#and radfems do critique if necessary

[txttletale]

it is kind of disconcerting when self-proclaimed "leftists" adopt a fully liberal position on sex work where everyone is having the just-so fictional mutually beneficial transaction central to capitalist mythmaking. idk a lot of radfem propaganda is basically positioning themselves as the last bastion of real structural critique and i think you are just doing their work for them when your argument for why sex work should be legal is "well it's consensual because the sex worker is just choosing to have sex in exchange for money which is a win-win for everyone :)".

your defense of e.g. legal protections and destigmatization for sex workers (& your corollary critiques of legislation targeting them) needs to come from a position of demystification and desensationalizing sex-as-innately-different-to-all-other-forms-of-activity and treating them as what they are, which is workers who are being exploited and are in need of protections and safe working conditions. this is not incompatible & in fact should be perfectly compatible with recognizing simple marxist truths like that consenting to have sex when the alternative is starvation is inherently coercive--in the exact same way that all other wage labour is coercive.

acting like it is incompatible is literally just buying into the reactionary SWERF worldview that accepting that fact should lead you to support oppressive legislation and the intervention of the bourgeois state in ways that demonstrably impoverish, endanger, and immiserate sex workers & it is dismaying when people who self-identify with "the left" (whatever that means but thats a different conversation) cannot formulate a (vital & necessary!) defense of sex workers and their interests and safety without falling back on obviously untrue liberal truisms.

[athenawasamerf]

Is it Islamophobic to question why Muslim women in Western countries advocate so hard to wear burqas and niqabs? Or to generally critique gender and religion and using Islam as an (unfairly) intense example? Especially from non-Muslim women?

Religion is important to people and sure women should wear what they want, but I’m not sure if others deserve such harsh criticism in asking why or saying that it’s not a good thing but a fetishized modest ownership tradition. It’s not fair to the women who want to practice their faith wearing it, but a good part of liberal western society acts like calling out traditional conservative behaviors from a majority probably ‘non-white’ religion is bad.

Obviously women pulling off their veils or hijabs should be their choice, and that simple acts like that shouldn’t be simplified as ‘liberation’ (a very western narrative), but is it also wrong to see it that way? Religious women are deeply entrenched in conservative narrative which I can understand; it just makes me sad.

I wish you well, sorry to bother you and if you prefer not to answer that is valid!

I don’t really believe in the concept of Islamophobia to start with. Being wary or critical of any religion isn’t a bigoted stance, and all religions need to be criticised for human rights and women’s rights issues. That doesn’t mean that Muslims aren’t oppressed in regions where they’re the minority, but I believe that has a lot more to do with racism than religious persecution.

Is Islamophobia a useful term to discuss Arab/brown-specific experiences in the west? Maybe, but I find it a lot more harmful than helpful most of the time. It seems to be mainly used to stifle discussions and criticism, and foster a narrative of persecution to create an ‘us vs them’ mentality which is subsequently used to control Muslims and prevent them from seeking community with the ‘other’, and to scare them into remaining within their existing community and faith. It’s a lot like the Jehovah’s Witnesses tactic of sending their young out with intentionally annoying guides to ‘recruit’ people, knowing they’ll be met with hostility that only reinforces their safety and belief within the religious community.

That said, critical analysis of why women hold on to, and even advocate for, religious or cultural practices that contribute to their subjugation - even when they live in countries where they can theoretically be free of these expectations - is not only not Islamophobic/racist, but necessary. I could go into that topic in depth on a separate post if anyone is interested in hearing my thoughts.

Critiquing religion, as I mentioned, is a cornerstone of feminist analysis and can not be ignored to preserve people’s feelings. However, most people who are the racial or religious majority in their communities will hold conscious and unconscious biases towards racial and religious minorities, and don’t usually bother to learn about the religion or culture they’re critiquing. These critiques tend to be based on stereotypes and fear mongering, and usually stem from a place of xenophobia rather than any true concern for women. The best way to remedy this is to take the time and effort to learn about the religion and culture in detail, and listen to women, feminist or not, from said culture or religion to properly understand their experiences and issues before you start making criticisms. Try to run your thoughts by someone from that culture or religion who shares your political ideology (in this case, Muslim or ex-Muslim radfems, especially from SWANA) to sound out any misguided ideas or unconscious biases. It’s a lot of work, so if you’re not up for it, maybe it’s best to stick to criticism of your own culture and/or religion.

When it coms to hijab/niqab/burqa/other modesty garments, you need to tread carefully with real women (as opposed to impersonal ideological critique). Modesty culture is deeply ingrained and many religious people are brainwashed into fear and abject horror at the mere notion of critical thought about their beliefs. Try not to get into heated arguments with religious women unless you’re trained in de-programming and cult tactics. On the other hand, if you’re talking to a liberal who supports dehumanising and oppressive religious/cultural practices on the basis of cultural relativism, you need to stress the dignity of women above any culture or religion. That said, gently questioning the beliefs behind something is never a bad move if you can keep the discussion civil; best case scenario you plant a seed of doubt that can lead to more critical examination, worst case scenario nothing happens and you move on with your days.

As for calling something as simple as shedding modesty items being called ‘liberation’, while I don’t think it’s offensive or a western concept (in fact, considering liberation a western concept is very… paternalistic? I can’t find the right word but it definitely rubs me the wrong way), it is a reductive way of looking at this. The shedding of modesty garments should be a protected human right regardless of faith or location, such that gaining the ability to do so is a tiny drop in the ocean of rights that need to be gained in order to achieve liberation. If we deem the simple right to dress as we please to be liberation, we lose sight of the much bigger battles ahead, and we give conservatives and religious extremists an opening to claim that liberal and feminist movements only strive to achieve sexual freedom and degeneracy for the benefit of men. We already see this happening in SWANA, where MRAs and religious extremists have taken up slogans like ‘they don’t want your freedom, but the freedom to get to you’ (aka the freedom to have sex with you).

Thank you for the thoughtful ask <3

[old-school-butch]

just saying that I think it’s a good thing you’re willing to be the voice of reason irt the Israel/Palestine “coverage” that’s flooded this website, especially while being a radical feminist who has already received an unfair amount of vitriol already.

What’s interesting is seeing the radical feminists who are tired of being lobbed with the reductive and useless “terf” misnomer now doing the same thing with “Zionist” to Jews who are standing up for themselves and unwilling to be stepped on.

It's disappointing to me that radfems seem to have little critique of war overall as a male path to power. If every leader who declared war had to immediately step down and recuse themselves from any position of power as a result - how many wars do you think there would be? Netanyahu is an idiot and he will lose power when there's an election after this war - but how do you think the war would progress differently if his removal from power was the necessary first action he had to take instead of the aftermath? If Sinwar had to plan the October 7th attack and then leave immediately step away from leadership when it began, would it have happened? Would Putin have invaded Ukraine? Would men take up their own propaganda and ideology if it meant losing their careers? Or basically if they had to make any civic sacrifice that resulted in a personal loss of power, how many wars would we see? Because they're willing to risk their lives, but especially the lives of other people, for power and nothing else. I think about that a lot.

