#fuck male feminists tbh

[houseofpinkboombox]

Me watching the internet rip the shit out of Neil Gaimen after watching to him be performative for years and shit on JK Rowling for standing up for women.

[genderkoolaid]

tbh my opinion isnt so much that trans men cannot have male privilege. its that the way we understand male privilege is based in cis women, specifically otherwise privileged (esp. otherwise-gendered privilege, i.e gender-conforming/straight/perisex) cis women's understanding of gender as something static and inherent to who you are, rather than something fluid which is, in part, constructed by society and placed onto you separately in every moment.

can a trans man experience (cis) male privilege? yes. can a trans woman? yes. and so can a cis woman! hell, a femme perisex cis woman with a gender neutral name could if she's assumed to be a cis man on a resume. male privilege is not an on/off switch. the idea that it is stems from cissexist understandings of male/female as entirely separate and static categories which everyone can and must be understood through. trans people in feminism are expected to constantly defend and deflect accusations of being Privileged Male Oppressors by promising cis perisex women that our experiences are just like theirs! we don't have any scary opinions that don't align with their worldview! we swear we won't ever make them have to reflect on how being cis+perisex has biased them and potentially made their analysis of gender at all inaccurate! trans experiences are only considered valuable to cisfeminism to the extent that they reaffirm what cisfeminists already hold true. thats why they only ever want to talk about a very simplistic narrative around wages pre/post-transition. its extremely unthreatening to cis people because it presents transness in patriarchy as just going from one cis role to another; it doesn't ask cis feminists to expand their paradigm to include the ways in which trans people are treated as a class and their own complicity in transphobic oppression.

which is why trans men have been getting fucked over by trans-affirmng cisfeminism. because by virtue of having our gender acknowledged, we are expected to forfeit our place in the feminist movement and adopt the role of outsider along cis men*. and its also why trans women and MTX people get fucked over the minute they cannot or refuse to describe their experiences through the one or two approved narratives. cisfeminism cannot tolerate transness-as-transness. it has to be compressed and reduced and diluted into something that fits within a cis-centric framework. we aren't allowed to have nuanced and intersectional conversations about trans men & other trans folks relationship with male privilege, the things we have to sacrifice to there, how fleeting it can be, the fact that for some of us being read as "biologically male" is actively more dangerous than being read as female... if it isn't familiar to cis women, then it means you aren't really oppressed.

*cis men should not be outsiders in feminism either btw but thats another post

[masterofmaagnetism]

ppl act like genderbends are some fucking god send and that everyone who doesn't like them is calling all of it transphobic but have any of you ever considered. it makes some people Genuinely uncomfortable

[feministdragon]

every once in a while a discussion flares up on tumblr:  separatism vs activism reading through the various arguments I find myself agreeing with both sides in a lot of places.   the activism side argues that without it, we wouldn’t have the right to vote, bank accounts, property ownership, financial independence, sexual harassment and abortion laws, a lot of practical structures that free women in concrete ways.  i completely agree with this. the separatism side argues that women need a space away from men to experience themselves as human beings, to experience freedom and to experience female solidarity, and to develop networks of mutual aid.  I also completely agree with this. and then everyone starts fighting, which i really don’t understand.   We need both!  Both is good!   There are more than enough women in the world to do all the projects!  We can have some women creating separatist spaces for women to take shelter in, and we can have some women banding together to create practical change that free women in the short term.   What is there to argue about? I mean, maybe the background of this is the whole lesbian vs straight women thing?   Which tbh i also don’t understand why we have to fight about this.  I’m a lesbian, and the majority of my friends and feminist collaborators are straight women.  just by looking at the women around me I’m very very aware of how being partnered with a woman saves me an incredible amount of bullshit in my life, and yet I’m equally aware of why women choose to be het-partnered. for example in our organization there’s one women whose job title includes the word ‘responsible’.  Her husband began a campaign to undermine her participation by telling her that because her job title said ‘responsible’ that when our organization ‘inevitably bankrupted’ she would be left holding the legal debt which then (his main point) would impact him.  So she was scared by him into wanting to leave her position, when we really don’t have anyone else who can fill that right now, and so it would have caused a huge strain on us, but also, she’s perfect for this position, it’s very good for her, and she likes the work.  We were able to show her that he was just fucking with her, that the legal responsiblity for the money actually lay with a different role in the org, but it was yet another example of how men could reach into our private business and stir us about, because of how women are so financialy and emotionaly bound up with their legal male partners. so, do I cut off my friendship with this woman just because her husband is a danger to us?  Obviously not, because her husband is even more of a danger to her, and I’m trying to support her until her children are old enough that she can safely choose to leave him.   Is it irritating that her husband can just reach through her and fuck with us like that?  Absolutely.  Am I angry that women are constantly misled into marriage and find out too late that they are trapped?  Of fucking course.   Do I then conclude that all straight women are bullshit?   Also of course not.   But am I going to be cautious about who joins the group in future, and only let in lesbians?   Also of course not.  Because every set of hands is valuable and necessary, and we do other things to protect ourselves (like not let any man have a position of power in the org).  so what I want to ask is,  what is the separatism/activism divide about? why are people making it a choice between the two things?  is the foundational problem just either-or thinking?    if you are separatist why do you side-eye male-involved women?   if you are a male-involved woman, why do you side-eye separatists?

