#i want a man am i anti feminist for thinking that

[iminaworldofpureimagination]

DISNEY TAKE NOTES I'm so tired of this whole disney princess aren't real femnist because they have romances. as if romance is somthing women should be ashamed of its so regressive to have that mindset and its okay to need help from men im not sure how needing help from others is anti femnist just cause its a guy .

“don’t reduce this female character down to a love interest” does not translate into “this female character shouldn’t have a love interest.”

preventing female characters with strong, compelling narratives from experiencing love, intimacy, and affection is just as regressive as reducing them down to sexual accessories for male characters. it assumes that women must choose between a romantic interest and depth of character and ignores a far more productive message: that women are capable of possessing both. 

[thebreakfastgenie]

This is going to get me screencapped and ridiculed by leftblr but at this point I don't care.

The way people talk about Ruth Bader Ginsburg is misogynistic. This post is not about the merits of her decision to remain in her seat. I've discussed that before and I'm happy to go through it again with anyone who is genuinely interested in the complexities of that situation, but for the sake of this post, I am not arguing that it's unreasonable to believe, with the benefit of hindsight, that the country would be a in a better position today if Ginsburg had retired in 2012. The issue I want to address is how people talk about it.

People who blame Ginsburg for the current state of the Supreme Court tend to throw around words like greedy, selfish, and ambitious, echoing a familiar form of misogyny. Ambition is only bad when women demonstrate it, and women in politics are regularly punished for ambition. Even more disturbingly, people tend to blame not just Ginsburg, but the women and girls who looked up to her. I've seen the "Notorious RBG" nickname derided as a cult of personality, when the reality is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a trailblazer and a role model to a lot of women and girls. I've seen leftists try to hide behind valid criticisms of some of Ginsburg's positions (and it should, but doesn't, go without saying that you can see someone as a role model without believing they are correct about every issue all the time) but you barely have to scratch the surface to see that the real complaint is that they think women who admire her are cringe. I don't know if people understand how significant she was; she was only the second woman on the Supreme Court and the first, Sandra Day O'Connor, was a conservative Reagan appointee. Even so, Justice O'Connor spoke about the significance of Justice Ginsburg joining her and reality that women faced in their position being more apparent when she could see it happening to someone else. It's the same old anti-feminist story of dismissing women and their desires.

This particular case rankles me because it's underscored by the complete silence about Anthony Kennedy. Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a judgment call about her health that didn't work out--and barely; she died four months before Trump left office. Anthony Kennedy, a supposed moderate justice who claimed to not want Roe v Wade to be overturned, retired in 2018, knowing full well Trump would replace him with someone who would overturn Roe v Wade. It was Kennedy's replacement, not Ginsburg's, that doomed Roe. The decision was 6-3. If Ginsburg had lived four more months, or retired in 2012 and been replaced with an Obama appointee, the Dobbs v Jackson decision would have been 5-4 in the same direction. Anthony Kennedy was replaced with Brett Kavanaugh, a white man who sobbed crocodile tears when confronted with credible allegations of sexual assault and ultimately faced no consequences. Anthony Kennedy let all of this happen and slunk off into his cushy retirement. Where is the anger for him? He's alive! Being angrier at Ginsburg than Kennedy makes absolutely no sense. There is no logic to explain it, only misogyny.

It doesn't escape my notice that the anger at Ginsburg goes hand-in-hand with blaming women for their own suffering as a result of the Dobbs decision and with blaming Hillary Clinton for the 2016 election, while making any excuse for not voting for her or deriding her for months. It's emblematic of a political system that does not care about women and despises women trying to speak up and make our issues known.

[frankendykez]

what annoys me about posts on the novel frankenstein in this site (besides the blatant ableism towards victor frankenstein from people who swear they "care" about disabled people) is the amount of readers that forget that the bride, had victor truly put her to life, would in fact have the same amount of autonomy & free will as the Creature does.

i talked about this in some reblog before but really it is incredibly annoying, seeing people who claim to be feminists and advocating for the rights of women saying that oh! victor should've just not given her ovaries/not given the Creature a cock and so that would fix everything! so they shan't be able to reproduce an dmake evil moster children! just in response to this one thing in that chapter:

"one of the first results of those sympathies for which the dæmon thirsted would be children, and a race of devils would be propagated upon the earth, who might make the very existence of the species of man a condition precarious and full of terror."

it is true that victor worries about them reproducing, but how did they miss these lines from the first paragraph of the chapter?:

 "He had sworn to quit the neighbourhood of man, and hide himself in deserts; but she had not; and she, who in all probability was to become a thinking and reasoning animal, might refuse to comply with a compact made before her creation. They might even hate each other; the creature who already lived loathed his own deformity, and might he not conceive a greater abhorrence for it when it came before his eyes in the female form? She also might turn with disgust from him to the superior beauty of man; she might quit him, and he be again alone, exasperated by the fresh provocation of being deserted by one of his own species."

it's literally longer, reader can't have somehow accidently missed it? frankenstein thinks of her free will, that is so much more important. he worries of her consent in the matter. it is in my belief by ignoring this you are ignoring the voice of mary shelly, daughter of a world known feminist, who is against arranged maariages of which this situation very closely resembles.

even if we ignore the fact that people somehow managed to not read a significant amount of the text, why do people belive the victor owes the creature a wife? do you think men are owed wives? that women, without a say in what they want to do, must become a wife to some random man just because he wants her to?

people here woobify the creature so much that they literally act extremely ableist and anti-feminist on accident. i am not saying the creatture is pure evil and victor is pure good, i am very against black and white readings, but is this not common sense? and honestly, the way the creature speaks about the bride is gross anyways. here are two examples:

"one as deformed and horrible as myself [would not deny herself to me]" & "(…) of the same species and have the same /defects/".

is that not odd? how the creature Wants her to be miserable and ugly so she has no other choice but to be with him?

not to mention how the bride parallels elizabeth and the relationship between her and the creature would've probably parallels the relationship of alphonse and caroline frankenstein, how the creature would've (accidentally?) groomed her. but that's a whole different can of worms

i know you guys love adam and hes interesting but jesus fucking christ

[woman-respecter]

i think a lot of the issue with the trans men who are weird about feminism on here is that they seem to see EVERY post about "men as a class" as being about them individually, when it's like.... "if it's not about you, it's not about you" as you used to say. like idk. i know tons of feminist cis men who are able to see posts like that and recognize that they're not talking about them, even agree that men as a class suck in this particular way. because that's the issue, a lot of these guys if you say "well i'm not talking about you" will be like "that's because you don't see me as a man!" but it's not it. i also am not talking about my stepdad, my brothers-in-law, my male friends because they're not misogynists, and they're not doing whatever horrible thing i'm mad at men for. like i get (being a lesbian) that a lot of newly out lgbtq people are still very in our feelings about our identity and go through a period of being oversensitive about it, but i think when you're getting in the way of another oppressed group being able to talk about your oppression, you can grow up. like i get that especially newly out trans men are looking for a way forward to a non toxic masculinity. but like, you know, maybe not pooh-poohing every feminist post on here would help with that. i've never seen this issue with "demonizing all men and masculinity" that they seem to think exists on tumblr.

yes it's exactly that, esp the second paragraph. they want to feel they fit in with "all men" so they feel particularly offended by statements about "all men"

well the good news for them is that being thin skinned and anti-feminist sure does help them fit in with men as a class....

