#alternative separatism

[ankhmeanswombman]

Protecting your aura (mentally and physically) in this satanic world makes a lot of sense and will pacify your eternal soul and block the world's constant babbling from your energy-sphere.

[blackpilljesus]

I dont care about the odds of womens liberation happening because I dont solely focus on "winning" per se. That's not to say I dont want or aim towards it but freedom isn't just about the end but the journey too. Cultivating a lifestyle as a single childfree woman is something bigger than me and something I hold onto to get me by.

One thing about conscious is that we all know we're going to die. This terrifies some; but in some cases it gives a purpose to existence. Death becomes a metric to measure the things that are worth it in life, things to dedicate life towards for fulfillment in existing. Whether the end goal actually comes to fruition or not is irrelevant because the hope and purpose carries you as you live.

To get by the hardships of life and inevitability of death: dedicate yourself to something bigger than you. Having a sense of purpose beyond yourself drives innovation & delivery. It's not just about how long you live but what you live (& are willing to die) for. This is how cults, religion, charity, activism, natalism etc affect people. It gives them a sense of purpose greater than themselves so they devote their lives to them even in extreme cases where it'd kill them. They suffer & work in the name of their cause.

Many women regret encountering feminism & seeing maIes for how evil they are but I dont. I see things more clearly & more importantly it's given me a purpose in life; something to orient how I carry myself as long as I live: To pour my energy into myself & other likeminded women, to live beyond serving a maIe, to trust myself & not let the claws of maIe supremacy sink into me, to be the subject of my life instead of the object, to know I'm ending the line of suffering and not giving maIes what they ultimately want - another soul in the chain to continue the suffering, etc. That's the direction I'm taking my life.

I'm saying all of this because with things like separatism, 4B etc if you're serious about it think about these things as something bigger than yourself let it be something that you devote yourself to that goes beyond you. In the end it isn't just about you, it's about the future children you're saving from experiencing the hurt & suffering of this world. For me, no matter what happens as long as I dont give birth before I die that's a W for me - when I die the suffering in my line ends with me. So that's how I see this as something bigger than myself, it's not just about me but my (potential) future offspring. And before anyone tells me about how there's good in this world; good isn't guaranteed but suffering is.

When you give yourself to something bigger than you you're able to commit to things for the greater good & not just doing things for the sake of it. I dont refuse to date, reproduce, wear makeup, etc to stick it to anybody; it's just freeing for me. I think the lack of seeing these things as something bigger than yourself is part of why many women struggle to commit to this or even think of the idea (there's obvs many reasons but I wont get into them to stay focused). I commonly to hear things "I'm not doing x for some fringe online movement" because they dont see a greater good, sense, or purpose to it so instead women will get in pro woman spaces demanding it caters to them & their existing habits rather than working within these spaces towards a goal greater than themselves compared to dating which is why they're willing to inconvenience & risk more in that regard.

This might sound extreme but many people whether they're aware of it or not have a purpose for themselves at some point & legacy they want to build to leave something behind or it fulfils them. For me the way I see all of this is that I want to succeed as a single childfree woman as my legacy. That's what I build towards. I occasionally ask myself that if I was to die now would my life & the things I did reflect what I believed in at the end of the day. Now obviously people have different motives & legacy aspirations which causes conflict (even with maIe supremacy it's about legacy which is why maIes live & die for it. It makes it easier for them to reproduce & steal labour from women to pass off as their own & that's something added to their legacy - something that lives beyond). Ofc not everyone gets remembered but in the grand scheme of things as I mentioned it's not about the end goal but the journey there.

The thing with fulfilment is that it is so strong if this thing wasn't there people likely wouldn't know what to do with themselves. Despite the criticisms of religion, part of why it's so powerful & popular is bc many people wouldn't know what to do without that framework shaping their lives. Something they can lean on in hard times, something that directs the way they go about their daily lives so people take it very seriously with its ups and downs as it gives them purpose & they'd be lost otherwise. Similar thing with patriarchy, if you remove the benefits it comes with; maIes wouldn't have a purpose to work towards & existence wouldn't be worth it for most of them. This is why many of them dont care about going on rampages even if it costs them their lives to uphold the system as they have nothing to live for out of maIe supremacy. A loss of those structures would be a net negative as they have to work harder for the same or less results.

For many women, romance is something that fulfils them & adds purpose to their lives (remember having purpose to something means you're willing to struggle for it). In my previous post I addressed the argument of how there'll be violence when women reject maIes en masse but even when women choose to date maIes the risk of violence is still there (which there's endless strategies on how to 'vet' and mitigate) but they still go for it because a having relationship is something bigger than themselves. These things fulfil them so much so that many women refuse to take maIes as they are & actively shut out news about their violence bc it'd make them hate them & they dont want to do that bc losing romance would be losing it all. It isn't just about them, they're looking for someone to explore, build, and create life with as it fulfils them so they'd be willing to take risks to find that. Hell even out of dating, many women will risk their lives & livelihood to advocate for maIes politically as they see the cause as greater than them.