(crossposted on the Cloven Hooves forum if you want to comment on it there)

[adhderall]

gonna be so real:

I used to be so preoccupied with how transitioning would be "cheating" and "taking the easy way out" and "betraying my sisters" and "antifeminist" and "hurting all women!!!1" and whatever the fuck...

but then I see how sooo many of these self-proclaimed ~radical feminists~ still fuck with moids and get pissed if you dare suggest they shouldn't. and I realize my guilt complex is connected to being a gnc dyke because.... heterosexual women don't give a fuck! hell even bisexual women who have the ~option~ to date women will keep dating and fucking moids....

so I literally just stopped giving a fuck lol. why are gnc lesbian homosexual transsexuals expected to fucking martyr themselves for ~the feminist cause~ when OSA women will just do what they want and still date males, perform femininity, etc.

all the ~non-ideologically pure~ ass shit and they excuse it with "well no one's perfect and 100% ideologically pure uwu" and sure. but then these same mfs with boyfriends and husbands (lmao) get pissy if a lesbian takes roids and finds it easier to exist in society larping as a man ... like fuck off you're no better than me.

like do what you want with your life but tbh I'm just insanely sick of the double-standards and hypocrisy.

[gacha-incels]

TBH

Looking at the CN gacha space right now, Situation may get even worse with current “有男不玩” ("If there is men, [I] don't play") movement in CN. They basically want devs to kneel to their demand to get rid of female MCs (only male MCs are allowed for self-insert) and all playable males, so "stinky female dogs" (as they refer to female players) stay away from their games. Also they emphasize, that they are "Number One" paying costumers and don't want their money to be wasted on creating content for female playerbase.

And we kinda see that happening ... I guess? correct me if I'm wrong

My friend told me if this goes on : in the next 1 to 2 years, all gacha will be all female cast aka the female players will flock away while incels stay.

Which for me : I doubt it's permanently but i won't be surprised?

Also Why when it comes to gacha incel I see it's always CN and KR? I tought JP had incels? or they're just the least vocal insufferable?

Edit- here’s some more info thx to @megafreelyfuzzystudentthing-blog ! “mixed toilets” is crazy. this type of misogynist gamer male is everywhere they just freak out about different things, while I think their level of hatred and vitriol towards women remains the same.

