Engagement by academics is required on Wikipedia. After this profile raising, curious minds will go to google and search for context. The admins and moderators at Wikipedia are seemingly not as impartial as they would have you believe. But they do understand message board and search algorithms and with families at home they also understand search engine traffic will increase around these subjects. Over the last few days including Christmas Day there have been a number of amends made to pages on Wikipedia that have skewed otherwise quite neutral pages. For example check out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy
We need academics and any Wikipedia moderators to engage in these talks and also provide amendments to pages using articles, quotes and citations of academic/medical literature along with rationale so that these pages can be rebalanced.
Despite its shortcomings most people (and politicians) use Wikipedia as a trusted source and these pages do not reflect current thinking in dysphoria, rogd, detransition or any of the vital topics and research that demonstrate the harm being done.
Spot on Eliza. I feel so sorry for young women who have to deal with the consequences of these awful days of The Lingering Death of the American Empire. What a horrible legacy, to spew their special brand of misogyny on to the Western World.
Older women need to stay strong. Our feminism is inclusive of other women, supports young women to find their place, and allows us space to work with men to achieve equality. We need to stand together to keep the raft strong and afloat. To keep young women's parachutes packed and ready to go. And to influence young men so they treat our young women as they should be treated not as pieces of meat. 2022 should be the year we take back our definitions, our meanings and the words that we claim as our own. Let's celebrate our Hogmanays and New Years and gird our lions for a renewed fight to be who we need and want to be. Happy New Year sisters, when it comes (and to our male allies too).
It's time for an embodied feminism, one that is truly based in women's life experiences. I thought we had that in 2nd wave feminism, but it was perverted into a liberal feminism that celebrates every choice a woman makes as empowering.
When you write about second-wave feminism, you are conflating equal-rights feminists and radical feminists, and there were both. Needless to say, the latter were completely ignored by the media and few people know they existed. But WE DID EXIST! And we were very critical of the notion that feminism meant aping men and their patterns of domination and exploitation, instead seeing feminism as overthrowing patriarchy and all its anti-life ideology.
As a young girl who grew up during 2nd wave feminism I agreed with there were limitations placed on women which were wrong but I didn’t get a vision of what the alternative was. I wanted to be able to work in my early 20s but ultimately but wanted a husband and children. I felt that was demeaned by feminist as playing into male chauvinist ideals.
The feminist were pushing for day care, single motherhood, birth control and abortion.
There was talk of women having it all and doing it all.
heterosexual relationships were looked upon as part of oppression.
I don’t remember any advocates for long term maternity leave. (Years, not months) or any positive talk about women who wanted to be wives/mothers.
Maybe it was co-opted by other forces but just like today where young girls are told the “future is female and smash the patriarchy but aren’t given a positive vision of what that world would look like once those goals are meet.
What you heard was what suited the power structure. As one woman phrased it, equal-rights feminism was basically a group of sorority women pushing the interests of their class. "Having it all" depended upon the low-paid and unpaid labor of other women, which is not feminist in the least! There were women talking about long-term maternity leave, income support for women who do society's unpaid labor, etc, but those subjects did not suit the ruling elite.
What I found interesting reading Capital Volume I was that there were genuine feminist interests in getting women out of the workforce, especially doing the dirtiest and most dangerous work. Women were forced to work naked alongside men in mines, women and children were grossly exploited in many industries because they were cheaper. This meant women could not care for their children, which in my opinion serves society's genuine interests. How many women today would choose to stay home and care for their children rather than working a shitty job? This would be possible with income support, something capitalism has no interest in providing.
Why is it strange to you? A patriarchy centers men and places them in all positions of power. What radical feminists hoped to replace it was an egalitarian society, which I now realize is impossible given capitalism, militarism, etc. At my age I don't believe we are going to change significantly enough to avoid climate collapse. But one can still dream of a world in which exploitation and domination are nonexistent.
We did and do exist! We wanted equality for women and not compromising what we were to be more acceptable. We also hated the labels and stereotypes that limited us so much (which is why we loathe being defined by them now by the trans mob).
I know what you're saying but I'm kind of iffy regarding "equality." Equality is a vague term that covers immense territory, including the equal right to harm the planet, other people, animals, life itself. That's how I saw equal-rights feminism: the corporate boardroom is just fine as long as women are at the table; politics as usual is just fine as long as women are involved. No thank you.
TalkRadio, with another presenter who must have gone to the same school as the chap who thinks you can grow cement. I can't stand this format of interview, but Kellie is a natural at it and swerves around all the clumsy traps the interviewer put down with ease.
