#and I was definitely not the only liberal feminist who felt that way

[gatheringbones]

[“As history has shown, and as I was at the time experiencing, a strap-on can be sexy, but it can also be a failure and a threat. It draws attention to how contradictory and fragile our definitions of male and female are, and how tightly we cling to them, even in relationships between women, where gender and sexuality are more flexible.

I think it’s important to look at how this played out, not just in the history of straight men policing lesbians but in the lesbian community policing itself. In the 1940s and 50s a bar scene began to develop in cities across the country, marking the first time when lesbians, particularly working-class ones, gathered publicly and in large numbers. During this time a butch/femme culture developed that included strict codes of dress and behavior both in and outside the bedroom. Butch women slicked back their hair, wore suits and jeans, and were, generally, the “givers” of sexual pleasure. Femme women wore dresses and makeup and were the “receivers” of sexual pleasure. In some ways, this culture was liberating, as it represented a powerful, cohesive group aesthetic and safety in numbers. Especially for women who actually identified as butch, it was also a chance to finally adopt masculine dress without being seen as failed or dangerous but rather as sexy and loveable. For others this culture was a trap, pushing women into restrictive sex and gender roles in the same ways heterosexuality had. It is by no means the only lesbian aesthetic, but I think part of the reason it has stuck around for so long in the popular imagination as the way lesbians are is because it allows straight people to again see themselves as the center of the sexual world.

In either case, strap-ons were not widely used, or at least not talked about. In Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold, a book that documents the lives of Black and white lesbians in Buffalo, there is a pretty exhaustive set of interviews about sex acts and terminology, but no one mentions owning, liking, or even trying sex with a strap-on. Indeed, the one mention of a dildo is one of bewilderment as Vic, a self-identified butch, talks about her friend pulling her into the bathroom to show her the new strap-on she got. “Jesus, she whipped this thing out . . . I’m supposed to be butch and my face felt like a neon sign. I could feel the embarrassment. How do you admire a dildo? No seriously, what do you say?”

Butches in the book took great pride “in their own hands and their ability to please,” which “did not dispose them to think that a dildo would improve their lovemaking.” It’s interesting that they considered the dildo less potent and successful than hands. This could be read as displacing the power of the dick, but, coupled with the silence surrounding strap-on use, it also points to a greater fear about the lesbian body. How regulated and small it had to be to exist. How easily it could be diminished by something outside itself, or destroyed altogether.

In the lesbian radical feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s, there was also a great deal of attention focused on creating distance from dicks. Jill Johnston argued in A Lesbian Nation that the only true road to female liberation was the conscious “withdrawal at every level from the man to develop woman supremacy.” This meant that not only butch/femme dynamics but also penetrative sex were out. Anne Koedt developed the theory that the vaginal orgasm was a myth perpetrated by Freud in order to center male sexual desire for penetration, though her evidence for this was a study done by Kinsey—a man—that found the vagina was not particularly sensitive to touch. True orgasms, Koedt argued, only came from the clitoris—even though she interestingly also called the clit “the female equivalent of the penis”—so if women wanted to have enjoyable sex there was no need for penetration, only clitoral stimulation. Andrea Dworkin went so far as to call the penis “a hidden symbol of terror” and argued that “violence is male, the male is the penis.”

Dorothy Allison writes about the effects this had on herself and other lesbians at the time. “No one admitted to using dildos, wanting to be tied up, wanting to be penetrated, or talking dirty—all that male stuff . . . my lover wanted us to perform tribadism, stare into each other’s eyes, and orgasm simultaneously. Egalitarian, female, feminist, revolutionary.” In attempting to free themselves from the penis, in many ways radical lesbians ended up reinscribing the power of the dick and sacrificing the range of sexual pleasure they could experience in the process.

In a counter to this, the lesbian sexual outlaws of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s argued that dildos were actually great, not problematic, but primarily because they didn’t reference the penis at all. Some even argued that wearing a dildo turns a woman into a cyborg, not woman, man, or even human, just a body involved in the mechanistic movements of giving and receiving pleasure. While there is something freeing about this argument, as it gets us out from under the idea that we can’t talk about strap-ons and that a woman wearing a strap-on is only trying to make up for a never-ending lack, it still bypasses the sticky, complicated reality of the gendered/human world we live in and the simple fact that sometimes lesbians want strap-ons to look like penises.

All of this begs the question: can a dyke wear a dick and just have some damn fun?”]

amy gall, from my dick, your dick, our dick, from wanting: women writing about desire, 2023

[femsolid]

I dunno that nuns doing a definition of "modesty" that happens to include not shaving or wearing makeup is actually all that close to feminist ideals. "Women are not allowed to shave or wear makeup, that's immodest" isn't really much better than "women have to shave and wear makeup". Women should be free to do whatever they'd like with their own bodies, and the idea that anyone should get to say otherwise, that there's any particular way women should or have to behave, look, or act is simply not feminist. Even if the way someone thinks women have to behave involves natural bodies.

You're not contradicting me. I disputed the concept of modesty. As well as the "feminism" one could perceive in their actions.

However, living a life of "christian modesty" wasn't about being demure to them. It was about asceticism. It meant not indulging in life's pleasures: shopping, wearing nice things, eating sugary food, dating, sex, living in comfort, all things they rejected. I worked in the food industry back then and, at the end of the day when I would close the shop, one of them would show up and take some of our leftovers. That's how I got to know them. I offered them better food, but they would only take the most simple bread, anything else was self-indulgence, vanity, self-satisfaction. I told one of them "come on, we only have one life, you should enjoy it" and immediately remembered that she not only believed that we had another life awaiting, but also that this one and only life we have was just a test to see if she would get the better one.

She told me their goal was to live as poor people do. Except they weren't poor. They were cosplaying as poor people. Just like muslims do, during that period of time when they don't eat and drink all day and can only do it at night, just to pretend they know what it's like to be starving and show how humble and empathetic they are to their god. Or just like any youtuber who does a "I tried being homeless for a month experiment", except the nuns were a lot more graceful about it. That's what I debated with them, this offensive concept of "modesty". But they were really nice and it felt good to see women in their natural state who had a strong bond with each others. And they were genuinely glowing, they were happy for all the reasons I mentioned in my original post. And yes, unlike a lot of so called feminists, they did practice what they preached, they believed in what they preached and they were implementing a lifestyle that many "feminists" claim is just impossible. And actions speak louder than words to me. I prefer to see a woman practice separatism for the wrong reasons, than a woman who doesn't despite agreeing that men oppress women.

The second part of your message is just liberal pseudo feminism 101 so I won't respond to it. "Feminism is about the freedom to choose. As long as the woman choses it, it's okay. Criticizing a woman's choice is not feminism. Telling a woman to stop shaving is just as bad as telling a woman to shave. Telling women what to do is bad."

I don't have the patience for this. I do have a libfem tag that you can check out, it directly addresses this mindset. In short, feminism isn't about having the choice to be a slave or not, it's about being free from slavery.

[youremyheaven]

Your perspective on astrology is unique in that it cuts through the bullshit. I like how quick you are to point out what is obviously woman-bashing propaganda from centuries past, and what is actually plausible and in-tune with the nature of the sign/nakshatra. However, I am actually really curious about your perspective on monogamy? There are some ideas circulating in feminist circles that monogamy was enforced to benefit men (to ensure that the offspring is theirs) at the expense of women's freedom and choice. For example, in one of your older posts, you implied that an evolved Venus in Aries would be more willing to accommodate a monogamous relationship, despite the placement having a reputation for being more... sexually liberal, I guess. Or that a Venus in Gemini is fickle only when they're unevolved, wherein the implication is that flings are only for the unevolved and the relationships endgoal is a strictly monogamous relationship. Then again, I am pretty sure you made those observations based on tropical astrology, so maybe there's a different way to look at it from vedic.

I'm really conflicted on this myself, I guess I can definitely see where both ways of thinking are coming from. It'd be lovely to hear your current perspective, if you are willing to share. Thank you for your work!

those posts are from atleast one year ago and i will admit most of my early work on tropical astrology is a bit shallow.

that said, i dont think monogamy curtails women's freedom or choice. do i find "monogamy" empowering? not necessarily but i also dont find casual sex "empowering". the truth is there is no winning either way. marriage/monogamy is an institution that is deeply flawed but what is the opposite of it? having as many partners as one wants? maybe it suits some but (and i know ill get flak for saying this) an "evolved" person is one who abstains or exercises self-control. not just with regard to sex but with any kind of indulgence, be it alcohol, drugs etc. i think its really flawed to view "freedom" as the ability to consume limitlessly. anybody who lives like that will tell you how self-destructive that is. you indulge too much (in anything) and you risk your own ruin.

we need structure, order and stability, otherwise we feel disoriented and spiritually lost. ive never looked at someone who's partying every night, doing a cocktail of 10 substances and waking up in a different person's house every morning and thought "wow they're so free!!". i know this is a very binary way of thinking and not what you intended to ask but im just airing my thoughts out.

as corny and cheesy as it sounds, i think the only thing that makes a partnership between two people "right" is love. a lot of men want a bangmaid or they just want to bang. neither of which is empowering for the women involved. im not trying to say that sex in itself is disempowering but that the ways in which men who only want sex from you treat you are. casual sex or having multiple sexual partners is fun but ive always felt like its disingenuous to call it empowering bc i dont think empowerment is something we get from having sex??? i feel like sex positivity has become a way for men and women to delude other women into thinking that they'll be happier or "freer" if they have more sex.

i dont want to be someone's sexdoll and neither do i want to be bangmaid.

but i believe in love and the highest form of love is consideration. the only way we can transcend systemic issues is if we have love for each other because if you love someone, you will value them, prioritize them, respect them and do whatever it takes to make things easier for them. expecting servitude and sex from women means you've never loved anybody in your life lol. i dont really think equality can exist or will exist simply because our world is really imbalanced but i do think individually we can champion each other and help each other rise up, if we move through the world with love and grace. i dont expect anything from "men" and atp i dont want to associate with them anyway but i do believe a man in love is one who will extend grace and id never feel like i needed anything else (from another man).

