I dunno, I just am not all there with the trust factor when it comes to men and their handling of feminism.

Heart

So much like my experience (on other boards) -- lies, lies, an avalanche of lies, in my case, the lies of someone I believe to be a sociopath, at least a severely disordered personality, deletions, deletions, deletions. And all the while, he could count on a few women to have his sorry back. Ugh. When does the day come when women put women first?

Well, the one good thing is, those on Alas know where we are now if they didn't before. Mwa ha.

Heart

Meaning I'm not going to try to establish woman-only, radical feminist threads on Alas. I thought to offer support to Ginmar, and all of the radical feminists who have been silenced there, including me, and to possibly carve out some space there where our voices could be heard again. But it's not a good idea. I tried. My heart was in the right place, for whatever that's worth.

Heart

Thanks, Char, for talking Heart out of this. I had misgivings I did not understand well enough to express. I have lurked at Alas very sporadically, cannot say I understand where he is coming from, but I have no reason to think he is not yet another fake male feminist. Why his blog is considered prime feminist territory is hard to wrap my head around. Does he have no noteworthy competition from men?

Aletha

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff Writes:

December 28th, 2005 at 11:03 pm e
Tom Nolan: If you think that that’s an exaggeration on my part, take a look at Ginmar’s website and the prescription you would have to follow to be considered a feminist in her eyes: you would have not only to utterly forswear the Patriarchy, but reject all those tainted with male sexism (it might be your brother, it might be your father, no matter - feminism for men is a vocation or it is nothing!): in short you would have to die to the world and live exclusively in the consciousness of women’s suffering. Evidently, only an infinitesimal number of men are going to make the grade. And Ginmar speaks with a voice that many radical feminists recognize as authentic and representative.

I don’t think that Ginmar said this at all, anywhere, ever. I think she said men would be ostracized if they were feminists, that they’d be outcasts. And I think she’s absolutely right about that. And how aggravating and infuriating is it to me that now she can’t be here to defend herself against these ongoing distortions and dissemblings. I mean, what. You, Tom Nolan, are worried about not being able to reply to possible “attacks” and “unflattering references” in theoretical, nonexistent, woman-only, radical feminist threads; in fact, your own attacks and “unflattering references” and distortions have resulted in the complete silencing of a radical feminist woman’s voice here. Well, no matter. Ve haf vays.

Having said all of that, and speaking for myself only and not ginmar, I think the world could use a few — more than a few — men who would indeed put women first, who would, indeed, reject the men in their lives — including sons, fathers, and brothers — who were sexists and woman-haters, who would forswear patriarchy, and who would live exclusively in the consciousness of women’s suffering. ginmar hasn’t said that, but I will. Unapologetically. Hell yeah. It’s absolutely this kind of man and this kind of behavior which is necessary if women are to have the equality you’ve assured us you believe in. Squealing and whining and making stuff up because a woman has the audacity to suggest that supporting feminist women might cost men something isn’t the behavior of an ally. It is the behavior of a male supremacist who is unwilling to give up any bit of the privilege and entitlement he enjoys.

Heart (Cheryl)

********

I don't know. I just get sick of letting stuff pass, letting liars and assholes and their defenders and apologists get away with what they get away with. I want to get in there and kick male supremacist bootie good for them. It just grates, grates, grates on me to watch that stuff churned out day after day after frustrating day and to not be able to get in there and challenge it.

I just hope the ways I am envisioning to challenge these guys on other than their sites, their turf, are effective.

Heart

In any event, Heart, I'm glad you're not going to spend any time over there. Get your op-ed page up, and we'll go from there.

Ginmar -- I think it was just a matter of time. Ampersand can't have anybody there who would seriously challenge his "feminist" cred. The idea that men might have to give something up is anathema to every single man over there, with Ampersand being the ringleader. I mean, look, when I said to Amp, "well, maybe when you went on Air America as the feminist representative of the blogosphere, you should have started out by talking about how male privilege got you there." His response was: "well, but then they wouldn't have let me be on their show." Really? No duh. I mean, that's not exactly a real justification for not doing it. That's a self-serving excuse.