KJK has effective skill in cutting through the B.S. It’s my understanding that this media outlet is like Fox Network here in the U.S. The blatant hypocrisy is staggering! Really, just who is unable to see by now that this is a men’s rights movement? Great job Standing For Women, Kellie-Jay! Proud to be a member and the billboard! ❤️
I haven't watched much Fox News being based here in the UK, and some of what of seen is a bit "hmmm" - but at least they seem to know what a woman is...
I think everything gets compared to Fox, when Fox is quite unique and barmy in its own special way.
Both talkradio and before it LBC tried to learn from the style of AM talk shows in the US, but are constrained by OFCOM rules on balance. The result is a silly schedule of alternating left/right wing hosts trying to rile up their respective audiences. It's all entirely awful and best ignored.
I don’t disagree with that assessment. It’s just that their claims to being a bastion of free speech are rather ridiculous, seeing as how they display this kind of hypocrisy when guests like KJK come on! Best ignored, agreed. Glad people like her get themselves out there to be heard, anyhow.
Quick question - at the bottom of the page, there is a message saying this is a public post so feel free to share it. But twitter has implemented a new rule about not sharing certain posts and articles from so-called private sources. Does this count as one of those? I was forced to delete a tweet of a blog post from someone else, and I don't want to permanently lose my twitter account for doing it more than once.
Hi JC was the first post about David Paisley? He's been responsible for a lot of these reports. I have no idea what 'private sources' means--I think it's just another way twitter can ban people they don't like
Engagement by academics is required on Wikipedia. After this profile raising, curious minds will go to google and search for context. The admins and moderators at Wikipedia are seemingly not as impartial as they would have you believe. But they do understand message board and search algorithms and with families at home they also understand search engine traffic will increase around these subjects. Over the last few days including Christmas Day there have been a number of amends made to pages on Wikipedia that have skewed otherwise quite neutral pages. For example check out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rapid-onset_gender_dysphoria_controversy
We need academics and any Wikipedia moderators to engage in these talks and also provide amendments to pages using articles, quotes and citations of academic/medical literature along with rationale so that these pages can be rebalanced.
Despite its shortcomings most people (and politicians) use Wikipedia as a trusted source and these pages do not reflect current thinking in dysphoria, rogd, detransition or any of the vital topics and research that demonstrate the harm being done.
Spot on Eliza. I feel so sorry for young women who have to deal with the consequences of these awful days of The Lingering Death of the American Empire. What a horrible legacy, to spew their special brand of misogyny on to the Western World.
Older women need to stay strong. Our feminism is inclusive of other women, supports young women to find their place, and allows us space to work with men to achieve equality. We need to stand together to keep the raft strong and afloat. To keep young women's parachutes packed and ready to go. And to influence young men so they treat our young women as they should be treated not as pieces of meat. 2022 should be the year we take back our definitions, our meanings and the words that we claim as our own. Let's celebrate our Hogmanays and New Years and gird our lions for a renewed fight to be who we need and want to be. Happy New Year sisters, when it comes (and to our male allies too).
It's time for an embodied feminism, one that is truly based in women's life experiences. I thought we had that in 2nd wave feminism, but it was perverted into a liberal feminism that celebrates every choice a woman makes as empowering.
Kudos. This is brilliant. Thanks for sharing this here and three cheers - and more - to Eliza.
Excellent piece.
2nd wave Feminist need to also own how they what mens do the gold standard and womens lives drudgery.
They worshiped career women and downgraded women who want to be wives/mothers.
They talk disparagingly about menstruation, pregnancy, menopause as if they are horrible experiences only to be dreaded and eliminated.
What girl would want to sign up for this.
Unfortunately we’ve all lost touch with nature and feel we are all individuals beings who live only for ourselves and our own validation.
The idea of interwoven community and idea that without women there are no men and without men there are no women.
There has to be happy medium between society with no choices and one where destructive choices (gender id, prostitution, exploitation) are celebrated.
When you write about second-wave feminism, you are conflating equal-rights feminists and radical feminists, and there were both. Needless to say, the latter were completely ignored by the media and few people know they existed. But WE DID EXIST! And we were very critical of the notion that feminism meant aping men and their patterns of domination and exploitation, instead seeing feminism as overthrowing patriarchy and all its anti-life ideology.
As a young girl who grew up during 2nd wave feminism I agreed with there were limitations placed on women which were wrong but I didn’t get a vision of what the alternative was. I wanted to be able to work in my early 20s but ultimately but wanted a husband and children. I felt that was demeaned by feminist as playing into male chauvinist ideals.
The feminist were pushing for day care, single motherhood, birth control and abortion.
