Why we need pro-feminists

Must be troll season again, they’ve been out in force over the last couple of days.

First off someone called “Dyke Pounder” felt motivated to write the following as a comment on a request for sex-pos and sex-neg feminists to see each other as two sides of the same coin.

Biatch pleeeze, you gots some sers issuez.

I shoulds spanks you some and give u a good rogerin.

Blowin me would blow yo mind aaaaa yeah.

Now that isn’t really a very nice comment.  Doesn’t really engage with the issues or contribute to the discussion.  In fact, its really quite offensive and some might even say threatening.  None the less, I responded (rather civily  I thought given the tone of his contribution).

Some blogs deliberately edit out comments like these.   I have done on a previous blog, I mean they’re really not pleasant to read far less respond to.  The trouble with not publishing tho is that they stay hidden, unseen by the wider world, just a little private encounter between an obnoxious threatening cunt and a female blogger.  The trouble with not responding is that they sit there unchallenged, just a bald statement of one man’s opinion on the issue seemingly as valid as any other.

This is why we need pro-fems.  Its the job of the pro-fems to tackle obnoxious cunts.  Because we fems are sick of them. They gravitate towards us like moths to a light, seeing their privilege being challenged.  Its exhausting dealing with them both online and in real life.  Every time it is hidden because just putting up with it would cause less fuss or be less embarrassing; every time it sits unchallenged because there isn’t enough strength left to deal with them again.  Privilege can give that strength to get rid of obnoxious  cunts, allowing women the freedom to have their voices heard.  Privilage can be used to challenge others with privilage to allow women the freedom to speak without fear.

Then there was “Whataboutthe proof” – a far more sophisticated troll, who commented on a post about why men could not be feminists.

His argument was nicely structured in three parts, across seven comments

Argument 1
The definition of feminism presented in this post is false.  I do not know a definition of feminism but  I know this one is wrong.  I do not need a definition to know that this one is wrong. Your definition is not the norm and not universal and therefore wrong. There is no universal definition of feminism, therefore I don’t need to know one to know that yours is wrong.  Neither of us knows the other one’s gender.  I dont understand why you think this is because I am a man.  You do not know that I am male, therefore you cannot think that  am stating that you are wrong because I am a man and therefore I am right.

Argument 2
You have presented no evidence that we live under patriarchy. You must substantiate your claim of patriarchy. I dont need to find out whether patriarchy exists. It is for you to prove that patriarchy exists. I know all about patriarchy and dont believe it exists. You have still not convinced me. I demand that you convince me.

 Argument 3
It being problematic for men to critique patriarchy does not stop them being feminsts.  Critiquing and challenging patriarchy is not integral to feminism, and experience of gender oppression unnecessary. Just because a movement says or does something and you do not does not mean you are not part of it. It is not necessary to have experience of oppression to theorise it or challenge it as part of the movement. Let me compare women to animals and severely disabled people to demonstrate how they are unable to lead their own liberation. You dont need experience to understand something. Years of research can compensate for lack of experience therefore experience is unnecessary.

 First off there is a bald statement that “I am right and you are wrong” hiding behind visible but undeclared gender, followed by increasingly shrill demands to present evidence of privilage, rounded off with complete discrediting of experience.

This is why we need pro-fems.  Its the job of the pro-fems to tackle obfuscating twats*.  Because we fems are sick of them. They gravitate towards us like moths to a light, seeing their privilege being challenged.  Its exhausting dealing with them both online and in real life.  Every bit of time and attention that is given to dealing with their shite means that there is less time to actually do anything productive, but at the same time not dealing with them lets them get away with strawmen arguments that other men use as a protective shield.  Privilege can give that strength to get rid of obfuscating twats, allowing women to determine their own priorities rather than having them dictated to by men.  Privilege can be used to challenge others with privilege to allow women the time to organise for their liberation.

By refusing to acknowledge men as feminists that is not to say that I want to exclude them from the feminist movement, on the contrary we need as many men in the feminist movement as possible, but their role is different.

 *Yes, yes, I use twat as well as cunt, I feel another blogpost coming on.

 

 

Leave a comment below, or join the discussion on the or join the discussion on the Second Council House of Virgo facebook page. .
© 2014 Frontier Theme

Page Optimized by WP BTBuckets WordPress Plugin