Ms. Magazine has a policy that women will write about their own countries. Canadian women will write about what happens in Canada. Indian women will write about what happens in India. And so on. It's an effort to actually address the issues of white, first-world privilege. That's how it's *supposed* to work. Ampersand, however, can't apply that single simple lesson to himself: don't speak about feminism from male privilege.

I think the better idea is *always* for women to create our own things than to seek "women's space" within men's space. For example, women's sections of newspapers and blogs and any media, really, mean that the majority of the blog or newspaper will continue to be about men, the "real" humans. It's a ghetto not because people "think" it's a ghetto, but because it *is* a ghetto. A ghetto isn't made by what people think about it, it's made by what it is and does. It's made by the walls around it, the smallness of space inside it, and the rest of the world outside of it. It's about separation, isolation, and inferiority. Goddess forbid that we ever ask for a ghetto.

I didn't go over there because I was effing BORED. I didn't go over there because I have nothing to do and nowhere to WRITE. I was minding my own business, working on my new Op/Ed page, posting here, keeping the edges of my internet life all neat and tidy, and I learn about what has happened to ginmar. Ginmar, it's all your fault. So I go over to Alas and check it out. And the place is freaking overRUN with anti-feminist trolls, men's rights idiots, and a bunch of anti-feminist women singing a chorus of, "Me a FEMINIST? That's SO sehv-unties." But what troubled me was ginmar being the latest in a string of radical feminist to be run out on a rail, silenced. The last time I was at Alas to read much or post was right after Andrea Dworkin died, when Amp was fixing to damn her with faint praise, never mind how devastated we all were, and shocked, and I went over there and challenged him with a hearty and resounding NOT and a "have some goddamn respect". And to his credit, Amp edited the post I objected to and ceased and desisted. But I didn't stay around at Alas, in large part because I couldn't countenance the ongoing choruses of, "I didn't AGREE with Andrea Dworkin, BUT..." and especially -- ESPECIALLY -- "Wasn't Susie Bright's memorial tribute just DANDY?!" ARGHGHGHGHGHGHGHHHHH!!!!!!

But Amp then invited me to guest blog, and I kept that under my hat, thinking one of these days that invitation might come in handy. And a couple times I thought to take him up on his invitation, but each time I lost my enthusiasm when I actually went over there and saw how deep was the doo doo I'd have to wade through to say what I had to say.

BUT. I didn't LIKE it that ginmar was silenced. ESPECIALLY I didn't like it that she couldn't DEFEND herself against the ongoing bullshit. That SUCKED. I know SO well how that feels. And I saw that there were a few radical feminist stragglers still over there at Alas who apparently want to continue to be there, and I feared that they would be the next casualties, the next to be silenced. And THAT'S why I seized the day, cashed in my chips, and BLOGGED, suggesting that SPACE be made for them, that the banned be unbanned, that the mistreated be apologized to. Since I had the wherewithal to blog, ya know, right up front and center where people would see it, I didn't just post to a thread, I put all my shit right out there, I played that particular one card I had. For us. For radical feminists and lesbian separatists who are being silenced.

I don't get why that isn't clear. I think that's precisely what I said. What is so hard to understand about that. Yet all of these people, including Amp, and others, including feminists, who ought to know better, keep saying, "You can start your own blog!" "You could post over THERE where there are 3,000 third wavers who know nothing about radical feminism but hate you anyway, there's a nice challenge for you!"

That wasn't my POINT. I am very AWARE that I could blog any day of the week and place I want to. I haven't blogged for a whole bunch of reasons and I may never create my own blog. I don't LIKE blogs. And I am sure as hell very aware that I could knock myself out futilely posting all over the goddamn internet to choruses of "Feminism is SO 70s!" THAT WASN'T MY POINT. That's not what I was trying to DO.

My POINT was, ginmar was silenced. As other radical feminist women have been silenced there. As I MYSELF have felt silenced there. She isn't the first and she probably won't be the last.

So I used what I had in my hand, and I stood up to that particular treatment. For US. For radical feminists and lesbian separatists. THAT is what I was doing over there. Or TRYING to.

And if another person gives me some lame suggestion about where to write in my nonexistent goddamn time, I am going to shout louder than I am shouting right now.

DAMN.

/rant.

Heart

So freaking insulting.

/second rant.

I'm sorry. But I am really frustrated right now.

Heart