all of this is just my perspective and i will admit its vvv hard for me to find a man attractive or feel "connected" to him. i feel pretty asexual if im not seeing someone and i can only be intimate with someone i love and connect to deeply. this is why things i say or describe in my posts often dont have sexuality in them or are monogamy centered. that said, im not an advocate for it or anything, everyone above the age of 18 can do what they like and make decisions for themselves<3

[faithfromanewperspective]

how did you arrive at your progressive punk christianity outlook after being immersed in conservative christianity?

ooh!! good question. see I don’t really think what I was immersed in was particularly conservative—in circles I’ve been around we’ve always dissed Americans for being conservative (kinda mean I know) and my dad used to take me to climate change protests in the 2000s and I was always taught the 6 days of creation aren’t literal, the rapture isn’t real, women in stem etc. idk how it was anywhere else but the part of sydney I grew up in was just Like That, there was encouragement to give to the poor to actually end poverty and people actually did even though none of us really had heaps and I guess I wasn’t raised to be okay with entitlement but simply be kind to everyone? And I didn’t even know what conservative was until I was maybe 17 (I thought it was a style of fashion for ages and then I thought it meant conserving nature and history). It was always just Christians are meant to be genuinely kind and not have sex til you’re older and preferably married yknow?? and work hard, like the protestant work ethic was def a thing but somehow in a non ableist way as much as this is possible— I get real impatient with people bitching about stuff getting taken away from them, not realising how much they have when I probably have less and I’m usually giving away as much as I’m able and as much will put me in a state of perceived danger. It’s definitely a form of rebellion against them to see how little I can survive on which I’m working on. I also didn’t even know that so many Christians were transphobic like I thought it was only the extreme theobros. I also had a really lovely geography teacher in high school who was also a Christian and used her faith to drive environmental action, my biology teacher was a Christian and stood up for trans rights and I also had acccss to the internet to read up on clobber passages and hear peoples stories and it was always like ‘oh yeah some Christians believe different things based on how they read this stuff’ and I don’t think it was until I was old enough to actually vote and saw what propoganda was going around I really realised the power dynamic behind it, with the rise of the Australian Christian lobby which felt like it was straight out of the US. I fully thought voting was just liberals if you like fossil fuels, greens to save the environment, and labor if you’re a people pleaser and like fun little rhymes like ‘Kevin 07’ and attempting to be feminist but not really getting anything done. I actually met Martyn Iles once and was like ‘damn this guy is a fake Aussie this isn’t how we do Christianity’. I also got super burnt out by how hard and how biblically I tried to love my classmates on top of the Protestant work ethic about my schoolwork I never really cared about for myself, and was well versed in theology enough to be like HA! Grace means that we don’t have to do all that and can just do our sustainable best, still thinking my view was mainstream. I went to uni to study enviro sci at 17 and I thought my convictions to not drive unless Absolutely Necessary were driven by Christian ethics (which they were, how rigid I was with it was a pda response though). Then over the years realised very belatedly how people often didn’t validate my views and experiences and I’d expect they would (bc they were biblically rooted) and got quite hurt when they didn’t. Spent years in different volunteer ministries trying to put together the kind of community talked about in books like Philippians only to constantly be let down and feel isolated and that only driving me to work harder, despite knowing God’s grace meant I didn’t have to feeling like I couldn’t stop while my earthly needs for connection were unmet, saying yes to things I’d previously said no to because I got a sense of temporary community and belonging every time I joined a new serving team. Tried extra hard to make places inclusive and expected everyone else to be working as hard on it as I was and feel the desperation like I did and got super hurt when they didn’t, oh I guess I’ll have to do it all myself then.

I’ve always struggled with the concept of hell, tbh I heard about it way too young and never had a drop of self preservation instinct in my body only didn’t want to let God down by saying no. I’ve particularly always struggled with the whole urgency motivation like I’m trying, I’m doing the best I can, I listen to people and actually speaking the gospel into their lives in a way that hits home for them (bc I was thinking about how to do this in an empathetic and understanding and autonomy respecting way from a Very Young Age like I used to attempt to evangelise on moshi monsters to get an idea) and shit, I’m like 19 years old at this stage and I’m tired. If only I could just have one last hurrah to change places with someone so they can go to heaven instead of me? Id take it. and I basically worked myself to the point of being that suicidal and kept fucking going because God made me good at science so I can save the planet and end world hunger, and I had this conviction to contextualise (this is what we learned at afes btw) the gospel to really be real to queer folk and indigenous folk and other people of colour and marginalised people (it’s easy to see oppression with my background and my neurotype tbh) and maybe I could make myself suffer now bc God wasn’t gonna let me do that for eternity? anyway eventually left afes bc I was being so stretched and getting so isolated and the work I was doing there wasn’t achieving any of these things and I realised if I stayed I might end up dead and I wasn’t ready to go to heaven yet when my work wasn’t done. or at least so constantly dysregulated I wouldn’t be as able to be kind to others and show them the gospel.

around this time I’m also putting together a pretty comprehensive framework for how to actually solve global problems in a productive way, I’ve unpacked the pride in a lot of Christian mission projects and how they often were a feel good thing but not actually respectful or effective and I’d come up with literally hundreds of ideas for projects I could do to actually help, none of which I obviously had time for I think I was working up to 3 jobs while studying and serving in church and doing my hobbies that kept me kind of sane as well? which was discouraging to say the least, driving a kind of rageful resentment. Around that time I also discover PDA and my whole life makes sense, I start on my adhd meds which I had to jump through a million hoops to get and realise maybe I can finish uni.

a pda framework as I dive more into that and how to be actually neurodivergent affirming and actually recover from burnout long story short makes me realise how ableist much of our concept of sin and holiness really is and how much we need to destigmatise sin and stop using it as a way to intellectualise actual things happening in our brains and nervous systems and maybe we’d feel a lot less hopeless about it like it’s some big mystery if we actually did unpack the fear and threat responses and trauma behind it. Which we always say we will do but practically, church doenst give a space to do that bc you’re gonna be shamed. even for the people who are non affirming I’d be like, but isn’t it a logical step to someone who’s not yet been convicted to celibacy (if that’s something they think they should be) and realised this whole thing is unrealistic, not because the bible is wrong but because people think you can control your own brain by simply trying and trying again every time you fuck up as if that’s not gonna drive learned helplessness or actually traumatise you when you so desperately want to do better? Either that or drive you to be numb about it which I realised is what usually happens, there are certain sins people are blind to in every congregation and they’re actually intellectually unable to be convicted of that as sin because they’re stretched as far as they can go covering all other bases and being like ‘Christ covers that I didn’t Choose To Sin I’m trying not to even though it doesn’t really work’ like I’m a solutions person. if something isn’t working we’re gonna think of a new method and suddenly I understand how my brain works and those of so many others especially those who feel marginalised by the church!

and so long story short when I eventually had to quit what I was doing at church because someone cared enough to realise I hadn’t been doing well for years I was like I’m gonna follow this urge of the Spirit or simply my own head and desire for true connection I often found In exvangelical spaces and hear as many experiences as possible and use it to shape my worldview and get a bunch of hope from people who yes they’ve been marginalised but the gospel is real to them. that’s my only criteria I’m not gonna judge based on theology and I’m not ever gonna think my theological takes make anyone else wrong I’m just gonna be open to listen and shape them so there isn’t any cognitive dissonance and the grace found at the cross is real and practical and doenst have weird arbitrary limits, and I’m also gonna listen to those hurt by Christianity who some might judge as being hard hearted but I know how trauma works. and I’ve been doing that ever since, gradually getting there more and more and I think the best/funniest thing is even in more conservative spaces literally everyone I still talk to has been super encouraging of it and if we have any disagreements they’re pretty minor compared to the fact that we all believe the gospel is for everyone and we all wanna invest in social justice too (which makes me question how conservative those spaces ever were tbh). like there’s def parts of my story I won’t always tell but I feel like I come with a perspective people respect these days no matter where I am, and that’s nice in contrast to being that weird kid trying to do adult things being told either not to worry or that I don’t understand.

[papirouge]

I can’t stop crying, I’ve lost more friends in Gaza… yet so many Christian evangelicals have yet to even mention that Christians in Gaza exist. Or if they do, it’s criticism and blaming Gaza for the genocide that’s happening. It’s as if they fully believe it’s a Jew/Muslim conflict when it’s not. It’s an idf-Hamas conflict.

I lost contact with one of my friends and haven’t been able to get any info. The terror keeps coming. And there was no where to go, it hurts. And I’m so angry at that Christians in the west just ignoring it all

.......... I'm really sorry anon...

I've never felt that powerless in my life, and my heart aches for all those people being murdered before our eyes, and the Christian community either condoning such heinous act or turning the head around... They will have to take accountability for their cowardice....

The body of Christ is ONE. If someone cuts your leg or hand, you will definitely feel it and your whole body is going to react to it. But Western Christians? They look away like the cowards that they are. Mind you, they are the same ones that are so suuuuure to resist the antichrist when he will come. Meanwhile, they are unable to voice the slightest support to our Christian brothers in Palestine out of fear... What kind of clownery is that? At least, I don't mind people refusing to cover any sort of world news bc they are consistent in their lane, but I'm thinking about all those Christians who have aaaaaalways so many things to say abt the latest stupid stunt in the news, the wokes, feminists, liberals... Suddenly they are VERY quiet. That's a choice. They are disgusting.