[genderqueerdykes]

Hello, I’m a transfemme aligned individual who very much is a man hater. (Didn’t really enjoy your statement saying trans individuals don’t harbor these sentiments :/) I still present as a man and look like a man “boy moding” much through my life. I don’t feel shame harboring these sentiments because I grew up in 2 conservative cultures from the Global South who always uphold male supremacy. I saw these normalizations growing up and my anti masculine hate stemmed from a lot of this. I also see how much of the world is extremely against femininity. I’m a very unapologetically feminine person in the small areas I have the freedom to engage with it.

However, I don’t see issues with antimasculism nor do I perceive there being any real male struggles in the world. Often times, they are brought up to shut down misogyny which doesn’t sit right with me. Not saying your post did this of course!

I do comprehend the need to lower anti masculine sentiment as I do realize it can be childish and provocative. However, I won’t blame any young feminist or annoyed woman for expressing themselves. These are normal reactions in a world that has mistreated us, not just feminine individuals but all gender diverse individuals. For me, this is like telling a young person of color to not be mad at white people. That’s kind of messed up. I can understand the potential to initiate dysphoria but I believe this is a much more nuanced discussion. Men and masculine leaning individuals have too much privilege in my views. They face no real world concerns on a high level. All of the problems are byproducts of the patriarchy and gender binaries forced on our world. It’s just such a nuanced discussion.

I’d really like to hear what you think about this. Not trying to be inflammatory at all, just wanting a discussion or some thoughts!

hello there, thanks for taking the time to send an ask and give your thoughts & feelings. i understand a lot of what you're saying from your point of view because you gave me a lot of perspective, which i appreciate. i'd like to try to point a few things out that may help to articulate another way to look at these sorts of things. i hope this will be somewhat informative, at the very least. not here to force you to change your mind, but rather just provide another perspective

i wanted to apologize and clarify something- it's not that i don't think that you're trans, i've actually been trying to make the opposite clear recently, so sorry if i was not being clear enough. i believe you when you say you're trans. you're the only person who can dictate that. you are trans because you say you're trans. what i've pointed out numerous times is that trans people can be transphobic, and that doesn't invalidate their transness. trans people can be transphobic is my point. i don't think you're not trans because you're a man hater. i just want to point out that there is transphobia, queerphobia, intersexism, and other issues at play with those lines of thinking

im genuinely very sorry for how painful things are for you. i understand how overwhelming patriarchy is when you're transfeminine, it's like a heavy mantle that never leaves. it's always there waiting to make you miserable. i appreciate you speaking up about your genuine struggles and how patriarchy and transmisogyny affect you. you have a very real experience that doesn't deserve to be talked over, either. you deserve a platform to speak, because you are a real transfemme person and you have real experiences

i am sorry for how awful society is to you and your trans siblings. i know it's hard to want to look past that pain to forgive people who have hurt you or could potentially hurt you. like, it can be a monumental struggle. and maybe it's not something that can be done alone. i can't expect you to get over the hurt patriarchy has caused you overnight. you don't have to rush through coping and accept people who have genuinely hurt you. hating individual and groups of men who have hurt you is a legitimately valid thing to do, make no mistake. you're allowed to hate individuals that you've interacted with for treating you like dirt

what i can do, as a man, is extend a listening ear and a hand and say hey. i'm glad you're telling me about this. that means this is affecting many, many more trans people than just you, and that's a massive issue. we can't let this keep happening. let's work together to help men understand the ways in which they hurt other people so we can hold them accountable once and for all and put an end to how they treat you, and everyone else.

However, I don’t see issues with antimasculism nor do I perceive there being any real male struggles in the world.

i understand why you feel that way, from your perspective. just a few things i'd like to point out to think about is that gay, queer, trans, nonbinary, genderfluid, genderqueer, interesex and other men struggle under patriarchy in just about every culture, so there are some male struggles, especially when it comes to disabled men who cannot work enough to support themselves, for example. men who are not masculine and cannot work enough are treated like garbage no matter what culture we're a part of. there are likely indigenous men suffering as we speak where you're from. mentally ill men are treated like trash and allowed to be homeless for no good reason. homeless men rarely have resources specifically for men, it's usually for homeless women in particular trans men almost universally never benefit from patriarchy, even when they pass. they are not instantly seen as cishet men. even if you live in a place where people of color are the majority of your population, for example, there are still other men who are minorities that suffer, as minorities are not always racial

Men and masculine leaning individuals have too much privilege in my views.

it's highly situational, for sure. for example, butch lesbian women do not get any extra privilege at all, in fact, butch women are treated horribly, especially when they're transfemme butch women. butch women face very high rates of physical and sexual assault. as do trans men and mascs, genderqueer people, nonbinary people, and intersex people. masculine men who are disabled generally don't have a lot of privilege, either. some men people are viewed as "less" masculine because of racial traits due to racism, same for black and dark skinned men being seen as "more" masculine due to racism. this can affect men very negatively, as very masculine black men are always seen as a danger and a threat in the United States and many other English speaking predominately white countries, which is not a good thing. it leads to black men being thrown in jail just because of racial discrimination. masc trans men can pass successfully sometimes, but not always, and are often outed as trans or "butches/dykes" when people find out they're trans. really, it's only a select few masculine people and men who benefit.

i see why you think and feel the way you do. i know you have suffered a lot, and i know you're in pain. i never want you to feel like i'm invalidating you and your pain. i think the hatred you feel is legitimate, i think it's just being targeted at the wrong people, presently. what has hurt you is patriarchy, not manhood or men. if we single out specific men and hold them accountable for their actions, it actually sets the tone for helping us improve how men view other people and themselves. this is the key to setting us all free is holding individual men accountable. when we say that they're wholesale trash subhumans who will continue to do this, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

we have to resist, not give in! if we continue to give in like this, it will never change. right now, we are acting as if defeated.

