#YOU PROBABLY ARE A RADICAL FEMINIST

[slimywren]

i will never forgive the internet for what its allowed terfs to do to radical feminism

[womendeservehumanity]

When will women wake up? When will they stop with the incessant coping? That it’s just a few bad apples that hate women. The vast majority of men vehemently hate women. They show it both on and offline. More overtly online though. And the amount of likes for all of these posts (all of which are from gimmick accounts with 10-100k+ followers dedicated to hating women) shows that. Men do not see us as human beings. Straight men’s interest and attraction to women starts and end with sexual gratification. And there’s no reason to even explain this to other women as if it’s some hidden truth. They will literally tell you. They will get online and tell you they aren’t emotionally and romantically interested in women. That the concept of actually caring for and loving a woman is foreign to them. That you’re a sex doll and a set of holes to them.

Like who needs feminist theory to dissect all the ways in which misogyny manifests when it seems men are doing everything in their power to show women how much they fucking collectively hate us. Even blatantly regarding us as holes and sex dolls.

Also find it so interesting that these are tweets with millions of views but so called progressive twitter NEVER sees them or condemns them and instead opt to give attention to some random radfem with 300 followers saying men bad. THATS what’s a pressing issue to them. THATS proof that misandry is as prevalent and troublesome as misogyny meanwhile this is what women are subjected to.

[cherryvampyre]

I emailed my local witchcraft store where they got their crystals from & if it was ethical (did you know the taliban gets 300 million a year from lapis mining?), it’s been a week & they haven’t responded so i’m assuming it’s probably not very good … need to find new store lol

[sunnist4rs]

Tw Rant

I hate how the TRAs have to take over everything and make it about their stupid message. I’ve been a huge Greek Mythology fan all my life and Telemachus has been my favourite character ever for years and years (and years).

Personally I love Epic the musical, I think it’s a funny adaptation of my favourite book but in Different Beast (my fave song from Epic but it’s being ruined) Odysseus sings ‘I don’t have a daughter’. This is perfectly fine in context but the Tras have started using it to joke about trans!Telemachus.

At first I ignored this but they’re still talking about it, drawing art about it and now they’ve started saying ‘this is the modernised Odyssey’. I even saw people saying it’s transphobic not to headcannon Telemachus this way. It’s so annoying seeing them take a character like Telemachus who I’ve cared about before some of these people learn the alphabet and turn him into some annoying as trans ally.

I have plushys named after this guy (parents didn’t let me name our dog after him), see him as the ideal (and only good tbh) man and he’s just generally my comfort character. I don’t want to associate him with the removal of woman’s rights and the disfigurement (idk if that’s the right word so sorry if it’s mean) of children. It sucks that they have to go and trash everything without knowing anything about the source material.

[spiderfreedom]

not gonna effortpost about this today because I gotta get work done but real short

I notice this argument being used all the time: "you can't make a definition of 'woman' that does not exclude some people that we call women. therefore, the only good definition for 'women' that includes all people we call woman is 'people who identify as woman.'"

and the thing is, philosophically, "you can't make a definition of {thing} that does not exclude some examples we also call {thing}" is something that applies to almost every category! it's literally a whole philosophical problem of "what is the definition of a chair?" didn't we have a whole meme about how nobody can even agree on what a sandwich is?

it's not something unique to women, tables, horses, sandwiches, salads, or anything else. it is a problem of language itself.

you can apply the exact same argument to other categories: "how do you define 'blackness' without excluding some people we call 'black'?" if you're american, maybe you will use the one-drop rule, in which case halsey is black and anyone who had a single black ancestor four generations ago. but is that actually how we use the word black? does that capture something meaningful about being black in america? how about being black in the world?

let's go further: "how do you define 'transgender' without excluding some people we call 'transgender'?" within the transgender community, there is no real agreement on what it means to be transgender! beyond a vague sense of "identifying as the gender society assigned to you", but even that can be challenged. if a cis (female) woman takes testosterone, starts hanging around trans women, calling herself a trans woman, is confused for a trans woman by the people that she talks to, experiences oppression on the basis of being perceived as a trans woman... can she be considered a trans woman, despite being female?

ultimately "how do you define things" is a philosophy of language question more than anything else. perfect definitions that encapsulate sets neatly do not exist, because the terms we use are socially contingent. when people came up with the word 'table', they didn't also create a logically rigorous definition for it. they just said 'well, this thing here is a table.' and then people argue about the edge cases. because also, nobody actually agrees on the members of sets of every single word!! just like how we all have different ideas of what is and isn't a sandwich!