Even the anti Muslim/let's protect Christianism from Islam uwu Christian YouTuber squad are pulling out video exPoSinG Hamas while not saying a single word abt the Christian casualties (David Wood, Apostate Prophet, etc.) They are full of it, and I will never ever again take them seriously in their defense of Christianity in middle east when those ghouls don't even have a word to say about our Palestinian Christian brothers dying under Israeli strikes and PLEADING for our attention and prayers... They only care about Christians dying because of ISLAM, when they die for any other reason, they will defiect. Like, yeah, Hamas sucks - we been knew. What's the point of making 1 video a day about them? In what way does it remotely dismiss the atrocity of whatever's happening in Gaza???

It's so sick to see pro Israel constantly move the goalpost to paint themselves as the only victims, and worse, downplaying what's happening in Gaza.

They will deflect on antisemitism in pro Palestine protests (while acting like the very same didn't happen in pro Israel protests with the most rabid islamophobic genocidal crap), semantics about what Zionism is and whether it's antisemitism (meanwhile palestinians are literally DYING), that they don't care about Gaza as long as the hostage aren't fred (when if they actually really cared abt the hostages they wouldn't encourage Israel to bomb Gaza bc the actual hostages risk dying out there along the Hamas...🤦🏾‍♀️), or shouting "free Gaza from Hamas !!" as if any of that justified bombing civilians... oh and let's not forget the feminist/liberal edge of Israel defense with the "Palestianian are sexist/homophobic so there's no point defending them" stupid narrative....

I think the reason pro Israel are so bad in their rhetoric is that for years they've been used to leverage their Jewishness to get empathy and immunity against accountability.

But it's over now. We have social medias and we can witnessing in real time the horror of Tsahal actions. How they aren't any morally better than Hamas. We've seen the Israeli mocking Palestianians nit having water or food...

"you were quiet when the Hamas assassinated Israelis" we were quiet because this operation went so fast and that Israel quickly retaliated. There was no way to stop the Hamas bc NO ONE knew it was coming, so what did they expect us to do?? Just bc we don't say anything doesn't mean we approve. Do you see people condemn suicide/terrorist attacks whenever they happen?? IMO there wouldn't be such an outrage is Israel left it at that and didn't go overboard with launching a whole war against Gaza. The reason the world is siding with Palestinian is because we are witnessing the ongoing massacre of population with the actual (political and/or economical) backup of our respective countries for DAYS now. Unlike the Hamas attack, there are ways to stop it. The Hamas didn't cut the water & food supply of Israelis. Palestinians aren't clowning on social medias the Jewish civilians who were killed by the Hamas. That's why the world is shocked and is siding with Palestine and is slowly but surely getting fed up with the cognitive dissonance of Israelis crying oppression while acting like soulless ghouls. Crying antisemitism isn't fooling anyone anymore.

[lemonhemlock]

"I wonder if they changed that because they wanted to show Rhaenyra as more in charge and independent, entering a relationship with Daemon because of her free will, not because she felt compelled in some way." You see that's where I start to get into it with Daemyra stans who claim that Rhaenyra is a sexually, liberated, independent woman when she isn't. It's like you said she got with Daemon because she was made to feel like she needed to be with him. Which makes her story all the more tragic. She's not a liberated feminist who has an enviable sex life. She's a young woman whose been taken advantage of since she was a child by her creepy uncle, who made sure that he ruined her ability to have a functioning healthy relationship with other men. It's because of him that he almost causes her to be disinherited and sullies her reputation, which in turn, she's forced to marry her gay cousin. As a result, neither of those 2 knuckleheads can at least try to conceive a legitimate heir. This leads to her having a not-so-secret affair with Harwin, and it's because of her daddy's protection that is the only reason why Harwin hasn't been executed and she hasn't been disinherited. But sure she's an independent woman.

Let's backtrack to her and Cristion's little rendevous. If it weren't for Daemon's grooming she wouldn't have been so bold and inconsiderate to even sleep with Criston. Nor even think that it was a good idea to ask Criston to be her side piece. Nothing about Rhaenyra's character screams independent woman because her entire world revolves around toiling in service to men in order to be "free" to do what she wants. Her stans need to stop acting like she's a Dornish woman because she isn't. Nothing that Rhaenyra does or thinks truly even comes from her own mindset. It's either something that Daemon has taught/instilled into her or it's something that her father has pressed upon her to want. In other words, her and Alicent are in the same boat.

Yeah, I don't think Rhaenyra is a sexually liberated feminist by getting together with Daemon either.

I suppose you could argue some of that in regards to her relationship with Harwin, that she pursues love and sexual gratification for her own ends, within the confines of her station and sham marriage, and that's not a conversation without merit. Of course it is unfair that a woman (or anyone else) has to marry for political reasons and that she can't engage in sexual exploration on her own terms, according to her own needs and her timeline. But, in this context, the consequences brought about by her selfish actions shouldn't be glossed over either: she brings three innocent children into the world that now have to suffer from her indiscretions, as they are actively put in danger by their mother's lies. She is so deep in the hole she dug for herself that she has to alienate another noble house's entire patrimony in order to cover up for herself.

This is certainly something she took from Daemon - his whole speech about how marriage is a political arrangement and that dragons take what they want, exemplified by him trying to take her maidenhead in a brothel. Certainly, I agree with you that she never would have pulled that shit with Criston if she weren't feeling frustrated and horny and under his influence, taking in the "teaching" that giving into your impulses can only be a good thing.

But, at the same time, I would argue that, while Daemon definitely fucked with Rhaenyra's psyche, she didn't really do herself any favours either. Daemon is shown to be a wanderer, he never stays that much in one place. In ep. 1 it is implied he has been gone for some time now. Then he leaves again. Realistically, he is not spending all that much time with Rhaenyra either. Surely he has great influence over her, but she is not completely without agency either. After her wedding, there is a 10-year time jump and she does not seem to do any self-reflection during this time. When they finally reunite, Daemon is not really pursuing her in any way, so what happens next is completely put in motion by her.

So this is not to say that she's a liberated independent thinker deadset on exercising her sexual freedom, but more like... she recognizes she is in deep shit and doesn't know how to get out of it. Note how everyone keeps pointedly staring at her bastard sons in Driftmark; Rhaenyra recognizes this and sends them to bed so that they'd be out of sight. She sees Daemon and thinks "oh, he is scary enough and seems to know what he's doing, so, if HE would be my husband, I wouldn't have to worry about the consequences of my own actions". Basically her modus operandi of appealing to the men in her life to help her out.

Anyway, I find it interesting, because, on the other hand, I also receive asks like this (from this week):

Anonymous asked: It's funny how the show made everything revolve around Rhaenyra even Daemon's character is just him being a simp for Rhaenyra and not the dangerous ambitious man he was in the book.

This one is quite contradictory, actually. In this view, Daemon is the one constantly trailing after Rhaenyra and her being the one calling the shots. Perhaps this is a reaction from having Daemon appear declawed, so to speak, after the time jump. Whereas before the time jump, he would do all kinds of chaotic stuff when he appeared on screen. After 10 years, he seems rather mellowed out and I think this is one of the reasons the general public started to think of him as a malewife and were quite shocked at the choking scene. They must have thought that the years took some of Daemon's edge off.

and this one

Anonymous asked: I completely agree what you said about Daemyra. The chemistry between young Rhaenyra and Daemon was off the roof plus the whole forbidden aspect made them very shippeable to a lot of people (as opposed to forced incest like helaegon). Then it just fell off after the timeskip and I don’t think its the writers�� fault entirely (although they REALLY could have tried to write a better sex scene befitting the two) - the chemistry is just not there. The way Daemon looks at Rhaenyra now makes me think of a man who settled for a woman because of some promise or gain, not love. Like it literally feels like Daemon ticked off marrying Rhaenyra from his checklist, like it’s a duty, to finally put an end to the pinning and unresolved sexual tension but in such an unsatisfactory, dull way that it just fell flat. Daemyra has potential to be a badass duo, encouraging each other’s awfulness, a true force to be reckoned with. But alas no, because Rhaenyra is a lost puppy in a big castle, an eternal victim to everything whilst Daemon stands around, mentally pocking a stick into her saying DO SOMETHING! They became pathetic. At least if they were pathetic in love or something, but no, it’s just pathetic. Young Daemyra worked because young Rhaenyra had a spunk in her, spirit for adventure and risk taking that present Rhaenyra lacks. So why is Daemon attracted to her now?

There's a reason young Daemyra took off so much and people became enamoured with them. For as awful as the grooming implications were, they had the potential to be this fascinating Cathy-Healthcliff pairing that, while destructive and unhealthy, had that arresting trainwreck quality, a petri dish of heightened human emotions, an exploration of our darkest impulses and indulgences.

But adult Daemyra kind of fell flat at that. Now they were just a regular couple only with occasional choking thrown in (lol). I don't fault the actors for being confused. Some of it is writing choices, some of it is, yes, the lack of chemistry. 🤷

[hereforb99]

Also posting a book review of 'Desperately Seeking Shah Rukh' by Shrayana Bhattacharya that I posted last year on Instagram.

'Desperately Seeking Shah Rukh' isn't about Shah Rukh Khan but about the lives of a few of his female fans in India. Economist Shrayana Bhattacharya has provided a glimpse into the personal trajectories-the jobs, desires, love affairs, etc. of a diverse group of women. These women belonging to different economic groups remain united by their fandom-they turn to Shah Rukh when the real world and its oppressive structures let them down. Shah Rukh remains a construct through which these women navigate the world and try to make sense of their love lives, independence and desires.

These fan women, all born in the 1980s were his first set of fans, having discovered Khan through his debut in 1992. Their love for him has evolved over the years with many preferring his off-screen persona to his movies.  Not only was this book a great privilege check for me, it also provided some sort of validation and inspiration to continue being a fangirl, just like how these women were unapologetically engaged in fandom despite being ridiculed or restricted in some way. It also serves as a reality check to all those who talk about how 'progressive' India has become, because nothing really has changed for women in India post-liberalization. Women still find it difficult to express themselves and claim independence, no matter which economic group they belong to.