[heterophobicdyke]

Answering all the man-defenders in the notes and tagging you at the bottom.

I want to remind you all that nobody said every woman will (or even should) leave their male partners. We are making the argument that RADICAL FEMINISTS in 2024 should understand why male/female relationships are an impossible obstacle to female liberation. Radical feminism is not just a 60s/70s wave but a set of feminist beliefs that have been worked on since it was commonplace that women said shit like "political lesbianism." So when you present the lie that most radfems from the 60s were partnered up with men, remember that we're in 2024 and have learned a lot in the last 60 years.

What does radical feminism mean? (Featuring a simple Google search)

Radical feminism calls for a radical re-ordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts. See how it doesn't say "anyone can be a radical feminist by virtue of how many hours she's volunteered at the shelter"? Any feminist can volunteer at the shelter - and they do! And should! Many who are pro-sex work volunteer at shelters, are they radfem now? To be a radical feminist, you've actually got to envision and work towards a radical re-ordering of society which we are arguing requires at least a temporary end to male/female relationships from those who call themselves radical. There is only so long we can spend energy picking up the pieces of male on female domestic violence before we admit that it's not even super RADICAL to say "men don't deserve women." But radical feminist energy can't go to anything progressive while we're managing the domestic violence currently occurring BECAUSE male/female relationships are viewed as inevitable. Obviously your Christian Aunt Helen is not going to leave Uncle Bobby and nobody is expecting her to. But if you're radical, you'd understand why it's necessary to do so when it comes to eliminating male supremacy. When a toddler acts up you don't give it a treat. Prioritise women. Do what it takes. Let's stop debating whether nail polish is feminist or not and actually address the elephant (your boyfriend) in the room. I've been doing this for 15 years and ruined my sex life making sure I was doing everything perfectly feminist WITH A WOMAN while you chose a whole arse man. Can you tell I'm exhausted? I stopped calling myself a radical feminist for years because you all question lesbian/gay solidarity--classes you oppress!--while you go home to one of the men who is actually attracted to women, one of those who actually rape us. The reality is that the decision to abandon men is the most radical choice and to partner up with one is the least. Forget about makeup and heels, that's nothing compared to the choice to shack up with a man. The fact some of you are bisexual is mind-boggling. At least with straight women I can understand the fear of loneliness, albeit feelings not being a priority under radical feminism.

Radical feminists seek to abolish patriarchy by challenging existing social norms and institutions. Hmm, I wonder what sort of social norms and institutions separatism critiques? I know! The idea that women need a man to be happy--when studies show het women are happier single!--and the institution of heterosexual marriage as the ultimate patriarchal tool! But you won't let us be radical feminists and challenge these misogynistic norms and institutions because you see them as so inherent to womanhood that it's apparently "misogynistic" of US to do so! As if all 60% of radfems who answered "no" to "will female liberation be achieved while "radical" feminists defend male/female relationships?" were lesbian. But of course we're predatory misogynists just trying to get in your pants, we are LESBIANS after all. Discrediting lesbians' feminist politics by virtue of our sexual orientation is homophobic. Maybe you should stop perceiving us as men, the enemy, when you're the one who chooses to sleep next to one. Projection and distraction. Let women critically think, like we do with the sex industry. You're essentially calling us SWERFs for challenging your "choice." Or is it HERFs? (hetpartnered exclusionary radical feminists). LMAO.

Radical feminists locate the root cause of women's oppression in patriarchal gender relations. What is more of a hotbed for men to dominate and abuse a woman than a male/female relationship? It's gender under a microscope! But tell me "not all men," and how much you love deadbeat Danny. Again, regular feminists are centrist and therefore don't need to critically think about how to tear this fucker of a patriarchal society down. They can just work on mopping up when men abuse, like we do when we volunteer. Like those who would rather deal with the effects of climate change rather than get to the root of it--capitalism--and rip it out. What separates us from liberal/mainstream feminism is that they are individualistic and we have an eye on the future. Liberal/mainstream feminism is all about individual choices and individual responses. Part of this individualistic cycle is getting a doomer attitude that men will always abuse -> the abuse happens -> other women help clean up the mess (whether it be friends, family members, volunteers, support workers). That's feminism to them. No liberation, really. The reason us radicals keep going on about separatism is because it INTERCEPTS THE CYCLE. If more girls are socialised with independent female role models at the front of the pack, the vanguards of feminism like radicals should be, then they will find male/female relationships less inevitable for them, too. They might not be separatist, but they'll be aware it is possible and perhaps will rethink getting with any man for the sake of it - because it currently is supposed to validate a woman's worth to be with a man. Men will also be aware that women are choosing to disband from them due to their behaviour. Consequences and all that. Hell, the judicial system isn't doing it.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head and telling you to break up with Jakey. What we are saying is that radical feminism requires radical action, and what you consider "radical" is baseline. All feminists should help out at the shelter. What was radical in 1890, like females wearing pants, is normal now. What was radical in 1970, like the pill, is normal now. Move on and realise that we need to intensify our action because we have NEW challenges now: more men are raised on porn today due to technology. They're objectively not safe to have sex with. Every woman and her cat has an OnlyFans and an eating disorder and gets filler in her face. Women hate themselves more than ever. We have tried everything... what's left? Male/female relationships. Gotta go, sorry. If you are actually radical you'd know that.

I think all types of feminism put off the inevitable final obstacle to female liberation--withdrawing sex and relationships with men until they fix their behaviour--BECAUSE they understand it's a tough ask. Women have been raised on impossible men in fairy tales, after all. But radical feminism is filled with tough asks. It's not for the faint of heart. That's the point. We aren't here to fuck spiders.

WHERE IS THE PUNK ENERGY?! FUCK MEN!!!!!!

I'm tired of debating about whether minor things women do are feminist or not when we all know that male/female relationships are the true thorn in feminism's side. So, back to my post, which hasn't been defeated:

"a woman who gets botox, wears high heels and a face full of makeup but refuses to date or have sex with men despite being attracted to them is far more radical than any self-proclaimed "radfem" with a radblr blog who's het-partnered. yes, even if she wears no makeup. choosing to refuse OSA men sex and relationships is quite literally the most radical decision possible. and only OSA women can do in a meaningful sense (because lesbians aren't attracted to men at all so there is no choice). OSA women hold the keys to female liberation but most won't drive the fuckin car"

@radicalstoner @forwomenbiwomen @insectfem @kthulhu42 @rahmansmusic @carpathxandridge @birdfem @deadfish-inabarrel @terven @mercuryfem @tranzzitts @saiyxn

a woman who gets botox, wears high heels and a face full of makeup but refuses to date or have sex with men despite being attracted to them is far more radical than any self-proclaimed "radfem" with a radblr blog who's het-partnered. yes, even if she wears no makeup. choosing to refuse OSA men sex and relationships is quite literally the most radical decision possible. and only OSA women can do in a meaningful sense (because lesbians aren't attracted to men at all so there is no choice). OSA women hold the keys to female liberation but most won't drive the fuckin car

[womenthinkingthings]

ggg don't really know how to qualify myself "correctly" wrt where I stand on feminism, because I'm definitely radfem-aligned but depending on whom you ask, I may not qualify, if you will. if I had to situate myself I'd say that I'm firstly a feminist and on the left, certainly socialist, not really communist or anarchist, but very open to discussing with those who are more radical in that way than I am. I will also never work with the right wing.

