#uk radfem

[distastefulsideboob]

I'm really glad more straight women are talking about weaponised incompetence, but I find it interesting how we never talk about it within the context of consent education.

The Liberal feminist idea that men need to be educated on the concept of consent, as if they don't know that rape is wrong, is infantalising and naive. Just as a man might make a show of incorrectly cleaning something to avoid being asked to do it again, a man will feign ignorance of a woman's refusal as a way to avoid accountability.

Men know what the word "No" means, they know that rape is wrong. They do it anyway because they believe that they can get away with it.

[ititledit]

We have brothers, sons, lovers – but they can’t live here!’ The happy home shared by 26 women

With residents aged from 58 to 94, New Ground is the UK’s first cohousing community exclusively for older women. Setting it up was an 18-year battle – but with soaring numbers of people living alone, is this an idea whose time has come?

Chipping Barnet, a leafy suburb of north London, is an unlikely location for a feminist utopia. Yet it is here, at the top of the high street, past the Susi Earnshaw theatre school and the Joie de Vie patisserie, that you will find Britain’s first cohousing community exclusively for women over 50. The purpose-built development is entirely managed by the women who set it up as an alternative to living alone.

New Ground’s entrance, all glass and bold typography, could easily be mistaken for a co-working space, as could the common room I am ushered into. Everything is bright, airy and spotlessly clean. The walls are lined with sleek white bookcases and a cinema-grade TV screen. The only clue as to the residents’ demographic is an unfinished 1,000-piece jigsaw on a table overlooking the large garden.

[i-piss-bubbles]

[space-byte]

A single woman or girl is harmed every one of them should be charged.

If you’re in the UK and haven’t signed this petition yet, please do:

Pass it on to your mothers and sisters if you’ve already signed

[soihaveamilliondraftsright]

10th of April 2024

This is brilliant for us uk radfems!

[meetmebythe1ake]

Petition: Require jurors in rape trials to complete mandatory training on rape myths

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/641404

UK residents/citizens pls sign 🙏🏼🙏🏼

[ititledit]

Patriarchy is the oppression of women. The counter to this is not to say "it's not possible to define what a woman is". The counter is that being a woman does not justify oppression.

Being female has physical realities associated with it. I'm going to use a short list of 3 general examples.

1 - Female specific illnesses - PCOS, Endometriosis, female cancers, pregnancy risks.

2 - Potential to experience an unwanted pregnancy

3 - Being on average physically smaller than average male people.

The cultural impact of these realities are caused by patriarchy

1 - Less funding and research into female illnesses means massive impacts on women living with these conditions.

2 - Men using rape as a weapon, Women being denied abortions.

3 - Strength and size being valued as superior traits.

The first list physical realities of being female.

The second list are culturally created as a result of the devaluing of women. Fighting the second list doesn't mean ignoring the existence of the first list. The first list will always exist no matter what labels we use to describe and define female people, but the second list, that is changeable.

Acknowledging the cause of oppression is not justifying or endorsing it.

From the 80s through to the 00s it was very trendy to say "I'm not racists, I don't even see race". There have been many, many explanations as to why this attitude, rather than preventing racism, actually perpetuates it, and absolves those with biases from confronting it within themselves.

Just Google "I don't see race" and you will get hundreds of results - here's three I found very easily.

https://ideas.ted.com/why-saying-i-dont-see-race-at-all-just-makes-racism-worse/ https://www.oprahdaily.com/life/relationships-love/a32824297/color-blind-myth-racism/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/i-dont-see-race-and-other-white-lies-99979

The same is happening right now with sexism. Refusing to define what women are stops us from being able to discuss what sexism is, how it affects women specifically and therefore how to dismantle it.

You ask "If the bodily oppression of women is created by the "natural," then how does one combat idea that the bodily oppression of female people is natural?"

And the answer to that is by campaigning for women's specific needs, dismantling the values society assigns to the natural, funding female medicine and resources, showing the hundreds of different ways women exist in the world. Ending capitalism, boycotting gendered toy companies, campaigning against the make up and elective cosmetic surgery industries (all are tools of patriarchy). It is the values assigned to women that we want to end.

I'm going to use one more analogy.

Curly hair and straight hair need different types of conditioner. That need doesn't make one hair type better and the other worse. But if you live in a culture that marginalizes one of these hair types, and doesn't provide the appropriate conditioners, and your answer is to say "maybe some people with straight hair actually have curly hair" - that doesn't change the conditioner not being available for those who need it, nor does it challenge the system that led to it happening.

If our sexes are self-evident, and if our separation is self-evident, and if this separation and differentiation and the conscious recognition of there being two sexed castes is as old as our species, then how does one fight against patriarchal institutions which base their legitimacy in the 'naturalness' of our divisions and justify oppression with 'biolog-ics'? How does the idea that "sex is immutable" and "there are two discrete sexes (meaning: separate and distinct) meaningfully challenge the patriarchy? How does defining women as ova producers and offspring bearers (i.e. *the* definition of female: the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs) meaningfully challenge the patriarchy's insistence on defining "woman" as a biological caste subordinated by the ability to produce ova and bear offspring?

Sexist oppression is sex-based, right? Right. So, how do you challenge systems justified on the supposed discretion of sex without critically analyzing how sex is defined? How do you fight sex-based oppression when it is exactly the thing you fight for- the discretion of sex- that is used to justify keeping men as men and keep women segregated from them? If sex; if the "natural" creates oppression, and if oppression is found in sex itself, then how does one combat the idea that our hierarchies and sex relations are found outside social constructs (outside society); are found in the "natural?" If the bodily oppression of women is created by the "natural," then how does one combat idea that the bodily oppression of female people is natural? How?

They will fail to illustrate how each time. Because anti-trans movements aren't about women's liberation, but about centering their worldview around their own quest for power. It's never about asking the hard questions about our society.

[homosexuhauls]

For more than half a century, it was just a rumor. As London’s river boat pilots passed by Waterloo Bridge (“The Ladies’ Bridge,” as some of them called it) they’d tell a story about the women who had built the bridge during World War II. But the idea that women had been largely involved in building Waterloo Bridge wasn’t included in any official history of the structure, or detailed in any records. During the new bridge’s opening ceremony, on December 10, 1945, then-Deputy Prime Minister Herbert Morrison had declared that “the men that built Waterloo Bridge are fortunate men.” It wasn’t until 2015 that the hard work of these women could be confirmed, by the historian Christine Wall, thanks to a series of photographs she found.

Eight years prior to her discovery, Wall had collaborated with the filmmaker Karen Livesey on a documentary called The Ladies Bridge. It explores the stories of women working on Waterloo Bridge and records first-hand the experiences of a variety of wartime workers who were women. “There was jobs galore. There was absolutely jobs galore. You could go anywhere,” recounts one woman in the film.

Watch The Ladies' Bridge here

[ititledit]

Sticker still there four days later. This is a high traffic area, so very pleased to find it still up.

[i-piss-bubbles]

Any ideas for books, podcasts or groups for boosting confidence specifically as a woman? I want to stop people pleasing and worrying what people think of me.

[radykalny-feminizm]

Multicultural societies can be great, but there's one condition: different cultures must be willing to learn from each other and respect each other's values.

If people from one culture are open and welcoming, but people from the other culture want to enforce their own rules and take away people's freedom in the name of their religion, then the results are going to be catastrophic. This is why Europe is suffering right now and it's women who will pay the highest price.

Wondering what I mean? Let's have a look at some statistics:

Poll: 46% of French Muslims believe Sharia law should be applied in country

Over 40% of UK Muslims support “aspects” of sharia law

If it doesn't terrify you I don't know what to tell you. It surely terrifies me as fuck.

[luaminesce]

So now JK Rowling has endorsed Kemi Baednoch; the same "anti-woke" and imperialism deiner Kemi Baednoch. Who called young people "puritanical" for standing against sexual harassment, called care for trans kids "gay kid conversion therapy", mocked gay marriage, who said she "didn't care about colonialism because she know what we they doing before colonialism got there" and that the British Empire "was a good thing", and wants to ban critical race theory teaching in schools.

And y'all just still giving your money to her? Endorsing her?

[a-room-of-my-own]

[someone-will-remember-us]

A ban on puberty blockers could be made permanent as the Labour Party takes a harder stance on transgender issues, The Telegraph can reveal.

Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, intends to stop powerful hormone blockers being given to children via any means, subject to the outcome of a legal hearing.

Laws to ban the blockers being supplied to children by private or off-shore clinics were passed by Victoria Atkins, his predecessor, in emergency legislation ahead of the general election.

But these are due to expire on Sept 3 and the new Government had to decide whether to pass a law to make it permanent. It is understood Labour will now seek to renew the ban with a view to making it permanent.

Mr Streeting said he would “always put the safety of children first”, adding: “Our approach will continue to be informed by Dr Cass’s review, which found there was insufficient evidence to show puberty blockers were safe for under-18s.

“This ban brings the private sector in line with the NHS. We are committed to providing young people with the evidence-led care that they deserve.”

JK Rowling backed the move in a number of posts on X, formerly Twitter, citing studies detailing reported negative effects of puberty blockers and praising Mr Streeting for doing the “right” thing.

It comes after criticism of the party for its stance on women’s rights.

The appointment of Anneliese Dodds as the minister for women and equalities sparked a row this week, with Lesbian Labour, which claims to represent “the voices of lesbians in the Labour Party”, saying Ms Dodds “doesn’t get it”.

JK Rowling, Martina Navratilova and other feminist campaigners hit out at Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to appoint Ms Dodds, who has previously said there are many definitions of a woman.

The decision to pursue a permanent ban on puberty blockers is one of the first decisive steps on trans issues made by the new Government, which is keen to fully implement the findings of the independent Cass Review.

Dr Hilary Cass, the paediatrician who led the review, has said the drugs may permanently disrupt the brain maturation of adolescents, potentially rewiring neural circuits that cannot be reversed.

Her review urged giving children “time to think” before sending them down an irreversible path because people were changing their minds up until the age of 25. It led to the NHS stopping under-18s being seen by adult clinics and given cross-sex hormones.

Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy for Sex Matters, a human rights charity, said it was “an excellent sign that Labour intends to take an evidence-based approach to child gender medicine, and to prioritise child safeguarding”.

“As the Cass Review showed, there is no research to support using these life-altering drugs for gender confusion. Mr Streeting now needs to go further, and rein in the private sale of oestrogen and testosterone,” she said. 

“Otherwise, unregulated online clinics will continue to profit from desperate teenagers and young adults, who have been misled by trans lobbyists into thinking of these powerful hormones as a panacea.”

The NHS halted all prescriptions of puberty blockers with a view to starting a clinical trial, but there were fears about the number of children accessing the blockers via private online clinics such as Gender GP, which is based in Singapore.

The emergency legislation brought by Ms Atkins sought to put an end to that after a campaign to impose a widespread ban led by Liz Truss, the former prime minister.

But the decision to ban the drugs is being challenged in the High Court by the Good Law Project and TransActual, an activist group, with a hearing beginning at the High Court on Friday morning.

Jolyon Mougham, the director at Good Law Project and the lawyer bringing the challenge, said before the hearing that Mr Streeting had made his position clear to the judge.

“Wes Streeting’s position is that, subject to the outcome of the court proceedings and consultation, he will renew it and convert it into a permanent ban,” he said.

The High Court was told that Ms Atkins had overruled officials and acted on her “personal views” when she used emergency legislation to ban puberty blockers.

At the hearing on Friday, lawyers for TransActual and a young person who cannot be named told the High Court in London that the legislation made by the previous government on May 29, which prevented the prescription of the medication from European or private prescribers and restricted NHS provision to within clinical trials, was unlawful.

The Department of Health and Social Care and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland are defending the claim, and have said the case should be dismissed.

[womenstruation]

Perhaps as a result of the masculinisation of Back women, nowadays hyperfemininity has somehow become a necessity to being a Black woman who is proud of her Backness. As a young woman who has no interest in make up, wigs /weaves etc. I often stick out amongst other Black women my age, which doesn't bother me too much. What does bother me, however, is the constant implication that I somehow must be "white-washed" as a result or some self hater who knows little about Black culture. I have to constantly field accusations of knowing nothing about my country of origin and nod along to well meaning "jokes" that I'll end up with a white husband.

[personalrprants]