Anyway, if you’re a radfem, stay the fuck away from me
Lmao, saying that while using radfem tags…
If you’re looking for radfems to block, just say so.
I put them there as tw tags, some ppl dont wanna hear this shit lmfao, grow up child.
I’m not the one fishing for attention. ♀️
Kinda seems like you are, cuz you’re still yapping like a broken puppy.
Nah. I follow the radfem tag. Your attention seeking post popped up on my timeline. I’m not the one actively seeking out attention here, that would be you.
And you got the attention! That should make you happy! :) But there are better, healthier ways of going about that.
I literally said “stay away from me” and you took that as an invitation to talk to me? Moron. I cant wait for yall to die out.
The discrepancy between your post and the tag radfem made me want to talk to you.
Also, I don’t know if you know this, but this is the internet. Unless you block, anyone can talk on your posts.
I don’t know if you understand this, but some people only block the tag “radfem” instead of the tag “tw radfem” that’s why the tag is there, sweetheart.
And guess what! You get to choose who you talk to! If you dont like my shit, you can beat it ❤
Anyway, if you’re a radfem, stay the fuck away from me
Lmao, saying that while using radfem tags…
If you’re looking for radfems to block, just say so.
I put them there as tw tags, some ppl dont wanna hear this shit lmfao, grow up child.
I’m not the one fishing for attention. ♀️
Kinda seems like you are, cuz you’re still yapping like a broken puppy.
Nah. I follow the radfem tag. Your attention seeking post popped up on my timeline. I’m not the one actively seeking out attention here, that would be you.
And you got the attention! That should make you happy! :) But there are better, healthier ways of going about that.
I literally said “stay away from me” and you took that as an invitation to talk to me? Moron. I cant wait for yall to die out.
‘women’ means ‘women’ - trans, cis, intersex, or otherwise
‘(perceived) women’ encompasses (1) women, trans, cis, intersex, or otherwise, and (2) anyone that others - radfems, etc - mistakenly perceive as women (nb afab, sometimes trans men, etc)
‘women and/or people presenting as women’ encompasses (1) women, trans, cis, intersex, or otherwise, and (2) anyone of any gender who chooses to present as a woman for whatever reason, not limited to genital arrangement.)
so ….
you know how I’m always on about radfem lite rhetoric? as in: people who don’t even like non-intersectional radfems, much less their subgroups (terfs & swerfs), will say this stuff without understanding the buried connection to radfem thinking?
the examples rainbowloli used are all that kind of rhetoric - or closely tied to it.
‘f-o-f, you’re trying too hard. it’s women looking down on other women for their choices because of internalized misogyny.’
well the funny thing is, nonintersectional radical feminism totally encourages (perceived) women to look down on other (perceived) women for their choices. The difference is only that:
radfem rhetoric judges (perceived) women for what they see as ‘catering to men’/’the patriarchy’ too much*
misogyny judges (perceived) women for not catering to the patriarchy enough(or not doing it ‘the right way’).
(*’catering … too much’ should be read as ‘doing something that might conceivably please men, even if it also pleases the (perceived) woman doing it.’)
In short: both radfems & patriarchal social structures try to control and police the behavior of (perceived) women.
That’s why radfem rhetoric can easily flourish among the unaware: the behavior it encourages replicates the behavior encouraged by patriarchal/misogynistic social structures. It’s only the reasoning that’s changed.
Let me demonstrate:
“Wow, I feel so sorry for women dating ugly dudes like girl you can do so much better.”
this is closest to internalized misogyny. In general, when a woman is seen as significantly more beautiful than her partner we assume the guy is somehow buying her affection, and we judge her for being bought off. that’s internalized misogyny.
But lop off the ‘ugly’ in the middle of that sentence and you’ve got word-for-word radfem rhetoric. ‘I feel sorry for women dating dudes like girl you can do so much better.’ because dudes are always hopeless, self-centered trash and women are always attentive, woke angels. That poor silly woman. she needs to find a good wife who will make her happy. Dating men is an act of catering to the patriarchy.
and no: neither misogynists nor radfems consider that maybe the woman is happy with the man she’s dating, nor are they willing to respect her choice to date whomever she likes, for whatever reason she chooses.
“I feel so sorry for girls who spend hours doing their makeup and they can’t catch a break from the patriarchy.”
as is often the case, there’s a grain of truth in here. Dress codes & appearance standards for (perceived) women in client-facing jobs are often more strict than those for (perceived) men, and certainly more expensive to maintain (jobs that require women and/or people who present as women to wear makeup should have to pay for it. just saying). Plus, those standards are often set by (cis) men who are in positions empowered to make those calls. There’s also plenty of internalized misogyny involved in the social perception that anyone who is and/or presents as a woman must maintain their appearance at a certain standard to attract a (male) mate, whereas men are seen as capable of attracting a woman via qualities other than appearance.
