There is an article floating about the internet entitled “Radical feminism as psychological disorder.” It is written in a faux academic style, purporting to be based on logic and objectivity. In fact it does not address radical feminist politics at all; on the contrary it explicitly avoids them. Therefore, it should be dismissed as a propagandist piece slandering radical feminists as people without even paying lipservice to their politics.
The point of this post is not to prove the article wrong, (because that is easily done, and I shall do so in a moment) but to muse on the confident way that it has been written. What astounds me, constantly, is the lack of humility or modesty of people who are simply wrong in their facts. They’re not embarrassed. They’re not ashamed. They’re confident that they can write lies without ridicule. It is the intrinsic confidence of anti-feminist writing that forever fascinates me.
For example, men are supposed to be politicians and scientists. And yet anti-feminist articles such as this one have no grasp of political issues at all. Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender cites many examples of men who wished to see themselves as scientists who created endless shoddy experiments without any controls, whose hypotheses, once analyzed with a scientific eye, fell apart.
The article is based on Freudian psychology and religious text. It slanders radical feminists, declaring that women are in the movement because of personal vendettas. The truth is that it is irrelevant whether or not a radical feminist has experienced abuse at the hands of her father, because radical feminism is a movement based on evidence, facts and statistics concerning precisely who hurts women as a class, when they do it, how often, in which countries, how old they are when it happens. It also deals in other fact based evidence such as: precisely who is in government, supposedly representing us; who runs the food supply chain; who owns 90% of the world’s land and property; who are the world’s poor. We have data, and it is from this data that radical feminist theory begins.
That articles like this, denying the basic tenets of a fact-based political movement, can even exist at all is interesting. Through this kind of writing you begin to see the lies that are necessary to uphold the flimsy castle of cards that is patriarchy. The lies must keep coming and keep flowing, perpetually. Facts mean nothing. Truth means nothing. Andrea Dworkin found that men could look at a woman being tortured on film and they could declare that no harm was being done to her, despite the pain and bodily damage she was experience, because free speech.
“Because free speech”
And we’re still there, right where she was. Up is down, war is peace. Where truth tellers, scientists and analysts are declared to have a psychological disorder for stating facts, and those who perpetuate the atrocities radical feminists want to bring to light, are not criticized for having a psychological disorder.
This is called patriarchal reversal. It’s important to note down these reversals whenever we see them, and shine light on their dark spaces.
A quote from the article:
“Radical Feminism is a psychological disorder (psyche is the Greek for soul) because unforgiveness is a disorder of the soul. When a soul is trapped in unforgiveness, the person’s thinking is clouded and the behavior self-destructive. These unforgiving women are modern Medea’s, who will sacrifice their own children to satisfy their need for revenge against unfaithful men. “
I find it interesting that the article talks about women forgiving men. It almost reads like an admission of guilt. And so when people write articles saying radical feminist should forgive, then perhaps they should be more specific. They should hold up specific crimes and ask us “Do you forgive this?” They can ask “Do you forgive us for the millions of women we killed in Europe as witches?” and then we, radical feminists, can decide whether or not we’re willing to forgive.