I’m Convinced Amanda Marcotte is a Troll

Image

Last month liberal feminist opportunist Amanda Marcotte typed up this piece of shit exclaiming to readers who mainly didn’t give a fuck that a global group of women who call themselves radical feminists and generally adhere to the same principles politically do not exist!  Those of us who do call ourselves radical feminists aren’t MORE (she believes radical means ‘more’) feminist than liberal feminists like herself.  I found that a little queer seeing as myself and others definitely do exist, our principles and politics have definitely not become mainstream feminism at all and our revolutionary work of liberating the female sex caste from her sex caste oppression has yet to be achieved.  She censored only let those who would add to the discussion comment and thus radical feminists were yet again left wondering if we don’t exist, if we’re so out of step, if we’re just a few “reactionaries” (for putting the advancement of women above all else) why all the bother?  Why even talk about us at all?

But just as I was looking through twitter I saw someone in my timeline tweet at Amanda Marcotte so I thought I’d take a gander at her feed to see what sort of intelligent discourse she was bringing to the table today.  Lo and behold : Image

Now I know this can’t possibly be the case.  Many have patiently taken the time to explain at length how gender identity harms females specifically.  There’s been multiple examples of males who are violent towards women transitioning and thus getting access to private spaces where females are especially vulnerable to attack, like bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.  Even celebrities like Roseanne Barr and Kola Boof have taken a stand against a trans male who exposed himself (cock and balls y’all) to teen girls in Olympia WA and when the girls complained were told they had to change in a closet (in direct violation of title IX laws which give females equal access to sports in education)  Even cases where men who murder their wives are able to get reassignment surgery with the taxpayers footing the bill for their sexual perversions.

There’s also the many cases of women who’ve come forward speaking of abuse at the hands of these males, many of whom have defended them in the past.  So my question to Amanda is this:

What sort of justice is there in this world where someone can treat facts so flippantly and still have a platform?  What sort of feminist actually puts the wants of men above the actual lives and rights of women?  I can talk snarky shit on people who I think are wrong, where’s my validation from the male liberal media?

Advertisements

14 responses to “I’m Convinced Amanda Marcotte is a Troll

  1. More palatable ‘feminism’ = more exposure = more book sales. If there ever was such a thing as ‘liberal feminism’ it should probably be renamed capitalist feminism by this point.

    • Two way capitalism is fine. It’s when one side is unable to actually capitalize on a trade because of their desperation or whathaveyou.

  2. So as a pro Rad Fem woman this is the bit i find difficult with Rad Fem circles. You’ve just trashed another womans/sisters writings/thoughts/opinion as ‘this piece of shit’. How is that Sisterly or inclusive.
    A pro rad fem friend and I recently had a discussion whereby we are struggling with the extremes of Rad Fem because they seem to go so far to the right that they are almost meeting the MRA’s coming back the other way.
    Now feel free to annihilate me, throw me under the bus and generally trash my opinion but I have a life to live in the real world. Where women have to survive on a daily basis and find some common ground not just get beaten up by their sisters in cyber space for not being Rad enough!
    Have a good one!

    • Here’s the thing : there’s no such thing as sisterhood. Sisterhood has always meant that some women (generally those who are more marginalized) must keep silent, must eat their bitterness, must perform female labor of “understanding” and giving emotional support with nothing in return. I don’t believe in women doing this. Its a waste of time and energy. Secondly any “sisterhood” feelings Amanda Marcotte would have been entitled to have been revoked upon her deciding to put men before women as she does in this particular case. She also has a history of speaking out in favor of the legalization of prostitution and referring to it as “sex work” and furthermore attacking women who disagree out of a desire to prevent the mainstreaming of what is violence against women. This woman has also taken it upon herself as I outlined in this very blog post to declare that I don’t exist, this is after censoring me and other women who definitely do exist.

      As for your other comments regarding radical feminism “almost meeting the MRA coming back the other way” this is utterly insulting considering the majority of the MPA *male privileged agitators* fall directly in line with several major points of contention between radical feminists and liberal feminists (such as they support uncritically transgenderism and they also support the legalization of prostitution).
      Its a very interesting comment from someone who is apparently “pro Rad Fem”.

      In summary: Amanda Marcotte is not my sister and I owe her no respect or courtesy I would give to a woman who I held in such esteem. She’s a handmaiden of the patriarchy and the crap she spews ain’t feminism.

