Notes on the Journey

Archive for the ‘misogyny’ Category

Report From Fourth Wave Feminists on the SFPL Degenderettes Exhibit and Panel

degenderettesI am reblogging the report I Went To The Degenderettes Panel that was originally posted HERE.

The post includes a large number of photographs of the exhibit that was featured at the San Francisco Public Library that included items promoting violence against women. It also has a report on the panel by a woman who attended. Livestreaming and audio recording were not permitted.

See Also:

The Degenderettes

Counter Exhibit to the Degenderettes Display

Silencing Women

Gender Fascism And The Elderly Female Artist

IMG_0554[1]

BIRTH, oil on canvas, 24″x24″, by JEANNE

Yesterday there was a “networking event’ at the School of Art and Art History at UIOWA, where I am currently attending classes. I chose not to attend because of an experience I’d had the evening before. I had attended a lecture by a talented and energetic woman  who runs an art foundation that supports artists who have a vision for creating community through their art. I respected what this woman was doing and I don’t intend my remarks to disparage her personally. In fact I’m grateful that she helped clear up a problem that has been dogging my heels and interfering with my ability to set goals with respect to my art practice.

I had been fairly proactive about promoting my art and my vision, submitting artwork to various venues and even having a show at a local community center and a booth at the annual art’s festival here in town. But lately, I have been passing up opportunities that have arisen and not understanding why I seemed to be sabotaging myself. Partly, it was because I did decide to put my daily quota of creative energy into learning art in my classes, rather than creating items, like greeting cards, to sell at the farmer’s market. But, it was more than that, a kind of miasma had come over me, a reluctance to reach out and show my stuff in public.

What turned the light on for me was that the woman who came to speak about her foundation work used words like “sex positive”, “sex worker”, “deconstruction”, and “gender identity”  when describing the projects she was involved with. It made me uncomfortable and it wasn’t until the next day that I understood why, and why I decided to skip the networking event.

IMG_1168I had joined a local arts cooperative when I first landed in this city because I was eager to learn as much as I could about the processes and materials involved in art-making.   I know that we are killing the world with carbon and I wanted to make art about that and other human pain issues that seem to be being repressed and hidden by this culture. I hung in as long as I could, but eventually I was forced to confront gender fascism within the group and I had to separate myself from the group. On the positive side, I can say that this experience helped me confront the ugly truth about gender identity ideology and stop enabling this dysfunctional ideology.

But it turns out that the entire art world, art business, art community, has been infected by the virus of gender fascism and I will not be able to be a part of it unless I LIE ABOUT OBJECTIVE REALITY. Which I can’t do, because my art is based in facing the ugly truth about male superiority and gender fascism is just another patriarchal mindfuck.  I know gender identity ideology  is fascism because it’s about shutting women up and depriving them of access to resources.

I am being prevented from accessing resources and from benefiting from my labor because elderly women are invisible and have no status in this culture and because I refuse to go along with the mass delusion that prostitution is a free choice (and not the same old fucking female slavery as always) and that the sexes are interchangeable based on one’s whim;  that people, other than the tiny minority with a chromosomal mutation that causes sterility, can be both sexes, or neither, on different days.

It is sobering to know that sexism and it’s adjunct,  ageism,  is alive and well in the art world and I am being oppressed by it and by the artsy people who believe they are social justice warriors. They regard me with contempt and believe they are morally superior to me and oh so woke.

As for me, it’s back to the drawing board, where I find my Source.

30712873_10156252421429844_1483193176725389312_o.jpg

 

 

What about ME(N)?

2017_01_12-Adam Robinson-tschoon-001This is a letter that I have written to the director, Adam Robinson, of The Rape Victims Advocacy Center at UIOWA in reaction to a recent conference sponsored by RVAP entitled What About Me(n)?

Dear Adam,

I am a 64 year old mother of two daughters and I have one grandchild. In 1985 I sued my father for the 12 years of his sexual assaults during my childhood. I lost that lawsuit because of the statute of limitations which said I only had 3 years from the time I reached age 18 to sue him in civil court for damages. So I went to the Vermont legislature and asked them to change the laws about child sexual abuse. Finally, in 2003 the Vermont State Legislature changed the statute of limitations to 40 years. I have been working in the field of domestic violence for 40 years as a victim advocate.

