Gyneocracy

[rainbowsnviolets-deactivated202]

When I was a libfem I was always told that “TERFs hate gnc women! TERFs think all women are hairless and pretty and don’t accept anyone who doesn’t fit that picture of a woman! TERFs exclude women who don’t have an uterus anymore or can’t birth children! TERFs hate intersex people! TERFs love gender so much! TERFs are all white!”. While these aren’t the wildest takes (they are pretty wild lol), they are the ones I’ve seen the most. The weird thing about this is: The above mentioned claims are just plain false. As soon as I began reading some radfem posts I knew that those claims were false. They are not even close to what radical feminists want or think, not even in the slightest. So I wondered where these assumptions came from. Because from what I had seen by then radfems/rad leaning activists or other people who get pushed together under the term “TERF” just never fit this description. Quite the opposite. Gnc women are supported and loved, being what society consideres gender non conforming is encouraged and celebrated. Gender is a social construct attached to the material reality of our female sex and it’s used as a tool of sex based oppression against women. So radfems hate gender and want everyone just to be themselves without having to choose a new gender label to be that “true self”. We aknowledge and love differences in women. We fight different injustices different kinds of women face. If you are born female you are a woman and we will support you. Doesn’t matter if you are gnc, intersex (yes! intersex conditions are sex specific!), fat, hairy or unable to bear children. Black women or indigenous women face unique and horrifying misogyny and that’s part of our activism too. Born female? That’s all the criteria needed. You are female and have gender dysphoria? If you want to we will still welcome you and help you however we can. This is exactly what radical feminism on tumblr IS. This is exactly the community TRAs are addressing with their false claims. I always circle back to my observation of how the TRAs function like a cult and this is another of these things that point into that direction. It’s known that they never want their followers to fact check anything, it’s the golden rule of trans activism to never “engage with TERFs”. Never read their blogs, never read their sources, never read their books. This is already scary (no radical feminist would ever say that you can’t read trans activists posts/blogs/books) in itself. But these kinds of arguments just add another layer. Because those are the things that keep most libfems who would be interested in radical feminism away from reading into it. “TERFs are violent towards trans people and literally kill us” doesn’t hold up for too long because people will notice sooner or later that that’s just… a lie. So they add some more spice to their accusations. “TERFs actually hate YOU too! They hate that you are a gender non conforming woman and they will kick you out as soon as you are infertile or look too much like a guy!” Because yea… that’s what kept me from looking into radical feminism the most at first. Thinking that that’s a group of people who hate me. When in reality it’s quite the opposite. Instead of the “Gender is good, you just need to find the right one for you. You must be a guy if you are gnc. Forget about sex based oppression, that doesn’t exist.” from TRAs I found a feminist community that tells me “It’s society and it’s gender norms that are wrong. You are right the way you are and don’t need to change a thing about you. It’s the way we perceive sex that needs to change. Sex is real and the oppression you faced needs to be addressed”.

[emmascorner-deactivated20210606]

I love this post. One thing I was told as a woman with a facial deformity is that TERFs were horribly ableist. If anything, I’ve found more acceptance in radfem circles than I did in libfem circles. I learned about body neutrality and about self-worth, and that helped me way more than shallow body positivity or liberal feminism. Radfems aren’t that bad, and I’m really glad I realized that.

[sammyclassicyonicfan]

i second this. through reading radfem theory and meeting radical feminists themselves, i’ve become far, far more comfortable with my gender non-conformity/androgyny, not even to mention my own bisexuality/SSA - and, by extension, learning about the possibility of being a febfem. since “joining” the radfem community, i have to say that my confidence and self-image have improved massively, especially for a rather chubby teenage girl. genuinely, i cannot stress how good for my mental health this community of women-empowering-other-women has been. if you’re a liberal feminist, an “anti-TERF” or some other sort of lurker reading this, please just talk to a few radfems. talk to me, if you want to. just know that you’re welcome any time.

