i was basing my answer on what i know of the people who wrote for the journal (i don't know any of them, but know OF a few of the main people), and on how they behave IRL, more than what was written in the journal. but in both, these folks are perhaps more vigilante-ish than your standard feminist, but don't seem to be breaking any new ground.
(i will absolutely acknowledge that new ground can be difficult to recognize from a distance, and i welcome information that invalidates this assessment.)
this is somewhat relevant because the social scene around LIES was at least as meaningful as the actual journal/writing, and was fairly toxic (at least from the outside).
the main thing that stands out from this journal is the term not-men, as a way to isolate and differentiate something that is man (apparently mostly a cultural characteristic rather than a biological one), from all who are not-men.
at best possible reading this is similar to people who talk about whiteness as being a cultural indicator (or perhaps, an attitude), not a skin-tone or biological one; but race conversations have NOT been made better (so far) by the nuances of this wording, and i have a hard time seeing how either the practice of the LIES people (some of them, anyway) or the jargon, will make discussions of the roles of gender and power and bodies more interesting.
if anything they seem to be heading back to a pre-foucaultian concept of power, although not in so many words.
i should revisit the journal, probably.
(also, my answer was funny. funny is important!)
edited to add context.
