50 Shades of Hazel- A Male Power Fantasy in 730 Words

Andy Hazel is an untalented student journalist from Melbourne, who wrote this bad article about the film 50 Shades of Grey. Sleazy liberal male Andy sent a message to the Radical Alliance of Women’s facebook page the other day asking if we could answer a few questions about our protest against the film, to help him write his bad article for the University of Melbourne publication Farrago. ‘Liberal male student journalist’ is probably the shortest horror story ever written after ‘Joe Hockey’s budget’, but since this blogger has nothing better to do on a Thursday night, I’ve decided to write a review of his review.

The article starts with a single-sentence paragraph in the word-salad writing style that characterises the rest of the piece. Andy refers to the film as a “pristine adaptation” of a “trashy novel”. Now, I’ve laboured over this sentence for some time as, though so short, creates a disproportionate amount of confusion. Is he saying that the film is true to the trashy novel? It doesn’t seem so, because Andy doesn’t seem to think the film is trashy at all. In fact, he later describes it as “artful”. A glance at the film’s 3 minute trailer demonstrates that this film contains less art than the contents of my menstrual cup. But this doesn’t stop Andy, who attended the premier at Crown Casino last night, as he continues to gush over this B-grade film and delightfully linger on the point that though it shows some creepy-ass stuff, he really doesn’t care.

Sitting in his bedroom, presumably decked out with Superman pajamas and a cute little fedora with the “press” card tucked into the brim, Andy was probably so frantic in trying to detail the “agency” and “complete control” Ana had that he forgot to make any actual argument. Or perhaps, he was trying to expand “don’t question anything that gives me a boner” into 730 words. Who knows exactly what was going through his fedorable little head, or what he was trying to convey with this piece at all, because its fundamental flaw is that it makes absolutely no fucking sense. The piece is riddled with contradictions, some subtle and in reference to the questions I answered (not a lot of use to your “argument” when you’ve provided no context), or just back-and-forth soundbytes about the film. He cites a line from one of R.A.W’s ’50 Shades of Abuse’ flyers, which states that “[50 Shades of Grey] depicts controlling and manipulative relationships as romantic” and argues that the film does no such thing. He argues that Christian’s tendencies are “sadistic”, and shown as such. But in the paragraph directly previous, he croons tearfully over Christian’s constant “need of reassurance” that Ana is “consensual”. How sweet. I know it gets my heart strings a’ pluckin’ when my sex life so closely resembles violent assault that my partner has to keep stopping to check if he’s raping me or not. Swoon. This point seems pretty contrary to the tagline on our flyers- “Violence against women has no grey area”, that Andy insists is “unquestionable”. I’m pretty sure needing reassurance that you haven’t accidentally raped your girlfriend is a “grey area” (or, more accurately, a big red fuckin’ flag area). Unless you got lost in the dictionary reading all those words that being with “un-“, you’re unquestionably questioning our point. Moving on.

The thing that really strikes me about Andy’s little adventure in journalism is his frequent referral to 50 Shades as a “modern-day fairytale”. Perhaps those professional writing courses don’t teach you about different literary styles anymore, since he either interprets a fairy tale as “any fictional story” or maybe “a fictional story about a girl who is validated by the love of a powerful man”. In the case of the latter, young Mr. Hazel might be onto something. A fairy tale is a type of allegoric narrative that uses symbolism and cultural reference to tell a story with some kind of moral message. For example, Snow White teaches us a valuable lesson about how modesty and kindness are the truest forms of beauty (or how old ugly women are evil power-hungry witches, you pick). Little Red Riding Hood teaches young girls what happens when you talk to strange men (or anthropomorphic wolves) in the woods. 50 Shades of Grey teaches us that a) despite all the work those evil feminists have done to convince you otherwise, male power fantasies are totes sexy and empowering, b) if you don’t think you’re being abused, you’re not, and c) the surest path to sexual liberation is being tied up and humiliated. Hey, we didn’t say that fairy tales had to send positive messages, just ones reflective of the culture that creates them. So,  if we give young Andy the benefit of the doubt and assume he took the latter definition of what a fairy tale is, then he’s made exactly one legitimate point in the entire collection of words he randomly pieced into sentences for this article. Meaning that he has inadvertently made a very poignant argument against the way mainstream media reinforces the status quo by creating a specific cultural consciousness. If you didn’t expect such profundity from Mr. Hazel, you were right. But, just as Andy’s parents probably told him numerous times in his life, there are such things as “happy accidents”.