I'm opposed to pornography and prostitution and more or less agree with Dworkin's model of women's oppression in which prostitution is the material basis and pornography is the superstructure (not to replace marxism with feminism but to use a similar model to explain women's sex-based oppression). I also believe that a women's movement is possible and has enormous liberatory potential.

the trans issue might get the most attention and I think a critique is necessary -- both a critique of alienation and individualism (and its attendant narcissism) and a critique of the shift in thinking about what a woman is that has resulted in a decline in women's spaces and caused a chilling effect on women's speech. I think it's an impediment, and also a symptom and reaction to a sexist society. in my view, the trans movement is a misplaced critique of sexism with significant consequences that disproportionately affect rape survivors and lesbians.

I also think that honesty and integrity are ethical obligations. the critique of heterosexuality is a necessary and indispensable part of feminism. that being said, in terms of my own actions, I'm not a febfem, though certainly it's a feminist action to do that. and this is what according to some makes me not a radical feminist, and that is just how it's going to be for me. I'm aware that I'm opening myself to critique, especially online, for saying this, but if I'm going to post about feminism every day then I'm going to be honest about where I'm coming from.

I'm on this site because I want to be in community with women with whom I can speak freely about these issues, so I'll speak freely here and if you don't agree that's fine but I am willing to discuss with other women.

[ladyalienist]

Radical Fatphobia

I just gotta love how in all the "hot topics" radfems got (surrogacy, sex industry, TRA/queer nonsense, abortion ban, you name it, we got it) the discourse about beauty standards seem to revolve around shaving and make-up.

Don't get me wrong, those are important issues, both for us and the enviroinment. But... aren't we kinda sleeping on the other big thing about beauty standards for women? Which is... being thin?

I mean. Many of you will speak about eating disorders and starving one's self in order to reach the unattainable body standard we have or about how body standards change every decade or so causing women to never feel good in their bodies, but I'm afraid that so many of you are totally... not understanding just how much "being thin=being morally good" is ingrained in your brain.

Like, when I started peeking into feminist (liberal ones) circles back into 2014-2015 sometimes I would stumble upon the occasional fat-positive thing. "It's ok to have a belly!", "Fat and fabulous!", and I'm pretty sure liberals are still sometimes giving these little pills of comfort to us fatties. In radical feminism... this topic seems to just not exist. Not being discussed. Nada de nada, just the occasional "oh so many young girls are starving themselves to look like literal skeletons :(", and that's true but what about those girls who do not look like skeletons?

I'll be brutally blunt: I think that many of you do not give a fuck.

I've seen positivity posts being derailed into talking about visceral fat and lectures about how we're gonna die soon. I've seen every possible critique to HAES approach, from very grounded to very stupid.

Trust me: FAT WOMEN KNOW THIS. We know we're gonna die soon, we know visceral fat is killing us, we know every fucking stat in the box, because THE WHOLE WORLD IS EAGER TO TELL US, the whole world wants us to be miserable every time, and guess what? That's mostly because of capitalism. The very same capitalism radfem ideology tries to fight, you know.

The science behind weight and nutrition is not as black and white as so many of you want to believe it is. Dieting is a multi-billion dollars industry that relies on its own inefficiency - this means: DIETS. DO NOT. WORK. In 95% of cases. The only thing that gives a hope for consistent weight loss is surgery, with all the associated risks, and even then... it's not GRANTED. We do not know how to make fat people thin, and it is NOT OUR FAULT. We do not know how to properly "cure" obesity - hell we struggle even to define it, because BMI is a shitty way to do so.

"Fat people should keep in mind that they will die young" yeah and you know what makes our lives even shorter? The constant, unavoidable knowledge that being fat means people will be disgusted by us. The guilt we feel for enjoying a fucking plate of pasta. The stress of being targeted and harassed since age five, of being put on diets soon after, of being the bottom of every joke, of having fewer chances not only at a fullfilling love life (I could write another long rant about what relationships are like as a fat woman) but also at a satisfying career in every field and good social circles, of having things (clothes, cars, public transport) not designed for us. Stress fucking destroys every system in human body but somehow it's just visceral fat's fault, and thus fat people do not deserve any positivity in their life, they do not deserve to think "my body can be ok the way it is even if I have a tummy", no, they must feel miserable all the fucking time even in self-called radical feminist spaces. No fucking fat person, let alone woman, wants to be fat: if we had a safe, functioning way to become thin we would do it. But God forbid we ever, ever stop hating our bodies, no matter how much in every other instance it's clear that it leads us nowhere.

Honestly fuck you and your faux concern for health. I never see you this eager to tell smokers that they will die young, I never see you talking about how legal drugs can and will cause health problems, or about the toxicity of sugary food in general. It's always about visceral fat.

If you are not fat yourself I don't care how much you seriously think you're in the right for saying that fat is a risk for health under any little fat positivity post, fuck you. The person behind the post most likely perfectly knows and you've just made their day a little more miserable with no reason other than... you still thinking you're morally superior.

And just so you know, even if your BMI is 18 and you only eat salads and spend all of your spare time at the gym... you will, eventually, die. Just like us fatties.

[thesmutgoddess]

I feel totally alienated from feminism like I don't want to be apathetic to women's issues but there's not a single branch of it that appeals to me. I like that radfems criticise porn because I feel just sick of how every man in my life has been watching porn since childhood and it has like poisoned their sexuality and they constantly reduce women to milfs bimbos mommy milkers ect. But I can't get behind the outright puritanism like viewing ALL sex and erotica as evil and the idea that all trans women are male predators and all trans men are misguided lesbians. But then like mainstream libfeminism is just useless like it doesn't have any meaningful goals or critiques to me because its been coopted by corporations.

What you are feel is a completely valid reaction to both these movements and why they are counterproductive to the cause. The reason their critiques on the porn industry ring true isn't because heterosexuality is innately degrading to women but because, like every other form of media, it is an industry. If media is used to subjugate the masses (I highly recommend the documentary The Century of Self if you want to further explore this subject) then porn has become an important tool in capitalism to placate and alienate men. What they don't take into account is that the mainstreamization of pornography is a fairly recent phenomenon and doesn't explain the historical oppression of women. The reason that the sexual revolution was successful, né even necessary, is that historically women have been barred from any form sexual expression and bodily autonomy. What radfems are feeling is a legitimate response to the movement being coopted by capitalism and weaponized against women but even their most based takes, like their criticism of the porn and beauty industries, are things which the dismantling of capitalism would eradicate. The reason liberal feminism rings hollow is that they do not believe in the necessity for any institutional change, believing it is all societal and individualistic, and do not take in account the deeper structural inequalities.

[ivyblooms]

hi i 100% agree with your post about piv criticism and separatism. it's interesting how your post is quickly exposing the tumblr accounts who aren't actual radfems. how do these women use that label but don't read radfem theory that talks about separatism and piv criticism?

Thank you.

Online, words are more important than actions and self descriptors more prominent than physical behaviours, because we are all relating to each other through a text only medium. It's easy and often necessary to use labels that may not 100% apply to you if they are closer than anything else and they have significant effects on how you are treated.

It's difficult, if you have a history in liberal feminism, to change the way you think more than it is difficult to change what you think. It's also easy to slip into negative patterns of thought and reason when confronted with feminist critiques of heterosexuality when it is new to you, or when you haven't finished working through your relationship to it personally, or you are just a homophobe.

I don't have any real issue with the first 2 reasons, we all are on our own life journey at our own pace and womens history is something you have to actively try to learn about. I hope women that are pro piv take a moment to reflect or learn more because of the debate. I certainly did. Piv criticism is very important to me and I think it needs a wider platform.

[angelsaxis]

i agree w u that we need to be way way more critical abt shit like makeup and plastic surgery wherein "freedom of choice" is just leaning into patriarchal white-centric ideals of beauty etc. but i think freedom of choice is still impt in other aspects like life goals and saying that choice doesnt matter as much as fighting patriarchy in all aspects seems a little off to me? like if a woman happens to want kids, which is a gendered expectation, then by your post's standards, she isnt fighting the patriarchy. if she chooses to stay at home and watch the kid because thats genuinely what fulfills her more than a job and is fortunate that her spouse wants to and can financially support her, thats also going to be considered not feminist simply because she isnt doing the opposite of gender norms, according to your post. same goes for if a woman wears gendered clothes? has a job like childcare teacher, nannying, nurse? i dont like the idea of defanged (and largely cishet white abled) feminism as much as you, but acting like all forms of freedom of choice that conforms to gender norms is inherently bad strays really close to political lesbianism ideology wherein even choosing to be romantically involved with a man becomes traitorous. because dating men Is a gender norm. short of being a radfem, there is a line where we recognize that choice does matter because otherwise, the act of dating a man in itself plays into gender roles and expectations.

i just think theres a bit more nuance. i.e. genuinely further normalizing hurtful rhetoric/ideas (which makeup and plastic surgery do) should be looked at critically and i personally think we ought to abandon aesthetic surgeries n makeup for the sake of simply fitting into beauty standards all together. i also think that people will always have innate preferences. mine is towards counselling and psychology- is it unfeminist to go into a field that is woman dominated? must we let go of all freedom to choose to do "the most anti-patriarchy thing possible"? i feel like more nuance is necessary or we fall into traps for ourselves and actually end up stifling other women. like women who dont want to go into male dominated fields because its rife with sexism. like women who genuinely want kids with a man. like women who dont have the capacity emotionalmy or physically due to disabilities to work the jobs they are qualified for and so they choose to be homemakers. or even trans women who choose to do makeup because it saves them from transmisogyny. like yes, absolutely we need to critique where some preferences come from because, like with beauty standards and diets and skincare and fashion/makeup trends, some of them can be genuinely harmful to others (especially young girls who are exposed only to manicured picture-perfect bodies and faces). but at the end of the day, sacrificing All individual preferences will not make women happier, healthier or freer. and i mean this for ALL women.

yes I agree that nuance is important! that post is only a few paragraphs long and I made it in a moment of anger--so please nobody think that when I went into it, I was thinking that any conformity to a gender role is worse than death itself lol. like im literally in cornrows and a woman's shirt now.

that's why i always make the distinction between feminist action vs nonfeminist actions, rather than IDing as a feminist and then taking all the things I do as either qualifying or disqualifying me as a feminist. There's women who, for any reason, choose to be homemakers rather than work. Is that a valid choice for them? Yeah! Is it a feminist action? In my personal opinion, no--but is it wrong? Hell no. It's just that, on the list of things that a woman might say are things she's done to dismantle the patriarchy, being a SAHM/homemaker wouldn't be on the list. That's not a bad thing. We can't live our lives wholly dedicated dismantling something to the point of our own self destruction (and considering how deeply gender roles run--even down to social interactions--this would be impossible, anyways). that's where liberal feminism and choice feminism are in the wrong--it's ID first, and then the belief that as along as she's a woman Doing What She Wants, she's fighting the patriarchy (in lots of ways this is the case, but in lots of ways it definitely isn't). so a woman ends up saying its a totes feminist thing to like. actively support plastic surgery and the harmful makeup culture. rather than admitting that those are things that a feminist can do that don't make her not a feminist, but that definitely aren't feminist actions.

(I think most of the people reblogging that post understood as much, considering how there's any number of folks reblogging that who are women w long hair or wearing bras or doing something else that's a gender role and thus supported by the patriarchy)

My beef is with the pushing of personal empowerment over liberation from the thing that makes you need to feel empowered in the first place--and then acting like that is a win against patriarchy. like in the ideal world, people wouldn't need to wear make up, you know? Like, there'd be no expectation for women of any type of contour their faces and coat their skin and clog their pores and spend dozens or even hundreds every year to look a Specific Way. The fact that trans women have to wear make up for their safety is evidence that we live in a society where women are at risk of facing extreme violence for non-conformity--that's a fundamental change to society that make up, while helpful in a lot of these situations, bandages over. Bear in mind that I'm not saying that trans women shouldn't ever wear make up or anything! Make up as a choice for personal freedom/safety obv varies between women and by situation. It's still a gender expectation that men don't have to face, though.

My post was aimed more at the hardline liberal feminists/choice feminists who truly do think that make up is like. a 100% liberating tool whose acceptance actually contributes to the furthering of women's rights and the dismantling of patriarchy. it was generally directed at the women who call themselves feminsts but don't actually have like. an ounce of anything negative to say about the gender roles that are forced on us from birth. like they keep insisting that there is liberation through conformity as long as you change your mind about it or change the definition of feminism entirely. I don't think anyone's evil or partaking wholeheartedly in the oppression of women by wearing makeup n heels or being a SAHM, but again I know better than to equate a choice (often made under some level of misogynistic social coercion) with like, strives to get women in normally male-dominant fields or boost our representation in government or securing our reproductive rights.

[bongwater-supreme]

1) literally never visited your tags, I posted one specific take about a term that I have seen used within the trans community as a whole, and think is counterproductive and confusing

2) I got the term ‘transandrophobia truthers’ from other transmascs who are critical of the term. I’m not sure how I’d have gotten it (or any theory or information) from radfems when I don’t interact with any, avoid their posts and “takes” vehemently, and make a point to look out for their dogwhistles for my own safety. To assume that anyone who uses a term must know its originator is a pretty big assumption, especially on a website where linguistic exchange moves in a very fast and specific way. That being said, I didn’t know that it originated from radfems, so thank you for making me aware of that, I’ll be sure to avoid its use in future.

3) using a semantic argument ��proves my hand’ because??? Dude I have a background in literature and interest in linguistics, when critiquing a term, I’m going to deconstruct the term. I’m not sure what other manner you’d want me to do this in? It’s hard to convey tone over text but I am genuinely not sure what the issue is with linguistic analysis, or what other approach would be more appropriate.

The thing is, I actually do agree with everything stated within your linked post - I agree with a lot of writing that I have seen around transandrophobia, but have always been put off by the fact that the term is ineffective and its defenders are, as you’ve proven here, prone to assume that all criticism is in bad faith.

I’m not a fan of movements where all criticism is met with accusations of bigotry - saying that I don’t think the term is effective is not bigotry, and to pretend that it is really downplays actual bigotry. I mean seriously, where in my original post have I said anything bigoted? I have stated that I don’t like the term, illustrated the ways in which I feel it is inadequate, and offered what I feel are adequate alternatives. As a member of the transmasc community, I am well within my rights to have an opinion on a community issue, and to share it.

And despite your tirade, I shockingly still don’t like the term. I think that it’s clumsy in conveying the actual issue it concerns. I don’t like the weird aggression that accompanies any criticism of it, and I don’t like the assumption that one must somehow be in league with terfs to dislike it. I’m not going to stop other people using it, I don’t have that power, and nor does anyone. I simply don’t think it’s an optimal term, or an overly necessary one for my purposes (‘transphobia against transmascs’ has always served me well enough) and that is all. I’m not trying to silence you, I’m not throwing anyone under any bus, I’m literally just saying I don’t like the word. It is literally not that deep.

I will likely be bombarded with hate for saying this, but transandrophobia as a label simply doesn’t make sense.

Transmisogyny is a word describing the specific intersection of transphobia and misogyny experienced by transfems. The term transandrophobia therefore implies an intersection of transphobia and some kind of ‘androphobia’, aka misandry.

However, anyone even slightly versed in feminist theory knows that men are not oppressed for their gender. They may be oppressed for their race, sexuality, disability, transness, or any other number of things, but the specific brand of gendered oppression and violence that we refer to as misogyny does not have a male counterpart.

The oppression of transmascs is very real, but it is rooted in our transness, not our maleness. It is not an intersection between transphobia and hatred of men - it is simply a different brand of misogyny (one that thinks women need to be protected from the evil transes brainwashing them).

You want a word for what you as a transmasc experience? Transphobia and cissexism are right there. You are not oppressed because you are a man, but rather because people refuse to see you as such.

[kitchenalia]

I was recommended this post bc it was tagged radfem: "I think the funniest thing TERFs do is pretend that any critique of their movement is a critique of all women. It’s necessary for them, of course, because if they had to face the knowledge that most cis women despise what they stand for, they’d have to realize that their movement is just a group of people getting off on hating trans people." There's so much to unpack. "Most cis women despise what they stand for"?? Like, on earth? What? Lol.

i think that cis/trans is one of the strangest and most dishonest dichotomies that exists; i know that isn't relevant but i do believe that it's true. it flattens everything that we could understand about sexism, in my opinion. anyway, anti-feminism is usually deeply rooted in misogyny, and many of us have "trans experiences" but no longer believe in the ideology behind the universal, inborn gender identity (identification with sex stereotypes). this post just sounds like a superficial deflection of thinking too hard about radical feminism, or any meaningful feminism.

[withswords]

that's the infuriating thing right now about trying to talk about feminism and misogyny in media which is something i am and always have been invested in doing is that the immediate response from liberals when you critique something on the grounds of misogyny, and especially and god help you if that thing has sex in it, is that this is radfem talking points and puritanical and blah blah blah like if you're so insecure in your position that you have to automatically attack anyone even saying hey we need to have a conversation about this, we need to understand why this exists and what it's doing as a piece of media, as though they're censorious right wing ghouls trying to take away your safety blankets, i think you do understand that this thing has Problems and just need to shut down that conversation by any means necessary

[the-ghost-king]

My Doctor’s Note:

Suicide hotlines in every country

Donation tag 

So you’ve found my blog, good for you! Here’s what you should know:

- Nicocore // this is my tag for anything I feel like represents Nico (/Solacecore is the Will equivalent)

- Save a life // useful information, 1 note a day posts, mental help hotlines, donation posts, etc// if you need something boosted for donation or something you’re always free to tag me

- Donate // posts specifically asking for donations (paypal/gofundme/etc)

- Commissions // artists who have commissions open for people to buy projects from them

- notpjo // my tag for anything that's not RRverse feel free to blocklist it if you're not interested

- shut up ghost // sometimes I have smart things to say

- read and internalize // in my best effort to not be a performative activist I set aside these messages for myself on important things I (and I'm sure many other too) still need to learn; based off this post I wrote

- we need to talk // posts that reflect issues I've seen occur time and time again on tumblr, it's not typically heavy topics it's usually more critiquing fandom culture

General trans things (ftm/trans masc) (mtf/trans fem) 

- more tags to be added + links, also working on changing my tag system slightly

What is it okay to ask me?

If you send me an ask you’re free to pretty much send me whatever within reason; If you want to try coming out, are looking for a specific post, have a song you want to share, want to curiously inquire information about me, want to play an ask game or share head canons, etc- you are more than welcome to send me an ask.

(No gore, no suicidal posts- please see the links to hotlines in this post- this isn't because I don't care but because I'm not a therapist or a professional, if anything else needs to be added I will do so)

My squicks: Anorexia, orthorexia, and space /// This doesn’t means I’m completely unwilling to have conversations about these things, nor does it mean I’m completely unwilling to interact with related content, it simply means that sometimes these things make me extremely uncomfortable. Mutual and anyone I follow doesn’t need to worry about tagging these, it’s just certain conversations and situations that make me uncomfortable with these topics, hence why I use the word “squick” not trigger. 

❌DNI if❌ transphobic/homophobic/queerphobic, MAP/Kindergender/Pedophile or if you support any of those identities, TERF/Radfem or Truscum/Transmed, racist or anti-black, anti-asian, Nazi/anti-Semitic, or anything else that tends to exist along with these terms

If your blog is blank you can follow but I do sometimes block blank blogs out of concern, it's not always personal (in fact it extremely rarely is, I just prefer caution)

I have many followers and cannot be sure I will be able to fully check through the blog of everyone who follows me/reblogs from me, however if someone needs to be brought to my attention please do so

I am also not able to check through the blogs of every single individual I reblog from, please just sent me an ask or a DM and I will delete my reblog from anyone as necessary

I try to hold people to their current beliefs, this means I'm only willing to look at posts from the last 6 months when dealing with a situation in which someone has made some bad takes and I've reblogged from them or interacted with them, people change and I can respect that and give them opportunity to grow // however use of slurs for purposes of other than reclamation or education will need to be more than a year old for me to even consider interacting with them in any form

Other links:

My AO3 // FAQ // Other Blogs I Run // Send ask

This is still a WIP and more links and information will be added as time goes on

[queernuck]

Do you think that there are ways of telling whether or not a leftist is going to be a future reactionary? I've heard that sexual conservatism, transphobia, and work fetishism are telling, but I wonder if there are other signs as well.