In 2013 I moved to Iowa City and lived for a year with my daughter in the River City Housing Collective. There were men and women living in that community who chose to “identify” as the opposite sex. Before every business meeting we were required to go around and introduce ourselves and state our “preferred pronouns.” I was fine with this and didn’t see any problem with it. I considered myself a tolerant and progressive person.

But then I joined a local arts group. There was a very male, completely unaltered man in the group who called himself by a woman’s name and who everyone referred to as “she.” I went along with this and said nothing because I didn’t want to be considered intolerant. But then I received an email from the group asking for help with an art project for a girls’ summer camp. The email said, “Trans Welcome.” This stopped me in my tracks. I thought this was odd because the message that would be given to the girls is that bodies do not matter, only the self-image you decide you want to have. If a girl does not enjoy being a member of the gender that has less power, doesn’t like her female body and it’s needs and vulnerabilities, then all she has to do is to decide to become a man and go get herself sterilized by (untested for long term consequences on children) puberty blockers and male hormones and have radical surgeries to change her body so that it appears to be male.

sad-depressed-little-girl-sitting-near-wall-grunge-34480298When I was a girl there was nothing I wanted more than to become a boy and escape my father’s sexual assaults. I am still “gender dysphoric” at age 64 because of the unfair treatment I have endured all of my life for the crime of being born with a vulva, clitoris, ovaries, uterus and breasts. But I am not delusional and I know that changing my appearance will not change my chromosomes or my socialization into being a rape target and toilet cleaner. You need to understand that gender identity ideology does nothing to change the power dynamic that keeps women in chains. I was not paid less all my life because of my feminine identity. I was paid less because I have a woman’s body, – I AM a woman’s body, I am not separate from my body.  I was not raped and battered and harassed by people who identify as male. I was raped by males with male bodies and XY chromosomes who were socialized into misogyny and male entitlement.

I decided to attend a group at RVAP in 2014 for survivors of sexual abuse. It was a group for women. I found it helpful…until I received an email that informed me that I would have to accept males who identify as female in the group. No-one asked me if this was acceptable. No-one was interested in my feelings or my experience or my research about the harm that transgender ideology is doing to children. i was being forced to accept that a person who was born with a penis and was socialized into male privilege is really a woman if he says he is. It was a very rapey move on the part of RVAP to shove this directive down my throat.

Now the City Council of Iowa City is poised to enshrine the female erasing policy that is gender identity ideology into law. And so I have to speak out before all of the rights of women that I have worked to establish over the past 40 years are brushed aside in favor of privileged, entitled males with a psychosexual disorder.

You have made a grave mistake by positing personality traits and people’s imaginary identities over the bodies of actual living, breathing, bleeding, birthing, breastfeeding, rape-targeted, underpaid, women. I am writing to you now because of the language you used in the recent What About Me(n) conference. You are pushing a religious belief when you say that this was about those who “identify” as male. There is no magical transubstantiation that takes place when a person decides to present him or herself as the opposite sex. It is an idea in someone’s mind that has zero basis in physical reality. I have not been oppressed by male ‘identities.” Male identities did not rape my female identity. Stop this patriarchal mindfucking. Stop denying the reality of women’s bodies and women’s experience.

madamnomad.com/2018/02/27/the-violent-misogyny-of-the-gender-debate/
https://madamnomad.com/2017/08/04/living-in-tranztopia/
Women Fear Drug They Used To Halt Puberty Led To Health Problems
“The money is flowing” to “suck people in:” Vaginoplasty & the case of Jazz Jennings
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160623/streeterville/billionaire-jennifer-pritzker-helps-fund-clinic-for-trans-kids-at-lurie
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/
http://www.femaleerasure.com/

The Violent Misogyny of the Gender Debate

From The Spectator:

“Journalists and politicians talk a lot about freedom of speech, and rightly so, because the ability to express thoughts and opinions without fear or restraint is the foundation of democracy. We must be free to question, free to doubt, or we are not free at all.

But for journalists and politicians, ‘freedom of speech’ can feel a bit of an abstract concept, a debating point not a matter of personal safety. We talk about curbs on free speech as things that make it harder for us to do what we do – write and talk. We rarely think about them in terms of physical fear.

So a couple of weeks ago, when I wrote here about the way fear is chilling the debate about Britain’s laws on sex and gender, I really meant the fear of reputational damage. I referred to the fear that MPs and journalists feel that if they question moves to allow people to decide their own legally-recognised gender they will be accused of transphobia and bigotry.

