#or had radfem beliefs without even knowing what it was

[anistarrose]

Respectfully: yes, of course being sex-positive is incredibly important, but you know what's equally important? Being sex-positive without being fucking aphobic. It's not a herculean task at all; I see aspec and allo people alike who are absolutely able to do both successfully. But it does require a bare minimum amount of critical thinking.

You can defend kink at pride without saying or implying that sex is what makes us human, or that sex is a requisite for the "true" queer experience. You can talk about the indescribable value of gay bars without accusing anyone who isn't interested in them of being either a prude, creepy and antisocial, or a "boring virgin." You can stop arguing that any given queer person or group of queer people you dislike (perhaps even within reason) would be more progressive and less reactionary if they had more sex (and yes, this is a real take I've had to see on this website).

You can, and urgently, should stop pretending that sex negativity as a cultural force is caused by ace people — instead of you know, caused by cultural conservativism and cultural Christianity. And on the flip side, you can stop with that thing where you act sex-positive until you see an aroallo person wanting to have sex without a romantic (closed, nuclear) relationship — and suddenly, throwing all sex positivity out the window as you decide that they're a freak and a manipulator and evil incarnate. (Yes, you need to be kinder to even the cisgender heterosexual aromantic men. That particular discourse encapsulates the feedback loop between arophobia and radfem-lite beliefs, by the way, which is another thing the queer community here is horrible at avoiding in its rhetoric.)

So: sex positivity includes aro-spec allosexuals, who need it for precisely the above reason — because alloromantics demonize them otherwise. And sex positivity includes ace-specs who need it just to talk about their experiences, without getting called inappropriate for merely acknowledging sex out loud, let alone their own relationship with sexual desire.

(Have you already forgotten one of the biggest aphobe talking points in 2016? That aces acknowledging their identity in any capacity were "oversharing," and making people "uncomfortable" — and god forbid you ever mentioned asexuality to a minor?)

At its core, sex positivity includes accepting people can have morally neutral relationships with sex that you wouldn't personally want — and maybe even ones that might make you uncomfortable. And so much of this website seems perfectly able to understand this — or at least, preach this — until the second an ace or aro person shows up.

You're not allowed to exclude us from this movement. You're not allowed to twist this movement's intent to put us down. Kill this new wave aphobia in 2023 or so help me. We're not letting this community do this again.

[limeade-l3sbian]

Regarding the "stop treating your non radfem female friends like they’re idiots and stop being an asshole to them" post

Do you have any tips on how to deal with this mentality?? Because I hear my sister going "I dress to look pretty and sexy, not to be comfortable" and then I hear the music my cousin listens to and how it's all about men calling women whores and just wanting to fuck them, and then I see my friend just COVERING her face with makeup to the point she doesn't go swimming or to ride bikes with me because "she will be sweaty and her makeup will fade" and on and on and on and jesus christ do they not hear themselves??? Am I crazy for pointing out just how much self harm they're doing? How sad that is? I can't stop feeling pity for them, that they're so lost and I can't help and I just can't deal with their ideas and since I know I won't be able to change their minds I just want to cut ties with all of them because I can't keep seeing that shitshow

It's important to remember how differently people are raised. My best example is religion. I grew up Christian, but my mom was in no way forceful about this. And when I started to question/doubt, I was given the space to explore these ideas before coming to terms with my agnostic beliefs. There was no real consequence to my drastic change in beliefs. Some of my family was irked by this, but it didn't matter at that point.

Now say I have a friend who grew up in a family or surroundings that are deeply tied to Christianity. I mean, the most patriarchal form of it where she's talking about wanting to have babies (plural) at 18 and is only interested in talking about finding a husband and being a mother. Mind you, her religious community has given her warnings about nonbelievers and how they will try to corrupt or bring her away from the thing she has invested her self worth into. Without this God, her family and friends will turn on her.

What change am I really making by harassing her when we are alone? How do I know she isn't already having doubts? Does me rolling my eyes and coming down on her going to make her want to look into these potential thoughts of doubt more, or will she tie these thoughts of doubt in with the shame I make her feel? Will I be surprised when she starts to resent me for not considering her situation? Even if I am annoyed by these things, how I helping her by attacking her?

And maybe she isn't having doubts at all! Maybe she is 100% on board with this life that has been sold to her. Well, now she cuts me off because I have become the person her community has warned her about.

I don't attack her. Because she is my friend and a person who has life than me. So what do I do? This is someone I deeply care about and I want to "save" her. First and foremost, I cannot "save" her. I am not her savior just because I have a broader perspective. She's heard arguments against her religion and it only brings her closer. But how can I get her to at least consider a different way of thinking?

It's the same shit I did with my grandmother that made her angry with me: I just ask questions. I question even the most basic things that she has believed without ever having questioned it. And after a while, I start suggesting things for her to question. Those who want control of individuals will always discourage questioning. I am not needlessly rude about it. I just ask simple things. That's how I left the church. I had the environment that would not punish me for asking questions. So I kept asking, and for frustrated when no one would give me an answer.

This might not even change a damn thing. But no amount of personal ideology will ever be as strong as just getting someone to ask questions. And even if she starts to ask questions, she may not be in a situation where she can just up and leave.

Empathy is the name of the game, anon. You can't "save" everyone. But you can question everything.

[themostradicalconceptussy]

Quick reminder in light of the recenent situation with Neil Gaiman

You can (and should) condemn Mr Gaiman without condoning TERFs. At the end of the day, regardless of if the report is biased by the nature of the political leanings of its reporters, we as leftist feminists (or what I see most of us self describing as anyway) preach about believing victims first and yet some of you refuse to because you disagree politically with victims. We have no evidence that this is a smear campaign, and you are all for believing victims until its a guy you have a parasocial Tumblr relationship with. Neil Gaiman is not your friend. He's not your buddy Neil, he's a random man in his 60s you've (most likely at least) never met in your fucking life. You do not know him, so don't delude yourself to think you do.

