Radical Feminism Enters the 21st Century ... - A Voice for Men

about
authors
comments policy
radical perspectives (lots of links)
resources
guidelines for submissions
contact
“Occupy Wall Street” radfem handouts
« From S/M & Love to Activism [BDSM Part III] | Sister Space Under Threat »
Radical Feminism Enters the 21st Century
by FCM
Guest Post by Vliet Tiptree
“…you may hiss as much as you like, but it is comin’.”
–Sojourner Truth in 1853 at the Women’s Rights Convention in New York
I am a woman and I’m no superheroine. I don’t have an academic or other institutional connection, the
strength behind me of a life-affirming culture, faith, a clear understanding of my situation, or a firm idea
what to do. What I do have is an ongoing intolerable experience that this life I and other women live is
blighted by male oppression, and that this blight diseases the trunk of our species’ existence, not just the
branches, not just the leaves. Every moment of our existence, this blight injures us. It kills our spirits, ruins
our bodies, destroys our happiness, twists our children. It has thrived for so long it sometimes seems
ineradicable. This blight has many names: the Patriarchal System, Misogyny, Male Supremacy, Women’s
Subjugation. I just call it the System at the moment.
I also have this: the conviction, based on all that I am, that the System can be eradicated.
And I have one other thing: the experience, action, and theory of other women around me now and living
before me, who have exposed and attempted to eradicate this blight. Right now, I am learning from and
contributing to the RadFem Hub, a new center of thought and action on the Internet for Radical Feminist
women and women interested in their work.
Let me briefly describe my background: a hard-working girlhood without much protection in East Los
Angeles, California; the feminist ferment of the 1970′s; a first professional job as a civil rights investigator for
the federal government; law school; working as an affirmative action coordinator at several universities and
colleges; practicing employment discrimination law along with criminal and civil litigation; marriage,
motherhood, divorce; becoming a writer of novels and poetry as my second career. My emotional experience
as a woman may be like many of yours; from incomprehension and hurt to horror and rage to reformism to
despair and denial back to rage and on to comprehension and radicalism as I have gotten older.
I have become radicalized in the 21st century by the realization that the reformist strategies I have devoted
much of my working life to are being absorbed by the System as a cost of doing business, that our successes
over the last century and a half are being managed and quietly dissolved, and that the System is successfully
resisting the changes in the public sphere by tightening its controls in the private sphere: the sphere of
personal life, of sexual politics, of cultural mores, of psychology, of socialization of children. A tacit balance is
being maintained. As we wrest for ourselves the vote, literacy, access to the legal system, we are brainwashed
through the use of social controls into using these rights not for our own benefit, but to continue propping up
our own oppression.
It’s an efficient and ruthless adjustment. The System gets subtler, dangles carrots, lets a few women in, gives
up some of its most oppressive manifestations, and lets women burn themselves out. Reformist feminists
give their money and time to setting up shelters, places for women to lick their wounds and be relatively safe
for a little while. They try to get a few more percentage points in the futile effort to fully equalize the pay of
women. They use themselves up filing lawsuits that go nowhere. They dilute their resources fighting for other
groups who are also oppressed, leaving little for their own liberation. In short, they act as if the System is
fundamentally sound. We have been reforming the System for a hundred fifty years in the Eurocentric
countries, and we are trying to reform the entrenched System in the rest of the world, but wherever we are,
the minute the King magnanimously lets us vote in municipal elections, arrests for daring to drive increase.
We save a leaf here, lose a leaf there; the blight rages on.
Some women have always radicalized; they achieved as much as could be achieved then, great steps forward.

I think of the Women’s Suffrage Movement in England. It began as an attempt at reform, but it turned
radical as it had to. Emmeline Pankhurst in 1913 described women cutting the lines for telegraphs and
telephones between London and Glasgow, vandalism, arson, and prison resistance. She said, “Now I want to
say to you who think women cannot succeed, we have brought the Government of England to this position,
that it has to face this alternative: either women are to be killed or women are to have the vote…”
Some sixty years later, during the upheaval of the Second Wave which similarly resulted in great
achievements such as legalization of effective birth control and a renaissance in feminist literature, feminism
continued to develop and become more complex as a movement. It was never a question of a hierarchical
dynamic; the movement grew laterally. It has been said that Radical Feminists were distinguished in part by
their insistence that oppression of women came first, before oppression of workers or oppression based on
race. I personally don’t press this point, though I think it’s obvious that in an isolated primitive subsistence
economy women had that dubious honor. Whether we were the first group to be oppressed or not, we are by
any measure the largest group by far being oppressed, over three billion people.
It is also said that Radical Feminists were, like all radicals, working for a permanent cure, even if that meant
the entire System was eliminated. I think that’s about right. Having identified the blight as being
fundamental, we are looking for fundamental change. I think it’s also right that we don’t expect such change
to take place incrementally. A slow process allows the ever-inventive System to counter each move, and many
of us think the System will blow itself up, and us with it, before it can become healthy.
What is Radical Feminism as it enters the 21st Century I’d say it’s the vanguard in
the Feminist movement generally. I’d say it’s oriented to the future as a philosophy. I’d say it’s an everincreasing
global movement among women to live fully and freely, without further ado. We have a superb
new tool in that endeavor, namely, the Internet, and we’re beginning to use it. We are seeing much potential
in scientific research and related technologies.
I mentioned before that the System doesn’t have a single name. I think Radical Feminists have come to
understand that many of these names lead to a mistake in thinking; the disease is not named, only its effect,
the subjugation or oppression of women. The disease hides itself even in the name given to it. What causes
the blight
As Sheila Jeffreys has put it, and I think we all agree, it has to start with this: there is something wrong with
men. It is a pathology with both physical and psychological features. I personally think it is as old as our
evolution as hominids. I think it’s a biological adaptation which is now rotten, dangerous, and vestigial. I
think we have to force the scientific establishment to take a clear look at this colossal sick old mammoth
taking up all the space in the living room, and make it stop distracting itself with sexy cosmologies and
particle accelerators. I don’t quite have a name for this pathology. Let’s give it a real name together.
I have tried to gather some of the issues, attitudes, and methods that distinguish Radical Feminism from
other feminisms as we all enter the 21st century, as I see them today in my ongoing process of understanding.
1. Our Tradition. Eurocentric (or Northern, or Western, or industrial-society, or educated, whatever you
want to call them) feminists now have a specific tradition of leaders and visionaries who have moved beyond
reformism, including feminist groundbreakers like Sojourner Truth, Emmeline Pankhurst, Susan B.
Anthony, Simone de Beauvoir, Germaine Greer, Kate Millett, and many others. For their times and
circumstances, they are all great radicals. Women in all parts of the world have our resisters, our sisters who
have died or been destroyed in life because they are female. Their names and actions are being retrieved and
honored in each culture.
A broad, strong line of thinking has developed from the Eurocentric line through Mary Daly, Adrienne Rich,
Audre Lorde, Simone de Beauvoir, Shulamith Firestone, James Tiptree Jr./Alice Sheldon, Andrea Dworkin,
Valerie Solanis, Catherine MacKinnon, Octavia Butler, Joanna Russ, Sheila Jeffries, Ursula K. LeGuin,
Monique Wittig, and many others. Some of these women are philosophers, some are poets, some are
scientists, some are writers. Some are, to many of us, giants, like Dworkin and Daly.
There are now countless women working together for fundamental, not just incremental, change all over the
world, women scientists, politicians, grass-roots workers, nurses, weavers, students, mothers, and artists.
Many who might not identify themselves as radical feminists are nevertheless attacking the System with
great courage. We are forming global alliances, and the Internet is key to this work. We have this distinct
tradition of action and theory to work from.
2. Our Willingness to Speak the Unspeakable. So much of the work that has to be done is disgusting,
ugly. I call it Cleaning the Toilet. Radical Feminists have rolled up our sleeves. We speak, no, we shout, the
unspeakable. We address the taboo subjects that control us at a deep and horrible and soul-destroying level
of social control; sexual perversion, incest, rape, the sickness in marriage, the hidden horrors of growing up
female. We speak over and over; we de-sensitize so others can stand to speak also. We take on this pain

ecause we have to get close to the sickness to see it and describe it and eradicate it. The RadFem Hub is a
crucial part of this endeavor. To speak unvarnished truth is a radical act for women.
The strongest tool of the System has always been the glossectomy, the cutting out of women’s tongues both
literally and symbolically. Internet Blogs are more powerful than military hardware in stopping this
mutilation. The action of speech includes written journalistic investigation, editorializing, organizing,
consciousness-raising, developing strategies, developing theoretical and visionary frameworks, galvanizing,
vomiting out the pain, and giving women the strength to resist in their daily lives. Putting all this more
simply, we go to the most diseased, carefully-hidden part of the tree, the grim trunk itself without its foliage
of illusion, and expose it to the world. We look at basic assumptions, and reading our work in places like the
Radfem Hub can be horrifying as we examine the reality of marriage, sexual practices, and male violence. It
can also be exhilarating to know that what an individual woman has only intuited before really is in issue, has
a name, is discussed. Exposure is a curative act.
3. Our Uncompromising Attitude. We have given up the polite, diplomatic, politic, earnest, logical,
legalistic approach in favor of Realpolitik. We accept revolutionary attitudes and emotions; rage and despair,
unflinchingness, uncompromisingness as motivational and curative. We see that compassion, empathy, a
willingness to work with men, is seized upon and perverted by the System as it has always been, a weakness
when dealing with the amoral. We don’t make the mistake of wasting our energies trying to persuade men to
do anything. We are not naïve or idealistic, and we work to avoid falling into denial. There is no
romanticization possible of the System. As painful as it is, we choose to act without illusions, especially the
illusion that the System can be fundamentally changed from within.
4. Our Emphasis on Fundamental Change. We have moved beyond palliation (negotiation, mediation,
reform, compromise, engagement with the System) to exploring effective means of extirpating male
pathology, including being open to biological explanations and treatment of such psychopathy. We are
concerned with the overall structure of male oppression. We are open to going wherever the evidence and
experience lead us.
In recent years, studies of male hormones and aggression, the development of the science of social
dominance theory, primate studies, and genetics have begun in my opinion to take us very close to the
etiology of the underlying sickness. This emphasis on looking at the pathology of male hormonal
mechanisms is a new kind of “essentialism” that offers hope, because treatments can be developed to
mitigate the death-drive of men, their hierarchical psychology, their insensitivity to the pain of living
creatures, their pleasure in violence and intimidation, their acquisitiveness, their rape and phallic obsessions.
It’s an exciting development, though the science involved it goes hand in hand with new dangers to women
which must be resisted.
5. Our Sharp, Clean Boundary/Definition of Oppression that begins and ends with Women. I
feel that our insistence on sharp women-centered boundaries is our most important defense against the
inevitable attacks on our work. Boundaries keep us focused and avoid confusion. I think we differ very clearly
from other Feminist groups in this. Other feminists do not maintain such boundaries. Reformist, “liberal”
feminists, ally with elite men to make intermediate changes, which dilutes their work. Feminists who adopt
as their priorities the eradication of colonialism and racism — ignoring sexualized racism as in pornography
— ally themselves with previously-subjugated men, and it slows their work for women. Feminists who
emphasize the liberation of women’s sexual natures ally with pornographers and male perverts; this alliance
taints and undercuts their work. Some academic feminists, still under the sulfurous spell of Freud, Lacan,
Kristeva, and other continental psychologists, find themselves in alliance with the Transgender Movement,
which converts their theories into supporting what is actually primarily a male issue having little to do with
women. Feminists who ally with Marxist and socialist philosophies are, again, promoting men as much as
women. All of these different approaches to oppression are worthwhile; but without boundaries, the specific
work of women’s liberation is muddied and slowed, and Radical Feminists avoid this ongoing risk and
conserve our resources.
6. Our Exposure of Manufactured Confusion about Gender identity vs. Performance of
Conditioned Sex Roles. One inventive strategy of the System has been to encourage the notion that sex,
male and female, is entirely culturally conditioned. Some feminist academics, especially in the fields of
psychology, philosophy, and literature were duped into following this seductive thread and claiming too
much: that women are only social constructs, ignoring the reality that men know exactly who we are and
oppress us accordingly.
Underlying this all-encompassing rejection is the fear of an unspeakable potential implication, which Radical
Feminists can de-fuse and dispose of, namely, that if sex is fixed and inherent, then women are doomed to
eternal subservience and subjugation by their biology. But taking biological differences between men and
women off the theoretical table has had two unintended effects.
First, as I understand it, Radical Feminists are open to examining whether sexual differences may be fixed
and inherent (what used to be called the “essentialist” viewpoint) and at the same time they agree that sexual
roles are highly culturally conditioned and assigned as social controls.
The notion that sex is entirely culturally conditioned only strengthens the System, because it deprives us of
our obvious and conspicuous identity so that we are unable to keep ourselves from being confused and
overrun by male spies, saboteurs and fifth-columnists. At the moment, “male feminists” are demanding to be
permitted to ally with us. Transsexual and androgynous men are demanding that we ally with them. Women

eformists are demanding that we ally with male institutions to seek gradual change. Men and male
institutions only have the objective, whether explicit or implicit, of becoming “allied” or “involved” to keep
tabs and subtly control, and to bleed off our considerable resources.
Also involved is a naked showing of intimidation by the System, in the ongoing specific attempts to invade
our identity. Male camps outside women’s music festivals protesting their exclusion; the insistence of some
trans-female people on using women’s restrooms; the ongoing ridicule of feminist groups; the constant
attempts to enter conversations occurring on women-centered blogs; many other “small” invasions seem
almost funny until they are added up into an overall invasion to keep women from being left to themselves to
organize and act as a group. The RadFem Hub is especially effective in stripping away the illusions in which
these invasive actions are always cloaked.
7. Our Insistence that Cultural/Personal Control is More Malignant than Legal/Public
Control. Let me introduce my use of this word, “malignant”. It’s a frightening word, isn’t it It means to me
the energy that causes a disease to progress. It is often stealthy, this energy. Radical Feminists are seeing the
Malignant. It is metastasizing in a new form, insidious, abandoning the legal system, sneaking into our
personal lives in a way we have not seen in our lifetimes. We are subject to it every time we turn on the TV,
read about fashion shows or the wedding industry, see girls wearing less and less in the media photographs,
see women heroized who announce that their sole purpose in life is to sexually please and be dependent on
men for the rest of their lives. The pressure is intense and appears to be a reaction to Feminism’s legal gains.
One mechanism to control women is the pornography industry. It tortures, de-humanizes, and objectifies
women, and yet it is being presented today to young women as harmless or even positive. This mechanism
extends much more broadly than pornography media in the traditional sense; it includes the “sex-positive”
idea, in which women are brainwashed to follow traditional male patterns of sexual objectification and usage.
We are conned into sexual enslavement, encouraged to cater to male sex fantasies by publicly appearing in
seductive clothing (slutwalks), told to accept multiple male sex partners without adequate protection, told
that watching and accepting rape scenes in the media is normal, told to accept heterosexual marriage as our
sole route to happiness and satisfaction in life, told to accept that the male definition of sexual satisfaction is
the only one that matters, and so on. We are entered in toddler beauty contests dressed and made up as little
sex workers. We must wear clothing and footwear that disables and cripples us. Even when we are old we
must paint our faces and look “fuckable”. Women all over the world are taught these tremendous perversions
of nature even as they are in many countries coerced into sexual intimacy from childhood in forced marriages
in which they are bought and sold.
Radical feminists often use the word “Pornogrification” to describe this blighting mechanism of social
control. It is so insidious and powerful because it gets confused with something completely different, the
need for discovery of our real sexual natures, and for freedom in controlling our own bodies.
In spite of all the laws, women generally and globally are still property, still traded, still checked for
reproductive health, still given the vaccines to keep them but not the boys clean, still intimidated on the
streets, still kept from control over their own lives by intimidation, by brainwashing, by confusion, by
dividing and conquering, by isolating us into private family holes controlled by masters. All feminists work
for our full humanity, on our own sexuality, on our own mating choices, if any. Radical Feminists don’t ask
for these things. We don’t bargain, cajole, or wait for deliverance.
Radical Feminists are also exposing, in places like the RadFem Hub, the use of new technologies to direct
women’s lives. Attempts are being made to remove all control of childbirth from women. Other feminists
seem to me to have dropped the ball here. They do not seem to understand the dangers and the need to
prevent complete System control of reproductive technology and information. Again, it is important for
women not to be deprived of major involvement in science and technology. Technology can help or harm,
and the future will be shaped by the degree to which we use it for purposes of freedom, not control.
8. Our Exposure of Psychological Controls of Women such as Malignant Romanticism/Denial
Control Mechanism, Stockholm Syndrome, Intimidation, Divide-and-Conquer, Confusion,
Psychological Invasion. Again, the word “Malignant” is needed to describe these fantastically successful
psychological controls on women. Many millions of women on this earth still don’t have more than an uneasy
feeling regarding our oppression; we can’t imagine freedom; we love our oppressors. Many of us are attached
by strong bonds to boys and men in our families. How to deal with this love and attachment is often a central
and painful issue for feminists.
Attempts by women to separate ourselves even partially are met with the usual spectrum of intimidation:
social controls, ridicule, hostility, violence. I think we need a reality-based psychology for women that
explains and treats these mechanisms rather than training us to accept them. Beyond that, we must continue
identifying them everywhere, but not merely to fight each individual manifestation. The ongoing focus of
Radical Feminists is to stop them permanently from infecting men’s relations with women as a whole.
9. Respect for Other Strategies Attacking Male Oppression (Legal, Academic, Marxist). Radical
feminists appreciate the work of feminists putting out the fires and relieving the immediate pain. We help
when we can. We are all women, and we do want to ally with other women. We are sorry to see English and
psychology and philosophy departments of universities still influenced by phallocentric theory, but we also
have nothing but admiration for other professors like Donna Harroway and Sandra Harding for investigating
the phallocentrism of epistemologies underlying various sciences, for instance, and others for developing
some of the scientific and non-phallocentric theories I have mentioned above. White radical feminists

support our sisters struggling with racism and sexualized racism, the effects of Eurocentric colonialism on
women, and the damage to their cultures. Marxist/socialist feminists are close to our hearts; we do see how
the economic systems we are drowning in are closely intertwined with the oppression of women. We aren’t
rivals, any of us.
10. Our Development of Inspirational Visions of the Future. One of the saddest and most difficult
areas of feminist thought has to do with women’s invisible ancient history. Our failure thus far to
dispositively show that woman-dominated societies, or even unoppressive societies, once existed has been a
blow. It makes it seem as if such societies could not occur in the future. Reformist Feminists are much
concerned with resurrecting this uncertain, invisibilized past.
Radical feminists, I believe, point to the future. If there are no such societies found, Monique Wittig said,
invent them. There were never societies without legal slaves until recently. But legal slavery is no more.
What will the future look like Radical Feminism is especially prominent in developing many visions of
societies in which women are no longer, as Germaine Greer put it, a subjugated caste. Visions and goals
stimulate the methods for reaching them. Joanna Russ presented us with an early vision of a woman-only
society. James Tiptree, Jr. wrote a story in which the women characters flee earth entirely. Some say an earth
with only 10% men will be a safe earth free of oppression. We need more of these visions.
My own personal vision is that women will cure the sickness that ails men and that men will stay around,
hunkered in their man-caves playing the ukelele, leaving us in peace at last. As to what that cure may be, my
best bet is that what’s wrong with men is that their androgens need genetic modification.
I’m serious about this. If we can do it with corn, men ought to be easy.
Vliet Tiptree is a writer, poet, and ex-attorney blogging at http://vlietfeministpoetry.blogspot.com.
Share this: 0
Like this:
Like
14 bloggers like this post.
Posted on October 4, 2011 at 12:35 am in guest post, patriarchal institutions (medicine/religion/law), radfem 101, sci/tech
| RSS feed | Respond | Trackback URL
Tags: Radfem Hub, vliet tiptree
228 Responses to “Radical Feminism Enters the 21st Century”
1.
Maggie
October 5, 2011 at 1:58 am
This is a well-worked, well-written post, Vliet.
re the womyn-identified focus: I think it is a very important feature of ours and definitely the best
defence of our politics: All the rest of the world’s politics are not womyn-centred. We have the only truly
womyn-centred politics on earth. We advocate FAAB womyn-only spaces, btw, something men keep
trying to infiltrate and destroy…
re the fact that we are Westerners: Is there really no radical feminism in the so-called ‘third world’
I believe they are currently building strong womyn’s movements there, no
re men: yes, they are the problem, and womyn will have to realise this. Men are the carriers of a Y
chromosome that makes them the way they are, I believe. Womyn have to be strongly aware of the
posibility of men’s inherent sadism and cruelty.
Heterosexuality is NOT natural for womyn. It has been forced, imposed and indoctrinated upon them via
malestream customs and culture. Womyn who want to be free seriously have to consider overcoming
heteropatriarchal conditioning.
As a radical lesbian separatist, I tend to advocate that womyn separate from men as much as they can
(either to become lesbians or spinsters). Considering the world-wide gynocides that are currently
happening in pornography, prostitution, harmful ‘beauty’ practices of femininity, trans-politics,
reproductive technologies, and (in the non-Western world) FGM, abortion of baby girls, etc, it is clear
that womyn are safer without men.
Trust me, you feel a lot better and freer when you practise everyday separatism and womyn-centrism
(while keeping an eye on what’s happening in the world). (Of course I recommend this as much as it
can be possible within the life of each individual womyn)

e female biology: It is indeed extremely insane within ‘Academentia’ that the ‘new wave’ of pomo
feminists call us ‘essentialists’ just because we acknowledge the obvious: Female experience, that includes
female biology, is NOT a “social construct.” This sort of lie is currently allowing many be-penised males
who wear dresses to claim to be us (with protection from male laws on their side, btw).
Womyn have to realise that our own biology (Our unique female herstory of clitoral feelings, of womb
feelings, of menstruations, of belly cramps, of childbirths, of labour pain, of menopause, etc, a VERY
simple biological fact) is currently being erased from Academic feminist theory.
I swear it, I was sitting in that classroom (for ‘Contemporary Feminist Debates’) two weeks ago, trying to
tell those ‘feminists’ about the biological state of being female (i.e. the capacity to birth children, etc) and
they would not acknowledge the very simple fact that most other womyn would recognise as real. Those
pomo Academics would simply say to me that women are “social constructs” and that sex is “mutable,”
seriously WTF (to drive you insane really) I don’t blame those pomo fems entirely though. It was
obviously the job of male-supremacist society to brainwash them.
It is the goal of a patriarchal society to erase the female from existence because, of course, when you erase
her reality from existence then any harm being done to her is not being recognised as meaningful. It is
a real breath of fresh air to see radical feminists defending the simple fact that is female biology.
re vision of a new world- I’ve read The Female Man by Joanna Russ, Vliet. Excellent book.
Personally, I often imagine that, maybe one day we could all live in an all-female world and we could
somehow find a way to reproduce via parthenogenesis (e.g. as in Nicola Griffith’s Lesbian Utopia novel
Ammonite, or Katherine V. Forrest’s Daughters of a Coral Dawn, another Lesbian Utopia). There have
been compelling scientific proofs that men, because of their Y chromosomes, are doomed to extinction
anyway…
For now, let’s concentrate on getting the truth out there indeed.
In sisterhood.
2.
Sargasso Sea
October 5, 2011 at 2:17 am
How very affirming and inspiring this post is; I enjoyed reading it soooo much. Thank you.
And quite a lot to think about, too. I expect a mighty fine comment thread here as I, alone, already have
about 14 comments ready to go including this one:
This post feels like the foundation of a 21st Century Radfem *Mission Statement* (hey corporations are
*people* now, so why can’t we be!) that I hope we all can continue to add to and/or refine. Again, thank
you.
(Whittier Kindergarten, Class of ’72)
3.
FCM
October 5, 2011 at 2:20 am
i think that if we are going to be intellectually honest always, and commit to going to the ends of our
thoughts, we cannot take anything off the table. and that includes biology, and biological explanations for
mens sickening behavior. and if this turns out to be the case, then to consider a biological solution. we
must consider this. and this past year or so that i and others have been so vocally PIV-critical and
committed to acknowledging womens shared experience *as women* around the world, its become so
obvious that *biology* is critical to womens experience and its the one place the pomos refuse to go. they
flatly deny that there is any such thing as a female-bodied person. even as they are all taking fucking birth
control pills (and in the case of transmen, even taking testosterone, which they do not produce enough of
on their own for some reason….now why might that be) could it be that all this denial and willful
ignorance about biological femaleness (and maleness) is precisely because the only solution to womens
suffering under patriarchy *is* a biological one that men are biologically, genetically mentally ill, and the
only solution to this is a biological solution, and the last thing they want is for us to solve this problem
the problem of them
this is absolutely a taboo subject, but it has got to be discussed, and it is being discussed. thanks for this
thought-provoking guest post vliet!
4.
vliet (tiptree2)

October 5, 2011 at 3:16 am
Hi, Maggie, glad you found the post good enough to plow through. FCM is a co-author, really; her blog
posts have influenced me pretty strongly, and I’m sure a lot of RadFemHub bloggers will also see their
ideas reflected here, I hope fairly. I’m really just gathering up and organizing the many discussions I’ve
been reading over the past year. Pardon me, I know there are many radical feminists worldwide who may
not have followed our eurocentric literary and activist tradition; I’m just too ignorant to mention their
names and their traditions. Also you mention separatism and spinsterism as an option. As an older
woman I find celibacy/spinsterhood to be juuuussst right! Life is so much freer…yes, The Female Man is
such a classic now. I would love to read a Hub essay on science-fiction visions of radical feminism, or even
co-write one! As to “essentialism”, it really does seem like a topic to re-open and explore to me — another
great topic for an essay!
Hi, Sargasso, haha, Whittier, yep, East Whittier schools for me too! As to whether this could be re-drafted
as a mission statement of some kind, why, I’d be honored to have it just help as a framework for further
discussion or added to or whatever if anyone wants to do with it. It really is just a seriously drafty thing, a
compendium of others’ work.
Hi, FCM, many thanks again for working with me on this. I’m so glad that you and others are open to
considering a biology-based analysis of what is wrong with men. Here’s another potential essay topic.
Your analysis of PIV sex makes me think that we are finally going deep, deep to the bedrock. It’s really
astonishing that this insight could be developed at all from inside the culture, it is so “natural” a part of all
our lives. It had to be led up to, I think, with a long series of diggings from a lot of directions.
vliet
5.
FCM
October 5, 2011 at 3:45 am
tiptree, it was my pleasure working with you. honestly, this article is not anything i ever couldve written,
and the parts about biology are not anything that i have even considered before. if i inspired this, then i
find that amazing. thank you. the feminist sparks, they fly!
6.
cherryblossomlife
October 5, 2011 at 3:53 am
I loved this post tiptree. There is so much here to get my teeth into.
“Underlying this all-encompassing rejection is the fear of an unspeakable potential implication, which
Radical Feminists can de-fuse and dispose of, namely, that if sex is fixed and inherent, then women are
doomed to eternal subservience and subjugation by their biology. But taking biological differences
between men and women off the theoretical table has had two unintended effects.”
As a mother, point 6 resonates so strongly with me. It was the a radical feminist embracing of the female
body that made me realise this is the ideological outlook that is my true home. No, we are not the same as
men (thank god) Yes, we are essentialists (or quint-essentialists, as Daly would say) but it’s a hell of a
better place to be than in De Nile.
As a mother, this subject is probably the most painful one to deal with for me. But we have to shine a light
on our actual situation, not the imaginary place we wish we could be, and address it ( the PIV argument)
And as you say, women who ignore the truth of female biology have their head in the clouds, because
*men* know exactly how they oppress us. We humans are closer to the animals than we think. And look
at animals… primates do NOT do pair-bonding. Females live together in groups, they *are* the
community, and men hover around the outskirts fighting and killing each other. Let’s go back to the way
it’s supposed to be, I say.
7.
vliet (tiptree2)
October 5, 2011 at 4:48 am
Hi, Cherryblossomlife, I’m happy you found something thoughtworthy here. I sure do agree; we can learn
a lot from our animal relatives. I keep thinking that there has been a wrong turn in this ideological
rejection of biology. I identify some of it with the false logic that the System is therefore “natural”, that is,
that women are born to be subservient. I think we have to turn the logic on its head. It ain’t about women.
Let’s assume instead, correctly, that the majority of humanity being female, we are the “norm”. Our
biology is the basis of humanity. Now let’s look at what it is in the male sex that drives them to such
deviant aggressive behavior as constant war, hierarchies, and strict domination of women. None of these
behaviors are adapted to the needs of our modern world. It’s their androgens, to put it simply. It’s not just
testosterone, though men have on the average an astounding 14 times the “norm”, that is, the amount
women have. What is the “safe” amount of testosterone a human being with an XY genotype can have

without causing unacceptable harm to others due to his abnormal aggressiveness caused by this ancient
hormonal adaptation to a hunting environment I won’t go on, but I think it’s a reasonable question, and
the answer would indeed lead to a treatment protocol, and then…oh, I know, this isn’t simple, really,
but…I think it could easily be established that men are sick with abnormally high levels of aggressive
hormones and they can’t run amok like this any longer now that technology can treat this condition.
Oh, and I don’t think this condition even has a name yet. It’s the Great Unspeakable.
vliet.
8.
Lilith
October 5, 2011 at 6:33 am
A biology-based analysis of what is wrong with men could help explain why the oppression of women is so
global, before the world even became ‘global’. That said, men’s behaviour is certainly socialised as well. I
think it would be this aspect that gives men the choice of behaving in a certain way. If it were entirely
biological, they’d all be acting in the same horrendous way (and they don’t, although I know women
reading RadFemHub might disagree with me). But yes it has often baffled me, how did the entire world
come to oppress women
On a possible matriarchy, this is something I have always missed and am constantly working on. I often
wonder why I am a feminist at all given how women have, and do tend to treat me. I am determined,
however, to build my own little female centered utopia. Seeking loyal, reliable friends is where I am
beginning.
Even if we killed off 90% of men, the majority of women left over would do their best to keep the
oppressive system. I’d dare say we’d have to kill off all the women too and leave the little girls and
radfems to create the utopia.
Great post. Just what I’ve needed to read to help clarify what exactly Radical Feminism is today.
x
9.
DaveSquirrel
October 5, 2011 at 6:44 am
Fantastic and inspiring post VT.
The *magic number* to bring the males under control is ~30% of the population (roughly 2 females per
male). There are a few countries (like in Africa) where the men have managed to kill themselves off with a
lot of warring, then the women get into politics and make a lot of community-friendly political decisions,
that benefit the whole community, not just women. So much for the MRA scare tactics of a matriarchy
being just the reverse of a patriarchy (supposedly with females being just as self-serving as the males were
when in power).
It was only recently that I decided that there is just something fundamentally wrong with males (the
majority of them at any rate, there are a tiny number of exceptions), and not just due to their masculinity
conditioning, which I think builds on what is wrong in the first place. I happened to read a year-old
interview with Gail Dines which focuses on the brutality of today’s porn, it’s not just that no one (except
radfems) cannot see it, it is the fact that this is what males enjoy watching in their porn, utter brutality
directed against females. The mindset that would enjoy this type of brutality is obvious – there is
something very very wrong with them. Porn stopped the pretense of being about sex somewhere in the
80s, from that point on, the violence and brutality took over (which is where I disagree with Prof Dines,
she states just 15 years, I make the transition period closer to 25 years). Certainly porn tells more of the
truth about males and not just the lies about females. It is one of those ‘cannot be unseen’ moments when
you do see it. If only the average female knew the type of person she is living with and what he thinks of
women – frightening.
10.
FCM
October 5, 2011 at 10:54 am
im not even particularly interested in a world full of radfems…a world without rape is what i am after.
everything else would just be gravy.
okay, i would like a world without forced impregnation, psychiatry/gynecology and patriarchal
institutions that attach at the moment a woman becomes impregnated too. that would be good.

11.
patriarchywatch
October 5, 2011 at 11:31 am
This post was nothing short of BRILLIANT. So inspiring, thank you!
My Vision:
A world where mothers are in charge, every step of the way, from the (tribal) family unit – where sisters
and aunties and grandmothers all help one another and this group of females serves as the loving centre
of the family – to the community decision making level.
A world where males are shunned by everyone & punished severely (outcast) if they are aggressive or
violent.
A world free of brainwashing and gender stereotypes.
Where young boys are raised to *feel* empathy and sympathy, to use their tear ducts, to be gentle and
loving and express themselves in what used to be considered ‘female’ ways if they want to.
There is no such thing as war or weapons and violence is absolutely not allowed, so young boys do not
play with guns or play violent games. They just play sports, make believe, and enjoy nature.
Kids use their imagination and creativity is revered. Kids are curious and artistic.
A world where girls and women are free, free, free in every way. Free mentally, physically and
institutionally.
A world where females are respected & admired for their loving hearts & kindness, not exploited or
considered weak.
p.s. Sometimes I feel inadequate because I am unable to intellectualise these concepts & then articulate
those thoughts in a blog post like all y’all smarty pantses.
But then I think about the most oppressed, vulnerable women in the world – the ones who are deeply
brainwashed, or uneducated, and I realise that we need to find ways to communicate these ideas in very
simple language that resonates with the less privileged women, at their core. We need to create simple,
pithy phrases that can’t be argued with, that will stick in the minds of the most vulnerable women, and
plaster them all over the internet. Maybe just create simpler versions of the pictures on the SCUM-O-
Rama blog Because at the moment the brilliant writings on this hub will only be able to ‘reach’ women of
a certain level of consciousness/privilege. How shall we plan to reach and convert the ones who need
radical feminism the most
12.
GallusMag
October 5, 2011 at 11:45 am
Any technological solution should be decentralized and inexpensive.
13.
developing
October 5, 2011 at 11:51 am
Thanks for that post : ) I’m attracted to the idea of a woman-centred world, but in the meantime am really
lucky to be able to be a lesbian spending most of my social life (unfortunately not my worklife) with other
lesbians and feminist-identified straight women.
My concern with the biological argument though, although I do have a lot of sympathy for it, is can it be
used by men as an excuse As in: “well, we don’t have to change, it’s in our genes, we’re not going to treat
you any better or change anything about ourselves because what we’re doing is on our Y chromosome”.
Actually as I’m writing this, I guess that’s what you’re saying As in, there’s no point trying to change men
or work with them Trouble is with them in power, they can just use it as an excuse if that makes sense
and sadly plenty of women will let them do so because they too think men are just “made that way” and
you have to excuse them.
They already do this anyway – especially in relation to PIV – I’ve heard plenty of comments over the years
about how “men have needs and it’s not fair for women to deny them – it’s just biology and women need
to deal with it or at least not complain when men get their needs met elsewhere (like with prostitutes) –
just like men give women a roof over their heads”. It sickens me – they don’t need more ammunition.
I think it really is better just to pull up the drawbridge and let them get on with it, sadly alongside all the
women who can’t or refuse to see the real picture Maybe separatism is the only answer But I can’t help

worrying about the women who are left to deal with the men in that scenario….
14.
cherryblossomlife
October 5, 2011 at 11:57 am
“I identify some of it with the false logic that the System is therefore “natural”, that is, that women are
born to be subservient. I think we have to turn the logic on its head. It ain’t about women.”
Patriarchy is insane. It has taken us so far away from how we’re supposed to be.
Aren’t we the only primates where the males of the species routinely commit feminicide
Mass femicide is taking place in Honduras now. And look at the two women a week murdered by their
spouse in the UK. Or the female fetocide in INdia and China because boys are more valuable!
HUman males are wiping human females out. HUman females are the only primates who have to put up
with cowardly fucking men who kill the females of their own species rather than each other.
Patriarchies are evolutionarily maladaptive. it’s ridiculous.
It’s *men* that are redundant due to their high fertility. They should be fighting each other, fighting for
the right to pass on their genes: survival of the fittest *man* is how it really should be. WOmen are
essential for the continuation of the human race, due to our low fertility.
15.
Sargasso Sea
October 5, 2011 at 3:45 pm
As in, there’s no point trying to change men or work with them Trouble is with them in power, they can
just use it as an excuse if that makes sense…
Developing, yes! It makes perfect sense and that is one of the tools they use against US to silence US;
don’t say it because it could be used against us…
And that is one of OUR biggest problems, is being on the defense instead of being OFFENSIVE. Again.
16.
zeph
October 5, 2011 at 4:51 pm
“My concern with the biological argument though, although I do have a lot of sympathy for it, is can it be
used by men as an excuse As in: “well, we don’t have to change, it’s in our genes, we’re not going to treat
you any better or change anything about ourselves because what we’re doing is on our Y chromosome”.
Developing, men don’t need an excuse, they are just going to do it anyway. Why assume we can talk them
out of it They are killing women and children worldwide, is us lying over evolution really going to make a
difference Ignoring reality will not solve anything. As cherry said, patriarchies are maladaptive and are
rare in nature. Chimpanzees are basically patriarchal (ruled by older males) but they have never been a
very successful or wide spread species, they are too nasty for true success.
It is against women’s genetic interests to marry one man especially any male over forty, when his sperm
quality is in severe decline, leading to a higher risk of genetic abnormalities. Our XX chromosomes
demand reproductive freedom, living with men is being forced to birth their children. Biology dictates
that women should live in extended female run, family groups, picking different, though characteristically
gifted fathers; so as not to put all our genetic eggs in one basket. This inevitably means that many,
especially mean misogynistic males, will just not make the grade. But that is a healthy biological outcome
for the species.
Excellent post Vleit, thanks. One point though, there is an abundance of evidence for pre-patriarchal
cultures.
17.
Noanodyne
October 5, 2011 at 5:09 pm
You make some great points and given us lots to talk about, Vliet. This particularly:
Some feminist academics, especially in the fields of psychology, philosophy, and literature
were duped into following this seductive thread and claiming too much: that women are
only social constructs, ignoring the reality that men know exactly who we are and oppress
us accordingly. Underlying this all-encompassing rejection is the fear of an unspeakable
potential implication, which Radical Feminists can de-fuse and dispose of, namely, that if
sex is fixed and inherent, then women are doomed to eternal subservience and subjugation
by their biology.