Shah Rukh might not be a feminist icon, but definitely a female one. One main reason these women loved him was because of the way he talked to women and gave them the space to be heard, seen and appreciated. It was a rarity back then to see a male actor be so vulnerable on screen, a sharp contrast to the men these women have seen in their real life.

Unlike these fan women, I am not his first set of fans, I could very well be his last generation of fans yet I felt a sense of connection in the way these women indulged in the Shah Rukh Khan fandom.

By the end of this book, you'll appreciate SRK's existence that has been a ray of hope for many women. Moreover, you'll learn about the private rebellions that many women undertake, the sort of rebellions that social media doesn't account for.

[f1ghtsoftly]

Statement of Purpose? My political lines? My don’t doxx me e-plea?

I think what really interests me now is application, ok-I’m convinced of most of the radical feminist analysis but how do we marry that to the left? How do we force left wing parties to accept our program and/or be effective on our own?

Because of the stigmatization of “radical feminism” in left spaces this blog is mostly anonymous unfortunately. Tumblr has always been a space where I feel I can be most myself so you will definitely see personal, aesthetic and historical content but the meat of this blog is a theoretical and historical exploration of how to get women’s issues on the docket. If we even can.

About me:

I am a Marxist Feminist with two degrees in American history a BA and an MA. I am also a lesbian. I was radicalized into feminism at age 20 after hearing a lecture on “queering ecosocialism” after receiving news that a former gay acquaintance had recently passed from drug addiction and sex work. The dichotomy between true lived gay and lesbian life experiences and the use of “queer” as a political and literary device made me sick, sad and angry and I took to the internet and found that there were a good deal of lesbians who felt the same way.

While I studied American history, I’m not an academic and this work is not peer reviewed. I will do my best to be transparent about my source material and get access to scholarly sources when I can so that you have the most knowledge to make an informed decision about my writing. I welcome substantive feedback, particularly since I have not been trained in political theory, economics or philosophy even though I read widely. Unfortunately, writing about gender and feminism in the candid way I want is difficult in the academy right now for both financial and political reasons. Some people can learn to handle mass harassment but, I am but a rat, I try to avoid it where I can. Getting mass harassment on a poverty salary is a type of vulnerability I’m not really willing to take on.

While Marxism isn’t the only lens I view politics from, it’s a really important one to disclose. I am not affiliated with the Democratic party outside of generally supporting everyone to vote fascists out of office but even then, I think fascism will be rooted out through the education and uplift of the people generally, not through Democratic party politics.

This means that I focus on building grassroots power through unions and collectives over voting for specific candidates and I believe that the very structure of US society will continue to negatively impact regular working people no matter what party is in power. The only solution is the broad restricting of our economy and society which regular people can accomplish by coming together and solving problems in their community and within our country and world. I draw upon a robust historical tradition of trade unionism in the United States and in my home countries if Italy and The Republic of Ireland (so yes, I am whiter than snow ahaha).

Many radical feminists have a left liberal framework, I aim to spend a good deal of time writing about how many radical feminists were socialists affiliated with Mao and expelling some myths that both the Sexist Marxist Left and the Liberal American Feminist Left. I do this with the intent of creating a cohesive left wing vision that offers liberation for all under one banner-my intent is not to fold women into a male dominated left. Anti-Imperialism and Anti Racism is an equally important struggle and it’s one I engage in through a vigorous anti imperialist and anti fascist line but I do not speak from experience. Given the current culture on the far left, I do not engage with individuals whose only claim to argumentative superiority is identity based, you have to tell me why your ideas and perspective is better, life experience and feelings count.

Given that I’m white and catholic and grew up in a rural area. Racial issues can be a blind spot for me, I’ve done a great deal of academic and personal work to remediate this from studying the African Diaspora and Indigenous American culture, philosophy and statecraft in the Caribbean, Brazil, Quebec/New York and the Pacific Northwest to living, working and learning from people of color with vastly different life experiences from me. I’m happy to accept feedback and to promote feminists of color even if we have theoretical disagreements because I recognize that the personal experience of the colonized individual is a distinctly valuable resource in crafting strategies to destroy it but I do not believe there is a singular “woc perspective” and am very sharply critical of liberals who prioritize anti racism in the United States over imperial struggle abroad.

What I do not partake in is abusive cancellation campaigns. While there are a lot of bad actors in all types of politics I don’t think harassment is an effective strategy to encourage good behavior. I believe in good faith engagement and good emotional boundaries. If the content on this blog upsets you you’re 100% free to write a post detailing why you think that and offering improvements and solutions but I will block you if you harass me, call me a fascist without evidence or mischaracterize me. I have enabled abusers and abusive behavior under the guise of idpol in the past but will no longer.

[meetmyintenseescapes]

As someone who fell into rad feminist it's easy to get caught up in the fervor of it, especially in your mid-20s, when you're still trying to make sense of the world and your place within it. I had already immigrated to America from Britain, trying to carve out a new life for myself, but I was still grappling with who I was and what I believed. Being a bisexual woman I was still grappling with my sexuality. I had my own set of struggles and questions about where I fit into the larger conversations around gender and sexuality.

Radical feminism felt like a lifeline at first. It spoke to me in ways that felt empowering, validating experiences of sexism and discrimination that I'd faced not only as a woman but as someone navigating multiple layers of identity in a new country. The rhetoric was strong, passionate, and, at times, angry—just like I was. I was constantly being given the worst examples of men and trans woman to see to fuel my anger. It gave me a framework for challenging injustice, and it felt liberating to be part of a movement that so fiercely resisted men.

But as time went on, I began to realize that it didn't quite fit either. While radical feminism offered me clarity on some things, it felt too rigid on others. I began hating everyone who didn't fit into my perspective especially the men in my life. It often excluded or dismissed anyone who didn’t fall within very specific definitions of womanhood and oppression. But slowly that line of thinking began to wear on me, especially when I met my now wife. She helped me come to terms with my anxiety and anger. As a bisexual woman, I often felt like my experiences and desires were misunderstood or outright ignored by certain factions of the movement. It felt like there was this unspoken pressure to view the world through a very narrow lens, leaving little room for the complexities of sexuality, race, class, or even differing political views.

When I saw a post on Pinterest of two women getting married and all one woman had was a strong jawline these women assumed that she must be trans. Rads started attacking the woman on Tumblr it didn't matter that she was actually a woman and even when she was pregnant. That's when I knew I had to leave the movement.

It wasn’t just about fighting for women’s rights but about fitting into a certain kind of feminism—one that was exclusionary and dogmatic. It became clear that the very rigidity of the ideology was limiting in its own way. It left little room for the messiness of real life, for the individual experiences that didn’t neatly fit the narrative.

*grabbing young queer people by the shoulders* listen to me. radical feminism is inherently transphobic. you cannot rehabilitate it or reclaim it or make it trans inclusive, I don't care what the people on twitter who claim to be authorities on queerness say. the foundation of radical feminism is nothing but bio and gender essentialism and biphobia and aphobia and anti-kink rhetoric and intersexism and yes, misogyny. it does not offer a future, not for bi people, aroace people, sex workers, not for kinksters, or intersex people, cis women, or trans people regardless of gender and you should care about those people. it will never result in queer liberation because it is an ideology of exclusion and hatred. you gain nothing by buying into the idea that half the population is evil by birth or by transition. you gain nothing by acting like women are perpetual victims who can't think for themselves and are tainted by their association with men. being a man or being attracted to them is not a sin. if we truly want to stand a chance of dismantling the patriarchy we actually NEED men on our side especially marginalized men. they are our allies.

the problem with terfs is not just transphobia, it never was, the radical feminism is also so unbelievably harmful. you cannot save it and it will not save you, stop drawing lines between queer people and join hands with them instead. remove people who are actually harmful, not innocent people who happen to have the wrong sexuality or gender or job. we get there together or we don't get there at all. we need each other now more than ever. do not listen to those who seek to divide us even if they are queer. we all deserve so much better than the hell radical feminism pretends is a liberated future.

I do not blame anyone who fell prey to this rhetoric, I know it feels good to have a common enemy and lash out at those you think are siding with them however they do it, but men, especially marginalized men, are not your enemies. and it's never too late to realize that and change for the better.

[kornyfaggot]

I just always come back to the conclusion that any kind of transition- HRT, wearing more feminine clothing, is just playing into patriarchal standards, and that if I was a real gender abolitionist, I wouldn't even want to be a woman. I don't even understand what "wanting to be a woman" means, because "woman" is a role invented by the patriarchy to be raped and abused. I hate my body hair but I don't shave my chest hair because I know that'd just be playing into pedophilic beauty standards. I don't wear bras or skirts because I know feminists have fought for the right not to wear either of them for decades. I've never worn any kind of women's clothing. I could say I want big boobs because I just like them, but that would just be the same as cis women saying they just have a 247-product makeup routine because it's fun. I'm afraid that if I actually interrogated any of my desires, I'd realize that they're all wrong, and the only morally/politically correct option would be to never transition in any form. And the idea of living out the rest of my life as functionally a cis man makes me want to kill myself- but again that's so immaterial as to not matter. It's not like chemotherapy where my body will kill me if I don't get it, suicide is my own choice. I think being transfeminine is very unfortunate because being transmasculine seems like it's all about throwing off shackles while transfemininity seems like it's all about putting them back on. Especially since I don't want to be butch or anything else interesting, I'd just be a really boring binary trans woman. I feel like there's no way to be politically/morally correct as a transitioning trans woman, the only real justification for it is the same kind of "well it's not like you're the source of the issue" handwaving that people use for like buying something from Shein or wearing makeup. But I don't just want to get an excuse, I want to actually be as revolutionary as the transmasc people I've known, but I don't know how to do that while being a feminine trans woman. Cis women are feminine out of habit, socialization, and as a survival technique, but I don't know how I can justify forgoing all of my male privilege just to become a fetishistic idea of a woman that's never actually existed. There is no joy in womanhood- Dworkin knew that.

