RFID Blocking received the following question:

What defines radical feminism as opposed to other forms of feminism, and why should people who espouse it be blocked? If you have a link to an explanation at the top of your page or something I'd appreciate just a link, as I browse Tumblr mobile and can't see it. Sincerely asking, btw. I've seen terms used in varying ways and the categories of feminist thought seem blurry to me.


Classes of feminism are not very sharply defined. Any feminist can espouse ideas influenced by radical feminism, and vice versa. Indeed, intersectional feminism is a reaction to and evolution of radical feminism.

Feminism in the Western world is roughly sorted into four “waves.” Non-western feminism addresses different cultural needs than western feminism and does not necessarily follow these patterns. It emphatically does not follow this timeline.

What we consider first wave feminism arose from upper class white women in the late 19th century. The suffragette movement, reduction of hysteria diagnoses, etc were “first wave” actions. By far, the first wave was the wave of respectability. In a world where women were property, being seen as human was already a large task.

The methodology used to achieve this “humanization” was very much focused on improving the state of the uppermost class of women, with vague notions of “coming back for the rest” later. Or not at all.

Nevertheless, first wave feminism- what we might today call “white feminism”- was the foundation upon which later western feminist ideologies were built. It is also where the first strides towards legal equality for women (voting rights, inheritance law, etc) came from.

The second wave of feminism arose in the 1960s, alongside other major protest cultures. Modern radical feminism generally considers itself to be “second wave.” Where the first wave focused on basic legal rights of personhood, the second wave focused on social limitations and domestic rights, as well as examining the specific struggles and consequences of being a woman in a man-centered society. 

This included things such as attempting to abolish dress codes that required excessive levels of modesty or infringed on the freedom of expression of women. It also included successes such as no-fault divorce, domestic abuse studies and shelters, title IX sports and education protections, etc.

It also included and fostered an enormous amount of hatred towards men. The second-wave was the wave of militancy and separatism. There was a persistent belief that if men could be eliminated from the lives of women, women would magically become utopian creatures.

This fostering of separatist attitudes also exacerbated a lot of what we would now call intersectional issues: any woman who disagreed with the party line was clearly just hypnotized by the patriarchy, and needed to be forced to agree with the party.

This led to ignoring a lot of very valid concerns from a great many women. Such as:

+ Ssecond wave feminism’s separatist attitude seeking in many cases to separate women from their sons and other beloved male family members,

+ The hatred of women who were assigned male at birth,

+ The hatred of women who worked with or for men, especially those who worked in sex,

+ Hatred for sexuality involving men,

+ Hatred for sexuality  between women,

+ Hatred for women of color,

+ Hatred for religions and religious women involved in anything other than Christian derived mother-goddess paganism,

And so on.

These are problems that still exist in today’s “radical feminists” who seek to recreate, or never left, the second wave. Indeed, while transgender status prior to the rise of second wave feminism’s influence in the US was hardly a cakewalk, it was second wave feminists, with their hatred of all things “male” who exacerbated tensions, or entirely created new ones, and created many of the most horrifying aspects of transphobia that we see today.

The third wave of feminism rose in the late 80s and early 90s.

Taking inspiration from the many, many, many women who were attacked and hated by second wave policies, the third wave of feminism, today called, “intersectional feminism,” sought to examine just what it was that caused women who weren’t in the ruling class of feminist momvements throughout history to experience a combination of patriarchal misogyny and hegemonic racism/queerphobia/classism that was greater than the sum of its parts.

Many Black and queer feminist scholars were especially active and especially well regarded during this time period. The expansion of queer theory and racial equality efforts in academia and certain public sectors including child education in the third wave time period was also a prominent influence on third wave feminism.

One especially important aspect of third wave feminism was individualism. The belief that there is no “one right way” to be a woman, and that womanhood is necessarily influenced by the individual’s other identities, as well as their internal truths. This is what led to many feminine subcultures: feminine academics, feminine punks, feminine queers.