I think biology is absolutely an area that we need to look at in more depth, with more tools, and
unflinchingly. Of course biology is a great excuse for men, they’ve been using it all along; our looking
more closely at it isn’t going to change that one way or the other. But I’ve seen many radical feminists shy
away from talking about it or give the usual academic explanation (it’s ALL just cultural conditioning; for
example, that’s the currently popular explanation for claiming that any woman can be a lesbian). We’ve
been afraid for just the reason you give (and of course it’s a well-founded fear), but just as you say, we can
de-fuse and dispose — but only if we’re the ones investigating and interpreting. The patriarchy has shown
itself to be intractable in the face of everything else we’ve tried. Genetics, reproduction, etc. may indeed
hold the promise of dismantling it. But we need to be as brave when we’re looking at biology as we’ve
been with everything else.
18.
FCM
October 5, 2011 at 5:33 pm
i have heard that even radfems who initially mightve been willing to “go there” regarding and harms to
women of PIV backed off after seeing all the shit andrea dworkin was subjected to after writing
“intercourse.” that concept — that PIV harms women and fundamentally supports male power — is based
in biology, specifically mens deliberate exploitation of female biology (and abuse of their own male power
to impregnate us) for their own gain. but its also very obvious. if this is one of the side-doors from which
we have gotten to this place — discussing a potential biological solution to the problem of patriarchy —
that would make sense. i think we need to go there again and see whats down that road. as noan says, this
analysis must be brave, and *we* have to be the ones doing it, not men. we have seen where they take
this, and yes, its the conclusion that men have needs that must be catered to, and that women are
naturally deficient and subservient to them. i have seen some ev psychs suggest that based on their data
that men seem biologically predisposed to rape, that we need extra-stringent social and legal controls on
them. but noone is willing to do that, and this solution is kind of swept under the rug. and none of them
are willing to go so far as to suggest the male population be reduced, instead of throwing them all in jail.
no, they would never *conceive* of a reproductive solution, because they all think they are special
snowflakes and that they all individually deserve a chance. well, women — overwhelmingly the victims of
mens sickening brutality — may not think thats true, and might actually be willing to do something about
it. men just never will.
19.
vliet (tiptree2)
October 5, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Just dropping in to say how much I appreciate these comments, which galvanize my thinking. I really like
that word “brave”. Love GallusMag’s comment, there’s so much behind that. Love the openness here.
Love hearing it said again, we must get off the defensive. Love patriarchywatch’s vision. Love it all.
20.
Feuerwerferin
October 5, 2011 at 6:10 pm
I agree with you FCM, WE deserve a chance, too! A chance to have our human rights respected.
A question to Vliet: why don’t you bring up the fact that men are bigger, stronger, heavier and faster I
think that if they were smaller and weaker as males of some species are, they couldn’t cause reproductive
damage either even if they still could impregnate because they could no longe use force. Actually it is
these things that the non-feminist friends of mine have mentioned when being worried about male
violence.
21.
FCM
October 5, 2011 at 6:47 pm
re getting the radfem message out, im not sure thats as big of a concern as it might seem neither is
making it “more simple” so that “uneducated” women can understand it. radical feminist theory is basic
and packed with simple, everyday truths that *all* women relate to. thats the thing about having
identified women as a sexual class, and a common plight shared by women across time and place: women
who dont have access to technological or pharmaceutical harm-reduction methods (like hormonal birth
control) know better than any of us what its like when men AS MEN oppress women as women. only
“western privileged” women who arent hit full-force with the effects of PIV could ever possibly imagine
that PIV was the road to womens liberation, instead of the road to our demise, with womens dead and
dying bodies on every side. unlike *those* women, who are living in some kind of la-la land compared to
everyone else, most women do know what we are talking about. and some of them are already
implementing biological solutions that we are only just now beginning to discuss, like dispatching their
male babies immediately after birth rather than investing a decade or two of resources into them before
their grown male children end up killing everyone and being killed in generations-old wars started and
continued by men.

this stuff is really basic. i think western conveniences and our fake academented educations only make
this shit harder to grasp.
22.
Noanodyne
October 5, 2011 at 6:59 pm
I’m glad Vliet brought up science fiction, because pretty much every scenario we imagine as solving the
“man problem” has been written about in that genre by women. Yes, there’s a story about smaller, weaker
men and what comes next. (I don’t remember the name; I’ve read many, many dozens of sci-fi stories by
women and sadly, I don’t remember all the names or authors.) Writers have explored what the basis for
the harm that men cause is beyond just using their physical size and strength for getting their way. In
other words, is it really just because they are bigger and stronger or because they have a mentality that no
matter what size they are There’s every reason to believe that they will use any advantage, any tactic, and
any means to get to the same place of domination. I know there are a whole bunch of women who want to
believe that there’s some way of rescuing the “Y” from its own destruction (and their loss of having males
in their lives). That desire is an indication in and of itself what we’re up against. Men manipulate, coerce,
and dominate in ways that aren’t always physically violent, but are very effective. That behavior can be as
controlling as if they have a gun to your head. And as of right this minute, the only way to be impregnated
is with male sperm. As long as they have that kind of control over women’s lives (as in, the woman carries
the fetus, gives birth, and is tied to the child), it doesn’t matter how small and weak the impregnator is
unless he is kept far away from the society of women and girls, providing only his sperm and then only
from a distance.
23.
Sargasso Sea
October 5, 2011 at 7:16 pm
We need womyn *funded* R&D is all. We need womyn funded scholarships and apprenticeships and lab
spaces.
And I’m not talking about begging for some corner of some basement at some university, obviously.
24.
Mary Sunshine
October 5, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Women need to stop raising male children. Women who raise male children are digging the graves of
other females. Nobody wants to bite that bullet (except lesbian separatists) but it must be done.
25.
FCM
October 5, 2011 at 7:33 pm
i agree mary. although i can only imagine what it might be like to raise girls in this world: kinda like
putting all your resources and sincere love and devotion into raising a couple of cows knowing they were
going to be eaten eventually, is the best i can come up with women always say they dont want to bring
children “into this world” but its not women who are really given the choice, obviously. which is largely
why they are still having babies at all, whether male or female. it occurs to me that a female ob/gyn that
was willing to perform sex-selective abortions on male fetuses would be giving a gift to the next
generation, and preventing the future generation of girls and women being eaten alive.
26.
FCM
October 5, 2011 at 7:38 pm
yes i *know* i just compared girl-children to cows! if any mothers of girl-children want to chime in here
regarding what its really like to raise girls in this world, i hope they might describe what its like. does
anyone think they are raising the next generation of amazonian warriors for example i hope so.
27.
Noanodyne
October 5, 2011 at 7:40 pm
And taking that thought all the way to the end, FCM and Mary, means that we have to be willing to
consider not having humans on the planet at all. And to that I say, here, here.
28.

FCM
October 5, 2011 at 7:46 pm
yes i am more than willing to consider that, however this is not an option for most women, who cant even
refuse PIV when they want to. if we were to implement this, i guess “western” civilization where *some*
women have the power to say *no* would decline first thats probably as it should be, but its not a global
solution is it unless we want to put something in the water, globally
29.
Undercover Punk
October 5, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Hi vliet, this is a great post! It was a pleasure to read and covers a lot of ground. Thank you so much. I
hope you won’t mind if I ask a question about reformism versus radicalism. You said:
feminists now have a specific tradition of leaders and visionaries who have moved beyond
reformism, including feminist groundbreakers like Sojourner Truth, Emmeline Pankhurst,
Susan B. Anthony, Simone de Beauvoir, Germaine Greer, Kate Millett, and many others.
My question is why you consider these women, who may have left their imprint on the system but not
destroyed it, “radical” rather than reformist The suffragettes, for example, fought for women’s right to
vote within the existing system. MacKinnon and Dworkin also used well-established legal methods to
attack pornography. I agree that the ideas were radical, but not necessarily the methods. So what do you
mean by “radical” And what can we do, today, that *is* radical by your standards without resorting to
violence (which I would describe as “using the master’s tools” to dominate the dominators) Thanks!
30.
helhest
October 5, 2011 at 9:38 pm
re: mary sunshine: if male children are born into this world, which they are (and i don’t see that not being
the case anytime soon), it is absolutely women who should be raising them, ideally without an adult malepresence.
the idea of men raising male children is one of the worst possible things i can imagine.
31.
cherryblossomlife
October 5, 2011 at 10:01 pm
hmm. the not raising male children one is difficult one for me as I have one!! I mean, we need female
children and I’m so glad I have a daughter. SHe was my first, perhaps I should have stopped at one, but as
I was saying on another thread just now I only had my radical reawakening when I was well into my
second pregnancy.
We need to severely curtail male power out there in the world. When their social power is annihilated
surely that will count for something. Black men are bigger, faster and stronger than white men, this is
obvious, you only have to look at the Olympics to see that, and yet white men have always managed to
oppress them. Japanese men are tiny and yet they have completely dominated Asia for a century.
So I don’t think physical size and strength is the issue here. it’s the *structural* workings of *social*
power. Men need to be stripped of their social, economic and political power. The rest will follow.
32.
cherryblossomlife
October 5, 2011 at 10:18 pm
COme to think of it, Japan the country is also tiny.
So how did they do it
1) Meticulous organization; plans executed to perfection
2) Subsuming individual will/desires for the greater good; the goals of the group take precedence over
personal dreams/aspirations
3) Leadership.
They did not have numbers or brute strength on their side.
Let’s deploy some of these strategies. And women are more intelligent than men, in general, so we have
that as well.

33.
FCM
October 5, 2011 at 10:43 pm
the idea of men raising male children is one of the worst possible things i can imagine.
knowing what men do to female children, i would think that men raising girls is the worst possible thing i
can imagine, and men having anything to do with girl children in any setting is a close second.
34.
FCM
October 5, 2011 at 10:46 pm
this of course leaves 100% of the burden of raising both girls and boys on women and mothers, which is a
real problem, particularly considering that most pregnancies are either unwanted or ambivalent, and a
side-effect of male-centric PIV-as-sex that men demand.
35.
Maggie
October 5, 2011 at 11:13 pm
re getting the radfem message out, im not sure thats as big of a concern as it might seem neither is
making it “more simple” so that “uneducated” women can understand it. radical feminist theory is basic
and packed with simple, everyday truths that *all* women relate to.
I can tell you, when I first started reading about radical feminism and the Womyn’s Liberation
Movement, I was not college-“educated” or anything. I was just a poor working-class gal, and it all made
sense to me. Our texts are very understandable to English-speaking womyn. What I worry more about
though is that most womyn on this earth don’t speak English. So, we would need translators, for sure.
re men (again)- I agree with Zeph. And the ‘Nature Vs. Nurture’ debate is utterly pointless, by the way.
There’s a lot of biological explanation regarding the Y chromosome. But, being a student in the social
sciences, I will concede that there may be some social factors conditioning some men’s behaviours as
well. However, it is not important. I remember reading Sarah Lucia Hoagland (a lesbian separatist) say
somewhere that even if men’s behaviour was conditioned, we have no proof that they would want to give
it up during their lifetime anyway.
We certainly shouldn’t try to spend our precious gynergy on trying to ‘change’ men (though we might be
able to call them out on their bullshit once we unite more of us together and outnumber them of course,
though I don’t think they’ll listen and we would have to fight). We have to think about changing ourselves
first, about saving our Womyn species. Our feminism is NOT about ‘equality’; it is about Liberation: the
Liberation of Womyn from men’s oppression. And this is what we’ve got to work to achieve. The only
form of equality that I see would be relevant to our work should therefore only be about equality between
all womyn.
Mary Sunshine- More importantly, I think womyn need to stop giving birth to any more males…
FCM: it occurs to me that a female ob/gyn that was willing to perform sex-selective abortions on male
fetuses would be giving a gift to the next generation, and preventing the future generation of girls and
women being eaten alive.
Great idea.
36.
Maggie
October 5, 2011 at 11:30 pm
[ Sorry: I had to log in to be able to post the rest of my comment. in 2 parts. damn wordpress! ]
DaveSquirrel: The *magic number* to bring the males under control is ~30% of the population (roughly
2 females per male). There are a few countries (like in Africa) where the men have managed to kill
themselves off with a lot of warring, then the women get into politics and make a lot of communityfriendly
political decisions, that benefit the whole community, not just women.
This is a good idea, also. I agree that (if our Womyn’s Liberation politics were able to reach the hearts of
many womyn), an egalitarian sort of matriarchy would be a solution in the short term.
I remember something Zeph once said about the Bonobo society being actually matriarchal and
egalitarian, because the females can gather together in groups, outnumber the males and make sure that

they (males) will behave. Didn’t you talk about something like this, Zeph Can you please remind me
(and correct me if I’m wrong)
Also, I like solutions to men’s violence like how womyn in Sweden (who comprised 49% of the parliament
there) managed to pass a law that penalizes johns when they try to buy prostituted womyn. It has
marvelously worked in terms of reducing prostitution and trafficking in Sweden. This is merely an
example to say that I support feminist actions like these to fight against male violence (while men are still
on this earth).
37.
Maggie
October 5, 2011 at 11:36 pm
[ sorry I have to cut my comment into parts to get WordPress to take it ]
But, in the end, (as I said before) please don’t forget 2 things, womyn:
(1) We do not need to worry too much about the overpopulation on earth making it impossible for us to
‘overthrow’ patriarchy completely in the short term. Climate change (i.e. male-created global warming)
disasters will inevitably cull a very large number of the human population. Among the womyn survivors, I
believe there will be many womyn who will want real justice. Only then, I believe it will be possible for
womyn to work for a new, womyn-centred (and matriarchal) society. Yes, it is very sad that many women
& girls will die in ecological disasters entirely caused by men. However, I believe that womyn will have a
better chance to fight patriarchy after population decline.
(2) The Y chromosome is deteriorating ; it is NOT a stable chromosome. It is doomed to failure. Men will
eventually become extinct. It is unavoidable.
38.
Maggie
October 5, 2011 at 11:52 pm
[final part]
This is why I believe in parthenogenesis when it comes to the vision of a new world. I believe it has existed
for womyn, and it will exist again someday, in a new womyn-only world.
With Mary Sunshine, last summer I managed to download and share two brilliantly interesting papers on
human parthenogenesis & womyn’s culture. So I wanted to say as well, if womyn readers here would be
interested in reading those two papers on parthenogenesis that I have, please drop me a comment at the
bottom of this page here, and I’ll share them via email with you. It’s a very interesting vision.
39.
tiptree2
October 6, 2011 at 12:00 am
Thanks for reading, UndercoverPunk. Your letter to the UN knocked my sox off, BTW. My simple thought
about the excellent Catherine MacKinnon is that she has put her rep on the line in the sharp clean cause
of women. That’s radical; working for laws that will help men, primarily, is not. She has challenged
fundamental assumptions of the legal system and attacked Supreme Court decisions. All that is beyond
“working within the system”. Of course, she doesn’t have to draw any distinctions between her reformist
and her radical work. We all have to find that balance, and with all the pain out there, I’m sure the most
radical among us still spends time helping put out fires. What are your thoughts on this
About men being bigger, Feuerwerferin…yes, they’re scary…but no need for fisticuffs when there are safe
weapons for self-defense out there…every girl must learn self-defense, including a martial art and use of
pepper spray and other weapons. Here’s more doublespeak from the System…it is said that women don’t
need to protect themselves because big ole men will do that! Can you feel it, the pressure to stay
vulnerable Maybe we can spread the word about where that pressure comes from.
Like your ideas above, Cherry, about Japan.
Hi, Zeph, ok, there might have been some matriarchy somewhere in prehistory. I’ve read a lot and don’t
feel convinced. Matrilineal and matrifocal don’t cut it for me. The village elders are still male. Open to
being convinced, though, I just don’t want to look back too much any more….
40.
Maggie
October 6, 2011 at 1:18 am

there are safe weapons for self-defense out there…every girl must learn self-defense, including a martial
art and use of pepper spray and other weapons.
I agree, Vliet. I remember that Diana Russell, at the end of her book Making Violence Sexy,
recommended civil disobedience and self-defence against men whenever necessary. Martial arts can be
handy because with them you can manage to defeat an enemy who’s bigger than you.
And, yes, there used to be matriarchies in ancient times. Amazon societies are an example among many
others. Others included Goddess worshipping and female-as-creator-of-life worshipping.
41.
zeph
October 6, 2011 at 1:35 am
“I remember something Zeph once said about the Bonobo society being actually matriarchal and
egalitarian, because the females can gather together in groups, outnumber the males and make sure that
they (males) will behave. Didn’t you talk about something like this, Zeph Can you please remind me
(and correct me if I’m wrong)”
Yes, this is right Maggie, but bonobo males have much better lives than their patriarchal chimpanzee
cousins, and female bonobos love their sons.
Because females are ultimately in charge of reproduction (even though they appear to mate freely) they
have been selecting the best natured, most intelligent males for eons.
Robert Yerkes, the American pioneer of ape research, contrasted “Prince Chim,” an individual now known
to have been a bonobo, with ordinary chimpanzees: he admired Chim’s character and intelligence and
said he had never seen an animal the equal of him. Which is why he called him prince of chimpanzees.
Female bonobos have crafted fine males, through generations of carefully sifting the seed.
Sadly, human males have been choosing who mates who, for the last five thousand years! They have a lot
to answer for.
42.
cherryblossomlife
October 6, 2011 at 3:20 am
“knowing what men do to female children, i would think that men raising girls is the worst possible thing
i can imagine, and men having anything to do with girl children in any setting is a close second.”
100% agree with this. A lot of women these days think feminism means letting the father take over the
childcare while they go out to work (SAHDs). IT makes my blood run cold. CHild abusers/paedophiles
are overwhelmingly men, and this is shocking when we consider that *men* *spend* *very* *little*
*time* *with* *children* as it is. Let’s look at the animals again: males don’t raise the young. More often
than not they kill the young of their own species, just like human males do.
43.
cherryblossomlife
October 6, 2011 at 3:27 am
In the all-female setting women taking the full responsiblity for child-rearing wouldn’t be a problem. The
entire concept of the nuclear family is defunct. Women should live together, pool resources, as the radfem
blogs have been discussing for a while… Right now men are raping women with impunity but it would be
harder for them to do that if other women were always in the vicinity. In a normal society not all women
would decide to risk their life for childbirth. About 40-50% or less of women would probably give it a go,
out of curiosity. There would be plenty of aunts, friends, grandmothers, sisters around so the burden
wouldn’t fall on the mother, like it does today in patriarchy. [
The fact that patriarchies force mothers to take on the full burden of child-rearing, when they have the
*least* financial resources in society shows again, how defunct and maladaptive patriarchies are. In a
sane society time, energy and resources would go to raising the young, not on some old geezer’s prostitute
habit.
44.
Beth
October 6, 2011 at 11:28 am
I agree that women need our own society, and I don’t think that it’s an impossible dream either. Land and
homes are dirt cheap right now, if we started fundraising, maybe under a less radical banner of say
helping pregnant women, and/or prostitutes, women seeking assylum etc… I think that we would have a
lot of support. I think it’s natural for women to live and raise children together. Men invented marriage,
tried to force women into it on “moral” grounds, sat around for centuries like a bunch of belching, farting

kings being waitted on hand and foot, and then had the nerve to act put upon: drinking, cheating, lying,
violence, child abuse…. And women have put up with it all for what The pleasure of keeping company
with these furry, smelly, diseased, beer sucking thugs Yuck!
I love this web site by the way!
For anyone who is interested, I’ve just posted a new blog:
http://womensfreedomproject.blogspot.com/2011/10/where-are-all-of-lawyers.html
Can’t wait to read more Peeps!
45.
Sunspinner
October 6, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Brilliant to read your post vliet. This is the first time I have been moved to reply to anything on this
site….which is a fantastic site. I agree that the answer is biological and have been living as a lesbian
separatist for over 25 years. Have just read Sonia Johnson’s ‘ The Sisterwitch Conspiracy’ which also
focuses on males being The problem. She talks about native american and australian aboriginal cultures
both believing that once all was female, and that maleness is a mutation. Like any mutation it is ill
equipped to last and that males are dying out, and this too was foretold. Some of these wimmin and Sonia
believe that this time is now and that there is actually nothing extra we have to do to bring it about it will
happen anyway. We just have to try to survive as best we can to get through to the time of a female planet.
I recommend the book.
She also cites Monique Wittig and invents…she believes that all the images males have made of powerful,
flying, intuitive,superstrong,timetravelling,universe travelling beings are actually signs to what females
were originally capable of.
Radiant energy to you all!
46.
tiptree2
October 6, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Beth, thanks for linking to your fine essay on the legal status of motherhood.
Just Separating…another great topic for a thread of its own. It’s such a relief to think about just leaving
the whole mess and buying the biggest plot of land possible and forming a women’s commune. A lot of us
feel so isolated and would love to do this. Some of us worry as said above about leaving women with no
ability to escape, but maybe there are ways of helping from a base of peace and power. Maybe it’s the best
way, showing by example what freedom looks like. It just feels so good to think about. I immediately
think about establishing such centers of women, then starting a sort of Underground Railroad to help
women escape all over the world. The main thing to be avoided is to bleed off the women with skills,
education, & money entirely. Seems like a lot of you already have made your own mini-centers of power
within your communities. Great!
Sunspinner, I’m putting the Johnson book on my list…thanks for joining in!
Zeph, it does seem like looking at our close primate relatives, looking at the remnants of paleolithic
societies still on this earth, and trying to see our species’ deep past might add up to a vision of who we are
meant to be…it’s exciting to be at here now as this knowledge is finally unearthed…
47.
zeph
October 6, 2011 at 7:28 pm
“Matrilineal and matrifocal don’t cut it for me. The village elders are still male. Open to being convinced,
though, I just don’t want to look back too much any more….”
I know the feeling of not wanting to look back vliet. But, “Those who cannot learn from history are
doomed to repeat it”, so I think it is important for women to know who they really are.
The village elders in matriarchal societies are women! Matriarchy does not change to patriarchy overnight
there are interim stages, some of these stages have, in some geographical locations, lasted for thousands
of years. Anyway it is a vast subject, but here is a link to a short video about a rare still extant matriarchal
society who’s island is vanishing under the waves of global warming:
http://reallyrad.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/matriarchal-society-vanishing-due-to-global-warming/
48.
Witchwind