woah anon, i know how you feel. womanhood in itself is a complicated “definition” and i feel like not only would defining what womanhood is let alone gender is difficult and can strain us in our own self development.

first, lets take a breath. what youre dealing with right now, sounds heavy. i think you ought to read feminism not to way yourself down , but liberate yourself. i mention my rad fem trans fem moots a lot but theyre twitter mutuals that i have , and they have felt the same way you do right now.

i think you and i both know that transitioning would make YOU happy and studying theory at the same time would liberate you from the abusive patriarchal standards that is threatened upon transfemmes and trans women. i dont know what makes you dysphoric or not , for instance in my case growing breasts make me happy but keeping true to myself like having hairy legs arms and chest makes me happy as well. ill upload some books recs later so i hope it will help you out

and theres nothing wrong let alone boring about being a binary trans person, its your life and only you can live it the way you like and define it how you define it

dworkin’s idea of “no happiness under womanhood” meant that there was no happiness for the woman who was not liberated or fought to be liberated from the patriarchy as she often wrote about how beautiful life and love is like between lesbians, butches, transfemmes etc. she has no formal education and was a hs drop out so her writing is often really,, blunt ? instead of making the time to explain it ? so sometimes reading between the lines is necessary.

ily anon youre not alone in the way you feel i hope i could be of some help

[olivieraa]

I'm at such a weird, weird place mentally. Like I'm just kinda floating around. And there's posts I wanna make about my feelings on specific things

Women for example

Rad-feminism seems very pro women, which is great, bc nothing else has ever been pro-women. Lib-feminism was anti-women without me knowing it during the years I was a libfem (again, didn't know I was a libfem, didn't even know there were different types of feminism)

And I was surrounded by only libfems. The most vocial obviously being Americans. And no matter how anti-American these American libfems are, they're still so insanely unaware how American they still talk and act, like the world revolves around them. Every single American friend I had on here had similar ways they wrote and spoke, just blissfully unaware that not everything that happens there happens elsewhere.

But anyway, yeah, I was very very VERY pro-women. To the point I felt like I was annoying. Esp when it came to violence against women. I was the only one in my corner being as anti violence against women as possible. Friends would "like" my posts, but a like doesn't always mean agreement. A like can just mean "I am a friend and I saw your post" or "hey I dont agree but I'm liking your post cause I want you to know I read it", etc.

I was rooting for women in every libfem way as well tho (tho I dont think these actually are pro-women), from being pro-stripper, to pro-porn star, pro-prostitution, pro-bdsmer, all these things. Always prioritising the women's choice and voice.

And then I... had an odd year. I moved away across the country for college. And I was in a dorm. And I honestly cant even explain how much I wasn't myself when I was there. I drank a lot, and I had an on and off again thing with what you would basically describe as an MRA. And had sort of a threesome with him and one of his female friends (and when I saw that he was an MRA, lets just say I was shocked he even HAD one female friend, a black liberal af feminist). Oh, and she loved being hurt during sex (not that I did it, he did).

Why the fuck did I partake in being with this guy? And anything he did? Honestly, I feel like I'd need to bring an essay into a therapist to explain it and I still dont think they'd understand.

Like, ok... how to even sort of explain. Gender posts and sexuality posts have been cringy for a long time now. With people making up a new type for each per day. From being cloudgender to acronymsexual. Its insane.

But......... I've never... ever related to someone's sexuality before. I dont relate to being straight, lesbian or bi. And I thought pansexual fit until but Ive heard 5 different definitions for it and then asexual but Ive heard about 50 definitions for that so I've never been able to explain it.

What I experienced during that odd year was an attraction to the freedom I was experiencing. The location I was living in. Not... the people I engaged in sexual acts with. I projected these things onto them. I projected my freedom onto human people, especially the guy, and became kind of addicted to being around him, despite knowing deep down I didn't like him as a person. I kept questioning why the fuck a feminist like me would go near someone who stood for everything I hated. He made me hate women. He made me jealous of other women.

And it took about 2 years before I started feeling normal again after this happened. To not look at women with this hatred. (and yet, still remained protective of women, but also extremely jealous and always wondering "oh I bet HE would be attracted to her" and "oh she's SO doing that for male validation")

So I recovered from that weird year, but... I never went back to myself before that year. Which is why not even radical feminism fits me. Women... annoy me too much. I literally cant keep defending them and boiling it down to internalised misogyny and heteronormativity still being so prevalent.

I was there when TikTok started. Two years before it blew up. And it was thanks to that male from that weird year. He showed me what he looked at and it was very VERY anti-women. At the time there was about 12 tiktok trends, yeah, ONLY 12. And most were about sexualising women or telling women to get back in the kitchen, or hurting women. And women and young girls were the ones predominantly taking part in them. Belle Delphine was rising on there, this woman who is so anti-women and perpetuates the worst misogyny and is causing women to hate themselves, but rad feminism will tell me "oh its not her fault tho!"

No......... no it is her fault. I absolutely cant stand her. And any woman like her. For women like her I truly dont believe in the idea that she's being socialised to act like that. She absolutely loves making fun of women and making men happy.

And unfortunately in this day and age, its so insanely common. Women are constantly defending and sticking up for men, during a time when their eyes should be waaaaaay more fucking open by now. So I just cant do it. I cant love women like I used to. I'm still as protective over women as I was, but liking them... is a different story.

I'm hoping I'm going through a phase. And I'll be different in 2 years. And regret this mindset and making a post like this. Maybe my judgement is clouded, and I need to start seeing other things, to bring me to a more radfem mindset. But I'm defo not a libfem, and I lean into radfeminism, but I defo cant be one, unless I combat this hurdle.

I dont like women that much, but I cant stand men. That's where I'm at.

[youremyheaven]

Dear non 🍑 eater anon.

No one asked. Your tone isn't giving the kindness and love a feminist should have (& do have) for women enjoying themselves when repression is the norm in many societies still. She'll handle her chakras and followers as she sees fit. You go have a wonderful aligned life. She and us will be fine. Thank you & Bye~

Also pookie what sorta crowd attracts when the label is used, wanna know your experience as someone on tumblr with a thriving blog (idk if you'd call your blog women and the feminine oriented, I would) and moots. You know now a days people use the word like they are spitting galiya, so I avoid the topic and also try not to bring up anything that seems feminist-aligned (which is most things around me it seems. Like: Oh, you think men are given leeway for eve-teasing because of the attitude ‘men just be like that’ and reflects a flaw in society? Yah okay feminazi manhating jobstealing alimonytaking whore who doesn't take responsibility!)

AJJAJSJS u tell em!!!!

Yeah I hate how "feminist" has basically become a cuss word in India 😭

On my old blog (it was a kpop tarot blog 😮‍💨😮‍💨) I got into several arguments simply bc I said I don't think it's right to ask if an idol's FS is a virgin when they meet 💀🙄 bc it was kinda sexist??? Like not all people in Asia are waiting for marriage and the odds of a kpop idol marrying a virgin who has never been touched is so 🙂🙂 and the anons popped off and said it's bc I'm a "feminist" that I respect a "ran through woman with a high body count" over someone who's "pure" 💀💀💀💀 and lots of other arguments too about random shit 😤😤 simply bc I had mentioned I was a feminist.

Funny thing is, back then I felt like all those anons were definitely Indian 😭😭😭😭from the way they text or reference things 😤😤 and the deep rooted misogyny that Indians, esp Indian women have is 🤮🤮🤮🤮

Everybody's a feminist so long as the woman's making choices that align with their values and principles. The minute a woman does what she wants to do (which is what feminism should be) she's suddenly not worthy of equality or respect 😞

If only we subjected men to the same standards that we subject women too 😮‍💨😮‍💨😮‍💨

Like why do we only encourage and support women who are fighting battles and trying to climb the economic ladder or whatever 😔 where's the harm in a woman having fun 🥹 life is long, not every day is going to be about conventional feminist struggles, because life isn't a struggle??? it's okay to enjoy yourself and it's okay to not feel shame for it 🫶

I don't use the word feminist as much anymore simply because it has kinda lost all meaning to me rn. I went to a veryyy political college where absolutely everybody man and woman called themselves a feminist and yet treated other women horribly for making certain choices that didn't align with them or slut shaming them at the drop of a hat as a comeback rhetoric 🙄🙄🙄

Actions matter more than words. If you can be a respectful, tolerant, kind human being, that's more important that name dropping labels to fit into some woke liberal agenda ESP since identifying as one clearly makes absolutely no difference in how u actually treat women 🤐🤐🤐

[ciswomenofficial]

Just finished rereading the essay so that I could talk about it with a refreshed perspective. First of all, I’d like to say that I don’t think I’m in sharp disagreement with you and think I mostly agree. I’ve had some moments rolling my eyes at some of the way she talks about men, and also always felt that the conclusion was overly nihilistic and self-destructive. However, I have found a lot of interesting stuff to think about in this personal essay that I think is worth acknowledging, and that I think it would be useful to bring it up. If you wouldn’t mind a comradely discussion, I’m glad to have a productive argument over the specifics.

First of all, I strongly relate to being talked over on gender issues by cis women as a trans woman who didn’t feel safe to come out at the time, and by them playing identity games as to why they didn’t have to acknowledge me talking about transmisogyny. While I definitely think that it’s important to look at how people tokenize trans women who are saying the same nonsense as they are, this is just the other side of the identity game coin imo. It’s important to see what politically advanced trans women have to say on the subject on one hand, but on the other hand people shouldn’t say that only trans women can correctly address transmisogyny and dismiss peoples views out of hand based on an identity category either, and that is something that I think is being imperfectly addressed in this. Both of these root back to the same fetishism of identity.