I've provided examples to put this concept in context so for the more relevant part: as a single childfree woman where does this leave you? Find a sense of purpose & fulfilment to it. This is something that has to come from within for it to stick, a sentence I say isn't going to give you purpose bc you dont know me & I dont know you. To a degree, typical things that give people purpose & fulfilment are messages that have been instilled into them from childhood. As people grow & face challenges it's something they lean on and it works for them to get by life. Many religious people look to their creator when they're going through hard times in addition to everything else they do surrounding religion as they devote themselves to that. So having a purpose & sense of fulfilment is important bc when adversity inevitably comes up it will help you overcome it.

TLDR: We're always taking risks depending on what we find purpose & fulfilment in. These things tend to be bigger than ourselves. Find purpose and fulfilment to being a single childfree woman.

This is the final part of my series of posts about the popularity & rise of single childfree women:

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

[iceyrukia]

I think people really take the whole "separtism is non-action" way too literal in order to invalidate it IMO. like actually it is kinda a big deal that movements like 4B exist and get positive reactions by women and make men loose their minds. If it was so insignificant non-separatists wouldn't feel the need to belittle it so much.

[oarfishing]

Alright, I'm sick of seeing TERFisms on my dash, so here's a handy list of TERF dogwhistles and talking points to think about before you reblog a post.

I've seen a few of these before, but it doesn't hurt to make more. Especially when we're seeing a lot of radfem rhetoric popping up in LGBT spaces from people who might not know better.

SCREENNAMES: these are terms that commonly appear in radfem usernames across the web

rad or radical

fem or femme

vulva, clit, uterus, womb, ovary, vagina, etc.

febfem

anything along the lines of "angry woman"

xx or chromosomes

wombyn, wimmin, womyn, etc.

LGB

feminist

BIOS: things that show up in radfem bios

♀ or ⚢

febfem

female separatist

female, human female, adult human female

xx

something along the lines of "the scary feminist you were warned about"; being an angry woman, being sick of being silenced, being an evil woman, being an angry lesbian

detrans (NOTE: detrans people are absolutely not always transphobic)

dysphoric female

males/men do not interact

LGB✂️

misandrist

feminist (NOTE: again, very few feminists are actually terfs, but this is commonly in terf bios alongside some of these other terms)

TERMS: terms that radfems use in their circles

TIM - trans-identified male, a way of saying transfems, trans women, and other trans people

TIF - trans-identified female, same as above but the other way around, less commonly seen

DSD - disorder of sexual development, a way to avoid saying intersex and to categorize intersex people as "still male or female" (you might see "males with DSD" or "females with DSD" for example)

females or males instead of women and men

alternatively, women and males to dehumanize men

"peaking" or "peaked" - referring to becoming radicalized as a radfem or TERF

womyn, wombyn, wimmin, wo**n, and any other spelling that takes "man" out of the term woman

mentally ill men/women

sex-based oppression

gender critical

"TIRF" - trans-inclusive radical feminist (don't be fooled by the name, they're very much not)

TRA - trans rights activist, derogatory

sex-based rights

female separatism/"women's land"

WBW - womyn-born womyn

autistic girls/children

troon - (ridiculous) slur for trans people

RHETORIC: general ideological themes in radfem rhetoric

men are inherently more violent than women

women don't or rarely rape men

(woman on woman rape is ignored by almost all radfems)

being nonbinary is a way to "stop being" your assigned sex while still acting as your birth sex

lesbians are not attracted to men/penises and can never have sex with men/penises (otherwise, you're bisexual)

men can and will never be lesbians

there is no such thing as a bi lesbian, only lesbians and bisexuals. labels are rigid and sex-based

all of the world's suffering is driven by men

women would be better off separate

an all-female society is utopia

sex is binary, and intersex people are "glitches" or "still male or female but DisorderedTM"

men should expect to be feared by women

female/female relationships are safer and more pure than straight or gay male relationships

men and women are more different than similar

intersex people should not be allowed in sports

intersex people and trans men are never in men's sports

terrible world events wouldn't have happened if women were in charge

men are stupid and aggressive

being a man is not a positive thing

men's problems are lesser than women's

penises are disgusting and vaginas and vulvas are beautiful

trans women are performing at being girls

trans men see themselves as above lesbians

attraction is sex-based

porn is rape

porn is inherently violent

watching porn makes you predisposed to inflicting abuse

BDSM is inherently violent and misogynistic

transitioning children (whether socially or medically) are being abused

"bitch" and "cunt" are slurs against women

only gay men can say faggot and only lesbian women can say dyke

When you see a few or more of these together, RUN! It's a terf.

[hadesoftheladies]

actually, separatism is non-individualist feminist activism and does actually benefit other women because it:

-socioeconomically hurts the male class

-shows alternatives to younger women and girls to being partnered with a man

-shields women and girls from the potential harm that could come with exposing them to predatory male companions

-creates space for and amplifies consciousness raising

-gives a woman a freer, healthier life

anti-separatists can cope harder

[she-is-ovarit]

I love this. I posted a little about this before, but wanted to expand. Women's history fact of the day:

Women of the Neolithic era in particular loved keeping pets and it was common for them to trap small animals - such as cats - and adopted as pets.

In the Amazon region, where hunting and gathering and subsistence horticulture is still practiced by a handful of surviving Amerindian groups, hunters commonly capture young wild animals and take them home where they are then adopted as pets, usually – although not invariably – by women.