Unfortunately, one draw back of the third wave’s strong focus on individualism was that it lacked the cohesive force of early waves. Organization of large scale protest and revolution is very difficult when no one can entirely agree on what is being fought for.

Another critical factor of the third wave, and the defining point between third and fourth wave feminism, is that the third wave existed before the spread of internet access and internet culture. This contributed to the communication problems and scale problems third wave feminists experienced.

The fourth wave of feminism is where we currently exist today.

In effect, it is the third wave, but with broadly accessible systems of communication and organization. Intersectionality 2.0, as it were.

Information overload is common in fourth wave spaces. While everyonenow knows what conflicting access needs are, at least, there is little experience in satisfactorily dealing with them.

Because so much of fourth wave feminism is “talking the talk” rather than “walking the walk,” it gives the impression of being a toothless cacophony of young modern feminists screaming at each other incoherently. Because everyone has a platform, it is difficult for leaders to emerge who are not falling back on earlier, more “cohesive” waves: the first and second.

On the other hand, when everyone has at least the potential to have a voice, then people who have existed in silence for generations finally get to speak: people with multiple stacking intersections of marginalization. People who lack the access to historic methods of learning feminist theory can now get a firm foundation in gender equality without needing to pay for 4 years at a liberal arts college. People who are too weird, too queer, to black or brown or disabled or fat or traumatized to participate in the historical forums of feminism can participate in the fourth wave, due to its strong online presence.

With easy, omnipresent recording and data collection methodologies, it becomes increasingly difficult for people to deny the existence of misogyny. With easy, omnipresent communication platforms, this data can be spread to people it could reach before. People who are trapped in controlled environments of abuse, people who are too poor or disabled or anything else to escape the small town hyper-conservative bubble they were born into.

The fourth wave has been “in progress” for between 6 and 10 years, depending on who you talk to. Currently, it doesn’t have a catchy name, but if I were going to give it one, I might call it “accessible feminism.” The barriers to entry have never been lower.

And yet, it has its many problems, too.

No social movement is perfect, because the people involved in it are not perfect. And each wave of feminism overlaps with and influences those that came before and after it.

But, given the choice, I would say each subsequent wave of feminism has been “better” than those before it, and I would also say that no wave of feminism was as openly and violently hostile as second wave feminism and the radical feminists who still espouse it. That it was more effective than the first wave is a point in its favour, but little else is.

That many modern radical feminists seek to undo the leaps and bounds we have made in the decades since radical feminism fell out of favour as the dominant feminist ideology is somewhere between regressive and openly horrifying.

So, I suppose that wasn’t necessarily as helpful as it could have been, in terms of specifically identifying radical feminist ideology today.

But with any luck, it has given you enough of a foundation upon which to build your own research in the future.

XOXOX

💮 Yazminx 💮 

PS: The title of our blog is a pun. You should only block people who you, personally, feel should be blocked. If you want to use our work as a guideline, then by all means do so. However, we are not operating any kind of blocklist here.

An anonymous user sent the following ask to tumblr user veganconnor:

hi! i saw your post about men being exhausting and like yes? but not all men. I'm male and i like to help out at local shelters, the community garden, im an advocate and supporter for the lgbt community. im a feminist and against people who think trump is doing good things, and much more. dont let men set a precedent for what masculinity is. there are good guys out there, i promise. im sorry if this was rude in any way, i didn't intend for it to be like that.


veganconnor:



so. i think there’s a good chance this was a joke. i lost my mind laughing when i first got it. but also? this is exactly how men talk, so i’m gonna break it down seriously. 

