefit the advice of the critic about courageously acknowledging the limitations of your sex. I have referred to Professor X and given prominence to his statement that women are intellectually, morally and physically inferior to men… and here is a final warning … Mr. John Langdon Davies warns women “that when children cease to be altogether desirable, women cease to be altogether necessary.” I hope you will make note of it. - Virginia Woolf, A Room of Ones Own"
I represent the morbid side of the women’s movement. I deal with the shit, the real shit. Robin Morgan calls it “atrocity work.” And that’s pretty much what it is.
I deal with what happens to women in the normal course of women’s lives all over this planet: the normal stuff that is abusive, criminal, violating— the point being that it is considered normal by the society at large. It is so systematic that it appears that women are not being abused when these commonplace things happen to women because these abuses are so commonplace.
Because women are everywhere, and because, as Shulamith Firestone said, a sex class is invisible because everyone takes it to be nature, and because many of the abuses that women systematically suffer are called sex, and because women are socialized in a way to make us indifferent to the plight of other women, and because there are no institutional means of redress for the crimes committed against us, feminism sometimes seems as if a group of women are standing in front of a tidal wave with one hand up saying: “Stop.” That is why people say, “Well, it’s hopeless.” And from “it’s hopeless,” people say: “Well, it’s life.”
The stance of the women’s movement is that it is not “just life.” It is politics; it is history; it is power; it is economics; it is institutional modes of social organization: it is not “just life.” And that applies to all of it: the sexual abuse, the economic degradation, the “natural” relationship between women and children (to paraphrase Firestone again: women and children are not united by biology, we are united by politics, a shared powerlessness; I think this is true)."
|straight white feminists on tumblr:||I personally believe non lesbians can define what a lesbian is, and that anyone can be a lesbians and appropriate their culture and labels, because uh, all girls touch their boobs. Such as in america, lesbian has monosexual privileges, which is like white privilege. I believe that us straight feminists, should date girls for political reasons because feminism. For example, i want to fuck girls so i can get back at my ex boyfriend who cheated on me, and teach men a lesson, that is what lesbian truly means. I believe fetishising lesbians and dehumanising lesbian relationships for my shitty agenda is uh, very empowering, and it helps a third world country such as africa, thank you.|