Before I can conclude this review I need to draw focus to the most tragic aspect of Andy’s interaction with R.A.W, and his article in Farrago. A huge amount of women all over the world have spoken up against a piece of cultural media that directly harms them, through the reinforcement of our global and systematic oppression by men as a class, and the direct consequences of media that fetishises male violence- that is, murder, rape, kidnapping and torture, pornography, and a decrease in women reporting male violence. We’re raising our voices about the harm that has been and is being done to us, about how survivors and victims need to be listened to and cared for, how we actually don’t care about the opinions of some privileged few who can re-enact this abuse and find it sexy. And in response, bourgeois men write articles about how all us silly women are wrong about our lived experiences and should shut up and let the “good girls” fulfill men’s power fantasies if they want to. The smugness of these men- not just Andy here- who dismiss women’s real and honest opinions with a hand-wave and a few buzzwords like “sexuality” and “agency” can be rage-inducing at times. But our interactions with these men are microcosmic. They are the same class, the same culture as the men making films, and promoting literature that harms women. They pay us lip service and then remind us that we are not human by turning our trauma, our oppression, our pain into billion-dollar industries. They robotically obey the social hierarchy, either by crushing the spirits of women who have survived abuse, or by shouting over those of us who raise our voices against it. Andy Hazel’s article is the ultimate in mansplaining, and utter crap- what person in their right minds would expect a man who has just sat through two hours of Hollywood pornography to write a review that doesn’t sound like the excited ramblings of a 14 year-old boy telling his friends he found his dad’s Playboy collection? But it makes a point. A very strong point. But not the one he was trying to make, which is “living up to patriarchy’s expectation of you is liberating”, bless his soul. The point is what we’ve been saying all along: 50 Shades, along with the sexual dynamics it advertises, is patriarchy-approved. It gets the Liberal Male (TM) Seal of Approval.

You sure showed us, Andy.

Pictured: Anastasia’s symbolic liberation from male-defined sexuality. Or something.


Small Fried Budgie, Huge Beak and Very Little Backbone, Served in a Red Speedo: The Abbott KFC Special

Caution: Meal may emit very hot air.

I am sure I am not the first to say that Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott is a revolting, evil-spirited, cretinous, sentient turd. And after my initial feelings of revulsion when assaulted by images of his hairy, loose-skinned, middle-aged torso wobbling above his equally wobbly tight Speedos, I find myself spellbound by an increasing sense of wonder as to how a legion of backwards, white conservatives could bring themselves to vote for such a ludicrous little man. I mean, besides his constant stream of cringe-worthy gaffes, accidentally referring to the opposition leader as “Prime Minister”, majorly pissing off China, aiming to single-handedly destroy Australia from the ground up, and level of understanding of government policy akin to that of a kindergartener’s, I sit still in a state of disbelief of his ability to look more ridiculous than a political caricature of himself. I am amazed that this man is allowed to brush his teeth without supervision, let alone retain the highest office of an entire nation. But his perverted budgie-smuggler-fetish-slash-exhibitionism triggers more than just my gag reflex. I find myself encumbered by my ongoing bitterness about the treatment of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who I still hold to have been the best thing to happen to this country’s government since Whitlam.