I think that looking to any singular trait as an absolute indicator of reactionary tendencies is erroneous specifically because of how convergence between certain critiques can contribute to a more meaningful revolutionary position where individual thoughts, critiques, so on are apparently-reactionary or at least seem to contribute to reactionary positioning, but not noticing trends, certain lines of thought, certain ideological positions tend to lend themselves to future-reactionary status would be counterproductive and indeed even counterrevolutionary. 

sexual conservatism is one that I would want to problematize specifically because it can mean numerous things: generally, the TERF-and-adjacent types who talk about “cumbrained trannies” or contribute to similar ways of repeating the autogynephile ideology, creating such a category out of trans women’s experience to contribute to the idealization of Blanchard-influenced accounts where event t4t lesbianism is somehow degenerate, where innocuous enjoyment of anime is in fact defense the worst works with an anime aesthetic (when you can find plenty of reactionaries they’ll be a degree or two away from who unironically and openly post that exact content), so on: sexual conservatism manifests on and through the phallogocentric account of trans womanhood by making us into traps, into continual infringements on the virtue of Natural Womanhood, the conceptualization of the hypersexual transsexual as a continual menace, not to mention the means by which the transmisogynist line of critique is used to advance and codify racist ideological turns around the acceptability of different bodies and modalities of embodiment, acceptable metastructural bridges between the body-as-conceptual-object and embodiment as part of performativity, the bodies untied as such, and so on. 

this was shown, in part, by the readiness with which the idea of the “leather community” was condemned a few months ago in a rather ridiculous discursive turn, one which ignored the cultural history of “leather” and the identities it relates to, the acceptance of a certain field in which the sexualized body is acceptable and an exclusion of gay and lesbian identities from that, the idea that a relatively typical lack-of-clothing would suddenly be scandalous if the clothes are made of leather. the discussion of exactly what kinds of sexual activity and the phallic ideation, the implication, thereof are acceptable publicly is a worthwhile discussion but this was a reactionary appropriation of it. transphobia as well, of course, but transmisogyny more specifically seems to be an indicator of this: the radfem-to-tradfem pipeline is incredibly sobering when realized, given that various critiques of converging ideological tendencies foster this reactionary shift. the critiques of exploitation of sex workers, the genuinely horrifying content of much mainstream pornography (and misattribution of the origin of such degradation, the way in which misunderstanding of the ideological forces going into such producing-production, the creation of exploitative spaces like PornHub as a kind of ideological repository reflecting and creating cultural norms all at once, the rhizomal influence between these structures and their performative repetition in sexual encounters is of course an issue of great importance, but one which requires a genuine question of what exactly creates and produces what, how flows of desire interrelate) and how this leads to critiques on culture, on womanhood in relation to concepts of the West, the fetishization of the West and Western ideology, and how the supposed-radical critique seems to then turn such that preservation of hegemony replaces counter-hegemony as the goal.

The general acceptance of “TERF” or “RadFem” as a designation is something which is a strong, strong predictor that a person is tending toward radical ideology, and I absolutely believe that there are those who are in the latter group, those who look toward Radical Feminist genealogies, critiques, and so on as part of their own influence and development of feminist theory who turn to a more “materialist” feminism, although “materialist feminism” can itself be a mere reduplication of the same reactionary critiques. At best, materialist feminism is just that: a form of feminist critique which concentrates on the oppression of women through an applied, Marxist materialism, usually specifically informed by Marxist-Leninist concepts of what the “material” constitutes and so on. And conversely, the influence of various successes and failures alike of Political Correctness as a modality of critique as well as psychoanalytic imposition that moves toward attempting to do the same as mentioned earlier, the creation of the autogynephile as well as the way in which abuses against nonbinary people (often focusing on the creation and codification of an “AMAB themby” that goes alongside racial and colonial notions of sex) people of color, trans women, trans women of color, all find commonality in strange moments of convergence, passing tangents of relevance. Also, while this is something I want to say with a great deal of reservation and with caveats, certain tendencies may eventually lead to a sort of similar third-positionist falling-in wherein the general (but not exclusive) whiteness and hegemonic acceptability of reactionary ideologies appropriating critiques that bear resemblance to revolutionary ones. The way that right-anarchists are often actively recruiting other anarchist tendencies, how fascists use the idea as well as the actual politics of the NazBol as a kind of aesthetic prefix for their outright fascist ideologies (or call themselves NazBols, considering the lack of difference between fascists and NazBols and how the limited context of “legitimately” NazBol politics seems to be expanding due to the internet) means that people of certain tendencies palling around with people who seem sketchy? Almost certainly are.

As you mentioned, work fetishism is one I will at least acknowledge, in that it misunderstands how and moreover why movement-building and revolutionary labor must be done. The structure of “work” is one wherein primitivist critiques are often at least a starting point for questioning the structure of interaction, activity, how one considers an ethics of what is often understood as “work” and so on, such that anti-work anarchism provides a valuable counterpoint to work fetishism. Similarly, a reluctance to endorse antifascist actions, prison abolition, and other revolutionary actions on the part of certain Marxists due to anarchists taking part is counterproductive and even counterrevolutionary. The processes of Radical Democracy described by Chantal & Mouffe and the learning (as influenced by Mao) and Badiou’s account of Maoist self-criticism and study has enormous potential for convergence, I do not think that things are as hopeless as we feel.

I would also warn against general riot porn (although then again, I do love it as well), that interrogation of aesthetics of militancy is often similar-looking to the repetition of it (such that, again, the kind of juxtaposition of various state and non-state actors is an attempt at looking toward militancy-or-refusal-thereof), and of course because it’s me, conservative attitudes on drug use. The way in which discussion of how the black market has benefited reactionary and right-wing groups is of course necessary, but conversely the idea that drug dealers and users are some sort of group in need of purging, that similar strategies are not employed by leftist groups (or that leftist groups have never taken part in drug trafficking, or that destabilizing a reactionary state through such means would be indefensible) can be a bad sign. I mean, I’m an IRA supporter but I also love heroin, that’s just me.

So, there are lots of things, it isnt just looking for an anime avatar or seeing that someone once read some radfem theory or is this or that or the other tendency.

[soulvomit]

This is what *i* refer to when I talk about Boomer culture. It's the one thing that *is* unique to the culture of Boomers and isn't just mislabeling Greatest/Silent attitudes as Boomer.

