#why haven't you talked about lesbians when this is also our issue? it must be because of underlying misogyny

[withswords]

we need a corollary to hanlon's razor for like, never attribute to malice what can be explained by demographic data

[redditreceipts]

Hi! ex radfem cis lesbian back. I saw you asked why I reconsidered my viewpoints, so I will answer:

Firstly, I do want to keep the context in mind that this is simply my experience and very well may just be a me thing.

I gravitated to being a radfem at around middleschool, because I was sexually harrassed by a boy. It gave me the "all men are evil" complex. But I slowly realized I only used my hatred as an excuse not to face my trauma. There are great men in my life, my father and brother are some of my biggest supporters. My brother even tried to beat up the guy who harrassed me lol. The hatred I felt for every male I saw (excluding my family), the fear I felt, made me intensely paranoid and unhappy. I also found it was just wrong. Like anybody, men are not a monolith. Somebody born into a male body is not instantly evil. I've actually been harrassed more (sexually and in general) by females in my life, so I realized the generalization didn't hold up.

Of course, it is obvious that males are more likely to commit violent crimes, even if my personal experience was opposite. But I try these days to see the best in everyone, as not assuming somebody's moral value based on their sex has helped me live a more happy life. When I say I find GC spaces a bit extreme, there are a myriad of blogs who constantly say all men are evil, all men should die...I think that sort of talk is unproductive. Like it or not, males will always exist in humanity. So we should be finding a solution to the social issues and dismantaling patriarchy instead of invoking ire in innocent people (People are more likely to listen if you are nice to them...I have seen many men get mad at the "all men are trash" thing because that would include them, even if they haven't done any wrong. Whether or not it's fair we have have to watch our words doesn't matter -- this is just the proven best way to get others to take your points seriously).

As for the trans stuff, I just don't really care these days. Using different pronouns doesn't affect me as it is just words, so I don't care. Much like men, I view all trans people as individuals and don't develope an opinion on them as people based on identity alone. I find operating in the world this way is just easiest, and helps me not develop a bias. (Also as a GNC lesbian I have been mocked for being "a trans woman" by what would be considered "transphobes" I suppose, because I look like a guy, so I feel how some TERFs try way too hard to point out "obviously trans people" just hurt GNC people. But I know that's not the majority of TERFs.)

That is just trans people however. The trans "movement" (quotes bc it's not technically a movement but you get what I mean, the social atmosphere etc), which is not a person but a common ideal, has a lot of issues. My biggest issue being that it's hard to have actual conversations about it without walking on eggshells. My best friend is trans actually, and 100% accepts her sex. After all, you have to be the opposite sex to be "trans" at all. So even if I was harrasses by a trans woman, I would not think of all trans woman that way, much like how I do not demonize all females because I was harrassed by a handful.

That said - The social class of "men" (not the person or sex, but the way we have normalized socialization and the like) has many issues, and I am 100% for tackling these issues. I think we as a society must be open to talking about things even if we disagree with them or it makes us uncomfortable. Now more than ever we nees loud feminist voices. You may be just a tumblr blog, but one blog can go a long way. Even if I don't 100% agree with every post you make or radfem ideals or whatever, I am very thankful to have people who are not afraid to hold discussions and discourse. I do think the hatred for radfems is unwarranted to the degree it has reached. I wish we could all have civil discussions. So in short: keep posting and keep talking, thank you.

Heyyy! I am first of all really sorry that my answer comes so late, it's because I didn't really have the time and/or energy to read all of the asks I got, so I didn't open yours - I hope that this is not all too late of an answer :)

I guess that you are making various points here. First of all, I understand how the hatred of men can be unproductive in some ways. I agree that for many women, they don't gain anything out of fantasizing about the death of all men or reading stuff about how men suck and are evil. However, I also think that this is useful for some women. I have to say that even though I don't hate all men, this type of rhetoric awoken me out of my non-feminist slumber, and I think that this can be a helpful outlet for many women. I mean if there were any real-world harms proven from this rhetoric, I would obviously be against it, but as for now, I just think that this rhetoric can be useful for some and not so useful for others.

Like my blog. Is it productive to make fun of weirdos on the internet? Some people will probably say that this just makes them angry and depressed, but other people will find something cathartic in those posts and find their own experiences represented for the first time. And for those who find it not to be helpful to read that stuff, I would expect them not to read it

Secondly, I'm glad that the trans stuff doesn't affect you, but I have to say that it affects me (and many others). I'm politically active and have gotten so many creepy comments and abusive behaviour from entitled males who believe that they are women. Where I am politically active, analysis of male socialisation is totally absent and most politically active women are not really safe. I have also been told that I can be non-binary if I don't identify with the gender stereotypes, and I identified with that.