that's the other thing, people already disagree about what words refer to. someone who has the 5ARD intersex condition has testes but may be raised and socialized as girl because their parents think their genitals kinda look like a vulva. is this person a 'girl/woman'? people are not sure... which makes sense... because it is an edge case. is a stool a chair? is a hotdog a sandwich? is an open sandwich a sandwich? the further you get from the 'prototype', the more people are going to be disagree.

so the entire question 'what is a woman' is just an exercise in confusing philosophy of language framed as saying something very meaningful about the social category of woman. it is not! it is a problem of language that we cannot define 'woman' or 'chair' or 'salad' or 'horse' or 'gamer' in a rigorous way. it is nothing inherent to women, chairs, salads, horses, or gamers.

(but what about science?) good question, what about science? science tries to operate differently from the way laypeople talk about things. scientists take common words, like 'energy', and give them different, more rigorous definitions in order to try to figure something out about the world. for laypeople, 'energy' is something vague and diffuse. for physicists, 'energy' is the force that causes things to move, and its behavior is described by certain mathematical models.

similarly, laypeople may take 'woman' to mean 'a person with breasts and vulva/vagina', but a biologist may have a more rigorous definition of 'female': 'producing large gametes.' this is useful because it helps us see commonalities between creatures that may look really different, like flowers, bedbugs, asparaguses, cats, and humans - all very different creatures where sex looks different, but still have a distinction between 'producing large gametes' and 'producing small gametes' - there's no intermediate gamete. biologists have a different word for what people/animals look like, and that is 'phenotype.' when a parent looks at a child with 5ARD condition, they see the child has no visible penis and thus 'looks 'looks female.' a biologist would say that the child's sex is male (because they have the reproductive equipment to produce sperm, and none of the reproductive equipment to produce ova) but that their phenotype is ambiguous. sex is a binary variable, but human development is a long process where are a lot can happen, and so sexual phenotypes are not variable.

so already we're pretty far from the lay definition, because laypeople don't have the same idea of what sex is as scientists do, and don't distinguish between someone's sex and their appearance - for them, the sex is the appearance. who is right? it depends on what you want to do. scientists want to discover meaningful things about nature, and their definitions are far more useful than the layperson's for that purpose. which definitions are useful is also socially determined - we may feel sympathy for the child with 5ARD, told they were a girl their whole life, but who learns that they have testes. should we continue to treat this child as a girl/woman, or should we encourage them to view themselves as a boy/man? that is a social, cultural, legal argument, not a scientific one. the biological truth is the same regardless of the social, cultural, legal arguments, but there may be a compelling case to act differently. that's on us as humans to decide!

so yeah I'm just tired of hearing the same damn arguments over and over again. "what is a woman? is someone with CAIS a woman? is someone with 5ARD? what if we take a young non-intersex male and give them female hormones?" like this will never take us to where we want to go because it's a philosophy of language question disguised as a scientific one. the real question is, what are we talking about and which definitions will help us in that? if you believe that female people are exploited on the basis of their female bodily functions, then obviously you want to bring attention to that by using the word 'female'! if you want to focus on feminine socialization, then it may be useful to bring up cases of people who may not technically be female but were still raised as them, like Erika/Erik Schinegger, a male (possibly with 5ARD) who was raised as a girl and believed he was a girl for most of his youth.

trying to make a single catchy response to a question of what is 'x' is never going to satisfy everyone, because it cannot, because language is imperfect and real life is messy. scientists try to cut nature at the joints, but their cuts may not look like laypeople's! (and don't get me started on scientists disagreeing on what is a joint and what is not, metaphorically.)

and at its worst, when chasing an ironclad definition, you get bizarre answers that seem detached from reality, like saying 'people with CAIS condition are genotypically male and have underdeveloped testes, so we should treat them as males'. they may be reproductive males, but they have a female phenotype, and are raised as girls, and are literally unreceptive to testosterone - to treat them as 'men' on the basis of developmental or reproductive sex certainly seems to be missing something very important from the picture! see below: a person with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS):

does it really make sense to say this person is a man due to her having testes, which technically makes her reproductively male? is that capturing reality? or are you trying to force reality to fit into your definition because you're afraid that if you cannot create a perfect definition of 'woman', that we will never be able to talk about biology and female oppression?

tl;dr: questions like 'what is a woman' are designed to be time-wasters because they are not actually answerable because language sucks. argue for your operative definition, your context, and move on. and don't be afraid to change definitions based on the context... sometimes reproductive sex is relevant, sometimes phenotype is more important, sometimes socialization is more relevant. this is not weakness, it's recognizing that reality is not so rigid and sometimes you must use a different model to get the understanding you want.

