When you successfully overcome the mental illness that is having a crush on a man and go back to having self respect, dignity, and common sense
Mike Driver
NASA

Andulka
almost home
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
ojovivo

tannertan36
AnasAbdin
$LAYYYTER

No title available

titsay
will byers stan first human second
RMH
YOU ARE THE REASON
Xuebing Du
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

shark vs the universe
d e v o n
sheepfilms
Stranger Things

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Australia
seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from France
seen from United States
seen from Hungary

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Germany
seen from Belgium
seen from United States

seen from Singapore

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Tanzania
seen from United Kingdom
@matrillines
When you successfully overcome the mental illness that is having a crush on a man and go back to having self respect, dignity, and common sense
TIL that prostitution was widely legal in the United States up until the early 1900’s, when the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union lobbied against it. This was the same union that was a driving force behind Prohibition in the 1920’s.
via reddit.com
Those chicks hated working women and good times
I do not know if this was just a pithy response, but responses like this pissed me off so much I thought I was going to start spitting blood when this Reddit thread first came around a few years back, and every time this issue comes back. I tried to go to sleep. But this kept running through my head, so here we are.
And this is addressed to all the redditors with the hot take that these women were, indeed, just fun-hating, jealous prudes:
You really have no theory of mind when it comes to women. You think they are just reactionary, shrieking, brainless, pearl-clutching harpies who hate fun and are only ~jealous~ of their husbands going to prostitutes. Marital rape was an oxymoron and the husband was within his legal and physical bounds to do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, to his wife and children. The women had no rights to property, to keep their own wages, to hold a bank account, and there were few jobs for women other than domestic and prostitute. Schoolteachers and nurses, aside from requiring education working class women could not access, were paid a pittance, and in the former case were required to be unmarried in many places. So the husband was well within his rights to drink his family wages and leave his wife and children to starve in a slum tenement, and beat them when they complained. Divorce was no practical option, especially with children. The entire economic system was, and always was, set up so that women could not survive on their own, to force them into providing sexual access and domestic labor to men in exchange for sustenance.
This was the era before antibiotics. Condoms were of poor quality and rarely used. (As if they could force their men to wear them in the first place; it would be a dreadful inconvenience for their poor dicks.) There was no cure for STDs like syphilis. These STDs were not only ultimately fatal, in many cases, but caused untold misery the whole way, and birth defects. And who is caring for the disabled child on top of her other children? The woman. (Oh, and banish the thought of a safe abortion, or a way for the woman to control her fertility. She was constantly bred because the husband either wanted those children or wanted sex and there was no effective birth control.) The husband would carry STDs from the whorehouses and give them to their wives. Stopping their husbands from frequenting prostitutes was not merely an issue of jealousy—it was a matter of existential survival for these women. Or a way of preventing themselves from becoming penniless widows. And they knew that most of the prostitutes were not ~independent working women~ in that era but exploited women, the worst thing you could become. What awaited you if you stepped out of line. They thought making prostitution illegal would liberate these poor creatures.
What were women to do? Speak about their sovereign rights? To speak plainly about the remedies—economic sovereignty, sexual freedom, the right to divorce and custody and education and standing—would get them laughed at by men already pissed they had just gotten the vote. So they had to focus on proximate causes: get rid of the alcohol, get rid of the whorehouses. A paltry, palliative measure, but what else could they do? They had to dress their concerns in the raiment of religion, one of the few acceptable fields women were allowed. Women were tasked the stabilizing force in society, the ones to marry off unstable, angry young men, absorb their violence, ‘settle’ them and force them to work a job, and produce the next generation of labor. And with that came their tasking to be the civilizing force, at that time inextricable with Christian morality. But there was a material reason behind their proselytizing—there always is, if you look closely enough, behind *anybody’s*. Sure, there were holy-roller true believers, but I bet the majority of women (and I must so bet, as history has seen to it their voices are lost) just wanted the beatings to end and food on the table, and relative safety from debilitating disease. I bet this because I see women as rational agents. Humans in an impossible situation, with no voice, living with their captors.
