UPDATE: This entry has been posted on Reddit and now a bunch of people who don’t know me are judging me as just another stupid male. Fucking Reddit. I will not close the comments right now because there’s still discussion going on, but anyone commenting here from Reddit will be banned. I think the comments thread over there is more than enough.

***

I have been told that, as a radfem ally, I am doing a number of things wrong. These include the following:

* It is tyrannical for me to say to other women that they are not feminists.

* I should not insult MRAs’ sexuality, because that just reproduces masculinity.

* I should not talk back to women, even if they are pro-BDSM, pro-porn or pro-prostitution.

* I should not defend women to other women.

I list this not in order to complain but in order to examine them from a logical standpoint. And I will do so once I establish my role as an ally. From the radfem perspective, the role of allies is twofold:

1. I should shut up and listen to what radfem have to say, to understand the issues involved.

2. When I do understand, it’s my job to tell it to other men.

The latter is something I try to do on this blog. As for the former, I talk to radfem, I read a number of blogs by radfem, I read radfem books and I keep working on my understanding.

But beyond that, I want to talk about the logical consequences of 1. I need to listen to radfem voices. But in order to do that, I first need to be able to distinguish between radical feminists and everyone else. Not making the distinction means that I would listen to radfems, liberal feminists, trans genderists, traditional genderists, FeMRAs, etc. Obviously I wouldn’t learn anything if I did that, except to hate women, because woman-hatred is the default way of thinking in a Patriarchy.

You’d think, well, I’d have to be an idiot to think that I should listen to Sarah Palin or Phyllis Schafly as sources of knowledge about feminism. But this is literally what people have been telling me to do as an ally. But I obviously could no longer be an ally if I give any credence to such women, so this is a direct contradiction.

I need to have a basic understanding of what radical feminism is in order to know who to listen to. This is not a new or unusual principle: everyone follows it in any other field, and there’s no reason why feminism should be an exception. Before we learn biology, for example, we need to know who’s a credible source on biology (e.g. official class textbooks). Some Australian moron blabbing about dinosaurs on the Ark and seven days creation is not a credible source on biology. But if I followed people’s advice, I would have to consider Creationism just as credible as evolution. This principle can only lead to complete confusion and ignorance.

Likewise, if I intend to criticize capitalism, for example, I can’t go solely on the words of its advocates. I know they have a vested interest in lying about the nature of the capitalist system. If I tried to criticize capitalism by first uncritically accepting every statement made about it, including those of capitalists, I would end up so confused that I wouldn’t understand anything.

From what I understand, radical feminism is the identification of the Patriarchy, which is based on gender (and gender hierarchy and gender roles), as the primary source of oppression of women as a class.

Whether this is an accurate definition, I will let radfems be the judge of that, but my point here is that I personally have a number of criteria to evaluate women by:

* Feminists are not genderists (or pro-gender hierarchy or pro-gender roles).

* Feminists are not pro-Patriarchy.

* Feminists are not pro-oppression of women.

So if I see anyone (man or woman) who promotes genderism, the Patriarchy or the oppression of women, then I simply don’t listen to such people. And if they come on this blog to argue with me, I will point out to them that they’re not feminists.

So let me review the accusations again:

* It is tyrannical for me to say to other women that they are not feminists.

This accusation is misplaced. I do not tell anti-feminist women what I think about them unless they come on this blog and try to convince me that I should support the exploitation of women, which is very rare. By and large, anti-feminists do not bother with this blog.

What I must do, however, is identify who is a feminist and who is not. Again, if I fail to do this, I will be utterly unable to grasp anything about feminism. We all do this about every belief system, every ideology, every religion, every line of work, every hobby we have. If I am tyrannical then every single human being on this planet is either extremely confused or a tyrant.

This is perhaps stating the obvious, but I think it’s more tyrannical to hate women than to point out that someone hates women. If you disagree, then your priorities are not in the right place.

* I should not insult MRAs’ sexuality, because that just reproduces masculinity.

I don’t want to reproduce masculinity any more than any other ally, but I don’t think calling MRAs hysterical virgins (for example) is too out of place. It’s not as if I’m using it as an argument. I think people object to it because they think it means I endorse sex for the sake of sex. I certainly don’t, but they do. It’s insulting to them, not to me. Frankly, I don’t think calling MRAs virgins is any more objectionable than calling someone an idiot.

* I should not talk back to women, even if they are pro-BDSM, pro-porn or pro-prostitution.

* I should not defend women to other women.

If you come on my blog and push this absolute nonsense, then you should expect me to talk back. If you don’t want me to talk back to you, don’t post here. It’s as simple as that. I have no quarrel with anyone, but if you come here and expect me to be bowled over by your defense of BDSM or pornography, you will be sorely disappointed.

My sole concern is to try to figure out the truth and defend whatever truths I do find. I am not concerned by anyone’s fees if they are unconcerned with, or oppose, women’s rights and well-being.

I know some will say that this is a very masculine thing to say, that I can afford to be uncaring about people’s fees because I do not have to adapt to men’s threats. I think this is a valid point; as a man writing on feminist topics, I have the huge advantage of going under most bigots’ radar. But why should I waste this advantage by refusing to speak up?