There's a theory that cats may have domesticated themselves by being attracted to human villages that produced grain and seeds and attracted rodents, and then the bolder cat clans survived under natural selection. Or, alternatively, women domesticated cats.

Based on these sorts of observations, it could be argued that the domestication of F.s. libyca occurred where and when it did because tamed wildcats were already an integral feature of village life as a result of people actively adopting, hand-rearing and socialising young wildcats to keep as pets

The relationship between cats and women stretch back since the stone age. They were burned with us during the witch trials (rabbits commonly too!), suffered from abuse and treated as property with us by men ambivalent to us under religions such as Christianity, were associated as us within medieval folklore and as a metaphor for female sexuality and anatomy ("pussy"), and continue to be associated with us today.

Women's independence from man is derogatorily associated with cats ("crazy cat lady"), a nod to female (and feline) separatism. It's tendency to groom itself frequently was also associated with cleanliness and domesticity, and it was frequently used in posters by anti-suffragettes symbolically to denote that women were simple and delicate, that women's suffrage was as absurd as cat suffrage. Some suffragettes took back the meaning of the cat, adopting a (black!) cat named Saxon as their official mascot.

They survived male oppression throughout history, for thousands of years, right beside us and within our arms.

[goddessxeffect]

MOSAIC

Today it's just a quick one, guys. A metaphor that helped me tremendously to get a clearer picture (lol) in the past and maybe to give you some comfort if you need any today.

Your current Ego is limited, its viewpoint is so tiny compared to who you really are, it's ridiculus to even worry about their circumstances. But I get it, you think you are that and that's why it feels so real to you.

Just imagine your current Vanessa (Ego) as a teeny-tiny shard in a very big mosaic picture.

From her point of view you will never see the whole masterpiece because the tiny shard is part of the picture like Vanessa is just another form (part) of You. Yes she doesn't look like the other shards, is unique in her own way, but nothing really distingushes her from the 'others' because they are just shards of glass in the picture too. Yes, they differ in shape, size & color but they are all made of the same substance (glass) and make up a grand total (glass mosaic).

And when there is an observer, does he really see all the parts or the whole picture as one?

You see, you are so focused on one form of yourself, which is just an illusion anyway - a mere thought in the end - that you lost sight of the bigger picture. The true You.

You try to change that fixed shard (Vanessa) to fit a certain mold that it can never because it was always just a tiny speck and it is perfectly suited for the place it is in. You do that because You think it's all you are, on top of that. Choose another shard instead.

They are all just being observed by you, why the hustle when alternatives are already available? Yes, from Vanessas POV 'other' alternative shards seem unachievable/ not really possible to get because they are separat from HER and she is fixed into the picture.

But you are the whole picture, the All. Not just Vanessas shard. They belong to YOU, all of them, not matter the shape, size or color. They make YOU up, not the other way around.

[biblioflyer]

Xavier's dream is doomed, but there is no alternative.

The meta demands ever more elaborate allegories for every terrible thing humans have done to one another, but hard men making hard choices also inevitably make everything worse too.

This is part 1 of a 5 part series about pessimism in the world of X-Men.

X-Men ‘97 and The Animated Series more broadly have spent quite a bit of time establishing a few core conceits:

Xavier’s lofty rhetoric can win small, fleeting victories that do damage control in the near term such as repeatedly persuading government officials to give the X-Men time to handle a situation in a more surgical way.

Yet, significant gains like establishing an enclave for Mutants by Mutants on Genosha are always subject to rollback, usually in the form of a violent pogrom.

Sapiens violence sparks Mutatis retaliation, which more often than not confirms Sapiens fears about the dangers posed by Mutants.

Thus, Xavier is always made to look like a fanatic willing to sell Mutant lives cheap to de-escalate fearful Sapiens only for the concessions he wins to be meager and fleeting. There is always another crisis that requires the blood of his students to buy off a more extreme and indiscriminate reaction by human forces.

Yet at the same time, acts of separatism and retaliation by Magneto et al. pour jet fuel on the cycle of preemptive violence that leads to retaliatory violence that leads to more retaliatory violence.

This creates a doom loop where progress exists only to be rolled back and, if left uninterrupted, leads to functional mutual annihilation: Bastion attempts to kill or enslave all mutants, Magneto destroys the capacity for terrestrial civilization to exist beyond the steam engine. Both Magneto and Humanity have also had nuclear arsenals pointed at one another.

Every future we see appears to be dystopian. The X-Men will not live to see a better world and their best efforts largely ensure Mutants don’t go extinct entirely. No matter what the X-Men do, the choice seems to be between extermination or enslavement by Humans or Sentinels, or conquest by Apocalypse.

Noteworthy though is that in both Bishop and Cable’s futures, it is the X-Men who are remembered and celebrated, not Magneto’s Brotherhood. Martyrdom is a poor reward for dogged virtuousness in the face of hostility from both hateful Humans and justifiably angry Mutants, but it seems to be the only way the worst futures are avoided.

My growing concern now that X-Men is having a moment in the spotlight of fandom discourse is that the setting is accidentally or intentionally selling doomer nihilism cosplaying as realism or critical theory. 