[hibou088]

On choosing slavery

"The reactionaries' hope is that (...) the sheep-like people will allow themselves to be led astray from century to century. This eternal back-and-forth, which shows us in the past the series of partially aborted revolutions, the endless labor of generations succeeding one another in toil, constantly rolling away the rock that crushes them, this irony of fate that shows captives breaking their chains only to be shod again, all this is the cause of great moral unrest." (Page 60 of "L'évolution, la révolution et l'ideal anarchique" By Elisée Reclus. Available on the Internet Archive".

This quote pretty much sums up women's behavior as a collective. A portion of women fight for their "rights", only to give them up a few generations later...

Never forget that if women have been "oppressed" for thousands of years now (I do not think we can really talk about "oppression", I will explain why), it is because they were complicit in their degredation and made sure to preserve the institutions which kept them enslaved. A good example is Anne-Josèphe Théroigne, a French Revolutionary, who said : "It is time for women, strong in their shameful nullity, where ignorance, (...) and injustice kept them enslaved for a long time." Quite bold, right ? Well guess what : random Jacobine women inflicted what was called the "Republican Spanking" on her. Théroigne was stripped naked and publicly spanked ("lynched" would be more accurate). Here was a woman who wanted to set women free, yet she got lynched by her OWN kind.

This proves Madeleine Pelletier's quote : "Woman loves her servitude." Women, as a whole, are stuck in an endless loop of semi-freedom and slavery.

They taste freedom, only for them to realize that it is not what they want and that they actually prefer to be beneath a man, as this allows them to have no self-accountability. This is perfect, as they can blame everything on males without any consequences. They also proudly continue to birth the very beings they complain about all day.

NEVER forget that NOT ALL women were oppressed, only those who made the choice to marry a male were (which was the majority, obviously). Please, never forget that fact. It is crucial as it will allow you to understand that "oppression" and freedom are both choices to make. You either chose one or the other based on your actions. The law of coverture is a perfect illustration of this :

Whereas the unmarried woman, or feme sole, retained the right to own property and make contracts in her own name... It is not a coincidence if the "women" (I will explain why I put it in quotations) who more often had many inventions and were geniuses were either celibate or lesbian.

They chose celibacy and thus, FREEDOM. The reason why I put the word "woman" in quotations when talking about celibate or asexual "women", or lesbians, is because these individuals are not "women" per se. Indeed, as Monique Wittig said : "What makes a woman is a particular social relationship to a man, […] a relationship that lesbians [or celibate females] escape by refusing to become or remain heterosexual" (The Straight Mind). I thus understand and support the "women" who consider themselves to be non-binary because they do not subscribe to the social expectations of "being a woman" (i.e having sex with a man and having his children, let's be real). It is also the reason why St Paul said the following :

You either choose slavery (sex, lust) or you choose God (the Sacred Light within yourself). Years ago, I would have considered that quote to be stupid, now I fully understand it.

Finally, I want everyone to understand that, as fucked up as this statement is : every misogynistic institution of the past was created for a reason ! Every misogynistic statement from philosophers or writers did not come out of the blue. They saw how the "class" of women was behaving, so how could they not draw the conclusion they drew ? Women of today are no more intelligent than their ancestors, they are actually perpetuating their misery. The woman of the past married and had kids, women today still choose men above everything else. I still see women getting played by stupid men, I still see women hating on other women because of sexual competition, I still see women proudly inferiorizing themselves to appease their husband, I still see women grooming girls and other women into thinking that heterosexuality is the right way to live, I still see women being the main adherents of "patriarchal" religions, I still see women proudly asserting that they like being submissive to their men, I still see women letting their kids being abused by their partner, I still see women proudly sexualizing themselves and calling it "empowerment"... I could go on for hours. It is not men who are brainwashing women to become submissive and subservient to them, it is OTHER WOMEN. "The Good Wife's Guide" was written by Darlene Schacht, where she encourages women to joyfully serve their families. There are plenty of books written by women telling other women how to be happy slaves. Women, as a collective, DESERVE their second class citizenship because that is what they subconsciously desire at the end of the day.