in regards to if we are seeing that right now, the majority of these games have been created with a male target market in mind for years and I don’t think there’s been an overwhelming change in the market with regards to that. I think even one game like Genshin being very successful and having multiple male banners in a row and male character designs that the men playing hate while being mixed sex is enough for these guys to think they’re “losing” this no girls allowed gacha playground, so they bug out and act like every gacha now has a feminist mandated fanservice male character they release every other patch for women. but because of the overwhelming success of GI, this shows the greater market it’s worth it to invest in getting female fans, and this is what these men are afraid of. this is also why they specifically use Genshin as the “Genshinification” of gacha, meaning adding male characters that appeal to women and making a mixed sex gacha. So in order to deter this from happening any further, they have to cause a big enough ruckus so that studios think “it’s not worth it to have to deal with all of this,” the end goal being gacha remains a separated boy’s club. this is just a basic read of the situation for anyone who is unfamiliar. It’s disgusting the way they talk about women but I think this is also the reason they emphasize how much more money they have and spend. But the way you write about it, do you see them ramping up tactics significantly? I’m interested.

edit lol I just saw this 💀 I would think things like bot spamming and AI use are going to become much more frequent. the second post talks about this so I added it. It’s kind of just gossipy but it talks about botting and the attitudes there. the hate they have specifically for this character is fucking unbelievable. I looked up this story since these guys were fucking losing their minds and everything seemed so benign. but the thing is he’s still used as a main character in stories and events so this type of freakout doesn’t do shit…and it seems like they’re able to remove the bot comments and mass one star reviews after a while anyway? maybe if the company was smaller. when I check the revenue it still seems to be making a huge amount of money

In the next 1-2 years in terms of tech it looks like the trend will be new 3D gachas and more 2D gacha studios transitioning to 3D. for the companies making the switch to 3D I think it could go fine or it will be like what happened to some actors with the transition from silent films to talkies. designs will depend on how much money has been invested and predicted to be made. From what I’ve seen it kind of looks like more of the same, either all female or all female with a couple male characters. this is typical. jiggle physics when a woman breathes like wuthering waves, “feet quality increase update” like snowbreak or another Arknights game you can say is just different than other gachas (jk). none of this looks like a huge shift in either direction but idk i could be totally wrong and something crazy could happen. let me know if I’m missing anything but this is the kind of thing I’ve been seeing.

in terms of this blog, right now it primarily focuses on the South Korean gacha incel phenomenon, I only started looking into this Chinese incel movement wrt gacha because I was able to find a little more information in English and I was curious but it isn’t a focus or mainstay. I haven’t put much here from Japan because I typically don’t check out their social media that much and like China it isn’t a focus, but off the top of my head I remember the FGO fans going after artists on twitter if they didn’t like the way a character was drawn, like sending congratulations to an artist that his father had died and that he deserved it??? After this he deleted his social media I believe, it was the artist for Parvati. Stuff like that. They have that otaku idol culture and I’m not sure if that bleeds into the gacha scene but I would think that would be the type of crossroads where you would find this gacha incel behavior. I hope this was a helpful answer and not just me rambling lol I’m always worried about this

[unatainablehaze]

Heyyy! Im a genuine radical feminist lesbian who happens to be very attracted to a lot of TIFs lmfao. Especially the rapey ones. I only like pussy but grown testosterone fueled clits look really fun to suck on, and I adore very butch women and body hair so obviously I find a lot of early transitioning ftms hot. Sadly almost all “terfbreaking” content is abt TIMs breeding “lesbians” who are clearly bi or in your case straight. Probably because males are fucking disgusting lol (although I’m not that much better.) Objectively I know rape kinks are harmful and not a good way to process trauma but it makes me wet. Tbh not sure if you are a genuine radfem or if it’s part of the persona but it’s refreshing to see someone that agrees that porn is bad while also indulging in it. I think fetish blogs and voluntary nudes is probably the least harmful form of erotica though since it doesn’t have much risk of exploitation. Also people act like unless we dedicate 100% of our energy to our political views we aren’t real radfems. You can be aware that rape kinks are fueled by misogyny and still want a gross TIM to molest you (or in my case a handsome ftm forcing my head down into their tasty hairy pussy). Sorry idk why I’m ranting to you but it’s cool being able to relate! Also I’m here to confirm that despite being into “terfbreaking” and finding blogs like yours erotic I’m still super repulsed by anything penis related being near me, no matter how estrogenized it is! Seeing someone like you getting broken in by a fat bitchbreaker cock sounds hot though <3 Would love a straight t4t couple to take advantage of us

Hii yes I am indeed a genuine radfem and I agree, kink on Tumblr is much less harmful than any other form of pornography it's mostly one on one interactions, mostly through texts and such

Still I think we should both try to "repent" haha though your case is much more understandable than mine

You are merely a lesbian being a kinky lesbian

I'm not ashamed of saying kink in lesbian relationships is not nearly as bad as in straight ones

Fantasize all you want about strong hairy butches you're fine girly

[my-castles-crumbling]

I have a question cas. 

trans women say they’re women because they are a women, they’re body just doesn’t reflect that… I guess? 

but terfs say that a women isn’t a women unless the body shows that- eg, uterus. 

so either terfs are trying to tell trans women that what they finally know about themselves, that they’re a women, is just not true because they say so? or that a women is only defined by her uterus.

cause that doesn’t feel very feminist. 

i’m not thinking of becoming a terf or anything, trans women are women- i’m not fucking rishi sunak or jkr, but like, what is their argument? I know it’s wrong but what ACTUALLY is it? Cause you’d think, given most of them are so proud to be terfs, they’d have a definition?

so what is it? i’m confused. I know there’s no need to make sense of these people but why?  

Hi! I'm gonna address this point-by-point. Also, TW: discussion of transphobia, genitalia, etc.

I have a question cas. 

trans women say they’re women because they are a women, they’re body just doesn’t reflect that… I guess? 

Yeah, to put it simply. Trans women are (usually) assigned male at birth and sometimes start out with male genitals. There are exceptions to this (intersex people). And some trans people, of course, choose to get surgery.

but terfs say that a women isn’t a women unless the body shows that- eg, uterus. 

Yeah, that tends to be the usual argument. There's more to it, but yeah.

so either terfs are trying to tell trans women that what they finally know about themselves, that they’re a women, is just not true because they say so? or that a women is only defined by her uterus.

Both. They insist that trans women are mentally ill or perverted, and that a woman is defined by her uterus and genitalia. Which is so wrong, because not all people with XX chromosomes or assigned female at birth even have those things.

cause that doesn’t feel very feminist. 

HALLELUJAH! SAY IT FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!

i’m not thinking of becoming a terf or anything, trans women are women- i’m not fucking rishi sunak or jkr, but like, what is their argument? I know it’s wrong but what ACTUALLY is it? Cause you’d think, given most of them are so proud to be terfs, they’d have a definition?

so what is it? i’m confused. I know there’s no need to make sense of these people but why?  

Basically, from my limited knowledge on the subject, terfs argue that to be a woman, you have to have XX chromosomes, have a uterus, a vag*na, etc. You have to have been raised as a woman and experienced womanhood (whatever the fuck that means).

It's a lot of bullshit. I think it's based on a few things:

Fear. A lot of terfs are very uneducated and assume trans people are actually cis men trying to assault cis women or take away from cis women in some way.. Which is obviously so wrong. trans women are just women who want to live their lives.

Ignorance. Again, terfs are uneducated and don't understand what it means to be trans. They also don't understand their own arguments and the fallacies in them: not all people with XX chromosomes, for example, have uteruses.

Transphobia. A lot of people see being trans as very taboo, and don't want to be associated with it or accept it. So of course, they don't want trans women as a part of the feminist movement.

This is a stretch, but I also think it has to do with sexism. Stay with me here, but terfs see trans women as men, right? (They're not, but just stay with me). And when men do feminine things, it's always SO deeply frowned upon. Because how DARE someone AMAB act feminine. It's seen as disgusting. Men need to be men- protectors, not emotional, not weak (yes, I know being fem isn't weak, but from their POV...). SO I think it's actually deeply-ingrained sexism as well, if that makes sense.

I hope that helps a bit! It's a horrible, horrible mindset, and the fact that JKR promotes it is so upsetting, tbh.

