EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]

And this kind of identity-only criticism can be used upside down by reactionary forces, which basically reinforces the idea around men that feminism is only about hating men, and not about how patriarchy negatively affects all our lives. And we also have the reverse of anti-men identity politics movement, with anti-women identity politics by incels and red pills, which itself is a reaction against liberal feminism.

This is just victim blaming, it’s not even remotely useful commentary. Women do not have to be perfect paragons of social justice who must do all the emotional labour in the world so that men can’t twist their words. There is no sincere misandrist movement anywhere and feminism is in no way to blame for incels. Again, this is just victim blaming.

The other problem regarding this type of politics, is that it isn’t actionable. Yes, men are terrible, but can you get rid of them? Is it a desirable thing to have a society with women-only? What are you going to do with the existing men? Are they just going to disappear?

This is where both your comment and your thought process should have started. Valerie Solanas is maybe one of the only thinkers to take this line of reasoning to its conclusion, and her writing is incredibly revealing with regards to why it’s an inherently flawed standpoint.

That’s not what they’re like at all. Poles are like this.

Being disabled is super fun because I get all the alienation and none of the capital.

Very plausibly the Soviet Union would still exist without the Sino-Soviet split.