If you love or hate trans people, SA is SA, abuse is abuse. Whether he was, at best, an irresponsible BDSM partner who misused his status as a writer, or, at worst, an outright abuser, or something in between, he is not defensible here. It is of course a complex situation, and not clean cut, but we need to practice what we fuckin preach.

If we don't believe or value the experiences of victims of abuse, or other forms of crime, based on their political beliefs, that is discrimination, and contradicts everything that the community he had cultivated on Tumblr claimed to stand for. If a conservative woman was beating abused, she's still a victim and we, even as staunchly leftist progressives should listen to her, no? You don't have to agree with everyone's opinions to acknowledge their plight.

At the end of the day, what has happened is wrong, and his response was half arsed bullshit that reflected the reality presented in the allegations, and did nothing but serve to make him look worse, much like the earlier situation this year with Wilbur Soot that you may have seen me reblogging about. Bad people are bad people, and the proof is in the pudding, in this case the half arsed responses that serve only as unintentional admissions of guilt.

As for the nature of the publication, I imagine as a heavily radfem anti-trans page, it was more than happy to be the first to break the news of the bad character of a prominent trans activist in television/literature, as it fits their "TRANS = ABUSER" narrative. I do not deny that. However, the victims themselves, as far as I can tell, are evidently former fans, who present actual evidence as confirmed by Mr Gaiman's statements, and thus we know this wasn't, at least on their end, done as a TERFism motivated career assassination. If the publication took this under the guise of causing ill repute for TIRFs and progressive politics, we cannot prove that, and it does not negate the nature of what has occurred.

I'm not here to argue with TERFs, or anyone else, about the nature of gender. That's not what I want to incite, I simply want to acknowledge the glaring hypocrisy from certain people in this online space. A victim of abuse that is a radfem is still a victim, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. I can acknowledge that, because guess what? Me disagreeing with someone doesn't make them subhuman dirt that doesn't have rights. What I'm really saying in this part is, don't bring gender politics into the reblogs, I do NOT want that and I will simply block anyone trying to incite needless arguments with me or anyone else.

TLDR; BELIEVE VICTIMS AND DONT BE SELFISH DICKHEADS WHO PRIORITISE THEIR OWN ENJOYMENT OF MEDIA OVER REPERCUSSIONS FOR ARSEHOLES AND CRIMINALS BECAUSE YOU THINK THAT THE WANKER IS YOUR BESTIE AFTER HE REBLOGGED YOU ONCE. WHERE THOSE INVOLVED STAND ON GENDER POLITICS DOESNT CHANGE THE NATURE OF UNRELATED IMMORAL/CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR THEY INSTIGATED/WERE VICTIM TO.

[lorynna]

i would consider myself a radical feminist also and i agree with the vast majority of your views. honestly i am just curious why you think aromantic/asexual people don't exist or shouldn't be labeled. i don't mean this as hate i'm honestly curious to know if it is part of most radical feminist views

if you can accept someone who is lesbian, and knows for themselves that they aren't at all attracted to men, why would you not accept someone who realizes both that they aren't attracted to men and they aren't attracted to women? (obviously very different identities and experiences i'm just wondering why some people can be trusted to know who they're not attracted to and others can't)

Hello anon, thank you for asking so kindly.

I am going to try and explain what my personal opinion on the topic is, as well as I can, and please keep in mind that I don't speak for the radical feminist community but just for my own views.

First of all, the definitions I have read of both terms (aromantic and asexual) so far aren't really specific, differ from each other at times and leave open room for interpretation. The gendies meanwhile continue to preach "everything means something different to each person" and "it is a broad spectrum" just like they do with gender, which according to them is so complicated and unfathomable that you have to ask each person identifying with it seperately, to know what their gender means to them.

The first thing that comes up when I google the definition of both terms displayed below (just as an example of what I mean):

Like, what do "sexual feelings" all include and to which extent does "little romantic attraction" go?

I do think that people who fit the mainstream criterias for being asexual or aromantic exist, I am not trying to say that it is naturally impossible to experience no sexual or aromantic attraction to anyone. I do think it is really really rare for this to authentically occur though, and that a lot of people identifying with these labels have experienced some kind of trauma or are doing it because it has become a trend.

The thing I most dislike about these labels are not only their inconsistency in definitions but also how much they are starting to get pushed online = trend. In my personal experience I have seen not only online but also offline how younger kids and teens start to pick up on these labels without knowing what they truly mean, because they are "cool" and just like gender it is starting to become a similar trend. Seeing who publicly identifies as those labels, it is again mostly the demographic of teenagers who are going puberty and the several different, crucial developmental phases that come with that.

Since you are asking if this is a common radfem belief, I cannot say. There surely is a variety of opinions, however I have seen some good takes from which I remember being said that a person doesn't need the label of "asexuality" or "aromanticism" as an excuse to not participate in dating culture or to not engage in sexual relations. It should just be common sense to not ask strangers about their dating lives and not ask "why" if they say they are not dating or having sex as if it was something unusual.

Also answering to your last question of "why I don't trust those people to know who they are attracted or not attracted to" is not what I am trying to do insinuate by questioning/criticizing the labels they use to describe said attraction. It is not about me trying to say "I don't believe you, you are lying" it is "why do you need those labels". I just don't think it adds anything valuable to society and it's getting more mainstream each day. Now even with teenagers using those labels when they haven't had the time to figure out themselves as a person yet. It just looses its meaning.

I've seen women going through long periods without having partners (radfems participating in male seperatism for example) being asked "oh, so you're asexual, right?" or "oh, so you're unable to form a romantic connection?" because people start assuming, forgetting that there are so so many reasons why people might not have partners or might not want to.

