Unapologetic

All biologically male exclusionary rad fem sideblog Trying my best and learning. 100% trans identified male phobic.

[gender-critical-analytical]

Made this for a personal joke, but thought y’all might like it. It’s the Misandry Machine!

[meowfem]

needed this on my dash!

[boudicasdaughter]

rest in power, marjane satrapi. 1969-2026.

[sluttynurse]

if you're viewed as a conventionally attractive woman you're punished bc you need to be knocked down a peg for thinking you had any inherent value and if you're viewed as unattractive you're punished for daring to exist without permission but that's how it is innit there's no winning when the system was designed to make you lose in the first place! 🤣

[capricorn-season]

[gluten-free-pussy]

I know this is rude and not very cash money of me but some women date/marry/procreate with absolute fucking losers. Complete wastes of oxygen; can’t do housework, have poor hygiene, are selfish, mean and have the nerve to be ugly on top of everything. I simply don’t get it like idk if it’s because I came out the womb an ornery baby with zero patience but like…I just don’t get it honestly. Sometimes I’ll hear my friends tell me about their bf or husbands and I have to wonder “is being single just not an option??” Especially if no children are involved and your finances aren’t tied up together. I just don’t get it

[anomalys-bane]

STOP! 🛑🤚 Before you claim a woman on the internet is policing your/anyone else's behavior, please consider the following.

-> Does she control government entities around us that can legally enforce her ideology? Can she actually suppress opinions or reduce people's freedom of expression?

-> Does she control your social position? Can she alienate you from your existing group on a whim?

-> Do her views/actions actually mirror the popular, widely accepted one in the contexts you frequent? Or is she an outlier?

-> Are you a member of a majority that she cannot control or escape?

-> Does she control your internet access or what you can post? Can she force you to read and follow her ideology?

-> Can she physically remove or suppress the media you/your group enjoy? Can she stop the production of such media? Does she occupy a powerful position in group that affects the existence of such media?

-> Can she actually physically, legally force you to stop whatever you are doing?

-> Does her opinion or criticism carry enough weight to directly, materially affect your life and wellbeing?

Chances are this is not the case. And chances are you have no idea what policing actually is. dumbasses

[sespursongles-deactivated201906]

That article where a law professor argues that battered women are morally entitled to kill their abusers has an interesting quote: “ Men can kill women with their bare hands, and they do. Women almost never kill men that way. They can’t. […] While very few women kill abusive men who are asleep or passed out, it’s “unfair” to charge them with first degree murder, Sheehy argues. “It’s not fair to characterize it as the most heinous form of murder, because it may be their own route to survival. ” There have probably been feminist analyses of this already, but it’s worth discussing how the concept of self-defence, especially in domestic violence cases, was designed by men to benefit men. In my country at least, your attack is only considered “legitimate self-defence” if it is a) necessary, b) immediate, c) proportionate. A concept of self-defence that only applies if you hurt or kill someone while they are attacking you, and if you hurt or kill them using the same weapons as them (your bare hands, if that’s what they are using) only benefits people who are likely to be attacked by people of similar size and physical strength, and is utterly useless to women.

When a bigger, stronger male beats up his much smaller wife, it’s almost impossible for her to kill him in self-defence (immediately and proportionately ie with nothing but her fists), and yet it’s the scenario through which she can hope to be acquitted or get a light sentence. That’s not a coincidence. The other two scenarios (and she will be despised if she picks either) are for her to  1) kill him later (when he can’t use his physical advantage, eg when he’s asleep or has his back turned on her), but it won’t be self-defence because it won’t be immediate. (In the Jacqueline Sauvage case, one of the main arguments against her was that she shot her husband in the back at a time when he wasn’t actively beating her up) 2) use a weapon, but it won’t be self-defence because it won’t be proportionate. Obviously this condition also benefits men, because when a woman gets punched by her husband and she punches him back, it’s seen as a proportionate response but it shouldn’t be, because her punch (typically) won’t do nearly as much damage as his. Anything else she does (like use a weapon) to try and hurt him as much as he hurt her will be considered a disproportionate response and will mean it wasn’t self-defence.

The idea that killing your abuser in a honest face-to-face fight with your bare hands is honourable and forgivable, but killing your abuser in any other way is shameful and wrong, utterly benefits men and protects men. It’s also why poison was historically reviled as a ‘female weapon’ and as the most cowardly way to kill someone. Poison has been described as “a great equalizer” - no wonder men hated it. Men have always hated, and will keep hating, shaming, and outlawing, any form of attack through which women can compensate our disadvantage in strength and size, and they will keep praising as the only valid method of self-defence, the method that presents the smallest risk of being effectively used by women against them.

[cyberpunknoire]

Holy fucking shit

[kittiesatemypronouns]

I love this analysis. It’s very sound.