But the idea that all people who present as &/or are women are forcedorbrainwashed into a makeup & beauty regimen purely at the behest of men/patriarchy is both an insult to free will and too narrow a look at daily primping. Plenty has been written by others about how applying makeup often isn’t about men/attracting men at all. and men and/or male-presenting people are also under social pressure to meet certain beauty standards to be seen as attractive (though perhaps not to the same degree).
‘women are forced to do [thing] by the patriarchy/the only reason women do [thing] is because of patriarchy,’ where [thing] is something that women and/or female-presenting people choose to do for many reasons, is a radfem dog whistle.
The underlying assumption is that any (perceived) woman who says they do [thing] for a reason other than ‘i’m forced to do it for the pleasure of men’ must be a brainwashed victim of internalized misogyny; the only way to truly free oneself of patriarchal brainwashing is to submit oneself entirely to a husban– I mean, the radfem worldview.
And the third statement has the same energy:
“I feel sorry for women who enjoy [insert thing] because they’ve been socialized to enjoy it.”
Here’s another statement that presumes that women only do [thing] because they were tricked or brainwashed into it. Here, the word ‘socialized’ stands for ‘taught by patriarchal society’ - i.e. (perceived) women only enjoy [thing] because men & misogyny taught them to enjoy it.
and hey: our society is patriarchal. and hey: that totally does influence how women are socialized and how women think about themselves and others in negative ways. but this statement once again takes it too far: it posits that women functionally have no free will and are more or less mind-controlled by the influence of patriarchy into all their likes and dislikes.
If you’re having a hard time seeing the radfem influence, insert ‘giving head’ for ‘[insert thing]’, and ‘taught by men’ for ‘socialized’: ‘I feel sorry for women who enjoy giving head because they’ve been taught by men to enjoy it.’ because to a radfem, (perceived) women doing anything that gives pleasure to a (cis) man cannot possibly be a pleasure to herself as well. It’s impossible for a (perceived) woman to choose such a thing of her own free will.
And no: radfems do not respect that some people they see as women enjoy things that they find reprehensible or disgusting. instead, they see that perceived woman’s enjoyment of what they hate as traitorous to the cause of womanhood. These traitors - who are also victims - must be rescued from their own desires, even if that means screaming at them daily about how terrible they are and how they’re hurting and betraying their fellow women and how they’re harming themselves. (because screaming at (perceived) women about how terrible they are isn’t at all a carbon copy of the behavior of misogynists towards women.)
The takeaway is this:
When you see a blanket statement about how women* are forced, tricked, coerced, trapped, etc by patriarchy, men, or misogyny to do [thing], please consider whether or not it respects autonomy/free will before resharing or agreeing with it.
It’s true that patriarchy influences the lives of people of all genders, and that much of that influence isn’t for the better. it’s true that it particularly harms anybody who isn’t a cis man (and even cis men, if they don’t perform masculinity to satisfaction). but arguing that patriarchy robs people, particularly (perceived) women, of all their free will is a step towards trying to control the actions of those (perceived women) for their own good - and that’s gateway radical feminism in a nutshell.
I hate to make this go off topic but I think this whole thing gets amplified when the target of the radfem rhetoric/patriarchal shit are neurodivergent/disabled (perceived) women?
Already, neurodivergent and otherwise disabled (perceived) women have their autonomy stripped from them in too many ways to count, with one of those ways being that a lot of us get masculinised because of our difficulty to keep up with beauty norms, and feminised for any perceived “childishness” (read: we get infantilised, and then coercively gendered for it); one trend that’s been happening recently, however, is radfems doing something similar.
Research suggests that autistic afabs are more likely to be trans or non-binary than allistic people, and so there’s lots of think-pieces out there as to why this is the case, with the current big theories being: autistic people have less social restraint and are thus more likely to just do what they want; autistic people can’t relate to neurotypical gender roles; autistic people believing that their lack of ability to relate to neurotypical women, combined with tomboyish interests ‘convinces’ them that they must be men; and, of course, the “extreme male brain” theory of autism and everything that’s related to it (so shit about high testosterone or whatever). Generally we don’t know why this is, but it’s not actually a problem really?
Either way, you can imagine that there are plenty of radfems who do not like this fact at all, and are more than willing to lean on ableism to express this.
Most commonly, it’s expressed as autistic people being “brainwashed” by “the trans cult” into falsely thinking that they’re not women, with calls for us to be “saved”. It’s bullshit and relies on ableist tropes of autistic people not being cognisant enough to consent to…well, pretty much anything that’s even a little bit “adult”, but it also relies on this radfem idea of (perceived) women not knowing or understanding what’s best for them.
They’re using ableist tropes, but the attitude is just an expansion of shit they already say.
this is absolutely NOT off-topic, but rather another excellent example of how nonintersectional radical feminism is - well - not intersectional.
radical feminism is trying to intimidate & coerce (perceived) women to submit themselves to radfem control, just as systemic patriarchy is trying to intimidate & coerce women, perceived women, & those presenting as women to submit themselves to patriarchal control.
any movement trying to force people to trade one kind of control for another is toxic and dangerous - and like most toxic/dangerous things, it is most dangerous and toxic to people marginalized on multiple axes.