No thinking feminist (or Australian citizen for that matter) is a stranger to the fact that Gillard was the victim of a level of publicly-sanctioned misogyny that might as well have arrived in a time machine from a Victorian Asylum. Stopping just short of carting her off to receive a frontal lobotomy,  she was labeled by the media as the political equivalent of the archetypal Hysterical Woman, and our beloved Prime Minister (then Opposition Leader) Abbott displayed no shame in peddling such rampant sexism himself. Here are some choice examples

For posterity, here is my favourite quote from Gillard’s speech in Parliament: “The leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office. Well, I hope the leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation”. Oh Julia, your incredible snark lives on in all of our hearts.

The point I am trying to make here is that the nations first female Prime Minister was judged (and ridiculed) almost entirely because of her physical appearance and demeanor (besides her having “lied” about not introducing a carbon tax, which she never actually did, as is outlined by Kerry-Ann Walsh in her terrific book). If you ask me, I found Gillard to be very articulate, professional in appearance, and overall quite dignified and elegant. But of course, the nation could not resist attacking her hair colour, accent, facial features, or the size of her posterior. Keeping it classy, Australia, How dare a woman do a decent job of running the country, for lack of any meaningful political debate, let us attack her appearance.

As you’ve surely noticed from this post’s introductory paragraph, I haven’t spared Tony Abbott from such criticism. And just to illustrate my point further, I think that Kevin Rudd is a pasty, almost vampiric creep, Bill Shorten has a stupid forehead, Joe Hockey looks like a cigar-smoking cartoon villain, John Howard’s eyebrows might as well cecede from Australia and install their own parliamentary system, and Christopher Pyne resembles a “mincing poodle“. But are these external features in any way reflective of these politicians’ abilities (or lack thereof) to do their jobs? Well, besides the arguably accurate description of Joe Hockey, I’m going to say that they do not. Not even, really, in the case of Abbott. Sure, he is an embarrassing moron, and half the planet considers him a dangerous joke, but he’s done and said much more idiotic things than prancing around on a beach in a pair of budgie-smugglers. And this is just one little blog post in the vast expanse of the Internet; you will find that the media rarely makes such assertions about our male politicians.

In response to the annoyingly persistent liberal fauxminist ideology of female nudity=empowerment, it has been argued that if this were true then powerful men like Barack Obama would be seen plastered over every newspaper and magazine in a variety of provocative positions. This rhetoric has a number of good points, and I hold that simple male nudity does not have the same visual effect as male nudity in similarly degrading positions in which we often see women. Without rambling on too much about this, I have come to think somewhat contrarily to this, and got to thinking about the topic this morning after musing to my facebook friends that “If Julia Gillard had done endless photo shoots in a string bikini, not only would there have been a literal angry mob to forcibly remove her from office, I expect that Jacqui Lambie would be campaigning to make the burqa mandatory”.

Such is the widespread revulsion towards the female body. Yes, I am of the belief that politicians, in order to keep up their facade of being respectable leaders of their respective nations, ought not to dress in a way that would cause your grandmother to clutch at her pearls. After all, your dear old gran is still a member of the electorate. And so are the misogynist young men who are part of the culture that strips women of their clothes in order to strip them of their power. This is a simple analysis of porn culture: naked woman=male plaything lacking power and personhood. However, I still wonder why Abbott’s rather confronting exhibitionism has caused less of a stir than the width of Julia Gillard’s arse.

My theory is that his irritatingly smug delight in swinging his shriveled testicles in national media is a quiet “fuck you” to not only Gillard, but powerful women in general. Imagine the colourful slurs that would flood public opinion if a female politician did a photo shoot with nothing but three inches of cloth covering her vulva? Imagine if Julia Gillard was photographed jogging around braless in a skin-tight crop top, breasts swinging pendulously in the flashes of photographers’ bulbs? Not only would no one take her seriously, it simply wouldn’t happen. Men constantly remind us that what is designed to villify and degrade women is not only acceptable when a man does it, but often considered part of his cheeky charm. Do we really need to bring up Monica Lewinsky? Bill Clinton may have got off lightly, but if only Abbott would suffer some criticism for his habit of swinging his junk in public. After slandering and dehumanising Gillard, scrambling into office over her proverbial lifeless body, he stands triumphant upon discarded and disgraced female politicians, holding his Australian flag-adorned genitalia aloft, telling us all- Look what I, a man, can do! I can look like an absolute oaf and still be your head of government!