The only thing to remember from what I wrote is that simple fact : women, as a collective, will ALWAYS prioritize sexual gratification and male validation over ANYTHING ELSE. Their health, their sanity, their life, their family, anything else is secondary next to male validation. Acknowledging that fact is NOT misogyny, it is simply common sense. If you are intelligent, realize that the average woman is NOT your friend and that she could ditch you in a heartbeat over the dumbest thing. But this realization should not sadden you, it should only make you realize that you are part of a different breed of highly intelligent Beings, an Elite if you prefer ❤️ Realize that if you are TRULY different from other women, none of the misogynistic things that were or are said applies to you. Women have built their own cage and perpetuate their own oppression, men have NEVER been responsible for women's choices, despite what the average individual wants you to believe.

I will end with this Renée Reclus quote : "To place upon others the responsibility for one’s own conduct means to be lacking in valor."

As simple as that.

[radicallycooljewishgirl]

Me at all the wacked out lib fems on this hellsite.

[hadesoftheladies]

I actually do want to stigmatize heterosexual relationships because more girls and women should go through life expecting romance with men to be dangerous, fatal, miserable and exploitative before anything else. that absolutely needs to be the default societal impression. Because the default societal impression now (that het romance is more health, longer life, companionship or has anything to do with love and safety) is a strictly male-centric one. just because marriage benefits men doesn’t mean it’s beneficial. men (and their experiences) are not the default and women (and their experiences) are not niche.

[medusas-vengeance-deactivated20]

I often see men complain that when they open up their emotional side to women, women will either get turned off, lose respect or whatnot for their male partner. Why are you expecting women to be turned on and have so much respect for you just because you're expressing your emotions? So men just don't open up. But really women got tired of being their unpaid therapist and having their male partner unload his emotional baggage and trauma onto her. If you really want your humanity, the ability to openly express your emotions why not challenge men who uphold the patriarchal belief that men shouldn't express their emotions? It seems like men want the best of both worlds. They get into relationships with women where they can express their emotions and outside of their relationship with women they uphold the patriarchal belief of being unemotional. When will men start challenging other men? After all, its men who took men's humanity away not women. Yet women are always blamed. Which reminds me of the quote by Khaled Hosseini, "Like a compass facing north, a man's accusing finger always finds a woman. Always."

[drbased]

Men’s whole deal is that they’re supposed to be better than us, and that includes their ability to suppress emotions. In a world where men offer so little to a relationship, their stoicism is sold to women as an attractive marker of their masculinity, so they can supposedly make more practical decisions whilst women get to remain perpetual children with a stronger emotional core and sense of whimsy. That was the deal, the patriarchal justification for men’s control over women’s lives. Now women are making decisions for themselves, discovering that our emotionality doesn’t make us childish, in fact quite the opposite - meanwhile, men are less practical than they’ve ever been, and it turns out without stoicism as a social cover they don’t actually know how to be adults at all. So it’s a double whammy - there are women who simply dislike men’s emotionality because it’s not what was sold to them as attractive masculinity, and there are others who would love for a man to be emotional, but have learned the hard way that unlike us, for men emotionality does NOT equal maturity. This is your bed, men, now you’ve gotta figure out how to lie in it.

[moondahluna]

Being and Being Bought by Kajsa Ekis Ekman

[watermelinoe]

transphobia is the only oppression you can opt into with a simple declaration and conveniently it is also one of the worst forms of oppression, surely in an online culture of oppression points as social currency there's no incentive to adopt a trans identity

[radfemtiktok]

[uterusperson]

ABOUT PORN. I'm fucking angry

I wanna make an anti-porn post as a former porn actress. And I wanna be really real and harsh and honestly I wanna be a bit rude.

I have worked in porn. There are videos of me right now, today, out on the internet that I will never be able to have deleted. All the arguments to excuse porn sound to me like the "wait that's illegal" meme, and they're disgusting and insulting.

I'm not gonna say which company I worked for, the websites, or my "porn name", because obviously, so don't even ask. But I know first hand what happens, and people just refuse to listen because "guys wanna jerk off :((". It's a slap in the face to all of us who have worked with this, and those who still work with this. No actually it's a spit in the face and a slap.

Have some humanity. Your dick isn't the royalty you think it is.

Example. My brother was on the internet at the time I was "working" and got one of those pop-up ads for "girls in your area looking for you", with my nude picture on it, right in his face. Can you imagine what that felt like for me, or him for that matter? Btw I hadn't sold my pictures to any of those things, they were all stolen. It's normal practice.