i'm sure many, many times in your life, you've been told that you're just an evil predator for being a transfemme. why would you be okay with doing this to someone else? that pain is unimagineable. you don't deserve that, not at all. so why are you comfortable doing it to people who haven't hurt you?

there are transfeminine individuals who are also men, so it might not be wise to say that no men struggle ever, because transfeminine people and trans women can be bigender, genderfluid, multigender, have cultural gender identities like being Two-Spirit and so on. there are trans women who identify as gay men as well, and other kinds of men. they're still trans women, so it's important to hear them out and understand that they struggle too. also profiling strangers can affect other stealth transfemmes like yourself, you may run across another transfemme in stealth who's trying really hard to pass for safety and accidentally misgender them without ever realizing

gender diversity includes all kinds of people including transmascs, trans men, bigender men, genderfluid men, genderqueer men, nonbinary men, intersex men, gnc men, and so on! there are a lot of ways to be gender diverse and men and mascs are included in that. butch applies to more than just cis women

this also hurts transfemmes who are questioning and in the process of coming out. some transfemmes and trans women still identify as cis men right now, for a variety of reasons. some just stopped identifying as cis men recently. it's very uninviting to someone who's still questioning themselves if we profess that it's okay to be men... because some transfemmes are still men. we need to let questioning people take their time

we are not asking you or anyone else to forgive patriarchy or toxic masculinity, quite the opposite! we do not want these things, either. we do not want you to have to drop what you're doing and prioritize toxic men who have genuinely harmed you and others. we want to abolish toxic masculinity and patriarchy. we want to undo the harm they cause. what we are trying to do is educate men and let them know this is not the way it has to be. that it literally doesn't have to be like this. we can change this if we work together. if we never truly challenge patriarchy at its source- those who actually genuinely benefit from and uphold it- we can never bring it down. we have to challenge those men on this. we have to tell them it's wrong. we have to be willing to engage with those men in conversation in a civil fashion so they can interpret information, instead of react with fear or anger.

you'll never hit your mark if you keep aiming for the wrong target

i hope these are couple things to think about, if you'd like to ask any more questions or let me know about anything else feel free to do so, i may not have all the answers for everything and i don't intend to tell you how to think, but i hope these make sense and are at least somewhat informative in some way even if you don't see eye to eye with me. take care of yourself for now

edit: as others have pointed out, masculine queer individuals may no longer feel safe around you if you state this openly, and there are many masculine queer people who haven't hurt you, so it's not a good idea to make other people feel unsafe. i know you feel unsafe, but making others feel unsafe isn't the answer in this situation

[ecoterrorist-katara]

I am so sick of people using “girlboss feminism” to put down Katara fans who don’t like her LOK arc

Wanting a female character to be a badass warrior is not girlboss feminism. Capitalism is not yet a force of oppression in Katara’s youth, so there is no way for Katara to be a girlboss unless she joins force with Cabbage Man, pioneers industrial agriculture, and begins exploiting the labour of Earth Kingdom farmers.

I think it’s very disingenuous to mobilize the anti-capitalist critique inherent in the term “girlboss” to put down a Girl Power fantasy. The issue with girlboss feminism is not, and has never been, that women want power, or money, or recognition. The problem with girlboss feminism has always been that exploiting other people, especially other women, for your own gain is not feminist.

I honestly miss when fandoms would call female characters Mary Sues, because at least back then we didn’t pretend that women wanting power was an inherently bad thing.

[lorynna]

Can’t be a radfem and have a boyfriend just like how you can’t be anti-pedophilia and date a pedophile

Every woman dating a man who killed her thought he was a “good one”. You are not special. You are not smarter than those women. You are just like those women. You do not have a special ability to judge men that those women who died did not have. You are not special.

Your comparison to someone dating a pedophile while being anti-pedophilia is a really bad comparison. Me being a radfem has nothing to do with me hating all men just because they are male. Maybe you do, I don't, so first of all, don't project this onto me.

Me being aware of male crime statistics and what harm males in general are capable of doing does not make me believe that every man is inherently evil. I am not saying that it is a radical feminist action to date a man, if i was saying that you would have every right to criticise me.

I stopped trying to be perfect in every way and following every guideline, because things are never black and white. I am living my life the way it makes me feel the best and in a way it is not harming anyone else, which my choice of partner does not, so it should not concern you. I am labeling myself a radical feminist because it aligns with my set of beliefs. But even under radfems they differ.

I was already aware that radfems(?) like you might come for me, simply for revealing that I am in a het relationship. Instead of attacking me for my personal choice that I am not even trying to frame as a feminist action, you could just go outside and breathe a bit. Never have I said that I believe I am special or better than other women or "know how to pick a good man". I think you are referring to one of my reposts (I linked it down below) where I already referenced this. But I am convinced you read the first line of my repost and went straight to sending me this anon without reading any further.

You judged and assumed I must think I was better than any woman that had died through the hands of their male partner, simply because I love a man and I said so in a post? No offense, but please go outside and touch some grass. Nobody suspects that the person they trust will someday kill them, that is not exclusively about male partners.

As a radfem I first of all believe in helping all women and providing a safe space for them and I do not differentiate wether or not they are in relationships and with whom, wether they are brainwashed by gender ideology or if they are part of the pro life agenda (to name a few examples).

No matter their choices or how much I might not like them personally, I would still not wish abuse on them or rat them out to anyone for having an abortion/hiding from their abusive partner, whatever. I am for protecting and listening women in general, because they are women. And if a woman suffers from abuse by a man and tells me, I will not go up to her and tell her "I told you so, you thought you were better than the others, huh?".

Where should those women go if the general society rejects them for those, if her partner makes her feel unsafe, if her parents are conservative. I wanna make a space that makes them feel comfortable to talk and not feel like they are gonna get shunned. I don't have to agree with their choices but I don't want to shame them, because that does not help anyone.

Maybe you should too.

And in your eyes I might not be a radical feminist but I don't really care all that much about your opinion.

