#and so women who are interested in radical feminism

[velvetvexations]

Like, this is literally identical, indistinguishbale, from the way a lot of Radfem Classics talk about het and bi women. If I saw it I would assume no questions asked that it was a cis person saying this, and it isn't.

Dovetailing with transmascs being scapegoated for transmisogyny in lesbian spaces, it makes me wonder if one of the reasons The T/R/F leans so heavily on "this one time a TERF pointed to her husband as an example of a good feminist" to prove TERFs don't hate men is that to do otherwise would have to acknowledge it's mostly cis lesbians who are hardcore about hating men and who make up the bulk of TERFs.

This is how TERFs think. This is how they see trans women. The T/R/F has the exact same mindset and mearly disagrees about herself counting as a man, and to make this make sense she insists TERF beliefs are what they aren't. Since she hasn't actually changed a single word of radical feminism except the criteria for what counts as a woman, she repeats every other mistake. Her book claims to be about somehow redeeming and modifying where radical feminism went wrong, but the truth of the matter is that you could read just about any radical feminist text and get the same experience.

Even the anti-sex work/kink aspect of radfem ideology is included when you consider that TRFs reguarly bring up a transmasc sex worker indulging a transfem client to say that everyone who believes in transandrophobia has an evil and inherently immoral dykebreaking kink. They're perfectly happy to moralize about trans women being allowed to have their sexuality but then will weaponize a trans woman's sexuality to displace it onto trans men and hate them over it. Their supposed support for sex work and kink is purely in their own interests.

So, like, back to the misogyny TRFs direct at bi and het trans women, including the DMs of The T/R/F calling them "straggots" and saying they should "[redacted] themselves en masse". This is, as I've said, the same way cis lesbian radfems behave about men. But acknowledging that means acknowledging that cis lesbians are mostly not interested in trans women and many, many cis lesbians actively hate them and campaign against our rights, and that is like, even more devestating to the feelings of TRFs than the fact that transphobes in general percieve them as men. So not only do they have to lie about what TERFs believe about men and masculinity, they also have to insist transmisogyny in lesbian spaces is a transmasculine problem.

They don't care about trans men but are pathetically desperate for cis women to give them a little Wymyn badge, and rather than admit that cis lesbians are treating trans women badly, they'd rather just deny reality and say it's actually the trans men who're cultivating transmisogyny. They're already seething that trans men have extremely uneven, inconsistant, and highly conditional acceptance among cis lesbians that might otherwise exclude trans people, and rather than blame the cis lesbians that make and enforce those rules, they blame trans men. It's like your boss promoting someone else at work and you key that guy's car like it's his fault.

[olderthannetfic]

tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/775776774680428544/the-transandrophobic-bigots-on-here-i-feel-like-a?source=share

agreed in every point except on one, and i find it interesting that no one dares to mention it: at least a substantial amount of the people who make these sort of posts or give it notes are trans women, so yes, i do reckon they care about trans women.

it's just done in a way that assumes that trans men have a direct hand in their oppression by having different experiences and that this somehow is "less bad" of a nerf than what they got going on.

mix that in with radical feminism (and it doesn't matter that radical feminism is inherently inseparable from transphobia and esp transmisogyny, it's just like how poor people will vote for fascists bc they gave them a scapegoat) and you get the exact sentiment out and proud terfs got about trans men being pitiful traitors to (cis) womanhood except that trans men have actively chosen to be oppressors AND they also wanna be able to bounce back on being a smol bean or the guy from that tweet who taunts tall jacked guys and then goes "im just a little guy, and it's my birthday too!". male socialisation is fake and if you subscribe to it, you are a transmisogynist but cis female socialisation is 100% real and no trans men or "theyfab" (urgh @ this word...) will ever be able to lay it off bc while they chose masculinity as a bigoted cloak of protection, they're still stupid impressionable little girls who will grow into Karens, if they already aren't

some extreme points I've seen so far with this sentiment are that trans men (who btw are all white and at the end of the day racist. there are no trans men of colour and there are also no trans men elsewhere besides the west) are more prone to supporting fascism while also harping upon how the same fascists wanna kill them and that they are naturally unthreatening as platforms will ban trans women to make it clean and marketable but leave trans men there. which sucks! for obvious reasons!!! but jesus christ, this is just being out of touch with reality beyond the internet

tumblr likes to think that some people are inherently immune to being bigots in another direction or to general assholism, but suffering doesn't make you noble. not that it is about noble -it's about kicking down at an acceptable target

--

[girlfishes]

I didn’t write this but it’s definitely something I would say so I’m going to defend it, especially since this has gotten such a negative response.