October 6, 2011 at 9:26 pm
We humans, unlike animals, have complete free will as to how to organise our society. Although we have
hormones, nothing compells us to reproduce, or to kill, we have an infinite potential of creativity as we
have an infinite potential for destructivity – while this freedom may be our power, it is also our curse –
but it’s up to us not to use it for destruction. I find it difficult to believe men are hardwired to dominate.
They’re just mad that they’re not at the centre of reproduction and creation of life, that their role is so
insignificant compared to women’s. The only way they had to overcome their insignificance in order
become the centre (which is only a deception anyway) was through the use of force, by transgressing
women’s integrity, by violence, rape, by creating a system of domination that would reenact this
trangression as an ordering principle of society. That was the only option they had, because no women
would accept to lose control over her body and reproduction voluntarily.
They still havn’t got over this primary shock but it’s time they grow up. If they remain in this state of utter
stupidity I’m pretty sure nature will get rid of them pretty soon, and kill them all before they have the
opportunity to kill the earth entirely. I believe they are totally capable of stopping, but not unless they
receive a Universal Slap in the Face, not until women and nature revolts against their stupidity and
destructiveness, not until we wake up and put an end to this craziness, not until we cease to participate
(as oppressed class) in this craziness and de-indentify from men’s interest in destroying us and the earth.
There is no need for there to have been a dominating gene in men’s body – members of a species interact
with each other energetically accross the globe – this has been proven with other species. It is perfectly
congruent that the male part of the species developed more or less similarly around the world, and this
evolution then became ingrained into the memory of their conscience, the memory of their cells, like a
disease which can be transmitted from generation to generation. It’s like a form of intergenerational
socialisation, but can very well be stop or changed. As to superior size and stength, this is simply due to
an artificial genetic selection related to patriarchy -that men systematically choose to mate with (rape)
shorter and thinner boned women, which means that over time the discrepancy widened. Some research
has been conducted which demonstrates this fact.
And yes, it’s very good point that revolution has to be quick or otherwise patriarchy will have time to
adapt to it. Great post, thanks!
49.
Undercover Punk
October 6, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Hi vliet/tiptree2. Glad you liked the UN letter! It was not radical, but I think it was important work
nevertheless.
Honestly My thoughts are that “reformism” versus “radicalism” is a false, possibly even destructive,
distinction. I worry that it discourages women from taking direct, practical action; the results of which
could be to improve individual women’s lives OR to marginally “reform” the existing system for the
benefit of many women (such as agitating for the right to vote, supporting “victim advocacy”
organizations, and proposing legislative bans on pornography). At the moment, I’m not sure how/why
one activity is being characterized as “radical” versus another activity that is derided as merely
“reformist” or as merely achieving “harm reduction.” In my view, every victory “feminism” has ever
achieved is simply “reform” and/or “harm reduction.” Because patriarchy still EXISTS. In fact, I believe
that “reform” is the singular option available to us. Maybe I am the only one who does not understand
what’s being said, but the distinction seems both clear and important to others.
Separatism from men, for example, is a principle I live by. Yay! But it’s not radical, I don’t think. I mean,
maybe it’s motivated by radical IDEALS, but in practice, it is individualized harm reduction. And most
importantly, it is not available to MOST women in the world. So it’s use is very limited.
Basically, I think it’s important for “reformers” to understand that their achievements, if any(!), are
merely a stop-gaps against the overwhelming tide of male supremacy. We need to be honest about what
we’re up against and what we can realistically achieve. We shouldn’t congratulate ourselves too quickly or
too thoroughly, because there always more work to do. We must remain constantly vigilant. Still, I think
we should encourage women to keep putting one foot in front of the other, to keep doing whatever we
CAN do to help each other, regardless of whether it’s sufficiently “radical” or not. If it can improve
women’s lives, even marginally, it is worth it.
50.
cherryblossomlife
October 6, 2011 at 10:06 pm
“They still havn’t got over this primary shock but it’s time they grow up”
Haha!! brilliant

51.
FCM
October 6, 2011 at 10:40 pm
conservative christians (and fun-fems) can enact harm-reduction methods too, or at least could be
worked with in some cases to achieve an ends *we* believe will be helpful to women as a sexual class
around the world. our work and our shared work for anti-porn and access to safe and legal abortions
immediately come to mind, and radical feminists have worked with both groups toward those ends.
i dont think anyone could say however that maintaining *our* radical perspective, and remembering
ourselves throughout these campaigns has served no purpose or has been destructive.
52.
SheilaG
October 6, 2011 at 10:55 pm
I think it is not necessarily important that women don’t think S or Y is sufficently radical. The point is to
keep growing in your feminist understanding, to keep finding women to talk honestly to. Each generation
has back breaking labor… only to have patriarchy reverse the reversals. We keep forgetting that a 5000
year old system is pretty darn slick, and very able to divide women against each other. That’s why I say try
radical feminism is for all women, and I see conservative women all the time trying to gain agency in the
world, trying to run around patriarchy. What a conservative group of women is doing might not look
radical to me, but to them it is.
So we are all doing our best. I never imagined the true nature of the trans threat, even though I’d read
parts of Jan Raymond’s book in 1979. I remember laughing at the title at the time, thinking the trans
invasion of women’s land kind of paranoid or just plain weird. Now of course I know better!!
Also, reading het women’s comments on these blogs made me realize more of what they really experience
behind the cheerful facades and made up faces… well not you FCM… What to me looked like barbie
brained conformity revealed something else on radfem blogs. And I’m sure the blunt commentary of
lesbians on the blogs was an eye opening experience for most het women who don’t have close lesbian
friends. The truth telling is radical feminism, the actions radical…derailed… then re-radicalized,
generation after generation… the suffrage movement morphs into the fem fem 20s, the second wave of
the 60s morphs into fun fems of the 90s – 2000s… it’s a patriarchy strategy, a system… we now can
decode and derail it yet again!!
53.
FCM
October 6, 2011 at 11:40 pm
agree that growing in feminist understanding is important. its invigorating and refreshing to read the
stuff on these blogs and in the comments, and reading second wave authors too. whereas any and all
“harm reduction” stuff i have ever been involved in is draining and exhausting. its intended to be. its
intended to waste our energies and “burn us out” and it does. its important to realize this i think. there
are so many things women are expected to do in our daily lives that simply are not compatible with life.
male-centric sexuality isnt. consumerism isnt. and being deeply engaged in mens politics isnt either. i
think we can all feel this as soon as we try to do it. perhaps in small doses it could be made manageable,
but is this how we want to spend our time
i would also like to note that the letter to the UN could not have been written in the first place without the
conversations and work that have taken place on these blogs the past 2 years, where the concepts of
“reproductive harm” and the female-specific harms of the penis have been thoroughly vetted and are now
clearly understood and taken for granted, even by those of us who have never read dworkin, daly or
jeffreys. the work we have done here is directly responsible for that, so i think that suggesting that the
“radical” stuff is indulgent and unproductive (to the extent anyone might be suggesting it here or
elsewhere) is really rewriting history, and its pretty infuriating because of that. its just not true.
54.
FCM
October 7, 2011 at 12:10 am
in particular, female attorneys *might* be in a unique position to synthesize radical work into legal
reform, due to their credentials and specialized knowledge, and due to the import of both framing the
issues and reasoning in the legal context. i dont know, i am still thinking about that part but the
dworkin/mackinnon proposed anti-porn legislation failed in the end. did it fail because they refused to
make so many concessions that its bite wouldve been removed entirely were they asked to make
concessions or would it have failed regardless, no matter how many concessions were made because the
challenge to porn in itself was so fundamentally damaging to male supremecy i still havent read the
congressional testimony re the anti-porn legislation, i have it on my shelf. i hate reading about porn. ugh.

55.
tiptree2
October 7, 2011 at 3:06 am
Hi, FCM and Undercover punk, I’d like to see women lawyers acting as liaisons and negotiators with the
rest of the world after the women have established their homeland…cuz a lot of the attacks at first will be
legal… : }
Ms. MacKinnon is a remarkable innovator, with extraordinary persistence. I’m a total fan. She is a great
feminist lawyer. I also know that the System has foiled her work over and over. The anti-porn legislation
she and Ms. Dworkin drafted, that was adopted here and there and struck down in a big way in major
part, could be said to be an example, I’m afraid. It resulted in a general strengthening of pornography as
“free speech” — absurd and horrible, and I would say a blowback of truly titanic proportions.
She got a judgment of over $700,000,000 for Bosnian female victims — I do have to ask rather sourly,
how much has been paid into their pockets She has made a very creditable attempt to develop a feminist
theory of the state and it has crystallized some very effective and overwhelming criticism. She practically
invented the concept of sexual harassment IMHO, and I consider her work in that area a triumph. I would
love to ask her over coffee about how she deals with the undercutting, the ridicule, the accusations that
she is a communist, a classic liberal, a fascist, and everything else negative that could be dreamed up. She
has really been through it. To attempt to “reform” political science and law on the scale she has is
remarkable.
Yes, she has worked within the System, and so the work could be called reformist by definition. I would
never deride this work. I only point out my personal belief that such work will not result in fundamental
changes. Some of us are needed for the purposes I outline above, I believe. Some of us engage in both
kinds of work at different times. But I feel a distinction between work to reform the System and work to
abolish the System is useful and necessary.
56.
FCM
October 7, 2011 at 3:21 am
ooh yes, feminist theory of the state. that ones on my shelf too. i really need to read more.
57.
cherryblossomlife
October 7, 2011 at 12:18 pm
“The truth telling is radical feminism”
I couldn’t agree more SheilaG. I think this is the *essence* of radical feminism, actually. Because it’s so
fucking hard to write the truth,. It is very hard for women to break the silence that Dworkin was talking
about. Women such as rmott, who try to write the truth to the best of their ability, with the limited
vocabulary we have been given, are radical.
How many women will wake up tomorrow morning, take a good long look at their marriage, and tell
*themselves* the truth about it I don’T know the answer. Some will, some won’t. But the ones that do
allow it to seep to the surface will have no choice but to act.
Recently, I had to look at the truth of my feelings in order to be able to analyze them. They were not
textbook; they were unexpected, and shame-inducing, but there they were, every time I looked. I had to
address them. I then learned about the book Loving to Survive (thanks to KatieS), which I have just
ordered, and through that I discovered Societal Stockholm syndrome and all these other radical ideas
already out there that enabled me to write that BDSM series. These were ideas I would never have come
across if I’d been scared to let my own truth surface.
58.
Feuerwerferin
October 7, 2011 at 12:20 pm
I volunteer for translation, just give me a few more month because rl is busy now. I’ll contact you each at
a time later I had already decided to translate your texts anyway (in an anonymous blog and liking to
you).
And thank you for the answers, everyone.
59.
Undercover Punk
October 7, 2011 at 3:21 pm

I hear women talking about “radical ideas,” but no ACTION has been identified as “radical.” Maybe the
distinction you seek to make is between ideas and action/implementation. Because we are working under
non-ideal conditions, we cannot implement our ideals in an ideal way. So ideas can be radical, but actions
cannot.
i would also like to note that the letter to the UN could not have been written in the first
place without the conversations and work that have taken place on these blogs the past 2
years, where the concepts of “reproductive harm” and the female-specific harms of the
penis have been thoroughly vetted and are now clearly understood and taken for granted,
even by those of us who have never read dworkin, daly or jeffreys. the work we have done
here is directly responsible for that, so i think that suggesting that the “radical” stuff is
indulgent and unproductive (to the extent anyone might be suggesting it here or elsewhere)
is really rewriting history, and its pretty infuriating because of that. its just not true.
Yes, FCM, you have noted that multiple times. I authored many of the posts you refer to, thank you very
much. But being a primary participant and driving force in those “radical” conversations does not deter
me from asking these questions about “radical action” and whether there IS such a thing.
Another complication, imo, is that characterizations of “radical” are necessarily contextual. What
challenges the status quo is radical. What supports the status quo is not. (maybe you are using a different
definition, I don’t know)
For example, if the *concept* of “reproductive harm” is “radical,” it is because of our context. You will
recall that we’ve remarked many times about how OBVIOUS it is that female reproductive processes are
physically arduous and more dangerous than male reproductive processes. It is not advanced intellectual
theory. It is the TRUTH (as Cherry speaks about just above). It is how BABIES ARE MADE. Only in the
context of patriarchal delusion and insanity could such a basic acknowledgment of undeniable reality be
“radical.”
FCM also said:
this stuff is really basic. i think western conveniences and our fake academented educations
only make this shit harder to grasp.
Agreed. Maybe anything that “Speaks the Unspeakable” (#2) is radical That still limits radicalism to the
realm of ideas. My question is not about radical ideas, but radical ACTION: what is it If it is anything
that challenges the status quo, as I suggested above, then reform *is* radical.
60.
FCM
October 7, 2011 at 3:37 pm
handmade pingback: cathy brennan has written a piece about slutwalk here:
http://www.baltimoreoutloud.com/k2-fetch-latest/ladybugs-political-sniffdown/item/790-slutwalk-therape-of-feminism-or-how-i-learned-to-love-porn
61.
FCM
October 7, 2011 at 4:39 pm
as vliet suggested, i think a biological solution would be a radical solution. such as dispatching male
babies at birth. as for the status quo, and whether some action legitimately challenges it, i guess its a
question of how narrowly you are framing/identifying the status quo for example, the status quo in the
workplace in the 1950s could be described in many ways. men touched womens breasts and buttocks.
men were sexually entitled to womens bodies in the workplace and everywhere. mens sexual entitlement
to womens bodies in the workplace and everywhere was backed up by the threat of violence and male
institutional power, including legal power.
catharine macknnon’s solution to the problem of workplace sexual harassment challenged one of those,
for sure. it didnt challenge the others, at all, nor could it. and women would be incarcerated and executed
by the legal system for dispatching male babies at birth, if we even tried this as a solution. and its very
likely that this is the only solution that would work. this is not a coincidence.
radical ACTION: what is it
this is a good question. lets discuss it.

62.
Noanodyne
October 7, 2011 at 6:02 pm
The danger of talking about “radical action” as being only things like killing all male babies at birth is that
we know in our hearts that the vast majority of women will NEVER do that. NEVER. EVER.
So we can sit back snug in the belief that we know exactly what it will take to be free AND never have to
do anything about it. If you want to see how that plays out, spend some time on IBTP — lots of smug
women absolutely sure that they are revolutionary radicals while wearing pumps, fucking men, raising
boys, and contributing their energy to the patriarchy. They have absolutely no responsibility beyond
regularly complaining about the patriarchy.
If it’s an all-or-nothing proposition, we’re all just masturbating here, because the revolution isn’t coming
in on a magical white horse to save us in one grand apocalyptic blaze of glory while we sit back and do
nothing but talk, talk, talk.
63.
Undercover Punk
October 7, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Great, yes please, let’s discuss what radical action IS!
FCM, I agree that my status quo suggestion of “radical” is too broad– I just wanted to start somewhere.
There are certainly ways of challenging the status quo that are NOT good for women. For example, the
pornification of EVERYTHING is a departure from the traditional status quo that dictates sexuality as
“private,” yet this change is NOT beneficial to the social status of women. Same for “trans” politics. So
challenging status quo for the benefit of females is a better description of radical (though still
incomplete).
“Action” versus “solution” is another important distinction to discuss. I support “reform” despite–or
maybe BECAUSE of– the reality that we are literally unable to execute a complete remedy, or solution, to
the problem of patriarchy. Maybe we want to say that action (reform) should be *informed* by radical
ideals…
64.
Maggie
October 7, 2011 at 7:03 pm
I think the idea of sex-selective abortions on male foetuses was a lot less harsh than ‘killing all male
babies at birth’…
65.
FCM
October 7, 2011 at 7:09 pm
The danger of talking about “radical action” as being only things like killing all male
babies at birth is that we know in our hearts that the vast majority of women will NEVER
do that. NEVER. EVER.
i said it was ONE example. one. and its not as if no women *are* doing it, because some are. we arent,
(“we” meaning the majority or totality of the women who read these blogs and/or even have access to
them) and we are specifically prevented from doing that by our legal structure *and* the fact that we
would be a tiny minority, an anomaly within our culture to do this, if we ever did it. this gives perspective
as to what we are really up against, and how patriarchal institutions function and overlap to benefit men,
and to specifically prevent radical change. i think some women are still unsure how deliberate this all is,
and how much it benefits men and how it benefits men. but these truths are what inform radical politics.
and so what if there is no such thing as radical action, or realistic radical action are you honestly saying
that there is danger in speaking the truth or do you disagree that radical action is limited to things that
are practically unspeakable like infanticide (i didnt say it was limited to those, again it was just one
example that was clear). if you have more examples, please list them.
if something is true there is no harm in saying it, is there i mean, the danger in *not* discussing things
like a biological solution is…it doesnt get talked about. we dont go to the ends of our thoughts. the thing
about having a “manifesto” or a radical foundation is that we will know where and how we went off the
rails, if we ever started looking too much like the fun-fems for example. what if they were really feminists
at one point, and just started making concessions with men and didnt know when to stop making
concessions

BTW when i saw the concept of “reproductive harm” in the UN letter, my heart leapt with joy. and i
wondered whether that was the first and only time that phrase has been uttered to the UN or in a
lawmaking context because i have *never* heard it, outside radfem circles. it was like someone set off a
big old radical bomb in the living room. i thought that was awesome.
66.
tiptree2
October 7, 2011 at 7:29 pm
How about:
1. Pioneer alternative reproductive techniques that place reproduction firmly and permanently in the
hands of women, i.e., parthogenesis, which some say we are very close to. It has already been
accomplished in mice. The only glitch was that the resulting were smaller, but this is seen as a fine-tuning
problem. Other alternatives: maintain women-controlled sperm banks offering free insemination.
2. Form an Underground Womanroad, pool funds, and rescue women from conspicuous violence such as
stoning for adultery, globally, then publicize these acts. Ignore the laws of the various oppressive
governments as needed.
3. Form a global women’s self-protective organization with a zero-tolerance policy for hate crimes against
women, and retaliate using both legal and extra-legal means. Provide young women with free martial-arts
and legal weapons training. Form local vigilante groups to ensure street safety (like the Latino Brown
Berets in California)
4. Complete research on endocrinal causes of male aggression; develop a vector to deliver modified
genetic material which will reduce pathological male hormones to levels closer to the norm, i.e., female
levels. Such treatment can be covert if it cannot be done voluntarily. It will pass to subsequent
generations.
5. Form an organization to remove all women desiring refuge to privately-controlled land from which
men are banned. Build on the existing womyn’s lands. Separate and fight any invasion. Use the sacred
capitalistic/feudal concept of private property against the system.
6. Resist noxious laws and actions using techniques such as hunger strikes.
7. Continue to develop women-centered futures in our fiction, poetry, and essays.
These are only a few quick ideas. The point is, I speak of radical feminists as future-oriented because
radical actions as I define them here have only recently become feasible. Formerly (when women could
not control property, read, become lawyers or scientists or doctors, control their own money, and the
revolution in genetics had not occurred) we were limited to theory and visions. I agree with the idea that
“radical” and “reform” work has been contextual. Getting the vote could be considered either, to me.
Perhaps making a distinction between radical feminists and “reform” feminists was of little import in the
past. In fact I believe people only started making that distinction recently. As I mentioned, seems like the
distinction can and should be made now. It’s not made to keep feminism schismed; it’s made because
feminism is developing into a number of different approaches, all worthwhile. Our work is to envision
new effective approaches to ending the patriarchal system, and to begin action.
How to deal with the despair and pessimism – very difficult, but we wouldn’t be on this thread if we had
totally given up, would we
67.
FCM
October 7, 2011 at 7:33 pm
also, my own “gift” or talent if you can call it that is synthesis, and making connections. it is one tool, and
one that we will need, i think. i also have good physical balance, and am a licensed driver. others share
this talent, some have other talents. some talents pay the bills, and have applications on the ground.
radical feminist synthesis and innovation is particularly marginalized. if we were men, what would people
think of any of our talents, including our ability to use logic and reason, our commitment and passion,
our writing ability and everything else we do here on a daily basis would anyone find it useful im just
asking. BTW my own particular “gift” does not seem to have applications in academia, local government,
or anti-poverty nonprofit work. (bahaha) in case anyone was wondering. in fact, those environments
seem particularly adverse to my abilities. i wonder why that might be
68.
Maggie
October 7, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Abortion of male foetuses is a relatively better solution. I also heard there are some pre-conception sex

selection techniques for het womyn (e.g. Shettles’ method) but I’m not sure if they work well…
69.
Maggie
October 7, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Vliet- some great ideas you’ve got here. Thank you for the list. Great stuff to ponder.
Also, I forgot to say, Sunspinner:
Have just read Sonia Johnson’s ‘ The Sisterwitch Conspiracy’ which also focuses on males being The
problem. She talks about native american and australian aboriginal cultures both believing that once
all was female, and that maleness is a mutation. Like any mutation it is ill equipped to last and that
males are dying out, and this too was foretold. Some of these wimmin and Sonia believe that this time is
now and that there is actually nothing extra we have to do to bring it about it will happen anyway. We
just have to try to survive as best we can to get through to the time of a female planet. I recommend the
book.
She also cites Monique Wittig and invents…she believes that all the images males have made of
powerful, flying, intuitive,superstrong,timetravelling,universe travelling beings are actually signs to
what females were originally capable of.
This is a great comment. Thanks for recommending that book. I have ordered The Sisterwitch
Conspiracy. It looks amazing. I wanna read it.
70.
zeph
October 7, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Some interesting ideas, but I do think we need to factor-in the male response to these tactics. Thousands
of years ago separatist women withdrew to islands and other remote regions, eventually men found and
slaughtered or captured them.
Pre-sex selection is the best option to lower male population because it involves no killing or suffering,
the science is already available and used everyday in farming, plus there are do it yourself recipes for
increasing the probability of having girls, which could be improved, scientifically evaluated and used
covertly by individual women. Also it is a message we can sell to women (unlike the additional abortions
or infanticide methods, already used against us by men) because we can create constructive arguments
around it. Such as men cause war, men, along with women and children suffer in wars, if we lower men’s
population to 30% there would be fewer wars.
We could also look at the Y chromosome, try to evaluate if any remaining Ys from war devastated
populations correlate to low violence against women and egalitarian societies. We might look at the Ys of
American indians, African Tuaregs, and the Mosuo from China. We would be looking at measure rather
than nature, but the degree is everything (the difference between a warm bath and a scalding one!) If
some correlation could be found (bearing in mind a lot of ethnic people now have the Ys of white warlike
men) they could be offered in female run sperm banks, with the consent of both parties, of course.
One day women will go on alone, without men. But that is a long way off, so we need to look at every
possibility to improve our existence in the meantime. Though, as a personal solution, I would love to
become a complete separatist tomorrow.
71.
cherryblossomlife
October 7, 2011 at 9:39 pm
You’re supposed to have sex a few days prior to your ovulation peak if you want a girl. Male sperm swim
faster, but female sperm are hardier, apparently. So if you have intercourse when you’re at your most
fertile the males will get to the egg fastest. If you have sex three days before your peak the male sperm will
have perished but the hardy females will keep plodding up to the egg.
I also heard that oestrogen is affecting males and lowering their testosterone. Some say it is the oestrogen
in the water supply from the contraceptive pill, but that just sounds like blaming women to me. Look at
all the hormones cows and chickens are with.
just thinking out loud.
72.
cherryblossomlife

