Character Assassination in the name of radical feminism
Kitty Glendower and another arch enemy of Heart, who now goes by the handle Margaret Jamison, have a blog where they take great delight in attempting character assassination of Heart. I tried to post a response to this pack of lies, distortions, and utter nonsense. As I expected, my comment was not approved, so I am posting it here.
It is rather amazing how those with axes to grind can so thoroughly misconstrue the purposes and actions of the source of annoyance. So, any inconsistency must be evidence of hypocrisy or dishonesty. Because Satsuma is tolerated by Heart, how does that make Heart responsible for anything Satsuma says? Heart has a somewhat tolerant moderation policy, but there have been numerous comments Satsuma submitted that never saw the light of day. What is this nonsense about deification? Really, that is so far off base, it is funny. Heart and others (including Mary Sunshine) have taken Satsuma to task rather severely on a number of occasions. Odd way to treat a deity, is it not?
You character assassins do not give a damn about the truth. You just want to destroy Heart. What I want to know is why. So she gets on your nerves. So what? Satsuma gets on my nerves, for a multitude of reasons. I did not find it necessary to assassinate her character or try to destroy her. Perhaps that is my own foolishness, being too tolerant. Is there nothing to be said for tolerance? Ah, not when the purity of radical feminism is at stake!
Heart never admits making a mistake? That is news to me. She profoundly regrets being too tolerant of some people, allowing herself to be manipulated. Lynne was a prime example of that. Was that stupid? Is she too trusting? Perhaps. Was it disingenuous on her part? You character assassins think the answer is obvious. If you think everything she does is dishonest and manipulative, perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that judgment is more projection than based on reality. After all, the rabidity of the bias against Heart is crystal clear. You can all think she is not a real radical feminist. What that means is so muddled, does it really matter? What is really going on here? Is this a matter of personality clash, jealousy, or honest disagreement? All of the above, I think. You can have your brand of radical feminism, but for anyone to claim to own radical feminism is arrogant and just plain dumb. Those words are too vague and corrupted, and that is not something you can blame on Heart. She is trying to express her own vision as best she can. Because others disagree or do not like it, no matter how venomously or for whatever reason, is no justification to claim she has no integrity or is selling out radical feminism. Those words mean different things to different people. Since when does anyone have an ability to define what radical feminism must mean to everyone? That kind of dogmatism is characteristic of fundamentalism, not radical feminism. Is there no room for honest disagreement in radical feminism? Since when?
Another bizarre distortion that made me laugh, besides the deification of Satsuma, was the interpretation of the original subject of this thread. I am an anonymous blogger. Do you think I felt insulted by what Heart wrote? No, because I got it. Not every distinction is an attempt to create a dichotomy between superior and inferior. People read all kinds of things into words on a screen. This can be very revealing of their biases and muddy thinking. This thread here is so illuminating in that regard.
I dare you to let this comment see the light of day, so you can snark away at me, who must be in your eyes considerably farther from being a true radical feminist than Heart. If not, I will post it somewhere on my site.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Thanks, Aletha. I don’t understand why women go silent in the face of this kind of thing, why they give it a pass. I do know that it evidence that women are not “good” by nature. As Gloria Steinem once said, mostly, women are just, as yet, uncorrupted by power. When they have some, or think they can get some (almost always over other women), they evidence the errors of biological essentialism.
You have been my online friend now since 2000 or so. You, more than anybody, know about my online writing and interactions with other women. Thank you for this vote of confidence, and for your ongoing friendship and support. It means a lot to me.
Heart
July 20th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
I wish I could say I understood this phenomenon, but I do not. I have encountered many other attempts by self-proclaimed feminists to trash Heart and other feminist leaders. This is a notorious plague haunting the movement. Joreen wrote TRASHING: The Dark Side of Sisterhood over thirty years ago. When will we ever learn? What is the point of slinging mud? Politicians engage in mudslinging because, they say, it works. Does the end justify the means? What end is served by mudslinging, besides the perpetuation of this corrupt to the core power structure? Yet Heart was accused in this attack of serving male interests. Pot, meet kettle.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:50 pm
One of the thing’s I most appreciate about you and Heart’s version of feminism, Aletha, is that it is not based on putting other women down. Indeed, I can’t recall ever seeing that done by either one of you; you don’t just write feminism–you live it, too.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Yes, well, a newer post on that blog rails about how “male-loving” women are the enemies of separatists. There is nothing new about the accusation of sleeping with the enemy, but really, how does that serve women? This stark demarcation plays into the hands of the powers that be. Having a male lover does not make a woman male-loving or a traitor to feminism, but to those who define feminism so narrowly, it is their way or the highway. I always thought feminism was intended to liberate women, not lock women into a dogmatic straitjacket. I can understand why a separatist might be suspicious of a woman who has not condemned every man as garbage, but what is the point of declaring war? Men have been waging war against women for millennia. Women will not destroy male power over women by waging war against other women. There has to be a better way.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:23 am
Thank you for writing this. It is really horrifying to read some of the stuff over at that blog. Hey, people can say whatever they want to say on their own blogs, but sheesh. There is a lot of really hateful stuff said over there. Yep, I’m the “ENEMY” cause I live with a man. Apparently their type of feminism says it’s ok to rake me over the coals for that horrible transgression. Yet, I’m supposed to be 100% supportive of the separatist lifestyle? Which I am, of course, because women can and should do what is right for them. The hypocrisy and contradictions are just amazing. Whew.