May I smuggle both budgies and budgets past your sexism-clouded vision, and into the most vulnerable corners of society!

Perhaps the size of his head is a result of decreased circulation down south

Why I Am Not Pro-Choice

Before my beloved RF sisters get out their mourning garb, let me explain.

I still use the label “radical feminist” because it is an easy way to identify my political views, and for like-minded people to find me in the vast expanse of the Internet. I prefer the term “female liberationist” because it more accurately describes my politics. Similarly, I reject the label “pro-choice” and instead opt to call myself “pro-abortion”. Anyone who knows me will recall that I have an interest in language and its application in politics, and consider it to be very important in ongoing feminist discourse. I have dabbled in debate about anti-female language used in transgender and liberal feminist activism, and experimented with the language we use in our own corner of the political world, instances of which I will provide in a later post. For now, let us examine some of the more common words and phrases we use to identify ourselves in our respective political movements (and don’t worry- this is not intended to be some tiresome identity politics mindfuck, but an examination of terminology and its implications).

Feminist: This label has all but been abandoned by most and restructured with the addition of applicable modifiers. Liberal  feminists have begun labeling themselves as such, presumably to further distance themselves from radical feminists. The term is occasionally used in the mainstream as a poor attempt at disguising the serving of male interests, or to gain a few liberties for women without offending the male class too much. All but meaningless, “feminism” has come to denote so many bizarrely un-feminist concepts that few of those dedicated to women’s struggle bother to try to define it. I’ve heard radical feminist women discuss ditching the “feminist” part altogether, fearing that they might be associated with the surreal, male-focused orgy that feminism has become. Hence my eagenrness to clarify that I am a female liberationist-ie, someone who is dedicated to the liberation of female people from patriarchy to make my goals and beliefs very clear.

TERF/SWERF: Trans/sex worker-exclusionary radical feminist. Used as a slur against women who acknowledge the existence of biological sex and believe that women should be free to define their spaces, and women who oppose the widespread commodification of  violence against women, respectively. Fundamentally dishonest terms, the linguistic manifestation of the “straw man” logical fallacy, these terms have become so common and so vicious in their implications that “feminist” discourse has been effectively rent in two- the evil TERFs and SWERFs, and the “good feminists”.

Female/Male: In “liberal feminist” discourse, these terms are effectively meaningless. They mean “someone who identifies as male/female”. In “radical feminist” discourse, these terms mean what they actually mean, ie “a female animal is one which is biologically equipped for and typically able to produce ova, and a male animal is one which is biologically equipped for and typically able to produce sperm”. These are political terms because males as a caste systematically oppress and commit violence against females as a class. Liberal feminism/transactivism have in recent years decided to claim that biological sex doesn’t exist because radical feminism started making too much sense to them.

Now, there have been many theories as to how we can amend the problems in the women’s movement today. Myself, I’ve considered initiatives to make liberals be more inclusive of radicals in our shared causes and encouraged people to argue out their differences elsewhere. But radical women are still fighting to even be allowed to let the world know we exist. We are being squashed by the collective fist of the male establishment and its female allies. And though I wish I could wake up one day to find the liberal/radical feminist dichotomy conveniently absent, I know that this won’t happen overnight. And to be quite honest, I think that the women’s movement needs to stop pretending that these “liberal feminists” have anything in common with our goals, or have any of our best interests in mind. They pay lip service to women’s issues while effectively fighting for Men’s Rights. The only difference between “liberal feminism” and “I don’t believe in women’s rights just human rights” is the fact that they use feminist imagery and terminology to gain more followers. And it’s easy for them. Because “liberal feminism” is safe. It is comfortable, and you’re still pleasing men so you have nothing to worry about. I say fuck that, and this is where the “pro-choice” part comes in.