[forwomenbiwomen]

I don't like this aspect of being gay because every chick I end up crushing on, turns out straight.

It's tough. How to get over your crush?

Aish. It's hard I know but I suppose it's a very common experience so don't feel like you're alone in being upset. I've been through it too 😭

What I did is just separate myself from her as much as is polite and focused on myself for a while. 🫂🫶 You can't do anything about it so change the things you can ❤️❤️

[ourladyoftheflytrap]

ya wrt that post abt the woman with the blackout tattoo. i’m only a radblr lurker but dear gawddd no wonder some ppl call us (them? you? idk) conservatives 😭😭😭 some women r straight up bullies and idk how tf tattoos are being compared to major cosmetic surgeries. it really is “women’s appearances don’t matter and they shouldn’t be judged on them” until it’s a woman they don’t like 💔 wth “blackout tattoos signal poor judgement” it’s just a tattoo it’s literally skin deep. anyways.

Lmfao ya I feel that. They're all trying to school this random from a different app about how her getting a silly tattoo sleeve as a young adult and then regretting it is the exact premise behind being transition critical as if medical transition isn't way more dangerous and life changing than a big tattoo. If actual transition was as surface level as getting tattoos, I wouldn't be gender critical and I definitely wouldn't have reidentified/desisted. Feels like a real "shooting your own foot" moment to compare two body mod practices that are not actually on the same scale of invasive and life changing.

[star-anise]

Disclaimer: I like Anita Sarkeesian.

But also, I just saw a writeup of a Youtuber whose content has come a long way from his Gamergate days, and to explain that, the wiki says, "Anita Sarkeesian is a radical feminist who created a webseries about sexist tropes in video games"

AHAHAHAHAHA ANITA SARKEESIAN, RADICAL FEMINIST

HOO HEE EXCUSE ME THAT'S A GOOD ONE

Radical feminist. Feminist extremist. Anita Sarkeesian.

Anita Sarkeesian did her Master's Thesis in Social and Political Thought in 2010 on the trope of the "Strong Woman" in fantasy and science fiction TV shows, and produced Tropes vs Women, a series of online videos breaking down her work in a way that was accessible to a lay audience. She found a ready audience in geek feminist circles, since this was exactly the kind of thing we wanted and needed right then.

Tropes vs Women was extremely bog-standard cultural critique, what you'd find expressed in discussion between scholars of literary theory or media analysis anywhere, and exactly what 99% of feminists were saying at the time. It certainly talked about patriarchy as the complex system of sexism fused into our cultural matrix, so it's not like it wasn't radical feminism from that viewpoint, but it wasn't "radical" by way of being especially militant. Sarkeesian frequently pointed out how individual occurrences of a trope weren't harmful in themselves, but that a media landscape completely saturated with only that trope and nothing but that trope is, in the aggregate, a big feminist issue.

And the internet

HAAAAAAAATED

her for it.

Like, geek feminists got flak a lot anyway, especially when we wanted things like properly enforced policies against sexual harassment at science fiction conventions. And yeah, there totally were toxic keyboard warriors who said stuff about all men being scum - but Sarkeesian wasn't one of them.

It's probably because of her succinct, matter-of-fact, "this is not a debated issue, feminists have decades of theory and research to back this point up, sources abound if you google for thirty seconds so I won't stop to baby you through all the fundamental concepts" approach that she got such a big reach. She was calm, concise, coherent, and rational, everything feminists are told we need to be.

Unfortunately that just made her seem... attackable, I think. A good target, not actually scary or impassioned, unlikely to respond to violence with violence. The perfect kind of person to play five seconds of, and then spend the next five minutes yelling into your mic because IF ANITA IS RIGHT ABOUT VIDEO GAME SEXIST YOU MIGHT AS WELL SAY THAT EVERYTHING IS SEXIST AND SEXISM IS SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC TO ALL OF WESTERN CULTURE AND OTHER CULTURES TOO, WHICH IS CLEARLY RIDICULOUS, ANITA LADY BAD.