October 7, 2011 at 10:26 pm
Apart from Telling The Truth, I think the second most radical act is to LIke Other Women.
Misogyny is so ingrained into us that it is very easy to get frustrated with other women for perpetuating
their dire situation and not realizing how oppressed they are. It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that the
focus should be men. Men oppress us, so it’s no good getting annoyed at women for raising boys,
although I certainly agree that lowering the male population is important, and I’ll never forget those two
midwives who killed every boy baby for decades to prevent the warring between the tribes.That is a
hopeful, positive story.
But liking other women can go a long way. Three days ago I went to a new office and as a young woman
served a male collegue and I tea she KNELT down on the floor. A man would never do that, of course.
Even my (Japanese) collegue was a little embarrassed. Where is her self-respect But how I can even feel
a little bit of annoyance towards her SHe’d lose her job if she refused, and maybe she needs her job.
73.
Sargasso Sea
October 7, 2011 at 11:02 pm
It occurred to me as I’ve been reading this excellent exchange that maybe a look at the word “Resolution”,
in its many meanings, to adopt as a sort of one-word touchstone to form our thoughts around; to give this
(yes!) synthesis we’re doing here *tone* and a semantic significance.
“Revolution” is so LOADED with negative connotations that it’s completely toxic and has no meaning,
radically, but extreme hardship and suffering for women and girls. Not to mention the that it is based in
Latin on *to turn* which rather implies that it’s going to happen again and, well, we know HIStory bears
this out.
Right now it really does feel to me like it IS do-or-time. The First Wave took a lifetime and so did the
Second. This one is shaping up to be the same sort of thing (we have big cannons against us as always)
and I feel that any and all means necessary, working intra/extra

uilt up in the past – say concentrate on Sydney, New York, London, San Francisco (just examples…).
We’re small in number so far, so maybe need to pool resources more and spend a few years building up a
visible presence in a few places, rather than a couple of us everywhere This includes separatist space and
maybe even places to live etc.
Setting up “enclaves” like that could be step one, and from a strong base we could then start influencing
broader society (how, I’ll admit I don’t know) I really like the idea of a radfem lawyer or doctor for eg
stealthily beginning to influence her profession and practice (and clients…) in a coordinated way, from a
support base she knows she can go back to when she gets attacked.
I might be wrong here, but didn’t it take conservative christians in the US a couple of decades to get such
a stranglehold on the GOP We might need to settle in for our own carefully planned long march thru the
patriarchy, slowly gathering other women along the way
78.
FCM
October 8, 2011 at 1:39 am
S4 I like your idea of a “resolution.” And all its meanings.
And developing, its an interesting thought that this might take some time. As in decades, to implement
something radical, on the ground. It could be that the passage of time will increase our gains, this is how
compound interest works for example. And women need to make the decision very early on to stick
together, save their money and eschew men and male centrism in all its forms. Is it possible that its too
late for all of us, and we need to prepare for the next generation of women What would it look like if that
were true I have often wondered if there’s a point of no return where you are just in too deep and too far
down that road etc etc to fix it. My mother and I have been discussing how she and I could work together
to better our situations, and we think it will take money, first and foremost. And we have wasted literally
decades spending on fuckability mandates and not earning compound interest before we realized this. I
don’t know, I’m still thinking on it.
79.
developing
October 8, 2011 at 2:22 am
FCM – maybe that’s it – maybe the idea of creating enclaves and eschewing men etc is all our generation
can do – kind of lay the groundwork for phase 2 (consisting of the stuff some of the posts above have
mentioned) by women who are only girls right now Give them an option, albeit a small one, outside the
current norms – and women who choose the radfem option then take the baton.
Money really is important though – and not government funding etc with all the strings attached – just
pooled resources that nobody can tell us what to spend on…
80.
FCM
October 8, 2011 at 2:37 am
Well if that’s the case, we could all commit to leaving life insurance proceeds and our own estates to a
trust or a foundation with a specific purpose. I imagine we will all be dead in what, 80 years tops If we
could get something together 80 years from now, that’s better than nothing right 80 years isn’t that long
in the grand scheme of things. It’s something to think about There are probably more exciting and less
depressing things to think about too, but it is something.
81.
cherryblossomlife
October 8, 2011 at 7:19 am
I really like the idea of compound interest. I think it works with knowledge too.
My daughter will be inheriting a shelf load of radical feminst books. I know she’ll read them because
everything else out there is so boring by comparison. How could a teenager NOT pick up a books entitled
Pornland, Pure Lust, Heartbreak, Quintessence, ANti-climax, Beauty and MIsogyny. Just look at the titles
for a start.
I own these books thanks to the internet, internet radfems and Amazon.
OUr mothers had nothing comparable.
82.
Undercover Punk
October 8, 2011 at 11:56 am
It took DECADES for the suffragettes to achieve their specific, concrete goal: the “female vote.” The

movement’s pioneers did not survive to enjoy its ultimate success. And today, almost a century later, we
continue to benefit from their awe-inspiring perseverance and tireless (reform) work.
83.
Undercover Punk
October 8, 2011 at 12:15 pm
LESBIANS have set a strong precedent for female co-habitation. Many of us *are* separating. We’re
*doing* it. Lesbians are living together and pooling our resources and prioritizing EACH OTHER. If
women are interested in a male-free existence, they should research the history and experiences of
lesbian separatist communities– what worked, what didn’t, etc.
Further, any utopian enclave of separatism must have clearly defined “community standards” to guide
resource-prioritization and other foreseeable disagreements. (I don’t plan to have any money when I die,
btw.)
84.
sipiy
October 8, 2011 at 4:48 pm
May I suggest you then set up a bursary for an impoverished woman (young, or older, screwed over by the
pat) so she can get out of the pink ghetto, and pass it on herself, hopefully. That’s one of the good reasons
to have money to leave, when you die, at 107. (Oh the memoir! )
85.
FCM
October 8, 2011 at 4:50 pm
yes the issue of wealth and therefore accumulated wealth is a problem for women everywhere, and for
feminists. i do not expect many or any of us to have significant estates when we die, but some of us might,
it is possible. the idea for life insurance policies i got from sheilaG and it might make more sense than
estate planning when its not expected that we will even have an “estate” of any significance ever. for
young people in general, i believe it is easy and inexpensive to purchase life insurance. i imagine the plan
would be to leave everything to female children or significant female others, and if everyone dies before
you then to have it go towards a worthy cause. figuring out the purpose of any trust or foundation would
take some time. reform vs radical goals might be a useful framework for something like that.
86.
vliet (tiptree2)
October 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Yes to continuing to develop Womyn’s Lands! Put me down for San Francisco!
I’m on radfemspeak.net, thanks Maggie, I’m on there, excellent site, was wondering how to take some of
this private…
Have been researching Womyn’s Lands and there seem to be a number in the U.S. As Undercoverpunk
says, my impression also is that lesbians are the pioneers here. Many more must be under the radar or
very small. I’d like to find one for next year, for feminists, men banned, but hets welcome. Temporary
camps for women too on the land. The huge attraction for me would be safe land to walk in and enjoy
nature. I never feel safe on public trails and am even uncomfortable walking on my own street after dark.
I have often fantasized about buying land and moving there alone and putting up a big fence etc, but wow,
that would be way too lonely.
Maybe these would be the bases as others have said.
So much to say, so little time.
87.
yttik
October 9, 2011 at 12:14 am
“let’s discuss what radical action IS!”
Sometimes a radical action is just getting out of bed in the morning. Dworkin said, “Women have been
taught that, for us, the earth is flat, and that if we venture out, we will fall off the edge.” So any women
who “ventures out” is doing a radical action. Truth telling, especially seeing the truth for yourself, is an
incredibly radical act.
Reforming the system is valid work, but it’s not radical. You can create all the beneficial laws, all the

protections you want, but it’s only radical when you manage to convince women that they are actually
entitled to those rights. “Radical” means going to the root or origin.
Domestic violence for example, the majority of women are not trapped because they’re under lock and
key, they’re trapped because they believe they deserve it or they fear being killed if they leave, or they
don’t know how to survive on their own. A “radical” act is when all those seeds you’ve planted finally
sprout and they reject everything they believe and take a leap of faith. That’s what a radical action is.
88.
Undercover Punk
October 9, 2011 at 1:15 pm
yttik, I agree that telling the truth to oneself is a radical act. And that telling the truth to other women is
radical act. I might also say that having the faith or courage to sever ties with abusive situations is radical.
This framing seems consistent with my suggestion that “radicalism” is limited to the realm of *ideas,*
though. Is individual enlightenment the most radical thing we can do Are we looking for a critical mass
of feminist “awakening” Will everything else just fall into place
89.
SheilaG
October 9, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Everything doesn’t fall into place UP. And radical acts connect to radical ideas. What radical feminism
has always struggled with is the BIG contradiction. That is the oppressed live with and have PIV with…
the oppressor. There is no way around this, and that is why women’s freedom is so difficult to obtain at
any price. That is the root of it all. Just how badly do women want freedom It’s a continuum…. but there
is no way around the basic contradiction, or at least it is very hard for women to really grasp this. Unless
we get the information out there soon enough, and reach women worldwide soon enough, the so-called
“choice” of het PIV servitude will be the default position of most of the women on earth… their youth
wasted on this big contradiction.
90.
yttik
October 9, 2011 at 3:39 pm
“{Is individual enlightenment the most radical thing we can do”
Well, 95% of women’s oppression doesn’t involve any force at all. Our minds are so screwed with from
day one that we tend to grow up compliant. Worse, now days we have these concepts like “consent” and
“empowerment,” so many of us actually believe we’re in charge, we’re the ones choosing the porn,
prostitution, PIV, pregnancy, whatever. In many places we have abortion rights, access to birth control,
laws against rape, but none of these things are really radical. “Radical” would be women becoming
enlightened enough to say, no, sorry, this form of sex is too harmful and risky, so we’re simply not going
to participate anymore. That would be a hugely radical act.
I think we are looking for a critical mass of feminist awakening, but that’s not as huge of a task as it
appears. It’s been proven all over the world that just the simple act of bringing women’s participation in
government up to 30%, changes the entire dynamic and outcome. Those women don’t even have to be
feminists, they just have to be women. It doesn’t really matter what they believe or what their ideas are,
it’s the dynamic that changes, just from their presence. Men behave differently. Different things get
discussed and passed. The focus is different. When that happens, yes, everything else just falls into place.
Let’s say that 30% critical mass of women in general contains a 5% critical mass of feminists. We’d go so
far beyond “everything else just falling into place,” it’s hard to imagine.
91.
FCM
October 9, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Well, 95% of women’s oppression doesn’t involve any force at all.
i really do not agree with this at all, unless you mean that only 5% of women are physically restrained or
incapacitated either by incarceration, medication, or domestic violence although even with those
qualifiers, this estimate seems a little low. male power, including interpersonal and institutional power
over women is backed up 100% by violence and the threat of violence. i am well aware that now that i
have said what i have said about “dispatching male babies at birth” for example, that i have probably
sealed my own fate and cannot decide in the future to have children: if i have a male child and something
happens to it, my words here could easily be used against me to show that i caused it. we are completely
oppressed at all times, and the threats of violence are real. the “force” is tangible and knowable, and

obvious. it has a chilling effect and silences us. those of us who speak anyway do so at our peril. to deny
this reality is telling women we are literally insane and interpreting our situation incorrectly if we “feel” or
sense our oppression, and the force and threats of violence behind it, and what is really going on.
that said, i did give up wearing makeup recently, and havent worn a bra all summer. its been grand.
we are talking about little things like that, then i might agree that a little envelope pushing might fly
under the radar for some women, some of the time.
if
92.
yttik
October 10, 2011 at 1:56 am
“..unless you mean that only 5% of women are physically restrained or incapacitated either by
incarceration, medication, or domestic violence”
Yep, that’s what I’m talking about. The vast majority of women’s oppression uses a velvet glove approach,
more like the brainwashing pedophiles put child victims through. It isn’t necessary to use much force,
we’ve already been trained to police ourselves and each other as women. Nobody has to actually force
women to wear make up, heels, consent to PIV, etc. Most of us just comply because we know it’s expected.
Half the time we’re convinced it was our idea in the first place.
Of course there’s still plenty of violence out there, and threats and intimidation, but that’s almost the easy
part. The really radical work involves trying to enlighten women themselves. Harriet Tubman said, “I
freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.”
I’m debating the concept that “radicalism is limited to the realm of ideas.” No, no it’s not. It’s getting to
the root or the origin of the problem and acting radically. “Radical” does not necessarily mean “extreme.”
93.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 2:11 am
I’m sorry, but I’m still not buying it. Your 5% seems way too low, are you basing that on anything Or is it
just a guess Are you talking regionally or worldwide
And what about those who aren’t restrained currently but have been previously and know only too well
how this works and how quickly and easily it happens Force and violence and threats of same against
women are just completely banal.
I get your point yttik, but I’m not sure why you need to discount the actual force that’s there Women
aren’t imagining it. This is not in their heads.
94.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 2:24 am
BTW my own little naturalist rebellion may indeed have had consequences, just nothing I would ever be
able to prove. And its nothing I care to discuss here either. I’m just saying. My life actually changed pretty
drastically about 2 months into it.
95.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 2:45 am
And aren’t domestic violence numbers alone like 20%
96.
yttik
October 10, 2011 at 3:51 am
I’m not discounting violence. I simply don’t agree that radical just means talking or having ideas. I’m
reading some posts here that seem to be discounting the significance and radicalism of “individual
feminist enlightenment”, as Undercover called it.
Noanodyne mentioned another blog and pointed out, “So we can sit back snug in the belief that we know
exactly what it will take to be free AND never have to do anything about it.” What that blog really needs is
an infusion of individual feminist enlightenment. What’s missing there is the “radical” part of feminism.
There are millions of radical things women do everyday. There is no huge, extreme, reformist act we can
do to suddenly fix things, because that completely discounts how women have been brainwashed,

programmed, to accept their own oppression. First you have to free yourself, then you have to plant seeds
that will help to free others. Back to domestic violence as an example, you can write all the laws you want,
build all the shelters in the world, it does nothing unless you can convince one woman that she actually
deserves to be free. Unless you can do that one radical thing, she’ll just keep going back.
97.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 4:17 am
Yes the comparison to ibtp didn’t do anything for me either. And one “radical act” on vliet’s list was to
continue writing about it. One.
Other blogs and other self-identified feminists can’t even do that much. As you say, they haven’t even
become aware yet. So while I have no doubt at all that there are some over there involved in harm
reduction work, not a single one of them probably understands what they are up against. It’s almost an
informed consent framework: if they are going to put so much time and energy into harm reduction
strategies and reform work, shouldn’t they know beforehand that it won’t create fundamental change, or
that it actually supports the patriarchy in some way like all harm reduction methods do Before they
almost inevitably burn out without seeing it coming or knowing why it was inevitable
98.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 4:32 am
Also, as a result of reading second wave authors and writing about and discussing piv over time, I was
able to bring radical change into my own life by ending piv within the context of a het partnership, and
compulsory heterosex, which IS piv. I never understood the systemic nature of it, or the ways it obviously
and tangibly supports male power. Now I do. I am probably not the only one who has come to this
realization and made these changes. And its just made it that much easier to see now male power is
supported always, by all men’s institutions. Piv represents the keys to the kingdom, it really does. But you
all already know what I think about that.
99.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 6:12 pm
And for those who seem to be saying that the radfem blogs are just intellectual masturbation, was 10
individual Bloggers endeavoring and taking action to create the HUB just more of the same Is this action
not radical, or is it not action Or what Writing is an activity, it requires action. I do not understand how
or why this is not recognized.
And what about creating an alternative to the fun fem blogs We are providing a service, filling a much
needed gap. Is this not radical, or is it not action Building a better mousetrap is action that’s recognized
(improving on something that already exists, being innovating) in other contexts, is it not recognized
when women do it on behalf of ourselves, to further our own interests Or is this just worthless when
radfems do it Honestly, this just smacks of misogyny and self hatred to me.
100.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 6:23 pm
And is it only “organizing” when we organize with men, within male centric institutions, spaces and
culture The mental labor, project management and yes organization that has gone into creating and
maintaining the hub has been immense. If all of that is basically invisible to outside observers, that means
its been an incredible success. I’m just saying. Keeping any kind of group project basically functional is an
herculean task. Anyone who has ever done it knows this is true.
101.
Mary Sunshine
October 10, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Females don’t have to kill baby boys. Just not nurture them. Females are forced to *birth* baby boys, but
beyond that a female’s physical actions are her own.
Males will die without the constant infusion of female energy that they get from our wombs and from our
lives. They are perfectly welcome to take the male infants from the hands of the midwife, and what they
do with it from that point is *their* decision.
Females need to not be emotionally and intellectually invested in a male future.