But I guess those weren't really your points, your point was just that those are the reasons for you not to be as active anymore. And that's fine! I obviously hope that you still believe in female empowerment and women's liberation, and you seem to. I'd almost go so far to say that some of your beliefs are still those of a radfem, but maybe you have other stuff to focus on, and that's totally cool ofc!

Also, thank you for saying that about my blog and say hello to your friend from me hahah

[mysteriouslybluepirate]

Exploring Con O'Neill's Filmography Day #?-Pie In The Sky S02 Ep08

WARNINGS: Gun violence, alcoholism, pain meds addition, disability due to gun violence, workplace ableism, slight comment that could maybe be taken as transphobia? I'm also going to add slight passive suicidal ideation for the character Con plays.

CON IS SEMI-LIKEABLE IN THIS WHICH IS A SHOCK.

This is a cop/crime procedural, but unlike the ones I grew up with in the US in the mid to late 2000s/2010s this has no claws. Seriously, the main plot is driven by pudding. I align more with ACAB sentiments (obviously), and this does fall into Copoganda. But I'm here for Con, and not much else.

I also didn't catch the name of his character till the very end, as this had no subtitles and I'm bad with accents.

As always, I'll be active in the comments if you want to discuss the episode. Especially if you deal with chronic pain/a disabling injury as I have a bone to pick with some scenes, and want to know how close to life they are.

If you haven't watched it, it's less than an hour and something to turn your brain off while watching. Spoilers ahead.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pie In The Sky S02 Ep08 (1995, the same year as 3 Steps to Heaven. Jesus Christ, this man's career is wild)

IS HE GOING TO KILL SOMEONE. Based on what I know about crime procedurals, he's the murder.

(Con's character based on the first scene) He seems fun

Who is this mysterious man in the window

When is this? 80s? British 80s

Love the lesbians

That cop smiled more than any I've ever met

I know nothing about this show, and god, I hope I don't need context

Look at that helmet, how do people take cops seriously in England? I'd just point and laugh.

Why does he have a ceramic rooster?

Are these old ladies going to get murdered.

That guy's side part is really unfortunate

A CANADIAN COP, look at the Mountie

WHY IS SHE CARRYING PUDDING

Mommy issues to the rescue

This is going to be a phoenix write case

I LOVE RED SHIRT LADY'S HAIR

(Con's scene that you've seen online in gifs 'One...Homosexual', you know the one) I LOVE THIS ASSHOLE

YOU ARE THE HOMOSEXUAL

Why is talked to him like a child? Rude as shit. Even when he's acting weird, he probably has a reason. Hear him out and talk.

Slightly transphobic line? Idk how to read that.

Oh good, they're writing checks and not cashing them, Girlbosses

Look, I've just met this old guy(our detective inspector protagonist), but he's fun

It's a British show, there must be a character named JOHN.

IS HE A DETECTIVE AND A CHEF? Oh, that's his wife. God, I thought I was stretched thin. Look at him.

CON? (Con at a firing range?)

HOT

WHAT THE FUCK, why is he shaking?

At least he's wearing ear protection, (DI sneaks up behind him, and taps on his shoulder to alert him to his presence while still holding a gun) DONT FUCKING DO THAT, WHY WOULD YOU TAP ON HIM. HOLDING A GUN.

Con has a need for speed.

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY GUN SCENES WITH CONS CHARACTER. WHO IS HE KILLING

Nvm, that ladies hair is too tall

ARE THEY JUST STEALING/shoplifting? LAME IDIOTS.

Why is Con's character just keeping guns in cars. Shouldn't he know where to hide them better? Cause he already carries one on him. The trunk one is probably just in case he loses his main one?

THE AUDIO STING

Oh, he was a cop. Got injured and is now paranoid. Fair, but unsafe as hell.

They are such shitty shoplifters. She tried to make eye contact with the woman she was stealing from.

Do English people just make a shit ton of Bread Pudding.

Aww they're sisters and not lesbians. Rude.

I'm just sitting here imagining how funny this scene could have been. 5 guns fall out of his wheelchair as she takes it out. "Those are for work"

Are they going to fuck or is one of them going to get shot, I'm getting mixed messages

(A benching rack in the corner)He's getting his gains, I respect it.