She literally spent five solid years as Enemy #1 in online geek spaces. It was completely insane. I am so sorry she had to take the brunt of it, and yet grateful that she did. She held the line and took the shit and kept doing good decent feminist work for years after, though she did admit to burnout and closed up shop on her nonprofit org Feminist Frequency in 2023. I hope to hell she's having a good day.

But even now, more than a decade later, dudes talk about her as though she were Geek Feminist Godzilla, the biggest baddest woman in the universe, off to lay waste to downtown Video Games and cut everybody's balls off.

When people (mostly dudes, but not all) talk like this, it's just very funny and unintentionally revealing because of the absolute averageness of her third-wave, trans-inclusive, western-centric, intersectional feminism. It makes them look absolutely pathetic.

Because it just makes it clear that she is probably the first and last self-described feminist the speaker has ever paid attention to.

[princesslampshade]

If ur not Jodie arias are even rly a radfem. Be honest

[teaboot]

Do you think that cis men feel the same way as trans men do? Like with how men get treated by society as being inherently evil and as predators?

I think maybe both cis and trans men experience these issues but it's easier for a trans guy to point it out because he gets to see people so quickly turn on him for being a man while transitioning

oh yeah definitely

I find "meninists" fucking obnoxious, especially as any of their VALID concerns fall under the bracket of feminism, but there does exist a presence of radfems and terfs that are scarily eager to lash out at anything resembling masculine that. Definitely needs to be addressed somehow

Like. There's a mile of middle ground between "Um yeah women have problems, whatever, but what about ME and MY FEELINGS 😢" and "I am genuinely trying my best to be thoughtful and considerate of others, and everything I do is being met with bad-faith interpretations and dismissal"

And I think the best advice I have for anyone else getting bogged down by this is that. like.

If someone is determined to see the worst in you, nothing you can do to prove otherwise will be enough. You will never change that person's mind. They don't want you to change their mind. So like... just focus on you, and keep doing your best, and learn, and know that people determined to find something nasty don't really have an issue with YOU- they have their own experiences and traumas coloring their worldview.

Someone who is determined to see you as a monster will only ever see a monster. So it's better to ask yourself, "would a monster do what I'm doing?". If the answer is yes, take steps to change that. If the answer is no, then it's not about you, and you can give yourself permission to move on.

So... yeah, I imagine cis men probably do feel the way I feel about this sorta thing sometimes.

Except, like. After a lifetime being a girl, living as a girl, fighting for equality as the only girl in a lot of men's spaces, being a feminist girl and an Eldest Daughter girl and calling out the bullshit only to later realize I'm not a girl... and that Im actually mostly a dude, still a feminist... at least when people call me a mysoginist, I know they're talking out their ass

I can kinda see where young men encounter their very first radfems calling themselves feminists and immediately become radicalized right-wing conservatives cause like. If I as a teen thought feminism meant Radfems and Terfs, I'd probably start running too

It's all just so exhausting

Any one group being wholesale grouped as "100% helpless gentle victim" or "100% selfish malevolent monster" is doomed, imo

(Now watch the notes blow up with "this is just 'not all men' rhetoric, lol)

But anyways I hate nuance I hate interpretation I hate implication and symbolism and context and I wish everything in the world was simpler so we could all blow a collective joint together and invent some new soups

[sweetdreamspootypie]

I do not have the political / philosophy theory to really engage with all the discussions of left Vs liberal, let alone all the other things people talk about - communist Vs anarchist Vs tankie Vs Marxist Vs Leninist idk it's all noise to me

But one thing I know

Is that 30 to 50 year old men on tinder who describe themselves specifically as "left of center" are an auto nope for me for exactly that reason. If you're using that vocabulary as your self identification then it reads as fundamentally politically conservative who just maybe you identify as not homophobic or similar

it's kind of funny that the term "leftist" as a self-descriptor is the new "socially liberal, fiscally conservative"

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

first of all, this is all legit, and not bait, though i have a feeling it may come off that way, this did happen to me. please don't publish if tumblr sends it off anon.

