Trust – the movie



28 February 2018



I’m so bloody sick and tired of men who assume center stage is for them. The way the movie ends, and most of the way it plays out, it’s about the dad, about how he can’t deal with his failure to protect his daughter.

Mom’s not quite so important, apparently, despite her greater empathy with the whole experience: not only is she too beating herself up over her failure as a parent, for, after all, she’s as much the girl’s parent, but also she must surely be saying to herself ‘It could’ve been me — at 13.’

And that’s what the movie’s really about. The real story, the far more important story, is about Annie. She’s the one who misplaced her trust. She’s the one who pays for it, with her life almost. She even says as much, but apparently the director didn’t hear the writers (assuming he chose the last scene and determined how it was shot, who got the close-up, who got their big face in the camera last…).

This movie should’ve been an examination of not only trust (what is trust and how do we know who to trust?), but also an examination of love: with all the shit we force-feed our kids (including the shit ads the dad makes), it’s perfectly reasonable and perfectly predictable that what happened happened (and I refer here both to what Charlie does and what Annie does).

Shame on Schwimmer for making it about the man.

See original post here:


“Love Me”. A Doc on how Greedy Males Profit from Desperate Males Looking to Purchase a Domestic/Sexual Servant


I watched “Love Me” on the Netflix and ERMAGERD. What a shitshow. This doc is a pretty good examination of how patriarchy functions on a global scale by use of the (male) economic system to keep us divided into the “haves” and “have nots”, with the majority of the “haves” being male, the poorest being majority women, and how males utilize financial power to commodify women for their personal use.

I am pretty sure that I already hear manbabies screaming about choice and about how poor women in other countries “choose” to seek out American males due to having no opportunities in their home lands and how dare a hairy, fat feminist such as myself question their freedoms! But these are the dudes that actually prefer a woman have no choice about anything, really, and coercion (financial or otherwise) is the ONLY way that they can “attract” a woman, and…

View original post 2,219 more words

Thoughts on a book called ‘Trans’ comparing race and gender identity

Reddit Gender Critical

13 April 2018


It’s by Rogers Brubaker, who’s a sociology prof at UCLA, I thought some people here might find it interesting. It’s not a feminist book, or a trans activist one, it’s very ‘neutral’ and mostly tries to attach labels and sociological analysis to the phenomena of moving across identities. He focuses on comparing Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal as test cases who were received very differently in the public eye, and then tries to explain what happened and the larger sociological circumstances underway.
In some ways, the book is maddeningly stupid. He mentions radical feminists who exclude transwomen as akin to nationalists who treat immigrants as second class citizens, and notes that there is no similar pushback against transmen in men’s spaces (not true – I think the second-class immigrant describes transmen’s status quite well among men, feminists reacted to transwomen at first as welcome allies, and then as an invading army). He also marvels at the fact that most transsexuals have historically been male and then concludes that utilitarian goals like seeking privilege therefore can’t be a motivation to transition – without considering that women were historically owned by their male relatives and lacked the self-determination to change identity, or that men might be motivated to leave (or forced out of) male competition and gender conformity, or have sexual motivations (including homosexuality) that complicates their identity formation or leads to a strategic decision.
Really, the book could use a good dose of psychology to talk about how we create identities and why. He also ignores the fairly long history of passing women who passed purely for utilitarian reasons, but did everything they could to blend in to avoid detection.
Despite those failings, it was an interesting read. He tries very hard to be neutral and descriptive so the reader can have a framework for making a critical analysis, and that was interesting indeed once you write back in all the power dynamics he skipped over. For example, he talks about the abuse of racial categorization by whites who go ‘ancestry mining’ and adopt their identity of some distant ancestor to either feel more special, or to abuse this information on college applications or to speak on behalf of other communities. He talks about the history of passing by people of color (but not by women), and differentiates it from passing for identitarian purposes.
I’d really like to see a radfem version of the book, because even as I was reading it I could see missing bits of information and analysis and I’m not a sociology professor. In some ways it highlighted how little people know about the current movement. Nonetheless it left me with a better grasp on a structured analysis for trans identities. For example, you can compare social structures that prop up artificial identities as opportunities for people to transition between those identities, since they already don’t represent reality. The ‘not one drop’ racial rule in the U.S. created a single category of ‘Black’ people who were in fact a vast spectrum of phenotypical expression. Dolezal could ‘pass’ as Black by re-creating a few physical signifiers that qualifies her as a (marginal but valid) member of that group. Very light-skinned Blacks could cut ties, relocate and pass as white – because tying people to a ‘drop’ of ancestry becomes undetectable on a practical level. The same opportunity doesn’t exist on even a practical level for dark-skinned Blacks to exit their classification, and we can therefore analyze the power differential and social impacts created by this behavior.
Similarly, the artificial and performative nature of femininity allows men to take on the signifiers of that performance and say ‘I am performing womanhood, therefore I’m now a woman’. In some cases, this can be compelled onto homosexuals ‘you are acting like a woman sexually, therefore you will be treated as a woman or non-man’. Meanwhile women face huge hurdles under the legal ownership of males, or the physical realities of their relative size or strength, or vulnerability to pregnancy. The impact of hormonal treatment, including birth control, and independent legal status changes the opportunities for women to escape effectively into male identity, what remains to be analyzed is the motivations to do so.

From here:


Dead Air Feminist Movie Series: Splendor in the Grass


19 January 2010

Daisy Deadhead


Yes folks, I am bringing my considerable old-cinema-geekery here to share with all of you.

I have written here before about how I often feel guilty for watching politically-incorrect old movies… and I decided it was time to talk about the vintage films that blazed trails for women, however flawed these movies might be.

The problem with labeling an old movie “feminist”: Invariably, something about it won’t be feminist at all, and may even be anti-feminist. Revolution takes a long time. A movie that might be revolutionary in one sense, can be incredibly backward and oppressive in another.

Thus, I offer the following series with strong caveats. These are OLD movies. However, feminists will discover that in most cases, once you start watching these, you will be unable to stop.

First movie in our series:


I have seen this movie dozens of times. Dozens. And I have some issues with it, but it is nonetheless the finest (only?) example of a movie that dared to discuss the constraints on white middle-class female sexuality and present them as overall negatives.Being a lady SUCKS, and William Inge and Elia Kazan actually illustrated it for us in no uncertain terms. The movie takes a stand.

The setting is the late 1920s in Kansas. High school kids Natalie Wood (Deanie) and Warren Beatty(Bud) (*also together in real life during the making of the film; one reason the chemistry just crackles) are all hot and bothered, but of course, not allowed to have sex. And that’s it. That’s the whole story–but what a story it is. What happens when kids are not allowed to have sex? This is the answer to “true love waits” and needs to be shown right alongside the fundamentalist propaganda.

Read the rest of this post here:

BIRTHRIGHT: A WAR STORY Documentary about Abortion and How Males Murder Us with Arrogance and Ignorance


“All men have an emotion to kill; when they strongly dislike some one they involuntarily wish he was dead. I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction.”
Clarence Darrow

I watch a lot of shit on the internet. And I like to talk about it. Usually, I don’t have an opinion about you watching it, it’s not my goal to get you to watch something that I did, but I do enjoy it when you watch it or have seen it and you share your thoughts.

This documentary is the exception to that rule. It’s a new one, it’s on Hulu, and it’s called BIRTHRIGHT: A WAR STORY. (If you cannot afford Hulu, you can get a 30 day free trial and cancel it at the end of 30 days. This doc is THAT GOOD.)

It is so good, that I don’t…

View original post 2,007 more words

Southwest of Salem, aka 4 Women Imprisoned for Hurting Male Feels while being Lesbian


Southwest of Salem, The Story of the San Antonio Four is currently on hulu. In a nutshell, it is the story of 4 women that were sent to prison because one of them hurt a male’s feefees by refusing to please his boner. It is a story about how males use their systems to punish women that displease them, it is about misogyny and lesphobia. It is about how males absolutely refuse to control their emotions or actions, and will just lie like a fucking rug, and keep on lying even when all evidence shows otherwise.

We get to know Liz, Anna, Kristie and Cassie, all of them are lesbian and Hispanic. Liz and Anna were a couple, they lived together and were raising kids together. The four of them were friends from high school, which wasn’t all that long ago at the time, they were all just a little…

View original post 958 more words

Book Review: Renegade Nuns

Purple Sage

Renegade Nuns by Lisa Jones is a novel about a woman who seeks answers after her sister’s death, and whose quest brings her into contact with a group of powerful nuns. The novel is both murder mystery and fantasy, and there is a third genre I will assign to it as well—it’s a radical feminist novel. That is, it’s a novel that describes male violence against women and the power of sisterhood in a way that only a radical feminist can.