Imo anon didn’t say that no one should say KAM; she is just pointing out the effect that such rhetoric has on online discussion, especially for potentially sympathetic women.

A lot of the responses to this confession have centered around the idea that radical feminists are justified in saying KAM and therefore anon is out of place for getting annoyed over it. The responses bring up how much rape and murder men commit and how they terrorize us every day. To this reality KAM language is a response that can be justified, especially if one has personally experienced male abuse.

But anon isn’t speaking in terms of justification at all. She is just pointing out the effect of the KAM rhetoric. And no one has tried to argue against her actual point, that KAM alienates many women from radical feminism.

If you understand that saying KAM will turn away otherwise sympathetic women from radical feminism and still choose to say it, that is an informed choice you have made because you have decided that your personal venting and justification outweigh considerations about how radical feminism is viewed by outsiders.

However if you maintain that KAM should be said in radfem spaces and also that women who dislike or disagree with radical feminism as it appears online are unreasonable, you should understand that most people are uncomfortable with genocidal rhetoric in any form whatsoever, (even as a joke or a vent) regardless if you feel that you can personally justify your feelings.

This isn’t about being soft or nicer to men, but strategic in the way we appear to other women with the end goal of having them understand how far patriarchy is embedded in society and give them a will to change that.

I anticipate being accused of asking everyone to water-down our beliefs to please outsiders, and to this I will say that “kill all men” isn’t a belief at all, just a possible method towards women’s liberation. We should never compromise in our beliefs that women should be free from male oppression, but I can argue that some methods are more reasonable, ethical, and possible than others, and that the discussion of these methods should be done strategically.

I have loved and learned a lot from radical feminist theory, and I still do. But the KAM RadFems (and those with similar attitudes) push me away from the online sphere. So much aggression, so little communication...

🏏

[leaves-lilies-and-esther]

I've been really curious about stoicism lately, but it's a bit disappointing to see how much of the posts online about it are made as a "for men, by men" type of thing with women only on the periphery (ie, videos about the way a real stoic would go about dating women, materials about a man's path, identifying "good women" like a stoic, etc). Occasionally these YouTubers remember that women also exist, and they make a video about why it's also applicable to women!! And the reasons are always things like "to improve at emotional labor".

...do men even realize that women also face the same universal human problems?

I'm going to try to read the original writings on this philosophy to see if I can escape the dudebro culture that's apparently risen up around it

[feral-radfem]

Hey if you're a non-radfem and you want to make a complaint that radical feminist critique keeps getting applied to you because you hang around radical feminist spaces here is my advice: leave.

Honestly, I'm so tired of seeing this shit. Go find some other places to hang out. I don't care that you came here because everyone else kicked you out for being a "transphobe". That does not make it our responsibility to soften our movement and our criticisms so that you feel comfortable in a movement you have no intention of of committing to. You are welcome here on the basis of being a woman, however, if you can't handle the feminist action that goes on in these spaces, then you need to leave. That is a you problem, not ours. I'm tired of hearing y'all whine that we don't coddle you enough and then adding anecdotal evidence of feminist harm or strawmen arguments for why you're justified in doing patriarchal actions were other women are not. There is not a single identifier or life experience you can tell me that is going to make me think that you deserve to be exempt from the same criticisms I would level at any other woman. If you're an adult, you should be mature enough to hear them. If you are not mature enough to hear feminist critique, you need to leave feminist spaces.

if you want to be self-serving, it is completely your right to do so. I've heard a number of you in passing claim that you "don't want to be feminist, you want to be people". Which, while that's an insulting sentiment as a feminist, just demonstrates that the only person y'all care about is yourself. You see being a person as inherently being self-serving and self-centered. First and foremost, it's all about you. That level of selfishness is pathetic and frowned upon in collective spaces. Feminism being one of them.

Just save us all the headache and go away. Y'all are one of the only groups of people on the internet who are able to piss me off in seconds, istg.

[astroterf-ed]

trying to posit a discussion question for my class at my liberal-ass university and contextualize "gender" and "gender identity" in a way that is interesting to me, understandable to normies and not getting me cancelled by gendies. so.

[coremilk]

TRANS EXCLUSIONARY RADICAL FEMINISM

If you ask a TERF what the "radical" in "radical feminism" means, chances are she will tell you that it refers to locating the root cause of women's oppression in their belonging to a "sex class"* that is subjugated under patriarchy for the sake of controlling their reproductive capacity ("radical" being used in the sense of "pertaining to the root").

(*not all TERFs use "sex class" terminology, but the structure of the arguments being made is largely identical.)

The "trans exclusionary" part refers to trans women being excluded from the scope of the analysis that this kind of feminism offers on account of not belonging to the "sex class" whose reproductive capacity (i.e. the ability to bear children) is being controlled.

"Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism", for as long as that term has existed, has never "excluded" all trans people from its analysis. It has always "included" transmasculine people (whose gender is usually disregarded and disrespected by its proponents) as "belonging to the sex class" whose reproductive capacity is being controlled. TERFs have used the expression "You can't identify your way out of oppression" illustrating this idea to the point of it becoming a cliche.

That isn't to say that TERFs necessarily like transmasculine people: The charge of pursuing an individual solution to a structural problem - that trans men are "members of the female sex class trying to escape their oppression" through misguided means, that trans men are simply trying to change their location from oppressed to oppressor while leaving the oppressive structure intact - has been frequently directed at transmasculine people.

This accusation, however, is only one of attempting to do so: TERFs do not believe that it's actually possible to escape "sex based oppression" by way of transitioning or any other individual action. They do not believe that transmasculine people are granted a position that allows them to benefit from "sex based oppression" as they do not believe patriarchy allows "women" to escape their "sex class".

In practice, this "inclusion" is often abusive and entails paternalistic and manipulative attempts at making transmasculine people detransition and "desist" to bring them back into the fold of "womanhood", which is inimical to their actual interests and may have catastrophic consequences for the target if successful.

The account that TERFs offer of transfems' plight under patriarchy is simply that they are facing a secondary oppression as "gender non conforming males" for subverting the gender roles assigned to them on the basis of their "sex class" as "males". According to TERF analysis, trans women are not oppressed on the basis of their womanhood because the oppression of women is "sex based oppression" aimed at controlling the reproductive capacity of the "female sex class".

The charge that TERFs make against trans women (which serves as the basis for excluding them from feminist organizing) is that they are infiltrating and derailing/subverting feminism. Trans women are thought to be "males" (biologically, physically, socially, psychologically etc.) whose interests are not aligned with those of the "female sex class" but with those of the "male sex class" and who will therefore divert the goals of feminism away from the liberation of the "female sex class" if granted the right to participate in the formulation of feminist agendas.

The actual interests of transmasculine people are thought by TERFs to align with the liberation of the "female sex class" so they see no reason to exclude them from feminist organizing. At most, transmasculine people are thought of as having a "false consciousness" and being mistaken about what is and isn't in their interest on account of identifying with an oppressor class they are not actually a part of.

Do TERFs hate men? That depends on what is meant by "hate" and "men". To TERFs "men" means "members of the male sex class" (cis men, transfems) and doesn't include trans men (whom they view as "women"/"members of the female sex class"). TERFs believe that "men" have structural power over "women" based on these sex classes. They believe that there are coherent class interests that unite the members of each "sex class". How they actually "feel" about "men" is somewhat variable and ranges from relatively neutral academic analyses viewing them as an oppressor class to ascribing them more or less demonic essential characteristics.

Trans women aren't seen like other "men" by TERFs though: They are conceptualized (in explicitly conspiratorial terms) as something like the storm troopers of patriarchy - an especially militant advance force (possibly giving up their humanity and becoming a kind of medically constructed monstrosity) to strike at the core of feminism with the goal of hollowing it out and clearing the path for "colonizing" and resorbing it into the patriarchal mainstream. Trans women are understood as an especially nefarious category of person because they are seen as posing a direct threat to the ability of "women as a sex class" to organize among themselves, to develop and use the language and theory they need to understand their own oppression and thereby resist patriarchy and bring about their liberation. Trans women are not just seen as attackers of "female safe spaces", they are seen as the attack itself. Their very existence is made out to be a stratagem devised against feminism and "women".

How and why the "sex class interests" of transfems supposedly align with those of "men" is never quite explained in materialist terms. In this point, TERFs invariably have to fall back on idealist concepts like biological determinism, spiritual essence, socialization, etc. Whereas transmasculine people are seen as having a "false consciousness" for mistaking where their material interests lie, the question of the material interests of transfems is never quite advanced. By some mechanism, by some unexplained (and sometimes metaphysical) force they benefit from "sex based oppression" in ways that e.g. an infertile cis woman would not. It essentially doesn't matter, it's an a priori assumption. "Belonging" to the "male sex class" itself is thought to grant access to structural power and the ability to benefit from "sex based oppression", even when no real world mechanism to that effect exists.

"Hating men" is neither a defining nor a unique feature of TERF ideology. There are some TERFs who arguably do hate men and there are others who do not. There are feminists who "hate men" in nearly every school of feminism. Even the most toothless iteration of liberal "girl power" feminism had its "male tears" mugs. The defining feature of TERF ideology is the exclusion of trans women from its conceptualization of women's oppression and from feminist organizing, justified with the supposed "class interests" of trans women being those of the "male sex class".

Trying the redefine the meaning of "TERF" in an attempt to obfuscate the specificity of this ideology's hostility towards transfems is dishonest and transmisogynistic on its own. Trying to do so while also claiming that transfems' material interests actually do align with those of cis men, the central distinguishing claim of TERF ideology, is such an unbelievably repulsive act of hypocrisy that it should disqualify anyone who does so from participating in the discourse surrounding trans women's oppression entirely.

[needle-thread-thimble-spear]

I think that comparing the TERF and TMRA movements on this website often misses something important. While these two ideologies are both centered in reactionary transmisogyny, the underlying goal is quite different. Trans exclusive radical feminism is an ideology of extermination, ultimately, or failing that elimination. When TERFs take control of some institution or community, their express goal is always to cast the transfeminine out (be that through "official" means such as firing someone under false pretenses or unofficial means such as harassing someone until they leave). In contrast, TMR activists as a rule seem quite interested in having transfems around. Trans Mens Rights Activism, while it may appear to be just a reactionary discomfort with the idea of possibly having power over someone else, is very much centered on exploiting transfems.

It is not so very unusual, I think, to experience some discomfort when you realize that other people may be afraid or uncomfortable around you because you have some social power over them. Most people do not like to think of themselves as exploiters, taskmasters, or bigots. Its easy to slip into a defensive stance when a trans woman says something like "i dont feel safe around men" or even "i dont feel safe around trans men". But once one gets over that initial defensiveness, and looks at the other persons position, why she might feel that way, usually one can get over that reaction. However, if one stands to gain from the exploitation of trans women, its not nearly so easy! If your transfem friend is always the one to clean up after hanging out, if you're using your trans girlfriend for sex and validation without any concern for her, if you are so extremely enamored with the transgressive potential of transfemininity that you feel compelled to keep a trophy or two around as tokens, all of a sudden you are confronted not just with the idea you might have power, but that you might want power. And very few people conciously want to be a chaser or a tokenizer or an abuser!* So it must be that the transfem made a mistake and you should explain to her why that is. Maybe you should remind her that trans men and trans women should be having crazy t4t sex actually (nevermind if shes a lesbian, or that this is corrective sexual harrasment). Perhaps she is delusional and these problems are entirely in her hysterical head, or maybe she is in fact a bigot, and so can be safely ignored/harassed/discarded. The stubborn transfem who wont back down remains disposable, and is at risk of being run out of town- but this is just a means to an end. The true goal is to keep the other transfems in line. Submissive, but not so much she loses that transgressive edge. Obediant, but not cloying. Not too clocky but she shouldnt be trying too hard to pass either. Follows each and every order but in a way that makes you completely unaware that you are, in fact, giving her orders. Or maybe she isn't even there, but the idea she could be is very important. Patriarchy, reproduced in the places it supposedly cannot exist.

These movements bleed into one another sometimes but i think this distinction is important because the way it impacts transfem people is distinct. It should also be noted that this process of exploitation (just like the process of elimination) does not in any way require some Official Ideological Movement. These are just natural courses for transmisogyny to take based on whether one can stomach their own discomforts with us.

*This pattern reproduces itself along other axes of oppression- what's outlined here may be particular to tranmisogyny, but similar patterns certainly occur with racism and ableism to name a few.

[hard--headed--woman]

Something happened in my English class that I think perfectly sums up how so many people don't understand feminism.

At the beginning of each class, we have to talk about something in english for two minutes. This woman decided to talk about radical feminism in South Korea. She explained how feminists there decide not to date men, have sex with men, marry men and have kids with men anymore. It was very interesting and well explained, and I was happy to see another woman from my uni talking about feminism. From what I understood, she's not Korean but goes to Korea often and has a lot of radical feminists friends there.

Then another woman raises her hand and asks "don't you think these rules are a little bit tough?". I roll my eyes, but the other woman is confused. She frowns. "What rules? What are you talking about?". "I mean, the not dating men rule. Isn’t it a bit too tough?". "Well of course it's tough for the men but that's the goal isn’t? Feminism has to be a bit tough to men in order to work". She really didn't seem to understand what that other woman meant, and the other was apparently confused about it. "I mean for the women... for the Korean women. Aren't these rules too tough for Korean feminists? Isn’t there a way to help women without giving them such hard rules to follow?".

I was very annoyed (so was the woman who talked about this movement in the first place) because how can you miss the point so badly? How does she think feminism works? Does she believe some sort of higher power gives Korean women rules to follow and that they get thrown in jail if they date a man? How can you describe this movement as "rules"? They aren't rules. They would be rules if Korean women were forced to obey them, if they were punished for dating men. That's not the case. What's happening is that some women decide of their own free will to stop dating men (among other things). They don't follow any rules, they freely chose to do what they do. It's about women's freedom, about women deciding what they do with their life and body. But I guess people nowadays use this concept only to defend prostitution and makeup, without understanding it in reality, when it comes to women doing things that go against what the patriarchy wants them to do.

Anyway, I find it interesting that this woman's first conclusion was that these were rules rather than free choices. This is why many people see radical feminism as a cult; they can't understand the idea of women making their own choices if those choices defy patriarchy. They think we must be some kind of cult that brainwashes them and forces them to obey and follow complicated rules, because how else can a woman decide to stop fucking men? A free woman would never do that.

[necrofuturism]

since it's coming up a lot in discussions nowadays thanks to the US election, here's a really good reddit post about the 4B movement's transphobic + homophobic roots.

tl;dr - any sort of "female separatism" movement needs to be interacted with critically because of its inherent want for a definition of "female." the only thing that can define a woman is herself.

for the love of trans women, lesbians, bi women, black women, brown women, gnc women, gay men, and queer people who are affected by this type of exclusivity, let's nip this shit in the bud.

radical feminism helps nobody, it only hurts.

full reddit post transcript under the cut:

The 4B movement is not what you think. Please do some research.

I know that the 4b movement has been heavily suggested recently due to the ongoings on America, but if it's something people are interested in, I heavily, heavily advise people to look into it and think about the implications, especially if you care about minorities. Trumps administration does not only effect women, and the 4b movement in South Korea is a radical feminist movement that has done harm to other movements.

To put it simply, it lacks intersectionality. 4B has three main issues within its community: 1. Rampant transphobia, 2. Homophobia, and 3. The demonisation and bullying of other women. I don't think it should come as a shock that a movement like this will become a breeding ground for transphobia - in South Korea, at protests, pamphlets have been handed out to identify and push out transgender women, even escalating to a case of many members of the 4B movement rallying to have a transgender woman stripped of her degree.

The website Womad is an online community of woman in South Korea. It uses the same upvoting system as reddit, except the upvote is replaced by a swtsika and has a very weird obsession with Htler = good takes and many young women getting into Nzism along with radical feminist. The website originated because a website banned the use of homophobic language and the outing of gay men, and many women apart of the 4B movement decided they wanted to do that, and created womad to be able to continue. It is the main site for 4B, and very akin to our 4Chan - rampant with bigotry, a hatred of transgender people, gay men, and other women. Many Korean women have been ridiculed and bullied for dating men, for being pregnant, some lesbians even targeted for "acting as men do".

I don't post this to dissuade or slander the movement. In theory I understand it and why people are wanting it to take off, and I do understand why it became so popular in South Korea, due to the horrific misogyny the women face. However, I do urge people to realise women are not the only people in danger in America at the moment. These types of movements are breeding grounds for bigotry (as proven by its current existence), and when so many other people are at risk, if you actually care for their rights as well, I hope that you atleast do some research into 4B without jumping straight into it.

[princessefemmelesbian]

Maybe I’m just being dramatic but it does legitimately scare and sadden me to see that a lot of transandrophobia truthers are literally just…young boys. Like, actual children. Like you’re not even old enough to vote yet and you have your whole life ahead of you and yet you are being manipulated into joining an mra group that hates trans women with a passion and thinks that men are oppressed in society for being men, and constantly uses Black men as their talking point in order to sound diverse and inclusive, meanwhile they’re also appropriating and misusing terminology specifically created by Black women to talk about our own oppression in order to get their misandry point across…to say nothing of the fact that the largest people in this group(including but not limited to its creator!) have misogynistic rape/detrans kinks centered specifically around preying on lesbians and trans women and this is something that is normalized and defended by the vast majority of transandrophobia truthers, or at least defended viciously by every single transandrodork that I’ve ever encountered who argued with me(a lesbian!!!) that actually there’s nothing wrong with getting off to the corrective rape of women because two consenting adults can do whatever they want in the bedroom(yeah right)! Not to mention I have yet to come across a transandrophobia truther who wasn’t also a raging die-hard Zionist.