Secondly, while I’m extremely critical of individualism, I do think that one thing I’ve gotten out of this essay, related to the last point, is that certain people tend to treat other people as group members to the point of denying their status as individuals. Don’t get me wrong, I warm up quicker to women than to guys, but I think that it’s still important to not just go through life with the default assumption that the guys around me are all misogynists, and I think it’s good to critique being assholes to men just because one puts the whole weight of that category and everything it represents societally on them. If there’s non-antagonistic elements to some of the exploitative relationships between petty-bourgeoisie and workers, and it worth engaging the most principled and advanced segments of the petty-bourgeoisie, than the same is true with men. On top of this, I think it’s fine to voice that men do not largely experience many of the issues that women do to the same degree, but I think it’s unhelpful to dismiss all of them as not having experienced something altogether as men are a diverse group, and on top of this I think that it’s absolutely inappropriate to tell someone that they have not experienced a certain personal issue just based on a category. I think this essay does provide some worthwhile critique of the bad-faith discourse where people are shut down based on how they are gendered by the people around them, and applied with assumptions.

Thirdly, I think this essay does make a case for how men who are not necessarily “hegemonicaly masculine” (imo this is not related to misandry but rather transmisogyny) can get thrown under the bus by strains of liberal cisfeminism. I think that Coats goes too far in on this in many ways, but I do think it provides interesting food for thought on the subject. While I’m as likely to get labeled as a misandrist as anyone (some liberal feminists I know irl think I’m like a transsexual Valorie Solanas or something because I openly say that women need to be prepared to be violent against men if we want to change society) I think it’s important to realize that I have common stake with many guys, especially those who are, regardless of sexual orientation, faggy, so to speak. If we want to change society, we need the numbers on our side, and despite many mens negative behaviors, we need to be ready to work with men, especially those who are oppressed by the whole gender thing for being faggy. Obviously, many of those men need to remold themselves and throw away a lot of negative ideas, but that doesn’t change the fact that we need to work with some of them (not the worst ones of course), and they can only be remolded through comradely debate and the process of making revolution. The way that a lot of liberal feminist then make fun of men and the ways they berate men for not living up to the expectations of masculinity and re-create patriarchal tropes that mock men for not looking young and virile enough (eg. baldness) and for showing feminine interests are imo counter productive. I also think that such perspectives on men are kind of inherently bound up in transmisogyny insofar as faggy men are seen as having some proximity to trans women by society at large.

Obviously, I don’t agree with all bits of the essay, but I just thought I’d get my thoughts on it out there. Sorry if you don’t want this kind of thing on your post.

Edit: as hoshi9zoe pointed out, the original version of this post needlessly berated other transfems like Jennifer Coates, for which I do apologize, and I have toned it down in this edited version. The original version survives in reblogs.

Some months ago, I was searching through this transandrobro blog to see if they posted a callout of me, and i found this reblog, which I couldn't really write about for months, because what do I even write. I recently wayback machined it for posterity, and I guess this is my attempt to write a post about it.

It's saint-dyke himself, the coiner of transandrophobia, saying that the infamous (at least for me) article "I am a transwoman. I'm in the closet. I'm not coming out" is what made him coin the fucking word. It's literally bolded and underlined: "Reading this article is what made me coin “transandrophobia”.

The reason I put off writing this post is that reading that article makes me feel like i'm drinking poison. And it is poison, make no mistake, it's internalized transmisogyny brainworms dripping out of the writer's brain and onto the page.

It's a justification for why the author, known by pseudonym Jennifer Coates, doesn't want to transition, despite knowing she is a trans woman. And it's the exact kind of internalized transmisogyny that keeps trans women in repression and not transitioning. "I'm not going to pass, i'm forever going to be an ugly freak who will at best be humored by other women, the closet is uncomfortable but at least it's safe"

It's the same exact bullshit a lot of represssed trans women tell themselves because it's what society tells us about trans women, that we are freakish parodies of women, that we will never pass, and if we don't pass we have failed and are ugly freaks. It's all to scare us into staying in the closet and make others hate and fear us. Transmisogyny permeates our society, and the majority, maybe all transfems will absorb and internalize some of it.

Coates says that it all is just applicable to her, but again so many transfems believe this shit before transitioning and realizing it's a pack of lies. If this bullshit was in any way valid, a lot of trans women shouldn't transition, because before we actually transition many of us believe it word for word. And "it's only true for me" is how we justify it to ourselves. We tend to be way harsher on ourselves than others. This kind of self-hating transfem tends to think: "Other trans women are beautiful graceful goddesses, earthly manifestations of the divine feminine, always destined to be women, while I'm an ugly forever male ogre who just has a fetish."

It's all bullshit, it's poison, it's internalized transmisogyny.

And the rest of the article is bullshit too. It is not some insightful mediation on gender as some people say, it's the author confusing and mixing up actual transmisogyny with an imagined problem of misandry. She does this because she has gone full repression mode, and decided she has no other choice to live as a man, so her dysphoria and experiences of transmisogyny are actually men's problems.

It's a bad article, excusable because as Coatas points out, it's "essentially a diary entry." that was meant to be a way to "vent frustration" and she "did not intend for anyone else to actually read it." It is clearly not the product of a healthy mind.

I hope the author sometime in the past seven years eventually did transition, and that for whatever reason she didn't want to publicly repudiate her own article. Maybe she lost access to the medium account so she can't delete it.

Far worse than the article itself is the response to it. I've seen it passed around as some insightful commentary on gender by the "feminists are too mean to men, misandry is real" crowd. I have argued against this before. And other people have made insightful comments about it.

And learning that saint-dyke claiming that he was inspired to coin the word "transandrophobia" because of this article is the cherry on top of this shitcake of transmisogyny. For my thoughts on "transandrophobia" theory and how transmisogynistic it is, see here.

Of course, Saint-dyke absolutely could be bullshitting here. Claiming that Coates's article is what inspired him to coin the word might be a lie to claim that transandrophobia theory is not transmisogynistic because it came from listening to trans women.

This is why "listen to trans women" doesn't work. Because TME people will always choose a trans woman who confirms their prejudices. Blair White has made an entire career out of this. And Coates article is popular because it says that misandry is real and trans women's issues are partly caused by it, misgendering herself and other trans women.

And it's popular for another reason. Coates has thoroughly internalized transmisogyny, and thus her article presents a trans woman that is exactly as transmisogynistic patriarchal society wants her to be. She is suffering, but ultimately accepts her assigned role. She truly believes that her biological sex dooms her to forever be male. She literally "manages her dysphoria by means other than transition" as conversion therapy advocates want us to do. She never makes an social claim on womanhood by actually transitioning, so she doesn't invade the sacred women's spaces. Yet she performs the role of woman perfectly by serving men, by defending them from supposed feminist misandry. And she fulfils the ritualistic role that the rhetorical figure of "trans women" sometimes serves in progressive spaces, of giving a blessing to TME people's pre-existing views and actions, all while actual flesh-and-blood trans women are destroyed by those same deeply transmisogynistic spaces. This time it's a blessing for the same "misandry is real" soft-MRA bullshit that has infested the online left and created the transandrophobia crowd.

That is why this article and the positive response makes me sick, makes me feel like i'm drinking poison. This is what its fans want trans women to be like. I'm acutely aware this kind of self-denial is exactly what transmisogyny wants from me and tried to indoctrinate me into doing it. And I want none of it. I want to live, I want to be a woman.

[dovveri]

Hi dovee how are youuuuu?

I actually feel rly bad for her cuz before they even found out she was trans, there were a lot of men who were being rly degrading to her in her comments and also threatening to start stalking her. Like she had to make a post about how she felt uncomfortable and for them to please stop making threats to her safety. This discourse of men and bear tbh gives me headaches cuz men are so butt hurt that they made a video (ai) of a zombie-like bear (slippery skin if I'm not mistaken) that would "definitely kill women" because its literal goal is to brutalize women but only those who chose bear over men. Like imagine having your ego so hurt that you make this as a response to a hypothetical question that was made to inflate the ego of a man who was trying to flirt. And again, because they fail to have any common sense they can't understand the question and why people answer the way they do😭 I saw a 3-minute long video of a girl explaining the answers so that that kind of men could understand and on the comments, there were still some guys who were like "oh, but the bear would definitely kill you!" like-

HIIIIII OMG my fav person to talk to abt 🤢men🤮 omg i didnt know they were saying that stuff to her even before they found out she was trans? thats terrible omg i genuinely think the less centralised womens lives are around men the more misogynistic they get like did u see the recent bumble billboards? a man HAD to have made that and crazy too as like a response to the 4b movement gaining traction in the west they had to be like “celibacy isnt the answer guys!” like what?!?! u can also be celibate and still date men?? and from BUMBLE too like the platform that was meant to champion women making the first move and everything its so disappointing

ok i recently also watched poor things and i DESPISED it like it got so much love and wtv from being a ‘feminist’ film but um????????? no absolutely the fuck not all it did was champion pedophilia like the director (A MAN) ltr just put all his kinks in one movie and called it feminist bcs it was ‘sexually liberating’ and GOD I HATE THIS ARGUMENT like i HATE that the only thing men have gotten out of the feminist movement is “oh! women enjoy sex too? amazing go women!” like NO SHUT UR ASS UP sexual liberation was important bcs it gave women autonomy about WHO they wanted to have sex with, if they even WANTED to have sex with people, it gave them more purpose to sex than just bearing children it allowed them to enjoy sex just as men have been able to for centuries. but feminism is SOOOO much more than that but ofc thats the only part that men pay attention to right? UGH i ranted abt this film more in my letterboxd review LMAO but i wont text dump here

OMG YES EXACTLY THAT LIKE THE MAN V BEAR QUESTION WAS POSED BY A MAN like exactly what u said he asked it bcs he thought it’d be an easy ego boost since in his head there was no way a woman would choose a bear over him. and this zombie ai thing?? wtf theyre literally going to show EXACTLY what we’re talking about bcs people that r making that are also the ones killing women in video games and normalising violence against women and combining it with sexualisation of women? so its rly if they had the tools to do it they would and THEY HAVE THE TOOLS so no wonder we’re terrified?

last point i swear but the line between lust and anger? is SO CLOSE lots of men dont realise it but they can go from being absolutely in love with someone and willing to do anything for them, to wanting them dead or worse (junko furata)

[nothorses]

Interview With An Ex-Radfem

exradfem is an anonymous Tumblr user who identifies as transmasculine, and previously spent time in radical feminist communities. They have offered their insight into those communities using their own experiences and memories as a firsthand resource.