i made that post after dinner with my friend’s family. his dad, let’s call him john, was belittling his wife so she wasn’t talking much and he’d made a few jabs about his son’s painted nails so his son was kind of wilting. john’s a nice guy, smart guy, really likes me & thinks i’m smart. i was pretty much carrying all the emotional labor at that dinner–trying to make my friend and his mom feel comfortable while also engaging with john. we were making conversation about lots of things, it wasn’t a particularly controversial or heated discussion at really any point in time. again, john’s a cool guy–he’s liberal and progressive and knows that i’m a lesbian and all sorts of nice things. he works for a bigggg banking company–i don’t wanna say which one, but you’d know the name. we were talking about #metoo and he starts talking about how sexual harassment isn’t really an issue where he works. 

three hours before he said this, a man in times square had grabbed my boob. at a restaurant i worked at, a rapist who worked there got my number off the scheduling app and would text me vile things while we were both working to make me uncomfortable. he’d also touch my ass every shift but always managed to pretend like it was an accident. it wasn’t. my best friend, who was also at dinner with us, worked at her moms law firm when she was 17, and the man across from her had a countdown on his whiteboard to the day she turned 18 and every day he would look at her as he changed the number. i’ve been sexually assaulted multiple times outside of these instances, and so has she. 

but other men don’t see these things. 

and this man looks at me, and tells me sexual harassment doesn’t happen, because he doesn’t see it. and here’s the thing: that’s not why i’m mad. i’m not mad because he didn’t know. 

i’m mad because i know this man. he is my friend’s father, he is my father, he is my uncles, he is my professors, he is my cousins, and my bosses, and my colleagues. i know how you have to talk to these men. it’s a game. and you have to play along whether you want to or not, because they won’t hear a word you say if you don’t. 

here’s how the game works: john talks about everything like he’s the authority on the matter, because he can’t get it through his brain that someone, especially someone who is not a man, could possibly know something he doesn’t. so john starts talking about things very confidently. and because nobody knows everything, he gets a lot of things wrong. things that i refuse to let him be wrong about. so if i want to change john’s mind, if i want him to hear my point of view, i have to speak to him in the only way he will listen. i have to be, above all, pleasant. john has been taught for years to laugh at a woman’s anger, so if any hint of indignation sneaks into my voice, he won’t take me seriously any more and i’ll lose him entirely.  i have to smile and laugh a little and be charming. but i also have to be articulate. i have to make sure i sound intelligent or else he’ll dismiss me as a stupid teenage girl who doesn’t know what she’s talking about. but i also can’t sound too intelligent because if he starts feeling threatened by my intelligence he’ll get defensive. (sidenote! he has a tiny dick.) so it’s quite a complicated game but i’m good at it. in fact, i’m one of the best. so here i am, carefully navigating the best way to hold this man’s hand and babysit him as i give him a kindergarten level course on sexual assault in the workplace, while also not letting him realize that i’m having to condescend to him because his brain is as tiny as his dick, and can only handful little bits of new information spoonfed to him like applesauce. i have to make it sound like i think he is not only smart, but smarter than me. i have to scatter in little phrases like, “in my experience” or “i could be wrong” and constantly undermine myself, even when speaking on a topic i am incredibly well-versed in, because i have to suggest that i think he is smarter than me or else he won’t deem me worthy of his attention. 

i’m good at it. i play the little fucking game and before i know it, i’ve got john here nodding along and acting like he agreed with what i’m saying all along, acting like he came up with it, acting like he DIDN’T totally contradict what i just told him minutes before. but since he didn’t come up with it, he’ll likely interrupt me before i even get to the end of my point and say something totally misinformed and now i’m trying to educate him on both of the things he got wrong but before i can even do that he’s interrupting me again and now there’s THREE things i’ve gotta teach this guy without him catching on to the fact that i’m teaching him. 

now. here’s the best part about the game. it’s soul-shatteringly dehumanizing. to disregard your own trauma, your own emotion, your own incredibly valid anger that you have fought and fought and fought to believe you have a right to feel, to tone down your beliefs in order to make them more palatable to someone who is this deeply ignorant, to force yourself to giggle and be charming as you discuss the thing that has ripped you into shreds, to ignore how triggering it is to even breach this topic in conversation, to be complicit in making yourself small in order to get your point across, to look into the eyes of a man who has, unwittingly, because of his ignorance, enabled other men to engage in this same behavior–it turns a dinner conversation into a thing that is traumatizing in it’s own right. 