Pretty much anyone with an Internet connection is aware that the major ideological basis of “liberal feminism” is choice. You may remember this from such arguments as “feminism is about women choosing to do whatever they want to do”, “BDSM is a choice”, “prostitution is a choice”, and “if I choose to do it, the choice is feminist”. In other words, “feminism is about having the choice to choose your choices”. This rhetoric is absolutely demented. If someone tells me I should off myself and I choose to blow a hole in my head it doesn’t mean that choice existed in a vacuum, and certainly doesn’t mean that it was a responsible or positive choice to make.

The problem with “pro-choice” in regards to abortion has multiple negative implications for this reason. Abortion is an extremely safe, common, and necessary medical procedure. I have had an abortion myself, and I believe that abortion needs to be considered in the same way one considers any other kind of medical procedure. No one calls themselves “pro-choice” because they are in favour of people electing to have their wisdom teeth removed. I have put off having my wisdom teeth removed for years, partially due to financial constraints and partially due to a strong aversion to having my face ripped apart, and I don’t consider one opting to have or not have an abortion as being any different. I probably need to have my wisdom teeth out, and some women probably shouldn’t have babies if they feel emotionally and financially incapable of supporting them, but while both situations are potentially life-threatening they also potentially aren’t, and are therefore no-one else’s business. If the medical procedure to have my wisdom teeth removed was not available to me, however, I would be understandably perturbed. The reason women aren’t allowed to have abortions is not because those in power have a problem with us making choices, it is because the system hates women and wishes to withhold medical treatments from us because it does not care if we die. This is about the disposability of the female body. Similarly, the system does not criminalise prostitution because it doesn’t like women “choosing to express their sexuality” or any other such liberal nonsense, it does so because it views women as purchasable objects and does not care if we are exploited, raped, abused, or murdered.

The reason that “liberal feminist” activism falls so short of making any actual changes in women’s situation is because it assumes that patriarchal society already views women as human. It doesn’t. No matter how much you love your dad or your brother or your husband does not change the fact that men as a caste hate us. As is evident in the definitions I’ve listed above, post-modern “liberal feminism” is so devoid of critical analysis that it forges for itself a fantasy world in which women have actually made major gains in altering our social status, and living under such a delusion essentially cripples our ability to move forward. In the words of Angela Davis that I love to quote so much, “Radical simply means grasping something by its roots”. Radical women, whether we call ourselves feminists or liberationists, actually need to fight this pomo libfem rhetoric, because it is, aside from being about as insipid as a political ideology can get, possibly the most deceptive and dangerous manifestation of patriarchy there is. And if I never see the word  “choice” used uncritically in feminist discourse for the rest of my days, I’ll  feel at last that the struggle for liberation has moved forward.

The Google Images search term “Liberal Feminism” did not disappoint

The Australian Sex Party, Reactionary Trotskyists, and Bullying Women Out of the Left: The Real ‘Third Wave’

What do these three things have in common?

Anyone who is a radical feminist and has ever been to Melbourne would be able to tell you. First some background.

The Australian Sex Party is a political party whose leader Fiona Patten is a “sex” industry  profiteer- CEO of the Eros Association, a company that owns multiple sex shops and organised sexual assault pornography websites. They pride themselves on a number of deceptively progressive policies behind which they hide their dedication to the mass sexual enslavement of women.

Socialist Alternative (SAlt) are a militant Trotskyist political party  organisation who pretty much everyone who isn’t a SAlt member thinks are a joke. You may remember them from such hits as being obnoxious on national television, being obnoxious in a supermarket, and tokenising their comrade who committed suicide in order to prove that they’re not transphobic.

