Tag Archives: censorship

Aside

The internet is a valuable resource for promoting democracy in an often undemocratic world; a safe space for women and the otherwise oppressed and a vehicle for their otherwise-unheard true voices. Resist attempts to close down those spaces and muffle those voices.

To paraphrase an oft-quoted Martin Niemoller:
‘First they came for the women, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a woman…’
Joelle Ruby Ryan presumes to speak for women, with the full backing of the law and the blessing of the intelligentsia. ‘Hers’ is the voice of bigotry, not Radfems such as GallusMag. Embrace the opportunity for dissent; it’s too easy not to…

GenderTrender

university of new hampshire health joelle ruby ryan

I am writing this today out of a deep concern for the rights of women, feminists and lesbians to speak publicly about issues that effect us. Specifically, I would like to address the actions of Dr. Joelle Ruby Ryan and his ongoing attempts to harass, bully, censor and silence women and feminists on the internet, and the University of New Hampshire’s apparent complicity in his outrageous and illegal actions which Ryan claims to perform under authority of UNH.

You may notice that this week’s post -where we discussed ‘Transilience’, Joelle Ruby Ryan’s new University of New Hampshire Health sponsored video- is no longer visible. Also missing are your comments in the discussion that followed. The reason for this is that UNH’s Dr. Ryan has filed a false, perjured, harassing copyright claim that he apparently hopes will re-write all previous first amendment rights. Here is a screen cap of the post…

View original post 1,500 more words

Advertisements

MRAs, WTF!!!

Standard

Got in from work tonight just in time to read a really fascinating blog post on the subject of the degeneration of the ‘y’ chromosome and the implications for the future of mankind, and humankind. It’s not often I’d pointedly make the distinction (sexist, right?) but in this case it’s pertinent, since what’s being implied is that the latter may well outlast the former (assuming we don’t do something really crazy like nuke ourselves off the face of the planet first!) Sadly, because the article in question was posted by a radical feminist blogger, and proposed some radical (natch) ideas, it – or rather, she – was spammed and trolled to fuck.

So she pulled the post.

If you’re looking to add weight to the argument that we’re the weaker sex then well done, you did it! Pleased with yourselves?

I’m a big advocate for the internet and social media. For me and millions of others it’s enabled access to a whole bunch of opinions, ideas, stories and discussions that the MSM ignores for being un-newsworthy, of marginal interest, radical, trivial or threatening to the status quo. It’s facilitated ‘meeting’ people we’d otherwise never have known existed, let alone crossed paths with. Many, myself included, want to hear these things, meet these people; share our opinions and participate in conversations. I see a real potential fir democracy online: sadly, too many – mostly male – users see only the opportunity for bullying, harrassment, terrorism, profit and abuse. Fuck you people for that!

Five years of my life were blighted by school bullies: my opinions were mocked so I kept quiet; I was physically attacked so I took pains to avoid certain places and people, to placate potential aggressors in hope of avoiding their violence. It’s affected my sense of self and my relationships to this day. But this isn’t really about me: when I see bullying happening to others my reaction is visceral: I hate it: it makes me angry and it makes me sad. Just fucking quit!!! No one’s denying you your right to speak, to express yourselves – though judging by your antics on your hideous MRA sites someone fucking well ought to – so why spend such an inordinate amount of time stomping on other’s opinions and trying to gag their voices? What are you afraid of? Do you really have nothing better to do? Wife and kids?

I don’t even want to name the blogger or her blog, bacause I don’t know who might be reading this and I don’t want to inadvertantly send any more hate her way. On a personal note, I wanted to read the article some more: for the world at large – and women in particular – it was telling us something that deserved to be heard. We’ve heard enough from YOU already.

So we’re not immune to evolution: and what did Darwin tell us about evolution? That the strongest will survive. Maybe we’re not the strongest after all: maybe that’s why the media is so chock full of propaganda informing us to the contrary. I felt a certain sadness on reading the post, but also freed; and in awe in a way that only deep wisdom can provoke. Resigned and also lifted. It just depends how you look at things (pomo alert). I hate it when people say this to me, but here I am saying it now: GET OVER IT! I’m ashamed right now we share that funny little ‘y’. Take all that hateful energy and put it to better use in making our temporary residence on this planet as safe and rewarding for EVERYONE as we can.

Haters, whores and hypocrites: now trending…

Standard

‘[Darwin] emphasized that, though in almost all species the female was the choice-maker, in human societies the privilege of choice making had passed to the male, with deleterious effects.’ Gillian Beer, Introduction to the Origin of Species, 1859, Oxford University Press, 1988, (regarding Darwin’s, The Descent of Man, 1872)

As a man – and an educated man from a middle-class background; thrice-privileged – I can take freedom of choice, in speech as elsewhere, largely for granted, which is a very different proposition from saying I ought to be able to, or believing that the content of said speech is intrinsically valuable. One problematic aspect of privilege is that the privileged position renders it scarcely-visible; the distorting effect on one’s worldview tricky to apprehend. Admitting this perspective, it’s at least understandable that a challenge to one’s privilege might be mis-construed as an infringement of rights. I’m being magnanimous, here: plenty men intuit only too well the social head start that the accidental inheritance of a ‘y’ chromosome provides them with and miss no opportunity to revel in it, generally at the expense of those less-privileged than they.