[hadesoftheladies]

there's no such thing as a feminist without female solidarity, btw. hating men is not female solidarity. hating men so much you want to "not be a man" does not equal female solidarity from transwomen. being attracted to women does not equal female solidarity. hating trans ideology or trans people is not female solidarity.

female solidarity takes deliberate effort and isn't earned just by doing the opposite: hating men. it is meaningful support, intentional pursuit of the betterment of the situation of all women (all races, all classes, all orientations), especially the women in your life.

if a transwoman is out here protesting the sex trade, i have more solidarity with that person than with a womanchild online joking about how she doesn't pay male uber drivers. if a man in my life is invested in protecting his sisters from his father's domestic abuse, i have more solidarity with him than with women trying to sell makeup to preteens. if a white conservative woman is here voting to keep males out of female spaces for the sake of young girls' safety, i have more solidarity with her than with some feminist-identified woman screaming "sex work is work."

feminism is not supporting women just because WOMEN. feminism is certainly NOT supporting only women who look and think like you. if all it takes for you to become a raging misogynist is for a woman to disagree with you, you aren't a feminist. i don't care if you're a leftist or whatever. if you put how you feel about yourself or how you appear to others over women's safety, you aren't feminist. if you exalt your personal philosophy over the real lives of women on this planet, you aren't a feminist.

by joining with these guys, i am not betraying my feminist principles, because our goal is proactively making women's lives better. by hee-heeing with women over girls who are fat, i most certainly am being anti-feminist.

some self-proclaimed feminists on here need to stop making feminist praxis a middle-schooler squabble about what looks good and start thinking about what DOES good and for WHOM.

[achaotichuman]

OMG where have you been all this time?😭 People like you could have saved me from this series. I was introduced to the pro- fandom first and so I already had this impression on the characters. Then this Cassian walks in with his ‘I am an adorable goofball who doesn’t understand social cues but I have a heart of gold’ attitude and narrates their past. Then the Morrigan history. I WANTED TO CLAW MY EYES OUT. I was so lost, how can anyone think it’s normal? It’s not even a slow unpacking for people to build a barrier yet. I was hoping for his death at the end of WAR but that fucker survives. Then he gets worse and worse.

I honestly don’t care about the plot in these books really, a whole lot of faux women power and male ego and sword swinging which is tbf exhausting at this point. She found one formula that worked best the first time and she’s milking it. She knows her MMCs are more popular than her FMCs which is the saddest thing for a female author writing a female-centric books. But she doesn’t care, she actually is one of the groupies.

Feyre was her self-insert in TAR and her story was at the centre, not Tamlin. SJM was as neutral as a writer can be towards him. But her interests and love shifted to Rhysand and ever since the books have been about him rather than her FMCs. She retired Feyre so she can imprint on Nesta and even then, rhysand gets more attention than Feyre, who is Nesta’s sister, and it is their tumultuous relationship that apparently leads to SF.

The only comfort I have about Gwyriel is that they aren’t enemies as of now, they have childish banter and some understanding. So there wouldn’t be that heavy tension Feysand or Nessian had. So I’m hoping Gwyn won’t be traumatised for Azriel’s sad boy wallowing. But SJM won’t give up on violence and it’s concerning since both already have a terrible past.

I’d rather have Lucien happily prancing around in Spring all alone than him ending up with Elain😭 That man deserves some happiness and I KNOW how this is going to go down.

(P.S DID YOU SEE THE NERIS POST? DID YOU SEE THE NERIS POST? TELL ME YOU SAW THE NERIS POST!!)

Well this took me forever to respond to, I am very sorry about that 😭

I get you with being introduced to the Pro-fandom first, I learned about ACOTAR through TikTok shortly after reading TOG, when I tell you I was *fanatic* for these series, I *loved* them. Dived right into the ACOTAR fandom, I knew the entire series plot like the back of my hand before I even read it, so there were no surprises for me when I read it. And whilst I was never 'anti Tamlin' at any point during my read, I was very pro IC for a while, then Silver Flames rolled around and I was like "Yah... fuck this." And I wrote my own fanfiction.

She found one formula that worked best the first time and she’s milking it.

Preach. SJM is praised continuously for being this super #feminist author, when in reality the themes of feminism in her book are extremely shallow and dependent on what her favourite MMC of the book is doing. There is going to be no reality in which the plot of the future books in this series get better, in fact, I suspect they will get far worse. ACOTAR, especially when compared to her other series, is a money maker. Shitty work that is low effort, that follows a specific formula that she is certain works. It's nothing more.

Entirely agree with you on SJM being at the very least neutral on Feyre and Tamlin's story until she fell in love with Rhysand, then she molded Feyre into an accessory of his. It's *especially* evident with Nesta, as you mentioned, Rhysand is still a focal point in Nesta's own story, despite her not liking him and having zero reason to like him. Their relationship, and 'hugging it out' at the end of Silver Flames is *incredibly* forced, Nesta just gave up everything for him after almost dying in the Blood Rite and the only connection she had with him or the IC before the Rite was them physically punishing her and wanting her dead. It was a cheap shot at creating a relationship for Rhysand and Nesta so SJM can fawn over him.

I definitely believe Gwynriel will be the least abusive of the three bat boys relationships, but I have no hope in Gwyn remaining an independent person, with a title of her own, forging her own path and healing on her own. I will bet two dollars at the end of this entire series, Gwyn, Nesta and Elain will all have babies, and ofc, Emerie being the only POC character will be forgotten about and maybe mentioned if we're lucky being seen alongside her shining, far far far more beautiful, definitely doesn't serve, no one knows why she choose her, girlfriend Morrigan.

I can't even with Elucien. I can only pray that SJM retcons Elain's shitty, shitty personality and she's not as much of an asshole in the Elucien arc, but I highly highly doubt it.

(YES YES I SAW THE NERIS POST, I DID I LOVED IT)

[do-you-ship-it-polls]

I am the first anon who posted about misandry. Thank you for your answer, I understand better why you posted this banner.

I just want to make a distinction between what I'd call feminist misandry and TERF misandry.

My friends are the farthest you can imagine from TERF (a lot of them are even trans). They are misandric because a lot have suffered from cis-men. For them, misandry is a protective instinct: if you meet a group of cis-men, be careful.

They hate cis-men as an oppressive group. They don't take a essentialistic view of masculinity, but a sociological one. Men are a group of power, that can abuse it, and they will protect each other. And of course, they don't include trans women in it. (A lot of the feel waaaaay safer with trans women than cis men).

That has nothing to do with TERFs, who use misandry to say "trans women are oppressors" or "trans women are essentially men"

Anyway, I understand the desire to piss off terfs and radfems. But I'd be sad if the word "misandry" was appropriated by them.