Background

I was raised in an incredibly fundamentalist religion, and so was predisposed to falling for cult rhetoric. Naturally, I was kicked out for being a lesbian. I was taken in by the queer community, particularly the trans community, and I got back on my feet- somehow. I had a large group of queer friends, and loved it. I fully went in on being the Best Trans Ally Possible, and constantly tried to be a part of activism and discourse.

Unfortunately, I was undersocialized, undereducated, and overenthusiastic. I didn't fully understand queer or gender theory. In my world, when my parents told me my sexuality was a choice and I wasn't born that way, they were absolutely being homophobic. I understood that no one should care if it's a choice or not, but it was still incredibly, vitally important to me that I was born that way.

On top of that, I already had an intense distrust of men bred by a lot of trauma. That distrust bred a lot of gender essentialism that I couldn't pull out of the gender binary. I felt like it was fundamentally true that men were the problem, and that women were inherently more trustworthy. And I really didn't know where nonbinary people fit in.

Then I got sucked down the ace exclusionist pipeline; the way the arguments were framed made sense to my really surface-level, liberal view of politics. This had me primed to exclude people –– to feel like only those that had been oppressed exactly like me were my community.

Then I realized I was attracted to my nonbinary friend. I immediately felt super guilty that I was seeing them as a woman. I started doing some googling (helped along by ace exclusionists on Tumblr) and found the lesfem community, which is basically radfem “lite”: lesbians who are "only same sex attracted". This made sense to me, and it made me feel so much less guilty for being attracted to my friend; it was packaged as "this is just our inherent, biological desire that is completely uncontrollable". It didn't challenge my status quo, it made me feel less guilty about being a lesbian, and it allowed me to have a "biological" reason for rejecting men.

I don't know how much dysphoria was playing into this, and it's something I will probably never know; all of this is just piecing together jumbled memories and trying to connect dots. I know at the time I couldn't connect to this trans narrative of "feeling like a woman". I couldn't understand what trans women were feeling. This briefly made me question whether I was nonbinary, but radfem ideas had already started seeping into my head and I'm sure I was using them to repress that dysphoria. That's all I can remember.

The lesfem community seeded gender critical ideas and larger radfem princples, including gender socialization, gender as completely meaningless, oppression as based on sex, and lesbian separatism. It made so much innate sense to me, and I didn't realize that was because I was conditioned by the far right from the moment of my birth. Of course women were just a biological class obligated to raise children: that is how I always saw myself, and I always wanted to escape it.

I tried to stay in the realms of TIRF (Trans-Inclusive Radical Feminist) and "gender critical" spaces, because I couldn't take the vitriol on so many TERF blogs. It took so long for me to get to the point where I began seeing open and unveiled transphobia, and I had already read so much and bought into so much of it that I thought that I could just ignore those parts.

In that sense, it was absolutely a pipeline for me. I thought I could find a "middle ground", where I could "center women" without being transphobic.

Slowly, I realized that the transphobia was just more and more disgustingly pervasive. Some of the trans men and butch women I looked up to left the groups, and it was mostly just a bunch of nasty people left. So I left.

After two years offline, I started to recognize I was never going to be a healthy person without dealing with my dysphoria, and I made my way back onto Tumblr over the pandemic. I have realized I'm trans, and so much of this makes so much more sense now. I now see how I was basically using gender essentialism to repress my identity and keep myself in the closet, how it was genuinely weaponized by TERFs to keep me there, and how the ace exclusionist movement primed me into accepting lesbian separatism- and, finally, radical feminism.

The Interview

You mentioned the lesfem community, gender criticals, and TIRFs, which I haven't heard about before- would you mind elaborating on what those are, and what kinds of beliefs they hold?

I think the lesfem community is recruitment for lesbians into the TERF community. Everything is very sanitized and "reasonable", and there's an effort not to say anything bad about trans women. The main focus was that lesbian = homosexual female, and you can't be attracted to gender, because you can't know someone's gender before knowing them; only their sex.

It seemed logical at the time, thinking about sex as something impermeable and gender as internal identity. The most talk about trans women I saw initially was just in reference to the cotton ceiling, how sexual orientation is a permanent and unchangeable reality. Otherwise, the focus was homophobia. This appealed to me, as I was really clinging to the "born this way" narrative.

This ended up being a gateway to two split camps - TIRFs and gender crits.

I definitely liked to read TIRF stuff, mostly because I didn't like the idea of radical feminism having to be transphobic. But TIRFs think that misogyny is all down to hatred of femininity, and they use that as a basis to be able to say trans women are "just as" oppressed.

Gender criticals really fought out against this, and pushed the idea that gender is fake, and misogyny is just sex-based oppression based on reproductive issues. They believe that the source of misogyny is the "male need to control the source of reproduction"- which is what finally made me think I had found the "source" of my confusion. That's why I ended up in gender critical circles instead of TIRF circles.

I'm glad, honestly, because the mask-off transphobia is what made me finally see the light. I wouldn't have seen that in TIRF communities.

I believed this in-between idea, that misogyny was "sex-based oppression" and that transphobia was also real and horrible, but only based on transition, and therefore a completely different thing. I felt that this was the "nuanced" position to take.

The lesfem community also used the fact that a lot of lesbians have partners who transition, still stay with their lesbian partners, and see themselves as lesbian- and that a lot of trans men still see themselves as lesbians. That idea is very taboo and talked down in liberal queer spaces, and I had some vague feelings about it that made me angry, too. I really appreciated the frank talk of what I felt were my own taboo experiences.

I think gender critical ideology also really exploited my own dysphoria. There was a lot of talk about how "almost all butches have dysphoria and just don't talk about it", and that made me feel so much less alone and was, genuinely, a big relief to me that I "didn't have to be trans".

Lesfeminism is essentially lesbian separatism dressed up as sex education. Lesfems believe that genitals exist in two separate categories, and that not being attracted to penises is what defines lesbians. This is used to tell cis lesbians, "dont feel bad as a lesbian if you're attracted to trans men", and that they shouldn’t feel "guilty" for not being attracted to trans women. They believe that lesbianism is not defined as being attracted to women, it is defined as not being attracted to men; which is a root idea in lesbian separatism as well.

Lesfems also believe that attraction to anything other than explicit genitals is a fetish: if you're attracted to flat chests, facial hair, low voices, etc., but don't care if that person has a penis or not, you're bisexual with a fetish for masculine attributes. Essentially, they believe the “-sexual” suffix refers to the “sex” that you are assigned at birth, rather than your attraction: “homosexual” refers to two people of the same sex, etc. This was part of their pushback to the ace community, too.

I think they exploited the issues of trans men and actively ignored trans women intentionally, as a way of avoiding the “TERF” label. Pronouns were respected, and they espoused a constant stream of "trans women are women, trans men are men (but biology still exists and dictates sexual orientation)" to maintain face.

They would only be openly transmisogynistic in more private, radfem-only spaces.

For a while, I didn’t think that TERFs were real. I had read and agreed with the ideology of these "reasonable" people who others labeled as TERFs, so I felt like maybe it really was a strawman that didn't exist. I think that really helped suck me in.

It sounds from what you said like radical feminism works as a kind of funnel system, with "lesfem" being one gateway leading in, and "TIRF" and "gender crit" being branches that lesfem specifically funnels into- with TERFs at the end of the funnel. Does that sound accurate?

I think that's a great description actually!

When I was growing up, I had to go to meetings to learn how to "best spread the word of god". It was brainwashing 101: start off by building a relationship, find a common ground. Do not tell them what you really believe. Use confusing language and cute innuendos to "draw them in". Prey on their emotions by having long exhausting sermons, using music and peer pressure to manipulate them into making a commitment to the church, then BAM- hit them with the weird shit.

Obviously I am paraphrasing, but this was framed as a necessary evil to not "freak out" the outsiders.

I started to see that same talk in gender critical circles: I remember seeing something to the effect of, "lesfem and gender crit spaces exist to cleanse you of the gender ideology so you can later understand the 'real' danger of it", which really freaked me out; I realized I was in a cult again.

I definitely think it's intentional. I think they got these ideas from evangelical Christianity, and they actively use it to spread it online and target young lesbians and transmascs. And I think gender critical butch spaces are there to draw in young transmascs who hate everything about femininity and womanhood, and lesfem spaces are there to spread the idea that trans women exist as a threat to lesbianism.

Do you know if they view TIRFs a similar way- as essentially prepping people for TERF indoctrination?

Yes and no.

I've seen lots of in-fighting about TIRFs; most TERFs see them as a detriment, worse than the "TRAs" themselves. I've also definitely seen it posed as "baby's first radfeminism". A lot of TIRFs are trans women, at least from what I've seen on Tumblr, and therefore are not accepted or liked by radfems. To be completely honest, I don't think they're liked by anyone. They just hate men.

TIRFs are almost another breed altogether; I don't know if they have ties to lesfems at all, but I do think they might've spearheaded the online ace exclusionist discourse. I think a lot of them also swallowed radfem ideology without knowing what it was, and parrot it without thinking too hard about how it contradicts with other ideas they have.

The difference is TIRFs exist. They're real people with a bizarre, contradictory ideology. The lesfem community, on the other hand, is a completely manufactured "community" of crypto-terfs designed specifically to indoctrinate people into TERF ideology.

Part of my interest in TIRFs here is that they seem to have a heavy hand in the way transmascs are treated by the trans community, and if you're right that they were a big part of ace exclusionism too they've had a huge impact on queer discourse as a whole for some time. It seems likely that Baeddels came out of that movement too.