"It's ILLEGAL to coerce!!!" Please. Use your brain for one second. We don't live in care bear land. Has it ever occurred to you that some people... are not good people?

Yes, it all happens. Drugging, choking, raping, beating, and coercion. All of it, all the goddamn time. Drugging someone up to their eyeballs to film an especially violent scene? Normal practice. "Do this or no pay"? Every single day. And I'm leaving out the graphic stuff.

Yes. YES, it happens. Yes it fucking happens. Put your ego aside for two seconds and LISTEN to women. Listen to women who have actually worked with, and excuse my french, fucking strange men in real life.

Stop watching porn.

[uterusperson]

And before anyone wants to get smart with me. The company I worked for was a so called "good porn" company, even called themselves "women's porn" at times. In the US. So it's not like, some russian undercover operation. This was, and is, a big porn provider.

[themeansofreproduction]

wake up wake up wake up wake up

[mithliya]

they do this so often!!! in my university, several women’s toilets were turned into gender neutral ones and the men’s were all left alone. and i heard similar for other universities in the UK! it’s insane because men’s bathrooms aren’t as crowded as women’s, and men aren’t at risk in bathrooms like women are, yet it’s women who are losing our bathrooms?

[old-school-butch]

Can confirm - I’ve been in multiple building that have a ‘men’s washroom’ and a ‘washroom.’ And that’s all the options.

Even if both are labelled ‘gender neutral’ I can’t physically use a urinal so, practically, it’s not going to happen.

[femsolid]

[radmista]

Why can I never find this post when tras claim this doesn't happen and ask for proof. There was a blog just a few weeks ago being very petty whenever someone presented their own experiences or proof of this happening in public locations with "they're not taking away the woman's bathroom they're just adding a gender neutral one on top of the other 2" because no one could pull up a picture of a bathroom door with a gender neutral sign. As if it made any sense that all these public buildings would BUILD an entire new bathroom to make it gender neutral. She wanted people to somehow show that the female bathroom sign was taken away and made into a gender neutral one. As if there isn't proof just like the first tiktok video of students this is happening to saying they're seeing it happen in their schools.

[jeunefillerangee-deactivated202]

They should make the men's restrooms gender neutral and keep the women's restrooms. Let's see what happens.

[lookataleaf3000]

Not to be That Guy but I do kind of think that the way postmodernist style thinking functions in academia is a psyop intended to undermine the left. In the 60s and 70s, all kinds of radicalism and action came from universities. Some universities built in that era were designed for police shutdowns during riots. But now it’s like… the way that people in humanities, social sciences etc, everyone who’s been encouraged into postmodernism, queer theory etc, ESPECIALLY those from pristigous schools, structure their thought is so… impossible to apply in any material way. Forget about radical meaning at the root, it’s more like radical meaning totally off the ground. Everything is like, a thought experiment, spoken about as if it’s reality. And they dominate leftist spaces– often having the class background or even just academic confidence to back up their strongly held beliefs, or even just the time to implement them. The closer you are to a liberal arts university, the more likely it is that the political groups around it are incredibly bogged down in identity and language that most people don’t understand, and an environment hostile to basic questioning and learning outside of adopting the lingo. It really effectively isolates the people in it AND isolates them from organizing effectively. Not to mention their conceptual frameworks are really removed from reality in the first place

If it wasn’t an actual psy op it worked just as well by itself lol

[jinxielynx]

Your post reminded me of this, which I remember reading ages ago on @lesbianseparatist:

So yeah people have been taking about this being off for more than thirty years.