[devilsskettle]

I just watched The Love Witch for the first time and would love to know your opinion (if you have seen it)?

i have mixed feelings about the love witch tbh. on one hand, it’s visually stunning and i would love to see more movies embrace the style and production value of older cinema, especially these older horror movies that i love that are so atmospheric. it’s so whimsical and dreamlike

i also like MY interpretation of the movie, which is about elaine’s desire for agency and power to protect herself from men, but she tries to do so by appealing to male desires thinking that if she gives them what they want, they’ll give her what she wants, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of the exploitation of women under the patriarchy — you can’t gain your freedom from the patriarchy by submitting to it. she wants love because she wants control, and she conflates her hatred and bitterness with an excess of love because that’s the narrative that makes sense to her. but if you watch her interactions with any man in the movie, she really does fucking hate them. at the end, after her appeal to the male gaze fails to protect her from sexual violence, she realizes that manipulating male desire isn’t enough — her repressed desire to hurt the people who hurt her is finally expressed by direct violence. i find that to be a tentatively hopeful ending for her

however. i don’t necessarily think that is the “correct” interpretation lol (in terms of author’s intent) and the fact that i’m not sure if the filmmakers intended this story to be like a tradwife manifesto or if it’s being critical of that rhetoric is already a problem because that means the messaging is extremely muddled. i see people quote this movie completely uncritically, i think a lot of elaine’s idea that she can achieve agency by being the perfect traditional woman appeals to a lot of young women, it certainly is in line with the popular 2010s trope of female characters who can be feminine AND strong, she has eyeliner so sharp she can cut you with it and she’ll kill you with her high heels on and she’ll make men underestimate her by seducing them or acting dumb. which of course is a way to repackage the sexy male gaze token female character into an acceptably “feminist” character so we don’t question it anymore. that was peak Strong Female Character -ism and i think that’s widely regarded as a regressive trope now but this movie speaks to that logic, and now it speaks to the “coquette” trend as well which doesn’t even purport to be interested in female agency (not even “feminism,” just basic agency lol). anyway my least favorite criticism of satire is that it’s not clear enough that it’s satire because sometimes people are just being dumb when they say that, but in this case i really can’t tell which perspective the audience is intended to agree with and that’s a problem to me. idk if it’s even intended to be satirical at all lmao

the part of the movie that illustrates the tradwife-esque narrative for me is the character trish. she voices the perspective of female equality with men especially within a romantic relationship as a partnership, and not only is she shut down by elaine, but she’s framed as this naggy, jealous character who turns on elaine and is just as much a participant in elaine’s victimization as the men in her life. her relationship with her husband is actually insecure despite her insistence that they have mutual respect and her repressed desire to be the same type of woman as elaine is manifested as rage and violence towards her. they model two types of womanhood and we are not supposed to side with the model where women demand mutual respect, because the movie doesn’t believe that men are capable of that or that women actually desire that. it’s such a standard tradwife perspective that feminism is for ugly women who can’t be women the “right” way so they can’t be successful within the patriarchal status quo

and it’s such a bummer because i think the movie taps into such a real experience of rejection and powerlessness and being at the whims of shitty, deeply pathetic men. the movie has a sharp, derisive, sarcastic humor that i think goes under-appreciated, because it’s hard to tell what’s being said genuinely and what’s being said with a wink at the audience

all that is to say, i’ve watched the movie a couple times and i really enjoy what i got out of it but i don’t know if that says more about ME or the movie itself. upon first viewing i thought it was absolutely genius, i kind of wish i had preserved that experience by not reading what other people have said about it lol but i think it’s kind of a product of its time — we’re continuing to navigate gendered power dynamics and trying to figure out the best way to approach being a woman interacting with a male dominated world. i’m not convinced that this movie has it figured out but i want to be able to enjoy it for its merits and take what i want from the story

tl;dr: the way i interpret it, it’s one of my favorite movies. but idk if i’m interpreting it “right”

also: it reminds me of the haunting of hill house because of the main character’s sublimated loneliness, anger, and jealousy, the narrative doubling (elaine + trish are so theo + eleanor coded to me lol), and the 1960s aesthetic sensibilities

[heterophobicdyke]

how would the radical feminist revolution specifically go in practice? i understand and support the goals but the speak about revolution seems quite silly tbh when nobody in like five six decades has ever really laid it out at all