Sorry to bring that discourse, and thank you for the clarification!

genuinely don't understand why people are so deadset on identifying themselves as bigots who think 50% of humanity is out to get them. like, being against the patriarchy means you're a feminist or anti-sexist or ideally just a normal person but idk how many people agree. irrational hatred of men is not the same as wanting to knock the patriarchy down, all it does is just: be irrational hatred against men. when there's discussions like this, it also verges on "trans men aren't real men" territory because for some people, they are the exception. until they go on T and dress in a masculine way, then they're too cis man-like to participate in queer spaces (dunno how common it is, but it does happen!)

english isn't my first language, nor have I grown up in an american culture, so I wonder if it's my use of the word misandry that sets people off? like, is that a loaded word? because the definition of misandry is simply "hatred against men". it doesn't mean you feel uncomfortable with men or are scared of them, it means you hate men. I never thought that I would get so much shit for saying that it's weird to have such a deep, blind hatred for half of humanity. I don't think the word can be appropriated my radfems/terfs because there's nothing to be taken out of context, it means the same thing for anyone who uses the word.

why not just call yourself a feminist, an anti-sexist person, an anti-patriarchy person, etc etc. why do you label yourself as a person who hates all men for being born men and no matter what they do, they can never become a good person because they were born as men? I'm genuinely so baffled. not that anyone is planning on changing their mind about this, atleast not me.

thanks to the comments and asks that confirm to me that I'm not crazy for thinking this lol. also, I'm just some guy behind the screen. you can unfollow, block me, ask me to remove your submissions from the queue, whatever.

Just a fun side note, you know who started this discourse in the first place? All of this about transandrophobia and misandry?

little chihiro over on my queer blog... (I really liked the headcanon so if the person who submitted them sees this, i'm not saying it's your fault at all) just funny that it's this little cute character.

I should probably stop answering asks about his now.

[princess-glassred]

Alright hot take incoming:

Beverly Marsh in it 2017 is a terribly written female character and i'm tired of pretending like she's not.

As a woman, I love Bev in fics, I love 90's bev, I love fannon Bev, and this is no discredit to Sophia Lillis as an actor, or even 2017 Bev's personality, but it 2017 Bev is a perfect example of a character being fine but everything else about her being incredibly anti feminist (in my opinion).

First of all there's all the slut shaming, now don't get me wrong, i'd get it if this was just greta and henry and her dad. They're antagonists and it makes sense for the time period, BUT Bev is not jusy slut shamed by the antagonists, she's indirectly kind of slut shamed by the narritive. When Richie first meets her he tells rumors about her sleeping around, especially with Henry Bowers and he faces almost little to no pushback. Yeah eddie tells him to shut up, and Bill says "they're just rumors" but it really shouldn't matter if they're just rumors or not. The movie seems to think that the slut shaming is bad because she isn't sleeping with anyone, when slut shaming should be bad just because its a fuckin mean thing to do. Even if she did date Henry, who the fuck cares? It's literally her life, obviously she doesn't like him now. Also the way Richie words it as "Bill had her in the third grade" is 🤢.

In the bathroom scene they take time out of cleaning just so she can clarify to Bill that he's the only one she's ever kissed so I guess Bill can feel like a real special man. Even though she doesn't owe Bill really anything, let alone reassurance that she's only kissed him once. I'd absolutely understand if this was Bev reacting to her CSA, assuming she needs to make them men around her feel special by having a low body count, but the movie portays this scene as really sweet and romantic so i doubt it's the case.

The movie sexualizes Bev so much, and again, i'd understand if this was supposed to be commentary about her CSA but a lot of it is genuinely meant to further the plot or played off for laughs. Almost every single scene she has is about her sexual history or which guy she ends up with. Even Ben, who's entire thing is he's hopelessly in love with Bev gets more of a personality than just that. She's called a slut by greta keene, flirts with ben outside, """flirts""" with Mr. Keene to steal his shit, leaves the pharmacy to get oggled by Bill in slowmo, gets slut shamed by richie, gets oggled at the quarry, ect.

The movie also tries to act like she's a much stronger female than she really is, it reminds me a lot of in the 90's when they'd have those tough bad ass women who could sword fight and stuff but they'd always inevitably be kidnapped because of gener roles. I do admit that the scene of her jamming the fence post through pennhwise is cool, and so is the scene where she hits her dad, but her badassness is incredibly underminded in a lot of ways. First of all when they're asked who wants to go in she's the only one to raise her hand but she STILL doesn't go inside. Why? What possible reason could the narrative give as to why she stayed outside? To comfort Stan??? God forbid a girl helps save the boys unless it's in the smallest way possible. And then she gets kidnapped and essentially used as a plot device just for the boys to get back together. We can't just have them work things out and apologize and show up for each other because they're friends, they all need a woman to go rescue.

Having Beverly say "I am not afraid of you" is just lip service when you still have her be a damsel in distress, which she is officially rendered right after pennywise puts her in the deadlights. And now we come to the worst part of this whole thing, which is the deadlights kiss. Now, i'm some one who will defend snow white and sleeping beauty with my life, because i know how fairytale curses work and with sleeping beauty phillip is out right told that's what he has to do. This is not what happens in the movie. Ben and Bill see Bev dangling there, and after like half a second of trying to snap her out of it decide kissing her is the only way to get her out of this. Ben even sees Bill do it and fail but instead of trying literally anything else he thinks "i love her more, maybe it'll work with me!".

Guys I do not give a shit about how much Bill and Ben care about Bev, if anything that just makes kissing her while she's out of it worse. You may try to justify this by saying it really was the only way for them to do it, but that still doesn't change the fact YOU wrote it that way. YOU decided the only way to save bev was to kiss her without consent. Which you actively contradict with richie getting caught in the dead lights and snapped out it in it chapter 2. Stephen King didn't even write that shit, say what you will about the child orgy, but at least Bev was awake for it. She consented about as much as a girl her age could given that she's only 11. That's way more problematic than this but at least it was her idea, at least she conciously decided this was worth doing. All you've done is take a creepy sexual act that was at the very least consenual and displayed some sexual agency in the character, with a creepy non sexual non consenual act that took away agency. How girlboss is it that her first kisses with her love interests weren't even while she could could consent? She is kissed three times, once during a play and twice while she's unconcious, neither of which are her idea. I'm not saying a woman always has to instigate things romantically, but if you spend your whole movie talking about how she's a slut, maybe you should give her some free reign over her love life.

