I just want the women who fight tooth and nail to defend men to know that men will never do the same for them. There will always come a day when you’ll step out of line and become just another bitch/whore/cunt like the rest of us and the day they realize that, we can all finally go home
Worded perfectly!! You will never fully earn your way into the boys club. You may feel like an equal in their eyes because you’re a big tough antifeminist, but at the end of the day they only see you as a woman with a place. You’re a cool bro chick as long as you are willing to sacrifice your dignity as a human and belittle your sister women. You are not better than other women because your are more obedient. Other women are not less than you because they leaned to outgrow internalized misogyny. It is liberating to not have to constantly be edgy and hateful to other women. It is liberating to not give a shit about men’s opinions or approval.
Holy shit, could you be anymore sexist? You’re implying that women are friends with men not because they enjoy the companionship or have similar interests or simply like each other, but because they want to be “one of the guys” and have “internalized misogyny”? Who the hell thinks like that? This is a seriously unhealthy mindset.
Thank you. Men aren’t some oppressive force, they’re just people. I’m so fucking tired of being called “obedient” and “submissive” because I don’t hate men. I just want to live my damn life, male friends and family included. Fuck women with this mentality.
I just want the women who fight tooth and nail to defend Radical Feminism to know that radfems will never do the same for them. There will always come a day when you’ll step out of line and become just another dick workshipper/handmaid/tradfem like the rest of us and the day they realize that, we can all finally go home
i am sick and tired of seeing posts suggesting that both wearing the hijab and being half naked is empowering for women. empowerment is “the giving or delegation of power or authority”.
the meaning of the hijab and other muslim coverings is the very definition of rape culture and victim blaming. what power or authority does a woman get by wearing a symbol which suggests that she should cover her body so men won’t sexually assault her?
what power or authority does a woman get by wearing oversexualized clothes which are literally designed to satisfy the male gaze? none. both panders to male desires. both is the exact opposite of empowerment and female liberation.
you are not woke or intersectional, you are rebranding misogynistic bullshit as empowerment.
i find it so weird when misogynists joke about how radical feminists are ugly and can therefore not get men to like them. do they not realize that men literally fuck every living thing?
claiming that penetration is normal or supposed to happen because girls and women have vaginas is rape apology. it is implying that the female body is made to be raped, that its anatomy is justification for sexual violence.
it is an insult to women all over the world and throughout history to suggest they are oppressed because of gender identity. no one rapes someone’s gender identity. they rape and oppress based on biological sex. to contest this is ludicrous.
This is one of the most common constructions of conventional neopronouns; it is only one of many ways in which gender neutral pronoun options have been created.
Neopronouns follow patterns and grammar just as traditional pronouns do. They are a functional and valid part of linguistics, and are in large part created by linguists and trans folks especially.
This should be taught at every school
Lmao absolutely none of this gender bullshit was created by linguists.
You are not a fucking expert at languages because you made up stupid words one day. You are an idiot.
1. This post was talking about the pronouns, not even about gender. The pronouns were largely created by linguists.
Sources: see The Writer, published 1889, in which multiple linguists proposed gender neutral pronouns. Also see: ae/aer, used in 1920 for David Lindsay’s book, “A Voyage to Arcturus,” which later became inspiration for JRR Tolkien.
2. “Making up words” is not the only way op is a linguist; they’re studying linguistics & have been learning multiple languages since a young age. What excuse do you have? Are you a linguistic expert yourself, or did you come into this conversation with no background information in this topic?
Please give me the sources for how you know none of this was created by linguists. Because historically, many of them were & are.
3. This stuff was also created to help women, believe it or not. Many of these were in part created to have an option for generic pronoun that isn’t defaulting to he/him. If you’re a feminist, you should learn about the history of how gendered language affects women and enforces sexism.
4. How about you don’t call a disabled person an “idiot,” which is a word with both historicalandmodern ableist usage & origins.
If your feminism doesn’t include disabled people or gender-non-conforming women then it’s not feminism.
If your feminism doesn’t include educating yourself on women’s issues around language then it’s not feminism.
Anyway, if you’re a radfem, stay the fuck away from me
*tags post ‘radfem’*
Breaking news: moron doesn’t understand what tw tags are
I know how they work, but you must realise that just tagging ‘radfem’ is going to get you attention from radfems?
You must not realize you can ignore it?
You must realise you can not post in our tags?
Again, you must understand what trigger warning tags are?
I understand, you just don’t. They’re tags where you say ‘tw *thing*’ or ‘*thing* tw’.
You just don’t understand that because you want to trigger tag it ‘radfem’ then it’s going to end up in the radfem tags…
No radfem I’ve ever met in my fucking life has ever tagged their radfem bullshit as “tw radfem”. Blacklisting tags is specific, if you dont wanna see radfem shit you HAVE to filter out “radfem” dumbshit.
Honestly the amount of “anti radfems” who eagerly spread their posts, their articles, or their most famous quotes, recommend their books, praise them, use their rhetoric, etc…. it’s shocking sometimes.
If you want to claim you’re anti radfem, maybe you should look into what radfems believe, who spreads their rhetoric, what their rhetoric sounds like, who is famous among them, what works they produce, etc., so you can stop saying you hate them and never want to show them support while simultaneously actively supporting them all the time and gushing about how great or smart or wonderful they are?