There was talk of women having it all and doing it all.
heterosexual relationships were looked upon as part of oppression.
I don’t remember any advocates for long term maternity leave. (Years, not months) or any positive talk about women who wanted to be wives/mothers.
Maybe it was co-opted by other forces but just like today where young girls are told the “future is female and smash the patriarchy but aren’t given a positive vision of what that world would look like once those goals are meet.
What you heard was what suited the power structure. As one woman phrased it, equal-rights feminism was basically a group of sorority women pushing the interests of their class. "Having it all" depended upon the low-paid and unpaid labor of other women, which is not feminist in the least! There were women talking about long-term maternity leave, income support for women who do society's unpaid labor, etc, but those subjects did not suit the ruling elite.
What I found interesting reading Capital Volume I was that there were genuine feminist interests in getting women out of the workforce, especially doing the dirtiest and most dangerous work. Women were forced to work naked alongside men in mines, women and children were grossly exploited in many industries because they were cheaper. This meant women could not care for their children, which in my opinion serves society's genuine interests. How many women today would choose to stay home and care for their children rather than working a shitty job? This would be possible with income support, something capitalism has no interest in providing.
The whole “patriarchy” term is strange to me. I never hear what will supposedly replace it. A matriarchy?
Why is it strange to you? A patriarchy centers men and places them in all positions of power. What radical feminists hoped to replace it was an egalitarian society, which I now realize is impossible given capitalism, militarism, etc. At my age I don't believe we are going to change significantly enough to avoid climate collapse. But one can still dream of a world in which exploitation and domination are nonexistent.
We did and do exist! We wanted equality for women and not compromising what we were to be more acceptable. We also hated the labels and stereotypes that limited us so much (which is why we loathe being defined by them now by the trans mob).
I know what you're saying but I'm kind of iffy regarding "equality." Equality is a vague term that covers immense territory, including the equal right to harm the planet, other people, animals, life itself. That's how I saw equal-rights feminism: the corporate boardroom is just fine as long as women are at the table; politics as usual is just fine as long as women are involved. No thank you.
Kellie-Jay Keen super performance on LBC!
TalkRadio, with another presenter who must have gone to the same school as the chap who thinks you can grow cement. I can't stand this format of interview, but Kellie is a natural at it and swerves around all the clumsy traps the interviewer put down with ease.
https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1476131289870778374
When Kellie has good answers, he has to resort to 'hateful'/you're not an expert/maybe you should be cancelled.
He hadn't prepared for the interview.
The cancelled comment is causing some hilarity as the station describes itself as "the home of free speech".
KJK has effective skill in cutting through the B.S. It’s my understanding that this media outlet is like Fox Network here in the U.S. The blatant hypocrisy is staggering! Really, just who is unable to see by now that this is a men’s rights movement? Great job Standing For Women, Kellie-Jay! Proud to be a member and the billboard! ❤️
I haven't watched much Fox News being based here in the UK, and some of what of seen is a bit "hmmm" - but at least they seem to know what a woman is...
I think everything gets compared to Fox, when Fox is quite unique and barmy in its own special way.
Both talkradio and before it LBC tried to learn from the style of AM talk shows in the US, but are constrained by OFCOM rules on balance. The result is a silly schedule of alternating left/right wing hosts trying to rile up their respective audiences. It's all entirely awful and best ignored.
I don’t disagree with that assessment. It’s just that their claims to being a bastion of free speech are rather ridiculous, seeing as how they display this kind of hypocrisy when guests like KJK come on! Best ignored, agreed. Glad people like her get themselves out there to be heard, anyhow.
He came across as quite thunderingly stupid. I had no idea who he is and can see why. His main argument seems to be but, but, experts say lady brain.
I agree with every word. It's a great article.
Quick question - at the bottom of the page, there is a message saying this is a public post so feel free to share it. But twitter has implemented a new rule about not sharing certain posts and articles from so-called private sources. Does this count as one of those? I was forced to delete a tweet of a blog post from someone else, and I don't want to permanently lose my twitter account for doing it more than once.
Hi JC was the first post about David Paisley? He's been responsible for a lot of these reports. I have no idea what 'private sources' means--I think it's just another way twitter can ban people they don't like
I'm not sure who reported my tweet - IIRC it was from either butterfliesandwheels or 4w, though.
Jesus, that's really disturbing. did you get a screengrab of the takedown notice?
Found the new rules!
"Twitter will remove images tweeted without consent" - https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59479688
I really wish I would have. If I get another one, I will.
Good article.
Can you have another go at this with a different descriptor? X