i'm a lesbian with gender dysphoria, and while i haven't had much sexual experience, i would consider myself a stone top. in the last year and a half i began reading "terf"/radical feminist writings and reading "terf" tumblr blogs fairly actively, largely out of frustration with misogyny i was experiencing IRL. though i never engaged with the community i did stop identifying as genderfluid and started understanding my dysphoria as stemming from the trauma of being bullied by other girls for having a high-androgen DSD, and using different pronouns/transition thoughts as unhealthy coping mechanisms. i'm happy with this, but i also don't know if i'm attracted to women anymore.

i've always been attracted to women in a way that's stereotypically guy-like; i find feminine women very attractive and not so much fellow(?) butches, want to penetrate with a strap on, don't like bush much, cursory interest in BDSM/daddy kink. i read/watched het erotica and porn sometimes and identified with the man. what i read problematized pretty much every aspect of that- femininity as a cage, penetration as violence/straps as disidentification w the female body, infantilization of women, bdsm as abuse etc. also, desisting making me more conscious of dysphoria/knowledge of how extensive sexual dimorphism is putting me off both women with larger breasts and hips AND smaller breasts and hips/unrealistically masculine body types as well. so a lot of what turned me on before isn't arousing anymore, or i feel guilty about it, and i haven't been able to find butch4butch stuff which is much healthier very interesting.

i consider my sexuality healthier now on a political level but my ability to get aroused/jerk off has plummeted (used to be i could jork it sunrise to sunset) and thinking about being in a relationship w another woman makes me feel uneasy and weird, especially since a lot of what i read emphasized reciprocative cunnilingus/tribbing (which i don't like) as the healthiest sex options. i also think about both my dysphoria and my sexuality issues 100x more than i did before, even though i was promised the opposite (freedom from dysphoria and feeling happier as a lesbian), and it's stressing me out day-to-day. i'm aware based on your general ethos that you probably think i'm a terrible person right now, but i figured it'd be useful to seek the opinion of someone who radically disagrees with what i've read on what i could/should do next, since i admittedly miss being at peace with my sexuality.

thanks for reading.

hi there anon,

it's a bummer that you'd think I would assume you're a terrible person based on everything you've told me here. I generally try not to consider people terrible unless they're actively being shitheads or hurting other people, which doesn't sound at all like you're describing. from what you've told me, you've been up to your eyes in some information that's made you feel deeply uncomfortable in your sexuality and now you're seeking out a new perspective to help you make sense of that hurt. that describes most of the people who send me questions!

it's so striking to me that much of what you're describing is very reminiscent of what's recounted in The Persistent Desire, an anthology of writings on butch/femme identities edited by femme historian and archivist Joan Nestle that was released in 1992. in various essays and interviews countless butches and femmes recount their discomfort with the feminist turn against butch and femme identities that too place in the 70s, when both roles were declared problematic recreations of heterosexuality and summarily decried as politically "incorrect" for lesbians. it's shocking to me how much what you've described echoes these accounts experienced by lesbians half a century ago - the disowning of women who are "excessively" feminine or masculine, the demonizing of penetrative sex, general insistence that there are "correct" sex acts that every lesbian is supposed to enjoy, and the deep discomfort and insecurity that this causes among people who don't fit into the very rigid standards of proper lesbian identity set forth.

here's a link to a PDF, if that's interesting to you at all. it's very long, so feel free not to read it straight through; it's a great project to skim and an incredible way to get in touch with the lesbians who came before us. their accounts of their lives are so wildly different from the boundaries of "good" queer representation that feel so universal today; in discussing their own lives many of these women speak very bluntly about their experiences with abuse, drugs, sex work, and violence. it's a great glimpse into the lives and history of a lot of very ordinary lesbians just living their lives, and I'm very grateful it's been preserved.

now, as for what you're actually gonna do: hey. listen. first of all, if you haven't given up reading this stuff yet, you've gotta. you simply cannot keep internalizing stuff that makes you overanalyze your own sexuality so hard that you feel uncomfortable about being attracted to women. that's not "healthy," that's conversion therapy lite. there are other places to talk about feminism without being made to feel ashamed of yourself.

listen: there's nothing unhealthy about anything that you described about yourself. being a stone butch, being attracted to certain looks and aesthetics, watching porn, wanting to use a strap and roleplay during sex and not being interested in other sexual activities - all of those thing are completely normal and, yes, healthy. certainly healthier than feeling the need to repress your sexuality so hard that thinking about being with a woman doesn't feel right!

should we run through that list?

