Hey. So I've seen a post going around where you say something along the lines of "how can you be a radical feminist and still be with me?" and I just wanted to say, I totally fucking agree. All these bi/het radfems are now whining and trying to make you out to be some oppressive asshole cuz they can't deal with their het guilt.

It’s frustrating to see radical feminists return to their libfem roots when it comes to critiquing heterosexuality. I was told I was victim-blaming, which is what radical feminists hear all the time when we criticize bdsm or pornography. Unfortunately, for many women, the class analysis seems to stop when it enters their private relationships, and all of a sudden we are talking about ‘choice’ and 'agency’ again, as if we have any idea what those would actually look like without patriarchy.

The other interesting thing about the 'victim-blaming’ accusation is that it accurately describes the state of things. Women in male-partnered relationships are victims, of abuse and rape and undesired or obligated piv, of imbalance and financial coercion, of patriarchy in the micro. There is a reason women cannot afford to live alone, there is a reason women, especially racialized women, make less money, there is a reason spinsterhood and women living together is derided. It is to keep us male-paired and dependent. Heterosexuality is an institution that must be analyzed, most especially by the women who are still pursuing it. As I’ve said before, any positive interaction with males upholds patriarchy.

Someone also mentioned, what about the men babiez! Not my fight but I’ve seen women with male children struggle with self-hatred, frustration, depression, etc, because despite their feminist influence, their male children are patriarchs. It’s heartbreaking. But instead of using their pain as a 'gotcha’ against critiquing heterosexuality, let’s destroy patriarchy and give these women options, and give our daughters options to not be forced to bear the next generation of patriarchs and sacrifices.

The weird thing here is that it was mostly bi women making this argument. So, they ostensibly already love women. But rather than taking their radicalism to the next level and exclusively pursuing relationships with women, they defend and defend their individual right to be male-partnered. The personal IS political. My comment that started this, something like “I can’t understand how a self-idenftified radical feminist could be with men” was in response to a post about why lesbians are hurt when bi-women leave them for men. Apparently I wasn’t supposed to reply with a radical analysis, but I live all aspects of my life as a radical feminist, not just my blog, not just my personal life.

I’m not saying all women should be lesbians, though I do believe any woman can. I think many women would actually bring a lot of pain and self-hate and male-identification to female relationships and that is wholly unfair to the lesbian involved, the one who has dedicated her life to women. These women have a lot of work to do before they decide to be with women.

It’s astounding to me that women can know all we know about men, male violence, patriarchy, and female oppression, and still believe heterosexuality is okay, you know, if she really loves him. We have been taught, forced, to love our oppressor. That’s what compulsory heterosexuality is, and it’s aimed at bi women and lesbians too. OP said, you can’t choose who you love, but I wholeheartedly disagree. You don’t love someone you don’t know, you don’t love someone before you dedicate a lot of time and attention to them. And as far as I know, radical feminists tend to spend most of their time and gynergy on women and liberation. So if you’re actively pursuing a man, learning all about him, what he likes and that he promises not to oppress you (unless you like it of course), then are you CHOOSING to fall in love with him.

Women who don’t spend any time around men don’t accidentally fall in love with men. Radical feminism needs woman-identified-women, not sisterhood until Nigel shows up.

Also, in my PM to OP, I mentioned that in my reply I wasn’t speaking about women who are financially bound to men, women who are abused, trauma-bound, in poverty, or perhaps married before they radicalized as one reblogger mentioned (and yes, you can leave him, even if it hurts him, because you are more important). I understand all the reasons women stay with men. They are as complex and varied as women themselves. I am dear friends with women in het-partnered relationships and both have said to me that if that relationship ends, they will never be with another man. And those are GOOD MEN (according to my friends). So all I’m asking for is a little self-criticism, a little less knee-jerk, and more class analysis.