#when you claim you're feminist

[iceyrukia]

I think people really take the whole "separtism is non-action" way too literal in order to invalidate it IMO. like actually it is kinda a big deal that movements like 4B exist and get positive reactions by women and make men loose their minds. If it was so insignificant non-separatists wouldn't feel the need to belittle it so much.

[refabled]

also kind of unrelated from everything, but kind of related too –– on the topic of racism and bigotry: if you're someone who claims to be anti-jkr but takes pride in escapism and refuses to engage with politics on your blog, know that taking a stance against jkr and her transphobia is an inherently political view, and thus makes you a fucking hypocrite. choosing to step aside from the conversation about the genocide of palestinians is inherently racist, islamaphobic and bigoted if you are going to claim yourself to be against jkr's transphobia.

[feral-radfem]

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

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

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

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

[hippodamoi]

I don’t understand how one could have any understanding of feminism, let alone radical feminism, and think it can coexist with abrahamic religions any organized religion at all. 

First of all, the bible that people are allowing to dictate our modern society? Just a ragtag collection of folk stories told in the fertile crescent a few thousands years ago appropriated and edited to fit a narrative as well as a political purpose.

The Enuma Elish, The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Book of the Dead and the Bible all feature excessive similarities, the same literary structure, themes and motifs. It is uncanny how many parallels are to be found.

We’re not allowing those books to influence society, politics or ways of life - and why should we? They’re just ancient stories, proof of civilization and an interesting view into lifeworld of that time in themselves, yes, but nothing worthy of reverence or to take as a guide to life. 

There are Egyptian books of ‘maxims to live by’ that are older than the old testament by centuries, but no one outside niche academia can name any of them. Because it is unreasonable that texts written in a society so distantly removed from our own should have any say in how we live or what morality is. 

Stop acting like it’s some holy text when it is literally just Aesop’s Fables or The Brothers’ Grimm collection of fairytales, but with a golden binding and senile man preaching from it. 

[the-13th-rose]

Yeah I was gonna reblog that post about how kids are a huge commitment and it shouldn't be seen as the default to make that decision because you can't just change your mind later

Then I looked and the blog was like "actually oppressed men are shit too and anyone who argues against gender essentialism is a patriarchy-supporting coward" and I ran so fast

[snekdood]

wild how many negative responses one could get from every direction to just being like "i dont want to be a woman"

[kanyniablue]

“we’re subverting the tropes, we’re playing with the expected narratives”<--guy who is actually just recreating the exact tropes with extra enthusiasm

[coff33andb00ks]

Max + 12 hehehe 🫶🏻

12: possessive hand-holding let's fucking go i was hoping someone would request this

driver + number = drabble/short fic <3

Max knows you love him. He's extremely confident of that fact, as he is of a lot of things. He doesn't get jealous. Well, much. Well, often.

Well, alright, he gets jealous. He can't help that. It's just that you're the best thing to happen to him and he fears that, one day, something better than him will come along and you'll realize you settled. He'll never say that to you, of course. But the deep-rooted insecurities linger though they aren't as vocal in his mind as they used to be. He knows you love him, knows he makes you happy, and so he doesn't let the jealousy show when it roars to life.

He's a few gin and tonics in but he's far from drunk, enjoying a laugh with Lando in the DJ booth, celebrating the race, when his eyes try to find you in the dim lighting. It doesn't take long - he could find you in any crowd, any lighting, blindfolded and hands behind his back. And immediately the jealousy flares, rumbling now, a sour taste in his mouth and a churning in his stomach that he knows isn't indigestion.

He's so glad his small circle of friends has accepted you in their lives and treat you with the respect they do. They're protective of you, almost as much as he is, and he has thought to himself that he would trust them with your safety under any circumstances.

But Charles is... Charles. Smooth and charming, eyes like a lost puppy that pulls at anyone's heartstrings and with a sort of hapless energy about him. Max knows he doesn't mean to but the man has an innate ability to make people fall in love with him. He's one of his best friends and over the years he's become his biggest defenders.

That being said...

"Mate!" Lando calls after him but he's already gone, downing his drink in one gulp on his way to you.

The club is vibrating with the music and the energy of revelry and you're thriving, relaxed and vibrant in the pulsing lights and gyrating bodies. You love to dance and Max loves to watch you, unable to keep up, and you like to tease him that it's one of only a few things he's not good at. Charles isn't much better but he doesn't care and can laugh when he looks stupid. Not that he ever really does; you don't think it's possible for him to look ridiculous.

The energy shifts, prickles of awareness raising goosebumps on your skin and you know it's Max. You don't have to look back over your shoulder to make sure, you can see the recognition on Charles' eyes when the lights flash. Hands you know better than your own grip your waist and you fall back as the beat drops, basking in the comfort only his hands can provide.

"Let's go, schatje."

It's early and the party has barely started but you recognize that tone. You'll never say no when he's like this. You know he watches you like a hawk, could probably spot someone trying to flirt with you from the cockpit of his car going top speed, and it gives you a thrill, knowing he's so in love with you that he gets jealous. You'll never admit it, even to yourself, but you get off to it and sometimes even encourage it.

"Say goodnight to Charles."

You do so immediately, accidentally on purpose grinding back on Max, seeing Charles' knowing smirk as Max's hand claims yours.

You are a feminist. No man will ever tell you what to do. You bend for no one, anything a man can do you can do better. But oh, when he's like this, his jaw set, hand clamped around yours as he pushes through the crowd you can only meekly follow, stars in your eyes and smiling like a fool. The sea of bodies part for him and you keep close behind, giddy and in absolute love with him, ready to prove to him that he's your one and only.

As if any man could begin to compare.

[ladyloveandjustice]

oh god I'm seeing all these posts in the dandadan tag about how the sex jokes/fanservice/nudity is "meaningful and deep" and even calling it a successor to klk and please. we cannot go back to 2013 we can't go through this again in year of our lord 2024.

Please can we accept we're watching a shonen with a side of raunchy sex comedy, with occasional moments done pretty poorly, and not make it this subversive empowering deep meaningful thing. I do think some of the sex stuff in DandaDan is an expression/metaphor of wrestling with sexuality as a teen and the insecurites and fears and I think that's fun to analyze. But can we not pretend the fanservice and sexy comedy ISN'T there to be funny and sexy and often absurd?

It's okay to admit you like a show with sex jokes, fanservice and occasional skeevy moments that don't sit right (like what happened in episode 1 for me tbh). It's fine! You don't have to make it some huge "it deconstructs our preoccupation with of bodies and aesthetics and showcases strength and vulnerability in our society" when we see someone in their skivvies.

Like please. it's okay. You don't have to feel bad for liking it. You don't have to twist yourself into knots. Unlike KLK, DandaDan ISN'T trying to claim it's anything other than what it is, so you don't need to do that for it. We do not need infographs about how the the fanservice is feminist and empowering like in the klk era. I refuse to go back.

People with common sense will not judge you for liking this! I personally enjoy some of the absurd comedy. I'm bleh about some things, but it's got great characters and good chemistry and great fights and I also understand it's trying to appeal to a horny teenage audience. I can also completely get those who don't want to watch it because of how Momo's near assault in ep 1 was handled, or some other fanservice thing that didn't sit right with them. Please please please accept what you're watching isn't as pure as driven snow. I can't do this again.

[tirfpikachu]

the most flamboyantly "gay-looking" man/woman you can think of...

has at least one person looking exactly like them who is straight.

because gay isn't an aesthetic. gay isn't a look. it's a sexuality you're born with. and femininity in men, masculinity in women, doesn't make you more gay or less gay or whatever. that's gender roles babey! that's what the left is claiming it's fighting against!

you can make jokes about looking like a lesbian or whatever. but i could wear the most hyperfem shit ever and still look lesbian. bc i am lesbian. whatever i do, whatever i wear, however i act, is lesbian coded. because i'm a lesbian. i'm just expanding what it means to be a lesbian by being myself. and feminine straight men and masculine straight women are expanding what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman, which is a win for feminism and fighting strict gender norms. it helps everyone. we should make the boxes of man & woman bigger, funkier, cooler. we shouldn't assume it's "queerifying" manhood or womanhood when it's just making them be neutral. it means that if you're a human being you can do WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT and still be whatever gender/sex/etc you are. you aren't any less of a straight man for being feminine. that's what the patriarchy wants. the rightwing hated so-called metrosexuals and goths and emos etc because of it. and you aren't any less of a straight woman for not being feminine. and you being masculine, or unfeminine, is the most natural thing in the world. it's just you being your natural self without makeup, shaving, tight clothes, etc. but some ofc find pride in being masc too. that doesn't make you more likely to be gay. it doesn't make you less womanly. there is no way that exists to make you less womanly bc it's the most neutral, irrelevant thing about you. it's a "duh!" type of thing that you don't need to care about. you don't need to do fuckall to be "good" at womanhood. and a dude can wear and do and say whatever he wants and be secure in being a guy and not being trans or gay or bi

masculinity in women doesn't make them more likely to be gay. femininity in men doesn't make them more likely to be gay.

gays & feminists have been trying to fight this shit for decades. yet mainstream qweer communities keep reinforcing that rhetoric!!! it's so fucking exhausting. there's no way to look, sound, act etc gay. there's literally none outside of saying you're into other men or other women, and being lovelydovey or having sex with other men or other women. that's it. that's literally it. free yourself from gender boxes!!!

[soaplantro]

Phrases like "Trans men do not systematically oppress trans women" belie the infuriating truth that most people are completely unwilling to learn what structural analysis is. No matter how many times this is pointed out, we'll keep having to bend over backwards for people who refuse to do even the bare minimum amount of effort to understand critical/feminist theory, let alone transfeminist theory.

Yet they expect to be taken seriously when they critique our rhetoric.

It gets on my nerves to see people complain that we think we're more oppressed than xyz. THIS IS TRANSMISOGYNY!!!

If we claim to be oppressed, they say we're lying for duplicitous reasons. If we're actually oppressed, they say we chose it so if we complain it's for duplicitous reasons. If we didn't choose it, then at the very least we don't have it worse than anyone else. And if we DO claim to have it worse than anyone else, we're lying for duplicitous reasons!

See how that works? We started from the most straightforwardly obvious reactionary position and worked our way down to "average queer tumblr user" without even attempting to uproot any of the bias that keeps you from treating us as equals.

We don't care if we're "more oppressed." That's not what's important. If you remain stuck on that, you'll miss every important part of what we're saying. Rather than rejecting that interpretation outright, you should ask yourself why you are so uncomfortable with the idea that trans women suffer a type of oppression you do not!

If you're unwilling to do any of that, let us speak on our own behalves for a fucking change.

[ohnoitstbskyen]

I heard a raw line from Guilllermo Del Toro the other day about monsters being the perfect way to express human failure:

“…monsters, I believe, are patron saints of our blissful imperfection, and they allow and embody the possibility of failing.”

And i was wondering your take on this quote in relation to things like vampire and werewolf and other semi-monster subtexts. “Monstrous” humans that are ironically allowed to act more human more often than… humans. I just find the attempt to make an outlet for imperfection while still at large criticizing it fascinating.

I mean, yeah, there's a long history of interpreting monsters through queer, anti-colonial, feminist and other Outsider lenses for exactly those reasons. The monster is the Other who is vilified by the in-group, which represents all that the in-group hates. The monster must, by its nature, fail to live up to the standards and expectations of the in-group, which is why it must be destroyed. But that also means the monster is free from the standards and expectations of the in-group, including oppressive and bigoted ones.

So, as an example, if you're queer, and rhetorically treated as inhuman and monstrous and diseased anyway, or eugenically classified as a deviant mutation or sub-derivation of "real" people, there is real appeal and a real sense of resistance in claiming monsterhood, in embracing it and glorying in it.