This is why I love 90's Bev so much, she's just a little fiesty tomboy who saves the boys asses with a sling shot and an epic blow to the head. She doesn't get damseled in distressed (the only time she gets saved are when Ben defends her during the rock fight), the boys aren't overly horny over her, the only people who really treat her like her gender defines her are her father, Tom, and Henry she's just great. And that came out in the 90's! I don't think the 90's miniseries is necessarily better than the 2017 movies, but I think their treatment of Bev is just inherently more feminist given that they don't constantly try to define her by her body counts. Yes she loves ben, but she has more to her than that. Even if you bring up things like body count to try and say she isn't a slut who's obsessed with boys, it's still not feminist because you're still constantly equating her value to who she's with. The only proper way to adress slut shaming is by acknowledging it's none of the characters business what she does and that if you do it at all you suck. But IT 2017 doesn't do that, because Bev's sexual maturity is explored only through the eyes of men, and that includes the narrative.

Her promiscuity is explained through Richie when she's not even there (who i will give the benefit of the doubt here and say was being mysoginsitic to try and compensate for his queerness, but even then, using a woman's sex life as a tool to make yourself feel better is awful no matter your reason), she only consents to anything until the very end, and this movie tries to act like it's not doing any of it by giving her a few measily crumbs of strength outside of being the guys girlfriend. I never felt like IT 2017 was one of the guys, because the movie would never let her be that. Fuck.

If you are a woman, or even just AFAB and disagree with this you are free to, I do not speak for every woman in the world and if you feel differently I will not try to change that. I can only speak my truth though, and my truth is that it 2017 Bev pisses me off.

[notaplaceofhonour]

Hey, sorry if this is like an offensive or bad question, I just saw something and wanted to ask someone who I know knows more about this than me. /Nfta if it's like uncomfortable or anything ofc, I'm asking this in good faith.

Can someone who is not Jewish be zionist? Like could a white, Christian american be zionist? I know obviously that the term has been warped and made into something it is not at all by people who are, well antisemitic, and that the original definition isn't at all what people who say "zionists dni" mean, but can someone who is goyim be zionist under the more correct definitions?

Not at all bad or offensive!

To start with, I want to clarify that I’m a non-Zionist, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. However, the reason I’m not a Zionist (the way I would define it) is relevant to answering your question, so hopefully it helps.

Some Jews may define it differently, but to me, Zionism—in the political sense—is not merely the belief that Jews should have national self-determination & safety in Israel (though that is the core of all Zionism movements), but a movement characterized by political action to that end, which is actively involved in the development or enrichment of Jewish communities & national identity in Israel. I don’t live in Israel; I’m not a member of any Zionist organizations; I’m not really involved in Israeli politics beyond Having Opinions™️ about the parts of it that are relevant to my community, offering critical support for their peace camp, or debunking misinformation; and I’m not in any way responsible for cultural or national development/enrichment in Israel. Thus, I’m not a Zionist.

(And obviously I am not in favor of any of the evil things goyim seem to think Zionism “actually” means: I’m not anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, pro-Israeli expansionism, pro-ethnic cleansing, pro-genocide, pro-colonialism, or Jewish supremacist, and I am every bit as in favor of Palestinian self-determination & safety as I am in favor of the same for Israelis. So I’m not a “Zionist” even in that warped & inaccurate sense.)

Goyim who aren’t actively involved in Zionist political action likewise wouldn’t be Zionists, but I do think it needs to be further clarified that—because Zionism is at its core characterized by Jewish self-determination—any goyish movement or organization that calls itself Zionist while sidelining Jews or subverting Jewish self-determination is not actually Zionist.

For instance: a lot of Christian Zionism, especially the Apocalyptic “End Times” Prophecy sort, is actually about “philosemitic” fetishization of Jews for American political & Christian religious purposes, based around the certainty that Jews will convert to Christianity & Israel will be a Christian theocracy, not actually about uplifting Jewish self-determination. I would not consider “Christian Zionist” lobbying from organizations like CUFI to be authentically Zionist.

That doesn’t mean Christians & other goyim can’t be Zionists. But the test of whether they are is whether they’re actively putting material support behind Jewish self-determination & not, say, simply trying to trojan horse themselves into controlling the land.*

Something that might help is to think of it along similar lines to the word “feminist”. The Feminist movement was started by women to address issues that most centrally affect women. Men can be feminists, but their feminism is contingent on their support for women’s freedom, equality, and self-advocacy. A man who simply thinks “yeah sure women should be equal” but does nothing to make sure women in his life or broader society are, or who only does/says all the right things to exploit women, isn’t really much of a feminist.

A couple complicating factors are that a) Zionism, as a national movement for self-determination, is much more specific than Feminism, a general movement for women’s equality, and b) the goy/jew ratio (98.8% vs. 0.2% of the world’s population) is a lot more skewed in goyim’s favor than the male/female one (which is nearly 50/50). Both of these add up to my personal opinion that it’s even more crucial to be more selective in who gets called a Zionist than a Feminist.

but TL; DR: Ultimately, if someone’s genuinely supportive of Jewish national self-determination in Israel, I don’t see a reason they shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves a Zionist, as long as they aren’t trying to dictate what that should look like to Jews. But I’m not Zionist myself, and opinions may vary, so I’d ask some Jews who self-identify as Zionist.

*Lest this be misunderstood as a “No True Scotsman”, I’d like to clarify even further: I’m not talking about merely being ineffective or failing at delivering on the promise of self-determination, or failing to be good allies, I’m talking about instances where the goal is to exploit Jews and actively opposed to Jewish self-determination, such as the goal of making Israel a Supersessionist Christian Theocracy.

[thebreakfastgenie]

Imagine, if you will, that the democratic nominee in the 2024 election had been pro Palestine, but had also been anti women and anti lgbt. Could you imagine the outcry from leftists if women and lgbt people decided not to vote for them? It would be absolutely vile. But they have the gall to say we’re wrong for expecting them to vote democrat. It disgusts me

Yeah the bad faith American leftists who use the suffering of Palestinians as a rhetorical cudgel would have been furious. There is also a contingent of nominal leftists who just hate the Democratic party, and they would probably have just reversed course and yelled at anyone who said "yeah this candidate sucks on these other issues, but since there is no good option, it's worth voting for them to at least try to improve this one issue."

And in case anyone objects to this hypothetical as unrealistic, it wouldn't happen because of how US politics work, but it's not outrageous. Being pro-Palestine is left-coded in the US and a lot of the west, but it's not an inherently left or right position. Pro-Palestine, anti-women, anti-LGBT describes a lot of right wing political parties in the Arab world, and it's worth noting that in many (not all but many) cases they're pro-Palestine more because opposing Israel serves their own interests than because they care about Palestinians. Palestinians have spoken about this before. I don't want to spend too much time speaking on an issue I don't feel especially qualified to discuss in detail, but I wanted to acknowledge that.

