Skip to content

Scapegoats, Part III

January 4, 2011

I’d have to say that separatist feminists are the ultimate scapegoats for women looking to score points.  It always seems to come down, in one way or another, to women declaring that, well, at least they aren’t man-haters.  Of course, there are many ways to dress such a declaration up so that it looks like a defense against racism (say, when nonwhite “feminists” crow about how much they’re not like white separatists because they don’t hate men) or lesbian-hating (say, when a lesbian crows about how man-haters can’t be lesbians, insinuating that actual man-hating lesbians are giving lesbians a bad name or something), but the simple truth is that these expressions of man-loving are just that – expressions of man-loving in a male-supremacist world.

And, as always, man-loving is taken for granted anyway.  It’s not necessary to state aloud one’s refusal to hate males as a class because it’s a given that males are seen as individuals in male supremacy and that of course any woman who’s not saying otherwise loves males, both as individuals *and* as a sex.  So, the only consequence of saying such things (“not all lesbians are man-haters!” and “not all feminists are man-haters!) is that male and man-loving-female attention is drawn to the distinction being made between “normal” man-loving women who don’t have any outward political objection to maleness and “crazy” separatists who do.

 

14 Comments
  1. Mary Sunshine permalink
    January 4, 2011 11:38 pm

    Yup. 🙂

    We’re the “bad cop” in the equality-feminism game.

    Really, we’re their only trading chip. Worth our weight in gold. What else can they offer to the males who hate them, and with whom they want to be “equal”? Nothing, only our throats.

    • January 5, 2011 12:09 am

      And what’s awful is that so often it’s not even just about equality feminism per se. A lot of times the “we don’t hate men” thing is trotted out just to take a swipe at an “enemy” female. I’ve seen too many otherwise “pro-separatist” women say it whenever they think it will bolster their case against a separatist they’ve decided they don’t like.

  2. Pseudoadrienne permalink
    January 5, 2011 12:00 am

    Is “Stockholm Syndrome” an inappropriate term for the women who support white male supremacy, regardless if they’re white, black, non-white yet non-black, or call themselves feminist, lesbian, or separatist? I have noticed that many women have made a clear decision to subordinate themselves and other women to white heteropatriarchy, in order to receive its paltry privileges and accolades, which varies from woman to woman based on her race, class, sexuality, religion, nationality, etc. It’s a calculated move for many of them, because it’s more “comfortable” to be a female-serf than a female-resister; to be a woman who refuses to smoke the androphilic opiate and become an obsequious cheerleader for male tyranny, and belittle and ‘Other’ the women who resist. A pat on the head from males and chucking other women under the proverbial bus are more alluring to some women than liberation, even if it means romanticizing the sex that collectively works to surbordinate our sex. (Was that too long?)

  3. January 5, 2011 12:14 am

    I think sometimes it might be stockholm syndrome, but a lot of times it’s a very calculated move intended to discredit someone they don’t like. They don’t even have delusions that the men they’re currying favor with will actually give a damn. They do it solely to get into the good graces of other man-loving women at the expense of women who aren’t interested in men or their female lackeys. Is there a term for identification with high-status hostages as opposed to identification with the hostage-taker?

    But I guess in the end you’re right that it’s about subordinating us all to rich white straight men.

    • Mary Sunshine permalink
      January 5, 2011 12:31 am

      They do it solely to get into the good graces of other man-loving women at the expense of women who aren’t interested in men or their female lackeys. Is there a term for identification with high-status hostages as opposed to identification with the hostage-taker?

      This is what I’ve been thinking, more and more.

    • Pseudoadrienne permalink
      January 5, 2011 1:12 am

      How about ‘sycophancy’?

  4. January 5, 2011 6:49 am

    I know right, it’s fine for us all to be swimming in this ocean of pure womanhate but goddess forbid anyone think about hating a man. I’m a proud man-hater, but it’s not like that can manifest itself in global systemic power or oppression or anything. It makes no difference in any man’s life.

    • January 5, 2011 7:21 am

      Yes, I am a proud man-hater too. And, despite what some believe, it’s not because I’ve been abused and mistreated any more than your average woman has, or because males don’t like or can’t get along with me. Man-hating is political.

    • January 5, 2011 8:59 am

      I’m a proud man-hater too. And I really like this term 🙂

  5. January 5, 2011 7:58 am

    Any woman, separatist or not that doesn’t hate men is a fucking moron.

    If we play nice and let them know how much we wuv them then they may let us voice our grievances in the manner they deem appropriate as long as we don’t get too angry.

  6. FemmeForever permalink
    January 5, 2011 2:50 pm

    Any woman, separatist or not that doesn’t hate men is a fucking moron.

    Just love this. MUCH LOVE.

  7. January 5, 2011 8:20 pm

    “Man-hating is political.” Hells yeah it is. And yeah I hate it too when people assume I must have just had my heart broken by some man. That base assumption that my most pressing social concern is lack of fucking romance. Cos women are apparently incapable of thinking about politics or sociology.

    • January 6, 2011 1:19 am

      Tell me about it. And, you know, I don’t even think most of them believe it themselves. It’s just an easily accessible misogynist trope, like “women are catty” or ” women without children are bitter.” It’s pure laziness.

    • Pseudoadrienne permalink
      January 6, 2011 2:48 am

      It’s just another form of sexual-psychological terrorism to say that all female people “need is dick” in order to be “*normal women”; *masochists more than willing to dehumanize themselves for the amusement of- and the sociocultural, political, economic, religious, racial-ethnic, and sexual gain of the misogynistic male-collective. Phallocratic fascism anyone? Love that?…have sex with that?…fellate that?…support that system?…NEVER!!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: