“This Is What a ‘Glod’ Looks Like,” says the Glod Majority Foundation

by FCM

for anyone who doesnt know, theres no such thing as a glod.  so, logicians use it as a placeholder in their own logic-based proofs, to make sure they dont accidentally add any meaning to one of the words, when they dont intend to.  for example: all glods are hooswits; all hooswits are whatchamacallits; therefore, all glods are whatchamacallits.  that is a logical proof thats TRUE.

this is a logical proof...and its TRUE

but heres one thats NOT true: all glods are hoosewhits; some hoosewhits are whatchamacallits; therefore, some glods are whatchamacallits.

not true. aka FALSE

and the above could be drawn either way, with the glods overlapping, or not overlapping, with the whatchamacallits, so technically it may be “neither true nor false.”  (does anyone know?? seriously. i cant remember).  but…if you are trying to prove something is true, you have just failed, if this is your “proof.”  thats my point, really.

confusing, right? i screwed these up at first, and had to literally draw diagrams to show myself where i went wrong (thanks miska and your bad diagramming self).

start adding in words that actually mean stuff, and it gets even harder to see where you have gone off the rails, and why.  for example: all blue things are bright; some bright things are shiny; therefore, some blue things are shiny…its definitely not true…but it looks like it is, to anyone who has ever seen a blue shiny thing before.  thats where we, as fallible humans, with a tendency to make everything about “us,” and our own “lived expewience” simply need some help, to see whats what.  thus, we have “glod.”

i love glods, and i love hooswits, precisely because they have no meaning.

but you know what does have meaning?  ACTUAL WORDS, THAT MEAN STUFF.  and the word “feminist” is a word, that means something.  dammit, it does. you cant just take a bunch of people that have nothing in common, and call them all “feminist” without defining what in the world you are even talking about.  for example, heres how i, as a radical feminist, see “feminists.”   they are, by definition, female assigned at birth; NOT ALL FAABs are feminists; and there isnt any other kind of feminist, besides the radical kind:

but apparently, heres what the “feminist majority” thinks constitutes a feminist: (note the lack of any other circles…that means theres no criteria for “what makes a feminist”. plus the rainy-day gray illustrates how muddled, and boring this all is)

and its pretty much what the fun-fems think constitutes a feminist too…with one notable exception:

fucking shit, people.  now, just so no one starts to wonder if i have a point…heres another example of a logical fallacy: all transwomen are women; some women are feminists; therefore, some transwomen are feminists.  AND THATS BEING GENEROUS.  since they seem to believe, against the great weight of the evidence showing otherwise, that *all* transwomen are feminists.  NOT.  their conclusions dont even follow from their own premises.  not that they have ever bothered to show that their premises are true, to begin with.  fail, fail, fail, fail.

and dont even get me started on “feminist” men, who, as men, by definition individually and collectively benefit from rape culture.

words have meaning.  “feminist” means something, and it definitely does NOT mean “whatever the fuck the feminist majority, a ‘feminist man’, an MRA or a fucking transwoman says it means.”  that is all.

a version of this post was previously published at femonade.

29 Comments to ““This Is What a ‘Glod’ Looks Like,” says the Glod Majority Foundation”

  1. A Feminist stands out from the FAAB community just because she is a feminist…..and when one declares one is a Feminist it is a radical statement……hence Radical feminist is the correct default position…..
    All other claimants are null, void and don’t exist……just plain fucking about and winding me up……

    As Radical Feminists we MUST have the power to Name ourselves everything else has to be re-jected…..
    A radical feminist is a FAAB radicalised…..

  2. What a great post. I used a similar idea in a poem about lesbians once. Prior to the invasion of Australia by Britain there was a standard syllogism that went like this (I think): All swans are white; this is a swan; therefore it is white. Valid but not true. It goes along with other mistaken ideas such as you outline: all feminists are women; this is a woman; therefore she is a feminist. This can be broadened out to: all feminists are women; this person calls herself a woman; therefore she is a feminist. Or even: all feminists are women; this person really wanted to be a woman; therefore she is an even better feminist. Of course, feminist by now has lost its referent and its meaning.