Again, people who truly are not experiencing any sexual desire or romantic desire are really rare but through so many people mindlessly adopting the label it looses it's meaning because it gets more broad in definition and everyone continues to define it for themselves. "Yeah, I am asexual but sometimes I have sex. Like once a month but that's barely enough so I must be asexual." Like... you might just have a low libido and that's totally okay! Why do you feel the need to label yourself as asexual? Is it easier because of your partner's expectations, maybe? Is a simple no not enough for them?

"I'm 15 and I haven't had a crush on anyone so far. I actually think boys/girls are ew and I can't imagine kissing anyone, like ew saliva. Also the girls/boys in my class are so annoying!!" And no, I've heard statements like this several times before. I mean, give yourself some time you're only 15.

Why do we always have to slap a label on top of everything and why can't we just go through life saying "yeah at the moment I really don't feel like having a partner, I don't want to date or have sex. Maybe that will change someday, maybe not and either way it's okay, I'm open for change. " but we have to say "oh yes, I'm an asexual aromantic without doubt and that won't change, that's my identity" and then when that changes we get an identity crisis realising that oh, maybe that wasn't me? Who am I now?

It all boils down to me not being able to take those labels seriously anymore, which is why I reacted so sarcastically in the post you're probably referring to, where I talked sarcastically about those terms.

"labels are different for anyone"

like no.. to define means to limit, to define means to exclude people who don't meet those criterias and that's okay, that's what makes labels and words meaningful = contributing to a conversation of mutual understanding instead of having to first discuss what each person means by using one and the same word.

Like I can't go outside in a clothing store saying "oh I want a red dress" and when she shows me a red dress I then say "oh that's not red for me, that's yellow by my own definition." How do you expect everyone to effectively communicate by leaving the option open for everyone to seperately define one single term??

But as we know, the gendies aren't fans of definitions.

[ventbloglite]

The sad thing is - I think it's actually very terribly easy if you're trans femme to believe that trans masc people are out to get you.

We've been raised on 'woman vs man' all of our lives. We've all internalised it as sacred truth.

Why disbelieve it now? Even as trans people it's so very difficult to not see 'woman' and 'man' as directly opposites with no overlap, natural enemies with 'men' as the villain (because there must be a villain, right?). Doing so is so much easier than actually wrapping your mind around and thus trying to dismantle the many systems which exist to enforce the patriarchy and it's narrow definition of 'acceptable manhood' to boot.

And it's not like feminists have never or don't understand that there's many little systems that need to be tackled. We fight for gender neutrality in job titles 'fire fighter not fireman' for example even though it seems petty because we understand that man=default is one of those systems. This is before we even get to the glass ceiling, pay gap, the misogyny of many medical systems etc.

It's just that for many it's easier to see all men as equally privleged and evil and therefore unable to have any issues, so surely faking it for attention or to speak over women if they do.

There used to be such a thing as 'mens liberation'. This involved undoing the misogynistic beliefs men had grown up with and tackling toxic masculinity etc. Basically trying to create healthier, happier and more informed men who would happily defend a feminist cause because they realise the cause benefits all.

It is the direct opposite of 'MRAs' who seek to believe much like radfems that the 'opposite sex' is the root cause of all of their suffering and should be completely wiped out or placed under subservience at best without actually (again) looking at or trying to grasp the many systems of oppression with exist and how to genuinely tackle the issues they're facing.

MRAs = animal rights/PETA types if that helps MensLib = animal welfare (actually caring about animals)

But in that same way trans masc (and even a good amount of trans femme and trans neu people who understand transandrophobia) who speak about the oppression they face FROM CIS PEOPLE AND CISNORMATIVE SOCIETY (with maybe a sprinkling of lamentation about lack of intercommunity support or specific things a specific trans femme has said which isn't any more ok than any trans masc being openly transmisogynistic) are 'animal welfare' types. They know what they're going through and just want a word to describe it.

But like I said, it's so easy, I know, as a trans femme to just believe when people tell you that this is another wave of men oppressing you. That they must be the same as MRAs because men are inherently privleged. That these anons claiming to be trans mascs targetting trans women for hate must be actual trans mascs because ofc men hate women, even though it could be literally anyone on anon including troll shit-stirrers.

It's honestly not a blameable offence to believe it when it's all we've known and been told. Men hate women, so obviously trans men hate trans women, right?

Cishet men are privleged, so obviously all kinds of men are privileged, right?

The hard part is going to be undoing that. Men and women are not opposites. Trans men and trans women are not opposites. We are not enemies with trans neu people being forced to pick sides or stay away and be called ignorant. It's not fun or good to relish in the suffering of another group, and it's not feminist to think that somebodies gender automatically gives them x, y or z negative traits.

[radfemsiren]

I'm a radfem, born and raised in a Muslim country. I always had my own definition of religion, a feminist one, to cope. But when I grew up and did the research, the results were clear, I couldn't deny the misogyny in Islam. I now reject it, since I know all of it is made to accommodate men, and exploit us. But I still believe in Allah's existence nevertheless. It's really hard to imagine no almighty existence. I think it's my wish for an afterworld where all injustices are punished that makes me cling to the idea. I think it makes me agnostic. How did you become an atheist?

Hello thank you for the ask! I understand this mindset, it’s hard to let go of the belief in a God when it was taught to you your entire life, and when the idea of nothingness is downright frightening. The idea of nothing being after death, of no justice for victims happening, no reconnecting with loved ones… it’s a scary thought.

To answer your question, my interest in atheism was peaked from the YouTube atheist community in the early 2010s… it definitely wasn’t a feminist community, but all of the logical arguments made by prominent atheist speakers were so much more developed and logical than even the best Muslim speakers…. Even as a teenager I’d look at the responses by Muslim clerics and realize how stupid, childish, and illogical they were.

I know atheism from the outside can seem like a scary concept, but there are a lot of freeing and comforting aspects about it. Number 1 is, as a woman, you would have never gotten justice if a male supremacist religion was true anyway.