The main way radical feminism aims to re-order society is by challenging existing norms and institutions, such as marriages between women/men and nuclear families between women/men. The more normal it becomes for even male-attracted women to not marry or have kids with men then the more patriarchy is weakened. This will involve reactionary toddler tantrums from men. The more women gain independence, the more men will punish with violent reaction. But men are violent when women are modest and submissive, too, so I don’t buy that us fighting back will make them uncontrollably worse. Sometimes you’ve got to punch a bully to get them to fuck off and respect you. Hopefully there will be a tipping point where women would have gained so much power from their independence and solidarity that no reaction men could exhibit would scare us into submission. From there, men will be forced to accept a re-ordering of society if they want a place in it at all. Voila, revolution! All we need is a cup of their jizz to reproduce these days so I think artificial insemination plays a massive role in the redundancy of Man. Straight women also have sex toys. They need us.

[genderkoolaid]

re: your thoughts on the vvitch and jennifer's body — the radfem-ification of horror media is so heinous!!!! i would say it's one of the main ways so many gen z are rapidly falling down the radfem pipeline tbh. you really can't enjoy any horror media involving women anymore without at least half the fandom being bioessentialists [whether they realize it or not] constantly posting the most dogshit white radfem takes

yes!!! like i would love to have discussions around gender and feminism in horror films but when those discussions' idea of feminism is so shallow. i want my women in horror to be horrifying please

also people brought up midsommar on that post, & i realized that both midsommar + the vvitch have scenes where a male character is sexually assaulted, and i've seen people (oftentimes the same people who see these films as Feminist Good Endings) be really fucking weird about the meaning + morality of these sexual assaults.

[atopvisenyashill]

what kind of fandom discourse do you think would crop up for a blackfyre rebellion show? i can see it now: targnation fans immediately side with daemon even tho dany comes from daeron ii's bloodline because he's in true wuv with daenerys martell and call daeron ii a fake feminist bc even tho he liked listening to women, he primarily listened to a non-valyrian woman (myriah) and they hate that.

tbh i have no idea how people are gonna react to daeron bc the thing is i don’t know that i’ve ever seen anything daeron dickriding like we did for jaehaerys pre f&b, but i HAVE definitely seen criticism for him that is valid (ie he did a bad job controlling the blackfyre rebellion) and deranged (he’s evil for telling barba to fuck off for being tacky about his urrently-being-raped-to-death mother). and of course…..we know people love to weird about dorne BUT they cast a bunch of ugly crackers as baelor and maekar which might change perception of myriah. so i have no idea what that means for daeron as a character.

i have definitely seen people buying into the daemon/daenerys love story BUT i have seen a lot of daenerys/maron stuff as well. i do think there’s going to be a LOT of daemon dickridjng on both sides, so much misplaced “he’s a male feminist bc he’s rebelling on his mother’s claim” (no,,,,,he very canonicly is Not?).

there’s already weird bracken v blackwood posting i know it’s going to get worse and insane. lots of “well MY war crime was justified but YOURS deserves the hague” type stuff. i think it’s not unlikely aegor gets criston cole-ified but i also think he could get meow meow-ed given he’s a noble born targaryen and not just some dornish guy. that said bloodraven is getting the full daemon targaryen treatment for SURE that one i am absolutely sure about. in a perfect world maekar/baelor would get the visaemon treatment but if it happens with two white guys you will see me rage as i have never raged before.

[gendiebrainrotreceipts]

www.tumblr.com/hadeantaiga/723502517175140352/ ((hadeantaiga at it againg 🙃))

"I've never seen proof of the "Nazi to TIM pipeline" but the radical feminist -> TERF -> NAZI pipeline is very well documented"

Oh really? Do you have some sources? Uh no? A couple screenshots? A quote at least?...

(And no, conservative/traditionalist women who are *At most* Trans critical (((not even gender critical ffs since they're agaisnt [LGB] gnc and uphold heteropatriarcal roles))) like KJK or the people that support her don't count)

Also this would be a rlly nice oportunity to share with our friend some of that proof that there's indeed a long documented phenomenom of TIMs being Nazis before or even Along being TransID. Iirc there's even old photos of crossdressing males having a great time next to fucking Tird Reich officials

It’s apparently so common it’s more or less a meme in some trans circles.