Yes, there’s a lot of overlap. The more digging I did, the more I found that it's a smaller circle running the show than it seems. TIRFs really do a lot of legwork in peddling the ideology to outer queer community, who tend to see it as generic feminism.

TERFs joke a lot about how non-radfems will repost or reblog from TERFs, adding "op is a TERF”. They're very gleeful when people accept their ideology with the mask on. They think it means these people are close to fully learning the "truth", and they see it as further evidence they have the truth the world is hiding. I think it's important to speak out against radical feminism in general, because they’re right; their ideology does seep out into the queer community.

Do you think there's any "good" radical feminism?

No. It sees women as the ultimate victim, rather than seeing gender as a tool to oppress different people differently. Radical feminism will always see men as the problem, and it is always going to do harm to men of color, gay men, trans men, disabled men, etc.

Women aren't a coherent class, and radfems are very panicked about that fact; they think it's going to be the end of us all. But what's wrong with that? That's like freaking out that white isn't a coherent group. It reveals more about you.

It's kind of the root of all exclusionism, the more I think about it, isn't it? Just freaking out that some group isn't going to be exclusive anymore.

Radical feminists believe that women are inherently better than men.

For TIRFs, it's gender essentialism. For TERFs, its bio essentialism. Both systems are fundamentally broken, and will always hurt the groups most at risk. Centering women and misogyny above all else erases the root causes of bigotry and oppression, and it erases the intersections of race and class. The idea that women are always fundamentally less threatening is very white and privileged.

It also ignores how cis women benefit from gender norms just as cis men do, and how cis men suffer from gender roles as well. It’s a system of control where gender non-conformity is a punishable offense.

[crescairis]

hi, i genuinely don't understand how a lesbian person can be attracted to men? like i really don't get "pan lesbian"/"bi lesbian"/etc... im an AFAB, transmasc NB lesbian myself but i am, for all intents and purposes, exclusively attracted to women.

i thought the term "lesbian" meant "any non-man exclusively attracted to women/fem-aligned people"

please explain? this is not hate or anything, this is a genuine question!

hi there! thanks for your good faith questions! :] this is gonna be a long one, so buckle up

the simple answer is that queer identity is never as simple as A + B = C. people can be multigender, genderfluid, genderqueer, Literally Just Butch, etc... it puts a wrench in very simple descriptions like that. there's gotta be some wiggle room for labels to work—and even then, it's entirely against the idea of queer liberation to let anyone but yourself define your connection to a label. as the saying goes, "not gay as in happy, but queer as in fuck you". (not directed at you, ofc :) /lh)

plus, the "non-men" definition kinda...inherently misgenders people who aren't men but aren't lesbians either. i know people who aren't men and would frankly bite anyone who tried to call them a lesbian for the sole sake of them liking women. a label based on exclusion is always going to run into road bumps like that.

but, if you want a more historical answer...

basically, the definition of lesbian has changed a lot over time. for a while in the 20th century, lesbian basically just meant "woman attracted to women", or even just "women who sleeps with women", regardless of how they felt about men.

the idea of lesbianism inherently not including men only really came around with the advent of lesbian separatism in the 1970s:

"In essence, lesbian feminists tried to untie lesbianism from sex so heterosexual feminists were more comfortable. ... Lesbian feminists responded by distancing themselves from stereotypes of “masculine roles,” maleness, and patriarchy. One way they were able to do so was by disentangling lesbian sexuality from heterosexuality and re-conceptualizing heterosexual sex as consorting with “the enemy”. ... They were then able to draw a distinction between lesbian sex and heterosexual sex, claiming that lesbian sex was “pure as snow” since it did not involve men." —Yamissette Westerband, "Lesbians in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1999"

this was coupled together with political lesbianism, and putting this all together, you got a doctrine that followed as such:

lesbianism was a conscious, feminist, and correct choice. (political lesbianism)

any relations with men were considered traitorship towards women and compliance with the patriarchy. (lesbian separatism)

this meant that bisexual women were considered traitors to their sisters. (biphobia babey!!)

this, at its core, was the belief of radical feminists—and it certainly wasn't something that was met with full agreement. while there were many lesbians who scorned any physicality with men, there were just as many lesbians who refused the idea that to be a lesbian, one must completely remove men from their lives.

there are accounts of bisexual women who saw their lesbian identity as a political stance alongside their bisexuality, or even the other way around. [there's a few here!] the phrase "lesbian-identified bisexual" comes up a lot in the literature spanning from the 1970s-1990s.

here's a couple select quotes from the page i linked:

"[Betty Aubut]: ... I never used to identify as lesbian out of respect for women who made the lifelong choice never to sleep with men, but then I realized that was a lot of bullshit. Calling yourself lesbian does not necessarily mean you have made that lifelong decision. Now I mostly identify as a lesbian–so I call myself a bisexual lesbian." —Robyn Ochs, “Bi of the Month: Betty Aubut,” Bi Women Vol. 5, No. 2, April-May, 1987]

"10 years ago when I left my husband and full-time role of motherhood, it didn’t make me less conscious of what being a mother means. In fact, it gave me a deeper understanding. I am still a mother. That experience cannot be taken away from me. In much the same way, my lesbian awareness isn’t lost now that I claim my bisexuality. When I realized my woman-loving-woman feelings, and came out as a lesbian, I had no heterosexual privilege; yet there were important males in my life, including a son. I am bisexual because it’s real for me, not in order to acquire or flaunt the privilege that is inherent in being with men. My political consciousness is lesbian but my lifestyle is bisexual. If I keep myself quiet for another’s sense of pride and liberation, it is at the cost of my own which isn’t healthy–emotionally, politically or medically. Not only is it unhealthy, it’s ineffective." —Lani Kaahumanu, “Bisexuality & Discrimination,” BBWN Vol. 3, No. 6, Dec 1985-Jan 1986; Reprinted from the 1985 Gay Pride March magazine, San Francisco

regardless of what anyone thought, this was still an opinion that stretched forward into the modern day, though it feels that a lot of exclusionists have all but forgotten it was the belief of radical feminists—or even accepted it, becoming modern radfems all on their own.

there's actually a huge radfem population on tumblr, and has been since tumblr's inception—and that's a big part of why this belief system was able to push its way into the wider queer community. with such a lack of queer elders coming out of the AIDs crisis, queer teens on the web didn't really have very many ways to learn about queer history—especially with bigoted parents around, leaning over their shoulders.

thus, radfems were given a perfect opportunity to deliver their verdict, and these queer teens just...didn't know better. i'd go so far as to say that i've seen radfems and exclusionists alike scorn their queer predecessors, claiming that, in nicer words, "being older doesn't mean you're right". it sucks a lot.

in general, a lot of the hatred comes down to the views of radical feminists. that men and masculinity are inherently evil, that to have relationships with men is a betrayal to one's sisters...when really, there's a lot of men who don't benefit from the patriarchy at all. if the patriarchy were some magical force that protected all men, we wouldn't get cishet men being called f or t slurs for showing emotion. men wouldn't be constantly doubted every time they admitted that they'd faced abuse from women.

instead, the patriarchy only rewards complete compliance and gender essentialism. to be viewed as a good man under the patriarchy, there can't be a whiff of femininity on you. likewise, to be a good woman, you can't be masculine in the slightest. (this is a big part of why things such as stay at home husbands and working wives are seen as such a "horrific" phenomenon. it's also the basis of—you guessed it—homophobia!)

it doesn't just tie into gender; in fact, it's very much tied to white supremacy as well. to quote gerald torres, in his book "Understanding Patriarchy As an Expression of Whiteness: Insights from the Chicana Movement" (which i highly suggest you read, as i can only say so much on the subject, being white myself):

"Whiteness has a gender. The history of American racial thought held that to be white was to possess certain superior characteristics that on closer inspection turned out to be as gendered as they were racial. Though the content of the construction of race and gender changed over time, the gendered nature of whiteness, and of race in general, remained constant. Whether attempting to claim white privilege for themselves or positioning themselves in opposition to that privilege, America’s racial and ethnic minorities have historically defined and redefined themselves in relation to the core characteristics of whiteness. To be white was to be civilized, rational, moral and in command of one’s emotions. Of course, these are also gendered characteristics. The absence of these characteristics was stereotyped as definitive of lesser races, and was sometimes even characterized as such by the occupants of those classes."

to double back to radical feminism, this actually also ties into a lot of queer issues that people feel much less vicious about; transmascs are seen as traitors by radfems as well, abandoning their womanhood to join "the side of the oppressors", or even that, by being men, they automatically have all of the same privileges that cishet men do, completely ignoring the fact that a LOT of transmascs don't ever get to access the male privilege that radfems believe they have by nature of being men. (gnc transmascs, those who don't or can't pass, etc)

the same goes for the trend of mlm positivity posts being hijacked by women who feel the need to complain about how "ugly" and "gross" men are, or that people with male partners should "dump them and get a girlfriend instead".

this lateral attack on queer people all comes down to the idea that "it's okay because men are the ultimate oppressors", yet another idea that both benefits radfems by implying that, because they're women, they're the ultimate oppressed party, while also ignoring the fact that, by nature of many of them being white, or cis, or dyadic, or allo, they still have power over those who are people of color, or trans, or intersex, or aspec.

all in all, this isn't to say that you have to like men as a lesbian. you don't! you yourself can define your lesbianism as completely absent of men, and no one can stop you from doing that. in fact, i would defend your right to do that just as much as i defend bi lesbians.

the problem is when people try to define everyone's lesbianism by their own personal definition, and/or they decide that to like men as a lesbian (or at all) is some irrevocable sin. it's ahistorical, it enforces gold star lesbianism, which is already a lesbophobic concept, and it completely contradicts the idea of queer liberation and autonomy.

and to any radfems and exclus who decide they're gonna send me some mean messages after reading this: hi <3 anon is off. show me your pretty urls so i can block you.