For example, when the day of judgement comes and Mohamed is supposed to speak on each of every persons behalf in front of god, what is the one sin that he can’t advocate for forgiveness for you? Is it child rape? Is it’s having sex slaves? Is it torture or murder? No all these heinous acts can be forgiven, but not believing in Allah is the one unforgivable sin. This idea of justice was never for us women anyway, so don’t think of it as a loss.

Another comforting thing is that this Dunya is all we have, and we should enjoy it! Learn, grow, find love and happiness… no more working endlessly for an akhira that doesn’t exist. No more wasting time praying and worrying over stupid things like if you did wudu properly or made up your fasting days you missed because of your period (the game is really rigged against us isn’t it?) … you have full freedom to do as you please in this life! There are no angels on your shoulders recording your deeds, there’s just you and what you want. Do you want to be free and happy, or live in a constant state of being watched and acting without free will.

Atheists believe in being good and kind without the threat of hell lurking over us.

[redditreceipts]

I've been a very staunch supporter of trans ppl for years. I have learned to swallow my discomfort around some of the things said in those circles. When they said it was transphobic for lesbians to not like dick, I bit my tongue. I told myself, "this is just the loud minority" and to be fair I do think that is the minority but still ... as a lesbian I wasn't even able to talk about people who argued that because "it never happens. No one says that. That sounds like a transphobic lie." And I hate the constant assertions that gender is real, innate, and that everyone feels it. I can't describe my own experiences with growing up as a woman without someone telling me that maybe I'm nonbinary ... no thanks I tried that for a while. I respect everyone's gender, or I want to, but apparently doing that also requires me to put that oppressive structure onto myself and act like it's liberating.

The final snapping point for me was a trans woman telling me that I'm privileged for being a cis woman because I've never experienced dysphoria ... except I have. I grew up with intense thoughts about my body and hating my vagina and breasts. It was never that bad but I would often imagine mutilating. I'm in a better place now but I still feel some discomfort over my body sometimes. And when I expressed this to her, she asked me if I was really cis or was still questioning ...

They act like misogyny doesn't exist or something. I just ... I disagree with a lot of radical feminists beliefs or at least I think I do. But for years I have felt like radfems were the only ones even talking about misogyny anymore so idk

Anyway what I wanted to say is that I really like your posts and perspectives and thanks for this blog. I want to learn more and question more and your blog has become a helpful resource to help me start thinking critically about some things

Hey :) thanks for writing to me and sorry for the late answer. 

And yeah, you are totally right. I have also spent such a long time justifying gender ideology because I really wanted it to be right. I’ve excused so much weird behaviour with weird mental gymnastics because I didn’t want to accept that I had been wrong for such a long time. 

The entire “that never happens” thing - and then you show them an occasion where it happened, and they say “well, it doesn’t happen that much”. And yeah, people have suggested me being non-binary as well. I mean, by strict gender definitions I am non-binary because I don’t identify as a woman lmao. Just as the “you’re uncomfortable in your body?? what about fucking cutting it up??!!!!” thing. 

And for disagreeing with feminist beliefs, the thing is that being a feminist is not a package deal. You are not being some sort of heretic if you disagree with certain things, and I know that I am most probably wrong on a lot of stuff myself. If I wasn’t, I would be the first person who is always right in human history. And yes, even in feminist spaces, there is sometimes some sort of imperative to follow every single belief or you are not a “real feminist”. But being a feminist is not an identity, it is an action. It is an action towards yourself, in the workplace, in interaction with other women and men, in your consumption, in your voting, in how you support women in your personal life and how you do political action. So yeah, I would say that it is less important whether you follow every rule of the radical feminist catechism and more important to support women in your life (which includes yourself). At least, that’s my opinion. 

So if you want to learn more, you can look into literally anything Julie Bindel says on Youtube, I really like her perspective. And cool that you’re here! 

[nothorses]

re: your recent ask abt terf recruitment

Long ask, but your anecdote struck a cord as I had a very similar experience to you when it comes to hidden terfs online

I was a younger and less experienced in online spaces, I had no idea what a terf was (had originally assumed it was some garden variety Internet insult not to be taken much note of) and ended up following a terf that didn’t openly say they were a terf (but openly labeled themself a radfem, another label I was only vaguely aware of)

I was very lucky that I had also followed ppl who were anti terf and one of their posts on identifying terf rhetoric set off alarm bells, which led to me digging into the other persons blog and realizing the “predatory men” they referred to were actually trans women

This revelation led to a lot of self reflection of how I ended up in the early stages of terf recruitment, especially the “men bad” mindset I was prone to (which is how I was drawn in in the first place), but the idea that I had thoughtlessly agreed with such beliefs was obviously horrifying to me

It’s because of this experience that I get so frustrated with many ppl who seem to be unable to pick up terf rhetoric and gotcha tactics without a neon sign saying they hate trans women in specific. Especially bc I see so many ppl who openly say they’re anti terf & anti transphobia but blatantly and thoughtlessly regurgitate terf talking points (men bad, equating genitalia/hormones to personal morality, aspec & bi/pan exclusion, “q slur”, etc etc)

The idea ppl seem to have that they’re magically immune to terf rhetoric bc “well I don’t hate trans women” is so dangerous, the most dangerous thing to believe when it comes to a pervasive ideology is that “I could never be tricked into believing that” when clearly you can! Many are! Without even realizing who they’re agreeing with!

And when ppl DO get called out and told that it’s terf rhetoric many bury their heads in the sand and deny it

It’s just so disheartening, I don’t know how ppl expect to prevent terfs recruitment if they refuse to acknowledge how they gain foothold and exploit pre-existing mindsets in the first place

God, yes, all of this.

imo, people who have actually been through and seen how TERF recruitment works are also the most valuable resources we have in learning how to prevent it. I interviewed an ex-Radfem a while back, and the insight is genuinely so helpful.

(I also have a couple of other people I asked to interview before I left for camp and never followed up with 😬 if that's you, I'm sorry, and I will probably try to DM you again soonish in case you're still down for that.)