In part, that's what the rallying cry "we're here, we're queer, get used to it!" meant and still means. It is a reclaiming of monsterhood as a source of strength and community and pride, rather than shame. Slurs are used to Other queer people, to set them apart from "real" people and mark them out as a monstrous deviation from the virtuous norm - slurs are used to call us monsters. And thus a lot of queer people find a lot of power and freedom in reclaiming them, in turning their Othering into a flag to rally around.

And I think that's still a big part of the appeal of the monster, honestly, that freedom from being what someone else thinks you ought to be.

If you're a monster, you don't have to have the perfect body, you don't have to suppress your lust or your love. You don't have to shave your body hair or dress correctly for your assigned gender, or have a white picket fence house with a spouse and 2.3 children. You don't have to sit primly at the dinner table, you don't have to repress your emotions, you don't have to hate the foreigner or despise the gays or fear the trans agenda. You don't have to have a small, straight nose or perfect cheekbones, you don't have to wait to fuck until you're married, or pretend you want to fuck at all. You don't have to want to get rich or be a CEO, you don't have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps or be on your grindset, or cheer when the cops clear out a homeless camp.

To be a monster is to be free from the inhumanity that is forced on us by white supremacy, by fatphobia, by heteronormativity, by imperialism, and by the interests of capital. To be a monster is to be human in all the ways that are inconvenient to oppression.

... but I went off on a tangent there a little bit - vampires and werewolves, right. I have no theoretical or academic basis for any of this, so this is entirely a personal hot take, but I think vampires are perhaps a bit more about "passing" as a fantasy. Not necessarily in a gender sense, but the ability to keep your true nature undetected by the "normal" folk, while the secret things that make you different also make you dangerous and powerful. Surviving by stealing sustenance from a world that hates you, on terms that are entirely yours to dictate. "I will survive even if it kills you," that kind of vibe.

Werewolves, on the other hand, feel more like a defiant, angry embrace of the monstrous. Transforming into something vast and powerful and furious, growing out of your skin, out of your form, out of your boundaries; howling your nature to the moon and mauling any motherfucker who has a problem with it. Giving in to all the beastly unnatural urges, and diving into the horrible monstrous wants and desires that boil inside you (which, remember, include things like Not Wanting To Fuck or Wanting To Hold A Girl's Hand In A Lesbian Sort Of Way). Less the "I outfoxed your social game and drank you dry" slick vampire power fantasy and more the "call me a slur one more time and I'm going to wear your entrails like a fucking scarf" power fantasy.

Again, that's just personal hot takes, everyone's understanding of the monstrous in relation to themselves is different. I've seen a number of genderfluid and nb people use monstrousness as a way to defy occupying a shape that can be gendered for example.

[birdfem]

All the discourse makes me lose hope because there's so much of a focus on deciding who is and isn't a "real" radfem. What is and isn't a true radical action. Who's "valid" and who isn't. There are so many demeaning and degrading sentiments going around, and they shouldn't be.

I don't believe in the idea of "do what you want forever" as actions have repercussions, but I think the way some women on radblr are going about OSA relationships is so vile. The constant degrading terms (e.g. "dick-worshipping" and using terms like wh-re, sl-t, etc.) as well as insisting that anyone opposing them is lesbophobic… I'm just over it. There are conspiracy theories spawning over folks like @/radicalstoner being @/macroclit, polls about if its demeaning to use "Jakey" or "Nigel" (and women being shocked when some find it demeaning), and so on. It's meaningless and shows how little a lot of women care for other women when we're supposed to be the ones that do. Like seriously, what does any of this do aside from further dividing our (already small) community?

The point of feminism as a whole, at least in my opinion, should be to support women. In any branch of feminism you consider yourself to be part of, you should put women first. You cannot be any kind of feminist if you don't do at least that. Now, this doesn't mean you have to agree or see their choices as good. This doesn't mean you cannot critique decisions and point out the misogyny and/or harm within them. This doesn't mean that all choices a woman makes are good because it's a woman doing them.

But you should be there to support her when she needs it most.

If a woman enters a relationship with a guy, don't rescind your support. Instead, find ways to further help her. What if the guy does turn out to be abusive? Instead of going "I told you so, this is why you shouldn't date men", be a support system for her. Provide some way to escape and to protect her. What if she needs an abortion? Instead of going "that's what you get for being a dick-worshipper", help her in gaining what she needs to have a safe one. What if she's a single mother who has no other support system? Be that support system for her, find ways to help make her life easier.

So many 'radfems' on here will fight tooth and nail to prove that dating men is the least radical action you can take. And yeah, dating men isn't radical in the slightest. As far as I can tell, no one has been claiming it is. I agree that being celibate is a radical action. If you're a separatist, then more power to you.

But just because a woman isn't radical in every single aspect of her life doesn't mean she should be shunned and not have your support. It doesn't matter if she's a radfem or not in your definition of the ideology.

What should matter is if YOU, the supposed radfem, would help her in her time of need.

[greed-the-dorkalicious]

One of the most frustrating things about being aromantic is the way without fail, every single time I say I'm never going to get married, I'm always met with some variation of "you'll change your mind". Every. Single. Time. No matter who I'm talking to, no matter how pro-LGBTQ+ or how feminist they claim to be, the idea of me not getting married is simply not a possibility in their minds, and they have to insist on telling me that it's not.

And this might not seem like a big deal, and like... Yeah, I will admit there's a lot worse things that I could be experiencing. But the thing is that 1. after a lifetime of dealing with this, it wears you down and 2. this isn't even exclusively an aromantic issue.

I mean most of the time I don't even tell people I'm aro. Sometimes they back down if I do (after yknow, explaining what that even means), but not always. (I distinctly remember an incident where someone was getting on my case about it, and my mentor kindly stepped in and was like "You know my son is gay, and there's a lot of people who would insist that surely someday he'll fall in love with a woman, but we know that's not a nice thing to say. Why say something like that about aromantics?") Point is, though, they say this shit without knowing my orientation. Which means they'd say it to anyone.

Shouldn't everyone have the right to define their own lives and desires? There's plenty of reasons someone might not want to get married. Why is this seen as unacceptable? Why don't you trust people's knowledge of themselves? And it's not a maturity thing, either- I'm 25, and I've known aros well into their 30s who still get told this. Not that it's a nice thing to say to a younger person either.

Like, imagine if your coworkers were talking about their dogs, and they asked you about yours, and you said you don't have one. So you say you don't, and they ask what kind of dog you will have, and you say you're not going to get a dog, and they all go "Oh, I used to say the same thing when I was your age! You'll change your mind! One day you'll just find that special pup and blah blah blah" and no matter what variation you tell them of I don't want a dog, I'm just not a dog person, I'm allergic to dogs, my apartment doesn't allow dogs, I don't have the lifestyle to support a dog they just keep insisting you're simply being immature, and that someday things will change. Wouldn't that be kinda fucked up?

I just don't get why people are seen as liars or idiots when they say they don't want to get married. It's fine for people to get married at 18 but god forbid a grown ass adult say they're not going to get married, then clearly they don't know what they're saying, right?

Shouldn't people be viewed as complete people on their own? Shouldn't we trust others to know their own lives? Can't y'all mind your own fucking business

[boreal-sea]

When I call out radical feminism, TERFs, and Gender Criticals for being fascist, it is not the same thing as "hating on feminists". I am a feminist - I'm just not a radical feminist. Radical feminism is not the entirety of feminism. There are other branches of feminism. Y'all do not represent all of us.

Sawing off the rotten branch of radical feminism from the tree of feminism is not "violence against women". It's an act of survival.

And if you're a radical feminist and not a fascist, bioessentialist transphobe, and you think you can save your movement from the rotting branches attached to it, my advice is to start sawing. Prove your movement is worth saving.

How to save radical feminism: Openly and loudly ally yourself with trans people. Stop being anti-male and anti-masculinity - because it's feeding your transphobia and bioessentialism. Stop policing consensual sex you don't personally like (like kink and sex work). Denounce people like JKR. Call out the bioessentialism, bigotry, racism, sexism, misogyny, and antisemitism in your ranks.

