The reason why puritanical feminism (i.e., the reactionary, sex-negative, anti-trans, anti-plesaure Mary Daly womb cult strand of feminism that emerged in the '70s) took off in the Anglosphere but not really anywhere else is because Anglo cultures are anti-sensuality whereas e.g., Latin cultures (e.g., Italy, Spain, Portugal, and their former colonies) are decidedly not so. (There does exist an "anti-gender" movement in Latin America, but it's a decidedly anti-feminist one.) I remind you that Mary Daly was a CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN and that Janice Raymond was her student.
>>42181895This is also why France/Spain (dunno about Italy) have better reputation for FFS than the UK. They care about aesthetics as a part of life. UK is pro-ugliness and shames any attempt to make things nicer as vanity.
>>42182093>UK is pro-ugliness and shames any attempt to make things nicer as vanity.True. Notice how the British royals seemingly never get cosmetic procedures (e.g., hair transplant) even though they're worth millions.The saddest thing about it is that British culture wasn't always like this. They chose this way of life. https://youtu.be/tWYxrowovts
>During my book tour in the UK, I speak with dozens of feminist, queer, and trans artists and activists. A new conservative essentialism is emerging among some young trans writers, according to which "transness" is a condition that can and should be socially normalized and should not involve any critique of the hegemonic heterosexual and binary system. Opposite these there exist also trans, queer, and non-binary activists less concerned about the specificity of transness and dedicated, nevertheless, to actively dismantling patriarchal and colonial norms. The former could be called "trans neocons", the latter, "anarcho-mutants". I can only side with the mutants, those who affirm the radical multiplicity of the living and the impossibility of reducing subjectivity, desire, and pleasure to categories of masculinity/femininity or heterosexuality/homosexuality.
>>42182206>Outside the trans and queer community and in opposition to both are those who could be called "neopatriarchalists", partisans of an archaic sexual regime -- sometimes calling themselves "anti-gender" in the mistaken idea that they are opposed to the notion of "gender", as if it had been invented by feminists, when in actuality it is a notion invented by the conservative medicine of the forties to indicate the possibility of *producing* sexual difference via hormonal, surgical, or pedagogical techniques, such as the treatment of intersex infants. [x] They defend the heterosexual family as the only legal reproductive technology, they oppose abortion (although in most cases they accept the use of contraceptives), and they consider homosexuality and trans practices as psychological deviations and religious sins. The neopatriarchalists articulate their thought with fragments of religious (Catholic, evangelical, Muslim, Jewish), psychoanalytic, [xx] or palaeoscientific rhetoric, remnants of the binarist and racialist thought of the nineteenth century, superimposed epistemic ruins that form a historical mille-feuille that they try to present as immutable and biological. A hodgepodge of cultural artefacts from the past that they are happy to call "nature", "social order", or "symbolic order".
>>42182219On the other side of the spectrum are the "binary feminists", a grouping that includes those called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, or TERFs: they defend the right of women to technologies of abortion, but denounce the use of any other gender technology (such as trans gender modification practices) as unnatural. They fight for women's rights to work and social freedom, but they denounce the right to sex work as a form of patriarchal oppression. They fight for the rights of women, but always within a binary framework. While opposing archaic forms of oppression of women in neopatriarchalist discourse, the binary feminist shares with them the naturalist definition of masculinity and femininity and the visceral rejection of gender transition practices, the right of children to gender self-identification, non-binary social positions, the right to sex work, and the broadening of the forms of kinship beyond heterosexual reproduction. Although neopatriarchalism and binary feminism seem to be rival ideologies, they are in fact discourses belonging to the same epistemic regime. Archaic neopatriarchalists and binary feminists oppose both the trans neocons and anarcho-mutants. Their debates, which recall the wars of religion during the Renaissance, are the gender wars of the contemporary paradigm shift. While some fight to affirm or deny this or that quality of "nature", as some fought to affirm or deny the existence of this or that quality of divinity and as others used to fight for the Earth to remain the centre of a spherical universe, the "anarcho-mutants", like Galileo, have decided to look to the stars and have begun to invent practices that herald the coming of a new regime of knowledge.-- Paul B Preciado, Dysphoria Mundi(The "[x], [xx]" are from some notes I'm taking in a .txt file, which I've copy-pasted this from; ignore them lol)
>>42181895>Mary DalyMy mum got me a Mary Daly book for Christmas lol is that what her book is about?? should I even bother reading it?t. Mtfrepper and she knows
>>42182244>should I even bother reading it?lol, no. read picrel instead.And get your mum to read picrel, too, as well as the following essays by the same author:"Cultural Feminism: Feminist Capitalism and the Anti-Pornography Movement" in Social Text, No. 7, pp. 34-53, 1983"The Taming of the Id: Feminist Sexual Politics, 1968-83" in Pleasure and Danger: exploring female sexuality, Ed. Carole S. Vance, 1984
>>42182322Forgot the DOI for the 1983 essay: 10.2307/466453
>>42181895It's obvious how wrong you are based on how many words you have to invent to try and rationalize it.
>>42182322>>42182331Thank u <3
>>42182345I didn't invent any words in my post, troll.