[rametarin]

"Baldurs Gate 3 proves the west finds sexuality in Japanese games appalling"

No. You aren't really understanding what's happening here. It is not a matter of the west approving its own sexualization in media and disapproving of Japanese because it's Japanese, just Asian, or foreign. This is a misreading of the situation.

It's actually the opposite. Anime and Japanese game FANS that have always been fans, HAVE ALWAYS LOVED that Japanese works were ALLOWED to have subject matter and themes without some angry radical feminist picking them apart, either demanding the companies themselves adhere to THEIR social standards, or trying to get the peer groups to shame consumers of the product and ostracize them so the individuals self-censor and don't freely and openly exchange this bit of culture with one another.

We used to have this freedom in the US, but then radical feminists swarmed in, decided certain things had certain meaning in accordance with their ideological viewpoints, and that if you ran afoul of their principles, you were a thought criminal and enemy of women by your own refusal to obey their beliefs. And so, even simply having bare breasts in a movie meant that at any time, academic feminists could write the equivalent of academic vagueposts talking about how one director and writer's decision to feature shitty dialogue and porn tier story was tantamount to the anthropomorphic loa of SOCIETY rubber stamping making women second class citizens, because a fictional woman was used for fun and profit for a story.

So to deal with the braying and hysterical nattering of the grass roots that actually listened to these ideological friends, as if these negative views were, "just their friends opinions" (more like the views of their new religion) to keep the peace, writing changed a bit to avoid invoking the subjects that'd get the angry radfems screaming and pointing at things to rebuke them for their supposed crimes.

And we lost the innocence of boob jokes, nudity, the assumed harmlessness and benignity of liberal sex and body humor, and had to add that dogmatic baggage about all men being craven abusive manipulators into how they were depicted and the "proper" way men and women should relate in fiction.

You know, the exact things that were missing in our diet of mainstream media in the west, that we consumed Japanese media to get into our mental diets, because the sheer stupid harmless and innocent FUN had been gatekept and freeze dried out of our media over here with endless discourse and antagonism by slanted critics that hated a work because it didn't carry water for their ideological beliefs, or exist as a ruinous slag for its defiance to that totalitarian bullshit.

The only overt sexuality that the Capital P Progressives would tolerate, was sexuality that "subverted the status quo." AKA, sexuality that works and media dominated by THEIR ideological principles owned. Sexuality that was dominated by LGBT themes and subjects. Sexuality that translated and interpreted heterosexuality through a 'queer' lens. That was the only sexuality allowed in games, because it was the only sexuality that wasn't "harmful, anti-feminist, cisheteronormic patriarchy." And so they reserved the right to shit on any work with sexuality in it that didn't fit their views of what was good and right and moral and "progressive" in their particular way.

Baldur's Gate 3 and before it, Dragon Age and its sequels. They were constructed from the ground up to adhere to the sometimes arbitrary principles and absolutely biased interpretations ("Our sacred thing, their shit.")

It's not that the games are Japanese. It's not that they're from Asia or Asian developers. It's not that Baldur's Gate is western, American, or 'white.' These are easy detours to make but they misunderstand the crux and true sinister behavior at play here.

They hate Japanese games that feature Japanese sexuality in media, because that media does not conform to their very exacting views of what "proper" sexual representation is. They hate Japanese games and media, because unlike their power base in the west, imping and co-opting things ala Sweet Baby Inc runs interference to make games more, "diverse" and "inclusive," they have no power to make the creative decisions that alter the entire game, its tone, its themes, its writing, its casting, its world, or the makeup and formation of the companies, the unions, or the national policies that tie them and their values into the industry at the fundamental level.

They hate Japan and its industry and its culture and its media because they see an opportunity to move in and start dominating the industry, or natter and nag it and make it seem like the west is grassroots rejecting or criticizing it from the perspective of a westerner. It's not true.

These people have taken over games journalism and the representative voices of the medium and industry and are effectively astro turfing the consumer base with their own disgusting interpretations of shit, to make it SEEM like the consumer and fanbase doesn't like it or are complaining about Japanese media in this way. When in fact, it's just a much more well obfuscated version of when the Moral Majority of the right wing/religious members of society tried to co-opt comic books, rock music and set moral and ethical standards for content that could be depicted, and to what age group.

It's THEM that create entire stupid ratings systems for games based on how "inclusive and progressive" they are, deducting points for women not being lead characters, deducting points if a work of literature features sexual violence at all, deducting points if there's no queer people visibly queering queerly as part of the main story you have to interact with, preferably queerly. And THEM that are trying to simultaneously maintain an aire of, "white people shouldn't be allowed to criticize not-white/foreign cultures and literature," and "Japanese society and culture is patriarchal and shit and wrong tho."

These people exist in the west, but they do not REPRESENT the true opinions of the consumers and people of the west. But they're effectively a group of charlatans we can't get rid of or wrangle in. They were taught guerilla cultural warfare, subversion tactics, and conspire to get in on the ground floors and board rooms of entire industries before making themselves visible, with people acting as mycelium agents from inside other businesses clandestinely to make that association seem organic.

It's them causing this disturbance and shit. Not "the west." It's a conspiracy of assholes. It's them trying to be the gatekeepers that get to then put their guys into place as voice actors, markets, editors, and localizers, based on those principles.

So a real life woman in a Japanese game greenscreened, a sexy and conventionally attractive woman, gets called some sort of neotonous underaged oversexualized doll, while they deliberately try and go for the most androgynous to gender ambiguous depiction of femininity in the west on purpose, due to beliefs that will somehow "lower western expectations of femininity to be more realistic."

It's just unfortunate that Japan has to deal with this without really understanding just how bad it is a problem to deal with. We can't even really contend with it because proving these people are conspiring on an ideological basis is very difficult, even if they do slip up every once in a while.