There was kind of a microdose of what you're describing in the 2016 and 2020 primaries. Bernie Sanders isn't anti-women or anti-LGBT, but he did choose not to focus on those issues. His whole thing was about class and corporations and money and while Bernie himself was at worst mildly dismissive, his following did have a tendency to deride those issues as identity politics that were a distraction from the true cause. Bernie supporters complained that Hillary didn't focus enough on Citizens United in one of the debates and completely ignored that she chose to focus on Roe v Wade instead and I remember this because I am still mad about it to this day. I don't think Bernie Sanders is a raging misogynist (though a lot of people around him are) but I think he's a fairly standard level of sexist for a man born in 1941, and as often happens he's given a pass on it and even portrayed as a male feminist hero because he's progressive. A lot of people don't seem to think progressives can be misogynists or homophobic or racist. In any case, early in the 2020 primary there was some tension between the Bernie and Elizabeth Warren camps and some women were complaining about Bernie's history of sexism and I distinctly remember some Bernie supporters getting really mad about it. And I was like, is saying "I agree with these policies but I don't want to vote for a candidate that doesn't value women" so unreasonable? They made that exact same argument for other issues themselves. But when it's about women... And obviously if Bernie had won that primary I would have been all aboard in the general, but it was still the primaries and I was making a point.

The wild thing about all this behavior is we live in a country with a two party system where one party is an unhinged fascist death cult. They're evil and inept at governing and certifiably insane. It's nearly impossible to produce a Democratic candidate that isn't obviously leagues better than the alternative. If a meteor had landed on all the other candidates in 2020 I would have voted for Bloomberg against Trump. The only time we really have to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of different candidates is the Democratic primary and it's rare to get strong primary candidates who are wildly different from each other (Hillary and Bernie's voting records in the senate were like 95% identical; obviously the campaigns were going to focus on the differences but they're far more alike than different). We also have to spend primaries taking into account which candidate we think will have the best chance of winning a general election so the fascist death cult people don't.

And honestly I think we should take a minute to appreciate that Democratic candidates are pro-LGBT, because a lot of other center-left parties around the world are abandoning at least trans people.

[separatist-apologist]

I just read an article in that guy who murdered two women. Absolutely horrifying. All the booktok crazies fawning over him reminds me of the women that would write letters to Ted Bundy while he was in prison.

I wasn't gonna answer this because I felt like I said what I needed to say and like, I was just preaching to preach but THEN while I was asleep, an anon came into my askbox to accuse me of not being a girls girl while intentionally missing my point. I blocked them before I thought of a good comeback (tragic) but like fellas is it anti-feminist not to stan a man who killed two women because (and this is so important to me) he hates women?

I'm gonna put the rest of this under a cut with a heavy trigger warning for domestic violence, I just want to say it and then I think I'm done talking about it because it's genuinely so disheartening.

Anyway, I think sometimes I get nervous to answer these kinds of asks because as a therapist I should know better than to speculate on people and what they're going through and whatever else, but as a person, its like...do you want to be picked that badly?

I think we all know by now that I work in DV and all the people fascinated with men like this fuck me up because like..."oooh what makes him tick, I want to talk to him, why did he do it-" and for me, I sit on the opposite end talking to survivors of violence asking the same questions with hollow eyes, with shaking hands, with safety plans meant to buy them just enough time to get out of their house so they aren't killed. I still think about some of the people I spoke with who didn't survive it.

When I was in grad school, I took a summer internship at the local DV court helping survivors with orders of protection. The system was set up better than a lot of other courts, but its still the legal system, you know? With all its flaws. My job was to flag for lethality based on what I was reading in the OPs and then reach out directly to survivors to help them navigate the process, connect them with resources, and sit with them in court. And I still remember this one particular woman who's situation was so desperately dangerous. We did a safety plan- and at that level, a safety plan isn't like, "remember to take your keys and wallet with you when you go", its "don't go into the basement or bathroom if he's in the house with you because there are too many hard surfaces, exposed pipes, and basins of water that making killing you easier. Go to a bedroom or closet because strangling a person is really hard and takes time," like THAT kind of safety plan. Anyway she thanked me, I remember this so well, she said thank you and I told her I'd call her the next week with an update and over the weekend he bludgeoned her to death.

And I guess I just don't think there is anything fascinating, interesting, or otherwise unique to men like this (obligatory yes I know women kill/abuse too). They're everywhere. I saw another post about how some podcaster is trying to get him on to talk to that guy and its like, why don't you just call up one of your friends' exes. Like. If you've got more than one female friend, you've probably got a friend who has experienced violence at the hand of a male partner, call him. Talk to him. Ask him why he did it, let him give you his made up story about trauma and sadness and oh life is hard because whatever whatever.

That's my thing. Books, movies, tv- they're not making people like this, and I'm not condemning people for what they enjoy in fantasy spaces. I am condemning it when you bring it out of those spaces and side against the women who were violently murdered because, and this is so important to me (did I say this already??), he HATES women. You are not special. You cannot fix him. He's not smart, or interesting, or fascinating and the having an attractive face is literally just chance and not something inherently moral.

And like, lastly, when you prop these men up and give them a platform, you signal to EVERY man just like him that there is something special and tragic about him. You let him play the victim, you let him rewrite the narrative, you shift the blame of his actions off of him and onto the people he hurt. Like with this particular man, you also side with a white supremacist so what are you saying to all your BIPOC/Jewish friends/mutuals, you know?

Anyway. That's my self-righteous rant, I guess.

[wannaeatramyeon]

You hit the nail on the head! I‘ll ask for more professional assessment: honest opinion on Crystal?

Following on from my ramblings about Sally Park. Oops! Edited to add in Zoe too.

Well written female characters in Lookism? Uhh...

When the bar is at an all time low, it's really not hard to step over it.

At this point, I've been pavloved to think that any female character that expresses a personality trait other than 'simp' is pretty good. Simp is fun when it's part of a list of characteristics (Zack, Ryuhei). Not so much when it's the only thing.

Long live PTJ, the greatest feminist. Anyway.

Female characters I like

Mary Kim

Love her. Empress of 2 seconds. Queen of my heart.

Surprisingly kept a platonic relationship with Vin Jin, showing quite a healthy mixed gender friendship. Sassy and smart. Loyal. Good taste in men (Jace). Is shown having a life and interests outside of a man.

On my hands and knees praying that PTJ doesn't ruin her. Kinda glad she hasn't appeared in a while so she is kept away from his incessant need to turn everyone into a love interest.

Lua Im

Once we got over the odd Johan panels, which I heard the Korean audience didn't like and I'm quite happy about, she's fine. And it's not that I care that much about Johan staying a single dog-dad, I just needed a coherent reasoning/build up why they would be interested in one another.