and i feel obligated to put myself through this because of my privilege, because as an attractive, white twenty year old, i can hold this man’s attention better than a massive portion of the population, who he likely wouldn’t give the time of  day to. i refuse to let him live his life unchallenged, so i do what i have to do to make myself heard. 

and i feel the repercussions of this so strongly i dissociate more viciously than i have in weeks and lose all memory of a solid 3 hours of my life after this conversation. 

and i come on here, and post: men are useless and exhausting. because i am angry at what men have done to me. at what they continue to do to me. at what i must do to myself in order to force them to wake up and realize what other men are doing to me and to please, for the love of god, MAKE IT STOP. 

and i get this message from you, a dumbass who’s got his head shoved so far up his own asshole that it’s about to come back up through his esophagus, assuming you know what i’m talking about. assuming you know more than me about men and about my experiences with them, about why i made this post. assuming that because you’re not the scum of the fucking earth and because you do three good things, it somehow balances out the treatment i have received for years from men, and makes my anger towards them, and my hatred of them: unjust. and my post wasn’t even me being angry! it was me being exhausted!!!!! if i’m tired of men, why the fuck would you, “a male” deem it at all appropriate to come near me, to send me a message, to engage with me at all? leave me alone! you know nothing! 

and as much as i thought this was a joke at first, the more i read the message the more i’m convinced that it was written by a man, because even a girl pretending to be a man as a joke wouldn’t manage to sound this fucking stupid. i have dozens of stories exactly like this over the course of at least 10 years of my life. i know more than you. and this isn’t FUCKING about you. if you weren’t useless and exhausting, you would have happily scrolled by and went on with your night. but by sending me this message you proved yourself to be IMPRESSIVELY: useless and exhausting. shut the fuck up for about 3-4 years. you might learn something. also, read men explain things to me by rebecca solnit. she says all this better than i do. 

Before responding, please visit our F.A.Q.

What tipped us off

Use of trans/intersex traits (micropenis) as an insult.

General sentiments of gender separatism.

What proved the concern was valid

+ Femmephobia is when people treat women engaging in traditionally feminine pursuits as lesser than Real Women, who are butch or masculine. It is often associated with treating femininity as a type of toxin from which the truer, more masculine woman underneath must be saved. It is usually couched as an attempt to present valid criticisms on standards of beauty, but places the responsibility for those standards on women rather than social pressures orchestrated primarily through capitalist attempts to maximize profit.

+ Compulsive heterosexuality is the belief that many straight and bisexual women are actually, truly lesbians, and must be rescued from their hypnotic submission to men.

+ Almost certainly by accident, but the implication that trans women are just extra abusive men.

+ Deciding for other people what they can do to their own bodies, again presented as needing to rescue people from themselves.

+ Idealization of TERF writers. (Citation on Carolyn Gage as TERF, warning, implies that trans people are child molesters)

In what ways are these actions concerning

A persistent belief that other people, especially other women, cannot be trusted to make their own decisions lends itself very easily to authoritarian thinking.

While not the intent, when combined with the above denial of autonomy, the disparagement of male exploration of gender nonconformity has severely transmisogynistic implications.

I would like to think the bit with TERF theorists is self explanatory, but implying that marginalization makes you more likely to engage in child sex trafficking is especially heinous and deserves additional point out. I cannot reasonably expect people to look up every writer they ever see a quote from, but Carolyn Gage is not a small-time writer and her beliefs are not “petty but ultimately not damaging,” they are very much a fuck you to trans people.

Additional notes:

Unlike previous RFID scanning posts I have written, this one is quite sparse on citations. That’s for a reason. I do not think the OP of this post is a radical feminist. Certainly, the OP seems to be making a genuine effort to be an ally to trans people and trans women in particular. But I do think that the OP has been fed a lot of radical feminist ideology hidden under the guide of “lesbian liberation” and is spreading it further as a result. This is called being an “asset” to radical feminism.