102.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Well, the mother couldn’t retain custody and refuse to nurture if she wants to stay out of jail when the
child dies. There are don’t ask don’t tell systems in place around the US where anyone can abandon an
infant at a designated safe place, like hospital or fire station, without legal consequences, but surely the
children end up being cared for by women anyway. But for individual women who don’t personally want
to care for male babies, but ended up with one for whatever reason, that is an option.
103.
Sargasso Sea
October 10, 2011 at 7:03 pm
And what about creating an alternative to the fun fem blogs
Precisely. When all others are fun-, pomo/trans-, BDSM-, xtian- (yes, there *are* “fundamentalist
christian feminists”) doing so is both action, and radical as far as I am concerned.
At the same time, I agree that the Personal Enlightenment *moment* in each wom_n’s life is the MOST
radical act of all. We just need a lot more of them.
104.
Noanodyne
October 10, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Yep, radfem bloggers have done good work and of course that’s radical action. No one said it wasn’t and
twisting what I said to claim that is ridiculous. What Twisty’s place and this space have in common is
some women who are absolutely sure they are “radical” feminists because they have figured out the basics
of being anti-porn and anti-prostitution (and even anti-PIV). You may not like the comparison FCM, but
there’s a lot of lightweight thinking in radfem circles right now and there’s some in this thread. 2nd wave
feminism was dragged down into bland middle-of-the-road liberalism because females wanted to create a
big tent and believe that anyone who says they are a feminist IS. And now I’m seeing a trend toward
accepting any argument by women who claim to be radical, but who are trotting out all the same old
bullshit liberal arguments. That’s a great way for our movement to lose ground as well. And I’m going to
call it out when I see it. Some of the statements on here are not only not radical, but they’re derailing an
entire discussion about activism.
Radical feminism needs more individualism Wait, what “95% of women’s oppression doesn’t involve
any force at all” — seriously Getting out of bed in the morning and not wearing a bra are radical, but
working to get odious laws off of women’s necks is merely “reform” that can be looked down on If we get
30% more women in government, magic things will happen (despite what we can now see is an ascendant
handmaiden movement), but let’s dismiss women who are actually doing something in political arenas
Women can’t be free unless they stare at their navel long enough to recognize their wonderfulness Please
stop!!! Get a grip, FFS, none of that is “radical” no matter how you define the word. They are liberalism
re-packaged and it’s stomach-turning to see them on a supposed radical feminist blog.
105.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 7:32 pm
So add something to the discussion, noan, add what you believe it lacks. I have called out the things I’ve
seen and felt moved to respond to, but I don’t see you being specific at all, until now. Please be specific.
There seems to be defensiveness on both sides, obviously, and that each is looking down their noses at the
other. I have endeavored to make a distinction, this post has endeavored to make the distinction. Why is
this so controversial Why can’t it seem to be discussed here or anywhere If anything, this tells me we
need to discuss this more, and that the need is probably urgent.
106.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Again, there is no harm in telling the truth about this, whatever it is. Does anyone think we will become
despairing if we conclude that nothing can realistically be done to end patriarchy and male power Please.
If this is true, we will come to terms with it. If its not, we can and should identify the weak spots and how
we could best use our time.

107.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 7:51 pm
And I *also* suspect that creating some understanding here will be useful on the ground, for example in
avoiding or contextualizing “burnout” and vicarious trauma that is self reported and observed to occur in
many women performing harm reduction and reformist work. As well as in long term strategizing, like
trying to figure out the purpose of a foundation or trust that may not exist or pay any dividends until after
we are all dead, as in the life insurance stuff discussed above.
108.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 7:59 pm
And I’m pretty sure I was clear about bras, and the political significance of ditching them: there really
isn’t any.
109.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 8:09 pm
And regarding domestic violence, Dworkin shared her experience of it and of listening to other women
who had experienced it, and the issue wasnt that they don’t think they deserve to be free. The issue was
that these women had homes that they felt they deserved to live in, that they felt entitled to stand their
ground and not be homeless when they had a home and a life that they’d helped to create, and they were
standing their ground courageously and not letting a man essentially steal from them. I thought that was
interesting.
110.
Noanodyne
October 10, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Stop having sex with men. Stop living with men. Stop talking with men. Stop talking about men. Stop
organizing for and with men. Stop engaging with men politically. Stop engaging with men personally.
Stop engaging with men professionally. Stop voting for males. Stop buying things made by men. Stop
selling things to men. Stop having babies until you can get pregnant without a man involved. Stop doing
things for men. Stop using services provided by men. Stop raising boys to become men. Stop being friends
with men. Stop listening to men. Stop watching men. Stop reading men. Stop listening to, watching, and
reading about what men think, say, and do. Stop disseminating what men say and do. Stop believing that
continued engagement of any kind with men will bring about the end of male power.
THOSE are radical steps. They are not impossible, but they would cause huge hardship in some cases,
difficult shifts, massive changes, and tons of support from women. That’s how we know they’re actually
“radical” in the sense that nothing would be the same after as it was before. The vast majority of women
look at that list and say, no way, can’t be done. The only way it could be done, even on a small scale, is to
have our own economy, space, and a way to enforce the boundaries and expectations of that space. I
personally do not believe it’s possible to overthrow the patriarchy without a majority of women willing to
take those steps. But it may be possible to have small, self-sustaining enclaves. Some lesbians have been
doing this to greater or lesser extent for a while now. There is a whole magazine published for women
who have their own land and are building community on it and you can move to one of them tomorrow if
you want to (I’m not going to put the name of the mag here because I don’t want to send the trolls to it
that easily — you can figure it out I’m sure). But even those communities have economic relationships
with males.
All of us do most of the things on that list, it’s damn hard not to without living in a cave in the middle of
the desert. But when someone starts their explanation with why she can’t do one or more of those things,
we’re saying that it’s not possible. How about if we discuss how each of those IS possible and go from
there AND I fully realize that perfection is the bane of political movements — I was involved in animal
rights activism for years and had to come to grips with the fact that doing some radical acts is better than
doing nothing (as long as they really are “radical” and not just “different from the status quo.”
111.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Thank you.
112.

FCM
October 10, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Now, are you also willing to be specific about the source of the lightweight thinking on this thread and
how it doesn’t go far enough Or are you happy causing everyone anxiety over whether they are being
criticized, while noone learns anything because you won’t elaborate on what you’ve said Your specifics
are wonderful and helpful noan, I wish you were more generous with them.
I almost said “liberal” instead of generous. Haha.
113.
Undercover Punk
October 10, 2011 at 8:40 pm
The root Ok, well, we can’t GET to the root on a practical level. Only in our miiiinds. So now what
From the post:
Reformist feminists give their money and time to setting up shelters, places for women to
lick their wounds and be relatively safe for a little while. They try to get a few more
percentage points in the futile effort to fully equalize the pay of women. They use themselves
up filing lawsuits that go nowhere. They dilute their resources fighting for other groups
who are also oppressed, leaving little for their own liberation. In short, they act as if the
System is fundamentally sound.
No. Attempting reform is not a direct affirmation of the System’s overall value or worthiness for
rehabilitation. It could just as easily be an acknowledgement of the depressing reality that we can’t do
anything BUT reform. Reformers do the ONLY thing they can do. “Futile effort” and “lawsuits that go
nowhere” is insulting to feminist political warriors. THAT is why I asked the question in the first place.
I don’t think reformists are stupid. I don’t think they necessarily believe they are going to end patriarchy,
either. Maybe some do, but not all. Not even MOST. And for those women who are “foolishly optimistic,”
who cares Let us learn from their “mistakes.” But their efforts are not futile. If this work improves
women’s lives, it is valuable to ALL OF US.
114.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Start with me if you’d like.
115.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Sorry, the above was addressed to noan.
116.
Mary Sunshine
October 10, 2011 at 8:48 pm
When in the “where do we go from here” frame of mind, it pays to remember that two things are
developing quickly that profoundly affect the feasibility of possible actions. KatieS and I have mentioned
these before: 1. ) the collapse of the money system / social infrastructure and 2.) rapidly progressing
climate change.
Collapse of social infrastructure will change women’s beliefs and imagination of what they can and can’t
do really fast. Improvisation will be the way of getting from moment to moment. There will not be
opportunities for ideological discussion.
We will act on split-second decisions, instinct, and intuition.
We will not be acting en masse but in greatly varying local circumstances. Physical location will be
important.
117.
Sargasso Sea
October 10, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Noan’s is a good list. And it is entirely possible to do *one or more* of those things every single day! It’s

easy! Ask Me How!
For me it started with Dude-Free Thursday; to be super-aware-of and avoid contact with men for a whole
routine day aside from the private, individual *man* I work/ed for who is not a Nigel. Today, it takes
ZERO energy on my part to “avoid” them. It just is, but at the time it seemed “radical”.
It’s an organic thing. And as such, ideally, it grows.
118.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 8:56 pm
UP, there’s quite a list being compiled here of acts that might actually be radical. Why do you keep
insisting that these are merely ideas You started the HUB with us, you know how much action was
involved, and that our goal was to provide an alternative to the fun fem blogs.
119.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 9:01 pm
We built a better mousetrap. Successfully, so far. That is action.
120.
Mary Sunshine
October 10, 2011 at 9:10 pm
FWIW, I experience the Hub and *all* the radfem networking that’s going on now as radical action.
Are there others Sure. Some that we know about, some that we don’t.
Nothing is to the exclusion of anything else. A whole lot of stuff happens simultaneously.
We have this amazing opportunity now, while the internet is working, so raise a helluva lot of
femalesurvival enegy in the hearts and minds and spirits of other girls and women. We are *doing* this
now. After 50 years, that energy is back .
Instead of building within a static, predictable socio-political infrastructure, as the women’s communities
did in the 60′s and 70′s, we will be building, and re-grouping, and re-building in the context of
(figurative) rockslides , volcanoes, and earthquakes.
We will take with us the awareness and the spirit that we are developing now.
121.
Undercover Punk
October 10, 2011 at 9:12 pm
FCM, the term “radical” is meaningless to me. I already *do* many of the things mentioned here,
including blogging–which is important activism. However. Critical mass individualism and dissemination
of feminist ideas is not enough.
We need to attack the System. If that looks like reform, so be it. But the System is not an authentic
REFLECTION of “the people’s” needs and desires. If it were, maybe I would be more optimistic about a
strategy of individual separatism or enlightenment.
122.
Noanodyne
October 10, 2011 at 9:13 pm
I agree, Mary, those massive changes may just make that whole list a whole lot more do-able in the
coming few years. I cross my fingers every day. And if my infrastructure is one that goes down and takes
me with it, that’s fine, I just hope there are women who will keep agitating for what now seem like
outrageous acts.
LOL, S4, dude-free Thursdays. I have completely stopped reading things (that I know are) written by men
and I refuse to pass on anything they write in places like FB and in my daily life. I think if every single
woman stopped reading, buying, selling, purveying in any way, and discussing things men have written,
we would see a huge shift.
As for “lightweight,” I pointed out plenty in that comment. I believe that “radical” means that things are

completely different on the other side of what is done than they were to start with. Completely different,
not a little bit unlike the status quo, which is another way of explaining what I mean by lightweight
thinking — as in, I can take tiny little steps that women aren’t supposed to take and that’s radical. No, I
don’t believe that’s any more radical than all the things that have been called “harm reduction” and
“reform.” If the same systems that keep women down remain intact, radical action has not taken place.
Yes, we have to discuss what steps we can take, but that is the beginning, not the end.
I also believe that there are many “reformist” kinds of things we can do (and have done) that make
women’s lives demonstrably better and whether they are actually “radical” or not (overthrowing whole
systems), they are vital to our being able to even survive and thrive long enough to get to a radical
solution. We have to have the strength, time, healthy, relative wealth, standing, etc., etc. to even have a
platform to launch a radical action. Everyone can’t be the radical actor — perhaps if we could imagine that
there are women who are creating and stabilizing that platform, while other women are launching radical
actions, that is a more useful distinction.
123.
FCM
October 10, 2011 at 11:07 pm
putting all of this into a survivalist context does help clarify things and helps identify our interests and
how to protect them. for example, if the infrastructure as we currently know it collapses, we will need to
stay as healthy as possible because we could die from simple infections (with all due respect to herbalist
remedies). so PIV, just like drinking dirty water and doing absolutely anything known to cause infection,
sickness and death will be right out. the problem of men raping and killing us will obviate the need to
habitate without them, to circle the wagons and protect ourselves against them, and to kill them if they
get too close. ironically, without the male medical machine, childbirth may actually be less deadly and
traumatizing than it is now…but lets not go there for the time being. unless anyone wants to.
everything would be different, and the crumbs we have now and that we fight to protect — like nice
houses (or any permanent structure) and bullshit legal protections that dont protect us at all, like
restraining orders and rape law — wouldnt be worth a hill of beans: the beans would be worth more.
124.
Mary Sunshine
October 11, 2011 at 12:02 am
FCM, you’ve got it. I’m right there with you.
One news story I read today was about gonorrhea. It has now mutated to the point where no known
antibiotics will treat it. So, they don’t know “what to do” about it. Hah. Well, let’s ignore the obvious.
Males all over the world stop sticking their dicks into females. And let’s ignore the even more urgently
obvious: females: under no circumstances volunteer your vagina for a male to stick his dick into.
Survival time is here and now, increasingly, for more and more females on this planet.
I do all those things that you suggest, Noan. And FCM, yes, I constantly guard my health. Store food and
water. Keep myself supplied with tools, equipment, materials. Live under the radar. Scour for information
every day. Constantly review and question my own mindset.
I long for female community, in a survival situation beyond the collapse of the money system. What can I
bring to that community, and how, is the story of the rest of my life.
125.
Mary Sunshine
October 11, 2011 at 12:26 am
Oh, and we have a full moon tonight. Good time for spellcasting.
We’re doing lots of that here.
126.
Sargasso Sea
October 11, 2011 at 1:29 am
Our moon is full too and playing through silver-lined clouds.
127.
cherryblossomlife
October 11, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“ironically, without the male medical machine, childbirth may actually be less deadly and traumatizing
than it is now…but lets not go there for the time being. unless anyone wants to.:)”

Not “may actually”, but “absolutely positively, definitely, with hard evidence to back it up”
sorry, as you were…
128.
FCM
October 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm
There are some things I wouldn’t trust a midwife with, like a medically necessary c section for example.
Or being able to identify preeclampsia or liver failure for example, before symptoms are obvious. But for
the vast majority who aren’t facing naturally occurring high risk pregnancies or complications yes, being
without men’s medicine would make everything better. Completely.
129.
FCM
October 11, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Naturally occurring high risk pregnancies and complications that are preventable I should say. Pregnancy
can never be made safe.
130.
cherryblossomlife
October 11, 2011 at 1:23 pm
but how many C-sections are medically necessary My midwife not only identified signs of preeclampsia
(protein in the urine) but also forced me to strictly examine my diet until we had eliminated the causes.
Within two weeks all signs of preeclampsia had dissappeared.
Many Ob/gyns believe there is no connection between diet and preeclampsia.
131.
cherryblossomlife
October 11, 2011 at 1:29 pm
you are more likely to die of an unecessary C-section than anything else. The U.S has a sky high maternal
mortality rate because the ob/gyns over there love C-sections.
132.
FCM
October 11, 2011 at 2:21 pm
There are some labors that are so obstructed that both the fetus and the woman die. This would obviously
require a c section. There are many women and yes girl children who attempt to birth around the world,
and they are physically unable to do this. They die or end up with fistulas. That’s what I’m talking about.
133.
yttik
October 11, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Many midwives can and do perform c sections, FCM, in places like Mozambique. Having modern
medicine and trained (mostly male) doctors has not really reduced maternal/infant mortality, we’ve
contributed to it, especially now days with fertility drugs, multiple births, and excessive c-sections.
Childbirth is not necessarily hazardous if conditions are favorable for it. That means no war, poverty,
impregnation of children, poor nutrition, too much hard work, poor sanitation, multiple pregnancies, etc.
What makes childbirth dangerous primarily is not nature, it’s the man made hardships we impose on
women.
Obstetric fistulas for example don’t happen naturally, they are caused from violent sexual abuse, female
genital mutilation, impregnating girls too young, botched abortions, closely spaced pregnancies.
134.
FCM
October 11, 2011 at 4:23 pm
If they are trained surgeons, fine. I’m not adverse to midwives, but they aren’t trained for that here. If
they were, I’d say take your chances with the midwife, hands down.
And even a wanted pregnancy under ideal conditions can kill you. Let’s not deny the obvious. All of men’s

institutions are designed to and do make it all much, much worse, but I don’t think there’s any evidence
at all that pregnancy can be made safe, and not dangerous to the woman. If there is evidence that this is
true, please share.
135.
yttik
October 11, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Well, this is what I mean by radical actions, radical thought, radical ideas. Yes indeed, given the right
conditions pregnancy can be made safe. Just because it isn’t today doesn’t mean we must resign ourselves
that this is “just the way things are.” We can think outside the box, ponder what the world would look like
of we were able to remove the oppressions and conditions that make women’s lives miserable. Nature did
not design women to die in childbirth.
This is the same conflict I have with just accepting that women are biologically vulnerable and therefore
will always be in need of protections. Yes a thousand times over, given our current system, but can we not
ponder the possibilities if our current system were not in place Why are we always resigning ourselves to
what we claim is just “irrefutable biology,” rather then being bold enough to at least dream of other
possibilities
136.
FCM
October 11, 2011 at 5:48 pm
some animals that give birth to litters of young dont seem to be that much worse for the wear, from what i
recall from our cats. of course, there probably are some that have complications, and theres no asking
them how they feel about it in any event, or whether they experienced “trauma” or lasting effects or
excruciating pain. one reason for the seeming ease of some animal births is that the babies are very small.
is this the case with larger mammals who only gestate one large fetus at a time as well and can we
assume that the reality is the same for female humans in any case i dont know the answers to those
questions, i havent looked into it. that might be an interesting research project, although some of that
information might be unknowable, like whether it applies to female humans who have evolved to stand
erect for example, when our lower backs (and who knows what else) arent really made for it.
of course we are free to imagine what things would look like in the absence of male abuse and male
institutions that harm us and that multiply and magnify the harms we suffer too. but thats no reason to
just speculate that something like pregnancy and childbirth that has real, tangible physical consequences
(like pain, whether or not it can be managed) to female-bodied persons could be made to not have any,
unless theres some basis for believing this is true. its not essentialist to acknowledge the reality that
women are born with female reproductive organs, and that there are consequences to pregnancy, its not
being deluded, and not minimizing womens shared experience as female-bodied persons.
137.
yttik
October 11, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Being deluded and minimizing women’s shared experiences is how women are forced to cope with not
having a choice, with not even being able to imagine an alternative.
Just accepting that women have the biological misfortune of being born women seems very limiting to
me. Who decided that Who created the system that insists on keeping us vulnerable What makes us
vulnerable Pregnancy Just a couple of days ago a woman completed the Chicago marathon and gave
birth. That doesn’t seem like a vulnerability to me, it seems like an example of how incredibly powerful
and strong women can be.
138.
FCM
October 11, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Overcoming obstacles and hardships does speak to strength, yes. It doesn’t turn the obstacles and
hardships into something else. And I am not framing women’s biology as unfortunate, it just IS. We have
to deal with what it is.
Again, if you have evidence that pregnancy can be made safe for all women all the time, or even other
large mammals for that matter, please link to it. I would like to read it.
139.
FCM
October 11, 2011 at 8:13 pm

Also, I can absolutely conceive of a future where a woman dying in the prime of her life isn’t as horrifying
as it is now. Currently when this happens, it creates orphans for example. In a future world where a
community of women shares all the burdens of everyone else, where individual women aren’t completely
responsible for their own existing children, where dying young doesn’t effect the value of your estate, and
other massive and profound departures from our current way of life under the P, I fully believe that
women dying young would have different connotations than it does now. But unless we are willing to
imagine a future where death in the prime of our lives isn’t seen as a negative or as a harm, pregnancy will
not escape these connotations.
140.
yttik
October 11, 2011 at 8:59 pm
“I am not framing women’s biology as unfortunate, it just IS. We have to deal with what it is. ”
How do we know what percentage of women’s vulnerability is related to biology and what percentage is
simply related to the system we live under We don’t know. We are simply assuming the patriarchal
definition of female, which means to be smaller, weaker, vulnerable. Pregnancy is then viewed as a
disability, a disease, as are all things related to females.
141.
FCM
October 11, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Yttik, that’s not true at all. I’m not saying its a disease. I’m saying it can kill you in the prime of your life,
and that some percentage of this risk is very obviously biological. Some. We don’t know how much, that’s
true. But it isn’t none. That’s the point.
142.
FCM
October 11, 2011 at 10:02 pm
If you don’t like the word “vulnerability” then call it something else if you like. Call it green eggs and ham,
or skip-a-dee-doo. It doesn’t change what it is.
Can you conceive of a value system in which women dying in the prime of their lives would NOT be
considered a harm Because you are speaking as if you can. If not, then what you’re saying doesn’t make
any sense.
143.
FCM
October 11, 2011 at 10:24 pm
heres an article that references an elephant dying in childbirth. granted, she was in a zoo. is this what
caused it i dont know.
An elderly female elephant has died of grief at an Indian zoo after the death of a close
friend.
Damini, who was 72, had befriended a younger pregnant elephant called Champakali at
the Prince of Wales Zoo in Lucknow.
But she starved herself to death in misery when Champakali died in childbirth.
Their zookeeper is mourning the loss of his two charges. “It will take me some time to get
over the death of my two loved ones,” said her keeper, who goes by the name of Kamaal.
The two elephants became inseparable in September after Champakali was brought in
pregnant from Dudhwa National Park where she had worked carrying tourists.
Surrogate daughter
She was in Lucknow for maternity leave, and Damini immediately became her best friend
and surrogate mother.
According to animal experts, this kind of deep attachment is common among elephants,
with older ones often taking a mothering role.