And that’s why it disturbs me so much to see young trans boys jumping onto this transmisogynistic hate train like you guys realize these men don’t have your best interests at heart, right? They’re only going to manipulate you into being a sexist entitled asshat who shuns and bullies the trans women in your community and sees them as oppressing you. Like I know you’re still in middle/high school but you can still think for yourselves, you can choose to be better than this, you can choose to actually learn about feminism and realize that it’s not actually misandry that oppresses you, it’s transphobia. Misandry doesn’t suddenly become real because you slap a trans paint over it that’s not how it works that’s not how intersectionality works that’s not how any of this shit works. There are better trans men to talk to about trans issues who know that the patriarchy is real and don’t shit on trans women in order to speak out about trans topics, so go seek them out, okay? You absolutely do not have to listen to shit that the “male supremacists but trans” group of lowlives has to say. Hell, tell them to fuck off instead! Please, I promise you that there are much better options, there are ALWAYS better options, and you still have time to escape before they fully radicalize you into basically being an incel. There will ALWAYS be another way. ❤️

[girlfishes]

Hi, I was wondering what convinced you to believe in Radical Feminism?

This answer took way too long for me to write, and for that I’m sorry. I struggled a lot with writing this response, because I simply had too much to say. I started with trying to explain as much theory as I could and then I realized that I was basically writing a book which you didn’t ask for.

You asked not why radical feminism is correct or why it makes sense, but why I believe in it. I believe it can do for women what liberal feminism and queer theory are incapable of. Free us.

I do believe that many individual queer activists are genuine in their desire for human rights and freedoms. So why do I think the movement continues the patriarchy?

Modern liberals and their activists have become infatuated with subversion for its own sake. It’s fun to go against the grain. It’s sexy to be different and unexpected, to “queer the boundaries”. However queerness cannot stand on its own; it must be queer in relation to something. The word “queer” means strange, after all.

Subversion itself depends on the context in which it is preformed. And the context is patriarchy. Those who find such delight in the subversion will fight to uphold the backdrop in which their actions and identity remain subversive. In order to continue giving the finger to the establishment, the establishment must remain. In this way queer activism has a vested interest in upholding the patriarchy.

This kind of activism will always be futile, because subversion for its own sake has no end except for its own continuation.

When I say “this kind of activism” I mean activism that is focused on making aesthetic changes and statements instead of fighting for structural changes. This activism comes in the form of an intense focus on changing language, making art, and individual development and identity-making. None of these things are necessarily bad, and can even serve useful, but they are not sufficient for structural change.

While activists are operating solely on this aesthetic level, oppression continues in material ways. A female human being can change her pronouns or the clothes she wears and find a million different micro labels for herself and draw her own pride flag, but she will still be oppressed because of the body she has. Abortion bans will still exist. Rape still happens. Medical misogyny, period poverty, child marriage, and pornography still exist. Queer activists do all of the aesthetic and preformative activism and then pat themselves on the back as if they have changed anything outside of their own head.

Radical feminism focuses on the material world, and the real issues that physically affect billions of women everyday. We recognize that changing words does not change reality and we are willing and able to meet oppression where it finds us: in the physical world. We do not think “how can I be subversive within patriarchy”, but “how can we dismantle the patriarchy”. We don’t search to find a gender that makes sense for our personal experience because we recognize that gender itself only makes sense in the context of female subservience. We disavow cultural relativism. We have clear goals that don’t move and that we will know when they are achieved. We know what we want, and our goals still make sense outside of the context of patriarchy, because they are based on material outcomes for real women.

Queerness doesn’t exist if patriarchy doesn’t exist. But radical feminism stands apart from any cultural context. And that is why I believe in it.

[butchpeace]

I want to have an important discussion: This is a disclaimer that I'm not seeking to cause trouble but need to get this off my chest. I've seen you give advice to many young women on here and hope you have something to say here. Of course, feel free to delete the ask if it's too much. I'm a heterosexual female who spent time in radical feminist spaces as a teenager. Growing up, I struggled with being the only female in a socially conservative, religious and immigrant household. The trifecta of hell. I started wishing to be a boy ever since I was a young girl because I hated how I was treated for being female by my family.

I got into radical feminist spaces as a teenager, after my brief stint as a trans-identified female and, I can honestly say, it didn't help in a way that mattered. Sure, it was nice to have other women who related to my experience, but can we talk about the corrosive hatred that goes on in these spaces? It exacerbated my dislike and discomfort with being female with all the talk about being oppressed and hated systematically by men. How does a young, heterosexual girl process that and still go on to have healthy, normal relationship with men?