[butch-reidentified]

in regards to the spirituality discussion, i understand why radfems want to be seen as rational and be seen taken seriously, but why can't we try to do that without putting something else down?

not to sound nihilistic but being termed as 'crazy' or 'unreasonable' has long been a part of the campaign against women. irregardless of what we do we'll always be ridiculed, so why not do it anyways? and spirituality isn't anything that'll actually harm the radfem movement, honestly. i feel like this complete aversion to anything outside of logic is more of an internalisation of shame from and fear from being further ridiculed by the others.

this is what I mean when I say it was really really hard for me to get into witchcraft, even just as a form of artistic expression, that my wife had to really help me give myself permission. the fact that one woman told me we are "discrediting" radfems... lmao like, they are working so hard to discredit us no matter what. my "witchcraft" is just my artistic way of expressing my relationship with the unknown, not claiming I know anything or believe anything specific. that's what's so awesome about it to me: it is fundamentally so humble and agnostic in nature. my witchcraft IS about my lack of belief or disbelief, actually. why does it seem like nobody is getting that?

[balkanradfem]

Lindsay Ellis actively disavows and dislikes radfems. Re-evaluate yourself.

Any female public figure who cares about her physical safety will disavow radfems (with few very brave exceptions! you know who they are and what they're going thru), if I picked who I like based on who is approving of radical feminism, I'd be left with 3 women I'm allowed to like. I would absolutely hate for all female public figures to be harassed, doxxed, threatened and smear campaigned because they let out they're accepting of a group who puts women before m*n.

That being said, being a radfem is not why I love Lindsay Ellis, I loved her way before I started up my radfem beliefs. I love her because she is incredibly intelligent, witty, insightful, brave, reckless and passionate, I love her because she made media that was so iconic and educative, I watched her videos in awe even without being specifically interested in the subject! She made me interested in things I would never even bother to learn about, because she spoke of them with so much insight and knowledge, it was invigorating and irresistible! She taught me about storytelling, about how movies are made, about 3 act structure of an animated film, why film and musical directors make the kind of choices they do and what they're trying to convey. These are things I would otherwise never seek out in my life!

The thing about Lindsay is that she speaks about these subject with so much confidence and knowledge, it was easily observable that she is better equipped and better fit to speak on it than any m*n who was also trying to speak on the subject. She also has better sense of humor than any m*n on youtube. I sometimes still think of some of her one-liners in real life and burst out laughing.

She is one of the very rare women who dared to speak confidently, passionately, on a topic that is male-dominated, that is highly valued and supports a rich industry that m*n usually bank on - she dared to out-do them in every aspect of it, and be a woman online, who makes jokes, has fun, and doesn't back down when being stepped on. She presented not only a strong inspiration to any other woman wanting to speak on academic, Hollywood, movie-producing and video-essay making topic, but a threat to any m*n she proved to do it better than. For the crime of doing that, she had to be erased from youtube, and it's a loss for women above all. This does not happen to prominent m*n who make jokes on the internet - not even if they go as far as admit they're rapists and pedophiles, not even if there's a recorded history of racism, fascism, bestiality, violence. She got cancelled for a tweet that compared one movie to another, with zero ill intent or malice. The same sentence made by any m*n, would be supported and extremely well liked - and she found this to be the case too, when m*n made the same comparison, they were very well liked for it.

Cancelling Lindsay Ellis was a message to all of us, to what will happen if we relax a little and speak confidently and make money while making jokes and educative, incredible useful and passionate content online. She was one of the best on youtube and they're showing us what will happen to rest of us if we dare to be so good we pose a threat to them, and inspiration to other women.

I miss her so much. One final reason I love her is her hair. Her hair looks like a normal human hair and every single time I saw her, I felt so much better about my hair looking exactly the same. I wish every woman just came online on video with hair like that!!!! That is how it should be.

Lindsay Ellis did not deserve what she was put thru, and no woman who was put thru any of that deserved it either. I don't care if those women are in support or opposed to radical feminism, I love all women. Lindsay made me laugh and made me learn and get interested and inspired like few other women did. Her way of storytelling and putting together an essay was unique and so highly enjoyable, she was the first to do it! With her segments she did like news reports, it made me think of the old times and television and it felt so good. I am already seeing it stolen by the male youtubers. They're the only ones that benefited from the situation.

I don't want to lose any more prominent women, I want us all to defend them with all our might when they're attacked by the mob. Let's make cancelling women prohibited. Only m*n should be cancelled - and all of them should be.

[nix-that-rad-lass]

Hello!

I’m trying something new here. I think others before me have done something like this, but I’d like to try it.

You can probably tell by my username that I am what most would call a radfem, some may say I’m a ‘terf’. Please don’t immediately stop at that word- all I ask is to be given a chance.

In my experience, there is a startling lack of communication and empathy between radical-leaning feminists and those who follow a more liberal-feminist train of thought, and especially people who are heavily involved in gender ideology.

I would like to have discussions, 1 on 1, with people who have opposing views, differing experiences, different identities, etc.

I believed in gender ideology when I was younger, but I never really truly understood it, and I ended up learning about radical feminist beliefs quite young and leaning into it.

At some point, I did go too far, and I did hold genuinely harmful beliefs.

I have been taking the time the last few years to deconstruct harmful beliefs and be a bit more open minded. I find an excellent way to do this is to talk to people who know more than I do, who are more experienced or have first hand experience with these topics than I do.

I am not going to debate you, i won’t argue with you, I’m not going to harass or insult or do anything to purposefully harm you.

All I ask is that, in interest of building bridges and improving connections between people of seemingly opposing views, you give me the opportunity to ask a few questions, tell me your story, tell me about your beliefs and identity and experiences.

I am genuinely curious, I genuinely want to learn. I can’t promise my mind will change, but I go into this not to change anyone’s mind, but to be empathetic and understanding to others, even- and especially- people I may disagree with.