This post appears to be a genuine exploration of the way liberal men often engage in blatant misogyny without recognizing it. In fact, I agree with the story presented, as it is certainly something I have personally experienced a great many times.

But just because a post is good or a point is valid does not mean that it cannot be used to further radical feminist ideology.

XOXOX
💮 Yazminx 💮

grimeclown:

grimeclown:

grimeclown:

anti-sj dude 20 minutes into a “friendly debate” wherein hes offered 0 sources for his claims and accused you of cherry-picking your sources from “politically correct propaganda websites” which he didnt read anyways and then hits you with the smug anime girl and its even the little girl dragon from the pedo anime but he still thinks hes won somehow

you point this out and get “nice ad hominem. better luck next time, obama pundit”

you dont support the democratic party

the “friendly debate” was an argument he started on your link to an article about american war crimes. his original claim was that there simply werent any. he didnt read the article.

 

What tipped us off

The use of “pedophilia” as an instant rhetorical win when the source material contains no sexual abuse of children, not even fictionally.

What proved the concern was valid

+ Literal and specific support of radical feminism, unironically.

+ Excludes people from LGBT+ spaces for being not experieincing a minimum mandatory degree of specific identity based trauma, regardless of actual experience. This is an issue because attempting to create a minimum mandatory degree of queerness inevitably harms the very people that such barriers to entry are intended to help. Disproportionately, this affects trans people.

+ Seems to think that people who look like Adam Driver cannot possibly be harmed by making fun of Adam Driver’s appearance in a way that mimics and ultimately makes acceptable the jokes about Jewish appearance.

+ Believes that the erasure of a person’s orientation is entertaining and appropriate.

+ Denies the well documented problem of hypersexualization of queer identity because some people exist.

+ Just openly supports SoberCommunist, which I realize is a statement that might require additional contextualizing but I’m not being paid so unfortunately you’ll have to do that research on your own time.

+ Denies the experiences of marginalized people; thinks historical revisionism is fun.

+ Is it petty for me, a sex worker, to point out that treating sex work like a punchline is fucked up? Perhaps.

+ Queer history is only real or valid when it adheres to this person’s modern conservative opinions, apparently.

+ Believes that adults, as in people who are legally adults, are actually children. Why would you even bring up the fact that these people are legal adults in this post. You didn’t need to. It was unnecessary. It’s a bizarre choice. Don’t do that.

+ Considers cartoons to be equivalent to crimes that leave real live victims to face a lifetime of real, live trauma. But only the cartoons they dislike, of course.

+ More conflation of fiction with reality, this time explicitly to excuse harassing other real people.

+ Oppression is a joke in and of itself now, apparently.

In what ways are these actions concerning

The constant trend of denying the existence of history and of oppression should be self-evidently concerning. But, to simplify, if someone denies the existence of one fact of history or one system of oppression, it is very easy for them to deny the existence of other facts of history and other systems of oppression. This leads to revisionism and dehumanization.

The conflation of fiction and reality for the explicit purpose of creating the spectre of child molestation to win arguments, rather than trying to win said arguments, is concerning. It encourages and expands on the idea that the world is teeming with an unstoppable mass of child rapists, and that all rational thought and consideration should be stopped and replaced with mob justice at the mention of these unsubstantiated claims. This stands in direct opposition to the fact that A) the world is not teeming with child molesters and B) that child molestation, like any violent crime, should be prevented whenever possible first, and punished only when prevention fails. Punishment and violence should not be the first line of defense, as they are by obligation after-the-fact.

Additional notes:

* I was unable to find any indication of the OP’s preferred pronouns and gendered language, beyond preferring the use of “girlfriend” and identifying as nonbinary on some level. As such, I have defaulted to “they.” If this is incorrect, please forgive my presumption, and let me know what terminology to edit into this post.