“Elephants are very social animals. They can form very close bonds with others in their
social group,” said Pat Thomas, curator of mammals at the Bronx Zoo in New York City.
But when Champakali died giving birth to a stillborn calf last month, Damini lost all
interest in her food and began starving herself to death.
Zoo officials said she shed tears over her friend’s body, then stood still in her enclosure for
days.
Over the next 24 days she barely nibbled her diet of sugar cane, bananas and grass until
her legs swelled up and she collapsed.
Grass tent
She then lay still, losing weight and crying, and a week ago stopped eating or drinking her
daily 40 gallons of water, despite the hot weather.
Her keepers tried to keep her cool by building around her a makeshift tent of fragrant grass
and spraying her with water.
Vets tried to save her by pumping more than 25 gallons of glucose and vitamins into her
veins, but she died on Wednesday.
Kamaal has now buried her next to her friend.
“In the face of Damini’s intense grief, all our treatment failed,” said Dr Utkarsh Shukla,
the zoo vet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/337356.stm
144.
FCM
October 11, 2011 at 10:47 pm
heres one that references a killer whale dying in childbirth. she was also in captivity (at sea world). did
that cause it i dont know.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/more-death-and-controversy-at-seaworld.html
145.
FCM
October 11, 2011 at 11:10 pm
giraffe. in a zoo. same issue.
http://www.houstonzoo.org/noel/
146.
Mary Sunshine
October 11, 2011 at 11:14 pm
We’re unlikely to know of female mammals in the wild who have died of complications of pregnancy or
childbirth.
Having been pregnant, and having almost died in childbirth, I would say that being pregnant is more
dangerous than not being pregnant. My heart sinks whenever I hear that any particular girl or woman is
pregnant.
147.
FCM
October 11, 2011 at 11:47 pm
yes some things are unknowable. thats for sure. and the mere fact of LABOR that lasts a day or more,
where you are basically incapacitated and could never run away or defend yourself if you needed to,
makes you less safe. because it puts you in danger of predation. this is self-evident isnt it what am i
missing

148.
yttik
October 12, 2011 at 12:24 am
“If not, then what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense.”
Okay fine. People are completely ruled by biology and this is just a fact that we can’t ever operate outside
of. I guess women are weak and vulnerable and men are just biologically driven to prey upon them.
Childbirth is also innately and horribly dangerous. So reproduction must be a natural system designed to
annihilate the human race.
Or perhaps men have completely screwed with the natural order of things and we now live under a
patriarchy Perhaps pregnancy is not what makes us vulnerable, perhaps the patriarchy does everything
it can to make sure that pregnancy becomes a vulnerability
Women do not have to die in pregnancy, FCM. We know exactly why they do and we know exactly how to
prevent it. We could, if we valued women’s lives and we had the will, make pregnancy as safe as any other
natural biological process. To insist that pregnancy is just innately dangerous is to deny all the harm that
has been created for the sole purpose of making sure that pregnancy carries great risk so that women will
remain vulnerable.
149.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 12:27 am
To insist that pregnancy is just innately dangerous is to deny all the harm that has been
created for the sole purpose of making sure that pregnancy carries great risk so that
women will remain vulnerable.
FALSE. this statement is untrue. the statements on either side of the “is to” are not equal. so stop saying
they are. that would be my only suggestion at this point: just stop saying the two are equal. its ridiculous.
150.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 12:33 am
until you are able to state that something that causes temporary incapacity (at best) and death (at worst)
is harmless and poses no danger at all to any woman anywhere, then your arguments MAKE NO SENSE
yttik. please. all i am saying is that its HARM. not that it negates anything. you are completely making
that up.
151.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 12:53 am
*or* you would have to realistically dispute that pregnancy, in the complete absence of harmful
patriarchal institutions, would likely cause temporary incapacity or death all by itself, even sometimes. is
this what you are saying and if so, what are you basing this on
152.
yttik
October 12, 2011 at 1:14 am
FCM you said, “Pregnancy can never be made safe.” Yes it can be made safe because we know exactly
what makes it dangerous and we know exactly how to prevent it. We don’t have to settle for mere harm
reduction, not when we’re trying to create a rad/fem agenda. Women are entitled to have safe
pregnancies and the design of our bodies made that possible. Get rid of the male dominated medical
establishment, the fertility drugs, the excessive caesarians, the rape of children, the poverty, the war, the
FGM, the forced repeat pregnancies, the lack of access to midwifery, and what is left behind is a biological
process that carries very little risk.
Healthy women are not “temporarily incapacitated” by pregnancy. If you study maternal mortality
history, you will observe that every time women start having relatively risk free pregnancies, the
patriarchy steps in to return us to a state of vulnerability. First they got rid of midwives, forcing us into
hospitals where we started dying from infections we’d never had before. Once that was under control, we
began using excessive drugs, forceps, anesthesia. Then we moved on to ridiculously high rates of
caesarians which cause hemorrhaging. Now we’ve progressed to fertility drugs and multiple births as if
women were designed to have litters.

153.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 1:19 am
Thank you for admitting that there is some inherent risk. “Very little” is not the same as none. That’s all
I’ve been saying this whole time.
154.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 1:21 am
And exactly how much constitutes “very little” is unknown and we could speculate about that, or not.
155.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 2:10 am
And I find it bizarre that my statement that LABOR is incapacitating was read by you as the entire
pregnancy being incapacitating. Seriously yttik, that is a complete and unnecessary reading
comprehension fail. Please read. Please comprehend. Only then can we move the discussion forward.
Thank you
156.
yttik
October 12, 2011 at 3:10 am
Here, FCM, from the original post:
“One of the saddest and most difficult areas of feminist thought has to do with women’s invisible ancient
history. Our failure thus far to dispositively show that woman-dominated societies, or even unoppressive
societies, once existed has been a blow. It makes it seem as if such societies could not occur in the future.
Reformist Feminists are much concerned with resurrecting this uncertain, invisibilized past. Radical
feminists, I believe, point to the future. If there are no such societies found, Monique Wittig said, invent
them.”
How can we do this work, how can we even imagine a different societal structure, if we continue to insist
that humans are all about biology and our modern perceptions of what that means Whether we’re
insisting that women are biologically vulnerable or claiming that men have defective androgens, what
we’re really doing is placing limitations on our own imaginations. If we can’t even imagine a world where
pregnant women are not at risk, then we can’t create it.
A while back we were talking about individual feminist enlightenment and building a critical mass. To do
that we have to offer women a vision of something better. Telling women that men act like mutants, that
PIV is harmful, and that pregnancy is dangerous, is like yeah, no kidding, so what’s the alternative At the
moment there is none, except to stay as far away from men as possible. That’s not possible for the
majority of women, so we need to create a vision of what things could be outside of this oppressive
system.
157.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 3:23 am
Yes, and what you seem to be imagining is a future where passing a fetus is no more risky or dangerous
than taking a shit. Which is a male centric vision: if men can’t experience it, then it doesn’t exist, or can be
eliminated if we want to badly enough
And you already said “very little risk,” have you now changed that to NO risk Because they aren’t the
same thing.
158.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 3:35 am
What if this has nothing to do with completely eliminating the risk of pregnancy, and everything to do
with creating supportive social structures for women and children that are so functional on every level
that if a few of us die, we won’t be missed That sounds harsh, but if enough redundancy were built in,
meaning fail safes and layers upon layers of functional support, our children and our loved ones and our
communities could go on without us. That seems more likely to me than removing the harms of
pregnancy, which may well be impossible. And this is what many women want anyway: to know their kids

will be ok, no matter what, and to have relatively safe and comfortable (ie. protected and supported) lives
for themselves and their families. It’s a big reason they partner with men at the moment, which is a
terribly inadequate solution to that particular problem.
159.
cherryblossomlife
October 12, 2011 at 4:08 am
yes there’s risk to pregnancy. OF course there is. IN a sane society women who survive childbirth would
be feted as warriors, thanked for the risk they were prepared to take in the name of the continuation of
the species, given their proper place in society WITHOUT putting them on pedestals. Mothers don’t need
pedestals; they need apreciation for the fact they were willing to risk their life by having PIV and bringing
a child into the world.
however
the sheer and utter ignorance surrounding the female body causes many deaths.
IN countries, such as Brazil and the US where oB/gyns love C-sections, maternal death rate is sky high.
Compare it to DEVELOPED countries where drugs are rarely used and women go through labour
naturally, and you’ll find a big difference. In developing countries women die for other reasons
(malnourished in pregnancy or in adolescence, too many babies too young without enough spacing
between them etc)
Ob/gyns STILL often insist on taking the baby away from the mother in hospital after the birth so she can
rest, completely ignoring the fact that if she breastfeeds her womb will contract, thereby preventing
heamorradge. IN other words, ob/gyns cause female deaths every day.
160.
yttik
October 12, 2011 at 4:11 am
“Yes, and what you seem to be imagining is a future where passing a fetus is no more risky or dangerous
than taking a shit. Which is a male centric vision..”
Hmm, well, I can vouch for the fact that the male centric vision actually involves making sure the woman
has absolutely no control over the process and is completely dependent on numerous experts who will
likely intervene in many unnatural and dangerous ways designed to prolong both labor and recovery.
Women dared to dream that childbirth really could be almost as simple and safe as taking a dump.
Because we did that, we created birthing centers, midwives, breathing exercises, a whole slew of things
that make childbirth much easier and safer for women. If we had simply insisted that pregnancy was risky
and dangerous, we would never have gone outside of the medical establishment and let women design the
system.
Insisting that women are vulnerable sets us up to need protectors. The alleged need for protectors is what
got us into this mess in the first place.
161.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 4:18 am
You said almost as safe. you did it again. Almost as safe doesn’t mean the same thing as without risk. If
you can’t be consistent in your argument, it means you aren’t clear in your thoughts. Which is fine. It
doesn’t necessarily mean that I personally will go around and around with you forever though. As long as
people want to discuss it, we will continue the discussion, but I’m done for now. Thanks.
162.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 11:02 am
from the sea world article:
“We are very saddened by this loss,” said Chris Dold, vice president of veterinary services
for SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, in a statement about Taima posted to the SeaWorld
Orlando blog. “Although we understand that complications with pregnancy can occur here,
just as they do in the wild, the loss of any animal affects all of us at SeaWorld.”
the spokesperson from seaworld states here that there are in fact “complications” arising from childbirth
that occur in the wild. is this person lying, or misinformed i dont know.

163.
Sargasso Sea
October 12, 2011 at 2:40 pm
My 3rd pregnancy, which resulted in our daughter The Kid, went like this:
Alternative Inseminated in a clinical (feminist) environment with pristinely clean seeds from the Bank.
Natal/delivery care provided by a rotating team of licensed Nurse Practitioner Midwives *legitimized* by
one OB/GYN whom I only saw once. I was hospitalized overnight during the first trimester due to
“starvation ketosis” caused by extreme nausea which persisted well into the 6th month. This same
condition nearly killed me during my second (ultimately terminated) pregnancy as well as contributing to
the decision to terminate the first.
Anyhow, delivery was induced with a seaweed-based *pitocin* at the full 2 weeks overdue mark (I’d been
waddling around with her in dropped position for about a month at that point; highly unpleasant) and
opted for the epidural (which the midwives agreed to mostly because of some extenuating physical
circumstances) which allowed me to nap and rest through 85% of the contractions. The drip button was
fully in my control and no one touched me without my express consent; it was all about me first and the
baby second as it should be.
My point is that with my second pregnancy I had ZERO care except one visit to a male ob/gyn (please
don’t ask) who saw fit to suggest ipecac syrup as an elixir against extreme nausea caused by pregnancy, so
in effect, I had LESS than zero care. And almost died, as I said.
The third (and last!) I had care which combined the *old* with the *modern* all of which I was fortunate
enough to be able to afford, of course. All in all it was as pleasant an experience as it could be for a woman
like me.
Does my hormonal *condition* just cease to be in the absence of patriarchal institutions Does some
underground radfem scientist/visionary usher in the new era of perfectly balanced hormones, painless or
*designer* menstruation Do girls who have no interest in reproduction have the option to forego the
whole menses thing in a biologically *healthy* way
164.
Undercover Punk
October 12, 2011 at 3:53 pm
I completely agree S4, female menstruation will continue in the absence of patriarchy. It may be a less
intrusive process, but I believe it will continue. And we need to plan for that, account for it, structure our
society in ways that will facilitate the natural flow. Ha.
Witchwind said here:
We humans, unlike animals, have complete free will as to how to organise our society.
I think that’s right. Or at least, ALMOST complete free will. We do have to ACCOUNT for unchanging
physical realities such as female reproductive processes, the human need for sleep, and the absence of fur
to keep us warm. Stuff like that. It just IS. These aren’t value judgements, they are facts. But the point
Witchwind was making, I think, is that *behavioral* “instincts” and “compulsions” need not dictate our
social structure. Humans have creative latitude that animals seem to lack in terms of consciously
structuring our interactions to serve the greater good (and even some abstract principles such as “justice”
and/or “equality”).
FCM gets at this here:
What if this has nothing to do with completely eliminating the risk of pregnancy, and
everything to do with creating supportive social structures for women and children that are
so functional on every level that if a few of us die, we won’t be missed That sounds harsh,
but if enough redundancy were built in, meaning fail safes and layers upon layers of
functional support, our children and our loved ones and our communities could go on
without us. That seems more likely to me than removing the harms of pregnancy, which may
well be impossible. And this is what many women want anyway: to know their kids will be
ok, no matter what, and to have relatively safe and comfortable (ie. protected and
supported) lives for themselves and their families.
HELL YES.
165.

FCM
October 12, 2011 at 5:46 pm
im all for making all of this as safe and as painless as possible of course, meaning as safe and painless as it
would be, in the absence of harmful patriarchal institutions and values, and of finding ways to “treat”
these things if they become dysfunctional (like disabling pain from menstruation for example which i
experienced when i was young). but yes, ideally we wouldnt be popping pamprin and shit for a week a
month so we can get by at work. most women i know could do a months work in one week if we had to, so
taking a week off a month to relax could be very do-able and not cause much disruption at all. this bullshit
40-hour workweek was built by men who wanted to be out of the house and away from those yukky
domestic chores and children for as much time as possible, to bond with each other over rape culture, to
network and make each other more successful, and so that they have time and cover under which to have
affairs. its not about the work. DUH. women could do twice the work in half the time, like always. we
could make this happen if we were in charge.
166.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 5:52 pm
i absolutely fantasize about being able to menstruate in peace, preferably near a body of water to wash
away the blood. no more tampons or blood-soaked sheets to stress about. if thats TMI i dont give a rats
ass. i am sick of this shit! i have been thinking about doing a post on toxic shock syndrome for the past
few months, then saw that mary daly talked about it briefly in one of her books, either pure lust or
gyn/ecology. apparently, they had female doctors sound the warning when the risks of TSS were first
made public: these women told other women that even though the risk is there and its known, and its
deadly serious, that we should wait until we actually get TSS before stopping tampon usage. yes thats
right! only women who actually develop TSS from tampon usage (or by other means too i guess) are
recommended not to use tampons, which are known to cause TSS. that way, as many of us are at risk as
possible, we keep spending money on tampons, and tons of us end up getting sick! yay! thanks (ms.)
doctor!
167.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 6:05 pm
yes thats an actual FANTASY of an actual woman-identifying woman! we have fantasies too, just not the
kind anyone wants to hear about. and definitely not about porn-soaked male-centric sexuality thats
literally not compatible with life, when you are female. DUH.
168.
Sargasso Sea
October 12, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Actually, I’ve been trying to finish writing a post (or a series of them perhaps is more fitting) on this
subject of what the future could/will hold for all of us female menses/reproduction wise and some basic
ways to start thinking about getting there.
There’s a reason that the so-called progressives’ *zero population* movement has traction: maybe the
best thing for this planet is for ALL of us to step off for a while Of course, we know that it’s men and
their borg-like idiocy that’s caused ALL of what is negative, destructive and toxic and that that is what
truly needs to be resolved.
169.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 6:55 pm
and ipecac to treat nausea really is that like “hair of the dog” or something, or was he *trying* to kill
you or just completely negligent WTF
170.
Noanodyne
October 12, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Speaking of periods and the patriarchy — check out Huru. And wouldn’t you just know it, a corporation
that makes tampons has inserted itself into this movement. Yet another horrible trade-off.
171.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 8:17 pm
yes the “girls are missing out on education because of their periods!” campaign. i think tampax is in on

this too, or something like it. i believe there was some literature in my last box. of course *one* solution
would be to let the girls stay home for however long they want, and give them plenty of opportunities to
make up the work. but NOOOOOOO. “put things in your vagina” is the cure for everything isnt it of
course its the CAUSE of a lot of things too.
172.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 8:45 pm
this is nice. on kotex’s web forum called “girl space” theres a page where young girls can share/confess
their most EMBARRASSING STORIES.
http://girlspace.kotex.com/forum/Embarrassing-Moments/800000002
theres a whole page dedicated to EMBARRASSING PERIOD STORIES!
http://girlspace.kotex.com/topic/Embarrassing-Moments/Embarrassing-Period-Stories/700001765
luckily kotex makes a consumer product to combat this plague.
173.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 8:47 pm
i like this one. it sounds like it was written by a pedophile.
Re: embarrassing period stories
Jan 16, 2011 8:20 AM
One time I was in math class and I had my period and the teacher wanted someone to come
up and put it on the board and I knew I had my period so I had a pad on, but i leaked and of
course the teacher called on me to go put it up! There was blood on the back of my skirt! It
was awul haha my guy friend told me and I was sooo embarased! haha thats my story(:
–
I’m Allie(: If you want to be friends, message me(:
174.
FCM
October 12, 2011 at 8:49 pm
actually, it ACTUALLY DOES seem very much to have been written by a fucking pedo doesnt it no, i am
not kidding. this could probably use some looking into. its a member-only forum. anyone have the time
175.
Maggie
October 13, 2011 at 12:10 am
I think women should stop buying both tampons and commercial pads altogether. Tampons can be
dangerous (as has been mentioned here). Commercial pads and towels are not hygienic and they end up
in landfill or the sea (i.e. very environmentally unfriendly).
I think menstrual cups and re-usable menstual pads are a lot safer and more comfortable (google about
them to find out about where they are available from in your country). We clearly live in a patriarchally
capitalist/consumerist society which wants us to keep spending money on commercial menstrual
products, instead of us simply buying our own long-lasting sanitary protections and just washing them
and re-using them.
176.
FCM
October 13, 2011 at 2:34 pm
i have never used the re-usable pads, but the menstrual cup didnt work for me. i had to go home from
work one day and that was enough for me! too risky. interestingly, i found something in my travels that
indicated that they are now associating TSS with diaphragms. menstrual cups are the same idea, so i
wonder if theres an association there too. not sure.