    The poem is in a book called Car Maintenance, Explosive and Love and other contemporary lesbian writings http://www.spinifexpress.com.au/Bookstore/book/id=37/

  3. These folks aren’t what feminists look like. These folks are what liberals and libertarians look like!

    Nothing like rendering “feminism” the most meaningless word in the English language. Who does that serve?

  4. im not an expert in venn diagrams, but i think these are accurate. i love seeing diagrams used to make a radical feminist point. it just feels right. 🙂

  5. Lolololol! Great post. I am going to start referring to funfems as glods now!

  6. Ha! this made me laugh so much (especially the my Nigel part). Brilliantly expressed. The diagram thing is so cool. I never think visually when I write or try to process something. I would get way too confused were I to try.

    I HATE videos like this. What the hell does the message “everyone is a feminist” achieve for women’s liberation? I can’t imagine one useful thing that could come from a message like that, and a hell of a lot of dangerous things that do.

  7. allecto–

    “I HATE videos like this. What the hell does the message “everyone is a feminist” achieve for women’s liberation? I can’t imagine one useful thing that could come from a message like that, and a hell of a lot of dangerous things that do.”

    Ah, but you miss the point! Point being, co-optation of feminism by mensworld…as expressed by womyn too assimilated to see the real point of feminism. A ‘safe feminism’ as offered to any womyn who believes that the ‘right’ to think, feel, create, achieve, earn, behave more like men in patriarchy, is one and the same as ‘being a feminist’.

    Point being, of course, that actual feminism is so essentially dangerous to patriarchy, and so it’s/our teeth and claws must be dulled, or fears soothed with fluffy lies, our rage channeled to manpropriate purposes, our vision filled with mensdreams which are YES, ladeeez! Available even to *womyn* now, in the Post-Feminist Era!!!

  8. Now that comments are possible, I can finally tell you: This is such a great post, I love logic! 🙂
    This just goes to say that glods will treat anyone (https://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/radish-news-fundraiser-held-to-bail-out-male-feminist-activist/ even an attempted murderer!) better than a radical feminist. That is whom the glods associate with rather than with feminists. Meanwhile, I really am too ashamed to call myself a feminist anymore because I don’t want to be seen as a glod. And now we have to reclaim even feminism…
    Some friendly reminders for the glods:
    http://noanodyne.com/2011/11/taking-back-feminism-a-manifesto/
    http://noanodyne.com/2011/04/a-feminism-designed-by-men/

  9. Honestly, whould they have shown prostituted women with pimps, it would hardly have been an exageration of the video. Next time we shouldn’t be surprised to see MRAs and batterers making a “this is what a feminist looks like” video. Men do everything in their power to prevent women understanding what feminism really is.

  10. @Feuerwerferin: I always thought feminism was radical feminism until I discovered the “feminist” movement. It’s only after seeing the funfem swamp did I discover that I was a radical feminist. Except that to me the only feminism is radical feminism. Anything other than that is patriarchal compliance. Whenever I talk in public about radical feminism I say feminism, in the hope to reclaim the word as much as possible and to dissociate queer/funfems from feminism.

  11. yes, exactly. Calling yourself a radical feminist is a strong political statement… because calling yourself a “feminist” actually means nothing at all.. I didn’t realise I was a radical feminist until I read some of the rubbish that was being passed as “feminism”.

  12. @ witchwind. That’s what I used to think too, until I got to know so many glods (I don’t know any rad fem IRL) that I felt the need to distance myself from them. But you are right, we shouldn’t give in. Probably, the idea that there are many feminismS should be rejected?

  13. The only truly radical act is to love women unconditionally and to make them your number one priority.

  14. Taking women’s studies classes at the University in Montreal (while I was doing a bachelor degree in sociology) is what made me give up on feminism at the time… Little did I know that it was all about liberal feminism then… What did I learn in these classes? I learned that sex work and the niqab could be empowering and that clitoridectomy was not to be overtly condemned in the name of ‘cultural relativism’. Why? Because feminism can mean anything you want (and, consequently, its contrary). Each woman can come up with her own definition/interpretation of the word, as long as it suits their needs. So if you claim it makes you feel good to be a sex worker and that it is your ‘choice’, it is feminism. I remember reading to women’s testimonies about how clitoridectomy makes them feel more of a woman, that it strenghtens their female identity. Well, that is just fine then, and we sure wont tell you that there is a problem with that or that you’ve been brainwashed because that would be, like, ‘thought colonialism’.
    Since everything revolves around individual choices and experiences and the interpretation we want to give them (no matter how twisted it can be), and since we cannot question a woman’s choice, because that would be, like, ‘imperialistic’, there would be no need then to look at the social structures that condition our choices as women. If each individual is disconnected from the group, then there is no need for a movement, no need for feminism.
    What was emphasize in my women’s studies classes was that feminism needs to speak for all women, that it must represent all women (and now, it seems, even men), including those who, consciously or not, work toward reinforcing patriarchal ideology (as long as you say you are a feminist). If feminism can mean anyting, than it does not mean nothing in the end. Being all for individual choice does not make you a feminist, that merely makes you a liberal. Feminism should and need to side with women who want and work toward ending male supremacy and patriarchal ideology/institutions such as pornstitution, niqab wearing and clitoridectomy, among other things, and it can not be the other way around. As already mentioned, true feminism can only be radical feminism (wow, we need to add the word radical to what should be basic feminism, but anyway, real feminism IS radical).

  15. @feuerwerferin: I’ve rejected the idea that there are many feminismS. It’s always been thrown at me whenever I criticise antifeminist positions held by women who call themselves feminist. The thing is that if they are around they do all in their power to silence radical positions, which makes any consensus or common political organising impossible. Our interests are antagonistic to theirs in every way: they further men’s interests in dominating women by refusing to criticise patriarchy’s institutions, while we want the exact opposite. For instance if I’m in a group with glods, I know I won’t be able to criticise any major tool of women’s oppression (prostitution, porn, PIV, twanz, etc.). And every time we are silenced it only serves and benefits patriarchy; their platform is at our expense. Glodism is patriarchy in dress.

  16. Exactly, witchiwind, when you read the apologist feminists it makes you want to puke…..and even further when they want to engage with the menz so they can have their say….cos the menz is silenced above the unholy throng of radical feminist policy??????
    \WTF?

  17. Why are we supposed to care what a feminist looks like anyway? Is it to calm the fears of those terrified of the hairy legs, clean faces, clothes that make sense–none of it intended for the pleasure of men? Where’s the video about what a feminist DOES?

  18. yttik– ” The only truly radical act is to love women unconditionally and to make them your number one priority.”

    YES. Thanks for saying this. It’s the main reason I became a midwife, actually. It was the one job I could have that not only allowed me to exercise my various talents/interests all in one job, but it was also a job that focussed on womyn’s lives, womyn’s well-being…where I could love womyn, make them my priority, all the while working to facilitate their greater self-love and power. Not an easy job, but definitely one that I lovelovelove to do.

    And YES, Kitty Barber–where’s the video about what a feminist does…how she demonstrates through her daily work and living choices her unconditional love for herself and all womyn?

  19. maybe we could call female malestream feminists “hoosewhits” and male malestream feminists “glods.” glods sounds like “blobs” to me, which is appropriate for the male type. and at least then we can differentiate by sex, which is important! i would much rather wade through a steaming pile of hoosewhit gobbledygook than a similar pile left by a glod. granted the bar is very low there, but still. the distinction is there to be made, and its not a small one. at least women are only capitulating, where men are flat-out manipulating, lying and spinning to serve their own interests.

  20. Yep FCM, I love your terms! It’s really important to always bear in mind that women and men never defend patriarchy for the same reasons. Women do it out of fear and from years of terror and brainwashing, men do it to maintain their domination over women.

  21. Mis-fit feminism morphed into post-modernism..that’s when all the confusion began to roll out in earnest..I was fed with the same stuff doing my MA and was pressed to include pomo into my research..I refused and changed supervisor..but to me it all startedbefore then there was in the 2nd wave a document that realed out about 20 different levels of feminism..we had no time to work all that out we just pressed on our own way knowing what we knew was correct…..it slit the movement…the thing that gets me is the lack of solidarity womon for womon…that to me is simple enough…womon for womon…fuck everythingelse!

