Radical feminist and self-described "femme dyke" Tori Truscheit is calling on her counterparts to "reclaim" their title as "man-hating dykes."
No longer should lesbian feminists hold back their anti-man rage (apparently they have been holding back their rage), but instead rid themselves of the deeply-entrenched grips of The Patriarchy and hate on men as openly and as hard as they can.
"'Man-hating dyke' is the worst thing you can call a lesbian. But in the #MeToo era, it's time to reclaim it," Truscheit writes at Slate.
According to the feminist, "Most men treat women like something less than human, whether accidentally or on purpose, and that means it's hard to like them." Additionally, some of her male co-workers' #MeToo jokes were "enough to make me want to stop talking to men entirely."
You see, it's okay to be all man-hatey based off bad personal experience with "most men" — they deserve it. To be clear: stereotyping and prejudice is good when it comes to men.
Truscheit argues that the term "man-hating dyke" and all its connotations have really held back women from being full-blown "man-hating dykes." Even though she's a married lesbian, she says, she still feels aversion to the term because she seeks men's approval, which is a symptom of the deep tentacles of The Patriarchy:
Patriarchy runs so deep that I defend hypothetical men’s feelings right away, even to myself. I am a married lesbian, as far away from needing male approval as a woman can get, and I still feel it, the slow poisonous drip of cultural conditioning that tells me to prioritize men. My imagination, that thing that could break us out of American fascism, is trapped in an old feminist loop, because I’ve been trained that the worst thing I can be is a man-hating dyke.
But you need to shake that "cultural conditioning," girlfriend.
"[I]t's time to confront the latent homophobia in that insult and our fear that anger makes us seem too gay. Because anger, not fear, is precisely the emotion that’s needed these days," she writes.
And if you thought this was some inclusive feminist call to action, you'd be mistaken. No "straight cis white women" allowed (though biologically male transgender "women" are, of course).
"When straight cis white women talk about anger, it’s sexy resistance fuel," Truscheit writes. "When straight cis black women get angry, they get caricatured and punished. When cis lesbians talk about anger, we get Rosie O’Donnell’d, used as a shield for misogyny, since men know other women won’t defend us."
"Dykes," says Truscheit, have always carried the emotional burden of expressing the rage of all women against men "that straight women can’t express."
"Dyke anger is the difference between gay assimilation and queer radicalism, and we are punished for it socially: Why do you have to be such a killjoy? Can’t you leave your politics at home?" she complains.
"We’ve reclaimed 'witch' and 'queer' and 'dyke,'" Truscheit posits, and now it's time to "get the misogyny out of our own heads" and indulge in the "man-hating" label, which apparently encompasses "white men" and their "white women" enablers:
Men have to learn what it feels like when we stop protecting them, and we have to stop seeking male approval. We have to name who’s perpetrating violence against cis and trans women in this country: It’s white men, with the white women who are invested in patriarchy along for the ride. We need to quiet the last of those self-censoring voices. Reimagining something bigger than resistance, in Michelle Alexander’s terms, requires us to get beyond that fear of male approval. Once we do, we can be a source of massive, radical power, and straight women would do well to follow our lead.
Of course, the most amazing thing about the completely hate-filled and unhinged piece is that Truscheit expects us to believe hardcore feminists like her have ever abandoned or distanced themselves from being man-hatey in the first place.
We think your title is safe already.