Make no mistake, I think X-Men ‘97 is the smartest Marvel offering since Captain America: Civil War brought us the debates over the Sokovia Accords. However, people really do need to be mindful of the hard wired setting conceits that ensure that the X-Men’s world is one in which there is an unhappy median that wobbles back and forth from slightly better to a lot worse and this itself is not (I hope) the actual message of the setting.

Part 2 will discuss the role of allegory in X-Men and fiction more broadly as it pertains to civil rights struggles and identity based conflict.

[evidence-based-activism]

Hi, @not-yet-so-broken! I wanted to respond to your re-blog of my post since it raised some important points. Unfortunately, (and unsurprisingly since they clearly didn't have any counter-arguments) @genderkoolaid has me blocked, so I can't re-blog that post. As such, I'm responding to your points below:

I'm glad you agree with the basis of my re-blog! I think it's helpful to start with a similar frame of reference. In reference to the rest: I thought it was pretty clear that the op's intention with that post was to: imply female-on-female violence is as common as male-on-female, suggest that separatism is pointless, and criticize people for focusing on male-on-female violence prevention. It was from that lens that I responded to the post, which I think is the main reason why you interpreted my post as you did. I talk a little bit more about female-on-female violence in this post and this post.

To be very clear, my conclusion that men are the primary perpetrator of violence against women is not meant to imply that women's violence is more acceptable or excusable, only less common.

However, I do think that trying to make violence "gender neutral", as I believe the op of that post was attempting to do, causes significant harm. It sounds like you agree with this much? Since this was the frame of reference I started with, my goal in my re-blog was to show why we shouldn't do this, not to actually address solutions for female-on-female violence. This is why I didn't address the issue, not because it is "lesser and 'insignificant'".

---

However, I feel I should point out that there is no evidence that as a whole people are more likely to dismiss female violence than male violence. (I address this point a bit more in those two posts I linked to, which is also where most of the sources are, but I'll reiterate below.) In fact,

Victims appear to report violence by women and men at similar rates

When victims do not report the violence, they appear to have similar reasons for both male and female violence [1]

When convicted, women appear to have similar (or even more severe) punishments as men for equivalent (violent) crimes

There is very little research about public opinion on female vs male offenders, however the little there is suggests crimes (particularly violent crimes) are rated at least as bad/serious when committed by women as men [2]

In terms of same-sex couple violence specifically:

Data on the response from the legal system is frustratingly scare, and somewhat contradictory. For example, [3] indicates that there is little to no difference in prosecutor and police response to same-sex domestic violence when considering cases where the victim doesn't refuse to cooperate, but also indicates victims of same-sex violence (domestic and non-domestic) are more likely to refuse to corporate with law enforcement. Alternately, [4] indicates that same-sex domestic violence incidents are less likely to result in arrest and more likely to result in dual arrest than opposite-sex incidents, although this difference appears to be eliminated with increasing incident severity. A different study [5] found no difference in police perception of same-sex vs opposite sex domestic violence.

Public opinion research is essentially non-existent (or at least, very very difficult to find). I did find a study [6] that showed some differences in perceptions about same-sex domestic violence among crisis center staff, which is obviously important given their extremely significant role in the issue. However, there are some pretty significant concerns with generalizability, given that the sample was not random or representative. In addition, the results were somewhat mixed, in that they indicated statistically greater concern for opposite-sex incidents on some measures (consider situation more serious, consider it more likely the abuse will re-occur, etc.), greater concern for same-sex incidents on some measures (believe it's harder for a same-sex victim to leave, believe same-sex victims were more likely to be financially dependent), and no significant difference on 14 of the 21 measures (perpetrator/victim responsibility, counseling recommendation, etc.). As a side note: the scores also indicate there's a need for more education in the field in general, concerning both opposite- and same-sex abuse.

In my opinion, all of this suggests that the claim that female violence isn't taken as seriously as male violence is a myth, one that's been repeated so many times many people regard it as fact. This is relevant because it means that we can apply solutions to the broad problems of child abuse and domestic violence, rather than requiring separate solutions for male- vs female-offenders.

---

As indicated by the above, I hear the assertion that people are more likely to dismiss women's violence fairly often, but I have never received or found any evidence that this is the case. There are, however, several reasons why this may appear to be the case:

First, there are unfortunately still far too many people who are prepared to dismiss most/any sexual or domestic violence. These people would dismiss violence by both men and women, which appears to the victim as a dismissal of that specific form of violence. This dismissal can be countered by broader social messaging, most of which is about male violence (as it is more common). As a result, victims of female violence are more likely to feel dismissed by society at large. Notably, this is a excellent reason for why we need to address female-on-female violence without diluting the message by comparing or minimizing male violence.

Second, even among those who don't dismiss all/most sexual and domestic violence, there are many who will only recognize overtly violent behaviors. For example, there are some people who believe rape has to involve physical violence or threats of physical violence; they (incorrectly) do not recognize that rape can also be coerced through non-violent means including use of authority, drugs and alcohol, etc. This is relevant because research also shows that female offenders are much more likely than male offenders to use these sorts of "indirect" tactics. As a result, a greater proportion of female crime than male crime may not be taken seriously. However, this is a result of insufficient understanding and/or malicious dismissal of a type of crime not of female offenders specifically (i.e., a crime by a man using these sorts of tactics would be similarly dismissed by people with this view point). Obviously, this is a problem, but the solution to this is a campaign directed at increasing understanding/emphasis of these sorts of violence not one about female-offenders specifically.