In response to a few of the @'s and critiques:

basically the whole point of my half baked analysis about "lifestyle liberalism" isn't to accuse actual praxis based liberal politics of any special level of selfishness that conservative politics doesn't have. I can still find lots of arguments that liberalism is on the whole more beneficial to a larger number of people. The problem is when people who deep down are basically conservative, like limited applications of liberalism - especially ones involving no actual structural/institutional change - because they're in a unique position to benefit, then this gets passed on as what liberalism is about: a depoliticized set of weaponized social memes that result in reduction of service coupled with rise in self-centered laissez faire culture, which is presented as broadly liberating to everyone because it offers more personal freedoms with actually *less* accountability than 1950s white culture did. Fuck, at some point I'm feeling that I'm going to argue that the 70s liberalized popular/ consumer culture evolved from the 50s consumer boom more than it wants to admit.

Also, relatively few of us here, and probably no one who follows me, *are* ever going to be 100% lifestyle liberals. It is a really, really privileged cultural space - it's where you are still told to pick yourself up by your bootstraps but also told "your negativity is bringing people down, man."

Also, I'm not talking about the *specific policies* of California NIMBY liberalism - I'm talking about the *culture* of it, because I'm eventually going to go on to discuss New Age culture, the culture space of "wellness," the culture space of codependency and 80s pop feminism (which *both* radfems and intersectional feminists push back on), and also dating and the weird sex politics of the 80s and 90s, and how all of this is informed by the "Cult of the Self." And the weird social status and class warfare in geek culture. The thing is, I kept feeling like these were all basically part of the same broader culture space.

The whole point is to acknowledge a certain set of behaviors and ideas *as a broad culture space and worldview* (whose members claim all kinds of political ideologies). Lifestyle liberalism isn't any individual fish in the tank, or any particular school of fish in it, it's the water itself. I am analyzing it as a cultural, social, and psychological space more than as a political praxis.

My broader environment (raised in Los Angeles around status seeking middle class yuppie "fake rich" spaces and around New Age culture in the 70s/80s, to progressive parents; moved to Bay Area in mid 90s, worked in tech for a while) was heavily influenced by this set of cultural memes.

It's not *bad* that many people have more choice of how they live their lives, or more to choose from at the marketplace, and I'm certainly not in favor of authoritarian culture. Again, lifestyle liberalism is an individualist space but individualism itself isn't lifestyle liberal, and lots of really important things are fundamentally based on individual adult people - not their families, communities, churches, etc - having say at all with regard to their lives. Abortion and gay marriage (and freedom not to marry at all) are some of the the biggies we think about, and there are other fundamental individual rights that we didn't always have. Your family doesn't get to pick your spouse anymore, you don't need your husband to open a bank account for you, you are not accountable for your dead parents' personal debts, your family can not have you committed if you are a grown ass adult anywhere near as easily as they could in the 1950s. In many social spaces it's no longer acceptable to tell someone what gender they identify as or what religion to be. So it's absolutely necessary to distinguish the solipsism of lifestyle liberalism from actual praxis that concerns individual people.

For what it's worth, too, I feel like everyone with any actual political commitment at this point, on *either* side, hates lifestyle liberalism. The real lifestyle liberals at this point are probably just Objectivists. The problem is that lifestyle liberalism dug its hooks *deep* into the white liberal culture space where I'm from.

It's possible to grow up with damage from being raised in these middle class liberal spaces *and nobody talks about it.* Lifestyle liberalism took the credit for lots of real gains that were often lost because lifestyle liberalism did nothing to protect them (and sometimes blamed us for their loss), when in fact lifestyle liberalism had nothing to do with these gains at all. Lifestyle liberalism equates individual feelings and beliefs with praxis, so you have a culture space where lots of people don't think they're racist (to name just one example) because they don't ~FEEL~ racist. The thinking of many of these people is that they are a consumer in desegregated spaces, how could they be racist? Because after all, no class analysis exists ever, what you do with the freedoms you have is up to you, right?

The lack of acknowledgement that difference or inequality even exists, coupled with equating the middle class to the rich, meant that lots of institutions and culture spaces and industries even *lost* any kind of parity they had, because lifestyle liberalism largely constructed as the individual self-betterment rights of people who had never actually lost their privilege or left privileged spaces to begin with.

Like, I remember talking about sexism in tech in the 90s (which at the time wasn't as dominant a thing as it became later). But it was always dismissed by both men and women in the industry and was barely even talked about in hushed whispers. We just didn't have the words. 90s tech culture had a number of women senior programmers and women managers, and it wasn't even heavily bro yet. It wasn't until the dominant work culture shifted to "brogrammer" (itself a product of lifestyle liberalism, I'll argue) that anyone even admitted that any structural inequality was there and even then it was a struggle to acknowledge that company culture is a structural problem at all.

Part of it was that sexism had rebranded by the 90s; it wasn't grandpa's male chauvinism, it was a new post-Sexual Revolution, post-"Women's Lib" world of limitless options and any restriction on any privileged person's behavior - *especially* when it was selfish or oppressive - was represented as oppression of that person. Any complaint on the part of the person being punched down on, was framed as them not being liberated enough. All the world's problems were solved, right?

This is part of the cultural gaslighting I feel like a lot of Gen X came up with, but in many cases got perpetuated anyway (because lots of people who think lifestyle liberalism is politics and not culture, think they're pushing back, when really they're just rebranding).

It's hard to exit a space that everyone thinks gives you the most options unless you're actually forcibly ejected from that space. (Like the downwardly mobile children of yuppie Boomer parents. The ones who made good just kept the system going.)

Whereas people *do* talk about exiting authoritarian spaces. Also, people often need somewhere to exit authoritarian space *to.* and what's often presented is either another equally authoritarian space... or lifestyle liberal space.

The problem is, you can't really exit *to* lifestyle liberal space because it is inherently privileged, often results in loss of status and social capital to those who leave (because status signaling and social capital are - in my opinion - a really big part of lifestyle liberalism), and the pull to authoritarian space was often the validation of experience of lifestyle liberal/me-generation gaslighting. Sometimes the gaslighting of authoritarian space seems like a relief in comparison because the rules are explicit, whereas lifestyle liberal culture is a huge space of unwritten rules and expectations.

Lifestyle liberalism tends to not be either culturally sustainable or personally sustainable - the massive pushback it's getting now, when we couldn't even question that these systems existed in the 90s, is evidence of that.

Also, it requires a huge base of aspirationally wealthy and wealthy people in order to even function as a dominant culture meme, because of the degree to which it was about leveraging economic privilege. (Economics play a huge role. Lifestyle liberalism in practice turns into class warfare.) So the erosion of the middle class probably has a role to play. Because I feel like what I've seen in recent years are lots of people cut out of the lifestyle liberal social space because the middle class is losing so much adjacency to the rich, and even the illusion of adjacency. But now we have a culture space with 30+ years of entrenched mores, institutions, and viewpoints to deal with.