2 Con characters addicted to pain meds.

IS HE ALWAYS A SIMP

Pain meds+ Alcohol is got a good look

You didn't choose this but you chose how you react buddy.

Go to therapy

Best DI in media. Stealing Criminal Old Ladies Pudding Recipe

(A chef says a xenophobic line about foreign recipes) What's wrong with foreign recipes? All your shit is bland.

WHY IS IT SO LIQUIDY. GOD I HATE HOT PUDDING

Maybe I'm bad with age, but Con and the detective seem like the same age. He doesn't seem ten years older than her.

He doesn't have to be a sad bastard, yeah, but Con's trapped playing that role. So if we can fix these characters 'problems' In the next twenty minutes I'll be shocked

He's jealous cause you're young and not jaded to the system like he is. You know. Like every ex cop/military/government character.

THAT CUT WAS JARRING (From a peaceful dinner to Con trashing in bed)

WHAT THE FUCK.

Who gets out of a car like that, slowly pulls out a gun, and fires like that? WHAT WAS HIS PLAN? DID HE HAVE DRUGS HE WAS HIDING? WHY??!?!?!?!

THAT WAS THE CHEST. HE SHOULD BE DEAD.

Go to therapy, Jesus Christ. The station would pay for it, and this is interrupting your daily well-being.

(The car shop guy goes to his house to hand over his keys personally, they do a weird double-take glance thing) That interaction post-nightmare felt gay? Is that just me?

What the fuck does 'twirlers' mean? Am I just not British enough to understand that?

73 arrests for shoplifting and they're still this shit? WHAT?

4 pistoles seem low based on his history. But I know a guy who has two hundred firearms anywhere from black powder with buckshot to pistols, and he's just a nurse...Well, maybe rural North West US is not the normal standard to judge by.

ALSO DON'T HIDE A FIREARM LIKE THAT. Does it just slide around in his trunk?

They're such jackasses to him, no wonder he's rude

THE FUCKER THAT SHOT HIM IS ALMOST OUT OF JAIL? MURDER HIM CON

TRUE THO, as long as he stays a cop feeling like this there's no point. He is just kind of stuck feeling like his life has no meaning. It's shit, but if he finds no point to living then yeah. He'll never move on

ANGRY CON. YESSSSS!!!!!

I was half expecting him to pull out a gun

THE OLD MAN HAS DRIP

THAT GUY IS GIANT

The nice thing about being a disabled cop here is no one suspects you and socially we're trained to ignore people with disabilities. It's something our governments actually uses in day to day life. I kinda hoped they cover that more.

I don't think you can pull out credit cards like that. Any bank would be suspicious.

WHY IS HE STILL AFTER THE RECIPIES

HE'S ONLY ASKING THEM FIRST SO THEN HE CAN GET THE FUCKING RECIPE AND THEN ARREST HIM. What in the Paddington bear logic is this this?

Con was playing a character named Ian? Cool.

Also, NOW WE HAVE ANOTHER CON CHARACTER DOING DUMB GUN SHIT. That brings us up to 5 characters baby (Telestar, Vengence is Mine, Blood Brothers, 3 Steps To Heaven, now this). The worst part is the only Con character I trust with a gun is Val. Cliff is responsible, but I still don't trust him. Izzy can shoot, and due to hijinks in the story, he might accidentally shoot someone.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall:

Took a minute to understand what everything was going on. They brought up a fun idea about how cops use PR. I wish Ian's issues were resolved in the end. He just kind of get's his groove back and suddenly everything's 'okay'. He still hates himself, and struggles with a pain pill and alcohol addiction.

Ian trying to prove he's still useful is giving me some hope for Izzy season 2. Con pulls it off really well. You see Ian's frustration with needing to ask for help, and pushing himself past his limits. You can feel frustration from Ian knowing he's being sent on this baby case for essentially bullshit reasons. He spoke up and upper management essentially remembered he existed. This is a really fun way to use Con's chops as a serious, but fun character.

The old lady plot was weird but fun. Girlbosing legends. Not knowing the protagonist, and being surprised when he rerouted a case just to get a recipe was funny.

Overall an enjoyable episode, besides a slightly transphobic joke, it's not as 90s as it could be. Also, he and the car salesmen guy at the end there had as much chemistry as he and the detective had. Get you a guy who can do both.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Con:8/10. Fun, angry guy. Wish he got therapy.

Story: 6-7/10. Fun, I know depicting cops like this is exactly how they get away with doing awful shit, but seeing a cop story that wasn't life and death(besides Ian possible hurting himself) was fun. Felt new, at the very least. I knew nothing about this show but could still watch it.