That fear is real, and troubling, but there are worse things to be afraid of. Fear that you will lose your job and your livelihood. Fear of physical attack.

And that is what some people in this debate feel here. They fear that if they are seen to speak out and question the trend to change the law to allow ‘self-identification’, they will come to harm. Real harm.

Some of those people are meeting tonight in London, to discuss those changes in the law and their concern about them. I can’t tell you precisely where because the location of the meeting is being kept secret. The people organising and attending the meeting are scared of what might happen if some of the people who disagree with them turn up.

The people organising the meeting call themselves A Woman’s Place UK. They say the proposed changes in the law raise questions that are not just practical but existential. They worry that if a man can become a woman just by saying so, with no external check or verification, then the very term ‘woman’ becomes meaningless, and a group of people with no meaningful name or identity will in time lose all standing in law and society. For them, womanhood is a matter of objective biological fact, one that subjective feelings cannot change. Most, if not all, of them call themselves feminists.

Some of the people who disagree with them use a different name: TERFs. It technically stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist but if you follow online ‘debate’ you’ll see it’s become a term in its own right, and an abusive one. Follow the utterances of the most committed advocates of trans rights and you’ll find frequent references to violence against Terfs: punch Terfs, kill Terfs.

There are lesser threats too, to use more subtle means to inflict harm. Social pressure is used to threaten the employment of those considered Terfs: read this Mumsnet thread for a disturbing litany of what happens to women who ask questions about the self-identity agenda in the workplace, especially in academia and the public sector. In politics, women who question the self-ID agenda have faced censure and expulsion in Labour, the Greens and, yes, the Women’s Equality Party.

It is hard not to conclude that such things are at least partly the result of a concerted attempt to stigmatise and demonise women who attempt to raise concerns about a policy that they feel poses risks to their safety and even their fundamental existence.

To be clear at that point, I note that the following two statements can both be true, at the same time. Neither fact justifies the other. First, some transgender people suffer unacceptable physical, mental and social abuse that causes them real and unacceptable harm. Second, some women who question the move towards self-defined gender feel real and unacceptable fear of physical harm at the hands of some people who advocate that change in the law.

Perhaps you think a Woman’s Place UK are over-reacting, or talking up the threat for political purposes. If so, I suggest you search online for ‘punch terfs’. Or follow a case of alleged assault currently awaiting trial. Or review the history of the group’s Edinburgh meeting, where one of the protesting groups has demanded that the venue that had the temerity to host a bunch of women talking about feminist theory hand the proceeds of the event over to a group that says punching Terfs is a moral duty akin to fighting Nazis.

Against which background, I suggest that it is depressingly understandable that some of the women involved in tonight’s meeting feel genuinely threatened, and threatened over the simple act of attending a political meeting.

And for all that this might upset or even offend some people, biology does matter here. Biological males are, on average, larger and stronger and more aggressive than biological females. Biological males commit more acts of violence — and more serious acts of violence – than biological females.

For these sadly rational reasons, among others, women are more likely to feel afraid of men than men are of women. Hence the existence of those spaces and places that law and convention reserve for women: changing rooms, refuges, hospital and prison wards.

Would the safety of those spaces be compromised if any man could gain the legal right to enter them simply by saying the words ‘I am a woman’? That is one of the questions the women who meet tonight are asking — keenly aware that some of the people who might take up that legal right are currently issuing threats against them.

I don’t know the answer but I think the question is a valid one and deserves a considered answer from anyone who proposes to change the law to allow such a situation. But it appears that some of those people don’t want to answer the question. They don’t even want it to be asked.

So the story of tonight’s Women’s Place meeting is this: a group of people who were raised male and in some cases retain full male anatomy are perpetuating a narrative that harm – including physical violence — can and should be inflicted on women who question the things those people say are true.

This debate about gender and sex and identity may seem terribly modern, a product of our times, but really, this is a story as old as they come: women who do not know their place are threatened and punished. Britain in 2018 is still a country where women who speak out risk a smack in the mouth.”

Journalists and politicians talk a lot about freedom of speech, and rightly so, because the ability to express thoughts and opinions without fear or restraint is the…
BLOGS.SPECTATOR.CO.UK
%d bloggers like this: