I know long ago I did a post where I defended DGR’s radical feminist’s from an incident where they were labeled Transphobic by men, in order for men to physically hurt and harm them at Portland conference and be supported by many leftists. I reiterated their constructionist view of gender, and tried explain to leftists that because they disagree with their view of gender does not mean they are afraid of transgendered people. It spoke the obvious, confronted the obvious and easy. I even praised Rachel Ivey’s talk on gender where she talks about gender being sex-casted, exploitative assigned roles that harms both men and women.
From what I now believe in my feminist journey, I’m going to take this post to talk about all things I find wrong with an organization that describes itself as being the only solution. Maybe theres some of you who’ve noticed the same things that I have about DGR, maybe some of you think I’m crazy, but I have to make this post. I’be been waiting for someone else to make it, but I’m that someone.
1.Civilization is the root of all evil. Culture is responsible for violence.
Derrick Jensen puts all of the blame on culture and civilization for mass violence, sexism, racism, and the fucking destruction of the entire world. The problem is that we aren’t living like our ancestors and the indigenous, who didn’t have agriculture or cities. The problem is civilization’s systematic destruction of the planet, which requires theft,slavery, violence, importation of resources,and the conversion of the living in to dead commodities.
While this is true about the nature of civilization not being some advanced progressive culture, but just a highly evolved patriarchal society- it presumes that nature and non-civilized cultures are free of violence and are peaceful. That apparently in hunter-gatherer societies, and indigenous cultures men and women were equals and they all coexisted peacefully.
I find it intriguing that through Derrick Jensen’s various books he always manages to romanticize the indigenous and talk about their culture compared to ours, and that whatever they practice is positive because they aren’t civilized. Here’s an example, in one of his books, I think is was either “The Culture of Make Believe” or some other book I’ve read, in which he talks about an Inuit game in which men and women stand in a dark room naked, and men rotate female partners to have have sex with. Wow, how feminist, how equal.
While civilization is obviously unsustainable and requires mass violence and slavery, uncivilized cultures are not all that egalitarian, peace-loving, and in balance with the natural world. In fact I can’t think of one uncivilized culture that doesn’t have racism,sexism, violence, slavery, and rape. It is well known that throughout the indigenous America that Derrick Jensen steals wisdom from to push his own books and self, there is patriarchy, rape, war,racism and violence.
I’m not against indigenists are anything like that, but their cultures are not perfect either. I’m also critical of their so-called matriarchies, and so-called egalitarian societies where women are penetrated with needles and sold off to tribes to be domestic slaves. Indigenous cultures I’m referring to are the Dinka ( North Africa), Mbuti, Lenni-Lenape Indians, Lakota, and many other non-civilized cultures that primitivists, indigenists, anarchists, and anthropologists like to utilize as examples to push their philosophy.
I’m not saying that uncivilized cultures compared to civilized cultures don’t show better examples of human existence, and that these cultures aren’t sustainable, it’s just that they aren’t necessarily liberating to females. Yeah, male’s have way more liberation, because their existence isn’t based off of having to work for another male to survive like in civilization.
Here’s something, It may anger a lot of people, and I may get people talking about how I just don’t know what I’m talking about and how stupid I am, but I’m willing to take that risk to express my true thoughts.
Many men are drawn to the ideas of anarchist, primitivist, “egalitarian” and civilization free cultures because they are way for liberating for men than they are for women in a dramatic degree. The roles of women are forced into being their “natural” roles. Women are still forced into doing all the domestic work. Taking care of the houses, cooking, cleaning, doing all the childcare, and planting and gathering plant foods. PIV is something that is expected and totally forced for the majority of women to give. Women are sold to other tribes like cattle and men have total sexual access to women even up to marriage which is still practiced and meant to enforce the sexual/domestic slave role of women.
Men have way more freedom than they do in civilized cultures.They don’t have to go to work everyday and serve the corporate patriarch, but all they usually do is hunt together, go to war, and bond with each-other, while the women are left at home to do most of the work.These women are still in captivity to men, and they face very real violence and threat of death from men if they step out of heir highly socialized collective mother-womb goddess provider duties. This is clear in cases of wife battery in the Mbuti tribe, women being forced to get tattoos and branding to symbolize womanhood, and the institution of rape itself.
Men of DGR, and Derrick Jensen fail to see the real root of the problem is patriarchy. They have no intentions of scrutinizing their male nature unless they are talking about pornography objectifies women and makes PIV look really violent, and there is some difference when they are communing having intercourse with their partners instead of watching extreme forms of sexualized violence online. Porn really is male sexuality to it’s end. PIV, it is an act of violence, and these DGR men don’t seem to be interested in critiquing, and often misuse the words of radical feminists to make it see as if they understand that.
DGR men bash essentialism as if there is no biological causation for male violence, just to defend themselves, and protect their vision of living primitive and free with women as their slaves. A world where they don’t have to kill women as much because they can use kindness and the lie that women are free, and they are living naturally and wild to shield themselves from the truth that they are violent rapists.
Men use “male violence as socialized” to fool everybody, and to protect themselves, from the bare truth that they are naturally prone to be violent and rape ( and that’s what they secretly desire). It’s so easy to blame culture or other men besides men as a whole.And that’s why DGR men like Derrick Jensen will often say sexist things ( in his books when he rapes a woman it’s called love-making and communing, and when men do it on film it’s called fucking) and act out violently ( read Derrick Jensen’s enraged response to to the Portland incident) . These so called pro-radical feminists steer clear from talking about heterosexuality, romantic relationships, and the very basic- radical feminist understandings that all real radical feminists get, besides their pro-radical feminists selves.
To sum-up, the dudes blaming cultures for patriarchy, helps to distract from their own patriarchal agendas, presents the myth that males and females can live together ( have sex with men and be their partners [ emotional sexual domestic slaves]) peacefully, keeps men’s presence valid and in power, because there are no biological differences in men and women that creates their behavior. Ultimately canceling out the fact that women are superior, because men like Derrick Jensen could never live accept that truth.
These DGR dudes want a world where they aren’t wages slaves and they have total freedom,because civilization oppresses men too(!), but don’t see how they will just fall into the same violent patterns of patriarchal civilization. Their just a bunch of mandudes that want to walk around naked, check out the ladies at the nearest village, and kill squirrels and wear them as hats, being so free and in touch with their true “natural wild” selves ( naturally violent selves).
2.Female separatists and lesbians just don’t exist.
I don’t see how an organization that labels itself Radical feminist has nothing to say about, do with, or even consider lesbian separatism as a solution, or lesbians in general.
I see Lierre Keith as the token white attractive educated farming lesbian who get’s along with the radical dudes and stands their to make DGR look realistic, radical feminist, and intelligent. That’s why she never talks about being a lesbian, or the second wave’s critique of intercourse and separatism as a solution, just fronting anti-pornography and the ending analysis of feminism will automatically draw most transitioning radical feminists and women into DGR and believing that is it a radical feminist organization.
Why doesn’t DGR give shit about homosexuals and practically ignores separatism? Because DGR is not radical feminist. I’m sorry, fuck you guys who think I’m wrong, but they really aren’t. Men who support DGR get away with a lot of sexist shit, and whenever they get called out on that shit by women or even men, it’s horizontal hostility or “Derrick Jensen doesn’t have time for petty ‘attacks’, we need to be focusing on saving the planet”. Fuck that.
DGR practically endorses heterosexual institutions, marriage, PIV, etc. As long as it is sustainable. Derrick Jensen whines through his books about not having a romantic partner to fuck in the woods, but then seems honestly threatened when he has female “stalker” who has trauma bonded to him. He honestly doesn’t know what she wants from him, he’s that fucking stupid. Maybe it’s because you write books painting yourself as this nice good guy knight in shining armor and that women are safe giving you the PIV.
PIV is central to female oppression, it is rape and heterosexuality is socialized. That’s why women practicing lesbianism and separatism is a better solution because women don’t need that shit in their lives, it harms them. But no, DGR requires and demands that women put their attention and energy into men by still thinking that PIV and dating men is okay.
It just makes perfect sense that DGR ignores lesbians, and fails to critique PIV and sexuality. That’s what all the men in DGR are there for, they are just deeply dickhurt because other more honestly violent, capitalists, pornographers, and open misogynists make their chances for getting it harder because they give men a bad name.
So that’s why lesbians and separatism doesn’t exist in DGR’s manual of resistance. It’s a loophole that has tricked many women into putting their trust, faith, and love in men.
DGR doesn’t suggest that women resist male advances and contact in their lives which would greatly benefit and put them in a safer position, in fact DGR actually punishes women for doing this. According to DGR, we have to give men patience and understanding, and let the nice guy’s be your friend.
3.Constructionist gender critique.
DGR’s constructionist view of gender is just a summarization of the above points I’ve made about the male gender being socialized and the nice little lie that men and women are actually equal and patriarchy hurt men’s humanity too.
In my most famous post I went over DGR’s radical view of gender. That gender turns males into men, a dominant class with a dichotomy of self and other, and females into a subordinate class, that is passive, and subservient to male’s sexual demands and violence. Gender is a hierarchy not a spectrum, which is what differentiates them from liberals. While liberals think gender is biology is not exploitative.
The DGR gender analysis is highly against male essentialism. DGR never tries to analyze essentialist arguments and evidence for male’s behavior, and never brings up the case of male’s through other species being violent rapists. I’m surprised they can’t put forward a good argument against male’s as naturally dangerous, everything they can’t explain, or those things that seem to go against their premises they completely ignore.