Finally, this belief may be what people expect other people to believe, without necessarily believing it themselves. When enough people repeat this, it appears to the public as if it's a common belief without actually having much genuine support. This would suggest that this assertion is based on a widely held (MRA based) myth, more than any actual fact.

Importantly, the above points also mean that, regardless of the empirical findings, many victims will feel invalidated by the people around them. This is absolutely a problem, and it's one that will be reduced by further public education (as it has already been reduced over the past decades). For you personally, I hope the evidence that people (in general) understand the seriousness of women's violence may help alleviate these feelings.

---

All that being said, this still doesn't address what can actually be done about female-on-female violence (or violence more broadly). I have a few thoughts (many of which are already being implemented to varying degrees).

In reference to child sexual abuse (many of these would apply to both male and female abusers):

There's much better awareness that most child molesters are known to the victim (i.e., rather than "stranger danger"), however there's still much too little discussion on the implications of this. For example, many, many, child abusers position themselves as "pillars of the community", in part to get access to victims but also to make it seem inconceivable to other adults that they would ever (or ever intend to) abuse a child. In many cases, these abusers don't just groom the child, they groom the adults around them as well, so that the adults are more likely to ignore or excuse any evidence of abuse as "not possible" given the person's reputation. This is a very significant problem, and one that needs to be addressed to continue making headway in preventing CSA. Increasing awareness of and addressing this problem will help prevent these abusers from gaining and keeping access to kids. (As a note this is a specific manifestation of the first point of the above list.)

More detailed screening of applicants for positions that involve access to vulnerable populations (children, students, juvenile offenders, etc.) would also help with the above problem.

Some (many?) cases of abuse are missed by adults because the children don't have the language needed to communicate the problem (e.g., use of euphemisms for genitals, no discussion of what is considered sexual activity, etc.). Sex education programs aimed at rectifying this is absolutely essential in helping prevent CSA.

Related to the above point: reforms and education for the justice system concerning child-friendly reporting procedures and education for parents to circumvent common issues with child testimony.

Removal of the statute of limitations for CSA (or sex crimes in general).

Increasing education and awareness around child-on-child sex abuse (COCSA). COCSA is becoming an increasing problem around the world, so addressing it is essential.

In reference to intimate partner violence (again many will apply to both male and female offenders):

We need more research into same-sex domestic violence on almost every topic. In particular, I can find no studies concerning the prevalence of situational vs coercive controlling violence in same-sex relationships. This is important because the best response to these types of violence is significantly different (e.g., situational violence may respond to rehabilitation/counseling whereas counseling can make coercive controlling violence worse).

Better education/public campaigns concerning the impact of the "less" or "non-" violent tactics (like drugging, coercion, etc.). Public awareness on this issue is already much better than a few decades ago, but there's much more ground to be covered.

Education about identifying domestic abuse (per the coercive control, responsive, situational violence typology) in general, but also, in particular, for people in positions of power (i.e., police, prosecutors, victim advocates, etc.). Under the current procedures, many victims are being arrested as an abuser when they use responsive violence.

For the female-on-female domestic abuse shelter problem: I don't have a perfect solution, but potentially granting any who seek the shelter access but keeping anyone in a relationship separate from each other (i.e., via separate shelter locations, sheltering with separate volunteers who agree to keep the location confidential even from other advocates/victims/etc.).

Programs concerning rehabilitation for both child and domestic abusers have produced ... inadequate results. I honestly have no idea about improvements in this area for any type of offender, male or female, as despite the wide variety of programs attempted none appear to have a significant success rate/effect size.

---

I hope this clarifies my views on the topic?

In particular, you said "but as victim of abuse i want an answer tho because i never am given any", but I'm not sure what question you're referring to? As such, I tried to address the main points you brought up concerning social views on women's violence and also provide some initial suggestions about how to address domestic/sexual violence.

---

Most references are in the linked posts, the rest are below the cut:

Shannan Catalano. (2007). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States. Bureau of Justice.

Female Offender and Public Opinion - Perceived Seriousness of Crimes and Recommended Dispositions | Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/female-offender-and-public-opinion-perceived-seriousness-crimes-and.

Lantz, Brendan. “Victim, Police, and Prosecutorial Responses to Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence: A Comparative Approach.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, vol. 36, no. 2, May 2020, pp. 206–27. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219894429.

Hirschel, David, and Philip D. McCormack. “Same-Sex Couples and the Police: A 10-Year Study of Arrest and Dual Arrest Rates in Responding to Incidents of Intimate Partner Violence.” Violence Against Women, vol. 27, no. 9, July 2021, pp. 1119–49. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220920378.

Younglove, Jane A., et al. “Law Enforcement Officers’ Perceptions of Same Sex Domestic Violence: Reason for Cautious Optimism.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 17, no. 7, July 2002, pp. 760–72. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502017007004.

Brown, Michael J., and Jennifer Groscup. “Perceptions of Same-Sex Domestic Violence Among Crisis Center Staff.” Journal of Family Violence, vol. 24, no. 2, Feb. 2009, pp. 87–93. Springer Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9212-5.