+ the crossdressing nazis from the 40s were a weird contradiction because they (or at least their side) definitely persecuted and tried to eradicate transvestites & transsexuals (who were seen as, and tbh at that time were, extensions of gay men)

https://nationalpost.com/news/cross-dressing-nazis-a-german-artist-found-so-many-photos-of-them-he-published-a-book-about-it

[thorne1435]

that anon has absolutely lost their shit tbh. like i believe that transmisogyny exists and transmisandry doesn't, not that trans men dont face transphobia or that their transphobia isnt specifically about denying their manhood. but just that like. trans women are opressed because trans people are opressed. and then we also get opressed because women get oppressed. like men arent opressed solely on the basis of being men, they only get oppressed for being other things. transmascs do have some mild privilege over trans women on the same order that cis men have privilege over cis women. and theres like. violence from trans men towards trans women too. but its not some fucking conspiracy of evil people trying to brainwash people against trans women and for trans men it's just an emergent property of all the systematic oppression in society. when a trans man throws a trans woman under the bus and exposes her to life threatening violence he doesnt do that because hes evil or men are evil, he does that because we're higher on the shit list than he is and he will get rewarded by existing plainly visible power structures. its the lingua franca of our modern capitalist system: short term self interest. this is basic intersectionality we don't need a secret cabal to explain it. fuckin sorry for that bullshit

Hate to be that bitch but...men are oppressed on the basis of being men. Gender roles are inherently oppressive. If they're being expected of you, you're oppressed. It really is that simple.

Now, the depth of the oppression from each gender role does vary, but I think that where it lacks depth in one particular regard it makes up for in another.

I think that punishing deviants with ostracization is why gender roles are oppressive.

Look at it this way: one could argue that women are oppressed because they dared to step outside of the proverbial kitchen, right?

The problem is, when I say it like that, it sounds more misogynistic, because I imply that being in "the proverbial kitchen" is the inherent state of womanhood. And, to be fair, since that's at the heart of the traditional feminine gender ("homemakers") it's not an inaccurate thing to say, is it?

You didn't say it quite like that, though. You said "Men are oppressed for being something other than men."

Can you imagine the shitstorm if I had said "Feminist women are trying to be something else"? And I'd deserve it! That's misogyny. I think it sounds equally misandristic to say that men are only oppressed if they "try to be something else." It implies the same thing as my example above: that anyone dubbed "male" (whether assigned or assumed) must behave as the traditional masculine gender without deviation in order claim the title of Man.

The reason why men are oppressed for "being other things" is because those things are considered irreconcilable with the masculine gender, just like how strong women are oppressed for doing things that don't mesh with the feminine gender.

For example, "A 'real' man can't be gay."

Why not? Because, to be the object of sexual desire is not masculine. Men are the desirers, just like how women are the desired and so desiring isn't feminine enough.

It's all the same, just on the other side of the coin.

I don't think you necessarily meant it that way. Just be careful with your wording.

It takes effort to stop thinking of things in the misogynistic, misandristic ways we were raised to.

I have more to say, but this answer is long enough.

[ouhhoh]

I fucking hate how so many gen z & young millennial women talk about femininity. as a 24 yr old gen z, it feels like there's been this cycle. like at first it was "I'm not like other girls, I'm better" then "actually that's kind of a misogynistic way of thinking" to "women who physically & genuinely are not like other women bc they're masculine or just not particularly feminine are bad and weird and misogynistic bc clearly they just hate femininity & can't do makeup well"

not to sound too debby downer about it but tbh this current wave of tiktok feminism that is entirely focused on femininity=good masculinity=bad has made me feel more ostracized from other women than I've ever felt before. and it's all subtle shit. "pick me's" are bad bc they aren't into girly stuff, supposedly only for male attention (because why else would women like cars or video games?).