The factory jobs available to men were miserable, back-breaking labor, and hardly paid. This was the tail end of the era of radical labor rights movements, but there was a lot of misery, and those movements were eventually shut down, especially with the economic desperation of the depression. As it leads to drug use now in desperate, hollowed-out, post-industrial communities, so it led to drinking then. And disenfranchised groups have always found a group even lower on the social ladder than themselves to take out their anger. Women were always the punching bag and social safety valve. And a drunk, drugged population is not in much position to organize politically. There were few diversions – no television, no sports games, no entertainments – to mollify the working classes after their drudgery, so the bar was an incredibly attractive option. Oblivion was preferable to going back to the slums with screaming children underfoot in a filthy, tiny shack and a pissed off wife. Her anger may have been justified, but in the guy’s mind, she was just the shrew waiting to make his day worse. And, to those guys with a shred of decency, there was the shame in being reminded of how poorly his wages kept his family, how desperate and pointless the struggle, how they were running to stay in the same desperate place with no hope of advancement. Ashamed, depressed men lash out, even against those who they feel they have wronged.
The dispossessed men take it out on their women. This always, always, always happens.
Prohibition did not work. We know that now, with the power of hindsight. And the social fabric is utterly different, now: while women are by no means liberated, they can hold property, they can keep their own wages and assets, they have rights to their children, they can obtain education and jobs. Divorce from an alcoholic husband without landing in the gutter is a possibility. But to advance the narrative that prohibition was started by a bunch of fuddy-duddy no-fun busy-bodies who hated the idea of anybody having a good time is monstrous and shows only your contempt for women. You cannot know the fear and desperation of being trapped with a violent, alcoholic husband, several children, pregnant every year from marriage to menopause, and listening to your children crying with hunger while waiting for your husband to come back from the bar. And then you must approach him and ask for money. And you have nowhere to run. I wager you have never had to bury your own children dead of starvation and the diseases of poverty. There was nowhere for them to turn without you - orphanages a joke, these masses of children from these women who had no power to control their own fertility seen as labor at best and excess humanity, vermin, by most of society. And their alcoholic father would leave them to die while he drinks himself to death. So it’s you or nobody.
What do you do? The possibilities on the outside for you, a fallen, divorced women, would be prostitution or penury. But you have one bit of power, now - you can vote. And women as a class share your interests. You would be shut down campaigning for full human rights, but if you dress your concerns up in religion, there is a chance. Of course, a hundred years in the future, men will use this as an example of how as soon as women are able to vote, they ruin everything.
Andrea Dworkin’s Right-Wing Women is a brilliant and deeply-researched work on the phenomenon of the religious, conservative woman, and addresses why women are often the enforcers and lieutenants of religious morality and social conservatism, when it benefits them least. It is not because they are small-minded cunts with small spirits, any more than men on the average. There is a material and strategic reason, and the temperance movement is a perfect example of this. They are making a bargain within the confines of the tiny shred of power they are given.
And ask, always, before you condemn a group of women as a bunch of no-fun brainless shrieking reactionaries because they want to take away your toys: what material, rational reason might here be? Give them at least the dignity of being considered rational agents before you condemn.
the fact that rapes and beatings are “fun times” to them should tell you all you need about men
Always reblog when this post shows up on my feed cause the reply was fire
The reply was not only fire but also so well written that I re-read every time just to get the full force of it.
“I was going to start spitting blood” -@trenchkamen
Honestly, yup. Response was so on point.
Always reblog when I see this
Makeup can be an art form, subcultures often use it as such, but you and I know that most of the time makeup is not used as art but as a form of "covering imperfections". Stop playing dumb when women rightfully call makeup a tool of oppression under patriarchy.
If people went with artistic makeup to a regular job they would 100% be fired. You know exactly what kind of makeup feminists complain about, don't be purposefully obtuse.
BDSM is just where people ignore decades of research on grooming, trauma/trauma bonding, abuse, power dynamics, violence, physical safety, misogyny and racism to instead just fully make shit up about how if something arouses you it must be psychologically healing.