[gothhabiba]

[Taking she social out of social constructionism–What is perhaps most fascinating about postmodern theory is that for all the talk about how things are socially constructed they forgot the implications of “social" in social construction. After their supposedly new insight that nearly everything is socially constructed, they do not advocate much for transformation at the social level, ie. for changes in institutions, social norms, social structures such as the family, etc. Instead there is mush attention to individual acts of transgression of conventional social norms as a way of highlighting that social norms are constructed and not natural or inevitable. This kind of rebellion in postmodernism is a very isolated activity—it consists of individuals taking it upon themselves to fight battles all alone. There is not an emphasis among postmodern theorists for building a critical mass of people united in a social movement which could begin to effect change at the social level. There is instead a very superficial understanding of how social forces work—a naive and libertarian emphasis on individual actions and choices as though the cumulative effect of each isolated individual choice or action will effect largescale social transformation. The net effect of such an atomization of individual activities serves to prevent rather than foster social change. The curious timing of postmodernism What is most interesting about postmodernism is not what postmodernists say about it, but how it functions in the real world (and I’m assuming there is one) in terms of social change. The effects of the intimidating and obfuscating writing style, of inhibiting generalisations and so the formation of commonalities between people, of ruling out binary thinking, and so eviscerating impassioned convictions, and of overemphasizing individual rather than collective action is to cream a multilayered system of disconnection, silencing, and disempowerment.

What is also interesting is the timing of the advent of postmodernist theory. As Somer Brodribb and Barbara Christian point out in Radically Speaking, postmodernism came into vogue in academia just when the voices of women and people of color began to assert significant presence there.

I suggest that postmodernism is nothing more than the new relativism and that relativistic theories emerge as a new line of defense when power structures are becoming threatened. It is a very insidious and crafty defense because it mouths the words of liberation while simultaneously transforming them into meaninglessness. The real agenda is masked in clever obfuscation— to preserve the status quo by rendering dissent meaningless and ineffective, unable to gather any social or political power. Notwithstanding postmodernism’s purported intention to deconstruct social norms and by so doing, make way for changes, its actual effect is to atomize peoples’ experiences, obliterate the potential for solidarity, silence articulate and forthright speech, and render passionate convictions meaningless. It leaves us unable to condemn anything as wrong or oppressive with clarity, certainty, or conviction. Furthermore, nearly all of the so-called insights of postmodernism are simply rehashed and depoliticized versions of radical feminist ideas. Postmodernism is a theory which denounces the act of theorizing, it is speech that silences voices, it is writing that stultifies and obscures, it is a position which advocates no position at all, it is a politics which refuses to take a stand on anything. And we must see the politics of that—it is a viper that women’s studies and English departments have nursed to their collective bosoms. It is a theory, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It is a stealth theory that contains a virus which, once incorporated, explodes all possibility of impassioned righteous collective action for changing the conditions of our lives. by karla mantilla]

[savemefromsanity]

It’s not an accident. Many of the academics of the 80s and 90s came straight out of the down turn in the most recent social movements, brining with them a pessimism of the possibility for revolution or change. Importantly, most of their criticisms of Marxism and materialism came from an understanding based on Stalinism, and accepted the outcome of the Soviet Union to be the inevitable outcome of all working class revolution. This was a conscious abandonment of struggle and of the working class as the agent of historical change, and was concentrated in academia where these ex-activists could find work. Post-modern conclusions should themselves be subject to a historical materialist analysis, and should be seen as a product of their own time. The danger lies in the arguments against solidarity and for separatist politics.

[vexingwoman]

One of the things that makes arguing with men so much more draining than arguing with women is the unequal distribution of credibility and contribution.

Somehow, whenever I argue with men, it always falls upon me to both prove my own claims, and to disprove his, while he does neither; his only obligation seemingly to dole out whatever ungrounded assertions he conjures up on the spot. Somehow, it is always wordlessly established that anything I say is false until proven true, while anything he says is true until proven false.

This same dynamic happened again over on tiktok, when a man claimed women are just as violent as men. Automatically, almost as if by muscle memory, I offered up the usual statistics on male depravity: men constituting 99% of rapists, 99% of mass shooters, 98% of killers, 95% of serious domestic abusers. And his only response was to say those statistics were wrong. No elaboration; wrong simply because he said so.

I already knew how the entire conversation would pan out: I’d give him my source, he’d find a reason to discredit the source, then I’d scour the internet to find a source that suited his standards, which he’d inevitably find a reason to discredit too.