I know some of you are going to say "but OP, that's everything radical feminism is about! If we don't hate sex workers and trans people, what will we do?"

Well, if you stop being anti-everything, you might actually be able to be pro-something, and contribute to making the world a better place.

Cause right now? You're poisoning all of us.

If you're finding that your only allies in the political field are conservatives, and progressives are routinely calling you a hate group, and there are literal NAZIs marching in support of your cause and members of your group are reciting NAZI quotes at your rallies, and if you see members of your group claiming there's a "Jewish conspiracy" behind the people you hate,

then uh

You might wanna question what has happened to your cause. Regardless of where you started, even if it was far to the left, you're now steeped in fascism.

You're rotting from the inside out. Do something about it.

[brazenautomaton]

Could you go into more detail on the "feminism made men's shelters not exist" thing? I have no idea how the causal chain there works. (Also just fyi there ARE men's shelters - at least in my country - but you're not capital-W Wrong, it's legit weird there aren't way more.)

I mean because feminists get extremely, extremely upset when anyone talks about male victims of domestic violence and then start screaming and threatening and harassing everyone in range?

the woman who opened the first women's shelter was Erin Pizzey, and it did not take her long to notice that a lot of the women there were just as violent as the men they escaped, and that it was obvious they needed a men's shelter just as much. feminists flipped their shit about this, protested her, lied about her, tried to get her fired and blacklisted, threatened her, and killed her dog. All of the people who did this were feminists and none of them were not feminists; feminists did not oppose the people who did this and no feminists attempted to help her.

Earl Silverman tried to open a men's shelter in Canada after being domestically abused by his wife and seeing the only resources for men were all predicated on men being the abusers. Feminists lost their shit. They protested him, lied about him, harassed him, went out of their way to strip funding from him, and eventually drove him to suicide. All of the people who did this were feminists and none of them were not feminists. Feminists did not oppose the people who did this and no feminist ever attempted to help him.

Feminists demanded that arrest be mandatory when police showed up to domestic abuse calls. Then all of a sudden, a whole bunch of women got arrested, because domestic abuse is not a gendered problem. Feminists could not accept this. They created a thing called the "Duluth model," which became the standard view of how to deal with domestic abuse, that literally states only men are abusive and any behavior from a woman that appears abusive is due to how a man abused her. The organizations who deal with domestic abuse run off a world-model that literally states men cannot be abused and women cannot be abusers. Feminists pushed for "primary aggressor policies," which meant that when the police showed up on a domestic abuse call, they should consider the "primary aggressor" to be the male, and arrest him. Men who call the police to report being abused are far, far, far more likely to be arrested than the women who abuse them. This is the explicit goal of a policy that was made by feminists, all of whom were feminists and none of whom were not feminists, who used the political and social power of feminism to make it happen, who had free access to that power in order to do so, who enjoyed complete support from feminists, and who did not face any opposition from feminists.

Feminism gets a pass because of the deep-rooted sexism it appeals to. Feminism claims to be synonymous with womanhood, and women are so precious that anything that claims to be aligned with them has to be good. And women have so little agency that this thing can't have possibly DONE anything in the world that is bad, it has to be a mistake, or a lie you told because you hate women so much! You can't remember all the ways that feminism is wrong and hurts people, because they're women, and women don't DO things! You forget it the moment it leaves your vision cone because it doesn't fit the biased narrative. And you just keep going "well, but real feminism is for real equality, and feminism is definitionally good!" no matter how many times you see it isn't. No matter how many times it's proven that yes, feminists do hate men, and yes, feminists are wrong, and yes, feminists are cruel, and yes, feminists care more about hurting men than helping women, and yes, if you mention these things to your "real feminist" friends who are for "real equality" they will expel you and harass you... it just can't stick. The narrative is too powerful. No matter how it's proven, we're going to hear "well I know real feminism is for real equality so we should all still be feminists and give power to feminists and support people who use the mantle of feminism without ever looking into what they believe" over and over and over.