As always, the OP may not be a true and complete radical feminist, with all the political beliefs that entails. However, this post is presented in such a way as to make trans people, sex workers, and others often targetted by radical feminism and it’s descendant movements feel unsafe. Followup research revealed that that discomfort was warranted.

XOXOX
💮 Yazminx 💮


Why did you analyze my post?

Yazminx, D-Diamond, or one of our friends or followers saw your post on their dash, recognized it as a series of dogwhistles for radical feminist politics, and wanted to make a public statement explaining the dogwhistles, how we recognized them, and why they’re dangerous. 🐶

What’s with all the receipts, is this some kind of callout?

Nah, callout culture is a waste of everyone’s time. The links to posts on the OP and/or commenter’s blog exist to show that the poster either is openly a radical feminist, or is a radical feminist operating under a limited guise of deniability. 🆗🆒

What’s a dogwhistle? What’s radical feminism? How is it different from other kinds of feminism?

A dogwhistle is a seemingly harmless phrase or concept that is used to make bigotry more palatable, and easier to spread through people who would normally not spread a bigotted message. More information here.

Radical feminism is a modern mutation on the second wave of feminism (1960-1985, approximately). More information here.

It differentiates itself from other forms of feminism based on both its goals and the methodology it uses to achieve them. More information here.

Am I a bad person for not recognizing the dogwhistles?

Of course not. 🐩

The entire point of the fuckers is to be subtle enough to bypass your conscious recognition. Without extensive training in identifying the fallacies and coded language used by radical feminists- and other reactionary groups of course- you cannot possibly be expected to catch them. That’s on purpose. 

But shit, we wouldn’t exactly be revolutionaries if we didn’t offer the training to anyone who wants it. 🕵

Who the fuck are you?

Some trans sex workers who got really tired of the unchecked spread of radical feminist ideology in plausibly deniable formats. ⛔🚫

And no, obviously, our mod names are neither our real names or our stage names.  

Who can follow you? Do you have any DNIs or BYFs?

If you aren’t welcome here, we’ll block you. If you’re not blocked, then presumably you’re welcome. It’s a public website, after all. 👍🏽

Where can I find a list of all the dogwhistle ID posts?

In the “RFID Scanning” tag.

Why do you post your hatemail? / Why do you treat valid criticisms as hatemail?

Because without the ability to make light of the deep seated hatred that feeds people’s ignorance about our lives and the lives of people like us, we would probably all be dead. 🎊🎉

Why did you treat my question like hatemail? It was genuine!

We get a lot of hatemail. In the order of dozens a day. If your question was sent alongside unrelated hatemail, this can make your question look like it is “bait,” or a bad faith question asked to try to egg a mod into saying something you can use as “proof” that we’re “bad people.”

Simply resend your question with something like, “I meant it,” or, “I’m not trolling.” 🙈

Unblock me!

No.

Who the fuck do y'all think you are?

Yazminx: Anarcho-whore; Polychromatic glitter entity; Changes passwords every 3 months. Any pronouns.

D-Diamond: Raised by lesbians in the woods; Has physically transcended the need for pronouns; All natural but not by choice. Any pronouns.

Asstral Projection: Maybe it’s dissociation, maybe it’s Maybelline; Certified midnight madgic; Why are there no good stereotypes about Sagittariuses? They/them.

Domminia: As tall as she is loquacious (very); Has better hair than you; Didn’t ask for your opinion and is better at explaining it than you were anyway. They/she.

What’s your opinion on __________?

Does ________ necessitate harming others? If yes, we don’t like it. If no, we’re either positive or neutral about it. For example, does capitalism necessitate harming others? Yes. Therefore, we disapprove of capitalism. Does being trans necessitate harming others? No. Therefore, we approve of transness.

I have followup questions?

Send ‘em in. We’re pretty good at separating the bait from the requests, and we’ll do our best to follow through for you. 💋

XOXOX

💮 Yazminx 💮

.