[rad4learning]

What gets to me isn't that my father - who started hitting mum after she experienced the female-specific vulnerability of pregnancy - now claims to be a transwoman to further his victimhood complex*. It's that there is so much institutional support behind that now.

The thing, more than anything else, that got me interested in radical feminism was learning about how abuse in terms of abuse of power, coercive control, applied disproportionately by men against women and children; not just bad/unreasonable actions by people.

\* this is not speculation he has written in an article under his real name about how he was sick of being seen as a privileged man and how he is both an MRA and a transwoman

It often feels like people want to talk about anything but power, it's about "social norms", "gender roles", "representation", "hormonal influences on emotions and/or aggression" and "male mindset". In case that phrasing didn't make it clear, I'm not just annoyed at the TRAs who promote "woman brain" or mainsteam "gender roles hurt men too! Men being expected to wield power is so hard for them :/". I'm also annoyed at cultural feminist (often called radical feminist) attitudes that pedestal "woman brain". [Which includes This Attitude/Interest is Bad Because It's A Male Attitude/Interest]

I want to talk about men's power as sex class and how they wield it against women but first I'm restricted by the idea that women aren't oppressed (MRA ideology). Then I'm restricted by the idea that men don't form a sex class (TRA ideology). Then I'm restricted by the idea that actually it's not about power, it's just about What Do We Do Knowing That Men are Bad People (much of radblr).

So if anyone is wondering, that's why I've been posting Redstockings papers recently. Although there are flaws in the papers, they look at power. Although they are outdated in some ways, they look at power.

Shout out btw to the women who say things like "what's the alternative to separatism, do you plan on giving mass-therapy to the men???" for so clearly illustrating your focus on "male psychology" which you presume the rest of us follow. (No shade to women who distance themselves from men - I myself have no contact with immediate male family members.)

The societal problem is people like my father having the ability to exert coercive control and being rewarded for it. Not that there's some innate spark or biochemical compound women lack driving that behaviour.

That's how I see it.

[el-smacko]

“The TikTok ban has been coming for like five years, it isn’t about Palestine.”

1) so the legislation was stuck until a recent development brought establishment Democratic support?

2) registered Democrats hate Joe Biden for primarily one issue

3) they lost control of the narrative on that issue because of low trust in the mainstream media even after the “voice of democracy” rebrand they did… only to try to lockstep lie us into another genocidal aggression

4) the alternative is that Americans are merely coincidentally in danger of losing a primary source of direct evidence of crimes by the U.S. and its proxy

Like, come on. This isn’t a conspiracy.

Israel is a racial separatist state and, despite Zionist propaganda, is not Jewish much less synonymous with the Jewish people.

Encouraging self-deportation, reinforcing notions of dual loyalty, presuming to arbitrate on global Jewish issues with a body presumptuously called the Knesset, violently suppressing anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews, pushing a Third Temple movement, rebuffing Jeremiah by pursuing separatism by war, rebuffing the Song of Songs by pursuing a diplomacy of war rather than peace and, of course, committing genocide on the inhabitants—fellow Semitic peoples by the way—of a starved concentration camp or ghetto at best.

Israel’s ally is the United States. That alone should be the most damning detail. They exclusively support fascist and apartheid regimes wherever neoliberalism needs them to be for the sake of its market, currently devastating, among other things, the climate.

It’s not hard. We’re not far off from it being the United States vs. everyone else and you do not want to be on the side of fascism.

[1yyyyyy1]

I only look at two accounts on twitter daily and yours is one of them, I like hearing about what you have to say even if it's just me clicking the translate button so that I can read your words...I do miss you on this blog but I understand wanting to grow past your old content :) you're the reason why I got into LOA and I've been manifesting small things although I'm going for something very big now. You were there when I was researching separatism and now I've run out of characters but I wish y

Thank you :) That is a very nice thing to say... Truthfully, I haven't moved away from my blog at all, I am just still in the process of figuring out and articulating more things on the topics of LOA and metaphysics. I still believe that there is only so much you can say about misogyny and separatism before you fully know where you stand on women and men and stop being gaslit by your own mind, and, having reached that stage, I want to focus on what you can do afterwards i.e. improving your mindset overall. I made my blog with the goal of finding a way to exit the mental prison people have put me in and live independently from the heterosexual institution, and since LOA has been the solution for me, I struggle to discuss the alternatives because I don't have much experience with it.

Personally, I think that there is enough content on my blog for it to be decently used as an archive with the number of posts it currently has, even if I will be coming back with more posts at a later date.

[radblrthemeweeks]

Thank you to everyone who voted on the topic for the next theme week!

The community has decided the theme topic for January 2023 is ‘Separatist Swaps (suggesting equivalent female artists/musicians/creators/etc to support as well as or instead of men)’. This could include examples of swaps or additions you’ve already made, such as female youtubers who create similar content to better-known male youtubers, or requests for swaps or additions you’d like to make, such as suggestions for female musicians similar to male musicians you currently listen to. This theme is not a reference to, or element of, any discussion around separatism overall - it’s just a catchier title with the alliteration.