So instead I simply said, “Prove the statistics are wrong.” And that was the only thing I responded with henceforth: prove it, prove I’m wrong, prove you’re right. Thus reversing the dynamics and positing that anything I said was true unless he demonstrated otherwise; unduly putting all the onus on him while I did nothing other than decide whether he was convincing me of claims thoroughly enough—and if he wasn’t, it just meant I was winning, of course.

He blocked me, and so far so have all the other men I’ve used this approach on. I don’t know whether it’s because they couldn’t actually disprove my claims or because they couldn’t stand to be treated the same way they treat women in debates. But I think more women should do this. Stop wasting energy proving your points to men, and start making them prove theirs to you.

[himemoo]

depressing post from a sub mainly about westerners naming their children kayleighgh nova and sephiroth uzumaki

[hadesoftheladies]

if woman means sex to men and society, femaleness becomes pornography. it then becomes necessary for the good of the public that little girls be put in dresses, forced to cover their shoulders, heads or knees in a church or mosque. mothers banned from public breastfeeding. female features, like cellulite, periods, body hair, become offensive. affairs for privacy.

the fact that men see women as primarily sex first and not as people shows in every facet of society. that a woman cannot befriend, think, dress, behave or speak without it being interpreted as sexual. how we dress as women and girls is always about our sexual character and never ourselves or our self-expression. are we married, of mature mating age, innocent, feminine and sexually chaste, sluts, lesbians? this is what clothes on women are discussed as. women’s clothes and bodies aren’t allowed to be as neutral as men’s are. there simply isn’t all those politics surrounding maleness or men’s fashion.

our clothes are political because our bodies are political. our femaleness must be masked, regulated, categorized publicly, and unmasked privately. because men think of us pornographically, in their world, the world which we live in, femaleness can only mean porn, never humanity or simple womanhood. it is offensive, must remain private and only allowed to be about men’s sexual excitement.

[hairy-lez]

Lesbians hating the term gold star for implying that not having been with men is a good thing is wild. If you are an actual lesbian, never being with a man would be amazing because you wouldn't have to live with that trauma. If you were with a man and it was consensual/not traumatic, chances are you aren't an extreme on the kinsey scale, which is fine, but don't tell us what terms are okay for us to use.

[gyneocracy]

perhaps consider why you’re so eager to immediately pick fault with hypothetical bisexual women doing hypothetical wrongs (because everything on tiktok is not in fact true and things can be said and done for an agenda) if you don’t want to be accused of being a radfem, considering radfems do nothing BUT the above

Damn bro that was like 2 weeks ago I totally forgot about it after it was cleared up, which you were too quick to send this anon to see (for a quick recap, it boils down to, "Oh, then yeah, who cares?"). Sad!

You people are just so miserable and WEIRD, you wait for the moment a person makes a comment you can take out of pocket and use to define their entire personality and then you decide interacting with this person you clearly dislike (?) is going to make your day a little better...? It's so weird. Like I could respond to this seriously, but my responses are all there to read and take seriously if you actually cared, but you don't lol this is just a bite of entertainment for you to poke the person you've decided is a part of the enemy faction (?) which means they're safe to "attack" or something lol it's so unhinged.

[closetradfem-deactivated2024050]

found this on Pinterest.

wonder what would have happened if she was a man?

[flowerlygirls]

dont take my word for it because i do not remember clearly but i think there was a longer text too, where it was made clear that at a certain point the women began protecting her from the men.

that men were the ones hurting her and the women were mostly like putting lipstick of her braiding her hair or other silly harmless stuff, and then when the men began escalating it, the women in the audience began fighting them off for her and covering her up and comforting her

so much for "humanity" being cruel to "all people". more like men wnjoying dehumanizing and humiliating women for their pleasure

[ms-hells-bells]

i recall that too.

something that is rarely mentioned in these snippets and coverage of this project is that not only did a man try to get her to shoot herself but people (mostly women) stopped him, a man outright tried to rape her right there, but people (mostly women) stopped him.

this exhibition has recently resurfaced and has many articles about it from 2023, so it's difficult to find older articles that better mention the gendered aspect, all the recent ones say 'people' and 'humanity'. this just shows how the attempt to make perpetrator and victim gender neutral in all situations for 'equality' obfuscates even actually occurring events, not just concepts.