Again, thanks for writing this.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Yes, it’s het women that dykes need to watch out for now, not men!
You’re not going to MWMF are you?
What’s the plan with freesoil, if you don’t mind my asking?
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
If I were not familiar with this particular separatist line of reasoning, I might think the distinction between a feminist heterosexual woman and a woman who accepts the traditional female role would count for something. However, as I understand that line of reasoning, drawing that distinction is merely proof of my own naivete.
I might go to MWMF someday, but not this year.
The short version of the plan is, recruit some women to volunteer to run for Congress and local offices! The National Women’s Health Network just issued a Health Alert, because
This alert is not posted on the NWHN site yet, but probably will be soon. Such restrictions were defeated in the Senate, but it is telling what Democrats are willing to discuss compromising. I think many women are still celebrating the Democratic landslide, but it should become clear soon enough that women cannot count on either mainstream party to treat issues important to women as a top priority. I am still miffed that Obama could not be bothered to ask Judge Sotomayor about her views on abortion. She answered questions about it during the hearings in much the same cagey language as did Roberts and Alito. Mainstream politics is still very much dominated by male sensibilities.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:34 am
Well, hatred just doesn’t ring my chimes, is the deal. It doesn’t energize me. I hope it never does.
It’s wierd– EKG is het and married, and MJ also says she’s het. So it’s not a hatred of het women that’s going on there. It’s not about being a separatist either. It’s wierd internet word-world stuff that really has nothing to do with the real world.
Until I separated from my third (and last) husband, I felt intensely separatist. Once we were separated and I was on my own again and had filed for divorce, these feelings lessened. The freer I’ve become, the less interested I am in giving any energy to hatefulness.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I have given up trying to decode that language. I can only decipher that a male-loving woman is not meant to be precisely the same as a heterosexual woman. I thought that might be aimed at me, but in the thread I linked, it seems you are accused of kowtowing to men, Heart. Perhaps that you would post quotes from Mr. Lundy Bancroft (for those who do not know, he is an activist against battering) prompted that. Who knows.
July 24th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Being opposed to infanticide = “kowtows to men.”
July 24th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Heart, I know from what I have seen from them that some of these rabid separatists actually seem to believe that, but what puzzles me is how they can expect anyone to take them seriously. No matter how fierce their desire for revenge on men may be, do they not realize how they are feeding the worst myths about feminism? It is one thing to hate men, think men are hopeless, unchangeable, garbage, whatever, but to back infanticide screams to me, agent provocateur. That stance cannot possibly help the feminist cause, and I think they know it.
July 25th, 2009 at 6:08 am
but to back infanticide screams to me, agent provocateur.
Yeah, I agree.
July 25th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Jeyoani thinks it’s a game for one of these women — that she gets on the internet and writes all of this stuff basically for sport, because she’s sadistic and thinks it’s funny when someone takes her seriously. She also thinks it’s wierd that someone who so vigorously advocates for infanticide has the screen name “Mary Sunshine.” It does feel agent provocateurish. But the internet is a bizarre world these days, the “feminist” blogosphere seems more and more caricature-ish, who knows who is serious and who isn’t. I don’t know whether anyone of this crowd is serious or not. I just think they fell off into that wasteland where the only thing that energizes you is some version of hatred, some kind of dominance, which is again bizarre, given that they are supposedly anti-sm/anti-subordination.
July 26th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Oh, not another lulz phenomenon! Actually I think my open message board is being currently targeted by that crowd who thinks it is funny when anyone takes them seriously. I had to put up a message to notify people to send an email to register, because of excessive spamming. That just opened the floodgates. Now I think I will have to get registration disabled somehow. I can only hope the woman I think you reference is not serious, but that would not prevent men from using her prattle as ammunition against feminists. Mary has mentioned her love of hyperbole, but backing infanticide is extreme even for hyperbole. The only generous interpretations of its purpose I can imagine are for shock value, or to scare men and/or straight women into realizing how angry some women are about male behavior. So it might not be deliberate sabotage, but still, I think it has to backfire.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:36 am
I haven’t read the thread, but considering how far we are from even getting women to stand up for their basic rights, I don’t think a movement based on killing infants is going to get far.