  22. LOL It both slit and split the movement..that’s for sure..much like to-day…too much talk not enough rad-fem activism…

  23. Feuerwerferin: “Meanwhile, I really am too ashamed to call myself a feminist anymore because I don’t want to be seen as a glod.”

    Totally. We *need* to reclaim that word. Women (and men) who are working against women’s liberation and calling themselves feminists are giving *us* a bad name. They always say it is the other way around. That us hairy dykes are damaging the movement with our loud mouths and our bad reputation but it just isn’t true. A mouth that speaks for the rights of men and having “slut” or “good girl” as a reputation will do jack shit to change the world.

    Misfit: “real feminism IS radical”

    You said it sister!

  24. yttik– ” The only truly radical act is to love women unconditionally and to make them your number one priority.”

    YES, YES, YES!

  25. wait, whats the difference between “valid” and “true”?

  26. also, thats such a great point that its the fun fems that make feminism, and radical feminists “look bad.” that is absolutely correct and we need to say that lots, i think. 🙂 thanks for spelling it out.

  27. LOL. I’m seeing echoes of “gonad” and “horseshit” in your “glod” (MAAB) and “hoosewhit” (FAAB fun fem) and it’s brightening another bloody day living in the patriarchy, as did this whole post in fact. Thanks, FCM. Radical feminism really is the only branch of politics, thought, and activism for women with the logic to go all the way isn’t it? Your diagrams are brilliant in showing this. We really can claim the logical right to define “feminism”

  28. haha! gonads and horseshit. yes i can see that. even without proper venn diagrams, its possible to diagram thought processes when they utilize actual criteria and logic, rather than emotion and airy-fairy inconsistencies. i am still not sure some of the diagrams i use are proper venn diagrams, i think some are actual venn diagrams and some are just diagrams, (and this one *i think* is both http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/moron-slutwalk/). but the ones that arent technically venn diagrams (in the mathematical sense) are still useful as diagrams. i use them a lot.

  29. I confess, I’m a NOW member (because NOW provides the most feminist support and activism in my area, as there is virtually nothing else feminist here). Or course, I have many issues with NOW, but I’m glad it’s there. It’s better than not having anything at all.

    One issue I have with it is that I am really offended by the NOW t-shirts that say, “This is what a feminist looks like.” Because I’m a very plus-size, hairy lesbian with a clean face (thank you for that way of putting it, Kitty Barber), and wear sensible, neat, comfortable clothes.

    So I really appreciate your taking on the issue of this message. Thank you, FCM!

    The whole point of the t-shirts is to try to dispel the image of feminists as being womyn who look like me. Even though what I look like is an extension of crucial aspects of my feminism, that are intentional, feel natural, and I feel good about! I *intentionally* did not become bulimic to make-up for binge eating (caused by medically advised undereating to lose weight, which I’m still recovering from–a persistent daily undereating/make-up eating cycle.)

    I intentionally do not wear make up. For much of my adult life, I did not shave my facial hair, and certainly don’t shave anywhere else. I intentionally wear clothes and short hair that are comfortable, practical, and make me appear–and be–less rapable. I do not waste money on cosmetics to hide or distort my appearance.

    My feeling has been, why should I be obliged to wear things that men are not obliged to? Or dress or make myself up in ways that are inconvenient, time-consuming, or self-effacing?

    But sadly, N.O.W. has capitulated to all the hate mehn have directed at feminists who stopped dressing like objects. Womyn who respect ourselves, aren’t self-effacing, and won’t dress in ways that make us more rapable.

    It reminds me of when straight womyn finally stood in solidarity with lesbians by refusing to be lesbian-baited, and started saying, “So what if we’re all lesbians?”

    I wish NOW would take the same tactic regarding appearance and say, “What’s wrong with our body hair, clean faces, safe, comfortable clothing, and not making ourselves into objects for men?”

    Or replace their current t-shirt with one that says, “Women don’t look like Barbie. Get over it.”

%d bloggers like this: