mother of budgies

20 something rad leaning • 🩷💜💙

[timteractions]

“her feminism focuses on women and not gender” oh well thank god

[empiredivinite]

the concept of feminism focusing on women.

[gender-machine-broke]

What the fuck? I can’t believe anyone is still watching this garbage. Not only is this misogynistic; it’s stupid and bad writing. How much money has been poured into this man’s sick fantasies? Meanwhile there have got to be so many brilliant writers out there whose stories we will never know

[b082014-deactivated20190807]

“In particular I have learned so much about what we’re allowed to say— the ideas we’re allowed to have about gender— and the ones that we’re not allowed to say— the things we will be punished for stating out loud or for even thinking. So in that presentation {‘The End of Gender: Revolution, Not Reform’} I tried to get across two main ideas, and I’ve come to discover that these two ideas amount to an Orwellian-style thoughtcrime in the current political climate around gender. And I think that indicates to me why we need to say them publicly, as loudly as we can, every opportunity we get.” — Rachel Ivy (2014)

[jbthegift]

Pioneers 😭🚀 🌙

[lassie-farce]

the artemis ii mission reminds me why i love humanity so much. they play pink pony club for the astronauts. they have issues with microsoft outlook. one of the astronauts named a moon crater after his late wife. a jar of nutella just flew by. they make 67 memes because they’re big nerds with huge hearts who say that we look beautiful from there. they call dibs on sleeping arrangements and the mission specialist likes sleeping like a bat. the pilot’s daughter shows her dad off on her social media.

dunno just sometimes helps to think that we can do things like that.

[lynnimaybe]

People asking why Artemis II matters, lemme tell you

1. First woman to enter deep space, Christina Koch, went as a mission specialist to help test the preventative measures against the radiation that causes cancer in the ships, and primarily affects women. It affects men too but less so. Christina's literally so inspiring to me.

2. This mission and further Artemis missions are testing safety concerns to help push the boundary of what we've been able to explore up to this point. Safety is the primary purpose of the trip. This is the first step to exploring Mars and further planets! Including Europa (my beloved.)

3. Before this, only 24 humans have ever entered deep space. Of that 24, 5 are alive today and they're all in their 90s. We very much needed a newer trip to help confirm or change whatever information we had from years and years ago. Having 4 living testaments of space exploration is a very important part of keeping said exploration alive.

4. Even though it wasn't the primary purpose of the trip, we've gotten so many rare pictures! Including my favorite "Hello, World" taken by commander Reid Wiseman:

It's the second photo EVER to have a fulll illuminated Earth hemisphere, the first being "Blue Marble". All other photos of the Earth have been spliced. Blue Marble was taken during the day and Hello, World was taken at night (the exposure has been lifted for clarity). It's my new favorite photo, it's so beautiful.

[11thfempachi]

You literally cannot argue with average time modern lefties in any possible productive way because they have exactly 3 responses to EVERYTHING:

1) you are a pro-censorship fascist

2) you hate harmless fun

3) but i chose to do this, you think you know better than me? You're taking away my bodily autonomy

[ganondorf]

no joke i've seen plenty of lefties call aborting after a down syndrome test "genocide" and "eugenics" and post shit like "imagine if my mom aborted me just because i was autistic.....#SoSad" like there is definitely a wider discussion to be had about destigmatizing developmental disabilities and neurodivergence but truly shocking that the conclusion they come to is to force people to give birth. or at the very least guilt them into it

[sun-crustt]

yall.

YALL.

[fuck-moid]

x

[z0ruas]

It can be fun to feel exceptional—to be the loophole woman, to have a whole power thing, to be an honorary man. But if you are the exception that proves the rule, and the rule is that women are inferior, you haven’t made any progress.

Ariel Levy, "Female Chauvinist Pigs"

[cuteautumn]

TOMORROW IS HALLOWEEN!!!

[tomatoreddsworld-deactivated201]

WHAT THE FUCK IT’S CHRISTMAS EVE WHY DID SOMEONE REBLOG THIS

[derranger-deactivated20220102]

TOMORROW IS HALLOWEEN!!!

[imokube-deactivated20240203]

TOMORROW IS HALLOWEEN!!!

[mr-freezo-42069-inactive]

🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃

TOMORROW IS HALLOWEEN!!!

🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃

[hallowed-be-thy-ween]

TOMORROW IS HALLOWEEN

[theangryblackfemme]

I think the quicker we clarify that whitewomen (who genuinely mean well and want to support women of colour) have internalised racism, the better. It's ok that you do. You were literally broughtup in a racist system created to benefit you. What matters is that you understand it's something that must be deconstructed and that you work with women of colour to help support us.

The same shit works with internalised misogyny. Radfems recognise that even though we're actively deconstructing patriarchy, we are still left with internalised misogyny. It's extremely hard to fully remove beliefs that were instilled in you from the day you were born. For some of us, full removal of internalised misogyny will never happen, but that's OK. So long as we understand these beliefs shouldn't be rooted in society or into people in the first place, we're willing to fight against it and supportother women.

The same applies to internalised racism. Hell, even I, as a Black woman, have internalised racism, so you sure as hell do too. Sit with yourself and take the time to realise that you have deep-rooted racist "beliefs", and don't beat yourself up for it if you really want to support every non-white sister.

You will do everyone a favour by admitting to it, working on it, and continuing to support women of colour instead of trying to come up with excuses and defend yourself when you slip up or get butt hurt from women of colour pointing out generalised racism.

That internalised racism may never go away, but that's fine; what matters is your work to deconstruct it, and supporting women of colour.

[colombinaa]

I agree with all of this 100%, but white people can’t internalise racism. “Internalised” is used for the members of the oppressed class who, because of socialisation, consciously and unconsciously adopt (internalise) their own oppression. White women can’t have internalised racism the same way men can’t have internalised misogyny; it’s just racism.

I understand what OP is saying, i’m white myself and when i first started getting interested in politics and social issues as a teen i remember trying to find a way to explain this same concept to myself. I used to use the term “internalised” as well until i learnt the correct meaning.

Now i’d rather describe it as unconscious (?) bias or prejudice, what often manifests as “casual racism” (i got this last expression from “casual misogyny”). These are the terms i found but other terms found by people of colour may be more correct as i do not experience racism and i believe class experience to be fundamental when making language for purposes of liberation.

So yeah my reblog is just to point out the correct language bc i also used it incorrectly in the past! I wouldn’t have anything to add anyway, i’m literally white.

So pls fellow white women let’s not use “internalised racism” for ourselves bc it’s wrong and language is important. Let’s keep analysing how white privilege works side by side with that part of female socialisation (and internalised misogyny) that makes women identify ourselves in relation to men rather than with women. It takes active action to go against racial prejudices so never stop doing it. Keep engaging with literature, art and critique made by women of colour. As i like to say, choose your femaleness!!

[duckbunny]

don't infantilise yourself. you are not a child who needs an adult to make your decisions for you. you are a splendid and magnificent autocrat and you are consulting your trusted advisors. you are exercising great wisdom by inviting an expert to give their opinion before making your ruling. often the path of wisdom is to say "good morning, I'm trying to [perform task] and I have a question about [aspect], can you tell me who I should speak to for advice?" before you do it. sometimes the path of wisdom is to hire a plumber. there are times when you cannot do things for yourself but that doesn't mean you are not an adult. you don't need a grown-up. you need a specialist.

[kiefbowl]

not to get woo woo on you because I mean this only in the most scientific way possible, but the female body is a sexual pleasure powerhouse and that has historically been a threat to men's power. everything that keeps women from experiencing pleasure, knowing pleasure, understanding pleasure, seeking pleasure, taking ownership of pleasure is quite literally socially constructed and enforced, and is not some sort of objective biological reality of the female body. of course, what an individual woman experiences and the social constraints on her are not up for debate if that woman is not interested in the debate. if a woman is uninterested in exploring her sexuality and is unable to orgasm due to trauma or mental anguish or whatever it is, there's really no need to pressure her into "just getting out there" to prove some point. Every woman has the right to say no, in totality, forever, for any reason.

But I do want to put it out there that the binds on the female mind wrt sex and pleasure are so strong that you might not realize the ways you act as your own sexuality police even if you feel the most enlightened as you ever have about sex, and you can keep yourself from really getting to the truth of the matter: there is NO secret knowledge men have over women when it comes to sex, not in the sense of what is innately sexual about our bodies and our animalistic desires. Your body is capable, and its natural reactions do not need external validation. If you feel horny, that's because you're a mammal. If you feel aroused, that's because you're a mammal. If you feel enticed, that's because you're a mammal. It needs no explanation. Of course you crave sex, of course it feels good. Of course it does not need porn, or fetish, or religion, or taboo.

Stop asking yourself if it's weird or normal or if you're allowed to feel pleasure when your body is stimulated in a way you enjoy. You don't need permission. And stop trying to justify why it's worth tolerating things you don't enjoy. You get to say: "No, only pleasure and nothing else." You get to say: "It's not worth it if I don't orgasm." You get to say: "Stop, I don't like that." You get to say: "I don't care if you like it, I don't." You're not weird for saying touch my neck, touch my breasts, touch my thighs, touch my back, touch my feet, touch my face, touch my hands, touch my hair, touch my ears, touch my stomach, touch my knees, touch my lips, touch my hips, touch me here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here

[gostaks]

how the fuck did all of those renaissance dilettantes learn so much crap? Like they spoke 3 languages and were foremost in several branches of science, plus they wrote poetry, played the violin, and were master artists? And they still had time to be gay? 

[vassraptor]

none of them ever did any laundry at all

[lettherebedragons]

The emotional and physical labor necessary to maintain the lifestyles of Renaissance and Enlightenment polymaths was shunted almost entirely to their uncredited servants, slaves, wives, and daughters. 

Whenever we compare ourselves to the ‘genius men’ of the past, and wonder why we fall so short, remember this: their intellectual capacity, energy, and freedom was because there was someone else washing the damn dishes.

[ruikan-deactivated20260120]

“Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner” is a brilliant book hisyorically analyzing this exact thing!

[thedisdainfullysilentvisitor]

There’s another book with a like title although it historically analyzes womens’ impact overall.

“Who Cooked The Last Supper?”

[antinymphs]

"Men’s homosociality is something that must be kept in check. Across the anthropological record, societies where men spent more time with women and children had less violent, more kind, men. And it’s not only a psychological change, men in the presence of women and children undergo a physiological response... Advocating as feminist praxis that would make men more antisocial and misogynistic does not seem to me in women’s best interests."

"Separatism encourages women to withdraw from society and positions of power, to give up cultural capita... Separatism in this form is a rebranding of nunhood"

Why I'm not a female separatist

Why separatism is not a means to lower misogyny

Quite controversial on radblr, my two cents. Take it or leave it, but I hope you at least find it interesting. I included some anthropology stuff I don't think most radfems are aware of, on tumblr at least

[theonceandfutureharpy]

None of this matters because separatism is at its core an individual lifestyle choice. I don't have to give a singular shit about whether or not my, or any other woman's, withdrawal from male-supremacist society has an impact on the world at large to want to protect my daughter and myself from immediate harm.

Like, think if you were saying something like "moving into a building that prohibits dogs won't stop dogs from biting people." It's true, dogs will still bite people. But they won't do it in here where I live.

[flowerlygirls]

my main reason for hating anti-seperatist talking points is simply bc its the mainstream! its what everyone wants you to do! its like saying "i believe in the status quo!" its a lukewarm nothingburger.

also questionable in how far it can actually be *proven* that men who interact with women and children lots are less violent. for example: whos to say its not selection bias, that men who are less violent and woman-hating for some other reason arent then in turn obviously more likely to interact with children and women more? or how sure is it that its actual causation not correlation? did those societies have any other characteristics inherent in them that mightve lead to less violent men that coincide with being a society where men and women interact more normally and regularly and are thus acting like a third variable in this equation? and how exactly is "kind men" defined? "violent" is defined quite easily sure, but what evidence could there be still after centuries that could lead one to qualify a society as having had "kinder" men?

[flowerlygirls]

im sorry op i am ansolutely there with you when it comes to giving other opinions a fair chance but the more i read about anyones anti-seperatism mindset the more pissed TF OFF i get.

at its core, it is almost blatantly saying "please other women, please put yourself in a bit more danger personally [by interacting with males, when men known to a woman are most likely to be her murderer or rapist or abuser] so on a larger scale men could become a bit less violent". not to mention: does women interacting with men more actually lead to less crimes AGAINST Women? bc the main point thats reiterated is that it lowers mens rates of violence... well, against who? bc im not quite fond of presenting women as collateral so men bash eachothers heads in a bit less.

we know that boys in mixed sex schools are less violent to eachother bc they have girls to torment. someone they consider a natural weaker easy target. is there a reason to assume this is not whats happening on a larger social scale? that naturally, men who are surrounded by less women lash out more against eachother/the state/peoples property bc they have less women to enact their violence against?

what i found disturbing specifically about that linked blig entry was the juxtaposition of "oh yea men who had only their male kids living with them often abused them and these boys went on to have relationships with adults males" and "men who were around their kids and women more were less violent" as though you ougtha give men access to children like its some kinda vaccine against becoming a pedophile and abuser, like its a moral obligation. like letting a kid get a hamster they could very easily neglect and kill but hey! the lesson in responsibility was well worth the silly hamster's life!

also, the intellectually dishonest "all the worst misogynists i know dont have womentheyre friends with" um, duh? thats not bc they turned misogynist due to not having female friends, men literally admit all the time that they dont want female fruends bc women arent people worth knowing and a personality is only a thing they tolerate so they get to fuck a certain woman.

fundamentally i will never see eye to eye with any feminist whos main plea is for women to please please raise and shape and change men! i say no, and fuck you, too.

and i honestly laugh at women who say "well its never gonna be possible as a large scale feminist praxis!" yea, no shit sherlock. theres women alive rn in the 21st centure unable to even SPEAK. we are VERY far away from seperatism becoming a viable option for literally 99% of women. not to mention it is extremely obvious a definitive seperation of humanity into the male and female half could logistically never work out, good thing then that thats literally not even slightly the goal everyone with even a few marbles left up there is focusing on.

let the record reflect im a hetero woman and not even like "hurr durr women who still date/befriend men arent feminists!" (before anyone feels a tickle in their fingers to comment something lesbophobic or accusatory) but can we please for the love of shit stop acting like its necessary to "speak out" against seperatism. or acting like a huge portion of women arent feminists bc feminist wardens of the female liberation facility will metaphorically imprison them in a seperatist female-only existence.

[femsolid]

I have some questions for you:

1) Is it my life's goal to "pacify" men?

2) If men are less dangerous when they are in contact with women, why are the men most likely to hurt, rape and kill women their own family members and lovers? How can you claim that giving men access to women and kids makes them less violent when men kill their own wives and rape their own daughters every day?

3) Why is it that the one way to combat misogyny is by doing exactly what misogynists want?

4) Why are men not alarmed at all by the idea that women stay with them and get involved in the patriarchy society, but get angry at separatism?

5) Why is it necessary for you to fight against something so marginal and already so vilified as female separatism, female celibacy, and childfree women? Is there nothing more important and urgent than telling women to stay with men?

6) Why do you think calling us "nuns" is an argument?

7) You're a reformist when separatists are revolutionaries. What makes you think we need more reformism given the fact that in 2025 men are still killing their wives, marrying little girls and throwing acid in their sister's face?

8) Considering everything men have done and still do to us despite living with us (and our babies) which is supposed to be "pacifying" them, how much more violent are they supposed to get?

9) If men need babies to behave like civilised people, do we have a duty, as women, to become pregnant and give birth? Is abortion as dangerous and counterproductive as separatism?

10) Why do you think that if women refuse to participate in a patriarchal society to supposedly change it from the inside, it means women refuse to participate in society period? Do you think women are incapable of creating their own society, culture, jobs and models? Why do you call it a "small life"? Is it "small" to be creative and ambitious? Is it small to be a political activist? Is it "small" to be free? And is marrying men and giving them babies a "big life"? Is working for the government in a patriarchal society a "big life"? What makes for a "big life"?

11) Why do you think that only seeking relationships with women leads to an "isolated" life? Do female relationships not count?

12) Isn't it a bit offensive and irresponsible to claim that it's harmful for women to stay away from those who harm them?

PS: I'm with flowerlygirl here. Males might be less overtly aggressive and violent to each other when they're around women precisely because they use women as punching bags. They don't need to prove their superiority to other men when they have access to a whole social class they can step on every day.