Lua has potential.

Sourcing intel, even impressing the likes of Gun? A little Muay Thai knowledge? Jake and Jerry scared of her? Lol. Ok. Good. Let's build on this.

Just please don't white knight her.

Crystal Choi (meh)

And Ms. Choi, because anon specifically asked. I really don't mind her? I know she's meant to be anti-Lookism but still judges people based on their looks eh. That's fine. Pretty realistic actually. Whatever.

She can be a bit bitchy for no reason. So can I. Handwaving all that.

What I do take issue with though, is her so called title of Business Genius. Please show me the chapter where she actually does something to earn that title besides the one where other people ooh-ed and aah-ed over her in the meeting with DG.

Wow she's sooooo gorgeous. Ok good for her. If that's the route they're taking her character then at least OWN. THAT. SHIT. Use her beauty and looks to sign deals and get what she wants. GOOD. DO IT.

Zoe Park (also meh... Wait)

Sorry anon, I think 'really well written' is a bit of a reach... She does have some decent character development, starting as quite a flighty, shallow girl and then showing that she has a heart of gold, liking both Daniels and. Huh.

Wait. You're right. She is pretty well written. She's selfless and kind and loyal to her friends, putting up with Logan's bullshit. There's enough of a character arc for her from the Zoe we're introduced to at first.

And I do like that she's good at maths too.

Wasted potential

Minseong Kang (Jake's momma)

Appreciate this is the older generation and from a much more conservative culture. Saying that, I am so over the slighted and bitter housewife rotting at home while her big powerful husband cheats on her.

And then some sort of marriage redemption cos they pop out a kid. Whatever. (Sorry Jake bb, I love you).

If you were going to do that, give me the most toxic red flag shit where they are constantly at each other's THROATS. Show me how they are equals. Can't live with or without one another. That's the good kinda shit.

Leonn Lee

I just. What the fuck was this.

A girl in Burn Knuckles? A group that reeks of testerone and (positive) masculinity? Show us why she joined! Show us why she stays. SURPRISE. Main character trait?? Having a crush on Vasco.

She could have been SO interesting. And she obviously trains, why not get her to fight?

Hate for irrational reasons

Joy Hong

Listen, she's not really in enough or significant enough for me to really feel one way or another about her. BUT. The reason I HATE her is because I was trying to write a headcanon involving everyone and then I got to Joy and I was STUMPED.

Sub in a plank of wood, and it would have the same depth of personality.

Truly. Who is she apart from Jay's sister and a Daniel simp? At least everyone else has something.

Others

I don't really think about them. Sera Shin has potential I guess.

And of course a special mention to Daniel's momma. She's not exactly a unique character, but who doesn't love her?

LET. THEM. FIGHT.

Lastly. Why can't we see women fight? Like the men's fights are realistic LOL. Ultra instinct? Smashing through walls? So why are women fighting men outside the realms of this.

And yes yes. Men are SoOoOoOo strong. But can they take a kick to the balls?

Are you saying Gun Park has been training his dick and balls and would be able to eat a hit there? He wouldn't go down like a heap of shit??

HUH. TELL ME THAT.

In Summary

Mary by and large is pretty well written. Lua has improved.

I don't care much about anyone else.

And I wanna see Gun, Goo, Sammy, Vin etc. get kicked in the balls in a fight.

[nervoustragedyluminary]

Idk why calling transmasc people "cunts" & "bitches" in an insulting way is so normalised by fellow transmascs and trans guys in the Anti-Transmasculinity and transandrophobia tags.... like you realise you're just doing toxic masculinity and transphobia right?

Trans women never asked you to do this and it's pretty transmisogynistic and chauvinistic to claim you're doing it on their behalf or to fight for their liberation when it's actually the same self centred bullshit that predatory cishet men do when they go "I'm a feminist and all men are trash (but not mee I'm one of the good ones)"

the tone of many of these kinds of posts is very "I'm not like those other guys I'm one of the cool guys who is better than all the whiny boys who are behaving like girls (Derogatory) for talking about Anti-Transmasculinity and I'm gonna prove how feminist I am by calling them cunts and bitches and telling them they aren't real men because IMO 'real men' (white pericishet abled men) don't face gender based oppression or talk about facing it"

it's just very thinly veiled truscum "you're a transtrender for talking about Anti-Transmasculinity " BS trying to hide behind "I'm defending trans women & fighting transmisogyny by calling out these whiny bitchcunt tboys who won't man up and suffer in silence for the good of trans women like I do" when you're not even centring trans women in this kind of "advocacy";

you're just doing the classic thing of making it all about your own insecurities with masculinity and attacking other trans people for not being 'stoic' enough about transphobia and violence they face & claiming that trans women benefit from our erasure and silence .

Like you realise most trans women don't see you hurting trans dudes, misgendering them or mocking trans survivors of DV & SA and go "woo yeah this helps me fight transmisogyny & SA and DV against trans women please tell another guy that he deserves to be SA'd or detransitioned for being whiny"

and it's pretty telling of your unexamined transmisogynistic assumptions about how this behaviour must somehow benefit trans women that your first go to for "how can I be an ally to trans women? " is apparently to seek out trans guys and tell them they deserve sexual or domestic violence while calling them bitches and cunts and misgendering them to try to threaten them into silence on issues that effect them

... Just yuck behaviour like how to say you agree with terf rhetoric about trans women being pro DV and SA MRAs without saying it.

Seriously if you want to advocate for trans women and trans fems (and trans neuts) try to actually listen to them and stop trying to use them and their struggle for liberation (which is inextricably entwined with our own) as an excuse to play out this tired self obsessed "I'm more of a real man than you" dominance paradigm BS

And also maybe while you're at it listen to some of your fellow trans men and transmascs talking about their own issues and don't be so quick to assume without cause that they're blaming trans women for Anti-Transmasculinity existing in the first place or that they think trans women as a group are oppressing them.

Like there's a HUGE difference between talking about societal violence from cis people, lateral in community violence and anti transmasculinity and going into terf GC & radfem BS that claims that trans women are "using mAlE pRiVeLeGe to rule the trans community and oppress the poor TIFs" & listening to the good faith discussions and understanding what people actually mean when they talk about Anti-Transmasculinity and transandrophobia actuall helps you to quickly identify and discard BS terf rhetoric that tries to pretend to be pro transmasc rather than just writing off anyone speaking on these issues as "you're just a detransitioner (Derogatory) in waiting you're not a real trans man because real men don't have or talk about problems"