I’ve Been Seeing My Mutuals (on My Main) Reblogging That “transwoman Transition Masterpost” Over

— p. 3-4 of the Introduction to A Passion For Friends: Toward a Philosophy of Female Affection by Janice Raymond

“Women together are not women alone.”

Although misogyny necessarily plays its part into the whole JKR debacle, I think the 'vitriol' as you said is mostly caused by the fact that a large portion of the haters grew up with the Harry Potter books whilst they haven't, for example, ever seen a Polanski film in their life. And JKR in a way could be a sort of parental figure to them. You know, as ~problematic~ as Freud may be, he was onto something when he spoke of one's need to symbolically kill the father; and the same people who practically worshipped the HP novels growing up had already begun dismissing them as child's play when the Rowling vs. Transactivists affair started. To quote another writer here, the issue crystallised at that point.

@helshades

It's so funny that you're bringing that up because I had this exact conversation with my man around a week ago. As I said in the tags of the post that prompted those couple of rants of mine, he's currently reading them for the first time at the rip old age of 35. A result of him giving Philosopher Stone to his pupils this year (HP so bad, primary schools use them to get kids to read, apparently) and making a point of doing everything he asks of them and that include learning all the poetry by heart, and therefore reading all the books as well. After finishing PS, he asked for the rest since he was surprised at how much funnier it was than the movie.

Anyway, I don't exactly remember how we ended up talking about JKR and the discourse currently surrounding her, but he made the exact same point as you, he mentioned how interesting it was that Freud might actually have had some interesting ideas hidden in his work somewhere in there, and that some people do need to "kill the mother / father" in order to grow up and leave childhood behind. I pointed out to him that it was rather obvious and blatantly observable all around us, but that, as per usual, people took that point way too literally, imagining that it meant killing your actual mother/father and marrying the other one so to speak; when a father or mother figure doesnt even have to be someone close to you nor someone you know at all - just a person or even a concept that shaped you enough when you were younger, that you are now feeling the need to "rebel" against in order to mature.

Which really goes back full circle to the point I constantly make when it comes to HP and how people are unable to read (just because you can decipher doesn't mean you can read, I will stand by that, always), and how really, most discourses and analysis surrounding it are people fancying themselves smart by what they believe is "deconstructing" something they loved in childhood, when in reality it's 8 grade level analysis (if I'm generous) and honestly just look like they're going through their teenage phase of explaining to mum why she actually sucks.

Still though, I'll keep believing that if Joanne Rowling had been Jonathan Rowling, there wouldn't be quite the same level of vitriol directed at her and that her being a woman plays a role in how confortable and justified people feel in robbing her of her achievement and devaluing her work.

Spiritual Paths and The Ego

Since the ego is a constant force of opposition in regards to a spiritual path and self-transformation, one often seeks ways to overcome it when beginning their Path. One of the common things that may come up is the “ego death”, but it is often misunderstood that complete ego-destruction is necessary. So I will explain a bit about what the ego is, some of its dangers to be aware of, and how each spiritual path approaches this issue. As a note, none of these Paths are superior to the others, as they are equal. All that matters is what your goal is for yourself, and how you wish to be when you die. 

The Ego: This is the Self, our own identity. Without the ego, we wouldn’t have any sense of who we are or what we want, so it’s generally important to have. However, the issue comes when the ego is inflated, which often begins developing depending on how a person is raised and their mindset. Some signs of having too much ego include: paying attention mostly to one’s own self interests, disregarding the advice of those who have better knowledge or wisdom on a topic, refusing to acknowledge responsibility for mistakes, expecting to have things handed to oneself, seeing oneself as more important than everyone else, unable to handle constructive criticism, and so on. 

We all have to deal with bad parts of the ego, but what matters is how we deal with these things and if we actually try to change. If your ego is too large, you won’t be able to go very far on any path of spirituality, especially since the deities and other spirits will end up leaving. So self-work is extremely important; make sure you Know Yourself.