What they have in common is that they comprise vocal elements of the annual “pro-choice” rally in Melbourne, which is held to counter-protest a “pro-life” march called March For the Foetuses or something similarly demented. This counter-protest is pretty important to us Melbournian feminists, as it is literally the only regular women-orientated action (besides weekly clinic defenses at the East Melbourne Fertility Control Clinic). Considering that these anti-woman activists like to harass women and murder clinic employees, we find it necessary to show up and make sure they all know that we fucking hate them. A group called Campaign for Women’s Reproductive rights “officially” organises this protest and for some reason the Sex Party also has a big hand in the promotion of this rally, as its members can be seen handing out flyers, advertising the party and getting creepy dudes to make speeches with frequent references to women’s genitals. SAlt- being a reactionary mob of quasi-political uni students- also have a large presence, and can be identified at pretty much every protest ever by their repetitive, unoriginal chanting and shoving copies of Red Flag into everyone’s faces.

Oh, did I mention that some women aren’t welcome at this protest?

This year was the first in five that I didn’t bother to attend. After doing an impromptu speech on my second year, I was invited to speak at the next rally. Curiously, the year after, I received no such invitation. Apparently it was because I had voiced anti-“sex” industry opinions on my personal facebook page. How my support for the criminalisation of pimps and johns has anything to do with advocating for abortion rights has not yet been explained to me. After some harassment, threats of physical violence, and doxxing from male Sex Party members, I took it all on the chin and showed up to last year’s rally anyway.

This year, a young woman with similar views to mine attended the rally with her friends. She is a vocal online radical feminist and lesbian activist and was accosted by a member of SAlt. She was physically intimidated and verbally abused to the point that she had a severe panic attack and had to be assisted by street medics. The woman who attacked her (and I shan’t post details with respect to the victim’s safety) responded to criticism by labeling the victim “transphobic” and used the slurs “cis” and “TERF” in the following tirade of harassment instigated by her and her comrades. The victim is understandably shaken and outraged by the way she was made to feel unsafe at a protest that claims to support women.

Her outrage is not enough. There should be public outrage.

This is by no means the first time radical women have been attacked in activist spaces (NOTE: do not confuse with the small and innapropriately named socialist/liberal feminist group Radical Women, who also have a significant presence at the annual counter-protest, and have penned articles for MRA websites). And it will by no means be the last. But this is the prevailing issue with the Left.

Another example of bullying radical feminists out of political spaces can be seen in this statement from Anarchist Affinity, an anarcho-communist fringe group based in Melbourne. This vagueblog statement was issued  in response to an event I organised earlier this year called ‘A Woman’s Place is in the Revolution: Discussing Feminist Visibility in Radical Politics’. The event was a small discussion group of about 20 women  and its goal was to discuss strategies to make the Left safer for women with opinions. Not just RF women, all women. The discussion had literally nothing to do with gender criticism, the sex industry, or anything else that liberal feminists tend to get up in arms about. Demonstrating my point perfectly, AA and “non-affiliated” friends of theirs sent a slew of abuse to myself and the custodians of the space where the event was held, at one point threatening to organise a picket outside the building. After having witnessed one of their members assault a young man at another meeting, I felt it necessary to organise security for the evening. Thankfully none of their cronies showed up, but the fact that this was necessary should cause anyone with a brain to feel pretty concerned about the state of female visibility in the Left.

It is astoundingly obvious that the ostracisation radical feminists face from activist spaces has nothing to do with actual political ideology. Trotskyists are able to march alongside anarchists. Sex Party affiliates manage to attend events organised by anti-capitalists. But neither are apparently able to attend a protest attended by a few 20-something year old women who blog about women’s experiences under patriarchy. They’re doing what the patriarchy has done for years-Divide and Conquer. Why? No one is 100% sure, but I’d wager that it has something to do with a fear of women speaking up about their oppression and their experiences. What’s that called again? Muh-so…mis-oh..misogy….