DGR’s critique blames gender. Not males. Firstly, it proposes a dreadful and definitely male-tainted insight that males have a gender. Males do NOT have a gender. They encompass all of humanity, they can express any human emotion, do anything, and still be seen as respectable,valid, strong, lovable, and serious human beings.It only benefits men to blame gender instead of the fact that they are genetic mutations. That all they want to do his dominate and control women, but DGR men call their domination and control, love and protection. Can DGR even give examples of men who don’t rape women and aren’t violent? What evidence is their masculine constructionist theory based off of? What group of men in history have not raped and violated their women? What men have proven that they are human beings capable of all human emotions, and capable of treating women like human beings? There is more evidence to support men as inherently screwed up, than their is to say that this screwedupness is socialized.
Nice guys are still incapable of seeing and treating women as humans beings, and think they are still their property to fuck and reproduce with. Good guys can’t see that women live in captivity to men, and that in this captivity all treatment is automatically harmful and manipulative. Nice guy, is simply a man who is “good” to his property.
What DGR’S gender critique means for women is that yeah, their femininity is socialized but it secretly reinforces the idea that women should always be open to men and give them a chance. So why not say hi to them in the streets, befriend them, give PIV with them a chance he’s just convivially entering you, give marriage a chance, give motherhood a chance, men can unlearn their violence.
My belief that men are essentially violent does not mean that I think male domination and gender are inevitable. Males are natural aliens, and want to kill and rape. I know DGR’S critique of gender is heartwarming, and inspiring, because it gives women the hope that maybe men are good, but nah, let’s not distrust our instincts and completely ignore the second wave feminist understandings that have been given to us.
4.Too many unicorns
I’m guessing this new era of pro-feminists men definitely rose to colonize feminism so it can be satisfying to males. I’ve don’t believe in good men, pro-feminists, or any of that unicorn shit. Men only bring a parasitism to radical feminism.
Reading Derrick Jensen’s books always seemed to send me a feeling of amnesia, as if I’ was reading words that other non-white non-male beings have already said, things that I have already known to be true. I mean, the whole let’s rekindle with the natural world thing is big part of it, but the way he appropriates knowledge from women is unacceptable. And he discredits that all these human abilities to communicate with plants, animals, and the spirit world are practices stemming from females only, and that men have stolen them from women.
Maybe Derrick is afraid to admit, like all the other dudes of DGR that women are superior to men? It is this fear of female superiority where DGR men’s misogyny is most strongly rooted from?
I found the case of Aric McBay basically co-finding DGR and writing DGR, and then coming out of the closet as an actual misogynist surprising at first. Because DGR had brainwashed me into believing that men who endorse radical feminism, deep ecology, anti-civilization theory, and would stop a rapists from raping the women next door, would definitely understand the importance of having women only spaces and that trans people should not be included in it. I thought he would be able to grasp this basic principle. What realize now is that entire incident was a warning how entirely possible it is for men to be given so much leverage and support in this movement if they say they are Radical Feminists and exist on a terms of agreement that they have laid out ( porn is evil, gender is not biology,women are oppressed by patriarchy).
This movement is full of unicorns. If you go on their news website, you’ll notice that most of their headlines are done by men, not women. Men who think they can change male nature. Men who think they understand female oppression. Men who say they are radical feminists.
The only thing men can do to help women is to leave us alone . Get out of our way. Give back the things they’ve taken away from us. Stop stealing from us. And just keep your dicks out of us and out of our sight. Men trying to be part of radical feminism has traumatic consequences for women, and only expands male dominance.
5. Derrick Jensen just creeps me out
Sorry the dude just creeps me out. Having to read through his books and him making valid points about how men hate women, then doing something sexist and unsurprisingly non-radical feminist in the next chapter ( like calling birth control pills empowering), it is just not something any radical feminist wants to read because it makes you feel like he’s trying to appeal to your cause just to get your support. And it’s certainly something that makes women who are new to radical feminism on this male-inclusive misdirection from separatism.
Looking back now, I can see that Derrick Jensen doesn’t really understand radical feminism or patriarchy, and just uses women to make points and gain support. He’s just like all the pro-femdudes, say they are feminist, do sexist shiz.
When I was really excited about DGR and determined to become a part of it, I realized that would be practically impossible. I am a black female who’s lower middle class. I could not see myself fitting in with all the middle class white ecologists males who’ve read every Derrick Jensen and Daniel Quinn book. I fear I’d face the same alienation and hatred in DGR that I face in the real world.
To what I see DGR is mostly composed of adult white, native american, asians, and usually middle class males and females. As this movement doesn’t truly care about women because of all the dudes, I know it doesn’t give a shit about black women, or lower classed women. Which is why there are practically none in it.
Why does DGR think women of color would want to be a in a P.O.C. caucus? Do they not understand that women of color and men and color are not of the same struggle.
Just shit like this I can’t deal with. Like I just don’t want to be in an organization full of dudes, these type of people just don’t like people like me, and I just can’t risk having something traumatic and triggering happening.
i’m kind of a separatist
Yep i totally believe in separatism. I still interact with males, but I am definitely not their friends. I have no male friends, and only get crushes on females.
I’d only ever chill with DGR women. If DGR didn’t include men, then i’d definitely be interested in being a part of it.