The story of the death of fictional Riva Pine and her sister Becky’s journey to find out what happened to her is based on a true story. Jones’s real-life sister died the way Riva Pine did—from an apparent fall while doing yoga. As preposterous as it may seem, the police and the coroner declared it factual that she died from falling over while doing a yoga pose, as her…

View original post 619 more words

13 Reasons Why: How to Make a Movie (and maybe Write a Novel *) without acknowledging the Elephant in the Room



P. Tittle

8 April 2018

So I’ve just finished watching 13 Reasons Why (Netflix) and am struck by the completely unacknowledged elephant in the room.  Not one character acknowledges that almost all of the problems leading to Hannah’s suicide stem from sexism and its many tumours – misogyny, male entitlement, male privilege, hypersexualization, objectification, the rape culture, etc., etc., etc.


Justin – Being a man is all about getting sex, using women for sex, and bragging about it afterwards to get points, to improve your status (among males).  Exaggerating and lying about your ‘achievements’ is, well, standard operating procedure if you’re a guy.  ‘Bros before hos’ — even if it means letting your girlfriend be raped (because hey, what’s mine is yours) (and women are just property, after all) (otherwise, it wouldn’t even have occurred to him that what he ‘owed’ Bryce could include Jessica).  That said, (weak) applause for his eventual decency, especially given his relative-to-Bryce lack of privilege and the pull of moral obligation for reciprocity (albeit disgustingly overgeneralized, as mentioned).

Jessica – Men are more important than women.  One, getting a boyfriend is the most important thing you can do, being someone’s girlfriend is the most important thing you can be; your status, your value, depends on your relation to a male — which is why as soon as she and Alex hook up, Hannah is dropped like a second-class piece of shit.  Two, what men say is to be believed, they are authorities, about everything; when they open their mouths, truth tumbles out like little golden nuggets — which is why she believes what she’s told by Alex et al about Hannah.   Three, she’s a cheerleader.  Her actual ‘job’ is to cheer and applaud men when they do stuff.  (In fact, many of the girls in 13 Reasons Why are cheerleaders, and many of the boys are jocks.  A whole 90% of the student body is missing.  Why?  Give you one guess.)  (Actually, on second thought, strictly speaking, that’s not true.  Of the eight boys listed here, only three are jocks.  So why did I get that wrong impression?  Because they appear as a group, wearing uniforms.  They appear as a team, a gang, a team, an army.  That’s why they seem more … powerful.)

Alex – Women are to be evaluated solely on the basis of their body parts, on whether their body parts please you/men.   Again, (weak) applause for his regret and guilt, and his speaking up, but, yeah,…

Read the rest of this review here:

Blade Runner 2049 warns us of an impending future without love, connection, or freedom

Feminist Current

Julie Peters

10 November 2017

Blade Runner 2049 warns us of an impending future without love, connection, or freedom

The real message of Blade Runner 2049 is that objectification can only lead to dehumanization.


“Sometimes to love someone you gotta be a stranger,” Rick Deckard (played by Harrison Ford) gruffly professes over whiskey (that most masculine of drinks) after a rousing but nonsensical fight with K (played by Ryan Gosling), the replicant who thinks this hermit in an abandoned casino might be his daddy. The two men fit neatly into every stereotype we’ve ever seen of men in the movies: walking wounded heroes who feel their pain but hide it. In this case, K is a replicant designed to kill other replicants in order to prevent them from revolting against their human masters, but he really hates his job. Deckard abandoned his lover and newborn child years ago as a part of some convoluted plan to protect them, and he does not feel great about that. In order to have a genuine heart-to-heart and get to Deckard’s gem of a quote about love, the two men have to prove their masculinity first — they must earn this emotional moment via a violent fight. Only once they have expressed their chest-beating virility can they sit down and have a drink.

Deckard’s view of love is a sad one, but makes a lot of sense in this film. Blade Runner 2049 depicts a world so steeped in misogyny that the women are mostly either naked and helpless or murderous bitches. The men don’t fare much better: they march along melancholically, covered in blood and dirt, following orders. Some are human, born of mothers, but many are replicants, powerful bioengineered androids created for human use, made to look, act, and even feel convincingly human. This is a world where no one’s body really belongs to them, so loving can truly only mean being a stranger. In this way, Blade Runner 2049 does what the best speculative fiction does: it warns us about the dangers of the world we already live in.

Read the rest of this review here:


Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