Please consider posting your swap suggestions and requests over the next week and ‘@‘ing this blog @radblrthemeweeks - all original posts (besides spam) that @ this blog will be shared over the next week (21-28th January). Alternatively, you can share this post to make suggestions or requests in the notes.

Everyone is welcome to contribute to the theme, regardless of your experience, how established your blog is, or how many followers you have, so please don’t hesitate to get involved, by creating original posts or interacting with others’ posts. Please remain civil and polite with suggestions, in order for everyone to get the maximum benefit, and to develop ideas as much as possible. Please consider sharing this post, so more women can see the prompt. Also, please engage with other people’s theme posts!

As always, a reminder - if you don’t make the posts, the posts don’t get made.

Looking forward to seeing everything you all create, suggest, and share! Any questions, please get in touch!

[goawaypopup]

Roddacember Day 8: Relationship

I could talk about any number of character dynamics here. Doran and the dragons he has known, and places he's loved, come to mind especially.

But I want something to analyze! So, let's take a bit of a different route.

There used to be far more dragons than there are now, and the survivors have each got a huge chunk of exclusive territory pre-allocated, so I would imagine they might continue to be largely solitary until their population starts to recover.

They did, however, receive a poignant lesson in remembering who your real enemy is when Lief summoned all seven on Dragon Night, and we know they also managed to come and be polite wedding guests together in Del afterwards. So, while the territories themselves are set deep in earth, there might be a lot more dragons paying visits to areas outside their purview in modern Deltora, and that potentially means visiting one other.

They all arrived at Hira quickly enough - a couple of hours at the most - that they probably don't have to worry about travel time to anywhere within the continent

Veritas' adoption of Forta Jr. will certainly help break down the custom of strict borders and tribal separatism too.

The death of Forta's mother does mean that a lot of Diamond dragon culture, specifically, was lost, a tragic parallel to the Jalis themselves and their near-genocide.

That makes me think, though. The Jalis are still alive and reintegrating with life in Deltora after being rescued from the Shadowlands. Storytelling is a big part of their custom.

I wouldn't be surprised if Forta, having been raised by a dragon outside her tribe, makes contact with the humans of her land as well, to hear about her people. Could make for a much closer relationship between dragons and Deltoran humans moving forward.

Anyways, the big thing here that makes this scenario different from ever before in the Land of Dragons, is Lief's particular screwup that night over Hira.

Invoking a dragon's true name lets you command them. And now they ALL know each others' names.

"Then we all have power over one another." says Fortuna.

What the hell does that look like in practice, Fortuna?

Is it like a semi-hive mind, where you can tell the others to do things, but they can do the same to you? Dragons are telepathic, so it's not unreasonable that it might not be possible to command someone to shut up and prevent them from retaliating.

The alternative is that that IS possible, and that makes things more of a mutually assured destruction deal. It being more of an active danger might add some incentive for them to start producing offspring whose names the others won't know.

Either way, we do know that this allows for (telepathically?) calling a dragon and being heard from far away, since they heard everything Lief said when he summoned them.

This, I imagine, is something like a group chat.

Actually, exactly like a group chat.

[eldorr]

Porcian

Being pan in an orchidspec way, where one may experience attraction to any or all genders, however may only wish to enter or seek out relationships with certain genders. Under the Separspec umbrella.

Could also be called Porci- (Porcisexal, Porciromantic, etc.)

Example: A pan lesbian, who’s attracted to all genders, however only seeks out relationships with non-binary women. A Porcilesbian / Porcian Lesbian.

Porcian covers anyone who's attracted to all genders, but chooses to only enter that kind of relationship with certain genders. This can also describe anyone who's a mspec mono, such as being pansexual biromantic where one wants to always have a sexual relationship with one's romantic partners; one would technically be pansexual but would only enter sexual relationships with those one is romantically attracted to. (Technically, being both S.A.M. and non-S.A.M.)

Porcian is not an excuse for transmisia, exorsexism, intersexism, radfem separatism rhetoric, etc. Nor should the term be used to promote such rhetoric. This term just exists to explain a complicated aspect of attraction. Could technically be used as a non-problematic alternative to terms like Febfem.

This term was originally posted March 31st, 2022. It was originally posted on the same post as Separspec and Cupian. Porcian can also be considered to be an Alspec term.

[hadesoftheladies]

Opinion: We Need to Start Talking About Violent Feminist Activism Seriously

while i do not think that females are as violent or would be as violent as males without patriarchal obstruction, i think it's mostly the emasculation of women (female socialization) that leads to this demureness that perpetuates female subjugation. we often frame femininity as something that inhibits consciousness-raising, but it is actually far more frightening and deeper than that. femininity and its practices inhibit female self-worth which in turn causes women to devalue themselves. this is why women are not accustomed to fighting for themselves, like every other animal (male and female) on this earth. women are so used to "lying down and taking it" because it is something they are primed to do. the danger of femininity isn't just that it deforms our bodies or divides us from each other, it is that it physically and mentally disables our ability to fight back.

i have often neglected to mention alternative methods in my separatist posts, but separatism is not the only way we can enact large-scale societal transformation. it is the only nonviolent way.

