1. We need above all an ethical science: sado-dispassionate science has used the ideology of disengagement to wall itself off from ethics just as effectively as capitalism has done through the ideology of the private sphere.

    Both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ forms are inadequate for the purpose of integrating ethics with the attempt to gain knowledge of non-human nature.

    The technoscientific form is prevented from attaining self-reflective and ethically integrated knowledges, to the extent that interrogation of the knower’s own affiliations or limitations of perspective is inadmissible, along with ways to address ‘soft’ questions of ethics and responsibility.

    The softer ‘feminine’ literary paradigm which is often counter-asserted in post-modernism is only rarely able to break out of the limitations of enclosure within a human-centred epistemic idealism and use/mention confusion which makes everything thinkable into a human construction.

    Since each form of knowledge operates by different canons and tends to define itself against the other, integration to create an ethically responsible form of technoscience and a form of the humanities not dedicated to human-self enclosure is especially difficult.

    [Emphasis mine]

    Val Plumwood, Environmental Culture: The ecological crisis of reason (Routledge, 2002), p53

    6 hours ago  /  12 notes  / 

  2. petalsandbridges:

    More from a progressing prude.

    Read More

    <3

    6 days ago  /  10 notes  /   /  Source: petalsandbridges

  3. Quiz for my fellow radical feminists

    1. If you find out someone raped a woman, do you call the police without her consent?

    2. If you find out someone abused a woman for years, do you call the police without her consent?

    3. If you find out someone paid a woman for sex*, do you call the police without her consent?

    4. If you find out someone controlled a woman and took the money which others paid for sex*, do you call the police without her consent?

    5. In any of the above cases do you you support structures which cause the police to get involved, and/or give them powers to get involved, without consent and leadership from the women who’ll be at risk when the police inevitably abuse those powers?

    For fuck’s sake at least try to be consistent. You can be absolutely and radically against a whole range of different kinds of sex industry without calling the cops on women in dangerous situations or giving the cops extra powers.

    There is no “justice” system for women. The entire system is practically guaranteed to side with the rapists, abusers, johns and pimps, that is if the cops aren’t the ones perpetrating it already. If someone’s going to take the risk of involving the police - they’d best be the ones whose lives that gambles.

    ( * Sex, that is, as defined in a rape culture…)

    1 week ago  /  35 notes  / 

  4. transmisogyny and the broken chain

    baeddelambit:

    continuity is important. in a book or a movie, in a story you’re telling a friend, in solving a problem by knowing how or where it started and what you’ve done to solve it along the way.

    it’s also important to us, to people. our lives and our experiences and our understanding of ourselves are built on the continuity of one moment to the next, one day to the next, one week, one month; year after year.

    and i don’t think anyone has that continuity of self disrupted the way trans women do.

    external transmisogyny demands that we completely erase our pasts to fit within cishet narratives and standards—always with the constant threat of many different modes of violence as the punishment for “failing” to do this.

    and transmisogyny that we internalize (at least in my case, and in the case of other trans women i know/have known), we experience a great deal of pressure to not just edit our past, but to erase it entirely, to deny a connection to our selves that exist in the past.

    this is necessarily an incredibly psychically damaging process—it has been for me.

    but I have continuity. I have a past. I am not the person I was—no one ever is—but that person became me; through experiences, learning, time, and just existing because I have lived, I live, I will live.

    1 week ago  /  150 notes  /   /  Source: baeddelambit

  5. radtransfem:

Imagine (actually, you don’t need to imagine, I’ve drawn it for you) there’s a table with two plates. One of them’s empty. The other one contains a lemon with a bit of shit on it. Your free choice is between the content of the two plates.
Now imagine that, half an hour ago, a man walked into the room and took away what would have been the third plate. This plate contained a delicious meal of your choice. Before he left, he also put a bit of shit on the lemon.
Radical feminism is the task of saying several things. Some of them are, “hey that guy took your plate”, “let’s cook our own dinner”, “it’s okay to choose the empty plate" and, ad nauseum, “there is shit on that lemon”.
EDIT: And if you want more on shitty choices, I wrote in more detail here.

I have still never explained radical feminism better than in this, the parable of the shitty lemon.
My life will be complete when I see someone end an internet argument by saying, &#8220;Oh for fuck sake all I&#8217;m saying is THERE IS SHIT ON THIS LEMON&#8221; and linking me.

    radtransfem:

    Imagine (actually, you don’t need to imagine, I’ve drawn it for you) there’s a table with two plates. One of them’s empty. The other one contains a lemon with a bit of shit on it. Your free choice is between the content of the two plates.

    Now imagine that, half an hour ago, a man walked into the room and took away what would have been the third plate. This plate contained a delicious meal of your choice. Before he left, he also put a bit of shit on the lemon.

    Radical feminism is the task of saying several things. Some of them are, “hey that guy took your plate”, “let’s cook our own dinner”, “it’s okay to choose the empty plate" and, ad nauseum, “there is shit on that lemon”.

    EDIT: And if you want more on shitty choices, I wrote in more detail here.

    I have still never explained radical feminism better than in this, the parable of the shitty lemon.

    My life will be complete when I see someone end an internet argument by saying, “Oh for fuck sake all I’m saying is THERE IS SHIT ON THIS LEMON” and linking me.

    2 weeks ago  /  109 notes  /   /  Source: radtransfem

  6. You have to be prepared, then, to be not just unattractive but actually sexually repulsive to most men, perhaps including all the men you currently admire.
    – Dara Densmore, On Celibacy

    2 weeks ago  /  31 notes  / 

  7. That devastating rejection is absolutely inevitable. If you are serious and men realize it they will cease being attracted to you.

    If you don’t play the game, the role, you are not a woman and they will NOT be attracted. You will be sexless and worse, unnatural and threatening.

    You will be feared and despised and viciously maligned, all by men you know perfectly well you could charm utterly and wrap around your finger just by falling into the female role, even by men who have worshipped you in the past.

    How is that possible? Obviously, because they never were worshipping you. That’s the bitter truth, and you’d better catch on now.

    Dara Densmore, On Celibacy

    I’ve linked this before but it’s too good not to post again!

    2 weeks ago  /  172 notes  / 

  8. Reproductive Justice necessarily involves challenging discourses and policies that construct migrant women and their children as a threat, as well as the notions of national identity and belonging that exist in a dialectical relationship with said discourses and policies. Doing so will involve contesting immigration controls and policies, as these too are both informed by, and inform, ideas of national identity and belonging.
    – Gwyneth Lonergan, Reproductive Justice and Migrant Women in Great Britain, in Women: A Cultural Review, 23:1, p41

    2 weeks ago  /  10 notes  /