I feel Leftism is pushing back - in fact it's the whole cultural appropriation discussion that made me want to identify this culture space, because a lot of the appropriative practices critiqued were in liberal social space, not traditionalist or conservative social space.

And I feel like non-traditionalist conservatism became friendlier to lifestyle liberalism over time.

I was raised in this culture space, and it's fucked up, and I banged my head against the wall trying to succeed in it, then blamed myself and my own mental wiring for issues that turned out to be wholly structural and cultural. I tried to get therapy but found that therapists *generally* were in this same culture space as well and many seemed to mainly be about bringing people back to lifestyle liberalism.

I'm a downwardly mobile Gen Xr who is the kid of upwardly mobile parents, and I had to identify this set of cultural memes in order to recognize that I was being gaslit by them.

It's possible that a lot of the culture of lifestyle liberalism was a consequence of a strong economy to begin with and a consequence of disliking authoritarian culture but staying within one's privilege bubble.

And I'm not saying it is a bad thing on its own - it's that it's not praxis at all, but for 30+ years, was mistaken for it. Lots of people called themselves liberal who were only describing their personal lifestyle beliefs and choices and a set of consumer patterns. Lifestyle liberalism is to liberalism what mall goth is to goth.

It's that it leads to really selfish, narrow, and callous culture memes when left to its own devices and that it's a whole social system, not merely a praxis. It gets weaponized against vulnerable people in insidious and devastating ways, and then those people get blamed for their own bad experiences. Sometimes the lip service ends up being a way to wash your hands of the problems of other people. Sometimes lifestyle liberalism even ends up enhancing the social problems that praxis liberalism tries to oppose.

There are lots of problems we haven't been able to wrap our minds around, because of not being able to fit certain behaviors into either a conservative or leftist or even liberal framework. For example: protesting a war then demonizing the dominantly marginalized people drafted into it, seems inconsistent, right? No, it's totally consistent within the framework of lifestyle liberalism. It's punching down, it's actually class warfare with a smily face and a flower, as opposed to just plain old class warfare.

And my mom, who grew up poor in Venice and experienced its gentrification in the 60s, has talked lots about this - you couldn't even acknowledge that "baby killer" praxis was punching down, or that gentrification was happening. But to many of the poor people, and or POC, and or actually marginalized countercultural outsiders living in Venice, "the Man" had finally won, but he had come wearing long hair and a beard instead of a flat-top.

But within the cultural framework of lifestyle liberalism, it starts to make sense. So do a lot of things which seem ethically or politically inconsistent on the surface.

I feel like a lot of the more committed lifestyle liberals i knew, became libertarian or even conservative and stopped really giving a lot of lip service to leftist ideas.

Some even went traditionalist - because part of the dynamic of the 80s was that lots of these people had married and had children, and only had traditionalist cultural frameworks to function within once they were no longer swinging singles. The thing is, so much of lifestyle liberalism was not scalable to the family unless you had a lot of money. You had to actually be rich enough to afford the Montessori education and the macrobiotic afterschool snacks and to live in communities of "Positive People" that of course were in higher cost areas. (I've struggled with what so many New Agers mean when they say they want to live around "conscious" people. What they mean generally is that they want to live in rich liberal spaces instead of rich conservative ones.)

Lifestyle liberalism heavily favored the priorities of a large population of young childless, affluent singles. I feel like this is where you get the Silent Generation observation of "Boomer liberals who turn conservative after age 30," because in many cases it *was* about optimizing the freedoms and advantages of a semi-affluent youth culture.

For the most part though I feel like lifestyle liberalism isn't an individual take or set of takes or an individual praxis so much as a broader set of cultural memes. And, btw... it's really, really capitalist and consumerist! It basically treats people as independent consumers and groups of people as marketplaces.

The things that made me think of this and feel like I needed to analyze it:

1. Lifestyle liberalism is a really, really dominant theme in the world I was brought up in, and there is a lot of personal damage I had to overcome because of being in these environments. It infected every single part of every space I lived in, but was presented as the only option besides traditionalism.

2. I had these viewpoints for a long time, and continued to internalize them well into my 30s. I struggled in spaces that pushed back for a long time, because lifestyle liberalism isn't just a political or social viewpoint, it's a whole way many people in my age group are socialized to exist.

3. I struggled with why, after I became unhealthy and broke, many family and my old friends treated me differently and it wasn't about being actually rejected. It's more that they existed in spaces I could no longer move in, continued to say that i was welcome there, but did nothing to actually make it easier for me to be there, all the while maintaining the plausible deniability and moral certainty that they were inclusive of me.

4. I had to *unlearn* a lot of lifestyle liberal viewpoints to survive outside of that space, in spaces where survival was based upon pooling of effort and trying to problem solve interpersonal relationships, rather than being able to just opt out of any situation I was slightly uncomfortable in.

5. This space wasn't actually giving or helpful - it was basically a bunch of solipsists in the same room together - and when I actually started to have any requirements for real emotional or social support, these spaces left me to twist in the wind. "You're like, really bringing me down, man."

[ms-hells-bells]

(please don't publish if not on anon) I sent that message about rudefems to radicallyaligned and don't really appreciate being called a misogynist. People like topd*ke are directly harming the radical feminism movement because they're assholes that conform to every single stereotype libfems have about radfems. I sent that message after seeing yet another anti terf use topd*ke as an example of 'evil terfs'. Plus her 'feminism' is an excuse to shit on all trans people, including trans men.

there will always be asshole radfems because there are assholes in every single group in existence. it’s not our job to appeal to others and bend to tras whims just because of literally one person. also, it doesn’t matter what toppdyke calls herself, radfems believe words have meaning and radical feminism includes not calling other women slurs, which toppdyke (yeah i’ll say her name, because i’m not a fucking coward that wants to talk behind specific people’s backs without them knowing) does not do, so by definition she fails to be a radical feminist. 

the caring about what others think about you thing wears off after a while. clearly you haven’t gotten over it considering you’re speaking with such determination only because you’re on anon and are too scared to hop off anon because people might think you’re a big bad terf. don’t come to our house and tell us how to decorate it when you can’t even take that mask off your face or admit you’re our guest. 

you feel validated by softies because they take the nice easy bits but still label the rest of us the bad guys to seem better in comparison. you can watch from the sidelines and go “wow, look at those crazy, mean feminists, aren’t i much more reasonable?” and think that throwing the more blunt, harsher women under the bus is worth it in the long term to get others to agree with you “for the good of the movement”. i’m not just talking about toppdyke, but many non shitty women that you feel are too loud (your own words) and combative. 

we’re not here to make you comfortable. we’re here to analyse female oppression, critique society, and help contribute to actual change. second wave feminists didn’t get marital rape and domestic abuse outlawed and abortions legalised by being sweet, kind ladies, that’s why they’re so hated today. 

i love all women, soft and harsh, and believe that both are necessary in different ways. as long as you respect me and my own methods, i won’t bite back at yours.