the truth of the matter is, as much as we make jokes and fantasize about killing men, the reason most women and girls "behave" when it comes to men and men do not "behave" when it comes to women is because women simply aren't feared, despite the fact that we have the power to become a threat. even in feminist circles such as this, talk of women physically harming men is seen as taboo, as something that can be easily used against us. so we have to constantly disclose that we aren't serious. i think this is part of the problem.

the other word for fear is respect. men cannot respect or revere men they do not fear on some level. in a twisted way, in order for women to become human to men, we have to get scary. we have to hold real power over them and become intolerant to them.

this doesn't necessarily have to be done strictly in violent ways. resisting femininity can range from allowing ourselves to frown and even scowl in public, not being hospitable toward men, not complimenting, affirming, validating or cleaning up after them. but the point of combatting female socialization is resisting the role of women in patriarchal society: sexual object, or in other words, victim. it is the victimization of women that men find especially erotic. that's why consensual sex isn't enough for them. they are fuelled by female terror.

in short, gyns, i'm saying the time has come when we should aim to put the fear of god in these bastards. the only way they will view rape as badly as they view cannibalism is if there is a constant looming threat of brutal social castration. they need to fear social punishment, which is difficult because half of society is made up of men that approve. so how can the other half, women, make it so that the other half are afraid to do so?

which brings us, ironically, back to separatism and also gender non-conformity. in order for women to reach a place where we can defend ourselves using violence and not get taken ten steps back for killing/maiming a rapist, pedo, abuser we need women to have access to ironclad female solidarity.

male solidarity is what keeps the status quo intact, and female solidarity is its only worthy counterpoint. the reason patriarchy is so strong is because of female solidarity with males rather than intra-community solidarity. this is the weak point of patriarchy, it's over-dependence on women on a cellular level. society as we know it, patriarchal or not, will fall to shit if women refused to participate in its core structures. literally the only reason children are still being born, raised and schooled in the face of men's destructiveness is because of women. men can destroy as much as they like and a society will still function for the most part because of the resilience of women. literally the biggest economic problems societies face come from male criminality whether from upper or lower class men. the only reason any of it still functions is because of women. women are the glue of the home themselves, the basic unit of society. take women away, and i promise there's nothing fucking left.

for this reason, the biggest de-radicalization tools patriarchy employs against female liberation are marriage/co-habitation with men, femininity and religion and i will get into the details why briefly:

-marriage/co-habitation often results in the woman's isolation from female community or larger society because the man strategically makes himself the central focus/recipient of her resources (health, attention, energy)

-femininity keeps women focused on male approval as a source of power, further encouraging female-female competition and destroying solidairty

-religion and romance are explicitly androcentric, focusing on framing men as the only possible givers of life, purpose, fulfillment and meaning to women while simultaneously demeaning, obscuring and devaluing the fact that women are oftentimes the primary sources of human life and love

now see that all three do three very important things for de-radicalization: they frame men as sources of life, meaning and vitality as opposed to a threat or disadvantage, isolates women from their true selves (devaluing their friendships, erasing their history and contributions, distorting their nature), and pits women against each other. to sum up, centering men and then erasing and isolating women from each other and themselves.

but we won't scare men by psyching ourselves out of what's going to be necessary to defend ourselves. in order for women to be mobilized to take power men have no authority to deny them, we have to cultivate strong, nearly unbreakable self-esteem. we need to esteem ourselves so highly that we never question whether or not we should feel entitled to a better life.

that's why refusing to emasculate yourself is the first step. decolonizing your mind of its male-centeredness and no longer seeing yourself as subordinate, inferior or less worthy to a life of freedom than him.

the second step after de-centering men within yourself is to quickly center women. that's where separatism comes in. not only does this also aid you in decolonizing the rest of your mind, but it gives you the courage to go for better rather than settle for what men say you deserve. seeing that actually, men aren't vital at all to a wonderful life. throwing yourself into female centricity and replacing male hegemony with female history, philosophy, culture, literature, all of it. but not just on a mental level, on an interpersonal and financial level as well. this boosts you economically and empowers you buy giving you that independence necessary to make demands.

then when it comes to the dire, when men retaliate as they are prone to do, you don't hesitate to punish them for it. you don't hesitate to make it cost them. whether that's in organized feminist cyber attacks (doxxing, phishing, DDos attacks, etc). you make them see themselves as potential victims. where what they do to others can also be done to them. where they fear being poisoned, disappearing, outed, isolated, killed.

this kind of organized self-defense will not happen without female solidarity. we already have examples of women coming together to beat abusive men up and get rid of the threats themselves when victims of male violence fear state retaliation too much to defend themselves. female solidarity can substitute for state neglect. it is the only thing that can. the king of the pride doesn't stand a chance against a pack of lionesses. and the state cannot punish all its women lest it destroy itself entirely. governments know that restricting women restricts their economy, so killing masses of women is just not feasible.

female solidarity is the missing piece, and that's what the status quo continually tries to dismantle. also, non-violence in the face of our oppression has never been a virtue. it is something the patriarchy has counted on.

the lie of femininity is that men will respect or care for us once they see how we suffer and how beautiful we are. we think they will set us apart as sacred if they are in love with us. but the truth is they will only respect us if they fear us.

anyways, i'm just thinking out loud here, and these are all generalizations. i'll need to make a whole other article where i break this down on an infrastructural level.