I mean doesn’t it seem counterproductive to make no effort to make sure you’re not knee deep in radfem rhetoric before you share something while also saying you don’t want to share stuff dripping with radfem rhetoric?
I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to see a post that’s basically like “I support sex workers and hate swerfs and also here is why I love Andrea Dworkin and her explanations of why sex work is evil and anti women.” Which might sound like an exaggeration, but a lot of you “anti swerfs” really seem to love famous swerfs… And the same can be said of “anti twerfs” who seem to love transmisogynists…
You need to learn that something doesn’t have to say “I hate trans women and sex workers” to be radical feminism and that it often can sound like a really reasonable, well thought out, meaningful and deep analysis of society to the untrained ear that can’t pick up the tiny little signals that tell you a radfem wrote it. So train yourself!
And don’t expect trans women and sex workers to train you and do all the work of making sure someone isn’t a twerf or swerf for you. You have to pull your own weight here.
At the very least, look up famous radfems! Read a wikipedia article on radical feminism! Something! That knowledge would really help a lot of you and would make a huge difference for you.
Just think about it, okay? Because if we want to make safe spaces for trans women and sex workers, what is currently happening is not going to do it. So let’s change what we are doing. Okay?
this website has got to stop treating sex as something that’s inherently impure, dangerous, and disgusting
Funny, from where I’m sitting, it looks like sex is treated as compulsory, and even if you’re asexual you’re weird if you don’t at least want to read porn.
the thing is, these perspectives aren’t as exclusive as they sound at first
sexual moors are contradictory and impossible all the time. you can have people who are simultaneously aphobic and bigoted towards even the most vanilla of kinks. You have a ton of people who see sex as natural, inevitable - and therefore people who don’t want it as unnatural - but also as something dangerous, something that has to be strictly controlled and something that’s only morally ok in narrowly defined circumstances. that’s the dominant cultural perspective, but shades of it travel into queer spaces all the time, removing some gender barriers but maintaining the same fundamental “you must experience attraction to the people and ideas that we’ve decided are ok”.
It’s the classic “if you don’t want it, you’re a prude; if you want it, you’re a slut” catch-22, with a socially progressive hat. It’s not really a good situation for anybody.
You really nailed this description, thanks.
This goes with how radfem rhetoric is often essentially patriarchal and conservative in nature, due to being a re-skin of the authoritarian cultures its adherents were usually raised in.
the 80s was such a weird time to like be doing feminism. You might think you see some bad things on tumblr but like people were publishing things like this back then. The more things change the more they stay the same I guess
Love that you can just drop this weird sentence in a footnote at the beginning of a chapter as if that statement on its own doesn’t require like a massive amount of theoretical work behind it that is just handwaved away. Like a ‘realization’ is self authenticating evidence. This is like Berdyaev “this was once revealed to me in a dream” level citation but not even in theology.
I think mainstream academic feminism might have been at its absolute worst in the 80s
That would certainly make sense with how the people saying these things today are also usually anti-intellectual. Their shit is out of fashion in academic circles, so suddenly they think education is fake.
The Dworkin-MacKinnon (Anti-Pornography) Model Ordinance was written in 1983, and it defined pornography:
1. “Pornography” means the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words that also includes one or more of the following:
a. women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things or commodities; or
b. women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy humiliation or pain; or
c. women are presented as sexual objects experiencing sexual pleasure in rape, incest, or other sexual assault; or
d. women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or
e. women are presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility, or display; or
f. women’s body parts-including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, or buttocks-are exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts; or
g. women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or
h. women are presented in scenarios of degradation, humiliation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual.
2. The use of men, children, or transsexuals in the place of women in (a) of this definition is also pornography for purposes of this law. 3. “Person” shall include child or transsexual.
Note that this means ANY erotic depiction of anyone being submissive, would be porn. Any use of dildos or sex toys makes something “pornography.” Any focus on body parts, also.
The law also wanted to criminalize production of pornography: “It is sex discrimination to coerce, intimidate, or fraudulently induce (hereafter, “coerce”) any person into performing for pornography, which injury may date from any appearance or sale of any product(s) of such performance(s).”
The producer could be sued, even if the performers had signed a contract; even if the performer was paid, knew it was for porn, and cooperated with the production. This was intended to stop all erotic movies and artwork - if the models and actors could sue you, years after the fact, even if they were entirely willing - you can’t run a business with that risk.
Note that it also includes text. All H/C fic with an erotic component would be considered illegal pornography under this proposed law. (It did not become actual law, but anti-porn laws in various areas may have been inspired by it.)
“Any woman may bring a complaint hereunder as a woman acting against the subordination of women. Any man, child, or transsexual who alleges injury by pornography in the way women are injured by it may also complain.”
“ (It did not become actual law, but anti-porn laws in various areas may have been inspired by it.)“
it did somewhere in Indiana with the help of some christian fundamentalists (which is the first sigh you might be on the wrong track) but got struck down.
also, Trans-inclusionary radical feminism is odd to think about. it’s like “yeah let’s ban porn to protect women, but let’s throw a bone to trans women while we’re at it”
