silver-and-ivory:

xenoqueer:

I cannot even begin to explain how much the next sentence out of my fingers is going to make me want to cringe into an early grave but here we go.

Radical feminism quite literally looks at the structures that create societal sexism and misogyny and, well, reverses them. There is no attempt to dismantle these hierarchies and create a truly kind, nurturing environment for all people. It’s just a blatant shot at placing (white, cis, abled) women at the top of the hierarchy and moving (white, cis, abled) men into the newly vacated inferior position.

Complete with all the hypocrisy, paradox, and abuse that entails.

As such, creating a double standard where women should take unilateral control of their own identities to adhere to a specific and rigid construction of acceptable sexuality, but men fundamentally are unable to. 

Ugh. Ugh ugh ugh, I can’t believe I just had to define and defend “reverse sexism” but here we all are. These are the depths to which radical feminism forces us all to sink. 

http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2014/11/cissexism-and-cis-privilege-revisited.html?m=1

>Michel Foucault initially coined the phrase “reverse discourse” to describe the approach taken by gay liberationists who re-appropriated the heterosexual/homosexual distinction in order to forward the narrative of a homosexual class that was oppressed at the hands of the heterosexual majority.[4] Within feminist theory, the phrase “reverse discourse” has been used to describe certain strands of feminism that conceptualize sexism solely in terms of “men are the oppressors, women the oppressed, end of story.” (Note: in some of my previous writings, I have used the term “unilateral feminism” to describe this particular approach to feminism.) Reverse discourses have also arisen in other activist movements, where they are often described under the rubric of “identity politics.”[5]…

>Having come into activism during the heyday of third-wave feminism and queer theory, I was taught to be highly suspicious of reverse discourses for several of reasons. First, they divvy up all people into two mutually-exclusive groups: the oppressors and the oppressed. This move excludes countless “liminal” people who do not fall neatly into one group or another. This is why feminists who forward reverse discourses have such a horrendous track record in dealing with people who fall under the transgender umbrella, and why gay men and lesbians who forward reverse discourses have such a horrendous track record in dealing with people who fall under the asexual and bisexual umbrellas.

>Reverse discourses also tend to be highly unilateral, focusing primarily on that one particular axis of oppression, while ignoring other forms of marginalization that intersect with that “primary axis” (as well as with one another).[6] As a result, reverse discourses tend to depict the marginalized group in a homogeneous manner—e.g., by making claims that all members share the same perspectives, beliefs, needs, and desires—when this is typically far from the truth. Reverse discourses also tend to portray the “oppressor class” (who in reality are a heterogeneous mix of people who vary greatly in their experiences, privileges, and forms of marginalization they may face) in a monolithic and stereotyped manner. As Judith Butler once said: “The effort to identify the enemy as singular in form is a reverse-discourse that uncritically mimics the strategy of the oppressor instead of offering a different set of terms.”[7]