There is an increase in people claiming that any criticism of commodified sexuality is “puritanical,” “prudish,” and “conservative.” Which is ridiculous because unrestrained male sexuality is the most “old fashioned” one can get, it’s always been the standard, especially the further back one goes in time. It’s not “counterculture,” “progressive,” or “nonpartisan” to support an industry dominated by male interest, and to pretend that videos of naked women labeled under categories such as “teen,” “big ass,” “babysitter, “bondage, and “blowjob” are anything but objectification. Which is a time-honored tradition, practiced by males throughout all of recorded human history. The porn industry’s main aim is to further cater to male sexual interest through presenting women’s body parts as a menu, in which one can be “served” with the click of a button. It’s even more telling that these types purposely attempt to discredit legitimate issues such as trafficking and rape by reducing those rightful criticisms as “porn bad.” That’s because ultimately, even when presented with the truth of abuse and mistreatment, these individuals will still put their pleasure first. They’re unable to admit this, so they trivialize anyone who calls out the ethics of “adult entertainment.” I can’t think of anything more commonplace, conventional, and reactionary than prioritizing male pleasure. It’s about time that the males every whim isn’t tended too, especially when their sexual satisfaction is gained through degrading others.
The thing that really disturbs people is the idea of a feminism that directs attention, care and compassion from women towards other women, rathern than from women to men. There are many ways to vilify such a proposition: 'man-hating' used to be the popular term of dismissal. No it appears 'exlusionary' has taken the place.
Victoria Smith (2025): Unkind. How 'be kind' entrenches sexism. Fleet, p. 37
desperately and constantly needing external validation for your supposed identities is literal proof that those identities do not belong to you. a brown haired person doesn’t need other people endlessly affirming them brown haired to be reminded that they are brown haired. they just are brown haired.
crazy how little i care about mens mental health
modern men are not even depressed they’re lying in their filth on purpose and complaining that they don’t have a wifeslave to clean it up
Working in mental health and men would come in like "I'm so sad and lonely all the time" and you'd be like "ok have you taken any steps to rectify this?" And they'd say "no" because they're expecting a woman or a doctor to just show up and wave a magic wand
Whereas women would come in and say "Im struggling mentally and I've tried yoga and medication and therapy and I have a meditation and sleep wellness app and I took up knitting"
And you look into it further and she's just stressed out of her mind because she's doing all the housework and childcare and emotional labour for a family of five.
I met precisely 2 women who expected everyone to resolve their issues for them. In both of those cases women went through some shit that made them believe they have absolutely no power/ability to make any decisions about their lifes. Almost every moid in a similar situation believed that finding a solution to his problems was beneath him. Almost all men I knew walk this earth convinced other people exist to solve their problems.
rapists are known to sometimes be very gentle with their victim after the assault, giving compliments and genuinely asking if they liked it. offering to drive them home even… or similar things… i cant help but think of bdsm „aftercare“. if you have to remind your partner you love them and build them up and take care of them because they feel worthless and bad after the sex you had… if you feel you have to make them assure you youre a good person after you just ejaculated in them… something is wrong
from a psychological perspective it mirrors abusive dynamics so perfectly, like the apologies and lovebombing after a violent incident. the abuser tries to atone (genuinely or manipulatively) for the harm they're well aware they caused. and from the victim's perspective, i cant explain it very well, but the abuser becomes the only one that can truly take away the pain because they also inflict the pain. so to gain comfort from the abuser would feel more like real love and comfort than anything else. which is why so many victims resist calling their experiences abuse, because it feels oversimplifying due to the mix of emotions. bdsm fully takes advantage of the emotions this dynamic causes in victims.
Here’s a wild idea: what if, instead of creating 100 new genders and making people even more confused about themselves, we just get rid of this whole ‘gender-idea’ and raise boys and girls the same way and treat women and men the same way and just let everyone wear, do and act however they want, without making them think that something is wrong with them..
I’ll never understand this either
an abused wife of the 1700s who’s birthed 16 children and has not been allowed to leave the house for the last 7 years will write in her diary “i am cursed to be a woman. i wish i were a man, so i could be free, and i wouldn’t always be pregnant, aching, and i could explore, see the world, and learn. why did god forsake me with this body?” and you’ll search her name on tumblr and get “he was such a transmasc legend!! trans people have always existed! proof is right here! he suffered because he wanted to transition so bad 😔 this is why gender transition must be a human right, and deadnaming should be illegal. stupid TERFs, complaining about sex-based oppression. that doesn’t even exist.”
spain is already a cesspool for GI on top of the fact that the disturbing amount of sex trafficking happening there is something feminists there are relentlessly fighting against (posters behind mention something about prostitution so i assume that's what the exhibition was about) but i want to point out this is another example of TRAs stealing feminist mantras for themselves.
"el futuro será transfeminista o no será" = "the future is transfeminist or there will be no future" is a direct copy of something spanish speaking feminists have been saying from years: "el futuro será feminista o no será" = "the future will be feminist or there will be no future"
they're leeches sucking the life out of any legitimate movement because theirs have no merit and stepping over any progress women want to make for our safety.