[butch-reidentified]

if she responds “proportionately” then it’s “mutual abuse” anyway

[dontworryfolkswetookallherteeth]

"Research... tells us over and over that when men kill their female partners or ex-partners, it usually follows months or years of abusing her. On the other hand, when women kill their husbands or exes, it's usually after months or years of having been abused by the man they have killed." - Kerry Daynes, The Dark Side of the Mind

[we-have-black-marble-at-home]

A study that was done by Hannah Scott, a professor of criminology, and Katie Fleming of University of Ontario, only documented 7 female family annihilators in the last 40 years.

Men are typically fueled by revenge or anger, Scott said. Financial crises, domestic violence and a recent divorce or estrangement are often cited as factors. That's not true for women. Mental illness or a reaction to years of battery or abuse are more commonly present, as are premeditated family slayings.

Females make up 58% of family annihilation victims and are more likely to be victims of familial murder

93% of perpetrators of family violence were male

78% had been imprisoned for crimes against women, half the victims being children under the age of 18 and a third being children under the age of 13

Family murders were responsible for 43% of all female murders in 2002

[fastwalker]

"alternative" female artists are always like "I'm dissecting beauty, fuck patriarchy, embrace ugliness!" and it's some conventionally attractive, underweight woman in a fetish outfit

[uvb76fan]

love when a woman says "i am not comfortable with a man being here / doing this" the response is always "oh this man is good dw." okay did i say i am not comfortable with a bad man doing it or did i say i'm not comfortable with a man doing it? way to just outright tell me you think my boundary is stupid and you're not going to respect it.

[5739e8-deactivated20260524]

I fucking hate how porn is called 'adult entertainment'. Entertainment for the morally abhorrent perhaps, for those who find joy in sex trafficking. Should be called videotaped rape industry

[kkoffin]

It’s funny that when you address the fact that men have more physical strength than women, people act as though you’re saying women are inferior. Like do you people think gorillas are superior to humans? maybe in a boxing match, sure, but I don’t see gorillas running successful democracies and building rockets to take them to the moon.

[animentality]

[bushpropaganda]

unrealistic male beauty standards: power, strength, protector, big strong man, superhero, literal god

unrealistic female beauty standards: weak, prey, helpless, porn star, sex object, sex symbol, sex doll, fetish, porn, jerk off material

damn it seems only one sex is held to a standard of outright dehumanization purposefully created by their oppressors who only see them as walking objects to masturbate to. gyns which is one worse im stumped here

[knightingael]

It’s really no wonder that men cling desperately to the institutions that don’t allow women out from under their brutality. Separatism terrifies them for good reason. Look at single-sex male spaces in prisons, schools, and industries. When men/boys are alone together, they quickly create castes where they treat their lowers like they treat women in broader society - and the abuse knows no limits. It’s often sexual, often fatal, and it always revolves around degradation. Males recreate patriarchy, even when they’re alone together. They’re terrified of their own brutality and need to use women as a buffer.

[deadfish-inabarrel]

“They’re terrified of their own brutality and need to use women as a buffer.”

Hey this reminded me of schools! It’s been shown that girls learn better in schools that are sex segregated, while boys learn better in mixed classes. The boys NEED girls to be a buffer, or else they do worse. However, when the girls are forced to be a buffer, they do much poorer in school.

[sichorean]

Ah I see they have reached the "Finding out" part of the Fucking around trajectory

[izzavi]

Like men everywhere else any “loneliness” affecting men in any way it is not also affecting women is a product of their rancid behavior, when it isn’t also a product of crushing male supremacist societies driving the selection against female people existing

[0atm11k]

Fascinating that not having a flesh and blood human to masturbate into is presented as a larger issue than femicide and infanticide here

[boudicasdaughter]

[lambdoctrines]

reminds me of a dateline episode i was listening to - they were trying to talk about a young girl who had been prostituted as a teenager, and despite her being a minor they still said that she was a "sex worker"

it's not *destigmatizing* to use language that actively harms victims. "work" implies that it's a choice, that it's a necessary thing happening to these girls/women that society just needs to accept. it completely erases the reality of what happens to women stuck in prostitution and how devastating and destructive it is to their lives

[hugewoman]

It’s language that intentionally covers up and sanitizes the ugliness and the cruelty and the abuse and the crimes. It’s a thought-terminating cliché, designed to be an easily repeatable slogan that makes you stop thinking critically and examining the subject further.

If you’re trying to talk about trafficked girls and your audience has someone in it who has been conditioned to believe the only morally upright and correct way to refer to any position in the sex trade is specifically as a “sex worker”, then they’re going to get up in arms about you referring to them as prostitutes or sex slaves, and you’re going to get derailed every time before you ever manage get to your point

That person is never going to hear about the child sex slaves, either because they interrupted the person trying to tell them about them to correct them on the terminology or because they were so steamed about it they stopped listening and labeled them a swerf, as if that actually means anything at all

Meanwhile they’re literally serving pimps and traffickers agendas with the language they’re choosing to use, simply because they like the sound of it better

[cherrycherub2222]

I’m making a set.