Put another way; men are prone to a) talking bollocks, and b) lashing out like wounded animals when their ‘bollocks’ is subject to scrutiny. So it’s no wonder feminists come in for a lot of flak; scrutiny of men’s ‘bollocks’ being somewhat of a specialty of theirs. I came across a fine example of this a couple days ago via Madeline Rachael‘s fine wp blog The Feminist Agenda (below)

Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner: ‘There are “two forms of feminism…”

Swanson and Buehners‘ dismissal of feminists as ‘whores’ – and in a discussion diatribe defending ‘the family’ and ‘society’ – is as typical as it is telling. Christian conservatives of their stripe would have one believe that they love ‘good’ women and that their beef is with only certain types of ‘bad’ woman. I’m minded of a press statement issued by West Yorkshire detective Jim Hobson during the investigation into ‘Yorkshire RipperPeter Sutcliffe here in the UK during the early ’80s which (British feminist) Joan Smith quoted in her essay ‘There’s only one Yorkshire Ripper‘ (Misogynies, Faber and Faber, 1989):

‘He (The Ripper – at that point yet to be apprehended) has made it clear that he hates prostitutes. Many people do. We, as a police force, will continue to arrest prostitutes. But the Ripper is now killing innocent girls. That indicates your (sic) mental state and that you (sic) are in urgent need of medical attention…’

(My emphasis)

The implications of this statement are clear and frightening – only violence against ‘good’ women is remarkable, never mind legitimately criminal; prostitutes fall outside outside of the ‘good’ category; are thus legitimate targets for men’s and society’s disapprobation, and that the distinction between the legitimacy of arresting and murdering women is a mere matter of degrees. To emphasize differing degrees of misogyny, however, or to give credence to the notion that some women are deserving of it, would be to miss the point that criminalizing ‘bad’ women and murdering ‘good’ ones both attack women as a class.

Three decades on, Swanson and Buehner, whilst they’re clearly not advocating violence against women per-se, are nonetheless arguing their ‘case’ (further magnanimity) against feminism from the same mindset; namely that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ women and that feminists fall squarely into the latter camp, along with ‘whores’. The glaring contradiction is that both the women who confront their assigned status in the gender hierarchy (feminists) and those who submit perfectly to it (‘whores’)** are subject to the same negative judgement: ergo, in their eyes all women are ‘bad’, whatever they might say to the contrary.

This is significant when one considers the conflict between Radical Feminism and the Liberal Left/Trans* lobby which, though decades-old, exploded so dramatically into public consciousness via the publication of ‘Transphobic’ articles by Suzanne Moore and Julie Burchill and the subsequent Twitter storm. Notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ women loom large in the vocabulary of Trans* activists. As in Dt Hobson‘s assessment of Sutcliffe‘s murder victims (above) the wrong kind of woman is, in their opinion deserving of ‘extreme predjudice’ and the wrong kind of woman – the ‘bad’ woman – is any woman who questions the bipolar gender model on which their ‘identity’ depends. Scrutiny of their ‘bollocks’ is not encouraged, to say the least; presumably because it bears more than a passing resemblance to that spouted by Swanson and Buehner: sexist, anti-feminist and rigid in its adherence to gender bi-polarity. Accusations of ‘Trans-misogyny’ (an unhelpful term to my mind) are rendered risible by prolific resort to the common-or-garden variety by Trans* activists and their supporters.

So whilst bollocks of their kind continues to proliferate both on and under the radar of the MSM: on blogs run by Men’s Rights Activists; on Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr and in the comments sections of all manner of online publications; feminists, who discern profound ideological issues and serious health and safety concerns for ALL women, are being subjected to inquisition , hounded , jailed, ridiculed, and silenced by those who fear the prospect of a life shorn of privileged position. Some women themselves argue against the need for feminisn, including this Huffington post writer, who is somewhat hoist by her own petard by her declaration that ‘feminism is misunderstood … by many of those calling themselves feminists’, and her sexist dismissal of the anticipated feminist backlash to her article.

For the Trans* activist who has spent the majority of their life occupying a position of privilege, discerning the difference between loss of said privilege and a genuine infringement on human rights might conceivably be difficult; but let’s not make the mistake of being magnanimous again and again in the face of evidence to the contrary.  That anti-woman propaganda such as the Generations Radio feature and the Huffington Post piece are allowed to stand whilst the likes of Burchill and Gallusmag are censured tells us something. That these and other women – feminist or not, wives or the prostituted, straight or queer, butch or femme, workers or home-makers, black or white, young or old, trans* or ‘cis’ – so frequently take the brunt of societal problems that are manifestly not of their making tells us much the same thing: somebody needs to check their privilege, and they’ll be carrying a ‘y’ chromosome, I betcha!

**Couple points to note: a) I didn’t want to get sidelined into any kind of ‘blame game’ at that point, sufficed to say that the choice to be a feminist or a ‘whore’ are clearly not equal and opposite – specifically that the latter can be considered as ‘free’ a choice as the former – nor mutually exclusive. Andrea Dworkin is a case in point whose radical politics were deeply-informed by her personal experience of prostitution. b) The original use of the word whore was Buehner’s, and having quoted him thus I ran with it for the duration of the piece, mainly a creative decision since it made for a more memorable title. It implies no disrespect towards prostituted women on my part, hence the quotes ‘—‘.

A.M.