177.
Maggie
October 13, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Well, if some womyn really don’t like menstrual cups, then I will say that re-usable (washable) menstrual
pads are the best option then. They’re often made of cotton (& sometimes water-proof materials also),
available in many size, easy to wash and are very comfortable to wear (i.e. a lot comfier to wear than the
usual commercial disposable pads).
Here is an example: http://www.moonrabbits.co.uk/
This is where you can get them from when you live in UK. And those are Womon-made (not man-made,
like the commercial stuff). I’m not sure about other country but when you google ‘washable menstrual
pads or ‘re-usable menstrual pads’ you can find where they’re available from in your own country.
There are also a few myths going around about reuasable pads “being dirty,” which is absolutely not true:
http://www.scarleteen.com/article/pink/eight_myths_about_washable_menstrual_pads_dispelled
In fact, it’s totally the oposite: commercial disposable stuff is not hygienic and not good. Washable pads
are the best, the most comfortable option (even better than the cup). In fact, in the past, before all the
commercial stuff came ’round, womyn were pretty much only using reusable pads.
I hope this helps, FCM and others.
178.
Mary Sunshine
October 13, 2011 at 4:51 pm
This is why in a female world we have menstrual huts.
I would never have made it through peri-menopause without super-plus tamp@x and super-long overnite
pads. Both at the same time. A rubberized crib pad. And a regular feed of liver and bacon.
I used a menstrual cup, but only when I didn’t have to go out into public.
179.
Maggie
October 13, 2011 at 5:10 pm
This is why in a female world we have menstrual huts.
Oh, I would love the idea of menstrual huts in a female world.
societies…
I’d bet they used to exist in matriarchal
180.
FCM
October 13, 2011 at 5:59 pm
i believe they have them in patriarchal cultures too….and that they are essentially a cross between medical
quarantine and an outhouse. but *we* would do it right. i would just lay on the shore of a nice body of
water and let the sand and the surf take care of it. maybe sleep in the hut if it was too cold to sleep right
there on the shore or if i got sick of being wet.
181.
Undercover Punk
October 13, 2011 at 6:09 pm
I love talking about the taboo of menstruation!
Bwahahahaa!
My mother has always insisted that if men menstruated, there would be one week off per month per
worker built into all union and government contracts. Standard.
FCM, I like your idea of menstruating near water. How lovely. I only wonder if it would attract
predators…
182.
FCM
October 13, 2011 at 6:15 pm

haha! yes indeed it probably would. we could send the men out to check. i would stay on the shore in
the saturated part of the sand and let the waves do their thing. that way i could bask in the sun at the
same time.
183.
Undercover Punk
October 13, 2011 at 6:25 pm
I’ve always worried about that, menstrual blood attracting predators, I mean. We’d have to lie on the
shore of a LAKE so as not to attract SHARKS, though. Eeeek!!!
Also I wonder about cycle-synchronicity of larger groups of women. My wife and I do NOT sync. It’s
weird, but I just think we’re both “alphas.” Or something. I’m obstinate in so many ways, no doubt my
menstrual cycle would be too.
184.
FCM
October 13, 2011 at 6:58 pm
yes lakes! fine by me. i dont really like swimming in the ocean though so i could use the ocean as well.
anyone who wanted to swim and live to tell about it could find their own ocean.
but seriously, i wonder how that would work say we were on the ocean and wanted to use one of the
beaches this way. how far up and down the coast would be infested with sharks, and for how long would
it become a permanent feeding ground for them and thus never safe for swimming, or if they never got
any meat out of the deal would they eventually go away even though there was blood or what inquiring
minds want to know. maybe we could use this to our benefit somehow. would anyone dare to invade our
beach by water if it was infested by sharks bwhahaha
185.
FCM
October 13, 2011 at 7:03 pm
or how about that inland pond with the waterfalls and natural water slide like on swiss family robinson
or…blizzard beach at disney world take that, walt.
186.
Sargasso Sea
October 13, 2011 at 7:31 pm
The daughter of a Second Waver Speaks!:
Mom was heavily into Native American tradition back in the day and one of the *perks* of being a woman
in some groups was that there was a menstrual shelter to retreat to which would be lined with leaves and
grasses and other absorbent materials. The women would continue with their (and work begun by others)
hand-y-work while those who were not menstruating would provide for their needs.
This is actually a GOOD way to deal with uninvited animal friends (predators is kind of strong really) too,
because the one central location and not spread out all over the place. Beside that, mammals know the
difference between menstrual blood and fresh, tasty blood, sisters.
187.
FCM
October 13, 2011 at 7:48 pm
yes, and TALKING about it is a good way to GET RID of other kinds of predators. i suspect the only
MEN reading here anymore are transwomen. and that they are reading because they want to learn how to
“pass” better. good luck with that.
188.
FCM
October 13, 2011 at 7:53 pm
i like the idea of continuing other womens projects. a good way to knit something large or to get through
something really boring. love!
189.
Undercover Punk

October 13, 2011 at 7:54 pm
I like the way you think! feed menstrual blood to sharks, then use our new shark friends as deterrents to
invading predators. this is GOLD.
190.
Undercover Punk
October 13, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Oh, S4 says sharks do not want menstrual blood! This is actually better, I think. Let us bleed into the
ocean, then! While crocheting complex mathematical patterns!
PS. What about piranhas, leeches, and other aquatic wonders Can they tell the diff
191.
FCM
October 13, 2011 at 8:07 pm
i am so going to google that UP. thats a good question!
192.
FCM
October 13, 2011 at 8:20 pm
ok i am linking to this not because it had much useful information, but because its written for female
surfers and is the longest blog post i have ever seen. jfc it mustve taken days to write!
http://coconutgirlwireless.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/sharks-swells-and-stinky-smells/
193.
FCM
October 13, 2011 at 8:48 pm
what if men dont like menstrual blood because THEY are predators and its actually a predator deterrent
i am seeing conflicting evidence about the effects on and reactions by sharks, but some sources are saying
that menstrual blood may actually deter them. hmm!
194.
Noanodyne
October 13, 2011 at 9:01 pm
It’s possible to not use anything while you’re bleeding and live exactly the same way you do the rest of the
time. I’ve often thought of writing a short book or pamphlet or even a blog about how to do it, but I’ve had
various concerns about certain issues. But it’s important that women and girls know that it is possible and
I’m very sure I’m not the only woman to figure it out.
195.
FCM
October 13, 2011 at 9:06 pm
how cryptic.
you arent going to elaborate, are you
196.
Noanodyne
October 13, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Would love to, but not here, too public.
197.
Noanodyne
October 13, 2011 at 9:13 pm
And if anyone has suggestions about where to explain how to do it, that would be great. One of my
dilemmas has been audience and reasons girls and women would want to learn how to do it and what
they would go through as they learned. Another concern is how it could be twisted in various ways (it
relates to girl’s and women’s bodies, oh noes!!!!!!).

198.
FCM
October 13, 2011 at 9:14 pm
well you could email me, for starters! jfc. i need to know.
199.
FCM
October 13, 2011 at 9:15 pm
or the forum maggie announced earlier.
200.
Sargasso Sea
October 13, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Definitely interested.
201.
Mary Sunshine
October 13, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Tell me, too! marysunshine @@@@@@@@ gmail.com
202.
FCM
October 14, 2011 at 3:21 am
BTW its not really relevant, but sharks aren’t mammals. They’re fish. and so far Google is not
forthcoming at all as to whether sharks or anything is actually attracted to, repelled by or indifferent to
menstrual blood. Thanks for nothing Google!
203.
carpenter28
October 14, 2011 at 11:09 am
Wow,very inspiring post Vliet and great comments everyone.
I love the thought to have my period and not have to wear pads or tampons but when i’m at my work.o
well.
Since sharks are my favo animals i know a bit about them and there is no evidence of sharks atracted to
menstrual blood however since they haven’t test it
,they will always advice you not to swim or dive when you have your period because they can sell a little
drop of blood miles away.
But to have my period without pads etc,i love that.
This blog is an eye opener,thanks.
204.
Sargasso Sea
October 14, 2011 at 2:30 pm
I’m glad that you noticed that I said “mammals” because I don’t hang around with sharks much but my
radfem common sense tells me that sharks, perhaps especially, would know the difference.
I mean we, as human animals, have reletively crappy olfactory sense and WE can tell the difference,
right
205.
Maggie
October 14, 2011 at 2:41 pm
I love the thought to have my period and not have to wear pads or tampons but when i’m at my work.o
well.
I like the idea as well, but when you have to work, go to class, or move through this society (and even

sometimes when you stay a long time in bed), you have to wear something, I guess. That’s why I
recommend the washable pads. They’re the comfiest, the most convenient, if you need to wear any
sanitary protection at all.
This blog is an eye opener,thanks.
It is.
206.
carpenter28
October 14, 2011 at 7:48 pm
I know,Maggie,i know.And you are right,sometimes you have to wear something,work etc.
I just wish that we could do what we want to,period etc.
Thank the gods,my wife and i have a daughter and not a son.And with the help of an syringe and not PIV.
Also we had an midwife and not a man and that felt so good really,no men at all.
207.
Anne
October 20, 2011 at 11:56 am
I have been reading this website and your discussions for over 24 hours and could not drag myself away.
What truly wonderful inspirational stuff. As women when discussions happen amongst us like these
discussions I have been reading as a species what the hell do we have to worrry about As women we will
find our utopia there is no doubt in my mind about this. Encouraging all women to be involved with
banter and open truthful and honest debate and talks like these is the first and always will be the most
important step for all woman kind. We have found freedom from attacks on our free speech and this is
liberation also.
I do have one point which I disagree upon and that is that I have a son and because of one forced abortion
which I believe was a daughter I could not in no way envisage killing him at birth. I think there are very
few women in this world who would willingly do this. I think unfortunately this is just another
oppression. It is the nurturing that counts in free society. Thank you so much for this website. In a
difficult time in my life I find this brings me much happiness.
208.
doctressjulia
October 21, 2011 at 8:54 pm
How can I stop living with a man when I have nowhere else to go I have no job, no car, no family to turn
to. Every recent job interview I’ve had has gone horribly creepy and wrong: the last one I went to, I was
asked if I was married or had children. Creepy man (named ‘John’, no less) prefaced it with “I know this
may be illegal for me to ask you, but…” YEAH. AS IF THAT KEPT YOU FROM ASKING ME ANYWAY!
Asshole! So, yeah, I am seeking a safe place to live with only other women. And, a job I need a job, it’s
been a year now! Any radical feminist bars looking for a great bartender LOL
Any leads or advice would be ever so welcome… :/
It is hard for me to set boundaries sometimes- I sometimes sleep next to dude (NO SEX, none) when I
wake up screaming alone in the middle of the night. I know I must stop doing it, now. I don’t know what
it is to feel truly safe or listened to. And, I am totally dependent on this dude for everything. I ask him,
over and over: “ARE you really my friend DO you really give a shit” I have sent him to radical feminist
pages, and he is learning- a little. How lucky that he has only been abusive towards me a few times
(always alcohol-related)! /s Seems that ever since I punched him in the face, he’s been more respectful of
me… is that really what it takes I mean, he started it; I finished it. I told him: NEVER AGAIN. OR ELSE.
He knows i mean it. I may have a rep in these parts as ‘that crazy woman who punches guys in the face’.
Like I’m supposed to feel ashamed of defending myself when a man tries to throw me bodily across a
room, calls me an ‘old drunk bitch’ (that was my ex, David- my LAST boyfriend, EVER. I broke his nose. I
am not sorry.), tries to grab the steering wheel out of my hands while I am driving, yells in my face that
nothing I say ;really matters’, etc. etc ad nauseum. Sorry so ranty…
209.
FCM
October 22, 2011 at 12:34 am
julia, many women find themselves trapped. thats how this works and its a necessary part of it. if women
werent trapped, indeed if they had ANY other options besides homelessness, many of them wouldnt put
up with the men in their lives (or with any men period) at all. many women DO choose homelessness
anyway. those are the women who leave, and its not necessarily any better because there are men waiting
in line to rape and abuse women that arent another mans property (ie common women, vulnerable

women and prostituted women). there are some of us here who figure it might be too late for us, but still
hope to warn the young uns reading here, before they begin down that road, or before they are so far
down it they cant change it. women having no family to turn to is a huge part of this as well, and thats at
least partially due to the mandatory PIV that created most of us to begin with. its difficult to accept that
many of our families never wanted us and never intended to take care of us, (or cannot take care of us)
but its true. mandatory PIV and the unwanted and ambivalent pregnancies and children it creates is vital
to maintaining the status quo. so many of us have nowhere else to go and this is 100% critical to male
supremecy. others of us could make other arrangements if we could only get our heads around what that
might look like. this is also being discussed here and elsewhere.
the events and values and “choices” that send us down this road start so early in life and SEEM so
innocuous as to be imperceptible until its too late. coupled with our ignorance/innocence as well as a
heaping helping of denial and belief in male exceptionalism its where most of us end up. its horrifying
once you wake up and realize where you are. its happened to me too.
210.
doctressjulia
October 22, 2011 at 10:43 am
Well, I wish it wasn’t. Dammit. And, just now I find that an ex-roommate who stalked and harassed me
for more than a year is badmouthing me, again, on yet another blog. he is calling me Borderline and has
posted a picture of me. It never ends. :C
211.
FCM
October 30, 2011 at 5:27 pm
re “gendercide”. FYI
re female infanticide
http://www.economist.com/node/15636231
http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html
re male infanticide
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/world/women-kill-male-babies-to-end-war/story-e6freoox-
1111118191648
212.
tiptree2
October 30, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Wow, that third story about male infanticide by tribal mothers in New Guinea to stop endless warfare was
amazing! Right here in this current world, war is being stopped by a method that those of us in
eurocentric countries would think of as science fiction! And they talk about it openly! I have to ask myself
why this seems so astounding when girl fetuses are killed for nothing all over the place — guess it’s
because it just blazes out at me as a confirmation that other women in this world who we don’t get to hear
from much are so radical and so logical!
213.
FCM
October 30, 2011 at 10:52 pm
yes vliet, i thought everyone already knew about that or i wouldve posted it sooner. its what i meant when
i said that some women are already doing this — they are.
214.
FCM
October 30, 2011 at 11:58 pm
doubtless there are other women doing other things in this same vein too, that we will never hear about.
this is partially what *imagining* a better future is about: knowing that we dont know everything, and
knowing that theres nothing new under the sun.
215.
FCM
October 31, 2011 at 12:14 am
glad someone is still checking in on this thread.

216.
FCM
October 31, 2011 at 1:30 am
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2049938/Stressed-mothers-juggling-home-work-love-liveslikely-girls.html
Women who are stressed while trying for a baby are more likely to have girls, research
suggests.
A study found that those who were under pressure at home, work or in their love life in the
weeks or months before becoming pregnant had higher than usual odds of giving birth to a
daughter rather than a son.
The finding, by Oxford University and U.S. researchers, means the economic downturn
could see more women give birth to daughters. The study follows others that have shown
the number of baby boys goes down following major upheavals.
For instance, in the months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the number of boys born in New
York plunged, while the economic chaos that followed the collapse of the Berlin Wall saw
far fewer boys born than expected in the former East Germany in 1991.
But the latest study is the first to link the phenomenon to the stresses and strains of
everyday life and to rising levels of stress hormones.
217.
FCM
October 31, 2011 at 6:33 pm
and YES to “radical and logical.” the crumbs we get here in “developed” areas come at a terrible price: we
are completely under mens control at all times, including their legal system and social and interpersonal
controls. there are women who are doing the unthinkable and the unspeakable (it becomes both thinkable
and speakable when its identified as rational and logical, and necessary) all around the world, we just
never or rarely hear about it. the story about the women in papua new guinea swept the internets at the
time, and it was scrubbed from the daily mail LOL cant find it there anymore, but it was there and several
bloggers linked to them at the time. surely the MRAs swarmed, believing that a line had been crossed, and
that some things are simply not to be thought, or discussed. well, they are being thought, and they are
being discussed, and as we can see, they are being done, by women around the world.
218.
m Andrea
November 3, 2011 at 7:52 am
10. Our Development of Inspirational Visions of the Future. One of the saddest and most difficult areas
of feminist thought has to do with women’s invisible ancient history. Our failure thus far to dispositively
show that woman-dominated societies, or even unoppressive societies, once existed has been a blow. It
makes it seem as if such societies could not occur in the future. Reformist Feminists are much concerned
with resurrecting this uncertain, invisibilized past.
Oddly enough this is not an argument used when the subject is “men have always been sexist”. LOL (The
next bit would be “and so therefore men will always be sexist”). LOL Anyway, it seems like the only people
discussing the radical feminist version of this argument are radical feminists. I think it’s moot. Besides
that, it doesn’t prove the conclusion which those radfems assume it does. It actually suggests a different
point, that sexism is inherent.
Think about it. Supposedly, no “woman-dominated societies, or even unoppressive societies, have existed
WITH MEN PRESENT and this means egalitarianism is not possible in the future WITH MEN
PRESENT”. (The invisiblized part of the argument has been capitalized for emphasis.)
Apologies if somebody’s already mention that.
219.
karmarad
November 5, 2011 at 8:06 am
Hi, m Andrea,
I have been reading about the Mosuo and trying to convince myself that we could get along with men if
we could seize the means of production which the Mosuo traditionally did, but that ain’t happening in this

time and place.
So. Hmm. No men present. You may be thinking about something more radical, and that’s cool. I go back
to the basic vision: the village, spiked sticks surrounding it, women on watch, children and no men in the
village. The men outside, bringing their gifts and requesting reproduction. The careful consideration. The
control by the women. The men often told to move on. The elephant model.
Would like to hear your ideas about this. Can there be men visiting, gifting, requesting procreation under
the control of the elder women
Karma
220.
karmarad
November 7, 2011 at 6:59 am
Hi, sisters, after this guest essay was posted I was targeted for some evil doings by some male doofuses. I
decided to bark back. I won’t go into any detail because there’s a lot of MRA talk I had to quote and so on
in this takedown, but for those of you willing to expose yourselves to a little of that, check out
http://avoiceforcreepymen.blogspot.com/, my new blog. Hope to write another essay soon; it’s been fun.
Take care,
Vliet
221.
ibleedpurple
November 7, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Hey, Vliet.
Those men are very obviously salivating and beating their dicks over any suffering they might have caused
like the good little sadists they are. If anyone needs proof of men’s hatred of women we have it on your
site.
Don’t let the bastards grind you down. Hope to see you back soon if it should be safe for you.
222.
FCM
November 7, 2011 at 2:15 pm
we have such smart women here.
love it.
223.
maggie
November 7, 2011 at 6:24 pm
@karmarad 8.06
There would be no need for the elder woman as children would be brought up without commification and
objectification. Young women would be more than capable of making the right decisions themselves,
having been taught that the clitoris is the font of all pleasure.
At what age would young men leave
224.
Mary Sunshine
November 7, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Maggie,
I think that males should be out of there by the age of 6.
Also, the bringing of another child into the group would have to be a collective decision – that’s where the
elders come in. They have decades of observing what is manageable and what isn’t.
225.

Rididill
November 10, 2011 at 6:23 pm
That economist article was maddening. What euphemistic language, ‘preference’ for boy children. They
manage to report on the large scale murder of female babies and the deliberate prevention of female life
through sex selective abortion without ever using the word ‘misogyny’. And they call it ‘gendercide’ to
mask the reality that it is pure female hatred. Not femicide, the killing of women because they are women,
which is what it actually is.
And the suggestion that women are killing themselves because they can’t live with the fact that they have
killed their female children Really, is that the only reason Nothing to do with the fact that a society that
hates women enough not to allow them to be born or survive infancy might not be too peachy for women
to live in. That living in such female hating society might be too much for some women to bear.
And the comments! Complaining that nothing is being said about the developed world’s ‘war on boys’
which does not happen to involve large scale DEATH oh it sounds like such a terrible war. Or telling the
‘Western feminists’ to go and sort it out instead of ‘bashing’ the ‘frightened’ Western hetero men. Oh, it
must be SO SCARY having almost all the political and economic power, and never facing the constant
threat of sexual attack. Funny how it’s always men telling feminists they should be focused on the
developing world, while they have no solidarity or help for either women in their own country or those
abroad. I have never once heard any feminist from the developing world tell a Western feminist that they
are spending too much time on their own problems instead of ‘saving’ the women in their countries, quite
the opposite. It’s always Western men who say it.
226.
FCM
November 10, 2011 at 7:16 pm
hi rididill, thanks for commenting. yes teh poor menz are really upset about the terrible worldwide “war
on themselves” that doesnt exist. of course, even the poor examples of “misandry” they are able to point
to are patriarchal institutions started by and perpetuated by them, not us (they still think “the draft” is an
example of misandry for example) to benefit themsevles, not us. pfft. the stupid.
Trackbacks
1. Anarchist Values Inform Occupy Wall Street | Radfem Hub
October 14, 2011 at 4:52 pm
2. About “Resolution” | Radical Resolution
October 19, 2011 at 2:08 am
Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here...
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
Email (required)
(Not published)
Name (required)
Website
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Post Comment
HUB bloggers
Register
Log in
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
WordPress.com

our other blogs
Undercover Punk's other blog
Miska's other blog
cherryblossomlifes's other blog
zeph's other blog
rainsinger's other blog
lishra's other blog
Loretta Kemsley's other blog
easilyriled's other blog
allecto's other blog
smash's other blog
bugbrennan's other blog
FCM's other blog
categories
Select Category
archives
Select Month
search by author
top posts
Sexual Politics (Part II)
On Gender as Personality
Cognitive Dissonance
*Whose* 'Biology-Is-Destiny' Around Here, Anyway
resources
authors
contact
Sexual Politics (Part I)
Boys will be Boys
radical perspectives (lots of links)
no speshul snowflakes allowed!

this space is FAAB-only. thank you.
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Under the Influence by spaceperson.

Follow
“Radfem Hub”
Follow
Get every new post delivered
to your Inbox.
Join 136 other followers
Enter your email address
Sign me up
Powered by WordPress.com