August 13th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I should hope not! However, as far as women standing up, in other nations women seem ready, willing, and able to take great risks to defy tradition and authority. I think US women could do likewise, but it might take some time for us to realize Obama and the Democrats do not represent us.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Maybe because women in the U.S. are, on the whole, more materially privilaged than their counterparts in the Global South we have been unable to start a strong feminist movement? Or maybe our senses our deadened from all the drugs in our system. Who knows.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Democrats have shamelessly exploited fears of right wing extremism, making it sound like women have no choice but to support Democrats, or risk losing all our rights. This strategy has worked well for Democrats in the past, but eventually it will backfire.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Oh thank you for this very much, Aletha! I had no idea any of this was going on. Er, I am under the impression that Margaret Jamison has been outed as JusticeWalks. No wonder Heart didn’t like it when I mentioned JW! But I can’t remember all this “who doesn’t like who” crap so I don’t even try.
Really honestly, how can anyone in their right mind not like Heart? Or at the very least not have a deep abiding appreciation for the great work that she does? Hello, she is fabulous, duh. I do disagree with her on some things, though, but that still doesn’t detract from her basic awesomeness.
Anyway, I guess I might be one of those cartoon radical feminists because of my user name and politics? I don’t “hate men” (“contempt” is a better word) and while I do believe that proof exists for the inherency of sexism, I still have to draw the line at genocide or aborting male babies! Merely dumping them from the gene pool is far more ethical. And it doesn’t bother me that radical feminists are attached to a dude — how else is a heterosexual woman going to exist in a penis-worshipping culture? Not that my opinion matters on any of this, since I rarely comment or blog.
Anyway, interesting post, thank you!
September 8th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Heart has plenty of enemies. Are you implying they are not in their right mind? I would not go that far. I think they have an axe to grind, or enjoy trashing her, which I may think is wrongheaded, vicious, counterproductive, antifeminist, hypocritical, or whatever, but unfortunately, as bad for feminism as trashing feminist leaders is, I could not dismiss it as derived from insanity. This culture is sick, in many ways deranged, so we are all poisoned by that, more or less.
September 13th, 2009 at 1:56 am
I should elaborate on my discomfort with the idea of enemies of Heart not being in their right mind. I have no idea what that means to you, mAndrea, but it brings to my mind the insanity defense, i.e. they know not what they do, so they are not to be held responsible. I think the enemies of Heart do know what they do, and revel in it. She has been deeply wounded by malicious attacks from those who should know better. It is one thing to be avowedly antifeminist and trash a feminist leader. That is only to be expected, but for an avowed feminist to do that, I have to hold them fully responsible. Feminism as a movement has been crippled by such internecine feuding, one reason male-dominated organizations such as the Democratic Party and the left can pay lip service to feminism, yet stab women in the back over and over again.
I should also mention that mAndrea and I have had our share of sharp exchanges, particularly over her idea of the inherency of sexism. That to me is anathema. I think sexism is learned, entirely, end of story. Men can unlearn sexism, if they are sufficiently motivated. That very few men can be bothered demonstrates the tenacity of social conditioning, not anything inherent in manhood. Thus I see nothing ethical nor constructive about dealing with sexism by any method of drastically reducing the male population. Male power over women needs to eradicated, but to my mind, a feminist revolution could only happen through political means, not violence.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I learned the hard way. .
I don’t read around on the so-called feminist blogs very much so I was out of the loop when I stopped there to say hello about a month ago. At one time, Heart was the only person who would have anything to do with one of the bloggers there, and adamantly defended her. I still don’t know who the other principle there is, and I don’t care to know.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Just to say, I do not go silent on behaviour like this, and I do not give it a pass.
You never know what someone has done privately, or who may have posted and not had the posts go in.
And I have left sites where I felt uncomfortable at the trashing, of other rad fems.
It’s not like we don’t have enough enemies. There’s a whole world of sexism out there to stand sentinel against. It seems so futile to just go around in circles with each other, ad nauseam.
Heart knows, I take it to the source if I’m unhappy with someone. Beware my wrath. But don’t for a minute think I gossip or spread lies and innuendo. I may not be able to stop it, but I won’t take part.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Where is Heart?? When I try to pull up Womensspace I just get a weird WordPress login screen and then it goes to an error message. Her’s was the first feminist blog I ever read or commented on, and I miss it/her terribly.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Heart Locks Down Her Blogs