Any conversation had will remain confidential, I won’t be posting any screenshots or quotes of anything that occurs unless it is genuinely despicable behavior that should be warned against. Essentially, just treat me like a human. You can be blunt or rude or condescending, I don’t mind, just don’t be threatening or depraved. But I know most people are better than given credit for, so I doubt this request is truly needed.

Someday I may write a post or essay or personal narrative regarding my experiences, changed views, etc. but I will NEVER compromise anyone’s privacy, I won’t share any direct quotes and especially not screenshots without explicit permission, and this is only in the event i end up writing anything regarding this- which is, frankly, unlikely.

I know this post is probably going to strike a few- or maybe many- nerves, and likely upset quite a few people on either side of the topics mentioned. But I don’t do this to get brownie points or popularity or power. I don’t do this for confirmation bias or to feel superior.

I do this only because I wish to understand more people, I want to build bonds, build bridges, I want to be the best version of myself I can be and also encourage others to achieve the same. And for me, part of that is understanding more people, and being kinder to more people.

We don’t have to be friends, but I hope you may give me the chance to at least be an ally.

Thank you for reading.

Please feel free to send a message. I’m not on here super often, but I’ll reply whenever I am.

I look forward to hearing from y’all!

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

it can feel so so hopeless to hold radfem beliefs. honestly i was active in the movement up until some years ago but then it felt so dangerous and so heartbreaking to be aware of so much of tje rampant sexism in society i just... strayed away. i still hold my beliefs but i don't make them public anymore in fear of being ostracized like some of my friends have. i'd love to date once more but cannot find like-minded women around me and i feel that even other radfems would judge me for leaving the activism. it is so lonely and i feel like such a coward. (sorry just been bottling up all this for a while. maybe i should just make a radfem tumblr and try to connect with y'all)

hey dear! i would love for you to come back to tumblr, i find it helps me a lot to connect with likeminded women. but you also have to be careful because you get a lot of depressing news, facts and takes here. its important to take breaks. but i think everyone would warmly welcome you back.

i also get your frustration with other women. im blessed my closest friends are likeminded to me, but i also live in a very liberal „queer“ city and have had issues building friendship with and dating women despite getting along well because they are so deep into this liberal pro kink pro porn pro prostitution pro trans thing they will immediately cut you off when they find out you oppose that. ive found it easier to connect to women who are not very political because they dont have a big opinion on these things or consider themselves feminist but then inevitably say something you can use as a starting point to talk about some feminist issues without calling it such and find out they do have opinions and they do agree with at least the basis of some radical feminist analysis. if you know what i mean

dont give up hope, we are out there! we are around each other we just have to find us!

[molsno]

I can actually see why some transmascs may talk about "hatred of masculinity" in a good faith (and still be wrong).

Before realizing that they were men they were probably identifying as women heavily dissatisfied with being women and probably also heavily gender non-conforming. Neither of those are considered fully acceptable by wider society, but totally accepted by feminist movement, at least here where I live. And the most prominent feminist organisations here are radfem-adjacent.

Now, saying that those organisations at large are "anti-men" or even "against masculinity in men" is wrong, considering how they tried to portray their enemies as effeminate as some kind of own. And, though I have never witnessed it myself, how straight girls who use radfem rhetoric are willing to invent new definitions of lesbianism to call their cishet boyfriends "lesbians", men for them have higher priority than lesbians at least.

Still, running into people there who did just hate men was a daily occurrence, and many more were parroting their rhetoric ("feminine energy" as some kind of fix for civilisation and so on). If some transmascs allied more with people like this, discovering that they are what they considered to be some ontological evil might have been traumatic.

Still, posing misandry as big societal problem and not fringe worldview that they internalized is silly at best (I am using misandry here as personal attitude, not system, hence no quotes). And I always assume that people who talk about it as something important are either doing it in bad faith or repeating someone's bad faith arguments without analysing it.

(Now it's up to question how many transmascs actually joined those organisations in any way, considering how for unrealised trans girl that I was any idea about how good men or masculinity are even (in not ridiculous form) was an instant "no" on all levels, but who knows)

yeah, that's pretty much my understanding of it, too. basically all transmascs who believe in transandrophobia display at least some level of internalized gender essentialism underlying their entire ideology.

and like, I get it. the feminist wave of the 2010s was so deeply entangled with radical feminism that for a good while, anyone heavily involved in the movement was exposed to the biological essentialist worldview central to radical feminism that declares that men are ontologically evil, and I have no doubt that many young, repressed trans people at the time internalized that idea to an extent. I certainly did, and it only amplified my dysphoria as a teenager. it was traumatizing to me, and I can completely understand why it would be traumatizing to transmascs to come to terms with the fact that they were something they had always believed was inherently bad.

it's just like you said though, it's a mistake to frame misandry as a society wide issue when really it's a very small minority of people. but a lot of trans men never question or challenge the worldview they developed in their youth, so when they start getting read as men when they're adults and inevitably face transphobia, they start attributing it to a societal hatred of masculinity instead of recognizing that the actual cause of their oppression is a society that seeks to protect the concept of the immutable gender binary that enables the patriarchal hierarchy of power at all costs.

I don't really have any sympathy for them, though. like yeah, it sucks to be made to feel like you should hate yourself just for existing, but like, that isn't unique to them. the gender essentialism so many of them have internalized is a big reason a lot of transandrophobia truthers start aligning themselves with terfs, and I don't think I need to tell you how I feel about that. 😑 they have an alternative, they can just reevaluate their beliefs until they come to realize that man and woman are completely neutral categories entirely devoid of value judgment and don't say anything meaningful about any given person other than what they like to be called. I'll admit from experience that accepting that truth can be difficult but it's not impossible, and challenging your worldview is something you're going to have to do a lot in life if you actually want to meaningfully change how you interact with people and the world around you.

but why do that when they can demand trans women bend over backwards to appease them? it must feel good to get a taste of that male privilege when a few trans women are actually self-hating enough to listen to them. that is, at least until they get too much backlash from the rest of us who have enough self esteem to stand up for ourselves and they recede into the open arms of terfs for comfort from the mean trannies.