Cinematography: 6/10. Of its era, but you get the feeling of putting on a warm coat. This is something that they would play at a hotel, on the free stations. You've definitely seen something like this before.

Overall I'd say around a 7. If I rank it, low B. Just cause he's not a real protagonist in the series, and I want to show love to the shit Con put his whole chest into. But it wasn't a bad watch. Fun contained story.

@ivegotnonameidea thanks for the recommendation ;)

[hadesoftheladies]

do you have anything to say to assuage the concerns of women who are afraid that misogyny will only get worse if women stop interacting with men?

please allow me to let marilyn frye respond:

"If these, then, are some of the ways in which separation is at the heart of our struggle, it helps to explain why separation is such a hot topic. If there is one thing women are queasy about it is actually taking power. As long as one stops just short of that, the patriarchs will for the most part take an indulgent attitude. We are afraid of what will happen to us when we really frighten them. This is not an irrational fear, It is our experience in the movement generally that the defensiveness, nastiness, violence, hostility, and irrationality of the reaction to feminism tends to correlate with the blatancy of the element of separation in the strategy or project which triggers the reaction. The separations involved in women leaving homes, marriages, and boyfriends, separations from fetuses, and the separation of lesbianism are all pretty dramatic."

it's not that separatism is easy-peasy, it's that being in a patriarchy is dangerous for women either way. sometimes feminists get beaten up for speaking out, but women also just get beaten up for being women in general. people wouldn't hate feminists if they didn't hate women, so whatever the feminists get is what women are getting. it's a lose-lose, except fighting back eventually becomes a win.

also, i mean this respectfully, but i already answered your question in the post you reblogged. if a man will get violent with you for separating, he's exactly the kind of man you must separate from (think domestic violence). the kind of men that will get angry that you're divorcing are the kind of men you must escape because remaining with them will only make it more dangerous for you, not less.

believing that women might be able to mitigate misogyny via interactions with men is not the same as saying “men are the solution to male violence.”

there's a beloved quote of radblr's by audre lorde, i believe: "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." what are the master's tools? what perpetuates patriarchy? why does it work the way it does? what keeps it strong? marriage to a man, premature/forced/pressured impregnation (as a weapon of violence and also an economic destabilizer for the woman), relationships with men (psychological and financial toll), femininity, etc. how then can these things be empowering or feminist? at best (and rarest) they are neutral, but when they exist in a patriarchal context, they are patriarchal, hence weapons wielded against women. no matter how they feel about it.

I don’t know of any solid evidence supporting the idea that interacting with men or refusing to interact with men will reliably improve women’s lives

I'm surprised that you haven't read about the studies documenting the mental and physical health benefits of not dating or marrying men. Especially because the exploitation of women in marriage has been a huge topic in feminist literature and politics for centuries! I'm surprised you haven't observed this in your own life too bc I see it every day. It's kinda common sense that interacting with your oppressors is hardly ever a health-boost, but here's a paper that talks about the nuances of marriage and cohabiting with men and why men are the ones who keep benefitting.

but i fear i may be addressing the wrong things here. one, separatism is very niche feminist discourse so not a lot of academics are competing to conduct studies on issues pertaining to it.

two, what we DO know is that marrying, befriending and catering to men in any way has not amounted to more rights for women. what we DO know is that men use sex to exploit and oppress us. what we DO know is that patriarchy is upheld by the institutions of marriage, prostitution, surrogacy, etc . . . all which entail sexual access to women, however regulated. what we DO know is that men are always disproportionately benefitting MORE from relationships with women than women with them. Etcetera, etcetera . . .

three, separatism isn't about "non-interaction." it's about divesting from patriarchy and de-centering men. that's the goal here. to stop boosting men at the expense of ourselves and our movement, which is most effectively done through disengagement on a myriad of levels.

but I’d like to know if you have any arguments against the actual position of the people who doubt the effectiveness of separatism.

scroll through my blog. i've made plenty. :)

It seems most likely to me that it’s a lot more complicated than that, and that different approaches are required for different situations, and using multiple strategies might be most effective

separatists agree with you :)

"if we separate, the men will get violent" is the new "if women aren't prostitutes, men will rape the rest of us"

men cannot be the solution to male violence if men are the problem. it's really that simple.

[delusion-of-negation]

Thank youuuu, and I hope work went well!! You didn't come off as an asshole either! And yeah, tone is hard via text.