What's the end goal with radical feminism, exactly? A young girl peaks and is aware, but then what? Naturally, she'll have negative feelings towards men and the patriarchy, and because radical feminism is not interested in bridging understanding between men and women, we're left with two paths: we embrace the cope of trad women or we suffer more while "aware".

Let's face it: I genuinely don't believe that women's liberation is possible with an antagonistic view towards men or even at all. As much as I hate to say it, we see what happened to the women under Taliban. Men allowed and supported feminism for their own interest. If the male government didn't see value to it, it would have been crushed and done with. Men have been in power for centuries, across many, if not all aspects of the world. And they also have women (likely heterosexual) willing to support them because the path of least resistance is safer for them. I don't want to put down women here, but what else can I say?

I don't believe in female separatism and such a proposed, isolating and unrealistic "solution" makes me wonder if radical feminists know, acknowledge and work with the simple fact that the majority of women are heterosexual, so we have an innate attraction to men that wasn't "conditioned" and can't go away once you've gone to enough feminist meet-ups. Or is radical feminism realistically only for lesbians who can naturally decenter men romantically and be completely fine.

I still believe in radical feminism and its ideas. I don't believe men are innocent, but I'm trying to overcome my hatred towards them because it accomplished nothing. I'm realizing that radical feminism, in its current state, isn't providing answers for me, but I'm sure some other heterosexual women would agree. What's the solution here? I still think radical feminism is an important part of my life, but I'm also done sticking my head in the sand. It's really bringing back my old feelings of wanting to transition. Sorry for being a gender traitor.

I have a more nuanced look at all of this than some people do, so I don’t think everyone will agree with me. But…

Personally I believe that being aware of how patriarchal oppression works is always a net positive, even though it hurts to be aware. Understanding the problem is how we learn to fight back and change things.

I 100% hear what you’re saying though about toxicity in online communities and how the hatred and fear of men can snowball to an unnecessary degree. I see it too and I don’t like it. But generally that kind of attitude is coming from women who have been seriously harmed by men and need a place to vent about it. At what point these spaces and that attitude become unhealthy for them is an individual question.

So yeah there’s some bad vibes. But the solution isn’t to turn our backs on feminism. The solution is to shift to doing work that has real life meaning, and the potential to make real life change in the lives of women. Radical feminism wasn’t ever just about sitting in a room together and complaining about men. It’s about taking those feelings, and our understanding of gender oppression, and turning it into action. Whatever form that action takes.

I also think that the whole concept of separatism is poorly understood in the online community. Not many people are truly advocating for everyone to live in female-only communes and never interact with males. Although that is important for us to have as an option.

I think the general goal of separatism can be looked at more broadly - It’s about creating female only spaces that we can use when we need them. Domestic violence shelters, women’s organizations, even book clubs and female-only friend groups are all part of the goal. That way, separatism is woven into our daily lives in ways that support us and help us heal.

We need places where we can support each other’s mental and physical health, do consciousness raising, and talk about activism outside of male influence. That’s separatism.

At the very least, heterosexual women can benefit from temporarily having a female-only space after they’ve been victimized or harmed by a man. Eventually going back into the wider world and having relationships with men again shouldn’t be seen as a sign of betrayal. It’s natural for everyone to want love and companionship with someone they’re attracted to.

A lot of people would disagree with me on that last point, and say that male-attracted women should just never have sex or a relationship. I think that’s unrealistic, and the broader goal is to decenter men.

So many women put a man at the center of their world, put all their care and effort into that man, to the point that she isn’t taking care of herself and she’s disconnected from other women. That leaves her vulnerable to abuse and manipulation. That’s the problem that radical feminism wants to solve.

Thinking of it that way, the goal would be to take care of yourself first, cultivate female-only spaces and relationships, and essentially just put the men in your life secondary to your own wellbeing.

No shade at all to anyone, but I think a lot of women are using radblr as an “I hate men” space rather than really learning about what radical feminists were saying and trying to turn that into productive action.

Edit to add: Also, if you don’t find that you relate to radical feminism specifically, there are plenty of other schools of thought within feminism. “Radical feminism”, at least online, seems to me like it’s a catch all for everyone who doesn’t agree with the more mainstream form of liberal feminism. But we’re all individuals with our own ideas, forming our own opinions, and that’s what it’s all about! The important thing isn’t what label you use, it’s what you’re doing.