So where does that leave radical women who want a part in the Left and radical politics? Proposals have been made to form an alliance that works within Leftist groups and provides a support network for outspoken women who have been intimidated for expressing their views (as well as women who have been too intimidated to express their views in the first place). This is a step in the right direction, in theory, and plans are currently underway here in Melbourne. Any woman who is involved in the online (or offline) radical feminist community knows the degree of sisterhood, safety, and solidarity that we can offer each other. The voices just need to get louder. We need to maintain a presence in political spaces and to focus on direct action. Patriarchy funnels down into the left and those misogynistic attitudes need to be challenged before we can move on to challenging society at large. Because feminism is one of the important “new” ideologies driving the Left forward, it’s about time those ungrateful little shits started treating it with the respect it deserves. Each “wave” of feminism has seen its similar struggles, but the Third Wave hasn’t properly happened until the most important struggle in feminist history has been won: prioritising women in the movement, and gaining respect for women within that movement itself.

no women

The Campaign for Women’s Reproductive Rights: Much like Tony Abbott’s cabinet, we can have one or two as long as they do as we say.

Obligatory Introductory Radscum Post

Hi, and welcome to my new blog. It has been some time since I’ve splattered my opinions all over the Internet for the benefit (or in spite) of strangers, but here I am, bravely charging back into the land of anger, anonymity, and never ending slagging-off that is the blogosphere.

As the title suggests, I am a Radical Feminist (this title was thrust upon me, more on that later) and as the “scum” indicates, I am the scary kind of radical feminist. The kind that doesn’t prioritise male feelings over anything. The kind that believes that there is such a thing as male and female. The kind that lives in dark crevices and feasts on the souls of children. That last part is just a rumour, though.

While I’m on the topic, it’s worth explaining a little about how I came to acquire such a label. Like most radical feminists, I entered into the world of social justice happily and with no knowledge of the devastating divide that exists therein. After chewing through my mother’s collection of “soft” feminist literature- Naomi Wolf, a bit of Greer and the like- I grew into an opinionated teenager with a furious passion for not shaving her armpits and no particular understanding of why I didn’t (don’t worry, this is not a lament about why it is an empowering feminist choice to shave one’s body hair and love penis). Much like the similarly divisive topics of pornography and sexual expression, I had never given “gender” much thought. I was forced to, however, when I came across a collection of hateful blog posts decrying a small radical feminist conference. After doing a little more research, I found that the reason this conference was condemned was because the organisers had specified that it was female-only. Not knowing why on earth feminists would viciously attack a female-only safe space, I publicly questioned this, and was thus informed that I was “radscum”, a “TERF”, then also somehow a white supremacist neo-nazi with a fetish for murdering transgendered people. Luckily for me however, I was treated more kindly than the organisers of the conference, who received enough death threats to warrant moving the conference out of the public space it was booked in. And so I discovered this new term “radical feminism” and was left wondering what on earth was so radical about a bit of good old fashioned vagina positivity, as well as feeling a bit crotchety.


After a poorly thought out attempt at posting about feminism on Tumblr, I’ve taken a little time out to develop my ideas a little and to become immersed in the sisterly culture of radical feminism. In doing so, I’ve attracted the ire of a colourful array of male transgenders, sex industry lobbyists, disgruntled middle-aged men, political parties, minor activist groups, outspoken solo activists, professional MMA fighters, gym owners, cyber stalkers, and basically everyone a radical feminist wouldn’t want at her birthday party. One of the aforementioned bestowed upon me the illustrious title of “the most vocally violent terf … in Melbourne”.

Now this is the important bit.

All women who have publicly stated their support for females receive such threats and intimidation from those who want us to be quiet. Young women are literally in fear of their lives and feel the need to hide their views in the interests of their own safety. This is unacceptable. This is a tried and true method used by oppressors to pacify those seeking liberation. I want to see a revolutionary feminist movement supported by the Left. I want women to feel safe and wanted in progressive politics. In my view, we haven’t come far since the heyday of the Second Wave, rather, postmodernism is very quickly shoving us back. Women deserve to be vocal. Women need to be loud. Neoliberal ne’er-do-wells with a penchant for disrupting political movements needn’t have the power that they do. Women’s power is in our words, because if we aren’t able to speak, we aren’t able to drown out the voices of the powerful.

In the words of one of my greatest Sheroes Angela Davis: “We have to talk about liberating minds as well as liberating society”.