being a "girl's girl" only applies to feminine attributes. when a woman helps another woman with her makeup and gives her some tips, she's being a girl's girls, she's supporting women, but I could give another butch woman pocket knife recommendations or tell her which stores have the best men's section clothing for short women, and that's nothing. doesn't matter, doesn't count, not being a "girl's girl".

girl math is women shopping and spending too much on makeup and clothes but it's okay bc they'll get use out of it. and it's somehow hashtag progressive feminism, because this time we've decided to hurt ourselves with stereotypes, as opposed to letting men do the hurting.

explaining it for the girls has to use pop culture taylor swift kardashian drama shit as metaphors, because women could never possibly just understand the rules of football if you stated them plainly.

when I say I'm not like other women, I don't mean "I'm better than you" I mean I'm not fucking like you. I don't wear makeup, I don't wear dresses, I don't want to be feminine, I'm not better than you, I'm just fucking different. and the only ones pissed that I'm different are the women who think my existence is a personal attack on their feminity. you can dislike my masculine stuff and I can dislike your feminine stuff without the need for some faux-feminist talking point about how I must hate women bc I present myself differently

[mermaidsirennikita]

I've seen that there is not much male masturbation in historical romance novels, which is a shame because they look HOT doing that

Historicals have some hangups re: sex (and other things) that can make it really difficult to discuss the books in HR "groups", tbh. A lot of readers don't like to see heroines who aren't virgins (and they only virgins they may accept are widows); they don't like to see virgin heroes; they don't want to see sex that's just reckless and about getting FUCKED HARD just for the sake of it; they don't enjoy queer books; they don't want book about POC; they don't want feminist heroines or sexually dominant heroines; sex that isn't just... P in V... is dubious.

I mean, there is an entire concept called "proper romances" that basically refers to historicals that are incredibly chaste, incredibly about the rules of society that readers think are historically accurate (because let us be real, the VAST majority of readers, and tbh most writers, don't know that much about the historical Regency/Victorian eras and don't actually know how wild they could be) and often quite conservative.

Anyway. I so agree, I think we need more male masturbation on the page in historicals. I mean, men... do that. Why not put it in the book?

You didn't ask, but some recs lol:

Scandalous Desires by Elizabeth Hoyt has Silence spy on Mickey while he's jerking it, and it's very much an Awakening moment for her. As is most of the book tbh, but especially that.

Sweetest Scoundrel by Elizabeth Hoyt basically has this as a PLOT POINT as the heroine is very traumatized (TW for childhood sexual abuse) and at first she and the hero just masturbate in front of each other. It begins with her asking him to do it in a carriage and he's like "why yes I shall". ASA. MAKEPEACE. IS. SO HOT.

The Harlot Countess by Joanna Shupe has a scene I loooove in whcih the hero is lying in bed, doing it while thinking of the heroine (naturally) and she walks in and watches for a while before helping him out. It's suuuuch a female gaze moment with like, the teeeeniest touch of femdom in the vibe.

When a Scot Ties the Knot by Tessa Dare has the hero and heroine do it in front of each other.

The Prince of Broadway by Joanna Shupe has Clay and Florence get super turned on by a peep show and turn their backs to each other and masturbate.

I thiiink Melissa and The Vicar by S.M. LaViolette may have a scene where Melissa watches Magnus masturbate after he gets out of the water after a swim...? I'm not 100% sure though, she may just watch him sleep naked lol.

The Perfect Crimes of Marian Hayes has a heroine who doesn't like penetrative sex and a somewhat submissive hero, soooo I feel like this happens but I'm not sure.

This book isn't out until July but I can tell you that if you like this... add Alexandra Vasti's Ne'er Duke Well to your TBR for sure.

Pippa and The Prince of Secrets by Grace Callaway has a hero who LOOOOVES to do this while the heroine watches. It's so hot.

Charlotte and The Seductive Spymaster by Grace Callaway has a scene where the hero is in the bath thinking about the heroine and does this. It's super hot.

I think this happens in Any Duke in a Storm by Amalie Howard, but again not 100% sure. This hero is... a show-off. And he does like to sort of switch power dynamics with the heroine in bed a lot. They battle for supremacy lol.