[smokeweedeattherich]

(I know it's not good for me but) I've taken a mild interest in the terfs of tumblr because I just want to be educated on what kind of bullshit and misinformation they're using to argue their bigoted opinions. Almost across the board it seems like these people have such a 2 dimension understanding of feminism.

I feel like the closest thing I can compare it to is generational politics. It's pretty easy to be like "oh those selfish rich boomers ruined the planet" but fact of the matter is there's poor and impoverished boomers who've suffered under the hands of capitalism so all that does is alienate you from potential allies in the class war. Likewise these self proclaimed "radical feminists" operate on flawed logic that "all men are violent and profit from the patriarchy" while there are gay and gnc men, as well as trans men and women who get punished by their peers for not performing masculinity/femininity well enough.

What these have in common is that people generalize complex issues into black and white terms, thereby alienating people who have experiences in common and could serve as worthy allies. The TERF reframe feminism not as equality between genders but as female supremacy. There lies the flaw, because of it they'd inevitably become nothing more than new oppressors with nothing about the way we run society having fundamentally changed. The ruling class will always find little ways to distract us with stupid infighting, if people would stop falling for it that would be brilliant. Trans people aren't your enemies. You have more in common with an average trans woman than a billionaire who wrote a wizard school book series as she cosplayed being poor while relatives paid her bills.

[letters-from-x]

'Radfems' need to stop claiming that women who don't have sex are fucked up, broken, or need medical intervention. Whether they're asexual, victims of trauma, or celibate for another reason, nobody is obligated to have sex or to take action to try to force themselves to want sex when they don't.

It's appalling that anyone claiming to be a radfem would attempt to guilt, berate or shame women into sexual activity or medical intervention they neither want nor need, when it's so obviously against the principles of radical feminism.

Ask yourself why you don't trust women to recognise whether their lack of sexual interest is a problem for them that requires medical support. Ask yourself what you're achieving by attacking these women, when your stunning lack of empathy is alienating them from the ideology that would support them. Ask yourself why women not having sex bothers you so fucking much.

[kittyit]

One thing I don't like about trans critical spaces is how they are focused on trans women being unattractive and 'cringe.' this is just my personal experience, but I have been sexually victimized by multiple trans women, most of whom passed, many of whom were skinny and beautiful and most of which had high brow tastes and no interest in anime or other cringe topics. one of these TIMs was a serial sexual assailant and I think probably attracted to underage boys, and she was also beautiful and charismatic. Meanwhile, I also know multiple trans women who are good people and don't infringe on female spaces but who are conventionally "ugly", broad-shouldered, and have masculine interests. It also seems like the only thing TIMs criticize about each other publically is being "ugly", large, or fat.

my position has consistently been for about 15 years that mocking someone's appearance is not a feminist act. it simply isn't.

mocking appearance is essentially a cruel hobby, it's primate social aggression we're using our huge brains for. it's really fun, and that's why almost everyone does it. i sometimes do it too, in private, in intimate company, and it's enjoyable. i say this to clarify that despite my position, i don't set myself apart or above from women who do it. i do it too. and it's constant in basically every subculture online. julie bindel actually posted on her facebook recently troubled about this same thing. as you said, it's so common in queer/trans circles too, the long-forgotten 2013 values of tenderqueerism fallen to the wayside. stan culture, politics, just basically everything...i really can't stress enough that in my opinion, it is a hobby

mocking appearances is not feminist or activism. it quite often is anti-feminist. it's kindergarten stuff to not judge a book by its cover. it doesn't matter what a male person looks like - he is still male and all considerations that apply to male people apply to him. i don't need to think a male person has a hideous appearance to criticize him for any of the oppressive acts he's doing. focus on appearance (or other unrelated personal attacks) often takes the sting out of a criticism of someone's character, morals or actions and makes your argument easier to dismiss. and of course the now mocked & dismissed concept that when you rip into someone's appearance, you do friendly fire to anyone around who shares those features. but of course this doesn't matter to anyone because it's 1. so fun 2. we're so used to it 3. everyone is doing it 4. so who cares? (I do. However)

i also just can't really scrape up that much finger wagging anymore at women who do spend a huge amount of time blowing off steam mocking the insane parodies that trans women present as. it's basically evil imaginative play. it's just not activism and acting like it is, as you said, is really detrimental to radical feminism being understood as a feminist way of thought that deeply affects women's lives.

as for the rest of this, have you read pronouns are rohypnol? you do not have to call a serial rapist pedophile you knew she. there is no one here but us, he cannot hear you. i encourage you to free up processing power in your mind, especially if you've survived trans male violence. calling the men who harmed you he can be a turning point in reclaiming your own sense of reality, it was for me