The following briefly describes how each Spiritual Path handles the ego. Be certain to choose whichever you can handle, as each one will be challenging to some degree. The Middle Path is very challenging, but not as challenging as the Right Hand or Left Hand. And the Left Hand Path is the most challenging of the three due to its severity and strong value of transformation through Adversity. If any Path ever becomes too difficult for you, you are free to either change Paths or leave the Spiritual Paths behind all together if you cannot handle their challenges. However, if you make a wrong decision by thinking you can handle more than you thought, it won’t be the spirits’ fault for this. Right Hand Path This is the Path overseen by the Angels, not the way Christianity or other religions are, as it is most similar to Buddhism instead. This Path focuses on oneness with the supreme deity- The Source, and also strongly honours other gods as well, such as the Queen of Heaven. Due to the goal of oneness, this Path teaches an individual to undergo the Ego Death, which is the full shedding of the ego (self identity), so that the person can act as an extension of the divine plan, with no ambitions of their own. These people are extremely humble and serve others above themselves, and also praise the angels for their ability to purify and show mercy. When an Illuminated individual of the Right Hand Path dies, they either become absorbed into the vastness of The Source (like an atom), or they become a Bodhisattva, where they remain around Earth in order to help other humans leave reincarnation. 

Middle Path

This is the Path overseen by the majority of Dragons, who act as balanced sages. This Path is most similar to Taoism, and also connects very well with Hermeticism (although these teachings can be used for any Path). The Middle Path’s goal is to remain in harmony with the Earth and to keep social unity. It also allows someone to be spiritual and live a life with some human comforts at the same time; though because of this, one who follows this Path cannot transcend at death like the other two. Since the Middle Path focuses on Balance, the dragons and deities will teach the person to remove the toxic parts of the ego so that the person becomes humble, and will continue training this person to remain serene and disciplined. They will not be overly humble, like the Right Hand Path, nor will they be driven towards self-empowerment. There are challenges in this Path still, as the Dragons utilize Arenas in their training, but the challenges are not as severe as the Left Hand Path, nor is the ego completely destroyed (like in Right Hand Path). 

Left Hand Path

This is the Path overseen by the demons, who are the pedagogues of transformation, self-mastery, and dark wisdom. These beings are the most severe and will target the toxic parts of the ego in a variety of ways. Often, the demons will be blunt towards the individual, pointing out their weaknesses and arrogant behaviours in order to challenge the person to rise against these things. This is difficult though, since the ego will try to prevent the person from listening, as the individual will become insulted. This, however, is not a wise response and must be fought against. Truth must be valued above the ego’s wishes, and this will bring painful realizations. But by doing this, the demons will begin to respect you and will teach you further, testing your limitations until you break past them. 

As the toxic parts of the ego die, the demons will empower the healthy ego since the goal of this Path is to preserve the individual, allowing  them to become a strong entity when life ends. This requires many challenges over the years, with much discipline and struggle in order to change for the better. This does not mean they will make you like a god, but you will be empowered as a more evolved being. The demons’ wisdom must be listened to, as they can see your faults and how you need to change. If they are disrespected, the training will be jeopardized. So anyone who believes they are strong and disciplined enough to go through this Path is welcome to try, as they must enter the Arena of Black Flame and lose everything that holds them back, so that they can rise. 

If you would like further information on the three Spiritual Paths, please consider reading my post here.

My radical feminist starter pack

To Read:

Suggestions from the inbox:

MEGA PDF

More books here, here, here, and here

de Beauvoir: The Second Sex (1949) 

Brøgger: Deliver Us From Love (1973)

Burstow: Radical Feminist Therapy (1992) PDF

Collins: Black Feminist Thought (1990)

Criado-Perez: Invisible Women (2019)

Daly: Gyn/Ecology (1978)

Daly: Beyond God the Father (1973)

Dines: Pornland (2010)

Dworkin: Intercourse (1987)

Dworkin: Last Days at Hot Slit (2019)

Ekis Ekman: Being and Being Bought (2013)

Firestone: The Dialectic of Sex (1970)

Friedan: The Feminine Mystique (1963)

hooks: ain’t i a woman (1981)

hooks: Feminist Theory (1984)

Jeffreys: Beauty and Misogyny (2005) PDF

Jeffreys: The Industrial Vagina (2000)

Lorde: Sister Outsider (1984)

MacKinnon: Are Women Human? (2006)

MacKinnon: Butterfly Politics (2017)

Miles: Who Cooked the Last Supper? (1988/2001)

Millett: Sexual Politics (1970)

Moraga: This Bridge Called My Back (1983)

Rich: Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence (1980)

Russ: How to Suppress Women’s Writing (1983) PDF

Saini: Inferior (2017)

Wolf: The Beauty Myth (1990)

Wollstonecraft: A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792)

Please feel free to message me if you have anything to add! 

Completed:

Dworkin: Pornography: Men Possessing Women (1981)  

Dworkin: Right Wing Women (1983)

Solanas: SCUM Manifesto (1967) PDF

i know this may be an unpopular sentiment but I truly loath how so many separatists groups are firmly and inextricably entrenched in witchcraft goddess worship woowoo shit.

What to do when you don’t feel or look beautiful? Every where around me is beautiful women and some days I look at myself and feel I don’t measure up :/

Cultivate yourself in ways that make the way you look the least interesting thing about you. Read and learn, develop hobbies, pour yourself into friendships and craft and experience. The more varied and creative and entertaining your life becomes, the less and less it matters the shapes your flesh and bone make.

Who cares if your forehead has a line or two when you fill your days exploring the landscape around you? Who cares if your stomach pooches when you've read a hundred fantasy novels that take you far away? Does the sharpness of your jaw matter when you're laughing so hard with women you love that your gut feels like it's going to split? Does your calf firmness mean anything to the vibrancy of your vegetable garden?

Then, when you don't feel beautiful, think of all the things about you that are. Your knowledge, your kindness, your place in your community.

On your deathbed, will you wish you'd spent more time on your appearance, or more time pursuing that which you love?

Kept reading stuff about blood types and stumbled upon this from the Ascension Glossary. It's complex, but its pretty interesting

I found this document called "The Asexual Manifesto" and thought it was interesting in how it addressed asexuality amongst women in some 1970s feminist groups:

The Asexual Manifesto (1972) was recently found by Caoimhe Harlock on Twitter.  It is available as a pdf.  I have transcribed it below for better accessibility.  The format mimics the original, except for the placement of the footnote on the first page. The Asexual Manifesto was also excerpted in Shere Hite’s book, Sexual Honesty (1974); I have separately transcribed the excerpt and noted what was left out.  Feel free to use this in any way.

--Siggy, 6/22/2019

I wrote an article explaining some of the context of the Manifesto. --Siggy, 8/9/2019

The Asexual Manifesto

Lisa Orlando, Asexual Caucus, NYRF *

* In September 1972, the Co-ordinating Council of New York Radical Feminists formed caucuses based on similarity of sexual orientation.  Each caucus was to explore its members' personal and political attitudes about their sexuality and communicate these views to the larger group.  Barbie Hunter Getz and I realized that we would not feel comfortable in any of the proposed caucuses (heterosexual, Lesbian, bisexual) and formed our own.  Out of this caucus came a paper of which the “Asexual Manifesto” is a revision.  That the paper’s plural form has been retained does not imply that all the views expressed in this final version necessarily reflect the views of both the original co-authors.

I. Origin and Definition.

Our experiences with sexuality have not been congruent with our feminist values.  As our consciousness became raised on this issue we began to see how sex had permeated our lives and the lives of others.  We categorized our relationships in terms of sex ----- either friends or lovers.  We engaged in a "sizing up" process, however subtle or subconscious, with each new person, accepting or rejecting her/him as a possible sexual partner even if we never intended to become sexually involved.  We arbitrarily rejected whole groups of people as unsuitable for intimate relationships because we assumed that such relationships, by definition, necessarily included sex.  Often we chose to spend time with people simply on the basis of their sexual availability (the “bar scene”).  As we became aware of this in ourselves, we became painfully aware of how we were being objectified by others.

Asexuality is an outgrowth of this consciousness.  It is a concept we have come to employ out of the wish to communicate ----- not merely through being but also through language ----- our struggle to rid ourselves of sexism in our personal lives.

In this paper we have used the terms “sex” and “sexual” to describe any activity one goal of which is genital excitation or orgasm.  Physical affection and sensuality (including kissing) are not, by this definition, sexual unless they are directed towards the goal of genital excitation.

We chose the term “asexual” to describe ourselves because both “celibate” and “anti-sexual” have connotations we wished to avoid: the first implies that one has sacrificed sexuality for some higher good, the second that sexuality is degrading or somehow inherently bad.  “Asexual”, as we use it, does not mean “without sex” but “relating sexually to no one”.  This does not, of course, exclude masturbation but implies that if one has sexual feelings they do not require another person for their expression.  Asexuality is, simply, self-contained sexuality.

II. Philosophy

Our philosophy of asexuality grew out of our personal ethics, which have been reshaped by our feminist consciousness.  To us, as to many other women, feminism means more than the fight against sexism.  It means "sisterhood" ----- a new way of relating, perhaps a new way of life.  Feminist morality, at this stage in history, can only be defined as antithetical to the oppressive values of our society (e.g., competition, objectification).  On a personal level, it is reflected in our beliefs that: we should attempt to relate to others in their totality as much as possible and not view them as objects existing for the gratification of our needs; we must not exploit others ----- that is, use them “unjustly or improperly” ----- nor allow ourselves to be exploited; we must not be dishonest with ourselves or those we respect.  In addition, we believe that we each have the responsibility for examining our behavior, determining how it has been affected by sexist conditioning, and changing it if it does not meet our standards.

As feminists we had decried the sexual exploitation of women by men without seeing that we too had used others “unjustly and improperly”.  Interpersonal sex is not an instinctive behavior pattern; it is behavior we have learned to use for the satisfaction of a need (for orgasm) which we can easily satisfy for ourselves.  We came to see this use of others as exploitative and realized that in allowing others to use us in this way we were acquiesing in our own exploitation.

In our attempt to be honest with ourselves, we tried to determine what our real needs are.  We saw that we have needs for affection, warmth, skin contact, which we had been taught to satisfy through interpersonal sex.  As we began to satisfy these needs in our "friendships," our need for and interest in sex diminished.  We also realized that we had a need for intimacy, a state we had always seen as "completed" by sex.  In retrospect, we realized that we, and others, had used sex as a means of self-deception, as a way of avoiding real closeness rather than achieving it.

We had struggled against our conditioning in many ways, especially in terms of roles, but we had avoided examining the basic conditioning which had shaped our sexuality.  It is difficult even to speculate on the nature of "ideal sexuality" (uninfluenced by sexism) but we are certain that it would not occupy as much of our lives as it does in this society.  We live in a culture of "fetish-worshippers" who regard sex with an extreme and irrational amount of attention.  Just as many of us were conditioned to direct our energy into the preparation of lavish meals, creating a fetish out of a simple need to avoid confrontation with the emptiness of our lives as women, so we were conditioned to seek sexual satisfaction in convoluted and circuitous ways.  Since our involvement with feminism, our lives have been increasingly meaningful and we no longer feel the need for fetishes.

In examining our experiences relative to our values, we have come to asexuality as a stand and a state of being concurrently.  Interpersonal sex is no longer important to us, no longer worth the distorted and often destructive role it has played in relationships.  It no longer defines our relationships or in any way constitutes our identities.  As asexual women, we do not (1) seek, initiate, or continue relationships in order to experience interpersonal sex, (2)use others for the satisfaction of our sexual needs or allow ourselves to be so used, (3) attempt to satisfy other needs (e.g. for affection, warmth, intimacy) through interpersonal sex, or (4) perceive others according to their potential, or lack of it, as sex partners.  In essence then, our asexuality reflects a rejection of interpersonal sex as long as it cannot meet our conditions: that it be both congruent with our values and totally incidental and unimportant to our relationship.

