I'm tired of defending women's right to the word "woman" when masculinity is the real fucking problem.
I've written so much, spent so many hours struggling to make myself clear, and women are still losing the battle to absurdist, woman-hating queer politics.
I just don't have much left at this point. So I'm going to send off this one last missive before I take a nice long vacation from social media, and, hopefully, come back refreshed and able to write about GIRLS and WOMEN - human females - with less defensiveness clouding my thoughts.
Patriarchy tells us that human males (boys and men) are naturally/innately masculine (dominant) and human females (girls and women) are naturally/innately feminine (submissive - made for and receptive to domination.)
Not only does patriarchy tell us that women are naturally/innately submissive to men, but that this works in our best interests, as men will protect and provide for us in exchange for our submission.
Feminists say that women are not naturally/innately submissive, that the promise of protection is a deceitful racket anyhow, and that we do not need men to protect and provide for us, merely to stop assaulting and exploiting us.
But of course patriarchy answers that men are naturally/innately dominant, so they can't help assaulting and exploiting!
It is therefore absolutely necessary to the feminist project -- and to anyone who wishes to alleviate the social epidemic of male violence -- to question this idea that men are naturally/innately masculine/dominant, not just the necessary corollary that females are naturally/innately feminine/dominated.
This questioning works both ways.
Man and woman are biological categories based on reproductive potential, and have naught to do with innate human personality traits.
Being a man does not mean that you have to be masculine.
Being masculine does not make you a man.
Being a woman does not mean you have to be feminine.
Being feminine does not make you a woman.
Remember here that masculine means dominant, feminine means dominated.
Being beaten up by another man does not make a man a woman.
Being on the receiving end of male violence is a common experience of being a human female in a patriarchal society; it is not an inherent part or defining feature of human femaleness.
Self-objectification also does not make a man a woman. (Hello, autogynephiles.)
Girls are raised to view themselves through men's eyes, as sexual objects for men. This is a common experience of being a human female in a patriarchal society; it is not an inherent part or defining feature of human femaleness.
If men were to ever stop terrorizing and dehumanizing women, we would still be women: members of the impregnatable sex class of humans. And you have to really hate women to hold that simple acceptance of this biological reality of impregnability erases all other facets of our human-ness. I am impregnatable whether I like it or not; I'm also smart, capable, responsible, funny, artistic and kind. Outside of patriarchal socialization, I have no reason to be limited by nor ashamed of my female reproductive system, thank you very much.
Furthermore, you have to really worship/fear men to refuse to question their entitlement to social dominance, whether that dominance is achieved via subtle life-long socialization or brutal violence. When men attack women or other men whom they deem insufficiently masculine, they should be punished until they stop doing so.
However, this will only ever happen if enough people accept that masculinity is not inherent to manhood and thus can be challenged.
And that will not happen as long as un-masculine men can simply be considered not-men.
BOTH WOMEN AND "FEMININE" MEN CAN ONLY BE PROTECTED IF WE START PUNISHING VIOLENT MEN. ANY OTHER MEANS OF APPROACHING THE PROBLEM -- SAY, BY "PLAYING WITH LANGUAGE" OR MAKING UP 75 BAJILLION "GENDER IDENTITIES" OR FORCING WOMEN TO PRETEND THAT FEMININE MEN ARE WOMEN -- WILL NOT FUCKING WORK.
SO STOP BEING SANCTIMONIOUS POMO WOMAN-HATING COWARDS AND CONFRONT THE PROBLEM.
K THX BYE.