    • I guess the point to address is defining “sisterhood”? I can ony speak for myself, so here goes: I define sisterhood as being Sisters-in-Feminism.

      Belonging to my sisterhood means sharing a definition of Feminism. Namely, advocacy for the social, political and economic advancement of the female sex. Specifically and exclusively female. If the by-products of advancing women benefits other needs (boys, men, race, ability, the environment, etc.) fine, but my focused goal is benefiting women, freeing them for the oppression of male patriarchy. My decision tree has one root. All choices and actions feed from my need to free women.

      I don’t believe that the male sex can share this definition. I believe they can be allies, they can porvide support and assistance, but they are too entrenched within the benefits of their male privilege to have a full appreciation for the extent of our oppression. And when you cannot see the depth and nuance of our oppression, you will not recognize the actions which perpetuate it. And you can never serve as judge to say it has been eliminated.

      There are many, many women who do not share my definition of feminism. I do not consider them my sisters. This is not a combative stance. I consider them my wards. I feel an obligation and responsibility to educate those women, to help bring them to awareness. I recognize that their conditioning has accustomed them to table scraps from the patriarchy. They fear the unknown and will not be willing to give up what they belive they have, until they are able to see how little that actually gives them. Until they are in a position to own and know their oppression and protect themselves, I am committed to act with aggression and decisiveness on their behalf.

      There will be times when my actions on their behalf will look, sound and feel, like actions against them. Tough love. Such is my case with Amanda Marcotte.

      She is operating to support her own interests, at the expense of oppressing women. She needs to feel her oppression in order to change her actions.

    • Working towards liberating women as a class does not mean agreeing with every woman because she is a woman.
      Some pieces of writing need to be called out for the bullshit they are, no matter who they’re written by.

    • We aren’t inclusive of the amoral. Did you think this was a no-qualificatrions required movement? Sorry, no. We don’t include “pro rad fems” either.

      Have a good one. Or not.

  3. There’s no talking to some people. I posted a short note on Manning last night on the book of face, stating that it’s cool if he wants to change his name, that he stood up to the system and is paying a terrible price for it, that he’s likely playing whatever cards he’s got right now, publicity being one of them, and that he cannot be a woman. A guy whom I haven’t heard from for years showed up and wasn’t having anything about how Chelsea cannot be a woman. Ignored everything else I had to say, and another especially articulate commenter who picked up on it.

  4. wwomenwwarriors

    Thank you for addressing this Terri. I still cannot believe that “article” she published. A complete joke.

    Sure, there are no radical feminists….erm, well, we can make it seem that way by deleting every single comment they make.

    Bleh. Anyways, thank you for this article. I was thinking about addressing her weird assertions but my energy has been low for blogging lately.

    • Its absolutely crazy-making. The only way a woman can get away with such tactics is through the backing of a lot of men. Nothing she writes stands on its own, its all reliant on the backing of popular opinion. Which is meaningless.

  5. She gets paid for on your knees service to men and parrots everything they want, including rapeculture..

  6. Pointing out how this woman, and there are few as complicit, is contributing to the sexual abuse and oppression of women is not “unsisterly”.

    Someone needs to do an intervention on Marcotte. She’s pathetic, needy and embarrassing.

  7. I think maybe part of the “confusion” iis that everyone says over and over that the “radical” in radical feminist means that it is the sort of feminism that “gets to the ‘root’ of the problem.” This may be true– metaphorically or etymologically– but it does not express in a clear way what radical feminism is, what tradition it is in, or how it differs from other kinds of feminism (liberal). Unfortunately, to the vast majority of people who aren’t really in tune with radical politics (e.g. demographic of Amanda Marcotte’s readership) “radical” means “extreme” or “extra cool” or, as Amanda herself said, just “more” (“more feminist”).

    We need to emphasize that radical feminism is radical in that it is, specifically, politically radical. When paired with the word “political” and then placed next to a word like “liberal”, the “radical” in “radical feminism” makes a lot more sense, gives actual shape and context to what radical feminism is trying to do, rather than just being a general descriptor of relative quality or coolness or rightness, or whatever.

    Of course articles like Amanda’s are not “innocent” at all, nor do they derive from mere confusion, but they do play upon the confusion they can create by misrepresenting terms like the “radical” in “radical feminist.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s