III Politics

Basic to the liberation of women is the destruction of sexism, one manifestation of which is the sexual exploitation of women by men.  Asexuality is a step towards achieving this goal at the personal level, as it eliminates one means by which men oppress us.  Through our asexuality, we have excluded sex as a goal and, essentially, even as a possibility in any relationships we may happen to have with men.

Because of the patriarchal culture which has resulted from institutionalized sexism, the exploitative behavior, standard in such a culture, has made it extremely difficult for women to realize their own independent, more humane style of relating.  Most women consequently reflect, in their relationships with each other, some of the exploitative behavior patterns characteristic of our male oppressors.  One area where the oppression of women by women may occur is, again, the sexual; this oppression too must end before we can be truly free. Through asexuality, we have rejected sex as a goal in our relationships with women, thus avoiding the sexual objectification, exploitation, and oppression of our sisters.  Here too, we reject any possibility of sex unless our conditions are met, and we thereby prevent ourselves from being sexually exploited and oppressed.

To destroy a particular culture’s basic myths is to undermine its very foundations.  Patriarchal culture, based as it is on sex differentiation, has constructed some of its strongest myths around sexuality.  We believe it is of prime importance that feminism direct itself to the exposure and destruction of the current patriarchal mythology which, through deception, reinforces our oppression.  Those myths most responsible for the distorted role sex plays in women's lives are:

Interpersonal sex is essential since the sex drive is a powerful force in human life and, if unsatisfied (through interpersonal sex), tends to produce unhappiness or possibly illness,

It is important that any sexual excitation always and/or immediately be satisfied,

Sex is essential for closeness in a relationship, no relationship being complete without it,

The ultimate closeness in a relationship occurs during sex and/or orgasm,

The needs for physical affection and sex are basically the same,

It is almost impossible satisfactorily to express affection physically without sexual excitation also occurring,

Women who have little interest in interpersonal sex, or who rarely if ever reach orgasm, are somehow inadequate.

While all these myths may not be credible to all women, some women believe some of them some of the time.

Finally, we see a conflict between, on the one hand, the time and energy necessary to our struggle as feminists, and, on the other hand, the time and energy necessary to develop and maintain relationships in which sex is a goal.  If we would use our energy efficiently, a choice seems indicated: to struggle against sexism or to struggle for satisfactory sex.  Although it may be said that to turn one’s back on a problem is not to solve it, we think the truth of this statement is relative to the importance one places on the problem.  If we saw interpersonal sex as important, asexuality would be a cop-out; since we do not, it is instead a means of withdrawing our energy from an area in which we feel it is being wasted.  

We see asexuality as an efficient "alternative life-style" for revolutionary women but we do not claim that “asexuality is revolution.”  We call ourselves “self-identified women” but we do not demand that all feminists adopt this title.  Our statement is simply this: as a result of examining the nature of our sexuality and reclaiming it from the sexist misconceptions surrounding it, we are able to form and maintain relationships in a way which both reflects our values and is effective in our liberation struggle.  For us, asexuality is a committment to defy and ultimately to destroy the baseless concepts, surrounding both sex and relationships, which support and perpetuate the patriarchy.

My gripe with this perceived "God" stated eloquently.

I always thought about how the goddesses and gods of greek myths did not shy away from their almost human nature, despite being divine. There wasn't any justification in their actions. There was only influences like love, defeat, death, etc. These stories even showed these gods being unjust to the people below them, and I don't feel like I'm being told that they are right. Also, notice how the stories of every other culture are considered "myths", but the more religious doctrines that center a male god are considered factual? How would they know when these words have been altered and misinterpreted purposefully for centuries?

“The more we blame speech for violence, the more likely we are to use violence to stop speech.”

— Dan McLaughlin (via beyondthesleep)