[kiefbowl]

how did you navigate dating with radfem beliefs? i known you have to be firm with your boundaries but I’ve been told by people that “there’s something about me” that attracts bad agents and leads to unkind things happening to me, but I don’t know what that “something” is or how to stop it! i think I started to do some doom scrolling and got freaked out by all the statistics which is important information but I feel very afraid. I don’t know how to stop being so scared of men because on one hand 1) that’s fair 2) it’s affecting my life negatively

There's lots of different ways for me to answer this, because there's a lot of things going on in your question(s). So I'm going to start with the first thing that popped out at me and makes me sad and angry for you, and the thing I think you really need to hear, and this is the fact that people tell you there's "something about you" that attracts "bad agents". As if there's some cosmic will to put you in unfulfilling (at best) or dangerous (at worse) relationships, which of course completely denies the responsibility of men in these relationships with you. You are not responsible for the actions men do to you, or the kind of men they are with or without you. More so, abusive men not only groom their victims, but groom the community around them, which is why this kind of victim blaming is so prevalent.

Another angle to consider, which you might not want to hear but I think you should, is that you don't need to date. You might want to, I'll get to that in a bit, but you don't need to. "I don't know how to stop being so scared of men" is not something you have to fix in yourself. If you're genuinely scared of men, you should trust that instinct.

To the main question of how did I date or do date with radfem beliefs (which, for the remainder of this question I'm going to consider them feminist beliefs, a distinction I don't always find important to clarify but here I want to), is a little hard to answer as you asked because it's made a few assumptions about me that you probably didn't intend, and that's okay I'll clear them up. I've never been much of big dater. I've been in relationships, some of them long term, but in the whole of my life I've been single more than I've been in a relationship, and while single I may have tried to "date around" but not very often, not very earnestly, and not very successfully. This isn't to split hairs or cop out about the difference between me being in a relationship now vs dating around, because I think that's what you're talking about: how am I in a relationship (with a man), how did I get there, why am I dating him...etc. However, I just wanted to be honest that I don't find dating or relationships for the sake of them very appealing, and I never had. There's an illogicality to that idea that even as a kid I couldn't wrap my head around, plus even if I don't always enjoy myself or have at times felt extremely lonely while single, I do enjoy being single. Independence is thrilling. This might be a thing for you to focus on now instead of dating, it's my personal advice to you.

But you asked about me and when it comes to me I feel completely justified in the things I believe, I feel entitled to what I believe, and I think what I believe is very logical, so I see no reasons to not be straightforward about what I believe. In fact, I would say I have a harder time being honest with friends about just how seriously or deeply I believe something (I like to wait out for the right opportunity, the risk being it never comes) than I do with just some guy or lady I'm trying to hit up. To me it's no loss to be myself and for someone to be uninterested because of that. But ultimately, I never deny myself the opportunity to connect with someone if I feel a genuine, organic connection, and this goes for all areas of my life. If I meet someone who within a few minutes we seem to have a kinship, I pursue that connection. I could make assumptions about that person, man or woman, that might be wrong, or I can go find out myself.

But to circle this back to what you want to do, here's my advice if you're not interested in focusing on independence: you are going to do what you want to do. No one can convince you not to do it, you can only convince yourself. You will never be able to explain your choices to everyone in a way that makes everyone see why you did it, you really shouldn't try. You will have consequences to all your choices, and no one can experience them but you. You can try to find feminist reasons to explain every choice you make, or you can not. You can publicize your life online, or not. You can take people's criticism's of you as valid, or not. But you have to take ownership of your choices, and you shouldn't seek out absolution or validation for them from anybody, because you're not entitled to it from anyone. If you want to date men, you are going to date men until you decide you don't want to do it anymore and no one on tumblr is going to convince you otherwise. And if that's the case, what are you going to do to make sure you're prioritizing your health, safety, happiness, and fulfillment while dating men? That is more worthy of your time than to try to find ways to bend feminism into making you feel good about your choices. Good luck, I'm rooting for you happiness sis <3

[opinated-user]

Lily never really got out of her edge lord phase huh?

She just straight up said that her oc is pretty much a dictator/ Queen with unchecked power because democracy is bad. Instead of having her sith oc set up a democracy that has better systems in place to combat corruption she just has her take power and apparently the entire empire is thankful for that.

I guess lily just thinks absolute power is fine as long as the right people are in power and the right people get executed. As if that has ever worked out ever, and never ended up with some group being made out to be the bad guy even when they're not. Also it says something that in her empire only women are allowed to be in those positions of power, cuz I guess she fell for the 'women are inherently better rulers then men' thing.

Ps: I also find it hilarious that she thinks the family bond between mom and daughter limit corruption when it u look at any history book royal families are full of murders for power. Girl clearly slept through history class and adopted some crazy politics as a result.

her politicis are merely an extension of her power fantasy dreams. anything outside of that is irrelevant for her. on this post alone, LO had the dream of alaina overruling the government completely on her own and recieving nothing but praise for it from everyone.

When building the Empire, Aliana didn’t have any faith in singular democracy. It’s a magnet for corruption without real oversight. A place where those with money can subvert the system. She didn’t trust it to not destroy itself.

And she was ultimately vindicated in that belief, as six years in the Imperial Council very nearly fell to a special interest group trying to subvert the Empire for their own ends. And when Aliana slaughtered the council and gave herself more power to oversee it in the future, there was a collective sigh of relief from the people

the portion about how a good mother/daughter relationship limits corruption is ony more bioessentialism from her, of the benevolent sexism kind. of course a mother who loves and cares for her daughter could never allow for corruption to happen, because then the daughter will love her mother too much for that to happen. we know this is the case because what could there be more sacred than women, but especially daughters and mothers? another thing that LO shares with radfems.