Yeah, I think the biggest problem that I have with the lack of common knowledge about Freud is how easily it leads to people inadvertently supporting Freud - if people were taught how to recognise his ideas, what the flaws in them were, and how to refute them, you'd have less people buying into "dream interpretation" books that are jam packed with Freudian stuff and telling others "My book says that the reason you're dreaming about trains is because you want a good dicking." especially, in that particular example, if it's a lesbian or straight guy that they're talking to, for example. You'd also have more people able to recognise the same or similar flaws in other work. It's pretty dangerous when people don't learn to spot bad ideas.

I feel more comfortable dismissing most (if not all) of what he said specifically because there is ample evidence that what little evidence he did have was ill gotten and then manipulated by him, it was incredibly poor scientific practice that wouldn't stand up in a secondary school student today let alone a respected authority on the subject. By dismissing I don't mean going "Oh, ignore him, he's dumb." if someone asks, I mean not taking it seriously as a piece of scientific literature and explaining to others why it shouldn't be taken seriously. If Freud said "good afternoon" to me I would check the clock, to be honest. That doesn't mean that I won't study what he's said and all - like I said earlier, learning what not to do is as important as learning what to do - but as of yet I haven't really found anything that he said that had any proper merit to it, unless said merit was either a stretch to grant or something so obvious/intuitive that my grandma who doesn't believe in mental health issues could think it up. I will credit him with having exceptional skills in the field of pretending to be exceptional.

I'm personally not a big fan of psychoanalysis, and I feel like a lot of the reason that it's a popular school of thought is because it feels so intuitive - of course we have an unconscious mind, something keeps our heart beating and releases the hormones and so on, and we don't control that, but the unfounded leap is in the assumption about the extent to which the unconscious mind is thinking and the presentation of those thoughts in the conscious mind, behaviour, etc, and whether the latter can inform you of the former. Then there's the projection of childhood events onto you, under the assumption that X event causes Y behaviour, therefore since you exhibit Y then you must have had X and simply forgotten it, leading to "therapy" for events that never even necessarily happened to you under the guise of that being an adequate treatment for Y, which in turn can cause false memories in a person which bring a whole host of problems of their own, doing more harm than good. The focus on repression and presumed defence mechanisms in general can bring forth many similar problems, as well as the often overlooked side effect of the assertion of the inevitability of defence mechanisms... if you don't exhibit said mechanisms then they may presume that you're lying about your experiences, memories, etc (in fact, by saying that the defence mechanisms, such as repression, are inevitable then the school of thought is inherently saying that if you do remember the childhood events and you don't have these unconscious defense mechanisms then you're either an impossible psychological marvel or you're lying). The blaming of certain mental health issues on the unconscious mind, and conflicts between it and the conscious mind, when we've observed those things to have chemical or physical characteristics in the brain is very dangerous (leading to the demonisation of medication, the almost victim blaming of patients for their alleged inability to align the sides of their mind, and the assertion of the existence of thoughts in patients that are contrary to the thoughts that they describe having, among other things) - in turn it also betrays the common lack of willingness in the field to adapt to new information. The attribution of truth to dreams, verbal mistakes ("Freudian slip"), and so forth, via the unconscious mind, demonises people for dreams they may have had actually as result of having watched a horror film, for example, or a mistake that they made while talking that had zero truth to it (which I think is the case for most mistakes - I have a couple of disorders that affect my ability to think in a coherent and linear fashion, so I often say completely the wrong word that to most people seems entirely disjointed from the subject matter, but it's not because I secretly have unconscious thoughts surrounding tigers when I mean sheep). There's also the attribution of actually physical processes to the unproven metaphysical, which I find very frustrating, especially given its lack of falsifiability.

Oof, sorry that got really long. I find a lot of this stuff indefensible (specifically things like Freud faking things in case studies, and those in the field who demonise medication as "tranquillisers" when in reality the specific medication that they're talking about is treating a genuine chemical issue that their particular school of thought claims it can treat simply by getting you to pull out of a phase of your ego via recounting childhood events that you don't actually even remember), but I do agree that simply dismissing everything about it or only letting people know about Little Hans isn't helpful - either to finding anything that happens to be true via testing (a broken clock is right twice a day, after all - memory loss and unhealthy coping mechanisms are a thing, it's the assertion of the inevitability of them and the mechanisms by which they happen and so forth that psychoanalysis declares without evidence and to harmful effect), or to teaching people how to recognise these kinds of flaws.

I made the obvious one