femininity as cage - sure, okay, femininity isn't for everyone, and there are parts of it that suck. that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with women who like to wear dresses or put on makeup or shave or whatever, or anyone who's attracted to those women. genuinely I cannot think of anything less interesting or important to feminist organizing than getting hung up about what people want to wear. it's clothes, dude. it's fucking clothes. pick a more important hill to die on, I implore you.

penetration is not the same thing as violence. there's just nothing to debate about that one; it's patently absurd to pretend that every act of penetrative sex is rape and you'd have to fundamentally misunderstand how consent works to believe that.

straps are not about "disidentification with the female body," they're about augmenting a sexual experience. a strap-on is not more problematic than a vibrator or a massage oils or a pillow used to prop up a body part. unless those are also bad? are those bad? are pillows disidentifying from the female body also? I'm not up to date on this.

straight up I don't even know which part of your whole deal the infantilization of women is supposed to address, but a thing that I've always found interesting about a lot of radical feminists who are deeply distrustful of sex is the way that many of them seem to assume that women can't be trusted to understand their own sexual desires and need to be taught what's appropriate. seems kind of condescending to me, personally.

BDSM isn't the same thing as abuse. abuse, crucially, is not a situation that people can safe word out of or negotiate the constraints of. it's kind of like how, you know, I purposefully pay people to shove needles in my skin when I want a tattoo, but I wouldn't be stoked about it if somebody just ran up to me in public and started stabbing me without any warning or conversation. context is crucial. there can certainly be abusive people within BDSM spaces, but that's true of people of literally every sexual proclivity on earth, and certainly not an innate feature of BDSM. it's just make believe, dude. it's dress up. it's sex LARPing.

also, psst, hey. that thing about being attracted to women in a "guy-like" way? no such thing. men are humans, dude; they experience attraction in as many different ways as anyone else. for every dude interested in the same stuff as you there are men yearning for hairy women, muscular women, masculine women, women who will dominate them, women who would rather be eaten out then penetrated, and so on. to say nothing of the men who aren't into women at all! and, as is obvious from your own experience, men don't have a monopoly on those kinds of feelings, anyway! there are no men or women feelings, dude; it's all just people having feelings and fighting for their lives trying to figure out what they're into to.

I want to particularly talk about that last bit, where you mentioned not enjoying or wanting to engage in cunnilingus or tribbing. that's totally fine! people like different shit in all kinds of combinations - I'm personally a huge fan of getting eaten out and scratched up or bitten, but I don't do penetration and I've genuinely never met anyone who actually liked tribbing - and there are absolutely people out there who will, to paraphrase the poet Tinashe, perfectly match your freak.

(have you heard about the perpetual, critical shortage of tops that the queer community faces? you'd be a godsend, just saying.)

also, actually, hey I wanted to circle back to another thing as well: it's deeply alarming to me that whatever radfem stuff you've been reading has you feeling "put off" of women with wide hips and large breasts as well as women with small breasts and hips. what is wrong with either of those? both of those are just ways that women naturally look. women just look a wide variety of ways, and it's sad that that's upsetting you now. just thinking about this, conceptually, is giving me hives.

having been up to your eyes in all of this, I can definitely understand why you'd feel the urge to overanalyze you own gender and sexuality to the point of completely talking yourself out of identifying with anything that feels good for you. as I said, that's actually not healthy in any way, and as a sex educator I can't say that I think anyone genuinely invested in your well-being would want that for you.

entirely aside from their feelings on trans people, which I obviously disagree with pretty vehemently, one of the things about radfems that's most endlessly vexing to me is the insistence that such an extremely narrow range of sexual behaviors are appropriate. seems like a miserable way to live, and I sincerely hope you can detangle yourself from the morass of shame it's landed you in. you deserve better.

[transmascpetewentz]

As a trans man, seeing the state of modern femininity always makes me feel like I, someone who has almost killed myself multiple times from my dysphoria, have less dysphoria than many cis women. Like, cis women will literally pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to have someone shave their own body hair for them. Plenty of cis women out there spend near-infinite amounts of time, money, and energy trying to "fix" natural features about themselves. Some will even get expensive surgery. And if I wanted to have a surgery, that would take me years to get approved. And would require me to lie about my sexuality to even be considered.

I'm someone who famously thinks gender is a stupid performance, and it's one that I do spend quite a lot of effort on—just ask my bank account, or the ribs that I've damaged from wearing my binder for too long. But many of the cis women who do this do not do it as a fun performance, they do it because it has been drilled into their heads from the day they were born that their value is based on appealing to standards of heterosexuality, which are dominated by straight cis men. Yet even I do not spend hundreds of dollars a month on masculinizing procedures, even though whatever procedure I would do would probably make dysphoria better.

So why do some cis women go lengths to meet gendered standards that even many severely dysphoric trans people do not?

Just some food for thought.

(This post is not about trans women, though they can be subjected to patriarchal, heterosexual female beauty standards. The point of this post is to make people think about how cis women, generally without gender dysphoria, hold themselves to beauty standards as if they do have it.)

(On a similar note, TERFs and their ilk, this is not a post for you. If you interact with this post and I see that you hold radical feminist beliefs or exclude trans women from your feminism, you are being blocked and reported.)

[animefeminist]

J Michael Tatum discusses returning to Spice and Wolf, dubbing philosophy, and Ouran's queer legacy

J Michael Tatum is a juggernaut of the English dubbing sphere. He started out as a secondary character in 2005’s Samurai 7, a mecha-flavored adaptation of the Kurosawa film, and from there went on to play multiple iconic roles, including Sebastian Michaelis, Scar, Okabe Rintaro, and Isaac Dion. Most importantly for today’s discussion, however, are his turns as traveling merchant Kraft Lawrence (Spice and Wolf) and host club manager (and Shadow King) Ohtori Kyoya (Ouran High School Host Club).

We sat down with Tatum to talk about radical recent changes in the dubbing industry, what it’s like being a highly visible gay voice actor, and Ouran’s enduring appeal.

Anime Feminist: Just to start off with something probably a lot of folks have asked you at this point: but what’s it like playing Lawrence again after all these years?

J Michael Tatum: Oh, such a gift. BrIna and I both—Brina Palencia, who plays Holo–so love those characters and that franchise that we’ve been dreaming of getting to revisit them for years because we never really got to finish it. And we loved it so much that we came back for the audiobook when they asked us even though we don’t typically do audiobooks, because they’re very time-consuming. But we love those characters so much we couldn’t resist. And then now [there’s] the reboot, so it is lovely.

It’s always such a wonderful feeling to get to come back to characters that you feel a relationship with, that you feel akin to. Now, I’m older, hopefully a little wiser and have more tricks up my sleeve that we can bring to the performance that I wouldn’t have thought of when I was, you know, 18 years younger. I’m also just so glad that here I am, pushing 50, and I could still play him. [Laughs]

Read it at Anime Feminist!

[ourladyoftheflytrap]

it's your God given right to judge everybody but passing judgement onto strangers based on preconceived notions you have about them is probably not effective political practice

[fairymischief]

Years ago when I was on FB and in a "feminist" group (not radfem, likely libfem, and I wasn't educated enough yet on the difference - AND there were men in it) a story came up about a husband who really wanted to be in the delivery room while his wife was giving birth. The wife didn't want her husband to see her in that state and asked him to please stay out when the time came, and he was trying to override her wishes and wanted to know "AITA."

You'd think people in a feminist group would affirm that the expectant mother's comfort and wishes take priority (duh), but amazingly about half the commenters said that she should just put her feelings aside and let him stay in the room. I went back and forth with several of them and the inability to get them to empathize with this vulnerable woman at a VERY vulnerable moment in her life was surreal. Looking back, it was probably the first time it REALLY sunk in that men's desires are always prioritized over any concern for women.

Like, how is this even being discussed? She just went through the danger and discomfort of carrying a pregnancy to term, and now she's going to go through a bloody, excruciating, and possibly humiliating ordeal giving birth (I've heard its not uncommon to defecate on the delivery table), and she's asking for this one thing from her husband to protect her sense of dignity. And instead of saying, "Yes, of COURSE I will help make this easier for you in any way," her selfish husband was online asking people to consider HIS feelings, what HE wants, and amazingly "feminists" were siding with him.

This is why no matter what, I'll always remain in some kind of radical feminist forum, because its like the rest of the world is out of its f*cking mind. Seriously, it's like non-radfems are living in another dimension mentally and can not feel empathy for women; they'll side with any man most of the time no matter how blatantly wrong he is. Radfem spaces are like bunkers where all the sane women hide out on an insane planet.